I have been thinking a lot about the election. Trying to find a suitable answer to a simple question: How could voters (other than those voting to confiscate for themselves some of the wealth of those more successful than them) possibly vote for Obama if they knew anything about him? The only answer I could come up with is that they couldn't. They must know little about him. As has been obvious for some time the MSM didn't bother to do much educating of the electorate where Obama was concerned.
A recent study by Zogby http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1641#Anchor-37902 makes three things clear:
1) Obama voters know (or care to know) little about him;
2) Almost half of them are so ill-informed that they are unaware that the Democrats have controlled Congress for the last two years. Bring back the poll tax please. There has to be a way to stop these people from voting.
3) An overwhelming majority of these same voters were very well informed about various Republican ticket "scandals". No surprise there thanks to an in the tank MSM.
The study was commissioned by the people who made this video http://howobamagotelected.com/ Watch it. Its worthwhile, if a bit tedious.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Obama , America
The land of the free and the home of the brave died today. The less well off have been convinced that they can bleed the wealth from those better off. This has not and never will work.
Election Day
Finally it's here. Election Day 2008. Is it really possible that we will elect a man like Obama. I have written about him several times before. At least we won't have to deal with his serial lying anymore, one way or another.
You may have heard the clip from his January 8, 2008 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board where he assured them any new coal fired electric generating stations would be bankrupted by his Cap and Trade program. He was very pleased with himself.
I hope he has not considered that the people who will be hurt by the rising electricity costs resulting from his program will not be me and my rich friends. It hardly matters to us what electricity costs. It will be all the middle class and lower people he claims to want to help so much. You know those tax credits and transfer payments that are going to make their lives so much better? They'll be used to pay for electricity. Wow, what a boon to humanity.
If he has considered the impact of his proposed policy and would go ahead anyway, so much the worse.
You may have heard the clip from his January 8, 2008 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board where he assured them any new coal fired electric generating stations would be bankrupted by his Cap and Trade program. He was very pleased with himself.
I hope he has not considered that the people who will be hurt by the rising electricity costs resulting from his program will not be me and my rich friends. It hardly matters to us what electricity costs. It will be all the middle class and lower people he claims to want to help so much. You know those tax credits and transfer payments that are going to make their lives so much better? They'll be used to pay for electricity. Wow, what a boon to humanity.
If he has considered the impact of his proposed policy and would go ahead anyway, so much the worse.
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Through the Looking Glass
I'm not sure when it happened, but it has. We now live in Alice's world.
We are being told with that unless we agree to spend/lend/guarantee $700,000,000,000 to big financial institutions our economy will melt down. We have all heard the clarion cry "There's no credit!!!".
At the same time we are told banks aren't lending to each other. What could they possibly have to lend to each other? They have no money. Right?
Perhaps they should give prospective borrowers the phone numbers for Citibank, Bank of America and Goldman Sachs. These three entities have raised $45,000,000,000 in new capital over the last couple of weeks and have been buying everything in sight; MerrilLynch, Washington Mutual, Lehman Brothers and Wachovia to name several.
What has actually happened is that solvent banks have raised the interest rate to insolvent banks. Makes sense. You have more risk, you charge more interest. The converse is, after all, what has caused the situation in the first place.
The people in charge of the solution, like Barney Franks and Chris Dodd, created the problem in the first place. Imagine. You can actually see video at YouTube of Barney Frank et al in 2003, 2004 and 2005 rejecting calls for more oversight of Fanny/Freddie. Insisting they were doing a great job. Amazing.
We are being told with that unless we agree to spend/lend/guarantee $700,000,000,000 to big financial institutions our economy will melt down. We have all heard the clarion cry "There's no credit!!!".
At the same time we are told banks aren't lending to each other. What could they possibly have to lend to each other? They have no money. Right?
Perhaps they should give prospective borrowers the phone numbers for Citibank, Bank of America and Goldman Sachs. These three entities have raised $45,000,000,000 in new capital over the last couple of weeks and have been buying everything in sight; MerrilLynch, Washington Mutual, Lehman Brothers and Wachovia to name several.
What has actually happened is that solvent banks have raised the interest rate to insolvent banks. Makes sense. You have more risk, you charge more interest. The converse is, after all, what has caused the situation in the first place.
The people in charge of the solution, like Barney Franks and Chris Dodd, created the problem in the first place. Imagine. You can actually see video at YouTube of Barney Frank et al in 2003, 2004 and 2005 rejecting calls for more oversight of Fanny/Freddie. Insisting they were doing a great job. Amazing.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Michelle Obama Now and Then
Michelle in her own words:
“My piece of the American Dream is a blessing hard won by those who came before me driven by the same conviction that drove my dad to get up an hour early each day to painstakingly dress himself for work — the same conviction that drives the men and women I’ve met all across this country…That’s why I love this country.” August 2008.
