Stick A Fork In Him? Krauthammer Says Newt Is ?Done?
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
O'Reilly On Presidential Field On The GOP Side
O'Reilly: Race, Republicans And The Presidential Election
Mark Levin On Racism At MSNBC And NBC
Mark Levin: "Racism Abounds Over There At MSNBC And NBC"
“Let’s go play their game a little bit,” Levin said. “Let’s go look at NBC News. A very, very white guy is in charge of the company that owns NBC News. NBC News is run by very, very white guys. ‘Meet the Press’ has only had white guys in the anchor chair. ‘NBC Nightly News’ – a white guy. Let’s look at their bastard off-child, MSLSD: Chris Matthews – the whitest of the white guys, Joe Scarborough – white, Ed Schultz – fat and white, Larry O’Donnell – mental patient and white, Rachel, what is her name anyway, Maddow – white. It’s so white over there I’m blinded.”
Monday, May 16, 2011
Salem News Right On Governor's Council Wrong On Lenk
 |
| Opinion |
The Governor's Council consists of eight elected members from districts that span the state, plus the lieutenant governor. A holdover from Colonial days, its primary function is to vet the governor's appointments, most notably, of judges.
There is currently a move afoot in the Legislature to abolish the council and transfer its responsibilities either to the Senate or an appointed review panel. The measure is now scheduled to come before the Constitutional Convention, consisting of the members of both the House and Senate, in July; and if approved there, would go on the ballot.
Those who support eliminating the council argue that it is merely a rubber stamp for the governor's nominees.
That can be true. But more often of late some of its members have been a thorn in the administration's side.
Indeed, we suspect that this area's representative on that body, Salem's Mary-Ellen Manning, is right when she says there would be no hue and cry among Democratic leaders like Senate President Therese Murray to abolish the council if it was a Republican governor's judicial choices being given a hard time.
Generally, and despite the occasional buffoonery, the council gets things right, as it did recently in approving Gov. Patrick's appointment of Appeals Court Judge Barbara A. Lenk to the Supreme Judicial Court.
There is little evidence a legislative or appointed equivalent would be any more independent or less obstreperous than the current group of councilors.
In fact, the value of the current Governor's Council as a check on the governor became apparent last year when one of Patrick's judicial nominees was found by Manning to be a New Hampshire resident. The nomination of Christopher Maclachlan was subsequently withdrawn.
The Governor's Council needs members like Manning who are willing to take on the political establishment.
For Manning, at least, the issue is not retaining a position that pays $26,025 a year and requires attendance at one meeting a week plus whatever time is spent researching candidates.
"I think reform has to include a look at abolishing the council, a serious look at it," Manning told the State House News Service last week. "But what are we going to replace it with? That's the question." And it's a good one.
Commentary
We are truly blessed by the Lord to have the Governor's Councilor that we have in Mary Ellen Manning.She is the epitome of what it means to be a public servant and a wonderful person as well.The Governor's Council doesnot need to be abolished and is serving the Commonwealth well alot better than the hacks in other parts of the State Government.
We are truly blessed by the Lord to have the Governor's Councilor that we have in Mary Ellen Manning.She is the epitome of what it means to be a public servant and a wonderful person as well.The Governor's Council doesnot need to be abolished and is serving the Commonwealth well alot better than the hacks in other parts of the State Government.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
NYT Going After As They Call Them "Big Oil"
 |
| Opinion/Editorial |
The title of their Fourth oped is "A Big Whine From Big Oil."This is really hypocritical we never hear the NYT refer to their left wing buddies in the labor movement referred to as 'Big Unions" we never ever hear it.
Their salvo begins with "With gas at $4 a gallon, oil at $100 a barrel and profits at near-record levels, it is hard to feel sympathy for the oil industry. Yet sympathy is what the C.E.O.’s of the five biggest companies asked for when they appeared Thursday before a Senate hearing on a Democratic proposal to eliminate about $2 billion in tax breaks for the Big Five.
Exxon’s Rex Tillerson called the proposal “misinformed and discriminatory.” ConocoPhillips’s James Mulva, in a letter, called the idea “un-American” because it would supposedly cost American jobs, raise consumer prices and discourage investment — a position he reasserted during the hearings.
The other three companies at the witness table, BP America, Shell and Chevron, raised similar complaints. How absurd are their claims? Utterly absurd."
Let me make the correction near record levels of profit because they are over taxed and can't turn a profit and due to BS environMENTAL regulations they can't DRILL for oil.I agree 100% that it is un-American and that it is a fact that it will cost jobs and discourage investments.You are the absurd ones NYT!
They continue their rants through alleged BS research "Take investment. In 2005, with oil nearing $60 a barrel, Mr. Mulva and other top executives told a Senate committee that the companies did not need the tax breaks to keep exploring for oil. Congress left them in place. Now that the Senate seems serious about getting rid of them, he and his colleagues have changed their tune — even though their companies obviously need them even less at $100 a barrel.
Or take prices at the pump. In a memorandum to Senate Democratic leaders on Wednesday, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said that eliminating the tax benefits would have virtually no effect on the price of gasoline. The impact on industry profits — the Big Five earned a robust $35 billion in the first quarter of this year alone — would be trivial.
The report also addressed one more industry claim: that ending the tax breaks for the oil companies alone would be discriminatory. Most of the breaks — deductions for well depletion, intangible drilling costs and the like — are unique to the industry. The exception is a deduction for domestic production, designed to encourage all manufacturing companies to invest in this country. But as the research service pointed out, industry is not going to stop drilling on American territory as long as the oil is there and yielding big dollars.
These subsidies are clearly unnecessary, and returning $2 billion to the Treasury would be a good thing. But more than anything, one has to wonder why the oil companies are fighting so hard for a comparatively small amount of cash, at least for them. The only explanation we can come up with is that they have always gotten what they wanted and expect to do so now, so why not?"
Return the subsidies to the Treasury give me a break if that was the case with their uninformed BS research return the $$$ to the American people.
But when it comes to doing something that needs to be done the NYT is against it "The House is certainly tripping over itself to do the industry’s bidding. Last week, it passed two more irresponsible bills accelerating drilling permits and authorizing leasing in long-protected waters of the north and central Atlantic coasts, the Southern California coast and Alaska, including Bristol Bay. It is as if the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico had never happened."
Irresponsible to pass drilling permits since when.I love this part this is th environMENTAL regulation that I referred to earlier "authorizing leasing in long-protected waters of the north and central Atlantic coasts, the Southern California coast and Alaska, including Bristol Bay."
Yeah protected waters my ass.So if this is the case I don't want to hear liberals and President Obama and the little whinny assholes at the NYT Opinion Editorial board to complain on the U.S. relying on foreign sources for our oil and gasoline.
Their salvo begins with "With gas at $4 a gallon, oil at $100 a barrel and profits at near-record levels, it is hard to feel sympathy for the oil industry. Yet sympathy is what the C.E.O.’s of the five biggest companies asked for when they appeared Thursday before a Senate hearing on a Democratic proposal to eliminate about $2 billion in tax breaks for the Big Five.
Exxon’s Rex Tillerson called the proposal “misinformed and discriminatory.” ConocoPhillips’s James Mulva, in a letter, called the idea “un-American” because it would supposedly cost American jobs, raise consumer prices and discourage investment — a position he reasserted during the hearings.
The other three companies at the witness table, BP America, Shell and Chevron, raised similar complaints. How absurd are their claims? Utterly absurd."
Let me make the correction near record levels of profit because they are over taxed and can't turn a profit and due to BS environMENTAL regulations they can't DRILL for oil.I agree 100% that it is un-American and that it is a fact that it will cost jobs and discourage investments.You are the absurd ones NYT!
They continue their rants through alleged BS research "Take investment. In 2005, with oil nearing $60 a barrel, Mr. Mulva and other top executives told a Senate committee that the companies did not need the tax breaks to keep exploring for oil. Congress left them in place. Now that the Senate seems serious about getting rid of them, he and his colleagues have changed their tune — even though their companies obviously need them even less at $100 a barrel.
Or take prices at the pump. In a memorandum to Senate Democratic leaders on Wednesday, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said that eliminating the tax benefits would have virtually no effect on the price of gasoline. The impact on industry profits — the Big Five earned a robust $35 billion in the first quarter of this year alone — would be trivial.
The report also addressed one more industry claim: that ending the tax breaks for the oil companies alone would be discriminatory. Most of the breaks — deductions for well depletion, intangible drilling costs and the like — are unique to the industry. The exception is a deduction for domestic production, designed to encourage all manufacturing companies to invest in this country. But as the research service pointed out, industry is not going to stop drilling on American territory as long as the oil is there and yielding big dollars.
These subsidies are clearly unnecessary, and returning $2 billion to the Treasury would be a good thing. But more than anything, one has to wonder why the oil companies are fighting so hard for a comparatively small amount of cash, at least for them. The only explanation we can come up with is that they have always gotten what they wanted and expect to do so now, so why not?"
Return the subsidies to the Treasury give me a break if that was the case with their uninformed BS research return the $$$ to the American people.
But when it comes to doing something that needs to be done the NYT is against it "The House is certainly tripping over itself to do the industry’s bidding. Last week, it passed two more irresponsible bills accelerating drilling permits and authorizing leasing in long-protected waters of the north and central Atlantic coasts, the Southern California coast and Alaska, including Bristol Bay. It is as if the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico had never happened."
Irresponsible to pass drilling permits since when.I love this part this is th environMENTAL regulation that I referred to earlier "authorizing leasing in long-protected waters of the north and central Atlantic coasts, the Southern California coast and Alaska, including Bristol Bay."
Yeah protected waters my ass.So if this is the case I don't want to hear liberals and President Obama and the little whinny assholes at the NYT Opinion Editorial board to complain on the U.S. relying on foreign sources for our oil and gasoline.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Mike Barnicle Calling Newt Gingrich A Delusional Loser Hey Barnicle Screw You
This is a case of a liberal biased reporter not only known for his biases at the left wing NYT owned Boston Globe but the worst case of the pot calling the kettle black.
I am not a huge fan of Newt Gingrich because he stabbed in the back Doug Hoffman who at the time was the Conservative Party's candidate back when New York's 23rd Congressional district was up for grabs he endorsed a RINO by the name of DeeDee Scosovafava over Hoffman.
Mike Barnicle is an embarassment to the field of journalism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)