"WASHINGTON – The Obama administration filed court papers Monday claiming a federal marriage law discriminates against gays, even as government lawyers continued to defend it.
Justice Department lawyers are seeking to dismiss a suit brought by a gay California couple challenging the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. The administration's response to the case has angered gay activists who see it as backtracking on campaign promises made by Barack Obama last year."
The above is from the "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press (always use completer,. official name in first reference).
We have a pathological liar as President of the United States--a fact that has been obvious for some time. He not only does not know how to tell the truth, but I don't think he has any idea what the truth is (except to define the truth as what he says at any given moment, even if it changes to the opposite, because he says it does, a moment later).
You might remember that the "official" position of the President of the United States was (is?) that he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that he does not support homosexual marriage. It is true that Miss California--betrayed by that hypocritical pimple on society known as Donald Trump--was trashed by the left (Obama supporters), including the mainstream media, because she dared to say she had the same position as the President of the United States. But that is the point, isn't it? EVERYONE believes that Obama is a LIAR about not wanting to make homosexual marriage a fact in the United States (as a leftist political matter, whatever his private attitude toward homosexuals and homosexual marriage).
Can you really believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman and take the position that the "Defense Against Marriage Act" not only should be repealed, but that it discriminates against homosexuals? Nope. You can't. I don't remember Obama making it part of his campaign that he would seek to repeal the "Defense Against Marriage Act--much less that he would seek to have it declared unconstitutional. You will remember that such Act merely states that a state does not HAVE to recognize a homosexual marriage performed (legally) in another state. It was an attempt to stop Federal judges from doing what Obama clearly wants them to do (so he can wash his "bloody" hands of the "problem"): make homosexual marriage "legal" by judicial fiat.
This blog has informed you of this before. Homosexual "activists" supported Obama for one reason: they think he is a liar. They think he supports them, but just does not want to take the political heat of saying he is for homosexual marriage. They figure that Obama will do everything he can, as a good leftist, to make homosexual marriage the law of the land, even while professing to believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Who is Obama to stand against the Constitution? That will be the predictable statement if Obama can arrange for the Federal judiciary to impose homosexaul marriage on the country. No, Obama and other leftists do not believe in democracy, but we established that long ago.
P.S. You might remember, since health care--and "disinformation--is in the news, that Obama made a big point in the campaign of OPPOSING mandatory health insurance, only to "rethink" that position as soon as he became President (see earlier blog entry in archives). The Obama Administration is the primary source of "disinformation" and "misleading information" on health care. That is what happens when you have a pathological liar as President. Obama could give Bill Clinton lessons
Monday, August 17, 2009
Health Care Bill Summarized in One Sentence: A Public Service of This Blog
Readers of this blog (all two of you--not including my daughters for whom it was bascially meant, although I had hoped for a wider audience) may feel put upon You are subjected to lengthy, verbose entries that sometimes include frustrating anagrams (as my hands get on the wrong keys, and my attention wanders as I type merrily along). Now you could regard the anagram puzzles as entertainment, and remind yourself that such puzzles are featured in at least one Sherlock Holmes story, and often in your daily newspaper. Still, that problem has induced me to go back to the agony (with my eyesight, or lack thereof) of at least limited use of "spell "check" to try to cut down on typos extending for entire sentences or longer. However, I am going to make up for it with this entry. You do not have to read the THOUSAND pages of the House health care "reform" bill. Further, you do not have to read the Senate bills to come, or the ultimate "compromise" bill to come. This entry will boil ALL of those bills down to one sentence--two at the most.
Health care bill (in full): "The relevant Federal agencies shall have the power to make such regulations as they reasonably deem appropriate to provide what should be in all new health insurance policies issued in this country, and such regulations as shall be required to contain health care costs in this country. Oh, by the way, the relevant federal agencies--including any news ones created, and any quasi-government entities created--shall have a blank check to spend whatever moeny is deemed appropriate to subsidize co-ops, and any other quasi-government or other entities, to such degree necessary to insure all Americans--with the power to require all Americans to enroll in sluch subsidized insurance."
With or without a "government option", the above honestly states what Democrats, and many Republicans, are ultimately trying to do here. They are trying to give Federal bureaucrats control over what is covered by heatlh care insurance in this country--thereby aslo giving them control ol the medical care provided in this country. Does the above say that Federal bureaucrats will have the "right" to "pull the plug on grandma"? Of course not, but it does give Federal bureaucrats the ultimate power over life and death--the power to determine what health care EVERYONE gets--including what health care is "cost effective" and what health care is not. That may well ultimately result in grandma not getting that pacemaker. The mistake the House Democrats made was to MENTION the idea of "end of life" care as a special concern. The idea of these bills is to be vague enough, and complicated enough, that they leave the ultimate power to Federal bureaucrats to assert such power as they want from the vague language of the bill--limited only loosely by the amount of money actually appropriated.
Before you doubt me on the above, you might want to recall the initial TARP bill proposed by Hank Paulson. It simply provided for 700 billion dollars for the Secretary of the Treasury to use, any way he liked, to "save" the economy. That was at least hones. But the Democrats in Congress said they would "never" vote for a blank check, and turned the bill into a complicated Democratic "wish list" of spending and "oversight". What a farce of a debate that was!!!! The House defeated the stupid Democratic bill, and then there as a "compromise". What was that compromise? It turns out that all of the many pages of the bill, with all of those complicated provisions, had done nothing except add some Democratic spending. The Secretary of the Treasury DID get a BLANK CHECK, to spend the $700 billion any way he wanted. You will remember that Paulson quickly ABANDONED the concept of purchase of "toxic assets" he had originally proposed, and instead simply directly "invested in" (bailed out) BANKS, Brokerage houses, AIG and GM--among others.
Most Federal legislation is not designed to be clear. It is designed to turn power over to the Federal bureaucracy. Indeed, on health care how could it be otherwise? Is Congress really going to specify exactly what every insurance policy in the country will cover? Exactly what medical care procedures will be paid for and which excluded? Nope. To the extent House Democrats tried to specify pet items, they made a MISTAKE. However, it is we that are going to make a mistake if we let a "compromise" turn the health care system over the the Federal bureaucracy, which will then assume control over another significant part of our lives--resulting in the ultimate destruction of this country as we once knew it.
Health care bill (in full): "The relevant Federal agencies shall have the power to make such regulations as they reasonably deem appropriate to provide what should be in all new health insurance policies issued in this country, and such regulations as shall be required to contain health care costs in this country. Oh, by the way, the relevant federal agencies--including any news ones created, and any quasi-government entities created--shall have a blank check to spend whatever moeny is deemed appropriate to subsidize co-ops, and any other quasi-government or other entities, to such degree necessary to insure all Americans--with the power to require all Americans to enroll in sluch subsidized insurance."
With or without a "government option", the above honestly states what Democrats, and many Republicans, are ultimately trying to do here. They are trying to give Federal bureaucrats control over what is covered by heatlh care insurance in this country--thereby aslo giving them control ol the medical care provided in this country. Does the above say that Federal bureaucrats will have the "right" to "pull the plug on grandma"? Of course not, but it does give Federal bureaucrats the ultimate power over life and death--the power to determine what health care EVERYONE gets--including what health care is "cost effective" and what health care is not. That may well ultimately result in grandma not getting that pacemaker. The mistake the House Democrats made was to MENTION the idea of "end of life" care as a special concern. The idea of these bills is to be vague enough, and complicated enough, that they leave the ultimate power to Federal bureaucrats to assert such power as they want from the vague language of the bill--limited only loosely by the amount of money actually appropriated.
