On particular pathetic day in November 2008, obama gave his little victory speech and told an adoring, yet uninformed populace, “Change has come to America!”
Now, nearly two years removed from that adulation, which a White House aide now says was “…sort of fake,” obama is telling much smaller crowds that “Change is going to come…”
Don’t know when, but it’s coming…trust me!
America is saying, hmmm.
It’s morning in America and people are rolling out of bed and leaving obama alone with his pillow and his narcissistic dreams.
With incredulity, obama realizes that far too many feel that the sex wasn’t as good as the fantasy and now he is forced to call his date on the phone and ask for another chance.
“You’ve got to stick with me…” obama recently begs like a jilted lover to a crowd in Madison, WI.
In Virginia, the land of lovers, obama pleads with people not to “give up” and asks them not to “abandon” his administration.
obama then channels Ronald Reagan for a DNC rally in D.C. featuring that musical genious B.o.B, urging the crowd to “stay on course.”
What’s next…a new rendition of Jesse Jackson’s “Keep Hope Alive?”
However, obama needs to first convince those in his own party.
obama isn’t even getting any love from his own dog – fellow democrats – some who have left his administration or are planning on leaving, and others running for office who are suddenly silent about the obama cure.
The Wall St. Journal printed a story on how “loyalty” to obama and his agenda has had the reverse affect of Viagra for supporters of Democrat congressional candidates.
The story mentioned that those Democrats running against obama/Pelosi’s demagoguery are doing better than those Democrats who are still drinking the obama Kool-Aid.
Former Clinton advisor Dick Morris says Democrat candidates “make no attempt to defend the administration, but run away from it…”
Democratic strategist and Karl Rove wanna-be Ted Devine, who claims to have advised 17 winning US Senate campaigns and 10 “winning” campaigns “abroad” for presidents or prime ministers, says Democrats need to avoid making the midterm elections a referendum on the obama/Pelosi agenda…despite once supporting the same agenda.
Run from your party leader and your record.
Like the thrill for obama in 2008, this “loyalty” thing is also “sort of fake” anyway.
obama himself dissed loyalty back in March when he threatened to withdraw his support during the midterm elections for any Democratic congressmen not supporting obama-care.
I’m sure that the 31 Democrat House Members who signed a letter with Republicans telling Pelosi that they support extending President George W.Bush’s tax cuts for all Americans, even the rich ones, are getting a similar scolding from obama.
Also, according to a NY Times article, obama’s team is “zealously” guarding their list of 2008 grassroots donors, limiting congressional Democratic candidates’ access for their own 2010 campaigns, causing much in-party grumbling.
This is where obama has found himself.
obama seeks to re-energize a majority of voters and non-voters who are less inclined to pee themselves when he speaks, and his own party is giving him the cold political shoulder.
This is where he will be in 2012.
Still begging for another chance, still promising that change is on its way, and still blaming Republicans, President George W. Bush, non-attentive voters, traitorous Democrats, and Fox News for holding up the mulit-colored bus.
Change you can believe in.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Monday, September 20, 2010
OBAMA'S GOVT SNIPING FROM WITHIN
Lately, news stories on a republican “civil war” are as numerous as fruit flies in a Starbucks pastry display.
Apparently it is a new phenomenon when during primaries opposing candidates of the same party bicker and fight like the Kate Gosselin family.
“Tea Party’s wins fuel a ‘civil war’ within GOP” read a USA Today headline this past week. CNN limped in today with their contribution to media setting the political narrative: “Inner-GOP sniping increases in wake of Tea Party successes.” Geek-dom got its two cents in on the implosion of the GOP with Alan Colmes’ little liberal-and-proud-of-it web posting. The Huffington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine, and Reuters are just a few that have joined the fray like stains on a Lewinski dress.
I’m sure MSNBC’s contribution to non-professional journalism, Keithy Olbermann, has had his little thesaurus working overtime on this story line.
And it wouldn’t surprise me if ‘columnists DeWayne Wickham and Leonard Pitts (truly) found a black angle to the conventional press opinion by which to meet their deadlines.
Critics are trying to marginalize a segment of the Republican Party, placing them to the right of President Ronald Reagan and knocking them for their inexperience, as if to say, “Give me a break,” mimicking democratic President Bill Clinton’s criticism of democrat obama’s run for the White House.
Let’s focus one eye on the cracks that have appeared in the once-thought-impenetrable democrat controlled government of obama; “change has come to America.”
During the summer of 2009 debate over obama-care, democrats were in disarray over what the final plan ought to look like and obama’s democratic administration took to making deals and promises with democratic legislators to bribe…to gain their support and help make obama look presidential with a later afternoon Rose Garden signing.
ABC News reported in March 2010 that “tension at the highest levels of power” in the obama White House (Rahm “I want to be mayor” Emanuel vs. David Axelrod) brought a reminder from obama that they need to be “playing on the same team.”
A Washington Times story in June reported that Democratic strategist James “I am Bill Clinton’s brain” Carville was railing against democratic president obama for lack of action following the BP oil spill. Democratic House member Charlie Rangel of NY also got into the act, telling an interviewer that the democratic administration of obama doesn’t have “the slightest clue” about what to do about the oil spill.
In July 2010, a Four-Star General is obama-retired over publically-aired disdain for the ways of his boss.
obama mouthpiece Robert Gibbs reportedly “infuriated” fellow Democrat Nancy “Plastic” Pelosi in July when he conceded that Democrats may lose control of the House of Representatives during midterm elections against the Republicans/Tea Partiers.
In August 2010, democratic non-tax-paying tax committee chairman Charlie Rangel (out of this one) took to the floor of the U.S. House to say “Hell no, I won’t go!” after democrat obama inferred that Rangle ought to resign his House seat rather than air the party’s dirty laundry in a quasi-public ethics trial.
On September 16, an Associated Press story reported that Democrats “are facing deep divisions in their nervous ranks” (emphasis mine) over whether to support no new taxes for anybody or nervously support democratic president obama’s call for further redistribution of wealth from those people and businesses making over $250,000. Yes, Virginia, some democrats are now favoring Republican President George Bush’s tax cuts.
Democratic House member Chet Edwards of Texas is running a campaign ad that states: “When (democratic) president obama and (democrat) Nancy Pelosi pressured (democrat) Chet Edwards, Chet stood up to them and voted ‘no’ against their trillion-dollor healthcare bill.”
