Senator Judd Gregg (R NH) obviously took offense to yet another vitriolic left winged misrepresentation of the GOP and let MSNBC's Contessa Brewer know she was out of line.
Obama’s first State of the Union speech is a memory now. We all sat through one hour and ten minutes of promise after promise and self-approbation on his performance so far.
Mixed in with the numerous mentions of himself, 86 standing ovations, 10 times blaming the Bush administration and the attacks on Wall Street and Bankers, he stated,
“But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. That means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies. And yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.”
“We are encouraged by the President's words that decisions need to be made about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development.
These are important and necessary decisions for the American people and the American economy. Greater access to America's vast oil and natural gas resources would bring more domestic energy, thousands of American jobs, billions in government revenues and less reliance on imported energy.
We support the President on jobs and are ready to do our part putting more Americans back to work. But to create these jobs, we will need policies that allow investment and development--policies that are pro-job, pro-consumer and pro-energy.
We are ready to work with the administration to help make that happen.”
“ Here in Virginia, we have the opportunity to be the first state on the East Coast to explore for and produce oil and natural gas offshore.
But this Administration's policies are delaying offshore production, hindering nuclear energy expansion, and seeking to impose job-killing cap and trade energy taxes.”
Responding to concerns raised by the recent Massachsetts election of Republcian Scott Brown, Barack Obama is now saying he will propose a "three-year freeze on domestic spending in his 2011 budget that would save $250 billion by 2020."
The Washington Post says, "Obama is under fire for a record deficit and has called for a bipartisan congressional commission to consider spending cuts and tax increases to improve the country's fiscal outlook."
Of course, he has not always felt this way.
It’s not very often that we see our local paper, the Columbian promoting or in agreement with a Republican. Usually, if they are, the Republican is either a left-leaning Republican, a RINO or is mistakenly supporting a position that will further the countries rush to socialism.
Such is the case I see in the January 25, 2010 editorial, In Our View, Jan. 25: Identify the Signers, supporting the release of the names, addresses and signatures of all who signed the petition that placed R-71, a citizen referendum to bring the Domestic Partnership law before voters, on last Novembers ballot.
Even before the election was held, gay activists were calling for releasing the names, addresses and signatures of the petition signers to them so they could place the information on searchable web pages, ostensibly to “contact and educate” people who disagree with the gay agenda.
Traditional Marriage Foes Try To Intimidate Washington Voters
A clear example of the intent is displayed by disturbed gay activist, John Bisceglia at Supreme Court Will Hear R-71 Petition Case.
Ignoring, or perhaps looking forward to, the intimidation tactics gay activists claim they will be making once they have the signers personal information, the Columbian Editorial says,
“Washingtonians have two Republicans working feverishly to protect the public’s right to know how its government works. Secretary of State Sam Reed has repeated his vow to “defend Washington citizens’ strong desire for transparency, openness and accountability in government, and the public’s belief that our state and local public documents must be available for public inspection.”
“And the man who will lead that defense, literally, is Attorney General Rob McKenna, who will argue the case before the high court. We hope McKenna is as successful in this effort as he was a couple of years ago when he convinced the Supreme Court to approve (by a 7-2 vote) Washington state’s top two primary.”
“Congress may not abridge the “right to anonymous speech” based on the “ ‘simple interest in providing voters with additional relevant information,’ ” id., at 276 (quoting McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U. S. 334, 348(1995)).”
======================================
“Some opponents of Proposition 8 compiled this information and created Web sites with maps showing the locations of homes or businesses of Proposition 8 supporters. Many supporters (or their customers) suffered property damage, or threats of physical violence or death, as a result.”
======================================
“The success of such intimidation tactics has apparently spawned a cottage industry that uses forcibly disclosed donor information to pre-empt citizens’ exercise of their First Amendment rights.”
======================================
“These instances of retaliation sufficiently demonstrate why this Court should invalidate mandatory disclosure and reporting requirements. But amici present evidence of yet another reason to do so—the threat of retaliation from elected officials. As amici’s submissions make clear, this threat extends far beyond a single ballot proposition in California.”
======================================
“Irony aside, the Court’s promise that as-applied challenges will adequately protect speech is a hollow assurance. Now more than ever, §§201 and 311 will chill protected speech because—as California voters can attest—‘the advent of the Internet’ enables ‘prompt disclosure of expenditures,’ which ‘provide[s]’ political opponents ‘with the information needed’ to intimidate and retaliate against their foes.”
Would a bank be allowed to remain open with books looking like this?
Figures on government spending and debt (last six digits are eliminated). The government's fiscal year runs Oct. 1 through Sept. 30.
Total public debt subject to limit Jan. 22 - 12,245,872
Statutory debt limit - 12,394,000
Total public debt outstanding Jan. 22 - 12,302,465
Operating balance Jan. 22 - 142,454
Interest fiscal year 2009 - 383,365
Interest fiscal year 2008 - 451,154
Deficit fiscal year 2009 - 1,417,121
Deficit fiscal year 2008 - 454,798
Receipts fiscal year 2009 - 2,104,613
Receipts fiscal year 2008 - 2,523,642
Outlays fiscal year 2009 - 3,521,734
Outlays fiscal year 2008 - 2,978,440
Gold assets in September - 11,041
SOURCE
Another gloomy dicussion Economic Black Hole: 20 Reasons Why The U.S. Economy Is Dying And Is Simply Not Going To Recover
You, perhaps more than any man in modern history, have a chance to be not merely a "good" president but a GREAT one. A spirit of "hope" and desire for "change" brought you to the highest office in the land. Yet in the past year, much has been squandered. In a few short months, your potential for being a good leader, let alone a great one, has been replaced by the near certainty that you will leave office as the worst. You promised us change and instead gave us more of the same... on steroids.
