This vid speaks for itself. I have not tuned in to watch MSNBC for two weeks now. Missing, nothing.
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
The ACA is DOA
For months, maybe even years, I have been on this blog telling readers what an expensive nightmare the ACA is.
ACA's sole purpose was to force healthy people back into health insurance pools- to pick up the tab for everyone else. This law is a complete sham and it is horribly expensive. The Affordable Care Act is not affordable nor is it caring. With it's outrageous deductibles and premiums, it hardly qualifies as insurance. It is a sham- foisted upon the American middle class and given a palatable name- to provide windfall profits to healthcare companies while stealing every last dollar and tidbit of personal information it can glean.
I am not going to participate. At any level. My first act of civil disobedience will be to refuse to enroll.
You will enjoy this article. Forbes discovers that the healthcare exchange is crashing because the Obama administration desperately wanted to hide the true cost of the ACA by forcing people into giving up all of their personal data before disclosing plan prices. Deceit is no way to enroll people and then steal their money.
People cannot afford this. The middle class is tapped out. The ACA is DOA.
Very interesting. http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/14/obamacares-website-is-crashing-because-it-doesnt-want-you-to-know-health-plans-true-costs/?partner=yahootix
Many states with ZERO signups. http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2013/10/obamacare-meltdown-continues-171.html
Here in a nutshell and stolen from Ace's site is the reason Obamacare will implode.
If the exchanges don’t get fixed soon, they could destroy Obamacare -- and possibly, the rest of the private insurance market. The reason that the exchanges were so important was that they were needed to attract young, healthy people into the insurance system. The worry was that if insurance is hard to buy -- if you have to do your own comparison shopping and then call the insurance company, and fax in some paperwork and two years of tax returns -- that the young and the healthy simply won’t do it. Sick people and old people who were getting huge subsidies -- and maybe the ability to buy insurance on the private market for the first time in a long while -- would overcome any obstacles, because if you’re spending $15,000 a year on health care, it’s worth a lot of your time to make sure that you have insurance. But if your biggest annual health-care expense is contact lens solution, you may just decide to skip it and pay the fine.
ACA's sole purpose was to force healthy people back into health insurance pools- to pick up the tab for everyone else. This law is a complete sham and it is horribly expensive. The Affordable Care Act is not affordable nor is it caring. With it's outrageous deductibles and premiums, it hardly qualifies as insurance. It is a sham- foisted upon the American middle class and given a palatable name- to provide windfall profits to healthcare companies while stealing every last dollar and tidbit of personal information it can glean.
I am not going to participate. At any level. My first act of civil disobedience will be to refuse to enroll.
You will enjoy this article. Forbes discovers that the healthcare exchange is crashing because the Obama administration desperately wanted to hide the true cost of the ACA by forcing people into giving up all of their personal data before disclosing plan prices. Deceit is no way to enroll people and then steal their money.
People cannot afford this. The middle class is tapped out. The ACA is DOA.
Very interesting. http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/14/obamacares-website-is-crashing-because-it-doesnt-want-you-to-know-health-plans-true-costs/?partner=yahootix
Many states with ZERO signups. http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2013/10/obamacare-meltdown-continues-171.html
Here in a nutshell and stolen from Ace's site is the reason Obamacare will implode.
If the exchanges don’t get fixed soon, they could destroy Obamacare -- and possibly, the rest of the private insurance market. The reason that the exchanges were so important was that they were needed to attract young, healthy people into the insurance system. The worry was that if insurance is hard to buy -- if you have to do your own comparison shopping and then call the insurance company, and fax in some paperwork and two years of tax returns -- that the young and the healthy simply won’t do it. Sick people and old people who were getting huge subsidies -- and maybe the ability to buy insurance on the private market for the first time in a long while -- would overcome any obstacles, because if you’re spending $15,000 a year on health care, it’s worth a lot of your time to make sure that you have insurance. But if your biggest annual health-care expense is contact lens solution, you may just decide to skip it and pay the fine.
