Here is a link to an article in the Wall St. Journal’s, Opinion Journal by Stuart Varney
-----link-----
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html
---------------
The following from the article blew me away. So much of that in the article is happening on a smaller scale to a group I’m in. The coincidence of reading that article today has given me an epiphany. Those nurons were randomly crashing about without direction, suddenly all hooked up in a straight line and the light bulb came on. First however, the part of the article that started the neurons meshing.
-----from article------
Fast forward to today, and that same bank is begging to give the money back. The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He's been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with "adverse" consequences if its chairman persists. That's politics talking, not economics.
-----------------------
Even in the financial tough times and with the deficit soaring, that refusal is not only crazy but scary crazy.
A whole group of neurons were already gathering in line following the Tea Party, anti bailout route. Bingo! The whole point of the Tea Party was the idea of the injustice of taking money from taxpayers to bail out those who got us into this mess to start with. We can’t afford it. To have someone say we can and refuse to take in revenue freely offered. Neuronal shock.
When I read that article, I too realized my naivety . I like most realize that the bailout and TARP money was wasted for the most part; and the program was a mistake. In the beginning, I had like so many others thought that if this money could stop a major catastrophe then Maybe we should do it. Like so many of the other programs that started with good ideas, this on too became corrupted and mandatory and immutable in record time.
The article explains why it has become mandatory. Quite simply stated, it is the cornerstone of a program of President Obama’s to gain control of the financial system. The article explains that to me pretty well. Also the article tells of President Bush and the first bailout of the banks and how it was temporary just to help them get over the hump, a financial decision; while Obama’s TARP was to TRAP the banks into coming under his political agenda. Forcing them into helping fund his agenda.
Then another article about the motivations in general of President Obama set another whole string of neurons off and running. This article too was in the same publication, The Wall Street Journal in the, “Opinion Journal”. The Article was by Kimberly Strassel titled “Obama’s Attack Machine”.
-----link-----
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123871795357484739.html
--------------
The article did a great job of living up to its title. It chronicled the extent of how organized and widespread the Obama Attack Machine is. Better explaining the interconnections with media and White House. All Media.
I read in that article near the end. “Mr. Cantor is also where he is for a reason, and has so far weathered the onslaught. But the coordinated takedown attempt is yet more proof that the Obama-led Democrats aren't nearly as interested in changing the "tone" as they are in holding on to power.”
That set of Neurons about the holding on to power combined with the political nature I see in all that this administration is doing and the neurons connected with all the other ones. Then through an article I got off Drudge we learn about TARP funds and White House Aides making millions from it. The article was from Politico written by Kenneth P. Vogel.
-----link-----
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/20889.html
---------------
The evidence is all around, you’ve seen it. How about that article about trying to take away the tax free donations to charities? Then follow that with the article about how this proliferation of Grant Monies is wrecking the integrity of the whole Non-Profit idea. He is turning it into another political arm for the administration; an appendage of Obama’s to weaken the power of private charity. A way for him to get control of that for again his political reasons. Obama just can’t out grow the shadow of Chicago politics.
Suddenly all those neurons aligned and like a whip in motion the snap at the end reached deep within my brain and connect far back into my childhood as I sat as a youngster in the theatre watching “Lawrence of Arabia”. For some reason I saw with perfect clarity the scene when the head of the British medical relief entered into the hospital being run by the Arabs and the situation was deplorable beyond his understanding or belief. He stood there looking around at what was foreign to him --- everywhere he looked; and then he for a moment lost that perpetual British “Cool” by letting out the words
“OUTRAGEOUS --- THIS IS SIMPLY OUTRAGEOUS.”
Of course he then simply rolled up his sleeves and started barking orders getting a handle on things.
That controlled British outburst summed up for me all the utter disbelief that I’ve had in the last few months with the national mess and trillion dollar deal and the corruption sprouting up all over due to the huge free money waiting to be used. I have been like that Englishman; like a deer in the headlights. Too stunned to do anything. America for the most part has felt the same way. These Tea Parties are becoming simply a way to show that feeling of shock we have had for a long time.
“OUTRAGEOUS --- THIS IS SIMPLY OUTRAGEOUS".
I too am going to roll up my sleeves and start barking orders and try in my own way to get things done.
Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative
PS. Adding to that string of neurons there is a parallel string coming from a similar mini grant money thing I was involved in. We were offered X amount of money and when we were shocked by the amount and found out all the strings attached we walked out on it. Thankfully I say because if we hadn’t we too would have suffered untold troubles if we had tried backing out after we accepted it; much as the bank in the first article is suffering now with threats and probably personal attacks. God knows we were put through enough suffering as it was: just the idea that we thought the money was too much and we wanted to get less was reason enough for those control freaks to start to threaten us, and spread gossip.
OUTRAGEOUS.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Friday, April 3, 2009
Open?
The Wiz of Laws blog had a post “front paged” by Nick at Right Michigan.
-----link-----
http://www.rightmichigan.com/story/2009/4/2/9136/91367
--------------
I linked that article by the Wiz because it was a great article. Also because I loved the term he used relating to accepted legal common law. It is known as the "open and obvious doctrine."
The next time some politician says, “don’t worry the government has a plan”. I will laugh at the joke, and slap him on the back for being such a funny guy, as I think back to the Wiz and the “open and obvious” doctrine. Now I know where the term “obvious and open lie” comes from. Funny guy that O, good sense of humor, Abe Lincoln would envy such comedic talent; especially since I doubt Abe could keep a straight face in the telling.
Poor O, at least he still has FDR to emulate - they both smoke, he just needs a holder to perfect the image; Oh Yeah and the sack to do it in public.
Regards, Live Dangerously Be a Conservative
-----link-----
http://www.rightmichigan.com/story/2009/4/2/9136/91367
--------------
I linked that article by the Wiz because it was a great article. Also because I loved the term he used relating to accepted legal common law. It is known as the "open and obvious doctrine."
The next time some politician says, “don’t worry the government has a plan”. I will laugh at the joke, and slap him on the back for being such a funny guy, as I think back to the Wiz and the “open and obvious” doctrine. Now I know where the term “obvious and open lie” comes from. Funny guy that O, good sense of humor, Abe Lincoln would envy such comedic talent; especially since I doubt Abe could keep a straight face in the telling.
Poor O, at least he still has FDR to emulate - they both smoke, he just needs a holder to perfect the image; Oh Yeah and the sack to do it in public.
Regards, Live Dangerously Be a Conservative
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
My Take NY 20 CD
My take on the race in NY’s 20th Congressional District Race.
WOW.
The two candidates are separated by around 60 votes out of roughly 150,000 votes cast. There are still 5,900 odd absentee ballots to count. The Department of Justice sued the state to allow a longer length of time for AB ballots to be mailed in allowing 30 days from the date it was sent out. While my understanding of the reasons for this and the DOJ specifics as to dates is vague, the bottom line is that we will not know the results until April 13th at the earliest.
That is not the point however. Both sides are claiming victory will be theirs in the end. Both of the parties are claiming they have won a moral victory here regardless of whether they win or not.
For my part I want to try to look at the numbers. The result last night was a tie at 50% of the voters for each candidate. The Democrats are claiming that this is victory for them because of the larger number of registered Republicans. They are claiming to have done the impossible against overwhelming numbers.
The numbers for the last election however tell a different tale. See link below and scroll down to the 20th district and look at the actual numbers that were cast just a short 5 months ago.
-----link-----
http://www.elections.state.ny.us/NYSBOE/elections/2008/General/USCongress08.pdf
---------------
Below are the numbers as best as I could cut and paste them
20th CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
Kirsten E. Sandy Sandy Sandy Kirsten E. BVS
County Gillibrand Treadwell Treadwell Treadwell Gillibrand Blank Void Scattering Subtotal Total
DEM REP IND CON WOR
Columbia 18,657 7,633 859 1,005 1,845 1,848 7 3 1,858 31,857
Part of Delaware 8,337 6,587 544 462 810 1,511 0 0 1,511 18,251
Part of Dutchess 25,397 15,176 1,185 1,636 1,810 4,848 0 5 4,853 50,057
Part of Essex 2,811 2,438 272 150 237 743 0 0 743 6,651
Greene 11,174 7,518 612 870 1,138 1,551 7 0 1,558 22,870
Part of Otsego 2,634 1,930 159 145 216 659 0 1 660 5,744
Part of Rensselaer 17,862 9,254 906 1,196 1,717 1,996 2 0 1,998 32,933
Part of Saratoga 59,356 32,960 2,254 3,071 4,058 6,190 0 21 6,211 107,910
Warren 18,181 9,430 728 819 1,494 1,829 10 3 1,842 32,494
Washington 14,587 7,004 505 723 1,330 1,798 0 2 1,800 25,949
Total 178,996 99,930 8,024 10,077 14,655 22,973 26 35 23,034 334,716
RECAP 193,651 118,031
-----------
The totals are 193,651 and 118,031 for a total of 311,682; The Republicans lost by 75,620 votes.
The numbers should speak volumes. The Republican Treadwell by my figures got only 27% of the vote. I have read elsewhere that it was 38%. Either way for the Republicans to move up to 50% of the vote within 5 short months begs a reason. I would think the question is not what the Republicans did wrong but what the Democrats did wrong to cause this massive shift. That is a turnabout of 12-23% of the vote to the Republican Party, and again I emphasize what has happened in less than 5 months to cause this Republican gain in votes?.
As I hear of the ouster of Michael Steele, well--I guess if I was a Democrat I too would hope that whoever was responsible for this Republican gain would quit and go away.
Before you jump to the conclusion that it was all due to Obama in 2008, look at the nearly 23,000 blank ballots not counted. That would indicate that the "President Only" voters weren’t counted in my 27% count. Also note the larger turnout.
Also if Obama played such a role in the results above for the 2008 election, why didn’t he pull the same type of numbers out this time? He did make a personal robo call to the district and sent out emails with his vaunted political machine. A tie, oh well.
I say this to all the critics of Jim Tedisco; if gaining 12-23% in the vote means nothing then think about what that would have meant in the 2008 election! Obama would still be a junior Senator from Illinois. Hey all it would of took was an 8% change for that to happen. Wikipedia shows the numbers at 52.92 Obama, 45.66 McCain.
-----link-----
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008
---------------
All I hear from the Dems is how they overcame the impossible to tie. I would say they did the impossible by not winning.........by double digits.
Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative
WOW.
The two candidates are separated by around 60 votes out of roughly 150,000 votes cast. There are still 5,900 odd absentee ballots to count. The Department of Justice sued the state to allow a longer length of time for AB ballots to be mailed in allowing 30 days from the date it was sent out. While my understanding of the reasons for this and the DOJ specifics as to dates is vague, the bottom line is that we will not know the results until April 13th at the earliest.
That is not the point however. Both sides are claiming victory will be theirs in the end. Both of the parties are claiming they have won a moral victory here regardless of whether they win or not.
For my part I want to try to look at the numbers. The result last night was a tie at 50% of the voters for each candidate. The Democrats are claiming that this is victory for them because of the larger number of registered Republicans. They are claiming to have done the impossible against overwhelming numbers.
The numbers for the last election however tell a different tale. See link below and scroll down to the 20th district and look at the actual numbers that were cast just a short 5 months ago.
-----link-----
http://www.elections.state.ny.us/NYSBOE/elections/2008/General/USCongress08.pdf
---------------
Below are the numbers as best as I could cut and paste them
20th CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
Kirsten E. Sandy Sandy Sandy Kirsten E. BVS
County Gillibrand Treadwell Treadwell Treadwell Gillibrand Blank Void Scattering Subtotal Total
DEM REP IND CON WOR
Columbia 18,657 7,633 859 1,005 1,845 1,848 7 3 1,858 31,857
Part of Delaware 8,337 6,587 544 462 810 1,511 0 0 1,511 18,251
Part of Dutchess 25,397 15,176 1,185 1,636 1,810 4,848 0 5 4,853 50,057
Part of Essex 2,811 2,438 272 150 237 743 0 0 743 6,651
Greene 11,174 7,518 612 870 1,138 1,551 7 0 1,558 22,870
Part of Otsego 2,634 1,930 159 145 216 659 0 1 660 5,744
Part of Rensselaer 17,862 9,254 906 1,196 1,717 1,996 2 0 1,998 32,933
Part of Saratoga 59,356 32,960 2,254 3,071 4,058 6,190 0 21 6,211 107,910
Warren 18,181 9,430 728 819 1,494 1,829 10 3 1,842 32,494
Washington 14,587 7,004 505 723 1,330 1,798 0 2 1,800 25,949
Total 178,996 99,930 8,024 10,077 14,655 22,973 26 35 23,034 334,716
RECAP 193,651 118,031
-----------
The totals are 193,651 and 118,031 for a total of 311,682; The Republicans lost by 75,620 votes.
The numbers should speak volumes. The Republican Treadwell by my figures got only 27% of the vote. I have read elsewhere that it was 38%. Either way for the Republicans to move up to 50% of the vote within 5 short months begs a reason. I would think the question is not what the Republicans did wrong but what the Democrats did wrong to cause this massive shift. That is a turnabout of 12-23% of the vote to the Republican Party, and again I emphasize what has happened in less than 5 months to cause this Republican gain in votes?.
As I hear of the ouster of Michael Steele, well--I guess if I was a Democrat I too would hope that whoever was responsible for this Republican gain would quit and go away.
Before you jump to the conclusion that it was all due to Obama in 2008, look at the nearly 23,000 blank ballots not counted. That would indicate that the "President Only" voters weren’t counted in my 27% count. Also note the larger turnout.
Also if Obama played such a role in the results above for the 2008 election, why didn’t he pull the same type of numbers out this time? He did make a personal robo call to the district and sent out emails with his vaunted political machine. A tie, oh well.
I say this to all the critics of Jim Tedisco; if gaining 12-23% in the vote means nothing then think about what that would have meant in the 2008 election! Obama would still be a junior Senator from Illinois. Hey all it would of took was an 8% change for that to happen. Wikipedia shows the numbers at 52.92 Obama, 45.66 McCain.
-----link-----
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008
---------------
All I hear from the Dems is how they overcame the impossible to tie. I would say they did the impossible by not winning.........by double digits.
Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
12:15am Wash post April 13th ??
This link is to the washington post and it explains some more about the AB ballots, and the ones that the DOJ sued the state over to make sure they were counted. I believe they were oversea ABs and mainly military.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/31/AR2009033104096.html?hpid=moreheadlines
Still a toss now I'm going to bed.
Regards, LD
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/31/AR2009033104096.html?hpid=moreheadlines
Still a toss now I'm going to bed.
Regards, LD
Monday maybe??
Well nothing is going to change. The discrepency twixt Drudge and Times Union is down to only 6 votes. With over 5900 ABs to count, it will be awhile for the results to be known.
http://blogs.timesunion.com/capitol/
Keep checking the site above and I will come back tomorrow.
Regards, LD
http://blogs.timesunion.com/capitol/
Keep checking the site above and I will come back tomorrow.
Regards, LD
10:58 Too close to call
Numbers fluctuating. Times union has Murphy in lead by 59 votes/
http://blogs.timesunion.com/capitol/
Also note the wording in the part about essentialy by Monday then later about not decided untill April 13th.
Drudge did change their numbers
D 77,344
R 77,279
That gives Murphy a lead of 65 down from 177.
That still leaves a difference between Drudge and Times Union of 106 votes.
I'm taking about an hour off. Will be back around midnight. Maybe they will have got the #s right and we can also maybe find out when this will be a done deal either way.
Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative
http://blogs.timesunion.com/capitol/
Also note the wording in the part about essentialy by Monday then later about not decided untill April 13th.
Drudge did change their numbers
D 77,344
R 77,279
That gives Murphy a lead of 65 down from 177.
That still leaves a difference between Drudge and Times Union of 106 votes.
I'm taking about an hour off. Will be back around midnight. Maybe they will have got the #s right and we can also maybe find out when this will be a done deal either way.
Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative
10:50 Driving me nuts
Times Union now has a lead for Murphy at 59 votes
http://blogs.timesunion.com/capitol/
Drudge is holding firm. at 81.
Regards, LD
http://blogs.timesunion.com/capitol/
Drudge is holding firm. at 81.
Regards, LD
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)