Congratulations to President Obama…
November 4th, 2008 will be known as the day racism and bigotry ended in America;
Racism (Dictionary.com):
“A belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
A policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
Hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.”
Bigotry (Dictionary.com);
“Stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
Oh sure, there will still be racists and bigots but the election of President Barack Hussein Obama has shown the vast majority of Americans no longer see color or religion as a symbol of inferiority. Americans have chosen to be color blind.”
And so, this should mark the end of Affirmative Action.
Affirmative Action (Merriam-Webster):
“An active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups…; also: a similar effort to promote the rights or progress of other disadvantaged persons”
Why would a country that elected a black man to the highest office in the land and as the most powerful leader in the world need programs to lift that minority up? If Americans really thought collectively that blacks are inferior, then it never would have happened. President Obama should announce in his acceptance speech that in order to unite the country and to help balance the budget, Affirmative Action is hereby kaput.
In a May 25th, 1994 article about the costs of construction for the Denver airport, it was pointed out how much more it cost to build DIA because of the necessity of awarding contracts to minority groups;
“After months of delay and massive cost overruns, Denver International Airport (DIA) has found its opening indefinitely postponed. One of the most important reasons for the delay has been the affirmative action policies imposed on firms in construction of DIA. But for those affirmative action policies, Denver International might well have opened "on time and under budget." This Issue Paper details the massive costs which have been inflicted on the people of Denver, and the city's reputation, through policies of racial discrimination….
…contracts were then set aside to higher cost bidders who met the affirmative action "goals." When the city awarded those seven contracts to higher bidders who met affirmative action "goals," the increase in construction costs was $3 million….
… the estimated cost of set asides at DIA (Denver International Airport) was $11.8 million in 1992.
Research by the Center for the Study of American Business at Washington University estimates that for every dollar spent on regulatory enforcement, about 20 dollars is spent for compliance costs in the private sector.(8) Compliance with federal affirmative action regulations increased federal contractors' costs by an average 6.5%. In 1991, $211 billion was spent by the federal government on contracts with non-government entities. The additional cost to private sector firms to comply with federal affirmative action regulations in the award of these contracts is estimated at about $13 billion.
Costs are also incurred in the public sector to administer the affirmative action programs. Of the total $425 million spent by the federal government for civil rights oversight in 1991, about $303 million was allocated for enforcement of affirmative action laws affecting the private sector. In addition to federal dollars, state and local monies are also spent to enforce affirmative action regulations.”- http://www.i2i.org/main/article.php?article_id=630
The elimination of an unnecessary policy that costs billions of dollars to American tax payers should be the first order of business for President Obama. This would confirm his status as a self-proclaimed uniter and affirm his slogan of "hope and change" was not an empty campaign mantra .
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Monday, November 10, 2008
MCCAIN THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE
John McCain unfortunately was the most conservative candidate on the ballot on November 4th. The self-proclaimed maverick was at the most a centrist and even left of center on a considerable number of issues. But he was the nominee of a mealy mouthed republican party that has fallen into the mindset of “moderation”. No candidate has ever won a presidential election in America moving left. As a matter of fact, Obama had to move substantially right to attract enough votes to win. But that is water under the bridge and the future of our country has been placed in the hands of President elect Obama.
Watching how John McCain and his staff have turned on Gov. Sarah Palin seems to prove two points; the first is that Washington is a fortress against change and is populated by a click of elitists and scammers, and two, John McCain might really be a Manchurian candidate.
Let’s look at “McCain the Manchurian first”. McCain ran the most inept campaign in my life time against the most liberal candidate in the history of America. He chose the highest rated Conservative, Republican Governor in the country and then proceeds to try to ruin her career. In September, Sarah Palin had an 86% approval rating by her constituents in Alaska and was lumped into a presidential race with 3 senators from a senate with a 9% approval rating;
“She started her career as Governor by publicly challenging the obvious corruption in Alaska's legal system, and in turn won the few hearts she hadn't caught in the state. Palin then kept the love running strong with a support of oil and natural gas development to support the growing economy, balanced with an ecological concern to preserve Alaska's untainted environmental beauty.”- http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1004592/what_sarah_palin_has_done_for_alaska.html
Sarah Palin was selected by McCain to attract the disenfranchised women who had supported Hillary and she did just that. In an article from Timesonline dated August 1st, it was pointed out that “Palin is gunning for the 18 million women who voted for Hillary Clinton — a third of whom have not made up their mind to back Obama”. She did garner their support and 57% of white women voted for the McCain/Palin ticket. Gov. Palin did this despite McCain basically handcuffing and muzzling her, (the visual here is a bit erotically kinky, but I digress).
Now, the McCain camp has been leaking outrageous and unsubstantiated rumors to paint Palin as an uneducated, dim-witted, free-spending, callous bitch. In the movie, The Manchurian Candidate, Raymond, the former prisoner of war in Korea, is transformed into a mindless slave by the playing card, the Queen of diamonds. Did McCain get his mind altering playing card in the mail that switched on the “kill the candidate” button, installed when he was secretly brainwashed during his six years of captivity in the Hanoi Hilton?
Maybe a more logical explanation is that Washington has become a bastion of arrogance and elitism. Why would the politicians and lawyers who rule from their plastic bubbles want change and reform? Party affiliation no longer matters and the status quo must be maintained at all cost. This is a perfect opportunity for McCain, who has shown his true colors that are painting him as the insider he is, to destroy a true reformer who isn’t afraid to take down members of her own party to stop corruption. What could be more dangerous in a town where nepotism, bribery and soul buying and selling are the natural order of day to day business? It serves the politicians better to assassinate the character of an average American. I have heard people say they don’t want average people running the country because so many believe the propaganda thrown out there that only the finely educated are qualified to rule. The politicians want everyone to believe that. If the common person does try, they will be destroyed by politicians and their mindless minions in the mainstream media.
