Left Wing Loons Still At It

Left Wing Loons Still at It.

Joan Walsh in her piece titled "Right-wing racism on the rise" over at Salon.com, is trying her best to destroy some folks whose views are different from her's. You know, for a group of people who claim to care about the other guy and claim the high ground by being liberal minded, they sure can pile on those who don't think in lockstep with their own ideas. Ms. Walsh gives perfect examples.

She starts with her version of trying to get along with others,

"First, credit where it's due: A few lonely Republican leaders are belatedly trying to clean up the party's mess of crazy, from the racially tinged character attacks on Sonia Sotomayor to the unhinged rhetoric of the Birthers to the overall vicious and fact-free spew of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck."

She indulges her fantasy world by claiming she's giving a little credit to the other side, then immediately attempts a give childlike pounding to her perceived enemies. I would certainly like to know what "racially tinged character attack on Ms. Sotomayor" has occurred. The only discussion of racially biased quotes I have heard are Ms. Sotomayor's own remarks, e.g.,

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." - Sonia Sotomayor

Please say again, who is the racist?

For evidence that Rush Limbaugh is a racist, gives us this quote,

"Here you have a black president trying to destroy a white policeman,"

Note: (This remark was made in response to the president's remark characterizing the police as acting "stupidly" in the disorderly conduct arrest of his friend Prof. Gates in Cambridge earlier in the week.)

I see nothing racist about his remark. Mr. Limbaugh's opinion may be incorrect, but "racists"? Uh, no.

While we can't know what the president was thinking, we can make our own judgments on his remarks ("acted stupidly"). It was a statement he had planned to make and it is very racial. Ms. Walsh is using the same tactic the Obama crowd used to get him elected: Throw in race card to shut them up.

The left, Democrats and Democrat supporters tried to intimidate anyone who spoke against candidate Obama's vague policies by claiming some inference to his race. Of course, that never happened, nut the facts have never stopped them from trying to leverage the situation.

My proof? Continue to read her words, where she offers exactly zero to back up her attempts to shut the opposition down.

Joanie gives Mr. Graham a thumbs up (sort of).

"Sen. Lindsey Graham tried to kick off a new GOP flirtation with decency when he announced his vote to confirm Sotomayor last week. "

I fail to understand how Mr. Graham's surrender can be moralized. Confirming or not confirming the judge has zero to do with her race, as it is considered Caucasian anyway.


In the following example, her primary targets are Limbaugh (again) & Glenn Beck.

"These two racists are projecting their own racial feelings onto Obama. Increasingly, the ranks of the racially blinkered (and I include MSNBC's Pat Buchanan here) are playing victim, insisting Obama's modest moves -- appointing a Latina justice, using the Gates case to speak out against racial profiling -- are reversing the racial order wholesale, and putting white men on the bottom of the pile." (emphasis mine)

Ms. Walsh, much like many other leftist writers, seems to have the power to read minds, and she is a psychoanalyst to boot. She knows their feelings and in her professional opinion, recognizes that they are projecting.

Well don't that beat all. The folks who have been projecting their own guilt, failings and weaknesses onto others, recognize the syndrome and accuse the opposition of doing that which they do. (it seems she must have read some of posts at the Huff)

By the way: I am not a psychoanalyst either, but I play one on the web.

Continuing... She has no proof of that any Republican or conservative in a position of power in the United States has ever claimed that the Obama appointments are racist in nature. I happen to believe that his appointments reflect a willingness to appease his base, but racist? Uh, no. Did he appoint people who if not for their political connections would be fined thousands of dollars or in prison? Yes, he did. That would be my complaint about Mr. Obama's "transparent" White House.

She rambles on,

"One look at Congress, the Supreme Court, Fortune 500 CEOs -- or conversely, at prison cells across America -- tells you how delusional the Beck-Limbaugh-Buchanan view is, but that doesn't make it irrelevant. It's likely to get worse, as persistent economic hardship plus a spike in right-wing racist rhetoric increases the appeal of scapegoat strategies." (emphasis mine)

Quite frankly, I do not see anything in her remark that proves anything racial. I can't even see her examples as explaining anything. I guess it's more than adequate for some that she merely used those words to describe people that her people dislike anyway. Yes, it looks irrational to us. But they just cannot help it. If you were a slow learner and you only half read it, you might think it says something important. If you do, then it's back to school for you. And she doesn't identify any "scapegoat strategies."

The only scapegoating I've seen is the whole of the Democratic Party, their surrogates and especially the president himself repeatedly claiming they "inherited this mess", this "crisis". The truth be known the president, the elected Democrats in congress and hope for their kind of change and childlike intellects, are at the bottom of the current financial crisis. And it is their inability to understand basic human nature (or simply disregard it) that motivates them to attack anyone that comes in opposition to their grandiose, but terminally flawed, plans for America.

