Skip to content

EPA in War, Desert Wins, Troops Lose

October 9, 2009

It was October 7, 2009, approximately 2130hrs(9:30 pm for those that do not comprehend the 24 hour clock, also known as military time).   Soldiers were on guard duty, others in their hootches, sleeping in the hot, sultry night, still others at MWR working out or calling home or playing online computer games.  suddenly, and not unexpectedly, the night erupted.  RPG fire was coming in.  Sleeping soldiers were awake, on their feet and ready to defend the outpost immediately.  Soldiers at MWR were headed to their gear, to repel the enemy.  The soldiers at COP Able Main are nervously prepared for anything, especially following a week which saw an outpost just 75 miles to the north overrun and eight soldiers killed.  The Taliban fired approximately 100 RPG rounds at the gate, when the gates fell, Taliban fighters charged through.  Having been slated to be closed by the great military expert Barack Obama, the outpost was seriously undermanned.  Eight brave American soldiers were killed.

The men of COP Able Main were well aware of what happened.  They have been on heightened alert since.  When the RPG rounds started coming into Able Main, they were ready, and the enemy never got a chance to charge the gate.  What the enemy did accomplish was, perhaps, more telling of the situation our troops face in Afghanistan.

Shrapnel from one of those RPG rounds punctured a 10,000 gallon fuel bladder.  The bladder had recently been refilled and almost the entire 10,000 gallons of diesel fuel leaked onto the ground.  Early the next morning, the men of Able Main were forced to face the fiercest enemy they could ever have imagined, the EPA.

The official from the EPA began by harassing lowly privates with no authority, then moved to the sargeants, the squad leaders, the platoon sargeant, the platoon officer, and on up the chain of command.  The EPA was mad, they were mad because of the fuel leak.  The official informed everyone there that the fuel bladder hadn’t been properly protected.  Each of the soldiers that had the misfortune to engage this enemy tried to explain that the reason it wasn’t “properly protected” was because the Army hadn’t given them the equipment needed to protect the bladder properly.  Apparently, that wasn’t the EPA’s concern, nor was it what the EPA would consider a legitimate excuse for failing to “properly protect” the fuel bladder. 

One would certainly think our troops have enough things to be concerned with.  The enemy that wants them dead, a Commander in Chief that promises to send the manpower and equipment they need and then refuses to listen when his generals tell him more troops are needed, rules of engagement that are designed to not offend the enemy, these should be more than enough for any soldier to worry about.  But no, not in President Obama’s world.  In President Obama’s world, the great American military men and women also have to worry about the enemy from Washington, the EPA.

As of yet, the White House and the EPA have failed to answer any questions about why the EPA has chosen to harass American troops in combat.


How to Lose the Unlosable War

October 4, 2009

President Obama took a little time out of his busy schedule to meet with his commander in the Afghan war, General McChrystal.  It was only the second time they have spoken in the 70 days that General McChrystal has been selected to head up the war effort.  Obama promised us that he would listen to his generals in the field about how to win the war.  It would seem that once again Obama has LIED to the American people.

General McChrystal has asked for another 40,000 soldiers.  He says that time is of the essence, we will lose in Afghanistan if we do not commit the troops and resources needed.  Failure in Afghanistan would have a devastating effect on America.  It was Afghanistan where Al-Qeada hatched and launched the attack on Kobar Towers, the American embassy bombings in Africa, the attack on the USS Cole, and the 9/11 attacks that murdered almost 3,000 of our fellow countrymen.  It was the Taliban in Afghanistan that provided cover for the terrorists of Al-Qeada.  If we lose here, they will return, not only to Afghanistan, but to America as well.

American soldiers in Afghanistan tend to agree with General McChrystal.  They believe that we need more troops, in more places.  While the Democrats play “political generals” and talk about pulling back to the cities where Afghanis “like” the US, soldiers on the ground tend to believe that we need to get troops into the mountainous regions where we can’t drive.  They tell me that those regions are where Al-Qeada and the Taliban are.  Troops would have to be airlifted in to those regions, prepared for a long hard fight.  They would have to be resupplied by airlift.  By taking those regions, and setting up outposts, the American military could establish a relationship with the Afghanis and take still more of the Taliban’s and Al-Qeada’s support. 

The problem with General McChrystal’s and the troops’ assessment of how to win in Afghanistan?  Obama is president.  That and the Democrats have control of both houses of congress.  That currently appears to be a pretty large obstacle, even for General McChrystal and the greatest military power on earth.  Obama won’t listen to his general.  His National Security Advisor, General James Jones, USMC, Retired, claims that McChrystal’s assessment is mere “opinion.”  Obama, even though his hand-picked general says there is no time to waste, is wasting time on the idea that “we don’t want to rush these decisions.”  The Democrats in Congress are pushing for a withdrawal from Afghanistan, calling it a quagmire, the same tactic they used to snatch defeat from the North Vietnamese in the early 1970’s, pushing for a pullout, preventing the US from actually fighting to win, forcing failure and defeat on the American military.  McChrystal’s problem?  He is in charge of a military that doesn’t know how to lose, but has to answer to and depend on  a democratically controlled government that doesn’t want to win, that actually likes to lose, a democratically controlled government that whines about the deaths of military personnel but goes out of its way to prevent our military personnel from surviving and winning. 

McChrystal’s problem, he wants to win, Obama wants to lose.  If we win, we will offend the Taliban and Al-Qeada.  Obama doesn’t want to offend anyone except Conservatives.

“Day of Service and Remembrance”

September 12, 2009

Yesterday was the anniversary of the most notorious day America has ever suffered.  Nearly 3,000 people were murdered.  They weren’t murdered for anything they personally had done to someone else.  They weren’t murdered for profit.  They were murdered because they were not Muslim.  They were murdered by a group of people that want the entire world to convert to Islam or die.

Our Illustrious President Obama has decided that this should be a “Day of Service and Remembrance.”  Isn’t that nice?  A Day of Service?  Not since December 7, 1941 has the US suffered an attack by a foreign entity on US soil.  We do have a “Day of Remembrance” for that day, we call it Pearl Harbor Day.  We remember what happened that day and why it happened.  I don’t need a day of service, I need retribution.  I need to forces that caused this disaster to be abolished, annihilated.  I need them to be dead.  I need a government that understands what is at stake, that is willing to do what is necessary to end this war in such a way as to ensure that this never happens again.  I need a President that will give up the idea of making our enemies like us and embrace the idea of making our enemies pay for the act of murdering our friends, neighbors and fellow Americans.

The Day of Service is not what I need.  The murderers did not attack us because I, or anyone else, neglected to help an elderly lady across the street.  They didn’t murder almost 3,000 people because we failed to pick up some trash on the street.  We were attacked because they want to convert us to their religion, and failing to do that, they would choose to make us dead.

What we need is a “Day of Kick Their Ass,”  a “Day of Now You Can Die By The Thousands.”  We need a President that is less worried about making friends than he is about winning a war that our enemies started.  Bush was a good President about attempting to fight the war, but even he failed to understand what was truly needed.  Even Bush was concerned with “winning the peace.”  Screw “peace.”  We need to win the war, let those who started this fight worry about securing the “peace” after we kick their Islamic asses. 

After Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor, nobody told American’s “we have to understand why they hate us.”  Nobody told us that we need to be considerate of the enemies feelings.  We were told that we would win.  And we did win.  We didn’t lose any sleep if civilians got killed.  War is hell, people die.  Even civilians.  Did the Islamic attackers worry about civilian deaths 8 years ago?  No.  Did they worry about our collective feelings 8 years ago?  No.  Should we worry about theirs now?  HELL NO.  We should be worried about convincing them it is a mistake to attack us.  We should be worried about getting revenge for what they did, getting revenge in such a way that they realize they should never attempt that kind of act again.  We don’t need their respect, we don’t need their friendship.  We need their fear.  We need to teach them fear. 

We need to understand that nothing ends a war like near extinction.  When we have killed almost all Muslims, Muslims will see the need to live in peace with us, and the rest of the world.  We dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan to end World War Two.  How many civilians were killed?  How much longer did Japan continue to fight after those bombs were dropped.  How much sleep did Americans lose over the loss of Japanese lives?  How long did it take the Japanese to learn it is better to be our friend than to be our enemy?

Mr. President, you can keep your “Day of Service.”  We don’t need it.  Not on September 11.  You can have your day of service another time, any other day.  But not on September 11, this day is special, not to be politicized.  What we need on this day is a “Day of Rememberance and Kick Ass.”  We need a day to resolve to actually win a war like it is a war, not try to bribe the “schoolyard bully” into liking us.

Obama’s Healthcare “Truths” Less Than Truthful

September 10, 2009

Obama set the record straight lastnight.  He corrected the mistruths the Republicans and special interest have been using to “scare” the American people about healthcare.  Unfortunately, if one does not tell the whole truth, one is lying. 

Obama lied.  Healthcare reform, as proposed by the Democrats in the House and the Senate, will require you to give up your current healthcare plan even if you are satisfied with it.  While the bills specifically say you can keep your current plan, they also make it impossible for companies to profitably continue to offer healthcare coverage for their employees.  While companies generally pay 20 to 50% of their payroll on healthcare for their employees, the fine for not providing healthcare is only 8% of payroll, according to HR3200 Section 102.  Companies are in business to make a profit, as a result they will always choose the more profitable route.  If it is more profitable for companies to pay the fine than to pay for healthcare, they will cancel healthcare plans and pay the fine.  HR3200 prohibits any insurance companies from writing new policies after “day one of year one” and mandates anyone without insurance will be “auto-enrolled” into the government plan.

Therefore, Mr. Obama, you flat out lied to the American people.  You can call me on misrepresenting the “facts,” but you rest assured that I will call you on intentionally lying to the American people in order to accomplish your communist agenda.

The Next Attack From the Left: Denying Conservatives Senate Representation

August 24, 2009

This article appeared on The Daily Kos this weekend.  It should scare the daylights out of anyone who believes in America and the US Constitution.  I will post the entire article so noone can claim I took them out of context.

“The Problem of the Small State Senator

by mcjoan

Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 01:00:04 PM PDT

In the ongoing red state/blue state, small state/big state public opinion tussle, the small states have been on the losing end lately, with small state Senators having huge influence on two major pieces of legislation, influence that is either significantly weakening, and even threatening to kill, those bills. That leaves plenty of people wondering how it is that a handful of senators who represent a tiny fraction of the nation’s population get to decide for all of us. But I think the real question needs to be whether that tiny fraction of the nation’s population is really being represented, and if not, what are they going to do about it.

Wyoming’s Senators are starting to talk tough on killing cap-and-trade legislation recently passed in the House of Representatives. That’ll mean Mike Enzi will have to take some time out of his schedule killing healthcare reform, which he has been pursuing mightily for months, along with colleagues from North Dakota, New Mexico, Iowa, Maine, and of course Max Baucus from Montana. A handful of Senators, representing less than three percent of the nation’s total population, have the ability to obstruct must-pass legislation that the rest of the nation is clamoring for. That is, unless another small state Senator, Harry Reid, decides to bypass them.

The nation’s founders intended the Senate to be the deliberative body, the careful body that would provide the check on the unruly mob that the House would likely become on the one hand, and the potential tyrant the executive might become on the other. What we ended up with is the least democratic body in our republic. It means that, as Nate Silver points out, “A voter in Wyoming — population 533,000 — has about 70 times more ability to influence the Senate’s direction than one in California — population 36.8 million.”

That means that cap-and-trade legislation that could achieve a 17 percent carbon reduction for a cost of about $7 per household per month, $83 per year, could end up totally eviscerated in the Senate, keeping the United States on track as an unrepentant world polluter, using the convenient excuse of, “yeah, well, China is worse.”

“There’s nothing good about it,” said U.S. Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo. “I’m going to do everything to make sure it doesn’t pass.”

U.S. Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., said the bill is “the biggest hidden tax in America.”

“It’s a Ponzi scheme because we’re just going to print certificates for CO2 and not take care of any CO2,” Enzi said. “It’s just another way to make money.”

Note that these remarks were made before the industry trade group, the Petroleum Association of Wyoming. Note also that Mike Enzi is the number one recipient of PAC money in terms of percentage in the Senate since 2003. Interestingly, the bill is extremely friendly to coal, making one wonder what Senators Enzi and Barrasso would say if they were speaking before a coal mining association. It’s a deeply flawed bill that can be opposed on many levels—because it doesn’t go far enough fast enough, and because it favors certain industries, like coal, where lawmakers from coal producing states again had undo influence in the committee process.

Which brings us back to the small state conundrum. There is something fundamentally wrong about senators who represent less than three percent of the nation’s population deciding the fate of the other 97 percent. And there’s a problem with a senator from a state with an experience that is so completely unlike the experience of the rest of the nation. That’s demonstrated most clearly in this debate by Kent Conrad’s fixation on regional co-ops. In his experience, a co-op brought electrification to his parents or grandparents. It helps the dairy farmers secure fair prices for their product. But even in North Dakota, are a plucky bunch of folks going to organize their doctors and hospitals to strike out in a new organization, breaking the stranglehold Blue Cross/Blue Shield has on the state, which holds 91% of the market?

Letting Max Baucus Kent Conrad limit the health care choices for the entire nation based on their experience in North Dakota and Montana is as irrational as it would be to have Chuck Schumer set all of the gun control policy for the entire nation, based on his experiences in New York.

That’s on the merits of debate alone. When you factor in the money part of the equation, it gets more disturbing. As many Congress watchers have pointed out, most recently Peter Drier in a column reprinted at New West, “Health-related companies and their employees gave Baucus’s political committees nearly $1.5 million in 2007 and 2008, when he began holding hearings and making preparations for this year’s reform debate.” These small state Senators pull in inordinate amounts of money from corporate donors and PACs, in part because they have a small individual donor base in their home states–fewer people, fewer individual donations.

More corporate donations, higher likelihood of making policy in the interest of the corporation? It’s just common sense. That’s where the major problem for all Americans, particularly small state residents, comes in to play. For all of the outsized clout these Senators might have, is it in these states long-term interest to have their Senators working on the behest of corporations in the short term.

Consider Wyoming, and Enzi’s and Barrasso’s work to represent the petroleum and natural gas folks. Yes, Wyoming is booming now because of those extractive industries, with the high paying jobs and the royalties they bring in. What has it also brought, though? Take Sublette county, ground zero for industry. The levels of ozone in the air in the county have measured higher than Los Angeles’s, with all the subsequent health problems that entails. The influx of transient oil and gas workers has created some serious social upheaval in towns like Pinedale. The groundwater has been poisoned, killing off or forcing out the area’s famed pronghorn antelope herds, and causing losses for livestock owners.

Wyoming has had plenty of booms and busts in its past, in large part because of the hold extractive industries have on the state’s economy, and the hold extractive industries have on the reelection prospects of the state’s federal elected officials. Think about what energy legislation could mean for Wyoming in the long term, if its federal policy-makers were thinking in those terms. Wyoming potentially has it all in alternative energy resources–wind, solar, and geothermal all readily available and exploitable. Wyoming could become a key player in building a more sustainable path to economic growth not only for itself, but for the nation in creating sustainable, smart, energy production. Which the Petroleum Association of Wyoming is going to fight tooth and nail, with Enzi and Barrasso carrying their banner, and taking their PAC donations.

The same dynamic is playing out in the healthcare reform debate, where Senators from Montana, Iowa, and North Dakota, are determining the fate of us all. It’s not that residents of those state don’t deserve representation. Residents of small states are as equal as Americans as Californians or Floridians or New Yorkers. There’s a tendency among pundits when pointing out this small state problem to be dismissive of the states themselves, the fly-over country, the states who are a tax-drain on the rest of the country. It can smack of coastal elitism. And it ignores how much we are all in this together.

But in setting up that dynamic, the lack of representation small state residents receive is rarely considered by the critics. More unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to be considered by the Senators in question, either. Let’s look at the state of healthcare access in some of these states. In North Dakota, 11 percent of the population is uninsured; in Montana 16 percent; in Iowa, it’s 10 percent.

Add to that, look at the monopolies the insurance companies–majority donors to these same Senators, have in their states. Blue Cross/Blue Shield covers 75 percent of insured Montanans, and 70 percent of insured residents of Wyoming. Wellmark covers 71 percent of insured Iowans. Hardly a good example of free-market enterprise and competition, something these conservative Senators are quick to say they’re trying to uphold.

The percentages of uninsured in the small states is on par with the big ones. We’re all suffering. In New York, it’s 14 percent; in Florida, a whopping 21 percent.  These are crises in which we all share, unfortunately, including the three percent of the population being represented by the Senators who are trying to decide for all of us. The climate crisis isn’t as immediate as the healthcare crisis, or at least not as pressing on individual daily lives. But it’s just as critical to the fate of the nation in the long term. And just as likely to be decided by corporations, many of the multi-nationals, like Halliburton which has a big chunk of the contracts in Wyoming. The short-term boom and bust mentality that maximizes corporate profits–where in oil and gas or in health insurance–is at work again in these current votes.

It’s at work again in influencing Max Baucus and Mike Enzi and Chuck Grassley and Kent Conrad and John Barrasso. They’re helping out their friends in industry, forgetting that while their campaign coffers might have been filled by those lobbyists, they owe their votes to the actual people who sent them to DC. This isn’t a partisan thing, and it isn’t a regional thing. But the small state residents who sent these folks back to Washington to represent their best interests are getting the short end of the stick, yet again.”

What mcjoan is saying is that the small rural states, the ones that tend to be more conservative, don’t deserve the same representation as the bigger, more liberal states.  While smaller states don’t get the same representation in the House, mcjoan would go further, by denying representation in the Senate, as well. 

What makes it more frightening is the responses to this suggestion of repressing those who are essentially politically inferior.

 Yes, it is that bad (6+ / 0-)

That Senate is a travesty of democracy. No sane person would adopt it as is today.

Ok, so I read the polls.

by andgarden on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 01:31:30 PM PDT

Three big constitutional fixes: (3+ / 0-)

Recommended by:
verso2, SottoVoce, Maverick80229
  1. Abolish corporate personhood, allowing the government to constitutionally regulate corporate “speech.”
  1. Institute publicly financed elections,  reform election financing by severely limiting the “money is speech” constitutional principle. Prohibit corporate entities from contributing directly or indirectly to election campaigns.  
  1. Clarify the President’s warmaking powers vis a vis Congress:  explicitly subjugate the president’s role as commander in chief to the direction of congress.


by bmcphail on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 02:10:54 PM PDT

We’ve overcompensated (2+ / 0-)

Recommended by:
tmo, mithra

I think the situation we’re in today with health care and climate change, plus the undue influence small states have in choosing our candidates for president, illustrate that we have overcompensated and that small states abuse this attempt to level the playing field for them.

Not only are larger states (in population) forced to subsidize smaller states but in smaller states it’s much easier to buy a politician, so the smaller states sell us all out to their own special interests.  They are abusing their advantage and abusing millions of people in this country who are forced to subsidize them.

It’s a double whammy.  This is a major problem and it’s going to lead to more state vs. state division and perhaps worse problems.

And, as mcjoan says, they are not even voting in the best interest of the people who elected them.  Will they be held accountable?  I’ve seen people posting here who say there’s nothing they can do about Kent Conrad, that no other Democrat could be elected because it’s a Republican dominated state.  

I’m not inclined to accept excuses from people in small states right now.  The people who live in those states need to do something about it.  We can help, but we can’t do it for them.

by joanneleon on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 03:16:03 PM PDT

“Yes, it is that bad (6+ / 0-)

That Senate is a travesty of democracy. No sane person would adopt it as is today.

Ok, so I read the polls.

by andgarden on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 01:31:30 PM PDT

Getting the idea?  These people are Obama’s primary base.  They don’t like the Constitution, they don’t like Conservatives, and they want the system “changed,” completely changed.  They want Conservatives silenced.

The Daily Kos Strikes Again: Hypocrisy and Stereotyping

August 14, 2009

The Daily Kos is still at it, Conservatives are wrong, and Liberals are the innocent victim.  The First Ammendment applies to the Liberals, but the Conservatives are merely causing trouble.

“Republican politicians and celebrities stoking the latent white supremacist and other violent tendencies ingrained in the fringe conservative movement are playing with fire.”

They link this ABC report: and follow that with this quote:

“Experts who track hate groups across the U.S. are growing increasingly concerned over violent rhetoric targeted at President Obama, especially as the debate over health care intensifies and a pattern of threats emerges. The Secret Service is investigating a Maryland man who held a sign reading “Death to Obama” and “Death to Michelle and her two stupid kids” outside a town hall meeting this week.”

So one guy holds a sign that says, “Death to Obama” and all Conservatives are evil racists?  No mention of the SEIU members that beat a man and sent him to the hospital for daring to sell “Don’t Tread on Me” flags.  No mention of the times that the Liberals compared Bush to Hitler.  No mention of the Liberals own violent tendencies, tendencies which show clearly in their responses to the posting.

“Is there nothing that can be done? (0+ / 0-)

I know your first amendment is strong (in itself a good thing) but surely there must be some wiggle room to shut these groups down?”


by irishjohn

The First Ammendment is a good thing, but only if exercised by the far Left, the Right has no right to do anything but as President Obama said, “shut up and stay out of the way.”

 and all of them will scream in unison… (20+ / 0-)

…”We didn’t start the fire” when all hell breaks lose.”


by DawnG

And they say the Conservatives are violent, extremists that are looking for an excuse to use violence.

