Lets see...
Federal spending has increased 9% just this year - after a record of 16% in 2009.
We are throwing away money that we don't have to dead people and criminals. And lets not forget the chinese 'sex workers', co-eds and turtles.
Meanwhile, the dollar is sliding into irrelevance.
What's a desperate Fed to do? Inflation!
The Pelosi-led Congress cut and ran a week early without passing a budget or even taking a vote on the Bush tax cuts.
A record breaking 41 million people are now on food stamps. Ironically, some Obama supporters will have to stop drinking the kool-aid, at least if they live in NYC.
The United States has ceded sovereignty over a large piece of Arizona, Pakistan is taking billions of our taxpayer dollars with one hand and stabbing us in the back with the other, and Iran is eagerly exploring the trafficking possibilities in Afghanistan.
The woman leading Congress thinks that food stamps and unemployment checks are the "biggest bang" for our stimulus buck.
A congressman running for reelection claims there is no national debt.
Is it any wonder republicans are leading in the polls?
Showing posts with label stimulus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label stimulus. Show all posts
Friday, October 8, 2010
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
THE ISSUE'S NOT THE ISSUE
Chris Horner, author of "Power Grab" was on Hannity tonight. In his interview, he used, over and over, the phrase "The issue's not the issue". This is the mainstay liberal/progressive tactic to a T, and he deserves a hearty thank you for tagging it as such. It's quick, concise, easy to remember and right on the mark. A perfect foil for the coming campaign clashes.
In his book, he discusses the Obama administration's green agenda. On the face, the green agenda is hard to fight - after all, it's all about "saving the planet", and what kind of heartless, selfish person would you be if you wouldn't want to do that?
But if you dig deeper, as Mr. Horner did, you will find that it has, in reality, very little to do with saving the planet - that angle is used merely as a means to an end. For all the hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer funds that it will suck up and the unprecidented control over American citizens, there is little or no measurable good for the environment that will come of it. As Horner says, it's all about power and control. The green agenda is a perfect illustration of his quote, "the issue's not the issue". It is being sold as good for us, but in reality it is not. The issue isn't saving the earth, the issue is grasping more power into the ever-expanding federal government.
This phrase, "the issue's not the issue" is something that needs to be remembered and repeated so that all will know it, because within that phrase is the key to fighting back. Understanding your opponent's tactics is the first step in defeating them.
The issue not being the issue concept applies to every piece of legislation that has passed this Congress so far. The stimulus was not about helping the country get back on it's feet. That is just the bill of goods we were sold. That bill was all about consolidation of power. It was a big, wet, sloppy kiss to all of the special interests who helped put the democrats in power. That expensive thank you also acts as a promise of thank yous to come if the democrats stay in power, thus ensuring their legacy.
The health care bill was not about lowering costs, as was sold to us. It was about redistribution of wealth and control over the most important part of your life - your health. If they hold the key to your good health, you're more inclined to vote to keep them happy and in power, and redistribution buys a whole sector of voters.
Cap and trade isn't about the environment, it's about seizing wealth and controlling the energy sector. Period.
The coming election isn't about a referendum on the distinctly leftward tilt towards european socialism that we are currently pursuing - it's apparently about George W. Bush. I haven't quite figured out how yet, but give me time. Suggestions are appreciated.
The democrat's talking points these days are not just a reflection of their desperation, they are also a roadmap for the coming elections. But then, faced with polls like these and these and these, it's no wonder there is a distinct whiff of desperation in the air. It seems that their entire strategy for the 2010 election is "the issue's not the issue" (and blame Bush, of course).
The liberals are geniuses at directing a conversation. This is what they will attempt to do over the next few months. Instead of addressing the issues that are paramount to a majority of Americans, they will redirect the conversation to either other issues altogether or changing the issue to suit their needs. Thus the green agenda is not about power and control, it's about saving the planet somehow. Instead of being accused, they are going to attempt to be the accuser. When they are accused of grasping for power, they will accuse you of hating the planet. Health care doesn't lower costs translates to "you hate people and don't want them to have insurance". Concerns that there is a lot of taxation coming down the pike becomes "you're one of those fringe militia people, aren't you?"
It's a brilliant strategy, really. When you have no answers, start asking the questions.
The problem is that we have been subjected to this tactic for years now. You might say the country was battle weary, but that would only confirm you are a tea partymember extremist out to slaughter some random government official(s). The secret is, though, that Alinsky was right. In Rule #7 he said that "a tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag". The rising opposition in the polls shows that the "issue's not the issue" tactic has become a drag. It's time to start calling them out on it.
The tea partyers know the issues, often better than their representatives, and they are equally as tenacious in their pursuit of an answer as the liberals are in their attempts to avoid the discussion. It promises to be an interesting summer campaign. The big question will be whether the issue is debated, or the issue that isn't the issue.
It's time to take control of the debate and demand real answers to the real issues.
In his book, he discusses the Obama administration's green agenda. On the face, the green agenda is hard to fight - after all, it's all about "saving the planet", and what kind of heartless, selfish person would you be if you wouldn't want to do that?
But if you dig deeper, as Mr. Horner did, you will find that it has, in reality, very little to do with saving the planet - that angle is used merely as a means to an end. For all the hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer funds that it will suck up and the unprecidented control over American citizens, there is little or no measurable good for the environment that will come of it. As Horner says, it's all about power and control. The green agenda is a perfect illustration of his quote, "the issue's not the issue". It is being sold as good for us, but in reality it is not. The issue isn't saving the earth, the issue is grasping more power into the ever-expanding federal government.
This phrase, "the issue's not the issue" is something that needs to be remembered and repeated so that all will know it, because within that phrase is the key to fighting back. Understanding your opponent's tactics is the first step in defeating them.
The issue not being the issue concept applies to every piece of legislation that has passed this Congress so far. The stimulus was not about helping the country get back on it's feet. That is just the bill of goods we were sold. That bill was all about consolidation of power. It was a big, wet, sloppy kiss to all of the special interests who helped put the democrats in power. That expensive thank you also acts as a promise of thank yous to come if the democrats stay in power, thus ensuring their legacy.
The health care bill was not about lowering costs, as was sold to us. It was about redistribution of wealth and control over the most important part of your life - your health. If they hold the key to your good health, you're more inclined to vote to keep them happy and in power, and redistribution buys a whole sector of voters.
Cap and trade isn't about the environment, it's about seizing wealth and controlling the energy sector. Period.
The coming election isn't about a referendum on the distinctly leftward tilt towards european socialism that we are currently pursuing - it's apparently about George W. Bush. I haven't quite figured out how yet, but give me time. Suggestions are appreciated.
The democrat's talking points these days are not just a reflection of their desperation, they are also a roadmap for the coming elections. But then, faced with polls like these and these and these, it's no wonder there is a distinct whiff of desperation in the air. It seems that their entire strategy for the 2010 election is "the issue's not the issue" (and blame Bush, of course).
The liberals are geniuses at directing a conversation. This is what they will attempt to do over the next few months. Instead of addressing the issues that are paramount to a majority of Americans, they will redirect the conversation to either other issues altogether or changing the issue to suit their needs. Thus the green agenda is not about power and control, it's about saving the planet somehow. Instead of being accused, they are going to attempt to be the accuser. When they are accused of grasping for power, they will accuse you of hating the planet. Health care doesn't lower costs translates to "you hate people and don't want them to have insurance". Concerns that there is a lot of taxation coming down the pike becomes "you're one of those fringe militia people, aren't you?"
It's a brilliant strategy, really. When you have no answers, start asking the questions.
The problem is that we have been subjected to this tactic for years now. You might say the country was battle weary, but that would only confirm you are a tea party
The tea partyers know the issues, often better than their representatives, and they are equally as tenacious in their pursuit of an answer as the liberals are in their attempts to avoid the discussion. It promises to be an interesting summer campaign. The big question will be whether the issue is debated, or the issue that isn't the issue.
It's time to take control of the debate and demand real answers to the real issues.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
BEWARE THE TRAP Updated
I was quite skeptical of the 'health care summit' proposed by President Obama. Considering the sneaky, backdoor dealings of this administration so far, I figured it was just a trap. The more I hear about it, the more I think my first instinct was right. I had hoped that the democrats had seen the writing on the wall and were tacking to the center, but, as usual, it seems to be all smoke and mirrors.
This whole things smacks of a show for the American people by a remarkably media savvy administration. The Democrats are attempting to look reasonable and willing to compromise. If the republicans refused the meeting, they would look surly and partisan. Unfortunately, accepting is just as much of a trap, because now they will be harangued, browbeaten and used as political cover for the mess of a bill that democrats are single-mindedly trying to ram down our throats. Republicans requested starting from scratch and the Democrat's response is to bring their 2000 page nightmare of a bill (public option included) to the table, along with the hollow threat of reconciliation.
It's incredible that they are still talking about reconciliation - if this is possible, why haven't they done it? Why bother with this meeting? This whole exercise is pure propaganda, in my opinion.
Obama saying he will look at any options the Republicans bring to the table is more empty talk. Sure, he'll look at their proposals - and then discard them for the behemoth public option he is so desperate to pass. This isn't about reconciliation and compromise - it's about the Republicans bending to Obama's will and passing the 2,000 page nightmare Pelosi and Reid have cooked up and can't get enough of their own people to vote for.
This is just a dog and pony show to try to make the Republicans look like the party of no yet again.
Personally, I think the 'party of no' designation is a good thing. They have been staunch in their denial of all things socialist. They have been united in their condemnation of the insane spending policies of this administration. They have held the line and refused to bend to pressure, bribery and threats. They listened to the millions of Americans protesting the actions of this administration and tried their best to do the will of the people. They said no to the radical agenda being pushed on us, and I, for one, am grateful, because it seems like those in power just aren't listening. So, please 'obstruct' away!
This whole 'summit' idiocy is a desperate ploy by the Democrats to place the blame on the Republicans for health care reform not passing, because they realize the American people know that the only thing holding them back is themselves.
Democrats are great at shifting blame - after all, they managed to blame all of Nancy Pelosi's spending and deficit inducing policies on George Bush (oh, and Pelosi refused to approve a 2009 budget from Bush, so the whole "budget for the entire [2009] fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House" argument is a load of hooey). The President may suggest the budget and spending policies, but Congress holds the purse strings.
We were finally bouncing back from 9/11 and Katrina and bringing down the deficits when Pelosi took over. In 2007, the year Pelosi became Speaker, the deficit was $163 billion - down from a high of $413 billion in 2004. In 2008, Pelosi's agenda started to affect the country. The result? A $455 billion deficit, which has been blamed entirely on Bush. But that wasn't enough. They have also tried to blame the staggering $1.3 trillion deficit of 2009 on Bush and the Republicans as well. They blame TARP for most of the deficit - a bill they voted for as well, including Pelosi, Reid and then-Senator Obama. But TARP wasn't what blew up the deficit - Stimulus, the omnibus spending bill and a $3.6 trillion budget did that. They increased spending by about 18%, and are still trying to blame the resulting deficit on a man who hasn't been in office for over a year.
Over and over again this administration has proven themselves to be duplicitous, conniving, hyper-partisan and willing to stoop to any low to further their socialist agenda.
I personally hope the Republicans boycott this sham of a summit. It's a trap, pure and simple. I suggest they embrace the title 'Party of No' and say no to this summit and this health care plan. They are in agreement with more than 60% of the country if they do.
UPDATE: Via HotAir' s Quote of the Day:
Amen, brother....
This whole things smacks of a show for the American people by a remarkably media savvy administration. The Democrats are attempting to look reasonable and willing to compromise. If the republicans refused the meeting, they would look surly and partisan. Unfortunately, accepting is just as much of a trap, because now they will be harangued, browbeaten and used as political cover for the mess of a bill that democrats are single-mindedly trying to ram down our throats. Republicans requested starting from scratch and the Democrat's response is to bring their 2000 page nightmare of a bill (public option included) to the table, along with the hollow threat of reconciliation.
It's incredible that they are still talking about reconciliation - if this is possible, why haven't they done it? Why bother with this meeting? This whole exercise is pure propaganda, in my opinion.
Obama saying he will look at any options the Republicans bring to the table is more empty talk. Sure, he'll look at their proposals - and then discard them for the behemoth public option he is so desperate to pass. This isn't about reconciliation and compromise - it's about the Republicans bending to Obama's will and passing the 2,000 page nightmare Pelosi and Reid have cooked up and can't get enough of their own people to vote for.
This is just a dog and pony show to try to make the Republicans look like the party of no yet again.
Personally, I think the 'party of no' designation is a good thing. They have been staunch in their denial of all things socialist. They have been united in their condemnation of the insane spending policies of this administration. They have held the line and refused to bend to pressure, bribery and threats. They listened to the millions of Americans protesting the actions of this administration and tried their best to do the will of the people. They said no to the radical agenda being pushed on us, and I, for one, am grateful, because it seems like those in power just aren't listening. So, please 'obstruct' away!
This whole 'summit' idiocy is a desperate ploy by the Democrats to place the blame on the Republicans for health care reform not passing, because they realize the American people know that the only thing holding them back is themselves.
Democrats are great at shifting blame - after all, they managed to blame all of Nancy Pelosi's spending and deficit inducing policies on George Bush (oh, and Pelosi refused to approve a 2009 budget from Bush, so the whole "budget for the entire [2009] fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House" argument is a load of hooey). The President may suggest the budget and spending policies, but Congress holds the purse strings.
We were finally bouncing back from 9/11 and Katrina and bringing down the deficits when Pelosi took over. In 2007, the year Pelosi became Speaker, the deficit was $163 billion - down from a high of $413 billion in 2004. In 2008, Pelosi's agenda started to affect the country. The result? A $455 billion deficit, which has been blamed entirely on Bush. But that wasn't enough. They have also tried to blame the staggering $1.3 trillion deficit of 2009 on Bush and the Republicans as well. They blame TARP for most of the deficit - a bill they voted for as well, including Pelosi, Reid and then-Senator Obama. But TARP wasn't what blew up the deficit - Stimulus, the omnibus spending bill and a $3.6 trillion budget did that. They increased spending by about 18%, and are still trying to blame the resulting deficit on a man who hasn't been in office for over a year.
Over and over again this administration has proven themselves to be duplicitous, conniving, hyper-partisan and willing to stoop to any low to further their socialist agenda.
I personally hope the Republicans boycott this sham of a summit. It's a trap, pure and simple. I suggest they embrace the title 'Party of No' and say no to this summit and this health care plan. They are in agreement with more than 60% of the country if they do.
UPDATE: Via HotAir' s Quote of the Day:
“And then when unemployment numbers started proving to be much, much tougher and it started becoming more clear that the stimulus package hadn’t worked properly, they just kept plowing ahead on health care. And this isn’t a communications problem. This is a reality problem. And I think they just made some grave miscalculations and as it became more clear that they had screwed up, they just kept doubling down their bet.The exit quote for Cook's interview is fantastic:
“And so I think, no, this is one of the biggest miscalculations that we’ve seen in modern political history.”
But if I had a choice of the Republican Party's problems right now or the Democratic Party's problems, I think you could triple the Republican Party's problems and I'd still rather have their problems than the problems facing Democrats.
Amen, brother....
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
CLIMATE FALLOUT
I just found a great video about the ClimateGate scandal.
Check it out.
The wheels are really falling off the bus.
The fallout is reaching incredible proportions now. There is a new report about IPCC claims of African crops decreasing 50% being completely false. Claims of increased storm intensity is unsupportable. Now that scientists aren't afraid of being blackballed for skeptical results, there are more and more of them out there checking the IPCC/CRU data and finding it wanting. It seems that every day there is a new report of errors and fallacies in the Nobel Prize winning 2007 IPCC report on climate change.
The level of BS involved in the report is simply staggering.
The African crop projections were based on theories that directly contradicted the information gathered. Whole areas of the report were based on non-scientific magazine articles and unpublished student theses. More and more true scientists, who propose a theory and then attempt to prove or disprove it scientifically, are testing the CRU's and IPCC's theories on AGW and finding major holes in the 'science'.
Finally, disgraced 'scientist' Phil Jones of the CRU came out this weekend and admitted that there hasn't been any measurable global warming for the past 15 years. In addition, he admitted that temperatures during the Medieval Warming Period were higher than what we are experiencing now. What's more, those temperatures remained high for a period of about 500 years, from about 800 AD to about 1300 AD. The MWP ended with the Little Ice Age, a period of unusual cold that lasted until the early 1800's.
The MWP was a time of global prosperity. It was so warm that wine was grown in England and Iceland. The world's population exploded due to increased harvests of cereal grains, which are intolerant to cold, and warmer winters, which meant less illness and disease. Trade flourished throughout Europe and the Mediterranean and into Asia. The Vikings explored the ice-free Atlantic ocean in their longboats and discovered Greenland (which really was green then, thus the name), Nova Scotia and quite possibly northeastern America.
Times were easier in the MWP because of the added warmth. With full bellies and full purses, people were able to turn their attention from subsistence to leisure. There was an explosion of scientific discovery and artisitic achievement.
AGW alarmists tried to hide the MWP, to pretend that it didn't exist, because it's mere existence put the lie to man-made global warming. There were no cars or factories spewing CO2 into the atmosphere back then, and yet it was warmer than it is today. The MWP was a huge threat to AGW, and so they tried to revise history yet again and pretend that the MWP never happened. By the way, the Little Ice Age was possibly caused by the 'Maunder Minimum', a period of extremely low sunspot activity. We are possibly going through another period of extremely low sunspot activity right now. Coincidence? Well, what do you think the odds are that less activity from the giant superhot ball of gas in the center of the solar system might cause temperature changes in our atmosphere? I'd have to say the sun would have more effect on our climate than our exhalations and flatulent cows, but what do I know?
The MWP proves the theory of Climate Change, but not AGW, which is a very different thing. Climate Change is a natural, cyclical phenomenon that has very little to do with the activities of man. AGW, in contrast, blames man for everything. Humans are the plague of the Earth, bent on it's destruction, in the minds of AGW alarmists.
Yes, the climate is changing. It has always changed - the climate we have now is nothing like the climate of 10 million years ago, 10,000 years ago, or even a mere 1,000 years ago - a drop in the climate bucket. We may be in the midst of a warming period that may or may not be over - in about 100 years or so we will be able to look back over this newest cycle and have a clearer picture what was happening.
The AGW hysterics scream 'there's a difference between climate and weather, you know!' Yes, I do know. Do you?
The people who are claiming a few blizzards and some broken records doesn't mean it is getting colder are the very same people who jump all over a summer heat wave and claim that it proves global warming - see, it's hotter outside! They are also the people who touted the lack of snow a few winters ago in DC proved global warming as well. Now they are saying the cooler temps and major snowstorms are proof of global warming. To prove this theory, they have come up with a tortured, circuitous explaination involving the increased temps causing increased water vapor in the air resulting in more precipitation, but because it is happening in winter with colder temps, the precipitation shows itself as snow. Basically saying it is colder and snowier because the temperature is rising. They seem to have taken to heart the little adage "If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with bullshit".
Even Donald Trump is calling AGW a hoax, and has called for Al Gore to be stripped of his Nobel Prize. Considering he got it in conjunction with the fatally flawed 2007 IPCC report, they should all be stripped. While they are at it, how about the Oscar, too?
Even liberal Penn State, home of Michael Mann, a leading climate scientist and crony of the CRU's Phil Jones and author of many of the incriminating emails released in December, has students that are demanding answers. The Young America's Foundation protested the bogus internal 'investigation' of Michael Mann, claiming it is biased. They are demanding the investigation be conducted by a neutral, unaffiliated, external group and that the findings be released to the public. Right now the review is being conducted by three Penn State employees and the findings will only be released to donors. By the way, Michael Mann just recieved $2.4 million in stimulus funds for his climate research - even in the midst of an investigation.
Our federal masters are refusing to waver from their AGW stance, and have even talked about reviving Cap and Trade. Tone deaf and crazy, right? No, more like politically expedient. The liberals seem to think that saying something often enough makes it true, so they are clinging on to their hysterical ranting about climate catastrophe. Let's face it - they have a lot at stake, and they'll be damned if they are going to give it up without a fight. Cap and Trade is a masterpiece of political money laundering. They will use it to pillage literally trillions of dollars from corporations, small businesses and taxpayers. They can put that money into a nice little slush fund and claim they are using it for carbon credit offsets and other such untraceable schemes. They have created such an illusion of major catastrophes that when they don't occur they can claim that their Cap and Trade scheme was a success and saved us from annihilation.
But now it's all falling apart.
As is usually the case with liberals, they pushed too hard, and their rhetoric just couldn't stand up to the facts. They tried to silence their critics, but that only works for so long. They have now resorted to name calling and claiming that any change in weather whatsoever is proof of their theory. Those are desperate tactics and are being seen as such by a rapidly growing majority.
There is no doubt whatsoever that the climate is changing. There is a great deal of doubt, however, that man is the cause. Our AGW Icaruses have flown too close to the sun and are now paying the price.
Better them than us.
Check it out.
The wheels are really falling off the bus.
The fallout is reaching incredible proportions now. There is a new report about IPCC claims of African crops decreasing 50% being completely false. Claims of increased storm intensity is unsupportable. Now that scientists aren't afraid of being blackballed for skeptical results, there are more and more of them out there checking the IPCC/CRU data and finding it wanting. It seems that every day there is a new report of errors and fallacies in the Nobel Prize winning 2007 IPCC report on climate change.
The level of BS involved in the report is simply staggering.
The African crop projections were based on theories that directly contradicted the information gathered. Whole areas of the report were based on non-scientific magazine articles and unpublished student theses. More and more true scientists, who propose a theory and then attempt to prove or disprove it scientifically, are testing the CRU's and IPCC's theories on AGW and finding major holes in the 'science'.
Finally, disgraced 'scientist' Phil Jones of the CRU came out this weekend and admitted that there hasn't been any measurable global warming for the past 15 years. In addition, he admitted that temperatures during the Medieval Warming Period were higher than what we are experiencing now. What's more, those temperatures remained high for a period of about 500 years, from about 800 AD to about 1300 AD. The MWP ended with the Little Ice Age, a period of unusual cold that lasted until the early 1800's.
The MWP was a time of global prosperity. It was so warm that wine was grown in England and Iceland. The world's population exploded due to increased harvests of cereal grains, which are intolerant to cold, and warmer winters, which meant less illness and disease. Trade flourished throughout Europe and the Mediterranean and into Asia. The Vikings explored the ice-free Atlantic ocean in their longboats and discovered Greenland (which really was green then, thus the name), Nova Scotia and quite possibly northeastern America.
Times were easier in the MWP because of the added warmth. With full bellies and full purses, people were able to turn their attention from subsistence to leisure. There was an explosion of scientific discovery and artisitic achievement.
AGW alarmists tried to hide the MWP, to pretend that it didn't exist, because it's mere existence put the lie to man-made global warming. There were no cars or factories spewing CO2 into the atmosphere back then, and yet it was warmer than it is today. The MWP was a huge threat to AGW, and so they tried to revise history yet again and pretend that the MWP never happened. By the way, the Little Ice Age was possibly caused by the 'Maunder Minimum', a period of extremely low sunspot activity. We are possibly going through another period of extremely low sunspot activity right now. Coincidence? Well, what do you think the odds are that less activity from the giant superhot ball of gas in the center of the solar system might cause temperature changes in our atmosphere? I'd have to say the sun would have more effect on our climate than our exhalations and flatulent cows, but what do I know?
The MWP proves the theory of Climate Change, but not AGW, which is a very different thing. Climate Change is a natural, cyclical phenomenon that has very little to do with the activities of man. AGW, in contrast, blames man for everything. Humans are the plague of the Earth, bent on it's destruction, in the minds of AGW alarmists.
Yes, the climate is changing. It has always changed - the climate we have now is nothing like the climate of 10 million years ago, 10,000 years ago, or even a mere 1,000 years ago - a drop in the climate bucket. We may be in the midst of a warming period that may or may not be over - in about 100 years or so we will be able to look back over this newest cycle and have a clearer picture what was happening.
The AGW hysterics scream 'there's a difference between climate and weather, you know!' Yes, I do know. Do you?
The people who are claiming a few blizzards and some broken records doesn't mean it is getting colder are the very same people who jump all over a summer heat wave and claim that it proves global warming - see, it's hotter outside! They are also the people who touted the lack of snow a few winters ago in DC proved global warming as well. Now they are saying the cooler temps and major snowstorms are proof of global warming. To prove this theory, they have come up with a tortured, circuitous explaination involving the increased temps causing increased water vapor in the air resulting in more precipitation, but because it is happening in winter with colder temps, the precipitation shows itself as snow. Basically saying it is colder and snowier because the temperature is rising. They seem to have taken to heart the little adage "If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with bullshit".
Even Donald Trump is calling AGW a hoax, and has called for Al Gore to be stripped of his Nobel Prize. Considering he got it in conjunction with the fatally flawed 2007 IPCC report, they should all be stripped. While they are at it, how about the Oscar, too?
Even liberal Penn State, home of Michael Mann, a leading climate scientist and crony of the CRU's Phil Jones and author of many of the incriminating emails released in December, has students that are demanding answers. The Young America's Foundation protested the bogus internal 'investigation' of Michael Mann, claiming it is biased. They are demanding the investigation be conducted by a neutral, unaffiliated, external group and that the findings be released to the public. Right now the review is being conducted by three Penn State employees and the findings will only be released to donors. By the way, Michael Mann just recieved $2.4 million in stimulus funds for his climate research - even in the midst of an investigation.
Our federal masters are refusing to waver from their AGW stance, and have even talked about reviving Cap and Trade. Tone deaf and crazy, right? No, more like politically expedient. The liberals seem to think that saying something often enough makes it true, so they are clinging on to their hysterical ranting about climate catastrophe. Let's face it - they have a lot at stake, and they'll be damned if they are going to give it up without a fight. Cap and Trade is a masterpiece of political money laundering. They will use it to pillage literally trillions of dollars from corporations, small businesses and taxpayers. They can put that money into a nice little slush fund and claim they are using it for carbon credit offsets and other such untraceable schemes. They have created such an illusion of major catastrophes that when they don't occur they can claim that their Cap and Trade scheme was a success and saved us from annihilation.
But now it's all falling apart.
As is usually the case with liberals, they pushed too hard, and their rhetoric just couldn't stand up to the facts. They tried to silence their critics, but that only works for so long. They have now resorted to name calling and claiming that any change in weather whatsoever is proof of their theory. Those are desperate tactics and are being seen as such by a rapidly growing majority.
There is no doubt whatsoever that the climate is changing. There is a great deal of doubt, however, that man is the cause. Our AGW Icaruses have flown too close to the sun and are now paying the price.
Better them than us.
Monday, February 8, 2010
A 'HEALTHY' DOSE OF DENIAL
In an interview with Katie Couric, President Obama defended his hopey-changey message. "Democrats wrote to me," Katie began with an apologetic smile, "saying you campaigned on a slogan of change you can believe in, but their lives and the ways of Washington, they wrote, haven't changed at all."
President Obama then launches into a denial-filled explaination of how transparent his administration is. He mentions the fact that his visitor logs for the White House are available to the public - something unheard of with other administrations (and you know who he means!). Of course he neglects to mention that those same logs were kept locked up (even after two federal rulings that the informtion was public), until November of '09 and even then, the list wasn't quite complete, it just went back to Sept. '09. The new era of transparency leaves much to be desired, in my opinion.
But it gets better. "We are eliminating lobbyists from boards and commissions," Obama insists. And what is happening to those lobbyists who are suddenly jobless in DC? Why, they miraculously get waivers to work in the White House
He finishes up with "There's more transparency on something like the Recovery Act and how taxpayer dollars are being spent than there/s ever been on a project of this size and scale." (has there ever been a project of this size and scale?) Sure, as long as you don't mind phantom zip codes and congressional districts that don't exist. And why, exactly, does the website say that about 650,000 jobs have been 'saved or created', but the administration keeps citing 1.5 - 2.4 million? Easy - they have now changed the rules so that if a company receives stimulus funds, any job within that company now counts as 'saved or created'. Quite a racket, no?
Obama, Pelosi et al have a little problem. They truly believe perception is reality, and that if they simply say something often enough, with enough conviction, it will be so. For the rest of us living in the real world (which luckily has internet access and youtube - something the administration, as tech-savvy has it has been touted as being, seems to have forgotten about), we can hear the spin and find out what's really going on. Apparently, for about 60% of Americans, their BS detectors are set to ultra sensitive, and claptrap like he was peddling to Couric just doesn't sell anymore.
Now Obama is calling for a health care summit, this time including Republicans and C-SPAN cameras. I guess bipartisanship and transparency are only necessary if you can't manage to pass it strictly on party lines and behind closed doors. Can you say 'political act of desperation'? I know that he is 'pivoting' to jobs, but why can't he just drop the whole health care thing completely for a while? Get the economy running again and then take up health care over the summer or fall (or, more realistically, next year). Unfortunately, the administration has managed to sell to their progressive base that economic recovery just won't happen until the health care system has been reformed.
One thing this administration has gotten really, really good at is painting themselves into corners.
What really strikes me, though, is the petulant tone of the democrats - particularly Obama. Well, except for Pelosi, who apparently has decided that tone-deaf defiance is the way to go. Hey Queen Nan - when you said you would "Go through the gate. If the gate's closed, we'll go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we'll pole vault in. If that doesn't work we'll parachute in but we're going to get health care reform passed for the American people", who do you think is making all of those obstructions? That would be the American people, Nan. You know, your bosses?
The woman is the poster child for power drunk career political hacks.
She is the snarling, snapping, rabid pitbull to Obama's shivering chihuahua, barking furiously to cover his uncertainty and incompetence as he hides behind her. If the republicans can manage to take back the House, she will be neutralized, and that is more than half the battle. The spin for this administration has become so lame and transparently, patently false that it is hard to believe anyone is falling for it anymore. Well, except for their hard-core base, which only comprises about 20% of the voting pool, thankfully. The rest of us respond to the desperate spin with a hearty chuckle these days, as we mark off one more day on the calendar.
The administration will be learning a hard lesson that perception is not reality, come November. Until then, let them spin away.
President Obama then launches into a denial-filled explaination of how transparent his administration is. He mentions the fact that his visitor logs for the White House are available to the public - something unheard of with other administrations (and you know who he means!). Of course he neglects to mention that those same logs were kept locked up (even after two federal rulings that the informtion was public), until November of '09 and even then, the list wasn't quite complete, it just went back to Sept. '09. The new era of transparency leaves much to be desired, in my opinion.
But it gets better. "We are eliminating lobbyists from boards and commissions," Obama insists. And what is happening to those lobbyists who are suddenly jobless in DC? Why, they miraculously get waivers to work in the White House
He finishes up with "There's more transparency on something like the Recovery Act and how taxpayer dollars are being spent than there/s ever been on a project of this size and scale." (has there ever been a project of this size and scale?) Sure, as long as you don't mind phantom zip codes and congressional districts that don't exist. And why, exactly, does the website say that about 650,000 jobs have been 'saved or created', but the administration keeps citing 1.5 - 2.4 million? Easy - they have now changed the rules so that if a company receives stimulus funds, any job within that company now counts as 'saved or created'. Quite a racket, no?
Obama, Pelosi et al have a little problem. They truly believe perception is reality, and that if they simply say something often enough, with enough conviction, it will be so. For the rest of us living in the real world (which luckily has internet access and youtube - something the administration, as tech-savvy has it has been touted as being, seems to have forgotten about), we can hear the spin and find out what's really going on. Apparently, for about 60% of Americans, their BS detectors are set to ultra sensitive, and claptrap like he was peddling to Couric just doesn't sell anymore.
Now Obama is calling for a health care summit, this time including Republicans and C-SPAN cameras. I guess bipartisanship and transparency are only necessary if you can't manage to pass it strictly on party lines and behind closed doors. Can you say 'political act of desperation'? I know that he is 'pivoting' to jobs, but why can't he just drop the whole health care thing completely for a while? Get the economy running again and then take up health care over the summer or fall (or, more realistically, next year). Unfortunately, the administration has managed to sell to their progressive base that economic recovery just won't happen until the health care system has been reformed.
One thing this administration has gotten really, really good at is painting themselves into corners.
What really strikes me, though, is the petulant tone of the democrats - particularly Obama. Well, except for Pelosi, who apparently has decided that tone-deaf defiance is the way to go. Hey Queen Nan - when you said you would "Go through the gate. If the gate's closed, we'll go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we'll pole vault in. If that doesn't work we'll parachute in but we're going to get health care reform passed for the American people", who do you think is making all of those obstructions? That would be the American people, Nan. You know, your bosses?
The woman is the poster child for power drunk career political hacks.
She is the snarling, snapping, rabid pitbull to Obama's shivering chihuahua, barking furiously to cover his uncertainty and incompetence as he hides behind her. If the republicans can manage to take back the House, she will be neutralized, and that is more than half the battle. The spin for this administration has become so lame and transparently, patently false that it is hard to believe anyone is falling for it anymore. Well, except for their hard-core base, which only comprises about 20% of the voting pool, thankfully. The rest of us respond to the desperate spin with a hearty chuckle these days, as we mark off one more day on the calendar.
The administration will be learning a hard lesson that perception is not reality, come November. Until then, let them spin away.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
ARGUMENT PROVED Updated
"The great thing about this administration is that all of the conservative theories about liberal policies are being proved over and over. The latest petri policy? The Recovery.Gov website. This thing is actually even more of a boondoggle than first anticipated.
And that's saying something.
So far, billions of dollars have been spent, and unemployment is still at 10.2%. The number of 'inaccuracies' on the website are jaw dropping in their obviousness, right down to whole districts that claimed jobs created don't even exist. Kudos to ABC for actually reporting something for a change. We must pat them on the head in encouragement for the good things they do just as much as we smacked them on the nose for the bad. It's the only way they'll learn, you know.
My favorite one? The one where 25 jobs were created but zero stimulus money was spent. Hmmm, maybe Obama really is The One, cause that's a friggin' miracle!
I also love that the people counting the stimulus jobs count as stimulus jobs. What a scam!
The real problem is that everyone is focused on these crazy stories, but no one is talking about where the money is really going. Those are some pretty big numbers, so I think that is a far more important question. So much for transparency, accountability and ethics.
The argument that has been proven by all of this is that they can't even manage a website, let alone the whole program (which is obviously a failure) , and yet there are those out there who are willing to put 1/6th of our economy and our health and well being into the hands of the same idiots who enacted this mess. (BTW they just proved the argument that rationing is a part of our future with the governmental recommendation that women shouldn't get yearly mammograms until age 50, instead of 40)
They may be able to shrug off Medicare/aid, the post office or the VA by saying they didn't enact those things and this time it will be different, but between the stimulus and Cash for Clunkers, I think we've gotten a big enough taste of how it will be if they really start running things. It's not a coincidence that Congress's approval rating among crucial Independents is down to 14%.
These people couldn't run a Popsicle stand, but 47% of Americans think they should run our health care. This actually proves a liberal theory, for a change - a vast number of the voting public are complete morons.
UPDATE: Awesome - even the NAACP, La Raza and the AFL-CIO are complaining to Obama about the lack of jobs from the stimulus bill. I wonder when they will be demonized for daring to speak out against The One and his schemes....
I do have a problem with their requests, though.
"They will call for increased spending for schools and roads, billions of dollars in fiscal relief to state and local governments to forestall more layoffs and a direct government jobs program, “especially in distressed communities facing severe unemployment.”"
Considering the first stimulus was supposed to give increased spending for schools and roads and fiscal relief for states and localities, I'd say trying it again with Porkulus II would be just throwing good money after bad. As for the federal jobs program, well, we all know by now how well the federal government handles such programs, so that would be just another ineffective government program. Eventually they will realize the only way to encourage job growth is to lower taxes, pull back on the oppressive, expensive legislation, and let the free markets do their thing instead of having their federal fingers in every body's pies. I'm sure if they don't figure it out by Nov. 2010, the voters will make sure there are people in place who will.
And that's saying something.
So far, billions of dollars have been spent, and unemployment is still at 10.2%. The number of 'inaccuracies' on the website are jaw dropping in their obviousness, right down to whole districts that claimed jobs created don't even exist. Kudos to ABC for actually reporting something for a change. We must pat them on the head in encouragement for the good things they do just as much as we smacked them on the nose for the bad. It's the only way they'll learn, you know.
My favorite one? The one where 25 jobs were created but zero stimulus money was spent. Hmmm, maybe Obama really is The One, cause that's a friggin' miracle!
I also love that the people counting the stimulus jobs count as stimulus jobs. What a scam!
The real problem is that everyone is focused on these crazy stories, but no one is talking about where the money is really going. Those are some pretty big numbers, so I think that is a far more important question. So much for transparency, accountability and ethics.
The argument that has been proven by all of this is that they can't even manage a website, let alone the whole program (which is obviously a failure) , and yet there are those out there who are willing to put 1/6th of our economy and our health and well being into the hands of the same idiots who enacted this mess. (BTW they just proved the argument that rationing is a part of our future with the governmental recommendation that women shouldn't get yearly mammograms until age 50, instead of 40)
They may be able to shrug off Medicare/aid, the post office or the VA by saying they didn't enact those things and this time it will be different, but between the stimulus and Cash for Clunkers, I think we've gotten a big enough taste of how it will be if they really start running things. It's not a coincidence that Congress's approval rating among crucial Independents is down to 14%.
These people couldn't run a Popsicle stand, but 47% of Americans think they should run our health care. This actually proves a liberal theory, for a change - a vast number of the voting public are complete morons.
UPDATE: Awesome - even the NAACP, La Raza and the AFL-CIO are complaining to Obama about the lack of jobs from the stimulus bill. I wonder when they will be demonized for daring to speak out against The One and his schemes....
I do have a problem with their requests, though.
"They will call for increased spending for schools and roads, billions of dollars in fiscal relief to state and local governments to forestall more layoffs and a direct government jobs program, “especially in distressed communities facing severe unemployment.”"
Considering the first stimulus was supposed to give increased spending for schools and roads and fiscal relief for states and localities, I'd say trying it again with Porkulus II would be just throwing good money after bad. As for the federal jobs program, well, we all know by now how well the federal government handles such programs, so that would be just another ineffective government program. Eventually they will realize the only way to encourage job growth is to lower taxes, pull back on the oppressive, expensive legislation, and let the free markets do their thing instead of having their federal fingers in every body's pies. I'm sure if they don't figure it out by Nov. 2010, the voters will make sure there are people in place who will.
Friday, November 6, 2009
OBAMANOMICS AT WORK
Just about everyone should know by now that unemployment is at 10.2%. The Neo-Pravda media is desperately trying to put a happy face on it, of course. That's a pretty tough thing to do, though, since experts were expecting the number to go to 9.9%, so the leap to 10.2% took everyone off guard. No matter how you slice it, though, 10.2% unemployment is bad. There's just no way to spin it.
So what trial balloon is floating out as a solution?
Another stimulus bill.
Do they really think we the People are going to go for that?! For God's sake, we didn't want the first one!
The first stimulus was supposed to be 'shovel ready'.
Oh, we need a shovel, all right....
Isn't it interesting that one of the leading sectors of the economy, construction, is showing losses? I thought that was what the last stimulus was all about - infrastructure.
It really is getting insulting how stupid they think we are.
So what trial balloon is floating out as a solution?
Another stimulus bill.
Do they really think we the People are going to go for that?! For God's sake, we didn't want the first one!
The first stimulus was supposed to be 'shovel ready'.
Oh, we need a shovel, all right....
Isn't it interesting that one of the leading sectors of the economy, construction, is showing losses? I thought that was what the last stimulus was all about - infrastructure.
It really is getting insulting how stupid they think we are.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
SAVED AND CREATED OUT OF THIN AIR
I have an observation about all this jobs saved/created malarkey.
By the way, my personal favorite headline is from the Washington Examiner - "Stimulus saves nine out of every five jobs".
According to the White House, getting a raise is equal to saving your job now. I was under the impression that getting a raise is the ultimate indication that your job is already secure, but what do I know?
My favorite administration quote comes from HHS spokesman Luis Rosero: “If I give you a raise, it is going to save a portion of your job,”
How exactly does one lose a portion of their job? Can you be partially fired?
I'm starting to understand why there is so much talk about the legalization of marijuana lately. You have to be high to figure out what the hell these people are talking about.
But my real question is this - considering the highly creative accounting that is going on with this whole 'saved and created' shell game, does that mean that all of the people who have lost their jobs because of the horrendous decisions coming out of this administration and had their unemployment benefits extended under the stimulus now count as jobs created?
Seems par for the course, at this point.
After all, without that extension from the stimulus, they wouldn't have any money coming in at all, right?
By the way, my personal favorite headline is from the Washington Examiner - "Stimulus saves nine out of every five jobs".
According to the White House, getting a raise is equal to saving your job now. I was under the impression that getting a raise is the ultimate indication that your job is already secure, but what do I know?
My favorite administration quote comes from HHS spokesman Luis Rosero: “If I give you a raise, it is going to save a portion of your job,”
How exactly does one lose a portion of their job? Can you be partially fired?
I'm starting to understand why there is so much talk about the legalization of marijuana lately. You have to be high to figure out what the hell these people are talking about.
But my real question is this - considering the highly creative accounting that is going on with this whole 'saved and created' shell game, does that mean that all of the people who have lost their jobs because of the horrendous decisions coming out of this administration and had their unemployment benefits extended under the stimulus now count as jobs created?
Seems par for the course, at this point.
After all, without that extension from the stimulus, they wouldn't have any money coming in at all, right?
Sunday, November 1, 2009
MISSING THE POINT Updated
I, like many conservatives, am anxiously awaiting the election results for NY-23. Democrats are saying the republican party is shunning moderates at their own peril, and some republicans are concerned that running a conservative like Hoffman as opposed to a moderate like Scozzafava will cost them seats. That theory of 'who cares how fiscally responsible they are as long as they have an 'R' after their name' has led the party to the minority they have today. And yes, I understand the idea that upstate NY conservatives are more liberal than most, Mr. Gingrich.
Just like in 2006 and 2008, Americans are being told that true conservatives cannot win; that moderates are the only way Republicans can win elections and take over a majority again. By the way, it's mainly democrats saying this, and, after all, they only want to help republicans win elections, right?
Is it just me or is there a whiff of desperation is those adamant cries of 'conservatism is dead'? Methinks thou doth protest too much...
I think the main issue that all conservatives, be they moderate or strict, are truly conservative about is taxation, spending, and the role of the federal government in our everyday lives. THAT is what this election is all about. And democrats know it.
What bothered me about Dede Scozzafava wasn't her pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage stance, it was the fact that she supported the stimulus bill. That denotes fiscal irresponsibility, in my view, and I think there are a lot of conservatives who would agree with me.
No matter what Joe Biden says, you just can't spend yourself out of bankruptcy.
But this is an election with specific issues that people are voting on, not just general party ideology. Doug Hoffman is up in the polls because his main platform is lower taxes, smaller government, and fiscal responsibility - things that are desperately needed right now. Happily, they are also the things that both hard-core and moderate conservatives can agree on whole-heartedly.
What got us into trouble over the past few election cycles was the profligate spending, taxing and rapid growth of the federal beast by republicans as well as democrats. Sure, those types of republicans might appeal to more left-leaning voters, but it also alienates them from their traditional base, so there is more of a cancelling out or even a net loss than a net gain in overall voters. No matter what the liberals might say (loudly, shrilly and a bit desperately, in my humble opinion) about this being an overwhelmingly liberal country, this Gallup poll shows just how wrong they are.
Democrats, with their earmarks and perks and special interests catering were making great strides in seducing the electorate with their overwhelming largess, to the detriment of the country as a whole. The democrat theory of governance is simple - throw money at the problem and eventually people will stop complaining about it. It seems the republicans have adopted that 'path of least resistance' ideology in an attempt at wooing voters with promises of perks and fiscal rewards, and that is one of the main reasons the country is at the brink of financial ruin.
Democrats want to paint republicans into one far-right leaning corner so they can trap them in the guise of 'old-fashionedness' - or the new buzz-word 'status quo', if you prefer - but moderate republicans chafe at that description. They also chafe at fiscal irresponsibility, and that is the heart of the matter. Once our economic house is in order, other conservative issues like abortion and gay marriage can be addressed.
I personally feel, much like Ronald Reagan, that we can all fit under the tent, as long as it is strongly held up by the support poles of low taxation, fiscal responsibility, and limited government. Without those things, the tent collapses, as the 2006 and 2008 elections illustrated.
So when the democrats warn that we will alienate moderates with the hard-core tea party rhetoric, they are completely missing the point. But what else is new when it comes to democrats understanding the Tea Party phenomenon? The tea parties were about reckless spending, taxation that has surpassed high and is now approaching the astronomically confiscatory stage, the massive expansion of the federal government, and profligate special interest payoffs.
Any republican who believes the democratic theory of alienation of moderates is first of all taking advice from their adversaries, which is just not a wise move no matter how you slice it, and second is showing how tone-deaf and out-of-touch they really are.
UPDATE: Dede Scozzafava has just confirmed what most conservatives who are backing Hoffman were saying by endorsing Democrat candidate Bill Owens. There was a lot of talk of her being far more democrat leaning than she was letting on, including speculation that she might change parties as well as her apparent connections to ACORN, and this certainly does nothing to change that opinion. At least her campaign manager is still a conservative and has endorsed Hoffman. It will be interesting to see what effect her endorsement has on the race, if any. 60% of her supporters identify themselves as conservatives and are most likely going to break in Hoffman's favor, but, because Owens and Hoffman are polling so closely (36-35% respectively), it is still anyone's game.
Just like in 2006 and 2008, Americans are being told that true conservatives cannot win; that moderates are the only way Republicans can win elections and take over a majority again. By the way, it's mainly democrats saying this, and, after all, they only want to help republicans win elections, right?
Is it just me or is there a whiff of desperation is those adamant cries of 'conservatism is dead'? Methinks thou doth protest too much...
I think the main issue that all conservatives, be they moderate or strict, are truly conservative about is taxation, spending, and the role of the federal government in our everyday lives. THAT is what this election is all about. And democrats know it.
What bothered me about Dede Scozzafava wasn't her pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage stance, it was the fact that she supported the stimulus bill. That denotes fiscal irresponsibility, in my view, and I think there are a lot of conservatives who would agree with me.
No matter what Joe Biden says, you just can't spend yourself out of bankruptcy.
But this is an election with specific issues that people are voting on, not just general party ideology. Doug Hoffman is up in the polls because his main platform is lower taxes, smaller government, and fiscal responsibility - things that are desperately needed right now. Happily, they are also the things that both hard-core and moderate conservatives can agree on whole-heartedly.
What got us into trouble over the past few election cycles was the profligate spending, taxing and rapid growth of the federal beast by republicans as well as democrats. Sure, those types of republicans might appeal to more left-leaning voters, but it also alienates them from their traditional base, so there is more of a cancelling out or even a net loss than a net gain in overall voters. No matter what the liberals might say (loudly, shrilly and a bit desperately, in my humble opinion) about this being an overwhelmingly liberal country, this Gallup poll shows just how wrong they are.
Democrats, with their earmarks and perks and special interests catering were making great strides in seducing the electorate with their overwhelming largess, to the detriment of the country as a whole. The democrat theory of governance is simple - throw money at the problem and eventually people will stop complaining about it. It seems the republicans have adopted that 'path of least resistance' ideology in an attempt at wooing voters with promises of perks and fiscal rewards, and that is one of the main reasons the country is at the brink of financial ruin.
Democrats want to paint republicans into one far-right leaning corner so they can trap them in the guise of 'old-fashionedness' - or the new buzz-word 'status quo', if you prefer - but moderate republicans chafe at that description. They also chafe at fiscal irresponsibility, and that is the heart of the matter. Once our economic house is in order, other conservative issues like abortion and gay marriage can be addressed.
I personally feel, much like Ronald Reagan, that we can all fit under the tent, as long as it is strongly held up by the support poles of low taxation, fiscal responsibility, and limited government. Without those things, the tent collapses, as the 2006 and 2008 elections illustrated.
So when the democrats warn that we will alienate moderates with the hard-core tea party rhetoric, they are completely missing the point. But what else is new when it comes to democrats understanding the Tea Party phenomenon? The tea parties were about reckless spending, taxation that has surpassed high and is now approaching the astronomically confiscatory stage, the massive expansion of the federal government, and profligate special interest payoffs.
Any republican who believes the democratic theory of alienation of moderates is first of all taking advice from their adversaries, which is just not a wise move no matter how you slice it, and second is showing how tone-deaf and out-of-touch they really are.
UPDATE: Dede Scozzafava has just confirmed what most conservatives who are backing Hoffman were saying by endorsing Democrat candidate Bill Owens. There was a lot of talk of her being far more democrat leaning than she was letting on, including speculation that she might change parties as well as her apparent connections to ACORN, and this certainly does nothing to change that opinion. At least her campaign manager is still a conservative and has endorsed Hoffman. It will be interesting to see what effect her endorsement has on the race, if any. 60% of her supporters identify themselves as conservatives and are most likely going to break in Hoffman's favor, but, because Owens and Hoffman are polling so closely (36-35% respectively), it is still anyone's game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)