While the debate rages in Washington about immigration, one thing that should be on the top of the list of considerations is being largely overlooked. In spite of the fact that the following report was aired on ABC, it’s unlikely that anyone is going to be hearing too many politicians grabbing the spotlight to talk about it. They will prefer to keep people focused on images of immigrants that want legal status, children that were dragged across the border illegally through no fault of their own, and the various low wage workers that certain portions of our economy theoretically must have in order to survive. There will be talk about STEM, and how much we need highly skilled immigrants, in spite of the fact that the better solution lies in better education opportunities for legal citizens. But, there won’t be very much talk about unfinished fence lines, small towns on the border within ear shot of the drug wars being waged just south of the theoretical border, or the fact that civilians have become the front line of our border defense through the use of personal security cameras. Politicians will not talk about the fact that there are citizens of this nation that have taken to bearing arms not out of choice because of their rights under the Second Amendment, but out of necessity, for their own safety. They are essentially a citizen militia, defending our border.
Tag Archives: ABC
Just going to make a little guess here, but Elizabeth Vargas from ABC probably did not expect Madonna to come out with a pro-Second Amendment commentary on the use of guns, or for her to make the entirely logical statement that guns do not kill people, people kill people. And you thought you had no use for the “material girl”?
(H/T: Conservative Videos)
As stated by the President, this press conference was in honor of outgoing White House Correspondents’ President Ed Henry, of Fox News. Accordingly, the first recognized was Henry, and he offered questions on Syria and Benghazi. On Syria, Henry asked what the next move is for this administration. It is not surprising that since chemical weapons are the bone of contention in Syria, that Obama went directly for what can only be considered a thinly-veiled statement referring to actions of the Bush Administration on Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq:
And what we now have is evidence that chemical weapons have been used inside of Syria, but we don’t know how they were used, when they were used, who used them; we don’t have chain of custody that establishes what exactly happened. And when I am making decisions about America’s national security and the potential for taking additional action in response to chemical weapon use, I’ve got to make sure I’ve got the facts.
That’s what the American people would expect. And if we end up rushing to judgment without hard, effective evidence, then we can find ourselves in the position where we can’t mobilize the international community to support what we do. There may be objections even among some people in the region who are sympathetic with the opposition if we take action. So, you know, it’s important for us to do this in a prudent way.
When pressed by Henry on the question of whether or not the U.S. would act militarily against the Assad regime in Syria, Obama came short of stating that would happen, opting to merely state that he has options outlined by the Pentagon. What those options are were not mentioned, for security reasons.
On Benghazi, the question was on members of the administration that have apparently been blocked from testifying about what they know about the attack that lead to the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens, and three members of the consulate staff.
Ed, I’m not familiar with this notion that anybody’s been blocked from testifying. So what I’ll do is I will find out what exactly you’re referring to. What I’ve been very clear about from the start is that our job with respect to Benghazi has been to find out exactly what happened, to make sure that U.S. embassies not just in the Middle East but around the world are safe and secure and to bring those who carried it out to justice.
It’s not surprising that Obama denied that anyone was being blocked from testifying, but it’s also unlikely that there will be any follow-up on the question as promised. Obama moved on to the next reporter after this.
Jessica Yellin of CNN offered the next question on whether or not we, as a nation, are moving backwards in national security and intelligence, citing Senator Lindsey Graham’s concerns on the matter. Note that the question focused on the failure in preventing the Boston bombing, not the subsequent reaction and investigation.
No. Mr. Graham is not right on this issue, although I’m sure it generated some headlines. I think that what we saw in Boston was state, local, federal officials, every agency, rallying around a city that had been attacked, identifying the perpetrators just hours after the scene had been examined. We now have one individual deceased, one in custody. Charges have been brought.
I think that all our law enforcement officials performed in an exemplary fashion after the bombing had taken place. And we should be very proud of their work, as obviously we’re proud of the people of Boston, all the first responders and the medical personnel that helped save lives.
What we also know is that the Russian intelligence services had alerted U.S. intelligence about the older brother as well as the mother, indicating that they might be sympathizers to extremists. The FBI investigated that older brother. It’s not as if the FBI did nothing. They not only investigated the older brother; they interviewed the older brother. They concluded that there were no signs that he was engaging in extremist activity. So that much we know.
Obama did go on to note that we need to be vigilant to prevent a future attack, stated that the Department of Homeland Security and FBI had done their jobs, and stated that we need to go on living our lives.
The next question was from Jonathan Karl at ABC, and bluntly asked if the President felt that he had the ability to pass his agenda, given the push back he has been getting from both sides of the aisle in Congress. Sequestration was also brought up in this segment, particularly the FAA.
Look, we — you know, we understand that we’re in divided government right now. Republicans control the House of Representatives. In the Senate, this habit of requiring 60 votes for even the most modest piece of legislation has gummed up the works there. And I think it’s — comes to no surprise, not even to the American people, but even to members of Congress themselves, that right now things are pretty dysfunctional up on Capitol Hill.
Despite that, I’m actually confident that there are a range of things that we’re going to be able to get done. I feel confident that the bipartisan work that’s been done on immigration reform will result in a bill that passes the Senate and passes the House and gets on my desk. And that’s going to be a historic achievement. And I’m — I’ve been very complimentary of the efforts of both Republicans and Democrats in those efforts.
And on the FAA, and Congress:
Well, hold on a second. The — so the alternative, of course, is either to go ahead and impose a whole bunch of delays on passengers now, which also does not fix the problem, or the third alternative is to actually fix the problem by coming up with a broader, larger deal.
But, you know, Jonathan, you seem to suggest that somehow, these folks over there have no responsibilities and that my job is to somehow get them to behave. That’s their job. They are elected, members of Congress are elected in order to do what’s right for their constituencies and for the American people. So if, in fact, they are seriously concerned about passenger convenience and safety, then they shouldn’t just be thinking about tomorrow or next week or the week after that; they should be thinking about what’s going to happen five years from now, 10 years from now or 15 years from now.
The only way to do that is for them to engage with me on coming up with a broader deal.
And that’s exactly what I’m trying to do is to continue to talk to them about are there ways for us to fix this. Frankly, I don’t think that if I were to veto, for example, this FAA bill, that that somehow would lead to the broader fix. It just means that there’d be pain now, which they would try to blame on me, as opposed to pain five years from now. But either way, the problem’s not getting fixed. The only way the problem does get fixed is if both parties sit down and they say, how are we going to make sure that we’re reducing our deficit sensibly; how are we making sure that we’ve investing in things like rebuilding our airports and our roads and our bridges and investing in early childhood education and all — basic research, all the things that are going to help us grow, and that’s what the American people want.
The last questions were offered by Bill Plante of CBS, Chuck Todd of NBC, and Antonieta Cadiz of the Chilean press, offering questions on Guantanamo Bay, ObamaCare, and Immigration respectively. Obama did make a parting statement on NBA player Jason Collins “coming out of the closet”. A full transcript of the press conference is available at the Washington Post website.
Although Barack Obama’s inauguration was a few weeks ago this article will still touch on some of the language he spoke as well as the meaning behind his words. I will also explain in great detail how the left uses identity politics to influence certain voters and alienate others.
