Friday, July 31, 2009
Their claim to fame is that they are "known" to be fiscally conservative.
That basically means "careful with your money."
See, to hear them tell it, they did not like the way Nancy Pelosi and the other liberal Democrats had stuffed the President BO Health Care plan with so much stuff that it was economically irresponsible.
And so they took a "principled" stand.
"No way, Jose," they said.
And the health care plan got stalled long enough to run into the "August Recess."
But something happened on the way outside to play.
Now, after extensive negotiations with Henry Waxman, liberal of liberals from California (where else?), the Blue Dog Democrats have made a deal to get a deal that promises no vote on health care reform until Congress comes back from the playground in September.
But the liberal Democrats are not happy.
See...Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, explained, "We signed a pledge to reject any plan that doesn't include a robust public option, and this plan doesn't have a robust public option."
Translation: "We won't get to spend as much tax payer money as we thought we were going to be able to, and we have to give up a modicum of control as well. UNACCEPTABLE."
But they'll get their Health Care Plan come September.
So the Blue Dog Democrats did not stand on their principles after all, and after all, principles, if you don't stand on them, are not principles at all.
You don't get to abandon your principles and then get to insist on being called principled.
One wonders what went on in those "negotiations."
Did money change hands...or did it at least change congressional districts?
Did promises of favoritism take place?
I doesn't matter, 'cause the deal is done.
All that's left is for us to camp at our representatives' offices (playgrounds) and be disturbing enough to distract them and let them know we don't like it at all.
One of my favorite concerts of all time was when I got to see Blue Man Group perform locally.
I really like Blue Man Group (see the picture above).
I really don't like the Blue Dog Democrats.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
"What is 'mindset?'" I hear you asking.
Let me illustrate.
(These work best when used on someone else.)
Let's say I'm talking to Bob, a tall, blond, blue-eyed, male of average height and intelligence.
I ask Bob: "Bob, what does P-O-K-E spell?"
Bob answers, "Poke."
"Right. Now what does J-O-K-E spell?"
Bob says, "Joke."
"Yesss!" I exclaim. "Now, what's the white of an egg called?"
Nine times out of ten, Bob will answer, "Yoke."
To which I will reply, "No, that's the yellow part."
Here's another you've heard before.
"Bob, a plane crashes right on the border of Canada and The United States, with debris equally spread on each side of the border. Where do they bury the survivors?"
Bob thinks a moment, then chooses one country or the other.
"Bob...you don't bury survivors."
Here's one more.
"Bob, is the second day of the week pronounced, Tewsday or Tyewsday?"
Bob answers, "Tewsday."
'No, Bob, the second day of the week is pronounced 'Monday."
What's the point?
We all approach things in life with a certain mindset, and that mindset affects our conclusions.
The other day I posted a picture of Barack Obama on my blog, followed by a series of domestic policies that were enacted by Adolf Hitler.
I made no reference to President BO at all in my post. None.
Yet the juxtaposition of the picture with the text established a particular mindset in the head of the reader and an association was made between Adolf Hitler and Barack Obama.
Thus some commenters jumped on the "President BO is like Hitler!" bandwagon, while others adopted the "How dare you compare President BO with Hitler?" attitude.
This exhibits how complex mindsets can lead to different conclusions from a given set of facts.
If you approached the post with a "conservative" mindset, you quite easily drew the conclusion that President BO and Adolf Hitler had some political agendas in common.
If you approached the post with a "liberal" mindset, you might well have been offended by the comparison of President BO with Adolf Hitler.
Knowing your own mindset is crucial to deeply understanding why you believe as you do.
It is also important in using "straight-line" logic to think through an issue.
"Straight-line" logic is the opposite of "circular" logic and the antithesis of "random" or "scattered" logic.
"Straight-line" logic is the most useful for arriving at a correct conclusion about an issue.
Trouble is, if the same issue is viewed from two different mindsets, even though "straight-line" logic is used, different conclusions can be drawn.
That is why so many people who see the same set of facts draw different conclusions from them.
Now, to be sure, many people of the "liberal" mindset do not use "straight-line" logic, but jump from one topic to another to "prove" a particular point.
Examples might be Chris Matthews, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank or Chris Dodd.
There are some very clear thinking liberals who think in a "straight line," but whose conclusions are affected by their mindset.
An Example might be a person like the commenter who calls himself Matt Rose.
It's sort of like the difference between traveling due North from Miami and due North from San Francisco. You may be going in a straight line, but you will reach different destinations.
Here's the point.
In order to have effective discourse and to properly resolve issues, each person involved needs to understand the other's mind-set, as well as whether he/she thinks in a "straight line."
He/she must also understand his/her own.
Then, one must try to understand what it would take to change both the other's mind-set, and what it would take to change one's own.
Often our mindsets are developed as the result of what we have been taught or what we have been exposed to in our formative years.
Sometimes our mindsets are determined by our life-experiences, which might or might not reflect what is true.
A person raised in hoodlum ridden sections of Chicago will have a very different mindset from one who is raised in the quiet country setting of a small mid-western or southern town.
So, what is your mindset?
Are you aware of how it affects your conclusions about the political climate of America today?
Are you as open minded as a kitchen strainer or as closed minded as a sprung bear trap?
Why not set your mind to examining your own mindset.
Then, take another look at President BO.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Two posts ago I provided you with a link to the actual proposed health care bill...the Congress' version.
As I plodded my way through it, I realized why so many congresspersons have not read it.
Aside from the fact that it is written in Congressese, and thus as boring as a Bark Beetle, it is also longer than the attention span of the average congressperson, which is slightly under seven-tenths of a second.
So, as a public service, I have distilled the bill's main areas of concern into the following "short" article.
If you get tired reading this, imagine what reading the whole bill was like.
Some of the items in the Health Care Plan now in the works:
The bill mandates that the government will audit the books of all employers that self insure!!
There will be a government committee that decides what treatments/benefits you get.
Health care will be rationed! You can only get so much "care" per year.
The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your health care benefits for you. You have no choice!
Health care will be provided to non-United States citizens, illegal or otherwise.
Government will have real-time access to individuals’ finances & a National ID health card will be issued!
The government will have direct access to your bank accounts for elective funds transfer.
Section 164 is a payoff; a subsidized plan for retirees and their families that are in unions & community organizations (ACORN).
The government will create a health care exchange to bring private health care plans under Government control.
In Sec 203 of the bill, the government mandates ALL benefit packages for private health care plans in the Exchange
The Government will ration your health care!
