Monday, February 28, 2011

Massachusetts Congressmen Incite Hatred and Murder, as CNN Decides "Taking It Back" Okay

Yes, you again hae to understand that the headline adopts the "guilt by association" and SPECULATIVE leaps adopted by the Pima County Sheriff, the mainstream media, and other leftist Democrats. That is the same leap these people made to blame Sarah Palin for the Fiffords shooting in Arizona (with LESS justification).

You will remember that CNN and the rest of the mainstream media--the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth,, on two legs or four--used to tag the Tea Party as inciting to hatred based on ISOLATED signs and relatively tame rallies (not nearly as vicious as the union demonstratons in Wisconsin, and the signs and shouts there). That includes putting cross hairs over pictures of Governor Scott Walker, where it is not clear that they are merely meant to indicae political targets (as Sarah Palin obviiiously meant when she put up a map with cross hairs on the districts of Democrats targeted in the 2010 election).

But what is the headline talking about? Well, in the last week or so a Democratic Congressman from Massachusetts, speaking in Boston, said something like the following: "When the rights of union members are violated, they need to take to the streets and get a little bloody." The mainstream media pretty much ignored it, when they would have repeated it every half hour if ANY Tea Party person (in any leadership role at all, and maybe without such a role) had said anything like that.

However, CNN finally did report on the incident. They merely compounded their obvious hypocrisy. They did not report on the original statement, or run vido. Instead, they reported on the Congressman TAKING BACK THE STATEMENT in he course of a report on his support of the Wisconsin protesters. And the CNN people obviously thought that took care of the matter (NOT the CNN attitude when any Tea Party or conservative person "takes back" something).

WHERE, oh wrere, are the reports on the hour, or the half hour, about how imp;ortant "civility" is in American politics. CNN, and the rest of the mainstream media, seem to have forgotten they ever said anything at al about civility once the Wisconsin protests began. Thre are no questions to Democrats asking them to CONDMEN the "incivility". There are no demands of President Obama that he call for "civility". Three are few reports of signs and shouts, other than simply images (constantly) of the UNCIVIL protesters in Wisconsin, and elsewhere.

QE.D. One Massachuseetts politician obviously is inciting hatred an murder--not to mention all members of labor unions (under the same standards CNN and the rest of the mainstream media have applied to the Tea Party). There is simply no doubt that these (:mainstream media and other leftist Democrats) are the worst hypocrites who have eer walked the Earth, on tow legs or four. (Just to make clear, my standards on "guilt by association" are not the same as CNN, but I find it useful to apply their standards in these articles to emphasize the hypocrisy and dishonesty).

P.S. Note, as usual, that the above has neither been proofread nor spell checked (eyesight).

P.P.S. Note, further, that the Boston comments of the Democratic Congressman were NOT disavowed AT THE TIME by him, or anyone else at the rally. CNN, and the rest of the mainstream media, have expressed their expectation that Tea Party organizers IMMEDIATELY stop and disavow any "uncivil" statements or allegedly "racist" shouts merely coming from the crowd.

Pediatricians: You Are a Kook If You Are a Pediatrician (CNN People Appear as Guest Kooks)

This is a return of my "you are a kook if:" series. You might question my inclusion of ALL pediatricians in this--accurate--category, when this article has been triggered by the actions of less than all of them. However, and with more justification, I am simply using the "guilt by association" standards, and vicious hyperbole, of the Pima Country Sheriff, the mainstream media and leftist Democrats. I like those standards because it eliminates the need to try to identify the exact culprits. If any pediatrician does something kooky, then they all must be kooks.

This arises from a CNN (The Liar Network and kooks all) story, and was predictably not challegned by either of the CNN "reporters". Some group of pediatricians put out an announcement for parents (who should avoid any pediatrician belonging to this group like the plague) advising them NOT to give painkillers/fever reducers (Tylenol, Advil, aspirin, etc.) to children with a fever (except under limited circumstances).

Reason? Well, the reason only makes sense to KOOKS. The reason evidently was that this group of pediatricians believes that fever is the body's way of fighting disease (more accurately, it is the RESULT of the body fighting a virus), and that yo parents should not interfere with the body's natural defenses (perhaps concealing whether there is a major problem, other than a "simple" virus like a cold).

Let us go back a month or so, when I took fever reducers. WHY did I do that? Was it because I thought they would HELP me get over my fever? Not a chance. It is because I had BODY ACHES. I COULD NOT SLEEP. I felt TERRIBLE. I took the fever reducers, and I COULD SLEEP. My body aches pretty much disappeared. I FELT BETTER.

Now let us go to these pediatricians. What are they telling mothers (and CNN ignored this completely)? They are telling mothers (and fathers) to IGNORE THEIR CH:ILD'S SUFFERING because fever reducers will not help the body fight the viruss. Say what? WHO CARES? Am I willing to make my children SUFFER what I was unwilling to suffer (that is, was I wlling to do that when my children were still young)? Not a chance. And no, I don't care if it might delay (a little) recovery (I am not convinced of tis) or that it might mask (somewhat) the seriousness of whatever disease is involved.

Nope. If CNN accurately reported the reasons (always doubtful), this is stupid. You ARE a kook if:

165. You are a pediatrician.

166. You believe that people take fever reducers, or give them to their children, because they think it helps defeat the virus.

167. You beliieve most parents are going to sti by and let their children SUFFER with syptoms that could be relieved with a simple fever reducer, any more than I was willing to endure a fever (and associated difficulties) when I did not have to so endure it (I tried for awhile)>

Note that I am leaving out questions like whether SOME children may be subject to SEWIZURES (as my nurse mother suggested) caused by fever spikes in pretty normal illnesses. I don't care to debate pediatricians on that kind of thing. It does not matter. They are KOOKS, whether or not they are "right' medically (in some limited sense, since it is absurd to suggest that there is something seriously wrong with giving fever reducers to children--abstent much worse consequences than suggested by CNN).

My only question: Are modern pediatricians TAUGHT to be this stupid, or does it just come naturally to them? No, I don't have any question as to CNN "journalists", and "journalists" in general. For them, there is no doubt that this kind of INCURIOIUS acceptance of the advice of kooks comes naturally to them. It is only when they have an agenda that they ask "tough" questions, and even then they are not interested in actual INFORMATION (see Michale Crichton's "Airframe" for the best, if fictional, picture of this I have ever encountered).

Mitch Daniels R.I.P.

See my previous article about John Thune. No, it is not just Repubilcan Senators that I tend to despise as estabishhment stooges. Some governors annoyo me a lot. I was ahead of the curve on Charlie Crist of Florida--criticizing him as a possible McCain VP well before he exposed himself as a LEFTIST turncoat in the 2010 elction. Bobby Jindal has disappointed me--not so much with his performance as governor but in his unwillingness to speak out on Obama, ObamaCare and leftist Democrats in general. Yes, he is a governor, but if he wanted to be taken seriously on a national level, he has FAILED. And, living in Texas, I know all about our governor: Rick Perry. Perry is an opportunist, rather than a princiipled conservative, and I would not vote for him for any national office. I disavoed George W. Bush entirely in 2006, but I said from the beginning that Bush was NOT a conservative. Perry is in the Bush mold, except much worse in his cynical opportunism. I will do better with Prry than I did with Bush--although I still can't regret vooing for Bush against the truly terrible Gore and Kerry--as I disavow Perry NOW. Tim Pawlenty (sp.?) leaves me cold, although I don't know enough about him to disavow him. Yet, this article is not about any of those. It is about Mitch Daniels.

Mitch Daniels has been a reasonably effective governor of Indiana (as Perry as been in Texas, where the governor has limited power in any case). But I am still willing to make these flat statements about Daniels (the same statements I made with regard to Thune): Mithc Daniels will never be President of the United States. Further, he will never be nominated to be President of the United States. And I will never vote for him for the office, in a primary or general election.

Why not? It is the same reason I refused to vote for John McCain, even against Barack Obama. Daniels strikes me as more comfortable CRITICIZING conservatives than in pushing conservative ideas. I am no longer willing to vote for such a person. President Bush was the last one. Further, Daniels has to have the LEAST CHARISMA of any person I have ever seen. I saw him interviewed for the first--and probably only, since once was enough for me--time a few days ago. I fave seen few politicians so unimpressive, and I AGREED with most of what he said. Bush was articulate in comparison, and I thought I could never say that about any politician.

But I was down on Daniels before the interview, although somewhat open to having gotten the wrong impression. It started with an article by the Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press""--really more than one article. One article said that Daniels had PRAISED tose Indiana Democrats as "people of conscience" for leaving the sate in support of their beliefs, although he was confident they would see the light and come back. Well, Daniels DENIED that he said that, although admitting that he said something not very clearly (which the interview I saw indicates is all too posssible, since the man says nothing very clearly). Daniels says he was talking about PROTESTERS as people of conscience, and that he has always condemned the legislators who abandoned their duty. I am still on my Sodom and Gomorrah search for an honest AP reporter, and have not yet found one. So I can't say Daniels is wrong. I can say he was not overly convincing.

The other issue involves Daniels's support for the coservatives in his own legislature. The Indiana House (whatever they call it) was poised to take up a "right to work" bill, and apparently had the votes to pass it. That is when Democrats fled the state like theeves in the night. Well, Daniels had pretty much sabotaged his fellow Repubilcans--NOT really on grounds of principle but on the grounds that they were putting the things in which Daniels really believed in jeopardy (a left handed way of saying that Daniels did not consider a "right to work" bill as very important). To me, and I trust my judgment on this after correcxtly evaluating numberous Repubican politcians in the past. Daniels came across as a politician mainly interested in HIMSELF--more than he was interested in either principle or not saying things in a way that throw conservatives under the bus (which he could have done, in terms of saying things differently, but did not). Nope. Daniels, I believe, is another dead politician walking, as to any national aspirations.

You say I am tooo much of a "purist" on conservatives--that no one can meet my standards. You are wrong. Texas has--for a long time--had a "right to work" bill. That kind of bill hurts PRIVATE unions because it allows workers to "opt out" of paying dues, and belonging to a unioin, even if lthe union has been certified to bargain for them. The argument is that no one should be FORCED to join a union and pay dues. The opposite argument is that a union should not be foreced to bargain for people--helping them out--while those people get a "free ride". I am MILDLY in favor of "right to work" laws, but it is not a big issue with me. You might say I am pretty much on the same page as Mitch Daniels as to the importance of "right to work" leglistation for a state that does not already have such a law. Doen't matter.

It is the WAY in which Daniels approached the "controversy" in his state that I can't tolerate. He seemed unwilling to stand up to anybody, or for anything, except where he thought he was on totally solid ground. He seemed--like McCain before him--to worry more about criticism from the media than about principle. He seemed willing to call conservatives "unreasonable" at the drop of a hat, even if I might agree wwith him on the substantive issue. It is not a matter of being a "purist" at all. It is a matter os seeing too many Republicans whose main rpinciple is THEMSELVES, and a philosophy of government not based on principle but on their establishment ability to "manage" government better than the Democrats (although these Republicans have little, in principle, against Big Government).

