Much is being said about the separation of church and state. It escalated with the celebration of Christmas being eliminated from government facilities, then any public venue. Stores had to eliminate any reference to Christianity and replace their greetings with, “Happy holidays” — all under the guise of separation of church and state.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The most recent casualty of this political correctness is our military.
Religion is a strongly held belief that inspires and guides a person’s actions. In Western culture, the majority participates in various denominations of Christianity and Judaism. In Eastern cultures, you will find that many are Buddhist. The Middle East has a predominance of Muslims. However, there are hundreds of variations of these and other unique religious practices that take into account historical events and traditions, prophets, cultural differences and expectations, sense of purpose, and social responsibility to one another. Even New Age followers have faith in an energy that connects us all.
We are all born with this innate need to be connected to something greater than ourselves, to achieve success with purpose, to expand our compassion and to establish a sense of order in the world — and in this country in particular, to turn over to the next generation a world that is infinitely better than we found it.
It is interesting that nearly every religious tenet and secular law across the globe incorporates some form of the 10 Commandments, as they are universal in scope.
Religion provides that faith necessary to accomplish the “impossible,”particularly when all else has failed. Don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t lie, and even “You shall have no other gods before me” means don’t go getting too big for your britches … you are easily replaced. Don’t be praying to false idols — that Maserati is just a bunch of metal (albeit gorgeous metal) that can …. (More of this article at VailDaily.com)
Jacqueline Cartier, who has more than 25 years of political communications experience and is the president and CEO of Winning Images, recently moved back to Eagle-Vail from Washington, D.C. She can be reached by email at WinningImages.Cartier@gmail.com or by phone at 202-271-4165. Visit her website at www.CartierWinningImages.com.
Professor Louis Michael Seidman, Georgetown University law professor, has an idea that will solve all his left-wing elitist problems, you should give up the constitution.
Give up the Constitution:
Transcript:
From Georgetown law professor Louis Michael Seidman:
I’ve got a simple idea: Let’s give up on the Constitution. I know, it sounds radical, but it’s really not. Constitutional disobedience is as American as apple pie. For example, most of our greatest Presidents — Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, and both Roosevelts — had doubts about the Constitution, and many of them disobeyed it when it got in their way.
To be clear, I don’t think we should give up on everything in the Constitution. The Constitution has many important and inspiring provisions, but we should obey these because they are important and inspiring, not because a bunch of people who are now long-dead favored them two centuries ago. Unfortunately, the Constitution also contains some provisions that are not so inspiring. For example, one allows a presidential candidate who is rejected by a majority of the American people to assume office. Suppose that Barack Obama really wasn’t a natural-born citizen.So what?
We actually have reasons behind the electoral college. We aren’t supposed to be a democracy, our founders knew that democracies are nothing more than mob rule, so they put in an electoral college system. Also, there are very valid reasons to only allow a natural-born citizen to lead our country. Mostly to ensure our own leader’s allegiance to our nation. These are very arguably good things that our founders weighed deeply before they included them in our charter of government, and that we as a people should weigh deeply before dismissing.
Constitutional obedience has a pernicious impact on our political culture. Take the recent debate about gun control. None of my friends can believe it, but I happen to be skeptical of most forms of gun control. I understand, though, that’s not everyone’s view, and I’m eager to talk with people who disagree.
But what happens when the issue gets Constitutional-ized? Then we turn the question over to lawyers, and lawyers do with it what lawyers do. So instead of talking about whether gun control makes sense in our country, we talk about what people thought of it two centuries ago. Worse yet, talking about gun control in terms of constitutional obligation needlessly raises the temperature of political discussion. Instead of a question on policy, about which reasonable people can disagree, it becomes a test of one’s commitment to our foundational document and, so, to America itself.
This is our country. We live in it, and we have a right to the kind of country we want. We would not allow the French or the United Nations to rule us, and neither should we allow people who died over two centuries ago and knew nothing of our country as it exists today. If we are to take back our own country, we have to start making decisions for ourselves, and stop deferring to an ancient and outdated document. http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/01/27/CBS-Runs-Segment-Calle-Lets-Give-Up-On-The-Constitution
Professor Seidman calls it “a simple idea,” which is not simple at all. And even though he says it is “really not radical,” it is. It is extremely radical. He is telling us that because some of “our greatest presidents” violated the Constitution that we should all disregard whatever pieces we don’t find “inspiring or important” — that because Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt pissed all over the Constitution in moves that have enslaved this country through things like monetary policy and federal control of your retirement, that we should not only violate our charter of government, but dismiss it on purely subjective grounds.
What’s great about the constitution is that we can amend it and change such things through representation in our national congress and ratified by our states. If these changes to our contract of government cannot get through our representative government constitutionally, then it isn’t a change that enough of The People want, and no man has justification to disregard it.
They are trying to make the Constitution about being ruled from the grave, which is simply not true. It’s an absolute lie. The founders didn’t fight and die and sacrifice their livelihoods to give us the arbitrary rule of men. They fought and died and sacrificed their families, and property, to give us a charter of government that insured our freedom by the rule of law. They set up a government of checks and balances and separated power to save us from the tyranny of a dictator or king. To give us a standard of law that applies to everyone equally.
No man is beyond stepping on the rights of the people. No man, no matter how well respected or highly regarded, no man is perfect. Which is why our founders limited men with our charter of government — Our Rule of Law.
I would say this is just nonsense left-wing extremist noise that we should not give the time of day, except for the fact that CBS gave it a lot of time on Sunday morning. Within 24 hours parrots were online touting the left wing narrative that we are being “ruled from the grave.”
“Freedom is the emancipation from the arbitrary rule of other men.” Mortimer Adler
No one is ruling us from the grave. That is just another left-wing lie to get you to dismiss your charter of government and accept whatever this administration does. In actuality, those guys in the grave provided us a rule of law, so that no man may arbitrarily rule us. Those who want to throw away the rule of law in favor of handing a man arbitrary control of this country, are advocating enslavement to a dictator. Our freedom is provided by the rule of law.
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Lord Acton
The rule of law is the only thing that keeps us free from the tyranny of corrupt men. When we dismiss this rule of law, what are we replacing it with? For decades the left has been replacing it systematically through precedent. Let’s remember that Professor Seidman is a law professor, doing with it “what lawyers do,” to use his own words.
“I don’t think the Constitution is studied almost anywhere, including law schools. In law schools, what they study is what the court said about the Constitution. They study the opinions. They don’t study the Constitution itself.” Judge Robert Bork
The Constitution was not a suggestion. The Constitution was the form of government that the states ratified. It was a contract between the states to create the national government, and it was ratified contingent upon a forthcoming Bill of Rights.
The trouble is, we have already given up the Constitution. If we return to constitutional government, it would mean a true federalism, true separation of powers, where the federal government only enacts the enumerated powers and everything else is left to the sovereign states — abortion, gay marriage, drug legalization — all the divisive social issues that mostly split us regionally anyway would disappear from national government. If New York wants a more socialist form of state government where they provide a nanny-state with exorbitant taxes and a lot of social services, then The People of New York can vote that into their own state government. If Texas doesn’t then we don’t have to. We have more control over our own lives and freedom at the state and local level than we do at the national. Our founding fathers knew that, and they wanted most of our governing to be done at the state level. The Left knows this, which is why everything they do is geared towards centralizing power and control at the national level.
Picking and choosing whatever pieces of the constitution that Seidman finds “inspiring and important,” is a very subjective criteria to rule a country. You don’t get to hand Obama free rein over this country to do as he pleases just because you like him. If Obama can’t get his agenda passed through Congress, who were also elected by the people, then there aren’t enough people in this country behind his agenda to justify it. Congress is where our representation occurs. The president is only given the power by the Constitution to handle our diplomatic affairs, our military, and as a check and balance to the legislature with the power of a veto. Our president was never intended to have the kind of power that he is wielding today through bureaucrats. No president of this country was ever intended to have unchecked, arbitrary power, and that is specifically for our protection – the protection of We The People.
Most of our problems as a nation today are not because we stuck to the Constitution. Just the opposite, a lot of our problems can be sourced back to the fact that we have already dismissed the Bill of Rights: States rights (10th Amendment), freedom from warrantless searches (4th Amendment), freedom of religion (1st Amendment), the right to bear arms (2nd Amendment), as well as the original design of our representation in the Constitution: Congress coining our money, population basis for the number of representatives in the House, the way state legislatures used to select our Senators. We haven’t really stuck to the limits of our Constitution for a century, which is much of why we have a gargantuan federal government that is dictating to you what kind of light bulbs and toilets you can put in your home today.
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. James Madison, “The Father of the Constitution”
There once was a time when Obama sang a different tune as well, but that was before he got the flexibility that comes with not having to face another election.
“The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m president of the United States of America.” — Senator Barack Obama, March 31, 2008
The Senate Hearing: Wednesday, January 23. On Sept. 11, 2012, our ambassador to Libya and three American veterans were killed in a terrorist attack in Benghazi. There were a lot of mistakes made in keeping our diplomats secure and a lot of requests for more security in Libya were denied or ignored. Hillary basically said she takes responsibility for the attack, she takes responsibility for the 4 lives lost.
Why did Clinton, Obama, David Axelrod, and Susan Rice run around the world for three weeks after the attack to claim that American free speech was to blame, making up a story about a YouTube video, insisting that the attack was overzealous protesters getting out of hand, that our free speech apparently incited their violence? Hillary was asked directly about the administration’s response and got testy at the very line of questioning, as though the American people have no right to know why our executive branch spent three weeks lying to us.
Hillary blows up at Ron Johnson:
What difference does it make? Hillary was not in Benghazi. She claimed that she takes responsibility for the actions and mistakes of those beneath her who handled the actual attack in Benghazi, but she does not want to answer questions or take responsibility for her own actions regarding Benghazi, in the weeks that followed the attack.
Sen. Rand Paul started out on the premise that he would have fired Clinton if he were president, before he makes the point. If the media speculation is right, we could be seeing a preview of the 2016 presidential debate in this exchange.
Rand Paul would have fired Hillary:
CLIP: Hillary should be fired – 0:00 to 1:59
Rand Paul: One of the things about the original 9/11 is that no one was fired. We spent trillions of dollars, but there were a lot of human errors, judgment errors and the people who make judgment errors need to be replaced, fired and no longer in a position to make these judgment calls.
So we have a Review Board. The Review Board finds 64 different things we can change. A lot of them are common sense and can be done, but the question is, it’s a failure of leadership that they weren’t done in advance and 4 American lives were lost because of this. I’m glad that you are accepting responsibility. I think that ultimately with you leaving, you accept the culpability for the worst tragedy since 9/11, and I really mean that. Had I been President at the time, and I found that you did not read the cables from Benghazi, you did not read the cables from Ambassador Stevens, I would have relieved you of your post. I think it is inexcusable.
The thing is, that we can understand you are not reading every cable. I can understand that maybe you are not aware of the cable from the Ambassador in Vienna that asks for $100,000 for an electrical charging station. I can understand that maybe you are not aware that your Department spent $100,000 on 3 comedians who went to India on a promotional tour called Make Chi, Not War, but I think you might be able to understand that you should be aware of the $80 million spent on a consulate in Mahshahr al-Sharif [Readers, I'm not certain what this references and am researching - will update if I find the info] that will never be built.
I think it’s inexcusable that you did not know about this and that you did not read these cables. I think by anybody’s estimation, Libya has to be one of the hottest of hot spots around the world. Not to know of the requests for securities, really I think cost these people their lives. Their lives could have been saved had someone been more available, had someone been aware of these things, more on top of the job, and the thing is, I don’t suspect you of bad motives. The Review Board said, well these people weren’t willfully negligent. I don’t think you were willfully…I don’t suspect your motives for wanting to serve your country, but it was a failure of leadership not to be involved. It was a failure of leadership not to know these things, and so I think it is good that you are accepting responsibility, because no one else is. There is a certain amount of culpability to the worst tragedy since 9/11, and I’m glad you are accepting this.
Probably the most important question Clinton failed to answer was about our purpose in Benghazi. What were we doing there that got us attacked?
CLIP: Are we running guns in Libya – 2:10 to 3:03
Rand Paul: Now, my question is, is the United States involved with any procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons, buying, selling, anyhow transferring weapons to Turkey out of Libya?
[Clinton is flummoxed]
Hillary Clinton: To Turkey? I will have to take that question for the record. Nobody’s ever raised that with me.
Rand Paul: It’s been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that they may have weapons, and what I would like to know is, the annex that was close by – were they involved with procuring, buying, selling weapons, and are these weapons being transferred to other countries? Any countries, Turkey included?
Hillary Clinton:Well Senator, you’ll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the Annex. I will see what information is available…
Rand Paul: You’re saying you don’t know?
Hillary Clinton: I do not know. I have no information on that.
With respect to personnel Senator, that’s why we have independent people who review the situation. We did with the Pickering and Mullin ARB [Accountability Review Board] and all four individuals identified in the ARB have been removed from their job. Secondly, they’ve been placed on administrative leave while we step through the personnel process which will determine the next steps. Third, both Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullin specifically highlighted the reason why this is complicated because under Federal Statute and Regulation, unsatisfactory leadership is not grounds for finding a breach of duty. The ARB did not find these four individuals breached their duty, so I have submitted legislation to this Committee, to the Congress to fix this problem so that future ARBs will not face this situation.
Rand Paul: Here’s the problem. The review board has all these recommendations, but there is one thing they’ve failed to address, and I think you’ve failed to address, and it sets us up for another tragedy like this. They should have never been sent in there without a Military guard. There should have been an Embassy, like in Baghdad, in a war zone, and it should have been under Military guard, significant Military guard under Defense Department Command. I don’t think this State Department is capable of being in the war zone and protecting these people. I still don’t think that…I think another tragedy could happen in another war zone around the world. Someone needs to make an executive decision. Someone needs to take leadership and with that leadership should be that you shouldn’t send them in with no Marines, you shouldn’t send them in with Marines to guard records, not people, you shouldn’t send them in with the same kind of Ambassador or Embassy staff that you have in Paris. I think that is inexcusable.
Hillary Clinton: Well Senator, the reason I am here today is to answer questions the best I can. I AM the Secretary of State, and the ARB made it very clear that the level of responsibility for the failures that they outlined, sat at the level of Assistant Secretary and below. The Administration has sent officials to the Hill more than 30 times. We have given as much information…we’ve been as transparent as we can. Obviously we will continue to brief you and others to answer any questions you have about going forward. The reason we put into affect an Accountability Review Board, is to take it out of the heat of politics and partisanship and accusation and put it in the hands of people who have no stake in the outcome. The reason I said, make it open, tell the world, is because I believe in transparency. I believe in taking responsibility, and I have done so. I hope we will be able to see a good working relationship between the State Department and the Committee going forward.
Sen. John McCain – American people deserve to know:
The House Hearing:
Hillary resigned as Secretary of State, having taken full responsibility, and Obama nominated John Kerry to take her place. It appears that we have another Fast & Furious on our hands — heinous lies and American deaths, questionable missions politicized for the good of the agenda, and no accountability.
New Immigration plan: Under the Senate plan, the country’s 11 million undocumented immigrants would not earn green cards until the border is deemed secure. Administration officials said Obama does not favor linking legal status to border security, arguing that undocumented immigrants should not be kept in a state of limbo. http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/01/obama-to-offer-more-details-no-bill-155469.html
Before it falls into oblivion, one item unrelated to the Inauguration: Friday, Jan. 18, 2013, AG Eric Holder addressed the US Conference of Mayors.
Eric Holder calls for ‘tough penalties’ on gun traffickers
The same man who allowed the illegal sale of more 2,000 arms to cross our borders into Mexico, un-tracked and with no apparent purpose other than to create a political case for more gun regulation. The U.S. Department of inJustice Attorney Gun Trafficker is here to tell us that this administration is calling for “tough penalties” on gun traffickers — like himself. Gun trafficking is already illegal, our existing laws are not being enforced by this administration, and the bureaucratic agency that is supposed to be enforcing this law has directly violated it.
Obama gave his private Oath of Office on Sunday, Jan. 20, according to law, however the inaugural ceremony and celebration were on Monday, Jan. 21, Martin Luther King, Jr. day. News reports highlighted that this year marked the 150th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation and the 50th anniversary of MLK’s march in Washington DC where he gave his famous “I have a dream” speech.
Pre-inauguration
Last week, before the inauguration, Jimmy Kimmel pulled another make-the-man-on-the-street-look-bad interview.
Interviewing the public the week before:
These are the people who answer polls. These are the people who have no clue what their politicians say, let alone do, and yet they vote.
President Obama’s recent response to the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., convinced the pastor who preached at this morning’s pre-inaugural church service that the president has the cleric’s touch.
Obama should be called “Pastor in Chief,” said Andy Stanley, pastor of North Point Community Church in Alpharetta, Ga., after he “thanked POTUS for work after Newtown shooting tragedy when he spoke to mourners.”
The pool reporter notes that Stanley moved from that to telling the story of Jesus washing the feet of his disciples. “The takeaway: What do you do when in a position of power? “You leverage that power for the benefit of other people in the room,” he said. Added “Mr. President, you have an awfully big room.” Stanley “prayed that POTUS would “continue to leverage this influence for the sake of our nation and the sake of the world.’”
With his hand on two bibles, one that belonged to Abraham Lincoln and the other that belonged to Martin Luther King, Jr.
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Presidential Oath of Office
Singer-songerwriter James Taylor has taken on the personality of Barbara Streisand and has decided that his musical talent gives him credibility on public policy in America. He spoke to The DC Caller about gun control and Obama’s extension of Bush’s war policies, to which Taylor said:
“I wouldn’t second-guess the president, or pretend for a second that I know better than he does,” Taylor said. “He has the information and I trust him to make those important decisions for us. That’s what it means to have faith in a leader.”
Taylor performed during a concert in Obama’s honor at the Lincoln Memorial before his first inauguration in 2009, and sang onstage during the Democratic National Convention in September 2012. Obama presented Taylor with a National Medal of Arts, the highest award given to artists and arts patrons by the United States Government, in 2011.
Overall message of collectivism. More You-didn’t-build-that philosophy of how we’re all in this together, we all need the same roads, and we’re all one country, no one succeeds alone, so we should all march “forward” together. The media touted it as a unifying speech, but Obama just presented us with his thinly veiled, left-wing, Statist ideology and excused it all constitutionally by declaring it falls under the Declaration of Independence’s “all created equal” clause. Created equal is not an equality of outcome. It is that you start out equal, born naked, with the same inalienable rights, and you have an equal opportunity to succeed in this society. That clause in context does not imply that no matter what you do in your life, you will be guaranteed an equal outcome. This is the false premise on which Obama builds his case for a left-wing social agenda.
Each time we gather to inaugurate a president, we bear witness to the enduring strength of our Constitution. We affirm the promise of our democracy. We recall that what binds this nation together is not the colors of our skin or the tenets of our faith or the origins of our names. What makes us exceptional – what makes us American – is our allegiance to an idea, articulated in a declaration made more than two centuries ago:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Today we continue a never-ending journey, to bridge the meaning of those words with the realities of our time. For history tells us that while these truths may be self-evident, they have never been self-executing; that while freedom is a gift from God, it must be secured by His people here on Earth. The patriots of 1776 did not fight to replace the tyranny of a king with the privileges of a few or the rule of a mob. They gave to us a Republic, a government of, and by, and for the people, entrusting each generation to keep safe our founding creed.
For more than two hundred years, we have.
3:31 to 5:42
Through blood drawn by lash and blood drawn by sword, we learned that no union founded on the principles of liberty and equality could survive half-slave and half-free. We made ourselves anew, and vowed to move forward together.
Together, we determined that a modern economy requires railroads and highways to speed travel and commerce; schools and colleges to train our workers.
Together, we discovered that a free market only thrives when there are rules to ensure competition and fair play.
Together, we resolved that a great nation must care for the vulnerable, and protect its people from life’s worst hazards and misfortune.
Through it all, we have never relinquished our skepticism of central authority, nor have we succumbed to the fiction that all society’s ills can be cured through government alone. Our celebration of initiative and enterprise; our insistence on hard work and personal responsibility, these are constants in our character.
But we have always understood that when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action. For the American people can no more meet the demands of today’s world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias. No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores. Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation, and one people.
END CLIP
This generation of Americans has been tested by crises that steeled our resolve and proved our resilience. A decade of war is now ending. An economic recovery has begun. America’s possibilities are limitless, for we possess all the qualities that this world without boundaries demands: youth and drive; diversity and openness; an endless capacity for risk and a gift for reinvention. My fellow Americans, we are made for this moment, and we will seize it – so long as we seize it together.
For we, the people, understand that our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it. We believe that America’s prosperity must rest upon the broad shoulders of a rising middle class. We know that America thrives when every person can find independence and pride in their work; when the wages of honest labor liberate families from the brink of hardship. We are true to our creed when a little girl born into the bleakest poverty knows that she has the same chance to succeed as anybody else, because she is an American, she is free, and she is equal, not just in the eyes of God but also in our own.
We understand that outworn programs are inadequate to the needs of our time. We must harness new ideas and technology to remake our government, revamp our tax code, reform our schools, and empower our citizens with the skills they need to work harder, learn more, reach higher. But while the means will change, our purpose endures: a nation that rewards the effort and determination of every single American. That is what this moment requires. That is what will give real meaning to our creed.
We, the people, still believe that every citizen deserves a basic measure of security and dignity. We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit…
… But we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future. For we remember the lessons of our past, when twilight years were spent in poverty, and parents of a child with a disability had nowhere to turn. We do not believe that in this country, freedom is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the few. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, any one of us, at any time, may face a job loss, or a sudden illness, or a home swept away in a terrible storm. The commitments we make to each other – through Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security – these things do not sap our initiative; they strengthen us. They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.
We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity. We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms. The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it. We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries – we must claim its promise. That’s how we will maintain our economic vitality and our national treasure – our forests and waterways; our croplands and snowcapped peaks.That is how we will preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God. That’s what will lend meaning to the creed our fathers once declared.
We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war. Our brave men and women in uniform, tempered by the flames of battle, are unmatched in skill and courage. Our citizens, seared by the memory of those we have lost, know too well the price that is paid for liberty. The knowledge of their sacrifice will keep us forever vigilant against those who would do us harm. But we are also heirs to those who won the peace and not just the war, who turned sworn enemies into the surest of friends, and we must carry those lessons into this time as well.
…
We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths – that all of us are created equal – …
It is now our generation’s task to carry on what those pioneers began. For our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers, and daughters canearn a living equal to their efforts. Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law – for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well. Our journey is not complete until no citizen is forced to wait for hours to exercise the right to vote. Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity; until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather than expelled from our country. Our journey is not complete until all our children, from the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for, and cherished, and always safe from harm.
That is our generation’s task – to make these words, these rights, these values – of Life, and Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness – real for every American. Being true to our founding documents does not require us to agree on every contour of life; it does not mean we all define liberty in exactly the same way, or follow the same precise path to happiness. Progress does not compel us to settle centuries-long debates about the role of government for all time – but it does require us to act in our time.
For now decisions are upon us, and we cannot afford delay. We cannot mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate. We must act, we must act knowing that our work will be imperfect.
…
You and I, as citizens, have the power to set this country’s course. [voter ID, welfare benefits to illegals]
You and I, as citizens, have the obligation to shape the debates of our time – not only with the votes we cast, but with the voices we lift in defense of our most ancient values and enduring ideals….
Inaugural Poem, One Today, by Richard Blanco. One sun, one ground, one sky, one moon, one country…
…We head home: through the gloss of rain or weight of snow, or the plum blush of dusk, but always — home, always under one sky, our sky. And always one moon like a silent drum tapping on every rooftop and every window, of one country — all of us – facing the stars hope — a new constellation waiting for us to map it, waiting for us to name it – together http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-inauguration-2013-richard-blanco-poem-20130121,0,5626688.story
The Unifying/Collectivist Narrative
In the spirit of one sky, one moon, one country, together “we” booed Paul Ryan at the inauguration — proving this speech to be nothing but left-wing rhetoric, inappropriately justified, by the bastardization of our founding belief that we are all created equal.
Obama set up the narrative you will hear, not only from this administration, but from the media networks as well over the course of this term. We’re going to be about social engineering for the sake of your sweet, helpless children. We’re going to be about social justice, collectivism, and nanny-state, centralized control. We are not going to be about balancing budgets, reforming bankrupt entitlement programs, or reducing debt, government spending, or regulation. Neither are we returning to constitutional limits of power. We are not going to restore the 4th Amendment that has been violated by the Patriot Act, and we aren’t so sure that we want all the freedom provided by the 2nd Amendment. We are not looking to return to the constitution or civil liberties with this president. We are looking to move “forward” and change with the times.
Things Obama did not mention in his speech? Not a whole lot to look forward to in the job market, the economy, the deficit, QE3 printing billions of dollars monthly, or a budget.
Imagine an alternate universe where it was George W. Bush, or any Republican, sworn in for a second term yesterday — but with Obama’s economic record. Imagine if after spending nearly a trillion dollars on tax cuts (instead of stimulus), Bush stood before the nation and gave an ideological address that focused almost solely on divisive social issues and never once mentioned his struggling economy.
