Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Mo' Money Obama Want More Of Our Money
Who would have thought that none of the past 4 stimuluses would have done little to help the economy? Who would have thought that they would be asking for more of our money? Who would have thought that they would want more of our money and then blame Bush, the Republicans and the businesses that give us jobs? Who would have thought that they would punish the businesses that give us our jobs for their mistakes? I wonder why they hate the 'rich' so much? Is being 'rich' all it takes to make a Democrat hate you and punish you? Just think of all those 'rich' people in the past that got credit for making America what it is. When was the last time the unions did anything great like add something to the economy? Why were there so many union shirts at the Presidents speech? And why did they have to beg students to fill the last 75 seats for Obama's rant? Aren't businesses hurting just like we the people are? How does taking away profit from the growing companies and stock holders(grandma and grandpa) help the economy? How do these added taxes help keep or bring companies to America? How do added taxes make us more competitive in the global market? Isn't our debt and government spending hurting our countries growth and security? How is it if the Democrats take more money from let's say Ford, will Ford have more profit to share with the UAW? I just don't see why the UAW would want to do something that would hurt their profit sharing? (I can't wait to hear the unions bitch when they have to pay the obamacare Cadillac tax when the court finds it unconstitutional). Then why do they keep spending more of our futures money instead of cutting costs and becoming a leaner more agile entity? If that is the right direction what is the Democrats destination? It sure does seem like this admin and the Democratic party are out for blood and they wont be happy until they get most of the businesses, that make jobs and real growth, poorer and less productive. Lets see how many more American made cars we sell here and abroad with an added take put on them and all American made products. Wasn't a big selling point of the first stimulus bill infrastructure? What am I saying? These are the same people that said that unemployment wouldn't go past 8%,that debt was bad, that abortions and "you can keep your doctor",that they were change,that they would make things better not much worse,that they would make our enemies like us...? Now I see why they couldn't fill the seats in a small auditorium. Most people can lie to themselves why waste your time listening to a man that hasn't gotten anything right yet? I'd sooner watch the Three Stooges then Obama,Pelosi and Reid, I'd get more out of it. Enjoy the day because soon there will be 35 people at a FL church burning Quar'ans and that will be all it takes to set the Muslim world and the MSM on end and in "Allah Akbar" mode. If all it takes is 35 people not acting Christian to set off the Islamic religion then maybe we need to start asking them why they can do unspeakable things to Christians,Jews,Hindus...and even other Muslims, they threaten us and everyone with death and jihad at the drop of a hat! We and the MSM have no problem pointing out the 35 stupid people burning the Quar'an but forget about the thousands of Muslims calling for the death of all Americans because of it! Let's stop acting afraid of the cricket and focus on the bear about to kill you. And knowing the left they will blame the cricket for pissing off the dangerous bear instead of blaming the bear. But it all must make perfect sense to them.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Birther Theory Is Going Main Stream
The Presidential Poser
August 23, 2010 by Bob Livingston
Just who exactly is this man posing as President of the United States? That’s a question being asked by a growing number of Americans.
In fact, a recent poll by CNN — a news organization that has been downright gushing in its praise of Barack Obama — showed that six out of 10 people are uncertain the President was even born in the U.S. And that includes about one-third of all Democrats.
It’s troubling that so many question Obama’s eligibility to hold the office of President but that so few of the elected class and those of national prominence will even broach the issue. It demonstrates what a superb job Obama’s team and the Democrat party have done in casting those who question his status as a natural born citizen as the lunatic fringe.
In fact, if you are a “birther” — a term coined by the mainstream press to disparage those who doubt Obama’s eligibility to hold office based on his citizenship — even so-called conservative icons like Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck consider you a nut.
All this proves is that the elitists who shape messages are a clique interested not in seeing that the U.S. Constitution is upheld, but in maintaining their power and protecting their own. This was demonstrated once before, when the House of Representatives voted to impeach Bill Clinton for lying to a grand jury, but the Senate voted 100-0 not to remove him.
When was the last time the Senate was unanimous on anything? Democrats and Republicans never agree unanimously. The fix was in from the beginning.
So, too, is the issue of Obama’s citizenship and eligibility. The fix is in, even though the evidence that he is not a natural-born citizen, and therefore ineligible to hold the office, far exceeds evidence that he is.
The Republican governor in Hawaii says a birth certificate exists but she has sealed access to it, thereby eliminating one avenue of determining whether he was born in Hawaii, as he says, or in Kenya, as Michelle Obama, several of Obama’s Kenyan relatives (his paternal grandmother, half sister and half brother) and a couple of Kenyan officials have said. And for you Obama sycophants, don’t even bring up the certificate of live birth (COLB) posted online as proof. The COLB was available to anyone. It is not a legal document, does not list the attending physician, does not include his fingerprints or footprints, could not have been used to obtain his passport and is only a diversion to a weak-minded press and public.
Earlier this year a senior Honolulu elections clerk went on local television and said that it was common knowledge among election officials that no official birth certificate — he called it the long-form birth record — exits in Hawaii, despite what Governor Linda Lingle has said.
The whole situation remains a muddle, just as Obama and his handlers want it. Documents disappear. Other documents crop up — some that cast more doubt on his story and some that seem at first glance to support his claims but simply serve to send the discussion on a tangent. And Obama fights disclosure at every turn, sending agents from the U.S. Justice Department out to block all efforts at obtaining his records.
Thankfully, one news organization is doggedly pursuing the story. Joseph Farah and his reporters at WorldNetDaily (WND) hammer on the Obama eligibility story relentlessly, slowly chipping away at the facade. Some other conservative, fearless publications and websites are also digging for the truth and opining on the eligibility question.
Yet despite a total blackout from the main stream media on the subject of Obama’s citizenship, 60 percent of the American public still doubt Obama’s story that he was born in Hawaii. As Farah says, that means the birthers are winning.
There are some things we do know — or can surmise — about Obama, thanks to WND, some other publications and Obama’s own book, Dreams From My Father.
The man who would ascend to the Presidency in 2009 was born to Ann Dunham on Aug. 4, 1961. The father is purported to be Barack Hussein Obama, a Kenyan student in Hawaii who married Dunham on Feb. 2, 1961.
Some have speculated that Barack Obama II’s (this is how Obama’s name is listed on the COLB) biological father was actually Frank Marshall Davis, a black friend of Ann Dunham’s parents and the man the young Obama would later claim in his autobiography was his mentor. The speculation about Davis — a radical communist — as possibly Obama’s biological father stems from a book Davis wrote under a pseudonym in which he describes having sex with an under aged white girl. The idea is plausible, as Davis was a good friend of Madelyn and Stanley Dunham, Ann Dunham’s parents.
The irony is that this is one nativity story that would cement Obama’s claim to be a natural-born citizen. If Obama Sr., a Kenyan citizen, is Obama’s father, Obama is not a Constitutionally described natural-born citizen because one parent is a non-citizen and the other was a minor and therefore unable to bestow citizenship on the child — if Obama was born in Kenya, as many believe.
As lawsuits have claimed, there is no evidence — beyond the afore-mentioned COLB — that Obama was born in Hawaii. Both Obama and a half sister have named two different Hawaii hospitals as his birth place, no records exist that Dunham was hospitalized in Hawaii and no physician or nurse has stepped forward to claim they assisted with the birth.
Obama’s supporters have pointed out that newspaper articles published in August 1961 in the Honolulu Advertiser and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin prove Obama was born in Hawaii. The address listed was the address of Madelyn and Stanley Dunham, Ann Dunham’s parents. WND has reported that official documents show Obama Sr., had a residence at another address at the same time. And neighbors of the Dunhams told WND they don’t recall a white woman with a black baby ever living next door. College transcripts indicate Dunham moved with her new baby to Seattle within days of Obama’s birth and enrolled in the University of Washington for classes that began on Aug. 19, 1961.
These birth announcements prove only that someone submitted information to two newspapers to herald the birth of a baby. They document the timeframe of the birth, not the location. The baby could have been born on Mars and these announcements could have still run in the newspapers.
Another problem Obama faces is found in his mother’s trip to Indonesia with her second husband, Lolo Soetoro, in the late 1960s. WND has reported that several lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility hinge on this time in Indonesia, which does not allow dual citizenship. Documents released by the U.S. State Department under two Freedom of Information Act requests indicate he may have given up his citizenship when he moved there.
Those documents show that Obama’s mother sought to have “Barack Obama II (Seobarkah)” removed from her passport, possibly as a prelude to obtaining Indonesian citizenship for him. If she did this it was more than likely for the child’s safety, as it was a turbulent time in Indonesia and there was a strong anti-American sentiment there.
While in Indonesia Obama was enrolled in school under the name of Barry Soetoro, as proven by school records photographed by an Associated Press photographer in 2007. Those school records list Soetoro as an Indonesian citizen, born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on Aug. 4, 1961, and records his religion as Muslim.
According to WND, Obama was either 5 or 6 years old when he traveled to Indonesia. This is important because if Lolo Soetoro adopted him at age 5 then he would have automatically become an Indonesian citizen. The law differed for children aged 6 and up and an adoption for a 6-year-old would have had to take place through legal channels.
Another puzzle uncovered by WND revolves around a photograph of Obama — or Soetoro, whoever he is — with another child at a school in Hawaii at the same time he was enrolled in school in Indonesia. The photo is marked has having been taken in 1969, and there is no good explanation as to how he was attending school in two different places at the same time.
The Obama camp has also refused to explain why Obama/Soetoro is using a Social Security number issued in Connecticut. WND has reported that two private investigators discovered the Social Security number anomaly and filed documents in an eligibility lawsuit showing the number was issued in Connecticut between 1977 and 1979, yet Obama’s/Soetoro’s earliest reported employment was at a Baskin-Robbins ice cream shop in Hawaii in 1975.
The Social Security website confirms that the first three numbers of Obama’s/Soetoro’s Social Security number are reserved for applicants with Connecticut addresses. That Social Security number corresponds with Obama’s/Soetoro’s Selective Service registration, according to WND.
Finally, questions surround a trip Obama/Soetoro has admitted he took to Pakistan in 1981, WND reports.
“I traveled to Pakistan when I was in college — I knew what Sunni and Shia was [sic] before I joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,” Obama/Soetoro reportedly stated at a fundraising event.
Pakistan in 1981 was under military rule. It was difficult for U.S. citizens to travel to the country without assistance. It would have been easier for someone to enter Pakistan on an Indonesian passport, WND reports.
Obama/Soetoro could easily clear up the confusion by releasing his birth records, his school records, college records and other official documents. Instead, he is spending millions of dollars to fight all attempts to obtain documents that most public officials release by habit. That begs the question: What is he hiding?
Some brave souls are fighting the good fight in trying to get to the bottom of the mysterious background of the 44th President. Some military people are putting their careers on the line in an attempt to get proof that any orders Obama/Soetoro issues are legitimate.
However, the court system seems hell-bent on covering up any efforts at discovery. It consistently throws out lawsuits on standing and is frequently hostile to plaintiffs. Several judges have threatened lawyers and plaintiffs with stiff fines if they continue to pursue the matter.
Meanwhile, the only logical conclusion is that Obama/Soetoro is not Constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President. Any other view is only based on hope — Obama’s/Soetoro’s favorite theme.
A Constitutional crisis is in the offing and when the truth finally gets out about Obama’s/Soetoro’s citizenship, the legitimacy of orders signed by an illegitimate President will be called into question. Expect mass chaos to ensue.
That very well could be the culmination of the whole plan by Obama/Soetoro and those pulling his strings.
August 23, 2010 by Bob Livingston
Just who exactly is this man posing as President of the United States? That’s a question being asked by a growing number of Americans.
In fact, a recent poll by CNN — a news organization that has been downright gushing in its praise of Barack Obama — showed that six out of 10 people are uncertain the President was even born in the U.S. And that includes about one-third of all Democrats.
It’s troubling that so many question Obama’s eligibility to hold the office of President but that so few of the elected class and those of national prominence will even broach the issue. It demonstrates what a superb job Obama’s team and the Democrat party have done in casting those who question his status as a natural born citizen as the lunatic fringe.
In fact, if you are a “birther” — a term coined by the mainstream press to disparage those who doubt Obama’s eligibility to hold office based on his citizenship — even so-called conservative icons like Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck consider you a nut.
All this proves is that the elitists who shape messages are a clique interested not in seeing that the U.S. Constitution is upheld, but in maintaining their power and protecting their own. This was demonstrated once before, when the House of Representatives voted to impeach Bill Clinton for lying to a grand jury, but the Senate voted 100-0 not to remove him.
When was the last time the Senate was unanimous on anything? Democrats and Republicans never agree unanimously. The fix was in from the beginning.
So, too, is the issue of Obama’s citizenship and eligibility. The fix is in, even though the evidence that he is not a natural-born citizen, and therefore ineligible to hold the office, far exceeds evidence that he is.
The Republican governor in Hawaii says a birth certificate exists but she has sealed access to it, thereby eliminating one avenue of determining whether he was born in Hawaii, as he says, or in Kenya, as Michelle Obama, several of Obama’s Kenyan relatives (his paternal grandmother, half sister and half brother) and a couple of Kenyan officials have said. And for you Obama sycophants, don’t even bring up the certificate of live birth (COLB) posted online as proof. The COLB was available to anyone. It is not a legal document, does not list the attending physician, does not include his fingerprints or footprints, could not have been used to obtain his passport and is only a diversion to a weak-minded press and public.
Earlier this year a senior Honolulu elections clerk went on local television and said that it was common knowledge among election officials that no official birth certificate — he called it the long-form birth record — exits in Hawaii, despite what Governor Linda Lingle has said.
The whole situation remains a muddle, just as Obama and his handlers want it. Documents disappear. Other documents crop up — some that cast more doubt on his story and some that seem at first glance to support his claims but simply serve to send the discussion on a tangent. And Obama fights disclosure at every turn, sending agents from the U.S. Justice Department out to block all efforts at obtaining his records.
Thankfully, one news organization is doggedly pursuing the story. Joseph Farah and his reporters at WorldNetDaily (WND) hammer on the Obama eligibility story relentlessly, slowly chipping away at the facade. Some other conservative, fearless publications and websites are also digging for the truth and opining on the eligibility question.
Yet despite a total blackout from the main stream media on the subject of Obama’s citizenship, 60 percent of the American public still doubt Obama’s story that he was born in Hawaii. As Farah says, that means the birthers are winning.
There are some things we do know — or can surmise — about Obama, thanks to WND, some other publications and Obama’s own book, Dreams From My Father.
The man who would ascend to the Presidency in 2009 was born to Ann Dunham on Aug. 4, 1961. The father is purported to be Barack Hussein Obama, a Kenyan student in Hawaii who married Dunham on Feb. 2, 1961.
Some have speculated that Barack Obama II’s (this is how Obama’s name is listed on the COLB) biological father was actually Frank Marshall Davis, a black friend of Ann Dunham’s parents and the man the young Obama would later claim in his autobiography was his mentor. The speculation about Davis — a radical communist — as possibly Obama’s biological father stems from a book Davis wrote under a pseudonym in which he describes having sex with an under aged white girl. The idea is plausible, as Davis was a good friend of Madelyn and Stanley Dunham, Ann Dunham’s parents.
The irony is that this is one nativity story that would cement Obama’s claim to be a natural-born citizen. If Obama Sr., a Kenyan citizen, is Obama’s father, Obama is not a Constitutionally described natural-born citizen because one parent is a non-citizen and the other was a minor and therefore unable to bestow citizenship on the child — if Obama was born in Kenya, as many believe.
As lawsuits have claimed, there is no evidence — beyond the afore-mentioned COLB — that Obama was born in Hawaii. Both Obama and a half sister have named two different Hawaii hospitals as his birth place, no records exist that Dunham was hospitalized in Hawaii and no physician or nurse has stepped forward to claim they assisted with the birth.
Obama’s supporters have pointed out that newspaper articles published in August 1961 in the Honolulu Advertiser and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin prove Obama was born in Hawaii. The address listed was the address of Madelyn and Stanley Dunham, Ann Dunham’s parents. WND has reported that official documents show Obama Sr., had a residence at another address at the same time. And neighbors of the Dunhams told WND they don’t recall a white woman with a black baby ever living next door. College transcripts indicate Dunham moved with her new baby to Seattle within days of Obama’s birth and enrolled in the University of Washington for classes that began on Aug. 19, 1961.
These birth announcements prove only that someone submitted information to two newspapers to herald the birth of a baby. They document the timeframe of the birth, not the location. The baby could have been born on Mars and these announcements could have still run in the newspapers.
Another problem Obama faces is found in his mother’s trip to Indonesia with her second husband, Lolo Soetoro, in the late 1960s. WND has reported that several lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility hinge on this time in Indonesia, which does not allow dual citizenship. Documents released by the U.S. State Department under two Freedom of Information Act requests indicate he may have given up his citizenship when he moved there.
Those documents show that Obama’s mother sought to have “Barack Obama II (Seobarkah)” removed from her passport, possibly as a prelude to obtaining Indonesian citizenship for him. If she did this it was more than likely for the child’s safety, as it was a turbulent time in Indonesia and there was a strong anti-American sentiment there.
While in Indonesia Obama was enrolled in school under the name of Barry Soetoro, as proven by school records photographed by an Associated Press photographer in 2007. Those school records list Soetoro as an Indonesian citizen, born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on Aug. 4, 1961, and records his religion as Muslim.
According to WND, Obama was either 5 or 6 years old when he traveled to Indonesia. This is important because if Lolo Soetoro adopted him at age 5 then he would have automatically become an Indonesian citizen. The law differed for children aged 6 and up and an adoption for a 6-year-old would have had to take place through legal channels.
Another puzzle uncovered by WND revolves around a photograph of Obama — or Soetoro, whoever he is — with another child at a school in Hawaii at the same time he was enrolled in school in Indonesia. The photo is marked has having been taken in 1969, and there is no good explanation as to how he was attending school in two different places at the same time.
The Obama camp has also refused to explain why Obama/Soetoro is using a Social Security number issued in Connecticut. WND has reported that two private investigators discovered the Social Security number anomaly and filed documents in an eligibility lawsuit showing the number was issued in Connecticut between 1977 and 1979, yet Obama’s/Soetoro’s earliest reported employment was at a Baskin-Robbins ice cream shop in Hawaii in 1975.
The Social Security website confirms that the first three numbers of Obama’s/Soetoro’s Social Security number are reserved for applicants with Connecticut addresses. That Social Security number corresponds with Obama’s/Soetoro’s Selective Service registration, according to WND.
Finally, questions surround a trip Obama/Soetoro has admitted he took to Pakistan in 1981, WND reports.
“I traveled to Pakistan when I was in college — I knew what Sunni and Shia was [sic] before I joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,” Obama/Soetoro reportedly stated at a fundraising event.
Pakistan in 1981 was under military rule. It was difficult for U.S. citizens to travel to the country without assistance. It would have been easier for someone to enter Pakistan on an Indonesian passport, WND reports.
Obama/Soetoro could easily clear up the confusion by releasing his birth records, his school records, college records and other official documents. Instead, he is spending millions of dollars to fight all attempts to obtain documents that most public officials release by habit. That begs the question: What is he hiding?
Some brave souls are fighting the good fight in trying to get to the bottom of the mysterious background of the 44th President. Some military people are putting their careers on the line in an attempt to get proof that any orders Obama/Soetoro issues are legitimate.
However, the court system seems hell-bent on covering up any efforts at discovery. It consistently throws out lawsuits on standing and is frequently hostile to plaintiffs. Several judges have threatened lawyers and plaintiffs with stiff fines if they continue to pursue the matter.
Meanwhile, the only logical conclusion is that Obama/Soetoro is not Constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President. Any other view is only based on hope — Obama’s/Soetoro’s favorite theme.
A Constitutional crisis is in the offing and when the truth finally gets out about Obama’s/Soetoro’s citizenship, the legitimacy of orders signed by an illegitimate President will be called into question. Expect mass chaos to ensue.
That very well could be the culmination of the whole plan by Obama/Soetoro and those pulling his strings.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
What Do You Think About The President Of The U.S.A. Choice Of Action With The Arizona Law?
It is obvious The President doesn't think too highly of Arizona right now. Even though Arizona is trying to protect themselves from foreign invaders. Obama and his admin keep talking about our great nation as if we are the anti-christ. He degrades a state to make a political point. He puts down our country every chance he gets. Everyone in his admin seem to think the same way as he and his wife do. He treats our enemies better then he treats our own country and states. I think they have forgotten who is running this country and who holds the power. If you think that this country is as bad and mean as the Obama admin and most leaders within the Democratic Party then vote for them again. But if you think that this country is great even with her flaws then it is you obligation to get them voted out. We have state right and Obama doesn't have a right to bully us in front of other nations. We must give of out time,talents and treasures to defeat those in office now. The best way to stop Obama from doing any more harm to our country is to clip his wings by giving him a new and more conservative Congress to deal with. And in 2012 we vote the anti-American,pro-Marxist leader out of office.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Obama Slams Arizona Immigration Law
OBAMA: Indeed our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others. And that includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe. In fact, I've instructed members of my administration to closely monitor the situation and examine the civil rights and other implications of this legislation, but if we continue to fail to act at the federal level we will continue to see misguided efforts opening up around the country.
It looks like the states don't have the same amount of power they had beforee Obama and Congress took over. It is obvious that Obama and the Democratic Socialist Party want to do away with the democratic republic and go right to a democracy where the federal government rules over the states. We need to get back to a democratic republic where states have the rights to govern themselves instead of putting the federal government in charge of us. We need to remember the history of this nation and why the fed came into existence. It was the states that gave life to the fed.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Why Is Obama Hurting The Small Business? Doesn't He Understand They Are Who We Work For And Them Too?
Lately, President Obama has tried to assure the American people that he’s working really hard to get our money back from that TARP bailout he’s been using as a revolving slush fund. Nonetheless, since yesterday was a day ending in “y”, it was evidently time for another bailout. Rules are rules, after all.
This time it was $30 billion for loans to small businesses:
“The $30 billion in loan financing would come from money repaid by big banks that got help from the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program…That $30 billion would be used to create the Small Business Lending Fund, separate and distinct from TARP, according to two senior administration officials who outlined the program on condition of anonymity before Obama’s announcement.”
Did you catch that little two-step? Small businesses can get money for lending that comes from TARP but somehow…isn’t TARP. The distinction sounds like nothing more than window dressing, but why hide the truth? Maybe it’s because past TARP recipients (sometimes forced recipients) have been stigmatized and demonized by their association with this seemingly endless bailout fund. Or maybe it’s because businesses have learned an important lesson about TARP: where there’s a carrot, there will be sticks. Big sticks, and if I was a business owner considering an entanglement with TARP, I’d be more than a little wary of getting whacked.
Anyone can see that small businesses have been struggling. But even if President Obama assigned every last penny of TARP to this new TARP-redux for small businesses, he still won’t have addressed the real issue preventing robust private sector growth – the looming impact of smothering new taxes, mandates, regulations, and payoffs for Big Labor. These are some serious sticks that will beat down private enterprise with or without a loan from TARP.
If we continue down this path, the sustainable economic growth and long-term job creation we want simply won’t appear. Instead, we need to provide a commerce-friendly environment of lower taxes, lower debt, and lower spending. Not to mention we need to close down TARP to prevent the White House from using $700 billion of your money to bailout whatever company, industry, or sector it wants.
This time it was $30 billion for loans to small businesses:
“The $30 billion in loan financing would come from money repaid by big banks that got help from the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program…That $30 billion would be used to create the Small Business Lending Fund, separate and distinct from TARP, according to two senior administration officials who outlined the program on condition of anonymity before Obama’s announcement.”
Did you catch that little two-step? Small businesses can get money for lending that comes from TARP but somehow…isn’t TARP. The distinction sounds like nothing more than window dressing, but why hide the truth? Maybe it’s because past TARP recipients (sometimes forced recipients) have been stigmatized and demonized by their association with this seemingly endless bailout fund. Or maybe it’s because businesses have learned an important lesson about TARP: where there’s a carrot, there will be sticks. Big sticks, and if I was a business owner considering an entanglement with TARP, I’d be more than a little wary of getting whacked.
Anyone can see that small businesses have been struggling. But even if President Obama assigned every last penny of TARP to this new TARP-redux for small businesses, he still won’t have addressed the real issue preventing robust private sector growth – the looming impact of smothering new taxes, mandates, regulations, and payoffs for Big Labor. These are some serious sticks that will beat down private enterprise with or without a loan from TARP.
If we continue down this path, the sustainable economic growth and long-term job creation we want simply won’t appear. Instead, we need to provide a commerce-friendly environment of lower taxes, lower debt, and lower spending. Not to mention we need to close down TARP to prevent the White House from using $700 billion of your money to bailout whatever company, industry, or sector it wants.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Can Obama Do One Thing Without Taking Jabs? Or Is That Just Politics As Usual?
At Prayer Breakfast, Obama Jabs 'Birthers'
Watch CBS News Videos Online
President Obama has adopted a new kind of bipartisanship -- daring Republicans to offer their policy views so that he can discredit them.
You might call it punching-bag bipartisanship. The president and his party believe that by eliciting Republican policy ideas they can remind Americans how much they hate the GOP.
Obama now says he is not going to let Republicans "sit on the sidelines" while Democrats are stuck trying to solve problems.
It's a big shift from last year, when his theme in dealing with the GOP was summed up in a favorite line from his stump speech for Democratic candidates: "I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking."
The Left believes voters have soured on Democrats because Americans have forgotten the awfulness of GOP policies.
In truth, voters tossed out the GOP because of arrogance, incompetence and corruption. It was not the policy, it was the people.
Sex scandals, corruption, profligate spending and recklessness in Iraq didn't put people off limited government, but rather government itself.
Rather than correctly reading a mandate for a sensible and competent government, Obama's hubristic agenda and dithering execution was exactly the thing to convince voters that Washington was not able to solve problems.
Now, having been thrice rebuked by voters for pushing a big, complex agenda, Obama is betting his presidency on his ability to create jobs in the next nine months.
The president wants to convince the American people that he's working every day in practical ways to put people to work while Republicans are offering no constructive answers for joblessness.
This is a poor strategy.
If Tom DeLay or Donald Rumsfeld were the ones offering the alternatives, it might flash voters back to the second Bush term with a shudder. But it's unlikely that some fresh face like Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin or Sen. John Thune of South Dakota will provoke much horror.
The administration did not learn the right lesson from picking a fight over terror policies with the greatest villain of the Left, Dick Cheney. Cheney took Obama to school and helped solidify bipartisan opposition to the president's plans to close Guantanamo Bay and treating terrorist attacks against the United States as criminal matters.
Now, Obama will attempt to give Democrats a boost by taunting Republicans for their ideas to help the economy. It will likely meet the same end as the administration's attempt at bearbaiting Cheney -- the bear gets off its chain and the dogs get mauled.
Democrats had their big chance to trap Republicans, but their health plan was too big and too shoddily built to pass, even with a supermajority in Congress. Democrats went from first and goal to their own 1-yard line on delay-of-game penalties alone. Then Scott Brown picked off their final passing play.
Republicans have little experience doing anything but opposing health care policies, but they all love to talk about economic policy and their answers sound good to voters.
Obama is offering another complex, nuanced mix of green, socially conscious stimulus efforts. So Republicans will say, "We want to get government off your back, cut spending and cut taxes."
Obama will chuckle at their simplistic answers and remind voters of the failures of the Bush era. But since Obama has lost so much credibility on issues, it's unlikely that voters will prefer his opaque promises to the straightforward solutions of the GOP, especially if the economy remains anemic after so much big talk and big government.
Even if Obama were inclined to play against type and offer straightforward solutions, his own precarious political position would not allow it.
The Wall Street Journal tells us that for the first time ever, the members of public employee unions outnumber the members of industrial unions. The slow demise of American manufacturing and the explosive growth of government means that 51 percent of the 15.4 million union workers are government employees. In 1973, they constituted less than 20 percent of the union work force.
The president and his party have always depended on unions for votes and done their bidding in Washington. Now, that means expanding the government as a jobs program for the party's most important constituency.
But alas, the more government jobs, the higher the burden on the private sector and the weaker the recovery.
That means Obama will struggle not only in the rhetorical struggle with Republicans over the economy. He will also have a devil of a time delivering results.
President Obama has adopted a new kind of bipartisanship -- daring Republicans to offer their policy views so that he can discredit them.
You might call it punching-bag bipartisanship. The president and his party believe that by eliciting Republican policy ideas they can remind Americans how much they hate the GOP.
Obama now says he is not going to let Republicans "sit on the sidelines" while Democrats are stuck trying to solve problems.
It's a big shift from last year, when his theme in dealing with the GOP was summed up in a favorite line from his stump speech for Democratic candidates: "I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking."
The Left believes voters have soured on Democrats because Americans have forgotten the awfulness of GOP policies.
In truth, voters tossed out the GOP because of arrogance, incompetence and corruption. It was not the policy, it was the people.
Sex scandals, corruption, profligate spending and recklessness in Iraq didn't put people off limited government, but rather government itself.
Rather than correctly reading a mandate for a sensible and competent government, Obama's hubristic agenda and dithering execution was exactly the thing to convince voters that Washington was not able to solve problems.
Now, having been thrice rebuked by voters for pushing a big, complex agenda, Obama is betting his presidency on his ability to create jobs in the next nine months.
The president wants to convince the American people that he's working every day in practical ways to put people to work while Republicans are offering no constructive answers for joblessness.
This is a poor strategy.
If Tom DeLay or Donald Rumsfeld were the ones offering the alternatives, it might flash voters back to the second Bush term with a shudder. But it's unlikely that some fresh face like Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin or Sen. John Thune of South Dakota will provoke much horror.
The administration did not learn the right lesson from picking a fight over terror policies with the greatest villain of the Left, Dick Cheney. Cheney took Obama to school and helped solidify bipartisan opposition to the president's plans to close Guantanamo Bay and treating terrorist attacks against the United States as criminal matters.
Now, Obama will attempt to give Democrats a boost by taunting Republicans for their ideas to help the economy. It will likely meet the same end as the administration's attempt at bearbaiting Cheney -- the bear gets off its chain and the dogs get mauled.
Democrats had their big chance to trap Republicans, but their health plan was too big and too shoddily built to pass, even with a supermajority in Congress. Democrats went from first and goal to their own 1-yard line on delay-of-game penalties alone. Then Scott Brown picked off their final passing play.
Republicans have little experience doing anything but opposing health care policies, but they all love to talk about economic policy and their answers sound good to voters.
Obama is offering another complex, nuanced mix of green, socially conscious stimulus efforts. So Republicans will say, "We want to get government off your back, cut spending and cut taxes."
Obama will chuckle at their simplistic answers and remind voters of the failures of the Bush era. But since Obama has lost so much credibility on issues, it's unlikely that voters will prefer his opaque promises to the straightforward solutions of the GOP, especially if the economy remains anemic after so much big talk and big government.
Even if Obama were inclined to play against type and offer straightforward solutions, his own precarious political position would not allow it.
The Wall Street Journal tells us that for the first time ever, the members of public employee unions outnumber the members of industrial unions. The slow demise of American manufacturing and the explosive growth of government means that 51 percent of the 15.4 million union workers are government employees. In 1973, they constituted less than 20 percent of the union work force.
The president and his party have always depended on unions for votes and done their bidding in Washington. Now, that means expanding the government as a jobs program for the party's most important constituency.
But alas, the more government jobs, the higher the burden on the private sector and the weaker the recovery.
That means Obama will struggle not only in the rhetorical struggle with Republicans over the economy. He will also have a devil of a time delivering results.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
“Barack Obama refused to help get unemployment down in 2009 by design so he could get credit in the 2010 election year instead.”
Job seekers line up for a career fair in Oak Brook, Ill., on July 2, 2009 Many of us have been saying it for a while. The White House intended that the stimulus money, which the White House intended to use to save or create jobs, would not really be spent in 2009 as unemployment soared to over 10%.
On page 9 of Obama’s budget proposal, we find that, in fact, the White House is now admitting this fact. You are still unemployed by government design.Barack Obama writes,
All told, as of the end of November 2009, about 50 percent of Recovery Act funds—or $395 billion—has been either obligated or is providing assistance directly to Americans in the form of tax relief. By design, the bulk of the remaining 50 percent of Recovery Act funds will be deployed in the coming months of 2010 and during the beginning of 2011 to support additional job creation when our economy continues to need a boost. Many of the programs slated to receive additional funding in the near future are those with significant promise of job creation. These include more than $7 billion in broadband expansion, approximately $8 billion in funds to lay the foundation for a high-speed rail network, and continued funding for other transportation projects. All told, the Recovery Act is on track to meet the goal of disbursing 70 percent of its funds in the first 18 months of its life.(Budget at p.9)
So wait? Even after 18 months all the money won’t be spent?
To put this in perspective, consider what the President said in his State of the Union address:
One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression. So we acted – immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed.What the hell? This man says last week that “we acted — immediately and aggressively” and this week says “by design, the bulk of the remaining 50 percent of Recovery Act funds will be deployed in the coming months of 2010.”
But the devastation remains. One in ten Americans still cannot find work. Many businesses have shuttered. Home values have declined. Small towns and rural communities have been hit especially hard. For those who had already known poverty, life has become that much harder.
This recession has also compounded the burdens that America’s families have been dealing with for decades – the burden of working harder and longer for less; of being unable to save enough to retire or help kids with college.
So I know the anxieties that are out there right now. They’re not new. These struggles are the reason I ran for President. . . .
For these Americans and so many others, change has not come fast enough. Some are frustrated; some are angry. They don’t understand why it seems like bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded but hard work on Main Street isn’t; or why Washington has been unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems.
That is not immediately and aggressively. He says “one in ten Americans still cannot find work” but also says in his budget, “the Administration moved rapidly to sign into law, just 28 days after taking office, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the Recovery Act) to create and save jobs, as well as transform the economy to compete in the 21st Century.”
Obama is trying to have it both ways. He admits his stimulus money is dragging out and that even after 18 months it won’t all be spent. At the same time, he tells the public at the State of the Union that the reasons there is still 10% unemployment is “bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded but hard work on Main Street isn’t” and “Washington has been unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems.”
Well, he has the last bit right. Washington was “unwilling to solve” the problems because 2009 was not an election year and 2010 is. The President of the United States refused to help get unemployment down in 2009 by design so he could get credit in the 2010 election year instead.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Imagine There No War It's Easy If You Try.And No 9/11 Obama Must Be High. Sing Along
9/11 Didn’t Happen: The Obama Administration Tries to Prove George Bush Was Wrong
“This isn’t prosecuting a war. This is playing Law & Order. We have a President who really does believe all the world is a stage and he is a Screen Actors Guild member.”
There was no terrorist attack on 9/11. It was the fruition of a criminal enterprise. That, at least, is Barack Obama’s working theory on what happened that day.It would be one thing if our lives were not at stake.
Barack Obama has decided he is going to show the world that George Bush was wrong in how he conducted the war on terror. Bush decided to send foreign terrorist enemies to GTMO for questioning by the military and, in a few cases, to be water boarded to get answers.
Obama is above that He is better than that. Barack Obama is going to prove to the world and to the 55-60% of Americans who prefer to kill lest we be killed that he is better than them all.
Unfortunately for us, our lives are at stake.
According to the Washington Post, because Obama decided to treat the terrorist who wanted to blow up Delta 253 over Detroit as a criminal instead of a terrorist, the terrorist now has a defense attorney who has advised the terrorist that he does not have to cooperate or talk. In fact:
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the 23-year-old Nigerian charged with the failed attempt on the Amsterdam-to-Detroit flight, was initially “talking to people who detained him” but now has a public defender and “doesn’t have to,” John O. Brennan said on “Fox News Sunday.”So how as the Obama administration decided to respond?
They are going to give the terrorist a plea bargain.
A plea bargain. For a terrorist. This isn’t prosecuting a war. This is playing Law & Order. We have a President who really does believe all the world is a stage and he is a Screen Actors Guild member.
How many Americans will die because Barack Obama decided to lawyer up instead of soldier up?
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
This Video Says It All
The good news? A few people think it’s Cheney. The bad news? That’s closer than most of them get. The best part comes at the end, when Crowder asks about Pelosi, but it’s a long, sad trip to that point, my friends. Take a drink before clicking.
Like Treacher says: In fairness, Biden probably couldn’t answer this question either.
Like Treacher says: In fairness, Biden probably couldn’t answer this question either.
Monday, November 9, 2009
This Is What Moveon.org Thinks About Afghanistan
An exit strategy for Afghanistan
President Obama is poised to make a critical decision about the Afghanistan war in the next few weeks. He needs to hear that we need an exit strategy—not tens of thousands more troops stuck in a quagmire.- Send the President a message »
This is from moveon.org. Even they think Obama has made Afghanistan a quagmire. Now he's on their crap list. BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAA. Conservatives take the time and send the President a message about the war in Afghanistan. It will mess with their minds when they read a conservative view coming from moveon.org. Tell Obama to take a crap or get off the pot with Afghanistan.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Rhetoric vs. Reality Why doesn't Obama Care About Our Soldiers?
Watch this video and tell us what you think of our new Chief. 
Sunday, November 1, 2009
The Free Market Is Under Attack
Watch Glenn Beck weekdays at 5p & 2a ET on Fox News Channel |
Friday, October 30, 2009
Obama + Google= Net Neutrality Scheme XOXOXO
Google – and its puppets like Free Press – are promoting this idea that it’s a struggle between big telecommunications firms, and the little guys. Except the little guys are actually bigger Internet firms. The corporations pressing for Net Neutrality are Fortune 500 and even Dow Jones Industrial Average firms, with billions in cash ready to be spent on Net Neutrality, trying to defeat Proposition 8, or even promoting Barack Obama.
That last one makes the FCC’s rush to regulate look bad, given all the placements of Google people within the Obama administration as well as the nearly one million dollars that Google employees gave to the Obama-Biden campaign. How do we know that the secretive Obama White House isn’t directing the FCC to pay off Google?
After all, we know he’s giving donors special treatment. In fact, it has come out that FCC Chairman Genachowski himself was a major fundraiser for Obama, pulling in over a half million for the campaign. Why shouldn’t we believe that this is all a big circle of back scratching in the Obama adminstration, when he refuses to release the kinds of information we need to determine otherwise?
The President has played political games with information all along. He dangles his birth certificate on a string in order to distract the right. He’s keeping as little of the Obamacare agenda in writing as possible, because he knows if we read it and expose his plans, we can win the fight, so we end up with ridiculous spectacles like a Senate committee voting on a bill that hasn’t been written yet. And now he’s playing footsie with donors in secret.
We must encourage and join Senator McCain and Representative Blackburn in their fresh legislative efforts to stop the Google/Obama Net Neutrality scheme. We cannot allow this kind of quid pro quo to go unchallenged.
That last one makes the FCC’s rush to regulate look bad, given all the placements of Google people within the Obama administration as well as the nearly one million dollars that Google employees gave to the Obama-Biden campaign. How do we know that the secretive Obama White House isn’t directing the FCC to pay off Google?
After all, we know he’s giving donors special treatment. In fact, it has come out that FCC Chairman Genachowski himself was a major fundraiser for Obama, pulling in over a half million for the campaign. Why shouldn’t we believe that this is all a big circle of back scratching in the Obama adminstration, when he refuses to release the kinds of information we need to determine otherwise?
The President has played political games with information all along. He dangles his birth certificate on a string in order to distract the right. He’s keeping as little of the Obamacare agenda in writing as possible, because he knows if we read it and expose his plans, we can win the fight, so we end up with ridiculous spectacles like a Senate committee voting on a bill that hasn’t been written yet. And now he’s playing footsie with donors in secret.
We must encourage and join Senator McCain and Representative Blackburn in their fresh legislative efforts to stop the Google/Obama Net Neutrality scheme. We cannot allow this kind of quid pro quo to go unchallenged.
Friday, October 23, 2009
OK Now Barack Hussein Obama Is At War With Fox News? Just Dumb
So this administration had what passes for a brainstorm among that group: now that they’ve made it clear that they disapprove of one particular news network, why, there would be nothing stopping them from stepping up their attempts to marginalize said network. So the White House announced today that a specific White House Press Pool access - Ken Feinberg, who is one of the myriad ‘czars’ so beloved of this administration - would explicitly exclude Fox News. Despite the fact that the Press Pool is supported in part by Fox News.
And the media refused to play along.
This, oddly enough, has not been brought up by any of the other networks, so for right now the best source for this story is FNC (yes, savor the irony):
See Hot Air and AoSHQ for more. In this particular case, the news bureaus decided that the White House could make Feinberg available for all five news networks, or for none of them. Whether or not this was due to principle or pragmatism (Hot Air leans towards the latter), it was the right answer: the administration caved in short order. Hopefully there won’t be a need for multiple lessons. I’m forced to admit that I’m pleasantly surprised at how well the news media handled this one. Even if they did do it solely because they don’t want the precedent set.
Moving along: AoSHQ is amazed at this administration’s priorities. For myself, I’m reminded again of a thought that I’ve had a few times. When you look at this administration’s performance to date, it’s like the Democratic Party went out and found themselves a caricature of everything that they complained about/hated/feared with regard to George W Bush… only this time? It’s all true.
And the media refused to play along.
This, oddly enough, has not been brought up by any of the other networks, so for right now the best source for this story is FNC (yes, savor the irony):
See Hot Air and AoSHQ for more. In this particular case, the news bureaus decided that the White House could make Feinberg available for all five news networks, or for none of them. Whether or not this was due to principle or pragmatism (Hot Air leans towards the latter), it was the right answer: the administration caved in short order. Hopefully there won’t be a need for multiple lessons. I’m forced to admit that I’m pleasantly surprised at how well the news media handled this one. Even if they did do it solely because they don’t want the precedent set.
Moving along: AoSHQ is amazed at this administration’s priorities. For myself, I’m reminded again of a thought that I’ve had a few times. When you look at this administration’s performance to date, it’s like the Democratic Party went out and found themselves a caricature of everything that they complained about/hated/feared with regard to George W Bush… only this time? It’s all true.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Obama Is One Sick Mother %$#@#$
Nobel is no laughing matter
Peter Heck - Guest Columnist - 10/19/2009 10:20:00 AM
Admittedly, my first reaction upon hearing the news of President Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize was – like many – to snicker. While several felt outrage over giving someone who had been in office 11 days at the time of the nomination deadline an award of this caliber, I wasn't indignant or even surprised by it.
Keep in mind this award has become cheapened to a mere political endorsement in recent years. It has been given to a terrorist (Yasser Arafat), a bumbling weapons inspector who struggled not only to do his job but also to hide his obvious anti-Semitism (Mohammed El Baradei), and to Jimmy Carter! But perhaps most egregiously, the Nobel committee overlooked Irena Sendler, who risked her life repeatedly to single-handedly smuggle Jewish children from the Warsaw ghetto, sparing them from Hitler's human ovens. She saved over 2,500 children, and after being captured and sentenced to death by the Nazis, escaped only by bribing the guards. This miraculous story of risking everything to defend the defenseless didn't seem to impress the committee, as they chose to give the award to Al Gore for his slideshow on the dubious man-made global warming theory. "We are talking of peace...the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a direct war, a direct killing - direct murder by the mother herself. And we read in the Scripture, for God says very clearly: Even if a mother could forget her child - I will not forget you - I have carved you in the palm of my hand. We are carved in the palm of His hand, so close to Him that unborn child has been carved in the hand of God. And that is what strikes me most, the beginning of that sentence, that even if a mother could forget something impossible - but even if she could forget - I will not forget you. And today the greatest means - the greatest destroyer of peace is abortion. President Obama's defenders may point to his opposition to "unjust war" and the new tone he is extending to a world that they perceive as tired of American imperialism. Longing to end conflict and wars – something I believe our president truly desires – is a noble calling, and one worthy of admiration.
Given these sad examples, my initial thoughts were simply to yawn at the reality of a group of left-wing ideologues giving to one of their own an award they have sadly stripped of its meaning.
I've changed my mind.
Not because I just want another opportunity to criticize President Obama. Not because it is merely a chance to hop on my soapbox, though those will undoubtedly be the conclusions some will choose to draw. I've changed my mind because the idea of "peace" should mean something to us. If we don't object to the notion of giving the highest civilian award for fostering peace on earth to a man who has no regard for the intrinsic worth of humanity, we are complicit in removing any fundamental meaning to the word.
President Obama's radical stance on the issue of abortion categorically disqualifies him from any consideration for this award. Not only does he hold to the slave-owners ideology that some humans should be given the "choice" to deprive other humans of their inalienable rights, but he has enacted policies to use tax dollars to fund such an abominable belief. Further, when questioned on the critical issue of when humans are to be protected and given human rights, this supposed "man of peace" takes a pass – not because he doesn't know the answer, but because the answer exposes the grotesque evil behind his position.
But don't take my word for it. While accepting the 1979 Nobel Peace Prize, Mother Teresa powerfully stated:
Many people are very, very concerned with the children in India, with the children in Africa where quite a number die, maybe of malnutrition, of hunger and so on, but millions are dying deliberately by the will of the mother. And this is what is the greatest destroyer of peace today. Because if a mother can kill her own child - what is left for me to kill you and you kill me - there is nothing between."
But peace is about far more than being willing to sit down at a conference table, trying to work out differences with men who want to kill you. It's about how you view humanity itself. It's about doing everything within your power to protect the powerless and defend the defenseless. If President Obama wants to be considered a man of peace, he must begin by reversing policies that facilitate the slaughter of the innocent – not in Afghanistan or Iraq, but in the womb.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)