Search Results for: abitua

by Angel Abitua | March 10, 2013 | Commentary

Here is yet another example of the how the Austin American Statesman is portraying the effects of the Sequester. Spending cuts hit nutrition programs for seniors.

First of all there are no “cuts.”  The Sequester is only about “reductions” in a projected rise in spending on top of spending. Secondly, the Statesman is assuming the role of the political-media lapdog for Obama and the DNC.  Also, where is the investigative reporting that can demonstrate the hypocrisy of “puppeteer planning” by the Obama Administration over these so-called “cuts”–by this I mean, Obama can starting sending down-payments to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt of $1 BILLION, but he has to “cut” the funding for Meals on Wheels and let our poor, elderly veterans “starve”?

Is the media manipulation by the Statesman working?

Well yes, very well, thank you.  If you read the feed-back comments posted online by the readers of the article, 80% of them are blaming the Republicans for what Obama is doing.

by Angel Abitua | March 5, 2013 | Commentary

Image: NPR

Hey, you, Low-Information Voter, did you noticed that Obama did not cut any of the almost $200 million in foreign aid that he promised for the Muslim Brotherhood dictators in Egypt?

It was reported by the Wall Street Journal Online on 3.3.13, that the Secretary of State John Kerry personally brought the good news to Mr. Morsi, in Egypt.  Mr. Morsi is the President of Egypt, supported by his organization, the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt.

But just last week, Obama instructed an Hispanic civic organization to regurgitate these statements about the sequestration cuts:

“(The) cuts will leave 70,000 children without Head Start and 30,000 others without child care; and 600,000 children and mothers will see cuts to WIC nutrition aid. At a time with high unemployment rates, the sequester will impact families living paycheck to paycheck because unemployment benefits will also be cut. Also, 125,000 families will not be able to receive rental housing vouchers, nor will they have assistance to help pay for home energy costs.”

If this is not enough to scare you, remember Obama and his minions have also stressed that teachers are getting laid off, air traffic controllers are getting laid off, and your meat is not being inspected by the Agriculture Dept.

Are we missing some details?

Well, yes. The Media does not remind us that the sequester was all Mr. Obama’s idea in the first place.  Also, another little detail is the fact that Mr. Obama happens to be the President of the United States.  The United States is our country.  So, who runs the Government?  Yep, that is right, Mr. Obama.  So he is the real guy behind these decisions to cut Head Start, to cut child care, to cut nutrition programs for children, to cut unemployment benefits, to lay off teachers and air traffic controllers.  And, by the way, did you notice that he has not cut his pay or the pay of his top administrators?   And do you remember the first words of this commentary–that the Muslims running the country of Egypt are getting every single dime of their promised almost $200 million?

If you were wondering just how much money the U.S. Government has in revenues, well just read the Government’s own report, from the Congressional Budget Office.  The CBO states this for the last fiscal year, the one ending September 2012:

“Total Receipts Were Up by 6 Percent in Fiscal Year 2012

Receipts in fiscal year 2012 totaled $2.5 trillion, $148 billion more than those in the same period last year. Compared with collections in fiscal year 2011.”  

The source for the above CBO report can be found by going to this link:

CBO | Monthly Budget Review

by Angel Abitua | Feb 24, 2013 | Commentary

I would venture to say that in the history of our country, when the Sons of Liberty in Boston were protesting against the British government for “no taxation without representation,” back in 1773, the protestors may have been maligned even by some cowardly fellow colonists as “crazy tea party guys.”

Now, 240 years later, the “cowardly” Liberal Media and Academia malign people who protest the new repression emanating from the behemoth federal government in Washington DC.

In a front page story in the February 24, 2013 print edition of the liberal Austin American Statesman there is a story of the genuine conservative new Senator from Texas in Washington, Ted Cruz.

Ted Cruz riles foes, wins fans in Washington, D.C.

For the article, the reporter interviews political scientist (perhaps a professor) named Daron Shaw.  According to the story, Cruz and Shaw “both worked on George W. Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign.”  Shaw maligns the Tea Party with the quote:  “you get these crazy tea party guys…” That was the condemnation.  There were no specifics offered by Shaw or the newspaper to attempt to identify who, which men or women, were being maligned as “crazy.”   The entire organization of patriots in the Tea Party were insulted as “crazy.”

What a difference 240 years make.  Around 1773, the “free press” in the colonies was on the side of people who cherished liberty and freedom.

There is no “free press” to be found in the mainstream media today.  Today’s major media has chained itself to the extreme leftist ruling class that would abridge, dilute, reduce, restrict or destroy our liberty and freedom.  And who are these radicals?  Can they be identified?  Yes, of course, anyone who is NOT in the Tea Party OR sympathetic to the Tea Party.

—–

Sibyl West:  Here is an excerpt from Angelo Codevilla’s piece at Forbes that resonates with your point.

Thus by the turn of the twenty first century America had a bona fide ruling class that transcends government and sees itself at once as distinct from the rest of society – and as the only element thereof that may act on its behalf. It rules – to use New York Times columnist David Brooks’ characterization of Barack Obama – “as a visitor from a morally superior civilization.” The civilization of the ruling class does not concede that those who resist it have any moral or intellectual right, and only reluctantly any civil right, to do so. Resistance is illegitimate because it can come only from low motives. President Obama’s statement that Republican legislators – and hence the people who elect them – don’t care whether “seniors have decent health care…children have enough to eat” is typical.

Republican leaders neither parry the insults nor vilify their Democratic counterparts in comparable terms because they do not want to beat the ruling class, but to join it in solving the nation’s problems. How did they come to cut such pathetic figures?

Read it all.

And you should, too. 

by Angel Abitua | Feb 14, 2012 | Opinion

I am racked with worry and, again, you should be worried as well.

Why?  What is happening?  What is causing my alarm?  Well, it is all in the newspapers and on television and the radio and the Internet, the blogs, and such.  The liberals are like relentless zombies and vampires.  They want to eat up all your bank accounts and suck up all your savings.  They must have MORE MONEY.  There is never enough money to satisfy their voracious appetite.  As long as someone, taxpayers, the average family, upper income or middle class folks have some money–they want it.

Specifics

Specific No.1:  Well let’s start with the unbelievable news just a few days ago that a liberal Democrat judge in Austin, Texas thinks we are not spending enough money on public education.