More.

"It's time for more decent Republicans to take a stand against the vicious anti-Obama racism of the party fringe and their broadcast fuhrers. On Monday Ohio Sen. George Voinovich blasted the dominance of his party's Southern fringe, and its outdated Southern Strategy with its emphasis on racial division. Like Voinovich, I think GOP racism and race-baiting will consign the party to a long time in the political minority. But it could claim a lot of other victims along the way." (emphasis mine)

Again, she demonizes Republicans by implying that they need to be less vicious, racist, fringy, and to stop race baiting. As previously mentioned, it is she that is doing the race baiting.

If any Republican follows her advice, he/she should resign immediately. Her entire article is based on her hyper-partisan hate for any anyone questioning of her idol's policies. Furthermore, it is designed to make Republicans look inward for fault where no fault exists. It's a shame that many will take her words to heart.

Broadcast fuhrers. Too funny.

Orwell Would be Aghast or How the President is Faking You Out.

President Obama embodies the spirit and soul of author George Orwell's vision of the future. When speaking he introduces a little truth, never fills in with details, sprinkles in some double-speak, misinformation, using his winning form of propaganda and seems to be mired in doublethink. The legacy media's news programing uses a burgeoning form of newspeak by slavishly catering to his agenda, not asking the hard questions or reporting the details of his proposals and plans.

Put the fear in them

President Obama has based his presidency in crisis management to gain public support for his government's helping all Americans. He makes speeches ensuring a fearful electorate that he is looking out for our welfare and then uses the various monetary crises to obligate trillions of dollars that we do not have. (Why he would want to bankrupt the United States is beyond me, but it seems to be the goal. If not, then he is getting horrible advice from his advisers and will continue to borrow, print and spend this country into a hole that could become beyond correcting.)

Doublethink

The president says that current government spending trends "cannot be sustained". OK, so he has one right. But he said that the day after signing a $420 Billion budget for half of the fiscal year. It seemed he came to his senses as if he believed we had obligated too much already. That was a few short weeks after he signed $787 Billion "stimulus Package". Throughout this time, he has been saying that he would not allow any so-called "earmarks" (read as "pork barrel projects). All of this massive spending was on the heels of TARP, $700 billion that he supported and voted on in the US Senate.

Of course, this president has done nothing wrong because he inherited all of this mess.

Does it get any more Orwellian than this?

Why, yes it does. In nearly all of his speeches he will say one thing while urging congress to do the opposite.

Consider that he claimed that there is no room in his administration for lobbyists, then he hired at least twelve lobbyists to work in the White House and chose former Senator Tom Daschle to join his cabinet.

Candidate Obama emphatically and repeatedly claimed that he would put an end to earmarks. (An earmark is a type of "pork barrel" project) Then, at his very first opportunity to sign a a spending bill, he sells and signs a bill (the Stimulus Package) that is exclusively earmarks. Thousands and thousands of earmarks.

And, he still wants to spend another $1.4 Trillion for a government takeover of health care insurance in the United States. He wants it now, before congress breaks in August.

He then said if you want to keep your current insurance plan, you can have the same coverage you have now. But he can produce no documents or study to show where private or employer paid health care insurance will be unaffected by his "competitive Public" plan. But we are all aware of what happened when Hawaii decided to provide insurance to cover everyone.

He claims that the stimulus package has saved or created over 150,000 jobs, but cannot point to any of them. All the while, unemployment continues to raise well beyond his predictions. We lost another 467,000 in June alone.

While campaigning, he and his minions lambasted Senator McCain for suggesting that employer paid health care insurance might be taxed as income (along with a tax deduction for paying for it). Now, the president wants to tax the same benefit with no suggestion of an offsetting tax deduction.

He said no one making under $250,000.00 annually would have their taxes raised. That 95% of Americans would receive a tax cut. What was the first thing newly inaugurated President Obama did? Raised taxes on cigarettes by 67 cents per pack. The vast majority of cigarette smokers are poor to middle class in America (that's under way under $250K per year). Then comes the Cap & Trade bill that introduces over $800 billion in new taxes on everyone that exhales.

In the automobile industry bailouts, he said that he did not want to run the car companies and followed that by firing General Motors' CEO, then telling GM that they weren't building cars that way he liked and if they didn't change their evil ways, he was going to pull the bailout funding from them.

Newspeak

Showing his ever increasing control over the media, the president declared that we are no longer fighting a "global War on Terror". It has been replaced with the more correct term "Overseas Contingency Operation"

During his campaign the media and Obama supporters would ostracize anyone mentioning his middle name, Hussein. Furthermore, only African Americans and his other supporters could talk about race. Unless, of course, they were gloating over the possibility of America's first black president.