Language can be a great indicator of future behavior. Barack Obama’s second inaugural speech revealed many clues that not only showed how this man thinks, but more importantly how he will likely continue to govern.
What many Americans heard in his speech was something very unfamiliar and foreign to most of our listening ears. What we heard was a heavy dose of identity politics. We heard words like fair play, central authority, and collective action. He spoke about the government as if it was the solution to every one of America’s problems. In fact, Barack Obama did not even utter the words private sector once in his entire speech!
The words he chose were carefully selected and designed to influence certain voters. They were divisive and dismissive. They were meant to divide an already divided nation instead of trying to bring us together. His words were alienating, meandering, and apoplectic in nature. Barack Obama tried to walk the political tightrope between policy and ideology and failed miserably at doing both. Almost his entire speech was narrowly directed towards his base of supporters instead of the nation as a whole. His weapon of choice: using identity politics as a weapon of mass distortion.
For the first time in our nation’s history a president mentioned his support for Gay Marriage in an inaugural speech. This shows that discussing Gay Marriage is no longer the politically dangerous subject it used to be; and shows just how far to the left our country has moved on most social issues.
Identity politics has become the Democratic Party’s number one weapon in their arsenal of political warfare. The left has mastered the art of message manipulation and cultural relativism in such a way that it has become the biggest obstacle for the right to overcome.
Barack Obama deliberately spoke about issues that divide us rather than unite us. He spoke of Gay Marriage, Women’s Suffrage, and Illegal Immigration; all wedge issues. When something repeatedly works in politics it becomes a political weapon. Barack Obama was able to win reelection using identity politics to perfection so why would he stop now?
What was so striking about his speech was not only his tone and demeanor, but his confrontational style and in your face liberalism as well. He spoke as if he was daring anyone on the right to challenge his authority while confidently playing the role of the transformational figure with an arrogance and smugness reserved only for a king.
Let’s breakdown some examples of identity politics used in his speech.
In the 16th minute Barack Obama said this, “Being true to our founding documents does not require us to agree on every contour of life. We don’t define liberty all in the same way.”
Translation: We can interpret the Constitution however we see fit. My Administration will redefine what liberty means so it fits my agenda.
In the 20th minute Barack Obama goes on to say this, “Progress does not compel us to settle century’s long role of government for all time. But it does require us to act in our time.”
Translation: The United States Constitution is not settled law. It is a living, breathing, document that is inherently racist and therefore needs to be changed; and I will change it. Besides, who could possibly be better at finding ways to misinterpret and circumvent the Constitution than a Constitutional scholar?
History has shown us that all great leftist leaders have an incredible ability to capture the hearts and minds of their people. They use their lofty speeches and idealistic platforms to mesmerize voters into thinking that they and only they are the key to a brighter future and a better tomorrow. It is for this simple reason that the language of the left sounds better to most voters than the language of the right.
Most Americans who are not paying attention would rather listen to a speech on the possibilities of a better future rather than someone who is only promising the opportunity and means for that individual to better their own future. That is why a speech on preserving America’s traditions is not as appealing to most uninformed voters as a speech about reshaping America’s future.
Let’s break it down even further.
Identity Politics works because it feeds off of emotion. One of the most powerful emotions is fear. People can be driven to make decisions based on two motivating factors; a hope for gain or a fear of loss. The left understands this and uses that fear of loss against Republicans to perfection. Taking away a woman’s right to choose, or an illegal alien worried about deportation are all examples of how the left uses fear of loss tactics. This is why more women and minorities vote for the Democratic Party.
The left has perfected the fear of loss strategy and has been able to successfully alienate these voters away from the Republican Party while simultaneously solidifying their base of support. The truth is that political warfare and psychological warfare go hand in hand and the left understands this completely.
When it comes to fighting back against identity politics the Republican Party is at a huge disadvantage. The Democratic Party has 90% of the media and almost 100% of Hollywood at their disposal ready to smear and besmirch conservatives at any given moment. From ABC, CBS, and NBC on regular television, to HBO, SHOWTIME, and CINEMAX on cable, the left is never without a platform to ingratiate their ideology into the subconscious minds of millions of unsuspecting viewers. The left uses the media and Hollywood to portray conservatives as the party of the past, out of touch, and obstructionists to a brighter future.
The truth is in order to show the potentialities of a brighter future we must first resuscitate the visions of a better past. A government of the people, by the people, and for the people is not just a fancy cliché. It is a god given right and a blueprint for everlasting freedom.
The left does not believe in liberty for all; the left believes in justice for a select few. We are on an unsustainable path filled with uncertainty and doubt. For the first time in a long time the next generation in America is projected to be less successful than previous generations and we have Barack Obama, the Democratic Party, and identity politics to thank.
Suggested by the author:
Are we still a center right country?
Traditional conservatism versus secular liberalism and the Jewish voter
WARNING! Obama using Cloward & Piven strategy & Alinsky to destroy America
Welcome to the dependent states of America
Just before 5pm yesterday, I received an email from MoveOn.org requesting yet again that I take action on something in the news – this time the massacre in Aurora, CO. When I first saw the item pop up in my inbox, I cringed, thinking that it might be yet another request for money for yet another ad. Thankfully, it wasn’t that, but it did request that I sign a petition.
Dear MoveOn member,
We all woke up to the tragic news of the killing of at least 12 people and the wounding of many more at a late-night screening of the new Batman movie in Colorado.
Reports indicate that the disturbed individual who committed this horrifying act had a bulletproof vest, used some kind of gas canister, and had multiple guns when he opened fire in the crowded theater.1 A three-month-old is among the injured.2
We are immeasurably sad for those who lost their lives, those wounded, and their families—and for all those who experienced the horror of those terrible moments. Let our thoughts and prayers go out to them today.
We’re also so angry. From children’s lives lost in school shootings, to Trayvon Martin, the Representative Gabrielle Giffords attack, and this latest slaughter of innocents, we are not safe from gun violence.
Mayors Against Illegal Guns has been campaigning to put a stop to senseless gun violence like this with commonsense measures, like fixing gun checks to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. They’ve started a petition in SignOn.org to demand action on ending gun violence.
Sadly, it often takes moments like these to bring politicians to their senses about guns. And while signing a petition seems so inadequate in the face of what happened last night, it’s important to do what we can. Today that means taking a small step toward preventing this kind of tragedy from happening again.
Sign the Mayors Against Illegal Guns petition to our leaders: “Join me in standing with the victims and families of the Aurora, Colorado shooting and pledge to end gun violence.”
The people who died at the Colorado theater last night are only 12 of the 34 people statistics tell us will die from gun violence today—and among 19,000 murdered with guns since the attack on Representative Giffords in Tuscon.3
And yet today isn’t about statistics. It’s about the pain of human loss—the loss suffered by the community of Aurora, Colorado. And the losses to gun violence suffered today and every day by other communities, whose tragic stories won’t be covered on the news.
It’s in the power of Congress to greatly reduce these senseless shootings and make tragedies like today’s far less possible. They can start by enacting commonsense measures, like fixing giant loopholes in gun checks, that are supported by the vast majority of Americans—including gun owners.4
Let our anger today help give them the courage to act tomorrow.
