And now, from the, “Are You Serious!?!” department…….

I saw this piece on KELO last night and thought I’d fall off my chair.

KELO did a story on a poll conducted showing that Herseth-Sandlin D (South Dakota, or is it Texas, or Washington DC perhaps?) would win an election against the current Republican Kristi Noem.

They said in the article that “Before her defeat in 2010, Herseth Sandlin always had a favorable rating with South Dakota voters.”

I guess that just because the citizens of South Dakota FIRED her in 2010, it doesn’t really mean anything.

Here’s the kicker – and they even mention it in the article.  Know who took the poll?

Hold on….

 

Wait for it…..

 

The Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee!

 

KELO reported this male bovine excrement with a strait face.

No bias here that I can see.

Nope, nothing to see here.

Move on.

Advertisements
Published in: on January 31, 2012 at 8:37 am  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , ,

It’s over…. Go home.

Ok… So the (liberal) news media is all excited about Romney winning New Hampshire. It’s over everyone else go home. The liberals know their man can beat liberal light, just like he did in 2008.

That’s why they want this RINO from the second most liberal state in the union to be “our” choice..

To hear them – it’s over. Every other candidate should just pack up their signs and go home.

Here’s what they don’t tell you.

1. Romney was governor right next door and New Hampshire has a symbiotic (almost incestial) relationship with Massachusetts.

2. Romney owns property in New Hampshire and is a de-facto resident.

3. The primary voting block in New Hampshire (and South Carolina) is center left – not center right. Why? They are “open” primaries. In other words anybody can vote on the Republican ballot. Even Democrats (and Democrats do – to skew our nomination process).

4. New Hampshire only sends 12 delegates to the National Convention.
Now you’ve see the floor on convention night. Think you could pick out the 12 from New Hampshire?

So, when the newsies tell you it’s over. Pay no attention. Let’s push hard to nominate a REAL Republican this time. Someone who represents Republican values of small government and limited spending. Not Democrat Lite.

“Curiouser and Curiouser”, said Alice

So, I’m watching the 10 o’clock news on my local CBS affiliate last night and they come out with this story on how a local Hotel is in the process of being torn down.

http://www.keloland.com/news/NewsDetail6371.cfm?Id=105084

“So?”, you ask, “Old buildings are torn down all the time.”  No big deal – right?  Or is it?

From the story I find out that this nice looking fairly new structure was hit with “a six page letter” containing “health and property violations”.  So the city forced the business to close.

Over time it seems that the owner could not “comply” with the city and the property was subsequently condemned.  Now it is being demolished and the property will be left vacant.

Now, I was not born yesterday and I was not born in South Dakota.  Having been raised in New Jersey and not South Dakota it is not my nature to think the best of people (something the Midwest culture teaches here).  The culture I grew up in was corrupt.  So I look for the corruption when I see stories like this.  I immediately look for the story behind the story, The skullduggery if you will.

I did a little homework this morning and to my surprise (yeah right) it seems that this property is in the same neighborhood as the proposed location of the New Event Center.  Remember the New Event Center?  The one voted down by the residents of the city (twice)?

Now I am not accusing – I am curious.  I find it odd that the city of Sioux Falls chose to single out this individual and this property for so much attention when there are other parts of town and other blatant violations being ignored.

Could it be as they say in the Real Estate business … Location – Location – Location?

Where are the songs?

 

As many of you know I am semi retired.  I augment my meager pension with some selling on eBay.  Recently I went to an estate sale and bought several hundred player piano rolls.  Many of these are from World War One (for those with a public school education, that war was fought between 1914 and 1918 – It was the first time we fought Germany – not the second time when we fought Hitler).

Why am I talking about this?  The songs!  There must have been hundreds of patriotic songs during that war.  “Over There” is one many remember.  But how about “The Navy Took Them Over and The Navy Will Bring Them Home”.  Or perhaps “Keep the Home Fires Burning“.  There is even one called “If He Can Fight Like He Can Love … Goodnight Germany“!

Why am I bringing this up?  About nine years ago some people with more radical ideas than the Germans ever had took it upon themselves to destroy several buildings in New York, part of the Pentagon, four airplanes and most of all… countless lives.  The intent was to bring the economy, the military and the government of the United States to it’s knees.  A far more violent act than anything Germany did.  Yet…. Hardy a song.  I can think of two, both sung by country singers.