According to Ms. Peggy Venable, State Director of Americans for Prosperity, we spend OVER $54 BILLION a year on K-12 education, more than any other single item in the state budget.  But apparently according to Judge Dietz, the presiding judge in the case alluded to, that is just a drop in the bucket.  Here’s a sketch of what went down.  On October 22, 2012, a trial began to determine if the current Texas school funding of public education was constitutional.  The name of the plaintiff’s group filing the lawsuit in  the Travis County (Austin) state court of Judge John Dietz was “The Texas Taxpayers and Student Fairness Coalition.”  But who exactly were the plaintiffs?  The plaintiffs ended up being over 600 school districts in the state of Texas.  That means the lawyers who brought the case were enriched by the tax dollars of over 600 state school districts.  In other words, we the taxpayers sued ourselves, we the taxpayers, and we lost.  It was really a case of “heads” you lose or “tails” you lose.

According to blog commentary by David Jennings, the “Texas school finance lawsuit was over when it was filed.”  In his commentary for Big Jolly Politics online, posted Feb. 7, 2013, Mr. Jennings illustrated why the plaintiffs selected the specific court of John Dietz for filing their lawsuit.  Among the reasons were:

1. Judge Dietz was the one who had a record of ruling in favor of school districts who wanted more money.  Back in 2004, he ruled that the school finance system of the state, back then, was also “unconstitutional.” 
2. The Dietz court, the 250th District Civil Court, sits right smack in the middle of the People’s Republic of Austin–the most liberal bastion in our conservative state.
3. And then you have the quote by the Judge himself, according to the Jennings commentary, “On the Travis county bench, you have the opportunity to get things that are weighty and panoramic.”  So, this was the perfect case for the judge to add to his legacy of “weighty and panoramic” rulings.  If you were a judge, would you pass up this opportunity?

Unless the Texas Supreme Court reverses this “ditzy” ruling as proclaimed by this Judge, we, the taxpayers who feel that we already pay enough in school taxes and property taxes, may see a new school finance monstrosity come out of the bowels of the Legislature that will diminish our checking and savings accounts even worse than now.

Yes, that is an example of what I refer to as “my fear and my dread.”  The liberal Democrat zombies and vampires are being unleashed again to attack taxpayers, citizens, women and children with their insatiable agenda.  What is that agenda?  It is very simply to separate people from their money, from the fruit of their labors, from their prosperity, their hard-earned wages.  At least President Obama, say what you will, has been forthcoming and honest about his admitted agenda, which is to “spread the wealth.”

Specific No. 2:  If a new state school funding plan does not break the bank for Texas taxpayers, there is another behemoth of spending out there that will–Medicaid.  Even before the threat of ObamaCare on the finances of our state materialized, Texas was already was spending money like crazy on the program.  According to commentary published in the Austin American Statesman on July 14, 2012, four Republican state legislators, who also happen to be physicians, supported Governor Perry in his decision not to expand the Medicaid program in Texas as mandated by ObamaCare. A portion of that commentary was a follows:

“State spending on Medicaid has grown 2 1/2 times faster than the rest of the budget, and will balloon more rapidly under the Obama administration’s proposed eligibility standards, which would place one out of every five Texans on the rolls of Medicaid by 2014.”

A greater insane sieve of spending, than this proposed expansion of Medicaid for the state of Texas, could not have been devised by any elected official who pretends to have fiduciary responsibility.  But then again what liberal, elected or not, pretends to ascribe to that sort of responsibility any more?

Among the legions of liberals here in Texas who would not give a flip about spending money we don’t have is another judge, F. Scott McCown.  Well, actually Judge McCown is retired–but he is a Democrat, and he is a liberal and, again, he is from Austin.  In his February 11, 2013, commentary published in the Austin American Statesman,

“Judge McCown pleaded his case, for the thousandth time, it seemed, that he wants the state of Texas to walk the plank into an endless sea of spending and expand Medicaid in the state just like Mr. Obama wants.  (Please find the McCown commentary at McCown: Texans need better health coverage.)”

F. Scott McCown is the executive director of the Center for Public Policy Priorities.  The CPPP Website describes its organization as being non-profit and non-partisan.  It may well be the former, but if you accept the assertion that today’s Texas Democrat Party is all liberal all the time, then the CPPP promotes the agenda of the Democrats because the CPPP is all liberal all the time, too.

It is very hard to argue with the lofty goals of the CPPP.  We all want to end world hunger.  We all want to have health care for everyone.  (And we have it, by the way, even BEFORE ObamaCare.)  We all want nutrition and food for everyone, but we expect people to provide it for themselves through self-responsibility.  But the policies of liberals like Obama stymie job growth.  So less jobs mean more Food Stamps.  According to a posting at the Free Republic online, there has been a 30% increase in the number of food stamp recipients since mid-2009.  Please go to: Housing Pickle: Food Stamp Growth Outstrips Employment Growth

One thing that you never see liberals like Judge Dietz and retired Judge McCown do is put a price-tag or budget restraint on their Utopian ideas.   President Obama does not, so why should his fellow liberal minions in Texas?   Over $16 trillion in national debt apparently is not enough of a debt limit for Obama, so why should it be a problem for Texas liberals?  Of course, in Texas we do have budgets because we have a conservative Governor and a conservative legislature and a Constitution that mandates a balanced budget.  So the Texas Constitution is a barricade to Utopia standing in the way of liberals like Dietz and McCown, for now, at least.

So why the alarm, you say?  You got the Texas Constitution to protect the taxpayers.  But let’s remember that have elections for state senators and house representatives every two years in Texas.  Every two years, we can decrease the numbers of real conservatives and increase the number of liberal Republicans, of which there are some, and liberal Democrats, which is the only kind of Democrats that survive and thrive in the Democrat Party today.  But will the Texas Constitution not still protect the taxpayers?  No, of course not.  The Democrats will spend more than projected revenues, then the Texas Constitution will be used as an excuse to raise taxes and fees, and we are then caught up in a trap.

So, here we are, back to the domicile of living in fear, which get worse every two years in Texas at each election cycle. Enough zombies and vampires will attempt to camouflage themselves in cloaks of being moderates and caring about the “middle class,” when in fact, they want to separate as many taxpayers from their financial resources as possible so they, the statists in state government, can build their utopia.  (As if this has not been the strategy and goal of the central planners in Washington DC that we have had to endure for the last 4 years.)

Specific No. 3:  Ah, maybe the best for last.  This story is not from Texas, but nevertheless, it sends up a chill up the spine of most normal hard-working Americans, and those of us retired, living on fixed-incomes.  I refer to a piece entitled “Globalist Funded Think Tank Says Poverty Will Save Planet.”

