Friday, December 24, 2010
I wonder what he plans to learn from it... Optimism? Voodoo economics? Leadership? How to be reelected in 2012?
I believe this is an attempt to soften up the 112th Congress and independent voters with a fake move to the center now that he does not have a GOP proof congress. The shellacking he took in November no doubt has caused him to reassess how he will further his agenda. But I doubt their will much in the way of change in the borrowing, spending and nationalization that he desires.
The pundits have already characterized the President's support for the tax extension compromise as a move to the center, so this marketing scheme isn't really necessary.
Dear Mr. President.
Please do not bother with the Reagan book. You won't understand it and the Republicans in congress have already shown that they cannot stand up to any criticism from anyone. They cave on fundamental issues that conservatives know they should be stopping in its tracks such as DADT, your New START treaty, and the tax rates extension.
Thank you for your support.
Friday, December 10, 2010
"Shoppers at Walmart will soon have something other than glossy magazines and chewing gum to look at when in the checkout line: A "video message" from the Department of Homeland Security asking them to look out for "suspicious" activity and report it immediately."
Welcome Walmart shoppers. You now have Big Sis* to greet you at the check-out.
Hey, maybe they will implement the technology to see what you are buying and advise you about safety or better deals. You know, for your good.
In 1995 I went on a MIA recovery mission to Vietnam. The communist government broadcast propaganda over their public address system that had speakers on most telephone poles around the city.
What else can this government do?
and it's one, two, three, what are we fighting for......
*nickname "Big Sis" heard on the Rush Limbaugh Show
Monday, October 11, 2010
I received the following instruction from the Daily Kos via their list-server.
Every time you post a hyperlink anywhere on the Internet--including on message boards and social networking sites--it impacts search engines like Google. Also, one of the most common actions undecided voters take online is to use search engines like Google to find information about candidates. As such, shouldn't we learn how to post hyperlinks in a way that helps lead to our preferred political outcomes?
With a new campaign from Daily Kos, Grassroots Search Engine Optimization, you can do just that. By learning about the most effective ways to post hyperlinks, Grassroots SEO will help hundreds of thousands of undecided voters read damaging news articles on the Republican candidate for Congress in their district.
It sounds tricky, but it’s pretty easy. To make it work, we just need a few hundred grassroots activists like you to sign up and take part.
In 2006, we used this technique to reach over 700,000 voters in key congressional districts during the last two weeks of the midterms. With the rise of Twitter and Facebook, we can do even better in 2010.
To get started, sign up here. Once you sign up, you will be redirected to a Daily Kos diary that explains the next steps.
Campaign Director, DailyKos
Is honesty and honor dead?
Thursday, August 5, 2010
"That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant,.."There you have it. High ranking members of the American left have now openly and officially stated that your vote does not count.
If this stands it redefines the United States of America from Constitutional Republic, which we used to be, to a new form of government where the average American is now under the expert care of the self-anointed intelligentsia. Already we have become a bureaucracy, where a select few make the important and (now) personal decisions for society. The final authority has become the judges: the new ruling class.
I believe this particular judge has left himself open to impeachment with his lack of understanding of the law, his inability to leave his personal opinion aside and his personal benefit in his decision's outcome. For the last, a truly honorable judge would have rightly recused himself.
The judge defends his position by stating in his decision that the voters were "irrational" and goes on to cite court cases where a rationality requirement had been determined. But cases he cites on jurisdiction and rationality, do not seem to apply. In one case (Minnesota v Clover Leaf Creamery Co),the court found that that there was no equal protection violation by the state legislature, so that does not support his decision, and in the other (Heller), the court ruling is that the legislature must have a rational basis to create or modify law. The Heller case makes no mention of legislation placed on the ballot by the people. It addresses legislation put on the ballot by the legislature. I submit that in this country, the people are the ultimate authority. Something that seems to escape this judge (and many others).
Setting aside another reworking of American government for a moment, this decision has other points that need to be addressed.
The gay and lesbian community claim that Proposition 8 singles them out for unequal treatment under the law. The plaintiff's contention that Prop 8 prevents homosexuals ...
(1) "from marrying the person of his or her choice."The fact is Prop 8 does not mention homosexuals at all. Additionally, it does not prevent homosexuals from joining in a civil union with another gay person or marrying the person of their choice.
What Proposition 8 does do is prevent the re-defining of the 5000 year old term "marriage" for the purpose of improving the feelings of a minute portion of the population at the expense of the rest of the population's feelings.
Their suit then claims
(2) "The choice of a marriage partner is sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment"In case anyone is interested, there is no mention of marriage in the US Constitution. This includes the innumerated powers (Section 8), the Bill of Rights, or any of the other 18 amendments to the US Constitution. This lawsuit appears to be an excuse to have the central government manage marriages between individuals: Something the Founders never intended or envisioned and did not include in the US Constitution, nor has it come up in any ratified constitutional amendment. It is not written into federal law with the exception of the Defense of Marriage Act (President Clinton) and some sexist property issues that were resolved in the 19th century.
The US Constitution does not cover marriage, however there are provisions for the states and the people to decide these matters. One is titled the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution, which gives this power to the states. It reads:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." - Tenth AmendmentAs written, the letter of the law reserves the power to the states and the people. Not the federal government or federal judges.
Many states have addressed the feelings of gay and lesbian Americans. Using their constitutional power, states have codified civil unions into law which include gay and lesbian unions. So what is next?
Number (3) goes off the charts, saying that the state permits civil unions, but that civil unions are not good enough. They are equal but not equal, according to the plaintiffs.
"a status giving same-sex couples the rights and responsibilities of marriage without providing marriage —— does not afford plaintiffs an adequate substitute for marriage and, by disabling plaintiffs from marrying the person of their choice, invidiously discriminates, without justification, against plaintiffs and others who seek to marry a person of the same sex."The question here is; If the civil unions offer the same "rights and responsibilities of marriage" why does it not "afford plaintiffs an adequate substitute for marriage"?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Aren't "rights" the crux of their argument? But in this case the rights are the same., so what is the argument? Why aren't civil unions adequate? Well, the judge's decision includes,
"Cott explained that domestic partnerships cannot substitute for marriage because domestic partnerships do not have the same social and historical meaning as marriage and that much of the value of marriage comes from its social meaning." p.19, ln 4.First: I thought the complaint was that civil unions were not adequate. Now it's domestic partnerships. Is this change of wording to used to redefine the debate or to merely confuse the debate?