“We’re still living in a time and in a nation where the bar is set, right?…You start working hard and sacrificing and you think you’re getting close to that bar, you’re working and you’re struggling, and then what happens? They raise the bar…keep it just out of reach.”May 2008.
“For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country, because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.” February 2008.
Remarkable transformation eh? Do you have any doubt which is the real Michelle? I didn't think so.
“My piece of the American Dream is a blessing hard won by those who came before me driven by the same conviction that drove my dad to get up an hour early each day to painstakingly dress himself for work — the same conviction that drives the men and women I’ve met all across this country…That’s why I love this country.” August 2008.
“We’re still living in a time and in a nation where the bar is set, right?…You start working hard and sacrificing and you think you’re getting close to that bar, you’re working and you’re struggling, and then what happens? They raise the bar…keep it just out of reach.”May 2008.
“For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country, because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.” February 2008.
Remarkable transformation eh? Do you have any doubt which is the real Michelle? I didn't think so.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Obama the Diplomat
When Dubya was running in 2000 some reporter asked him the name of the President of Somewhere or Other. He mangled it, if he guessed at all. I don't remember. What I do remember are the ramifications. "Obviously", all the lefties said "this guy isn't ready to be President". They may have been right.
Yesterday Obama suggested, among other things, that the UN Security Council should convene immediately to discuss and pass resolutions to stop the war in Georgia.
This Columbia and Harvard educated lawyer is apparently not aware that Russia has a veto in the UN Security Council and there will be no resolutions passed until the Bear (note to Obama: Russia has been known as the Bear for a couple of hundred years, at least) achieves its goals in Georgia.
Unremarkably, one of our former Ambassadors to the UN, Governor Richardson of New Mexico, a wannabee VP for Obama, is also unaware of Russia's veto, having suggested the same prescription as Obama for stopping the war.
The well of these peoples' ignorance apparently has no bottom. Is it really possible that the dems would elect someone without even the most basic understanding of the most important (if utterly useless) international institution in the world?
Of course it is. They do not appear to care about anything but beating Republicans, no matter what the cost to the country and the world.
Update 8/27/08: Apparently nobody mentioned the Russian Security Council Veto in the last few weeks. He again called for the Council to convene on the subject. Wow. What a bubble this guy and his advisers live in. It is so hard to fathom that I find myself making excuses for him: What if he actually knows about the veto power but figures Americans are so stupid they don't know about it so he says it anyway. Let's hope so. It would certainly be the lesser of two evils.
Yesterday Obama suggested, among other things, that the UN Security Council should convene immediately to discuss and pass resolutions to stop the war in Georgia.
This Columbia and Harvard educated lawyer is apparently not aware that Russia has a veto in the UN Security Council and there will be no resolutions passed until the Bear (note to Obama: Russia has been known as the Bear for a couple of hundred years, at least) achieves its goals in Georgia.
Unremarkably, one of our former Ambassadors to the UN, Governor Richardson of New Mexico, a wannabee VP for Obama, is also unaware of Russia's veto, having suggested the same prescription as Obama for stopping the war.
The well of these peoples' ignorance apparently has no bottom. Is it really possible that the dems would elect someone without even the most basic understanding of the most important (if utterly useless) international institution in the world?
Of course it is. They do not appear to care about anything but beating Republicans, no matter what the cost to the country and the world.
Update 8/27/08: Apparently nobody mentioned the Russian Security Council Veto in the last few weeks. He again called for the Council to convene on the subject. Wow. What a bubble this guy and his advisers live in. It is so hard to fathom that I find myself making excuses for him: What if he actually knows about the veto power but figures Americans are so stupid they don't know about it so he says it anyway. Let's hope so. It would certainly be the lesser of two evils.
Friday, August 08, 2008
Obama's AmeriKa
"America is …, uh, is no longer, uh … what it could be, what it once was. And I say to myself, I don’t want that future for my children.” Obama answering a question from a 7 year old girl. The question? "Why do you want to be president" on August 7, 2008.
Mr. Obama your negativity really doesn't have to be used to depress children. You might have considered an answer that shows that you recognize where you are and who you are talking to. How about, "I want to be President because I am sure that this, the greatest country in the history of the world, can be even greater. I intend to help make it so. That is why I want to be President".