These radical right-wing pieces of crap (6+ / 0-)

need guns, otheriwse they’d get their asses kicked.”

“I feel stupid and contagious. Here we are now, entertain us” – Kurt Cobain 1991

by Jeff Y

They condemn the Right for using the same tactics the Left has always used.

 Wingnut Bloggers On C-SPAN Now (5+ / 0-)

Is C-SPAN coming to Pgh? 

Tim Phillips from “Americans For Prosperity” is telling the little wingers that disrupting townhalls makes people sympathetic to conservatives.”

by bernardpliers

Remember all the screaming about Bush being a NAZI?  Apparently the Left doesn’t.

That “Nazi” Thing Won’t Win GOP Jewish Votes nt” (7+ / 0-)

by bernardpliers

There is always the obligatory veiled threat of violence combined with insults of the Right.

it’s getting scary (6+ / 0-)

Sooner or later, we’ll all arm ourselves just like the Republitards (except more quietly).

I’m recommending “sooner.””                                                                                                                                                                                                                  “I was never one of those that said Eisenhower was a Commie.” –Amos Bush

by Tom Seaview

And there is always the armed Liberal, that is in fear of the many armed Conservatives tghat are running around attacking and shooting innocent Liberals.  Notice, no proof of the accusation is given, but a rather funny suggestion about armed Liberals protecting the innocent (as long as they aren’t unwanted babies).

In many cases, I agree, Dawn (6+ / 0-)

I’m the least trigger-happy gun carrier you’ll ever meet. I carry because my wife insists on it (I go to strangers’ homes every day in unfamiliar neighborhoods). I don’t hunt, I stay out of trouble, and I pray every day that strapping on the Glock is a waste of time.

Because I don’t like to carry, and my biggest concern about it would be missing the target and/or hitting an innocent bystander, I am well-trained and well-practiced. I have passed the same marksmanship tests as policemen, Secret Service and FBI agents, and even air marshals. I spend about $500 per year on ammunition and range time to maintain my skills. My stepson fought in Iraq and killed several people in the battle for Baghdad; I routinely embarrass him at the range.

I wouldn’t shoot to protect my TV, my car, or my wallet… but I would shoot to defend my life, or someone else’s. I have a duty to my family to come home alive, and I might have a similar duty to protect others in an armed robbery or violent attack (the latter situation is becoming all too common, thanks to all this bubbling militancy and hatred). There have been several situations this year, with right-wing nuts shooting innocents, where one armed liberal may have been of great help.

As I said, I would rather be robbed than shoot someone else… so maybe our opinions aren’t that far apart. I am a pessimist at heart, and I carry for the same reason we fasten our seat belts when we drive: there is a slight but non-zero risk that the gun, or the seat belt, will be needed to save a life or three.

“I was never one of those that said Eisenhower was a Commie.” –Amos Bush

by Tom Seaview

“I have a duty to my family to come home alive, and I might have a similar duty to protect others in an armed robbery or violent attack (the latter situation is becoming all too common, thanks to all this bubbling militancy and hatred).”  Huh??  Exactly what bubbling militancy?  One guy with a sign is “bubbling militancy?”

And we go back to the “fact” that if you are a Conservative, you are a racist.

I don’t understand… (7+ / 0-)

White supremacists and assorted hate groups have always been a problem.  Burnings, bombings, killings, beatings.  What are you talking about as new news?

It seems to me unsurprising that policy differences would merge with latent (and not so latent) hatreds to make for some reall ugliness.”                                                                                                                                                                                                  Free speech? Yeah, I’ve heard of that. Have you?

by dinotrac

So when the Left calls Bush “Hitler” that is Free Speech, when the Left calls the Right racist, that is free speech, but when the Right objects to policy, they are racist and NAZI’s.  I guess we don’t really need the First Ammendment, or opinions on policy.  We can just sit down, shut up, and let Obama fix it with communism.

There is the denial of the Left as indicated in this response:

“OK, but… (0+ / 0-)

How many people are we talking about?

And — from your list,

I see three KKK branches being counted as three groups instead of one…and…
the KKK’s been around for a long time.  Compared to, say, the 1920s, the Klan is a shadow of its former self.

And — The Nation of Islam and New Black Panther Party?  They don’t seem to fit in with the others at all.  I wouldn’t classify either one as a hate group, and certainly not a group that would be upset by an Obama administration.

It’s hard for me to take lists like that very seriously.”

