Letter - 2014 is most important election of the century

Advertisement

Democratic President Johnson, Senate and House unveil their Great Society.

Democratic President Carter, Senate and House put 15 percent luxury tax on autos, boats, motor homes and airplanes. Result: Suppliers, manufacturers and dealers went bankrupt.

Carter unveils progressive income tax, sock it to the rich. Result: Country has massive unemployment and recession.

Clinton gets elected, starts down the same road. American public wakes up and elects a conservative Senate and House, Clinton adjusts and has a successful presidency.

In 2006, Democrats win the House with Nancy Pelosi, Senate with Harry Reid, Housing Committee chairmanship with Barney Frank and Banking Committee chairmanship with Christopher Dodd. They block President Bush on reforms and blame Bush for wars. All lies, do your homework, I have!

In 2008, Hope and Change is elected. How is the job market working out for the millennials and the public?

Middle class, how is the $54,000 to $50,000 income drop working out for you? Have your expenses, taxes and insurance gone up? How is the economy working for you? How is our power, respect and standing in the world doing?

In 2010, the American public wakes up and slows down President Obama and the Democrats’ rush to America’s destruction!

In 2012. the lessons learned in the state of Washington in 2004 on how to steal an election are put into practice and Obama is re-elected.

No wonder the Democrats fight the voter photo registration and national database. Voter fraud is a fact and successfully practiced by them!

How are Democrats going to get 50-plus percent of the public dependent on the government so they will be loyal Democrats? Think about the influx of illegal children rushing our southern border and then being dispersed all over America.

What is next? Obama will say that we are breaking up too many families and will allow the mothers and fathers into this country, giving them free housing, food, medical, education and money. It will work every time!

This year, 2014, is the most important election of this century so far to slow the bankruptcy of our once-great country, create jobs and restart an economy that will get our country moving forward again, putting people back to work.

To get Obama’s unemployment numbers down by putting people on Social Security disability, which “60 Minutes” covered on June 29, and stop it from running out of money, we need jobs.

Robert Jackson

Walla Walla

Comments

namvet60 1 year ago

Great insight Mr. Jackson.

1

downhillracer 1 year ago

Vapid, biased insight Mr. Jackson.

0

fatherof5 1 year ago

Mr. Jackson is right. In 2008 when Obama was elected, we weren't engaged in two protracted wars, the economy hadn't just tanked, income inequality wasn't at an all time high and rising, the national debt hadn't just doubled, immigration policies weren't ineffective, the stock market hadn't just crashed, North Korea and Iran were being cooperative, 13 embassies hadn't been attacked with more than 60 related deaths from 2001-2008, healthcare costs weren't spiraling out of control with millions not covered by insurance, American students weren't being out-competed, college costs weren't skyrocketing, gas prices weren't threatening the $4 mark, Bush wasn't circumventing Congress with significantly more executive orders per year than Obama (who doesn't have the fewest number of executive orders per year since Grover Cleveland), the White House wasn't outing covert CIA agents or vigorously promoting bad intelligence about weapons of mass destruction, and much of the world wasn't mocking our foreign policy as laughably inept and frighteningly hawkish.

Nope, it was all going great until Obama came and ruined it all with the fascist brand of Muslim socialism he learned growing up in Kenya and then refined while on his expensive Hawaii vacations.

4

PearlY 1 year ago

fatherof5 is right. We weren't engaged in two protracted wars that Democrats had authorized, the economy hadn't just tanked under rules the Democrats had established, etc., etc.

None of which helps us understand how an American President can permit, much less encourage, an invasion of our Southern border by a force of tens of thousands comprised of mostly (about 85%, I've read) males of military age (by third-world standards) of 14-24 years old. Granted they have no training (I hope) and most of them (I hope) are not here to shoot us, they're just here to be put on the gravy train or, at best, to compete for jobs against AMERICANS of that age group, many Hispanics or blacks, who already suffer an unemployment rate over 20%.

1

fatherof5 1 year ago

Nice try, PearlY, but you are smarter than this. Immigration rights advocates call Obama "the deporter in chief" for a reason, and the challenge with these kids from Central America is due in large part to a law signed by Bush. The idea of Obama encouraging this is a canard.

Here are a couple of links that explain this further: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-deport-children-20140706-story.html#page=1 and http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/obama-administration-record-deportations

0

PearlY 1 year ago

Nice try, fatherof5, but you must not have READ the links you cited. The LA Times article in fact fully makes my point: Deportations have fallen dramatically since Obama assumed office, under an ANNOUNCED POLICY of his Administration, and the 2008 law "signed by Bush" was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress and it is Democrats in Congress who now refuse to allow changes to it. Immigration "rights" groups would call anybody who deported a single illegally-entered alien the "deporter in chief" and the reason is obvious - that's how they get media coverage, but they were among his strongest backers at election time, and that's what counts.

I would have thought you were more ethical than to cite an article in support of your position that is actually the reverse, but now I have to wonder about all the links you have cited in the past that I took at face value without checking. Won't do that again.

2

fatherof5 1 year ago

Oh, PearlY. I feel badly in telling you this, because you were clearly excited to have caught me in such an error, but......I did read the links I cited.

The LA Times link states that under Obama the deportation of "minors" has gone down roughly 7,000 per year since Bush, which is largely attributable to the 2008 law passed by Congress and signed by Bush. Overall deportations, which is the point I was making, are up by an average of nearly 150,000 per year for Obama as compared to Bush. All of this is consistent with what I wrote.

Here's a link to an interview with Brian Bennett from the LA Times, who wrote the article in question and who further explains what I just wrote. http://nhpr.org/post/new-numbers-show-significant-drop-deportations-minors

0

PearlY 1 year ago

Here's what Bennett said in your last link:

"So during that same time that the number of minors being deported has gone down, the total number of people being deported has stayed steady or increased slightly at about 400,000 per year. So you have the Obama administration being criticized for record levels of deportations and at the same time, they're deporting each year fewer and fewer minors. "

I don't see how you get from "stayed steady or increased slightly" to "increased by an average of nearly 150,000 a year". And without context -- like, how many are being deported in proportion to the total size of the invading force - even if there were a "slight" increase in deportations, if the percentage being deported has fallen, the only conclusion is that the Administrations deportation efforts are failing. And the data seem to indicate that after a few years of decline during the recession, the total numbers of illegal immigrants are rising at a fast clip, and for this year are likely to be a flood.

I notice you once again try to blame the 2008 law on Bush, refusing to acknowledge it was passed by a Democratic Congress. Since the law included a number of other issues related to human trafficking, Bush's signing of it may only indicate he held his nose to do it in order to accomplish other goals that Democrats refused to advance without this particular measure. At best, both parties were complicit in creating the problem.

0

fatherof5 1 year ago

First, I wrote "Congress and Bush," not "Bush." It is fine if "both parties were complicit" in passing the law. I was only reacting to your initial claim that this is largely Obama's fault, which it is clearly not.

Second, you are correct that I didn't cite the source for my claim of nearly 150,000 deportations per year under Obama. That was my fault. The Bennett link was to show that he was talking about the fall in "minor" deportations by about 7,000 per year, and to corroborate the record pace of overall deportations. But you are correct that Bennett doesn't state a specific number.

So, here is a Politifact link explaining Obama's deportation rate in his first term at about 12,000 more per month than Bush (i.e. just under 150,000 per year). http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/10/american-principles-action/has-barack-obama-deported-more-people-any-other-pr/

Here is another one with a chart showing Bush's average deportations at around 250,000 over 8 years and Obama's approaching 400,000. http://www.vox.com/2014/4/9/5575006/2-million-immigrants-have-been-deported-under-obama

0

PearlY 1 year ago

And yet, the illegal immigrant population in 2009, when Obama took office, was 10.8 million, and last year it was 11.7 million, according to DHS stats. This year, chances are it will break 12 million. One has to wonder if the 400,000 supposed deportations are real. Possibly they're boosting their figures by deporting the same folks multiple times.

0

PearlY 1 year ago

Sure enough, having looked into this a little further, it appears that the Obama Administration has been fudging its "deportation" statistics by including everybody caught at the border and turned back into Mexico as "deportations", even though they are technically "returns". This apparently amounted to over 140,000 over two years, and concealed the reality that true deportations were DOWN by 20%. Obama also apparently has double-counted deportations if they entailed a removal from one Border Patrol area to another before the actual deportation.

Should have known that Obama would find a way to cook the books.

1

fatherof5 1 year ago

The way "removals" and "returns" and "deportations" are counted is confusing for a lot of people engaged in a similar debate to ours. The fact is that fewer people are trying to cross the borders illegally, which is in part due to enforcement efforts and in part due to our sagging economy. So "returns" of people caught trying to cross the border are down. "Removals," however, are at an all time high pace under Obama. This is where the government seeks undocumented people and removes them from the country with heavy penalties.

This article explains it quite well. http://www.vox.com/2014/4/11/5602272/removals-returns-and-deportations-a-very-short-history-of-immigration

0

PearlY 1 year ago

So your story is that fewer people are crossing and more people are being removed. It would necessarily follow from those two premises that the total illegal immigrant population is declining. Since it is, to the contrary, increasing, logically one or both of your premises simply must be wrong.

0

fatherof5 1 year ago

Fewer people crossing than before and more people being removed than before would only mean the population would be in decline if the number who crossed were now less than the number deported. I didn't say that.

So, it does not "necessarily follow that the total illegal immigrant population is declining."

Check out this chart of the unauthorized immigrant population from 1990-2012. it is the second graph in the article. Note the change in trajectory since Obama took office. The recession is responsible for much of this slow down, but not all. http://www.nationalmemo.com/report-immigration-prosecutions-rise-despite-declining-border-crossings/

0

namvet60 1 year ago

fatherof5 - I see the frenzied Liberal Ideologue rhetoric is alive and well.

1

fatherof5 1 year ago

Facts aren't liberal. They are just facts.

0

namvet60 1 year ago

Well in that case would you say that they are very selective facts? As was stated in an earlier post that when the legislation was passed in 2008 it was with a Democratic House and Senate. Yes, President Bush signed it. You don't seem to want to answer the following post as to the comparative process?

Now here is some of the latest "facts" presented from a different viewpoint:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/8/istook-flying-illegals-home-would-be-995-percent-c/

It makes one wonder how much of your posts are selective facts or if they cover more than just the Liberal views?

0

fatherof5 1 year ago

This article argues that we should put these children on a plane and fly them home. How is that a fact? The 2008 law says these children are to go through due process to ensure they aren't being sent back into dangerous conditions. This will take time and money. Those are facts. This is also the humane thing to do for these unfortunate kids. They are children.

0

namvet60 1 year ago

So - the country should just accept this influx of "illegal" immigrants and spend a few more billion dollars trying to feed them while they ship them off to territories that they are being shunned? Maybe if this Administration tried to close the borders and take care of its veterans and the poor. starving children who are citizens they might be getting some cooperation.

Here are some charts that show what has taken place already since the Democratic Congress took the majorities:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/hhs-report-percentage-americans-welfare-hits-recorded-high

How soon do you want this country to turn to Socialism which is the way it is headed?

0

fatherof5 1 year ago

Do you think the recession has had something to do with the welfare numbers? And do you think that an active and cooperative Congress might have been able to avert some of the damage of this recession if they were just willing to work with the man our nation elected twice to lead it?

As for the "illegal" children, they are children. We should help them return safely to their countries of origin, we should not put them in undue danger, and we must follow the law signed in 2008 that spells out how to proceed with these children.

And if this president is not working to close the borders, how do you explain the record number of annual deportations? You are buying into myths.

0

namvet60 1 year ago

fatherof5 - could you explain HOW: from 2000 thru 2008 the accountability falls on then President GW Bush - BUT from 2009 thru the present this President is not held accountable for anything? Now please don't come up with it's the House's fault for stonewalling. As you stated to PearlY (your smarter than that)? President Bush had a Congress to deal with but he is the only one accountable? This President has a House (that he won't acknowledge) and they have sent multiple pieces of legislation that never gets past Harry Reid. So if you plan on blaming the House that is a bunch of hogwash. Sooner or later you will have to come to the realization that this is the worst POTUS that has ever held the office of the Presidency.

2

NewInWW 1 year ago

Obama is far from the worst that has ever held the office. Just looking at the last roughly 50 years:

Nixon was actually impeached and ended up resigning for complicity in various felonies.

Carter was in over his head, while also facing some serious world and economic issues.

Reagan set this nation on a course that has pretty much destroyed the middle class and significantly reduced any young person's chances of living the American Dream.

George W. Bush lied to this nation and the international community to start a war with Iraq and was otherwise pretty much simply a mouthpiece for the neo-cons.

Obama has faced an incredible lack of ordinary courtesy and respect from Republicans - remember "you lie" from a Republican member of the House during the State of the Union address - as well as an unswerving policy by all Republicans that their principal job since 2008 has been to make sure that Obama's presidency fails.

But if you want the worst of the modern presidents, I have to go with Reagan - his policies truly are destroying this country - unlike the hysterical wailing from the right about the ACA, immigration and so on.

2

fatherof5 1 year ago

Okay, I will.

First, I never said Obama is not accountable for anything and Bush is accountable for everything. That's putting words in my mouth.

However, Bush certainly got most of the things he wanted, whereas Obama has not. And Bush used more executive orders, whereas Obama is on pace to use the fewest executive orders per year of any president since Grover Cleveland. (Link: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php) That isn't a cherry picked fact. It is just a fact.

Another fact is that Bush had Republican control of the House for 6 of his 8 years, and had Republican control of the Senate for 6 of his 8 years. The Democrats did use the filibuster and blocked some of Bush's nominations when they had the Senate majority, but Republicans have blown the Democrats out of the water with their use of those obstructionist tactics (Link: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/11/charts-explain-why-democrats-went-nuclear-filibuster).

And finally, it is worth noting that even in those first two years when Obama had a Democratic majority in the House and Senate, the Republicans made him get 60 votes in the Senate for almost everything. But they had 60 votes, yes? No. There were 58 Democrats and two Independents, including Joe Lieberman, who had just actively campaigned for John McCain. Ted Kennedy was also absent (and then died) during most of those two years, and then there were senators like Ben Nelson from Nebraska, who was really a Republican in sheep's clothing. So, getting 60 votes was both required and almost impossible for most legislation.

What would our economy look like if Obama had been able, for example, to get a Jobs Bill through Congress? Who knows? But if you look at this link, you can see the dramatic effect the 2009 stimulus had on private sector jobs when it went into effect, and then see the stagnation a year or two later as the stimulus ran out and Congress essentially shut down for the next four years. Overall government jobs, of course, have been in decline since Obama took the White House, which runs contrary to what you probably think. Check out this chart: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/emphatic-answer-the-where-are-the-jobs-question

0

namvet60 1 year ago

My only response will be as I have stated before:

Liberal Ideologue rhetoric is alive and well but visualizes from of the past.

0

downhillracer 1 year ago

Your only response is to consistently regurgitate the hateful, selfish, bigoted and baseless fact-free insanity clearly aligned with the most despicable elements of the "tea party". Nicely done.

0

namvet60 1 year ago

And here I thought your liver-lipped ignorance had left town but I see the "troll" is back amongst the threads again. Here's a link for you to appreciate your "mentor":

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/10/pruden-harry-reid-plays-the-dirt-game/

Why don't you go back to Seattle and sell your scams?

0

downhillracer 1 year ago

Seeing that my family has been here for five generations, I doubt that will happen - particularly since I"m not "from" Seattle. You refer to me as a "troll", yet you seem compelled - almost to the point of psychosis - to make comment on every little thing. I can handle the heat and even shared my name, to which you mocked as it's not an uncommon name. It's really quite well understood locally the level of your intelligence, and what selfish, "me-me-me" concepts you bring to the table. No one cares, save your little 3-person cheer team.

0

namvet60 1 year ago

So you have a name - Great. I may have mentioned it once in one of your degrading troll events. You have not posted a positive note except to degrade someone else's post. That is a troll and you can reserve all of your psychotic diatribe for somebody that cares.

0

Kevconpat 1 year ago

Why do you always pick on SEATTLE? It is a wonderful City, Power house of employment (FOR) the State of Wa. and BTW my Family lives there (as) well in Vancouver BC, Canada. My Parents, in their 80's now- are loving wonderful people, not anything like what you try to make out. them to be as Seattlelites........Never mind namvet- you and others like yourself are a dying small group. Say what you like..... I love this country and Canada and you are welcome to say what you please - even if it is ridiculous,(most of the time). The truth can hurt, OUCH! Wait........you are chomping at the bit aren't you!?

0

namvet60 1 year ago

Mr Patterson - if you became informed you wouldn't have to resort to your childish rants.

0

GeneandCassie 1 year ago

A lot of statistics is presented here......

This book will help sort through the statistical aspects:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0393310728/reader/1/102-4379401-6415301

0

fatherof5 1 year ago

Looks like a good read probably for all of us.

0

fatherof5 1 year ago

Well, this was an enthusiastic debate, but I think we've about beaten it to death. Until next time....

0

Kevconpat 1 year ago

Great Insight........Really, (namvet)....? You are so tired!

0

namvet60 1 year ago

Great insight - Yes. You wouldn't know Great Insight if it was stamped on your forehead to see while you admire yourself in a mirror.

0

Kevconpat 1 year ago

How old are you!? We're all seeing a temper tantrum. Again. Sigh. Vapid might even come to mind.

0

Sign in to comment

Click here to sign in