Saturday, February 28, 2009

Obama Grudgingly Admits Military "Got the job done" but wouldn't admit success

Mission Accomplished?
When I heard President Obama's first speech in front of the military on Thursday, I thought it odd that he danced around the word victory without ever using it... refusing to admit that he (and Democrats) owe George W Bush the credit for the success in Iraq they are just now grudgingly admitting.

Pathetic... yes.

Here is what Obama and Democrat(ic)s can no longer deny however.. hidden deep in the text of his speech is the closest he will get to admitting victory in Iraq without actually saying it.

"We sent our troops to Iraq to do away with Saddam Hussein’s regime – and you got the job done. We kept our troops in Iraq to help establish a sovereign government – and you got the job done. And we will leave the Iraqi people with a hard-earned opportunity to live a better life – that is your achievement; that is the prospect that you have made possible." -President Barack Hussein Obama

Another word Obama refused to use in his speech about the now free and democratic Iraq.... "democracy".

13 Year Old Describes Conservatism

Thanks to Z Truth... brilliant!

The future of America, the true hope for America, our thinking youth.
13 year old Jonathan Krohn spoke to conservatives on the meaning of conservatism at CPAC yesterday and broke it down into 4 categories of principles.



"Conservatism is the ideology of protecting the people and the people's rights"- Jonathan Krohn

Still Looking For That One True Reagan Conservative?


Many in this country are looking for the “Second Coming” of Reagan.
They can quit looking.
There is a man with vast experience and the ideals of Ronald Reagan who is still ready to serve.
After one of the debates last year he got a phone call from Michael Reagan who told him that he answered the questions just like his (Mike’s) dad (Ronald Reagan) would!
That man is Duncan Hunter.

Issue by issue you can look at his record to verify that he is the one true conservative on the horizon today.
He knew Ronald Reagan, served WITH Ronald Reagan, was the driving force behind getting SDI passed which led to the downfall of the Soviet Union, served in Vietnam and has a son who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan and has introduced legislation every year to grant personhood to the unborn thereby making Roe v Wade irrelevant, fought the ACLU and won to preserve a large cross at a military cemetary in CA, and is the ONLY person with a plan for fixing our trade deficit with China and the world.

Hunter-Palin 2012
A New Direction for America, back to the future!

Town Hall: "A case for Duncan Hunter"

Washington Post: "Hunter: Conservative Hope"

Ann Coulter: "Duncan Hunter is 'Magnificent'"

“Inspirational leader” and the one best qualified to carry the “Reagan Torch" - Bob Smith NH Senator

"He's more of a Reaganite than Ronald Reagan" - US Veteran Dispatch

“Duncan Hunter is a true social conservative and honestly represents the Republican Wing of the Republican Party,” stated Chris Brown, state President of the Missouri Republican Assembly

Click below to learn about
Duncan Hunter on the Issues

Forcing Doctors to Perform Abortions... and the crowd cheered.

February 28, 2009 - 8:11am.

President Barack Obama plans to repeal a Bush administration rule that has become a flash point in the debate over a doctor's right not to participate in abortions. The regulation, instituted in the last days of the Bush administration, strengthened job protections for doctors and nurses who refused to participate in abortion procedures.

"Squeezing the Charmin" is Worse on Environment than Driving a Hummer!

Guardian UK-

Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent

American taste for soft toilet roll 'worse than driving Hummers'

The tenderness of the delicate American buttock is causing more environmental devastation than the country's love of gas-guzzling cars, fast food or McMansions, according to green campaigners. At fault, they say, is the US public's insistence on extra-soft, quilted and multi-ply products when they use the bathroom.

"This is a product that we use for less than three seconds and the ecological consequences of manufacturing it from trees is enormous," said Allen Hershkowitz, a senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defence Council.

"Future generations are going to look at the way we make toilet paper as one of the greatest excesses of our age"


Using the words "American taste for soft toilet roll", ...now that's just plain wrong.
-red

Friday, February 27, 2009

Obama Runs The Old End-Around Play To "Hush Rush"

Yesterday, the Senate approved an amendment that would outlaw the "Fairness Doctrine".
.....and then approved an amendment that would allow the FCC to impose it piece by piece, and require radio ownership "diversity".

We told you so.
-red s tater

Labels: , , , ,

Obama, Democrats INCREASING Energy Dependence on Foreign Suppliers

FREE OUR ENERGY
From The Heritage Foundation:

Department of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is once again taking steps towards increasing our energy dependence. Just a few weeks after the Obama Administration unnecessarily slowed the process of leasing offshore areas to energy companies for drilling; Secretary Salazar is now rescinding leasing plans for oil-shale development on federal land in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming.

The amount of oil available through oil shale is staggering. Some estimates have 1.2 trillion to 1.8 trillion barrels of oil available in the Green River Formation, an area which expands through most of Colorado and parts of Utah and Wyoming. According to the U.S. Department of Interior and Bureau of Land Management, a conservative estimate of 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil from oil shale in the Green River Formation is three times greater than the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, if full-scale production begins within five years, the U.S. could completely end its dependence on OPEC by 2020.

The oil shale industry experienced several hiccups in the 1970s and the industry has a ways to go before the resource becomes commercially viable, but its potential is enormous. The investment in technology and R&D is making the process cheaper, cleaner and safer for the environment. In effect, methods of harvesting oil shale force excess carbon back into the ground.

Furthermore, nuclear energy is a clean source of power that can heat the shale to safely extract it from the ground. This is actually the third time that Salazar has delayed access to energy in the United States. Previously, he cancelled onshore leases in Utah. This delay is not surprising but is particularly damaging to America's ability to access its domestic energy sources. In July 2008, then Senator Salazar stated he would not support drilling offshore if gas prices were to reach $10 per gallon. Environmental activists and other critics of offshore drilling argue that drilling will not immediately bring down gas prices because the process takes too long, but they then deliberately cause or prolong needless delays. Read more »

Thursday, February 26, 2009

Obama's Climate Rip-Off

Full Artricle Here By Steven Milloy
Publisher, JunkScience.com/Co-Manager, Free Enterprise Action Fund


"Maybe the economics of Obama’s cap-and-trade rip-off don’t bother you, but the fact that the rip-off will accomplish nothing should give you pause."
The liberal think tank Center on Budget Priorities and Policy estimated this week that Obama's plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions would cost the poorest families in America $750 per year as higher energy prices ripple through the economy affecting all goods and services. So if the poorest families, who use far less energy than the rest of America, are in a financial hole under the president’s plan, one can easily imagine how the rest of us will end up.

Maybe you’re thinking that these extra costs are worth it as they will be dwarfed by the environmental benefits of tackling the much-dreaded global warming.

Think again. There will be no detectable or tangible benefits from reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

First, carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas targeted by regulation is invisible, colorless and odorless. Since it exists in the atmosphere at levels measured in the parts per million, unless you’re a plant that needs CO2 to live, you’re not going to notice it.

Next, there is no evidence that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing detectable changes, much less any harm, to the climate. Check out my YouTube video on this issue:


The Messiah Float Leads German Parade


From Duesseldorf Germany... feel free to write your own caption... btw that's 'Europe' hanging onto Obama's dress, no joke.









The Duesseldorf Carnival parade in 2005












The same Parade in Duesseldorf featured this float in 2004











And this gem in 2003.











Gee, all we had to do was roll over and convert to socialism and the entire socialist world is at our feet!

Hmmm, I wonder why they didn't make a float with Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky in bed together while Bin Laden is planning the 9-11 attacks from under the bed?

Hillary Clinton: Improving America's Image In the World


This should improve America's standing in the world (with our enemies).
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is being blasted by Jewish leaders over her recent comments criticizing Israel and for showing support for the terrorist group Hamas.
NEW YORK (CBS)-In a swift about face from her views as New York's senator, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is now hammering Israel over its treatment of Palestinians in Gaza.


America abandons our friend Israel and sends money to our enemies, I'm feeling the love already, how about YOU?

Bloggers and Unions Team Up to Push Democrats Further Left

Bloggers and Unions apparently don't think socialism is far enough to the left for the Democrat party and America. -red stater

WASHINGTON: Drudge Report- A group of liberal bloggers said it is teaming up with organized labor and MoveOn to form a political action committee that will seek to push the Democratic Party farther to the left.

Soliciting donations from their readers, the bloggers said they are planning to recruit liberal candidates for challenges against more centrist Democrats currently in Congress.

The formation of the group marks another step in the evolution of the blogosphere, which has proved effective at motivating party activists to give money and time to political campaigns, especially in local races.

But it also illuminates a deepening wrinkle for President Barack Obama, whose attempt to build a broad governing coalition — often by tempering some of his more liberal previous positions — has already angered some of his supporters on the left.

"We're going to be about targeting incumbents to make space for Obama to be more progressive," said Glen Greenwald, a liberal blogger with Salon who is part of the effort. "There may be other times when the Democratic Party, as led by Obama, is being unresponsive, so yeah, we have the potential to push back against that, as well."

Hamsher said Accountability Now — which will also have support from the Service Employees International Union and DailyKos — would concentrate more fully on candidate recruitment in the states.

"We've gone out to the state blogs asking them to put together research on people who they think are good candidates who should be on our radar,"


I hear that blogger dude at Okie Funk is looking for a job, maybe he should run for office.
-red

Bumbling Biden asks for Stimulus "Website Number", Says building bridge and smart meters "will Help small business"


From the EIB Advanced Center for Conservative Studies
2/25/09
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Let's go to the audio sound bites. This is great. The CBS Early Show today, co-host Maggie Rodriguez interviewing Joe Biden. Nobody's gonna mess with Joe. (laughing) Nobody's gonna mess with Joe. (laughing) "Mr. Vice President, we watched the speech last night with a cross section of Americans, and we asked them if they had any questions for you, and I'd like to share one of them with you from a viewer who had to lay off the most ever staff last year, Hendrickson is his name, and he says, 'What I'm looking for are real clear details about how the stimulus is really going to help small business.'" Now, get this. Play Cut 11. We got a woman on CBS this morning who asks Biden, "I'm looking for clear details about how the stimulus package is really going to help small business."

BIDEN: I would recommend that woman call my office directly, and I will be able to guide her as to what pieces of this package would be directly helpful to her. For example, it may very well be that she's in a circumstance where she is not able, her customers aren't able to get to her, there's no transit capability, the bridge going across the creek to get to her business needs repair, may very well be that she's in a position where she is unable to access the -- her energy costs are so high by providing smart meters, by being able to bring down the cost of her workforce.

RODRIGUEZ: So expect a call from Lisa Hendrickson later today. Okay, very good.

RUSH: All right, can I translate this for you? This woman has a chance to ask Biden, "What's in this stimulus package for small business?" "Well, if you or your customers can't get to your small business we're going to build a bridge. And if your business costs are too high we'll put a smart meter in there." How do you not laugh your butt off at this? And then there was this, ladies and gentlemen. Maggie Rodriguez had this exchange with Vice President Biden.

RODRIGUEZ: By the way, do you know the website?

BIDEN: You know, I'm embarrassed. You know the website number? No, I should have it in front of me, and I don't.

RODRIGUEZ: All right.

BIDEN: I'm actually embarrassed.

RODRIGUEZ: I'm going to call your office directly, too, and get it later.

BIDEN: It is recovery.gov. Recovery --

RODRIGUEZ: Recovery.

BIDEN: -- dot gov.

REPORTER: Is that up and running already?

RUSH: What's the website number? What is the website number? He didn't even know. Now, I guarantee you, if George Bush or any Republican had said, "What's the website number," there would have been no attempt to bail him out here, and if somebody is shouting in Biden's ear, "It's recovery.gov." Have you gone to recovery.gov? Have you looked at it? It's nothing more than an Obama propaganda campaign site under the guise of helping people keep the government informed about whether or not the stimulus money is being spent in the right way where they live. So let's go back, Joe Biden's greatest hit.

BIDEN: Chuck Graham, State Senator is here. Stand up, Chuck, let them see you! Oh, God love you. What am I talking about? I'll tell you what, you're making everybody else stand up, though, pal, I'll tell you what, stand up for Chuck!

RUSH: The guy was in a wheelchair.
You know, when Bobby Jindal was making this response speech last night, Joe Biden was probably wondering who he got to sit in for him during his shift at 7-Eleven."
BREAK TRANSCRIPT

Quote of the Week

I don't know how I missed this one last Friday, (sorry dave)... you said a mouthful there my left leaning friend.

"Having one party control the Legislative and Executive branches of government is a recipe for disaster." - dave at Oklahoma Lefty Blog

Labels: , ,

Success or Failure?

Do you have a favorite sport or team or maybe you have a son or daughter that plays?

When "your team" is playing.. (even if you don't like the current coach and think he's an idiot), and their biggest rival opponent is about to score on your (son/daughter/etc's) team to win the big game, would you...
A- Hope the opponent is successful
B- Hope the opponent fails

When you are involved in a big sales deal that comes down to a final price proposal from your biggest competitor, do you..
A- Hope your competitor is successful
B- Hope your competitor fails

As countries go... I love America, I am a fan of America.
Republican or Democrat or whatever... I am a fan of America.
I oppose what is bad for America.

On this blog I have opposed Bush on failure to secure the Border because it was bad for America... my team.
I opposed those who hoped for America's failure in Iraq because it was bad for America.
I oppose abortion for many reasons... but it is certainly bad for America.
Corruption is bad for America no matter where it occurs and neither party has an exclusive on it.
I oppose restricting our rights, I am a fan of America.

Democrats led by Obama, Pelosi and Reid are currently destroying free market capitalism and replacing it with pure socialism which may change America for a full generation (25 years) before anyone can undo the damage being done to our rights, our economy and to the system of government put in place by our forefathers as we knew it.

Yes, along with Rush Limbaugh and a growing number of concerned Americans, (Republicans, Democrats and Independents) ... yes, I hope Obama Pelosi and Reid fail. I hope they fail miserably.
Like I said, I am a fan of America.

-red stater

Labels: ,

Rendezvous with Destiny

Video: Ronald Reagan "Rendezvous with Destiny"(edited for time)... please to enjoy... here is the text of the speech in it's entirety.



"No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this Earth"

"You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness"

GOP Starts Round Up for 2012

NBC-

The Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC, which begins Thursday and extends through Saturday, is really the first true GOP cattle call for the next presidential election.

Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty have all been given prime speaking slots before the annual gathering of conservative activists — and they'll be among several other possible contenders in attendance.

Will conservatives turn to Huckabee?
Huckabee, the personable former Arkansas governor who surprised the political world with his primary win in Iowa, will give his first post-election political speech on the direction of the GOP on Thursday afternoon (1:30 p.m. ET).

After the 2008 campaign, Huckabee got his own talk show and wrote a book, “Do the Right Thing: Inside the Movement That’s Bringing Common Sense Back to America.” He'll even be signing copies of his tome at CPAC.

Huckabee, who maintains an active political action committee (PAC), is already a proven presidential campaigner. He starts with a loyal base of Christian conservatives, and if he sees an opening, don’t be surprised if he considers another bid.

Romney, in his comfort zone
This conference holds a special place for Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts, who won the straw polls at the last two CPAC gatherings. A year ago he chose to announce that he was dropping out of the White House race in front of this group. His decision was greeted with shouts of “No!” from the crowd.

In 2009, Romney has already ramped up efforts to increase his visibility. He introduced 2010 California gubernatorial hopeful Meg Whitman at an event at the National Governors Association conference, and on Monday, he touted writing $1,000 checks to vulnerable 2010 Republican candidates through his PAC.

What he says during his speech (Friday, 4:35 p.m. ET) could hint to his plans for 2012, which may be his last chance to run for president. Remember, Romney is 61, and if he were to hold off until 2016, he might be considered too old. At 69, Romney would tie Ronald Reagan as the oldest president inaugurated to a first term. But don't forget, 2008 Republican nominee Sen. John McCain would have taken the oath at 72 if he had won.

Prime-time for Sanford
Mark Sanford has possibly the best speaking spot at the conference, as he'll be giving the keynote address at Friday night’s Ronald Reagan Banquet (7:30 p.m. ET).

Sanford has upped his profile recently, taking the lead against the stimulus plan — and has shown some toughness in fighting back against Democratic critics.

He seemed to have some ambitions in 2008, potentially as McCain’s vice-presidential pick.

But a shaky cable news appearance, in which he wasn’t able to articulate a McCain position, seriously damaged his chances. (On CNN, he said he was "drawing a blank" when asked to name a major economic policy that McCain and the Bush administration disagreed on).

So far, Sanford has been sharp and able to grab the spotlight. Look for him to be one of the crowd favorites at CPAC.

A tough crowd for Pawlenty?
It will be interesting to see how conservative activists react to Tim Pawlenty — who is constantly fighting the perception that he's too moderate.

The Minnesota governor had some tough words for his party and the direction it must take during a firebrand speech to the Republican Governors Association in Miami last November.

Leading up to this conference, he has been on other side of more hard-line Republicans on some issues — including the acceptance of stimulus money.

We’ll see what kind of speech he gives Saturday. Will it be more of "Dr. Tim’s tough medicine," or will he dial it back in front of this crowd?

Pawlenty’s someone who’s been acting like, talking like, and walking like someone with higher political ambitions. This speech could define how he'll run in a Republican primary — if he does decide to throw his hat in the ring.

Where did you go, Sarah, Bobby and John?
There will be three notable absences at CPAC — Jindal, McCain, and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

The former Vice Presidential nominee, who appeared interview-happy immediately after the campaign, has avoided the Beltway spotlight altogether as of late.

She skipped last weekend’s National Governors Association conference and she's set to miss CPAC too — where she would have been queen of the ball. But, she's battling budget problems at home, as well as her own tax problems.

Don’t worry though, the conference won’t be Sarah-free. There will be two sessions, featuring a taped video interview entitled, “Sarah Palin Unplugged on the Media.”

Jindal’s team said he wasn’t attending even before last night’s GOP response speech, which got mixed reviews.

"We get more invites than we can accept," Jindal's Press Secretary Kyl Plotkin said in an e-mail.

McCain has never been a favorite of the CPAC crowd, especially after his 2006 immigration efforts. He did not attend last year, either — despite being the party’s likely nominee.

Picking a favorite, a word of caution
It should be interesting to see which of the group of hopefuls wins this year’s straw poll. The results will be unveiled on Saturday — right before Rush Limbaugh speaks and is feted with a “Defender of the Constitution Award.”

One note of caution: Of the most recent straw poll winners — Romney (2008 and 2007) and George Allen (2006) — neither went on to capture the Republican nomination.

One final note
There's more than just presidential postering going on at CPAC. Here's a look at some of the other conference speakers and events:

  • Speaker: Samuel “Joe the Plumber” Wurzelbacher (Thursday, 11:45 a.m. ET)
  • Speaker: Karl Rove (Friday, 5:30 p.m. ET)
  • Speaker: Ann Coulter (Saturday, 12:30 p.m. ET)
  • Speaker: Rush Limbaugh (Saturday, 5:00 p.m. ET)
  • Screening: Ronald Reagan: Rendezvous with Destiny (Fri. 7:30p)
  • Discussion: "Al Franken and ACORN: How Liberals Are Destroying the American Election System" (Thursday, 2:30 p.m. ET)
  • Discussion: "Bailing Out Big Business: Are We All Socialists Now?" (Friday, 9:20 a.m.)
  • Discussion: "Will Congress Take Your Guns" (Friday, 10:45 a.m. ET)
  • Discussion: "The True Cost of Global Warming Hysteria" (Saturday, 3 p.m. ET)
Domenico Montanaro covers politics for NBC News


Wednesday, February 25, 2009

College Professor Seeking Better Work or Just Better Pay?

It's really kind of sad.
After spewing nothing but vile hatred at who he referred to as "Imperialist President" George W Bush for the past several years now at his blog Okie Funk, OCU's leftist college professor/blogger/Democrat political activist/leftwing hateslinger extraordinare suddenly refers to any disagreement with President Obama as "spewing hate".

Doc Hoc frequently ranted about "Imperialist President" George Bush's irresponsible spending and billion dollar budget deficits... but now calls for virtually unlimited trillions of spending under Obama's plan that he hasn't even read... ahhh, but even that is not enough.

In his latest incoherent ramble, he asks "Who Will Implement Obama's Bold Ideas?"...
I had to laugh out loud.
MEMO: Somebody please drop a note by his office and let him know that Democrats (his party of socialism) already hold a majority in the US House of Representatives, the US Senate and control the White House and the News Media.... so his question is rather redundant wouldn't you say?

Not so fast it turns out...
In between his rambling misguided rants against Bush, he asks again ...more clearly.
"But none of His (Obama) plans will work if those who were right about so many important issues over the last eight years are not given a voice or leadership positions. These are people on the national and local levels. Obama and his administration need to empower these people as soon as possible."

"Why not give people who spoke out and were right a chance at leadership?

Empower the people who were right about everything and not afraid to speak out during the long, gruesome Bush years. Then you will get change and reform."

Who is doc hoc talking about here... hmmm "empower the people who were right about everything" hmmm let's see, who does doc think is always right, all the time?

doc of course!

It sounds like the 'good doctor' is asking 'The anointed One' for a "job".

Heck... doc, YOU already work for Him... remember?
You've been in the tank working for Him, Rice and every other Democrat night and day ...for years now dude.
Get a grip.
-red

Labels: , ,

America, You've Just Been Punk'd

It was called bait and switch in the old days... I guess nowdays it's called "gettin' punk'd".

Obama promised a tax CUT to 95% of Americans while letting the existing BUSH TAX CUTS expire. You have been told over and over that the BUSH TAX CUTS are only for the rich... you were lied to.
From The Tax Foundation-

For the median family with two children, earning $67,000 per year, the Bush Tax Cuts meant a tax cut of $1,133 each year, erasing 22% of their current tax liability. A family earning $40,000 saw 96% of their tax liability erased, while a family earning $200,000 saw just 9% of their tax liability erased compared to the prior rate under Bill Clinton. When Obama lets the Bush Tax CUTS expire, YOU and I get an immediate tax increase.

The calculations below assume a working couple with two children. We also assume the standard deduction for families earning $40,000 to $75,000. For families earning $100,000 and above, we assume itemized deductions worth 20% of AGI.

Families earning below $35,000 are not included because the tax cuts enacted in 2001 effectively eliminated their entire income tax liability.

Standard deduction for families earning $40,000 — $75,000.

For families earning $100,000+ assume itemized deductions worth 20% of AGI.

Note that these graphs were made as the Bush Tax CUTS (in orange) were implemented and are compared to the Clinton rates (in blue).

Now.. ladies and gentlemen, when Obama lets the Bush tax cuts expire, these numbers immediately reverse and we go back to the tax rate used by Bill Clinton (the higher tax rate in blue on the above chart). A family of four earning $67,000.00 per year will have a TAX INCREASE of $1133.00 per year under Obama's "Tax Cut" plan.

Apparently according to Democrats and Obama, a "Tax Cut" means going back to HIGHER tax rates... and YOU bought it.

Ha ha ha... You've been punk'd!
But keep checking your mailbox for that check Obama promised was "in the mail".

Obama Speech Summary: "Don't Worry,The Checks are in the Mail"


In his first speech on the economy President Obama promised... (read my lips?)
"If you make less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increase.
Not by one dime. Not one dime."

"You will get a tax cut . . . these checks are on the way."

My mail doesn't arrive till the afternoon, but I haven't seen my additional refund check yet.... have any of YOU... ? How long does the mail usually take.. we should all have it by the end of the week right?
I can stay at home waiting by the mailbox and hope my check from the government gets here soon because I need it and the President promised... or I can go and work harder to make more money so I can pay more of it in taxes so the President can send checks to the guy who's not working... hmmm decisions, decisions.

On the other hand a smart man once said...

"Democratic leaders in Washington place their hope in the federal government.
We place our hope in (you) -- the American people,"
"In the end, it comes down to an honest and fundamental disagreement about the proper role of government.
We oppose the National Democrats’ view that says the way to strengthen our country is to increase dependence on government."
-Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal in response to President Obama's lottery giveaway grand prize free money speech.

These socialists we call Democrats are using the old tried and true method of getting Americans hooked on socialism with the....
"Hey kid err i mean voters, pssst over here, I've got lots of free candy, will you help me find my puppy?"
It's Disgusting.
-red

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

OKC Tea Party Anyone... How About Denver?

The New American Tea Party movement started with Rick Santelli's great job of standing up to the socialist takeover in Washington.



Be sure to check out their website... at "Time For A Taxpayer Tea Party"
and sign their letter to the President if you agree.

Dear President Obama:

Enough housing bailouts, enough bank bailouts, enough bailouts for everyone who took risks that didn't pay off. People who played by the rules and paid their own debts shouldn't be forced to pay for all these bailouts. I support Rick Santelli's call for a Taxpayer Tea Party to defend our country's founding free-market principles.

Dallas is the closest organized Tea Party protest, but c'mon Oklahoma... the most conservative state in the union can do better than Dallas... or C'mon Denver you can show Dallas who is really the "big Tea".

And from an earlier post on this...
"Best quotes from the NRO interview with Rick Santelli...

"
The issue is, you can’t pick out 8 or 9 percent and give them things that weaken the 90 or 92 percent who are carrying the water. ... They need to quit picking winners and losers, and they have to quit alienating the classes. You have to figure out a way to float all boats, and I think that’s where the administration has gone wrong, and I think that’s the nerve I hit."

"
At the end of the day, it’s simple. A lot of the president’s advisers are saying that there’s a multiplier effect to the government money, and it’s over one.
Now if that’s true, then the government should spend non-stop for the rest of our lives, because we’ll get a positive return.
And it makes no sense. ... I guess in the end, I believe in the founding fathers, and I believe that in America... the pursuit of happiness and to work hard and keep the fruits of your labor is something I believe in.
And I’m not saying we should forget people who need help. But at the end of the day, Americans are strong and they’re charitable.
I think what they (Americans) have a problem with is that it’s force-fed via the government."

Labels: , , ,

If President Obama Really Wants to Sound Like Reagan


Obama's spokesman say's the new President's speech tonight on national tv is going to be 'Reaganesque'.

Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on the Program for Economic Recovery

Mr. Speaker, Mr. President, distinguished Members of Congress, honored guests, and fellow citizens:

Only a month ago I was your guest in this historic building, and I pledged to you my cooperation in doing what is right for this Nation that we all love so much. I'm here tonight to reaffirm that pledge and to ask that we share in restoring the promise that is offered to every citizen by this, the last, best hope of man on Earth.

All of us are aware of the punishing inflation which has for the first time in 60 years held to double-digit figures for 2 years in a row. Interest rates have reached absurd levels of more that 20 percent and over 15 percent for those who would borrow to buy a home. All across this land one can see newly built homes standing vacant, unsold because of mortgage interest rates.

Almost 8 million Americans are out of work. These are people who want to be productive. But as the months go by, despair dominates their lives. The threats of layoff and unemployment hang over other millions, and all who work are frustrated by their inability to keep up with inflation.

One worker in a Midwest city put it to me this way: He said, ``I'm bringing home more dollars than I ever believed I could possibly earn, but I seem to be getting worse off.'' And he is. Not only have hourly earnings of the American worker, after adjusting for inflation, declined 5 percent over the past 5 years, but in these 5 years, Federal personal taxes for the average family have increased 67 percent. We can no longer procrastinate and hope that things will get better. They will not. Unless we act forcefully -- and now -- the economy will get worse.

Can we, who man the ship of state, deny it is somewhat out of control?

Our national debt is approaching $1 trillion. A few weeks ago I called such a figure, a trillion dollars, incomprehensible, and I've been trying ever since to think of a way to illustrate how big a trillion really is. And the best I could come up with is that if you had a stack of thousand-dollar bills in your hand only 4 inches high, you'd be a millionaire. A trillion dollars would be a stack of thousand-dollar bills 67 miles high. The interest on the public debt this year we know will be over $90 billion, and unless we change the proposed spending for the fiscal year beginning October 1st, we'll add another almost $80 billion to the debt.

Adding to our troubles is a mass of regulations imposed on the shopkeeper, the farmer, the craftsman, professionals, and major industry that is estimated to add $100 billion to the price of the things we buy, and it reduces our ability to produce. The rate of increase in American productivity, once one of the highest in the world, is among the lowest of all major industrial nations. Indeed, it has actually declined in the last 3 years.

Now, I've painted a pretty grim picture, but I think I've painted it accurately. It is within our power to change this picture, and we can act with hope. There's nothing wrong with our internal strengths. There has been no breakdown of the human, technological, and natural resources upon which the economy is built.

Based on this confidence in a system which has never failed us, but which we have failed through a lack of confidence and sometimes through a belief that we could fine-tune the economy and get it tuned to our liking, I am proposing a comprehensive four-point program. Now, let me outline in detail some of the principal parts of this program. You'll each be provided with a completely detailed copy of the entire program.

This plan is aimed at reducing the growth in government spending and taxing, reforming and eliminating regulations which are unnecessary and unproductive or counterproductive, and encouraging a consistent monetary policy aimed at maintaining the value of the currency. If enacted in full, this program can help America create 13 million new jobs, nearly 3 million more than we would have without these measures. It will also help us to gain control of inflation.

It's important to note that we're only reducing the rate of increase in taxing and spending. We're not attempting to cut either spending or taxing levels below that which we presently have. This plan will get our economy moving again, [create] productivity growth, and thus create the jobs that our people must have.

And I'm asking that you join me in reducing direct Federal spending by $41.4 billion in fiscal year 1982, and this goes along with another $7.7 billion in user fees and off-budget savings for a total of $49.1 billion. And this will still allow an increase of $40.8 billion over 1981 spending.

Now, I know that exaggerated and inaccurate stories about these cuts have disturbed many people, particularly those dependent on grant and benefit programs for their basic needs. Some of you have heard from constituents, I know, afraid that social security checks, for example, were going to be taken away from them. Well, I regret the fear that these unfounded stories have caused, and I welcome this opportunity to set things straight.

We will continue to fulfill the obligations that spring from our national conscience. Those who, through no fault of their own, must depend on the rest of us -- the poverty stricken, the disabled, the elderly, all those with true need -- can rest assured that the social safety net of programs they depend on are exempt from any cuts.

The full retirement benefits of the more than 31 million social security recipients will be continued, along with an annual cost-of-living increase. Medicare will not be cut, nor will supplemental income for the blind, the aged, and the disabled. And funding will continue for veterans pensions. School breakfasts and lunches for the children of low-income families will continue, as will nutrition and other special services for the aging. There will be no cut in Project Head Start or summer youth jobs.

All in all, nearly $216 billion worth of programs providing help for tens of millions of Americans will be fully funded. But government will not continue to subsidize individuals or particular business interests where real need cannot be demonstrated. And while we will reduce some subsidies to regional and local governments, we will at the same time convert a number of categorical grant programs into block grants to reduce wasteful administrative overhead and to give local governments and States more flexibility and control. We call for an end in duplication to Federal programs and reform of those which are not cost-effective.

Now, already some have protested that there must be no reduction in aid to schools. Well, let me point out that Federal aid to education amounts to only 8 percent of the total educational funding, and for this 8 percent, the Federal Government has insisted on tremendously disproportionate share of control over our schools. Whatever reductions we've proposed in that 8 percent will amount to very little in the total cost of education. They will, however, restore more authority to States and local school districts.

Historically, the American people have supported by voluntary contributions more artistic and cultural activities than all the other countries in the world put together. I wholeheartedly support this approach and believe that Americans will continue their generosity. Therefore, I'm proposing a savings of $85 million in the Federal subsidies now going to the arts and humanities.

There are a number of subsidies to business and industry that I believe are unnecessary, not because the activities being subsidized aren't of value, but because the marketplace contains incentives enough to warrant continuing these activities without a government subsidy. One such subsidy is the Department of Energy's synthetic fuels program. We will continue support of research leading to development of new technologies and more independence from foreign oil, but we can save at least $3.2 billion by leaving to private industry the building of plants to make liquid or gas fuels from coal.

We're asking that another major industry -- business subsidy I should say, the Export-Import Bank loan authority, be reduced by one-third in 1982. We're doing this because the primary beneficiaries of taxpayer funds in this case are the exporting companies themselves -- most of them profitable corporations.

This brings me to a number of other lending programs in which government makes low-interest loans, some of them at an interest rate as low as 2 percent. What has not been very well understood is that the Treasury Department has no money of its own to lend; it has to go into the private capital market and borrow the money. So, in this time of excessive interest rates, the government finds itself borrowing at an interest rate several times as high as the interest it gets back from those it lends the money to. And this difference, of course, is paid by your constituents -- the taxpayers. They get hit again if they try to borrow, because government borrowing contributes to raising all interest rates.

By terminating the Economic Development Administration, we can save hundreds of millions of dollars in 1982 and billions more over the next few years. There's a lack of consistent and convincing evidence that EDA and its Regional Commissions have been effective in creating new jobs. They have been effective in creating an array of planners, grantsmen, and professional middlemen. We believe we can do better just by the expansion of the economy and the job creation which will come from our economic program.

The Food Stamp program will be restored to its original purpose, to assist those without resources to purchase sufficient nutritional food. We will, however, save $1.8 billion in fiscal year 1982 by removing from eligibility those who are not in real need or who are abusing the program. But even with this reduction, the program will be budgeted for more than $10 billion.

We will tighten welfare and give more attention to outside sources of income when determining the amount of welfare that an individual is allowed. This, plus strong and effective work requirements, will save $520 million in the next year.

I stated a moment ago our intention to keep the school breakfast and lunch programs for those in true need. But by cutting back on meals for children of families who can afford to pay, the savings will be $1.6 billion in the fiscal year 1982.

Now, let me just touch on a few other areas which are typical of the kind of reductions we've included in this economic package. The Trade Adjustment Assistance program provides benefits for workers who are unemployed when foreign imports reduce the market for various American products, causing shutdown of plants and layoff of workers. The purpose is to help these workers find jobs in growing sectors of our economy. There's nothing wrong with that, but because these benefits are paid out on top of normal unemployment benefits, we wind up paying greater benefits to those who lose their jobs because of foreign competition than we do to their friends and neighbors who are laid off due to domestic competition. Anyone must agree that this is unfair. Putting these two programs on the same footing will save $1.15 billion in just 1 year.

Earlier I made mention of changing categorical grants to States and local governments into block grants. Now, we know of course that the categorical grant programs burden local and State governments with a mass of Federal regulations and Federal paperwork. Ineffective targeting, wasteful administrative overhead -- all can be eliminated by shifting the resources and decisionmaking authority to local and State government. This will also consolidate programs which are scattered throughout the Federal bureaucracy, bringing government closer to the people and saving $23.9 billion over the next 5 years.

Our program for economic renewal deals with a number of programs which at present are not cost-effective. An example is Medicaid. Right now Washington provides the States with unlimited matching payments for their expenditures; at the same time, we here in Washington pretty much dictate how the States are going to manage those programs. We want to put a cap on how much the Federal Government will contribute, but at the same time allow the States much more flexibility in managing and structuring the programs. I know from our experience in California that such flexibility could have led to far more cost-effective reforms. Now, this will bring a savings of $1 billion next year.

The space program has been and is important to America, and we plan to continue it. We believe, however, that a reordering of priorities to focus on the most important and cost-effective NASA programs can result in a savings of a quarter of a million dollars.

Now, coming down from space to the mailbox, the Postal Service has been consistently unable to live within its operating budget. It is still dependent on large Federal subsidies. We propose reducing those subsidies by $632 million in 1982 to press the Postal Service into becoming more effective, and in subsequent years the savings will continue to add up.

The Economic Regulatory Administration in the Department of Energy has programs to force companies to convert to specific fuels. It has the authority to administer a gas rationing plan, and prior to decontrol it ran the oil price control program. With these and other regulations gone we can save several hundreds of millions of dollars over the next few years.

I'm sure there's one department you've been waiting for me to mention, the Department of Defense. It's the only department in our entire program that will actually be increased over the present budgeted figure. But even here there was no exemption. The Department of Defense came up with a number of cuts which reduce the budget increase needed to restore our military balance. These measures will save $2.9 billion in 1982 outlays, and by 1986 a total of $28.2 billion will have been saved -- or perhaps I should say, will have been made available for the necessary things that we must do. The aim will be to provide the most effective defense for the lowest possible cost.

I believe that my duty as President requires that I recommend increases in defense spending over the coming years. I know that you're all aware -- but I think it bears saying again -- that since 1970 the Soviet Union has invested $300 billion more in its military forces than we have. As a result of its massive military buildup, the Soviets have made a significant numerical advantage in strategic nuclear delivery systems, tactical aircraft, submarines, artillery, and anti-aircraft defense. To allow this imbalance to continue is a threat to our national security. Notwithstanding our economic straits, making the financial changes beginning now is far less costly than waiting and having to attempt a crash program several years from now.

We remain committed to the goal of arms limitation through negotiation. I hope we can persuade our adversaries to come to realistic balanced and verifiable agreements. But, as we negotiate, our security must be fully protected by a balanced and realistic defense program.

Now, let me say a word here about the general problem of waste and fraud in the Federal Government. One government estimate indicated that fraud alone may account for anywhere from 1 to 10 percent -- as much as $25 billion of Federal expenditures for social programs. If the tax dollars that are wasted or mismanaged are added to this fraud total, the staggering dimensions of this problem begin to emerge.

The Office of Management and Budget is now putting together an interagency task force to attack waste and fraud. We're also planning to appoint as Inspectors General highly trained professionals who will spare no effort to do this job. No administration can promise to immediately stop a trend that has grown in recent years as quickly as government expenditures themselves, but let me say this: Waste and fraud in the Federal Government is exactly what I've called it before -- an unrelenting national scandal, a scandal we're bound and determined to do something about.

Marching in lockstep with the whole program of reductions in spending is the equally important program of reduced tax rates. Both are essential if we're to have economic recovery. It's time to create new jobs, to build and rebuild industry, and to give the American people room to do what they do best. And that can only be done with a tax program which provides incentive to increase productivity for both workers and industry.

Our proposal is for a 10-percent across-the-board cut every year for 3 years in the tax rates for all individual income taxpayers, making a total cut in the tax-cut rates of 30 percent. This 3-year reduction will also apply to the tax on unearned income, leading toward an eventual elimination of the present differential between the tax on earned and unearned income.

Now, I would have hoped that we could be retroactive with this. But as it stands, the effective starting date for these 10-percent personal income tax rate reductions will call for as of July 1st of this year.

Again, let me remind you that while this 30-percent reduction will leave the taxpayers with $500 billion more in their pockets over the next 5 years, it's actually only a reduction in the tax increase already built into the system. Unlike some past ``tax reforms,'' this is not merely a shift of wealth between different sets of taxpayers. This proposal for an equal reduction in everyone's tax rates will expand our national prosperity, enlarge national incomes, and increase opportunities for all Americans.