Sign the Mayors Against Illegal Guns petition to our leaders: “Join me in standing with the victims and families of the Aurora, Colorado shooting and pledge to end gun violence.”
The strength and support we draw from our friends, families, and communities are never more important than on days like today.
Thanks for all you do.
–Justin, Robin, Ryan, Elena, and the rest of the team
1. “Gunman turns movie into surreal horror: ‘This is real,'” CNN, July 20, 2012
2. “Gunman turns Batman screening into real-life ‘horror film,'” CNN, July 20, 2012
3. “Background Checks,” Mayors Against Illegal Guns, accessed July 20, 2012
4. “Poll: Majority Of Americans, Including Gun Owners, Support Tougher Restrictions,” The Huffington Post, January 18, 2011
I’ve quoted the email in its entirety above, primarily because there is more than enough nonsense over misquotes and out-of-context statements. Of course this was entirely predictable, because the left simply never understands the problem isn’t lack of gun control. We can say until we’re blue in the face that these laws are meaningless to criminals and crazy people – if these individuals really want guns, they will get them one way or another, no matter what the laws are.
Contrary to what the left might like to make people think, the above is true – police do not tend to prevent crime. They occasionally do, but for the most part, they respond after the fact. And an armed citizenry remains the best defense against attacks. Today, it’s from the enemy within – criminals – as opposed to the potential invaders the Founders had in mind. While it’s logistically unlikely that any armed citizen could have prevented the massacre in Aurora, that does not help to make the case against creating more gun laws in response to this tragedy. The fact remains that the man who committed this act would have gotten the weapons he wanted regardless what the laws were.
As you can see above, the insane logic of the left knows no bounds. Of course, if the man in Colorado hadn’t been white, perhaps the Muslim card wouldn’t have been played in this way. The implication is that he was one of those “gun-clinging angry white men from the right wing.” That’s not a surprising assumption, since it had already been made by ABC’s Brian Ross. It was irresponsible, but probably irresistible for Ross. Talk about giving his left-wing bosses an issue on a platter! Wouldn’t it have been grand if the shooter had been a member of the Tea Party? It’s what left-wing media wet dreams are made of. But the truth may very well turn out to be a nightmare for them, if the rumors about the shooter being involved with the Occupy Movement turn out to be true. Now, that came from a private investigator as opposed to a journalist. Time will hopefully tell whether or not that one is accurate.
The fact is that right now, we do not enforce the current gun laws we have. Adding more laws will not change the situation. They will just end up being more words on the books that we don’t have the personnel or money in law enforcement to enforce in the first place. It might make people feel safer, or satisfied to make tougher gun laws, but that will end when the next tragedy comes along. I’ve avoided saying the name of the shooter in Aurora for a reason. He did this to get notoriety, and I refuse to give it to him. The vast majority of crazy people that don’t end up killing themselves after mass murder want the attention of the masses. You want a law that will have any hope of deterring their actions? Try stomping a little bit on the First Amendment, and forbid the press from giving mass murderers air time, kilobytes, and ink. Don’t give them what they want, and maybe – just maybe – they won’t do it. Of course, we’re dealing with insanity here, so it’s anyone’s guess what they’ll actually do anyway. But don’t give in to the liberal delusion that gun laws will save us from the crazies. They won’t. Sure, concealed carry couldn’t have helped in Aurora, unless someone happened to have a laser sight on their weapon – even that’s unlikely, though. But, there will come a time when the attack won’t be in the pitch black of a movie theater with hundreds of innocent people that could get hit by mistake. If the law-abiding citizens don’t have guns, they can’t stop that next crazy person. After all, gun laws don’t apply to criminals and crazies. So, just remember the following:
Erin Haust posted this story earlier today concerning ABC’s Jonathan Karl’s column about Sen. Marco Rubio not being considered for the VP spot. He hasn’t been asked to turn over documents used in the vetting process. Karl stated:
But knowledgeable Republican sources tell me that Rubio is not being vetted by Mitt Romney’s vice presidential search team. He has not been asked to complete any questionnaires or been asked to turn over any financial documents typically required of potential vice presidential candidates.
Although it is possible that Rubio may yet be asked to go through the vetting process, it has been nearly two months since Romney named his long-time aide Beth Myers to run his vice presidential search. The fact that Rubio has not been asked to turn over any documents by now is a strong indication that he is not on Romney’s short list of potential running mates.
Officially the Romney campaign has no comment
As Haust noted earlier today, “so because he hasn’t submitted reports and the campaign refuses to say anything publicly, Rubio is automatically off the short list? It’s only June… Karl has successfully created a news story out of thin air. Asking leading questions and making insinuating remarks is not “news.” ABC has committed journalistic fraud by asserting there is a story where there is none.” As a result, ABC’s political blog, seems to be lusting for a quote about the matter and sort of backtracked on the story about Rubio’s non-vetting and focusing solely on whether he is on the short list or not. A far cry from saying that there is a “strong indication that he is not on Romney’s short list of potential running mates.”
To add insult to injury, Catalina Camia of USA TODAY posted on June 19th that “Mitt Romney told reporters in Michigan that Florida Sen. Marco Rubio is being looked at as his possible running mate, adding that a news story out today about the Tea Party favorite not being vetted was “entirely false.”
“Marco Rubio is being thoroughly vetted as part of our process,” Romney said during a campaign stop in Holland, Mich.
ABC News reported this morning that the freshman senator was not being vetted to be Mitt Romney’s running mate. The report cited “knowledgeable sources.”
The ABC report said Rubio “has not been asked to complete any questionnaires or been asked to turn over any financial documents typically required of potential vice presidential candidates.” It went on to say that it was “possible that Rubio may yet be asked to go through the vetting process.”
“There was a story that originated today apparently at ABC based upon reports of supposedly outside unnamed advisers of mine. I can’t imagine who such people are,” Romney said. “But I can tell you this: They know nothing about the vice presidential selection or evaluation process. There are only two people in this country who know who are being vetted and who are not, and that’s Beth Myers and myself.
It looks like ABC was just making stuff up with more than shaky sources. Nice job dead tree media. Two gold stars for you!
(H/T Erin Haust)
New York Times columnist and economist Paul Krugman thinks Barack Obama is an “anti-Keynesian” when it comes to economic matters.
PAUL KRUGMAN: Can I just say, on the Reagan thing, if public-sector employment had continued to expand the way it did during Reagan’s first term, instead of falling by about 600,000 as it has, right there we’d have something like 1.4 million people working in this country.
So if you actually look at the actual track record of government spending, government employment, Reagan is the Keynesian and Obama — mostly because of political constraints, although a little bit of lack of conviction on the part of his own people, has been the anti-Keynesian. He’s been the one who’s been doing what Republicans say is the right answer.
Ronald Reagan was not a Keynesian. As Milton Friedman noted in his speech at the opening of the Cato Institute in 1993, “Reaganomics had four simple principles: lower marginal tax rates, less regulation, restrained government spending, noninflationary monetary policy. Four cornerstones that led to the following:
Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years. Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years. Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency. The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s. The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years.
