Politico Politico

Uh, Mr. Obama, Birth Control Isn't the Problem

2012-02-10T14:38:00.003-06:00

President Obama supposedly fixed the problem of forcing Catholic institutions to provide contraceptive and abortion services against their beliefs.

Now Catholic institutions will just have to buy health insurance that provides contraceptive and abortion services without cost to said Catholic institutions. That's right, for free.

But the insurance for Catholic hospitals, universities and etc. will still have those provisions.

And, who will pay for these services? One guess.

That's right!! The rest of us!!

But this is NOT the Basic Problem.

The problem is that the President has no constitutional power to tell religious institutions what they will or will not do.

NOR does he have the power to tell any of us what will or will not purchase.

NOR does he have the power to make laws.

NONE of this is constitutional.

Please go and take a look at this art work.

Hey! Did You Know????

2012-02-01T19:34:00.002-06:00

Well, you probably didn't.

No one is reporting this little item. Not the mainstream media, not the majority of the conservative media.

You have to search to find this little nugget:

That President Obama was subpoenaed last week in Georgia over his eligibility to run for President.

Source

And no, it wasn't about where he was born.

Contrary to what you might be thinking, the issue is whether Obama is a "natural born" citizen. You see, his father, according to the birth certificate that Obama finally came up with (rather quickly, after all the hullaballoo about not being able to find it!) was NOT a U.S. citizen.

And according to the Supreme Court, in Minor vs. Hzppersett (1874), "natural born" citizens--who are eligible to be President of the United States--are those "children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

That is, you are a "natural born" citizen if BOTH of your parents are U.S. citizens.

But, even that isn't really the issue.

The issue is that Obama feels himself above the law of our country.

Obama's attorney stated the President didn't have to attend.

The judge replied, in so many words, "show me where the President doesn't have to obey the law." (My paraphrase)

So the lawyer went up to the state level and tried to get the President excused. Sorry, said the Georgia Secretary of State, that's a judicial issue--go hash it out with the judge.

And so, Obama just ignored the judge.

President Obama did not show up for court, nor did he send any legal representation. He just decided that the subpoena was not binding on him, the President.

So, is our President above the law? Seems so.

Obama is Going to Disney World

2012-01-18T21:06:00.000-06:00

President Obama is going to Disney World tomorrow to talk about tourism. He will be promoting "visa reform" for travelers from other countries to visit the U.S.

Obama's visa changes will probably be through executive order rather than through Congress. Constitution, anyone?

Source

Unfortunately, tourists to Disney World tomorrow will lose their extra hours in the Magic Kingdom (a perk for those staying in the Disney hotels), will see the parade at a different time due to Obama's speech, and will have to endure extra-heavy security and loss of parking at the Magic Kingdom and the Contemporary Resort Hotel.

Freedom of Speech--It's One of Our Guaranteed Rights

2012-01-18T20:21:00.000-06:00

Source

Today, several big websites (including Wikipedia, Craigslist, and Google among many others) are having a "black-out" in protest against the SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) bill.

This bill is ostensibly supposed to stop foreign counterfeit companies from selling pirated goods in the U.S. However, it requires internet service providers to monitor and shut down--without due process--any sites suspected of selling counterfeit goods or even having a link to a real or suspected counterfeiting site.

This is using a sledge hammer to swat a fly, to say the least.

Very upset about this protest, former senator Chris Dodd (Democrat-Connecticut) lambasted these black-outs as "an abuse of power" and a “gimmick” “designed to punish elected and administration officials who are working diligently to protect American jobs from foreign criminals.”
Irony in action.

Mitt Romney Is Not Paying Less on His Income Tax

2012-01-18T19:48:00.000-06:00

Source

He is paying capital gains taxes. Fifteen percent is currently the going rate for capital gains taxes.

BECAUSE that money has already been taxed, at the normal income tax level.

Capital gains taxes are lower to encourage investment, and because it's already had income taxes taken out.

You know, actually, the government shouldn't be able to tax your money more than once. IMHO.

I Just Can't Stay Away...

2012-01-18T19:24:00.001-06:00

But I WON'T talk about the primaries.

At least, not much

Holder is Subpoenaed

2011-10-13T15:40:00.001-05:00

The U.S. Attorney General has been subpoenaed by the House Oversight Committee.

The Committee wants all the communication concerning Fast & Furious that occurred in the upper level of the Department of Justice. The subpoena also requests communication with the White House.

Previous documents given to the Oversight Committee had been heavily redacted.

Obama's Job Bill Dies

2011-10-12T08:40:00.000-05:00

Source

Well, the Senate ended up voting on President Obama's Jobs Bill (despite Reid's shenanigans earlier).

And thus the bill died, in the Senate, despite Obama's heavy campaigning on its behalf.

This was to be expected, given the 1.5 trillion dollar tax increases in the bill.

Of course, Obama is expected to blame this on the Republicans. Yet, it was the lack of support from Democrats in the Senate that led to this bill's demise.

The Senate Terrorized by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid

2011-10-11T14:11:00.001-05:00

Last week, Senator Harry Reid (D-Nevada) unilaterally changed the rules in the Senate.

It's really sorta complicated, but basically the Republican minority was going to force an amendment which would then force a vote on Obama's Jobs Bill.

This is fairly common parliamentary maneuver to see how the wind is blowing on a bill.

In this case, the amendment would have failed (to have a vote on Obama's bill)---but it would have indirectly shown which Democrats opposed Obama's Jobs Bill and who supported it.

Reid, of course, was mortified about having a vote on Obama's bill--BECAUSE IT WAS GOING TO FAIL.

So he just changed the rules.

Uh Oh, Is Holder in Trouble?

2011-10-11T13:34:00.002-05:00

Attorney General Holder wrote a 5 page letter last week to Congress about Fast &Furious.

Holder blames Congress for Fast & Furious, stating that they won't fix loopholes that allow guns across the borders.

Of course, the DOJ (through its department of Alcohol, Tobacco &Firearms, also called "ATF") actually sold guns across the border--hard to fix THAT loophole.

Holder also blames the "politics" of Congress as contributing to Fast & Furious, as well as poor, not-strict-enough gun control laws.

He then again says he knew absolutely nothing about Fast & Furious until this year--despite the memos he received back in 2010.

Holder refers to Fast &Furious as a "regrettable incident".

In the meantime, more guns have been discovered in the hands of Mexican drug lords.

****************************************************

The Congressional Oversight Committee, headed by Representative Issa (R-California), has now replied to Holder. Here are some excerpts:

"It appears your latest defense has reached a new low."

"The facts simply do not support any claim that Fast and Furious did not reach the highest levels of the Justice Department. Actually, Fast and Furious did reach the ultimate authority in the Department - you."

"Unfortunately, the Department's cooperation to date has been minimal. Hundreds of pages of documents that have been produced to my Committee are duplicative, and hundreds more contain substantial redactions, rendering them virtually worthless."

"Mr. Attorney General, you have made numerous statements about Fast and Furious that have eventually been proven to be untrue. Your lack of trustworthiness while speaking about Fast and Furious has called into question your overall credibility as Attorney General."

Read the whole letter here.

Okay, Okay!

2011-10-06T09:59:00.001-05:00

I have soooooo much to write about!
But I have three papers due tomorrow!
I promise, info soon on various and sundry issues, including Obama's green boondoggle and non-starting jobs bill.

Something for Attack Watch?

2011-10-06T09:56:00.002-05:00

Do you think this needs to be turned in to AttackWatch.com?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBOMjZU-aCE

FLOTUS Travels

2011-10-04T18:11:00.001-05:00

The First Lady's trip earlier this year to Africa cost a little more than $424,000 for the flights alone.

This cost doesn't include any other expenses---such as food, lodging, ground transportation or security.

Twenty-one family and staff also went to Africa.

Mrs Obama's daughters were listed as "Senior Staff".

This information was discovered by Judicial Watch only after filing a lawsuit based on the Freedom of Information Act.

The First Lady spoke on education and health on stops at several cities. The trip then ended with a private safari for the family.

Was there Pressure On Ford over Commercial?

2011-10-04T17:51:00.001-05:00

Yes, according to the Detroit News. Maybe not a direct order, but subtle "questioning". Read the story and decide yourself.

Umm, Excuse Me, Holder Knew About Fast & Furious Waaaayyyyy Before This Year

2011-10-04T17:36:00.002-05:00

Documents released Friday show that AG Holder was informed about Fast & Furious in July 2010.

In his May 2011 testimony to Congress, Holder stated he had only learned of Fast & Furious in the last few weeks prior.

In short, he lied.

NOW Holder states he didn't understand the question. He insists that the memos didn't give him any details of the Fast & Furious operation--apparently only the name of the operation was mentioned. Holder is adamant that he didn't know anything (AT ALL) about what was going on back in 2010.

' “He’s either incompetent or he’s misleading Congress,” responded....the press secretary for the House Oversight Committee, which is chaired by Issa.'

Meanwhile, reporter Sharyl Atkisson, who covers the White House, has been reporting on Fast & Furious. She states that the White House and the Department of Justice has been "screaming" and "cussing" at her for trying to cover this story.

Apparently they feel that she is "not being reasonable" and is "unfair and biased". They would like her to "be reasonable" like the NY Times, the LA Times, and the Washington Post.

Wow, this sounds a bit like the Ford commercial that wasn't well-liked by the Obama Administration.

Hey! More on Fast & Furious

2011-10-03T10:13:00.002-05:00

More info on Fast and Furious came out last Friday.

To wit: The newly released documents show lots of emailing back and forth between the ATF Agent-In-Charge and a White House National Security staff person, which also show that phone calls occurred.

These two also shared a chart showing where the guns came from (in Arizona) and ended up (all over Mexico).

Developed by Arizona Gun Runner Impact Team, the chart is pretty explicit in showing the extent of gun-running:

Source: CBS News via Big Government

And, don't forget that Attorney General Holder innacurately reported to Congress that he did not know of Fast & Furious until April 2011.

Holder also denies authorizing and/or knowing of Fast & Furious when it began.

Which either points to 1) His duplicity, or
2) His incompetence.

Basically, both the White House and the DOJ are saying, "I know nuthink....I know nuthink...."

Suspending Elections: A Joke? I Think Not...