By the way, when was it "what it once was"? Could it have been in the age of American slavery? How about the Depression? No wait, how about in the 40's when we were fighting all over the world. Or maybe it was during the Jim Crow 50's. Oh, I know, it was the pre-Civil Rights Act/Voting Rights Act 60's. No? Ok, how about the mid-60's to mid 70's when we were involved in Vietnam, sending conscripts to their deaths by the thousands and enduring the Arab Oil Boycott. Hm, no good either. Well how about the Jimmy Carter 70's. You remember those right? 20% interest rates, double digit inflation. The "Misery Index" and our folks held hostage in Iran? Not then either..hm.
Well I know 1980-88 is out of the question. Can't have been any good going on then. After all, we were being protested all over the world for stationing nukes in England and Europe and pointing them at the Russians.
The 90's? Didn't sound so great in your books. Bunch of greedy white people running the world, you know how it was. We also know with great certainty that it cannot possibly have been during the 2000's what with Bush and Cheney running roughshod over the Constitution.
Looks like, on balance, it must have been the 90's so why not let Mrs. Clinton run the show again since she and hubby were in charge for almost the entire decade?
"I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." Obama on the day he became the presumptive nominee.
In an earlier post I commented on Eugene Robinson's assertion that white people calling Obama arrogant or presumptuous were really saying he was an uppity black man. Anyone who could utter a statement like Obama's above is such a complete narcissist that the words arrogant and presumptuous do not properly describe his hubris.
Mr. Obama your negativity really doesn't have to be used to depress children. You might have considered an answer that shows that you recognize where you are and who you are talking to. How about, "I want to be President because I am sure that this, the greatest country in the history of the world, can be even greater. I intend to help make it so. That is why I want to be President".
By the way, when was it "what it once was"? Could it have been in the age of American slavery? How about the Depression? No wait, how about in the 40's when we were fighting all over the world. Or maybe it was during the Jim Crow 50's. Oh, I know, it was the pre-Civil Rights Act/Voting Rights Act 60's. No? Ok, how about the mid-60's to mid 70's when we were involved in Vietnam, sending conscripts to their deaths by the thousands and enduring the Arab Oil Boycott. Hm, no good either. Well how about the Jimmy Carter 70's. You remember those right? 20% interest rates, double digit inflation. The "Misery Index" and our folks held hostage in Iran? Not then either..hm.
Well I know 1980-88 is out of the question. Can't have been any good going on then. After all, we were being protested all over the world for stationing nukes in England and Europe and pointing them at the Russians.
The 90's? Didn't sound so great in your books. Bunch of greedy white people running the world, you know how it was. We also know with great certainty that it cannot possibly have been during the 2000's what with Bush and Cheney running roughshod over the Constitution.
Looks like, on balance, it must have been the 90's so why not let Mrs. Clinton run the show again since she and hubby were in charge for almost the entire decade?
"I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." Obama on the day he became the presumptive nominee.
In an earlier post I commented on Eugene Robinson's assertion that white people calling Obama arrogant or presumptuous were really saying he was an uppity black man. Anyone who could utter a statement like Obama's above is such a complete narcissist that the words arrogant and presumptuous do not properly describe his hubris.
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Obama, Stupendously Stupid
I don't know how much more of this I can take.
Now Obama tells us that we are going to eliminate all the oil we import from the Middle East and Venezuela in 10 years. How? Well, we are going to invest $150 billion of your money in research and development and have the private sector go full out to develop alternative energy. Senator, you can't make the private sector do anything. Typical democrat. As I wrote earlier about John Edwards and Hillary, they all seem to think that the presidency is a dictatorship.
Senator, billions in subsidies have gone to wind and solar power undertakings over the years. They are inefficient and uneconomic in their current states. Billions are being invested by the private sector to improve the technology for both. This is being done because PROFITS are forecast. That is the reason most things get done. Not by presidential fiat.
Now Obama tells us that we are going to eliminate all the oil we import from the Middle East and Venezuela in 10 years. How? Well, we are going to invest $150 billion of your money in research and development and have the private sector go full out to develop alternative energy. Senator, you can't make the private sector do anything. Typical democrat. As I wrote earlier about John Edwards and Hillary, they all seem to think that the presidency is a dictatorship.
Senator, billions in subsidies have gone to wind and solar power undertakings over the years. They are inefficient and uneconomic in their current states. Billions are being invested by the private sector to improve the technology for both. This is being done because PROFITS are forecast. That is the reason most things get done. Not by presidential fiat.
Racism
Eugene Robinson had a column published in our local rag, The Arizona Republic, yesterday. In it he makes the usual assertions that people who call Obama arrogant or presumptuous are racists.
His piece got me to thinking about stereotypes. He doesn't realize that he is dealing not in white racist stereotypes but in black stereotypes. White people, in my experience, don't think much about race. There is no reason they should. Their race or color doesn't adversely affect their lives, generally speaking. Its a non-issue.
