Minimal to non-existent; Unlikely; No serious reforms were on the way; Needs to take a close look; Hardly the inspiring rhetoric of Knute Rockne or Winston Churchill. Tim Bishop’s back in his congressional seat starting his fifth term in office and already the group he was meeting with, the Long Island Farm Bureau, was expressing buyer’s remorse.

Some at the meeting questioned whether Mr. Bishop could still effectively represent local farmers in Congress now that he is a minority member of the House of Representatives after Republicans gained control during midterm elections.

In response, Mr. Bishop said that despite the shift in power, he could still provide a voice for farmers on pressing issues.

It’s not like they didn’t see it coming. The only people who did not forecast a Republican takeover of Congress seemed to be sitting around a table with Joe Biden. After voting in lockstep with Nancy Pelosi as she added $5 trillion to the national debt since 2006, people are very nervous about how big the debt has grown and what will happen, particularly if interest rates return to historical levels. At 6%-7% for Treasuries, we may be facing payments of $1 trillion per year in interest alone. Something has to be done and fast. So what kind of leadership is Tim Bishop showing?

“You want to shut down Social Security? Fine. Come with me to a senior citizen center and explain it,” the congressman said.

Really? It that what his constituents pay him $174,000 per year, plus all the trappings of office for? I ain’t gonna tell ‘me, YOU tell ‘em. I know of no instance of anyone saying that shutting down social security is a near term option. There are a number of proposals on the table, including one in my book, Liberty’s Lifeline, but telling seniors, sorry, no more Social Security checks isn’t one of them. It is the same old tired demagoguery of the left. Do you remember the commercials of Republicans pushing grandma down the stairs in a wheelchair? It is purely scare tactics, like the diversion a magician makes to watch over here, so you don’t see what they are really doing over there.

Tim Bishop agrees that something needs to be done, but far be it from him to come up with anything. The Republicans propose cutting $61 billion and Tim Bishop is fighting to put it back. While it is admirable to fight for the jobs at Brookhaven National Labs, we have to be honest. The government has recklessly spent too much money for too long and it has to stop and the reality is some people in government programs are going to lose their jobs. They will have to move to the private sector that should start growing again once this administration stops spending.

He also said Congress needs to take a close look at agricultural subsidies, none of which are enjoyed by Long Island farmers.

Who has been in Congress for the last eight years while farm subsidies have continued and we pay for them? Who is Mr. Bishop representing, his district or Nancy Pelosi? The farmers asked him about the tough EPA regulations affecting the fertilizers and pesticides they use and the congressman had this to say:

Mr. Bishop said the new leadership of congress appeared determined to reign in the EPA in order to bring more balanced regulations on pesticides.

The new leadership would be the Republicans, no? What has been going on the last eight years with Congressman Bishop in Congress?

Perhaps the icing on the cake is Mr. Bishop’s appeal for calm and civility. In talking about immigration and migrant farm workers he had this to say:

“We have allowed anger and emotion and demagoguery to rule the debate on immigration as opposed to fact and reason and trying to be in the real world,” he added of the issue.

This raises two interesting points. First, is that Mr. Bishop just finished running a campaign that was predominantly personal attacks and very little substance, and he cries out for civility. Hypocrisy?  Second, why didn’t Mr. Bishop tell the farmers that they should get American workers instead of immigrants, illegal or otherwise? Isn’t that outsourcing? Isn’t that what he fought so hard for in his campaign? Giving jobs to foreigners when the unemployment rate is so high? Tell the immigrants to go home and tell the people on unemployment to come on down.

Ridiculous, isn’t it? It just points to one more area where Tim Bishop is out of his depth. Spending all one’s time in the ivory towers of academia and then going into government and trying to tell people how the economy works, when he doesn’t understand it himself. Hopefully, with him in the minority we can limit the damage he can do. We don’t have term limits so it is up to the members of the district to retire him.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours.  Please comment below.

With just over three weeks to the election, we know one thing about Tim Bishop.  He has a problem with outsourcing.  He doesn’t want to talk about his record, about TARP, the GM and Crysler bailout, the stimulus, Cap and Trade, or ObamaCare.  His entire campaign is about a company his opponent Randy Altschuler founded in 1999 and sold in 2005 that provided business services.  Mr. Bishop, like a magician, feels that if he can keep the voters distracted long enough on outsourcing, he can pull a reelection out of his, er, hat.

httpvh://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdDOiUzxIXU&hd=1

Transcript:

For those of us who live in New York’s First Congressional district we have seen the ads by Tim Bishop over and over again.  Congressman Tim Bishop, who is running for reelection, is a one trick pony. It’s all about his opponent, Randy Altschuler, starting a company that provided business services.  But the employees were located overseas.  Mr. Bishop doesn’t want to defend his record of eight years in Congress he only wants to talk about outsourcing.

1. The company Altschuler started with a classmate, Office Tiger, was conceived out of the frustration of two men being unable to get their work completed.  They worked at two different companies in the financial services industry. 

 “Both of them were working on their presentations for the next morning at the in-house typing pool. At night, the typing pool would be filled with actors and poets who were moonlighting to make ends meet.  The classmate, Joe Sigelman describes the situation.

“It was three in the morning, and there was this guy who had an audition the next day and was tired and ready to go home because he had a play earlier in the morning. He gave me back my work, but he had accidentally put his script inside my presentation. I was banging my head in exasperation. I called my buddy Randy to share my misery with him. And, he also had exactly the same experience in New York! It was a strange coincidence,” Joe recounted.

The quality of the work was not there because the people in the typing pool were looking for their big break on Broadway, not on producing high quality documents.

Office Tiger was started in September of 1999 when the unemployment rate in the U.S. was 4.2%.  They sold the company to RR Donnelly in 2005 when  the unemployment rate was 5.08%.  Traditionally economists have considered “full employment” to be at 5% unemployment. So what exactly  is Mr. Bishop’s point?  It appears from the graph that it wasn’t a case of outsourcing jobs, it was a case of not enough people available to hire, which was demonstrated by having actors and poets filling the jobs that would normally be done by professional clerical staff. So Mr. Altschuler and his partner sought to fill a need, put their own money at risk, and started the company. Perhaps it is entrepreneurs and capitalists that Mr. Bishop really hates.

Mr. Altschuler also founded another company, Cloud Blue, in 2001 that has created 700 jobs in the U.S. and 250 jobs in New York State.  Mr. Bishop spent his entire working career in academia and government.  The government has made our K-12 education the most expensive and increasingly ineffective education in the developed world.

This clip is from a town hall meeting Mr. Bishop held on June 22, 2009 that was captured on video by Save America.  Here is a man who took an oath to support and defend the Constitution and doesn’t know what the Constitution stands for.  He thinks the central purpose of the Constitution is to provide for the common good, when it real purpose is to limit government to those few essential things necessary for a free society and leave everything else to the states and the people so they can live their lives in liberty, free to pursue their own happiness.  Perhaps what is remarkable here is that this statist member of the political class seems shocked that his constituents would question his view of the Constitution.  Almost in unison they call him on his error.  We the people are not ignorant.  We know far more that you give credit for.  We know what this country stands for and you will learn that lesson on November 2, 2010.

Over the past eleven months, have you ever gotten a feeling that you are watching a magician, rather than a president run our country?  As any practitioner of the art of the illusionist will tell you, one of the key things is to keep the audience distracted.  Have them watch the left hand, while the right is slipping the coin into the pocket.  The Obama Administration is about to unleash their greatest trick yet, trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed in civil court in New York for the 9/11 attack on America.  Why?

The Greatest Show On Earth

The trial will become an absolute three ring circus, with all the world watching closely.  The liberal pundits say, “this is our chance to show the world our justice system.  We can demonstrate how civilized we are, and show the Muslim world how fair we are.”  Really?

Remember to the footage in the Muslim world immediately following the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.  They were dancing in the street, laughing and singing, shouting praise to Allah.  What do you think the reaction will be if Khalid Sheik Mohammed, jumps up in court and screams out, “Kill the infidels! This is a fraud meant to disguise these devil’s tricks!”  Do we let him ramble with a global audience?  Do we have the bailiffs wrestle him to the ground?  Do we put him in restraints for the rest of the trial?  Who exactly is going to show the world what?

We Have No Secrets

In a civilian trial there is a process called discovery, where the defense is told everything the prosecution plans on bringing to court, including witnesses, so that the defense has a chance to prepare their rebuttal case.  How much of the CIA’s methods and contacts are we prepared to reveal to the world and to Khalid Sheik Mohammed’s allies?  Or, how much are we not going to use in order to protect that information and at the same time increase the chances that he will be acquitted?

Can Anybody Say O.J.?

Do you remember the O.J. Simpson trial?  A slam-dunk if ever there was one.  There was blood evidence, DNA evidence, means, motive, opportunity, it couldn’t get any easier.  But what happened?  Judge Lance Ito, lost control of his court room in the klieg lights of national television.  One of O.J.’s attorneys or advisors told O.J. to stop taking his arthritis medication  so his hands would swell and then the famous glove trick, abra cadabra, “If the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit.”  What happened after that trial?  Dancing in the streets of the black community.

The Jury Pool

Are Muslims going to be excluded from the jury pool?  If so, on what grounds and would a judge allow it?  In the O.J. case we had what was called jury nullification, where a jury handed up a verdict not based on the evidence presented, but based on a social determination.  O.J. was a symbol for all black men put on trial and all past injustices.  He was a sports hero to millions and he wasn’t going down, no matter what.  What if a someone with strong beliefs sees disrupting the outcome of the trial as the new jihad?  Don’t use suicide bombers in New York, that’s so Middle East, let’s kill them softly by getting Khalid Sheik Mohammed acquitted or a give them a hung jury.  What better way to humiliate the Great Satan.  It will be like David and Goliath all over again.

The Real Trial

Or is it really the Bush Administration that Obama wants to put on trial?  The Obama administration’s popularity is sinking link a stone.  The stimulus package was a bust.  Cap and Trade is a disaster.  Health care a debacle.  Tea Party’s are breaking out all over.  The Democrats got trounced in Virginia and New Jersey, and even New York’s 23rd is still alive as recounts have dramatically closed the gap. A show trial of the Bush Administration is just what the Obama Administration needs to keep the focus off what they are really doing.

This is a tragedy and a travesty and there should be no end to the shame heaped upon this administration if they follow through on this.

As Barack Obama famously said to Harry Reid, “I have a gift, Harry.”  Yes he does.  Barack Obama is quite a talented speaker.  One of his many talents is his use of props.  Huh?  One such prop is a rhetorical device that I will call the “Straw Man.”

The Straw Man

Obama uses the straw man to create a fictitious opponent.  This opponent is obviously a bad guy.  He’s insensitive, greedy, self serving, and even racist where he needs to be.  The problem is that he doesn’t exist.  But once created, Obama deftly maneuvers the straw man into whatever camp his opponents occupy and by doing so, vilify his real opponents by polluting them with the presence of the evil straw man.  Here’s an example.

When Obama was pushing for his stimulus package he said something like this, “I don’t agree with those who say we should do nothing,” and “I don’t agree with those who say only tax cuts will fix the economy,” and “Eight years of tax cuts and deregulation got us into this mess.”  Like unmasking a magician, let me share the trick, so you can see it next time.  Obama never says who the straw really is, because he doesn’t exist.  Who said we should do nothing with regard to the economy?  The Republicans who opposed him definitely had different views on what should be done, but I don’t know of anyone who said we should do nothing.  So Obama creates this fictitious straw man and you can almost hear the American people booing the straw man as he says it.  Okay, let’s check off the people don’t like the straw man.  By pointing out his opposition to the straw man and then by pointing out the Republicans are opposed to Obama’s plan, Obama hints that the straw man is really in the Republican camp.  Cue the crowd to start booing the Republicans. Pretty neat, eh?  He can’t make a frontal attack on the Republicans because he will have to fight them on the battlefield of ideas.  He creates an unpopular position that no one has and hangs it on his opponents.

Which regulation was lifted that resulted in the economic problems that we currently have?  Which tax cut resulted in the collapse in the housing market?  President Obama won’t name them because they don’t exist.  Were there government programs that caused this problem?  Sure, and I can name them.  Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Community Reinvestment Act, HUD, etc.  Were there people who fought against more regulation?  Yes, and they have names. Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Senator Barack Obama.  But these operators and programs are all part of the government and if there is one thing we have learned about President Obama it is that government is not big enough and Americans still have too much liberty left in their own hands.  His master plan is to reverse both of these.

Get the Torches Out

So now that you know what to look for, when you see President Obama float another straw man, put the torches to it.  If we had a responsible press, they would ask him to reveal who, specifically, he is talking about when he creates these straw men.  If he doesn’t have an answer queued up on the Teleprompter, it could be fun to watch.

I’ve said it before.  Barack Obama is a masterful politician.  It is almost like a magician.  His slights of hand are so subtle, you have to be watching very closely the hand that is not the center of attention to catch what he is really doing.

Creating Jobs

As he tried to build up support for his stimulus package the number of jobs his package would create steadily grew.  It went from 3 million jobs to 4 million jobs.  Further it went from 80% private sector jobs to 90% private sector jobs.  Pretty impressive stuff. But what is the other hand doing?

Saving Jobs

When public opinion got behind needing to do something, the rhetoric started to shift.  From creating jobs it became creating or saving jobs.  Saving jobs?  Just how do you measure that?  How do you link that a particular employer didn’t lay off an employee because of a stimulus package to save the salt marsh harvest mouse?  Once, you slipped in that innocent change and got the media to buy off on it, which is not a stretch with this president, you can really go full bore.  “Why, we saved 15 million jobs!”  Go ahead, prove we didn’t.

“Well the package was intended to create jobs, but then the economy went into a free fall.  No, we weren’t able to create the 3 (not 4) million jobs we promised but, by golly, we saved 25 million jobs from being lost if we didn’t implement the stimulus package.”  If repeated often enough and lapped up by the slobbering main stream media, a complete failure will be hailed as a masterstroke.

What Happened in the Great Depression?

FDR is still revered as the president who got us out of the Great Depression.  His own Treasury Secretary, Henry Morganthau, said that eight years of spending failed to reduce the unemployment rate.  But Roosevelt is still considered a hero, not a failure who couldn’t end the Great Depression after ten years.  He couldn’t end it at all, really, because World War II was what eventually ended it.

Conservative Battle Plan

Conservatives lost the battle to keep this stimulus plan from going forward, and putting one in place that would work, led by tax cuts.  We must expose this slight of hand.  Just like sitting in the theatre watching a magic show we have to stand up and shout, “Did you just see what he did with his left hand?!!”  We need to preempt this by asking liberals, “You’re not going to start saying now that the package is designed to save jobs rather than create them, are you?”  If we don’t expose them, they’ll pull it off.