June 20, 2013

Posts

It ain’t about the “bus fare” stupids, it’s the corruption

June 16, 2013 By Carol Greenberg

 

A rock concert in Berlin or London?? Can you name that country or even the city?

Protesters in Sao Paulo

Many would probably never guess this is Brazil. A major protest in her largest city Sao Paulo. What supposedly started as a demonstration against a minor hike in bus fare, which by Brazilian standards is fairly large, escalated into protests which spread around this country of about 175 million souls.

“Protestors – mainly students – are taking the streets of Sao Paulo. The problem: the government just raised the bus fare from R$3 to R$3,20. The protests are getting a really violent reception from the police. You can see a video of the police action. The problem isn’t the 20 cents. I think the real problem is that we are having so many issues of inflation, very high taxes, corruption – 2014 World Cup stadiums being built with public money, costing about $1 billion each pop – so future looks really bleak here. Everything seems to be boiling after this 20 cents.

No guns of any kind are allowed in Brazil, except for the gangs of course. This is why the MP (Military Police) felt confident when attempting to disperse the protesters with only pepper spray, batons and tear gas.

And rubber bullets.

And it wasn’t just the protesters the MP were intent on dispersing, it was the press as well. In a country run by an avowed Marxist, Dilma Rousseff, who in my opinion and in the opinion of others as well, is intent on elevating her world status at the expense of Brazil’s people, of course wants to keep as much news as possible about these protests from leaking outside the country. Notice the expression of this MP officer’s face as he pepper sprays a member of the press:

Police in Brazil

 Below is a most telling video right from the horse’s mouth:

Notice a woman from the press being injured by an MP baton.

As Brazil prepared for a soccer game yesterday against Japan protesters even took to the streets in the capital, Brasilia, to protest the high cost of hosting the World Cup in 2014.

Tear gas bombs were thrown by the police and pepper spray was used to try to control the protesters as they moved near the venue. Local media said police later shot rubber bullets to disperse the crowd and at least two people were injured, including a 16-year-old student. Authorities said 15 people were arrested.

So how many readers have heard about these protests? The majority of the info I’ve gotten has unfortunately not been from NBC, CBS or ABC. But from twitter. CNN did at least allow a posting by what appears to be a brasileiro. The comments are most telling about the situation there: (note, misspellings are by the poster).

If CNN puclishes this article, it will be helping the democratic process in Brazil. We are trying to truly live in democracy, but our government does no accept our people’s will. Our media helps this corrupt government because it receives special favors conceded by those in power. If it weren’t for the internet, nobody would be able to understand what really is going on in our country.

As protests from other countries about poor living conditions, economic problems and government corruption spread from the Middle East, Europe and Turkey brasileiros in other countries are attempting to organize massive “support protests” around the world for this coming Tuesday in support of Brazil. 27 countries at this point.

So what is now a *headache* for President Rousseff may very well turn into a *migraine* on Tuesday. But not to worry, perhaps Obama will come to the rescue. After all, they are pals….

Obama kissing Rousseff large

Crossposted at Grumpy Opinions

Share
Filed Under Brazil protests Tagged With Brazil, Brazil protests, Dilma Rousseff, futebol, Obama, soccer, World Cup

Reporter advocates ending military funerals

March 28, 2013 By Carol Greenberg

The Obumbi twins vacation in the Bahamas. Obama vacations in Hawaii at $10 million of taxpayer expense. Biden spends lavishly on fancy hotels and transportation.

Obama was against the sequester, before he was for it and he is trying to make it as painful as possible and wants the public to notice. But to add fuel to the fire one reporter in St. Louis thinks military funerals are “too expensive” and should be ended.

On my twit handle I declare our military is our best asset. Without their undaunted service we would not have the freedoms we do today. But now funerals for our Fallen Warriors are “too expensive” and we simply can’t afford them any more.

Bill McClellan of the St. Louis Dispatch has this to say:

Both the federal government and the state government are broke. So why are we providing military funeral honors for all veterans? It is a nice gesture we can’t afford Certainly, men and women killed in combat deserve full military honors. It’s a way for the country to say, “We honor the memory of those who died in our service.” These military honors — and the thought behind them — are intended to provide some solace for the families of the fallen.

But what about the guy who spends a couple of years in the military and then gets on with his life? Bear in mind that most veterans did nothing heroic. [emphasis mine].They served, and that’s laudable, but it hardly seems necessary to provide them all with military honors after they have died. In fact, it seems generous enough to provide veterans and their spouses with free space and headstones at a national cemetery.

Mr. McClellan. Sir. My father who is 90 years old spent 3 years in the Pacific Theater defending America after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and we lost thousands of boys. My father didn’t die in that war, he received numerous commendations but no medals. Are you going to tell me he isn’t a hero? And doesn’t deserve “military honors” just because he came out alive? Without my father and thousands of other military, you wouldn’t be here to write this article. They defended your right to “free speech” as abhorrent as it is.

What a bunch of tripe. Bet you are a Democrat and never served in the military.

All our military deserve honors at burial if their family wishes it, whether or not you say “we’re broke.” Our Defenders should come first. Complain to Mr. Obama, who never set foot in the military either during war or not and demanded the sequester but spends lavishly at taxpayer expense, thumbing his nose like Marie Antoinette.

I hear you are getting a lot of “hate mail.” Most deserved in this writer’s eyes.

FYI author’s contact info is at the top of the article.

Crossposted at Unified Patriots and Grumpy Opinions

Share
Filed Under military funerals, sequester Tagged With Bill McClellan, military, military funerals, Obama, sequester, St. Louis Dispatch, Veterans

Obama, the “Indian giver,” this time on rural education

March 21, 2013 By Carol Greenberg

An Indian giver is a person who gives a gift to someone and then demands it back.

That’s exactly what Obama did with the Secure Rural Schools payments which were authorized by Congress. Citing the sequester, Obama continues to make the cuts, which he initially wanted, and then opposed, as painful and as noticeable to the public as possible.

This is the latest thing we are hearing about, and Obama does indeed want to inflict pain. The U.S. Forestry Service announced the payments, which went out in January, are now subject to the the sequester. This statement from Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA), Chair of the House Natural Resources Committee:

WASHINGTON, D.C., March 20, 2013 – House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (WA-04) released the following statement after the U.S. Forest Service announced that Secure Rural School (SRS) payments, which went out to counties in January, will be subjected to sequestration cuts:

“Several months before President Obama’s sequester was scheduled to go into effect, Congress approved – and President Obama signed into law – another extension of payments under the Secure Rural Schools Program to provide rural counties with funds for teachers, schools, police officers, emergency services and infrastructure. These payments are necessary because the federal government has failed to live up to its promise to actively manage our forests and provide a stable revenue stream for rural counties containing National Forest land. The Forest Service distributed the majority of those funds in January of this year. To decide three months later, and 20 days after the sequester took effect, that funds authorized by Congress nearly a year ago and paid out three months ago are subject to sequester is not only legally-questionable, but another obvious example of the Obama Administration going out of its way to make spending cuts as ‘painful as promised.’ The President should be working with Congress on making smart and responsible cuts and reforms – not using the sequester as a tool to score political points on the backs of rural schools and communities by demanding refunds of dollars used to pay teacher and police salaries.”

Let’s hope Chairman Hastings follows up his remark of “legally questionable” with actions.

Crossposted at Grumpy Opinions

Share
Filed Under Secure Rural Schools Program, sequester Tagged With House Natural Resources Committee, Obama, Rep. Doc Hastings, Secure Rural Schools Program, sequester, U.S. Forestry Service

OFA could be selling the White House, but it’s closed to school children

March 14, 2013 By Carol Greenberg

Obama blames the sequester for his decision to stop tours of the White House. Never mind he isn’t the one who has to tell thousands of school children and others who had already planned to visit, too bad: But apparently the White House is still open to some, at least those who have mega-bucks.

We all remember when Obama ran for president the first time his campaign began as “Obama for America.” After he was inaugurated in 2009 he announced the name would be changed to “Organizing for America.” It was billed as a volunteer site where one could sign up for a myriad of positions from making phone calls, to GOTV, to holding rallies, to calling Congress to advocate for bills to be passed; and the list is endless.

This website also assisted him in getting re-elected.

Now that he is a second-term president, the name has again changed. This time to “Organizing for Action.” According to the website,this is its purpose:

Organizing for Action is a nonprofit organization established to support President Obama in achieving enactment of the national agenda Americans voted for on Election Day 2012. OFA will advocate for these policies throughout the country and will mobilize citizens of all parties and diverse points to speak out for speedy passage and effective implementation of this program, including gun control, sensible environmental policies to address climate change and immigration reform. In addition, OFA will encourage the formation of chapters that will be dedicated at the grassroots level to this program, but also committed to identifying and working progressive change on a range of issues at the state and local level. In carrying its work, OFA will operate as a “social welfare” organization within the meaning of section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. [emphasis mine].

Jon Carson, the new Executive Director of OFA boasts on twitter they already have over 964,000 signed up. One sort of has to assume they are volunteers as I doubt Obama would be paying all of them. This time around this “non-profit” which is registered as a 501(C)4 advocates for gun control, immigration and social welfare and accepts unlimited donations which has caught the eye of watchdogs and Republicans in Congress. It cannot however, support individual candidates. According to the The Hill:

The New York Times reported last month that the nonprofit was offering donors access to quarterly meetings with the president if they donated $500,000. Smaller contributions were said to allow face time with other White House officials.

Jim Messina, National Chairman of Organizing for Action doesn’t really deny it, but states:

“Whether you’re a volunteer or a donor, we can’t and we won’t guarantee access to any government officials,” he wrote. “But just as the president and administration officials deliver updates on the legislative process to Americans and organizations across the ideological spectrum, there may be occasions when members of Organizing for Action are included in those updates. These are not opportunities to lobby — they are briefings on the positions the president has taken and the status of seeing them through.”

American Crossroads disagrees with Messina and put out this ad:

But Messina in an op-ed at CNN stresses it’s “all about the volunteers.”

If so Messina, how many of those 964,000 “volunteers”, if it IS TRUE you are selling access to Obama, can afford the steep charge? And if one is going to try hunting down Organizing for Action on the web, one may get a surprise. Several enterprising individuals bought up the domains OFA MIGHT have used. Try going to www.organizingforaction.com or www.organizingforaction.org and see what you get.

And going to www.organizingforaction.net takes you right to the NRA website. Oh, the irony.

God Bless America.

Crossposted at Unified Patriots and Grumpy Opinions

Share
Filed Under Obama, Organizing for Action Tagged With Jim Messina, Jon Carson, Obama, Organizing for Action, Organizing for America

Kerry may trade Keystone approval for nasty carbon tax

March 3, 2013 By Carol Greenberg

A recent National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) report on the impact of Barbara Boxer and Bernie Sanders’ proposed carbon tax bill, which the White House is playing coy about, is fueling suspicions that Obama may be preparing to back a carbon tax as political cover for approving the Keystone XL pipeline.

This is a bill Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) introduced two days after Obama’s 2013 State of the Union address. Even after driving stakes through Cap and Trade and other such schemes, the idea of a Carbon Tax in some format has never died and Boxer and Sanders have made the “Phoenix arise” again.

The bill would add a $20-per ton tax on carbon polluters which supposedly are driving climate change. Democrats, environmentalists and progressive actors have blamed the droughts, floods, high temperatures and even Hurricane Sandy on “climate change” which we all know has been debunked.

Greg Knox, of Knox Manufacturing in Dayton Ohio had this comment:

“I just think that it’s national suicide,” said Greg Knox, CEO of Franklin-based Knox Machinery. “In talking to my customers, we’re just appalled by the fact the government would choose to consider some of this legislation in light of how many problems we have now in our economy.”

One of the states hardest hit by this would be Ohio. According to the National Association of Manufacturers:

  • Natural gas cost to increase by over 40% in 2013
  • Gasoline prices to increase by over 20 cents per gallon in 2013
  • Electricity rates to increase an average of 13% in 2013
  • 55,000-69,000 jobs impacted in 2013, 99,000-123,000 by 2023
  • Coal loses 43.4-50.3% in economic output, energy-intensive manufacturing loses 2.1%, non-energy-intensive loses 0.6-1% by 2023

Where Obama stands in all this isn’t clear. Senator David Vitter (R-LA) wrote him a letter asking for his stance and apparently Jack Lew, Obama’s former Chief of Staff has said President Obama has no plans to support it, but we know how things change.

Anyone wishing to read the full study by NAM (National Association of Manufacturers) it can be found here. And they issued this salient remark: Click on the link at the left to get a list of states hardest hit, and click that state to get its study.

Any revenue raised by the carbon tax would be far outweighed by the negative impact to the overall economy. A carbon tax would lead to lower real wage rates because companies would have higher costs and lower labor productivity. Over time, workers’ incomes could decline relative to baseline levels by as much as 8.5 percent. The increased costs of coal, natural gas and petroleum products due to a carbon tax would ripple through the economy and result in higher production costs and less spending on non-energy goods.

If this backdoor “Cap and Trade” scheme becomes a reality the states hardest hit would be Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Montana, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia.

On March 1 the State Dept, which had originally nixed Keystone, came out with a new “study” saying we aren’t so sure it’s a bad thing after all, but all conclusions are premature. 

Rumors on the street are that Obama and Kerry may try a quid pro quo and trade the unions and oil companies the rights to Keystone but get their carbon tax in place to pacify the environmentalists who have gone wild over Keystone.

Let’s hope we get Keystone but not this nasty carbon tax which will destroy more jobs and raise prices for consumers.

Crossposted at Unified Patriots and Grumpy Opinions

Share
Filed Under carbon tax, environmentalism, Keystone Pipeline Project Tagged With carbon tax, environmentalism, Jack Lew, John Kerry, Keystone XL Pipeline, NAM, National Association of Manufacturers, Obama, Senator Barbara Boxer, Senator Bernie Sanders