Nope. Stick a fork in him. Mitch Daniels may remain a big force in Indiana politics. Nationally, he is DONE.

P.S. Note, as usual, that the above was neither proofread nor spell checked (eyesight). Note, also, that I may somethimes forget to put this P.S., but--until further notice--EVERY article on this blog has this same problem. I once thought I might take action to get someone else to help me revise and proofread the articles, but I am increasingly convinced that is not going to happen. Thus, even if I omit this P.S., inadvertentlly, you can assume the situation remains unchanged unless I announce otherwise.

John Thune, R.I.P.

Flat statements: John Thune will never be President of the United States--ever. John Thune will never be nominated to run for President of the United States-ever.

You say you have never heard of John Thune? You are not alone. He is a Republican Senator from South Dakota who was toying with running for President, even though no one had ever heard of him, and even though he had NEVER made a name for himself going out there taking on Obama, Democrats, Obama health care, or the mainstream media.

But what makes me wash my hands of John Thune, even though I would probably have voted for him in South Dakota? Well, he is part of those Republicans in the United States Senate--estabishment people almost all--of whom I have said that I suuport NONE. That is ZERO. Nada. Zilch. Now I am talking about those in office before the 2010 elections, as there are some elected in 2010 who I do support. And there is ONE exceptioni, although I sometimes have doubts about him: Jim Demint of South Carolina. Nope. the Republicn Senators of Texas (my Senators) are NOT exceptions, and I do NOT support them (except, on occasion, tactically).

John Thune evidences my problem with Repubican Senators--a problem I do not have with Republicans in the House of Representatives, except for the leadership. John Thune is a dishonest wimp--the kind of Republican that MSNBC and leftist Democrats love to quote. Thune announced that he would not run for President in 2012. That is fine. He had no chance for the nomination, or to raise enugh money to make a run for the nomination. But that is NOT the reason he gave for not running, and that is what makes him dishonest and a typicall Repubican Senator (pre-02010).

Thune came out and said he is not running in 2010 because President Obama would be too tough to beat, or at least Thune said words close enough to that for MSNBC to represent that he said that. Who care what the PARTISAN leftistss at MSNBC say? I certainly don't, and I don't care whether they say that Obama is unbeatable. But Thune--I guarantee you--did not run for President because HE--Thune--had no way to compete for either the nominatin or the general election. He had no way to raise enough money, which is all he had to say (and which every candidate does say, when they don't say they are doing it for "family reasons"). However, Thune went out of his way to imply that Repubicans can't beat Obama, although I question whether he really said that Obama was unbeatable by any Republican. MSNBC is NOT a reliabel source.

Neevertheless, Thune came across as dishonest, wimpy and stupid. Nope. The title is right. Thune will never be a national force in Republican politics. He will never getmy vote for President--either in the nominatioin process or general election. In this case, I am not alone. On a natiional level, Thune truly is a dead politician walking.

Sunday, February 27, 2011

Unions Against the Public: The Myth of Public Employee Unions

Yes, one of the evils here is that unions--and the media, including much of Fox News--are doing their best to CONFUSE the issue of public employee unions. Public sector unions and private sector unions are separate in KIND, and you cannot use the accomplishments/justification for private sector unions to support collective bargaining for public sector unions. That was part of what I conclusively showed in my previous article. But the reason for this article is that even I was unable to totally avoid the misleadeing statements you get trapped into making when you address the assertion by public sector unions that the "rights" of public sector unions are/should not be the same as private sector unions. The misleading statements I made, in my previous article, came when I--correctly--asserted that it is absrud for public sector unions to be bargaining away the rights of TAXPAYERS by "collective bargaining" (instead of determining union wages/benefits as part of the political/democratic process, where workers can participate on the same baseis aas all other members of the public).

Where did I go wrong? Well, I failed to make clear that public sector unions are NOT really bargaining just to take money away from taxpayers. Rather, public sector unions are bargaining against ALL of the public (except themselves, although they obviously often adversely affect the ultimate interest of their own members).

How can I say that public sector unioins--in contrast to private sector unions--are bargaining directly against the PUBLEC? Easy. I can say it because it is objectively true (not a matter of opinion). Doubt me? Don't.

Let us look at how government works. Government does NOT have an infinite amount of money--no matter how often our politicians act like they do have such an infinite pool of money. Government has only a limited amount of money, and can only raise a LIMITED amount of money (again, no matter how some politicians and leftists may assume otherwise). Indeed, every effort by government to raise money has COSTWS --not just to taxpayers but to the economy in general. In the end, you can argue about HOW MUCH money is--or shouldbe--available. But you can't argue that the amount is unlimited. it is not.

So what is one of the main functions of POLITICS? Of the democratic process? Right. It is to ALLOCATE the funds available. You NEVER have the money--especiallly on a state level, where the main functions of government deal with the diret needs of the public) to do all that government may WANT to do (or that the public may wwant it to do). For example, we might agree that it would be NICE if ever single teacher, police officer, and firefighter got paid at least $1000,0000 a year. We all might agree that it would be NICE to resurface every road and replace every bridge more than 5 years old (pick any number here)--even when the present ones are acceptable (but not excellent). But MOST of us agree that we CAN'T AFFORD to do everything we might think was a good idea if we had an infinite pool of money.

Thus, there is simply no question that we MUST allocate the LIMITED pool of money that government has. Part of the allocatioin of that limited pool of money is to the PUBLIC EMPLOYEES. But who is interested in this decision? Obviously, it is NOT just the public employees. That is because the rest of the PUBLIC must accept allocation of the REMAINDER of the money left after allocation of public employee salaries. Therefore, it is NOT just the taxpayers that any public emplyee is bargaining against. It is the PUBLIC. See my previous article as to why politicians are not an acceptable substitute for the taxpayers in collective bargaining. However, even if politicians did not have a CONFLICT OF INTERST, it is absurd to sugggest thatpublic employee unions should have more INPUT into this allocation than the rest of the public. You can certainly argue that public employess should be sought out for input, just like all other sectors of the public, but "collective bargaining" gives public workers PREFERENCE in this allocation and input.

For example. What about unemployment benefits. Massachusetts has bery different benefits than Tennessee. What about MEDICAID? What about bus routes and subway routes, and whether more should be added? What about momeless shelters? What about garbage collection? What about SNOW REMOVAL, and how much equipment is available (not to mention employees). What about road repair? The lest is just endless. I disregard HIGH SPEED RAIL, because no one but President Obama and a few extreme leftists care about high speed rail. But you get the point. We MUST ALLOCATE, and public workers should have no more say in that alllocation than the POOR (or their advocates, or than citizens who want more libraries. Every dollar that goes to a public employee is a dollar that does NOT go to a momeliess, person, a candidate for a mediacal transplant, and so on. If you allow collective baraining, you are allowing public employees to bargain AGAINST THE PUBLIC. And you further allow politicians, with a CONFLICT OF INTERST (unioins having input in their ELECTION) to BARGAIN AWAY the interests of the entire public by "negotiation" with only ONE segment of the public (the public employee unions allowed to have collective bargaining). That is absurd.

The decision of how to spend PUBLIC money is a matter of PUBLIC POLICY. Public workers have no more right to determine that policy than any other member of the public, just because they CHOOSE to be public employees. ALL groups within the pubic should have the same right to inupt on this crucial issue of PUBLIC POLICY. Do public employees really have more at stake than a person who can't get a LIVER TRANSPLANT because of state cutbacks to Medicaid--or even more interest than a person whose very comfortable existence may depend on a SUBWAY STOP near where the person lives? More interest than a MOMELSS PERSON who can't find a warm shelter because of a cutback in public shelters? Don't be silly.

Nope. I am NOT saying that public employees do not "deserve" to be adequately paid. What I am saying is that they do not deserve PREFERENCE in the allocation of public money, because they get to "collectively bargain" while the rest of us receiving public services do not. Nope again. Public employuess should NOT have a "right" to BARGAIN AGAINST THE PUBIC for the allocation of the limited pool of public funds. Their right to input should be the same as the rest of us. Again, that is basically the rule on the FEDERAL level, and in most of the SANE states (including Texas, where I live).

This article has nothing at all to do with private unions. You can argue that private unions have hurt the United States of America by making us not be "competitive" in world markets. You can argue that private unions have HURT workers. You can also argue the opposite. And you can make a strong case that the EXISTENCE of private collective bargaining rights helps n-unnioin emplyees , even as union membership has declined in the private sector to the point of disappearing. The point of this article--which unions and the mainstream media are trying to CONFUSE--is that I am taking NO position on private unnions. The worth of private sector unions is a complex subject as to which some of my own feelings are ambiguous. I certainly support the RIGHT of private sector workers to unionize, if they choose. That is entirely a different subject than public employee unions.

As set forth above, the question of ublic employee unions is--viewed correctly-- a SIMPLE question. They sshould NOT be allowed to collectively bargain, because such "bargaining" is AGAINST THE PUBLIC. It UNDERMINES--sabotages--the democratic process. The democratic process, with input from all groups, is how a democratic republic decides questions of public policy. Public employee wages and benefits are a question of public policy--one of lthe main questioins of public policy. That quesdtion is how the limited amount of money availabe to a government--any government entity--should be allocated.

Saturday, February 26, 2011

President Obama Assaults Unions, as the Mainstream Media Cheers (Obama) and Jeers (Walker)

You will remember that President Obama has pledged to FREEZE the salaries of Federal workers. He did that without any "negotiation" with the Federal employee unions. Talk about an ATTACK on unions!!!!!! President Obama is such a hypocrite.



"You have got this wrong."

"I am NEVER wrong."

"Yes, you are. And there you go with the "all caps" shouting again. Under Federal law, reaffirmed in a law passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by Jimmy Careter, Federal employees have no right to collective bargaining on wages or benefits. Therefore, Obama hama had no basis in law upon which to getotiate with Federal unions."

"............................................Sorry for that long pause I was looking it up. That seems to be right. I guess I was wwwwwrrrrrooooo. Oh, I can't say the word, but you know what I mean. But if that is so, how could President Obama make a statement accusing Governor Walker of an "assault" on unions in Wisconsin, when all Walker is doing is trying to limit pubic emplyuee unions the same way they are limited under Federal law not being challenged by DEMOCRATS. In fact, Walke's bill allows MORE collective bargaining than the Fedeal law--allowing at least some collective bargaining on wages. Further, the Federal law pretty much pohibits mandaroy dues, and Federal employees are pretty much prohibited from participating in political campaigns (Hatch Act)."

"..................................................................(long puase) You think you are clever, don't you. You laid that trayp, and I fell into it. You know that Democrats would LIKE --now you have me doing it--to have Federal employee unions running the country, but they are political cowards."

"Just so. You might also note that President Obama promised (in the same campaign where he promised that his health care plan would NOT require individauls to purchase health insurance as a mandatory thing) that he would be out on the picket linke, in his old shoes, if union rights were threatened. Are you telling me that Obama did not mean what he said? I have not seen him out with the protesters in Winsonsin>'

(no response)

Getting out of the Socratic dialogue. I mention the Hatch Act above. Yes, Federal employees (civil service ones) are not supposed to contribute to political campaigns, and otherwise actively participate in partisan politics. You can see why--unless you are in the mainstream media--why this is so. What if your BOSS comes to you and asks you for a contribution to his political campaign--his OWN political campaing. Yes, it is true you might face something like this dilemma in a private corporation, without civil service protection, if your boss has different political views. But it is not a DIRECT conflict of intrest, as would be true if you are a Federal employee. Sure, your private boss MIGHT run for office, but it is hardly the same as working under a Federal boss who you either publicly opposed or publicly supported. The whole idea of civil service--admittedly not vigorously enforced--is to have a bureaucracy not actively engaged in politics. The CONFLICT OF INTERST is obvious. How would you like, for example, partisan politics to be taking place within the armed forces? Democrats would produce THEIR soldiers, endorsing them, at their convention, and the Repubicans would produce ttheirs. Big help to the "unity" of our fighting forces, would it not be? (sarcasm)

The CONFLICT OF INTEREST is even more obvious with public employee unions. That is the main reason Federal employees are not allowed collective bargaining rights. Instead of the government "shutting down" because of disagreement in Congress, imagine Federal Government UNIONS shutting down the government. Oh, I know that the mainstream media would still blame it on Repubicans, as they are tryig to do in Wisconsin (where public employee unions HAVE shut down parts of the government). It would still be a trrible situation. We are already as bankrupt as GREECE. If we had Federal employees massing in Washington demanding wages and benefits, and that the government "bargain" with them, we would BE Greece. We are close enough to Greece with these public employee unions "demonstrating" across the country.

Just look at how much of a conflict of interest is created with a public employee union--one with MANDATORY dues taken out of the employee's paycheck. The public employee unions condcut CAMPAIGNS to elect lpoliticians, as state unions (but not Federal ones) have done. These public employee unnions are therefore using TAXPAYER money (which pays the employee salaries) to directly INFLUENCE who will represent the taxpayers in "negotiations". If the unions get "their" politicians elected, then they get to negotiate wages and benfits with politicians who owe their JOB to the very unions with which they are negotiating. If politicians get elected by promising to limit wages and benefits, then the public employee unions can try to SABOTAGE the "anti-union" politicians. This is an absurd CONFLICT OF INTERST not allowed on a Federal level. It should not be allowed on a state level, and Republicans should honestly say so (instead of being meanly-mouthed about it, as too many of them are).

But is this not the same conflict of interest that exists when a corporatioin (or corprate executives/employees) contribute to a political campaign, and then the politician votes on legislation that affects the contributer? NO. it is not the same. That situation--which does contain an obvious potential conflict of interest, but one unavoidable in a democracy--is the same conflict of interest that exists when a PRIVATE SECTOR union supports a political candiate. Then the union may expect the candidate to support the legislation the union wants. That is an INDIRECTA conflict of interest. Public employee unions create a DIRECT conflict of interest, whre unions assert the "right" to elecdt the bery people who will "negotiate" their salaries and benefits.

Yes, I AM saying that the Federal rule is basically correct, and that public employee unions should NOT have the "right" to collectively bargain wages and benefits. Nor should they be permitted to actively participate in politcal campaings--at least state campaigns in the very state that employs them. Governor Walker, in Wisconsin, has not even gone this far, and yet he is being treated--and accused of being--a Hitler-type "union buster" (his proposed law would affect no private unions at all--at least as far as I can tell from incedibly incompetent media reporting).

What is the mainstream media doing? You know the answer to this one. Those partisan hacks (see previous article on CNN) are pusing lies and distortions. They refuse to make clear the distinction between public sector and private sector unions. They IGNORE the fact that FEDERAL public employee unions have few collective bargaining "rights". Tehy don't ask the tough questions (Does President Obama propose that Federal employees have the right to collectively bargain?") They are living in a PARTISAN fantasy world of their own,. Yes, a Massachusetts Congressman can say that pubic employee unions should "get bloody" in their protests, and protesters can carry signs comparing Scott Walker to Hitler (and puttiing him in corsshairs), without any reference to CIVILITY. This is exposes the complete hypocrisy to the mainstream media, and leftist Democrats: the worst hypocrites who have ever walked the Earth, on two legs or four. "Cviility NEVER meant anything other than no one but Democrats and leftists are supposed to protest and talk loudly. Are ALL unioin members vicious, uncivil people because of those "hate" sings? If lyou apply the same standards the mainstream media applied to the Tea Party--with less reason--then ALL union members ARE guilty of "hate speech". That is especailly true when union people, and sympathizers, fail to REPUDIATE the "angry", "hatefl" rhetoric.

Whereare the mainstream media questions demanding CIVILITY? Where are the mainstream media questions demanding REPUDIATION and punishment of those union members carryhng vicious signs? Where are the mainsteam media questions and comments asking why the signs were ALLOWED, and not IMMEDIATELY taken away the moment they appear (with the holder of any sign expelled from the union)?

HYPOCRITES is what these people are. They BELIEVE in "guilt by association", but not for THEM and those they support. They believe in an exaggerated idea of "civility", but not for them, and those they suppport. "Protest"--the angiier the better--is the essence of being AMERICAN, so long as the protest is aadvocating something approved by the mainstream media and other leftist Democrats. You can see why I have nothing but CONTEMPT for these people (mainstream media).

And if we are going to have a "coversation" on "public employee unions", then explain why that "conversation" should not include a conversation onf FEDERAL public employee unions. If you are HONEST, it MUST include that question These people--leftist Democrats and the mainstream media--are not honest. It is NOT honest to say that public employee unions have a generally recognized "right" to collectively bargain in this country. If you think they SHOULD have that general right, you should ARUGE it hoestly.

P.S. Note, yet again, that the above--as well as the previous article--has neither been proofread nor spell checked (yeesight).

Unions and CNN: The Liar Network Lies, Lies and Lies Again

Yes, CNN continues to be the master of the Orwellian Big Lir. Ihave expanded my Sodom and Gomorrah search for an "honets journalist" from the "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press" to "CNN, the Evil, Anti-American Network" a/k/a The Liar Network, a/k/a The Hypocritical Network. You will remember that, for 7 years, I hae been serarching for a single employee of the desicable AP who is an honorable individual, without success. I have been unable to find a single employee of the aP who is an honest individual, despite a more exhaustive (oh, the SACRIFICEWS I have made for you) than anyone else alive. I have now--because of my new concentation on AUDIO sources because of failing eyesight--to include CNN. As yet, I have not found a single "honest journalist"--indeed, a sinngle honest human being--employed by CNN. Saturday's story on "unions" on CNN illustrates my point, and why I expect to report to God that I have been unable to find any evidence that CNN is worth "saving" (less of a threat than you might sppose, in contrast to the Massachusetts Democrat who has advocated that members of public employee unions need to bring "bloody" protest to the streets, since I am an agnostic). If you start to see CNN and AP offices vaporize, don't look. There is a substantil chance you will turn into a pillar of salt.

What was wrong with the CNN program? Simply put, it DELIBERATELY (tese are deliberate liars) confused public employee unions and private unions. In thie guise of looking at Scott Walker's attempt to reign in public employee unions, and similar problems of other states with PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNIONS, CNN misrepresented history. CNN gave this history of how the unions improved the plight of the working man after wWorld War II. Now you could argue this point as to how good unionis have actually been for the working man. The publicn verdct seems to be against unions, since only 7% or so of PRIVATE workters now belong to a union. However, that is not the LIE (albeit the big battles between unon organizers and company thugs probably took place in the 1930s, and not after World War II, but a case could be made that union members did benefit from their "right" to organize after they secured that "right" mainly in the 1930s). The LIE is that this "history lesson" (George Orwell's Big Broter would be proud of the distortion of hisotry--the Big Lie) has anything to do with PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNIONS.

You would not know it from watching CNN, but there is NO RIGHT for public employees to organize and collectively bargain. Public employees are EXCLUDED from the Federal laws requiring recognition of the right of workers to organize. Indeed, MANY states exclue public emplyees from any significant collective bargaining "rights". The kicker, however, is that FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (civil service) employees do NOT have the right to "collectively bargain") on wages or genefits. In other words, Scott Walker, in Wisconsin, is asking for LESS restriction on collective bargaining than than is now true of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (without potest by Obama or achnowlegement by the dishonest people at CNN).

Franklin Delano Roosevelt opposed pubic employee unions as entirely different from private unions, and the entire history of modern union "rights" (in the private sector, as there are none for public employees, except as may be recognized under individual STATE law) dates to FDR. Given this history, it is absurd to suggest that public employee unions have some sort of "fudnamental right" to collectively bargain. What has happened is that pbulic employee STATE unions--which FDR did not even think should exis, and he was right) have become of prime importance to labor unions. That is because, as stated above, labor unions have DECLINED in the private sector to the point of extinction. The only "growth" for labor unions has been in the public sector--the area where it is most questionable.

Contrary to the CNN Big Lie, it was NOT public employee unions which liberated workers from oppression by explottive employoers. That was--to the extgent accurate, and there is some truth to it--PRIVATE UNIONS (ans especially the laws making it POSSIBLE for unions to organize, meaning that it was always a threat keeping employers from being too aggressive in exploiting employees). Public emplyees have ALWAYS had--since World War II--something like civil service protection. Indeed, the Federal Courts have guaranteed public employees "due process of law"--the problem being that this has often meant that a public employee CANNOT BE FIRED (as a practical matter) for lack of job performance. This is why the teachers' unions are so DISHONEST when they say that their objections to quality control and discharge of teachers for cause relate to "need to balance due process fairness and the need for effective teachers". In practice, teachers' unions use this to make sure that their members CNNOT BE FIRED. Further, they have no intention of changing that, and I will say it to the fact of any of them. You will notice that the real problem is that "due process" is a problem for firing public employees even beyond any union. Indeed, it is clear that the teachers' unions want to make it MORE DIFFICULT to fire teachers than even the Federal Courts would make it.

Okay. CNN lies. Public emplyee unons and private unions represent entirely different issues. Pubic employee unionns get their money directly from TAXPAYERS, who are reallly their "employers". See my next article.

Thus, the question of whether public employee unions have "helped" their members get better wages and benefits is an even more tricky questio than whether private unions have helped their members. Every single extra dollar that public employee unons may get for their members--and their JOB is to get more money for their members rather than to be "fair" to the taxpayers) has to come out of the pocket of TAXPAYERS. The money does NOT come from politicians who might be "netotiating" with unions, and whose main interest is in VOTES (rather than protecting the taxpayer). The wages and benefits of public employees are a matter of PUBLIC POLICY, and it is rally absurd to suggest that unions should be able to "negotiate" away the "rights' of the taxpayers with sweetheart deals with the very politicians the unions often got elected in the first place.

Wheter you agree with all of this analysis, it is an objective FACT that the issues as to public employee unions are NOT the same as with private unions. Left wing unions might think that they are needed to "protect" public workers from "right wing thugs" just as bad as company goons. But that is absurd. Why should UNIONS be able to determine public policy on their own wages and benefits. Even if you think they should be able to do that--fool that you are--it is an entirely different ISSUE than the issue of private bargaining between private workers and private employers.

Q.E.D. CNN is The Liar Network. At the very least, CNN needs to at least acknowlege that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT does not allow collective bargaining on wages and benefits. If you don't acknowlege that, then you have no case for saying you are not a LIAR> Of course you are (as President Obama lied when he said that Scott Walker in Wisconsin was conduction an "assault on unions", even as Walker was trying to adopt the same rules as the Federal Government--ONLY ALLOWING MORE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING THAN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ALLOWS).

Now you may have noticed that Repubicans ans, and even conservatives, conspire in this mainstream media Big Lie (that the issues on private unions and public employee unions are the same). Republicans do this by also talking about "unions", as if there is no difference between public employee unnions and unions in the private sector. WHY do Republicans make this error? I think it is because Repubicans fall into the trap that ALL unions are the "enemy", and therefore it is easy for them to fall into the trap of considering all unions as being equally bad. Over the last 40 or 50 years, you can make the case that unions have HURT workers--including private sector unions (a case CNN did not really make, showing it is PARTISAN as well as composed only of liars). But you still can't fall into the error of accepting the FALSE lpremis that public and private sector unions have the same issues. Legally, this is clearly false. And the issues involved are different in several fundamental ways.

Thursday, February 24, 2011

Homosexuals and Heterosexuals: Obama and Dfense of Marriage (Lia-in-Chief Redux)

See yesterday's article on Obama's presonal decision (as he imitates Hamlet on Libya and yet again takes time off from his single minded focus on "jobs, jobs jobs") to DIRECT the Attorney General to conspire with Federal judges to subvert the democratic process. Yes, Obama INSTRUCTED the Justice Department to tell Federal Judges that the Obama Administration considers the "Defense of Marriage Act" as unconstitutional, rather than defending the democraticallym passed, bipartisan law (defending, in other words, the PEOPLE whose voice will be taken away by judicial fiat, in open conspiracy with the Obama Administration). Again, read my previous article. I will not repeat it further here.

However, I did leave something out of my previous article. I correctly said lthat the Defense of Marriage Act was NOT an "anti-gay-marriage law", dspite the liars at the AP and Yahhoo "News". In fact, the ACT was desinged to let gays lobby individual states for gay marriage, in the face of a threatened Constitutional Amendment making it part of the Constitution that marriage is between a man and a woman. It was basically a law trying to "compromise" by leaving the matter in the hands of the states, which was hardlyl "anti-gay marriage". However, the Act DID do a little more than that.

What the the ACT did, on a Federal level, was dfeine marriage--under Federal law--as between one man and one woman. No, that did NOT mean that Federal law prevented gay marriage. As stated, the intent was to HELP gays be able to lobby for state sanction of gay marriage, and avoid a Constitutional Amendment (an act of cowardice for which the Republican "establishment", and especially John McCain, should live in infamy). However, there ARE Federal laws that metnion marriage--for example, the IRS Code. Married couples can file "married, filing jointly". Unmarried couples cannot. But if SOME states recognize a marriage and some do not, how do you interpret that? You HAVE to make a decision. Again, the intnet here was to placate "Christians" of a fundamentalist persuasion, and others--liek me--who saw what people like Obama intended to do with the Federal Courts. These people wanted a Constitutional Amendment--including me--but Bill Clinton and the rest thought a reasonable "compromise" (fake compromise, because the homosexual campaign to undo 10,000 years or so of human history went on) to ONLYL recognize gay marriage is states willing to do so, AND to make the definition of m"marriage" in Federal laws as only meaning the marriage of one man and one woman.

Now that Obama has shown what a sociopathic liar he is--that LIE that he faovrs that marrriage be only between a man and a woman--where are we?

Well, note what Obama wants to do. He wants to give SPECIAL TREATMENT to homosexuals (which is the goal of gay activists, who want special societal APPROVAL and PROTECTION beyond just "tolerance"). Note that homosexuals want special protection against "discrimination", even though FAT PEOPLE and UGLY PEOPLE generally have no such protection, and they want that protection for CONDUCT. But I digress, sort of. Gay couples married in Massachusetts will--if Obama has his way--be entitled to hiubt tax retyrbs, But gay couples who consider themselves married in Texas, but can't get to Massachusetts, will not be able to file joint tax returns. Further, HETEROSEXUAL couples--unmarried--will not be able to file jont tax returns no matter where they live (as will be true of unmarried gay couples who do not want to be married). But what if these people think that marriage is just a piece of paper , and that they are being discriminated against even though they have just as committed a "relationship". And what about POLYGAMY? What if Utah (to use a somewhat bigoted example) decides to again recognize POLYGAMY. Is polygamy then within the meaning of "marriage" under Federal law? Remember, the Federal Government originally BLACKMAILED Utah into banning polygamy on the grounds that marriage was between one man and one woman. As stated in the previous article, polygamy has a much more extensive history in human society than homosexual marriage (homosexual marriage having essentially NO history until the 21st Century).

What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to BECOME INSANE. We are destroying marriage, as human history has understood it, and we are creating legal nightmares in the process. What abuot GROUP MARRIAGE (see Robert Heinlein's very good nove--despite this absurdity: "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress"). The idea that you can simply create a Constitutional "right" out of this is total insantiy.

P.S. Note, as usual, that the above has neither been proofread nor spell checked (eyesight).

Gloria Borger, Arrogant Liar and Hypocrite on The Liar Network: Three Strikes and You Are Out

See my articles over the past week--two of which have referenced PARTISAN PROPAGANDIST Gloria Borger of CNN (The Liar Network). This is the third, and last, time I am going to refer to Gloria Borger. As with so many others at CNN, she has "retired the trophy" for partisan dishonestry, and I don't intend to mention her name again (absent a Khadafi moment on her part--all too likely).

What is the latest outrage by the desibable Borger? Well, she wrote an article on basically calling Repbublicans who BORGER blames for threatening to "shut down" the government "arrogant". I know this not because I read the article, but because I saw the article promoted and described on the broadcast CNN network by Borger and a sycophantic CNN host--The Liar Network at work.

See my previous article this week, also referencing Borger, about the CORRECT analysis of "blame" for any government shutdown. Yes, I SAW Borger before that previous article, and she mentioned NO ONE potentially to blame other than Republicans. It is clear that when she refers to an ARROGANT refusal to "compromise", Borger is referring to Republicans. However, on the "promo" piece I saw on CNN for her article, she did make an obvious effort to reference that "voters" (Borger) wanted "both parties" to "compromise" and get things done. See my previiys article as to the FACTS as to what Democrats (and probably establishment Republicans) regard as "compromise" (which means "running out the clock" with endless "extensions" of last year's budget).

I do not intend to rehash my previous article. You can refer to that article as to basic facts making Borger a LIAR (which she is-a partisan liar). But why do I call her ARROGANT?

Come on. You knnow this one. Borger spent most of her three minutes talking about what American voters "want" people in Congress to do. How ARROGANT can you get. Who appointed Gloria Borger as "spokesman" for the American voter? Borger has shown NO ability to plug in to the mind and soul of the American voter. Exactly the opposite is true. Borger has hown herself to be a POLITICAL HACK who knows nothing but agenda. And she and the CNN (The Liar Network) host sat there talking about how the voters in November had not really voted "for Republicans", or endoresed Republican ideas, but had merely sent them to Wash;ington to seek COMPROMISE.

How does CNN know that voters did not vote "for' Republicans, especailly on SPENDING? Sure, you can assume votrers were angry with Democrats. But one of the areas they were angry was over SPENDING. What is the evidence that voters wanted POLITICS AS USUAL on spending--where ARROGANT politicians TALK about spending cuts with no intention of doing anything about it? How ARROGANT is it for Bolger to talk about how SOME people (NOT the partisans at CNN--my translatioin of his) thought Obama had "overreached", but that was obviously what the Repubicans were now doing. What about the idea that this is what Repubicans were ELECTED to do--at least what they PROMISED they would do. How ARROGANT is it for Gloria Bolger to assume that voters were not really listening to what Republicans said they would do? It is arrogant as helll, and PARTISAN as hell.

Yes, where was Bolger talking about ARROGANCE in the way Obama rammed through bouth the "stimulus" bill and the health care bill, with no "compromise" at all. Where was Bolger when Democrats deliberatedly delayed a vote on the second half of the previious year's spending bill, and then rammed through an "omnibus spending bill" adding hundreds of billions of dollars of PORK (including earmarks)?

Where is Bolger talking about the ARROGANCE of state senators in Wisconsin ignoring their legal responsibility by walking out on their job. Where is Bolger talking about the ARROGANCE of Democrats in Indiana also walking out on their job. Where is Bolger talking about the ARROGANCE of subverting the "voters" by simply refusing to take part in the Democratic process? Where is Bolger talking aobout the ARROGANCE of Barack Obama DIRECTING his attorney general to violate his oath and not defend a Federal law (the "Defense of Marriage Act"")?

Nope. Gloria Bolger is a tyupical arrogant leftist who believes "compromise" is to arrive at where leftists want to be (the Soviet style: "What is ours is ours; what is yours we netotiate"). That is true ARROGANCE--when you can't even see the other side, or pretend not to be able to. In this case, I believe Bolger is stupid enough that she may not really even see the other side. That is REAL ARROGANCE: when you are so closed minded that you don't even have any idea of where the other side is coming from.

And what about the demonstrated Democrat ARROGANCE in assuming that the American people will automatically blame Repubicans for any government shut down, even if Republicans are not to blame? That is not only ARROGANCE, but it is insulting to the American voter (who Democrats feel is a truly stupid individual). And WHO are Democrats relying upon for their obvious scare tactic and EXTORTION tactic of putting blame on Repubicans, whether they are to blame or not? Right. They are relying upon CNN, Gloria Borger and the mainstream media.