2011-09-29T08:48:00.000-05:00

Benedict Arnold
Source

North Carolina governor (Democrat) Beverly Perdue has stated "it was only a joke" when she proposed suspending congressional elections for two years until Congress can get the country economically back on track.

Uhh, I don't think so.

What do you think? Does this sound like a joke? Here's the quote from Governor Perdue:

"You have to have more ability from Congress, I think, to work together and to get over the partisan bickering and focus on fixing things. I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won't hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover. I really hope that someone can agree with me on that. The one good thing about Raleigh is that for so many years we worked across party lines. It's a little bit more contentious now but it's not impossible to try to do what's right in this state. You want people who don't worry about the next election."

Maybe Governor Perdue wants to extend the moratorium on elections to North Carolina, seeing as how her campaign is under criminal investigation, hmmm?

She sounds a lot like President Obama's former director of the Office of Management and Budget, Peter Orszag, who wrote an article on "Why We Need Less Democracy":

To solve the serious problems facing our country, we need to minimize the harm from legislative inertia by relying more on automatic policies and depoliticized commissions for certain policy decisions. In other words, radical as it sounds, we need to counter the gridlock of our political institutions by making them a bit less democratic.

More on "Fast and Furious"

2011-09-28T20:15:00.000-05:00

Okay, let's look a bit more at "Fast and Furious", the more than ~~1,400~~ ~~2,000~~ 2,500 guns that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and the Department of Justice, allowed to "walk" across the border to Mexico.

The guns included "dozens of .50 caliber sniper rifles".

The operation is responsible for at least 200 deaths, including two federal agents.

The operation whose budget has exploded (pun intended) and is partially funded by Stimulus money.

The operation that everyone in the Obama Administration forgot to mention to Mexico.

So, who knew about Fast and Furious? Who's responsible? Who let this get so out-of-control?

"Not me," said President Obama.

"Not me," said Attorney General Holder.

"Not me," said Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano.

Let's start with some of the latest information about "Fast and Furious". As you know, it was started to track guns illegally taken across the Mexican border. Well, it seems that BATF (which is part of the Department of the Treasury) and the DOJ merely needed to question their fellow compatriots over at the DEA and the FBI---both of which are part of the Department of Justice.

You see, it was an FBI informant that was taking the guns across the border to the Mexican drug cartels.

Basically, "Fast and Furious" could have been closed long ago.

But it should have been closed down long ago. Even a year-and-a-half ago (January 2010), "Fast and Furious" guns had been found at the sites of at least 6 serious crimes. That was before the death of Agent Brian Terry.

Yet Attorney General Holder continues to deny any culpability, despite a slew of recent resignations and transfers of people involved in this scandal. These include the Obama appointee U.S. Attorney in Arizona (Dennis Burke), the Assistant U.S. Attorney General (Emory Hurley), the Acting Director of the ATF (Kenneth Melson) and two more ATF administrators.

Holder has also thus far refused to provide information to the Congressional investigation headed by Representative Issa and Senator Grassley. Holder denies that the DOJ underlings consulted with him or his office in this internationally-sensitive gun-running operation.

Acting Director of the BATF Melson, BTW, was transferred to the Washington D.C. DOJ office as the "senior adviser on forensic science" (whatever that is) ---- but AFTER he had moved all the folks involved in "Fast and Furious" on to other assignments on orders from his superiors in the DOJ, who ALSO ordered him not to mention "Fast and Furious" to Congress as the reason for the shuffling.

On a further note, emails have surfaced revealing that officials in the White House knew about "Fast and Furious". Emails concerning the gun-running operation went to Kevin M. O'Reilly (director of North American Affairs for White House national security); Dan Restrepo (the president's senior Latin American advisor), and Greg Gatjanis (a White House national security official). According to the White House, no one else in the White House knew of these emails.

Two more items I'd suggest you look at:

#1 The letter from the Congressional investigation team to the DOJ--very interesting reading. It's here.

#2 How this is affecting the family of Agent Brian Terry--very sad reading. It's here.

AND, congrats to Issa and Grassley for continuing to check out this fiasco.

Back into Blogging: Furiouser and Furiouser

2011-09-19T12:35:00.001-05:00

Source

It's time to get into blogging again, so let's start with something close to home--my home, Texas.

Such as the so-called "Fast and Furious" federal initiative, which has greatly affected border states.

A brief review:

Brian Terry, a U.S. Border Patrol agent, was shot in 2010 by rifles found to have been sold to Mexican thugs in an operation (run by Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives and the Department of Justice) called Project Gunrunner, or "Fast and Furious".

"Fast and Furious" guns have also been implicated in the death of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agent Jaime Zapata.

"Fast and Furious" consisted of selling assault guns to known intermediates who would in turn sell these weapons to Mexican drug cartels. In fact, these guns were sold over the objection of Americans who ran legally-operated gun shops. (You SHOULD read this article here.)

The purpose? Well, this operations was begun in 2005 under President Bush as a BATFE endeavor to stop illegal gun trafficking across the Mexican border. It was to work with the Mexican government by monitoring undercover gun sales.

Under President Obama's administration, the gunwalking operation (then known as "Project Gunrunner") continued to expand rapidly, despite warnings that the tracking methods just weren't working well. Guns were finding their way into the hands of Mexican narco-terrorists without being tracked OR intercepted.

The BATFE has lost track of over 1,400 assault weapons in Project Gunrunner, if you're interested in exactly how negligent they've been.

The Obama administration also greatly increased Project Gunrunner's (aka Fast and Furious) budget, giving it $10 million dollars in Stimulus Money. Hard to believe, but true.

So how is Mexico reacting to all this? Not well. Especially since Mexico hadn't been informed of the project.

And even more especially since the lost guns are turning up in crimes committed in Mexico, including murders and kidnappings.

Some Mexican officials are not at all happy; some are now demanding the extradition of BAFTE and DOJ officials who are involved in Fast and Furious.

So, exactly who in the BATFE and DOJ ARE involved? Tune in next time.........

Job Growth: A Big, Fat Zero

2011-09-19T10:46:00.000-05:00

As in "None", "Nada", "Zip".

Source

President Obama's policies have now shown their full effects.

Obama Just Doesn't Get It---No More Taxes!

2011-07-22T19:45:00.001-05:00

President Obama insists on new sources of revenue--another phrase for TAXES.

Speaker Boehner, and Republicans, say no. Absolutely no taxes. As Boehner says, "The president is emphatic that taxes have to be raised. As a former small businessman, I know tax increases destroy jobs."

Obama blames Republicans on this impasses, but offers no concrete plan of his own. Instead, Reid kept the Cut, Cap and Balance Act off the floor of the Senate and didn't allow any discussion or vote on it.

Obama blames Republicans on the looming default, when the government will not default. There's enough money to pay our debts.

Obama blames Republcans for the possibility of senior citizens not getting their Social Security checks, when it will be his decision whether or not those checks will be mailed.

Obama blames Republicans for the possible lowering of our credit rating, when the problem is not the possibility of default (see above) but the out-of-control spending under his governorship.

CALL your senators and representative, and everyone else you can think of. This is a representative democracy!

Stop the RINO's!

2011-07-20T10:15:00.001-05:00

Source

Call your Senators and Representative. (Use the "Vote" button to find the number.)

Tell your Senators you are FOR the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act (which was passed yesterday in the House) and against McConnell's plan and the Gang-of-Six plan.

Thank your Representative if they voted for the Cut, Cap and Balance Act. If they didn't, tell them about your displeasure. (Find out here how everyone voted.)

Call Senator McConnell's office and tell him his plan is absolutely the wrong one for America.
Phone: (502) 582-6304 (Kentucky office) or (202) 224-2541 (D.C. office)

Call Senators Chambliss (phone 202-224-3521), Crapo (phone 202-224-6142 for the D.C. office or 208- 334-1776 for Idaho office), and Coburn (phone 202-224-5754 in D.C. or 918-581-7651 for the Tulsa office) and tell them the same thing. State your support for Cut, Cap and Balance.

Now, Who Are the Other Nefarious RINO's? Or, Who are the Gang of Six?

2011-07-20T09:56:00.000-05:00

Source

What about the plan by the Gang of Six?

First of all, who are they? Senators, including
***Republican RINO's Tom Coburn (Oklahoma), Saxby Chambliss (Georgia), and Mike Crapo (Idaho).
***Democrats Warner (Virginia), Durbin (Illinois), and Conrad (North Dakota)

Basically, the plan is ONE TRILLION DOLLARS in NEW REVENUES (read Tax Increases)

plus some as-yet-unidentified spending cuts and spending caps.

Good deal, huh?

Ditch Mitch! As Well as Other Nefarious RINO's

2011-07-20T09:41:00.000-05:00

Source

Senator Mitch McConnell, along with Senator Harry Reid, have proposed a plan that Moody's (which assesses debt ratings) would not approve.

This plan, which Heritage calls the "Just-Borrow-More" plan, simply allows the President (who, IMHO, doesn't have the Constitutional mandate to borrow money--that's one of the functions of the Legislature or Congress) to borrow money as he wishes.

This plan would require a 2/3 majority of Congress to STOP the Presidential borrowing.

Thus, the end result of McConnell's plan is to raise the debt ceiling. Period. Without any cuts in spending.

Moody's has said that the U.S. credit rating will suffer if
1) The federal government defaults on its payments; and
2) The federal government doesn't stop spending so wildly.

McConnell's plan does NOTHING to stop spending.

Thus his plan will lead to a downgrading of the U.S. credit rating, which will lead to higher interest rates, which will further increase the U.S. debt and depress the economy.....

and so on and so on and so on......

New Campaign: DITCH MITCH!

2011-07-14T18:55:00.000-05:00

Senator Mitch McConnell is apparently pushing his idea (basically, to allow the President, by law, to have control of raising the debt limit) to Democrats as well as other not-so-conservative Senators.

RINO's!!!! One and all who go for this.

Thus the new campaign:
Ditch Mitch!

Social Security Games

2011-07-13T19:37:00.000-05:00

President Obama has ~~warned~~ threatened that there won't be enough money to pay Social Security checks if Republicans don't agree to new taxes AND continued spending.

Which is patently false.

Moreover, it is the Executive Branch (Obama) who makes the decision whether or not to pay out Social Security checks. Let's say this one more time: If folks don't get Social Security checks in August, it's Obama's decision.

