for the brief Obama bio that covers everything the media was willing to tell about the candidate.
You would think that liberal media followers would have become bored with having only their imaginations to rely on for the meanings of “hope” and “change,” while new media followers are still trying to absorb the torrents of information revealed about this spurious president elect. Conservatives are enlightened on an almost daily basis by new revelations about Obama, while liberals are merely gloating over thinking they have elected America’s first black president.
With numerous lawsuits filed from coast to coast by people and organizations demanding to see Obama’s authentic birth certificate (to verify his legitimacy for president), two have finally risen to the U. S. Supreme Court and will be considered for hearing on December 5th. This could very well become the biggest news story of the century, yet there is still no mention of it in the mainstream media. Even if they think the charges are baseless, the lawsuits are very real and warrant some amount of coverage, even by the worthless alphabet media. Don’t be surprised if this whole issue gets swept under the rug by the powers that be in Washington, and the new national seat in Chicago.
By burying the details of Barack Obama’s history and birth, the media attempt to control public perception of the proposed new president in hopes that Americans will never find out the real truth about him and demand that he resign from his political career before he is actually elected by the Electoral College on December 15th.
Congress frequently depends on public perception to mislead the public on important issues. We see this regularly from Nancy Pelosi as she lies and spins every issue to the news cameras with that morbid grin on her face that conceals a face of doom. Democrats remain smug in their confidence that media talking heads will repeat their every word in their mission to influence public perception to keep Democrats in power. As Chris Mathews said: “It’s my job now to make this [Obama} presidency successful.” Ask any liberal politician a direct question on an important issue and you’re likely to get a 5 minute filibuster on what they want the public to think, but it will not include the answer to your question.
I just have to laugh at all this nonsense about Detroit CEOs and their corporate jets. When the Big 3 automaker CEOs came to Washington with their hands out for a taxpayer bailout, the congressional committee seemed more interested in how they got there than in finding solutions to the problem - whether it be a government loan or anything else. These committee jackasses seem to think they are on the Supreme Court. No doubt, during the next (proposed) administration, they will show up for hearings in robes.
Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) said to the 3 CEOs "I'm going to ask the three executives here to raise their hand if they flew here commercial." No hands went up. Then he said "I'm going ask you to raise your hand if you're planning to sell your jet . . . and fly back commercial." Again no hands went up. He followed with "Let the record show no hands went up."
When the hearing was about $25 billion in government loans, why was Sherman so interested in a few thousand dollars a flight for the CEOs to get there, and to be sure it went on the record? Because he knew the media would cover it, and make a big deal about it, to influence public perception against the Big 3 CEOs and corporate America.
We are simply supposed to believe that all of the financial problems encountered by corporate America today are always the fault of “greedy” CEOs, and never the result of lame brained congressional regulation or union extortion of business management to pad the pockets of union officials and workers. The class warfare that was the centerpiece of the Obama campaign has begun now to flourish in a Democrat Congress. Don’t hold you breath for any Democrat CEOs to be called before the panel to answer tough questions though.
Had it not been for government regulations, created by Democrats and applied to the mortgage industry to ensure toxic home loans were granted, the mortgage meltdown would not have occurred. Had it not been for liberal legislation banning domestic energy production throughout most of the country, a gallon of gasoline would not have become unaffordable to millions of Americans who took advantage of those mortgage regulations. Still, Congress wants us to believe that it was all the fault of “greedy” CEOs, and they depend on the liberal alphabet media to create that public perception. The deception worked most effectively.
What's the big deal over corporate jets? Most all corporate executives and CEOs use corporate jets to get around the country for meetings and seminars. They don't really have the time or the need to travel on commercial aircraft and risk delays. That's what corporate jets are for. The Big 3 automakers are not in financial trouble because of their private jets.
If a private jet is good enough for Nancy Pelosi - who demanded her own upgrade it to a 747, then it should be good enough for the CEOs of Ford, GM, and Chrysler who actually work for a living and create millions of jobs and funnel billions of dollars into the economy. If congressional Democrats want to restrict the use of corporate jets, they had better not plan on any campaign contributions from Learjet, and Gulfstream in the future. Their businesses will be in the tank along with the Big 3.
One of the luxuries of becoming a CEO of a major corporation is that you get certain perks and luxuries, providing your company is making a decent profit. It is the responsibility of the CEO to be sure the company is making a profit, but some things are out of the control of the CEOs. What happened to GM had nothing to do with private jets.
GM used to make a fair profit, but that was before Democrats took control of Congress and the price of gas began to skyrocket. GM lost $38.7 billion in 2007. The socialist UAW became to big and powerful, and began demanding too much of the industry pie, while accepting little of the losses. Meanwhile, Toyota has been cutting deeply into GM auto sales with their lower operating costs.
It’s not that their cars are better than GM, Ford, and Chrysler. It’s that it costs less to build them when they don‘t have to pay excessive UAW extortion expenses. They can therefore sell them for a lower price which the Big 3 then have to compete with at a higher manufacturing cost that leaves no room for profit. On top of that comes the costs of retooling their factories to comply with government-created environmental regulations like CAFE, but Congress fails to fund these regulations so compliance by the automakers puts them deep into debt.
The steep rise in the price of gas that began in 2007 cut deeply into GM’s SUV sales - the main profit maker for the company. GM doesn’t make any profit on the smaller, high mileage cars so the losses started piling up. At the same time, Congressional demands that they invest billions into engineering and design to meet CAFÉ standards haven‘t lessoned the costs.
What’s a CEO to do when you’re bound by government regulations and union extortion with threats of labor strikes if you don‘t pay for workers who aren‘t working anymore? UAW demands add $1300 to the cost of every car GM sells. That means that Toyota and Honda can make the same car for more than $1300 less when you factor in automation.
It’s not as though GM has just been irresponsible with its spending. The company has been going through restructuring to cut costs since 2005, but one time buyout expenditures were necessary and expensive, which put the company into the red. Still, in 2006, GM cut its costs by $6.8 billion, and an additional $2.2 billion in 2007. And they didn’t have to sell a single private jet to do it. Restructuring is still taking place to reduce costs but GM doesn’t expect to realize a profit until 2010. Until then, they still have to pay for retooling and union blackmail.
GM’s goal of staying in business and ever again making a profit will depend heavily on major cuts in excessive UAW benefits and wages. Or as Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson writes: “Maybe, just maybe, a crash course in economic reality would impart the lesson that a worker is better off working 40 hours per week at $40 per hour compensation than zero hours per week at $70 per hour.”
Did the congressional committee consider this when they told the CEOs to go home and come up with a plan to reduce costs? Of course not. Word might leak out that the CEOs are already doing the cost cutting job that Congress is demanding of them. The last thing Congress wants is for the CEOs to actually look like fiscally-responsible leaders of their companies. The public perception that CEOs are to blame for the financial crisis must be maintained, and the failed policies of Congress must never be questioned.
What a scam this whole idea of a bailout is anyway. America didn’t just win a global lottery. Hank Paulson and President Bush decided that we suddenly have $700 billion to hand out (which we don't) and suddenly everyone has their hand out for a piece of the pie. Now Treasury Secretary Paulson, tells us that half of the $700 billion is not going to buy up toxic mortgages, but is being used instead, to buy up stock in banks. The other half of the money ($350 billion) he is saving for the Obama administration to use as they see fit. What the hell is this - "free money" from Mathew Lesko's version of government?
The $700 billion is not a "bailout;" it's a handout by government of money stolen from the taxpayers. Obama, ACORN, Clinton, and the Democrats got us into this economic crisis and blamed it all on Bush and the Republicans to win the election. Unfortunately, McCain/Palin did nothing to combat it and defend Republicans. Now Obama is telling us that Democrats have no exit strategy from this crisis, and the only thing he can suggest is another multi-billion dollar "stimulus" handout. Isn't that Einstein’s definition of insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result?
How about if Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid get rid of their private jets to help cut the costs of government to the taxpayers? Where do these congressional hypocrites - who continually show a $3 billion deficit in their own budget - get off judging professional corporate executives who are enslaved to unions and government regulations? When did professional politicians become proficient at running anything other than their mouths, while continuing to ignore the regulations imposed on them by the Constitution?
As much as Congress and the media try to create the public perception that the American auto industry troubles were all caused by greedy CEOs, the truth of the matter is that they are victims of Congress, unions, and economic conditions over which they have no control. Congress talks a lot about “oversight,” but who oversees Congress, where a maximum amount of oversight is obviously needed?
With the recent bailing out of Citibank in addition to other financial institutions, while refusing aid to the Big 3, it is beginning to look like our government is interested only in using American taxpayers’ money to bail out international bankers, but not American iconic industries which have fallen victim to them, to unions, and to congressional regulations.
The public perception of Congress and the corporate sector must be maintained if Democrats are to remain in power. Blame the CEOs. Blame the “rich” and take their money which they invest in America - to “stimulate the economy” by giving it to the poor, who will not invest it in anything but flat screen TVs and video games. But never, ever, point a finger at Congress and their insane legislation that has been the root cause of all of our major economic and social problems for decades.
If politicians insist on taking credit for running the country, then it’s time they take credit for this current crisis that they have created as well. If an unscrupulous media want to do the bidding of dishonest politicians to guarantee their invitations to beltway dinners, then they also need to share the blame for creating a false public perception of Congress and the private sector, and for failing to do the job that their professional code of ethics demands of them.
The growing public perception of the alphabet and print media is that they are not to be trusted in presenting fair, complete, and unbiased information to the public. They have sealed this perception with their performance in covering the recent presidential election campaigns. The decline of confidence in the broadcast and print media is expected to continue in coming years until they become a no longer viable media for news and political information.
As more and more people turn to “new media” internet and talk radio, they become more informed and more aware of the truth concerning important issues, and more aware of the misinformation and lack of information being distributed by the elite liberal media. Public perception of mainstream media is changing rapidly, and that’s a good sign for America’s eventual recovery from the liberal wasteland of ignorance that has prevailed for too long now.