The bailout is a perfect example of the elitist attitude by the politicians in Washington. They did it despite public opinion because they said it was entirely necessary to do so to save the country and the economy. What it really does is bailout the executives who have made the biggest donations to our countries leaders. Wealth has been redistributed to the wealthy who squandered their own fortunes in the first place and only one of the four presidential candidates disagreed with another raping of the treasury; Gov. Sarah Palin.
Americans will never take back their own country if they don’t start questioning the leaders and the media. I am getting sick of the mindless comments of propaganda spewing zombies who hear something and allow themselves to be used as conduits for those lies. People need to start thinking about the news. Everyone needs to pay attention not only to the story being told but who is telling it and for what possible reason is it being conveyed. There is an agenda behind everything we hear. And remember, as Raymond the Manchurian candidate found out, even paranoid people have enemies.
Watching how John McCain and his staff have turned on Gov. Sarah Palin seems to prove two points; the first is that Washington is a fortress against change and is populated by a click of elitists and scammers, and two, John McCain might really be a Manchurian candidate.
Let’s look at “McCain the Manchurian first”. McCain ran the most inept campaign in my life time against the most liberal candidate in the history of America. He chose the highest rated Conservative, Republican Governor in the country and then proceeds to try to ruin her career. In September, Sarah Palin had an 86% approval rating by her constituents in Alaska and was lumped into a presidential race with 3 senators from a senate with a 9% approval rating;
“She started her career as Governor by publicly challenging the obvious corruption in Alaska's legal system, and in turn won the few hearts she hadn't caught in the state. Palin then kept the love running strong with a support of oil and natural gas development to support the growing economy, balanced with an ecological concern to preserve Alaska's untainted environmental beauty.”- http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1004592/what_sarah_palin_has_done_for_alaska.html
Sarah Palin was selected by McCain to attract the disenfranchised women who had supported Hillary and she did just that. In an article from Timesonline dated August 1st, it was pointed out that “Palin is gunning for the 18 million women who voted for Hillary Clinton — a third of whom have not made up their mind to back Obama”. She did garner their support and 57% of white women voted for the McCain/Palin ticket. Gov. Palin did this despite McCain basically handcuffing and muzzling her, (the visual here is a bit erotically kinky, but I digress).
Now, the McCain camp has been leaking outrageous and unsubstantiated rumors to paint Palin as an uneducated, dim-witted, free-spending, callous bitch. In the movie, The Manchurian Candidate, Raymond, the former prisoner of war in Korea, is transformed into a mindless slave by the playing card, the Queen of diamonds. Did McCain get his mind altering playing card in the mail that switched on the “kill the candidate” button, installed when he was secretly brainwashed during his six years of captivity in the Hanoi Hilton?
Maybe a more logical explanation is that Washington has become a bastion of arrogance and elitism. Why would the politicians and lawyers who rule from their plastic bubbles want change and reform? Party affiliation no longer matters and the status quo must be maintained at all cost. This is a perfect opportunity for McCain, who has shown his true colors that are painting him as the insider he is, to destroy a true reformer who isn’t afraid to take down members of her own party to stop corruption. What could be more dangerous in a town where nepotism, bribery and soul buying and selling are the natural order of day to day business? It serves the politicians better to assassinate the character of an average American. I have heard people say they don’t want average people running the country because so many believe the propaganda thrown out there that only the finely educated are qualified to rule. The politicians want everyone to believe that. If the common person does try, they will be destroyed by politicians and their mindless minions in the mainstream media.
The bailout is a perfect example of the elitist attitude by the politicians in Washington. They did it despite public opinion because they said it was entirely necessary to do so to save the country and the economy. What it really does is bailout the executives who have made the biggest donations to our countries leaders. Wealth has been redistributed to the wealthy who squandered their own fortunes in the first place and only one of the four presidential candidates disagreed with another raping of the treasury; Gov. Sarah Palin.
Americans will never take back their own country if they don’t start questioning the leaders and the media. I am getting sick of the mindless comments of propaganda spewing zombies who hear something and allow themselves to be used as conduits for those lies. People need to start thinking about the news. Everyone needs to pay attention not only to the story being told but who is telling it and for what possible reason is it being conveyed. There is an agenda behind everything we hear. And remember, as Raymond the Manchurian candidate found out, even paranoid people have enemies.
Friday, August 22, 2008
OBAMA'S DEAL WITH THE DEVIL
Tho' I've belted you an' flayed you,
By the livin' Gawd that made you,
You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!
Reuter’s news service headline;
McCain takes 5-point lead over Obama-Reuters poll
Wed Aug 20, 2008 7:11am EDT
This is a drastic change in the polls in just a short amount of time. Of course, the left wing spin followed in the story in an attempt to steer the public away from the notion that Obama is unlikable. Once again, the black man is being victimized by whitey;
“The reversal follows a month of attacks by McCain, who has questioned Obama's experience, criticized his opposition to most new offshore oil drilling and mocked his overseas trip.”
And that’s not all;
“"There is no doubt the campaign to discredit Obama is paying off for McCain right now," pollster John Zogby said.”This is significant ebb for Obama."
The article does go on to explain some of the recent polling results with some significant reasons for them.
Read the entire article here; http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUKN1948672420080820?sp=true
But there may be an even bigger reason…..