Contrary to what is being whispered in your ear, we do not desire a Big Brother to take control of every aspect of our lives. We wish to be left alone, to succeed or fail according to our own motivations and based upon our own efforts, to live the American Dream. We want you only to protect our right to do so, secure in the knowledge that we are safe from invasion - from without OR within. The American Dream is not a one-size-fits-all proposition and forcing many, a few, or even ONE to abandon its pursuit threatens achievement by all. This nation was established as a Republic rather than a democracy. This was not accidental; it was done intentionally to ensure individual rights and freedoms.
It saddens me to say, your "advisers" do you no favors. They serve their own self-interests, short term though they may be, riding the coattails of "the first black president." They understand that their names will be attached to yours through history by fiat but in the end, it is YOU left holding the bag. When your programs fail, you will be remembered as the man who tried to destroy America. When they succeed but fail in the future - and rest assured, they WILL fail, as proven repeatedly throughout history - you will be remembered as the man who actually DID destroy America. Either way, those other names will be forgotten while yours remains, leaving an unpleasant taste in the mouth upon being uttered.
Perhaps you think doing what is truly right for America instead of pursing an illusion of utopia and "social justice" will prevent your being reelected, but consider another alternative. Protect the foundations upon which this nation was built and made it great rather than undermining them and your place in history will be secure, regardless of reelection, as one of the greats. We The People - whether Democratic, Republican, or some flavor of independent - will proudly stand behind and beside a leader who defends our lives, liberties, and pursuit of happiness. Your job is to protect the rights of EVERY American citizen, not to redefine and dole them out according to whatever the group screaming loudest at any given time thinks equitable.
These rights are the bedrock of our society and replacing them with quicksand notions of social justice being promoted in accordance with ever-changing societal mores ensures that, in the end, none has any. Somehow, I do not think that was the intention when people stepped into voting booths across America and pulled the lever for "change you can believe in."
It is time for you to become not President Barack Obama, Democrat, but Barack Obama, American. Take my hand and, together, we will find ourselves on an amazing adventure.
Sincerely,
A Conservative Constituent
Before flying off to Massachusetts in a desperate effort to salvage the campaign of Martha Coakley, Barack Obama stopped in at the Vermont Street Baptist Church and gave an inspiring speech to all in attendance and those who watched.
"We gather here on the Sabbath at a time of extreme difficulty for our nation and the world," Obama said, speaking much like a preacher from the pulpit. "We are not here just to ask the Lord for his blessing. We're also here to call on the memory of one of his servants, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr."
Making sure everybody knows he is part African-American, he claimed, "It's that progress that allowed me to be here today," mentioning how the country has progressed, thanks to MLK Jr.
You can read excerpts of his inspirational speech here at LA Times or view the entire transcript here.
Maybe you'll manage better than the poor guy behind Obama's right shoulder.
He had to listen to him.
Video may be seen at Part One, before the poor guy began nodding off, Part Two as he fights it and Part Three, still fighting it.
As Democrats pull out all the stops and present a full court press trying desperately to salvage the race for the open seat in Massachusetts once held by the Kennedy Klan, we see the icon of the Massachusetts Democratic Party coming forward today speaking against Scott Brown, “It was a personality contest. Mr. Brown is not running as a kind of people committed conservative that he is and that he has the right to be. He’s running as a nice guy.”
Asked about how the outcome of this race could affect Obama's popularity, Frank said, “The fact that he was doing better than she in a personality contest?--Nothing. Obama is not Martha Coakley in drag, and what I thought happened was that this became, as I said, a personality contest.”
Is there a reason everything with Democrats has to carry a sexual connotation?
SOURCE
Once again, a major tragedy has struck in the world and as we always do, America and other nations are responding with massive amounts of aid and rescue personnel to assist in digging Haiti out of the rubble of the 7.0 earthquake that struck the tiny Island Nation this past week.
We see aircraft flying into a ruined airport. Ships arriving in a decimated port, all bringing in people to help, food stocks, medical supplies, vehicles to help remove the rubble, helicopters to search for injured people and fly them from remote areas back to temporary hospitals, that were also brought in from outside, as well as bringing much needed food and supplies to people in outlying areas. Along with that are generators to brighten the night, kitchens to prepare food for those now left homeless and to feed the rescuers arriving from all over the world.
As we have seen all too many times in the past, even during times of economic strife, Americans are who contribute the bulk of relief to afflicted nations when such massive natural disasters strike.
Regardless of party in control, our Military responds with hospital ships, massive aircraft carriers that instead of arriving to fight a enemy, come to supply people, aircraft and the ability to desalinate thousands of gallons of sea water into one of the most basic needs of all mankind, clean safe drinking water.
We that sit on the sidelines and who can only contribute much needed money to fund such efforts give little thought to what such endeavors require, hoping our donations help as much as possible.
While most of us cringe at accusations of being “the world’s Police Force,” we readily accept our role as “the world’s EMT,” ready to respond with aid, people and our abundance of food to help where needed anywhere in the world.
