why i say we're not doing very well

Labor Force Participation Rate
August 2016 - 62.8%
Obama took office 1/2009 - 65.7%
Peak in January 2000 - 67.3%
Last time it was the current rate - March 1978

Labor Force; the number of people, 16 and older who are able to work, with jobs
August 2016 - 159 million
January 2009 - 154 million
January 2000 - 142 million
March 1978 - 104 million

People not in Labor force: the number of people, 16 and older who are able to work, without jobs
August 2016 - 94 million
January 2009 - 80 million
January 2000 - 68 million
March 1978 - 71 million

In last 38 years,
65 million new jobs were filled.
33 million new jobless people.

In last 16 years,
17 million new jobs were filled.
26 million new jobless people.

In last seven years,
5 million new jobs were filled.
14 million new jobless people.

---

source:
Labor Force Participation Rate
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

Civilian Labor Force Level
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11000000

Liberal in name only - Re-Blog

Do you support free speech, individual liberties and protections for private property? You must be a liberal.

Did that last sentence cause you to do a double take? I’m not surprised.

I’ve been reading a new book, “The Closing of the Liberal Mind,” and it shows that much of what passes for liberalism today is, historically speaking, anything but. Moreover, many who call themselves conservative today would have been considered “liberal” if they lived in the time of the Founding Fathers.

This distinction isn’t mere semantics, however. The shift I’m describing goes right to the heart of the political and culture wars that rage around us today. Author Kim Holmes demonstrates why the authoritarian stance adopted by many liberals today - as exemplified by speech codes, trigger warnings, boycotts and shaming rituals - is in fact more accurately described as illiberalism.

best / worst President, depending on who you ask

i don't particularly have a favorite, as each President is human, and therefore flawed in some measure... but i came across this article from 2011 that purported the worst President of our lifetime was (*drumroll*) Ronald Reagan... again, there are pros and cons for all, but really?... Reagan?... and in 2011, you pick him?

let's compare with my current front-runner for worst President of our lifetime... any guesses?... no cheating, now.

1. Reagan cut taxes for the Rich, increased taxes on the Middle Class -
When Reagan came into office in January of 1981, the top tax rate was 70%, but when he left office in 1989 the top tax rate was down to only 28%.
Reagan raised taxes seven of the eight years he was in office and the tax increases were felt hardest by the lower and middle class.

using the data freely available to me (see sources, below), let's examine... technically, the numbers are correct... except, in 1981, there were sixteen (yes, 16) different tax rates, from $0 up to $544,054 (married filing jointly)... in 1989, there were TWO, from $0 to $57,306 (MFJ)... comparatively, in '81, those earning around $57,000 paid 28%; the same as they paid in '89.

the idea that taxes were raised, much less that they were "felt hardest by the lower and middle class" is erroneous... more than that, it's false.

COMPARE: in 2009, the top rate was 35% (over $399,125 MFJ)... the tax rates have been virtually unchanged since being modified in 1993, and have remained similar through 2013.

2. Tripling the National Debt -
As Reagan cut taxes for the wealthy, the government was left with less money to spend. When Reagan came into office the national debt was $900 billion, by the time he left the national debt had tripled to $2.8 trillion.

oh, you really shouldn't have gone there... again, his numbers are correct... but they are misleading... but rather than refute his facts, let's get straight to the COMPARE.

COMPARE: from 2009 through 2011 (date of the article), the National Debt rose from $10 trillion to $14 trillion... as percentages go, not bad... but it still rose $4,000,000,000,000 in three years... compare that to the $2 trillion over eight years.

3. Iran/Contra -
In 1986, a group of Americans were being held hostage by a terrorist group with ties to Iran. In an attempt to free the hostages, Ronald Reagan secretly sold arms and money to Iran.

screw it...

COMPARE: in 2011, the US armed Syrian rebels to overthrow President Bashar Al-Assad... these weapons were used against the US and recently freed people of Iraq by ISIS (Islamic State of Iran and Syria)... in addition, it is speculated that arms being sent to Libyan rebels were being diverted to Syria.

4. Reagan funded Terrorists -
Prepping for a possible war with the Soviet Union, Ronald Reagan spent billions of dollars funding the Islamist mujahidin Freedom Fighters in Afghanistan.

again...

COMPARE: see ISIS, above... also, in 2015, the US made an agreement with Iran, one of the world's largest known supporters of international terrorism, to fund their nuclear program... this is especially terrifying since the standard, and unchanged, mantra of Iran is "Death to America".

5. Unemployment issues -
When Ronald Reagan came into office 1981, unemployment was at 7.5%. As 1982 came to a close, unemployment was nearly 11%. Unemployment began to drop as the years went on, but the jobs that were created were low paying and barely helped people make ends meet.

this is getting too easy... in January of 1981, when Reagan took the oath of office, the Labor Participation Rate was 63.9%... when he left office in January of 1989, the Rate was 66.5%... not even accounting for the growth of the population, that's more people employed... additionally, the mean household income for the lowest fifth of the population (in adjusted 2013 dollars) rose from $4,602 in '81 to $6,994 in '89... the middle fifth rose from $18,991 to $28,925... that's right, more people working making more money.

COMPARE: in 2008, the lowest fifth made $11,656... by 2011 (date of the article), they made only $11,239... in 2008, the middle fifth made $50,132, and dropped to $49,842 by 2011.

in January of 2008, the Labor Participation Rate was 66.2%... very near same rate as at the end of Reagan's term... by January of 2011, the Rate was 64.2%, or very near the rate as in '81... by January of 2015, the Rate was 62.9%... need we go further?

6. Ignoring AIDS -
By the time the 1980s came around, AIDS had become one of the most frightening things to happen to the country in recent memory. No one understood what AIDS and HIV really was and when people don't understand something, they become scared of it. Instead of grabbing the bull by the horns and taking charge, Reagan kept quiet.

first, the article says "no one understood what AIDS" really was... but then it wanted Reagan to make some statement about it... for the record, Reagan first mentioned AIDS, in response to a question at a press conference, on Sept. 17, 1985:

"I have been supporting it for more than 4 years now. It's been one of the top priorities with us, and over the last 4 years, and including what we have in the budget for '86, it will amount to over a half a billion dollars that we have provided for research on AIDS in addition to what I'm sure other medical groups are doing. And we have $100 million in the budget this year; it'll be 126 million next year. So, this is a top priority with us. Yes, there's no question about the seriousness of this and the need to find an answer."

COMPARE: there is simply nothing as major and vast as the AIDS epidemic... the only thing even in the same vein would be the Africa ebola outbreak in 2013, in which aid workers were allowed freely back into the US from ebola quarantine countries.

7. Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million Undocumented Immigrants -
Reagan gave nearly 3 million undocumented workers amnesty. All the laws that would have cracked down on companies who hire undocumented workers were, of course, removed from the bill.

this was the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986... which also required employers to attest to their employees' immigration status... it also made it illegal to hire or recruit illegal immigrants knowingly... this was too easy.

COMPARE: not deporting illegal immigrants who are caught on non-felony charges, the DREAM Act, and the revision of removal practices which "prioritize" the removal of illegal immigrants... these are a few of the actual de facto amnesties which have taken place betwen 2008 and 2015.

8. His attack on Unions and the Middle Class -
On August 3rd, 1981, PATCO (Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization) went on strike in an effort to get better pay and safer working conditions. Two days later, taking the side of business, Ronald Reagan fired 11,345 workers for not returning to work.

everyone remembers this... Reagan enforced the provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947... while this move was wildly unpopular, it was not simply Reagan being anti-union... a federal court had previously ordered the controllers back to work.

COMPARE: please... you can't be any more pro-union than the current administration.

9. Reagan raided the Social Security Trust fund -
In order to counteract his own economic policies, Ronald Reagan needed to find somewhere else to get revenue. Listening to Alan Greenspan and other advisers, Ronald Reagan raided the Social Security Trust Fund and replaced it with glorified IOU's.

when Reagan came to office, the Social Security "Trust fund" (a misleading term that has nothing to do with Reagan, but more with President Johnson) was spending more than it was taking in... about $2 million more in the red... by 1989, the "fund" was $53 million in the black... Reagan actually saved Social Security... you're welcome.

COMPARE: the Social Security "Trust fund" is on the rocks... not from high outlays, but by restricting access to Social Security... be it by raising the age requirement or restricting access for disability payments, Social Security has issues... however, these are probably intrinsic problems, not caused by the current administration.

10. Endless worship and never-ending praise -
Ronald Reagan left office in January of 1989 and nearly 25 years later he is held up high by the modern Republican party.

as seen above, i don't believe this is really a problem.

COMPARE: public school children were instructed to sing praises to President Obama in 2009... is there anything really more to say?

---

source:
10 reasons why Ronald Reagan was the worst president of our lifetime by Robert Sobel - Orlando Liberal Examiner

http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/fed_individual_rate_history_adjusted.pdf
https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-begins-weapons-delivery-to-syrian-rebels/2013/09/11/9fcf2ed8-1b0c-11e3-a628-7e6dde8f889d_story.html
http://www.wsj.com/articles/covert-cia-mission-to-arm-syrian-rebels-goes-awry-1422329582
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-syria-heavy-weapons-jihadists-2012-10
http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran/Netanyahu-Khameneis-words-prove-nuclear-deal-will-not-stop-Iranian-terror-machine-409444
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1985/91785c.htm
http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html
http://www.ssa.gov/history/tftable.html
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/25/michael-steele/gop-claims-video-shows-b-bernice-young-elementary-/

Rs vs. Ds - Questionist - Re-Blog

re-blog post of The Questionist... some formatting and all emphasis are mine... no edits of content.

Every once in a while a post comes along that shines a very bright spotlight on just how profoundly insulated some people's personal echo chambers are. This one is mind boggling in its contempt for reality. Before I deconstruct this fantastical narrative, I need to clarify that this is NOT a defense of Republicans, nor is it an indictment of Democrats.

Claim #1:
Democrats are responsible for 65 straight months of economic growth.
Facts: The economic collapse of 2008 resulted in economic indicators that reach 75 year lows. These numbers were so far from average that the chances of them improving were near 100%, no matter what the government did or who was in charge. This results from a statistical phenomenon called “regression toward the mean.”
One famous example of this phenomenon in action is the “Sports Illustrated Cover Jinx.” Athletes or teams that are featured on the cover are chosen only following extremely good performances. Regression toward the mean all but assures that their performance will not be as good as the exceptional performance responsible for getting them on the cover. The same phenomenon holds true for any variable metric.
The economic growth that we have realized is much smaller and slower than expected, and the evidence that Democratic policies are responsible is non-existent, especially considering more than half of that growth was realized under a Republican House.

Claim #2:
Democrats are responsible for record 56 months of private sector job growth.
Facts: See #1.

Claim #3:
Democrats are responsible for unemployment falling from 10.1% to 5.9%.
Facts: Both the Employment to Population Ratio (also called simply the employment rate) and the Labor Force Participation Rate have dropped to 30+ year lows.
The unemployment rate of 5.9% that we see on the news does not give us the entire picture. If you add those actively seeking employment + short term discouraged workers + long term discouraged workers + part time workers who want to work full time, the number is closer to 23%. And if we used the same unemployment measurement we used prior to 1994, unemployment would be around 18%.
Add to this that people who are reentering the labor force are getting jobs with lower wages and fewer hours, and add to this that income inequality is increasing, and add to this that wages are not keeping pace with inflation; and the 5.9% unemployment rate we see in the headlines is not particularly meaningful. And... See #1 – regression toward the mean.

Claim #4:
Democrats are responsible for the budget deficit being reduced by two-thirds.
Facts: This one is more complicated, and I'm not going to pretend to understand all the reasons for this. What we do know from looking at revenue compared to spending is that spending has largely leveled off, and revenue has slowly increased since a $500 billion dip following the collapse; so part of this reduction is due again to regression toward the mean. Spending under Bush increased at a faster than normal rate due to increased military spending and, because for most of his term, Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. Any time the same party is in control of both the executive and legislative branches, spending increases.
I'll conclude that this claim has some truth to it, but keep in mind that the National Debt has increased from $10.7 trillion to $18 trillion under Obama. In terms of debt as a percentage of GDP, it has increased under Obama from 65% to over 100%. As a comparison, under Bush it increased from 55% to 65%. This is a long term trend that has little to do with who is President or who is in control of Congress, but it is a distinctly unhealthy trend.

Claim #5:
Democrats are responsible for fewer Americans in harm's way in war zones.
Facts: The reduction in troops in Iraq was the direct result of the U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement signed by Bush in 2008.
Yes, there are fewer troops overseas, but what Americans wanted and expected when they voted for Obama was a drastic reduction in military interventionism, not just the number of troops on the ground.
What we did NOT want or expect was hundreds of drone strikes in Pakistan, an invasion of Libya, American citizens killed in Yemen, 17,000 residual forces, diplomats, and defense contractors left in Iraq, and 10,000 troops left in Afghanistan after the end of 2014.
As recently as September of 2012 Obama said. “We are bringing our troops home from Afghanistan. And I've set a timetable. We will have them all out of there by 2014. And when I say I'm going to bring them home, you know they're going to come home.” This is clearly not the case.
We did not want or expect an escalation in Iraq that included renewed airstrikes. We did not want or expect a new war in Iraq and Syria.

Claim #6:
Democrats are responsible for zero attacks by al Qaeda on US soil.
Facts: I'm not sure how Democrats are responsible for this, and there are far too few data points to draw any conclusions about which party is better or worse at preventing terrorist attacks.

