Not your parents' mutual fund: new investing for a new century

Saturday, April 25, 2009

Media Water Boards Public over 180 Times!

Three people were water boarded. The last water boarding took place in 2003.

Did you say three people?

On no... the number of people doesn't matter! All that matters is the number of times the people were water boarded!

Right. I'm still holding my breath waiting for an honest report on this by the American Media.... at what point does the media's treatment of me cross the line to torture?

The torture memos have been wildly misreported. Like the Cylons from Battlestar Gallactica, the media has a plan.

Wildly misreported you say? Oh yes. As in the media is not telling the truth. Pop Quiz... how many people were water boarded. Who knows??! you scream? It doesn't matter??? One is too many???? Now we are getting somewhere.

The left knows that 3 prisoners being water boarded in 8 years doesn't give us anywhere near the righteous indignation that reporting that one prisoner was water boarded 182 times. The only reason for making that number the headline, instead of the actual number of people water boarded (again, that number is 3), is if you want to trick the public into becoming angry over something that you believe wouldn't anger them if they were told the truth.

How much high grade Uranium was found in Iraq? none? go to the back of the class.

The fact is that media cover ups have changed and continue to change historical fact. Four years from now, anyone saying publicly that only three prisoners were water boarded will be publicly ridiculed. When the subject comes up in presidential debates, people who know the facts will not confront those who lie about the facts, because they will be afraid. Revisionism holds sway over the truth. That's not some Orwell novel, that's today. In these United States.

Three people were water boarded. The last water boarding took place in 2003.

If you truly believe that no number of LA residents lives were worth the water boarding of three people or even a single person, then fine, you opinion is at least informed. You know that it was only three people, and you know that among other things, critical information was obtained about a 911 style attack being planned for LA.

Three people were water boarded. The last water boarding took place in 2003.

On the other hand, if you read those two lines and can't believe them, because they seem so out of sync with what "must" be true, because the public furor is so intense, then you have been told what to believe. But now that you know the truth, do you choose to be free? Or do you continue to Obey the Media?

The Buck Stops There

So up until now, Obama has done pretty good with the buck stops here crowd, whoever they are. That ended with the about face on trying to prosecute Bush administration officials. Now afraid to evoke the wrath of the left, he has thrown his own Attorney General under the bus, and washed his hands of responsibility.

Originally Obama says that there will be no prosecutions. Then the torture memo's are released, wildly misreported, and Obama says there will be no prosecutions. Then the angry left catches rabies, and Obama says.... well, what I meant by not prosecuting anyone is just that "I" will not prosecute. My Attorney General might though. Smile for the camera.

Wildly misreported you say? Well yes, but I cover that in the post following this one. Suffice to say three people were water boarded. The last water boarding took place in 2003. Thousands of lives in LA may have been saved.

Back to the subject at hand, allegedly, a president has never attempted prosecution of a previous president's administration. Even Nixon and Clinton's administrations were left alone, though there were plenty of prosecutions and convictions while they were both still president. This would be the first time. The question Obama needs to be asking is, will his passing of the buck open the door to many more to follow, as president after president tries to exact a share of revenge for their followers, taken out of the hide of the opposing party previously in power.

Obama's calculating enough to know this can only go so far. His public needs some red meat, so expect after a few weeks some new bone thrown to the left to get them off their current fever. Right now, according to Rasmussen, 58% of the public is unhappy with his decision to release the memo's, and you can bet that plurality is not lost on him. So the left is mad that he hasn't already started trials, and the right and center are questioning just whose side is he on. Some political acrobatics may be called for to get the left off chasing something else while at the same time putting the middle at ease that he is in fact on their side.

Add into the equation that he has, in the past, left the door open for his own administration to use harsh questioning techniques. Even though he has recast the War on Terror as a police action, Obama is not one to restrict the potential activities of his own administration. Remember that "Torture", as defined by the media, is not just water boarding. Serving bland food is also "Torture". I'm not kidding.

So chalk up two tactical errors for Obama. Letting the memos out was one. Now he has to somehow deal with the left's faux outrage, as if we just learned about water boarding for the first time, while pirouetting to assure the center that sanity will prevail. The second was turning this over to his Attorney General. So much for sanity. Many people are unaware of the Attorney General's previous statements calling Americans "cowards". Statement's he has made recently, since becoming Attorney General. The media covered that up, keeping it from blowing up in Obama's face, but this is an AG who needs to keep a low profile for awhile. Giving the AG such a high profile decision, welcomes a second chance for the AG's absurd statements to become part of the discussion.

After bending to his supporters, and then passing the buck to his AG, the next step in the ballet will be to throw a new bone to the left that doesn't offend the center so much. Then his AG will be instructed to keep mum, and see if the flames can be brought back down to a low setting. Eventually a position paper will be issued saying that water boarding is bad, but no clear violation of laws were broken, which is correct by the way, and we (they) are putting this dark period in American history behind us (ie- the saving of thousands of lives in Los Angeles).

Let the ballet begin.

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

No Virginia, Conservative Americans are NOT Entitled to their own opinions

What a bazaar and dishonest controversy to suddenly surface. One of the runnerup's for Miss America was given a question during the pageant about gay marriage. Her answer reflected her beliefs, which is that marriage is between a man and a woman. That's the short version. Afterward, several people involved have said that the answer "cost her the crown". Not because she stammered, added dozens of nervous words that rendered her sentences incomprehensible, or even the use of the word "uh". Nope... It cost her the crown because her answer was "wrong". One judge and former Miss USA said that she should have given a politically neutral answer rather than the offensive answer. The judge who asked the question has gone public since then denouncing her by using gender specific derogatory descriptions, which no one in the news media has noticed is blatantly sexist.

The Judge's name is Perez Hilton, a celebrity blogger. A typical close minded angry liberal who takes instant and nearly violent offense at anything another American says that he disagrees with. He has openly admitted that had she won, he would have raced out on the stage and physically removed the crown from her head. When a fascist finds his beliefs challenged, violence is always an acceptable reaction. "Any means necessary". That's one of the ways you can tell the difference between fascists, and say... the rest of us.

Of course today, who can tell what people really believe. Someone takes on Miss America, or a runnerup, and the more noise they make, the more extreme they are, the more airtime they get. All though he talks like an angry liberal, he looks like one happy cherub on the Today Show. Matt Lauer takes 2-3 minutes with Hilton, but avoids asking the obvious question... in fact the only question that should have been asked: what would Hilton's reaction have been if she had answered with the equally polarizing "I support gay marriage"? Would he have been equally offended, or would he and the rest of the judges danced around the stage singing HosanaHosana.

Okay, sorry, that's Jesus Christ Superstar reference, which recently appeared on Hulu.com.

Back to the controversy, the "B-word" and "C-word" references he has given in other diatribes on TV seemed the emotional reactions of an angry hate filled person. I think he was not being that honest later on the Today Show. Matt Lauer just accepted Hilton's new Today Show persona, without confronting him. The newly politically correct Hilton says the answer should have been neutral rather than expressing her own opinion. It should have been an "inclusive" answer, making everyone feel good. Well.... that almost sounds reasonable, but I don't believe him. If that's why they ask the contestants questions, to judge how inclusive and neutral and inoffensive their answers are, well this is the first I've heard that. I really thought judges were mainly looking for complete sentences. What do I know?

Of all networks... NBC actually pulled up a clip of Barack Obama answering the same question during a debate before the election. Guess what his answer was? The same answer Miss California gave. You see, Obama is entitled to his opinion. Of course smug liberals might assume he is just saying that to get elected. Where was the outrage? The offense? Carrie Prejean is a conservative, at least in this one subject. They are not mad at her for being a conservative. They are angry because she spoke her mind aloud and her opinion differed from theirs. That kind of speech is almost dangerous to some tolerance challenged liberals.

So we have an angry liberal response, to nothing more than an opinion voiced aloud.