Tag Archives: Media

Obama, Tea Party Core Group On The Fringe?

Commenting about tea partiers and what has become a spontaneous tea party movement, President Obama is of the opinion that the tea party movement stems from a core group that is on the fringe. That’s his story and he’s sticking to it.

Actually, if he were speaking about the Progressives and that movement that helped get him elected, he would be more correct. The Moveon.org’ers, the KOS’acks. Those are the ones who lay claim to Obama’s election, and they are anything but mainstream democrats, let alone mainstream Americans.

Obama calls them an outgrowth of a core fringe. The AP calls them a  leaderless coalition, born in communities from coast to coast shortly after Obama’s inauguration last year. One that seems to have some staying power. And Progressive talk radio calls them a product of big business, the Republican party, and the Chamber of Commerce. What? There’s your fringe.

Granted that there are fringers at both ends of the political spectrum. But the tea party movement was not born from them. The phenomenon now known as ‘the tea party movement’ was born out of the love of this country by Americans of both parties and their desire to thwart Obama’s desire to fundamentally change it. That, and the desire to not burden future generations of Americans with insurmountable debt in the process.  Fundamental change like government control of one private sector industry after another is also high on the tea partiers’ disapproval list.

The tea partiers reject the notion that President Obama is America’s new founding father, and believe that he is taking the country in the wrong direction. If Democrats are looking for a way to effectively deal with the tea party movement, they might consider turning this ship around.

Links: Obama takes care in sizing up ‘tea party’ movement – Yahoo! News. | Papantonio Explodes on MSNBC

Frank Rich At New York Times Wins M.R.I.O.T.D. Award

In order to excuse himself from responding to what it is that is so wrong with Obamacare, New York Times opinion editor continues the Left’s template. If you oppose Obamacare, you must be a racist, sexist, homophobe, and/or a bigot.

His ‘justification’ is simple. Obama is black, the Speaker of the House is a woman, the head of the Banking & Finance Committee is gay, and there’s a Latina woman on the Supreme Court.

Oh really? Does Frank Rich, like Jimmy Carter, really mean that . . .

  • We would be more than willing to welcome cap-and-trade with open arms, even if we paid a thousand dollars or more extra every year for our energy use, if Barack Obama were only white?
  • We would be dancing in the streets celebrating the dawning of government control of our health care if only Barack Obama were white?
  • It would be just dandy if government bureaucrats rationed health care for our parents, as long as the president is white?
  • We would jump at the chance of the government owning ALL of the auto manufacturing companies .. not just General Motors … if the president just didn’t have dark skin?
  • We would applaud those ACORN workers giving tax avoidance advice to a pimp and his prostitute if the workers hadn’t been black?
  • Most Americans – even ones that don’t pay income taxes now – would be more than willing to give 70% of everything they earn to the federal government when asked … so long as they are asked by a white president?
  • We would have been thrilled, I tell you … THRILLED to have all of those Islamic goons being held at Guantanamo be not only released, but sent to be school resource officers at our local government schools, if only a white president put that plan in motion?
  • It would be OK if a white president stood back and allowed Iran to build its coveted nukes … we’re only unhappy about that because a black president is doing it?
  • Deficits? We don’t care about deficits! Make our children and grand children and great grand children pay through the nose for our president’s spending habits … just so long as the president isn’t black.
  • Government pork? Like we actually care? Look … you folks in Washington can spend all the money you want – how about more studies of the mating habits of Polish Zlotnika pigs? – just make sure it’s not a black president who signs the spending bill into law.
  • We wouldn’t care if all illegal aliens were counted twice in the next Census … just so long as the president isn’t black?
  • Those Black Panther thugs who threatened voters in Philly? The ONLY reason we’re upset that they were given a pass is because Barack Obama is black.
  • Every single member of the president’s cabinet could be a tax cheat as far as we’re concerned … just so long as the president is white.
  • Forced unionization? Bring it on! We love card check! We love the idea of union goons threatening and intimidating workers to sign a card saying they want to belong to a union! What we don’t like is that a black president is pushing this idea.
  • Single-party talks with that Gargoyle that runs North Korea? It’s about time we legitimized that little pipsqueak. We’re only mildly upset here because the person who is doing that happens to be black.
  • More regulation of the finance sector? We could care less! For all we care you can nationalize the banks and decree that only the government can make home loans .. .and you can even apportion those home loans on the basis of race if you want to … just so long as the president is white!
  • Minimum wage? Like we care about that? Raise it to $15 an hour if you want! Just give us our white president back.

The Most Ridiculous Item Of The Day (M.R.I.O.T.D) award goes to Frank Rich for his colossal display of ignorance.

Links: Is Jimmy Carter Right? | Op-Ed Columnist – The Rage Is Not About Health Care – NYTimes.com.

One Year Anniversary for BM, Barack Motors

A year after President Obama came out of the closet, not everyone is unhappy with him. Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez feel he’s doing a fine job of taking control of the people and industry. Taking control of people and industry is not making things better, but worse.

What else could one expect to happen when freedom and liberty get stomped on by an over-reaching and expanding government? The auto industry cabal was more to buttress labor unions’ benefits than to make the company financially solvent. The actions of what he orchestrated for Chrysler Corporation and GM, and the health care legislation prove that out.

For GM, rather than capitulate to President Obama, what GM’s CEO Rick Wagoner should have said was, ‘with all due respect Mr. President I don’t work for you. And your advisers are not welcome to ‘help’ us change our company. We, with the help of a free market and a timely bankruptcy, will get out of this. You will have to bring the National Guard to occupy our company while we stand to protect our rights. Thank you very much.’

Next, expect the President to complete his payback with a plan to increase labor union membership through Card Check legislation. About which, I hope he fails. His ‘focusing like a laser beam on job creation’ is empty rhetoric for the dumb masses. Just pay attention to what he does rather than what he says.

The Obama we are seeing today is the real Barack Obama. If you want to see what this means, force yourself to read about what his campaign and his willing accomplices in the media did not want you to know. Because if you did, Hillary might have been the President instead of Barack. It is a ‘must read’ in order to make any sense to what we are seeing going on in Washington today.

The job of the President of the United States consists of only two tasks. To protect and defend its people, and to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution. After you listen to this radio interview that Obama gave in 2001 to an NPR interviewer, you’ll have to ask yourself how this man could even put his and on the bible and take the oath. It is obvious that he feels the founding fathers erred in the creation of this country and its Constitution. And in this interview, he explores ways to fundamentally change it. Not protect it. And to become America’s new founding father.

Links: President Obama Comes Out Of The Closet | General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner out, replaced by COO Fritz Henderson.

Khavari labels Alex Sink’s business plan “empty rhetoric”

Press release from the Khavari for governor campaign follows.

Miami, FL Mar. 18 — Noted economist and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Farid Khavari dismissed Alex Sink’s new “Business Plan for Florida” as “nicely written but completely lacking substance.” Sink, Florida’s Chief Financial Officer and another Democratic candidate for governor, unveiled her plan Wednesday.

“Last week, Alex Sink finally recognized that we have a lot of unemployment and foreclosures in Florida. That’s a big step for her,” Khavari said. “We have over a million people out of work here, 800,000 homes in foreclosure, and more job losses and foreclosures to come unless we do something. Apparently it takes three years for a multimillionaire ex-banker to catch on.

“Alex Sink has held one of the most powerful jobs in Florida for three years now. She is in an ideal position to fix Florida’s economy and she is counting paper clips and canceling Blackberries while the State Board of Administration has lost tens of billions of dollars on her watch. If she had any idea how to create even one job or stop even one foreclosure, why didn’t she do anything about it?

“Let me offer Ms. Sink a little lesson in economics,” Khavari smiled. “You can’t create jobs with subsidies and tax cuts. Businesses will not hire people unless there are customers for their products and services. With rising unemployment and escalating foreclosures, high interest rates and reduced credit, insurance and health care costs out of control, how many people can afford to buy anything? No customers, no jobs, it’s really not so difficult to understand.

“Here’s another lesson in Econ 001: when you create one good job, the economy naturally creates two more jobs within a year, and those jobs create more. When you lose one good job, you lose two more within a year, and more after that.

“My economic plan for Florida was released nine months ago. It explains step-by-step, with specific examples, how to create 1,000,000 new private-sector jobs in Florida, without subsidies. All you need is leadership. You have to focus on the demand side. When there is demand, businesses will hire people regardless of subsidies and taxes.”

Khavari has also gained national acclaim for his plan to establish a state-owned bank, which would save state and local governments billions per year in interest expense, while offering 2% fixed-rate mortgages and other programs to save Floridians more billions per year. Since his announcement, gubernatorial candidates in California, Oregon and Illinois have declared state-owned banks as part of their platforms. “Our Bank of the State of Florida will balance state and local budgets without higher taxes, and make Florida recession-proof forever,” Khavari said.

Farid A. Khavari, Ph.D. is an economist and author of nine books, including Environomics. His latest book, Toward a Zero-Cost Economy, is available in stores or for free download at his website, www.khavariforgovernor.com.

Pensacola News Journal links to articles, press releases, and editorials on Dr. Farid Khavari, democratic candidate for governor of the state of Florida, HERE.

Pensacola News Journal links to articles, press releases, and editorials on Alex Sink, democratic candidate for governor of the state of Florida, HERE.

Liberals And Free Speech, Part 2

The political tsunami that swept our country yesterday, paving the road for the socialization of health care and the end of the private health insurance industry, is one for the history books. It’s an issue that has been brewing for the last 60 or 70 years that seemed to be coming to a head last week. And so it was that I set out to see what the Left had to say about it.

I thought I would find something on the Ring of Fire. But I was wrong.

So I asked a couple questions to a post entitled ‘This Week on Ring of Fire’ . . .

All that, and no mention about ‘deeming’ major legislation to be passed without a vote? No whisper about the constitutional issues with it all?

Don’t have 60 votes? Eh, no big deal. Well, don’t have 51 votes? No problem. Let’s just skip the voting part, let the RINO’s (Representatives In Name Only) take care of substituting that process with another one.

No mention about the process at all? Like President Obama as much as said to Bret Baier when he dodged his question about the ‘process.’ The end justifies the means.

Is the ROF ducking the most important issue facing America today?

Background Note: For those not familiar with the Ring of Fire, it was an Air America Radio program, hosted by a local (Pensacola, FL) attorney named Mike Papantonio. It still is, only Air America went bankrupt for the last time a few months ago. And at its outset, Papantonio boldly claimed (paraphrasing here) that his show and network was going to be the answer to Rush Limbaugh. He mentioned Rush by name, and then some. And being a fan of Rush, my interest in this show was piqued.

What followed that was a real gem. Follow the comment thread, if you can stand it, to see what the ‘process’ was to getting an answer from the show’s producer, Farron Cousins.

Continue reading Liberals And Free Speech, Part 2

Talking Points vs. Reality

In a swindle that would make Bernie Madoff look like an amateur, Barack Obama has gotten a substantial segment of the population to believe that he can add millions of people to the government-insured rolls without increasing the already record-breaking federal deficit.

Those who think in terms of talking points, instead of realities, can point to the fact that the Congressional Budget Office has concurred with budget numbers that the Obama administration has presented.

Anyone who is so old-fashioned as to stop and think, instead of being swept along by rhetoric, can understand that a budget— any budget— is not a record of hard facts but a projection of future financial plans. A budget tells us what will happen if everything works out according to plan.

The Congressional Budget Office can only deal with the numbers that Congress supplies. Those numbers may well be consistent with each other, even if they are wholly inconsistent with anything that is likely to happen in the real world.

The Obama health care plan can be financed without increasing the federal deficit— if the administration takes hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare. But Medicare itself does not have enough money to pay its own way over time.

However money is juggled in the short run, the government’s financial liabilities are increased by adding this huge new entitlement of government-provided insurance. The fact that these new financial liabilities can be kept out of the official federal deficit projection, by claiming that they will be paid for with money taken from Medicare, changes nothing in the real world.

I can say that I can afford to buy a Rolls Royce, without going into debt, by using my inheritance from a rich uncle. But, in the real world, the question would arise immediately whether I in fact have a rich uncle, not to mention whether this hypothetical rich uncle would be likely to leave me enough money to buy a Rolls Royce.

In politics, however, you can say all sorts of things that have no relationship with reality.

If you have a mainstream media that sees no evil, hears no evil and speaks no evil— when it comes to Barack Obama— you can say that you will pay for a vast expansion of government-provided insurance by taking money from the Medicare budget and using other gimmicks.

Whether this administration, or any future administration, will in fact take enough money from Medicare to pay for this new massive entitlement is a question that only the future can answer, regardless of what today’s budget projection says.

On paper, you can treat Medicare like the hypothetical rich uncle who is going to leave me enough money to buy a Rolls Royce. But only on paper. In real life, you can’t get blood from a turnip, and you can’t keep on getting money from a Medicare program that is itself running out of money.

