You remember all of the mainstream media propaganda and hype about embyonic stem cells (produced from aborted embryoes)? You remember how the medai HYPE ws that Chirtopher Reevees would walk again; that Parkinson's disease would be cured, and that the dead would rise again with the Second Coming (as we prove our worth with FEDERAL funding of embronic stem cells as a symbol of our support of no restrictions on abortion)?
Hacker Boy (hacking into this despicble blog for the common good, and still not commenting on Skip's allegation that I am connected to Rupert Murdoch and/or the unfair and unbalanced network---using Skip's terminology for his boycott of Fox): "Skp. You made that up. You know that the people pushing embryonic stem cell research have never promised that it could be used to raise the dead."
Skip: "Yes, I obviously made that up, as dramatic hyperbole. But, Hacker Boy, are you saying that there was not a propaganda blitz about the supposed ossible benefits of embryonic stem cell research. Be careful here. I am about to tell you my own experience with my own eyesight--related to embryoic stem cell research."
Hacker Boy: Okay, Skip. I will agree that there was a lot of overlpromising on stem cell research, and that pro-abortion fanatics seemed able to push media hype about all of the things we would be missing if the taxpayers did not fund this research. But, Skip, yoiu should reallly stop all of this hyperbole, just because you think you are doing the same thing as the media is doing. I now that you claim you are not a Christian, and do not turn the other cheek, but it hurts yoiur credibility to keep saying theese ridiculous things for dramatic effect."
On to my eyesight (having disposed of Hacker Boy, even if you agree with him on my hyperbole for dramatic effe3ct, even though I think I make it obvius what I am presenting as fact and what I am presenting as what might be called a type of black humor). What does my eyesight have to do with embryonic stem cells? A lot. I have an INCURABLE type of macular degeneration. In fact, my condition goes beyond that. What I have are dead and dying cells in the retina. This is gradually making my eyesight steadily worse. I went to a specialist in Phoenix for a second opion, after the specialist in El Paso said that there was NO TREATMENT--not even any things for me tod o to slow down the process. It is a little bit dauting to be told that there is absolutely nothing that odern medica science can do for you.
My daughters did not believe me when I told them nothing cold be done. Not only did they insist--as I fainkly had to agree--that I should see a high poered specialist in a better medical community than El Paso, but they RESEARCHED the internet to try to find possible "cures' that I cold ask the Phoenix specialist about. Gues what my older daughter came up with?
Right. Embryonic stem cells. There ws a big mainstream media story about a "study" that had shown promise in regnerating the retina with embryonic stem cells. To read the article, a "cure" was right around the corner. Now I was skeptical, because I know that this embyonic stem cell junk was all HYPE and PROPAGANDA. I know of NO major brakthrough in actually developing an EFFECTIVE tratment of a major disease/problem using embryonic stem cells. Still, I provided the copy of the article to the retinal specialist in Phoenix, along with some other articles on different tyhpes of macular degeneration that my daughter had dug up..
Wel, the Phoenix specialist confirmed what my El Paso retinal specialist had said. No treat ment. No cure. No nothing, except maybe "tricks' for dealing with low vision (not actual blindness, but low vision to the extent that I cannot really read with any kind of correction). Yes, I can ALMOST read what I am typing here, if I go letter bly letter (with the aid of large tlype)-so long as there is no shading or color involved. And I can "barely) still watch TV and movies. Oh, and I have no real trouble getting around--seeing gross objects--so long as I realize that I have to be careful because I don't pick up things wucikly (such as steps). This is not a samll problem, and the specialist was telling me thater wwas absolutely nothing I can do. Well, okay. Reality is reality (hard as that is for Obama, leftist Democrats and the mainstream media to understand). However, you can see why I DID ask the specialist about the article on stem cell research. You can call this "hypocritical" if you want, as I OPPOSE both abortion on demand and embryonkic stem cell research (espciablly taxpayer funding). But, as I have said multiple times before, it is one thing to advocate lPOLICY based on principle, and not on self-interest. I have no interest in ADVOCATING a major push to use embryonic stem cell research to regenerate the retina. I oppose it. However, if embryonic stem cell research has ALREADY come up with someting to help me, and my understanding is that stem cell "lines' do not require continued killng of embryoes--which would probably change myopinion here if I am in eror on that--it seems to me to be absurd to reject a "cure' taht already exists because I do't approve of the way it was arrived at. In any even, that decison could be made at a later time. Thus, I asked about the article.
The specialist agreed (on that article, but not on the others my daughter had found) that this was the kind of treatment I need--the only kind that will heolp me: a regeneration of the dead cells fo the retina--basically a regeneration of the retina. as it once was. However, the specailist said that this "study" was reallyNOTHING but an indication for further study. He said it was a small study involvving a mere 12 people, and that such a study could never be more than a slight encouragment to do more study. You can see how the article my daughter found ws pure PROPAGANDA. The specialist said that, at best, it would be MANY YEARS before any possible treatment for me could be developed. And I don't think I am really telling lyou just now NEGATIVE the Poenix specialist was on "geting myhopes up" over tis 12 person study.
Was this Phoenix specialist lilke me: an oppnet of embryonic stem cell research? Nope. AFTER our discusson about my specific case, on my way out, I mentioned by own opinioni that embryonic stem cell research had been OVERBLOWN and HYPEDD well beyond reason. He agreed with me, but said: "I think both sides (obviously referring to the aboriton debate, and people like me) have gone way overboard in their positions" What did I understand from that? I understood, correctly, that this specialist was aware of the POLITICAL battle over abortion and stemcell research, and he was not in cympathy with the pro-life position--although also fully aware that the pro-stem cell, pro-abortion positon ws being exaggerated and hped with what amounts to political propaganda. That is where the issue of my eyesight now stands: No treatment avilable, outside of vitamins likely to be on only minimal help, if any. I am not blind, but the deteroriaton of my eyesight just never completely stops. I have not driven for years, and I cannot read a book (where luckily we now have autio). I can still barely use a computer, even without audio, with expanded type.
Segue to Rick Perry and my futile Sodom and Gomorrrah search for a competent, honest AP reporter. There is an AP story out there--could never make this up--about how Rick Perry is encouraging "quack" medicine because he had an operation that injected STEM CELLS into his spinal canal (or some such thing). I do't know exactly what Perry's problem was, but I asume it is some kind of degneration/pain tht is not at all diabling or life threatening. The AP quotes a Harvard "expert" for the proposition that this will only encourage "despearte people" (like me?) to go to QUACKS for quack treatments. Oh. Did I mention that Perry did NOT have embryonic stem cells inected? Rather, he had stem cells taken from his OWN fat cells injected into his spinal canal (or some such thing). Now I would be telling you that yu should BOYCOTT AT&T and Yahoo, because they feaature this kind of ridiculous AP propaganda, but I did not see this article on my AT&T "welcome" page. I may have just missed it, but I can't assume that even AT&T and Yahoo were partisan enough to attack Rick Perry on THIS.
When I first started telling you, years ago, that the mainstream media, along with other leftists, are the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or four, I bet you thought I could never really PROVE it. Boym were you wrong. Look at how often the mainstream media has HYPED embryonic stem cell research--not to mentin cancer "cures" and any noumber of not so political exaggeration s of medial "breakthroughs", and NOW they have the nerve to attakc Rock Perry for tryng a stem cell remedy (albeit not an embryonic one)!!!!!!!! Has the mainstream emdia jusst ADMITTED that it has KILLED people with all of this hype and propaganda over stme cell research? Damn right. Look at all of the FALSE HOPE they gve ME (or at least my daughter). No, if you want to say that people should not make too much of Rick Perry having this treatment, because it is unproven, fine. But it is NOT the kind of story the despicable AP is trying to make out of it, as part of the mainstream media attempt to do a "full court press" against Rick Perry. If you do a story that incidentally mentions Rick Perry's operation, maybe in connection with his health (itself more lpropaganda than imprtant to whether he should be President), I have no prolem mentinoing that people should not go out and try to get this "stem cell" treatment for whatever problem they may have. But to treat this as a major "issue" out there is absurd, and again proves the futility of my Sodom and Gomorrah search for an honest, competent AP reporter.
No, the AP--and rest of the mainstream media--have no shame. They are partisan political hacks putting out propaganda. They hardly even try to conceal it anymore. And they don't care if they are hypocrites, or obviusly dishonest. They obviusly feel that a Big Lie--repeated often enough--will work, even if it is obviuis propaanda. See George Orwell's "1984"). Tell people often enough that Michele Bachmann consistently gets her facts wrong--while you ingore Barack Obama and Joe Biden getting more imporatnt facts wrong--and people will start to believe it. utout ENOUGH stories aoubt how there is SOMETHING wrong with Rick Perry, and the idea is that peoiple will start to believe it--even as they are not sure exactly what it is that is wrong with him,. These are people only interested in agenda, and never interested in actual INFORMATIN to give to the public.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight--see above). No, I am no more for embryonic stem cell research now--now that I "knnow" that it offers "hop" for me--than I was before I saw that article my daughter found.
Monday, August 22, 2011
Obama, Coal and the EPA: Liar-in-Chief (Boycott the Unfair and Unbalanced Network)
You will remember that Congress DEFETATED (did not pass) Obama's "comprehensive" environmental legislation ("cap and trade"). Obama's whole idea was to shut down the fossil fuel industry, which even Obama said earlier would cause power costs to "skyrocket". As with illegal immigratiion and the "Dream Act" (which also did not pass Congress), Obama has decided to go around Congress with ADMINISTRATIVE (dictatorial) action--this time under the excuse of EPA "regulation".
Tus, you had a story on the unfair and unbalanced network (which likes to all itself "fair and balanced") on Saturday about how the EPA is proceeding with its directive to utilities to CLOSE a number of coal burning plants. Now this, of course (reresenting, as it does, an attack on the coal industry AND industry in general because of the rise in the cost of power), will COST JOBS. It will further distort the economy, and further raise costs in the economy. In tthe prrevious words of this blog, it will crucity the economy on the cross of "global warming" (channeling my inner William Hennings Bryan)--even though the "policy" is "justified" not with the discredited "crisis" of "global warming", but with the idea that ordinary, health destroying pollution will be reduced. Liar-in-Chief, remember. But we have not yet gotten to the main lies.
Why should we not worry about this? Listen to the unfair and unbalanced network sput lies from our Liar--in-Chief as if they make prfect sense: "These plants were sckheduled to be closed anyway. Further, we all know how long it takes the government to do anything. These regulations will take a LONG time to be implemented." From the foxy woman (pun intended--these women of the unfair and unbalanced network are reallyl beginning to ANNOY me), giggling (not making this up): "We all know how long it takes the government to do anything." This truly absurd story went on to say that the Obama Administration said that the new regulations would "save" 36,000 lives (what I cal a phantom statistic, since no one has any idea on this, and the figure is basically made up by assumptions and "estimates"--further distorted by the fact that wat they mean by "svaing" lieves is keeping people from dyng one month earlier, or two, or three, as the whole statistic is murky: "a mystery wrapped in an enigma").
Say what? Do oyou want to cry. I do (basically every time I hear the lies from the Obama Administration AND/OR evvery time I make the mistake of surfing the unfair and unbbalanced network). Let me get this clear, the way the OPbama Administratin is spinning it (with the help of the unfair and unbalanced network): "Our regulations will have NO effect on your life. These plants are going to be closed anyway, and these regulations won't even go into effect until after President Obama is safely out of office and does not have to worry about reelectioin. (or whenever tkhe giggling babe understoood it to be). BUT. These unimportant regulations will still save 36,000 lives (a year? A century? How the Hell do I now: The unfair and unbalanced network was not interested in the factual basis for any of this, as usual). Our regulatins (continuing the quote) are doing great things for you, even if you can be confidenet they will have NO EFFECT n your present life. Hey, haven't we said this kind of thing before? Like on ObamaCare and everything else? Mabe we should figure out how to say this differently."
No, the people of the unfair and unbalanced network seemed to have no problem gettng their minds around the idea that these regualtions meant NOTHING, and at the same time would "save" 36,00 lives. No, these bonne deep stupid people were not even omtereseted om exa,omomg where that 36,000 number came from. Oh. And what about the fact that businesses PLAN in advance. If people know that these regulations are coming, then they haev to start implementng them ahead of time. You just can't close down multiple power plants on a dime, or snap of the fingers. You have to start closing NOW, which is exactly what utilities hae said they are doing. That is why this idea that plants are "already scheduled" to close down is a realy special, double barrelled lie from our Liar-in-Chief (who has said that you can have a coal plant, if you want to be put out of business). Utilites were told what was comng when Obama was elected. You may wonder why the people of West Viiginia elected a Democrat (their "popular" governor) of the same party as the Liar-in-Chief who is destroying their state. Do the people of West Virginia really think that a Democratic Senator who opposes Obama's coal policy, and other things they oppose, is going to affect Obama policy? Dream on. A lot of REPUBICANS say more labout "opposing" Obama policy than they hae any intention of actually doing anything about. I digress. The point is that Obama has set out to destroy a whole indsutry, and is succeeding. At the same time, he is incrasing the cost of energy for us all.
Meanwhile, the unfair and unbalanced network is RIDICULING Michele Obama for her imminently reasonable idea that we should have a GOAL of $2 a galon gasoline. I know it was a "promise", but so are ALL of Obama's statements on jobs, unemplyment and every thong else--statements that he has not way of knwing will happen. Michele Bachmann's "promise" that we will have $2 gasoline under a Bachmann administratin is MORE likely to be fulfilled than the ridiculous 'promise' that EPA regulations eliminating coal plants will "save" 36,000 lives. Nope. This is our Liar-in-Chief at work, and you should boycott the unfair and unbalanced network (except, maybe, for my kind of surfing where you do not believe a word they say).
Won't new natural gas plants save mony and create jobs and lower costs? No. If they would do that, then there would be NO need for the regulations. Yes, natural gas plants MAY provide more "efficient" energy once they are built, depedning on what restrictions the Obama Administration puts on teh productin of natural gas. But these regulations DISTORT the market. They force people to make uneconomic decisions that COST JOBS and INCREASE COSTS. This would not happen in an orderly market transition to whatever energy plants make the most sense. Clean coal technology? Fine. Encourage it. But the idea that we should shut down the coal industry is absurd. yet, that is eactly the goal Obama and Biden (let CHINA have coal plants) have announced. You might want to consider WHY China is building so many coal plants if they are really more expensive? Yes, I now that China does not have our regulations, and therefore has "bad air". Still, these are complex issues NOT properly handled by administrative fiat that will COST JOBS and INCREASE COSTS. And no, these lost jobs will not be offset by the temporary emplyment provided by convertng to natural gas lplants. Again, the proper idea here is for a market driven, orderly transistion to better plants--a transistion to plants that make economic sense without government choosing what kind of plants there should be.
These are the type of agenda-driven regulations that oare killing jobs, and killing our economy . It is no good to say that the unfair and unbalanced network is more willing to say that than the rest of the mainstream media. If you do a story like this, which just puts out Obama "talking points" without any analysis or facts--without even talkng abut the UNCERTAINTY and anxiety that this kind of thing creates for business--then you are part of the problem and not part of the solution.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Tus, you had a story on the unfair and unbalanced network (which likes to all itself "fair and balanced") on Saturday about how the EPA is proceeding with its directive to utilities to CLOSE a number of coal burning plants. Now this, of course (reresenting, as it does, an attack on the coal industry AND industry in general because of the rise in the cost of power), will COST JOBS. It will further distort the economy, and further raise costs in the economy. In tthe prrevious words of this blog, it will crucity the economy on the cross of "global warming" (channeling my inner William Hennings Bryan)--even though the "policy" is "justified" not with the discredited "crisis" of "global warming", but with the idea that ordinary, health destroying pollution will be reduced. Liar-in-Chief, remember. But we have not yet gotten to the main lies.
Why should we not worry about this? Listen to the unfair and unbalanced network sput lies from our Liar--in-Chief as if they make prfect sense: "These plants were sckheduled to be closed anyway. Further, we all know how long it takes the government to do anything. These regulations will take a LONG time to be implemented." From the foxy woman (pun intended--these women of the unfair and unbalanced network are reallyl beginning to ANNOY me), giggling (not making this up): "We all know how long it takes the government to do anything." This truly absurd story went on to say that the Obama Administration said that the new regulations would "save" 36,000 lives (what I cal a phantom statistic, since no one has any idea on this, and the figure is basically made up by assumptions and "estimates"--further distorted by the fact that wat they mean by "svaing" lieves is keeping people from dyng one month earlier, or two, or three, as the whole statistic is murky: "a mystery wrapped in an enigma").
Say what? Do oyou want to cry. I do (basically every time I hear the lies from the Obama Administration AND/OR evvery time I make the mistake of surfing the unfair and unbbalanced network). Let me get this clear, the way the OPbama Administratin is spinning it (with the help of the unfair and unbalanced network): "Our regulations will have NO effect on your life. These plants are going to be closed anyway, and these regulations won't even go into effect until after President Obama is safely out of office and does not have to worry about reelectioin. (or whenever tkhe giggling babe understoood it to be). BUT. These unimportant regulations will still save 36,000 lives (a year? A century? How the Hell do I now: The unfair and unbalanced network was not interested in the factual basis for any of this, as usual). Our regulatins (continuing the quote) are doing great things for you, even if you can be confidenet they will have NO EFFECT n your present life. Hey, haven't we said this kind of thing before? Like on ObamaCare and everything else? Mabe we should figure out how to say this differently."
No, the people of the unfair and unbalanced network seemed to have no problem gettng their minds around the idea that these regualtions meant NOTHING, and at the same time would "save" 36,00 lives. No, these bonne deep stupid people were not even omtereseted om exa,omomg where that 36,000 number came from. Oh. And what about the fact that businesses PLAN in advance. If people know that these regulations are coming, then they haev to start implementng them ahead of time. You just can't close down multiple power plants on a dime, or snap of the fingers. You have to start closing NOW, which is exactly what utilities hae said they are doing. That is why this idea that plants are "already scheduled" to close down is a realy special, double barrelled lie from our Liar-in-Chief (who has said that you can have a coal plant, if you want to be put out of business). Utilites were told what was comng when Obama was elected. You may wonder why the people of West Viiginia elected a Democrat (their "popular" governor) of the same party as the Liar-in-Chief who is destroying their state. Do the people of West Virginia really think that a Democratic Senator who opposes Obama's coal policy, and other things they oppose, is going to affect Obama policy? Dream on. A lot of REPUBICANS say more labout "opposing" Obama policy than they hae any intention of actually doing anything about. I digress. The point is that Obama has set out to destroy a whole indsutry, and is succeeding. At the same time, he is incrasing the cost of energy for us all.
Meanwhile, the unfair and unbalanced network is RIDICULING Michele Obama for her imminently reasonable idea that we should have a GOAL of $2 a galon gasoline. I know it was a "promise", but so are ALL of Obama's statements on jobs, unemplyment and every thong else--statements that he has not way of knwing will happen. Michele Bachmann's "promise" that we will have $2 gasoline under a Bachmann administratin is MORE likely to be fulfilled than the ridiculous 'promise' that EPA regulations eliminating coal plants will "save" 36,000 lives. Nope. This is our Liar-in-Chief at work, and you should boycott the unfair and unbalanced network (except, maybe, for my kind of surfing where you do not believe a word they say).
Won't new natural gas plants save mony and create jobs and lower costs? No. If they would do that, then there would be NO need for the regulations. Yes, natural gas plants MAY provide more "efficient" energy once they are built, depedning on what restrictions the Obama Administration puts on teh productin of natural gas. But these regulations DISTORT the market. They force people to make uneconomic decisions that COST JOBS and INCREASE COSTS. This would not happen in an orderly market transition to whatever energy plants make the most sense. Clean coal technology? Fine. Encourage it. But the idea that we should shut down the coal industry is absurd. yet, that is eactly the goal Obama and Biden (let CHINA have coal plants) have announced. You might want to consider WHY China is building so many coal plants if they are really more expensive? Yes, I now that China does not have our regulations, and therefore has "bad air". Still, these are complex issues NOT properly handled by administrative fiat that will COST JOBS and INCREASE COSTS. And no, these lost jobs will not be offset by the temporary emplyment provided by convertng to natural gas lplants. Again, the proper idea here is for a market driven, orderly transistion to better plants--a transistion to plants that make economic sense without government choosing what kind of plants there should be.
These are the type of agenda-driven regulations that oare killing jobs, and killing our economy . It is no good to say that the unfair and unbalanced network is more willing to say that than the rest of the mainstream media. If you do a story like this, which just puts out Obama "talking points" without any analysis or facts--without even talkng abut the UNCERTAINTY and anxiety that this kind of thing creates for business--then you are part of the problem and not part of the solution.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Obama: Dumber Than Michele Bachmann
No, the headline is not because President Obama misquoted the Declartion of Independence, leaving "by their Creator" out of the famous part he misquoted. Bill Maher and I agree that Obama is not a Christian, and that misquoting of the Declaration of Independence was probably deliberate. Nor am I saaing that Michele Bachmann is dumb. Like all politicians, and all peole, she says some dumb things, but Michele Bachmann is not dub. Barack Obama, however, seems determined to show that he IS dumb, or else just uncaring of whether what he says is true, so long as he thinks he can get away with it to the extent of advancing his leftist agenda. (By the way, it ha been two years since my audit shows that I have made a substantive, material mistake--99.9% accuracy rating all time. Therefore, I may be an exception to all l people saying dumb things. However, my inability to proofread my stuff (eyesight) means that these articles lprobably do contain what appear to be some dumb things, but really are not. How do you like that for a neat "excuse" for any thing you think is "dumb" i this blog?)
What am I talking aobut. Well, I still almost don't believe it. And I definitely don't believe how CNN, and the rest of the mainstream media, can keep talking abut Michele Bachmann making mistakes when President Obama will make one this bad. I am talkig aobu those three "free trade" deals that President Obama says will "create 70,000 jobs in this country (another one of those figures he made up out of the air, and the media--including CNNN and the unfair and unbalanced network--DARE to criticize Michele Obama for saying that she will bring about $2 per gallon gasoline after all of the outrageous promises Obama makes). The free trade agreements in question are with South Korea, Columbia, and Panama (I think, although I may have the countries wrong--you get the idea). What Obama said--not off handedly but as part of a MAJOR attack on Congress--was that Congress had failed to pass those job creatig free trade deals, even though all Congress had to do was VOTE before leaving town. Basically, Obama said that the agreements were right there before Congress, and it should have been a matter of minutes for Congress to approve the JOB CREATION represented by these aggreements.