This is an interesting quote from a person defending the terrorists in Iraq;
“We must begin by really standing with the Iraqi people and defending their right to resist. I can remain myself against all forms of violence, and yet I cannot judge what someone has to do when pushed to the wall to protect all they love. The Iraqi people are fighting for their country, to protect their families and to preserve all they love. They are fighting for their lives, and we (USA) are fighting for lies." (AlterNet, June 26, 2005)”-prnewswire.com
What Islamo-facist in what third world country would make such an outlandish remark? Was it Osama Bin Laden? Nope, it was a woman named Jodie Evans. Why would this surprise any of us? Normally it wouldn’t except for one fact that makes it significant;
“Evans has a close relationship with the Obama campaign. She hostedObama's first Hollywood fundraiser in February 2007, along with StevenSpielberg, David Geffen, Jeffrey Katzenberg and her ex-husband Max Palevsky. Evans is listed on the Obama website as having bundled between $50,000 and $100,000. She has also contributed the maximum $2300 to his primarycampaign, according to FEC records.”- prnewswire.com
Evans is just another one in a long list of left wing, anti-American nut jobs that Barack Hussien Obama enjoys associating with. Like the Reverend Wright, Evans thinks American’s deserved 9-11;
“Jodie Evans:..."We were attacked because we were in Saudi Arabia, that was the message of Osama, was that because we had our bases in the Middle East, he attacked the United States.
Paul A. Ibbetson: "Do you think that's a valid argument?"
Evans: "Sure. Why do we have bases in the Middle East? We totally Violated the rights of that country. Why do we get to have bases in the Middle East?"
Also in that interview, Evans said Code Pink's goal (peace activist organization) is to "undermine the war effort (of the United States") and that she wished Saddam Hussein was still in power. "- prnewswire.com
She has proven valuable to Obama monetarily as well as an advisor;
“ According to… Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin, Evans is on a first name basis with Obama and discussed Iraq policy with Obama at another Hollywood fundraiser on June 24, 2008.”- prnewswire.com
The article says that Evans has a history of dealing with governments;
“Evans has worked with the governments of Saddam Hussein (in 2003), Hugo Chavez and the Castro brothers, as well as pro-insurgent elements in the Middle East.”- prnewswire.com
This fraternization with hostile governments has been backed by her own insurgent actions at home;
“Evans has led a campaign against the Marines at home in Berkeley, where Code Pink has called the Marines "assassins" and she has likened the Marine recruiting office to a "porn shop”…. The Obama campaign has rejected two requests by pro-troop organizations that Obama renounce Evans."- prnews.com
Maybe Barack Hussien Obama is dropping so fast in the polls because his history is “coming home to roost”. The more Americans know about him, the less they like him.
And what about this....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjC2AlWy6CI
By the livin' Gawd that made you,
You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!
Reuter’s news service headline;
McCain takes 5-point lead over Obama-Reuters poll
Wed Aug 20, 2008 7:11am EDT
This is a drastic change in the polls in just a short amount of time. Of course, the left wing spin followed in the story in an attempt to steer the public away from the notion that Obama is unlikable. Once again, the black man is being victimized by whitey;
“The reversal follows a month of attacks by McCain, who has questioned Obama's experience, criticized his opposition to most new offshore oil drilling and mocked his overseas trip.”
And that’s not all;
“"There is no doubt the campaign to discredit Obama is paying off for McCain right now," pollster John Zogby said.”This is significant ebb for Obama."
The article does go on to explain some of the recent polling results with some significant reasons for them.
Read the entire article here; http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUKN1948672420080820?sp=true
But there may be an even bigger reason…..
This is an interesting quote from a person defending the terrorists in Iraq;
“We must begin by really standing with the Iraqi people and defending their right to resist. I can remain myself against all forms of violence, and yet I cannot judge what someone has to do when pushed to the wall to protect all they love. The Iraqi people are fighting for their country, to protect their families and to preserve all they love. They are fighting for their lives, and we (USA) are fighting for lies." (AlterNet, June 26, 2005)”-prnewswire.com
What Islamo-facist in what third world country would make such an outlandish remark? Was it Osama Bin Laden? Nope, it was a woman named Jodie Evans. Why would this surprise any of us? Normally it wouldn’t except for one fact that makes it significant;
“Evans has a close relationship with the Obama campaign. She hostedObama's first Hollywood fundraiser in February 2007, along with StevenSpielberg, David Geffen, Jeffrey Katzenberg and her ex-husband Max Palevsky. Evans is listed on the Obama website as having bundled between $50,000 and $100,000. She has also contributed the maximum $2300 to his primarycampaign, according to FEC records.”- prnewswire.com
Evans is just another one in a long list of left wing, anti-American nut jobs that Barack Hussien Obama enjoys associating with. Like the Reverend Wright, Evans thinks American’s deserved 9-11;
“Jodie Evans:..."We were attacked because we were in Saudi Arabia, that was the message of Osama, was that because we had our bases in the Middle East, he attacked the United States.
Paul A. Ibbetson: "Do you think that's a valid argument?"
Evans: "Sure. Why do we have bases in the Middle East? We totally Violated the rights of that country. Why do we get to have bases in the Middle East?"
Also in that interview, Evans said Code Pink's goal (peace activist organization) is to "undermine the war effort (of the United States") and that she wished Saddam Hussein was still in power. "- prnewswire.com
She has proven valuable to Obama monetarily as well as an advisor;
“ According to… Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin, Evans is on a first name basis with Obama and discussed Iraq policy with Obama at another Hollywood fundraiser on June 24, 2008.”- prnewswire.com
The article says that Evans has a history of dealing with governments;
“Evans has worked with the governments of Saddam Hussein (in 2003), Hugo Chavez and the Castro brothers, as well as pro-insurgent elements in the Middle East.”- prnewswire.com
This fraternization with hostile governments has been backed by her own insurgent actions at home;
“Evans has led a campaign against the Marines at home in Berkeley, where Code Pink has called the Marines "assassins" and she has likened the Marine recruiting office to a "porn shop”…. The Obama campaign has rejected two requests by pro-troop organizations that Obama renounce Evans."- prnews.com
Maybe Barack Hussien Obama is dropping so fast in the polls because his history is “coming home to roost”. The more Americans know about him, the less they like him.
And what about this....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjC2AlWy6CI
Sunday, August 17, 2008
PICKENS, PELOSI AND PROFITS
Tho' I've belted you an' flayed you,
By the livin' Gawd that made you,
You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!
Isn’t it amazing to watch the left wing media’s endless barrage of stories pointed at big business and big oil? Obama would take the profits from these demonized entities and redistribute them either to bribe his would be constituents to vote for him or to fill the government’s coffers to fund his socialist agenda. So many have been brainwashed into believing all corporate America is evil.
I have yet to see the main-stream media report how a couple other big investors have manipulated government policies to enrich themselves. Those two, Al Gore with his global warming snake oil fix called carbon credits and Nancy Pelosi, who has invested in T. Boone Pickens’ alternative energy program. Ms. Pelosi stands to make huge profits if the ballot initiative, California's Proposition 10 known as the California Renewable Energy and Clean Alternative Fuel Act passes;
“The ballot initiative is California's Proposition 10, known as the California Renewable Energy and Clean Alternative Fuel Act, which would spend $5 billion in California bond money – $10 billion by the time the interest is paid, according to the L.A. Times – to promote natural gas as a cleaner alternative for automobile and truck fuel.
Not surprisingly, the nation's largest provider of natural gas for transportation, Clean Energy Fuels Corporation, or CLNE, has a great deal to gain from the adoption of Pickens' fuel strategy and the passage of Proposition 10. In fact, according to the California Secretary of State website, CLNE has contributed $3,247,250 to supporting Proposition 10's passage.
CLNE, however, was formerly known as Pickens Fuel after its primary investor, T. Boone Pickens.
According to the investigation, Pelosi purchased $50,000-$100,000 in CLNE stock on May 25, 2007, apparently on its initial public offering.
Now the House speaker stands to make a large profit on her reported 22,000 shares of CLNE if she and other public figures can persuade the people of California to vote for Proposition 10 in the name of renewable energy and clean, alternative fuels…..
….Pelosi is one of the richest members of Congress and her wealth comes primarily from investments, real estate and "now, of course, stocks in CLNE."”- http://www.worldnetdaily.com
Isn’t Nancy Pelosi the same speaker of the house who recently sent the house members home on a five week vacation before there could be a vote to lift the ban on off-shore drilling? What would the main-stream media say if Dick Cheney was the one to do this?
So, Nancy Pelosi gets in bed with big oil guy Pickens, pushes legislation to help him and her investments and blocks votes that would harm those same investments and not one word in the main-stream media about it. Where is the outrage? Kool-aid drinking lefties save that for the fictitious underworld of Bush-Cheney, Halliburton and Big oil.
some more good stuff;
Should we call them gulags or Gitmos?
http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=97741&catid=188
Just do it Nancy
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080816/D92JM7NG2.html
That old black magic ain't quite working
http://www.gallup.com/poll/109564/Gallup-Daily-McCain-Obama-Tied-44.aspx
By the livin' Gawd that made you,
You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!
Isn’t it amazing to watch the left wing media’s endless barrage of stories pointed at big business and big oil? Obama would take the profits from these demonized entities and redistribute them either to bribe his would be constituents to vote for him or to fill the government’s coffers to fund his socialist agenda. So many have been brainwashed into believing all corporate America is evil.
I have yet to see the main-stream media report how a couple other big investors have manipulated government policies to enrich themselves. Those two, Al Gore with his global warming snake oil fix called carbon credits and Nancy Pelosi, who has invested in T. Boone Pickens’ alternative energy program. Ms. Pelosi stands to make huge profits if the ballot initiative, California's Proposition 10 known as the California Renewable Energy and Clean Alternative Fuel Act passes;
“The ballot initiative is California's Proposition 10, known as the California Renewable Energy and Clean Alternative Fuel Act, which would spend $5 billion in California bond money – $10 billion by the time the interest is paid, according to the L.A. Times – to promote natural gas as a cleaner alternative for automobile and truck fuel.
Not surprisingly, the nation's largest provider of natural gas for transportation, Clean Energy Fuels Corporation, or CLNE, has a great deal to gain from the adoption of Pickens' fuel strategy and the passage of Proposition 10. In fact, according to the California Secretary of State website, CLNE has contributed $3,247,250 to supporting Proposition 10's passage.
CLNE, however, was formerly known as Pickens Fuel after its primary investor, T. Boone Pickens.
According to the investigation, Pelosi purchased $50,000-$100,000 in CLNE stock on May 25, 2007, apparently on its initial public offering.
Now the House speaker stands to make a large profit on her reported 22,000 shares of CLNE if she and other public figures can persuade the people of California to vote for Proposition 10 in the name of renewable energy and clean, alternative fuels…..
….Pelosi is one of the richest members of Congress and her wealth comes primarily from investments, real estate and "now, of course, stocks in CLNE."”- http://www.worldnetdaily.com
Isn’t Nancy Pelosi the same speaker of the house who recently sent the house members home on a five week vacation before there could be a vote to lift the ban on off-shore drilling? What would the main-stream media say if Dick Cheney was the one to do this?
