President Obama wants a summit on health care, and has (finally) invited the Republicans to join in the discussion, supposedly in an attempt at bipartisanship. But is that what this is really about?
It's not a summit - it's a setup.
The president has already said he does not plan on changing what the Democrats have offered in their bill. He does not plan on starting over. So just what IS the game plan?
I will go on record right here and now - I think the "bipartisan summit" is a sham, and an intentional sham. There will be no real attempt at bipartisanship, and I can almost guarantee that Obama and the Democrats will let Republicans speak, but will refuse to adopt any meaningful Republican ideas.
One of two things will happen:
1) Either the Democrats will reject any meaningful Republican ideas out of hand, and then go forward saying, "Gee, we tried to be bipartisan, but those obstructionist Republicans just would not cooperate." Or...
2) The Democrats will choose some small, meaningless part of a Republican idea and offer to include it if the Republicans will back the Democrat bill. Obviously, the Republicans would be forced to refuse because they really are not getting anything at all. And again the Democrats will go forth and say, "Gee, we tried to be bipartisan. We even offered to adopt part of their plan, but those obstructionist Republicans just would not cooperate."
In other words, it will be business as usual, the same old Chicago-style politics we have been witnessing for a year. The health care summit will only be a bogus attempt to make the Democrats APPEAR to be bipartisan while making the Republicans APPEAR to be obstructionist. But the reverse would actually be the truth.
Suffice it to say that I seriously doubt the Democrats have any intention of seriously listening to, or adopting any Republican ideas to cut health care costs and get more people covered.
Time will tell. But for the last year, the Democrat's idea of "bipartisan" means they write the bill, then Republicans shut up and vote for it. I have a newsflash for the Democrats - that line of thinking is why you are now losing so many Democrat strongholds like Massachusetts and New Jersey.
Bipartisanship means both sides get to provide input and write the bill, so members of both sides can vote for it. It's called compromise. But that is a word that the administration, Pelosi and Reid simply do not understand.
/
Monday, February 8, 2010
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Question
Two days after the "Christmas Bomber" was Mirandized, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told Chris Wallace that from just 50 minutes of interrogation, "We got everything out of him that he knew."
Let us assume that statement was true.
But a month later, the same White House spokesperson tells the Press Corps that, "He's talking again, and we are getting actionable intelligence."
Now if we still assume the White House spokesperson was telling the truth the first time, then he must be lying now. Or, if he is telling the truth now, he must have been lying last month. Because both statements cannot be true.
In either case, the White House has lied to us. Plain and simple. No, it was not a "mistake". They stated both as facts.
So here's my question:
If the White House lies to us, and it is a fact that liars cannot be trusted, then why in Hell do we allow these people to run our country????
If you do not trust someone, you do not let them run your business, drive your car or watch your kids. But you let them run the country!
In 10 months you have an opportunity to start on the road to correcting what is wrong with this country. Stop voting for cowards, crooks, liars and politicians who work for special interests instead of YOUR interests.
/
Let us assume that statement was true.
But a month later, the same White House spokesperson tells the Press Corps that, "He's talking again, and we are getting actionable intelligence."
Now if we still assume the White House spokesperson was telling the truth the first time, then he must be lying now. Or, if he is telling the truth now, he must have been lying last month. Because both statements cannot be true.
In either case, the White House has lied to us. Plain and simple. No, it was not a "mistake". They stated both as facts.
So here's my question:
If the White House lies to us, and it is a fact that liars cannot be trusted, then why in Hell do we allow these people to run our country????
If you do not trust someone, you do not let them run your business, drive your car or watch your kids. But you let them run the country!
In 10 months you have an opportunity to start on the road to correcting what is wrong with this country. Stop voting for cowards, crooks, liars and politicians who work for special interests instead of YOUR interests.
/
Friday, February 5, 2010
Pathetic
This today from the liberal Associated Press, in an attempt to spin a story to favor their agenda:
"AP - The outlook for jobs became a bit less bleak with January's unexpected decline in the unemployment rate, which fell to 9.7 percent from 10 percent as more people said they had jobs"
Yes, the "unemployment rate" dropped to 9.7%. But not because anyone "said they had jobs". In truth, no one even ASKED. The reason the rate fell even though 22,000 more first-timers signed up for benefits is because so many others dropped off as their benefits expired. Several months ago Congress extended benefits for millions, but those extensions are ending.
NOTE: The unemployment rate is NOT the actual percentage of people out of work. It only represents those who are out of work and still collecting benefits. Once an unemployed person stops collecting, he is no longer counted as unemployed even though he may still be out of work.
But the problem with the story as presented by the AP is simply that they are trying to make it look as though people who were no longer collecting benefits were contacted and "said they had jobs". That did not happen. As usual, the AP, ever in the pocket of progressives, is using its power to brainwash the folks and shore up the sagging poll numbers of the current administration.