Claim #7:
Democrats are responsible for record stock market growth.
Facts: This is perhaps the most clear example of regression to the mean. A stock market at rock bottom has nowhere else to go but up. In addition, the Federal Reserve dumped 16 trillion printed US Dollars into the market in 2008-2009, and has continued to pump 85 billion printed US Dollars into the market ever since. There is no possible way that the stock market could NOT have gone up under these conditions, and the negative effects are a dramatic increase in wealth inequality, a huge stock market bubble, and economic growth that is supported almost exclusively by debt. Despite the record stock market numbers, the US economy is very sick in a very real and long term sense.
Again, this has nothing to do with which party is in power, and much to do with short-sighted monetary policy on the part of the Federal Reserve. Almost all politicians focus on short term solutions with complete disregard to long term effects. This cliff will be very difficult, if not impossible, to retreat from.

Claim #8:
Republicans are responsible for two economic recessions.
Facts: Recessions are largely the result of natural economic fluctuations, and the only influence that politicians can hope for is to reduce the effect or shorten the duration. The recession of 2002 was a direct result of the bursting of the dot-com bubble of the late 1990s.
The collapse of 2008 was the result of several factors, none of them having anything to do with which party was in power. The precipitating factor was the collapse of the housing bubble which was, in turn, precipitated by artificially low interest rates by the Federal Reserve and ridiculously easy lending terms which resulted in millions of people getting mortgages that were above their abilities to maintain.
Another factor was the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act which separated commercial and investment banking. This allowed commercial banks to, effectively, gamble with our money. The repeal of this act was supported by both Democrats and Republicans, and signed by Bill Clinton.

Claim #9:
Republicans were responsible for the worst financial collapse since the Great Depression.
Facts: See #8.

Claim #10:
Republicans were responsible for the worst terrorist attack in history.
Facts: This claim is probably the most disconnected from reality of any of the claims on this list. One only needs to read exactly what Osama bin Laden himself explained as the reasons for the attack. [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver]
Among the motivations stated by bin Laden for the attack were: long term US aggression in the Middle East, US attacks on Somalia, US support for Russian atrocities in Chechnya, Guantanamo Bay, the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, immorality of Americans (including the President), US support for Israel, and US sanctions against Iraq. (People seem to forget that Clinton was bombing Iraq throughout his term on a regular basis.)
None of these alleged provocations had anything to do with which party was in power, although the most immediate of them (and infuriating for bin Laden) happened on Clinton's watch.
Another possible motivation for the 9/11 attack offered by terrorism experts is that bin Laden wanted to provoke America into a war that would incite a pan-Islamist revolution. Considering what is currently happening with the Islamic State, one can only conclude that this strategy has been largely successful.

Claim # 11:
Republicans were responsible for the two longest wars in US history.
Facts: This claim regarding the war in Iraq is mostly true. This happened on Bush's watch with fabricated claims made by his administration, and a large majority of Republicans supporting the Iraq War Authorization. Note that a majority of Democratic Senators also voted in favor of the resolution.
This claim regarding the war in Afghanistan is, however, completely false. Only three members of Congress did not vote in favor of this, one Democrat and two Republicans.

Claim #12:
Republicans are responsible for the worst record of job creation since Herbert Hoover.
Facts: It is true that job creation under Bush was the worst since Hoover, and a certain amount of blame can be placed at the feet of Republicans. Another factor is (you guessed it) regression to the mean. After the dot-com boom, employment was exceptionally high, and it was a statistical near certainty that job creation would slow down or decrease.
Another factor is that the forces that led to the 2008 collapse were working against the economy well before the actual collapse itself. It's also worth a reminder that governmental actions have limited effects on job creation, and what small effects there are can lag several years behind the action.

Claim #13:
Republicans are responsible for a complete collapse of the stock market.
Facts: See #8. (It's interesting that three of the seven claims against Republicans are essentially the exact same claim. I could have come up with a lot more legitimate complaints against Republicans.)

Claim #14:
A budget surplus turned into a trillion dollar deficit.
Facts: It's true that Republican led spending on military intervention added to the deficits experienced under Bush. But yet again this can, to a large degree, be explained by regression to the mean. The 1990s saw an unprecedented information revolution, and a dot-com bubble that was further inflated by a badly timed reduction in capital gains taxes (which was supported by both Democrats and Republicans and signed by Clinton).

https://www.facebook.com/janisianpage/photos/a.357587427661315.87486.357191544367570/736868986399822/?type=1&theater

---

Source:
The Questionist on Facebook - post

Mad-Lib(erals) - Putin or Obama

i tried a simple word-replace game with this article... i replaced any reference to the Russian people or their President Putin with "American" and "Obama", bold.

it is terrifying to see how accurate the story remains after the replacement... very few changes [in brackets] were made to context, otherwise.

When [The New York Times] offered to publish my commentary, he referred to me as "an active anti-American politician for many years." I'm sure that isn't the first time Americans have heard me characterized as their antagonist. Since my purpose here is to dispel falsehoods used by America's rulers to perpetuate their power and excuse their corruption, let me begin with that untruth. I am not anti-American. I am pro-American, more pro-American than the regime that misrules you today.

I make that claim because I respect your dignity and your right to self-determination. I believe you should live according to the dictates of your conscience, not your government. I believe you deserve the opportunity to improve your lives in an economy that is built to last and benefits the many, not just the powerful few. You should be governed by a rule of law that is clear, consistently and impartially enforced and just. I make that claim because I believe the American people, no less than Russians, are endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

An American citizen could not publish a testament like the one I just offered. President Obama and his associates do not believe in these values. They don't respect your dignity or accept your authority over them. They punish dissent and imprison opponents. They rig your elections. They control your media. They harass, threaten, and banish organizations that defend your right to self-governance. To perpetuate their power they foster rampant corruption in your courts and your economy and terrorize and even [character] assassinate [and prosecute] journalists who try to expose their corruption.

They write laws to codify bigotry against people whose [religious beliefs] they condemn. They throw the members of a punk rock band in jail for the crime of being provocative and vulgar and for having the audacity to protest President Obama's rule.

[John Kiriakou] wasn't a human rights activist. He was [former CIA agent]. He was an ordinary American who did an extraordinary thing. He [revealed details of the US government's use of waterboarding against senior al-Qaida suspects]. He cared about the rule of law and believed no one should be above it. For his beliefs and his courage, he was held in [Federal Correctional Institution at Loretto, Pennsylvania]. That wasn't only a crime against [John Kiriakou].  It was a crime against the American people and your right to an honest government - a government worthy of [John Kiriakou] and of you.