This third complaint goes to heart of the problem. It can only be read as, 'According to the activist gay community, equal is not adequate,' so they invidiously discriminate, without justification, and want to redefine marriage for everyone on their own terms. No one else's feelings matter to them. I'm sorry but I do not believe the human race is ready for the open ended redefining of the basic family unit that traditional marriage represents. That the gay and lesbian community needs this kind of government mandated acceptance indicates that there is some other motive involved.
Mr. Cott alludes to the why of it's inadequacy to the gay community. They want the government to force society to award gay and lesbian couples the exact same historical and social meaning that traditional marriage has been over the millennia. I for for one, do not believe it is government's place, nor does government at any level have the ability to proclaim any historical and social standing on any group. And especially the history of marriage where men and women have been marrying each other and producing children. Of course, homosexual couples can never produce children, so the common sense question is "How can it ever be exactly the same?" Common sense would dictate that it cannot, which should make the argument mute.
Gay and lesbian Americans have a need for the government's stamp of approval, their blessing so to speak, of the gay and lesbian lifestyle. I have no insight into this apparent need, but it might be that after millenia of actual and perceived mistreatment by the heterosexual community they have discovered an open ended opportunity to 'even the score'. By redefining marriage at the federal level and making it a stealth "right", they may believe they are winning something.
What I fail to understand is why anyone, or any group, would want their private sex life and their private relationships managed by the bureaucratic central government?
Monday, July 12, 2010
This Time MM is attacking Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday for asking Mr. Axelrod legitimate questions concerning President Obama's underhanded recess appointment of Donald Berwick to head up Medicare and Medicaid. The rant, titled "Wallace revives tired right-wing attacks on "controversial" Berwick quotes" was published July 11th, 2010.
MM says, "
Chris Wallace claimed that President Obama used a recess appointment to install Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services head Donald Berwick to avoid defending Berwick's "controversial statements" regarding health care rationing and Britain's National Health Service."The fact that they feel the need to attack Chris Wallace reveals the truth of the matter.
To Media matters: If the real reason for this surprise recess appointment was not to avoid questioning by the US Senate, why did the President do it?
MM does not answer that question, and neither does Axelrod, the president or any of his staff. At the Whitehouse Blog, Dan Pfeiffer writes,
"In April, President Obama nominated Dr. Donald Berwick to serve as Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)."So why didn't the Democrat controlled US Senate not consider this nomination? He provides this for an answer...
" Many Republicans in Congress have made it clear in recent weeks that they were going to stall the nomination as long as they could, solely to score political points."Is that so? Does Mr. Pfeiffer prove his statement? Nope. He's a Democrat working for Democrats to give cover to the Democrats and the president. And, as we've learned, Democrats do not need facts, they only need someone to blame. He describes the US Senate confirmation process as "Washington game-playing" that they don't have time to "waste" on.
Now it is odd that the appointment had to be made in secret as there was an Acting Administrator, Charlene Frizzera, in place since January, 2009. Barack Obama has been the President for over 18 months. If the appointment was as important as is claimed, why did he leave a "temp" in there for 18 months?
Dr. Berwick was never scheduled for a US Senate confirmation hearing. The appearance is the president's staff pulled him out of nowhere and placed in charge of rationing the federal government's largest budget area ($700+ Billion annually).
Recess appointments are generally not a really bad thing and have been used many times by most, if not all prior presidents. But this one exceptionally devious and reveals the overall mindset of this administration, where Mr. Obama creates "czar" positions expressly to avoid an open information exchange in a government that was originally founded on transparency.
Media Matters has build a fine tradition of skewing information to meet their agenda. This is just another example.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
I heard Byron York speaking about this during the second hour of Bill Bennett's radio show, "Morning in America", yesterday. You can read Mr. York's article at the Washington Examiner and you can hear Mr. Bolden's remarks to AL Jazeera TV here.
It seems Mr. Obama's NASA Director, Charles Bolden, told Aljazeera that the president,
"... wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with predominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering."I would have to ask what, if anything the Muslims have contributed to space. But there is a time line page at Wiki that shows many legitimate contributions to science math and engineering. But I'm thinking they will contribute far less to our space program than would justify allowing them access to space technology data. As we know, Iran is developing nuclear weapons and delivery systems for them, they support terrorist activities (as do many other Muslim dominated countries). I wonder what they could use from our space program to further those ends?
On the humorous side, Bill Bennett's executive producer, Seth Leibsohn, suggests that the US space program was helped by a certain young lady from Babylon named "Jeannie", who was instrumental in furthering (according to some) NASA's Major Anthony Nelson career a few decades ago.
This is further proof that this administration is running on ideologies that only they believe are good for this country. Everyone who has an ounce of common sense and a few factual history lessons understands this to be problem.
President Obama does not want to destroy this country. He wants to reshape in a form that traditional Americans will not recognize. And abusing a few federal agencies, the states, along with massive unemployment, growing a huge national debt and lowering national security, are sacrifices he is more then willing to make. It is for your own good, you know.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
That was funny. But this may not be.
It seems Mr. Costner is an environmentalist who puts his money where is mouth is and has been funding research into oil spill cleanup techniques. And he is offering a technology to help with the Gulf cleanup effort. No kidding. Read about it CBS News web site.
Kudos to Mr. Costner.
BTW: I found the movie "Waterworld" to be entertaining and funny. When I watched it the first time I knew it was written and created by a, or some, nut-jobs. In the movie we are introduced to the bad guys by Mr. Costner's character when he sees some of them coming towards his trimaran on personal water craft and mutters, "smokers".
Well, I thought the "smoker" label was referring to the fact that they were using gas powered vehicles in contrast to his wind powered trimaran. I almost coughed up a box of pop-corn when it was revealed that the bad guys weren't called "smokers" because they used machines that emit the horrible substance known as exhaust, that emits evil CO2 and 'smoke' when operated. Especially in machines that have been around for generations. You had to know that evil big oil was what was meant because this film is an environmentalist's dream come true. Shortly thereafter we learn that no, they aren't smokers because of their machines, but because they SMOKE CIGARETTES!!! All of them all of the time and no matter what they were doing. Cigarettes were used by the chief evil guy and smoker (played by the late Dennis Hopper) as prizes for an evil job well done. I didn't know that smoking was a criteria for evil, but you know.... the president smokes.
And, of course, the mother ship of the evil smokers was none other than the infamous Exxon Valdez. Go figure.
British Petroleum should invite Mr. Costner on board, eh?
Monday, May 31, 2010
During his remarks concerning the oil spill on May 27th, he said,
"When Secretary Salazar took office, he found a Minerals and Management Service that had been plagued by corruption for years –- this was the agency charged with not only providing permits, but also enforcing laws governing oil drilling. And the corruption was underscored by a recent Inspector General’s report that covered activity which occurred prior to 2007 -- a report that can only be described as appalling. And Secretary Salazar immediately took steps to clean up that corruption. But this oil spill has made clear that more reforms are needed."This tells me that:
1. His Minerals and Management Service (MMS) issued the permits for the Deep Water Horizon drilling project. Meaning they looked over the project plans, equipment, qualifications of the personnel, contingencies and safety precautions and approved them.