The government will mandate "linguistic appropriate services," for example it will mandate that someone in the doctor’s office be able to translation for illegal aliens, regardless of language group.
The Government will use groups like ACORN and AmeriCorps to sign up individuals for the government health care plan.
Are you an AARP member? Your Health care WILL be rationed in spite of the fact that AARP has been one of the heaviest lobbying groups for the plan.
A Medicaid Eligible Individual will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid, with no choice to opt out.
No company will be able to sue the government on such matters as price fixing.
There will be no "judicial review" against the government’s monopoly on health care.
Doctors will be told what they can earn.
The bill provides that an employer MUST auto enroll employees into public option plan.
Employers will be required pay for health care for part time employees AND their families.
Any employer with a payroll of $400k & above that does not provide the "public option" will pay an 8% additional payroll tax.
Businesses with a payroll between $251k & $400k that don’t provide the "public option" will pay 2-6% tax on all payroll.
Any individual who doesn’t have acceptable health care, according to government specifications, will be surtaxed at 2.5%
Under the plan, any nonresident alien is exempt from individual taxes. (You and I will pay for them).
Officers & employees of the Health Care Administration will have access to ALL Americans’ financial and personal records.
Page 203 Line 14-15 provides that "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax."
According to the health care bill, the government will reduce physician services for Medicaid, Seniors and low income families.
The plan provides that the government will set the value of a doctor’s time, professional judgments, etc.
The government will mandate & control productivity for private health care industries.
Under the proposed bill, the government will regulate the rental and purchase of power driven wheelchairs and other medical accessories.
According to Section 1145, the treatment of certain cancers will be rationed or disallowed.
Sec 1151 provides that the government will penalize hospitals for what the government deems to be "Preventable Admissions."
Pg 317 L 13-20 describes certain prohibitions on doctors’ ownership and investments.
There is a government prohibition on expansion of hospitals without prior governmental approval.
Hospitals will have the option to apply for exception but community input is required. (Can you say ACORN?)
The government will mandate the establishment of "outcome based" measures for determining treatment according to their charts.
Under the proposed legislation, the government will have the authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc. eventually forcing everybody into the government plan.
The health care bill provides that the government will restrict the enrollment of "special needs’ persons into the plan, and in fact refers specifically to "retarded" persons.
The bill requires the government to create specific bureaucracies such as: The Telehealth Advisory Committee, health care by phone.
The government will mandate "Advance Care Planning Consultation" dealing with senior citizens’ end of life.
Seniors will be interviewed every year for health issues and decisions made as to what care they can or can't receive.
The government, under the health care bill, will instruct and consult citizens regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney.
Government bureaucracies will provides approved list of end of life resources, guiding citizen to and in death.
Under the bill, the government will mandate a program for orders for end of life.
An "advanced care planning consult" will be used as patients’ health deteriorates.
That "advanced. care consultation" may include a governmental order for end of life plans.
Certain doctors will be granted the ability to write an end of life order.
The government will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life.
The government will make monthly payments to community-based organizations, chief of which is ACORN.
The government will cover and "assist in directing" marriage and family therapy.
Under the plan, the government will cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating, and rationing those services.
Well, that's all there is to it.
So what part of it do you like best?
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
One of the most salient points is: "...according to The ObamaCare Plan....if your doctor saves your life you might have to go to the prison to see your doctor for follow -up appointments. I believe this is the same model Stalin used in the former Soviet Union."
Every single one of us will get old, if we live long enough, and with age comes health issues that need attention!
Another frightening thing about the Health Care proposal is the incredible fact that President BO does not even know what's in it.
"When Mr. Obama hosted a conference call with bloggers urging them to pressure Congress to pass his health plan as soon as possible, a blogger from Maine referenced an Investors Business Daily article that claimed Section 102 of the House health legislation would outlaw private insurance.
"He asked: 'Is this true? Will people be able to keep their insurance and will insurers be able to write new policies even though H.R. 3200 is passed?' Mr. Obama replied: 'You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about.'"
Shades of John Conyers!
When on earth are we going to wake up?
Monday, July 27, 2009
All of you who wanted to see Congress's version of the health care bill, here is a link to it.
Have a good time!
Tell me what you think!
ADDENDUM: Well, the site to which the link linked is no longer operative.
I have the 1,000 pages on my computer and will synopsize them on my July 29th post.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
President BO has insulted ALL Americans by thinking his words helped smooth over the disparaging remarks he made about the Cambridge Police Department's handling of the H. L. Gates arrest.
First he blatantly and specifically said the handling of the case was stupid.
Reinforcing President BO's position, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson called the arrest an outrageous act of racial profiling.
Later, President BO tried to assuage the situation by saying: "I want to make clear that in my choice of words, I think I unfortunately gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department and Sgt. Crowley specifically. And I could've calibrated those words differently."
Gave an impression? Gave an impression?
He did NOT "give an impression!"
He came right out and said it!
He said that Cambridge the police had "acted stupidly."
That is NOT giving an impression...that is coming right out and saying it.
Then he had the unmitigated gall to soften the blow by declaring it a "teachable moment."
Well, I hope he learned something from it...but I seriously doubt it.
The Racist in Chief has done everything necessary to make certain that the fires of racism continue to burn in the good old U S of A.
There was even a photograph of the handcuffed Gates being escorted off his porch amid three officers, two white and one black.
The Associated Press Filed this report:
BOB SALSBERG Associated Press Writer
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (AP) — A black police officer who was at Henry Louis Gates Jr.'s home when the black Harvard scholar was arrested says he fully supports how his white fellow officer handled the situation.Sgt. Leon Lashley says Gates was probably tired and surprised when Sgt. James Crowley demanded identification from him as officers investigated a report of a burglary.
Lashley says Gates' reaction to Crowley was "a little bit stranger than it should have been."
Asked if Gates should have been arrested, Lashley said supported Crowley "100 percent."
Gates is a perfect example of why race issues keep raising their ugly heads in this country.
He is so offended by being black that he has to draw attention to it and demean it every chance he gets…whether in the classroom, or breaking into a home.
That’s too bad, because it perpetuates racism in our society.
Try as hard as they might, white people cannot become color blind because people like Gates, Sharpton, Jackson and now President BO keep forcing the issue to the fore.