President Obama claims his purpose is to restore America to greatness at home and among the nations of the world. But by what measure has he restored your greatness? He has given you an economy that is based almost entirely on a few natural resources that will rise and fall with those commodities. Its riches will not last. And, while they do, they will be mostly in the possession of the corrupt and powerful few. Capital is fleeing America, which - lacking rule of law and a broad-based economy - is considered too risky for investment and entrepreneurism. He has given you a political system that is sustained by corruption and repression and isn't strong enough to tolerate dissent.

How has he strengthened America's international stature? By allying America with some of the world's most offensive and threatening tyrannies. By supporting a [Muslim Brotherhood and Morsi's] regime that is murdering [Coptic Christians] to remain in power and by blocking the United Nations from even condemning its atrocities. By refusing to consider the massacre of innocents, the plight of millions of refugees, the growing prospect of a conflagration that engulfs other countries in its flames an appropriate subject for the world's attention. He is not enhancing America's global reputation. He is destroying it. He has made her a friend to tyrants and an enemy to the oppressed, and untrusted by nations that seek to build a safer, more peaceful and prosperous world.

President Obama doesn't believe in these values because he doesn't believe in you. He doesn't believe that human nature at liberty can rise above its weaknesses and build just, peaceful, prosperous societies. Or, at least, he doesn't believe Americans can. So he rules by using those weaknesses, by corruption, repression and violence. He rules for himself, not you.

I do believe in you. I believe in your capacity for self-government and your desire for justice and opportunity. I believe in the greatness of the American people, who suffered enormously and fought bravely against terrible adversity to save your nation. I believe in your right to make a civilization worthy of your dreams and sacrifices. When I criticize your government, it is not because I am anti-American. It is because I believe you deserve a government that believes in you and answers to you. And, I long for the day when you have it.

---

source:
Senator John McCain: Russians deserve better than Putin - English pravda.ru

the politics of expediency

[The Bush] administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom.
That means no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.
- Senator Barack Obama, 2007

so... what you're saying is that you will uphold the Fourth Amendment, about being secure in their persons, papers, and effects, and about searches shall not be made without warrant based on probable cause... your for that... is that what you're saying?

---

But I think it's important to recognize that you can't have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience. We're going to have to make some choices as a society. And what I can say is that in evaluating these programs, they make a difference in our capacity to anticipate and prevent possible terrorist activity. And the fact that they’re under very strict supervision by all three branches of government and that they do not involve listening to people's phone calls, do not involve reading the emails of U.S. citizens or U.S. residents absent further action by a federal court that is entirely consistent with what we would do, for example, in a criminal investigation -- I think on balance, we have established a process and a procedure that the American people should feel comfortable about.
- President Barack Obama, 2013

warrantless seizures of personal records, and i'm supposed to "feel comfortable" about that?... i hardly think so... comfort is far from the word i'd use.

abject terror comes much closer.

---

source:
Obama's Speech at Woodrow Wilson Center - Council on Foreign Relations - August 1, 2007
Transcript of President Obama's statement on ACA (and answering question on NSA) in San Jose, CA - June 7, 2013

an armed american way of life

"Hunting and shooting are more than just hobbies in south Mississippi. For many, these activities are a way of life, a tradition handed down from fathers to sons, grandfathers to granddaughters. For centuries, the people of Mississippi have lawfully owned firearms, for their personal protection as well as a means of providing for their families. Now the president and his liberal allies are attempting to use a national tragedy to promote their own plan to limit the Second Amendment rights of every American citizen.

I have heard from my constituents and agree with them wholeheartedly: We will not be disarmed by a president bent on creating a society incapable of defending themselves against enemies foreign or domestic."

"The Supreme Court has consistently struck down gun bans including two in the past few years in both the District of Columbia and the City of Chicago. In the opinion written by Justice Scalia, it was noted that when guns are banned, data shows that murder rates increase. This simple fact is just another in the long line of facts ignored by anti-gun advocates. The opinions also noted that the Second Amendment applies to current weapons that are commonly in use. Simply put, when a type of firearm is used commonly, it should be protected by the Second Amendment."

---

source:
Guns are a way of life, a protected right by Rep. Steven Palazzo (R-MS) in Hattiesburg American

death of a thousand cuts

And when you think about what we've gone through over the last couple of months -- a devastating hurricane, and now one of the worst tragedies in our memory -- the country deserves folks to be willing to compromise on behalf of the greater good, and not tangle themselves up in a whole bunch of ideological positions that don’t make much sense.

- President Barack Obama (emphasis added)

All compromise is based on give and take, but there can be no give and take on fundamentals. Any compromise on mere fundamentals is a surrender. For it is all give and no take.

- Mahatma Gandhi

---

source:
Remarks by the President in a Press Conference | The White House:
'via Blog this'

the CNN/Obama love-affair ends

It's not looking good for Barry. First Letterman bitch-slaps him, and then CNN?

---

source:
Clark County Politics: CNN drills Obama: Your numbers in your plan STILL don't add up.

i was against it before it wasn't cool

there was much a'do on the Conservative Right a couple weeks ago regarding a video of (then) Senator Obama discussing several issues... many bloggers and pundits chose to focus on particular aspects of his speech...

some focused on his professed affinity towards the now-discredited Rev. Jeremiah Wright...
some focused on his pandering to black christian church-goers...
still others focused on his affected southern-negro dialect (from a hawaian/chicagoan who was Ivy-League educated).

they all missed the most important point.

that point was when he talked about the failure of government to waive the Stafford Act after Katrina and how they let down the people of Louisianna (forgetting, of course, that land-mass of Mississippi which took the brunt of hurricane Katrina)... his comments were designed to turn the poor masses against the establishment, and thereby against the Republican party.

what he failed to mention was that HE was a part of that establishment which denied the waiver of the Stafford Act.

yes, Senator Obama voted against waiving the Stafford Act only ten short days before condemning those who voted against waiving the Stafford Act.

what the conservative pundits (and, of course, the main-stream media) fail to recognize is the brazen dishonesty Obama displays... he first plays politics with people's lives by voting against waiving it... then he convinces folk that he was the one trying to save them, and some evil (and racist by implication) Republicans are against them... he must have been laughing with fellow Democrat and No-Voter, Hillary Clinton, after that speech... to think that he said this with a straight face, knowing he was the one to deny them.

In a May 24, 2007, statement explaining his vote against the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, Obama said: "With my vote today, I am saying to the President that enough is enough. We must negotiate a better plan that funds our troops, signals to the Iraqis that it is time for them to act and that begins to bring our brave servicemen and women home safely and responsibly."

some statement... of course, when Obama took office, he brought the troops home from Iraq right away... right?... right?

give or take three years.

and it's a good thing he was there for other communities when they were hit by disaster under his watch... like when Joplin, Missouri was destroyed by a tornado... they go their Stafford Act waived... right?

i'm having trouble figuring out how to phrase this next line correctly, without overstating or exagerating the situation... i'll be as delicate as i can possibly be.