The administration estimates that it needs 2.7 million young healthy people on the exchange, out of the 7 million total expected to apply in the first year. If the pool is too skewed -- if it’s mostly old and sick people on the exchanges -- then insurers will lose money, and next year, they’ll sharply increase premiums. The healthiest people will drop out, because insurance is no longer such a good deal for them. Rinse and repeat and you have effectively destroyed the market for individual insurance policies. It’s called the “death spiral,” and the exchanges, like the mandate, were designed to keep it from happening.
Without the exchanges, the death spiral seems almost assured.
Monday, October 14, 2013
Washington Post Puts Up Misleading Video- Debunking Follows
In just a minute, I am going to show you a video which apparently targets the American masses and was produced with some sort of 8th grade audience in mind. It was posted on Huffington Post today (10/14/13) where all of the really smart people hang out.
This is the shit that Huffpo readers watch and this is what we are up against. So what's wrong with this deficit spending video produced by the Washington Post?
Please pay attention to the graphing that occurs right around the :46 mark. This is the visual aid that they employ to pacify the sheep who watch shit like this and think it is accurate. Note also how they say the United States has "always borrowed money" as though that makes borrowing seem normal and acceptable. (Please ignore the references made by the video about our poor, victim, President Obama. I mean after all, I clipped this from Huffpo)
First of all, saying that the US has always had to borrow is not entirely accurate. The US has not always had to borrow to pay it's debts. In fact we went through an actual 30 year period where we didn't fight any wars and voila!!! We didn't have to borrow anything because we had no debt. 1830-1860.
Virtually all historical US borrowing has occurred because of wars. This piece, from The Atlantic, details our war spending very nicely, up until our current day. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/11/the-long-story-of-us-debt-from-1790-to-2011-in-1-little-chart/265185/
If you simply read the Atlantic article, you are going to find that near the end of it- it makes this statement. You'll love this- this is the part where your government stole all of the money in the SS trust fund years ago- they note it but for some reason- still don't want to count it.
Because on top of the roughly $11.4 trillion in US government debt, which can be bought and sold and is floating around in financial markets, there's also nearly $5 trillion in debt that the US government owes to itself. Those are largely obligations to the trust funds that are used to pay for programs such as Social Security. These aren't counted in debt-to-GDP charts published here, and are often excluded from such calculations. But if you did include this debt--and there's an argument to be made that we should, since the government is on the hook to pay these claims--the US debt-to-GDP ratio was just under 100% at the end of 2011.
So why can't anybody draw an accurate chart showing today's real debt (16.7 trillion divided by 2012 14.99 trillion GDP= 111%) at the exact same level that we had just after WW2??
Why do they say- well we excluded the 5 trillion the government stole from Social Security so we don't include that in our graphs. Huh? How can you steal 5 trillion that is owed to American taxpayers and pretend that it doesn't exist?
This is the kind of bullshit that passes as journalism.
Either way, the people of this country don't get the truth. The real truth is that current government debt exceeds every historical measure that we have ever employed to measure it. It has never been this high. Period.
And unlike 1946, we don't have the capacity to pay the debt down. The real American economy, primarily corporations and 30 million manufacturing jobs, have all left the US. You can't squeeze trillions out of workers at McDonald's.
We are at a historical point in time where the debt will go supernova. Why? Because we are adding 340 billion dollars a year in interest expense ( at 2%) while watching principal amounts build. We have a giant demographic (boomers) all hitting the debit side of the ledger. Even if the government can somehow manage to hold interest rates steady- a much smaller taxpaying demographic will have to pick up the slack for a much larger retiring demographic. It only pencils out one way- and it's all bad.
If they don't slash and burn federal spending now, it's game over and the truth is- it's probably game over anyway.
It kind of makes you wonder how they are going to graph our debt, 10 years from now- doesn't it?
They'll think of something. They always do.
This is the shit that Huffpo readers watch and this is what we are up against. So what's wrong with this deficit spending video produced by the Washington Post?
Please pay attention to the graphing that occurs right around the :46 mark. This is the visual aid that they employ to pacify the sheep who watch shit like this and think it is accurate. Note also how they say the United States has "always borrowed money" as though that makes borrowing seem normal and acceptable. (Please ignore the references made by the video about our poor, victim, President Obama. I mean after all, I clipped this from Huffpo)
First of all, saying that the US has always had to borrow is not entirely accurate. The US has not always had to borrow to pay it's debts. In fact we went through an actual 30 year period where we didn't fight any wars and voila!!! We didn't have to borrow anything because we had no debt. 1830-1860.