Black people, it seems to me on the other hand, are constantly aware of their color. It is an essential element of their self image. Unfortunately they seem not to understand that racial identity does not motivate white people, particularly not conservative white people.
We refer to Obama as arrogant and presumptuous because he is, independent of his skin color. He lectures us about things that we are all well aware of. For example, inflating tires. Are you driving around on half-inflated tires? Of course not, you aren't an idiot. He believes you are. Arrogant.
Has any other presidential candidate had his own seal? No. Arrogant. Presumptuous.
Has any other presidential candidate replaced the American Flag on the tail of his airplane with his own campaign logo? No. Arrogant.
Has any other presidential candidate ever gone on a world tour giving campaign speeches in foreign countries? No. Arrogant.
What being arrogant and presumptuous has to do with race is precisely nothing. Those who believe it does are projecting their own race based self-identification on white people. Its misplaced.
The syndrome is no different than many of my fellow Jews blaming any set-back and/or insult on anti-Semitism; homosexuals blaming any set-back and/or insult on homophobia; fat people blaming any set-back and/or insult on fatophobia. You get the picture.
His piece got me to thinking about stereotypes. He doesn't realize that he is dealing not in white racist stereotypes but in black stereotypes. White people, in my experience, don't think much about race. There is no reason they should. Their race or color doesn't adversely affect their lives, generally speaking. Its a non-issue.
Black people, it seems to me on the other hand, are constantly aware of their color. It is an essential element of their self image. Unfortunately they seem not to understand that racial identity does not motivate white people, particularly not conservative white people.
We refer to Obama as arrogant and presumptuous because he is, independent of his skin color. He lectures us about things that we are all well aware of. For example, inflating tires. Are you driving around on half-inflated tires? Of course not, you aren't an idiot. He believes you are. Arrogant.
Has any other presidential candidate had his own seal? No. Arrogant. Presumptuous.
Has any other presidential candidate replaced the American Flag on the tail of his airplane with his own campaign logo? No. Arrogant.
Has any other presidential candidate ever gone on a world tour giving campaign speeches in foreign countries? No. Arrogant.
What being arrogant and presumptuous has to do with race is precisely nothing. Those who believe it does are projecting their own race based self-identification on white people. Its misplaced.
The syndrome is no different than many of my fellow Jews blaming any set-back and/or insult on anti-Semitism; homosexuals blaming any set-back and/or insult on homophobia; fat people blaming any set-back and/or insult on fatophobia. You get the picture.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Barack and the Truth Revisited
In an earlier post I had declared that he is a liar. I am more convinced than ever he is one of the most cynical and devious politicians to run for national office in my adult lifetime.
In recent correspondence with a Dem acquaintance I mentioned that it appears Obama, although a lecturer in Constitutional Law, is unfamiliar with the opening words of the Declaration of Independence.
I wrote, "On June 30, 2008 Obama gave a silly "patriotism" speech. This was a prepared speech. I assume his regular speechwriters wrote it, with or without his help. Obama is a Columbia and Harvard educated Constitutional Law lecturer. Apparently he doesn't know that his statement regarding the Declaration of Independence is wrong:
"I remember, when living for four years in Indonesia as a child, listening to my mother reading me the first lines (emphasis added) of the Declaration of Independence--"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."
Reproduced below is the actual language of the Declaration.
"The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
Presented by the Indiana University School of Law—Bloomington
The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen ColoniesIn CONGRESS, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve..."
Obama's "first lines" are actually the first lines of the second paragraph. In the ordinary course of things this wouldn't be very important. Here it is and I will tell you why.
In the first place he is supposed to be a Constitutional Law scholar. Lack of familiarity with the DofI makes one wonder what he doesn't know about things he has not spent years studying.
There is a more important aspect to this. Imagine your mother had read you something when you were 10 years old or so that was so important that you remembered it 36 years later at 46 years old. Likely you would also have remembered it when you were 25 years old and studying Constitutional Law or 14 years old studying High School Civics.
As with all of us, regarding memories so important, when you read the DofI for yourself you would have said to yourself, "Gee, Mom got it wrong". You would never forget that would you? No, you wouldn't.
What all this means is that Obama made the story up. He is a liar of the first order.
In recent correspondence with a Dem acquaintance I mentioned that it appears Obama, although a lecturer in Constitutional Law, is unfamiliar with the opening words of the Declaration of Independence.
I wrote, "On June 30, 2008 Obama gave a silly "patriotism" speech. This was a prepared speech. I assume his regular speechwriters wrote it, with or without his help. Obama is a Columbia and Harvard educated Constitutional Law lecturer. Apparently he doesn't know that his statement regarding the Declaration of Independence is wrong:
"I remember, when living for four years in Indonesia as a child, listening to my mother reading me the first lines (emphasis added) of the Declaration of Independence--"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."