President BO has once again proven that he is nothing more than a thug, a vile of the highest order and a hate-filled racist who has put his monarchial nose where it does not by any stretch of any intelligent person's imagination belong.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Did President BO, or did he not make certain campaign promises and take certain ideological stances that spurred people on to vote for him, believing that the first black president would surely keep his word and do the things for them they expected him to on the very basis of those promises?
Did he, or did he not pledge to deliver a net cut in government spending?
Has he, or has he not overseen a net gain in government spending?
Did he, or did he not pledge that the American people would be able to read new bills before he signed them? Were or were not his words: "I will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days."
Did he, or did he not promise the most transparent administration in history?
Did he, or did he not deny that he associated with America haters, Jeremiah Wright and William Aires?
Did he, or did he not promise to deliver us a world that stands as one?
Did he, or did he not state that we (his administration) had already identified $2 trillion in deficit reductions that would cut our deficit in half by the end of his first term?
Has he, or has he not at least quadrupled the "Bush deficit?"
Did he, or did he not list as some of those reductions as the result of NOT to continuing the surge in Iraq for ten more years, even though Bush ended the surge before President BO took office?
Did he, or did he not promise that the unemployment rate would not rise above 8.5% and would be brought down to below 8.5% very quickly?
Is the unemployment rate at, lower than, or higher than 8.5%?
Did he, or did he not state that he was not in favor of "big government," as so many had accused him of being?
Has he or has he not proposed a massive energy tax that would affect everybody, even those making less than his promised $250,000.00 per year?
Did he, or did he not promise to create a tax credit of $500 for workers equal 6.2 percent of up to $8,100 of earnings?
Did he, or did he not promise: "No political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration."
Did he, or did he not promise that his administration: "Will reinvigorate antitrust enforcement...?"
Did he, or did he not promise to eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year?
Did he, or did he not promise: "During 2009 and 2010, existing businesses will receive a $3,000 refundable tax credit for each additional full-time employee hired?"
Did he, or did he not promise legislation that would allow withdrawals of 15% up to $10,000 from retirement accounts without penalty?
Did he or did he not promise: "I'm going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We'll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies -- they'll get a seat at the table, they just won't be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies?"
I seem to remember a president who was not re-elected on the basis of a SINGLE broken campaign promise: "Read my lips! NO NEW TAXES!" (George H. W. Bush)
So, what might be the appropriate action to take regarding someone who breaks a dozen or more direct, emphatic campaign promises?
Friday, July 24, 2009
Deciding what to write about has become such a chore!
Should I write about the lies President BO told in his press conference? (1-he would ask people only to “give up paying for things that don’t make you healthier.” 2-he would not sign a bill that increased the federal deficit or failed to cut health care costs. 3-declaring that his health care plan was an essential part of cutting that deficit.)
Maybe I should write about young people being forced to participate in mandatory national service programs in order to get student loans. (Is it my imagination, or does that sound Hitleresque?)
How about President BO chiming in on the arrest of a guy caught seemingly breaking into a house, who happened to be black and thus should not have even been questioned about it, let alone detained? Should I write about how NO president has ANY business weighing in on local police matters that are not of national concern?
Or I could write about Press Secretary Gibb's explanation of President BO's involvement in this issue, calling the arresting officer, "stupid": "He was not calling the officer stupid, okay?"
And my favorite Gibbsism on the subject: "I think there's a point where it becomes clear that the situation, as it was originally called in, is not the current situation..." (That's like me saying I wouldn't be as old as I am if I were just a bit younger than I am at the moment.)
Maybe I should write about how in a free society government should not be involved in the day-to-day functions of peoples' lives.
Should I write about the fact that the only jobs created so far by President BO's mighty plan have been government jobs, and most of them temporary? (I'm sure they are appreciated by those who have them, but it's a far, far cry from what His Majesty promised. Oh, wait, we still have four more years for millions of new jobs to appear.)
If I were a doctor I would be seething over President BO's statement: "Right now, doctors a lot of times are forced to make decisions based on the fee payment schedule that's out there. ... The doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, 'You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid's tonsils out,'" Obama told a prime-time news conference. The president added: "Now, that may be the right thing to do, but I'd rather have that doctor making those decisions just based on whether you really need your kid's tonsils out or whether it might make more sense just to change; maybe they have allergies. Maybe they have something else that would make a difference." I could write about that.
Lest you think I'm too hung up on President BO (why would you ever think that?), maybe I should point out how insufferably stupid Barbara Boxer has appeared lately...what with condescending to a black leader, poor handling of her chairmanship of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and so on.
Well, with so many topics to garner my attention, I think the best course of action would be to just not post about anything at all.
So I will (won't).
PS: you really need to read this: GeeeeeZ today.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
He was a fairly articulate man, able to make his thoughts known in language the people could understand.
Although people did not know a lot about this guy, his infectious smile, expressions of concern and smooth way of getting his point across became legendary.
Economic times were tough. People were losing jobs, businesses were struggling and there was a feeling of malaise growing among the population.
But this man seemed so earnest in his desire to help them, and so persuasive with his rhetoric that many, many people considered him to be the one who would save their country from economic, political and morale collapse.
His ideas about how to help the nation learn, establish and propagate his plans were appealing.
He suggested some really intriguing policies and established some really "high" sounding bureaucracies, agencies and activities for the people.
This ambitious man had a plan to make his philosophy of government a reality, and he set about putting his plan into action.
He encouraged the formation of a youth movement to help young people feel a part of the process.
He made promises of jobs for people who had lost their jobs, security for those who had jobs, money for those who had no money and rewards for those who went along with his great plans.
Being concerned for the safety of the citizens, he instigated gun control and took weapons from the average citizen, so they would not attack and possible harm each other.
He spearheaded the destruction of pre-born life and advocated the use of embryos, fetuses and failed pregnancies, especially those of certain ethnic groups, for biological research.
His desire to have a healthy citizenry led him to promise a first rate health care system that would take care of everybody who did not exceed the government recognized viable life-span.
This ambitious man promised that all would have a living wage as long as they supported him and his political agenda.
He promised to restore respect for the nation at home and around the world, admitting the follies of the past and reaching out even to despots...in fact, embracing them.
The media helped him accomplish his goals by emphasizing how helpful they would be and by writing disparagingly about those who opposed him.
He said that he sought hope and change for the nation.
Little by little he seized control of government power, department by department, bureaucracy by bureaucracy.
The country was the most educated, the most cultured country in history. It was full of original music, art, museums, hospitals, laboratories, and universities.
What sort of leader was this man?
Who was he?
His name was Adolf Hitler.
In a shorter time span than just two terms of the U. S. presidency, less than six years, he was rounding up citizens, abrogating its laws, turning children against parents, and neighbors against neighbors.
In the end, he was killing citizens who opposed him.
Aren't you glad that The United States of America has no one like that in leadership?
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Now, it seems, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), has issued a previously "secret" report that says even "hands-off" cell phones are a distraction and they're thinking about banning their use completely.
Check it out here
Is that so?
I wonder what else might distract drivers.
How about reaching down to press the cigarette lighter...is that distracting?
Let's ban it!
What about tuning the radio?
Let's ban it!
Makeup while driving has to go. Let's ban it!
Think about eating while driving.
Let's ban it!
If using a "hands-off" cell phone is distracting, what about talking to the person in the passenger seat?
Let's ban people from the passenger seat.
Kids in the back seat...now there's a distraction if there ever was one.
Ban kids from riding in the car.
Aren't pets a distraction while driving (you driving...not the pets...hopefully)?
Let's ban them!
My wife had a good idea: require every car to pull a trailer for passengers, kids and pets.
Only for most people, pulling a trailer would be distracting.
Gotta ban 'em.
You know those tiny little one-seater electric cars?
Let's ban all vehicles from the roads except them...then there won't be any distractions.
There may be a few more flattened vehicles on the road...flattened by those large simi tractor trailers that abound.
But what's a few flattened single seaters compared to all of those other distractions?
The government knows a whole lot more about what's good for us than we do.
That's for sure!
Monday, July 20, 2009
The Obama Administration has ordered Israel to halt construction of a new Jewish-owned hotel on the eastern side of Jerusalem, Israel's major radio stations reported on Sunday morning.
According to the reports, Israeli Ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren, was summoned to the State Department on Friday, where he was told that the president wants Israel to halt construction of the Shepherd Hotel being built next to the Israel Police Headquarters on the eastern side of [Highway 1] the main road that runs north from Jerusalem's Old City.
Two other Israeli luxury hotels already stand near the site.
The direct American pressure came following complaints by Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas that the hotel was being built on land claimed by his own regime as part of its future capital.
Israeli officials responded by telling radio interviewers that the land is privately owned, and that the Israeli government is not about to start interfering in private business affairs as a result of diplomatic pressure. Nor will Israel give up its right to build wherever its sees fit in Jerusalem.
"Israel has built in Jerusalem and will continue to build in Jerusalem," said one official.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu personally weighed in on the matter at Sunday's cabinet meeting, insisting that under his government, Israel will never comply with demands that Jews stop buying land and building wherever they please in Jerusalem.
In what realm of imagination does President BO get off demanding that Israel cease construction on anything?
How did he get jurisdiction over ANY foreign country, let alone Israel?
Could it be that the Photoshopped images of President BO wearing a crown were predicting that he not only wants to be king of the United States of America, but of the entire world?
Such gall! Such bile!
Megalomania does not even come close to describing this guy's sense of self and his willingness to be in complete control of the universe.
Watch it, boys and girls.
He really is dangerous.
Please wake up.
This is no dream. Your personal future is at stake.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
I always thought they looked a little alike: Walter Cronkite and Arthur Fiedler.
But I trusted Arthur Fiedler's music a lot more than I trusted Walter Cronkite's news.
Yeah...I know that's heresy.
Walter was supposed to be some kind of "daddy" figure to Americans.
I didn't see him that way.
When Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. came to St. Augustine for one of his peaceful marches and sit-ins at the local restaurants, I joined with him, believing in what he was doing and his methods of doing it.
That day, Dr. King was arrested.
That night on the CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite, they carried the story of the sit-down and the arrest.
But the pictures they showed of Dr. King's arrest were of him being arrested in another city, yet CBS failed to make that clear.
Since I was present at his arrest, I knew immediately that the pictures on TV did not match the story they were telling.
For the first time in my life I began to realize that not everything you hear or SEE on TV news is real. I learned that it can be fixed, altered, or just plain used to lie.
As I began to pay closer attention, I became more and more convinced that very little of TV news is objective or even true.
For instance, when there is an event held by liberals that is sparsely attended, but the MSM wants you to think lots of people were there, they simply draw in close on the "crowd," proclaim that many people attended and leave your imagination to fill in the rest of the picture.
On the other hand, when there is a conservative event at which there may be thousands, MSM will find a pocket of people that are somewhat spread apart and declare, "Not as many people as expected turned up."
You, then, accept that as truth, not necessarily because you are evil, but because the power of suggestion, particularly suggestion that suggests something that SEEMS corroborated by the pictures, is very strong, indeed.
This happens on every national newscast every evening, usually without your awareness.
Now, both Walter Cronkite and Arthur Fiedler are no longer with us.
I really miss one of them.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Would you hire this person?
Questioner: You said in a speech that certain ethnic groups of a certain gender would make better decisions than their counterparts who are in the majority ethnic group and who are more often in high positions. Do you stand by that statement?
Candidate: Well, I didn't mean to imply that certain ethnic groups of a certain gender would make better decisions than their counterparts in the majority ethnic group and who are more often in high positions. What I meant was that hard decisions need to be made and that they should be made and made correctly.
Questioner: But what I am trying to get at is whether you really believed what you said in the heretofore mentioned speech.
Candidate: There are times when a speeches' main purpose is to inspire people who aspire to be a part of this profession without preventing them from knowing that hard decisions need to be made and that they should be made and made correctly.
Questioner: Does that mean that you did mean what you said in that speech or that you didn't mean what you said in that speech?
Questioner: Thank you. I appreciate your professionalism and know that you have come a long way from humble beginnings. Can you tell us what you think about people being able to prevent those whose purpose it is to inflict bodily harm upon them from doing so with a powerful apperatus?
Candidate: That is bound to be a decision I will have to make someday, so it would be inappropriate for me to pass judgement on it in the context of this interrogatory.
Questioner: I see. Thank you for your integrity. Let's talk in the hypothetical. Suppose one of those afore mentioned perpertrators accosted your own personal abode or the relatives residing with you therein. Would you then feel justified in using said powerful apperatus to prevent such accostation?
Candidate: In the past people who have acheived prominence in this vocation have faced this very hypothetical and have indicated their opinions on same.
Questioner: I see. Well, how do you understand the issue?
Candidate: My understanding harkens back to the humility of my roots and my ancestrial heritage as it relates to the grandure of the position for which I am being considered.