Virtually all historical US borrowing has occurred because of wars. This piece, from The Atlantic, details our war spending very nicely, up until our current day. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/11/the-long-story-of-us-debt-from-1790-to-2011-in-1-little-chart/265185/
If you simply read the Atlantic article, you are going to find that near the end of it- it makes this statement. You'll love this- this is the part where your government stole all of the money in the SS trust fund years ago- they note it but for some reason- still don't want to count it.
Because on top of the roughly $11.4 trillion in US government debt, which can be bought and sold and is floating around in financial markets, there's also nearly $5 trillion in debt that the US government owes to itself. Those are largely obligations to the trust funds that are used to pay for programs such as Social Security. These aren't counted in debt-to-GDP charts published here, and are often excluded from such calculations. But if you did include this debt--and there's an argument to be made that we should, since the government is on the hook to pay these claims--the US debt-to-GDP ratio was just under 100% at the end of 2011.
So why can't anybody draw an accurate chart showing today's real debt (16.7 trillion divided by 2012 14.99 trillion GDP= 111%) at the exact same level that we had just after WW2??
Why do they say- well we excluded the 5 trillion the government stole from Social Security so we don't include that in our graphs. Huh? How can you steal 5 trillion that is owed to American taxpayers and pretend that it doesn't exist?
This is the kind of bullshit that passes as journalism.
Either way, the people of this country don't get the truth. The real truth is that current government debt exceeds every historical measure that we have ever employed to measure it. It has never been this high. Period.
And unlike 1946, we don't have the capacity to pay the debt down. The real American economy, primarily corporations and 30 million manufacturing jobs, have all left the US. You can't squeeze trillions out of workers at McDonald's.
We are at a historical point in time where the debt will go supernova. Why? Because we are adding 340 billion dollars a year in interest expense ( at 2%) while watching principal amounts build. We have a giant demographic (boomers) all hitting the debit side of the ledger. Even if the government can somehow manage to hold interest rates steady- a much smaller taxpaying demographic will have to pick up the slack for a much larger retiring demographic. It only pencils out one way- and it's all bad.
If they don't slash and burn federal spending now, it's game over and the truth is- it's probably game over anyway.
It kind of makes you wonder how they are going to graph our debt, 10 years from now- doesn't it?
They'll think of something. They always do.
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
A FG Survey: Are You Entitled to Healthcare?
Or in other words, "Can you compel another person to provide a service to you?"
In a truly free market, with real competition, we normally compel people to work for us by offering a wage that they find attractive and that they agree to. In a system hijacked by government and taxes, the insurance industry, big pharma, medical devices, lobbyists, administrative costs and middlemen, stock holders, and trial attorneys- we are so far removed from a free market that we couldn't unwind this mess with a month long debate.
Which of course is precisely what should have happened before the Affordable Care Tax was unread and passed- which is also known as reform. This fundamental step is key to any number of projects- repairs and reforms are generally undertaken prior to expansion, new ownership, or new management. Here's a great piece on the unconstitutionality of the ACA as a tax bill that did not originate in the House as required by law. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/360460/obamacares-unconstitutional-origins-andrew-c-mccarthy
For months, I have noted a particular thought process among liberals with respect to healthcare. As the great national debate rages on, I watched as a popular theme emerged among Huffing Post commenters. I'm not talking about the usual, "hate the GOP ranting" that goes on there daily. But rather, a different theme emerged. It is a fascinating blend of entitlement that comes from a law that was literally rammed through Congress without bi-partisan support, passed, and then labeled a tax and called "legal" by a Supreme Court which almost without exception- extends the power of the Federal Government every chance it gets. In fact, I can find very few examples of any issue wherein the Supreme Court sided with the hoi polloi as opposed to a Federal Government which has always sought to extend it's power and control.
It is the will of the majority. It is precisely what has unwound every democracy since time began and it is also why our founding fathers believed in a rule of law and a republic which protects the rights of the minority from the oppression and lawless behavior of the majority.
Liberals and statists adamantly believe that seizing your work product (or money) by whatever means is available- is fine so long as some greater good is served.
This is the underpinnings of mob rule democracy. The mob will always seek to get what it wants by using the oppression of their majority.
So knowing the entitled nature of the statists who inhabit Huffington Post, I asked two simple questions.
"Are you entitled to healthcare?" or in other words "Can you compel another person to provide a service to you?" In addition, I had decided in advance that I would be very nice to commenters to encourage them to give their opinions.
This is what they said. I have deleted their "handles" to protect their identities. I have also deleted my replies to them which were simply designed to keep them on topic. Each line constitutes a separate response.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drop the loaded terminology and make it an HONEST question, then.
The nation has already decided that the Government is responsible to provide access to healthcare. You know, DEMOCRACY? Libertarians DO believe in Democracy, right?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
yes, when its healthcare
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gee, libby, I don't know. Are we "entitled" to a police force? A military? To first responders? Clean air? Good roads? Clean food? Clean water?
Here's a thought: put down the mirror and think about someone besides yourself for a change. Ayn Rand is poisonous to the soul, and you've been dosed pretty heavy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are certain things that mature and caring societies do for the "general welfare" of their people. I'm compelled to pay for roadways that I'll never use. But my fellow citizens get to work on them and businesses use them to make money. I'm compelled to pay for schools but I have no children. I pay because I believe every child deserves an education, just like Thomas Jefferson believed, that is free. BTW, I believe that for post secondary and vocational education also.
What I can't understand is why libertarians are so hell bent against those principles. Can you explain that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question is, "Are you entitled to healthcare?" "Are you entitled to compel another to provide a service for you?" The question is, "Are you entitled to healthcare?" "Are you entitled to compel another to provide a service for you?"
In nature, NO, you are entitled to eat or be eaten. But an enlightened society can and should provide at least minimal healthcare for its people.
Yes, I/we am entitled to compel to provide a service to me/us from that group in Washington. They work for me/us.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you drive a car, you have to have insurance. Same thing here. You have to carry some insurance so if you get hospitalized, Americans with insurance don't get stuck for YOUR bill. That's what happens now. People with insurance pay over 20% more.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Winners in the libertarian world are losers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There were a couple of other comments- I think there was a total of 11 until finally- someone came up with the correct answer. I couldn't have written it better, here it is:
In a truly free market, with real competition, we normally compel people to work for us by offering a wage that they find attractive and that they agree to. In a system hijacked by government and taxes, the insurance industry, big pharma, medical devices, lobbyists, administrative costs and middlemen, stock holders, and trial attorneys- we are so far removed from a free market that we couldn't unwind this mess with a month long debate.
Which of course is precisely what should have happened before the Affordable Care Tax was unread and passed- which is also known as reform. This fundamental step is key to any number of projects- repairs and reforms are generally undertaken prior to expansion, new ownership, or new management. Here's a great piece on the unconstitutionality of the ACA as a tax bill that did not originate in the House as required by law. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/360460/obamacares-unconstitutional-origins-andrew-c-mccarthy
For months, I have noted a particular thought process among liberals with respect to healthcare. As the great national debate rages on, I watched as a popular theme emerged among Huffing Post commenters. I'm not talking about the usual, "hate the GOP ranting" that goes on there daily. But rather, a different theme emerged. It is a fascinating blend of entitlement that comes from a law that was literally rammed through Congress without bi-partisan support, passed, and then labeled a tax and called "legal" by a Supreme Court which almost without exception- extends the power of the Federal Government every chance it gets. In fact, I can find very few examples of any issue wherein the Supreme Court sided with the hoi polloi as opposed to a Federal Government which has always sought to extend it's power and control.
It is the will of the majority. It is precisely what has unwound every democracy since time began and it is also why our founding fathers believed in a rule of law and a republic which protects the rights of the minority from the oppression and lawless behavior of the majority.
Liberals and statists adamantly believe that seizing your work product (or money) by whatever means is available- is fine so long as some greater good is served.
This is the underpinnings of mob rule democracy. The mob will always seek to get what it wants by using the oppression of their majority.
So knowing the entitled nature of the statists who inhabit Huffington Post, I asked two simple questions.