Free speech? Yeah, I’ve heard of that. Have you?

by dinotrac


The Nation of Islam and the New Black Panthers aren’t racist hate groups?  Sorry, dinotrac, it just became impossible for me to take you seriously.

“Secret Service please. (18+ / 0-)

Secret Service please sit next to Glenn Beck and when you feel he is pushing the buttons trying to get the next Mark David Champan to shoot a gun, please handcuff Glenn Beck and take him away.  Do the country a favor.  This guy is a terrorist.”

by EarTo44


Apparently, they have never listened to Beck.  Beck is about anything peaceful, he says it everyday.  He  denounces any violence everyday.  Even to the point of objecting to people like, me that believe the time will come when it becomes necessary to defend ourselves militarily from the government these Leftists are bringing us.  Understand, I’m not an extremist militant, I’m not looking to go out and start shooting at the government, or anyone else.  I do, however, believe that the government will start shooting at us very soon, at that point I believe we will have the right and the need to defend ourselves.  The irrational and unfactual diatribe from the Left only goes to prove we are headed there a lot sooner than even I would have thought seven months ago.

Jobs Report Out, Unemployment Down, Reportedly

August 8, 2009

The unemployment figures for the month of July are out.  The White  House released the numbers with a measure of pride and an air of “I told you so.”  There was a decline of 247,000 jobs in July, when compared to the numbers we have seen in the past few months, 247,000 doesn’t seem too bad. 

But the Obama White House isn’t exactly known for the openness and transparency they promised.  In just 7 months, Obama has  earned a reputation for lying to the American people, health care reform, the auto bailouts, the banking bailouts.  “I don’t want to run the auto industry.”  That was what he said, then the Democrats made sure that the government, and Obama came away with majority ownership of Chrysler and GM.

The jobs report is another reason for Obama to have an “audacity to lie.”  Nobody in the press has asked the question that would point a finger of suspicion at Obama for “misleading” the American people.  I will ask it.  How do we lose 247,000 jobs and still see unemployment go down by .1%?  The answer is in the jobs report itself.

“Nonfarm payroll employment continued to decline in July (-247,000),
and the unemployment rate was little changed at 9.4 percent, the U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The average monthly job
loss for May through July (-331,000) was about half the average
decline for November through April (-645,000). In July, job losses
continued in many of the major industry sectors.”

Not too bad so far, almost exactly what Obama told us.

“In July, the number of unemployed persons was 14.5 million. The
unemployment rate was 9.4 percent, little changed for the second
consecutive month.”

Unless we count the 247,000 jobs that we lost.  I would be inclined to say that is a substantial change.

“The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more)
rose by 584,000 over the month to 5.0 million. In July, 1 in 3 unemploy-
ed persons were jobless for 27 weeks or more.”

OOPS!!  That doesn’t exactly sound like an economic recovery. 

“The civilian labor force participation rate declined by 0.2 percentage
point in July to 65.5 percent. The employment-population ratio, at 59.4
percent, was little changed over the month but has declined by 3.3 per-
centage points since the recession began in December 2007.”

Declining participation rate?  People are giving up on finding employment?

“About 2.3 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force
in July, 709,000 more than a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally
adjusted.) These individuals, who were not in the labor force, wanted
and were available for work and had looked for a job sometime in the
prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had
not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.”

Why bother searching for work when there is no work to find?  But don’t worry, Obama said the economy is improving now.

“Among the marginally attached, there were 796,000 discouraged workers
in July, up by 335,000 over the past 12 months. (The data are not
seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not currently
looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them.
The other 1.5 million persons marginally attached to the labor force
in July had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey
for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities.”

Discouraged?  I guess they didn’t get the White House memo that Obama has created or saved 600,000 jobs last month?

“Total nonfarm payroll employment declined by 247,000 in July. From May
to July, job losses averaged 331,000 per month, compared with losses
averaging 645,000 per month from November to April. Since December
2007, payroll employment has fallen by 6.7 million.”

November?  Robert Gibbs said August of last year?  November wasn’t bad enough, they had to use August?  November was the election, that is when we started losing jobs?  Why wouldn’t Obama want us to know that?  Why try to put it at a time when he could blame Bush, rather than blame industry’s lack of faith in his policies?  Why lie about the true unemployment rate?  Does it make people to feel better to know that if they give up on finding a job, or run out of their unemployment benefits, they are no longer unemployed?  Sure, they have no job, no paycheck, and no hope, but relax, they aren’t getting unemployment benefits, which means they aren’t unemployed.  But things are better in America, Obama said so, and he is the most open, transparent and honest President in American history.  He said so.  Or, maybe, He just lied to us again.