Through out this presidency, the media have only told one side side of the story. Barack H. Obama's side, and they are just getting started.

Orwellian or not?

The left's universal health care plan, explained at Think Progress, The Case For A Public Health Care Plan, tries to make the case for government run "competitive" Medicare replacement. The smartest people in the room say that they want a "new public health insurance plan that can compete with private insurers equally and transparently within an insurance exchange" and is "on a level playing field with private health insurance plans". In several major sections, they describe the benefits, as they see them; Lowers cost, improves quality, designing fair public-private competition.

Is this a smart idea and will it accomplish those goals?

Uh, no. It is not a smart plan unless your goal is to wipe out private insurance companies and make virtually everyone dependent on the government's largess.

First off, it is impossible for private insurers to compete with government. Proffering the idea that it can be done "competitively" is pure nonsense designed to influence the slow witted, the uninformed and the gullible. Recall that the federal government is allegedly a "non-profit" organization with the ability to print money (hope dollars) and force us to pay for their mistakes.

Take the lesson from the Great State of Hawaii. In the editorial, Study: Hawaii's Lessons in the Perils of Universal Health Insurance, By Carrie Lukas, 4/3/2009, the consequences of government mandated universal health care are spelled out.

Highlights from the study:

• Before expanding government programs to create “universal” health insurance, policymakers should consider states' experiences with similar efforts.

• Hawaii created a universal health insurance program in hopes of reaching the uninsured population, but found that more than eight in ten of those who enrolled previously had insurance. Lawmakers decided to terminate this program just seven months after its launch.

• Government programs to create free or subsidized insurance will encourage many who currently have private insurance to join the government program. This is inefficient and will ultimately erode the private insurance system in the United States.

It was sold as "competitive" with private insurance policy rates, 8 of 10 who signed up for the government program already had health care insurance. This means that for those had to stay with their private insurance company, the costs were going to skyrocket. Fewer paying customers means higher premiums in order to provide the same level of coverage. They new that, so they dropped it in favor of the "free" health coverage.

Then, the legislature did not expect the mass migration to the state system and it ran way over budget.

Congresses, state and federal, have a long grand tradition of unintended consequences. Normally, average citizens shouldn't worry too much about it, but in recent months their unintended consequences have cost us at least 6 million jobs, over $500,000.00 in debt to each household (TARP, Stimulus, budgets, etc.), and a breakdown of traditional families.

Finally, Hawaii had to rescind the law after 7 months to save their budget and to save those privately insured voters who were going to take a beating from their government. Just like President Obama is planning on doing to you.

Medicare and Medicaid spiraled up in a similar fashion and continues to spiral out of control even now. The US Congress created Medicare in 1965 (H.R. 6675) and have changed it many times. But nothing they've changed has helped to lower health care costs.

The power of government is a free market killer when abused by those who do not understand the US Constitution, the American way, or capitalism.

Republican Plan: A one page idealistic document at this point, looks a lot like an Obama campaign speech, only less substance.

My plan: There is a simple fix to health care in America: Tax cuts, tort reform and get government out of the way.

A direct one or one dollar tax cuts to those who buy their own health care insurance. It will incentivise individuals to buy their own insurance. This will be hard to enact because it would remove the need for our earnings from the US Congress. They don't like that sort of talk either.

Tort reform. Too many judgments are based on emotion rather medical fact. This vastly increases the cost of liability insurance for doctors, nurses, hospitals and emergency medical services. While I believe in holding medical personnel and pharmaceutical companies responsible for their services and products, the laws that allow any law suit to turn a "victim" into a prize winner needs to change.

Liability judgments have the additional consequence of making free clinics extinct. Remember them? Free clinics used to be everywhere and doctors along with other medical personnel could provide pro bono services to the poor. No more. It costs too much and the government is taking care of the poor, right? Not.

Government has been unfairly competing against private insurance companies with Medicare and Medicaid, as mentioned above. With the government's lack of oversight billions of dollars are wasted each year on fraud and abuse of the system. The answer is to get rid of that system.

Our President Disses Americans in Europe

President Barack Obama seems to believe that Americans have...

“shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive” (Video)

or that the USA...

“failed to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world”

Is this you? I don't think so. America, and especially President Bush, has shown nothing but respect for or allies and Mr. Obama is wrong on Europe's role in the world as well.