2. The guy he put in charge of MMS, Interior Secretary Salazar, knew of supposed corruption and yet had done nothing to rectify the situation. He probably still hasn't changed anything except to fire Ms. Birnbaum.
3. He is trying to remove himself and his administration from fault by blaming the Bush administration.
4. He claims he's been in charge since the beginning.
I just have to wonder if he believes that anyone is swallowing this tripe. But it doesn't stop there, He he nails the premise with this...
"For years, there has been a scandalously close relationship between oil companies and the agency that regulates them. That’s why we’ve decided to separate the people who permit the drilling from those who regulate and ensure the safety of the drilling."Again, assuring that everyone understands that it not his administration that is at fault here.
I have to wonder what it is about himself that forces him to continuously try and divert attention from his actions to anyone or anything else, including throwing his subordinates out with the trash.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Sadly, I was right.
I hope I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the primary reason British Petroleum (BP) has wasted over a month in attempts to stop the spewing of oil into the Gulf of Mexico is because they are trying to get oil into tankers so they can sell it.
Think about it.
What have all of their plans included:
1. Attaching a pipe to siphon off oil from the leak in the pipe that is way down the road from the wellhead.
2. A secondary well to "ease the pressure" by pumping the crude into tankers. (I wonder if they will use the same blow off preventer (BOP)?
3. The 70 ton hat trick had what? A pipe to siphon off oil from the leak.
Now they have to plans working in "parallel":
1. One where they would pump "heavy mud" into the blow out preventer (BOP) and clog the leak, then make the seal permanent with concrete. Surprisingly, this one would not involve attaching a pipe to grab the oil.
2. The lower marine riser package (LMRP) cap containment option calls pulling the old riser off the BOP and for cutting off the pipe, then and inserting what amounts to another riser onto the BOPand siphon off oil to the Discoverer Enterprise drillship, putting them back in the oil capturing business. (Rigzone.com)
I have to ask these simple questions:
1. Why did BP not try the heavy mud option the day after the Deep Horizon blew up, sank, and they discovered the oil spewing into the Gulf? Did it take them over a month to think of that? I would find that hard to believe as they have used the heavy mud process before.
2. If cutting off the pipe and putting another connection on it is an option, why didn't they try that the day after they discovered the leaking oil?
I predict the heavy mud plan will fail in favor of the LMRP option to siphon off oil.
(note: I hope I am wrong about this one.)
Now don't get me wrong. I am a big supporter of capitalism and oil companies keeping the nation and the world running on the energy they provide. We would not have any of the modern conveniences, medical treatments, or anything else worthwhile without the freedom that capitalism and oil provide. But their comes a time when businesses must put safety and ecology ahead of profits. This is one of those times and BP apparently is not doing the right thing.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Well, I'm not really comfortable with the term "states rights".
Only people are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable "rights": not states, or any level of government.
States have "powers" and the federal government has "enumerated powers" (that means powers limited to those specifically listed in the US Constitution). The government derives their just powers granted to them from the people.
Check your US Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and Federalist Papers, for the facts.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
The following picture and text was taken from an email that is circulating. I can't swear the picture goes with the speech, but it looks believable. And it has been associated with the speech at many web sites. I checked at Snopes, who label it "True" As an side, there is more to be learned about President Roosevelt and immigration at the Snopes page.
'In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language.. And we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.'
Theodore Roosevelt 1907
History. It is a wonderful thing.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Paul Volcker, current Whitehouse adviser and former Federal Reserve Chairmen under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan says the value-added tax (VAT)...
"was not as toxic an idea." (Reuters)Not toxic to whom? Politicians and Corporations? Ex-fed chairmen?
It is toxic to me.
I have to say that I believe these people in Washington are totally out of touch with the American people and the American way of life. Never once have they considered that the deficits and debt are a result of their uncontrolled spending or that if they want to reduce deficits and debt, cutting spending might work.
Just say "no" to spending.
At least the US Senate was thinking with 85% clarity, when they voted 85 to 13 opposing a VAT in a nonbinding "sense of the senate" bill. (Read about it here)
There many reasons why a VAT would be a bad thing. The top four are...
2. The poor are the hardest hit
3. It is super insidious
4. Why do we need another tax?
It is inflationary because it adds to the cost of everything that congress wants to tax. All businesses pass along any cost of doing business to the customer. Always. A 3% VAT would at least 3% to the cost of vehicles, gasoline, housing, food, transportation, clothing and food. If they make it 6% then everything goes up that much. The government already jaacks up the price of everything with a 35% corporate tax. The VAT will be added on top of that corporate tax (the same way they do it in Germany)
The poor would be hit hardest because they have less income to spread around to the different products and services needed. While a loaf of bread doesn't even show up on the radar of a wealthy person, it becomes decision time for poor family. (Do we get the whole wheat @ $4.00, or white at $3.25?) This same scenario goes to everything they need and choices they make to stretch the money out to cover everything they need, and would no doubt would adversely affect children's birthdays and Christmas. (And they describe Republicans as "mean spirited").
I, and many others, believe that a VAT is very very insidious as it is a tax hidden that consumer never sees. The way a VAT works is the government collects a tax each time "value" is added to a product.
Take oil pipe for instance. Oil comes out of the ground through steel pipe 2- 3.5 inches in diameter. To make the final product iron ore goes through many "value adding" processes. At each improvement, the value added tax is slapped to it. After each process that adds value, the VAT is added to the cost. When I worked at US Steel the the major steps went like this.
1. Iron ore is dug up and shipped to US Steel (Lorain Cuyahoga Works) and converted into blocks of steel - Value Added
2. It is sold to the Blooming mill and turned into bar stock and billets - Value Added
3. Billets are sold to the Pipe mills who then sell it to the lapping mill (a department of the Pipe Mill) - Value Added
4. The billets are extruded into 25 to 30 foot lengths of seamless pipe - Value Added
5. The pipe is sold to Number 2 lap, where threads are added to both ends of the pipe. - Value Added
6. The pipe is sold to 3 Seamless, where a coupling is screwed on to one end of the pipe - Value Added
7. The pipe is sold to the shipping department for final sale.
The oil companies who buy the pipe will not know how much VAT is being paid on the pipe, they just buy it at their best price and add the cost into calculating how much to sell the oil for (which has its own value adding process), and it all comes out of your pocket.