Currently, there are rumblings from fellow democrats that democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ought to take her tax-payer funded airplane and her petrified hair-do on a one way trip back to California.
On September 18 the Wall St. Journal ran a story over the “dissent” Pelosi is facing from her own party.
The story states that democratic members have signed a Republican petition for a vote to repeal the Pelosi-supported obama-care healthcare bill;
other democrats (like Chet in Texas) are airing campaign ads that distance themselves from obama and Pelosi’s majority democrat run government; Alabama Democrat Bobby Bright’s ad states: “Bobby stands up to (democrat) Nancy Pelosi;”
31 democrats joined republicans in the house to tell Pelosi they will support President George Bush’s tax cuts rather than her call for unity on obama’s spread-the-wealth tax plan;
Democrat Congressman and Iraq War vet Brett Gordon of Tennessee said Pelosi should step down as Speaker and should not seek the top House role during the next legislative session (assuming she has the chance);
and democrat leadership aides are acknowledging that Pelosi is a “liability” to their party in this years elections.
Common sense and poll numbers tell us that all cannot be so sparkly in the land of Oz-obama.
There have been no obama beer-fests in the Rose Garden; no vacations for at least 3 weeks; and no Amy –Carter like inquisitives from little Malia concerning the job obama is doing.
With RealClear Politics poll numbers showing more people disapproving of obama’s presidential performance than those still wearing rose-colored glasses and approving of his muddling blindly along, as well as nearly 75% of those polled feeling non-too impressed with the work of obama’s democratic controlled Congress, you can be sure that egos and self-preservation are making huge scratching noises in obama’s changed Washington D.C.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
OBAMA'S GOVT THREATENS FREE SPEECH
Threaten to burn the Qur’an; you get a call from obama asking you to reconsider.
Organize a protest against obama-care in a national park; you get jail.
The latter example may become reality if obama’s Department of Justice has its way.
A recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruling stated that requiring permission to speak your mind in a national park is just plain B.S.
obama’s Justice Department, led by Eric Holder, are threatening an appeal of this ruling so they can control which words will matter.
This is the same Eric Holder who as U.S. Deputy Attorney General in May 1999 advocated for the implementation of restrictions and regulations on internet speech.
Now as top law-dog (and lap-dog) in the country, and teamed up with someone who thinks words matter only when they come from his mouth, Holder is threatening to withhold a basic American right from someone who may want to discuss which First Lady has had the biggest over-bite with other visitors to the African American Civil War Memorial.
obama’s government argued in this case that restricting free speech in a National Park preserves the “peace and tranquility” of the park.
Do you think obama’s government would go after Martin Luther King for bringing all those people to the Lincoln Memorial and disturbing that park’s “peace and tranquility?”
Oh, hell no!
Glen Beck? Perhaps this is at the cusp of the obama government’s attack on free speech.
Eric Holder has probably not met with any TeaParty members to discuss ways of preventing partisan-motivated violence, however, United States Attonrey General Eric Holder¸ who’s own website promotes “Open Government,” did hold a meeting on September 7, 2010 with members of an “interfaith” group to discuss his department’s commitment in protecting their speech…the meeting was closed to the press.
Open government.
Freedom.
Words matter.
Read more: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.create&editor=True#ixzz0zvdgfmry
Organize a protest against obama-care in a national park; you get jail.
The latter example may become reality if obama’s Department of Justice has its way.
A recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruling stated that requiring permission to speak your mind in a national park is just plain B.S.
obama’s Justice Department, led by Eric Holder, are threatening an appeal of this ruling so they can control which words will matter.
This is the same Eric Holder who as U.S. Deputy Attorney General in May 1999 advocated for the implementation of restrictions and regulations on internet speech.
Now as top law-dog (and lap-dog) in the country, and teamed up with someone who thinks words matter only when they come from his mouth, Holder is threatening to withhold a basic American right from someone who may want to discuss which First Lady has had the biggest over-bite with other visitors to the African American Civil War Memorial.
obama’s government argued in this case that restricting free speech in a National Park preserves the “peace and tranquility” of the park.
Do you think obama’s government would go after Martin Luther King for bringing all those people to the Lincoln Memorial and disturbing that park’s “peace and tranquility?”
Oh, hell no!
Glen Beck? Perhaps this is at the cusp of the obama government’s attack on free speech.
Eric Holder has probably not met with any TeaParty members to discuss ways of preventing partisan-motivated violence, however, United States Attonrey General Eric Holder¸ who’s own website promotes “Open Government,” did hold a meeting on September 7, 2010 with members of an “interfaith” group to discuss his department’s commitment in protecting their speech…the meeting was closed to the press.
Open government.
Freedom.
Words matter.
Read more: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.create&editor=True#ixzz0zvdgfmry
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
OBAMA SHOWING CUBA NO LOVE
obama was against the Cuban embargo before he was for it.
A YouTube video shows obama in 2004 saying “it’s time to end the embargo” and “the Cuban embargo has failed.”
While campaigning, obama promised “real change in Cuba.”
While pandering to locals in a May 2008 Miami, Florida campaign appearance, where he “sprinkled his speech with Spanish words and phrases,” obama criticized Senator John McCain for “embracing failed policies” in the context of American/Cuban relations.
obama called for a “’new alliance of the Americas,” where neighbors such as Cuba would not be treated as “junior partners” in some idealistic socialist world order.
In this vein, obama promised that as president he would appoint a Special Envoy to the Americas to work with our southern neighbors, especially Cuba, in improving relations and in the end doing away with the embargo that has harmed the people of Cuba more than it has punished the government of Castro.
Our southern neighbors still await this appointment while the Middle East, Afghanistan/Pakistan, Sudan, and Haiti, to name a few, have been assigned special envoys by obama (makes you wonder what the hell Hillary Clinton is doing as Secretary of State).
Oh, there were rumors, such as Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd being offered the position. Might be logical, he will be out of a job in November.
obama said President George Bush’s policies were not “advancing freedom in Cuba.”
Currently, obama embraces the majority of those same policies toward Cuba…with the same effects.
McCain vowed to maintain the embargo until its communist government makes moves toward accepting human rights and democratic elections.