Three strikes and you are out. Globria Borger, you are OUT. (Visualize an umpire holding up his thumb with the "out" sign at this point.) No, I can't take the sacrifice anymore, even for materil for this blog. Not only has Gloria Borger retired the "arrogant liar" trophy again--followiing int he footsteps of numbers CNN people--but I can no longer stomach listening to her. This is another reason you are likely not to see her name again in this bvlog. I only SURF CNN (30 or 60 seconds at a time, and not more than a few minutes a day--sthowing how bad they are since I get all of this material from that brief exposure) CNN, and I have no iintention of staying put to even hear 30 seconds of what Borger says from now on. It is not worth hearing, and not worth the agony for more material. Borger has STRUCXK OUT, and--as far as I am concerned--she will not come up to bat ever again.

Is it a waste of tie for me to even surf CNN, even for material? After all, as my brother points out, NO ONE WATCHES CNN. As I have told my brother, CNN often has a lesser rating than could be expected of a test pattern. Indeed, that is why I usually--with exceptions--do not bother to talk about the even less watched--and even more partisan--MSNBC. But my eyesight makes it more difficult for me to read AP stories. I used to us the "Anti-American,m Despicable Associated Press" as a stand-in for all mainstream journaism. I have written more articles about the AP than any person alive during the past 7 years--with detailed analysis of AP stories. However, my poor eyesight has made it difficult for me to read AP stories on Yahoo (BOYCOTT YAHOO), and it is easier now for me to get my sense of lefits thought from an AUDIO source. That is why I am now again surfing CNN--after previously boycotting it as all of the rest of you are already instinctivelyl ding. Basically, all left wing thought today is the same. There is no need to get it fro multiple sources. However, with my eyesight, I am gravitating towardy using CNN as my major source of AUDIO information on leftist thinking. That is my explanation as to why you are hearing more from me about CNN. In the past, I have looked at CNN during elections, and when I am sort of taking a survey of lefitst thought during a major election or news event. That is still partially the case, as the Mideast turmoil and Wisconsin/union controversies have made me curioous about how leftist sources are treating them. But CNN is more and more becoming my new "stand-in" for the whole mainstream media, and for all of leftist thinking (at least the far left "mainstream" of leftist thinking). Therefore, even though my attacks on CNN may seem like using a nuclear bomb on a gnat, you should look at them as attacks on leftist thinking in general--merely using CNN as the conveninet proxy for that thinking.

P.S. Note, as usual, that the above has neither been rppofread nor spell checked (that eyesight tahat has caused me to turn more to CNN as a stand-in for all leftist thinking).

P.P.S. Think of how truly arrogant it is for ANYONE at CNN to assert that they know what the American people want. CNN cannot even get people to WATCH. Fox News is MUCH more successful, and could claim to have a much better idea of what the American people "want" (not that I am endorsing Fox News, which I am not, except it is better than CNN--which is setting the bar REALLY low).

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Yahoo: Boycott Yahoo (a PARTISAN Supporter of Homosexual Marriage)

Present headline FEATURED on Yahoo "News" (propaganda), as featured on the "welcome" page of my Uverse service; "Government drops defense of anti-gay-marriage law." (the Yahoo headline coming from a story from the "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press" (always use complete, official name in inittial reference).

You will note that the headline (and probably the story, knowing the terrible, partisan, leftist AP) LIES. For an ACCURATE, if harshly critical, picture of what is going on, see the previous article in this blog.

It is absurd to refer to the "Defense of Marriage Act" as an "anti-gay-marriage" law. In fact, Bill Clinton signed the Act, and the desicable "establishment" Repubicans and many Democrats supported the law, to STOP the threatened Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman. The idea of the law was to leave the question up to each individual state, but to pass a law that a state like Texas would not be FORCED to honor homosexual marriages entered into in a state like Massachusetts. See my previous article abut ow this was a FRAUD and DECEPTION, designed to protect politicans politically while giving people a false idea that politicans were protecting the insitution of marriage for those states which wanted to protect it--a "state's rights" law!!!!!

There is simply no way this was an "anti-gay-marriage" law. But Yahoo "News" and the despicable AP are not interested in FACTS. They are intey are interested in PROPAGANDA. They are PARTISAN political organizxations which are an arm of the Democratic Party (the LEFTIST part of the Democratic Party).

BOYCOTT YAHOO> See my previous article today. As stated, I have written many more than 20 articles about the disgraceful propaganda generated by Yahoo "News", which uses NO conservative or neutral sources as to its FEATUREWD articles (using, almost exclusively, the worst articles of the terrible AP).

You need to realize that, if you fail to boycott Yahoo, you are endorsing political propaganda falsely disguised as "news" ("neutral" yet). No, I am not violating my own advice. I DO boycott Yahoo, except for the SACRIFICE I make in leaving the Uverse "welcome" page as my default page when I gon online. I vist Yahoo for NO other purpose, and don't otherwise advance Yahoo by word or deed. But I can't write these articles unless I continue to now just how bad Yahoo "News" is.

Foresight again: Yes, I said the SAME thing back when I used AOL (dial up) as my internet provider. AOL "News" is fully as bad as Yahoo. Until I changed away from AOL, and totally put my own advice into effect, I advocated a BOYCOTT of AOL--telling you, accurately, that I was SACRIFICING in the interest of spreading the truth. I said I would stay on AOL, as such a sacrifice (AOL not even being a good internet provider), until the last person haed left AOL. I promised to turn the lights out. I almost kept tmy promise, but quit AOL when AOL terminated AOL Journals. Foresight? AOL, just in the past week or two, has annouonced a "deal" with opportunist leftist Arianna Huffington (who once posed as a CONSERVATIVE darling to try to become frist lady of California). Yes, my assertion that AOL is an instrument of leftist propaganda has been PROVEN--although I long ago proved it myself--by an event even a little beyond my own imagination.

P.S. Note, again, that the above has been neither proofread nor spell checked (eyesight).

Homosexual Marriaeg and President Obama: Liar in Chief

Since 2008 (the campaign), this blog has been calling President Obama a LIAR as to his stated position that marriage should only be between one man and one woman (at a time). You should know by now that this blog is NEVER wrong, and that this blog is famous for FORESIGHT (rather than hindsight).

Well, today the Obama Administration--continuing its "focus" on JOBS that has continued from the beginning of the Administration (lol)--has decided that the "Defense Of Marriage Act" is unconstitutionial. What this means is that the Obama Administration is going to CONSPIRE with POLITCAL Federal judges to FORCE homosexual marriage on this entire country. This is EXACTLY what this blog told you was the plan in articles written since 2008. Noppe. As this blog has also informed you, leftist Democrats do NOT believe in democracym, or in "the law". What they believe in is FORCE, and that the end justifies the means. Look at the state senators in Wisconsin. In case you did not know, by the way, the Defense Of Marriage Act does NOT force states to prohibit homosexual marriage. It only says that Texas (or any other state) does not have to recognize homosexual marriages from a different state with different values (like Massachusetts).

Yes, President Obama is a sociopathic liar. You will remember that he passionately campaigned (against Hillary Clinton) on the concept that Americans should not be FORCED to buy health insurance. But he purported to "change his mind". He has said he is "reevaluating" his opinion on homosexual marriage. HOGWASH. The guy never meant these things in the first place, and he has always intended for the Federal courts to bail him out on homosexual marriage. President Obama constantly says outrageously false things, and contstantly is contradicdting what he said yesteerday with what he says today--sometimes contradicting himself within the same speech, as he did with his speech in Cleveland about "making sure" that the Federal Government "lives within its means, just like you do". See the article earlier this week, wherein I correctly stated that this is an Orewllian Big Lie that no sane person could accept. That is the sign of a sociopatic liar, who has no conscience at all about lying. Yes, Bill Clinton lied (a little bit of a sociopath himself). And mot politicians hae only a nodding acquaintance with the truth. But Obama is the worst we have ever seen.

Yes. The evluation is complete. President Obama is the worst liar we have ever had in the White House--the most blatant. Sure, there have been a number of Presidents who have been more personally dishonest and corrupt. But as far as blatant lies--saying what you know not to be true, without even caring whether what you say is true or not, Obama has no peer. He stands alone.

Yes, the hypocrites in the mainstream media will criticize Republicans for ignoring "the law", and for taking their eye off of the "improtant" issues i this country (for example, in criticizing the Republicans on the correct atttemot to stop the evil Planned Parenthod from getting taxpayer money in violation of the very core principles of at least half of the country), but they have no problem with leftist Democrats trying to FORCE this kind of thing down people's throats. As this blog has repeatedly stated, of course, the mainstream media are the worst hypocrites--along with other leftist Democrats and just plain leftists--who have ever walked the Earth, on two legs or 4. And talk about DIVISIVE.

Why is Obama picking this fight NOW--refusing to even defend a Federal law in the courts in violation of oath and precedent? Yes, this brings discredit on both Obama AND the Federal judges who conspire with the Obama Administration to take away a law passed as part of our democdratic process (signed by President Clinton). This is what DICTQATORS do (referring to both Obama and the Federal judges conspiring to frustrate democracy). It is the same thing that Democrats in CALIFORNIA have tried to do as ssto the people's VOTE on homosexual marriage in California (see my previous article at the time about how California officials tried to conspire with ONE single judge to frustrate the vote of the people).

This is really terrible stuff, where leftist Democrats are trying to FORCE (ram down our throats) a policy which conflicts with ALL of human history before the 21st Century--history which DOES include INCES and POLYGAM, but which does NOT include homosexual marriage (even when homosexual conduct was widely accepted, as in ancient Greece and in the Roman Empire) To undo all of hunman history by DICTATORIAL FIAT is a truly taerrible thing--indicting these people as people who do not believe in democracy AT ALL. IF we are going to do this, we should do it by the democratic process, and not by MAKNIG UP a "right" that has never existed, and does not exist.

Yes, this elxposes how WRONG John McCain was to prevent a Constituitonal Amendement passing as to defining marriage between a man and a woman. Ype. That is another case of this blog's FORESIGHT. This blog told you that McCain was being deliberately obtuse and dishonest when he failed to recognirze that such an Amendment was needed for this very reason--to keep this from being FORCED upon us exactly as Obama, leftist judges, and leftist Democrats are attempting to do. McCain and EXTABLISHMENT Republicans have a lot to answer for, and Hell will freee over--if it exists--before I will ever again support a true estabishment Republican for any office. You will rememger that I did NOT support the terrible, and terribley stupid o-even stupid in his opportunism--John McCain against Barack Obama. Repubican politicians assured us that the "Defense of Marriage Act" meant that homosexual marriage would NOT be forced down the throats of states which refused to acept homosexual lmarriage. IN FORESIGHT (as usual), this blog told you they were wrong, and told you exactly WHY they were wrong--predicting the very thing that is happening.

