Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts

Peace Prize for Good Intensions

I wasn’t going to waste my time addressing the idiocy of Nobel Committee's decision to award President Obama the Peace Prize based on what he may or may not do in the future, but the more I think about it the the more serious the implications of what this means have become.
President Obama has displayed a propensity for public diplomacy, nuclear disarmament, kowtowing to the United Nations and reaching out to the Islamic world.  All of these  actions rely on cooperation.  The problem lies in the fact that depending on these cooperations gives  those he depends on enormous power.
President Obama will need to further these propensities to maintain his credibility in the world community and live up to the prize bestowed upon him.  This gives those he needs to cooperate with the ability to demand a  high price for their cooperation.  The flip side is that they can withhold their cooperation to embarrass Obama and potentially hold the White House Hostage.
Politicizing  the award by handing out a prize essentially for good intentions rather than substantive achievement obviously cheapens its significance.   Which is the very reason that I believe that President Obama should politely decline the award, ensuring that the White House decision making is not influenced by unscrupulous governments hell-bent on embarrassing America.

President Obama: You Are the Commander-in-Chief, Act Like it.

I find it very disheartening that our President continues to blow off his commanding General in the field, questions his judgment and plays politics with soldiers lives.

imageGeneral McChrysatal has made it abundantly clear on more than one occasion that the US forces in Afghanistan are facing “mission failure” unless it quickly sends large number of forces there.  To use Obama’s catch phrase, “Let me be perfectly clear” - mission failure means more US soldiers dying.

As well as putting lives in danger, the weakness we are displaying in Afghanistan will undoubtedly have serious ramifications for the entire region.  The region will become more and more unstable as rogue states are embolden by our cowardice.  Even President Obama must realize that the chance of a major war in the Gulf next year is increasing rapidly to 100% --accelerated by the fact that the lunatic in Iran is going to have Nukes. 

It is looking more and more like Israel will be force to take preemptive action against Tehran.  So what is going to happen when Israel attacks Iran?  Well, you can bet that Ahmadinejad is not going to just take it.  He will undoubtedly retaliate, but the question is where?  He may be a lunatic, but even Ahmadinejad realizes that Israel is the best-defended state in the region, so he may very well direct his attack elsewhere.  There are plenty of less defended targets in the region well within the reach of Iran’s missile capability, including US troops in Iraq and in the Gulf.

Unlike Israel, the Arab states in the region rely on us to protect them. So, the US will be drawn into another Gulf war if these states are threatened or attacked.  There will be no way for us to stay out.  The Saudi oil fields are well within Iran’s reach, so if President Obama thinks we can stay out of a war that spreads outside of Israel-Iran he needs to think again.

So what does this all mean?  Well the the stability of the region is really dependent on swift and decisive US action in the region, undoubtedly what McChrystal has been telling President Obama.  We can surmise this by the fact that he has gone public, risking his career.  You can bet that for a General of his stature to risk his career his convictions are deep.

If the US pulls out of Afghanistan, you can bet that the flood gates will open and the oppressive regimes will again rule the region and we will be back where we started with some of those regimes having bigger bargaining chips.

If President Obama decides to not heed the warning of his commanders on the ground, you can bet the US will be back in the region in short order and fighting a more costly war and more soldiers will die.

Will President Obama’s Educational Speech Fuel the Apathy of America’s Children?

The resurgence of civil discourse seen with the heated debate over health care gives us some hope that America does not yet want to fully abandon the ideal of by the people that made this country great and may yet still care.   But the question I pose is: Is this uprising enough to overcome the apathy developed over the past 50 years or have we created a generation that just doesn’t care?  
Why does it take the attempted socialization of America to revive the American spirit and arouse the sleeping giant?  Let me attempt to answer that question in a bit, lets first look at how we got here.  I believe the roots of apathy can be traced to the idea that you can teach people to care.  This belief, deeply held by many, is driven by an ill-conceived notion that the more deeply you care about everything, the better person you are.
Apathy on the other hand is an inability to cope in response to stimuli that is too intense or too complicated.  It is defined as a lack of interest in or concern for things that others find moving. Our educational system is filled to the brim with people who care intensely, moved by everything and impart a barrage of negativity directed directly at our children.  Human beings are destroying the earth, capitalism and big business are inherently evil, religion is the cause of untold suffering around the world, the rich don’t pay there fair share to name a few.
A child’s psyche is unprepared to deal with issues that are so far beyond their control.  With such insurmountable problems, presented in a way that implies that it is their responsibility to fix (they are the only hope to save the planet), is it any wonder why our children shut down??  I can still remember the anxiety of giving a speech in front of 30 of my classmates, I couldn’t imagine having the weight of the world on my shoulders to boot.
Robert M. Hutchins once said, “The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment.”  I am not a conspiracy theorist but what could be better than creating your own socialistic society by forcing others not to care under the guise of teaching them to care. Maybe C.S. Lewis was right when he said, “of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive”.
Now to answer the question posed, why the awakening?  The answer (and the MSM and left-wing bloggers are right about this one) is cable news, conservative pundits and talk radio.  John Dos Passos, novelist and artist, once said that the cure for apathy is comprehension.  America is comprehending the plan of “Change” for America and it’s response to this renewed understanding is being reflected in the polls, town hall meetings and tea parties. 
Nothing fuels a revolt like success, and as can be seen in our elected leader approval ratings they are succeeding.  The elite on the left are finding it hard to comprehend that any of us could possibly oppose their obviously superior intellect and as a result we are seeing radical and somewhat strange smears of town hallers as well as attempts at distraction.
So will President Obama’s speech on Tuesday induce apathy? Probably not, but it will be another small step in the wrong direction.  Regardless, we as adults need to be a voice of reason with our children.  Let them know that the weight of the world is not their responsibility.  The level of accountability is at the societal level, not the elementary school level.  They need to understand what they can affect and the true reasons why that should care.  
To overcome 50 years of apathy will require a Great Cause, what better cause could there be then Freedom, Liberty and the American way (and I don’t mean the liberal elite version of the American way).
The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.
                                                                                          PLATO

Attack the CIA – Obama’s Wag-the-Dog

holder_eric_032709 (Reuters Photo)
President Obama’s decision to authorize Attorney General Holder to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate whether criminal charges are warranted for the manner in which the CIA interrogated prisoners is an obvious attempt to distract the public from the heat the Democrats, and his administration, have taken over health care and the miscalculated exploding deficit.

This political distraction is not just smoke and mirrors, however.  The launch of this attack is the final “tell”, confirming exactly how the Administration is going to confront the war on terrorism.  Following 9/11, President Bush made the tough decision to take the war to the terrorists.  Play offense.  The hand that Obama has played this week is undoubtedly putting us back our our pre-9/11 defensive posture.

The alleged abuses have been extensively probed with no real abuses found, and yet, the Administration -- once approval ratings fell below 50%-- decides to re-open the investigation.  Throw his ultra-left base a bone in an attempt to get the number back up above 50%, but at what cost.

In June, the Administration released CIA reports on the interrogation techniques used by CIA operatives in the war on terror but refused to release reports on the valuable intelligence that was gained through those techniques. If he was really interested in anything other than political gain, he would have.

It is a serious issue when politicians play politics with classified national security information.  What is the message it is sending to the intelligence community? They follow the directives from the top and when the next administration comes in, they get hung out to dry. Obama has demonized CIA operatives for following instructions and made it clear that even if techniques are approved by the highest elected leaders, they will be taking their careers in their own hands if they dare engage in operations that could be considered close to the edge. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that our intelligence officers are most likely going to be a lot more conservative in their approach. Do you think we will be safer? I sure don’t.

The openness that Democrats and the main stream media claim will come from a special prosecutor has nothing to do with determining the truth – no, they are celebrating the openness of airing out national security secrets in the name of restoring America’s relationship with the world and in the process compromising our national security… distracting our country from the real issue, an unsustainable national debt and a health care program we neither need nor can afford.

Is ObamaCare a Blessing in Disguise for Reagan Republicans?

As President Obama’s poll numbers plummet, Congressional leaders from his party continue to expose their true ultra-liberal fangs showing the nation just how far they are willing to overreach in chasing their agenda, the nation is beginning to see that the promise of change was not the change they had in mind nor a change for the betterment of America.
Much debate has ensued since the last two disastrous election cycles on how Republicans should rebuild or redefine the party. It appeared that Republicans were destined to “Wander in the Wilderness” for decades unless they made serious changes. The prescriptions proposed for changed ranged from embracing big government, denouncing compassionate conservatism, and abandoning the national security policy established by President Bush.
The Republicans have done little if anything to effect these changes or for that matter any meaningful change. No leader has emerged to champion a movement and guide the party in the Right direction. I sometimes wonder does the party really need change or do they just need the live up to the ideals set forth by the “Great Communicator” (and I don’t mean Obama)?
President Reagan had a uncanny ability to rally the nation to support his vision for the country. Why was Reagan so effective?
One line in President Reagan's inaugural speech essentially encapsulates his foundational philosophy: "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem." Reagan’s sincerity and ability to communicate at a very basic level rallied the nation under a banner of patriotism.
Not only was Reagan sincere and insightful when presenting the conservative platform, but he was the eternal optimist. His optimism was contagious. His inaugural speech was full of optimism and more importantly, full of hope of a great future. President Reagan so eloquently stated, "It is time to reawaken this industrial giant. ... And as we renew ourselves here in our own land, we will be seen as having greater strength throughout the world. We will again be the exemplar of freedom and a beacon of hope for those who do not now have freedom."
Contrast this optimistic approach with the anti-American, apologetic, sky is falling heir of a disastrous economic situation driblle espoused by Obama. How many times has Obama talked about liberty, freedom, or a love for the ideals that made this country the greatest nation in history? Candidate Obama rallied around the slogan of his promise of change. This promise (unfulfilled promise) was appealing to moderates who, did not necessarily agree with Obama’s vision of change, but they were extremely frustrated by President Bush’s abandonment of the conservative ideals.
The time is ripe for a new Reagan Republican leader to emerge and restore the country’s belief that we can accomplish anything through hard work and determination (not by government assistance). We must restore the ideals of Rugged Individualism and the hope for our future. Liberty, freedom and economic collapse are at stake. The light has shown on the true agenda of the left and the cockroaches are scurrying, time to turn up the candle power on the lights and get them back in their hiding places.

Fix Entitlement Programs, Then Fix Health Care

Overall, the combined cost of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is projected to rise from 8.4 percent to 18.4 percent of Gross Domestic Product by the year 2050. If reform of these programs does not happen to halt the increasing burden, the costs from these entitlement programs will have to be financed by increasing the tax burden (higher payroll tax, broader payroll tax or some other revenue), dramatically cutting other government programs, or running devastating budget deficits. These are the only option if reform does not happen.

First, let us examine the option of raising taxes. Increasing taxes to make up for the 10 percent gap in the GDP would be economically devastating. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the middle class would be pushed from the 25 percent into a 63 percent income tax bracket, the wealthy into an 88 percent bracket (see the data). To put this in perspective, if a 10 percent of GDP tax were applied today, it would increase the tax burden to each American household by $12,000 annually. Obviously, this is not economically feasible.

The second option, financing these entitlements by cutting other programs to make room for the "big 3", would require that every remaining federal program except defense to be eliminated by the year 2030. And by 2050, defense would have to be eliminated as well. By 2052, 100 percent of the federal revenues would have to go to pay for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. And, Obama wants to pile on the cost of government health care ?? Does this make any sense at all ??



The third option, just running a deficit, is no better. Borrowing an additional 10 percent of GDP annually (equivalent to approximately $1.4 trillion a year in today’s dollars) would drive the national debt to levels far beyond those ever seen in history. This would create a vicious cycle of rising interest rates and debt, resulting ultimately in an economic collapse.

The only realistic option is to reform These entitlement programs!

Why should we worry now about long-term costs? Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid entitlements already consume 42 percent of regular federal spending. More importantly, every year, four million more baby boomers are added to the expenditures. By 2019, all 77 million baby boomers will have turned 55. So if we don't want to seriously impact the boomer retirement (and follow generations), must begin reforming these programs now. Attacking these reforms immediately will reduce their ultimate costs, spread the burden across more people, and give baby boomers more time to adjust their retirement strategies.

Most estimates agree that Social Security benefits will exceed Trust Fund revenues in approximately 2016, the fund will be exhausted in 2037. Medicare benefits exceeded revenues in 2006, fund exhausted in 2018. Without any actual economic assets in these trust funds, the painful tax increases or spending cuts will need to begin before 2016 when the Social Security program falls into deficit.

This is by far the greatest economic challenge of our era. Unless lawmakers promptly reform Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, America faces a future of soaring taxes and government spending that will have a dramatic effect on economic performance. Americans will be required to pay onerous taxes, strapped with horrendous debt and future generations will have a significantly lower living standards than Americans enjoy today.

Each generation goes further than the generation preceding it because it stands on the shoulders of that generation. You will have opportunities beyond anything we've ever known.
Ronald Reagan

Are we really going to be the first generation of Americans to cause our children and grandchildren to not have greater opportunities than we did?

We need to reform these programs before it is too late, and before government takes over health care.

ObamaCare Org Chart- Example of Bureaucracy in Action



Here is the ObamaCare organizational Chart. Can’t image what the process flow chart will look like. I wonder if anyone could even put that one together.
Does anyone think that this astounding array of bureaucracy will make health care better, much less cheaper? Name one government program that has made anything cheaper.
Technorati Tags: ,

Will ObamaCare replace Medicare?

What will be the result of adding another 50 million patients to the already overburdened health care system? Doctors and health care providers struggle today at providing proper care to those currently in the system. So it is pretty clear what the result will be (and you can confirm it by looking at the Canadian system), the result is RATIONING. Who will be most affected by when the government starts deciding who gets health care and who doesn’t? You can bet the first major target will be the elderly.
The elderly were screaming at the top of their lungs when Bush tried to change their precious Social Security. These changes will have a dramatic effect on their health and ultimately their lives. The Social Security changes pale in comparison to the changes proposed by the health care legislation and yet the AARP and other elderly activist groups have remained pretty silent. Why is that? Are they hoping to get a piece of the ObamaCare pie?

Misread the Depths of Economic Troubles or Too Arrogant to See?

VP Biden stated this weekend that the Administration "misread" the depth of the economic troubles it inherited…
I find this statement troubling in so many ways. Many experts repeatedly stated the seriousness of the economic problems faced by the new administration and the limited effect the economic stimulus package would have on creating jobs. Yet, the Administration and the democratic congress forced this upon our nation despite the experts saying it wouldn’t do what the Administration was claiming it would. The administration was obviously too focused on their “agenda of change” to listen to these experts and take the correct steps to fix the economy and get people back to work.
The stimulus was supposed to be about jobs, jobs, jobs… And yet…
Biden also said this weekend that the 9.5 percent unemployment rate is "much too high." Nothing like stating the obvious Mr. Vice President, I am sure the millions of Americans without jobs would whole heartedly agree with you. Didn’t the administration pledge to stop unemployment before it reached 8 percent? Another broken promise.
I believe the house minority leader Boehner, R-Ohio, sumed it up pretty well, "The real question is where are the jobs. You can't spend $800 billion of taxpayer money and not create jobs when you say that's what the goal was. We haven't seen the jobs yet."

Change – Living with Broken Promises

Does anyone remember President Obama’s campaign promises? Are we so adorn with the new President that we have forgotten how “Change” was defined during the campaign?
It’s true that many of our politicians have broken campaign promises, but none have done it with such arrogance and impunity like this Administration.
The trail of broken promises began with Obama’s appointment of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. All through the campaign he touted how differently his foreign policy views were from Hillary’s. When asked why he would appoint someone with such differing views, his response to the reporter was essentially that everyone knows that campaign promises mean nothing and you must be “having fun with me”.
A few months later, Obama flipped on Cuba. For years he expounded his support of lifting the embargo, but then once elected, made an about face. With no explanation. His response when questioned about it was that at the time he was "running for Senate" at a time that "seems just eons ago", as if everyone should know that previous campaign promises mean nothing.
President Obama insisted during the election that "I actually would like to see a relatively light touch when it comes to the government." If this is a light touch then I would hate to see his “heavy handed” government.
Candidate Obama promised that for seniors making less than $50,000 a year he would eliminate all income taxation resulting in an average savings of $1400 per year. These cuts were not part of the stimulus. When questioned why this tax cut was not followed through, the White House issued no response.
Does anyone remember the promise of allowing five days for public comment on the White House website before signing bills. Well, apparently the Administration didn’t remember either because the first bill President Obama signed was only two days between passage and signing without posting to the web.
Obama stated during the campaign that "No political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration." This statement was the cornerstone of Obama’s theme of limiting the influence of special interest groups. Obama signed an executive order in an attempt to keep his promise, but as any good lawyer would do, they created a loop hole. All you have to do is get a waiver and then your in. Let’s just say the Administration has used this loop hole liberally.
Obama promised to help the small businesses out by giving them a $3000 tax credit for every new full-time employee they hired. Like the senior tax exemption this tax credit was also not in the stimulus bill.
The Change.gov website stated that "Obama and Biden are calling for legislation that would allow withdrawals of 15% up to $10,000 from retirement accounts without penalty (although subject to the normal taxes). This would apply to withdrawals in 2008 (including retroactively) and 2009." These penalty free withdrawals were not in the stimulus package, nor has any legislation been proposed in attempt to make good on this promise. Tax day has come an gone.
Other promises like closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, enact windfall profits tax on oil companies, repealing the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy and many others are either stalled and on the verge of collapse or long forgotten as just “campaign rhetoric”.
Our country once respected and revered democracy by at least expecting an explanation, even if weak, for promises left unfulfilled. Have we become so numb from “Reality TV”, scorched-earth campaigns and flip-flop politicians that we no longer feel the need to hold our elected officials to the highest standards that made this country great?
It is a sad state of our society when we cannot count on our public officials to follow through and accomplish the actions they set forth in the agenda they espoused in their run for public office. Historically, Americans have held campaign promises in very high regard, even sacred. When did we loose the “your word is your bond” expectation and begin letting our elected representatives say whatever they want to get elected? Why do we not hold them accountable?
In a republican democracy we use these pledges of future actions as a metric to determine who is best suited to represent us and carry out the policies that we hold dear. If we live with the idea that politicians all talk out both sides of their mouths and will say anything to get elected, then we are party to the destruction of democracy as we know it. Destruction of the great experiment as our fore fathers dreamed it.

Unemployment Hits 26 Year High

Still waiting for the 3.5 million jobs saved or created by the Administration's stimulus.  We would even take the 600,000 jobs saved or created.  Or even, the 150,000 promised jobs saved or created.
Today unemployment reached 9.5% poised to break 10% soon.  Unfortunately, the policies this administration is putting forth will do nothing to relieve the unemployment problem any time soon.

Could the New Health Care Bill Overturn Roe v. Wade?

The 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade could fall into a legal battle if the the Democrats proposed Health Care Bill is enacted. Specific wording in the decision could open the flood gates.
Specifically Roe v. Wade states:
“The right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”
The Obama health care plan intends to insert a 3rd party (i.e. Big Brother) between you and your doctor. How does this relate to the Roe decision, well, Roe v. Wade specifically forbids 3rd parties from interfering in patient-doctor relationships on the grounds of privacy and individual liberty.
You may say that this only applies to pregnant women, but I would argue that the word in Roe apply to all. Unless you believe that every living breathing human is not “viable”, then the rights afforded us by the 9th and 14th Amendments to or constitution as stated, in the Roe decision, apply to us all.
I guess every cloud has a silver lining. It's either Roe v. Wade or Socialized Medicine.
Technorati Tags: ,,,,,,,

ABC Refuses Opposing Advertising During Obama Health Care Infomercial

ABC claims that they have a long standing policy of not airing commercials that are considered advocacy ads and thus is refusing allow any opposing views from being aired during their broadcast of “Questions for the President: Prescription for America”.   Does anyone think this is good for America?  One thing that has kept our country great is ideal that all voices should be heard. The way this happens is open debate, not a bully pulpit inside the White House.  Opposing sides need to be given a voice to ensure that the merits of each can be evaluated and an informed decision be made by us, the recipients of this plan.  I would expect this in countries like Iran and Cuba, but NOT America.
Technorati Tags: ,,,,,,,,,,

$1.5+ Trillion Health Care

Early estimates from the House and Senate plans are already a staggering $1 to 1.5 Trillion. We all know how good they are at estimating actual costs so the real numbers will be scary.
What is this going to do to our debt when the retired baby-boomer numbers continue to grow with fewer and fewer workers contributing to the coffers? CBO say Medicare and Medicaid will rise from 4.4%% of the GDP to 10.2% in 2040.
Let’s see, they’ve already told us that Social Security will be broke, Medicare and Medicaid will be unfunded and now we will have a third entitlement we won’t be able to pay for.
What are we doing to our children?
Technorati Tags: ,,,,,,,,,,,

Transparency – Apparently only Semi-transparent

Senator Obama admonished the Bush administration for having secret meetings with oil company executives and yet another veil was pulled down to block the transparency of his own administration just last week. Obama met with coal executives to discuss clean coal technology but he refused to release the names of those those that participated. They Even denied a Freedom of Information Act request for the names. President Obama promised that he would “usher in a era of openness”, when’s it going to start?
Is Obama really serious about transparency? Well, lets take a look. His administration released the CIA reports on the interrogation techniques used by CIA operatives in the war on terror but refused to release reports on the valuable intelligence that was gained through those techniques. If he was really interested in openness and not political gain, he would have.
I think a more serious issue than Obama playing politics with this information is the message it is sending to the intelligence community. They follow the directives from the top and when the next administration comes in, they get hung out to dry. Obama demonized CIA operatives for following instructions and made it clear that even if techniques are approved by the highest elected leaders, they will be taking their careers in their own hands if they dare engage in operations that could be considered close to the edge. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that our intelligence officers are most likely going to be a lot more conservative in their approach. Do you think we will be safer? I sure don’t.
The openness that Democrats and the main stream media are exuberant about has nothing to do with where our trillions of dollars are going to save us from the financial crisis, the the health crisis or whatever the next great crisis will be – no, they are celebrating the openness of airing out national security secrets in the name of restoring America’s relationship with the world and in the process compromising our national security.
Technorati Tags: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Takes one to know one? Chavez calls Obama Comrade.

Granted, not the most reliable source and I haven’t agreed with anything else this man rants, but I actually agree with Chavez this time. Chavez said “Hey, Obama has just nationalized nothing more and nothing less than General Motors. Comrade Obama!" he went on to say that if Castro wasn’t careful he would end up right of Obama.
Chavez has nationalized pretty much all of his economy. The conditions in Venezuela a deplorable. The country is filled with crime, inflation is horrendous, and the people can’t even get food. The basic necessities of life are not there. Another shining example of how socialism doesn’t work. Not only does it not work, but it is not the American way. Look at the latest election cycles in Europe, they are moving away from the State controlling everything because it didn’t work for them either. As much as Obama says that he doesn’t want to run GM, his actions speak otherwise. They need to get out of the car business and let the free market system work.
Technorati Tags: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Obama's Health Care Agenda: How it Will Hurt American Families

Obama's Health Care Agenda: How it Will Hurt American Families
This is going to end up as Hillary Care on steroids. As my previous posts stated, the government should not be in charge of any social program. Do you really want a bureaucrat in Washington making decisions about your health care. Who’s best interest with they have? The elite? The wealthy? You?
Don’t think that will happen? Well... just look at Canada and Europe. Are we really so arrogant to believe that our government is so much better that they can make health care more efficient and affordable when no other country can do it? The politicians would love to believe that (and probably do) but history shows that it just ain’t so. Why would it be different this time? Oh yah. I keep forgetting that Obama is “god”, my bad.
Technorati Tags: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,

House Democrats Unveil Full Coverage Health Care Plan - Political News - FOXNews.com


Gotta love how the Democrats wait until Friday afternoon to “Unveil” their grand plan for saving us with there all encompassing health program. Hoping it will be old news by Monday and no debate. They even admit that they are going to rush it through and can’t figure out how to pay for it. Think that’s going to stop them? I am sure not. Going to FORCE everyone to get coverage (even if they don’t want it) and better yet going to FORCE employers to pay. This is sure going to help all those struggling small businesses recover from the financial crisis.
Technorati Tags: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Time to stop the spending

It’s time to stop the spending. Please no more government help. When has the government made anything better? Republican or Democrat? I cannot think of one successful government program. Do we not learn anything from the past. Someone please give me one program administered by a government agency that has accomplished what it set out to do and at the cost that was advertised. Help me please. Can’t think of any either?? Well here’s a few that were failures:
1. Social Security
2. Medicare
3. Public Education
4. War on drugs
5. War on poverty
6. Customs and border security
7. Welfare / Food Stamps
8. Control of energy production
9. Agricultural subsidies
10. Defense
I could go on and on. The above programs have cost taxpayers trillions of dollars and yet absolutely none have met their goals, none have even come close. When are we going to learn that government was never designed to be efficient. It was designed to be inefficient because our founders had no intention of the government being all things to all people. It was only to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare. Notice the word “promote” not “provide” for the the general welfare. Wake up America, government is not the answer, you are! It is the hard working people with entrepreneurial creativeness that will turn our economy around.

Bush speaks out

I find it really sad that a former President has to speak out against a sitting President, but what can he do? He obviously felt the need to address issues like Iran, the financial crisis, health care reform, capitalism, and Guantanamo Bay because very few of his fellow republicans are stepping up to the plate and denouncing the policies that are not in the best interest of our country.
Instead of Bush and Cheney out defending the conservative ideals, they should only have to say that they agree with the Republican leadership. So where is the leadership?

Blogging Stuff

 

Tags

Blog Catalog Visitors

Where Visitors Live

free counters

Follow the Punditcy

The Punditcy Copyright © 2010 Blogger Template Designed by Bie Blogger Template