"Are you entitled to healthcare?" or in other words "Can you compel another person to provide a service to you?" In addition, I had decided in advance that I would be very nice to commenters to encourage them to give their opinions.
This is what they said. I have deleted their "handles" to protect their identities. I have also deleted my replies to them which were simply designed to keep them on topic. Each line constitutes a separate response.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drop the loaded terminology and make it an HONEST question, then.
The nation has already decided that the Government is responsible to provide access to healthcare. You know, DEMOCRACY? Libertarians DO believe in Democracy, right?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
yes, when its healthcare
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gee, libby, I don't know. Are we "entitled" to a police force? A military? To first responders? Clean air? Good roads? Clean food? Clean water?
Here's a thought: put down the mirror and think about someone besides yourself for a change. Ayn Rand is poisonous to the soul, and you've been dosed pretty heavy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are certain things that mature and caring societies do for the "general welfare" of their people. I'm compelled to pay for roadways that I'll never use. But my fellow citizens get to work on them and businesses use them to make money. I'm compelled to pay for schools but I have no children. I pay because I believe every child deserves an education, just like Thomas Jefferson believed, that is free. BTW, I believe that for post secondary and vocational education also.
What I can't understand is why libertarians are so hell bent against those principles. Can you explain that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question is, "Are you entitled to healthcare?" "Are you entitled to compel another to provide a service for you?" The question is, "Are you entitled to healthcare?" "Are you entitled to compel another to provide a service for you?"
In nature, NO, you are entitled to eat or be eaten. But an enlightened society can and should provide at least minimal healthcare for its people.
Yes, I/we am entitled to compel to provide a service to me/us from that group in Washington. They work for me/us.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you drive a car, you have to have insurance. Same thing here. You have to carry some insurance so if you get hospitalized, Americans with insurance don't get stuck for YOUR bill. That's what happens now. People with insurance pay over 20% more.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Winners in the libertarian world are losers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There were a couple of other comments- I think there was a total of 11 until finally- someone came up with the correct answer. I couldn't have written it better, here it is:
6 hours ago ( 9:13 PM)
No. I am not entitled to healthcare. I do not believe that others should be forced to pay for me, nor I for them. Where does this expansion of newly created rights stop??? What about food? Housing? At some point, we must realize that a continued cycle of progressive programs will only bring about equal poverty; progressivism never raises a populations standard of living in the long term. I also am reminded of a quote attributed to Henry Ford.."if you think the US government is so great at taking care of people, go talk to the American Indians."
My reply and I shall leave you with one last quote which encapsulates the idea of liberty and freedom that founded this country- which is sadly evaporating from our culture.
“A WINNER!!!
After 10 or so incorrect answers, someone nails it and expands it perfectly and caps it with the prescient quote about the American Indian. Had Henry lived long enough, he might have asked Japanese Americans around 1942- just how impressed they were with 'democracy" as the majority of US citizens abandoned the rule of law and plunked them in relocation camps.
You have won. This entitles you to a meat and cheese tray delivered before the holidays. Thanks.”
After 10 or so incorrect answers, someone nails it and expands it perfectly and caps it with the prescient quote about the American Indian. Had Henry lived long enough, he might have asked Japanese Americans around 1942- just how impressed they were with 'democracy" as the majority of US citizens abandoned the rule of law and plunked them in relocation camps.
You have won. This entitles you to a meat and cheese tray delivered before the holidays. Thanks.”
Saturday, October 5, 2013
Thursday, October 3, 2013
The Retaliatory, Modus Operandi of Barack Obama
Obama has never let me down. First some housekeeping flavored with a little personal history.
From the time when my memories begin, my siblings and I were raised and encouraged to seek and form opinions. We garner our opinions through intelligence and experience. Reading, listening, and looking at history to see what works and what doesn't. That was the fertile soil of my youth. So most often and quite predictably, my beliefs and opinions about life are the direct result of my observations, experiences, and education.
This is the place where I share them. You are never required to agree.
A few weeks ago, I asked my girlfriend why some people seem so highly offended when confronted with opinionated people. I have never, ever, viewed someone else's opinion as something I had to believe nor does someone's opinion really bother me with a few exceptions. However, I have learned some of what I know because people were willing to share an opinion with me. I have spent my life absolutely perplexed by people who get pissed off at opinionated people. So it was, I asked my insightful girlfriend why people get angry when others state their opinions. Here is what she said. This of course, is also an opinion.