And THAT is the story here.
Add that to Obama saying yesterday that we, the people need to listen more to him and stop watching the news on cable. Yeah, sure. Of course he does not want us getting the news on cable - the truth is killing him! He would prefer to co-opt the entire conversation, and that you only get his side of things. This, from the man who told 22 blatant lies in his State of the Union message (as proved by Factcheck.org).
Strange, considering during the Bush years these same progressives like Obama were saying dissent was the purist act of democracy. Now that the dissent is working against them, it is suddenly a bad thing.
What a joke these people have become.
/
"AP - The outlook for jobs became a bit less bleak with January's unexpected decline in the unemployment rate, which fell to 9.7 percent from 10 percent as more people said they had jobs"
Yes, the "unemployment rate" dropped to 9.7%. But not because anyone "said they had jobs". In truth, no one even ASKED. The reason the rate fell even though 22,000 more first-timers signed up for benefits is because so many others dropped off as their benefits expired. Several months ago Congress extended benefits for millions, but those extensions are ending.
NOTE: The unemployment rate is NOT the actual percentage of people out of work. It only represents those who are out of work and still collecting benefits. Once an unemployed person stops collecting, he is no longer counted as unemployed even though he may still be out of work.
But the problem with the story as presented by the AP is simply that they are trying to make it look as though people who were no longer collecting benefits were contacted and "said they had jobs". That did not happen. As usual, the AP, ever in the pocket of progressives, is using its power to brainwash the folks and shore up the sagging poll numbers of the current administration.
And THAT is the story here.
Add that to Obama saying yesterday that we, the people need to listen more to him and stop watching the news on cable. Yeah, sure. Of course he does not want us getting the news on cable - the truth is killing him! He would prefer to co-opt the entire conversation, and that you only get his side of things. This, from the man who told 22 blatant lies in his State of the Union message (as proved by Factcheck.org).
Strange, considering during the Bush years these same progressives like Obama were saying dissent was the purist act of democracy. Now that the dissent is working against them, it is suddenly a bad thing.
What a joke these people have become.
/
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Pluto
Found the following article today. Thought it was particularly interesting that Pluto (and also Neptune, by the way) are ALSO getting warmer, with melting ice - yet it cannot be atttributed to man's pollution.
Maybe this whole warming thing is a natural, cyclical phenomenon, as I have been suggesting for years.
WASHINGTON – Spurned Pluto is changing its looks, donning more rouge in its complexion and altering its iceball surface here and there.
Color astronomers surprised. [Editor's note - color Gore embarrased - again]
Newly released Hubble Space Telescope photos show the distant one-time planet — demoted to "dwarf planet" status in 2006 — is changing color and its ice sheets are shifting.
The photos, released by NASA Thursday, paint a Pluto that is significantly redder than it had been for the past several decades. To the layman, it has a yellow-orange hue, but astronomers say it has about 20 percent more red than it used to have.
The pictures show icy frozen nitrogen on Pluto's surface growing and shrinking, brightening in the north and darkening in the south. Astronomers say Pluto's surface is changing more than the surfaces of other bodies in the solar system. That's unexpected because a season lasts 120 years in some regions of Pluto.
"It's a little bit of a surprise to see these changes happening so big and so fast," said astronomer Marc Buie of the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colo. "This is unprecedented."
/
Maybe this whole warming thing is a natural, cyclical phenomenon, as I have been suggesting for years.
WASHINGTON – Spurned Pluto is changing its looks, donning more rouge in its complexion and altering its iceball surface here and there.
Color astronomers surprised. [Editor's note - color Gore embarrased - again]
Newly released Hubble Space Telescope photos show the distant one-time planet — demoted to "dwarf planet" status in 2006 — is changing color and its ice sheets are shifting.
The photos, released by NASA Thursday, paint a Pluto that is significantly redder than it had been for the past several decades. To the layman, it has a yellow-orange hue, but astronomers say it has about 20 percent more red than it used to have.
The pictures show icy frozen nitrogen on Pluto's surface growing and shrinking, brightening in the north and darkening in the south. Astronomers say Pluto's surface is changing more than the surfaces of other bodies in the solar system. That's unexpected because a season lasts 120 years in some regions of Pluto.
"It's a little bit of a surprise to see these changes happening so big and so fast," said astronomer Marc Buie of the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colo. "This is unprecedented."
/
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Typhoid Mary & Jackson Hole
I'll bet that title has you wondering what Typhoid Mary and Jackson Hole, Wyoming have in common. No, not Dick Cheney (although he does live there). In 1963 I was in Jackson Hole. It was little more than an intersection with a lot of elk antlers used to create an arch over that intersection. Nestled at the foot of the Grand Tetons, never was there a more beautiful place anywhere on God's green Earth.