Is it that no one cares about our country anymore?  I don’t think so.  Perhaps there are no new patriotic songs being written?  I think that would also be a stretch.  With such a violent and coldhearted attack, not on fighting men, but civilians (including children) one would thing this brutal act would have triggered some artists and song writers into action.  I am not convinced that we, as a nation, are so unfeeling that we could not create more than two songs supporting this great land, and the people who protect it.

It becomes apparent to me that the entertainment industry become so controlled by the left that no patriotic music can make through the vetting process.  The entertainment industry (and that includes Hollywood) has been so corrupted by people who hate what this nation is and despise it’s roots, that they will not let the true American spirit shine through in song or on screen.

Having vented, I think now I will go back to work, selling the songs of yesteryear, when people in entertainment were proud of America and not bent on “Change” ing  it.

Think I’m too far out on this one?  Prove me wrong…. Send me the MIDI file of “Rap for America – A Tribute”.

Let’s talk about this oil spill.

There are many people pointing fingers and finding fault.

I am convinced that this is a simple (yet difficult) problem and could have been fixed and contained IF those in power wanted it done.

I am of the opinion one of the two following conditions exists – neither of them bodes well for the American citizenry.  First is that the Obama-nation wants to use this “crisis” to stop all offshore oil research and drilling so they are dragging their heels.  Or possibly something less sinister, the administration is so incompetent and inept that they can’t even implement a plan that has had solutions in place and on paper for over 20 years.  I’m not sure.  Frankly, I would prefer to think it is the later not the former.

If this had happened three years ago all the news stories would be about how the Bush administration is at fault and how Bush failed to act.  How Cheney’s friends in the oil business have taken advantage of a stupid President.  Today…. Nary a whisper.  The newsies blame BP but say nothing about the lack of government intervention over the first nine days.  They were all worked up about the George Bush seven minutes, yet say nothing about the Obama nine days.

But I digress……

 

There has been talk about hay or straw being used to soak up the oil and then burning the straw. I have seen one local news story about this and one video on Youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5SxX2EntEo

There is a good amount of straw out here in the grain belt that is simply sitting and decomposing from previous years.  It might not be the whole solution but it could be part of it.  I have also heard of oil eating bacteria that is effective in oil cleanup. I’m sure there are other chemicals and treatments that COULD BE employed if the Department of Environmental Protection would ALLOW them.  Yet the only government solution from the Obama Administration for the first ten days was to “Put the heel of our boot on the neck of BP” – (Press Secretary Robert Gibbs).  Why is that?  Incompetence – or intentional?

 

One final thought.

Do you think the oil companies would be drilling for oil in mile deep water if the government would open up Wyoming and Colorado for oil exploitation?  Wouldn’t it be easier to go after the oil that is in 60 feet of water off the California coast than go after the oil that is only accessible under a mile of corrosive salt water?  Why are we not going after the oil shale deposits in Wyoming and Colorado?  Why are we not drilling for oil in Alaska and in the shallow waters of  California and Florida?  There is some activity in North Dakota but only a pittance compared to what could be.  How about coal to diesel?  It can and is being done on a test basis.  It has been proven to be more cost effective than offshore deep water drilling for oil.  Coal to oil alone would all but eliminate our dependence on foreign oil AND cost less.  Yet we don’t do it on a grand scale.  Why?  The Enviro-nazi’s have blocked all of these at every opportunity.  So we have to go far offshore and look for oil in mile deep hostile surroundings.  A place where if an accident were to occur, it would be very difficult to fix.

A similar situation on the High Plains of North Dakota would have been caped and shut down is a matter of hours – not weeks. So… (like stopping the use of asbestos on the 75th floor when building the World Trade Center) it seems to me that, like many liberals and their unintended consequences……

This is an environmental disaster HAS BEEN CAUSED by the environmentalists.

The Two Dollar Project

Like many of us I was disappointed and angry Sunday night when the extreme left wing of the Democrat Party got their childhood dream passed through the US House of Representatives.  I was even more disgusted the next day as the left wing (aka main stream) media had a party all over my television.

I would not allow myself to feel defeated, I would not allow myself to give up and simply roll over and play dead.  But what could I do.  I am just one person with limited assets.

Yet I have to do SOMETHING!

I thought of the internet and what some people call Web 2.0.  The liberals have understood and have been using this media for a while we conservatives scratch out heads.  This time I am going to turn it around.  I have started a group on the social network Facebook and I have pledged to send Two Dollars to every Republican Candidate who is running against a person who voted for the bill.

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/group.php?gid=102684303100744

That’s right, if a congressman/woman voted to take away my healthcare choice, I am sending $2.00 to his/her opponent.  I can’t afford to do this all at once, but I can afford to do it between now and the November election.

“What good will that do?”,  you ask.  “What’s two bucks?”  Not much…. Until the social media and Web 2.0 kicks in. Right now I have about 15 people who have joined the pledge with me.  That’s 30 bucks.  What happens if this thing goes viral?  What would it do for a campaign if 150,000 people joined in on the pledge?  That would be $300,000 into each campaign for people to replace those who took our freedom.

THAT my friends, will make a difference.  We The People will have spoken and this time they will have no choice but to listen.

 How about joining with me in The Two Dollar Project on Facebook and use our combined will to THROW THE BUMS OUT!

A well written letter.

This post is for my military friends.  Others are invited to read but some of the jargon may not be understood.

FAIR WARNING: This is a conservative point to view and should not be read by easily offended liberals.

Here is a letter from a retired Navy Captain to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen.  I truly think he is on the mark here.

February 8, 2010

Admiral Mike Mullen, USN Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
9999 Joint Staff Pentagon Washington, D.C. 20318-9999

Dear Admiral Mullen:

This letter is in response to your shocking statement last week that you advocate homosexuals openly serving in the military services. I seriously question the wisdom of your position. As I have previously written by my Senator, Harry Reid, and my Congresswoman, Dina Titus, the position appears to be more a matter of Democratic party voter pandering than the solution to a valid military issue. Perhaps it was your willingness to support the Democratic agenda that earned you your present position as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

I am a retired Navy Captain. I enlisted in the Navy in  1948, and served as a Yeoman, Personnelman, Journalist, and Communications Technician, and, as a Petty Officer First Class, received a commission in 1955 through the Integration Program. In my more than 31 years of active duty, I commanded two ships, served as Executive Officer on two ships, commanded Coastal Squadron ONE (Swift Boats) in Vietnam, and was Chief Staff Officer on an Amphibious Squadron. I developed the first Human Affairs Council in a Pacific Fleet ship in 1972, and supervised human affairs activities on seven PHIBRON ships. I am a graduate of the School of Naval Justice, the Management Course at the Navy Postgraduate School, and the Senior Officer course at the Naval War College. After retirement I received a Juris Doctorate from the Hastings College of Law. Like you, I encountered homosexuals throughout my Navy career and in civilian life. Unlike you, I do not find they are more deserving than non-homosexuals or that they constitute a viable or necessary body of troops for the defense of our country.

My experience is Naval. I can’t speak for the Army, Air Force, or Marine Corps. Those services are generally based ashore with nearby civilian communities. In such communities, homosexuals may be able to find sexual gratification without interfering with military duties. But the best analogy to a ship at sea is a prison. There is no other outlet for sexual drives and I know of no prison in the United States that assigns males and females, or who intentionally assign known homosexuals, to the same cell. That is one of the differences between your position and mine.

During my enlisted service, homosexuals seemed to be a clumsy lot. They had a tendency to repeatedly fall headfirst down an engineroom ladder. Some were even known to trip on deck and “fall” overboard. The crew had a way of policing themselves to eliminate homosexual advances. Perhaps you are correct in your assumption that military personnel are more liberal today, but I would look very closely at prevalent attitudes before I closed the book on the issue.

It has been my experience that if sexual favors are available aboard ship, some enterprising sailor, petty officer, or officer will find a way to take advantage of the offer. There is usually a senior/junior relationship in such exchanges and the senior partner will reward the junior with preferential treatment, such as duty assignments, watches, leave, liberty, and advancement. Such preferential treatment can’t be hidden from other crewmembers and tends to destroy the chain of command, discipline and morale. If a Chief Petty Officer, for example, is having sexual relations with a non-rated sailor, it will have an adverse impact on those petty officers between the two in the chain of command. Because of your current assertions, I must assume that you were either lucky and didn’t have the problem during your shipboard assignments, or that you chose to ignore them!

That sexual misconduct in the Navy exists to this day is obvious. I recall that a lesbian ring was discovered on the USS NORTON SOUND back in the late 60’s or early 70’s. At about the same time my wife, now a retired Navy Commander, was Executive Officer at the WAVES Barracks, Great Lakes Naval Training Center. She was aware of many cases of homosexuality involving the WAVES assigned to the Barracks. I also recall that one of the cruisers returning from the First Gulf War reported 40% of the female crewmembers were pregnant after a six-month deployment. Just recently I read that the Commanding Officer and Command Master Chief were relieved from an Atlantic Fleet destroyer because of fraternization between several Chief Petty Officers and female members of the crew. Just the other day I heard news reports that a birth control pill previously reserved for use by women in combat had to be made available to all females in the military, clearly implying that intercourse was occurring in combat units and such conduct was known to unit commanders. Is there some reason you believe that homosexual activity would not also occur or is not occurring?

As you should be aware, the Uniform Code of Military Justice does not address homosexuality, per se. Article 125 provides that sodomy is a felony, to be punished as a court martial may direct. But the Article does not discriminate against homosexuals. Oral or anal sex between persons of the same sex (homosexuals) , opposite sex (heterosexuals) or with animals (bestiality) are all considered felonies. However, when the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy was established, it only applied to homosexual activities.

In all my years of service, I never encountered a Commanding Officer who “asked” a subordinate if he was a homosexual. I never knew of a sailor who was subjected to legal sanctions for homosexual conduct without corroborating evidence. A “confession” was not enough. Credible corroborating evidence had to exist and usually took the form of testimony of a participating party.

So the “policy” of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” makes no sense at all, except to create a means of ignoring the law. But the policy can only as effective as the individual’s discretion. As long as the homosexual was discreet, nothing would happen to him. He could be sanctioned only if he wanted to go public. However, by the same token, if a heterosexual indiscreetly advised his Commanding Officer that he had committed sodomy, he would be subject to the same sanctions.

In regard to heterosexual behavior, the UCMJ also proscribes common law marriage under the heading of Unlawful Cohabitation (with or without evidence of sexual intercourse) . It sanctions adultery and prostitution (for both the prostitute and the patron). In the case of an officer, merely “consorting with a notorious prostitute” constitutes an offense, again even without evidence of sexual intercourse. The problem is that common law marriage is legal in 11 states and the District of Columbia. I don’t believe that adultery is a criminal offense in any state today. And in my home state of Nevada, even prostitution is legal. I don’t recall you asking Congress to legalize heterosexual sodomy, adultery, prostitution, or common law marriage. There are many punitive articles in the UCMJ that have no relationship to the satisfactory performance of military duties, yet you single out homosexuals for preferred treatment. Again, I must ask “why?”.

The argument I hear most often expounded by the homophiles is that the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy deprives the military of outstanding young men and women who want nothing more than to defend their country and that they have the ability to operate a radar, or a gas turbine, or a gun as well as a heterosexual. That can’t be true. It isn’t the “policy”, it is Article 125 of the UCMJ that criminalizes homosexual behavior since it would be virtually impossible to practice homosexuality without committing sodomy. But, even if it were true, are homosexuals really worth the administrative problems they would create by their mere existence?

The Navy, today, does not willingly accept GED holders for enlistment. Minor criminal records are a bar to enlistment. Visible tattoos and piercings are not permitted. Are these aberrations more damning than sodomy? Personnel may be denied reenlistment if they fail to meet obesity standards. The young men and women denied naval service because of these exclusionary conditions may also want to defend their country and might also be able to satisfactorily operate a radar, or a gas turbine, or a gun. But you are only advocating the acceptance of homosexuals! Why is that, Admiral?

Is it your contention that cohabitors, adulterers, prostitutes, young men and women with tattoos, those with only GEDs, or the obese cannot serve as well as homosexuals? If so, what is your empirical evidence to support such an argument. If we can sanction heterosexual behavior, appearance, and alternative educations, why can’t we sanction homosexual sodomists?

If we get to pick and choose which laws we uphold, which laws are next on the line to ignore? Carnal Knowledge? I would think a service man or woman who has sex with a minor (Carnal Knowledge) could perform military duties as well, if not better, than a homosexual. At least we don’t have children in combat, or in the military at large, for them to accost. Their pedophilia would not impact on the performance of military duties.

If you are successful in your endeavors to have Congress modify the UCMJ, have you given any thought to the long-term repercussions? When I joined the Navy, absence from duty because of venereal disease, self-inflicted wounds, even severe sun burn, was considered “Sick Misconduct”. We were not paid for the periods we were absent from duty and our enlistments were extended on a day-for-day basis. Since AIDS/HIV is more prevalent in the homosexual community than in the heterosexual community, have you considered the consequences of a homosexual serviceman contracting AIDS or HIV? Will the homosexual with AIDS/HIV receive treatment from military sources? Will it be considered a service-connected disability justifying a medical discharge and retirement benefits? Will it result in Veterans Administration disability benefits? And have you considered the likelihood that some of the homosexuals will request sex change procedures? I know for a fact that a significant percentage of my Law School class was undergoing sex change therapy or surgery. It made using heads confusing for both genders. Sex change is an issue being considered in civilian prisons today and I’m not convinced that taxpayers, or military budgets, should be burdened with that expense. But, if you really want homosexuals, you should accept their baggage, as well and their bodies.

Do you also advocate same-sex marriage or “partnerships”? Will the homosexual’s partner be entitled to dependents’ benefits, including health care, BAQ, military base access, and commissary and exchange privileges? Will they be entitled to military housing? Would they be entitled to sex change procedures at government expense?

Would a homosexual openly serving on active duty in a same-sex marriage be prosecuted for adultery if he or she has a sexual relationship outside the marriage? Would a homosexual be prosecuted for prostitution? Perhaps, in such cases, even you would reinstate the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

I raise the last point because while serving as Executive Officer on USS CATAMOUNT (LSD-17) in 1967, one of the Radarmen was arrested by local police. While inventorying his personal effects a photograph of the sailor performing fellatio on another male was discovered. The police turned the photo over to the Shore Patrol, who forwarded it to me. During an investigation it was determined that five of the ship’s Radarmen were involved in a male prostitution ring. They declared that while in Radarman Class “A” School at Treasure Island, their instructors convinced them that they could augment their military pay by providing homosexual services to gays in San Francisco. They took advantage of the opportunity presented and continued such activity in San Diego. CATAMOUNT sailed absent several Radarmen and the Class “A” School lost several instructors. Are these otherwise competent Radarmen the type of sailors you want on your ships? I hope not!

Your advocacy of gay rights reminds me of a joke popular in the Australian Navy in the 1970’s. An officer with nearly 20 years service transferred from the Royal Navy to the Royal Australian Navy. When asked why, he stated that when he joined the Royal Navy, homosexuality was a crime and that homosexuals received severe punishment and discharge. After a few years he noticed that senior officers were closing their eyes to the problem. Eventually, it was made permissible. He decided to transfer before it became compulsory. I think you are leading us down that road to compulsion, Admiral!

I fully realize that I should not judge you or your procurement source. I have not walked the mile in your shoes. But, by the same token, you have not walked a mile in mine. I hope that you recognize that we are irreconcilably opposed on this issue, but I think I have given it more thought than you. In retrospect, I now realize that of all the officers I served with on active duty, Naval Academy graduates were the most tolerant of homosexuals. It may only be coincidence, but was there something in the curriculum that created such tolerance? I am aware that there have been numerous scandals regarding drug use, academic cheating, and heterosexual misconduct, but had never before given much thought to their acceptance of homosexual behavior, despite my awareness that there was a tendency toward an anal fixation.

I do hope that you conduct a thorough, in-depth evaluation of this issue, and hope you reach a realistic final determination. Assuming that your personal bias and the power of your office will result in your victory, I will watch retention statistics with a critical eye. Our sailors won’t have the option of transferring to the Australian Navy.

In keeping with the requirements of Navy Regulations, I submit this with all the respect your rank and position deserve.

With due respect;
Lawrence R. Jefferis Captain, U. S. Navy (Ret.)

My comment:

Remember it is not the homosexual attitude that is illegal.  It is the behavior.

When I was on active duty at my last command there was a PO3 who was drop dead gorgeous.  She had looks that could stop a train.  I would certainly would have wanted to have carnal knowledge with her but two things held me back.  One, I was happily married and was pretty sure that this behavior would not be condoned by my wife.  And, Two, this young lady was in my chain of command so I would be in violation of at least two articles of the UCMJ.  I was not convinced that a torrid affair, or even a night’s dalliance, was worth the twenty years I had spent building a career.  Therefore I kept my “behavior” in my pants.

Had I made a run at this young lady it would not be my lust on trial (I had that – as did every other heterosexual male in range), it would be my behavior.

Remember, homosexuals have lusts.  BUT the behavior is still illegal.

Don’t let them trap you into what the lusts are, it is an obfuscation.  Talk to them about the behavior and the UCMJ.

Rick

Have you quit beating your wife? Yes or no.

CBS did a prequel show prior to Obama’s State of the Union address.  To set this up they posted a page on the CBS news website with poll questions to consider.  Here’s the link:

 http://www.cbsnews.com/2718-504643_162-468.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody

How do you answer these questions?  The list is dripping with liberal bias.  Many can not be answered at all because the correct answer is not listed.  On others, if you do try to answer, the answer you give can and will be misconstrued to be a an endorsement of Obama’s policies. 

Let me see if I can illustrate what I mean by answering these questions:

#1. What do you think is the most important message in President Obama’s State of the Union address?

  • Health care

  • Economy

  • National security

Answer: None of the above.  The primary concern in government is corruption, over reaching, back room deals and the total disregard for the will of the people and the Constitution.  Since the liberals see no problem with the corruption as long as it forwards their agenda, it would not occur to them to add corruption to their list of answers.

 

#2.  Are you satisfied with President Obama’s strategy for Afghanistan?

  • Yes, I am satisfied

  • No, I am not satisfied

  • Don’t know/no opinion

Answer: I would answer No, I am not satisfied.  However, what does that mean?  Am I dissatisfied because he waited almost five months before making the wrong decision strategy?  Or am I a peacenik who wants all the troops out?  Obama spent two years bashing Bush on Afghanistan.  He kept asking where is Osama?  Well….. Mr. President, you have had a year….. Where is Osama?

 

#3. Are you satisfied with President Obama’s foreign policy strategy?

  • Yes, I am satisfied

  • No, I am not satisfied

  • Don’t know/no opinion

Answer: No, I am not satisfied.  BUT what does that mean? Does it mean I think he has not apologized and appeased enough?  Or, could it mean that I think he is a fool to not stand up for his own country in foreign lands?  How would the liberals interpret my answer?  Would they think I think as they do and we have not trashed America enough yet?

 

#4.  Have partisan politics increased or decreased under the Obama administration?

  • Increased

  • Decreased

  • No change

This one is the first real question.  The answer is increased.  There is no doubt and I believe no argument here.  The argument is who is doing the increasing.

 

#5.  How well has President Obama addressed the issue of climate change?

  • Well

  • Not well

  • Don’t know/no opinion

Answer: Here is one of those “beating your wife questions” the liberals are so famous for.  They, as the lawyers say, “assume facts not in evidence”.  Any answer to this question is wrong because the premise is wrong.  The entire Global Warming theory has been proven time and time again to be a fraud.  Even now there are stories about scientists skewing the numbers to get millions in grant money.

So How do I answer this?  If I answer Well I will be counted as one who believes in global warming and is behind the President.  If I answer Not well I will be counted as one who believes strongly in global warning and feels more needs to be done.

My answer is NOT WELL, because the President has NOT addressed the FRAUD of the Climate Change lobby.  He has not called his own agencies out and had them explain why they are doctoring the numbers.

 

#6.  Do you think we should have more high-speed railways in the U.S.?

  • Yes

  • No

  • Don’t know/no opinion

Another trick question. The question should read, “Do you think the taxpayers should pay for and pay to maintain more high-speed railways in the U.S.?”.

If I answer Yes, I am endorsing another debacle like AMTRAK. If I answer No, I appear to be against progress.  I will answer this way, If a private company wants to builds a high speed rail system, more power to them.  I do not want to pay for it.

 

#7. Do you think President Obama has brought the ‘change’ that his campaign slogan promised?

  • Yes

  • No

  • Don’t know/no opinion

Here we go again.  How do I answer this?  I would answer Yes.  But then the liberals would think I am behind the President and his policies.  If I answer No, then the liberals who made up this “poll” will think that I want more “change” and he is not moving fast enough.

Actually I think all the “change” he has brought is a detriment to liberty and freedom.  My concern is that he is not done “changing” us yet.

 

#8. Do you approve or disapprove of President Obama’s performance during his first year in office? 

  • Approve

  • Disapprove

  • Don’t know/no opinion

Ok here is another real question.  I disapprove, not because he has not done enough, but because he has done too much.

 

#9. Will we see a double-dip recession in 2010?

  • Yes

  • No

  • Don’t know/no opinion

Answer: Because of the fiscal policies of this AND the previous administrations, this is a real possibility.

 

#10. Do you think that dealing with the nation’s energy problem should be a top priority for the White House?

  • Yes

  • No

  • Don’t know/no opinion

Answer: Yes, but not the way he wants to do it.  I want more US energy, not less.  Cap & Tax will kill the energy industry in the US.  If his answer is Cap & Tax, then No…. I want it to be his last priority.

 

#11. In his first year in office, has President Obama accomplished more than you expected, as much as you expected, or less than you expected?

  • More than expected

  • As much as expected

  • Less than expected

  • Don’t know/no opinion

What the hell do I do with this one?  Any answer is wrong. More than expected means I endorse his policies, Less than expected means I want more of his policies and as much as expected means I think he is on the right track!!!!  This is the quintessential “have you quit beating your wife” question.  There is NO RIGHT ANSWER.

 

#12. Has President Obama paid more attention to the problems facing the middle-class or financial institutions?

  • Middle-class

  • Financial institutions

  • Both equally

  • Don’t know/no opinion 

Answer: I believe President Obama has paid more attention to President Obama than anything else in the last year. After that he has paid attention to his own progressive agenda at the peril of both the middle class AND financial institutions. There is no right answer.

 

#13. How well is President Obama doing in reducing the threat of terrorism?

  • Very/fairly well

  • Not too/not at all well

  • Don’t know/no opinion

Answer: Not too/not well at all.  This is a simple question.  Even the liberals can understand my answer here.  The same with this next one.

 

#14. Is the U.S safer from a terrorist attack under the Obama Administration, compared to President George W. Bush?

  • Yes, the U.S. is safer

  • No, the U.S. is not safer

  • Don’t know/no opinion

Answer: No, the U.S. is not safer.

 

#15. What is your biggest concern when it comes to comprehensive health care reform?

  • Costs

  • Government buraucracy (by the way they spelled bureaucracy wrong)

  • Quality of care

  • Effect on Medicare

How about… It’s not Constitutional?

 

#16. Would you be in favor of suspending work on comprehensive health care reform?

  • Continue work and try to pass health reform

  • Suspend work and begin looking for alternatives

  • Don’t know/no opinion

This question once again assumes I WANT the government meddling with my health choices.  The right answer is to stop working on this all together and leave it to the states where it belongs.

 

#17. Do you think the stimulus act has helped the economy?

  • Yes

  • No

  • Don’t know/no opinion

Answer: No.

 

#18. What has been President Obama’s biggest blunder of his first year in office?

  • Handling of health care reform

  • Waiting to make surge decision in Afghanistan

  • Handling of Wall Street

  • Beer Summit

  • Not focusing enough on jobs and unemployment

  • Other

Answer: From Mr. Obama’s point of view his biggest blunder is loosing the faith of the sheeple.  As to my opinion…. Well, you know my opinion.

 

#19. Should Ben Bernanke keep his post as Chairman of the Federal Reserve?

  • Yes

  • No

  • Don’t know/no opinion

Again, this assumes facts not in evidence.  It assumes that I favor the concept of a private company running our nation’s monetary system.  How about “The Federal Reserve System is unconstitutional and should be dissolved. Yes or No.”

 

Questions written by liberals can not, for the most part, be properly answered by those who are conservative.  As long as we allow them to set the question, we will never get a strait answer.

Another example of unbiased reporting.

 

From the Los Angeles Times:  Social Security checks may shrink in 2010

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-social-security24-2009aug24,0,3067702.story?track=rss

If this were a Republican Administration, the left wing (spelled main stream) media would be using this as the lead on EVERY news story.  They would run it to death.
 
Katie Couric would start her nightly broadcast from the front to the Social Security Administration building.

Sixty Minutes would be interviewing nursing homes that are going to close because the patrons will have less money to fork over. 
 
Dateline would have a parade of seniors who will loose their homes because of the “cuts”.
 
The newsies would be out on the streets looking for poor starving old folks choosing between rent and food. 
 
The New York Times would be running stories about how much the head of the SSA gets paid. 
 
The Sunday talk shows would have a parade of liberal democrats talking about how these “cuts” will devastate seniors.
 
The bottom line and purpose of all this reporting is to tell everyone just how mean President (insert Republican name here) is to CUT Social Security payments.
 
Now, however, since they have “their guy” in the White House, seems nary a whimper.
 
But they are unbiased journalists…..  Just ask them.