This is a spirited debate between Pete Stark and the townspeople of Fremont, California from a few days ago, and as always, Pete is being his normally charming self:
Considering how this town hall went, it's not surprising that the Democrats have decided to skip town halls in their home districts and not have face-to-face chats with their constituents, many of whom are pissed at them.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Saudi's King Abdullah Opines You Know What 2 Countries Don't Deserve to Exist: Iran & Israel
Palate Cleanser for you to chew on during lunch:
Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah probably refrained from expressing at least half this sentiment in his meeting today with President Obama: On June 5, he reportedly told French Defense Minister Hervé Morin that "There are two countries in the world that do not deserve to exist: Iran and Israel."
The scoop comes from Georges Malbrunot, a French journalist with Le Figaro. Malbrunot, a respected Middle East correspondent who spent four months as a hostage of the Islamic Army in Iraq, goes on to report that two sources, from diplomatic and military circles, have confirmed the story. He suggests that the anger directed as Israel was the result of the IDF raid on the Gaza-bound flotilla, which occurred just days before this outburst.
Boehner: We Need to Raise the Retirement Age to 70 & Other Things That'll Make Social Security Solvent| Update: Clyburn, Pelosi Twist Themselves Into Human Pretzel Rewriting Boehner's Statement
Yesterday, the House Minority Leader, John Boehner, said that we should be more like the French and raise our retirement age to 70, the point when one would be eligible for Social Security benefits:
This makes perfect sense. With people living longer than we did when Social Security was started, it seems only logical that more money would have to be doled out for longer periods of time than the program was initially designed to would cause solvency problems. Also, with medical advancements, people are living better than they did and could work longer than previous generations could. That's only one of his ideas:
Now, we all knew that the Democrats were going to jump on this like junkyard dogs on a steak bone. However, I expected some sort of "Why does the GOP hate old people?" type of talking points, but no, they threw a swerve on me with this one:
I can't find anywhere in Boehner's comments regarding his idea of raising the retirement age that has anything to do with Iraq or Afghanistan. In other words, they're lying.
A Republican-held Congress might look to raise the retirement age to 70, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) suggested Monday.
Boehner, the top Republican lawmaker in the House, said raising the retirement age by five years, indexing benefits to the rate of inflation and means-testing benefits would make the massive entitlement program more solvent.
We're all living a lot longer than anyone ever expected, Boehner said in a meeting with the editors of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. And I think that raising the retirement age — going out 20 years, so you're not affecting anyone close to retirement — and eventually getting the retirement age to 70 is a step that needs to be taken.
This makes perfect sense. With people living longer than we did when Social Security was started, it seems only logical that more money would have to be doled out for longer periods of time than the program was initially designed to would cause solvency problems. Also, with medical advancements, people are living better than they did and could work longer than previous generations could. That's only one of his ideas:
But Boehner also floated several other reforms to Social Security, paired with raising the retirement age, to make it more solvent. Boehner said benefits should be tied to increases in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) instead of wage inflation, and he suggested reducing or eliminating benefits to Americans with a substantial non-Social Security income while retired.
We just need to be honest with people, he said. I'm not suggesting it's going to be easy, but I think if we did those three things, you'd pretty well solve the problem.
Now, we all knew that the Democrats were going to jump on this like junkyard dogs on a steak bone. However, I expected some sort of "Why does the GOP hate old people?" type of talking points, but no, they threw a swerve on me with this one:
Democrats are slamming House Minority Leader John Boehner for reportedly saying the Social Security retirement age should be raised to pay for the Afghanistan war -- though Boehner's office vehemently denies he made that connection.....
"The House Republican Leader John Boehner and his GOP colleagues want to raise the Social Security retirement age to 70 and cut benefits in order to pay for George Bush's war and their failed policies of the past," House Democratic Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C., said in a written statement. "Democrats will not stand for this."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office put out a "fact sheet" accusing Boehner of wanting to "slash" Social Security not to stabilize the program, but to pay for Iraq and Afghanistan - though Iraq was not mentioned anywhere in the Tribune-Review article.
I can't find anywhere in Boehner's comments regarding his idea of raising the retirement age that has anything to do with Iraq or Afghanistan. In other words, they're lying.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Sen. Whitehouse: SCOTUS Recently “Discovered” the Individual’s Right to Bear Arms
This might be a slow week for me. Since this week is going to be dominated by the Kagan confirmation, I am not going to be writing as much because I refuse to write too much about them. Supreme Court confirmation hearings are nothing but a dog-and-pony show. Those that are being confirmed don’t ever really say what they think and tell the Senate what they’re really going to do once they get on the bench. So, I’d rather not write about something that is obviously kabuki.
Fortunately, I did find one gem from my new favorite senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.
He goes on to explain that he doesn’t want his judicial nominees to be activists and said that he was looking for “judicial restraint”, and if I didn’t know better, I would have sworn that he wanted a strict constructionist. Then, he goes on to rail on the conservative wing of the Supreme Court. He claims the THEY are the ones that are activists. He complains the Court has recently “witnessed the DISCOVERY of the individual’s right to bear arms” referencing the Heller decision, which affirmed the individual’s right to bear arms in DC. Then, he says that this is a right that had been “previously gone unnoticed by the Court for 220 years. Um, Sheldon, that’s probably because no level of government had ever tried to enforce an outright ban on guns until recently. Why would the Supreme Court have any reason to address blanket gun bans, if they didn’t exist before 1975? Before then, it was just understood that individuals had that right. There were no gun bans in the 1800’s. It was the activism of local lawmakers and lower court judges that recently discovered that the right to bear arms didn’t include individuals.
It gets especially rich, when he invokes abortion in his argument, considering that before 1973 there was no right to kill fetuses until the Court “discovered” one in Roe V Wade. Before 1973, it was just assumed that unborn babies had the same right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that everyone else did. I wonder if Whitehouse was just upset when the Court discovered that right. Somehow, I doubt it. It fits his political ideology unlike the incorporation of the Second Amendment on local governments.
Fortunately, I did find one gem from my new favorite senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.
He goes on to explain that he doesn’t want his judicial nominees to be activists and said that he was looking for “judicial restraint”, and if I didn’t know better, I would have sworn that he wanted a strict constructionist. Then, he goes on to rail on the conservative wing of the Supreme Court. He claims the THEY are the ones that are activists. He complains the Court has recently “witnessed the DISCOVERY of the individual’s right to bear arms” referencing the Heller decision, which affirmed the individual’s right to bear arms in DC. Then, he says that this is a right that had been “previously gone unnoticed by the Court for 220 years. Um, Sheldon, that’s probably because no level of government had ever tried to enforce an outright ban on guns until recently. Why would the Supreme Court have any reason to address blanket gun bans, if they didn’t exist before 1975? Before then, it was just understood that individuals had that right. There were no gun bans in the 1800’s. It was the activism of local lawmakers and lower court judges that recently discovered that the right to bear arms didn’t include individuals.
It gets especially rich, when he invokes abortion in his argument, considering that before 1973 there was no right to kill fetuses until the Court “discovered” one in Roe V Wade. Before 1973, it was just assumed that unborn babies had the same right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that everyone else did. I wonder if Whitehouse was just upset when the Court discovered that right. Somehow, I doubt it. It fits his political ideology unlike the incorporation of the Second Amendment on local governments.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Jindal Takes Page Out of Obama's Book on Transparency: Vetoes Opening Oil Spill Documents
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal (R) seems to be taking a page out of the Obama Administration's book with regards to their apparent policies on transparency:
I'm usually a big support of Jindal, but in this case I must disagree with him. I can't see any legal reason why it can't be released, unless there is something in the report that BP doesn't know about in the report. This report is considered the equivalent to an investigation of BP's wrongdoing, and like a DA, they might need to keep certain details away from the offending party, in order to ensure the success of the investigation.
However, I doubt that is the case. Jindal needs to release it. If he does indeed have aspirations to move to the big house over on Pennsylvania Ave in DC, this could haunt him as an example of his lack of transparency. Jindal takes a definite step backwards in the minds of Americans minds, after he has been seen as a real leader in the wake of Obama's lackadaisical response to the spill.
Gov. Bobby Jindal rejected a bill Friday that would have required him to make public and to preserve all his office's documents involving the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
In his veto letter, the governor said the legislation would have hurt the state's position in future litigation against BP PLC, the oil giant that leased the rig which exploded April 20 in the Gulf of Mexico, killing 11 workers and causing the disaster.
"This bill would allow BP and other parties with potential liability to the state to obtain information retained by any state agency responding to this tragic event," Jindal wrote, saying such access could jeopardize the state's position in seeking legal remedy for the spill's damage.
I'm usually a big support of Jindal, but in this case I must disagree with him. I can't see any legal reason why it can't be released, unless there is something in the report that BP doesn't know about in the report. This report is considered the equivalent to an investigation of BP's wrongdoing, and like a DA, they might need to keep certain details away from the offending party, in order to ensure the success of the investigation.
However, I doubt that is the case. Jindal needs to release it. If he does indeed have aspirations to move to the big house over on Pennsylvania Ave in DC, this could haunt him as an example of his lack of transparency. Jindal takes a definite step backwards in the minds of Americans minds, after he has been seen as a real leader in the wake of Obama's lackadaisical response to the spill.
Lead House Republican Burgess: Did the Administration Put Salazar in Witness Protection?
As the House Energy and Commerce Committee is conducting an investigation on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and the Administration role in it, there is an important piece of the puzzle that has gone MIA. Leading Republican, Michael Burgess of Texas, on the subcommittee wonders where in the world is Ken Salazar:
As far as I can tell I have found, I can find where Salazar has given any reason for his absence.
Burgess went on to go after the Obama administration for their lack of transparency in this crisis:
The American people are looking for answers in this crisis. They want to know why it happened and how it will be fixed, and as we saw in Obama's pitiful excuse for an Oval Office Address, the Administration seems to be short on answers.
Word came down Thursday evening from the House Energy and Commerce Committee Democrats:
“The joint hearing of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations and the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment entitled 'The Role of the Interior Department in the Deepwater Horizon Disaster,' scheduled for Tuesday, June 29, 2010 has been postponed. A new date and time for the hearing is to be determined.”
The star witness of the scheduled hearing? Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.
Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas), top Republican on the subcommittee has repeatedly requested oversight testimony from the Obama administration on their actions in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion.
The Majority has set up the greatest Witness Protection program this Congress has seen,” Burgess said. “Secretary Salazar had already agreed to be present for next Tuesday’s hearing, so it appears that the Democrats are delaying this hearing for purely political reasons.”
As far as I can tell I have found, I can find where Salazar has given any reason for his absence.
Burgess went on to go after the Obama administration for their lack of transparency in this crisis:
“It has been 67 days since the spill began, and we still have no sworn testimony or documents from the Obama administration before this committee,” Burgess said. “Given the frustration of the public with BP and the administration’s handling of the oil spill and response, one would think the Democrats would be eager to find out why federal authorities approved BP drilling plans and what role the federal government played in responding to the oil spill. We need answers to a host of questions and soon -- the American people are demanding answers now.”
Burgess sent a letter to Salazar asking him to prepare answers for oversight questions he would raise in the hearing. But within hours, the hearing was “delayed” until further notice.
The American people are looking for answers in this crisis. They want to know why it happened and how it will be fixed, and as we saw in Obama's pitiful excuse for an Oval Office Address, the Administration seems to be short on answers.
Breaking: Supreme Court Rules in Case That'll Reverse Chicago's Blanket Handgun Ban
The Supreme Court has just ruled against the Chicago in the McDonald v Chicago handgun ban case. While not specifically striking it down the handgun ban in Chicago, it will no doubt be the end result. It will, also, put both existing and potential handgun bans in other cities on the chopping blocks.
Justice Alito, who wrote the majority opinion, in this case explains their decision:
While Alito and the 4 other judges that voted for the ban pointed out that the Second Amendment should be incorporated for local governments just as it is with the federal government.
The 4 dissenting judges were arguing more for an “incorporation for me, but not for thee” view of the second amendment, as Justice Scalia portrays in the dissenting opinion:
The dissenting judges are letting their personal political views get in the way of their decision in this case. Their aversion for guns is the only reason why they are would go against McDonald here. There is no legit legal reason for incorporating every other amendment, including illegal search and seizure, freedom of press, and due process, but not the right to bear arms. Blanket handgun bans will very soon be nothing short of a bad memory.
Justice Alito, who wrote the majority opinion, in this case explains their decision:
Despite all this evidence, municipal respondents argue that Members of Congress overwhelmingly viewed §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment as purely an antidiscrimination rule. But while §1 does contain an antidiscrimination rule, i.e., the Equal Protection Clause, it can hardly be said that the section does no more than prohibit discrimination. If what municipal respondents mean is that the Second Amendment should be singled out for special—and specially unfavorable—treatment, the Court rejects the suggestion. The right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner.
While Alito and the 4 other judges that voted for the ban pointed out that the Second Amendment should be incorporated for local governments just as it is with the federal government.
The 4 dissenting judges were arguing more for an “incorporation for me, but not for thee” view of the second amendment, as Justice Scalia portrays in the dissenting opinion:
The next constraint JUSTICE STEVENS suggests is harder to evaluate. He describes as “an important tool for guiding judicial discretion” “sensitivity to the interaction between the intrinsic aspects of liberty and the practical realities of contemporary society.” Post, at 24. I cannot say whether that sensitivity will really guide judges because I have no idea what it is. Is it some sixth sense instilled in judges when they ascend to the bench? Or does it mean judge sare more constrained when they agonize about the cosmic conflict between liberty and its potentially harmful consequences? Attempting to give the concept more precision, JUSTICE STEVENS explains that “sensitivity is an aspect of a deeper principle: the need to approach our work with humility and caution.” Ibid. Both traits are undeniably admirable, though what relation they bear to sensitivity is a mystery. But it makes no difference, for the first case JUSTICE STEVENS cites in support, see ibid., Casey, 505 U. S., at 849, dispels any illusion that he has a meaningful form of judicial modesty in mind.
JUSTICE STEVENS offers no examples to illustrate the next constraint: stare decisis, post, at 25. But his view of it is surely not very confining, since he holds out as a “canonical” exemplar of the proper approach, see post, at 16, 54, Lawrence, which overruled a case decided a mere 17 years earlier, Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U. S. 186 (1986), see 539 U. S., at 578 (it “was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today”). Moreover, JUSTICE STEVENS would apply that constraint unevenly: He apparently approves those Warren Court cases that adopted jotfor-jot incorporation of procedural protections for criminal defendants, post, at 11, but would abandon those Warren Court rulings that undercut his approach to substantive rights, on the basis that we have “cut back” on cases from that era before, post, at 12.
The dissenting judges are letting their personal political views get in the way of their decision in this case. Their aversion for guns is the only reason why they are would go against McDonald here. There is no legit legal reason for incorporating every other amendment, including illegal search and seizure, freedom of press, and due process, but not the right to bear arms. Blanket handgun bans will very soon be nothing short of a bad memory.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Hillary Clinton: Forget About Feeding Third World’s Starving Babies, We Have to Fund Killing Unborn Ones Too
The Obama Administration seems to care more about furthering their liberal political agenda worldwide more than making sure women and children remain healthy in the some of the poorest parts of the world:
It does seem to be an odd form of “smart diplomacy” to politicize and hold a program that would make sure to limit infant deaths hostage to make sure that funding for abortions are included in the package that would be sent to these impoverished countries, but here it is:
As Allahpundit points out, it is beyond ironic and hypocritical for the same people that criticized Bush for holding out on the same kind of funding to the third world in order to make sure that it doesn’t fund abortions. Then, they turn around and hold out on sending money to help the poorest among us to make sure that money for abortions are included in the money being sent to ensure the health of babies:
Indeed!
On the agenda at the G8 summit in Canada is promoting maternal and infant health in the poorest parts of the globe. The high rates of maternal and infant mortality in many countries are an impediment to democracy and social development, to say nothing of a human tragedy for these communities. Commitments of resources from the G8 countries to address these problems should be welcomed and commended. Why, then, is the Obama delegation threatening to derail these agreements?
It does seem to be an odd form of “smart diplomacy” to politicize and hold a program that would make sure to limit infant deaths hostage to make sure that funding for abortions are included in the package that would be sent to these impoverished countries, but here it is:
Given this, one would expect there to be universal support for Canada’s leadership in taking on these problems and working to meet these critical needs. But the Obama administration is obstructing this positive consensus. Hillary Clinton, when asked about Canada’s G8 plan to address infant and maternal health in the developing world, said the following: “You cannot have maternal health without reproductive health. And reproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortion.”
It is surprising that Hillary Clinton would insist on funding for abortion and risk derailing an initiative that is poised to generate unprecedented commitments in both the private and public sectors. It is especially surprising considering the body of recent scientific evidence supporting the effectiveness of various straightforward, uncontroversial, and achievable means to reduce maternal and infant mortality.
When top U.S. officials change the subject away from important global policy and development work to push for favored hot-button political issues, it gives the appearance of using American taxpayer funding to promote social engineering, bypassing public debate about the best way to achieve development worldwide and address the very real unmet needs of the developing world. Does Hillary Clinton think it is more important to promote liberal Western ideologies than to address the critical needs of the women and children of Africa and Asia? Does she prefer to promote the tired, old eugenic orthodoxies of the largely discredited population-control movement? Is Hillary Clinton — and the Obama administration — willing to hold up funding for maternal and infant health because of a dogmatic commitment to a universal right to abortion on demand? What about the rights of countless women all over the world who want to bring children into the world safely, without risking their lives and the lives of their children?
As Allahpundit points out, it is beyond ironic and hypocritical for the same people that criticized Bush for holding out on the same kind of funding to the third world in order to make sure that it doesn’t fund abortions. Then, they turn around and hold out on sending money to help the poorest among us to make sure that money for abortions are included in the money being sent to ensure the health of babies:
Besides, Hillary’s statement is nothing short of idiotic. Maternal health does not depend on abortion. In fact, abortion is a rather moot point when it comes to the stage of worrying about the health of mothers of newborn infants, isn’t it?
Indeed!
It’s Come to This: Schwarzenegger Threatens to Lower CA State Workers’ Wages to Minimum If State Budget Not Passed
Apparently, the Govahnatah is prepared to hit the nuclear button, if the Democratic-controlled California legislature fails to pass a budget this year:
This may end up being an empty threat, however, because the men that actually signs the checks for California’s state employees have gone on the record to saying that he will take that take it under advisement and refuse to follow that potential order. Still, this shows how dire the deficit situation is in California.
After enduring more than a year of unpaid monthly furlough days, state workers could see their pay cut to minimum wage until Sacramento strikes a budget accord this summer, according to a memo from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration sent Wednesday.
This may end up being an empty threat, however, because the men that actually signs the checks for California’s state employees have gone on the record to saying that he will take that take it under advisement and refuse to follow that potential order. Still, this shows how dire the deficit situation is in California.
AZ Governor Blasts Obama Regarding Lack of Border Security in Latest Campaign Ad
In her latest campaign ad, the Arizona Governor blasted the president for not protecting our border especially in her state. Illegal immigration and the Mexican drug cartels have turned Southern Arizona into a “enter at your own risk” zone for Americans and, basically, ceded part of the state to the Mexican drug cartels. This spot is definitely a point-on criticism of the failure of Obama’s White House to protect its own citizens.
One might wonder why she’d spend her campaign funds on an ad that is going after the President and not her actual opponent in November, Terry Goddard (D). She must show that she is standing up to the federal government with this security issue. The violence at the border and throughout the state resulting from the drug cartels is very ranked high in among the most important issues that Arizonians are worried about this November. With this ad, she did a very good job here demonstrating her leadership in this issue.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Oh My: AZ Gov Brewer Argues Most Illegal Immigrants Are Drug Mules
Governor Brewer responded to questions on the illegal immigration bill saying that most illegals are drug smugglers:
While I agree with the law overall, this is a misguided attempt at explaining why we need border security. There is no doubt that there are some that are smuggling drugs into the country, and drug cartels are becoming an ever-increasing danger to American border agents, agents, and citizens around the border for some time. However, to use the blanket accusation that "most" are in danger is a bit too much. Most are looking for a better life than Mexico or other poverty-stricken country could ever provide them. The governor would be well-served to avoid overgeneralizations and demagoguery in the future.
Unfortunately, though, one bad apple ruins the whole bunch. We must know who's coming into our country because it only takes one suitcase nuke that terrorists could smuggle in to kill millions of innocent people. The border must be protected for the protection of us all. Both of the Bush and Obama administrations have let politics get in the way of our safety, and if the federal government keeps abdicating their responsibilities of guarding our borders, it must be up to the states and local governments to pick up the slack.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said Friday most illegal immigrants entering Arizona are being used to transport drugs across the border. Brewer said the motivation of "a lot" of the illegal immigrants is to enter the United States to look for work, but that drug rings press them into duty as drug "mules."
"I believe today, under the circumstances that we're facing, that the majority of the illegal trespassers that are coming into the state of Arizona are under the direction and control of organized drug cartels and they are bringing drugs in," Brewer said.
"There's strong information to us that they come as illegal people wanting to come to work. Then they are accosted and they become subjects of the drug cartel," she said.
While I agree with the law overall, this is a misguided attempt at explaining why we need border security. There is no doubt that there are some that are smuggling drugs into the country, and drug cartels are becoming an ever-increasing danger to American border agents, agents, and citizens around the border for some time. However, to use the blanket accusation that "most" are in danger is a bit too much. Most are looking for a better life than Mexico or other poverty-stricken country could ever provide them. The governor would be well-served to avoid overgeneralizations and demagoguery in the future.
Unfortunately, though, one bad apple ruins the whole bunch. We must know who's coming into our country because it only takes one suitcase nuke that terrorists could smuggle in to kill millions of innocent people. The border must be protected for the protection of us all. Both of the Bush and Obama administrations have let politics get in the way of our safety, and if the federal government keeps abdicating their responsibilities of guarding our borders, it must be up to the states and local governments to pick up the slack.
Good Luck With That: N Korea Seeks US to Pay $75T in Compensation For Korean War
Kim Jong Il must've officially gone crazy:
Stupid: on so many levels. It's like Germany seeking restitution from the Allies and Israel for WW1/2 or a drunk driver asking the family of the people he killed to pay for the repairs on his car.
This is really just an example of more crazy ramblings from the communist despot. Nothing should come from it. Obama will most definately laugh it off as I have. Still, it's the best laugh I've had in a while.
Cash-strapped North Korea has demanded the United States pay almost $US65 trillion ($75 trillion) in compensation for six decades of hostility.
The official North Korean news agency, KCNA, says the cost of the damage done by the US since the peninsula was divided in 1945 is estimated at $US64.96 trillion.
The compensation call comes on the eve of the 60th anniversary of the start of the 1950-1953 Korean War.
KCNA said the figure includes $US26.1 trillion arising from US "atrocities" which left more than 5 million North Koreans dead, wounded, kidnapped or missing.
Stupid: on so many levels. It's like Germany seeking restitution from the Allies and Israel for WW1/2 or a drunk driver asking the family of the people he killed to pay for the repairs on his car.
This is really just an example of more crazy ramblings from the communist despot. Nothing should come from it. Obama will most definately laugh it off as I have. Still, it's the best laugh I've had in a while.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs: National Debt Trumps All As #1 Threat to America
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, recently opined about what he thought was the greatest risk to national security. Is it Iran, Bin Laden, carbon dioxide…? No, it’s the spendapalooza going on in Washington over the past decade:
This is on-point analysis from the COJC. Ed Morrissey breaks it down even further as to why the national debt and ever-increasing deficit spending trumps all as the #1 threat to the future of the United States:
I agree. It is imperative that we get the DC spending spree. If we don’t, we won’t have the money to do anything much less protect this country from terrorists, Social Security, or even just filling potholes on the streets.
This is on-point analysis from the COJC. Ed Morrissey breaks it down even further as to why the national debt and ever-increasing deficit spending trumps all as the #1 threat to the future of the United States:
We are rapidly approaching the point at which we can no longer fund a robust defense system for the US and the Western world. Our ability to maintain forward strategies to engage and destroy terrorist networks will disappear, but not before we have to scale back our military presence around the world. We have overspent for decades across the board, and the interest payments on the national debt alone will cost us more than our defense systems — on top of which the heavy burden of unfunded entitlement liabilities will start cresting as the Baby Boomers enter retirement. Steve Eggleston updates us on the quickening slide of Social Security into the red, just to remind us of that fact.
I agree. It is imperative that we get the DC spending spree. If we don’t, we won’t have the money to do anything much less protect this country from terrorists, Social Security, or even just filling potholes on the streets.
Harry Reid Says GOP Wants US to Fail Forgetting That He Chastised Limbaugh For Saying He Wants Obama to Fail
Harry Reid recently had a bowl of sour grapes after Republicans just said “no” to spending an extra $109B that we don’t have to extend unemployment benefits:
Listen, I feel for those that are feeling the pinch of unemployment, but there has to be a point when we have to cut the apron strings and get the out-of-control spending back in black. It is a calculated risk drawing the line in the sand with unemployment benefits. It could bite the Republicans back in November. We’ll see at the polling booth, whether or not it is political suicide as the Democrats are trying to portray it.
Back to Harry Reid’s comment, he is trying to demonize the GOP by saying that they don’t care about playing politics at the expense of the common man. That’s rich for someone that wants to pass cap-and-tax and causing energy prices to skyrocket in the process in order to push their green agenda.
I, also, find it really hypocritical for him to say that they want the GOP to fail, after he went in front of the Senate to chastise Rush Limbaugh for saying that he wants Obama to fail. In fact, it’s worse. Reid implied that the GOP wants the entire country to fail. Rush only said that he wants Obama’s ultra-liberal agenda to fail not the country as a whole. The Democrats just tried to paint Limbaugh’s comment as saying that he wants the country to fail because, if you look at what he said in its entirety, that’s not actually what he said.
Reid must be pretty desperate these days considering that he pretty far behind Sharon Angle in the Nevada Senate race even though his camp denies it.
The morning after the Senate failed to advance a bill that responded to the recession, Sen. Harry Reid laid into Republicans who blocked it en masse.
Clearly sore after falling three votes short Thursday night of the 60 needed to overcome a Republican filibuster, the Senate majority leader from Nevada charged in a Senate speech that GOP senators "are betting on the our country to fail."
Rather than help Americans, he said, Republicans are more interested in bringing down President Barack Obama.
"The Republicans in the Senate have made the decision to do everything they can to turn the country upside down, to do everything they can to stop economic recovery because they think it may help some of their people running for the Senate around the country.
"They figure as bad as they can make the economy, the better off they will be," Reid said. "That is a pretty difficult view for people who are United States senators."
"As we learned from the health care debate, (Republicans) want everything that Obama wants to be his Waterloo."
Listen, I feel for those that are feeling the pinch of unemployment, but there has to be a point when we have to cut the apron strings and get the out-of-control spending back in black. It is a calculated risk drawing the line in the sand with unemployment benefits. It could bite the Republicans back in November. We’ll see at the polling booth, whether or not it is political suicide as the Democrats are trying to portray it.
Back to Harry Reid’s comment, he is trying to demonize the GOP by saying that they don’t care about playing politics at the expense of the common man. That’s rich for someone that wants to pass cap-and-tax and causing energy prices to skyrocket in the process in order to push their green agenda.
I, also, find it really hypocritical for him to say that they want the GOP to fail, after he went in front of the Senate to chastise Rush Limbaugh for saying that he wants Obama to fail. In fact, it’s worse. Reid implied that the GOP wants the entire country to fail. Rush only said that he wants Obama’s ultra-liberal agenda to fail not the country as a whole. The Democrats just tried to paint Limbaugh’s comment as saying that he wants the country to fail because, if you look at what he said in its entirety, that’s not actually what he said.
Reid must be pretty desperate these days considering that he pretty far behind Sharon Angle in the Nevada Senate race even though his camp denies it.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
US Rep Kanjorski (D-PA) Says Unemployment Benefits Are For "Average, Good" Americans Not Minorities or Defective People
US Rep. Paul Kanjorski had some very interesting additions to the normal Democratic points that I other Congressmen like Senator Whitehouse so eloquently spelled out for us, yesterday. Apparently, minorities and “defective” people are not “average , good American people, and the unemployment benefits weren’t meant for them. I've been trying to embed the video for the past two hours, and it won't go. I give up. You can find it here.
What is up with Democrats from Pennsylvania? Why does everyone says that the Democratic party is the party for minorities and all racists are Republicans? Probably, it is because the mainstream media will hide it just like they will bury this. There is a lot of racism buried in the Democratic party. There are just better at hiding it and pretending that it doesn’t exist.
Update:
What is up with Democrats from Pennsylvania? Why does everyone says that the Democratic party is the party for minorities and all racists are Republicans? Probably, it is because the mainstream media will hide it just like they will bury this. There is a lot of racism buried in the Democratic party. There are just better at hiding it and pretending that it doesn’t exist.
Update:
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Democratic RI Senator: We Need to Keep Spending Because of There Was a "Republican Debt Orgy" Under Bush or Something
There are a few points that Whitehouse made that deserves comment. The most obvious is claim that is hypocritical for Republicans to complain about deficit spending because of their “spending orgy” during the Bush years. Apparently, the fact that the Democrats controlled Congress for the past 4 years and Obama has increased the “spending orgy” by leaps and bounds over whatever Bush spent over the past year and a half is completely lost on the Democratic Senator from Rhode Island:
At $13 trillion, that figure has risen by $2.4 trillion in about 500 days since President Obama took office, or an average of $4.9 billion a day. That's almost three times the daily average of $1.7 billion under the previous administration, and led Republicans on Wednesday to place blame squarely at the feet of Mr. Obama and his fellow Democrats.
Spending three times as much as the previous administration did isn’t called cleaning up the mess. It is grabbing a shovel and digging us into a deeper ditch.
Of course, he used the same straw boogeymen of Bush and that every liberal uses to demonize the right. Bush hadn’t been around for the past 18 months and is a cheap hit. Second, Wall Street had little to do with the reason why the recession happened. The housing bubble bursting because of the Democrats’ deregulation of Fannie and Freddie is. That’s all I have to say about that. Really, that argument is old.
Another hole in his argument that is completely eluding the Senator is when he argues that a $25 increase of benefits isn’t that big of a deal, and it isn’t that much money. He’s missing the forest for the trees here. Granted, an extra $25 for one family isn’t that much money. However, when you multiply that by how many people that would receive that extra $25, it is an exorbitant amount. For example, let’s just take his state of Rhode Island. By his own admission he has about 71.000 people unemployed in his state. If all 71,000 people received an extra $25, that would lead to an increase in spending of $1.775 million. Sorry senator that is not chump change. Now, let’s look at that extra money from the perspective of the recipient. Twenty-five dollar increase really won’t really mean much to them. Unless there’s a hole in the bottom of their shoes, a new pair of shoes is not necessary. Plus, $25 won’t buy them but a few extra groceries. It definitely won’t be the difference between starving to death and a adequate diet.
PS.
Should he really be emphasizing the 12% unemployment rate in his state, a state that is completely controlled by Democrats for decades? That is close to 3% higher than the national average. Does that the fact that their rate might be higher than the national average because of the policies of his own party more than the policies of the party that he is leveling his tirade against? Hmm!
New Orleans Judge Lifts Obama's Offshore Drilling Moratorium, Allowing Thousands to Go Back to Work
A judge out of New Orleans lifted the moratorium on offshore drilling, yesterday. This will, in turn, put thousands of Gulf residents back to work, after Obama put a stop to all off-shore drilling earlier this year:
Governor Bobby Jindal asked the judge to lift the ban because it was costing people their livelihoods, and the judge agreed that with the Louisiana Governor. Many wondered why the moratorium was even still in place after all of this time:
If all of the other drilling platforms passed the inspections that the government put them through, why were they closed down for so long? There is no logical reason for it. It'll cost thousands of people their jobs, take millions of dollars out of the Gulf's economy, and eventually raise gas prices on all of us. The longer they're not working the worse that'll be. Could it be that he's following Rahmbo's advice and not wasting a crisis.
Obama implied in his televised Oval Office telecast that he wants to use this issue to push his green agenda.
A New Orleans federal judge lifted the six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling imposed by President Barack Obama following the largest oil spill in U.S. history.Obama temporarily halted all drilling in waters deeper than 500 feet on May 27 to give a presidential commission time to study improvements in the safety of offshore operations. Government lawyers told U.S. District Judge Martin Feldmanthat the sinking of the Deepwater Horizon rig off the Louisiana coast in April was a “game changer’’ that exposed the risks of offshore oil exploration.“We need to make sure deepwater drilling is as safe as we thought it was the day before this incident,’’ Brian Collins, a lawyer for the government, told Feldman in a court hearing June 21. “It is crucial to take the time because to fail to do so would be to gamble with the long-term future of this region.’’
More than a dozen Louisiana offshore service and supply companies sued U.S. regulators to lift the ban. State officials claim 20,000 Louisiana jobs are in jeopardy if the deepwater drilling suspension lasts 18 months.
Governor Bobby Jindal asked the judge to lift the ban because it was costing people their livelihoods, and the judge agreed that with the Louisiana Governor. Many wondered why the moratorium was even still in place after all of this time:
Lawyers for the drilling companies told Feldman the moratorium illegally sidesteps a required industry comment period. They also said regulators failed to tell Obama that all active deepwater rigs passed an immediate re-inspection after the Deepwater Horizon exploded and sank, with only two rigs reporting minor violations and the rest getting approval to continue operations.
If all of the other drilling platforms passed the inspections that the government put them through, why were they closed down for so long? There is no logical reason for it. It'll cost thousands of people their jobs, take millions of dollars out of the Gulf's economy, and eventually raise gas prices on all of us. The longer they're not working the worse that'll be. Could it be that he's following Rahmbo's advice and not wasting a crisis.
Obama implied in his televised Oval Office telecast that he wants to use this issue to push his green agenda.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
German Chancellor Merkel Defies Obama, Just Says No to Kenseyian Economics & More Stimulus
Just days after Obama pleaded with Europe to go further down the rabbit hole into debt, German chancellor responded with a Hell no. Apparently, Europe has learned the lessons from what happened to Greece better than Obama has:
As Ed Morrissey explains, this is going to put Obama and the US, as a whole, in a different role than we're used to fulfilling. We'll be taking a back-seat to Europe regarding financial matters instead of a leading role:
Are we living in bizzaro world? Has the United States started moving to the left of Europe? The European Union has seen right there in their own backyard with Greece what happens when deficit spending and debts run amock, and their not wanting to see the sequal in their own countries. So, they've decided to go back to black instead of diving deeper in the red as Obama seems determined to do.
Europe has been inching to the right for a while now. With the election of more center-right candidate like the German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Europe has seemed to have seen the error in their socialist ways, for now. Will Obama learn from their mistakes? Doubtful. Apparently, he won't believe them that the iron is hot. He's going to burn his hand learning that drowning in debt is no the way to dig ourselves out of this economic and financial hole that both parties have dug ourselves into. Hopefully, the upcoming conservative wave that should hit Washington in November will turn things around, and we'll focus back on the getting rid of the debt instead of adding to it.
Europe will push for a swift exit from fiscal stimulus programs and a focus on budget consolidation at the G20 meeting next week, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Saturday.
"European participants are of the opinion that this is urgently necessary to prevent such crises from happening again in the future," Merkel said in her weekly podcast.
As Ed Morrissey explains, this is going to put Obama and the US, as a whole, in a different role than we're used to fulfilling. We'll be taking a back-seat to Europe regarding financial matters instead of a leading role:
It’s a strong rebuff to Obama, who explicitly asked the EU to continue its stimulus spending despite the debt issue in the US reaching a critical stage. It puts the Obama administration to the left of Europe on economic policy, never a comfortable political position in the US. With the Europeans abandoning big-spending programs in order to start whittling down the massive debt piled up from decades of social spending and weak economic growth, there will be less enthusiasm for continuing to ignore the American national debt in favor of make-work projects in the US that has done little to lift the economy here.
Furthermore, the divide threatens to weaken American economic leadership in the G-20 if Obama insists on pursuing big-spending programs and increasing American debt. Europe will see that as a sign that the US has not learned any lessons from the Greece failure, and that the Obama administration wants to follow the Greeks into collapse. We’re becoming a bad bet, and the EU knows what that looks like.
Are we living in bizzaro world? Has the United States started moving to the left of Europe? The European Union has seen right there in their own backyard with Greece what happens when deficit spending and debts run amock, and their not wanting to see the sequal in their own countries. So, they've decided to go back to black instead of diving deeper in the red as Obama seems determined to do.
Europe has been inching to the right for a while now. With the election of more center-right candidate like the German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Europe has seemed to have seen the error in their socialist ways, for now. Will Obama learn from their mistakes? Doubtful. Apparently, he won't believe them that the iron is hot. He's going to burn his hand learning that drowning in debt is no the way to dig ourselves out of this economic and financial hole that both parties have dug ourselves into. Hopefully, the upcoming conservative wave that should hit Washington in November will turn things around, and we'll focus back on the getting rid of the debt instead of adding to it.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Is Obama Public Enemy #1 in Britain Right Now?
Ahhh! You have to love this style of "smart diplomacy" that this era of hope-and-change has brought us. In 18 short months Obama has gone from the British media darling to "the most unpopular man in Britain". That is impressive:
His recent handling and public persecution of the British-based. BP seems to have been the proverbial straw that even brought his most staunch supporters to criticize him:
Of course, this hasn't been the first time that Obama's brand of "smart diplomacy" as went awry, when he has dealt with the UK. Obama has stumbled time and again, when he has dealt with Great Britain. He sent back the bust of Churchill, gave Gordon Brown a set of DVDs that won’t even work in British DVD players, and transferred Gitmo prisoners to Bermuda without telling the British government about it intentionally. He has damaged, possibly irreparably, the relationship between the two countries, at least while Obama is still in office:
Obama has lost sight of the fact that he needs Europe and Israel, and he has ostracized America’s best allies even worse than Bush had. According to the British people, he is rapidly becoming the least popular American president in recent memory:
If this is his idea of repairing America’s standing in the world and restoring the ties between America’s closest allies, it’s a joke. Everyone else is finally realizing what Obama’s critics have been saying since 2008. He has no idea how to be diplomatic, and his zero experience in foreign diplomacy is a liability, when he attempts to deal with other world leaders. He will have an even harder time getting people to help us in Iraq or Afghanistan. Plus, he will need help from them to solve the financial crisis and bring us out of this recession. He is only making it harder on himself and America as a whole in all our future interactions with Europe. He needs to wise-up and find that “reset” button that he used with Russia and use it with the UK, Israel, and the rest of Europe. He needs to completely retool his approach to handling our closest allies. If he doesn’t, we may not have these allies anymore by the time his term ends in 2012.
What a difference 18 months and an oil spill makes. In January 2009 Barack Obama was hugely popular on this side of the Atlantic, and could have walked on water in the eyes of the British media, the political elites, and the general public. In June 2010 however he probably qualifies as the most despised US president since Nixon among the British people. In fact you can’t open a London paper at this time without reading yet another fiery broadside against a leader who famously boasted of restoring “America’s standing” in the world.
When even Obama’s most ardent political supporters in Britain, including Boris Johnson, are on the offensive against the White House, you know the president’s halo has dramatically slipped. It’s hard to believe that any politician could become more disliked in the UK than Gordon Brown, but Barack Obama is achieving that in spades. And as Janet Daley noted of the British press, the love affair with Barack is well and truly over.
His recent handling and public persecution of the British-based. BP seems to have been the proverbial straw that even brought his most staunch supporters to criticize him:
The key catalyst for rising anti-Obama sentiment in the UK has been his disastrous handling of the BP issue, and his relentless desire to crush Britain’s biggest company. There is no doubting BP’s responsibility over the Gulf oil disaster, and it is right that the firm is being held to account for its failures. But the brutal, almost sadistic trashing of BP by the imperious Obama administration, which has helped wipe out about half its value, threatens its very future, as well as the pensions of 18 million British people and the jobs of 29,000 Americans. There is now the very real danger of the bankrupting of a great British enterprise, and the prospect even of a Chinese or Russian takeover.
Instead of adopting a constructive, statesmanlike approach, Barack Obama’s decision to launch a “boot on the throat” campaign, while adopting a thinly veiled Brit-bashing agenda, has generated significant bad blood in America’s closest ally. At the same time, the president has inexplicably rejected offers of help from the UK and an array of European countries, no doubt out of both pride and protectionism.
Of course, this hasn't been the first time that Obama's brand of "smart diplomacy" as went awry, when he has dealt with the UK. Obama has stumbled time and again, when he has dealt with Great Britain. He sent back the bust of Churchill, gave Gordon Brown a set of DVDs that won’t even work in British DVD players, and transferred Gitmo prisoners to Bermuda without telling the British government about it intentionally. He has damaged, possibly irreparably, the relationship between the two countries, at least while Obama is still in office:
As I wrote previously, we are witnessing one of the worst exercises in public diplomacy by a US government in recent memory, one that could cause significant long-term damage to the incredibly important economic and political partnership between Great Britain and the United States. And for those who say this is minor storm in a tea cup, I would point out that it is highly unusual for a British Prime Minister to have to stand up to an onslaught against British interests by an American president, as David Cameron has just done. In fact the prospect of a major confrontation between Downing Street and the White House grows stronger by the day.
Obama has lost sight of the fact that he needs Europe and Israel, and he has ostracized America’s best allies even worse than Bush had. According to the British people, he is rapidly becoming the least popular American president in recent memory:
The Anglo-American Special Relationship, the most successful partnership of modern times, will survive long after President Obama departs the White House. It is far bigger than any one president or prime minister. But there can be no doubt that it is being significantly damaged and weakened at this moment by the Obama administration’s sneering approach towards Great Britain, at a time when British and American soldiers are fighting and dying alongside each other in a major war in Afghanistan. President Obama needs to see the big picture and understand that his anti-British posturing is hugely counter-productive and highly offensive. He is already one of the least popular US presidents of modern times, not only in the eyes of the American people, but now the people of Britain as well.
If this is his idea of repairing America’s standing in the world and restoring the ties between America’s closest allies, it’s a joke. Everyone else is finally realizing what Obama’s critics have been saying since 2008. He has no idea how to be diplomatic, and his zero experience in foreign diplomacy is a liability, when he attempts to deal with other world leaders. He will have an even harder time getting people to help us in Iraq or Afghanistan. Plus, he will need help from them to solve the financial crisis and bring us out of this recession. He is only making it harder on himself and America as a whole in all our future interactions with Europe. He needs to wise-up and find that “reset” button that he used with Russia and use it with the UK, Israel, and the rest of Europe. He needs to completely retool his approach to handling our closest allies. If he doesn’t, we may not have these allies anymore by the time his term ends in 2012.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Administration Says Climate Change Bill Is Top Priority Over the Summer: Good Luck With That
Bill Burton, Obama's deputy press secretary, made the claim, while on a liberal talk show today, that passing climate change bill this summer in a priority for the Obama Administration:
This would seem to indicate that Obama would like to resurrect the cap-n-tax debate. The liberal Democratic leadership will definitely be tempted to push it this year, but the toxicity of the issue for those up for election will lead many Democrats in oil, gas, and coal states to balk at the mention of a tax that will cripple their state/districts' economies right before their constituents will decide their employment status for the next 2 or 6 years:
While many believe that it won't happen this year, the same lawmakers believe that it might be possible next year:
I believe that while Congress' jobs hang in the balance, there won't be anything more than a whisper about cap-and-trade. Although, if (I can't stress IF enough) Democrats retain their heavy advantage over the Republicans after November, then, we will see it brought up next year. However, the far more likely scenario is that Republicans will have heavy gains this year and possibly gain control of at least the House. This will make it basically impossible for cap-and-tax to go anywhere near a floor vote. As long as everything goes as it looks like it will now, we shouldn't have to worry about a carbon tax. Congress passing more safety regulations regarding off-shore drilling platforms seems far more likely and perhaps needed.
Passing an energy bill will be President Barack Obama's top legislative priority this summer, White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton said Wednesday.
The president's main focus will shift to working toward a comprehensive energy bill once the Congress finishes up work on Wall Street reform, a process that is expected to conclude this month.
I would say that just in terms of timing, obviously, financial regulatory reform, that goes first, Burton said during an appearance on the liberal Bill Press radio show when asked if energy would be the top legislative priority for the White House.
After we get through that, yes, Burton added.
Obama underscored the need for energy legislation Tuesday night during his Oval Office address, saying he's open to all approaches that would help transition the U.S. toward using renewable, clean energy sources.
This would seem to indicate that Obama would like to resurrect the cap-n-tax debate. The liberal Democratic leadership will definitely be tempted to push it this year, but the toxicity of the issue for those up for election will lead many Democrats in oil, gas, and coal states to balk at the mention of a tax that will cripple their state/districts' economies right before their constituents will decide their employment status for the next 2 or 6 years:
Does that mean cap-and-trade is dead? It’s been pronounced dead on several occasions during the year, only to have Democratic leadership pledge to push forward this year. They don’t have much choice; if the bill doesn’t get passed in this session of Congress, it will have to be reintroduced from scratch in the House next year. As it is, the House will have to have at least one more vote on it to get it to Obama’s desk, probably in a conference committee, if the Senate passes its version. Next year, Democrats won’t have the votes to pass it, and in the House may not have control of the agenda to even get it to a vote.
That’s the conundrum, however. Any Democrat in a competitive district foolish enough to vote for cap-and-trade in the final few months before the general election can assume that his legislative career will come to an end. Many Democrats won’t be returning anyway, but they might believe a chance exists to avoid the tsunami coming in November if they can demonstrate some independence from Nancy Pelosi with a couple of late votes — and cap-and-trade would be an excellent target for strategic voting on their part.
While many believe that it won't happen this year, the same lawmakers believe that it might be possible next year:
Some Democratic lawmakers have raised concerns that voting on the climate plan could create a political backlash in the November elections.
“There’s not a great call for it in the Democratic caucus,” said West Virginia Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller, who has argued against taking up the bill. Feinstein said last week she believed climate legislation could be passed next year.
I believe that while Congress' jobs hang in the balance, there won't be anything more than a whisper about cap-and-trade. Although, if (I can't stress IF enough) Democrats retain their heavy advantage over the Republicans after November, then, we will see it brought up next year. However, the far more likely scenario is that Republicans will have heavy gains this year and possibly gain control of at least the House. This will make it basically impossible for cap-and-tax to go anywhere near a floor vote. As long as everything goes as it looks like it will now, we shouldn't have to worry about a carbon tax. Congress passing more safety regulations regarding off-shore drilling platforms seems far more likely and perhaps needed.
Feinstein: Sorry, Champ! Climate Bill Won't Stop the Oil From Leaking
The morning after Obama used the Oval Office Address that was supposed to be about how he planned to fix the Gulf Oil Spill Crisis to push Congress to pass the Climate Change Bill instead, liberal California Senator Diane Feinstein had interesting remarks regarding Obama's mention of the climate bill during his supposed Gulf Oil Spill speech:
Amazing! Even a Democrat has gun-ho about climate change as she is sees the absurdity of Obama bringing that up during that speech last night.
Overall, the speech was horrible as even MSNBC's Olbermann and Mathews couldn't believe how bad it was and how it was void of anything that resembled details on exactly how he was going to get done all that he has promised to do for the past two months.
Obama's "disaster of a disaster speech" was nothing but a thinly-veiled attempt at using this crisis to his advantage. He was looking to elicit sympathy and support for his green, anti-oil agenda from the American people, in order to allow Congress the ability to ram the climate bill through with minimal backlash in November from the electorate. Mission not accomplished, Mr. President. You only succeeded in making some your most staunch supporters start to question your leadership abilities.
The BP Plc oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is unlikely to create enough momentum to pass a comprehensive climate bill sought by President Barack Obama, say leading Senate Democrats.
Many Democrats don’t want to vote in this election year on whether to cap the greenhouse-gas emissions linked to climate change, saying they prefer to work in the coming months on legislation directly responding to the spill.
“The climate bill isn’t going to stop the oil leak,” said Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat. “The first thing you have to do is stop the oil leak.”
Amazing! Even a Democrat has gun-ho about climate change as she is sees the absurdity of Obama bringing that up during that speech last night.
Overall, the speech was horrible as even MSNBC's Olbermann and Mathews couldn't believe how bad it was and how it was void of anything that resembled details on exactly how he was going to get done all that he has promised to do for the past two months.
Obama's "disaster of a disaster speech" was nothing but a thinly-veiled attempt at using this crisis to his advantage. He was looking to elicit sympathy and support for his green, anti-oil agenda from the American people, in order to allow Congress the ability to ram the climate bill through with minimal backlash in November from the electorate. Mission not accomplished, Mr. President. You only succeeded in making some your most staunch supporters start to question your leadership abilities.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Miss Me Yet?: Louisiana Residents Say Bush Handled Katrina Better Than Obama Handled BP Spill
A new PPP poll that looked at how Louisiana residents feel about Obama's handling of the BP oil spill has revealed somewhat shocking results:
This is huge. It shows that people have become fed up with the inaction from Obama regarding the clean up project. Now, the difference in between the two isn't big, but the fact that it is even close is still big. Polls like this is why Obama has been down in the Gulf states almost everyday this week and plans on doing an address from the Oval Office on the subject, tonight. People from the left and right have been complaining, and it is catching up to him.
Not surprisingly, BP has taken a biggest hit in the world of public opinion:
Another surprising finding is that people haven't soured on off-shore drilling as everyone thought they would have. I guess this didn't "change the psyche" of the Louisianians regarding how they feel about the industry. So, much for being like 9/11. Right, Obama?:
As I alluded to the other day, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has been picking up the slack on handling the crisis, and that fact is not being lost on the residents of the Cajun State:
This is becoming more and more like Obama's Katrina, no matter how much some Obama apologists would like you to believe otherwise. This should start translating into even lower approval ratings soon and make it even more difficult to win re-election in two years. He has to get a handle on this situation without making it look like kabuki theater, as he did with his Captain Kick Ass speech.
Our new Louisiana poll has a lot of data points to show how unhappy voters in the state are with Barack Obama's handling of the oil spill but one perhaps sums it up better than anything else- a majority of voters there think George W. Bush did a better job with Katrina than Obama's done dealing with the spill.
50% of voters in the state, even including 31% of Democrats, give Bush higher marks on that question compared to 35% who pick Obama.
Overall only 32% of Louisianans approve of how Obama has handled the spill to 62% who disapprove. 34% of those polled say they approved of how Bush dealt with Katrina to 58% who disapproved.
This is huge. It shows that people have become fed up with the inaction from Obama regarding the clean up project. Now, the difference in between the two isn't big, but the fact that it is even close is still big. Polls like this is why Obama has been down in the Gulf states almost everyday this week and plans on doing an address from the Oval Office on the subject, tonight. People from the left and right have been complaining, and it is catching up to him.
Not surprisingly, BP has taken a biggest hit in the world of public opinion:
While the poll results indicate a lot of unhappiness with the President, ultimately BP is getting the largest amount of blame from voters in the state. 53% of voters say they're angriest at the oil company to 29% who say their greatest unhappiness is with the federal government. And 78% say BP has the greatest responsibility for cleaning up the spill to only 11% who say that onus lays with the federal government. 44% think BP CEO Tony Hayward should be fired to 29% who think he should not and 26% who are not sure.
Another surprising finding is that people haven't soured on off-shore drilling as everyone thought they would have. I guess this didn't "change the psyche" of the Louisianians regarding how they feel about the industry. So, much for being like 9/11. Right, Obama?:
One thing the oil spill has not done is created a spike of opposition to offshore drilling in Louisiana. 77% of voters still support it with only 12% against. Only 31% say the spill has made them less inclined to be in favor of drilling while 42% say it hasn't made a difference to them and 28% say they're now stronger in their support.
As I alluded to the other day, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has been picking up the slack on handling the crisis, and that fact is not being lost on the residents of the Cajun State:
If there's any 'winner' in this unfortunate event it's Governor Bobby Jindal. 63% of voters approve of the job he's doing, the best PPP has found for any Senator or Governor so far in 2010. There's an even higher level of support, at 65%, for how he's handled the aftermath of the spill.
This is becoming more and more like Obama's Katrina, no matter how much some Obama apologists would like you to believe otherwise. This should start translating into even lower approval ratings soon and make it even more difficult to win re-election in two years. He has to get a handle on this situation without making it look like kabuki theater, as he did with his Captain Kick Ass speech.
Heartache: Almost 2 out of 5 Iowa Republicans Don't Like Palin
While it is still very early and no one has even officially declared their candidacy, yet, this is still very telling on where Palin stands, if she decides to take the plunge:
Since the Iowa Caucus is the first test for presidential hopeful to pass, a poor showing in Iowa could make or break a campaign. This could be a disaster for Palin, if she can't win a socially conservative state like Iowa. Still, we have a long way to go before the Iowa polls open. She has time to turn thing around. I would not be surpeised that, after seeing this poll, she'll be spending a lot more time in the Hawkeye State.
You thought it was too early for the 2012 presidential campaign to start? Worry not -- the Des Moines Register has a poll of the state's Republicans, testing their feelings about potential GOP nominees. They tell us that "62 percent of Republicans who identified themselves as likely to vote in this week's primary election are very or mostly favorable toward [Mitt] Romney. [Sarah] Palin follows, with 58 percent very or mostly favorable about her, with [Newt] Gingrich at 56 percent." Nothing too alarming there -- before the campaign begins, it's mostly about name recognition. However, the story doesn't comment on the unfavorable numbers. Who wins there?
Hands down, it's Palin: 39 percent of Iowa Republicans have an unfavorable view of her. This is somewhat surprising given that Iowa Republicans are a socially conservative bunch, and you'd think they'd be Palin's base.
Since the Iowa Caucus is the first test for presidential hopeful to pass, a poor showing in Iowa could make or break a campaign. This could be a disaster for Palin, if she can't win a socially conservative state like Iowa. Still, we have a long way to go before the Iowa polls open. She has time to turn thing around. I would not be surpeised that, after seeing this poll, she'll be spending a lot more time in the Hawkeye State.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Obama: The Oil Spill in the Gulf is Like 9/11 or Something
Obama recently lamented in an interview with Politico that this crisis is just as bad as the 9/11 attacks:
Liberty Pundits broke down the absurdity of that comparison:
I'm going to add something to that brilliant break down. It's not going to happen the way that he wants it to happen. The psyche of the American people has not changed forever because of this leak. Has soon as people have to start paying up to $4 p/ gallon or more for gas to fuel their cars, it'll be "drill, baby, drill" time, again.
Sounding reflective as he heads into a bruising electoral season, President Barack Obama told POLITICO columnist Roger Simon that the Gulf disaster “echoes 9/11” because it will change the nation’s psyche for years to come.
Obama — facing mounting criticism of his handling of the BP gusher, even from longtime allies — vowed to make a “bold” push for a new energy law even as the calamity continues to unfold. And he said he will use the rest of his presidency to try to put the United States on a course toward a “new way of doing business when it comes to energy.”
“In the same way that our view of our vulnerabilities and our foreign policy was shaped profoundly by 9/11,” the president said in an Oval Office interview on Friday, "I think this disaster is going to shape how we think about the environment and energy for many years to come.”
Liberty Pundits broke down the absurdity of that comparison:
Really? Because there’s like nothing in common here. First, America needs energy. It does not need terrorists. Second, over 3,000 Americans died on 9/11, the economy was dealt a huge blow, and the psyche of the American people changed forever. The explosion in the gulf killed eleven men, the economy of those who make their living off the Louisiana gulf coast are harmed for over a generation, easily, and the horror of the oil gushing into the gulf is on-going. But it will stop.
I'm going to add something to that brilliant break down. It's not going to happen the way that he wants it to happen. The psyche of the American people has not changed forever because of this leak. Has soon as people have to start paying up to $4 p/ gallon or more for gas to fuel their cars, it'll be "drill, baby, drill" time, again.
Bobby Jindal Is Picking Up the Slack Where Obama Is Dropping the Ball
Much has been said of the lack of action by Obama to clean up the oil spill in the Gulf, and it seems that it is the governors, like Bobby Jindal, that is doing the job that, according to one Chicago Sun Times reporter:
So, why has Obama be derelict in his duties, and why did this crisis happen, in the first place? Of course, Obama apologists have bent-over-backwards to blame Dubya. However, the writer blew that preposterous notion out of the water:
Whose responsibility is it to head up the clean-up? According to the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), that would be you, Obama. Instead of leading a clean-up effort in the Gulf what has he spent his time doing? Putting a halt to all off-shore drilling:
To be fair, this is a difficult crisis for Obama to handle, but that is why we hired him. He can't keep trying to take advantage of every crisis by pushing a liberal agenda that Americans really don't want and will sacrifice today's economy for the outside chance of a better future.
Rather than projecting anger by searching for BP asses to kick and concentrating on a technical challenge he can't control, Obama should focus on what government can do. He should be exhibiting calm, cool competence by daily displaying how the federal government is organizing and carrying out the massive cleanup operation this disaster demands. Instead, that role has fallen to the likes of Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal. He's been pushing federal officials to approve construction of sand berms to protect coastlines, and he's taken to boats to showcase new small-scale but effective measures by locals to skim oil.
Every inch of wetlands polluted, every pelican coated in oil is tragic. But the unrestrained political handwringing has the unintended consequence of damaging the Gulf economy. Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour laments that scare stories keep people away from clean beaches in his state.
So, why has Obama be derelict in his duties, and why did this crisis happen, in the first place? Of course, Obama apologists have bent-over-backwards to blame Dubya. However, the writer blew that preposterous notion out of the water:
Obama's troubles have inspired the usual reaction from his supporters -- this whole mess is Bush's fault. Never mind that all the regulatory decisions came on Obama's watch and that his administration had plenty of warnings about the cozy relationship between regulators and oil firms and had time to clean it up.
Whose responsibility is it to head up the clean-up? According to the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), that would be you, Obama. Instead of leading a clean-up effort in the Gulf what has he spent his time doing? Putting a halt to all off-shore drilling:
And it turns out that the administration-ordered moratorium on deep-water drilling was based on political considerations, not the advice of National Academy of Engineering experts. This will cost the Gulf economy millions of dollars. Now the administration demands BP pay those lost wages -- losses inflicted by Washington.
As his handling of the crisis is dissected, Obama is reaping what he sowed -- extravagant expectations based on the seminal idea of liberal politics that government is the answer to society's troubles. In a well rupture a mile below the ocean, he and the nation have to face the stark reality of a problem beyond a Washington solution -- no matter whose butt he kicks.
To be fair, this is a difficult crisis for Obama to handle, but that is why we hired him. He can't keep trying to take advantage of every crisis by pushing a liberal agenda that Americans really don't want and will sacrifice today's economy for the outside chance of a better future.
Obama: Panel of Experts Said We Should Stop Drilling Off-Shore/Same Expert Panel: Um...No, We Didn't
Another member of the Obama Administration has being caught being less the 100% truthful in the execution of his duties in order to further advance his true liberal agenda. This time it was the Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. In a report that he gave to Obama recommending that a halt to off-shore drilling, it has been discovered that he neglected to mention that the panel of experts that he claimed supported this ban didn't exactly think that a ban would do any good. In fact, they thought that it would be a horrible idea:
So, not only will adversely affect our economy and domestic oil supply now and probably in the future, which will make us even more dependent on foreign oil, but it'll, also, be more dangerous and possibly cause more oil spills, if we stop drilling all of a sudden.
It's hard to imagine that Salazar could have misinterpreted what the experts meant. He outright twisted their words and left out vital parts of their report in order to make it say what he wants it to say to further his liberal agenda:
This is a gross violation of the public trust. I have to wonder if Obama knew of Salazar's deception or that he neglected to not double-checking the validity of what Salazar said. I think that it was the latter because why wouldn't he trust someone in his Cabinet? He should be able to trust them, but this shows how far some liberals will go to enact their agenda to the detriment of the entire country. How can we trust the information that comes from the President, if the people around him are not trustworthy?
In a letter the experts sent to Salazar, they said his primary recommendation "misrepresents" their position and that halting the drilling is actually a bad idea.
The oil rig explosion occurred while the well was being shut down - a move that is much more dangerous than continuing ongoing drilling, they said.
They also said that because the floating rigs are scarce and in high demand worldwide, they will not simply sit in the Gulf idle for six months. The rigs will go to the North Sea and West Africa, possibly preventing the U.S. from being able to resume drilling for years.
They also said the best and most advanced rigs will be the first to go, leaving the U.S. with the older and potentially less safe rights operating in the nation's coastal waters.
So, not only will adversely affect our economy and domestic oil supply now and probably in the future, which will make us even more dependent on foreign oil, but it'll, also, be more dangerous and possibly cause more oil spills, if we stop drilling all of a sudden.
It's hard to imagine that Salazar could have misinterpreted what the experts meant. He outright twisted their words and left out vital parts of their report in order to make it say what he wants it to say to further his liberal agenda:
The experts, recommended by the National Academy of Engineering, say Interior Secretary Ken Salazar modified their report last month, after they signed it, to include two paragraphs calling for the moratorium on existing drilling and new permits.
Salazar's report to Obama said a panel of seven experts "peer reviewed" his recommendations, which included a six-month moratorium on permits for new wells being drilled using floating rigs and an immediate halt to drilling operations.
"None of us actually reviewed the memorandum as it is in the report," oil expert Ken Arnold told Fox News. "What was in the report at the time it was reviewed was quite a bit different in its impact to what there is now. So we wanted to distance ourselves from that recommendation."
This is a gross violation of the public trust. I have to wonder if Obama knew of Salazar's deception or that he neglected to not double-checking the validity of what Salazar said. I think that it was the latter because why wouldn't he trust someone in his Cabinet? He should be able to trust them, but this shows how far some liberals will go to enact their agenda to the detriment of the entire country. How can we trust the information that comes from the President, if the people around him are not trustworthy?
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Obama: Don't Blame Me For My Lack of Response to the Oil Spill, You're Hypocrites If You Do
The One sure is getting testy these days. As a result of falling approval numbers and polls showing that the people believe that Obama has done a horrible job handling the oil spill in the Gulf, Obama went off on his detractors for being hypocrites because they dare to challenge his competency:
Ok, Barack, let me be clear: Republicans and the TEA party activists were talking about not doing too much in the private business sector not anything pertaining to national security or disaster relief, which falls well within the purview of the national government's responsibilities. He needs to man-up and take responsibility for his actions (or inaction rather) and stop blaming other people. If he had used the energy that he has wasted going after the TEA party protesters on solving this crisis, we might have had the oil leak plugged by now.
President Barack Obama said Friday that some members of Congress are being hypocritical when it comes to blaming the White House for its handling of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
In an interview with POLITICO, the president said: “I think it’s fair to say, if six months ago, before this spill had happened, I had gone up to Congress and I had said we need to crack down a lot harder on oil companies and we need to spend more money on technology to respond in case of a catastrophic spill, there are folks up there, who will not be named, who would have said this is classic, big-government overregulation and wasteful spending.”
The president also implied that anti-big government types such as tea party activists were being hypocritical on the issue.
“Some of the same folks who have been hollering and saying ‘do something’ are the same folks who, just two or three months ago, were suggesting that government needs to stop doing so much,” Obama said. “Some of the same people who are saying the president needs to show leadership and solve this problem are some of the same folks who, just a few months ago, were saying this guy is trying to engineer a takeover of our society through the federal government that is going to restrict our freedoms.”
Ok, Barack, let me be clear: Republicans and the TEA party activists were talking about not doing too much in the private business sector not anything pertaining to national security or disaster relief, which falls well within the purview of the national government's responsibilities. He needs to man-up and take responsibility for his actions (or inaction rather) and stop blaming other people. If he had used the energy that he has wasted going after the TEA party protesters on solving this crisis, we might have had the oil leak plugged by now.
Great News: Afghan President in Secret Talks With Taliban After He Loses Faith in Obama & US Victory
Even though has said that Afghanistan and a victory is "absolutely essential", he has yet to show that he means it in his actions, and Afghan President Karzai is beginning to notice as many in his circle are beginning to doubt where his true loyalties lie:
He is having secret meetings with the enemy?!? Has he lost faith in us so much that he feels that he must ingratiate himself with the side that he sees will be the eventual victors? Can you tell me why he has started losing faith in our victory? Hmmmm:
So, basically, the promise of withdrawing of troops by a certain deadline that Obama made in order to please his lefty base has resulted in not only the Taliban being emboldened, but it has, also, deflated the confidence and the desire for democracy that some in Afghanistan once had. Who woulda thunk it? Republicans and the military have been warning Obama about setting timetables because of exactly this reason. We can't half-ass this war and expect to win it. If we do, the American lives that have been lost, so far, would've been lost for nothing.
I wonder if this could have been somehow avoided. Did they have any prior warning of Karzai's waning allegiances?
"HE MIGHT JOIN THE TALIBAN"?!? They knew this months ago?!? Why hasn't Obama done what needs to be done to win back the trust of a very important ally in the region and someone who is crucial to a successful campaign in Afghanistan? It is, as if, Obama doesn't truly care about a victory. Perhaps, his lack of dedication and attention is exactly why Karzai feels the need to ally himself with the enemy because Obama's heart isn't in it, and if you can't beat them, join them.
How bad could a secret alliance in between Karzai and the Taliban be?
This would completely undermine our efforts in Afghanistan and could be the turning point to our defeat, if we're not careful. We lost Vietnam, in part, because the South Vietnamese government and people lost their desire to fight their own people, even if it was for their freedom. That same thing could happen, today, if Obama doesn't do anything to turn this thing around. What could he do? He could meet with Karzai daily and reassure him of the strength of our resolve. He should rescind his order to withdraw troops next summer. This show the Taliban that we are in it to win it. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like Obama really cares about winning.
But underlying the tensions (within the Afghan government), according to Mr. Saleh and Afghan and Western officials, was something more profound: That Mr. Karzai had lost faith in the Americans and NATO to prevail in Afghanistan.
For that reason, Mr. Saleh and other officials said, Mr. Karzai has been pressing to strike his own deal with the Taliban and the country's archrival, Pakistan, the Taliban's longtime supporter. According to a former senior Afghan official, Mr. Karzai's maneuverings involve secret negotiations with the Taliban outside the purview of American and NATO officials.
"The president has lost his confidence in the capability of either the coalition or his own government to protect this country," Mr. Saleh said in an interview at his home. "President Karzai has never announced that NATO will lose, but the way that he does not proudly own the campaign shows that he doesn't trust it is working."
He is having secret meetings with the enemy?!? Has he lost faith in us so much that he feels that he must ingratiate himself with the side that he sees will be the eventual victors? Can you tell me why he has started losing faith in our victory? Hmmmm:
People close to the president say he began to lose confidence in the Americans last summer, after national elections in which independent monitors determined that nearly one million ballots had been stolen on Mr. Karzai's behalf. The rift worsened in December, when President Obama announced that he intended to begin reducing the number of American troops by the summer of 2011.
"Karzai told me that he can't trust the Americans to fix the situation here," said a Western diplomat in Kabul, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "He believes they stole his legitimacy during the elections last year. And then they said publicly that they were going to leave."
So, basically, the promise of withdrawing of troops by a certain deadline that Obama made in order to please his lefty base has resulted in not only the Taliban being emboldened, but it has, also, deflated the confidence and the desire for democracy that some in Afghanistan once had. Who woulda thunk it? Republicans and the military have been warning Obama about setting timetables because of exactly this reason. We can't half-ass this war and expect to win it. If we do, the American lives that have been lost, so far, would've been lost for nothing.
I wonder if this could have been somehow avoided. Did they have any prior warning of Karzai's waning allegiances?
Relations with Mr. Karzai have been rocky for some time, and international officials have expressed concern in the past that his decision making can be erratic. Last winter, Mr. Karzai accused NATO in a speech of ferrying Taliban fighters around northern Afghanistan in helicopters. Earlier this year, following criticism by the Obama administration, Mr. Karzai told a group of supporters that he might join the Taliban.
"HE MIGHT JOIN THE TALIBAN"?!? They knew this months ago?!? Why hasn't Obama done what needs to be done to win back the trust of a very important ally in the region and someone who is crucial to a successful campaign in Afghanistan? It is, as if, Obama doesn't truly care about a victory. Perhaps, his lack of dedication and attention is exactly why Karzai feels the need to ally himself with the enemy because Obama's heart isn't in it, and if you can't beat them, join them.
How bad could a secret alliance in between Karzai and the Taliban be?
In the interview, Mr. Saleh said he took offense at the exclusion. His primary job is to understand the Taliban, he said; leaving his agency off the commission made him worry that Mr. Karzai might intend to release hardened Taliban fighters.
"His conclusion is - a lot of Taliban have been wrongly detained, they should be released," Mr. Saleh said. "We are 10 years into the collapse of the Taliban - it means we don't know who the enemy is. We wrongly detain people."
This would completely undermine our efforts in Afghanistan and could be the turning point to our defeat, if we're not careful. We lost Vietnam, in part, because the South Vietnamese government and people lost their desire to fight their own people, even if it was for their freedom. That same thing could happen, today, if Obama doesn't do anything to turn this thing around. What could he do? He could meet with Karzai daily and reassure him of the strength of our resolve. He should rescind his order to withdraw troops next summer. This show the Taliban that we are in it to win it. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like Obama really cares about winning.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Jerry Brown: Meg Whitman is a Nazi Propagandist or Something
Why do liberals love to bring up Nazis and compare them to Republicans?:
Obviously, liberals are trying to not so subtly equate Republicans to Nazis in the minds of the American people. In this case, this is a beyond ridiculous comparison. Just because she is using a large amount of her own money, it doesn't make it just like the Nazis. Hillary Clinton used a lot of her own money to fund her 2008 presidential campaign. Does that make her like a Nazi propagandist? No.
Regarding his complaint that her media campaign will make people believe whatever she wants them to believe, isn't that the point of a good PR advertising campaign? After all, didn't the Obama political machine make the majority of Americans believe in the facade of hope and change that the election of Obama would bring to America? It is completely hypocritical of Brown to even hint at a comparison between the Whitman advertising campaign and a Nazi advertising campaign. This comment shows how desperate Brown has become to try to discredit Meg out of the gates. He apparently is a little scared to see that he has started off in a dead heat in the liberal state of California where he should be taking a commanding lead.
California GOP gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman on Thursday criticized remarks attributed to rival Jerry Brown that made a comparison between her campaign and a Nazi propagandist.
The comments attributed to Brown were posted Wednesday in a blog by a reporter for KCBS radio in San Francisco. In his blog, which was on the station's website, reporter Doug Sovern says he was riding his bike in the Oakland hills when he bumped into the Democratic gubernatorial candidate, who was jogging.
KCBS radio editor Debra Ingerson told The Associated Press on Thursday that the conversation was not recorded.
Sovern said Brown was concerned about Whitman's ability to spend an almost unlimited amount of money in the governor's race. Whitman, the billionaire former eBay chief executive, spent at least $81 million in the primary, all but $10 million of it from her personal fortune.
According to the blog, Brown said Whitman has the money to launch a pervasive smear campaign: "She'll have people believing whatever she wants about me."
Brown then compared that type of messaging ability to Nazi propagandist of Joseph Goebbels.
"Goebbels invented this kind of propaganda. He took control of the whole world," Brown is quoted as saying. Brown went on to say he believes Whitman wants to be the first female president.
Obviously, liberals are trying to not so subtly equate Republicans to Nazis in the minds of the American people. In this case, this is a beyond ridiculous comparison. Just because she is using a large amount of her own money, it doesn't make it just like the Nazis. Hillary Clinton used a lot of her own money to fund her 2008 presidential campaign. Does that make her like a Nazi propagandist? No.
Regarding his complaint that her media campaign will make people believe whatever she wants them to believe, isn't that the point of a good PR advertising campaign? After all, didn't the Obama political machine make the majority of Americans believe in the facade of hope and change that the election of Obama would bring to America? It is completely hypocritical of Brown to even hint at a comparison between the Whitman advertising campaign and a Nazi advertising campaign. This comment shows how desperate Brown has become to try to discredit Meg out of the gates. He apparently is a little scared to see that he has started off in a dead heat in the liberal state of California where he should be taking a commanding lead.
While Parent ACORN Dies, New "Seeds of Change": Different Name Same Rotten ACORN
While Bertha Lewis admits that the original ACORN tree has been effectively chopped down, there seems to be some of their subsidiaries that aren't so willing to go off into the sunset:
Don't be fooled. ACORN isn't dead, yet.
ACORN, the community organizing group that collapsed earlier this year under the weight of a furious conservative assault, aims to reconstitute itself under a new name after the midterm elections, according to a new book on the group.
The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, as it is formally known, could not survive the embarrassing videos produced in 2009 by guerrilla journalist James O'Keefe that appeared to show ACORN workers advising a would-be pimp, and it effectively dissolved into its local chapters.
But strong local ACORN chapters swiftly regrouped under new names, such as the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment and New York Communities for Change. Those groups "will retain ACORN's commitment to building national power and are beginning discussions" about re-launching a national organization some time after November, John Atlas writes in his sympathetic new history of ACORN, "Seeds of Change."
Don't be fooled. ACORN isn't dead, yet.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Pelosi to College Graduates: Don't Worry About Healthcare Anymore Because We Passed ObamaCare
In an interview done in front of a graduating class of college students at a small women's college in California, yesterday, Pelosi doubled down on her previous statement that people should not have to worry about quitting their jobs to "pursue their passions" because Uncle Sam will take care of them, if they get sick. Now, she tells the Mills College's Class of 2010 that they don't have to worry about the cost of their family's healthcare because she's taking care of it:
This comes off the heels of the story coming out Canada, the country who currently has a model of socialized healthcare that most closely resembles what ObamCare will look like, that the government is worried about how the current system will be able to pay for the increasing costs of taking care of their ever-aging population:
Basically, the two main changes that they seem to be contemplating are new and/or raising taxes, of course, and "curtailing" their coverage of certain procedures that they don't deem "medically necessary" like leg, hip, and cataract surgeries. In fact, they're looking back to the private health industry to take care of those procedures. These don't seem like surgeries that anyone would feel is elective.
This is the road that we are about to embark on our way to socialized healthcare. It will only be a matter of time before our government will have to raise our taxes or cut corners on our healthcare, so they can attempt to make ObamaCare solvent.
So, don't worry about your healthcare, unless you have a broken hip, cataracts, or any other condition that Uncle Sam might possibly deem "medically unnecessary" in the future, because Aunt Pelosi's has you covered.
As a final insight, I'd like to point out that: it seems to me that the medical procedures that they are the most willing to call elective are most often the ones that are supposed to take care of ailments that plague our seniors, ie broken hips and cataracts. I'm just saying. Coincidence?!?
(Healthcare reform)'s urgent for many reasons, one of which I said in the speech: it frees us up to be entrepreneurial, to take risks without worrying about the health of our children being affected by our personal decisions to pursue our passions. It's important in terms of our competitiveness internationally. If you're talking about competing with countries in the industrialized, developed world, they don't have healthcare costs. Their societies have that as a priority. Here, we won't have the same kind of healthcare availability because it's still a private sector initiative. But that's O.K. because it's facilitated to be made more affordable in a public way. So it is important now A): because it is long over due; B): it makes us more competitive; C): makes us a healthier and therefore stronger nation and it is specially important to women at this time because women are by and large the caregivers and they are going to inherit that role, it's important that healthcare be as accessible and affordable as possible. I'm very, very proud of it, it was very hard to do, it would not have happened without President Obama, but I never, never once thought that it wouldn't happen.
This comes off the heels of the story coming out Canada, the country who currently has a model of socialized healthcare that most closely resembles what ObamCare will look like, that the government is worried about how the current system will be able to pay for the increasing costs of taking care of their ever-aging population:
In some ways the Canadian debate is the mirror image of discussions going on in the United States.
Canada, fretting over budget strains, wants to prune its system, while the United States, worrying about an army of uninsured, aims to create a state-backed safety net.
Healthcare in Canada is delivered through a publicly funded system, which covers all "medically necessary" hospital and physician care and curbs the role of private medicine. It ate up about 40 percent of provincial budgets, or some C$183 billion ($174 billion) last year.
Spending has been rising 6 percent a year under a deal that added C$41.3 billion of federal funding over 10 years.
But that deal ends in 2013, and the federal government is unlikely to be as generous in future, especially for one-off projects.
"As Ottawa looks to repair its budget balance ... one could see these one-time allocations to specific health projects might be curtailed," said Mary Webb, senior economist at Scotia Capital.
Basically, the two main changes that they seem to be contemplating are new and/or raising taxes, of course, and "curtailing" their coverage of certain procedures that they don't deem "medically necessary" like leg, hip, and cataract surgeries. In fact, they're looking back to the private health industry to take care of those procedures. These don't seem like surgeries that anyone would feel is elective.
This is the road that we are about to embark on our way to socialized healthcare. It will only be a matter of time before our government will have to raise our taxes or cut corners on our healthcare, so they can attempt to make ObamaCare solvent.
So, don't worry about your healthcare, unless you have a broken hip, cataracts, or any other condition that Uncle Sam might possibly deem "medically unnecessary" in the future, because Aunt Pelosi's has you covered.
As a final insight, I'd like to point out that: it seems to me that the medical procedures that they are the most willing to call elective are most often the ones that are supposed to take care of ailments that plague our seniors, ie broken hips and cataracts. I'm just saying. Coincidence?!?
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Winner of the Yesterday's Primaries: Sarah Palin
Last night was a very big night for women, specifically Republican women. Even though she wasn't on the ballot anywhere, one woman in particular won the day in a big way for the GOP. The candidates that were endorsed by Sarah Palin faired very well in the primaries:
This shows the former governor of Alaska still has a lot of political pull, especially among the conservative base:
This will give Palin more confidence that she could make a legitimate run for the White House in 2012, but will the adoration that conservatives have for her translate into votes in 2012, especially from independents? It's too early to tell, but if the candidates are received well and people believe that they have performed well in office on their behalf, then, it could parlay her into people giving her a chance. She has a long way to go to repair her national image after it was damaged during the debacle of her various disastrous interviews during the 2008 election. While it won't completely repair her image, it is a good start.
Some of Sarah Palin’s riskiest endorsements scored major victories Tuesday for the former Alaska governor, showing off her power in Republican primaries.
Palin had four primary endorsements in play – Carly Fiorina, Nikki Haley, Terry Branstad and Cecile Bledsoe – and three won or moved on to a runoff.
This shows the former governor of Alaska still has a lot of political pull, especially among the conservative base:
Perhaps Palin’s most powerful demonstration came in South Carolina, where her endorsement propelled a major swing in the polls for Haley’s primary campaign for governor and sustained the state representative through accusations of two separate affairs.
"Her decision to get - and stay - involved in the race here in South Carolina was a huge boon to our campaign, because it caused a lot of South Carolinians to take a second look at a rising in the polls but once-little known state legislator who was fighting to give them back their government,” Haley spokesman Tim Pearson said of Palin.
This will give Palin more confidence that she could make a legitimate run for the White House in 2012, but will the adoration that conservatives have for her translate into votes in 2012, especially from independents? It's too early to tell, but if the candidates are received well and people believe that they have performed well in office on their behalf, then, it could parlay her into people giving her a chance. She has a long way to go to repair her national image after it was damaged during the debacle of her various disastrous interviews during the 2008 election. While it won't completely repair her image, it is a good start.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Senate Democrats Refuse To A Waste Good Crisis: Move To Quintriple Offshore Oil Taxes
The BP oil spill in the Gulf has lead to a resurgence of anti-oil sentiments in the US. The "drill, baby, drill" chants have been completely forgotten by many people, after they saw helpless birds covered in oil on the news and in the papers over the last few weeks.
Now, this has been the pattern throughout our more recent history. When gas prices skyrocket, people want to drill until there is an accident. Then, people's desire for more oil will dwindle until gas prices go up, again.
We are currently in the swing away from drilling. A recent Rasmussen poll shows that support for offshore drilling has noticeably fallen, since the BP oil disaster.
The Democrats in the Senates have decided to take advantagetake advantage of the sudden shift in the public opinion on the subject:
A rise in taxes in oil will ultimately cause gas prices to go up, again. This will further cripple the economy and prevent it from quickly recovering from this recession. If this is enacted, $4 gas may seem cheap compared to what is coming.
I'll concede that the massive cost for the Gulf clean-up should be shouldered by BP, but why should every other oil company and, ultimately every American, suffer for one company's incompetence. It's unrealistic to think that gas won't go up at all, as a result of the cost of the spill, but we don't have to make a bad situation even worse.
Now, this has been the pattern throughout our more recent history. When gas prices skyrocket, people want to drill until there is an accident. Then, people's desire for more oil will dwindle until gas prices go up, again.
We are currently in the swing away from drilling. A recent Rasmussen poll shows that support for offshore drilling has noticeably fallen, since the BP oil disaster.
The Democrats in the Senates have decided to take advantagetake advantage of the sudden shift in the public opinion on the subject:
Senate Democrats are moving to quintuple the tax that oil companies pay into an oil spill liability fund.
The move would raise $15 billion over the coming decade as Congress seeks to shore up the fund in the wake of the catastrophic spill in the Gulf of Mexico. But it's also being used to ease a tax hike passed by the House on investment fund managers.
The new legislation would raise the tax on oil produced offshore from 8 cents to 41 cents per barrel. That's nine cents higher than legislation that passed the House last month.
The tax changes are being made as the Senate again takes up grab-bag legislation extending unemployment benefits and a variety of expired tax breaks enjoyed by both individuals and businesses Senate Democrats are moving to quintuple the tax that oil companies pay into an oil spill liability fund.
The move would raise $15 billion over the coming decade as Congress seeks to shore up the fund in the wake of the catastrophic spill in the Gulf of Mexico. But it's also being used to ease a tax hike passed by the House on investment fund managers.
The new legislation would raise the tax on oil produced offshore from 8 cents to 41 cents per barrel. That's nine cents higher than legislation that passed the House last month.
The tax changes are being made as the Senate again takes up grab-bag legislation extending unemployment benefits and a variety of expired tax breaks enjoyed by both individuals and businesses
A rise in taxes in oil will ultimately cause gas prices to go up, again. This will further cripple the economy and prevent it from quickly recovering from this recession. If this is enacted, $4 gas may seem cheap compared to what is coming.
I'll concede that the massive cost for the Gulf clean-up should be shouldered by BP, but why should every other oil company and, ultimately every American, suffer for one company's incompetence. It's unrealistic to think that gas won't go up at all, as a result of the cost of the spill, but we don't have to make a bad situation even worse.
Obama Takes A Break From Blaming Bush, Republicans to Advise Graduates to Not Make Excuses
In a classic pot meet kettle moment, the One has the amazing audacity to tell high school students not to make any excuses. It is amazing because over the past year-and-a-half, Obama has made a career out of blaming Bush for all of his failures for not turning the economy around yet and other shortcomings:
This is especially rich coming from someone who is endanger being remembered for spending his entire first term blaming Bush and Republicans, according to a writer from TheStreet.com. Maybe he should take his own advice and lead by example. Hmmm.
So, today, you all have a rare and valuable chance to pursue your own passions, chase your own dreams without incurring a mountain of debt. What an incredible gift. So you’ve got no excuse for giving anything less than your best effort. (Applause.) No excuses.
That’s my second piece of advice, very simple: Don’t make excuses. Take responsibility not just for your successes; take responsibility where you fall short as well.
This is especially rich coming from someone who is endanger being remembered for spending his entire first term blaming Bush and Republicans, according to a writer from TheStreet.com. Maybe he should take his own advice and lead by example. Hmmm.
Turkish PM: You Know Who Israel Reminds Me Of? Nazi Germany, Of Course
You can say this about the prime minister of Turkey: his recent opinions on Israel aren't luke warm or ambiguous in the least:
This continues to show how deep that the hatred between the Muslims and the Jews run. After all, even the leader of the allegedly most moderate of the Islamic dominated countries spews this kind of bile towards the state of Israel.
This is beyond insulting to Israel. The fact that Israel was recreated in response to the atrocities that Nazi Germany put the Jewish people through, thousands of Jews fled the Nazis, and that around 6 million Jews died at the hands of the Nazis seems to be completely lost on Prime Minister Erdogen.
Of course, I've heard little condemnation of this statement by anyone in the media or the Obama administration. More has been said of Helen Thomas' equally venomous comments than of PM Erdogen's. When will we start holding the leaders of the Muslim nations as accountable for their actions and words as we hold Israel accountable?
Mr. Erdogan continued to raise the temperature of Turkey's dispute with Israel over the weekend. In a speech in Bursa, a city about 80 kilometers south of Istanbul, Mr. Erdogan said the world now perceives "the swastika and the Star of David together."
This continues to show how deep that the hatred between the Muslims and the Jews run. After all, even the leader of the allegedly most moderate of the Islamic dominated countries spews this kind of bile towards the state of Israel.
This is beyond insulting to Israel. The fact that Israel was recreated in response to the atrocities that Nazi Germany put the Jewish people through, thousands of Jews fled the Nazis, and that around 6 million Jews died at the hands of the Nazis seems to be completely lost on Prime Minister Erdogen.
Of course, I've heard little condemnation of this statement by anyone in the media or the Obama administration. More has been said of Helen Thomas' equally venomous comments than of PM Erdogen's. When will we start holding the leaders of the Muslim nations as accountable for their actions and words as we hold Israel accountable?
Arkansas: Bill Clinton Threw Unions Under the Bus While Campaigning For Lincoln
Welcome to the Twilight Zone:
Witness, if you will, Unions seem to have lost favor with some of the more high-profile Democrats. Bill Clinton even threw the unions under the bus in a stump speech for Blanche Lincoln that Lincoln turned into a campaign ad:
According to Politico, this isn't just a case of a moderate Democrat trying to get elected in a red-state in a very Republican-friendly political climate. Democrats, such as Andrew Cuomo from New York, have joined in on the dog-pile of the unpopularity of the labor machine.
I believe that this started brewing ever since the near-collapse of the car industry in Detroit. Polls after the bailout of Detroit showed that almost around half of Americans blamed the unions, a close second to the corporate executives of the flailing companies. Many people have begun to see the unions for what they truly are: a parasite on that is slowly sapping the vitality out of our economy.
Witness, if you will, Unions seem to have lost favor with some of the more high-profile Democrats. Bill Clinton even threw the unions under the bus in a stump speech for Blanche Lincoln that Lincoln turned into a campaign ad:
Here is an article from the Washington Post, it says “Some national unions made a decision a few months ago, that they wanted to make Senator Blanche Lincoln the quote “poster child” for what happens when a Democrat crosses them. This is about using you and manipulating your votes. If you want to be Arkansas’s advocate, vote for somebody who will fight for you. Vote for Blanche Lincoln.
According to Politico, this isn't just a case of a moderate Democrat trying to get elected in a red-state in a very Republican-friendly political climate. Democrats, such as Andrew Cuomo from New York, have joined in on the dog-pile of the unpopularity of the labor machine.
I believe that this started brewing ever since the near-collapse of the car industry in Detroit. Polls after the bailout of Detroit showed that almost around half of Americans blamed the unions, a close second to the corporate executives of the flailing companies. Many people have begun to see the unions for what they truly are: a parasite on that is slowly sapping the vitality out of our economy.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Great News: Ever-Increasing Deficit Spending Will Rise Above GDP Into a "Debt Super Cycle" by 2012
Well, he promised change. I just don't think that the American people were hoping for this kind of change, when they voted him into office:
Basically, not only are we spending more than we make as a country, we will be borrowing more than we make in a few years. We are on pace to spend twice as much as we make in a year. That is just will have a disastrous effect on the entire country and cripple the economy for many years to come. We must stop this spending orgy before it's too late.
President Barack Obama is poised to increase the U.S. debt to a level that exceeds the value of the nation’s annual economic output, a step toward what Bill Gross called a “debt super cycle.”
The CHART OF THE DAY tracks U.S. gross domestic product and the government’s total debt, which rose past $13 trillion for the first time this month. The amount owed will surpass GDP in 2012, based on forecasts by the International Monetary Fund. The lower panel shows U.S. annual GDP growth as tracked by the IMF, which projects the world’s largest economy to expand at a slower pace than the 3.2 percent average during the past five decades.
Basically, not only are we spending more than we make as a country, we will be borrowing more than we make in a few years. We are on pace to spend twice as much as we make in a year. That is just will have a disastrous effect on the entire country and cripple the economy for many years to come. We must stop this spending orgy before it's too late.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Good News: Obama Uses the Oil Spill Crisis in the Gulf to Push Higher Taxes on Gas, Oil
In the spirit of Rahm's motto never wasting a good crisis, this time it's the crisis of the BP oil spill of the coase of Louisiana in the Gulf, Obama and the Democrats have begun to push clean energy legislation that will cripple the existing carbon-based energy industry and every other industry that relies on carbon-based energy, which is just about every major industry in America:
In reality, it'll be the clean energy industry that'll hold the carbon-based industries hostage, if Obama and the rest of the liberal Democrats get their wish. Nothing good can come out of crippling the great majority of the nation's economy in the of a severe recession. Of course, he tried to mask what he really meant, although he did so rather poorly, by calling new or raised taxes a "price", but most people saw right through it and called a spade a spade.
Now, I'm not against creating a clean energy industry. In fact, I'm all for it. After all, the world's oil reserves won't last forever. Clean energy'll be the energy of the future, but we shouldn't have to sacrifice our present for the future. If our economy collapses in the present because of laws that'll choke the life out of the carbon-based industries and in turn our entire economy, the it'll have that much harder of a time recovering enough to be able to create the new industry that'll support our future. We need a strong economy to create new industries quickly and efficiently. It'll take much longer to create one, especially an industry as important as this one will be, if the economy is weak and sluggish.
We must do all we can to ensure that the economy stays strong so that we can make the transition to the clean energy based economy as soon as possible.
The oil spill is tragic and an environmental disaster, but Obama should be focusing on making sure that another spill like this never happens again and fixing the oil industry not destroying it because as the oil industry goes so does the American economy (and the world's economy, for that matter).
Obama also leverages the massive oil spill in the Gulf as a means of winning Senate approval for a clean energy bill that, in his words, finally puts "a price on carbon pollution."
Conceding Senate opposition has killed the idea of carbon-based taxes -- under the rubric of cap-and-trade or any other mechanism - Obama vowed to devote the remaining months of this legislative session to find the votes.
"I will work with anyone from either party to get this done," Obama's prepared text reads. "But we will get this done. The next generation will not be held hostage to energy sources from the last century."
In reality, it'll be the clean energy industry that'll hold the carbon-based industries hostage, if Obama and the rest of the liberal Democrats get their wish. Nothing good can come out of crippling the great majority of the nation's economy in the of a severe recession. Of course, he tried to mask what he really meant, although he did so rather poorly, by calling new or raised taxes a "price", but most people saw right through it and called a spade a spade.
Now, I'm not against creating a clean energy industry. In fact, I'm all for it. After all, the world's oil reserves won't last forever. Clean energy'll be the energy of the future, but we shouldn't have to sacrifice our present for the future. If our economy collapses in the present because of laws that'll choke the life out of the carbon-based industries and in turn our entire economy, the it'll have that much harder of a time recovering enough to be able to create the new industry that'll support our future. We need a strong economy to create new industries quickly and efficiently. It'll take much longer to create one, especially an industry as important as this one will be, if the economy is weak and sluggish.
We must do all we can to ensure that the economy stays strong so that we can make the transition to the clean energy based economy as soon as possible.
The oil spill is tragic and an environmental disaster, but Obama should be focusing on making sure that another spill like this never happens again and fixing the oil industry not destroying it because as the oil industry goes so does the American economy (and the world's economy, for that matter).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)