One of the congressional races that Democrats managed to win recently was John Murtha’s seat in the 12th congressional district of Pennsylvania. Murtha, who died recently, slandered US troops for the Haditha “massacre.” All except one were eventually acquitted. The last case is still pending. Republicans had hoped to pick up this seat that is probably one of the most expensive considering how much pork Murtha brought into his district.
What’s interesting and a potential warning to conservative and tea party candidates is how the Democrat Mark Critz won. First, he definitely didn’t run on Obama’s agenda. He was pro 2nd amendment, pro-life, against Obama’s “Stick It to Us Stimulus Not” plan, and most importantly he’s against ObamaCare. Whoa, this guy is more of a Republican than many Republicans.
The question is, “Does Critz really believe in those positions?” Given the fact that this guy was a long time aide to Military Massacre Murtha could indicate that answer is no. Of course, it could be argued that he really needed a job and only worked for that Princess Pelosi supporting congressman under duress.
Still, how Critz got elected was based on a flat out lie just like a local politician here in Virginia, and that indicates that everything else Critz has said is probably also positions taken “just to get elected.” Tim Burns, Critz’s opponent, supported the Fair Tax, which is a total overhaul of the federal tax system.
Instead of punishing income as all pro-regressives desire, it instead eliminates the federal income tax, which then eliminates April 15th as the annual rectal introspection day. The Fair Tax implements a national sales tax of about 23% and then only on new merchandise. Finally, everyone receives a refund to the government specified poverty level.
Of course, Democrats have come up with an effective strategy against the Fair Tax as clever as it is dishonest. Critz claimed in political ads that Burns was a tax raiser then computed the price of everything with the new sales tax. There was no mention of the income tax repeal or the reimbursement check. To voters who know nothing about the Fair Tax, a new sales tax can be quite unappealing.
Fifth district congressman Tom Periello used the same strategy in his win against Virgil Goode, who also came out as an advocate for the Fair Tax. So, this warning is for any politician favoring the Fair Tax, never say that support explicitly. Say instead, that it’s the income tax that must be repealed. Don’t ever mention what’s to replace it. In that way, the pro-regressives can’t make a dishonest ad misrepresenting their opponent’s true tax position.
But the politician that used the best underhanded strategy to win would be Democrat Joe Sestak who defeated incumbent Arlen Specter. Specter was a Democrat, then a Republican, then a Democrat again. Actually, he was whatever he thought he needed to be to win re-election. The consummate politician, “I believe what you believe. Now, what do you believe?”
Back in February Sestak began telling anyone who would listen that the Obama administration had offered him a job if he would drop his senate bid, a felony. What’s amazing is that Sestak got an administration job offer even though he isn’t under any suspicion of income tax invasion.
Only Fox News pursued the story asking at practically every White House press news conference what the Obama administration’s response was to Sestak’s allegations. “Nothing” would be a vast overstatement. In fact, Robert Gibbs, Obama’s spokesman, didn’t even act like the dog ate his homework when after promising to find out didn’t and/or wouldn’t.
The truth is that Obama didn’t consider it important because he depends on the liberal lapdog media to obediently report only those issues he wants them to cover. Unfortunately, Sestak won, and this campaign issue has taken a life of its own.
Sestak never said what position he was offered. Many speculated Secretary of the Navy, a position only the president could authorize. Yet, as soon as Sestak won, he suddenly lost interest in talking about his administration employment connection. Maybe, it’s because that no longer helps him get elected against a Republican opponent. In fact, he’s willing to become “Sellout Sestak” accepting whatever story the administration needs in order to join their gang.
What’s their narrative, the job was non-paying and presented by ex-Pres Bill Clinton. Perfect, as Liar in Chief and convicted of perjury he’s the perfect person to blow this snow job. Unfortunately, for Obama and Sestak, his political play of the week has backfired, but don’t look for this crime to become a real issue unless Republicans take back congress because Democrats have proven that they will do anything they need to do to acquire and keep power.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Monday, May 31, 2010
Set on the Net
While attention has been drawn elsewhere with the selection of Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court, the Obama administration has been steadily moving to control a medium that was for the most part was credited with his election win in 2008. Blackberry Barry Satoro, his name before he became Barack Obama and president who wouldn’t surrender his blackberry, now claims he knows nothing about the Internet or it devices except that they have become interference for the American people.
While he was only joking about not knowing how to work iPods and iPads, he wasn’t about his point that too much information is becoming a distraction and a diversion. Yes, the 24/7 media environment bombards Americans “with all kinds of content, all kinds of arguments” some Obama deems don’t rank high on the truth meter. Many would say the same about him.
Obama then lamented how all this information was putting pressure on Americans, pressure on the country, our democracy and his poll numbers. Well, he didn’t say that last part, but he certainly meant it. It explains his obsession and relentless attacks on Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.
It also explains his statement fondly remembering the good old days of the good old limited liberal news. Obama, the One, remarked, “Whereas most of America used to get their news from the same three networks over dinner or a few influential papers on Sunday morning, we now have the option to get our information from any number of blogs or websites or cable news shows.” Somehow, one gets the eerie feeling that Obama would like to return to those thrilling days of yesteryear.
It would definitely be a lot easier for the government to control the flow of info especially since these networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) already willingly obey their master, Obama, without even a hint of a governmental crackdown threat. It’s really all about money for when a supposed “news” network just reports verbatim the DNC talking points without questioning them just think of the savings it gets from not having to do any expensive investigative reporting.
One of the little noticed stories that the DNC media didn’t report was the Obama administration arbitrarily changed a law so that they could regulate the Internet using arcane rules written in the 1930s for outdated telephone lines.
Up until this point, the Internet was deemed an informational media, and as such a federal appeals court recently ruled “that under current law the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has absolutely no legal authority to impose stifling and unnecessary regulations.”
But, never willing to accept no for an answer, the Obama regime has coined an Orwellian term “Net Neutrality” to fool the people into believing that his infringement on liberty is really just a benign attempt to make “democracy” work better. It would help if Obama understood what a democracy was and that America was never a democracy but a republic or that many founders described democracy as the vilest form of government ever created.
Obama’s former Regulation Czar and now Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) administrator Cass Sunstein, who advocates removing a person’s organs without explicit consent, supports a “Net Neutrality” where Internet sites will be strongly suggested and then forced if necessary to offer links to competing websites. Notice how suggestion becomes force when the desired results are not achieved.
No doubt Sunstein and Obama will make Internet regulation such that no site could afford to offer any political content as with the “Fairness Doctrine” another Orwellian term that removed all political discussion from radio. Oh, it didn’t specifically ban political content. No, it just deemed that it had to be properly countered with opposing views.
However, what it really accomplished was a radio station that put on any political commentary knew it would have to battle major legal litigation when its license renewal time arrived. AM radio almost went out of existence but when President Reagan removed the “Fairness Doctrine” AM radio blossomed with conservative commentators like that wonderful fuzz ball Rush.
All of which brings back the subject of Elena Kagan, Obama’s Supreme Court nominee. She has argued that the government should redistribute speech specifically “that government can restrict speech if it believes that speech might cause harm, either directly or by inciting others to do harm.” But, that requirement could mean restricting anyone that government disagrees with.
Just listen to the arguments that pro-regressives make against Rush. They practically blame him for every act of violence that a member of the tea party does. And even though no tea partier has ever committed violence, they get accused of contemplating violence. Kagan’s beliefs would virtually eviscerate the First Amendment and as such she’s not qualified to serve on this nation’s highest court.
While he was only joking about not knowing how to work iPods and iPads, he wasn’t about his point that too much information is becoming a distraction and a diversion. Yes, the 24/7 media environment bombards Americans “with all kinds of content, all kinds of arguments” some Obama deems don’t rank high on the truth meter. Many would say the same about him.
Obama then lamented how all this information was putting pressure on Americans, pressure on the country, our democracy and his poll numbers. Well, he didn’t say that last part, but he certainly meant it. It explains his obsession and relentless attacks on Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.
It also explains his statement fondly remembering the good old days of the good old limited liberal news. Obama, the One, remarked, “Whereas most of America used to get their news from the same three networks over dinner or a few influential papers on Sunday morning, we now have the option to get our information from any number of blogs or websites or cable news shows.” Somehow, one gets the eerie feeling that Obama would like to return to those thrilling days of yesteryear.
It would definitely be a lot easier for the government to control the flow of info especially since these networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) already willingly obey their master, Obama, without even a hint of a governmental crackdown threat. It’s really all about money for when a supposed “news” network just reports verbatim the DNC talking points without questioning them just think of the savings it gets from not having to do any expensive investigative reporting.
One of the little noticed stories that the DNC media didn’t report was the Obama administration arbitrarily changed a law so that they could regulate the Internet using arcane rules written in the 1930s for outdated telephone lines.
Up until this point, the Internet was deemed an informational media, and as such a federal appeals court recently ruled “that under current law the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has absolutely no legal authority to impose stifling and unnecessary regulations.”
But, never willing to accept no for an answer, the Obama regime has coined an Orwellian term “Net Neutrality” to fool the people into believing that his infringement on liberty is really just a benign attempt to make “democracy” work better. It would help if Obama understood what a democracy was and that America was never a democracy but a republic or that many founders described democracy as the vilest form of government ever created.
Obama’s former Regulation Czar and now Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) administrator Cass Sunstein, who advocates removing a person’s organs without explicit consent, supports a “Net Neutrality” where Internet sites will be strongly suggested and then forced if necessary to offer links to competing websites. Notice how suggestion becomes force when the desired results are not achieved.
No doubt Sunstein and Obama will make Internet regulation such that no site could afford to offer any political content as with the “Fairness Doctrine” another Orwellian term that removed all political discussion from radio. Oh, it didn’t specifically ban political content. No, it just deemed that it had to be properly countered with opposing views.
However, what it really accomplished was a radio station that put on any political commentary knew it would have to battle major legal litigation when its license renewal time arrived. AM radio almost went out of existence but when President Reagan removed the “Fairness Doctrine” AM radio blossomed with conservative commentators like that wonderful fuzz ball Rush.
All of which brings back the subject of Elena Kagan, Obama’s Supreme Court nominee. She has argued that the government should redistribute speech specifically “that government can restrict speech if it believes that speech might cause harm, either directly or by inciting others to do harm.” But, that requirement could mean restricting anyone that government disagrees with.
Just listen to the arguments that pro-regressives make against Rush. They practically blame him for every act of violence that a member of the tea party does. And even though no tea partier has ever committed violence, they get accused of contemplating violence. Kagan’s beliefs would virtually eviscerate the First Amendment and as such she’s not qualified to serve on this nation’s highest court.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