Please go to the following URL:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/globalist-funded-think-tank-says-poverty-will-save-planet.html

In summary this article refers to a thesis, emanating from an “economist” named David Rosnick, at the Center for Economic Policy and Research, that claims that less work, leading of course, to less prosperity and more poverty, will mean a reduction in carbon emissions, and that will save the planet.  Oh well yes, our pocketbooks will suffer, but the planet will be saved, don’t you see?   

This policy may not sit well with either Judge Dietz or retired Judge McCown because, if adopted in Texas, there will be less money to throw at Big Education and Big Entitlements, like Medicaid.  (But, of course, we kid ourselves if we think that liberals will ever admit there will EVER BE enough money for all they wish to spend it on.)

Let me attempt to conjure up a reality check.  I should try not to “live in fear” in Texas with liberals around like Dietz and McCown because there are even more radical, more dangerous liberals around like the economist for the Center for Economic Policy and Research in Washington DC, and Washington DC is far away from Texas, right?  As stated above, the radical and dangerous liberals in the CEPR in Washington are actually advocating that poverty may be good for us because it may save the planet from destruction if we work less and, therefore, earn less and pollute less.

And Dietz and McCown are not suggesting that  working and productive Texans embrace poverty as a way of life, are they?  No, no.  The Texas liberals want us to work as hard or harder so that we can afford to pay even more in taxes so the state can spend even more money.

Well, that did not help.

I am still LIVING IN FEAR.

PS:  The best medicine to mitigate the fear of liberals that I know of is information, information, information.  Please try to get yourself educated on what is really threatening economic freedoms, prosperity and individual rights in our country.  You will not receive that education by reading the main-stream media, like the Austin American Statesman, or viewing ABC-News, CBS-News, NBC-News, et al.

The only source of unbiased, non-liberal content is alternate media, like Ramparts360.com, and fiscal conservative organizations like Americans for Prosperity and Empower Texas and such.

###

ANGEL ABITUA is a retired government worker (38 yrs). Hispanic “community organizer”, grandpa, active member of AFP. 

Angel’s archive

by Angel Abitua | January 29, 2013 | Citizen Report

It was reported by various news sources that our Pharaoh, Obama, would fly to Las Vegas, Nevada for just one political speech–just ONE short speech on a possible piece of legislation, an evolving compromise, between Democrats and Republicans in Congress to grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.

According to The Weekly Standard, this short trip would cost taxpayers over $1.6 million just for the travel alone.

At the same time, the commentators on the morning talk show on KLBJ radio said that it was predicated that Obama, in his speech, would express his disapproval with one aspect of the evolving compromise on immigration in Congress–the period of time it would take to grant amnesty leading to citizenship.  According to the talk show, Obama wants citizenship to be bestowed on illegal immigrants in time for them to be able to vote in the 2014 off-year elections.

By Angel Abitua | December 30, 2012 | Opinion

Dear reader, as we enter the year 2013, as a country, we slouch toward higher taxes, higher fees, less freedoms, less choice, bigger government, and more economic stagnation.  In other words, welcome to the new America as envisioned by our masters, the liberal extremists in charge of our federal government, our education system, our pop-culture, the media, academia and the entertainment business, among other things.

And you will soon note America will begin to resemble modern-day Greece in financial outlook, once the policies of President Barack Hussein Obama, U.S.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reed and former U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, et al., envelope more what used to be a less taxed America, less indebted, less regulated and a less doomed country to live in.

Is this a gross, entirely fictitious exaggeration?

No, it is not!  

Elections have consequences

The re-election of Barack Hussein Obama on November 6, 2012 and the continued empowerment of Harry Reid in the Senate means the country will continue to lurch toward the Left, toward an new era of serfdom for  Americans who used to cherish liberty, self-reliance, and rugged individualism–all the characteristics and traits that were once considered the essence of the people who pursued a dream–the American Dream, for themselves and their children.

Elections have lessons

The national elections of 2012 that empowered Obama, Reid, and other extremists, some re-elected, some newly elected, all Democrats, and maybe some Republicans—demonstrated that a new majority of voters in this country is NOT concerned with a “little” national debt of $16 trillion dollars, soon to be much higher.  A majority of voters do want to spread the wealth, or shall we say, confiscate a little more of other peoples’ money for the “betterment” of the whole, the “less fortunate,”  the non-productive among us who need the protection and coddling of a benevolent, all-knowing, all-caring national government.  Mr. Obama proved, once again, and once and for all perhaps, that class envy is the most effective campaign weapon of our times.  Class envy really, really works.  It is a winner.

Another incredible lesson learned was that, for a majority of voters in this country, a politician’s personality is more important than a politician’s policies.  Let’s write that one on the chalkboard with big letters:

PERSONALITY TRUMPS POLICY

Let us also remember the thesis of liberalism:

Liberalism in this country has, and has always, had one goal:  The continued empowerment of the liberal agenda–which is to separate working Americans from their livelihood, their earnings, the fruits of their labor–plain and simple.  For what purpose?  For the very same purpose that a fiefdom has a feudal lord–the Lord is Liberalism, in our case.  It is good to be the Lord of the Fiefdom of the United States.  Please note I did not say the purpose of the liberal agenda is to save the planet, preserve women’s reproductive rights, educate the children, provide universal health care, end poverty and greed–no, none of these “lofty” goals comprise the true agenda of liberalism.  The aforementioned list is a list of the tools that liberals have always used and will continue to use to achieve their real purpose, which is the possession of power, for the sake of possessing power.  Today, it is also obvious that financial enrichment for government elitists can occur when that power is achieved.  (Remember that the general geographic region that compromises the Washington D.C. area harbors some of the highest incomes in America, today.)   That goal can only be achieved, in America, by separating Americans from their economic independence, from their wealth and/or from their aspirations to obtain personal material wealth–through their own initiative, their own ambition.

If you are a liberal, if you are an Obama voter, if you believe that government is the solution and NOT the problem–this message is not an attempt to besmirch you or your convictions.  In fact, I am sure you feel satisfaction in the re-election of Mr. Obama because you believe in Mr. Obama. For holding firm to your beliefs, I congratulate you and congratulate Mr. Obama on his ability to convince you to have supported his recent campaign.

But, my question, my dear Obama voter is this:  Are you ready to endure the pricking pain that is coming to you, and all the rest of us, because of the political choices of 2008 and 2012?

“Prove it,” you say.  Prove the assertion that the policies of liberalism result in the separation of people from their money and in the diluting or deprivation of their freedoms and their liberties.