Message to the REPUBICAN PARTY AND JOHN MCCAIN (and every Repubican like him): Don't bother to ask for my support or money. As I have stated repeatedly, I am not a Repubican. Yes, I will support SOME Repubicans, and a LOT of supposedly "Republican" issues, but there is no way I will ever support the present Repubican establishment. Don't ask. You will NEVER getr my support, and not truly estabishment Republican will ever get my support for ANY office (except, perhaps, as a momentary tactical move becasue the Republican Party looks like it is forced into a corner where the establishment Repubicans are politically forced to be on the side of conservatives who they privately class as "hicks" and Neanderthals).

As stated above, there is MUCH more history of POLYGAMY and INCEST in history than there is of homosexual marriage. Turst me on this one: There is NO BASIS to say that people cannot engage in polygamy, if you say that people have a right to homosexual marriage. Indeed, Anderson Cooper--sanctimonious hypocrite that he is--is looking at horror tonight on the polygamist, Warren Jett, without even seeming to have a clue that the issue is the SAME as to polygamy and homosexual marriage. We may be seeing the death of marriage in this country. Will Texas be forced to recognize polygamy, or a marriage between brother and sister, if ANY other state does so? If Obama is correct, as he is not, that is the result. Unless, of course, you are the worst hypocrites who have ever walked the Earth, on two legs or four--or a sociopathic liar, like Obama. In that event, you don't care, or even recognize, whether your positiions are logically consistent.

Do ou realize that we BLACKMAILED Utah into abandoning polygamy in order to get admittted as a state. Sorry, Utah. Obama has determined your "rights" were violated.

P.S. Yes, I recognirze that the Warren Jett case is complicated because of what amounts to pedophilia (a "sexual orientation" that we discriminate against) and statutory rape (in which Planned Parenthood is willing to conspire, and Hollywood is willing to condone in the case of Roman Polanski). That dark underside of Warren Jett's type of polygamy goes beyond the kind of polygamy referenced above. But who knows what unintended consequences will result from this insantiiy of discarding many THOUSANDS of years of human history.

P.P.S. Note, as usual, that the above has been neither proofread nor spell checked, due to my bad eyesight.

Wolf Blitzer, Liar; CNN: The Liar Network (President Obama, Coward on Libya)

CNN, The Liar Network, is simply unbelievable. These people--including, again, Gloria Borger--are sociopaths, and/or pathological liars (unless you realize lthat what they really represent are PARTISAN propagandists lying in the name of AGENDA).

I saw the President speak on Libya. He said NOTHING, was vague, and never even mentioned Khadafi (Gadhafir?--there are some 19 spellings of the name that Khadafi himself has sort of endorsed, and you can't get this spelling "wrong") by name. Contrast this with the President's contstant use of Mubaq's name. Whatever you say about Mubaraq, and he was a repressive dictabor (the President, you may remember, BOWED to the king of Saudi Arabia--no instrument of freedom), Mubaraq was a FRIEND of the United States. Khadafi has been a constant enemy implicated in the Lockerbie bobming (where President Obama implicitly APPROVED the British release of the convicted bomber). Yes, President Obama is a COWARD: refusing to put himself on the line AHEAD of events, unltess he he thinks he is taking no risk (as in Egypt, where Obama thought he knew what the Egyptian military would do).

On to Wolf Blitzer, liar. The president gave this speech, where he--coward that he is--refused to mention Khadafi by name. Instead, the President called for an end to the "vioilence", and for "international cooperation". Wimp. But what did Blitzer and CNN do? They acted like President Obama had given a strong, passionate statement condemning Khadafi. Blitzer actually said that the President had condemned Khadafi. I listened to the President, unlike Blitzer (or Blitzer, more likely, wanted to convince you that YOU had not listened correctly). The President was very careful NOT to condemn Khadafi, and the speech was the OPPOSITE of "passinate". Blitzer then brought in political hack Borger to support hte simply indefnesible idea that the President had made a strong statement.

Noep. Wolf Blitzer is a liar--so blatant a liar as to contratdict what everyone heard moments before. My message to Wolf Blitzer and Gloria Borger: You ARE liars--the most blatant liars I have ever seen outside of President Obama himself and others in the mainstream media. My message to CNN: You ARE The Liar Network.

Boycott Yahoo: A Partisan, Leftist Organization

This is about the 20th time I have called for everyone to boycott Yahoo, because Yahoo News is merely an instrument of leftist political propaganda. Every time I have so labeled Yahho, I have done so with concrete examples of the propaganda. See the incarnation of this blog on Newsvine, although I don't know whether my articles are still maintained n that site (since I have abandoned Newsvine, an MSNBC site which itself is merely an instrument of leftist propanda).

What is today's outrage from the despicable Yahoo? Again, as Yahoo News so often does, the present FEATRURED PICTURE STORY is a HIT PIECE (AP hit piece) on Scott walker, the governor of Wisconsin. Yahoo is saying a PRANK CALL is adding to the "woes" of Governor Walker, because--not that Walker is being confronted with ILLEGAL acts by Democrats are vidious prank calls---but because the prank call "reveals" the "strategy" of the governor. Turst me. This has nothign to do with the merits of anything, or with real "news". It is LEFTIST PROPAGANDSA, pure and simple, and that is all Yahoo News ever features.

Nope. BOYCOTT YAHOO. I only keep the Uverse Yahoo defaut pages to keeep upr with the crimes of both Yahoo "News" and the "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press" (always use the full, offical name in first reference). You can tell how bad Yahoo News is when youunderstand that the FEAUTRED Yaho "News" itmes on Unverse are almost exclsively from the "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press" (in this context, repeating the complete, official name is imporant for the point). Tere is NO "conservative, or even neutral, input on Yahoo "News'. it is totally an outfit dedicated to leftist propaganda. I keep up with it to keep you informed, as I do with CNN. YHOU need to BOYCOTT Yahoo. I would tell you to boycott CNN, except you are already doing that on your own.

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Obama: Liar-in-Chief

Yes, I know the headline is harsh. But the man is so blatant in his use of the Orwellian Big Lie--almost as blatant as CNN, who approvingly repeats most of Obama's lies--that no other designation is really accurate as to our President.

Did you hear that speech in Cleveland, or excerpts from it? I could never make this up, and Obama has said the same thing MULTIPLE times. He said this, talking about his "winning the future" campaign: "Part of that (winning the future) s the government LIVING WITIN ITS MEANS, just like you do."

Say what? Obama's deficit for this year is projected to be 1.65 TRILLION dollars, and he is projecting deficits at or above a TRILLION dollars for the next TEN years or more.

But maybe this is a good thing. Maybe I should adopt the fantasy world of Obama, where trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see are "living within our means". No, I am aware that it is all an Orwellian Big Lie, where Obama thinks that constant repetition will convince people that he really thinks government should "live within its means". However, there are real ADVANTAGES to the Obama fantasy world.

First, I need someone to LOAN me 1.65 trillion dollars (the Chinese? Are even they that dumb?) It will be nice to be richer than Bill Gates. What? You say I will not be rich--that I can never pay the money back? Oh, you fool. That is the beauty of it. I don't have to pay it back. In fact, all I need to do is BORROW the money to make interest payments. And if things really get desperate, I will simply buy up my own notes with money I PRINT (as Ben Bernanke is now doing for Obama at the Fed).

Iknow. You say it can't last. The reckoning will eventually come, and I will have nothing. Oh, you fool. You miss the point. By the time of a reckoning, I will be DEAD. And think of how WELL I can live in the meantime.

It is sad when satire is this horrifying. Because that is exactly what Bernanke and all of our politicians are doing. They are counting on being DEAD, or at least out of office, when the chickens come home to roost. They may be miscalculating, and we may no longer have that much time, but there is no doubt that phisolophy is how we got in this mess.

If my actually believe that Obama is trying to "make government live within its means", which is how I think he actually put it, I am sorry for you. You live in an even stranger fantasy world than he does, or even than the mainstream media does, because they don't RELLY believe this absurd statement. They don't beilieve eithe in the importance of "making government live within its means", but they somehow expect YOU to believe Obama means it. Or they expect you will believe it if it is repeated ten thousand times. Obama says it because he thinks it sounds good, and does not think you will ever stop to think whether it makes any sense at all.

You are really as dismally stupid as Obama thinks you are if you buy this absurdity. For Obama, and for his supporters, this is mere POLITICS and POWER. They expect to get away with it, because they expect no one will really believe it when people like me say that "The Emperor has no clothes on.". I think better of you than that, although I admit to doubts from time to time (much as clergymen may sometimes doubt their faith).

If Obama ever should succeed in brainwashing me, just point me to my 1.65 trillion. I am willing to give Obama economics a try, so long as I see that 1.65 trillion waiting for me to lift my finger and borrow it (with an indefinite time to pay it back). Hugh Hefner, watch out.

P.S. Note, as usual, that the above has neither been proofread nor spell checked, due to bad eyesight, which is true of all three articles written tonight.

Marijuana, Killer Weed: Are Advocates of Marijuana Us/Legalization Murderers?

It is an example of my extraordinary foresight that even my partly satirical articles tend to be spot on in predicting events.

Look back at my previous article--satirizing the mainstream media attempt to blame the Giffords shooting in Arizona on Sarah Palin and the Tea Party. I noted that the EVIDENCE was the the Fiffords shooter had been a heavy marijuana user. As I stated, it was MUCH more likely that uch drug use TWISTED an already distrubed mind than that the shooter was affected by Sarah Palin. (Note that protesters in Wisconsin are deliberately putting CROSS HAIRS on images of Scoot Walker, wiouth outrage from CNN and the rest of the mainstream media.)

Well, look at my previous article. There are substantial--seemingly reliable--reports that the teenage pirates who killed four Americans were hopped up on marijuana (and perhaps other drugs). They evidently panicked, and acted irrationally, when approached by a U.S. Navy merely trying to negotiate.

The evidence is mounting. Marijuana may truly be a KILLER WEED. Surely, the evidence is conclusive that marijuana distorts minds and judgment, and carries the potential to further disburb an already distrubed brain. As I stated in my previous article, it is certainly a myth that marijuana PROMOTES non-viiolence.

Thus, my previous question remains (using the standards of CNN, the Pima Country Sheriff, the rest of the mainstream media, and other leftist Democrats, rather than my own--more rational--standards): Are those who are promoting the use/legalization of marijuana responsible for these drug related killings? Again, I submit that the evidence for this is MORE convincing--if still logically flawed---than the idea that Sarah Palin was responsible for the Giffords shooting.

WHY do CNN, and the rest of the mainstream media, never even SPECULATE about the role of marijuana in these shootings and killings? Answer: AGENDA. It is actually worth investigating the role marijuana is playing in these tragedies, and similar events. Obviusly, all marijuana users do not kill people, but there are certainly indications marijuana can be a truly dangerous drug in its effect on the mind.

Somali Pirates, Barbary Pirates, Muslim Intolerance and CNN Lies (plus anti-Christian Bigotry)

Yes, this is a wide ranging article about the killing of four Americans by Somali pirates, after the pirates hijacked their yacht.

