Monday, January 25, 2010

Obama In His Own Words

"FOX News Reporting: President Obama: In His Own Words" (video)
A special preview of FOX News Channels upcoming weekend special on Obama, "FOX News Reporting: President Obama: in His Own Words."
Neither the left nor the right should be happy with all the damage Obama has done without really acomplishing anything of real value. He couldn't even get things done with a filibuster proof supermajority in Congress.  He isn't at all what he said he would be. He is all show and no substance kind of like his mentor the Rev. Wright. Listen to his own words and then lets see what kind of person he really is. After watching this maybe the left will see why we don't trust Obama. If they want trust Obama's words when they rarely come to fruition they can go right ahead.


  1. Brown victory prompts political tremors in California
    Becky Yeh - OneNewsNow - 1/24/2010 4:50:00 AM
    California Republicans have joined other party faithful across the country in celebrating the Scott Brown win in Massachusetts and believe it will be the political stimulus the GOP needs heading into this Fall's election.

    Paul Lindsay, spokesman for the GOP committee told the Washington Post that Democrats may have more difficulty winning the upcoming elections in the Golden State.

    “The message of Massachusetts is clear: no Democrat is safe," Lindsay said. “We’re already seeing the ripple effects.”

    At a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor, California Republican Representative Kevin McCarthy told the press that 2010 may be the year for the GOP.

    McCarthy, who is currently recruiting candidates to run for the House, stated that Brown’s win created an opportunity for the Republican Party, and that Republicans had the ability to win the California majority.

    “The people are tired of not being listened to,” McCarthy said. “They are tired of being told what to think. This administration was elected on a promise of hope and change, and the public has realized the change that has been delivered is not the change they had thought they were electing back a year ago.”

    California Senate Candidate Tom Campbell also commented on rival Democratic candidate Boxer- criticizing Boxer for her abuse of federal tax money and stating that he was the only candidate proven to fight federal spending.

    Boxer however, did not seem intimidated by a possible Republican ripple effect. In an interview with Southern California Public radio, Boxer responded to the Brown upset, stating that although Brown won a largely Democratic Massachusetts, the same may not be true in California.

    “Every one of my races has been really hard,” Boxer said. “So before Massachusetts results, after Massachusetts, it’s all the same for me."

  2. The ink is yet to dry on Senator-elect Scott Brown’s certification to be the 41st vote against ObamaCare and the left is readying a multi-pronged attack on the filibuster. Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA) have opened up a front in both the House and the Senate to lower the threshold for Senate leadership to stifle debate and amendment. Don’t be fooled. These are merely first shots in an all out war by the left to exterminate the one rule in the Senate that makes it difficult for the Obama Administration to railroad though an unpopular left wing agenda.

    The Hill reports:

    Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) in the next few weeks intends to introduce legislation that would take away the minority’s power to filibuster legislation. Harkin has wanted to change the filibuster for years, but his move would come in the wake of Republican Scott Brown’s dramatic victory in Massachusetts. Brown’s victory cost Democrats their 60th vote in the Senate, and may have dealt a death blow to their hopes to move a massive healthcare overhaul. It could also limit President Barack Obama’s ability to move other pieces of his agenda forward.

    The Harkin rules change would require 67 votes for passage. It is unlikely that Senators in the minority party would vote for a rules change that would erode the few rights of the minority. Especially at a time when the Obama Administration seems intent on passing ObamaCare using all means necessary to get it done. This is merely one idea in the Senate to attack the filibuster. There are other options that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has at his disposal to crush minority party rights in the Senate.

    The Hill also reports that:

    In the House, Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wa.) this week introduced a resolution urging the Senate to lower the filibuster threshold, adding in a statement that the legislative tactic “has begun to erode the integrity of our Democratic process.”

    The House has no means to change the rules of the Senate, so this is merely a message that some House members would like to send to the House. First of all, House members, both Republicans and Democrats, institutionally hate the filibuster, because the filibuster has killed legislation favored by both R and D House members. The House members look at the Senate rules as arcane and they don’t have much respect for the fact that one member can gum up the process in the Senate. This is more of an institutional argument by House members, because the House is strictly a majoritarian body, while the Senate is not.

    Republicans in 2005 toyed with the idea of abolishing the filibuster with a simple majority vote. That clearly was a mistake and many Republicans regret the day they marched down that road. The Republican Senate Leadership at the time wanted to use a very controversial parliamentary tactic to ignore the 2/3rds threshold for rules changes in an attempt to confirm a handful of Bush Administration judicial nominees. It was deemed the “Nuclear Option” by detractors and the “Constitutional Option” by supporters.

    Senator Reid has bragged about his role in stopping that effort in his 2008 book “The Good Fight,” where he wrote the following:

  3. It was just a matter of time before a Senate leader who couldn’t get his way on something moved to eliminate the filibuster for regular business and that, simply put, would be the end of the United States Senate… A filibuster is the minority’s way of not allowing the majority to shut off debate, and without robust debate, the Senate is crippled.”

    Republican and Democrat Senators have both advocated for and against the filibuster at different times when it suited their needs, but now it is important for these members to respect the traditions and history of the Senate. Both parties need to take a step back and stop the mutual assured destruction of the Senate as an institution that respects unlimited debate and amendment. Senators need to fight against any ideas that would streamline the Senate procedures, because, in the end, an extermination of the filibuster rule will destroy the institution as the most deliberative legislative body in the world.

  4. I wish we would go back to 2/3's as was originally in place. IMO, this government needs to SLOW.THE.F**K.DOWN, whether it's a Republican majority or Hypocrat majority. But especially if it's a Hypocrat majority. Those idiots would have ruined this country long ago if they could figure out how to use a super-majority. Good thing they are a bunch of total idiots.

  5. The founders didn't intend for a minority party to be able to confound the efforts of the majority to the extent that this Republican Congress has. There have been more Republican filibusters than any other Congress in history by far.

    The filibuster as it is now used has made it necessary to get a 60 vote supermajority to get anything done. That's ridiculous. A majority is 51, not 60.

    What happened to Republicans wanting up or down votes? I know. When Republicans do it, it's ok. When Democrats do it we're socialists or worse.

  6. Bruce the Democrats didn't have a problem with it before they lost the super-majority. Now,like always, the Democrats want to change the rules to suet them. And Bruce you don't even know when the last time the Republicans had a super-majority,so stop BSing us. You Progressives pull too much cheating. Why didn't the Democrats do something about the super-majority before they lost it?

  7. FAILk, The FOUNDERS did NOT want majority rules. That's a FACT dipshit, it's why we have a REPUBLIC and not a DEMOCRACY. God, you are seriously stricken with fatal stupidity.

    By the way, The Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance issues: Sixty-five percent (65%) say corporations and unions should be allowed to buy ads to let people know how politicians voted on issues. Once again idiot FAILk, you are on the minority whack-job side of things. BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA

    You IDIOTS HAD THE SUPERMAJORITY and your legislation was SO AWFUL (or should I say OFFAL?) that they STILL couldn't pass it! BWAAAAHAHAHAHA ... and THEN they had to resort to BRIBES with TAXPAYER money. What a truly bunch of horrible nasty people you Hypocrats are. And now you want to make this a fascist state with mob-mentality majority rules. And you claim to know what the founders were thinking?! The founders created the 2/3's required to break the filibuster you dumbass. But they didn't mean to? It was an accident?! ROFLMAO

  8. Hey by the way FAILk, if you don't like a corporation running ads against your guy, you can just go ahead and vote with your pocketbook. You have the option to buy, or not buy, a product of a corporation that runs ads. That's more than I can say about corporations that currently lobby dirty filthy corrupt Hypocrat politicians that then write laws forcing me to buy a product, or that direct my tax money to a certain corporation. You Hypocrats are such commies.

  9. Wow, finally the Obummer administration does offer more transparency. Unfortunately it's transparency about how secretive they are:

    Axelrod: "People Will Never Know What's in the Healthcare Bill Until the President Signs It!"
    JANUARY 25, 2010

    Yes, that is an exact quote. We’ll call it “post-transparency”.

    After regurgitating the same tired talking points over the weekend that the Obama administration apparently thinks will turn the tide of public opinion toward him, that is, that Americans really do want healthcare reform shoved down their throats, Senior White House advisor David Axelrod admitted that despite claims of transparency, transparency from this administration won’t come until AFTER the healthcare bill is signed.

    AXELROD: I think you’re misreading the Massachusetts poll, I think want action on healthcare… the underlying elements of it are popluar and important and PEOPLE WILL NEVER KNOW WHAT'S IN THAT BILL UNTIL WE PASS IT, THE PRESIDENT SIGNS IT (my emphasis), and they have a whole range of protections they never had before.

  10. Axelrod Sounds LIKE a Insurance Company Commercial " Dont Worry Your in Good Hands"! HIS Statement Explains this Administrations ACTIONS and its THOUGHTS Regarding Citizens IQs!

    Libs Talking Heads Yesterday are Still Blaming Bush for All the Problems of THIS Administration. I Guess Massachusetts Electing a Republican was Voter Remorse against BUSH Policies! Libs You Really Showed US!

    Bruce GOT News for you The Majority IS the Minority BUT Dont WORRY,that Will Change in November!


Please keep it clean and nice. Thank you for taking the time to post you thought. It means a lot to me that you do this.