So, Nancy Pelosi gets in bed with big oil guy Pickens, pushes legislation to help him and her investments and blocks votes that would harm those same investments and not one word in the main-stream media about it. Where is the outrage? Kool-aid drinking lefties save that for the fictitious underworld of Bush-Cheney, Halliburton and Big oil.
some more good stuff;
Should we call them gulags or Gitmos?
http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=97741&catid=188
Just do it Nancy
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080816/D92JM7NG2.html
That old black magic ain't quite working
http://www.gallup.com/poll/109564/Gallup-Daily-McCain-Obama-Tied-44.aspx
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
NOTHING FAIR ABOUT THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE
Tho' I've belted you an' flayed you,
By the livin' Gawd that made you,
You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!
If the mainstream media was balanced, the “Bush is the worst president ever” mantra would never be uttered. He is an easy target for the democrat party, a party that stands for nothing and who spends more time investigating the members of the Republican Party then doing any real business. With the media clearly in the back pocket of the democrats, whatever propaganda the left wants repeated will be until it is accepted as reality. Well, Bush is not the greatest president ever, but he is in the top ten.
The best quality of George W. Bush is that he is a man of conviction and doesn’t care what people think of him. After eight years of Clinton, it was hard to believe there could be a president who would make decisions that went against public opinion or at least what the mainstream media said the public opinion was. Clinton made no move without polling first, even as far as to influence how he dressed. Clinton was led by polls instead of trying to steer the public opinion with his leadership. Bush on the other hand, would rather do what he thinks is right and take the time to correct his mistakes through diligent work and perseverance. Public criticism falls on deaf ears if Bush knows he is doing the right thing; the Surge in Iraq is the best example of this. While democrats surrendered daily in Iraq and threw our troops under the bus for their own political gains, Bush found a way to win the war.
After 9-11, Bush saw his approval ratings soar, which was natural considering the circumstances. Since then America hasn’t been attacked again and we have established a strong foothold and ally in the region that breeds terror throughout the world. A constant barrage of negative news and editorials has painted Bush “43” in a negative light ever since. In spite of this, the American economy has remained strong with a stock market reaching heights it was only dreamed of before. Taxes are lower because of Bush. He created a missile defense shield. He has fought the Kyoto treaty which is a restriction on capitalism and free trade. He has done more to fight AIDS than any of his predecessors.
The American war on terror has set countless millions of women free, released from the bonds of Islamic extremism. But would the feminists in America ever give him credit for this? Instead they will back men like Clinton and Kennedy who use their positions to prey on their female underlings. Bush appointed a black woman as secretary of state but will the black community give him credit for elevating a minority member, rewarding someone who has rightfully worked for and deserves such a position? No, instead they will follow and support leaders like Jackson, a reverend who has children out of wedlock and extorts money from businesses and Sharpton, another media hound who plays the victim card regularly.
The media is undoubtedly biased towards the left and anyone who believes otherwise isn’t paying attention. They withhold news, twist stories, and ignore anything that hurts the liberal agenda. Now, the democrats in congress are trying to revive the “fairness doctrine”. The left makes three points in favor of revival of this act;
Myth 1: The Scarcity ArgumentMyth 2: The Censorship ArgumentMyth 3: The Public Interest Argument
“The Scarcity Argument
Does conservative talk radio really dominate the political landscape? That could be true only if talk radio is the prevailing source of news and information in the United States, a doubtful proposition on its face. Given that the liberal party took control of Congress and many state governments in 2006, the notion that conservative talk show hosts are calling the shots in the United States seems dubious.”
http://www.cultureandmedia.com
“The Censorship Argument
Are Americans being deprived of access to liberal points of view? Any examination of the talk radio universe will reveal that liberal voices are very well represented on the airwaves. Moreover, talk radio is only one slice of the media pie. Within the “elite media,” the major television and cable networks, the leading news magazines, the most circulated newspapers, and most popular news/talk radio programming, liberal news and opinion sources reach a far greater audience than conservative sources.”- http://www.cultureandmedia.com
“The Public Interest Argument
At first blush the Fairness Doctrine seems very sensible, even obvious. Who wouldn’t want broadcasters to provide both sides of controversial issues? Wouldn’t the public benefit from hearing even more opinions?
The historical record, however, belies the assertion that the so-called Fairness Doctrine facilitates more speech. Broadcasters, intimidated by the potential difficulties and expense of providing alternative views whenever they aired a controversial opinion, often chose simply to avoid controversial topics altogether. The Project for Excellence in Journalism, in its report The State of the News Media 2007, asserts that the result of the Fairness Doctrine “was that radio talk programs consisted primarily of general (non-political) talk and advice. The big names were people like Michael Jackson in Los Angeles, whose program included interviews with celebrities, authors, and civic leaders.”46 PEJ observes that “the modern era in talk radio effectively began with the Federal Communications Commission’s repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987.”47”- http://www.cultureandmedia.com
If the public is sufficiently educated and freedom of speech is unencumbered, than why do we need a law prohibiting speech? Government can’t push forward freedom of speech by inhibiting it. The “fairness doctrine” is merely a political tool intended to silence the opposition to the liberal agenda. If anyone thinks there isn’t a left wing media, just look at what they have done to Bush.
Some good stuff;
“The earth has a fever (insane chuckle)”- Al Gore
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-tom-skilling-explainer-13aug13,0,918946.story
Where is Abbey Hoffman when you need him?
http://cbs4denver.com/denver2008/denver.protesters.arrested.2.793930.html
If he can walk on water, why can’t he get ahead in the polls?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12503.html
By the livin' Gawd that made you,
You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!