Questioner: Can it be said, then, that you mean what you say, or that you say that which is bound to be interpreted as evasive and/or a necessary refusal to project a particular stance?
Questioner: Thank you Madame Candidate. Your forthrightness in asuaging the fears of those present in this interrogation is exceeded only by your ability to side-step the issues and bury your responses in verbage that contradicts the veracity of events both in your past and in your future.
Now I ask you: do you think that candidate would make a good employee in your business?
Then what makes you think she would make a good employee in this most important of positions in the universe?
Friday, July 17, 2009
Some years ago, a divorce, job loss and medical bills ran me into personal bankruptcy.
(Now before you libs go all postal on me, I am still paying back all of the debts I incurred...just not as quickly as my creditors would have liked.)
Had I known then what I have learned today, I would have taken what little I had left in my savings account and SPENT it! It would have kept me out of bankruptcy!
That's the advice we have gotten from our venerable Vice President, Joe Biden.
Said Joe: “Now, people when I say that look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’” Biden said. “The answer is yes, that's what I’m telling you.”
Oh how I wish I had known that!
I could have saved seven years of scrimping. I could have prevented all of those collection calls.
(Aside: One collector suggested that I take out a loan to pay of my debt that day. I responded, "What a great idea! Will you loan me the money?" She said, "I'm not going to lend you anything." I answered, "Well, neither will the bank. So, let's just go with what the court said to do.")
One of my outstanding business bills is going to take me at least 10 more years to finish paying off.
Jokes on them.
I probably won't live 10 more years.
But I digress.
How on earth did you libs ever fall for Joe Biden.
He is a professional buffoon.
Do you think he realizes how buffoonish he is?
Does it embarrass him, do you think?
He seems to have the IQ of a radish.
Actually, I shouldn't insult radishes.
ADDENDUM - Read A Very Important Letter to President BO: An Email From Us All
Thursday, July 16, 2009
As I read the MSM, she was cool, refreshing, precise, warm, fuzzy, and lovable.
They were watching a different hearing than I was.
To me, Sotomayor answered the Nerf-ball questions from the Democrats with practiced ease...that is, I believe she knew what the questions would be and had a scripted answer prepared.
When the Republicans asked her questions about her speeches, her rulings and her history she answered with long...long pauses and strings of words that had no subjects or predicates and said virtually nothing.
When pressed on an issue, she looked vexed, stern, and almost angry that her first evasive answer didn't satisfy the questioner.
My wife and I kept looking at each other and saying things like, "Did she just switch her answer to one that would fit a question she wanted to answer instead of the one actually asked?"
"Did she just give a non-answer?" was another question we asked each other.
"Wait! Wait! She just couched the Party line in words that were designed to misdirect the questioner's thinking!"
When Sotomayor was being questioned by a Democrat, she tended to smile at the end of each question and after her answer.
When she was questioned by a Republican, her expression was grim, and the smile she gave at the end of her answer seemed sardonic...not the same smile she gave the Democrats.
Her note pad scribblings were fast and furious when Republicans were doing the asking. They were much more relaxed when Democrats posed the questions.
If you watched her hands, arms and body positions, you noticed that she tended to really lean into the table and her head jutted forward when Republicans were her questioners, but she tended to move slightly back from the table and sat up much straighter when asked the soft-ball Democrat questions.
As I watched her responses to Jon Kyl this morning, she continued the same body language.
She refused to admit that the Supreme court had ruled...all nine of them agreeing on the issue...that at least one of her rulings was inappropriate on its face, but tried to persuade Kyl that the Supreme Court did not say what they actually said.
In my professional opinion, Sonya Sotomayer engaged in a great deal of side-stepping, covering over, denying her past, and outright lying about her positions on such things as abortion, gun control and other significant issues.
When she is confirmed, she will be a great help to the Socialist agenda being put forth by President BO and his lawmakers.
And she will be confirmed, absent some "smoking gun" revelation.
ADDENDUM - Read A Very Important Letter to President BO: An Email From Us All
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Those are just some of the "benefits" New Hampshire has realized due to the stimulus package emanating from the Democrat legislature under the guidance of President BO.
New Hampshire received $413.6 million in stimulus money.
Just think of the jobs! Just think of the tax revenues! Just think of the security of New Hampshire's citizens!
According to the Office of Legislative Budget Assistant, that $413.6 million has resulted in 50...count them...50 jobs, 34 of them FULL TIME, all of them TEMPORARY!
Of those wonderful temporary jobs, 5 (five) are "full-time temporary" positions with OES (Office of Economic Stimulus) itself, which positions will end in September of 2011.
Now I have no idea how much each of these "full-time temporary" jobs will pay, nor do I know how much the other "part-time temporary" jobs will pay. The yet to be hired Director of OES will "earn" $110,000.00 per year and will receive a substantial benefits package.
This I know: The cost to U.S. tax payers for these wonderful opportunities for temporary employment is $9.9 million EACH!
Does that make sense to you?
How does that make sense to you?
Do you wonder, as I do, how many top quality people are going to apply for work that they know going in is only going to last a couple of years?
Does this use of tax payer money give you more or less confidence in President BO and his congress?
Really? You LIKE the idea of spending $9.9 million for a job that pays, at the most, a median income?
Do you understand that the government is spending about 100 times what the private sector would spend to establish each of those jobs?
Does that matter to you?
What's wrong with you?
You must be over-stimulated.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
(As noted in the picture to the left, he's the same fellow who, when we were considering whether to go to war against Great Britain, said, "Give me liberty or give me death.")
I bring this up because we seem to be a "nation divided against itself," as warned against by Abraham Lincoln in 1858.
Why is that? Why are we so divided?
There are lots of reasons, but the core reason is the very nature of freedom, that is, that each citizen of this great land, according to our Declaration of Independence, has a God given right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
That is, you have a right to live, you have a right to live free of governmental encumbrances, and you have a right to live your life pursuing that which makes you the most satisfied.
The problem is that in a country of 360 million people there are at least 360 million ideas of how that notion should manifest itself.
In one sense, if we are to be united somebody will have to compromise their thinking.
I, of course, think it is you who should compromise yours, while you may suffer under the delusion that it should be I who compromise mine.
Should you not, for instance, adjust your thinking to agree with me that the union of a human sperm with a human egg results in an entity whose DNA can be distinguished from that of every other life-form on earth; whose DNA is different from his/her mother's and therefore is not "her body;" whose cell division results in growth; who takes on nourishment; who gives off waste and who therefore meets all of the scientific qualifications of human life which must be protected?