The proof, dear friends, is easy to find.  All you have to do is open your eyes and read.  If you doubt what you read, do not insult the messenger, do your own research.  In today’s cornucopia of instantaneous digital information, doing your own research is as easy as “clicking on a link,” and then verifying that research through whatever means you have at your disposal.

In this piece, I offer two exhibits of evidence, two brief examples of how the policies of Mr. Obama, et al., are going to cost us all–conservatives, liberals, moderates, independents and the “not-interested.”

The first piece, from a credible source, I can point to is from the Heritage Foundation organization.  In an online article dated December 26, 2012, from its Morning Bell series, the Heritage article “Obama’s Cap-and-Trade Scheme for Cars,” we are reminded and forewarned about Obama’s added cost to buying a new car.  The good news is that the added cost of buying a new car will not increase enormously until 2025, based on the new mandated miles-per-gallon efficiency these vehicles must achieve by 2025.  The bad news is this will add at least $3,000 to cost of a new car, and the other bad news is that 2025 is only 12 years away.  If you have a child 4 years old today, get ready to shell out this additional $3000 in 2025 when your child reaches legal driving age in Texas.  So, if you have money squirreled away for your child’s education, you will need to siphon off $3000 worth of it just to add to what the costs are already today for a set of wheels for his or her transportation.  The report also says that if you think that you can find a car under $15,000, these new mandates will guarantee you will no longer be able to find cars that cheap.

The article does not delve into the obvious, which is that if we did away with these new, extremely expensive mandates the world would not end by the year 2025.  Just as the world did not end on December 21, 2012, according to Mayan prophecy.

The Heritage article can be found here.  

Okay, you say, that article is from a conservative organization.  Show me some evidence of added costs to our lives from a liberal news organization.

Not a problem.  In fact, now one can find a slew of liberal organizations that have no compulsion about reporting how expensive the New Liberal World will be under a second Obama Administration.  I say now–now that Obama has been re-elected for his second term.

Let’s select an article from the Associated Press that was published in the print edition of the Austin American Statesman on December 26, 2012.  How is that for the liberal perspective?

In an article with the heading Health care tax hikes for 2013 may just be a start, by reporter Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, we are reminded of one the most expensive, draconian, killer-of-individual-choice-and-freedom pieces of federal legislation in the history of our republic–the so-called Affordable Health Care Act of 2010. That was 2,409 pages of legislation that no Congressman or Senator, in recollection, ever admitted to completely reading.

Are you employed?  The article warns you, the American worker, about just one thing, among many, that no Democrat ever told you back in 2010.  Right now, as a employee with the benefit of health care provided by your employer, you pay no income or payroll taxes on what your employer contributes for your health insurance, according to the article.  Well guess what?  That tax break may disappear or be limited by your Washington Democrats, in order to help pay for the gargantuan ObamaCare.

This article by the AP can be found at the following link:

Health care tax hikes for 2013 may be just a start

Is this all?  Are these all the higher taxes and fees and destruction of our freedoms and liberties coming our way in 2013 and beyond?  No, of course not.  There is more pain and suffering coming our way from the extremist liberal Democrats’ policies than can fill the dungeons in all of Purgatory.

Let’s review.  What are the lessons to be learned by re-electing and electing Democrats to power?  They will continue to have the power to separate you from your money, your income.  They will continue to explode our national debt and destroy the financial future of our children and grandchildren–because that is precisely what they have done for the past 4 years.  Obama and Company think the voters have endorsed their policies because they feel the elections of November 6 represented a mandate for them to continue doing what they are doing.

Obama has the power to reward his voters by expanding the Food Stamps program, issuing amnesty edicts for illegal aliens, taking work out of welfare, giving loans to scam-green companies that had promised to create jobs  and save the world from its demise–both of which never happened because the companies went bankrupt.  But there is one power that Obama does not have–the power to forgive the debt that we owe to China.  The day of reckoning will come and there is nothing that Obama and the Democrats can do to stop that day from coming.

Finally, and hopefully, we will learn the lesson that the New Utopia is not cheap.  If you are a millionaire or a multi-millionaire, spreading the wealth will cost you, of course.  But if you are from Middle-Income America, spreading the wealth will actually cost you more, because you have less to spread.

by Angel Abitua | December 21, 2012 | Commentary

If the Republicans and Democrats cannot come to agreement on new federal spending limits and new revenue-raising, we will NOT go over the so-called “fiscal cliff.”  This is all just propaganda and hype that the media is broadcasting.  I am an old fiscal conservative, but the way that I see it, if there is no agreement by the end of the year, our country will be falling into “fiscal bliss.”  Sure, my taxes will go up in 2013, but finally, finally we may get to see those “draconian” cuts in spending that I have been waiting for what seems like forever.

With the additional revenue — but, more important with real, substantive, deep cuts in federal spending — we may actually be on the road to reducing our gigantic federal debt.  That should mean that the financial security of our children and grandchildren will no longer be jeopardized by the reckless deficit-spending of our dear leaders in Washington, both Democrats and Republicans.

I am so ready for the FISCAL BLISS that should be coming our way Jan. 1, 2013.

(Okay, some reality is due here.  With biggest deficit-loving president we ever had in the White House and the extreme left-wing in charge in the Senate, we probably are not going to see real cuts in real spending. But I can always dream, can’t I?)

A response to this post:

Hinojosa: Why Texas Republicans won’t win over Hispanic voters

Commentary by Angel Abitua

In his commentary published in the November 27, 2012 print edition of the Austin American Statesman,  Mr. Gilberto Hinojosa, the Chairman of the Texas Democrat Party, makes no pretense of salivating at prospects that the sizable emerging Hispanic vote would turn our state of Texas from red to blue.  He thinks in the near future Texas will go from Republican-dominated to Democrat-dominated.

In his commentary, Mr. Hinojosa immediately starts beating his chest loudly and predicts dominance of the Democrat Party, especially after the November 6 big electoral win of President Barack H. Obama, nationwide.  

Ah, but there is the rub, Mr. Hinojosa, Texas is not like the rest of the country, thank God for that.

Yes, there was no joy in Mudville for Mr. Romney in his race against Mr. Obama on election night nationwide. But in Texas Republicans were in command.  Mr. Romney took 57.20% of the vote against 41.36% for Mr. Obama.  In the Texas U.S. Senate race, Mr. Ted Cruz took 58.12% of the vote against 40.45% for Mr. Paul Sadler.

But let’s examine the case Mr. Hinojosa makes for seeing a hint of blue in a sea of red.  Through his binoculars, Mr. Hinojosa says he can see a tsunami of Hispanic voters coming to guarantee Democrat Party dominance in future elections.  In his analysis of the growing Hispanic electorate in Texas, he concludes that a great majority of Hispanics approve of spending money that we do not have in our state budget.  He makes an obvious reference to the spin by Texas liberals (and the local liberal media) that the mean old Republican majority in the Texas Legislature eviscerated the funding for education back in 2011.

No, Mr. Hinojosa, that is not exactly true.  What really happened to education funding in the 2011 Legislature?  Well to get at some facts, let’s quote an “usual suspect”–The Austin American Statesman.  In the print edition of the Statesman, October 14, 2012, the Truth-0-Meter featured a statement from Joe Straus, the Republican Speaker of the Texas House.  The paper had a sub-heading in that article that read:

“Joe Straus says lawmakers increased the share of state spending on public education”

And what was the verdict of the fact-checkers?  What did the liberal-leaning, Democrat-friendly, Truth-O-Meter say about the veracity or lack of veracity of Mr. Straus’s statement?

MOSTLY TRUE

To quote from the Statesman article, the specific “ruling” read as follows:

“As Straus says, public education made up a greater share of state spending in the 2012-2013 budget than in the 2010-11 budget.  But this statement lacks vital clarifying information–that school funding still took a substantial hit.  We rate it Mostly True.”

Let’s give you some credit, Mr. Hinojosa, and admit that funding for education for the 2012-2013 fiscal years did not reach the levels that you would have liked, according to some pre-conceived formula. But as Texas taxpayers — Hispanics and non-Hispanics — we should appreciate the fact that our Legislature and our Governor upheld their Texas constitutional responsibility to adhere to a balanced budget.  Now I am aware that Mr. Hinojosa and Democrats in Texas (or anywhere in the country) may not appreciate constitutional restraints or balanced budgets.  But the rest of us do appreciate the fact that, as Texans, we live in a state that prefers to “live within its means.”

Oh, there are a few more things about education that I would like to say, as an Hispanic Texan.

Keep reading. He’s just getting started.

So, who cares if America is going to hell in a handbasket?

By Angel Abitua | November 15, 2012 | Opinion

The Obama Phone and the Zombies won the  2012 Presidential election for Obama and the Democrats. Oh, of course there were many other major factors that won the resounding reelection campaign for Mr. Obama, and this commentary will highlight some of the reasons NOT being proffered by many noted pundits of politics, from the liberal, or far-left, persuasion — which is the same thing today in many instances.

First, a little retrospection.

Once upon a time in America, we had a President who said “ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”

Once upon a time in America, the voters elected a candidate for President who demonstrated, or seemed to know how he could help create a good economy for people who needed jobs.  In fact, for several election years, we were reminded of the crude, but emphatic shout-out “It’s the economy, stupid.”  Conversely, the losing candidate was the ineffectual one at handling the economy, the one with the record of fiscal failure.

Well, welcome to the “new normal.”  Apparently, our Presidential elections are no longer about the economy.  Let’s focus on this please.  This is VERY, VERY IMPORTANT.  The 2012 Presidential election was NOT about the economy.  I cannot stress that enough.  I know, it sounds like I am saying that 2 plus 2 does not equal 4, anymore.  But that is exactly what I am saying.

So what happened?  How can a candidate for the presidency who has an unquestionable, outstanding record of creating jobs, and has successful CEO experience and expertise, lose to a candidate for reelection who never had business experience, who never ran a company, never met a payroll?  After 4 years as President, Mr. Obama could only demonstrate his ineptitude and incompetency at bringing back a robust, healthy economy, merely propping it up weakly on life-support.

For the moment, at least, we are no longer the United States of America.  We have become the United States of Pop Culture.  Credentials have been replaced with celebrity.  Therefore, perhaps we need to discard the electoral college, as the metric for selecting a winner in a Presidential election.  That is such an old-fashioned relic of the past.  Let’s simply “text” our vote and let the popular vote decide the winner, akin to the way used to select the winner of television’s show, American Idol. 

>> Page 2…

by Angel Abitua | October 12, 2012 | Opinion

Here is a collection of impressions I had from the debate last night.

Partisanship aside, after watching the Vice Presidential Debate, one –AT FIRST–had to be impressed with the gravitas, the extraordinary political pedigree displayed by Vice President Joe Biden.  He demonstrated an impressive, vast command of national and global knowledge and intelligence.  But what did you expect from a career politician who  has been at the epicenter of executive power for all his years in the U.S. Senate and now, almost 4 years as Vice President?  BUT THEN–Biden demonstrated his clownish, clue-less side when he responded that he (the Obama Administration) did NOT know that our embassy in Libya had requested more security.

Now, let us appraise the sense of personality that emanated from the much younger Congressman Paul Ryan, who has been in elective office for 14 years.  Congressman Ryan did not collapse under the deluge of the Biden smirky, supercilious persona.  Congressman Ryan held his own and demonstrated that in just 14 years, he had achieved the same insider command of issues, of content and relevance, as the man he was facing in the debate.

Without question, it would seem that Biden made a good impression with his bluster, his condescending attitude, and Big Time Government Politico presence.  Well, maybe that was not such a “good impression?”  It appears to this voter that it is time to send the good-old-Joe out to the luxurious retirement that he so richly deserves.

I watching the talking heads this morning on TV commenting about the Vice Presidential  Debates.  It seems the more the Democrats praise and shout hallelujahs about Biden’s performance, the more this draws a damning contrast with the poor, vacuous performance turned in by Obama in the first Presidential Debate.  The other powerful contrast highlighted by Biden and Ryan was the fact that Biden’s arrogant, brutish demeanor was over the top.  If you are an Independent, ask yourself this question:  Would you rather have a loud, crazy, boorish, old uncle in your family like Biden, or a fresh, bright, mature, polite son like Ryan in your family?  Give me a son like Paul Ryan anytime.

Last night, Biden was preaching to the Democrat Party base of 20 years ago.  That base does not exist anymore.  The New Democrat Party is so far-left of the political spectrum, so far away from Main Street, that is no longer in town.  This is the party that would rather not even mention “God” in their platform.

via Angel Abitua: The Austin American Statesman, in today’s print edition Politifact section, called Paul Sadler a liar for saying that, while in the Texas Legislature, he never supported a state income tax. In fact, Sadler accused Ted Cruz himself of lying about this during the October 2nd debate.

Read it all.

by Angel Abitua | October 3, 2012 | Opinion

The first debate between candidates for the US Senate seat from Texas, that will be determined this November, is over.  The predicted winner of the debate is the winner of the debate: Republican nominee Ted Cruz, the young conservative Hispanic candidate who shocked the system having won a GOP runoff election at the end of July against formidable Texas Lt. Governor David Dewhurst.  Mr. Cruz was matched up against the Democrat nominee, former state representative, Paul Sadler, from South Texas.

It was a masterful performance by the young, artful conservative who carefully and methodically characterized Mr. Sadler as a tax-and-spend liberal, an Obama-supporter and Obama-apologist.  In his counter-attack, Mr. Sadler tried to characterize Mr. Cruz as a young, uninformed, clueless, inexperienced, lying “troll.”  Oh yes, according to Mr. Sadler, Ted Cruz is also “crazy.”

What Sadler actually accomplished during the debate was to characterize himself as a mean-spirited, bitter, elitist politician willing to demean himself to gutter politics with name-calling.   What Cruz actually accomplished during the debate was to characterize himself as a conservative with substance.  He genuinely expressed concern about what a lot of Texans worry about—(a) intrusive, massive federal government that stifles job-creation, (b) a dangerous, explosive federal debt that will affect every Texan (every American), and (c) protecting and preserving the U.S. Constitution.

Instead of emphasizing his legislative record, as a top-ranking Democrat in the Texas House of Representatives during the 90’s, and reminding the television viewers of all the accolades and special recognitions he received from liberal organizations and liberal media for his legislative accomplishments, Mr. Sadler succumbed to desperation.  He only had one hour to insult Mr. Cruz, so he felt he had to unleash name-calling, in a manner fast and furious.

Mr. Sadler’s disdain and contempt for Mr. Cruz was evident almost from the beginning of the debate.  But it became actually acute at two points.  The first time was when the polemics veered toward the discussion of the decision, at the federal level, to allow or not to allow the “Bush tax cuts” to expire.   Mr. Sadler knew, at that time, that Mr. Cruz had him in an untenable position of being in favor of letting the Bush tax cuts expire, which would in turn mean higher taxes for not just the wealthy, but also for small business people above a certain profit-margin (income level).  At that point Mr. Sadler’s sneering stare toward Mr. Cruz was very obvious and Mr. Sadler felt compelled to adjust his sitting position, because of his agitation.

The other jabs from Mr. Cruz that made Mr. Sadler even more agitated and aggravated were toward the end of the bout when Mr. Cruz launched a series of liberal accusations at Mr. Sadler, accusations like Sadler supporting raising taxes in Texas and being in support of gay-marriage.

Toward the end of the brawl, Mr. Cruz, again, thanked Mr. Sadler for offering Texans a clear choice in the November election for US Senator from Texas.  The choice, according to Cruz, was between a liberal and a conservative.

In summary, when voters in Texas and across America go to the polls on November 6, and after all the pre-election polls are over and all the pundits cease their pre-election punditry, we will be subjected to post-election exit-polling and post-election punditry.  And what lessons or messages might we hear on November 7?  Probably the same lessons and the same messages history has taught us about American elections.  The same old “cause and effect” will be the outcome.  Or, put another way, maybe politics are a lot like the laws of physics. It was the eminent physicist, Isaac Newton, who offered his theory of the third law of motion:  “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.”

The Reagan Revolution in the 1980’s was a direct reaction to the anemic economy and perceived ineffectual and liberal policies of the administration of Jimmy Carter.  The 2008 victory for Barack Obama and the Democrats was, in part, a reaction to the bad economy and the perceived ineffectual, un-focused and inarticulate policies of the George W. Bush Administration.  The 2010 off-year elections were a direct reaction to the unpopular, deficit-growing, intrusive big government growth of Mr. Obama and the Democrats.  (Except Mr. Obama was not on the national ballot in 2010, of course.)

Professor Newton’s theory about the third law of motion has proved correct over and over again in American politics.  Let us see if the old professor’s theory holds true, again, on November 6, 2012.

*Photo by Jennifer Whitney via Texas Tribune.

Related:  Burkablog :: One ugly debate 

September 29, 2012 | Commentary

Regarding AISD and the Statesman:

Angel Abitua: It was reported in the Austin American Statesman, 9.29.12, that the Austin Independent School District is looking for millions of dollars (in grants?) for someone to tell it (AISD)  how to obtain more federal dollars and how to “better” spend the millions of dollars they are ALREADY spending.

If I were a tax-payer in the Austin city limits, I would have a couple of concerns:

• Does the AISD not already have highly-paid executives and accountants on staff that can tell it how to spend more money effectively?
• Assuming the answer to the above is affirmative, why is the AISD NOT spending the millions of dollars they already have in an effective manner?

This also points out that the local money-spewing beast (AISD) cannot communicate with, nor understand, the national money-spewing beast (U.S. government).  And let us not forget the other label we can attribute to these entities:  “money-hemorrhaging beasts.”

What is the basis for the last label?  There is something called “debt” that is a mark of both beasts.  You hear a little something about the national debt from the Austin American Statesman–on a limited basis.  But you never hear about the sizable debt of the AISD in the local newspaper.

—–

Sibyl West: It’s interesting that you use the word hemorrhaging to describe this flow of money. I have to ask: What is money if not the blood of the human being who earned it? Eat, work, sleep, eat, work, sleep. Eat and sleep so that one is fit to work. And for the work one gets money. In this context, to take others’ money in taxes is like siphoning off some of their blood. Take too much, they collapse. Somebody should tell the AISD.

I remember watching a video report by Sky News in 2004 of the Chinese regime bulldozing houses so that the government cronies could build shopping malls. One man was sitting on top of a rubble of bricks which minutes ago had been his home in sullen, stunned rage. When they got him in front of a camera inside a tent for the newly homeless he said what he thought. The translation made my hair stand on end and tears come to my eyes. Referring to the Chinese government the weeping man said, “They drink our blood, eat our flesh and pick our bones clean.”

The USSA is about ten steps behind in my opinion. Who will stop the bleeding? If not us, who? If not now, when?

Rush Limbaugh was just expounding on the fact that liberals need victims to champion against straw men oppressors – favorite variety being American businessmen – and yet Obama is quoted as recently saying there are no victims in America – at least not in Ohio.

“As I look out on this crowd I don’t see a lot of victims, I see hard-working Ohioans,” Obama said. “We don’t believe in the government helping those who won’t help themselves. But we do believe in opportunity.”

Rush went on to note that this kind of chaotic message bending is not the symptom of a campaign that is surging ahead. It is, however, the flailing of a failing one.

Angel Abitua commented on the inconsistency of our current tale bearer in chief:

Please help me understand.  In his recent speech to the United Nations, was President Obama being brave and bold, naïve, or hypocritical?

I refer to his arguments that since America reveres the “right of free speech,” then the whole world MUST revere and uphold that right as well.  Well, pardon me, is that not “forcing” our views on the rest of the globe and is that not why many sectors of our globe hate us?  We cannot preach our values world-wide.  Yet, Mr. Obama was preaching.

And was the President projecting himself to appear naïve and clueless on the world stage to pretend that his preaching would “heal” the planet?

Where is the hypocrisy?  Well, it seems to me that when you chastise the United States Supreme Court for upholding the right of “free speech” for corporations in this county, but then you rebuke Egypt and Libya for NOT allowing free speech in their countries—well, what can I say?  You are being hypocritical.

What we have here, in President Obama, is a politician imprisoned in his own verbiage, of the past and present.  It is called effeteness, lacking the evolution of thoughtfulness.

I have to say that B.J. Clinton, though a proven liar, was much more believable.

by Angel Abitua | September 25, 2012 | Commentary

A veritable Cirque du Soleil of a protest was in town on September 21.  No, they had not caravanned in from Canada but rather from San Antonio, Dallas, and Houston.  The article in the print edition of the Austin American Statesman, September 22, 2012, described the convergence as “hundreds of uninsured Texans,” who descended upon the state Capitol on September 21.  According to the Statesman, these “hundreds of uninsured” were in town to get in the face of Governor Rick Perry for his refusal to expand Medicaid for about 2.3 million Texans, the paper said.  (In reality, the protestors failed to find the Governor, so it was not possible for them to actually “confront” him.)

Of course, the “hundreds” of protestors did not care about the fact that the Obama Administration was eager for Texas to become mired in hopeless debt, like that in which the nation is mired, and expand an entitlement program that we cannot afford.  Apparently the protestors chose to ignore other facts, dealing with simple numbers.  Yes, according to the story in the Statesman, Obama is offering Texas an “estimated $13 billion” to jump-start the expansion of Medicaid to almost 2.3 million more people in the state.

But before we begin to compare some figures, let us acknowledge some serious problems.  The federal government is already in debt for OVER $16 TRILLION.  By the way, when I say the “federal government” I mean you and me—we are the stakeholders in this country, we owe the debt.  So, let’s compare $13 billion to over $16 trillion.  I think $16 trillion is much bigger than $13 billion, so, it would appear to me that Mr. Obama is offering money that he does not have.   And let us remember, that he is not offering money from his own bank account.  He is not offering money from Warren Buffett’s bank account.  He is offering money that the United States Government does NOT have.  He will have to BORROW it.

The Statesman article reported further that “according to state officials,” if Texas did expand Medicaid coverage as demanded by the Obama Administration, state spending on Medicaid would increase “by $27 billion by 2023.” That seems like a lot of money, does it not?  Of course, we are not even factoring another unpleasant fact that the protestors did not seem to articulate in their arguments.  This unpleasant fact is that, again, according to the article “Texas already has a $4 billion to $5 billion shortfall in the 2011-2012 Medicaid budget.”

I may have put forth the impression that the Statesman report on the Medicaid protestors seemed to be balanced and objective—but, not so fast.  The paper seemed uninterested in letting its readers know any specifics about one of the organizations that was sponsoring the Medicaid protestors.  The report identified this group as something called the “Texas Organizing Project,” but no background information was provided.  Questions:

• What is the nature of the Texas Organizing Project, who are their board members?  And, most important, where do they get their funding?
• Who were the other sponsors of the Medicaid protestors of September 21?
• Who provided the funding for the transportation to haul in the protestors?  And how much did it cost?

Then there was the unsubstantiated assertion made by the paper when it said “Texas has the highest rate of uninsured people in the nation…6 million people are without insurance.”   What is the source for that assertion?  How many of these people are undocumented?

We know liberals and liberal newspapers also like to associate “the uninsured” in this country as being subject to a lack of medical treatment, which of course is not true.  There are countless medical clinics and hospital emergency rooms providing medical services either on a sliding scale, or without charge.

America, today, is not a “utopian” socialized-state, at least, not yet.  But give Mr. Obama credit, he has made great strides in dragging us to his vision of “fairness” for all, in just 4 years–even if we cannot pay for his utopia.  Debt is not a concern for Mr. Obama, nor is it a concern for the Medicaid protestors of September 21.

They do not fear debt. They worship debt.

Angel Abitua commentary ~

The following comments are made in response to Mitt Romney’s recent statements to potential donors to his campaign for President.

As a current recipient of a government entitlement program (social security benefits), I am supporting and voting for Mitt Romney for President.  As an Hispanic, former civil rights worker and community organizer, I am supporting and voting for Mitt Romney.  Why?  There are many other things at stake in this perhaps most important Presidential election in the history of our country.  We are fast approaching a fiscal cliff, and I do not want my country going “forward” over that cliff.  Another major concern is the future financial security of my grandchildren, this has been jeopardized by the incumbent in the White House.  Even a guy like me, surviving on social security benefits, realizes that unless we elect leaders who will, responsibly, reform government entitlement programs, those programs will become insolvent and they WILL NOT BE THERE for future generations—unless we confiscate resources from the producers, the wage earners, the entrepreneurs.  This path is unsustainable.  The path of our national debt is unsustainable.  Our country is in crisis and in urgent need of real, responsible leadership.

Why is Governor Romney not allowed to publically admit that he does not think he will get the vote of the entitlement class?  (Is that a secret?  Is it too “politically incorrect” to utter in public?)  Obama knows that the entitlement class will only vote for a Democrat.  Give him four more years and the 46 percent who owe no federal income taxes will only increase exponentially in time for the next Presidential election—for the next liberal, leftist Democrat Presidential candidate to benefit from their support.

Obama’s campaign put out a statement, in response to Governor Romney’s remarks, that started by saying that the Obama campaign was “shocked” that Romney was speaking to “wealthy donors.”  So, what was Romney supposed to do, go speak to food stamp recipients and ask them to donate 50 cents to his campaign?

Lastly, regarding Governor Romney’s statement that if he had been born to Hispanic or Mexican-American parents, he would have a better chance to get elected—that, too, is 100% correct.  Is Obama counting on his “black skin” to help him get re-elected?  I think so.

Author’s note: This really happened to me, and, to the best of recollection, those were the questions. This is precisely why I think the polls on the Presidential race are completely wrong and biased.  There is no way that Obama can win in November, not with his record and his lack of skills.

An “un-biased” anti-Ted Cruz pro-Paul Sadler Poll

by Angel Abitua | September 14, 2012 | Citizen Report

Who participated in such a poll? I did. And I want to confess to the world that it was an eerie, unsettling but highly educational experience.

So I got the call and the young man at the other end of the line, with a slight Hispanic accent, said he wanted to conduct a brief poll on the upcoming U.S. Senate race in Texas and wondered if I would participate?

Yes, I said, but I first asked the name of his polling organization.  He muttered some name, which I wrote down, but there is no need to mention it, since it turned out to be fictitious anyway, later when I looked it up and did not find it.

Oh, my God—the questions in this “un-biased”, anti-Ted Cruz (Republican), pro-Paul Sadler (Democrat) poll were so biased, so leading, and, just plain ridiculous.  After the young pollster posed a question, he said he wanted me to answer with certain gradations of positive or negative responses, whenever applicable.  He said I would have to respond with one of these statements:

Strongly support, slightly support, strongly oppose, slightly oppose—or undecided

Here is a sample of his questions, to the best of my recollection:

In the November race for U.S. Senate, would you support a candidate for election if he said he was going to stick to his convictions and never compromise on anything and thereby cause stubborn gridlock in the Senate?  

Of course, the pollster was trying to negatively mischaracterize Ted Cruz (my choice of the U.S. Senate), so I answered, “Yes, I would support a candidate like that.”

To which the pollster said:

Strongly support or slightly support?  

Ah, I caught on to the trick question.  If I said “slightly support,” then he would count that response as a weak response for Cruz and therefore he would construe my response as a negative response for Cruz and a positive response for Sadler.

In the November race for U.S. Senate, would you support a candidate for election if he opposed investing in the education of our children?   

I recall saying that I thought we SPENT a lot of money on education, both at the state level and the national level.  (But, we have to note here that when a pollster poses a hypothetical question in those naïve, simple terms—without even referring to a specific piece of legislation—he is simply trying to stir up an emotional response.)  So, I said, “Yes, I would support a candidate like that.”

To which the pollster said:

Strongly support or slightly support?  

I said, “strongly support.”

In the November race for U.S. Senate, would you support a candidate for election if for his entire career he was simply a lawyer, who was supporting his family only through lawyer work?   

(Although, I had an idea that Sadler was also a lawyer, it was evident that the attempt was to label Cruz as “only a lawyer’—and the ONLY lawyer in the race–while not mentioning that Sadler was lawyer, as well.)

I said, “strongly support.”

In the November race for U.S. Senate, would you support a candidate for election if that candidate was against the expansion of Medicare and Medicaid in Texas even though the federal government was going to offer Texas millions of dollars to expand these medical services so that our underprivileged families and elderly men and women would have access to these services?  

(Again, this was another emotional misconstruction of the facts.  The true facts are that after a couple of years, those “millions of dollars” of federal funding would disappear and Texas would become more broke than California.  This type of “funding formula” is the insidious entrapment shell-game that Washington seeks to impose on every state.)

After this, and several other biased, leading and ridiculous questions, I was beginning to regret that I had offered to sacrifice myself as a respondent to this so-called “poll.”  But, again, I said, “Yes, I strongly support a candidate like that.”

Finally, I think the last question was something like:

In the November race for U.S. Senate, would you support a candidate for election if that candidate pretended to have been born in Texas, but was actually born in Canada?  

(Oh, no, I could not remember?  I was not sure? Was Cruz born in Canada?  Or was Sadler born in Canada?  This was not really an emotionally-charge question, as it appeared to be—but, rather, it was a simply a trick question—since I could not honestly recall the birthplace of Cruz or Sadler?  So, I said to myself that I had nothing against Canada.  Canada was our friend.  Canada is a great vacation spot.  I have been to Canada and it was nice.  Canada had offered to sell us oil, but our “genius,” anti-capitalist, anti-traditional-energy amateur in the White House had turned down the construction of the Keystone Oil Pipeline.)

I responded, “Yes, I would still support that candidate?”

To which the pollster said:

Strongly support or slightly support?  

I said, “strongly support.”

That was the end of the polling questions.  The young pollster closed by saying:

Thank you for participating in this poll.  In order to confirm that I did my job as I was supposed to and this poll was conducted in an unbiased, professional matter, would it be alright if my supervisor called you and confirmed this?   

I said, “Yes, of course.”

That was several days ago.

I am still waiting for that phone call.

Angel Abitua comments:

The 2012 Presidential Debates are over!  The winners of all 4 debates are President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden.

How did that happen?  Well, Romney and Ryan made the mistake of criticizing the current administration for….oh, it does not matter.  You cannot criticize the All-Knowing, Chosen One.  Well, maybe you can criticize Joe Biden, but that is not fair.

Who decided the outcome?  Your Big, Bleeding-Hearts in the Liberal Media:  Andrea Mitchell, Chuck Todd, George Stephanopoulos, Chris Matthews—just to name a few.

How can I predict the future?  Just look at the past and the present.  America has suffered a tragic loss of its ambassador to Libya.  We were attacked at our embassy in Egypt.  More violence toward American interests has been threatened in the Arab World.  The incompetency and ineptitude of the Obama administration’s foreign policy has been exposed.  BUT YOU CANNOT CRITICIZE MR. OBAMA.  The Media has issued this warning.

I could point to countless television programs, but to mention just one.  Yesterday, September 13, 2012, on The Morning Joe program on MSNBC—all of the blah-blah-blah was simply of how GOP Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, made the horrible mistake of criticizing President Obama.  There was no discussion about the failure of the Obama foreign policy and no discussion about all the possible causations that may have led to the violence in the Arab World.  There was no discussion about how our own incompetent leaders have misjudged and mishandled our actions and responses before and/or after these incidents.

So, we, who do not support the re-election of Barack Obama–have been warned.  Governor Romney has been warned.  YOU CANNOT CRITICIZE OBAMA.

What?  What happened to freedom of speech?  In the Arab World freedom of speech never existed.  In America, freedom of speech is reserved for the exclusive use of the ruling class Liberal Media and the Democrat Party.  The ruling class has the privilege, not the lower class Republicans – and what to speak of the conservatives. You know, for a fact, that if John McCain was the President and running for re-election, Democrat Presidential candidate Barack Obama would be criticizing McCain’s policies all day and all night, and the Liberal Media would be in rapture.