She stated that fragile people dislike opinionated people because they lack confidence and self esteem but also- they hear opinions as preaching. They see opinionated people as folks who are telling them how to think, act, or behave and sometimes they feel threatened. As I mulled that answer over, bounced from my experience of people who dislike my opinions, I believe the insight was valid and correct.
Often I see passive aggressive statements or comments directed at me for that very reason(s). When I see those reactions, I immediately know who and what I am dealing with. So I have two absolute steadfast rules for opinions.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions but you damn well better be able to defend them. If you are out there spewing false propaganda, you better be prepared to defend yourself. So it is- that rule number one is that you are entitled to your own opinion- but you are not entitled to your own set of facts.
Rule number two. Quit taking everything personally. If you feel threatened by opinions, that has more to do with you than anyone uttering an opinion. Agreement number 2, which I use on a daily basis, is quit taking everything personally. People are just living their lives. They are not out there trying to victimize you. They are simply uttering their version of the truth which we universally accept as something we all do. So with that bit of housecleaning out of the way...
Onto President Obama- who I had pegged correctly, just mere weeks into his first term. This is how my opinion of Obama evolved and why.
Each of us have an operating system installed in us as a result of our education and experiences. In the world of criminality, we refer to an individual's operating system or way of doing things as a "modus operandi" or MO. After a lifetime of sifting through reactions based on any given set of circumstances- I began to form opinions on how and why people behave the way that they do. Behavior is always purposeful and it is also very useful in predicting future behavior. You just have to pay attention.
In early June of 2009, President Obama fired Gerald Walpin. Walpin was an Inspector General or IG assigned to protect taxpayer dollars. Walpin's position as an IG was supposed to be beyond the reach of politics or a President. In other words, Walpin was supposed to be free to go about his job without fear of reprisal. The short version of this story is- is that President Obama canned Walpin for doing his job. That was not as significant as the method and tactics which Obama employed to get rid of Walpin. Obama went well beyond established boundaries to terminate Walpin. If you care to refresh yourself, here is the story from the Wall St. Journal. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124511811033017539.html
This retaliatory theme was something that grabbed my attention. I always kind of suspected it, especially because Obama went to such great lengths to make himself appear as this noble, non retaliatory victor- offering his vanquished opponent, Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State job.
Shortly after the Walpin episode, as the Obama administration took over automaker GM and began to shutter GM dealerships, a large number of Republican owned dealerships found themselves on the chopping block. At first I thought this was just paranoia on the part of angry dealership owners. Like most of America, I didn't think Obama would stoop to such levels. The honeymoon was still on. As it turns out, Obama probably did target Republican owned dealerships for closure. There is plenty of evidence to support that allegation including the lack of transparency or just how the administration determined which dealerships would close and which would stay open. It has never been thoroughly investigated. http://www.examiner.com/article/were-republican-owned-gm-dealerships-targeted-for-closure-2010
Then there was the Gibson guitar case. Gibson was raided twice by Federal agents for using illegal "wood." The charges were never proved and the case was dismissed. Of course Gibson had to endure all that bad press, loss of revenue, and the costs of defending itself against a bully government who in theory can bring billions of dollars to any prosecution. Did they do this because Gibson was a top GOP donor? In light of the allegations of the IRS targeting Tea Party groups, probably. http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/05/28/judge-napolitano-gibson-guitars-raid-and-government-targeting-republican-groups
Obama canned a couple of Generals too. These are valuable men, men who did nothing wrong really- except get on the wrong side of Uncle Sugar. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/06/mcchrystal-rolling-stone-interview-obama-afghanistan.html
While all of this was happening, Obama cabinet officials began to depart without ever disclosing why. Not that such non disclosures are uncommon- it's just that everyone leaving the administration did so rather quickly while keeping their mouths shut. I suppose by this time, everyone figured out that Obama's MO was to retaliate and personally attack anyone he saw as an opponent. Clearly, Obama has demonstrated the will to destroy any given career or livelihood should a perceived adversary find themselves on the wrong side of the tracks.