First, why are there still any Somali pirates? One of the first successful military actions of the new United States of America was the destruction of the Barbary pirates at the beginning of the 19th Century. That is where the Marine Hymn (or whatever the official name is) gets the words: " the shores of Tripoli." Have we really deteriorated so far as a nation since the beginning of the f19th Century? It is not like everyone does not know about the Somali pirates. Remember that heroic boat captain? What you may not remember--because no one watches CNN--is the CHARACTER ASSASSINATINO of that boat captain by the sanctimonious, despicable Anderson Cooper. CNN has a hstory of reporting BADLY on the Somali pirates--or rather NOT reporting on the important things abut the Somali pirats, such as why we have not eradicated them. Well, CNN would follow that distinguished tradition of evil (official name of CNN: "CNN, The Evil, Anti-American Network", with the nickname of "The Liar Network") in its reporting on today's (Tuesday) killing of these four Americans.

Segue to Google. Search "Somalia", Islamic", "extremists". The first two articles I came up with were titled: "Somalia's Rising Tide of Extremism", and "Islamic Extremists Execute Young Convert"--the reference i this last article being to CHRISTIAN converts. It turns out that trying to convert Muslims to Christianity is--in practice--a capital crime in Somalia. Indeed, active practice by Christians of their faith, and especicially actively trying to convert Muslims, is effectively a crime in ALL Muslim dominated countries--INCLUDING the "moderate", "secular" ones. I may be libeeling one or two small Msslim countries, but no more than that. As I have said repeatedly, the religion of Islam--AS PRACTICED IN THE WORLD TODAY--is the mot INTOLERANT of the world's religion. And that goes way beyond al-Qaida. Further, it is a disgrace that more of our politicians and media people do not say so. Think of what they say about mere disparaging WORDS abut Islam (such as this article), while saying nothing about persistent PERSECUTION of minority Christians wherever Muslims are the majority. Nope, this is NOT "acceptable", and Muslims should not be excused from being labeled "intolerant" by a mixtgure of political correctness and anti-American and anti-Christian sentiment by our mainstream media and leftists.

Back to CNN and those Somali pirates. The bodies of the four dead Americans were probably not yet cold when I saw Kyra Phillips' show on CNN. Kyra Phillips, by the way, is a desicable human being, as I have had occasion to show previously in this blog as early as 2008). What was the nature of the discussion between Phillips and the CNN correspondent? No, I can't make this up. I will give you a hint.

Go back to the Ft. Hood shooter (a Muslim extremist inspired by other Muslim extremists in Yemen). Go back to the Detroit Christmas bomber. Go back to the atempted car bombing of Times Square. What was the FIRST reaction of CNN to ALL of those events--every one of which was conducted by a Muslim extremist connected to other Muslim extremists? Oh, come on. You know this one. The frist reaction of CNN to ALL of these events was to DENY that each event was caused by Muslim extremists--instead asserting that the evidence was that the terrorist was a Lone nut" rather than someone who could be blamed on Islamic extremism. CNN has EARNED the nickname of "The Liar Network".

Okay. This Tuesday, before the American bodies were even cold, CNN was talking about how the fur dead Americans had been travelling around the world distributing Bibles and talking about God and their religion. So far, so good, but we are abuot to enter the Twilight Zone of the fantasy, agenda world of CNN. Any relationship between the fantasy world of CNN and the real world is purely coincidental.

Even though the couple whoo owned the yacht were travelling the world distributing Bibles and spreading the Word of God, CNN hastened to say that they were not "pushing" Christianity". Say what? Was CNN really saying that this couple were only distributing Bibles to people who were ALREADY CHRISTIANS? Evidently so, because the CNN people solemnly assured us that they were going around the world sharing their views with OTHER CHRISTIANS. CNN lies, even when you may not immediately see the motive (as I did, knowing the anti-Christian bigotry of CNN, as evidenced by the prominence CNN has given noted anti-Christian bigot Bill Maher).

As farr as CNN is concerned, "pushing" Christianity to Mulsims would make these people BAD PEOPLE (trust me, I assure you this is true). CNN--at least for now--did not want to cast aspersions on people whose bodies were not even yet cold. Thus, CNN refused to convict them of the CRIME (from the point of view of CNN) of trying to spread Christianity bo people who were Muslims, or did not otherwise already believe in it. Yet, as other news outlets sid, there was no doubt that this couple were trying to at least gently (not aggressively) spread their religion around the world. Is it a (literal) CIMRE to distribute Bibles in Saudi Arabia? I am sure it is, if you distribut them publiccly, or to Muslims. If you disregard the pejorative, anti-Christian "pushing", of course this couple was trying to spread their view of Christianity around the world. I hate to think what would happen to them in IRAN. But, as stated, there is NO Muslim countgry of any significance that would regard the seeking of Christian converts among Muslims with tolerance. Yet, THERE IS NOTHING WORNG WITH IT, and it is a matter of freedom of religion. That is a fact we should be pressing upon Islam--not that they should be Christian, but that they should be TOLERANT of other faiths. But CNN was not interested in telling the truth, and the lies had only begun.

Phillips and her correspondent went on to assure us that these murders had nothing to do with religion, and that the Somali pirates are not Islamic extremists. Remember that CNN had NO information abut why the four Americans were killed, except that the terrorists had shot them on their hijacked boat. Yes, this is a CNN LIE, because CNN had no way of knoing whether the killings had anything to do with religion or not.

But CNN assured us that the Somali pirates are not "Islamic extrtemists". Yes, it is true that the Somali pirates are interested in money more than religion, to all appearances. BUT, does that mean that the pirates had not been converted to an extreme form of Islam, even if that might appear to conflict with them being pirates? I see no reason why individual Somali pirates, or even a mass of them, could not regard themselves as converts to an extreme version of Islam. Further, were not these pirates likely MUSLIMS? You will never know from CNN, because byou hardly ever heard from CNN--especailly in the beginning--that the Ft. Hood shooter was a Muslim. CNN is tThe Liar Network, where agenda is all. Truth has nothing to do with it. Look at that second paragraph above, with those headlines. In Somalia, it has been regarded as a crime punishable by death to try to CONVERT Muslims.

These four Americans were travelling around with BIBLES. They further were obviusly very religiious Christians, although there is n reason to regard them as "extreme" fanatics. What if they said something that angered the Somali pirates because of its Christian content? What if the pirates did not LIKE the Bibles the four Americans were carrying? How could CNN possibly KNOW that these murders had nothing to do with religion? Answer: CNN could NOT know/. CNN was simply telling a LIE because of the CNN agenda.

No, I don't know that the Somali pirates cared anything about religioin, or that the murders had anything to do with religion. But I do know that it is entirely possible that religion DID enter into it somewhwere. No, I would NOT have specualted on that. I would try to find out the facts, INCLUDING the facts on whether the obvious Christianity of the four Americans had anything to do with their death. I would also be interested in the FACTS about why we have not done more about getting rid of the Somali pirates. "Islamic extreists" or not, they are dangerous CRIMINALS--as bad as the old Barbary pirates. But CNN is not interested in discovering real facts and discussing real issues. CNN is interested only in agenda, and routinely tells lies in furtherance of agenda. No, it does not matter if CNN turns out ultimately to be right--that these killings were unrelated to religion. The CNN report was still a tissue of LIES for the purposes I have described above.

Now my older daughter--a lawyer in Boston--should work for CNN. What was HER reaction? Her reaction to this killing of four Americans by pirates--my daughter being a typical leftist--was that te four Americans should not have been where they were--where everyone knows that Somali pirates are operatiing--and that you have to have some sympthy for these BOYS trkying to get money the only way they know how. Now I agree that no Christian missionary should be stupid enough to be preaching Christianity in, for example, IRAN. But that does not make Iran, and the other intolerant Muslims, RIGHT. In fact, it makes them wrong. And what about the early Christians, who refused to give up the open advocacy of their religion even when told they were going to be eaten by LIONS unless they renounced their faith (the onld Roman Empire). Is it not only that our country has deteriorated since the 19th Century, but that Christians have deteriorated over the past 2000 years (almost)?

You think that CNN will never go so far as my older daughter, and BLAME this incident on the Americans (my older daughter going so far as to say that we shlould not even have attempted to rescue the stupid Americans)? Think again. As stated above, Anderson Cooper attempted to CRUCIFY the heroic captain who had fought off Somali pirates, because the captain had allegedly steered too close to the danger zone. I saw it: the truly despicable Coop[er gave thepoor captain the third degree because Cooper insisted that the captain admit that he had exposed his ship to danger and hijacking. It was one of the most disgraceful performances I have ever seen from a "journalist", as Cooper seemed to be like my daughter: accepting the idea that the Somali pirates had a RIGHT to scare shipping away from the area they seem to control. Nope. The sanctimonious Cooper is NOT excused because members of the captain's crew were suing to obtain MONEY from the shipping company. If you think that justifies giving a hero a media Kangaroo Court "hearing", then I am sorry for you. For me, Anderson Cooper, and basically all of the people of CNN, are some of the most despicalbe people living on this Earth--excluing only people like the Somali pirates and Islamic extremists.

Monday, February 21, 2011

Democrats, Spending and Shutting Down the Government: Democrat Responsibility, Despite CNN and Gloria Borger Big Lie

Say there are a thousand separate SPENDING bills in Congrss funding various aspects of the Federal Government, as there should be (or at least separate bills numbering in the tens). Say none of those bills includes funding for Planned Parenthood with taxpayer money (as should be the case). WHO is shutting down the government by refusing to pass ANY of the spending bills unless funding for Planned Parenthood is included in ONE of them? In other words, if Harry Reid and the Senate, or Barack Obama, refuse to accept ANY spending bill which does not contain funding for Planned Parenthood, THEY are the ones shutting down the government--using any system of logical thought.

Let us take another example. Assume that Barack Obama and Harry Reid had let the Republicans know that some of them had better support a Reid/Obama health care bill or Reid and Obama would make sure that NO spending was approved by the Federal Government. (I know that this particular tactic was ot used, although tactics just as bad were used to ram that bill through, but this is a hypothetical.) WHO is then shutting down the government? Obbiously, it would be Harry Reid and Barack Obama, and even CNN and Gloria Borger (liars that they are) would probably see that.