An even more transparent gimmick is collecting money for the new Obama health care program for the first ten years but delaying the payments of its benefits for four years. By collecting money for 10 years and spending it for only 6 years, you can make the program look self-supporting, but only on paper and only in the short run.

This is a game you can play just once, during the first decade. After that, you are going to be collecting money for 10 years and paying out money for 10 years. That is when you discover that your uncle doesn’t have enough money to support himself, much less leave you an inheritance to pay for a Rolls Royce.

But a postponed revelation is not part of the official federal deficit today. And that provides a talking point, in order to soothe people who take talking points seriously.

Fraud has been at the heart of this medical care takeover plan from day one. The succession of wholly arbitrary deadlines for rushing this massive legislation through, before anyone has time to read it all, serves no other purpose than to keep its specifics from being scrutinized— or even recognized— before it becomes a fait accompli and “the law of the land.”

Would you buy a used car under these conditions, even if it was a Rolls Royce?

To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.  Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His Web site is www.tsowell.com.

Mainstream Media Breaks New Ground

The Associated Press is breaking new ground in journalism. If you pay attention to news and the news media, you are already conditioned to the method the legacy media uses to frame their bias; how they put good spin on a bad event, or bad spin on a good event, by employing the ‘more (less) than expected’ phrase.

But I’m at a loss to figure this one out. This is new.

Referring to an interview with the chief economic figure in the government, the AP makes this assessment . . .

[F]ollowing the closing of the annual session of the party-dominated national legislature, which earlier Sunday approved a blueprint to keep government spending high, though at half the rate of last year, to buffer any economic turbulence.

Can someone, anyone, explain this ‘analysis’ for me?

The bias here is in favor of government spending, which happens to be the M.O. of  economically-illiterate bleeding-heart Liberals. Otherwise, one would expect to see something like ‘draconian cuts in welfare programs.’ That there was no perspective given to either the dollar amount or the ‘rate’ also serves to obfuscate what the real news is, that government spending can be harmful to your economic health.

Maybe it is because the subject of the story is Premier Wen Jiabao of Communist China?

There are other important issues raised in this AP piece, like the global economy showing signs of unraveling (see The State Of The Welfare State), but this one kind of blew me away.

WSJ JournalNow – News – Associated Press.

The State Of The Welfare State

And by Welfare State I’m not talking about food stamps for the poor. What I’m talking about is the focus of where President Obama and his circle of advisers want to take this country. Which is to a place where European countries are. This is a place where the government takes on the responsibility of caring for their citizens by way of their health care and retirement plans. The latter of which is called Social Security in the United States.

Right now, and before Obama became president, Social Security and Medicare are poised to bankrupt the country, if you will allow the use of the term bankrupt as an adjective. Those two programs total $42.9 trillion in unfunded mandates. Due to the demographics of our population, there will soon be people owed benefits with no money in the bank to pay for it. This isn’t a right-wing talking point. This is an economic fact.

Starting his second term, Bush opened up the debate to head off this catastrophe, but there was no support for it, and, he was derided by the media. It was labeled as the third rail, something not to be touched. Well, except to tax it. It involved ‘privatizing’ 1-1/2 percent of it and letting the person actually own his share of contribution. We all know how that ended up.

Fixing social security is still not on the President’s radar. But health care is. The solution proposed by President Obama is to essentially, increase the coverage of Medicare to include the entire country. It will also include the demise of the private health insurance industry for their inability to cover more people regardless of medical pre-conditions on the modest 3-4% profit margin they earn. This is keeping in step with the European model that Democrats in Washington seem to champion.

So what’s wrong with that?

First of all, to compare the United States with any European country is like comparing apples and oranges. Or watermelons and grapes. The economic stability of the European countries are quite shaky right now. But something deeper and more fundamental is at work which the global credit crisis has merely helped to expose. Most European countries today operate under economic and labor policies crafted during the height of the post-war baby boom, featuring middle-class entitlements like generous pension systems that allow early retirement, liberal disability programs that exempt many laborers from work, and extended unemployment systems that make going on the dole and staying there easier than in the U.S.. Europeans designed these policies in an era when there were, in many European minds, too many people competing for jobs and a bulging work population to support those who were retired or on disability.

