My post regarding the State of the Union had me at a loss for words and thus took me days to even sit down and write. There are things about Obama that just don't add up and never have. You hear him say things with such conviction that you know are wrong, lies or just blatant attacks on freedoms yet he seems like such a nice guy. You sit back, read, study the Constitution and still wonder how could this be? He is the President of the United States, this can't be. Then I watched Becks show from yesterday and while I know he has harped on how dangerous progressives are to our Constitution, freedoms and American way of life, it just hadn't driven home till this show. Beck is making his mission this year to educate America on history and then finding people who are willing to restore honor to public service and politics to run for the house and senate. You can not watch his show while multi tasking as there is way too much information and he always has research and reading recommendations to aid in developing your individual basis for an opinion. If you read every book he recomends you would spend your life reading books but I can say that everyone I have read has been very well written and informative. Anyway, I recomend watching this link to yesterdays show for the history of the progressive movement and the basic premise of the progressives desires for our country. He puts far more information out here than I could ever summarize or add to with my editorial comments.
http://www.therightscoop.com/watch-the-glenn-beck-show-january-29-2010-progressive-edition/
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Shear Arrogance Proves Obama is Dangerous
I have been in shock and unable to even verbalize the disgust since Obama's state of the union attack on everyone but himself and his most progressive of supporters. Transcript of State of the Union I think back to a Beck show a couple weeks ago when he had basically said if he pulls back and triangulates in defeat we will have merely a liberal democrat in the white house but if he doubles down and becomes even more committed and resolved to his own agenda then we have trouble. He is a radical revolutionary of the progressives. He is not affected by the voice of the people but only his agenda to "fundamentally transform America" as he stated 5 days before the election. He seems to have the desire to be a dictator when he attacked everyone who doesn't agree with him including the Supreme Court and when most of the claims he makes are lies but stated with such confidence you almost beleive them. And then the media attacks the court or anyone else who dares defend themselves from these attacks or reacts in defense to his lies with a "you lie" or "not true" response. While the spineless Washington Post fact checked the speech according to the headline and the 4 issues they checked, were all allegedly true. However, here is one short AP story that seems to to a better job of fact checking even if it is done in a very softball manner. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100128/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_fact_check I guess all we can do is look at some of the attacks and consider the reality of his twisted view of them and realize he is not just a liberal but he is a progressive ideologue who is very dangerous to the country.
Now obviously after a glorious introduction, he had to start by laying the stage for attacking Bush as that has been a cornerstone of every policy and speech he has made in the past year. Not even worth commenting on that any further as it such a worn out excuse for executing his radical agenda.
Then he had to go on and start patting his back as the reason the country is not in a depression, in my world it is whether he thinks so or not. Taking credit for 2 million jobs that were created or saved, a statistic that makes for good rhetoric due to the fact that is can not be reliably or accurately measured and thus can not be trusted. How do you know what may have happened if something else had not happened? And anyway, I think most of the government jobs need to be lost and government needs to downsize. As Reagan said government is not the solution, government is the problem. Especially when you consider the average pay for a federal employee is about 71,000 compared to about 40,000 for the people who are paying their wages. USA Today article, average pay $30,000 over private sector And those government employees have pensions and insurance too. Oh and by the way, remember SEIU, they are who Obama goes to before he does anything, well guess who represents many of the government employees. But surely Obama is not affected by lobbyist. (David Sterns, head of SEIU is the most frequent non government visitor to the White House) He assured us he has cleaned all that up. Did you see that we now have more government employees represented by unions than private market employees? Guess they now want to work the same miracles on the government they did on the auto industry. It did work out pretty well since they now own GM NY Times, Most union members are now government employees And of course, the NY Times would have to work in a plug for card check legislation in this article, as they think the implied message is we need to make it easier for unions to organize in the face of their declining membership. To say nothing of the the fact they are the largest democrat contributors. And since he has so few examples of success in his special interest stimulus bill, he has to use as examples of success ones that have already been exposed as corrupt. Remember this great window manufacturer exposed on John Stossell. John Stossel on Crony Capitalism But Obama continues to sing the praises of this company in spite of the cover being blown. But that was another posting, I need to move on.
After blaming the trillion dollar deficit on Bush, although the TARP program has been largely repaid, he then promotes taking money from that program and using it for banking stimulus to promote lending. Everyone seems to call TARP a 700 billion dollar Bush program but from what I can see, and there are lots of pencils and mirrors in their accounting, they are now saying that it will cost 141 billion in total. http://money.cnn.com/2009/12/07/news/companies/tarp_interest/?postversion=2009120807 That is pretty small to save the entire banking system from collapse and thus may have been a good investment. However, TARP has become Obama's piggy bank, every time he sees something left or paid back, he wants to use it on another bail out while not taking responsibility for the deficit it creates. That was where he got the money to bail out the auto industry and subsequently screw the bond holders and give it as a gift to his union supporters. He blames the auto industry party on Bush but as I recall, Bush didn't want to do it but said he would conceded to Obamas request for doing so but only enough money to get them past the inauguration and then Obama could do what he wanted. What was the stimulus program and why can't he use some of the wasted special interest stimulus money passed with no debate or even being read by those who voted on it. Since no one knew what they were passing they wouldn't know if it was changed and spent someplace else.
Then he moves on to praise small business, although in this past year he has completely excluded them from any of his White House closed door meetings. Choosing rather big business, wall street, government and unions to influence his agenda the most. Probably because they write the big checks to his campaign, oh but that couldn't be true as that may be giving lobbyist a seat at the table. When in reality they own the table and all the chairs around it in this White House. Which is, I am sure, not that unusual in the White House. So after trumping up small business, which he knows nothing about, he wants to tout high speed rail. Which has no free market demand other than for the contracts to build it and suck off the government subsidy wagon to both build and operate it.
And then after telling us how government can direct business through incentives to get into the businesses he supports he says we are going to double our exports in the next 5 years. What is it we export that is in such demand we are going to double it and create American jobs in so doing? Unless the government is going to subsidize it in someway, there is nothing I can think of other than food that we are very efficient and cost effective at producing. How can we compete in a world market with all our government regulation and high priced union manufacturing labor? There is a reason we manufacture very little in this country. So he says we are going to double our exports while he supports unionizing everyone because of course that is where he gets his 750 million to run a presidential campaign. And if he is going to impose tariffs on imports because he needs to support the domestic unions, I am "sure" that other countries will not reciprocate with restrictions and tariffs on the "phantom" American imports to their country. Surely China doesn't mind our tariffs on their tires and will welcome with open arms anything we want to sell them at prices that support our domestic wage structure by way of US government subsidies. Then of course they will also turn around with what money they have left after buying all of our subsidized exports and spend it on US Treasury debt to support our deficit spending. Which deficit was created though government subsidizing the cheap exports. If this sounds circular, I think it is. Makes a lot of sense doesn't it?
And then of course we have to invest in education. To expand math and science, as long as it is the flawed science that supports man made global warming, or rather we now call it man made climate change due to the unusually cold winter. That way he can use science to institute more taxes (cap and trade) to combat the "phantom" man made global warming, woops, I mean climate change. One thing we don't want to teach is "American History" and "World History" as that may cause our young people to remember the mistakes made earlier in the 20th century in trusting silver tongued devils who took them down the path of destruction. And if we are going to teach history lets make sure it passes the progressive politicians test for "fairness" IE political correctness.
Then of course he had to mention health care and how he is trying to save the entire country, while in fact his bloated plan only changed who paid the bills and only covered about 10 million of the 30 million or so uninsured depending upon which report you read. And the greatest spin of the last two weeks, since the Massachusetts election, the reason government health care is failing with the public is because he has not explained it well enough. "Still, this is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people." UNBELIEVABLE ARROGANCE Yep, your right, we are just a bunch of idiots out here who can't think for ourselves and some of us even watch and listen to television and radio stations you don't approve of as actual news because it doesn't agree with your view Mr. Obama. I am beginning to feel like my son is right when he tells me that Obama is not his president even though I try to take the patriotic stance and tell him Obama represents our country and was elected by a majority of the voters. And then Obama says "if anyone has a better idea let me know". I think people have tried to let him know but they couldn't be heard over the lawyers political contributions. And I distinctly remember him saying he didn't create the mess and unless you are going to fall in line and help mop up this mess (accomplish his agenda) he didn't want to hear from you. In other words do what I say or sit down and shut up. That is what he said to the GOP on health care, energy and the economy. However, he sure decided he liked anyone who had Goldman Sacs on their resume for help in banking and wall street reform. Remember, Goldman Sacs was his second largest contributor at $994,795 behind University of California at $1,591,395. largest contributors
Then back to some Bush Bashing.
He acts like he has really accomplished something when he proposed to freeze spending on about 17% of the entire 3.5 trillion dollar federal budget at a level he increased by 10% last year. Net savings of about 15 billion annually when we have a projected deficit of 1.3 trillion. About a 1% reduction of just the deficit to say nothing of the entire budget. But since he proposes the freeze for the next 3 years what it does is prevent the reductions to the budgets that need to happen in all aspects of government by limiting them to a 3 year freeze. Another ploy to back his enemy (anyone who doesn't agree with him) into a corner with half the facts and all the rhetoric he has shouted from his widely viewed pulpit. About a minute later, he starts to back peddle on even this lame excuse for fiscal responsibility when he says because so many are hurting he doesn't even propose to do this till next year when the country will be so much better off.
Then he goes on to say that his latest commission has been turned down by congress so he will just create it with an executive order. "Yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans." Here is where the dictator starts to really come out. While there are three branches of government, if the other two don't follow his agenda he will find another way around them. Whether that be using the EPA and SEC to accomplish cap and trade or the FCC to accomplish the fairness doctrine.
EPA web site promotes cap and trade as Envirnomental Policy Tool
Energy Czar Raises Possibility Of EPA Implementing Cap-And-Trade
"SEC to require disclosure of climate change risks"
Mark Lloyd, FCC Diversit Czar, View on free markets. (Scary)
Then he commits to go through the budget line by line to eliminate costs he doesn't support, probably just like he committed to do the same thing with earmarks which never happened. In the following sentence he promises to extend tax cuts for the middle class (who ever that is) followed by a sentence of attack on big oil and people making over $250,000. "We will continue to go through the budget line by line to eliminate programs that we can't afford and don't work. We've already identified $20 billion in savings for next year. To help working families, we will extend our middle-class tax cuts. But at a time of record deficits, we will not continue tax cuts for oil companies, investment fund managers and those making over $250,000 a year. We just can't afford it." That kind of sums up his whole campaign and presidency, tell a lie, offer a payoff and then attack or blame someone.
Then in one short paragraph, he attacks anyone who doesn't support him as part of the problem, pitches for more socialist programs, attacks anyone who is making a good living and finishes by again blaming Bush. "From some on the right, I expect we'll hear a different argument -- that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts for wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations and maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away. The problem is, that's what we did for eight years. That's what helped lead us into this crisis. It's what helped lead to these deficits. And we cannot do it again."
In the most shocking display of arrogance I think I have ever seen by anyone, President or not, he attacks the Supreme Court for opening the "floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections." I am sure it wouldn't surprise you to know that the statement was someplace between a politically motivated exaggeration and an out right lie. See my earlier blog posting on who is benefiting from the current special interest money disclosed at opensecrets.org under heavy hitters. He then goes off on cleaning up Washington of lobbyist while ignoring the lobbyist and special interest that have an open door to the White House. Incidentally on the subject of transparency, that open door slams shut as soon as they have entered. But he claims to be the most transparent administration ever, never mind the fact that all the health care negotiations and democratic vote buying went on behind closed doors at the White House. Or that recovery.gov is not even updated anymore because the data is so inaccurate they don't want to hear about it after spending 18 million to create the web site. So of course proposing another web site to post ear mark requests will be the end all solution to the never ending earmarks that he has continued to sign into legislation. Because as he said at the time of signing that omnibus spending bill, the amount of 8 billion was just "insignificant". To a corrupt politician spending billions of the tax payers money it probably is insignificant compared to what they do every day.
He proceeds to chide republicans for not supporting his agenda and tells them that to disagree with him is campaigning rather than governance. He attacks the false headlines, however in my mind the most false headlines come from the majority of the media who regurgitate his lies as facts and never even challenge a thing. But then I can see their point, who wants to risk being in the position of Fox News, who is now by a large margin the most trusted news source in a poll by the liberal Public Policy Polling. Fox most trusted by wide margin Since the survey was by a liberal polling entity they even took a partisan jab at the results by saying that “A generation ago you would have expected Americans to place their trust in the most neutral and unbiased conveyors of news,” said PPP President Dean Debnam in his analysis of the poll. “But the media landscape has really changed, and now they’re turning more toward the outlets that tell them what they want to hear.” If that is true then by a wide margin the country is more center right than the media who feeds them their information.
Of course he had to defend his stance on giving terrorist constitutional protections and his moral high ground taken in handling the "overseas contingency operation" addressing "man made disasters", formerly known as the global war on terror by all of us back woods hicks who have never been to Harvard. He even has the audacity to say of our military they"must know that they have our respect, our gratitude and our full support. And just as they must have the resources they need in war". Isn't this the same person who took 3 or 4 months to respond to an additional troop request from the General he put in charge of the war he deemed necessary? He then goes on to promote his handling of international affairs and while I don't really know enough about them to comment, I can say I don't trust a single word he speaks and thus have concerns he will weaken this country in order to pacify others.
Next he goes on to promote his commitment to liberal special interests in Pelosi's district through the repeal of the don't ask don't tell policy in the military. As in many cases, like the NY terror trials, he has not thought this one through and is making decisions based upon political support rather than rational analysis. But then he is the same person who reprimanded everyone else in the country for just that action minutes before. He is also very proud of making the severity of a crime dependent upon the criminal's views toward the victim. (Hate Crimes Bill) If the criminal hates gays then it is a worse crime if he kills a gay person than if he just killed straight white guy. This one really sets me off, we have laws against crime and they should be applied equally regardless of the criminal's views. The victim is dead either way and the criminal should suffer the same consequences either way. But then I am a straight white guy who doesn't get special protections or treatment and it is perfectly legal to discriminate against me for the benefit of someone else based upon the color of their skin or sexual preference.
Well, I think I have gone on too long on this very upsetting display of arrogance. There are some things in the speech that are well put but for the most part it is more display of a tone deaf president who is such a progressive ideologue he has no hope of changing the partisan nature of Washington. Until we have people in charge who truly do what he falsely claims to do, which is display allegiance in governance to the people and not the party affiliation and party line we have no hope of change. To do that they must be elected by independents, and not the party, as such we have an excellent example in Massachusetts of where the country needs to go. Independents are 51% of that state with 38% Democrat and 11% Republican. Thus we can see that when Independents are the majority then the race becomes about the candidate and not the party in power.
Now obviously after a glorious introduction, he had to start by laying the stage for attacking Bush as that has been a cornerstone of every policy and speech he has made in the past year. Not even worth commenting on that any further as it such a worn out excuse for executing his radical agenda.
Then he had to go on and start patting his back as the reason the country is not in a depression, in my world it is whether he thinks so or not. Taking credit for 2 million jobs that were created or saved, a statistic that makes for good rhetoric due to the fact that is can not be reliably or accurately measured and thus can not be trusted. How do you know what may have happened if something else had not happened? And anyway, I think most of the government jobs need to be lost and government needs to downsize. As Reagan said government is not the solution, government is the problem. Especially when you consider the average pay for a federal employee is about 71,000 compared to about 40,000 for the people who are paying their wages. USA Today article, average pay $30,000 over private sector And those government employees have pensions and insurance too. Oh and by the way, remember SEIU, they are who Obama goes to before he does anything, well guess who represents many of the government employees. But surely Obama is not affected by lobbyist. (David Sterns, head of SEIU is the most frequent non government visitor to the White House) He assured us he has cleaned all that up. Did you see that we now have more government employees represented by unions than private market employees? Guess they now want to work the same miracles on the government they did on the auto industry. It did work out pretty well since they now own GM NY Times, Most union members are now government employees And of course, the NY Times would have to work in a plug for card check legislation in this article, as they think the implied message is we need to make it easier for unions to organize in the face of their declining membership. To say nothing of the the fact they are the largest democrat contributors. And since he has so few examples of success in his special interest stimulus bill, he has to use as examples of success ones that have already been exposed as corrupt. Remember this great window manufacturer exposed on John Stossell. John Stossel on Crony Capitalism But Obama continues to sing the praises of this company in spite of the cover being blown. But that was another posting, I need to move on.
After blaming the trillion dollar deficit on Bush, although the TARP program has been largely repaid, he then promotes taking money from that program and using it for banking stimulus to promote lending. Everyone seems to call TARP a 700 billion dollar Bush program but from what I can see, and there are lots of pencils and mirrors in their accounting, they are now saying that it will cost 141 billion in total. http://money.cnn.com/2009/12/07/news/companies/tarp_interest/?postversion=2009120807 That is pretty small to save the entire banking system from collapse and thus may have been a good investment. However, TARP has become Obama's piggy bank, every time he sees something left or paid back, he wants to use it on another bail out while not taking responsibility for the deficit it creates. That was where he got the money to bail out the auto industry and subsequently screw the bond holders and give it as a gift to his union supporters. He blames the auto industry party on Bush but as I recall, Bush didn't want to do it but said he would conceded to Obamas request for doing so but only enough money to get them past the inauguration and then Obama could do what he wanted. What was the stimulus program and why can't he use some of the wasted special interest stimulus money passed with no debate or even being read by those who voted on it. Since no one knew what they were passing they wouldn't know if it was changed and spent someplace else.
Then he moves on to praise small business, although in this past year he has completely excluded them from any of his White House closed door meetings. Choosing rather big business, wall street, government and unions to influence his agenda the most. Probably because they write the big checks to his campaign, oh but that couldn't be true as that may be giving lobbyist a seat at the table. When in reality they own the table and all the chairs around it in this White House. Which is, I am sure, not that unusual in the White House. So after trumping up small business, which he knows nothing about, he wants to tout high speed rail. Which has no free market demand other than for the contracts to build it and suck off the government subsidy wagon to both build and operate it.
And then after telling us how government can direct business through incentives to get into the businesses he supports he says we are going to double our exports in the next 5 years. What is it we export that is in such demand we are going to double it and create American jobs in so doing? Unless the government is going to subsidize it in someway, there is nothing I can think of other than food that we are very efficient and cost effective at producing. How can we compete in a world market with all our government regulation and high priced union manufacturing labor? There is a reason we manufacture very little in this country. So he says we are going to double our exports while he supports unionizing everyone because of course that is where he gets his 750 million to run a presidential campaign. And if he is going to impose tariffs on imports because he needs to support the domestic unions, I am "sure" that other countries will not reciprocate with restrictions and tariffs on the "phantom" American imports to their country. Surely China doesn't mind our tariffs on their tires and will welcome with open arms anything we want to sell them at prices that support our domestic wage structure by way of US government subsidies. Then of course they will also turn around with what money they have left after buying all of our subsidized exports and spend it on US Treasury debt to support our deficit spending. Which deficit was created though government subsidizing the cheap exports. If this sounds circular, I think it is. Makes a lot of sense doesn't it?
And then of course we have to invest in education. To expand math and science, as long as it is the flawed science that supports man made global warming, or rather we now call it man made climate change due to the unusually cold winter. That way he can use science to institute more taxes (cap and trade) to combat the "phantom" man made global warming, woops, I mean climate change. One thing we don't want to teach is "American History" and "World History" as that may cause our young people to remember the mistakes made earlier in the 20th century in trusting silver tongued devils who took them down the path of destruction. And if we are going to teach history lets make sure it passes the progressive politicians test for "fairness" IE political correctness.
Then of course he had to mention health care and how he is trying to save the entire country, while in fact his bloated plan only changed who paid the bills and only covered about 10 million of the 30 million or so uninsured depending upon which report you read. And the greatest spin of the last two weeks, since the Massachusetts election, the reason government health care is failing with the public is because he has not explained it well enough. "Still, this is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people." UNBELIEVABLE ARROGANCE Yep, your right, we are just a bunch of idiots out here who can't think for ourselves and some of us even watch and listen to television and radio stations you don't approve of as actual news because it doesn't agree with your view Mr. Obama. I am beginning to feel like my son is right when he tells me that Obama is not his president even though I try to take the patriotic stance and tell him Obama represents our country and was elected by a majority of the voters. And then Obama says "if anyone has a better idea let me know". I think people have tried to let him know but they couldn't be heard over the lawyers political contributions. And I distinctly remember him saying he didn't create the mess and unless you are going to fall in line and help mop up this mess (accomplish his agenda) he didn't want to hear from you. In other words do what I say or sit down and shut up. That is what he said to the GOP on health care, energy and the economy. However, he sure decided he liked anyone who had Goldman Sacs on their resume for help in banking and wall street reform. Remember, Goldman Sacs was his second largest contributor at $994,795 behind University of California at $1,591,395. largest contributors
Then back to some Bush Bashing.
He acts like he has really accomplished something when he proposed to freeze spending on about 17% of the entire 3.5 trillion dollar federal budget at a level he increased by 10% last year. Net savings of about 15 billion annually when we have a projected deficit of 1.3 trillion. About a 1% reduction of just the deficit to say nothing of the entire budget. But since he proposes the freeze for the next 3 years what it does is prevent the reductions to the budgets that need to happen in all aspects of government by limiting them to a 3 year freeze. Another ploy to back his enemy (anyone who doesn't agree with him) into a corner with half the facts and all the rhetoric he has shouted from his widely viewed pulpit. About a minute later, he starts to back peddle on even this lame excuse for fiscal responsibility when he says because so many are hurting he doesn't even propose to do this till next year when the country will be so much better off.
Then he goes on to say that his latest commission has been turned down by congress so he will just create it with an executive order. "Yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans." Here is where the dictator starts to really come out. While there are three branches of government, if the other two don't follow his agenda he will find another way around them. Whether that be using the EPA and SEC to accomplish cap and trade or the FCC to accomplish the fairness doctrine.
EPA web site promotes cap and trade as Envirnomental Policy Tool
Energy Czar Raises Possibility Of EPA Implementing Cap-And-Trade
"SEC to require disclosure of climate change risks"
Mark Lloyd, FCC Diversit Czar, View on free markets. (Scary)
Then he commits to go through the budget line by line to eliminate costs he doesn't support, probably just like he committed to do the same thing with earmarks which never happened. In the following sentence he promises to extend tax cuts for the middle class (who ever that is) followed by a sentence of attack on big oil and people making over $250,000. "We will continue to go through the budget line by line to eliminate programs that we can't afford and don't work. We've already identified $20 billion in savings for next year. To help working families, we will extend our middle-class tax cuts. But at a time of record deficits, we will not continue tax cuts for oil companies, investment fund managers and those making over $250,000 a year. We just can't afford it." That kind of sums up his whole campaign and presidency, tell a lie, offer a payoff and then attack or blame someone.
Then in one short paragraph, he attacks anyone who doesn't support him as part of the problem, pitches for more socialist programs, attacks anyone who is making a good living and finishes by again blaming Bush. "From some on the right, I expect we'll hear a different argument -- that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts for wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations and maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away. The problem is, that's what we did for eight years. That's what helped lead us into this crisis. It's what helped lead to these deficits. And we cannot do it again."
In the most shocking display of arrogance I think I have ever seen by anyone, President or not, he attacks the Supreme Court for opening the "floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections." I am sure it wouldn't surprise you to know that the statement was someplace between a politically motivated exaggeration and an out right lie. See my earlier blog posting on who is benefiting from the current special interest money disclosed at opensecrets.org under heavy hitters. He then goes off on cleaning up Washington of lobbyist while ignoring the lobbyist and special interest that have an open door to the White House. Incidentally on the subject of transparency, that open door slams shut as soon as they have entered. But he claims to be the most transparent administration ever, never mind the fact that all the health care negotiations and democratic vote buying went on behind closed doors at the White House. Or that recovery.gov is not even updated anymore because the data is so inaccurate they don't want to hear about it after spending 18 million to create the web site. So of course proposing another web site to post ear mark requests will be the end all solution to the never ending earmarks that he has continued to sign into legislation. Because as he said at the time of signing that omnibus spending bill, the amount of 8 billion was just "insignificant". To a corrupt politician spending billions of the tax payers money it probably is insignificant compared to what they do every day.
He proceeds to chide republicans for not supporting his agenda and tells them that to disagree with him is campaigning rather than governance. He attacks the false headlines, however in my mind the most false headlines come from the majority of the media who regurgitate his lies as facts and never even challenge a thing. But then I can see their point, who wants to risk being in the position of Fox News, who is now by a large margin the most trusted news source in a poll by the liberal Public Policy Polling. Fox most trusted by wide margin Since the survey was by a liberal polling entity they even took a partisan jab at the results by saying that “A generation ago you would have expected Americans to place their trust in the most neutral and unbiased conveyors of news,” said PPP President Dean Debnam in his analysis of the poll. “But the media landscape has really changed, and now they’re turning more toward the outlets that tell them what they want to hear.” If that is true then by a wide margin the country is more center right than the media who feeds them their information.
Of course he had to defend his stance on giving terrorist constitutional protections and his moral high ground taken in handling the "overseas contingency operation" addressing "man made disasters", formerly known as the global war on terror by all of us back woods hicks who have never been to Harvard. He even has the audacity to say of our military they"must know that they have our respect, our gratitude and our full support. And just as they must have the resources they need in war". Isn't this the same person who took 3 or 4 months to respond to an additional troop request from the General he put in charge of the war he deemed necessary? He then goes on to promote his handling of international affairs and while I don't really know enough about them to comment, I can say I don't trust a single word he speaks and thus have concerns he will weaken this country in order to pacify others.
Next he goes on to promote his commitment to liberal special interests in Pelosi's district through the repeal of the don't ask don't tell policy in the military. As in many cases, like the NY terror trials, he has not thought this one through and is making decisions based upon political support rather than rational analysis. But then he is the same person who reprimanded everyone else in the country for just that action minutes before. He is also very proud of making the severity of a crime dependent upon the criminal's views toward the victim. (Hate Crimes Bill) If the criminal hates gays then it is a worse crime if he kills a gay person than if he just killed straight white guy. This one really sets me off, we have laws against crime and they should be applied equally regardless of the criminal's views. The victim is dead either way and the criminal should suffer the same consequences either way. But then I am a straight white guy who doesn't get special protections or treatment and it is perfectly legal to discriminate against me for the benefit of someone else based upon the color of their skin or sexual preference.
Well, I think I have gone on too long on this very upsetting display of arrogance. There are some things in the speech that are well put but for the most part it is more display of a tone deaf president who is such a progressive ideologue he has no hope of changing the partisan nature of Washington. Until we have people in charge who truly do what he falsely claims to do, which is display allegiance in governance to the people and not the party affiliation and party line we have no hope of change. To do that they must be elected by independents, and not the party, as such we have an excellent example in Massachusetts of where the country needs to go. Independents are 51% of that state with 38% Democrat and 11% Republican. Thus we can see that when Independents are the majority then the race becomes about the candidate and not the party in power.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Progressive Agenda and small government
While I still struggle with Becks attacks on McCain as a progressive, his evidence is solid. I still view McCain as a patriot who has just learned to get anything done in Washington you have to compromise. But other than the McCain attacks which are still true, I am just in denial about his agenda, this is some more good video as are most all of his entire shows.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
You Probably Think This Speech is About You
As time goes on there have to be fewer and fewer people able to say he is not a narcissist. What was obvious to those of us who bothered to really look into his history has to eventually become apparent to even the most defensive of liberals but never will a progressive admit it.
Ben Stein on "Obama's favorite cause is Obama"
Ben Stein on "Obama's favorite cause is Obama"
Monday, January 25, 2010
Venezuela President Chavez orders TV station off the air
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/24/AR2010012402887.html?hpid=artslot
Well, not much to say here other than the Obama administrations Cheif Diversity Czar, Mark Lloyd, at the FCC who has the ear of the president and impacts our governments treatment of free speech in the media has a new bar to clear today. Lloyd has stated what an admirer he is of Hugo Chavez and his handling of the media and controlling free speech. Lloyd has stated the "fairness doctorine" didn't go far enough. Here is a link to an article that does a good job of summing up some of the radical views this man has. The only thing missing from what I know of the person is the video of is admiration of Chavez. FCC's Diversity Czar: 'White People' Need to be Forced to 'Step Down' 'So Someone Else Can Have Power This is the link to the same web site that sums up his admiration of Chavez and his handling of the media in his country. FCC 'Diversity' Czar on Chavez's Venezuela: 'Incredible...Democratic Revolution'
Coincidentally, a Post editorial today on the resounding successes of Hugo Chavez can be read here
How Hugo Chavez's revolution crumbled
We know that if given the opportunity that the Obama administration would shut down Fox News in a heart beat and they pick a fight with them every chance they get while they consider MSNBC to be news. Have you watched any of the MSNBC coverage in the past week. They have gone off their rockers in making excuses and attacking the Massachusetts election. And as for the coverage of that election I found it very telling when I was channel surfing between CNN, MSNBC and FOX during the concession and acceptance speeches that CNN and MSNBC decided that Scott Brown was talking too much and cut off his speech and and went to commentary attacking him and the election rather than post his speech. O'reily did a segment on this very topic that pretty much sums it up. O'reilly on Media Coverage of Brown and Coakley
Now we just have to see if Mark Lloyd can be successful in shutting up the Obama administrations "public enemy number one" and continue following the blueprint of Venezuela's treatment of the media in the USA.
Well, not much to say here other than the Obama administrations Cheif Diversity Czar, Mark Lloyd, at the FCC who has the ear of the president and impacts our governments treatment of free speech in the media has a new bar to clear today. Lloyd has stated what an admirer he is of Hugo Chavez and his handling of the media and controlling free speech. Lloyd has stated the "fairness doctorine" didn't go far enough. Here is a link to an article that does a good job of summing up some of the radical views this man has. The only thing missing from what I know of the person is the video of is admiration of Chavez. FCC's Diversity Czar: 'White People' Need to be Forced to 'Step Down' 'So Someone Else Can Have Power This is the link to the same web site that sums up his admiration of Chavez and his handling of the media in his country. FCC 'Diversity' Czar on Chavez's Venezuela: 'Incredible...Democratic Revolution'
Coincidentally, a Post editorial today on the resounding successes of Hugo Chavez can be read here
How Hugo Chavez's revolution crumbled
We know that if given the opportunity that the Obama administration would shut down Fox News in a heart beat and they pick a fight with them every chance they get while they consider MSNBC to be news. Have you watched any of the MSNBC coverage in the past week. They have gone off their rockers in making excuses and attacking the Massachusetts election. And as for the coverage of that election I found it very telling when I was channel surfing between CNN, MSNBC and FOX during the concession and acceptance speeches that CNN and MSNBC decided that Scott Brown was talking too much and cut off his speech and and went to commentary attacking him and the election rather than post his speech. O'reily did a segment on this very topic that pretty much sums it up. O'reilly on Media Coverage of Brown and Coakley
Now we just have to see if Mark Lloyd can be successful in shutting up the Obama administrations "public enemy number one" and continue following the blueprint of Venezuela's treatment of the media in the USA.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Supreme Court Decision on Political Contributions
The partisan uproar this week has been amusing over the Supreme Court decision which concluded that corporations have the same First Amendment rights as individuals and, therefore, can spend as much company money as they wish to oppose or support individual political candidates. Prior to this week the rules according to a Wikipedia definition were:
Although prohibited from using their resources to "expressly advocate" the election or defeat of federal candidates, or to make contributions directly to candidates or parties, corporations and labor organizations may conduct a variety of activities related to federal elections, in addition to those conducted through a PAC. Though they may not use general treasury funds to pay for "electioneering communications" - broadcast ads referring to candidates for federal election without expressly advocating their election or defeat– in the 60 days prior to a general election, or 30 days prior to a primary election, they may advocate for political issues and mention federal candidates while doing so, if outside the 30/60 day time frame for "electioneering communications," or at any time through non-broadcast media. They may also engage in certain non-partisan voter registration and get-out-the-vote campaigns.
Additionally, over half the states allow some level of direct corporate contributions or spending in state and local races.
As you can see the deck has been very stacked in favor of trade organizations and unions who routinely collect dues along with contributions to their political action committees at the same time. However, corporations have been very handcuffed to a much smaller pool of contributors limited to managment and shareholders. So what effect has this had on PAC fund raising and which party has benefited from the current restrictions? I don't think the answer will surprise you based upon the uproar from the democrats however the magnitude of the difference may surprise you.
If you go to the "heavy hitters" on the web site Opensecrets.org and look at the top 100 political action committees of the past 20 years they are all corporate and union names. Heavy Hitters top 100 Of the largest 100 you have to get to number 87 before finding one that is solidly republican in their financial support. Of the top 20, 12 are solidly democrat and all are either associations of lawyers or unions. No question as to why there was no tort reform included in the health care bill now is there? Also becomes crystal clear why the unions got an exemption from the so called Cadillac tax on gold plated insurance plans. The lawyers and unions had already bought and paid for their exemptions. All of those PAC's are solidly democrat which means they give more than 90% of their money to democrat candidates.
So why is this such a big decision by the supreme court? It seems obvious that big special interest money has, as we are all aware, been flowing to candidates and campaigns already. What is most amusing is to watch the democrats get all up in arms about it and threaten to pass laws to stop it when they have already been the biggest beneficiaries of the current system of special interest money as evidenced by the list at opensecrets.org. Perhaps they are afraid the playing field may level in this game of special interest, They don't want "fair and balanced" support of parties and candidates and like the current system that has proven to be heavily weighted to their advantage.
While we have all become accustomed to the idea that special interest money buys politicians, there may be a change in the wind. The Massachusetts election gives one hope that the electorate after having been badly burned by not looking at the candidates history and listening to political spin in 2008, may now be ready to look to the candidates history, principals and values more than the overwhelming amount of money they spent on spin. In the 2008 presidential election Obama was able to spin out of the little bit of history he had and shout loud enough and with enough confidence and money that people ignored what he had proven to be in his brief political history. The overwhelming amount of money he spent on the election dwarfed his opposition by 2.5 times. Graph of total receipts and expenditures by candidate And when you look at the top 5 contributors to McCain and Obama it becomes obvious that someone thought an investment with Obama had a much higher likelihood of payoff. Probably because McCain had supported and authored campaign finance reform and has never taken one ear mark in his career.
Total from Top 5 contributors: $5.077.990, average of $1,015,595
Total from Top 5 contributors: $1,427,300, average of $285,460
You can see that McCain's top 5 didn't even add up to Obama's top 1. So money did buy that election in spite of the populist spin put on it by the media. And as for the big corporate money going to the republican that doesn't appear to be the case here.
However, what a difference a year makes, when you look at the Massachusetts election as of December 31 Brown had raised and spent less than 25% of what Coakley had raised and spent.Massachusetts election spending It will be interesting to see what happened when the national parties realized what was happening there and decided to pour national money and support into the election. I am sure the amounts jumped dramatically in the final days but the momentum was built by Brown when he had a distinct financial disadvantage. Regardless of how the final numbers come out the power and money players who jumped on the band wagon at the end will take credit or place blame as if they were the deciding factors. However, I believe the Massachusetts electorate voted on the candidates and were not swayed by the special interest flurry at the end of the race. As such we have an increasingly independent electorate who are realizing they need to look at the candidate and not all the financed special interest spin they put in their message. Lets hope and pray that is the direction this country is taking. We need to all think like an independent whether we register as one or not. Vote on the candidate and his history, values and principals and quit voting for the R or the D as there is going to be more money flowing now than ever before.
Corporate and Union Activity
Even though corporations and labor organizations may not make contributions or expenditures in connection with federal elections, they may establish Political Action Committees, or PACs. Corporate and labor PACs raise voluntary contributions from a restricted class of individuals. In the case of unions, this consists of union members and their families. For corporations, the restricted class consists of managerial employees and stockholders and their families. These funds may be used to support federal candidates and political committees, either through independent expenditures or through contributions to candidates. A PAC is limited to a maximum contribution of $5,000 to a candidate committee per election.Although prohibited from using their resources to "expressly advocate" the election or defeat of federal candidates, or to make contributions directly to candidates or parties, corporations and labor organizations may conduct a variety of activities related to federal elections, in addition to those conducted through a PAC. Though they may not use general treasury funds to pay for "electioneering communications" - broadcast ads referring to candidates for federal election without expressly advocating their election or defeat– in the 60 days prior to a general election, or 30 days prior to a primary election, they may advocate for political issues and mention federal candidates while doing so, if outside the 30/60 day time frame for "electioneering communications," or at any time through non-broadcast media. They may also engage in certain non-partisan voter registration and get-out-the-vote campaigns.
Additionally, over half the states allow some level of direct corporate contributions or spending in state and local races.
As you can see the deck has been very stacked in favor of trade organizations and unions who routinely collect dues along with contributions to their political action committees at the same time. However, corporations have been very handcuffed to a much smaller pool of contributors limited to managment and shareholders. So what effect has this had on PAC fund raising and which party has benefited from the current restrictions? I don't think the answer will surprise you based upon the uproar from the democrats however the magnitude of the difference may surprise you.
If you go to the "heavy hitters" on the web site Opensecrets.org and look at the top 100 political action committees of the past 20 years they are all corporate and union names. Heavy Hitters top 100 Of the largest 100 you have to get to number 87 before finding one that is solidly republican in their financial support. Of the top 20, 12 are solidly democrat and all are either associations of lawyers or unions. No question as to why there was no tort reform included in the health care bill now is there? Also becomes crystal clear why the unions got an exemption from the so called Cadillac tax on gold plated insurance plans. The lawyers and unions had already bought and paid for their exemptions. All of those PAC's are solidly democrat which means they give more than 90% of their money to democrat candidates.
So why is this such a big decision by the supreme court? It seems obvious that big special interest money has, as we are all aware, been flowing to candidates and campaigns already. What is most amusing is to watch the democrats get all up in arms about it and threaten to pass laws to stop it when they have already been the biggest beneficiaries of the current system of special interest money as evidenced by the list at opensecrets.org. Perhaps they are afraid the playing field may level in this game of special interest, They don't want "fair and balanced" support of parties and candidates and like the current system that has proven to be heavily weighted to their advantage.
While we have all become accustomed to the idea that special interest money buys politicians, there may be a change in the wind. The Massachusetts election gives one hope that the electorate after having been badly burned by not looking at the candidates history and listening to political spin in 2008, may now be ready to look to the candidates history, principals and values more than the overwhelming amount of money they spent on spin. In the 2008 presidential election Obama was able to spin out of the little bit of history he had and shout loud enough and with enough confidence and money that people ignored what he had proven to be in his brief political history. The overwhelming amount of money he spent on the election dwarfed his opposition by 2.5 times. Graph of total receipts and expenditures by candidate And when you look at the top 5 contributors to McCain and Obama it becomes obvious that someone thought an investment with Obama had a much higher likelihood of payoff. Probably because McCain had supported and authored campaign finance reform and has never taken one ear mark in his career.
Barack Obama
| University of California | $1,591,395 | ||||||
| Goldman Sachs | $994,795 | ||||||
| Harvard University | $854,747 | ||||||
| Microsoft Corp | $833,617 | ||||||
| Google Inc | $803,436 |
John McCain
| Merrill Lynch | $373,595 | ||
| Citigroup Inc | $322,051 | ||
| Morgan Stanley | $273,452 | ||
| Goldman Sachs | $230,095 | ||
| JPMorgan Chase & Co | $228,107 |
You can see that McCain's top 5 didn't even add up to Obama's top 1. So money did buy that election in spite of the populist spin put on it by the media. And as for the big corporate money going to the republican that doesn't appear to be the case here.
However, what a difference a year makes, when you look at the Massachusetts election as of December 31 Brown had raised and spent less than 25% of what Coakley had raised and spent.Massachusetts election spending It will be interesting to see what happened when the national parties realized what was happening there and decided to pour national money and support into the election. I am sure the amounts jumped dramatically in the final days but the momentum was built by Brown when he had a distinct financial disadvantage. Regardless of how the final numbers come out the power and money players who jumped on the band wagon at the end will take credit or place blame as if they were the deciding factors. However, I believe the Massachusetts electorate voted on the candidates and were not swayed by the special interest flurry at the end of the race. As such we have an increasingly independent electorate who are realizing they need to look at the candidate and not all the financed special interest spin they put in their message. Lets hope and pray that is the direction this country is taking. We need to all think like an independent whether we register as one or not. Vote on the candidate and his history, values and principals and quit voting for the R or the D as there is going to be more money flowing now than ever before.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Removing the Whitewash from Dr King
I heard on Glenn Beck yesterday that the head of the NAACP, Julian Bond, had proclaimed that Martin Luther King was in favor of this country being governed by "a modified form of socialism". It took me a long time of searching to find where Beck had come up with this information because not one media outlet, including Fox, has been willing to touch this one. I would guess there is some testing of the water going on by the progressives as to whether this admission will help or hurt their case and as such it is very deeply hidden and hard to find. But in any case and as is usually the case, Beck has facts to back up his statements. It is amazing to me that while many of us who were alive at the time of Dr. King were aware of this, the progressive liberals have managed to whitewash our memory and the history books in one generation and accomplish the combining of Washington and Lincoln's birthdays into a single Presidents day holiday so they could have a dedicated Martin Luther King day. Think about this, everyone and most importantly the NAACP has never admitted what we all knew because it would have tainted the memory and surely we would have not allowed such a major holiday in commemorating the birthday of someone who supported such a different form of government than our Presidents prior to the 20th century. But now that we have a radical socialist president who also just happens to be black, they can now come out of the closet and openly say what MLK stood for. It has now become cool to be socialist and they are using MLK and his memory to further add credibility to Obama's agenda.
Here is a youtube.com video of Julian Bond, Chairman of the NAACP making the King a socialist remark at about minute 3:05.
I hope you listened to most of this video and understood this is not some radical ranting and raving about Dr King's agenda. If not here is the transcript of Julian Bond’s remark regarding Kings view towards socialism:
There you have it. It gets more difficult to educate our children on the true history of this country when within our lifetimes we have managed to confuse the facts we are teaching them. How many facts do you think may be wrong or omitted from our history? A history we did not experience but only read about in school? How much history are we doomed to repeat because we are not aware of the true history not only of our country but that of the world.
Additional note on rewriting of history
I don't know what Beck is up to today on his show that he has billed as his first documentary called "Live Free or Die" but he says it will shock you and he advises to watch it once without your kids and then determine at what age you think your kids can handle the truth. He says it is very upsetting; the rewriting of history that has been accomplished by progressives and how he is going to expose that history using actual video and audio, a part of 20th century history you have never known. As usual the web site therightscoop.com will have the entire show without commercial interruption if you miss it.
Here is a youtube.com video of Julian Bond, Chairman of the NAACP making the King a socialist remark at about minute 3:05.
I hope you listened to most of this video and understood this is not some radical ranting and raving about Dr King's agenda. If not here is the transcript of Julian Bond’s remark regarding Kings view towards socialism:
We don't remember the King who was the critique of capitalism who said to Charles Fager when they (MLK) were in jail together in Selma in 1965 that he thought a modified form of socialism would be the best system for the United States. We don’t remember the Martin Luther King who talked ceaselessly about taking care of the masses and not just dealing with the people at the top of the ladder. So we’ve kind of anesthetized him. We’ve made him into a different kind of person than he actually was in life. And it may be that that’s one reason he’s so celebrated today because we celebrate a different kind of man than really existed. But he was a bit more radical. Not terribly, terribly radical but a bit more radical than we make him out to be today.This is the very composed Chairman of the NAACP merely stating historical facts. He has been a politician, professor and writer who is obviously very educated and deliberate in his speaking style. Since I think his credibility and position is what makes this story significant here a link to a wikipedia bio on his very admirable career and life. Julian Bond
There you have it. It gets more difficult to educate our children on the true history of this country when within our lifetimes we have managed to confuse the facts we are teaching them. How many facts do you think may be wrong or omitted from our history? A history we did not experience but only read about in school? How much history are we doomed to repeat because we are not aware of the true history not only of our country but that of the world.
Additional note on rewriting of history
I don't know what Beck is up to today on his show that he has billed as his first documentary called "Live Free or Die" but he says it will shock you and he advises to watch it once without your kids and then determine at what age you think your kids can handle the truth. He says it is very upsetting; the rewriting of history that has been accomplished by progressives and how he is going to expose that history using actual video and audio, a part of 20th century history you have never known. As usual the web site therightscoop.com will have the entire show without commercial interruption if you miss it.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Progressive Spin
Amazing the reaction to this election loss by the progressives. As Glenn Beck said on his Monday show, you will know who is in charge based upon the response to a loss. If they regroup and change their resolve and direction then it is just the democrats in charge which is not bad as they are not all that scary and radical. They still represent the people albeit the liberal ones. However, if they just get more committed and put self serving spin on it then we will know for sure the marxist, socialist progressives are in control. If they are more committed than ever to their own agenda rather than the peoples then the most radical of the progressives are running the White House and they don't care what the people say, they have their own agenda and they are smarter than the electorate. The biggest point is in the second and third video below:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
You can pretty much tell whether someone is a liberal democrat or a progressive democrat by their reaction to the loss. A liberal wants to step back and listen to the people and a progressive wants to tell you what they meant and spin it to support their unwavering agenda. I think this shows that we have the worst scenario of progressives controlling the Obama administration.
Pelosi: We will move forward
Obama: Blame Bush for loss
Obama blames Massachusetts Senate loss on middle-class economic pain
Don't miss this quote in this Washington Post article "Several described an atmosphere of resolve not unlike the mood during the toughest moments of the 2008 campaign".
Axelrod: Axelrod, Gibbs spin day after Mass. loss
SEIU: Change hasn't come quick enough
Bohner: Amercan people tired of democrats arrogance
Remember yesterday's post on the constitution, here Huffington sets me straight on what has happened to the balance of power as well as why the election loss was more about not moving quickly on wall street rather than health care. The last statement in this clip is shocking but then consider it was on Olberman and MSNBC.
And there you have it, Obama is in charge of "all three branches of government", so we now know what has happened to the balance of power. We also know why we don't need to listen to the voters once they made the decision to put someone in the White House who is in charge of everything.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
You can pretty much tell whether someone is a liberal democrat or a progressive democrat by their reaction to the loss. A liberal wants to step back and listen to the people and a progressive wants to tell you what they meant and spin it to support their unwavering agenda. I think this shows that we have the worst scenario of progressives controlling the Obama administration.
Pelosi: We will move forward
Obama: Blame Bush for loss
Obama blames Massachusetts Senate loss on middle-class economic pain
Don't miss this quote in this Washington Post article "Several described an atmosphere of resolve not unlike the mood during the toughest moments of the 2008 campaign".
Axelrod: Axelrod, Gibbs spin day after Mass. loss
SEIU: Change hasn't come quick enough
Bohner: Amercan people tired of democrats arrogance
Remember yesterday's post on the constitution, here Huffington sets me straight on what has happened to the balance of power as well as why the election loss was more about not moving quickly on wall street rather than health care. The last statement in this clip is shocking but then consider it was on Olberman and MSNBC.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
And there you have it, Obama is in charge of "all three branches of government", so we now know what has happened to the balance of power. We also know why we don't need to listen to the voters once they made the decision to put someone in the White House who is in charge of everything.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
What has happened to our balance of power
Here is a link to the entire consitutition as this discussion requires basically a look at the entire document. Constitution
The basic responsibilities of each branch of our Government are as follows and none are subservient or reliant on the other.
Legislative Branch: The most important duty of the legislative branch is to make laws. Laws are written, discussed and voted on in Congress.
Executive Branch: approves and carries out laws passed by the legislative branch. He appoints or removes cabinet members and officials. He negotiates treaties, and acts as head of state and commander in chief of the armed forces.
Judicial Branch: Through court cases, the judicial branch explains the meaning of the Constitution and laws passed by Congress.
I have been thinking about and wondering what has happened to the balance of power supposedly built into our constitution. First lets be clear that the Presidential oath of office is the the last sentence of Article II, Section I of the Constitution:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
I was under the impression that The responsibilities of the President according to that Constitution were:
Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
Section I, Aricle I says "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." No where do I see that the President is to propose legislation, lobby for that legislation, broker deals to achieve that legislation and only then will he enforce the laws passed by the legislature. In fact it is quite the opposite. So how is it that we have a legislative agenda for our puppet congress that is completely set and driven by the President. That is how a private company may be run but private companies are not representative democracies concerned about limited power over their subjects and individual rights and freedoms.
We have a President who is treating the congress like they are his underlings and subject to his control and direction. Amazingly, many of the democrats have succumbed to that view and are marching to that drum, all in ignorance of the constitution to which was sworn an oath to uphold. The republicans are a non event in either body of congress and as such have been completely eliminated from discussion regarding any of the Obama administration agenda items. It has been proven they do not need one republican vote to achieve the White House goals and thus all of the pay offs and "negotiation" have been among democrats only. They only have to compromise enough to get all the democrats in support of legislation and it will be passed. Which by the way and while talking about "pay offs", what does the first paragraph of section 8 of the constitution mean? It says, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States". Yet to accomplish the Executive branch of the federal governments agenda, the Legislative branch has made many special deals regarding what I view to be tax breaks to individual states. I would assert there are about 4 claims of unconstitutional actions in just the last sentence.
It seems that the White House although headed up by a person who is said to be a "Constitutional Scholar" is very negligent of the duties afforded the Executive Branch and has involved itself in the very minute detail of the Legislative branch of government. And now with a loss of the filibuster proof senate they are convening to determine how to continue the accomplishment of their agenda when even the most liberal of states has spoken they are out of touch with the American People. The White House has attacked the very candidate they were supporting two days ago as incompetent and incapable of running an effective campaign and says had they been asked for help sooner they could have guided her to a victory. Yet the victorious candidate made the very core issue that of the White House agenda. I don't see how more closely aligning with the White House could have helped her and would have hurt her even more. But then that is what this White House does, they attack and smear anyone who doesn't support their agenda or who may be a threat to that agenda, even if the people they are actually attacking are the American people who have spoken at the ballot box. The second American Revolution has again started in the most unlikely of places, Massachusetts. The White House and the media under their control has attacked the Tea Party movement as out of touch and didn't that also occur in Boston Harbor. Anyone who respected the will of the people would alter their agenda after this Massachusetts election rather than attack the candidate and the electorate. But they (progressive democrats) believe the electorate is not even smart enough to make their own decisions if they are in disagreement with those decisions. This begins to sound like some of the most radical dictators of the 20th century and not the elected leaders of the USA who are to serve the people who elected them and support the Constitution. At what point do we begin to consider this type of action treason.
The basic responsibilities of each branch of our Government are as follows and none are subservient or reliant on the other.
Legislative Branch: The most important duty of the legislative branch is to make laws. Laws are written, discussed and voted on in Congress.
Executive Branch: approves and carries out laws passed by the legislative branch. He appoints or removes cabinet members and officials. He negotiates treaties, and acts as head of state and commander in chief of the armed forces.
Judicial Branch: Through court cases, the judicial branch explains the meaning of the Constitution and laws passed by Congress.
I have been thinking about and wondering what has happened to the balance of power supposedly built into our constitution. First lets be clear that the Presidential oath of office is the the last sentence of Article II, Section I of the Constitution:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
I was under the impression that The responsibilities of the President according to that Constitution were:
Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
Section I, Aricle I says "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." No where do I see that the President is to propose legislation, lobby for that legislation, broker deals to achieve that legislation and only then will he enforce the laws passed by the legislature. In fact it is quite the opposite. So how is it that we have a legislative agenda for our puppet congress that is completely set and driven by the President. That is how a private company may be run but private companies are not representative democracies concerned about limited power over their subjects and individual rights and freedoms.
We have a President who is treating the congress like they are his underlings and subject to his control and direction. Amazingly, many of the democrats have succumbed to that view and are marching to that drum, all in ignorance of the constitution to which was sworn an oath to uphold. The republicans are a non event in either body of congress and as such have been completely eliminated from discussion regarding any of the Obama administration agenda items. It has been proven they do not need one republican vote to achieve the White House goals and thus all of the pay offs and "negotiation" have been among democrats only. They only have to compromise enough to get all the democrats in support of legislation and it will be passed. Which by the way and while talking about "pay offs", what does the first paragraph of section 8 of the constitution mean? It says, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States". Yet to accomplish the Executive branch of the federal governments agenda, the Legislative branch has made many special deals regarding what I view to be tax breaks to individual states. I would assert there are about 4 claims of unconstitutional actions in just the last sentence.
It seems that the White House although headed up by a person who is said to be a "Constitutional Scholar" is very negligent of the duties afforded the Executive Branch and has involved itself in the very minute detail of the Legislative branch of government. And now with a loss of the filibuster proof senate they are convening to determine how to continue the accomplishment of their agenda when even the most liberal of states has spoken they are out of touch with the American People. The White House has attacked the very candidate they were supporting two days ago as incompetent and incapable of running an effective campaign and says had they been asked for help sooner they could have guided her to a victory. Yet the victorious candidate made the very core issue that of the White House agenda. I don't see how more closely aligning with the White House could have helped her and would have hurt her even more. But then that is what this White House does, they attack and smear anyone who doesn't support their agenda or who may be a threat to that agenda, even if the people they are actually attacking are the American people who have spoken at the ballot box. The second American Revolution has again started in the most unlikely of places, Massachusetts. The White House and the media under their control has attacked the Tea Party movement as out of touch and didn't that also occur in Boston Harbor. Anyone who respected the will of the people would alter their agenda after this Massachusetts election rather than attack the candidate and the electorate. But they (progressive democrats) believe the electorate is not even smart enough to make their own decisions if they are in disagreement with those decisions. This begins to sound like some of the most radical dictators of the 20th century and not the elected leaders of the USA who are to serve the people who elected them and support the Constitution. At what point do we begin to consider this type of action treason.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Disgusting use of the word Crisis
The Obama White house and their state controlled media has no shame in using the word "crisis" to describe both the earthquake in Haiti and the possible loss of a senate seat in Massachusetts in the same sentence. They can make a person sick in the way they use the word "crisis" to describe anything that threatens their agenda. The third link below is an article from the Washington Post propaganda machine which I read every morning to see what today's white house propaganda is. Today's articles and headlines were particularly offensive as they must have felt they needed to do their part to help in any way possible in Massachusetts. Here are the propaganda headlines today and the links to the associated articles followed by some MSNBC propaganda links but remember according to Obama MSNBC is a news organization:
POLITICS
Obama to seek more funds to boost schools
President Obama is slated to visit a Fairfax County school Tuesday to announce plans to seek $1.35 billion in his next budget to expand his signature education initiative to improve schools.
(By Michael A. Fletcher, The Washington Post)
FBI broke law for years to get phone records
2,000 EXAMPLES FROM '02 TO '06
Cases were not part of terrorism probes
(By John Solomon and Carrie Johnson, The Washington Post)
A White House portrait of grace under pressure
Adviser balances crises in Haiti and at home
(By Jason Horowitz and Anne Kornblut, The Washington Post)
The making of a wartime commander in chief
(By Scott Wilson, The Washington Post)
Some catching up to do
(By Perry Bacon Jr., The Washington Post)
And of course MSNBC has to do their part.
Olbermann: Scott Brown is a homophobic racist
Chris Matthews Worried There Aren't Any Votes for Democrats to Buy in Massachusetts Tuesday
MSNBC’s Ed Schultz: Voters Should Cheat to Beat Brown
NBC: ‘Historic Upset’ in Bay State ‘Political Crisis’ for Obama, ObamaCare Unpopular in Mass.
POLITICS
Obama to seek more funds to boost schools
President Obama is slated to visit a Fairfax County school Tuesday to announce plans to seek $1.35 billion in his next budget to expand his signature education initiative to improve schools.
(By Michael A. Fletcher, The Washington Post)
FBI broke law for years to get phone records
2,000 EXAMPLES FROM '02 TO '06
Cases were not part of terrorism probes
(By John Solomon and Carrie Johnson, The Washington Post)
A White House portrait of grace under pressure
Adviser balances crises in Haiti and at home
(By Jason Horowitz and Anne Kornblut, The Washington Post)
The making of a wartime commander in chief
(By Scott Wilson, The Washington Post)
Some catching up to do
(By Perry Bacon Jr., The Washington Post)
And of course MSNBC has to do their part.
Olbermann: Scott Brown is a homophobic racist
Chris Matthews Worried There Aren't Any Votes for Democrats to Buy in Massachusetts Tuesday
MSNBC’s Ed Schultz: Voters Should Cheat to Beat Brown
NBC: ‘Historic Upset’ in Bay State ‘Political Crisis’ for Obama, ObamaCare Unpopular in Mass.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Sunday, January 17, 2010
ABORTION, don't ask me why I am here, I don't know
Wow, don't know why I took this tact this morning and ended up watching a bunch of you tube videos and reading about Norma McCorvey, the plaintiff in Roe Vs Wade, but I did. I thought I was getting away from politics and reading about deeper issues and then of course ran into video of Obama inserting his all knowing progressive opinions into this issue too. Here are a couple of the articles and videos. It is amazing how many people who have worked in abortion clinics and have seen babies born alive and then killed or just allowed to die have become pro life advocates. To say nothing about Norma McCorvey now becoming a prominent pro-life spokeswoman. In the supreme court decision judges decided at what point there is life and thus a person subject to protection under the constitution as opposed to no life and thus an infringement on anothers' right to privacy. Had ultra sounds been available at that time I am confident the Supreme Court would have found differently. It seems relatively obvious that life begins sometime close to conception if you do much reading and critical thinking. If not for the intervention of a medical procedure those cells regardless of how developed they are will become a human being. However, on the other end of life, if not for medical intervention many people would die much sooner. According to progressive democrat politicians at that point they have a "right" to medical care yet those same politicians don't just deny care to the unborn baby but use a medical procedure to assure the baby never has a chance at life in the name of a mothers right to "privacy" and to "choose". The estimate is there have been 50,000,000 (that is fifty million in case you lost count of the zeros) abortions in the US since Roe Vs Wade became the law of the land. There are many graphic videos you can find on the internet that will make you sick and I see no need to post the graphic details here other than an old ultra sound video that is more technical education than graphic detail.
Roe v. Wade - Norma Mccorvey: The Real Jane Roe
66 British babies survived abortion
Part 3 ultrasound of actual abortion
Obama & Live Birth Abortion / Induced Labor Abortions / Infanticide Pro-Life Anti-Abortion Video
Roe v. Wade - Norma Mccorvey: The Real Jane Roe
66 British babies survived abortion
Part 3 ultrasound of actual abortion
Obama & Live Birth Abortion / Induced Labor Abortions / Infanticide Pro-Life Anti-Abortion Video
Saturday, January 16, 2010
The Constitution and Freedom
I know that Glenn Beck has a mission this year of educating his viewers and listeners on American History and the Constitution. I am beginning to think that perhaps it is a goal of Fox News to educate Americans on the history of this nation in an attempt to return the power to the people. Judge Andrew Napolitano is a Fox contributor and this week did a five part series on the Constitution. It is worth watching a couple times as it reminds you of what you may have learned long ago but forgotten.
We spent 10 days in Washington DC last year for much the same purpose. Educate ourselves on the United States of America and the history of this country. Remind yourself of the goals in the creation of this country as you watch our current government officials greatly accelerate the dismantling of individual freedoms and explicit goals and protections intended by our founders. Remind yourself of how many generations have felt so strongly about this nation and the principals upon which it is built that they were willing to die. They died just to insure their decedents had the same opportunities and freedoms they had been granted by the Constitution and the system of government that created a free people. They died to leave the country at least as good as they had received it, however this generation of politicians empowered by a very selfish and uneducated electorate is robbing from the future both money and individual freedoms that were the foundation of this free country.
This link is in 5 parts starting at the bottom and working up and each is probably 9 minutes. May need to watch some of this multiple times to absorb the entire meaning of our founders intent.
Constitution and Freedom
We spent 10 days in Washington DC last year for much the same purpose. Educate ourselves on the United States of America and the history of this country. Remind yourself of the goals in the creation of this country as you watch our current government officials greatly accelerate the dismantling of individual freedoms and explicit goals and protections intended by our founders. Remind yourself of how many generations have felt so strongly about this nation and the principals upon which it is built that they were willing to die. They died just to insure their decedents had the same opportunities and freedoms they had been granted by the Constitution and the system of government that created a free people. They died to leave the country at least as good as they had received it, however this generation of politicians empowered by a very selfish and uneducated electorate is robbing from the future both money and individual freedoms that were the foundation of this free country.
This link is in 5 parts starting at the bottom and working up and each is probably 9 minutes. May need to watch some of this multiple times to absorb the entire meaning of our founders intent.
Constitution and Freedom
Friday, January 15, 2010
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
NRA News: UN Doomsday Treaty With Ginny Simone
I have never understood why people don't want the US to be part of the UN but I think it is time I spend some time educating myself on their reasons and post my thoughts and reasons.
Link to video
Link to video
Monday, January 11, 2010
Friday, January 8, 2010
John Stossel program
John Stossel has made the switch from the state controlled media and joined Fox where he can actually exercise more freedom of speech for the time being. This show from January 7 he has an interesting discussion on the book Atlas Shrugged and the Nanny State. Here is a link to the entire show on youtube. You will have to start each of the 6 segments as on the Rightscoop.com website it was not in a static location to link to.
John Stossel 6 part program
John Stossel 6 part program
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Glenn Beck Video links
Glenn Beck is spending this week summarizing the evidence and arguments he made over the past year about the White House agenda to fundamentally transform America. Obama video We need to watch this weeks shows as a basis for how to move forward in an attempt to correct the direction this country is heading. I missed yesterdays show and thus have had to piece together some youtube videos to watch the show. Here are those links. He has made a very convincing case the past year that we are being directed by a very radical white house who rather than offer facts disputing Beck have chosen to attack Fox News and Glenn Beck personally. When the heat gets too hot they just get rid of the people which is not Becks goal. He wants explanations of how those people with such radical views are advising the president not to just hide them away in a George Soros organization. Then they move on with more of their radical agenda. Beck is one of a very few who exposes the facts using their own quotes and videos and thus isn't just making stuff up. His opinions are developed from those facts.
I just found a website that has put the entire show on their site. Follow this link and then play the embedded link. You will notice that there are arrows on both sides of the embedded picture when you run your mouse over it. You can jump ahead and back with those arrows. I will put a daily link to each days show here now. The great thing about this is you don't have commercials so the show is probably only about 40 minutes.
January 4th Show
January 5th Show
January 6th Show
January 7th Show
January 8th Show
I just found a website that has put the entire show on their site. Follow this link and then play the embedded link. You will notice that there are arrows on both sides of the embedded picture when you run your mouse over it. You can jump ahead and back with those arrows. I will put a daily link to each days show here now. The great thing about this is you don't have commercials so the show is probably only about 40 minutes.
January 4th Show
January 5th Show
January 6th Show
January 7th Show
January 8th Show
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)