Good news: Anwar al-Awlaki is dead. The world is a safer, saner place because of it.
This article laments that we dropped a bomb on an American citizen as if he has the rights with which he was born here.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44727191/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/#.ToXqgM3WS8A
That's irrational nonsense to me. This guy not only declared war on the United States, he was the leader in several efforts to bomb America. That makes him both a self-declared enemy of America and an actual enemy by his actions ... mass murderer of our citizens.
He declared war on us. As a result we have therefore been at war with him and his followers for years. HE voluntarily gave up his citizenship when he decided to do that to us. To fully understand what it means to be an enemy of the state, one only has to consider the oath sworn by naturalized citizens. Those born here have an implied, obligatory allegiance to the same oath. It represents a social/moral contract from you to the country and the country to you. Once you consciously, purposely break that oath (contract), you break whatever 'contract' of rights both ways between you and America.
Anyone who declares himself to be an enemy of America by his words or actions has unilaterally broken that contract and the only rights he has are as an enemy of the state, regardless of citizenship anywhere. al-Awlaki's declarations and actions amount to de-facto surrendering, if not actual renouncing his citizenship. What are we to do with that? Say to him, "sorry, we don't accept your renouncement!"? You must come to a State Department office and fill out some paperwork before you can give up your citizenship as if the most wanted terrorist in the world would do that. What kind of nonsense would that be? At the point of his de-facto citizenship renouncement, recording it in State Department records is nothing more nor less than a clerical action in response to a fact. WE haven't 'denied' him his citizenship! He surrendered it willingly and with purposeful presence of mind.
It is nonsense to say either he deserves or we owe him rights of a citizen after he broke contract with America and, by doing so, declared himself no longer to be a citizen. Legal-sounding logic(?) that attempts to twist something that's so common sense into a need or obligation(!) for misguided and irrational compassion or fairness makes no sense whatsoever. Sometimes we over-think things. This is plain and simple. It is NOT complicated folks!
Friday, September 30, 2011
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Remember The Liberal Rage Over Bush Era Cronyism And Special Interests?
Do you remember the liberal outrage toward the Bush administration over claims of cronyism and favors to special interests? As if liberals don't do such things? Check these out:
http://blogs.investors.com/capitalhill/index.php/home/35-politicsinvesting/2763-ex-solyndra-employees-now-applying-for-trade-adjustment-assistance
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/278732/solyndra-mess-gets-messier-andrew-stiles
Does any of that pass the smell test any better than claims against Bush? More likely much worse?
Such extraordinary collusion, waste and borderline(?) corruption are beyond inappropriate any time but especially during tough economic times like these. C'mon people! $24 Million PER PERMANENT JOB? And Nancy Pelosi's brother-in-law benefitting from it? Didn't she also recently get a huge percentage of stimulus money for businesses in San Francisco?
And to top it off, all the employees at Solyndra are applying for retraining money! Wait a minute! All the employees at a prominent solar energy company think there's no employment future in solar energy and want American taxpayers to pay for retraining them now after bailing out their company with half a billion dollars? Those in that business(!) are giving up on green energy careers (and want us to pay for their change of careers!) and our government doesn't think that means anything important about the viability of basing our jobs growth on such industries?
Are you kidding me? Have these people ... liberal politicians, company investors and company executives ... no conscience? Have they completely, collectively lost their minds? Good Grief! This is insane isn't it? And we're letting them get away with this nonsense? Maybe it's us who have completely lost our minds!
http://blogs.investors.com/capitalhill/index.php/home/35-politicsinvesting/2763-ex-solyndra-employees-now-applying-for-trade-adjustment-assistance
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/278732/solyndra-mess-gets-messier-andrew-stiles
Does any of that pass the smell test any better than claims against Bush? More likely much worse?
Such extraordinary collusion, waste and borderline(?) corruption are beyond inappropriate any time but especially during tough economic times like these. C'mon people! $24 Million PER PERMANENT JOB? And Nancy Pelosi's brother-in-law benefitting from it? Didn't she also recently get a huge percentage of stimulus money for businesses in San Francisco?
And to top it off, all the employees at Solyndra are applying for retraining money! Wait a minute! All the employees at a prominent solar energy company think there's no employment future in solar energy and want American taxpayers to pay for retraining them now after bailing out their company with half a billion dollars? Those in that business(!) are giving up on green energy careers (and want us to pay for their change of careers!) and our government doesn't think that means anything important about the viability of basing our jobs growth on such industries?
Are you kidding me? Have these people ... liberal politicians, company investors and company executives ... no conscience? Have they completely, collectively lost their minds? Good Grief! This is insane isn't it? And we're letting them get away with this nonsense? Maybe it's us who have completely lost our minds!
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Race-Baiting Is An Ugly And Desperate Act By People Who, In The Process, Prove Themselves To Be The Racist Ones
The ugliness of race-baiting is dramatically rising of late as those desperate to re-elect Obama resort to it. For the younger crowd who aren't sure what the term means:
Race baiting is a term for groundless accusations of racism. It is a unique and deliberate focus on race in an attempt to discredit others as racist. An important component of race baiting is for the indicter to appear factual, neutral, unbiased, a person truly above racisms' perversion. Others are unapologetic about racial bias, referring to groups whether guilty or innocent, as rotten people that have to be exposed. Sometimes subtle in its use, race baiting is considered hate speech and affects all races and religious groups, even gender.
Where racism exists, we must stamp it out because it's an ugly, destructive and inhumane thing. That's true for white racism. It's also true for black racism. There's no place for either in a free republic.
Here's one honest examination of the dishonesty involved in today's race discourse:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/278526/obama-s-racial-crisis-victor-davis-hanson
For sure, as I've said before, some elements of the Tea Party message (smaller, less invasive government, including controlling entitlements and welfare) appeal to anarchists and racists. We in the Tea Party abhor their thinking and reject it at every turn. We categorically denounce and reject their messages of hate whenever they show up. Not only is it unacceptable hate that we refuse to tolerate, it detracts from our real message. Besides racism being a sick and unacceptable thing, we'd be crazy to allow it, much less embrace it, for practical reasons ... ie, it's counter-productive to and destructive of our goals. We'd be completely nuts to allow it. In fact, we stand against it, period.
The Tea Party has become an inviting target for purveyors of race-baiting, especially those who are politically progressive. Our message of smaller government, less debt, less spending is increasingly sensible outside the Tea Party ranks. Since progressives have little ammunition with which to fight this increasingly logical, increasingly popular argument they're resorting to name-calling. Racist ... the ultimate insult that can stand and condemn without proof. Ask Morgan Feeman and Maxine Waters for proof that the Tea Party is fundamentally racist and they can't do it. But they're desperate now that President Obama looks more likely not to have a second term so they'll do desperate and dispicable things to help secure a second term for him.
Never mind that President Obama's policies have done nothing to help the black community in any way that helps ensure a better present ... or future ... for them. It's important to keep him in office exactly why? What has he done to restore our economy? Nothing, even during the two years he had total control to do anything he wanted. Tell me again, why is it so important to keep him in office?
Nevertheless, the Tea Party which is trying to get our economy going again for everyone, including blacks, is evil by definition according to many progressives like Freeman and Waters simply because we have the audacity to oppose THE POLICIES of our first African American president. Why, in a civil society, do they not have to prove their outrageous claims? They don't have to adhere to the same standard of civility that they falsely claim is being abused by the Tea Party. Their hate and dishonesty do harm to our country by encouraging and practicing incivility and race-baiting. Who are the racist ones, really?
Race baiting is a term for groundless accusations of racism. It is a unique and deliberate focus on race in an attempt to discredit others as racist. An important component of race baiting is for the indicter to appear factual, neutral, unbiased, a person truly above racisms' perversion. Others are unapologetic about racial bias, referring to groups whether guilty or innocent, as rotten people that have to be exposed. Sometimes subtle in its use, race baiting is considered hate speech and affects all races and religious groups, even gender.
Where racism exists, we must stamp it out because it's an ugly, destructive and inhumane thing. That's true for white racism. It's also true for black racism. There's no place for either in a free republic.
