To Reiterate... Mainstream Media "Fact Checking" Ain't Always on the Up and Up

Folks... I noted this the other day... but it's worth highlighting as a stand alone post just to reinforce the points I often make with regard to the mainstream media ideological and often partisan biases.

I've provided the link; just follow it.

And, folks... don't delude yourselves... this isn't the exception - it's the norm - at least as far as the "mindset" of the "fact checking" goes.

Yes... these organizations go after Democrats too...

But they go after Republicans more. And beyond that... it's a different kind of "going after."

By and large the media starts off with the supposition that the liberal approach... the progressive approach... is the right approach. And even on those rare occasions where reporting or editorializing questions this supposition... the benefit of the doubt regarding "good intentions" is usually given to the Left - at least in relation to how the Right is looked upon and portrayed.

Heck, folks... just read the "deconstruction" of a Reuters "analysis" of Obamanomics which I did earlier today... which is posted right below this post!

Deconstruction of an Obama Puff Piece

From our friends at Reuters...

Well... at least it's labeled "analysis"... 

President Barack Obama starts his second term in office facing unprecedented budget constraints that will challenge his ability to implement his economic vision. 

What "budget constraints...?" He got everything he asked for! Remember his first few days in office... the "stimulus"... aka "Porkubus" package...?

ObamaCare...? (You remember that, right? It was supposed to help balance the budget while decreasing our individual healthcare costs...)

Solyndra...??? The rest of Obama's "green" debacle...???

Folks... bottom line... after two years of Democratic control of both Houses of Congress (2007 & 2008) the feds were borrowing 43-cents out of every dollar squandered at the end of the bad ol' Bush days; now... the feds (under Obama, Reid, and Boehner) are borrowing 46-cents out of every dollar squandered! 

Spending caps that Obama signed into law in 2011 will make it difficult to boost investment in education, scientific research, transportation and other areas that he says will help the country retool for heightened global competition and rapid technological change, budget experts say. 

"Investment," huh? (Reuters idea of "analysis" is obviously following the Obama/Democrat script...)

Oh... and notice... first "he said" - meaning Obama - and then the fine folks at Reuters end with "budget experts say" - as if to equate what Obama says with what budget experts say.

Folks... if Obama's "budget experts" were so expert... wouldn't budgets be balanced...??? 

Because those caps won't keep pace with inflation and population growth, the government will effectively have 16% less to spend in these areas by the time Obama leaves office in 2017, according to White House estimates. 

(*SNORT*)

Folks... geezus... give the man credit for having balls the size of cantaloupes! 

That could constrain college loans, preschool education, job training and other programs that Obama says will boost national competitiveness. 

Too many people are paying too much for too little real education now and Obama and the Democrats and (sadly) most Republicans cry "full speed ahead" while heading straight for the icebergs ahead. Job training...? What the hell's that...? Isn't that what school is supposedly for? 

"Pre-school?" We can't afford K-12... we can't afford the massive bureaucratic nightmare we've created which presently exists... and yet all they call for is more and more and more spending and yet when it comes to examining the results... the critique is that schooling is too "test intensive." 

"Under the caps as they are currently constructed, we're going to see pretty significant diminishment of investment in all of those things," said Scott Lilly, who spent decades writing spending bills as a Democratic staffer in the House of Representatives. 

Folks... there are no caps... spending goes up every year! Deficits grow... debt grows... and yet unemployment remains where it was five years ago... while today almost 50 million Americans (and non-Americans) are on food stamps...

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD IN DISGUST*)

Since taking office in 2009, Obama has tried to balance his belief in an active government with concerns that the nation's finances are on an unsustainable course. 

No he hasn't! That's a straight out lie! That's propaganda at a level that Joseph Goebbels would have smiled at! 

Even as he has pushed through more than $1 trillion in spending increases and tax cuts to fight the deepest recession in 80 years, he has floated deficit-reduction plans that would trim costs over the medium term. 

Ah... "to fight the deepest recession in 80 years." So his intentions are above reproach, huh? 

Folks... Obama entered into office and started doing the exact opposite of everything Reagan did when he first entered office in 1981 and began to reverse the disaster caused by Carternomics. (You folks my age know this!) Reagan's policies were successful. Obama's polices haven't been. You simply can't argue that simple fact! 

As part of a deal that allowed the government to avert a first-ever debt default in August 2011, Obama and his Republican adversaries agreed to spending limits that would slow government spending growth by $1 trillion over 10 years. 

Another bald-faced lie. We never faced default. Never. As to what Obama and the Republicrats agreed to... it was the sequester... which they delayed last week and which will no doubt be delayed again next month and ultimately never go into effect.

Folks... aren't you sick of the lies? Whatever your priorities, shouldn't government - or at least the media - be honest with us about where things actually stand and what's being done vs. what's not being done? 

Those caps in the 2011 Budget Control Act do not apply to popular benefits like the Social Security retirement program and Medicare, the health plan for retirees. Obama and fellow Democrats have so far blocked Republican proposals to scale back these programs, which are projected to grow at the same rate as the economy for the next four years before expanding as aging "baby boomers" drive up costs. 

Folks... Social Security has been upside down. Medicare and Medicaid are in crisis and it's only going to get worse absent reforms. (And by reforms I mean either less "benefits" or higher taxes!) 

Instead, the caps cover the 36% of government spending that is set annually by Congress. Known as discretionary spending, this category covers everything from the Defense Department to the National Endowment for the Arts. 

Folks... what's 100% minus 36%...? What they're saying is that even if they went ahead and made real cuts to "discretionary" programs (like... er... National Defense...) we'd still have 64% of government expenditures growing and growing and growing year after year after year...

(*SIGH*) 

It also includes social programs that Obama allies say are crucial for his agenda of broadening opportunity and expanding the middle class. 

Obama is destroying the middle class! 

"If you were looking into all the corners of the budget to find those programs that helped to promote the economic mobility of disadvantaged people, many, if not most, would be there," said Jared Bernstein, a former economic adviser to Vice President Joe Biden.

Folks... look around you... what have four-plus years of Barack Obama and Joseph Biden wrought? Again... the welfare state has grown... deficits have grown... debt has grown... dependency upon government has grown...

(*HEADACHE*) 

The White House estimates that non-military discretionary spending will shrink from 4.3% of the economy in the fiscal year that ended on September 30, 2011 to 2.8% when he leaves office in January 2017. That would be the lowest level since the government began keeping track in 1962. 

Ha! Ha! Ha! Folks... have you been keeping track of Obama's "estimates" on spending... on unemployment... on anything...?!?! The man just throws out "estimates" and when they don't come to pass his response is to throw out new estimates... which also turn out to be wrong! 

An automatic cut due to take effect in March, known as the "sequester," will slash discretionary spending another 8% unless Democrats and Republicans agree on a way to head it off. 

Folks... you know the sequester is never gonna happen! 

Obama frequently invokes the spending caps to rebut Republican charges that he does not care about reducing trillion-dollar deficits. He proposed another $100 billion in non-military discretionary cuts during his fiscal-cliff talks last month with Republican House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner. But he also warns that deep program cuts will undermine future competitiveness. "The cuts we've already made ... mean that we spend less as a share of our economy than has been true for a generation," he said at a news conference on Monday. "And that's not a recipe for growth." 

Folks... he's full of shit! And Reuters and the rest of the media cover this bullshit as if it's reality as opposed to empty rhetoric. Again... we've just lived through four years of Obama's stewardship of the economy from the commanding heights of government; we've just seen four years of Obama's economic policies. It's been a disaster and he'll continue to double-down as long as he's in office... as long as Democrats control the Senate. 

The White House says it will be able to work within the spending caps to prioritize the areas it cares about most. 

Folks... Obama's budget proposals are regularly rejected unanimously or near-unanimously by BOTH Houses of Congress... (meaning Democrats as well as Republicans)... and Harry Reid's Democrat Senate doesn't even propose budgets anymore! 

But experts with experience in federal allocations say it will be exceedingly difficult to carve out room from other budget areas. 

In other words... Obama is full of shit. (As are his experts.) 

The Census Bureau predicts the U.S. population will grow by 12.5 million over the coming four years. That will place increased demands on the government, requiring many agencies to boost staffing to avoid a performance downgrade, Lilly said. The FBI, for example, will need more crime fighters, and the IRS will need more tax examiners. Increased highway traffic will degrade roads more quickly, and increased air traffic will require more air traffic controllers. 

Oh, yeah... give Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano more money and more personnel... great...

Folks... notice the "trend" is to grow and grow and grow and grow government - particularly the federal government. 

The Bureau of Prisons will face greater costs as it expects the federal inmate population to rise 8% in the next four years, while the Veterans Administration will see mounting health-care costs with an aging veterans population.

Folks... what percentage of federal prison inmates are non-citizens? (Google it!) How'bout state prisoners? And aside from who we're paying for, why must costs per convict be so high? 

As to our veterans... of course they're a priority... but we're talking costs that if they weren't being covered by the VA they'd be covered by Medicare/Medicaid... so to a large extent aren't we talking about which "pocket" of government the costs are being paid for out of rather than straight increases in governmental financing per se? 

Some technology-intensive agencies like the National Weather Service may save money through automation, said Joe Minarik, a top budget official under former President Bill Clinton. But others, like the Social Security Administration, will find that more powerful computers won't necessarily boost productivity. "You've just doubled the speed of the computer behind me, but the elderly person on the other side of the desk is not speaking any faster," Minarik said. 

Er... if you hadn't screwed something up then that elderly person wouldn't need to be there on the "other side" of the desk! 

The Obama administration last year proposed $5.2 billion in discretionary spending cuts, and another $3.3 billion from defense. Because Congress has not passed any spending bills for the fiscal year that started last October, those cuts have not had a chance to become law. But many of them have already been rejected by Obama's Senate allies. 

Uh... folks... it's the Senate that refuses to even submit a budget proposal. (And as the author admits, "Obama's Senate allies" tend to oppose even the smoke and mirrors cuts that Obama proposes as he's also proposing add-ons far in excess of any proposed "cuts!")

The White House also tried to shift some highway programs out of the discretionary category, which would have freed up $44.5 billion over a 10-year period. Congress also rejected that idea and opted to fund highway spending with discretionary funds for at least another two years. 

As opposed to...??? 

Folks... putting aside what needs to be done with regard to infrastructure upkeep, repair, and expansion, we all know that the Highway Bills always have been and still are today some of the biggest pork vehicles politicians use to buy votes with our tax dollars! Waste, fraud, and indeed criminality are embedded within these Highway Bills! 

Many budget experts expect Congress will ultimately conclude that the spending caps are too severe to work. The drive to cut spending could abate in coming years as well if an expanding economy boosts tax revenues and narrows budget deficits.

Oh my friggin' God... what's "narrowing" mean...? We'll go from borrowing 46-cents out of every dollar the federal government squanders back down to a "mere" 43-cents out of every dollar of basic operating costs...?!?! (Not to mention piling further debt upon further debt upon further debt...)

The Second Amendment Means What It Says

...and what the Second Amendment clearly says, is:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Folks... this isn't a dissertation... I'm just gonna shoot (pardon the pun!) off a few facts here and if anyone wants to dispute them they can feel free to provide their opinion and actual facts - backed by citations we can all follow - laying out their case. I'll respond. 

So... first... by "Militia" the Founders didn't mean the state militias and modern state national guards. No.They were speaking of individuals. 

How'bout "well-regulated?" Doesn't that speak of "organized by government authority?" No. "Well regulated" simply meant equipped and able to join with other citizens in order to form an armed and ready force to defend the Rule of Law as well as life and property. (Think about an old Western movie where the Sheriff or Marshall  asks for volunteers to form a posse; the members were expected to furnish their own weapons and were assumed to be "well-regulated" in the sense of being able to fulfill their duties.)

How'bout the types of weapons?

Well, folks... think about this: Were not civilian owned and crewed ships not often armed with cannon at the time of the Founding?

Indeed... ponder this: Go to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution. Note how Congress is given sole authority to grant Letters of  Marque and Reprisal. Obviously, folks, Congress didn't grant such Letters of Marque and Reprisal to unarmed privately owned ships but to armed ships.

I point this out not to start a debate concerning whether a private citizen should be able to own and operate his or her own SSBN, but instead to simply point out that the logic of the "pro-gun" position is undeniably more contextually defensible than are false claims that our Second Amendment was about ensuring Americans the right to own a musket, a pistol, or even a modern day single-shot hunting rifle.

The Second Amendment always has been a remains today a Right (note... a Right... not a privilege) for self-defense and ultimately for defense of our Constitutional liberties and unalienable Rights in the face of a government which oversteps its bounds.

An armed citizenry... a "well regulated militia"... was not looked upon by our Founders as simply as asset to our government to be called up and militarized as necessary, but rather an as a backstop guarantor that should government ever grow so big and powerful as to pose a threat to  our Constitutional liberties and unalienable Rights that "We the People" would possess the wherewithal to protect these Constitutional liberties and unalienable Rights.

As to registration.... even supposing we trust this present government - our various individual state governments as well as the federal government as of today - to not misuse registration... do we trust future governments... various state governments and the federal government of say next year... five years down the road... ten years down the road... and so on and so forth to no misuse gun registration in order to attempt to target gun owners... to violate gun owners' Second Amendment Rights by confiscating their guns?

I'm sure you all recall being taught that driving a motor vehicle is a privilege, not a Right.

Well... folks... the Second Amendment is a Right... not a privilege.

As to sideways "attacks" on gun ownership such as ammunition "regulation" and the size of clips and even automatic vs. semi-automatic (which has been federal law since 1934), again, where the purpose is to forbid one the full contextual usage of the Second Amendment Right... well... it seems to me that if a direct attack on a Constitutional Right is wrong than so is an indirect attack on a Constitutional Right.

Anyway, folks... questions?

Comments?

Again, folks... this isn't my doctoral thesis... it's not a legal "friend of the Court" brief... it's not even a formal op-ed meant to "prove my case."

Nope. Just sharing my thoughts. Just throwing some facts and analysis out there for you folks to ponder.

Extended Weekend Newsbites: Fri./Sat./Sun., Jan. 18, 19 & 20, 2013

Sorry for the recent lack of postings, folks... but you know me and tech - we don't get along all that well!

Anyway... the Optimum contractor was here on Wednesday and hooked up the phones and was also kind enough (yeah... of course I tipped him) to hook up my router. Unfortunately he didn't switch out my "old" DVR for a new one (I suppose mine is still current) so there was no opportunity to ask him to set up my new blu-ray player.

Anyway... my bro-in-law is tech savvy and so I asked him to come over today and set me up and he did.

Right now... at this very moment... I'm playing a DVD!

As to the rest of it... give me time... there's a lot to all these services offered through the blu-ray w-fi and it's gonna take me awhile to get up to speed. (Joey Baby... I know you're reading this... com'on over, brother...!)

Anyway... politics...? I'll get there, folks! Indeed that's why this "extended" newsbites post; rather than leave ya'll on the hook wondering, know that if I don't get to actually newsbiting today... I'll be newsbiting over the weekend!

Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Big day today... gonna spend money!

And not on food or booze!

No... not on travel...

Nope... gonna pick up a wireless duel band router and a Blu-Ray player so that when the cable guy comes over tomorrow to install my "Triple Play" everything can get set up properly for me to fully embrace 21st century entertainment norms!

Barker's Newsbites: Monday, January 14, 2013

Saw "Hyde Park on Hudson" yesterday with Mary.

I loved it! (Mary said it was "fine," said she "liked" it well enough.)

If you liked "The King's Speech," you'll like "Hyde Park on Hudson." 

Here's the thing, though...

(*DEEP BREATH*) (*LONG PAUSE*)

In a sense the movie made me sad.

A movie set in the 1930's and 40's... featuring America in the midst of the Great Depression and knowing that the characters and "their" adult and near-adult children would end up as "The Greatest Generation"... I couldn't help but instantaneously compare and contrast that America to present day America in my mind.

Thus... sadness.

Folks... the last 23 years have done a number on me.

First George H. W. "Pappy" Bush betraying Reaganism.

Then eight years of that pervert Clinton.

Next... George  "Dubya" Bush following in his father's footsteps to further trample the legacies of Reaganism.

And finally... Barack Hussein Obama - elected and then re-elected.

It hurts me... physically hurts me... to be so often ashamed of my country.

Scott Rasmussen Identifies the Enemy: The GOP Establisment

The latest from Rasmussen Reports...

*  *  *  *  *  *

Official Washington...

Meaning both Dempublicans and Republicrats!

...hailed the deal to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff...

Via increasing borrowing and spending!

...as a significant bipartisan accomplishment.

Which should tell you everything you need to know about "official Washington."

However, voters around the country viewed the deal in very partisan terms: Seven out of 10 Democrats approved of it, while seven out of 10 Republicans disapproved.

Just a few days after reaching that agreement, an inside-the-Beltway publication reported another area of bipartisan agreement. Politico explained that while Washington Democrats have always viewed GOP voters as a problem, Washington Republicans "in many a post-election soul-searching session" have come to agree.

More precisely, the article said the party's Election 2012 failures have "brought forth one principal conclusion from establishment Republicans: They have a primary problem."

As seen from the halls of power, the problem is that Republican voters think it's OK to replace incumbent senators and congressman who don't represent the views of their constituents.

In 2012, for example, Republican voters in Indiana dumped longtime Sen. Richard Lugar in a primary battle. This infuriated establishment Republicans for two reasons. First, because they liked Lugar and the way he worked. Second, because the replacement candidate was flawed and allowed Democrats to win what should have been a safe Republican seat.

All candidates are "flawed" in certain respects - as are all human beings. Yes, over the past few years certain "flawed" Tea Party candidates have lost (while others have won!), but in many cases - whether the electoral result was a win or loss in the end - Tea Party candidates faced internal opposition... backstabbing... from Establishment GOP forces.

So, according to Politico, the Washington team is gearing up a new effort to protect incumbents and limit the ability of Republican voters to successfully challenge establishment candidates.

Folks... the Republican Establishment must be destroyed. It's them or us. It's them or the nation.

That makes sense to those whose sole goal is winning a majority in Congress rather than changing the course of government policy. Seen from the outside, though, it sounds like the professional politicians are saying that the only way to win is to pick more candidates like the insiders. Hearing that message, the reaction of many Republican and conservative voters is, "Why bother?"

Again... don't tune out... go on the offensive! Identify the RINOs and fight them! Retreat is not an option; surrender even less of one!

That's why more than two-thirds of Republican voters believe GOP officials in Washington have lost touch with the party's base.

The Republican establishment has two choices. They can act as mature party leaders of a national political party, or they can protect their own self-interest.

And you know what they'll do...

Mature party leaders would spend a lot more time listening to Republican voters rather than further insulating themselves from those voters.

By and large the GOP lacks mature party leaders. By and large the GOP lacks principled party leaders.

They would try to understand why just 37% of Republicans nationwide believe the economy is fair. They would give serious thought to why just half of GOP voters have a favorable opinion of House Speaker John Boehner, the highest-ranking elected Republican in the nation. They would acknowledge that government spending in America has gone up in every year since 1954 regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats are in charge.

Yep...

Then mature party leaders would chart a realistic course to address these concerns and share those plans with the voters. To succeed, this course would have to include some painful medicine for the establishment, such as giving up corporate welfare programs that benefit their friends and allies. It also would require helping Republican voters identify primary candidates who challenge the establishment but could be effective on the campaign trail.

They... won't... do... this...!!!

This is a much tougher course to follow; one that would benefit the party and the nation. Unfortunately, by seeking to protect the insiders from the voters, all indications are that most establishment Republicans would rather blame the voters and keep their perks.