While castigating President George W. Bush, Senator John McCain, and Senator Hillary Clinton (and anyone else who wasn’t Cuban) for setting “preconditions” on meeting with enemy leaders, such as Raul Castro of Cuba, obama was setting his own.
obama has maintained the embargo - as president he hasn’t even called for its review by Congress - saying Cuba has not made the necessary positive steps by which he would consider ending the embargo.
obama has, however, made the traditional embargo policy less restrictive, his version of the carrot and stick game I assume, but that has been seen as doing too little.
obama campaigned on the ideal that when he becomes president his talk and hug approach to foreign policy would make despot states like Cuba change their ways and move toward democracy and an acceptance of human rights.
NPR released a story in August of this year which reported that international opinion was that the Castro regime has not, despite the hugs and talk from obama, made significant moves on its “ugly human rights record.
Thus, it appears obama’s policies with respect to Cuba are having no positive affect.
``It's important for the United States not just to talk to its friends, but also to talk to its enemies,'' obama said in a Texas debate against Senator Hillary Clinton.
The President of Cuba’s National Assembly sought to come to the U.S. to talk in October 2009…obama’s government denied him a visa.
Actions often matter more than words.
obama’s government has maintained Cuba on the list of foreign states that are sponsors of terrorism, saying in August of this year that “Havana provides safe haven to terrorists…”
More recently, the Trading With The Enemy Act (TWEA), which restricts trade, travel, and economic ventures with Cuba (Cuba is the only country this Act currently mentions), was due to expire on September 14, 2010.
obama extended the Act against Cuba on September 2, 2010 (Federal Register: September 7, 2010 Volume 75, Number 172,Presidential Documents, pp. 54457).
Yet on the website Cuba Travel USA, it is George W. Bush that is pictured with the label, “enemy of freedom to travel.”
Liberals around the globe have been calling on Cuba’s behalf for obama to lift the sanctions that have hurt the Cuban families of our US citizens.
Amnesty International called on obama not to extend TWEA, calling the sanctions against Cuba the “United States’ single most ridiculous and demonstrably failed foreign policy.”
Got nowhere with that.
Writing for the Washington Times, Eli Lake said that human rights groups are beginning to question obama’s “commitment” to their issues; “From a civil liberties perspective, [obama’s] report card shows an incomplete,” said Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU.
The National Foreign Trade Council has called on obama to open Cuba to all U.S. travelers and let U.S. companies work on the island.
Carlos Lazo, U.S. National Guardsmen, Cuban activist, and member of the board of directors of the Center for Democracy in the Americas, said “it is time to eliminate all restrictions on travel to Cuba for all Americans.”
Getting nowhere with that.
Steve Clemons, noting that Cuba, at this time, does not represent a great political prize for obama, yet urging him to change his policies, said, “Drop the counterproductive, compulsive obsessiveness with ‘conditionality.’ It does not work and undermines American interests.”
"When I lived in Cuba, they didn't let me leave the country," said Jose, a Bank of America employee who arrived here from Havana five years ago, who gave only his first name. "Now that I live in Miami, they don't let me go there. The two governments seem the same."
Read more: http://www.myspace.com/iosoluno
Read more: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=510446062&blogId=538964257#ixzz0yxvnReGS
A YouTube video shows obama in 2004 saying “it’s time to end the embargo” and “the Cuban embargo has failed.”
While campaigning, obama promised “real change in Cuba.”
While pandering to locals in a May 2008 Miami, Florida campaign appearance, where he “sprinkled his speech with Spanish words and phrases,” obama criticized Senator John McCain for “embracing failed policies” in the context of American/Cuban relations.
obama called for a “’new alliance of the Americas,” where neighbors such as Cuba would not be treated as “junior partners” in some idealistic socialist world order.
In this vein, obama promised that as president he would appoint a Special Envoy to the Americas to work with our southern neighbors, especially Cuba, in improving relations and in the end doing away with the embargo that has harmed the people of Cuba more than it has punished the government of Castro.
Our southern neighbors still await this appointment while the Middle East, Afghanistan/Pakistan, Sudan, and Haiti, to name a few, have been assigned special envoys by obama (makes you wonder what the hell Hillary Clinton is doing as Secretary of State).
Oh, there were rumors, such as Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd being offered the position. Might be logical, he will be out of a job in November.
obama said President George Bush’s policies were not “advancing freedom in Cuba.”
Currently, obama embraces the majority of those same policies toward Cuba…with the same effects.
McCain vowed to maintain the embargo until its communist government makes moves toward accepting human rights and democratic elections.
While castigating President George W. Bush, Senator John McCain, and Senator Hillary Clinton (and anyone else who wasn’t Cuban) for setting “preconditions” on meeting with enemy leaders, such as Raul Castro of Cuba, obama was setting his own.
obama has maintained the embargo - as president he hasn’t even called for its review by Congress - saying Cuba has not made the necessary positive steps by which he would consider ending the embargo.
obama has, however, made the traditional embargo policy less restrictive, his version of the carrot and stick game I assume, but that has been seen as doing too little.
obama campaigned on the ideal that when he becomes president his talk and hug approach to foreign policy would make despot states like Cuba change their ways and move toward democracy and an acceptance of human rights.
NPR released a story in August of this year which reported that international opinion was that the Castro regime has not, despite the hugs and talk from obama, made significant moves on its “ugly human rights record.
Thus, it appears obama’s policies with respect to Cuba are having no positive affect.
``It's important for the United States not just to talk to its friends, but also to talk to its enemies,'' obama said in a Texas debate against Senator Hillary Clinton.
The President of Cuba’s National Assembly sought to come to the U.S. to talk in October 2009…obama’s government denied him a visa.
Actions often matter more than words.
obama’s government has maintained Cuba on the list of foreign states that are sponsors of terrorism, saying in August of this year that “Havana provides safe haven to terrorists…”
More recently, the Trading With The Enemy Act (TWEA), which restricts trade, travel, and economic ventures with Cuba (Cuba is the only country this Act currently mentions), was due to expire on September 14, 2010.
obama extended the Act against Cuba on September 2, 2010 (Federal Register: September 7, 2010 Volume 75, Number 172,Presidential Documents, pp. 54457).
Yet on the website Cuba Travel USA, it is George W. Bush that is pictured with the label, “enemy of freedom to travel.”
Liberals around the globe have been calling on Cuba’s behalf for obama to lift the sanctions that have hurt the Cuban families of our US citizens.
Amnesty International called on obama not to extend TWEA, calling the sanctions against Cuba the “United States’ single most ridiculous and demonstrably failed foreign policy.”
Got nowhere with that.
Writing for the Washington Times, Eli Lake said that human rights groups are beginning to question obama’s “commitment” to their issues; “From a civil liberties perspective, [obama’s] report card shows an incomplete,” said Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU.
The National Foreign Trade Council has called on obama to open Cuba to all U.S. travelers and let U.S. companies work on the island.
Carlos Lazo, U.S. National Guardsmen, Cuban activist, and member of the board of directors of the Center for Democracy in the Americas, said “it is time to eliminate all restrictions on travel to Cuba for all Americans.”
Getting nowhere with that.
Steve Clemons, noting that Cuba, at this time, does not represent a great political prize for obama, yet urging him to change his policies, said, “Drop the counterproductive, compulsive obsessiveness with ‘conditionality.’ It does not work and undermines American interests.”
"When I lived in Cuba, they didn't let me leave the country," said Jose, a Bank of America employee who arrived here from Havana five years ago, who gave only his first name. "Now that I live in Miami, they don't let me go there. The two governments seem the same."
Read more: http://www.myspace.com/iosoluno
Read more: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=510446062&blogId=538964257#ixzz0yxvnReGS
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
OBAMA CAN RELAX; THE TEA PARTY IS JUST A FAD
Well, that is if you subscribe to columnist DeWayne Wickham’s way of thinking; which is possible if you squint your eyes and twist your mind.
Wickham’s latest masterpiece appeared today in USA Today (Aug. 31, 2010, p. 11A) and was, naturally, titled, “Jackson, Sharpton Rallies Carry More Influence Than Beck’s.”
Which is why, I suppose, the media has spent so much time attacking Beck’s rally.
Anyhoo, the gist of Wickham’s little essay is that suddenly old players like Jackson and Sharpton have the ability to “spur” the “core constituency” of the Democratic Party, blacks, to get up off the couch and stop watching SportCenter (to borrow a phrase from obama) and head to the polls in November to rescue the Democratic Party.
I use the term ‘black’ due to a Radio One poll in October 2008 that found 42% of those polled prefer to be called ‘black’ rather than African American (www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/28/liggins.vote/index.html).
I’m all for giving this ultra-minority a voice.
While Wickham says the Jackson/Sharpton rallies will create Hope and Change V2.0, he predicts that the Tea Party “will be short-lived.”
Where were Jackson, Sharpton, and their “core constituents” a month after obama’s election when Democrats were losing two seats in black districts in Louisiana – including New Orleans? Wickham’s charges were missing in Georgia during a December 2008 Senate run-off election which was run by a Republican by 15%. Why were Jackson, Sharpton, and Wickham not spurring their “core” to vote in 2009 during governor’s races in Virginia and New Jersey where surveys were showing drops in black voter turnout upwards to 40% as compared with the general election in 2008? (http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/62967-democrats-ponder-a-big-drop-in-turnout-among-black-voters).
Wickham is placing much faith in an unreliable voting block and two uninspiring men with racial chips on their shoulders.
The Tea Party, Wickham says, is a “21st century incarnation of the anti-immigration Know-Nothing Movement of the 1850s.” Thus the crux of his death knell.
Here Wickham, like so many, confuse the extreme nativist ideology of the Know-Nothings with the reasonable, conservative anti-illegal immigration belief of the Tea Partiers.
The difference on this point is as wide as a Reagan victory over Jimmy Carter.
Due to the majority two-party hold on our politics, and given the fact that members of both major parties and states like Michigan are fighting to keep a formal Tea Party party off election ballots, we most likely will not be able to compare electoral successes between the two movements.
The Know-Nothings, prior to imploding due to their extremism, did have some electoral success.
Formally known as the American Party, the Know-Nothings actually won 62 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives during the 1854 midterm elections.
They made their way onto the 1856 Presidential ballot with candidate Millard Fillmore, who received nearly 1 million votes.
This, and more, from a party that basically morphed its way into being seen as a joke.
However, Tea Party support has led to more elective offices for their supported candidates than has the support of obama for his chosen candidates.
Wickham wastes his time comparing a formal political party built on an extreme anti-immigration ideology with a group aligned to support candidates that support various conservative issues.
Wickham and Sharpton are filled with vigor when liberal groups march and coalesce for a candidate and a cause, but are threatened and become hypocritical when conservatives choose a similar path to make their voices heard.
I’m just surprised Wickham didn’t bring up Sarah Palin.
Read more: http://www.myspace.com/iosoluno/blog?bID=538747843#ixzz0yFC2lwix
Wickham’s latest masterpiece appeared today in USA Today (Aug. 31, 2010, p. 11A) and was, naturally, titled, “Jackson, Sharpton Rallies Carry More Influence Than Beck’s.”
Which is why, I suppose, the media has spent so much time attacking Beck’s rally.
Anyhoo, the gist of Wickham’s little essay is that suddenly old players like Jackson and Sharpton have the ability to “spur” the “core constituency” of the Democratic Party, blacks, to get up off the couch and stop watching SportCenter (to borrow a phrase from obama) and head to the polls in November to rescue the Democratic Party.
I use the term ‘black’ due to a Radio One poll in October 2008 that found 42% of those polled prefer to be called ‘black’ rather than African American (www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/28/liggins.vote/index.html).
I’m all for giving this ultra-minority a voice.
While Wickham says the Jackson/Sharpton rallies will create Hope and Change V2.0, he predicts that the Tea Party “will be short-lived.”
Where were Jackson, Sharpton, and their “core constituents” a month after obama’s election when Democrats were losing two seats in black districts in Louisiana – including New Orleans? Wickham’s charges were missing in Georgia during a December 2008 Senate run-off election which was run by a Republican by 15%. Why were Jackson, Sharpton, and Wickham not spurring their “core” to vote in 2009 during governor’s races in Virginia and New Jersey where surveys were showing drops in black voter turnout upwards to 40% as compared with the general election in 2008? (http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/62967-democrats-ponder-a-big-drop-in-turnout-among-black-voters).
Wickham is placing much faith in an unreliable voting block and two uninspiring men with racial chips on their shoulders.
The Tea Party, Wickham says, is a “21st century incarnation of the anti-immigration Know-Nothing Movement of the 1850s.” Thus the crux of his death knell.
Here Wickham, like so many, confuse the extreme nativist ideology of the Know-Nothings with the reasonable, conservative anti-illegal immigration belief of the Tea Partiers.
The difference on this point is as wide as a Reagan victory over Jimmy Carter.
Due to the majority two-party hold on our politics, and given the fact that members of both major parties and states like Michigan are fighting to keep a formal Tea Party party off election ballots, we most likely will not be able to compare electoral successes between the two movements.
The Know-Nothings, prior to imploding due to their extremism, did have some electoral success.
Formally known as the American Party, the Know-Nothings actually won 62 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives during the 1854 midterm elections.
They made their way onto the 1856 Presidential ballot with candidate Millard Fillmore, who received nearly 1 million votes.
This, and more, from a party that basically morphed its way into being seen as a joke.
However, Tea Party support has led to more elective offices for their supported candidates than has the support of obama for his chosen candidates.
Wickham wastes his time comparing a formal political party built on an extreme anti-immigration ideology with a group aligned to support candidates that support various conservative issues.
Wickham and Sharpton are filled with vigor when liberal groups march and coalesce for a candidate and a cause, but are threatened and become hypocritical when conservatives choose a similar path to make their voices heard.
I’m just surprised Wickham didn’t bring up Sarah Palin.
Read more: http://www.myspace.com/iosoluno/blog?bID=538747843#ixzz0yFC2lwix
Sunday, August 29, 2010
OBAMA SCAMS SENIOR VOTERS
obama has been using the draw -down of American troops in Iraq as a “hey, look at me and what I’ve done” moment.
Constantly we hear him saying that removing all combat troops from Iraq by the summer of 2010 was a campaign pledge he made and a campaign pledge he is keeping.
We heard this empty boast as troops began to leave; he said it again today during his national radio broadcast, and you can bet your next Social Security check that he will emphasize this point during his speech to the nation on Tuesday.
Stepping over the fact that he did absolutely nothing to make this pledge come true, other than giving the order to leave, let’s look at a one campaign promise he made that has been left out on the sidewalk like yesterday’s garbage.
The spring of 2008 found obama’s campaign struggling in the primaries against Senator Hillary Clinton in attracting the support of the elderly.
Reports of the “SuperTuesday” multi-state primary results in February 2008 were showing that obama received only 35% of those primary voters over the age of 60 while Senator Clinton received 56% of these votes (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/05/politics/main3795497.shtml).
obama also lost the primary votes of older Latinos by 40-60% percentage points to Senator Clinton in Texas, New Mexico, and California; by April 2008 the obama campaign admitted the elderly vote issue was becoming a problem (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9902.html ).
So, obama takes to doing what any good politician would do when they need to attract the votes of a certain voting demographic: pander to them.
Realizing that his opponent in the general election would be against an old white guy (Senator John McCain), obama panders to the most experienced of our population by promising them a tax break.
In August 2008 an AP story is widely circulated among most news agencies that obama was promising senior citizens that as president he would see to it that senior citizens making less than $50,000 annually would pay no income taxes.
obama was telling us that this promise would give more than 7 million citizens an average of $1,400 a year (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/12/obama-seniors-making-unde_n_118348.html).
Perhaps obama’s pandering to the post-youthful generation worked.
CNN’s national exit polls reveal that during the presidential election against Senator John McCain, obama received 50% of the votes from people age 45-64, and 45% of those votes from people over age 65 (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/).
Then obama came to Washington D.C., brought his mother-in-law, planted a garden, held a public barbecue, went on The View, and forgot all about his pledge to the elderly.
There were tax cuts in the non-stimulating stimulus bill, but none for the elderly…well; he did give those receiving Social Security an extra, one-time bonus of $250.
obama presented Congress with his first budget in January 2009; no tax cut for the elderly.
On April 15, 2009 obama gave a speech about reforming the tax code; no mention of a tax break for the elderly (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/24/end-income-tax-for-seniors-making-less-than/).
Yet he pushes obama-care into law which cuts Medicare benefits to the elderly Advantage program.
Now his wreck-the-social-security-system commission readies a proposal to decrease benefits, increase eligibility requirements, or increase taxes.
True, obama never set a time for his senior citizen tax promise to actually take place, except that it would happen with him as president.
True, obama never added the little caveat to his promise during the campaign that some other politicians may be against his little promise, or that politics might make things difficult to get this done.
That would make him different, a change, from normal pandering politicians.
While you listen to obama taking credit for keeping a pledge that even Joe Biden could have kept, note that besides the fake-out of the elderly citizens in America, there are 21 other promises (politifact.com) obama made during his run for the White House that he has also either abandoned or had little stomach to fight for.
Change you can believe in?
Read more: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=510446062&blogId=538669294#ixzz0y0ZFrsqS
Constantly we hear him saying that removing all combat troops from Iraq by the summer of 2010 was a campaign pledge he made and a campaign pledge he is keeping.
We heard this empty boast as troops began to leave; he said it again today during his national radio broadcast, and you can bet your next Social Security check that he will emphasize this point during his speech to the nation on Tuesday.
Stepping over the fact that he did absolutely nothing to make this pledge come true, other than giving the order to leave, let’s look at a one campaign promise he made that has been left out on the sidewalk like yesterday’s garbage.
The spring of 2008 found obama’s campaign struggling in the primaries against Senator Hillary Clinton in attracting the support of the elderly.
Reports of the “SuperTuesday” multi-state primary results in February 2008 were showing that obama received only 35% of those primary voters over the age of 60 while Senator Clinton received 56% of these votes (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/05/politics/main3795497.shtml).
obama also lost the primary votes of older Latinos by 40-60% percentage points to Senator Clinton in Texas, New Mexico, and California; by April 2008 the obama campaign admitted the elderly vote issue was becoming a problem (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9902.html ).
So, obama takes to doing what any good politician would do when they need to attract the votes of a certain voting demographic: pander to them.
Realizing that his opponent in the general election would be against an old white guy (Senator John McCain), obama panders to the most experienced of our population by promising them a tax break.
In August 2008 an AP story is widely circulated among most news agencies that obama was promising senior citizens that as president he would see to it that senior citizens making less than $50,000 annually would pay no income taxes.
obama was telling us that this promise would give more than 7 million citizens an average of $1,400 a year (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/12/obama-seniors-making-unde_n_118348.html).
Perhaps obama’s pandering to the post-youthful generation worked.
CNN’s national exit polls reveal that during the presidential election against Senator John McCain, obama received 50% of the votes from people age 45-64, and 45% of those votes from people over age 65 (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/).
Then obama came to Washington D.C., brought his mother-in-law, planted a garden, held a public barbecue, went on The View, and forgot all about his pledge to the elderly.
There were tax cuts in the non-stimulating stimulus bill, but none for the elderly…well; he did give those receiving Social Security an extra, one-time bonus of $250.
obama presented Congress with his first budget in January 2009; no tax cut for the elderly.
On April 15, 2009 obama gave a speech about reforming the tax code; no mention of a tax break for the elderly (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/24/end-income-tax-for-seniors-making-less-than/).
Yet he pushes obama-care into law which cuts Medicare benefits to the elderly Advantage program.
Now his wreck-the-social-security-system commission readies a proposal to decrease benefits, increase eligibility requirements, or increase taxes.
True, obama never set a time for his senior citizen tax promise to actually take place, except that it would happen with him as president.
True, obama never added the little caveat to his promise during the campaign that some other politicians may be against his little promise, or that politics might make things difficult to get this done.
That would make him different, a change, from normal pandering politicians.
While you listen to obama taking credit for keeping a pledge that even Joe Biden could have kept, note that besides the fake-out of the elderly citizens in America, there are 21 other promises (politifact.com) obama made during his run for the White House that he has also either abandoned or had little stomach to fight for.
Change you can believe in?
Read more: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=510446062&blogId=538669294#ixzz0y0ZFrsqS
Sunday, August 22, 2010
OBAMA'S GOV'T SUSPENDS CHALLENGES TO POPULATION COUNT
While the media focuses on the ruckus surrounding birth certificates, mosques, and vacations, there has taken place within obama’s government something much more ominous and threatening to our notions of voice, fairplay, and democracy.
Each year the U.S. Census Bureau produces estimates of the U.S. population for each age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin group using the previous completed census count as the base population, then adding or subtracting based on among other things, births, deaths, and international migration (legal or otherwise as far as the current governmental elite are concerned).
This is the Population Estimates Program.
These annual estimates are used in the allocating of federal funds to local, county, and state governments ( http://www.census.gov/popest/overview.html).
In other words, they are pretty damn important; and it’s important to get them right.
Since 1979 it has been codified in federal law (Title 15, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 90) that local, county, and state governments have the right to challenge the government’s population estimates.
This is the Population Estimates Challenge Program.
There were 99 accepted challenges to the government’s estimates in 2007 and 2008 and for every accepted challenge except for 2 there was recorded an increase in the population estimates made by the government (http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/challenges.html).
Then came obama.
obama needed to fill the Secretary of Commerce cabinet position, as well as the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau’s position, and it appears no one from the global community-minded Tripartisan Commission (http://www.augustreview.com/issues/globalization/the_trilateral_commission:_usurping_sovereignty_2007080373/) was available.
The Secretary of Commerce overseas the U.S. Census Bureau and his power, as stated in 13 U.S.C 4, is basically as he sees it; “..the Secretary may issue rules and regulations, as he deems necessary to carry out his functions and duties…”
Just like Katherine Sebalius can do with obama-care.
Therefore, much of what the Secretary would like to do in the context of the U.S. Census and its processes is beyond Congressional oversight.
After first striking out with New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who was at the time bearded and enbalttled, obama then asked New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg (R) to be his new commerce secretary.
Apparently Gregg declined to take the position when obama refused to oppose the use of statistical sampling, rather than individual head counts, in running the decennial census program, as well as not assuring Gregg that obama political operatives wouldn’t be interfering with Gregg’s running of the Census bureau and its processes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/28/AR2010022803364.html).
Perhaps Gregg feared being attacked in the shower by a naked Rahm Emmanuel.
Democrats and Republicans for years have disagreed on whether the census should be based on a strict head count or done by “statistical adjustment,” which is favored by Democrats so that hard-to-track people, like illegal aliens, are counted (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/02/obama-taps-robert-groves-census-director/).
Juan Williams, NPR radio analyst and author of “Eyes on the Prize: America’s Civil Rights Years, 1954-1965,” stated that most challenges to the U.S.Census have come from the left as they claim blacks, Hispanics, and the homeless (and this year, illegals) have been under-counted (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/28/AR2010022803364.html).
Statistical sampling done by a liberal left government would of course be beneficial to these groups.
The Netherlands and Germany employ such statistical sampling for their censuses.
Finally, obama finds his commerce secretary, a Mr. Lok Gaa-Fai .
His given English name is Gary Locke, former Democratic Governor of Washington State and Hillary campaign chief in that state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Locke).
Locke would be in lock-step with obama on just about anything. As one former pollster said of his old boss, “He’s more of a manager than a bold leader or a visionary” (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1881587,00.html).
That ought to bode well for the U.S. as we struggle with our international trade gap.
obama then chose Robert Groves of the University of Michigan to be the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau.
Groves has been known to do cart-wheels over random statistical sampling.
Why count everybody when counting a few and making an educated guess as to the whole would be close enough for government work?
"With the nomination of Robert Groves, [obama] has made clear that he intends to employ the political manipulation of census data for partisan gain," North Carolina Congressman Patrick McHenry cautioned.
Other lawmakers called Groves an "incredibly troubling selection" who must be watched for "statistical sleight of hand" (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1889793,00.html).....
President George H.W. Bush (the first Bush) brought Groves on board in 1990 to help with that year’s Census. However, his use of statistical models to fill in gaps of undercounting rubbed then Commerce Secretary Robert Mosbacher the wrong way (Montopoli, Brian, "Obama To Tap Sampling Expert To Be Census Director," CBS News, April 2, 2009).....
Mosbacher called Groves’ statistical techniques “political tampering” (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/02/obama-taps-robert-groves-census-director/).
Currently, however, Groves, as Director of the U.S. Census Bureau, answers to no rational thinking human being; pragmatic yes, rational no.
On the obama payroll for less than a year, Groves would immediately find fault with the 1979 Population Estimates Challenge Program.
So what does he do now that he has this administration backing him up?
Groves acts against the Population Challenge Estimate law like no other Bureau Director has before him.
He suspends the law and thus any challenges to what he as Census Bureau chief will say what the latest annual population estimates will show (Federal Register, Vol. 75, No.1, Mon. Jan., 4, 2010, pp44-46, http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/E9-31171.pdf).
Why?
(1) to focus on the 2010 Census;
(2) it would be “pointless” to do a population estimate and deal with the challenges of that estimate while work is being done on the decennial Census;
(3) it would be a cost-effective means to ensure allocation of sufficient resources for the demographic analysis of the 2010 Census;
(4) to redesign the Challenge Program to make it more demographically accurate;....
(5) to reduce the need for a post-estimate review process;
(6) and, it will allow the Census Bureau to better integrate the date from the 2010 Census into the Population Estimates Program (Federal Register, 75,1, 1/4/2010).
Basically he’s taking a direct approach to ensuring that his love affair with statistical sampling will become a trusted tool in future U.S. Census Bureau processes.
What better way to sure up the liberal left’s voting base and thus ensure a liberal left congressional representative majority.
Groves claims the Challenge Program will resume in 2012, but remember, the Census Bureau is allowed to act without Congressional oversight.
The timing is questionable: suspended right before 2010 congressional elections and then continuing, ostensibly, following the next presidential election.
In the context of the actual Census taking, Groves has also acted in a troubling manner.
This year the government launched a multi-million dollar ad campaign to increase Census participation.
How to pay for this? The U.S. Census bureau was given $250 MILLION of the stimulus monies to run their little Census advertising campaigns ("Obama Picks Robert Groves for Census Director," The Washington Post Online, April 2, 2009).
What’s next? Stimulus paid-for advertising campaigns in 2012 to urge those too stupid (or those considered disenfranchised) to realize that it’s time to vote again for president?
We want everyone counted, right?
I wonder. It appears the obama administration feels that some need to be pushed in that direction a little harder than the rest of the population.
Guess who that would be?
obama announces in February of 2009 that the Casa Blanca would monitor how the census was conducted in order to assure that the Latino and black populations were not disenfranchised (."Growing political battle over the Census: Latinos versus Republicans," Los Angeles Times Online, Feb. 9, 2009).
I bet.
In April 2010 Groves announces plans to seek help from major Spanish news outlets in order to build support for the Census among Latinos (El Nasser, Haya, "Hispanic groups call for Census boycott," USA Today, April 15, 2009).
I wonder how much advertising and reaching out the Census Bureau did in poor, white areas in the Adirondacks.
According to Groves’ own admission, not as much.
In January 2010 Groves appeared before a Pew Research conference and stated the following (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1477/census-director-robert-groves-explains-process-safeguards-participation-evaluation):
* Because we're trying to reach everyone, we have disproportionately spent locally rather than nationally. We are disproportionately spending in language groups.”
During the same conference Groves also used these phrases to describe the Census process: “..is like a moon shot in its planning horizon,” and “It’s a little harder than fighting a war…”
A “little harder?”
Let obama tell that to returning Iraq War veterans.
And more ominously, given his love with statistical sampling and liberal supporters in charge of our government: “We have a group working right now on the 2020 design, believe it or not.”
Oh, I believe it!
Then just recently in August 2010, Secretary Lok Gaa-Fai announces that due to set-aside contingency funds in the Census Bureau’s budget being unused, that the Census Bureau saved over $1 BILLION dollars during the 2010 Census (http://www.commerce.gov/blog/2010/08/10/secretary-locke-announces-16-billion-2010-census-savings).
He didn’t mention that he had been given $1 BILLION in stimulus funds to begin with, or that the Bureau no longer would be spending time and money fighting those pesky Population Estimate Challenges that were once the law of the land, but now were just archives in Director Groves little file cabinet.
So, while you’re watching Entertainment Tonight and Inside Edition for the latest news on the obama administration, remember that you are not receiving the latest news that matters on the obama administration.
One avenue for your voice has been taken away without any congressional debate, vote, or, more importantly, without your input.
How many more?
Read more: http://www.myspace.com/iosoluno/blog#ixzz0xNasxvJW
Each year the U.S. Census Bureau produces estimates of the U.S. population for each age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin group using the previous completed census count as the base population, then adding or subtracting based on among other things, births, deaths, and international migration (legal or otherwise as far as the current governmental elite are concerned).
This is the Population Estimates Program.
These annual estimates are used in the allocating of federal funds to local, county, and state governments ( http://www.census.gov/popest/overview.html).
In other words, they are pretty damn important; and it’s important to get them right.
Since 1979 it has been codified in federal law (Title 15, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 90) that local, county, and state governments have the right to challenge the government’s population estimates.
This is the Population Estimates Challenge Program.
There were 99 accepted challenges to the government’s estimates in 2007 and 2008 and for every accepted challenge except for 2 there was recorded an increase in the population estimates made by the government (http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/challenges.html).
Then came obama.
obama needed to fill the Secretary of Commerce cabinet position, as well as the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau’s position, and it appears no one from the global community-minded Tripartisan Commission (http://www.augustreview.com/issues/globalization/the_trilateral_commission:_usurping_sovereignty_2007080373/) was available.
The Secretary of Commerce overseas the U.S. Census Bureau and his power, as stated in 13 U.S.C 4, is basically as he sees it; “..the Secretary may issue rules and regulations, as he deems necessary to carry out his functions and duties…”
Just like Katherine Sebalius can do with obama-care.
Therefore, much of what the Secretary would like to do in the context of the U.S. Census and its processes is beyond Congressional oversight.
After first striking out with New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who was at the time bearded and enbalttled, obama then asked New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg (R) to be his new commerce secretary.
Apparently Gregg declined to take the position when obama refused to oppose the use of statistical sampling, rather than individual head counts, in running the decennial census program, as well as not assuring Gregg that obama political operatives wouldn’t be interfering with Gregg’s running of the Census bureau and its processes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/28/AR2010022803364.html).
Perhaps Gregg feared being attacked in the shower by a naked Rahm Emmanuel.
Democrats and Republicans for years have disagreed on whether the census should be based on a strict head count or done by “statistical adjustment,” which is favored by Democrats so that hard-to-track people, like illegal aliens, are counted (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/02/obama-taps-robert-groves-census-director/).
Juan Williams, NPR radio analyst and author of “Eyes on the Prize: America’s Civil Rights Years, 1954-1965,” stated that most challenges to the U.S.Census have come from the left as they claim blacks, Hispanics, and the homeless (and this year, illegals) have been under-counted (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/28/AR2010022803364.html).
Statistical sampling done by a liberal left government would of course be beneficial to these groups.
The Netherlands and Germany employ such statistical sampling for their censuses.
Finally, obama finds his commerce secretary, a Mr. Lok Gaa-Fai .
His given English name is Gary Locke, former Democratic Governor of Washington State and Hillary campaign chief in that state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Locke).
Locke would be in lock-step with obama on just about anything. As one former pollster said of his old boss, “He’s more of a manager than a bold leader or a visionary” (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1881587,00.html).
That ought to bode well for the U.S. as we struggle with our international trade gap.
obama then chose Robert Groves of the University of Michigan to be the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau.
Groves has been known to do cart-wheels over random statistical sampling.
Why count everybody when counting a few and making an educated guess as to the whole would be close enough for government work?
"With the nomination of Robert Groves, [obama] has made clear that he intends to employ the political manipulation of census data for partisan gain," North Carolina Congressman Patrick McHenry cautioned.
Other lawmakers called Groves an "incredibly troubling selection" who must be watched for "statistical sleight of hand" (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1889793,00.html).....
President George H.W. Bush (the first Bush) brought Groves on board in 1990 to help with that year’s Census. However, his use of statistical models to fill in gaps of undercounting rubbed then Commerce Secretary Robert Mosbacher the wrong way (Montopoli, Brian, "Obama To Tap Sampling Expert To Be Census Director," CBS News, April 2, 2009).....
Mosbacher called Groves’ statistical techniques “political tampering” (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/02/obama-taps-robert-groves-census-director/).
Currently, however, Groves, as Director of the U.S. Census Bureau, answers to no rational thinking human being; pragmatic yes, rational no.
On the obama payroll for less than a year, Groves would immediately find fault with the 1979 Population Estimates Challenge Program.
So what does he do now that he has this administration backing him up?
Groves acts against the Population Challenge Estimate law like no other Bureau Director has before him.
He suspends the law and thus any challenges to what he as Census Bureau chief will say what the latest annual population estimates will show (Federal Register, Vol. 75, No.1, Mon. Jan., 4, 2010, pp44-46, http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/E9-31171.pdf).
Why?
(1) to focus on the 2010 Census;
(2) it would be “pointless” to do a population estimate and deal with the challenges of that estimate while work is being done on the decennial Census;
(3) it would be a cost-effective means to ensure allocation of sufficient resources for the demographic analysis of the 2010 Census;
(4) to redesign the Challenge Program to make it more demographically accurate;....
(5) to reduce the need for a post-estimate review process;
(6) and, it will allow the Census Bureau to better integrate the date from the 2010 Census into the Population Estimates Program (Federal Register, 75,1, 1/4/2010).
Basically he’s taking a direct approach to ensuring that his love affair with statistical sampling will become a trusted tool in future U.S. Census Bureau processes.
What better way to sure up the liberal left’s voting base and thus ensure a liberal left congressional representative majority.
Groves claims the Challenge Program will resume in 2012, but remember, the Census Bureau is allowed to act without Congressional oversight.
The timing is questionable: suspended right before 2010 congressional elections and then continuing, ostensibly, following the next presidential election.
In the context of the actual Census taking, Groves has also acted in a troubling manner.
This year the government launched a multi-million dollar ad campaign to increase Census participation.
How to pay for this? The U.S. Census bureau was given $250 MILLION of the stimulus monies to run their little Census advertising campaigns ("Obama Picks Robert Groves for Census Director," The Washington Post Online, April 2, 2009).
What’s next? Stimulus paid-for advertising campaigns in 2012 to urge those too stupid (or those considered disenfranchised) to realize that it’s time to vote again for president?
We want everyone counted, right?
I wonder. It appears the obama administration feels that some need to be pushed in that direction a little harder than the rest of the population.
Guess who that would be?
obama announces in February of 2009 that the Casa Blanca would monitor how the census was conducted in order to assure that the Latino and black populations were not disenfranchised (."Growing political battle over the Census: Latinos versus Republicans," Los Angeles Times Online, Feb. 9, 2009).
I bet.
In April 2010 Groves announces plans to seek help from major Spanish news outlets in order to build support for the Census among Latinos (El Nasser, Haya, "Hispanic groups call for Census boycott," USA Today, April 15, 2009).
I wonder how much advertising and reaching out the Census Bureau did in poor, white areas in the Adirondacks.
According to Groves’ own admission, not as much.
In January 2010 Groves appeared before a Pew Research conference and stated the following (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1477/census-director-robert-groves-explains-process-safeguards-participation-evaluation):
* Because we're trying to reach everyone, we have disproportionately spent locally rather than nationally. We are disproportionately spending in language groups.”
During the same conference Groves also used these phrases to describe the Census process: “..is like a moon shot in its planning horizon,” and “It’s a little harder than fighting a war…”
A “little harder?”
Let obama tell that to returning Iraq War veterans.
And more ominously, given his love with statistical sampling and liberal supporters in charge of our government: “We have a group working right now on the 2020 design, believe it or not.”
Oh, I believe it!
Then just recently in August 2010, Secretary Lok Gaa-Fai announces that due to set-aside contingency funds in the Census Bureau’s budget being unused, that the Census Bureau saved over $1 BILLION dollars during the 2010 Census (http://www.commerce.gov/blog/2010/08/10/secretary-locke-announces-16-billion-2010-census-savings).
He didn’t mention that he had been given $1 BILLION in stimulus funds to begin with, or that the Bureau no longer would be spending time and money fighting those pesky Population Estimate Challenges that were once the law of the land, but now were just archives in Director Groves little file cabinet.
So, while you’re watching Entertainment Tonight and Inside Edition for the latest news on the obama administration, remember that you are not receiving the latest news that matters on the obama administration.
One avenue for your voice has been taken away without any congressional debate, vote, or, more importantly, without your input.
How many more?
Read more: http://www.myspace.com/iosoluno/blog#ixzz0xNasxvJW
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)