Here's one honest examination of the dishonesty involved in today's race discourse:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/278526/obama-s-racial-crisis-victor-davis-hanson
For sure, as I've said before, some elements of the Tea Party message (smaller, less invasive government, including controlling entitlements and welfare) appeal to anarchists and racists. We in the Tea Party abhor their thinking and reject it at every turn. We categorically denounce and reject their messages of hate whenever they show up. Not only is it unacceptable hate that we refuse to tolerate, it detracts from our real message. Besides racism being a sick and unacceptable thing, we'd be crazy to allow it, much less embrace it, for practical reasons ... ie, it's counter-productive to and destructive of our goals. We'd be completely nuts to allow it. In fact, we stand against it, period.
The Tea Party has become an inviting target for purveyors of race-baiting, especially those who are politically progressive. Our message of smaller government, less debt, less spending is increasingly sensible outside the Tea Party ranks. Since progressives have little ammunition with which to fight this increasingly logical, increasingly popular argument they're resorting to name-calling. Racist ... the ultimate insult that can stand and condemn without proof. Ask Morgan Feeman and Maxine Waters for proof that the Tea Party is fundamentally racist and they can't do it. But they're desperate now that President Obama looks more likely not to have a second term so they'll do desperate and dispicable things to help secure a second term for him.
Never mind that President Obama's policies have done nothing to help the black community in any way that helps ensure a better present ... or future ... for them. It's important to keep him in office exactly why? What has he done to restore our economy? Nothing, even during the two years he had total control to do anything he wanted. Tell me again, why is it so important to keep him in office?
Nevertheless, the Tea Party which is trying to get our economy going again for everyone, including blacks, is evil by definition according to many progressives like Freeman and Waters simply because we have the audacity to oppose THE POLICIES of our first African American president. Why, in a civil society, do they not have to prove their outrageous claims? They don't have to adhere to the same standard of civility that they falsely claim is being abused by the Tea Party. Their hate and dishonesty do harm to our country by encouraging and practicing incivility and race-baiting. Who are the racist ones, really?
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Congressional Black Caucus Nonsense
According to leaders of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), the Tea Party objectives are antithetical to black interests. In fact, the Tea Party's very nature makes it a racist organization. Wow, Ms Waters, those are pretty loaded and serious pronouncements.
This is interesting in many regards, not the least of which is the racial aspect. What about that? The problem for the Tea Party is that our message appeals to some fairly radical people including anarchists, for example, who also want government out of their hair. Rallies where the Tea Party declares a need for smaller government, less spending, less debt will inevitably attract those folks because they like the message. For some like Ms. Waters, that means the Tea Party espouses their beliefs even though we don't and even though we quiet them or run them off when they bring their unacceptable rhetoric to our gatherings.
Yes, we want President Obama out of office but it's because we disagree with his policies, not because we have anything against his skin color. A claim of racism would have some validity if he were not doing what we're standing against. If he were reducing federal spending, reducing the debt, reducing federal regulation, and reducing the scope and size of the federal government and we still opposed his administration, one could rationally argue there's some racism behind it. But he's doing the exact opposite of those things we stand for on on principle and he's doing it aggressively. Our goals for the federal government are polar opposites of what President Obama has been doing for 2 1/2 years. OF COURSE we'd oppose ANYONE who has taken this country down this path. That he's black is irrelevant to us. Are you listening Ms. Waters?
We're also opposed to much of what President Bush and congressional Republicans did fiscally/economically. They also grew government in an unacceptable way and helped spend our country to the brink of economic catastrophe. What happened on their watch was also very bad for our country. We're just as opposed in principle to what Bush and congressional Republicans did as what Obama has been doing. And we proved our non-racist agenda by replacing many 'establishment' Republicans in the last election. We want to clean house in our own party, consistent with our message of smaller government. We're consistent in our message regardless of race Ms. Waters! Pay attention!
If you want to check out the reaction of this Tea Party member to Obama's election, check out my January 20, 2009 blog tagged Celebrate America! (http://dennisolds.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2009-05-02T00%3A07%3A00-07%3A00&max-results=50 ... near the bottom of that page) If you can still honestly say I'm racist after reading that Ms. Waters then you're even more of a loon than I thought.
In spite of my high regard and total respect for the man at his inauguration and in spite of my honest difference of opinion based only on policy you think I "should go to hell" because of your unfounded, uncivil and unfair biases against me. If this is what passes for civil discourse from Democrats, Ms Waters, you are the ones who need to reexamine your attitudes, prejudices, dishonesty, incivility, and words.
It's true our energy level is higher against President Obama than against Bush Jr but it is only because Obama's government growth policies are like Bush's on steroids! Obama's policies are far worse than Bush's. Our strong opposition to them has everything to do with policy and nothing to do with race.
So, why do you say it's about race Ms. Waters? Maybe it's because you need it to be about race in order to muster support for President Obama and against the Tea Party. Doesn't matter whether your message is true as long as it motivates the progressive base against the Tea Party now that we're proving to be effective. Let us know when you're ready to discuss our differences like an adult and honest person based on policies and not made up partisan nonsense.
It also appears that for many blacks, the Tea Party's desire to reduce spending, which necessarily must includes reducing entitlement and welfare spending, means by definition we don't want to support the needy poor in our country. Also not true. There's no way the Tea Party wants to abandon people with real needs.
What we recognize is that a real fix is needed for this problem and one of the biggest areas needing attention is education reform that keeps minority children in school and gets them educated to at least a high school level. Then there won't be a need for so much welfare because they'll be elevating themselves out of poverty in a way that's not only beneficial to them (they'll have a real future!) but is also an outcome that's good for our country in myriad ways.
Also, there's incredible waste and fraud in the welfare system. Ask any honest recipient what they know about people ripping off the system and you'll understand how bad it is. None of this goal to reduce dependence on welfare is directed at blacks in a racist way. In fact, we want black Americans to be able to take full advantage of the economic opportunities in this country. But we believe they CANNOT get that through welfare; only through increasing their education in this increasingly technological world. We need to make societal and cultural changes that get people out of poverty permanently and education is absolutely key to that. Is it racist to want black Americans to be able to accomplish that in the completely rational way of getting a better education?
Who's really the hateful person in this picture Ms. Waters? One who tells all Tea Party members to "go straight to hell" for daring to oppose "the one we have been waiting for" and for wanting a smaller government or the significant percentage of Americans who vigorously strive to improve economic conditions in this country for all Americans, especially the poor?
This is interesting in many regards, not the least of which is the racial aspect. What about that? The problem for the Tea Party is that our message appeals to some fairly radical people including anarchists, for example, who also want government out of their hair. Rallies where the Tea Party declares a need for smaller government, less spending, less debt will inevitably attract those folks because they like the message. For some like Ms. Waters, that means the Tea Party espouses their beliefs even though we don't and even though we quiet them or run them off when they bring their unacceptable rhetoric to our gatherings.
Yes, we want President Obama out of office but it's because we disagree with his policies, not because we have anything against his skin color. A claim of racism would have some validity if he were not doing what we're standing against. If he were reducing federal spending, reducing the debt, reducing federal regulation, and reducing the scope and size of the federal government and we still opposed his administration, one could rationally argue there's some racism behind it. But he's doing the exact opposite of those things we stand for on on principle and he's doing it aggressively. Our goals for the federal government are polar opposites of what President Obama has been doing for 2 1/2 years. OF COURSE we'd oppose ANYONE who has taken this country down this path. That he's black is irrelevant to us. Are you listening Ms. Waters?
We're also opposed to much of what President Bush and congressional Republicans did fiscally/economically. They also grew government in an unacceptable way and helped spend our country to the brink of economic catastrophe. What happened on their watch was also very bad for our country. We're just as opposed in principle to what Bush and congressional Republicans did as what Obama has been doing. And we proved our non-racist agenda by replacing many 'establishment' Republicans in the last election. We want to clean house in our own party, consistent with our message of smaller government. We're consistent in our message regardless of race Ms. Waters! Pay attention!
If you want to check out the reaction of this Tea Party member to Obama's election, check out my January 20, 2009 blog tagged Celebrate America! (http://dennisolds.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2009-05-02T00%3A07%3A00-07%3A00&max-results=50 ... near the bottom of that page) If you can still honestly say I'm racist after reading that Ms. Waters then you're even more of a loon than I thought.
In spite of my high regard and total respect for the man at his inauguration and in spite of my honest difference of opinion based only on policy you think I "should go to hell" because of your unfounded, uncivil and unfair biases against me. If this is what passes for civil discourse from Democrats, Ms Waters, you are the ones who need to reexamine your attitudes, prejudices, dishonesty, incivility, and words.