Oh, and by the way, I thought all the money was socked away somewhere, ready and waiting to be paid out to Social Security recipients?

Political Chicken

2011-07-13T10:58:00.000-05:00

President Obama has threatened to withhold Social Security checks if he doesn't get the Debt Ceiling raised AND new Tax Increases (on top of all the tax increases that begin next year under Obamacare.)
And to withhold Medicare & Medicaid checks as well as those to our Armed Forces.

It seems that Obama doesn't really care much about We, the People, since it is a fact that the federal government has enough money at present (without an increase in the Debt Ceiling!!!) to pay interest on government loans, Social Security, Medicare and Defense costs.

Remember that President Obama earlier to consider a bill (proposed by Republicans) ensuring that the armed forces would continue to be paid even if the federal government shut down?

In fact, Obama promised to veto this bill.

Unemployment Up--But That's OK--We don't Understand those Numbers Anyway!

2011-07-13T10:24:00.000-05:00

Unemployment rose to 9.2%.

Not only that, but the number of jobs was decreased by 25,000 for April and 217,000 in May. So those months were worse off, job-wise, than previously thought.

Manufacturing added only 6,000 jobs; professional and business service jobs rose by 12,000 jobs; education and medical jobs added no jobs. Construction jobs and financial service jobs fell.

According to President Obama, We, the People, aren't able to understand these numbers and shouldn't worry about them anyway.

It's the job of the professional politicians according to Obama, "Well, let me distinguish between professional politicians and the public at large. The public is not paying close attention to the ins and outs of how a Treasury option goes. They shouldn’t."

So, folks, don't worry. Your professional politicians (something our founding fathers were totally against!!) are taking care of things!

A True Fourth of July Story

2011-07-05T10:54:00.000-05:00

A few weeks ago, Dearest Husband was flying back to Dallas. As he was getting his ticket, he observed an older gentleman insisting that a young Marine take his 1st-class ticket and busily making arrangements to trade seats with the Marine.

When DH got on the plane, he found himself sitting next to this gentleman in the back of the plane. As they began to talk, my DH commented on the older gentleman's kindness and generosity in trading his first-class seat for the Marine's coach accomodation.

"You know why I did that?" the older man asked. "I love this country."

He went on to explain that during World War II, his parents, living in war-ravaged Europe, subsisted on rations provided by the U.S. Army. His father would point out the empty ration boxes and tell him, "You should love America. They kept us alive. If America hadn't helped us, you wouldn't be alive today."

The gentleman never forgot his father's words. Later in life, he immigrated to America, became a prosperous business man, and has been active in American life and politics.

Why? "Because I love this country."

Happy Birthday, America!

2011-07-04T09:23:00.000-05:00

And More News: Third-Year-In-A-Row Trillion Dollar Deficits!

2011-06-12T15:44:00.000-05:00

The deficit is almost a trillion dollars right now, with 2 and a half months to go.

And if you look at the figures, it's not lack of income to the U.S. Treasury (as some Democrats are claiming). Revenue is actually up.

The problem is SPENDING.

Democrats are now pushing another stimulus package to work on infrastructure, along with new Tax Increases.

Woo, Hoo! Electricity Costs Set to Skyrocket!

2011-06-12T13:40:00.001-05:00

Source

This news just in time for the Fourth of July.

Then-Senator Obama, in a January 2008 interview, promised that his policies would send electricity rates soaring: "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."

Likewise, Obama vowed to "bankrupt" coal-fired electrical plants: "So, if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can — it’s just that it will bankrupt them."

With Cap and Trade (aka Cap and Tax) regulations voted down in Congress, President Obama has used the EPA to come up with multiple new regulations that will stifle coal-burning electrical power plants.

There are about 600 coal facilities in the U.S. which produce about half our electricity.

American Electric Power, one of the largest producers of coal-generated electricity, states it will close 25% of its coal-burning plants and spend billions upgrading other plants.

Prices of electricity are estimated to rise 40-60% by 2014.

President Obama wants to look at other sources of clean energy--for example, electricity for cars.

My question: Exactly where will that electricity come from?

Just wonderin'....

The Economy and the President

2011-06-09T21:11:00.000-05:00

President Obama used to receive daily economic reports.

No more.

He quit ~~worrying~~ receiving those a while back.

The Arab Spring: It's Sprouting Nazis

2011-06-07T10:15:00.001-05:00

Recently, the Nazi Party re-emerged in Egypt.

A group, claiming that the Nazi Party was operational though underground,during Mubarek's tenure in office, has come forward to announce its revival.

The Middle East has a long history of collaboration with the World War II Nazi regime. During WWII, Muslim religious leaders accepted money and help from Nazi Germany. After WWII, many Nazis fled to Egypt and hid there, often becoming devout Muslims. Others became active in the Palestinian Liberation Organization, helping with military training.

A 1953 commemorative letter from Anwar Sadat to Hitler praised Hitler for his fight against Jews. In 1999, Hitler's Mein Kampf was translated into Arabic and disseminated by the PLO.

This is the Middle East that President Obama has extolled as becoming more democratic.

This is the Egypt that President Obama would forgive $1 billion dollars in debt and give out $1 billion more in economic aid.

This is the Middle East whose barbaric slaughter of protesters, "virginity checks" on women in the streets, and rape of an American reporter Mr. Obama paints as mere aberrations, stating "that at times our friends in the region have not all reacted” in accordance “with the principles that I've outlined today."

This is the Middle East that President Obama compares favorably to our American Revolution.

D-Day

2011-06-06T15:01:00.000-05:00

Today is the 67th anniversary of D-Day.

Source

On June 6, 1944, more than 150,000 men--Allied troops from America, Great Britain and Canada--landed on the coast of Normandy, France to begin the fight to defeat Nazi Germany.

Five thousand ships and 13,000 planes joined in this attack.

Due to their, and many other thousands and thousands of brave men's and women's, bravery, the evil forces of Nazism were broken.

Yes, it WAS evil. The Nazi leaders were against free speech, freedom of religion, and so many of the liberties we here in America hold dear. They were racist, without mercy, and violent. Hitler and his regime needed to be vanquished.

From General Eisenhower's speech:
"I have full confidence in your courage, devotion to duty and skill in battle. We will accept nothing less than full victory!
Good Luck! And let us all beseech the blessings of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking."

Obamacare: Obama Solicitor General Tells You How to Avoid Mandates

2011-06-03T16:34:00.000-05:00

Neal Kumar Katyal, the acting solicitor general for President Obama, under questioning by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, revealed how individuals can escape mandates (or being forced to buy health insurance).

Just make less money.

Of course, the real question is whether Congress has the power to make you purchase something. The SG's argument is that everyone will eventually use health care; thus, Congress has the right to force you (mandate) to buy health insurance. THEIR health insurance.

The judges kept asking the Solicitor General Natyal where is the line or boundary that separates congressional mandate from willy-nilly interference in every aspect of your life.

The answer, of course, is that with Obama's idea of governmental powers, there are no boundaries to keep the federal government out of your private life.

The Economy----AGAIN

2011-06-03T11:25:00.002-05:00

Corrected

Unemployment has risen---It is now 9.1%.

The stock market is falling.

Housing prices have fallen to 2002 prices.

Is this President Obama's idea of a "Summer of Recovery"?

Tsk, tsk, from the Brits...Bad Manners, Mr. President

2011-06-02T15:08:00.000-05:00

Source

British newspapers slam President Obama for playing golf----after the traditional laying of the wreath at Arlington Cemetery----on Memorial Day (the second Memorial Day that he has played golf), stating,

"The president’s actions smack of poor taste, as well a lack of empathy and support for the US military, hardly the kind of leadership the White House should be projecting at a time of war."

In contrast, the First Lady quietly visited wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Hospital.

The President and the Law: Libya (AKA Libya, Where Art Thou?)

2011-06-01T21:45:00.001-05:00

Have you heard much about Libya?

No?

Well, let's fill in the blanks:

If you don't remember, President Obama, under pressure from European allies, ordered air attacks on Libya as a "humanitarian effort."

Obama ordered these attacks under the War Powers Act (or WPA).

Now, many,many people feel that the WPA is unconstitutional, as it allows the President to declare war, which under the Constitution is reserved to Congress.

But, WPA is the law of the land at the moment.

However, WPA limits the President's power to order out troops. He may only instigate combat if there is a "national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

That doesn't seem to fit in Libya.

The WPA also said that the President can start a war under the direction of Congress, i.e., if there is (1) "a declaration of war {by Congress}, or (2) "a specific statutory authorization" {again, by Congress' authority}.

Furthermore, Obama KNOWS that this is illegal, as he said in 2007, “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

Now, to add insult to injury, the WPA also specifies that the President must ask Congress for approval to continue combat, OR withdraw the troops he's ordered out.

That deadline was May 21st.

So, did President Obama ask Congress' permission? In a word, NO.

Obama is acting against the law of the land.

Sending our men and women into harm's way in a totally unlawful and unconstitutional war.

Furthermore, Congress has said nothing about this flagrant abuse of power. Nada. Zilch.

They are as derelict as Obama.

Unexpectedly, the Economy is Worsening

2011-06-01T09:44:00.000-05:00

Unexpectedly again.

The U.S. added only 38,000 new jobs in May, showing "that job growth is also weakening."

Lay-offs are rising.

Manufacturing fell sharply in May.

Housing "prices continue on their downward spiral with no relief in sight," due to the huge numbers of "houses for sale, foreclosures, tight credit and weak demand."

And to top it off, oil prices remain above $100 a barrel as the American dollar looks to weaken.

Taxes: What Do Democrats Want?

2011-06-01T09:27:00.000-05:00

A top tax rate of 62%, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Today's top tax rate is 35%.

President Obama wants to raise Medicare payroll taxes, raise taxes on those making more than $250,000, end a number of income tax deductions, and end the cap on Social Security taxes (which can add up to 10% to your taxes.)

Obamacare has already put in place a 0.9% Medicare tax on people making $200,000 a year ($250,000 for a couple)--

plus Obamacare institutes a 3.8% investment tax starting in 2014.

Democrats are also looking at raising other investment taxes, such as capital gains tax--from 15% up to 23.8%, and dividend taxes--from 15% up to a whopping 45%.

On Medicare----"That's What Democrats Stand For"

2011-06-01T08:53:00.001-05:00

Senator Charles Schumer (Democrat-NY) has proposed that doctors receive a flat fee for Medicare.

That is, if Grandpa has a heart attack, the doctor would only get a certain fee, regardless of whether his case was straightforward---or if Grandpa has complications that needed extra care.

Under Schumer's plan, Grandpa only gets routine, one-size-fits-all medical care. There would be no money for individualized or innovative health care.

THE DEMOCRATS FORGET that doctors must make money in order to stay in business.

So either Grandpa gets less care or must find someone who can afford to offer charity care.

EXCEPT, under current Medicare rules, doctors CANNOT offer free care. They must file and accept Medicare for all medical care for seniors.

SO, SCHUMER'S PLAN = RATIONING. Period.

Remember

2011-05-30T15:01:00.000-05:00

Oops: How Not to Behave at a Memorial

2011-05-30T09:51:00.000-05:00

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=43802

Medicare: What are the Options?

2011-05-29T12:41:00.000-05:00

The basic problem: Currently, seniors (on average) receive far more in health benefits than they have paid into the system.

And with a worsening economy and baby-boomers reaching retirement, there are fewer employed Americans paying into the Medicare system.

Add to that the Congressional pilfering of the Medicare coffers and you have an economic disaster.

Many older Americans rightfully insist that they have paid into the Medicare system and deserve medical care. And, basically, they can only get medical insurance through Medicare.

But Medicare is going broke. So what to do?

President Obama proposes cutting Medicare spending by raising taxes, limiting reimbursement to caregivers, and rationing health care.

Rationing, you say? Yes, through the IPAB (otherwise known as the Independent Payment Advisory Board) which will have the authority to restrict payments on certain medical procedures, which equals to rationing.

Oh, and by Obamacare calculations, Obamacare will stave off Medicare bankruptcy by three years. Oh, yeah, that helps....

So let's look at another plan, proposed by Congressman Paul Ryan. He proposes that citizens over age 55 will continue to have traditional Medicare coverage.

If you are under 55, you will get money to purchase your own health care coverage. You can choose what is best for you. The free market system will help keep costs down and quality high. Senior will have lots more choices!

Personally, I'm glad I'm under 55.

Medicare WILL Change with Obamacare

2011-05-29T12:15:00.001-05:00

Perhaps you've heard or seen that advertisement showing Paul Ryan (or somesuch Republican) pushing dear old granny off the cliff--literally--by reforming Medicare. (PS, go watch the video, it's pretty interesting to see some people' idea of rational discussion.)

But the dirty little secret is that Obamacare has ALREADY changed Medicare.

Let's see----

Well, first of all, Obamacare has cut over a half-a-trillion dollars from the Medicare budget. Now, that's a BIG change. For the worse, with all the baby boomers retiring and hitting Medicare age.

Next, Obamacare has replaced traditional fee-for-service with 30% cuts in physician re-imbursements. This, by the way, is why doctors are dropping out of Medicare and why your older relatives can't find a doctor to take care of them. Doctors will be losing money seeing Medicare payments. And believe it or not, doctors have bills to pay (such as rent and employee salaries) and can't lose money on patients!

Finally, Obamacare created the Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB, which will be a group of 15 UNELECTED people in charge of making sure Medicare spends less money. If this unelected and unaccountable (to We, The People) board can't cut Medicare down to size, then the Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to do whatever is necessary to cut costs, without Congressional approval.

So, you see, things WILL change, and probably not for the better.

Who's really pushing Grandma off the cliff?

Medicare's Demise

2011-05-29T12:07:00.000-05:00

Medicare is going broke, at a faster rate than previously thought.

The Medicare Trustees warned that Medicare Part A will be insolvent by 2024 (five years sooner than previously thought), while another report from the Office of the Actuary paints an even gloomier forecast.

Promises, Promises

2011-05-27T23:05:00.000-05:00

A Memo from President Obama: "My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government."

The Reality:
1) President Obama promised to release White House visitor logs. Only 1% of the first 8 months of these records have been released.

2) President Obama promised to show congressional negotiations on C-Span. But he refused to allow healthcare discussions to be televised.

3) President Obama promised to whittle the influence of lobbyists on his Administration. So instead of meeting with lobbyists at the White House (where visitor records could reveal these meetings), Administration officials meet with lobbyists across the street in the Caribou Coffee house.

4) President Obama promised that ex-lobbyists would not work for the White House (again, to decrease lobbyists' influence on his Administration). He even wrote out executive orders restricting their hire. Yet over 40 ex-lobbyists now work for him, including Cabinet secretaries Vilsack and Sebelius, Attorney General Holder, VP Chief of Staff Klain, CIA Director Panetta, and various other Chiefs of Staff, Deputies and Assistants and Associates and what-not.

Unexpectedly, the Economy is Not Improving

2011-05-27T22:33:00.000-05:00

Unemployment claims are up. Unexpectedly.

Corporate profits are down. Unexpectedly. (Hint: there's probably a relationship between these first two items.)

Gross domestic product growth is lousy.

Consumer spending is slowing.

And inflation is increasing.

Your Memorial Day BBQ will cost you about 29% more this year, according to the Daily Mail.

Perhaps the President Needs to Hire a Protocol Officer

2011-05-25T12:08:00.000-05:00

Source

After all, he's hired a teleprompter coach recently (for a taxpayer tab of about $100,000--on top of the $624,000 you are already paying for seven [7!] staff speechwriters).

And Mr. Obama also has just gotten someone to take care of his Internet presence. This new Internet czar will be "helping coordinate rapid response to unfavorable stories and fostering and improving relations with the progressive online community."

So, don't you think a Protocol czar might be in order? After Mr. Obama totally goofed up a toast to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II? He was supposed to wait to speak until AFTER the orchestra played "God Save the Queen."

Of course, many in the media are blaming the Queen. Good grief, the President of the United States is supposed to be briefed on these details!

Miss Manners is probably appalled.

Netanyahu to Obama: Go Jump

2011-05-24T16:24:00.000-05:00

Last week, President Obama proposed (without first consulting Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu) that

1) Israel should shrink its borders back to pre-1967 borders,
2) The question of Palestinians being allowed to return ("right of return") to Israel is still up in-the-air,
3) Who gets Jerusalem is also up for negotiation, and
4) Israel must be the one to give all the concessions.

Other interesting tidbits from Obama's speech on Thursday include his call for a "contiguous Palestinian state", something that would result in Israel being cut right in two.

Obama also stated that recent pacts between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas "raises questions." What questions? Hamas, a terrorist group, clearly states its goal is to eradicate Israel and wipe every Jewish person off the face of the earth.

Obama then states that the PA should be "demilitarized" but also have "the right of defense." What does that mean?

Prime Minister Netahyahu, getting his chance to speak after President Obama's preemptive directives, stated that return to 1967 borders won't happen.

And that Palestinians have no "right of return."

And negotiating with Hamas (as part of the PA) won't happen.

Netanyahu also offered a bit of a history lesson.

The 1967 borders, he stated, could not be defended. Giving up the Jordan heights would place much of Israel in the sights of terrorist bombs. This would also place much of Jewish Jerusalem under the PA.

Netanyahu then spoke on "right to return" for Palestinians: “The Arab attack in 1948 on Israel resulted in two refugee problems, Palestinian refugee problem and Jewish refugees, roughly the same number, who were expelled from Arab lands. Now tiny Israel absorbed the Jewish refugees, but the vast Arab world refused to absorb the Palestinian refugees. Now, 63 years later, the Palestinians come to us and they say to Israel: accept the grandchildren, really, and the great-grandchildren of these refugees, thereby wiping out Israel's future as a Jewish state," because this would result in an Palestinian Arab majority in Israel. Palestinians would have to move to the Palestinian state.

Finally, Netanyahu reminded President Obama that Hamas was an enemy of the Unites States also. He refused to negotiate with Hamas.

Rule of Law? Nawwwww....

2011-05-18T10:56:00.001-05:00

The list of companies, labor unions, restaurants, etc. that have obtained exemptions from the Law of the Land (i.e. Obamacare) has risen to over 1,300.

How does one get an Obamacare waiver?

No one knows. The White House and its wholly-owned subsidiary, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services decline to answer this question.

They also refuse to disclose the companies that have been refused waivers.

And the newest wrinkle in the Obamacare-waiver scheme?

Fully 20% of waivers approved in April 2011 were in Nancy Pelosi's district. These waivers included "luxurious hotels, gourmet restaurants, hip nightclubs, day spas and four-star hotels."

The Administration's answer to this? Waivers are just a "regular thing."

The bigger question is how the Executive Branch can reject laws passed by Congress and also refuse to reveal exactly how they choose which companies get to violate the law.

And how exactly does the Executive Branch take on this power for itself? It all seems just a tad power-grabby and illegal.

New Assault on Our Freedoms--Indiana-Style

2011-05-18T10:17:00.001-05:00

The Indiana Supreme Court has decreed that citizens cannot resist the unlawful entry of police into their homes.

The right to keep government forces out of your private home unless they have a legal reason (i.e. a warrant) has been law since 1215--the Magna Carta of England. Western law has abided by this ruling for the last almost 800 years (did I add correctly?)

Remember the Fourth Amendment of our Constitution? "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated."

Yet Judge Steven David writes that a police officer may "enter a home for any reason or no reason at all," and that the notion of requiring a warrant "is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.”

In short, your Constitutional rights don't matter in Indiana.

The Debt Ceiling?

2011-05-18T09:20:00.001-05:00

First of all, when does the U.S. government hit the debt ceiling? Mr. Geithner, Treasury Secretary, doesn't seem to have a grasp on that, despite multiple (different) predictions.

Of course, I don't entirely trust Mr. Geithner's judgment, since he had so much difficulty with the country's federal tax laws.

Yet the U.S. government will sometime soon hit its limit on debt, at an astounding all-time high of over $14 BILLION dollars. That means No More Borrowing Money.

President Obama warns that not raising the debt limit "could unravel the entire financial system," while Secretary Geithner feels that the debt limit must be raised to avoid default on loans and "irrevocable damage" the economy.

According to a paper by Dr. J.D. Forster, Congress has three options: (1) Refuse to raise the debt ceiling, (2) Raise the debt limit and drastically cut spending (3) Raise the debt limit, cut spending, and legislate comprehensive, strict new budget rules.

First of all, Congress has time to consider its options. Despite the insistence of Mr. Obama that Congress take immediate action, there's no need to rush into decisions. The options need to be carefully considered.

Second, holding the debt ceiling will NOT mean that the federal government must default on its loans. In fact, Congress can make sure that interest continue to be paid on loans to ensure that federal loans are NOT defaulted. Essential spending (such as Social Security and Medicare) will continue to be funded.

Third, the amount of money that the federal government would be denied (by not raising the debt ceiling) is approximately equal to its discretionary spending. Surely Congress can figure out how to do without its pork projects (AKA entitlements) and extras.

Finally, why would anyone give (essentially) another credit card to a chronically spending-addicted entity?

If you count the loans that the U.S. government has, NOT counting the loans against Social Security and other trust funds, the money owed has grown from $3.4 trillion dollars in 2001 to over $9 trillion dollars in 2010.

The debt is expected to grow to $23 trillion dollars by 2019 (if the economy turns around!)

The question everyone asks is how the world market would respond. According to Dr. Forster, it would inevitably wobble a bit. But as creditors get paid and the U.S. government gets its spending under control, the dollar would again become the basis of a stable world economy.

Texas Denied Help to Fight Fires

2011-05-14T19:18:00.012-05:00

President Obama has refused to help out Texas with wildfires that have destroyed more than 2 million acres of land and are STILL BURNING.

Texas is fighting seven (7) major fires over half a million acres.

Govenor Rick Perry has asked for help fighting these fires, under the guidelines required for federal help.

One of the fires was apparently started by ATF agents! Doncha think the federal government might help with some low-interest loans for a fire it's responsible for?

Meanwhile....It's the Economy, Mr. President

2011-05-05T18:48:00.002-05:00

Okay, so bin Laden's dead...now what about the economy?

You are probably aware that the S&P downgraded the United States' "credit rating". Basically, the S&P feels that the United States government is likely to become a poor investment within the next two years-- "expressing unprecedented doubts over the ability of Washington to bring the massive federal budget deficits under control."

The S&P notes "that he government is on pace to run a record $1.5 trillion deficit this year, the third consecutive deficit exceeding $1 trillion." The S&P "says Britain, France and Germany have moved much more quickly to contain deficits."

Yesterday, the dollar hit a three year low in relation to other world currencies. And the outlook for improvement is not good.

About 1 in 7 Americans is on food stamps.

And what about.....Jobs?

Jobless claims are the highest in EIGHT months. And, there's been a big downturn in the services sector and less-than-expected hiring by private companies in April.

Home prices have plummeted. Over 1/3 of sales consist of bank-owned (another word for repossessed) homes.

Not to mention inflation. The dreaded I-word is not mentioned much, but with the skyrocketing price of fuel, food and other essential goods--believe me, it's inflation.

Loose Lips Sink Ships!

2011-05-04T18:36:00.000-05:00

Are you aware exactly how it's known that it was Navy Seals that killed bin Laden?

If you look back, it wasn't President Obama that revealed that Navy Seals were involved. Neither the CIA nor the Pentagon admitted that Seals had the task of killing bin Laden.

No, it was our redoubtable (or is it doubtable?) Vice President Biden who spoke up and blabbed.

Clip art from Wikipedia

The Truth About bin Laden? It Can't be That Hard....

2011-05-04T18:11:00.002-05:00

How exactly did bin Laden die?
Who knows?
First, he died in a gun battle, inside his mansion, holding his wife in front of him, according to the White House. Then, the story changed....bin Laden wasn't armed, didn't hold his wife in front of him. And he didn't live in a mansion.

“Even I’m getting confused,” White House spokesman Carney said.

And the picture of all sorts of important folks, intently watching "the raid in real time"? The one released by the White House, with "US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sits near the president, her hand covering her mouth. Mr Obama is leaning forward in his chair in the same photograph, watching intently as the raid takes place"?

Faked. Today, CIA director Panetta admitted that there was a blackout during the time of the raid. NO ONE was watching the actual raid.

Well, at least bin Laden is dead. Even if the White House is lying about HOW it happened.

Transparency....didn't Mr. Obama win an award for transparency?

Have a Blessed Easter!

2011-04-25T13:15:00.001-05:00

Oh, Boy....Illinois Loses Its Credit Card Privileges

2011-04-07T19:43:00.000-05:00

Bank of America is cancelling the State of Illinois' credit cards (used by employees for state business) because the State of Illinois is not paying its credit card bills.

"All of this despite a 67% income tax increase has still left the State of Illinois unable to pay its bills on time and a Governor who insists cutting spending is just plain wrong."

President Obama Seems Out Of Touch

2011-04-07T19:24:00.001-05:00

I'd like to share this with you, especially since this quote was removed by the Associated Press last night.

Mr. Obama, when a fellow citizen expressed concern about the high price of gasoline, just advised the gentleman to buy a new gas-efficient vehicle.

"If you're complaining about the price of gas and you're only getting 8 miles a gallon, you know," Obama said laughingly. "You might want to think about a trade-in."

Watch the video. Mr. Obama may have been "laughing", but he didn't get any guffaws in response.

Obama Opposes Paying our Military If the Government Shuts Down

2011-04-07T18:54:00.001-05:00

President Obama officially opposes House bill 1363 that would continuing paying our military in the case of a government shutdown.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503

April 7, 2011
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
H.R. 1363 – Department of Defense and Further Additional Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011
(Rep. Rogers, R-Kentucky)

The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 1363.....This bill is a distraction from the real work that would bring us closer to a reasonable compromise for funding......
see http://majorityleader.house.gov/blog/2011/04/funding-our-troops-is-a-distraction.html for the rest of Obama's statement.

So, how, exactly, Mr. President, is paying our troops a "distraction"? Shouldn't paying our troops be at least near the top of your 'To-Do' list, Mr. Commander-In-Chief?

Again, this would be a NEW policy concerning military pay, brought to you by Obama.

Obama Seems to Be Threatening Military Paychecks if Government Shuts Down

2011-04-05T21:03:00.000-05:00

It appears that, perhaps in a bit of an angry snit, the Obama Administration may refuse to pay military personnel during a government shutdown.

A Defense Department memo states that "Military personnel and exempt Defense Department civilian employees are required to continue working without pay during a government shutdown." These apparently are preliminary guidelines.

This was NOT the policy during the Clinton Administration, when guidelines set down during the Reagan Administration were followed. So this is a NEW policy of President Obama's.

Just thought you'd know.

The Proposed Republican Budget

2011-04-05T18:49:00.016-05:00

Congressman Paul Ryan has set out a new budget for the United States which cuts $4.4 trillion dollars over the next 10 years.

FINALLY, someone in D.C. is really getting serious about this debt. The United States government hits its debt ceiling May 16th, according to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. That's the date that, basically, the U.S. government defaults on all its loans. Currently, the debt is set at a ceiling (a "debt limit") of $14.29 TRILLION DOLLARS. Face it, we can't pay back that much money. So why in the world do Democrats want to raise the debt limit?

Writing to Congress, Mr. Geithner penned, “I hope this information is helpful as you plan the legislative schedule for the coming weeks.” Don't worry, Mr. Geithner, We, The People, will be watching "the legislative schedule" and discourses in the next few weeks.

Going back to Mr. Ryan's proposed Path to Prosperity, let's look at a quick pictorial view of our economic situation: http://onlin e.w sj.com/article/SB10001424052748703806304576242612172357504.html

Interesting New Developments in Africa & Middle East

2011-04-05T18:07:00.012-05:00

The United States has pulled its jets out of Libya.

Now NATO is low on jets to attack Gaddafi-led forces.

What happened to our "humanitarian" concerns? We're waiting to hear, President Obama. Of course, it took 10 days for Obama to address the nation after he started bombing Gaddafi.

And now the French have started attacking the presidential palace in Ivory Coast. Joined by U.N. forces, they are attacking Mr. Gbabgo, who lost the bid for president of Ivory Coast last year but refused to yield to the legally-elected president, Mr. Ouattara. This has resulted in a year-long civil war and horrific massacres.

While the United Nations states it is “not a party to the conflict,” France says that they are in Ivory Coast "at the request of the United Nations" for humanitarian reasons.

So, are we in this fight, too?

Egypt Going Democrat??

2011-04-04T12:11:00.007-05:00

Okey, Dokey, let's see how those democratice movements are going over in the Middle East and Africa. We'll start with Egypt. First, the military took over Egypt, suspended its constitution, " raising questions about how deeply the military understands the democratic process and the demands of modern politics." The military did promise election within six months, which has allowed the previously-outlawed Muslim Brotherhood to rise in power. Apparently in cahoots with the military, the Muslim Brotherhood aims to be voted into power in the upcoming elections. What is the Brotherhood? The Muslim Brotherhood aims to impose Sharia law in Egypt, and espouses jihad and "radical transformation" of Western and more liberal Islamic societies. Practical Outcomes of Increased Islaminization (is that a word?) of Egypt

An election hijacked by the Muslim Brotherhood calling for quick elections--which will help the Brotherhood gain political power, since they're by far the most organized political party and are ready for elections, unlike other political parties

Arrest of eighteen women protesting in Tahrir Square in Cairo, who were then beaten, shocked, strip-searched and then subjected to "virginity tests".

A call to war against Israel.

A return of al-Qaradawi, "widely considered the preeminent Muslim Brotherhood theologian", who praises Adolf Hitler for exterminating Jews, and has been banned from the United States for advocating violence against the West.

What's your bet on the results of this "democracy movement"?

Libyan Rebels: Who are They?

2011-04-04T10:32:00.005-05:00

National Public Radio insists that the Libyan rebels are NOT affiliated with Hezbollah or al-Qaida or any other terrorists. Their source of information is a member and former leader of an anti-Gaddafi rebel group, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), who insists that LIFG is not associated with al-Qaida. NPR supports this one-sided and unconfirmed LIFG rebuttal despite the LIFG being declared a terrorist organization by the United States, as well as a declaration by al-Qaida that the two groups had joined up.

NPR also insists that the rebels are part of a "decidedly nationalist, democratic movement." Hmmm.....

Yet that fact is that rebel leaders include Mr. al-Hasady, a known mujahideen--defined as "a military force of Muslim guerilla warriors engaged in a jihad" or simply "terrorists" (courtesy of the Free Dictionary)--recruits and trains rebel soldiers. His underling Mr. al-Barrani is a member of the afore-mentioned LIFG. Another rebel leader, Mr. Ben Qumu, has worked for both Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida.

And just what are the rebels rebelling against? Even NPR admits that the Libyans are fighting against a regime that has led to a horrible economic situation. But does this lead to democracy?

The answer is: Not Necessarily, and, truth be told, Not Likely. President Obama states that the Libyan rebels are "saying the right things" so far. "Most of them are professionals, lawyers, doctors, people who appear to be credible."

Wow, that's comforting. On the other hand, Bob Baer, ex-CIA who's been in Libya, feels that the U.S. has no clue about the rebel forces. "They [the U.S. and CIA] don't have a clue. These guys [the "rebels"] are as likely to attack the CIA as Qaddafi."

So, according to Obama, we might be doing the right thing, for hopefully the right people. Hope and Change, anyone?

Losing in Libya

2011-04-04T09:01:00.004-05:00

Amidst bombings of Libyan rebels and civilians, the opposite of why the U.S. is involved in Libya, there have been talks of ceasefires.

Including talk of ceasefire by the Libyan rebels.

Reportedly, Gaddafi's son has also asked for a ceasefire, which has been rejected by the rebels.

And reports that U.S. jets will be pulled out of the NATO airstrikes. Apparently, the U.S. will continue to participate in NATO bombings through today, Monday April 4th.

How does this square with President Obama's stated need that the United States must enter into the conflict between Gaddafi and the Libyan rebels?

Obama has stated that we need to intervene for humanitarian reasons and to stop "brutal repression". So how does a stalemate, either due to ceasefires or to an ineffective warmongering, work to this end?

It doesn't. A stalemate will only lead to more civilian deaths.

Which means Obama loses. So why, exactly, are we fighting Libya?

More on the Libyan "Kinetic Military Movement"

2011-03-24T15:28:00.008-05:00

Oh, boy---"kinetic movement" sounds like physics! I really like physics!

Oops, it's not physics....Plus I think the proper wording is now "“time-limited, scope-limited military action”, which still simply means..........war.

So, in more great news about the "kinetic military movement" in Libya----the rebel fighters, which we seem to be supporting (at the least, we appear to be against Gadaffi's forces, whether or not we can decide what to do with Gadaffi) are in cahoots with al-Qaeda.

And to make it more interesting, we may, or we may not, turn over the whole operation to NATO. Who's to know?

On the other hand, Obama seems to be trying to find a way to "meet" the rebels. The Administration apparently doesn't have a clue about the Libyan rebels. As Mr. Carney states, the Administration is "still in the process of finding out 'what their vision is, who they represent, what their ideas are and where they would take Libya in a post-Gaddafi future'".

However, we do know that the rebels are doing their own bit for killing their fellow citizens and for ethnic cleansing---black Libyans and black immigrant laborers are being killed on suspicion of working for Gadaffi (who has hired black African mercenaries in the past).

And as of yet, the President hasn't said a peep about the whole shebang.

The President's First Comments on Japan

2011-03-24T10:20:00.004-05:00

President Obama on ESPN while discussing his NCAA picks:

"Go to usaid.gov and that’s going to list a whole range of charities where you can potentially contribute," Obama said, "I think that would be a great gesture as you’re filling out your brackets."

P.S. Other important Presidential doings the last couple of weeks: discussing bullying in schools with the First Lady, discussing education reform, and fundraising for the DNC.

War? Or Not War? What's Going On?

2011-03-22T18:10:00.012-05:00

In all honesty, I'm not sure if we need to be in Libya.

But I am concerned that this act of war has not at all been well thought out by President Obama.

Mr. Obama states that we are at war "enforcing United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which calls for the protection of the Libyan people." See the speech here.

In effect, we have sent men and women into war based on what the United Nations deems important--not what our President or Congress determines is in the interest of the United States.

Obama also states he is acting on behalf of the United States.

So, why have we waited so long? If protecting Libyan citizens is so important, why have we waited until thousands have been killed by Gadaffi?

Next, what is the aim of this war? Previously, Obama stated Gadaffi had to go. Now, Admiral Mullins, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, states, "This is--certainly the goals of this campaign right now again are limited, and it isn't, it isn't about seeing him go. It's about supporting the United Nations resolution, which talked to limiting or eliminating the--his ability to kill his own people."

I guess as long as the killing stops, Gadaffi gets to stay in power--to continue the genocide at some time in the future?

Obama also seems confused about the desired end results of this campaign. While denying that he wants any "regime change", Obama stated in a phone call to Turkey that he had the

"goal of helping provide the Libyan people an opportunity to transform their country, by installing a democratic system."

Sounds like regime changing to me.

Oh, and by the way, we're "not at war", according to the White House.

What Happened to "Separation of Church and State"?

2011-03-22T17:57:00.003-05:00

I know, I know---separation of church and state is NOT in the Constitution. So how come Sharia law (religious law par excellence) is okay?

The Constitution states that the government cannot create a state religion. Everyone can freely pursue his or her own religious beliefs without coercion from the government.

However, this little statement from Jefferson's writings has been used repeatedly over the years to make sure the Ten Commandments aren't posted in courthouses, schools celebrate "Winter Holidays" instead of Christmas, manger scenes aren't allowed on government property, etc., etc., etc.....

In Florida, a judge, Richard Nielsen, has ruled that a dispute over mosque property should be resolved using Sharia law.

I've been following this for several days, wondering exactly what was going on. Were the opponents wanting to go to arbitration under sharia law? What was up?

In fact, at least one party feels that the legal wrangling should be solved using Florida state law. It is the JUDGE who is insisting on the use of Islamic religious law over state or federal law!

Planned Parenthood--Should It Be Defunded?

2011-03-09T19:23:00.005-06:00

I found an interesting note on a blog, decrying the fact that the House of Representatives has voted to stop funding Planned Parenthood. Apparently this lady has used PP in the past for medical care. PP does provide medical care to women. As do many other city, county and state clinics. However, Planned Parenthood does much more. Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America, performing about 1/3 of all abortions in the US. While PP claims that abortions comprise only 3% of their services, PP counts every visit before and after an abortion as a "separate" service. In fact, about 10% of patients receive an abortion. Moreover, this does NOT include the almost one and half million "emergency contraception kits"---of which some number of those "kits" aborted a baby. PP's budget is over 1 billion dollars, and about 1/3 of that budget comes from taxpayers. Also, PP in 2008 made a profit of $85 million dollars, mostly due to abortion. Yet American taxpayers have not wanted taxpayer funded abortions. That's why the Hyde Amendment has repeatedly been voted on to keep at least some federal dollars from going to abortion. Plus, Planned Parenthood doesn't have the greatest track record as far as political correctness. It was begun by Margaret Sanger as a method of eugenics--that is, a way to abort (in her mind) less desirable black and brown babies. As Sanger said, " We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population." In general, Sanger didn't seem to like babies at all, "The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it," nor marriage, "The marriage bed is the most degenerating influence in the social order." Most recently, several PP workers, from around the country, were videotaped blatently ignoring that obvious 'pimps' were asking for abortion services for underage girls. In fact, more than one offered to help provide reproductive services for girls brought from other countries illegally and to help with taxes and other needs. These videos prompted Congress' vote to defund Planned Parenthood. And there's more. Planned Parenthood opposes notification of parents of a daughter's abortion, something most Americans stand for. It also provides very sexually explicit sex curriculum, which most Americans stand against. So, you decide. Should your tax dollars support Planned Parenthood?

While Rome Burns....

2011-03-07T12:20:00.005-06:00

Or while the world goes to pieces.

A brief rant---------

Mr. Obama, just a note--you would be taken sooooooo much more seriously if you would just act like you cared.

Cut the parties, for example, like the recent ones at the White House (Super Bowl party in February, the Motown music extravaganza February 24th, and the huge Governor's Dinner where you fed thousands of calories to everyone).

Do a little work at the White House--instead of golfing, basketball, and fundraising dinners around the country.

Say something useful about the economy--which is going to hell in a handbasket, with rising gasoline prices, rising food prices, and continuing high unemployment.

Be honest--I don't much care about your birth certificate, but your continued intransigence about this (and your grades, and your upbringing, and your time with Jeremiah Wright) in not giving this information marks you as a liar.

Get your wife out of the government--First Ladies can certainly have causes, but that doesn't extend to trying to get legislation passed and strong-arming businesses. Besides, when it's-do-as-I-say, not do-as-I-do, the cause becomes really insipid and weak. Mrs. Obama needs to find somthing she really believes in.

Addendums:

Stop playing and get busy--Brew your own beer when you get out of the White House. Right now it's time to work, not play.

Start being a little economically reasonable in your (more) private life--You really don't need to fly in your own personal trainer from Chicago, or your favorite chefs from around the country. It's you that insists the country tightens its belts. How about leading by example?

Rant over.

President Obama: The New Arbiter of Constitutionality

2011-03-04T19:14:00.000-06:00

There are lots of arguments, both pro and con, about President Obama's declaration that DOMA is unconstitutional.

P. S. This is my very amateur take on whether the President has acted legally or not. And please understand that I am not commenting on DOMA per se, but on President Obama's decision and his demand that the Department of Justice not defend the law.

One argument is that a president does have the right to question the constitutionality of a law. It has (rarely) been done by past presidents, as some legal pundits insist. The case that I found touted was Myers versus the United States under President Wilson. President Wilson had not followed a law that he, as President, must ask the Senate for permission to fire a postmaster. He just went ahead and fired Mr. Myers. This Supreme Court decision upheld President Wilson's action and allowed presidents to fire people he had previously appointed. Many claim that this decision implies that a President can make decisions on the constitutionality of laws that have been passed.

However, I'm not sure I follow this line of reasoning here.

