2008 is over and what a year it was. America went through many changes, some for the good, some not. 2009 is yet to come, and no one knows quite what the future holds.
As we move forward, here are my top ten political wishes for our state and country in 2009:
1) Voter Fraud will be taken seriously. Contrary to what many say, voter fraud does indeed occur at election time. And we have countless stories of fraud occurring before elections even take place in the form of voter registration drives. If our society had any sense, Voter ID would become a reality in all states. With Democrats in charge in Wisconsin, I don't see that happening until Republicans are back at the helm. After all, Dems are the ones who clearly benefit from cheating at the polls. Why would they want to give that up? Out of a sense of honesty? Nahhhh..... Not when it helps them win!
2) Sarah Palin will be back to keep the conservative base of the country growing and getting stronger. In the brief time that Palin was a Vice-Presidential candidate, she brought new energy and life to a lackluster party (and presidential campaign, for that matter!). One only has to look at how vicious our mainstream media treated her to realize that she is the real deal - and liberals everywhere consider her a huge threat. Go Sarah! Here's to 2010 and 2012! Can't wait to see what happens! While I'm at it, I'll toss Paul Ryan into the mix, too. Another strong conservative who can help to get the party back on track.
3) Governor Doyle will stand by his campaign promise and not raise taxes (or fees). So he forgot about his promise last year! Maybe he meant 2009! I know, I know.....I can dream, can't I?
4) President Bush will be remembered for all the good he did for our country, regardless of his popularity rating. Worst president ever? Hardly! (Remember the Jimmy Carter years?) Bush led this country through some major challenges (the likes of which presidents before him never saw) - the biggest being the terrorists attacks on 9/11. Bush decided to take the fight to the enemy and never backed down. The United States literally smashed al-qaeda and they haven 't been able to regroup since. Great things have happened in Iraq. The people are free of Saddam Hussein - and Saddam Hussein has gone to his final resting place. Good riddance. Things are going well in Iraq for the U.S. military, as well as for the Iraqi people. America has not been attacked by terrorists since Bush took action. If some can set aside their misguided hatred for this man, they would be able to admit as much. However, many of us already do appreciate what our President has done for our country. Protecting our nation is one of the most important responsibilities of our President. Bush has done his job, and done it well. Goodbye and thank you, President Bush!
5) Here's hoping that some sense of journalistic integrity will return. It disappeared entirely during the 2008 presidential campaign. Liberal journalists abandoned any pretense that they were not biased, and instead morphed into "Tiger Beat" reporters when it came to slobbering all over their guy, Barack Obama. Maybe journalists in America need to return to college and repeat their classes that teach them how to cover a story. Who, what, why, where, and when? Lately, we continue to get story after story concerning our "president-elect", while reporting on the actual President has ceased, (unless, of course, it is the usual Bush-bashing). However, it was interesting to note, given the current violence in the Gaza strip, Barack Obama declined to comment on the situation, saying there was "only one president." So Obama and the media push Bush aside in all other instances to allow Obama to "act presidential", but then when it comes to dealing with a real crisis, Obama prefers to become the "president-elect" and not deal with it. And the media allows him a free pass on keeping mum. Wow.
6) America will be able to come through the recent devastating economic situation and take the necessary steps needed to ensure that such a travesty doesn't happen again. Beginning in the 1970's, with the Community Reinvestment Act, and Democrats allowing certain companies to function without any oversight or regulations (thanks, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank!), we got into a big financial mess. It has been a domino effect. No one heeded the warnings from Republicans and our President that we were headed for a fall if we didn't do something. Democrats blocked every effort to stop this runaway train before it was too late. However, hopefully we have learned. Even though "bailout" seems to be a buzzword these days, maybe we'll have an "economic rebound" to talk about soon. Let's hope we learn from our mistakes and that jobs and prosperity return quickly.
7) Barack Obama leads from the middle. As the most liberal U.S. senator, Obama was poised to point the country in a very liberal direction. Now that he has actually won the presidency, though, it appears like he is re-thinking his campaign promises - and abandoning several of them. While Obama supporters may be unhappy, I find this to be a good thing. And, since Obama has decided to bring in lots of old Clinton staffers to help him run the country, he may actually follow in Bill's footsteps (except for Clinton's behavior with young interns!) and lead as a moderate.
8) The Fairness Doctrine disappears, never to return again. The Fairness Doctrine (otherwise known as the left's attempt to silence conservatives) will hopefully go the way of the dinosaur. Liberals are not happy enough to have a total monopoly on most media outlets, and they cannot stand the fact that conservative talk radio is so successful. Talk radio is one spot where conservatives can actually go to hear conservative viewpoints. All I can say is that if the Fairness Doctrine does indeed go through, shouldn't it be applied to ALL media? Imagine, half the employees of all major news outlets (cable, newspapers, magazines, etc.) would have to be let go and replaced with conservatives! Hey, that might not be too bad - at least we'd have some real balance - not the fake balance the media always tells us is out there!
9) Good continues to triumph over evil. America, and other countries, continue to battle terrorists around the globe and win. We must not give up the fight.
10) Global Warming is exposed for what it really is - weather.
Happy New Year to all!
Over the Christmas break (oops! I mean "holiday break!"), the following commercial began playing:
After this commercial started, I actually thought it was an ad for Barack Obama! I realized my mistake during the last few seconds, when the word "Pepsi" finally appeared on the screen. Not being one for conspiracy theories, I probably would not have mentioned anything about this ad at all. However, several other people expressed the same thoughts upon seeing the ad on television, so I realized I was not the only one who thought this was an advertisement promoting Obama.
Notice how similar the Obama-generated logo (the one Camp Obama created to use instead of the American flag during Obama's presidential campaign) and the new Pepsi logo are. Pay attention to what words are used throughout this ad: "Yo, Aloha, It's Time for Optimism, All for One... " Has Pepsi joined our mainstream media in promoting our president-elect? Will COKE now be the drink of choice for Republicans?
Innocent ad for Pepsi? or subliminal ad for Obama?
Here's to Hope, Change, and Pepsi!!!
On January 20, 2009, Democrats will once again be in power - in control of the United States. After eight long years. Now that Barack Obama is about to be sworn in as the 44th president of the United States, it is becoming more obvious that Democrats are acting like deer caught in the headlights. What will they do? How will they lead? Democrats will no longer be able to sit on the sidelines, complaining about everything, bashing President Bush, and trying to block everything that President Bush wanted to accomplish. On the plus side, the whining may finally stop!
Yesterday on talk radio (I can sense liberal hackles going up!), an excellent point was made by the talk show host. The host was reviewing the Bush years, specifically the Iraq War. The statement was made that if Bill Clinton had been president during the past eight years and done exactly what President Bush did, Clinton would be going out of office as a hero. If Clinton (rather than just "huffing and puffing" at Saddam Hussein, and lobbing a few ineffectual bombs at Iraq to threaten them) had actually brought down Hussein, liberated Iraq, and fought terrorism, Clinton would be touted as one of the best presidents of all time. His legacy would be one of a brave leader - a man who unselfishly gave his all to protect the United States. (Any liberals out there care to dispute that?) Hypocrites.
In addition, look at the support from Democrats AND Republicans Clinton received each time Clinton moved to the right. Remember Welfare Reform? That was a Tommy Thompson idea that Clinton picked up and ran with. A conservative program. And Democrats backed it. Fast forward to the Bush years and what do we have? Every program or reform suggested by Bush was shouted down by the Democrats. "No" votes all around - even on some of the key issues that were to the left of center - like illegal immigration reform! And why? Simply because the Democrats hated Bush. They refused to focus on the issues and instead decided to diss President Bush every chance they got. If a Democrat had been President, they would have supported many of the same things Bush suggested. Hypocrites.
In 2009, we find Barack Obama proposing massive tax cuts. Tax cuts! Something all die-hard Democrats are totally against. Democrats are for tax increases - not cuts! Look at how they stomped their feet and dragged their heels when Bush proposed (and eventually enacted) tax cuts several years ago. Just a small handful of Democrats were for them. Yet, Obama wants to do the same thing as President Bush and it's wonderful! Not a peep or complaint from our Democrats in office. Hypocrites.
And now, with Obama poised to set foot in the Oval Office in a few days, little is being said about many of his campaign promises. Close Gitmo? Well, we might just have to look at that more closely.... Bring the troops home? Well, we might just have to look at that more closely... Soak the rich? Well, we might just have to look at that more closely...
From Politico.com: Obama has reversed pledges to immediately repeal tax cuts for the wealthy and take on Big Oil. He’s hedged his call for a quick drawdown in Iraq. And he’s stocking his White House with anything but stalwarts of the left.
Obama drew rousing applause at campaign events when he vowed to tax the windfall profits of oil companies. As president-elect, Obama says he won’t enact the tax.
Obama’s pledge to repeal the Bush tax cuts and redistribute that money to the middle class made him a hero among Democrats who said the cuts favored the wealthy. But now he’s struck a more cautious stance on rolling back tax cuts for people making over $250,000 a year, signaling he’ll merely let them expire as scheduled at the end of 2010.Obama’s post-election rhetoric on Iraq and choices for national security team have some liberal Democrats even more perplexed. As a candidate, Obama defined and separated himself from his challengers by highlighting his opposition to the war in Iraq from the start. He promised to begin to end the war on his first day in office.
Now Obama’s says that on his first day in office he will begin to “design a plan for a responsible drawdown,” as he told NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday. Obama has also filled his national security positions with supporters of the Iraq war: Sen. Hillary Clinton, who voted to authorize force in Iraq, as his secretary of state; and President George W. Bush’s defense secretary, Robert Gates, continuing in the same role."
Can you imagine the outcry if John McCain had been elected President and immediately started to renege on most of his campaign promises? Do you think the mainstream media or McCain supporters would have simply brushed his promises aside as no big deal, since after all, he IS John McCain! Well, what we are getting now IS Barack Obama. He can do no wrong. Most Obama supporters and the mainstream media continue to look the other way. Hypocrites!
I predict that once Obama is president, he will follow Bush's lead. He will realize that the war on terror is necessary and that the U.S. military is important. He will realize that our defense budget must not be slashed in half. He will realize that closing Club Gitmo may be harder than he thought. (Where does one go with terrorists who wish to kill us, anyhow?) He will realize that tax cuts are a good thing, and tax increases are not. He will realize that Bush did many things right. Obviously, Bush had a few stumbles, as do all presidents. But in the long run, Obama will learn from Bush. He may even come to appreciate Bush and what difficult (and sometimes unpopular) decisions Bush had to make while in office. Maybe some of Obama's realizations will trickle down to other Democrats.... Do you think any of them would ever admit that President Bush may have been a pretty good president? Naaaaa.... Hypocrites.
I am sick and tired of many liberals, Democrats and others continually bashing President Bush and decrying him as "one of the worst presidents ever." That simply is not true. Recently I came across the following article in the "Weekly Standard", written by Fred Barnes. It is titled "Bush's Achievements - Ten things the president got right." (Weekly Standard - 1/19/2009, Volume 14, Issue 17). Barnes proves Bush to be a strong leader - intent on doing the right thing for our country, and gives solid examples of Bush acting in the best interest of the country. Sure, Bush may have hit some rough spots along the way, but what President hasn't? It is how a true leader such as Bush deals with the bad as well as the good that points to integrity, courage, and intelligence. I am confident that history will prove Bush to be one of the best Presidents this country has seen in a long time (aside from the greatest President ever - Ronald Reagan).
Barnes examines such issues as the Kyoto global warming treaty, interrogation of terrorists, presidential authority, Bush's support of Israel, No Child Left Behind, the surge, and several other key subjects that Bush stood firm on and didn't waver. He did not allow his presidency to be guided by the polls or what was considered popular. He wasn't obsessed with his "legacy." Bush was an unselfish patriot and will be long after he leaves office. President Bush truly put America first.
For the Fred Barnes article, "Bush's Achievements", click on:
Thank you Mr. Barnes, for your timely article. After all, for eight long years, President Bush made sure our country was safe. And he did a fine job. And maybe some of those suffering the most from "Bush Derangement Syndrome", or other Bush-bashers will eventually come to realize they owe President Bush a "thank you" as he leaves office in a few short days. It's the right thing to do.
This little article was from CNN in December 2008:
Millions of people are expected to go to Washington to celebrate Barack Obama's inauguration on January 20, but with a troubled economy and pocketbook issues on the mind, the president-elect must be careful to set the right tone.
President Bush raised a record $42.8 million dollars for his second inauguration, and according to Public Citizen, more than 90 percent of the donations to that ceremony were from executives or corporations.
But this year, some say throwing a multimillion-dollar party would be unseemly in a time when crash, bailout, and foreclosure fill the economic headlines.
"A lot of it is about tone and making sure that the celebrations that do take place are not over the top, that they don't appear to be insensitive to the pain people have right now," said Ryan Alexander, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense.
The inaugural committee for Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden has pledged to make sure the ceremony underscores the incoming administration's "commitment to change business as usual in Washington."
A month later - scrap that! That's old news and doesn't pertain anymore. Obama and Co. are going all out for the party on January 20th, 2009! Obama's Inauguration is expected to cost around $100 million dollars!
How funny that the mainstream media and liberals - who were up in arms in 2004 over the cost's of Bush's Inauguration ($40 million) are quite supportive of spending $100 million for the Chosen One. Some have commented that the cost is OK, since the Obama Inauguration is "historic" (funny, I thought ALL presidential inaugurations were historic). Others have said the "cost is irrelevant" and that Obama gives out "good vibes."
Yet, Bush was chastised for spending $40 million dollars in 2004 and $35 million dollars in 2000. People were complaining the money could be better spent elsewhere - to help the poor, the hungry, the downtrodden. How arrogant of Bush to spend so much on an Inauguration! But it's OK for Obama to spend more than twice as much as Bush....go figure.
Click on: Liberal Media: Lavish Spending On Obama Inaugurals Is Good For America for more hypocrisy.
One would really think that President-Elect Obama would curb the spending, given the terrible economic times many Americans and businesses find themselves in. We are also engaged in war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even an Obama supporter told the New York Post "I love Barack, but it's getting to be a bit much now." Yet, very few on the left are complaining about the extravagant cost of the Obama Inauguration. Seems that more people are concerned about the number of porta-potties that will be available in Washington D.C. on the 20th....
Wait, taxpayers, we haven't seen anything yet!
Remember during Obama's presidential campaign, how he promised that once in office, he would immediately shut down Guantanamo Bay? You know, Club Gitmo? That place where terrorists who wish to kill us all are treated to three square meals prepared to their religious specifications, a bed to sleep in, a free copy of the "Koran" for their reading pleasure, and other perks like air conditioning (although they have complained it gets too cold!)...
Well, now the Washington Post reports the following today (1/16/09):
"Obama said he is confident that he can find a way to close the Guantanamo Bay prison while finding a way to deal with and house potentially dangerous detainees. Sources said an executive order will lay out a procedure for closing the facility, but strongly disputed reports that such an order will come on the first day of the new administration."
In addition, from the Post:
In a wide-ranging 70-minute interview with Washington Post reporters and editors, the president-elect pledged quick action on the Middle East once he takes office, promised to support voting rights for D.C. residents, and said he will consider it a failure if he has not closed the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by the end of his first term in office.
Now, I am sure that many of the anti-war, anti-Bush, hate-America crowd that flocked to support Obama while he was running for president (and telling them exactly what they wished to hear) may be a bit disappointed by this latest development. After all, during Obama's campaign he PROMISED to shut down Club Gitmo -possibly on his first day in office!!! Now Obama is saying it may take FOUR YEARS!!! What a difference a campaign and actually winning make, huh? Guess those promises were meant to be broken...
As a conservative who sees the need to keep those terrorists locked up, I say "good for Obama!" Obama seems to be following the examples of President Bush in many areas, which will bode well for the country. For all those who voted for Obama, maybe by "change" he meant that he wouldn't be the ultra-liberal he campaigned as, but once elected he would move to the center! For conservatives, we can only "hope" that is the case!
The following is an editorial from the Wall Street Journal which ran January 16, 2009. The article points out what the American people should remember about George W. Bush and what we should thank him for. Let the most deranged Bush-bashers out there try to explain this one away... I'd love to hear it! And if you cannot dispute what you read here, please try to find some sense of decency in your hearts for a change. Thank this man for keeping our country safe. President Bush clearly deserves our gratitude. (For you liberal readers, there IS some criticism of Bush in the article to keep you happy!)
"Long after George W. Bush boards Marine One next Tuesday bound for Texas, the enduring image of his epochal eight years will be the September 20, 2001 evening a relatively new President stood before a nation traumatized and in mourning.
"We will direct every resource at our command -- every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war -- to the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network," Mr. Bush told a Joint Session of Congress. "I will not yield; I will not rest; I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people."
In that moment, he set the standard for the Bush Presidency: To protect Americans from another 9/11 and hit Islamist terrorists and their sponsors abroad. Whatever history's ultimate judgment, Mr. Bush never did yield. Nearly all the significant battles of the Bush years -- the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, Guantanamo and wiretapping, upheavals in the Middle East, America's troubles with Europe -- stemmed directly from his response to the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon that defined his Presidency.
By his own standard, Mr. Bush achieved the one big thing he and all Americans demanded of his Administration. Not a single man, woman or child has been killed by terrorists on U.S. soil since the morning of September 11. Al Qaeda was flushed from safe havens in Afghanistan, then Iraq, and its terrorist network put under siege around the world. All subsequent terror attacks hit soft targets and used primitive means. No one seriously predicted such an outcome at the time.
The Administration's achievement goes beyond lives saved to American confidence restored. Memories fade fast. Recall the fear about imminent strikes, the anthrax panic and the 98-1 Senate vote for the Patriot Act in the weeks after 9/11. Americans yearned for leadership that this President provided. He calmed the fears and urged tolerance at home, saying on that memorable evening, "We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them."
A measure of the Administration's success is the criticism it has drawn as the threat has seemed more remote. Bush-bashing, whether from the netroots, David Letterman or the French, would have no resonance in a country that still feared a terrorist attack. Mr. Bush made a conscious choice to take no chances with American lives, and to live with the liberal backlash over waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
His most controversial and difficult decision, the war in Iraq, was consistent with his post-9/11 doctrine to regard "any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism . . . as a hostile regime" and pre-empt threats to America from rogue regimes and proliferators. The failure to discover WMD gave opponents the opening to claim the war was fought on false premises, but Bill Clinton, Democrats on Capitol Hill and every major intelligence service also believed Saddam had WMD.
Other mistakes were inevitably made, and not merely that "Mission Accomplished" banner aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. Persuasion matters in politics, and Mr. Bush lacked the communication skills to explain his policies well. The Administration botched the early job in post-Saddam Iraq, taking too long to empower Iraqis and failing to anticipate the insurgency. But the successful "surge" -- a decision made against almost universal opposition in Washington -- prevented a U.S. defeat and leaves to Barack Obama a democratic ally gaining strength in a crucial region.
The slow but indisputable emergence of a free Iraq also shook up an untenable status quo in the Middle East, the root source of the terrorist threat. Though Saddam bluffed about his WMD, the U.S. intervention signaled its seriousness to other proliferators. A.Q. Khan's nuclear network, which flourished in the 1990s, was rolled up in the wake of Iraq. Moammar Gadhafi gave up Libya's nuclear program, which was far more advanced than previously thought.
Mr. Bush's Afghan campaign started brilliantly, toppling the Taliban despite warnings in Washington that such "regime change" was dangerous. The ability of al Qaeda to reconstitute itself to some degree along the Afghan-Pakistan border is mainly due to unstable governance in Pakistan -- and will be no easier for Mr. Obama. Mr. Bush's engagement with Islamabad did ease Indian-Pakistan tensions, helped to capture KSM and others, and has allowed U.S. Predators to strike at terror targets inside Pakistan.
In his second Inaugural, the President declared the U.S. would "seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." Lebanon's Cedar Revolution came a month later. But the "freedom agenda" ran aground against the Hezbollah, Hamas and Iraq setbacks of 2006 and has never recovered. Still, the idea that freedom and Islam are compatible has been planted and will not be forever contained in the region.
On his own post-9/11 terms, Mr. Bush's biggest failure has been Iran. He outsourced diplomacy to the Europeans and U.N. -- despite his caricature as a go-it-alone cowboy. But these efforts merely gave the mullahs cover and years to build their bomb. The President also indulged Condoleezza Rice's illusion that some grand bargain could be found with Tehran's revolutionary regime. The same could be said for his diplomatic dead end in North Korea.
The President tried smooth talk on Vladimir Putin, with equally poor results. His famous misreading of the man gave the Kremlin confidence to repress its own people and intimidate its neighbors without fear of serious U.S. rebuke. Mr. Bush did stay a stalwart ally to the young democracies in that region, helping keep Ukraine and Georgia, so far, out of Moscow's reconstituting empire.
For a President charged so often with tarnishing alliances, the state of our friendships is also worth revisiting. The world didn't gang up against the "unilateral" U.S., Jacques Chirac's efforts notwithstanding. On the contrary, though you won't hear this from the media, relations with Europe are stronger than at the beginning of the Bush years. France, Germany and the U.K. -- aware of the rising threat from Russia and their own shortcomings -- are eager for U.S. support and leadership, out of self-interest if not any deep love.
In Asia, the Bush Presidency began with a crisis with China over the downing of a military aircraft, but U.S.-China ties have since been friendly and stable. Mr. Bush's biggest achievement, also overlooked, is the new alliance with the continent's leading democracy, India. This relationship will help future Administrations check Chinese ambitions -- as will strengthened friendships with Japan, South Korea and Australia.
The postmortems on Mr. Bush's foreign policy inevitably note his comment in the 2000 Presidential debate about "a humble nation," disinclined to act abroad, to paint him as the unlikely revolutionary. The future President's more telling statement in that debate came in response to a question about what principles would guide him. He said he'd ask himself: "What's in the best interest of our people?"
A clear conception of national interest shaped his response to the great security challenge of the early 21st century. After the Clinton decade in which al Qaeda and proliferation went unchallenged, the Bush Presidency had to scramble to defend against a terror threat that with WMD could kill millions of Americans. His decision to fight this as a "war," and to marshal the means attendant to war, has been controversial and expensive. But like Harry Truman's decisions at the onset of the Cold War, we suspect more of his policy will survive than his many critics now admit. (See here, for starters.)
The world remains a very dangerous place. Yet thanks to Mr. Bush's post-9/11 willingness to act decisively, and at the risk of his own popularity, Americans are safer today than on September 10, 2001."
(Wall Street Journal, January 16, 2009: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123206685391388221.html)
Extra! Extra! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Bush's warrantless wiretap program during a time of war was approved. From the Wall Street Journal (1/16/09):
"Ever since the Bush Administration's warrantless wiretapping program was exposed in 2005, critics have denounced it as illegal and unconstitutional. Those allegations rested solely on the fact that the Administration did not first get permission from the special court created by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Well, as it happens, the same FISA court would beg to differ.
In a major August 2008 decision released yesterday in redacted form, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, the FISA appellate panel, affirmed the government's Constitutional authority to collect national-security intelligence without judicial approval. The case was not made public before yesterday, and its details remain classified."
Funny how President Bush is vindicated on the warrantless wiretap program before Obama becomes President, isn't it?
Stop the presses!!! Do you think the mainstream media will stumble over one another in their rush to get this story out? Do you think the mainstream media will want to inform the American people on this ruling? I'd say - NO.
Our media, Democrats, and liberals have somehow forgotten that half of America did not vote for their Chosen One. We did not drink the Obama Kool-Aid. We do not swoon or faint at the mention of his name. We do not follow him like sheep - especially when he hasn't done anything. This man has practically been declared the greatest President ever. Yet, he isn't even President until tomorrow. Obama has no list of past accomplishments comparable to any previous man to hold the highest office in the land. No experience. No qualifications. Nothing. People voted for him on empty rhetoric, and they are simply following him on empty rhetoric. Guess that liberalism and ignorance go hand in hand. But we all have to live with Obama as our new leader. Let's "hope" we make it through the next four years without too much damage, and that we can "change" the direction of things in 2010 and 2012...
But back to our media. They have gone gaa-gaa over this inauguration. The reporting is so over the top as to be childish. Does almost every news story on TV have to be devoted to Obama? Do we really need almost every article in the newspapers to report some little tidbit on the Chosen One? Need proof? Pick up the Sunday (1/18/09) Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel. Aside from a special section devoted entirely to Obama, stories about him and his family can be found throughout the paper. Articles too numerous to count. All slobbering with affection and admiration. Actually, it is a more difficult task to find a section of the paper that DOESN'T mention Mr. Obama. He is even referenced in the sports pages. Obama is written about in the "Entree" food section, for goodness sakes! Why?
Why has the media suddenly started writing about Obama like lovestruck teenagers with reckless abandon? No integrity, total bias, and no shame - and no professionalism. At least during the campaign is was a bit toned down - I didn't think it could get much worse. But it has. Guess those in the mainstream media are all just too excited. Like little children jumping up and down, yelling with glee. The media helped get him elected - they won as well as Obama. And now we all have to hear and read about it - everywhere. 24/7. And the 50% of Americans who did not vote for him are left to witness this cult-like phenomenon.
I also find it funny how the press keeps touting our "first black president", yet when the presidential campaign began, weren't they the same ones telling us that race didn't matter? That we must all be colorblind? Two men were running for president. One won, one did not. We looked at Obama and McCain as men - period. Yet, now that it is Barack Obama - who touts race? The media. Over and over - the first black president is the mantra. (I wonder if Bill Clinton is upset. After all, wasn't he dubbed the "first black president?") And does anyone remember that Obama's mother was white, making Obama half-white?
In all honesty, I don't like Obama. Never have. Probably never will. And this post is not meant as much a complaint about Obama, but what passes for journalism these days. However, tomorrow is Obama's day, as well as all Obama-zombies everywhere. So, to you all, enjoy! Congratulations! Toast to your Messiah with more Kool-Aid! For all our sakes, I hope Obama can succeed and do what is best for America.
But, here's what you have been waiting for:
My solution for those tired of the Obama Lovefest that is being shoved down our throats. For the half of America who did not vote for Obama and have no plans to watch the slobbering lovefest on January 20, 2009:
Tune in to Cable Channel USA on Tuesday. The station is running a "House" marathon all day and night!
Or better yet, read a book!
- Ann Coulter has a new one out: "Guilty: Liberal Victims and Their Assault on America"
- Bernard Goldberg has come out with: "A Slobbering Love Affair - The True (and Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media"
Who knows - it may not be safe to turn on your televisions Wednesday, either, so reading may be your best "hope!"
Inauguration Day, January 20th, 2009 was a great day for President-elect Barack Obama and Obama supporters. Everyone in the country seems to be wishing the President well, and hoping for the best. Although half of our nation did not vote for him, and many do not agree with his policies, programs, and goals, we can still be the "loyal opposition."
In being proclaimed the "uniter" by many, Obama wishes to turn the red and blue states into purple. That is an admirable goal. Unfortunately, on Obama's Inauguration Day, many immature, hate-filled liberals took the opportunity to show how classless and ignorant they are. By their actions, they don't signify that they wish to "unite" the country, like Obama. Quite the opposite. Many Obama supporters took some of the dignity of the ceremony away by their actions. What I am referring to, of course, is the rude, disrespectful, childish treatment some people saw fit to direct at President Bush and Vice-President Cheney.
Regardless of what your political beliefs may be, there is a time and place for everything. Yesterday was NOT the time or place to act like children - booing, jeering, and singing a nasty goodbye song to President Bush while he sat on the stage prior to Obama's inauguration. Didn't anyone teach these people manners while they were growing up? Common courtesy? A measure of respect for the office of the President? How to behave at such a dignified national ceremony? Obviously not.
Imagine for one moment if Republicans and conservatives had behaved the exact same way towards an outgoing Democratic President while attending an inauguration for an incoming Republican. The mainstream media would have blasted those who behaved as such, yet we hear nary a peep about what occurred yesterday from our media pundits. Actually, I think many journalists out there were probably booing along with the crowd...
Shameful. Especially coming on the heels of a very civil, cordial transition between the Obama and Bush teams. The two Presidents treated each other with class and respect. It's obvious many who were present at the ceremony yesterday could have learned a thing or two from Bush and Obama.
Bad form? Yes. Many of those in the crowd owe President Bush and Vice-President Cheney an apology. And Obama's stature in the eyes of many Republicans/conservatives would rise a bit if he were to acknowledge the bad behavior and call out those who saw fit to act like five year olds on such an historic day. Since spankings are outlawed, maybe Obama could round them up and give them a time-out to think about their behavior...
To view misbehaving children in action, click on:
During the past months, livinglakecountry.com readers have been treated to several blogs concerning "torture," or what others perceive "torture" to be. Liberal bloggers are clearly against a technique of interrogation known as "waterboarding." Whether or not waterboarding actually fits the definition of "torture" is suspect. One liberal blogger even went as far as to ban comments in favor of waterboarding to his website. His justification being that if you did not agree with his point of view, your opinions were not fit to print. No comments in favor of waterboarding would be published on his website.
Well, for all of those wringing their hands, worrying if the United States is being mean to terrorists, let us focus on another topic that would clearly fall under the definition of "torture." I am referring to "partial-birth abortion."
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act specifically refers to a procedure that is medically called "intact dilation and extraction." Under this law, "Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both." The law was enacted in 2003, and in 2007 its constitutionality was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court when challenged.
Congress first passed similar laws banning "partial-birth abortion" in December 1995, and again October 1997, but they were vetoed by President Clinton.
In the House, the final legislation was supported in 2003 by 218 Republicans and 63 Democrats. It was opposed by 4 Republicans, 137 Democrats, and 1 independent. Twelve members were absent, 7 Republicans and 5 Democrats. In the Senate the bill was supported by 47 Republicans and 17 Democrats. It was opposed by 3 Republicans, 30 Democrats, and 1 independent Two Senators were absent, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tx.), a supporter of the bill, and Sen. John Edwards (D-NC), an opponent of the bill.
The only substantive difference between the House and Senate versions was the Harkin Amendment expressing support for Roe v. Wade. A House-Senate conference committee deleted the Harkin Amendment, which therefore is absent from the final legislation. On November 5, 2003, after being passed by both the House and the Senate, the bill was signed by President George W. Bush to become law.
The constitutionality of the law was challenged immediately after the signing. Three different U.S. district courts declared the law unconstitutional. All three cited the law's omission of an exception for the health of the woman (as opposed to the life of the woman), and all three decisions cited precedent set by Roe v. Wade (1973) and Stenberg v. Carhart (2000). The federal government appealed the district court rulings, which were then affirmed by three courts of appeals. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the Carhart case on February 21, 2006, and agreed to hear the companion Planned Parenthood case on June 19, 2006.
On April 18, 2007 the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision, Gonzales v. Carhart, held that the statute does not violate the Constitution. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority which included Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Chief Justice John Roberts. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the dissent which was joined by Stephen Breyer, David Souter, and John Paul Stevens.
Times have changed, though. The Democrats, many who are pro-abortion advocates are the majority in the House and Senate. Barack Obama, President of the United States, promoted infanticide while a Senator in Illinois. He voted to allow infanticide on two different occasions. Just recently - January 23rd, 2009, - President Obama reversed a rule enacted by President Bush that banned abortion aid. Obama ended the Bush administration's ban on giving federal (i.e. taxpayer) money to international groups that perform abortions. Of course liberal groups are ecstatic over Obama's decision. From the Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel (1/24/09); "Obama's action came a day after the 36th anniversary of the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade ruling that legalized abortion." Obama's comment: "the ban was unnecessarily broad and undermined family planning in developing countries." So, now should we be concerned that the ruling against partial-birth abortion could be overturned? Yes. After all, Democrats clearly did not want the Partial-birth abortion ban to pass in the first place - look at the voting records. As liberals and Democrats were worried that Roe vs. Wade would be overturned, should a Republican become President in 2008, shouldn't those with anti-abortion views be worried that Barack Obama & Co. will revisit the Partial-Birth Abortion Act?Partial-birth abortion, in my opinion, clearly fits the definition of torture, which can easily be found on many sites on the internet:
|1. inflict pain on somebody: to inflict extreme pain or physical punishment on somebody|
|2. cause somebody anguish: to cause somebody mental or physical anguish|
3. distort something: to twist or distort something into an unnatural form
Partial-birth abortion is a particularly heinous type of abortion method generally used during the later weeks of a pregnancy. Many agree that at this stage, the baby can feel extreme pain -maybe even more than usual because it's nervous system is just developing. Their nervous system is extremely raw and sensitive to painful stimulation. During partial-birth abortion, a baby is partially delivered - the head remains inside the mother's womb. A scissors is then jammed into the base of the baby's skull. A tube is inserted into the skull, and the brain is sucked out. The now-dead infant is pulled out.
So I ask, is it torture to run some water over a cloth on the face of a terrorist for a few minutes to simulate drowning in an effort to gather helpful information that could save lives as in the case of "waterboarding?" Or is it torture when one extracts a baby half way out of a mother's womb, only to stick a scissors in it's brain? Then suctioning out the brain so the head collapses, allowing the baby to easily be removed?
I'd have to say that partial-birth abortion is a true act of torture, ending in murder.
Right now, we have many on the left wishing to shut down Club Gitmo (you know, that country club where one goes when one has just GOT to get away from jihad for awhile!). We have a possible Attorney General in Eric Holder who may ban waterboarding completely. Those on the left are also demanding that we leave Iraq - in other words, surrender. The focus seems to be on making life a bit easier for terrorists right now. Yet, what about innocent babies who are murdered every day, under the guise of "family planning" or "women's rights." What about the rights or innocent babies?
So WHAT is torture?
Here is a quote from Mr. Jeff Blackwell, a strong defender of the rights of terrorists: "As insignificant as this forum is, I will not let it be used as a microphone for voices that call for or excuse the degradation of our fellow humans." Of course he is referencing his own blog, saying that those who are against waterboarding will be ignored. But read his words carefully. Note the "voices that call for or excuse the degradation of our fellow humans." Is he referring to unborn babies which will be killed by abortion? NO. Sadly, killing unborn babies is OK in his world. Unfortunately, Mr. Blackwell is referring to the interrogation of terrorists who want to kill us.
I know. I don't understand it, either.
"All the Obama's have to do is blink and everyone wants to blink the same way. They can be very influential." - Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel, "On-line campaign promotes "first farmers," 1/27/2009
EGADS!!! Obama Adulation Syndrome (OAS) run amok. The mainstream media has become little more than an overgrown teenage fan club for the Chosen One. (Does every member get a secret decoder ring and a Barack poster?). Well, for those of us who are tired over the constant worship and fawning over Barack Obama, how about a little reality check? How about a nod to a former leader who actually did things? Who accomplished great deeds? Who kept our country safe? Who held fast to his beliefs in the face of brutal and nasty opposition? Who didn't care about his own popularity, but cared about what was best for America?
I am talking, of course, about former President George W. Bush. (I can hear the groans from the many libs out there who continue to suffer from severe cases of Bush Derangement Syndrome.) While in Cedarburg recently, a close relative of mine saved the following letter out of the local newspaper to share with me. The letter is titled "An open letter to our former president," and was written by Gary Wickert. It was published on January 22, 2009 in the Ozaukee County News Graphic.
After reading what Mr. Wickert had to say, I decided that his letter was so eloquent, powerful, and true that I wanted to publish it on my blog site - for more readers to see. Mr. Wickert's views deserve to be read by as many people as possible. I contacted Mr. Wickert and he graciously agreed to allow me to reprint his letter in it's entirety. Thank you Mr. Wickert!
And thank you, President Bush!
Open letter to our former president
By GARY WICKERT
January 22, 2009
I am just one man, but I believe I speak for millions in this letter. As you step down as the 43rd president of the United States, I hope you do so with pride and without regrets. You did what was necessary to keep America safe. Thank you for your belief in the power of freedom, your support of our troops, and for placing the interests of America far ahead of fickle polls and feckless critics.
You and I have not always been on the same side of political issues. The American border-guard heroes Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, the support and urgency you expressed for multiple government bailouts, your departure from certain bedrock conservative principles and philosophies, and the "compassionate conservatism" agenda that appeared to have been a failed attempt to broaden the electorate, are but a few. A 33 percent increase in government spending in your first term and an inability to control non-defense spending ever since have done considerable damage to the image of the Republican Party. History, however, will remember you for something quite different.
It was your steadfast leadership and unblinking courage after 9/11 that made it possible to prevent another horrific attack on American soil. As a result of your steely resolve and the bravery of our Armed Forces, America has been able to sleep soundly, safe from suicide bombers, biological warfare and collapsing skyscrapers, while the rest of the world has been on red alert.
When you said "Bring it on," America’s enemies heard you. They watched as you toppled the genocidal tyrant, Saddam Hussein, freeing 25 million people and giving them free elections. They took notes as you toppled the Taliban, pushed Osama bin Laden into a cave somewhere, and gave 25 million more people the right to vote.
While the same terrorists who hoped for a Republican defeat in November bombed Bali, Spain, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, London, Madrid, Glasgow, Denmark, Istanbul, Algeria, India and others, they knew that taking on America again would mean the business end of your cowboy boot.
You tirelessly trumpeted the Patriot Act, which allowed law enforcement to monitor communications of suspected terrorists within our country and compromise their plots. It worked, thwarting an attempt to bomb fuel tanks at JFK, a plot to blow up airlines bound for the East Coast, a plan to destroy the tallest skyscraper in Los Angeles, a plot to kill soldiers at Fort Dix, a plan to attack a Chicago shopping mall with grenades, an effort to attack the Sears Tower and more.
Your efforts allowed us to arrest and convict more than two dozen terrorists within the United States since 9/11. You froze assets of hundreds of individuals and entities linked to terrorism, doubled the Border Patrol, instituted a process to screen every commercial air passenger, and created a central terrorist watch list.
You forged a new cyber security policy to improve the security of government and military computer systems, improved cargo and container screening, consolidated 22 agencies and 180,000 employees into the Department of Homeland Security, and shifted the focus of the FBI from investigating terrorist attacks, to preventing them.
You defied the opinions of the pasty armchair generals who urged you to surrender in Iraq, just when victory was within our grasp. How wrong they were. Even our new president couldn’t bring himself to mouth the words, "The surge was a success."
Anti-American citizens of France, Germany and Italy, exposed to non-stop anti-Bush news coverage, have now begun voting for conservative, America-admiring leaders and ardent supporters of yours. History - assuming it is written by free men and women not intimidated into silence - will be exceedingly kind to you.
You kept your chin up and soldiered on. You took the liberal media and blogger criticism in stride, reading a daily devotional and personally signing letters to the families of more than 4,000 troops who gave all in the war on terror. You and Laura privately visited thousands of injured veterans, and met with many hundreds of families whose relatives had made the ultimate sacrifice defending freedom around the world.
As a result of your efforts, more than 40 countries supported us in Iran and Afghanistan, including every NATO ally. In turn, they were joined by more than 90 nations in sharing terrorist-network information. You succeeded in expanding NATO membership and strengthening ties to China, Japan, South Korea, India, Georgia, Ukraine, Kosovo, Brazil, Mexico and Central America in the process. We now have another ally in the Middle East.
Even your harshest critics are beginning to realize you were right all along. "It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize," President Obama recently admitted with regard to closing Guantanamo Bay. "Part of the challenge that you have is that you have a bunch of folks who have been detained, many of whom may be very dangerous," he said. Shazzam! Last week, the 44th president even begun backing down on the much-maligned warrantless eavesdropping and executive orders saying, "Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike." It helps to know all the facts.
Fabricated stories about torture and flushing Korans down toilets didn’t deter you from thwarting nearly 5,000 terrorist plots and arresting, imprisoning, or deporting untold numbers of America’s enemies. Even worldwide terrorist attacks have decreased 40 percent thanks to you.
In you, America has seen a man of unfailing modesty, character, decency, moral clarity and class. You were as consistently gracious to your critics as they were consistently rude and vicious towards you. Your faith and your principles emboldened you to never waver in distinguishing good from evil and freedom from tyranny. To you, the choice was simple, as you explained in your second inaugural, "the moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right."
Shortly after 9/11 you told Congress and the American people, "I will not yield; I will not rest; I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people." You were not as smooth-talking as some, but you had no puppeteers, you stayed strong and you kept your word. And for that, I am only one of millions of Americans who are eternally grateful.
Some years ago, while living in Houston, I walked out of Fuzzy’s Pizza near Memorial Drive, and my oldest son - then 4 years old - walked past several onlookers, past Secret Service agents, and up to a 72-year-old ex-president named George Bush, who picked him up and sat him in his lap. In his eyes and his actions I saw the goodness and strength of character which have served you well over the last eight years.
I could not have felt more secure with anyone other than you as commander-in-chief. Thank you for being a man of integrity and an inspirational leader. You’ve made me a stronger person and America a safer nation.
Most respectfully yours,
Gary Wickert is an author, trial lawyer, and town of Cedarburg supervisor, who lives with his wife and two sons. He can be reached at email@example.com. His column is available online at www.gmtoday.com/milwaukeetoday/editorials/wickert.asp
From the Los Angeles Times, by Peter Nichols. 1/8/09:
Excerpt from "Obama's vision: Only Woes":
"Ronald Reagan in 1980 began the new conservative era in America. And 2008 is 1980 in reverse," said Allan Lichtman, an expert on the presidency at American University in Washington.
"Reagan famously said government is not the solution, it's the problem," Lichtman said. "Obama is saying government is the solution and, in fact, the only real solution to the crisis we're experiencing today. It's not just a matter of fixing the economy. It's a matter of fundamentally moving the economy in a new direction. And government, not private enterprise, has to take the lead."
Obama has long seen government as a positive force. In his 2006 book, "The Audacity of Hope," he wrote that government "has an important role in opening up opportunity for all," while criticizing President George W. Bush for pursuing a crimped agenda of "tax cuts, reduced regulation, the privatization of government services — and more tax cuts."
So there we have it. Bigger government is on the way. Socialism is on the way. Refunds to people who don't even pay taxes? Isn't that welfare? Is that where our country is headed - to a welfare state where everyone is dependent on the government for their every need? Based on this stimulus bill, it seems to be the case.
Obama and the Democrats have more than enough votes to pass the pork-laden $825 billion dollar stimulus package that Obama is saying will solve our economic problems. Yet, if that is the case, why is he courting Republican votes? Easy and very revealing answer. Obama wants the Republicans to sign on to this disaster of a bill, so when it fails, he can claim it was "bipartisan" and that the Republicans are as much to blame as the Democrats. He is looking ahead to election time. If Republicans refuse to go along with this stimulus bill, when it fails, they will look very good at election time. Republicans, if they know what is best for the country, must NOT sign this bill. An added perk voting "no" on the stimulus package will be that the Republican party won't be associated with such an outrageous piece of legislation.
80% of this bill is pork. Plain and simple. (And remember how Obama promised not to sign any bill that was laden with pork? Seems he has thrown yet another promise under the bus.) It incorporates many of the programs and wasteful spending that Democrats have wished for for the past eight years, but couldn't get. Well, now they are the majority. The bill will pass. And that is not good. The bill does nothing to create jobs. Any "recovery programs" will be years in the future. There will not be any big influx of money directly into our economy. (As an interesting side note, ACORN (yes, that left-leaning voter fraud organization that Obama once worked for) has been designated to receive $5.2 billion dollars from this stimulus package! Guess it's payoff time!) Some of the stimulus dollars will be distributed to state governments to spend. (We all know how well our own Governor Doyle manages money! Will the taxpayers actually see any of it? Very doubtful.)
Remember, the government does NOT create wealth and jobs. And keep in mind that every time the government takes a dollar to pay for this stimulus package, that dollar must come from somewhere. Where does it come from? It comes from taxpaying Americans. And if you are a taxpayer and don't understand that your taxes are about to skyrocket, get ready for reality to hit. It's called "Obamanomics." In other words: spend, spend, spend. America will be paying for this for years to come.
Want to find out what is in this bill? Don't bother checking out the Obama website which touts the transparency of this administration. The bill is so hard to follow and full of such double-speak as to make your head spin. Check out the following for some honest reporting on the wasteful spending projects included in this stimulus package:
All this bill will do is grow the government. It is the New Deal part II. The New Deal part I only served to prolong the Great Depression. History has proven such. FDR was no hero. And if Obama wishes to follow in the footsteps of FDR, we will have economic woes for many years to come. Try reading "New Deal or Raw Deal? How FDR's Economic Legacy has damaged America" by Burton Folsom. It's quite an eye-opener. Too bad it is obvious Obama has not read this book! I think it's too late to send our President a copy...
What you can do right now is get on the phone to your representatives in Washington D.C. and tell them they must NOT vote for this bill. (Don't e-mail - phone calls get things done!). We need to speak out. Unfortunately this bill will pass. But without Republican support, Democrats will only have themselves to blame when it fails. And it will.
On January 28, 2009, the House voted against President Obama's request for extending the television conversion date set for February 17th. This means that on February 17th, analog televisions will no longer function unless people have made the effort to get their converter boxes, if needed. (Our government has even gone so far as to provide coupons for folks to use when purchasing such equipment.) Otherwise, if people have cable, satellite, or digital televisions, there is nothing to worry about.
My first question is this: Since when has the government been in the business of providing coupons for people to get television converter boxes? When beta tapes and beta players went the way of the dinosaur, did the government step in to provide everyone with a VHS player? No. When 8-track tapes became obsolete, did the government step in with coupons to help buy cassette players? No. With landline phones becoming less popular, is our government passing out cell phones? No. Then why in the world is the government involved in handing out coupons for converter boxes to consumers? Or did watching television suddenly become a "right?" Is there a sentence or two addressing television viewing in the "Bill of Rights" that I overlooked?
Secondly, this is Obama's first set-back. Not everyone in the House went along with him - for once! Granted, this legislation is so unimportant as to be laughable, but it is still a small blip on Obama's record. And guess what? Obama is blaming Bush! Yes, you read that correctly. Obama is blaming Bush:
From Joelle Tessler, Associated Press, 1/29/2009:
Read the entire article here: http://news.aol.com/article/house-defeats-bill-to-delay-digital-tv/320914
We have seen the future, folks. Former President Bush is going to be taking the blame for everything for a long, long time to come. Even when it comes to something as ridiculous as television signal conversions! And lest we forget, people have been told of this television conversion from analog to digital for years! They've had a long time to prepare for it. It didn't just pop up overnight. Perhaps if you aren't prepared for it now, it is your own fault? Maybe when you see that snow on your television screen after February 17th, you'll shake your head and blame yourself for not getting a converter box, cable, satellite, or a digital television? Oh, but I forget - that would involve personal responsibility - something the Obama Administration and Obama followers tend to frown upon.
So, if you don't have your television converter box yet, be sure to blame Bush!!!
No, it's not Rush Limbaugh, as the media and liberal talking heads would like people to believe.
I'm talking about Michael Steele.
Michael Steele was elected the first black chairman of the Republican National Committee today (January 30, 2009). This is great news for Republicans and conservatives. Steele is a true conservative, who has championed conservative principles throughout his career.
(From Wikipedia): In the United States, conservatives are generally characterized by adherence to limited government, public morality and free enterprise. Specifically, conservatives tend to adhere to the following principles:
- Return of prayer in school
- Prohibition of abortion
- Opposition to same-sex marriage licenses and homosexuals
- Support of laws against pornography
- Support of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms
- Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity)
- Stronger law enforcement and anti-crime laws, including the death penalty
- Parental control of education
- Private medical care and retirement plans
- Weakening or canceling failed social support programs
- Generally opposed to the United Nations
- Support enforcement of current laws regarding immigration
- Support tightening of border security
- Respect for our military... past and present
- Literal interpretation of the Bible and rejection of evolutionism
- Low taxes, especially for families
- Opening foreign markets to U.S. products
- Less power for the federal government and more for local and state governments
- A strong national defense
Michael Steele has been very outspoken about his conservative values. Born in October, 1958 at Andrews Air Force Base, he grew up in Northwest Washington D.C. He attended Archbishop Carroll Roman Catholic High School and was a member of the National Honor Society and appeared in many of the school's drama productions. He served as his schools student council president as a senior. After high school, he went on to Johns Hopkins University. Steele earned a bachelor's degree in international relations in 1981. After college, Steele spent several years studying to become a priest, but eventually decided on a career in law. He attended Georgetown University Law Center and received his Juris Doctor degree in 1991. Steele was a corporate securities associate at Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton in Washington, D.C. for six years. Afterwards, he formed his own company, The Steele Group, which was a business and legal consulting firm.
Steele's impressive resume continued with his work as a partner at the law firm of Dewey & LeBoeuf. He became the first African American Republican lieutenant governor in Maryland. Steele then ran for the Maryland United States Senate seat in 2006, but lost to Democrat Ben Cardin. Steele then served as the chairman for the GOPAC (Republican Political Action Committee).
As of January 30, 2009, Steele has been elected chairman of the Republican National Committee.
Steele's selection has put many Republican-In-Name-Only (RINO's) on notice. (Olympia Snow, Arlan Specter, John McCain, and other phony Republicans better get their act together, or start packing their suitcases.) The Republican Party sorely needs to get back to what it truly once stood for - and this means not acting like the Democratic Party! With Steele in charge, the Republican Party is due for a major shake-up, just what we need before 2010 and 2012. Get rid of the RINO's. Follow the inspiration and leadership that has already been coming from Paul Ryan, Bobby Jindal, and Sarah Palin - to name a few.
Of course we'll be hearing from the usual suspects how Steele isn't "really" black, since he is a conservative - and the two don't apparently mix. (Barack Obama, who is only half-black, is considered "really" black, even though he had a white mother.) But Steele won't be considered a real African-American. Just wait for the liberals to go after him for not towing the line and being a Democrat! Expect a lot of criticism and sneering from the left towards Steele. He'll join the ranks of Clarence Thomas and Condoleezza Rice, who are African-American, but with an asterisk after their names...but that is all beside the point.
What is important right now is that Michael Steele can become a beacon and role-model for African-Americans, who tend to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. Why is that? Well, there are many reasons. Democrats have worked hard to get blacks to believe that they (the Democrats) are the only party that really cares about them. Yet, what have Democrats done for decades to the black population?
Slavery ended in 1868. 140 plus years later, many hard-working blacks have made the transition from poverty to middle class to wealth. However, many, many more have not. They remain mired in a cycle of poverty. And the blame can be put right on the door of the Democratic Party. They have used the "politics of victimization" to perpetuate a belief in many African Americans that they must depend on government for their every need. Now, government dependency is the easy way out. When entire generations have relied on the government for: their rent, their utilities, their food stamps, their free lunch and breakfast at school, and free medical care, why make an effort to change? Even though it is a hand-to-mouth existence, it is the only one many black families have known. Great-grandma lived off the government, grandma lived off the government, mom lived off the government, and so on down the line. Generation to generation. What will break the cycle? It's as though African-Americans have struck a deal with their leadership that prevents them from rising above their lot in life. Why? What incentive is there to break the cycle when the government controls your destiny?
The African American community needs a powerful leader to say "enough!". Now along comes a man like Michael Steele. From Michael Steele, conservative values like self-reliance and hard work can be learned. The principles of conservatism, when put into practice, can allow anyone to achieve their dreams. From Star Parker (WorldNetDaily.com): "Only traditional conservative values can provide this direction. Traditional values we learn from the Bible. From our forefathers. From our families. We can also point to the Ten Commandments. And liberal values? The only absolute here is that there are no absolutes. Everything is relative, and the only absolute is to welcome and tolerate everything." (Well, at least everything that is not conservative!). "Where do liberals learn their values? Make it up as you go along, do what you feel like, and get grants to fund university research to justify what you want to be true. Materialism. Relativism. Hedonism. Life as grass-roots activism. Anything you can muster enough votes for must be true." Life as a constant complaint against perceived wrongs. If you can get people to follow along and vote accordingly, nothing else matters - who cares what is right or wrong? Truth or a lie? As long as a Democrat gets elected and has power, that is all that is important!
Michael Steele can change all that. He can promote traditional values such as education. Stay in school and learn! - the first step towards success. Conservatives values promote intact families - with a father in the picture. Conservative values promote spirituality and a belief in a God greater than one's self. Conservatives value living a responsible lifestyle - which isn't always easy. It involves hard work. Something people must want if they are to break their dependency on the government. Self-sacrifice, smart decisions and hard-work - a true recipe for success. On the other hand, the message coming from President Obama and his Democratic cohorts is that one MUST rely on the government. And that is a recipe for failure.
Unfortunately, Democratic politicians have the upper hand right now in the poor black communities, by promoting an "Entitlement Philosophy." Self-reliance is not taught by the Democratic Party. And when black politicians just continue to funnel hand-outs to their constituents, their constituents come to rely on them for their every need. There is no incentive to undertake responsibility. And Democrats like it this way. They like having people dependent on them. Why? Because it means that they will continue to be voted into office - and have the power. What if their constituents started to follow a leader like Michael Steele? If they followed his example of self-reliance, hard-work and sacrifice? Well - they wouldn't need big government! They wouldn't have to rely on their local politicians for their livelihood. And those politicians would lose their stranglehold on their constituents.
The Republicans, with Michael Steele now at the helm of the Republican National Committee, now have an excellent chance to point the Republican Party back in the right direction. A return to conservative values. A return to true conservative representatives in political office - which many in America so crave right now. And Republicans also have a strong chance to reach out to African-American voters. Black conservatives in politics have an uphill battle in convincing other African Americans that the Republican Party offers them hope and a better life. A man like Michael Steele may be able to make many realize how the Democratic Party has been duping them for years. If people start to think and rationalize, and finally say "enough" to merely being bribed on a daily basis by the Democrats, but never improving their lot in life, they may look to new leadership. They might say "enough" to the hand-outs. They might say: "I want to get educated! I want to be productive! I want to work hard! I want to empower myself!" And guess what, the Democratic party would lose a lot of votes - and power. The Republican Party would not be the only one to benefit from attracting African American voters - the America people would be the big winners. Empowering people means less reliance on the government, which in turn means less government altogether!
It is a great day for the Republican Party - and a move in the RIGHT direction.
With the recent election of Michael Steele to head the Republican National Committee, seems that conservatives and Republicans throughout America have good reason to be optimistic for the coming years - especially 2010 and 2012! Let's work on getting those RINOS's (Republicans in name only) out of office. True conservatives and Republicans need to be voted in. Government growth AND taxes need to be reduced. National security needs to be strengthened, not slashed. American needs to drill on its own land for its own oil. Much work needs to be done, and it appears that many things currently occurring in Washington D.C. will need to be "undone."
True conservative leadership is sorely needed right now, as we watch our country veer sharply to the left. Will we ever recover if Obama's "trillion dollar economic stimulus bill" (aka "The Generational Theft Act") is passed? YES WE CAN! But we need HOPE that Republicans can get their act together and CHANGE things in Washington, D.C. and America!
From the looks of the recent 2008 presidential election map, all is not lost. Far from it!
As a few of you may know by now, livinglakecountry.com has welcomed another blogger to the site. Jacob Pickard (yes, another Pickard - brother of MC) recently joined the ranks of bloggers. Originally, I had questioned the powers that be in allowing Jacob to blog. (Jacob had previously made many comments to the livinglakecountry.com website using the moniker "LiberalHammer.") Given that the livinglakecountry.com website advertises itself as "Lake Country residents share their views on news, happenings, and current events," and "frequent blogs from your community", I questioned Pickard's selection - because he lives in Milwaukee. He does not reside in Lake Country, nor Waukesha County. I also wondered why in the world livinglakecountry.com needs yet another liberal blogger, since the scales already seem to be tipped extremely far in the direction of the left.
Anyhow, suffice it to say the powers that be have spoken and said that Mr. Pickard is good to go. No problem with his residency. I have accepted this decision.
As for Mr. Pickards' politics, fellow blogger Al Neuhauser put it nicely:
"Be of good cheer, Amy. If they have to import outsiders to bolster their weak arguments, I think that merely demonstrates their intellectual immaturity and inferiority. We'll continue to produce the good stuff while they voluminously regurgitate the liberal party line. Let them have their outlander. Nothing added to nothing remains nothing."
So, welcome Jacob! Or should I say "MC squared?" Between the two Pickards who seem to churn out blogs at the rate that our government spends money, we'll have lots of the usual leftie talking points to read (if one does indeed tune it to their sites). And if you really want a good laugh, notice how the two brothers frequently comment on each others blogs - they seem to be their own best audience.
In moving on, I will be "of good cheer" as Al suggests. In our livinglakecountry.com blog world, the more the merrier!
A few days ago, President Barack Obama, obviously new to his surroundings, attempted to get into the White House Oval Office via a window. He did not realize there was a door right next to him. (Some are saying he veered "too far left!"). No big deal, and it shouldn't be. However, when it comes to demonstrating media bias, this little mistake is a very good learning tool.
Anyone see this picture on the nightly news? In the newspapers? Anywhere? Anyone read about it? Did we hear about it for days on end? NO.
Yet, remember a few years ago when President Bush walked to an actual door (in China) and attempted to open it, only to find it locked?
The mainstream media had a field day with that one. The picture you see above ran in many newspapers across the country. I'd venture to say that many people DO remember this incident - because it was NEWS!!! Bush looked like a fool - so the media took it and ran with it. Look at how stupid Bush is - ha ha ha!!!
If President Bush's blunder was such big news in 2005, shouldn't President Obama's error be news, too? (And at least Bush's door had handles!).
Either there is real bias in the news, or President Obama just does not make mistakes!
The United States Senate is currently debating President Obama's proposed trillion dollar economic stimulus package. This bill has been dubbed "The Generational Theft Act" by conservative blogger Michelle Malkin, which is a much more accurate description of this pork-laden, wasteful spending bill.
Since when has it ever been a good idea to spend even MORE money when one is deeply in debt? Yet, that is what Obama & Co. are proposing. Money doesn't come from thin air. Taxpaying Americans will be paying for this terrible legislation for decades if it is approved by the Senate. Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats are taking advantage of the poor economy to force this bill upon us. In reality, this economic stimulus package will do very little, if anything, to actually stimulate our economy. This bill is simply a "wish list" to fulfill every Democratic dream. Useless social programs, grants, and policies run amok. It's a giant pile of crap, to put it bluntly!
To stop the trillion-dollar Economic Stimulus Bill (aka "Generational Theft Act"), please contact our Senators at:
Senator Herb Kohl: Milwaukee: 414-297-4451, Washington D.C.: 202-224-5653
Senator Russ Feingold: Milwaukee: 414-276-7282, Washington D.C.: 202-224-5323
While you are at it, you may wish to give Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner a call to say "thank you." Not only has Sensenbrenner continued to speak out against the economic stimulus bill, but he has offered a very reasonable solution to our current economic woes. Sensenbrenner has suggested that the federal government waive the collection of all income taxes for one year. From our own Lake Country Reporter (2/5/09), Sensenbrenner had this to say: "Waiving income taxes would cost about a trillion dollars, which is about what the stimulus package and supplement appropriations would cost." He goes on to say "if the federal income tax were suspended for a year, consumers would spend the money they would normally pay in taxes. Consumer spending would increase retail demand, which in turn would increase production and jobs."
Unfortunately, Congressman Sensenbrenner's suggestion is probably too logical for the Dems and liberals in Washington, D.C. to understand.
You can reach Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner at: Brookfield: 262-225-5101, Washington D.C.: 202-225-5101
(Phone calls tend to get more attention than e-mails, so please be sure to contact your representatives directly on the phone!)
With all this talk about passing the Economic Stimulus Bill (aka "The Generational Theft Act" or "The Porkulus Bill") as soon as possible to salvage our economy, we need to put the brakes on. Take a step back and stop the madness! The answer to our economic woes has been right in front of us all along.
The solution is so simple.
President Barack Obama just needs to continue to nominate high-rolling Democratic politicians to key cabinet positions. After being asked a few questions, the facts come out that these nominees didn't pay their taxes like good, patriotic Americans! The IRS can then collect on these tax cheaters and that in turn will help to stimulate our economy! Heard there are still many openings left in Obama's cabinet - meaning more money to collect! Hey, this could work...
Tim Geithner (Obama's choice for Treasury Secretary): found to owe at least $40,000.00
Tom Daschle (Obama's nominee for Health Secretary): owes over $130,000.00
Nancy Killefer( Obama's nominee for Chief Performance Expert (???) for the Office of Management and Budget): owes $946.00
Hilda Solis (Obama's nominee for Labor Secretary): husband owes $7,630.00
Not an Obama nominee, but a potential U.S. Senator: Al Franken: owes over $70,000.00 to several different states.
Wonder how many more Democratic politicians - both former and current - owe back taxes? Unless they get nominated for cabinet positions, we'll never know!!! And they'll get away without paying. All of the people mentioned above didn't go out of their way to do their patriotic duty (according to Joe Biden) and write a check to the IRS. They only paid up AFTER they got caught! Funny how that works.
So all President Obama needs to do is to keep those Democratic nominations coming....and the IRS will see those dollars roll in!
Economic problems - solved!
With the election of ultra-liberal Barack Obama as President of the United States, it appears that many lefties are getting their wish. America as we know it may "change" - into France. At least according to the latest edition of Newsweek magazine (available Monday, February 9, 2009), which proclaims that "We are all socialists now.":
(Does anyone know of any examples where socialism actually works? Please fill me in.)
By the way, I disagree with this cover and story. The media, Democrats, ultra-liberals, and the Obama Administration may like this idea - but I believe that many Americans don't. And weren't we warned that if Barack Obama was elected President, we'd be heading towards socialism? Looks like Newsweek agrees with that prediction.
America was built by free enterprise. America did not always look to the government for every solution for every problem. Yet, we are now being told that big government is indeed the solution! An earlier post of mine mentioned the following excerpt from the Los Angeles Times/Peter Nichols (1/8/09),:
"Ronald Reagan in 1980 began the new conservative era in America. And 2008 is 1980 in reverse," said Allan Lichtman, an expert on the presidency at American University in Washington.
"Reagan famously said government is not the solution, it's the problem," Lichtman said. "Obama is saying government is the solution and, in fact, the only real solution to the crisis we're experiencing today. It's not just a matter of fixing the economy. It's a matter of fundamentally moving the economy in a new direction. And government, not private enterprise, has to take the lead."
America is heading in the wrong direction, with Obama, Pelosi, and Reid leading the way. Four years cannot go by quickly enough...
Remember years ago when Bill Clinton was elected to his first term as President of the United States? The American people were told what a bargain we got - two Clintons for the price of one! Hillary was said to be Bill's "Co-President." What a deal! Then Hillary went on to write her legislation for Health Care reform (Hillarycare), which went over like a lead balloon....and we realized maybe the bargain wasn't that great...
Well, it seems that history has repeated itself. While the American people did indeed elect Barack Obama to be our 44th President of the United States, we seem to have elected the first woman president, too! Nancy Pelosi, who could not get elected to the office of president on her own, has become our defacto first woman president. We should all be doing cartwheels - our first African-American president AND our first woman president! What a great time to be an American! History continues to be made!
Need proof? One need only to look at the recent "Economic Stimulus Bill." This bill was drafted, reviewed, and finalized by Nancy Pelosi, with input from a handful of congressional Democrats. Barack Obama had nothing to do with drafting the Economic Stimulus Bill - yet he has been forced to take ownership of this debacle. Why in the world he turned over this massive legislation responsibility to Pelosi is puzzling. The bill truly could have had the best interests of America at heart. It could have been structured for the sole purpose of jump-starting our economy. This legislation could have been Obama's big chance - to show himself as a true representative of the people, if he had played an actual role in writing it. Obama could have allowed bipartisanship to enter into drafting some of this legislation that may have really had the best intentions to aid our current economic crisis. Instead, the American people have been given little more than a Pelosi/Reid Democratic wish list - going back years.
The Economic Stimulus Bill is not a stimulus bill at all. The name itself is totally deceiving. Some are saying only 7% (yes, just 7%) of this almost-trillion dollar bill will actually do anything to get the economy moving in the right direction. Remember how "one can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig?" Well, there is so much pork in this bill that it is indeed a pig! There is no amount of lipstick available to sugarcoat it any other way. This bill is clearly designed to pay back all the special interest groups that the Democratic politicians feel the need to reward. As for any of the much-needed tax cuts later added to the bill, Pelosi really exposes her agenda. From The Politico: "The new Senate (tax)cuts, if passed, will do violence to the future,” said Pelosi, who is also pressing a reluctant Obama to repeal Bush administration tax cuts for the wealthy before they expire at the end of 2010. Well, Mrs. Pelosi, isn't it much more dangerous to the country to continue to spend money we do not have? In doing so, we will burden generations to come with the responsibility of paying back this debt for decades to come. And just how to do that? Why, in the form of higher and higher taxes, of course! In the Pelosi/Reid world: tax cuts = bad, spending = good.
Even though the bill itself has Pelosi's name written all over it, who has to sell it to the public and other government officials? Barack Obama. Barack Obama, neophyte to Washing on D.C., is being led around by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, no doubt about it. He is a mere puppet.
Obama's recent news conference in which he tried to sell the economic stimulus package to the people really fell flat. Obama mentioned how he inherited the economic crisis from the previous administration. True up to a point. But then is the best solution to draft a bill which even SPENDS more and INCREASES debt even more? Where is the logic in that? Or do the Democrats feel they are now "owed" the right to spend even more than Bush did? How will that accomplish anything? Yet, that is clearly the mindset of Pelosi & Co. - and it is becoming the mindset of President Obama. (Personally, I feel this bill should be scraped. It is better to do nothing than allow this piece of dangerous and damaging legislation to pass.)
And it's no wonder that Pelosi and Reid did not want to see Hillary Clinton in the White House. They knew she was too smart and experienced to become a Pelosi/Reid robot. They wanted a person they could control and manipulate. A clueless, inexperienced empty suit. And they got one in Obama. Obama's headed for a disastrous start to his presidency if he sets America on the road to socialism. Obama's best bet to run the country is....to run the country!...as the more moderate liberal he pretended to be in order to get elected in the first place! He could start by ignoring Pelosi and Reid.
In the area of National Security, Obama must understand that our enemies are not misunderstood. They are dangerous. There is a reason they are dangerous. He has to stop softening the rhetoric when it comes to terrorism. He has to stop trying to undo much of what Bush has put in place to protect us. He has to listen to his Secretary of Defense - Robert Gates.
Obama has to leave his campaigning strategies behind - and instead learn how to lead. It's obvious that running a campaign is much different than leading a country, and Obama is having a hard time adjusting to the change. In the rush to get things done, Obama is signing legislation that makes no sense. One such example is his desire to close Guantanamo. He signed an executive order saying Club Gitmo should be shut down within a year. Sounds all nice and wonderful (for lefties who have the warm and fuzzies towards terrorists), yet no thought has been given as to just where all these dangerous terrorist prisoners will go. That one detail is very important. Why sign something when you don't have a workable solution? It's like saying you're going to end world hunger. Sign an executive order stating such, but it is meaningless if you don't have the solution to do it. Empty platitudes.
Is it "Amature Hour at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?" Are Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid pulling the strings on a ventriloquist dummy? And Nancy is no rocket scientist herself. She recently stated that "five million Americans were losing their jobs every month." When corrected (she had to be told the number was 500,000 jobs lost per month), a few days later, Pelosi said exactly the same thing - five million jobs being lost every month. (Maybe all her botox injections have gone to her brain?)
So, who did the American people vote for as our President? Obama or Pelosi? Looks like we have another set of "Co-Presidents." For four long years.
Hillary Clinton must be seething.
Betsy McCaughey, (a former lieutenant governor of New York and presently an adjunct senior fellow at the Hudson Institute) writing for the Bloomberg Report, scrutinized the Obama "Economic Stimulus Plan" more thoroughly than most Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate. Within the plan, she discovered a total revamping of the United States Health-care System. Why this is buried within this so-called "stimulus" bill is questionable. Why the American people haven't been informed of this is questionable, too. Yet remember, we have to rush this bill through! No questions asked! We are being told that the economy is tanking! If this plan is not enacted as quickly as possible, we will all face gloom and doom for years to come! (Sounds similar to what lefties have been saying about "Global Warming" now for years!)
Well, I for one am very skeptical that the Economic Stimulus Plan is going to do anything to jump start our economy. We are better off not doing anything than allowing the piece of garbage legislation to pass. Unfortunately, it did pass in the Senate on 2/10/09. Thankfully, no real Republicans voted for it. The usual RINO's (Republicans in name only - do I even have to mention names?) - Olympia Snow, Susan Collins, and Arlen Specter, voted for it. Hopefully these three stooges will be voted out of office when they come up for re-election. And when this bill fails - and it will - the American voters will also hold the Democrats and Obama accountable.
Anyhow, McCaughey has posted an interesting piece on how Obama & Co. wish to change health-care as we know it - into the European version. Read on:
One small blurb from McCaughey's column:
"A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition. “If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it,” he said. “The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol.”
More scrutiny needed.
"The health-care industry is the largest employer in the U.S. It produces almost 17 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. Yet the bill treats health care the way European governments do: as a cost problem instead of a growth industry. Imagine limiting growth and innovation in the electronics or auto industry during this downturn. This stimulus is dangerous to your health and the economy."
What a health-care provision has to do with "stimulating the economy" escapes me, but most of the economic stimulus bill does nothing to stimulate the economy, anyhow. So, I guess it fits right in!
In keeping with the theme of "sneaking things in", just recently President Obama and the White House have said that they are going to be taking over the U.S. Census duties in 2010. Not many people have heard about this. I think Chicago-style politics have really come to Washington, D.C. Perhaps Raul Emmanuel suggested this idea to Obama. Great way to redraw the lines on districts to benefit your party, if you are looking for more votes! People should be outraged - and very little coverage from the mainstream media on this recent development!
Hopefully this power grab will be ruled unconstitutional...
The Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel ran a story (2/13/09) titled: "Gregg withdraws as commerce pick." The article is about Republican Senator Judd Gregg, who just withdrew his nomination to become President Obama's commerce secretary. (No, unlike numerous Obama Democratic cabinet nominees, Gregg actually paid his taxes!) Within the story, Gregg's main reasons for dropping out are briefly referenced:
"Gregg, of New Hampshire, cited irresolvable conflicts with Obama's policies, specifically mentioning the $789 billion economic stimulus bill and 2010 census in a statement released without warning by his Senate office."
Well, we all know why Gregg isn't too pleased with the "Economic Stimulus Bill", - a bill loaded with socialist and welfare pork. 63% of Americans aren't happy with it, either. However, what we don't know from this article is just "why" Gregg isn't pleased with the 2010 census. And if you read the entire article, you won't know either, since the 2010 census is not mentioned again.
What President Obama, his Administration, and the mainstream media don't want the American people to know is that the White House is trying to take over control of the 2010 Census. Census duties are supposed to fall to the Department of Commerce. Gregg, who was picked to become secretary of that department, wasn't considered trustworthy enough by Obama and fellow Dems to handle census duties. (Possibly because he is a conservative Republican???) With a census comes re-districting, which can change voting patterns, representatives, etc. Looks like Obama, (aside from still campaigning!) is planning ahead on getting re-elected in 2012. The "Economic Stimulus Bill" is the first step, in that it gives money to groups that promote voter fraud (almost $5 billion to ACORN). Secondly, by taking over the U.S. Census, districts can be manipulated to achieve maximum votes/seats.
Why the 2010 Census power-grab isn't big news is very puzzling - and troubling. The mainstream media has apparently taken over the job of running interference for their man. The first example is the reporting on the Economic Stimulus Bill. The media made sure that no one in the public knew exactly what is in the bill (aka "The Generational Theft Act"). They have avoided reporting on all the pork, and the fact that only 7% of the bill has anything to do with "stimulus." They also made no mention that Health Care reform was buried deep within this legislation. Health Care reform is a big issue for many Americans. Obama, the Democrats, and the media clearly know that. To go behind the backs of the American people and slip Health Care reform into this monstrosity of a spending bill, without telling the American people, is disingenuous.
Now we have little, if any, reporting on the status of the 2010 Census. Many questions need to be asked. Why isn't the media asking why the White House wants to take over the 2010 Census? Such a thing has never been done before. Could Raul Emmanuel be behind this, since it is similar to Chicago-style politics? When one needs more votes and/or power, why not manipulate redistricting of congressional seats? Imagine if former President Bush tried to do such a thing. Would the mainstream media have ignored it?
From Worldnet.daily (2/7/09):
"This action appears to be motivated by politics, rather than the interests of our country," House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, said in a statement. "The United States Census should remain independent of politics; it should not be directed by political operatives working out of the White House."
Here's an argument that it's unconstitutional for the President to take over the Census from the secretary of commerce. It goes like this: Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution provides for an "actual enumeration" and a statute passed by Congress provides that the duties under this clause are to be performed by the secretary of commerce. Article I (as Joseph Biden didn't know in debate) is about the legislative, not the executive branch. Hence, it is argued, the president can't substitute a sampling for the enumeration required to be done by the secretary.
But at last night’s presidential news conference, there were zero questions about the Census, or about the tax troubles of multiple Obama cabinet nominees -- although a Washington Post reporter did ask the President about the reported steroid use of baseball player Alex Rodriguez.
The main focus of the Obama White House does not seem to be in doing what is best for America. By their recent actions, it has become clear that Obama and the Democrats want to remain in power for long time to come. They will do anything, apparently, to achieve this goal.
No, the title of my blog post did not come from the National Enquirer. Nor did it come from People Magazine, Us, The Star, or Cosmopolitan.
What we have here is yet another excellent example of just how devoted to Obama our mainstream media is. On a day when the media could be doing their jobs (a concept they seem to have forgotten) and informing Americans about all the socialist and welfare garbage hidden in the so-called "Economic Stimulus Bill", or reporting on the White House taking over control of the U.S. Census for 2010 (which may be unconstitutional) these are the kinds of stories we are getting. What about an article on the fact (and it is a fact) that Health Care reform is buried within the Stimulus Bill? We are heading towards socialism and disaster on so many fronts, yet our mainstream media chooses to print cutsie stories on Barry and Michelle!
By the way, the headline to my post came from: Page 3A of the front section of the Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel for February 14, 2009. I kid you not.
Here's an adorable excerpt:
"She's a busy mother of two and a full-time executive at a film distribution company, but sometimes Susan Margolin can't help it: She searches for Barack and Michelle Obama on Google - not to check in on his latest policy initiatives, but what to see what they're doing as a couple."
And another (it may be getting difficult not to barf):
"Just in time for Valentine's Day, it's the season of the PDA in the White House - and we're not talking about Obama's prized Blackberry."
Here's my personal favorite out of all the drivel:
"You feel there's some real presidential whoopee going on, and more power to them." Coles says.
I swear I cannot make this stuff up. This type of reporting is unprecedented. Is this even real reporting??? Is this kind of stuff "newsworthy?" By the way, stories about Iraq and Pakistan - you know, the war on terror - follow on pages 4A and 7A. Guess they are less important than letting us know the Obama's are hot for one another. That they are THE couple that we all aspire to be like.
One conservative blogger made a classic observation after Obama's press conference last week. ( You know, the news conference where Obama was trying to sell the phony economic stimulus bill to ignorant Obamazombies and others.) Anyhow, the blogger mentioned he was surprised no one in the news media slipped in any of the drool on the floor....
A special "thanks" to my sister in conservatism, Moe, for sending me the following e-mail. "Eight Years Later" highlights the differences between Bush, Clinton, Obama, and the mainstream media. An interesting read for all.
DIFFERENCE OF EIGHT YEARS
Yesterday: Outgoing President George W. Bush quietly boards his helicopter and leaves for Texas, commenting only "Today is not about me. Today is a historical day for our nation and people."
Eight years ago yesterday: Outgoing President Bill Clinton schedules two separate radio addresses to the nation, and organizes a public farewell speech/rally in downtown Washington, D.C. This is scheduled to directly conflict with incoming President Bush's inauguration ceremony.
Yesterday: President Bush leaves office without issuing a single Presidential pardon, only granting a commutation of sentence to two former border patrol agents convicted of shooting a convicted drug smuggler. He does not grant any type of clemency to Scooter Libby or any other former political aide, ally, or business partner.
Eight years ago yesterday: President Clinton issues 140 pardons and several commutations of sentence on his final day in office. Included in these are: billionaire financier, convicted tax evader, and leading Democratic campaign contributor Marc Rich; Whitewater scandal figure Susan McDougal; Congressional Post Office scandal figure and former Democratic Congressman Dan Rostenkowski; convicted bank fraud, sexual assault, and child porn perpetrator and former Democratic Congressman Melvin Reynolds; and convicted drug felon Roger Clinton, the President's half-brother.
LEAVING THE WHITE HOUSE:
Yesterday: The Bush daughters leave gift baskets in the White House bedrooms for the Obama daughters, containing flowers, candy, stuffed animals, DVD's and CD's. They also leave heartfelt notes of encouragement and advice for the young girls on how to prepare for their new lives in the White House.
Eight years ago yesterday: Clinton and Gore staffers rip computer wires and electrical outlets from the White House walls, stuff piles of notebook papers into the White House toilets, systematically remove the letter "W" from every computer keypad in the entire White House, and damage several thousand dollars worth of furniture in the White House master bedroom.
And the most telling regarding mainstream media bias:
NEWSPAPER HEADLINES FROM FOUR YEARS AGO:
"Republicans spending $42 million on inauguration while troops die in unarmored Humvees."
"Bush extravagance exceeds any reason during tough economic times."
"Fat cats get their $42 million inauguration party, ordinary Americans get the shaft."
NEWSPAPER HEADLINES FROM JANUARY, 2009:
"Historic Obama inauguration will cost only $170 million."
"Obama spends $170 million on inauguration - America needs a big party."
"Everyman Obama shows America how to celebrate."
"Citibank executives contribute $8 million to Obama inauguration."
How ironic is this? Russian Prime Minister Vladamir Putin, leader of one of the first socialist countries in the world, is warning the United States about our current "Economic Stimulus Bill" and the dire consequences we may be facing because of it. Yes, Russia!
Please read the entire article at: http://www.therightperspective.org/?p=1472 The first two paragraphs, which ought to scare everyone, are re-printed below:
"Russian Prime Minister Vladamir Putin has said the US should take a lesson from the pages of Russian history and not exercise “excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state’s omnipotence”.
“In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state’s role absolute,” Putin said during a speech at the opening ceremony of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. “In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated.”
America needs to heed Putin's warning. Already we have the "Economic Stimulus Bill" - rushed through without thorough examination, and full of welfare and socialist pork which is setting us up for years of debt, higher taxes, and rocketing inflation. In other words, a big fall is coming and the outlook is bleak.
I think the "blind faith" Putin refers to are the Obamazombies - which include our mainstream media - who seem to think that Obama can do no wrong and must not be questioned on anything. After all, Obama IS a rock star, The Chosen One, the Messiah!!! How stupid a country we have become! Like they say, we sure deserve the government we elect. 52% of Americans were fooled when they went to the polls. Many are still following Obama with blinders on. Stop drinking that B.O. Kool-Aid now - it's tainted!!!
Even Russia knows America is headed for disaster - just after a few short weeks of "leadership" under Obama...
On Monday (2/16/09), the Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel ran a story on page 8A - main section - "Venezuelans vote down term limits." (I couldn't provide a link to the on-line version of the MJS, but I found the same AP story, by Niko Price here: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96CD0C01&show_article=1 Please read through the entire article before going on to my re-written version.)
While going over this article, I found it was way too easy to transpose the words "America" in place of Venezuela, and "Obama" in place of Hugo Chavez. I think this article, as re-written, provides a real glimpse into the future of America.
Here is the entire column, with my changes noted in underlined bold italics:
AMERICANS VOTE DOWN TERM LIMITS
Decision paves way for President Obama to stay in office.
by Amy L.Geiger-Hemmer
President Obama won a referendum to eliminate term limits Sunday, paving the way for him to run again in 2016 - and beyond - and push through his vision of a socialist America.
Fireworks exploded in the sky, and caravans of supporters celebrated in the streets, waving red flags and honking horns.
With 94% of the vote counted, 54% had voted in favor of the constitutional amendment, National Electoral Council chief David Axelrod announced. Forty-six percent had voted against the measure to eliminate term limits of all public officials, too few to make up the distance with the remaining votes.
"Today, we opened wide the gates of the future. America will not return to its past of indignity," Obama proclaimed, after singing the national anthem from the balcony of the White House.
At their campaign headquarters, Obama opponents who have said the amendment pushes America closer to dictatorship hugged one another and cried. Several opposition leaders left without speaking, but those who remained said they wouldn't contest the vote.
"We accept this result," said Paul Ryan. "We're still standing. We're committed to America."
Voters on both sides said their decision was crucial to the future of America, a deeply polarized country, where Obama has spent a tumultuous short time in power, channeling tremendous tax increases into combating gaping social inequality.
The recorded blare of bugles jarred Americans awake before dawn, and long lines formed even before the polls opened at 6 a.m. Information minister Hillary Clinton projected turnout as high as 70%.
People voting "yes" said Obama has given poor Americans cheap food, free education and good health care, and empowered them with a discourse of class struggle after decades of favoring the rich. No successor has emerged, and voters said that gains would vanish if Obama left office.
"If Obama loses, his social achievements will all disappear," said Michelle Obama, his wife.
People voting "no" said Obama already has far too much power, with the courts, the legislature, and the election council all under his influence. Removing the 8-year presidential term limit would make him unstoppable.
"If he wins, he'll be unleashed, and he'll make us like Cuba, because that's what he really wants," said Adriana Hernandez, 19, an engineering student. "He'll create laws by decree and go after private property."
Polls by Gallup, a survey firm, showed that Obama made up a 17-point deficit in the last six weeks by targeting the 20% of the electorate who said he had been a good president but who were reluctant to let him stay in power indefinitely.
Obama took office in 2009. The vote Sunday was his second attempt to change the term limits for the office of the president.
America's leftist allies in Latin America have followed the model. Ecuador pushed through a new constitution in September, and Bolivia did so in January; both loosened rules on presidential re-elections. Nicaragua's ruling Sandinistas plan to propose an amendment that would let Daniel Ortega run for another consecutive term.
America has had several elections or referendums during Obama's time in office, which Obama supporters have said proves his dedication to democracy and which supporters have called tiresome.
Obama argued he needs more time to complete America's transition to socialism—a process he has said could take another decade or more. He says his "little change" deepens democracy by giving voters more options.
Obama warned his opponents—whom he calls "sore losers"—to respect the results.
"Any attempt to take us down the path of violence, by failing to recognize the results of the people's will, will be neutralized," he proclaimed.
End of story.
But wait, I've got more! There IS actually a movement to change the current presidential term limits of 8 years - click on : http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/13/hope-and-change-move-to-repeal-presidential-term-limits-started/
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. It's inherited value is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill
"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it." - Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931-2005
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."
- Thomas Jefferson
Truer words were never spoken. Yet, with the recent passage of President Obama's "Economic Stimulus Bill", Americans are getting their first glimpse of the disappearance of our country as we know it. $787 billion dollars and growing. This bill only has 7% set aside for real "economic stimulus." The rest of the bill is laden with socialist and welfare pork in it, solely designed to grow government and take away from hard working Americans. For many Obama supporters, this is considered a triumph. What they had actually "hoped" for. The blame-America first crowd is applauding the passage of this spending monstrosity and cheering. I doubt that half of them really know why. I also doubt that many of these same people do not realize that the government does not produce money. Taxpayers produce money. American taxpayers will be responsible for paying for this bill for decades to come.
Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, China......and America! Our leadership in Washington D.C. these days has shown it's hand. Finally the truth is coming out. All the warning signs were there, and 52% of Americans failed to notice them. From the poster of Che Guevara in a Barack Obama campaign headquarters in Texas, to redesigning the American flag logo during campaigning, to numerous friendships with Marxists, domestic terrorists, and racists, and the all-telling "spread the wealth" comment to Joe the Plumber - we all knew about Obama's background. Yet we were led to believe that it just didn't matter. His friendships didn't matter. Who he followed and listened to didn't matter. What he said and thought about our country didn't matter! What his wife said about "never being proud" of her country didn't matter. He was a moderate!!! Well, that was a big fat lie. Half of America was fooled. Unless, of course, they wanted to vote for socialism - then they got their wish!!! Bravo!
America was created as the land of the free, home of the brave. Our economic system is still based on capitalism, but in the liberal world that is a very bad thing. Capitalism promotes all the values that liberals hate. Individuals have the ability to fend for themselves - to better their lives without government intrusion. Capitalism in itself stimulates creativity, challenges, and a desire for many to better themselves. People can do what they want - they can become what they want. They can achieve their dreams by working hard. Everyone has an equal opportunity to do so. Many of these liberties cannot be found in other countries. Americans know that by learning, working hard, and leading productive lives, they can achieve anything. And many people are able to reap the benefits, for which they deserve. Yet, liberals do not think this is right. They want to take away from the "haves." Class envy is a cornerstone of liberalism.
Why should some have so much, when others don't! Somehow that is wrong. Never mind that maybe the "haves" have actually worked hard to earn everything they have. And the "have-nots" may have made some bad choices. Maybe they didn't finish high school. Maybe they had children when they were too young and/or unmarried. Maybe they abused drugs and/or alcohol. Maybe some are just lazy! Yet, those who work their butts off to make a living are now going to be held even more responsible for the well-being of those who are irresponsible? And before liberals get all huffy and feign outrage at my words, I do realize that some people in our country do need help. Those with real medical issues, who want to work but due to physical or mental hardships cannot. Those who have lost a job and are trying to get back in the work force. I understand that and agree that at times, a helping hand is required. But I have no sympathy for those in society who make no effort to achieve anything on their own, and continue to live off the government while making no attempts to better themselves, or live responsibly. And I do not feel that those who "have" should be forced by Obama & Co. to share our earnings with them even more than we do now. We are all doomed to turn into a nation of Katrina victims. Sitting on our butts waiting for the government to rescue us. And Obama & Co. couldn't be happier. Pathetic.
Two major incidents in the war on terror have occurred in the past few days.
First, President Obama is going to be sending 17,000 MORE troops to Afghanistan. Yes, that word was "sending" - not "bringing home."
In addition, President Obama recently agreed that Afghan detainees have no rights. What???? How can that be? Look at the detainees in Club Gitmo! Why, they can use our court system and file grievances, etc. all in the name of "justice." Who cares that upon release, these same terrorist thugs may go back out on the battlefield again and try to kill U.S. soldiers?
Click on this link for more on the 17,000 U.S. soldiers going to Afghanistan: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/President44/story?id=6899206&page=1
Check here for news on Obama denying Afghan detainees any rights: http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009/02/siding-with-bus.html
While I am very happy that Obama has chosen to follow in his predecessors footsteps in dealing with the War on Terror in these two examples, I am sure many Democrats and liberals are not. Yet, where is the outcry? Where are the stories from the media about Obama lying? Where is the anger? The fact that many Obama supporters have been duped? After all, Obama did say he would bring home our troops shortly after reaching the Oval Office. And he said he'd shut Club Gitmo down. Yet, what Obama is doing now is the exact opposite. Shouldn't that be reported on? Why the silence?
Can anyone tell me why President Bush was criticized for every move he made concerning the War on Terror by Democrats and liberals on a daily basis, yet Obama can do EXACTLY the same thing and that seems to be just fine and dandy?
Guess the left just couldn't support the war effort before January 20th, 2009, BECAUSE Bush was president. What hypocrisy.
All right, I admit it. I couldn't stomach watching President Obama's "State of the Union" (or whatever you want to call it) address last night. His speeches seem to always have two things in common - great tone, little substance. In addition, whenever he opens his mouth, Mr. Obama seems incapable of telling the truth. He's a smooth talker, telling people what they want to hear. Never mind if he's being honest or not. Kind of like a former president of ours who liked to romp after young interns in the Oval Office.
(Besides, "The Family Guy" was on TBS, and it was re-running the episode where Stewie kills Lois - a must-see for any "Family Guy" fan. Too funny to miss....)
However, I did manage to catch the media gushing about Obama' speech after it was over. Ann Compton rambled on and on about how wonderful Obama's address was. I almost thought she'd pass out, she was so excited. Get the smelling salts! Who cares about being unbiased when "The One" has spoken?!? (I think Ann and Katie Couric may be sisters....) Ann gushed: How confident and direct - (and, well, presidential!) our president appeared! Well Ann, Hitler was a great speaker too, and look how that turned out. Now before lefties burst a blood vessel, in no way - shape - or form, am I saying that Obama is the same as Hitler. (Even though it was just fine for some lefties to call President Bush by that name. That was OK!) All I am saying is that Hitler spoke well and Obama does, too. Both appealed to the masses, and the masses never knew what hit them. Clinton was also a great orator - and look at what a scumbag he was!
Sometimes how well one speaks doesn't mean a thing. It is what you say and how truthful you are that counts. It's like campaigning as a moderate to get elected, then turning around and leading as one of the most ultra-liberal presidents America has ever had the horrors of seeing in office. Obama continues to tell many people what they want to hear while he is in front of the cameras, then he turns around and does something completely different when the cameras aren't rolling.
The Republican rebuttal to Obama's magic show was led by Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana. Governor Jindal came through with flying colors - by not allowing Obama to get away with misleading the American people with words. Governor Jindal could be a strong candidate for President come 2012.
Just a few excerpts from Governor Jindal's Republican rebuttal to Obama's "State of the Union":
"The strength of America is not found in our government. It is found in the compassionate hearts and enterprising spirit of our citizens."
"To solve our current problems, Washington must lead. But the way to lead is not to raise taxes and put more money and power in hands of Washington politicians. The way to lead is by empowering you - the American people. Because we believe that Americans can do anything."
"Democratic leaders say their legislation (The $800 billion Economic Stimulus ("Porkulus") Bill) will grow the economy. What it will do is grow the government, increase our taxes down the line, and saddle future generations with debt. Who among us would ask our children for a loan, so we could spend money we don't have, on things we do not need? That is precisely what the Democrats in Congress did. It's irresponsible. And it's no way to strengthen our economy, create jobs, or build a prosperous future for our children."
"To strengthen our economy, we must promote confidence in America by ensuring ours is the most ethical and transparent system in the world.... We need to bring transparency to Washington D.C. - so we can rid our Capitol of corruption - and ensure we never see the passage of another trillion dollar spending bill that Congress has not even read and the American people haven't even seen."
"...we must remember for all our troubles at home, dangerous enemies still seek our destruction. Now is no time to dismantle the defenses that have protected this country for hundreds of years, or make deep cuts in funding our troops. American's fighting men and women can do anything. And if we give them the resources they need, they will stay on the offensive...defeat our enemies...and protect us from harm."
"In recent years, these distinctions in philosophy (between Democrats and Republicans) became less clear - because our party got away from its principles. You elected Republicans to champion limited government, fiscal discipline, and personal responsibility. Instead, Republicans went along with earmarks and big government, spending in Washington. Republicans lost your trust, and rightly so. Tonight, on behalf of our leaders in Congress and my fellow Republican governors, I say: Our party is determined to regain your trust. We will do so by standing up for the principles that we share...the principles you elected us to fight for ...the principles that built this into the greatest, most prosperous country on earth."
And did anyone question why Obama's address was on almost every major news channel, as well as most cable channels? When did that ever happen when Bush was president? As I recall, many news stations even REFUSED to air Bush speeches - click on: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20040524-1338-bushspeech-tv.html for an example from May 24, 2004.
In one month, Obama has done more damage to this country than anyone ever imagined. (Rasmussen Poll numbers also show Obama's approval rating shrinking from 67% on 1/20/09 to 59% on 2/25/09. Maybe the American people are finally realizing they were bamboozled.) We've just seen the largest spending spree in the history of our country shoved down our throats - with no time for scrutiny or debate. Ironically, Obama then appears on national television and states that he is going to be "fiscally responsible." Somehow, the two just don't go together. America can be sure of the following under Obama: taxes and inflation will skyrocket, debt will increase like never before, big government will get even bigger, and our economy will morph into socialism. And the one area where our government will actually come through with big budget cuts? You guessed it - our military. And the American people cannot rely on our mainstream media for honest reporting when it comes to President Obama. Our future looks very bleak, no matter how much Obama & Co. want to try to sugar coat it.
The Obama Administration has taken yet another step in attempts to garnish more power for the Democratic Party in the years to come. A few weeks ago, in a story that has been largely ignored by the mainstream media, the White House took over control of the 2010 U.S. Census from the Commerce Department. This was an unprecedented act. It may also be deemed unconstitutional. Not only did this power grab contribute to Republican Judd Gregg's decision to withdraw his nomination to become the head of the Commerce Department, but it should be setting off alarms to people who want to ensure honest elections in the future. By controlling the U.S. Census, the White House can redraw boundaries as it sees fit and manipulate the re-districting of congressional seats. Several Republicans have expressed their views as to this recent action by the Obama Administration.
From WorldNetDaily.com (2/26/09) by Drew Zahn:
"This action appears to be motivated by politics, rather than the interests of our country," House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said in a statement. "The United States Census should remain independent of politics; it should not be directed by political operatives working out of the White House."
A senior Republican Aide said "With all of its political implications, hijacking the census from the Commerce Department and letting it run out of Rahm's (Emmanuel) office is like putting PETA in charge of issuing hunting permits."
Congressional Quarterly reports that Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), the top Republican on the House Government Reform Committee, said the proposed move may even be in violation of federal law. "Any attempt by the Obama administration to circumvent the census process for their political benefit will be met with fierce opposition," said Issa. "This ill-conceived proposal undermines a constitutionally obligated process that speaks to the very heart of our democracy."
Bruce Chapman, director of the U.S. Census Bureau under President Reagan had the following to say:
"Everyone knows that it is possible to organize a decennial census in a way that benefits one party or another politically. One way to effectuate this otherwise unpalatable departure from the Census Bureau's 200-year history of non-partisanship is to put the Bureau administratively under the direction of politicos in the White House. In reality, that would be a sure invitation to cook the books on the highly consequential count of Americans. The only reason the White House would want to be involved is in figuring out how to add more voting power to certain states and groups within states." Chapman also adds, "Power flows from an accurate census count. Everyone involved for years has seen the count therefore as a sacred trust. It must not be polluted with even a semblance of presidential meddling."
How true. So now the White House for the time being, will control the U.S. Census. We'll have to see what happens.
Here's part two of the power grab. If you blinked, you might have missed it. Check out the Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel from Wednesday, February 25th. On page 12A is the following story, "D.C. steps closer to voting rights." The title itself is misleading and almost makes it sound as though people living in Washington D.C. cannot vote! That is not true. Instead, what the District of Columbia does not have is a fully vested representative in Congress. They do have a member in Congress (Eleanor Holmes Norton) who can serve on committees, draft legislation and participate in debates, but she cannot vote. What Obama and the Democrats are now trying to do is push through a bill allowing the District of Columbia to have a fully vested representative - meaning voting power. Given that more than 75% of D.C. resident voters are Democrats, its a given that the seat would go to a Democrat. Oh, by the way, in order to placate angry Republicans at this latest attempt to grab another seat for themselves, Democrats have said that Utah may be allowed another seat, too. Even though it's not a given that seat will go to a Republican.
Two years ago, the Democrats and Obama tried to get this same legislation passed. It failed in the Senate and President Bush had vowed to veto it, should it have reached his desk. Bush's reason for the veto was simple - the bill violates the Constitution. The Constitution specifically states that the House must consist of members chosen "by the people of the states." The District of Columbia is NOT a state. From Bloomberg.com (2/21/09): "Even if the push to give Washington D.C. a voting House member gets signed into law, a constitutional challenge is expected from opponents arguing that the District was specifically envisioned by the Founding Fathers as a democratic anomaly without federal representation."
So, yet another example of Democrats trying to position themselves to remain in power for a good, long time. Doing what's best for the country? I don't think so. Doing what is best for themselves? You got it. The only good thing that may come out of this is that Democrats may not need the help of voter fraud groups like ACORN to win elections anymore.
Class envy. The modus operandi of the left. We must hate the rich! We must love the poor! Those with money - specifically those earning more than $250,000.00 per year, now have big targets on their backs. Tax 'em! Tax 'em MORE!!! After all, they deserve it! They have MORE than others!
What the left seems to believe is that those fortunate Americans, who work hard and have achieved sizable incomes, somehow are taking away from those who have less. This is not the case. America is the land of opportunity. The economic pie is not stagnant - like Obama and liberals lead people to believe. Just because one person has more than the other person does not in any way mean that the person with more is depriving the person with less of anything. (And the person with more does not necessarily even have to be rich!) Those with less DO have the opportunities to earn more. To learn more. To better themselves and succeed.
The economic pie does not have boundaries. The rich can get richer. The middle class can become rich. The poor can become middle class and/or rich. Obama and Co. would like to see the rich and middle class BECOME poor. That way we can all be miserable and rely on the government for everything!
What Obama & Co. fail to take into account in their desire to punish those who are successful, is that many wealthy people run businesses that provide jobs to many other people that may not be wealthy. They may employ hundreds or thousands of workers - enabling many Americans to earn a living. A few days ago on talk radio (yes, that dreaded, evil talk radio that needs to be silenced with the Fairness Doctrine!), people were discussing how gleefully those on the left were saying that the rich should be taxed more. The question arose, what would happen? Well, for one thing, the rich probably will still be rich, however they might scale back on purchases. The joke was that many rich people may not buy sub-zero appliances anymore! Ha ha ha!!! Well, a caller brought up the fact that her brother-in-law actually worked for a sub-zero appliance maker. He wasn't wealthy, but earned a good living and was able to provide for himself and his family. Now, if the filthy rich snobs refuse to buy sub-zero appliances because the government wants more of their money, who is it really hurting? The filthy rich snobs we all must despise? Or the man who works for the appliance company that makes appliances that filthy rich snobs no longer buy?
What I also find so funny is that whenever lefties talk about the rich, with such disdain, is that many of them ARE the very people they talk about. Think Oprah Winfrey is rich? Stephen Speilberg? Sean Penn? Bill Clinton? Our current president, Obama? Why is it OK for them to make more money than most of us will ever see in our entire lifetimes, yet we are supposed to hate people who head up big businesses and get big bonuses! They are the evil ones - not the Hollywood elites, pro athletes, or former presidents....
The liberal cliché of how the Bush tax cuts only helped the rich is a fallacy, too. From the National Center for Policy Analysis (10/23/08): "It is politically popular to say that tax cuts benefit the wealthy," said Michael D. Stroup, a Stephen F. Austin University economist who authored the NCPA report. "The accusation does not match the reality."
If anyone would take the time to do the research, they'd easily find that the Bush tax cuts helped everyone who actually paid taxes. Of course, those who paid the most (usually the rich) got the biggest tax breaks. (Doesn't that make sense? Or am I missing something?) In 2006, 53.7 percent of federal income taxes were paid by those with incomes of more than $200,000. Those earning between $100,000 and $200,000 paid 28.3 percent of individual income taxes.
As a nation, shouldn't we be celebrating the success of people who achieve great things? Who start a business and build that business into a huge corporation? Who invent and create new things to better society? Who provide jobs to hundreds, thousands, or millions of people? Who donate to philanthropic causes and charities? I believe we should. But our current administration does not. No, the rich are to be punished! As are other taxpayers. Because of Obama's "Economic Stimulus Plan" (aka "Porkulus" and "The Generational Theft Act"), we'll all be seeing increased taxes shortly, as well as runaway inflation. And if we continue down this road of punishing those who are successful, who will want to succeed anymore? Why bother?
"Spread the wealth?" or "Spread the misery?" Welcome to socialism, comrades.
Over the past weekend, the American Conservative Union held their annual conference. Several key conservative figures were invited to speak, among them Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh, a conservative talk show host, has a nationally syndicated radio program that more than 20 million people tune into daily. While at the conference, aside from giving a powerful and exciting speech, Limbaugh also accepted the "Defender of the Constitution" award.
Limbaugh is fast becoming a beacon for true conservatives, who feel that many Republicans in government have forgotten what they stand for. Too often Republicans have fallen into the pattern of behaving like Democrats and not standing firm on conservative principles. What this country so desperately needs, especially after six weeks of Obama, is a return to conservative roots. And Limbaugh is just the person to guide us!
Click on the link below to watch Limbaugh's speech in it's entirety:
Following are some words of wisdom from Rush from his speech:
"We conservatives have not done a good enough job of just laying out basically who we are because we make the mistake of assuming people know. What they know is largely incorrect based on the way we are portrayed in pop culture, in the Drive-By media, by the Democratic Party. Let me tell you who we are. We love people. When we look out over the United States of America, when we are anywhere, when we see a group of people, we see Americans. We see human beings. We see potential. We do not look out across the country and see the average American, the person that makes this country work. We do not see that person with contempt. We don't think that person doesn't have what it takes. We believe that person can be the best he or she wants to be if certain things are just removed from their path, like onerous taxes, regulations, and too much government."
"We love and revere our founding documents, the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence. We believe that the preamble to the Constitution contains an inarguable truth that we are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life. And the pursuit of happiness. We conservatives think all three are under assault."
"We look over the country as it is today and we see so much waste, human potential that has been destroyed by 50 years of a welfare state. By a failed war on poverty."
"You know what the cliché is, a conservative: racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe. Excuse me, ladies and gentlemen of America, if you were paying attention, I know you were, the racism in our culture was exclusively and fully on display in the Democrat primary last year."
"We want the country to succeed, and for the country to succeed, it's individuals must succeed. Everyone among us must be pursuing his ambition or desire, whatever, with excellence. Trying to be the best they can be. Not told, as they are told by the Democratic Party: You really can't do that, you don't have what it takes, besides you're a minority or a woman and there are too many people that want to discriminate against you. You can't get anywhere. You need to depend on us." Well, take a look. Take a look at all the constituency groups that for 50 years have been depending on the Democratic Party to improve their lives. And you tell me if you find any. They're still complaining, still griping over the same problems. Their problems don't get fixed by government. And those lives have been poisoned. Those lives have been cut short by false promises, from government representatives who said don't worry about it, we'll take care of you. Just vote us in."
"President Obama is one of the most gifted politicians, one of the most gifted men that I have every witnessed. He has extraordinary talents. He has communication skills that hardly anyone can surpass. It just breaks my heart that he does not use these extraordinary talents and gifts to motivate and inspire the American people to be the best they can be. He's doing just the opposite. And it's a shame. President Obama has the ability to inspire excellence in people's pursuits. He has the ability to do all this, yet he pursues a path, seeks a path that punishes achievement, that punishes earners - and he speaks negatively about the country. Ronald Reagan used to speak of a shining city on a hill. Barack Obama portrays America as a soup kitchen in some dark night in a corner of America that's very obscure. He's constantly telling the American people that bad times are ahead, worst times are ahead. And it's troubling, because this is the United States of America. We're less than 300 years old. We are younger than nations that have been on this planet for thousands of years. We're not better just because we're born in America. How did the United States of America become the world's lone super power, the world's economic engine, the most prosperous opportunity for an advanced lifestyle that humanity has ever known? How did this happen? And why pray tell does the President of the United States want to destroy it?"
"President Obama is so busy trying to foment and create anger in a created atmosphere of crisis, he is so busy fueling the emotions of class envy that he's forgotten it's not his money that he is spending. In fact, the money he is spending is not ours. He's spending wealth that has yet to be created. And that's not sustainable. It will not work. This has been tried around the world, and every time it's been tried, it's a failed disaster."
"When Obama talks about past economies, he somehow always leaves out the recession of the 80's as worse than this one. Why does he leave it out? He leaves it out because we got out of the 1980's recession with tax cuts. Do you know that President Obama, in six weeks of his administration, has proposed more spending than from the founding of this country to his inauguration?"
"Now, this is not prosperity. It is not going to engender prosperity. It's not going to create prosperity and it's also not going to advance or promote freedom. It's going to be just the opposite. There are going to be more controls over what you can and can't do, what you can and can't drive, what you can and can't say, where you can and can't say it. All of these things are coming down the pike, because it's not about revenue generation to them, it's about control. They do believe they have compassion. They do believe they care. But, see, we never are allowed to look at the results of their plans, we are told we must only look at their good intentions, their big hearts. The fact that they have destroyed poor families by breaking up those families by offering welfare checks to women to keep having babies - no more fathers needed, he's out doing something, the government's the father, they destroy the family. We're not supposed to analyze that. We're not supposed to talk about that. We're supposed to talk about their good intentions. They destroy people's futures. The future is not Big Government. Self-serving politicians. Powerful bureaucrats. This has been tried, tested throughout history. The result has always been a disaster. President Obama, your agenda is not new. It's not a change, and it's not hope. Spending a nation into generational debt is not an act of compassion. All politicians, including President Obama, are temporary stewards of this nation. It is not their task to remake the founding of this country. It is not their task to tear it apart and rebuild it in their image."
"Now let's talk about the conservative movement as it were. We have challenges that are part and parcel of a movement that feels it has just suffered a humiliating defeat when it's not humiliating. This wasn't a landslide victory. 52, to what, 46. Fifty-eight million people voted against Obama. There would have been more if we would have had a conservative nominee."
"This notion that I want the President to fail, folks, this shows you a sign of the problem we've got. That's nothing more than common sense and to not be able to say it, why in the world do I want what we just described: rampant government growth, indebtedness, wealth that's not even being created yet that is being spent, what is in this? What possibly is in this that anybody of us wants to succeed? Did the Democrats want the war in Iraq to fail? They certainly did. The not only wanted the war in Iraq to fail, they proclaimed it a failure. There's Dingy Harry Reid waving a white flag "This war is lost." They called General Petraeus a liar before he even testified. Mrs. Clinton said she had to, willingly suspend disbelief in order to listen to Patreaus. We're in the process of winning the war. The last thing they wanted was to win. They hoped George Bush failed. So what is so strange about being honest to say that I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation? Why would I want that to succeed?"
"The Democrat Party has actively not just sought the failure of Republican presidents and policies and now wars for the first time, the Democrat Party doesn't stop at failure. Talk to Judge Robert Bork, or Justice Clarence Thomas about how they tried to destroy lives, reputations, and character. And I'm supposed to say I don't want the president to fail? We're in for a real battle. We are talking about the United States of America. And it's under assault. It's always been under assault. But it's never been under assault like this from within before. And it's a serious, serious battle."
In his parting words, Limbaugh encourages conservatives to remain optimistic and confident. There will always be an America. And conservatives must work hard to keep America safe.
****This post was updated: April 5, 2009. I received an e-mail directly from the author (Ali Sina) that I reference in the following blog. Many bloggers such as myself have been crediting a Dr. Sam Vaknin with the writings mentioned below. That is not the case. Ali Sina wrote about Obama and narcissism and briefly touched on some studies/observations from Dr. Vaknin. Otherwise, the credit for the article cited in my post should be given to Sina. Please click on the following link mentioned below to go to Sina's website, which goes into even greater detail re: Obama and narcissism.
Thanks to my conservative sister, Moe, who continues to send me interesting e-mails regarding subjects we are both passionate about - politics and the well-being of America. I received the following item from her the other day and it is very unsettling, to say the least. It obviously was written before the presidential election, but the words are as relevant today as they were several months ago.
Ali Sina is an Iranian ex-Muslim who is the founder of the "Faith Freedom International" website, which is an internet site critical of Islam. Sina has written a book "Understanding Muhammad." Sina briefly referenced the writing of Dr. Vaknin ( Dr. Sam Vaknin, Ph.D., is an Israeli psychologist. Dr. Vaknin has written extensively about narcissism. He wrote a book called "Malignant Self-Love, Narcissism Revisited.") regarding our current president (presidential candidate at the time), but Sina also wrote extensively on Obama in the following article:
Here is a brief synopsis from some of Sina's writings:
At first I was excited to see a black candidate. He looked youthful, spoke well, appeared to be confident - a wholesome presidential package. I was put off soon, not just because of his shallowness but also because there was an air of haughtiness in his demeanor that was unsettling. His posture and his body language were louder than his empty words. Obama's speeches are unlike any political speech we have heard in American history. Never a politician in this land had such quasi "religious" impact on so many people. The fact that Obama is a total incognito with zero accomplishment, makes this inexplicable infatuation alarming. Obama is not an ordinary man. He is not a genius. In fact he is quite ignorant on most important subjects."Barack Obama is a narcissist.
Dr. Sam Vaknin, the author of the Malignant Self Love believes "Barack Obama appears to be a narcissist." Vaknin is a world authority on narcissism. He understands narcissism and describes the inner mind of a narcissist like no other person. When he talks about narcissism everyone listens. Vaknin says that Obama's language, posture and demeanor, and the testimonies of his closest, dearest and nearest suggest that the Senator is either a narcissist or he may have narcissistic personality disorder (NPD).
Narcissists project a grandiose but false image of themselves. Jim Jones, the charismatic leader of People's Temple, the man who led over 900 of his followers to cheerfully commit mass suicide and even murder their own children was also a narcissist. David Koresh, Charles Manson, Joseph Koni, Shoko Asahara, Stalin, Saddam, M ao,Kim Jong Ill and Adolph Hitler are a few examples of narcissists of our time. All these men had a tremendous influence over their fanciers. They created a personality cult around themselves and with their blazing speeches elevated their admirers, filled their hearts with enthusiasm and instilled in their minds a new zest for life. They gave them hope! They promised them the moon, but alas, invariably they brought them to their doom. When you are a victim of a cult of personality, you don't know it until it is too late. One determining factor in the development of NPD is childhood abuse.
"Obama's early life was decidedly chaotic and replete with traumatic and mentally bruising dislocations," says Vaknin. "Mixed-race marriages were even less common then. His parents went through a divorce when he was an infant (two years old). Obama saw his father only once again, before he died in a car accident. Then his mother re-married and Obama had to relocate to Indonesia, a foreign land with a radically foreign culture, to be raised by a step-father. At the age of ten, he was whisked off to live with his maternal (white)grandparents. He saw his mother only intermittently in the following few years and then she vanished from his life in 1979. She died of cancer in 1995".
One must never underestimate the manipulative genius of pathological narcissists. They project such an imposing personality that it overwhelms those around them. Charmed by the charisma of the narcissist, people become like clay in his hands. They cheerfully do his bidding and delight to be at his service. The narcissist shapes the world around himself and reduces others in his own inverted image. He creates a cult of personality. His admirers become his co-dependents. Narcissists have no interest in things that do not help them to reach their personal objective. They are focused on one thing alone and that is power. All other issues are meaningless to them and they do not want to waste their precious time on trivialities. Anything that does not help them is beneath them and do not deserve their attention.
If an issue raised in the Senate does not help Obama in one way or another, he has no interest in it. The "present" vote is a safe vote. No one can criticize him if things go wrong. Those issues are unworthy by their very nature because they are not about him. Obama's election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review led to a contract and advance to write a book about race relations.
The University of Chicago Law School provided him a lot longer than expected and at the end it evolved into, guess what? His own autobiography! Instead of writing a scholarly paper focusing on race relations, for which he had been paid, Obama could not resist writing about his most sublime self. He entitled the book Dreams from My Father.
Not surprisingly, Adolph Hitler also wrote his own autobiography when he was still nobody. So did Stalin. For a narcissist no subject is as important as his own self. Why would he waste his precious time and genius writing about insignificant things when he can write about such an august being as himself? Narcissists are often callous and even ruthless. As the norm, they lack conscience. This is evident from Obama's lack of interest in his own brother who lives on only one dollar per month.
A man who lives in luxury, who takes a private jet to vacation in Hawaii, and who has raised nearly half a billion dollars for his campaign (something unprecedented in history) has no interest in the plight of his own brother. Why? Because, his brother cannot be used for his ascent to power.
A narcissist cares for no one but himself. This election is like no other in the history of America. The issues are insignificant compared to what is at stake. What can be more dangerous than having a man bereft of conscience, a serial liar, and one who cannot distinguish his fantasies from reality as the leader of the free world? I hate to sound alarmist, but one is a fool if one is not alarmed. Many politicians are narcissists. They pose no threat to others...They are simply self serving and selfish.
Obama evidences symptoms of pathological narcissism, which is different from the run-of-the-mill narcissism of a Richard Nixon or a Bill Clinton for example. To him reality and fantasy are intertwined. This is a mental health issue, not just a character flaw. Pathological narcissists are dangerous because they look normal and even intelligent. It is this disguise that makes them treacherous.
Today the great majority of blacks have also decided to vote for Obama. Only a fool does not know that their support for him is racially driven. This is racism, pure and simple. The downside of this is that if Obama turns out to be the disaster I predict, he will cause widespread resentment among the whites.
The blacks are unlikely to give up their support of their man. Cultic mentality is pernicious and unrelenting. They will dig their heads deeper in the sand and blame Obama's detractors of racism. This will cause a backlash among the whites.
The white supremacists will take advantage of the discontent and they will receive widespread support. I predict that in less than four years, racial tensions will increase to levels never seen since the turbulent 1960's.
Obama will set the clock back decades... America is the bastion of freedom. The peace of the world depends on the strength of America, and its weakness translates into the triumph of terrorism and victory of rogue nations.
It is no wonder that Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, the Castrists, the Hezbollah, the Hamas, the lawyers of the Guantanamo terrorists and virtually all sworn enemies of America are so thrilled by the prospect of their man in the White House. America is on the verge of destruction. There is no insanity greater than electing a pathological narcissist as president."
Well, it happened. A little more than half of America elected Barack Obama as the president of the United States. And already we are seeing our country disappear. From the proud, powerful, free land we once knew to one where dependency on government is becoming the goal. Four years cannot pass quickly enough. Just how much damage can be done in that time remains to be seen. At the rate at which Obama and his Democratic co-horts seem to be working to destroy America as we know it - what kind of country will be left to salvage when they are all booted out of office in 2010 and 2012?
Having recently done a blog on "The Evil Rich," I thought it might be appropriate to look at the so-called "poor" in America. The poor that Obama and the Democrats portray as somehow having been robbed by those who have more. The poor that are somehow poor BECAUSE of the rich. Frankly, it's all a myth. Economic opportunities are never stagnant. There is not a fixed amount of money available in America. Just because someone has more than someone else does not mean in any sense that that person took from the other person to have more. Everyone has the same opportunities, and those opportunities can allow people to earn as much as they wish.
Everyone has heard Democratic politicians speak of two America's. The two Americas the Democrats refer to consists of the rich and the poor. I disagree with that statement. Now with Obama as our president, the only two Americas we will see will consist of those who work for a living, and those who live off of those who work.
What liberals and Democrats fail to take into account in classifying people by income, is that people are different. Everyone in America has different lifestyles and likes different things. We are not the same in how we think, what we like to do, how intelligent we are, what we are good at, our emotions, whether we like to work hard, or whether we like to take it easy, what we like to eat, what we earn, our health, and especially in how we chose (key word: chose) to live our lives. Instead of labeling people by how much they earn, shouldn't we look at life experiences? Sure, some people are called rich. Some are middle class. And some are said to be poor. Yet, who ARE the poor in America?
When one hears the word "poor," what comes to mind? Well, poor usually means one lives in poverty. Here is the definition of poverty, (from the 2008, Encyclopedia Britannica):
"The state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions. Poverty is said to exist when people lack the means to satisfy their basic needs. In this context, the identification of poor people first requires a determination of what constitutes basic needs. These may be defined as narrowly as "those necessary for survival" or as broadly as "those reflecting the prevailing standard of living in the community. The first criterion would cover only those people near the borderline of starvation or death from exposure; the second would extend to people whose nutrition, housing, and clothing, though adequate to preserve life, do not measure up to those of the population as a whole."
What is poverty in America? The U.S. Poverty guidelines from 2009 consider a family of four poor if their income level doesn't exceed $22,050.00 per year, for example. A single person is in poverty if they earn $10,830.00 per year or less. A family of eight is deemed poor if they bring in no more than $37,010.00 annually. Given those income levels, are the poor faced with starvation, inadequate housing, or a lack of clothing? In many countries, those are the actual criteria for determining if one lives in poverty. Yet, in the United States, we find very few people living in poverty defined as such. Compared to other countries, the majority of our poor are relatively well-off. From the Heritage Foundation's Richard Rector:
"Poverty is an important and emotional issue. Last year the Census Bureau released it's annual report on poverty in the United States declaring that there were 37 million poor people living in this country in 2005, roughly the same number as the preceding years. According to the Census report, 12.6 percent of Americans were poor in 2005, this number has varied from 11.3% to 15.1 percent of the population over the past 20 years.
To understand poverty in America, it is important to look behind these numbers - to look at the actual living conditions of the individuals the government deems to be poor. For most Americans, the word "poverty" suggests destitution; an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. But only a small number of the 37 million persons classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau fit that description. While real material hardship certainly does occur, it is limited in scope and severity. Most of America's "poor" live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable to well-off just a few generations ago. Today, the expenditures per person of the lowest-income one-fifth of households equal those of the median American household in the early 1970's, after adjusting for inflation."
From the Heritage Foundation's biography on Richard Rector: Rector is considered an expert on poverty. He is also a leading national authority on U.S. welfare and immigration. Rector's work on the 1996 welfare reforms earned him the Dr. W. Glenn and Rita Ricardo Campbell Award, given to the Heritage employee for "outstanding contributions to the analysis and promotion of a Free Society." He is the author of America's Failed $5.4 Trillion War on Poverty, a comprehensive examination of U.S. welfare programs, and co-editor of Steering the Elephant: How Washington Works. Rector joined The Heritage Foundation in 1984. He has previously worked as a Legislative Assistant in the Virginia House of Delegates and as a Management Analyst at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. He has also served as a Commissioner on the congressionally mandated Millennial Housing Commission. Rector holds a bachelor's degree from the College of William and Mary and a master's degree in political science from Johns Hopkins University.
Rector goes on to say this about the poor in our country:
"Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. Although this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, activists, and politicians.
Of course, the living conditions of the average poor American should not be taken as representing all the poor. There is actually a wide range of living conditions among the poor. For example, over a quarter of poor households have cell phones and telephone answering machines, but at the other extreme, approximately one-tenth have no phone at all. While the majority of poor households do not experience at least one problem such as overcrowding, temporary hunger, or difficulty obtaining medical care. However, even in households in which such problems do occur, the hardship is generally not severe by historic or international standards.
Of the 37 million people living in what our government terms "poverty", only 2% of the bottom 20% of that figure represent real poverty in America. Real poverty does exist, but on a much smaller scale than our government wants people to believe."
Living in America does not guarantee success. Living in America does guarantee an equal opportunity for all. Living in America does not guarantee that you will be rich, middle class, or poor. There is no way of knowing if one will be successful or a failure. However, during a person's lifetime, their position in society is always in flux. One can always achieve greater goals or make more money. One can always take a step backwards, too. One may be rich one day and poor the next. Poor one day and rich the next. There are guidelines to follow in life which are straightforward and offer the best path to achieve one's own goals and attain the lifestyle one may wish. In America, everyone has an equal opportunity to be the best they can be. Several common sense rules of thumb can help along the way:
1) graduate from high school (in other words, stay in school. Going on to college is an added plus.)
2) work (whether part or full time, whether you are in school or not. Work experience is the first step in becoming responsible and earning money, not to mention the valuable learning opportunities working provides.)
3) don't get married until you are older - at least in your twenties
4) don't have children until you are married and can afford them
5) don't do illegal drugs
6) if you drink, drink in moderation
7) don't smoke
I can already hear the cries from the left, saying the poor have little chance in life because the deck is stacked against them. How so? Please tell us what prevents people from finishing high school? What prevents anyone these days from using birth control so they don't have unwanted pregnancies? What stops people from getting married? What prevents people from working if they are healthy and capable? What forces people to drink and/or do drugs? Who twists peoples arms so they start smoking?
After 50 years of a welfare state touted by liberals to end poverty, what have we achieved? Nothing. Nothing but a culture of dependency. Work to Welfare (W2) was the first step towards breaking the evil cycle. Imagine, actually requiring people to learn a skill and eventually work. Forcing people to make an effort to be capable of providing for their own families, rather than having to rely on the government to provide for their every need. Granted, W2 may have been difficult to adjust to for the first or second generation having to follow the program. However, in the long run, W2 participants were laying the foundation for the future with examples for their children. When children see mom and/or dad actually working and earning money, doesn't that beat see mom and/or dad sitting around the house all day waiting for a government check to arrive? Obama and Co. want to destroy W2 and take people back to dependency on the government. Why? For votes, which in turn means power. How sad and self-serving. After all the years of saying "anything goes", liberals keep trying to make sure people don't have to be held responsible for themselves.
In conclusion, the poor in America are mainly considered poor because our government defines them as such. The government could set the poverty guidelines at $100,000.00 per year for a family of four if they wanted to. Some people may be poor and not even realize it, until they see that the government has determined that they live in poverty! For example, a close relative of mine lives in California. He has chosen to work only part-time, in order to pursue other activities - like surfing and hiking. He values his free time over working full-time. Subsequently, he lives in a trailer park. He doesn't make a lot of money, but he is very happy. He lives very frugally. He is doing what he wants. And our government defines him as "poor," but he does not see himself that way. Just as some of the very rich may be totally devoid of true happiness in their lives. Poverty could be considered a very abstract concept in many cases.
Sure, there is an extremely small number of truly poor in America - the homeless make up a large portion of that number. Homelessness may result from mental illness, drug and/or alcohol abuse, or dire situations. And our society does what it can to help the homeless out. (In some cases, people actually are too proud to ask for a handouts. They prefer to be left alone to be responsible for themselves and do not wish to beg for help from others.) To help the truly destitute in our country, we all know that Americans do what they can to help others. The United States is the most charitable country - both right at home and in the world! Food pantries, homeless shelters, charities, etc. all are created by fellow Americans who wish to help those who are less fortunate. We have food stamp programs, medical assistance, renters and heat assistance, and free breakfasts and lunches from schools - which even continue during the summer months.
Yet, why does our government inflate the numbers on who is really poor in our country? Because high counts on the poor benefit the government. They can continue to raise taxes on high and middle earners - saying the "poor" programs need more funding. Because of the increased tax dollars, there are then more federal dollars to distribute. There are government programs out there that keep people employed. Such government programs keep money flowing into various bureaucracies. And, most importantly, the poor provide votes, which in turn provides power. Ignorantly, the poor tend to vote for the very party that wishes to keep them poor - the Democrats. For the Democrats, it pays to have the poor in the population - and the more the better. Hence, the inflated numbers on who is poor in America. Politicians benefit from having people labeled as "poor," and the more that fall into that category, the more government aid is considered a necessity. And the more taxes need to go up. And in providing more government aid, more people become dependent on the government. What a vicious cycle. And this vicious cycle is leading us closer to President "spread the wealth" Obama's desired goal - socialism. Keep playing the class warfare card - rich vs. poor. No matter how little truth is behind it.
I cannot make this stuff up. President Obama and his administration continue to provide conservative bloggers with so much to write about, it is sometimes hard to know where to begin. After lying about practically everything to get elected, our President has shown himself to be little more than a puppet for the ultra-liberal positions of Nancy Pelosi - who really seems to be running the show. That is unfortunate. For all those who actually drank the Obama Kool-Aid and thought they were voting for a "moderate," forget about it. Our country as we know it is disappearing. Soon we won't be able to tell the difference between the U.S. and France. Although France may have a stronger military by the time Obama is done. Where are the bumper stickers declaring "Obama lies, America dies?"
Anyhow, the latest in the ever-changing American landscape now has the U.S. dropping the term "enemy combatant" from our vocabulary. You know, those enemy combatants - the ones who wish to murder Americans simply because we exist? The same enemy combatants caught on battlefields during the war on terror? (Oops! I forgot - Obama and Co. don't even want to use the term "war on terror" anymore, either!). Enemy combatants are terrorists that are currently detained in country clubs like Club Gitmo.
What are we going to call them now? Liberals are very fond of softening terms they deem to be too harsh. A great example is calling those who are "pro-abortion" (you know, when mothers chose to murder their babies before they are born) "pro-choice" instead. Doesn't "pro-choice" sound so much better? Kinder? Easier to swallow? Very similar to how our mainstream media likes to refer to terrorists as "freedom fighters." Or illegal aliens as "undocumented workers." Now we can no longer use the term "enemy combatants" to describe those who want to murder us! What should we call them? "Not really nice guys" doesn't work. "Murderous thugs" is too nasty. "People we are fighting against" is too long. How about "meanies?"
It is really ridiculous. Political correctness run amok. What is even more incredible is that, according to our own Journal/Sentinel - Associated Press (3/14/09) "Although dropping the term "enemy combatant" will have little practical effect, it is a symbolic move by the Obama administration to break with the past." Oh, great. So in his desire to reverse "everything Bush," Obama is signing off on anything, not even knowing or caring why. We've got to change this, because, well, because Bush did it!!! Is the Obama administration so childish and gleeful in their desire to "stick it to Republicans" that they will scrap everything Bush did, no matter how good or effective Bush's programs were? Well, President Bush did one heck of a job protecting the United States after 9/11.
Unfortunately for the United States, Obama seems intent on dismantling everything our former President did - simply because our former president did it. Maybe when Obama is sitting down to chat with the Taliban they can put their heads together and come up with a new, politically-correct term for "enemy combatants!"
Obama's Inauguration costs: $160,000,000.00
Obama's Economic Stimulus Package (aka: "Porkulus," "Generational Theft Act"): $787,000,000,000.00
Obama's Omnibus Spending Bill (includes 8,000 earmarks): $410,000,000,000.00
Obama and his Administration's continual swipes at former President Bush: Priceless
Why do Democrat presidents (and former presidents like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton) seem to believe it is just fine to continue to criticize previous Republican presidents and their administrations? Where is the level of class or maturity when one is the President Of the United States to stop pointing fingers and making snide comments about the actions of one's predecessors?
Former President Bush has more class than Obama, Clinton, and Carter put together. Did Bush ever criticize Bill Clinton while in office? No. And he sure had a lot of material to work with - starting with the pathetic job Clinton and his administration did to protect the country from terrorism (which was virtually little more than burying their heads in the sand and hoping it would disappear). Did Bush bring up the romper room activities in the Oval Office? No. Did Bush mention the many questionable pardons Clinton rushed through on his last day in office? No. Going back even farther, did Ronald Reagan take cheap shots at his predecessor, Jimmy Carter? If there ever was a case for criticizing a former president, Reagan could have blasted Carter on a daily basis for his horrible leadership, not to mention Carter's economic disasters and energy crisis. And who can forget about the botched hostage rescue attempt in Iran? Or the attack of the killer rabbit on ole' Jimmy? However, did Reagan blame the malaise of the country on Carter when he became president? No. Yet, why in the world does Obama and his administration continue to reference Bush in derogatory terms? In doing so, they are exhibiting no class, and no leadership. Sure, plenty of Americans continue to blast Bush for everything under the sun. That is their right. However, they are not in charge of leading our country. The president should act presidential - not like an immature, spiteful little kid. And his administration should follow suit. Instead, we get the following:
President Obama on 3/11/09: "We've been in office all of seven weeks so far. This is a crisis that was eight years in the making."
Obama's White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, on 3/9/09: "I think we've seen some glimmers of hope. We've unfurled no "mission-accomplished" banners."
From UPI.Com: In his inaugural address, Obama proclaimed an end to partisan grievances, but during the past month he has repeatedly mentioned the economic disaster he "inherited," The Washington Post reported Saturday.
These are just a small number of examples from Obama & Co. The nasty backhanded remarks started with Obama during his Inauguration speech, and they have continued to slip in to Obama's talks from that day on. Does anyone really respect leadership when the so-called leaders continue to blame everything on someone else? The mainstream media needs to call Obama out for his bad behavior, rather than cheer him on. Obama needs to act presidential, not like a five year old. And hopefully, his administration will follow suit.
Barack Obama came through with flying colors the other day. ESPN basketball analyst Andy Katz said that a few months ago, Obama had promised to reveal his NCAA picks to ESPN when the teams for the NCAA tourney were announced. Obama did, and he picked North Carolina to win.
Here's what Katz had to say about Obama's promise: "They stayed true to their word and didn't hesitate to get it done," Katz said.
Click here to see more of Obama's picks and comments on the teams: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/19/duke-coach-obama-worry-economy-ncaa-picks/
And of course, one cannot help but wonder what the mainstream media and other lefties would be saying had President Bush done exactly the same thing - picking teams for the NCAA - during a time of war and economic disaster. Well, at least Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski didn't give Obama a free pass:
"Somebody said that we're not in President Obama's Final Four, and as much as I respect what he's doing, really, the economy is something that he should focus on, probably more than the brackets," Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski said from the Blue Devils' first-round site in Greensboro, N.C.
Maybe Obama will talk about his picks during his upcoming appearance on the Tonight Show! (Presidents generally do not agree to appear on this television show - it's rather "unpresidential," but Obama just cannot seem to get out of "campaign mode." Let's just hope he doesn't pick up a saxophone and belt out a few numbers while on T.V....)
We've heard ad nauseam from President Obama and those on Capital Hill - the feigned outrage over AIG bonuses. Even though Tim Geitner, Obama, and their Democratic cronies had to have had some knowledge over what was going on long before this really became a so-called "issue", Geitner and his bunch definitely had a hand in setting the stage for this activity. There is currently a lot of finger-pointing going on in Democratic circles as to who is to blame (and for once, it isn't President Bush!)
Why exactly is AIG the sole target of Obama's wrath? To make matters worse, our politicians see fit to slap a 90% tax on AIG executive bonuses - yet another dangerous step towards socialism. When a government deems it fine to tax anyone they want, in order to prevent that person from getting a financial reward, what are we headed for? Just because some people do not like what other people may be paid doesn't give our government the right to tax people at their own discretion, or does it? Is our government now telling businesses how they can be run? Will our government be picking out certain individuals for a special level of taxation? Is our government thumbing their nose at our Constitution? How reprehensible is that?
However, there are some key questions yet to be asked. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are also paying out major bonuses to big executives within their ranks. Yet, why no complaints? Where is the wrath of Obama? Why no demands to pay that money back? Why not hit Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae with individual taxes of 90%? After all, aren't taxpayers on the hook for these big payouts, just like those going to AIG executives? Well, I think it all boils down to this - Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are liberal entities. They are controlled by the Obama administration. Therefore, the bonuses are not a big deal. After all, our liberal politicians and Obama have been the beneficiaries of campaign contributions and donations from these two companies for years. Why would Obama and Co. want to bite the hand that feeds them? Quid pro quo.
And the taxpayers and America continue to get the shaft.
Last night (3/19/09), when President (aka "Rock Star") Obama appeared on Jay Leno (don't ask why, other than Obama seems to STILL be campaigning!)...he made a joke regarding his bowling skills - saying they were akin to being in the Special Olympics. Now, in this day and age where everything hits the news almost simultaneously after an event or something happens, little is yet to be found about the President's very unfunny remark! Even this morning, two radio announcers were wondering why this story wasn't out there yet - they actually questioned if the media is withholding it because they do not consider it newsworthy? (They also expressed dismay that this comment seemed to come out so smoothly from Obama's mouth - as if he's said things like this before.) If that is the case - just remember, if President Bush had ever uttered something as stupid and insensitive as what Obama said to Leno, this would have made the headlines. And it would be front-page news for days. Let's see what (if anything) happens to Obama. Will the public even be made privy to this little remark?
Obama needs to stick to his Teleprompter and play it safe. Otherwise, we will continue to get actual glimpses into the "real" Obama, and many may not like what they see or hear...
As conservatives, we have come to realize that most liberals usual detest the United States military. They hate the fact that in many cases, wars are necessary evils needed to keep the peace, and one needs a military to fight such wars. Wars are also required to keep the country safe, as we have experienced lately with the on-going war on terror. For whatever misguided reason, anything associated with the military is usually the subject of scorn from the left. They were hoping for defeat in Iraq. Democratic politicians tried to thwart everything Bush did in order to assure failure in the Middle East. Harry Reid even declared "the war is lost." Obama still has refused to admit "the surge worked." And in spite of the Democrats, American has seen success, thanks to President Bush. The war in Iraq is almost over - and it's a victory for the good guys.
Jimmy Carter hated the military with a passion. Not much more can be said about the lack of leadership from Jimmy when it came to being a "Commander in Chief." Thankfully Ronald Reagan took charge upon becoming President and fixed the damages inflicted by Carter. Bill Clinton (and his wife) hated the American military, too. Upon taking office, Clinton quickly proposed cutting the military budget by $122 billion over four years. Unfortunately, Clinton did slash the military budget by almost 30% during his terms, leaving the United States in a weaker defensive state. Once President Bush came into office, he set out to undo the damage to our armed forced from his predecessor. President Bush, a true leader, was a strong, solid supporter of our military and our mission. Our soldiers responded in kind. And believe me, our soldiers know exactly what President Obama thinks of the military.
Click on : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIHz5tevLAw for a very clear picture of how our Marines respond to President Bush and notice how they react to President Obama. It's clear that Obama cannot "hoodwink" the Marines, the way he did many American voters!
Now, to the point of this post. Since it is obviously a "non-story" and one our mainstream media is virtually ignoring, I felt is necessary to get the word out. Obama has proposed what I consider to be a slap in the face to all our men and women in the armed forces. Just recently, President Obama has given the American people a glimpse as to his true feelings for our men and women in uniform. He has proposed a plan to make veterans rely on private insurance companies to pay for their combat and/or service related injuries. Obama wants to have the Veterans Administration seek reimbursements from the veteran's own private insurance to pay for their care.
Commander David K. Rehbein of the American Legion had this to say after meeting with Obama last week to discuss this matter: "This reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate "to care for him who shall have borne the battle"...given that the United States government sent members of the armed forces into harm's way, and not private insurance companies. I say again, that The American Legion does not and will not support any plan that seeks to bill a veteran for treatment of service connected disability at the very agency that was created to treat the unique need of American veterans!"
What Obama is proposing is in direct conflict to years of how our country has taken care of it's wounded soldiers. Our government has pledged to take care of it's soldiers - and this means paying their health care costs that result from their military service to our country. It does not mean shifting the responsibility to a private insurance company to re-coup funds for the Veteran's Administration. Our government sent our soldiers into battle. Private insurance companies did not. The U.S. government should shoulder the responsibility of caring for our vets.
Even fellow Democrats are aghast at Obama's idea. Patty Murray (D-Washington) said: "When our troops are injured while serving our country, we should take care of those injuries completely. I don't think we should nickle and dime them for their care."
All this boils down to is that Obama is trying to rob Peter to pay Paul. Realizing his trillion dollar spending sprees and upcoming budget have no chance of seeing success, Obama is looking for money anywhere he can find it. Why in the world does Obama think it's appropriate to go after our wounded veterans for money? And that's all it boils down to - Obama is looking for money. The private insurance needed to cover veteran's expenses could generate $540 million a year. Is there any sense of loyalty, respect, or empathy for our soldiers in what Obama plans to do?
In the straight forward words of Joe Violante, legislative director of Disabled American Veterans: "It's a betrayal."