Reproduced below is the actual language of the Declaration.
"The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
Presented by the Indiana University School of Law—Bloomington
The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen ColoniesIn CONGRESS, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve..."
Obama's "first lines" are actually the first lines of the second paragraph. In the ordinary course of things this wouldn't be very important. Here it is and I will tell you why.
In the first place he is supposed to be a Constitutional Law scholar. Lack of familiarity with the DofI makes one wonder what he doesn't know about things he has not spent years studying.
There is a more important aspect to this. Imagine your mother had read you something when you were 10 years old or so that was so important that you remembered it 36 years later at 46 years old. Likely you would also have remembered it when you were 25 years old and studying Constitutional Law or 14 years old studying High School Civics.
As with all of us, regarding memories so important, when you read the DofI for yourself you would have said to yourself, "Gee, Mom got it wrong". You would never forget that would you? No, you wouldn't.
What all this means is that Obama made the story up. He is a liar of the first order.
We Have Won
The AP has confirmed today that the war in Iraq is being won. Their headline:
"Analysis: US now winning Iraq war that seemed lost"
Yes, it seemed lost to those willing to lose and those who hoped to lose. Not to those determined to win.
Not surprisingly the article mentions President Bush only to criticize his "Mission Accomplished" speech and never uses the word "surge". Apparently neither had much to do with the outcome.
Its nice to see the enemy, AP, finally surrender. They have been doing so much for so long to try to win the war for the bad guys.
It will be amusing to watch the reactions of the surrender caucus.
When will Hillary apologize for calling Petraeus a liar. Right, never.
When will Harry Reid take to the Senate floor and declare his 2007 and 2008 declarations of our loss to have been mistakes? Never.
When will John Kerry take to the Senate floor to declare his gas bag speeches of 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 to have been wrong? Never.
When will MoveOn.org take out a full page ad in the NYT to declare that their "General Betray Us" ad of 2007 was a mistake? Never.
These are the same people who demanded that President Bush own up to his mistakes. Hypocrites of the first order all.
Several commentators have pointed out that the AP story seems to coincide with Obama's trip to Iraq. Are they preparing the ground for a narrative that has Obama's visit turning the tide? I guess we'll see.
"Analysis: US now winning Iraq war that seemed lost"
Yes, it seemed lost to those willing to lose and those who hoped to lose. Not to those determined to win.
Not surprisingly the article mentions President Bush only to criticize his "Mission Accomplished" speech and never uses the word "surge". Apparently neither had much to do with the outcome.
Its nice to see the enemy, AP, finally surrender. They have been doing so much for so long to try to win the war for the bad guys.
It will be amusing to watch the reactions of the surrender caucus.
When will Hillary apologize for calling Petraeus a liar. Right, never.
When will Harry Reid take to the Senate floor and declare his 2007 and 2008 declarations of our loss to have been mistakes? Never.
When will John Kerry take to the Senate floor to declare his gas bag speeches of 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 to have been wrong? Never.
When will MoveOn.org take out a full page ad in the NYT to declare that their "General Betray Us" ad of 2007 was a mistake? Never.
These are the same people who demanded that President Bush own up to his mistakes. Hypocrites of the first order all.
Several commentators have pointed out that the AP story seems to coincide with Obama's trip to Iraq. Are they preparing the ground for a narrative that has Obama's visit turning the tide? I guess we'll see.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
An examination of gas prices
I am told that a year ago gas was $2.00/gallon. Today it is $4.00/gallon.
My expectation was that as prices rose the economy would grind to a halt and I have been surprised that it hasn't happened.
Looking at the figures, I think I can see why.
If you drive a car that gets 15mpg and commute 20 miles to work each day you have to drive 200 miles a week. The cost difference to you with gas at $5.00/gallon is $8.40 per day if $2.00 per gallon is your base line.
Is it likely that most drivers have discretionary income of $8.40 per day. Do you?
There was a story in the AZ Republic yesterday reporting on the increase in public transit ridership. The reporter described it as having "soared" 18% in recent months.
She went on to describe the two types of service offered, express and traditional stating that you could ride the express for "a small amount more". Traditional is $1.25, express is $1.75. So in this case a 40% increase is a "small amount" but increase ridership 18% and it has "soared".
My expectation was that as prices rose the economy would grind to a halt and I have been surprised that it hasn't happened.
Looking at the figures, I think I can see why.
If you drive a car that gets 15mpg and commute 20 miles to work each day you have to drive 200 miles a week. The cost difference to you with gas at $5.00/gallon is $8.40 per day if $2.00 per gallon is your base line.
Is it likely that most drivers have discretionary income of $8.40 per day. Do you?
There was a story in the AZ Republic yesterday reporting on the increase in public transit ridership. The reporter described it as having "soared" 18% in recent months.
She went on to describe the two types of service offered, express and traditional stating that you could ride the express for "a small amount more". Traditional is $1.25, express is $1.75. So in this case a 40% increase is a "small amount" but increase ridership 18% and it has "soared".
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Barack and the Truth
I have written before about Barack's problems with the truth.
Today he has set a new standard for himself and truthfulness. He is a liar.
Does he really believe that we are willing to believe that some recent events have caused Wright to go off his rocker? Does he really believe that we are willing to believe that sermons from 2001 and 2003 were aberrant departures from his usual form and content?
Does he really believe that we are willing to believe that the very first sermon that so impressed him, which he used a line from for the title of his first book, which described a miserable world run by greedy white people, was a departure from his normal sermon?
What a bunch of nonsense.
At best, he was deceived by a vicious racist for 20 years. Says a lot for his judgement.
At worst, he couldn't care less what Wright says or said. He joined Wright's church for his "street cred". A cold, calculating opportunist.
On another subject, Michelle Obama gave a speech this past Friday night, somewhere in Indiana I think. Her usual litany of complaints about this crummy country of ours. One was particularly amusing. She spoke about the crushing load of student loans which makes it impossible for the people who worked hard for those degrees to use them in the careers they had hoped to pursue.
Among those she listed as impossible to pursue because it doesn't pay enough to enable you to pay off your student loans; Community Organizer. What was her husband's profession? Community Organizer. How can anyone be that stupid? I don't know.
What is even more curious is that there are actually people who don't notice how dishonest this pair of ungrateful beneficiaries of the greatest country on earth are.
Today he has set a new standard for himself and truthfulness. He is a liar.
Does he really believe that we are willing to believe that some recent events have caused Wright to go off his rocker? Does he really believe that we are willing to believe that sermons from 2001 and 2003 were aberrant departures from his usual form and content?
Does he really believe that we are willing to believe that the very first sermon that so impressed him, which he used a line from for the title of his first book, which described a miserable world run by greedy white people, was a departure from his normal sermon?
What a bunch of nonsense.
At best, he was deceived by a vicious racist for 20 years. Says a lot for his judgement.
At worst, he couldn't care less what Wright says or said. He joined Wright's church for his "street cred". A cold, calculating opportunist.
On another subject, Michelle Obama gave a speech this past Friday night, somewhere in Indiana I think. Her usual litany of complaints about this crummy country of ours. One was particularly amusing. She spoke about the crushing load of student loans which makes it impossible for the people who worked hard for those degrees to use them in the careers they had hoped to pursue.
Among those she listed as impossible to pursue because it doesn't pay enough to enable you to pay off your student loans; Community Organizer. What was her husband's profession? Community Organizer. How can anyone be that stupid? I don't know.
What is even more curious is that there are actually people who don't notice how dishonest this pair of ungrateful beneficiaries of the greatest country on earth are.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Hillary and the Truth
Those of us on the right are amused and puzzled at the left's recent discovery that Bill and Hill are world class dissemblers. They are, as we have long known, embodiments of the old joke
"Q: How do you know when a salesman is lying?"
"A: His lips are moving".
I wrote in an earlier post about Bill's craveness in this regard. A few months ago he loudly proclaimed that among Hill's first acts as Prez would be to send him and Bush 41 around the world on a mission to repair our reputation, torn asunder by the execrable W. Of course, Bush 41 hadn't been consulted on his new mission and issued a prompt statement supportive of 43. Bill never even considered that in the Internet age his assertion wouldn't stand up for 5 minutes. He just didn't care.
Over the last few months Hill has been talking about her harrowing arrival in Bosnia in 1996 amid sniper fire. She described being hurried across the tarmac to her car and the cancellation of the scheduled greeting ceremony because of the danger presented by the snipers.
For reasons best known to the MSMers who accompanied her on that trip, filmed and reported on it, they waited months to contradict her. But contradict her they have. Showing her, once again (but perhaps for the first time to her loyalists) to be the craven liar she is. No snipers, no rush across the tarmac, no cancelled greeting ceremony.
As one commentator mentioned today, to her it likely isn't a lie. She may well have convinced herself it happened (think John Kerry and the Cambodian memory "seared, seared into my brain" that never happened). That is suggested as the only reason she would, in this age of instant verification, have described a version of an event witnessed in full by TV cameras, that never happened.
Rush has a better explanation and it is consistent with reality. The MSM rarely challenges Dems and they have become complacent in the knowledge that they can say almost anything and those who get their info from the MSM will never know that they have made it all up.
For some reason, after almost 4 months of sitting on it, the MSM finally got up the nerve to call Hill what she is: a liar.
"Q: How do you know when a salesman is lying?"
"A: His lips are moving".
I wrote in an earlier post about Bill's craveness in this regard. A few months ago he loudly proclaimed that among Hill's first acts as Prez would be to send him and Bush 41 around the world on a mission to repair our reputation, torn asunder by the execrable W. Of course, Bush 41 hadn't been consulted on his new mission and issued a prompt statement supportive of 43. Bill never even considered that in the Internet age his assertion wouldn't stand up for 5 minutes. He just didn't care.
Over the last few months Hill has been talking about her harrowing arrival in Bosnia in 1996 amid sniper fire. She described being hurried across the tarmac to her car and the cancellation of the scheduled greeting ceremony because of the danger presented by the snipers.
For reasons best known to the MSMers who accompanied her on that trip, filmed and reported on it, they waited months to contradict her. But contradict her they have. Showing her, once again (but perhaps for the first time to her loyalists) to be the craven liar she is. No snipers, no rush across the tarmac, no cancelled greeting ceremony.
As one commentator mentioned today, to her it likely isn't a lie. She may well have convinced herself it happened (think John Kerry and the Cambodian memory "seared, seared into my brain" that never happened). That is suggested as the only reason she would, in this age of instant verification, have described a version of an event witnessed in full by TV cameras, that never happened.
Rush has a better explanation and it is consistent with reality. The MSM rarely challenges Dems and they have become complacent in the knowledge that they can say almost anything and those who get their info from the MSM will never know that they have made it all up.
For some reason, after almost 4 months of sitting on it, the MSM finally got up the nerve to call Hill what she is: a liar.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Obama and the Truth
Barak Obama has demonstrated repeatedly throughout his campaign that he is among the most cynical politicians we have seen in a long time. His message is Hope and Change. The only thing he really Hopes is that we are all too stupid to listen to what he is saying. The only thing he wants to Change is his status, from Senator to President.
His most recent demonstration of Hope is that he Hopes we will not notice that when confronted about his pastor's outrageous anti-americanism he claimed it was news to him. The reason he Hopes we won't notice is that a few days later when his original explanation became completely untenable he confessed to being aware of it, but said that he didn't agree with it.
His most recent manifestation of Change is the changing description of his grandmother's comments about being afraid of black men on the street. The recent Change differs in very important ways from his description of the same event in his autobiography. In that telling she was afraid of one black man who she felt threatened by because of his particular actions. Which is the truth? Who knows and it doesn't matter.
What does matter is that Obama is a liar with Clinton-like loyalty (see earlier posts) who is perfectly happy to try and further his political career by trashing his still living grandmother's reputation branding her as a racist. The grandmother, by the way, who was his primary parent and support, according to his autobiography, in his growing up years. Disgusting.
His most recent demonstration of Hope is that he Hopes we will not notice that when confronted about his pastor's outrageous anti-americanism he claimed it was news to him. The reason he Hopes we won't notice is that a few days later when his original explanation became completely untenable he confessed to being aware of it, but said that he didn't agree with it.
His most recent manifestation of Change is the changing description of his grandmother's comments about being afraid of black men on the street. The recent Change differs in very important ways from his description of the same event in his autobiography. In that telling she was afraid of one black man who she felt threatened by because of his particular actions. Which is the truth? Who knows and it doesn't matter.
What does matter is that Obama is a liar with Clinton-like loyalty (see earlier posts) who is perfectly happy to try and further his political career by trashing his still living grandmother's reputation branding her as a racist. The grandmother, by the way, who was his primary parent and support, according to his autobiography, in his growing up years. Disgusting.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Hillary's Democracy
I never fail to be amazed by Democrats' seemingly instinctive authoritarianism. I described in an earlier post John Edwards' apparent belief that as President he would have the authority to cancel the health insurance coverage of members of Congress and his Cabinet. It is possible that Dem's never waning assertion that Republicans favor an "Imperial" presidency is merely another case of projection.
In promoting her Universal Health Care Plan recently Hillary informed us that she would consider garnishing the wages of those who refuse to purchase health insurance in order to ensure the universality of the plan.
So here we have a proposal supposedly initiated to "help" the less fortunate. If they have the audacity to refuse to accept and pay for the "help" they will be forced to participate against their will. Oh, wait, she would only garnish the wages of those who could "afford" to pay for the coverage. Great, thanks Hill. So, you 18 million 18 - 30's who see that paying health insurance premiums is a waste of money for you, we're going to "help" you. Reminds me of Reagan's 10 words you never want to hear: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you".
Of course she also wants to confiscate some or all of the profits of those nasty oil companies. You know, the ones who have vast investment programs to find and drill more of the stuff so we can keep driving. Its odd, but I don't remember any dems offering to give money to the oil companies when they were struggling and oil was $10 barrel.
She wants to prohibit medical insurance companies from screening for pre-existing conditions and she claimed last week in a speech at a GM Plant in Lordstown, OH that the companies spend $50 billion a year "trying to figure out how not to cover people".
She went on to say that, "I'm going to save them a fortune and a whole lot of time, because here's the new policy: No more discrimination period. So even if you have a pre-existing condition you can get the health insurance you need no questions asked".
Now there's an example of the rhetoric and mind set of a truly democratic person. Beyond the appalling spectre of authoritarianism raised by such dictats is the much worse and much more practical result of such stupidity.
If you are buying your insurance from an insurer that doesn't accept subscribers with pre-existing conditions (group insurance policy issuers have long since stopped screening for pre-existing conditions) and that company is now forced to accept them, your premium will simply be raised to pay for the inevitable rise in claims the company will have to pay. That is how insurance works. The risk is spread among the policy holders. More risk = more expense = higher premiums for all policy holders. So, what Hillary is telling all you individual policy holders is that you are about to be forced to subsidize your neighbors.
Not surprisingly, she didn't give any support or meaningful explanation for that $50 billion statement. Let's assume the figure, wherever it came from is accurate. What does it mean? It means that the combined budgets of insurance companies' claims departments is $50 billion a year.
Every claim has to be evaluated and some will be turned down. So what she could just as easily have said, although it probably wouldn't enter her mind to do so since the evil insurance companies must be vilified, is insurance companies spend $50 billion a year processing claims.
She leaves the impression, purposely, I'm sure, that the companies are spending $50 billion a year to ferret out claims for pre-existing conditions, nonsense obviously. To get an idea of just how preposterous this notion is consider that it would cost less than 50 billion annually to pay $100,000 in claims for 499,000 people. Most people accumulate less than $100,000 for medical care in a lifetime, never mind a year.
In promoting her Universal Health Care Plan recently Hillary informed us that she would consider garnishing the wages of those who refuse to purchase health insurance in order to ensure the universality of the plan.
So here we have a proposal supposedly initiated to "help" the less fortunate. If they have the audacity to refuse to accept and pay for the "help" they will be forced to participate against their will. Oh, wait, she would only garnish the wages of those who could "afford" to pay for the coverage. Great, thanks Hill. So, you 18 million 18 - 30's who see that paying health insurance premiums is a waste of money for you, we're going to "help" you. Reminds me of Reagan's 10 words you never want to hear: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you".
Of course she also wants to confiscate some or all of the profits of those nasty oil companies. You know, the ones who have vast investment programs to find and drill more of the stuff so we can keep driving. Its odd, but I don't remember any dems offering to give money to the oil companies when they were struggling and oil was $10 barrel.
She wants to prohibit medical insurance companies from screening for pre-existing conditions and she claimed last week in a speech at a GM Plant in Lordstown, OH that the companies spend $50 billion a year "trying to figure out how not to cover people".
She went on to say that, "I'm going to save them a fortune and a whole lot of time, because here's the new policy: No more discrimination period. So even if you have a pre-existing condition you can get the health insurance you need no questions asked".
Now there's an example of the rhetoric and mind set of a truly democratic person. Beyond the appalling spectre of authoritarianism raised by such dictats is the much worse and much more practical result of such stupidity.
If you are buying your insurance from an insurer that doesn't accept subscribers with pre-existing conditions (group insurance policy issuers have long since stopped screening for pre-existing conditions) and that company is now forced to accept them, your premium will simply be raised to pay for the inevitable rise in claims the company will have to pay. That is how insurance works. The risk is spread among the policy holders. More risk = more expense = higher premiums for all policy holders. So, what Hillary is telling all you individual policy holders is that you are about to be forced to subsidize your neighbors.
Not surprisingly, she didn't give any support or meaningful explanation for that $50 billion statement. Let's assume the figure, wherever it came from is accurate. What does it mean? It means that the combined budgets of insurance companies' claims departments is $50 billion a year.
Every claim has to be evaluated and some will be turned down. So what she could just as easily have said, although it probably wouldn't enter her mind to do so since the evil insurance companies must be vilified, is insurance companies spend $50 billion a year processing claims.
She leaves the impression, purposely, I'm sure, that the companies are spending $50 billion a year to ferret out claims for pre-existing conditions, nonsense obviously. To get an idea of just how preposterous this notion is consider that it would cost less than 50 billion annually to pay $100,000 in claims for 499,000 people. Most people accumulate less than $100,000 for medical care in a lifetime, never mind a year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)