Others argue that President Obama's decision not to enforce DOMA is a completely new idea and an usurption of the Constitution. Here's Orin Kerr's words on the practical considerations, "The new approach invests within DOJ a power to conduct an independent constitutional review of the issues, to decide the main issues in the case — in this case, the degree of scrutiny for gay rights issues — and then, upon deciding the main issue, to decide if there is a reasonable basis for arguing the other side. If you take that view, the Executive Branch essentially has the power to decide what legislation it will defend based on whatever views of the Constitution are popular or associated with that Administration. It changes the role of the Executive branch in defending litigation from the traditional dutiful servant of Congress to major institutional player with a great deal of discretion." http://volokh.com/2011/02/23/the-executive-power-grab-in-the-decision-not-to-defend-doma/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+volokh%2Fmainfeed+%28The+Volokh+Conspiracy%29

Others argue that this instance is completely different from previous examples of a President not defending a law. At other times the Justice Deparment refused to act to defend a law, it was because there was a lack of "reasonable legal arguments." Thus, even though the President may question the constitutionality of a particular law, the Justice Department has traditionally decided whether or not it could effectively argue the case. The President did not tell the Department of Justice what to do. http://blog.heritage.org/2011/02/23/obama-drops-pretense-administration-will-not-defend-doma/

In this instance, there is not a lack of legal arguments.

And, the President in my humble opinion is overstepping his authority.

Most of all, this is cheap political trick to try and get votes. Politics have no place in deciding what is constitutional and what isn't.

"Civility" Doesn't Apply to Unions

2011-02-28T20:04:00.006-06:00

Remember President Obama's insistence that we all speak nicely to each other? This comment was at his speech memorializing those killed and wounded in Arizona earlier this year (including Representative Gabrielle Giffods).

The University of Arizona even began a National Institute for Civil Discourse to encourage more polite talk in politics, chaired by Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush.

So how's the civility coming along with all the union protests across our nation? And where, by the way, are the rejoinders from Obama, Clinton, and Bush?

Let's see now:

1. Physical assaults--on at least two journalists, both professional and amateur. Here's one"

http://www.redstate.com/tabithahale/2011/02/23/union-thuggery-descends-on-freedomworks/:

2. Racism--of many stripes.

Calling a black Tea Party member "son" and instructing him to "get back behind the fence where you belong" to calling black businessman Herman Cain a "monkey", "minstrel", "oreo", and much more.

3. Threatening behavior--very threatening. Here you can see Wisconsin Republican Senator being chased through the capitol. http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/01/video-wisconsin-dem-intervenes-to-protect-gop-senator-threatened-by-mob/

4. Republicans in Wisconsin need police escorts--not only for protection from the mob....err, teachers....but apparently even from Wisconsin Democrats. Or at least one.

Democrat Gordon Hintz yelled at colleague Republican Michelle Litjens that she was "f.........dead". Oops.
5. Sexually obscene, violent signs and threats--which are too over-the-top to be repeated. And for at least one person was charged for sexually threatening a cameraman. http://aolanswers.com/questions/obama_approve_disapprove_politics_504184483817059/ri_protester_threatens_tv_cameraman_495521637175116
(WARNING: sexually explicit article)

How's that civility working for you?

Why Do Teachers' Unions Exist?

2011-02-28T19:16:00.004-06:00

Why do we have teachers' unions, like the National Education Association?
To help teachers, so that in turn the children get the best education possible?
Think again.
In the words of the National Education Association's chief lawyer, Bob Chanin,

"It is not because we care about children and it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child. NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power.”

He goes on to say that educational achievement and increased teacher quality are important, but aren't the reasons that the NEA exists. Those issues are mere incidentals and"must not be achieved at the expense of due process, employee rights and collective bargaining. That simply is too high a price to pay.”

So take that, schoolkids--it's not YOU that's important, it's pay and benefits for teachers.

Listen to the whole speech:
http://nation.foxnews.com/culture/2011/02/23/teachers-union-big-wig-says-its-not-about-kids-its-about-power

Ta-Da! Now Obama Pretends to Be the Judiciary!

2011-02-24T08:40:00.004-06:00

Now Obama is making judicial judgments.

He has decided that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional. So he has decreed that the federal government will no longer defend this law, which has been the law of the land since President Clinton.

By doing this, Obama will ensure that DOMA will eventually be overthrown.

This is blatently unconstitutional. Our constitution provides for a division of powers between executive, legislative and judicial branches. The president cannot decide whether a law is unconstitutional or not, or whether it is worthy of defending or not.

A president can work within the constitution to change laws, but Obama isn't working within the constitution here. This is simply presidential hocus-pocus---and carried to a logical conclusion, Obama can simply ignore any law he doesn't like.

Obama on Libya? Well, He's Been Busy...

2011-02-23T20:17:00.005-06:00

President Obama finally met with the Secretary of State today about Libya and made a brief statement, refusing to mention Gadhafi by name.

Why did it take nine days for President Obama to say anything?

He's been flying around the country talking to business leaders, being sympathetic to the unemployed (NOT). And raising money.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/02/23/wh_obamas_non-response_on_libya_due_to_scheduling_issue.html

Gadhafi's murdering his own people, New Zealand just suffered an horrendous earthquake, the Middle East is falling apart, Somali pirates just killed 4 American citizens, oil and food prices are skyrocketing, the US government may shut down...and our President is on campaign money junkets.

The Economy, Again (And Why We Need to Let the Democrats Shut Down the Government)

2011-02-23T19:35:00.003-06:00

House Republicans have passed $60 billion in federal spending cuts (a tad short of the $100 billion promised.)
Now Senate Republicans are not so sure.
Both House and Senate Republicans are now apparently considering a short term bill to keep the government running while they continue to work on a budget bill.
They seem to be worried that the Democrats will blame the Republicans for shutting down the government.
And, of course, in this game of budgetary chicken, the Democrats are glad to make the Republicans run scared.
How 'bout we just let the Democrats shut down the government? I really don't think anyone will miss them.
Social security and Medicare/Medicaid will continue; intelligence agencies and armed services will continue to serve.
Write your Representatives and Senators and let them know how you feel!

UN Vote on Israeli Settlements: Obama Manages to Anger Everyone

2011-02-21T11:20:00.003-06:00

If the Palestinian Authority would downgrade the statement from a "resolution" to a mere "statement", the Obama Administration had agreed to vote with the rest of the UN Security Counsel that the U.S. “does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity.”

The Palestinian Authority refused to do so, so the United States was forced to veto the resolution calling for an end to Israeli settlements.

However you feel about the Israeli settlement issue, this maneuvering has resulted in a Gordian knot. All in the name of being totally unbiased and keeping the options open, Obama has managed to alienate both the Arabs and Israel.

Public Sector Unions Are Not Government Employees

2011-02-21T10:39:00.003-06:00

Teachers, fire-fighters and police are NOT government employees.

Just like legislators, they are employees of us, the taxpayers.

We, the taxpayers, thus have a say in their employment.

The people of Wisconsin elected a Republican govenor and legislature to represent them in cutting back state expenses. Wisconsin, along with many other states, is going broke.

And the answer to governmental budgetary woes isn't raising taxes.

So, do the public sector union employees (of Wisconsin and the 49 other states) agree to start paying more of their benefits, or do they just get fired from their jobs?

It's their call. But they don't have a right to shirk their jobs to their employees, We, the People.

Political Cartoon

2011-02-19T19:27:00.001-06:00

by Michael Ramirez

Another Budget Cut Suggestion---If Obama Doesn't Need Various Cabinet Secretaries, Why are We Paying for Them?

2011-02-17T22:08:00.005-06:00

Apparently President Obama has NEVER, EVER in the first two years of office called at least half-a-dozen of his Cabinet Secretaries.

http://nymag.com/news/politics/70829/index1.html

So, why are we paying for them?

Just So You Know--Obama's Helping the Miscreant Wisconsin Unions

2011-02-17T21:48:00.004-06:00

The Democratic National Committee Organizing for America (from President Obama's presidential campaign) is actively coordinating and helping with the protests by Wisconsin unions.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0211/DNC_playing_role_in_Wisconsin_protests.html?showall

President Obama feels that Govenor Walker of Wisconsin is "vilifying" public employees and making "an assault on unions."

http://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/116391649.html

A Suggestion to Cut the Budget: Stimulus Funds

2011-02-17T21:00:00.002-06:00

The White House announced today that stimulus funds have been successful, stating that millions of jobs have been created and unemployment has been lowered due to this government spending.

When asked why unemployment hadn't fallen to 7% (which was the previously-agreed-upon criteria of a successful stimulus program), White House press secretary Carney replied with the non-sequitar, "We've said repeatedly that we don't want to relitigate the battles of the past."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/02/17/whs_jay_carney_stimulus_goals_have_been_met.html

Not sure what that means.....

Smoke And Mirrors

2011-02-15T13:27:00.003-06:00

President Obama's budget basics:

Lots of spending (lots and lots and lots and lots)

and

Lots of new taxes (lots and lots and lots and lots)

equaling

Lots of new debt (lots and lots and lots and lots)

and

Lots of economic problems (lots and lots and lots and lots)

Remember the Blagojevich in Chicago?

2011-02-12T13:59:00.002-06:00

As Blagojevich prepares to go on trial in Chicago for corruption charges (it's a retrial on charges that Blagojevich wanted something in return for his appointment to Obama's Illinois Senate seat), essential phone call tapes to Rahm Emmanuel are now found to be missing.

Obama Continues in Anarchy

2011-02-12T13:47:00.003-06:00

From the Compact Oxford English Dictionary, one of the definitions of ANARCHY-- "A state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems."

This is what Obama is doing by refusing to obey judicial rulings on Obamacare and also on the oil drilling moratorium. He is acting outside the rule of law, our Constitution.

Mubarak's Assessment of President Obama

2011-02-12T13:38:00.004-06:00

Reportedly from a conversation between Mubarak and and Israeli former cabinet member:

"He (Mubarak) gave me a lesson in democracy and said: 'We see the democracy the United States spearheaded in Iran and with Hamas, in Gaza, and that's the fate of the Middle East.'"

"'They (the Obama Administration) may be talking about democracy but they don't know what they're talking about and the result will be extremism and radical Islam,'" the Israeli ex-cabinet member quoted Mubarak as saying."

Ship of Fools (Re: Egypt)

2011-02-12T12:01:00.014-06:00

1. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who states that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is NOT a religious institution (he describes it as "largely secular") and "eschews violence."