You may never know when the VAT rate is increased by congress (I was going to say 'when it goes up or down', but that would be crazy talk), unless you are watching Fox News who will tell you when they change the rate.
Why do we need another tax on top of all the other taxes we pay now? Let's have a look at how much money we are sending to government.
If you are working, own a home & pay utilities, drive to work, and live in America, you hand over about half of your income to all levels of government.
You are paying income tax, payroll tax Medicare & Social Security), sales tax, property tax, state & federal gas taxes, fees for services (I use the term loosely), corporate taxes (that's right, it gets passed along as part of doing business), excise taxes on various services (tanning salons comes to mind), room taxes if you travel, airport taxes, communication taxes on your telephone, cell phone and not-so-smart phone, internet access taxes, connection taxes, use taxes, etc., etc., etc.
And all of that does not include a VAT.... yet.
Contact your representatives and the president and tell them you are supporting someone else if they try and add a VAT to the cost of living in this country.
Friday, April 16, 2010
I have to ask; Who told him to say that? He has proved that he knows almost nothing, which goes to the value of a Harvard education, and he is listening to people who do not much about anything or being an authentic American either.
After his obligatory comments for the locally spawned Democratic Party Senators and Congresspersons, and then repeating his own heartfelt history with the space program, he said,
"So let me start by being extremely clear:"I've come to know that when he says this, whatever comes next is the exact opposite of what he really feels or means, if he has any thoughts or feeling at all on the topic. It's hard to tell sometimes because, while his advisers are fairly clueless (in this case, he is apparently blaming the White House Budget Office), his speech writers do know what Americans want to hear. Especially after he has screwed with any particular group, such as NASA employees.
"I am 100 percent committed to the mission of NASA and its future. (Applause.) Because broadening our capabilities in space will continue to serve our society in ways that we can scarcely imagine."We can tell he is "100 percent committed" because, according to CBS in Miami (KDKA TV) on February 1st, 2010, Mr. Obama intends to cut $100 BILLION from NASA's budget and shut down their return to the moon effort known as Constellation Program, in favor of spending $9 Billion to outsource the work NASA has been doing. This is being described as an "increase" to NASA's budget. Yeah, that won't cost any jobs. In Texas, the Examiner is reporting that Mr. Obama's 2011 budget will cost 6000 jobs in Houston and 30,000 engineer jobs around the country. He sure seems to enjoy destroying jobs.
Losing jobs, really? I'm afraid the answer is 'yes'. Not only do we know this from his forced bankruptcy of GM and setting aside centuries of contract law, someone added this to his speech in Florida.
"Now, it’s true -- there are Floridians who will see their work on the shuttle end as the program winds down. This is based on a decision that was made six years ago, not six months ago, but that doesn’t make it any less painful for families and communities affected as this decision becomes reality."
OK, just a moment. He takes another opportunity to blame President Bush for what, losing jobs? It doesn't matter, just as long as he can blame anyone but himself for anything that could be construed as bad"" that happens, while taking credit for anything good that happens, even if it was initiated before his presidency.
"So I’m proposing -- in part because of strong lobbying by Bill and by Suzanne, as well as Charlie -- I’m proposing a $40 million initiative led by a high-level team from the White House, NASA, and other agencies to develop a plan for regional economic growth and job creation."
Riddle me this. If he was not killing jobs, why would he need to add a program to retrain workers who already have jobs?
He is not done yet.
"And I expect this plan to reach my desk by August 15th. (Applause.) It’s an effort that will help prepare this already skilled workforce for new opportunities in the space industry and beyond."Now we learn that he really does not have a plan. He would merely like to have a plan for the soon to be unemployed. I wonder if congress will put this one ahead of Cap & Trade, crippling the financial sector, or are they concentrating their re-election prospects.
Personally, I believe he is killing the Constellation Program for two reasons.
1. It was a created under the Bush administration and he must remove any hint of anything that Mr. Bush did that Americans can take pride in.
2. The space program has been a binding force that brings Americans together and evokes pride, patriotism and the American competitive spirit. It is a force that glues Americans to a television to join in with cheering on the astronauts while watching in amazement. President Obama and others of his ilk cannot stand the idea of competition as something that anyone would volunteer to engage in as it leads to unequal outcomes. And, unlike his campaign promises, this shows that he is no "uniter".
There are winners and losers in life. He wants government to equalize the playing field, beating down the successful and redistribute wealth to those who do not succeed, and anything that works against this goal is the enemy.
Having never been required to compete for anything himself, he may be unable to understand the rewards that come with it. I do not count his presidential victory or his senate wins as "competitive" events. For the US Senate race his opponent was a last minute emergency nominee that wasn't even a resident of Illinois. And in the presidential race, his gangland staff was able to write pretty speeches conveniently displayed on a teleprompter and devoid of detail for his benefit. He relies on the legacy media to repeat his propaganda and demonizes those to reveal the truth of his actions. He seems to be determined to destroy any competitive efforts in this country.
I have to add that I first heard President Obama described as the first "Post American President" on the Bill Bennett Show, Morning in America, when a guest (whose name I do not recall offered the title for our president. With the information above and other actions (HCR, Stimulus 2009, bankrupting GM, Chrysler, Lehman Bros, etc.) by this president, I now believe that the label is more accurate that we can imagine.
The space program does not deserve to be handicapped this way. I am writing my representatives in DC to insist that they extend the shuttle program, build new space shuttles, reinstate the Constellation Program, and keep the USA in the forefront of space exploration.
I hope our friends on the left, who often complain that President Bush did not spend enough on science and research will join me in contacting their representatives and renew the space program. It's not that hard to do.
Monday, April 12, 2010
I did learn something interesting from the exchange. Apparently, Ms. Fisherman-Shultz doesn't believe everyone has free speech rights in America.
"I'm sure the nuns would be surprised to learn that they don't have the right to weigh in on health care reform."Did Chris Wallace ask her that question? No, she volunteered it.
Quite frankly, I'm surprised to know that. I knew many Democrats in public service (using the term loosely) believe that Americans have different rights based on any of their various prejudices. But more and more, this truth is being displayed on news shows, in speeches and are getting codified into law. Last Summer we heard our president say,
"But I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. I don't mind cleaning up after them, but don't do a lot of talking." (Breitbart TV)They even censor their mailings from the US House and restrict Republicans from mailing important information that they disagree with (a chart showing the ObamaCare routes that compared to the allowed "HilaryCare chart back in 1993). They even got to the US House Franking Commission (run by Democrats, go figure). (CNS News).
They can't even be honest with the AGW debate. Last December the Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming's Chairman Ed Markey (D-Mass.) refused to allow testimony from a global-warming skeptic. (Democrats Censor Climate Skeptics in Congress, Jillian Bandes)
They are even censoring twitter (Mark Hopkins).
I'm beginning to think that these people believe that they are supposed to tell us what we can say and when we can say it, which our "hate crime" laws testify to, and we should stop bothering them with our antiquated ideas that doesn't get them anywhere.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Since that time I have often wondered how the liberal rank and file, rebranding themselves Progressives after people became aware of what liberals represent, remain supporters of the Democratic Party. I've come to understand that in order to be a liberal, you must have a certain mindset that relies on emotion and remaining in good standing with your clique rather than facts when deciding what issue they like and those policies and politics they will support. I lurk around such noted blogs as the Huffington Post, Moveon.org, pharyngula (an atheist's heaven) and have offered facts as I know them to many of the commentators and blog writers. Of course I receive many negative comments that are normally devoid of facts, if my contributions make it past the censors.
Most recently, I visited the Democratic Underground. Their admins fully support my theory of like-minded people gathering in one place to discuss how right they are and how anyone who disagrees with them just doesn't get it. I was considering posting a comment but needed to register. The registration page had a link to the rules for commenting and while I like to help out, I skipped the whole thing after reading the discussion rules.
Here are the rules and a translation of their meaning.
Discussion Forum Rules.If they do not like you based on your opinion, you will not be allowed to alter their really and will be shunned and banned.
1. This is a moderated discussion forum with rules. We have a team of volunteer moderators who delete posts and ban disruptors. Members are strongly urged to familiarize themselves with our rules, and make an effort to become a positive member of our community. Those who do not risk having their posts deleted or their posting privileges revoked.
2. Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates.If you do not tow our party line, you are not welcome. Be a good soldier or leave, and leave quickly.
3. Civility: Treat other members with respect. Do not post personal attacks against other members of this discussion forum.We can call others names, make fun of them, restrict their speech while here, but don't try it with your fellow emotional progressives or you are outta here.
4. Content: Do not post messages that are inflammatory, extreme, divisive, incoherent, or otherwise inappropriate. Do not engage in anti-social, disruptive, or trolling behavior. Do not post broad-brush, bigoted statements. The moderators and administrators work very hard to enforce some minimal standards regarding what content is appropriate. But please remember that this is a large and diverse community that includes a broad range of opinion. People who are easily offended, or who are not accustomed to having their opinions (including deeply held personal convictions) challenged may not feel entirely comfortable here. A thick skin is necessary to participate on this or any other discussion forum.The area of inflammatory and extreme belongs to us for use against anyone who disagrees with us. If they are using facts to back up their claims, it is even worse. Only we are permitted to use this type of language against those others, but it can never be directed at your fellow disruptive trolling anti-social bigots.
6. Forum Administration: Respect the moderators and administrators, and respect their decisions. You can help make their job easier by clicking the "Alert" link on any post that might need moderator attention. Please understand that moderating errors and inconsistencies are inevitable on a large website like this. If you have a question about DU policies, or if you have a concern about an action a moderator has taken, please contact an admin privately.Since we are always correct, any allusion to any other position will be treated as being disrespectful of your betters. And believe us, you have betters. Now shut up and tow that line.
The censorship at the Democratic Underground is too prohibitive to be American. It must be more of the post American left, who do not understand the US Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, or how this country was made great through individual freedom and rugged individualism who tried not to be a burden on their neighbors. True Americans are actually ashamed to be required to depend on government to survive (except for national security) and all any real American wants is an equal chance at success in life. Something that many in this government has been working against since at least 1933.
Friday, April 2, 2010
"Rush Limbaugh threatened to leave the United States if the healthcare bill passed. Well, the bill did pass, and he's still here."I'm sorry to have to inform Mr. Queenan that Mr. Limbaugh never said that. What he and others are doing is hearing what you want to hear, or just plain lying. What he actually said was he would get his health care in Costa Rica.
How would I know the truth? Easy. Unlike our fleet of professional researchers, reporters, editors and pundits, I actually listen to the show occasionally and I heard him say it.
Imagine that. Actually knowing what you are talking about. What a concept.
He goes on to say,
"If you were going to make a threat, you were honor-bound to go through with it. Otherwise, you were merely confusing the issue."Does that include campaign promises (threats, as I see them)? I have to wonder if he had the same opinion on President Obama's threats. You know, those campaign promises to be post-partisan and transparent among others. If Mr. Obama were honor-bound to go through with his threats, he would have insisted that a health care insurance reform bill included Republicans in the backroom bribery sessions and questioned the Democrats sneaking out of those rooms to avoid Republicans.
But in the newly emerged tradition of Democratic Party politics, he falls under George Stephanopolous' famous line after President Clinton's reelection in 1996. When asked why President Clinton did not keep his campaign promises, George Stephanopolous said,
"has kept all of the promises he intended to keep."I expect politicians, and the legacy media (such as Mr. Queenan) who prop them up, to continue acting infallible while continuing to fail at every opportunity.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Would you make payments for 6 months on a car that you've never seen, you don't know what options it comes with, and that has never been tested?
Then, after 6 months of payments, you may get to drive it, but only roads predetermined by someone else while continuing to make the payments that go up and up for 10 years. Everyone who doesn't buy a car will be fined. Finally, when everyone has the same car on fewer and fewer roads, you can't really drive it much because the car company wouldn't allow more fuel to be harvested.
Originally posted on 3/19/10 4:03 PM
UPDATE: I'm happy to include this news release from Senator George LeMieux's (R-FL) office as further evidence that nothing the president or the Democrats have used as a sales pitch for their health care reform (HCR) is reliable.
The day the president signed this HCR into law may well be remembered as one of the darkest days of this country, where the completion of the central government's usurping of states' power and Americans' freedom is nearly complete. Next up: Immigration, followed by Cap and Trade.
I could go on and on about it, but the judge has the last word. In these three YouTube videos, Judge Napolitiano lectures on the natural rights of man, the Patriot Act and how it has unconstitutional elements and why we should not allow our representatives to get away with this. He also informs, in no uncertain words, on the how federal government politicians has been empowering themselves with programs that have never work as marketed.
This partial description is taken from Free The Nation's YouTube video posting - October 2nd, 2009 -
Judge Andrew Napolitano gives a speech from the heart about freedom and from where our rights come. The Judge explains the hard core truth about the Constitution and why we must fight to regain and retain our freedoms. Courtesy of www.CampaignForLiberty.com. Edited by FreeTheNation.com
These videos include a request for political support. You can simply turn off the Annotations to be rid of them.
The truth of Judge Napolitano's words are self evident.
Note: I am not affiliated with www.CampaignForLiberty.com or FreeTheNation.com.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Trying to share the blame, Nancy Pelosi said that "the vote may be partisan, but the bill is not as it has 300 Republican amendments". Of course she won't say what the GOP amendments are. That would allow Americans to verify her claim. But, since it's not true, and she is not truthful, we can take our cues from that.
With any luck, in November, we will replace many of these post-American politicians with some that will minimize the damage HCR will cause.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
I find it hard to believe that anyone who so loved Barack Obama would be as in-your-face with accusations of pettiness. In fact I would believe that the Democratic faithful, including members of the legacy media, would hold pettiness up as a virtue to be emulated rather than a character flaw. Pettiness has become hallmark and will be the legacy of the Obama administration.
Mr. Klein's complaint seems to be that another evil Republican is pointing out the fallacies and hypocrisies of the left and defending his own record. And if there is anything liberals cannot stand is a conservative defending him or herself, so the article spends time sort of re-correcting the record on a few items that liberals hold dear, such as weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq, and the Valerie Plame/Joe Wilson brouhaha. Both situations are misused by the left in America to portray Republicans and conservatives as evil, conniving, liars who only care about their own personal fortunes and profits for their "Wall Street fat cat" friends.
Many Democrats and all liberals believe that Iraq was a war of American imperialist aggression and therefore a "war of choice" by the naturally evil Republicans. Mr. Rove points out that not only did President Bush believe Iraq had WMD, so did most of the US Congress, including a majority of Democrats. Rove even names Democrats went before the microphones and declared their belief that Saddam did have WMD.
Of course, Mr. Klein absolves Democrats of any responsibility for the so called war of choice and accuses Mr. Rove of "titanic pettiness" for naming them. Klein takes particular offense when the green apostle, former VP Al Gore, is named as being outspoken in his belief that Iraq had WMD. For Mr. Klein, this is " a step too far", writing, "Gore, in fact, was making a wise argument".
Gore has wisdom. Rove is bitter. Why is that?
As we have learned, if there is anything a liberal columnist abhors it would be the use of facts when writing. He refers to Rove's researchers as "Rove's busy-beaver oppo researchers" as if working to be accurate is something to mock. With press like this, it's no wonder Barack Obama won the 2008 presidential election without revealing any detail about his plans. And what is an "oppo"?
Legacy media opinion writers and columnists, such as and including Joe Klein, were no doubt highly disappointed that Karl Rove, Vice President Dick Cheney and others, were not charged with revealing Valerie Plame's secret identity or anything else they could dream upl. Never mind that he and they had no part in revealing her to a reporter.
Fact: We know that it was Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage who spoke to Robert Novak about the subject. There is and was no evidence of a Bush Whitehouse conspiracy to marginalize Clinton Ambassador Joe Wilson by "outing" and endangering Valerie Wilson (Plame). People like Mr. Klein simply cannot wrap their little brains around that fact. They refuse to believe there are any redeeming value to anyone who is not a liberal, progressive and/or Democrat.
It his his own pettiness that is on display by trying to rewrite history again. While calling Rove "less successful", Klein ends with,
"the crucial revelation here is that when you make a political consultant your senior policy adviser, spin supplants substance, oppo research rules and winning the news cycle becomes more important than winning the war."
I wonder if he criticized the Obama administration for the same thing?
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Now that you are there, fill in the indentification information and do not forget to enter your email address if you would like a response from them.
When sending an email be sure you treat it as if you were sending a letter with the proper salutation, such Dear Senator Last name, be respectful if you are serious about getting a favorable result with your message, do not stray into more then one issue (or you risk confusing them), and end it with a respectful closing, such as, "Thank you for your service". Do this even if you did not vote for that person and especially if you do not like them at all. This will demonstrate ability to keep a level head when discussing issues that you care about deeply and especially if the issue presses your hot buttons.
These same rules apply when writing a letter to the editor of a newspaper, or even when responding to blogs. Some of the more open minded and progressive blogs, such as the Huffington Post, censor the comments and will remove anything that goes against their mindset, or the mindset of the author of the blog, using the excuse that you were using ad hominem attacks or other distractions that they willing allow when the object is someone or some organization that they don't like. Save the fun for your own blog.
Back to writing to your congressperson....
Here are examples of two different webmails I sent to my senators this morning.
The first one is to Senator Bill Nelson, a Democrat from Florida. I'm pretty sure he will vote for ObamaCare anyway, believing we will forget that he helped destroy the country by the time he runs for reelection.
Notice how I give my specific reasons why I do not want this legislation passed. And, while I may not have all my grammar and spelling correct, I sent it anyway because the issue is important to me and I believe that it is understandable.
Dear Senator Nelson,
I am very troubled this morning to learn that the US Congress is planning to force the president's version of health care insurance reform through congress while knowing that 73% of Americans are against it.
The problem isn't that we do not know enough about it, as we do know.
The problem is that experts agree this program, if enacted, would destroy all private sector health insurance companies and make all Americans dependent on the federal government for health care insurance.
With the Medicare cuts, it would destroy Medicare as well.
It cuts payments to doctors ensuring that there will be fewer doctors to provide services to the president's estimate 30 million additional patients while reducing the number of qualified researchers who discover all the wonderful innovations that have made America the envy of the entire world.
This one reason alone is why other countries can seemingly afford nationalized health care as we are paying for the research, not them. It is the same as they depend on us for their national defense and they only invest minimally in their own.
It increases the threshold of medical expense deductibility from 7.5% to 10% of the adjusted gross income, penalizing responsible Americas who pay for their own medical care and insurance.
Instead of lowering private sector insurance premiums, it would cause a large increase due to:
- having fewer paid customers (who will be moving to the government's plan),.
- making up the difference of lower government mandated fees to doctors who would otherwise leave the profession due to their inability to earn a living.
- no relief from malpractice insurance ensures no relief from higher costs and higher fees that are passed on to the patients and their insurance company.
- mandatory coverage of pre-existing conditions means that people will not pay for insurance until they need it. This will drive costs even more as the only paying customers will be those who already require expensive treatments.
- this country is already dangerously in debt and this health care reform will make matters worse. The debt is responsible for devaluing the US dollar, down at least 16% in the last year. This also makes insurance more expensive.
Government mandated purchasing of insurance by working Americans will fail the Constitutionality test as this kind of intrusion has never been the within the authority of the federal government.
This bill makes no sense to working Americans and needs to be stopped before it can further ruin this country.
The government is constituted to represent the will of and by the consent of the people. Poll after poll shows that most Americans do not want this bill. Passing it will surely cause voters to reconsider who they allow to be the majority party in congress during the next few election cycles when we know for a fact that will of the governed is being set aside for political gain in Washington.