And that is exactly what destroyed it. I revisited Jackson Hole in 2005. It is almost a metropolis, with fast food places on every corner, motels and tourist traps. Unless you get out of town, you cannot even see the Grand Tetons anymore. It seems that a lot of people fell in love with Jackson Hole - so they moved there. And in doing so, they destroyed that which had made it so attractive. The same thing happened to the hamlet of Banff, Alberta, nestled amid the Canadian Rockies.
Now back to Typhoid Mary. Mary was a "carrier". Wherever she went, she spread typhoid unknowingly. As typhoid spread, she would move on to get away from it, and in doing so she brought it with her. Just like all those people who left the smog-ridden cities to move to Jackson Hole. They, too, brought their disease with them.
Now it is a lot easier to understand what has happened to the beautiful, simple life that was found in New Hampshire and Vermont through the 70's. Because those states were conservative and believed in small government, the states were very attractive to those from Massachusetts and New York, where life was hectic, restricted by government, heavily taxed and just plain lousy because of their liberal, progressive ideals. They looked at the great life in New Hampshire and Vermont and decided they wanted that, and so moved into those great, conservative states. And they immediately set out to destroy that which attracted them, because when they moved to New Hampshire and Vermont they brought their progressive "typhoid" ideals with them. And now New Hampshire is flailing for the first time in its history, and Vermont has become the most progressive (socialist) state in the nation. Yes, progressivism is the old word for socialism, made new again by the likes of far-left liberals.
The quality of life in New Hampshire and Vermont has suffered terribly over the last 30-40 years as the "Boston" and "Albany" crowds moved into the quaint countryside. And, like Jackson Hole, the beauty is gone.
This post is a warning to all the conservative states in "middle" America - your future is in jeopardy. The progressives spread their poison until even they can no longer tolerate the mess they have made, and so move on. But they do not move to other progressive areas - that is what they are running from. Instead, they will be looking you over, and when they can no longer tolerate their own polluted pond, they will swim on over to yours, and bring their typhoid with them.
Your only hope: when folks move to your area, let them know they will not be made welcome if they bring their poison with them. Let them know the REASON your state is so nice is because you are NOT progressive; not liberal and you intend to keep it that way. And if they intend to spread their poison, shun them just as you would quarantine Typhoid Mary if she came to your town. If you do not, rest assured your quality of life will suffer greatly.
The difference between a progressive and a conservative: A conservative, upon seeing a beautiful flower would take a moment to enjoy it, and leave it for others to enjoy. The progressive, upon seeing a beautiful flower will pick it and put it in a vase for his own pleasure, where it will soon die. And once dead, the progressive tosses it out, then picks another...
I am a conservative. I left Jackson Hole and Banff the way I found them - beautiful. Progressives did not.
/
And that is exactly what destroyed it. I revisited Jackson Hole in 2005. It is almost a metropolis, with fast food places on every corner, motels and tourist traps. Unless you get out of town, you cannot even see the Grand Tetons anymore. It seems that a lot of people fell in love with Jackson Hole - so they moved there. And in doing so, they destroyed that which had made it so attractive. The same thing happened to the hamlet of Banff, Alberta, nestled amid the Canadian Rockies.
Now back to Typhoid Mary. Mary was a "carrier". Wherever she went, she spread typhoid unknowingly. As typhoid spread, she would move on to get away from it, and in doing so she brought it with her. Just like all those people who left the smog-ridden cities to move to Jackson Hole. They, too, brought their disease with them.
Now it is a lot easier to understand what has happened to the beautiful, simple life that was found in New Hampshire and Vermont through the 70's. Because those states were conservative and believed in small government, the states were very attractive to those from Massachusetts and New York, where life was hectic, restricted by government, heavily taxed and just plain lousy because of their liberal, progressive ideals. They looked at the great life in New Hampshire and Vermont and decided they wanted that, and so moved into those great, conservative states. And they immediately set out to destroy that which attracted them, because when they moved to New Hampshire and Vermont they brought their progressive "typhoid" ideals with them. And now New Hampshire is flailing for the first time in its history, and Vermont has become the most progressive (socialist) state in the nation. Yes, progressivism is the old word for socialism, made new again by the likes of far-left liberals.
The quality of life in New Hampshire and Vermont has suffered terribly over the last 30-40 years as the "Boston" and "Albany" crowds moved into the quaint countryside. And, like Jackson Hole, the beauty is gone.
This post is a warning to all the conservative states in "middle" America - your future is in jeopardy. The progressives spread their poison until even they can no longer tolerate the mess they have made, and so move on. But they do not move to other progressive areas - that is what they are running from. Instead, they will be looking you over, and when they can no longer tolerate their own polluted pond, they will swim on over to yours, and bring their typhoid with them.
