Tag: 2012 election

Media Undermines Supreme Court

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/only-44-percent-americans-approve-supreme-court-143823818.html  I can only come to one conclusion, namely that the writer and her parent organization intend to undermine the authority of the Supreme Court.  It is sad that in our day we are seeing the major vehicles for democracy instead undermining the very democracy that allows them to flourish.  The writer of this blog is a product of 1960’s and 70’s American education and popular culture.  Reflecting on it, I see that the key theme of that education and culture was to debunk the very society that was the foundation of freedom.  Lately, I am seeing a resurgence of that debunking, only this time, it is not the hippies and yuppies.  It is the main stream public press that has decided to hold American political and public institutions up for ridicule.  This, of itself,  might be seen as a core part of a free press, however, the free press is revealing itself to be extremely partisan and supportive of one political party over another.  I believe that the public media is constantly attempting to undermine anything in our society that could unseat Barrack Obama.  Not a conspiracy, indeed.  But, it is a culture of selective reporting and deep editing that allows the news organizations to portray, for instance, the US Congress as a blocker of the progressive Obama agenda.  However, the broad brushed phrase, “the US Congress” is an editorial against the House of Representatives while subtly excusing the Senate.  A cursory read would have us believe that the whole Congress is a do nothing institution.  However, the House of Representatives has worked very hard to make budgets and pass them, to formulate legislation and pass it and to attempt every day to act in response to the needs of the nation.  But each effort is stopped, stonewalled or declared “dead on arrival” by the Senate.  Significance?  House =Republicans.  Senate = Democrats.  Therefore the broad brush of the Press organizations blames everything on the Congress, seldom mentioning the achievements of the House and the total dereliction of duty by the Senate.  The cited article above in another form of main line Press and Internet attempts to influence public opinion against a branch of government, namely, the Supreme Court.  Why?  Because of the perception that the Court may find ObamaCare unconstitutional.  Therefore, let’s publish derogatory articles depicting the court as unfavored and out of touch so that people can ridicule the soon to be announced decision on the President’s “signature” legislation.  Now, even this would not be too bad, if like Fox network and others, the press explained that its reporting was actually propaganda and talk radio like opinions.  But when the media portrays its articles as factual and worthy of the title News, this writer feels they are being disingenuous. And that’s a memo!!

George W. Bush is not President

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/george-w-bush-favorable-rating-lowest-living-president-100010623.html  A piece of true trivia.  He is not President any longer.  He is retired and although I am sure he has influence, he has decided that the most important thing now is his Presidential Library.  I liked the man and I approved of his Presidency and under normal circumstances I would enumerate why I feel that way, I will not.  Why?, because the writers of articles like this and the survey behind them do not care to analyze the reasons for the respondent’s opinions.  What do you like and what do you not like?  Why do you like this or that?  What actions or inactions did you approve or disapprove?  All of these things are lost in this kind of report because CNN and the surveyors just measure popularity.  Do you like him or not like him?  Hey, let’s all be fair and admit that in our job or family or community or even church, that there are people who simply do not like us.  They may not know us.  They may not ever have spoken to us.  They may not know anything about what we think and why we think it.  But they do not like us.  It is like when we were children and there were kids on the block that everybody knew were not likeable.  And there were kids in the school playground that everybody knew were not to be played with.  And in the classroom, everybody knew not to talk to this person or sit at the same table with that person.  Childish? Obviously!  Sadly, such things among children can lead to abuse and bullying.  The young girl in South Hadley, Massachusetts, who committed suicide was a victim or being disliked because everybody knew that she was not to be liked.  We reject such thinking as dangerous for children.  Is it dangerous for a nation.

Snotty Washington Post Writer

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mitt-romneys-faith-is-his-business/2012/06/04/gJQAdpGMEV_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions_Tue  Although I agree relative to Mitt Romney’s religion being his own business and it was written by me on this blog months ago, I really dislike snots.  This writer revels in his odious arrogance and is proud to stereotype, name call, and with a real intolerant attitude, to denigrate Mr. Romney.  However, I believe that it is just this kind of elitist attitude that makes writers like him and papers like the Washington Post representatives not of journalism but of intolerance and priggishness.

