Headline yesterday from the "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press" (complete, official name):
"Obama is focusing on job creation."
Yes, this headline was FEATURED again on the despicable Yahoo "News", as if it were "news". This is a headline that jsut has to be on "macro" (orwhatever it is called these days). The AP has to have used this headline 100 times, so that one click generates the headline again. Obama has certainly said those WORDS on MORE than 100 occasions--often as he is heading off on yet another overseas trip, or on a "photo-op" campaign trip to here on the Mexican border (I live in El Paso) to push his "comprehensive" Hispanic vote plan--oops! I mean his "comprehensive immigration plan (anmesty plan). I can't believe that even the despicable AP keeps producing this headline with a straight face. Here is the correct headline, if youo think mere repeated WORDS are headline "news" at all:
"Obama, for at least the 100th time, is focusing on job creation"
What about the story? Either Obama should look himself in the mirror and say: "you are a pathetic loser", or he should sue his allies at the AP for INCOMPETENCE (which they certainly are). There were three or four paragraphs about Obama's VAGUE GENERAL PROMISES (those same general promises he has made, and violated, 100 and more times before). What was the first SPECIFIC I saw in the AP story? It was thaqt Obama wants us to educate MORE ENGINEERS. Forget about the questoin of how the Federal Government "educates" more engineers--you can bet that Obama wants to throw more of YOUR money at the "problem". The key here is TIME. My brother is an electrical engineer. My older dauaghter's fiance is a mechanical engineer. My college roommate was an engineer major at New Mexico State University, where I received a B.S. in physics. Just getting a bachelor's degree in any kind of engineering is a TOUGH program--generally a full four-year program. Then you either have post-graducate work or advanced, on-the-job training. Obama and the Democrats--supported by the hypocrites in the mainstream media--kept saying (for more than a decade) that drilling is not "the answer" to our energy cost (gas price) problem because it takes five years to start producing new oil from places like ANWR. It takes at least five years to produce a SINGLE engineer, not counting the high schoo preparation and time to get really proficient. It is amazing how often Obama talks about the FAR future, while seeeming to totally forget that Democrats criticize the TIME it takes to develop oil and gas resources. And we are not talking about tAXPAYER money with ALLOWING DRILLING. We are merely talking about government getting out of the way. And if "more engineers" (a rather unstable profession, even if you can generally find a job somewhere, as engineers tend to exist projectd to project) is the "solution" to our employment problem (lol), that means we will not even START a "solutioni" until AFTER OAMA'S SECOND TERM. It si simply amazing who everything Obama proposes is off in the far future, and how he disclaims any responsibility for the present. And no, all oil and gas wells don't take five years to develop. Obama's "moratorium" on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico alone has CRIPPLED the increase in our oil production (and employment) that would have naturally occurred with high oil prices. Yes, the energy production industry is a prime source of jobs in an era of apparently high oil prices, but Obama has said (on one of those overseas trips) that we are looking forward to helping BRAZIL provide us with oil and gasoliine (including providing money).
Do you doubt me on the perverse nature of the AP headline, and the absurdityh of Obama AGAIN promising to focus on "job creation"? Don't. Look at this headline TODAY, again from the AP featured on Yahoo "News":
"Obama goes to Puerto Rico with an eye on 2012"
The man (Obamal) is a piece of work ONE DAY after saying his entire focus is on job creation, he is off to campaign in PUERTO RICO. For you leftist out there, I would mention that Puerto Rico is NOT part of the United States. Yes, there is a logical kind of reasoning why Obama thinks going to Puerto Rico will get him AMERICAN VOTES. However, there is NO reasoning as to how Obama going to Puerto Rico will help create AMERICAN JOBS.
Let me tell you how Obama thinks. And I am serioius aoubt that. He thinks he has "handled" his problem about people being unhappy with the jobs situation with his SPEECH yesterday (and his "jobs council" meeting), as he ALWAYS thinks he has "handled" the "problem of the day" with a SPEECH or MEETING. Then that is in the past, and he forgets about it. His WORDS have "solved" that problem, and he is on to the next. That is why what he says today often contradicts what he said yesterday (sometimes literally, although sometimes more than one day goes by). This is an absurd way of governing--a "1984" way of governing, where it is ONLY words and propaganda that matter. Or you can look at it from the "Alice in Wonderland" point of view (paraphrasing): "Words mean what I say they mean: no more and no less."
And then there is that "joke" from Obama yesterday . I simply could never make these things up. This "joke' totally UNDERMINED Obama's entire defense of that ridiculous "stimulus" bill (Democrat Congress people should SUE). Here is appoximately what Obama said (banner headline yesterday on Drudge, although Yahoo "News" and the AP pretty well ignored it):
"Shovel-ready jobs turned out not to be quite as shovel-ready as we thought"
You will remember who BIG a poin Obama made that the entire point of the "stimulus" bill was to put Americans IMMEDIATELY to work with "shovel-ready" hoobs to repair our infrastructure. Yep. It turned out there were essentially NO shovel-ready jobs, as Obama is now admitting (ven if he means it as a "joke"), and the "stimulus' did NOT help our infrasstructure at all. If you ddoubt what I said above about Obama's WORDS, remember this, AND that Obama is NOW talking about "infrastructure" AS IF he had never promised that the "stimulus" bill would "solve" our infrastructure problem. Oh, and do you remember that Obama PROMISED that if the "stimulus" bill were passed, we would not get above about 8% unemployment, and that the bill was NECESSARY to get Americans "back to work". Obama even dragged the CEO of Caterpillar up to a state and said that Caterpillar would START HIRING if the "stimulus" bill were passed, but not otherwise. The Caterpillar CEO promptly denied that was true (even though he was obviously willing to be a "partner" with Obama, like any good economic fascist). Do you need any more evidence that we truly have a Liar-in-Chief? Or maybe we just have a sociopath who has no clue what is real and what is not.
This has nothing directly to do with this article, but it is lpart of my continuing, failing Sodom and Gomorrah search for an honest, competent AP reporter. Yes, I have been assigned (best you not ask by Whom) the job of finding a SINGLE AP reporter who is both honest and competent, and I have been working at that assiganment for more than seven years. Lot never had it so tough. I don't thik Lot had to work at his futile task for more than SEVEN YEARS, although I don't know the Bible well enough to be sure about that. Anyway, here is another FEATURE Yahoo "Nerws" headline from an AP story yesterday:
"White House says that Weiner behavior is "a distraction"
Say what? The entire Democratic Party leadershp in Congresss is calling for Weiner to resign, and the despicable AP/Yahoo think it is a MAJOR story that the "White House" thinks Weinter's behavior is "a distraction".!!!!! Three weeks after the fact!!! It reminds you of Obama's intitial reactin to Egypt, Libya, Syria, and so much else. Obama constantly "leads from behind". Yes, that headline SAYS NOTHING. It is totallly incompetent.
Yes, I KNOW that Obama personally said things about Weiner yesterday that were interpreted as calling on Weiner to RESIGN. That was what I saw on the official spokes-network for the Obama Administration, MSNBC. And I have to say that is the way I interpreted the clip of what Obama said. Yes, Obama said that Weiner shoulld resign BECAUSE his conduct is resutling in an unaccptable "distraction" from the public service he owes to the country and his constituents. But evn the INCOMPETENT aP could not possibly think that the appropriate HEADLINE for an Obama call for Weiner's resignation could be the above, could it? Well, yes it could. But my understanidng was that the AP headline was generated before Obama's personal comments on Weiner. Doesn't matter. The Obama comments--made about the same time as the quoted aP headline appeared--illustrate just how STUPID the people of the AP are. My Sodom and Gomorrah search goes on, even though I have long ago lost any hope of finding a competent, hoest AP reporter. I am beginning to feel like JOb. I thought I could avoid all of this by being an agnostic. Could this be my punishgment for that?
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment