One of (many) infuriating things about liberals is how they speak so smugly about matters of public policy when they literally have no inkling of the situation.
For example, the pipeline the paper mill in Palatka is building to improve the health of the river.
Libs continue to insist that the mill is doing just the opposite, by introducing millions of gallons of poison that is not going into the river currently. (Many of them gain their ignorance from a local newspaper columnist who has demagogued this issue for years.)
Fact: The mill's discharge has been going into the St. Johns River for more than 50 years.
Fact: It is cleaner now than it was 50 years ago.
Fact: The only reason the pipeline is needed is because the environmental standards have been increased.
The mill has spent more than $100 million improving the quality of its discharge. It also spent some $20 million on alternatives to the pipeline that environmental wackos insisted would work. They didn't.
The burden of that cost will fall on the mill workers and its customers.
But the so-called environmentalists don't care about that. They hope to close down the mill and eliminate the jobs of more than 1,000 mill workers. Mother Nature is more important than the workers and their families.
That's liberal compassion. They are always willing to sacrifice YOUR livelihood for their fantasies.
All the environmental regulators agree that by moving the point of discharge to the middle of the river instead of letting it seep into the edge will improve the health of the river, because the solution to pollution is dilution.
Libs, of course, know better. They have total faith in their intellectual and moral superiority.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Friday, September 2, 2011
How to destroy your own argument
Political consultant (and not a very successful one) Bob Beckel is supposed to be one of the smarter liberals. And, of course, libs are smarter than the rest of us anyway.
Yet in a discussion on The Five, on Fox News, Beckel displayed his own ignorance vividly.
As other libs have been doing, he tried to excuse the rant by a Muslim congressman, who accused other members of Congress who are supported by the Tea Party of being racists.
It is inexcuseable and the lib talking points call for them to admit he went over the line.
Then, they follow it up by excusing him because the Tea Party and other conservatives want to balance the budget.
To balance the budget, they want to limit the increase in spending -- without increasing taxes and thereby impeding growth.
Libs equate this to racism on the grounds, as Beckel tried to explain it, that "the most vulnerable" would be harmed by not continuing to increase spending as much as libs want to.
By the most vulnerable, they mean Americans of African ancestry who are poor. Libs imagine they would "suffer" if federal spending increases of the past few years were not further increased.
But, then, out of the blue, Beckel spoke the truth!
"You know, most people on welfare are white," he said.
This is true. But Beckel is so dense he did not realize he had just shot down his own argument. Unfortunately, the other members of the panel did not pick up on it either.
How can it be racist to support limits that would harm more white people than black people?
This could only be true of black politicians. It was a black politician who made the allegation. But he is one who opposes the spending limits.
White conservatives who want to help blacks by producing jobs for them cannot be called racist for wanting sane budget limits that harm mostly white people (if, indeed, they harm anyone).
Yet in a discussion on The Five, on Fox News, Beckel displayed his own ignorance vividly.
As other libs have been doing, he tried to excuse the rant by a Muslim congressman, who accused other members of Congress who are supported by the Tea Party of being racists.
It is inexcuseable and the lib talking points call for them to admit he went over the line.
Then, they follow it up by excusing him because the Tea Party and other conservatives want to balance the budget.
To balance the budget, they want to limit the increase in spending -- without increasing taxes and thereby impeding growth.
Libs equate this to racism on the grounds, as Beckel tried to explain it, that "the most vulnerable" would be harmed by not continuing to increase spending as much as libs want to.
By the most vulnerable, they mean Americans of African ancestry who are poor. Libs imagine they would "suffer" if federal spending increases of the past few years were not further increased.
But, then, out of the blue, Beckel spoke the truth!
"You know, most people on welfare are white," he said.
This is true. But Beckel is so dense he did not realize he had just shot down his own argument. Unfortunately, the other members of the panel did not pick up on it either.
How can it be racist to support limits that would harm more white people than black people?
This could only be true of black politicians. It was a black politician who made the allegation. But he is one who opposes the spending limits.
White conservatives who want to help blacks by producing jobs for them cannot be called racist for wanting sane budget limits that harm mostly white people (if, indeed, they harm anyone).
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Stearns is plugging away
U.S. Rep. Cliff Stearns of Northeast Florida is a low-key guy. I've known him for about 20 years and he is not a headline hunter, but he is a plugger.
As head of the House Energy Committee's oversight subcommittee, he has been investigating the Solyndra deal that just went bust.
In throwing cash all over the nation, the White House tossed a half-billion dollars at Solyndra, which makes solar panels. You know: "green" jobs and all that.