More USA Terror Killing?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-strike-said-to-target-al-qaedas-no-2/2012/06/04/gJQAyVeNEV_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines_Tue  Seems like the Obama Administration and the US military are becoming used to killing dozens of people in Pakistan every week.  No outcry from the UN or the Hague or anybody.  Seems to be terrible for Al Quaeda to attack USA but okay for USA to attack Pakistan everyday.  Look, I hate terrorists too.  I Love America.  But killing is killing.  That’s just a fact.

Paul Krugman’s Comments A Fraud?

http://news.yahoo.com/paul-krugman-paul-ryan-budget-romney-supports-fraud-181245136–abc-news-politics.html  Maybe it is not Mr. Krugman’s analysis that is fraud.  Maybe it is the reporting.  What this article says is that Mr. Krugman’s opinion is that Representative Ryan’s plan is not a plan and that President Obama’s plan is a plan.  Now to say that Rep. Ryan’s plan is a fraud is to say that the Ryan plan is based on lies.  Mr. Krugman tried to disarm his own biting criticism by saying that he is not personally attacking Mr. Ryan, but that he is just saying that the plan Mr. Ryan put forward is a fraud.  I think a fraud is a lie and therefore a person who puts forth a fraud is a liar.  Is that reasoning flawed?  I am just trying to get to the facts and not the spin.  Then we read that Mr. Krugman is in favor of the Obama plan.  He says that is a plan he understands.  He does not comment on the validity of the Obama plans numbers, approach or process.  So, I take it he likes the plan.  So, what we have here is a report about Mr. Krugman saying he doesn’t like the Ryan plan and therefore Mr. Ryan’s plan is a fraud and by inference, Mr. Representative Ryan is a liar.  And that Krugman likes the President’s plan and therefore Mr. Obama is not a liar.  Seems to me that the liar and fraud here is Mr. Krugman, who makes broad accusations against a U.S. Congressman and excuses the President.  How to solve this?  Take Mr. Obama’s own words to heart and instead of name calling and innuendo just say plainly, I, (Mr. Klugman) do not agreed with the Ryan plan for this and that (specific) reason and I agree with the Obama plan for this and that reason.

Obama Administration and US Military Engage in Terrorism-Repeatedly

http://news.yahoo.com/u-drone-strike-kills-15-northwest-pakistan-officials-033713485.html  Amazing, no screams of outrage by the Left.  No Washington Post, New York Times outrage. No Chris Matthews and Obermann rants against the Obama White House.  All of this silence displays the mainstream media’s murderous complicity in acts of international murder against innocent foreign nationals.  These same media and this administration were highly indignant when GW Bush agreed to allow waterboarding interrogation of known terrorist prisoners. All of whom are alive today.  But when the Obama administration repeatedly allows the murder of what now amounts to well over fifty innocent “suspects” there is no protest and even open praise of the activity.  Maybe it is true that there is no morality anymore.  But for this writer, murder is murder.  Also for this writer, the actions of our nation must not imitate the actions of the september 11th terrorists.   I am not for the jurisdiction of International Courts.  But I am amazed that the much praised International Criminal Court at the Hague does not indict the Obama Administration for criminal aggression and terrorism.  Pakistan is a sovereign nation and our drones illegally transgress their national borders, and kill its citizens. Basically, these actions are the actions of a rogue State that condones and fosters international terrorism.  The USA and NATO with United Nations sanctions just completed a very bloody and illegal war against the legal government of Gaddafi in Libya.  The excuse for that war?  We were told that they committed acts of murder against their own people.  The end of that war?  We toppled the Libyan central government, installed the NTC which is a French puppet regime groomed by French and British intelligence agencies and at the last, murdered the Head of State.  All along we were told to remember Locerbie and the airliner bombing that killed people.  Now the Obama government and the US military are killing people weekly and we are told that it is okay because the US military and the Obama government think that the people we kill are really terrorists.  Amazing arrogance but much worse, these are the actions of a government that is morally bankrupt by the false notion that individual acts of terror against suspected terrorists and their families, children and neighbors resulting in their wholesale slaughter is okay because we are protecting America.