Yet, Obama is anti-Keynesian after spending $830 billion dollars on a failed stimulus program that had left the unemployment rate over 8% for over 38 months. A program that would never allow unemployment to rise above 8% and would produce robust economic growth. All of this would be induced by deficit spending. The president stated that the stimulus would create 2.5 million “shovel ready jobs” for infrastructure projects. In fact, in an interview with Peter Baker of The New York Times, the president admitted that “he let himself look too much like “the same old tax-and-spend Democrat, realized too late that there’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects and perhaps should have let the Republicans insist on the tax cuts in the stimulus.” In addition, his Vice President, Joe Biden, reiterated the Keynesian approach of this administration three years ago by stating that we must spend our way out of bankruptcy.
Also, to say”[Obama’s] been the one who’s been doing what Republicans say is the right answer” is patently false. Republicans aren’t for class warfare legislation, like the Buffet Rule tax reform, that institutes a mandatory 30% tax on millionaires, but leaves the charitable donation deduction. Hence, the rich, also known and the job creating and investing class, could donate their way out of taxation. Furthermore, Republicans never were for spending a trillion dollars on a new health care entitlement, Obamacare, that will cut 20 million Americans from their coverage while making 49 million more citizens dependent on government run medical services.
Nevertheless, it didn’t stop Paul Krugman from making more patently false remarks on ABC’s This Week.
KRUGMAN: Can I just — these are — these are — we’re talking as if $1 billion was a lot of money, and in $15 trillion economy is not. Solyndra was a mistake as part of a large program, which has been — by and large had a pretty good track record. Of course you’re going to find a mistake. I think, to be fair, that’s probably true in Massachusetts, as well.
But this is — this is ridiculous, that we are taking these tiny, tiny missteps which happen in any large organizations, including corporations, including Bain — Bain Capital had losers, too, right, even from the point of view of its investors? So this is ridiculous.
And the fact of the matter is, this president has not managed to get very much of what he wanted done. He — it’s terribly unfair that he’s being judged on the failure of the economy to respond to policies that had been largely dictated by a hostile Congress.
First of all, concerning clean energy initiatives, Solyndra is the tip of the iceberg. Furthemore, it’s not just $1 billion dollars as:
“CBS News counted 12 clean energy companies that are having trouble after collectively being approved for more than $6.5 billion in federal assistance. Five have filed for bankruptcy: The junk bond-rated Beacon, Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt, AES’ subsidiary Eastern Energy and Solyndra.
SunPower landed a deal linked to a $1.2 billion loan guarantee last fall, after a French oil company took it over. On its last financial statement, SunPower owed more than it was worth. First Solar was the biggest S&P 500 loser in 2011 and its CEO was cut loose – even as taxpayers were forced to back a whopping $3 billion in company loans. Nobody from the Energy Department would agree to an interview.
How safe were the loans?
[Economist] Peter Morici replied… It’s, it is a junk bond…but it’s not even a good junk bond. It’s well below investment grade. Was the Energy Department investing tax dollars in something that’s not even a good junk bond? Morici says yes. This level of bond has about a 70 percent chance of failing in the long term,” he said.”
Furthermore, Robin Millican, Policy Director for the Institute for Energy Research, has stated how the Section 1603 program has allocated $20 billion dollars in cash payments, not loans that need to be repaid, to companies that install solar, wind and geothermal properties. Congress wants to extend this program for an additional year at the tune of $3 billion dollars.
Lastly, the president has achieved most of his domestic agenda. Obamacare was the signature achievement in the president’s first term. In addition, there was Cash for Clunkers, Dollars for Dishwashers, Cash for Caulkers, and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. If Mr. Krugman thinks the president is dealing with a hostile congress, he only needs to look at the docket that shows this hostility has produced a multitude of legislation aimed at creating jobs and curbing the debt and deficit. Most of the bills have been blocked by the Democratic controlled senate.
(h/t Noel Sheppard)
Is the Illinois GOP Primary election rigged? We don’t know, here at CDN, but it’s a question that was asked over at SGTReport.com. They’re reporting that the election results for tonight’s Illinois Primary were posted a full 24 hours early on a Chicago ABC website. What’s interesting is that these results were pretty detailed. They included the candidate’s names from THIS year and not 2008, so it can’t be said that they were an accidental posting from the previous election. And they even included detailed numbers such as the amount of votes each candidate got and what percentage of the vote they had. It all looked very official and very suspicious. It’s no surprise that the ABC affiliate has since removed these results from their website, but one has to wonder why they were ever posted at in the first place. Check out the video below to see what they discovered over at SGTReport.com.
The results for Tuesday night’s primary are in, and as you can see by this screenshot (of the same ABC website mentioned above), the final tally did not match the premature results which were posted on Monday night.
Several people have said that the premature results were most likely posted as a “test”, but it still seems odd that they would go live on the ABC affiliate’s official website.
***In living memory of conservative truth-teller Andrew Breitbart who passed away last week at 43 years of age. Andrew dedicated his life to exposing the Liberal media complex, and their constant refusal to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. This one’s for you Andrew. Godspeed.***
President Obama has made the GM “success story” a huge part of his reelection campaign of 2012. This false narrative about General Motor’s “record profits” has been constantly inserted into the numerous campaign speeches and fundraisers Obama has been on recently, always under the guise of them being policy speeches. Another fact that needs to be reported, is that these “policy speeches” are nothing more than [taxpayer-funded] reelect Obama pep rallies and campaign tours. Doesn’t America have a legislative body known as the U.S. Congress that is supposed to stop the illegal usage of tax dollars for reelection campaign operations? Congress idly sits by and remains silent, while Americans are bombarded daily with reelect Barack Obama speeches largely paid for by the taxpayer, and parroted on national television by his pals in the media. Stop the nonsense Mr.President, and pay for your own reelection campaign tour.
As far as the recent media bombardment of television replays of Obama campaign speeches trumpeting him as the great savior behind General Motor’s [supposed] record profits of 2011, let’s not forget that it was G.W.Bush and the Democratically-controlled Congress of 2008 who started the big government graft package to the UAW, also known as the auto bailouts. Barack Obama simply took advantage of this already-in-place big government fraud to further enrich his bed-pals over at the UAW in exchange for their campaign support. The false claims about the GM success story of 2011 contains many fallacies, all of which are being pumped out daily by the Liberal media complex to enhance Barack Obama’s reelection image: (emphasis added)
First off we see the Detroit News claiming that GM retook the stage as world’s largest auto maker in 2011. It didn’t take long for this fairy tale to be debunked, as we see from Motor Trend Mag. and the CEO of Volkswagen:
Now Volkswagen is disputing the claims and suggesting that it bested GM last year. According to Automotive News, Volkswagen’s 8.16-million figure doesn’t include sales from commercial truck divisions MAN and Scania. Once those figures are added, it will significantly bolster VW’s annual sales tally.
On top of that, GM’s sales figure was padded with about one million sales by Chinese automakers SAIC Motor Corp. and Wuling Motors Co. — companies with which GM has joint ventures, but in which the American company does not have a controlling stake. If those sales were excluded and VW’s truck figures added, Volkswagen would probably steal the global sales crown from GM.
President Obama should have enough political advisers and speechwriters researching that already-discredited claim, one which he shouldn’t have made in the first place, let alone keep on the repeating that kind of tripe to bolster his image. Yet it makes Obama look good, so expect him to keep on parroting that myth here in 2012. Obviously, the truth does not matter to Obama and his political operatives in the media, especially when there is a reelection campaign to run.