Well, Solyndra just went bankrupt. And 1,100 jobs went down the drain.
The deal smelled fishy from the start, which is why venture capitalists wouldn't put money into it. But one of the investors was a big Democrat cash-bundler. The company got a $535 million loan guarantee from the government.
Stearns has learned that the Office of Management and Budget, which is supposed to recommend a stimulus project before it goes forward, never made a recommendation on Solyndra. It took a while to find this out because the administration stonewalled the congressional effort to get the information.
Yes, that's the same administration that promised to set the highest standards for "transparency." Instead, it has been one of the most secretive and least cooperative.
The Government Accounting Office also has looked at the deal and found that several required steps in the process were leapfrogged.
Now the taxpayers apparently are out the money and Stearns wants to hold hearings to find out how much more of the trillion dollars in stimulus was hurried out the door without proper vetting.
No problem, the White House says. It knew all along that some of the programs weren't going to be a success.
Really?
As head of the House Energy Committee's oversight subcommittee, he has been investigating the Solyndra deal that just went bust.
In throwing cash all over the nation, the White House tossed a half-billion dollars at Solyndra, which makes solar panels. You know: "green" jobs and all that.
Well, Solyndra just went bankrupt. And 1,100 jobs went down the drain.
The deal smelled fishy from the start, which is why venture capitalists wouldn't put money into it. But one of the investors was a big Democrat cash-bundler. The company got a $535 million loan guarantee from the government.
Stearns has learned that the Office of Management and Budget, which is supposed to recommend a stimulus project before it goes forward, never made a recommendation on Solyndra. It took a while to find this out because the administration stonewalled the congressional effort to get the information.
Yes, that's the same administration that promised to set the highest standards for "transparency." Instead, it has been one of the most secretive and least cooperative.
The Government Accounting Office also has looked at the deal and found that several required steps in the process were leapfrogged.
Now the taxpayers apparently are out the money and Stearns wants to hold hearings to find out how much more of the trillion dollars in stimulus was hurried out the door without proper vetting.
No problem, the White House says. It knew all along that some of the programs weren't going to be a success.
Really?
Monday, August 29, 2011
Early warning signs?
Members of Downtown Rotary still are buzzing about a bizarre appearance by Mayor Alvin Brown a couple of weeks ago.
One said the speech -- full of platitudes and mush -- was the "worst speech I ever heard," and this person has heard many.
Yet, it was a prepared speech -- not one off-the-cuff, which might be excused.
On top of that, Brown applauded himself throughout the speech, while members of the audience stared in disbelief.
Since taking office, Brown has announced an "economic summit," which is kind of busywork with no clear reason or purpose. He also has expounded on the need for "downtown development," which has been a theme of every mayor for the past six decades.
The frosting on his cake is a plan to spend $70 million on a trolley.
This is just an old newspaperman's hunch: Before 2015 the RINOs -- I mean "prominent Republicans" -- who helped defeat a competent conservative candidate are going to be offering excuses for their foolish actions.
One said the speech -- full of platitudes and mush -- was the "worst speech I ever heard," and this person has heard many.
Yet, it was a prepared speech -- not one off-the-cuff, which might be excused.
On top of that, Brown applauded himself throughout the speech, while members of the audience stared in disbelief.
Since taking office, Brown has announced an "economic summit," which is kind of busywork with no clear reason or purpose. He also has expounded on the need for "downtown development," which has been a theme of every mayor for the past six decades.
The frosting on his cake is a plan to spend $70 million on a trolley.
This is just an old newspaperman's hunch: Before 2015 the RINOs -- I mean "prominent Republicans" -- who helped defeat a competent conservative candidate are going to be offering excuses for their foolish actions.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Changing times, and minds
In 2008 candidate Barack Obama said President Bush was "irresponsible" and "unpatriotic" because the national debt had increased by $4 trillion during Bush's eight years in office.
President Obama has added more debt in three years than Bush did in eight. Twice as many people are unemployed.
That's not all. The stock market is in turmoil. We have more military involvement in foreign lands than under Bush. China is closing the military gap with us, rapidly.
Yet in an Orwellian comment, the White House press office says the mounting debt is a "validation" of the sagacity of Obamanomics.
How much hypocrisy and chicanery will the American people take? Will they re-elect Obama in 2012 when he is still blaming Bush for all his failures, four years later?
There is a virtual certainty that if the election were next week and there was a 100 percent voter turnout, Obama would be chased from office.
But it is way too early to say what will happen in November 2012.
Obama already is trying to pose as a tax cutter and spending hawk. With the media's help, he might be able to sell that bill of goods to people who don't know the facts or don't care about them.
President Obama has added more debt in three years than Bush did in eight. Twice as many people are unemployed.
That's not all. The stock market is in turmoil. We have more military involvement in foreign lands than under Bush. China is closing the military gap with us, rapidly.
Yet in an Orwellian comment, the White House press office says the mounting debt is a "validation" of the sagacity of Obamanomics.
How much hypocrisy and chicanery will the American people take? Will they re-elect Obama in 2012 when he is still blaming Bush for all his failures, four years later?
There is a virtual certainty that if the election were next week and there was a 100 percent voter turnout, Obama would be chased from office.
But it is way too early to say what will happen in November 2012.
Obama already is trying to pose as a tax cutter and spending hawk. With the media's help, he might be able to sell that bill of goods to people who don't know the facts or don't care about them.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Journalistic malpractice
One local paper was so devoid of news this week that its editors felt the need to run a story made up from scratch by the Associated Press. It is a typical practice in the liberal media.
You select a conservative target and then make up a story that will cast the person in a negative light.
The big story was that Gov. Rick Scott gets health insurance, and pays the same rate as 32,000 other state employees.
Shocking!
Well, OK, not shocking. So, they have to jazz it up a bit.
They revealed the fact that Scott actually opposes the federal government's attempt to take over health care through the vehicle generally known as Obamacare!
That's it.
This is a news story?
Naturally, libs fell all over themselves with outrage. They didn't know what they were outraged about but I do. It is because Scott beat Alex Sink at the polls and became governor. Libs believe only Democrats are fit to hold public office.
They have been working overtime to demonize Scott since he was elected.
In this case, anyone who examined the story would laugh -- if they were capable of critical thinking. But, of course, the public schools don't teach critical thinking. They indoctrinate children to follow the liberal line.
Someone capable of thinking would ask, why shouldn't Scott buy health insurance that the Legislature voted long ago to make available to state employees?
At one time, it was free. Now the employee has to pay a cost. It is a low cost, because it is subsidized. Again, not Scott's doing.
The fact that he agrees with the majority of Americans on Obamacare has absolutely nothing to do with the story. Many of those 32,000 who get the insurance at the same rate undoubtedly agree with Scott. Are they to be held in disrepute also?
Are only those who think Obamacare is good policy entitled to have health insurance supplied by the state?
Previous governors of both parties got the benefits established by law, regardless of what federal government policies they agreed with.
Unlike them, Scott does not accept a salary from the state. This obviously more than makes up the amount of the subsidy he gets on health insurance.
This is a completely fabricated story. It is, in fact, not a news story. It is an attack on Scott.
It is much like one of the made-up stories published by this local daily. At one time they attacked a number of local citizens solely because of the amount of water they use monthly.
Water is a free resource that the city and private companies deliver to residents for a fee. Several years ago the fee structure was revised, in fact, to penalize those who buy larger amounts.
So people were held up to public ridicule and scorn just because they buy large amounts of a product that the city sells.
The implication is that they are "wasting" something valuable that belongs to "society," using more than their "fair share." This is one of liberaldom's favorite myths and themes.
We could not run out of water on the planet Earth if we wanted to. The worst that could happen is that some day Florida residents might have to use water from the ocean, as millions of other people around the gllobe do every day.
Libs also claim that food is scarce. So where are the stories castigating people who spend too much at the local groceries? You won't see those for two reasons: grocery stores spend millions on newspaper ads, and the city doesn't keep records of people's grocery bills, which makes it effortless to cook up a phony story about water usage.
If you read a story in a newspaper, which fewer people do every day, ask yourself: Is this news or propaganda?
You select a conservative target and then make up a story that will cast the person in a negative light.
The big story was that Gov. Rick Scott gets health insurance, and pays the same rate as 32,000 other state employees.
Shocking!
Well, OK, not shocking. So, they have to jazz it up a bit.
They revealed the fact that Scott actually opposes the federal government's attempt to take over health care through the vehicle generally known as Obamacare!
That's it.
This is a news story?
Naturally, libs fell all over themselves with outrage. They didn't know what they were outraged about but I do. It is because Scott beat Alex Sink at the polls and became governor. Libs believe only Democrats are fit to hold public office.
They have been working overtime to demonize Scott since he was elected.
In this case, anyone who examined the story would laugh -- if they were capable of critical thinking. But, of course, the public schools don't teach critical thinking. They indoctrinate children to follow the liberal line.
Someone capable of thinking would ask, why shouldn't Scott buy health insurance that the Legislature voted long ago to make available to state employees?
At one time, it was free. Now the employee has to pay a cost. It is a low cost, because it is subsidized. Again, not Scott's doing.
The fact that he agrees with the majority of Americans on Obamacare has absolutely nothing to do with the story. Many of those 32,000 who get the insurance at the same rate undoubtedly agree with Scott. Are they to be held in disrepute also?
Are only those who think Obamacare is good policy entitled to have health insurance supplied by the state?
Previous governors of both parties got the benefits established by law, regardless of what federal government policies they agreed with.
Unlike them, Scott does not accept a salary from the state. This obviously more than makes up the amount of the subsidy he gets on health insurance.
This is a completely fabricated story. It is, in fact, not a news story. It is an attack on Scott.
It is much like one of the made-up stories published by this local daily. At one time they attacked a number of local citizens solely because of the amount of water they use monthly.
Water is a free resource that the city and private companies deliver to residents for a fee. Several years ago the fee structure was revised, in fact, to penalize those who buy larger amounts.
So people were held up to public ridicule and scorn just because they buy large amounts of a product that the city sells.
The implication is that they are "wasting" something valuable that belongs to "society," using more than their "fair share." This is one of liberaldom's favorite myths and themes.
We could not run out of water on the planet Earth if we wanted to. The worst that could happen is that some day Florida residents might have to use water from the ocean, as millions of other people around the gllobe do every day.
Libs also claim that food is scarce. So where are the stories castigating people who spend too much at the local groceries? You won't see those for two reasons: grocery stores spend millions on newspaper ads, and the city doesn't keep records of people's grocery bills, which makes it effortless to cook up a phony story about water usage.
If you read a story in a newspaper, which fewer people do every day, ask yourself: Is this news or propaganda?
Thursday, August 4, 2011
The plan is working
Never let a crisis go to waste, Barack Obama's closest adviser told him.
But first you have to have a crisis.
If there's not one handy, create one.
Today's fall off the cliff in the stock market is a natural result of the spending and debt binge Obama has been on since he took office.
I'm convinced now that his plan is to create not just a recession, but a Depression.
He and his socialist pals, including George Soros, have to be licking their lips looking back at the 1930s, when Franklin D. Roosevelt was able to move America further toward socialism than it had ever been. He did it by using the crisis at hand, which he didn't create but made worse.
Herbert Hoover had cut taxes and the nation was heading out of the recession of 1929 when Congress passed the worst piece of legislation ever, the Smoot-Hawley tariff. That put the nation, and the world, into a depression.
Roosevelt, after being elected by promising to cut taxes and balance the budget, did the opposite. When people needed jobs and food, he jailed employers for trying to lower wages and sell food at lower prices. His make-work job programs employed some people, but kept them out of work in the private sector.
Even his own financial adviser admitted at the end of FDR's first term that nothing they had tried had worked.
Obama's plan is to do everything FDR did, and double or triple it. With the nation in a depression, he can assume huge powers for the government, as FDR did, and the freedoms lost this time may never come back.
The only risk he is taking is that the economic hardships he is creating will backlash in November 2012 and prevent him from being elected. He is counting on Soros and the media to keep that from happening.
If he wins his gamble, there is nothing to stop him.
But first you have to have a crisis.
If there's not one handy, create one.
Today's fall off the cliff in the stock market is a natural result of the spending and debt binge Obama has been on since he took office.
I'm convinced now that his plan is to create not just a recession, but a Depression.
He and his socialist pals, including George Soros, have to be licking their lips looking back at the 1930s, when Franklin D. Roosevelt was able to move America further toward socialism than it had ever been. He did it by using the crisis at hand, which he didn't create but made worse.
Herbert Hoover had cut taxes and the nation was heading out of the recession of 1929 when Congress passed the worst piece of legislation ever, the Smoot-Hawley tariff. That put the nation, and the world, into a depression.
Roosevelt, after being elected by promising to cut taxes and balance the budget, did the opposite. When people needed jobs and food, he jailed employers for trying to lower wages and sell food at lower prices. His make-work job programs employed some people, but kept them out of work in the private sector.
Even his own financial adviser admitted at the end of FDR's first term that nothing they had tried had worked.
Obama's plan is to do everything FDR did, and double or triple it. With the nation in a depression, he can assume huge powers for the government, as FDR did, and the freedoms lost this time may never come back.
The only risk he is taking is that the economic hardships he is creating will backlash in November 2012 and prevent him from being elected. He is counting on Soros and the media to keep that from happening.
If he wins his gamble, there is nothing to stop him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