Most of the vanquished were doing nothing immoral, unethical, or illegal. Most if not all, were simply disagreeing with Obama's politics or his policies. That's most likely why staffers quietly fled Obama and why Shrillary was so ungawdly careful not to publicly offend Obama. She knows the punishment for anything less than blind obedience. She has another presidential bid to protect.
So I was not particularly surprised to see Obama publicly attack his GOP detractors during this government shutdown week. It did not raise my eyebrows to watch as Obama tried to close the WW2 Memorial which is situated in a 24 hour, admission free- park type venue. Administration leaks had Obama mulling how he could stop the Army-Navy game. In a speech yesterday, Obama all but asked Wall Street to sell off. This in an effort to spook investors and force the House to end the government shutdown and pass the budget resolution.
So that's my opinion. A conclusion based on a set of well documented incidents. Obama is a petty dictator who punishes his perceived enemies. He takes everything personally. You see, Obamacare is personal. That is his signature and singular accomplishment. You cannot take a man like Obama and strong arm him. He makes you bend or suffer the consequences, that's part of his MO. You don't think those Gop'ers know that? You can safely bet your ass they do. That's why things are at loggerheads. The Affordable Care Act is neither affordable nor caring. In the same horrible fashion that it was conceived, passed without reading, and stuck up our asses with plenty of trickery and deals- the GOP is employing the same type of horrible means to get rid of it. Somehow all of that seems fair to me.
Sorry Barack, but you just aren't somebody who is going to garner a lot of sympathy from me. The great writer Hunter Thompson had Nixon to rely on- and all this mediocre writer has- is you.
You haven't let me down yet.
From the time when my memories begin, my siblings and I were raised and encouraged to seek and form opinions. We garner our opinions through intelligence and experience. Reading, listening, and looking at history to see what works and what doesn't. That was the fertile soil of my youth. So most often and quite predictably, my beliefs and opinions about life are the direct result of my observations, experiences, and education.
This is the place where I share them. You are never required to agree.
A few weeks ago, I asked my girlfriend why some people seem so highly offended when confronted with opinionated people. I have never, ever, viewed someone else's opinion as something I had to believe nor does someone's opinion really bother me with a few exceptions. However, I have learned some of what I know because people were willing to share an opinion with me. I have spent my life absolutely perplexed by people who get pissed off at opinionated people. So it was, I asked my insightful girlfriend why people get angry when others state their opinions. Here is what she said. This of course, is also an opinion.
She stated that fragile people dislike opinionated people because they lack confidence and self esteem but also- they hear opinions as preaching. They see opinionated people as folks who are telling them how to think, act, or behave and sometimes they feel threatened. As I mulled that answer over, bounced from my experience of people who dislike my opinions, I believe the insight was valid and correct.
Often I see passive aggressive statements or comments directed at me for that very reason(s). When I see those reactions, I immediately know who and what I am dealing with. So I have two absolute steadfast rules for opinions.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions but you damn well better be able to defend them. If you are out there spewing false propaganda, you better be prepared to defend yourself. So it is- that rule number one is that you are entitled to your own opinion- but you are not entitled to your own set of facts.
Rule number two. Quit taking everything personally. If you feel threatened by opinions, that has more to do with you than anyone uttering an opinion. Agreement number 2, which I use on a daily basis, is quit taking everything personally. People are just living their lives. They are not out there trying to victimize you. They are simply uttering their version of the truth which we universally accept as something we all do. So with that bit of housecleaning out of the way...
Onto President Obama- who I had pegged correctly, just mere weeks into his first term. This is how my opinion of Obama evolved and why.
Each of us have an operating system installed in us as a result of our education and experiences. In the world of criminality, we refer to an individual's operating system or way of doing things as a "modus operandi" or MO. After a lifetime of sifting through reactions based on any given set of circumstances- I began to form opinions on how and why people behave the way that they do. Behavior is always purposeful and it is also very useful in predicting future behavior. You just have to pay attention.