Next we see that “Millions of jobs were created or saved” due to the taxpayer graft and abuse more widely known as the auto bailouts, which we constantly hear Obama claim in numerous campaign speeches. What about GM laying off 70% of its employees at a Detroit plant recently, all of whom had just came off an extended layoff posing as a “Christmas break?” Warren Beatty explains The Never Ending Chevy Volt Saga:
“General Motors (GM), or Government Motors, announced on Friday, March 2, 2012, that it will suspend Chevrolet Volt production for five weeks to “align production with demand.” GM told 1,300 employees at its Detroit Hamtramck production facility that they will be temporarily laid off from March 19 to April 23, as the company halts production of the Chevrolet Volt and its European counterpart, the Opel Ampera. The plant had resumed production on February 6, 2012, after a prolonged Christmas holiday shutdown.”
Not only has the UAW [that now controls GM] been voraciously feeding at the taxpayer-funded TARP-trough, GM has also sucked down millions of tax dollars through the D.O.E. green energy programs. The Chevy Volt scam should be filed under double-dipping taxpayer abuse 101, while also being cross-filed under massive-taxpayer-funded green-energy-failures, right next to the green-cars-for-the-rich-Obama-supporters file. Taxpayers were subsidizing the Chevy Volt fireball-waiting-to-happen junker at the rate of $7500.00 per unit sold in 2011. In Obama’s latest Chevy Volt scam, he has asked the taxpayers to pay for an even bigger subsidy for the Chevy Volt: A whopping $10,000.00 dollars a pop! ( in his latest proposed budget for 2013) The Obama media complex was on TV last weekend blaming the Chevy Volt failure on… wait for it… bad publicity. Yet yesterday, a GM spokesman and Obama-puppet announced that one of the reasons the Volt plant workers were laid off is to “retool” the plant, which includes improvements to rebuild the battery cooling system in the Volt to prevent people from being burned alive while in it, or having their homes burned down while charging it. Which lie are the people supposed to believe there?
GM made $9 billion in 2011; how much did they pay in their fair share taxes? ZERO. See this Harvard law School Forum paper, on how Obama’s favorite tax evasion felon, and current treasury secretary, Tim Geithner gave GM and the UAW a $45 billion dollar tax break, which results in them being exempt from paying their fair share of taxes for about a decade or longer. Take away GM’s taxpayer-funded subsidies and illegal tax exemptions, and lo and behold the great reelect Obama GM success story is proven to be more in line with Marxist propaganda designed to fool the masses, as opposed to any form of truth-telling and government transparency. When is the last time anyone [ if ever] saw the mainstream media report on GM’s illegal tax exemption of $45 billion? The Liberal Media Complex refuses to tell the truth as far as the GM refusing to pay their fair share in taxes-driven success story goes, and this mandate comes right down from the White House to the media to protect Obama and enhance his reelection chances.
Finally, as American’s watch President Obamacontinue to boast about GM’s “record profits”, ( while paying zero taxes) we see this from Ed Morrissey: Great news: Le Bailoutte de Peugeot avec Le US Taxpayer Francs, in which we see that GM buying stock in another failing car company, Peugeot of France, and one which was reduced to junk bond status the day after the “purchase.”
So how did that work out? About as well as you’d imagine. As soon as GM had some cash, it decided to invest it — in another car company whose bonds had achieved le junk status:
Attention U.S. taxpayers: You now own a piece of a French car company that is drowning in red ink.
That’s right. In a move little noticed outside of the business pages, General Motors last week bought more than $400 million in shares of PSA Peugeot Citroen – a 7 percent stake in the company. …
Peugeot can undoubtedly use the cash. Last year, Peugeot’s auto making division lost $123 million. And on March 1 – just a day after the deal with GM was announced – Moody’s downgraded Peugeot’s credit rating to junk status with a negative outlook, citing “severe deterioration” of its finances.
In other words, General Motors essentially just dumped more than $400 million of taxpayer assets on junk bonds.
What really proves the point that the mainstream media is promoting the reelection of Barack Obama through parroting the phony GM success story, is the fact that exactly zero major news networks have reported on GM’s recent purchase of 7% of Peugeot, and the subsequent downgrade to junk bond status the day after GM pumped $400 million bucks into the company. ABC did report one troubling aspect of Government Motors purchasing another in-the-red car company, which is quite telling on it’s own:
ABC’s Jonathan Karl notes that while GM bought a big stake in Peugeot, the Peugeot family had an opportunity to buy a stake in GM. They passed on that “opportunity,” which just proves that the Peugeot family is smarter than GM.
And Barack Obama is betting that America will be gullible enough to believe his media operatives fairy tale narrative on the great GM Success Story of 2012, and reward him with four more years in office, and to prove how well the Liberal media complex has sold this GM success-charade to the masses. As the uber-courageous truth-teller and unabashed conservative, Andrew Breitbart would ask America: “Who are you going to believe when you go to the polls in 2012 to pick the next President of the United States, the Liberal media complex… or the truth contained herein concerning the big GM success lie of 2012?
SOPA/PIPA is another case of government control over what We the People will be allowed to see or hear on the internet. The “Fairness Doctrine” was thwarted by We the People through the outrage expressed to our elected members of Congress, ironically over the internet for the most part, so they have seemingly decided to come in the back door and “protect” us from unscrupulous vendors. That is great to a point but who is going to protect us from the government? Barack Obama and many members of both political parties consider We the People too stupid to know what is in our best interests.
Instead of going after the ISP’s and search engine companies like Google, why don’t they try a novel approach, something that has never been done in modern history? Why not enforce the laws on the books against fraud? I guess that is much too difficult of a concept for politicians to grasp.
This reminds me of gun violence. How do we solve the problem of violent crimes committed with guns? Someone with my apparent lack of intelligence would suggest we imprison the criminals with very long sentences, or just execute them when the crime calls for such punishment. What is the answer the government comes up with? Well, let’s just take guns away from those not committing crimes so we don’t have to be concerned with them killing the criminals. And when government bureaucrats violate the existing gun laws we can promote them and then use those violations as an excuse to continue on our merry gun ban crusade.
These bills aren’t about protecting We the People or legitimate businesses from criminal activity. That can be done by enforcing existing law. This is about controlling what we see, what we hear, and how citizens communicate with one another. The “Arab Spring” came about as a result of dissidents communicating over the internet through social network sites, instant messaging, and texting. The powers-that-be in our government have seen what can happen when people communicate freely and share information. Open lines of communication are a danger to despots and every dictatorship in the world controls the internet access of their subjects.
I remember Obama giving a speech at a college in which he stated that “information is dangerous”. I have always been taught that information and knowledge are invaluable tools to make our lives better. It seems that Obama and most of the members of Congress weren’t taught the same lessons in their younger years. If they manage to get this legislation through they will be able to control everything that crosses our computers.
As the “Fairness Doctrine” sought to control us and make sure we were exposed to Marxist doctrine, this legislation will be used to prevent We the People from having free access to each other and to the information we need to make decisions beneficial to our lives. We will no longer be able to thwart tyrannical legislation, or regulations dictated by bureaucrats, because we will not know about them unless the government deems them safe for public consumption.