Yet, that is the exact situation now before Congress, and the liars in the mainstream media--surch as Gloria Borger and CNN--are setting up a storyline that it is REPUBLICNAS who are "threatening" to shut down the government. That is simply a lie. Republicans in the House--shere all spending bills are supposed to originate--hae PASSED a spending bill to keep funding the government. Harry Reid, Democrats in the Senate, and Barack Obama object to the House LEAVING OUT items of spending that Obama and Reid want the Federal Government to spend. In other words, Reid and Obama are using BLACKMAIL and EXTORTION (similar to what was used to get ObamaCare passed, although a different kind of blackmail and extortion)--holiding other government spending HOSTAAGE in order to get spending that they could NOT get passed on a direct vote on that spending. The only reason CNN and Gloria Borger can even LIE about this situation--creating a storyline where it is Republicans threatening to "shut down" the government--is that Congress is not properly doing its job, and has not for a long time. Yes, that is another part of the Big Lie participated in my CNN and Gloria Borger (and the whole mainstream media, including Fox News): the failure to hold Congress accountable for the DECEPTIONS that have perverted our system.

WHY are we in a situation that the fate of one ill can "shut down" the government? Again, it is because Congress--in this case, Democrats, although Repubicans have connived in this situation in the past--is passing spending bills in a totally corrupt and illegitimate way. What Democrats want to do now is fund almost the entire government for the entrie year by means of ONE BILL: a Continuing Resolution to fund the government at last year's levels. We are only in this situation because DEMOCRATS (another reason they are responsible for any government shut down) decided last year (when they controlled Congress) to neither pass a budget NOR pass s essentially any spending bills. In other words, Democrats in Congress--as Republicans have done before them--completely ABROGATED their Constitutional responsibiity to VOTE directly on what money we spend, and how it is spent. Instead, Congress has tried to fund the government for an entire year by simply refusing to make any decisions on spending. That failure to exercise their Constitutional responsibility is--or certainly should be--ILLEGAL. Democrats did this for POLITICAL reasons. They did not want to pass any budget or spending bills last year, because of the ELECTION. They then tried to ram an "omnibus spending bill" (one bill again) through Congress in the infamous "lame duck" session. Because they overreached, and further because they tried to ram so much through in that lame duck session, Democrats failed, and we ended upwith a Continuing Resolutioni (the same as before the election) to continue the DEFAULT (no direct vote) spending at the same level as last year. That resolution expires on March 4, but Democrats now want to "run out the clock" and cotinue that same resolution for the rest of the year (meaning we would have gone a full year with NO actual Congressional vote on what we should spend). This incredible, unconstituional aborgation of the responsibility of Congress is a repeat--somewhat in reverse, but the same aborgation of responsibility--of the tactic the Democrats used the previous year (when Bush was still President). Democrats--who controlled Congress--again passed only ONE bill to fund most of the government, but they did that for only six months (expecting to win the Presiddency in november of 2008, as they did)--avoiding any minor limitations a wimpy President Bush would have imposed on their spending for the full fiscal year. Then the NEW Democratic Congress (controlling Congress, as the old one did, and Democrats have done since January of 2007), with Barack Obama now President, passed a MASSIVE omnibus spending bill for the final six months or so of the previous fiscal year. Democrats ADDED hundreds of billions of dollars in spending in that bill, which has not prevented a truly despicable Nancy Pelosi from claiming that the deficit has always been their priority.

You should be able to see the problem here. The problem is that Congress is DELIBERATELY not doing its job--with the situatioin getting WORSE under Democrats. Congress--every year--is supposed to pass a budget, and then vote on specific spending according to that budget. Instead, for POLITICAL reasons and reasons of DECEPTION, Congress is hiding all of its sins--unreported by Gloria Borger and CNN--in massive "omnibus" spending bills and massive "continuing resoutions".

How should it work? Oh, you know that. So does Congress. First, Congress should pass a budget. But even that is only the first step. Congress should pass DEFINED spending bills, without junk being added to every bill in order to get the junk passesd by maneuver and deception--specific spending bills passed in a TIMELY manner before the fiscal year begins. If Congress does not do this, you should vote AGAINST anyone in Congress participating in the deception as a matter of course. In recent years, that means you should vote against all DEMOCCRATS for that reason alone. And if the government is "shut down" because of this failure of Congress to adequately do its job, that merely confirms that you should vote against the DEMOCRATS who put us in this situation. We should not be in a position where we have a deadline to pass one, massive bill or the entire government shuts down. And--contrary to CNN, The Liar Network, and Gloria Borger--the blame for the present situation belongs with the DEMOCRATS (who controlled Congress when this situation was created, and deliberately created it).

Putting all spending in a massivbe basket actually makes it impossible to control spending. Yes, I am saying that no money should be spent for Planned Parenthood--no taxpayer money--unless Congress VOTES to spend that money. And members of Congress should not be BLACKMAILED into voting to spend moeny based on a threat to shut down the entire government. As stated, this would be OBVIOUS if the spending for Planned Parenthood were in a "stand alone" bill. It is only by putting all of this spending in one bill that it becomes possible to try to sell an Orwellian Big Lie that it is members of the House who are properly deciding what spending they will approve who are "shutting down" the government. The opposite is the case. Those people are being BLACKMAILED to shirk their Constittional responsibility to authorize only spending which the House choooses to authorize. It is President Obama who said he would go "line by line" (even tthough we know he was not telling the truth) through every spending bill, and refuse to accept bills with ANY wasteful/inappropriate spending. Members of the House should do that, and have a responsibility to do that. And yes, that is another game Congress plays that makes it impossible to control spending: putting a massive spending bill before the President who, with no line item veto, must either approve the entire bill or veto the entire bill.

"Okay, Skip," you say, "I can see that you are right that these massive spending bills are a disgrace, and that it is DEMOCRATS who are threatening to use blackmail to shut down the government, but surely you can't expect President Obama to accept a DEFUNDING of his health care bill.? That does not seem reasonable."

I am glad you mentioned that. Would it be reasonalbe, as in the example I gave at the beginning, for President Obama to SHUT DOWN the government if Congress had refused to pass his health care bill in the first place--vetoing all spending bills until Congress did pass the health care bill? Obviously ot. So I don't think it is automatically the responsibility of the Republicans if Obama and/or the Democrats in the Senate refuse to accept the House decsision that money should not be spent on ObamaCare (especailly when there is a court decision that directs that, as long as it stands). However, it is true that this is a somewhat different thing than the decision on DESCRETIONARY spending each year (Planned Parenthood, NPR, etc.). The health care law has been passed. A federal court says it is NOT the "law of thee land". But say it is the law. Should Congress be able to repeal a valid (the question with the health care law) law by using its "power of the purse"? Well, Congress may have the power to do so, but it should pay a political price for it. It seems somewhat of a perversion of our system. In other words, I have much more sympathy for Harry Reid and Barack Obama "playing chicken" with regard to this indirect way of repealing a law that they got passed. The verdict on these kinds of political games probably belongs with the people--unlike the verdict on who is responsible for shutting down the government in order to BLACKMAIL part of Congress into approving an item of DISCRETIONARY spending. There is no "right" for Planned Parenthood to receive taxpayer money, and members of the House have the right not to appropriate such money. Now there are parts of the "funding" for ObamaCare that ARE discretionary, and I have no problem with the House going through the spending items and leaving out funding for those descretionary items. But I assume that the House is NOT going to successfully get Obama to sign a bill saying that NO MONEY shall be spent to fund ObamaCare. And I have no problem with that. I DO have a problem with saying that the House MUST spend discretionary funds in a certain way, or face BLACKMAIL and threats of shutting down the government. That is simply wrong--a LIE (adopted by CNN and Gloria Borger) that Democrats should be able to FORCE items of spending by shutting down the government (items that are not mandated by specific laws).

The point here is that Congress should start off every new fiscal year at ZERO. Unless mandated by law, noagency or person has a "right" to a certain level (or any) government funds. As the Constitution says, the House should then decide what funds should be spent. And any other branch of government which DEMANDS that the House appropriate disceretionary funds in a certain way should properly be regarded as respoinsible for any government "shut down". The burden is properly on people wanting to SPEND money to show that their cause is so important as to shut down the government. As stated, if this were not true, then Obama and Reid could have FORCED a health care bill by merely refusing to fund any other program until a health care bill was passed (as distinguished fromt he disgraceful methods they actually used to force the bill through with no Republican votes).

What should Republicans do? Well, if the Senate refuses to accept the non-mandated spending that the House is willing to approve, what the House should do is SEPARATE THE BILLS. Separate out the spending on the FBI, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the military, Homeland Security, and other "essential " services. Pass the bills separately. Of course, leave Planned Parenthood out of ALL of the bills, and similarly leave the other discretionary spending youu refuse to fund out of the specific bill relating to that funding. Then it will become obviuos who is shutting down the government, and why.

You say there is not time? Hogwash. If necessary, do a TWO WEEK continuing resolution--NOT to "negotiate" (although you can do that too), but to pass SEPARATE BILLS. No, the House should NOT let Democrats get away with "running out the clock", and forcing continuing resolution after continuing resolution, until the year is gone. Democrats can simply not be allowed to FORCE this disgraceful situation=, and then SUCCESSFULLY get their way for "shutting down the government". If Republicans cannot separate the bills, then they should force DEMOCRTATS to sht down the government. I will never forgive any Republican who caves on this. As tated, I except form this the attempt to repeal ObamaCare by the "power of the purse". Repubicans are never gong to convince the public that they have the right to do that. But they SHOULD be able to convince the public that Democrats have no right to FORCE discretionary spending by BLACKMAIL. Republicans in the House should only vote for discretionary spending that they are willing to fund. Otherwise, they are affirmatively betraying their trust.

Yes, it is obvious what Republicvans have to do for the NEXT fiscal year. And they havve halfway promised to do it. They should TIMELY pass SEPARATE spending bills so as to avoid this problem of omnibus spending bills. Then it will become obvious if DEMOCCRATS are holding some bills hostage for the sake of other bills Democrats want. As stated, that is actually the situatioiin now, but it is obscured because everything is in one bill. That should not be the case. Repubicans are to blame if they fail to do this for NEXT fiscal year, as they share the blame for the way these games have been played in the past--even if Democrats have taken the games to new levels.

P.S. The reference to "Big Lie" is, of course, a reference to George Orwell's "1984". CNN, Gloria Borger, CNN, and the rest of the mainstream media are veterans of the Orwellian Big Lie. Their attempt to hold Republicans responsible for any shut down of the government is an example of a Big Lie that they expect to get accepted by constantly repeating it. Even if you--wrongly--don't accept all of my analysis above, it is absurd to suggest that Democrats are not at least as responsible for any "threatened" government shut down as Republicans. In this particular situation, as shown above, they bear PRIMARY responsibility. Bhey both created the "emergency" AND are trying to use BLACKMAIL to get their own way. It is simply absurd to blame this situation on Republicans, even if Republicans have participated in the same type of deceptions in the past.

P.P.S. Note, as usual, that the above has neither been proofread (even as typed, I cannot seee well enough to be sure what is being typed) nor spell checked (eyesight again). Let it be a challenge to you. People PAY for puzzles less challenging than reading my articles, and for less reward and satisfaction than reading my articles should bing you.