Bias? In The Media? Really?

Obama never left Washington? How gentle and consoling of the Fourth Estate.

So...how come the media never wrote like this about Bush...or other Republicans, for that matter? Couldn't be anything like an inherent left wing bias in the media...or a hidden agenda...could it?

Media Let's Obama Slide...Again...And Again...And...

Obama has been bragging about wrong stimulus job numbers. And, they have admitted it. Now, they are working to correct the reporting. And, as the article clearly shows, the media thinks that's ok since the administration is working to correct it. It was wonderful that the same treatment was given to Republicans and non-liberals. It's always wonderful to see that there really is no favortism in the media.

Meanwhile, the media prenes over Obama for honoring fallen soldiers. The big point of the article is:

The dramatic image of a president on the tarmac was a portrait not witnessed in years. Former President George W. Bush spent lots of time with grieving military families but never went to Dover to meet the remains coming off the cargo plane. Obama did so with the weight of knowing he may soon send more troops off to war.

Personally, I would rather have my President come see me personally if my child had died on combat than just have a symbolic salute. Let's be honest. Which is harder, dealing with grieving people faced to face, as Bush did, or merely saluting the dead, as Obama did? But, once again, the media praises mediocrity and selfishness.

Global Warming, Unemployment, and History Repeats

In the latest salvo by global warming alarmists, it is being claimed that the economic downturn is an opportunity to build a low carbon future. China and others are angry that western nations are trying to keep the emission targets from being legally binding. But, those same nations come uder no real threat from the plans, which has frustrated industrialized nations such as the US.

Developed countries, which it defines as those in the OECD and/or EU, will have to slash energy-related emissions by 17% in the next 11 years and by 50% by 2030.

Other major emitters such as China, India and Brazil would have to keep the rise in their emissions to 14% above current levels by 2030.

Countries in earlier stages of development would be able to increase their greenhouse gas output.

Now, I understand the idea is top make it economically feasible for developing countries to develop, without stifling them through the high costs of limiting carbon emmissions. But, the idea is flawed. At what point do those nations suddenly become accountable for these standards? And, what will the cost be at that point to convert their industries? Certainly it won't be cheaper than it is to set them up now. Or should we consider that China and Idia are now the greatest carbon polluters on the planet? Yet, we will make the industrialized nations pay for all of their growth. At what cost to them? No noe seems to care. This type of couble standard is why many opponents scoff at such plans.

Meanwhile, the Obama adminstration and the press keep telling us things are getting better. And, many Americans believe them. But, at the same time, there are other stories that are slowly planting the seeds things are not so good. Time Magazine had an article on unemployment last month. The title ON THE COVER says it all: Why Double Digit UnemploymentMay Be Here To Stay. America has been conditioned to trust the media, who only reports certain things by the way, and reports them in certain ways. It's kind of like the Townhall meetings on Healthcare Reform--every question was prescripted. If you are wondering how it is done, how people are being convinced out their firm beliefs of ethics, religion, or whatever, you should go read the 2006 book Influencer: the Power to Change Anything. It's very informative and eye opening.

You should also learn to pay attention to legislative history in new ways. In case you missed it a couple weeks ago, there was an indication of things to come in the news. It seems French President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tax bank financial transactions. Now, the goal is to limit risky behavior. And, other EU officials say there is "less than minimal" chances of it happening. But, when it comes to government, if it gets proposed sooner or later something like it goes into law. After all, this particular tax was first proposed in the US during the 1970s.

The Unethics of Government, Lead by our President

Citezens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a left-leaning watchdog group, has released its annual report on the most corrupt members of Congress. And, strangely enough, most of the top-ten are Democrats.



On the subject of ethics issues and government officials, And according to Liveleak.com, Obama spent $20.3M to bring Hamas "refugees" to America. Well, it was part of H.R. 1388, which passed by the way. Don’t believe me? Here is the Federal Register entry on it…

Federal Register: February 4, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 22)
DOCID: fr04fe09-106 FR Doc E9-2488
Presidential Documents
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
NOTICE: Part II
DOCID: fr04fe09-106
DOCUMENT SUMMARY:

[[Page 6115]]
Presidential Determination No. 2009-15 of January 27, 2009

Go look it up for yourself.



Obama also claims the fines for not carrying health insurance are not taxes. But, according to fact checking that’s a lie.

...the language of Democratic bills to revamp the nation's health care system doesn't quibble. Both the House bill and the Senate Finance Committee proposal clearly state that the fines would be a tax.”

It’s totally amazing to me how many times our President can lie, and not get called for it by the media. Left wing political watchdog groups I can understand skipping over it. But, the media not only downplays the all, but spends huge amounts of time attempting to marginalize anyone who tries to bring these lies to the light of day. How do I know? Check out this quote from later in the article:

Some liberals acknowledge that Obama might be vulnerable on the insurance requirement. But they say most people will understand as long as the legislation provides enough of a subsidy to make the coverage affordable. That's a central issue this week as the Senate Finance Committee starts voting on legislation.