If the mainstream media was balanced, the “Bush is the worst president ever” mantra would never be uttered. He is an easy target for the democrat party, a party that stands for nothing and who spends more time investigating the members of the Republican Party then doing any real business. With the media clearly in the back pocket of the democrats, whatever propaganda the left wants repeated will be until it is accepted as reality. Well, Bush is not the greatest president ever, but he is in the top ten.
The best quality of George W. Bush is that he is a man of conviction and doesn’t care what people think of him. After eight years of Clinton, it was hard to believe there could be a president who would make decisions that went against public opinion or at least what the mainstream media said the public opinion was. Clinton made no move without polling first, even as far as to influence how he dressed. Clinton was led by polls instead of trying to steer the public opinion with his leadership. Bush on the other hand, would rather do what he thinks is right and take the time to correct his mistakes through diligent work and perseverance. Public criticism falls on deaf ears if Bush knows he is doing the right thing; the Surge in Iraq is the best example of this. While democrats surrendered daily in Iraq and threw our troops under the bus for their own political gains, Bush found a way to win the war.
After 9-11, Bush saw his approval ratings soar, which was natural considering the circumstances. Since then America hasn’t been attacked again and we have established a strong foothold and ally in the region that breeds terror throughout the world. A constant barrage of negative news and editorials has painted Bush “43” in a negative light ever since. In spite of this, the American economy has remained strong with a stock market reaching heights it was only dreamed of before. Taxes are lower because of Bush. He created a missile defense shield. He has fought the Kyoto treaty which is a restriction on capitalism and free trade. He has done more to fight AIDS than any of his predecessors.
The American war on terror has set countless millions of women free, released from the bonds of Islamic extremism. But would the feminists in America ever give him credit for this? Instead they will back men like Clinton and Kennedy who use their positions to prey on their female underlings. Bush appointed a black woman as secretary of state but will the black community give him credit for elevating a minority member, rewarding someone who has rightfully worked for and deserves such a position? No, instead they will follow and support leaders like Jackson, a reverend who has children out of wedlock and extorts money from businesses and Sharpton, another media hound who plays the victim card regularly.
The media is undoubtedly biased towards the left and anyone who believes otherwise isn’t paying attention. They withhold news, twist stories, and ignore anything that hurts the liberal agenda. Now, the democrats in congress are trying to revive the “fairness doctrine”. The left makes three points in favor of revival of this act;
Myth 1: The Scarcity ArgumentMyth 2: The Censorship ArgumentMyth 3: The Public Interest Argument
“The Scarcity Argument
Does conservative talk radio really dominate the political landscape? That could be true only if talk radio is the prevailing source of news and information in the United States, a doubtful proposition on its face. Given that the liberal party took control of Congress and many state governments in 2006, the notion that conservative talk show hosts are calling the shots in the United States seems dubious.”
http://www.cultureandmedia.com
“The Censorship Argument
Are Americans being deprived of access to liberal points of view? Any examination of the talk radio universe will reveal that liberal voices are very well represented on the airwaves. Moreover, talk radio is only one slice of the media pie. Within the “elite media,” the major television and cable networks, the leading news magazines, the most circulated newspapers, and most popular news/talk radio programming, liberal news and opinion sources reach a far greater audience than conservative sources.”- http://www.cultureandmedia.com
“The Public Interest Argument
At first blush the Fairness Doctrine seems very sensible, even obvious. Who wouldn’t want broadcasters to provide both sides of controversial issues? Wouldn’t the public benefit from hearing even more opinions?
The historical record, however, belies the assertion that the so-called Fairness Doctrine facilitates more speech. Broadcasters, intimidated by the potential difficulties and expense of providing alternative views whenever they aired a controversial opinion, often chose simply to avoid controversial topics altogether. The Project for Excellence in Journalism, in its report The State of the News Media 2007, asserts that the result of the Fairness Doctrine “was that radio talk programs consisted primarily of general (non-political) talk and advice. The big names were people like Michael Jackson in Los Angeles, whose program included interviews with celebrities, authors, and civic leaders.”46 PEJ observes that “the modern era in talk radio effectively began with the Federal Communications Commission’s repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987.”47”- http://www.cultureandmedia.com
If the public is sufficiently educated and freedom of speech is unencumbered, than why do we need a law prohibiting speech? Government can’t push forward freedom of speech by inhibiting it. The “fairness doctrine” is merely a political tool intended to silence the opposition to the liberal agenda. If anyone thinks there isn’t a left wing media, just look at what they have done to Bush.
Some good stuff;
“The earth has a fever (insane chuckle)”- Al Gore
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-tom-skilling-explainer-13aug13,0,918946.story
Where is Abbey Hoffman when you need him?
http://cbs4denver.com/denver2008/denver.protesters.arrested.2.793930.html
If he can walk on water, why can’t he get ahead in the polls?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12503.html
Monday, August 11, 2008
THE DEMOCRATS DEFY LOGIC
Tho' I've belted you an' flayed you,
By the livin' Gawd that made you,
You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!
The Republicans won’t give up the House and for a very good reason; there needs to be a vote. The democrat speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi, refuses to let there be a vote for new oil exploration and drilling and has adjourned the senate for a five week paid vacation. She doesn’t want there to be a vote because public opinion and pressure has assured the passing of a new energy policy. So, Pelosi, a left wing radical from San Francisco, would rather appease the tree hugging nut jobs on the left for symbolic reasons than have a common sense policy that would actually produce new and cheaper energy for Americans.
