Tag Archives: obama

Missed The Point: He’s PAID to Campaign for Obama

Missed The Point: He’s PAID to Campaign for Obama

Upon the precipice of the election, this story pops up:

“Obama canvasser charged with groping Loveland woman’s breasts”

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_21907244/obama-volunteer-charged-groping-loveland-womans-breasts

” ‘The female reported an adult male knocked on her door, identified himself as a member of the Obama political campaign and asked to speak with her about her voting status,’ Loveland police said in a statement Thursday afternoon. ‘The victim reportedly spoke with the male for a short time and he then asked if he could give her a campaign sticker. The victim accepted and the male allegedly grabbed her breasts while applying the sticker to her shirt.’

” Colorado Democratic Party spokeswoman Matt Inzeo said Buchanan was not employed by the campaign, but by the state party. ‘We have a zero tolerance policy for inappropriate behavior. As soon as we learned about this incident, we took immediate action, and the person in question has been terminated,’ Inzeo stated.”

People, wke up. The issue is not whether hte man gropeded the woman’s breasts or not. A big he said-she-said. If she is a conservative, it would really be advantageous to discredit the Obama effort. Not to say she is making this up, but that it is utterly impossible to prove things one way or another, unless the guy confesses, or he had a messy jelly donut shortly before grabbing the woman. Or just changed the toner cartridge at the campaign Aych Queue.

Folks: here is the deal: some below-25-year-old saw an ad on Craiglslist and got hired to go door to door to hand out Obama bumper stickers.

Refute me on this. Please try.

This is the definition of pathetic.

On top of that: I have lost my love for the democratic party because back in the day, we would make fun of the republicans by pointing out how they had to PAY people to go deliver yard signs, do phone-banking, and leaflet neighborhoods.

Each and all of which I have done to the level of callouses and slivers and so on.

That was how we saw things: the conservatives could maintain some level of influence because the evil fat cats could always pay to have phone banks and such.

We called it “Astroturf:” it wasn’t real; you paid money and it was laid down in place real quick, and pretty much looked and felt like the real thing but was not. Astroturf.

(If this is lost on you, you will just have to go to wikipedia.)

At the same time, we had to counter-act, and fight, and win/lose 50/50 – but we believed if you had to depend upon actual opinions of the populace to carry out a campaign, then we democrats had the republicans beat hands-down across the board all the time.

We felt self-righteous. We knew we had the moral high ground. If we lost, the modest margin of loss was due to the astroturf effect. When we won, we knew it was because we had prevailed over the un-democratic force of Astroturf.

Well, lo and behold. Four years ago, I am procrastinating by browsing Craigslist, and I start to see the ads to get a job doing this or that – campaigining for Obama, or progress, or the environment, etc.

Covreage of the Astroturf issue picks up steam. It is revealed that all of thes Planned Parenthood demonstrations are composed of two crowds: the staff (big wuup) and paid rapscallions.

So, we have no party. We have no heart. We have no constituency. We have to trump these up, and pay for the populace.

And when you hire people off Craigslist to work a couple weeks for progressive issues or whatever, you are going to get Senor DILLIGAF-Yes-I-Do.

The wealthy hire people to campaigin for them.

We democrats hire people to campaign for us.

We democrats are the wealthy. The establishment. The group who is clinging to what we have in the face of need.

Luke M. Buchanan probably has no preference who wins, and he is the face of our party.

Good night. Game over. Even if we win.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Wrong call, Obama.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/7ef1848a-bfd3-11e1-bb88-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=published_links%2Frss%2Fworld_us_politics%2Ffeed%2F%2Fproduct#axzz1yweCbKid

June 26, 2012 headline: “Obama warns on healthcare ruling”

Today is June 26, and the Supreme Court may reveal their ruling on Health Care Reform bill on THursday Jun 28.

Story by Stephanie Kirchgaessner in Washington   “Barack Obama suggested that any decision by the US Supreme Court to overturn his landmark healthcare law would send the country ‘backwards’ and that Americans did not want to “re-fight” the battle over healthcare.   It was the first sign that beyond the White House’s staunch defence of the Affordable Care Act Mr Obama is prepared to use the law as a rallying cry on the campaign trail. It is a risky strategy: about half the country remains opposed to the legislation, although most voters like the consumer protections that are guaranteed under the law.”

1. Obama looks scared. Damage control before Thursday.

2. Obama is gonna lose points if Healthcare Reform gets struck down, and he goes on the warpath in an attempt to make himself look good – like he represents the will of the people, and is fighting for us in front of the Supreme Court.

Because if Healthcare Reform, or at least the individual mandate, is struck down, the economy is going to jump. Employers will be free from a good degree of uncertainty in their expenses, and will go ahead and hire, or expand, or order, and so on.

So Obama will be running around the coutry ranting against the Supreme Court, while most of us don’t even like the law, and the economy is finally popping.

Man, Romney sure looks out of touch, but Obama really will look out of touch if the scenario runs like this.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The 99%. Who are not in Congress.

The 99%. Who are not in congress.

We have a society with a government and laws not because we are so wise or noble, but because we are human. We are always scheming, and will get away with whatever we can, given the opportunity.

Same goes for business.

What to do? Govern the fairness and ethicality of business. If I pretend to sell you a chunk of gold, and you later find out it was a spray-painted rock, what happens? Do I just laugh, and say, “Sorry, good to see ya, wouldn’t want to be ya?” No. I cheated you. Who do you turn to for fairness?

The government. Police, the courts, and so on.

There will always be someone somewhere trying an unethical, dishonest, dangerous business idea. And there ought to always be government to go to for fairness.

So, Wall Street and the greedy 1% have treated us badly. And we have no one to go to. Who has failed? Big business? Capitalism? Or the government?

The government has failed to look out for us.

Why?

Because they have sold out to the 1%. They don’t care about us.

Here in America, we have figured out that something is majorly wrong. And we are rioting in the streets. The problem is we are so dumb, we cannot figure out who to get mad at, and riot at.

It is the government. Big business, and Wall Street, are behaving as we have known them to be have, and expect them to behave, and as they have always behaved, and always will. Unless properly governed by government.

How have we failed to see this?

Well, it is easy to figure out how the republicans have failed: they are buddies with Wall Street. They see the positives: Wall Street helps businesses thrive, and that is where our jobs come from. Cool. Liberty. But there is liberty and justice, too.

How about the democrats? Where are they? Having lunch with Wall Street. You have been sold down the river. How will they keep you from figuring out you have been the chump? They won’t blame themselves. They are having the steak dinner. If they can distract you, then they can carry on.

Who to blame? “Greed.” A made-up enemy called “the one percent.”

Will we buy it?

Apparently, it has worked like a charm. The democratic legislators eat steak and swear they are for the little man.

And you believe this. You have not figured out: The 1% is Congress.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

More Liberal Censorship at Federal Level

Well, eventually, you may not have to decide whether you are an American, Constitution-supporting democrat, or an oppressive liberal totalitarian.

You may eventually be so utterly misinformed that you cannot even recognize the difference. I still recognize a difference, but that’s just me, the last democrat.

More censorship. Long story short, we liberals have decided that “birth control” (taking birth control pills) is not just a “good idea” as a lifestyle choice, but is a “clinical preventive service.”

What disease does “birth control pills” prevent?

[crickets.]

No, birth control pills are not taken to prevent disease. They are taken to prevent pregnancy. People engage in this medical service or medical intervention to support a desired or preferred lifestyle plan – a plan of no children now, but maybe later.

“Timing of children” is not a cure, or a treatment, or a palliative intevention. I don’t even know how to make this obvious point. it is that obvious. But that does not stop us, we elitist totalitarians. We know how you should live your life. If you don’t we will “educate” you and pay the way for you. That is how sure we are.

So, here we go again. Long story short, the “Institute of Medicine,” a high level panel of supposedly independent medical people, reviewed a set of preventive medical care procedures to seem which should be “paid for” fully, by tax dolalrs. Included was “birth control.” Mainly, tax dollars from all of us being pooled and redistributed to allow anyone with the inclination to have their sexual lifestyle preference supported at the expense of the rest of us.

OK: I am not surprised by our elistist totalitarian efforts at top-down social engineering. But the kicker is this: the govt looked to the IOM report as a guide for what health care reform should and should not pay for. So, the govt simply adopted the totalitarian view of the IOM. At least we everyday, average “comrades” were able to “comment” on a government website.

Until we were censored. FOR OUR OWN GOOD, AS DECIDED BY SOME POLITICAL FUNCTIONARY.

http://www.lifenews.com/2011/10/21/obama-admin-hides-public-comments-against-obamacare-mandate/

Te link may eventually die, so here is a quote with the heart of the matter:

“On September 30th, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) received thousands of negative comments related to the interim final rule published on August 3rd where all insurance plans were informed that they must cover the full range of FDA-approved contraceptives with no co-pay,” Monahan explains. “A very narrowly defined conscience exemption for religious organizations was included which, in essence, covers only places of worship and was originally drafted by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) for a bill in California.”

“Curious to read some of the comments and get a sense of volume, this week I perused the official regulatory website of the government, regulations.gov,” she continues. “Recall that the language from the rule indicated that comments would be posted publicly: ‘All comments are posted on the Internet exactly as received, and can be retrieved by most Internet search engines.’”

“Much to my surprise, my search led me to only a very small number of comments — under 100,” Monahan says. “Knowing that FRC constituents alone submitted close to 12000 comments, and that USCCB constituents filed close to 60,000 comments, I was surprised and assumed I was searching incorrectly.”

Monahan called the regulations.gov helpline and had a customer service representative walk her through the process to assure her she was accessing the web site correctly.

“At the end of that conversation together we located only 58 comments,” Monahan says. “I then asked the customer service representative if HHS may withhold certain comments. The representative ironically began by telling me that the ‘Obama Administration is committed to transparency’ but then told me that HHS has control over what they post.”

 

 

 

“On September 30th, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) received thousands of negative comments related to the interim final rule published on August 3rd where all insurance plans were informed that they must cover the full range of FDA-approved contraceptives with no co-pay,” Monahan explains. “A very narrowly defined conscience exemption for religious organizations was included which, in essence, covers only places of worship and was originally drafted by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) for a bill in California.”

“Curious to read some of the comments and get a sense of volume, this week I perused the official regulatory website of the government, regulations.gov,” she continues. “Recall that the language from the rule indicated that comments would be posted publicly: ‘All comments are posted on the Internet exactly as received, and can be retrieved by most Internet search engines.’”

“Much to my surprise, my search led me to only a very small number of comments — under 100,” Monahan says. “Knowing that FRC constituents alone submitted close to 12000 comments, and that USCCB constituents filed close to 60,000 comments, I was surprised and assumed I was searching incorrectly.”

Monahan called the regulations.gov helpline and had a customer service representative walk her through the process to assure her she was accessing the web site correctly.

“At the end of that conversation together we located only 58 comments,” Monahan says. “I then asked the customer service representative if HHS may withhold certain comments. The representative ironically began by telling me that the ‘Obama Administration is committed to transparency’ but then told me that HHS has control over what they post.”

“On September 30th, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) received thousands of negative comments related to the interim final rule published on August 3rd where all insurance plans were informed that they must cover the full range of FDA-approved contraceptives with no co-pay,” Monahan explains. “A very narrowly defined conscience exemption for religious organizations was included which, in essence, covers only places of worship and was originally drafted by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) for a bill in California.”

“Curious to read some of the comments and get a sense of volume, this week I perused the official regulatory website of the government, regulations.gov,” she continues. “Recall that the language from the rule indicated that comments would be posted publicly: ‘All comments are posted on the Internet exactly as received, and can be retrieved by most Internet search engines.’”

“Much to my surprise, my search led me to only a very small number of comments — under 100,” Monahan says. “Knowing that FRC constituents alone submitted close to 12000 comments, and that USCCB constituents filed close to 60,000 comments, I was surprised and assumed I was searching incorrectly.”

Monahan called the regulations.gov helpline and had a customer service representative walk her through the process to assure her she was accessing the web site correctly.

“At the end of that conversation together we located only 58 comments,” Monahan says. “I then asked the customer service representative if HHS may withhold certain comments. The representative ironically began by telling me that the ‘Obama Administration is committed to transparency’ but then told me that HHS has control over what they post.”

 

“On September 30th, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) received thousands of negative comments related to the interim final rule published on August 3rd where all insurance plans were informed that they must cover the full range of FDA-approved contraceptives with no co-pay,” Monahan explains. “A very narrowly defined conscience exemption for religious organizations was included which, in essence, covers only places of worship and was originally drafted by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) for a bill in California.”

“Curious to read some of the comments and get a sense of volume, this week I perused the official regulatory website of the government, regulations.gov,” she continues. “Recall that the language from the rule indicated that comments would be posted publicly: ‘All comments are posted on the Internet exactly as received, and can be retrieved by most Internet search engines.’”

“Much to my surprise, my search led me to only a very small number of comments — under 100,” Monahan says. “Knowing that FRC constituents alone submitted close to 12000 comments, and that USCCB constituents filed close to 60,000 comments, I was surprised and assumed I was searching incorrectly.”

Monahan called the regulations.gov helpline and had a customer service representative walk her through the process to assure her she was accessing the web site correctly.

“At the end of that conversation together we located only 58 comments,” Monahan says. “I then asked the customer service representative if HHS may withhold certain comments. The representative ironically began by telling me that the ‘Obama Administration is committed to transparency’ but then told me that HHS has control over what they post.”

Enjoy.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Black President Either Way?

Well over a year ago, I noted that Sarah Pailin remained popular, and the Hilary was looking presidential as Sec of State.

So, I threw out the comment that we could have a woman-versus-woman race for the presidency.

https://thelastdemocrat.wordpress.com/2010/02/08/femalepresidenteitherway2012/

Now, it is feasible that we could have a Black candidate versus Black candidate for the presidency.

While neither of these may emerge, it is true that both are feasible, and worth noting for the historicity as far as the demography of the presidency is concerned.

Herman Cain has been receiving a great deal of airtime. The republicans have no leading, strong candidate – each has his or her faults. But the party will have to nominate someone. Could be Cain.

Obama has a bunch of brewing troubles. Solyndra, or the birth certificate dealio, could be a time bomb. The many disenchanted constituencies also are a brewing problem. It is very plausible that Obama could step down, or be run out, and the heir apparent would be Hilary. If Obama does not run, it sure would be hard to figure out who would complete otherwise.

Many dems are beginning to think that running Obama is a sure way to lose, but an easy fix is to have him step down, if aspects of his reign “become distractions,” as they say.

But if he carries on, and Cain can overcome a few key limits,  such as being painted as part of the bad bankers by his support of TARP, he may get the nomination.

So, for one presidential election, it has been reasonable to speculate whether we might have either a female-candidate choice, or a Black-candidate choice.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Real Problem With Solyndra

The real problem with Solyndra

Yes, this whole Solyndra is quite predictable. A govt program to help this our that. It fails miserably to achieve anything close to what it was heralded to achieve. It is discovered that cronysim is rampant.

Nothing new. Both dems and republican wit the hand in the cookie jar,. Nothing new.

If you have not yet come to expect this from every off-track govt program, wake up.

If you believe the democrats are the magnanimous virtuous advocates of the little guy, and would never partake in suhc shenanigans, you have really been sold.

If you have not paid attention because we democrats keep foaming at the mouth about the evil republicans, or the evil Christians, or the evil home-schoolers, or the evil low-tax advocates, or the evil conservatives, or the evil business-leaders, then the dem strategy has succeeded: the elected dems can so whatever they want because you have no intimation to be critical of your own party.

Mission accomplished.

Sure, Solyndra is a tired story: govt fails, cronies get rich, and the campaign war chests are re-stocked.

But here is the real problem with Solyndra: they deprived someone of their civil rights. The essense of civil liberties is the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I get to do what I want, until I move into the range of interfering with your civil rights.

I can play my stereo loud until it interferes with the ability of my neighbor to enjoy their peaceful home. Then, the law can step in to make things work for both of us.

I can set up a hamburger stand if I want. As long as iti is in some parameters, such as not being a health hazard, fire hazard, and so long as I turn over my business taxes.

OK. Fine.

Here is the probvlem with solyndra: the govt, in loaning half a billion dollars into an apparently propsepctive investment, stole the opportunity for some private individual or group to invest in Solydra.

Me opening my burger stand is what I get to do simply because I am here on Planet Earth, and get to do what I want. An investor investing in Solyndra for a billion dollars is simply that investor, or investor group, doing what they want to do simply because they are here on Planet Earth.

we get to do what we want for our livelihood, and with our money, that we choose.

This is freedom, and liberty. If you don’t like it, move to Cuba.

The govt scouted around and found an opportunity to make an emotional, persuasive statement about energy. The govt invested in Solyndra as a way to be a cheerleader. Simply for the promotional value.

The govt was not in it to get a return on their investment. That is not their business. They wanted Solyndra to work so that 1 solar energy could be promoted, and 2 so that the govt could get tax revenue from yet another indivudual enterprise.

Somewhere, there is an investor or investor group who lost the ability to invest in Solyndra. That opportunity was stolen by a competitor. Not another group of investors, but the long arm of the law.

That private investor, or investor group, had the chance to win or lose. Instead, I lost. I lost the tax dollars the govt took from me to give to Solyndra. So, I am complicit in stealing the freedom of the investors to invest in a seemingly promising business opportunity.

Each of us taxpayers lost about $3. (Divide the 500 million by how many taxpayers.)

The counter-argument is that the govt was playing its proper role: governments need to do things where the “market” fails, and markets need to do things where the government fails.

The “market” cannot provide thorough fire department coverage. Too many ppl would decide they were not at risk, and would never contribute regularly, no matter how reasonable the fee. So, we get taxed, and the fire dept gets set up by the govt.

So, a reason to give govt support to Solyndra is because it needs to be done, but the “market” is not workign to provide the capital for them to go create 1,000 (temporary contruction) jobs and 80 permanent jobs.

But that is not the case: Solyndra had maybe a billion in private investment lined up. That just shows that, yes, people would have been at liberty to invest, if only the opportunity were not stolen by the govt.

What next? WE need more healthy fast food, so the govt invests in the nation’s biggest chain of fast food, and undercuts price on competing restaurants?

Whether the invetment pays off or not?

Why not?

Why not is because 1 they would be stealing business from us indivuduals, and so depriving us of our liberty, and 2 running businesses is not the business of the govt.

What could the govt have done? Well, through higher ed, the govt does support research in technologies. That system helps, although an argument can be made that those efforts eventually steal opportunities unfairly.

This might be the coolest thing: line up Solyndra with potential investors. Rent a floor of a hotel and a conference room for a week. Let investors come visit for free, and watch a sales pitch in the conference room.

Like Shark Tank: be the tank, not the shark.

This is a huge problem in our govt nowadays. It rarely gets talked-about. The technical term for this is “crowd-out:” the govt takes over some area of the free market, and with its bully-like abilities and powers, crowds out regular business opportunity that would provide jobs and tax revenue, and most importantly provide liberty.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Yes, We Dems Do Get Pre-Programmed Scripts

http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/join-attack-wire-today

“Join Attack Wire—and help stop the attacks on the President before they start.”

One thing that helped me wake up and see how non-sensical and hypocritical our democratic party is: all my comrades always regurgitated the same talking points when valid attacks were thrown at us.

Now that we have reformed “welfare as we know it,” we are all OK with it. Cuz it was Bill who did it. But before that, if you criticized our support for welfare as we knew it, with its negative “unintended” consequences (i.e., destroying the nuclear family), we spit out the same brain-dead responses. If someone asked how we can support killing unborn babies, we shot back with canned, stale responses. They worked for us because they were repeated so often, with passion, and we get ostracized if we start to voice anything contrary.

Well, things continue.

For this upcoming election, there will be many VALID criticisms of Obama. Rather than consider these, and use these as opportunities to figure out how we might best arrange govt in the USA, we will mindlessly fire back. But we need clear, brief retorts.

Fortunately, we will be fed these messages by email as the challenges emerge:

“When another unfounded attack surfaces, we’ll arm you with the truth so you can share the facts with your friends and family.”

So, go sign up.

This is hilarious. The recruitment email notes the birth certificate issue: “Here’s the deal: We all remember the birth certificate smear, the GOP’s barrage of lies about the Affordable Care Act, and the string of other phony attacks on President Obama that we’ve seen over the past few years.”

Ridiculous. All of my dem friends swore the prez HAD shown his birth certificate. When I countered that the doc was something else, they attacked me rather than listen to truth.

And Obama himself later vindicated me: he eventually shared – get this- exactly what I and others had been noting  – he shared a more legit version.

Yes, Obama has shared 2 birth-certificate-type documents, when we liberals were repeating the dogma that the first one WAS the birth certificate.

So, more of the same will be coming. when someone points out that health care reform makes all of us tax-payers pay into abortion coverage funds, therefore using govt power to force us to pay for abortions with tax dollars, we liberals can spew out some canned untrue response that hides our politically motivated commitment to the campaign funds fromthe abortion lobby.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized