Godfather PoliticsInbox x
10:07 PM (59 minutes ago)  | | |||
Godfather Politics |
- Democrats Want to Control the Price of Gas (And Everything Else)
- Are We Seeing the End of the Christian Right?
- The Job-Killing President
- Dems of a Feather Defy Law Together
- CNN Debate Moderator Extremely Biased
- We Need a Ronald Reagan, Not a Mitt Romney
Democrats Want to Control the Price of Gas (And Everything Else) Posted: 21 Jan 2012 05:20 AM PST
Kucinich has been a government employee all his life, except for a stint as a radio host. He’s never owned a business or a run a business. He knows next to nothing about economics except that when you get power you can take money from people who have it and give it to people who don’t. On his 1982 income tax return, Kucinich reported an income of $38. He knew that if he was going to have a stake in the American dream, he would need more political power. So he reentered politics and began a long odyssey to ruin the economic lives of the productive and prosperous. Kucinich wants to “set up a board that would apply a ‘windfall profit tax’ as high as 100 percent on the sale of oil and gas.” The proposed “bill provides no specific guidance for how the board would determine what constitutes a reasonable profit.” The Gas Price Spike Act, H.R. 3784, would apply a windfall tax on the sale of oil and gas that ranges from 50 percent to 100 percent on all surplus earnings exceeding “a reasonable profit.” It would set up a Reasonable Profits Board made up of three presidential nominees that will serve three-year terms. Unlike other bills setting up advisory boards, the Reasonable Profits Board would not be made up of any nominees from Congress. Kucinich will try to sell the bill with the argument that “the oil-and-gas companies, as the seller, would have to pay this tax.” Not only is this wrong; it’s stupid. Here are the names of the five other Democrats who are co-sponsoring the bill: Reps. John Conyers, Jr. (Mich.), Bob Filner (Calif.), Marcia Fudge (Ohio), Jim Langevin (R.I.), and Lynn Woolsey (Calif.). Price controls have been tried before. In a move widely applauded by the public and a fair number of (but by no means all) economists, President Nixon imposed wage and price controls [in 1971]. The 90 day freeze was unprecedented in peacetime, but such drastic measures were thought necessary. . . . The 90 day freeze turned into nearly 1,000 days of measures known as Phases One, Two, Three, and Four. The initial attempt to dampen inflation by calming inflationary expectations was a monumental failure. ****** While there were skeptics in August, 1971, there were a great many who thought “temporary” wage and price controls could cure inflation. By 1974, this notion was thoroughly discredited. . . . The profits the oil companies make are paid out as dividends to millions of share holders. In addition, the oil company profits are used for future research and development and exploration as oil gets harder to find. It’s time the people of Ohio get rid of Dennis Kucinich before he wants to control the price of the air we breathe.  |
Are We Seeing the End of the Christian Right? Posted: 21 Jan 2012 05:12 AM PST
In going through some old files, I came across an article that was written on December 15, 1989 that carried this title: “Whatever Happened to the Religious Right?” An article with a similar title – “The End of the Christian Right” – was written by Michael Kazin, professor of history at Georgetown University, and published at The New Republic on January 17, 2012. People have been predicting the demise of the Christian Right for nearly 25 years, ever since the late Jerry Falwell shut down the Moral Majority in 1989. Kazin argues that the “Christian Right is fighting a losing battle” on the issues of abortion and same-sex marriage. He’s wrong on abortion but right on homosexuality. There is now a stigma attached to abortion. There has been a steady decline in the number of facilities doing abortions and fewer doctors who are being trained to perform abortions. Here are six factors contributing to the Decline in the number of abortion providers: • Antiabortion harassment and violence • Social stigma/marginalization • Professional isolation/peer pressure • The “graying of providers” • Inadequate economic/other incentives • Lack of medical training opportunities Blacks and Hispanics – large Democrat voting constituencies – are overrepresented in the number of abortions performed in the United States. This is rarely talked about in Democrat circles, even among so-called black leaders. “In 1991, there were over 2,176 surgical abortion clinics in America. Today there are 663. Nearly 70% of all surgical abortion clinics have closed for good and that trend is continuing nationally,” said Todd Newman, President of Pro-Life Nation. Homosexual marriage is a different story. When put up for a vote, it loses, even in a liberal state like California. The entertainment industry, the educational establishment, and activist judges are driving the homosexual agenda. Homosexuals make up no more than two percent of the population. People are afraid to speak out on the subject because they don’t want to be called “haters.” Homosexual activists are organized and will bully and intimidate anyone who opposes them. A frank and open discussion of homosexuality – not “gay” rights – quickly coverts people to the non-homosexual position. If you look at the top three reasons for the decline in abortion providers, you’ll see that homosexual activists have used these same tactics against anti-homosexual activists. Kazin goes on to say that the Christian Right has declined in influence in two ways: “the absence of effective, well known leaders” and a lack of enthusiasm for the movement among the younger generation. It’s true, there are few well known Christian Right leaders. That’s a good thing. Christian conservatives, unlike liberals, aren’t easily led around by the nose. We think for ourselves. In the early 1980s, leaders were necessary because the Christian Right was a new phenomenon. Conservative Christians make up tens of millions of voters. That was not the case in the mid-1970s. There was no discernable “Evangelical vote.” As far back as 1989, social scientists observed that a more mature strategy had emerged by focusing on the state and local levels. Since there are no longer any national Christian leaders like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, or D. James Kennedy, there are no centralized targets. The Religious Right is decentralized. It’s a moving target spread out all across the United States in too many organizations to name here that did not exist 20 years ago. Legal organizations like the Christian Legal Society (1961), Rutherford Institute (1982), Liberty Counsel (1989), American Center for Law and Justice (1990), Alliance Defense Fund (1994), and the Thomas More Law Center (1999) are having a big impact in the courts and taking on the very liberal and anti-Christian ACLU. You can see that five of these legal advocacy groups are of recent origin. Three of them began after the Moral Majority shut down. The Liberal Left has noticed that there is an undercurrent of Christian activist thinking that they identify as “dominionism.” There is no single organization or group of individuals pushing “dominionism.” What we’re seeing is the permeation of Christian principles being adopted by cultural osmosis. What’s happening to the Christian Right is not the typical top-down system that Liberals envy. Christians are reshaping their world by the building up of the family, entrepreneurship, self-publishing, homeschooling, creating curricula, and film making. Keep in mind that the Left is minimizing its footprint. They’re having fewer children. Their institutions are crumbling. The university is no longer seen as the gateway to success. They no longer control the media. Hollywood is still liberal, but it’s losing its impact. The latest SOPA fight is a perfect example. “They fought the law and the law didn’t win.” Box office receipts are also down. If present trends continue, there will be a power shift away from political centralization. That’s what’s driving the liberal establishment to grab as much power as it can right now. They know their time is short. Notes:
 |
Posted: 21 Jan 2012 04:47 AM PST
“I don’t think he is consciously whipping up bigotry, but he is no fool and this is going to be seen through a racial prism,” David Greenberg, an associate professor at Rutgers University in New Jersey, said in an interview. “It has to do with how these issues are framed and understood. It wouldn’t be hard for him to mute or disavow the racial component.” Here are the statistics. About 34 percent of food-stamp recipients are white, 22 percent black, and 16 percent Hispanic. Being a food stamp president is not about race; it’s about creating an economic environment that makes it easy for some people to accept being dependant on the State. What would get these groups off food stamps? Jobs! What would make them less dependent on the government? Jobs! What would dilute their die-hard affiliation with the Democrat Party? Jobs! President Obama is not so much a food-stamp president but a “Job Killing President” with a purpose. He and his fellow Democrats need a reliable voting-block. By keeping people dependent on government, liberals are assured a political power base from which to operate. They are the 21st equivalent to the southern plantation system. The rejection of the Keystone Pipeline is a perfect example. While the President is doling out money by the hundreds of millions to favored political supporters in energy boondoggles, there is a free-market way to create jobs and make the United States nearly energy independent. Dick Morris writes: President Obama has rejected the Keystone Pipeline costing the U.S. a real shot at energy independence and hundreds of thousands of jobs. Bowing to extremist environmental pressure groups, he vetoes the project saying it needs more review — after years of study by the U.S. government! What he means is he wants to wait until after the election! Half of our oil from Canada — one-eighth of our total oil imports — would have flowed through this pipeline. We could replace oil from enemies like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Russia with friendly oil from Canada had Obama said yes. A free people is a dangerous people. Why the federal government should be involved in this decision is beyond me. Let the states go it alone. It’s time for some Tenth Amendment action on the part of sovereign states within this union. The nation as a whole will thank them.  |
Dems of a Feather Defy Law Together Posted: 21 Jan 2012 02:23 AM PST
Second in line for defying the law is US Attorney General Eric Holder. His actions in the Fast and Furious scandal coupled with his lying to Congress are only part of Holder’s criminal resume. Add to it his refusal to enforce federal immigration laws and his use of the DOJ to attack all of those that tried to do his job for him. Holder has also instructed the DOJ not to enforce the Marriage Defense Act. Then you have him vowing to fight voter ID laws that a majority of voters voted for and then blaming it on racial issues which is clearly a violation of racial profiling and discrimination laws. Now add Democratic California Governor Jerry Brown to the list. Fifteen years ago voters in California voted to approve Proposition 209 to do away with affirmative action that is due to race and gender. At the time of the election, it was proven that affirmative action was a form of race and sex discrimination which are both unlawful. In 2008 California voters passed a constitutional amendment, Proposition 8, that eliminated the rights of same-sex couples to marry. Then California Attorney General Jerry Brown openly refused to enforce the amendment because he personally disagreed with it. Much like US Attorney General Eric Holder has been doing of late. Gov Brown has now joined in a lawsuit to overturn Proposition 209. The lawsuit is currently in the hands of the most liberal federal court in the nation, the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals. Proposition 209 guarantees that all applicants to the University of California system are treated the same. Their applications are reviewed and weighed on equal grounds without any consideration of race or gender. The proponents of Prop 209 claimed that giving such applications more favorable treatment because of race or gender was unconstitutional. Opponents of Prop 209, including Gov Jerry Brown, believe that judging college applications equally on merit somehow discriminates against minorities. Hence, they want to return to the practice that female and minority applicants are given preferential treatment over white males who may be far more qualified. I have seen it in the Democratic Party platform, but evidently there must be something that says that Democratic leaders are above the law and can choose for themselves which ones to keep and which ones they wish to ignore and violate. I’d say we should pass a law outlawing the Democratic Party, but then they’d just ignore that law too.  |
CNN Debate Moderator Extremely Biased Posted: 20 Jan 2012 11:16 PM PST
Throughout the debate, King’s biases shown as brightly as the spotlights blinding the candidates. To begin with, the seating for each candidate’s staff, volunteers and supporters was arranged in what would normally be considered a reverse order. If Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich looked straight ahead they would be looking at the staff, volunteers and supporters of Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum and vice versa. Then King went after Gingrich, asking him about his first wife and the accusations she has leveled against him. Fortunately, Gingrich was on his game and fired a salvo back at King, clearly letting him know that he was not going to allow the moderator to undermine his character. When King brought up the subject of the candidate’s pro-life statuses, the debate seemed to center on Romney, Santorum and Gingrich. Before allowing Ron Paul to respond, King completely snubbed him and tried to move the debate to another topic. However, the Paul supporters in the audience loudly jeered King’s obvious snub and he then allowed Paul to respond. King’s actions and biases were obvious. He purposefully went after Newt Gingrich with the intent of destroying his personal character. He purposefully ignored Ron Paul which could have been done because he felt Paul was not a viable candidate or perhaps because Paul was such a strong candidate that he didn’t want to give him any opportunity to gain any more support. The role of the moderator in a debate to just that: to moderate. They are supposed to be as impartial as possible and not allow their personal views to influence their actions and how they moderate. John King ran the event more like an interview than a debate. He clearly was not professional in his actions or manners and should never be allowed to moderate a political debate again.  |
We Need a Ronald Reagan, Not a Mitt Romney Posted: 20 Jan 2012 11:14 PM PST
Mitt Romney does not appear to have the ability to stand up in a debate with President Obama. He doesn’t have the direct hard hitting tactics necessary to discuss the topics that matter most to the American people. Romney just isn’t a Ronald Reagan, but oh how I wish he were. Listen to these clips taken from the debates that Ronald Reagan had with then President Jimmy Carter. While inflation may have been one of the biggest concerns at the time, many of the things that Reagan says are still true today. He hits on big government, government spending, energy, defense and the American way of life. Of the Republican candidates still left in the race for the GOP nomination, the only one that comes close to saying some of the things that Reagan said in 1980 is Ron Paul. He may say them in a different way, but what Paul is saying is basically many of the same things that Reagan not only said, but did. And look at how he turned the nation around into one of the most prosperous times in our nation’s history. If any of the Republican candidates are serious about willing the GOP nomination and defeating Obama in November, I would strongly suggest they spend some time studying this video and others of the Reagan – Carter debates and implement many of the same things that Reagan used to win the election and save the nation.  |
No comments:
Post a Comment