However, let's take a look at a summary of the Muslim Brotherhood of a book written by a leader of this group, which speaks to the "Muslim Brotherhood’s goal of establishing an Islamic state, world domination under Islam, the public and personal religious duty of military Jihad, and the warning not to rush to Jihad until it is prepared and timed for maximum benefit.”

(Remember, this is the same guy that wasn't aware of the London terrorist arrests late last year when asked about them in a television interview-- http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/12/after-early-administration-denials-director-of-national-intelligence-admits-he-hadnt-been-briefed-on.html

2. CIA Director Panetta based his Congressional testimony on the Egyptian situation on television reports--not on American intelligence. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/11/world/middleeast/11diplomacy.html?_r=1

3. President Obama's praising the Egyptian military takeover as a step to democracy. Face it, Mubarak was part of the Egyptian military. He has ruled Egypt with the military by his side. He just turned Egypt over to his cronies. Nothing has really changed---so why is Mubarak's stepping down the equivalent of democracy?

4. The big question: What does this mean in terms of foreign policy?

Does Obama support our allies? No--in the case of Mubarak.

Does Obama support revolutionary movements? No--in the case of Iran. Yes--in the case of Egypt.

Does Obama support democracy? No--in China. No--in Haiti.

Obama Asks Businesses "To Do Their Part"

2011-02-10T08:57:00.005-06:00

Excerpts from President Obama's speech to the United States Chamber of Commerce:

President Obama, "We need to make America the best place on Earth to do business." However, Mr. Obama is not talking about "we" as in businesses together with the government. He is talking about "we" the federal government as you will see in the remainder of his speech.

"But I want to be clear: Even as we (i.e. the government) make America the best place on Earth to do business, businesses also have a responsibility to America..."

"As a government, we will help lay the foundation for you to grow and innovate and succeed. We will upgrade our transportation and communication networks...We’ll invest in education... And we’ll work to knock down barriers....That’s why we’re making investments today in the next generation of big ideas -– in biotechnology, in information technology and in clean energy technology...We recently signed export deals..."

So, what do businesses need to do? According to Obama, businesses need to share their profits with their employees. What does this mean? I thought profits were shared--something called "salaries" or "wages", or even "profit-sharing." Does this mean that businesses should reduce their contractual obligations to investors or to stock holders? Won't that lead to even further problems with our free-market systems?

Mr. Obama, "We’re fighting to reform the tax code and increase exports to help you compete, the benefits can’t just translate into greater profits and bonuses for those at the top. They have to be shared by American workers..."

Mr. Obama also wants businesses to keep industry and thus jobs here in the U.S.--and to spend money that businesses are currently saving. Does he understand that businesses have to have money to stay in business? That businesses can't spend their savings in this dismal economic market? That the economy's poor business environment is due mostly to federal interventions, including Obamacare, high corporate taxes, etc, etc?
"Now is the time to invest in America ("new jobs and manufacturing on our shores")...Today, American companies have nearly $2 trillion sitting on their balance sheets..."

And the answer to business's trouble is even more government, according to Obama:

Mr. Obama, "I want to fix it. That’s why I’ve asked Jeff Immelt of GE to lead a new council of business leaders and outside experts so that we’re getting the best advice..."

A Great New Blog for You!

2011-02-07T14:12:00.002-06:00

A new political blog--Enjoy!
Defined by Opposition
http://definedbyopposition.wordpress.com/

EPA Cries Over Spilled Milk

2011-02-07T13:56:00.004-06:00

The EPA has discoverd that milk contains "a non-petroleum oil" (they mean milk-fat)---and so the folks at the EPA, who regulate oil spills that threaten our shorelines, have decided dairy farmers must implement measures to counter any dangerous milk spills.

These measures include "training first responders" and "building containment facilities" to prevent damage from catastrophic milk spills. The Agriculture Department apparently has a $3 million dollar program to help farmers comply with EPA oil-spill regulations.

Apparently this is not an early April-fools joke. http://fuelfix.com/blog/2011/02/03/epa-spilled-milk-regulation-indicative-of-broader-problem/

And here I thought the farmhouse cats were in charge of milk spills!

Legality, Just a Mere Technicality

2011-02-04T14:09:00.002-06:00

President Obama has now ignored two federal court rulings:

He hasn't lifted the oil embargo as Judge Feldman ordered and is now in contempt of court. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-03/u-s-administration-in-contempt-over-gulf-drill-ban-judge-rules.html

He is also deliberately ignoring the ruling that Obamacare is unconstitutional--it's null and void. Dead. Caput.

But Mr. Obama continues to implement Obamacare anyway.

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/02/obama-ignores-ruling-against-obamacare/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DakotaVoice+%28Dakota+Voice%29

http://libertylog.org/?p=2095

Is Mr. Obama operating illegally? I would say "yes".

Why be Concerned about the Scam of Global Warming?

2011-02-04T10:31:00.004-06:00

Because the farce of Global Warming is bad for the whole world, not just the United States.

For example, the ethanol that the U.S. is required to put into gasoline is derived from corn, which has led to global food shortages of corn and a world-wide rise in food prices. Not to mention the fact that turning corn into fuel is a very energy-requiring process. And don't forget that ethanol-laced gasoline doesn't burn as efficiently. Which means that ethanol is NOT a solution to our petroleum needs. In fact, ethanol is probably a negative. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10057/04-08-Ethanol.pdf

These concerns also lead to foolish federal policies. Energy Secretary Chu wants renewable energy sources (such as wind and solar) to replace US petroleum needs. Unfortunately, renewable energy sources cannot replace petroleum. Wind and solar can only be used for electricity--and electricity uses up a mere 1% of petroleum here in the US.

Well, if we all went to electric cars, wouldn't that solve the problem? Well, while petroleum produces less than 1% of our electricity, fossil fuels produce 70% of our electricity. Not exactly "green."

BTW, solar yields about 0.02% of our electricity, while wind power gives us less than 2% of our electricity. Nuclear power plants and hydroelectric plants comprise most of the remaining sources of electricity. (2009 statistics--see http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0802a.html

These numbers also point to the difficulty of President Obama's call for 80% of US energy needs to come from "green" sources. Clean Energy Standards (or CES) will force energy companies to turn to expensive sources of energy, since nuclear power plants are not being built. Furthermore, wind and solar power are not dependable sources of energy--just another small problem.

What to do? May I suggest that the government get out of the way of the development of energy sources?

Mr. Obama is currently in contempt of court by refusing to lift the moratorium on off-shore drilling. From Judge Feldman: “Each step the government took following the court’s imposition of a preliminary injunction showcases its defiance,” and, “Such dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the re-imposition of a second blanket and substantively identical moratorium, and in light of the national importance of this case, provide this court with clear and convincing evidence of the government’s contempt."

Next, stop interfering with energy development. Allow nuclear power. Allow the free-market system to come up with even better technology than wind or solar power, instead of subsidizing pet projects. And allow drilling of American oil until we have something better.

A Few Comments on Egypt

2011-02-02T21:00:00.001-06:00

How should President Obama deal with the difficult situation in Egypt?

Face it, Egypt IS an incredibly problematic situation. Especially since apparently the Administration was caught completely off-guard about Egyptian circumstances. Though Mr. Obama is blaming US Intelligence for not giving him sufficient warning about the conditions in Egypt, it may be that Mr. Obama just wasn't listening to the intelligence that was being provided. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/02/04/world/main7317044.shtml

The President didn't attend the 1st two-hour meeting concerning Egypt--he was watching his daughter play basketball. Later that day he met for an hour about Egypt--and then partied with Mr. Axelrod. http://www.politico.com/politico44/wbarchive/whiteboard01292011.html

These meetings were followed by the Vice-President's statement that Mr. Mubarek is NOT a dictator, then statements by the President that Mubarek must go. Confusing, to say the least.

Plus, there's all this demagoguery about "peaceful" riots (an oxymoron!) and "democratically minded" people in the Cairo streets. I thought the riots were about food. Furthermore, peaceful assemblies don't steal precious treasures from museums.

Also, I am wondering why Mr. Obama is touting "democracy" and "free elections" when he is also willing to treat with the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization that supported Nazi Germany and has ties to other Muslim terrorist organizations. http://www.answers.com/topic/muslim-brotherhood

One of the biggest problems, I think, is that Mr. Obama has now backed the United States into a corner. Whatever Mubarak is, he was an ally. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama has a long history of snubbing our allies, so this brush-off is not out of the ordinary. These brush-offs have just not had such disastrous potential as this rejection of Mubarak, which could potentially lead to a total collapse of the Middle East into Muslim theocratic-fascist regimes. Especially if one thinks that the Muslim Brotherhood could be an American ally.

A better reaction? Maybe just shut up.

And a Brief Note from Obama's Climate Change Czar

2011-02-02T20:26:00.003-06:00

Another advocate of global warming is John Holdren, Mr. Obama's Science Czar. He is concerned that the population is simply "not educated." http://nation.foxnews.com/czars/2011/01/31/science-czar-republicans-need-education

Mind you, this is the man who advocates forced abortions and sterilization-for-all in order to save planet Earth from humanity.

I wonder, is Mr. Holdren suggesting that we are stupid? Or is he suggesting something more sinister?

More Global Warming

2011-02-02T17:39:00.002-06:00

"Neither rain, nor snow, nor......"

But you can't get any mail when your mailbox is frozen shut.

Tomorrow will be the third day that we will be iced in. And we may have more snow or ice Thursday nite or Friday morning.

All because, says Al Gore, because of global warming. http://blog.algore.com/2011/02/an_answer_for_bill.html

Increased temperatures mean that the air holds more moisture, allowing for more rain or snow.

The problem with this 'theory', Mr. Gore, is that increased temperatures might explain more rain, but not more snow.

You have to have "cold" clouds to get snow and ice. "Warm" clouds just won't make that ol' frozen precipitation.

Besides that fact that temperatures have been cooling since the 1990's. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/4029837/Global-warming-Reasons-why-it-might-not-actually-exist.html

Neither are the glaciers melting--in fact, they are advancing in the Himalayas.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8284223/Himalayan-glaciers-not-melting-because-of-climate-change-report-finds.html

Veterans Day

2010-11-11T08:51:00.003-06:00

Thank you, veterans