I am not surprised to find out that the biggest proponents of this legislation are the major television networks, and include Rupert Murdoch, owner of FOX News. Why would the owner of a “conservative” news network want to prohibit the free flow of information? Shouldn’t FOX News and its owner be in favor of freedom of the press? I guess the reality that they are losing millions of viewers because they don’t tell the truth, don’t tell the whole story on issues, and ignore any story that doesn’t fit their template has alarmed them to the point that it needs to be acted upon.
Internet news sites such as Conservative Daily News, The Drudge Report, The Post & E-mail, and social network sites pass information much faster, more efficiently, and more completely than any or all of the major media networks. With the advent of internet news the major media companies can no longer slant the news to suit their Marxist ideology, nor can the ignore news that is not to their liking or doesn’t fit their agenda.
The free flow of information is critical to any free society. Once a government controls what information citizens have access to tyranny is right around the corner. Iran, China, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela are all dictatorships that keep their citizens enslaved and in darkness by keeping them from the knowledge of how the rest of the world operates. After the uprisings in 2009 Iran clamped down on social network media to prevent dissidents from organizing more protests and other dictatorships have long been bastions of tyranny by preventing any citizen contact with the outside world, or each other.
Obama and his minions have seen what happens to dictators who allow the free flow of information to their subjects. Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Muammar Kadafi in Libya are prime examples of what happens when dictators allow their subjects to communicate without restrictions. I am curious to see what the future brings to these countries when the Muslim Brotherhood takes over and installs the tyranny of Sharia law on their people. Those who took to the streets for freedom may find themselves under the thumb of rulers just as brutal as those they overthrew in the “Arab Spring” uprisings.
Iran is a good example of an uprising that came about because of internet access and how the government acted to prevent it from happening again. Outside contact has been as restricted by Mahmoud Ahmadinijad and the mullahs as it can be and severe punishment awaits anyone caught communicating without government sanction. The very rulers who turned their backs on freedom seeking Iranians in 2009 now seek to impose the very same restrictions on their subjects, namely We the American People.
This legislation, as usual, is not a partisan attempt at subjugation. This legislation is supported by many members of Congress in both political parties, and who I suspect have no idea what is in the bills. Since they don’t have time to read anything they vote on it is incumbent on We the People to find out what is in the legislation and spread the word of warning through internet news and social network sites.
We must stand up once again to protect the freedoms bought with the blood of generations of patriots from the Revolutionary War to today. If we do not have the courage to stand for freedom, the blood of hundreds of thousands of patriots since 1776 will have been wasted and future generations will be sentenced to a life tyranny, suffering, and poverty. To this cause I pledge “my life, my fortune, and my sacred honor”; to the cause of freedom for future generations. Every American owes their utmost opposition to this legislation in honor of those who have gone before us and for the freedom of those who will follow us.
I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.
January 19, 2012
Saturday night’s Republican debate has to go down as one of the worst debates of the year, and maybe even in history. It was hosted on ABC and moderated by Diane Sawyer, George Stephanopolous and some other dude who disappeared half way through; there was some question as to whether or not Diane Sawyer was actually sober. Her speech was slightly slurred at times, her eyes not always focused, and in some points it seemed she wasn’t really even paying attention. Perhaps there was something spoiled in their “pre-game” meal because her colleague, Josh somebody (McElveen, actually) asked one question of the candidates before he disappeared. He wasn’t heard from again for the rest of the broadcast, which mysteriously ended a full 20 minutes early. It was unclear if that was planned or not, but the end came so abruptly it was jarring. The audio from the mics made each candidate sound like they were broadcasting from outer space and I’m not sure, but I think Sawyer may have forgotten to comb her hair before she hit the stage. It was all extremely odd.
Apparently George has some insider information that Republicans will be selecting their primary candidate based on gay marriage and contraceptives. That’s right: birth control. Georgie grilled Mitt Romney over the issue of states banning contraceptives for minutes! It was so bizarre even Romney was taken aback by the question…all four times it was asked. By the last time even the largely subdued audience was booing Steph, and one heckler managed to raise his voice above the boos to chide Steph. I couldn’t make out what he was saying, but if it was anything close to what I was yelling at the television it went something like this: “Contraceptives George? Really? Unemployment is sky high and national debt is at $15 trillion and rising and you’re asking about birth control? Shut up!”…I’ll stop there because it got a little blue after that. My apologies to my Twitter followers.
Gay marriage and birth control may be issues the larger population will want more answers on in the generals, but these are primary elections and it’s the economy, stupid!
The candidates were largely a let down as well – although I can’t tell if it was really them or if the moderator’s questions were so inane that the candidates could do little with them. Santorum was obviously the one to watch Saturday night coming out of Iowa. The first question was directed at him and he got off to a choppy start. He seemed a bit nervous. Santorum isn’t used to leading and it showed. His performance got stronger as the night went on, but it wasn’t as strong as he needed it to be.
This was perhaps Rick Perry’s best debate so far. Unfortunately he wasn’t given the opportunity to answer a question until 20 minutes into the debate, and he was rarely heard from the whole evening. Could that be why he sounded so much better? In actuality, Perry had some very solid and stirring points on defense, foreign affairs and energy. If his heart is still in this thing, this could be the point where we see Perry start to gain some momentum. Clearly debates are not his strong suit, but Presidents are not elected on debates alone. Two words – George Bush.
The rest of the field seemed satisfactory, if not boring. Romney was strong but vague as usual and Newt made an applause-worthy point during Stephie’s sexy-time grilling about gay marriage and contraceptives. He pointed out the hypocrisy of forcing Catholic adoption services to close and leave orphans without this vital service because of their beliefs and anti-Christian bigotry. It was a great point that only Newt could have made with such sharpness and confidence.
Ron Paul actually played the race card and it was very strange. This may be the first time I’ve ever noticed Ron Paul responding to his media coverage. He’s been having a few issues with old racist newsletters he published (but did not personally write) many years ago and it was obvious he was sensitive to that. I think Paul’s surge is over, despite ABC’s best effort by giving him more screen time than any other candidate. Will he go third party?
Jon Huntsman was there. Skipping Iowa, he seems to have put all his eggs in the New Hampshire basket; but if he was hoping this debate would give him the chance to surge I suspect he and his supporters will be disappointed. Huntsman seems like a nice man and he’d probably be a whole lot better of a President than Obama, but he’s not a serious candidate at this point.
Besides a couple of chuckles and one or two applause lines no one stood out Saturday night. No one stepped out to claim his right to the Presidency with boldness. The losers of this debate were clearly ABC, Stephanopolous and Diane Sawyer. I was on Twitter and Facebook through the entire debate and the general consensus seemed to be that Diane was drunk and George was stupid. Why do Republicans let former Clinton operatives and liberal journalists who hate us all run these things? Its ridiculous. Saturday night must surely go down as the Worst Debate Ever. My professional conclusion? ABC sucks. Worst debate ever. Oh, did I say that already? Sorry.
Worst Debate Ever.