The left has suggested releasing oil from the national oil reserves to help lower gas prices. Well, if getting more energy into the supply lines would ease prices, wouldn’t it make sense to actually produce more fuel? We have coal, shale, natural gas and oil, both on shore and off and yet, a lethargic majority has allowed a radical left wing run our nation’s energy policies for far too long and we find ourselves unable to even help ourselves anymore because of the evil they have wrought. We have let environmentalists brain wash the general public with ads portraying crying Indians and movies about greedy companies producing dangerous nuclear plants. Average citizens have been betrayed by people who said they were interested in keeping America clean and pristine. Americans thought it was common sense to want a clean environment and it is, unfortunately people with no common sense have been and are allowed to make policy and pass laws that are hurting us all and literally destroying the country.
Nancy Pelosi says we need to quote “save the world” from global warming. I didn’t know it was a representative from California’s job to act so globally. Actually, I thought the representatives of American citizens took an oath to honor, obey and protect the Constitution. What a narcissistic person she must be to think she has the power to change the atmosphere and natural course of events, if global warming is even real, and yet she won’t allow the vote so Americans can help themselves.
And so, democrats want Americans to inflate their tires, turn up their air conditioning and turn down their heat and wear sweaters in doors. Their energy policies include taxing oil companies and giving that money to their constituents even though that money is going to come from those same constituents in the first place. Did you ever notice how the liberals first demonize something and then say taxing the living crap out of the same entity all of a sudden makes everything better? And how is taxing oil going to create more energy and ease prices?
It is hard for me to understand how democrats are so desirous of power; they will destroy the very thing they want to lead. They take strong stances against fictitious enemies like global warming and oil. Ask them how they would handle terrorism and they say we should “talk” with them. Ask them how they should deal with energy issues and they say avoiding the debate works.
Liberalism defies reality and human nature. What they believe is that there is always a way to meet and negotiate any policy. In their Ivy towers, they think everyone has the capacity to be reasonable. They think that to be enlightened is to move beyond violence and have everyone in the world be peaceful and reasonable, able to solve any issues with reasoning. But to be truly enlightened is to know that humans aren’t and never will be wired like that. And so, since they can’t deal with the republicans and win, they will avoid them. Reasonable debate is unreasonable to the left if their side loses and to be enlightened is to know that losing is an option.
So in the world of the left and the democrats, walking away from a room full of republicans and avoiding a vote that will do something, is the way to deal with the energy problems of America. Republicans are only reasonable if they agree with democrat policies and if they aren’t, then like the unreal world of the left, they just avoid it. Like ostriches, the left’s heads aren’t where they should be, but the left doesn’t have them in the sand, they have them up their butts.
Some good articles;
You think Franken will get the message?
http://www.sctimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080809/NEWS01/108080047/1009
Isn’t it fun to see the left eating itself?
http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/plans-for-clinton-convention-rallies-intensify-2008-08-10.html
Maybe she should have gone to a public school and participated in the free condom program?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/09/AR2008080901298_pf.html
By the livin' Gawd that made you,
You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!
The Republicans won’t give up the House and for a very good reason; there needs to be a vote. The democrat speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi, refuses to let there be a vote for new oil exploration and drilling and has adjourned the senate for a five week paid vacation. She doesn’t want there to be a vote because public opinion and pressure has assured the passing of a new energy policy. So, Pelosi, a left wing radical from San Francisco, would rather appease the tree hugging nut jobs on the left for symbolic reasons than have a common sense policy that would actually produce new and cheaper energy for Americans.
The left has suggested releasing oil from the national oil reserves to help lower gas prices. Well, if getting more energy into the supply lines would ease prices, wouldn’t it make sense to actually produce more fuel? We have coal, shale, natural gas and oil, both on shore and off and yet, a lethargic majority has allowed a radical left wing run our nation’s energy policies for far too long and we find ourselves unable to even help ourselves anymore because of the evil they have wrought. We have let environmentalists brain wash the general public with ads portraying crying Indians and movies about greedy companies producing dangerous nuclear plants. Average citizens have been betrayed by people who said they were interested in keeping America clean and pristine. Americans thought it was common sense to want a clean environment and it is, unfortunately people with no common sense have been and are allowed to make policy and pass laws that are hurting us all and literally destroying the country.
Nancy Pelosi says we need to quote “save the world” from global warming. I didn’t know it was a representative from California’s job to act so globally. Actually, I thought the representatives of American citizens took an oath to honor, obey and protect the Constitution. What a narcissistic person she must be to think she has the power to change the atmosphere and natural course of events, if global warming is even real, and yet she won’t allow the vote so Americans can help themselves.
And so, democrats want Americans to inflate their tires, turn up their air conditioning and turn down their heat and wear sweaters in doors. Their energy policies include taxing oil companies and giving that money to their constituents even though that money is going to come from those same constituents in the first place. Did you ever notice how the liberals first demonize something and then say taxing the living crap out of the same entity all of a sudden makes everything better? And how is taxing oil going to create more energy and ease prices?
It is hard for me to understand how democrats are so desirous of power; they will destroy the very thing they want to lead. They take strong stances against fictitious enemies like global warming and oil. Ask them how they would handle terrorism and they say we should “talk” with them. Ask them how they should deal with energy issues and they say avoiding the debate works.
Liberalism defies reality and human nature. What they believe is that there is always a way to meet and negotiate any policy. In their Ivy towers, they think everyone has the capacity to be reasonable. They think that to be enlightened is to move beyond violence and have everyone in the world be peaceful and reasonable, able to solve any issues with reasoning. But to be truly enlightened is to know that humans aren’t and never will be wired like that. And so, since they can’t deal with the republicans and win, they will avoid them. Reasonable debate is unreasonable to the left if their side loses and to be enlightened is to know that losing is an option.