It's true our energy level is higher against President Obama than against Bush Jr but it is only because Obama's government growth policies are like Bush's on steroids! Obama's policies are far worse than Bush's. Our strong opposition to them has everything to do with policy and nothing to do with race.
So, why do you say it's about race Ms. Waters? Maybe it's because you need it to be about race in order to muster support for President Obama and against the Tea Party. Doesn't matter whether your message is true as long as it motivates the progressive base against the Tea Party now that we're proving to be effective. Let us know when you're ready to discuss our differences like an adult and honest person based on policies and not made up partisan nonsense.
It also appears that for many blacks, the Tea Party's desire to reduce spending, which necessarily must includes reducing entitlement and welfare spending, means by definition we don't want to support the needy poor in our country. Also not true. There's no way the Tea Party wants to abandon people with real needs.
What we recognize is that a real fix is needed for this problem and one of the biggest areas needing attention is education reform that keeps minority children in school and gets them educated to at least a high school level. Then there won't be a need for so much welfare because they'll be elevating themselves out of poverty in a way that's not only beneficial to them (they'll have a real future!) but is also an outcome that's good for our country in myriad ways.
Also, there's incredible waste and fraud in the welfare system. Ask any honest recipient what they know about people ripping off the system and you'll understand how bad it is. None of this goal to reduce dependence on welfare is directed at blacks in a racist way. In fact, we want black Americans to be able to take full advantage of the economic opportunities in this country. But we believe they CANNOT get that through welfare; only through increasing their education in this increasingly technological world. We need to make societal and cultural changes that get people out of poverty permanently and education is absolutely key to that. Is it racist to want black Americans to be able to accomplish that in the completely rational way of getting a better education?
Who's really the hateful person in this picture Ms. Waters? One who tells all Tea Party members to "go straight to hell" for daring to oppose "the one we have been waiting for" and for wanting a smaller government or the significant percentage of Americans who vigorously strive to improve economic conditions in this country for all Americans, especially the poor?
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Today's Gas Price Is GOOD News? Say What?
AP headline today: Upside of economic worries: Lower gas prices
Well, yeah ... BUT ...
Today the national average for regular gas is $3.51. Yes, it's coming down but THAT price is still not good news. Don't folks at the AP remember that the price of gas was $1.84 when Obama took office? Don't they care? Oh, wait! If they were to complain about the price of gas being nearly double what it was when he took office that would be a complaint about his policies. Can't do that! Gotta call it good news instead.
My Usual Question: what do you suppose the AP's headline would have been if Bush Jr were in office today and the price of gas had doubled in two plus years?
Another point for the AP. Don't you understand you're saying it's good news that Obama's economic policies haven't worked? Gas prices have gone down this year only because his economic policies haven't worked! In your obtuse way, you're admitting it has failed, huh? But talk about spin! Obama's economy is toast but we need to change the subject to point out some benefits of it. Benefits of an economy in trouble? Are you kidding me?
And can you imagine what the price of gas would have been under Obama's energy policies if his economic policies had worked and the price of gas had kept going up? Remember, it was $4 per gallon. So by now we'd have $5 per gallon at least. More likely $6 per gallon or higher.
Well, yeah ... BUT ...
Today the national average for regular gas is $3.51. Yes, it's coming down but THAT price is still not good news. Don't folks at the AP remember that the price of gas was $1.84 when Obama took office? Don't they care? Oh, wait! If they were to complain about the price of gas being nearly double what it was when he took office that would be a complaint about his policies. Can't do that! Gotta call it good news instead.
My Usual Question: what do you suppose the AP's headline would have been if Bush Jr were in office today and the price of gas had doubled in two plus years?
Another point for the AP. Don't you understand you're saying it's good news that Obama's economic policies haven't worked? Gas prices have gone down this year only because his economic policies haven't worked! In your obtuse way, you're admitting it has failed, huh? But talk about spin! Obama's economy is toast but we need to change the subject to point out some benefits of it. Benefits of an economy in trouble? Are you kidding me?
And can you imagine what the price of gas would have been under Obama's energy policies if his economic policies had worked and the price of gas had kept going up? Remember, it was $4 per gallon. So by now we'd have $5 per gallon at least. More likely $6 per gallon or higher.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Using Weasel Words To Fight Or Defend Weasel Words ... What IS 'Fair Share' Anyway?
The 'rich' paying some 80-90% of all federal income taxes is somehow 'unfair' to the rest of our citizens but approximately half of Americans paying no federal income tax at all (in spite of countless benefits derived therefrom) IS 'fair'! The key, relevant dictionary definition of 'fair' is 'just'. What exactly is 'just' about either of those two facts about taxes? What kind of nonsense are these arguments anyway? Where's the logic or common sense in these questions or the arguments surrounding them, really? Answer: it's non-existent!!!
Andrew McCarthy untangles it pretty effectively:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/278246/can-we-tell-truth-andrew-c-mccarthy
Andrew McCarthy untangles it pretty effectively:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/278246/can-we-tell-truth-andrew-c-mccarthy
The World's On Fire And The President Has What For Us Exactly? Oh Yeah! Happy Days At The UN (See Yesterday's Blogs)
Mark Steyn has a way with both words and thoughts. Wry and sarcastic for sure but he has a knack for truth and has the will (and audacity!) to tell it like it is. The world's in serious trouble. Steyn and many of us think that, when you're busily digging a hole ever deeper, there comes a time when it's appropriate to stop digging. Check it out:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/278213/global-bust-mark-steyn
It's funny in a way but the joke's on us. It's well past time that our country's leaders stop the partisan and agenda nonsense and get down to the hard work of fixing things. Actually fixing things.
The progressive approach to education has made us the education laughing stock of the civilized world. Now add our economics to that. Immigration? Why worry? It's a problem that will fix itself because it won't be long until nobody wants to come here because there's no here here.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/278213/global-bust-mark-steyn
It's funny in a way but the joke's on us. It's well past time that our country's leaders stop the partisan and agenda nonsense and get down to the hard work of fixing things. Actually fixing things.
The progressive approach to education has made us the education laughing stock of the civilized world. Now add our economics to that. Immigration? Why worry? It's a problem that will fix itself because it won't be long until nobody wants to come here because there's no here here.
Friday, September 23, 2011
This Administration Was Wrong On Both the CLASS Act AND This Week's NCLB Actions (As Well As Just About Everything Else)
What is it about the progressives in this administration? Why do they think the constitution and congress are both irrelevant just because they don't like them? Check out these articles as glaring examples of an administration run amok:
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/09/23/president-obama-mistakes-bi-partisan-distaste-for-nclb-for-a-mandate-to-rewrite/
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/09/23/morning-bell-the-latest-obamacare-implosion/
If those aren't enough to convince you how wrong-headed and bull-headed(!) they are check this out too:
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/09/21/morning-bell-the-obama-investigations/
Sorry Mr. President, the constitution does matter. So does congress which was created by the constitution to represent The People, not be servile to your whims. YOU DO NOT have the authority to legislate what gets done by the federal government TO The People; only congress does. By the way, in case you haven't read the constitution lately, they work for us and so do you.
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/09/23/president-obama-mistakes-bi-partisan-distaste-for-nclb-for-a-mandate-to-rewrite/
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/09/23/morning-bell-the-latest-obamacare-implosion/
If those aren't enough to convince you how wrong-headed and bull-headed(!) they are check this out too:
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/09/21/morning-bell-the-obama-investigations/
Sorry Mr. President, the constitution does matter. So does congress which was created by the constitution to represent The People, not be servile to your whims. YOU DO NOT have the authority to legislate what gets done by the federal government TO The People; only congress does. By the way, in case you haven't read the constitution lately, they work for us and so do you.
A Man In Touch With How Serious The World's Problems Are?
Group Pic Of World Leaders Taken At The UN This Week
Smiling and waving? Does this look like the picture of a man who's aware of the troubles America and the world are having now? Or is this a man who loves to draw attention to himself and act like he's the center of everything?
As I said in a blog on 9/11/2011, not everything is about you Mr. President. I'd prefer your demeanor reflects the seriousness of our situations. Times like these require serious men to focus on the problems and fix them rather than stand in a crowd of the world's leaders and wave as if to say, "Hey everyone, here I am" ... You know, "the one we have been waiting for!". Get over yourself sir and get down to business. Please at least act as if our economy is in trouble and as if it matters that the Palestinians and Iranian President Ahmadinijad just told you to take your opinion and policies and go pound sand.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
How Is That 'Making Nice-Nice With World Leaders Who Were Upset With Us' Working Out?
