Sunday, July 1, 2012
Is Fast & Furious: a "Racist Witch Hunt" or a Cover-up?
Much has been written and broadcast of late concerning the botched Fast and Furious gun-walking program reinstated by the Obama administration after a “sting” program to track guns crossing the Mexican border was canceled in 2007 by the George W. Bush administration because of the inability to accurately trace those weapons.
In 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that most of the illegal weapons in the hands of Mexican drug cartels came from the United States. Later, someone in one of the law enforcement agencies of our government initiated Fast and Furious. To date, we don’t know who initiated it. No one has been publicly forced to resign, or worse, brought to justice; two federal agents are dead, not to mention hundreds of Mexicans.
Townhall.com Editor/Journalist Katie Pavlich writes on page 145 of her book titled Fast and Furious, Barack Obama’s Bloodiest Scandal and its Shameful Cover-up, “The full consequences of Fast and Furious are not yet known. Emails released under congressional subpoena suggest that Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and their senior lieutenants were involved in devising and approving the program in 2009. Both Holder and Napolitano have made statements at odds with the facts. Holder has made statements at odds with his own testimony. As congressional investigators uncover more documents, what was initially a limited inquiry into one government program could become an investigation into perjury, obstruction of justice, and a government cover-up.”
Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi says this investigation is all about racism; an attack on Attorney General Holder. Other Democrats call it a "Witch Hunt." I disagree; if any racism is involved it’s in ignoring the many Mexicans that are dead because of this program gone awry. Since when is uncovering an alleged crime a "Witch Hunt?"
Far reaching programs as massive as this do not begin at the bottom and “trickle” up.
jaq~
Sources: www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWckd5P3Fuw www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2793192/posts http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/26/as-campaign-heats-up-democrats-focus-on-racism/ Katie Pavlich’s 2012 book titled “Fast and Furious,” published by Regenery Publishing, Inc.
Monday, September 5, 2011
Are the Democrats Becoming Unstrung?
by j. wright~
Not long ago we heard Democrat vice-president Joe Biden liken Tea Partiers to "terrorists."
Then later, Representative Maxine Waters, D-CA, suggested that "...the Tea Party can go to Hell!"
Following that, Democrat Representative Frederica Wison,D-Fl,at a Town Hall meeting in Miami sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) said, "The real enemy is the Tea Party!"
Last week, Representative Andre Carson, D-IN at another CBC meeting in Miami said, "...that some in Congress would love to see us as second-class citizens and “some of them in Congress right now of this tea party movement would love to see you and me... hanging on a tree.”
Now today, Labor Day 2011 in Detroit, Michigan, Teamster Union boss Jimmy Hofa had this to say when introducng the president of the united States, Barack H. Obama, as posted verbatim from realclearpolitics.com:
Teamsters President Jimmy Hoffa had some profane, combative words for Republicans while warming up the crowd for President Obama in Detroit, Michigan on Monday.
"We got to keep an eye on the battle that we face: The war on workers. And you see it everywhere, it is the Tea Party. And you know, there is only one way to beat and win that war. The one thing about working people is we like a good fight. And you know what? They've got a war, they got a war with us and there's only going to be one winner. It's going to be the workers of Michigan, and America. We're going to win that war," Jimmy Hoffa Jr. said to a heavily union crowd.
"President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let's take these son of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong," Hoffa added.
So now Mr. Hoffa, in introducing Detroit's guest, Barack H. Obama, the president of the United States of America, forgets that he wasn't in a union hall full of loyal, or somewhat loyal supporters, and he resorts to gutter language profanity; cuss words that have declared war on American citizens whose purpose in life is for lower taxes, smaller government, cutting government spending and essentially giving the country back to it's citizens.
How frightening can that be for Jimmy Hoffa, Joe Biden, Maxine Waters, Frederica Wilson and Andre Carson? Apparently if their words make their case, this Tea Party movement is something to really fear, and it appears to me that a lot of high level Democrats are becoming unstrung because of it.
I don't normally make suggestions to Democrats, Liberals, Socialists, Marxists, etc. First, how do you separate them? Anyway, to mix a metaphor or two, I'd strongly suggest they not kick sand in the face of a sleeping giant. The Tea Partiers I'm acquainted with probably will not take lightly being called "sons-of-bitches" among other things and the end result might be more frightening then what their liberal adversaries perceive today.
jaq~
Not long ago we heard Democrat vice-president Joe Biden liken Tea Partiers to "terrorists."
Then later, Representative Maxine Waters, D-CA, suggested that "...the Tea Party can go to Hell!"
Following that, Democrat Representative Frederica Wison,D-Fl,at a Town Hall meeting in Miami sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) said, "The real enemy is the Tea Party!"
Last week, Representative Andre Carson, D-IN at another CBC meeting in Miami said, "...that some in Congress would love to see us as second-class citizens and “some of them in Congress right now of this tea party movement would love to see you and me... hanging on a tree.”
Now today, Labor Day 2011 in Detroit, Michigan, Teamster Union boss Jimmy Hofa had this to say when introducng the president of the united States, Barack H. Obama, as posted verbatim from realclearpolitics.com:
Teamsters President Jimmy Hoffa had some profane, combative words for Republicans while warming up the crowd for President Obama in Detroit, Michigan on Monday.
"We got to keep an eye on the battle that we face: The war on workers. And you see it everywhere, it is the Tea Party. And you know, there is only one way to beat and win that war. The one thing about working people is we like a good fight. And you know what? They've got a war, they got a war with us and there's only going to be one winner. It's going to be the workers of Michigan, and America. We're going to win that war," Jimmy Hoffa Jr. said to a heavily union crowd.
"President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let's take these son of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong," Hoffa added.
So now Mr. Hoffa, in introducing Detroit's guest, Barack H. Obama, the president of the United States of America, forgets that he wasn't in a union hall full of loyal, or somewhat loyal supporters, and he resorts to gutter language profanity; cuss words that have declared war on American citizens whose purpose in life is for lower taxes, smaller government, cutting government spending and essentially giving the country back to it's citizens.
How frightening can that be for Jimmy Hoffa, Joe Biden, Maxine Waters, Frederica Wilson and Andre Carson? Apparently if their words make their case, this Tea Party movement is something to really fear, and it appears to me that a lot of high level Democrats are becoming unstrung because of it.
I don't normally make suggestions to Democrats, Liberals, Socialists, Marxists, etc. First, how do you separate them? Anyway, to mix a metaphor or two, I'd strongly suggest they not kick sand in the face of a sleeping giant. The Tea Partiers I'm acquainted with probably will not take lightly being called "sons-of-bitches" among other things and the end result might be more frightening then what their liberal adversaries perceive today.
jaq~
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Putting Principles and Country Before Political Party?
by J. Wright~
Conservative journalist Jennifer Rubin posted in the Washington post.com on Sunday, July 31, 2011, “We are on the verge, it seems, of a deal on the debt-ceiling that would embody two essential goals of the Tea Party and the GOP more generally: no new tax revenues and significant spending cuts equal to or greater than the size of the debt-ceiling increase.”
Wikipedia.com describes The Tea Party as “…an American populist political movement that is generally recognized as conservative and libertarian, and has sponsored protests and supported political candidates since 2009. It endorses reduced government spending, opposition to taxing in varying degrees, reduction of the National Debt and federal budget deficit, and adherence to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution.”
That’s novel and personally, I find it refreshing. But not Martin Frost, former Democrat representative from Texas. In a recent politico.com article Frost likens the Tea Party to the “Taliban.” So… if you don’t agree with something, label it with a bad name?
It goes on: Liberal columnist Tom Friedman is quoted by jewschool.com saying: “Alas, that is the Tea Party… If sane Republicans do not stand up to this Hezbollah faction in their midst, the Tea Party will take the G.O.P. on a suicide mission.”
Nicholas Kristof, who wrote in last Sunday’s New York Times, is a liberal columnists posted in Media Research .org, “…an edgy argument to denigrate the risk of terrorism in favor of their beef of the week: ‘Republican, Zealots, and Our Security.’ Kristoff actually likened the danger posed by Tea Party sympathizers in Congress (domestic zealots) to Al Qaeda.”
Would the alleged “Danger posed” be the fact that the Tea Partiers in this Congress aren’t particularly concerned if they are reelected or not? I find that refreshing too: they put principles and country before party, and that seems to terrify the liberal socialists in our elected bodies and media.
jaq~
Conservative journalist Jennifer Rubin posted in the Washington post.com on Sunday, July 31, 2011, “We are on the verge, it seems, of a deal on the debt-ceiling that would embody two essential goals of the Tea Party and the GOP more generally: no new tax revenues and significant spending cuts equal to or greater than the size of the debt-ceiling increase.”
Wikipedia.com describes The Tea Party as “…an American populist political movement that is generally recognized as conservative and libertarian, and has sponsored protests and supported political candidates since 2009. It endorses reduced government spending, opposition to taxing in varying degrees, reduction of the National Debt and federal budget deficit, and adherence to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution.”
That’s novel and personally, I find it refreshing. But not Martin Frost, former Democrat representative from Texas. In a recent politico.com article Frost likens the Tea Party to the “Taliban.” So… if you don’t agree with something, label it with a bad name?
It goes on: Liberal columnist Tom Friedman is quoted by jewschool.com saying: “Alas, that is the Tea Party… If sane Republicans do not stand up to this Hezbollah faction in their midst, the Tea Party will take the G.O.P. on a suicide mission.”
Nicholas Kristof, who wrote in last Sunday’s New York Times, is a liberal columnists posted in Media Research .org, “…an edgy argument to denigrate the risk of terrorism in favor of their beef of the week: ‘Republican, Zealots, and Our Security.’ Kristoff actually likened the danger posed by Tea Party sympathizers in Congress (domestic zealots) to Al Qaeda.”
Would the alleged “Danger posed” be the fact that the Tea Partiers in this Congress aren’t particularly concerned if they are reelected or not? I find that refreshing too: they put principles and country before party, and that seems to terrify the liberal socialists in our elected bodies and media.
jaq~
Thursday, July 21, 2011
"Cleaning up George W. Bush's Mess..."
by j. wright~
“Cleaning up Bush’s mess…” I’m amazed how President G. W. Bush continues to be cast as the spendthrift by the loyal opposition: it's always "Bush's fault." Yes, the National Debt increased substantially during Bush's terms in office especially during his last two years with Democrats Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in charge of the purse strings.
The Wall Street Journal, October 5, 2007, reported that “The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the U.S. federal budget deficit for fiscal year 2007, which ended Sunday, was about $161 billion. That’s down from the $248 billion shortfall recorded in fiscal 2006.” Bush's 2008 deficit was $239 Billion. This years projected deficit is $1.65 Trillion, close to six times higher than 2008.
From the same article, “While annual federal spending grew 2.8% in fiscal 2007 over fiscal 2006, year to year, revenue grew 6.7%. Individual income-tax receipts are estimated to be 11.3% higher than last year, and corporate income tax receipts are estimated to be 5% higher.”
That’s some difference in total annual deficits and growth rates in comparison to what we have experienced in the past two and one-half years under President Obama and his economic advisors (most of whom have recently left for greener pastures). Discontent and uncertainty are the only things that have grown lately.
Compare the Obama Administration’s deficit for the single month of February 2011 when it reached a record setting $223 billion to the fiscal year deficit recorded in 2008.
United States Treasury Department web site figures show that Bush and Congress increased the National Debt about $4.97 trillion with it topping off at $10.7 trillion when Obama assumed office. Today the National Debt is hovering at $14.5 trillion. Do the math. That’s an unsustainable increase of $3.8 trillion in two and one-half years of spending compared to Bush’s $4.97 trillion in eight.
To make the math even more simple: during Bill Clinton's presidency the nation's indebtedness increased at $547 Million daily. Under President George W. Bush the debt skyrocketed to $1.6 billion daily. During President Obama's term it has gone totally ballistic at a rate of $4.6 billion per day increase.
If President Obama is “…cleaning up Bush’s mess,” I would suggest he is well on his way to making a bigger mess of his own on the backs of future struggling taxpayers and foreign lenders.
jaq~
“Cleaning up Bush’s mess…” I’m amazed how President G. W. Bush continues to be cast as the spendthrift by the loyal opposition: it's always "Bush's fault." Yes, the National Debt increased substantially during Bush's terms in office especially during his last two years with Democrats Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in charge of the purse strings.