It turns out that Obama has proven that he does not care about jobs. Those 70,000 jobs? It was not the fault of CONGRESS that the free trade agreements had not been passed (although who knows whether they would have done it) . It turns out that Obama failed to DELIVER the agreements to Congres for approval, and has failed to do so for months, or even years.
I did not believe it either. How can anyone criticize Michele Bachmann for the allegedly false things she says, and not agree that President Obama is DUMBER than Michele Bachmann. No, I have not heard anything that Michele Bachmann has allegedly said that is nearly as bad as this.
The man (Obama) will say AnYTHING. He does not appear to care whether it is true, or about the actual job of being President. All he cares about are WORDS, and SPEECHES, and that they sound good. It does ot matter to him whether the words are actually true, or fair.
What would I do if I were Congress (yes, the whole body). I woul d pass a UNANIMOUS resoluton expressing the sense of Congress that the President has unfairly criticized the Congress of the Untied States for his OWN FAILURE. If the President does not present an agreement with another country to Congress, Congress cannot act on it.
Even for Obama, as to whom I ahve cited many examples somewhat like this, this is a bad one. How can he possibliy claim to know what he is doing and make this kind of absurd mistake?
Q.E.D., President Obama is dumber than Michele Bachmann, even if she is dumber than I think she is. Or else Obama is much more of a dishonest idologue--not caring at all about whether what he says is true. Still. Outrageous lies this obvious do not work, even with the expected support of the mainstream media.
What am I talking aobut. Well, I still almost don't believe it. And I definitely don't believe how CNN, and the rest of the mainstream media, can keep talking abut Michele Bachmann making mistakes when President Obama will make one this bad. I am talkig aobu those three "free trade" deals that President Obama says will "create 70,000 jobs in this country (another one of those figures he made up out of the air, and the media--including CNNN and the unfair and unbalanced network--DARE to criticize Michele Obama for saying that she will bring about $2 per gallon gasoline after all of the outrageous promises Obama makes). The free trade agreements in question are with South Korea, Columbia, and Panama (I think, although I may have the countries wrong--you get the idea). What Obama said--not off handedly but as part of a MAJOR attack on Congress--was that Congress had failed to pass those job creatig free trade deals, even though all Congress had to do was VOTE before leaving town. Basically, Obama said that the agreements were right there before Congress, and it should have been a matter of minutes for Congress to approve the JOB CREATION represented by these aggreements.
It turns out that Obama has proven that he does not care about jobs. Those 70,000 jobs? It was not the fault of CONGRESS that the free trade agreements had not been passed (although who knows whether they would have done it) . It turns out that Obama failed to DELIVER the agreements to Congres for approval, and has failed to do so for months, or even years.
I did not believe it either. How can anyone criticize Michele Bachmann for the allegedly false things she says, and not agree that President Obama is DUMBER than Michele Bachmann. No, I have not heard anything that Michele Bachmann has allegedly said that is nearly as bad as this.
The man (Obama) will say AnYTHING. He does not appear to care whether it is true, or about the actual job of being President. All he cares about are WORDS, and SPEECHES, and that they sound good. It does ot matter to him whether the words are actually true, or fair.
What would I do if I were Congress (yes, the whole body). I woul d pass a UNANIMOUS resoluton expressing the sense of Congress that the President has unfairly criticized the Congress of the Untied States for his OWN FAILURE. If the President does not present an agreement with another country to Congress, Congress cannot act on it.
Even for Obama, as to whom I ahve cited many examples somewhat like this, this is a bad one. How can he possibliy claim to know what he is doing and make this kind of absurd mistake?
Q.E.D., President Obama is dumber than Michele Bachmann, even if she is dumber than I think she is. Or else Obama is much more of a dishonest idologue--not caring at all about whether what he says is true. Still. Outrageous lies this obvious do not work, even with the expected support of the mainstream media.
Social Security, Obama and Payroll Tax Cut: Democrat Plan to Destroy Social Security (Boycott Yahoo and AT&T)
"GOP may okay tax increase that Obama hopes to block"
That was the AP/Yahoo/AT&T headline today, and it was one of the most partisan, dishonest headlines and stories ever written (saying a lot for the despicable AP). Read my previious article, as to which this is part 2, for an extensive explanation of what is going on.
Yes, part of the Obama "jobs" plan is to ush another "stimulus" that has already failed. In fact, it has failed several times, since it is really just a PAYMENT OF MONEY to people. This is the proposed extension of the "payroll tax cut", which was part of the "lame duck deal" at the end of 2010. It was supposed to "stimulate" the economy,. It didn't., as previous similar gimmicks didn't. It was supposedly a TEMPORARY (meaning the CBO "scoring" was in BILLIONS added to the debt instead of HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS added to the debt and deficit) one year "cut" in the WORKER part of the payroll tax (meaning it did not help employers add jobs at all--which is NOT an excuse to expand it to include emplyers this time).
A famous wit in history once said this about the Holly Roman Empire: It was not holy, it was not Roman, and it wsa not an empire. The "payroll tax cut" is not a "tax cut", has nothing to do with the payroll tax, and is really just another "stimulus". The AP story and headline are pure propaganda, and a COMPLETE LIE. The lead paragraph said sometinbg like: "GOP lawmaters, desite violently opposing tax increases, are proposing to increase the payroll tax to raise taxes on workers." Hogwash. Remember the Bush/Democrat/Obama "stimulus" bill in the sprin of 2008 (giving $6oo to essentailly every person). Was it a tAX INCREASE to not "extend" that EMPORARY measure? Of course not . No, this is NOT the same as the "Bush tax cuts"--in effect for almost 10 years and whihc were INTENDED to be a cut in general tax RATES which everyone knew Bush INTTENDED to be permanent (because he said so, =but could not get the permanent bill passed). Nor is it the same as closing long-standing tax deductions and loopholes, although that would not be "tax increases" either if it is part of "tax reform" insead of an attempt just to raise revenue for more spending.
No, this is not a matter of opinioni. It is an objecti e LIE--dishonest, partisan propaganda by the despicable AP. Under the AP reasoning, fed to the AP by Obama operatives, every EMERGENCY measure SOLD as a TEMPORARY (really temporary--one year in this case) STIMULUS becomes an ENTITLEMENT. In fact, Obama's failed "stimulus" bill had what Obama called "tax cuts" in it. Tose EXPIRED, as they were supposed to be part of a TEMPORARY "stimulus", and not long-term. These vairations of "stimulus" are all the SAME THING: They are a PAYMENT OF MONEY to people disguised as a "tax cut". If we start considering the failure to exend every one of these temorary GIMMICKS because that represents a "tax increase", then we might as well give this country to the Chinese. We cannot survive that kind of dishonesty and stupidity.
The AP story said that the GOP "violently" opposes tax increases (generally true). However, does that mean that the GOP has "violently" (or at all) opposed the END of these temporary stimulus measures--not consituting a general tax reate cut? Forget it. The GOP has never said any such thing, and the AP satement otherwise is an outright, dishonest, partisan LIE.
No,this is NOT a "cut' in the Social Securty tax that we are talking aoubt. Again, read my previous article(part 1 of the total article). Social Security is SUPPOSED to be a "closed system"--a "self-funding", self-sustaining" system. The payroll tax (Social Security tax) is not supposed to be simply another "gax", funding the government. It is supposed to FUND Social Security. What happens when the payroll tax is "cut". Again, that means that the FUNDING for Social Security is being "cut". That is waht makes it obvious that this is all a wealth redistribution FRAUD. The gimmick here is that Democrats (and Repuibcans, for that matter) set up the previous "payroll tax cut" (that deal at the end of 2010) so that the Social Security "trust fund" would be REIMBURSED for the CUT in funding. Notice what this means. It means that this 'payroll tax cut" has NOTHING to do with the "payrolkl tax"--supposedly the SOLE funding for Social Security. The "payroll tax" is merely be used as a DISTRIBUTION MECHANISM for payments just like those $600 payments under the Bush/Democrat/Obama "stimulus" of 2998, and the Obama "stimulus" "tax cuts" of the Obama "stimulus" bill of 2009. Notice how tis kind of thinking makes our debt/deficit "crisis" PERMANENT and INSOLUBLE. No "stimulus" can ever go away, no matter how badly it works.
Wait a second. I am saying that Obama and the Democrats have SOLD these things as "temporary", and asked the CBO to "score" them that way . However, do Obama and the Democrats really want to do away with the payroll tax, or at least the worker part of the payroll tax? I think they do. The ONLY tax that more than half of Americans are now paying is the payroll/Social Security tax. That "tax" was supposed to set Social Security up as a "self-funding" system, rather than a CLASS WARFARE welfare plan. What Democrats and Obama want is the WELFARE, CLASS WARFARE plan. Yes, Democratws want to DESTRY Social Security as we know it, and make it just another Big Government welfare lan. That means doing away with the payroll tax (which Democrats can "cut" until it no longer exists, while not "cutting" gneral tax rates) until it no longer exists. This is part of the general Democrat plan to have MOST of the people of this country have no stake in the country. If people do not even have to pay ANYTHING toward their retirement, have we not reached the final states of class warfare? As I have stated, I am ASHAMED that too many Republicans and conservatives bought into the idea of a "payroll tax holiday" as an "alternative" to the Obama "stimulus".
The whole idea of using the payroll tax this way--as an excuse to FUND part of Social Security with general revenue and discared the idea of Social Security as a self-funding, self-sustaining system--undermines the whole FDR idea of the Social Security system. It guarantees the eventual dstruction of the Social Security system, and probably the destruction of the United States as we know it Yes, Social Security has always been something of a FRAUD, but this Democrat push to treat Social Security just like any other Big Government program is an obvious and guaranteed way to destory it. When class warfare becomes this obvious, the demise of the United States becomes imminent--as it was for the Rooman Repubic, whic was destroyed by class warfare. Again, the whole "payroll tax cut" idea is a FRAUDULENT SCHEME to use gneral tax revenue--really borrowed money which will be eventually repaid from general tax revenue--to mkae PAYMENTS to people disguised as a reduction of their payroll tax payments. In short, the reskult is to FUND Social Secruity from GENERAL REVENU--a repudiation of the original idea of Social Security. If this were a real parroll/Social Security tax "cut", the money would have to be made up from SOCIAL SECURITY. Instead, it is nothing but a faud to use sleight of hand to justify yet another "stimuls".
Again, general tax RATE cuts are not a "simulus". It is disburbing when Republicans talk as if they were. They "stimulate" the economy, but they do so in a PERMANENT way, so long as we do not keep using temporary, fraudulent gimmicks, and cnetral planning complications of the tax code, to completely undermine what we would gain by a simplle, growth oriented tax system. We need a PERMANENT FIX--not a "magic bullet" attemt by Washington to "save us". A simple tax system of low tax RATES that are actualy PAID will ut the econommy on a growth path--along with limiting Big Government--not because it is a "stimulus", but because it is a rational PATH to growth (not to mention people making decisions on economics and not on the tax code, and avoiding paying taxes under the tax code).
I stand yby the headline. Obama and the Democrats really have a plan to destroy Social Security as we have known it, and to make every single Federal Government program a Big Government "welfare state" program.
You should be able to see now, if you did not before, why I wil vote against EVERY Repubican who supports, or votes for, any "extensioin" of any form of a "payroll tax cut". It is nothing but a FRAUD, and that is someting I no longer can stand from our politicians. Itincreases the deficit/debt MORE than Repuboicans have "cut", or even said they have "cut", through the next fiscal year. It undermines the very concept of self-funding, self-sustaing Social Security which is not just anoother welfare program. It represents another attempt at FAILED Federal Government "stimulus".
In fact, you should be able to see why merely voting AGAINST every single Republican who goes for this fraud is not enough. If the Repubican Party lets another payroll tax cut pass, then I am walking away from the Repubican Party FOREVER. No, that is not mere talk. What it means is lthat I will PRESUME that every single Repubican politicians should not be supported. This would not be a conclusive presumption that would prevent me from supportting Michele Bachmann, because I KNOW where Michele Bachmann stands. It WOULD keep me from voting for Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan and any number of other Republican--Tea Party or not and whether they affirmatively suport this fraud or not. Remember, it is EASY for people who vote "no" to do so if they KNOW that they are going to lose. It is even easier for CNDIDATES not in Congress to say they would vote "no" on someting, and not do anything to actually stop it. Not accpetable. I can assure you I wil APPLY my presumption. Unless a Republican convinces me that he or she is affirmatively ready to FIGHT the Repuboican Prty of this sort of thing, then I will not support a Repuboican politician jsut because he or she SAYS things I like. Cold Rick Perry, for example, show me that I can trust him? Effectively impossible, although I wil "never say never" (except to treating the Republican Party as dead to me if this betrayal occurs--where even thin I guess I could conceive of some future takeover of the Repubican Party that would cause me to rethink, but never for 2012). I mention Paul Ryan because I already would not votte for him, and he is being discussed as apossilbe late "candidate" for President. Too many votes I regard as betrayals. Remember, a VOTE is NOT going to be enough on this payroll tax fraud. Stopping it is all I will accept, in which case I will keep up hope for the Repubican Party (until thye dash it with this fraudulent "gang of 12" fiasco", and a "grad deal" out of that).
What will I think of any REpubican who buys into the AP LIE that faiing to extend the payroll tax "cut" is a tax increase? Words fail me there Any conservativel--from Rush Limbaugh to Sean Hannity to the usual suspects--who purports to buy into that absurdity is my ENEMY. I will not accept fraukd on that kind of scale. This is just not an acceptable position for me. Whether you are a Republican, Democrat or conservative, if you buy into this fraud then I cannot either respect or support you. Is this clear? I hope so.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight and a bad thing in an article I wanted to make clear--but that is the way it is).
That was the AP/Yahoo/AT&T headline today, and it was one of the most partisan, dishonest headlines and stories ever written (saying a lot for the despicable AP). Read my previious article, as to which this is part 2, for an extensive explanation of what is going on.
Yes, part of the Obama "jobs" plan is to ush another "stimulus" that has already failed. In fact, it has failed several times, since it is really just a PAYMENT OF MONEY to people. This is the proposed extension of the "payroll tax cut", which was part of the "lame duck deal" at the end of 2010. It was supposed to "stimulate" the economy,. It didn't., as previous similar gimmicks didn't. It was supposedly a TEMPORARY (meaning the CBO "scoring" was in BILLIONS added to the debt instead of HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS added to the debt and deficit) one year "cut" in the WORKER part of the payroll tax (meaning it did not help employers add jobs at all--which is NOT an excuse to expand it to include emplyers this time).
A famous wit in history once said this about the Holly Roman Empire: It was not holy, it was not Roman, and it wsa not an empire. The "payroll tax cut" is not a "tax cut", has nothing to do with the payroll tax, and is really just another "stimulus". The AP story and headline are pure propaganda, and a COMPLETE LIE. The lead paragraph said sometinbg like: "GOP lawmaters, desite violently opposing tax increases, are proposing to increase the payroll tax to raise taxes on workers." Hogwash. Remember the Bush/Democrat/Obama "stimulus" bill in the sprin of 2008 (giving $6oo to essentailly every person). Was it a tAX INCREASE to not "extend" that EMPORARY measure? Of course not . No, this is NOT the same as the "Bush tax cuts"--in effect for almost 10 years and whihc were INTENDED to be a cut in general tax RATES which everyone knew Bush INTTENDED to be permanent (because he said so, =but could not get the permanent bill passed). Nor is it the same as closing long-standing tax deductions and loopholes, although that would not be "tax increases" either if it is part of "tax reform" insead of an attempt just to raise revenue for more spending.
No, this is not a matter of opinioni. It is an objecti e LIE--dishonest, partisan propaganda by the despicable AP. Under the AP reasoning, fed to the AP by Obama operatives, every EMERGENCY measure SOLD as a TEMPORARY (really temporary--one year in this case) STIMULUS becomes an ENTITLEMENT. In fact, Obama's failed "stimulus" bill had what Obama called "tax cuts" in it. Tose EXPIRED, as they were supposed to be part of a TEMPORARY "stimulus", and not long-term. These vairations of "stimulus" are all the SAME THING: They are a PAYMENT OF MONEY to people disguised as a "tax cut". If we start considering the failure to exend every one of these temorary GIMMICKS because that represents a "tax increase", then we might as well give this country to the Chinese. We cannot survive that kind of dishonesty and stupidity.
The AP story said that the GOP "violently" opposes tax increases (generally true). However, does that mean that the GOP has "violently" (or at all) opposed the END of these temporary stimulus measures--not consituting a general tax reate cut? Forget it. The GOP has never said any such thing, and the AP satement otherwise is an outright, dishonest, partisan LIE.
No,this is NOT a "cut' in the Social Securty tax that we are talking aoubt. Again, read my previous article(part 1 of the total article). Social Security is SUPPOSED to be a "closed system"--a "self-funding", self-sustaining" system. The payroll tax (Social Security tax) is not supposed to be simply another "gax", funding the government. It is supposed to FUND Social Security. What happens when the payroll tax is "cut". Again, that means that the FUNDING for Social Security is being "cut". That is waht makes it obvious that this is all a wealth redistribution FRAUD. The gimmick here is that Democrats (and Repuibcans, for that matter) set up the previous "payroll tax cut" (that deal at the end of 2010) so that the Social Security "trust fund" would be REIMBURSED for the CUT in funding. Notice what this means. It means that this 'payroll tax cut" has NOTHING to do with the "payrolkl tax"--supposedly the SOLE funding for Social Security. The "payroll tax" is merely be used as a DISTRIBUTION MECHANISM for payments just like those $600 payments under the Bush/Democrat/Obama "stimulus" of 2998, and the Obama "stimulus" "tax cuts" of the Obama "stimulus" bill of 2009. Notice how tis kind of thinking makes our debt/deficit "crisis" PERMANENT and INSOLUBLE. No "stimulus" can ever go away, no matter how badly it works.
Wait a second. I am saying that Obama and the Democrats have SOLD these things as "temporary", and asked the CBO to "score" them that way . However, do Obama and the Democrats really want to do away with the payroll tax, or at least the worker part of the payroll tax? I think they do. The ONLY tax that more than half of Americans are now paying is the payroll/Social Security tax. That "tax" was supposed to set Social Security up as a "self-funding" system, rather than a CLASS WARFARE welfare plan. What Democrats and Obama want is the WELFARE, CLASS WARFARE plan. Yes, Democratws want to DESTRY Social Security as we know it, and make it just another Big Government welfare lan. That means doing away with the payroll tax (which Democrats can "cut" until it no longer exists, while not "cutting" gneral tax rates) until it no longer exists. This is part of the general Democrat plan to have MOST of the people of this country have no stake in the country. If people do not even have to pay ANYTHING toward their retirement, have we not reached the final states of class warfare? As I have stated, I am ASHAMED that too many Republicans and conservatives bought into the idea of a "payroll tax holiday" as an "alternative" to the Obama "stimulus".
The whole idea of using the payroll tax this way--as an excuse to FUND part of Social Security with general revenue and discared the idea of Social Security as a self-funding, self-sustaining system--undermines the whole FDR idea of the Social Security system. It guarantees the eventual dstruction of the Social Security system, and probably the destruction of the United States as we know it Yes, Social Security has always been something of a FRAUD, but this Democrat push to treat Social Security just like any other Big Government program is an obvious and guaranteed way to destory it. When class warfare becomes this obvious, the demise of the United States becomes imminent--as it was for the Rooman Repubic, whic was destroyed by class warfare. Again, the whole "payroll tax cut" idea is a FRAUDULENT SCHEME to use gneral tax revenue--really borrowed money which will be eventually repaid from general tax revenue--to mkae PAYMENTS to people disguised as a reduction of their payroll tax payments. In short, the reskult is to FUND Social Secruity from GENERAL REVENU--a repudiation of the original idea of Social Security. If this were a real parroll/Social Security tax "cut", the money would have to be made up from SOCIAL SECURITY. Instead, it is nothing but a faud to use sleight of hand to justify yet another "stimuls".
Again, general tax RATE cuts are not a "simulus". It is disburbing when Republicans talk as if they were. They "stimulate" the economy, but they do so in a PERMANENT way, so long as we do not keep using temporary, fraudulent gimmicks, and cnetral planning complications of the tax code, to completely undermine what we would gain by a simplle, growth oriented tax system. We need a PERMANENT FIX--not a "magic bullet" attemt by Washington to "save us". A simple tax system of low tax RATES that are actualy PAID will ut the econommy on a growth path--along with limiting Big Government--not because it is a "stimulus", but because it is a rational PATH to growth (not to mention people making decisions on economics and not on the tax code, and avoiding paying taxes under the tax code).
I stand yby the headline. Obama and the Democrats really have a plan to destroy Social Security as we have known it, and to make every single Federal Government program a Big Government "welfare state" program.
You should be able to see now, if you did not before, why I wil vote against EVERY Repubican who supports, or votes for, any "extensioin" of any form of a "payroll tax cut". It is nothing but a FRAUD, and that is someting I no longer can stand from our politicians. Itincreases the deficit/debt MORE than Repuboicans have "cut", or even said they have "cut", through the next fiscal year. It undermines the very concept of self-funding, self-sustaing Social Security which is not just anoother welfare program. It represents another attempt at FAILED Federal Government "stimulus".
In fact, you should be able to see why merely voting AGAINST every single Republican who goes for this fraud is not enough. If the Repubican Party lets another payroll tax cut pass, then I am walking away from the Repubican Party FOREVER. No, that is not mere talk. What it means is lthat I will PRESUME that every single Repubican politicians should not be supported. This would not be a conclusive presumption that would prevent me from supportting Michele Bachmann, because I KNOW where Michele Bachmann stands. It WOULD keep me from voting for Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan and any number of other Republican--Tea Party or not and whether they affirmatively suport this fraud or not. Remember, it is EASY for people who vote "no" to do so if they KNOW that they are going to lose. It is even easier for CNDIDATES not in Congress to say they would vote "no" on someting, and not do anything to actually stop it. Not accpetable. I can assure you I wil APPLY my presumption. Unless a Republican convinces me that he or she is affirmatively ready to FIGHT the Repuboican Prty of this sort of thing, then I will not support a Repuboican politician jsut because he or she SAYS things I like. Cold Rick Perry, for example, show me that I can trust him? Effectively impossible, although I wil "never say never" (except to treating the Republican Party as dead to me if this betrayal occurs--where even thin I guess I could conceive of some future takeover of the Repubican Party that would cause me to rethink, but never for 2012). I mention Paul Ryan because I already would not votte for him, and he is being discussed as apossilbe late "candidate" for President. Too many votes I regard as betrayals. Remember, a VOTE is NOT going to be enough on this payroll tax fraud. Stopping it is all I will accept, in which case I will keep up hope for the Repubican Party (until thye dash it with this fraudulent "gang of 12" fiasco", and a "grad deal" out of that).