Since I believe that each individual should bear the responsibility of creating wealth for himself, his family and the economic well being of the "national product," and thus recoil at the thought of the governmental redistribution of wealth, should you not adjust your thinking to conform to mine?
Because it is clear to me that taxes should be equitably collected and therefore a low, flat tax rate should be imposed on every earned dollar above the poverty level by both individuals and businesses, should you not adopt the same concept?
It is my belief that The United States of America has consistently been the most generous, giving, altruistic country ever to have graced the surface of this planet, giving aid to countries in deep need...even those who had been our enemies, and so I cannot accept the concept that we have ever been, are now or ever will be arrogant, and thus should not apologize for it. You should agree with that, shouldn't you?
Having read a great many of the writings of our founders, I have concluded that they deliberately and specifically set out to establish a nation in which the government was disallowed from interfering with the freedom of an individual or collection thereof to worship anywhere, any time, including in governmental places, and that they simply did not want the government to establish a state religion. It seems that you would see how obvious that is.
You should agree with me that protecting its citizens is of special interest to our nation, and so our military defense should be the finest anywhere in the universe, ready to show all potential enemies that you mess with us at your peril, and that we will defend liberty and freedom anyplace on earth. Therefore, sustaining the strength of our military should remain the largest part of our national budget.
For unity's sake, you must accept my notion that legal immigration to this country should be encouraged, as we are a nation of immigrants, but illegal immigration must be stopped in its tracks immediately.
If you seek unity with me, you surely understand that effective communication demands that we leave the redefining of time-tested terms such as "marriage" to dictionarians, and not to the government.
In order to enjoy a "more perfect union," you must surely understand and accept the fact that Israel is a nation that deserves our support, our encouragement and our assistance in defending herself against those who seek to crush her.
Having experienced the arbitrariness of our government run health care systems (read: Medicare; Veterans Administration and Medicaid), you surely understand why you should agree with me that, although our private health care system needs some adjustment, it is still the best in the world and should not be placed in the hands of the government.
You would certainly agree with me that people who choose entertainment as their life's work do not therefore deserve to have some special voice in forming public opinion by using their platform to mock and attack everything we as a nation have historically stood for, by promoting perversions of every kind, by making every effort to turn the sacred name of Jesus into an abased curse word, and to tolerate everything except intolerance of what they tolerate.
As I have, you would surely see that our leaders have made every effort to remove the name of God or Jesus Christ from our Society, have challenged capital punishment, the right to bear firearms, and the most basic principles of our criminal code; they have attacked one of the most fundamental of all Freedoms, the right of free speech, and you would stand with me against those efforts.
So, if we are to remain "...one nation, under God, indivisible, and with liberty and justice for all," you will recognize the urgency of changing your view of life in The United States of America to conform with mine.
Better hurry...before it's too late.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Has it sunk in?
We've done it!
At last we've done it!
It took us a little time (not nearly as much time as "top" scientists said), but we did it!
All of the talk about it has paid off!
All of the factories in the universe have cut back on their carbon emissions!
Just talking about electric cars and selling a few here and there has done wonders!
Selling those twisted up, mercury filled light bulbs did the trick!
Why, Cap and Trade is just about dead in the water in the Senate, yet its influence has turned the tide.
Just reading "An Inconvenient Truth" has caused the weather wizards to see our sincerity and turn global warming into global cooling.
How well have we done?
New York is pretty cool.
The glaciers have actually grown these past two years.
Ocean temperatures have dropped.
There hasn't been a named storm in the Atlantic or Caribbean this whole hurricane season, which is 39 days old and counting.
And wonder of wonders, global temperatures have continued to plunge!
Well done, all you disaster mongers! Well done!
Thursday, July 9, 2009
"Why?" I hear you asking.
Because the time is not too far away when it will be deleted from the Internet, and its author (lil' ole me) will be in chains for some trumped up federal charge, and you will want to be able to refer to it.
"Why?" I hear you asking.
Because what I am about to predict will be seen by some as kook fringe, by others as the ravings of a tired old man and by the government as subversive.
I have listened to his words, watched his body language and compared his persona with films of despots around the world as they rose to power and have come to a conclusion.
Here it is:
Before his second term is up (and I do believe he will be re-elected), President BO will have convinced the members of the House of Congress, the members of the Senate, the Supreme Court (which will rule it Constitutional - 'cause they don't have to find something actually IN the Constitution to make it so, and President BO disdains the very Constitution he "took an oath" [snicker-snicker] to defend) and a majority of the American people that it is in the best interest of the country for him to serve another term in office.
Then, during his third term, he will have accumulated enough power to proclaim himself "president for life" in the manner of Julius Ceasar, Napoleon Bonaparte, Rafael Cerrera, Francois Duvalier, Saparmurat Niyazou, Jose Gaspar Rodrigues de Fancia, Josip Broz Tito, Kim Il-sung, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez.
Just think of it!
Mr. Charisma in the White House for fifty years.
It is a thought that produces elation in the minds of way too many.
It should strike fear into the hearts of everybody.
Mark my words...he is following the path laid by every despotic dictator in the history of the universe, and has no less ambition than to do so.
Place me in the lunatic corner, if you wish.
If you live long enough, you will see.
Some day you will wake up and say, "You know, that obscure blogger...what was his name?...Jo-Jo the Chimp...no, that's not it...Jo-Somethingorother tried to warn us, but we ingored him and just sat back and let it happen."
Then, in the cover of darkness by candlelight, go pull out the copy of this post and re-read it.
You will shudder with remorse.
As Marc Antony said in Shakespeare's Julius Cesar, "The noble Brutus hath told you Caesar was ambitious: If it were so, it was a grievous fault; And grievously hath Caesar answer'd it."
President BO is nothing, if not ambitious.
Medoubts that he will have to answer for it in this life.
(There is, however, another to come.)
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
There is no way they will ever get this kind of care under his plan.
Today we have strong evidence that the United States of America has the best doctors in the world, who can perform amazing, if unfortunate, feats of surgery.
Dr. Timothy McCarthy while receiving a medical award for creativity reported his findings to the Fellows of Plastic Surgery concluding with this case study:
"Several years ago a woman was high on cocaine and marijuana and she rode a horse into a train that was traveling 80 miles an hour.
"All I had left to work with was the woman's hair and the horse's behind.
"I was able to put them together and now she's Speaker of the House."
Monday, July 6, 2009
I once lived in Tacoma Washington, so I was interested.
He signs in as "ablur."
I have to admit that I have no idea what that's a reference to, or whether it's a name, a pen-name or what-all.
All I know is that he commented on my last post, I visited his blog and was impressed.
My blogroll is not extensive.
I really love each of those I visit regularly, each for some real or imagined uniqueness.
Ablur's blog, called Some Things Just Need to Be Said , has that certain "je ne sais qua" that pulled me in.
I read back over some of his past posts and enjoyed the read.
You will too, I think.
Check him out.
AND NOW MY MAIN POST
Have you noticed Michael Jackson in the news lately?
They're holding his memorial service.
From his earliest days it was abundantly clear that Michael had an enormous talent.
I did not like what he did, but I have to admit that he did it exceedingly well.
He was highly paid, too.
Why is is OK for a Michael Jackson, a Tom Crews, an Eli Manning, an Alex Rodriguez and other entertainment and sports superstars to earn eight figure incomes while it is somehow wrong for CEOs of companies that are real producers of goods not to?
Sports figures and entertainers are never referred to as having "won life's lottery," even though it was largely their chance DNA that made them able to do what they do.
But the CEO of a large, successful, productive corporation that provides an income to hundreds or thousands of people, and products that people yearn for, is somehow "evil" if he/she is highly paid.
Some people who are "entertainers" have virtually no talent at all, yet they make more than some CEOs who have led their companies to the Fortune 500 club.
Somebody explain that, please.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
You already know that, but do you know why?
Neither does anybody else.
Oh, there are plenty of speculators out there.
She's going to run for President.
She's going to run for the senate.
She's resigning for personal issues.
She's in the midst of some kind of scandal.
She has some insufferable disease.
Her kids are getting to hard to deal with.
She's giving in to her husband's wishes.
Her political career has run its course.
She's mad at Americans.
She's young...she'll be back!
I've seen them all.
They are all wrong.
For those of you who have been stewing over this, I have the definitive answer.
Are you ready?
Do you really want to know?
Well, here it is:
WE DON'T KNOW!
Why is that so hard to admit?
I suspect she will tell us in due time...don't you?
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Friday, July 3, 2009
This video says so much about the administration of President BO and it so-called "transparancy."
Let's look at what took place.
CBS's Chip Reid takes on White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs in a rare MSM moment of honesty and questioning. For whatever reason, Chip felt like the press conference was phoney because of the pre-selected questions and pre-planned answers. (Play the video and follow the dialog here):
CHIP: "The concept of a Town Hall is to have an open public forum, and this sounds like a very tightly controlled audience and list of questions. Why do it that way..."
GIBBS: "Why don't we do it this way? You can ask me that question tomorrow based on what questions were asked..."
What kind of response is THAT? It neither addresses the question nor refutes the contention, it just side-steps.
CHIP: "...why not just open it up to people and allow any question...?"
GIBBS: "Weh...I, I, Chip I think if you get on your computer...your email address...have you sent in your question?"
What kind of response is THAT? It neither addresses the question nor refutes the contention, it just side-steps.
CHIP: " I think that would be inappropriate. This is for the public.
GIBBS: "I, Im sorry, I'm confused. Are you not a member of the public?"
What kind of response is THAT? It neither addresses the question nor refutes the contention, it just side-steps. It is also evasive, not to mention snide, snotty, arrogant and (if he was sincere - which he obviously was not) STUPID.
CHIP: "Well I think if you were going to allow questions from the press, you'd have us in a prominent position and allow us to ask questions. You haven't done that."
GIBBS: "Let's not get into the notion of where you'd be sitting..."
What kind of response is THAT? It neither addresses the question nor refutes the contention, it just side-steps. And Gibbs picks at his nose in obvious derrision at the question, all-the-while grinning that very fake grin of arrogance.
CHIP: "...well out of shouting range."
GIBBS: "Well, but, but, you could email."
What kind of response is THAT? It neither addresses the question nor refutes the contention, it just side-steps. It's like Gibbs is pretending that he is really responding to Chip, while, of course, he is doing nothing of the kind. (But Gibbs knows that you and I THINK he is being genuine and answering the questions appropriately, because he thinks you and I are really dumb).
CHIP: "Would you put my question in? I don't think so"
GIBBS (Smirking shrug): "Maybe. Have you emailed"
What kind of response is THAT? It neither addresses the question nor refutes the contention, it just side-steps. Besides, Gibbs knows full well that Chip had not emailed his questions. It's sort of like one of my favorite brand new old sayings, "Surely a person as intelligent as you can see that I'm right."
CHIP: "This is a Town Hall. This is an open forum for the public to ask questions. But it's not really open."
GIBBS: "Based on what?" (Like he didn't know what Chippy was talking about.)
CHIP: "Based on the informatin that your staff gave us on how the audience and the questions are being selected."
GIBBS: "The questions are being selected by people that email on Face Book and Twitter."
CHIP: "They're not deciding what questions actually get in."
GIBBS (annoyed): "Well I...I appreciate again... "
CHIP: "This is all tightly controlled...unlike his Town Meetings all through the campaign..."
GIBBS: "I appreciate the pre-selected question on your part."
What kind of response is THAT? It neither addresses the question nor refutes the contention, It just side-steps. It is also more snide, arrogance and irritation.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: "Will there be dessenting views?"
CHIP: "Yes, how about that?"
GIBBS: "I...I think that's a very safe bet. But again...how 'bout we do this? I promise we will interrupt the AP's tradition of asking the first question. I'll let you ask me a question tomorrow as to whether you thought the questions at the Town Hall meeting that the President conducted in Annondale...
HELEN THOMAS (Interrupting): "That is not his (Chip's) point. The point is the control from here. We have never had that in the White House...we have had some control, but I'm amazed at you people who called for openness and transparency and you have CONTROL...
GIBBS (Interrupting the interrupter): "You haven't even heard the questions!"
What has having heard or not having heard the questions got to do with anything being asked?
CHIP: "It doesn't matter. It's the process."
GIBBS (Loud falsetto giggle):
CHIP: "Even if it's a tought question, it's a question from somebody who was invited or who was screened...or the question was screened."
GIBBS: "Uhh...Chip, Chip...Uh let's have this discussion at the conclusion of the Town Hall meeting...how about that? I think you'll be..."
Translation: Ooo. I've been backed into a corner and I don't want to talk abou this any more. Let's put it off and maybe we'll be able to formulate some kind of fakey response that will placate everybody or at least let them know who's boss here.