What we never give consideration to is what we must have to continue in this role, fuel. All of the equipment needed to carry out the massive relief efforts, to ferry the goods and people to these afflicted areas and light the dark requires fuel to keep them going.
In a recent speech given to the United States Energy Association’s 6th Annual State of the Energy Industry conference, Jack Gerard, President and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute stated,
“Oil and natural gas are the foundation of our energy-dependent economy. They profoundly affect how we live and work. They are key to our mobility, to keeping our homes and businesses warm, to providing us with electric power, and to supplying the raw materials for countless consumer and industrial products – everything from fertilizers to computer chips to medicines … the list goes on.”
“Canceling leases, delaying lease sales, delaying environmental studies, holding back the next OCS Five-Year Plan, and adding layers of bureaucracy and new procedures will not ensure Americans have ample supplies of the oil and the natural gas that every projection shows they will be demanding in the near future.”
I must admit, I did not expect to see Barack Obama's response to the tragic earthquake in Haiti heavily criticized by the lamestream media. After all, he was the "golden boy" all last year and through much of his first year.
But, ABC News ran an article today, "Haitians Wait Desperately for Relief That Hasn't Come," Helpless Victims Wait in the Streets as Aid Remains Unorganized and Slow doing just that with,
"We watched Friday as aircraft arrived nonstop, carrying massive amounts of food, water and U.S. military personnel along with it. Some 20,000 large water containers arrived today and 80,000 more are on the USS Carl Vinson off the coast of Haiti, along with 600,000 daily food rations which are continually flowing in. But all this effort and all these supplies moving does not mean Haitians are getting the large supplies of food and water that they need. Instead, most of the supplies are sitting idle at the airport. The widespread distribution of desperately needed supplies to Haiti's earthquake victims won't happen until tomorrow."
"The U.S. relief effort for Haiti started too slowly and cautiously. The next morning after the earthquake, as a military man of 37 years service, I assumed … there would be airplanes delivering aid, not troops, but aid. What we saw instead was discussion about, 'Well we've got to send an assessment team in to see what the needs are.' And anytime I hear that, my head turns red."
Just announced today, the United States Supreme Court will take the case filed over gay activists wanting the names, addresses and signatures of the 138,000 people in Washington State who signed the R-71 petition last year released to them so they may place the names on a searchable web site for the public.
At stake in this case is whether or not opposing sides may seek to intimidate or seek retribution against their fellow citizens for the support of any citizen initiatives in the future.
Most disturbing in this case is the desire of Washington’s Secretary of State, Sam Reed and Attorney General Rob McKenna to release those names, addresses and signatures to Gay activists.
R-71 was a citizen initiative to block enhancements to Washington States Domestic Partnership law in 2009 that failed statewide in the election. Almost as soon as the measure qualified for the ballot, Gay activist began their push to have the information on those who signed released so they could make it known publicly who opposed their agenda. This was covered at Traditional Marriage Foes Try To Intimidate Washington Voters.
Gay activists initially challenged R-71 in court over a claim of signatures being improperly accepted. When that failed to keep the initiative off of the ballot, the quest for the release of the signers’ information began.
Gay activist such as John Bisceglia were openly advocating “violence against property” of those who supported the R-71 initiative, but has since removed the calls for violence from his website.
In September, U.S. district judge Benjamin Settle ruled the information should not be released to the Gay Activists, followed by an appeal from AG McKenna.
Another federal court ordered the names and information released, but an appeal to the US Supreme Court resulted in an injunction being placed on releasing the information by Justice Anthony Kennedy while the Supreme Court considered whether or not to take the case.
While so-called scholars say the case could have broad implications for public disclosure laws, should the names and information be released, it could have broad implications on citizen involvement in government and petitions drives, regardless of what they may represent.
If this type of intimidation is allowed to stand and is approved by the courts, it is my opinion that citizens will shy away from involvement in almost any issue whether citizen input is needed out of fear of retribution by opposers.
Should the Supreme Court rule against those wishing to protect citizens who sign petitions, can the secret ballot being nullified be far behind, given the Unions and Democrats push for ‘Card Check?’
As many suspected would happen, 5 to 8 Army officer may have been selected to be the scapegoats over Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan’s murderous rampage in November 2009 that left 13 people dead and many wounded.
As is being reported in the Los Angeles Times, “[the] officers are expected to face discipline for failing to take action” against Hasan “over a series of behavioral and professional problems in the years leading up to the November rampage.”
Why don’t they instead release what the real problem was, Political Correctness?
We all know had anyone leveled complaints against Hasan, they would have been drummed out of the Military for violating his Civil Rights and displaying Islamophobia.
If not drummed out, all would have been reprimanded, effectively ending their careers and subjected to “sensitivity training.”
We are not only facing a brutal enemy on the battlefield today, but an internal enemy that leaves our Military fearful of doing the jobs we train and pay them for.
How can we expect our Military to do their jobs when they must also face scorn for calling a spade a spade?
If anybody needs placed on trial alongside Hasan, it is all those politicians who dumbed down the Army to allow substandard training and less that reliable people to join in.
It is the Political Correctness of society that was forced off onto the Army that needs tried!
It’s hard to accept that America is once again plunging down the road to shortages in fuel, energy and jobs. In spite of glib comments out of the government, we are nearing levels not seen since the Great Depression or the long gas lines prevalent across the country in the early 1970’s.
