Now, I know we are in a lot of trouble here in California where we, like the great ol' USA, has spent and continues to spend more than it takes in. So our government feels that its better to raise fines, taxes and everything else that involves money flowing to the capital versus cutting spending like the rest of us responsible human beings do. However, to now prey on religious worship? This has just gotten out of hand. Again, like I have said many, many times in the famous words of the prescient Ronald Reagan, "So goes California, so goes the United States of America." So far he has been spot on in every aspect. So it shouldn't surprise you if the below story ends up taking place across this once great nation.
A pastor and his wife have been ordered to pay hefty fines and purchase a 'Major Use Permit' if they continue to have bible study in their home. The war on Christianity continues, meanwhile those of Islamic faith get taxpayer funded dollars to pray in school and have foot bath's available for them at a major Michigan university. Ten Commandments have been ripped out of state or federally owned buildings. Christians cannot have dedicated prayer time in schools like Muslim's. What's next? The World Net Daily article is attached below for your review.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=98895http:
Nazi Germany and Communist Russia also began forcing people out of their homes who held religious worship. Are we on that path? I sure hope not but with today's continued assault on God and Christianity one has to wonder whether or not this country will have its First Amendment rights abolished and have its Constitution re-written. Or will you demand that Christians be withheld from injustice like this and alert your government officials that this cannot continue. The Constitution's 1st Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
What San Diego has done has violated the most coveted of our freedoms. Our forefathers fled Britain and Europe for this very reason, religious persecution.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Obama and car Czar targets dealers who donated to GOP
A World Net Daily article is below that demonstrates that many PROFITABLE dealerships are being closed. Why you ask? Don't most companies retain profitable divisions and cut where they constantly lose money? Well, common sense would lead you to believe that. However, the way Obama runs things is drastically different than common sense. Remember, Obama has never run anything before taking over the largest economic superpower in the history of the planet. So it shouldn't surprise you that the engines (literally) that run the economy are being run into the ground. I am sure this makes all those who supported Obama very proud of their annointed leadership. Those of us who understand how business runs, and run our own businesses in fact, see things quite differently. Do you really think Obama is looking out for you and acting in your best interest? Did Bush bail out Enron, Worldcom, Kmart and other major employers and important parts of the economy back when republicans had control of DC? Nope! It wasn't until 2008 (dems in control pushing socialist agenda) that bailouts flowed to any failing company. The spicket is full throttle now so expect the travesty to continue especially with a new imperialistic leader in the white house.
OBAMANOMICS
Find out which GOP donors getting Chrysler's ax Obama receives only $450 in entire inventory of political contributions
-----------------------------...
Posted: May 27, 2009
7:57 pm Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
WND reviewed the list of Chrysler's 789 closing franchises and databases of political donors and found that of dealership owners making contributions in the recent election, less than 10 percent gifted to Democrats while 90 percent gave substantial sums to Republican candidates.
The following dealers are scheduled to lose their Chrysler franchise designation. Based on available records and databases, each of them contributed to political campaigns during the 2008 election.
Many of the dealers who donated to Republican campaigns last year also contributed additional thousands to George W. Bush's presidential 2004 campaign and to campaigns to elect GOP representatives. Those donations are not included in this list.
The listed franchise owners contributed at least $450,000 to Republican presidential candidates and the GOP in the recent election while only $7,970 was donated to Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign and $2,200 was given to Sen. John Edwards' campaign.
Of all political contributions from dealers on the list of closing facilities, President Obama received a combined total of only $450 toward his election.
For a full list of the contributors and dealerships that are being closed down please read the full article at: http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99328
OBAMANOMICS
Find out which GOP donors getting Chrysler's ax Obama receives only $450 in entire inventory of political contributions
-----------------------------...
Posted: May 27, 2009
7:57 pm Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
WND reviewed the list of Chrysler's 789 closing franchises and databases of political donors and found that of dealership owners making contributions in the recent election, less than 10 percent gifted to Democrats while 90 percent gave substantial sums to Republican candidates.
The following dealers are scheduled to lose their Chrysler franchise designation. Based on available records and databases, each of them contributed to political campaigns during the 2008 election.
Many of the dealers who donated to Republican campaigns last year also contributed additional thousands to George W. Bush's presidential 2004 campaign and to campaigns to elect GOP representatives. Those donations are not included in this list.
The listed franchise owners contributed at least $450,000 to Republican presidential candidates and the GOP in the recent election while only $7,970 was donated to Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign and $2,200 was given to Sen. John Edwards' campaign.
Of all political contributions from dealers on the list of closing facilities, President Obama received a combined total of only $450 toward his election.
For a full list of the contributors and dealerships that are being closed down please read the full article at: http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99328
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Henry Waxman - author of Cap and Trade bill
This post does not need much more detail other than to say, if you think that YOUR representative and those who represent YOU in Washington have any clue about what is in bills they pass...I point you to this Henry Waxman statement he made when asked a direct question from a chairperson on the committee for Cap & Trade. First and foremost, we have now learned that the TARP bill was voted on prior to ANYONE reading the full context of the bill. The Stimulus package and subsequent Budget Bills were not vetted prior to the vote. All this amidst Obama's transparency pledge. As a show of 'in your face' politics that your beloved DC representatives demonstrated, they hired a speed reader who could read a page every 7 1/2 seconds aloud to the committee. Are you freaking kidding me? Is this a "I will show you to question my authority" or what? Wake up America, your politicans take you for a joke and they just played you a fool on camera. Did you buy it or will you stand up and demand more of those you elect to represent you?
Waxman, was directly asked by the chairperson to his left, "Before I ask this question of counsel did you know thiw was in this bill?" Waxman's response will leave you breathless if you have any wits about you whatsoever. His response, "You asking me? Well, I certainly don't claim to know everything in this bill. I know that we left it to...we relied very heavily on the scientists, on the IPCC and others on the consensus that they have that there is a problem of global warming thats having an impact and we need to try and reduce it by the amounts that they think we need to achieve in order to avoid some of the consequences. But I don't know the details, I rely on the science."
If this is the response that you want to hear from the person who chairs the committee for Obama and Pelosi on how we as a country address the US stance on carbon footprints, global warming and the US taxpayer's pocketbook then you are doomed to live a life you were not brought into this world to desire. This is a pathetic response to a question especially when the 'science' that Waxman refers to is in fact NOT SCIENCE. If it were, then it would not be disputed.
This is another attempt to catch the US citizen when they are not looking and pass a huge tax increase that even if the legislation is successful will reduce global temps by less than one half of 1 percent over the next 50 years. Yet, the government needs to find as much money as it can to pay for its liberal left wing agenda and they are suckering you into paying for it. When will you wake up and realize what is happening to our country. Stop blaming republicans and Bush for all your problems and realize that its the DC elite who own you yet you can take your country back. Or, as so many very dear to me believe, "we can't do anything about it so who cares?" I am sure the spirit of Patrick Henry, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and all those who died in battle to make this country the most blessed nation in the history of the world would weep at your weakness. Those liberals who's hatred of Bush makes them believe that they can usher in change that in hindsight will be to the detriment of the country will only be able to blame themselves. It will no longer be Bush's fault although I am positive that all liberals and secularists will still say that the their buy in to these liberal progressive ideals was only brought on because of 8 years of Bush and if not for those 8 years they would not have done so. In other words they are saying, 'Its really me who is at fault for this but it makes me feel better to pass blame on to someone who I feel that if not for my hatred for them that I would not feel this way.' Yeah, that will make you feel better years from now. Hatred does never brew success, it only brews contempt. Sooner or later each of those who act only to say that the 'last 8 years were an utter failure' will have to own up to their own demise. Enjoy the fall America. Its your day to make a difference.
Waxman, was directly asked by the chairperson to his left, "Before I ask this question of counsel did you know thiw was in this bill?" Waxman's response will leave you breathless if you have any wits about you whatsoever. His response, "You asking me? Well, I certainly don't claim to know everything in this bill. I know that we left it to...we relied very heavily on the scientists, on the IPCC and others on the consensus that they have that there is a problem of global warming thats having an impact and we need to try and reduce it by the amounts that they think we need to achieve in order to avoid some of the consequences. But I don't know the details, I rely on the science."
If this is the response that you want to hear from the person who chairs the committee for Obama and Pelosi on how we as a country address the US stance on carbon footprints, global warming and the US taxpayer's pocketbook then you are doomed to live a life you were not brought into this world to desire. This is a pathetic response to a question especially when the 'science' that Waxman refers to is in fact NOT SCIENCE. If it were, then it would not be disputed.
This is another attempt to catch the US citizen when they are not looking and pass a huge tax increase that even if the legislation is successful will reduce global temps by less than one half of 1 percent over the next 50 years. Yet, the government needs to find as much money as it can to pay for its liberal left wing agenda and they are suckering you into paying for it. When will you wake up and realize what is happening to our country. Stop blaming republicans and Bush for all your problems and realize that its the DC elite who own you yet you can take your country back. Or, as so many very dear to me believe, "we can't do anything about it so who cares?" I am sure the spirit of Patrick Henry, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and all those who died in battle to make this country the most blessed nation in the history of the world would weep at your weakness. Those liberals who's hatred of Bush makes them believe that they can usher in change that in hindsight will be to the detriment of the country will only be able to blame themselves. It will no longer be Bush's fault although I am positive that all liberals and secularists will still say that the their buy in to these liberal progressive ideals was only brought on because of 8 years of Bush and if not for those 8 years they would not have done so. In other words they are saying, 'Its really me who is at fault for this but it makes me feel better to pass blame on to someone who I feel that if not for my hatred for them that I would not feel this way.' Yeah, that will make you feel better years from now. Hatred does never brew success, it only brews contempt. Sooner or later each of those who act only to say that the 'last 8 years were an utter failure' will have to own up to their own demise. Enjoy the fall America. Its your day to make a difference.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Kim Jong Il - 2, U.S. - 0
Is it ironic that John Bolton, former US Ambassador to the U.N. (although democrats never allowed his appointment), titled his May 20th op-ed piece in the WSJ "Get Ready for Another North Korean Nuke Test"? Then why did the Obama administration admit that they only learned of the attack 'one-hour' prior to the test? And just two weeks ago, the Obama administration's special envoy for disarmament talks with North Korea, Stephen Bosworth, said during a visit to Asian capitals that "everyone is feeling relatively relaxed about where we are at this point in the process...there is not a sense of crisis." Maybe 'relaxed' was mistaken for arrogance. And to this president the North Korean 'crisis' does not equate to what Obama feels is a real 'crisis', like global warming and healthcare. This president portrays to believe that every leader across the globe will sit down with him and hash out their differences. Once he is finished apologizing for U.S. behavior and foreign policy lo' these last 3 centuries, of course.
During the Clinton years we ended up giving NK billions of dollars in aid as agreement that they would adhere to international pressure to suspend nuclear proliferation. On July 4th 2006, North Korea failed, comparatively, to test a nuclear weapon in a capacity that would put it on the world stage of being able to produce large scale nukes. And the game was played right into this tyrant's hands. U.S. and China initially took a strong stand and stepped up sanctions and tough rhetoric only to back down by providing aid and recognition that N. Korea would dismantle its nuclear weapons program. As John Bolton said then, 'they will not dismantle their weapons programs or cease in their attempt to create a long range nuclear device.' Despite the criticism from his own Ambassador, Bush removed N. Korea from the 'state sponsored terrorist list.' Bush, yielding to democratic pressure, agreed to trilateral talks and even 6 party talks that NK used to their benefit to buy them time to upgrade their weapons systems and uranium enrichment program. Now, on Memorial Day 2009, NK tests an underground nuke with same kilotons as nagasaki and hiroshima bombs and subsequently fired 2 straight days of medium and long term missiles as if to say to the world "we have nukes and will sell to the highest bidder." Iran are you listening? Subsequent to that, KJ Il removed U.N. inspectors from
Military action is now a very remote possibility since nuclear weapons are now in the hands of N. Korea and its rogue dictator. This is what the world gets for allowing the U.N. and the waste of its existence to continue to write 'legally binding resolutions' toward countries who are oppressive regimes consistently acting in contrast to international treaties. Much like Saddam Hussein did in Iraq, now its Jim Kong Il's turn to play the U.N. for the fool. The UN will keep convening its very soft Security Counsel and issuing statements condemning such tests. In April, the U.N. Security Counsel condemned another N. Korea luanch with tighter sanctions. It apparently didn't work. Does anyone take the U.N. seriously anymore? And why do they have a Security Counsel if resolutions they make are constantly broken? To quote Obama's famous diatribe from his campaign, his statements regarding NK are "just words." There is absolutely no follow through with it. We will see if Obama decides to actually have a spine or will he bow to his 'anti-war, pro-peace' constituents and be soft? Not much has worked from either Clinton, Bush or Obama up to this point.
Obama's 'words' were in no way a strong statement. Where is Reagan when this country needs a real leader during tough economic and international times?
During the Clinton years we ended up giving NK billions of dollars in aid as agreement that they would adhere to international pressure to suspend nuclear proliferation. On July 4th 2006, North Korea failed, comparatively, to test a nuclear weapon in a capacity that would put it on the world stage of being able to produce large scale nukes. And the game was played right into this tyrant's hands. U.S. and China initially took a strong stand and stepped up sanctions and tough rhetoric only to back down by providing aid and recognition that N. Korea would dismantle its nuclear weapons program. As John Bolton said then, 'they will not dismantle their weapons programs or cease in their attempt to create a long range nuclear device.' Despite the criticism from his own Ambassador, Bush removed N. Korea from the 'state sponsored terrorist list.' Bush, yielding to democratic pressure, agreed to trilateral talks and even 6 party talks that NK used to their benefit to buy them time to upgrade their weapons systems and uranium enrichment program. Now, on Memorial Day 2009, NK tests an underground nuke with same kilotons as nagasaki and hiroshima bombs and subsequently fired 2 straight days of medium and long term missiles as if to say to the world "we have nukes and will sell to the highest bidder." Iran are you listening? Subsequent to that, KJ Il removed U.N. inspectors from
Military action is now a very remote possibility since nuclear weapons are now in the hands of N. Korea and its rogue dictator. This is what the world gets for allowing the U.N. and the waste of its existence to continue to write 'legally binding resolutions' toward countries who are oppressive regimes consistently acting in contrast to international treaties. Much like Saddam Hussein did in Iraq, now its Jim Kong Il's turn to play the U.N. for the fool. The UN will keep convening its very soft Security Counsel and issuing statements condemning such tests. In April, the U.N. Security Counsel condemned another N. Korea luanch with tighter sanctions. It apparently didn't work. Does anyone take the U.N. seriously anymore? And why do they have a Security Counsel if resolutions they make are constantly broken? To quote Obama's famous diatribe from his campaign, his statements regarding NK are "just words." There is absolutely no follow through with it. We will see if Obama decides to actually have a spine or will he bow to his 'anti-war, pro-peace' constituents and be soft? Not much has worked from either Clinton, Bush or Obama up to this point.
Obama's 'words' were in no way a strong statement. Where is Reagan when this country needs a real leader during tough economic and international times?
Sunday, May 24, 2009
"The Government Deception"
This 1 hour and 50 minute movie is titled the "Obama Deception" but this is not about just Obama. Please do not roll your eyes and think this is an anti-Obama movie. This video is really anti-Government and mentions many presidents including Bush, Carter, Roosevelt, Reagan and their being pawns in the game. It's about the lies and deceit taking place in D.C. and around the world right now. It is chilling, utterly chilling to our core if this is the underbelly of what our nation will become under the 'New World Order' which Ron Paul, Kucinich and others are speaking out about. The Bilderburg Group is, to anyone who does know about it, a group of elitist individuals who control trade, currency and elections. Have they been controlling world governments for decades?
Is it true? You decide. If you feel it is true, will you take action? What will you do? I challenge you to make a stand and take our citizenship back into our own hands and stop following the rhetoric. Think for yourselves people. This is beginning to get scary and anyone who thinks for themselves can see the dots are beginning to be connected due to common sense.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7535755025025800195
Is it true? You decide. If you feel it is true, will you take action? What will you do? I challenge you to make a stand and take our citizenship back into our own hands and stop following the rhetoric. Think for yourselves people. This is beginning to get scary and anyone who thinks for themselves can see the dots are beginning to be connected due to common sense.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7535755025025800195
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Obama and "Values & Morals"
Can someone tell me what 'morals and values' America broke in its war on terror to save innocent American lives? And can Obama really lecture America about honoring its values and morals when he sends hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to foreign shores to be used for aborting innocent babies? Or, how about his voting 'present' while serving in the IL senate on a bill allowing partial birth abortion to be legal that he helped sponsor and write? How about his appointing the governor of Kansas- Sebellius to be the head of the HHS dept who just days before being nominated rejected a bill that would end late term abortions and her record shows a very liberal stance on abortion issues. And lastly, Obama's federal funding of embryonic stem cell research despite many breakthroughs occuring in the medical field in recent years where many are now saying that we don't need to kill innocent embryo's to get the breakthroughs we need.
Does it seem that he really holds morals and values at heart? Someone should tell Obama to leave his ivory colored glass house before he decides to lecture (or read from his teleprompter) us on what this great country was founded upon and the morals and values that this country holds dear.
Dear Mr. President, stop killing innocent babies and lecturing us on the morals of holding prisoners, who mostly were on the battlefield to kill our soldiers in the name of Jihad, while putting 3 of these prisoners through what you view as torture despite the fact that we waterboard thousands of our own soldiers before they go off to battle. If it were torture, would we do it to on our own soldiers? I think not!
What a self-righteous and arrogant speech. Not to mention that the hall in which you gave it in doesn't allow camera flashes and high intensity light. Yet, what did you do? You dishonored that long standing policy and allowed (for your own grandstanding and staging) the media and their barage of cameras to get awesome photo ops of you in front of our founding document not to mention the intense lighting to be shined down upon you and the 'aging parchment' you stood in front of. What a hypocrite and someone who is not worthy to lecture on morals and values. Come down from the perch Obama and live with the rest of God's creation and stop acting like you control the earth's rotation and can dictate how humanity lives.
And lastly, please stop making America look like the bad guy and apologizing for the morals and values in which you say you hold in high regard.
Does it seem that he really holds morals and values at heart? Someone should tell Obama to leave his ivory colored glass house before he decides to lecture (or read from his teleprompter) us on what this great country was founded upon and the morals and values that this country holds dear.
Dear Mr. President, stop killing innocent babies and lecturing us on the morals of holding prisoners, who mostly were on the battlefield to kill our soldiers in the name of Jihad, while putting 3 of these prisoners through what you view as torture despite the fact that we waterboard thousands of our own soldiers before they go off to battle. If it were torture, would we do it to on our own soldiers? I think not!
What a self-righteous and arrogant speech. Not to mention that the hall in which you gave it in doesn't allow camera flashes and high intensity light. Yet, what did you do? You dishonored that long standing policy and allowed (for your own grandstanding and staging) the media and their barage of cameras to get awesome photo ops of you in front of our founding document not to mention the intense lighting to be shined down upon you and the 'aging parchment' you stood in front of. What a hypocrite and someone who is not worthy to lecture on morals and values. Come down from the perch Obama and live with the rest of God's creation and stop acting like you control the earth's rotation and can dictate how humanity lives.
And lastly, please stop making America look like the bad guy and apologizing for the morals and values in which you say you hold in high regard.
Friday, May 22, 2009
The Obama Brand!
A "brand" in today's lingo is defined as a 'recognizable kind of which there is no confusion.' For instance, when you here Coke you instantly think of the cola, when you hear Nike you instantly think of the shoe and when you hear McDonald's you instantly think of the Golden Arch's. So now, when you hear Obama you automatically think of the smooth-talking king of rhetoric with the chin in the air and the arrogant swagger of the president of the United States.
Obama has not shown much interest in working from both sides of the aisle and 'doing away with the partisan politics' in D.C. In fact, he has rebuked Pelosi, Biden and Dodd. He won't stand up for anyone who he needs. Instead, if it is going to impact his 'Brand' he throws them to the dogs. In case you did not know, Obama is working on copywriting his name and the "O" Obama logo that you see on so many bumbers and window shields (at least here in our liberal Los Angeles, CA). This is a man who governs, like Clinton was famous for doing, by polls. And witness what just started happening this week, the White House has now formed its own media machine. Yes, that's right, the White House is now putting out its own propoganda on the White House lawn. The narcissism of this President is unprecedented. Obama is beginning to make Clinton look humble in comparison, which about as impossible as keeping Oprah from swinging from 300 lbs to 150 lbs back to 300 lbs in 18 months. To continue, the press core has been instructed to stand and cheer when Obama enters the room to take the podium. Seriously!
If that isn't an "All hail, the king" I don't know what is. This country will be drastically different 4 years from now and those 'independents' who voted for Obama will be kicking themselves for rushing in this form of leadership. Just wait and see.
Obama has not shown much interest in working from both sides of the aisle and 'doing away with the partisan politics' in D.C. In fact, he has rebuked Pelosi, Biden and Dodd. He won't stand up for anyone who he needs. Instead, if it is going to impact his 'Brand' he throws them to the dogs. In case you did not know, Obama is working on copywriting his name and the "O" Obama logo that you see on so many bumbers and window shields (at least here in our liberal Los Angeles, CA). This is a man who governs, like Clinton was famous for doing, by polls. And witness what just started happening this week, the White House has now formed its own media machine. Yes, that's right, the White House is now putting out its own propoganda on the White House lawn. The narcissism of this President is unprecedented. Obama is beginning to make Clinton look humble in comparison, which about as impossible as keeping Oprah from swinging from 300 lbs to 150 lbs back to 300 lbs in 18 months. To continue, the press core has been instructed to stand and cheer when Obama enters the room to take the podium. Seriously!
If that isn't an "All hail, the king" I don't know what is. This country will be drastically different 4 years from now and those 'independents' who voted for Obama will be kicking themselves for rushing in this form of leadership. Just wait and see.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Obama vs. Cheney?
Here we are now. Four months removed from Obama's inauguration speech. One month away from the CIA memo release and leading democrats fumbling of what they knew vs. what they said. Now comes Cheney, who started this campaign against democrats who believe they know best how to keep America safe, by pointing out that if Obama believes in transparency as his campaign and inauguration speech stated then release all the memo's about what was done, who knew what, when they knew it and what information was gleened from EIT's. However, Obama trying to CYA for Pelosi, himself and the rest of the liberal dems, only releases selected portions of the memo's only which serves to cause America harm, not good.
So, as vilified as Cheney is you have to now ask yourself on this debate...who do you trust more? Obama or Cheney? Cheney knows that actually protecting a country and its citizens happens by doing. Obama only knew by 'saying' since he stated numerous times on the campaign trail that he would end EIT, close Gitmo, and bring the troops in Iraq home by March 2009. Leadership is defined by action not words. All Obama has really done up to this point is words since he flip-flopped on bringing the troops home by the time he said he would, flip-flopped on closing Gitmo when he said he would, and flip-flopped on releasing the torture photos that the ACLU and a liberal court ruled to release. It's on this last point where Obama has actually shown leadership toward protecting America and not putting our soldiers at risk. It's on all the other points that he wrecklessly endangers all of our safety.
As Cheney delivered knock out punch after knock out punch to the raised chin of Obama here is what I gleaned from the two speeches. The moral of the past 8 years on the issue with which Obama and Cheney spoke is that it is Right to enact Article II of the Constitution and save American lives and it is Wrong to not administer harsh (but not illegal) techniques in which those lives can be saved. The Value that Cheney quite clearly holds high above what Obama can reach is that American lives are to be held sacred to the President and government that they swear on the Constitution (see Article II again) to up hold. And also keep in mind that while Obama lectures (for the far left and his media minions) that EIT's are banned under his administration he does keep it open as an option in times of emergency. "This might explain why President Obama has reserved unto himself the right to order the use of enhanced interrogation should he deem it appropriate. What value remains to that authority is debatable, given that the enemy now knows exactly what interrogation methods to train against, and which ones not to worry about. Yet having reserved for himself the authority to order enhanced interrogation after an emergency, you would think that President Obama would be less disdainful of what his predecessor authorized after 9/11. It’s almost gone unnoticed that the president has retained the power to order the same methods in the same circumstances."
Cheney in his speech said, "In seeking to guard this nation against the threat of catastrophic violence, our Administration gave intelligence officers the tools and lawful authority they needed to gain vital information. We didn’t invent that authority. It is drawn from Article Two of the Constitution. And it was given specificity by the Congress after 9/11, in a Joint Resolution authorizing “all necessary and appropriate force” to protect the American people.
Obama gave a 60 minute (yes 60 minute diatribe) that literally left you wondering where does he stand. He, like he so famously can do, took all sides of the argument that left you, like his Harvard professor once said, feeling like he appealed to your side of the argument no matter what side you were on. This is not leadership but rather a stance of riding both ways so that no matter which way it goes he wins. When will America wake up and see that this person we have to stand and applaud as he approaches the podium is a far cry from a real leader who, no matter how unpopular it is, will make a tough, hard decision that will better the country? 2012 can't come quick enough.
So, as vilified as Cheney is you have to now ask yourself on this debate...who do you trust more? Obama or Cheney? Cheney knows that actually protecting a country and its citizens happens by doing. Obama only knew by 'saying' since he stated numerous times on the campaign trail that he would end EIT, close Gitmo, and bring the troops in Iraq home by March 2009. Leadership is defined by action not words. All Obama has really done up to this point is words since he flip-flopped on bringing the troops home by the time he said he would, flip-flopped on closing Gitmo when he said he would, and flip-flopped on releasing the torture photos that the ACLU and a liberal court ruled to release. It's on this last point where Obama has actually shown leadership toward protecting America and not putting our soldiers at risk. It's on all the other points that he wrecklessly endangers all of our safety.
As Cheney delivered knock out punch after knock out punch to the raised chin of Obama here is what I gleaned from the two speeches. The moral of the past 8 years on the issue with which Obama and Cheney spoke is that it is Right to enact Article II of the Constitution and save American lives and it is Wrong to not administer harsh (but not illegal) techniques in which those lives can be saved. The Value that Cheney quite clearly holds high above what Obama can reach is that American lives are to be held sacred to the President and government that they swear on the Constitution (see Article II again) to up hold. And also keep in mind that while Obama lectures (for the far left and his media minions) that EIT's are banned under his administration he does keep it open as an option in times of emergency. "This might explain why President Obama has reserved unto himself the right to order the use of enhanced interrogation should he deem it appropriate. What value remains to that authority is debatable, given that the enemy now knows exactly what interrogation methods to train against, and which ones not to worry about. Yet having reserved for himself the authority to order enhanced interrogation after an emergency, you would think that President Obama would be less disdainful of what his predecessor authorized after 9/11. It’s almost gone unnoticed that the president has retained the power to order the same methods in the same circumstances."
Cheney in his speech said, "In seeking to guard this nation against the threat of catastrophic violence, our Administration gave intelligence officers the tools and lawful authority they needed to gain vital information. We didn’t invent that authority. It is drawn from Article Two of the Constitution. And it was given specificity by the Congress after 9/11, in a Joint Resolution authorizing “all necessary and appropriate force” to protect the American people.
Obama gave a 60 minute (yes 60 minute diatribe) that literally left you wondering where does he stand. He, like he so famously can do, took all sides of the argument that left you, like his Harvard professor once said, feeling like he appealed to your side of the argument no matter what side you were on. This is not leadership but rather a stance of riding both ways so that no matter which way it goes he wins. When will America wake up and see that this person we have to stand and applaud as he approaches the podium is a far cry from a real leader who, no matter how unpopular it is, will make a tough, hard decision that will better the country? 2012 can't come quick enough.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Firing US Attorneys...is it true Obama?
Well, how much trouble has the Bush administration been in by democrats for 'firing' US Attorneys? Karl Rove is slated to go in front of a 'commission' next week to address why Bush's Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez fired these 9 US attorneys. Ironically, AG Eric Holder testified this week that he plans to 'replace a batch' of US attorneys because 'elections matter.' Again, its the 'We Won' mentality that Obama has stated before when passing his stimulus and budget bills. Sounds like a 'if you are not for us you are against us.' Exactly the same sentiment that the all powerful liberal media labeled on Bush. Where is the NYT, MSNBC and WA Times on this? It will be interesting to see the media blitz that will ensnarl Rove but they will ignore their annointed Messiah's AG's statement mentioned in the transcript below.
Here is part of the transcript (and can be found in the article in weblink below):
Pressure from lawmakers and local Democrats to replace the sitting prosecutors has been significant. Holder's comments Thursday came in response to a question from Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) "Many jurisdictions are waiting desperately to see what is going to be done. As we understand it, the protocol has been that U.S. Attorneys would hand in their resignations and would give the new administration an opportunity to make new appointments, we don’t see that happening quite fast enough," she said, pointing to complaints about prosecutors in Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama.
However, by using terms like "elections matter," Holder seems to be signaling that Obama plans to install new leadership in most offices.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0509/Obama_to_replace_US_Attorneys.html
Funny that Obama is going to simply fire people because "elections matter" which is D.C. speak meaning 'political'. I thought this president wanted to usher in a 'new era of responsibility' and do away with the 'partisanship of the last 8 years.' Yet it appears that he plans to continue that partisanship by firing Bush appointee's and appointing Obama liberal appointee's that will carry out his agenda. Where is the uproar from the left on this? Please, leftist readers, Obama supporters and Bush haters, tell me why this is not a double standard and just more of the same.
Here is part of the transcript (and can be found in the article in weblink below):
Pressure from lawmakers and local Democrats to replace the sitting prosecutors has been significant. Holder's comments Thursday came in response to a question from Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) "Many jurisdictions are waiting desperately to see what is going to be done. As we understand it, the protocol has been that U.S. Attorneys would hand in their resignations and would give the new administration an opportunity to make new appointments, we don’t see that happening quite fast enough," she said, pointing to complaints about prosecutors in Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama.
However, by using terms like "elections matter," Holder seems to be signaling that Obama plans to install new leadership in most offices.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0509/Obama_to_replace_US_Attorneys.html
Funny that Obama is going to simply fire people because "elections matter" which is D.C. speak meaning 'political'. I thought this president wanted to usher in a 'new era of responsibility' and do away with the 'partisanship of the last 8 years.' Yet it appears that he plans to continue that partisanship by firing Bush appointee's and appointing Obama liberal appointee's that will carry out his agenda. Where is the uproar from the left on this? Please, leftist readers, Obama supporters and Bush haters, tell me why this is not a double standard and just more of the same.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Chrysler & Obama
It started under Bush, the bailouts for autos, and continued under Obama. Ask anyone with half a cell in their brain about the ultimate outcome of GM/Chrysler and everyone would have called it...Bankruptcy. Politically, the media and administration(s), wanted to look as if they were worried about job losses and 'systematic risk to the economy' and try their hardest to save them. Then Obama gets in and given that he rode the coattails of the unions into the white house he was not about to leave them out in the cold. So what does he do? He breaks every contract law in the book and every lending practice there is by screwing the secured creditors (in any normal BK they get paid 1st since they had most at risk from $ standpoint) and putting them in 1st loss position vs. last loss which is how the law is written. Also, he gives the company to the union which was a major catalyst in why Chrysler was forced to file BK. Secondly, the next biggest ownership of Chrysler is the Government and the french. Sweet justice when the French have equal risk really as the US Govt. We bail them out of being run by evil tyrants TWICE and they come to our rescue economically. Sad. Lastly, the bond holders (the second most secure in any transaction) ends up with 10% ownership. But the real crime is the taxpayer. Poof, $7 billion to Chrysler gone of our hard earned money.
You liberals and those who hate prosperity just learned a valuable lesson but chose not to indicate you learned from it. You vilified AIG, Lehman, Merril, etc., for receiving tax payer money and paying bonuses but choose to say nothing when every person in the room knew Chrysler was going BK but sat by while our government kept spoon feeding them money that they knew we would never get back. What are saying now? Why aren't you upset that our (your) govt just played their full pot on a hand that didn't even have two pair?
If you thought this was over...just wait for GM. I can tell you now how its going to play out. UAW wins, govt comes in second and the US Taxpayer and those with supposedly the least amount of risk get SCREWED. Welcome to the new U.S.A. It stands for Union States of America, headquartered in labor union bosses offices across the nation. Enjoy your demise. Let's just hope the American citizens stop burying their head in the sand and take back their country!
You liberals and those who hate prosperity just learned a valuable lesson but chose not to indicate you learned from it. You vilified AIG, Lehman, Merril, etc., for receiving tax payer money and paying bonuses but choose to say nothing when every person in the room knew Chrysler was going BK but sat by while our government kept spoon feeding them money that they knew we would never get back. What are saying now? Why aren't you upset that our (your) govt just played their full pot on a hand that didn't even have two pair?
If you thought this was over...just wait for GM. I can tell you now how its going to play out. UAW wins, govt comes in second and the US Taxpayer and those with supposedly the least amount of risk get SCREWED. Welcome to the new U.S.A. It stands for Union States of America, headquartered in labor union bosses offices across the nation. Enjoy your demise. Let's just hope the American citizens stop burying their head in the sand and take back their country!
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Social Security and Medicare - Broke much, much sooner
As we continue to push off addressing what will push our country to the brink of collapse, I wanted to bring it to everyone's attention that has, up to this point, failed to see the reality. I have attached a couple of articles that address the dire circumstances we are about to face. But, lets first focus on how we can raise taxes on ALL U.S. CITIZENS by 1) trying to do the work of God and control the climate and 2) give health care to every PERSON living in the U.S. Trust me, the current budget deficits will pale in comparison to what our budget and deficits will be as we teeter on the brink of collapse of Social Security and Medicare. This is a $60 trillion problem and anyone who believes that there is a social security trust fund are fooling themselves. Every year the government borrows from the SS account to cover budget deficits. Its similar to what the CA govt is trying to do with multiple programs now like lottery, mental health education, etc. Waiting to try to save these programs further in the future, rather than addressing now by CUTTING SPENDING, indexing to inflation, and shoring up its solvency will cause deficits to be at least triple what they are now. Triple!!! Good luck Obama on cutting your budget in half. At least you will look under every crook and cranny to tax the hell out of us to find as much money as you can since actually cutting spending seems out of the question. Would love to have a look at he and D.C. leaderships personal account books to see if they run their house the same they do the country.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090513/ap_on_bi_ge/us_social_security_25
http://dailyreckoning.com/entitlement-lifespans-get-the-axe/
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090513/ap_on_bi_ge/us_social_security_25
http://dailyreckoning.com/entitlement-lifespans-get-the-axe/
Finally congrats are in order to President Obama!
Today was monumental for the current administration. Why? Obama decided against a judge's order to appease the ACLU and allow torture photos to be released. Obama in his statement addressed the fact that the release of these photos will cause our troops to be put in further danger. He is correct in this assumption. The ironic part of this, and hopefully it will be a trend in the Obama admin, is that he has again slapped the ACLU in the face. The first time was about the Gitmo detainees and their release without trial. The ACLU wanted these detainees to be released from Gitmo either with a trial like we citizens would get or without trial. I am sure Anthony Romero is irate and bleeding hatred for Obama at this very moment.
Keep in mind, Obama did originally allow the photos to be released but luckily now understands what being a commander in chief is all about. Its about the lives of those who you rule over and for those who fight to allow you to rule. This begins to help him rebuild his reputation that was originally permanently damaged just after taking office when he let the bomber of the USS Cole go free rather than allowing him to stand trial (like a federal judge had ordered, much to the happiness of the ACLU). The ACLU loves anything anti-American and that makes America look bad. See Anthony Romero's opinion letter piece in the WSJ in today's paper. If you don't sense Anti-American then you must be a supporter of the ACLU and its far left causes it chooses to speak out on.
Now, lets give credit where its due to the person who really caused Obama to halt the release of these photos. This persons name sends liberal democrats skin crawling...Dick Cheney! If not for Cheney's constant berating of the issue on the Sunday morning news shows and Fox News, I seriously doubt if Obama would have made the decision he made today. No matter, I would like to think Obama would have come to this conclusion despite the media hoopla. To his credit, he made the right decision. Now lets hope he continues to put the country first and truly leads rather than letting politics tip his hand.
Keep in mind, Obama did originally allow the photos to be released but luckily now understands what being a commander in chief is all about. Its about the lives of those who you rule over and for those who fight to allow you to rule. This begins to help him rebuild his reputation that was originally permanently damaged just after taking office when he let the bomber of the USS Cole go free rather than allowing him to stand trial (like a federal judge had ordered, much to the happiness of the ACLU). The ACLU loves anything anti-American and that makes America look bad. See Anthony Romero's opinion letter piece in the WSJ in today's paper. If you don't sense Anti-American then you must be a supporter of the ACLU and its far left causes it chooses to speak out on.
Now, lets give credit where its due to the person who really caused Obama to halt the release of these photos. This persons name sends liberal democrats skin crawling...Dick Cheney! If not for Cheney's constant berating of the issue on the Sunday morning news shows and Fox News, I seriously doubt if Obama would have made the decision he made today. No matter, I would like to think Obama would have come to this conclusion despite the media hoopla. To his credit, he made the right decision. Now lets hope he continues to put the country first and truly leads rather than letting politics tip his hand.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Maher, Garofalo, Olbermann pay attention!
For as much as you and your ilk want to rail on Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage and Levin about how 'off the planet' they are...have you listened to yourselves lately? Tomorrow morning when they wake up they should take a long look in the mirror, study the wrinkles, the gray hair, the imperfections that they undoubtedly wear underneath the makeup.
Bill Maher - doesn't believe anyone should be personally responsible for their actions and that they should just feel free to do what they please. Well, of course, except Bush/Cheney, etc., who seems to have made decisions that impacted his life. So while Bill feels that he can make whatever choices he wants regardless of the consequences, to the contrary any person that makes decisions that end up adversely affecting him should be prosecuted since they screwed up his life. Kind of nutty. Listen to his program and you will hear a delusional man who should have secular progressive, more power to ACLU and George Soros rules inked to his body. He probably does actually.
Keith Olbermann - His program was about to get canceled for poor, poor ratings back in 2006 but then he jumped on the 'hate Bush' bandwagon and went on a tirade that was anti-Bush. This tirade was picked up on you tube and every liberal news show in America. Finally, crazy lefties had a voice. Olbermann then would start and end his show each night with anti-Bush rhetoric. He has picked a fight with Bill O'Reilly that he is losing miserably but he feels he is winning. Too bad the ratings tell a much grimmer story for Mr. Olbermann. So while his ratings have picked up since the lights were about to go out in studio 7, they are still dismal. But what else does MSNBC have to hang their hat on? Rachel Maddow? She smacks of a skater punk who couldn't hack it in a man's world so she cross dresses as a woman but kept the Gator and G&S gear from the 80's. What a dimwit she is. Again, the only basis for her show is 'dog and smear Bush, Cheney, Rove and any republican you can fit into your hour long program.'
Chris Matthews - Oh, you mean the man who hated Obama and was firmly in the Clinton camp about this time last year. Then when it was obvious that Obama would win the dem nod he turned on Hill about as fast as Obama turned on Rev. Wright. You can you tube CM berating a supporter of Obama by continuing to ask, "Tell me something he has done. You have nothing." Then in a blink of an eye he says that Obama 'gives me a tingling feeling up my leg.' Well, it appears when the Imelt and NBC bosses tell him to saddle back onto what they want his spineless being doesn't ask questions but just says 'so long as my paycheck stays the same I will compromise anything to stay the voice of NBC.' Case in point, his latest stupid rant and line of questioning this past Sunday on his morning show. What a dope. And he used to be somewhat credible, but that was about 5+ years ago now.
Garofalo, on Oblermann's how said that anyone who attended a Tea Party were "a bunch of teabagging rednecks," adding "this is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up." Did Olbermann, as a responsible journalist would have, stop her in her tracks and have her back off her statements, ala Bill O'Reilly? Not a chance. Did MSNBC issue a public statement denouncing Garofalo's statements as over the top or not representative of NBC or its parent company, GE? Nope. In fact, Jeffrey Imelt who was speaking at the GE stockholders meeting was asked in front of everyone about this exact issue and he did all he could to dance around the subject. Imelt is on Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board and GE will profit huge from Cap and Trade legislation as well as government run health care (see http://www.healthymagination.com/news/index.html).
However, here is Garofalo speaking about the right to speak out and offer dissent. Conflicting isn't it? I guess it matters whether the person is speaking out for something that she believes in or not. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxP9ZHz4FQs&feature=related
So while Rush, Savage, Levin, Hannity and Colter say some stupid things, let's be honest, what the left parades out is just as stupid. I am open to debate on this topic for anyone who wants to debate the merits of what the pundits on the left/right speak about each day. Feel free to add your comments below.
Is it any wonder why Fox News crushes, literally crushes, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC combined in every time slot between 5 PM - 10 PM (EST & PST)? Fox News ranks #2 among ALL cable channels in primetime. CNN is 14th and MSNBC is 19th. In daytime, Fox was #4 while CNN was 17th and MSNBC was 29th. In fact, Fox News dominates 24/7 news morning, noon and night. If the country was really that liberal then you would think that MSNBC wouldn't be dead last when news shows compete head to head at CNN, Fox and MSNBC.
Bill Maher - doesn't believe anyone should be personally responsible for their actions and that they should just feel free to do what they please. Well, of course, except Bush/Cheney, etc., who seems to have made decisions that impacted his life. So while Bill feels that he can make whatever choices he wants regardless of the consequences, to the contrary any person that makes decisions that end up adversely affecting him should be prosecuted since they screwed up his life. Kind of nutty. Listen to his program and you will hear a delusional man who should have secular progressive, more power to ACLU and George Soros rules inked to his body. He probably does actually.
Keith Olbermann - His program was about to get canceled for poor, poor ratings back in 2006 but then he jumped on the 'hate Bush' bandwagon and went on a tirade that was anti-Bush. This tirade was picked up on you tube and every liberal news show in America. Finally, crazy lefties had a voice. Olbermann then would start and end his show each night with anti-Bush rhetoric. He has picked a fight with Bill O'Reilly that he is losing miserably but he feels he is winning. Too bad the ratings tell a much grimmer story for Mr. Olbermann. So while his ratings have picked up since the lights were about to go out in studio 7, they are still dismal. But what else does MSNBC have to hang their hat on? Rachel Maddow? She smacks of a skater punk who couldn't hack it in a man's world so she cross dresses as a woman but kept the Gator and G&S gear from the 80's. What a dimwit she is. Again, the only basis for her show is 'dog and smear Bush, Cheney, Rove and any republican you can fit into your hour long program.'
Chris Matthews - Oh, you mean the man who hated Obama and was firmly in the Clinton camp about this time last year. Then when it was obvious that Obama would win the dem nod he turned on Hill about as fast as Obama turned on Rev. Wright. You can you tube CM berating a supporter of Obama by continuing to ask, "Tell me something he has done. You have nothing." Then in a blink of an eye he says that Obama 'gives me a tingling feeling up my leg.' Well, it appears when the Imelt and NBC bosses tell him to saddle back onto what they want his spineless being doesn't ask questions but just says 'so long as my paycheck stays the same I will compromise anything to stay the voice of NBC.' Case in point, his latest stupid rant and line of questioning this past Sunday on his morning show. What a dope. And he used to be somewhat credible, but that was about 5+ years ago now.
Garofalo, on Oblermann's how said that anyone who attended a Tea Party were "a bunch of teabagging rednecks," adding "this is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up." Did Olbermann, as a responsible journalist would have, stop her in her tracks and have her back off her statements, ala Bill O'Reilly? Not a chance. Did MSNBC issue a public statement denouncing Garofalo's statements as over the top or not representative of NBC or its parent company, GE? Nope. In fact, Jeffrey Imelt who was speaking at the GE stockholders meeting was asked in front of everyone about this exact issue and he did all he could to dance around the subject. Imelt is on Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board and GE will profit huge from Cap and Trade legislation as well as government run health care (see http://www.healthymagination.com/news/index.html).
However, here is Garofalo speaking about the right to speak out and offer dissent. Conflicting isn't it? I guess it matters whether the person is speaking out for something that she believes in or not. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxP9ZHz4FQs&feature=related
So while Rush, Savage, Levin, Hannity and Colter say some stupid things, let's be honest, what the left parades out is just as stupid. I am open to debate on this topic for anyone who wants to debate the merits of what the pundits on the left/right speak about each day. Feel free to add your comments below.
Is it any wonder why Fox News crushes, literally crushes, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC combined in every time slot between 5 PM - 10 PM (EST & PST)? Fox News ranks #2 among ALL cable channels in primetime. CNN is 14th and MSNBC is 19th. In daytime, Fox was #4 while CNN was 17th and MSNBC was 29th. In fact, Fox News dominates 24/7 news morning, noon and night. If the country was really that liberal then you would think that MSNBC wouldn't be dead last when news shows compete head to head at CNN, Fox and MSNBC.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Obama's 1st 100 days - D.C. bi-partisan politics?
On November 4th, the United States elected a man who promised 'change', 'hope' and 'to improve America's image around the world.' On January 20th, his eloquently chosen words extolled the American way of life and made millions of American's once again be proud to call themselves a citizen of such a great and honorable country. The rest of America has and are proud to call themselves American. They didn't need a rallying speech in order to shed a tear at the pride they feel when they think about what their country has endured since the 1700's. Admittedly, I get choked up every time I hear the "Star Spangled Banner", "My Country, Tis of Thee", "America the Beautiful", "Taps", and "Battle Hymn of the Republic". These songs remind me of what all America, its fallen heroes and still living veterans have sacrificed to endure its freedom.
But sometimes a speech is needed to heal those who are weak and sick, to pick those up who have been knocked down and dust off their shoulders, and most of all, a speech is needed when it is indicative of a people who need rhetoric to follow instead of actionable leadership. Well, in President Obama's first 100+ days everyone in America surely has their take on whether we have been following rhetoric or actionable leadership. Let's compare his words that so many have chosen to follow versus his actions that have proven less courageous.
Leading up to election day, one of Obama's most prominent campaign promises was to change Washington politics by changing the partisan tones and the influence of lobbyists. His inauguration speech included this, "On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics." During his campaign and after the election, he promised 'a new era of responsibility', promised to end 'earmarks', and vowed to 'increase transparency.' He claimed in his campaign that 'no bill that comes to my desk will be signed into law until the American public has had 5 days to read it and offer their perspective to their representatives.' However, his actions tell another story. Let's review.
On Partisanship - he handed Pelosi the reigns to write the stimulus and budget bills but he claimed to have a 'reach across the aisle' cocktail hour at the White House to get everyone on board. Most republicans at that meeting will say that it was a 'Come to Jesus' meeting and not a heartfelt 'bridge the gap' affair. He also used the phrase, "We won", (alluding to democrat victory in the election) at a press conference to address a question that arose over whether or not republicans were correct in calling for more tax cuts or to dramatically reduce spending in reference to the stimulus and budget bills. His statement reeks of the 'its his way or the highway' approach that so many blame that Bush took to new heights. It appears there is no height that Obama can't outdo.
On Earmarks - 485 earmarks and the Omnibus budget had 9,000 earmarks and $13 billion in total. Obama called the $13 billion ...but claims that the $17 billion in spending cuts to his new budget a large sum of money. Interesting how when it the ends justify the means on spending that $17 billion is a lot of money. But when 'earmarks' are $13 billion that its not worth getting worked up over. The Omnibus bill represents nearly everything Democrats had criticized about the earlier Republican Congresses. It forces lawmakers to vote quickly on a bloated package combining nine separate appropriations bills. It irresponsibly expands the already-record budget deficit. And despite strongly worded proclamations about cleaning up Washington, the 2009 appropriation bills will have the second-most earmarks in history.
On Transparency - 13 bills have come to his desk for signature, all but one was signed into law within 5 days. The largest budget bill in the history of our country was signed into law 2 days after both chambers agreed on the bill. The Stimulus package, four days. SCHIP signed within hours of passing. To Obama's defense, he did, in a few speeches say that this transparency would be on 'non-emergency' bills. Well, budget bills are not emergency bills as they are not enacted for months after signing. The Stimulus bill was rushed through both chambers, most of your elected officials never read what they were signing, and as of today only about $20 billion has been spent to 'stimulate' our economy. Doesn't sound like passing the $787 billion was much of an emergency after all, especially if you look at what liberals want you to notice about the leading economic indicators. Our economy is stabilizing!!!! Good thing they don't want to write another stimulus bill...oh wait, many of them do. Sorry. Of course, Obama's White House will point you to Recovery.gov for the example of this 'transparency.' However, this site will offer very little oversight into where our taxpayer dollars are going. Why? Well, for instance, the stimulus package will only require that states and cities disclose project-specific expenses. For example, we will know how much the federal government gave to California but the state must show how it distributed those funds. Therefore, while we may know that over $25 million was used to pave Olympic Blvd, between Sepulveda and Beverly (all that drive that route know we need it badly), none of us will know how many Starbucks coffee's or McDonalds lunches were purchased with that money. Also, to hammer this point home even further, Congress is not requiring that stimulus contracts to be competitively bid. Based on all the above, if Obama wishes to have real transparency then he will have mayors, governors and all grantees account for every stimulus dime. Anyone with any scruples know that this will not happen so there will be plenty of opportunity for corruption.
On Lobbyists - Obama's ethics proposals specifically spelled out that former lobbyists would not be allowed to "work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years." On his first full day in office, Obama signed an executive order to that effect. But the order has a loophole — a "waiver" clause that allows former lobbyists to serve. That waiver clause has been used at least three times, and in some cases, the administration allows former lobbyists to serve without a waiver. However, below is a section from an Executive Order that Obama had written and vowed to uphold by 'the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America...' that was to be enacted on January 21, 2009.
But sometimes a speech is needed to heal those who are weak and sick, to pick those up who have been knocked down and dust off their shoulders, and most of all, a speech is needed when it is indicative of a people who need rhetoric to follow instead of actionable leadership. Well, in President Obama's first 100+ days everyone in America surely has their take on whether we have been following rhetoric or actionable leadership. Let's compare his words that so many have chosen to follow versus his actions that have proven less courageous.
Leading up to election day, one of Obama's most prominent campaign promises was to change Washington politics by changing the partisan tones and the influence of lobbyists. His inauguration speech included this, "On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics." During his campaign and after the election, he promised 'a new era of responsibility', promised to end 'earmarks', and vowed to 'increase transparency.' He claimed in his campaign that 'no bill that comes to my desk will be signed into law until the American public has had 5 days to read it and offer their perspective to their representatives.' However, his actions tell another story. Let's review.
On Partisanship - he handed Pelosi the reigns to write the stimulus and budget bills but he claimed to have a 'reach across the aisle' cocktail hour at the White House to get everyone on board. Most republicans at that meeting will say that it was a 'Come to Jesus' meeting and not a heartfelt 'bridge the gap' affair. He also used the phrase, "We won", (alluding to democrat victory in the election) at a press conference to address a question that arose over whether or not republicans were correct in calling for more tax cuts or to dramatically reduce spending in reference to the stimulus and budget bills. His statement reeks of the 'its his way or the highway' approach that so many blame that Bush took to new heights. It appears there is no height that Obama can't outdo.
On Earmarks - 485 earmarks and the Omnibus budget had 9,000 earmarks and $13 billion in total. Obama called the $13 billion ...but claims that the $17 billion in spending cuts to his new budget a large sum of money. Interesting how when it the ends justify the means on spending that $17 billion is a lot of money. But when 'earmarks' are $13 billion that its not worth getting worked up over. The Omnibus bill represents nearly everything Democrats had criticized about the earlier Republican Congresses. It forces lawmakers to vote quickly on a bloated package combining nine separate appropriations bills. It irresponsibly expands the already-record budget deficit. And despite strongly worded proclamations about cleaning up Washington, the 2009 appropriation bills will have the second-most earmarks in history.
On Transparency - 13 bills have come to his desk for signature, all but one was signed into law within 5 days. The largest budget bill in the history of our country was signed into law 2 days after both chambers agreed on the bill. The Stimulus package, four days. SCHIP signed within hours of passing. To Obama's defense, he did, in a few speeches say that this transparency would be on 'non-emergency' bills. Well, budget bills are not emergency bills as they are not enacted for months after signing. The Stimulus bill was rushed through both chambers, most of your elected officials never read what they were signing, and as of today only about $20 billion has been spent to 'stimulate' our economy. Doesn't sound like passing the $787 billion was much of an emergency after all, especially if you look at what liberals want you to notice about the leading economic indicators. Our economy is stabilizing!!!! Good thing they don't want to write another stimulus bill...oh wait, many of them do. Sorry. Of course, Obama's White House will point you to Recovery.gov for the example of this 'transparency.' However, this site will offer very little oversight into where our taxpayer dollars are going. Why? Well, for instance, the stimulus package will only require that states and cities disclose project-specific expenses. For example, we will know how much the federal government gave to California but the state must show how it distributed those funds. Therefore, while we may know that over $25 million was used to pave Olympic Blvd, between Sepulveda and Beverly (all that drive that route know we need it badly), none of us will know how many Starbucks coffee's or McDonalds lunches were purchased with that money. Also, to hammer this point home even further, Congress is not requiring that stimulus contracts to be competitively bid. Based on all the above, if Obama wishes to have real transparency then he will have mayors, governors and all grantees account for every stimulus dime. Anyone with any scruples know that this will not happen so there will be plenty of opportunity for corruption.
On Lobbyists - Obama's ethics proposals specifically spelled out that former lobbyists would not be allowed to "work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years." On his first full day in office, Obama signed an executive order to that effect. But the order has a loophole — a "waiver" clause that allows former lobbyists to serve. That waiver clause has been used at least three times, and in some cases, the administration allows former lobbyists to serve without a waiver. However, below is a section from an Executive Order that Obama had written and vowed to uphold by 'the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America...' that was to be enacted on January 21, 2009.
Executive Order -- Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel
"3. Revolving Door Ban Lobbyists Entering Government. If I was a registered lobbyist within the 2 years before the date of my appointment, in addition to abiding by the limitations of paragraph 2, I will not for a period of 2 years after the date of my appointment:
(a) participate in any particular matter on which I lobbied within the 2 years before the date of my appointment;
(b) participate in the specific issue area in which that particular matter falls; or
(c) seek or accept employment with any executive agency that I lobbied within the 2 years before the date of my appointment.
To wrap up this evaluation, it has become increasingly clear that passing the president's agenda with the help of the far left has become the priority. Meanwhile working with republicans to 'end the petty grievances' and 'change the last 8 years' partisan politics' has become secondary. If his broken promises and actions that have occurred in his first 100 days is a precursor of what we should expect for the next 1360 days, then we can expect everyone to trust the government a lot less. This doesn't mean, however, that those Obama supporters will ever look beyond the rhetoric to the actions. Hitler once said, "The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force." It's in this frame of mind that many will again support Obama for reelection in 2012, as those who are weak (uneducated, welfare recipients, can't climb the corporate ladder, etc.) will follow his rhetoric. Unfortunately, it is my belief that unless there is a quick change as to the path America is on, that there will be fewer leaders in America in the coming years due to the Government's influence toward a socialist agenda whereby innovation is driven by politics and not by capitalism and one's desire to succeed.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Repeat recent history?
AP article, May 6, 2009 - "Trying to curb home foreclosures, the Senate voted on Wednesday to make it easier for homeowners with risky credit to switch to a lower-cost mortgage backed by the government. The bill, passed 91-5, also would give banks a break by encouraging reduced fees they must pay for the government to insure deposits."
Everyone knows that easy credit (coupled with no real regulatory watchdogs manning the oversight since they were getting bankrolled not to) is what helped get us into the mess we are in now. Too many citizens with shoddy credit getting risky loans with little money down and no real income to support the loan to begin with. Having had hearing after hearing lambasting all the Angelo Mozillo's, Lehman Bros and Ken Lewis' of the world and telling them it was the fact that they provided too many loans to risky borrowers, what is congress proposing to do as of today? You guessed it. Make loans to risky borrowers easier to get. This is your government in overdrive trying everything they can to spur lending activity so that it will demonstrate, no matter how erroneously, that or economy is getting stronger by showing that banks are lending again. Guess who is backing these loans? Could you believe its the government (which means the taxpayers)? We already back all the defunct loans now through Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae so why not add more coal to the fire?
It absolutely amazes me that our government can get away with this without any uprising from the people. Of course, its hard to get the people to rise up when they are uneducated due to the fact that the media will spin this news in a way that makes you think its actually a positive, not only in the short term but also in the long run.
So the taxpayer is the backer of the toxic asset program, the FDIC insurance on all bank accounts less than $250(k) although I have Citibank guaranteeing up to $1 million until the end of the year, AIG, Citibank, FNM/FRE, Amtrak and soon to be Muni bonds if Barney Frank has his way. Yet, so many of us shrug our shoulders and just say, 'whatever'. Of course, they shrug now because Obama can't do anything wrong according to his worshipers but if this was Bush guaranteeing the potential fall out after having loaded up the taxpayer with deficits from here to the moon you can bet your last penny that the media storm would be a category 5 right now.
Give it time...when the far left liberal agenda fails miserably many of you will wonder why you ever voted for the smooth talking, good looking, black man who holds hands with his wife and plays with their children and dog...Didn't Bush hold hands with his wife, have a loving dog, and have 2 girls that had a good relationship with their father? But somehow it means so much more when its the current White House family. Interesting?
Enjoy the default and foreclosure's that will surely come despite this government guaranty!
Everyone knows that easy credit (coupled with no real regulatory watchdogs manning the oversight since they were getting bankrolled not to) is what helped get us into the mess we are in now. Too many citizens with shoddy credit getting risky loans with little money down and no real income to support the loan to begin with. Having had hearing after hearing lambasting all the Angelo Mozillo's, Lehman Bros and Ken Lewis' of the world and telling them it was the fact that they provided too many loans to risky borrowers, what is congress proposing to do as of today? You guessed it. Make loans to risky borrowers easier to get. This is your government in overdrive trying everything they can to spur lending activity so that it will demonstrate, no matter how erroneously, that or economy is getting stronger by showing that banks are lending again. Guess who is backing these loans? Could you believe its the government (which means the taxpayers)? We already back all the defunct loans now through Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae so why not add more coal to the fire?
It absolutely amazes me that our government can get away with this without any uprising from the people. Of course, its hard to get the people to rise up when they are uneducated due to the fact that the media will spin this news in a way that makes you think its actually a positive, not only in the short term but also in the long run.
So the taxpayer is the backer of the toxic asset program, the FDIC insurance on all bank accounts less than $250(k) although I have Citibank guaranteeing up to $1 million until the end of the year, AIG, Citibank, FNM/FRE, Amtrak and soon to be Muni bonds if Barney Frank has his way. Yet, so many of us shrug our shoulders and just say, 'whatever'. Of course, they shrug now because Obama can't do anything wrong according to his worshipers but if this was Bush guaranteeing the potential fall out after having loaded up the taxpayer with deficits from here to the moon you can bet your last penny that the media storm would be a category 5 right now.
Give it time...when the far left liberal agenda fails miserably many of you will wonder why you ever voted for the smooth talking, good looking, black man who holds hands with his wife and plays with their children and dog...Didn't Bush hold hands with his wife, have a loving dog, and have 2 girls that had a good relationship with their father? But somehow it means so much more when its the current White House family. Interesting?
Enjoy the default and foreclosure's that will surely come despite this government guaranty!
Obama doctrine: "Don't blame me"
As of inauguration day and leading up to the passage of the $787 billion stimulus bill Obama and his minions were blabbing to any open mic and tv camera about how terrible this economy was that he inherited. Remember his now famous quote to a group of workers in Michigan when asked about the deficits, "Don't blame me" was his retort. When he was at the Summit of the America's and Ortega went on his long rant about Central America's opposition to U.S. Policy, Obama took the mic and responded, “I’m grateful President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old." When Bill Ayers came up during the campaign about his bombings Obama said, "I was eight years old." So from his character associations with past terrorists, to his inherited budget deficit and to his American apology tour the simple underlying theme was "Don't blame me, it didn't happen on my watch."
So I guess he wasn't a senator with a vote in 2005, 2006, 2007, & 2008. Oh yeah, he was and he voted 'no' on Bush's budgets which were 1/3 less than Obama just signed into law. He campaigned on 'reducing the deficit and cutting spending should be our number one priority to help grow the economy.' But in defiance of logic and in direct contrast to what he campaigned on what are his actions? He intends to triple the deficit and grow spending...well, except for the $17 billion he found to cut by going line by line. Whew, thank God he found 1/2 of 1% to cut. Now our economy can truly grow. Bush, in his last budget found $34 billion to cut and democrats said that wasn't enough. Funny how now those same dems are hailing Obama a hero for 'cutting spending'. Seriously, are there still educated people in this country and that actually read?
Ayers was of course a situation that happened many years ago when Obama was a small child. However, that doesn't excuse him from being friends with him and associating with the man. And we can 'Blame' Obama for being friends with him as that is fact. Obviously we can't take blame for other peoples actions but show me who your friends are and I will tell you what you are.
The apology tour that the liberal media here in the U.S. hailed as a success was nothing more than a 'please forgive America for all its past transgression's, we are truly sorry.' Sorry for what exactly President Obama? Liberating Europe (twice) from fascism and Nazism? Eliminating the enslaving of blacks from our land and defeating segregation? The cold war fight that all but ended Communism's spread? Or how about liberating Kuwait in the 1st gulf war when the UN authorized military action and 34 countries (including arab countries) joined the US in defeating Iraq? Or defeating Milosovich? Should we apologize for always being at the back of Israel and supporting them while other rogue nations want nothing but to destroy them? Maybe we should apologize for always overflowingly giving money and aid to nations in need. Remember the 2005 Tsunami for example, I guess we should say sorry for helping. How about Bush's major push to fight the spread of Aids around the world:
So I guess he wasn't a senator with a vote in 2005, 2006, 2007, & 2008. Oh yeah, he was and he voted 'no' on Bush's budgets which were 1/3 less than Obama just signed into law. He campaigned on 'reducing the deficit and cutting spending should be our number one priority to help grow the economy.' But in defiance of logic and in direct contrast to what he campaigned on what are his actions? He intends to triple the deficit and grow spending...well, except for the $17 billion he found to cut by going line by line. Whew, thank God he found 1/2 of 1% to cut. Now our economy can truly grow. Bush, in his last budget found $34 billion to cut and democrats said that wasn't enough. Funny how now those same dems are hailing Obama a hero for 'cutting spending'. Seriously, are there still educated people in this country and that actually read?
Ayers was of course a situation that happened many years ago when Obama was a small child. However, that doesn't excuse him from being friends with him and associating with the man. And we can 'Blame' Obama for being friends with him as that is fact. Obviously we can't take blame for other peoples actions but show me who your friends are and I will tell you what you are.
The apology tour that the liberal media here in the U.S. hailed as a success was nothing more than a 'please forgive America for all its past transgression's, we are truly sorry.' Sorry for what exactly President Obama? Liberating Europe (twice) from fascism and Nazism? Eliminating the enslaving of blacks from our land and defeating segregation? The cold war fight that all but ended Communism's spread? Or how about liberating Kuwait in the 1st gulf war when the UN authorized military action and 34 countries (including arab countries) joined the US in defeating Iraq? Or defeating Milosovich? Should we apologize for always being at the back of Israel and supporting them while other rogue nations want nothing but to destroy them? Maybe we should apologize for always overflowingly giving money and aid to nations in need. Remember the 2005 Tsunami for example, I guess we should say sorry for helping. How about Bush's major push to fight the spread of Aids around the world:
"No world leader has done more for world health than President George Bush," said California megachurch pastor Rick Warren on the 20th anniversary of World AIDS Day. "Literally millions of lives have been saved in the last five years." As of Sept. 30, the initiative has provided lifesaving antiretroviral treatments for more than 2.1 million people around the world with HIV/AIDS, including 2 million in sub-Saharan Africa, according to the White House. The president proposed the program in January 2003 and has already put nearly $19 billion into funding for treatments, according to the White House. It was recently reauthorized by Congress in July, giving an additional $48 billion to ongoing efforts to combat the pandemic.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
$384k and no photos?
It was learned today that the Obama administration, who created panic with a F-16 chaperoned 'photo-op fly over' of AF1, does not know where the photos are but we do know that it cost the American taxpayer over $380,000. So if the photos cannot be viewed by the taxpayer who paid for the fly over then isn't it our right under the freedom of information act to have these posted on MSNBC and CNN since its was them and the ACLU who so badly wanted the interrogation memo's leaked. What is more hurtful to national security, leaking CIA interrogation memo's or photos of our presidents plane flying over NYC? Now, with all the hoopla over the shenanigans pulled that day by Obama and his administration, in particular Obama coming out and saying he knew nothing about it, it bares asking...who is running the show in D.C.?
Do all sitting presidents allow their plane (owned by the taxpayer) to be borrowed for photo op events without the president knowing? So what happens if King Abdullah calls Barry O and says, "I need to see you right away and it cannot wait. Gas up your plane and meet me in Uzbekistan." Does BHO have to say, 'Sorry King Paula Abdul but my plane is being used to fly over and scare the hell out of a city of 15 million unsuspecting innocent civilians just so we can get some cool photos of Air Force One with the Statue of Liberty in the background. Can we make it for tomorrow when the rental is returned?'
This is a disgrace and its telling that Robert Gibbs, the white house press secretary, who looked as if he knew the question was going to be asked but couldn't hide and end the daily briefing quick enough. This administration has dropped the ball on so many things and flip flopped on more issues in one week than Clinton did in one month (and that is saying something). It leads the sane person to ask, just who is the president of the United States and where is his lead following? Notice the subtle play on words there.
Do all sitting presidents allow their plane (owned by the taxpayer) to be borrowed for photo op events without the president knowing? So what happens if King Abdullah calls Barry O and says, "I need to see you right away and it cannot wait. Gas up your plane and meet me in Uzbekistan." Does BHO have to say, 'Sorry King Paula Abdul but my plane is being used to fly over and scare the hell out of a city of 15 million unsuspecting innocent civilians just so we can get some cool photos of Air Force One with the Statue of Liberty in the background. Can we make it for tomorrow when the rental is returned?'
This is a disgrace and its telling that Robert Gibbs, the white house press secretary, who looked as if he knew the question was going to be asked but couldn't hide and end the daily briefing quick enough. This administration has dropped the ball on so many things and flip flopped on more issues in one week than Clinton did in one month (and that is saying something). It leads the sane person to ask, just who is the president of the United States and where is his lead following? Notice the subtle play on words there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)