There are better plans out there that need to be considered by rushing into national bankruptcy merely for the purpose of tallying up a win in the president's corner.
Thank you for your service.
I also wrote to our other senator, George LeMieux, Republican - Florida.
Dear Senator LeMieux,
While I am very sure that you will be voting against this health care reform package, I would like to reiterate my opposition to it. This makes me in agreement with at least 73% of Americans who are against it, knowing that it would be a huge unwieldy mess and that there are many more common sense way to help uninsured Americans to receive proper health care. Most of those ways are listed in the GOP's health care reform web site.
I also want to thank you for your service to this country and the Great State of Florida and I hope that you will consider a run office at the end of this term.
Please note that the letter to the "friendly" senator is much shorter than the one I sent to Senator Nelson. I've written to both before on this issue and while Senator LeMieux's response agrees with mine, while Senator Nelson's only reiterated the party talking points.
When you right a letter, you do not need to include all the reasons your are for or against some issue or policy. Just letting them know your position on the issue is normally enough. Besides, I doubt they (or a staffer, most likely) will not have the time or inclination to read it all. That is the reason I put my request, vote NO, in the subject line of the mail. When the staffer sees the subject, the point is already made.
Finally, I tried to write to my Representative, Vern Buchanan, after writing to my senators, but it seems as if his web page is overloaded and would not display. I'm sure he is on the same side of this issue as I am, so I may try again later or simply trust him to do the right thing. (What a concept).
Friday, February 12, 2010
The religion of Global Warming, re-branded as "Global Climate Change" (you know, a CYA in case the temperatures move in other directions). Well it has. While some scientists are reporting that global temperatures have been on a cooling trend for the last decade or so, the AGW's are claiming it just a small cycle in the big picture. Just like they are saying now the the some areas of this country's 100 year snow storms and record cold spells are evidence of global warming. They ere the real deniers.
I believe in global climate change.
I also believe there is a profit motive behind the current global warming and I ain't buyin' it.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
In a special election to fill the US Senate seat held for over four and a half decades by the dearly departed and Honorable Senator Ted Kennedy, a relatively unknown state politician in Massachusetts named Scott Brown, a Republican, is elected in the bluest blue state in the nation. He upsets the unbalance in the US Senate adding the 41st vote for the minority and ending the Democratic Party's filibuster proof, and out of control, 111th Congress. This apparently has put and end to the ill, and secretly, conceived Health Care Reform legislation, saving the country from certain bankruptcy.
Thank you Senator Brown, and thank you Massachusetts.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
I believe this recession (2008 through 2009), that some are calling the "Great Recession"* was caused by the federal government.
I was going to say that Wall Street "fat cats" helped as well, but I believe they were doing what everyone wanted them to do, maximize profits, follow the rules that the government imposes on them, and honor their contracts. This benefits everyone.
The reasons for the recession are multifaceted, but the prime mover in this debacle seems to be the FEC's Financial Accounting Standards Board's (FASB) modification their "mark to market" rules in Financial Accounting Standards (FAS) number 157, which forces investment firms to estimate and report the value of their holdings, for taxes, investor information and other purposes, to current market values. This makes sense on the surface, but if there is a market slow down, such as the subprime market hitting the skids, where their holdings cannot be easily liquidated, the value goes down.
In the subprime situation, many loans were adjustable rate loans and started adjusting upwards as the prime lending rate went up in mid 2004 through 2008. (Coincidence? I wonder if Mr. Bernanke had any part in this?)
Here is what I believe happened
A real estate bubble soars upward with easily available credit due in part to a low prime rate and subprime loans, peaking in 2006.
- By 2004 there were trillions of dollars in mortgages and investments in the subprime loan markets, backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two "quasi governmental" organizations that guarantee the loans.
- The Federal Reserve increases the prime lending rate (money the Fed loans to banks and others) from 2.00% in 2001 to a peak of 6.25% in June of 2006.
- Throughout the same period, investment firms obtain and repackage mortgage loans into security derivatives and sell them to investors around the world and making profits all over the place. As long as the money is flowing, such as mortgage holders making their payments; no problem.
- Through 2006, subprime mortgage holders' payments increase with many doubling and tripling. Many who could just barely make their payments now cannot afford them and mortgage holders default and and banks foreclosure.
- In 2007 the housing market becomes saturated with over priced real estate. Many are denying that it is a serious problem.
- Investors who bought properties as investments, such as those who "flip" them, find the market flooded and real estate values are tanking. They start walking away from the debt.
- New terms, "illiquid", "toxic Assets" and "derivatives" become every day words in the general American population.
- In September 2007, the Federal Reserve starts lowering the prime lending rates.
- FASB tightens the asset estimation and reporting requirements of FAS 157. They became effective for businesses with fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007. Under the stricter requirements, firms that invested in these toxic assets, had to report the loss of billions of dollars is their assets.
- Over 100 companies fold due to the now illiquid assets they were stuck with.
- Markets around the world that invested in these (once) high yield derivatives lose capital causing a panic in our federal government. (if those countries fail, who will loan this government more money?) Representative Barney Frank (D-NY) runs around denying it was his fault.
- The federal government start picking winners and losers in the financial services and investment companies. While loaning funds to some financial institutions, the government decides not to assist Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., the competitor to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's former employer, Goldman-Sachs (GS). GS, who turned a profit from the subprime meltdown, would later receive $12.9 Billion in bailout funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).
- In September 2008, Secretary Paulson pushed for bailouts of $700 Billion (TARP) to shore up the now almost defunct financial markets in this country and abroad. He got it done and President Bush signed it.
- American International Group, Inc. (AIG) receives Bailouts totaling $122.8 billion by the end of 2008, with more to follow. Nobody can say where the money went.
- The Obama pre-administration complains about executive bonuses being paid by companies that received taxpayer hope dollars.
- General Motors (GM) is laying off employees; In 2008 GM was down 13,000 salaried employees since 2000 & 40,000 hourly jobs are gone since 2006 (NY Times). They were closing plants and reporting that they will not have enough operating capital to pay their employees and creditors. Along with Ford and Chrysler, they are asking for a bailout. GM received $9.4 Billion in December 2008 (CNN Money), and more bailout money was to come.
- As businesses fail, being unable to secure funds to continue to operate due to a "bad banking environment", millions around the world became unemployed. This causes more foreclosures, lost homes and lost investments, many of these investments were retirement accounts. Many who were planning to retire now must continue to work (if they can find a job).
- In March 2009 President Obama says he does not want to run the automobile industry, but fires GM CEO Rick Wagoner (Politico), tells GM what vehicles to produce, and insists that GM downsize, destroying thousands of jobs. GM totals 40,000 more layoffs for 2009 alone (LA Times).
- In March 2009 President Obama instructs GM on how to run its business or he will cut off the bailout funds (Business Week).
- GM files for chapter 11 protection under the bankruptcy laws after receiving bailout funds several times, being nationalized the President of the United States. The federal government then claimed a sizable percentage of GM stock and gave the remaining stock to the UAW.
The net result of the change to FAS and the failure to properly mange Fannie and Freddie: subprime market crash, stock market crash, housing market crash, worldwide recession, the loss of millions of jobs, millions lose their homes, and the US Deficit is tripled with hope dollars. Our government nationalizes some banking and automobile manufacturers, acting like 1959 Cuba or 1971 Venezuela, and the list goes on.
This is how we find ourselves trying to climb out of a recession in 2010. The mortgages that were "owned" during this period had their values drop as much as 50 percent making them "upside down', meaning investors and home owners owed more than the property was worth. Many investors and owners started walking away from this bad debt. The debt was guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two quasi-governmental entities that now held trillions of dollars in debt from these loans.
The good news
Realizing what they have done (primarily from the discussions of Steve Forbes) but continuing to blame former President Bush, they changed the mark to market rules last April (FAS -157, 2009), easing the rules and stabilizing market prices and the economy is improving.
This is why I am of the opinion that the US Congress caused and allowed this recession through...
- handing off the power to regulate markets to the FEC, who produced poorly thought out market rules instituted with their failure in the Enron debacle in mind.
- decades of intimidating financial institutions to give loans to people who in all likelihood would be able to make the payments for very long.
- turning their backs on the indicators (from as far back as 1998) and prompts from the Bush administration to reign in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac hopefully before it became too late. Committees refused to hear the advice, senators promised filibusters if any interference with their plans to lend money in an exceptionally risky manner, with charges of racism and other bogus claims to prevent any change to the status quo (which is ironic as now, while in the majority, the Democrats are labeling the Republicans as the "party of no").
Hey, maybe we should give the health care insurance industry to a board or commission created by these guys. What could go wrong?
*No doubt trying to equate it to the actual Great Depression to bypass President Carter's "great recession"
Thursday, January 21, 2010
He rightly informs progressives that they did not lose due to a poorly run campaign by Democrat Martha Coakley as they claim. Instead they lost because of the message. That is one in a row for Mr. Davis.
Mr. Brown ran his campaign on stopping ObamaCare. That was the message. Mr. Brown knew, as did the voters, that ObamaCare is very similar to the universal health care program former Governor Romney signed into law. The voters did not like it, as the polls proved.
But my praise for Mr. Davis is short lived as he goes on to confuse the issue in the fashion of defense lawyers and especially lawyers supporting Democratic tax and spend programs . He says,
"According to polls, fears about the Democrats' health-care proposal played a prominent role in Mr. Brown's victory yesterday. In the last several months, the minority congressional Republicans have dominated the message on health care—and stamped on the Democratic Party the perception that we stand for big government, higher taxes, and health insecurity when it comes to Medicare."While voters do fear the Democrats' completely partisan, bribe ridden, country busting, freedom destroying, health care plan, it was not because Republicans, congressional or otherwise, "dominated the message" and branded the Democratic Party as standing for big government, higher taxes, and health insecurity.
The fact is that the Democrats in government and in the news have earned the label of standing for big government, higher taxes, and health insecurity. They did not need Republicans to create this persona. They did it themselves.
And contrary to Mr. Davis' point of view, if the GOP had been dominating the news with their message, why it that only a very few know that the GOP had offered an alternative health care reform (HCR) plan? HERE
Did you even know that there is one? It's been around for almost a year now. And there are others from the GOP. The excuse used when anyone mentions the failure to report his newsworthy item is that the GOP is the minority and plan would go nowhere anyway, so why bother? Even O'Reilly from Fox News Channel makes this excuse.
Folks such as Mr. Davis routinely accuse the GOP of being the "party of no" in some Orwellian psychosis where they project their own MO at their opponents, while being careful to omit that there is an opposing plan, preventing Republicans from offering amendments to HCR
It is a well known fact that the legacy media (broadcast news such as ABC, NBC, CBS, & major newspapers), consist mostly of registered Democrats (85% at last count) and still enjoy the vast majority of viewers and readers. Much more than the few balanced or conservative radio and cable news and news talk shows. That being so, the legacy media always support their people in the Democratic Party and in government as much as they can get away with. This is the reason that many believe that the GOP have no plans, are undercutting HCR, and are only trying to prevent Democrats from doing anything for purely partisan reasons.
But Lanny does not stop here. He continues with a thorough rewrite of history. He injects a small truth, then lets the creative juices flow. He shows anyone who is paying attention that he cannot be trusted to be truthful on any subject.
In revamping President Clinton's re-election win, he states,
"He did so by creating a new ideological hybrid for a still-progressive Democratic Party: balanced-budget fiscal conservatism, cultural moderation, and liberal social programs administered by a "lean and mean government." This New Democrat combination appealed to Ross Perot independents concerned about deficits, and also to traditional Republican suburbanites who were culturally moderate on issues like abortion and gay rights but opposed to high taxes and wasteful, big-government bureaucracy."President Clinton did no such thing. He was against the GOP's budgets, which brought him kicking and screaming to balance then surplus (for what it's worth). There nothing lean about government when he repeatedly (3 times) refused to sign a welfare reform act (beginning of the term "party of no") until one of his marketing agents warned he'd lose the election.
FYI Mr. Davis. "Liberal social programs" cannot be administered by a "lean and mean government." The two are polar opposites and are totally incompatible.
"Then, in 2008, Barack Obama added something extra: a commitment to a "new politics" that transcended the "red" versus "blue" partisan divide."I'm sorry, but Mr. Obama may have such an idea in his heart and may be able to articulate his well thought out marketing speeches, but he has yet to implement any such transition, paying only lip service to those high ideals.
"Obama's health-care proposal did not include a public option;"You may call semantics if you like, but candidate Obama repeatedly professed suport for a single payer health care plan. A rose by any other name is still the public option.
"Bottom line: We liberals need to reclaim the Democratic Party with the New Democrat positions of Bill Clinton and the New Politics/bipartisan aspirations of Barack Obama"I, as a conservative, can only hope and pray that Democrats are more open about their liberal ideology. As it is now, they hide behind the terms used by moderates when they are not moderate at all. If they follow your plan, Mr. Davis, they will finally come out of the closet and let the voters know who they truly are. Then we could vote for our representatives as opposed to the representatives of the Democratic Party or the Republican Party or the well monied special interests.
If Mr. Davis wants to find the real partisans, simply get a mirror.