Obama is a liar.

if this is what he does to manipulate people in order to get elected, there is no way i can trust Obama to speak the truth ever again.

---

source:
Exclusive: In heated ’07 speech, Obama lavishes praise on Wright, says feds ‘don’t care’ about New Orleans [VIDEO] - Tucker Carlson - 8:50 PM 10/02/2012

Obama voted against Katrina waiver - PJ Media - by Neo-Neocon - October 3, 2012 - 4:47 pm

H.R. 2206 (U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007 ) - Vote Date: May 24, 2007, 08:26 PM

Obama insisted on state, local Stafford Act funding after Joplin, Mo. tornado - by Zachary Snider - 3:46 PM 10/03/2012

truth matters

President Barack Obama had been on the job less than a week when a top economic adviser told him and Vice President Joe Biden that the country faced a trillion dollar deficit, Biden told a roomful of Florida supporters Saturday.

Vice-president Joe Biden - reported by TAMARA LUSH, Associated Press from FORT MYERS, Fla. 09/29/2012

At the height of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in 2005, the deficit was $318 billion – about a quarter of what it is now. It fell every year until 2007, when it was back down to $161 billion. Then the voters, who’d been fed a steady anti-Bush media diet, decided to give Democrats another turn at bat and handed Congress and its budget-making power over to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. The very next year, the deficit jumped back up to $459 billion. The year after that, Obama became President, and the deficit hit an all-time high of $1.4 trillion. True, Biden can argue that was partly Bush’s fault: he did start the TARP bailouts. But that was a one-time expenditure that’s since been paid back with interest. If there’s a good explanation for why it’s still Bush’s fault that the deficit has remained over $1.2 trillion throughout every year of Obama’s term, well… apparently, that excuse hasn’t dropped into anyone’s lap yet.

Mike Huckabee - Facebook post - 10/4/2012

---

FACTS:
CBO sees 2005 deficit at $317 billion - October 06, 2005 - William L. Watts, MarketWatch, Wall Street Journal
U.S. 2007 Budget Deficit Falls to $163 Billion (Update1) - By John Brinsley, Bloomberg - October 11, 2007
U.S. deficit climbs to $402 billion - By Jeanne Sahadi, CNNMoney.com senior writer - January 7, 2009
U.S. Deficit for 2009 Totals $1.4 Trillion, Budget Office Says - By Brian Faler and Julianna Goldman, Bloomberg - October 8, 2009

---

Government Spending Chart: United States 2001-2017 - Federal Data

---

Revenues, Outlays, Deficits, Surpluses, and Debt Held by the Public, 1971 to 2010, in Billions of Dollars - Congressional Budget Office - January 2011

The First Four Years Are The Hardest… « mikeroweWORKS

Dear Governor Romney,

My name is Mike Rowe and I own a small company in California called mikeroweWORKS. Currently, mikeroweWORKS is trying to close the country’s skills gap by changing the way Americans feel about Work.  (I know, right? Ambitious.)

Anyway, this Labor Day is our 4th anniversary, and I’m commemorating the occasion with an open letter to you. If you read the whole thing, I’ll vote for you in November.

First things first. mikeroweWORKS grew out of a TV show called Dirty Jobs. If by some chance you are not glued to The Discovery Channel every Wednesday at 10pm, allow me to visually introduce myself. That’s me on the right, preparing to do something dirty.


When Dirty Jobs premiered back in 2003, critics called the show “a calamity of exploding toilets and misadventures in animal husbandry.” They weren’t exactly wrong. But mostly, Dirty Jobs was an unscripted celebration of hard work and skilled labor. It still is. Every week, we highlight regular people who do the kind of jobs most people go out of their way to avoid. My role on the show is that of a “perpetual apprentice.” In that capacity I have completed over three hundred different jobs, visited all fifty states, and worked in every major industry.

Though schizophrenic and void of any actual qualifications, my resume looks pretty impressive, and when our economy officially crapped the bed in 2008, I was perfectly positioned to weigh in on a variety of serious topics. A reporter from The Wall Street Journal called to ask what I thought about the “counter-intuitive correlation between rising unemployment and the growing shortage of skilled labor.” CNBC wanted my take on outsourcing. Fox News wanted my opinions on manufacturing and infrastructure. And CNN wanted to chat about currency valuations, free trade, and just about every other work-related problem under the sun.

In each case, I shared my theory that most of these “problems” were in fact symptoms of something more fundamental – a change in the way Americans viewed hard work and skilled labor. That’s the essence of what I’ve heard from the hundreds of men and women I’ve worked with on Dirty Jobs. Pig farmers, electricians, plumbers, bridge painters, jam makers, blacksmiths, brewers, coal miners, carpenters, crab fisherman, oil drillers…they all tell me the same thing over and over, again and again – our country has become emotionally disconnected from an essential part of our workforce.  We are no longer impressed with cheap electricity, paved roads, and indoor plumbing. We take our infrastructure for granted, and the people who build it.

Today, we can see the consequences of this disconnect in any number of areas, but none is more obvious than the growing skills gap. Even as unemployment remains sky high, a whole category of vital occupations has fallen out of favor, and companies struggle to find workers with the necessary skills. The causes seem clear. We have embraced a ridiculously narrow view of education. Any kind of training or study that does not come with a four-year degree is now deemed “alternative.” Many viable careers once aspired to are now seen as “vocational consolation prizes,” and many of the jobs this current administration has tried to “create” over the last four years are the same jobs that parents and teachers actively discourage kids from pursuing. (I always thought there something ill-fated about the promise of three million “shovel ready jobs” made to a society that no longer encourages people to pick up a shovel.)

Which brings me to my purpose in writing. On Labor Day of 2008, the fans of Dirty Jobs helped me launch this website. mikeroweWORKS.com began as a Trade Resource Center designed to connect kids with careers in the skilled trades. It has since evolved into a non-profit foundation – a kind of PR Campaign for hard work and skilled labor. Thanks to a number of strategic partnerships, I have been able to promote a dialogue around these issues with a bit more credibility than my previous resume allowed. I’ve spoken to Congress (twice) about the need to confront the underlying stigmas and stereotypes that surround these kinds of jobs. Alabama and Georgia have both used mikeroweWORKS to launch their own statewide technical recruitment campaigns, and I’m proud to be the spokesman for both initiatives. I also work closely with Caterpillar, Ford, Kimberly-Clark, and Master Lock, as well as The Boy Scouts of America and The Future Farmers of America. To date, the mikeroweWORKS Foundation has raised over a million dollars for trade scholarships. It’s modest by many standards, but I think we’re making a difference.

Certainly, we need more jobs, and you were clear about that in Tampa. But the Skills Gap proves that we need something else too.  We need people who see opportunity where opportunity exists. We need enthusiasm for careers that have been overlooked and underappreciated by society at large. We need to have a really big national conversation about what we value in the workforce, and if I can be of help to you in that regard, I am at your service – assuming of course, you find yourself in a new address early next year.

