Tuesday, August 19, 2014

BloggeRhythms

If nothing else, the incumbent’s consistent. While doing nothing about most things most of the time, whenever he does get involved he’s usually on the wrong side of the issues involved.
 
Today, Chris Stirewalt led his column off by writing, “Democrats are not happy. They’re divided over the ongoing military intervention in Iraq, a dispute made more difficult by the fact that Americans increasingly see the U.S. as obliged to subdue the Islamist militants there. And on the home front, the party is tearing at itself over the unrest in Ferguson, Mo. where local and state Democratic leaders are dropping the hammer on increasingly violent protests to the outrage of liberal activists.”
 
And as for the incumbent's response, Stirewalt notes that the incumbent, who’s in D.C. “for a two-day vacation from his vacation, took essentially the same attitude to both current crises, saying that the individuals involved needed to work things out on their own and that the federal government would be judicious in its involvement.”
 
Which leads to the questions of what was he vacationing from and why did he bother to come back to do nothing?
 
When the incumbent is in the White House, however, time has proven that he’s done serious harm to practically every group and constituency that has faithfully supported him throughout. 
 
In that regard, Drudge reports that last week, Edwin Hill, president of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), penned an op-ed claiming that an EPA environmental protection plan would “have a dramatic impact on the American economy but only a minimal effect on global carbon emissions.”
 
While the IBEW represents more than 700,000 members, Hill’s column follows a statement in June from United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) International President Cecil Roberts, (also reported here) who warned the EPA proposal could result in thousands of lost jobs for coal miners, electrical workers and others.
 
"Our initial analysis indicates that there will be a loss of 75,000 direct coal generation jobs in the United States by 2020,” Roberts said, adding: "And no one -- no one -- can point to a significant reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions that is guaranteed to come from this rule.”
 
The key point, though, is Hill’s claim that the EPA plan is a “classic example of federal tunnel vision—focusing on a single goal with little heed for the costs and dangers." He then predicted that  the plan would kill roughly “52,000 permanent direct jobs in utilities, mining and rail and at least another 100,000 jobs in related industries” – losses that would fall particularly hard on rural communities.”
 
In response, the EPA which is notorious for plunging into situations it knows, or cares, little about “argues that the proposal could ultimately shrink electric bills and address the “costly effects” of global warming.” Therefore, by using the word “could” they’re stating they’re unsure about ultimate savings, if any. While further pursuing a global-warming threat that’s proven to not even exist.
 
On a separate issue, according to Newsmax.com “A June report by the Center for Immigration Studies disclosed that all of the nation's job growth since 2000 went to immigrants, both legal and illegal. The study showed a strong climb in the number of illegals in the workforce, compared with native-born citizens of all races.”
 
The national unemployment rate rose to 11.4 percent for blacks, versus an overall jobless rate of 6.2 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The June rate for African-Americans was slightly lower, at 10.7 percent, and it was 11.5 percent in May.
 
At the same time, Peter Kirsanow, an African-American Republican who is a member of the Civil Rights Commission cites that, “In many low-skilled or unskilled occupations, in large swaths of the country, illegal immigrants have supplanted blacks — throwing lots of blacks out of work.”
 
Furthermore, “University of California economist Gordon Hanson testified that blacks lost more than 1 million jobs to illegals between 1960 and 2000. Yale University professor Gerald Jaynes testified that immigrants had supplanted African-Americans in many industries that had employed blacks for decades — including agriculture, construction, and meat-packing.”
 
Nonetheless, “Ninety-five percent of the blacks who voted in 2008 did so for Obama — and 93 percent did the same four years later, according to the Federal Election Commission. By contrast, 67 percent of Hispanics voted for Obama in 2008, while 71 percent did so in 2012.”
 
Therefore, the key to the incumbent’s protection of, and desire for, illegal aliens flooding here is simply a matter of self-serving politics as usual because “They want 11 million more votes down the road, because illegals would be beholden to the Democratic Party if they are able to pull this scheme off," Herman Cain told Newsmax.
 
Anita MonCrief, board member of the Black Conservatives Fund, summed it up this way. "Hispanics are the new black. Gay is the new black. Anything but black is the new black. Our concerns don't matter. We're such a ready and secure vote — it's always there — that there's no need to do anything for African-Americans,  There's no recourse."
 
Then there’s this one from the Daily Caller that speaks for itself. “Obamacare is increasing the cost of providing health insurance to workers, according to a report released Monday by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. A majority of businesses surveyed by the New York Fed expect the health-care law to increase the cost of their coverage, and the median respondent estimates a boost by 10 percent in 2015.”
 
And finally, from Chris Stirewalt once more, who asks: “Why did the federal government give $10 million in taxpayer money to develop San Francisco’s Mission Bay transit?” 
 
In 2012, then House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi “cheerfully” announced that the federal government would shell out stimulus funds for street additions, highway off-ramps, bike lanes, pedestrian walkways, and transit additions in Mission Bay, where “millionaires” reside. Thus, giving the funding responsibility to U.S. taxpayers.
 
For the answer, Mr. Stirewalt says, “As always, follow the money — and the lobbying. And no surprise, the trail leads you to the West Coast mansion of liberal Billionaire Tom Steyer, the Democrats’ top funder in the 2014 elections…Steyer raised money for President Obama and donated to Pelosi while Pelosi pushed for the federal money that profited Steyer — and that Steyer’s fund, Farallon Capital, lobbied on.”
 
Thus, once again we have a self-serving environmentalist, who also happens to be a huge investor in foreign coal development because, according to The New York Times, “even after his highly public divestment, the coal-related projects his firm bankrolled will generate tens of millions of tons of carbon pollution for years, if not decades, to come. Over the past 15 years, Mr. Steyer’s fund, Farallon Capital Management, has pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into companies that operate coal mines and coal-fired power plants from Indonesia to China, records and interviews show.”
 
So, for this administration, and the whole Democrat party, it doesn’t matter a whit what they say, promise or promote. Their basic mission now, as always, is to find voters either dumb enough to swallow whatever their sold or having the lowest self-esteem and worth to consistently be bought for next to nothing.
 
That’s it for today folks.
 
Adios

No comments:

Post a Comment