Obama’s Scandals Hurt Media Pals

Posted by Jack

The scandals of the Obama administration seem to be hurting not just the White House but MSNBC as well, while Fox News Channel has just scored its second-best week of the year. After double-digit gains during last year’s presidential election, May 13-17 saw the progressive-aligned “Lean Forward” news network hit new lows as the IRS scandal erupted and revelations that the Justice Department secretly obtained AP records became public. With 350,000 viewers on average and 94,000 in the adults 25-54 demo, MSNBC had its least-watched and lowest-rated total-day results of the year last week. That was also the lowest total-day demo result the network has had since the week of June 26-July 2, 2006, when MSNBC pulled in just 83,000 viewers among adults 25-54, according to Nielsen data. 

In the immortal words of Nelson Munch, “Ha-Ha!”

2 Comments

Lookin for a Stabbin?

Inglourious-knifeIf you or a friend are in need of a stabbin or if you want to do a lil recreational stabbin, Chico is your kind of town.  We’ve got stabbin partys on Friday and Saturday nights in college town, we got yer stabbins on our college campus, stabbins in our parks, stabbins in the downtown, stabbins in our grocery store parking lots, and of course there’s always stabbin at the better bars until 2 am 7 days a week.   

Whether you prefer long knives, short knives, switch blades or razor blades, chances are we’ve got a blade with your name on it.   And we’re open to all styles, whether you prefer slicin, dicin, stickin, or hackin,  it’s all good.     Check this out… “Another stabbin took place at The Beach nightclub Sunday morning, following a knife attack after midnight Saturday morning. As officers were breaking up the fight, they found a man with several large stab wounds to his upper body.”  Which reminds me, stabbin folks is good for the local  economy…medical economy that is!   

The old days of couch burning is over, it’s now all about high class stabbin, and that’s what we call progress!  But, lets give credit where credit is due, we couldn’t have got to this level without the support of our city council.  Their leadership has attracted some real fine stabbers from all over, from the railyards in Sacramento, to Stockton’s ghetto, Oakland’s projects, the barrios of L.A. and beyond.   Chico is on the stabbin map!   

If you’re one of the many travelling stabbers, remember, you can stay here for free, meals included and for as long as you want!  Come and sleep in our parks and swipe booze from any of our fine local stores, it’s all part of the fun.  Our council will make sure you will feel right at home too.  Thats a promise.  Heck, they might even give you some spare change, if you ask.  But, be sure you got yer knife handy jes in case they don’t fork over.    

For a bloody good time – come to Chico!     

 

11 Comments

So Far the President Wins at Partisan Leadership and Dodge Ball

Posted by Tina

The President has a successful record at dodging responsibility for every negative thing that happens on his watch. When scandals hit the President sits on the sidelines and comments as if he’s simply an observer of events. And yet when positive events occur, like the killing of Bin Laden, he pushes to the front to claim responsibility and brag like a teenager. How is it that this man, who is supposedly the smartest guy in the room, never knows anything about what’s happening even within departments that are under the executive branch and his direct authority? The media has been a great helper from the start, forming a shield of protection and promotion around him. His staff creates talking points to feed them. But his leadership is well documented because the President can’t help himself…he has to brag…he has to stir up his base by making derogatory remarks about his political “enemies”. Because of his ego need to be seen as the smartest guy in the room, Mr. Popularity with the people, he is able to lead by suggestion. There may never be a paper trail, or secret tapes, that lead directly to his door as there was with Nixon, but that doesn’t mean that he won’t be slammed with the current scandals broiling around him. The Presidents responsibility flows from his partisan campaign style…his words direct activism to those who see him as “the one” they have “been waiting for” to “fundamentally transform” this nation.

If the President didn’t personally direct the targeting of conservative organizations by the IRS (a possibility I find hard to swallow-see below), he absolutely influenced those who support him and ran the department to act through their organization to suppress conservative speech during a political campaign. Evidence about targeted groups is all over the web for any citizen to see but evidence of the Presidents influence and leadership style can be found in his own words. Karen Quinlan of the American Thinker counts the ways. But a more direct hit in the Presidents dodge ball game may have hit the target today. The American Spectator has the information:

March 31, 2010.

According to the White House Visitors Log, provided here in searchable form by U.S. News and World Report, the president of the anti-Tea Party National Treasury Employees Union, Colleen Kelley, visited the White House at 12:30pm that Wednesday noon time of March 31st.

The White House lists the IRS union leader’s visit this way:

Kelley, Colleen Potus 03/31/2010 12:30

In White House language, “POTUS” stands for “President of the United States.”

The very next day after her White House meeting with the President, according to the Treasury Department’s Inspector General’s Report, IRS employees — the same employees who belong to the NTEU — set to work in earnest targeting the Tea Party and conservative groups around America. The IG report wrote it up this way:

April 1-2, 2010: The new Acting Manager, Technical Unit, suggested the need for a Sensitive Case Report on the Tea Party cases. The Determinations Unit Program Manager Agreed.

In short: the very day after the president of the quite publicly anti-Tea Party labor union — the union for IRS employees — met with President Obama, the manager of the IRS “Determinations Unit Program agreed” to open a “Sensitive Case report on the Tea party cases.” As stated by the IG report.

The NTEU is the 150,000 member union that represents IRS employees along with 30 other separate government agencies. Kelley herself is a 14-year IRS veteran agent. The union’s PAC endorsed President Obama in both 2008 and 2012, and gave hundreds of thousands of dollars in the 2010 and 2012 election cycles to anti-Tea Party candidates.

I have said the President is not a leader. I was wrong. I should have said the President is not interested in leading our nation or acting as President. He has no interest in “working for the American people, as the popular saying goes. He does lead, however, as a person of great influence and support, a community organizer, to hold the position of president while advancing a radical political socialist agenda. This is why he is constantly campaigning, (when he’s not playing golf or going on vacation). This is why he always seems to be standing above the fray of every day events…including oppression and spying done on his behalf by radical organizers embedded in the IRS and other government departments!

So far dodge ball has been a winning game for President Obama but now that scandalous facts are breaking through his protective shields will he be able to successfully dodge responsibility and blame for these egregious acts of suppression and harassment against American citizens and other failures of presidential leadership?

It all depends on you and me. How willing are you to live in a country where the President can count on the IRS and other departments to harass you? How long will you be satisfied with a president that runs community organizers placed to advance his agenda rather than leading our nation?

1 Comment

Tea Party to Protest IRS Tuesday at High Noon

Posted by Tina

ATTENTION TEA PARTY GROUPS, TEA PARTY SUPPORTERS, AND CONCERNED CITIZENS!

A nation wide protest is being organized by word of mouth calling for all Tea party groups, their supporters, and all concerned citizens to go to their local IRS office’s at NOON on TUESDAY the 21st (that’s tomorrow).

Call your friends and urge them to attend…call your group members to give them a heads up…tell your neighbors…organize a group from your work…make some signs and show up at our local IRS office to let the nation know there are Americans who don’t appreciate the way this administration’s IRS has treated fellow Americans. Talk about “block the vote”…this IRS scandal was a targeted offensive against Tea Party and conservative groups all around the nation during an election cycle!

See stories about this protest here and here.

See one egregious example of Jack Boot thug treatment of a citizen at National Review. Catherine Englebrecht was targeted not only by the IRS but also by the FBI, OSHA, and the ATF.

Find Chico IRS information, including address and phone number here.

3 Comments

Conservatives Need Not Apply

Posted by Jack

This confirms what I’ve long suspected.  That leftists are as open minded as Islam is about peace and tolerance.  And as you read below consider that your tax dollars are paying for these a-h’s.     

We have once again entered the college commencement season, which means we’ll soon be reading about uplifting graduation speeches delivered by prominent Americans. Or at least by prominent liberal Americans.

It’s becoming increasingly apparent that conservative speakers aren’t welcome on college and university campuses.

Last month, in the span of a few days, student protests disrupted a presentation by Karl Rove at the University of Massachusetts and one by Rand Paul at Howard University. That same week, former Bush administration official Robert Zoellick withdrew as a commencement speaker at Swarthmore College, while Obama critic Ben Carson did the same at Johns Hopkins.

Zoellick, a Swarthmore alumnus like me, pulled out after being attacked by students who said he’d helped instigate the Iraq war — a preposterous claim considering he was the U.S. trade representative at the time the conflict began. But even Zoellick’s supporters on campus didn’t mount much of a defense. A well-meaning campus newspaper editorial implied that Zoellick should be allowed to speak because he was not one of the truly evil Republicans — like George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld or Paul Wolfowitz — who rightly should be personae non gratae on campus.

If Zoellick, a moderate gentleman with an impressive record promoting women’s rights as president of the World Bank, can’t speak on a college campus, no Republican can. Indeed, a look at the data suggests that is how things are trending.

There are many lectures on college campuses on any given day, and assessing the relative proportion of liberals and conservatives is a difficult task. Commencement addresses, however, provide a good measure. Virtually every school has at least one, and they are prime opportunities for speakers to address an entire campus community.

To gauge how rare it is for a conservative to be invited to speak at a college graduation, I looked at commencement and other announced graduation event speakers for 2012 and 2013 from the top 100 universities and top 50 liberal arts colleges (according to the U.S. News & World Report rankings). Then I tried to identify them as liberal or conservative based on their party affiliation, if I could determine it. For public officials, I looked at the party affiliations of those they served. I then looked up speakers in OpenSecrets.org’s database of campaign contributions, noting whether speakers had donated to candidates from one party or both. If a speaker endorsed a presidential candidate in 2012, I noted that as well, and identified the speaker with that candidate’s ideology.

In 2012, the political leanings of 84 people were identifiable. In 2013, with speakers still being announced, 69 are.

In 2012, only one Republican elected official was invited to speak at a top 50 liberal arts college: Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell at the University of Richmond. The top 100 universities invited three Republican officeholders: Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal spoke at both the University of Georgia and the Georgia Institute of Technology, and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham spoke at Clemson. Missouri Rep. Sam Graves spoke at the University of Missouri.

No Republican official spoke outside of his home state. When one expands to former Republican political appointees, the picture only changes slightly; Colin L. Powell (who endorsed President Obama in the last election) spoke at Northeastern University, and Condoleezza Rice spoke at Southern Methodist University. There were no conservative speakers at Ivy League commencements and no conservative elected officials who spoke outside of the South.

Democrats, on the other hand, were everywhere. Sixteen speeches were given by Obama administration officials alone. All told, and including the data on political contributions, there were only three identifiably conservative speakers at the top 50 colleges and 12 at the top 100 universities, compared with a total of 69 identifiably liberal speakers.

The results for 2013 are similar, though not all the schools had named their speakers when I did my research. With Zoellick’s withdrawal, no current or former Republican public official is scheduled to speak at the top 50 colleges, and only four will address the top 100 universities — with Jon Huntsman the only one outside of his home state. Again, there are no conservatives scheduled to speak in the Ivy League. Newark, N.J.’s Democratic mayor, Cory Booker, who is speaking at Washington University, Cornell and Yale, has as many addresses as all current elected Republicans combined. Factoring in campaign contributions and public endorsements, liberals outnumber conservatives by about 6 to 1.

America’s liberal arts colleges are especially hostile territory, and the few conservatives who are invited to speak at them, such as David Brooks of the New York Times, tend to be on the moderate side.

A longer look at the data for Swarthmore makes the controversy over Zoellick more understandable. If Zoellick had received the honorary degree he was offered this year, he would have been only the second former member of a Republican administration to be given an honorary degree since 1994. That is out of 67 honorees, including those scheduled to be honored this year. One additional honoree, Alberto Mora in 2008, served under both Bush administrations and the Clinton administration, but he was best known for having publicly opposed George W. Bush’s policies on coercive interrogation.

Aside from a Reagan-appointed federal judge, who was honored in 2012, the only other honorees whose political affiliations could be discerned through campaign contributions or federal appointments were all liberals, including 18 who have donated to Democratic campaigns, seven who served as members or advisors to Democratic officials and three who ran for office under liberal parties, such as a former gubernatorial candidate in California who was nominated by the Peace and Freedom Party.

Obama won the votes of the majority of college students in November because many of them were predisposed to vote for him before they attended college and because many of them began to find their political identities at the colleges themselves. There is no question that a primary objective of today’s academic institutions, which allow conservatives to be shouted down if they are invited at all, is not to educate students but rather to educate reliable Democratic votes.

America has become much more polarized over the last few decades, and observers have blamed politicians and gerrymandering. But some of the blame lies elsewhere. America’s institutions of higher education have become some of the most polarizing institutions in our society. Students who pass through them are remarkably well-prepared to join our uncivil political discourse.

Kevin Hassett is director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.


Teaching your kids…

Last week NYU Law announced that former Weather Underground member and convicted murderer Kathy Boudin would be a scholar-in-residence. She’s the latest in a series of former left-wing radicals with cozy university appointments.  Michael Moynihan on how left-wing criminals ended up lecturing America’s college students.  Boudin assisted in ending the life of three people, including Waverly Brown, the first black police officer on the Nyack police force, and left nine children fatherless.  She was sentenced to 20 years to life in prison.  In 2003, Boudin was released; by 2008 she had landed a coveted teaching position at an Ivy League university.

2 Comments

David Little’s Editorial – Must Read

by Jack

It doesn’t get any better than this…

Excerpted from David Little’s editorial:    “During the City Council race, Ann Schwab said of the city’s financial situation: “No, the city isn’t in dire trouble.” She bragged that the general fund was balanced without mentioning that other funds were running huge deficits to make the general fund look better. She was the leading vote-getter.

Of the candidates who were most adamant that the sky was falling — Sean Morgan, Toby Schindelbeck, Bob Evans, Dave Donnan and Andrew Coolidge — only one got elected. People didn’t want to hear the truth, that the sky indeed was falling.

The editor of the local weekly, a few days before the election, lit into Evans for a campaign ad placed in his publication.

“Reading it,” Robert Speer wrote in his column, “you’d think the council and city staff had driven the city to the brink of bankruptcy in recent years while failing to do anything whatsoever about economic development. That’s simply not true, and Evans knows it.” 

Great quotes David, all that’s left now is to ask them how they want their crow served?  lol

This is what I call good investigative journalism!   The leftists ruining our city have been exposed by one courageous newspaper man who dares to tell the truth.  Kudos to David Little.        

 

3 Comments

CHICO: A cash flow problem? No way

By David Little

 
It turns out the city of Chico has spent more than $20 million it didn’t have the past five years. Who saw that stunner coming?Well, a lot of people did.  It’s just that few people would listen to them.

Let’s go back more than six years ago.  Candidate Dan Herbert was running for office and said the city was dangerously spending its reserves. Councilor Andy Holcombe was granted extra space in a “guest comment” in the local weekly newspaper to discredit Herbert.

His piece, headlined “Budget monster — fact or fiction?” made it clear Holcombe thought it was fiction. Holcombe got elected one more time, two years later, on the denial platform.

Let’s go back to last fall.

During the City Council race, Ann Schwab said of the city’s financial situation: “No, the city isn’t in dire trouble.” She bragged that the general fund was balanced without mentioning that other funds were running huge deficits to make the general fund look better. She was the leading vote-getter.

Of the candidates who were most adamant that the sky was falling — Sean Morgan, Toby Schindelbeck, Bob Evans, Dave Donnan and Andrew Coolidge — only one got elected. People didn’t want to hear the truth, that the sky indeed was falling.

The editor of the local weekly, a few days before the election, lit into Evans for a campaign ad placed in his publication.

“Reading it,” Robert Speer wrote in his column, “you’d think the council and city staff had driven the city to the brink of bankruptcy in recent years while failing to do anything whatsoever about economic development. That’s simply not true, and Evans knows it.”

Evans was right. A lot of good it did him.

Morgan was the only one among those mean fiscal watchdogs who got elected. He finished third for four seats. During the campaign, he said he decided to run when he couldn’t get the information he wanted about the city finances.

He said he was told, “That would take a lot of time, and you wouldn’t understand it if I gave it to you.”

“Who fires the person who said that?” Morgan said, when speaking to our editorial board.

The person who said that, finance director Jennifer Hennessy, didn’t need to get fired. She saw the handwriting on the wall and took another job first.

The Enterprise-Record editorial board wrote before the election, “The budget is enormously out of whack,” and, “The council needs people who treat our dollars like their dollars.” Of the four councilors we recommended, only one (Morgan) was elected. People didn’t want to hear the truth. It’s too hard.

Two years before that, we wrote in another endorsement editorial: “The city has to cut about $6.7 million in the next couple of years to get the budget back in balance. There’s talk of laying off police officers and firefighters … Yet millions are spent to buy property that is then fenced off from the public, or contaminated with pollutants. Tens of thousands go to public art, diversity plans, climate action plans … and a wealth of other feel-good endeavors.”

And in the election before that, we wrote: “Recent poor economic decisions go far beyond salaries and benefits for city employees. The council spent lavishly on studies and consultants while doing very little to improve parks. It authorized $600,000 for a Bidwell Park plan that doesn’t spend one cent on park improvements. It spent millions for land presented as ‘open space.’ … It spent more time discussing global warming than job creation. … It paid a developer $9.5 million after the council’s wrong-headed inaction on cleaning up the Humboldt Road burn dump.”

You get the idea.

The only people who should be surprised by the city’s cash crisis are the ones who haven’t been paying attention — or choose to believe in wishful thinking.

1 Comment

Linus Gets It

linus45

1 Comment

Saving Chico – Part 1

by Jack Lee

It’s not debatable anymore, the City of Chico is headed for bankruptcy.  We have barely enough cash to last 6 months then it’s lights out and the City paychecks stop. 

The City manager says this is not the time to be pointing fingers, rather we need to think about the future and how we deal with this crisis.   Okay, I understand.  He’s in a tough spot because he serves at the pleasure of the Council and the leftists that dominate the City Council totally blew it!    So, I do  appreciate his need to tread lightly,  but fingers need to be pointed.   This is the first step to resolving any crisis.  We must identify what went wrong, who did it in order to fix it.    Asking only how do we fix it isn’t enough.   (Washington is going through the same sort of delima right now on a number of issues.) 

While the red ink flows and there are forced cuts in services, spending and personnel, the City better darn well be ramping up to find new businesses to locate here.   Because, we can chop until there’s nothing left,  but if we don’t have a dependable tax base that won’t mean a thing.    This sort of dependable revenue comes only from commercial enterprise.   It’s not coming from low income housing or more homeless shelters.     

Raising fees, taxes, and borrowing money is only a temporary fix.   This method eventually only leaves us weaker.   The only true solution to any fiscal crisis is prudent long term asset management coupled to aggressive business development for a secure revenue stream.    You can’t do that if your council is bogged down over paper v plastic, global warming resolutions,  Fair Trade coffee beans, or spending money to build daycare centers for bums.  

Real sustainable tax revenue comes from businesses offering locals good paying jobs. We can’t depend Chico State to save us this time.  I know, it’s been our salvation in the past, but even those mega bucks are not enough, not anymore.   Besides, their money is mostly from your CA tax money.   It’s not new money created from taxable profits! 

This must sound totally foreign to our leftists on the Council, but it’s how America was built and this is the direction we must go so we can continue to fix the pot holes, keep cops on the beat and other things you have come to expect.      

 

 

 

1 Comment

Odd Voting Numbers in Chico

by Jack

It started out as a little research on voter demographics to explain why Chicoans keep electing progressives and then I ran into some unusual numbers.

If you go the Butte County Elections website like I did, you will be given a menu for various details about the last election. (Feel free to double check my numbers.)  For instance, I found there are 47,075 registered voters in Chico, which almost seems high for a population of 86,949.  We must not have a lot of under 18 in Chico??

Of the total voters, 16,079 are registered as democrats, 13,575 are registered as republicans.   Please stay with me, I’m going to throw a lot of numbers out here.  

Now in theballot box23 last city election there were a total of 106,780 votes cast for 4 council candidates.  So, if everyone voted for 4 candidates we could say exactly 26,694 people voted.  But, some under voted, casting 3 or less votes.   And there were some that over voted casting 5 of more votes, presumably by accident, plus 143 people who wrote in names. Anyway, it appears that roughly 23-24% of the eligible voters actually bothered to vote.  That’s a little pathetic and doesn’t say much about our Chico voters.   Unfortunately I couldn’t find the vote count by political affiliation per candidate because this is a a so-called non-partisan race.  That would make things a bit easier to understand, if it was available.

You might think the democrats would have the edge in any city election because they are ahead in registered voters by nearly 2,500 votes.   But, if you look at the [ inactive ] roll by party we find that 9,752 dems didn’t vote in the last election, compared to 3,670 republicans. Now that makes the turnout by party 9752 dems to 9905 reps and the reps have the edge!  Conservatives should be slightly more electable, right?

So, my question to all you bright people out here is, how in the heck could 3 of the 4 council seats go liberal democrats?
What makes it stranger is the top vote getter (Ann Schwab) drew 14% of the vote with 15,015 votes. Now remember, there were 4 seats available and roughly 26,694 people voted 4 times, one vote for each candidate of their choice.  This indicates that more than 1 out of every 2 voters voted for Schwab?

How could this be unless the reps were voting totally stupid?   I dunno, something does add up in my old brain.   Granted, maybe it’s my math, but until someone can explain where I’m going wrong, this doesn’t look plausible.   These numbers mean a large number of republicans must have voted for the liberals and I’m having trouble believing that.   The only other explanation is that somebody changed their vote to go to democrat candidates or a few people voted many times pretending to be someone else.   Conspiratorial I admit, but it makes more sense than assuming rep voters are that uninformed and dense. Yes, yes, we all know this was a non-partisan race, but that doesn’t matter.   In a small town like Chico there’s no hiding political affiliations of council candidates and you couldn’t possibly fool that many people to vote against their party candidates….at least I like to think that!

Your thoughts?

 

6 Comments