The Wall Street Journal, October 5, 2007, reported that “The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the U.S. federal budget deficit for fiscal year 2007, which ended Sunday, was about $161 billion. That’s down from the $248 billion shortfall recorded in fiscal 2006.” Bush's 2008 deficit was $239 Billion. This years projected deficit is $1.65 Trillion, close to six times higher than 2008.
From the same article, “While annual federal spending grew 2.8% in fiscal 2007 over fiscal 2006, year to year, revenue grew 6.7%. Individual income-tax receipts are estimated to be 11.3% higher than last year, and corporate income tax receipts are estimated to be 5% higher.”
That’s some difference in total annual deficits and growth rates in comparison to what we have experienced in the past two and one-half years under President Obama and his economic advisors (most of whom have recently left for greener pastures). Discontent and uncertainty are the only things that have grown lately.
Compare the Obama Administration’s deficit for the single month of February 2011 when it reached a record setting $223 billion to the fiscal year deficit recorded in 2008.
United States Treasury Department web site figures show that Bush and Congress increased the National Debt about $4.97 trillion with it topping off at $10.7 trillion when Obama assumed office. Today the National Debt is hovering at $14.5 trillion. Do the math. That’s an unsustainable increase of $3.8 trillion in two and one-half years of spending compared to Bush’s $4.97 trillion in eight.
To make the math even more simple: during Bill Clinton's presidency the nation's indebtedness increased at $547 Million daily. Under President George W. Bush the debt skyrocketed to $1.6 billion daily. During President Obama's term it has gone totally ballistic at a rate of $4.6 billion per day increase.
If President Obama is “…cleaning up Bush’s mess,” I would suggest he is well on his way to making a bigger mess of his own on the backs of future struggling taxpayers and foreign lenders.
jaq~
Monday, June 20, 2011
HAS THE GOVERNMENT STOLEN YOUR IDENTITY?
by j. wright
Readers, please bear with me whilst I indulge in some make believe.
Imagine that when your next credit card bill arrives, you open it and discover that you, your wife and two kids suddenly owe $180,000 more than you thought.
“This is not right!” you say and immediately get on the telephone and call your credit card company.
You get a responsible individual on the line and ask, “What’s the meaning of this $180,000 balance in new charges that I didn’t make?”
“Oh…” the individual responds, “those aren’t new charges, this has been going on for a number of years but we never showed it on your billings. Your Uncle made those charges. He has control of your account too.
“What? Which Uncle?”
“Sam. He said he had control of your family's credit card account and he needed to use your money to help some folks who are disadvantaged and to promote some of his favorite projects.”
“You must be kidding! I never gave him that kind of control!”
“Yes, you did. A long time ago.”
“That’s unbelievable. So what is he doing with our money?”
“Well… unfortunately he mishandles and wastes a lot of it. A lot goes to people who are out of work, or simply lazy, or ill, or dying. A lot of it he spends on himself too, but he hides that from our prying eyes. He says those folks he is helping don’t have a credit card so he uses your money. He says, ‘It’s only fair and you can afford it.’”
“I can’t believe this. How am I ever going to pay this off, or is he going to pay it off?”
“Unfortunately your Uncle doesn’t have any money of his own; he has to use yours. You can’t pay it off either because your Uncle will continue to keep charging to your account. He suggested to us that you could take a second job in order to make more money available to him. Even now he is asking for an increase in your credit limit and we have to give it to him. ”
“Why?”
“Because we always have and it appears now that we don’t have a choice.”
“Well, if I can’t ever pay this balance off, who will?”
“Your children will become responsible for the balance, along with their children, and their children and their children too… unfortunately it’s a never ending cycle.”
“Isn’t there some way to end it?”
“Sure, if you can find enough people willing to replace your respective Uncles. Everyone is in the same predicament; all of you have a spendthrift Uncle Sam.”
“And if we can’t?”
“Then you live with the fact that you and your children’s children will be in debt to us forever, and not just the $45,000 each that everyone in your household owes today. Your Uncle has made promises to a lot of people, financial promises that are as yet unpaid amounting to tens of thousands of dollars; about a half million dollars more that you and every other family are responsible for, okay?”
“Okay? You must be kidding.”
Readers, please bear with me whilst I indulge in some make believe.