So in the world of the left and the democrats, walking away from a room full of republicans and avoiding a vote that will do something, is the way to deal with the energy problems of America. Republicans are only reasonable if they agree with democrat policies and if they aren’t, then like the unreal world of the left, they just avoid it. Like ostriches, the left’s heads aren’t where they should be, but the left doesn’t have them in the sand, they have them up their butts.
Some good articles;
You think Franken will get the message?
http://www.sctimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080809/NEWS01/108080047/1009
Isn’t it fun to see the left eating itself?
http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/plans-for-clinton-convention-rallies-intensify-2008-08-10.html
Maybe she should have gone to a public school and participated in the free condom program?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/09/AR2008080901298_pf.html
Friday, February 1, 2008
MCCAIN CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH
Tho' I've belted you an' flayed you,
By the livin' Gawd that made you,
You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!
MCCAIN AND TAX CUTS
John McCain says he opposed the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 because they weren’t accompanied by spending cuts. He is trying to demonstrate that his stance on the issue was because he is a conservative but actually his vote against the cuts was because he adopted a more liberal position;
“In Wednesday's debate, McCain suggested he opposed tax cuts because they were not accompanied by cuts in spending;
"I made it very clear when I ran in 2000 that I had a package of tax cuts which were very important and very impactful, but I also had restraints in spending," he said.
"And I disagreed when spending got out of control. And I disagreed when we had tax cuts without spending restraint," McCain said.
He added: "And guess what? Spending got out of control. Republicans lost the 2006 election not over the war in Iraq, (but) over spending. Our base became disenchanted.
"If we had done what I wanted to do, we would not only have had the spending restraint, but we'd be talking about additional tax cuts today."- apnews.myway.com
But in 2001 and 2003, McCain had a different story;
“Spending was not why McCain said he opposed President Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.
In 2001, McCain said the $1.35 trillion tax cut benefited the wealthy at the expense of the middle class.
"I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief," McCain said then.
McCain tried but failed to amend the bill to reduce income tax cuts for the wealthiest and give greater benefits to those earning less. He and Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island were the only Republicans to oppose the 2001 tax cuts.”- apnews.myway.com
MCCAIN AND FLIP FLOPPING
McCain seems to have adopted another trait of the left; lying.
John McCain has a different recollection of this also;
“Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was close to leaving the Republican Party in 2001, weeks before then-Sen. Jim Jeffords (Vt.) famously announced his decision to become an Independent, according to former Democratic lawmakers who say they were involved in the discussions.In interviews with The Hill this month, former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and ex-Rep. Tom Downey (D-N.Y.) said there were nearly two months of talks with the maverick lawmaker following an approach by John Weaver, McCain’s chief political strategist.”-thehill.com
McCain is denying this but now I don’t know what to think. I do know one thing, he isn’t a conservative and he is a liar.
In a time when the congress has never had a lower approval rating, how are Americans only voting for senators as our presidential nominees? Is it because they want change? Seems a bit ridicules to me. And is this the kind if change the republicans are looking for?
Obama, Clinton and McCain serve in the senate and there isn’t a lot of difference between them;
All three want to close Gitmo
All three opposed the Bush tax cuts
All three want amnesty for illegals
All three want social security for illegals
All three want to pass global warming legislation
All three oppose drilling for oil in Alaska
By the livin' Gawd that made you,
You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!
MCCAIN AND TAX CUTS
John McCain says he opposed the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 because they weren’t accompanied by spending cuts. He is trying to demonstrate that his stance on the issue was because he is a conservative but actually his vote against the cuts was because he adopted a more liberal position;
“In Wednesday's debate, McCain suggested he opposed tax cuts because they were not accompanied by cuts in spending;
"I made it very clear when I ran in 2000 that I had a package of tax cuts which were very important and very impactful, but I also had restraints in spending," he said.
"And I disagreed when spending got out of control. And I disagreed when we had tax cuts without spending restraint," McCain said.
He added: "And guess what? Spending got out of control. Republicans lost the 2006 election not over the war in Iraq, (but) over spending. Our base became disenchanted.
"If we had done what I wanted to do, we would not only have had the spending restraint, but we'd be talking about additional tax cuts today."- apnews.myway.com
But in 2001 and 2003, McCain had a different story;
“Spending was not why McCain said he opposed President Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.
In 2001, McCain said the $1.35 trillion tax cut benefited the wealthy at the expense of the middle class.
"I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief," McCain said then.
McCain tried but failed to amend the bill to reduce income tax cuts for the wealthiest and give greater benefits to those earning less. He and Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island were the only Republicans to oppose the 2001 tax cuts.”- apnews.myway.com
MCCAIN AND FLIP FLOPPING
McCain seems to have adopted another trait of the left; lying.
John McCain has a different recollection of this also;
“Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was close to leaving the Republican Party in 2001, weeks before then-Sen. Jim Jeffords (Vt.) famously announced his decision to become an Independent, according to former Democratic lawmakers who say they were involved in the discussions.In interviews with The Hill this month, former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and ex-Rep. Tom Downey (D-N.Y.) said there were nearly two months of talks with the maverick lawmaker following an approach by John Weaver, McCain’s chief political strategist.”-thehill.com
McCain is denying this but now I don’t know what to think. I do know one thing, he isn’t a conservative and he is a liar.
In a time when the congress has never had a lower approval rating, how are Americans only voting for senators as our presidential nominees? Is it because they want change? Seems a bit ridicules to me. And is this the kind if change the republicans are looking for?
Obama, Clinton and McCain serve in the senate and there isn’t a lot of difference between them;
All three want to close Gitmo
All three opposed the Bush tax cuts
All three want amnesty for illegals
All three want social security for illegals
All three want to pass global warming legislation
All three oppose drilling for oil in Alaska
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)