Wednesday, July 11, 2012

Andea Michell...NBC News Sycophant

And the Outsourcer-in-chief

You may have heard it on Rush, but it's worth hearing and watching again.  Andrea Mitchell flummoxed by the facts.

No wonder trust in the media is at an all time low.


  1. She is a blatant shill for the progressives. I'm glad he laughed at her. We don't need any reminders on how bad this administration is, but here I go.
    This ad came out last April:
    Politi-fact and others blasted it as lies. Not only is it not lies, it barely scratches the surface for how bad these things are.
    The SunPower company got 1.2 billion dollars in guaranteed loans. They promised to open a plant in America (a future endeavor). And they have done some work on a solar farm in California which will employ 15 permanent workers. And the CA politician's son who is the lawyer for that Mexican company is merely a coincidence and not a conflict of interest.
    From 2011
    this link:

    Energy last June 18 gave Solar Trust, an American subsidiary of Germany's Solar Millennium, a $2.1 billion loan guarantee for a Blythe, Calif., solar-power facility. Last June, Energy handed Spain's Abengoa Solar a $1.2 billion guarantee for its Mojave (California) Solar Project and backstopped $1.45 billion last December for Abengoa's Gila Bend, Arizona outpost.
    On Sept. 28, Energy approved a $737 million loan guarantee for Nevada's SolarReserve Project. It promises 600 construction jobs at $1.23 million each and 45 permanent jobs at $16.4 million per position. Energy also guaranteed $337 million for Sempra Energy's Mesquite Solar Project in Arizona. Its 300 construction jobs cost $1.12 million each, while its seven permanent positions equal $48.1 million per job created.
    In Seattle, an Energy grant provided $20 million to weatherize homes. Sixteen months later, this outlay has generated 14 administrative jobs at $1.42 million apiece. How many homes have been retrofitted? Three.

  2. gmw,

    I'm still disappointed when you and other, otherwise, rational folks use the term "progressives" to identify a bunch so antithetical to its actual meaning! Aside from that I appreciate your very sage and pithy comments, so well documented and 'spot on'. Sorry, but when I see the term "progressive" applied to these degenerative @$$#0!e$ I lose it!!! Hey, keep up the good work, my friend. Great measured comment today, BTW!

    1. Good point, JonBerg, as always. You challenge me and I appreciate that. It is a kindness to another, and I am glad to receive it. I don't know if I can make a change that will fit with your point.
      Those I consider destructive to our country twist in so many different directions and apply deception to every word they use. So almost any label and NO label fits. They are far from productive. Their ideas are regressive, not an improvement on anything. Picking a label is like trying to find a clean place to step when a toilet has overflowed--no matter what, it's a mess.
      I can't use the label you supply: "@$$#0!e$" I'm sorry, it is too broad and applies to too many people.
      I could easily call them Socialists, but I think that label stops people from listening to the points I am making during a discussion.
      Progressive is not accurate, but when I use it, it is clear that I think those, so identified, are NOT helping America, and maybe that is warning to those who admire the word and imbue the actors with values not in practice.
      Your point reveals a significant problem. To fix a problem, we have to identify it, with precision, and these folks are such chameleons we identify a thousand problems...., close to the heart, but never quite right on it.
      Maybe this goes back to Seamus' and Gene's vector. As we each work on an aspect of the problem, we can focus in without being distracted by all their devices. Multiples of us, not doing the exact same thing, but working towards the heart of the the same problem in our own unique way.
      Maybe "Regressives" is the right label.

  3. gmw,

    "Regressive"-yes! 'Progressive' in the context of the left is just a euphemism for 'liberal[ism]' which, due to its negative connotation needed to be changed. One problem that I have with euphemisms is that they eventually corrupt the original meaning of the word in use for such purpose. Euphemisms are meant to masquerade actions, ideas, behaviour etc which are held in disfavor by the majority. When 'progressive' has worn thin perhaps they will start calling themselves utopianists or some such BS!

    1. Now you know when they get the chance, they will call themselves gods. Lots of other tyrants have done so.


All points of view are welcome, but comments with excessive bad language and/or personal attacks will be deleted. Commenting on posts older than 5 days has been disabled.