Your only hope: when folks move to your area, let them know they will not be made welcome if they bring their poison with them. Let them know the REASON your state is so nice is because you are NOT progressive; not liberal and you intend to keep it that way. And if they intend to spread their poison, shun them just as you would quarantine Typhoid Mary if she came to your town. If you do not, rest assured your quality of life will suffer greatly.
The difference between a progressive and a conservative: A conservative, upon seeing a beautiful flower would take a moment to enjoy it, and leave it for others to enjoy. The progressive, upon seeing a beautiful flower will pick it and put it in a vase for his own pleasure, where it will soon die. And once dead, the progressive tosses it out, then picks another...
I am a conservative. I left Jackson Hole and Banff the way I found them - beautiful. Progressives did not.
/
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
ANOTHER Shot Heard 'Round The World
On April 19 of 1775 at the old North Bridge in Lexington, an unknown colonial minuteman fired the "shot heard 'round the world" - the shot often said to be the beginning of the American Revolution. (Actually, many shots had already been fired on that fateful day).
Well, here we are, 235 years later and once again Massachusetts is responsible for another shot heard 'round the world, with the election of Scott Brown, a Republican who will now take the Senate seat held for nearly a half century by the "Liberal Lion", the late Edward "Teddy" Kennedy.
We are unsure just what the full ramifications will be, just as the Colonists were unsure how their own fight for freedom would end. But one thing is certain - America is not the same as it was yesterday, and a lot of power-grabbers in Washington are suddenly taking note that "We, The People" are angry - and that we still have the power to rid ourselves of the scourge that politicians on both sides of the aisle have foisted upon us.
The irony is that, in losing, the Democrats (or rather, the Progressives) in Washington may have just been saved. Saved from themselves. Now that the brakes are being applied to their socialist agenda, the folks may cool down a bit, be less angry, and maybe - just maybe - the Democrats can survive their attempted suicide reminiscent of all those followers of Jim Jones who drank the Kool-Aid.
That sound you hear is a collective sigh of relief coming from all those Democrats that Obama, Pelosi and Reid have been bullying and bribing for a year. Many wanted nothing to do with Cap & Trade or this Health Care debacle, but they had little choice. Now they see a chance to save their own butts. And to think they owe it all to a Republican.
Could you use a laugh? Steny Hoyer (D) House Majority Leader said a win by Brown (R) will only prove how angry the people are at - get this - REPUBLICANS.
Where do these idiots come from? And how do they get elected?
/
Well, here we are, 235 years later and once again Massachusetts is responsible for another shot heard 'round the world, with the election of Scott Brown, a Republican who will now take the Senate seat held for nearly a half century by the "Liberal Lion", the late Edward "Teddy" Kennedy.
We are unsure just what the full ramifications will be, just as the Colonists were unsure how their own fight for freedom would end. But one thing is certain - America is not the same as it was yesterday, and a lot of power-grabbers in Washington are suddenly taking note that "We, The People" are angry - and that we still have the power to rid ourselves of the scourge that politicians on both sides of the aisle have foisted upon us.
The irony is that, in losing, the Democrats (or rather, the Progressives) in Washington may have just been saved. Saved from themselves. Now that the brakes are being applied to their socialist agenda, the folks may cool down a bit, be less angry, and maybe - just maybe - the Democrats can survive their attempted suicide reminiscent of all those followers of Jim Jones who drank the Kool-Aid.
That sound you hear is a collective sigh of relief coming from all those Democrats that Obama, Pelosi and Reid have been bullying and bribing for a year. Many wanted nothing to do with Cap & Trade or this Health Care debacle, but they had little choice. Now they see a chance to save their own butts. And to think they owe it all to a Republican.
Could you use a laugh? Steny Hoyer (D) House Majority Leader said a win by Brown (R) will only prove how angry the people are at - get this - REPUBLICANS.
Where do these idiots come from? And how do they get elected?
/
CITI
Am I the only one asking why CITI bank was able to contribute $5000 to the Coakley campaign, yet they took $46 billion in taxpayer TARP funds that, just today, they say they are having a tough time repaying because of $7.6 billion in losses in the last quarter?
If I were on welfare, as CITI is, and if I were losing $7.6 billion, as CITI is, I'm not sure I would be giving contributions to anyone. Essentially, since CITI is working off taxpayer funds (welfare), the money they contributed was from taxpayer funds. Is that why we gave them the money? That's a lot like the welfare recipient, upon getting his welfare check, uses it to support the local drug dealer.
/
If I were on welfare, as CITI is, and if I were losing $7.6 billion, as CITI is, I'm not sure I would be giving contributions to anyone. Essentially, since CITI is working off taxpayer funds (welfare), the money they contributed was from taxpayer funds. Is that why we gave them the money? That's a lot like the welfare recipient, upon getting his welfare check, uses it to support the local drug dealer.
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)