What will I think of any REpubican who buys into the AP LIE that faiing to extend the payroll tax "cut" is a tax increase? Words fail me there Any conservativel--from Rush Limbaugh to Sean Hannity to the usual suspects--who purports to buy into that absurdity is my ENEMY. I will not accept fraukd on that kind of scale. This is just not an acceptable position for me. Whether you are a Republican, Democrat or conservative, if you buy into this fraud then I cannot either respect or support you. Is this clear? I hope so.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight and a bad thing in an article I wanted to make clear--but that is the way it is).
Social Security and Democrats: Democrat Plan to Destroyo Social Security
Remember FDR? My mother does. She is now 89, but she was a lifelong Democrat because of FDR. My mother can't stand Obama and modern Democrats. Why not? Wolll, and this did not come from me, she knows President Obama is out to kill her (change health care in a way that kills peole like her--requiring a lot of expensive treatment). But that is not even the main ting. She looks at modern Democrats, including Obama, as people wo want to GIVE people things for noting, and who (like she remembers Herber Hoover--at least partly correctly) have more concern about illegal immigrants , other POLITICAL groups, public employee unions and OTHER COUNTRIES thana they do for the ordinary citizen of the United States (of whatever color or crred). My mother, rightly or wrongly, remembers that FDR insisted that people WORK for what they got. My mother is proud to remember that FDR was against the conflict of interest represented by public employee unions (which FDR opposed). My mother correctly regards President Bush as barely different than President Obama, and believes that Obama is continuing Bush policies. No, this does not come from me. My mother--during the Bush Presidency and afterward--ha tried to GIG me by accusing me of being a Bush lover--even though I finally disowned him in 2006. My mother DESPISES President Bush so much that she even despises the inoffensive Laura Bush, but despises Obama even more because she believes (correctly) that Obama has taken Bush insanity to a new level. The point is that even mo mother, for whom FDR ws God, sees through the DESTRUCTION of the original FDR concept by present day Democrats (which too many Reupblicans have bought into). My mother was familiar with the original FDR consceopt of a SELF-SUSTAING Social Security system where people would PAY into a "trust fund" to pay out benefits. My mother correctly believes that politicians of bouth paries are tuning Social Seucrity into nothing more than a Big Government WELFARE progarm, which can only end in its destruction as the program that FDR sold to her and the country. (My own positioin is that Social Security was flawed from the beginning, because people did not OWN a retirement account--which made it inevitable that eventaully Social Security would be tkurned into noting more than a Big Government "social program", paid for by general taxpayers. But that does not make it RIGHT that my prediction is coming true, nor does it changed tthat Democrats are destroying the program. as FDR set it up.)
You have heard it before. Social Security is one of the "entitlements" that is threatening to bankrupt us. But how can that be so? Social Security is supposed to ba a self-Sustaing program, and one of the things that makes my mother mad is the knowledge that a Social Security "trust fund" does ot really exist: the knowledge that Social Seucrity "unds" have been RAIDED to be used as part of general revenue to fund giving people something for nothing. This brings us to the FRAUD of the "payroll tax cut". This is NOT a "tax cut', but a disguiesed welfare pament designed to simply give money to people. What we are doing is REVERSING totally the FDR concept of self-sustaining Social Security by treating Social Secrutiy as just another WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION scheme. The idea is to GIVE people money by saynig that it comes out of SOCIAL SECURITY FUNDING, and then really take the money out of general revenue and taxes--like magic making it no different from cutting a check to people out of GENERAL REVENUE. As sthated, this is no different from that $6000 Democrat/Bush/Obama "stimulus" of 2008--which did not work any better than the Obama "stimulus". This "pyaroll tax cut" really just represents cashpayments to certain people, takin from other people, it represents the final detruction of the FDR concept of Social Security--which in turn, represents the eventual end of Social Security as anything other than another welfar, wealth redistributin program. That is what Obama WANTS, and it is why he, adn leftist Democrats (including the mainstream media) are pushing this "payroll tax cut".
How is Social Seucrity financed--supposedl as a self-sustaing, self-funded program? It is financed through what used to be known as the SOCIAL SECURITY TAX, which is ot supposed to be a general "tax" at all, but is supposed to be the funding mechanism for Social Secuirty, where al workers support their own eventual retirement benefits (even though those benefits will be actually paid by the workers still working when Social Security retirees retire). And the system is supposed to already be INSOLVENT (on a long-term basis), although currently pretty much matching receipts and payments (PROVIDED the recipts are not cut by this Obama welfare payment). Thus, Obama is talking about wanting to "save" Social Secruity at the same time he wanst so CUT THE FUNDING. When you "cut" the Social Security tax, you are cutting the funding. How can that be? How can we afford ti? Answer: we can't afford i, and the only way it "can be' is LIES and POLITICS (including way too many Repubicans and establishment "conservatives").
Now we come to the "lame duck" sesson in late 2010. Obama was looking for more "stimulus", and a way to further expand his wealth redistribution agenda, even as he was going to be forced into a "deal" extending the entire Bush tax cuts (real tax RATE cuts, and not a graud, that had been n effect aobut a decade). Obama, and turncoat Republicans, foisted this "dal" on the American peoiple which INCREASED our debt and deficit more than the ENTRIE AMOUNT that Republicans have claimed to have "cut" the debt and deficit since. What Obama did was get Congress to do this "payroll tax cut" FRAUD, whereby only the emplyee part of "payroll taxes" would be "cut". Makng it even more celear that this was only a "stimuls' GIMMICK, and a monthly welfare payment, was that this was a TEMPORARY "cut" in only a very specific, class warfare, PART of the tax fudning Social Security. But ws there a way to make it even more clear that this was only a wEALTREDISTRIBUTION welfare scheme? Yes, there was.
Remember, a REAL "cut' in Social Security funding would reuire either a CUT in Social Security BENEFITS (eventually), or a later INCREASE in Social Security taxes That is probably what is going to have to be done just to save Social Security for the long haul, even without a cut in funding. Obama and the Democrats had no intention of having people like me be able to point this out, and it is obvious enough that such a measure imposing a future BURDEN on Social Security would never have passed Congress. Solutioni? Come on. You know this one. Since Obama could not, politially or ideologically, do a real Social Secruity funding cut, and then have that cut financed by later Social Security cuts and/or increases in Social Security taxes to make up for the unding shortfall, what FRAUD was availabe (the reason wyou should vote AGAINST every single lRepubican who signed on to that late 2010 deal)? Easy. Make it clear that this had noting to do with Social Security, but was a way to PAY CASH to selected recipients (namely, of course, workers earning wages--what Obama and the Democrats regard as "their" cnstituency). How do you do this? Just require the Social Security "trust fund" (which even my mother now knows is mythical, and just an accounting device) for the loss in funding--taking the reimbursement FROM GENERAL REVENUE (really borrowing it, but to be repaid from general revenue). Magic. Yo no longer have a real "payroll tax cut", which you would have to fund from the Social Security system itself. You have a MONTHLY CAH PAYMENT to workters no dirrent (at all) from simply paying a monthly check to workers every moneth from the Federal Government. And no, that is NOT true with tax RATE reductions allowing people to keeep their own money. It is a gimmick, and a gimmick which completely destroys the original concept of Social Security as a self-sustaining system.
Why idd Obama think he could get away with this "stimulus" increase in the debt and defict--again, a bigger increase (though next year) than any "cut' Repubicans have supposedly made in the deficit? First Obam aheld a gun to the head of woardly Republicans, who did not want to take the political heat for letting the Bush tax cuts "expire". Now it was a false thrat, because Obama would never have let it happen. But Republicans in Congress are both cowards, and Big Government peoiple atr heart. It did not matter that Repubicans had just won an electin based on "fiscla responsibiity" (at least in part). Repubicans were willng t go along with a fiscaly IRRESPONSIBLE gimmick, which DID NOT WORK (as you would have expected). The second reason was that some Repubicans and even some "conservatives'--not me--had proposed a payroll tax " holiday" as a "Repubican" ALTERNATIVE to the Obama PORK spenindg in the Obama "stimulus" bill This was attractive to Repubicans because it would supposedly have given BUSINESSES a break by cutting their cost for emplyees. Stil TERRRIBLE policy--still a welfare GIMMICK, but the type of elfare that some Repubicans like. I thik Rush Limbuagh fell for this fraud, which is yet more evidence why this blog is right more often than Limbaugh. Obam, however, got away with even depriving Repubicans of the attraction of this "idea", since Obama aand the Democrats limited the "tax cut" to the WORKER (not the employer). Watch for the further FRAUD of some kind of "compromise" where the business part of teh payroll tax is also "cut'. Now, as a "stimulus", the Repubican "payroll tax holiday" idea was BETTER than the Democrat/Obama Big Government SPENDING bill. However, it was still a TERRIBLE idea, and a fraud (as explained above), wich was much worse than doing nothing. The only "tax cut" worth considering was a GNERAL cut in tax RATES for individuals and businesses (includng closing of tax loopholes and expenditures that complicate the Tax Code--as this payroll tax gimmick compicates the tax code and fails to help the economy),
Now what Obama is doing is trying to EXTEND the FRAUD of the "payroll tax cut". Remember, again, that this is the FUNDING for Social Security that Obama wants to CUT. And it will AGAIN add MORE to the debt and defict than Repubicans will have "cut", all of the way through 2012 and beyond (the references to larger "cuts" being for the OUT YEARS, beyond this next fiscal year, when we have no idea whether any such "cuts" will be actually made). Again, we will have to BORROW the money to make these "yroll tax cut" welfare payments. We now have a "new" Repubican House. Surely this cannot pass? Well, it should not pass. But this blog has been tellng you for monthst that the establishment has been telling LIE after LIE to get it passsed--including the lie that everyone agrees with it except malcontents like me).
That is how we come to today, and the ROPAGANDA headline of the AP (as featured on AT&T/Yahoo--boycott AT&T and Yahoo) as follows: "GOP may okay tax increase that Obama wants to block".
Can DISHONEST PROPAGANDA get any worse than this? The despicable AP contains the most dishonest lhypocrities to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or four (except for the rest oft he mainstream media--just as bad, except that the AP is used for COVER for partisan propaganda as a supposed "news wire service) Yep. The headline is about the "payroll tax cut"l--an outright political ad for Obama and an outright LIE.
See part II of this article, which will be next.
P.S No proofreading or spel checking (bad eyesight).
You have heard it before. Social Security is one of the "entitlements" that is threatening to bankrupt us. But how can that be so? Social Security is supposed to ba a self-Sustaing program, and one of the things that makes my mother mad is the knowledge that a Social Security "trust fund" does ot really exist: the knowledge that Social Seucrity "unds" have been RAIDED to be used as part of general revenue to fund giving people something for nothing. This brings us to the FRAUD of the "payroll tax cut". This is NOT a "tax cut', but a disguiesed welfare pament designed to simply give money to people. What we are doing is REVERSING totally the FDR concept of self-sustaining Social Security by treating Social Secrutiy as just another WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION scheme. The idea is to GIVE people money by saynig that it comes out of SOCIAL SECURITY FUNDING, and then really take the money out of general revenue and taxes--like magic making it no different from cutting a check to people out of GENERAL REVENUE. As sthated, this is no different from that $6000 Democrat/Bush/Obama "stimulus" of 2008--which did not work any better than the Obama "stimulus". This "pyaroll tax cut" really just represents cashpayments to certain people, takin from other people, it represents the final detruction of the FDR concept of Social Security--which in turn, represents the eventual end of Social Security as anything other than another welfar, wealth redistributin program. That is what Obama WANTS, and it is why he, adn leftist Democrats (including the mainstream media) are pushing this "payroll tax cut".
How is Social Seucrity financed--supposedl as a self-sustaing, self-funded program? It is financed through what used to be known as the SOCIAL SECURITY TAX, which is ot supposed to be a general "tax" at all, but is supposed to be the funding mechanism for Social Secuirty, where al workers support their own eventual retirement benefits (even though those benefits will be actually paid by the workers still working when Social Security retirees retire). And the system is supposed to already be INSOLVENT (on a long-term basis), although currently pretty much matching receipts and payments (PROVIDED the recipts are not cut by this Obama welfare payment). Thus, Obama is talking about wanting to "save" Social Secruity at the same time he wanst so CUT THE FUNDING. When you "cut" the Social Security tax, you are cutting the funding. How can that be? How can we afford ti? Answer: we can't afford i, and the only way it "can be' is LIES and POLITICS (including way too many Repubicans and establishment "conservatives").
Now we come to the "lame duck" sesson in late 2010. Obama was looking for more "stimulus", and a way to further expand his wealth redistribution agenda, even as he was going to be forced into a "deal" extending the entire Bush tax cuts (real tax RATE cuts, and not a graud, that had been n effect aobut a decade). Obama, and turncoat Republicans, foisted this "dal" on the American peoiple which INCREASED our debt and deficit more than the ENTRIE AMOUNT that Republicans have claimed to have "cut" the debt and deficit since. What Obama did was get Congress to do this "payroll tax cut" FRAUD, whereby only the emplyee part of "payroll taxes" would be "cut". Makng it even more celear that this was only a "stimuls' GIMMICK, and a monthly welfare payment, was that this was a TEMPORARY "cut" in only a very specific, class warfare, PART of the tax fudning Social Security. But ws there a way to make it even more clear that this was only a wEALTREDISTRIBUTION welfare scheme? Yes, there was.
Remember, a REAL "cut' in Social Security funding would reuire either a CUT in Social Security BENEFITS (eventually), or a later INCREASE in Social Security taxes That is probably what is going to have to be done just to save Social Security for the long haul, even without a cut in funding. Obama and the Democrats had no intention of having people like me be able to point this out, and it is obvious enough that such a measure imposing a future BURDEN on Social Security would never have passed Congress. Solutioni? Come on. You know this one. Since Obama could not, politially or ideologically, do a real Social Secruity funding cut, and then have that cut financed by later Social Security cuts and/or increases in Social Security taxes to make up for the unding shortfall, what FRAUD was availabe (the reason wyou should vote AGAINST every single lRepubican who signed on to that late 2010 deal)? Easy. Make it clear that this had noting to do with Social Security, but was a way to PAY CASH to selected recipients (namely, of course, workers earning wages--what Obama and the Democrats regard as "their" cnstituency). How do you do this? Just require the Social Security "trust fund" (which even my mother now knows is mythical, and just an accounting device) for the loss in funding--taking the reimbursement FROM GENERAL REVENUE (really borrowing it, but to be repaid from general revenue). Magic. Yo no longer have a real "payroll tax cut", which you would have to fund from the Social Security system itself. You have a MONTHLY CAH PAYMENT to workters no dirrent (at all) from simply paying a monthly check to workers every moneth from the Federal Government. And no, that is NOT true with tax RATE reductions allowing people to keeep their own money. It is a gimmick, and a gimmick which completely destroys the original concept of Social Security as a self-sustaining system.
Why idd Obama think he could get away with this "stimulus" increase in the debt and defict--again, a bigger increase (though next year) than any "cut' Repubicans have supposedly made in the deficit? First Obam aheld a gun to the head of woardly Republicans, who did not want to take the political heat for letting the Bush tax cuts "expire". Now it was a false thrat, because Obama would never have let it happen. But Republicans in Congress are both cowards, and Big Government peoiple atr heart. It did not matter that Repubicans had just won an electin based on "fiscla responsibiity" (at least in part). Repubicans were willng t go along with a fiscaly IRRESPONSIBLE gimmick, which DID NOT WORK (as you would have expected). The second reason was that some Repubicans and even some "conservatives'--not me--had proposed a payroll tax " holiday" as a "Repubican" ALTERNATIVE to the Obama PORK spenindg in the Obama "stimulus" bill This was attractive to Repubicans because it would supposedly have given BUSINESSES a break by cutting their cost for emplyees. Stil TERRRIBLE policy--still a welfare GIMMICK, but the type of elfare that some Repubicans like. I thik Rush Limbuagh fell for this fraud, which is yet more evidence why this blog is right more often than Limbaugh. Obam, however, got away with even depriving Repubicans of the attraction of this "idea", since Obama aand the Democrats limited the "tax cut" to the WORKER (not the employer). Watch for the further FRAUD of some kind of "compromise" where the business part of teh payroll tax is also "cut'. Now, as a "stimulus", the Repubican "payroll tax holiday" idea was BETTER than the Democrat/Obama Big Government SPENDING bill. However, it was still a TERRIBLE idea, and a fraud (as explained above), wich was much worse than doing nothing. The only "tax cut" worth considering was a GNERAL cut in tax RATES for individuals and businesses (includng closing of tax loopholes and expenditures that complicate the Tax Code--as this payroll tax gimmick compicates the tax code and fails to help the economy),
Now what Obama is doing is trying to EXTEND the FRAUD of the "payroll tax cut". Remember, again, that this is the FUNDING for Social Security that Obama wants to CUT. And it will AGAIN add MORE to the debt and defict than Repubicans will have "cut", all of the way through 2012 and beyond (the references to larger "cuts" being for the OUT YEARS, beyond this next fiscal year, when we have no idea whether any such "cuts" will be actually made). Again, we will have to BORROW the money to make these "yroll tax cut" welfare payments. We now have a "new" Repubican House. Surely this cannot pass? Well, it should not pass. But this blog has been tellng you for monthst that the establishment has been telling LIE after LIE to get it passsed--including the lie that everyone agrees with it except malcontents like me).
That is how we come to today, and the ROPAGANDA headline of the AP (as featured on AT&T/Yahoo--boycott AT&T and Yahoo) as follows: "GOP may okay tax increase that Obama wants to block".
Can DISHONEST PROPAGANDA get any worse than this? The despicable AP contains the most dishonest lhypocrities to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or four (except for the rest oft he mainstream media--just as bad, except that the AP is used for COVER for partisan propaganda as a supposed "news wire service) Yep. The headline is about the "payroll tax cut"l--an outright political ad for Obama and an outright LIE.
See part II of this article, which will be next.
P.S No proofreading or spel checking (bad eyesight).
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Obama and Illegal Immmigration Deception: Liar-in-Chief
The Obama Department of Homeland Security has announced that it will not enforce the immigration laws of this country: implementing the Democrat "Dram Act" that Harry Reid tried to push past the "lame duck" Congress, and failed. Yes, the President of the Untited States, and his minions., are violating their duty, and showing their total disrespect for "the law" (hypocrisy, of course, when you consider how they talk about Repubicans when they allege that Republicans have vioilated "the law"). This is a familiar pattern for left wing Democrats, who are advocating the same thing on marijuana and any number of other things. But in no area is the decoption worse than in illegal immigration, whre this is all POLITICAL, and has nothing to do real policy choices. Obama is in trouble with Hispanics (as with almost everyone else), and this is the Obama Administratioin's method of pandering to the Hispanic vote. My question is why Obama thinks most Hispanices WANT to be associated with illegal immigrants. The very fact that Democrats did not push this to a vote BEFORE the 2010 election, and only afterward decidied it is so important that the law, and the will of Congress, can be ignored is POLITICS. The Obama Administration attempt to lie about this is so obvious that such attempt alone proves Obama is acting as "Liar-in-Chief".
What about the allegation that the Obama Administratin is merely focuing its "resources" on "criminals", rather than on "veternas", long-term residents, and Students"? That merely proes how much of a liar President Obama really is, and how pro-illegal immigration people are all about DECEPTION.
Doesn not "prosecutorial" discretion exist? Sure it does, but not in this context. The Obama Administratino had already announced that they were going to concentrate their law enforcement efforts on ONLY those people they want to deport--a government of men and not laws. They have now gone farther, and said they they are going to devote the RESOURCES to "screen" some 300,000 PENDING deportation cases, and only purse those that THEY think woudld not have come withint the Dream Act. You say that they did not mention the Dream Act? They might just have well cited it, because the LANGUAGE they used was exactly that which was in the Dream Act supported by the Obama Administration!!!! To say, otherwise is an obvius lie by our Liar-in-Chief, or on his behal, and everyone knows it The Obama Administration is not even makng much of an efffort to disguise the obvious. Why should they, when they expect our sycophantic media to let them get away with, it, and WANT Hispanics to give them "credit" for this (after illegal immigration activists, and left wing Hispanic activists, had accused Obama of not keeping his "promies" to them).
Say someone smashes your car window, or rips off your door lock (as happened several times to my daughter in Hawaii) when she went to college there. Do you expect the police to devote MAJOR resources to "solving" that crime? Of coure not, unless something really valuuable is stolen But do you expect the police to be sent a MEMO that they should ignore this crime? Don't be silly. And what if people are CAUGHT and ARRESTED for breaking into your car and stealing some sort of electronic device? Do you expect the authorities to DROP the case on thr grounds that it resources need to be concentrated elsewhere? Absurd. We can't catch all illegal aliens? Indeed, we can't, but we can't catch all SPEEKERS either (and don't try). But we want to DISCOURAGE people from speeding, which means we keep using SOME resources to enforce the law, and that police will enforce the law (if not otherwise occupied) if they see it being flagrantly violated. Under no circustances wwill anyone ANOUNCE that tehy will no longer enforce the law against speeding, unless you know that the speeder is a wanted criminal or gang banger. That is beyond absurd. It is an asinine abrogation of law and duty. (Now I realize that politicians may sometimes announce that "budget cuts" mean that police will o longer be able to enforce the law, but I hope you realize that, too, is PLITICAL--designed to push for more money and/or advance a political agenda,)
More reason to allow Arizona to hepl the Feds enforce the law, escept that the Feds are saying they are not interested in enforcing the law. They would rather devote "resources" to NOT enforcing the law--like suing Arizona and "screening" casses--than to enforcing the law.
There is just no exuse for a NATIONAL policy not to enforce the law. If local offices lack resources, and "prioritize" their enforcement, that may well be appropriate. But for the Obaa Administration to say, on a national level, that the law is not to be enforced means one thing: The Obama Administration DOES NOT LIKE THE LAW (for political reaspons), and is bypassing Conggress to adopt the policy they do like.
The deception on illegal immigratin just never ends. How does the Obama Administratin know who is a "criminal" or "gang banger" and who is not? Wave a magic wand? How does the Obama Administration know who is part of the DANGEROUS drug cartels, and who is not Oh, I am sure they know SOME names. But look at "Operation Fast and Furious", where the Obama Administration adopted a POLICY of letting guns go into Mexico , It turns out that the drug cartels PAY people not otherwise obviously connected with them to buy guns for the. How does the Obama Administration know who has been RECRUITED by the drug cartels? They don't. This is all DECEPTIOIN. And is the Obama Administration really saying that it is going to devote lots of those "scarce resources" to INVESTIGATE who is a student and who is not? To INVESTIGATE who is a "gang banger", ans who is not? To INVESTIGATE who has been in this country a long time, and who has not? Don't be silly. This is all DECEPTION. The idea is not to deport ANYBODY, unless something just jumps out and hits you in the face. There is NO way to know who is a "criinal" and who is not, until they KILL somebody (or commit another serious crime after having been allowed to stay here).
Thi s blog has told you about hypocrite Anderoson Cooper blaming child abuse and MURDER on Christian fundamentalists merely advocating "old-style disciplline" ("spare the rod and spoil the child"), without advocating either child abuse or murder. That, of course is merely an example of the anti-Christian bigotry of Cooper and CNN. But let me ask this question : Has the Obama Administration already been complicit in MURDER because U.S. agents have been killed with guns that The Obama Administration deliberately arranged to be sent into Mexico? And will the Obama Administration be "responsbile" fo rCRIMES committed by these illegal aliens--crimes which will probably include murder, because tkhey remain here instead of being deported to Mexico? It is obvius that the Obama Administratin is responsible for crimes committed by these illegal aliens that have already been flagged, and get flagged in the future--with the Obama Administratin refusing to deport them.
This, by the way, is another part of the deception here. The Obama Administration may cite the resource consuming process of deporting someone who CONTESTS deportation. But, at the same time, the Obama Administraiton (and the po-illegal immigraitn activiists ultimately behinind this "don't enforce the law" poilcy) are ENCORAGING the "contess" of deportation. The deception on illegal immigration just never ends, and it is reason enough to vote against essentially every Democrat politician out there. Tht is ot to say there are not a lot of REPUBLICAN establishment types who are part of this DECEPTION.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
What about the allegation that the Obama Administratin is merely focuing its "resources" on "criminals", rather than on "veternas", long-term residents, and Students"? That merely proes how much of a liar President Obama really is, and how pro-illegal immigration people are all about DECEPTION.
Doesn not "prosecutorial" discretion exist? Sure it does, but not in this context. The Obama Administratino had already announced that they were going to concentrate their law enforcement efforts on ONLY those people they want to deport--a government of men and not laws. They have now gone farther, and said they they are going to devote the RESOURCES to "screen" some 300,000 PENDING deportation cases, and only purse those that THEY think woudld not have come withint the Dream Act. You say that they did not mention the Dream Act? They might just have well cited it, because the LANGUAGE they used was exactly that which was in the Dream Act supported by the Obama Administration!!!! To say, otherwise is an obvius lie by our Liar-in-Chief, or on his behal, and everyone knows it The Obama Administration is not even makng much of an efffort to disguise the obvious. Why should they, when they expect our sycophantic media to let them get away with, it, and WANT Hispanics to give them "credit" for this (after illegal immigration activists, and left wing Hispanic activists, had accused Obama of not keeping his "promies" to them).
Say someone smashes your car window, or rips off your door lock (as happened several times to my daughter in Hawaii) when she went to college there. Do you expect the police to devote MAJOR resources to "solving" that crime? Of coure not, unless something really valuuable is stolen But do you expect the police to be sent a MEMO that they should ignore this crime? Don't be silly. And what if people are CAUGHT and ARRESTED for breaking into your car and stealing some sort of electronic device? Do you expect the authorities to DROP the case on thr grounds that it resources need to be concentrated elsewhere? Absurd. We can't catch all illegal aliens? Indeed, we can't, but we can't catch all SPEEKERS either (and don't try). But we want to DISCOURAGE people from speeding, which means we keep using SOME resources to enforce the law, and that police will enforce the law (if not otherwise occupied) if they see it being flagrantly violated. Under no circustances wwill anyone ANOUNCE that tehy will no longer enforce the law against speeding, unless you know that the speeder is a wanted criminal or gang banger. That is beyond absurd. It is an asinine abrogation of law and duty. (Now I realize that politicians may sometimes announce that "budget cuts" mean that police will o longer be able to enforce the law, but I hope you realize that, too, is PLITICAL--designed to push for more money and/or advance a political agenda,)
More reason to allow Arizona to hepl the Feds enforce the law, escept that the Feds are saying they are not interested in enforcing the law. They would rather devote "resources" to NOT enforcing the law--like suing Arizona and "screening" casses--than to enforcing the law.
There is just no exuse for a NATIONAL policy not to enforce the law. If local offices lack resources, and "prioritize" their enforcement, that may well be appropriate. But for the Obaa Administration to say, on a national level, that the law is not to be enforced means one thing: The Obama Administration DOES NOT LIKE THE LAW (for political reaspons), and is bypassing Conggress to adopt the policy they do like.
The deception on illegal immigratin just never ends. How does the Obama Administratin know who is a "criminal" or "gang banger" and who is not? Wave a magic wand? How does the Obama Administration know who is part of the DANGEROUS drug cartels, and who is not Oh, I am sure they know SOME names. But look at "Operation Fast and Furious", where the Obama Administration adopted a POLICY of letting guns go into Mexico , It turns out that the drug cartels PAY people not otherwise obviously connected with them to buy guns for the. How does the Obama Administration know who has been RECRUITED by the drug cartels? They don't. This is all DECEPTIOIN. And is the Obama Administration really saying that it is going to devote lots of those "scarce resources" to INVESTIGATE who is a student and who is not? To INVESTIGATE who is a "gang banger", ans who is not? To INVESTIGATE who has been in this country a long time, and who has not? Don't be silly. This is all DECEPTION. The idea is not to deport ANYBODY, unless something just jumps out and hits you in the face. There is NO way to know who is a "criinal" and who is not, until they KILL somebody (or commit another serious crime after having been allowed to stay here).
Thi s blog has told you about hypocrite Anderoson Cooper blaming child abuse and MURDER on Christian fundamentalists merely advocating "old-style disciplline" ("spare the rod and spoil the child"), without advocating either child abuse or murder. That, of course is merely an example of the anti-Christian bigotry of Cooper and CNN. But let me ask this question : Has the Obama Administration already been complicit in MURDER because U.S. agents have been killed with guns that The Obama Administration deliberately arranged to be sent into Mexico? And will the Obama Administration be "responsbile" fo rCRIMES committed by these illegal aliens--crimes which will probably include murder, because tkhey remain here instead of being deported to Mexico? It is obvius that the Obama Administratin is responsible for crimes committed by these illegal aliens that have already been flagged, and get flagged in the future--with the Obama Administratin refusing to deport them.
This, by the way, is another part of the deception here. The Obama Administration may cite the resource consuming process of deporting someone who CONTESTS deportation. But, at the same time, the Obama Administraiton (and the po-illegal immigraitn activiists ultimately behinind this "don't enforce the law" poilcy) are ENCORAGING the "contess" of deportation. The deception on illegal immigration just never ends, and it is reason enough to vote against essentially every Democrat politician out there. Tht is ot to say there are not a lot of REPUBLICAN establishment types who are part of this DECEPTION.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Friday, August 19, 2011
Obama and CNN: Against Low Gasoline Prices (Sheppard Smith: Guest Villain on the Unfair and Unbalanced Network)
The headline is NOT hyperbole. It is a fact. How can anyone vote for Obama in the face of that turth? Well, you have seen that they WON"'T if they are faced with high gas prices. That was Obama's lesson this summer--one of about 10 thousand things he did not know which are hurting him.
Segue to CNN today, and John King. He had one of those "panel" discussons with two CNN regulars . One o ws Eirc Erickson (or however he spells his name) of redstate.com. (who, unfortunately, has become less and less good, as he is tainted by CNN). The other was an Obama supporter and leftist (whose name I did not bother to notice). The subject was mainly ridiculing Michele Bachmann's perfectly reasonable "promise" that gasoline would go under $2 a gallon in a Bachmann Presidency. Why not? Donald Trump says that in these economic times, and maybe in condiderably better times, oil should be selling at $30 a barrel (not more than 80, as presently, and toward a 100 in Brent). Ut was bit kibg agi tgat gasoline sold for less than $2 a gallon, and oil $30 a barrel. It is DEFEATISM to say that those times are long gone. You woul dthink that at least CNN would approve the GOAL of bringing gasoline back to $2 a gallon You woul be wrong (not kidding or exaggerating here at all). Now you might also think that even the hpocrites at CNN would be reluctant to jump; on Michele Bachmann for "overpromising", aftea all of the outrageous promises that Obama made, and failed tokeep (and is still making, with no intention of keeping them or ability to do so). You would be wrong again, as the hypocrisy of CNN knows no bounds. But that is another article (or 100).
Why would it be BAD policy for us to achieve $2 gasoline? Do the American people agree with this? Not a chance. But the Obama supporter in the panel stated exactly that: "Anyway, it would not be good policy for us to have $2 gasoline." You may not realize it, and Obama may not say it, but that is EXACTLY the position of the Obama Administration and the Obama EPA. Their position is that it would be undesirable to encourage the use of fossil fuels with low oil and gasoline prices. I kid you not. I am not makig thi sup or exaggerating. If President Obama did NOT ffeel this way, he would have shown much more URGENCY about oil drilling. If Democrats did not feel this way, we would be drilling in ANWR--have COMLETED the project--well before now. John King, of coure, did not blink an eye at the assertion that it would be bad policy to have $2 gasoline, or ask why his panelist ddoes not have any compassion for PPOR and MIDDLE CLASS people. The conclusin is obvious, as the headline correctly says: The Obama Administration and CNN oppose substantially lower gas priiices (because of this obsession with "green" energy). And they are not interested in developng our fossil fuel resources. Michele Bachmann is interested, which is reason enough to elect her President (or someone else who thins like her, but she is the only one with courage to say these things). Politics aside, the question remainss: Do the American people really believe that it is "bad" plicy to have $2 gasoline? It was Eric Erickson, of redstate.com, who broke in and said essentailly that, although he said so with such ttimidity anddiffidence that I know I will never vote for HIM for anything (and don't recommend redstate.com).
Note what CNN did NOT do They falsely said that a President had no control over gas prices. That is a lie. It is ture that the President does not have total control, but the President does have a lkot to say about the price of oil and gasoline, You would not know it if you watch The Liar Network (CNN). Am I saying that President Obama is responsible for high gas prices this summer? Darn right I am. Obama has INTENSIFIED the restrictions on fossil fuels, including restrictions on drilling, that began in the 20th Century (drilling in ANWR failed by ONE VOTE--if I remember right--in 1998, due to oppostion of peole like Obama. Obama himself, although he seems to forget it, has been part of the DEMOCRAT attempts to restrict drilling since at least 2004, when Obama was elected aas a United States Senator. Yep. This is one of the obvious, yet persistent, Obama LIES. Obama--when he ran for President--was PART of the mess in Washington--part of the MAJORITY in Congress beginning in January of 2007. Can you imagine how much Obama is condemning HIMSELF when he talks about the "mess" in Washington he "found" when he beecame President. Ntot only was Obama an important part of that "mess" before he becamed President, but he is tellng us that he did not LEARN how big a mess it was until he became President (despite his four years in the United States Senate).
But did CNN go into drilling, and what could be done to lower oil and gas p;rices? Not a chance. CNN was not interested, as CNN is never interested, in INFORMATION. CNN was only interested in a partisan attack on Michele Bachmann--an attack in which redstate.com really joinged. The only reference to the POLICY advocated by Bachmann was a dismissive reference to her website, and how she proposed to encourage the production of more oil.
Ah. Sheppard Smith, of the unfair and unbalanced netowrk--one of the many reasons I have tol you to boycott that network. Sheppard Smith, and the unfair and unbalanced network, are not interested in facts either. Days before CNN's assertion today that it is a bad idea to have $2 gasoline, Sheppard Smith ridiculed Michele Bachmann for the same "promise' of $2 gasoline. Smith was also not interested in the policy choices that Bachmann was advocating to bring that about. Smith was not interested in the history of oil and gas prices, and how long ago gasoline had been at $2 a gallon. Bachmann seemed to be sayingg that gasoline was $1.79 a gallon when Obama became President. CNN did not attack that claim, which would indicate it is true. Gasoline was certanly close to $2 a gallon during the depths of the recession Oil went to $35 a barrel, before beginning its rise to $110 (under Obama--the price reached this summer). "No facts, none of the time". That is the motto of the unfair and unbalanced network--includnig the awkward double negative showing the kind of "transparency" in delivering facts you get on that network.
How can we evaluage a candidate for President if we have a media not interested in facts or issues at all, but only interested in their version of negative political ads? Well, people could read this blog.!!!!! However, I have to acknowledge that is not happening. This explains why I am a cynic and a pessimist. We have a media interested only in "gotcha", and agenda, and really no one trying to get information out to the public except on the internet. I have said that Rush Limbaugh gives better informatin than CNN, because he does. But "information" is not his stock and trade. This blog is more aboutinterpretation and critique than information, but--unlike CNN and the unfair and unbalanced network--I am respectfl of the facts and don't distort them. What I say is facttual is factual. It has been almost forever since I have made a SUBSTANTIVE error (includin gon opinions, when events have established whether the opinion was right or wrong). Now you will see typos, proofreading (because I don't--too time consuming with my truly bad eyesight) and spell checking (ditto). It may be a chore for ou to wasde through these articles, but you get actual facts along with agenda. Yes, the agenda is there, but I tell you what it is, and it does not (substantially) affect my analysis of the facts. And when I say the ""agenda" is there, it is NOT a "partisan" agenda. I am a conservative, with certain maverick tendencies (agnostic, for one). I am conservative not as some sort of religious "ideology"--like you leftists out there--but as the best descrtiiption of what I like to believe is a CONSISTENT overall philosophy of life, government and politics. I don't care if the "Republiican Party", as an institution, prevails. I want conservative IDEAS to prevail, because that is what I believe is best for the country. In ouor system, by the way, there is a place forparty loyalists. Someone has to keep the parties from flying off in all directions. I am just not one of those "loyalists". I have no loyalty at al to the Republican Party that first attracted e wtih Barry Godwater and Ronald Reagan. That party forfeited all right to any loyalty, in my conservative view. It looked ike the Republican Party might be returning to a party of conservative ideas, but the past few months have pretty much convinced me that is not so I think the "final" (for this election cycle) test will be the Repubican Party reaction (ACTIONS, not jut words) to the Obama "jobs program"--including this truly terrible "payroll tax cut"), and to whatever "plan" this "gang of 12" comes up with. I expect the worst. Did I tell you I am a cynic and a pessimist? I know that this long, rambling paragraph has little to do with the rest of the article, but from time to time I like to let you know where I am coming from., and why "partisan" is really te wrong descriptioni for me--unliked for CNN.
Segue to CNN today, and John King. He had one of those "panel" discussons with two CNN regulars . One o ws Eirc Erickson (or however he spells his name) of redstate.com. (who, unfortunately, has become less and less good, as he is tainted by CNN). The other was an Obama supporter and leftist (whose name I did not bother to notice). The subject was mainly ridiculing Michele Bachmann's perfectly reasonable "promise" that gasoline would go under $2 a gallon in a Bachmann Presidency. Why not? Donald Trump says that in these economic times, and maybe in condiderably better times, oil should be selling at $30 a barrel (not more than 80, as presently, and toward a 100 in Brent). Ut was bit kibg agi tgat gasoline sold for less than $2 a gallon, and oil $30 a barrel. It is DEFEATISM to say that those times are long gone. You woul dthink that at least CNN would approve the GOAL of bringing gasoline back to $2 a gallon You woul be wrong (not kidding or exaggerating here at all). Now you might also think that even the hpocrites at CNN would be reluctant to jump; on Michele Bachmann for "overpromising", aftea all of the outrageous promises that Obama made, and failed tokeep (and is still making, with no intention of keeping them or ability to do so). You would be wrong again, as the hypocrisy of CNN knows no bounds. But that is another article (or 100).
Why would it be BAD policy for us to achieve $2 gasoline? Do the American people agree with this? Not a chance. But the Obama supporter in the panel stated exactly that: "Anyway, it would not be good policy for us to have $2 gasoline." You may not realize it, and Obama may not say it, but that is EXACTLY the position of the Obama Administration and the Obama EPA. Their position is that it would be undesirable to encourage the use of fossil fuels with low oil and gasoline prices. I kid you not. I am not makig thi sup or exaggerating. If President Obama did NOT ffeel this way, he would have shown much more URGENCY about oil drilling. If Democrats did not feel this way, we would be drilling in ANWR--have COMLETED the project--well before now. John King, of coure, did not blink an eye at the assertion that it would be bad policy to have $2 gasoline, or ask why his panelist ddoes not have any compassion for PPOR and MIDDLE CLASS people. The conclusin is obvious, as the headline correctly says: The Obama Administration and CNN oppose substantially lower gas priiices (because of this obsession with "green" energy). And they are not interested in developng our fossil fuel resources. Michele Bachmann is interested, which is reason enough to elect her President (or someone else who thins like her, but she is the only one with courage to say these things). Politics aside, the question remainss: Do the American people really believe that it is "bad" plicy to have $2 gasoline? It was Eric Erickson, of redstate.com, who broke in and said essentailly that, although he said so with such ttimidity anddiffidence that I know I will never vote for HIM for anything (and don't recommend redstate.com).
Note what CNN did NOT do They falsely said that a President had no control over gas prices. That is a lie. It is ture that the President does not have total control, but the President does have a lkot to say about the price of oil and gasoline, You would not know it if you watch The Liar Network (CNN). Am I saying that President Obama is responsible for high gas prices this summer? Darn right I am. Obama has INTENSIFIED the restrictions on fossil fuels, including restrictions on drilling, that began in the 20th Century (drilling in ANWR failed by ONE VOTE--if I remember right--in 1998, due to oppostion of peole like Obama. Obama himself, although he seems to forget it, has been part of the DEMOCRAT attempts to restrict drilling since at least 2004, when Obama was elected aas a United States Senator. Yep. This is one of the obvious, yet persistent, Obama LIES. Obama--when he ran for President--was PART of the mess in Washington--part of the MAJORITY in Congress beginning in January of 2007. Can you imagine how much Obama is condemning HIMSELF when he talks about the "mess" in Washington he "found" when he beecame President. Ntot only was Obama an important part of that "mess" before he becamed President, but he is tellng us that he did not LEARN how big a mess it was until he became President (despite his four years in the United States Senate).
But did CNN go into drilling, and what could be done to lower oil and gas p;rices? Not a chance. CNN was not interested, as CNN is never interested, in INFORMATION. CNN was only interested in a partisan attack on Michele Bachmann--an attack in which redstate.com really joinged. The only reference to the POLICY advocated by Bachmann was a dismissive reference to her website, and how she proposed to encourage the production of more oil.
Ah. Sheppard Smith, of the unfair and unbalanced netowrk--one of the many reasons I have tol you to boycott that network. Sheppard Smith, and the unfair and unbalanced network, are not interested in facts either. Days before CNN's assertion today that it is a bad idea to have $2 gasoline, Sheppard Smith ridiculed Michele Bachmann for the same "promise' of $2 gasoline. Smith was also not interested in the policy choices that Bachmann was advocating to bring that about. Smith was not interested in the history of oil and gas prices, and how long ago gasoline had been at $2 a gallon. Bachmann seemed to be sayingg that gasoline was $1.79 a gallon when Obama became President. CNN did not attack that claim, which would indicate it is true. Gasoline was certanly close to $2 a gallon during the depths of the recession Oil went to $35 a barrel, before beginning its rise to $110 (under Obama--the price reached this summer). "No facts, none of the time". That is the motto of the unfair and unbalanced network--includnig the awkward double negative showing the kind of "transparency" in delivering facts you get on that network.
How can we evaluage a candidate for President if we have a media not interested in facts or issues at all, but only interested in their version of negative political ads? Well, people could read this blog.!!!!! However, I have to acknowledge that is not happening. This explains why I am a cynic and a pessimist. We have a media interested only in "gotcha", and agenda, and really no one trying to get information out to the public except on the internet. I have said that Rush Limbaugh gives better informatin than CNN, because he does. But "information" is not his stock and trade. This blog is more aboutinterpretation and critique than information, but--unlike CNN and the unfair and unbalanced network--I am respectfl of the facts and don't distort them. What I say is facttual is factual. It has been almost forever since I have made a SUBSTANTIVE error (includin gon opinions, when events have established whether the opinion was right or wrong). Now you will see typos, proofreading (because I don't--too time consuming with my truly bad eyesight) and spell checking (ditto). It may be a chore for ou to wasde through these articles, but you get actual facts along with agenda. Yes, the agenda is there, but I tell you what it is, and it does not (substantially) affect my analysis of the facts. And when I say the ""agenda" is there, it is NOT a "partisan" agenda. I am a conservative, with certain maverick tendencies (agnostic, for one). I am conservative not as some sort of religious "ideology"--like you leftists out there--but as the best descrtiiption of what I like to believe is a CONSISTENT overall philosophy of life, government and politics. I don't care if the "Republiican Party", as an institution, prevails. I want conservative IDEAS to prevail, because that is what I believe is best for the country. In ouor system, by the way, there is a place forparty loyalists. Someone has to keep the parties from flying off in all directions. I am just not one of those "loyalists". I have no loyalty at al to the Republican Party that first attracted e wtih Barry Godwater and Ronald Reagan. That party forfeited all right to any loyalty, in my conservative view. It looked ike the Republican Party might be returning to a party of conservative ideas, but the past few months have pretty much convinced me that is not so I think the "final" (for this election cycle) test will be the Repubican Party reaction (ACTIONS, not jut words) to the Obama "jobs program"--including this truly terrible "payroll tax cut"), and to whatever "plan" this "gang of 12" comes up with. I expect the worst. Did I tell you I am a cynic and a pessimist? I know that this long, rambling paragraph has little to do with the rest of the article, but from time to time I like to let you know where I am coming from., and why "partisan" is really te wrong descriptioni for me--unliked for CNN.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)