The headline from the Associated Press reads "5 Miami men convicted of Sears Tower attack plot". Read the story here ... then click back.
There ... did you notice anything. Though at the end of the story you'll see some references to al Qaeda .. nowhere in the story are these men identified as Muslims; and yes .. they were all Muslims. Another story identified them as "members of an apparent militaristic religious sect", but not Muslims.
Radical Muslims can rant all week long about their intentions to kill as many Americans as possible and to bring destruction to our shores, but for heaven's sake we simply cannot identify these people for what and who they are. That would just be oh so insensitive and offensive, wouldn't it?
What headlines am I talking about? Ones like this: "Obama Halves Chrysler's Planned Marketing Budget." Barack Obama, the president of the United States, is now in the business of setting marketing budgets. Tell me, where in the Constitution does it mention this one? Probably right next to the part where it says that he can oust CEOs of private companies.
Here's the deal ... Chrysler wanted to spend $134 million in advertising over the next nine weeks. But Barack Obama's auto task force decided to give them half of that. The sad part about this is that many people are simply excited that the Obama task force would even somewhat recognize advertising as a necessary expense. How sad. In the real world a bankruptcy trustee would make decisions of this type with the approval of the bankruptcy judge. No more, it seems. It's the rule of Obama now, not the rule of law.
Back in April, the EPA determined that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that poses a threat to public health. Because of this finding, it set into motion a series of regulations under the Clean Air Act.
A White House document confirms that an EPA proposal to regulate gasses blamed for global warming will be costly for factories, small businesses and other institutions. The memo was a compilation of opinions that had been sought before the EPA determined that greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health. The memo states, "Making the decision to regulate carbon dioxide ... for the first time is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small businesses and small communities."
So there you go. The Obama administration knows that these cap-and-trade proposals and carbon regulations are going to be costly ... and yet it will continue to allow the EPA to act in the name of "global warming."
The Media Research Center did an analysis of the lamestream media's coverage of Obama's first 100 days. Guess what? Turns out that they have done a great job of sending tingles up their legs but a lousy job acting as watchdogs.
MRC analysts looked at all 982 broadcast evening news stories about Obama and his administration from Inauguration Day (January 20) through April 29. Here are some of the interesting, though not surprising, things that they found:
- Obama's first 100 days were defined by massive spending, aggressive intervention in the private sector and proposals for a huge expansion of the federal government. Yet none of the networks aired a single story on whether Obama's policies were pushing the U.S. toward socialism, and no reporter used the term "socialist" to describe Obama.
- Not only that, network reporters never used the word "liberal" to describe either Barack Obama or his agenda during the first 100 days.
- The networks lavished good press on every major initiative of the early Obama administration, including the massive stimulus package, all of the various bailouts, health care, stem cells, the environment and foreign policy.
- In the days before the President unveiled his unprecedented $3.5 trillion budget -- with a record-shattering $1.75 trillion deficit -- four out of five statements on the evening newscasts parroted the White House spin that Obama was a deficit fighter.
- Reporters treated Obama's hugely expensive $787 billion stimulus bill to mainly positive coverage (58 percent positive, 42 percent negative).
- The networks applauded Obama's decision to use taxpayer money to fund embryo-destroying stem cell research (82% positive coverage).
- Network coverage of Obama's mortgage bailout was also positive -- 59% of statements supported the bailout or wanted even more intervention, compared to 41% who opposed the bailout as unfair to responsible homeowners.
- Reporters heavily skewed their coverage in favor of the President's actions on global warming (78% positive).
- President Obama's decision to send thousands of additional troops to Afghanistan was greeted by nearly unanimous (91%) positive coverage -- a far cry from the highly negative coverage of President Bush's successful troop surge in Iraq two years ago.
- Like Obama and the Democrats, the networks went on a feeding frenzy against big corporate bonuses. The networks aired six times more statements forwarding the "infuriated" reaction to business (104) than criticized politicians' grandstanding (16).
- The networks spent days decrying AIG's $165 million bonuses, but hardly mentioned the $210 million in bonuses handed out by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the bailed-out mortgage giants with strong Democratic ties). ABC and NBC completely ignored the Fannie and Freddie bonuses, while the CBS Evening News gave it 27 seconds.
OK ... here's the deal. The Food and Drug Administration is a bit upset with General Mills, the folks who make Cheerios. Cheerios boxes, it would seem, make the claim that Cheerios can lower your cholesterol 10% in one month. True? Don't know. But the FDA says that this advertisement on the box makes Cheerios a drug and they want the language changed or eliminated.
My beef? An Internet headline this morning said "Now Obama Admin Battles Cheerios." Oh yeah .. this is all Obama's fault. Any other president and the FDA would be sitting silent. Are you kidding me? Look ... there is enough about Barack Obama to cause concern with any thinking American who values liberty, but trying to paint Obama as the enemy of Cheerios? A bit much, don't you think? How in the world can we expect anyone to pay attention when we bring up some actual problems with Obama's theory of governance? "Oh yeah, that's the same guy who was worried about the Cheerios."
I have it on good authority that those Brinks home alarm systems will absolutely not work unless it's a white guy trying to break into your home. Never in the history of Brinks advertising on television has anyone other than a white guy been shown breaking into a home. If you live in an area where someone not white might actually break into your home you might want to look into another alarm system.
Byron York has an excellent column about Barack Obama's budget. It seems as though the problem is that Obama's budget is so large and ostentatious that the Republicans don't even know where to begin. If that is how the Republicans in Washington feel, imagine the average ignorant voter out there.
From York's column:
Republican strategists have a problem. The scale of what President Barack Obama proposes to do to the American economy is so enormous, so far-reaching and so potentially disastrous that the opposition party is having a hard time describing it.
"How do you translate the numbers into something that people can grasp to represent the broader problem?" a Republican pollster asked in a recent conversation. John Boehner, Mitch McConnell and other GOP leaders would love to hear an answer, but the pollster didn't have one.
GOP message mavens are struggling with something that academics call "insensitivity to scope." It affects us all; we can understand something on a small scale but have a difficult time comprehending the same thing on a massive scale.
Insensitivity to scope is a major obstacle to understanding the Obama administration's $3.6 trillion 2010 budget. People simply have trouble understanding a number so big. A recent poll asked Americans how many million are in a trillion. Twenty-one percent of respondents got the answer right -- it's a million million. Most people thought it was a lot less.
This is bound to set off the discussions about Social Security and Medicare. The latest news is that these two entitlement programs have gotten worse because of the recession. In fact, they are in such bad shape that Medicare is now paying out more than it receives.
The Trustees of the program said that Social Security will start paying out more than it collects in 2016. That is one year sooner than previously projected, and the entire system will be depleted by 2037.
Medicare is doing even worse. The trustees say that it will be insolvent by 2017, which is two years earlier than projects.
By the way .. there is not now and there never has been a Social Security Trust Fund. That's a fiction created to keep the dumb masses placated.
But what does Barack Obama want to do? Create MORE entitlement programs and grow the size of the government. Do you REALLY think this is going to work out well for us?
If Chef Hans Rueffert were any less tenacious, you might say he he was cut down in his prime--but as hard as he's fought, it's clear he believes his best days are still to come.
After years of running his family's gourmet restaurant at the Woodbridge Inn in Jasper, GA, and producing his own TV specials and cooking shows, Chef Hans' career reached a high point when he was selected to compete on "The Next Food Network Star" out of more than 8,000 applicants. Just two weeks after placing third in the competition, Hans was diagnosed with advanced stomach cancer.
Two years and endless surgeries and complications later, Hans is not just surviving when the doctors told him not to expect too much. He's still following his passion and supporting his young family--his wife Amy and their children, Finn, 9, and Ella, 7--during this trying time.
His new cookbook, "Eat Like There's No Tomorrow," is more than a collection of recipes--it's a story and a prayer. Hans employs his classical culinary training alongside vivid writing and compelling photography to explain why food, for its ability to bring people together, may just be the thing most worth living for.
"Eat Like There's No Tomorrow" is self-published and is available at www.hanscooks.com for $24.95.
So is Obama going to tax your employer healthcare benefits in order to pay for his government healthcare scheme? The possibility seems more and more likely.
Barack Obama and the Democrats want to help pay for this government healthcare by imposing a tax on soda.
Considering the efficiencies of government, I am surprised that we haven't gotten more stories like this one about a woman who has been dead 40 years who received a stimulus check.
If you enjoy Neal's daily chat with Jamie Dupree, you'll love Jamie's Blog! Check it out for analysis of the campaigns and goings on in Washington D.C.
Cristina Gonzalez and Laura Nunemaker assist in the daily preparation of Nealz Nuze!
Avg. rating: N/A
What others are saying
Discounts for cash customers
This is a perfect example of trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. Per the merchant agreement signed between the credit card companies and the merchants that accept cards, you may not establish a minimum purchase, a maximum purchase, or charge a surcharge for using a credit card but you MAY offer discounts for paying cash. It is spelled out in the merchant agreement THAT CLEARLY.