Not only that, it goes on to quote a left wing group as saying whether it’s a tax or not is “a metaphysical question.” And, the media never even questioned that approach.



There were two other articles today that really caught my attention. The media and the President have been touting how much the economy is improving. They have been doing it a lot. So, explain today’s article about “10 Companies Approaching Bankruptcy”. It would appear with these big companies so close to bankruptcy that the economy is not as sound as our leaders would ahve us believe.

This was quickly followed by the article titled “FDIC Might Need To Borrow From Banks.” Turns out the FDIC doesn’t want to tap it’s credit line at the FED. So, they are trying to make banks foot the bill. Of course, the money would be borrowed, meaning banks would get some income off of it. And, borrowing from the big banks is just one option, but it is being seriously considered.

“Regulators also are considering levying a special emergency fee on all banks, charging regular fees early or tapping a $100 billion credit line with the U.S. Treasury, the officials said.”

Perhaps I’m just a bit naïve, but, aren’t these banks in danger of failing due to bad lending, and so forth? Especially the big banks? The same banks that are being told not to repay their TARP funds due to possible solvency issues? And, the government is now going to borrow from the same banks it bailed out?

Around The World, And Healthcare Non-Reform?

In world news, Germany faces energy decisions that are changing power lines (pun intended). Due to be phased out by 2022 after the Greens passed legislation in 2000, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) is trying to revamp and start construction again. Despite the expense of building nuclear plants, they are cheap to run. And, with oil prices still around $70 a barrel, and solar plants still only providing a small portion of power, the attractiveness of cheap power will be hard to ignore. It could also mean Germany misses the greenhouse gas targets it has to achieve. These same issues face Americans, as well. Is there room for solar fields to generate power? Is it possible for America to make a real difference in pollution emissions, besides the new tax structure of the cap-and-trade system currently making it’s way to the Senate?

Closer to home, Russia is financing arms for Hugo Chavez. This time the amount is $2.2 billion, bringing the total value of Russian weapons contracts to almost $4 billion. Chavez is claiming he needs them for “self-defense” against American attacks, now that the US has access to Columbian military bases. Many conservatives in America thought that with President Obama’s election and the power of the Left emerging that there would be a reduction in Chavez’s anti-US rhetoric. Obviously that has not been the case. More distrurbing than the weapons contracts is news that the Venezuelan leader is going to use Russian aid to develop nuclear power. This could easily lead to an Iran like standoff in the west.

Here at home, the big issue is healthcare reform, followed closely by financial reform. Both are high on Obama’s agenda, as well as Democrats in general. Shawn Tully has a series of articles that grade the proposed healthcare reforms. The 8th in the series covers Obama’s latest speech. Tulley’s overall picture paints something along the lines of no improvement, other than more government control through subsidies, giving non-profits and government agencies a huge leg up on private insurers. This follows on the heels of reports indicating that reform won’t reduce cost of healthcare. Now, there are two goals to healthcare reform. The first is to provide healthcare to the uninsured. The second is to cut down on the rising cost of healthcare, which is a major reason so many are uninsured. IF the legislation goes through without reducing costs, what is gained beyond more government domination of private industry? Couple that with the necessity of raising taxes to pay for it, and it’s a wonder so many Americans are in favor of it. What legislation actually comes out of Washington remains to be seen, with much debate about whether a public option will actually be available. But, it will be very important to watch where and how the costs are covered—if they can be.

More Unkept Promises...

Did anyone see the latest ideas from Congress on limits to healthcare? Yep. This makes good stuff available to those UNDER 25, but not over.

The measure -- offered by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont. -- would impose new fees on some healthcare industry segments to help offset the estimated $880 billion in initial costs over 10 years, The New York Times reported Tuesday.

The plan would provide a lower-cost insurance plan for catastrophic coverage only to people up to age 25, people familiar with the outline said. It also would expand less comprehensive Medicaid coverage to millions of low-income people who now are ineligible.

With Medicaid losing money, how is this going to be funded? The question still waits a full answer.

A related article at the NYTimes adds a bit more detail about Baucus’ proposal:

To help finance the legislation, Mr. Baucus is expected to propose a new tax on insurance companies selling policies with premiums far exceeding the national average, roughly $13,000 a year for family coverage.

Government healthcare is no longer a government program, apparently. It is a commercial industry killing plan. Risk management implies that higher risk has higher costs…but not according to the government’s coming “guidelines.”

Meanwhile, there is a petition circulating to drum up support for House Bill HR676 to make establishing health care a civil right, giving it equal status with race, sex, and creed. The petition specifically states the Bill

Whereas HR676 provides for Medicare for All, a universal, single payer, not-for-profit health care system which means the end of premiums, copays and deductibles; and

Whereas we are already paying for a universal standard of care but are not getting it because one of every three dollars in the health care system goes to the activities of the for-profit insurance system…

In short, this Bill and the petition openly state the goal is to replace or eliminate the insurance industry. That should do wonders for the deficit effects of the healthcare plan, already planned to be partially funded by money from the insurance industry. (…not to mention Democrats have openly said that is not what they are doing or have planned…)
But, those are not as concerning as the latest changes from President Obama himself. There was a short fact check on some points from his latest speech to Congress. Gone are guarantees about personal choice. Gone is the refusal to require everyone to be insured. Gone as well is his promise to “not increase the deficit by one dime.” Why? Government accounting that lets them say what they want it to say. The article states:

House Democrats offered a bill that the Congressional Budget Office said would add $220 billion to the deficit over 10 years. But Democrats and Obama administration officials claimed the bill was actually deficit-neutral. They said they simply didn't have to count $245 billion of it — the cost of adjusting Medicare reimbursement rates so physicians don't face big annual pay cuts.

Let’s see…Broken promises…Rising deficits…A not recovering economy…Sounds like Bush all over again…doesn’t it? Or at least that’s what the media and the Left used to accuse him of. Think they might accuse their Golden Boy Obama of the same thing?

Still, all of this legislation aimed at providing healthcare to all fails to address the real problem: rising healthcare costs. None of the legislation as far as I know does anything to reign in costs. It just throws more money into the healthcare system. As education has proven, more money does not solve the problem. The United States spends more per student on education than other countries, but we have a lower student success rate. More money is not a solution to cost control issues. Basic economics says that if more money chases the same amount of goods, the price goes up. So, why do we believe more money is the solution for healthcare when the problem is costs? As the debate and clamor for this legislation goes on, let’s remember that the real problem still remains unaddressed.

Big Brother Is About To Grow

Go ahead and post your comments on the White House’s publicly accessible sites. Just be prepared. The government is hiring vendors to market and store your information.

The National Legal and Policy Center, or NLPC, revealed the White House New Media team is seeking to hire a technology vendor to collect data such as comments, tag lines, e-mail, audio and video from any place where the White House "maintains a presence" – for a period of up to eight years.

How much would you like to bet it won’t be just the information posted to their pages that gets examined, harvested and stored? For example, all they need to do is turn their page into an application at Facebook and it automatically shares all of your information. I’ll bet this gets billed as a means to hunt down threats to the President, but I bet all it eventually does is stifle dissent.


But, then again, that shouldn’t come as a huge surprise. Consider the President’s address to school children—just school children, by the way. Did you know the speech comes with accompanying lesson plans tailored to various grade levels? That’s the chief complaint from Republicans and other conservatives.

NBC spoke with Katie Gordon, a spokeswoman for the Florida Republican Party, who said the party's "beef" is with the accompanying lesson plans.

According to the article, people are calling those against the speech ignorant for keeping their children from being encouraged by the President. But, obviously that is not the goal. It is all about what the children are supposed to learn. That makes it an indoctrination event, using the basic definition from the dictionary (check this reference at Dictionary.com if you doubt what I say.) Maybe those accusing others of ignorance should better educate themselves on what is going in this case.

Speaking of ignorance, do you know what been going on with the money from the Stimulus package? Joe Biden gave of speech filled with praise on what the package has accomplished. But, the AP did a fact check that shows it isn’t as good as the administration would like it to appear.

(…and Obama wonders why his popularity is dropping…hmmm…)

The Socialization of America...continues...

About 10 months ago, hyper liberal Maxine Waters, Democratic representative from California, announced that the agenda was to socialize big oil, and by extension business in general. The so-called ”Democratic Underground” promptly labeled it as a smear campaign by Fox News, in spite of the fact that Waters clearly stated what she believed should happen. Then back in May, at a regional Democratic conference, delegates specifically stated one agenda of the healthcare reform was to get rid of the insurance industry. (The video used to be on YouTube, but has been removed due to copyrights belonging to Boiling Water Media.) The Obama administration had several soundbites over the following couple of weeks denying this revelation. And, Americans, for the most part, accepted it.

We are sheep, as a nation. Unfortunately, sheep are dumb and do nothing about their condition. We are told, repeated, that national, government healthcare is a must to “save our country.” Wonderful waving of the American flag to stir our patriotism for this “crisis.” I won’t argue that healthcare costs are not out of control, they are. But, unless government can prove to me it can successfully run something without losing money…I don’t want government in charge of my healthcare.

You should also consider that Democratic Congressmen and Senators have openly stated healthcare may go to people based on the economic benefit. That is one method of cost containment being actively considered. You might want to consider an article at The Free Liberal.

As the healthcare debate rages on, there is one reality that even the proponents of this hostile takeover of healthcare by government cannot ignore – and that is money. The government simply does not have the money for a new, expansive, public healthcare plan.



It is still surreal that in a free country we are talking only about HOW government should fix healthcare, rather than WHY government should fix healthcare.

Indeed why do Americans believe that government is always the solution to a problem? The answer is, they have been conditioned by the media and school s to believe that.

As a final thought, here is an ACLU video of where nationalized healthcare could take us. Enjoy your pizza.

Obama And the Ever Increasing Deficit

The AP article headline reads White House, Congress projects record deficits. Honestly, does this surprise anyone?

Both the White House Office of Management and Budget and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted the budget deficit this year would swell to nearly $1.6 trillion, a record, and far above the then-record 2008 budget deficit of $455 billion.

Most of that increase is from stimulus spending. And, many are still arguing over whether the stimulus is actually accomplishing what it was supposed to do: job creation.

Meanwhile, there is a very important, and very over-looked, point in all of this:

Both see the national debt — the accumulation of annual budget deficits — as nearly doubling over the next day. The total national debt, made up of amounts the government owes to the public, including foreign governments, as well as money it has borrowed from itself, stood Tuesday at a staggering $11.7 trillion.

How many people realize the government has been borrowing from itself? This is one reason why Social Security is nearly broke. But, in the double entry world of accounting that becomes OK. I have money, I loan it to myself at interst, and that creates an asset to counter balance the liability. The problem is, in effective reality, the government is now out the money twice...and still can't pay it back.

And, the fiscal responsibility mud should get slung both ways. As much as the Democrats and the media slung it at Bush and the Republicans, we should expect to see it fly the other way. But, the media is already hiding things in these articles to gloss things over. For example, this article ends by saying:

The Obama administration did tout one number in its budget review: The 2009 deficit is now expected to be $1.58 trillion, $263 billion less than projected by the White House in May. That's largely because the White House removed a $250 billion item that it had inserted as a "place holder" in case banks needed another bailout.

The effect of ending on such a note is to say "Obama did good, so everything is OK." Which basically means the media will gloss over this. And, the American public will be hoodwinked again.

Oh! Haven't you realized? The media and government is playing the same games it did over the Vietnam War protests and 60s economy. Only this time, it's the liberals in control of what's being fed to the public.

(...my how the times they are a-changin...)

Revealing Leftism and Healthcare Lies In the Media

For those who wonder just how leftist the media and the country are going, take a look at this CNBC discussion of the second round of AIG bonuses. Kindly notice that Leslie Marshall (from national Radio) and Tanya Acker (from the Huffington Post) are in favor of throwing legal obligations to the wind based on the income or situation of the average American. In other words, what is right by law has nothing to with what is right from a socialistic viewpoint. What that boils down to, ladies and gentlemen, is that your contract can be voided if it does not meet the social norm, or average, in terms of benefits, salary, and so forth. And, if you don’t think that’s important, look how successfully they were allowed to out-voice the more business minded speakers (leftist though they are).


On the subject of leftists taking over with media help, have you been paying attention to what it will cost for the government to get back to fiscal responsibility? According to an article at CNNMoney last week:

Under Obama's budget, Gale and Auerbach (Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center) estimate the fiscal gap would be 9% of GDP. Conceptually, that means to restore fiscal balance over the long-term the federal government would need to increase taxes by 9% of GDP or cut spending by that amount starting now and lasting "until the end of time," Gale said.

They go on to note that neither the Republican (“no new taxes”) or Democrat (“only tax the rich”) stance on taxes has any fiscal responsibility.

That article is actually about the cost of healthcare legislation. But, there are interesting points on other items, too. But, on the healthcare point:

Gale and Auerbach (Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center) estimate that for health cost savings alone to stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio over time, the growth rate in health costs would need to be slowed by 3 percentage points a year -- for 75 years.

In other words, Obama’s healthcare savings, without major tax increases, are a fiction. Of course, this goes along with the CBO report that the healthcare legislation will actually increase the deficit by $1 trillion. Liberals were quick to change that verbiage to “increase the cost”, but the report specifically said it would increase the deficit. (…make sure you pay attention to how things are said…)

We also need to remember that all the projections on budgets are based on economic growth and output. Tax increases equal to 9% of Gross Domestic Product is based on the projected economy. For those who don’t know, 9% of GDP is A LOT! So, what if the economy continues to crater, instead of responding to the first (and expected second) stimulus?

It is, after all, a real possibility. There are many who say the market increases are not backed by real economic activity to match it. Unemployment projections during the campaign and early days of the administration said it would not reach these levels, and now Obama is projecting double-digit unemployment. And, several prominent economists are now saying no economic recovery in the second half of 2009.

Over spending got the world into this mess. And, government wants you to believe that increased borrowing will solve the problem of overspending. Congress, specifically the banking committees chaired by Democrats, allowed this mess to happen in the US. Deregulation may have played a part, but it was not the whole story.

I know this goes contrary to what the media and Liberal leaders are telling Americans. So, take some action. Hold the media accountable. Hold your Congressmen and Senators accountable. Let your voice be heard.