Now, this house of cards is falling down. The demographics are nothing today like they were 60 or 70 years ago. Now, not only are there less people working, but there are more people on the government dole collecting retirement pensions. Europe has baby boomers too.  Governments, like Greece, Spain, Italy and Portugal, have no money to sustain this welfare state and they and other countries face riots in the streets at the very thought of trying to reform (take away) the unsustainable benefits they have put in place.

Back to the watermelons v. grapes comparison. Many of these countries are smaller than  most states in the United States. And they’re going bust. It takes more than the audacity of hope and hubris to suppose that a country the size of the United States, already heading to default, can pull itself out by expanding a health insurance entitlement program to include the combined populations of France, Italy, Germany, United Kingdom, Spain, and Greece. Not only that, but President Obama is still claiming that it will lower the premium costs and increase the quality and availability of care. Oh, and that’s after cutting $500 Billion from Medicare first. I think we should run that proposition by the people in Canada and Europe who travel to the United States for medical treatment and see if they think that modeling a health care system after what they have would be a good idea.

The European countries are suffering from a demographic shift that is compounding their economic situation.  In addition to their workforce shrinking, and their retired populations growing, their birth rates are falling below what is considered to be a replacement rate. Clearly, they need to change course. The old paradigm of the Welfare State is not sustainable.

Although we are demographically robust compared to Europe (our working age population will increase by a projected 17 percent over the next 40 years) and we work longer, our own baby boom was so large that we will still need substantial changes in Medicare and Social Security to meet our future obligations. Meanwhile, our states face a tough road because many of them have granted European-like retirement benefits to government workers that are exacerbating state budget problems. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see a trend here. But it is a trend that seems to escape Democrats in Washington.

Why is it that, despite the history and conditions in Europe, the Obama administration insists that creating our own Welfare State here is the way to go? Obama and his advisers are of the wrong century. Still high from their heyday of the 60’s, only now they are in control of our government and espousing something called ‘social justice.’ Essentially, they are heading the country southbound in the northbound lane. And instead of advising him to turn around, they’re telling him to speed up. And before too long, this great country will be in the same shape as Greece, Great Britain, Spain, Italy, and the rest of them.

Sen. Byrd (D-WV) Deja Vu, Obamacare

Right from the horses mouth, Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-WV), who authored the ‘Byrd rule,’ aka ‘reconciliation.’ He put an end to Hillary Care then, and for the same reasons Obamacare should be stopped now.

Speaking on the floor of the Senate about the use of reconciliation to ram through Hillarycare, Sen. Byrd said . . .

I felt that changes as dramatic as the Clinton Health Care package, which would affect every man, woman, and child in the United States should be subject to scrutiny . . .

That health care bill, important as it is, so complex, so far-reaching, that the people of this country need to know what’s  in it, and moreover Mr. President, we Senators need to know what’s in it before we vote.

{Referring to a telephone call President Clinton made to him, Sen. Byrd continues}

I could not, I would not, and I did not allow that package to be handled in such a cavalier manner. It was the threat of the use of the ‘Byrd rule.’ Reconciliation was never, never, never intended to be a shield, to be used as a shield for controversial legislation.

http://youtu.be/wTkgZrb1Q8k

Where has the ‘mainstream’ media been on this?

h/t Breitbart.tv

Chicago Politics At 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

With the specter of Rod Blagojevich still fresh in our memory, his protege, President Barack Obama, seems to be doing what he knows best, having been raised on Chicago politics.

He needs Democrats to support his latest version of Obamacare.  And it’s too late, and people wouldn’t stand for, another bribe like the Louisiana purchase, or the Cornhusker kickback. But there are other ways.

Like this one.

Tonight, Barack Obama will host ten House Democrats who voted against the health care bill in November at the White House; he’s obviously trying to persuade them to switch their votes to yes. One of the ten is Jim Matheson of Utah. The White House just sent out a press release announcing that today President Obama nominated Matheson’s brother Scott M. Matheson, Jr. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

This ought to be the headline on the news tonight at CBS, NBS, ABS, CNNbs, and pMSNBCbs. But it won’t. Not in the context of there being anything fishy going on. What will be in the news will be the usual shoot the messenger kind of story, beginning with ‘Republicans are launching into partisan attacks, accusing the President of using backroom deals to pass his health care plan.’ Those crazy Republicans.  If there was a Republican in The White House, don’t you know the media and the Left would be screaming that the President is using political appointments to buy a vote?

Related links: Is Obama Now Selling Judgeships for Health Care Votes? | Payoffs for states get Harry Reid to 60 votes