Here we have our president apologizing for imagined wronged. Wrongs imagined by people who cannot show any specific action or speech by President George W. Bush or any American that was putting down our allies or that we do not respect Europe. They only have feelings about it and they confuse Pride with arrogance. They don't recall, or never knew, that Prime Minister Tony Blair, a European and an Ally, stood shoulder to shoulder with President Bush before Operation Iraqi Freedom

Consider this. President Bush successfully petitioned the UN for sanctions against Iraq's leader, successfully negotiated with our allies and negotiated with Saddam Hussein for 14 months before we went to war with Iraq. Recall the "Coalition of the Willing"? He even successfully motivated the US Congress, including Democrats to support the plans for Iraq . The only major hold outs were from Europe were countries who were heavily bribed by Saddam Hussein (can you say "France and Germany")

Moreover, while you are painting Americans and our former presidents as hateful and uncaring for perceived slights of Europe and our allies, remember (or learn) that President Clinton invaded Haiti without consulting anyone and he re-instituted renditions (read "torture").

I find the President's apology in Strasbourg to be exceptionally insulting to me and anyone else who understands that America has no need to apologize to Europe. We have always been honorable towards Europe and have no need to apologize in regards to our allies. We only need to be respectful and supportive of them and ourselves.

We will have to face facts: President Barack Obama does not know America's history. He does not know much more than how to promote himself, he certainly has no leadership experience and he clearly does not respect the American people. He can only read from his Orwellian speech book and try to foll voters. He blames everything that doesn't go as his supporters would prefer on someone else, notably and repeatedly any President Bush. He blames Republican for everything he is told is bad and he accuses Americans of being selfish, greedy and uncaring. He does not know how Americans are or how America and capitalism work).

Government managed on feelings and media hype instead of facts and law will undermine the American way. We see it happening now.

McCain/Palin: Damage Control

Some conservatives and Republicans who are at odds with the direction the Republican party has taken and plan to either vote for Democrats, third parties, or just stay home on election day, will accomplish what they should want to prevent: A leftist tax and spend government with no controls.

As President, John McCain is damage control to Barack Obama's vision of America and the onslaught of government “of, for and by” the political class. There is no need for Americans to suffer under an fiscally oppressive government until it collapses under the weight of recession, unemployment and high taxes on those few who can find work. Vote McCain/Palin to stop them.

A President McCain administration, one of the few politicians that tips the scales towards honestly and selfless service, will continue his record from the US Senate of opposing the status quo, pork, reducing spending and taxes, and to promote job creation in the private sector. If you're thinking he and Sarah Palin are not your team, you have to ask yourself, "Will a Democratic Party controlled congress and executive branch really cut your taxes?" "Do they have a history of cutting taxes?" Whose policies improve the economic situation?

The answer can be found in Obama's tax plan. I call it the "Hoover Maneuver". President Hoover's tax policies maneuvered the Great depression into long lasting economic hell hole for everyone.

Syndicated columnist Amity Shlaes writes that President Hoover raised income taxes from 25 percent to 68 percent, instituted a 40 percent tariff on imports and canceled all oil leases on government lands (sound familiar?), among other things, during the Great Depression. That maneuver very likely extended the Great Depression for many more years than need be. When the "New Deal" is added in to the mix, the depression lasted until WWII.

Obama promises to implement the Hoover Maneuver, raising taxes and stifling economic growth. Barack's version of the "Hoover Maneuver".

- Raise the top rate from 35% to 39%; This will encourage people to move money "off shore" or lose it (with a net of no tax gains for federal revenue).

- Raise the capital gains tax rate from 15% to 20-28%; That is the middle class' retirement accounts, and please remember those off shore accounts.

- Add Social Security taxes to those earning above $250K; That is 7.2% to employees, 14.2% for the self employed (think small business), additional 7.2% tax on business)

- Allow the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010; Raises income taxes on those 95% who he promises tax cuts in his campaign ads.

- Barack keeps the corporate tax rate at 35%; Second highest rate in the world, driving jobs over seas.

- Continued dependence on foreign oil by opposing the use of our own energy resources.

Recall that John McCain voted for tax cuts at every opportunity, has never requested earmarks, and is pro life. In his tax plan, he will:

- Make the Bush tax cuts permenant
- make medical insurance portable and affordable
- increase tax deductions for individuals and families
- Reduce corporate taxes (keep jobs in America)

Most importantly, he has many years of leadership experience and he has put the freedom of Americans ahead of is own. His Vice Presidential Candidate, Governor Sarah Palin, has more leadership experience than Senators Obama and Bidden combined.

Do you want a recession followed by a depression for the next decade?

If your answer “yes” to the Obama/Reid/Pelosi vision, vote Obama, for a third party (that has no chance of winning) or stay home.

If your answer is no higher taxes and big government and yes to job growth, vote McCain/Palin.