Rather than talk about chronic unemployment at 7.8%, Bush talked about ending abortion. Rather than address an increase in poverty under his watch, Bush defended traditional marriage. Instead of acknowledging 8 million people frustrated by a lack of jobs and dropping out of the workforce, Bush advocated returning prayer to public schools. Instead of acknowledging his trillion dollar deficits, Bush made a case for school choice…
In our universe, this is exactly what Obama did. While middle class incomes drop, the cost of health insurance premiums explode, gas prices nearly double, and entitlements teeter on the edge of bankruptcy, our president pretended as though he’s the one in an alternate reality entering a second term with an economy humming as well as George W. Bush’s in 2005.
Moreover, all Obama did was to promise he would double down on exactly what got us into this mess.
But like 11 year-old girls backstage with Justin Bieber, the media can only gush…
The only issue the media seems divided over is whether they should gush harder over Obama’s speech or Michelle Obama’s bangs.
Meanwhile, in the real America outside of DC and left-wing media empires, the poor are getting poorer, the middle class is slowly being strangled, job growth is hardly treading water with population growth, there are more food stamps recipients than ever before, and more people are living in poverty.
If you were dumb enough to get your news only from the mainstream media, you would think that economic times are so flush today, the American president can afford to squander his second term socially re-engineering America.
Looks as though the media is just as determined as Obama to manufacture a reality that says we’re enjoying economic boom times, deficits don’t matter, and those crazy, stupid, racist Republicans in Congress are the real problem.
As second-term President Barack Obama exited the inaugural platform and headed back into the Capitol, he stopped and turned around to look back at the scene and savor the view. It was hard to determine what he said at first, but a review of the tape produced this:
“I want to take a look, one more time. I’m not going to see this again.”
_ Nancy Benac , AP reporter covering government and politics in Washington
Interviewing the attendants:
Americans weigh in on Obama’s 2nd term
21 Jan. 1:35 p.m. EST
“I think that because of the reluctance of both parties to bring about bipartisan action toward the economy _ certainly everybody is affected by the economy _ I look forward to him bringing the Republicans and Democrats together. … I look forward to him bringing about compromising.” – Beniam Fantu, 34, of Dallas.
“There are no coincidences. I don’t believe there are. This was exactly what was intended, to show how far we have come in our civil freedoms and in our civil rights.”
– Alenda Young, 39, of Chicago,
“I think he’s a great man. He’s trying his best. He did a lot his last period as I think he’s going to do a lot more in his next four years.” – Karen Espinoza, 24, was working at a Hispanic market in Little Rock, Ark., as Obama addressed the nation Monday. She didn’t hear the president’s speech, but said she was impressed by Obama’s efforts on immigration reform. ~APWire
It was altogether a more intimate affair than four years ago. Just a party of untold hundred thousands, chilling in the nation’s backyard. No match for the staggering masses and adrenaline-pumping energy of his first turn as president on the West Front of the Capitol. But a lively second act. _ Calvin Woodward, AP political reporter
Graph of the weather: We have warmer weather this inauguration than we did in 2009. Prepare for it to be used as another global warming narrative.
Presidential shades of grey: A look at how grey the president’s hair got over the last 4 years.
Miss America made it to the inauguration, even though it was really, really cold. Boehner, Paul Ryan, Newt Gingrich, John McCain, Jesse Jackson, Jimmy Carter, Clintons, Justice Roberts, Jay-Z and Beyonce, John Maher and Katy Perry, Al Sharpton, Eva Longoria, Kelly Clarkson, James Taylor,
Beyonce sang the national anthem, appropriately for a teleprompter president, she lip-synced it.
The luncheon, 3,000 calories of lobster, bison, butternut squash, beets and green beans, potato horseradish cake, strawberry preserve and red cabbage, apple pie, ice cream, cheese and honey.
What the wives were wearing, whether or not the fashion critics approve of their style. Reminiscing about Obama’s mom jeans. Even Fox was discussing the fine way Michelle grew into the role of first lady. Multiple stations put out an ode to Michelle’s bangs. The designers she’s made by wearing their clothes.
Parade, which in tradition, is not a public event. You have to get tickets. Of course, Michelle and Barack got out of the car again to walk and savored every moment of his last inauguration.
The band, the singing, the beautiful poem, the inaugural ceremony was filled with art. (ABC)
ABC coverage talked about the “younger vibe” of the Obama administration, of course, comparing him to Bush, because George and Laura went to bed earlier and got up earlier than Michelle and Barack, and talking about things like how Michelle and Barack go out to eat more and hit more of the trendy new restaurants than the Bush’s. There were 41 unicyclists participating in the parade this year.
The Balls, what everyone is wearing, who’s attending and what they’re wearing. Blah, blah, blah. Fox News pointed out First Lady Magical Moments from history in which one of their pundits applauded the president’s choice to only attend 2 balls this year, instead of the typical 10 of the past.
First on the agenda: Nominate cabinet
21 Jan. 2:07 p.m.
Minutes after his inauguration speech Monday, President Barack Obama signed documents officially submitting top administration nominations to the Senate. Obama affirmed the nominations of:
John Brennan to be CIA director
former Sen. Chuck Hagel for defense secretary
Sen. John Kerry to be secretary of state
Jack Lew for treasury secretary
Obama also signed a proclamation to commemorate the inauguration. The proclamation is entitled “National Day of Hope and Resolve, 2013.”
“I’m proclaiming peace on Earth and goodwill towards men,” Obama quipped as he signed the document. _ Stephen Ohlemacher, AP reporter in Washington
During the show, George alleged that the Benghazi hearings would not be public. That was a mistake. Hillary Clinton spoke before committees of both houses of congress in public hearings Wednesday, Jan. 23, 2013. We’ll be picking apart her testimony in the next episode of Words Matter.
In 2009, Barack Hussein Obama said, “If you make under $250,000, you will not see your taxes increase by a single dime… Not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes. Nothing.”
Obama’s final press conference of his first term
There were 2 main issues that Obama spoke about and was later questioned about, and that is the debt ceiling and gun control.
Starting us off on a false premise, Obama lays out a long list of “deficit reduction” measures that have not reduced our deficit. He even goes as far as to count the interest we’ll save by adding less to the national debt than we would have if we just continued to spend at our current rates.
The False Premise:
CLIP: 0:10 to 2:36
Video Transcript
Obama: It’s been a busy and productive four years, and I expect the same for the next four years. I intend to carry out the agenda that I campaigned on — an agenda for new jobs, new opportunity, and new security for the middle class. Right now, our economy is growing and our businesses are creating new jobs. So, we are poised for a good year if we make smart decisions and sound investments, and as long as Washington politics don’t get in the way of America’s progress.
As I said on the campaign, one component to growing our economy and broadening opportunity for the middle class is shrinking our deficits in a balanced and responsible way. And for nearly two years now, I’ve been fighting for such a plan, one that would reduce our deficits by $4 trillion over the next decade, which would stabilize our debt and our deficit in a sustainable way for the next decade.
That would be enough not only to stop the growth of our debt relative to the size of our economy, but it would make it manageable so it doesn’t crowd out the investments we need to make in people and education and job training and scientist and medical research, all the things that help us grow.
Now, step by step, we’ve made progress towards that goal. Over the past two years, I’ve signed into law about $1.4 trillion in spending cuts. Two weeks ago, I signed into law more than $600 billion in new revenue, by making sure the wealthiest Americans begin to pay their fair share.
When you add the money that we’ll save in interest payments on the debt, altogether that adds up to a total of about $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction over the past two years, not counting the $400 billion already saved from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So we’ve made progress. We are moving towards our ultimate goal of getting to a $4 trillion reduction. And there will be more deficit reduction when Congress decides what to do about the $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts that have been pushed off until next month. The fact is, though, we can’t finish the job of deficit reduction through spending cuts alone.
Major Garrett calls Obama out on vote against debt ceiling in Senate:
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. As you well know, sir, finding votes for the debt ceiling can sometimes be complicated. You yourselves as a member of the Senate voted against a debt ceiling increase. And in previous aspects of American history, President Reagan in 1985, President George Herbert Walker Bush in 1990, President Clinton in 1997 all signed deficit reduction deals that were contingent upon or in the context of raising the debt ceiling. You yourself four times have done that; three times those were related to deficit reduction or budget maneuvers.
What Chuck and I and I think many people are curious about is this new adamant desire on your part not to negotiate when that seems to conflict with the entire history in the modern era of American presidents in the debt ceiling and your own history on the debt ceiling. And doesn’t that suggest that we are going to go into a default situation, because no one is talking to each other about how to resolve this?
OBAMA: Well, no, Major. I think if you look at the history, getting votes for the debt ceiling is always difficult and budgets in this town are always difficult. I went through this just last year. But what’s different is we never saw a situation as we saw last year in which certain groups in Congress took such an absolutist position that we came within a few days of defaulting.
And, you know, the fact of the matter is, is that we have never seen the debt ceiling used in this fashion, where the notion was, you know what, we might default unless we get 100 percent of what we want. That hasn’t happened.
Now, as I indicated before, I’m happy to have a conversation about how we reduce our deficits further in a sensible way, although one thing I want to point out is that the American people are also concerned about how we grow our economy, how we put people back to work, how we make sure that we finance our workers getting properly trained and our schools are giving our kids the education we deserve. There’s a whole growth agenda which will reduce our deficits that’s important, as well.
OBAMA: But what you’ve never seen is the notion that has been presented so far at least by the Republicans that deficit reduction will only count spending cuts, that we will raise the deficit — or the debt ceiling dollar for dollar on spending cuts. There are a whole set of rules that have been established that are impossible to meet without doing severe damage to the economy. And so what we’re not going to do is put ourselves in a position where in order to pay for spending that we’ve already incurred, that our two options are; we’re either going to profoundly hurt the economy, and hurt middle- class families, and hurt seniors, and hurt kids who are trying to go to college, or alternatively we’re going to blow up the economy. We’re not going to do that.
(OFF-MIKE)
QUESTION: (Inaudible) three-month extension for this? What ever Congress sends you, you’re OK with?
OBAMA: No, not whatever Congress sends me. They’re going to have to send me something that’s sensible. And we shouldn’t be doing this…
(CROSSTALK)
OBAMA: …then we should — and we shouldn’t be doing this on a one to three month time frame. Why would we do that? This is the United States of America, Major. Why — what — we can’t manage our affairs in such a way that we pay our bills? And we provide some certainty in terms of how we pay our bills? Look I — I don’t — I don’t think anybody would consider my position unreasonable here. The — I have…
(CROSSTALK)
(OFF-MIKE)
QUESTION: (Inaudible) talk about this on a daily basis (inaudible.)
OBAMA: Major, the – I am happy to have a conversation about how we reduce our deficits. I am not going to have a monthly, or every three months conversation about whether or not we pay our bills. Because that, in and of itself does severe damage. Even the threat of default hurts our economy. It’s hurting our economy as we speak. We shouldn’t be having that debate.
OBAMA: If we want to have a conversation about how to reduce our deficit, let’s have that. We’ve been having that for the last two years. We just had an entire campaign about it. And by the way,the American people agreed with me, that we should reduce our deficits in a balanced way, that also takes into account the need for us to grow this economy, and put people back to work.
And despite that conversation, and despite the election results, the position that’s been taken, on the part of some House republicans, is that, “Nope, we gotta do it our way. And if we don’t, we simply won’t pay America’s bills.”
Well, you know, that — that can’t be — that can’t be a position that is sustainable over time. It’s not one that’s good for the economy now. It’s certainly not going to be the kind of precedent that I want to establish, not just for my presidency, but for future presidents. Even if it was on the other side.
Democrats don’t like voting for the debt ceiling when a Republican’s president. And yet, you — you — but you never saw a situation in which Democrats suggested somehow that we would go ahead and default if we didn’t get 100 percent of ourway. That’s just not how it’s supposed to work.
He says repeatedly throughout this press conference that Republicans are demanding 100% of their way. Obviously, Republicans didn’t get 100% of their way on the fiscal cliff tax rates seeing how they raised taxes, or on the last debt ceiling increase seeing how even the sequestration cuts – the compromising fix – have been put on hold. Republicans, and those horrible Tea Party types of course, have been trying to get this administration to cut our trillion-dollar annual deficits for the two years that they’ve had the House. Obama and Harry Reid have refused to even entertain a discussion about real spending cuts. He keeps telling us he’s willing to have a conversation, but over the past six years of Democrat control, the only thing Obama’s been willing to talk about in his first term is raising taxes.
Tidbits from the speech
Obama: I intend to carry out the agenda that I campaigned on — an agenda for new jobs, new opportunity, and new security for the middle class…
…
It turns out the American people agree with me. They listened to an entire year’s debate over this issue. And they made a clear decision about the approach they prefer.
…
If congressional Republicans refuse to pay America’s bills on time, Social Security checks, and veterans benefits will be delayed.
