Posts Tagged ‘Joe Teehan’

Dingling Brothers

Wednesday, August 22nd, 2012

Yes, we have circus clowns right here in Whatcom County, but instead of the Ringling Bros. we have these dingling bothers as a lame substitute.  The dinglings are progressive talk show host Joe Teehan and his caller Riley, who I presume is Riley Sweeney 2nd Vice chair of the Whatcom Democrats.  Are there any progressive Democrats out there that are proud of this performance?   Are the Whatcom Democrats proud of this?

 

Sound Clip from The Joe Show for 8/16/12

Dancing on a Fine Line

Wednesday, July 25th, 2012

ms I just finished listening to a podcast of The Morning Show with Joe & Patti for 7/24/12 and from his surly attitude you’d think it was about time for  Joe Teehan to take a much needed vacation, but I guess he just got back.  The topic was our State’s newly announce plan to register voters via Facebook and as you might expect if you’ve heard the show, Joe & Patti were on opposite sides of the issue. Joe was arguing for making it easier for other demographics to register while Patti was concerned that using only a drivers license or state ID, which don’t establish citizenship, could lead to non-citizens illegally registering to vote.

I’m perfectly OK with streamlining the process as we did with all mail in ballots, online voting or even Facebook registration as long as the eligibility requirements can be proven to have been met. The requirement to vote in federal elections include being over 18 and a US citizen by either birth or naturalization. Currently a regular issue Washington state license isn’t proof of these requirements.

So what made this episode of Joe & Patti worth blog post?  It was the way that Joe danced along the line between promoting change and promoting illegal activity.   He argued strongly that just because a person was undocumented, commonly referred to as illegal, didn’t mean that they hadn’t contributed to society and therefore deserved a say in the direction of that society.   But as I listened I didn’t perceive any distinction between promoting the idea that non-citizens should be able to go out and vote and promoting the idea that non-citizens should go out and vote.  You’ll have to listen to the show for yourself to get the full effect because I won’t be taking the time to prepare a written transcript.

If I were to promote the idea that non-citizens should be able to go out and vote I’d be advocating for a change in law, but if I were promoting the idea that non-citizens should go out and vote I’d be encouraging someone to break a law.  There is a huge difference between I don’t like the law so let’s change it and I don’t like the law so let’s break it.  I think in a lot of cases encouraging someone to break a law is in itself a crime, so I would wonder if an undocumented person were to register to vote as direct result of Joe’s encouragement would he be guilty of something like voter fraud?   Would KGMI be liable for a radio personality going beyond expressing their opinion by encouraging criminal activity?

Hey Look! That One is Way Ahead!

Friday, June 1st, 2012

debt2I’ve seen a “Who Increased The Debt?” chart here and there around the net and on more than one Facebook post, so odds are you’ve come across it or one of it’s variations.  I also think that I hear Joe Teehan allude to these same figures somewhat regularly on the KGMI Morning Show.

Through one of the Facebook links I located this copy of the chart on the right at Politcususa which is a self described liberal politics blog.  With the title Politicausa centered between images of  self-proclaimed  socialist Senator Bernie Sanders and by most accounts socialist President Obama, I had no doubt that the “facts” on the site were skewed to the left.

I wasn’t really sure how far left and exactly what actual information they were skewing so I had a look see.  It turns out that Snopes already had a go at the chart six months ago and they had deemed the Who Increased the Debt chart a mixture of truth and fiction.  What they actually determined was that the chart was probably based on accurate information (as of April 2011) just not well represented or of any use.

“So, as far as raw numbers go, the chart is reasonably accurate…

The chart isn’t a true comparison of equals…

the increase reported for Barack Obama will be considerably higher by the time he leaves office.”

Snopes bottomline really says all that anyone needs to know about the Who Increased the Debt chart,

All in all, this is a case of relatively accurate information which is of marginal value due to the lack of proper comparative context

Alternative debt analysis1Being of marginal value hasn’t stopped Barack Obama supporters from spreading it around the net though.  Apparently it is of some value to them if they get enough people like Joe Teehan to pass along the misinformation as truth.  And we all know that lies become truth if you hear them enough. Way to go Joe!

So as not to make this blog post just a negative commentary or a repost of a Snopes post, I thought I would add a couple of charts of my own that actually contain proper comparative context.  I used the same data, but I didn’t compare apples to oranges nor mush and manipulate the numbers into a chart where I tell you who is at fault in our national debt problem.  Instead,  I just charted the hard numbers, dollars vs. time.

 

Alternative debt analysis 2Anyone with out a preconceived agenda will probably agree with my 9-year old, who when seeing the charts proclaimed, “Hey look! That one is way ahead!” as he pointed to the Barack Obama spending line.  How do you disagree with that?   If spending taxpayer money were a race, President Obama is clearly in the lead.

My charts don’t bode well for a sitting President seeking a second term in office.  It would be one thing to spend this much money if our economy were booming, but it isn’t.   It would be another thing if this outrageous level of spending were actually kicking our economy into overdrive, but it isn’t.  Frankly I can’t see anything positive coming from this level of spending nor the Obama Administration in general.

And President Obama is asking us to offer him 4 more years of spending?  I don’t think we can take it.

PS

And what about all the probamas who blame President Bush for much of President Obama’s early term spending?   I say sure, there is always some carryover spending from one administration to another, but don’t tell me that President Obama and his administration don’t have a spending problem when they couldn’t even wait to take office to start spending.

UPDATE on November 10, 2008 at 7:15 PM EST:
A source tells NBC News that Obama pushed Bush on an economic stimulus package, saying that action is needed now, not after the inauguration:

According to the source, Obama told Bush that action is needed on a stimulus package now – in a lame duck session – and cannot wait until after the inauguration.
Obama also urged help for automakers and encouraged the acceleration of the disbursement of $25 billion dollars for the industry.

On his third focus – housing – Obama voiced his concern that homeowners whose mortgage rates are about to go up will need aid to prevent more Americans from defaulting on home loans.

HuffingtonPost

And another,

President-elect Barack Obama asked President Bush today to request the release of the second $350 billion in federal bailout funds so he would have “ammunition” if the country’s fragile economy weakened further.The White House said that Bush has agreed to request the money.
Obama, speaking after a meeting with Mexican President Felipe Calderon, said it would be “irresponsible” to enter the White House without having asked Bush to request the funds. He called the cash “potential ammunition” in case the economy worsened.
Bush to Ask for TARP; Obama to ‘Rebrand’ It

By MARK MOONEYJan. 12. 2009

Another Look at that Planned Parenthood Chart

Monday, February 6th, 2012

care providedI’m talking about this chart that has been running around Facebook and other parts of the internet recently.  I’m certain it is showing up in response to a recent announcement by Susan G. Komen for the Cure that they would be pulling funding from Planned Parenthood(PPH).  I am not going to talk about why they pulled funding or why they have now reversed their decision, however I do want to address that chart and the misleading way that it is being used.

The chart shows that Planned Parenthood commits about 3% of it’s resources to abortion services and I don’t question it’s validity.  I do question the way that the 3% figure is used by abortion supporters.   They say things like we pro-lifers focus on the tiny little 3% and throw out all the good stuff that PPH does for women.  This was exactly the position that Joe Teehan took when he quoted this 3% number on the KGMI Morning Show with Joe & Patti and I believe the same argument was used again on his later airing Joe Show, where he interviewed local Planned Parenthood executive director Linda McCarthy.

So are they right?  Should pro-lifers ignore the 3% number as pro-abortion advocates such as Joe Teehan, Linda McCarthy and others suggest?

I’ve got to go with an emphatic NO as my answer because I don’t really care if it takes 3%, 30% or 100% of their resources each year to kill hundreds of thousands of children.   It’s like asking us to ignore a teacher who is molesting only 3 of their students because they are not molesting 97 other kids.  That’s what the people who use the 3% chart are saying to me and they are quite frankly sick.  What person in a right mental state is proud that they have become so efficient at killing unborn children, that they only have devote 3% of their resources?   WTH!  What next?  Apply “lean principles” and kill more children quicker using only 2% resources?

But set aside mental illness if you can and let’s look at the chart and data behind it in a more objective and less financial fashion.  The chart comes directly from what I believe is still the latest report out there from Planned Parenthood.  It is the same report I linked to in a previous blog post about Planned Parenthood’s access to our school age children.  Again, I don’t question the validity of the report, but an important thing to remember about the 3% of resources number does not accurately portray what goes on in the portion of PPH’s business that relates to pregnancy.  Here is some other quantity data, not financial data, from the same 2008 report that produced the 3% pie chart.

adoption versus abortion

My immediate reaction upon my first reading of the report was that Planned Parenthood had in one year participated in the murder of 324,008 unborn children.

So my second observation was that the ratio of Pregnancy Tests to Abortion Procedures is roughly 3:1.  In other words, the data shows that on average every  third pregnancy test administered resulted in Planned Parenthood aborting a child.  That is a frightening statistic in my mind and I’m actually giving PPH the benefit of the doubt since I’m assuming that all pregnancy tests were positive.  If only 1 in 3 were negative then the ratio of actual pregnancy to abortion would be 2:1.  How is that for Planned Parenthood family planning, if every other pregnant woman is given an abortion?

My next observation was also a ratio.  This time I looked at the ratio of Pregnancy Tests to Adoption Referrals and found it was roughly 462:1 and when you compare actual Abortion Procedures to Adoption Referrals the ratio is still at an astonishing 134:1.  In other words…well there aren’t any other words that can be written cleanly because PPH makes 134 referrals for the Abortion Procedure, for every 1 Adoption referral that they made.  That ratio of 134:1 tells me that Planned Parenthood has made a purposeful and conscious effort to ignore adoption.  I would expect no less from a business that performs abortions.  Remember that fact the next time someone says they are pro-choice and not pro-abortion.  Anyone who knowingly supports Planned Parenthood is not pro-choice they are pro-abortion because Planned Parenthood is 134:1 pro-abortion.

Those that are pro-abortion are not quite without “choice” though as Angie Murie, executive director of Planned Parenthood Waterloo Region in Canada had this to say about “choice” when it came to abortions,

“I wrestle with gender-based abortion more than any other reason [for having an abortion]…From a macro perspective, I don’t think it is a good idea for us to be eliminating women. But if you look at it at the individual level, which is what we do, I don’t have any right to say that one person’s reason is better or worse than another’s.”

Ok, back from that little tangent.  In looking at one of those 3% charts that showed up on Facebook, I was led to the Catholicvote.org site that also had comment on the above data as well as more information that is well worth reading and they even had a few charts of their own.

catholicvote chart

 

How do you not notice that the above chart represents about 2.5 million children aborted at the hands of Planned Parenthood over the last decade or so.  And how do you not notice that in the same decade or so that the number of abortions almost doubled, the number of referrals for prenatal care and adoption has consistently fallen.  Again, how do you call that kind of performance anything but pro-abortion.

And this was an interesting pie chart,

catholicvote chart 2And here’s how Catholicvote.org interpreted the data in their pie chart.

In other words, 96.3% of Planned Parenthood’s services to pregnant women in 2008 were abortions, and the other 3.7% were adoptions and prenatal care (I’m not a math major so someone is welcome to review my calculations).

I’ll say it again, Planned Parenthood is pro-abortion!

So when you see that Planned Parenthood pie chart floating around cyberspace, remember that the 3% is simply a financial number,nothing more, and that it doesn’t paint an accurate portrayal of Planned Parenthood.

You might also ask what I say to the Joe Teehan’s of the world?  What do I say to those who argue that Planned Parenthood is primarily about women’s health issues and that people like me need to get over the abortion thing and quit ignoring all the good things that PPH does for women?   First I say that abortion is the primary issue that I have with Planned Parenthood because they are a significant abortion provider and because abortion is at odds with the very definition of being pro-life.  Killing unborn children is a non-negotiable issue.  I challenge them to help convince Planned Parenthood to quit aborting children and then step back and watch how much support they find coming from the left, the right and the middle for all the other good stuff.  As long as Planned Parenthood is in the abortion business, pro-life people will oppose them.  The will oppose them because as much as some would like us to believe, these children are not just lumps or masses of tissue.  They don’t magically become children when they are born and there is no set date during their fetal development when they become children.   Children are surviving earlier and earlier births every day as medical science advances.  I endorse this line of thought,

“Doesn’t simple morality dictate that unless and until someone can prove the unborn human is not alive, we must give it the benefit of the doubt and assume it is? Therefore, it is entitled to ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Ronald Reagan

It really is time for our nation recognize these children as children and put an end to this barbaric practice of voluntary abortion. There is only one answer in my mind and that is to honor the both the mother’s and child’s right to live.  Leave abortion legal only as a last resort family and medical decision in the rare case where a decision must be made between the life of the child and the mother.