Progressive have long claimed that our 'aggressiveness' and exceptionalism are what has upset various countries and provoked potentional/actual enemies. Treating them with more respect and less hostility was supposed to make them like us better and have a greater desire to get along. How has that worked out President Obama?
Let's see. North Korea is more beligerent and defiant than ever. Both Israel and the Palestinians are now more angry with us than ever. I thought the Palestinians were supposed to be more accommodating with President Obama after he held out his hand to them and began being tough with Israel. Egypt is about to be run by the Muslim Brotherhood and they have opened their border to those who have been attacking Israel. And Iran? Check this out while remembering Ahmadinejad's words express similar feelings of Islamic nations that were upset with us before Obama became our president:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44627475/ns/world_news/
How's that more conciliatory approach working out? Need I remind you that the philosophy of conservatives has been all along that when you show weakness and/or a conciliatory attitude toward enemies and potential enemies they take advantage of you rather than cooperate more. That's the way bullies operate. Always have; always will. The playground gets more dangerous, not less. We are about to reap the rewards of 2 1/2 years of conciliatory behavior but those rewards are going to be the opposite of what was promised.
Let's see. North Korea is more beligerent and defiant than ever. Both Israel and the Palestinians are now more angry with us than ever. I thought the Palestinians were supposed to be more accommodating with President Obama after he held out his hand to them and began being tough with Israel. Egypt is about to be run by the Muslim Brotherhood and they have opened their border to those who have been attacking Israel. And Iran? Check this out while remembering Ahmadinejad's words express similar feelings of Islamic nations that were upset with us before Obama became our president:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44627475/ns/world_news/
How's that more conciliatory approach working out? Need I remind you that the philosophy of conservatives has been all along that when you show weakness and/or a conciliatory attitude toward enemies and potential enemies they take advantage of you rather than cooperate more. That's the way bullies operate. Always have; always will. The playground gets more dangerous, not less. We are about to reap the rewards of 2 1/2 years of conciliatory behavior but those rewards are going to be the opposite of what was promised.
Sure It's Immoral But As Long As It's Not Illegal ...
This kinda nonsense could be a poster-child for what's wrong in politics vis a vis public service unions:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44626194/ns/us_news-life/#.TnumkexXviE
My take? Ripping off the regular folks for an undeserved cushy retirement like that is irresponsible, immoral and plain disgusting.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44626194/ns/us_news-life/#.TnumkexXviE
My take? Ripping off the regular folks for an undeserved cushy retirement like that is irresponsible, immoral and plain disgusting.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Poverty In America ... It's Not What 'The Media' Is Telling You!
First here's the nature of reporting about the new poverty numbers by the 'mainstream media'.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/almost-1-in-6-americans-living-below-poverty-line-2354789.html
In case you hadn't considered it, the picture in that report is the worst of the worst. It would be foolish(!) to think that the average person living below the poverty level in America lives in conditions anything like that. Check out the next link for clarification.
'The Media' reports sound really, really bad don't they? Yeah, well they have a motivation to make it seem that bad. It's funny how information can be manipulated to serve a political purpose. Check out the facts behind those numbers here:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/09/Understanding-Poverty-in-the-United-States-Surprising-Facts-About-Americas-Poor
Be very, very careful swallowing what The Media serves you in its so-called news. Develop a habit of looking behind the information they spin to you and find out the real facts for yourself before you make rash judgements based on what they say.
In case you hadn't considered it, the picture in that report is the worst of the worst. It would be foolish(!) to think that the average person living below the poverty level in America lives in conditions anything like that. Check out the next link for clarification.
'The Media' reports sound really, really bad don't they? Yeah, well they have a motivation to make it seem that bad. It's funny how information can be manipulated to serve a political purpose. Check out the facts behind those numbers here:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/09/Understanding-Poverty-in-the-United-States-Surprising-Facts-About-Americas-Poor
Be very, very careful swallowing what The Media serves you in its so-called news. Develop a habit of looking behind the information they spin to you and find out the real facts for yourself before you make rash judgements based on what they say.
Media Sympathetic Toward Obama? Naw, That Can't Be! After All, They're Non-Partisan, Right?
Awwwww. The president's going to have a bad day. A defensive and sympathetic media is lamenting the tough time that president Obama is having. Never mind that it's all a consequence of nonsense policies ... ie, of his own doing. Never mind that The Media claims journalistic integrity (as in unbiased reporting). Integrity is irrelevant when 'your man' and your agenda are having a bad day.
Could it be more obvious how 'in the tank' The Media is for this president? What do you suppose would be the headline and story if it were Bush Jr going through this? Bush had really bad treatment from The Media about his tax cuts and those worked ... did what he said they'd do!
The Obama apologists among The Media need to have a refresher course on what real journalism is. What journalistic principles, responsibilites and integrity are supposed to mean. So much for a truly free and independent press, eh?
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
It's Not Rocket Science. It's Simple Historical Economic Truth
First a point of reference:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44486266/ns/business-eye_on_the_economy/#.Tm9lGtRXuUJ
MSNBC lies again for one thing. About half-way down this article MSNBC says "Lawmakers face limits in fight to fix economy". "Lawmakers" DO have more tools to use; it's just that Democratic lawmakers have run out of progressive tools to try.
Question: have you noticed that Democrats, with The Media agreeing(!), are admitting: 1) they've tried everything they wanted ... everything they think works ... and 2) they haven't gotten the economy back on track? And what do they all make of that? If their ideas don't work then there's nothing left to try.
Say WHAT? What about something that was proven to work less than a decade ago?
Before I get into this I'd like to remind you that everything I've said for the past two years about the Democratic approach not working has now been proven to be true. Hmmmmm. Maybe, just maybe, we Tea Party types aren't quite the lunatics The Left has portrayed us to be? Remember that two years ago we established our movement on the foundation of lower spending, lower taxes and lower debt. Is there anything in that that you liberals out there would like to see happen right now? How crazy do our ideas look now? Do those concepts seem so crazy now? C'mon, honestly? Even most Democrats in congress want those things. They're finally figuring out that we were correct but they're sure reluctant to admit our approach is a good one!
Back to my theme.
Well, I've gotta give Democrats and their willing accomplices, The Media, credit for a logic of sorts. Based only on lies Democrats and The Media spread, one would think there's nothing that works. That is completely logical if you assume that Republicans' approach won't work and has never worked. Problem is, that assumption is a complete historical, factual lie.
Democrats have, indeed, tried everything in their toolbox with unacceptable results. A reasonably intelligent person must ask them, so how about trying ... I say, just trying ... things that Republicans say work? What, for crying out loud, do we have to lose now? Thing is, Republicans proved 8 years ago that their approach does in fact work. What would you rather go with? Something that Democrats have proven over the past 2 1/2 years does not work or something that historical fact proves does work? Okay, my progressive friends. I'm sorry to hurt your feelings but those things that were proven to work are Republican ideas. Maybe it's time to at least try them? Or is sticking mindlessly to your partisan beliefs more importantant to you than trying something the other party has proven works? Partisan politics or what's best for our country? Whar are your priorities?
You heard me describe the facts before. Immediately after Bush's biggest tax cuts (for the wealthy and all others, including small businesses) went into effect at the end of May 2003, both unemployment and federal revenue turned around. Immediately afterward folks! Unemployment decreased persistently to Clinton levels around 4.4%. Federal revenue increased dramatically, reaching a record level of $2.4 Trillion, 25% higher than anything Clinton achieved. These facts(!) prove tax cuts work! The logic is undeniable. Except progressives have made an art form out of denying and twisting history for their political purposes.
Yes, it's true that deficits kept going up after those tax cuts but that's not because of revenue problems. It's because Republicans didn't control their spending.
How would you like to see unemployment turn around and federal revenue increase substantially right now? Would that be a good thing or not? Forget The Media claims for a second. If facts show you that something else has worked recently based on the historical truth that it helped both unemployment and revenue, what's your problem with at least trying them? What if that worked ... again ... and we also decreased spending (which Republicans didn't do 8 years ago)? Do you think it would take long to get our debt under control? Of course not!!!