…
We might not be able to pay our troops, or honor our contracts with small business owners. Food inspectors, air traffic controllers, specialist who track down loose nuclear materials wouldn’t get their paychecks. Investors around the world will ask if the United States of America is in fact a safe bet. Markets could go haywire, interest rates would spike for anybody who borrows money. Every homeowner with a mortgage, every student with a college loan, every small business owner who wants to grow and hire. It would be a self-inflicted wound on the economy. It would slow down our growth, might tip us into recession. And ironically it would probably increase our deficit.
Obama: They can act responsibly, and pay America’s bills, or they can act irresponsibly and put America through another economic crisis. But they will not collect a ransom in exchange for not crashing the American economy. The financial well-being of the American people is not leverage to be used. The full faith and credit of the United States of America is not a bargaining chip. And they better choose quickly, because time is running short.
Obama is using our debt ceiling increase as a bargaining chip just as much as the right is. Even worse though, because he basically just raised taxes in a hurting economy, on top of raising ObamaCare taxes, which will both likely cause another recession. But, he’s already blaming the very near consequences of his own policy on a fiscal battle that he could very easily end by finally compromising on spending cuts. Democrats got their long-sought tax hikes. It’s time show a truly “balanced” approach and talk about real spending cuts.
…
And I’ve also that we need more revenue through tax reform, by closing loopholes in our tax code for the wealthiest Americans. If we combine a balanced package of savings from spending on health care and revenues from closing loopholes, we can solve the deficit issue without sacrificing our investments in things like education that are going to help us grow.
For months Republicans have argued against increasing tax rates in favor of reforming the tax code and removing loopholes and subsidies. $1.1 Trillion in lost revenue for the government is in the “fiscal cliff” bill by way of subsidies and tax breaks, which also happens to be the projected deficit for next year. Video: http://bcove.me/sz9dui0p
Obama: The last time republicans in Congress even flirted with this idea, our AAA credit rating was downgraded for the first time in our history. Our businesses created the fewest jobs of any month in nearly the past three years, and ironically, the whole fiasco actually added to the deficit.
In reality, here was S&P at the time:
We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade.
Republicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition, the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability.
Obama says he’d be happy to take the debt ceiling authority:
Video Transcript
Chuck Todd, NBC.
QUESTION: Thank you, sir. As you know, Senate Democrats — Harry Reid sent you a letter begging you, essentially, to take — consider some sort of executive action on this debt ceiling issue. I know you’ve said you’re not negotiating on it. Your administration has ruled out the various ideas that have been out there, the 14th Amendment, but just this morning, House – one of the House Democratic leaders, Jim Clyburn, asked you to use the 14th Amendment and even said sometimes that’s what it takes. He brought up the Emancipation Proclamation as saying they took executive action when Congress wouldn’t act, and he compared the debt ceiling to that. So are you considering a Plan B? And if not, why not?
OBAMA: Well, Chuck, the issue here is whether or not America pays its bills. We are not a deadbeat nation. And so there’s a very simple solution to this: Congress authorizes us to pay our bills. Now, if the House and the Senate want to give me the authority so that they don’t have to take these tough votes, if they want to put the responsibility on me to raise the debt ceiling, I’m happy to take it. Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the Senate, had a proposal like that last year. And I’m happy to accept it.
But if they want to keep this responsibility, then they need to go ahead and get it done. And, you know, there are no magic tricks here. There are no loopholes. There are no, you know, easy outs. This is a matter of Congress authorizes spending. They order me to spend. They tell me, you need to fund our Defense Department at such- and-such a level, you need to send out Social Security checks, you need to make sure that you are paying to care for our veterans. They lay all this out for me, and — because they have the spending power. And so I am required by law to go ahead and pay these bills.
OBAMA: Separately, they also have to authorize a raising of the debt ceiling in order to make sure that those bills are paid. And so what Congress can’t do is tell me to spend X and then say, “But we’re not going to give you the authority to go ahead and pay the bills.”
And I just want to repeat, because I think sometimes the American people understandably aren’t following all — all the debates here in Washington. Raising the debt ceiling does not authorize us to spend more. All it does is say, that America will pay its bills. And we are not a deadbeat nation.
And the consequences of us not paying our bills, as I outlined in my opening statement, would be disastrous. So, I understand the impulse to try to get around this in a simple way. But there’s one way to get around this. There’s one way to deal with it, and that is for Congress to authorize me to pay for those items of spending that they have already authorized. And the — you know the — the notion that Republicans in — in the House, or maybe some Republicans in the Senate would suggest that in order for us to get our way on our spending priorities, that we would risk the full faith and credit of the United States, that I think is not what the founders intended.
That’s now how I think most Americans think our democracy should work. You know they’ve got a point of view. Democrats in Congress have a point of view. They need to sit down, and — and work out a compromise.
(OFF-MIKE)
QUESTION: (Inaudible) If you’re not negotiating, and they say you have to negotiate (inaudible) considering other Plan B? You do see (inaudible)?
OBAMA: Well, look, Chuck, there — there are — there — there’s a pretty straightforward way of doing this, and that is to set the debt ceiling aside, we pay our bills. And then we have a vigorous debate about how we’re gonna do further deficit reduction in a balanced way.
Now, keep in mind that, you know, what we’ve heard from some republicans, in both the House and the Senate, is that they will only increase the debt ceiling by the amount of spending cuts that they’re able to push through. And, in order to replace the automatic spending cuts, the sequester, that’s $1.2 trillion. Say it takes another $1 trillion or $1.2 trillion to get us through one more year, they’d have to identify $2.5 trillion in cuts just to get the debt ceiling extended to next year, $2.5 trillion.
They can’t even — Congress has not been able to identify $1.2 trillion in cuts that they’re happy with, because these same republicans say they don’t want to cut defense. They’ve claimed that they don’t want to gut Medicare or harm the vulnerable, but the truth of the matter is, is that you can’t meet their own criteria without drastically cutting Medicare, or having an impact on Medicaid, or affecting our defense spending. So the math just doesn’t add up.
Now, what — here — here’s what would work. What would work would be for us to say, we’ve already done close to $2 trillion in deficit reduction, and if you add the interest that we won’t be paying, because of less spending and increased revenue, it adds up to about $2.5 trillion.
OBAMA: The consensus is we need about $4 trillion to stabilize our debt and our deficit, which means we need about $1.5 trillion more.The package that I offered to Speaker Boehner before we — before the new year would achieve that. We were actually fairly close in terms of arriving at that number.
So — so, if the goal is to make sure that we are being responsible about our debt and our deficit — if that’s the conversation we’re having, I’m happy to have that conversation. And by closing some additional loopholes through tax reform, which Speaker Boehner has acknowledged can raise money in a sensible way, and by doing some additional cuts, including making sure that we are reducing our health care spending, which is the main driver of our deficits, we can arrive at a package that gets this thing done.
I’m happy to have that conversation. What I will not do is to have that negotiation with a gun at the head of the American people – the threat that unless we get our way, unless you gut Medicare or Medicaid, or, you know, otherwise slash things that the American people don’t believe should be slashed, that we’re going to threaten to wreck the entire economy. That is not how historically this has been done. That’s not how we’re going to do it this time.
QUESTION: (inaudible) not searching for (inaudible)?
OBAMA: What I’m…
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: (inaudible)
OBAMA: Chuck, what I’m saying to you is that there is no simpler solution, no ready, credible solution other than Congress either give me the authority to raise the debt ceiling or exercise the responsibility that they have kept for themselves and raise the debt ceiling, because this is about paying your bills.
There actually is a simpler solution. Get our spending in order. Make some concessions and negotiate some cuts, like the American people want, and get the debt ceiling increased too. Obama said more than once that the American people agree with him, but in reality, Obama promised lower deficits and spending cuts in both elections. That is what the American people agreed with. Now he’s claiming that the American people agree with him, because he’s pushing the opposite policy of what he’s promised through two elections. That really only means the American people agree with the lies he spewed, not with his actual policy.
OBAMA: Everybody — everybody here understands this. I mean, this is not a complicated concept. You don’t go out to dinner and then, you know, eat all you want and then leave without paying the check. And if you do, you’re breaking the law. And Congress is — should think about it the same way that the American people do.
You don’t — now, if Congress wants to have a debate about maybe we shouldn’t go out to dinner next time, maybe we should go to a more modest restaurant, that’s fine. That’s a debate that we should have.
After he returns from a pricey Hawaiian Christmas vacation. That is a debate Republicans in Congress have been trying to have with Democrats and the president, but Obama is telling them, as he has for his entire first term, that he won’t negotiate cuts without tax hikes. At some point, somehow, we have to stop Obama from racking up the 5-star restaurant bills.
But you don’t — you don’t say, in order for me to control my appetites, I’m going to not pay the people who already provided me services, people who already lent me the money. That’s not — that’s not showing any discipline. All that’s doing is not meeting your obligations. You can’t do that.
And — and that’s not a credible way to run this government. We’ve got to stop lurching from crisis to crisis to crisis when there’s this clear path ahead of us that simply requires some discipline, some responsibility, and some compromise. That’s where we need to go. That’s how this needs to work.
Obama’s right that we need to quit lurching from crisis to crisis. Unfortunately for us, his refusal to negotiate coupled with his inability to lead are proving, yet again, that he talks the talk, but refuses to walk the walk.
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.
Of course, now Obama thinks his vote against raising the debt ceiling in 2006 “was a mistake.” Or, if he were really being honest, he would admit that he was doing exactly what he accused Republicans of last year and is still accusing Republican of today: Politicizing the debt ceiling.
The Trillion-dollar Coin
Some commentators suggest that the Treasury could generate $2 trillion for the government by minting two platinum coins, using an obscure law that was enacted for the express purpose of creating memorabilia. But doing so would be economically equivalent to borrowing $2 trillion and thus, even if technically legal, would violate the substance of the debt ceiling law.
In a constitutional crisis, analysis should rest on constitutional principles, not technicalities. The core issue is separation of powers: What course of action would minimize the executive taking over legislative authority?
Typical fear-mongering. The allegation has nothing to do with the issue. A good question to test statements like this is simply: How?
How is deregulating Wall Street going to put me “back in chains?” If you can’t find a reasonable answer to the simple question of “how,” then you are dealing with blatant fear mongering.
It’s a tool for manipulating you, to scare you into furthering an agenda that you would not agree with, were you not afraid. Fear is an emotion. Sometimes it is justified, and sometimes it is blind hysteria. The only real tool we have to combat fear mongering, or any emotion-based manipulation, is critical thinking. We have to dismiss the emotion and think critically to discern between real reason for concern and false manipulation — unemotional scrutiny of the frightening allegations. Fear mongering tends to be simple deflection/misdirection, as well as an emotional appeal to keep you from thinking.
Planned Parenthood
Planned Parenthood admitted that they deliberately harped on women’s issues to scare women and confuse them into voting against Mitt Romney. For months before the election Democrat women fretted online about how Mitt Romney was going to take away all forms of birth control and single-handedly outlaw abortion altogether. When I asked these women how Mitt Romney was going to do that, they couldn’t answer me. They didn’t have a logical basis for the accusations they were making.
Fear mongers don’t ever really explain how the hysterical accusation is valid, and they never justify the fear. They take scary things and they make a bold statement about it that furthers their agenda. But it only works if you get emotional and stop thinking.
Bob Costas
Sportscaster Bob Costas injected his opinion about gun control into Sunday’s Eagles vs. Cowboys football game. He spoke in response to the murder-suicide where Jovan Belcher, a Kansas City Chief, killed his girlfriend, Kasandra Perkins, in an argument, then committed suicide in a dramatic display to his GM and coach.
“If Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.”
Bob Costas has since admitted that it was a mistake to use his platform at a football game to get political, but he made no apology or retraction for his comments. He said he needed a deeper discussion on the subject than those 90 seconds provided him to inject his opinion into a football game.
“Sometimes the quality of those who oppose you speaks for itself,” Costas said. “I was told — I didn’t see it — that someone compared (the halftime segment) to blatantly racist comments. This is simply a case of people who don’t agree with this or they don’t agree with what people think I was saying.
“Leave me out of it. Can you imagine that being said about anyone? Let’s fire everyone we disagree with. It’s absurd.”
Costas felt he didn’t “hijack” an NFL game by using his platform to provide his thoughts.
Every time we have a high-profile case involving a gun, some left-wing loon starts harping on gun control. If all it took to stop aggressively insane football players from killing their women was to outlaw guns, then Nicole Simpson would still be alive today. It’s a fallacy. It’s designed to scare you and make you think guns are scary. However, that ignores the many daily occurrences when law-abiding citizens with weapons are able to foil crimes — robberies, rapes, and murders — because they have a weapon to defend themselves.
We have a movement in this country that is extreme enough to ban guns completely, and their fear-mongering tactic is to harp on high-profile cases of crazy people, ignoring valid cases of crimes being thwarted when people are defending themselves, and trying to instill fear in us of guns in general.
There are issues to consider in all forms of gun control, but because we listen to the propaganda and let it play on our fears, we support bad legislation.
