M$M calls Obama 'Toxic', thus declaring the victim guilty of the crime. What's Toxic is GOP politics

of opposition to whatever Obama and the Democrats have proposed especially to repair and rebuild the economy from the Trickle Down - Deregulation disaster.

Lately, I was taken aback to hear some M$M Fascist Fellatiators declare that President Obama was "toxic". John Dickerson on PBS (Faux News - Light) Washington Week in Review (where they tell viewers what to think about previous weeks events in D.C.) is a case in point. M$M is doing its duty to the GOP wherein they reverse reality so as to end up with the GOP free of any political blood on its hands. Calling Obama toxic implies he is the actor, that he is the cause of the toxicity in the political environment today.

But it is the Republican war on Obama that is toxic. In 2008 after 30 years of Republican policies that promoted concentration of wealth (i.e. Tax reform) and the undermining of civil authority (deregulation) we experienced the greatest economic calamity this country has seen since the (first) Great Depression. The GOP had a problem. With all their crack-pot economic theories shown to be spectacularly wrong, GOP leaders decided the only thing they could do was just attack Obama on whatever he did. They would work their damnedest to see that he and the Democrats would fail at repairing the economy from the Trickle Down Deregulation disaster (couldn't have Democrats come into office and in a few years clean up the GOP's disaster- what an embarrassment that would be). So they decided they had to make sure he failed. This was decided on the day of Obama's inauguration in January 2009.

The Republicans proceeded to set records for filibustering legislation and presidential appointments. They even filibustered a deficit commission they demanded - when Obama supported the idea. On November 4, 2010 Mitch O'Connell declared "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.". The Republicans filibustered every stimulus/jobs bill proposed by the Democrats seriously undermining the recovery. The Republicans threatened to filibuster the initial stimulus bill unless about a third of what was to be Government spending was converted to tax cuts. (The GOP knew that in a time of recession with people worried about whether they would have a job in six months such a tax cut would not be spent. People would save it or pay down debt in case they got laid off. At any rate they knew tax cuts would NOT be stimulative to the economy). When President Obama obliged them and converted one third of the stimulus bill to tax cuts - the GOP still filibustered it. (Fortunately, three Republican Senators put the country before party and voted for the ARRA) Then came three years of repetitive threats to shut down the government - topped off with an actual Government shutdown. And let's not forget the threat to force a default on the U.S. debt. These kind of tactics caused Standard & Poor's to downgrade the U.S. credit rating!!! Needless to say this made businessmen very cautious about hiring back full time permanent workers which slowed the recovery by perhaps two years. Businesses hired back more part-time workers and built up huge cash hoards. Ordinarily businesses do not like to hold too much cash as it doesn't earn that much for them (especially now) and they would rather put it to use in their own businesses. But businessmen weren't sure what the Republicans might do to sabotage the recovery. Thus another brake on the recovery was applied by the patriotism-challenged Republicans.

No, calling President Obama 'toxic' is the M$M performing 'tricks' for the GOP. Obama is not the cause of the toxic political environment. THe Toxicity comes from the GOP. But M$M is playing a critical role in duping the American public by confusing them into thinking all our problems are because of Obama's lack of "leadership" and not the fact that the GOP is acting as an insurgency as Thomas Mann (Brookings Institution) and Norman Ornstein (AMerican Enterprise Institute) described them in the article "Let's Just Say it: the Republicans are the problem". No matter what President Obama did the GOP fought him at it. Trying to see that he would fail and they could go out and say: "See what a BAD President he is. Give US another chance." - or in 2014 - hand control of the Senate to them.

Well, there's one thing I can say on there behalf. As P.T. Barnum said: "There's a sucker born every minute."

Stanford scientists develop a process & catalyst for making ethanol from Carbon monoxide & water

The Revenge Of Mitch McConnell: GOP Senate Will Halt Obama Nominations: What to expect if Dems don't

... get out the vote (i.e. not one Democrat stays home on election day).

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/republican-senate-obama-legacy

If Republicans win control of the Senate next week, as many expect, they will gain a powerful weapon to reshape President Barack Obama's legacy in his final two years: the authority to block his nominations.

Under a Democratic-led Senate, Obama has enjoyed remarkable success in confirming his executive appointees and remaking the federal courts in his image.

~~
~~

That streak could screech to a halt if Republicans win the net six seats needed to take the Senate come January. In that scenario, probable Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) could prevent any nomination from coming up in committee, and probable Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) could block anyone from receiving a full Senate vote.

"My guess is Obama would have to present nominees that are much much more acceptable to Republicans, or they won't even schedule hearings," Barnett said.
(more)

M$M celebrating their party's taking control of Senate. 'Great achievement' of campaign of Nothing

The GOP public relations arm, the Corporate M$M has been celebrating the last couple of weeks the takeover of the Senate. They are quite confident in voter apathy as we march Democracy to the showers.


But I think it's time ...

[font size="4"] President Obama should make a statement explaining to voters what that the GOP's Campaign offering Nothing is all about.[/font]

The GOP plan to repeal Obamacare .. a Healthcare law modelled after a Republican healthcare plan: Romneycare.

The Idea of the individual mandate was a Republican idea first proposed in the Clinton administration as an alternative to the Single Payer system most Democrats were for.

And this is what the GOP says is so 'intolerable'. I guess they want to go back to a system of the most expensive health care in the world (with the pre-existing conditions trap door) which had a tendency to disappear just when you needed it.

What the GOP mean by "less Government" in your lives

"Less Government" means more deregulation and more tax cuts for the wealthy further aggrandizing the already economy-sickening wealth concentration problem which lead to the Trickle Down Deregulation disaster of 2008.

The GOP, he should tell voters, criticize the performance of the recovery (from the economic disaster they created) while the M$M has not bothered to tell viewers that the GOP set records filibustering every stimulus and jobs bill proposed by the Dems. Ever since President Obama took office the word "filibuster" is verboten on M$M tv.

____ The original Stimulus bill (ARRA) did receive - three Republican votes - but only after the bill was weakened by about a third by converting government spending into tax cuts. The GOP demanded this as the price of their votes to pass the ARRA - and when this was added - they didn't vote for it anyway (except for the three who broke ranks and voted for the country). The GOP demanded he convert government spending to tax cuts because they knew that when you are sliding into a depression and everybody is wondering if they will have a job in six months - that tax cuts WILL NOT LEAD TO SPENDING - BECAUSE PEOPLE WILL SAVE ANY TAX CUT OR USE IT TO PAY DOWN DEBT. Which is exactly what most people did. Thus the original stimulus was downsized by a third.

GOP Improvised Economic Disasters - Government shutdown and threats of government default on its debt

The repetitive threats and then the actual shutdown of the Government and the threat to cause a default on the U.S. debt caused businesses to become extremely wary of hiring back FULL TIME PERMANENT workers. Businesses have been sitting on huge cash hoards over the last few years. Now, businesses don 't like keeping mountains of cash. It doesn't make much money for them and they would rather be putting that money into their busineses - as in hiringmore people. But WITH THE GOP THREATENING GOVERNMENT CLOSURES AND DEFAULT ON THE DEBT - the businesses weren't about to hire back full time people - just to lay them off a few months later. That costs businesses money.

As the GOP like to say: "businesses don't like uncertainty". You got that right. And the uncertainty cast over the recovery by continued threats to the economy really scares business. So, given the reckless behavior of the GOP the businesses were playing it safe and hired fewer than they would have (2011 - 2013). This of course slowed the recovery and with less hiring slowed the recovery of wages - making many people wonder "what recovery?". Tell them that Mr. President.


More on "less government"

The GOP are 'hot' to privatize social security. GOP friends on Wall Street have been salivating over all that money for decades. A great idea - have everybody's safety-net invested in the stock market then the next Trickle Down disaster will be even worse!

Mr. President, challenge the GOP to tell people what their Nihilist Campaign of Nothing is all about - and then go ahead and tell people what they plan to do to America. Let the GOP deny it. Make your points now - just before people go to vote.

Mr. President, Democrats would like to see you are willing to fight for what's right.

First Industrial-scale Municipal Solid Waste to Biofuel Facility Opens

Two Organizations Call Out th EPA on Corn Ethanol Emissions Modeling, 'Seriously Flawed' (i.e BOGUS)

Pump the Movie -- Pricking Petro-Nonsense - Carl Pope in HuffPo

It's about time that someone pricked the fraudulent "Saudi America" narrative that the oil industry and its allies have been peddling successfully to the media for the past several years -- and a new movie Pump the Movie does exactly that. According to the current petro-fantasy, a domestically significant, but globally marginal, increase in US production of light-tight oil means the end to concerns about over-reliance on petroleum, the return of affordable prices at the pump, even a world-wide glut of oil. Happy days are here again, thanks to the US oil boom, we read in the New York Times and even in the once numerate Wall Street Journal.

Tell it to ISIS making a fortune on a trivial amount of black-market oil production it controls. Tell it to Vladimir Putin, who is staring down the European Union from his perch as Europe's primary provider of $100 oil. Or, as The Pump points out, tell it to US drivers who are still paying over $3/gallon for gas. Only a few years ago the idea of oil at $100 was terrifying. Now the oil industry is well down the road toward selling us on the idea that it is unavoidable -- indeed that we should be looking forward to oil at $120 or higher.

[font size="+1"]The movie, produced by the Fuels Freedom Foundation, puts today's global oil landscape in the proper historic perspective, tracing how oil's current monopoly as a transportation fuel emerged. First came John D. Rockefeller's successful efforts to leverage prohibition to kill off Henry Ford's plan to rely on alcohol as the primary driver of the automotive revolution. In the '30s General Motors conspired with Chevron, Firestone and Mack Truck to shut down America's streetcar system. The recent assault on ethanol as a fuel was, similarly, funded and managed by the oil industry and its hired guns.





Pump next takes us on a survey of the fuels that ought to be competing with oil for our transportation dollar -- because they all cost less than gasoline or diesel -- electric vehicles, natural gas fuels, or biofuels derived from agricultural or municipal wastes or dedicated crops. [font style="background: #ffffaa;"]It argues that a huge portion of today's cars could actually operate on ethanol or methanol derived from natural gas or biomass with truly trivial software and fuel line modifications, while fleet turnover will more slowly take us to a largely electric vehicle future.[/font] It uses Brazil as a powerful counter-narrative, a country that did break oil's monopoly at its pumps, and convincingly argues that the alternatives to oil are both better and cheaper -- if they could get into the market.[/font]
(more)