ACLU, Healthcare and the Socialism of America

I find it fascinating that people believe the American Civil Liberties Union (ALCU) has a high minded goal of seeing equal liberty for all. This is simply not the case. Have you ever heard of them taking a case to defend Christian rights? No. There are reasons for this. At its heart, the organization is Communist. Communist regimes have the state as God, since religion is merely a tool to keep the downtrodden masses in check. Don’t believe me? Let’s take a look at the writings of Robert Baldwin, founder of the ACLU:

[There] I saw … fresh, vigorous expressions of free living by workers and peasants all over the land. And further, no champion of a socialist society could fail to see that some suppression was necessary to achieve it. It could not all be done by persuasion. … [I]f American champions of civil liberty could all think in terms of economic freedom as the goal of their labors, they too would accept ‘workers’ democracy’ as far superior to what the capitalist world offers to any but a small minority. Yes, and they would accept — regretfully, of course — the necessity of dictatorship while the job of reorganizing society on a socialist basis is being done.”(From "Freedom in the USA and the USSR" , 1934)

Their goal is to change the way Americans think about liberty, and bring about dictatorial leadership by the state.

What, you ask, does that have to do with cap and trade and government healthcare? Simple. It leaves the government in charge of everything, which is the goal of a socialist or communist state—it is just a matter of degree. Manufacturing is openly being bought by the federal government, in the name of job salvation. But, only economic development and growth can guarantee jobs—not government, Financial institutions are being bought out by the government, in the name of monetary stability. That one may be arguable, but one certain thing is government doesn’t finance entrepreneurs because they are not looking to increase return on their investment.

Consider that government healthcare, as it did in Russia and most socialist states, will reduced the quality and quantity of available healthcare. Don’t believe me? Name the countries that have produced applyable medical breakthroughs. Most have been from the US. Research, high caliber no doubt, has come from many countries. But, real advances in medicine and industry have primarily come from the US. Senators and Congressmen are already saying this will change with the implementation of proposed legislation. If you don’t believe me, maybe you should believe them.

And, if you don’t like any of this, let YOUR elected officials know. Make your voice heard on the internet, in public discussions, and anywhere else you can peacefully take a stand. As long as the American people say nothing, this will go on until there are no liberties left in this country. As the old saying goes, “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.” What are you doing to bring change?

Consider more about Baldwin. He was a friend of terrorists who supported communism (Pedro Albizu Campos). He was a friend and supporter of those who were willing to murder their won people for political means (Ho Chi Minh). In fact, maybe we should just consider Baldwin’s own words:

"I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately, for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the properties class, and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal. It all sums up into one single purpose -- the abolition of dog-eat-dog under which we live. I don't regret being part of the communist tactic. I knew what I was doing. I was not an innocent liberal. I wanted what the communists wanted and I traveled the United Front road to get it."

You should also know that Baldwin maintained an office in the United Nations after his retirement from the ACLU, working as a consultant for the International League for Human Rights.

So…do you still think it’s all about the best for man as opposed to what’s best for the state?

The Benefit of Government Healthcare...and related lies...

Isn’t it interesting that since the Youtube video where Democrats announced they were out to eliminate the private insurance industry, the Democrats and the media are going to great lengths to make Americans believe otherwise? In their latest move, Democrats are faulting CBO calculations that government healthcare would eliminate private coverage for 23 million Americans. Always quick to cite Congressional Budget Office figures against Republican opponents, Dems are slighting the office for it’s work on this. Among other things, the CBO has determined the Kennedy heathcare legislation—which is not as broad as the one Obama is pushing--will also increase the federal deficit.

Enacting the Kennedy plan, nonetheless, “would result in a net increase in the federal budget deficits of about $1 trillion," says the CBO. "That estimate primarily reflects the subsidies that would be provided to purchase coverage through the new insurance exchanges, which would amount to nearly $1.3 trillion in that period.”

The CBO also noted this would break a key promise of the Obama platform that those with existing coverage would get to keep it. The NY Times had this comment in their article:

Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, a senior Republican on both committees drafting health legislation, said he found the office’s numbers stunning. He calculated that the Kennedy bill would cost taxpayers $62,500 per uninsured person over the 10 years.

Even at Sen. Hatch’s numbers, that is a huge expense—and Congress knew about that number.

I only have one question. Government is taking over business. Government is saying how and who can be insured. And, it has been said by one Senator that the elderly will have to do without some levels of healthcare. At what point do stop believing the media and our government when it says socialism, or even communism, is not taking over America?

Obama and Government Financial Games

First, it was western banks and financial institutions. Now, Chinese banks are accused of taking excessive risks.

Chinese banks' surge in lending to support the government's stimulus package is leading to excessive risk taking, said the Fitch ratings agency.

The Fitch agency’s main point is the focus is on short term profits, instead of long term stability. Isn’t that what got the West in so much financial trouble? Perhaps the Obama administration should take a lesson on the subject of short term fixes. If the financial industry is beginning to recognize these signs, maybe the US government should, too, and stop borrowing to solve the credit crunch. If excessive credit got us into this mess, maybe someone should realize that even more credit is not likely to get us out.


Speaking of President Obama and financial solutions, people are getting pretty hacked off at him. Congress is mad. The average John Doe is mad. Why? Job losses in the auto industry, for one. Chrysler and GM are cutting jobs left and right. You might also consider the following two headlines from Reuters:

17 years for the US to exit GMAC
GM borrows more while preparing for bankruptcy

Increasing loans to companies that will fail? Taking on debt that may not be recoverable for decades? What, pray tell, is there to be excited about?

(…welcome to Liberal Obamaland…where special Liberal interests get LOTS of breaks…in the name of stamping out capitalism…)

History Repeats Itself In Afghanistan and Pakistan

Reports on Friday and Saturday indicated that the Taliban is using civilians as human shields. This article seems to imply that this is a surprise. I fail to understand why it should be. This has been a tactic of intimidation used by every terrorist guerilla warfare group, at least in recent history--Hamas, the Taliban, all the way to Vietnam, Moa, Che Guevara, and even farther back in time. Unfortunately, the frightening part of the article is the last paragraph:

On Friday Karzai said "we cannot justify in any manner, for whatever number of Taliban, for whatever number of significantly important terrorists, the accidental or otherwise loss of civilians."

Like it or not, civilian suffering is a part of standing against evil. The Taliban, or whatever extremist group you care to name, will always use that suffering to get their opponents to stop fighting for fear of hurting innocent someone. They will try to plaster the media with how ugly the destruction is that gets “imposed by the good guys.” We must remember one very important thing. THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE SUFFERINGS OF OTHERS. And, extremeists will never be stopped if we put suffering or some other difficulty ahead of defeating those extremist groups. Taking President Karzai’s statement at face value would indicate he has already given up the will to fight. For the sake of our soldiers, and those of supporting nations, I hope not. If that occurs, Afghanistan will become another Vietnam for someone.


But, then again, given Thursday’s announcement that US troops won’t go to Pakistan just brought flashbacks of Vietnam to me. Any student of history knows that a big reason North Vietnam overcame the South was the ability to hide and build forces in Laos and Cambodia. The communist forces successfully controlled those other countries, and then used them as bases. With the take over of the Swat area and areas closer to Islamabad by militant forces, coupled with the inability of the Pakistani Army to turn back the tide (some reports indicate they are being complicit in the takeover), this is looking more and more like Vietnam. Contrary to popular media reports, Bush did indeed set us on the road to get out of Iraq. His timetable has become the same timetable that President Obama is using. The question now becomes: will Obama be able to get us out of Afghanistan without the disgrace we suffered in Vietnam?

Democrats on Taxes, Banking, and Healthcare...Nothing But Lies.

There was a very interesting discussion of ”What Is Rich”. President Obama, and most Liberal politicians, intend to raise taxes on those making $250,000 or more. Unfortunately, that is a very arbitrary standard.

An income of $250,000 is a lot richer in Abilene, Texas, than in New York's Nassau County, where it takes $430,000 to enjoy a similar quality of life, according to bankrate.com. So let's call them the "working rich."

The other flaw in this idea is that the burden of these new taxes will actually fall on the “working rich” rather than the super rich, as all the political rhetoric implied. The “working rich” are, in reality, the upper middle class. It also needs to be remembered that taxing the rich doesn’t actually stimulate the economy,

Soaking the rich doesn't even seem to increase tax revenues. The top marginal tax rate has fluctuated wildly over the past 50 years, from 91% to 28%; it's now 35%. But individual tax revenue as a percent of GDP hasn't varied much at all - it hovers at about 8% - and its variations don't correlate with the top tax rate.

So, in reality, who is really getting soaked by President Obama’s new tax plan? It’s not the rich. Obama changed nothing, despite his rhetoric.

(…is anyone really surprised?...)


Meanwhile, U.S. House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank who did such an amazing job of wathing over the financial community (aka Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) wants to eliminate the ban on internet gambling in the US. Given that Frank has never been called on the carpet by the media for his misdeeds, this will probably be trumpeted as some noble cause by the media. In an effort to look good for the party, it should be noted that Frank is also pressing legislation to halt implementation of Bush administration anti-gambling laws.

"The government should not interfere with people's liberties," said Frank.

You have to admit that as he and the other Democratic leaders in Congress press on with increase nationalization and control of business, standing up for people’s liberties is kind of reversal. The sad part is that the European gambling firms have lost millions in recent times. So, this would not even make sense from a tax revenue standpoint. But, then again, if you put in line with Obama’s failure to tax the rich, it does make a sick sort of sense.


But, in a Reuters news report, the Democrats are telling more lies. Perhaps repeating the same lie would be more accurate in this case. This time, the lie-teller is new U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. On Wednesday, she made an appearance before Congress and stated that the new US Health Agency will “compete with private insurers rather than lead to a socialized system as Republicans claim.” Her statements fly in the face of Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) Admission that Obama Healthcare Plan Will Destroy Insurance Industry. However, the report goes to great lengths to discuss to studies showing the need for urgent reform. Will the media ever get around to reporting this sort of thing properly?

(…it would be nice…but I am not holding my breath…)

Smoke and Mirrors from Obama and the Swine Flu

So much for President Obama’s “tax credit for all” package. The way it was written, it is actually creating tax liabilities for the poor. And, more importantly, nothing is being done to let people know.

At-risk taxpayers include a broad swath of the public: married couples in which both spouses work; workers with more than one job; retirees who have federal income taxes withheld from their pension payments and Social Security recipients with jobs that provide taxable income.

The Internal Revenue Service acknowledges problems with the withholding tables but has done little to warn average taxpayers.

Retirees get the latest $250 SSN check deducted from their eligible “refund. College students may not get to claim it at all. Yet, this was hailed as a package that would provide for these very people.

Now, I am smart enough to realize people need to keep up with their own tax issues. But, the whole thing smells like a cheap public relations stunt. That is especially true since the government is saying nothing even though they knew in advance this would happen. So, how come no one is saying “Obama lied and ripped us off again.”

(…tell me again why people believe the Liberals really care about the poor…???...)

And, in the continuing stories showing the stupidity over the Swine Flu, Mexico is reporting a drop in reported cases THE DAY AFTER closing businesses and offices.

Mexico started a five-day shutdown of most offices and businesses on Friday to try to halt the spread of a deadly flu strain, and officials said they were encouraged by signs the number of new cases was dropping.

Does anyone really believe that a single day of closings brought an immediate drop to the number of cases? That’s as crazy closing schools in Texas in hopes of keeping disease from spreading. The kids will go to malls and daycare centers while their parents work. That is not the type of isolation required to stop the spread of a dangerous disease. The WHO (World Health Organization)…

said on Friday that no meeting of its emergency committee was scheduled, meaning there was no immediate likelihood of the current level 5 alert being raised to a full 'phase 6' pandemic alert.

In fact, only mild cases have occurred anywhere outside of Mexico, indicating the spread is relatively limited. According to this article, the number of new cases being reported by hospitals in Mexico in the last 10 days has dropped by some 75%. And, while 176 deaths so far is a lot, 13,00 flu deaths occur in the US each year. This is a very far cry from a lethal pandemic.

(…do I really want to ask how dumb the media and government think we are…)

The problem this type of media hype could create is horrifying. consider all the false warnings the media gives...on an ever increasing basis. As time goes on, people will probably pay less and less attention. And, then, one day, the media will get one right but no one will pay attention. People will probably blame God for the problems. But, in fact, they were created by men and God simply let us have what we created and did not bother to fix. I pity the millions who will probably die in those days. I also pity the punishment that awaits those who brought it on.

Rule By Popularity and Media Hype

What has the media focused on since Obama has come to office? Well, first of all, they seem obessessed with how it has affected racial issues. Does anyone really believe that 100 days is enough time for any change to really take effect on a national level? Let’s be serious. Local change can occur at that pace. National change, that is real change, merely by the design of government, takes much longer.

Of course, the Huffington Post believes that we need another 100 days to judge Obama’s foreign policy. Why? After all, we didn’t seem to need that during the Bush administration.

Maybe it’s because most of Obamam’s nominees aren’t on the job yet. But, that doesn’t really make sense.

He has announced and nominated roughly as many as Bill Clinton had by this point in his tenure and slightly more than George W. Bush had. But Mr. Bush held over more officials from Mr. Clinton’s administration than Mr. Obama has from Mr. Bush’s, so Mr. Bush on his 100th day had more confirmed officials on duty – 75 to Mr. Obama’s 48.

President Bush was more pragmatic about getting real work done than President Obama? Who would have thought that would be published in the New York Times!

But, I guess the true reality of what the media is reporting about President Obama is that people are not satisfied. He hasn’t done enough to change racial divides. He hasn’t done enough to get his cabinet working properly. This doesn’t even begin to touch the issues resulting from bad cabinet picks (tax issues), bad decision making (747 flyovers in new York), and all the other scandals the media is going all out to down play. In the end, his popularity isn’t all that great. Did you know that at the end of his first 100 days, Obama’s popularity is lower than for the last 40 presidents after their first 100 days? That’s what a new Gallup Poll reveals:

President Obama's media cheerleaders are hailing how loved he is. But at the 100-day mark of his presidency, Mr. Obama is the second-least-popular president in 40 years.

The only one less popular was Bill Clinton, due to the Waco raid. Even George W. Bush was more popular after his first 100 days than Barak Obama.

(…now, there is some serious food for though...)

Abandoned Partners

Sunday’s announcement that former insurgents were under Iraqi control was fantastic news. It defied all the gloomy predictions since the plan was announced. Of course, independent journalists, like Michael Yon have been telling the real story of these former al-Qaeda members for a long time. While only about 10-15% of those fighters will actually have positions in the Iraqi security forces or military, the remainder have been promised jobs or training to help them get them. And, all of it was accomplished under the Bush administration’s watch. It leaves me wondering what may happen under Obama’s watch. Will it end up being a string of broken promises and abandonment like the Democrats handed South Vietnam after Nixon? Let us sincerely hope not. Unfortunately, in his latest dispatch, Michael notes that this just might be the case:

The hints coming out of Washington tend to cause me to believe we will abandon Afghanistan. I’m making no personal comment one way or the other yet, other than Iraq was worth the effort and costs all the way around – so long as we cement that success.