There was an argument about the defense spending bill in the Senate this week, about whether or not Veterans Affairs should be the deciding agency on whether our veterans are capable of owning guns. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) wanted a judge to adjudicate on individual cases of veteran competency, rather than Veterans Affairs. Veterans Affairs is a bureaucratic agency. Bureaucrats set guidelines for everyone, and they don’t deviate from them on an individual basis, at least not without mountains of red tape. It is how bureaucracy works. But because we are afraid of crazy people owning guns, it’s not really up for discussion.
The fiscal cliff has been the latest tool of fear mongers on both sides of the fence. It’s all about perspective, because if you are struggling to make ends meet as so many of us are these days, then a couple thousand dollars more a year to the federal government isn’t going to make your life any easier. Is the sky falling tomorrow? No. Is it going to damage our stagnant economy and small businesses, destroying more jobs? Yes. Your level of fear depends on how close to the brink you are financially, but we have to think critically and logically through the fear.
WALLACE: Let’s talk about taxes. The president made it very clear and made it clear during the campaign he will not extend the Bush tax cuts on the top earners. Does he insist on raising the top rate from 35 percent all the way up to the Clinton rate of 39.6 percent, or would he compromise on something lower, like 37 percent? Is that negotiable?
GEITHNER: We’re not going to extend an extension of the tax rates for the top 2 percent. We think they should go back and need to go back to Clinton levels.
And let me explain why we believe that.
WALLACE: So, I just — to answer my question, specifically, you are saying nonnegotiable, 39.6 percent?
GEITHNER: Again, we think that’s the way to do it. Let me explain why, OK? If you don’t do that, it costs a trillion dollars — roughly a trillion dollars over 10 years.
WALLACE: Not if you went to 37 percent.
GEITHNER: Again, you’re — you’re –
WALLACE: Well, that’s one of the ideas that’s out there, sir. I’m not just making this up.
GEITHNER: That’s true. There’s lots of ideas out there.
And, again, what we’re — we are proposing to let those rates go back to Clinton levels. Remember, that was a — that was a time of remarkably good economic growth, in this country — very strong private investment, strong job growth, strong broad-based growth in incomes. It was a good time for the American economy. It makes a lot of sense.
But in addition to that, we proposed to limit deductions for the top 2 percent of Americans as well. Now, we are willing to work with Republicans on tax reform to create a more simple, more fair system, but only as part of an agreement that has those rates go back up at the end of the year.
WALLACE: So, the Clinton rate?
GEITHNER: We think that’s the way to do it.
WALLACE: Thirty-nine-point-six percent?
GEITHNER: And, again, the reason why is because –
WALLACE: I understand the reason why.
GEITHNER: If you — again, if you don’t you have to ask yourself, where are — whose taxes are you going to raise, where are you going to find the money to bring a balanced plan in place that reduces our long term deficit?
WALLACE: How disastrous for the economy if we go over the cliff as the treasury secretary?
GEITHNER: For the American economy?
WALLACE: Yes.
GEITHNER: It is pretty damaging to the average American. It would be very damaging. There’s no reason it should happen.
Again, the only reason why it would happen is if a group of members of Congress decide they’re going to block an agreement because they want to extend tax rates for the rich that we can’t afford. That’s the only reason that will happen.
WALLACE: Or they now say because you’re not willing to cut spending enough.
GEITHNER: No, but that’s not true. Again, if they want to do more on the spending side than the $600 billion we proposed on top of the trillion already enacted, in top of the savings from the wars, then they can tell us how they propose –
WALLACE: Savings in the wars that we were never going to fight?
GEITHNER: No, that’s not true. We’re — as you know, we’re winding down two wars.
WALLACE: I understand that.
(CROSSTALK)
WALLACE: And you are thinking savings that nobody thought that you were going to spend that money any way. It’s a budget gimmick, sir.
GEITHNER: No, that’s not right. You know, let me say it this way, those were expensive wars, not just in Americans lives but in terms of the taxpayers’ resources. And when you end them as the president is doing, they reduce our long term deficits and like in the Republican budget proposals, the world should reflect and recognize what that does in savings.
And we propose to use those savings to reduce the deficits and help invest in rebuilding America. We think that makes a lot of sense.
WALLACE: But it was money that wasn’t going to be spent anyway, and –
GEITHNER: If those wars have gone on, they would be spent.
WALLACE: I understand. But you’re not saving — you’re not ending the wars for budget purposes. You’re ending the wars because of a foreign policy decision. The wars weren’t going to be fought. You’re not really saving money.
GEITHNER: Chris, we all agree –
WALLACE: I mean, it’s a budget gimmick, but it’s money never intended to spend.
GEITHNER: No, it’s not a budget gimmick unless you are — when Republicans propose, it’s a budget gimmick?
WALLACE: Sure, absolutely.
GEITHNER: And you should address that to them. But what it does is –
WALLACE: Well — so, I’m addressing it to you.
GEITHNER: But, again, it’s a basic challenge that we face, Chris. It’s the biggest challenge we face, which is how to bring the deficit down over time.
Now, it’s going to require spending savings, it’s going to require increasing in rates of revenues. We think we can do that. We’re going to work very hard to do that and I think we were in a very good chance to do it and there’s no reason we can’t do it.
Amid all the political and media hoopla about the “fiscal cliff” crisis, there are a few facts that are worth noting.
First of all, despite all the melodrama about raising taxes on “the rich,” even if that is done it will scarcely make a dent in the government’s financial problems. Raising the tax rates on everybody in the top two percent will not get enough additional tax revenue to run the government for ten days.
And what will the government do to pay for the other 355 days in the year?
All the political angst and moral melodrama about getting “the rich” to pay “their fair share” is part of a big charade. This is not about economics, it is about politics. Taxing “the rich” will produce a drop in the bucket when compared to the staggering and unprecedented deficits of the Obama administration.
No previous administration in the entire history of the nation ever finished the year with a trillion dollar deficit. The Obama administration has done so every single year. Yet political and media discussions of the financial crisis have been focused overwhelmingly on how to get more tax revenue to pay for past and future spending.
…
Referring to the Federal Reserve System’s creation of hundreds of billions of new dollars out of thin air as “quantitative easing” makes it seem as if this is some soothing and esoteric process, rather than amounting essentially to nothing more than printing more money.
Debasing the value of money by creating more of it is nothing new or esoteric. Irresponsible governments have done this, not just for centuries, but for thousands of years.
It is a way to take people’s wealth from them without having to openly raise taxes. Inflation is the most universal tax of all.
All the pretty talk about how tax rates will be raised only on “the rich” hides the ugly fact that the poorest people in the country will see the value of their money decline, just like everybody else, and at the same rate as everybody else, when the government creates more money and spends it.
If you have $100 and, after inflation follows from “quantitative easing,” that $100 dollars will only buy what $80 bought before, then that is the same economically as if the government had taxed away one-fifth of your money and spent it.
But it is not the same politically, so long as gullible people don’t look beyond words to the reality that inflation taxes everybody, the poorest as well as the richest.
It’s important that we do not lose sight of serious issues and dismiss them as fear mongering. The truth is, there are some frightening things going on in our society and government today that are valid concerns that should not be dismissed, not necessarily because the sky will fall tomorrow, but because the practical application of government plans today does have consequences. This doesn’t mean we should live in fear, but we should look at the reality of what our government is doing today and where they will take it.
“I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations.” James Madison
Gradual and silent encroachments of those in power should not be ignored. As a people who want to keep our freedom, we have to stay vigilant in protecting our freedom. We can’t let gradual and silent encroachments continue to build, as they have since the founding of our limited government. For generations we have ignored the gradual and silent encroachments of those in power. Because the sky does not appear to fall when it is lowered gradually, we have failed to notice that it is indeed coming down, especially when it comes to our civil liberties.
The Patriot Act was originally passed by a Republican congress with a Republican president. We had a real and frightening attack on our soil 9/11/01, and the people of this country, petrified by fear, did not fight the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. In fact, the fear fed its creation, because we wanted to feelsafe. Fear-mongering always comes down to feelings/emotions. When Barack Hussein Obama took over the presidency, he ran on the idea that he would put a stop to the Patriot Act. Instead, he extended it and expanded it. No one argued. No one freaked out. No one got scared.
By our Bill of Rights, we are supposed to be guaranteed a right not to be searched without a warrant or at least probable cause. Yet, try to get on a plane today without a full body search or scan. With the provisions added into the defense spending bill, the NDAA, you no longer have a right to a speedy trial or due process. Today, the president can detain you in prison for as long as he wants without a hearing or explanation. That is two Amendments to our constitution that are non-existent today. We threw them away. We let them take them from us through gradual and silent encroachments. We got emotional, and we voted based on fear-mongering about terrorism, and in so doing, we pounded the nail into the coffin of our civil liberties.
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin
We gave up our liberty for a baseless feeling of safety. Our borders are pretty much open right now, so passing the Patriot Act did not make you safer. It did not stop terrorists from entering our country. It made you feel safe, and that feeling was and is baseless. We gave up two important civil liberties for a false sense of security.
There are indeed valid concerns that we as a people must be mindful of. We must fight for our civil liberties. No government insures freedom. The only thing that has insured freedom for us in the past two centuries has been limiting government, based on the Constitution and our Bill of Rights.
When we allow our own charter of government to be violated, we are throwing away our own freedom. It isn’t something that we only have to fight for once. It is a continuous battle. It requires diligent and consistent attention from We the People. We cannot dismiss an issue because one side claims the other is fear mongering. We have to look at the issue. We have to logically reason about the fear itself and whether or not it is justified, and we have to scrutinize the specific allegation creating the fear.
Kevin Brady scrutinized an allegation that has been the result of a lot of fear regarding the ObamaCare bill. The allegation is that the law contains language that mandates that we all get implanted RFID chips. What Kevin found is that the bill language was indeed presented in HR 3200, which was an earlier version of the actual bill that passed.
The final bill H.R. 3590 – Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act, or Obamacare — as signed into law, also has no reference to an implantable device. It therefore means that the scare of an RFID chip, has no association to Obamacare.
…
The question now is, does the government have plans for implanting some device and is that authority hidden in some other legislation.
I posted Kevin’s article on my FB page and I got a message from a friend who has also looked into the language of this bill because she was concerned when she read it, and she found a government regulation that has similar language about an implantable medical device registry. When you first read it, it is disturbing. But when you look closely at the wording, it’s addressing a registry of implantable lifesaving devices, like pacemakers. The point of registering and chipping the devices is to make device serial numbers easier to track down in the event of recall.
While HR 3200 is not the law of the land today, we should not ignore the language in that failed bill. It was proposed. Someone wrote the original provision that Congress rejected. It is on someone’s agenda. Is the sky falling tomorrow? No. But that does not mean this is not a concern that we should be on the watch for, ready to blow the whistle about at a moment’s notice.
It is actually refreshing that people are worrying about our laws regarding implantable RFID chips. That means they are thinking about them, scrutinizing the language of bills and regulations that Congress passes. That is a responsible thing for our public to be focusing on. Are they doing it out of fear? Maybe. But is it an issue that we should fear? It has already been considered by our legislators, so denying the possibility isn’t reasonable. This is not an issue that has no valid basis.
Such silent encroachments occur daily and very often We the People only find out about it after the fact. We have to pay attention. We have to be diligent. We have to scrutinize and look beyond emotion to discern whether a fear is a trumped up manipulation or whether it is a valid concern with a possibility of becoming reality. We have to protect our own rights, our own liberty.
“I know no class of my fellowmen, however just, enlightened, and humane, which can be wisely and safely trusted absolutely with the liberties of any other class.” Frederick Douglass
We cannot trust our government with our liberty. We cannot trust the media with our liberty. You cannot trust any other class of your fellow countrymen with your liberty. No one is going to fight for your freedom but you. The government infringes upon freedom by its very nature. It is The People who have to maintain our freedom and limits of government. We have not done a very good job over the past few decades of stopping these silent and gradual encroachments. The federal government we have today looks nothing like the federal government this country founded. We have allowed our fears to work toward someone else’s ends, and in doing so, we have ignored valid concerns that have gradually and silently built into what we have today: A fundamental transformation of this country. A fundamental change from individual freedom to collective socialism. It wouldn’t have been possible to achieve it all at once without a revolution, but it’s been achieved today through gradual and silent encroachments.
Putting the month in perspective, this week’s moment of disgust comes from Jamie Foxx at the Soul Train Awards:
It’s still the economy, stupid!
Within a week of the election, left-wing corporate media suddenly discovered that we have economic problems. Before the election, we were under this fascist, theocratic assault on women and homosexuals, and we couldn’t waste any airtime talking about silly economic issues when someone who values the life of unborn babies might be elected to public office. It appears that The Establishment, Democrats, RINOs, elitists like Warren Buffet, and corporate media have all decided that now it’s time to talk about the economy — now that the evil assault on contraception insurance helped decide an election, now that we have a president that supports gay marriage (even though he can’t do anything about it as president) — now, after the election of course – we have suddenly remembered that we have an economy to deal with. Seeing how the fiscal cliff is a month away and we’re back to crisis legislation, now the media has decided that raising taxes is the only compromise to save us from overall tax hikes.