I’ll make you a ten thousand dollar bet that if you search for Mitt Romney on Google, you’ll find nothing but the salacious debate of bloggers and news anchors, both left and right, about Mitt Romney being out of touch with American voters. Why? Because he bet Rick Perry that he knew what he’d written in his own book. Really? Does that make him out of touch with Americans? Or does that make him confident in his side of the argument, and passionate enough to actually risk his personal wealth? How many times have you been in the middle of a heated debate and turned to the person you were arguing with and said, “I’ll bet you a million dollars…” to prove a point- you’re so invested in what you believe that you’re willing to risk money that you probably don’t have. Well congratulations, you must be out of touch as well.
Anyone who watched the GOP debate on Saturday night can tell you that Mitt Romney had a huge smile on his face during the whole exchange with Perry. This tends to lean towards the assumption that Mitt Romney was not making a serious ten thousand dollar bet, but using the bet as a ploy to elaborate his confidence in his statement. And has anyone stopped to consider that Mitt Romney is a Mormon, and that Mormons don’t believe in gambling?
Of course not, but this is the point. Judging by the Google hits that come up when you search Mitt Romney, you would think his entire political career consisted of that one statement. This is the clip from the ABC debate being bandied about the cable news circuit (click image to play video or use link below):
However, this is not where Mitt Romney’s response leaves off. Here is the ABC news transcript of what Romney said after the clip cuts off:
MITT ROMNEY: And I– and I– and I wrote the book. And I haven’t– and chapter seven is a section called The Massachusetts Model. And I say as close as I can quote, I say, “In my view, each state should be able to– to fashion their own program for the specific needs of their distinct citizens.” And then I go on to talk about the states being the laboratories of democracy. And we could learn from one another. I have not said, in that book, first edition or the latest edition, anything about our plan being a national mo– model imposed on the nation.
The right course for America, and I said this durin’ the debates the last time around, I’ll say it now and time again, is to let individual states– this is a remarkable nation. This idea of federalism is so extraordinary. Let states craft their own solutions. Don’t have ObamaCare put on us by the federal government.
How come a search about Mitt Romney at the debates does not reveal this response about Romney’s understanding of Federalism? Romney described his understanding of the Federalist system with such passion during the debate- it was absolutely mesmerizing. It was the kind of fiery moment that makes you stop and want to know more about this candidate who shows such passion towards the genius of the American political system. And it is nowhere to be found online.
Why? Because the media is trying to marginalize Mitt Romney- and succeeding. Think about it. How many stories have you read about the solidity of Mitt Romney’s hair? The past few weeks have had his hair stylist come out, as well as his wife, and speak in defense of his hair, and the amount and type of hair product he puts into it. And while this might be an interesting little tidbit of pop culture, whether Romney uses hair gel or not is not the sum total of his validity to be the next president of the United States.
So, why the lack of debate about any of his political stances or serious responses in recent debates? How come the only thing news organizations are discussing in regards to Mitt Romney is hair and his distance from constituents being related to his wealth? And can I just say, I thought the Republican party was the party of evil rich people. So shouldn’t we be defending his right to dispose of his private income as he pleases? And what presidential candidate doesn’t have some wealth to speak of? Aren’t schoolchildren taught that in order to run for office, one has to have wealth?
This smoke and mirrors sidetracking of the electorate is because Romney is a serious threat to Obama’s re-election. Polls show that, among independents, Romney is much more appealing than Newt Gingrich is. Therefore, he must be marginalized. And in order to do this, the media has to focus on such inane drivel as Romney’s hair and wealth (which everyone was aware of anyway) because Romney’s character is pretty much impeccable. Sure, his voting record is a little disconcerting to most conservatives, but that’s because it’s considered to be progressive and leaning towards big government, and since the Democrats love using their power to insert themselves into the minutia of everyone’s daily lives, they can’t exactly attack him on his record. And unlike Newt, Romney doesn’t have even a whiff or immorality when it comes to his personal life. He’s known his wife for over forty years and has five children and sixteen grandchildren, as he’ll proudly tell you. He is very devoted to his faith- a faith that prohibits alcohol, gambling, drugs- pretty much anything that even remotely resembles something the media could hook its talons into and create a scandal. Therefore, in order to discredit him in the eyes of voters, the media must resort to such measures as ridiculing his hair and wealth.
And whether or not you like Mitt Romney or not, doesn’t he at least deserve the same honest scrutiny in regards to his policy as others as judged by. Let’s be honest, if we as Americans elected our president based on hairstyle, Romney would win without contest. But fortunately, we have not descended to that level yet, so let’s put aside the schoolyard antics and focus on something actually relevant to Mitt Romney the presidential candidate, and judge him, as the great Dr. Martin Luther King so wisely said, on the content of his character (and his policies), and not on the contents of his vanity cabinet or the depth of his pockets.
ABC held yet another Republican debate at Drake University in Iowa Saturday. Diane Sawyer moderated along with George Steph….. oh you know who he is, don’t make me spell the whole thing. The GOP field is becoming smaller and it seems to make for a much more interesting debate process. There was arguing, bickering and even a few jokes. All the candidates seemed to appreciate the extra time less contenders in the field produced and they all took full advantage.
Cranky Uncle Newt showed up straight from the family Thanksgiving gathering where he spent the whole weekend cranking at cousin Jimmy for being a lazy, slacker, mama’s boy and fussing at Aunt Linda for being 40 years old and still single. Newt has that air – he’s one of the most intelligent political candidates in modern history but he always sounds like he’s in a bad mood. Personally I find it charming; some of my favorite relatives are cranky old people. I don’t know how it washes with the rest of the electorate, however. Also, there was the issue of Newt’s hair. His typically well-groomed, silky white mane was looking extra helmet-y on Saturday. It was strange and distracting for this blogger who is weirdly obsessed with presidential/political manes. Is Newt auditioning for Galaxy Quest 2?
Newt’s hair aside, the Speaker’s Saurday debate performance was that of a man who know he is surging in the polls and understands the importance of winning in Iowa. No doubt, Newt would kill Obama (metaphorically, liberals. Don’t get your chemical-free, dye-free panties in a bunch) in a debate, but do Americans want a Debater-in-Chief or something more? Time will tell.
I get tired of saying this about Romney, but he was quite polished, as usual. Mitt Romney worked very hard to reassure voters that he is not the establishment candidate many conservatives are worried about. He has a private sector record, didn’t you know? Oh, yes…Romney worked in the private sector for 25 years. Also, Romney was a private sector businessman for 25 years. And don’t forget, for 25 years Mitt Romney worked in the private sector, that’s run privately, and not by government. As always, Romney was clear and succinct and even got a few good-natured barbs in there. He continues to lay out a platform for the general elections, should he receive the nomination.
Rick Perry seems much more relaxed in a debate setting where he is afforded more time to answer questions. Perry is as solid on his positions as the day he announced, but the real question is this: Will Americans be more interested in his actual policy and political platform than his debate performances?
Ron Paul was there and so were many, many, many of his supporters – as usual. Ron Paul wants to end the Fed. He wants to end the Fed and American involvement in foreign issues of any kind, forever. Of all the candidates I think Paul is the most consistent. He never backtracks and never changes his tune. I may tire of hearing him talk about the Fed, but at least I know Ron Paul hates the Fed. No one can lie or say otherwise.