Imagine that when your next credit card bill arrives, you open it and discover that you, your wife and two kids suddenly owe $180,000 more than you thought.
“This is not right!” you say and immediately get on the telephone and call your credit card company.
You get a responsible individual on the line and ask, “What’s the meaning of this $180,000 balance in new charges that I didn’t make?”
“Oh…” the individual responds, “those aren’t new charges, this has been going on for a number of years but we never showed it on your billings. Your Uncle made those charges. He has control of your account too.
“What? Which Uncle?”
“Sam. He said he had control of your family's credit card account and he needed to use your money to help some folks who are disadvantaged and to promote some of his favorite projects.”
“You must be kidding! I never gave him that kind of control!”
“Yes, you did. A long time ago.”
“That’s unbelievable. So what is he doing with our money?”
“Well… unfortunately he mishandles and wastes a lot of it. A lot goes to people who are out of work, or simply lazy, or ill, or dying. A lot of it he spends on himself too, but he hides that from our prying eyes. He says those folks he is helping don’t have a credit card so he uses your money. He says, ‘It’s only fair and you can afford it.’”
“I can’t believe this. How am I ever going to pay this off, or is he going to pay it off?”
“Unfortunately your Uncle doesn’t have any money of his own; he has to use yours. You can’t pay it off either because your Uncle will continue to keep charging to your account. He suggested to us that you could take a second job in order to make more money available to him. Even now he is asking for an increase in your credit limit and we have to give it to him. ”
“Why?”
“Because we always have and it appears now that we don’t have a choice.”
“Well, if I can’t ever pay this balance off, who will?”
“Your children will become responsible for the balance, along with their children, and their children and their children too… unfortunately it’s a never ending cycle.”
“Isn’t there some way to end it?”
“Sure, if you can find enough people willing to replace your respective Uncles. Everyone is in the same predicament; all of you have a spendthrift Uncle Sam.”
“And if we can’t?”
“Then you live with the fact that you and your children’s children will be in debt to us forever, and not just the $45,000 each that everyone in your household owes today. Your Uncle has made promises to a lot of people, financial promises that are as yet unpaid amounting to tens of thousands of dollars; about a half million dollars more that you and every other family are responsible for, okay?”
“Okay? You must be kidding.”
~ ~ ~
So what if you woke up one day and discovered yourself in that financial mess? You don’t need to wake up; you are already there. The reality is our National Debt has surpassed $14,440,900,000,000.00 and is growing (that’s about $46,000+ for every man, woman and child). Our annual government expense will exceed our revenues this year by more than $1.381 trillion and growing and eventually added to the National Debt.
Add to that the Unfunded Mandates as reported recently; promises made by our government to seniors, veterans, the disadvantaged, etc. that stand at a whopping $61.6 trillion.
Do you agree that it may be past time to replace Uncle and get the borrowing and spending under control?
jaq~
So what if you woke up one day and discovered yourself in that financial mess? You don’t need to wake up; you are already there. The reality is our National Debt has surpassed $14,440,900,000,000.00 and is growing (that’s about $46,000+ for every man, woman and child). Our annual government expense will exceed our revenues this year by more than $1.381 trillion and growing and eventually added to the National Debt.
Add to that the Unfunded Mandates as reported recently; promises made by our government to seniors, veterans, the disadvantaged, etc. that stand at a whopping $61.6 trillion.
Do you agree that it may be past time to replace Uncle and get the borrowing and spending under control?
jaq~
Thursday, June 2, 2011
When is a Lie the Truth?
by j. wright
It's amazing the things one can discover from listening to a few minutes of talk radio or watching some sane TV news broadcasts... certainly little the famed mainstream media cares to divulge.
I "learned" today that our president, Barack H. Obama, believes that our current federal income tax rates are the lowest in recent history, lower even than the Ronald W. Reagan era, and in his opinion it's only fair to raise income taxes on couples making more than $250,000, or individuals making more tha $200,000 annually. This he told the Republican leaders who met with him earlier this week at the White House.
While most of the Republicans present rolled their eyes at this assertion regarding Reagan's tax rates it was explained to the president that Reagan era rates were actually lower. What is different today are the loop holes in place that Reagan previously abolished. What is also true is that tax revenues today ARE LOWER than in the Reagan era, all things taken into consideration.