It appears that the Establishment have all decided that the best way to handle the expiration of Bush tax policy is to raise taxes amidst economic stagnation. On the same year they enact the largest tax increase on the middle class yet in the form of the ObamaCare tax penalty, they also want to raise taxes on some 600,000 to 900,000 small businesses.
The media call is that this election was a voter mandate for Republicans to compromise and raise taxes. Where are all Obama’s great compromises? From the moment Obama took office in 2009 through today, he has touted one thing: Raise taxes. He has not offered any exchanges of cuts or entitlement reform to negotiate a compromise for tax increases. He’s basically been saying raise taxes, take it or leave it.
We know from Fast & Furious and Benghazi that this president will politicize anything, that he will actively manufacture a crisis from the very situations his policies have created, that he will ignore the deaths of Americans and use them to enact executive policy that he can’t get passed our representative legislators. And he has willing accomplices in the leftstream corporate media. They’ve decided that we need to raise taxes. They don’t care that those tax increases will kill more jobs and more small businesses. They don’t care that those tax increases won’t even cover Democrat spending for two weeks. They have decided that if we raise taxes, all our fiscal problems will go away. Raising taxes in a hurting economy does not solve employment problems. It hurts employment. It is such a simple concept to anyone who has ever run a business, it just goes to show how incredibly out of touch and unthinking these media pundits are. They are touting a policy that they are being paid to tout.
CBS’s political director John Dickerson all but crossed his fingers on Wednesday’s CBS This Morning as he forwarded the idea of letting the country go over the looming fiscal cliff so President Obama could gain the political advantage: “There is an argument for actually…letting this happen. The President gets even more leverage. Dickerson boasts “Obama has more leverage” if country goes off fiscal cliff: http://www.mrc.org/biasalerts/cbss-dickerson-boasts-obama-has-more-leverage-if-country-goes-fiscal-cliff
DICKERSON: I think there’s – well, it’s interesting how you read the leverage, because there’s an argument that, basically, if the – if the so-called fiscal cliff happens, taxes go up for everybody; then, you have a conversation about – not about raising taxes, but about, then, cutting taxes. They would have already gone up. And the question is whether the President has a great deal more leverage. He then basically is able to say, it’s because the Republicans were too stuck – that these taxes went up in the first place, and now, they don’t want to raise – they don’t want to lower taxes on the middle class because they’re stuck on trying to keep taxes low for the wealthy. So, there is an argument for, actually, because the cliff isn’t an actual cliff – because nothing will happen the day after that is catastrophic – there is an argument for actually – maybe – letting this happen. The President gets even more leverage.
Obama will have more political leverage. That’s all that matters to an administration that treats people like pieces on a board game. Obama can twist this tax increase into the salvation of the middle class. See, first he’ll let your middle class tax rates go up automatically by letting all the current tax rates expire, because he is hellbent on raising taxes. He will not compromise, and we will go over the fiscal cliff. Then, everyone in America’s taxes go up. As a result, Obama can play the savior of the middle class, because the negotiation isn’t over whether we raise taxes in a stagnant economy – which is the reality of the issue. Instead, the issue becomes whether or not evil Republicans will “hold the middle class hostage” to keep tax rates at their existing levels for “the rich.” It’s purely political.
John Dickerson is not an economist. He’s a media political director. He’s not claiming this will be good for the economy or the American people. He’s claiming this will be good for Barack Hussein Obama. He’ll get leverage by playing with your lives for his own interests. Not America’s interests. Not the American people’s interests. But Barack Hussein Obama’s interests. This ploy might work, but what will it solve? We’ll raise taxes in a stagnant economy and will still be racking up $1 trillion in debt every year.
The media appears to be dictating Democrat policy to Republicans in the past three weeks, as though this election put Republicans under some mandate to ignore their constituents and turn into bleating sheeple for Obama’s agenda.
Correspondent Jon Karl on ABC interviewed Paul Ryan on Nov. 14.
Correspondent Jon Karl: “If there was one issue that the President campaigned on, it was raising taxes on the wealthy, every, single speech he gave. Doesn’t he have a mandate there? The top earners — seeing them pay more of their fair share as the President put it?…Could you see yourself supporting a plan that raises tax rates on the top two percent?…So, you don’t support a plan?” Representative Paul Ryan (R?WI): “I don’t want to get into negotiating with the media, but I do not support raising tax rates.” — Interview segment shown on Good Morning America, November 14. [MP3 audio (0:52)]
Republicans have offered a compromise. The media won’t admit it, but that’s what it is. They don’t want to raise the tax rate table overall. They want to cut special interest deductions that will in effect raise tax revenues without affecting everyone at once. Karl is actually coaxing Ryan to acquiesce to Obama’s “fair-share” rhetoric, when in fact, cutting special deductions and subsidies is making sure that people pay their so-called “fair share.” Targeted deductions unlevel the playing field. If Democrats really wanted the tax code to be “fair,” then they would be pushing a flat tax with no deductions or subsidies. But they aren’t. They are pushing an overall tax increase on people who already pay more than half of the tax revenue in this country. Democrats misuse the word “fair” on a daily basis. Words matter, they mean things.
Deductions and subsidies are favoritism. They are special rules for special people for special reasons, and there is no freedom from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism in that. “Fair Share” is a Democrat lie. It is flat out false once you get a real dictionary in your hands. But to Democrats and the left in general, “fair” has a different definition. It basically means the opposite of what Merriam-Webster’s says.
Fill?in co?host Mario Cantone: “What do you think the Republican Party has to do to fix themselves….What do you think?” MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough: “Yeah. They’ve got to stop listening to the most extreme people in their party.” [Applause] Co?host Whoopi Goldberg: “Say it one more time. One more time. One more time, Joe, please say it.” Scarborough: “It’s very simple. They’ve got to stop listening to the most extreme people in their party, whether it’s on talk radio or on cable news or on the internet.” — ABC’s The View, November 9. [MP3 audio (0:57)]
Who are these so-called “extreme people” in the Republican Party? The Tea Party was deemed extremist, racist, and terrorist by the left from the moment they showed up with signs quoting founding fathers in 2009. They were not touting abortion issues. In fact, there were reports of Tea Party organizers kicking anti-abortion activists and Truthers out of their rallies. They didn’t want their message diluted by social issues or controversy. And they were still vilified as extremists. What was so extreme? The main message of the Tea Party has been smaller government, less taxes, and a return to constitutional federal limits. Anyone touting federal limits or even a slight downsizing of our current federal monstrosity is deemed an extremist who wants anarchy. We can’t even talk about cutting the increases of our budget without words like “draconian” being thrown about along with visuals of elderly people getting pushed off a cliff.
We basically have left-wing extremists standing in the middle where they don’t belong, pointing at those slightly right of the center and screaming extremist. Obama is an extremist. He wants fundamental change in our country. He isn’t changing it back to what it should be. The only way he is fundamentally changing our country is by speeding along the Marxist infiltration that has been swallowing this country’s founding principles since their hero FDR started the ball rolling in the ‘40s. But to the left-wing media, that’s not extreme. What we have in this country is a bunch of extremist, elitist, out-of-touch, emotional media pundits defining the political parties from their left-wing extremist perspective. When you are standing in the extreme left, even the center looks extreme to you. Romney was so extreme that the worst thing they could say about him is that he is rich.
NBC political director Chuck Todd: “Let’s look back at the Republican Party. How did they become a coalition of special interest forces? They really do look like the Democratic Party of the ’70s and ’80s where they seem to — the leaders in Washington can’t control the special interest groups….” Ex?McCain advisor Steve Schmidt: “Conservatism is a serious governing philosophy that has served this country well. But to too many swing voters in the country, when you hear the word ‘conservative’ now, they think of loons and wackos….Our elected leaders are scared to death of the conservative entertainment complex, the shrill and divisive voices that are bombastic and broadcasting out into the homes. And this country is rejecting the social extremism of the Republican Party on issue after issue.” — NBC’s Meet the Press, November 11.
“We just need to disenthrall ourselves from these extreme voices who’ve choked off reasonable debate in Washington,” Avlon continued.
“Come on, Congress, make a great mud pie. You can do it,” Costello cheered for compromise. Many Republicans have still not abandoned the tax pledge, but CNN is already taking sides in favor of compromise.
What is reasonable to these people? Was it when Democrats took over the White House, along with the two houses of Congress they controlled and basically told Repubs to sit down and shut up? Was it when Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi conspired to pass a Health insurance tax that unconstitutionally originated in the Senate? Are trillion-dollar-annual deficits “reasonable?” Is $16 Trillion in national debt reasonable? Are feckless tax increases that will not solve our economic problems, but only add to them, really reasonable? CNN is the network that is currently being accused by a former employee of taking payment from both the American government and foreign governments to control their news. So, here we have state-run media deciding who is reasonable and who isn’t.
Grover Norquist is the founder of Americans for Tax Reform, and he presented a pledge to our candidates, which many Repubs signed when they were campaigning for office. Basically, these two media mouthpieces, all giddy and touting “Don’t fear Grover Norquist,” are actually cheering Republican congressmen to abandon their campaign promises to their constituents. As if this is about Grover Norquist. Like he’s some kind of fascist dictator forcing Republicans to fight the Democrat lord and savior Obama against the will of the people who elected him.
What about the people who elected all those Repubs because they signed a pledge not to raise taxes? The president is one man. The president never represents the entire country. You do not get your representation in our government from any president. Your representation comes in Congress. Where your vote counts more in your district, not as the nation as a whole, but in your community.
As someone who voted specifically for candidates who promised to fight tax increases and government growth, I don’t appreciate these pigs in the media telling my congressmen to ignore me and their promises to me. I don’t get to vote for network media anchors and pundits. They don’t represent me. Yet here they are for a month now, trying to dictate their own opinions on our representatives. They aren’t even touting policy that is good for us. They are touting policy that will only hurt us more, but will make their lord and savior Obama look good. It will give him leverage.
MCCARTHY: Most accountants will tell you, the majority of small businesses run as an “s” corporation. So what you would do is you would raise the rate over 43 percent, based upon what the other tax coming in with ObamaCare. Well, small business is at its lowest percent in 17 years of new start-ups. Small business creates more jobs than large corporations. So if you look towards the future, we’re at a weaker point so you don’t want to harm more of small business. So let’s sit at the table, find places you close those special loopholes, bring the President the more revenues that he asked for where Republicans have put that on the table now. While keeping economy able to grow.
BLITZER: This new CNN/ORC poll that we just released today, is the GOP doing enough to cooperate with President Obama? 24 percent say yes, 70 percent say no. Politically speaking, it will appear to a lot of Americans you’re simply trying to protect the rich.
The aftermath of this election has been felt around the country. Now that we know Obama will be here for another 4 years, and that Senate Democrats aren’t going to be any less obstructionist than they’ve been for the past 2 years, we can look forward to an ongoing budget hiatus and the implementation of ObamaCare and ObamaTax increases. We have a little more certainty now that we know Obama will be here to finish the job of fundamentally changing our country into a Banana Republic. So, in response to the election, companies have been announcing layoffs, restaurant chains are announcing price increases in the form of an ObamaCare sales tax, and a lot of retail and food service chains are announcing that they are moving to mostly part-time employees.
Hostess
Hostess announced they would be going out of business and liquidating their assets this week after the Baker’s Union ignored their negotiating offer and went on strike. Monday, the bankruptcy judge ordered them into mediation with the bakers union.
Hostess Brands and its second largest union will go into mediation to try and resolve their differences, meaning the Irving, Texas-based company won’t go out of business just yet. The news came Monday after Hostess moved to liquidate and sell off its assets in bankruptcy court citing a crippling strike last week.
The bankruptcy judge hearing the case says that the parties haven’t gone through the critical step of mediation and asked the lawyer for the bakery’s union to ask his client, who wasn’t present, if he would agree to participate.
The judge noted that the bakery union went on strike after rejecting the company’s latest contract offer, even though it never filed an objection to it.
Hostess has been struggling for a decade in a saturated market of baked goodies. Left-wingers claim the company has been mismanaged to its death, and it’s not the bakers union’s fault that they’re going out of business. That may be true, however, the baker’s union undoubtedly pounded the final nail into their coffin when they refused to negotiate an 8% decrease in their salaries and benefits.
There are an increasing number of Mexican pastries and cakes on our grocery and convenience store shelves. If American companies are going to compete with foreign companies that deal with less regulation and labor expense, then they are going to have no choice but to cut their cost of doing business in this country or outsource to other countries. Unions will be faced with important questions over the next four years. What is more important? Maintaining a union standard that kills an industry or simply having jobs and industry? The Unions were celebrating Hostess’s announcement that they were folding. It was a show of power! They showed their power to kill their own jobs.
Planned Parenthood executive vice president Dawn Laguens told an Emily’s List post-election panel that Planned Parenthood’s strategy was very simple: to keep undecided women’s minds preoccupied with abortion and birth control until the very last minute – until they were forced to make a decision.
“[W]e could kind of hold them in ‘undecided’, in particularly in the presidency, by making Mitt Romney questionable in their mind on our set of issues,” Laguens said.
I’ve had a few fiscal conservatives tell me that the problem with this election was that Republicans were focusing on social issues, like opposing abortion and gay marriage. I didn’t see that originate from the Republican side. What I saw was a lot of Republican defense being played in reaction to the Left. It was Democrat and left-wing groups like Planned Parenthood, who get millions in taxpayer dollars and spend millions in lobbying for their for-profit industry both in our political elections and in our courts, who focused this election on social issues.
Allen West Concedes
Rep. Allen West (R-FL) fought a losing battle in his district as a direct result of the Census redistricting. He was moved from his current district into a majority Democrat district. They knew what they were doing, but he still managed to come within .58% of Democrat opponent Patrick Murphy (it takes a difference of 0.5% for Florida state election law to trigger an automatic recount). There were plenty of odd and chaotic conditions in his district that warrant scrutiny of this vote, especially in St. Lucie, the very district where suspicious recounts took place of early votes before the election ended, and the very district who “missed” the deadline for the court-ordered recount after the election, which allowed the original count to stand.
Now the group (Anonymous) has come forward and said they are the reason that Karl Rovenearly went apoplecticon Fox News on Nov. 6, Election Night 2012.
Thom Hartmann reported the claim on his radio show on Friday (video of the broadcast is embedded). Of course, Anonymous has claimed things in the past which later turned out to be false, but as Hartmann said: “it makes sense.”
Republican strategist Karl Rove seemed incredibly surprised when the results came back from Ohio. It wasn’t just the surprise that Mitt Romney exuded — he reportedly had no concession speech written — it was genuine amazement.
As Hartmann, noted, in the book “Boss Rove: Inside Karl Rove’s Secret Kingdom of Power,” author Craig Unger documented how in the 2004 election, “the Ohio vote was counted in Ohio, at 11:13 p.m. at night, the entire Ohio voting system crashed … a minute later they came up. In that minute, all the votes had been re-routed through a server system in Tennesee, and so all the vote totals flowed back into the system in Ohio, and John Kerry lost, even though the exit polls showed him winning.”
Curiously enough, the Ohio Secretary of State’s vote tabulation website went down at 11:13 p.m. Rove even mentioned it on the air.
Coincidence? Possibly. In this day of technology and hackers — and not just Anonymous, but hackers working for the GOP and others — it’s not out of the question. Computers are subject to bugs, as well, including this example of a voting machine that would not allow the user to vote for Obama on Nov. 6.
However, according to the report, Anonymous stopped any voter fraud from happening. The hacker group put up firewalls on election night to any data from flowing out of Ohio.
Anonymous, according to their “letter,” could instead have tried to capture the data and then expose the criminals, but that would have been far too risky. Instead, they closed the hole that Rove was going to use and blocked the theft of the election.
Is there any real proof that this happened? Of course not. However, based on Anonymous past exploits, we believe it is possible. In addition, in late October, Anonymous posted a little viewed video (viewable here, due to embedding limitations) that warned Rove and others that their theft of the election was not going to be successful.
It would be very interesting if Anonymous captured enough information to give the Justice Department evidence to take down the miscreants. Odds are not, but it would indeed be interesting to see Rove and others brought to task.
Hartmann’s reasoning to support the Anonymous claim is that Karl Rove almost had a stroke when Fox announced Obama the winner in Ohio.
WORDS MATTER – apoplectic: of, relating to, or causing stroke, or affected with, inclined to, or showing symptoms of stroke.
It hardly looks like Karl Rove is having a stroke about this, based on the following video from the Examiner article about Hartmann’s “sense.”
Karl Rove’s hissy fit? Or Fox anchors?
Rove said, “We’ve got to be careful about calling things when we have like 991 votes separating the two candidates and a quarter of the vote left to count.”
He didn’t think they should call it yet. He didn’t even disagree with the call. This article is claiming it makes sense that Anonymous must have saved Ohio for Obama, considering a journalist’s book about Rove in 2004 and specifically that reaction from Karl Rove on election night.
This is a smokescreen, along with unsubstantiated claims that Republicans were suppressing votes, simply by enacting voter ID laws.
What this fails to address is who added in all the false information about spontaneous protests and anti-Islam videos on YouTube.
Israel
Israel has been bombed steadily from Gaza for months now. So, they started retaliating. The amazing thing about it has been the media coverage. It’s like they have no idea that Israel has been bombed from Gaza ever since they ceded the territory to Palestinian terrorists. They completely ignore HALF of this conflict and are actively working to create sympathy for Gaza residents. But there is a harsh reality about this conflict. The Gaza terrorists are cowards and they use school yards and civilian-populated marketplaces to launch rockets at Israel. When Israel targeted the launching sites, women, children, and civilians in general died too.
How hypocritical it is to cry crocodile tears for dead women and children when those same innocents have been paraded about in martial glory advocating the death of the “Zionist Entity.” Can one soon forget the scenes spun from your propaganda machine of legions of women sporting AK-47?s, cloaked in their abayas and niqabs and marching in formation to the cheers and applause of Gaza’s patriotic residents; or of the hundreds of children, scarcely able to walk on their own, clad in (I suppose) ceremonial suicide vests and rewarded with candy and affirmation from their loving parents? There are indeed consequences to indoctrinating the innocent from their cradles forward with hate and bloodlust, primarily being that you forfeit their innocence and make them morally complicit in your butchery and war crimes. So is it not now disingenuous to rent your garments and wail over the outcome that you yourselves have brought to fruition?
In sowing to the angel of death, you have thereby reaped their terminal estate. Do not be surprised then, when the rosy cheeked cherub you have fawned over the entirety of his short life is crushed amidst the rubble of a schoolyard or a mosque that you conspiratorially placed a rocket launcher beside, using the flesh of your flesh as human shields in a gambit that you could not win and for an end you cannot hope to achieve. Because of your abiding morbid loathing, they have always been dead; they were merely waiting for you to light that deadly fuse. ~The Professor
The Republican National Convention officially began Monday, Aug. 27, 2012, in Tampa, Florida, and then the Democrat’s National Convention begins on Sept. 3 in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Reince Priebus, the RNC chair, opened the convention Monday, spent about five minutes on stage, of which ABC’s LIVE coverage showed none.
ABC’s live coverage of the convention opening:
They spent a minute and a half talking about what was going on onstage behind them. Then, they spent another 2 minutes talking about storm preparation in New Orleans. But a tropical storm, maybe hurricane, is not relevant to the Republican National Convention coverage.
The media is creating the dialogue without letting you hear the actual words of the candidates. We only heard a quick mention in that coverage about the explanation of the debt clock that Reince Priebus started onstage. It’s counting real-time debt accumulation from the opening of the convention, considering it pertains to economic issues, the press would rather make hurricane connections.
Republicans started their clock tabulating mounting U.S. national debt over the course of their convention. (The clock approached about $15 million 10 minutes after the convention had been called to order.)
Priebus also called for a moment of reflection for first responders keeping the convention safe and handling the impact of Tropical Storm Isaac.
A reverend also delivered a short invocation that, among other things, paid tribute to the late astronaut Neil Armstrong.
Beyond that, a half-full floor of delegates were treated to a short, inspirational film about nominee-in-waiting Mitt Romney.
Hurricane Isaac
The Washington Times editorial analyzing this political ploy.
White House correspondent Chuck Todd kicked off the analogy (to hurricane Katrina) on MSNBC, observing, “The shadow of Bush and Katrina does hang over this convention.” President Clinton’s Labor Secretary Robert Reich piped in on Twitter: “Isaac will remind us of Katrina, and Katrina will remind us of George W. Bush.” The Associated Press dubbed the storm a critical trial for Mr. Romney. “The next few days will test Romney’s ability,” AP’s Des Moines correspondent Thomas Beaumont wrote, “to both present himself to the American people as a plausible alternative to President Barack Obama, and to lead a party still smarting from the image hit it took in the aftermath of the 2005 Gulf Coast devastation.”
On Sunday, Ellen Barkin expressed her hope that Tropical Storm Isaac would smash up the Republican National Convention in Tampa and drown all its delegates.
She retweeted the message of one of her followers that read: “C’mon #Isaac! Wash every pro-life, anti-education, anti-woman, xenophobic, gay-bashing, racist SOB right into the ocean! #RNC ” Barkin did not express any disagreement in her retweet.
Chris Matthews warns viewers of the so-called racist buzzwords to watch out for in this convention. He’s decided that the terms Food Stamps and Welfare are racist. Newt Gingrich rubbed his nose in the truth on that one, when he very accurately pointed out that Chris Matthews must be a racist if he assumes that any mention of Food Stamps or Welfare is about black people.
Rule Changes
After much backlash from grassroots groups the RNC has agreed to compromise in an effort to avoid a floor fight over the proposed rule allowing candidates to select their own delegates and silence opposition. The language of the compromise states that delegates must vote for the candidate to which they are bound. There is no real opposition to this aspect of the compromise as it is against the law in most states to vote for a candidate whom you are not bound to, the state laws do differ so this rule seeks to reinforce them.
The issue that some delegates continue to have with the compromise is that proposed rule 12 would allow the RNC to rewrite the operating rules and guidelines of the GOP between conventions, without the influence of delegates, so long as they had a three-fourths majority.
According to www.preservetheparty.com , a website started this week by delegates to help raise awareness on this issue, proposed rule 12 reads: “The Republican National Committee may, by three-fourths (3/4) vote of its entire membership, amend Rule Nos. 1-11 and 13-25. Any such amendment shall be considered by the Republican National Committee only if it was passed by a majority vote of the Standing Committee on Rules after having been submitted in writing at least ten (10) days in advance of its consideration by the Republican National Committee and shall take effect thirty (30) days after adoption. No such amendment shall be adopted after September 30, 2014.
The language of rule 12 makes the compromise on Rule 16, which would essentially allow a candidate to hire and fire delegates as they see fit, a farce, the RNC can simply go back and rewrite the rules once the convention is over.
I spoke with Jeremy Blosser, a Texas delegate, who is furious over the compromise because it does not address proposed rule 12.
“Some are answering that Rule 12 has checks and balances, but far too much is being made of these. There’s no “emergency changes only” requirement, and it’s clear from the debate offered in the committee that the intention is to not restrict it to emergency changes but to allow consideration of substantive and controversial changes that the candidates prevent being discussed during the convention media cycle. There’s no ratification requirement such as requiring a number of State Executive Committees to ratify, or the next national convention to ratify. There’s no attempt to preserve the strength of the individual states.”
If this rule stands it will operate as a contingency plan for the RNC, should Grassroots organizations gain more influence than RNC leadership is comfortable with. This must be stopped.
Ron Paul full speech with Rand’s intro at the We Are The Future Rally in the Sun Dome in Tampa, FL:
Paul addressed issues in his speech. Ending the Fed, bringing our troops home from Afghanistan, personal liberty (raw milk, smoking, drinking, drugs), civil liberty, property rights, the destruction of currency, foreign affairs (Syria, Iran), NDAA being un-American…
Romney denies knowing about the RNC and Maine’s delegates:
Lynn Picciano: YA KNOW LETS THINK ABOUT THIS FOLKS! Are not the rules for VOTING/ELECTIONS more important to adhere by than lets say-THE RULES/REG. FOR FOOTBALL, BASEBALL ETC GAME? Can you imagine a player or coach coming on the field announcing we’re changing that rule and replacing it with this or that? It’s preposterous. They’d be laughed off the field. So, how are we allowing them to flagrantly eff with these rules in events to suit their own purpose…
It’s time to bring the Republican Party back to conservatism, fiscal responsibility, constitutional governing, and proper representation. It is not time to embrace moderates who vote with Democrats on issues of centralized control and nanny-state bureaucracy.
When Democrats wanted to raise the debt ceiling in 2011, House Republicans (TEA Party terrorists, according to Joke Biden) fought for spending cuts before they would agree to raise it. Obama and Democrats in Congress demanded raising taxes on this stagnant economy before they would agree to cut a dime of spending. So, all they agreed to before the debt ceiling was raised was a deadline for a “Super” Committee who was supposed to agree on cuts or automatic spending cuts would go into play. Of course, they couldn’t agree to cut spending at all, so as of January 2013 the cuts will be made indiscriminately, half from our defense budget, in “sequestration.” Now Defense companies are looking at layoffs, at least 10,000 of them.
On Greta Van Sustern, Dana Perino interviews Stephen Hadley, national security adviser to George W. Bush.
Earlier this month Obama’s Labor Department sent out a memo to companies in the defense industry telling them to ignore the notices these firms are required to send when lay-offs are expected. The White House Budget Chief, Jeffrey Zients, defended the Department of Labor advising firms against sending out layoff notices.
The 23-year-old WARN Act requires some employers to send out pink slips 60 days ahead of a “reasonably foreseeable” event — in this case, massive spending cuts to defense and domestic programs… The looming sequester … would trim $110 billion from the federal budget on Jan. 2, 2013. That means some companies heavily reliant upon government contracts would have to notify soon-to-be-terminated workers the Friday before Election Day in order to comply with the WARN Act.
Obama’s Jeffrey Zients was arguing that Congress might fix the problem in the 11th hour, so the DOL is advising these companies not to send the layoff notices. The Dept of Labor in a strictly political move is advising defense companies to violate their own WARN Act, to not send the notices, and at the same time, they offer no guarantees to these companies that they won’t be liable to lawsuits if they take the administration’s advice.
He [a U.S. Senator] knows he’s got to buy time on my radio station, so he’s going to lend me an ear. We’re keeping them alive back home and that’s why the newspaper and radio and TV people are more effective lobbyists. Joseph Costello, quotes about Media
There is no such thing as unbiased news. Anyone who tells you their news source isn’t biased, simply agrees with their source’s bias. If you aren’t looking for bias from both sides, as well as the stuff both sides agree on, then you are being fed your news indiscriminately, and you aren’t thinking critically. There is no such thing as unbiased news.
Newsweek
Hit the Road, Jack:
Based on this one article, Newsweek appeared to have been purchased by Rupert Murdoch. They published a cover story with Barack Obama pictured, called “Hit the Road, Barack, Why we need a new president.” It sent the leftwing into a freakout frenzy of damage control. The author of the article is Niall Ferguson.
Niall Ferguson on Sunday’s Face the Nation:
“In sorrow…” Ferguson admits the truth that the media has been glossing over for years under this president.
Examining the “Liberal Media” Claim, David Croteau, Virginia Commonwealth University Department of Sociology and Anthropology, (archived at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting), June 1998:
“The findings include:
“ · On select issues from corporate power and trade to Social Security and Medicare to health care and taxes, journalists are actually more conservative than the general public.
“ · Journalists are mostly centrist in their political orientation.
“ · The minority of journalists who do not identify with the ‘center’ are more likely to identify with the ‘right’ when it comes to economic issues and to identify with the ‘left’ when it comes to social issues.”
Today’s political scale places anyone who thinks the federal government is too big and/or unconstitutional on the extreme right — on the media and academic political scale. However, if you are a flat-out Marxist or Revolutionary Socialist (Progressives like Michael Moore), who wants to fundamentally change this country from the individual freedom of a capitalist constitutional republic into a nanny-state with centralized control, completely dismissing the constitutional limits of power, then today’s leftstream media and academia consider you a centrist. The left side of the scale has disappeared in mainstream academic, political, and media vernacular. Leftwing extremist, to the media, is reserved for crackpot mass murderers with undeniable ties to leftwing politicians or groups. University professors in the sociology department, living in their university bubble of Utopian theory, have decided that it’s moderate to be a socialist. So, on the scale that they use to judge our politicians, our media is also centrist. Those reasonable moderate people who want to fundamentally change this country and burn the constitution in the process — the center.
There is no such thing as unbiased media — anywhere. Fox is undoubtedly slanted to the right. The so-called “mainstream media” outside of Fox is slanted to the left. It’s just that the left no longer considers themselves left anymore.
The media today quotes Paul Krugman, a left-wing economist, and declares everything the man says as “fact.” He is one economist with one opinion. One leftist opinion. Thomas Sowell is an economist who consistently disagrees with Krugman, but you won’t see the left acknowledge Thomas Sowell as an expert, because he doesn’t tout their left-wing agenda.
Thomas Sowell exposes Obama’s economic policy consistently, but they don’t tout Sowell’s opinions as fact as they do with Paul Krugman.
Pay attention to who the media touts and how they treat pundits — who gets vilified and who gets revered. No matter which side of the aisle you prefer, there is no such thing as unbiased media. Someone is deciding what’s important enough for you to know and whoever they are, they are using their own agenda priorities to make that decision.
Raw Milk
As government crackdowns on co-ops selling raw milk and children’s lemonade stands continue to make headlines, political and health food activists are raising awareness through Lemonade Freedom Day, which didn’t make headlines.
On August 18, Reason TV went to the National Mall to check out the unlicensed celebration and the trade of illicit raw milk.
Raw Milk protest
I found articles from the Washington Times, The New American, Reason TV, lots of farm trade magazines and blogs like the Daily Caller and the Huffington Post, there were even Occupy sites that publicized this protest. I didn’t see a single network come up in my search engine in 10 pages of search results. This is a pretty bi-partisan issue. There are people who don’t even drink raw milk who are incensed that the federal government is prosecuting and raiding farms for selling raw milk. It is beyond the scope of the federal government, yet even with a plethora of Americans who care about this issue, not a single network news report. It may not be all Republican, it may not be all Democrat, but it is all within an agenda that does not include being a watchdog for this nation. The agenda is to manipulate you to achieve someone else’s goals.
“Perhaps the most obvious political effect of controlled news is the advantage it gives powerful people in getting their issues on the political agenda and defining those issues in ways likely to influence their resolution.” W. Lance Bennett
Mitt Romney announces Paul Ryan as his choice for Vice President, which the media have decided means this election is about Medicare.
15 to 20 percent real unemployment, record Food Stamp numbers, downgraded credit rating, record spending and a stagnating economy, three years without a budget, a divided Congress flailing with divisive leadership, and the media has declared the narrative of this election is about Medicare.
Romney announces Ryan as VP choice (full speech in Norfolk, VA)
Huffington Post writer digs Paul Ryan. Why Obama May Lose:
Increasing taxes on the wealthy is barely a Band-Aid on the exponential growth of Medicare, social security and defense spending. If President Obama wants to defeat Mitt Romney and lead America back to prosperity, then it’s his responsibility to stop the negative ads (he’s behaving like a Republican) and deal with the country’s most pressing issue — economic reform. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-taub/why-obama-may-lose_b_1770312.html?show_comment_id=176834319#comment_176834319
Medicare media spin
The Democrat narrative. They get their agenda out first, then it’s up to Paul Ryan and Republicans to debunk it. This one from The Hill even quotes a Republican strategist in the very article that defines the narrative:
“It can be an asset or a mixed bag depending on how quickly Republicans can define it, rather than letting Democrats define it for them,” Ron Bonjean said.
The Hill listed the Democrat spin first in the article. Journalists are taught that most people will only read the headlines and maybe the first couple of paragraphs of any news story, which is why journalists are trained to put all the basic summary information in the lead paragraph (who, what, when, where, why and how). From there, we are trained to prioritize the information and put the most important information in the article first. Details and expendable information go at the end.
Important to know about your media: We are trained to view politically correct content as “The Most Important.” If it fits the left-wing agenda we’ve been taught throughout our formal educations, then we are trained to consider that “important,” lead-paragraph information. As a discerning news reader, you have to scrutinize the article carefully and read it to the end. The order the information is presented reveals the spin of your source. It’s very likely that all the information that conflicts with the source’s agenda will be in the bottom half of the article, where most people won’t reach. When you read any article, make sure you get to the bottom. In today’s leftist-trained media, the “least important” information to the media may well be what you consider the most important as an American.
The majority of people won’t look under the fold of Page 1 in a newspaper. Most people read the top headlines only, which often do not even reflect the article content. Bias bleeds into every step of news creation. Every article you read has a biased priority to its arrangement. It’s important as a voting American to note the priority of the information in which an article is arranged: http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/243187-with-ryan-pick-medicare-takes-center-stage-in-election
This Hill article starts out declaring the narrative of the election – a VP choice of Ryan puts Medicare on center stage – the biased headline of The Left sets the narrative. Then it goes into the Democrat narrative quoting Democrat strategists and follows up underneath that with Republican counterpoints.
“[He's] not going to win any personality contests,” Anzalone (Democrat strategist) said. “Research shows voters are turned off by the smartest guy in the room.”
3 Things every voter needs to know about Paul Ryan’s Medicare Reform Plan
In his most excellent post on the Paul Ryan vice presidential pick, AEI’s Andrew Biggs highlights some key facts about Ryan’s approach to saving Medicare. These are clip and save:
1. No one over the age of 55 would be affected in any way.
2. Traditional Medicare fee-for-service would remain available for all. “Premium support”—that is, government funding of private insurance plans chosen by individuals—is an option for those who choose it. No senior would be forced out of the traditional Medicare program against his will.
3. Overall funding for Medicare under the Ryan-Wyden plan is scheduled to grow at the same rate as under President Obama’s proposals. Is this “gutting Medicare” and “ending Medicare as we know it”? In reality, it’s the market giving seniors cheaper, higher quality choices they can take if they wish, with the traditional program remaining an option.
Paul Ryan has a budget plan, a Medicare reform plan, a deficit-reduction plan. Democrats and the media are picking it over with a fine-toothed comb at the very same time they are ignoring the fact that not even a single Democrat voted for Obama’s last two budget proposals. They are criticizing Ryan’s budget plan for reducing spending and ignoring the fact that it has been 3 years since Congress passed a budget at all.
President Obama cannot run on his record, so he is committed to tearing down Mitt Romney. His campaign tried to use the tragedy of a woman’s death for political gain. Then, his top campaign aides were caught lying about it. Doesn’t America deserve better than a president who will do anything to stay in power?
Fox’s Ed Henry Tears down Obama Campaign claims about Obama Super PAC ad:
Obama hosted the 4th annual Iftar dinner at the White House Friday, Aug. 10, 2012, in celebration of Ramadan. To the media, these Muslim religious dinners aren’t noteworthy and mean nothing about Obama’s professed Christian religous beliefs — apparently because Obama said Thomas Jefferson started the tradition.
Obama hosts an Iftar Dinner, 8/10/12:
Of all the freedoms we cherish as Americans, of all the rights that we hold sacred, foremost among them is freedom of religion, the right to worship as we choose. It’s enshrined in the First Amendment of our Constitution — the law of the land, always and forever. It beats in our heart — in the soul of the people who know that our liberty and our equality is (sic) endowed by our Creator. And it runs through the history of this house, a place where Americans of many faiths can come together and celebrate their holiest of days — and that includes Ramadan.
As I’ve noted before, Thomas Jefferson once held a sunset dinner here with an envoy from Tunisia — perhaps the first Iftar at the White House, more than 200 years ago. And some of you, as you arrived tonight, may have seen our special display, courtesy of our friends at the Library of Congress — the Koran that belonged to Thomas Jefferson. And that’s a reminder, along with the generations of patriotic Muslims in America, that Islam — like so many faiths — is part of our national story.
Apparently, we’re all supposed to hear the name Thomas Jefferson and stop all questions. Thomas Jefferson did it. No more discussion. Nevermind that the obscure reference to Thomas Jefferson doesn’t even hold true. [Democrats in general do the same thing with Bush. Anything Obama does is okay and acceptable as long as Bush ever did anything remotely like it. Fast & Furious was a non-issue in the Democrat mind because Bush’s administration had a gun-running program too. Trillion-dollar-deficits are okay, because we had deficits under Bush too. Gitmo, The Patriot Act, and illegal wars are all okay, because Bush did it too.] It is not unusual for Democrats to drop Thomas Jefferson’s name in trying to convince us that the left-wing agenda is constitutional.
Jefferson didn’t hold an Iftar dinner. Jefferson had a visiting diplomat from Tunisia over for dinner, and they had to postpone it until later in the evening because the diplomat was celebrating Ramadan. Thomas Jefferson never held an Iftar dinner in the White House as a matter of ceremony. Barack Hussein Obama is holding annual Iftar dinners in the White House. It’s vile the way this administration rationalizes history and rewrites it in order to preempt scrutiny. It’s even viler the way our national media lets him do it without question.
Obama’s Iftar dinners have been high profile events with plenty of press, politically deliberate guests, and an annual Ramadan message. While Obama makes a big hoopla out of his Ramadan dinners, he started another tradition of recognizing the National Day of Prayer in private. The media has failed to question it, and Liberals scoff at the very idea that Obama might be a Muslim. However, the man has slipped up enough in speech alone to warrant scrutiny on both his faith and his word. He doesn’t even hide it, yet anyone who questions his religion gets ridiculed as some kind of theocratic conspiracy theorist.
Check out this comparison of Obama on the meaning of Christmas and the meaning of Ramadan:
Reuters headline of the event: At Ramadan Dinner, Obama calls Clinton aide a “patriot.” The article throws in the quip about Jefferson, of course, even though the article fails to question the celebrations:
