Sunday, November 20, 2005
Some Afterthoughts to This Week's Post
In my weekly trail through webland I've come across some additional issues that need to be noted :
Neal Boortz, at Boortz Nuze, addresses an issue that's always pissed me off. Republicans, Conservatives, "Reagan," etc. are/were always "cutting needed social spending for the poor." Odd that spending continues to rise for these phony social gimmicks but are continually referred to as, "cuts" by most media sources (and definitely by most teachers, textbooks, and the Talking Headless).
Boortz sums it up:
MEDIA LIES ABOUT CUTS
Yesterday the House of Representatives passed a bill by a razor-thin margin of 217 to 215 cutting spending. According to the media, these were painful cuts in programs for the poor, students and agriculture. The only problem?
There were no cuts.
What these spending "cuts" refer to are cuts in the growth of spending. That means rather than giving the poor, students and farmers a raise next year, we're going to give them a smaller raise. Boy, that's some "cut." Imagine if the rest of the world worked that way?
Husbands and wives could tell each other when they go shopping....don't worry, I'll cut my spending..and wind up spending more than they did last time. But no problem...they were going to spend more and didn't! It's a cut!
Don't expect the dishonest left in the mainstream media to ever correct the lie, either. Except for Fox News (once in awhile) the mainstream media will use the word "cuts" over and over.
No wonder the country is going bankrupt.
...ain't it the truth.
***************************************************
Setting the Record strait on the Jimmy Carter :
The former president (and peanut farmer) has a new best selling book out where he takes considerable liberty with facts and realities both now and during his administration -- must have consulted Bill Clinton on the art of honesty and common sense. Carter has always been a big fan of totalitarian enterprises and has never thought of his own country in a particularly positive light. Of course, leftists eat this kind of stuff up -- nothing like perpetual surrender and self-loathing (loathing one's country, not his self)
Some good retort to the phony claims made in Carter's new book, with some interesting facts that remind more sober minds that the Carter years really weren't all that great:
See "A Failed Former President," at Front Page Magazine.
***************************************************
Phony hyperbole regarding McCarthyism (again) from the people who loved -- and continue to love -- communist authoritarian government most.
Hollywood's got to keep that victim flag flying. They were so "persecuted" in the "witch trials" of the 40's and 50's -- bull!
Even in grade school we're fed this phony image of federal agents kicking in the doors of innocents everywhere over imagined enemies. One should be reminded that the McCarthy hearings had nothing to do with Hollywood. They were investigations into the risks of giving high security clearance to questionable officials and bureaucrats in the State Department and Army -- most who were later confirmed to have been Soviet spies.
Hollywood was another issue, investigated by the House Un-American Activities Committee years after McCarthy’s hearings. In Hollywood -- as today -- the industry was full of people who actively or covertly supported an enemy who sought our annihilation. Whatever unfair "persecution" some rich Hollywood elitists were experiencing in America at the time, it was tame compared to what the average Soviet citizen experienced for "crimes" like belief in God or lack of enthusiasm for "the revolution."
Ann Coulter, again, comes back with the facts of the era in her critique of George Clooney's new flick defending the honor of Soviet Spies and those who loved them.
Neal Boortz, at Boortz Nuze, addresses an issue that's always pissed me off. Republicans, Conservatives, "Reagan," etc. are/were always "cutting needed social spending for the poor." Odd that spending continues to rise for these phony social gimmicks but are continually referred to as, "cuts" by most media sources (and definitely by most teachers, textbooks, and the Talking Headless).
Boortz sums it up:
MEDIA LIES ABOUT CUTS
Yesterday the House of Representatives passed a bill by a razor-thin margin of 217 to 215 cutting spending. According to the media, these were painful cuts in programs for the poor, students and agriculture. The only problem?
There were no cuts.
What these spending "cuts" refer to are cuts in the growth of spending. That means rather than giving the poor, students and farmers a raise next year, we're going to give them a smaller raise. Boy, that's some "cut." Imagine if the rest of the world worked that way?
Husbands and wives could tell each other when they go shopping....don't worry, I'll cut my spending..and wind up spending more than they did last time. But no problem...they were going to spend more and didn't! It's a cut!
Don't expect the dishonest left in the mainstream media to ever correct the lie, either. Except for Fox News (once in awhile) the mainstream media will use the word "cuts" over and over.
No wonder the country is going bankrupt.
...ain't it the truth.
Setting the Record strait on the Jimmy Carter :
The former president (and peanut farmer) has a new best selling book out where he takes considerable liberty with facts and realities both now and during his administration -- must have consulted Bill Clinton on the art of honesty and common sense. Carter has always been a big fan of totalitarian enterprises and has never thought of his own country in a particularly positive light. Of course, leftists eat this kind of stuff up -- nothing like perpetual surrender and self-loathing (loathing one's country, not his self)
Some good retort to the phony claims made in Carter's new book, with some interesting facts that remind more sober minds that the Carter years really weren't all that great:
See "A Failed Former President," at Front Page Magazine.
Phony hyperbole regarding McCarthyism (again) from the people who loved -- and continue to love -- communist authoritarian government most.
Hollywood's got to keep that victim flag flying. They were so "persecuted" in the "witch trials" of the 40's and 50's -- bull!
Even in grade school we're fed this phony image of federal agents kicking in the doors of innocents everywhere over imagined enemies. One should be reminded that the McCarthy hearings had nothing to do with Hollywood. They were investigations into the risks of giving high security clearance to questionable officials and bureaucrats in the State Department and Army -- most who were later confirmed to have been Soviet spies.
Hollywood was another issue, investigated by the House Un-American Activities Committee years after McCarthy’s hearings. In Hollywood -- as today -- the industry was full of people who actively or covertly supported an enemy who sought our annihilation. Whatever unfair "persecution" some rich Hollywood elitists were experiencing in America at the time, it was tame compared to what the average Soviet citizen experienced for "crimes" like belief in God or lack of enthusiasm for "the revolution."
Ann Coulter, again, comes back with the facts of the era in her critique of George Clooney's new flick defending the honor of Soviet Spies and those who loved them.