Rick Santorum had a good night, but he continues to see less screen time than his opponents and have fewer questions directed toward him. At this point Santorum is known as the ‘social conservative’ candidate and he seems comfortable with that. Santorum had many good moments on Saturday night. One came when Diane Sawyer was becoming perturbed that none of the candidates would give a firm number on the amount of jobs they would create in their first term as President. Santorum basically said its not the President’s job to make promises like that because the President can’t create jobs; private sector citizens create jobs and all the government can do is get out of their way. I like that answer. Government doesn’t create anything, Diane! Except red tape; they are good at that.
Michele Bachmann gave a very good performance Saturday as well. Iowa is her home state and she certainly looks at home when she is campaigning there. As a former tax lawyer and IRS employee, Bachmann has a very unique position. She’s been on the inside of our tax code and she knows how devastating it is for working families. She knows the dangers of Obamacare and Obama’s tax policies in general. Bachmann is extremely intelligent. Those Americans that live on the coasts may feel she is dumb because her A’s are flat and she talks like she’s from Iowa. I think those people should stop being such snobs. Quit listening to her (very American) accent and listen to the content of her words. Bachmann may have a very slim chance of winning this primary, but she seems more than qualified to be in this race. Her experience as a midwestern girl on the inside of Washington makes her one of the more genuine candidates, in my opinion. The Iowa primary will be very telling for Bachmann. If she does not do well there, its likely her campaign ends. Bachmann did manage to salute her tea party compatriot, Herman Cain. As she said, its just not a debate anymore unless someone mentions 9-9-9. I agree! I missed the Herminator. I did not miss Jon Huntsman.
Sawyer and George (sorry, I just can’t type that whole name) did a satisfactory job moderating, although Sawyer was very condescending when she opened with a comment to Iowa voters telling them how IMPRESSED she was at how seriously they take their primary process. Imagine that, Diane! A bunch of mid-west country hicks who don’t shop designer stores or have issues with trans-fats actually like to take part in the political process. How cute! Yes, Diane – Iowans vote. They love to vote. They love America and they care about what happens here. Shocking news to an East coast elitist, mainstream media diva, I know.
It is not too often that I can actually say I am proud of an elected Government Official. It is even more rare that I am able to say I am proud of a Democrat in office, much less a Democrat Senator.
Today, I am so proud of Senator Thomas Carper, a Democrat Senator from Delaware. He hears the voice of the children!
Tonight, there was an ABC News Exclusive Report with Diane Sawyer, on a report which will be released this Thursday by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). The report is the findings of a two-year-long investigation of psychiatric medications being prescribed to foster children at an alarming rate.
In the article from ABC News:
The GAO’s report, based on a two-year-long investigation, looked at five states — Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oregon and Texas. Thousands of foster children were being prescribed psychiatric medications at doses higher than the maximum levels approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in these five states alone. And hundreds of foster children received five or more psychiatric drugs at the same time despite absolutely no evidence supporting the simultaneous use or safety of this number of psychiatric drugs taken together.
One of my dearest friends called me this morning to tell me about the Exclusive Report that would be airing tonight. As I sat watching it, I was hurled back in time to the summer of 2008.
On June 4, 2008, my oldest daughter and son came into our home. When we were going through the paperwork with the caseworker at the actual placement, we were handed a Ziploc bag of prescriptions. My husband’s job during the process was to find out what each medication was for, because the caseworker had no clue. (This was the second of four caseworkers we would have with these two children in our 13 months before their adoption was finalized.)
We had never heard of the first medication the little girl was on, which was Respiridone (Brand Name: Resperdal). When my husband pulled up the information online, we were appalled to find out that the medication is an antipsychotic medication.
Risperidone (Risperdal) is an antipsychotic medication used to treat mental illnesses including schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and irritability associated with autistic disorder. Ropinirole (Requip) is a dopamine agonist used in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease and Restless Legs Syndrome. It is also used to treat episodes of mania (frenzied, abnormally excited, or irritated mood) or mixed episodes (symptoms of mania and depression that happen together) in adults and in teenagers and children 10 years of age and older with bipolar disorder (manic depressive disorder; a disease that causes episodes of depression, episodes of mania, and other abnormal moods). Risperidone is also used to treat behavior problems such as aggression, self-injury, and sudden mood changes in teenagers and children 5-16 years of age who have autism (a condition that causes repetitive behavior, difficulty interacting with others, and problems with communication). Risperidone is in a class of medications called atypical antipsychotics. It works by changing the activity of certain natural substances in the brain.
Why is this medication prescribed?
Risperidone is used to treat the symptoms of schizophrenia (a mental illness that causes disturbed or unusual thinking, loss of interest in life, and strong or inappropriate emotions) in adults and teenagers 13 years of age and older.
What side effects can this medication cause?
Risperidone may cause side effects. Tell your doctor if any of these symptoms are severe or do not go away:
- a long list can be found at the link above, I will highlight the ones that are shocking
- dreaming more than usual
- difficulty falling asleep or staying asleep
- breastmilk production
- vision problems
- muscle or joint pain
- dry or discolored skin
- difficulty urinatingSome side effects can be serious. If you experience any of the following symptoms or those listed in the IMPORTANT WARNING section or the SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS section, call your doctor immediately:
- unusual movements of your face or body that you cannot control
- slow movements or shuffling walk
- difficulty breathing or swallowing
- painful erection of the penis that lasts for hours
Risperidone may cause children to gain more weight than expected and for boys and male adolescents to have an increase in the size of their breasts. Talk to your doctor about the risks of giving this medication to your child.
There is much more information about this drug at the link above, as well as a wealth of information in other articles and websites. My daughter had nothing medically wrong with her that would have precipitated a prescription for an anti-psychotic drug at all, much less one such as Risperdal! It would have been understandable if they had been diagnosed with attention deficit issues, because she showed classic signs of ADHD. However, according to this NY Times article:
But Risperdal is not approved for attention deficit problems, and its risks — which include substantial weight gain, metabolic disorders and muscular tics that can be permanent — are too profound to justify its use in treating such disorders, panel members said.
One thing to keep in mind: my daughter that came to us with a prescription for Risperdal was 6-years-old when she came to us! If you read the information, you will see that the youngest age even mentioned in the “recommendation” is 10-years-old, but in most cases, the youngest recommended age is 13-years-old!
This is such a problem, that in 2010, a Philadelphia lawyer filed a lawsuit on the behalf of 10 families whose children were prescribe Risperidal.
I have been trying to have something done about this problem of foster care children being prescribed medications needlessly for 3 1/2 years now! In my next article, I will tell you things that will blow your mind, in regards to how many people I have talked to and reported this problem to, and nothing has been done!
Thankfully, Senator Carper from Delaware was appalled when he read the the GAO report, stating:
“I was almost despondent to believe that the kids under the age of one, babies under the age of one were receiving this kind of medication.”
Finally, someone in Washington is taking notice of how broken the foster care system is!
Thank you, Senator Carper, for hearing the voice of the children!
ABC News Exclusive Report with Diane Sawyer, on a report which will be released this Thursday by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). The report is the findings of a two-year-long investigation of psychiatric medications being prescribed to foster children at an alarming rate.
Fives states were involved in the investigation– Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oregon and Texas.
Related Article: Thank You Sen. Thomas Carper, For Hearing The Voice Of The Children