In early June of 2009, President Obama fired Gerald Walpin. Walpin was an Inspector General or IG assigned to protect taxpayer dollars. Walpin's position as an IG was supposed to be beyond the reach of politics or a President. In other words, Walpin was supposed to be free to go about his job without fear of reprisal. The short version of this story is- is that President Obama canned Walpin for doing his job. That was not as significant as the method and tactics which Obama employed to get rid of Walpin. Obama went well beyond established boundaries to terminate Walpin. If you care to refresh yourself, here is the story from the Wall St. Journal. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124511811033017539.html
This retaliatory theme was something that grabbed my attention. I always kind of suspected it, especially because Obama went to such great lengths to make himself appear as this noble, non retaliatory victor- offering his vanquished opponent, Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State job.
Shortly after the Walpin episode, as the Obama administration took over automaker GM and began to shutter GM dealerships, a large number of Republican owned dealerships found themselves on the chopping block. At first I thought this was just paranoia on the part of angry dealership owners. Like most of America, I didn't think Obama would stoop to such levels. The honeymoon was still on. As it turns out, Obama probably did target Republican owned dealerships for closure. There is plenty of evidence to support that allegation including the lack of transparency or just how the administration determined which dealerships would close and which would stay open. It has never been thoroughly investigated. http://www.examiner.com/article/were-republican-owned-gm-dealerships-targeted-for-closure-2010
Then there was the Gibson guitar case. Gibson was raided twice by Federal agents for using illegal "wood." The charges were never proved and the case was dismissed. Of course Gibson had to endure all that bad press, loss of revenue, and the costs of defending itself against a bully government who in theory can bring billions of dollars to any prosecution. Did they do this because Gibson was a top GOP donor? In light of the allegations of the IRS targeting Tea Party groups, probably. http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/05/28/judge-napolitano-gibson-guitars-raid-and-government-targeting-republican-groups
Obama canned a couple of Generals too. These are valuable men, men who did nothing wrong really- except get on the wrong side of Uncle Sugar. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/06/mcchrystal-rolling-stone-interview-obama-afghanistan.html
While all of this was happening, Obama cabinet officials began to depart without ever disclosing why. Not that such non disclosures are uncommon- it's just that everyone leaving the administration did so rather quickly while keeping their mouths shut. I suppose by this time, everyone figured out that Obama's MO was to retaliate and personally attack anyone he saw as an opponent. Clearly, Obama has demonstrated the will to destroy any given career or livelihood should a perceived adversary find themselves on the wrong side of the tracks.
Most of the vanquished were doing nothing immoral, unethical, or illegal. Most if not all, were simply disagreeing with Obama's politics or his policies. That's most likely why staffers quietly fled Obama and why Shrillary was so ungawdly careful not to publicly offend Obama. She knows the punishment for anything less than blind obedience. She has another presidential bid to protect.
So I was not particularly surprised to see Obama publicly attack his GOP detractors during this government shutdown week. It did not raise my eyebrows to watch as Obama tried to close the WW2 Memorial which is situated in a 24 hour, admission free- park type venue. Administration leaks had Obama mulling how he could stop the Army-Navy game. In a speech yesterday, Obama all but asked Wall Street to sell off. This in an effort to spook investors and force the House to end the government shutdown and pass the budget resolution.
So that's my opinion. A conclusion based on a set of well documented incidents. Obama is a petty dictator who punishes his perceived enemies. He takes everything personally. You see, Obamacare is personal. That is his signature and singular accomplishment. You cannot take a man like Obama and strong arm him. He makes you bend or suffer the consequences, that's part of his MO. You don't think those Gop'ers know that? You can safely bet your ass they do. That's why things are at loggerheads. The Affordable Care Act is neither affordable nor caring. In the same horrible fashion that it was conceived, passed without reading, and stuck up our asses with plenty of trickery and deals- the GOP is employing the same type of horrible means to get rid of it. Somehow all of that seems fair to me.
Sorry Barack, but you just aren't somebody who is going to garner a lot of sympathy from me. The great writer Hunter Thompson had Nixon to rely on- and all this mediocre writer has- is you.
You haven't let me down yet.
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
Drink Yourself Sober!
This is how we do it in America.
If Raising the Debt Ceiling and Issuing More Debt Was the Way To Preserve America’s Credit Rating, that Means…
August 20, 2011 by Dan Mitchell
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)