To be clear, mikeroweWORKS has no political agenda. I am not an apologist for Organized Labor or for Management. mikeroweWORKS is concerned only with encouraging a larger appreciation for skilled labor, and supporting those kids who are willing to learn a skill.

Good luck in November. And thanks for your time.

Sincerely,

Mike Rowe

PS. In the interest of full disclosure I should mention that I wrote a similar letter to President Obama. Of course, that was four years ago, and since I never heard back, I believe proper etiquette allows me to extend the same offer to you now. I figure if I post it here, the odds are better that someone you know might send it along to your attention.

---

source:
The First Four Years Are The Hardest… « mikeroweWORKS

please sir, i want some more

IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID!
i'm sorry, but we don't want more of the same, do we?... it baffles me that the big picture isn't seen by some very intelligent people... they sure think those trees look pretty, but there's a forest out there, too.

Mike Huckabee recently posted the following:

[T]he Daily Caller revealed some previously unpublished court information about a landmark case that many consider the fuse that set off the sub-prime mortgage boom and eventually, the economic meltdown. It was a 1995 discrimination lawsuit against Citibank, on behalf of a group of African-Americans who claimed they couldn’t get loans because of their race. It was part of a coordinated effort at the time by progressive groups. The banks didn’t want to be sued or accused of racism, so they loosened requirements for credit history and down payments.

at one point, the Daily Caller (and Huckabee, by proxy) attempt to tie a young Barack Obama to the sub-prime mortgage disaster... it's a stretch, by any reasonable person... but there's a bigger truth that the DC and Huck don't emphasise... it isn't that Obama was involved... it's the idea of forcing sub-prime mortgages on banks that don't want them.

so, what is a bank to do with toxic loans?... well, sell them, of course.
but who would buy them?... investors, of course.
and why would they buy them?... because they can be traded on the market, speculated against, even short-sales... they were high risk, so they could be bought inexpensively... and if mortgages were (mostly) paid on time, investors made big money... but if they weren't paid, investors were out only a fraction of their investment.
better still, you could bet on them failing, drive the price down, buy low, and get bigger returns... Stock Market 101 = "Buy Low; Sell High".

now, back the banks with federal insurance, and there is no risk should it collapse... great idea... idiots.

and the final nail, offer "No Documentation" and "Stated Income" loans... or "Interest Only" loans... someone with poor credit and slight income can get a loan without any repercussion against them... it's not like they paid a down payment, anyways!... the loans go belly-up, the banks foreclose, they're left holding property when no one is buying, they lose money... well, that is until the government bails them out.

HERE'S THE POINT:
the people who put this all in motion, from deregulating the banking industry to backing toxic assets to requiring loosened standards on housing mortgages... these are the people in the White House and have control of the Senate.

they believe that everyone has the right to own a home... everyone has a right to go to college... everyone has a right to everything.

and they believe it's the government's place to provide all of the above.

THIS is who they are... THIS is who is running things... THESE are the people want four more years.

---

source:
Mike Huckabee's Facebook post
Obama’s African-American clients got coupons, not cash - 09/03/2012 - The Daily Caller
Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank

soylent green energy - it's made of people!

The UN has called for an immediate suspension of government-mandated US ethanol production, adding to pressure on Barack Obama to address the food-versus-fuel debate in the run-up to presidential elections.

Most US ethanol is made from corn. The dispute over ethanol promotion pits states such as Iowa that benefit from higher corn prices – and in some cases are swing states in the election – against livestock-raising states such as Texas that are helped by lower corn prices.

The UN intervention will be seized upon by state governors, lawmakers and the meat and livestock industry, who have expressed alarm at surging prices for corn. Members of the Group of 20 leading economies – including France, India and China – have already expressed concern about the US ethanol policy.

The US is poised to divert around 40 per cent of its corn into ethanol because of the Congress-enacted mandate despite “huge damage” to the crop because of the worst drought in at least half a century, José Graziano da Silva, director-general of the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation, warned.

“An immediate, temporary suspension of that [ethanol] mandate would give some respite to the market and allow more of the crop to be channelled towards food and feed uses,” he wrote in an opinion piece in the Financial Times.

---

source:
As Starvation Looms, UN Begs Obama to Suspend Biofuel Mandates
via Hawaii Free Press from:
Environmentalists Implementing their Population Control Plans - August 9, 2012

turn of the screw(ed)

"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase." - Barack Obama (2008)

he lied...

as a matter of fact, when you think about it (assuming, of course, you think), the tax increase hits the poor much heavier than the rich.
and here's the proof:

Income up to:	Marginal Tax Rate 2012	Tax Paid	Effective Tax Rate	2013 Marginal	2013 Tax Paid	2013 Effective	Difference Paid
$8,700	10.0%	$870	10.0%	15.0%	$1,305	15.0%	$435
$35,350	15.0%	$4,868	13.8%	15.0%	$5,303	15.0%	$435
$85,650	25.0%	$17,443	20.4%	28.0%	$19,387	22.6%	$1,944
$178,650	28.0%	$43,483	24.3%	31.0%	$48,217	27.0%	$4,734
$388,350	33.0%	$112,684	29.0%	36.0%	$123,709	31.9%	$11,025
example: $500,000	35.0%	$151,761	30.4%	39.6%	$167,922	33.6%	$16,161

"For they all cast in from the surplus that they had, but this one has cast in from her want, everything that she had; she cast in all her possessions." - Jesus (Mark 12:44)

the problem is simple... the poor need what little money they have... the rich can spare a dime... this is the basis for much of the liberal's arguments... tax the rich; they can afford it... unfortunately, it doesn't work that way in real life... there aren't enough rich people to siphon off.

in 2009 (which is the data i have handy... i'd look up 2011, but i'm being lazy), there were about 140.5 million tax returns in the US... 4 million tax returns (that's 2.8% of all returns) from earners of $200,000 or more... from those under that magic number, there were 136.5 million tax returns (or 97.2%).

of the income tax collected from the 2.8% of rich folk, the IRS collected $434 billion... from the other 97.2% of the poor folk, the IRS collected $432 billion... literally half of all of the taxes collected came from those bastard 2.8% rich people who aren't paying their fair share.

a good liberal will reference Mark 12:44 in an effort to squeeze more money from the rich... the problem is the rich are the ones investing in retirement accounts, investing in businesses, and hiring people... they pay salaries of everyone (economically) below them... they put the most into Social Security (which should make any good Marxist happy)... every tax on the rich is also a tax on the poor... it creates more unemployed workers... it takes money out of investment funds... it means less goes into Social Security.

and for God's sake, stop extending the Bush Era Tax Cuts... it's just less money going into Social Security... 2% every year is being withheld from Social Security because of this... end those, and cut 2% from tax payers over $200,000... they'll invest it... they'll hire people... they'll save Social Security... we'll help the poor, create jobs, and become a profitable nation again.

this is not rocket science... it's economics.

---

source:
United States: 2013 Federal Income Tax Update
23 May 2012
Article by James N. Phillips and Timothy C. Smith of Godfrey & Kahn S.C.

Obama's private Bain Capital

President Obama is coming on strong against Mitt Romney's record at Bain Capital... he implies that Romney's record makes him unfit to handle government capital finances... well, if that's the case, Obama should excuse himself from the position, too... Romney may have lost people money to the benefit of private investors, but Obama has been losing the money of public investors, i.e. taxpayers.

Raser Technologies. In 2010, the Obama administration gave Raser a $33 million taxpayer-funded grant to build a power plant in Beaver Creek, Utah. According to the Wall Street Journal, after burning through our tax dollars, the company filed for bankruptcy protection in 2012. The plant now has fewer than 10 employees, and Raser owes $1.5 million in back taxes.

ECOtality. The Obama administration gave ECOtality $126.2 million in taxpayer money in 2009 for, among other things, the installation of 14,000 electric car chargers in five states.
... According to ECOtality’s own SEC filings, the company has since incurred more than $45 million in losses...

Nevada Geothermal Power (NGP). The Obama administration gave NGP a $98.5 million taxpayer loan guarantee in 2010. The New York Times reported last October that the company is in “financial turmoil” and that “[a]fter a series of technical missteps that are draining Nevada Geothermal’s cash reserves, its own auditor concluded in a filing released last week that there was ‘significant doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern.’ ”

First Solar. The Obama administration provided First Solar with more than $3 billion in loan guarantees for power plants in Arizona and California. According to a Bloomberg Businessweek report last week, the company “fell to a record low in Nasdaq Stock Market trading May 4 after reporting $401 million in restructuring costs tied to firing 30 percent of its workforce.”

Abound Solar, Inc. The Obama administration gave Abound Solar a $400 million loan guarantee to build photovoltaic panel factories. According to Forbes, in February the company halted production and laid off 180 employees.

Beacon Power. The Obama administration gave Beacon — a green-energy storage company — a $43 million loan guarantee. According to CBS News, at the time of the loan, “Standard and Poor’s had confidentially given the project a dismal outlook of ‘CCC-plus.’ ” In the fall of 2011, Beacon received a delisting notice from Nasdaq and filed for bankruptcy.

A company called SunPower got a $1.2 billion loan guarantee from the Obama administration, and as of January, the company owed more than it was worth.

Brightsource got a $1.6 billion loan guarantee and posted a string of net losses totaling $177 million.

And, of course, let’s not forget Solyndra — the solar panel manufacturer that received $535 million in taxpayer-funded loan guarantees and went bankrupt, leaving taxpayers on the hook.

if this is your record of handling the finances of a company, or a government, maybe you shouldn't be casting aspersions at anyone else.

---

source:
Forget Bain — Obama’s public-equity record is the real scandal - The Washington Post By Marc A. Thiessen, Published: May 24

Obama takes on Rutherford B. Hayes

who writes this stuff for Obama?... today, Obama has repeated the equivilent of an urban legend, and he thinks it's true!... he attempts to get a cheap-shot at Republican President Hayes, but it turns out to be false... worse, his insinuation is that Hayes was backwards on issues and on progress... turns out, again, Hayes was more forward thinking than any Democrat president of the last twenty-five years!

One of my predecessors, President Rutherford B. Hayes, reportedly said about the telephone: 'It’s a great invention but who would ever want to use one?' That's why he's not on Mt. Rushmore.

He's looking backwards, he's not looking forward. He's explaining why we can't do something instead of why we can do something. The point is there will always be cynics and naysayers.
- President Obama

yeah... Hayes sure was a backwards-looking president... or was he?

let's look at some fact (for a change):

After a year of study in a Columbus law office, he entered Harvard Law School and received his degree in 1845. He began his law practice in Lower Sandusky. Not finding many opportunities there, he left in 1849 for Cincinnati, where he became a successful lawyer. His opposition to slavery drew him into the Republican Party.

In 1864, while still in the army, he was elected to Congress (despite his refusal to campaign). He was reelected in 1866. The following year Ohio voters elected him governor. After winning a third term in 1875, the Republican Party chose Hayes as its presidential candidate.

His sound money policies helped make business and industry stronger. He initiated civil service reform, aimed at ending patronage, and appointed men with sound qualifications to government positions. He also signed a bill that, for the first time, allowed women attorneys to appear before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Honoring his commitment not to accept a second term, Hayes retired.

Hayes was the first president to have a telephone in the White House.

Hayes was the first president to have a typewriter in the White House.
- The Rutherford B. Hayes Presidential Center

President Obama, you just can't help yourself, can you?... every time you open your mouth, something stupider than the last comes flowing out.

why don't you just take the higher, moral road that President Hayes took... retire after one term.

---

source:
Obama knocks Rutherford B. Hayes - POLITICO.com By BYRON TAU | 3/15/12 11:41 AM EDT

The Rutherford B. Hayes Presidential Center

abort your teenager

Euthanasia in infants has been proposed by philosophers for children with severe abnormalities whose lives can be expected to be not worth living and who are experiencing unbearable suffering.

yes... we used to call those people Nazi's... ever visit the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington D.C.?

The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.

which "properties" are these?... supposedly, they can't ascribe a "basic value" to their own life, therefore cannot be a "loss" should that life be deprived... i believe that even a fetus recognizes a "basic value", or why else would there be a pain response?

Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life.

so, what are they saying?... we can ascribe rights as we see fit?... well, what if i say we grant personhood at age 18?... can i abort my teenager?
"I brought you into this world; I can take you out!"

However, whereas you can benefit someone by bringing her into existence (if her life is worth living), it makes no sense to say that someone is harmed by being prevented from becoming an actual person. The reason is that, by virtue of our definition of the concept of ‘harm’ in the previous section, in order for a harm to occur, it is necessary that someone is in the condition of experiencing that harm.

nice trick, that... redefine the term harm into something that agrees with your argument... how many times have we seen this tactic?

If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.

so... if, as a parent, my child becomes a burden (or a punishment, as President Obama calls them), such that i believe the social, psychological, or economic cost is too great, then i have the right to dispose of them?... this will change my kid's Christmas lists, dramatically!

to all the Pro-Choice people... is this what you wanted?... because this is the natural course for the ethics you support... if such a basic right as life can be granted on such a subjective basis, what right do you have to say someone can't abort a child when it becomes a burden to the parent?

follow this thought down the rabbit-hole, and humans only have the right to life as those around them see fit... cancer patients are a burden to healthcare... elderly have outlived their useful life... children are not persons, but property... the mentally retarded have less rights than "normal" people... if someone is in an accident and gets brain damaged, should we just kill them outright before they inconvenience anyone?

how far do you let this go?

---

source:
Australian Ethicists Argue the Right to Kill Babies After They’re Born - Liberty Counsel March 2, 2012

JME Online First, published on March 2, 2012 as 10.1136/medethics-2011-100411

oh, Burt... you so crazy!

I wasn’t too crazy about Obama’s “Hope and Change” slogan in 2008 and I’m not overly fond of his new one, “Winning the Future.” Still, there’s something to be said for its initials. WTF, indeed!
- Burt Prelutsky

---

source:
A FEW MORE REASONS TO SEND OBAMA PACKING by Burt Prelutsky - Monday, March 12, 2012

a rush to judgement - Re-blog

Condemnation of conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh driven by the left-wing media was swift and feverish. Outrageous is how they described one of Mr. Limbaugh’s signature humorous observations about left-wing absurdity, for which he has since apologized.

Mr. Limbaugh’s remarks were prompted by the appearance of 30-year old Georgetown University law student and liberal political activist Sandra Fluke as a witness before an unofficial hearing convened by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Ms. Fluke complained that the student health program of Roman Catholic Georgetown University did not provide contraception for her, forcing her to pay $1,000 per year for contraception.

Considering that birth control pills cost as little as $9 per month ($108 per year) from pharmacies at Target stores, Mr. Limbaugh surmised that the only way Ms. Fluke could spend $1,000 per year was to buy condoms, which costs around 55 cents each, and purchase enough to use five condoms each day of the year (365 X 5 = 1,825). To illustrate the absurdity of Ms. Fluke’s claims, Mr. Limbaugh humorously observed that the only women who are having sex five times a day, 365 days per year typically were called either prostitutes or sluts.

Notably, poor people get birth control through Medicaid from the federal government. An additional $300 million is spent by the federal government to provide contraceptives to low-income and uninsured people who can’t qualify for Medicaid. This spending to help poor women was supported even when Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress.

The above facts about the ready availability of inexpensive contraceptives show clearly that Ms. Fluke’s testimony was based on falsehoods. Plus, her record as a reproductive rights activist demonstrates that, instead of being promiscuous, she is in reality waging a war against Roman Catholic Georgetown University in particular and religion in general.

An even more amazing observation is the fact that Ms. Fluke’s appeal for government help runs counter to the mantra that women want the government to stay out of private decisions about their bodies.

Lost in the media-generated brouhaha ginned up by Democrats and their media allies to paint Republicans as engaging in a “war on women” are the two real issues.

One concern is whether President Barack Obama can violate the First Amendment to our Constitution that guarantees freedom of religion and force religious organizations to pay for something that violates their moral conscience.

The other issue is whether Mr. Obama can force private insurance companies to cover certain procedures or medications. If the answer to either or both of these questions is yes, then we no longer live in a country governed for the people by our elected representatives. Instead, our nation has been changed into a socialist dictatorship and we are living under the tyranny of Mr. Obama who governing by executive fiat, not restrained by our Constitution, the law of our land.

In their rush (pun intended) to discredit Mr. Limbaugh, liberal journalists either fail to mention or downplay the above two important Constitutional issues, but are quick to display rank hypocrisy with their righteous indignation over name-calling.

There was the sound of silence from the left-wing press when a black Republican woman and congressional candidate, Charlotte Bergmann, was called a “token negro”, "stupid" and a "curly-haired nigga" to her face by Democrat liberal talk show host and DJ Thaddeus Matthews while Ms. Bergmann was a guest on his show. If ever there was a show of wanton vulgarity and cruelty, this was it. The article “Outrage subdued after DJ goes on racially charged rant on GOP congressional candidate” by Judson Berger can be found on the Internet.

A video of the actual trashing of Ms. Bergmann by Mr. Matthews can be seen on YouTube.

An article with further evidence of how Democrats conduct a “war on black Republicans”, using vile and reprehensible personal attacks because we do not toe the liberal agenda line, calling us “sellouts”, “Uncle Toms” and “House Negroes” is posted on the NBRA website.

One of those racist cartoons demeaning Dr. Condoleezza Rice was published in The Washington Post. Will the editorial board of the Washington Post ever apologize in the name of civility and for the good of our American political culture?

Will the liberal press demand that Democrats in Congress denounce Mr. Thaddeus and repudiate the racist attack on a citizen who is seeking to become an elected representative of the people? Will President Obama make a supportive call to Ms. Bergmann?

President Obama, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Senate Leader Harry Reid and others Democratic Party leaders need to say without equivocation that such gutter rhetoric uttered by Mr. Matthews and other Democrats against black Republicans has no place in their party or in our American political discourse.

Further, when will the Democratic Party issue the long overdue apology to black Americans for that party’s nearly 200 years of racism? Not one liberal journalist bothered to give press coverage to the historic occasion when Rev. Wayne Perryman sued the Democratic Party, requesting such an apology, but the Democratic Party hired an army of lawyers to defend their racist past; thereby, avoiding doing the right thing and issuing an apology. An article about the lawsuit can be found on the Internet.

As author Michael Scheuer wrote, the Democratic Party is the party of the four S’s: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism. In his book, “Dreams From My Father”, President Obama described what he and other Democrats do to poor blacks as “plantation politics”. Details are contained in our NBRA Civil Rights Newsletter that is posted on our website.

In spite of Mr. Limbaugh’s apology, seven of his sponsors have withdrawn their advertisements, playing into the blacklisting game of the far left, the same strategy that liberals used to get Mr. Ronald Reagan removed by CBS as the host of the “General Electric Theater” in 1962 because he criticized President John F. Kennedy. In his article ”Rally for Rush” Jeffrey Lord exposes how the seven companies who pulled their ads from Mr. Limbaugh’s program are connected to far left-wing groups funded by George Soros, including MoveOn.org, America Coming Together and Democracy for America.

Lord wrote: “They exploit race and gender to try and destroy First Amendment protections. People who support a philosophy long on record as supporting every racial gambit from slavery, segregation, lynching and the Ku Klux Klan right on through to the violation of voting rights by the Black Panthers, racial quotas and illegal immigration have no scruples.”

The supposed desire for civility expressed by the liberal media would be credible if journalists placed as much emphasis on holding Democrats accountable for their overt racism toward black Republicans. Also, our country would be saved from being turned into a failed socialist nation by President Obama if the liberal press devoted as much time trying to stop him from shredding our Constitution as they spend trying to silence a talk show host who has no power to deny Americans anything, Constitutional or otherwise.

Frances Rice is a lawyer, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and chairman of the National Black Republican Association. She may be contacted on the Internet at: http://www.nbra.info/

---

source:
Outrage For White Woman Fluke But Not For Black Republicans
(also: blackrepublican.blogspot.com)
by National Black Republican Association NBRA on Monday, March 5, 2012 at 12:12pm
By Frances Rice