As we increase the slide towards socialism and hear the great promises made by the Obama administration, reality sees power outages in California, gasoline shortages coming and of course, the ever growing unemployment figures, bypassing double digits already.
Hardest for me, a Veteran of Viet Nam and the United States Army to accept, is that our decline from a Super Power and from the greatness we saw after leading the world to victory over despots and dictators in World War Two, appears to be by edict of our own government.
Why they would have the country return to those desperate days of the 1930’s and early 1970’s, completely escapes me, but that is what it now looks like.
Competent use of our energy and natural resources is one avenue that propelled us to greatness and gave the American citizen the highest living standard ever seen by man. Somehow, since those long gas lines of the early 1970’s, we have been denied the use of our own resources and in spite of policies and directives handed down by elected officials from both major Political Party’s.
I supposes I shouldn’t have been surprised to read that Obama Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar announced plansto Toughen US Drilling Rules January 6.
In an all too obvious slap both at the former administration and the very industry that brings America our energy and fuel, Salazar also adds, “under the prior administration, the oil and gas industry were essentially the kings of the world. Whatever they wanted to happen essentially happened. This department was essentially a handmaiden of the oil and gas industry.”
At a time our economy is floundering under government regulation and we are being warned of pending “double dip recession,” this administration can only focus on belittling the former administration and denigrating the very industry that not only fuels our economy, but does so with millions of jobs and poised to create hundreds of thousands more!
Jack Gerard of the American Petroleum Institute responds to Salazar’s folly in part with, “In what has become increasingly familiar double-talk from this administration, Sec. Salazar spoke of the importance of domestic oil and natural gas, while making it more difficult to produce this oil and gas, put more Americans back to work and help restore our nation's economy.”
Mr. Gerard continues, “This troubling trend of hobbling companies' ability to develop much-needed domestic energy supplies will not create certainty for investors, as Salazar suggested. Instead it will make America more dependent on foreign energy and continue to constrain government budgets,” and reminding us that over 9 million people depend on the Oil and Natural Gas Industry for their jobs.
While much of the raw petroleum supplied is converted to fuel and energy products, it is also used effectively in other industries, including medical and food industries. The list of other industries dependent upon petroleum and petroleum products is extensive and without petroleum to fuel their industry, our economy suffers by the loss of those jobs and the products produced that make our lives easier.
Over the past few years we continue to hear about how petroleum is ruining the environment and causing global climate change. We repeatedly hear of how our energy consumption is killing the planet and legislation is needed to curb our use of energy.
As my friend Jane Van Ryan points out on her blog, Concern about Jobs Trumps Climate Worries as more Americans see a needed balance that has long gone ignored.
We continue to hear of “Green” energy sources and other alternative energy sources that in reality are years away from being viable alternatives. A main reason they remain unreliable is the very people that deny drilling for petroleum within our own resources are the same people blocking construction of these “alternate energy sources” as evidence in the articles from the last few years linked below.
Senator Feinstein Seeks to Block Solar Panels In Mojave Desert
An Ill Wind Off Cape Cod
Ted Kennedy Blocks Cape Cod Wind Farm
Environmentalists Fight Calico solar farm
Animals Rights Activists Blocking Wind Farms
How hypocritical that that the very people who for years have been clamoring to get America off of our foreign oil dependence, the very people who cry our use of fuels is destroying the planet and the very people who wish to push as of yet unperfected “green energy” sources off on us are also the very people blocking construction of these alternate methods when near their homes!
No doubt one day these “alternate” sources will be better perfected and become viable. In the meantime, petroleum based energy remains our most economical and available source of energy.
If we continue the way the Obama administration is leading us, we can expect to soon see those long gas lines for those who may be lucky enough to still afford a car as unemployment continues to skyrocket.
You may also expect to be sitting in your home shivering as we endure blackouts and there is no fuel for furnaces.
Don’t think your fireplace will keep you warm or your wood stove either. These same people pushing for and blocking construction of “green energy” sources are also complaining about smoke from fireplaces and woodstoves and passing legislation to prevent you from burning wood, as is seen HERE, HERE and HERE.
It seems to me that real “kings of the world” isn’t the oil companies, but the socialists currently destroying our once great country.
Finally, a political candidate expresses truth. Scott Brown, running against Martha Coakley in Massachusetts open Senate seat. CNN’s David Gergen goads Brown on whether he’d be willing to “sit in Teddy Kennedy’s seat and [say] I’m going to be the person who’s going to block it [liberal health care policy] for another 15 years.”
Brown respectfully reminds Gergen, “Well, with all due respect it’s not the Kennedy’s seat, and it’s not the Democrat’s seat, it’s the people’s seat.”
My participation in the Great American Experiment began on November 15, 1972. I do not recall the events of the day, but it was a Wednesday.
Years passed without my truly grasping what I was a part of and the importance of my role, essentially ignoring it. Later, I understood the great personal costs of my ignorance and began to remedy the situation. I needed to do my part and I needed to do it well, so I must learn. My public school education had been a great disservice to me in the development of my ability to contribute, and I set my insatiable thirst for knowledge upon studying not just the WHAT but the WHY and the HOW of all manner of subjects, those that interested me and those that did not, if I found them to be of importance in filling in those dark, gaping holes staring back at me.
The education provided in a State-sanctioned, -funded, and -managed institution (i.e., public school) is a world apart from that which one may pursue on one's own, without revisionist spin and ideological bias. It is truly a transformational experience, learning with open eyes and without blinders, not being led about like a bull with a ring through his nose.I already had a love of business law, economics, and political science courtesy of my college years but had never acquired a taste for "regular" history (think history class in high school... blech). I loathe mathematics and perpetually struggle with it, persisting for any number of reasons, some of which actually make sense upon occasion. Over time, though, I developed a passion for history that has eclipsed all else. I think that happened once I started actually seeing the WHY and the HOW instead of just the WHAT. At the very least, it has splashed some color onto a canvas that had otherwise been little more than a black-and-white pencil sketch upon high school graduation.
One suffers some degree of cognitive dissonance, the prior tenets instilled by the State's indoctrination facility colliding with occasional glimpses of fact, until reality begins cascading in and those false beliefs can no longer be rationalized away. Eventually, one realizes resolution, embracing the truth and running free.
Americans have long held a love affair, a genuine affection towards the car. Since its invention, Americans have customized, souped up and embraced the car as an ultimate sign of our free spirit and liberty, moving about as we desire when we desire in a minimum of time.
American cars were once big, luxurious and fast. Maybe not Sports Car fast like a Ferrari or Lamborghini, but built to hold steady speeds for long periods of time.
Of course, they required excessive gas consumption and were known for polluting the air. To combat that we began downsizing the cars, decreasing engine size and with the advent of automotive computers, better managing fuel systems.
Through the 1970’s, American Auto Manufacturers were slow to pick up he trend towards smaller more efficient cars and played catch-up in the 1980’s. Media began touting Imported vehicles as much better, smaller, more efficient and reliable. Japanese manufacturers flooded America with their products, often exempted from some of the more restrictive emissions requirements placed on domestic built cars.
American manufacturers lost part of the domestic market as buyers embraced the imports, even as their prices rose and soon, they too began showing some of the failures and recalls that plagued the domestic manufacturers.
Korea began importing their cars with the Hyundai and Kia and Americans were impressed as the Big Three continued to flounder.
At the same time, quietly, China began producing cars cheaply as they did in many other aspects of manufacturing. Our markets have been flooded with Chinese manufactured goods, many turning out to be unsafe or toxic to the very children they were designed and built for.
It should come as no surprise that China, with their cheap labor and the American Auto Manufacturers continuing troubles, has surpassed the U.S. to take over as the World’s Largest Auto Manufacturer, according the Bloomberg.
As American Auto Manufacturers were begging for government bail-outs, ending in the catastrophic ‘Cash for Clunkers,’ which helped sluggish sales of Asian Vehicles more than American, Chinas sales of passenger cars, trucks and buses rose 92 percent in December 2009. For the whole of 2009, passenger-car sales rose 53 percent for the Chinese.
In spite of these impressive sales figures, we have yet to see a mass influx of Chinese built automobiles. But, with the current administrations folly of indebting America Trillions of Dollars to the Chinese government, will we soon see Chinese Dealerships popping up across America as we saw happen in the 1970’s with the Japanese?
Already our Automotive Magazines are displaying some very nice looking vehicles built in China, such as this April 2009 Road & Track article.
If China sees the American market as one they will enter eventually, could they be denied with them holding the largest portion of America’s foreign debt?
In the meantime, what with the government takeover of two of the Big Three, American manufacturers continue to flounder and produce cars Americans don’t want.
No doubt should the Chinese flood America with their vehicles, jobs will increase as dealerships open, sales staff are hired and mechanics trained to work on and service the vehicles.
Unfortunately, our Medical Profession will probably be inundated with new patients due to buying the cars and inevitably, being involved in accidents.
If no bill passes and no attempt is made to check medical inflation, Americans will spend an average of $13,818 on health care for every man, woman and child in 2019, the report indicated.So, explain this to me like I'm a 5th grader. If the cost of doing NOTHING to "reform" healthcare is $13,818 for every man, woman, and child and the cost under the Senate bill for those same man, women, and children will be $13,892, how and why is that a "sign of thriftiness"?With the Senate bill, the corresponding figure would be $13,892.
Such a modest increase — about $75 — may actually be a sign of thriftiness, considering that 34 million more people get covered.
In a report from Milwaukee, Wisconsin’s Fox6 NOW.com, we read that the Mexican Ambassador to the United States “expects immigration reform is unlikely to pass in that country in 2010 because of unemployment and midterm elections.”
The report continues, “Mexico will continue its quiet, ‘under the radar’ lobbying for a reform that would benefit the estimated 11.8 million Mexicans living in the United States. A large percentage are undocumented.”
Doesn’t the Ambassador mean “ILLEGAL?” Here in violation of our immigration laws?
I am left wondering why a country so rich in natural resources as Mexico is, expects the United States to care for their people in the United States ILLEGALLY instead of the Mexican government lobbying their own wealthy and their own government to better care for their people.
With America now trillions of dollars in debt to China, Saudi Arabia and other nations, unemployment at near Depression Era levels, deep in an economic slump with no end in sight and fighting off terrorism with little or no help, is it really the United State’s responsibility to care for people who violate our laws and take from our society more than they contribute?
The Democrat controlled Congress under Bill Clinton push through NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, to help curb Illegal Immigration?
In 1986, President Ronald Reagan signed the Simpson-Mazzoli Act into law. It was a bi-partisan bill that “made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit illegal immigrants (immigrants who do not possess lawful work authorization), required employers to attest to their employees' immigration status, and granted amnesty to certain illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously and granted a path towards legalization to certain agricultural seasonal workers and immigrants who had been continuously and illegally present in the United States since January 1, 1982.”
Neither act curbed ILLEGAL immigration and in fact, the numbers of lawbreakers crossing our borders ILLEGALLY has grown, not lessened.
The Ambassador goes on to claim that efforts at a similar approach to automatically legalize ILLEGAL immigrants “cannot be the solution because the radical conservative wing in the United States would immediately mobilize to torpedo it.”
Excuse me, Ambassador, but past efforts along those lines did nothing to help curb ILLEGAL immigration and left us with millions of new citizens loyal to Mexico, not the United States.
The Ambassador also neglects to mention that radical leftists and sympathizers of ILLEGAL immigrants have torpedoed nearly every effort put forth by those so-called “radical conservatives”.
Past efforts to help curb such lawbreakers obtaining benefits and taking jobs from citizens in Washington State have been met with angry outbursts and stiff opposition by activists and unscrupulous business owners who don’t mind casting American citizens aside for cheap labor and even sub-standard work, all to raise their profits.
Friday, January 8, 2010 saw another effort launched by RespectWashington.us as the group filed for a citizen initiative to be placed on the ballot that “will require E-verify enrollment by every public and private employer in Washington State.”
E-Verify is the no-fee, web-based employment eligibility verification tool hosted by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services that will curb “stolen Social Security Numbers and ID theft being a ticket to employment and drivers licenses inside Washington State” and would also “require state and local governments to verify eligibility for public benefits and drivers licenses with the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements reference system.”
It would do nothing to “restrict emergency medical, food or shelter assistance regardless of legal status.”
The director of overseas citizen protection services for Mexico's Foreign Relations Department, Daniel Hernandez Joseph says, “anti-immigration rhetoric has permeated in (U.S.) society and anti-immigration groups in the United States currently feel empowered.”
No Mr. Joseph, perhaps the real question should be why all of the leftists who cry about “nation building” feel it is up to the United States of America to properly care for ILLEGAL immigrants who are encouraged by their government to come here instead of their government taking steps, utilizing their abundance of natural resources and perhaps begin redistributing the wealth of their citizens to help their people, instead of expecting our over-burdened society to take on more.
Doesn’t it seem odd that those on the left who currently feel citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan should be left to their own troubles, expect our own over-taxed society to continue to “bail-out” Mexico, while the wealthy Mexican class laughs and enjoys their wealth?
Mr. Joseph also claims “estimates of 396 people assumed to be Mexican citizens died trying to cross into the United States last year, up from 340 in 2008.”
Perhaps they would still be alive if the Mexican Government were doing what they seem to be demanding American society to do for their citizens.
Soon you should expect to see signature gatherers around Clark County collecting signatures for the petitions to place this measure on the ballot.
We that support enforcement of our Immigration Laws do not do so out of cold-heartedness. We welcome with open arms immigrants from any country that follows our immigration laws and comes in legally. What we expect of the Mexican government is to end their corrupt reign and do for their people as they expect us to do.
It is said that Liberalism is a mental disorder. It is also well known that the Liberal mind functions primarily on emotion, pushing even simple logic aside. To the Liberal, symbolism counts for much more than substance.
They talk about giving to the poor, but most sit back and expect others, either government or conservatives, to do the actual giving.
They cry about the tax burden being spread about fairer, meaning stick it to the rich and leave their wages alone.
They complain any comment against one of their number who might be of a minority is racism and unforgivable, but their own comments against anyone of a minority group is excused.
Nowhere is this better seen than in our first Black President, Barack Hussein Obama and recent revelations that staunch supporter and liberal, Senator Harry Reid (D. NV) and Senate Majority Leader and comments he made during the 2008 campaign against Obama.
Reid is quoted as saying that he “believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama -- a ‘light-skinned’ African American ‘with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.’ ”
How reminiscent of current Vice President, Joe Biden’s remarks of, “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”
Reid apologized, Biden explained and all was forgiven.
How different than it was in 2002 when Republican Trent Lott, then Senate Majority Leader said of former segregationist Strom Thurmond on his 100th Birthday, “I want to say this about my state. When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years either.”
Of course since at the time Thurmond ran for President he was a still a segregationist, the comment was twisted to a racial comment when in reality, race was not what Lott was talking about at all.
Unlike Reid’s “apology” and Biden’s “explanation,” nothing Lott could say was good enough. Liberal Democrats were inconsolable. Then state Senator Barack Obama said, “It seems to be that we can forgive a 100-year-old senator for some of the indiscretion of his youth, but, what is more difficult to forgive is the current president of the U.S. Senate (Lott) suggesting we had been better off if we had followed a segregationist path in this country after all of the battles and fights for civil rights and all the work that we still have to do,” adding, “The Republican Party itself has to drive out Trent Lott. If they have to stand for something, they have to stand up and say this is not the person we want representing our party.”
Former VP Al Gore: “It is not a small thing for one of the half-dozen most prominent political leaders in America to say that our problems are caused by integration and that we should have had a segregationist candidate. That is divisive, and it is divisive along racial lines. Sen. Lott should apologize; failing that, the Senate should seriously entertain a motion of censure for his having made such a racist statement.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D - CA): “He can apologize all he wants. It doesn’t remove the sentiment that escaped his mouth that day.”
Rep. Elijah Cummings (D - MD): “I have not seen the apology, but I can tell you I’m very concerned and very upset that anybody that would issue such a statement would be in the leadership of this nation or the Senate. And so we’re still trying to resolve exactly what action we will take, but guarantee, action will be taken.”
Rep. Maxine Waters (D - CA): “I consider this as a Democratic Party issue, and the party should take into consideration what message this and other kinds of statements are sending to the African American community.”
Rep. Diane Watson (D - CA): “I’m very, very troubled at the attitude expressed in his remarks, considering that he is fourth in line for the presidency. I think he needs to step down and I’m going to do all I can to see that that occurs.”
None are making similar comments about current Senate President, Harry Reid (D. NV) and his gaffe on Barack Obama’s ethnicity.
One is also left pondering just where was their outrage over such a “racist” remark when West Virginia Senator, Robert C. Byrd, who not only was also a segregationist but a Grand Kleagle in the Ku Klux Klan and who launched the filibuster trying to derail the 1964 Civil Rights act, received Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd words of, “'I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia that he would have been a great senator at any moment. He would have been right at the founding of this country. He would have been in the leadership crafting this Constitution. He would have been right during the great conflict of Civil War in this nation. He would have been right at the great moments of international threat we faced in the 20th century,” some months later?
Hypocrisy, thy name is Liberal Democrat!
Thursday, January 7, 2010, 9:41pm MST
A federal grand jury in Phoenix is looking at abuse of power allegations against the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office and Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
County Communications Director Cari Gerchick told the Phoenix Business Journal Thursday night that County Manager David Smith and County Budget Director Sandi Smith have met with federal prosecutors and will appear before a federal grand jury in Phoenix on Jan. 13.
Gerchick said the grand jury is looking at abuse of power charges against the MCSO and Arpaio. Sandra Raynor, spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Phoenix declined comment.
"I have no comment as grand jury proceedings are secret and I can neither confirm or deny their existence," Raynor said in an e-mail to the Business Journal.
MCSO spokesman Brian Lee said Arpaio declined to comment about the grand jury and would continue his duties as Sheriff as usual. Arpaio's critics contend his office harasses and conducts investigations against those who oppose his immigration and other get-tough policies.
The Sheriff teamed with County Attorney Andrew Thomas to indict County Supervisors Mary Rose Wilcox and Don Stapley and has investigated other county officials.
The U.S. Justice Department has been conducting a civil rights investigation of the MCSO's immigration and crime sweeps to see if they unfairly target Hispanics. The Sheiff has also repeatedly denied wrongdoing on that front.
The abuse of power investigation and grand jury is separate from that civil rights inquiry.
In all the claims, trumped up or close to real, I have never heard anything as outrageous, divisive or just over the top as was left-wing talk radio host, Mike Malloy on his program, January 5, 2009.
"Now, the inquiry, the questions are being raised as to whether or not this is not a deliberate attempt to embarrass – ah, that's not quite a strong enough word, but let's start there – embarrass the Obama administration."
"[T]here are forces alive in this country, who are very active in this country, very wealthy in this country, who want to see Obama fail no matter what and the idea of killing 200 to 300 people on board a jetliner in order to make the point is nothing. It means nothing."
"My gut feeling is this was deliberate. This was deliberately done in order to put the Obama administration in such a vice grip, that it's impossible to get anything done, to raise so much fear – this is what Republicans do. This is what they do."
From 1969 to 1974, I was out of the country, serving first in Viet Nam then in Germany. From the time I returned in 1974, I have been trying to figure out and understand where did the country I left back in 1969 go. This article, more than anything I have ever seen or read before, offers the best explanation of what happened during my 5 year absence and why the country I left to fight for,, disappeared while I was gone.
Our Second Civil War
By Bruce Walker
January 06, 2010
The 1860s marked a period of great trial for our land. A bloody civil war resolved, at least nominally, some important issues. It was the period after Appomattox and after Reconstruction, however, which determined the true impact of our first civil war. The 1960s, which ended forty years ago, was the time of our second trial -- our Second Civil War. It is a testament to its ferocity and its reach that the consequences of this internecine war for the soul of America remain undetermined.
Conservatives -- those who wanted to conserve the values of America going into the 1960s -- stood on one side of this battlefield. These Americans viewed our land as the best candle of hope in a stormy world. They strongly favored equal rights for blacks, despite an Orwellian rewriting of history painting them as racists. The Republican Party, the principle vehicle for conservatives, had a very long and clear record of opposing Jim Crow and the disenfranchisement and segregation of blacks.
---------------
The 1960s saw a loosening of corsets (which was simply a question of moderating the equipment of decency) evolve into a long cultural striptease that ended with rabid feminists burning their bras. The abiding faith of Christians and of Jews, which had stabilized families and restrained notions of sin in a healthy check on the direction of culture, began to be portrayed almost always as bigoted ignorance. Defying foundational faith was championed as heroic. God and sin, the left snarled, were false, or worse. Two generations of Americans have grown up in this gulag of godlessness. Now, faith in anything beyond the top bureaucrat or trust in anything above the most decorated sociologists is heresy against militant secularism.
---------------
The 1960s saw the prevailing sentiment of America -- profound gratitude for the freedom and prosperity bestowed by brave and noble predecessors -- transformed by the left into a rude ingratitude, a mocking deconstruction of everything good in America, and an embrace of each imperfection as proof of some capital crime. Conservatives saw America as the place where everyone wanted to be, the one great nation which never had an emigration problem, the refugee country of all oppressed peoples. When GIs fought in Korea or in Vietnam, conservatives saw that the policy mission may have been foolish and the strategies unwise, but the underlying purpose -- to preserve freedom -- was never in question. The left, by contrast, seemed in the 1960s to adopt the belief that the people of South Korea would actually have been better off if they had been incorporated into the vast concentration camp which is North Korea.
By Rees Lloyd
CBS' "60 Minutes" broadcast a long-awaited segment on its January 3, 2010, program exposing the failures of the VA bureaucracy to timely, effectively, and competently, process applications of the nation's veterans for health and disability care.
Please see the program at 60 Minutes
The "60 Minutes" broadcast evidences what has been known to veterans and veterans services organizations (VSO's) for many years -- The VA's health-care-by-government-bureaucracy system, no matter its "good intentions," is "broken."
Indeed,"60 Minutes" exposed delays of ten months to even have an application reviewed; delays of four (4) years if a veteran disagrees and appeals from the VA's decision on an application; snafues in governmental record-keeping which prevents vets from proving up claims; and, among other things, a backlog of over 1,000,000 unprocessed applications.
In short, delay, delay, delay -- until many claims are resolved by the death of the veteran during the government's processing (or failure to process) the applications.
The "60 Minutes" investigation is a powerful indictment, even it did not include such VA scandals in health care delivery like the infecting of thousands of veterans by using unclean instruments in colonoscopies, or the scandal of the release of millions of private medical records of veterans through sheer bureaucratic incompetence (costing the VA $20-million in a lawsuit settlement).
But notwithstanding those omissions, what "60 Minutes" did confirm is that government-controlled health and disability care in the VA is both a failure, and a disgrace.
Every American who has become belatedly aware of the failures of VA by way of the "60 Minutes" exposures should be concerned. Not only because of the disgraceful failure to fulfill the promises made to veterans of health and disability care in consideration for their service under arms in defense of America, but because every American is now to have national socialized health care imposed on them and their families by the same politicians and bureaucrats who have so manifestly failed to competently deliver timely, effective, and competent health and disability services through benevolently-intended government-controlled VA care.
I have to emphasize these points: I do not question the "good intentions" of the bureaucrats at VA who have so utterly failed. Nor do I think that the the overwhelming majority of them are other than sincere and want the VA delivery system to timely, effectively, and competently care for veterans. Indeed, many if not most of them are veterans.
The lesson of the failure of government-controlled VA care is not that "bad" people are running it, but rather the lesson is that the failure is in the nature of the beast itself, i.e., government-control itself of the delivery of health and disability services.
The failure of VA care is systemic because the very system, i.e, government bureaucratic decision-making as to who gets what care and when, cannot deliver what is so benevolently-intended. Good intentions do not translate in timely, effective, and competent performance, of the kind that has made the non-governmental health care system in the U.S., despite its imperfections, the envy of the world. Thoughtful, careful, conservative reformation of those imperfections is needed; radical transformation of the American system is not.
First things first: The nation has a moral obligation to fulfill its promises to its veterans to provide health and disability services through the VA. Allow me to suggest that instead of rushing to implement the 2,000-plus page government-controlled national socialist health care delivery system generally known as Obamacare, Congress, and Obama, Himself, should first fix the disgraceful failures of the VA system of government-controlled health and disability services to veterans, and evidence -- if possible -- that the government has at least the ability to manage that much smaller aspect of national health care.
Moveover, if the government cannot effectively and competently provide health and disability services to veterans through government-controlled VA care, some 1-million of whose applications are backlogged and still unprocessed at this time, then the government has no business with great hubris taking over, transforming, nationalizing, and socializing-by-new-bureaucracies, the delivery of health and disability services needed by 300-million Americans.
[Rees Lloyd, a longtime civil rights attorney, is an activist in veterans affairs.]
Giving credit where credit is due, following in the precedent set by President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, current VP Joe Biden took time out on Friday, December 25, Christmas Day to spend some time with our wounded Troops at Walter Reed Hospital.
He did not travel to Walter Reed with a press entourage or to make headlines, unlike his boss who flew off to Hawaii for some personal relaxation, golf and watching the waves.
I'm not a big fan of Biden's, but such a visit, not a photo op and made out of appreciation for our Troops sacrifice, earn a bit of admiration from me.
Good going, Joe. At least one person in the White House has a little class.
Few reports of the visit were made known, other than by the Hill, Politico and Fox News
While I disagree that "WE trusted and elected" those holding America hostage in Washington D.C., the message is clear. Americans are fed up.
From Politico.com
White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan is saying on the Sunday talk show circuit, "The U.S. Government is offering the suspect charged with attempting to bomb an aircraft on Christmas Day, Omar Abdulmutallab, some kind of incentives to share what he knows about Al Qaeda."
Asked why he should, given his "legal rights" granted as a "criminal," Brennan replied, "He doesn't have to but he knows there are certain things that are on the table... if he wants to engage with us in a productive manner, there are ways he can do that."
What kind of "incentive" could they give? Lighter sentence? An assumed identity and a Beverly Hills villa? The keys to Washington D.C.? A trip to Disneyland? Maybe an appointment as Obama's radical Jihadists liason czar?
The only deal he deserves is if he doesn't talk, we will help him find his 72 virgins..........., slowly!
How can you offer incentives to someone ready to murder nearly 300 innocent people, women and children included?
Posts
All Comments
