Stating The Obvious

On March 4th, I posted an article about the sequester (rightwinggranny.com) which included the following:

Glen Reynolds at Instapundit has a very interesting take on this:

Somebody should really put in a FOIA request for communications between the White House and agencies about sequester implementation. There’s gold in those emails.

Well, there are still a few good reporters left.

Stephen Dinan at the Washington Times reported today:

In the email sent Monday by Charles Brown, an official with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service office in Raleigh, N.C., Mr. Brown asked “if there was any latitude” in how to spread the sequester cuts across the region to lessen the impacts on fish inspections.

He said he was discouraged by officials in Washington, who gave him this reply: “We have gone on record with a notification to Congress and whoever else that ‘APHIS would eliminate assistance to producers in 24 states in managing wildlife damage to the aquaculture industry, unless they provide funding to cover the costs.’ So it is our opinion that however you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be.”

It hurts my heart to think that there are people in our government who are purposely trying to harm the American public for political purposes. For example, closing the White House to public tours is a political move designed to make the public mad so that they will blame the Republicans. Never mind that the Republicans were not the authors of sequestration. I am sure some of the money needed to keep the White House tours going could be found in the President’s vacation fund or in reducing the number of personal assistants we are providing for the First Lady.
Enhanced by Zemanta

How To Use The Sequester To Further Your Political Agenda

I honestly have to admit that both Republicans and Democrats are quite capable of using the fact that the sequester has gone into effect for political gain. What I am deeply concerned about is how President Obama is putting aside the good of the American people in his quest to destroy the Republican party, have Democrats take full control of Congress next year, and put forth an agenda to the left of anything America has ever seen.

The Washington Examiner posted an article on that subject today.

The article at the Washington Examiner cites the Washington Post:

“The goal,” The Washington Post reports, “is to flip the Republican-held House back to Democratic control, allowing Obama to push forward with a progressive agenda on gun control, immigration, climate change and the economy during his final two years in office, according to congressional Democrats, strategists and others familiar with Obama’s thinking.”

The article in the Washington Examiner explains how President Obama plans to use the sequester:

For perhaps the first time in the history of the United States, it is in the political interest of a president to inflict maximum pain on the American people. Obama could have spent the last 16 months preparing to mitigate sequestration’s impact on the American people, as any responsible manager would have. Instead, he has done the opposite, explicitly ordering government agencies not to prepare for the worst. And he has refused all Republican efforts to pass legislation that would minimize the sequester’s pain.

Glen Reynolds at Instapundit has a very interesting take on this:

Somebody should really put in a FOIA request for communications between the White House and agencies about sequester implementation. There’s gold in those emails.

This is the price we pay for putting a community organizer who is not a leader in the White House. It is up to the voters next year to decide how they feel about President Obama’s plan.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Fact Checking The Associated Press

"The Honorable Rick Perry (front right), ...

Image via Wikipedia

Rick Perry was in New Hampshire on Saturday. He spoke at an event at the home of Chuck Stephen co-hosted by John Stephen, the former Republican gubernatorial nominee. Human Events reported on Sunday that the coverage of the event by the Associated Press left out some significant information.

This is an excerpt from the Associated Press article:

Speaking to hundreds of Granite State voters at a private reception, the Texas governor was asked whether he supported a fence along the Mexican border. “No, I don’t support a fence on the border,” he said.

“The fact is, it’s 1,200 miles from Brownsville to El Paso. Two things: How long you think it would take to build that? And then if you build a 30-foot wall from El Paso to Brownsville, the 35-foot ladder business gets real good.”

The answer produced an angry shout from at least one audience member.

Channel 7 (WHIOTV) in Ohio did a slightly better job of reporting the speech:

“No, I don’t support a fence on the border,” he said, while referring to the long border in Texas alone. “The fact is, it’s 1,200 miles from Brownsville to El Paso. Two things: How long you think it would take to build that? And then if you build a 30-foot wall from El Paso to Brownsville, the 35-foot ladder business gets real good.”

Instead, Perry said he supported “strategic fencing” and National Guard troops to prevent illegal immigration and violence from Mexican drug cartels.

The answer produced an angry shout from at least one audience member. And it exposed an ongoing rift with some conservative voters over Perry’s immigration record.

That’s a little better. However, a website called Instapundit posted a first-hand account:

A BLOG REPORT FROM RICK PERRY’S SPEECH IN NEW HAMPSHIRE: “I attended that event, stood about 15 feet from where he delivered those remarks and never heard an ‘angry shout’. Either the AP is making it up or it wasn’t much of a shout. Perhaps they can supply the audio.”

Maybe it was a reporter in the back who was doing the shouting. But after the 2004 bogus-boos incident, I encourage bloggers and others attending these events to record audio and video. You never know what’ll happen — or what people will report happened, even if it didn’t.

This election season every voter will need to be careful when gathering news and deciding on candidates. Unfortunately much of the major media is no longer objective and is reporting things that didn’t happen or not reporting important facts. There are many places on the internet (hopefully this is one of them) where a voter can go to fact check and get the whole story. Be careful what you read, and stay informed. That is the only way to preserve our freedom.



Enhanced by Zemanta