Under the circumstances, I think we Tea Party types have been pretty patient. We haven't been rioting over Democrats' failed policies. We simply keep pressing ours forward. We want a fiscally responsible government, plain and simple. If you liberals want that too, I encourage you to give an honest assessment of what we want to do and honestly ask yourselves, based on Dems results to date, are you ready to try something that's, in fact, been proven to work? Or are you okay sticking to your partisan beliefs while our economy goes completely off the rails? Party or what's best for our country. Your choice. Choose wisely!
MSNBC lies again for one thing. About half-way down this article MSNBC says "Lawmakers face limits in fight to fix economy". "Lawmakers" DO have more tools to use; it's just that Democratic lawmakers have run out of progressive tools to try.
Question: have you noticed that Democrats, with The Media agreeing(!), are admitting: 1) they've tried everything they wanted ... everything they think works ... and 2) they haven't gotten the economy back on track? And what do they all make of that? If their ideas don't work then there's nothing left to try.
Say WHAT? What about something that was proven to work less than a decade ago?
Before I get into this I'd like to remind you that everything I've said for the past two years about the Democratic approach not working has now been proven to be true. Hmmmmm. Maybe, just maybe, we Tea Party types aren't quite the lunatics The Left has portrayed us to be? Remember that two years ago we established our movement on the foundation of lower spending, lower taxes and lower debt. Is there anything in that that you liberals out there would like to see happen right now? How crazy do our ideas look now? Do those concepts seem so crazy now? C'mon, honestly? Even most Democrats in congress want those things. They're finally figuring out that we were correct but they're sure reluctant to admit our approach is a good one!
Back to my theme.
Well, I've gotta give Democrats and their willing accomplices, The Media, credit for a logic of sorts. Based only on lies Democrats and The Media spread, one would think there's nothing that works. That is completely logical if you assume that Republicans' approach won't work and has never worked. Problem is, that assumption is a complete historical, factual lie.
Democrats have, indeed, tried everything in their toolbox with unacceptable results. A reasonably intelligent person must ask them, so how about trying ... I say, just trying ... things that Republicans say work? What, for crying out loud, do we have to lose now? Thing is, Republicans proved 8 years ago that their approach does in fact work. What would you rather go with? Something that Democrats have proven over the past 2 1/2 years does not work or something that historical fact proves does work? Okay, my progressive friends. I'm sorry to hurt your feelings but those things that were proven to work are Republican ideas. Maybe it's time to at least try them? Or is sticking mindlessly to your partisan beliefs more importantant to you than trying something the other party has proven works? Partisan politics or what's best for our country? Whar are your priorities?
You heard me describe the facts before. Immediately after Bush's biggest tax cuts (for the wealthy and all others, including small businesses) went into effect at the end of May 2003, both unemployment and federal revenue turned around. Immediately afterward folks! Unemployment decreased persistently to Clinton levels around 4.4%. Federal revenue increased dramatically, reaching a record level of $2.4 Trillion, 25% higher than anything Clinton achieved. These facts(!) prove tax cuts work! The logic is undeniable. Except progressives have made an art form out of denying and twisting history for their political purposes.
Yes, it's true that deficits kept going up after those tax cuts but that's not because of revenue problems. It's because Republicans didn't control their spending.
How would you like to see unemployment turn around and federal revenue increase substantially right now? Would that be a good thing or not? Forget The Media claims for a second. If facts show you that something else has worked recently based on the historical truth that it helped both unemployment and revenue, what's your problem with at least trying them? What if that worked ... again ... and we also decreased spending (which Republicans didn't do 8 years ago)? Do you think it would take long to get our debt under control? Of course not!!!
Under the circumstances, I think we Tea Party types have been pretty patient. We haven't been rioting over Democrats' failed policies. We simply keep pressing ours forward. We want a fiscally responsible government, plain and simple. If you liberals want that too, I encourage you to give an honest assessment of what we want to do and honestly ask yourselves, based on Dems results to date, are you ready to try something that's, in fact, been proven to work? Or are you okay sticking to your partisan beliefs while our economy goes completely off the rails? Party or what's best for our country. Your choice. Choose wisely!
Monday, September 12, 2011
Once Again Liberal Media Misses The Point. American Men Need To Man Up!
Check this out:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44376665/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/#.Tm4xJdRXuUI
The 'story' to them is "parents are wrongly being locked away". The real story ... the REAL tragedy ... is broken families, especially among the poor. Incarceration and divorce are but symptoms/consequences of the real problem. By far, the biggest culprits in this picture are irresponsible men.
American men, it's time for you to man up and start behaving like responsibility meant something to you. Get over yourselves and take care of business like real men. An amazing amount of our national problems could be fixed virtually overnight if men in this country started behaving as men should.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44376665/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/#.Tm4xJdRXuUI
The 'story' to them is "parents are wrongly being locked away". The real story ... the REAL tragedy ... is broken families, especially among the poor. Incarceration and divorce are but symptoms/consequences of the real problem. By far, the biggest culprits in this picture are irresponsible men.
American men, it's time for you to man up and start behaving like responsibility meant something to you. Get over yourselves and take care of business like real men. An amazing amount of our national problems could be fixed virtually overnight if men in this country started behaving as men should.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Not Everything Is About President Obama
President Obama walked into the area at the Pentagon where he was to lay a wreath in respect to and honor of those who died there on 9/11 while serving our country. He passed through an honor guard and he was obviously in a somber frame of mind appropriate for the occassion. The pain of that loss on 9/11 and a sense of resolve to overcome what happened ten years ago beg we show respect to the fallen, to the families of the fallen who were attending in an adjacent area and to Americans who mourn that loss ... respect to closure represented by these ceremonies as we also look forward with resolve to a better, safer future.
Were we greated by such honor and respect from the attendees nearby? Sadly, no. There was some rather boisterous applause as President Obama arrived. Some people don't seem to understand that not everything is about this president and his simply showing up somewhere. Some circumstances demand more respect and self-control.
Were we greated by such honor and respect from the attendees nearby? Sadly, no. There was some rather boisterous applause as President Obama arrived. Some people don't seem to understand that not everything is about this president and his simply showing up somewhere. Some circumstances demand more respect and self-control.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
As A Fix For Our Sorry-Looking Jobs Picture, Obama's "Jobs Plan" Is Nonsense
Yes, I have a big problem with Obama's "Jobs Plan" proposal. It's mostly nonsense. It couldn't be clearer that he and his advisors have no clue how the private sector works or what makes for a strong economy. Don't they teach economics at Harvard? Nearly all of his proposals are ineffective putting real life back into a stalled economy. His $800 Billion stimulus took almost exactly the same approach. How has that worked out for you America?
Here are just some of my issues with his proposals.
Extend the 50% payroll tax cut for employees and now include employers' share. Do you even know what this tax pays for? It's what pays for Social Security and Medicare. Do you really think it's a good idea to cut entitlements' source of funds by half when those programs are facing insolvency and the cost of them is about to bankrupt the country? Cutting funds to Social Security and Medicare in half is simply knuckleheaded. It's extraordinarily short-sighted but that's how this administration operates. Yes, it'll help employers create jobs for the year or so it's in effect. Then we'll have to figure out a way to fix the damage it's going to do to entitlements. Do something to help get re-elected today that makes our problems worse down the road. Stupid!
A huge boost in government spending on infrastructure. Those would be the shovel-ready jobs that were not and cannot be created quickly. (Have you forgotten the 'shovel-ready jobs' nonsense that sensible people knew weren't shovel ready at all?) Besides, government is, by far, the most inefficient at doing things like this cost-effectively. Much better to give private businesses capital gains tax cuts and let them use the money saved to create jobs. By the way, this is also a temporary fix. The extent of our current problems indicate longer-term solutions are needed.
This spending IS paid for he said. That's so far from the truth I don't know how he didn't choke on his words. It's not paid for people!!! Paying for it by telling the Jobs Super-Committee they have to come up with another Trillion dollars in savings means we'll borrow the money now (from China!) and it will be paid for later over the next ten years. I said, later! Saying it's paid for as if it's not actually borrowed and adding to our debt is a bald-faced lie! Also, do you remember the difficulty congress had in getting more savings done than what they've already planned? They said it wasn't possible to come up with more sooner. Now the president tells them to increase it anyway?!?! Does the president talk with congress, even his own party's members? Apparently not! "You must pass this right away!", he told congress some 17 times. Easy for him to say, eh? Anyway, the important thing to understand is that Obama must borrow more money to pay for his jobs spending proposal. He commissioned the super-committee to find some way to pay down a small portion of our current debt... over the next ten years ... and now Obama's adding his new spending to what they were already planning to cut. It's a LIE to say his new spending is paid for!!! It might be paid for (ten years from now!) but only if the super-committee can figure out how to do something they've already said they couldn't do. Is that nonsense or what?
