Media Spin
Funny isn't it that the Left-Wing media spins the unemployment numbers the way they do? They claim that the numbers are "surprisingly strong". CNBC claimed tha the number "ticked-up" because of higher participation in the labor force. What? Does that make ANY sense? Who are they kidding? In spite of their obvious "BIAS" the unemployment rate remains higher than promised by Obama since February 2009.
Enough of This Media CRAP!
Isn't it time for you to get "TICKED OFF"? This is the 27th month that the unemployment numbers have been way over the 8% that Obama claimed would NEVER be reached if we passed HIS Stimulus package that squandered YOUR tax dollars by rewarding those who failed by bailing them all out!
Recall that this administration PROMISED that the Obama Stimulus package would keep the unemployment rate BELOW 8%. Isn't it time to call a spade a spade and admit that the Stimulus was a FAILURE? The Stimulus Failed America. Stop believing the media lies!
This is just more proof that you CANNOT BELIEVE the Left-Wing media supported by George Soros. Recall that he has media connections to over 30 news organizations - including NBC, ABC and CBS! Progressive strategy is to control the media so they can promote their message or make you believe that everything is OK when their policies fail.
The Business and Media Institute found that when the unemployment was OVER 10% the "media" gave positive reports and stories with an overconfident spin in over 52% of their stories. That's just LYING to the American public and we all know it!
Don't Be Fooled Again
Unfortunatey, Americans have a short memory span. However, there is a deeper message for all of us. We need to REMEMBER these things in the upcoming 2012 elections! We cannot allow ourselves to be fooled by a slick politician again! Obama's message was "Change", but he never gave any details of what they were. We projected our own thoughts into HIS message and carried him onto the White House. We need to be more diligent and ask for the specifics so we don't get America into this dilemma again by continuing Obama's failed economic policies.
Obama is spending America into oblivion and doesn't seem to give a care. Look at his record. Remember it! Don't let the media obstruct your view. The facts are there for you to see. This administration is a failure for America! This was a big mistake. We cannot continue in the same direction. If we do, America will NEVER have the same standard of living again!
Saturday, June 4, 2011
Friday, June 3, 2011
Constitutional Amendment Proposed
Tea Party Proposes New Amendment
It's time the people stood up for themselves. That's why the Tea Party is proposing a new amendment to the Constitution. They argue that it only took 3 months to ammend the Constitution to change the voting age from 21 to 18. Tea Party members argue that this new law should also be on the fast track. If enough people demand it, it can happen.
Here is the new proposed amendment to fix Congress:
Congressional Reform Act of 2011
What Do You Think?
Tell your Congressman what you feel about this issue. Demand they make it law!
It's time the people stood up for themselves. That's why the Tea Party is proposing a new amendment to the Constitution. They argue that it only took 3 months to ammend the Constitution to change the voting age from 21 to 18. Tea Party members argue that this new law should also be on the fast track. If enough people demand it, it can happen.
Here is the new proposed amendment to fix Congress:
Congressional Reform Act of 2011
- Congress Gets No Pension or Tenure - A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.
- Congress Must Participate in Social Security - All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.
- Retirement Plan - Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all other Americans do.
- Pay Raises - Congress may no longer vote themselves pay raises. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%
- Health Care - Abolish ObamaCare. Then Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
- Not Above The Law - Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.
- Previous Contracts - All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/12. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.
- Term Limits - Congress shall not serve more than two consecutive terms in office.
What Do You Think?
Tell your Congressman what you feel about this issue. Demand they make it law!
Thursday, June 2, 2011
The Fairness Doctrine Revisited
Media Bias
A recent survey conducted by the Center for Media and Public Affairs indicates beyond any doubt that the Left-Wing media showed a serious bias in the last Presidential election. Here are their findings:
2008 Campaign Articles/Stories in Favor Of...
These numbers do not lie. They show a distinct bias towards Barack Obama. Why? Because the Left-Wing media has an agenda and it is to promote the Progressive ideology - not the news!
Ignorance is Bliss
Or is it? Self-imposed ignorance on your part is DANGEROUS! If you accept the idea that the media is not prejudice and reports the news accurately and without bias, you are seriously looking for trouble. Americans need to wise-up and educate themselves that there is this wide-spread bias and they need to do something about it.
Begin by changing your reading and viewing habits. Look for new news sources on the Internet instead of the usual newspapers and TV channels. Stop your subscriptions to the old newspapers. Experiment reading the news from foreign news sources instead. Try and get a different perspective on the news. It won't take long to see the BIAS being used here in America.
Remember also that George Soros has his hands and money directly connected to these and other (37) media sources. Recall that Soros is no friend of the USA and Capitalism. He turned against his own (Jewish) people to work for the Nazis in WWII and now he's doing the same against America.
Bring Back the Fairness Doctrine
This is a strange request coming from this blog. However, it rings true. We should demand that the media sources cited above (and any connected to George Soros) all be forced to invoke the Fairness Doctrine in their Presidential election coverages. No more editorials being reported as "facts." Make NBC, CBS, and ABC have alternate opinions stated in equal time to offset their warped bias in favor of the Progressive/Socialist philosophy.
Perhaps if this "regulation" were imposed we could see a more fair Presidential election process.
A recent survey conducted by the Center for Media and Public Affairs indicates beyond any doubt that the Left-Wing media showed a serious bias in the last Presidential election. Here are their findings:
2008 Campaign Articles/Stories in Favor Of...
- CBS - Obama = 73% of the time; McCain = 31% of the time.
- NBC - Obama = 56% of the time; McCain = 16% of the time.
- ABC - Obama = 57% of the time; McCain = 42% of the time
These numbers do not lie. They show a distinct bias towards Barack Obama. Why? Because the Left-Wing media has an agenda and it is to promote the Progressive ideology - not the news!
Ignorance is Bliss
Or is it? Self-imposed ignorance on your part is DANGEROUS! If you accept the idea that the media is not prejudice and reports the news accurately and without bias, you are seriously looking for trouble. Americans need to wise-up and educate themselves that there is this wide-spread bias and they need to do something about it.
Begin by changing your reading and viewing habits. Look for new news sources on the Internet instead of the usual newspapers and TV channels. Stop your subscriptions to the old newspapers. Experiment reading the news from foreign news sources instead. Try and get a different perspective on the news. It won't take long to see the BIAS being used here in America.
Remember also that George Soros has his hands and money directly connected to these and other (37) media sources. Recall that Soros is no friend of the USA and Capitalism. He turned against his own (Jewish) people to work for the Nazis in WWII and now he's doing the same against America.
Bring Back the Fairness Doctrine
This is a strange request coming from this blog. However, it rings true. We should demand that the media sources cited above (and any connected to George Soros) all be forced to invoke the Fairness Doctrine in their Presidential election coverages. No more editorials being reported as "facts." Make NBC, CBS, and ABC have alternate opinions stated in equal time to offset their warped bias in favor of the Progressive/Socialist philosophy.
Perhaps if this "regulation" were imposed we could see a more fair Presidential election process.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Guest Article - Debt Ceiling Politics
GOP Forces Dems to Choose on Debt Limit
By Rich Trzupek of the In Daily Mailer
"This April, 114 House Democrats signed on to a letter authored by Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) supporting the “clean” debt-limit increase option. Yesterday Republicans granted their opponents across the aisle their wish, bringing a bill to a vote before the House that would have increased the federal government’s debt limit by $2 trillion, with no spending cuts required. Predictably, the bill failed miserably. No Republicans voted for the measure, while Democrats were split. Ninety-seven Democrats voted in favor of the increase, eighty-two voted against it and seven voted “present.”
House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) accused the GOP of playing political games and advised his colleagues not to vote for the measure. Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI) was less circumspect, immediately reaching to pull the political fire alarm. Levin accused Republicans of a “ploy so egregious that [they] have had to spend the last week pleading with Wall Street not to take it seriously and risk our economic recovery.” Wall Street didn’t appear to be worried, with both the Dow and NASDAQ posting strong gains on Tuesday.
For their part, Republican leadership needed to do something to show it is serious about debt reduction and this vote was a logical step in that direction. It forced Democrats to come down firmly on one side of the spending debate or the other, which will help as negotiations continue. Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) made it clear where he stands in a speech he delivered earlier this month. “It’s true that allowing America to default would be irresponsible,” he said. “But it would be more irresponsible to raise the debt limit without simultaneously taking dramatic steps to reduce spending and to reform the budget process.”
Congress and the Obama administration will have two months to work out a compromise economic plan. Republicans have indicated that they can agree to increasing the debt limit, but only if Democrats agree to meaning spending cuts that will reduce the debt over the long term. With today’s vote, the authorized debt limit remains at $14.3 trillion. By utilizing a series of stopgap measures, the government has been able to continue to function under that limit without defaulting on its obligations. However, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said that those tricks of the trade can only be utilized for so long, tagging August 2 as the day the United States defaults on its debts if nothing is done to change the current situation.
Yesterday’s maneuver undoubtedly had as much to do with November 2012 as it did with August 2011. Those Democrats who voted for the measure have handed potential GOP opponents a campaign issue (“so-and-so voted to burden your children and grandchildren with even more crushing debt!”), although it must be admitted most of the ninety-seven supporting the measure represent districts that wouldn’t be expected to vote Republican unless there was Divine intervention, and perhaps not even then. On the other hand, the eighty-two Democrats who voted against a “clean” debt limit increase will annoy a goodly portion of the hard-left contingent of their base. From a strictly political point of view, this was a no-brainer for the GOP, which is surely what annoyed Hoyer and Levin so much.
But the vote also sends another message to the Obama administration: America is getting serious about debt reduction and the president won’t be able to hide behind the skirts of “party unity” and the “will of the people” this time around. The people clearly want this mess fixed and about half of the president’s party agrees. If Obama has even a fleeting hope of repeating the trick of running as a centrist that he pulled off so masterfully in 2008, he must get on the right side of this issue strongly, unambiguously and pretty darn quickly.
Presidential Press Secretary Jim Carney said “it’s fine” in response to the vote, seeming to acknowledge the mood of the people and Congress. But, then Carney resorted to classic political waffling, expressing the administration’s belief that the issue of raising the debt limit shouldn’t be connected to any other issues. “We believe they should not be linked because there is no alternative that’s acceptable to raising the debt ceiling,” he said. “But we’re committed to reducing the deficit.”
Note that Carney said that the administration is committed to reducing the “deficit” not to reducing the national debt. While it’s true that the Obama administration did present a budget that called for slightly less overspending than last years, the president hasn’t taken any actions that will reduce the national debt in any meaningful way. Nor can he, not with an election drawing near. Making the kind of painful cuts needed to deal with the monstrous debt that he did so much to create would alienate too many voters on the left for Obama to even begin to consider such moves. Instead, he’ll continue to try to dance away and prevent the GOP from backing him into a corner on economic issues. Yesterday, Republicans took another step in that direction, but this dance marathon is going to continue for quite a while."
By Rich Trzupek of the In Daily Mailer
"This April, 114 House Democrats signed on to a letter authored by Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) supporting the “clean” debt-limit increase option. Yesterday Republicans granted their opponents across the aisle their wish, bringing a bill to a vote before the House that would have increased the federal government’s debt limit by $2 trillion, with no spending cuts required. Predictably, the bill failed miserably. No Republicans voted for the measure, while Democrats were split. Ninety-seven Democrats voted in favor of the increase, eighty-two voted against it and seven voted “present.”
House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) accused the GOP of playing political games and advised his colleagues not to vote for the measure. Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI) was less circumspect, immediately reaching to pull the political fire alarm. Levin accused Republicans of a “ploy so egregious that [they] have had to spend the last week pleading with Wall Street not to take it seriously and risk our economic recovery.” Wall Street didn’t appear to be worried, with both the Dow and NASDAQ posting strong gains on Tuesday.
For their part, Republican leadership needed to do something to show it is serious about debt reduction and this vote was a logical step in that direction. It forced Democrats to come down firmly on one side of the spending debate or the other, which will help as negotiations continue. Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) made it clear where he stands in a speech he delivered earlier this month. “It’s true that allowing America to default would be irresponsible,” he said. “But it would be more irresponsible to raise the debt limit without simultaneously taking dramatic steps to reduce spending and to reform the budget process.”
Congress and the Obama administration will have two months to work out a compromise economic plan. Republicans have indicated that they can agree to increasing the debt limit, but only if Democrats agree to meaning spending cuts that will reduce the debt over the long term. With today’s vote, the authorized debt limit remains at $14.3 trillion. By utilizing a series of stopgap measures, the government has been able to continue to function under that limit without defaulting on its obligations. However, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said that those tricks of the trade can only be utilized for so long, tagging August 2 as the day the United States defaults on its debts if nothing is done to change the current situation.
Yesterday’s maneuver undoubtedly had as much to do with November 2012 as it did with August 2011. Those Democrats who voted for the measure have handed potential GOP opponents a campaign issue (“so-and-so voted to burden your children and grandchildren with even more crushing debt!”), although it must be admitted most of the ninety-seven supporting the measure represent districts that wouldn’t be expected to vote Republican unless there was Divine intervention, and perhaps not even then. On the other hand, the eighty-two Democrats who voted against a “clean” debt limit increase will annoy a goodly portion of the hard-left contingent of their base. From a strictly political point of view, this was a no-brainer for the GOP, which is surely what annoyed Hoyer and Levin so much.
But the vote also sends another message to the Obama administration: America is getting serious about debt reduction and the president won’t be able to hide behind the skirts of “party unity” and the “will of the people” this time around. The people clearly want this mess fixed and about half of the president’s party agrees. If Obama has even a fleeting hope of repeating the trick of running as a centrist that he pulled off so masterfully in 2008, he must get on the right side of this issue strongly, unambiguously and pretty darn quickly.
Presidential Press Secretary Jim Carney said “it’s fine” in response to the vote, seeming to acknowledge the mood of the people and Congress. But, then Carney resorted to classic political waffling, expressing the administration’s belief that the issue of raising the debt limit shouldn’t be connected to any other issues. “We believe they should not be linked because there is no alternative that’s acceptable to raising the debt ceiling,” he said. “But we’re committed to reducing the deficit.”
Note that Carney said that the administration is committed to reducing the “deficit” not to reducing the national debt. While it’s true that the Obama administration did present a budget that called for slightly less overspending than last years, the president hasn’t taken any actions that will reduce the national debt in any meaningful way. Nor can he, not with an election drawing near. Making the kind of painful cuts needed to deal with the monstrous debt that he did so much to create would alienate too many voters on the left for Obama to even begin to consider such moves. Instead, he’ll continue to try to dance away and prevent the GOP from backing him into a corner on economic issues. Yesterday, Republicans took another step in that direction, but this dance marathon is going to continue for quite a while."
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Guest Article - Illegal Signature?
Congressman questions constitutionality of Obama’s automated signature on Patriot extension
by Jeff Winkler of the DaileyCaller.com
"It was the most expansive use of government powers after 9/11 and lawmakers like Sen. Rand Paul protested loudly against its passage, but with the quick scan of an autopen, President Obama signed a four-year extension of the Patriot Act.
Now Republican Rep. Tom Graves is questioning the validity of such a move.
The Georgia congressman, who voted against the Patriot Sunsets Extension Act of 2011, sent a letter to Obama questioning whether the president could legally “assign a surrogate the responsibility of signing bills passed by Congress.”
Obama was traveling in Europe and, with just hours left before key components of the extension expired, instructed officials back home to use the automated signature machine to approve the act.
The Constitution states that “every bill which shall have passed the House … and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the president of the United States. If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it.” In 2005, however, the Office of Legal Counsel found that the president’s use of an autopen was constitutionally acceptable.
“I thought it was a joke at first,” said Graves in a statement.
The Georgia representative called the autopen decision “debatable” and raised concerns for the precedent that it has set, particularly in regards for some of the country’s most important pieces of legislation.
“Any number of circumstances could arise in the future where the public could question whether or not the president authorized the use of an autopen,” said Grave. “For example, if the president is hospitalized and not fully alert, can a group of aggressive Cabinet members interpret a wink or a squeeze of the hand as approval of an autopen signing? I am very concerned about what this means for future presidential orders, whether they be signing bills into law, military orders or executive orders.”
Graves is requesting a “detailed explanation of his authority to delegate this responsibility to a surrogate.”
While Graves has questions, President Bush’s former White House press secretary, Ari Fleischer, tells ABC News Obama is likely “on solid ground” in using the autopen. He says Bush never invoked its use, though it was considered.
Obama is “taking somewhat of a risk that the autopen will be challenged in court,” explained Fleischer. “Using it for the first time on major legislation carries some risk.”"
by Jeff Winkler of the DaileyCaller.com
"It was the most expansive use of government powers after 9/11 and lawmakers like Sen. Rand Paul protested loudly against its passage, but with the quick scan of an autopen, President Obama signed a four-year extension of the Patriot Act.
Now Republican Rep. Tom Graves is questioning the validity of such a move.
The Georgia congressman, who voted against the Patriot Sunsets Extension Act of 2011, sent a letter to Obama questioning whether the president could legally “assign a surrogate the responsibility of signing bills passed by Congress.”
Obama was traveling in Europe and, with just hours left before key components of the extension expired, instructed officials back home to use the automated signature machine to approve the act.
The Constitution states that “every bill which shall have passed the House … and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the president of the United States. If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it.” In 2005, however, the Office of Legal Counsel found that the president’s use of an autopen was constitutionally acceptable.
“I thought it was a joke at first,” said Graves in a statement.
The Georgia representative called the autopen decision “debatable” and raised concerns for the precedent that it has set, particularly in regards for some of the country’s most important pieces of legislation.
“Any number of circumstances could arise in the future where the public could question whether or not the president authorized the use of an autopen,” said Grave. “For example, if the president is hospitalized and not fully alert, can a group of aggressive Cabinet members interpret a wink or a squeeze of the hand as approval of an autopen signing? I am very concerned about what this means for future presidential orders, whether they be signing bills into law, military orders or executive orders.”
Graves is requesting a “detailed explanation of his authority to delegate this responsibility to a surrogate.”
While Graves has questions, President Bush’s former White House press secretary, Ari Fleischer, tells ABC News Obama is likely “on solid ground” in using the autopen. He says Bush never invoked its use, though it was considered.
Obama is “taking somewhat of a risk that the autopen will be challenged in court,” explained Fleischer. “Using it for the first time on major legislation carries some risk.”"
Monday, May 30, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
