Sunday, December 28, 2014

NYT's Take On The Big Stories Of 2014

Opinion/Editorial

 
 
   Well the New York Times this morning is doing their big stories OPED of 2014 or their take on whats important to them. The title is "Torture, Race, Marijuana and 12 Other Big Issues of 2014" laughable.
   It begins "Wars, pestilence, political upheaval and mass street protests in America were some of the top stories of 2014. Here’s how The Times’s editorial board reacted to the year’s biggest news events as they unfolded."


 
Enemies No More
In one sweeping announcement, President Obama restores full diplomatic relations with Cuba and ends more than 50 years of hostility and sanctions that probably helped the Castro regime stay in power. The move — which included a prisoner swap — could become Mr. Obama’s most significant foreign policy legacy.
 
Next to Obamacare a big dumb ass mistake
 
Die-Ins and Protests of Police Abuses
Police brutality became a national issue this summer with the shooting of Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager, in Ferguson, Mo., which set off riots in November when a grand jury did not indict the officer involved. The issue spawned a national movement after a New York City police officer was captured on video applying the chokehold that killed Eric Garner, an unarmed black man. After a grand jury refused to indict the officer, demonstrators of all races took to the streets from coast to coast chanting or carrying signs with Mr. Garner’s last words: “I can’t breathe.”
 
In the Michael Brown incident the Officer was correct in what he did the NYT knows this.As far as the Eric Garner incident the officers were wrong
 
Bombing Syria and Iraq
The terrorist group the Islamic State seized northern parts of Iraq, including the city of Mosul, and large swaths of Syria, beheaded journalists and brutalized and murdered countless civilians in areas under its control. President Obama responded to this new threat by authorizing bombing campaigns against Islamic State targets in Syria and Iraq. Though he had promised to extract America from wars in the Middle East, he led the nation into this military conflict without Congressional approval, which was just fine with a Congress that has happily avoided debating the war. Mr. Obama has already warned that the fight against the Islamic State will take years.

Of course the NYT is going to take Obama's side on this lol

The Senate Goes Republican
Republicans won control of the Senate for the first time since 2006, and expanded their hold on the House. They campaigned mostly by attacking President Obama on every policy matter, but offered few ideas of their own. No one promised bipartisan compromise, though President Obama suggested there were areas of common interest. The best that Senator Mitch McConnell, the next Senate majority leader, could muster was a vow that maybe the two parties didn’t “have to be in perpetual conflict.”

Any ideas are better than Obama's ideas of Bigger Government

Executive Action on Immigration
President Obama’s decision to bypass Congress was the most significant development on immigration policy in decades. In allowing perhaps five million unauthorized immigrants to stay in this country without fear of deportation, Mr. Obama drew the outlines of a sensible immigration policy. Many Republicans in Congress are furious, because they don’t want to go there.
 
Sensible NO ONE WANTS THEM HERE NYT!
 
The Details of Torture Revealed
After years of delay, the Senate Intelligence Committee released an executive summary of its report on the Central Intelligence Agency’s torture of terrorism suspects, detailing sadistic, illegal interrogation methods, which included waterboarding, beating, sleep deprivation, confining detainees in coffins and “rectal feeding.” It’s time to investigate the perpetrators, starting with former Vice President Dick Cheney and former C.I.A. director George Tenet.
 
Yeah ok NYT so the ISIS and other punk ass satanic groups can lop heads off but you are all ok with that




  

Sunday, December 21, 2014

NYT On Freedom Of Information Act





Opinion/Editorial







      Taken a break for the last couple weeks my apologies.Todays OPED is from yesterday December 20,2014 entitled "Freedom to See Government Records."
      It begins "Among the disappointments of the lame-duck congressional session was Speaker John Boehner’s refusal to schedule a House vote on a broadly supported Senate bill to strengthen the Freedom of Information Act, the federal law that allows journalists and the public to access federal government records.The House unanimously approved a similar measure in February. Both the House and Senate bills would codify the presumption that requests for government documents will be granted and the rule against withholding information absent a “foreseeable harm” to specified government interests that President Obama established in a 2009 executive order
. Both bills would provide judicial review of whether a document request was properly denied, which is currently unavailable. The Senate bill would impose a 25-year limit on withholding government documents that were part of an internal deliberative process.Mr. Boehner’s refusal was frustrating because the chief sponsor of the House version, Representative Darrell Issa, Republican of California, had called for House passage of the Senate bill that Senators Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, and John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, pushed through the Senate on Dec. 8 with no dissent.Once the House failed to act, Mr. Issa urged the Senate to approve the House bill. That didn’t happen because of the late timing and because of Senate opposition to House provisions that would add $20 million to the cost of improving government websites.This should not be the final word. Given the rare level of bipartisan support for F.O.I.A. reform, both Mr. Boehner and the next Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, should see the wisdom of revisiting the issue early in the next Congress." In red is this a ringing endorsement of Sen.McConnell for Senate Majority leader a liberal rag endorsing an establishment RINOpublican
 
 
 
 

Sunday, November 30, 2014

NYT OPED Contributor Adds More Exellerant To The Flames In Ferguson Missouri

Opinion

 
 Well this mornings different I decided to enter a college professor into the debate today writing for the New York Times this morning is Michael Eric Dyson is a professor of sociology at Georgetown University.
 So to my guess he is 99.99% a leftist liberal.The title of his piece is "Where Do We Go After Ferguson?"
 It begins with the usual outright bias from his side of the political asile "WHEN Ferguson flared up this week after a grand jury failed to indict the white police officer Darren Wilson for killing the unarmed black youth Michael Brown, two realities were illuminated: Black and white people rarely view race in the same way or agree about how to resolve racial conflicts, and black people have furious moral debates among ourselves out of white earshot.
  I changed the type color to emphasize the racial bullshit and clear bias.
 He continues "These colliding worlds of racial perception are why many Americans view the world so differently, and why recent comments by President Obama and the former New York City mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani cut to the quick of black identity in America.From the start, most African-Americans were convinced that Michael Brown’s death wouldn’t be fairly considered by Ferguson’s criminal justice system. There were doubts that the prosecution and defense were really on different teams. The prosecutor, Robert McCulloch, looked as if he were coaching an intramural scrimmage with the goal of keeping Officer Wilson from being tackled by indictment."
 There is clearly racism left in America becuase those that cry racsim use it as a crutch or an excuse.
 It goes on  more racsit bile from Dyson "The trove of documents released after the grand jury’s decision included Officer Wilson’s four-hour testimony, in which the 6-foot-4-inch, 210-pound cop said that his encounter with the 6-foot-4-inch, 292-pound teenager left him feeling like “a 5-year-old holding on to Hulk Hogan.” He used the impersonal pronoun “it” when he said that Michael Brown looked like a “demon” rushing him. To the police officer and to many whites, Michael Brown was the black menace writ large, the terrorizing phantom that stalks the white imagination.
These clashing perceptions underscore the physics of race, in which an observer effect operates: The instrument through which one perceives race — one’s culture, one’s experiences, one’s fears and fantasies — alters in crucial ways what it measures.
The novelist Ann Petry vividly captured this observer effect in her 1946 novel “The Street,” in which the African-American protagonist, Lutie Johnson, remarks that racial perceptions of blacks “depended on where you sat.” She explains that if “you looked at them from inside the framework of a fat weekly salary, and you thought of colored people as naturally criminal, then you didn’t really see what any Negro looked like,” because “the Negro was never an individual” but “a threat, or an animal, or a curse.”
  We need to end this racial identity crap.
 And on "After a black man is killed in a failed robbery, she notes that a reporter “saw a dead Negro who had attempted to hold up a store, and so he couldn’t really see what the man lying on the sidewalk looked like.” Instead, he saw “the picture he already had in his mind: a huge, brawny, blustering, ignorant, criminally disposed black man.”
Our American culture’s fearful dehumanizing of black men materialized once again when Officer Wilson saw Michael Brown as a demonic force who had to be vanquished in a hail of bullets.
IT is nearly impossible to convey the fear that strikes at the heart of black Americans every time a cop car pulls up. When I was 17, my brother and I and a childhood friend were pulled over by four Detroit cops in an unmarked police vehicle. This was in the mid-70s, in the shadow of the infamous Detroit Police Department task force called Stress (Stop the Robberies, Enjoy Safe Streets), which was initiated after the 1967 riots. The unit lived up to its name and routinely targeted black people.
As we assumed the position against the car, I announced to one of the plainclothes officers that I was reaching into my back pocket to fish the car’s registration from my wallet. He brought the butt of his gun sharply across my back and knocked me to the ground, promising, with a racial epithet, that he’d put a bullet through my head if I moved again. When I rose to my feet, cowering, showing complete deference, the officer permitted me to show the car’s registration. When the cops ran the tags, they concluded what we already knew: The car wasn’t stolen and we weren’t thieves. They sent us on without a hint of an apology.
My recent dust-up with Mr. Giuliani on national television tapped a deep vein of racially charged perception. In a discussion on “Meet the Press” of Ferguson and its racial fallout, Mr. Giuliani steered the conversation down the path of a conservative shibboleth: that the real problem facing black communities is not brutality at the hands of white cops but brutality in the grips of black thugs. He cited the fact that 93 percent of black homicide victims are killed by black people; I argued that these murderers often go to jail, unlike the white cops who kill blacks with the backing of the government. What I didn’t have time to say was that 84 percent of white homicide victims are killed by white people, and yet no language of condemnation exists to frame a white-on-white malady that begs relief by violent policing.
This doesn’t mean that black people aren’t weary of death ravaging our communities. I witnessed it personally as I sat in a Detroit courtroom 25 years ago during the trial of my brother Everett for second-degree murder, and though I believe to this day that he is innocent, I watched him convicted by an all-black jury and sentenced to prison for the rest of his life.
Many whites who point to blacks killing blacks are moved less by concern for black communities than by a desire to fend off criticism of unjust white cops. They have the earnest belief that they are offering new ideas to black folk about the peril we foment in our own neighborhoods. This idea has also found a champion in Bill Cosby, who for the past decade has levied moral charges against the black poor with an ugly intensity endorsed by white critics as tough love and accepted by most black journalists as homegrown conservatism.
But Mr. Cosby’s put-downs are more pernicious than that. How could one ever defend his misogynistic indictment of black women’s lax morals and poor parenting skills? “Five, six children, same woman, eight, 10 different husbands or whatever,” he liked to recite. “Pretty soon you’re going to have to have DNA cards so you can tell who you’re making love to. You don’t know who this is; might be your grandmother.”
Journalistic mea culpas are now accompanying Mr. Cosby’s Shakespearean fall from grace. He has been recast as a leering king who is more sinner than sinned against as the allegations of drugging and raping women pile up. But these writers avoid mentioning the sexist blinders that kept them from seeing how hateful Mr. Cosby was toward black women long before he was accused of abusing mostly white women.Bill Cosby didn’t invent the politics of respectability — the belief that good behavior and stern chiding will cure black ills and uplift black people and convince white people that we’re human and worthy of respect. But he certainly gave it a vernacular swagger that has since been polished by Barack Obama. The president has lectured black folk about our moral shortcomings before cheering audiences at college commencements and civil rights conventions. And yet his themes are shopworn and mix the innocuous and the insidious: pull your pants up, stop making racial excuses for failure, stop complaining about racism, turn off the television and the video games and study, don’t feed your kids fried chicken for breakfast, be a good father.
As big a fan as he is of respectability politics, Mr. Obama is the most eloquent reminder that they don’t work, that no matter how smart, sophisticated or upstanding one is, and no matter how much chastising black people pleases white ears, the suspicions about black identity persist. Despite his accomplishments and charisma, he is for millions the unalterable “other” of national life, the opposite of what they mean when they think of America.
Barack Obama, like Michael Brown, is changed before our eyes into a monstrous thing that lacks humanity: a monkey, a cipher, a black hole that kills light. One might expect the ultimate target of this black otherness to have sympathy for its lesser targets, who also have lesser standing and lesser protection, like the people in Ferguson, in Ohio, in New York, in Florida, and all around the country, who can’t keep their unarmed children from being cut down in the street by callous cops who leave their bodies to stiffen into rigor mortis in the presence of horrified onlookers.
President Obama’s clinical approach to race was cemented after the 2009 Henry Louis Gates Jr. incident — in which the Harvard professor and the white police officer who arrested him for breaking into his own house were invited to the White House to commune over a beer — convinced him that he should talk race only when his hand was forced.
He has employed a twin strategy: the “heroic explicit,” in which he deliberately and clearly assails black moral failure and poor cultural habits, and the “noble implicit,” in which he avoids linking whites to social distress or pathology and speaks in the broadest terms possible, in grammar both tentative and tortured, about the problems we all confront. It’s an effort that hinges on false equivalencies between black and white and the mistaken identification of effect for cause.
MR. OBAMA spoke twice in the aftermath of the Ferguson grand jury’s decision. He spoke Monday night about America as a nation of laws and said that we must respect the jury’s conclusion, even if we don’t agree with it, and make progress by working together — not by throwing bottles, smashing car windows or using anger as an excuse to vandalize property or hurt anyoneOn Tuesday, the president doubled down on his indictment of “criminal acts” and declared, “I do not have any sympathy” for those who destroy “your own communities.” While he avoided saying so, it was clear that his remarks were directed at the black people who looted and rioted in Ferguson. But their criminal activity is the effect of going unrecognized by the state for decades, a crime in itself. As for the plague of white cops who kill unarmed black youth, the facts of which are tediously and sickeningly repetitive and impose a psychological tariff on black minds, the president was vague, halting and sincerely noncommittal.Instead, he lauded the racial progress that he said he had witnessed “in my own life,” substituting his life for ours, and signaled again how his story of advancement was ours, suggesting, sadly, that the sum of our political fortunes in his presidency may be lesser than the parts of our persistent suffering. Even when he sidled up to the truth and nudged it gently — “these are real issues,” the president acknowledged — he slipped back into an emotional blandness that underplayed the searing divide, saying there was “an impression that folks have” about unjust policing and “there are issues in which the law too often feels as if it is being applied in discriminatory fashion.”
Whose impression is it, though that word hardly captures the fierce facts of the case? Who feels it? Who is the subject? Who is the recipient of the action? Mr. Obama’s treacherous balancing act between white and black, left and right, obscures who has held the power for the longest amount of time to make things the way they are. This is something, of course, he can never admit, but which nevertheless strains his words and turns an often eloquent word artist into a faltering, fumbling linguist. President Obama said that our nation was built on the rule of law. That is true, but incomplete. His life, and his career, too, are the product of broken laws: His parents would have committed a crime in most states at the time of their interracial union, and without Martin Luther King Jr. breaking what he deemed to be unjust laws, Mr. Obama wouldn’t be president today. He is the ultimate paradox: the product of a churning assault on the realm of power that he now represents.
No wonder he turns to his own body and story and life to narrate our bodies, our stories and our lives. The problem is that the ordinary black person possesses neither his protections against peril nor his triumphant trajectory that will continue long after he leaves office.
More than 45 years ago, the Kerner Commission concluded that we still lived in two societies, one white, one black, separate and still unequal. President Lyndon B. Johnson convened that commission while the flames that engulfed my native Detroit in the riot of 1967 still burned. If our president and our nation now don’t show the will and courage to speak the truth and remake the destinies of millions of beleaguered citizens, then we are doomed to watch the same sparks reignite, whenever and wherever injustice meets desperation.
 I saw the dust up between former NYC Mayor and Dyson on TV and Dyson played the race card as he did in his bloviating here
 

Sunday, November 23, 2014

Now NYT Whining About Getting Rid Of Obaney Care

Opinion/Editorial
 
  Well todays piece is now on the New York Times crying about Obaney Care. Their rant this morning and lead OPED "The Piecemeal Assault on Health Care."
   It begins "Now that they will dominate both houses of Congress, Republicans are planning to dismantle the Affordable Care Act piece by piece instead of trying to repeal it entirely.
They are expected to hold at least one symbolic vote for repeal in the next session so that newly elected Republicans who campaigned against the law can honor their pledges to repeal it. But Republican leaders know they don’t have the supermajorities needed to override a presidential veto, so they will try to inflict death by multiple cuts.
All of the provisions they are targeting should be retained — they were put in the reform law for good reasons. Some may need adjustments now that they are in effect. But the Republicans are not interested in improving any provisions. They are bent on destruction."
MEDICAL DEVICE TAX Congressional Republicans are determined to repeal this tax and are virtually certain to succeed, thanks to strenuous lobbying and campaign contributions from the device industry.
The Affordable Care Act imposes a 2.3 percent excise tax on medical devices, like artificial joints and pacemakers, which will raise $29 billion over the next decade to help pay for health care reform. Last year, the Senate voted 79 to 20 to repeal the tax, with 34 Democrats joining the majority on a nonbinding sense-of-the-Senate measure. Even stalwart liberals, like Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Al Franken of Minnesota, who have device manufacturers in their states, voted against the tax.
There is no good reason to eliminate the tax. The Congressional Research Service estimated in a report this month that the tax will have “fairly minor effects” on the industry’s output and jobs (reducing them by a fraction of 1 percent) and a “negligible” effect on the price of health care.
EMPLOYER MANDATES The reform law penalizes firms with more than 50 full-time workers if they don’t offer affordable health insurance. The vast majority of bigger firms already cover their workers and seem inclined to continue to do so.A few high-profile employers have converted full-time workers (employed at least 30 hours a week) to part-time to avoid the cost of providing insurance. Republicans want to raise the threshold to 40 hours to allow more businesses to escape providing insurance. Eliminating the mandate completely could increase the number of uninsured people by anywhere from 200,000 to 500,000 and cost the federal treasury $46 billion to $130 billion over 10 years, according to estimates from the Urban Institute and the Congressional Budget Office. The cost includes additional federal spending for Medicaid and for marketplace subsidies to cover the increased number of workers without insurance, as well as the loss of the revenue from penalties on the employers.
That is too many people to cut adrift and too much public money to lose. A better path would be to improve the mandate by, for example, requiring employers to spend a minimum percentage of payroll on health benefits, with provisions to ensure that low-wage workers benefit.
RISK TO INSURERS House Republicans may try to repeal a temporary program that protects insurers against unexpectedly high losses and thus encourages them to offer policies on the health insurance exchanges. The Republicans claim, wrongly, that the program is a federal bailout of private insurers. In truth, the program mostly redistributes money among the insurers and will not cost the federal government anything over its three-year existence. Eliminating the program could drive up premiums on the exchanges, because insurers would have to raise premiums to offset the additional risk.
INDIVIDUAL MANDATE The requirement that the vast majority of Americans obtain health insurance or pay a fine is a centerpiece of health reform, because people would otherwise wait until they were sick to buy insurance. That would cause the insurance pools to be filled with sick people requiring expensive care, and premiums would have to rise to cover their costs.
The reform law solved that problem by requiring everyone — healthy and sick, young and old — to join the risk pools from the start. Repealing the individual mandate would send premiums soaring, drive some insurance companies to curtail individual coverage, and ultimately destroy the viability of the health insurance exchanges on which people can shop for affordable policies.
Repealing the individual mandate would harm millions of newly covered Americans, who deserve decent, affordable health care and until now have not had it.
The reality is that over 99.99% of us the American people dont want any form of forced health care on to us but the left and Obama and Mitt Romney think they all know better than us LMAO!
 
 
 

Sunday, November 9, 2014

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! NYT Is Crying

 
 
Opinion

 
 Well its nice to see this mornings lead oped from the New York Times for a change after their team got its asses handed to them around the country this past Tuesday.The President was on political trial along with all his minions including the New York Times LMAO!Oh by the way the title I thought was appropriate taken from Jamie's Crying a Van Halen hit from the late 70's off their self titled album.
 They are whining this morning BIG TIME! Their Bullshit rant "Dark Money Helped Win the Senate
is the title its going to be fun to nail these guys today.
It begins "
The next Senate was just elected on the greatest wave of secret, special-interest money ever raised in a congressional election. What are the chances that it will take action to reduce the influence of money in politics?
Nil, of course. The next Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, has long been the most prominent advocate for unlimited secret campaign spending in Washington, under the phony banner of free speech. His own campaign benefited from $23 million in unlimited spending from independent groups like the National Rifle Association, the National Association of Realtors and the National Federation of Independent Business.
The single biggest outside spender on his behalf was a so-called social welfare group calling itself the Kentucky Opportunity Coalition, which spent $7.6 million on attack ads against his opponent, Alison Lundergan Grimes. It ran more ads in Kentucky than any other group, aside from the two campaigns.The $11.4 million spent anonymously for Mr. McConnell, though, didn’t even make him the biggest beneficiary of secret donations, a phenomenon that grew substantially in this election cycle. In the 2010 midterms, when this practice was just getting started, $161 million was spent by groups that did not disclose donations. In this cycle it was up to at least $216 million, and 69 percent of it was spent on behalf of Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
In Colorado, at least $18 million in dark money was spent on behalf of Cory Gardner, the Republican newly elected to the Senate; $4 million was spent on behalf of Senator Mark Udall, the Democratic incumbent. In North Carolina, $13.7 million in secret donations was spent for Thom Tillis, the new Republican senator; $2.6 million went to Senator Kay Hagan, who was ousted.
Dark money wasn’t the only type of spending that polluted the cycle; this year there were 94 “super PACs” set up for individual candidates, all of which are attempts to bypass federal limits and allow big givers to support the candidates of their choice. (These donations have to be disclosed.) Of the $51.4 million these groups spent, 57 percent were on behalf of Democrats. Overall, of the $525.6 million in independent expenditures this cycle (excluding party committees), about 57 percent was for Republicans.
That money wasn’t just spent on attack ads. As Nicholas Confessore of The Times reported, it was used for tracking opponents and digging up damaging information, and expanding the ground game to turn out voters. Republicans used the money to set up a “research” group called America Rising, which existed only to sell embarrassing information and footage about Democratic candidates to Republican campaigns and super PACs.
Political operatives say this year was just a dress rehearsal for 2016, when there will be even more money, much of it secret, all benefiting the interests of the richest and best connected Americans. Given big money’s influence on Tuesday, the chances for limiting it are more distant than ever.
 Dark Money eh thats a new term to the leftist vernacular more polarization from those Communists
Well their full of Bullshit as usual now the GOP needs to do some homework and get rid of House Speaker Boehner and In the Senate say bye bye to Mitch McConnell new leadership is needed

 

Sunday, November 2, 2014

NYT Opines About U.S. Governors Races Instead Of Opining On Federal Midterms

                          New-York-Times-Logo

                                                       Opinion/Editorial



    This is the usual New York Times Editorial Board hit piece pre-election day edition of their BS lead Oped.Entitled "Tax Cuts on Trial in Governors’ Races" is this mornings rant. They obviously don't have the guts to forecast the outcome of the extremely important Midterm federal election because they know their little bitch underlings that is the establishment (especially Democrat) is in deep trouble of losing power in the US Senate.
    The piece begins "There is only so long a governor can do great damage to a state before voters start to demand a change. In Kansas, Gov. Sam Brownback, a Republican who has driven down his state’s credit rating and cratered its budget with ill-advised tax cuts, is paying a huge price in popularity for his actions.Mr. Brownback was elected in 2010 with 63 percent of the vote, but the latest NBC News/Marist poll shows him with only 43 percent support for re-election on Tuesday, a point behind his Democratic opponent, Paul Davis. “He’s leading Kansas down,” one regular Republican voter told a New York Times reporter a few weeks ago. “We’re going to be bankrupt in two or three years if we keep going his way.”Mr. Brownback is not the only Republican governor who is struggling this year because extreme policies have failed. Some of the country’s most damaging governors are caught in tossup races with Democrats, fighting for re-election even while President Obama’s unpopularity has hurt his party’s chances of retaining the Senate."I'm sorry my bad the NYT did mention about the fed races just a smidge.Just a word of note it's never ill advised to have tax cuts the less of our $$$ the Government gets the better.
  It goes on "Of 19 incumbent Republican governors running for re-election, seven are vulnerable to defeat, and one — Tom Corbett of Pennsylvania — is far behind in every poll. Only three of nine Democratic incumbents running this year are in close races.Mr. Corbett, who will probably become the first Pennsylvania governor to be defeated for re-election since 1974, is a good example of how difficult it is to escape blatantly wrongheaded policies. Some of his unpopularity is due to a pornography scandal among state employees, and other voters still blame him for Penn State’s firing of Joe Paterno, the football coach, after the child sex abuse scandal there. But the biggest reason for widespread anger is Mr. Corbett’s decision to cut state education funding by $335 million in 2011, a reduction that hit poor districts particularly hard and from which the schools have never recovered. Even now, as a percentage of public school funding, the state’s contribution ranks 45th in the nation, largely because of big cuts to business taxes, which reduced revenues and forced widespread teacher layoffs and increased class sizes.Similar actions have hurt Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, who won a 2012 recall election with 53 percent of the vote but has not been able to rise above 50 percent in any recent polls. Mr. Walker’s tax cuts have led to a $1.8 billion budget shortfall through 2017, and if he fills it the way he did the last budget gap, of $3 billion, there will be more cuts in aid to schools and cities, and significantly reduced pay and benefits for teachers and state employees. His budget plans are driven by his right-wing ideology. Had he agreed to expand Medicaid, the health program for the poor, the state could have saved more than $500 million over three and a half years.
In Maine, Gov. Paul LePage, perhaps the most conservative governor in America, has routinely embarrassed the state with a series of outrageous statements, claiming that Mr. Obama “hates white people” and comparing the health reform law to the Holocaust. He trails his Democratic challenger, Mike Michaud, in the latest polls. In Michigan, Gov. Rick Snyder’s tax cuts have failed to raise wages or dispel the sense of economic gloom, and Mr. Snyder is tied in polls with the Democrat, Mark Schauer.Still, the most prominent example of failed tax-cut economics is Kansas, where a huge decline in revenues has meant cuts in spending on education and transportation. Far from experiencing the “shot of adrenaline” that Mr. Brownback promised, the state’s job growth has trailed the nation. Mr. Brownback has actually doubled down on his mistakes, saying it is just a matter of time before prosperity kicks in and promising more tax cuts if re-elected.That is one of the reasons Standard & Poor’s has given Kansas a negative outlook on its finances. And it explains why many voters, in Kansas and elsewhere, are giving a negative outlook to ruinous policies and the politicians behind them."
  Funny no attacking of outgoing Gov's like Deval Patrick (D-Ma) who literally ruined Massachusetts running it further into the ground.Typical of the NYT little snide comments about Gov.LePage attacking him on comments about Obama making it a racial issue when there is none.
Its laughable that the NYT editorial board is taking Kansas Gov.Brownback to task on his tax cuts and that states finances I just thank God everyday that the NYT editorial board isn't in elected office this country would be in deeper shit than it already is
  
   
 

Thursday, October 2, 2014

Media Coverage On Oklahoma Islamic Extremist Beheading


   Here are some examples of the headlines no surprise here for example from the New York Times

   Oklahoma Man Is Charged in Beheading of Co-Worker (head line from NYT)

   Oklahoma beheading suspect likely radicalized behind bars  (from Fox News)

   

Oklahoma beheading suspect charged with murder, could face the death penalty

this headline in (Washington Post)
 
People need to wake up and see what you are reading out there.The biased left wing media don't want you or I to know that this was a terrorist act or that was a racially motivated hate crime against white women.Or that this piece of shit Alton Nolen was tied to radical Islam radicalized in prison.Yes for you uninformed socialists and RINO and Obama supporters the same people we are fighting in ISIS.

So what does this tell us common sense that the media outlets most of them are feeding us all their bullshit

Sunday, August 31, 2014

NYT Op-Ed Columnist Nicholas Kristof When Whites Just Don’t Get It After Ferguson, Race Deserves More Attention, Not Less


 He begins "MANY white Americans say they are fed up with the coverage of the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo. A plurality of whites in a recent Pew survey said that the issue of race is getting more attention than it deserves.Bill O’Reilly of Fox News reflected that weariness, saying: “All you hear is grievance, grievance, grievance, money, money, money.”
Indeed, a 2011 study by scholars at Harvard and Tufts found that whites, on average, believed that anti-white racism was a bigger problem than anti-black racism.Yes, you read that right!

 No kidding durr of course its a problem at Harvard and Tufts look who the study is being conducted by liberal so called scholars most of whom think they are smarter than everyone else.
 The rant goes on "So let me push back at what I see as smug white delusion. Here are a few reasons race relations deserve more attention, not less:
• The net worth of the average black household in the United States is $6,314, compared with $110,500 for the average white household, according to 2011 census data. The gap has worsened in the last decade, and the United States now has a greater wealth gap by race than South Africa did during apartheid. (Whites in America on average own almost 18 times as much as blacks; in South Africa in 1970, the ratio was about 15 times.)
• The black-white income gap is roughly 40 percent greater today than it was in 1967.
• A black boy born today in the United States has a life expectancy five years shorter than that of a white boy.
• Black students are significantly less likely to attend schools offering advanced math and science courses than white students. They are three times as likely to be suspended and expelled, setting them up for educational failure.
• Because of the catastrophic experiment in mass incarceration, black men in their 20s without a high school diploma are more likely to be incarcerated today than employed, according to a study from the National Bureau of Economic Research. Nearly 70 percent of middle-aged black men who never graduated from high school have been imprisoned.
  So wait let me guess Nikky boy its blame the white people game.
 He ends his waste of time "All these constitute not a black problem or a white problem, but an American problem. When so much talent is underemployed and overincarcerated, the entire country suffers.Some straight people have gradually changed their attitudes toward gays after realizing that their friends — or children — were gay. Researchers have found that male judges are more sympathetic to women’s rights when they have daughters. Yet because of the de facto segregation of America, whites are unlikely to have many black friends: A study from the Public Religion Research Institute suggests that in a network of 100 friends, a white person, on average, has one black friend.
That’s unfortunate, because friends open our eyes. I was shaken after a well-known black woman told me about looking out her front window and seeing that police officers had her teenage son down on the ground after he had stepped out of their upscale house because they thought he was a prowler. “Thank God he didn’t run,” she said.
One black friend tells me that he freaked out when his white fiancĂ©e purchased an item in a store and promptly threw the receipt away. “What are you doing?” he protested to her. He is a highly successful and well-educated professional but would never dream of tossing a receipt for fear of being accused of Some readers will protest that the stereotype is rooted in reality: Young black men are disproportionately likely to be criminals.That’s true — and complicated. “There’s nothing more painful to me,” the Rev. Jesse Jackson once said, “than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery — then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”
All this should be part of the national conversation on race, as well, and prompt a drive to help young black men end up in jobs and stable families rather than in crime or jail. We have policies with a robust record of creating opportunity: home visitation programs like Nurse-Family Partnership; early education initiatives like Educare and Head Start; programs for troubled adolescents like Youth Villages; anti-gang and anti-crime initiatives like Becoming a Man; efforts to prevent teen pregnancies like the Carrera curriculum; job training like Career Academies; and job incentives like the earned-income tax credit.The best escalator to opportunity may be education, but that escalator is broken for black boys growing up in neighborhoods with broken schools. We fail those boys before they fail us.
So a starting point is for those of us in white America to wipe away any self-satisfaction about racial progress. Yes, the progress is real, but so are the challenges. The gaps demand a wrenching, soul-searching excavation of our national soul, and the first step is to acknowledge that the central race challenge in America today is not the suffering of whites.
 To be honest I don't feel guilty at all its time racism ends and its not coming from Caucasian Americans.

Saturday, March 8, 2014

Anderson Blowhard On Little Soapbox

SalemNews.com, Salem, MA




Anderson: Avoiding the wedge issues in the GOP platform

Barbara Anderson The Salem News

“Apart from that, Mr. Lincoln, how do you like the Republican platform?”
In late February, the Republican State Committee passed a platform that included the following language: “We believe that every abortion is tragic,” and “We believe that the institution of traditional marriage strengthens the family.” This has been, and will be throughout the 2014 campaign, translated by Democrat opponents into “We oppose women’s rights and gay equality” and used against all Republican candidates, even those who are pro-choice and support gay marriage.
In fact, these issues were used against Republican candidates in 2010, when there was no such language in the Republican platform. Sixth District congressional challenger Richard Tisei, who has been pro-choice throughout his political career, was attacked with fliers accusing him of “calling for a ban on abortion, even in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is at risk.”
He was accused of supporting “the Tea Party agenda.” I’m a Tea Party activist and support its agenda, which is fiscal responsibility, not social issues Still, Democrats said it’s opposed to gay rights, then implied that Tisei, who has since married his same-sex partner, shares that position.
So, regardless of what the state Republican Party or the Tea Party actually support or doesn’t support, the state Democrat Party will lie if necessary to use these two hot-button issues to turn off women and young voters. Please be prepared for that, and tune it out. Women don’t need to fear that abortion will ever be banned, and gay marriage is becoming more acceptable every year.
Just to be absolutely clear, Tisei, who is running again for Congress, said in a statement that “The Republican Party should lead the way in getting government off our backs, out of our wallets, and away from our bedrooms, and the party hierarchy would be wise to adopt platforms that promote these values, which are shared by an overwhelming number of citizens in Massachusetts.”
Yes, it should. And actually, the 2010 Massachusetts Republican platform is a beautiful exposition of real conservative principles, beginning with its preamble: “The Massachusetts Republican Party believes in the power of the individual over the power of government and that government must at all times be held accountable to the people. We believe that Massachusetts — the cradle of the American Republic — can once again be a national leader in prosperity and opportunity for all families and individuals.” Most of this year’s platform will repeat this agenda.
As a taxpayer activist, I also note the language relating to taxes, which says that “a two-thirds vote of the Legislature should be required in order to raise taxes” and, relative to last year’s gas tax increase, states that “we oppose the indexing of any tax to the rate of inflation.” Most if not all Republican candidates will be supporting the question that will be on the ballot with them, to repeal the new provision for automatic annual gas tax increases.
When I was 12, I read “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” and told my Democrat parents, in my Pennsylvania Democrat hometown, that I was going to be a Republican when I grew up because President Lincoln freed the slaves. Later I felt more at home as an independent, but certainly voted, along with the majority of Massachusetts, for Ronald Reagan with his platform of fiscal and personal responsibility, and his optimistic certainty that America is the last best hope of humanity.
That message is more important this year than ever. With so many things going wrong in the state, federal and international arenas, America is no longer so clearly the best hope of humanity but potentially an example of how the mighty fall. Republicans must get focused on what matters, and what they can do to effect reform and other positive change. I know many conservatives who are opposed to abortion and gay marriage, yet have no interest in bringing them into the political arena.
A local Facebook friend, Brad White, in response to my horror at seeing the Republican State Committee platform drag out these losing issues, wrote this:
“The social issues are by and large wedge issues, useful to divide, useless to unite even by mild agreement ... I am not suggesting that those with strong views on either side abandon their principles for the sake of winning elections. Rather I am suggesting that one consider the role of government in a free society and the use of government to enforce what are, at their core, founded mostly in religious objection. I may feel strongly about certain things that annoy me, but I have no right to ask that government force be used to satisfy my peeves, however strongly held.
“I am also suggesting that if you feel strongly about an issue … you work to correct that in the secular realm, let people come to their own minds over time by persuasion and not force…
“Instead, turn to the core aspects of limited government, fiscal restraint, integrity and transparency and defense of the individual, not their destruction. When one side of the party preaches smaller, more efficient government but insists on giving that government power and control over private decisions, you have put fear in place of hope.”
I couldn’t have said it better, which is why I didn’t try. All I can do is urge everyone who wants a better-run Massachusetts and hope-inspiring America to ignore the very small group of activist Republicans who push these intolerant and losing platform planks, and to disregard the Democrat lies about the Republican candidates who do not take these positions. I’ll be voting for whoever reflects traditional Republican values as stated in the platform preamble: the power of the individual against the power of unaccountable, uncontrolled government.


Barbara Anderson of Marblehead is president of Citizens for Limited Taxation and a Salem News columnist.

Commentary

Anderson cannot and should not define the Tea party as I have highlighted in blue above.A nobody who has been a no one for the longest time in Massachusetts Politics