Enact trade agreements with South Korea, Panama and Columbia. The trade agreements should be a good thing but to the extent they help create jobs here, that won't happen to any significant extent for several years. There are whole bureaucracies, policies and 'rules' needing to be put into place before any such new trading can even begin. By the way, these are the same trade agreements that were sitting on his desk his first day in office. Remember that back in July President Obama publicly harangued Republicans(!) for not passing those very agreements but we found out later (although you never heard the sold-out-to-liberals press report this) that he hadn't sent them to congress yet ... after 2 1/2 years of sitting on them!!! He's saying those trade agreements are important for jobs but he sat on them for 2 1/2 years!!! Talk about hypocrisy and nonsense! Why did he sit on them? Because he didn't think any Democrats would vote for them!!! Why won't Democrats vote for them? Because they're holding them hostage until Republicans first approve the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) legislation. Why do Republican not want that? Because the CBO estimates it'll add $3 Billion to our debt over the first 5 years. Democrats have been holding Obama's trade agreements hostage to get debt-increasing legislation passed!!! How's THAT for partisanship that most liberals think only Republicans practice?
Here are some other comments about Obama's Jobs Plan fyi:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/276815/tiny-targeted-and-temporary-larry-kudlow
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/276731/got-jobs-nro-symposium
Here are just some of my issues with his proposals.
Extend the 50% payroll tax cut for employees and now include employers' share. Do you even know what this tax pays for? It's what pays for Social Security and Medicare. Do you really think it's a good idea to cut entitlements' source of funds by half when those programs are facing insolvency and the cost of them is about to bankrupt the country? Cutting funds to Social Security and Medicare in half is simply knuckleheaded. It's extraordinarily short-sighted but that's how this administration operates. Yes, it'll help employers create jobs for the year or so it's in effect. Then we'll have to figure out a way to fix the damage it's going to do to entitlements. Do something to help get re-elected today that makes our problems worse down the road. Stupid!
A huge boost in government spending on infrastructure. Those would be the shovel-ready jobs that were not and cannot be created quickly. (Have you forgotten the 'shovel-ready jobs' nonsense that sensible people knew weren't shovel ready at all?) Besides, government is, by far, the most inefficient at doing things like this cost-effectively. Much better to give private businesses capital gains tax cuts and let them use the money saved to create jobs. By the way, this is also a temporary fix. The extent of our current problems indicate longer-term solutions are needed.
This spending IS paid for he said. That's so far from the truth I don't know how he didn't choke on his words. It's not paid for people!!! Paying for it by telling the Jobs Super-Committee they have to come up with another Trillion dollars in savings means we'll borrow the money now (from China!) and it will be paid for later over the next ten years. I said, later! Saying it's paid for as if it's not actually borrowed and adding to our debt is a bald-faced lie! Also, do you remember the difficulty congress had in getting more savings done than what they've already planned? They said it wasn't possible to come up with more sooner. Now the president tells them to increase it anyway?!?! Does the president talk with congress, even his own party's members? Apparently not! "You must pass this right away!", he told congress some 17 times. Easy for him to say, eh? Anyway, the important thing to understand is that Obama must borrow more money to pay for his jobs spending proposal. He commissioned the super-committee to find some way to pay down a small portion of our current debt... over the next ten years ... and now Obama's adding his new spending to what they were already planning to cut. It's a LIE to say his new spending is paid for!!! It might be paid for (ten years from now!) but only if the super-committee can figure out how to do something they've already said they couldn't do. Is that nonsense or what?
Enact trade agreements with South Korea, Panama and Columbia. The trade agreements should be a good thing but to the extent they help create jobs here, that won't happen to any significant extent for several years. There are whole bureaucracies, policies and 'rules' needing to be put into place before any such new trading can even begin. By the way, these are the same trade agreements that were sitting on his desk his first day in office. Remember that back in July President Obama publicly harangued Republicans(!) for not passing those very agreements but we found out later (although you never heard the sold-out-to-liberals press report this) that he hadn't sent them to congress yet ... after 2 1/2 years of sitting on them!!! He's saying those trade agreements are important for jobs but he sat on them for 2 1/2 years!!! Talk about hypocrisy and nonsense! Why did he sit on them? Because he didn't think any Democrats would vote for them!!! Why won't Democrats vote for them? Because they're holding them hostage until Republicans first approve the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) legislation. Why do Republican not want that? Because the CBO estimates it'll add $3 Billion to our debt over the first 5 years. Democrats have been holding Obama's trade agreements hostage to get debt-increasing legislation passed!!! How's THAT for partisanship that most liberals think only Republicans practice?
Here are some other comments about Obama's Jobs Plan fyi:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/276815/tiny-targeted-and-temporary-larry-kudlow
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/276731/got-jobs-nro-symposium
Thursday, September 8, 2011
So Many Myths And Promises Blindly Accepted For Purely Partisan Reasons Rather Than Reality
There are aspects of human nature about which many liberals, especially progressives, are in denial. Buying into something that's not true simply because it serves a partisan agenda can get our country into serious trouble. Check this out:http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/276503/myth-and-reality-after-911-victor-davis-hanson
So, why did campaigner Obama promise to do away with everything 'Bush' (which by partisan definition was inherently bad simply because Bush did it) and then, as president, keep doing so many things the way Bush did? It's called reality folks! One thing that CAN be said about Obama in a positive way is that he didn't allow his irrational, totally partisan hatred of Bush to result in Obama doing away with things Bush did that were sensible and appropriate to the circumstances we were handed.
So, why did campaigner Obama promise to do away with everything 'Bush' (which by partisan definition was inherently bad simply because Bush did it) and then, as president, keep doing so many things the way Bush did? It's called reality folks! One thing that CAN be said about Obama in a positive way is that he didn't allow his irrational, totally partisan hatred of Bush to result in Obama doing away with things Bush did that were sensible and appropriate to the circumstances we were handed.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Government Spending Is A "Quick" Way To Boost The Economy? Haven't We Learned ANYTHING From The "Shovel-Ready Jobs" Fiasco?
Check out this MSNBC headline/story:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44408524/ns/business-eye_on_the_economy/#.TmaHUo5XuUI
In the first sentence they call more government stimulus spending a "quick fix"!!! Oh my!!!
Government spending on infrastructure is THE slowest way to create jobs. If this administration doesn't get that yet they only need to consider what didn't happen with previous "shovel-ready jobs" 'investment'. President Obama as much as admitted there's no such thing as shovel-ready government infrastructure repair or other jobs. THEY proved and ADMITTED it can't happen. So what's up with their still(!) thinking that kind of spending quickly produces jobs?
Gads people! Doesn't simple common sense make you squirm in response to that claim, if not jump right out of your chair and scream, "have you completely lost your mind"?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44408524/ns/business-eye_on_the_economy/#.TmaHUo5XuUI
In the first sentence they call more government stimulus spending a "quick fix"!!! Oh my!!!
Government spending on infrastructure is THE slowest way to create jobs. If this administration doesn't get that yet they only need to consider what didn't happen with previous "shovel-ready jobs" 'investment'. President Obama as much as admitted there's no such thing as shovel-ready government infrastructure repair or other jobs. THEY proved and ADMITTED it can't happen. So what's up with their still(!) thinking that kind of spending quickly produces jobs?
Gads people! Doesn't simple common sense make you squirm in response to that claim, if not jump right out of your chair and scream, "have you completely lost your mind"?
More Liberal Dishonesty About Taxes
Maybe it's not an outright lie but it's at least a big distortion or omission of the whole truth.
President Obama supported lowering of the payroll tax. Republicans generally oppose that and now that it's about to expire they want to let it expire. The politics the left are playing with this is dishonest at a minimum.
President Obama, liberals and the liberal media (which is most of the media) are whining about Republican opposition saying, "We thought Republicans wanted tax cuts. Now we're 'giving' them one and they oppose that now that WE are the ones proposing tax cuts." Sounds hypocritical, right? Not so fast my friends! Just as with most liberal claims, one has to look deeper into the facts than the liberal/media sound bites.
Yes, President Obama and the rest of the Democrats passed a reduction in payroll taxes and, yes, they want to extend it before it expires at the end of December. But what is that tax reduction? The "payroll tax" money is what pays for social security and medicare entitlements. Half of the money companies pay to the federal government comes from the employer and half comes from employees' pay. Employees pay 6.2% of their gross wages into this and employers match it out of their profits.
The payroll tax 'holiday' that Democrats so vigorously promote as a beneficial tax cut is a reduction of what the employees(!) pay, not what employers pay! Under this tax holiday, employees pay 4.2% into those entitlements accounts instead of the usual 6.2 %.
Think about that people! Two important points:
And they're doing what's best for the country's financial future.
President Obama supported lowering of the payroll tax. Republicans generally oppose that and now that it's about to expire they want to let it expire. The politics the left are playing with this is dishonest at a minimum.
President Obama, liberals and the liberal media (which is most of the media) are whining about Republican opposition saying, "We thought Republicans wanted tax cuts. Now we're 'giving' them one and they oppose that now that WE are the ones proposing tax cuts." Sounds hypocritical, right? Not so fast my friends! Just as with most liberal claims, one has to look deeper into the facts than the liberal/media sound bites.
Yes, President Obama and the rest of the Democrats passed a reduction in payroll taxes and, yes, they want to extend it before it expires at the end of December. But what is that tax reduction? The "payroll tax" money is what pays for social security and medicare entitlements. Half of the money companies pay to the federal government comes from the employer and half comes from employees' pay. Employees pay 6.2% of their gross wages into this and employers match it out of their profits.
The payroll tax 'holiday' that Democrats so vigorously promote as a beneficial tax cut is a reduction of what the employees(!) pay, not what employers pay! Under this tax holiday, employees pay 4.2% into those entitlements accounts instead of the usual 6.2 %.
Think about that people! Two important points:
- Reducing the tax employees pay is NOT help for companies. The conservative view is that employment is helped most by giving companies tax breaks so they have more money with which to hire people. Contrary to what's implied by The Media, this payroll tax reduction is no help whatsoever to companies or, therefore, to reducting the unemployment rate.
- This tax reduction arguably makes our current problem (the looming entitlement cost problem) worse. When Democrats pass legislation (ie, that 'payroll tax holiday') that puts less money into entitlements which, therefore, makes them less solvent and therefore are making our looming debt problem worse!!!
And they're doing what's best for the country's financial future.
Monday, September 5, 2011
Labor Day Is A Celebration Of The American Worker And His/Her Contribution, NOT A Celebration Of Unions
Liberals in general, President Obama in particular, will use today as a reason to celebrate and support unions but that's not why this holiday was created.
It was created to celebrate the industriousnes of American workers and their contribution to the success of our society. It was established in part to celebrate the good in American workers' work ethic. Perhaps today should be a day for serious consideration what has become of that work ethic.
Labor Day was created to celebrate the independent, hard-working spirit of American workers, of Americans in general. Look around yourselves honestly folks. Where do you really see that spirit operating these days? Self-indulgence, outright laziness and government dependency abound and are growing rapidly.
Maybe this should be a day for us to mourn that we're losing what this day used to stand for.
It was created to celebrate the industriousnes of American workers and their contribution to the success of our society. It was established in part to celebrate the good in American workers' work ethic. Perhaps today should be a day for serious consideration what has become of that work ethic.
Labor Day was created to celebrate the independent, hard-working spirit of American workers, of Americans in general. Look around yourselves honestly folks. Where do you really see that spirit operating these days? Self-indulgence, outright laziness and government dependency abound and are growing rapidly.
Maybe this should be a day for us to mourn that we're losing what this day used to stand for.
Sunday, September 4, 2011
On Decadence and The Nanny State In America
Those of you who are still in denial about either subject aspects of the decline of our society may find this article illuminating. I hope it at least gives you pause for thought.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/276197/tale-two-declines-mark-steyn
A developed society's decline into decadence seems historically inevitable. There is ample evidence that a basic morality, as something fundamentally important to us, has diminished significantly in our society. We've slumped willingly into a materialistic, self-gratifying state of mind that makes us oblivious to what's beneficial or destructive in human nature and which assaults a civil society's well-being.
Just as there's ample proof we've clearly lost a fundamental moral fiber we possessed for 500 years, we need no further proof of losing control of our government than FEMA people referring to themselves as our "federal family". We can no longer doubt that progressives' goal is to establish a nanny state. In fact, they're so cock-sure confident now in their ability and control over us and in our inability or desire to oppose it that they're no longer attempting to hide behind pleasant and patronizing denials, boldly saying it out loud. "Of course we're your nanny, don't you get it? Don't worry, we'll take care of you!"
Do you get it?
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/276197/tale-two-declines-mark-steyn
A developed society's decline into decadence seems historically inevitable. There is ample evidence that a basic morality, as something fundamentally important to us, has diminished significantly in our society. We've slumped willingly into a materialistic, self-gratifying state of mind that makes us oblivious to what's beneficial or destructive in human nature and which assaults a civil society's well-being.
Just as there's ample proof we've clearly lost a fundamental moral fiber we possessed for 500 years, we need no further proof of losing control of our government than FEMA people referring to themselves as our "federal family". We can no longer doubt that progressives' goal is to establish a nanny state. In fact, they're so cock-sure confident now in their ability and control over us and in our inability or desire to oppose it that they're no longer attempting to hide behind pleasant and patronizing denials, boldly saying it out loud. "Of course we're your nanny, don't you get it? Don't worry, we'll take care of you!"
Do you get it?
Friday, September 2, 2011
Worst Jobs Report Since 1945!!!
How The Media is trying to put a positive spin on today's jobs news would be funny if weren't so sad, frustrating and maddening. Here's a spin-free description of today's worst job report since WWII.
http://links.heritage.org/hostedemail/email.htm?h=8ba3604b183adc85a6dad3a4a2f36fdb&CID=9727911894&ch=13256C8C56D069000027853DD2DC956D
There's no substantive evidence I've seen that we ever got out of the recession that began 3 years ago. There's no danger of a double-dip because we're not out of the first dip yet.
Those of you who only rely on the GDP metric fail to understand it's only an estimate when a recession starts or ends. Only actual economic data can determine with certainty either the beginning or the end. For example, the so-called Bush recession began in March 2001 according to the GDP metric. However, economists now almost universally agree it began a full year ealier in March 2000 when the NASDAQ began to tank. The GDP yardstick is only a rough estimate at best.
Does it really seem to any of you that we ever actually got out of the 2008 recession? C'mon, considering we're still above 9% unemployment and the economy continues to stink? Has it ever actually felt to you like it ended yet?
A recession is happening when the economy falters and unemployment remains stuck as high levels. A true double-dip would be when there's an actual recovery to some healthy employment statistics and then a return to unhealthy numbers. When have we ever had healthy numbers in this recession? The answer is an obvious never!
Got a question for you. If Bush Jr's employment numbers had done this, what would you and especially The Media have made of it? Gads people! IMMEDIATELY AFTER his biggest tax cuts in May 2003, unemployment and federal revenues turned around. Within a few short weeks of that legislation! His policies achieved a 4.4% unemployment rate and record federal revenues that were 25% higher than anything even Clinton achieved. Even with that amazing turnaround The Media still tries to convince you that Bush's tax policies didn't help either employment or revenue ... in total denial and disregard of actual facts/data! In total disregard of common sense.
Now, 2 years after the current administration hasn't produced any results worth celebrating, after their having done everything they wanted to do, The Media is still spinning these stellar lack of results as "unexpected" in a very forgiving way. This completely defies logic and common sense. How much longer are we to put up with this nonsense?
http://links.heritage.org/hostedemail/email.htm?h=8ba3604b183adc85a6dad3a4a2f36fdb&CID=9727911894&ch=13256C8C56D069000027853DD2DC956D
There's no substantive evidence I've seen that we ever got out of the recession that began 3 years ago. There's no danger of a double-dip because we're not out of the first dip yet.
Those of you who only rely on the GDP metric fail to understand it's only an estimate when a recession starts or ends. Only actual economic data can determine with certainty either the beginning or the end. For example, the so-called Bush recession began in March 2001 according to the GDP metric. However, economists now almost universally agree it began a full year ealier in March 2000 when the NASDAQ began to tank. The GDP yardstick is only a rough estimate at best.
Does it really seem to any of you that we ever actually got out of the 2008 recession? C'mon, considering we're still above 9% unemployment and the economy continues to stink? Has it ever actually felt to you like it ended yet?
A recession is happening when the economy falters and unemployment remains stuck as high levels. A true double-dip would be when there's an actual recovery to some healthy employment statistics and then a return to unhealthy numbers. When have we ever had healthy numbers in this recession? The answer is an obvious never!
Got a question for you. If Bush Jr's employment numbers had done this, what would you and especially The Media have made of it? Gads people! IMMEDIATELY AFTER his biggest tax cuts in May 2003, unemployment and federal revenues turned around. Within a few short weeks of that legislation! His policies achieved a 4.4% unemployment rate and record federal revenues that were 25% higher than anything even Clinton achieved. Even with that amazing turnaround The Media still tries to convince you that Bush's tax policies didn't help either employment or revenue ... in total denial and disregard of actual facts/data! In total disregard of common sense.
Now, 2 years after the current administration hasn't produced any results worth celebrating, after their having done everything they wanted to do, The Media is still spinning these stellar lack of results as "unexpected" in a very forgiving way. This completely defies logic and common sense. How much longer are we to put up with this nonsense?
Compromise? Pettiness? HUH?
White House OVER-willingness to compromise and GOP pettiness? HUH? Here's the story (from the 'sold out to progressives' MSNBC of course) and then I have some comments:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/01/7554287-first-thoughts-picking-up-where-they-left-off
The White House spokesman said, when asked about the conflict arising from Obama wanting his national address at the same time as a major Republican presidential debate, "well, people will just have to decide which one they want to watch". HUH?
Pardon me, but BOTH events are important to our nation and are of national interest. We The People shouldn't be put in the position of having to chose only one or the other. Sure, Obama's people changed his date but why did he have to wait until there was a national uproar over a scheduling that would obviously(!) cause this problem? What kind of person does that? And to what ends?
Doesn't President Obama remember that he's the president of ALL the people and should therefore proactively take into consideration the trouble such a conflict would cause? The obvious answer is that he believes he's the president of only those who voted for him.
It's fundamental to the difference between democracy and republic; between those who believe that the majority calls the shots, period (end of subject!), and those who believe that the interests of the minority party matter (especially when that 'minority' is nearly half the country). In fact our founders expressly avoided making this a democracy for that very reason. We were consiciously(!) founded as a republic rather than a democracy but liberals in general and progressives in particular are bent on our being turned into(!) a democracy.
As for the president's press secretary saying Republicans should just change their date if they don't like the conflict, consider how much planning and expense had gone into the Republican debate at that point only one week prior to it. The Reagan Library calendar had been cleared for it. Most hotel and travel reservations had already been made. Some of the Republican candidates are also members of congress so they'd have to choose whether to attend the debate or the president's congressional appearance. Why put ANY group of politicians in that predicament if not to intentionally welcome the opportunity to cause them problems during their run for his job? The TV network covering the debate would have to change everything they'd planned. Is it really "petty" for Republicans to object to have all this expense and planning purposely(!) disrupted by the president? How would you react to someone doing that to you? Especially if they worked for you as the president works for us?
Disrupting Republican debates is the obvious objective of the president's administration. It was also an arrogant power trip. It was no accident. The Republican debate had been scheduled for a long time and only a complete idiot would think a presidential address would have no effect on it. That the press secretary thinks we're stupid enough to belief it was "an accident" says a lot about the disdain this administration has for us. Such disrespect toward a large percentage of the population (ie, of his employers!) is unbecoming a president of our country.
Presidential debates are a normal part of our national election process. It's a key element of presidential elections. It ought to be encouraged and supported. An incumbent who doesn't need to campaign until after the primaries has no business interfering with primary campaigning of the opposition party. Would he have scheduled an address on top of a Democratic candidate debate? Can you honestly say yes to that?
So, he and The Media call his changing the date of his address a compromise! That's incredible to me. He screwed up and it falls on him to correct his conscious(!) error in judgement. And Republicans are "petty" for wanting to conduct their debates without purposeful interference from the president?
The disdain, dishonesty, arrogance, and extreme partisanship demonstrated by this president in scheduling his address at the same time as a long-planned Republican debate disgusts me. No president has any business purposely interfering with normal American political processes of any political party, most assuredly not for purely partisan political purposes. This man is not the king of America although it often appears that he thinks and acts like he is.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/01/7554287-first-thoughts-picking-up-where-they-left-off
The White House spokesman said, when asked about the conflict arising from Obama wanting his national address at the same time as a major Republican presidential debate, "well, people will just have to decide which one they want to watch". HUH?
Pardon me, but BOTH events are important to our nation and are of national interest. We The People shouldn't be put in the position of having to chose only one or the other. Sure, Obama's people changed his date but why did he have to wait until there was a national uproar over a scheduling that would obviously(!) cause this problem? What kind of person does that? And to what ends?
Doesn't President Obama remember that he's the president of ALL the people and should therefore proactively take into consideration the trouble such a conflict would cause? The obvious answer is that he believes he's the president of only those who voted for him.
It's fundamental to the difference between democracy and republic; between those who believe that the majority calls the shots, period (end of subject!), and those who believe that the interests of the minority party matter (especially when that 'minority' is nearly half the country). In fact our founders expressly avoided making this a democracy for that very reason. We were consiciously(!) founded as a republic rather than a democracy but liberals in general and progressives in particular are bent on our being turned into(!) a democracy.
As for the president's press secretary saying Republicans should just change their date if they don't like the conflict, consider how much planning and expense had gone into the Republican debate at that point only one week prior to it. The Reagan Library calendar had been cleared for it. Most hotel and travel reservations had already been made. Some of the Republican candidates are also members of congress so they'd have to choose whether to attend the debate or the president's congressional appearance. Why put ANY group of politicians in that predicament if not to intentionally welcome the opportunity to cause them problems during their run for his job? The TV network covering the debate would have to change everything they'd planned. Is it really "petty" for Republicans to object to have all this expense and planning purposely(!) disrupted by the president? How would you react to someone doing that to you? Especially if they worked for you as the president works for us?
Disrupting Republican debates is the obvious objective of the president's administration. It was also an arrogant power trip. It was no accident. The Republican debate had been scheduled for a long time and only a complete idiot would think a presidential address would have no effect on it. That the press secretary thinks we're stupid enough to belief it was "an accident" says a lot about the disdain this administration has for us. Such disrespect toward a large percentage of the population (ie, of his employers!) is unbecoming a president of our country.
Presidential debates are a normal part of our national election process. It's a key element of presidential elections. It ought to be encouraged and supported. An incumbent who doesn't need to campaign until after the primaries has no business interfering with primary campaigning of the opposition party. Would he have scheduled an address on top of a Democratic candidate debate? Can you honestly say yes to that?
So, he and The Media call his changing the date of his address a compromise! That's incredible to me. He screwed up and it falls on him to correct his conscious(!) error in judgement. And Republicans are "petty" for wanting to conduct their debates without purposeful interference from the president?
The disdain, dishonesty, arrogance, and extreme partisanship demonstrated by this president in scheduling his address at the same time as a long-planned Republican debate disgusts me. No president has any business purposely interfering with normal American political processes of any political party, most assuredly not for purely partisan political purposes. This man is not the king of America although it often appears that he thinks and acts like he is.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
We Need Jobs, Not Another "Commission" And Definitely NOT Another Speech!
Oh, c'mon Mr. President. Over the past three years you've done the following:
President Obama, your promises, lack of results and, in fact, your presidency are getting a bit tiresome. Hope is all but gone for this term and we're ready for REAL change. Change that actually fixes things.
- Ran for office ... and were elected! ... based on your claimed expertise at knowing both what was wrong with our economy/jobs AND how to fix it.
- You tried stimuli that you promised would keep unemployment under 8% and lower it from there dramatically.
- When your stimuli didn't fix it you formed the first of two commissions whose recommendations you ignored. You ignored the recommendations of your own(!) commission!!!
- You tried more stimulus.
- When more stimulus didn't work you formed another commission whose recommendations you also ignored!!! This time you even took it upon yourself to insult the opposition rather than practice what you preach about getting along.
- And how many speeches have you given telling us that you knew what was wrong and that the next thing you were going to do would definitely fix it? Gads! It has to be in the dozens!!!
President Obama, your promises, lack of results and, in fact, your presidency are getting a bit tiresome. Hope is all but gone for this term and we're ready for REAL change. Change that actually fixes things.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)