Apr 2, 2012 Political
Richard Thaler, who has informally advised the Obama Regime, has a piece up at The New York Times where he discusses gas prices and tells us why they are out of any president’s control. He discusses the market and the supply and demand aspects and he even throws out the inaccurate claim about us having 2% of the world’s oil but using 20%.
He is doing something now that he and the rest of the Democrat controlled media refused to do under George Bush, and that is to defend the leader over higher gas prices. The major reason is that a Democrat is in the White House.
When George Bush was in the White House and gas prices went up the Democrats and their media allies blamed it all on Bush, or as the talking points from the Democrats called them, the two oil men in the White House. Here is a video of Democrats blaming George Bush. If you look closely one of them is Barack Obama (he remains pretty good at blaming Bush).
The New York Times did not write any articles claiming that no president controls gas prices. None of the Democrat media rushed in to point out the items Thaler claims in his article. No, the media were more than happy to pile on and Blame Bush. It was the two oil men in the White House and their policies that caused the high gas prices.
Now that poor little Barry Obama is in there and prices are rising they all have to come to his defense. While doing so, they also point out that higher prices will mean little in the next election (but just in case they need to point out that no president is to blame).
The same media were busy during the Bush years pointing out how higher gas prices would hurt him in the midterm election.
This is what happens when the media are part of the political party.
Let’s help Thaler out a bit. This article discusses the lies that Obama has told (one of which Thaler repeated) regarding our energy. Note the numbers reported by folks in the business.
Let us also tackle the claim that gas prices are out of president’s control. Barack Obama prefers higher gas prices. He can claim that he is working for the little guy and that he wants gas prices to drop but if he does it is only short term and that term is until Election Day. If he gets reelected then prices will go up and he will not mind a bit. He will not have to answer to voters and he can go all in on his energy desires. How did he put it? Oh yeah, he will have more flexibility.
Obama does not have a problem with higher prices. He just wishes they had risen more gradually. His policies are designed to have an increase in prices so people will want more of the failed green energies he is pushing and so that more will buy the failed Chevy Volt, the car produced by Government Motors.
Obama’s EPA is pushing policies that will cause all energy prices to skyrocket (something Obama admitted would happen under his policies) and this is one reason we have higher gas prices. Another is the moratorium on drilling. Obama and his toadies claim there is more drilling going on but any drilling is under items approved under George Bush and is being done on private land, something over which Obama has little control.
Gas is a global commodity over which presidents have little control. However, policies can affect the domestic cost of it and Obama is more than happy to see the cost of gasoline increase though he prefers it to be gradual. He might also like to see it come down before the election but once he has more flexibility he will work to force us into smaller cars or alternate energies by working to increase the price of fossil fuels.
That is what he has said, that is what he wants, and that is what he will do.
No matter how much Richard Thaler and the rest of the Obama media claim to the contrary, Obama is affecting prices and there is no doubt the media are covering for him.
Just ask George Bush, one of the oil men who lived in the White House.
Never surrender, never submit.
Aug 5, 2011 Political
From The New York Times:
It has been three decades since the United States suffered a recession that followed on the heels of the previous one. But it could be happening again. The unrelenting negative economic news of the past two weeks has painted a picture of a United States economy that fell further and recovered less than we had thought.
I said last year that we would hit a double dip in the second half of this year. Looks like I was right…
And we will get hit with a double whammy. The 7 trillion dollars in new debt and the downgrade of our credit rating. The White House is preparing for it. Looks like Obama will get his tax increase after all. A drop in the bond rating is the same as a tax increase for all Americans. Obama said so…
So now we can all pin the tax increase on Obama.
Never surrender, never submit.
Jul 22, 2010 Political
The NYT has an editorial about Elena Kagan and the Republicans who oppose her. The thrust of the piece is that they do not understand the Constitution and they are angered that she would not answer the way they wanted with regard to the Commerce Clause. The NYT is convinced that the federal government can do anything it wants under the guise of the Commerce Clause and that it is settled law because of SCOTUS rulings.
So the Republicans, according to the NYT, are supposed to bow down and vote for a person who has a history of ignoring the Constitution and who believes in Socialism just like her buddy Obama.
The problem is, that while the NYT is busy saying that it is OK to do anything under the Commerce Clause including forcing people to buy health insurance, the writer demonstrates that he does not understand the Constitution. The writer’s words show a definite misunderstanding.
The clause was the legal basis for any number of statutes of enormous benefit to society. It is why we have the Clean Air Act. The Clean Water Act. The Endangered Species Act. The Fair Labor Standards Act, setting a minimum wage and limiting child labor. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, outlawing segregation in the workplace and in public accommodations. In cases like these, the Supreme Court has said Congress can regulate activities that have a “substantial effect” on interstate commerce, even if they are not directly business-related. NYT
I will not comment on the enumerated acts because I do not know how Commerce fits in and it is not important to the debate. What is important is the sentence; “In cases like these, the Supreme Court has said Congress can regulate activities that have a “substantial effect” on interstate commerce, even if they are not directly business-related.” [emphasis added]
The SCOTUS has ruled Congress can regulate ACTIVITIES. NOT buying health insurance is NOT an activity. The health care law punishes people for INACTIVITY.
The SCOTUS has never ruled that Congress can regulate INACTIVITY under the Commerce Clause (or any other as far as I know). All of the cited items are reported to be results of the imposition of the Commerce Clause and are stipulated as activities.
Even if one buys the argument that the Commerce Clause is unencumbered and allows politicians to regulate any activity whatsoever, no one can make the case that it allows Congress to regulate INACTIVITY. Never in our history has Congress been able to force people to purchase a product.
What will be next? Will we be required to buy a GM in order to help out that car company and its union employees?
The writer is obviously a “Journolist” Socialist who loves the liberal/progressive agenda and that is all well and good. Everyone is entitled to make mistakes.
But let us not take this editorial as some authority on the Constitution.
The writer went after Republicans for their supposed lack of understanding of the Constitution but the writer demonstrates limited knowledge as well.
Not to mention the NYT seems to ignore the Democrats and their leader and the way they trample the Constitution on a daily basis.
Never surrender, never submit.
Dec 31, 2009 Political
Back when George Bush was president the al-Qaeda wing of the media, The New York Times, would routinely divulge our nation’s secrets. Sometimes the paper would sit on a story for a while and when they finally released it that would claim that they had held onto it because of pressure from the White House but that the public interest was best served by releasing the info. You had such a right to know that some Democrats leaked info as well…
The information released involved methods we used to track terrorists, the fact that we intercepted their phone calls and any number of other items dealing with our security. If it was a national security secret then it was a sure bet the NYT would release it.
Recently a terrorist made his way on an airplane and tried to blow it up. The Transportation Security Administration sent out a memo about increased security and that memo was not supposed to be released to the public. Evidently, several bloggers got hold of it and published it.
Were they honored as serving the public’s interest? Were they deemed to have the best interest of the country at heart? Were they held up in liberal worship as the NYT is?
No, they were served subpoenas and told that they had to divulge who gave them the information. The government used its ham handed techniques of threatening the livelihood of the people if they did not cooperate and laptop computers were taken. While the terrorist who tried to blow up the plane has received the best medical care in the world and was read his Miranda Rights two people who broke no laws are being harassed by the government.
I can understand the TSA being a little touchy because this is the second time in a month that confidential information belonging to them has wound up on the web. They have a leak and it is up to them to find it.
I have no problem with the government trying to keep its secrets secret but the review should involve looking at the people who work for the agency. Look at the emails and see who sent it out and fire that person.
If government is this hell bent on pursuing leaks then I expect to see subpoenas hit the NYT next time there is a leak.
Of course that leak won’t be until there is a Republican in the White House…
Dec 17, 2009 Political
While the Global Warming summit at Copenhagen teeters on the edge of being a farce American Thinker has published an article showing that the polar ice cap melting issue has been a farce for 128 years.
The American Thinker has headlines from the New York Times that show the paper has been hyping the melting polar caps for 128 years. It seems to me that the polar caps are still there even though they have been melting and we have been on the verge of losing them for over a century.
It also seems that this hype is no different than what we are hearing now.
Be sure to visit the website and read all the headlines dealing with this issue. See if the headlines don’t look like they could be in the paper today…