In explanation, House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) was quick to counter the president's claim on low tax rates, saying, "...actually, our corporate tax rates are the highest in the world." President Obama acknowledged that U.S. corporate tax rates are higher than most other nations.
Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) explained "... that's a big deal. The high rates hurts American competitiveness and job creation - so the folks that are trying to earn money, get a job, so they can pay that 'low tax rate,' they can't even do that right now because we aren't competitive with the rest of the world."
It was reported too that President Obama is not interested in slowing or lowering the incessant government spending now in place, rather he wants more money to spend, ergo the request for an addional $2 trillion to be added to our national debt limit. With that, recall that two weeks ago he requested a "clean up or down vote" on raising the debt limit. The Republican led House gave it to him a day ago and it lost big time. Some eighty-two (82) Democrats voted no including Nancy Pelosi. Afterward the White House and the Democrat leaders claimed the vote was a fraud, a joke. That after giving them what they had asked for. One radio news commentator used the expression, "You give me that apple and I'll let you paint the fence white." Too damn funny IMO.
Later, on the Neil Cavuto financial program on FOX News television, Neil Cavuto exchanged views on the current jobless rate with a Democrat House member from California who repeated several times that in order to keep our economy "growing" we must maintain the same fiscal policies that have given us a net gain under Obama of 125 million new jobs.
Cavuto countered saying that they has been NO net gain in jobs. The Democrat kept smiling and maintained that Neil was wrong. What is true, Neil's staff, (along with Roger Hedgecock's of conservative talk radio using goverment stats available on line) found that under Obama, since January of 2009, the country has suffered a net LOSS of 2.5 million jobs; a 3.75 million swing from what the Democrat politician falsely claimed. My question: who informs these people?
A few weeks ago, Cavuto had a similar exchange with an Obama supporter who maintained over and over that thirty-one (31) new drilling permits had been issued for the Gulf since the BP spill, Cavuto said "No, only three (3) have been issued."
Cavuto was proven right (again using stats gleaned from .gov web sites.) My question remains; Who informs these people? Of is it their practice to lie, keep lying, and maybe convince enough folks that a lie is an actual fact?
If the financial crisis that caused this ongoing recession was brought about under President George W. Bush, it's also true that this "recovery" (or lack of same) belongs to Obama. It ain't working.
jaq~
It's amazing the things one can discover from listening to a few minutes of talk radio or watching some sane TV news broadcasts... certainly little the famed mainstream media cares to divulge.
I "learned" today that our president, Barack H. Obama, believes that our current federal income tax rates are the lowest in recent history, lower even than the Ronald W. Reagan era, and in his opinion it's only fair to raise income taxes on couples making more than $250,000, or individuals making more tha $200,000 annually. This he told the Republican leaders who met with him earlier this week at the White House.
While most of the Republicans present rolled their eyes at this assertion regarding Reagan's tax rates it was explained to the president that Reagan era rates were actually lower. What is different today are the loop holes in place that Reagan previously abolished. What is also true is that tax revenues today ARE LOWER than in the Reagan era, all things taken into consideration.
In explanation, House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) was quick to counter the president's claim on low tax rates, saying, "...actually, our corporate tax rates are the highest in the world." President Obama acknowledged that U.S. corporate tax rates are higher than most other nations.
Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) explained "... that's a big deal. The high rates hurts American competitiveness and job creation - so the folks that are trying to earn money, get a job, so they can pay that 'low tax rate,' they can't even do that right now because we aren't competitive with the rest of the world."
It was reported too that President Obama is not interested in slowing or lowering the incessant government spending now in place, rather he wants more money to spend, ergo the request for an addional $2 trillion to be added to our national debt limit. With that, recall that two weeks ago he requested a "clean up or down vote" on raising the debt limit. The Republican led House gave it to him a day ago and it lost big time. Some eighty-two (82) Democrats voted no including Nancy Pelosi. Afterward the White House and the Democrat leaders claimed the vote was a fraud, a joke. That after giving them what they had asked for. One radio news commentator used the expression, "You give me that apple and I'll let you paint the fence white." Too damn funny IMO.
Later, on the Neil Cavuto financial program on FOX News television, Neil Cavuto exchanged views on the current jobless rate with a Democrat House member from California who repeated several times that in order to keep our economy "growing" we must maintain the same fiscal policies that have given us a net gain under Obama of 125 million new jobs.
Cavuto countered saying that they has been NO net gain in jobs. The Democrat kept smiling and maintained that Neil was wrong. What is true, Neil's staff, (along with Roger Hedgecock's of conservative talk radio using goverment stats available on line) found that under Obama, since January of 2009, the country has suffered a net LOSS of 2.5 million jobs; a 3.75 million swing from what the Democrat politician falsely claimed. My question: who informs these people?
A few weeks ago, Cavuto had a similar exchange with an Obama supporter who maintained over and over that thirty-one (31) new drilling permits had been issued for the Gulf since the BP spill, Cavuto said "No, only three (3) have been issued."
Cavuto was proven right (again using stats gleaned from .gov web sites.) My question remains; Who informs these people? Of is it their practice to lie, keep lying, and maybe convince enough folks that a lie is an actual fact?
If the financial crisis that caused this ongoing recession was brought about under President George W. Bush, it's also true that this "recovery" (or lack of same) belongs to Obama. It ain't working.
jaq~
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Another Federal Government Power Grab...
by j. wright~
The arrogance of our federal governmental agencies in their continuing quest to retain power regardless of impending job losses is overwhelming. If you enjoy paying $4.00 or more for gasoline and support President Obama's suggestion that the Saudis produce more oil for our consumption, stop reading right now.
Taken from http://pearce.house.gov, Roswell, NM (April 28, 2011) “An estimated 750 New Mexicans attended a rally tonight in Roswell to oppose the listing of the Dunes Sagebrush Lizard as an endangered species. The listing threatens to have a devastating effect on the oil and gas jobs in New Mexico.”
Like the Pacific NW's Spotted Owl, the California Snail Darter and Sand Flea (orchestoidea californiana) among others, the Dunes Sagebrush Lizard addition to the growing list as an endangered species will possibly cost 20,000 oil and gas jobs in New Mexico. When the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service was asked if they had taken into consideration the potential job loss, they brushed it off as incidental. Congressman Steven Pearce, R-NM says, "My office has asked for data from Fish and Wildlife on how jobs will be impacted, and they claim they don’t have the information."
Reportedly, the only way to determine if any New Mexico Dunes Sagebrush Lizard is endangered or not is to place it on it's back and count the scales located on its front legs between the armpit and the elbow: a lizard with five scales is NOT endangered; one with four scales is... no DNA tests have been used to determine if the two identical lizards are the same species, just bureaucratic scale counting resulting in potentially massive job losses.
This is definitely 'change.' The same as the fresh water that was shut off that supplied California food farms because of the endangered Delta Smelt Fish.
jaq~
The arrogance of our federal governmental agencies in their continuing quest to retain power regardless of impending job losses is overwhelming. If you enjoy paying $4.00 or more for gasoline and support President Obama's suggestion that the Saudis produce more oil for our consumption, stop reading right now.
Taken from http://pearce.house.gov, Roswell, NM (April 28, 2011) “An estimated 750 New Mexicans attended a rally tonight in Roswell to oppose the listing of the Dunes Sagebrush Lizard as an endangered species. The listing threatens to have a devastating effect on the oil and gas jobs in New Mexico.”
Like the Pacific NW's Spotted Owl, the California Snail Darter and Sand Flea (orchestoidea californiana) among others, the Dunes Sagebrush Lizard addition to the growing list as an endangered species will possibly cost 20,000 oil and gas jobs in New Mexico. When the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service was asked if they had taken into consideration the potential job loss, they brushed it off as incidental. Congressman Steven Pearce, R-NM says, "My office has asked for data from Fish and Wildlife on how jobs will be impacted, and they claim they don’t have the information."
Reportedly, the only way to determine if any New Mexico Dunes Sagebrush Lizard is endangered or not is to place it on it's back and count the scales located on its front legs between the armpit and the elbow: a lizard with five scales is NOT endangered; one with four scales is... no DNA tests have been used to determine if the two identical lizards are the same species, just bureaucratic scale counting resulting in potentially massive job losses.
This is definitely 'change.' The same as the fresh water that was shut off that supplied California food farms because of the endangered Delta Smelt Fish.
jaq~
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