You should read the rest for yourself.

Meanwhile, here at home, Democrats continue to circle the wagons around each other. Well, at least the President is doing that for his cabinet folks—still. Despite tax evasion issues, and faulty bailout implementations 9both of which ruined Bush’s popularity levels due to the media), Obama still stands behind Geithner. And then, true to form, the media lets Obama off the hook by merely changing the point of the story to Republican failures. Isn’t it amazing that the media does not care one whit if their party abandons foreign governments, or that Democrats are getting away with all the stuff Republicans can’t do without MAJOR scrutiny?

The Iran Contra debacle caused the Democratic legislature to abandoned Afghanistan to warlords, and eventually the Taliban, during the 80s. The diligent prosecuting of war against communist forces in Vietnam under Nixon caused the Democratic legislature to pass laws which doomed any democratic rule in South Vietnam. I fear what the Democratic President and legislature will bring about in the Middle East in the years ahead.

bin Laden speaks, Obama changes nothing and Democrats...well...

A new tape from bin Laden is calling for the ousting of Somalia President Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed. The tape claims Sharif has sold out to the infidels. Sharif has already called for, and received cabinet backing, for implementation of Shari Law. But, for those who think appeasement will be enough:

But the hard line Islamists rejected the move, saying it would not be a strict enough version of Islamic law.

Not strict enough? That should give serious pause to anyone thinking of negotiating with bin Laden and those like him. Even though Sharif has support from several Islamic groups, al-Qaeda linked al-Shabab still fights the government, and controls most of southern and central Somali. bin Laden was previously based in Somalia, so there could easily be large sentiment in his favor among extremists. And, the focus is on that word: extremists. As Sharif is finding, appeasement does not work with hard line extremists.

More concerning is the possible home connections of al-Shabab.

For several months the FBI has been investigating at least 20 Somali-American men from the Minneapolis area who traveled to war-torn Somalia, where some of them trained and fought with an Al Qaeda-linked terrorist group known as al-Shabaab, according to counterterrorism officials.

While there is no proof that these men are actually planning any type of attacks in the US, there is growing concern over the possibilities, especially since the latest bin Laden message. Several investigations are on-going.

Meanwhile, The Senate confirmed Obama’s nominee for Solicitor General, who just happens to be a former law school colleague. But, there are other indications in his continuing lack of change.

A former Clinton administration lawyer who's been the dean of Harvard Law School since 2003, Kagan is seen as a possible Obama nominee for any future opening on the high court.

Despite his call for change, and his claim to want Washington outsiders in his government, Obama continually seems to be picking former Clinton advisors and colleagues for his administration.

(…so much for any real change…)

Finally, another Democrat has been caught in a scandal.

A divided Ohio Elections Commission found Thursday that former Attorney General Marc Dann twice violated state elections law by using campaign funds to pay for an expensive in-home security system and a cell phone often used for personal calls.

His election was part of a Democratic near sweep of Ohio’s elected offices after state investment scandal involving Republicans. It is interesting to note that, in Clintonesque style, Dann had already resigned back in May due to a sexual harassment scandal.

Obama and The Military...and debt

Obama has already begun to cut defense spending. The article, ostensibly about the proposed missile shield in Poland, went on to give some specific numbers. The most specific point is there will be no additional funding. Obama’s proposed budget only funds ongoing operations, with a supplement for Afghanistan and Iraq. The expanding military requirements, coupled with lower financing, does not bode well for the future—much as it did during the Clinton administration.

Meanwhile, a proposed insurance change for Veterans was scrapped by the White House. Despite the number of military families that have been receiving welfare support, the Obama administration had plans to make military personnel pay for their treatments through their own private health insurance. While in this time, I applaud the idea of creating savings, this was appalling. The White House has announced that is no longer under consideration. However, it seems the issue may not be completely off the table:

Having dropped the idea of billing private insurers for the treatment of service-connected conditions, administration officials have told veterans groups that they want to find another way to save a similar amount of money.

(…and people scoffed when Obama was accused of being anti-military…)


In other Obama news, it seems that on top of borrowing huge sums from China, the US will also be giving China money for going green.

Discussions are in the early stages but the EU has been talking to the Obama administration about offering cash for clean technology to countries like China if it agrees in turn to cap emissions in key industrial sectors and adopt cutting-edge technology.

After severely criticizing one US bank for using stimulus funds in China, it will be interesting to see if this is ever explained. This is especially true in light of China’s quiet diversification--a fancy way of saying they are scared about mounting US debt.

(…gee…I wonder why that might be…)