BlogTalkRadio Program

This writer also broadcasts a half hour radio broadcast on Blogtalkradio.  Granted it is not regularly but I, like you, have to make a living.  I like the comment on my blog today that said, “writing is the only work that is not criticized for not making money”  Anyway, if you care to tune into the program, it is on Blogtalkradio.com and the title is Considerations.  I also broadcast a rock and roll radio program using radionomy.  It is a non DJ program so all you hear is music, not even adverts yet because the listenership is low but it is a great station and works real good as background music while you are on the computer.  It’s at Radionomy.com and the title is “Uplifting”  If you like either program please let me know via the “like” botton.  Thanks

Senators Are Old and Wealthy

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/09/lautenberg_frelinghuysen_among.html This article points us to two facts, the Senator from New Jersey is very wealthy and 88 years old.  I am not prejudice against either situation.  I want to get old and be healthy as is Senator Lautenberg and I want to be a 48 millionaire like him.  To his credit, the Senator made his money by hard work, entrepreneurial acumen and vision.  Very good qualities indeed and ones to be held up for imitation.  However, the Democrat President Obama has declared class warfare against the wealthy.  In his book he speaks forcefully against the avarice and greed of white Americans.  In his public statement Democrat Obama has spoken repeatedly against the wealthy saying that they must be taxed a lot more, their tax-free foundations abolished and their tax exemptions closed.  But does Senator Lautenberg agree and does it matter if he does.  I should think that people like the Senator are needed in the private sector to create companies like ADP and to lead job creation.  That is not done by Senators voting on Gay marriage and Pro Abortion and trade bills that make America less competitive in our world.  If he agrees with Obama and the so-called Buffet rule then he should voluntarily write very big checks to the US government and I would suggest, renounce his pay, perks, and pension for surely he needs none of them.  But does he agree that the wealthy are to be maligned and that a federal policy of “leveling the playing field” would best benefit the nation?  Well, let’s just say that as a very liberal Democrat who seems to wholeheartedly support the Obama agenda, Senator Lautenberg writes an additional 20% check to the IRS.  So we take 48 million and reduce it by 9.6 million.  How much is left? Let’s round it to 38 million.  Can Mr. Lautenberg live on that.  Yes, he can.  So the next year he does it again.  This time the check will be for 7.6 million bring him down to 30 million.  Next year it is 6 million bring him down to 24 million.  Then it is 4.8 million bring him to 19.  Then it is 3.8 leaving 15 million.  Then to 3 million making him a twelve millionaire.  Senator Lautenberg may agree to such a reduction in his wealth but it would still be a private matter and he would end up after a mere six years as only 1/4 of what he had to start.  Some readers will say,”good.”! But should that process be applied to all people with over 250  thousand dollars in wealth?  Should it be applied to your bank account or stock fund or 401 K or inheritance?  If it is good for one, say Senator Lautenberg, then it should be fair to apply it to everybody.  So, the question is,  Are you willing to be worth only 1/4 of what you are  worth today.  Now, philosophically, you may say “Yes.”.  But remember, Senator Lautenberg still ends up with 12 million.  If it is you, what do you end up with?  I will not do the math for you but I will suggest that although the formula is the same, you, at 250 thousand, will end up with not enough to pay for you childs junior college in state tuition.  So there is a difference.

Democrats Try Reversing Recent Supreme Court

http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-22-states-join-campaign-finance-fight-063148340.html  Notable here is the subtle and secret influence of the Democrat party in using a coverup, namely the Montana election contributions law as the cause for their joining forces against the US Supreme Court Case, Citizens United.  The Democrat President Obama openly embarrassed himself, insulted the nation and angered several justices of the Supreme Court when he used the State of the Union Address to attack the Justices of the Supreme Court over Citizens United.  Now Democrat ruled New York State seeks to use this relatively innocuous law in order to reverse the Citizens United ruling.  Fortunately, the Justices do not live in ivory towers and their independence from coercive influences from any White House Administration is boldly protected by our Constitution and precedence law.  Yes, I agree that the US Supreme Court has not always ruled as I would like.  However, the rulings have overwhelmingly protected the citizens of the nation against  over-reaching and tyranny seeking White House administrations.  It is important to note that these are judicial decisions of Constitutional law and the enforcement of those decisions is left to the President, his attorney general and the States Attorneys General.  In the infamous and ignominious decision of the Andrew Jackson administration, the ruling in favor of the civil rights of the Cherokee native americans was not enforced.  Rather the reverse happened and US army forces were used to arrest, uproot, and remove by force thousands of indians from their ancestral lands to the deserts of the west.  This Trail of Tears is evidence of the cruel injustice that can be visited on people when White House administrations  radically opposed Supreme Court decisions.