Filed under: Environment, Global Warming, News the Media Doesn't Want You to Hear, Politics, Progressivism | Tags: Climate Change, Debunking Liberal Lies, Global Warming
Actually, it was yesterday, but nonetheless — “progressive” warm-mongers hardest hit:
Himalayan glaciers are actually advancing rather than retreating, claims the first major study since a controversial UN report said they would be melted within quarter of a century.
Researchers have discovered that contrary to popular belief half of the ice flows in the Karakoram range of the mountains are actually growing rather than shrinking.
The discovery adds a new twist to the row over whether global warming is causing the world’s highest mountain range to lose its ice cover.
It further challenges claims made in a 2007 report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the glaciers would be gone by 2035.
Although the head of the panel Dr Rajendra Pachauri later admitted the claim was an error gleaned from unchecked research, he maintained that global warming was melting the glaciers at “a rapid rate”, threatening floods throughout north India.
Filed under: Liberalism, News, Politics, Progressivism | Tags: Congress, Debunking Liberal Lies, Democrat Corruption, Democrats
Thirteen percent approve of the current Democrat congress — the worst approval rating of any congress since Gallup started polling the issue 30 years ago. That means almost no one approves of this “progressive” congress other than staffers and family members.
Can we finally admit it? Worst congress EVER!
Filed under: Health Care, Socialism | Tags: AARP, Boeing, Debunking Liberal Lies, Obamacare
Boeing and AARP join the long and growing list of companies that have announced that, contrary to Democrats’ bald-faced lies, Obamacare is making their health care prices skyrocket.
Which is exactly what it was designed to do. Obamacare has always been designed to regulate the industry so heavily that prices would skyrocket, forcing companies to dump their coverage, and making individual plans so expensive that people would have no alternative but to get on the government plan. That’s why Obama’s top health care adviser, the architect of this deceitful, underhanded sabotage of the private health care market, Jakob Hacker, joked with a radical left audience that Obamacare isn’t a “Trojan Horse” for socialized single payer healthcare, but that, “it’s right there.” And why Democrats from Congress and the administration have been caught on video saying basically the same thing.
Obamacare was NEVER designed to make care less expensive, it was NEVER designed to let you keep your plan or keep your doctor, it was always, always, always designed to so heavily regulate choice out of the industry, and add the cost of adding more and more and more people to the “free” tax-payer subsidized rolls, that private healthcare would soon become so expensive that only the very rich would be able to afford their own coverage.
THAT is what “progressives” call “competition”. Sabotage of competition. Sabotage of choice. Sabotage of freedom. Sabotage of independence.
Which is why Obamacare is not just wrong, it truly is evil.
And why it MUST be repealed.
Update: Just to be clear, this Death Star photoshop has been around for a while, it’s not one of my photoshops, all I did was add the text. If anyone knows the artist, please let me know. I would love to give credit where it is due.
(h/t Michelle Malkin)
Filed under: Election 2010, Health Care, News, Politics, Progressivism | Tags: Debunking Liberal Lies, Obama, Obamacare
Obama before the election: Oh yeah, this election is a referendum on my agenda:
“My name may not be on the ballot, but our agenda for moving forward is on the ballot, and I need everybody to turn out,” Obama said Tuesday afternoon during an appearance on the Rev. Al Sharpton’s radio show.
Obama after the election: Biggest defeat in 70 years proves Americans love my policies and want to step on the gas! :
“We’d be misreading the election if we thought the American people want to see us, for the next two years, relitigate arguments we had over the last two years,” Obama said when asked about Republican promises to dismantle the health-care legislation.
…When he was reminded that one in two voters said they opposed the health-care bill, Obama shot back that the statistic “also means one out of two voters thinks it was the right thing to do.”
…He said that his policies had made the economy better, but that “clearly too many Americans haven’t felt that progress yet, and they told us that yesterday.”
Now, of course it’s a complete lie that one out of two voters approve of Obamacare. The truth is that 58% of likely voters, just two days ago, said they favor complete repeal of Obamacare (keep in mind, Obama only won the presidency with 53%) and only 36% oppose repeal.
That’s a mandate. And Obama cannot make it go away with his silver-tongued lies.
Filed under: Election 2010, News, Politics, Pop Culture, Progressivism, Television | Tags: Ariana Huffington, Debunking Liberal Lies, Glenn Beck, Jon Stewart, Racism, Steven Colbert, Tea Party
White liberals, like those at the all-white MSNBC, have been desperately attempting for months to smear the Tea Party as “racist” despite the fact that many Tea Party leaders, speakers, participants and Tea Party backed candidates are themselves minorities. Indeed, the propagandists at MSNBC even went so far as to claim that a man protesting Obamacare carrying a rifle over his shoulder and a handgun holstered on his hip was evidence of the racist nature of those who oppose the Obama agenda, while cropping the man’s head and hands out of the shot so their misinformed audience could not see that the armed Obama protester was a BLACK man.
So it is with particularly schadenfreudistic glee that I report not only how monochromatically WHITE the audience was at Jon Stewart’s White-Hipster-Youth Rally, but that in addition to being much less diverse than Glenn Beck’s rally, this great “progressive” show of force, was only a small fraction of the size of Beck’s rally. Considering how much they loathe Beck, and how desperately they were hoping to show him up — that’s really gotta sting.
Heh.
Now, to be fair, there were at least a handful of minorities at the rally. Perhaps even a dozen or so. If you look very carefully at the Continue reading
Filed under: Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Economy, Statism, Taxes | Tags: Debunking Liberal Lies, Liberalism is a Mental Disorder, When Democrats Attack
Democrats have been frightened, and puzzled, by the Tea Parties. They simply don’t get it. And when something their opposition does scares them, they attack.
The Tea Party movement grew quickly from its start with CNBC correspondent Rick Santelli’s rant on February 19, 2009 when he charged that “the government was supporting bad behavior.” Videos of Santelli’s rant went viral. What’s called the Tea Party has been a movement of isolated groups assembling to protest the spending by the Obama administration. Over a year and a half later, these small groups have become a national grassroots movement of people committed to common objectives. Approximately half have never before been involved in politics.
Frightened Democrats quickly found the rallies violent — the original tea party was in support of the Revolution ( they had to look that up). Was this the beginnings of an attempt to overthrow the government? It was not a movement but “a disparate band of vaguely connected gatherings that do surprisingly little to engage in the political process.”Some liberal writers claimed that the Tea Party was really an American “fascist” movement. Others decided that “the Tea Party is racist.” It’s an accretion of various movements of past decades — a “front group for the Republican party, a “media creation“, “AstroTurf,” invented by “the usual suspects“, the “Christian Right,” the “older anti-Communist Right,” a “conventional Republican group funded by Big Business,” and “those most likely to benefit from right-wing middle class insurgencies are not the embattled middle classes, but the business interests and the wealthy associated with the Republican Party.”
Glen Beck’s big Rally on the Mall in Washington DC was really scary. Hundreds of thousands of people came from all over the country to peacefully protest. The Liberal establishment was reared on protest, violent protest against the Vietnam war being drafted to serve in the Vietnam war, and they knew what protests were supposed to be like. These right wingnuts paid their own way, and even worse, cleaned up neatly after themselves. A few weeks later, Democrats tried to show them up, and even though they bussed in all sorts of SEIU members paid to attend, couldn’t get a significant crowd. That’s something to worry about.
The next line of attack — Liberals all seem to say the same thing at the same time — was the Billionaire Koch brothers. Democrats have so long called the Republicans the “Party of the Rich” and the party of Big Business that they have come to believe that it is true. They try to tar the Republican party with being the party of Wall Street. (In the last election, Wall Street supported Barack Obama, and the administration is filled with people from Goldman Sachs). Although both parties are lucky enough to have some wealthy supporters, Obama’s claims of support from thousands of little people just wasn’t true, he was supported by the labor unions, big money from Wall Street and environmental organizations, and foreign money as well.
After John Kerry’s failure to capture the White House in 2004, George Soros, Progressive Insurance chairman Peter B. Lewis and S&L tycoons Herb and Marion Sandler were angry and depressed. After giving millions of dollars to liberal candidates and 527 groups they had nothing to show for it. They decided they needed a long term strategy to bring the Party back from the political wilderness.
In April 2005. George Soros gathered together a group of seventy millionaires and billionaires to form a fledgling political financial clearinghouse. They called it the Democracy Alliance, and to join there was one requirement. You had to be rich. Members paid a $25,000 fee to join and $30,000 in yearly dues. They must also pledge to give at least $200,000 annually to groups that Democracy Alliance endorses. You have Billionaire George Soros, Billionaire Peter B. Lewis, Billionaires Herb and Marion Sandler, Rob McKay (Taco Bell Fortune), SEIU (Members Dues), Bernard Schwartz (Loral Space & Communications), Rob Glazer (RealNetworks), Tim Gill (Quark), Ann Bowers (widow of Intel founder), and so on through at least seventy members. Lists of the millionaires in Congress are readily available, and dominated by liberals. Blaming Republicans as the party of the rich begins to look a little, well, rich! Being without foundation has never deterred a Democrat accusation.
Google “the Koch Brothers” and you will find articles by the dozens about “Billionaire Koch Brothers” as the evil force behind the Tea Parties (they’re not), Billionaire Koch Brothers are polluters (they don’t buy the global warming myth), The Billionaire Koch Brothers are partly in the business of refining petroleum (dirty oil not clean wind) Fred C. Koch co-founded the company in 1940 and developed an innovative crude oil refining process. His sons, the Billionaire Koch Brothers are libertarians, and confirmed philanthropists. David Koch has recently given one hundred million dollars to Lincoln Center, 2.5 million dollars to the New York City Ballet, over forty million to Sloan Kettering, fifteen million to New York-Presbyterian Hospital, a hundred and twenty-five million to M.I.T. for cancer research, twenty million to Johns Hopkins University, and twenty-five million to the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. They are concerned with free market causes, and support some of those organizations as well.
You might want to notice that liberal attacks are usually based on — the rich, racists, fascists, fat-cats, Wall Street, Big Business, Big Oil, the poor, the children, the homeless and of course — billionaires. Those on the right want to talk about policy. They want to talk about what works and what doesn’t and why. They want to talk about history and evidence from other countries. Liberals do not want to talk about evidence — it doesn’t interest them. As Nancy Pelosi so aptly described their position: “We have to pass the Health Care bill, so we can find out what’s in it.”
That smug remark sums up the liberal position. Statistics, studies, evidence simply do not matter. What matters is winning, and the power that winning creates. If they actually cared about all those groups they pretend to favor, they would be interested in just how their policy would work. They don’t care that the law they passed that they celebrate as an achievement after 60 years is failing everywhere else. What they care about is that they won.
Filed under: Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Economy, Health Care, Law | Tags: A Whining President is Not Attractive, Debunking Liberal Lies, Drifting Off Into Complete Falsehood
President Obama is out on the campaign trail, complaining, self-pitying, and demanding. He says the tough economy has made it hard for his supporters to retain their buoyant sense of optimism. “I know there are times when probably it’s hard to recapture that sense of possibility.” The public is just not thinking clearly. It is always about him and it’s never about the policy.
The economy had turned sharply down when Obama entered office with a Democrat controlled House of Representatives and a Democrat controlled Senate. Although Republicans did not have the votes to change any legislation, the president likes to claim that Republicans made a strategic decision to oppose all of his policies. Since there was nothing Republicans could do to oppose his policies except talk, this is simply whining. The president views “bipartisanship” as the necessity for everyone to agree with his policies.
Abe Greenwald had a line in his post at Commentary today that got right to the point:
Those opposed to the stimulus were not the reactive “party of no;” they were the party of knowing.
Republicans tried to explain that Keynesian stimulus has never worked in the past. They tried to explain that incentives matter, and that the “multiplier effect” was a flawed idea. Greenwald went on to say that the president is getting an education:
Kind of like a school where the $862 billion tuition is picked up by the public and word problems describe real people in real circumstances. If unemployment is at 7.7 percent and you invest $7 billion of taxpayer money in the study of ant behavior, sage grouse mortality, and corporate travel and the refurbishment of abandoned forts, how many speeches attacking George W. Bush will you have to make before November?
Obama apparently knows that much of his stimulus money was wasted. David Brooks says that Obama told him a year ago that “there are no shovel-ready projects.” We don’t know if he has learned anything about health care. Ms. Sebelius at HHS is busily granting exemptions to McDonald’s, the United Federation of Teachers, and 28 other employers, exposing the unworkability of ObamaCare even before it comes into effect. The waivers clearly threaten the whole idea of America as a country of laws, not men. “Hall passes for some, not others,” to return to Greenwald’s analogy.
This bunch of naive economic illiterates is so intent on the ideology — we will have free public health care for everybody and they will be dependent on us and reelect us in perpetuity — that they cannot recognize the actuality staring them in the face.
The Massachusetts plan on which ObamaCare is based has the most expensive insurance premiums in the country. People wait till they get sick to sign up. Doctors are fleeing Massachusetts for places where they are better treated. All those “scare stories” about NHS in the British papers are real life-damaging or life-ending results of an inevitable sluggish bureaucracy making decisions for and about people who should be making those decisions themselves with their doctors.
Most countries with government-run health care are desperately trying to find a way to turn medical decisions back to patients and their doctors. Basic arithmetic should inform that if you insure some 30 million more people it is going to cost more — way more, but this simple calculation is beyond them.
“Obama 2.0” which the administration is planning now, will involve the same bad policies, but they will explain them better, so that everyone understands how inspirational they are.
Filed under: Economy, Election 2010, News, Politics, Progressivism, Taxes | Tags: Debunking Liberal Lies, Democrats, FDR, Great Depression, Great Recession, Jimmy Carter, Obama
(image credit: TIME)
FDR’s Great Depression, Jimmy Carter’s 1970’s malaise, and Obama’s never-ending Great Recession all have one thing in common — progressive Democrat policies.
Recessions happen. Recessions are a normal part of the business cycle; the natural ebb and flow of economic growth. Recessions, when the market is allowed to work, historically correct themselves fairly quickly — better still when the market is actually freed up.
Depressions, on the other hand, take work. Depressions take arrogance. Depressions take Democrats — the mind-boggling belief that government seizure, command and centralized control of millions of individual economic decisions will somehow foster and aid growth; that punishing economic activity with greater taxation and regulation will somehow encourage more of it; the inexplicable faith that what is most needed in times of economic stagnation is more bureaucracy.
A new study by UCLA economists, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian, affirms what conservatives have long known — that FDR’s New Deal policies thwarted economic recovery for seven long years and turned what should have been a recession into the Great Depression:
“High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns,” Ohanian said. “As we’ve seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market’s self-correcting forces.” [read more]
“Progressives” do not ease economic suffering — they cause it. They do not fix recessions, they cause depressions.
These are lessons that Americans can and should apply to our current endless recession. The reason the economy is not getting better is because the same people who caused it are still in control. Democrats did not inherit this recession — they’ve controlled both houses of congress since a year before it even began and two years before the financial crisis hit. When President Bush and Republicans tried over 20 times to reform Fannie and Freddy, warning of exactly the kind of economic disaster we had if they were not reformed, Democrats blocked them. The economy went south in response to their promises of massive tax increases, massive new spending, massive new regulation and has been unable to recover as no one knows what industry these American fascists will seize next, what massive new regulations and entitlements they will burden industry with — in short, the economy sucks because everyone with two nickles to rub together is terrified of what Democrats will do next.
Like the shirt says: “D” is for “Depression; “R” is for “Recovery”.
Vote, volunteer, and contribute to Republicans as though your country depended on it. It does.
Filed under: Capitalism, Economy, History, Iraq | Tags: Debunking Liberal Lies, Driving the Economy into a Ditch., Heading in the Right Direction?
President Obama continues his parable of “They drove the economy into a ditch…” His claim seems to be, of course, that it’s all Bush’s fault. Obama puts the car in ‘Drive’ (D for Democrat, get it?) and because he’s heading in the right direction, all will be well. Those other folks that put us in the ditch want to put the car in ‘Reverse’ (R for Republican, get it?) and go backwards ‘Repeating’ ( R for Republican, get it?). Obama’s clever joke always gets a laugh, especially his.
I have no particular problem with being the butt of political jokes. I do, however, care about the facts. Obama claims that the economic crisis and our fiscal problems were caused by the massive debts of the two previous illegal wars (The cost of the entire 8 years of the War in Iraq cost far less than Obama has spent in his first 18 months in office).
Obama also wants to blame it all on Wall Street. No one has explained how that works, but there’s a pretty clear track of evidence that starts way back in the Carter administration with the Community Reinvestment Act. It was intended to help get more poor and minority people into their own homes, and home ownership became a popular ideal. As time passed, home ownership was not increasing fast enough, so regulations were passed to make sure that banks made loans readily available, and lowered standards of traditional prudence so that more people could get a loan. Easy Opinions succinctly described what happened:
The government bought bad loans, guaranteed them, pressured bond ratings agencies, and ignored experience, restraint, and regulation. The massive losses of $2 trillion ($2,000 billion) killed our economy.
When we say “the government” we mean those federally guaranteed enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. So when Obama says the economy is heading in the right direction, he means that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been sorted out and reformed, and we will never have that problem again. doesn’t he? Well, no. The big financial reform bill doesn’t do anything at all about either Fannie or Freddie, and they are still encouraged to go on doing the same old thing. If there is anything in government that is not transparent, it’s Fannie and Freddie’s books.
Did you know that George W. Bush called for reform 17 times in 2008 alone? I didn’t think so. Randall Hoven at American Thinker gathered together a snapshot of what our economy looked like in December 2006, after six years of Bush and in the last month before the Democrats took over both houses of the national legislature. And Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House of Representatives — the source of all financial bills and appropriations.
- Unemployment stood at 4.4%.
- Real GDP growth over the previous four years (under a Republican President, House and Senate) averaged 3% per year.
- A gallon of regular gasoline cost $2.30.
- Even the S&P 500 stock index stood at 1418, or 84% above its post-9/11 low and more than 7% higher than when Bush took office.
- Every year of Bush’s presidency, real (inflation-adjusted) disposable income per person went up. By the end of 2006, the average person was making 9% more in real terms than before Bush became president.
The last election in 2006 was considered a referendum on Iraq. The war was not going well, 64% of Americans said the country was on the wrong track, but 55% of Americans said the economy was is good shape. And guess who was saying the War in Iraq was lost? And guess who introduced a bill in the Senate to prevent the Surge?
Filed under: Capitalism, Domestic Policy, Economy, Energy, Liberalism | Tags: Debunking Liberal Lies, Rewards for the Labor Movement, The Definition of Insanity
Supposedly it was Albert Einstein who said: “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” I expect a lot of people are using that quote today.
President Obama announced, to a Labor Day Laborfest today, that he plans to invest $50 billion [more] in “rebuilding and modernizing America’s roads, rails and runways for the long-term.” I thought we had established that the stimulus didn’t work.
He demonized the rich, blaming everything on Wall Street and “the last decade” (which is the new term for it’s Bush’s fault) when everybody supposedly suffered, and from which he will rescue everyone just as soon as the Republicans stop saying “no.” The Middle Class, which was invented by the Labor Unions, is going to be put back to work doing highway and railroad construction, and manufacturing solar cells and batteries for electric cars, and building a “smart grid.”
The problem here harks back to a basic difference between Republicans and Democrats in general. Democrats are apt to start with an idea of “wouldn’t it be great if we could…” and build upon that, figuring out how to get it passed, and how to put it into force. They think politically.
Republicans may start with the same idea, but they don’t start with the politics of the thing; but with questions about whether or not it will work, what experience other countries have had, what the studies say — trying to determine if it is feasible.
I hasten to say that these are generalities, and not all Republicans look at studies, or consider feasibilities. Democrats are not apt to be interested in studies, because most of the studies come from right-leaning think tanks. Once Democrats get their enthusiasm up about doing something, they assume that all negative statements are just Republicans saying “no” rather than warnings about consequences.
When government pays workers to do a job, they are taking money out of taxpayers’ pockets to do so. The economy does not grow. FDR had the NRA, the WPA, the CCC and all sorts of other schemes, but none of them worked. Only the private sector can make the economy grow, because the government has no money of its own.
We have explained that there is currently a worldwide glut of electric batteries — far more than could be used even if buyers suddenly developed an irrational enthusiasm for the Volt, when for the same money they could buy a Mercedes. There is a glut of battery factories responding to government stimulus and government loan guarantees. They won’t survive.
Here are several articles on “the smart grid.” and the economics involved. One comment was: “What’s a trillion dollars or so to bring unreliable power to market?” This is another idea that is not new, it’s been lying around in bits and pieces for years–going back as far as the 1950s and the so-called “smart house.”
President Obama expects to get a lot of mileage out of calling the Republicans the party of “no”, which is profoundly silly; because the Democrats control the House and the Senate, and the Republicans cannot vote anything down. Obama also accuses Republicans of having “no ideas,” which is completely untrue. He just doesn’t like ideas that disagree.
Republicans garner an enormous amount of hate, vitriol and obscenity from Democrats simply by disagreeing. It’s not really rewarding to be put in the position of saying “we told you so,” when the consequences could have been prevented. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
American Elephants 