Biased "Secrets"

Mitt Romney's other tax secret - Jul. 23, 2012

In 2008 the media was remarkably incurious over policy relative to BO. "Hope and Change" was his platform and to even consider a "detail" like what kind of things might be in a BOnomics or BOcare plan was completely unnecessary. He was going to close the evil Gitmo and fix the economy in 3 years or be a one term president. What more did people need to know?

Release any information about BO's past? Take a detailed look at where he went to church for 20 years, or who his close associates and helpers were (eg. Tony Rezko ... sweetheart land deal for BO's house among many other political money "favors. Rezko is in prison). There was just no critical interest in "the one" -- the job of the media was to add a brighter lustre to whatever spewed from his massive campaign juggernaut.

Now the media is fantastically interested -- in Mittens, but strangely only in items that they can call "questionable".

In Al Gore's tax returns from when he was VP, his charitable giving was $350 on $300K of income one year ... wide open info, one would have thought it was a state secret relative to media. There are millions of deductions for charity in Mitts taxes ... lots to the church, but he has also done a lot of other pretty amazing charitable giving / work.

For some reason, I'm not expecting CNN to be doing any stories on that.

33rd BOcare Repeal Fable

SPIN ALERT: The House Did NOT Vote to Repeal Obamacare 33 Times

I heard the "33" on MPR a number of times -- with the appropriate derisiveness from the announcers for the "symbolic show having been done 33 times".

While I strongly suspected the truth, I really didn't care enough to check it -- I already knew they were biased. Heck, every Democrat "Close Gitmo", "Defund Iraq", etc shenanigan was treated as if it were holy writ by MPR, no matter how many times they had floated some DOA stunt when W was in WH.

So it turns out, complete fabrication. If you are an opposition party, voting for repeal after you take over and after the SCOTUS upholds is pretty normal political behavior.

Of course so is treating it derisively and fabricating false numbers to try to make the other side look bad. Which I have ZERO problem with!! If NPR, NYT, CBS, etc would just truthfully label themselves with something like the following:

"We are Progressive Statist Propagandists -- we believe in ever larger government controlling more of our lives. We abhor the Constitution and see it as a document standing in the way of government doing unlimited good. We see government as a total force for good in the modern world, and human nature as infinitely malleable through education and government incentives. "

Or some such. Cigarettes have to have warning labels, and they are FAR less dangerous to the future of America than the MSM!!

Post Post America Energy Picture

Energy Revolution 2: A Post Post-American Post | Via Meadia

Some good news for a change. I love it when "Nature" ... or I believe God, does a little "pundit mocking".

Remember Negative Ads Being ... Negative??

Barack Obama’s high-risk, high-reward campaign strategy, and how Romney should respond | Power Line

This is a good little strategy discussion, but it reminds me of how things work in US Politics / Media today. Prior to 2008, negative ads were TERRIBLE -- any politician that "went negative" needed to be asked a lot of questions as to "why". It was considered to be part of the legacy of such evil geniuses like Reagan handlers Lynn Nofsinger, Ed Rollings, etc. -- unseemly and bad for politics.

Then BO spent more on negative ads against McCain than had been spent in the previous history of campaigns, and we were off to the races. Now, going completely negative is SUPER strategy as far as the MSM is concerned -- what else is BO going to do? If he runs on his record it would be a short campaign -- "As I promised 4 years ago, if I didn't fix this economy I'd be a one term president -- so I guess I will be".

So he is out defining Romney as negatively as he can -- uh, "maybe he's a Felon"?, but of course we know that BO **IS** an admitted Felon. He STATED that he heavily used marijuana, cocaine and who knows what else in his first book -- oh, wait, he is a Democrat, nobody cares.


One would STRONGLY hope this backfires big-time, and maybe it will. There isn't anyone that looks much  cleaner than Mittens, and one doesn't need to look very hard for BO pictures that show a very much darker side of the old "Hope N Change Guy" ... but media and the massive BO attack ads are powerful. The outcome is anything but certain.

Contrasting Election Columns

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/16/opinion/krugman-policy-and-the-personal.html?_r=1

First we have Krugman ... personal attacks are OK if are directed against Romney, since real issues are complicated and Republicans are liars. BTW, the "heavily tilted to rich" W tax cuts provided $3T in tax relief for people making < $250K and $700B for those making over $250K. Oh, and "lowest taxes" are lowest tax RATES ... which nobody paid. In actual and inflation adjusted dollars, those that make $250K and above are paying far MORE in actual dollars and percentage of total taxes than they have ever paid before -- but we can trust Democrats and Democrat columnists.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/07/15/niall-ferguson-the-cure-for-our-economy-s-stationary-state.html

Then we have Ferguson ... as we have know for 200+ years, the engine of growth is  capitalism, competition, free markets --- then and now, stagnation AND government cronyism with public unions and the wealthy. There are MORE people in the .1% that are BO supporters than Romney supporters. Why? They already GOT their wealth!! It is the people from "$100K - $500K" in INCOMES that want competition and lower regulation -- they want to pay off all their student loans and get wealthy so they can afford to be Democrats as well!

There is no reason that Romney ought not win by double digit popular vote numbers if people would vote their pocket books!

Stay Married, Avoid Poverty

Two Classes in America, Divided by ‘I Do’ - NYTimes.com

For anyone that supplements their media diet with just a tiny bit of off-MSM seasoning, it is no news at all that a very significant amount of the "rising inequality" is due to the damage that sagging morals and government stepping into the roll of "daddy" (provider) has decimated the lower and lower middle classes.

They say 40% here -- I'd say it is much higher than that because the societal crackup came in the 60's ... we have had a couple generations of pagans in some cases -- and it shows.

But maybe if the NYTs prints it, more people will start to believe the obvious.

Finish HS, get married and stay married, raise a family -- IN THAT ORDER! Those are the biggest keys to you and your children not living poverty!!

Demographics and BO

Why Doesn't Obama Have a Bigger Lead? | Mother Jones

Mother Jones reporter can't figure out how a President with persistent 8.2% unemployment and the weakest economic "recovery" since the Depression doesn't have a big poll lead -- to which one might just dope slap your forehead and loudly say DUH!!!

The MSM and the Democrats are perpetually talking about how Hispanics are a rising percentage and they are huge Democrat voters -- so Republicans are toast.

Maybe.

I see a lot of mixed Hispanic-White marriages, and many of them seem awfully religious / conservative, and seem to be having a ton of kids. Are they all counted as "guaranteed Hispanic / Democrat" voters??

The Democrat constituency for a long time has been "birth control, abortion, Gays,   no or maybe one kid to save the planet, etc.". Not a way to increase your voting block in general. Meanwhile, at least at our church (relatively conservative LCMS), there are a number of larger families coming up, and in some cases already voting age. Seems to be even a bigger trend at more conservative evangelical churches.

I've heard that the groups that have the most offspring eventually "win" in this evolution thing? Likely just a myth though -- all the geniuses with "evolve" on their bumpers are certain that not having any kids is the smart move. They gotta be right!

Kill Brad Pitt's Mom?

Brad Pitt’s Mother Fears For Her Life …After Her Conservative Statements - Independent Journal Review

Reagan said it best; "A liberal will defend your right to agree with them to their dying breath".

What he didn't say was that "liberal", ISN'T. It is a stolen term -- prior to WWII it was "Progressive, Socialist, Fascist or Communist". WWII changed that because "Progressive, Socialist and Fascist" all became "unpopular" for some reason -- "Communist" wasn't so bad -- the USSR was our ally.

So the left stole "liberal" ... meaning "laissez faire",  libertarian, individual liberty, open minded, etc

Progressive, socialist, fascist" are distinctly NOT "liberal" in the proper meaning of the word. They are elitist and absolutely certain that they have all the right answers -- oh, and if you don't agree? You should either be silent or SILENCED ... your pick.

I REALLY applaud Brad Pitt for standing up for his mother! It is courageous, because "liberal" ideology certainly doesn't recognize mothers as special and worthy of the unconditional support of their sons. Also because many liberal sons would not  take the position that blood is thicker than ideology, and would just side with the attackers.

Note, Pitt doesn't have to say he AGREES with his Mom to support her! "Liberals" have a gigantic tendency to confuse "support/care/respect/etc" with "agreement", because they really believe that their thoughts and positions are "sacred". Since most conservatives have a higher power (God), they tend to be more tolerant of opposing thought, since they don't see man's temporary thinking as sacred.

Walter Williams, Some Economic Common Sense

Difficult Economics Lessons - Walter E. Williams - Page 2:

Excellent article from Williams. Between him and Thomas Sowell, I'm a bit prejudiced in favor of Black Economists.

I loved the following quote. One problem with the fuzzy thinking of liberalism is that they provide very little logic that is invertible (ie. if this is a "good idea", why doesn't it work both ways?) or universal -- "if campaign finance restrictions are important, why wasn't it an issue when BO broke all records in '08?" or "If Gitmo was so horrible, why isn't it still an issue since it is four years later and it is still open?".

 "But what is equal opportunity, and how could you tell whether it existed? I've asked students whether upon college completion they will give every employer an equal opportunity to hire them. Most often, with a puzzled look on their faces, they answer no. Then I ask, "If you are not going to give every employer an equal opportunity to hire you, why should employers be forced to give you an equal opportunity to be hired?""

'via Blog this'

What Unions Really Spend

Higher Political Spending by Unions:

Organized labor spends about four times as much on politics and lobbying as generally thought, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis, a finding that shines a light on an aspect of labor's political activity that has often been overlooked.

For those of us that attend the MN State Fair and see the giant Union Booth on the corner opposite the giant Democrat Booth, this is no surprise. The Union Booth is just another Democrat booth -- fully staffed by union members and supporting exactly the same candidates. The Democrat Party is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Unions, and as we have seen in the auto bailouts, vice-versa. A very cozy relationship.

Naturally, while the MSM is INCENSED about "Citizens United" and "The Koch Brothers", union political spending, "volunteers", etc are no problem at all. It's a free country after all -- for folks that agree with the left at least.

Retired Extreme Conservatives Happiest

Conservatives Are Happier, and Extremists Are Happiest of All - NYTimes.com

Well, I made the retired part up, but I really suspect it us true.

Not a lot of new news here, people are happier when they know where they fit and have solid relationships in that fit -- which the more extreme you are, the more likely you are to hang together. Flat Earthers and Moon Landing Deniers soon end up finding each other in the internet age.

Turns out that actual multiple thousand year old religions tend to work a lot better than those thought up yesterday in the happiness department.

Should we care? Well, I'd argue that we don't have a choice -- we are wired to seek happiness, it really isn't an option for this relrase of humanity.

Acceptable Tolerance

Symptoms of a sick culture - Jonah Goldberg - Page 1

Interesting take on the lifeguard fired for saving a life, worth the read.

I'm struck by how much outcry we get from the media on things like "zero tolerance" for drugs, alcohol and such, but for union work rules actually defining who gets saved and who doesn't, it is a "don't care".

Everything we do has both intended and unintended consequences, "side effects". When what we do is as big as a national health law, the side effects are likely to be bigger than the act itself -- and nearly as unpredictable.

"Truth", Media, F&F

The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal - Fortune Features

This is one of those stories that has stayed right up at the top of CNN for a few days. It is rather long for it's premise -- "Fast and Furious never happened at all, everyone ought just move along".

This article doesn't reach the conclusion that Holder should resign, but take a look at this paragraph:

As political pressure has mounted, ATF and Justice Department officials have reversed themselves. After initially supporting Group VII agents and denying the allegations, they have since agreed that the ATF purposefully chose not to interdict guns it lawfully could have seized. Holder testified in December that "the use of this misguided tactic is inexcusable, and it must never happen again."

This is the first article I've read that takes the tack "it never happened". The other explanations from the left and the WH have said "it was a Bush program". (is there a pattern here? "It was Bush's fault" ... or, "uh, it never happened" ... then maybe,  "uh, BOTH!!") However, Holder testified under oath that the Bush program was "Wide Receiver" and he knew of the differences
http://prairiepundit.blogspot.com/2012/06/wide-receiver-vs-fast-and-furious.html


1). The guns were marked, RFIDed and tracked
2). The Mexican Government was aware and involved in WR
3). WR was shut down in '07 because it was not considered effective


So Fortune -- a Financial magazine writes a big article that sits at the top of CNN on the web for a couple of days that says "Fast and Furious never happened", and the whole problem is "Republicans / Conservative Media". 

Irony abounds when it comes to the Fast and Furious scandal. But the ultimate irony is this: Republicans who support the National Rifle Association and its attempts to weaken gun laws are lambasting ATF agents for not seizing enough weapons—ones that, in this case, prosecutors deemed to be legal.

Indeed. 

The NRA is about the right to bear arms in the US -- not Mexico. The fact that illegal drug cartels acquire illegal guns from the US ought to be off everyone's radar. The illegal drug cartels acquire and sell illegal drugs that are illegal on both sides of the border as well. The guns are just a business cost to them -- like cars, boats, planes, trucks and cool sunglasses. 

They will acquire the guns from some supplier -- US, Columbian, Czech, Chinese, etc -- why anyone is even REMOTELY concerned where the illegal drug cartels happen to acquire their guns, knives, cars, fancy jewelry, etc is beyond me. Their BUSINESS is acquiring, transporting and selling ILLEGAL DRUGS for goodness sake. If you think they really care about where they get the various tools of their trade, or think it is going to somehow be "hard" for them to acquire ANY weapon that they want (RPGs, grenades, full auto weapons, etc), you have no concept at all about groups that move thousands of TONS of drugs into the US every year!

So, the "ultimate irony" is that major US news outlets are falling over each other trying to explain away a scandal that cost the life of a US DEA agent plus many more in Mexico to protect "their guys" in the WH. 

Limits of Tolerance

Where Maurice Sendak was | Power Line:

The idea that the left is tolerant and civil is an extremely cruel joke. These people are not loonies in some backwater, they are well known people of the left, yet there is ZERO interest in policing their own -- because frankly, they agree with them.

'via Blog this'

Eureka! An Honest Life vs BO

Sitting in a coffee shop in Eureka IL, location of Eureka College, Alma Mater of Ronald Reagan, the end of the "Ronald Reagan Trail" in IL. Towns like Dixon, Tampico, Washington, Galesburg -- full of real places and real people.

The little museum at the college is full of pictures from Reagan's life -- all the way back to being a lifeguard. Everyone knew "Dutch" -- his life is an open book. Teachers, girlfriends, buddies, people he saved from drowning, classmates, team mates, bosses, people that listened to him on the radio.

For Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, HW, Clinton and W, I suspect there are or will be little displays and "trails" that are much the same. There are a ton of Reagan quotes -- "Tear Down This Wall" being right up there with "Ask Not" and "We will land a man on the moon in this decade". Even Slick Willie famously said that "The Era of Big Government is over" and "That depends on your definition of "is"".

What would the "BO Trail" look like? Where are his classmates? Where are his childhood friends, teachers, team mates, etc?? What is his best quote? My personal favorite "If I don't fix this economy in 3 years, I'll be a one term president". or maybe "57 States so far, 2 more to go"! I guess "The private sector is doing fine" may be remembered for awhile.

Reagan left a lot of tracks in his life. BO? I guess we should be thankful that other than red ink -- which of itself may be the poison that finally kills America, his life and presidency are already nearly invisible.