Before you doubt me on the above, you might want to recall the initial TARP bill proposed by Hank Paulson. It simply provided for 700 billion dollars for the Secretary of the Treasury to use, any way he liked, to "save" the economy. That was at least hones. But the Democrats in Congress said they would "never" vote for a blank check, and turned the bill into a complicated Democratic "wish list" of spending and "oversight". What a farce of a debate that was!!!! The House defeated the stupid Democratic bill, and then there as a "compromise". What was that compromise? It turns out that all of the many pages of the bill, with all of those complicated provisions, had done nothing except add some Democratic spending. The Secretary of the Treasury DID get a BLANK CHECK, to spend the $700 billion any way he wanted. You will remember that Paulson quickly ABANDONED the concept of purchase of "toxic assets" he had originally proposed, and instead simply directly "invested in" (bailed out) BANKS, Brokerage houses, AIG and GM--among others.
Most Federal legislation is not designed to be clear. It is designed to turn power over to the Federal bureaucracy. Indeed, on health care how could it be otherwise? Is Congress really going to specify exactly what every insurance policy in the country will cover? Exactly what medical care procedures will be paid for and which excluded? Nope. To the extent House Democrats tried to specify pet items, they made a MISTAKE. However, it is we that are going to make a mistake if we let a "compromise" turn the health care system over the the Federal bureaucracy, which will then assume control over another significant part of our lives--resulting in the ultimate destruction of this country as we once knew it.
Friday, August 14, 2009
China and Our Debt: Can We Pay China Back With Counterfeit (Printed) Money? What If an Individual Acted Like the Federal Reserve?
Yes, I can explain what the Fed is doing more concisely (see previous verbose entry, with "clever" digressions).
Let us say you are an individual with your own personal Fed (represented by your left pocket). You issue a personal IOU, and with it you get money you can spend for goods and services. You put the money in your RIGHT pocket. Then, out of your LEFT pocket (the Fed pocket), you redeem the IOU with money you have printed on your own printing press.
Now, if you do this, you go to jail (for counterfeiting money, even if you use "plates" identical to those used by the government. That is because it is illegal for an individual to print money, and exchanging a new IOU (commercial paper) for your old one wold do ou no real good, even if a fool would let you do it. Notice what you have done, however, if you have the power of the Fed to print money. You have paid off your IOU, from your LEFT (Fed) pocket. Your IOU no longer exists. It is paid. Meanwhile, you have the "real" money in your RIGHT pocket that you got in exchange for your IOU. Notice it works the same if you simply take the money from your LEFT (Fed) pocket, which you have printed, and transfer an IOU taken from your right pocket (sell your own IOU to yourself, paying for it with printed money). But if that printed money can be used as currency, you can spend it (which our government is now merrily doing).
Notice what you have done when you do this. You have CREATED MONEY out of thin air. You have not really "borrowed" it, even though that is what your IOU suggests you have done. You have merely PRINTED MONEY from nothing (other than the cost of the printing, which you can pay for with the printed money).
Notice the advantages of printing money. If you actually borrow the money, from a third person, that person will want you to pay it back. Further, you will be taking the money from that person (if you are a government), and depriving that person of the money to loan the money to private individuals whao can't print their own money. This has a distressing tendency to drive up interest rates. Further, the person lending you the money may not trust you, because he knows your power to print money, and realizes that you may pay him back with "inflated" (printed) currency.
Still. Isn't this neat. Why don't all governments simply print more money rather than either raise taxes or borrow it. In other words, to go back to the individual analogy, if you borrow the money and have to actually pay it back (instead of printing it), how do you do it if you do not have the resources? Well, you can go bankrupt or flee in the night. Short of that, however, you can take a gun and hold up some hapless "rich" person or business (collect taxes). That tends to make people mad, although if you are good at propaganda you might describe yourself as taking from the "rich" and giving to the "poor" (Robin Hood). Why go through all of these compications? If you have the power to print the money, as all governments now do, why not simply print it and pay your debts that way?
Ah, the problem is that the left, AND the economic fascists on Wall Street and in the financial community, have decided that they like this idea. Why not make up a "theory" that printing money is fine so long as the economy is not near fulll capacity, and then simply print the money (which these people want to do anyway).
The kings of England could have used this phiosophy--along with all other kings. How do you think the Magna Carta came about, and all of the other beginnings of modern liberty and democracy? Do you think kings LIKED having a Parliament, or having to deal with barons. Sure, the barons were often necessary fror military support. But Parliament was necessary for FINANCING. Kings always needed money for their wars, Argentinian mistresses (Sanford joke), and things. This was, of course, mainly before paper money. Now we not only have paper money, but this new "philosophy" that it is harmless to simply print the stuff--so long as the economy is in bad shape.
Hogwash. What happens if everyone realizes you are simply printing money? Right. You are on the road to the Wiemar Republic, totally worthless currency, and Hitler. It is sophistry to argue that it is okay, so long as you stop when the economy is "recovering". First, as with all central planning, it is inconceivable that this will all be timed exactly right. And not timing it exactly right is absolute, total disaster. But it goest beyond that. Doubt me? Don't. Let us take a trip to CHINA.
To the extent the Fed has not been financing our current debt, CHINA has pretty much been doing it. However, China has figured something out . What is to prevent us from simply printing enough money to pay off China, and all of our other foreign creditors? Why not just ask for a payoff, print the required amount of money, and carry it in duffel bags to pay off all of our creditors (as a nation)?
You know why. Our currency immediately becomes WORTHLESS. No one will accept it---including our own people who can avoid it. Does it matter if we are still in a recession? Nope. The currency STILL becomes worthless, and inflation occurs without economic growth (Carter's "stagflaton"). Yes, this is exactly what the Fed is now doing--just in slow motion instead of in one massive devaluation of the currency. So don't give me this HOGWASH about how deficits do not matter in a recession. They may not matter AS MUCH, but they matter. Either interest rate rise, even without inflation, as credit is sucked out of the private economy, or we print money (making our currency ultimately worthless. OR BOTH. We are far down that road.
Okay, so the above is not "concise" I have determined that I am not capable of "concise". It is, however, at least a different way of explaining the earlier entry. We really have gone insane, as a country, and this whole health care debacle (at the exact time we can least afford it, even if it were otherwise a good idea--which it is not) is merely more evidence of our advancing insanity.
Let us say you are an individual with your own personal Fed (represented by your left pocket). You issue a personal IOU, and with it you get money you can spend for goods and services. You put the money in your RIGHT pocket. Then, out of your LEFT pocket (the Fed pocket), you redeem the IOU with money you have printed on your own printing press.
Now, if you do this, you go to jail (for counterfeiting money, even if you use "plates" identical to those used by the government. That is because it is illegal for an individual to print money, and exchanging a new IOU (commercial paper) for your old one wold do ou no real good, even if a fool would let you do it. Notice what you have done, however, if you have the power of the Fed to print money. You have paid off your IOU, from your LEFT (Fed) pocket. Your IOU no longer exists. It is paid. Meanwhile, you have the "real" money in your RIGHT pocket that you got in exchange for your IOU. Notice it works the same if you simply take the money from your LEFT (Fed) pocket, which you have printed, and transfer an IOU taken from your right pocket (sell your own IOU to yourself, paying for it with printed money). But if that printed money can be used as currency, you can spend it (which our government is now merrily doing).
Notice what you have done when you do this. You have CREATED MONEY out of thin air. You have not really "borrowed" it, even though that is what your IOU suggests you have done. You have merely PRINTED MONEY from nothing (other than the cost of the printing, which you can pay for with the printed money).
Notice the advantages of printing money. If you actually borrow the money, from a third person, that person will want you to pay it back. Further, you will be taking the money from that person (if you are a government), and depriving that person of the money to loan the money to private individuals whao can't print their own money. This has a distressing tendency to drive up interest rates. Further, the person lending you the money may not trust you, because he knows your power to print money, and realizes that you may pay him back with "inflated" (printed) currency.
Still. Isn't this neat. Why don't all governments simply print more money rather than either raise taxes or borrow it. In other words, to go back to the individual analogy, if you borrow the money and have to actually pay it back (instead of printing it), how do you do it if you do not have the resources? Well, you can go bankrupt or flee in the night. Short of that, however, you can take a gun and hold up some hapless "rich" person or business (collect taxes). That tends to make people mad, although if you are good at propaganda you might describe yourself as taking from the "rich" and giving to the "poor" (Robin Hood). Why go through all of these compications? If you have the power to print the money, as all governments now do, why not simply print it and pay your debts that way?
Ah, the problem is that the left, AND the economic fascists on Wall Street and in the financial community, have decided that they like this idea. Why not make up a "theory" that printing money is fine so long as the economy is not near fulll capacity, and then simply print the money (which these people want to do anyway).
The kings of England could have used this phiosophy--along with all other kings. How do you think the Magna Carta came about, and all of the other beginnings of modern liberty and democracy? Do you think kings LIKED having a Parliament, or having to deal with barons. Sure, the barons were often necessary fror military support. But Parliament was necessary for FINANCING. Kings always needed money for their wars, Argentinian mistresses (Sanford joke), and things. This was, of course, mainly before paper money. Now we not only have paper money, but this new "philosophy" that it is harmless to simply print the stuff--so long as the economy is in bad shape.
Hogwash. What happens if everyone realizes you are simply printing money? Right. You are on the road to the Wiemar Republic, totally worthless currency, and Hitler. It is sophistry to argue that it is okay, so long as you stop when the economy is "recovering". First, as with all central planning, it is inconceivable that this will all be timed exactly right. And not timing it exactly right is absolute, total disaster. But it goest beyond that. Doubt me? Don't. Let us take a trip to CHINA.
To the extent the Fed has not been financing our current debt, CHINA has pretty much been doing it. However, China has figured something out . What is to prevent us from simply printing enough money to pay off China, and all of our other foreign creditors? Why not just ask for a payoff, print the required amount of money, and carry it in duffel bags to pay off all of our creditors (as a nation)?
You know why. Our currency immediately becomes WORTHLESS. No one will accept it---including our own people who can avoid it. Does it matter if we are still in a recession? Nope. The currency STILL becomes worthless, and inflation occurs without economic growth (Carter's "stagflaton"). Yes, this is exactly what the Fed is now doing--just in slow motion instead of in one massive devaluation of the currency. So don't give me this HOGWASH about how deficits do not matter in a recession. They may not matter AS MUCH, but they matter. Either interest rate rise, even without inflation, as credit is sucked out of the private economy, or we print money (making our currency ultimately worthless. OR BOTH. We are far down that road.
Okay, so the above is not "concise" I have determined that I am not capable of "concise". It is, however, at least a different way of explaining the earlier entry. We really have gone insane, as a country, and this whole health care debacle (at the exact time we can least afford it, even if it were otherwise a good idea--which it is not) is merely more evidence of our advancing insanity.
Ben Bernanke and President Obama: The Inspiring Story of an African-American and Dumb White Guy with Equal Talent for Lying (Racial Harmomny Moment
Paulson. In case you forgot who Ben Bernanke is, he is the chairman of the Federal Reserve, who became chairman in EARLLY 2006--just in time to be one of the main people responsible for the current recession we are in (laong with, current Treasury Secretary Geitner, former New York Fed chief, and along with all of those primarily Democratic politicians who orchestrated the same kind of Federal invovlement in housing "access" that they now want to bring to us in health care). President Obama only comes into this entry because I wanted to bring a racially balanced, harmonious moment to this blog. Oh, and the Fed, under Bernanke, is PRINTING MONEY, and commuting fraud, on behalf of pushing massive amounts of money into the economy. See the previous entry explaining how the economy is doing surprisingly BADLY, when you realize just how much money the Federal Government is pumpig into the economy, and the Fed is doing a substaintial part of teh pumping. (By the way, there was some MILDLY "positive" economic "news" today on consumer prices and industrial productioin, and BOTH very min9or itmes of "news" were cited as FURHTER evindence or how the economy is turning, when the afimarively BAD news of yesterday--on more significant items--was dismisseed.)
What is Beranke doing? What do I mean by "fraud"? Well in one of those debut auctioins a week or so ago, the Fed announced that it would NOT have to do what it has been doing. What it has been doing is PRININTING MONEY by purchasing government debt if there is not "enough" private demand. Yes, we have been borrowing FROM OURSELVES, in an effort to disguise that interest rates should be going UP. Becuase of all of this Federal spending, we have to BRROWN MONEY (not new, but the amount is new). If there are not enough buyers of the government debt instruments used to borrow that money, interest rates RISE (which will KILL any "recovery" that might be starting, as will inflation, which Wall Street is now "predicting"). Well, the Fed, with regard to this recent auction, claimed that there was engouh private demand to lend the government money that the Fed did not have to adct--did not have to print money (with ultimate bad consequences for the dollar and inflationary expectations). This was a FRUD (statment by the FEd was a fraud).
What the Fed then did was buy back some 47% of the debt a mere 10 days after the auction--buying the debt back from the "private" institutioins that had supposedly "purchased" the debt. Did this "fool" anyone? Don't be silly. Read the headline. Bernanke is a DUMB WHITE GUY. But this is the kind of deception the Fed, and the whole government, is desperately trying to conceal the unfolding disaster. Yes, these deceptioins inlcude decpetions on the cost of a massive new Federal health care program, where even the Congressional Budget Office says the plan will INCREASE health care costs.
Yes, you may find it hard to believe. But the Fed somehow thought that prinint money ten days after concelaing what was really going on at the original auction was BETTER than being up front about what was really happening. Does anyone actually believe that there was not some kind of arrangement to "protect" those "private" investors who helped out the Fed by taking on this government debt? Nope. No one believes there was not soe kind of arrangement--explicit or implicit.
We are MASSIVELY injecting money into the economy, and the Fed is one of the prime entities doing the injecting, and we are getting little from all of that money . Yes, the "stimulus" has not even done much "stimulaton", but there is all of that "bailout" money, and money being PRINTED by the Fed.
As I stated, the amazing thing is not that all of this money has had some eeffect. After all, last summmer a more efficient "stimulus" plan had temporarly effect. What is amazing is how BADLY the economy is doing, despite the amount o fmoney being pumped into the economy. This is really TERRIBLE news, because pumping this much money into the conomy from the Federal Governmnet has COSTS, and those costs will derail any recovery that may finally start before it gets very far. And we-at least the Obama Administration and Democrats in Congress--are trying to compuund the problem with things like this health care "reform" bill.
What is Beranke doing? What do I mean by "fraud"? Well in one of those debut auctioins a week or so ago, the Fed announced that it would NOT have to do what it has been doing. What it has been doing is PRININTING MONEY by purchasing government debt if there is not "enough" private demand. Yes, we have been borrowing FROM OURSELVES, in an effort to disguise that interest rates should be going UP. Becuase of all of this Federal spending, we have to BRROWN MONEY (not new, but the amount is new). If there are not enough buyers of the government debt instruments used to borrow that money, interest rates RISE (which will KILL any "recovery" that might be starting, as will inflation, which Wall Street is now "predicting"). Well, the Fed, with regard to this recent auction, claimed that there was engouh private demand to lend the government money that the Fed did not have to adct--did not have to print money (with ultimate bad consequences for the dollar and inflationary expectations). This was a FRUD (statment by the FEd was a fraud).
What the Fed then did was buy back some 47% of the debt a mere 10 days after the auction--buying the debt back from the "private" institutioins that had supposedly "purchased" the debt. Did this "fool" anyone? Don't be silly. Read the headline. Bernanke is a DUMB WHITE GUY. But this is the kind of deception the Fed, and the whole government, is desperately trying to conceal the unfolding disaster. Yes, these deceptioins inlcude decpetions on the cost of a massive new Federal health care program, where even the Congressional Budget Office says the plan will INCREASE health care costs.
Yes, you may find it hard to believe. But the Fed somehow thought that prinint money ten days after concelaing what was really going on at the original auction was BETTER than being up front about what was really happening. Does anyone actually believe that there was not some kind of arrangement to "protect" those "private" investors who helped out the Fed by taking on this government debt? Nope. No one believes there was not soe kind of arrangement--explicit or implicit.
We are MASSIVELY injecting money into the economy, and the Fed is one of the prime entities doing the injecting, and we are getting little from all of that money . Yes, the "stimulus" has not even done much "stimulaton", but there is all of that "bailout" money, and money being PRINTED by the Fed.
As I stated, the amazing thing is not that all of this money has had some eeffect. After all, last summmer a more efficient "stimulus" plan had temporarly effect. What is amazing is how BADLY the economy is doing, despite the amount o fmoney being pumped into the economy. This is really TERRIBLE news, because pumping this much money into the conomy from the Federal Governmnet has COSTS, and those costs will derail any recovery that may finally start before it gets very far. And we-at least the Obama Administration and Democrats in Congress--are trying to compuund the problem with things like this health care "reform" bill.
Economy: Mainstream Media Hypocrites Have No Shame
Yesterday's actual news on the econmy was affirmatively BAD. Yet, you would not know it from listening to the mainstream media dishonest hypocrites (which, of course, you should not do, except as fodder for a blog like this).
The first story I heard yesterday morning was that foreclosure notices on houses--despite all of those hyped "solutions" from the Federal Government given to you by Congress and President Obama--went UP in July. There were 7% MORE forclousre notices in July than in June, and 32% more than July of last year. Cant really get too much worse than that, can it?
Well, if this were the still the Bush Presidency, that is exactly what the mainstream media would have said--that the world is still ending We know that because they did say that throughout the Bush Presidency, with respect to much better economic news than this. Indeed last summmer the economic news was BETTER than this (32% less froeclousre notices, in addition to actual GROWTH in the economy). Yes, that was mainly due to the FederalGovernment throwing money at the economy last summer, which coluld not stop the ultimate collapse (helped by the Bernanke/Paulson panic). But how is that different from this summer, where the Federal Government is throwing more money (inefficitently) at the economy, with LESS results?
You think I am exaggerating about the hypocrites in the mainstream media and their agenda? Poor you (being mentally challenged and all). I am actually understating the hypocrisy of these hypocrites, and could not overstate it if I tried. For example, CBS Ratoio reported this first bad news story yesterday this way: "The economy is coming around, but too late for many people losing their homes." Say what? Foreclosures are still going up, but the economy is "coming around"? No objective person could believe that the news would be reported this way if Bush were still President. The mainstream media is now so dsihones that they don't even really try to hide it.
Want more? The second story yesterday was that retail sales were MUCH WORSE than expected in July, even with that "cah for clunkers" program. Retail sales were DOWN in July (after previous months this year when they had been UP). "Economists" had been predicting a RISE of .8%, but got a DROP of a tenth of a percent or tw (not much of a drop, but hardly an economy "coming around"!!!!). What was the CBS "News" reaction to this bit of bad news, along with the third bad news story that first time claims for unemployment went UP last week (more people losing their jobs)? Well, CBS (on its 3 minute summary of the "important" "news" of the day), had some "expert" "comment" (present the CBS view) that: "This is not really good news, but it does not change the 'trend", which is entirely positive".
Say what? What trend? Did I not just tell you that retail sales had gone UP in previous months this year--when they were not going down. No, we are not taling a "trend" from being down early in the year, and constantly rising--with this "bilip" down in July. We are taling good retail sales rebounds in months like January or February. In other words, there has been no consistent "trend" in retail sales at all. It is even worse on unemployment numbers. Those numbers have jumped all around, from week to week and month to month. But the mainstream media have proclaimed the good (only in a relative ense) numbers a "trend", and the bad numbers as irrelevant to the "trend" DISHONEST HYPOCRITES.
What about that "cahs for clunkers" program, which the same public at large who do not want an expensive government "overhaul" of health care did not really want? Well, the "experts" were saying (without realizing the logical conclusion from what they were saying) that the "cahs for clunkers" program had actually HURT the economy at large by diverting money away from other purchases. As much of the public recognized, but not Congress, why should taxpayers help pay for your car, but not for your televisioin, your clothes, etc.? And was this "predatory" action by Congress, as in the policies that led to the housing crisis, in inducing people to make large car purchases they could not really afford, even with the taxpayers footing part of the bill? Now lyou have to take this Wall Street (the Stupidest People on Earth, as indicated by the continued bubble in stock prices and commodity prices at the same time--meaning that the Stupicest People on Earth are "predicting" two totally contradictory things: BOTH runaway infaltion and a strong economy) view of the "cash for clunkers" program with grains of salt.
However, one truth is certain. Federal Government, central planning programs--whehter health care or "cahs for clunkers" or whatever--DISTORT the economy. They shift resources in ways that cannot even be foreseen in advance with maximum possible cost, beyond any human ability to discern whether the consequences will be good or bad (beyond the fact that experience tells us the consequences are bound to be mostly bad, and theory tells us that directing allocation of resources by central planning cannot possibly be as efficient as market allocation of resources).
Has this blog done it better (telling you significance of economic "news")? Darn right. I have told you that what has really happened is that the econmy has stopped getting significantly worse, at least in part because of the money the Federal Government is pushing into the economy, but that the economy is NOT "recovering" significantly. What we are doing is bumping along the bottom.
The jury is still out on whether we are capable of a significant recovery from here. That is the problem with printing money (seee next entry), and the expolsion in Federal spending. That may prop up the economy in the short run, as it did last summer, but at the COST of making a long run recovery impossible (unless you are talking about the very long run, after the final collapse).
As readers of this blog know, I am pessimistic about our ability to survive this out of control Federal spending without MAJOR pain. But that opinion (albeit an accurate one) has not affected by strictly factual analysis of where we are. "Where we are" is that the economy has stoppped its free fall (as it would have, at some point, if the government had done nothing), but that the mainstream media agenda idea that we are "out of the woods" is FALSE. And yet we are propsing, in this fragile situation, to start a massive, expensive Federal "overhaul" of our health care system? Are we INSANE? Well, a compelling case can be made that Obama and leftist Democrats are insane, in terms of being totally divorced from reality.
To call the mainstream media "insane" is to elevate them. Many people with mental disease are smart (outside of their sometimes bizarre fantasies--although most may not be as bizarrre as Dan's ability to fantasize about having sex with a black widow spider like Campbell Brown--see comment a number of entries ago) and honest. The people of the mainstream media are neither smart nor honest. And they are insane besides. Nice people. Ignore them.
The first story I heard yesterday morning was that foreclosure notices on houses--despite all of those hyped "solutions" from the Federal Government given to you by Congress and President Obama--went UP in July. There were 7% MORE forclousre notices in July than in June, and 32% more than July of last year. Cant really get too much worse than that, can it?
Well, if this were the still the Bush Presidency, that is exactly what the mainstream media would have said--that the world is still ending We know that because they did say that throughout the Bush Presidency, with respect to much better economic news than this. Indeed last summmer the economic news was BETTER than this (32% less froeclousre notices, in addition to actual GROWTH in the economy). Yes, that was mainly due to the FederalGovernment throwing money at the economy last summer, which coluld not stop the ultimate collapse (helped by the Bernanke/Paulson panic). But how is that different from this summer, where the Federal Government is throwing more money (inefficitently) at the economy, with LESS results?
You think I am exaggerating about the hypocrites in the mainstream media and their agenda? Poor you (being mentally challenged and all). I am actually understating the hypocrisy of these hypocrites, and could not overstate it if I tried. For example, CBS Ratoio reported this first bad news story yesterday this way: "The economy is coming around, but too late for many people losing their homes." Say what? Foreclosures are still going up, but the economy is "coming around"? No objective person could believe that the news would be reported this way if Bush were still President. The mainstream media is now so dsihones that they don't even really try to hide it.
Want more? The second story yesterday was that retail sales were MUCH WORSE than expected in July, even with that "cah for clunkers" program. Retail sales were DOWN in July (after previous months this year when they had been UP). "Economists" had been predicting a RISE of .8%, but got a DROP of a tenth of a percent or tw (not much of a drop, but hardly an economy "coming around"!!!!). What was the CBS "News" reaction to this bit of bad news, along with the third bad news story that first time claims for unemployment went UP last week (more people losing their jobs)? Well, CBS (on its 3 minute summary of the "important" "news" of the day), had some "expert" "comment" (present the CBS view) that: "This is not really good news, but it does not change the 'trend", which is entirely positive".
Say what? What trend? Did I not just tell you that retail sales had gone UP in previous months this year--when they were not going down. No, we are not taling a "trend" from being down early in the year, and constantly rising--with this "bilip" down in July. We are taling good retail sales rebounds in months like January or February. In other words, there has been no consistent "trend" in retail sales at all. It is even worse on unemployment numbers. Those numbers have jumped all around, from week to week and month to month. But the mainstream media have proclaimed the good (only in a relative ense) numbers a "trend", and the bad numbers as irrelevant to the "trend" DISHONEST HYPOCRITES.
What about that "cahs for clunkers" program, which the same public at large who do not want an expensive government "overhaul" of health care did not really want? Well, the "experts" were saying (without realizing the logical conclusion from what they were saying) that the "cahs for clunkers" program had actually HURT the economy at large by diverting money away from other purchases. As much of the public recognized, but not Congress, why should taxpayers help pay for your car, but not for your televisioin, your clothes, etc.? And was this "predatory" action by Congress, as in the policies that led to the housing crisis, in inducing people to make large car purchases they could not really afford, even with the taxpayers footing part of the bill? Now lyou have to take this Wall Street (the Stupidest People on Earth, as indicated by the continued bubble in stock prices and commodity prices at the same time--meaning that the Stupicest People on Earth are "predicting" two totally contradictory things: BOTH runaway infaltion and a strong economy) view of the "cash for clunkers" program with grains of salt.
However, one truth is certain. Federal Government, central planning programs--whehter health care or "cahs for clunkers" or whatever--DISTORT the economy. They shift resources in ways that cannot even be foreseen in advance with maximum possible cost, beyond any human ability to discern whether the consequences will be good or bad (beyond the fact that experience tells us the consequences are bound to be mostly bad, and theory tells us that directing allocation of resources by central planning cannot possibly be as efficient as market allocation of resources).
Has this blog done it better (telling you significance of economic "news")? Darn right. I have told you that what has really happened is that the econmy has stopped getting significantly worse, at least in part because of the money the Federal Government is pushing into the economy, but that the economy is NOT "recovering" significantly. What we are doing is bumping along the bottom.
The jury is still out on whether we are capable of a significant recovery from here. That is the problem with printing money (seee next entry), and the expolsion in Federal spending. That may prop up the economy in the short run, as it did last summer, but at the COST of making a long run recovery impossible (unless you are talking about the very long run, after the final collapse).
As readers of this blog know, I am pessimistic about our ability to survive this out of control Federal spending without MAJOR pain. But that opinion (albeit an accurate one) has not affected by strictly factual analysis of where we are. "Where we are" is that the economy has stoppped its free fall (as it would have, at some point, if the government had done nothing), but that the mainstream media agenda idea that we are "out of the woods" is FALSE. And yet we are propsing, in this fragile situation, to start a massive, expensive Federal "overhaul" of our health care system? Are we INSANE? Well, a compelling case can be made that Obama and leftist Democrats are insane, in terms of being totally divorced from reality.
To call the mainstream media "insane" is to elevate them. Many people with mental disease are smart (outside of their sometimes bizarre fantasies--although most may not be as bizarrre as Dan's ability to fantasize about having sex with a black widow spider like Campbell Brown--see comment a number of entries ago) and honest. The people of the mainstream media are neither smart nor honest. And they are insane besides. Nice people. Ignore them.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Obama Makes the Case AGAINST Health Care "Reform"
President Obama, you may have noticed, made themistake--in that set up "twon hall" meeting in New Hampshire--of useing the POSTG OFFICE as an attempted argument FOR Feeral health care "reform". President Obama actaully tried to defuse the idea that it is unfair for the Fedral Government to set itself up in competition with private industry, since the Federal Governmnet seems not to care about losses (letting the taxpayers take care of those), by nothing that Federal Express and UPS have had no problem competing with the U.S. Postal Service. What President Obama seemed to fail to realize is that the United States Postal Service is one of the many areas where the Federal Government has shwon iteself to be INCOMPETENT. This is an argument against a new, massive Federal health care lprogram in several different ways:
1. The U.S. Postal Service is LOSING MONEY< and losing more money than it expected under management of the Federal Government. President Obama imself has said that the deficit canot be sustained at this level, and constitutes a MAJOR threat to any reocery Does the lack of being able to control costs in something like the Postal Service--not to mentioin Medicare--tell you anything? Of course it does. It tells you it is INSANE to try to insitute a massive new, costly Federal program at a time Federal spending, and the deficit, are already out of control.
2. If the Postal Service did not already exist, would you really want to "invent" it as a "competitor" to UPS, Federal Express and the rest? In what universe? Now UPS, Federal Express and the rest are far from perfect, but the idea that taxpayer financed "competion" to them would make sense is absurd. In fact, they rose as "competition" for the Postal Service because the Postal Service was doing a bad job. It is really the ooposite of what Obama asserts. It is generally the Federal Government that "needs" competion, or to just get out of an area where private industry can do it, because private industry generally AREALDY HAS competition. Remember, it was once an issue of how much Federal Express, and the rest, should be ALLOWED to "compete" with the Postal Service. Indeed, there is a strong case that the bankrupt P:ostal Service (bankrupt if it were a private company, as the new health care "service" will soon be bankrupt, if it does not start that way) should be lPRIVATIZED--sold to a private bidder which promises to keep up at least 5 day mail service (al the Postal Service is soon going to do).
3. Is the Postal Service planning to "ration" mail service? Of course it is--five day service and all of the rest. There are too many post offices "serving" too many small areas. The Postal Service should be contracting out services, and otherwise emculatioin Federal Express in efficiency. That is, of necessity, "rationing". Those who assert that a new Federal health care program would ot involve "rationing" are LIARS. No "insurance" can pay for EVERYTHING--including that therapeutic trip to the French Riviera. The difference between "rationaing" provided by GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRATS and that provided by the free market is CENTRAL PLANNING (not even theoretically a good thing, much less from experience with things like the Postal Service). Do you really want you health care under the control of FEDERAL BUREAUCRATS. That is where the town hall protesters have it exactly right, and our "establishment" has it exactly wrong. Federal bureaucrats impose a "one size fits all" approach, and it is THEIR SIZE. Town hall protesters have it exactly right., Sarah Palin has it exactly right. There is nothing worse that Federal bureacrats doing the "rationing". It is much better for the FREE MARKET, and individuals, to be doing the necessary "rationaing". Even if government regulation is necessary to help the free marktet (the exact opposite of what Obama is trying to do), that is best done with MULTIPLE approaces--in other words, by the states and on as local a level as possible. The more you CENTRALLY PLAN, with one approach, the worse off you are. The town hall protesters instinctively have that right. It is NOT a matter of single provisions in "the bill" (lol as to there even being a "bill", up to the moment Congress passes something without even knowing what is in it). What Congress and Obama are attempting to do is to leave all of these decisions up to FEDERAL BUREAUCRATS, while they (Obama, the Democrats and the mainstream media) assert taht the BUREAUCRATS CAN BE TRUSTED TO DO THE RIGHT THING. The Postal Service is a great example for that whopper, isn't it? The people at these town hall meetins are right. There is NO reason to believe that the Federal Government can be "trusted" to do things right, and with maximum efficiency. Experience, AND THEORY, say the exact opposite: That central planners NEVER have enough information to make correct decisions for us all, and that NO individual (much less a Federal Bureaucrat) is wise enough to make perfect decisions. Yet, when a very few people are making the decisions for the rest of us, with no real check on those decisions, a wrong decision is fatal. It is never corrected in time. That is the fundamental defect of central planning: there is no such thing as a perfectg dictator, and imperfect dictators (all of them) eventually must fail.
4 Just how insane do you have to be to hold the UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE up as a model of why we need government "competition" for private health care companies--or government control over private health care policy decisions? Thsi blog has lpreviously said that President Bush and John McCain appeared to be MOLES--saboteurs whose goal was to destroy the Republican Party. I reeby raise the impossible with President Obama, who at the very least has confrimed himself as a comic genius by raising the UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE as an attempted argument "for" health care "reform". Could Obama be a MOLE in the Democatic Party, whose goal is to DESTORY IT. What about Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, and Harry Reid? If I were a Democrat, which I am not (although I am not a Republican either), I would be seriously worried about this.
1. The U.S. Postal Service is LOSING MONEY< and losing more money than it expected under management of the Federal Government. President Obama imself has said that the deficit canot be sustained at this level, and constitutes a MAJOR threat to any reocery Does the lack of being able to control costs in something like the Postal Service--not to mentioin Medicare--tell you anything? Of course it does. It tells you it is INSANE to try to insitute a massive new, costly Federal program at a time Federal spending, and the deficit, are already out of control.
2. If the Postal Service did not already exist, would you really want to "invent" it as a "competitor" to UPS, Federal Express and the rest? In what universe? Now UPS, Federal Express and the rest are far from perfect, but the idea that taxpayer financed "competion" to them would make sense is absurd. In fact, they rose as "competition" for the Postal Service because the Postal Service was doing a bad job. It is really the ooposite of what Obama asserts. It is generally the Federal Government that "needs" competion, or to just get out of an area where private industry can do it, because private industry generally AREALDY HAS competition. Remember, it was once an issue of how much Federal Express, and the rest, should be ALLOWED to "compete" with the Postal Service. Indeed, there is a strong case that the bankrupt P:ostal Service (bankrupt if it were a private company, as the new health care "service" will soon be bankrupt, if it does not start that way) should be lPRIVATIZED--sold to a private bidder which promises to keep up at least 5 day mail service (al the Postal Service is soon going to do).
3. Is the Postal Service planning to "ration" mail service? Of course it is--five day service and all of the rest. There are too many post offices "serving" too many small areas. The Postal Service should be contracting out services, and otherwise emculatioin Federal Express in efficiency. That is, of necessity, "rationing". Those who assert that a new Federal health care program would ot involve "rationing" are LIARS. No "insurance" can pay for EVERYTHING--including that therapeutic trip to the French Riviera. The difference between "rationaing" provided by GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRATS and that provided by the free market is CENTRAL PLANNING (not even theoretically a good thing, much less from experience with things like the Postal Service). Do you really want you health care under the control of FEDERAL BUREAUCRATS. That is where the town hall protesters have it exactly right, and our "establishment" has it exactly wrong. Federal bureaucrats impose a "one size fits all" approach, and it is THEIR SIZE. Town hall protesters have it exactly right., Sarah Palin has it exactly right. There is nothing worse that Federal bureacrats doing the "rationing". It is much better for the FREE MARKET, and individuals, to be doing the necessary "rationaing". Even if government regulation is necessary to help the free marktet (the exact opposite of what Obama is trying to do), that is best done with MULTIPLE approaces--in other words, by the states and on as local a level as possible. The more you CENTRALLY PLAN, with one approach, the worse off you are. The town hall protesters instinctively have that right. It is NOT a matter of single provisions in "the bill" (lol as to there even being a "bill", up to the moment Congress passes something without even knowing what is in it). What Congress and Obama are attempting to do is to leave all of these decisions up to FEDERAL BUREAUCRATS, while they (Obama, the Democrats and the mainstream media) assert taht the BUREAUCRATS CAN BE TRUSTED TO DO THE RIGHT THING. The Postal Service is a great example for that whopper, isn't it? The people at these town hall meetins are right. There is NO reason to believe that the Federal Government can be "trusted" to do things right, and with maximum efficiency. Experience, AND THEORY, say the exact opposite: That central planners NEVER have enough information to make correct decisions for us all, and that NO individual (much less a Federal Bureaucrat) is wise enough to make perfect decisions. Yet, when a very few people are making the decisions for the rest of us, with no real check on those decisions, a wrong decision is fatal. It is never corrected in time. That is the fundamental defect of central planning: there is no such thing as a perfectg dictator, and imperfect dictators (all of them) eventually must fail.
4 Just how insane do you have to be to hold the UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE up as a model of why we need government "competition" for private health care companies--or government control over private health care policy decisions? Thsi blog has lpreviously said that President Bush and John McCain appeared to be MOLES--saboteurs whose goal was to destroy the Republican Party. I reeby raise the impossible with President Obama, who at the very least has confrimed himself as a comic genius by raising the UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE as an attempted argument "for" health care "reform". Could Obama be a MOLE in the Democatic Party, whose goal is to DESTORY IT. What about Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, and Harry Reid? If I were a Democrat, which I am not (although I am not a Republican either), I would be seriously worried about this.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Health Care Propaganda From the AP and the Depiscable Yahoo "News" (Boycott Yahoo!)--Guest Villains AARP, AMA, and Republican Party
"Now is the hard part — because the history is clear — every time we come close to passing health insurance reform, the special interests fight back with everything they've got," Obama told a town hall in Portsmouth, N.H., on Tuesday. "They use their influence. They use their political allies to scare and mislead the American people. They start running ads. This is what they always do."
Within hours of Obama's comments, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said it will begin airing 30-second ads in about 20 states Wednesday criticizing the Democratic proposal to offer optional government health coverage. The multimillion-dollar ad buy would be one of the largest so far critical of Obama's effort; opponents this year have been heavily outspent by supporters of Obama's plan."
The above is what passes for "aanlysis" from the "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press" (always use complete, official name in first rerence) AND Yahoo News. For what I now think of Yahoo, see below. For more than five years, I have cited examples---with quotes--of the despicable "news" frm the despicable Associated Press. If you wonder aboutt the "despicable" part, read the above excerpt from this "featured" AP "analysis" headlined on the YAHOO WELCOME SCREEN. Do yu have any doubt that the above is straight Obama PROPAGANDA? How can you have any doubt. The despicable AP quotes Obama, and then purports to show how Obama has it exactly right!!!! These people are DESP:ICALBE HYPOCRITGES, and i have sown it again and again. It is PROPAGANDA for the despicable AP to wirte "analysis" that merely repeats the talking points of the President--looling for ways to support those talking points and ignoring everything that contradicts those "talking points" (often includng previous statements fromt he President himself).
What about the Chamber of Commerce. Well, it seems to have excapted the despicable AP, but lthe Chamber of Comerce is LATE to this game. It is the PEOPLE (like me, and the ones shwowing up at these town hall meetings) who have decided they don't want helath care "overhaul" by the same people who run the Post Office. The Chamber of Commerce has been ABSENT (which shoiuld annoy their small business members). Big business has been absent--generally brown nosing Obama. The AMA has been ABSENT--betraying doctors. The AARP (see previous entry) has been ABSENT--actually more than absent, in that they have been giving quiet support to Obama until Obama blew their cover).
Worst of all, lthe REPUBLICAN PARTY HAS BEEN ABSENT. Oh, they have opposed the health care "overhaul" in Congress, but they have not been out thre publicly criticizin Obqama and his tactics. Fruther, they should have been, and should be, out there talking about lthe despicable AP, and the rest of the mainstream media, but they are SCARED (the wimps). The Republican Party has ru no ads. The Republican Party has tanken no cahnces. The Republican Party has left eh PEOPLE out there on the vfront lines leading the charge. Leaders? The Republican Party has NONE (except, perhaps, for Sarah Palin, who actually said something that "angered" Democrats and the mainstream media. Nancy Pelois calls her opponents UN-AMERICAN, and Republicans (politicians) tut-tut--when they are not SILENT. In fact, I have heard more Republicans sort of telling people to be "respectful" than criticizing the opposition (following in the great tradition of John McCain, who loved criticizing conservatives much mor than criticizing Democrats). Just as the AARP has betrayed senior citizens, the Republican party has betrayed people who are supposedly its members.
I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN. Until the Republican Party starts VIGOROUSLY standing up for principles that rank and file Repubicans believe in, you will continue to see that statement i nthis blog. And I mean it. I failed to support McCain, and really have little hope of voting for a Repubilcan in the rest of my lietime. Meanwhile, Obama and the Democrats are organizing every supporting group they have to MOBILIZE. Obama supporters are planting questions with 13 year old girls (read by the girl at that ridiculous town hall meeting in New Hampshire). Nope. The AP is DESPICABLE--a purveryor of PROPAGANDA, and not a "news" organization at all.
Do you want to know where the "Anti-American" part of the official name of the AP comes from? Well, there remains the fact taht the AP was more on the side of the terrorists than the United States during the entire Iraq War (still is, really, but muted with AP favorite Obama as President). However, th ebest example of just jow Anti-American the despicable AP was, and is, is a series of stories less than a year ago BLAMING AMERICA for SOUTH KOREAN atrocities more than FIFTY YEARS AGO (during the Korean War), and then accusing American forces of their own "killing of civilians" in air attacks on "refugees" streaming South during the DESPERATE RETREAT of American forces more than FIFTY YEARS ago. The Anti-American AP, needless to say, did not have any of the American soldiers or airmen involved defending themselves, but instead quoted--WITH APPROVAL--from the anti-American Korean comission doing a politically inspired "investigation". It just does not get any more anti-American than that, and I stand by this blog's official position that the AP deserves the fate of Carthage (at the hands of Rome) for that series of articles alone. This is only partly a digression because it directly leads into my call for a BOYCOTT OF YAHOO.
Yes, that anti-American series of AP articles about how evil the U.S. was during the Korean War, even as our soldiers were fight for SURVIVAL as they were being drivn towards the sea, was feature on AOL. That was when I was still a member of AOL, and called for a boycott of AOL "while promising to remain a member myself, as a SACRIFICE, until the last person had seen the light). Well, AOL essentially ejected me (where this blog used to be). Now I am on with AT&T Uverse. For reasons that are not good enough, Uverse uses Yahoo "news" for its welcome screen. Yahoo "News" is at least as bad as AOL "News", mainly because it features the MOST LEFT of the stories fromt he truly despicable AP, and other leftist "news" sources.
For example, Yahoo "News" featured this morning a story (may have been from the AP, but seemed to be maintly attributed to Yahoo "News" without emphasizing the "ral" source of the story) about a "study" highlighting the "problem" of the "bad attitude" Americans have toward immigrants. You will understand this story was PROPAGANDA of the most outrageous kind when I tell you that the first paragraph was all about the Statue of Liberty--you know, that bit about "your tired, your poor, and your huddled masses". I know. There is also that bit--NOT QUOTED--about "yearning to breathe free", but you can forget that if Obama has his way on health care and all of the rest.
Of course the "study" failed to distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants, in talking about how horrible it was that Americans had such a "low" opinion of "Latino" immigrants. I, of coure, married the daughter of "Latino" immigrants, and my daughters are 50% Hispanic. That is evidently also true of Lou Dobbs. I mention Lou Dobbs, because Lou Dobbs and Gleen Beck were idgentified in the article (in effect a claim endorsed by the article AND YAHOO NEWS) as the type of people resposnsible for the attitue of Americans toward certain immigratnnts, like "Latinos". Yes, this is truly despicable stuff, and DELIBERATELY fialed to make a distinction between legal and illegal immigrants (as did the whole "sutdy"--the mere reference to Loub Dobbs and Glenn Beck as "villains" shwoing you where this "study" was coming from).
You can go back to the archives of this blog, over the past three years, and my series of articles about the "illegal immigration deception" of those pro-illegal immigration people trying to DECUEIVE, on multiple levels. The series ran to probably mroe than 20 articles. One of the main deceptions, which is obviously still being practiced by the maintream media and the left, is to CONFUSE "illegal immigration" and legal immigration. Genn Beck and Lou Dobbs (of whom I do not even generally approve) do not, and have not, said ANYTHING unfaovrable about IMMIGRANTS. hey have said a lot unfavorable aoubt our failure to take effective action against ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. The idea that Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs are "racist", or anti'immigrant, is a DESPICALBE LIE. Yes, I jut called lthe people at Yahoo News LIARS, and I stand by that. I stand by that as to the guy named Timberlake, who evidently did this "study", as well.
Am I going to end up calling for the BOYCOTT of almost all "tech" companies? Maybe so. I stand by my advice that you BOYCOTT AOL, which I have since I left. I hereby call for you to BOYCOTT YAHOO. Now I have never personally used Yahoo, although I did get a "sign in" name long ago. I have essentially boycotted Yahoo for years. However, there is that "Wlcome Screen" provided by Uverse. I am not YET calling for a boycott of Uverse, although I may bet get there. It is too expensive, by the way. But I think I will keep the "Welcome Screen", for now, even though I am sure I can get rid of it. I have decided that I really NEED to keep up with the "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press", and the only convenient way to do it is some source that regularly relies on the desicable AP. That was true of AOL, and is obviously true of Yahoo. Since I read NO newspaper (when I used to read multiple newspapers when I was younger, before "journalism" died), the only way for me to keep up my commentary on the depicable AP is by means of something like the Yahoo "Welcome Screen". I will otherwise boycott Yahoo, an dsuggest you do the same.
Within hours of Obama's comments, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said it will begin airing 30-second ads in about 20 states Wednesday criticizing the Democratic proposal to offer optional government health coverage. The multimillion-dollar ad buy would be one of the largest so far critical of Obama's effort; opponents this year have been heavily outspent by supporters of Obama's plan."
The above is what passes for "aanlysis" from the "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press" (always use complete, official name in first rerence) AND Yahoo News. For what I now think of Yahoo, see below. For more than five years, I have cited examples---with quotes--of the despicable "news" frm the despicable Associated Press. If you wonder aboutt the "despicable" part, read the above excerpt from this "featured" AP "analysis" headlined on the YAHOO WELCOME SCREEN. Do yu have any doubt that the above is straight Obama PROPAGANDA? How can you have any doubt. The despicable AP quotes Obama, and then purports to show how Obama has it exactly right!!!! These people are DESP:ICALBE HYPOCRITGES, and i have sown it again and again. It is PROPAGANDA for the despicable AP to wirte "analysis" that merely repeats the talking points of the President--looling for ways to support those talking points and ignoring everything that contradicts those "talking points" (often includng previous statements fromt he President himself).
What about the Chamber of Commerce. Well, it seems to have excapted the despicable AP, but lthe Chamber of Comerce is LATE to this game. It is the PEOPLE (like me, and the ones shwowing up at these town hall meetings) who have decided they don't want helath care "overhaul" by the same people who run the Post Office. The Chamber of Commerce has been ABSENT (which shoiuld annoy their small business members). Big business has been absent--generally brown nosing Obama. The AMA has been ABSENT--betraying doctors. The AARP (see previous entry) has been ABSENT--actually more than absent, in that they have been giving quiet support to Obama until Obama blew their cover).
Worst of all, lthe REPUBLICAN PARTY HAS BEEN ABSENT. Oh, they have opposed the health care "overhaul" in Congress, but they have not been out thre publicly criticizin Obqama and his tactics. Fruther, they should have been, and should be, out there talking about lthe despicable AP, and the rest of the mainstream media, but they are SCARED (the wimps). The Republican Party has ru no ads. The Republican Party has tanken no cahnces. The Republican Party has left eh PEOPLE out there on the vfront lines leading the charge. Leaders? The Republican Party has NONE (except, perhaps, for Sarah Palin, who actually said something that "angered" Democrats and the mainstream media. Nancy Pelois calls her opponents UN-AMERICAN, and Republicans (politicians) tut-tut--when they are not SILENT. In fact, I have heard more Republicans sort of telling people to be "respectful" than criticizing the opposition (following in the great tradition of John McCain, who loved criticizing conservatives much mor than criticizing Democrats). Just as the AARP has betrayed senior citizens, the Republican party has betrayed people who are supposedly its members.
I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN. Until the Republican Party starts VIGOROUSLY standing up for principles that rank and file Repubicans believe in, you will continue to see that statement i nthis blog. And I mean it. I failed to support McCain, and really have little hope of voting for a Repubilcan in the rest of my lietime. Meanwhile, Obama and the Democrats are organizing every supporting group they have to MOBILIZE. Obama supporters are planting questions with 13 year old girls (read by the girl at that ridiculous town hall meeting in New Hampshire). Nope. The AP is DESPICABLE--a purveryor of PROPAGANDA, and not a "news" organization at all.
Do you want to know where the "Anti-American" part of the official name of the AP comes from? Well, there remains the fact taht the AP was more on the side of the terrorists than the United States during the entire Iraq War (still is, really, but muted with AP favorite Obama as President). However, th ebest example of just jow Anti-American the despicable AP was, and is, is a series of stories less than a year ago BLAMING AMERICA for SOUTH KOREAN atrocities more than FIFTY YEARS AGO (during the Korean War), and then accusing American forces of their own "killing of civilians" in air attacks on "refugees" streaming South during the DESPERATE RETREAT of American forces more than FIFTY YEARS ago. The Anti-American AP, needless to say, did not have any of the American soldiers or airmen involved defending themselves, but instead quoted--WITH APPROVAL--from the anti-American Korean comission doing a politically inspired "investigation". It just does not get any more anti-American than that, and I stand by this blog's official position that the AP deserves the fate of Carthage (at the hands of Rome) for that series of articles alone. This is only partly a digression because it directly leads into my call for a BOYCOTT OF YAHOO.
Yes, that anti-American series of AP articles about how evil the U.S. was during the Korean War, even as our soldiers were fight for SURVIVAL as they were being drivn towards the sea, was feature on AOL. That was when I was still a member of AOL, and called for a boycott of AOL "while promising to remain a member myself, as a SACRIFICE, until the last person had seen the light). Well, AOL essentially ejected me (where this blog used to be). Now I am on with AT&T Uverse. For reasons that are not good enough, Uverse uses Yahoo "news" for its welcome screen. Yahoo "News" is at least as bad as AOL "News", mainly because it features the MOST LEFT of the stories fromt he truly despicable AP, and other leftist "news" sources.
For example, Yahoo "News" featured this morning a story (may have been from the AP, but seemed to be maintly attributed to Yahoo "News" without emphasizing the "ral" source of the story) about a "study" highlighting the "problem" of the "bad attitude" Americans have toward immigrants. You will understand this story was PROPAGANDA of the most outrageous kind when I tell you that the first paragraph was all about the Statue of Liberty--you know, that bit about "your tired, your poor, and your huddled masses". I know. There is also that bit--NOT QUOTED--about "yearning to breathe free", but you can forget that if Obama has his way on health care and all of the rest.
Of course the "study" failed to distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants, in talking about how horrible it was that Americans had such a "low" opinion of "Latino" immigrants. I, of coure, married the daughter of "Latino" immigrants, and my daughters are 50% Hispanic. That is evidently also true of Lou Dobbs. I mention Lou Dobbs, because Lou Dobbs and Gleen Beck were idgentified in the article (in effect a claim endorsed by the article AND YAHOO NEWS) as the type of people resposnsible for the attitue of Americans toward certain immigratnnts, like "Latinos". Yes, this is truly despicable stuff, and DELIBERATELY fialed to make a distinction between legal and illegal immigrants (as did the whole "sutdy"--the mere reference to Loub Dobbs and Glenn Beck as "villains" shwoing you where this "study" was coming from).
You can go back to the archives of this blog, over the past three years, and my series of articles about the "illegal immigration deception" of those pro-illegal immigration people trying to DECUEIVE, on multiple levels. The series ran to probably mroe than 20 articles. One of the main deceptions, which is obviously still being practiced by the maintream media and the left, is to CONFUSE "illegal immigration" and legal immigration. Genn Beck and Lou Dobbs (of whom I do not even generally approve) do not, and have not, said ANYTHING unfaovrable about IMMIGRANTS. hey have said a lot unfavorable aoubt our failure to take effective action against ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. The idea that Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs are "racist", or anti'immigrant, is a DESPICALBE LIE. Yes, I jut called lthe people at Yahoo News LIARS, and I stand by that. I stand by that as to the guy named Timberlake, who evidently did this "study", as well.
Am I going to end up calling for the BOYCOTT of almost all "tech" companies? Maybe so. I stand by my advice that you BOYCOTT AOL, which I have since I left. I hereby call for you to BOYCOTT YAHOO. Now I have never personally used Yahoo, although I did get a "sign in" name long ago. I have essentially boycotted Yahoo for years. However, there is that "Wlcome Screen" provided by Uverse. I am not YET calling for a boycott of Uverse, although I may bet get there. It is too expensive, by the way. But I think I will keep the "Welcome Screen", for now, even though I am sure I can get rid of it. I have decided that I really NEED to keep up with the "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press", and the only convenient way to do it is some source that regularly relies on the desicable AP. That was true of AOL, and is obviously true of Yahoo. Since I read NO newspaper (when I used to read multiple newspapers when I was younger, before "journalism" died), the only way for me to keep up my commentary on the depicable AP is by means of something like the Yahoo "Welcome Screen". I will otherwise boycott Yahoo, an dsuggest you do the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)