All you ever wanted to know about Barry O

No need to reinvent the wheel, someone has done all the legwork getting this informative website set up. You could spend literally hours here (although why anyone would want to do that is questionable). Anyway, it's too late to save us from four more years of failure, but for future reference, bookmark this website:
http://www.akdart.com/obama.html

Moral equivalence?...I don't think so.

Everyone has been bashing Bush because liberal moonbats are gullible and will believe umpteen lies before they'll believe one truth. Just mention the war in the middle east and they'll scream that BUSH LIED about weapons of mass destruction, and got us into an immoral and illegal war.

Did you know that eleven Democrats made public statements that Saddam had WMD before President Bush ever said anything about it?

Do you remember that thousands of Kurds were killed in Iraq...by chemical weapons of mass destruction? So please explain how Bush is a liar about WMD? Also how could it be "Bush's War" when the War Powers Act was approved in the House 296-133 and in the Senate 77-23. Bush could not go into war without the approval of Congress.

Moonbat lies they just keep repeating often enough so that people will believe them. Feels pretty stupid to be hoodwinked by Democratic Socialists, huh?

Is Success Bad?

Success used to be admired in America, nowadays success is reviled. Witness the derision that candidate Romney suffered as a successful businessman. He was literally crucified for it! You have to wonder at the anti-success attitude that is so prevalent today. Is it as crass as simple jealousy?

 

Companies that succeed and become large enterprises are derided as "Big Business"; "Wall Street" is some horrible place that rips off poor unsuspecting Main Street people, farming is now tagged "Big Ag", drug producers are referred to as "Big Pharma", those who breed dogs on anything other than an occasional basis are tagged as "Puppy mills". 

But somehow, no one seems to object to "BIG GOVERNMENT"....a concept that has proven largely unsuccessful throughout history and in a wide cross-section of countries across most continents.

I think the change in our culture comes not only from the liberal, anti-business propaganda in our schools, but can also be noticed in the shift in cultural focus that is exemplified in the James Bond 007 movies. The early ones portrayed communist governments as the bad guys; but all the more recent ones feature evil, maniacal capitalists who want to kill everyone and desecrate the planet. 

 

No wonder most people now believe that "BIG" is "BAD".
BIG isn't BAD....BAD is BAD. Even LITTLE can be bad. But it's hard to be successful when you are small. I guess that's the goal, keep everyone small and unsuccessful. But hey, at least everyone will be equally enslaved in a mediocre society.

Raising taxes? A drop in the debt bucket

The Bush tax cuts expire and taxes get jacked up for everyone unless the Republicans come to an agreement with the other side of the aisle by the end of the year.....so they are damned if they do, damned if they don't. Either way the Republicans are going to be blamed for raising taxes, and breaking their pledge not to. It's a Catch-22. This tactic draws the focus to the red herring of a perceived need to increase taxes while ignoring the problem of massively bloated expenditures. Well played, Obama. Well played.

As if raising taxes by less than 100 billion over 10 years will put a dent in the national debt, that is going up by over a TRILLION dollars EACH YEAR under Obama. 100 billion out of 10 trillion....10%. .Will that be enough to even cover the INTEREST on the debt? Get serious.

Genetically Modified Foods - Should We be Worried?

GMO foods – should we be worried?

There has been a modern movement in opposition to foods that are genetically modified. Here in California, there was recently a proposition presented to the voters that would have required labeling of foods that contained materials derived as a result of genetic engineering. I am genuinely surprised that prop 37 didn't pass, because usually the electorate votes based on emotion, not logic. Additionally, European countries have "banned" (if it were possible to physically do so) GMO foods to appease the fears of their populace. However, a bit of research on genetic engineering might surprise you regarding the benefits of such methods.

What is “genetic modification” of foods? The process involves the science of splicing genes into the DNA of the original organism. Sounds ominous, right? Some of these genes are from related organisms, like other plants. Some of the genes are from completely unrelated organisms, like bacteria. Now before you get too upset at the prospect of genes being added where they seemingly don't belong, consider this. All plants and animals derive a large proportion of their existing DNA from viruses that infected their ancestors. (1)

Genetic modification of foods can confer on them a desired quality without waiting for random chance/mutation from nature to help out (which may never occur).

The best example is the papaya crop. The Hawaiian papaya crop was nearly wiped out in the 1990s by the ringspot virus. There does not exist a cure or a preventive treatment for this virus. Genetic modification produced a papaya resistant to the virus, and today, >80% of the Hawaiian papaya crop is the GMO variety. With absolutely NO evidence that there is any harm to anyone from eating a papaya, or consuming foods made with the enzyme papain which is derived from papayas, why should every papaya and every prepared food containing papain (meat tenderizers etc) be labelled for consumers to reject out of unfounded fears?

Crops have been modified in the laboratory to enhance desired traits, such as resistance to herbicides or improved nutritional content. Some are bred for drought tolerance, increased crop amount or size of grain/fruit, and improved shelf life. There is even a variety of rice that has been genetically modified to be yellow, and loaded with healthy beta-carotene. Nice! 

Admittedly, herbicide resistant crops are problematic because then farmers tend to spray more weed-killers, which are not desirable to have in our foods, but one can always look for labelled "organic" produce to avoid that. But it is not the modified food itself that may be bad for us, it's the herbicides that are thrown on top on the crops.

There has been a much-touted study done on the effect of GMO corn on rats; this study has even been cited by health groups like Kaiser healthcare in their health newsletter. However, researcher bias was evident and the study was profoundly flawed. The study used very small sample sizes of only ten animals per group, including the control group. WAY too small to produce any reliable results. They also used a strain of rats prone to develop cancer. Oddly enough, the study found that rats who consumed the largest amount of GMO foods lived the longest, and it also showed that rats who consumed the most Roundup (herbicide) lived the longest! The control group also developed cancer, but the moderate GMO consumption group developed a higher percentage of cancer than the control group. This study is, in effect, BUNK. (2)

On the other hand, there are multiple independent studies done on GMO foods that verify their safety. Many of these studies have been conducted  independently of the biotech and food industries. (3)

Another example of unfounded fears is the modification of crops for worm-resistance. Many crops have been modified with genes from Bt. Bt, or Bacillus thuringiensis, is a bacteria that has been applied to crops for decades as a natural pest control. It selectively kills worms and guess what, it is completely nontoxic to humans and other animals. Actually, the use of Bt is considered compatible with organic gardening! Bt is applied to crops right up to the day of harvest. You have eaten Bt for years!!! I myself use Bt on my tomatoes to kill the darn nasty green hornworms. 

There is a particular chemical in the Bt bacteria that causes worms's digestive systems to fail and subsequently kills them. Scientists have been able to isolate that particular protein, insert the gene that produces it into the plant so that it will produce it without having us spray the crops with Bt (a hit-or-miss process, and economically impractical for anyone with a large-scale agricultural operation). et Voila Natural crop resistance to worms!

Most genetically modified crops are sold as commodities, which are further processed into foodstuffs. Large amounts of soy are produced for use as livestock feed. If there were something harmful in those foods, our animals used for meat would be dropping in droves, as would we for eating them.

Vegetable oil used for frying, cooking, shortening, margarine, sauces, soups, mayonnaise etc is produced almost exclusively from GMO-derived crops. These ingredients go into almost all of our foods!! However, the refining process removes proteins produced by the genes that have been inserted, and leaves just oil.

To give you an example of how widespread GMO foods are, at last tally, 95% of the US soybean crop is genetically modified. 93% of the US canola crop is genetically modified. 86% of the US corn crop is genetically modified, while 95% of sugar beets are genetically modified. 93% of the cotton crop (cottonseed oil) is GM cotton. In addition, pollen from the genetically modified types crosses with neighboring non-GMO crops, making it practically impossible to definitely pronounce that any certain crop is absent GM genes. The vast majority of our foods would have to be labelled that they are derived from genetic engineering. 

The FDA does need to promote standardized testing for such crops, in order to make sure that along with the desired trait there are not other problems included, such as increased allergens for those who are sensitive.

Remember, those people who produce the crops eat food too. They would be foolish to introduce something risky into the food chain that their own families will be eating.

Proposition 37 would have required labelling and the ability to bring suit without any proof of damages if they allege a food is improperly labelled. This seemed to me to be nothing more than a shakedown effort by trial lawyers for easy money. And it would have promoted unfounded fears about foods.

(1) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120423153138.htm

(2) http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2012/09/24/does-genetically-modified-corn-cause-cancer-a-flawed-study/

(3) http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/independent-funding/

No More Mr. Nice Guy

Well the elections are over, but the sting of a defeat as a result of a relatively close margin remains. We’re told to stop pointing out the suspicious nature of dozens of election precincts with a greater than 100% voter turnout, and 100% of the vote going to Obama. We aren’t supposed to notice that the election was won due to a swing of about 70,000 strategically-placed votes originating in highly-populated urban areas. We are told to suck it up, to shut up and go away, to quit pointing out the foibles of Obama in regard to Benghazi, Fast and Furious, our dismal economic status, federally-regulated health care, and a multitude of other national disgraces. We've silenced the mainstream news networks, it's time for all the rest of you to fall in line the liberal media lectures us.

Even some leaders of the Republican party are caving; ready to compromise our core values and capitulate to the dictates of one who doesn’t know the meaning of conciliation, as his entire political life is founded on fostering strife and discord regarding race, religion, sex and financial status.

We were scolded by the state-conrolled media that our candidate was too conservative to attract the independents, while pundits on the conservative side claim that in fact, he was too far to the left to appeal to the conservative base. We are too old, white and angry, the liberals claim. We are told we need to embrace amnesty for illegals, even though our candidate in 2008 who supported amnesty also lost handily. We're too antagonistic to women, the popular culture tells us, while in 2008, we placed a very accomplished woman in the vice-presidential spot, only to watch her crucified by the media.

In fact, that has been the entire, and successful strategy of this adminstration and their lapdog, statist media; to paint the Republican candidates with negative stereotypes; to portray them as being out of touch and hate-filled. It matters not that this protrayal is untrue. It only matters that the public believes it to be true.

The Republican campaign has relied on their faith in the ability of the electorate to evaluate the plain facts and make their own informed assessment of the candidates. When Obama responded weakly in the debates about the economy, he was not heartily challenged. No one attacked his lack of a plan, or the reason that his only talking point, more taxes on the rich, would not work and would in fact adversely affect everyone, not just the wealthy.

When the entire Obama administration claimed for weeks that the attack in Libya was not a coordinated effort by Islamic extremists, but a spontaneous protest over a video, they were not challenged. That lie had been exposed and was so obviously false that the voter would noticed, right? When Candy Crowley waved her paper and claimed that Romney was lying, no one came back to challenged her….not even in the vert next and final debate, which was focused on foreign policy.

When the Obama campaign stated that conservatives had declared “war on women” we did not point out their hypocrisy. When they claimed that support of traditional marriage was based on "hate" we did not counter that claim with the fact that marriage definition is a local issue; not a federal one; and that all of us have gay friends and relatives who we dearly love; heck, gay Americans need their jobs too!! When they claimed over and over that the Republican party is racist, we did not counter and point out the racist basis of the Democratic party and their racially divisive campaign strategy.

When abortion was continually brought to the forefront, no one on our side said, listen, this is a red herring. The Supreme Court has settled the issue and it is not on the table for any change. We failed to point out that Obama not only supports abortion, but he strongly supports the heinous practice of partial-birth abortion, where viable infants so well-developed as to feel pain, are literally tortured and dismembered before they are discarded.

Poll after poll reflects the fact that the majority of the public rejects the practice of partial-birth abortion and indeed abortion in general, and in fact they agree with all the positions of the Republican party including lower taxes, more economic freedom, and the need to repeal Obamacare. Why, then, does the electorate reject our candidates who embrace the ideals of the majority?

We need to admit that there is a very definite reason that almost all blacks, and the majority of women, Hispanics and young voters swung to Obama, even though he does not really represent the values of any of these groups in anything but a superficial and disingenous way. We need to come to grips with the power of the media in influencing public opinion. If the media continues to pound falsehoods into the public psyche, the voters will believe those falsehoods to be true.

It wouldn’t have mattered if the Republicans had been represented by Ron Paul, or Newt Gingrich, or even by Jesus Christ himself; there would have been a Candy Crowley there angrily waving her papers with the intent to smear him using a blatant lie. Crowley later admitted that she was wrong, but it is impossible to put the toothpaste back in the tube after the fact. The damage had been done. Sadly, most of the public is not savvy enough to catch on to the false basis of such smear tactics.

We will not win elections as long as we allow the media to control the discussion.  Debate “moderators” need to be nominated by both parties, and agreed upon based on impartiality. How can you expect to garner a positive public opinion with biased moderators? It's impossible.

Since time immemorial it has been known that negative campaigning works. The Democrats are crafty enough to use “go negative” as their entire strategy. They had the luxury this time of months of relentless smears and negativity while the Republicans were busily attacking their own candidates for many months. Can we really recover from such negative tactics, when Obama had NO ONE on his side challenging him? Apparently not. This is the advantage of incumbency. 

I’ve read literally dozens of article comments by authors who would have been able to produce better campaign ads than the insipid swill that we saw out of the Republican National Committee.

Only when Republicans fight back vigorously against the lies perpetrated against our candidates and attack our opponents with the same vigor with which they attack us, might we have the proverbial “fighting chance”. We also need to quit rolling over and accepting a slew of liberal debate moderators. And, we need to address election reform, as fraud appears to have definitely played a role in the outcome of this election. We might point out that Obama's foreign policy has not differed significantly from that of George Bush. (THAT will really get their hackles up!)

Finally, we need to continue to pound away relentlessly at the Obama administration's “War on Workers”, "War on Life", "War on Liberty"  and “War on Prosperity”.

We cannot remain above the fray and rely on rational, well-informed people to place their intelligent, well-thought-out vote. Most people wield their vote the same way they do their cash to buy merchandise; based on advertising and an idealogical image, not on facts. Dirty politics works, and it’s time to fight dirty. Either that or be prepared to kiss our free republic goodbye and embrace instead a future as "useful idiots" for the emergin oppressive socialist regime.

I think America is worth fighting for, and hope that others will join in the fight. No more "Mr. Nice Guy" !