Political Question.

[Deehntr56]

This should be interesting, and usually Monday's is a pretty laid back day for me.....not today!!:D

Inauguration is tomorrow.

Change has come.


I have a simple question for those that are interested.

Look at what the Democrats(Liberals) control and ask yourself, what shape is it in?:confused: What Condition is what they control in?:confused:

Then Look at the Republicans and what they control and ask the same question....what shape is what they controled in?:confused:

Now this is important.

Don't just go off and say whatever you want to say, based on what you know or have heard.

Research, dig deep, and get the facts. Research the answers to those 2 questions. Don't just go on what you have heard, or what you believe in, research it and learn what they control and what is the status is currently.

I'll leave it at that>>>:biggrin:

[deerhunt45]

That's a lot to research and I will and repost.

A couple of 'off the hip' observations about the shape of things run by liberals...Factual and honest journalism is dead, the mainstream media is as bias as it gets and bigger than ever. The bailout for the banking and insurance business is not working so the Dems answer is to increase the taxpayers obligation...and yes they pushed for the bailout (as did several so called republicans) Pelosi and Reid cowtowed everybody... Bush went along.
To stimulate what :confused: The only thing they are going to stimulate is the money going from our pockets to Washington to pay for others mistakes/ineptness. The increase in gov dependency heads our nation towards third world poverty status. Stop ranting...

That's probably not the kind of response you're looking for but again, I'll be following along on this thread hoping to learn and have something to add to the discussion.

[Deehntr56]

That's a lot to research and I will and repost.

A couple of 'off the hip' observations about the shape of things run by liberals...Factual and honest journalism is dead, the mainstream media is as bias as it gets and bigger than ever. The bailout for the banking and insurance business is not working so the Dems answer is to increase the taxpayers obligation...and yes they pushed for the bailout (as did several so called republicans) Pelosi and Reid cowtowed everybody... Bush went along.
To stimulate what :confused: The only thing they are going to stimulate is the money going from our pockets to Washington to pay for others mistakes/ineptness. The increase in gov dependency heads our nation towards third world poverty status. Stop ranting...

That's probably not the kind of response you're looking for but again, I'll be following along on this thread hoping to learn and have something to add to the discussion.

This all started today from one simple "dumb" comment.

Today I heard "Bush" was the reason for the demise of the Banks and the Car manufacturers.

Yes, I heard a "Door Knob" say that.

We have a Bank here in Northeast Ohio that had their stock price actually increase recently, has a very good 4th quarter, and they wanted nothing to do with the bail out...Hmmmmmmmmmm.

Now in a free economy, you have successes and failures. So how could Bush have an effect on this bank? THEY MADE MONEY...WHY? They only gave loans to people that can afford them. They followed the basic principles in the banking industry on how to "properly" distribute money in the loan process.

Many Banks gave money away to everyone for the past 10 years or so.....you didn't need 20% down, you didn't need a job, you just needed to be able to breathe.

Was this Bush's policy? Our Government is clueless on what these banks were doing, no matter who was in power at the time. Or was this more of the banks that were involved loosening the restrictions on who qualified for the loans to get more business so they can get money flowing into corporate balance sheets no matter what the cost?

The cost of it all??? You see it now.

That's one tidbit.


Now lets look at the inauguaration.....I'm hearing numbers like 150-170 Million to throw this party tomorrow.

Now, every American citizen was told that "we" as Americans would "need to sacrifice" to make America better. Change has come.

Let's put that 170 million into perspective.

One of the most recent "new" weekly unemployment numbers was around 121,000 and some change.

If you took every one of those new "unemployed workers" and cut them a check from the 170 million, each one would receive around $140,000.

Where do you think the 170 million would have been spent better?:confused:

Just to keep this in perspective Bush spent 40 million on his.

Were in trouble.....I wouldn't be surprised if our country is moving closer and closer to socialism.

Americans are tapped out on taxes.

We have been able to tax business so much over the years, they have left the country with their plants since it is cheaper to do business.

Our Population base is more than our business can employ.

I remember years ago when I graduated from High school, if you didn't go to college, you could work at the steel mills, car plants, manufacturing plants etc. and actually get paid enough to feed and raise a family, and have a nice home and 2 cars and some decent benefits.

Today...I worry for my kids, (Even though both are in college and will have to work hard and get some breaks to get a job when done)..... If they went to work directly after graduating from High school, they may find a job paying maybe enough to live at home and pay for a car and their Insurance.

How will they support a family?

Benefits are usually minimal or non-existent, and the major plants and manufacturers are not hiring or are no longer around.

Where are we headed?

[deerhunt45]

Let's look at the "health care crisis".

The so called health care crisis is a result of liberal policy failure. That failure stemmed from three other liberal failures, illegal immigration, mandates upon hospitals and cost shifting. To put it simply, liberals pushed through via legislation that hospitals must treat anyone who enters the emergency room whether they can pay or not, they told the hospitals Medicaid would pay for indigent care for those who could not pay and then short changed the hospitals via Medicaid reimbursement rates that were far below the actual costs of the services they rendered.

Since when does an illegal alien (10 to 20 million of them) working an ultra low wage job have money to pay the emergency room? By extension when illegals displace US workers in low wage paying jobs leaving them unemployed or underemployed, they too won’t have the money or insurance coverage to pay medical bills. The hospitals of course were left with limited choices, either drop their emergency rooms which many did or cost shift their losses to those who are already paying (sounds like Socialism doesn’t it?). No business can stay in business continually sustaining financial losses, you must have a profit to stay in business. So the hospitals cost shifted to the insurance companies and individual payers (uninsured).

The insurance companies of course balked at double digit annual increases in order to cover the losses of the hospitals. The insurance companies had two choices, raise the premiums to cover the double digit increases in health care or cut coverage or both. The result, more people who didn’t have health insurance and more personal bankruptcies due to catastrophic medical costs.

The classic example of liberals creating a problem to propose a socialist solution which in the end makes the problem worse…Socialized Medicine, just ask the Canadians and British.

Excerpts from conservablogs.com

[Full Rut]

You will see Obama back peddle on his promise of the "Everyone will have affordable healthcare plan". :mischeif:

[deerhunt45]

The liberals would have you believe their myth that the banks were involved in predatory lending. Clinton appointees to these two quasi-government/private corporations changed the lending rules in buying housing mortgages around 1998.

Political appointees to the companies’ boards pocketed millions in stock options to bolster support on Capitol Hill. Clinton-appointed board members at Fannie Mae included Marc Rich lawyer Jack Quinn and Janet Reno’s lieutenant at the Justice Department, Jamie Gorelick. At the helm of Fannie Mae was another Clinton appointee, Franklin Raines, who was paid more than $4 million and had almost $6 million in unexercised stock options in his first year at the helm.

The rules in place were meant to make sound financial transactions which of course barred those whose financial abilities were less than sound. The Clinton appointees operating under the liberal’s Equality of Outcome policy, lowered the lending standards under which Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would purchase home loans from the banks. In doing so they created a free for all atmosphere of unsound market speculation where anyone could get a loan even if they couldn’t repay it. The banks were all too happy to make such loans since Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac set the lending standards to buy these loans and take the full risk for failure of those loans. The banks made their money on the origination fees. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stuck it to their investors who bought the stock that financed these unsound loans and thus literally caused billions and billions of dollars in financial losses, put the taxpayer on the hook to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and ruined the financial markets whose financial derivative instruments were based on those unsound loans.

Excerpts from conservablogs.com

[CritterGitter]

Now lets look at the inauguaration.....I'm hearing numbers like 150-170 Million to throw this party tomorrow.

Now, every American citizen was told that "we" as Americans would "need to sacrifice" to make America better. Change has come.

Let's put that 170 million into perspective.

One of the most recent "new" weekly unemployment numbers was around 121,000 and some change.

If you took every one of those new "unemployed workers" and cut them a check from the 170 million, each one would receive around $140,000.
Where do you think the 170 million would have been spent better?:confused:

Just to keep this in perspective Bush spent 40 million on his.

Were in trouble.....I wouldn't be surprised if our country is moving closer and closer to socialism.

Americans are tapped out on taxes.

We have been able to tax business so much over the years, they have left the country with their plants since it is cheaper to do business.

Our Population base is more than our business can employ.


Where are we headed?

Just what are you proposing, a hand out line? Our government cuts to many checks and I am SICK of it. WTC attacked......cut a check. Katrina hits.....cut a check. Both horrible and we as citizens should reach out and help our fellow Americans in crisis, but it aint the federal governments responsibility. The banks need a bailout.........cut a check. The automakers......cut a check. It's absurd!

I learned in school that the primary role of the federal government was to protect the people. I think Bush made that a high priority. However, the check cutting, buying drugs for everyone, fixing the economy and re-inventing the school system is a bunch of nonsense. It's why I can't watch the news. It just makes me mad. :irked:

[TheCream]

All I know is that after 8 years of listening to why Bush is the cause for everything wrong in the world today, I'm looking forward to seeing how the Chosen One is going to lead us away from all of that. When he fails with something, anything, how will these people in the media who rake Bush over the coals react? Who knows, maybe they'll start painting "Obama" on the bottom of stop signs in a few years? :nono:

[Deehntr56]

Just what are you proposing, a hand out line? Our government cuts to many checks and I am SICK of it. WTC attacked......cut a check. Katrina hits.....cut a check. Both horrible and we as citizens should reach out and help our fellow Americans in crisis, but it aint the federal governments responsibility. The banks need a bailout.........cut a check. The automakers......cut a check. It's absurd!

I learned in school that the primary role of the federal government was to protect the people. I think Bush made that a high priority. However, the check cutting, buying drugs for everyone, fixing the economy and re-inventing the school system is a bunch of nonsense. It's why I can't watch the news. It just makes me mad. :irked:

It was quiet, so I had to "stimulate" the discussion.:biggrin: :biggrin:

But if were cutting checks for Business...why not the unemployed?

We do that now with unemployment checks, and what better way to use the 170 million?

But helping the unemployed through a strong economy is the best answer, and we surely haven't done well with that for years.

[Winter Hawk]

Research, dig deep, and get the facts. Research the answers to those 2 questions. Don't just go on what you have heard, or what you believe in, research it and learn what they control and what is the status is currently.

Quite obviously, this was NOT done prior to the election in November. If it had.......the 44th president wouldn't be WHO it is now. I think, for the obvious majority, it's just easier to let OTHER PEOPLE draw conclusions and jump on their bandwagon.

May God Bless America.........it needs it now.....more than ever before.

Winter Hawk

[Deehntr56]

The liberals would have you believe their myth that the banks were involved in predatory lending. Clinton appointees to these two quasi-government/private corporations changed the lending rules in buying housing mortgages around 1998.

Political appointees to the companies’ boards pocketed millions in stock options to bolster support on Capitol Hill. Clinton-appointed board members at Fannie Mae included Marc Rich lawyer Jack Quinn and Janet Reno’s lieutenant at the Justice Department, Jamie Gorelick. At the helm of Fannie Mae was another Clinton appointee, Franklin Raines, who was paid more than $4 million and had almost $6 million in unexercised stock options in his first year at the helm.

The rules in place were meant to make sound financial transactions which of course barred those whose financial abilities were less than sound. The Clinton appointees operating under the liberal’s Equality of Outcome policy, lowered the lending standards under which Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would purchase home loans from the banks. In doing so they created a free for all atmosphere of unsound market speculation where anyone could get a loan even if they couldn’t repay it. The banks were all too happy to make such loans since Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac set the lending standards to buy these loans and take the full risk for failure of those loans. The banks made their money on the origination fees. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stuck it to their investors who bought the stock that financed these unsound loans and thus literally caused billions and billions of dollars in financial losses, put the taxpayer on the hook to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and ruined the financial markets whose financial derivative instruments were based on those unsound loans.

Excerpts from conservablogs.com

Hit that one on the head!:biggrin:

[Deehntr56]

Let's look at the "health care crisis".

The so called health care crisis is a result of liberal policy failure. That failure stemmed from three other liberal failures, illegal immigration, mandates upon hospitals and cost shifting. To put it simply, liberals pushed through via legislation that hospitals must treat anyone who enters the emergency room whether they can pay or not, they told the hospitals Medicaid would pay for indigent care for those who could not pay and then short changed the hospitals via Medicaid reimbursement rates that were far below the actual costs of the services they rendered.

Since when does an illegal alien (10 to 20 million of them) working an ultra low wage job have money to pay the emergency room? By extension when illegals displace US workers in low wage paying jobs leaving them unemployed or underemployed, they too won’t have the money or insurance coverage to pay medical bills. The hospitals of course were left with limited choices, either drop their emergency rooms which many did or cost shift their losses to those who are already paying (sounds like Socialism doesn’t it?). No business can stay in business continually sustaining financial losses, you must have a profit to stay in business. So the hospitals cost shifted to the insurance companies and individual payers (uninsured).

The insurance companies of course balked at double digit annual increases in order to cover the losses of the hospitals. The insurance companies had two choices, raise the premiums to cover the double digit increases in health care or cut coverage or both. The result, more people who didn’t have health insurance and more personal bankruptcies due to catastrophic medical costs.

The classic example of liberals creating a problem to propose a socialist solution which in the end makes the problem worse…Socialized Medicine, just ask the Canadians and British.

Excerpts from conservablogs.com


We don't even want to get on the Illegal Alien discussion.

This to me is completely out of control, and our government and Businesses promote it.

There is no way in hell that these 11 million "Illegal" immigrants should be given citizenship. If they say there's 11 million, it's probably 30 million.

There are countless illegal immigrants that don't give a damn about this country. Every penny they make goes somewhere else.

There are ten's of 1000's of El Salvadorian gang members ruining this great country of ours.

Not to mention the Russian's who scam everything from handicapped parking permits, to Social Services.

There should a "One Strike Law" for immigrants - One felony they're out.
That law, or any other you propose is worthless without a secure border.

Without laws that are enforced, this country will fall by the wayside. If we don't close the borders, all of this debate is for nothing.

I do respect Sen. John Kyl from Az., and Sen. Jeff Sessions from Al. They were the most vocal, and didn't sell us out.

My grandfathers would turn over in there graves if they saw all they had sacrificed for this country, come down to this.

Senators voting against keeping English as America's language. I'm voting against both California Senators, because of this.

Let's pray the House can straighten some of this crap out..

Wise up. If you think the American people want this...you are dead wrong.


Roughly 10% of births in the United States, or close to 400,000 anchor babies are born in the US to illegal immigrants. Hard to fathom what this will cost us in the future.

I can go on and on.......

[Deehntr56]

Interesting Link.....:rolleyes:

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-hj5/show

[deerhunt45]

Very good link...thanks.

It is the internet era...there's no excuse for responsible opinions and voices to not be heard by elected officials.

The mission statement below is kind of what I was trying to say in another thread post. There needs to be Sunlight before there can be seen a rainbow...:whistle:


What We Do

Each day, our lives abound in political feelings and opinions. Not just on Election Day.
The Participatory Politics Foundation develops websites that create new opportunities for engagement with government. Voting is important, but we have a chance to go further and create a political process that is meritocratic, creative, and participatory. We believe that the internet opens an unprecedented opportunity to extend and amplify political voices and actions.

For our democratic political system to work effectively, it is essential that we have the ability to see what's happening in government and communicate our ideas to people in power. PPF seeks to build tools that facilitate greater citizen engagement, with a focus on usable design and clear presentation. OpenCongress is our first effort in this direction. Stay tuned for more.

[coonskinner]

i dint vote for him but the sucker one an i wish him well an will do whatever i can to pull thru this mess left by those before even though he was a senator which means hes as responsible as anybody else thats runnin our govt...hope he can bring us all tuhgether to beat this thang...an he better watch those sabotagin oil opec guys real close...:biggrin:

[wildohio22]

i agree coonie, but the thing about the opec"holes" is that its more or less bush, he owns most of the dividends in everyone of the oil companies, but obama or anyother person that has ran this country cant do it solely nor can they budget the money any better. (deerhuntr56 posted this>>"Now in a free economy, you have successes and failures. So how could Bush have an effect on this bank? THEY MADE MONEY...WHY? They only gave loans to people that can afford them. They followed the basic principles in the banking industry on how to "properly" distribute money in the loan process." )the government in the next four years wont be able to do what this bank did in one quarter, because there are to many people in the government that have a voice, democrat or republican they all waste away our money.

[Full Rut]

All I know is that after 8 years of listening to why Bush is the cause for everything wrong in the world today, I'm looking forward to seeing how the Chosen One is going to lead us away from all of that. When he fails with something, anything, how will these people in the media who rake Bush over the coals react? Who knows, maybe they'll start painting "Obama" on the bottom of stop signs in a few years? :nono:

Exactly what Im thinking. But the liberal media thats been gushing all day ,will never criticise our new president. They will continue to blame everything on the former administration. Guaranteed. I understand the importance to alot of people that he is the first black president but whats all the fuss about? He has NOT done a thing yet. I just know I cant wait to be saved. Remember guys..."Help is on the way".:nono:

[deerhunt45]

i agree coonie, but the thing about the opec"holes" is that its more or less bush, he owns most of the dividends in everyone of the oil companies, but obama or anyother person that has ran this country cant do it solely nor can they budget the money any better. (deerhuntr56 posted this>>"Now in a free economy, you have successes and failures. So how could Bush have an effect on this bank? THEY MADE MONEY...WHY? They only gave loans to people that can afford them. They followed the basic principles in the banking industry on how to "properly" distribute money in the loan process." )the government in the next four years wont be able to do what this bank did in one quarter, because there are to many people in the government that have a voice, democrat or republican they all waste away our money.

Well you're certainly in for a debate by mentioning coonie, quoting DH56 and bashing Bush...have a fun time :D

[Deehntr56]

Well you're certainly in for a debate by mentioning coonie, quoting DH56 and bashing Bush...have a fun time :D

Wildohio22….facts….state the facts.……not opinion…support your claim with relevant data and supporting research.

[deerhunt45]

I recommend this site for information. I hope Obama is listening. He is the President and I wish him the best. Hopefully he listens and can be pragmatic when necessary.

http://www.askheritage.org/

[Deehntr56]

Interesting choice for an interview....just the facts.....


http://news.aol.com/main/obama-presidency/article/obama-interview-arab-tv/318769

[jeffmo]

Just what are you proposing, a hand out line? Our government cuts to many checks and I am SICK of it. WTC attacked......cut a check. Katrina hits.....cut a check. Both horrible and we as citizens should reach out and help our fellow Americans in crisis, but it aint the federal governments responsibility. The banks need a bailout.........cut a check. The automakers......cut a check. It's absurd!

I learned in school that the primary role of the federal government was to protect the people. I think Bush made that a high priority. However, the check cutting, buying drugs for everyone, fixing the economy and re-inventing the school system is a bunch of nonsense. It's why I can't watch the news. It just makes me mad. :irked:

critter,i believe that the money given to the world trade center family survivors was all donated money.i could be wrong though.

[jeffmo]

Well you're certainly in for a debate by mentioning coonie, quoting DH56 and bashing Bush...have a fun time :D

hell,i wouldn't even do that!!!:biggrin:

i think the problem is way bigger than one party or the other.i basically think it's a government that,over time,has become very corrupt with the rich aiding the rich.
with that said though how do we as average Americans go about implementing the changes necessary to make it a government of the people and by the people again????
can they made to be accountable or is it too late??
they forgot that they're SUPPOSED to be public servants.
i know that the above isn't factual but i do think it's a huge part of the problem.

[Deehntr56]

hell,i wouldn't even do that!!!:biggrin:

i think the problem is way bigger than one party or the other.i basically think it's a government that,over time,has become very corrupt with the rich aiding the rich.
with that said though how do we as average Americans go about implementing the changes necessary to make it a government of the people and by the people again????
can they made to be accountable or is it too late??
they forgot that they're SUPPOSED to be public servants.
i know that the above isn't factual but i do think it's a huge part of the problem.

:biggrin::biggrin:

Jeffmo......I agree that we as a country are in trouble....it wasn't from Bush's time in office, this has been going on for many terms that started a long time ago.

Our Family values are gone....

Our Politicians are ALL crooked....

Their only in office for themsleves, and to line their own pockets...

There is nothing you and I will change.....alone.....

I can only protect what I have to this point...and that is dwindling fast....

We will never have what we had in the early years of this country....people and govenrment working together....

We are taxed to the max, and their isn't enough jobs in the country to keep everyone employed based on our current population, and our politicains have chased many companies over seas due to their inability to keep them here with incentives and not caring to do so in the 1st place.

Sad.....disappointing......but True......and for me to say that, who is usually a positive person and always ready to lend a helping hand.......have realized this plane is in a nose dive, with all engines out......

By the way...I need to add the above statement as " being of some opinion" and a disclaimer to go along with it...since a little is not "all" facts..there is "some" opinion in the above.

[badger]

I'm curious how many of you are unemployed, and receiving state assistance?

When I read the paper everday, the numbers are alarming. Ohio has exhausted thier fund, and will continue on extensions.

We are right up there on the stats. Are you nervous on your personal sitiation?

I work in the steel industry, and things have looked alot better in the past.

Not sure what I would do if I had to learn a new trade at my age.

[CritterGitter]

hell,i wouldn't even do that!!!:biggrin:

i think the problem is way bigger than one party or the other.i basically think it's a government that,over time,has become very corrupt with the rich aiding the rich.
with that said though how do we as average Americans go about implementing the changes necessary to make it a government of the people and by the people again????
can they made to be accountable or is it too late??
they forgot that they're SUPPOSED to be public servants.
i know that the above isn't factual but i do think it's a huge part of the problem.

Jeffmo, now there is something that I can agree with you on. What ever happened to the premise of a governement, "of the people and by the people". This does go WAY back before Bush. I think our fore fathers would roll over in their graves if they knew what the great democracy they created had become. Where in their vision was lobbyist? Where in their vision was unlimited terms? Where in their vision was voting themselves a raise? Those folks believed in hard work first. Heck, they had to. Times weren't easy then. I believe many of our politicians are born with a silver spoon in their mouth. Not all, but most of them. They see it as a good ole boys club and they like to play their games(politics at its best). The don't care about their consituents that for sure. Look at an issue such as illiegal immigration. Most polls would show 80% of Americans are against it and want a resolution to the problem. However, they do nothing. Why? They don't care. I don't have the answers. I don't know that one party can solve all of this. I do know one thing. I expect things to get worse before they get better.

[deerhunt45]

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/themes/heritage_v1/images/category_199.gif Posted January 28th, 2009 at 8.54am in Ongoing Priorities (http://blog.heritage.org/category/ongoing-priorities/).
Last Friday we warned you (http://blog.heritage.org/2009/01/23/morning-bell-nothing-temporary-about-this-stimulus-spending/) about some family planning provisions tucked away in the House stimulus bill (http://readthestimulus.org/). Some conservative lawmakers then took up the issue on the Sunday shows, and the provisions quickly became a symbol (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123307183916519783.html) of how completely unrelated to “economic stimulus” the House bill really is. Being the savvy political operator he is, President Barack Obama has now instructed House Democrats to remove that one provision. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/18066.html) But, like much of Obama’s presidency so far, this was a completely symbolic move. The family planning provisions are just one small loophole inside of a massive new permanent expansion of socialized medicine. Don’t believe us? Here is how the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/us/28health.html?ref=todayspaper) reports (not editorializes, hard news reports) on the bill:
The stimulus bill working its way through Congress is not just a package of spending increases and tax cuts intended to jolt the nation out of recession. For Democrats, it is also a tool for rewriting the social contract with the poor, the uninsured and the unemployed, in ways they have long yearned to do.
…
As Congress rushes to inject cash into a listless economy, it is setting aside many of the restraints that have checked new domestic spending for more than a decade.
…
The economic stimulus bill prevents states from enforcing a means test. … Republicans said this proposal would take a big step toward federalizing Medicaid. For their part, Democrats said the changes took a major step toward their goal of coverage for all Americans.
This is why long time advocates for socialized medicine, like Ways and Means health subcommittee chair Pete Stark (D-CA), have been telling reporters (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/rep.-stark-no-health-reform-vote-in-early-09-2008-12-17.html) not to expect any other health care legislation this year. This “stimulus” bill (http://readthestimulus.org/) is the left’s major down payment for socialized medicine (http://blog.heritage.org/2008/10/30/the-greatest-trick-the-socialists-ever-pulled/). By making everyone eligible, the bill makes government health care the default option for the unemployed. Coupled with their SCHIP legislation that makes three-fourths of all American children eligible for Medicaid, this stimulus bill is designed to maximize the pushing of Americans off their current private coverage and into government run health care. (http://blog.heritage.org/2009/01/26/fast-tracking-government-control-of-health-care/)
The left’s power grab does not end with health care. As we noted last week (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Education/bg2233.cfm), and the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/education/28educ.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper) reports today, the bill will “profoundly change the federal government’s role in education, which has traditionally been the responsibility of state and local government.” The NYT continues: “The proposed emergency expenditures on nearly every realm of education … would amount to the largest increase in federal aid since Washington began to spend significantly on education after World War II.”
And we haven’t even got to the Christmas tree like wish list of other long sought after leftist spending priorities, which include: $1 billion for Amtrak, $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for the National Endowment of the Arts; $400 million for global warming research; $2.4 billion for clean coal; $650 million for even more digital TV conversion coupons; $600 million for new government cars; $7 billion for modernizing federal buildings; $150 million for the Smithsonian; and $54 billion for Economic Development Office and Small Business Administration programs that the OMB or GAO have already analyzed to be “ineffective.” (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310466514522309.html)
All of this deficit spending has a cost. And the Congressional Budget Office confirmed yesterday that the cost of servicing the mountains of new debt of all this government expansion pushes the total price tag of just the existing House spending plans (before a single cent of Senate waste is added) to over $1 trillion dollars. In a letter to Rep. Paul Ryan (D-WI) CBO director Doug Elmendorf writes: “CBO estimates that the government’s interest costs would increase by $0.7 billion in fiscal year 2009 and by a total of $347 billion over the 2009- 2019 period. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/18039.html)” In other words, the Pelosi-Obama-Reid Debt Plan already weighs in at $1.172 trillion.
President Obama reportedly told Republicans yesterday, “I would love to not have to spend this money.” Every American is free to take Obama’s words at face value. Or you could believe the President’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Commenting on the left’s governing plans this November, he said: “Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you couldn’t do before. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310466514522309.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)” Exactly.







Quick Hits:

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner issued new guidelines Tuesday aimed at eliminating the influence of lobbyists (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/27/AR2009012703500.html) on the $700 billion financial bailout program.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner picked a Goldman Sachs lobbyist as his Chief of Staff (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-01-27-lobbyist_N.htm) Tuesday.
Newly minted Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner recently received a $435,000 severance payment from his old employer (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/18074.html), according to a mandatory financial disclosure statement released by the Office of Government Ethics.
All six of the law and accounting firms hired by the Treasury Department to help manage the $700 billion financial bailout have clients who received the federal money (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/executive/cabinet/2009-01-27-geithner-lobbying_N.htm), contracting and regulatory records show.
The parent company of both Philadelphia newspapers has been engaged in discussions with Gov. Ed Rendell (D-PA) about obtaining a $10 million government bailout (http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/01/27/top_stories/doc497eff5fbe488366047677.txt).
I watched the House Republicans debating on TV last night with House Democrats. I liked what I heard from them, they almost to a line said this plan will not work as is. The Democrats of course said the end is near and the government has to do something...BS This is 10 times worse than the New Deal which didn't do a damn thing during the depression. I'm pissed! But how do we stop it???????
:rant: :irked: :nono: :(

[Deehntr56]

To add to 45's post.....now you know why this country is all screwed up....


The House is expected to vote TODAY (Wednesday) on the Obama Stimulus bill,
which is getting worse and worse -- and bigger and bigger -- by
the hour. Here's just a sampling of what is in the bill:

$2.4 billion carbon capture products...

$4.19 billion for ACORN and other bogus "community organizing" groups...

$650 million digital tv conversion...

$79 billion to bail out the state education system...

Hundreds of millions for family planning...

$400 million global warming research...

$50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts...

$200 million to refurbish the National Mall...

And the bill is not even a stimulus! Just 1% of the so-called stimulus is
for tax cuts for small businesses. And according to the Congressional
Budget Office, two thirds of the stimulus will not even be spent for
nearly two years!

John, it is as if Obama and the Democrats expected conservatives
to just roll over and accept anything they rammed down our throats.

Well, I will not roll over!

+ + Action Item -- Contact Congress now.

Again, I am asking every member of the Patriotic Resistance to contact
Congress right now and say "no" to the Obama socialistic stimulus plan.

Two ways to take action:

#1 -- Fax your members of Congress now - use Grassfire's FaxFire system to
have your faxes sent immediately to Congress. Go here:

http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?U=15847&CID=111&RID=18832989

If you would prefer to send your own faxes, please do so. We have
provided all the information you need.

#2 -- Call your members of Congress now. Here's your contact information for:

Sen. Byrd 202-224-3954

Sen. Rockefeller 202-224-6472

Rep. Mollohan 202-225-4172

Rep. Mike Pence calls the bill a "dusty old wish list of liberal spending
priorities."
The House is voting TODAY...the Senate before the end of the week.

Thank you for taking action!


Steve Elliott, President
Grassfire.org

P.S. The best resources and discussion on the bogus stimulus is taking place
on ResistNet right now. Once you take action, join the discussion on
ResistNet.
This is where you can network and engage with other patriotic resisters.
If you have not already done so, please sign up here:

http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?U=15848&RID=18832989

Or, go here to see our featured resources on the stimulus:

http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?U=15849&RID=18832989

[six-point]

Anyone look at the national debt lately? Under Clinton, the debt was going down, not much, but DOWN. In GW's 8 years, it went from 6 to 10 TRILLION dollars.

Clinton sold us out with NAFTA.

None of them do any good for the working class.

[205]

hell,i wouldn't even do that!!!:biggrin:

i think the problem is way bigger than one party or the other.i basically think it's a government that,over time,has become very corrupt with the rich aiding the rich.
with that said though how do we as average Americans go about implementing the changes necessary to make it a government of the people and by the people again????
can they made to be accountable or is it too late??
they forgot that they're SUPPOSED to be public servants.
i know that the above isn't factual but i do think it's a huge part of the problem. Dont suppose the congress could present a bill to form a Political Corruption Task Force, appointed by the President to investigate every person in the Congress, House and Senate? :rolleyes::mischeif: Then anyone found guilty of a felony would get the boot! :bouncy: Just a thought.

[deerhunt45]

Well the stimulus package passed the House 244-188. All Republicans voted it down with 18? Democrats going against party lines and also voting no.

It now moves to the Senate. Have you contacted your Senator yet?

It's hard pressed to call this any kind of stimulus package with all the earmarks and entitlement spending forced in there. Very little for the average businessman who could actually stimulate the economy by expanding, new startups, equipment purchases and hiring more people. Pretty sad state of affairs boys and girls :nono:

[Deehntr56]

Has anyone stopped and thought about how the stimulus packages will play out in the future.:confused:

The Governemnt is doing the same thing banks were doing the past decade..loaning money to people that should't have received the loan money IN THE 1ST PLACE.

The outcome of that is the Banks were going to go under unless they were given the money recently to stay afloat.

Now the Goevernment is loaning money to the banks, to save the banks and auto manufacturers etc.....and what will happen, eventually when it has all been distributed?

Who will go under next?:confused:

Their loaning money to companies that technically would not qualify......

[jackalope]

Anyone look at the national debt lately? Under Clinton, the debt was going down, not much, but DOWN. In GW's 8 years, it went from 6 to 10 TRILLION dollars.

Clinton sold us out with NAFTA.

None of them do any good for the working class.

FAIL...Smarty. Bill Clinton also had you in the highest tax bracket in American history... That’s why he was able to pay down the national debt.. Bill Clinton also IGNORED Islamic fascism when the same terrorist that hit us in 2001 did it under Clintons administration in 1993. Bill Clinton captured the "masterminds" and convicted them.. Then launched a few cruise missiles into the desert... But Bill Clinton refused to deal with the problem of terrorism or Islamic extremism. There for allowing the same group of terrorist ideology to attack again in 2001.. FAIL!!!!

GW when attacked in 2001 didn't refuse to do anything about it and decided to wage war against Islamic extremism, in 2 countries where it existed heavily... AT LEAST he did something about it... Sure GW ran up the national deficit.. He was fighting a very expensive war while keeping taxes low... This war has been raging for years.........


OBAMA has spent more on economic stimulus pork socialist democrat wet dreams in the pas 8 days that the entire IRAQ war cost....

Iraq war
Bush Iraq war $592,422,098,596 that’s 592 billion

Obama socialist stimulus plan in 8 days 1,700,000,000,000 that’s 1.7 trillion...

[CritterGitter]

Maybe I should get in the line. Where's my check? I don't need one, but since Uncle Sam is handing them out..............where's mine???????? :irked:

[deerhunt45]

Maybe I should get in the line. Where's my check? I don't need one, but since Uncle Sam is handing them out..............where's mine???????? :irked:

It's in the mail, of course...provided the USPS can keep on delivering it :nono:

[six-point]

FAIL...Smarty. Bill Clinton also had you in the highest tax bracket in American history... That’s why he was able to pay down the national debt.. Bill Clinton also IGNORED Islamic fascism when the same terrorist that hit us in 2001 did it under Clintons administration in 1993. Bill Clinton captured the "masterminds" and convicted them.. Then launched a few cruise missiles into the desert... But Bill Clinton refused to deal with the problem of terrorism or Islamic extremism. There for allowing the same group of terrorist ideology to attack again in 2001.. FAIL!!!!

GW when attacked in 2001 didn't refuse to do anything about it and decided to wage war against Islamic extremism, in 2 countries where it existed heavily... AT LEAST he did something about it... Sure GW ran up the national deficit.. He was fighting a very expensive war while keeping taxes low... This war has been raging for years.........


OBAMA has spent more on economic stimulus pork socialist democrat wet dreams in the pas 8 days that the entire IRAQ war cost....

Iraq war
Bush Iraq war $592,422,098,596 that’s 592 billion

Obama socialist stimulus plan in 8 days 1,700,000,000,000 that’s 1.7 trillion...


Dang ....testy ain't we? One good thing about the USA...I have my opinion and you have yours.

I wasn't defending either party .....In my opinion...no one has done us any good lately.

[mossymaple]

Resistance is futile. Turn in your guns today and get a voucher for a free koran and prayer mat.

[Deehntr56]

LOL @Mossymaple!


Any way we look at it, we are in the BEST country in the world! We have lots of opportunities, and it could be better, but I wouldn't live anywhere else.....maybe in Montana or Wyoming, or Utah, Or Colorado...Or..it would only be in the USA.:D:D

If any of you travel, some of you know, that if you get sick, really sick in another country...and you need medical care.....your done! No question about it. You'll wait a long time to be seen, and the care level is no where close to what we have here.

We have the best medical facilities anywhere, and the care is pretty good. I have never had to be in a hospital for anything overnight except minor stuff while playing sports, or out patient surgery...but as we all get older it becomes more important.

My Wife is a Registered nurse in Newborn, and has been at this hospital for over 25 years, which is the largest Hospital in Ohio for births with over 4,000 births a year, and they constantly have people flying in from foreign countries to have their babies here, it's incredible.

So we are fortunate in many aspects, but there are opportunities out there as well.

Many of them we have stated here.

1.7 Trillion...and ACORN getting a substanial piece of this...."smells" pretty political to moi'.

[deerhunt45]

While some of this may be opinion, Thomas Sowell does include some facts in his columns. This one certainly resonates with me.

Everyone is talking about how much money the government is spending, but very little attention is being paid to where they are spending it or what they are buying with it.


The government is putting money into banks, even when the banks don't want it, in hopes that the banks will put it into circulation. But the latest statistics shows that banks are lending even less money now than they were before the government dumped all that cash on them.

Even if it had worked, putting cash into banks, in hopes that they would put it into circulation, seems a rather roundabout way of doing things, especially when the staggering sums of money involved are being justified as an "emergency" measure.
Spending money for infrastructure is another time-consuming way of dealing with what is called an immediate crisis. Infrastructure takes forever to plan, debate, and go through all sorts of hearings and adjudications, before getting approval to build from all the regulatory agencies involved.


Out of $355 billion newly appropriated, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that only $26 billion will be spent this fiscal year and only $110 billion by the end of 2010.

Using long, drawn-out processes to put money into circulation to meet an emergency is like mailing a letter to the fire department to tell them that your house is on fire.

If you cut taxes tomorrow, people would have more money in their next paycheck, and it would probably be spent by the time they got that paycheck, through increased credit card purchases beforehand.

If all this sound and fury in Washington was about getting an economic crisis behind us, tax cuts could do that a lot faster.

None of this is rocket science. And Washington politicians are not all crazy, even if sometimes it looks that way. Often, what they say makes no sense because what they claim to be doing is not what they are actually doing.

No matter how many times President Barack Obama tells us that these "extraordinary times" call for "swift action," the kind of economic policies he is promoting take effect very slowly, no matter how quickly the legislation is rushed through Congress. It is the old Army game of hurry up and wait.

If the Beltway politicians aren't really trying to solve this crisis as quickly as they could, what are they trying to do?

One important clue may be a recent statement by President Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel, that "A crisis is a terrible thing to waste."

This is the kind of cynical revelation that sometimes slips out, despite all the political pieties and spin. Crises have long been seen as great opportunities to expand the federal government's power while the people are too scared to object and before any opposition can get organized.

That is why there is such haste to do things that will take effect slowly. (Read this line again very slowly)

What are the Beltway politicians buying with all the hundreds of billions of dollars they are spending? They are buying what politicians are most interested in— power.

In the name of protecting the taxpayers' investment, they are buying the power to tell General Motors how to make cars, banks how to bank and, before it is all over with, all sorts of other people how to do the work they specialize in, and for which members of Congress have no competence, much less expertise.

This administration and Congress are now in a position to do what Franklin D. Roosevelt did during the Great Depression of the 1930s— use a crisis of the times to create new institutions that will last for generations.

To this day, we are still subsidizing millionaires in agriculture because farmers were having a tough time in the 1930s. We have the Federal National Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae") taking reckless chances in the housing market that have blown up in our faces today, because FDR decided to create a new federal housing agency in 1938.
Who knows what bright ideas this administration will turn into permanent institutions for our children and grandchildren to try to cope with?

[CritterGitter]

Well, Obama DID promise "change". Never said it would be good or for the better, but oh how the masses bought it.

Basically, the Amercian people or the 58% or whatever it was that voted for Obama have all gotten their "fake corn."

[deerhunt45]

Well, Obama DID promise "change". Never said it would be good or for the better, but oh how the masses bought it.

Basically, the Amercian people or the 58% or whatever it was that voted for Obama have all gotten their "fake corn."

Kyle, I think I get your intendre ;)

I'm hearing the Senate Republicans are going to have some backbone finally and not rubber stamp this socialist bill.

On another note...
Fact: Obama gave his first official media interview as President on an Arab channel...what's wrong with this picture :confused: :16suspect1: :nono: I didn't like what he said either...America is always dictating :confused: :16suspect1:

Opinion: What he is telling me is he doesn't like this country as it is or ever was...he wants radical change :rant::irked:

[coonskinner]

Well, Obama DID promise "change". Never said it would be good or for the better, but oh how the masses bought it.

Basically, the Amercian people or the 58% or whatever it was that voted for Obama have all gotten their "fake corn."

hey that cost you usin that term...its patented...:D

[six-point]

Lets see if I can make a comment or ask a question without inciting a riot.

The US is 10 TRILLION $ in debt. Whether the stimulus package is 850 billion or 1.7 trillion...or another 10 trillion...where is it coming from?

I did see today that Exxon made a record 45 Billion in 2008...even though 4QTR profits were down 33% from 2007. And instead of research, building refineries, or developing alternative fuel, they are buying back their own stock. Sweet....

[Deehntr56]

hey that cost you usin that term...its patented...:D

LMAO..@...CS.....Can he get a Government stimulus check to pay you?:yikes::biggrin:

[deerhunt45]

Lets see if I can make a comment or ask a question without inciting a riot.

The US is 10 TRILLION $ in debt. Whether the stimulus package is 850 billion or 1.7 trillion...or another 10 trillion...where is it coming from?

I did see today that Exxon made a record 45 Billion in 2008...even though 4QTR profits were down 33% from 2007. And instead of research, building refineries, or developing alternative fuel, they are buying back their own stock. Sweet....

sixpoint, that is exactly the question and the problem...they DON'T KNOW really other than selling more of OUR country to the rest of the world and putting the debt and the problems it brings on the next several generations. Very good question...

[Deehntr56]

Received this in email tonight.......


The Heat Is On

Presidential candidate Obama said on the campaign trail on May 16, 2008, "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times."

But President Obama may have different rules. The New York Times reports photos of the president in the Oval Office without his jacket on — are explained because he keeps the thermostat on high. The president's senior adviser, David Axelrod says, "He's from Hawaii, OK? He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there."

But Steve Milloy of junkscience.com — a leading debunker of global warming theories — says — "This is yet another example of green hypocrisy. President Obama supports policies that would force you to turn down the heat in your house while he expects taxpayers to pay for him to turn up the heat in his."

[deerhunt45]

Received this in email tonight.......


The Heat Is On

Presidential candidate Obama said on the campaign trail on May 16, 2008, "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times."

But President Obama may have different rules. The New York Times reports photos of the president in the Oval Office without his jacket on — are explained because he keeps the thermostat on high. The president's senior adviser, David Axelrod says, "He's from Hawaii, OK? He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there."

But Steve Milloy of junkscience.com — a leading debunker of global warming theories — says — "This is yet another example of green hypocrisy. President Obama supports policies that would force you to turn down the heat in your house while he expects taxpayers to pay for him to turn up the heat in his."

From what I've heard so far, sounds about right. After all, "he won" :rolleyes:

[Deehntr56]

From what I've heard so far, sounds about right. After all, "he won" :rolleyes:

OUCH!;):biggrin:

[Pathfinder85]

The country is pretty much already broke. The money came from China last time we had a "stimulus". So everyone (including the government) has no money but they just gave the banks how much money? Money that they don't have to have any accountability for OR show where its going. Was supposed to be for loans for the people which they decided to stop giving and if they did, their interest rates alone would cause you to default on the loans. I think we have a pretty big problem here. We were all promised "change" and I think we are getting bent over more than ever! Oh wait....thats right the government already covered their asses didn't they? Ameros.....wasn't it?:coco::rant::tsk:

[Pathfinder85]

Resistance is futile. Turn in your guns today and get a voucher for a free koran and prayer mat.


Unfortunately, you're prolly not far off. This supposed not Muslim President sure is buddy buddy with em' isn't he? OH WAIT! THATS WHERE HE GREW UP!!!! And went to a Muslim public school! What if the biggest terror attack we could dream of starts with a "former" (but says he never was) Muslim, in the White House calling the shots and steadily putting the country nose-down for a crash landing? It would look innocent enough but how long do you think it would take for the United States in that kind of scenario to fold? Then I guess the Extremists that have been waiting for that day wouldn't have much work ahead of them would they?:tsk:

[Deehntr56]

Facts...Facts...Facts....just more facts....:biggrin:


Slipping below the radar (or under the short-term memory cap), the Democrats have already leaked a gun-ban list, even under the Bush administration when they knew full well it had no chance of passage (HR 1022, 110th Congress). It serves as a framework for the new list the Brady's plan to introduce shortly. " ( http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1022 )

I have an outline of the Brady's current plans and targets of opportunity, It's horrific. They're going after the courts, regulatory agencies, firearms
dealers and statutes in an all out effort to restrict we the people.



They've made little mention of criminals.


Now more than ever, attention to the entire Bill of Rights is critical. Gun bans will impact our freedoms under search and seizure, due process,
confiscated property, states' rights, free speech, right to assemble and more, in addition to the Second Amendment.

The Democrats current gun-ban-list proposal (final list will be worse):

Rifles (or copies or duplicates):

M1 Carbine, Sturm Ruger Mini-14, AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, AR-10, Thompson 1927, Thompson M1; AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR; Olympic Arms PCR; AR70, Calico Liberty, Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU, Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FNC, Hi-Point Carbine, HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, HK-PSG-1, Thompson 1927 Commando, Kel-Tec Sub Rifle; Saiga, SAR-8, SAR-4800, SKS with detachable magazine, SLG 95, SLR 95 or 96, Steyr AU, Tavor, Uzi,

Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz).

Pistols (or copies or duplicates):
Calico M-110, MAC-10, MAC-11, or MPA3, Olympic Arms OA, TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10, Uzi.

Shotguns (or copies or duplicates):
Armscor 30 BG, SPAS 12 or LAW 12, Striker 12, Streetsweeper.

Catch-all category (for anything missed or new designs):

A semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has (i) a folding or telescoping stock, (ii) a threaded barrel, (iii) a pistol grip (which includes ANYTHING that can serve as a grip, see below), (iv) a forward grip; or a barrel shroud.Any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds (except tubular magazine .22 rimfire rifles).

A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine,and has (i) a second pistol grip, (ii) a threaded barrel, (iii) a barrel shroud or (iv) can accept a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip, and (v) a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.

A semiautomatic shotgun with (i) a folding or telescoping stock, (ii) a pistol grip (see definition below), (iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds, and (iv) a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.Frames or receivers for the above are included, along with conversion kits.

Attorney General gets carte blanche to ban guns at will: Under the proposal, the U.S. Attorney General can add any "semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General." Note that Obama's pick for this office (Eric Holder, confirmation hearing set for Jan. 15) wrote a brief in the Heller case supporting the position that you have no right to have a working firearm in your own home.

In making this determination, the bill says, "there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event."

In plain English this means that ANY firearm ever obtained by federal officers or the military is not suitable for the public.

The last part is particularly clever, stating that a firearm doesn't have a sporting purpose just because it can be used for sporting purpose -- is that devious or what? And of course, "sporting purpose" is a rights infringement with no constitutional or historical support whatsoever, invented by domestic enemies of the right to keep and bear arms to further their cause of disarming the innocent.

Respectfully submitted, Alan Korwin, Author Gun Laws of America


http://www.gunlaws.com/gloa.htm

[Todd C]

gonna get way worse,,,,,,,,way way worse.

[antiqucycle]

The solution is simple, if your break the law, you go to jail. Start with the 5 tax cheats he recommended for cabinet positions. yes there was another one today, the Sec of Labor, her husband cheated on their joint return.. Holder, get him for accepting a bribe from Marc Rich. Then on to Congress and the senate, Pelosi for passing money to her hubby for the tuna fish cannery, Reid for the land deal in vegas. Water board Blagovich to spill the beans on you know who.
He made too many promises and his people will be the first to protest when they dont get milk and honey.

[Beentown]

Cut the U.S. corporate tax rate -- at 35%, among the highest of all industrialized nations -- in half. Suspend the capital gains tax for a year to incourage new investment, after which it would be brought back at 10%. Then get out of the way! Once Wall Street starts ticking up 500 points a day, the rest of the private sector will follow. There's no reason to tell the American people their future is bleak. There's no reason, as the (obama) administration is doing, to depress their hopes. There's no reason to insist that recovery can't happen quickly, because it can. History has it's place...So we can learn from it! Taxing/spending too much equals a horrible economy. It seems simple to me.

Beentown

Just as a side note...I have never truely studied politics... but I don't understand how people think a "socialist" style government ever flurishes. Never has and it never will. I have said it before and I will say it the rest of my life...the liberal mind makes no sense. I guess you have to be one to get it. Do they think of me (conservative/libertarian) the same way? A little pragmatism would be great for the country. I know...I know some side note.

[Cap't Ernie]

Just as a side note...I have never truely studied politics... but I don't understand how people think a "socialist" style government ever flurishes. Never has and it never will. I have said it before and I will say it the rest of my life...the liberal mind makes no sense. I guess you have to be one to get it. Do they think of me (conservative/libertarian) the same way? A little pragmatism would be great for the country. I know...I know some side note.

No...you haven't studied politics!

1. You can't be a conservative "slash" libertarian. Two completely different things.
2. There's a difference between "socialist" style governments and socialism as an economic policy. Socialism does work and it can flourish...in some aspects. Look at France, Germany, etc...they will argue all day long that it works there. Different strokes for different folks, but they swear by it.
3. Socialism also works real good on paper, but so does communism.
4. The "liberal mind" does make sense. Liberal Democracy is the best form of political ideology.

To all,

Whatever happened to a feel-good cabin-fever thread about what we'd spend money about? Guess that's a sign of the times.

I think there's too many people copy and pasting from Wiki and uncreditable interest groups to make an argument worth reading. Some of you should try just saying where you're getting your info from, let alone maybe a URL. God help us if someone actually cited something....


Cap't

[deerhunt45]

No...you haven't studied politics!

1. You can't be a conservative "slash" libertarian. Two completely different things.
2. There's a difference between "socialist" style governments and socialism as an economic policy. Socialism does work and it can flourish...in some aspects. Look at France, Germany, etc...they will argue all day long that it works there. Different strokes for different folks, but they swear by it.
3. Socialism also works real good on paper, but so does communism.
4. The "liberal mind" does make sense. Liberal Democracy is the best form of political ideology.

To all,

Whatever happened to a feel-good cabin-fever thread about what we'd spend money about? Guess that's a sign of the times.

I think there's too many people copy and pasting from Wiki and uncreditable interest groups to make an argument worth reading. Some of you should try just saying where you're getting your info from, let alone maybe a URL. God help us if someone actually cited something....


Cap't

Wow, I wish I was that smart when I was 19 :rolleyes:

I'll agree. The OP asked for facts and some opinion has crept into the thread. But...there are citations for info if you bother to look.

[deerhunt45]

Cut the U.S. corporate tax rate -- at 35%, among the highest of all industrialized nations -- in half. Suspend the capital gains tax for a year to incourage new investment, after which it would be brought back at 10%. Then get out of the way! Once Wall Street starts ticking up 500 points a day, the rest of the private sector will follow. There's no reason to tell the American people their future is bleak. There's no reason, as the (obama) administration is doing, to depress their hopes. There's no reason to insist that recovery can't happen quickly, because it can. History has it's place...So we can learn from it! Taxing/spending too much equals a horrible economy. It seems simple to me.

beentown understands Reaganomics!! :coolgleamA:

www.askheritage.org (http://www.askheritage.org)

[Cap't Ernie]

...45, You wish you were this smart at whatever age you are now :D

[CritterGitter]

...45, You wish you were this smart at whatever age you are now :D

My goodness, you must be smart as you have provided your credentials. However, you have some warped ideology that I just do not get.

I believe in some very basic political principals:

* smaller federal governement
* less spending by the federal government
* less taxes by the federal government
* less intervention/regulation by the federal government

I feel the citizens of this great country should be LESS dependent on the federal governement and it's "programs" and more dependent on themselves. It is beyond me why more people do not embrace this ideology.

[deerhunt45]

...45, You wish you were this smart at whatever age you are now :D

Forgotten more than you'll ever know :whistle:

Stay on topic...


Here are the facts:
• The bill gives the Department of Education (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Education/bg2233.cfm) an extra $142 billion this year. This is an unprecedented increase in federal power, designed to make Congress a national school board. Who do we want making decisions about our children’s future—Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid or parents, teachers, and principals?
• The bill does create minimal “green jobs”, but only at the expense of other jobs. Instead of having coal plant workers, the Left would prefer there to be windmill builders—it is a zero sum game. Plus, the jobs in wind farms produce a less reliable output at a higher cost than jobs in coal or nuclear power. Additionally, the “stimulus” has over $35 billion for the Department of Energy, more than doubling their budget (their current budget is $23.8 billion).
• Lastly, the bill spends $87 billion to bail out states that have overrun their Medicaid (http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm2235.cfm) budgets (while at the same time expanding this welfare program for the poor to the unemployed, regardless of income (http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm2233.cfm)). The addition of billions of dollars for comparative effectiveness research and Health IT sets up a federal infrastructure for health care rationing (http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm2155.cfm). These provisions are an incremental strategy to have government control more and more of the health care sector – leaving individuals and families with less and less control over their personal health care decisions.
What are the consequences of this sort of proposal?
1) Bigger Government. At a trillion dollar price tag, this bill will likely triple the Federal government’s annual budget, and aims to extend the role and reach of the federal government. This bill makes the New Deal pale in comparison.
http://www.askheritage.org/customimages/SPECIAL%20web%20stimulus%20vs%20new%20deal%20final .JPG
2) Massive debt. The United States looks to issue between $3.5 and $4 trillion of government debt over the next two years, possibly more, thanks to deficit spending under current policy, the stimulus bill, and the financing of TARP II. To put this in context, the total publicly held debt today is about $6.4 trillion, so we’re talking about increasing the outstanding debt by more than half in just two years.
3) Increased Interest Rates. Nations around the world are faced with similar prospects of enormous new debt issuance. Canada, for example, is expected to run a deficit this year for the first time in more than a decade, while Germany, the UK, and other countries in Europe and Asia are looking at huge deficits and huge stimulus plans. We’ve reached the point where deficits are now large enough nationally and worldwide to drive up interest rates.
To find out more about this bill, click here (http://www.heritage.org/news/economic-stimulus.cfm).
To read the bill, click here (http://www.readthestimulus.org/).

www.askheritage.org (http://www.askheritage.org)

[Cap't Ernie]

As much fun as it is to copy and paste from the Heritage Foundation, what's the point here? I mean, it is very excellent think tank, and actually I was asked to apply for an internship there this week, but I think that in some cases "askheritage" is nothing more than an outlet for brash editorials.

CG, What part of my ideology doesn't make sense?

[CritterGitter]

As much fun as it is to copy and paste from the Heritage Foundation, what's the point here? I mean, it is very excellent think tank, and actually I was asked to apply for an internship there this week, but I think that in some cases "askheritage" is nothing more than an outlet for brash editorials.

CG, What part of my ideology doesn't make sense?

I already explained where I am coming from and what I believe in. Now, you explain to me why socialism is for you. I don't want to hear about France.............tell me why it works out for you.

[deerhunt45]

As much fun as it is to copy and paste from the Heritage Foundation, what's the point here? I mean, it is very excellent think tank, and actually I was asked to apply for an internship there this week, but I think that in some cases "askheritage" is nothing more than an outlet for brash editorials.

CG, What part of my ideology doesn't make sense?

The point is not everyone is as up on things as you are. Just trying to get the word out :D Think what you want, I happen to think they are well thought out analyses of policy not simply editorials. You do have a lot of lib in you dontcha...

[Cap't Ernie]

CG,

Never said socialism was for me. Just said that it works for some. And no 45, there's no lib in me. Just "liberal". You see, there's a difference. I'm not talking about the conservative v. liberal arguement, I'm talking about liberal as in liberties such as "constitutionalism, the protection of basic rights, political and economic competition(capitalism), and free choie, both electorally and as a consumer" (and that's quote of myself).

Here's a paper I wrote on Liberal Democracy, the best ideology in my opinion. Within this ideology are the ideas of liberalism and conservatism, of which I'm a stout conservative, even a radical at that. I'll have to look up my notes on the other political ideologies I've studied, they all have their advantages and disadvantages. IMO, liberal democracy is by far the best...and no, I wouldn't say that our government is a liberal democracy per the definition I worked out in accordance with the sources I used.


Liberal Democracy: An Exploration of Its Strengths and Weakness
One of the most argumentative and thought provoking political ideology is liberal democracy. It has been and is the government of many powerful nations and societies from its primitive beginnings in ancient Greece to the present-day American political culture. Liberal democracy is interpreted in different angles by different people. There are many opinions on liberal democracy and its strengths and weaknesses.
Before the concept of liberal democracy can be discussed, it must be defined. William E. Sheuerman noted in his article, Liberal Democracy and the Empire of Speed, “liberal democracy is an enormously complex and flexible political form" (43). Like any other political ideology it can be defined in multiple ways. Political scientist Kenneth Bollen describes liberal democracy, "as the extent to which a political system allows political liberties and democratic rule" (1208). The Challenge of Politics delineates liberal democracy by separating its two rudiments: liberalism and democracy. Liberal ideas include constitutionalism, the protection of basic rights, political and economic competition, and free choice, both electorally and as a consumer. Democracy in this sense is comprised of "popular rule, freedom and equality” (Riemer et al 147). These two elements come together to form an identity that intertwines these characteristics. Once a consensus of liberal democracy is defined, the arguments of liberal democracy's advantages and disadvantages begin.
The strengths and advantages of liberal democracies are many. Perhaps the greatest collection of these strengths appears in Robert Dahl's On Democracy. Dahl outlines multiple advantages to democracy, such as it being the only form of government that can provide a maximum opportunity for exercising moral responsibility or the freedom of self determination (53, 55). Thus, liberal democracies allow individuals to enjoy freedom while striving to reach their own good and retaining citizenship within a larger group. Dahl states that liberal democracies guarantee that its citizens will have a number of basic rights while protecting their fundamental interests (“On Democracy” 48-52). These rights and privileges make liberal democracies popular to the common citizens and turns into strong nationality which, in turn, successfully strengthens the country. Furthermore, liberal democracy is realistic about politics (Riemer et al 161). Rather than casting lofty goals of a utopian society, liberal democracy focuses on the practical elements of government and works toward providing the best of both liberalism and democracy. Finally, liberal democracy is not a stagnant form of government; it is adaptive to the changing circumstances (Riemer et al 161). This characteristic is crucial in that democracy is able to stay relevant and practical as different generations interpret and participate in it. These strengths of liberal democracy are dominant and give it a standing as a successful political ideology.
The weaknesses of liberal democracy appear in the failure to reach its fundamental elements. Democracy must first be possible before liberal democracy can take place. This first step is only possible under the assumption that the citizens of a country are capable of governing themselves by electing capable political leaders that can legislate and carry out democratic government. Dahl asserts that “the assumption by democrats that ordinary people are qualified, ought to be replaced by the opposing proposition that rulership should be entrusted to a minority of persons who are specifically qualified to govern by reason of their superior knowledge and virtue” (“Democracy and Its Critics” 52). In other words, although many people are not capable of governing themselves, in most cases they are still intelligent enough to elect the individuals that are able to carry out democracy. Many skeptics point this as a huge weakness of liberal democracy, questioning the ability of common people to elect capable officials. Critics doubt if liberal democracy’s foundation of political participation is really occuring in situations where only a minority of citizens is active in elections.
The greatest downfall of liberal democracy is that it can only reach its pinnacle under the most ideal conditions. A strong foundation for liberal democracy includes a majority-rules, representative, responsible, constitutional government that is interested in the general welfare and rights of its people (Riemer et al 150). Such a government that meets these conditions is rare. As Dahl noted, in many countries that face the issues of economic order, differing ethnic groups, and poor civic education lack these conditions and the democracies set up fail (“On Democracy” 147). In these cases it is not often the case that democracy is successful. However, even in the most stable environment, Stanford Lakoff critiques that, "liberal democracy will remain vulnerable to disparagement and abuse as it has been in the past two centuries" (380). Considering these weaknesses, Lakoff comments that, "liberal democracy must be regarded as merely one pragmatic political alternative among others" (278). Simply put, under the wrong conditions, liberal democracy cannot flourish and forms of guardian governments are much more appropriate. The weaknesses of liberal democracy challenge the popular view of its success.
Liberal democracy, as defined in multiple perspectives, has numerous strengths and weaknesses. Depending on the situations, these advantages or disadvantages may present themselves largely or subtly and the balance of those conflicts determines the success or failure of liberal democracy. Due to the prevalence of liberal democracy and the argument of its strengths and weaknesses will always be under scrutiny as supporters and critics ideologically believe differently.





Works Cited
Bollen, Kenneth. "Liberal Democracy: Validity and Method Factors in Cross-National Measures." American Journal of Political Science 37 (1993): 1207-230. JSTOR. Grove City College Buhl Library, Grove City, PA.
Dahl, Robert A. Democracy and Its Critics. Yale University, 1989.
Dahl, Robert A. On Democracy. Yale University, 1998.
Lakoff, Standford. "Autonomy and Liberal Democracy." The Review of Politics. Vol. 52. Ser. 3. University of Notre Dame, 1990. 378-96. JSTOR. Grove City College Buhl Library, Grove City, PA.
Riemer, Neal, Douglas Simon, and Joseph Romance. The Challenge of Politics. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: CQ P, 2006. 146-68.
Scheuerman, William E. "Liberal Democracy and the Empire of Speed." Polity 34 (2001): 41-67. JSTOR. Grove City College Buhl Library, Grove City, PA.

Note: The above literary work is copy righted and is my personal property, not to be republished without my written consent.

Cap't

[Cap't Ernie]

45,

I do appreciate your comment on being up to date. I do realize that I sit in political science and historical classes (and humanities for that matter) for 12 hours a week and my readings surpass that greatly. And read the newspaper every day. I realize that's not possible for everyone 'cause somebody's got to work and besides ya'll get to HUNT too! But it's important for everyone to stay involved and learn, that's a fundamental part of a liberal democracy: individuals that are capable of electing -or being- representatives.

Capt

[CritterGitter]

I apologize Captn. I didn't realize you draw a distinction between the two. I don't. I see socialism and "liberal democracy" as the same thing. Just different labels.

Kind of how I see a conservative and a libertarian as largely the same thing. We both want the federal goverment to have less control of our everyday lives. If I am over-simplifying things, it is because I don't want to have an annurism today. :D

[jackalope]

Biggest pile of hookey pookey i ever read... The only true "liberal" (in whatever terms you would like to use it). Was the fact that the paper assumes big government is the answer and for the betterment of the people.. Government is NOT the answer, it IS the problem..

Then you continue on to quote


Dahl asserts that “the assumption by democrats that ordinary people are qualified, ought to be replaced by the opposing proposition that rulership should be entrusted to a minority of persons who are specifically qualified to govern by reason of their superior knowledge and virtue” (“Democracy and Its Critics” 52).

The you go on to explain the above quote as meaning


In other words, although many people are not capable of governing themselves, in most cases they are still intelligent enough to elect the individuals that are able to carry out democracy.


You completely, and I mean completely missed the boat with that one...

Dahl is saying that the assumption that citizens are smart enough to elect their own representation is wrong.... The people are stupid and should not be allowed to choose government but rather they should be ruled by the smart(er) people....
"rulership should be entrusted to a minority of persons who are specifically qualified to govern by reason of their superior knowledge and virtue”

If that's not an Elitist statement I don't know what is....

Yeah it's Liberalism alright, Liberalism is liberalism is liberalism no matter the brush you try to paint it with. nine times out of ten it's socialism. Where the elitist rule but guarantee that everyone gets a fair shake no matter how hard they work, or how lazy they are..

Citizens should be capable of governing themselves WITHOUT massive government and only a very basic set of laws and rules. It's called physical responsibility and self accountability, NOT self-perpetuation of massive government. And a bunch of powdered wig elitist dictating what’s right for me and my family...




The difference between a liberal and a conservative is... Liberals read Marx and Lenin, but Conservatives UNDERSTAND HIM...

[jeffmo]

If I am over-simplifying things, it is because I don't want to have an annurism today. :D

:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

[deerhunt45]

Socialism and Liberal Democracy are not the same ideology, at least from what I know.

Here is where/how being a liberal or liberalist or for liberalism and the connotations transformed...

Between the mid-17th and the mid-19th centuries, liberals fought chiefly against oppression, arbitrariness, and misuses of power and emphasized the needs of the free individual.

About the middle of the 19th century many liberals developed a program stressing the constructive social activity of the state and advocating state action in the interests of the individual.

The present-day defenders of the older or negative liberal policies deplore this departure and argue that positive liberalism is merely authoritarianism (socialism) in disguise. The defenders of positive liberalism argue that state and church are not the only obstructors of freedom, but that poverty may deprive the individual of the possibility of making significant choices and must therefore be controlled by constituted authority.

[Cap't Ernie]

CG,

Socialism and liberal democracy are NOT the same things. They are completely different ideologies. Yes there are certain principles that overlap, but they are different.

Although not limited to this, Liberal democracies work the best with capitalism and free market economics. Socialism is about the distribution of wealth.

Other characteristics of socialism include: adherence to the main tenets of liberal democracy (where you see that they are the same thing), a belief in public ownership (the nationalized industries instead of monopolies and common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange so that there are COLLECTIVE "enjoyments of the fruits of labor"), also an extensive welfare state (social services), a global perspective (unity of all workers around the globe and world peace), and a belief in the the centrality of equality.

As you can see, these things are NOT the same as the characteristics I've outlined of liberal democracy.

Additionally, conservatism and libertarianism are NOT the same thing.

Conservatism can be defined as "(in the American context), an ideology that is respectful of traditional values and institutions, including PRIVATE property, enterprise, and family. Generally favors liberty over equality."

Libertarianism can be defined as "an ideology that constistantly opposes government intervention in economic affairs and favors expansion of personal freedoms."

This an be shortly concluded as conservatism believes in limited govt intervention while libertarianism believes in literally almost no government. The differences are in economics, not in general beliefs.

Cap't

[Cap't Ernie]

Jackalope,

Remember, the last person to critique this paper has two ph.d's and considered it an a paper :mischeif:

You're simple interpretating what I concluded and summarized and adding your own viewpoint and opinion. You're mixing your personal views in that, and it's simply not worthwhile to separate the two. What I presented was exploration of the strengths and weaknesses, not a complete overview of liberal democracy, nor a perfect on at that.

Liberalism is NOT about elitism. You're separating liberalism and liberal democracy. Liberalism is DIFFERENT than liberal democracy.

As for your claim that liberal democracy is elitism is wrong. If you consider people that are smart enough to choose a good leader, make smart individual choices and be active in the election of an individual that embodies their political ideology, than maybe we should all be elites.

Cap't

[Cap't Ernie]

I forgot this, my source for the past two posts was from:

Riemer, Neal, Douglas Simon, and Joseph Romance. The Challenge of Politics. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: CQ P, 2006.

[jackalope]

Socialism and Liberal Democracy are not the same ideology, at least from what I know.

Here is where/how being a liberal or liberalist or for liberalism and the connotations transformed...

Between the mid-17th and the mid-19th centuries, liberals fought chiefly against oppression, arbitrariness, and misuses of power and emphasized the needs of the free individual.

About the middle of the 19th century many liberals developed a program stressing the constructive social activity of the state and advocating state action in the interests of the individual.

The present-day defenders of the older or negative liberal policies deplore this departure and argue that positive liberalism is merely authoritarianism (socialism) in disguise. The defenders of positive liberalism argue that state and church are not the only obstructors of freedom, but that poverty may deprive the individual of the possibility of making significant choices and must therefore be controlled by constituted authority.

This is correct, somewhere during the fight against European monarchy someone tacked the word liberal to the word democracy.. Democracy existing since mid 4th century now needs to have another word, which is the same damn thing... It's like me saying "I want some ham".. Or saying "I some ham ham"... "Technically" as described today much of the world is a "liberal democracy" including the US.. We are also a representative republic, and a constitutional democracy.. Although one could make very strong arguments as to how great the representative republic is doing these days. And could make a strong argument that Most Obama lovers believe it's now a theocracy. I digress

My expressions of socialism earlier was directed at the tone and chosen quotations of the writer. Not so much the idea of liberal democracy, but the tone as to which the paper meshed liberal democracy and just modern day liberalism so seamlessly..


Hence my quote about people Reading things and others understanding them... You can still have a socialist liberal democracy or in our case for the future a socialist liberal theocracy.


Edit: i saw you post Capt.. perhaps you are correct and I do have a slanted view. I will take it home to my wife who so happens to possess a PhD in Cognitive Psychology she should be able to tell me.... She is South Korea Not born in the US and has no patriotic formulation of political opinion.. I know what your thinking (how could a cognitive psychologist be married to such a nut job...) she is a conservative, that helps.. Another shocker she is a conservative female with a Ph.D in psychology.


If I’m wrong tomorrow I’ll apologize

[Cap't Ernie]

Jackalope,

There's nothing wrong with having a slanted opinion, we all do.

As for your wife, I'd be curious as to how a cognative psychology degree competes with those in political science and comparative politics.

[jackalope]

Jackalope,

There's nothing wrong with having a slanted opinion, we all do.

As for your wife, I'd be curious as to how a cognative psychology degree competes with those in political science and comparative politics.

I can't speak for the others but Cognitive Psychology deals with the brains ability at perception, problem solving, memory, and generally how people’s brains process information.

A "why we think the way we think"

i.e. why someone would be more susceptible to slanted views than others, why some don't care and why others can't get enough.

[Pathfinder85]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=85748

This would be one of the sources for my particular "opinions" a few pages back.

[Beentown]

No...you haven't studied politics!

1. You can't be a conservative "slash" libertarian. Two completely different things.
2. There's a difference between "socialist" style governments and socialism as an economic policy. Socialism does work and it can flourish...in some aspects. Look at France, Germany, etc...they will argue all day long that it works there. Different strokes for different folks, but they swear by it.
3. Socialism also works real good on paper, but so does communism.
4. The "liberal mind" does make sense. Liberal Democracy is the best form of political ideology.

To all,

Whatever happened to a feel-good cabin-fever thread about what we'd spend money about? Guess that's a sign of the times.

I think there's too many people copy and pasting from Wiki and uncreditable interest groups to make an argument worth reading. Some of you should try just saying where you're getting your info from, let alone maybe a URL. God help us if someone actually cited something....


Cap't

I wish I was 19 again and knew it all:p

Beentown

[Beentown]

beentown understands Reaganomics!! :coolgleamA:

www.askheritage.org (http://www.askheritage.org)

It works:bouncy:

Beentown

[Cap't Ernie]

Beentown,

I've never claimed to know it all. But I apologize if my intelligence in this subject makes you feel inferior to a 19 year old punk.

"Being smart isn't about knowing everything, it's about knowing where to find the answers."

[jeffmo]

hell,i wished i was beentowns age again!!!

[Deehntr56]

Hell...I wish I was 19 again....:yikes::biggrin::biggrin:

[Deehntr56]

Stir, Stir, Stir....:D

Here is a litle "stimulus" :whistle: to read....

http://media.thenewstribune.com/images/blogmedia/blogs/politics/USSENSTIMPLAN.pdf

The stimulus bill that Obama and the Democrats are trying to push through Congress includes lots of spending, which means bigger government and a bigger burden on the taxpayer. When it is all said and done this bill is estimated to cost over a trillion dollars. With that being said, opposition to this bill should be a no-brainer for any fiscal Conservative.

What may be the most insulting part of this bill is that the group ACORN, which is an advocacy group that is under investigation for voter fraud (and who routinely back Democratic Candidates in elections), may be eligible for billions of dollars of the ‘stimulus package.’

It’s just a long list of spending items. Not a real economic stimulus job creation bill. It’s line after line after line of favorite liberal spending programs, and it amounts to a big government bill — not a job creation bill.
What is astounding about this is that Obama wants the GOP to ‘keep politics to a minimum’ when it comes to discussion about the stimulus package. That, combined with the Democrats creating an environment of urgency and fear, puts Conservatives in Congress in a lose-lose situation.

Any Conservative who speaks out against the bill will be seen as someone who does not want to help those who have lost their jobs. They will also be seen as someone who is not willing to work for partisan solutions, and they will be seen as someone who does not care about ‘solving’ the current economic crisis.

But in reality, we all know that government cannot spend itself out of a recession, or else we would never be in a recession (based on the billions upon billions government spends each year).

[JC5]

Change is here, we just haven't changed the name of the country yet. Let obama and congress do that in the second month of his presidency. Welcome to the United Socialistic States of America.

[deerhunt45]

Change is here, we just haven't changed the name of the country yet. Let obama and congress do that in the second month of his presidency. Welcome to the United Socialistic States of America.

It's going to be a tough 4 years, that much is for sure :nono: :(

[Beentown]

It's going to be a tough 4 years, that much is for sure :nono: :(

You can thank Senators Specter, Snowe and the other dumb*ss Collins for cowtowing and trying to further their political career. Conservatives pssshhttt.:tsk::rant:

I know we will right ourselves but I didn't want my kids to pay off our debt.

Beentown

[deerhunt45]

A little history lesson from the original New Deal from the Democratics.

Henry Morgenthau, FDR's loyal Secrectary of the Treasury, was frustrated at the persistence of double-digit unemployment throughout the 1930s. In May 1939, with unemployment at 20%, he exploded at the failed New Deal Programs. "We have tried spending money," Morganthau noted. "We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work...We have never made good on our promises...I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started...And an enormous debt to boot!"

If history is a guide, we have every reason to believe that when President Obama institutes a New New Deal, then universal health care, federal bailouts, and jobs stimulus programs will be costly, politicized (the most powerful lobbies get the cream), and will fail.

Excerpted from a speech by Burton W. Folsom, Jr. given at a seminar sponsored by the Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship.

[deerhunt45]

Welfare Spendathon: House Stimulus Bill Will Cost Taxpayers $787 Billion in New Welfare Spending
by Robert E. Rector (http://www.heritage.org/about/staff/Robertrector.cfm)


The recently passed U.S. House of Representatives stimulus bill contains $816 billion in new spending and tax cuts. Of this sum, $264 billion (32 percent) is new means-tested welfare spending. This represents about $6,700 in new welfare spending for every poor person in the U.S.



But this welfare spending is only the tip of the iceberg. The bill sets in motion another $523 billion in new welfare spending that is hidden by budgetary gimmicks. If the bill is enacted, the total 10-year extra welfare cost is likely to be $787 billion.


The claim that Congress is temporarily increasing welfare spending for Keynesian purposes (to spark the economy by boosting consumer spending) is a red herring. The real goal is to get "the camel's nose under the tent" for a massive permanent expansion of the welfare state.


In the first year after enactment of the stimulus bill, federal welfare spending will explode upward by more than 20 percent, rising from $491 billion in FY 2008 to $601 billion in FY 2009. This one-year explosion in welfare spending is, by far, the largest in U.S. history. But spending will continue to rise even further in future years. The stimulus bill is a welfare spendathon, a massive down payment on Obama's promise to "spread the wealth."



Once the hidden welfare spending in the bill is counted, the total 10-year fiscal burden (added to the national debt) will not be $816 billion, as claimed, but $1.34 trillion. This amounts to $17,400 for each household paying income tax in the U.S.



Even without the extra spending in the stimulus bill, means-tested welfare spending is already at a historic high and growing rapidly. In 2008, federal, state, and local means-tested spending hit $679 billion per year. Without any legislative expansions, given historic rates of growth in welfare programs, federal, state, and local means-tested welfare spending over the next decade will total $8.97 trillion. The House stimulus bill adds another $787 billion to this total, yielding a 10-year total of $9.8 trillion. The total 10-year cost of means-tested welfare will then amount to $127,000 for each household paying federal income tax.



www.heritage.org (http://www.heritage.org)

[jackalope]

Welfare Spendathon: House Stimulus Bill Will Cost Taxpayers $787 Billion in New Welfare Spending
by Robert E. Rector (http://www.heritage.org/about/staff/Robertrector.cfm)


The recently passed U.S. House of Representatives stimulus bill contains $816 billion in new spending and tax cuts. Of this sum, $264 billion (32 percent) is new means-tested welfare spending. This represents about $6,700 in new welfare spending for every poor person in the U.S.



But this welfare spending is only the tip of the iceberg. The bill sets in motion another $523 billion in new welfare spending that is hidden by budgetary gimmicks. If the bill is enacted, the total 10-year extra welfare cost is likely to be $787 billion.


The claim that Congress is temporarily increasing welfare spending for Keynesian purposes (to spark the economy by boosting consumer spending) is a red herring. The real goal is to get "the camel's nose under the tent" for a massive permanent expansion of the welfare state.


In the first year after enactment of the stimulus bill, federal welfare spending will explode upward by more than 20 percent, rising from $491 billion in FY 2008 to $601 billion in FY 2009. This one-year explosion in welfare spending is, by far, the largest in U.S. history. But spending will continue to rise even further in future years. The stimulus bill is a welfare spendathon, a massive down payment on Obama's promise to "spread the wealth."



Once the hidden welfare spending in the bill is counted, the total 10-year fiscal burden (added to the national debt) will not be $816 billion, as claimed, but $1.34 trillion. This amounts to $17,400 for each household paying income tax in the U.S.



Even without the extra spending in the stimulus bill, means-tested welfare spending is already at a historic high and growing rapidly. In 2008, federal, state, and local means-tested spending hit $679 billion per year. Without any legislative expansions, given historic rates of growth in welfare programs, federal, state, and local means-tested welfare spending over the next decade will total $8.97 trillion. The House stimulus bill adds another $787 billion to this total, yielding a 10-year total of $9.8 trillion. The total 10-year cost of means-tested welfare will then amount to $127,000 for each household paying federal income tax.



www.heritage.org (http://www.heritage.org)



When I gets mine???

[Lance]

This stuff makes my head hurt........ :irked::dizzy:

[JC5]

More Change we can beleive in....

Obama's bipartisanship.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30667

[deerhunt45]

Negotiators reach deal on stimulus bill

Majority leader Harry Reid says Congressional differences were bridged :16suspect1:

More (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29136678)

:irked: :rant:

[Deehntr56]

Now that the stimulus Bill has been approved....here's a question...will it help???:confused::confused::confused:

[Full Rut]

Time will tell. Im sure the new administration will say it might take 4 years to start working.:mischeif:

[Deehntr56]

But..."Change" has come......

[Full Rut]

But..."Change" has come......

Ya, More stupid BS from our government. They just "change" the face every 4 or 8 years.:D

[strut]

i don't understand why of all the smart men in the country that they can't see what the problem is. we can not go on and let all the companys move out of the usa.if they want to move then tax them so much they have to come back..the thing that has killed us is the FREE TRADE agrement with mexico ,canada, china, japan we have to make things here in order to have jobs. thats the reason everyone is unemployed there r no jobs left to work at. everyday u see this company that company moved out of the usa.ok if u want to sell it here MAKE it here..period

[Deehntr56]

OK…..I know……but I need to ask…:mischeif:

What was your take on the Presidential Speech last night???:D:D

[deerhunt45]

OK…..I know……but I need to ask…:mischeif:

What was your take on the Presidential Speech last night???:D:D

Good theater :confused: :whistle:

Or should I say bad theater, yeah that's more like it :rant::irked::nono::mad:

[jackalope]

I didn't watch it.. If I wanted to hear lies, I would have went to deercamp.. At least there, the lies don't cost me anything and their entertaining.

[Deehntr56]

But being negative gentlemen is not helping the cause!!!:D:D

Look at the stock market...it enjoyed his speech last night!:dizzy:

[deerhunt45]

But being negative gentlemen is not helping the cause!!!:D:D

Look at the stock market...it enjoyed his speech last night!:dizzy:

Not being negative...you asked what we thought...It's like a yo yo depending on who in the administration says what...when will people realize government is not the answer...or have we gone too far this time :rant:

Obama said the word crisis and spewed doom and gloom....until his redistribution of the wealth stimulus plan was signed. Now it's "we will recover". His rhetoric rings empty with me. Now his omnibus spending plan (raising of taxes) can start along with some of his other "special interests"...one of which I believe is to try and disarm law abiding citizens. Big government run amuk...we were warned :(

[Beentown]

OK…..I know……but I need to ask…:mischeif:

What was your take on the Presidential Speech last night???:D:D

Same bad meatloaf just some worse sides served with it.

What I hated most was the liberal media slobbering all over themselves afterward. "He is part Kennedy, Johnson and Roosevelt. Swoon. He and the government are the answer to our socialist prayers." said the talking heads.

The man is a good speech giver but that is all in my mind. How can people not see what is right in front of them?:coco::dizzy::dizzy::irked::gaga::gaga::gaga:

Beentown

[205]

OK…..I know……but I need to ask…:mischeif:

What was your take on the Presidential Speech last night???:D:D
I found it very entertaining.:cool: I love watching all the neat facial expressions that come out of Nancy Pelosi sitting behind the presidents.:bouncy: And Im still waiting for NoBama to make one of those James Brown slides to the podium. :cheeky-smiley-022:

[Deehntr56]

But....But....you the people, the majority..... voted for him!:biggrin::biggrin:

He is bringing Change.....Change to make this "horrific" economy better.

Bush destroyed it.....it doesn't matter:mischeif:.... while Clinton was in office the Banks "eased" their lending requirments and the banking industry boomed. The economy was flying.

Now that the economy has sputtered and those loans can't be paid back by the ones who really shouldn't have received loans in the 1st place.....Bush is at fault.

But...But......we need to bail out the banks.......Car manufacturers....Acorn because they are now in trouble....:whistle:


NBC News and news services
updated 1 hour, 50 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama is sending Congress a "hard choices" budget that would boost taxes on the wealthy and curtail Medicare payments to insurance companies and hospitals to make way for a $634 billion down payment on universal health care.

Obama's first budget, which will top $3 trillion, predicts the deficit for this year will soar to a whopping $1.75 trillion. The huge deficit reflects the massive spending being undertaken to battle a severe recession and the worst financial crisis in seven decades.

The new budget also plans for additional financial bailouts of up to $750 billion, a senior administration official told NBC News. But the White House believes that as the economy improves it will get roughly $500 billion back, so the expected cost to taxpayers is $250 billion.


Obama, in a morning briefing, spoke of "hard choices that lie ahead." He called his budget "an honest accounting of where we are and where we intend to go."

"We need to be honest with ourselves about which costs are being racked up," said the president. He pledged that the budget will focus on rebuilding the "foundations" of the American economy.

One administration official called the request for additional bailout resources a "placeholder" in advance of a determination by the Treasury Department of what will actually be needed.

The spending blueprint Obama is sending Congress is a 140-page outline, with the complete details scheduled to come in mid to late April, when the new administration sends up the massive budget books that will flesh out the plan.

However, the submission of the bare budget outline was certain to set off fierce debate in Congress over Obama's spending and tax priorities. The document includes additional requests for the current year and Obama's proposals for the 2010 budget year, which begins Oct. 1.

The budget balances efforts to fulfill Obama's campaign pledges to deliver tax cuts to the middle class, expand health care coverage and combat the economic crisis with an effort to keep an exploding deficit over the next few years from becoming a permanent drag on the economy. However, Republicans assailed the budget for the tax increases and some Democrats worried that Obama was not doing enough to get the deficit under control.
"I would give him good marks as a beginning, but we have to do a lot more to take on this long-term debt buildup," said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D.


"Everyone agrees that all Americans deserve access to affordable health care, but is increasing taxes during an economic recession, especially on small businesses, the right way to accomplish that goal?" asked House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

The $634 billion down payment on expanding health care coverage would come from a $318 billion increase over 10 years in taxes on the wealthy, defined as couples making more than $250,000 per year and individuals making more than $200,000. The tax increase would occur by reducing the benefit the wealthy get on tax deductions. As one example, taxpayers in the current top tax bracket of 35 percent would see their tax deduction for every $1 given to charity drop from 35 cents to 28 cents.

The other half of the down payment on Obama's drive toward universal health care — $318 billion — would come from curtailing payments to hospitals and insurance companies under Medicare and drug payments under Medicaid.

To meet his pledge of tax cuts for the middle class, the president wants to make permanent the $400 annual tax cut due to start showing up in workers' paychecks in April as part of the $787 billion stimulus package just passed by Congress. Obama's budget also extends the middle class tax cuts passed by the Bush administration in 2001 and 2003. Those cuts were due to expire at the end of 2010. If Congress approves Obama's recommendations, the Bush tax cuts would only expire for couples making more than $250,000 per year.

[deerhunt45]

Glen Beck said it better than I ever could...

To pork, or not to pork

While Obama spoke in his speech about ruling out adding pet spending projects to budget legislation, Senator John McCain said the budget bill coming up included 9,246 of those projects that would spend billions of dollars. So, is it full of pork or is it not? Take a look (http://www.dat-e-baseonline.com/front/a.asp?arg=8F7D995F927D7C5F5F707281628B73798C6A706E 7F7C77) at where massive chunks of money are going and you decide if these are things that will 'stimulate' the economy.

March to Socialism - handling cash

Something socialists haven't considered with their massive spending bill is will the organizations getting these massive amounts of cash, for example the HUD department, be managing $1.5 billion to prevent homelessness. They have never been charged with 'preventing homelessness' before. Sounds like that will turn out well. But that's not the only department that is suddenly going to be managing more money than they've ever fathomed having their hands on.

Here's some of what's in the two huge bills just passed by our Government gone wild...this is going to creat jobs? How? What and who is this stimulating...certainly not me and I consider myself somewhat average...

1,000-plus-page spending bill includes hundreds of pages of earmarks - pet spending projects inserted by lawmakers, ranging from:

$185,000 for coral reef research and preservation in Maui County, Hawaii

$55,000 in meteorological equipment for Pierce College in Woodland Hills, Calif.

$9.9 million for science enhancement at historically black colleges in South Carolina.

In addition to the basic operations of government, the new budget includes 775 pages of earmarks, funding programs that include local museums, colleges and infrastructure projects.

Among the earmarked projects in the bill are $764,000 for the Lake George Watershed Protection Initiative in New York, requested by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, New York
Democrat;

$9.9 million for South Carolina's historically black colleges and universities, requested by House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn, South Carolina Democrat;

$1.1 million requested by Senate Republican Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander and Sen. Bob Corker, both of Tennessee, for water treatment plant improvements in Tennessee's Unicoi County, as well as $300,000 for a sewer extension project in another county.

Examples of Earmarks in the Omnibus

$713,625 Woody Biomass at SUNY-ESF. Walsh and Schumer sponsors

$951,500 Sustainable Las Vegas. Berkeley and Reid sponsors.

$24,000 A+ for Abstinence. Specter is sponsor.

$300,000 Montana World Trade Center. Rehberg sponsor.

$950,000 Myrtle Beach International Trade and Convention Center. Graham sponsor.

$200,000 Oil Region Alliance. Peterson sponsor.

$190,000 Buffalo Bill Historical Center, Cody, WY for digitizing and editing the Cody collection. Barbara Cubin is the sponsor

$143,000 Las Vegas Natural History Museum, Las Vegas, NV, to expand natural history education programs. Sponsored by Harry Reid

$238,000 for the Polynesian Voyaging Society, Honolulu, HI, for educational programs. Sen. Daniel Inouye is the sponsor.

$381,000 for Jazz at Lincoln Center, New York, NY for music education programs. Jerrold Nadler is the sponsor.

Rep. Jerry Lewis of California, the top Republican on the House Appropriations Committee, would spend $3.8 million on a Needles, Calif., highway.

Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi, the top Republican on Senate Appropriations, backs earmarks including a $950,000 nature education center in Moss Point, Miss. He defends earmarks.

Omnibus bill has several bills left over from 2008 Congress that has Obama and Biden's names on them :mischeif: Is that conflict of interest?

Snow and Spector and all the other so called Republican Senators should be ashamed IMO :nono: These are just a few hams in the bill...got more reading to do :mad:

[Deehntr56]

DH45 says..."To pork, or not to pork"


45's talking Dirty now!!!:D:D


breaking news
msnbc.com news services
updated 9 minutes ago
CAMP LEJEUNE, N.C. - President Barack Obama on Friday declared that the United States would end its bloody and costly combat mission in Iraq by late summer of 2010 — but a dramatic force reduction was not expected until after Iraq's elections at the end of this year.

"Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end," he said in a speech at the Marine Corps base at Camp Lejeune, N.C. "As we carry out this drawdown, my highest priority will be the safety and security of our troops and civilians in Iraq."

Obama went on to praise the troops and thank them for their service.

"Under tough circumstances, the men and women of the United States military have served with honor, and succeeded beyond any expectation," he said.

Even with the end of the combat mission, which would come three months later than Obama pledged during his presidential campaign, a force numbering between 35,000 to 50,000 American forces will stay behind in non-combat roles, with the final troops not slated to leave until Dec. 31, 2011.

"Our enemies should be left with no doubt: This plan gives our military the forces and the flexibility they need to support our Iraqi partners, and to succeed," the president said.


His decision to leave a sizable force was welcomed by some congressional Republicans, including former presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, while some Democrats were concerned too many troops would remain in Iraq.

"I am cautiously optimistic that the plan as laid out by the president can lead to success," McCain said Friday on the Senate floor.

Obama gave few details about the pace of the withdrawal, but administration sources said it will guided by the needs of Gen. Raymond Odierno, the top commander in Iraq. They said Odierno felt it was important to keep an adequate combat force in Iraq at least until national elections there this December.

One official said Odierno wants a "substantial force on the ground in Iraq to ensure that the elections come off." Another official said Odierno wanted flexibility around the elections. "The president found that very compelling," the official said.

Obama earlier telephoned Iraq's prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, and former President George W. Bush to brief them on his announcement, the White House said.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told lawmakers in a briefing Thursday that ground commanders in Iraq believe the plan poses only a moderate risk to security, McCain said.

There were no assurances that the residual force would not be pulled into battle should Sunni Muslim insurgent holdouts or disaffected Shiite Muslims resume wide-scale fighting.

Depending on the number of forces left behind, the military will have withdrawn between 92,000 and 107,000 American fighting personnel from Iraq nearly 7 1/2 years after the United States invaded and toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein.

According to an AP count as of Thursday, at least 4,251 members of the U.S. military have died in the Iraq war since it began in March 2003. Total Iraqi deaths are unknown but number in the tens of thousands and are perhaps above 100,000.

Obama said the U.S. force that remains after the combat mission is closed out will have a threefold mission:

To train, equip and advise Iraq forces;
To offer force protection for both U.S. military and civilian operations that will continue in the country;
To engage in targeted counterterrorism missions either alone or in conjunction with Iraqi troops.
Senior administration officials said the plan was drawn up after a month of consultations with Gates, Mullen, Odierno and the military service chiefs.

Obama had promised the faster drawdown pace of 16 months during his campaign but also said he would confer with military commanders on a responsible exit.

McCain supportive
But McCain, who disagreed with Obama on Iraq policy when they competed for the presidency last fall, welcomed Obama's new plan.

"I think the plan is significantly different than the plan Obama had during the campaign," said McCain, referring to Obama’s campaign pledge to pull combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months of taking office if possible.

An existing U.S.-Iraq agreement, negotiated under Bush, remains in force and calls for U.S. combat troops to withdraw from Baghdad and other cities by the end of June, with all American forces out of the country by the end of 2011.

Gates has said that whatever Obama decided would be "a way station" since all U.S. troops must be out of Iraq by the end of 2011 under that agreement with Iraq.

"The thinking all along had been that any force left after we stopped combat operations would be focused on the counterterrorism mission, on training, advising, assistance, and that sort of thing," he has said.

With Obama planning to ramp up the U.S. military effort in Afghanistan and banking on using the Iraq troop reduction to help slash a ballooning $1.3 trillion deficit, Stephen Biddle, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, said that once the drawdown began it would be "a one-way movement."

"The issue now is slow calendar-based versus fast-calendar based," he said.

[deerhunt45]

Glenn Beck said that! :D

Here's a good laugh...

Liberal “Omnibus” Bill: Yes to Spending, No to School Choice
The “omnibus” spending bill passed by the House last week and being debated in the Senate this week sends two liberal messages:
1) Yes to Extravagant Spending
Despite the recession and the $1.4 trillion budget deficit, the House passed a $410 billion “omnibus” spending bill (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm2318.cfm) last week. The bill contained such ridiculous provisions as earmarks for tattoo removal in California, a lobster museum in Maine, and a “Totally Teen Zone” Georgia.
In fact, the bill has over 9,000 earmarks in it, and combined with the colossal $1.1 trillion “stimulus” bill, increases spending for discretionary programs a staggering 80 percent– from $378 billion to $680 billion.

http://www.askheritage.org/customimages/Stim_chart2_27.jpg

This is virtually unprecedented in American history, as these programs have already recently had significant increases. From 2001 through 2008, these programs grew 23 percent faster than inflation, with education increasing 35 percent, health research increasing 37 percent, and veterans’ benefits increasing 54 percent. Yet, rather than ask federal agencies to join the American people in some recessionary belt-tightening, the President and Congress are increasing spending by 80% and funding ridiculous earmarks like over a million dollars to combat Mormon Crickets in Utah, and over $330,000 to build a school sidewalk in Texas.

2) No to School Choice
As if the spending provisions in the “omnibus” bill were not atrocious enough, the bill does something else too: it gives a death sentence to the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program (http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/upload/Heritage_SchoolChoice_2_27.pdf). The program awards scholarships of up to $7,500 a year for almost 2,000 low-income students to attend private schools and has been instrumental in giving children a chance to break free from failing, violence-ridden schools. Yet the bill stipulates that any future funds to the program will require the reauthorization by Congress—a back-door attempt to kill the program.

[deerhunt45]

The Liberal Welfare State

The 1996 welfare reform bill changed the way government treated welfare (under Clinton). But last week the Left reverted back to the liberal welfare state in the “stimulus” bill.

Hidden in the bill was a massive increase in welfare spending. While the 1996 reforms gave states more money if they moved people OFF welfare, the new policy gives states more money if more people stay ON welfare (Obama).

[mossymaple]

The Liberal Welfare State

The 1996 welfare reform bill changed the way government treated welfare (under Clinton). But last week the Left reverted back to the liberal welfare state in the “stimulus” bill.

Hidden in the bill was a massive increase in welfare spending. While the 1996 reforms gave states more money if they moved people OFF welfare, the new policy gives states more money if more people stay ON welfare (Obama).

That's pathetic. Makes someone not want to pay their taxes.

[Deehntr56]

Pathetic??? Yes sir..all our leaders are exactly that!!!

Remember Lee Iacocca.....this leader was a leader...and why?:confused:

Here's a little about him and his new book......Good read and True!!!


Remember Lee Iacocca, the man who rescued Chrysler Corporation from its death throes? He's now 82 years old and has a new book, 'Where Have All The Leaders Gone?'.

Lee Iacocca Says:

'Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder! We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, 'Stay the course.'

Stay the course? You've got to be kidding. This is America , not the damned, 'Titanic'. I'll give you a sound bite: 'Throw all the bums out!'

You might think I'm getting senile, that I've gone off my rocker, and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country anymore.

The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs. While we're fiddling in Iraq , the Middle East is burning and nobody seems to know what to do. And the press is waving 'pom-poms' instead of asking hard questions. That's not the promise of the ' America ' my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for. I've had enough. How about you?

I'll go a step further. You can't call yourself a patriot if you're not outraged. This is a fight I'm ready and willing to have. The Biggest 'C' is Crisis! (Iacocca elaborates on nine C's of leadership, with crisis being the first.)

Leaders are made, not born. Leadership is forged in times of crisis. It's easy to sit there with your feet up on the desk and talk theory. Or send someone else's kids off to war when you've never seen a battlefield yourself. It's another thing to lead when your world comes tumbling down.

On September 11, 2001, we needed a strong leader more than any other time in our history. We needed a steady hand to guide us out of the ashes. A hell of a mess, so here's where we stand.

We're immersed in a bloody war with no plan for winning and no plan for leaving.

We're running the biggest deficit in the history of the country.

We're losing the manufacturing edge to Asia , while our once-great companies are getting slaughtered by health care costs.

Gas prices are skyrocketing, and nobody in power has a coherent energy policy. Our schools are in trouble.

Our borders are like sieves.

The middle class is being squeezed every which way.

These are times that cry out for leadership.

But when you look around, you've got to ask: 'Where have all the leaders gone?' Where are the curious, creative communicators? Where are the people of character, courage, conviction, omnipotence, and common sense? I may be a sucker for alliteration, but I think you get the point.

Name me a leader who has a better idea for homeland security than making us take off our shoes in airports and throw away our shampoo?

We've spent billions of dollars building a huge new bureaucracy, and all we know how to do is react to things that have already happened.

Name me one leader who emerged from the crisis of Hurricane Katrina. Congress has yet to spend a single day evaluating the response to the hurricane or demanding accountability for the decisions that were made in the crucial hours after the storm.

Everyone's hunkering down, fingers crossed, hoping it doesn't happen again. Now, that's just crazy. Storms happen. Deal with it. Make a plan. Figure out what you're going to do the next time.

Name me an industry leader who is thinking creatively about how we can restore our competitive edge in manufacturing. Who would have believed that there could ever be a time when 'The Big Three' referred to Japanese car companies? How did this happen, and more important, what are we going to do about it?

Name me a government leader who can articulate a plan for paying down the debit, or solving the energy crisis, or managing the health care problem. The silence is deafening. But these are the crises that are eating away at our country and milking the middle class dry.

I have news for the gang in Congress. We didn't elect you to sit on your asses and do nothing and remain silent while our democracy is being hijacked and our greatness is being replaced with mediocrity. What is everybody so afraid of? That some bonehead on Fox News will call them a name? Give me a break. Why don't you guys show some spine for a change?

Had Enough? Hey, I'm not trying to be the voice of gloom and doom here. I'm trying to light a fire. I'm speaking out because I have hope - I believe in America . In my lifetime, I've had the privilege of living through some of America 's greatest moments. I've also experienced some of our worst crises: The 'Great Depression,' 'World War II,' the 'Korean War,' the 'Kennedy Assassination,' the 'Vietnam War,' the 1970's oil crisis, and the struggles of recent years culminating with 9/11.

If I've learned one thing, it's this: 'You don't get anywhere by standing on the sidelines waiting for somebody else to take action. Whether it's building a better car or building a better future for our children, we all have a role to play. That's the challenge I'm raising in this book. It's a "Call to Action" for people who, like me, believe in America '. It's not too late, but it's getting pretty close. So let's shake off the crap and go to work. Let's tell 'em all we've had 'enough.'

It's our country, folks, and it's our future. Our future is at stake!!

DEFINITION OF A STUPID AMERICAN : A VOTER WHO VOTES FOR THE SAME PROFESSIONAL POLITICIANS TERM AFTER TERM AND EXPECTS A CHANGE.

WAKE UP AMERICA, WE NEED NEW BLOOD IN CONGRESS.

[jeffmo]

Lee Iacocca Says:

'Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder! We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, 'Stay the course.'

i agree 100%.
but here's the question.just how do we go about ridding our government of the crooks and thieves?
seriously,i think Iacocca basically summed up how most average Americans feel today.we hate the way things have went but we really feel powerless to hold the politicians accountable.
is a revolution overdue?

[deerhunt45]

Lee Iacocca Says:

'Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder! We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, 'Stay the course.'

i agree 100%.
but here's the question.just how do we go about ridding our government of the crooks and thieves?
seriously,i think Iacocca basically summed up how most average Americans feel today.we hate the way things have went but we really feel powerless to hold the politicians accountable.
is a revolution overdue?

Yes. A peaceful revolution. We need term limits in Congress just as we have for the President :mischeif:

[Deehntr56]

You know, I like to state the facts....:D

So here is some censorship that bothers me.....:mischeif:

Why do we do this? Tell the people only what they want to hear, and see.

Why?:irked:


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91257

[deerhunt45]

:nono:

Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral sight, guess that's out the window :irked::rant::mad:

[mossymaple]

Lee Iacocca Says:

'Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder! We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, 'Stay the course.'

i agree 100%.
but here's the question.just how do we go about ridding our government of the crooks and thieves?
seriously,i think Iacocca basically summed up how most average Americans feel today.we hate the way things have went but we really feel powerless to hold the politicians accountable.
is a revolution overdue?
I actually agree with you Jeffmo.:yikes:

I think 45 is right...TERM LIMITS!!!

[Deehntr56]

:nono:

Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral sight, guess that's out the window :irked::rant::mad:

Exactly!:biggrin:

You would think that the people can state their opinion...it looks like more each day, you can only do so, if it's the "right" opinion!:D:D

[Pathfinder85]

Guess they are starting with the freedom of speech? which one's next? Its getting to be a bit much. Does anyone buy this bull anymore? really?:tsk:

[OLDHAT]

Who is John Galt?

Where should I start in at, too many places to jump in, I'm dizzy.

IN all seriousness, those of you that have not should and those of you that have should read it again:

"Atlas Shrugged" By Ayn Rand

Probably the most influential novel I have ever read in my life. If you decide to read it (you won't regret it) take your time and understand the comparisons and the analogy she draws between things. The present day stuff that is going on is coming right from her book she penned in 1957.

Oldhat

[OLDHAT]

Me, I've been to 17 different country's, fought in the 1st Gulf War, graduated college, and now own a business.

So many things that are government is currently doing is wrong and effects me on multiple levels. But now it's likewise the "people" wanting these things.

I cold jump in this thread and have a field day, but it seems it's just all in vain.

In the past we business owners have been depicted to be the "evil ones", now it's damn near pure hatred towards us, at some point how much do we take until we say "screw it" I'm taking my money, shutting down the business, laying off the employees and going "off the radar".

The burden that businesses carry to is amazing, the taxes the benefits, the other issues is un-real, hell you can't even fire anyone anymore for being an idiot...nope you gotta pay for them a "12 step program" to try and rehabilitate them befoe you can let them go. As a business owner my hands are tied, to put htings in perspective, a $12.00 and hr employee costs around $24.00/hr for me to hire (taxes, benefits, etc are amazing in what the employer covers).

If the government want to get rid of illegal immigration then tell the business owners:

"Hey, Pay them $12.00 an hr and let them make some money, we won't tax you nor bother you", let's get some Americans working verses illegals....you'd see a large swing of people getting new jobs. In all seriousness a business typically pays illegals around $7.00- $10.00/ hr and it's typically "cash", if the government wants to get rid of illegal immigration, then forgo taxing it on the employer and employee. The government gets "0" revenue, folks go back to work, and their spending goes down on their "entitlement" projects that make up for supporting the folks that are not working and taking care of illegals.

I don't hire Illegals nor would I ever hire them at my business, sure they are around, a contractor has some on my roof this past year, but damnit when someone can pay $7.00-$10.00 and hour for in cash for labor verses the $24.00/hr once you add in benefits and taxes then they are a fool not to. You can get 2 times as much work (actually probably more because we are some lazy sonofabeeches in this country.

Oldhat

[deerhunt45]

Good to hear you weigh in Jesse. Small Business is getting hammered and it is not right. They are the core of our free economic system. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said we have a lot of lazy people in this country... and I add who want to call themselves American while riding somebody else's back!

The Democrats, especially the liberal leftists have weakened this country beyond belief in the last two weeks. Obama and his political allies in D.C.

Obama's apology tour to the G-20, his arms out to the Castro brothers, his Latin America apology summit. Just freaking disgusting...they don't have an emoticon for how sick I feel. Then he and the liberal Congress releases the CIA memos...Jesus Christ almighty help us. Then the liberals want to make a criminal case out of this...give me a freaking break! And they accuse Republicans and Conservatives of being devisive....man I'm sick...

We have Congressional elections coming in 2010. We need to focus on who we trust to go to Washington and help right this ship. Then again in 2012, get the ideologue out of the Whitehouse! The chosen one associated, listened and plotted with a radical group of people who don't like this country very much and so have set out to radically change it. I'm against the way we are headed. I have educated myself, I vote. I stand today with many like me!

[coonskinner]

heres a couple facts...i just made 600$ on my 403 b,my first gain for a long time...last yr. i lost about 5000$...:mischeif:

[Deehntr56]

Ohio Unemployment is currently 9.7%...the worst since the mid 70's....how much better are we today?

In about 2 weeks, I'll get my new appraised home value.......I'm thinking(sarcasim) it's going to be quite a bit less...the only good news with that, I will pay less property tax:whistle:

Lastly, our 401's are a shambles.....

I'm feeling real good....:mischeif:

[coonskinner]

Ohio Unemployment is currently 9.7%...the worst since the mid 70's....how much better are we today?

In about 2 weeks, I'll get my new assessed home value.......I'm thinking it's going to be quite a bit less...the only good news with that, I will pay less property tax:whistle:

Lastly, our 401's are a shambles.....

I'm feeling real good....:mischeif:read above post...:D

[deerhunt45]

read above post...:D

I did...:mischeif:

I congratulate you...you're close to retirement, you've earned it and you don't have a 401K anchor around your neck. Congratulations, and I mean that.

[205]

I have a question. Since our new adminstration is making all these big changes, and Obama signed that Gitmo be closed. And his big crusade is about to begin in Afghanistan. WHERE R THEY GONNA put all them NEW TERRORISTS and Detainees???? :confused::dizzy:

[jackalope]

I have a question. Since our new adminstration is making all these big changes, and Obama signed that Gitmo be closed. And his big crusade is about to begin in Afghanistan. WHERE R THEY GONNA put all them NEW TERRORISTS and Detainees???? :confused::dizzy:

San Francisco

[205]

San Francisco San Fransissico has all those fairy nice people out there. Which means that would be cruel and unusual punishment according to their religion. ;)

[Deehntr56]

San Fransissico has all those fairy nice people out there. Which means that would be cruel and unusual punishment according to their religion. ;)


In San Fran, Cruel and Unusual puishment is called Bondage!:biggrin:

[OLDHAT]

The only good thing I can say about retirements and such is that I took a large potload out of the market and invested it into a gauranteed annuity at 5.75%....now I done that on June 1st of last year it was tuff at the time to put it into that % rate investment, but now looking back it was one of the best things I've ever done....I'm still on pace to retire at age 45 and "check out" from society.


Trying times, the next few months will mold who we are as nation. If things don't turn around fairly quickly on the business side of things you will start seeing a new wave of foreclosures hitting us, most small businesses are hanging on by a thread, and outside of bowhunting my social life is with hanging out with other business owners. All of us think that by August it will tell, most of the business owners will simply turn out the lights and close it up if things don't change before then.

Now on the business side of things:

No doubt we need a good fleecing every while and then, we had it after 911 and we are going through it now. There are way to many "bad businesses" out there and people that started businesses that should have never been in business, sure all these folks started businesses hoping to be the next Trump but now they are getting their back broke. Hopefully if things don't change in the next 3-4 months all the business owners whom have anything left will take what they have and shut it down. I can "ride the storm" for another 2 years or so, sure it will be like a giant sucking sound and I might have to cram $200K-$250K/year into it to keep my businesses going, but man will there be a lot of money to be made for those who can hang on once we come out of this...but then again if we don't come out of it I would have just thrown away a lot of money.....that's what we business owners are looking at, we understand, just like investing that you have to look at things over a 3-5 year period or even longer and how much money you can make or lose!..that's the gamble right now....no one knows in the business world and as of right now there is not a single light at the end of the tunnel showing us that we might come out of it....that's scary because it could last for years!

There is absolutely no money out there for small businesses in this "bail-out" I own a company to myself, it's small at $1.2 million a year in revenue, I'm 33% owner in a larger company that does around $9 million in revenue a year, we've had as high as 115 employees, we are at 35 right now, we are in the process of working through a multi-million dollar contract with a customer and hope to have them (80 of our employees) back by the end of June. If we don't get the contract then we'll just plug along like normal with the 30 and running one shift verses 3.

Good news, I did bring myself to buy a nice piece of production equipement 2 weeks ago, sure it wasn't a lot of money in the business side of things, but in this day and age capital investment is not happenning at all!

Oldhat

[jackalope]

The only good thing I can say about retirements and such is that I took a large potload out of the market and invested it into a gauranteed annuity at 5.75%....now I done that on June 1st of last year it was tuff at the time to put it into that % rate investment, but now looking back it was one of the best things I've ever done....I'm still on pace to retire at age 45 and "check out" from society.


Trying times, the next few months will mold who we are as nation. If things don't turn around fairly quickly on the business side of things you will start seeing a new wave of foreclosures hitting us, most small businesses are hanging on by a thread, and outside of bowhunting my social life is with hanging out with other business owners. All of us think that by August it will tell, most of the business owners will simply turn out the lights and close it up if things don't change before then.

Now on the business side of things:

No doubt we need a good fleecing every while and then, we had it after 911 and we are going through it now. There are way to many "bad businesses" out there and people that started businesses that should have never been in business, sure all these folks started businesses hoping to be the next Trump but now they are getting their back broke. Hopefully if things don't change in the next 3-4 months all the business owners whom have anything left will take what they have and shut it down. I can "ride the storm" for another 2 years or so, sure it will be like a giant sucking sound and I might have to cram $200K-$250K/year into it to keep my businesses going, but man will there be a lot of money to be made for those who can hang on once we come out of this...but then again if we don't come out of it I would have just thrown away a lot of money.....that's what we business owners are looking at, we understand, just like investing that you have to look at things over a 3-5 year period or even longer and how much money you can make or lose!..that's the gamble right now....no one knows in the business world and as of right now there is not a single light at the end of the tunnel showing us that we might come out of it....that's scary because it could last for years!

There is absolutely no money out there for small businesses in this "bail-out" I own a company to myself, it's small at $1.2 million a year in revenue, I'm 33% owner in a larger company that does around $9 million in revenue a year, we've had as high as 115 employees, we are at 35 right now, we are in the process of working through a multi-million dollar contract with a customer and hope to have them (80 of our employees) back by the end of June. If we don't get the contract then we'll just plug along like normal with the 30 and running one shift verses 3.

Good news, I did bring myself to buy a nice piece of production equipement 2 weeks ago, sure it wasn't a lot of money in the business side of things, but in this day and age capital investment is not happenning at all!

Oldhat

I'm just glad you quit mailing me all that Obama crap........ It was getting old............... pays the bills i guess

[coonskinner]

I did...:mischeif:

I congratulate you...you're close to retirement, you've earned it and you don't have a 401K anchor around your neck. Congratulations, and I mean that.actually this is very tough for someone in my situation...i will be very lucky to recoup my losses in 2 yrs. now...if things go well i may get back to where i was...younger people have a lot of years to get back on track...but thats ok...i'm just happy right now to be going back uphill...i like climbing hills...heh heh heh...:D

[Deehntr56]

actually this is very tough for someone in my situation...i will be very lucky to recoup my losses in 2 yrs. now...if things go well i may get back to where i was...younger people have a lot of years to get back on track...but thats ok...i'm just happy right now to be going back uphill...i like climbing hills...heh heh heh...:D

You are correct, but if you planned it correctly, you were weighted heavier into safer investments(Bonds, Money Market funds, Treasuries), the closer you are to retirement.

Witout knowing how much was in the account, the $5,000 loss wasn't bad...it depends on the total though and the % of loss as a whole.

Us young-ins:biggrin: have a few years for it to bounce back and It will, and then I'll move funds accordingly as I get closer to the Retirement stage. The market always recovers.

It comes down to Capital preservation when you retire and having a reveune stream from that to finance your retirement.

But we can still B&^%$ about it for now!!!:biggrin::biggrin:

By the way, the recent OBAMA poll has "the public" very happy with his 1st 100 days....:whistle::biggrin:

[coonskinner]

[QUOTE=Deehntr56;337655]You are correct, but if you planned it correctly, you were weighted heavier into safer investments(Bonds, Money Market funds, Treasuries), the closer you are to retirement.

Witout knowing how much was in the account, the $5,000 loss wasn't bad...it depends on the total though and the % of loss as a whole.

Us young-ins:biggrin: have a few years for it to bounce back and It will, and then I'll move funds accordingly as I get closer to the Retirement stage. The market always recovers.

It comes down to Capital preservation when you retire and having a reveune stream from that to finance your retirement.

But we can still B&^%$ about it for now!!!:........................................... ..:Dbiggrin::biggrin:thats a no brainer,i will be ok no matter what happens with my 403 b...i diversified with some with slight risk,in my 403 b...but not only should you get the guarantee,you should make sure some is insured and get it while high around 5% and dump all you can in...if youre older,lock in for 5 years,a younger guy can go 10 yrs...your rate will not change and youre insured...whatever that may mean...if you go with an insurance company that doesn't insure...they go belly up youre sol...:D

[Deehntr56]

Thought for the day......

Did you realize that President Obama probably signed his stimulus package at the same desk where President Clinton got his package stimulated?:biggrin::biggrin:

[coonskinner]

heres a couple facts...i just made 600$ on my 403 b,my first gain for a long time...last yr. i lost about 5000$...:mischeif:my point is i lost it with bush and i gained with obama...now i did vote for macgain...but if this works...than i will be very happy...:D

[deerhunt45]

my point is i lost it with bush and i gained with obama...now i did vote for macgain...but if this works...than i will be very happy...:D

It's not going to work :whistle: :mischeif: :nono:

[mossymaple]

my point is i lost it with bush and i gained with obama...now i did vote for macgain...but if this works...than i will be very happy...:D

Surely you are not saying it is all about the money, are you?:tsk:

[coonskinner]

Surely you are not saying it is all about the money, are you?:tsk:money yes...jobs+money too and i think thats a great worry for a lot...housing is coming back some,loans too and the stores have really been packed...our hosp. is seeing some recovery...my 403b has made some money again...now get out there and by an american car if you want to help ...heh heh heh...my next one will probably be a gm...:Dgo on...buy one...:D

[deerhunt45]

Well now our President and his Administration intend to release field pictures of CIA intelligence gathering. Another weakening of our defenses imo...what good is this going to accomplish :confused:

[coonskinner]

Well now our President and his Administration intend to release field pictures of CIA intelligence gathering. Another weakening of our defenses imo...what good is this going to accomplish :confused:

other administrations have done this in the past from starwar to the first gulf war and even in vn...just to show the enemy how much tech. we have to weakin their will to fight...:biggrin:

[Beentown]

Our current enemies are not that worried about our tech. They use tactics that are beyond reading my watch from a satelite.

We should not give out ANY info in regards to intel. I miss Hoover:mischeif:

Beentown

[coonskinner]

star wars was a hoax but it caused the soviet union to spend spend spend on its space program...then it crumbled...:D

[Deehntr56]

Well "ain't this a fine kettle of smelly fish"

Date: Thursday, April 30, 2009, 7:20 AM



A firestorm at the Whitehouse..............



http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?disc=149495;article=123895;title=AP FN



AP- WASHINGTON D.C. - In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama´s qualifications for the presidency, the group "Americans for Freedom of Information" has released copies of President Obama´s college transcripts from Occidental College. Released today, the transcript indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California. The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship. This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama’s detractors have been seeking.



The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama´s legitimacy and qualification to serve as president. When reached for comment in London, where he has been in meetings with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Obama smiled but refused comment on the issue. Meanwhile, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs scoffed at the report stating that this was obviously another attempt y a right-wing conservative group to discredit the president and undermine the administration efforts to move the country in a new direction.



Britain's Daily Mail has also carried the story in a front-page article titled, "Obama Eligibility Questioned", leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama´s first official visit to the U.K.



In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama´s legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey. This lawsuit claims Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. Donofrio case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama’s citizenship or qualification to serve as president.



Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama´s campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to he U.S.

attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter.



http://www.usjf.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=537



GOOGLE: Obama´s legal eligibility to serve as President



BORN AGAIN AMERICAN....

http://www.bornagainamerican.org/



AP Article says Obama released his Occidental College ...

Released today, the transcript indicates that Obama, under the name Barry ... students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. ...

MORE:>>



Fulbright Association

1100 G Street, N.W.

Suite 525

Washington, D.C. 20005

Phone: (202) 347-5543

Fax: (202) 347-6540

http://www.fulbrightalumni.org/olc/pub/FBA/cpages/about_us/about_us.jsp



Originally Posted by Brianroy View Post

Why do We Need Real Documents



April 26th, 2009

Due to the fact that Obama arrogantly refuses to unseal his vital records and uses his attorney Robert Bauer as a tool to harass and intimidate law abiding citizens and attorneys; there are numerous rumors on the internet about those records.

Recently I received an e-mail, stating that Obama has received a Fulbright scholarship, while at Occidental. Fulbright is given to foreign students.



[ Expensive tuition Occidental prides itself in being a Fulbright Scholarship "producer", which means: an aggressive social action College enabling qualified "foreign" applicants to attend undergraduate studies there...producing the fees/costs to attend via financial aid loans, grants, scholarships...in order that the be able to school feed/sustain itself.

"(Occidental is one of the country´s top producers of student Fulbright Award winners)."

"...Roughly three quarters of students receive financial aid..."

http://www.stateuniversity.com/universities/CA/Occidental_College.html



When 73% of your students are on Financial Aid for what is now

$34,000 a year base tuition before expenses...compare Harvard

at about $2,000 less annual tuition, and its break down the comparable costs there at:

http://www.collegecrunch.org/school-profiles/harvard-university/





AND YET Obama is likely enabled to attend on perhaps a full scholarship because of his mother's associations with the FORD Foundation to encourage being sponsorship from his father's country of Kenya...meaning he needs a Kenyan passport, in addition to his Indonesian one .



But WHO QUALIFIES for the Fulbright Scholarships?:



http://www.cies.org/about_fulb.htm



The Fulbright scholarship either BRINGS FOREIGN STUDENTS TO THE UNITED STATES to learn and be educated to receive/obtain a college/university undergraduate degree, or it will ONLY sponsor existing College/University US CITIZEN GRADUATES (preferably Master's Degree and

above) to go abroad.



http://us.fulbrightonline.org/thinking.html



Since Obama was then 18-20 yr. old Barry Soetoro...Obama was AT THAT TIME , defined by the Financial Aid terms of the Fulbright Scholarship in 1979, 1980, 1981...as a NON-US CITIZEN and "foreign national".

-- Brianroy]



...Obama needs to provide original vital records or certified copies of such records, as computerized documents might be photoshopped. This is particularly important, as representative of Hawaii health department, Dr. Fukino has only released a statement, that the Hi Health department has A document on file. She did not elaborate, what document.



Since HI statute 338 allows foreign born children of Hawaiian residents to obtain Hawaiian birth certificates (as it was reportedly obtained for Obama´s half sister Maya Soetoro, born in Indonesia) and those can be obtained based on a statement of one relative only, such as grandmother or grandfather (which of course can be biased), it is imperative that the courts hear those cases on the merits and that the law enforcement and judges finally start doing their job and sign subpoenas for all of Obamas vital records.



If you have certified copies of any original documents, please mail them to my office



Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ,

26302 La Paz, ste 211

Mission Viejo , CA 92691.

[coonskinner]

Our current enemies are not that worried about our tech. They use tactics that are beyond reading my watch from a satelite.

We should not give out ANY info in regards to intel. I miss Hoover:mischeif:

Beentownoh not worried and how would you know this...dids you get a good look at the feared saddam when they dragged him from his rat hole...:D

[Beentown]

oh not worried and how would you know this...dids you get a good look at the feared saddam when they dragged him from his rat hole...:D

So you think that the Iraqi army fights the same as the Taliban or Al Qaeda:confused: IED's, suicide bombers and the like really are not worried about our air superiority. That is what I was getting at.

Beentown

[Beentown]

So to sum up this financial aid situation... Legally what besides the moral ramifications of this? How does this effect his position as POTUS?

Thanks in advance,

Beentown

[deerhunt45]

What do you all think, if anything, about Notre Dame's invitation to give the commencement address at this year's graduation...oh and make him an honorary alumni...:nono:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/12/notre-dame-students-forego-commencement-protest-obama-visit/

[deerhunt45]

Anyone following the ACORN :whistle:

:rant: :irked:

[coonskinner]

Anyone following the ACORN :whistle:

:rant: :irked:i'm just following my 403b,so far its going up...better than going down...i got two years to recover what i lost in it and that was too much...got to think about old number one too...:D

[Beentown]

The 2 months of small recovery from spending us into so much debt is now coming home to roost IMHO.

Beentown

[Deehntr56]

Buy Gun stocks...most of them= manufacturers are having great numbers posted this year!:biggrin:

[Deehntr56]

Political Questions......


Presidential comparison quiz


If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given Tony Blair a set of inexpensive and useless (to Tony Blair's UK video formatting) DVDs, when Tony Blair had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current on their income taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive?

Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 10 weeks -- so you'll have three years and nine-and-a-half months to come up with an answer

[coonskinner]

its so sad that in this great time of need that still so many can only think of playing politics for their party...:D

[deerhunt45]

Our Government Set to Explode (http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/05/18/peek_government_obama/)

By Liz Peek
Financial Columnist
Democrats in Congress, with the support of the Obama administration, are set to upend a policy which for the past 50 years has saved taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, but cut into the ranks of unionized labor. They are preparing to in-source to the federal government thousands – possibly hundreds of thousands – of jobs formerly contacted out to private companies. If you are concerned that government is the only sector adding jobs today in America, as the latest employment report confirms, be prepared for the numbers to get much, much worse.
———————
The push by Congress and the Obama administration to dismantle the “A-76 program” — is designed to grow the federal workforce. And it could end up costing our country billions of dollars.
———————
Exhibiting a cynical disregard for the country’s dire need to cut spending, Democrats in Congress are fighting to eliminate a competitive contracting procedure known as the A-76 program. Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland has introduced the so-called “Clean Up Act,” which would eliminate outsourcing of government work to private contractors. Ironically, her bill calls for federal agencies to determine if they face looming employee shortages. According to her press release “It is estimated that 600,000 federal jobs – close to one-third of the government – will need to be filled in the next four years.” That such a hiring spree might be compounded by her bill, and might drive costs through the roof, appears not to have occurred to the senator. (The release is included on her Web site — along with, believe it or not, her recipe for crab cakes.) The winners of this bill? Members of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), and other unions. The losers? You and me, the taxpayers.


Read more... (http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/05/18/peek_government_obama/#more-11260)

[Deehntr56]

Are these 4 points true?:confused::irked:


Notes Toward a Theory of Obama
What we've learned so far about the president.
By Jacob Weisberg
Posted Saturday, May 16, 2009, at 7:11 AM ET

Barack ObamaBarack Obama began his presidency with an unusual attribute: that the country already understood him, or thought it did, from his books. The story he told in Dreams From My Father and reinforced in The Audacity of Hope was about a man of multiple worlds who struggles to come to terms with his father's abandonment and a confounding racial identity. Obama resolves his rootlessness and anger by committing himself socially, religiously, and, eventually, politically. He depicts his mature self as unusually grounded, able to see other points of view and to bridge chasms.

The protagonist of these books is a persuasive and appealing character—so much so that he left little demand for alternative explanations. As time goes by, though, Obama's Obama feels less and less satisfying. It's not that the author's projection of himself is distorted in any obvious way, but rather that it leaves too much unexplained—his ambition, his aloofness, his fundamental beliefs, if any. It's too soon to offer an interpretation of our president. But after four months in office, we can see some emerging themes.

He sees the middle ground as high ground. Candidates who talk about bringing people together, being uniters not dividers, or changing the tone in Washington are usually blowing happy smoke. At this point, however, Obama's focus on reconciliation is clearly more than shtick. We saw this impulse at work when he made pre-emptive concessions on his stimulus package in an unsuccessful effort to win Republican support. We saw it in another way when he personally brokered a compromise between the French and Chinese presidents at the G20 summit in London. Every few days, it seems, Obama, tries for a "new beginning"—with Iran, Cuba, the Muslim world, even Paul Krugman. Engaging with opponents animates him more than hanging with friends.

This is a wonderful instinct that is bettering America's image and making domestic politics more civil. But listening is not a moral stance, and elevating it to one only highlights the question of what Obama really stands for. The consensus-seeker repudiates torture but doesn't want to investigate it; he endorses gay equality but not in marriage or the military; he thinks government's role is to do whatever works. I continue to suspect him of harboring deeper convictions.

He's the decider for real. Accounts of Obama's decision-making depict him driving process as well as result. Faced with a tough call about whether to declassify additional Bush administration torture memos, Obama called a debate, listened intently, and finished by dictating the next day's press release announcing the release of the documents. Another insider ticktock has him personally directing the futures of GM and Chrysler. Advisers who play what are supposed to be honest-broker, facilitating roles at the White House either play different roles (Larry Summers) or don't play much role at all (Jim Jones). Obama sees himself as ringmaster as well as star performer.

The president's knack for deep dives into policy questions is undeniably impressive. But as quick a study as he is, his supreme self-confidence may shade into overconfidence. He shows signs of suffering from the arrogance that often accompanies brilliance. It's unlikely, for instance, that Obama can function as his own grand strategy guru on foreign policy. But he doesn't seem inclined to give that job to anyone else.

He likes it hot. If you have a friendly conversation with someone close to Obama, he or she is likely to marvel at the president's comfort level with crisis. This is a man who plays it cool at all times but has never liked standing still. He ran for Congress prematurely and lost, then ran for the Senate prematurely and got lucky. He was quickly bored in the Senate, where it took too long to get things done. When he was thinking about running for president, his question was whether the moment would be ripe for a great leader.

He needn't have worried. Obama has more troubles to deal with, foreign and domestic, than any president since FDR. One day last month, he faced decisions about the fate of the auto industry, a new strategy for the war in Afghanistan, a North Korean missile threat, and a flood in Fargo, N.D. "What is this, a West Wing episode?" David Axelrod quipped, according to the New York Times. The question here is capacity, not capability. Can any one person simultaneously manage so many issues in the hands-on way Obama insists on managing them?

He's ruthless. In a recent interview with the New York Times, Obama described his economic policy as "ruthless pragmatism." Interesting choice of modifiers. Obama has a healthy disdain for the overrated virtue of political loyalty. Around the nomination process, this has been slightly chilling to watch. If you're useful, you can hang around with him. If you start to look like a liability, enjoy your time with the wolves. Before the inauguration, Christopher Hitchens described Obama as feline in his demeanor. The president is catlike also in his lack of evident affection for the people who take care of him. His cracks at the White House Correspondents' Dinner about Hillary Clinton being an envious loser, Larry Summers' woman problem, and training his dog not to pee on Tim Geithner skirted cruelty. Obama's jokes about himself were about how great everyone thinks he is.

[deerhunt45]

Yes...they are :nono: :(

[svfd1]

So Who actually won this election for Obama? It wasn't himself. He isn't smart enough to win it on his own.

I really feel that the American people was so fed up with the way things was going. So pissed off at the Republicans they didn't care if the devil was running for president they would have voted for him.

In reality the Bill Clinton era started us in this downward spin. The Republicans didn't really do anything to try and correct the problems that was created. I really don't believe the war beat the Republicans. It was the economy. The Republicans was there own downfall. Even tough they are not at fault. For the most part.

We as humans has the tendicy to take things that are placed in front of us. What is current. We can't seem to remember the pass or what the outcome may be in the future for our actions that we do today. Every action has a reaction.

So again I ask who won the election for Obama?

The news media won the election for Obama. The media brained washed 54 % of the american people in thinking that Obama was the man to lead us.

I, myself have lost all faith in our Goverment. Be it Demacart, Republican, The House or the Senate. I have no faith at all in our Goverments ability to leads us.

[jackalope]

So Who actually won this election for Obama? It wasn't himself. He isn't smart enough to win it on his own.

I really feel that the American people was so fed up with the way things was going. So pissed off at the Republicans they didn't care if the devil was running for president they would have voted for him.

In reality the Bill Clinton era started us in this downward spin. The Republicans didn't really do anything to try and correct the problems that was created. I really don't believe the war beat the Republicans. It was the economy. The Republicans was there own downfall. Even tough they are not at fault. For the most part.

We as humans has the tendicy to take things that are placed in front of us. What is current. We can't seem to remember the pass or what the outcome may be in the future for our actions that we do today. Every action has a reaction.

So again I ask who won the election for Obama?

The news media won the election for Obama. The media brained washed 54 % of the american people in thinking that Obama was the man to lead us.

I, myself have lost all faith in our Goverment. Be it Demacart, Republican, The House or the Senate. I have no faith at all in our Goverments ability to leads us.


Only 3 posts and I like this guy already..

[svfd1]

Only 3 posts and I like this guy already..

Now you done it. You done gave me a big head.:D

[jackalope]

Now you done it. You done gave me a big head.:D


I did no such of a thing.... :irked:.. Rephrase please...

[Deehntr56]

I did no such of a thing.... :irked:.. Rephrase please...

4th post...and now he doesn't love you anymore...Jeez....:biggrin:

[HeartLunger]

If I may speak freely and candidly: not only did the media help in the election of Barrack Obama, but racism did also. Too many people neglected the words of Martin Luther King, Jr. and elected President Obama on the color of his skin instead of the content of his character. Too many wanted to force history instead of doing what was right.

[jackalope]

If I may speak freely and candidly: not only did the media help in the election of Barrack Obama, but racism did also. Too many people neglected the words of Martin Luther King, Jr. and elected President Obama on the color of his skin instead of the content of his character. Too many wanted to force history instead of doing what was right.

That's right. Voting for a man because he's black is as equally racist as not voting for him because he's black...

On the plus side, the excuse "The white man is holding me down" has been nullified.

[HeartLunger]

That's right. Voting for a man because he's black is as equally racist as not voting for him because he's black...

On the plus side, the excuse "The white man is holding me down" has been nullified.

It's only been nullified until it can be used to advance their agenda.

[Deehntr56]

Speaking candidly and realistically....does everyone realize the White Male is now a minority?

[mossymaple]

Obama disciple told me today that people didn't vote for him because he

was black. I asked him if he voted for Ken Blackwell. He said no. Would

that make him a racist ?

[HeartLunger]

Obama disciple told me today that people didn't vote for him because he

was black. I asked him if he voted for Ken Blackwell. He said no. Would

that make him a racist ?


You should have retorted with the well documented fact that exit polling showed 95% of black voters voted for Obama. Black voting was 13%, up from 11% in 2004. For further proof, Collen Powell, a conservative Black man voted for Obama and all but professed his reasoning for doing so.

[jackalope]

Obama disciple told me today that people didn't vote for him because he

was black. I asked him if he voted for Ken Blackwell. He said no. Would

that make him a racist ?

Ohhh a riddle...

[deerhunt45]

Vice President Biden is about to find out how well his boss can take a joke.

The vice president razzed the commander-in-chief Wednesday while speaking at the Air Force Academy commencement ceremony in Colorado, poking fun at President Obama's known affinity for his Teleprompter.
Biden made the crack about Obama's crutch after a strong gust of wind blew over one of the vice president's Teleprompters. Biden was talking about Colorado's thin air at the time and when he heard the crash, he added, "and the strong winds."

Then he said: "What am I gonna tell the president when I tell him his Teleprompter is broken? What will he do then?"

The crowd laughed at the joke made at the expense of the absent president, who was in Las Vegas at the time.

Presumably, that line was not on the Teleprompter.
Luckily for Biden, one Teleprompter was still standing and the mishap was toward the end of his remarks. He recovered and thanked the cadets for their service to their country.

"As a nation, we only have one sacred obligation, only one, and that is to prepare those we ask to defend us and to care for those we send into harm's way ... because without you we would not survive," he said.

[deerhunt45]

Tenth Amendment Movement Aims to Give Power Back to the States

Fed up with Washington's involvement in everything from land use to gun control to education spending, states across the country are fighting back against what they say is the federal government's growing intrusion on their rights.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
-- U.S. Constitution, Tenth Amendment

At least 35 states have introduced legislation this year asserting their power under the Tenth Amendment to regulate all matters not specifically delegated to the federal government by the Constitution.

"This has been boiling for years, and it's finally come to a head," said Utah State Rep. Carl Wimmer. "With TARP and No Child Left Behind, these things that continue to give the federal government more authority, our rights as states and individuals are being turned on their head."

The power struggle between the states and Washington has cropped up periodically ever since the country was founded. But now some states are sending a simple, forceful message:
The government has gone too far. Enough is enough.

Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer recently signed into law a bill authorizing the state's gun manufacturers to produce "Made in Montana" firearms, without seeking licensing from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Similar laws are being considered in Utah, Alaska, Texas and Tennessee.

The Montana law is expected to end up in the courts, where states' rights activists hope judges will uphold their constitutional right to regulate firearms.

[HeartLunger]

http://www.cpofohio.org/home.html

[svfd1]

4th post...and now he doesn't love you anymore...Jeez....:biggrin:

Simply amazing what a difference one post will do. :D :p

[deerhunt45]

National Sales Tax :tsk: :nono: :irked:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/26/AR2009052602909_pf.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/28/national-sales-tax-chatter-draws-fierce-opposition/

[HeartLunger]

National Sales Tax :tsk: :nono: :irked:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/26/AR2009052602909_pf.html


The constitutional purpose of tax is to pay for military and police protection...nothing else!

[jackalope]

National Sales Tax :tsk: :nono: :irked:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/26/AR2009052602909_pf.html

What happened to No new taxes and 95% will have lower taxes...


I'm about a 5% tax hike away from building me a 1 room shack in the mountains and writing my memoirs.... And before some fed gets his panties in a bunch i meant that peacefully......

[svfd1]

Now Jack He never said that.

Did you all see where a woman was made to take down the U.S. Flag in her office because it was offensive?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,522659,00.html?test=latestnews

This is total bull**** When are the dumbazzes of America going to wake up.

[jackalope]

Now Jack He never said that.

Did you all see where a woman was made to take down the U.S. Flag in her office because it was offensive?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,522659,00.html?test=latestnews

This is total bull**** When are the dumbazzes of America going to wake up.


Sure about that???

Barack Obama
Chillicothe, Ohio
Friday, October 10, 2008


I have a different set of priorities. I’ll give a middle-class tax cut to 95% of all workers. And if you make less than $250,000 a year – which includes 98 percent of small business owners – you won’t see your taxes increase one single dime. Not your payroll taxes, not your income taxes, not your capital gains taxes – nothing. Because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class.

Source

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/amandascott/gGgK27

[svfd1]

Jack I was being sarcastic on that statemant. :bouncy::biggrin:


It's about to happen.:whistle:

[Deehntr56]

Are you sure that's right Jack???:whistle:

I can never see Obama saying that....:biggrin:

[deerhunt45]

President Barack Obama on Friday personally sought to deflect criticism of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, who finds herself under intensifying scrutiny for saying in 2001 that a female Hispanic judge would often reach a better decision than a white male judge.
"I'm sure she would have restated it," Obama flatly told NBC News, without indicating how he knew that.
The quote in question from Sotomayor has emerged as a rallying call for conservative critics who fear she will offer opinions from the bench based less on the rule of law and more on her life experience, ethnicity and gender. That issue is likely to play a central role in her Senate confirmation process.
foxnews.com

As it should!!! :banghead3::bonk:

[Deehntr56]

who finds herself under intensifying scrutiny for saying in 2001 that a female Hispanic judge would often reach a better decision than a white male judge.


Really?:mischeif:

And she is in a position to uphold the law and be "objective" in here decision making?:confused::coco:

I can only imagine how the next 3 years or so will go....:rolleyes:

[svfd1]

What really bothers me is that the GOP is split on the her nomination for fear of losing at the polls. :irked: :confused:

When is the GOP going to grow a set of balls and stop worrying about the polls and do what is right. :irked: :( :confused:.

This is why this country is in the shape its in. There to worried about offending someone.:mad:

[HeartLunger]

It is too easy to offend the uninformed and sadly, the majority of voters in this country are uninformed. I think the GOP views it as survival instead of doing what is right. Perhaps they should all take a lesson from the demoncrats treatments of Miguel Estrada.

[deerhunt45]

Library of Congress Agents Ask Lawmakers to Give Them Back Their Guns

Investigators with the Library's Office of the Inspector General have raised a string of objections after Congress stripped them of their ability to buy and carry firearms in the fiscal 2009 omnibus spending bill. They could get their wish.

More here... (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/09/library-congress-agents-object-congress-takes-away-guns/)

[Deehntr56]

45...Hahahaha...their not getting mine!!!:biggrin:



Obama Sounds Like President Without a Country


Monday, June 8, 2009 1:15 PM


“We’re no longer a Christian nation.” — Barack Obama, June 2007

“America has been arrogant.” — President Barack Obama

“After 9/11, America didn’t always live up to her ideals” — President Barack Obama

“You might say that America is a Muslim nation.” — President Barack Obama, Egypt 2009

Thinking about these and other statements from the man who wears the title of president, I keep wondering what country he believes he’s president of?

In one of my very favorite stories, Edward Everett Hale’s “The Man without a Country,” young Army lieutenant Philip Nolan stands condemned for treason during the Revolutionary War, having come under the influence of Aaron Burr. When the judge asks whether he wants to say anything before sentencing, Nolan exclaims defiantly, “Damn the United States! I wish I might never hear of the United States again!”

Stunned silence settles like a pall over the courtroom. After a long pause, the judge sternly tells the angry lieutenant: “You have just pronounced your own sentence. You will never hear of the United States again. I sentence you to spend the rest of your life at sea, on one or another of this country’s naval vessels — under strict orders that no one will ever speak to you again about the country you have just cursed.”

And so it was. Nolan was taken away and spent the next 40 years at sea, never hearing anything but an occasional slip of the tongue about America. The last few pages of the story, recounting Nolan’s dying hours in his small stateroom — now turned into a shrine to the country he foreswore — never fail to bring me to tears.
And I find my own love for this dream, this miracle called America, refreshed and renewed. I know how blessed and unique we are.

But reading and hearing the audacious, shocking statements of the man who recently was elected our president — a young black man living the impossible dream of millions of young Americans, past and present, black and white — I want to ask him: “Just what country do you think you’re president of?”

You surely can’t be referring to the United States of America, can you? America is emphatically a Christian nation and has been from its inception! Seventy percent of its citizens identify themselves as Christian. Christians framed, wrote, and ratified the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. It’s because this was, and is, a nation built on and guided by Judeo-Christian biblical principles that you, sir, have had the inestimable privilege of being elected president.

You studied law at Harvard, didn’t you, sir? You taught constitutional law in Chicago? Did you never read the statement of John Jay, the first chief justice of the Supreme Court and an author of the landmark Federalist Papers, “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers — and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation — to select and prefer Christians for their rulers”?

In your studies, you surely must have read the decision of the Supreme Court in 1892: “Our lives and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian.”

Did your professors have you skip over all the high court decisions right up till the mid-1900s that echoed and reinforced these views and intentions? Did you pick up the history of American jurisprudence only in 1947, when for the first time a phrase coined by Thomas Jefferson about a “wall of separation between church and state” was used to deny some specific religious expression — contrary to Jefferson’s intent with that statement?

Or, wait a minute, were your ideas about America’s Christianity formed during the 20 years you were a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ under your pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright? Is that where you got the idea that “America is no longer a Christian nation”? Is this where you, even as you came to call yourself a Christian, formed the belief that “America has been arrogant”?

Even if that’s the understandable explanation of your damning of your country and accusing the whole nation (not just a few military officials trying their best to keep more Americans from being murdered by jihadists) of “not always living up to her ideals”, how did you come up with the ridiculous, alarming notion that we might be “considered a Muslim nation”?

Is it because about 2 million Muslims live here, trying to be good Americans? Out of a current population of more than 300 million, 70 percent of whom are Christians? Does that make us, by any rational definition, a “Muslim nation”?

Why are we not, then, a “Chinese nation”? A “Korean nation”? Even a “Vietnamese nation”? There are even more of these distinct groups in America than Muslims. And if the distinction you’re trying to make is a religious one, why is America not “a Jewish nation”? There’s actually a case to be made for the latter, because our Constitution — and the success of our Revolution and founding — owe a deep debt to our Jewish brothers.

Have you stopped to think what an actual Muslim America would be like? Have you ever really spent much time in Iran? Even in Egypt?? You, having been instructed in Islam as a kid at a Muslim school in Indonesia and saying you still love the call to evening prayers, can surely picture our nation founded on the Koran, not the Judeo-Christian Bible, and living under Sharia law. Can’t you? You do recall Muhammad’s directives [Surah 9:5,73] to “break the cross” and “kill the infidel”?

It seems increasingly and painfully obvious that you are more influenced by your upbringing and questionable education than most suspected. If you consider yourself the president of a people who are “no longer Christian,” who have “failed to live up to our ideals,” who “have been arrogant,” and who might even be “considered Muslim” — you are president of a country most Americans don’t recognize.

Could it be you are a president without a country?



© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.


Original Link:

http://www.newsmax.com/boone/Obama_Muslims_Christians/2009/06/08/222718.html

[deerhunt45]

Powerful message 56...thanks for sharing it.

The man is doing what "the people" elected him to do :rolleyes:...no matter how he and the media glossed over his background and beliefs during his campaign, the people? knew what they were voting for...his agenda was no secret... Could it be ACORN and the "affiliate" community organizers stole this election??? The whole Presidential election campaigns seemed phoney to me...Or... is it the a "majority" has decided they want the European lifestyle and get everything through their government :confused: Confused about America and people's apathy...

[jackalope]

http://vote08.freedomblogging.com/files/2008/10/palin-pointing-2.jpg

I TOLD YOU SO!!!

BUT NOOOOOOOO, HE'S NOT A SOCIALIST, HE'S NOT GOING TO EXPLODE GOVERNMENT SIZE, HE'S NOT GOING TO INCREASE SPENDING THROUGH THE ROOF, HE'S NOT GOING TO TAX HEALTHCARE..... NOOO NOT PRECIOUS HOPE AND CHANGE O'BOBO

.

[jeffmo]

http://vote08.freedomblogging.com/files/2008/10/palin-pointing-2.jpg

I TOLD YOU SO!!!

BUT NOOOOOOOO, HE'S NOT A SOCIALIST, HE'S NOT GOING TO EXPLODE GOVERNMENT SIZE, HE'S NOT GOING TO INCREASE SPENDING THROUGH THE ROOF, HE'S NOT GOING TO TAX HEALTHCARE..... NOOO NOT PRECIOUS HOPE AND CHANGE O'BOBO

.



yeah palin...............she'd have to look down her shirt just to count to two!
and she's as un-american as they get!

[jackalope]

yeah palin...............she'd have to look down her shirt just to count to two!
and she's as un-american as they get!

Funny, how you think she's that stupid yet she pegged O'bobo dead to rights.... What does that say about the people that actually believed him..

[Deehntr56]

Powerful message 56...thanks for sharing it.

Confused about America and people's apathy...

The American people and Business owners haven't been happy and are not happy today.

My Friend, who has a Home Improvement Business had double digit Sales Volume increases for 7 years in a row, until last November. He tripled his Business in those years from when he started. Since last November he has run sales loses in 6 of the last 7 months. He is not a Happy Business Owner. I know his situation, I help him "manage" ($) his business.

Strong Business creates Jobs....which creates a good Business climate and employment opportunities. It eventually helps our economy.

He started with no salesman and no office assistants. It was him and on nights and weekends, I helped him get it going. Today there are 6 Salesman, 3 Office assistants, and 3 crews, and he employs almost 50 people. Lets hope they are employed in June 2010.

I know of several Business aquaintences, who run Business ventures who are not happy with the Business climate. They were able to survive the last several years due to the business 'environment" being condusive for growth. Now they are concerned about Political and Business decisions made in behalf of growth potential(lack of) for their companies. They don't see anything that will help that.

There is no "stimulating" of Business right now. Everyone is pulling back, not moving forward.

Our Government is not striving to stimulate Business growth.

I put this up here for people to make their own decisions.....it's America...that is the right that we have today.....hopefully in the future.

I hope it gets better. We can only hope.......for all Americans.

[jeffmo]

Funny, how you think she's that stupid yet she pegged O'bobo dead to rights.... What does that say about the people that actually believed him..

right!!! and her wanting her state to cecede from the union is a great move forward for this nation huh?
i guess you apparantly never heard her speak.clueless at best.
like i said,in my opinion she's un-american!

[mossymaple]

like i said,in my opinion she's un-american!

And your messiah is ?

[jackalope]

right!!! and her wanting her state to cecede from the union is a great move forward for this nation huh?
i guess you apparantly never heard her speak.clueless at best.
like i said,in my opinion she's un-american!


You still didn't answer my question of; if she is so clueless, how did she peg O'bobo dead to rights a year ago...

Furthermore

She didn't say she "wanted" her state to succeed from the union.. She and Rick Perry Gov of Texas said that if the Federal government becomes so oppressive an continues to overstep it's constitutional powers, that "they" the state have the right to secede........

You state how is that a "great move forward for this nation"... First off the federal government is not "the nation" We are a collective of Sovereign states forming a UNION.... I.E the "United States" The threat to Secede is in response to the states collective of representatives (congress) overstepping their constitutional boundaries and becoming oppressive to sovereign states.. They have a right to protect their state and the people of that state from an overstepping oppressive government. AND they have the right to do it by force if necessary.... I'm sure you'll recognize this..

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

And don't give me any jive about that's not what the founding fathers meant.

This quote deals with sovereignty of states...

Thomas Jefferson, “Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.” This suggests that one response to federal encroachment is for state governments to declare federal laws that have no constitutional authority null and void and refuse to enforce them. The first union of the original 13 colonies was effected by the Articles of Confederation, adopted in 1781. The articles established a confederation of sovereign states in a permanent union. The "permanence" lasted only until 1788, when 11 states withdrew from the confederation and ratified the new Constitution, which became effective on March 4, 1789. The founding fathers recognized the defects in the Articles of Confederation, learned from these defects, and scrapped the articles in favor of the "more perfect union" found in the Constitution.

Nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of the union of the states being permanent. This was not an oversight by any means. Indeed, when New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia ratified the Constitution, they specifically stated that they reserved the right to resume the governmental powers granted to the United States. Their claim to the right of secession was understood and agreed to by the other ratifiers, including George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention and was also a delegate from Virginia. In his book Life of Webster Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge writes, "It is safe to say that there was not a man in the country, from Washington and Hamilton to Clinton and Mason, who did not regard the new system as an experiment from which each and every State had a right to peaceably withdraw." A textbook used at West Point before the Civil War, A View of the Constitution, written by Judge William Rawle, states, "The secession of a State depends on the will of the people of such a State."

Well into the 19th century, the United States was still viewed by many as an experimental confederation from which states could secede just as they had earlier acceded to it.

If you say it's "UN-American" for a state to protect itself and people from the unconstitutional and oppressive powers of the federal government. If that happens and a state does secede from the union then yes that is "un-American" They are aware of that. Thats why they are seceding.. Because if that the opressive way "America" is going then they don't want to be a part of the NEW America.. After all this entire union was created and exist for one sole reason. And that sole reason is stated quite clearly in the first 40 words of the constitution called the preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our PosterityIIf the federal government begins legislation with unconstitutional power and state oppression begins, the purpose of Union is void, and a state may leave to protect it's people..

You may call that "un-American" The founding fathers called it "Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" After all thats the entire reason for the Union...


Fun fact: It is significant that no Confederate leader was ever brought to trial for treason.

[jeffmo]

"Funny, how you think she's that stupid yet she pegged O'bobo dead to rights"

funny but i don't see a question in that statement.
hell,i forgot,your one of those southern boys that doesn't see anything wrong with states wanting to cecede from the union.
once again though,you're never wrong!!!
keep your chin up though,you only have a few more years of whining about a democrat in the whitehouse!

"What does that say about the people that actually believed him'
i think it says that a MAJORITY wanted a change from the past 8 years!

[jackalope]

"Funny, how you think she's that stupid yet she pegged O'bobo dead to rights"

funny but i don't see a question in that statement.
hell,i forgot,your one of those southern boys that doesn't see anything wrong with states wanting to cecede from the union.
once again though,you're never wrong!!!
keep your chin up though,you only have a few more years of whining about a democrat in the whitehouse!

You are correct, I see nothing wrong with a State succeeding from a oppressive federal government that is legislating with unconstitutional powers.. NOR did our founding fathers see anything wrong with it... Founding fathers that existed before the time that any southern state existed i might add... And founding fathers that in fact seceded from their own nation because of oppressive overstepping governments.

No sir, they saw nothing wrong with succession! Thus the United States Of America" was born..........




.

[jackalope]

You are correct, I see nothing wrong with a State succeeding from a oppressive federal government that is legislating with unconstitutional powers.. NOR did our founding fathers see anything wrong with it... Founding fathers that existed before the time that any southern state existed i might add... And founding fathers that in fact seceded from their own nation because of oppressive overstepping governments.

No sir, they saw nothing wrong with succession! Thus the United States Of America" was born..........




.


Why that's Un-American.... Seceding from one own nation because of tyrany and creating a "more perfect union"..... How dare the thought even be mentioned.....

But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States.

[jeffmo]

"Why that's Un-American.... Seceding from one own nation because of tyrany and creating a "more perfect union"..... How dare the thought even be mentioned..... "

i guess it'd depend on who's point of view you're looking at when you say "more perfect union".think the slaves down south would have seen it differently than those rich,lazy people who were getting all of that(i can't believe i'm stating it like this!) FREE labor??
once again,good prevailed over idiocy and those who would consider owning another human being as okay.

btw,i think it'd be "seceding from ONES own nation"
just trying to help!!

[jackalope]

"Why that's Un-American.... Seceding from one own nation because of tyrany and creating a "more perfect union"..... How dare the thought even be mentioned..... "

i guess it'd depend on who's point of view you're looking at when you say "more perfect union".think the slaves down south would have seen it differently than those rich,lazy people who were getting all of that(i can't believe i'm stating it like this!) FREE labor??
once again,good prevailed over idiocy and those who would consider owning another human being as okay.

btw,i think it'd be "seceding from ONES own nation"
just trying to help!!

Ahh, more rebuttal with "Character Assassination" by utilizing implied accusations of racism and the pointing out of typos VS actual facts, :rolleyes:...




You obviously know nothing about the history of slavery in the US but yet feel qualified to spew uneducated opinions as if slavery was only a "southern" plight..


And it's also typical that you would believe the southern secession was purely over slavery, or the Civil War was fought over slavery...

I can name you 10 times previous to the abolition of slavery that States attempted to secede before slavery was even an issue in the north or south. To include many of the original 13 northern colonies.

I can also name you about 20 reasons off the top of my head why the 13 "southern" states seceded that had nothing to do with slavery. One being southerners paying 75% federal tax, with about 80% of it being spent in the north..


I'm willing to bet slavery is the only reason you can name for 13 states seceding from the union.....

Likewise you probably believe the original US secession from Great Britain was just about taxes and tea...


Here, this should get you started on your merry road to research on US slave history..


A list of the leading slave merchants is almost identical with a list of the region's prominent families: the Fanueils, Royalls, and Cabots of Massachusetts; the Wantons, Browns, and Champlins of Rhode Island; the Whipples of New Hampshire; the Eastons of Connecticut; Willing & Morris of Philadelphia. To this day, it's difficult to find an old North institution of any antiquity that isn't tainted by slavery. Ezra Stiles imported slaves while president of Yale. Six slave merchants served as mayor of Philadelphia. Even a liberal bastion like Brown University has the shameful blot on its escutcheon.


Northerners profited from slavery in many ways, right up to the eve of the Civil War. The decline of slavery in the upper South is well documented, as is the sale of slaves from Virginia and Maryland to the cotton plantations of the Deep South. But someone had to get them there, and the U.S. coastal trade was firmly in Northern hands. William Lloyd Garrison made his first mark as an anti-slavery man by printing attacks on New England merchants who shipped slaves from Baltimore to New Orleans.



Long after the U.S. slave trade officially ended, the more extensive movement of Africans to Brazil and Cuba continued. The U.S. Navy never was assiduous in hunting down slave traders. The much larger British Navy was more aggressive, and it attempted a blockade of the slave coast of Africa, but the U.S. was one of the few nations that did not permit British patrols to search its vessels, so slave traders continuing to bring human cargo to Brazil and Cuba generally did so under the U.S. flag. They also did so in ships built for the purpose by Northern shipyards, in ventures financed by Northern manufacturers.



In a notorious case, the famous schooner-yacht Wanderer, pride of the New York Yacht Club, put in to Port Jefferson Harbor in April 1858 to be fitted out for the slave trade. Everyone looked the other way -- which suggests this kind of thing was not unusual -- except the surveyor of the port, who reported his suspicions to the federal officials. The ship was seized and towed to New York, but her captain talked (and possibly bought) his way out and was allowed to sail for Charleston, S.C.
Fitting out was completed there, the Wanderer was cleared by Customs, and she sailed to Africa where she took aboard some 600 blacks. On Nov. 28, 1858, she reached Jekyll Island, Georgia, where she illegally unloaded the 465 survivors of what is generally called the last shipment of slaves to arrive in the United States.

[jeffmo]

"Ahh, more rebuttal with "Character Assassination" by utilizing implied accusations of racism and the pointing out of typos VS actual facts,"

tell you what.you show me where i accused you of racism.i NEVER implied that at all.i think you simply feel guilty for some reason!

You obviously know nothing about the history of slavery in the US but yet feel qualified to spew uneducated opinions as if slavery was only a "southern" plight..

i know this much about it.those southern boys began a fight they coudn't finish because they simply didn't have the means to sucessfully go to war.financially they were weak(you can't manufacture the tools of war with cotton!) and the north had the money and the resources to not only go to war but to sustain their cause longer than the south could.end result,those fools had to slink home with their tails between their legs.now spill all of your bs that you want to but you sure aren't going to explain it any simpler than that.


"I'm willing to bet slavery is the only reason you can name for 13 states seceding from the union..... "

honest? a bet? like what a gazillion dollars??:coco:
btw,they didn't secede from the union.they "TRIED TO"
i guess i should have bet huh?

"I can also name you about 20 reasons off the top of my head why the 13 "southern" states seceded that had nothing to do with slavery. One being southerners paying 75% federal tax, with about 80% of it being spent in the north.."

very good! we'll pass cookies out after class!:D


"Here, this should get you started on your merry road to research on US slave history.."

you're ASSUMING that i want,need or desire to read the history about a failed plan dreamed up by those who supported slavery.
news flash,it was a dark period of this countrys history that most are ashamed of.

[jackalope]

"Ahh, more rebuttal with "Character Assassination" by utilizing implied accusations of racism and the pointing out of typos VS actual facts,"

tell you what.you show me where i accused you of racism.i NEVER implied that at all.i think you simply feel guilty for some reason!

You obviously know nothing about the history of slavery in the US but yet feel qualified to spew uneducated opinions as if slavery was only a "southern" plight..

i know this much about it.those southern boys began a fight they coudn't finish because they simply didn't have the means to sucessfully go to war.financially they were weak(you can't manufacture the tools of war with cotton!) and the north had the money and the resources to not only go to war but to sustain their cause longer than the south could.end result,those fools had to slink home with their tails between their legs.now spill all of your bs that you want to but you sure aren't going to explain it any simpler than that.


"I'm willing to bet slavery is the only reason you can name for 13 states seceding from the union..... "

honest? a bet? like what a gazillion dollars??:coco:
btw,they didn't secede from the union.they "TRIED TO"
i guess i should have bet huh?

"I can also name you about 20 reasons off the top of my head why the 13 "southern" states seceded that had nothing to do with slavery. One being southerners paying 75% federal tax, with about 80% of it being spent in the north.."

very good! we'll pass cookies out after class!:D


"Here, this should get you started on your merry road to research on US slave history.."

you're ASSUMING that i want,need or desire to read the history about a failed plan dreamed up by those who supported slavery.
news flash,it was a dark period of this countrys history that most are ashamed of.



Mostly speculation and nonfactual opinion... Please present facts to support you accusations...

This shouldn't be hard because 1 of you points although severely skewed with opinion is basically correct. With the fact that northern tactics included conserving resources and prolonging the war. Knowing the North had a more robust economic engine but the south had resources but undeveloped methods of utilizing those resources.... However there are numerous other reasons.. And to up against such odds the southern colonies was very very close to winning despite that tactic. But Lincoln took a page from Washingtons book from the revolutionary war.. The tactic of you win the war by not losing it. In the Vietnam War, Ho Chi Minh used it all too well. That war lasted from 1954 to 1975. Ho understood that in order to win a war against more powerful enemies (France, the United States), you have to follow certain rules to lead more powerful enemies into giving up the struggle.

South Carolina became the first sovereign state on December 20, 1860.. The first shot of the war was fired January 10 1861... A full 21 days after becoming a sovereign state. The shot was fired on the Union Ship "Star of the West" as it attempted to reinforce Major Anderson at Fort Sumter. Located in the harbor of a now independent state.. After her secession from the Union, South Carolina perceived herself as a sovereign state - the presence of Union forces in an armed fortress whose guns commanded her principal harbor was intolerable as it belied her independence. For President Lincoln the voluntary abandonment of this fortress was equally intolerable as it would be a tacit acknowledgment of South Carolina's independent status.

So whom is to blame.. The free state who fired the first shot on occupying forces.. Or the president who refused remove federal soldiers and unoccupied said sovereign state after it legally seceded from the union.. That is for the Historians to argue.... I can tell you what Washington and our founding fathers would have said.... They firmly believed in a states right to secede for any reason believed by the state.


.

[jeffmo]

"More Speculation and nonfactual opinion... Please present facts to support you accusations..."

well,that's YOUR opinion isn't it.

okay,how about this for a couple of facts.WE STILL HAVE A UNION AND THE SOUTH LOST!

btw,i hate to bring this up and show that you're wrong(i probably won't sleep because of it) but here's some info. on exactly how mant states seceded and how man were under csa control and how many were considered under duel control.
but then again as you put it,i "obviously know nothing about the history of slavery in the US but yet feel qualified to spew uneducated opinions as if slavery was only a "southern" plight"!
what i did learn in college was to research with accuracy!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America#Seceding_states

[jackalope]

"More Speculation and nonfactual opinion... Please present facts to support you accusations..."

well,that's YOUR opinion isn't it.

okay,how about this for a couple of facts.WE STILL HAVE A UNION AND THE SOUTH LOST!



A fact that serves no basis towards the argument of a states right to secession, and supports only a misdirect.



.

[jeffmo]

A fact that serves no basis towards the argument of a states right to secession, and supports only a misdirect.



.

checkmate!

[jackalope]

checkmate!

:confused::confused: :rolleyes:

"YOU LOST..." Serves no purpose to the validity to a states right to secede from the union...

Nor does declaring "checkmate"

Seriously.. That's you tactic???

I'm going to take a page from your misdirect book for a second and ask if in debate class when faced with opposition did you randomly yell "checkmate"

Opponent: I feel the UN ignored the genocide in Rwanda.

Moderator: Jeff, care to counter?

Jeff: Checkmate...... :cheeky-smiley-022: Checkmate....

ROTFLMAO.

[jeffmo]

so let me get this straight.
you post what you call "facts" "data",then i show you to be wrong,but yet you still insist on arguing........
read the link i posted then re-read your post about the "13" states.see if you can find the difference! when you provide false data i can't take your statements seriously(i'm just funny that way!)
i won't say checkmate this time.i'll say i'm done! how's that??

[jackalope]

so let me get this straight.
you post what you call "facts" "data",then i show you to be wrong,but yet you still insist on arguing........
read the link i posted then re-read your post about the "13" states.see if you can find the difference! when you provide false data i can't take your statements seriously(i'm just funny that way!)
i won't say checkmate this time.i'll say i'm done! how's that??


You went back and edited your post 10 min after i quoted it in it's entirety and posted a reply to your stupid comment....

As far as your link.. I will read it.. I'm sure it's nothing I have read before.. But I asked "you" to show data supporting "your" opinion.. Not post a ginormous link that contains the first chapter in war and peace... That would be like me posting a link to the entire federalist papers to support that states have the option to secede.

I have shown you a quote of our founding fathers feelings and statements about state secession..

It's pretty damn obvious a state has a right to secede from the union... They said it not me...

If your quite done I shall leave with one more

"Secession belongs to a different class of remedies. It is to be justified upon the basis that the States are sovereign. There was a time when none denied it. I hope the time may come again, when a better comprehension of the theory our government, and inalienable rights of the people of the States will prevent anyone from denying that each State is a sovereign, and thus may reclaim the grants which it has made to an agent whomsoever"

[deerhunt45]

Obama's Army Lawyer Pick Withdraws (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/06/13/obamas-pick-armys-lawyer-withdraws/)

Donald Remy withdraws nomination for Army's top lawyer after failing to disclose his ties to Fannie Mae :nono:

[Deehntr56]

Obama's Army Lawyer Pick Withdraws (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/06/13/obamas-pick-armys-lawyer-withdraws/)

Donald Remy withdraws nomination for Army's top lawyer after failing to disclose his ties to Fannie Mae :nono:

Another one???:confused:

Wow...this must be a new record!

[deerhunt45]

Another one???:confused:

Wow...this must be a new record!

Yeah, another one :nono:

Look into which Congressional members have big stakes in the health care industry :whistle:

[deerhunt45]

No Crossing Guard for Turtles, But White House Claims Worthwhile Stimulus Projects

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., releases a report Tuesday detailing 100 local projects he says are funded by federal stimulus money. The White House calls the report inaccurate.

$3.4 million-dollar underground turtle tunnel funded by government money is just one example of the Obama administration's frivolous stimulus spending, claims one Republican senator.

Read more... (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/16/republican-senator-blasts-white-house-questionable-spending-stimulus-money/)

[jackalope]

No Crossing Guard for Turtles, But White House Claims Worthwhile Stimulus Projects

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., releases a report Tuesday detailing 100 local projects he says are funded by federal stimulus money. The White House calls the report inaccurate.

$3.4 million-dollar underground turtle tunnel funded by government money is just one example of the Obama administration's frivolous stimulus spending, claims one Republican senator.

Read more... (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/16/republican-senator-blasts-white-house-questionable-spending-stimulus-money/)


Here is the part I like...

But the White House said that project has been killed. In fact, said White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, several parts of Coburn's report are "inaccurate" and "flat out wrong," and some of the projects were cancelled by the administration prior to the report's release.



Gibbs acknowledged that he had not reviewed every project listed in Coburn's report, an admission that Coburn spokesman John Hart called "disappointing."
"It's disappointing Robert is commenting on something he hasn't read, just as it was unfortunate many lawmakers made grandiose promises about the benefits of a stimulus plan they never read," Hart told FOXNews.com.

Well...:gaga: Well.. :gaga:.... If I can point out "several" that means the entire report is wrong and serves no purpose..

Typical... Shut up! Shut up! Would you be quiet? campaign...

BTW if you guys are interested here is a complete list with descriptions of the stimulus projects for Ohio that Strickland tooled around pandering for. You can even look at your local area.

http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/by_state/OH

Here is 2,000,000 for "wheelchair ramps" in Dayton.. Isn't that like public building code?

500,000 for environmentally friendly golf courses

350,000 for a "bike path" yay...

350,000 to put some lights under an single overpass in dayton

1,500,000 to educate and provide housing for prostitutes.. LOL W.T.F

5,000,000 for "Mapping" a fix to carbon emissions reductions.. NOTE: it didn't say do anything but "map" Fix, Test, Experiment.. Nope just "Map" in Dayton alone

1,500,000 Biomass Infra for Ottawa yards: heating system using vegitation for fuel... I.E. a 1.5 million dollar wood stove..

[Beentown]

Thanks for the Stimulus Tracking link Jackalope. Quite enlightening.

Beentown

[Deehntr56]

Hmmmmmmm...Dayton is getting some perks!!!:biggrin:

[jackalope]

Hmmmmmmm...Dayton is getting some perks!!!:biggrin:


Thats not even 10% of what dayton is getting?

and probably only 1% of all of Ohio... :nono:

[Deehntr56]

WAKE UP PEOPLE....We the People Stimulus Package.....:biggrin:

This may be the best six minutes invested in your future.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeYscnFpEyA


This guy ' s video on youtube has been so popular that Obama called him personally. He said that he was very disturbed with the video and invited him to the White House.

Obama also said he wanted the White House to handle the Press and told this man not to talk about the video or the White House visit.

That ‘ s interesting.

[Beentown]

WAKE UP PEOPLE....We the People Stimulus Package.....:biggrin:

This may be the best six minutes invested in your future.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeYscnFpEyA


This guy ' s video on youtube has been so popular that Obama called him personally. He said that he was very disturbed with the video and invited him to the White House.

Obama also said he wanted the White House to handle the Press and told this man not to talk about the video or the White House visit.

That ‘ s interesting.

I hope Obama can't mesmerize him with his Messiah dust.

The next video of him will be praising Obama and looking like :16suspect1:

Beentown

[Pathfinder85]

Every word that man spoke was the absolute truth. Anyone wanna email that to our reps?

[Deehntr56]

That's why he has been summoned to the white house...

[Pathfinder85]

That's why he has been summoned to the white house...

Cause a revolution is exactly what they are afraid of? Scared to lose alllllll that power, when it belongs to us to begin with. Same reason they wanna take God out of everything, they're worried there might be an authority higher than themselves.

[jackalope]

That was a great speech.. But sadly we are past the point of no return.. Buy a piece of land, plan for your own independent self sufficient future. Pay as little taxes as necessary as you can by earning only what you need. And Oh buy a gun if you haven't already... The US is on a fast train to destruction from our own governments.. We will suffer greatly whichever path is chosen.. Revolt and we will suffer greatly, sit idle and we will suffer greatly.. America needs to wake up and realize that if you have a job the majority of your salary in a year is already going to the government in the form of some tax. We the people are quickly becoming a nation of government slaves. And they will not rest until they have us working so hard yet so poor that we rely on them for every aspect of our lives........ Buy land, grow all the food you can, work as little as possible to earn only that which is needed. Become independent and flip the rest of the world a big middle finger..

[Pathfinder85]

That was a great speech.. But sadly we are past the point of no return.. Buy a piece of land, plan for your own independent self sufficient future. Pay as little taxes as necessary as you can by earning only what you need. And Oh buy a gun if you haven't already... The US is on a fast train to destruction from our own governments.. We will suffer greatly whichever path is chosen.. Revolt and we will suffer greatly, sit idle and we will suffer greatly.. America needs to wake up and realize that if you have a job the majority of your salary in a year is already going to the government in the form of some tax. We the people are quickly becoming a nation of government slaves. And they will not rest until they have us working so hard yet so poor that we rely on them for every aspect of our lives........ Buy land, grow all the food you can, work as little as possible to earn only that which is needed. Become independent and flip the rest of the world a big middle finger..
But at what point tho, if we don't do something about it, are we going to be stripped of even these simple rights?(landowning,farming,owning guns) at least to benefit ourselves. Give it time and I am sure they'd figure a way to screw you out of it, and they'd get some of that too. Or figure out a way to make you work for them. Not saying that I don't agree with the idea, cause I have been doing some of it, I just think it's not going to be good enough.

[Beentown]

That was a great speech.. But sadly we are past the point of no return.. Buy a piece of land, plan for your own independent self sufficient future. Pay as little taxes as necessary as you can by earning only what you need. And Oh buy a gun if you haven't already... The US is on a fast train to destruction from our own governments.. We will suffer greatly whichever path is chosen.. Revolt and we will suffer greatly, sit idle and we will suffer greatly.. America needs to wake up and realize that if you have a job the majority of your salary in a year is already going to the government in the form of some tax. We the people are quickly becoming a nation of government slaves. And they will not rest until they have us working so hard yet so poor that we rely on them for every aspect of our lives........ Buy land, grow all the food you can, work as little as possible to earn only that which is needed. Become independent and flip the rest of the world a big middle finger..


Why so glum:idea: Thats right... because I believe that this is mostly true! Only if I didn't want better for my kids I frankly would do just that. Drop the niceties I have and move into the old farmhouse and live independently.

Beentown

[GMbuck]

He has not been summoned to the Whitehouse. HAS NOT, HAS NOT been summoned. He denies the rumors himself, over a month ago.......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxDwBYjL3Fc&feature=player_embedded

Without all the bluster:

“This whole idea of the president of the United States summoning me to the White House is false. Let me repeat that again and again. It’s false. It did not happen. What happened was weeks ago, a month ago, I got a call from a blogger that said, ‘Is there any truth to the fact that President Obama has seen your video and is very upset about it and wants to talk to you?‘ And I said, ‘As far as I know, I have not received any comment from the White House. No one has contacted me.’”

[jackalope]

But at what point tho, if we don't do something about it, are we going to be stripped of even these simple rights?(landowning,farming,owning guns) at least to benefit ourselves. Give it time and I am sure they'd figure a way to screw you out of it, and they'd get some of that too. Or figure out a way to make you work for them. Not saying that I don't agree with the idea, cause I have been doing some of it, I just think it's not going to be good enough.


I didn't mean to say stop trying. We must keep trying.. But if eventually they come after you for being independent and try and force you to work for them.. I made mention to the solution.

[deerhunt45]

Well 56, the Dems are trying to ram another one up our butts with the energy bill being debated in the House as we speak, the so-called "cap and trade" bill. What a farce ! Do these people really believe this crap??? What this will amount to is a "hidden tax" on the American people in so much as the corporations or "polluters" are going to pass on the increase in costs to produce energy to the us to the tune of up to several thousand dollars per household. I have contacted my Representative, have you? Fortunately, Jim Jordan is a fiscal conservative and will vote no but I wanted to let him know how I felt and urge him and cheer him to continue to reach across the aisle and talk some sense into some people to defeat this. They posted a 300 page amendment on the legislation at 3 am today??? had a straw vote earlier which narrowly passed :nono: and are currently debating. The Dems want to push this through before most people can read it, same as the stimulus bill. I tell you I am sick of this!

Contact your Representatives people and tell them enough is enough and NO means NO! :mad:

Youre dang right I'm ranting :rant:

edit: Greenpeace doesn't even support this legislation for crying out loud!!!!!!

[deerhunt45]

Hey now baby, get into my big black car
Hey now baby, get into my big black car
I just wanna show you, what my politics are.

I'm a political man and I practice what I preach
I'm a political man and I practice what I preach
So don't deny me baby, not when you're in my reach.

I support the left, tho' I'm always leanin' to the right
I support the left, tho' I'm always leanin' to the right
But we'll be there, cause it's coming to a fight.

A little political music from the 70's :D

[deerhunt45]

CBO’s Latest Cap and Trade Analysis (http://blog.heritage.org/2009/06/29/cbos-latest-cap-and-trade-analysis/)


http://foundry.heritage.org/wp-content/themes/heritage_v1/images/category_22.gif Posted June 29th, 2009 at 10.40am in Energy and Environment (http://blog.heritage.org/category/energy-and-environment/).
Here’s today’s news from the Congressional Budget Office on the recently passed Waxman-Markey legislation: It’s a big tax and spend bill. For the years 2010-2019 the tax increase is $872.8 billion. Ka-ching! (For the record, that’s pretty close [we’re talking government work here] to the $885 billion revenue estimate that Heritage calculated through 2019.)
The CBO estimates the spending increases in the bill add up to $863.8 billion. Wow! It didn’t take long to spend that money. The outlays amount to 98.9 percent of the expected revenue. More startling, perhaps, is that the bill authorizes expenditures of $875.2 billion. That is, they have authorized spending 100.3 percent of the amount taken in. Some of that spending is delayed, perhaps, so that there is no increase in the deficit up to 2019 from Waxman-Markey, but maybe later.

On the other hand, maybe we won’t have to wait for the deficit. Here’s one quote from today’s letter to Henry Waxman (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10376/hr2998WaxmanLtr.pdf): “CBO has not completed an estimate of the bill’s estimated impact on discretionary spending.”
Also, since this most recent scoring seems based on their previous analysis of the legislation, it doesn’t include the impact on government spending from the weaker economy that Waxman-Markey will deliver. Here’s what they said in their previous analysis (http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm2503.cfm):
“The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap. The reduction in GDP would also include indirect general equilibrium effects, such as changes in the labor supply resulting from reductions in real wages and potential reductions in the productivity of capital and labor.”
In other words, the CBO is ignoring the trillions of dollars of income that Waxman-Markey destroys. That doesn’t help the deficit.
The Heritage analysis of the Waxman-Markey bill does take into account how a weaker economy affects government revenue, and we find the year over year increase in federal budget deficits amount to $938 billion more debt our nation will owe in 2019. (As with the CBO estimates, this projection is not adjusted for inflation.)
At the very least, we agree with the CBO that the Waxman-Markey legislation is a huge tax and spend bill.

[Deehntr56]

CBO’s Latest Cap and Trade Analysis (http://blog.heritage.org/2009/06/29/cbos-latest-cap-and-trade-analysis/)


http://foundry.heritage.org/wp-content/themes/heritage_v1/images/category_22.gif Posted June 29th, 2009 at 10.40am in Energy and Environment (http://blog.heritage.org/category/energy-and-environment/).
Here’s today’s news from the Congressional Budget Office on the recently passed Waxman-Markey legislation: It’s a big tax and spend bill. For the years 2010-2019 the tax increase is $872.8 billion. Ka-ching! (For the record, that’s pretty close [we’re talking government work here] to the $885 billion revenue estimate that Heritage calculated through 2019.)
The CBO estimates the spending increases in the bill add up to $863.8 billion. Wow! It didn’t take long to spend that money. The outlays amount to 98.9 percent of the expected revenue. More startling, perhaps, is that the bill authorizes expenditures of $875.2 billion. That is, they have authorized spending 100.3 percent of the amount taken in. Some of that spending is delayed, perhaps, so that there is no increase in the deficit up to 2019 from Waxman-Markey, but maybe later.

On the other hand, maybe we won’t have to wait for the deficit. Here’s one quote from today’s letter to Henry
At the very least, we agree with the CBO that the Waxman-Markey legislation is a huge tax and spend bill.:rolleyes:

[deerhunt45]

:rolleyes:

What :confused:

Has anybody looked ahead to the 2010 census?
What is the Census?




The census is a count of everyone living in the United States every 10 years. The census is mandated by the U.S. Constitution. The next census is in 2010.
Your participation in the census is required by law. It takes less than 10 minutes to complete. Federal law protects the personal information you share during the census.
Census data are used to distribute Congressional seats to states, to make decisions about what community services to provide, and to distribute $300 billion in federal funds to local, state and tribal governments each year.
That is the info from the 2010.census.gov website. The point I want to make is that I think it criminal if the federal government continues to partner with ACORN. If the Democrats have their way, ACORN will be doing the official US 2010 Census. Put a gun to my head and shoot me :coco: :dizzy: :gaga: I'm kidding of course but still, the long form census is 28 pages and they want to know everything you do and are right down to the time you have a bowel movement everyday :irked: I don't trust this organization. It may have started with a noble cause and done some good work but it definitely crooked now :16suspect1:

Ironically and someone correct me if I'm wrong, the one question on the census that is NOT asked is...are you ready?

"Are you an American citizen?" ...:confused:

[JC5]

Don't forget with the census, they are taking GPS coordinates of your front door. I will only answer 1 question on that survey and it is "how many people live in my house". That is all they need to know.

[Deehntr56]

and we want to allow her to be in the supreme court, making this kind of a decision????


Judicial Confirmation Network: NOT EVEN ONE JUSTICE APPROVED SOTOMAYER IN RICCI CASE

“Frank Ricci finally got his day in court, despite the judging of Sonia Sotomayor, which all nine Justices of U.S. Supreme Court have now confirmed was in error.

“Usually, poor performance in any profession is not rewarded with the highest job offer in the entire profession.

“What Judge Sotomayor did in Ricci was the equivalent of a pilot error resulting in a bad plane crash. And now the pilot is being offered to fly Air Force One.

“The firefighters in New Haven who protect the public safety and worked hard for their promotions did not deserve to become victims of racial quotas, and the Supreme Court has now confirmed that they did not deserve to have their claims buried and thrown out by Judge Sotomayor.”



http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/29/racism-rejected-scotus-reverses-sotomayor-in-firefighters-case/

[Deehntr56]

Received this in an email tonight.......


"That Will Never Happen In America!"


Steve McCullough



June 17, 2009

1. What if I had told you in October 2008, before the last presidential election, that before Barack Obama's first 100 days in office, the federal government would be in control of both the mortgage and the banking industries? That 19 of America's largest banks would be forced to undergo "stress tests" by the federal government which would determine that they were "insufficiently capitalized" so they must be supervised by the government? Would you have said, "C'mon, that will never happen in America"?



2. What if I had told you that within Barack Obama's first 100 days in office the federal government would be the largest shareholder in the US Big Three automakers - Ford, GM, and Chrysler? That the government would kick out the CEO's of these companies and appoint hand-picked executives with zero experience in the auto industry and that executive compensation would be determined not by a Board of Directors but by the government? Would you have said, "C'mon, that will never happen in America"?



3. What if I had told you that Barack Obama would appoint 21 "Czars", without congressional approval, accountable only to him - not to the voters - who would have control over a wide range of US policy decisions? That there would be a Stimulus Accountability Czar, an Urban Czar, a Compensation Czar, an Iran Czar, an Auto Industry Czar, a Cyber Security Czar, an Energy Czar, a Bank Bailout Czar, and more than a dozen other government bureaucrats with unchecked regulatory powers over US domestic and foreign policy? Would you have said, "C'mon, that will never happen in America"?



4. What if I had told you that the federal deficit would be $915 billion in the first six months of the Obama presidency - with a projected annual deficit of $1.75 trillion - triple the $454.8 billion in 2008, for which the previous administration was highly criticized by Obama and his fellow Democrats? That congress would pass Obama's $3.53 trillion federal budget for fiscal 2010? That the projected deficit over the next ten years would be greater than $10 trillion? Would you have said, "C'mon, that will never happen in America"?



5. What if I had told you that the Obama Justice Department would order FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high-value detainees captured on the battlefield and held at US military detention facilities in Afghanistan? That Obama would order the closing of the Guantanamo detention facility with no plan for the disposition of the 200-plus individuals held there? That several of the suspected terrorists at Guantanamo would be sent to live in freedom in Bermuda at the expense of the US government? Would you have said, "C'mon, that will never happen in America"?



6. What if I had told you that the federal government would seek powers to seize key companies whose failures could "jeopardize the financial system"? That a new regulatory agency would be proposed by Obama to control loans, credit cards, mortgage-backed securities, and other financial products offered to the public? Would you have said, "C'mon, that will never happen in America"?



7. What if I had told you that Obama would travel to the Middle East, bow before the Saudi king, and repeatedly apologize for America's past actions? That he would travel to Latin America where he would warmly greet Venezuela's strongman Hugo Chavez and sit passively in the audience while Nicaraguan Marxist thug Daniel Ortega charged America with terrorist aggression in Central America? Would you have said, "C'mon, that will never happen in America"?



8. Okay, now what if I were to tell you that Obama wants to dismantle conservative talk radio through the imposition of a new "Fairness Doctrine"? That he wants to curtail the First Amendment rights of those who may disagree with his policies via internet blogs, cable news networks, or advocacy ads? Would you say, "C'mon, that will never happen in America"?



9. What if I were to tell you that the Obama Justice Department wants to limit your Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms? That the federal government wants to reinstate the so-called "assault weapons" ban which would prohibit the sale of any type of firearm that requires the shooter to pull the trigger every time a round is fired? That Obama's Attorney General wants to eliminate the sale of virtually all handguns, which most citizens choose for self-defense? Would you say, "C'mon, that will never happen in America"?



10.. What if I were to tell you that the Obama plan is to eliminate states' rights guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment and give the federal government sweeping new powers over policies currently under the province of local and state governments and voted on by the people? That Obama plans to control the schools, energy production, the environment, health care, and the wealth of every US citizen? Would you say, "C'mon, that will never happen in America"?



11. What if I were to tell you that the president, the courts, and the federal government have ignored the US Constitution and have seized powers which the founders of our country fought to restrict? That our last presidential election may have been our last truly free election for some time to come? That our next presidential election may look similar to the one recently held in Iran? I know, I know what you say, "That will never happen in America".

[mossymaple]

I would not have believed it.

[Beentown]

I would have believed about half because we are sheople:irked:

Sad but true,

Beentown

[Deehntr56]

Theodore Roosevelt's ideas on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907.

'In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language.. and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.'
Theodore Roosevelt 1907

Every American citizen needs to read this!

[deerhunt45]

Cass Sunstein's views on litigating on behalf of animals has raised concerns for Sen. John Cornyn, who placed a hold on the nominee until he gets a chance to hear his views one-on-one.

Read entire story on Foxnews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/21/obama-regulatory-czars-confirmation-held-hunting-rights-proponent/)

[deerhunt45]

This should be interesting, and usually Monday's is a pretty laid back day for me.....not today!!:D

Inauguration is tomorrow.

Change has come.


I have a simple question for those that are interested.

Look at what the Democrats(Liberals) control and ask yourself, what shape is it in?:confused: What Condition is what they control in?:confused:

Then Look at the Republicans and what they control and ask the same question....what shape is what they controled in?:confused:

Now this is important.

Don't just go off and say whatever you want to say, based on what you know or have heard.

Research, dig deep, and get the facts. Research the answers to those 2 questions. Don't just go on what you have heard, or what you believe in, research it and learn what they control and what is the status is currently.

I'll leave it at that>>>:biggrin:



Why doesn't this surprise me :confused: :irked: :mad:

Obama Officials Don't Dismiss Possibility of New Taxes

The word in Washington Sunday is that the economic train is emerging from the tunnel of recession, but Obama administration officials could not explain why few jobs are waiting in the station and suggested new taxes may be around the bend.

Read more... (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/02/obama-officials-end-recession-near/)

[deerhunt45]

After numerous delays, three Democrats and three Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee are facing a Sept. 15 deadline to wrap up secretive talks and come up with a plan. But Sen. Chuck Schumer says Democrats have "contingencies" in place if Republicans are not cooperating.

WASHINGTON -- Frustrated with the pace of bipartisan talks, Democratic leaders on Monday promised to push a sweeping health care (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/03/democrats-pledge-push-health-care-senate-republicans/#) bill through the Senate whether they get Republican support or not. Read entire story on foxnews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/03/democrats-pledge-push-health-care-senate-republicans/)

They are going to shove it down every Americans throat. Get ready for the Tax side of tax and spend bureaucrats.

Stand up and be counted! Let your Representatives and Senators know how you feel about this. While I believe we need some reform on health care for US Citizens! more government handouts and programs are not the answer. Remember folks, once the Fed starts a "program" you can't just shut it off or change channels and make it go away. There's a reason people come to our country for health care, it's the best in the world!!!

[HeartLunger]

Amen!

[Deehntr56]

Some more S$#@ to add to the pile....


Written by Dr. Dave Janda
Thursday, 23 July 2009

As a physician who has authored books on preventative health care, I was
given the opportunity to be the keynote speaker at a Congressional Dinner
at The Capitol Building in Washington last Friday (7/17).

The presentation was entitled Health Care Reform, The Power & Profit of

Prevention, and I was gratified that it was well received.

In preparation for the presentation, I read the latest version of "reform"
as authored by The Obama Administration and supported by Speaker Pelosi
and Senator Reid. Here is the link to the 1,018 page document:
http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071
409.pdf

Let me summarize just a few salient points of the above plan. First,
however, it should be clear that the same warning notice must be placed on
The ObamaCare Plan as on a pack of cigarettes: Consuming this product
will be hazardous to your health.

The underlying method of cutting costs throughout the plan is based on
rationing and denying care. There is no focus on preventing health care
need whatever. The plan's method is the most inhumane and unethical
approach to cutting costs I can imagine as a physician.

The rationing of care is implemented through The National Health Care
Board, according to the plan. This illustrious Board "will approve or
reject treatment for patients based on the cost per treatment divided by
the number of years the patient will benefit from the treatment."

Translation.....if you are over 65 or have been recently diagnosed as
having an advanced form of cardiac disease or aggressive cancer.....dream
on if you think you will get treated.....pick out your coffin.

Oh, you say this could never happen? Sorry.... this is the same model they
use in Britain.

The plan mandates that there will be little or no advanced treatments to
be available in the future. It creates The Federal Coordinating Council
For Comparative Effectiveness Research, the purpose of which is "to slow
the development of new medications and technologies in order to reduce
costs." Yes, this is to be the law.

The plan also outlines that doctors and hospitals will be overseen and
reviewed by The National Coordinator For Health Information and Technology
.

This " coordinator" will "monitor treatments being delivered to make sure
doctors and hospitals are strictly following government guidelines that
are deemed appropriate." It goes on to say....."Doctors and hospitals not
adhering to guidelines will face penalties."

According to those in Congress, penalties could include large six figure
financial fines and possible imprisonment.

So according to The ObamaCare Plan....if your doctor saves your life you
might have to go to the prison to see your doctor for follow -up
appointments. I believe this is the same model Stalin used in the former
Soviet Union.

Section 102 has the Orwellian title, "Protecting the Choice to Keep
Current Coverage." What this section really mandates is that it is
illegal to keep your private insurance if your status changes - e.g., if
you lose or change your job, retire from your job and become a senior,
graduate from college and get your first job. Yes, illegal.

When Mr. Obama hosted a conference call with bloggers urging them to
pressure Congress to pass his health plan as soon as possible, a blogger
from Maine referenced an Investors Business Daily articlethat claimed
Section 102 of the House health legislation would outlaw private
insurance.

He asked: "Is this true? Will people be able to keep their insurance and
will insurers be able to write new policies even though H.R. 3200 is
passed?" Mr. Obama replied: "You know, I have to say that I am not
familiar with the provision you are talking about."

Then there is Section 1233 of The ObamaCare Plan, devoted to "Advanced
Care Planning." After each American turns 65 years of age they have to go
to a mandated counseling program that is designed to end life sooner.

This session is to occur every 5 years unless the person has developed a
chronic illness then it must be done every year. The topics in this
session will include, "how to decline hydration, nutrition and how to
initiate hospice care." It is no wonder The Obama Administration does not
like my emphasis on Prevention. For Mr. Obama, prevention is the "enemy"
as people would live longer.

I rest my case. The ObamaCare Plan is hazardous to the health of every
American.

After I finished my Capitol Hill presentation, I was asked by a
Congressman in the question-answer session: "I'll be doing a number of
network interviews on the Obama Health Care Plan. If I am asked what is
the one word to describe the plan what should I answer."

The answer is simple, honest, direct, analytical, sad but truthful. I
told him that one word is FASCIST.

Then I added, "I hope you'll have the courage to use that word,
Congressman. No other word is more appropriate."

Dr. Dave Janda, MD, is an orthopedic surgeon, and a world-recognized
expert on the prevention of sports injuries, particularly in children.
His website is noinjury.com.

[deerhunt45]

Great post 56...I think the Dr. is spot on in his assessment and his message.

[Deehntr56]

No problem 45...this will top it.....:whistle:

I'm just reporting the facts...that's all.....have speakers on and watch closely.....

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/682.html

[Deehntr56]

I received this today.....I can't "confirm" this ones vaidity on being true.....so take it for face value....


Just a quiet night on the town with the wife.

Remember the election of 1994, we have another opportunity in 2010.

From a retired Air Force Colonel

Subject: “The Date:

First, let me say that I've flown three presidents up to now and I've seen incredible waste. But, the "new" guy really takes the cake. I don't have an issue with the President promising his wife dinner and a show or that he even takes his wife out.

But, when I saw the news say that the date cost $24,000, here's what you DON'T know.

Three days before "dinner" a C-17 flew Marines and the helicopter maintenance equipment to JFK Airport.

The day before "dinner" I flew the USSS (Secret Service) and the motorcade to JFK Airport.

Our crew of 5 spent two days and nights at the Hilton in Times Square. My hotel bill: $621.66 plus $64 a day in per diem.

The USSS guys were at a different Hilton in NYC, so figure that cost another $14,000 (or so) plus per diem. The Marines had to have cost as much and were there four days, so figure another $55,000 plus per diem (for 44 Marines).

We were supposed to fly the motorcade back and go home, but the Air Force was so short of C-17's that we were re-tasked to take the motorcade back, return to JFK and take the helicopter back to Quantico .

When we got back to JFK, while the pilot was turning the plane around to park, he noticed a rotor blade sticking out of the hangar where the helicopter was parked and informed me that either it wasn't ready to transport or it was flying home. After shutting down I walked over to the hangar and to my surprise I find FIVE helicopters, not ONE.

We're obviously not transporting five big helicopters. I went and talked to the Marines guarding the "fleet" and found that they were flying all five helicopters home and we were only transporting the Marines and the maintenance equipment. After talking to the Marine(s) in charge, I was told that the White House requested FIVE helicopters. The Marines told me that they spent all morning trying to figure out how much it cost them to come and said they figured it cost them $140,000 to stay there (I don't know where they came up with that) and the trip's total had to be about $1,000,000.

We heard that the President didn't use Air Force One (the 747) so I asked if he came in on one of the 757's. I was told that he came in on THREE Air Force Lear jets.

So, date night consisted of:

2 C-17's flying three missions, 3 Lear jets, 5 Helicopters, Presidential Motorcade, 44 Marines, more than 20 USSS personnel on our plane. Who knows what it cost the NYPD and NY Port Authority (at the airport) in overtime.

These are the same people that chastised the automobile CEO's for using their aircraft. It further proves that the media only use the facts that make the President look good and hide any facts that will detract from his persona.

Is this the 'change' we expected?

Talk with friends and those who are not blinded by charisma.

Many folks I know who voted for Obama are very disappointed and sorry they did so..

The Emperor's clothes on a grand scale.

"Transparency"?

Remember, 2010 is just around the corner. All we have to do is survive long enough.