Table A.  Major indicators of labor market activity, seasonally adjusted       
(Numbers in thousands)                                                         
                         |                 |                          |        
                         |    Quarterly    |                          |        
                         |     averages    |       Monthly data       |  June- 
        Category         |_________________|__________________________|  July  
                         |        |        |        |        |        | change 
                         |    I   |   II   |  May   |  June  |  July  |        
                         |  2009  |  2009  |  2009  |  2009  |  2009  |        
     HOUSEHOLD DATA      |                 Labor force status                  
                         |        |        |        |        |        |        
Civilian labor force ….| 153,993| 154,912| 155,081| 154,926| 154,504|    -422
  Employment …………| 141,578| 140,591| 140,570| 140,196| 140,041|    -155
  Unemployment ……….|  12,415|  14,321|  14,511|  14,729|  14,462|    -267
Not in labor force ……|  80,920|  80,547|  80,371|  80,729|  81,366|     637
                         |                 Unemployment rates                  
                         |        |        |        |        |        |        
All workers ………….|     8.1|     9.2|     9.4|     9.5|     9.4|    -0.1
  Adult men ………….|     8.2|     9.7|     9.8|    10.0|     9.8|     -.2
  Adult women ………..|     6.7|     7.4|     7.5|     7.6|     7.5|     -.1
  Teenagers ………….|    21.3|    22.7|    22.7|    24.0|    23.8|     -.2
  White ……………..|     7.4|     8.4|     8.6|     8.7|     8.6|     -.1
  Black or African       |        |        |        |        |        |        
    American …………|    13.1|    14.9|    14.9|    14.7|    14.5|     -.2
  Hispanic or Latino     |        |        |        |        |        |        
    ethnicity ………..|    10.7|    12.0|    12.7|    12.2|    12.3|      .1
  ESTABLISHMENT DATA     |                     Employment                      
                         |        |        |        |        |        |        
Nonfarm employment…….| 133,662|p132,131| 132,178|p131,735|p131,488|   p-247
  Goods-producing (1)….|  19,826| p19,037|  19,041| p18,818| p18,690|   p-128
    Construction ……..|   6,590|  p6,300|   6,310|  p6,224|  p6,148|    p-76
    Manufacturing …….|  12,468| p12,005|  12,000| p11,869| p11,817|    p-52
  Service-providing (1)..| 113,835|p113,094| 113,137|p112,917|p112,798|   p-119
      Retail trade (2)…|  14,933| p14,814|  14,812| p14,791| p14,747|    p-44
    Professional and     |        |        |        |        |        |        
      business services .|  17,048| p16,730|  16,756| p16,650| p16,612|    p-38
    Education and health |        |        |        |        |        |        
      services ……….|  19,138| p19,214|  19,215| p19,252| p19,269|     p17
    Leisure and          |        |        |        |        |        |        
      hospitality …….|  13,235| p13,180|  13,195| p13,177| p13,186|      p9
    Government ……….|  22,543| p22,593|  22,605| p22,557| p22,564|      p7
                         |                  Hours of work (3)                  
                         |        |        |        |        |        |        
Total private ………..|    33.2|   p33.1|    33.1|   p33.0|   p33.1|    p0.1
  Manufacturing ………|    39.6|   p39.5|    39.4|   p39.5|   p39.8|     p.3
    Overtime …………|     2.7|    p2.8|     2.8|    p2.9|    p2.9|     p.0
                         |   Indexes of aggregate weekly hours (2002=100)(3)   
                         |        |        |        |        |        |        
Total private ………..|   101.7|   p99.7|    99.8|   p99.1|   p99.1|    p0.0
                         |                     Earnings (3)                    
Average hourly earnings, |        |        |        |        |        |        
  total private ………|  $18.46| p$18.52|  $18.53| p$18.53| p$18.56|  p$0.03
Average weekly earnings, |        |        |        |        |        |        
  total private ………|  613.60| p612.39|  613.34| p611.49| p614.34|   p2.85
   1 Includes other industries, not shown separately.                          
   2 Quarterly averages and the over-the-month change are calculated using     
unrounded data.                                                                
   3 Data relate to private production and nonsupervisory workers.             
   p = preliminary.