HELEN THOMAS: "No, no no. We're having it NOW."
GIBBS: "Well, I'd be happy to have it now."
If that's the case, what on earth was the argument all about? He does not want to have it at all!
THOMAS: "It's a pattern..."
GIBBS: "Who's question did you object to at the Town Hall meeting?"
You idiot! She was not objecting to any particular question! She was objecting to the PROCESS!
GIBBS: "What's the pattern?"
THOMAS: "It's the pattern of controlling the press."
GIBBS: "How SO? Is it any evidence currently going on that I'm controlling the press? Poorly, I might add. Falsetto giggle - falsetto giggle."
Translation: "Oh, look! I've just made a funny and poked fun at myself. This must all be good."
So, the problem is not that he's not controlling the press, the problem is that he's not doing it very well?
THOMAS: "Your horrible engagements are pre-packaged.
GIBBS (feigning innocence): "How So?"
THOMAS: "How so? By calling reporters the night before and telling them they're going to get called on? That is shocking!"
GIBBS: "I...I...we've had this discussion ad nausium and uh..."
THOMAS: 'Of course you would, 'cause you don't have any answers."
GIBBS: "Uh, well, uh, because I didn't know you were going to ask a question, Helen."
I could NOT have heard that right! He surely did not just admit that if he doesn't get the questions ahead of time he doesn't have the time to formulate a rehearsed, party-line, pre-planned answer...did he? Can't these guys just give an honest answer based on their expetise and experience?
GIBBS (Turning to another reporter): "Go ahead."
THOMAS (not letting him off the hook): "Well you should have."
GIBBS (snidely): "Have you emailed your question today?"
THOMAS: "I don't have to email it. I can tell you right now what I want to ask."
GIBBS: "I...I don't doubt that at all, Helen. I don't doubt that at all."
CHIP: "Actually, could you pass along a question to the President from all of us: Is he going to support a tax increase on the middle class?"
GIBBS: "I will...I will uh...if you get on your computer, you can, uh, you can ask him that yourself."
CHIP: "I think you're a more direct pipeline."
GIBBS: "I don't know. I was just told that you guys have a pretty good (turning to another reporter) go ahead..."
And some of you still think that this administration is open, transparent, honest and honorable.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
I work as a part-time Production Director at a Christian radio station in Southwest Florida, http://www.kingdom.fm/.
Mostly you hear me on announcements and the like nowadays, as I am only working quarter-time.
Kingdom FM is heavy into Praise and Worship music with great lyrical content.
I have a friend who has an Internet radio station that is the essence of peaceful, uplifting, encouraging Christian music and ministry.
If you need a peaceful sound, something you can keep on in the background where you work that is unobtrusive, yet has a great presence, may I recommend that you tune in to Christian Life Radio .
This is inspirational radio in the true sense of the word.
When I am at my radio or in my car, I listen to Kingdom FM.
At my computer, where I have no radio, I often listen to Christian Life Radio.
I recommend both of these stations to you, each for its own format.
Both are available online.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Since it came with an invitation to share it, I will do so now.
Posted at 8:47 am on June 30, 2009 by Ed Morrissey Send to a Friend / Share on Facebook / printer-friendly
Give Robert Gibbs points for chutzpah, if not logic or consistency.
When the White House press corp peppered him with questions about the status of Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination after getting reversed on Ricci, Gibbs explained that the ruling proved that Sotomayor was — get ready — a judicial originalist.
Not only that, but it turns out that the administration had already rejected part of Sotomayor’s previous judgment on Ricci before the court reversed it:
The White House came to the defense of President Obama’s pick to be the newest Supreme Court justice after Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s ruling in a racially charged case was reversed by the Supreme Court.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs all but accused the current court of “judicial activism,” a buzz term used by conservatives in recent years, in overturning what the White House saw as Sotomayor’s upholding of precedent. …
But Gibbs said that the case “denotes that [Sotomayor] is a follower of precedent,” and the arguments over judicial activism “seem to be at the very least upside-down in this case.”
Gibbs said the case proves “she doesn’t legislate from the bench.”
Not even the Supreme Court’s dissenters to Ricci would go that far. As Stuart Taylor notes in his analysis of the dissent, none of the nine justices defended Sotomayor’s judgment or reasoning in Ricci :
What’s more striking is that the court was unanimous in rejecting the Sotomayor panel’s specific holding.
Her holding was that New Haven’s decision to spurn the test results must be upheld based solely on the fact that highly disproportionate numbers of blacks had done badly on the exam and might file a “disparate-impact” lawsuit — regardless of whether the exam was valid or the lawsuit could succeed.
This position is so hard to defend, in my view, that I hazarded a prediction in my June 13 column: “Whichever way the Supreme Court rules in the case later this month, I will be surprised if a single justice explicitly approves the specific, quota-friendly logic of the Sotomayor-endorsed… opinion” by U.S. District Judge Janet Arterton.
Unlike some of my predictions, this one proved out. In fact, even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s 39-page dissent for the four more liberal justices quietly but unmistakably rejected the Sotomayor-endorsed position that disparate racial results alone justified New Haven’s decision to dump the promotional exam without even inquiring into whether it was fair and job-related.
Justice Ginsburg also suggested clearly — as did the Obama Justice Department, in a friend-of-the-court brief — that the Sotomayor panel erred in upholding summary judgment for the city.
Ginsburg said that the lower courts should have ordered a jury trial to weigh the evidence that the city’s claimed motive — fear of losing a disparate impact suit by low-scoring black firefighters if it proceeded with the promotions — was a pretext.
The jury’s job would have been to consider evidence that the city’s main motive had been to placate black political leaders who were part of Mayor John DeStefano’s political base.
Wait, wait, wait — the Obama administration filed a brief against Sotomayor’s judgment? Their argument was that Sotomayor overreached in issuing a summary judgment, a point that won unanimous approval from the Supreme Court. Isn’t that the definition of “judicial activism”?
Now the White House wants to pretend that Sotomayor is an originalist, when they themselves fought against her activist ruling.
That’s impressively Orwellian.
See what I mean? Don't you wish I had written it?
ADDENDUM: If you think that President BO's administration is sincere, click on this link and watch even the MSM get agitated at the way they are being treated. The honeymoon with the press may be being subverted. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/07/01/cbs_helen_thomas_challenge_gibbs_on_controlled_town_hall_meeting.html