Some will argue, I know, that reducing tax rates now will be inflationary. A solid body of economic experts does not agree. And tax cuts adopted over the past three-fourths of a century indicate these economic experts are right. They will not be inflationary. I've had advice that in 1985 our real production in goods and services will grow by 20 percent and be $300 billion higher than it is today. The average worker's wage will rise in real purchasing power 8 percent, and this is in after-tax dollars. And this, of course, is predicated on a complete program of tax cuts and spending reductions being implemented.

The other part of the tax package is aimed directly at providing business and industry with the capital needed to modernize and engage in more research and development. This will involve an increase in depreciation allowances, and this part of our tax proposal will be retroactive to January 1st.

The present depreciation system is obsolete, needlessly complex, and economically counterproductive. Very simply, it bases the depreciation of plant machinery and vehicles and tools on their original cost, with no recognition of how inflation has increased their replacement cost. We're proposing a much shorter write-off time than is presently allowed -- a 5-year-write-off for machinery, 3 years for vehicles and trucks, and a 10-year write-off for plant. In fiscal year 1982 under this plan, business would acquire nearly $10 billion for investment; by 1985, the figure would be nearly 45 billion.

These changes are essential to provide the new investment which is needed to create millions of new jobs between now and 1985 [1986], and to make America competitive once again in the world market. These won't be make-work jobs. They are productive jobs, jobs with a future.

I'm well aware that there are many other desirable and needed tax changes, such as indexing the income tax brackets to protect taxpayers against inflation; the unjust discrimination against married couples if both are working and earning; tuition tax credits; the unfairness of the inheritance tax, especially to the family-owned farm and the family-owned business; and a number of others. But our program for economic recovery is so urgently needed to begin to bring down inflation that I'm asking you to act on this plan first and with great urgency. And then, I pledge I will join with you in seeking these additional tax changes at the earliest date possible.

American society experienced a virtual explosion in government regulation during the past decade. Between 1970 and 1979, expenditures for the major regulatory agencies quadrupled. The number of pages published annually in the Federal Register nearly tripled, and the number of pages in the Code of Federal Regulations increased by nearly two-thirds. The result has been higher prices, higher unemployment, and lower productivity growth. Overregulation causes small and independent business men and women, as well as large businesses to defer or terminate plans for expansion. And since they're responsible for most of the new jobs, those new jobs just aren't created.

Now, we have no intention of dismantling the regulatory agencies, especially those necessary to protect environment and assure the public health and safety. However, we must come to grips with inefficient and burdensome regulations, eliminate those we can and reform the others.

I have asked Vice President Bush to head a Cabinet-level Task Force on Regulatory Relief. Second, I asked each member of my Cabinet to postpone the effective dates of the hundreds of new regulations which have not yet been implemented. Third, in coordination with the Task Force, many of the agency heads have already taken prompt action to review and rescind existing burdensome regulations. And finally, just yesterday I signed an Executive order that for the first time provides for effective and coordinated management of the regulatory process.

Much has been accomplished, but it's only a beginning. We will eliminate those regulations that are unproductive and unnecessary by Executive order where possible and cooperate fully with you on those that require legislation.

The final aspect of our plan requires a national monetary policy which does not allow money growth to increase consistently faster than the growth of goods and services. In order to curb inflation we need to slow the growth in our money supply.

Now, we fully recognize the independence of the Federal Reserve System and will do nothing to interfere with or undermine that independence. We will consult regularly with the Federal Reserve Board on all aspects of our economic program and will vigorously pursue budget policies that'll make their job easier in reducing monetary growth. A successful program to achieve stable and and moderate growth patterns in the money supply will keep both inflation and interest rates down and restore vigor to our financial institutions and markets.

This, then, is our proposal -- America's new beginning: a program for economic recovery. I don't want it to be simply the plan of my administration. I'm here tonight to ask you to join me in making it our plan. Together we can embark on this road -- -- [applause].

Thank you very much. I should have arranged to quit right here. [Laughter]

Well, together we can embark on this road, not to make things easy, but to make things better. Our social, political, and cultural, as well as our economic institutions, can no longer absorb the repeated shocks that have been dealt them over the past decades. Can we do the job? The answer is yes. But we must begin now.

We're in control here. There's nothing wrong with America that together we can't fix. I'm sure there'll be some who raise the old familiar cry, ``Don't touch my program; cut somewhere else.'' I hope I've made it plain that our approach has been evenhanded, that only the programs for the truly deserving needy remain untouched. The question is, are we simply going to go down the same path we've gone down before, carving out one special program here, another special program there? I don't think that's what the American people expect of us. More important, I don't think that's what they want. They're ready to return to the source of our strength.

The substance and prosperity of our nation is built by wages brought home from the factories and the mills, the farms, and the shops. They are the services provided in 10,000 corners of America; the interest on the thrift of our people and the returns for their risk-taking. The production of America is the possession of those who build, serve, create, and produce.

For too long now, we've removed from our people the decisions on how to dispose of what they created. We've strayed from first principles. We must alter our course.

The taxing power of government must be used to provide revenues for legitimate government purposes. It must not be used to regulate the the economy or bring about social change. We've tried that, and surely we must be able to see it doesn't work.

Spending by government must be limited to those functions which are the proper province of government. We can no longer afford things simply because we think of them. Next year we can reduce the budget by $41.4 billion, without harm to government's legitimate purposes or to our responsibility to all who need our benevolence. This, plus the reduction in tax rates, will help bring an end to inflation.

In the health and social services area alone, the plan we're proposing will substantially reduce the need for 465 pages of law, 1,400 pages of regulations, 5,000 Federal employees who presently administer 7,600 separate grants in about 25,000 separate locations. Over 7 million man and woman hours of work by State and local officials are required to fill out government forms.

I would direct a question to those who have indicated already an unwillingness to accept such a plan: Have they an alternative which offers a greater chance of balancing the budget, reducing and eliminating inflation, stimulating the creation of jobs, and reducing the tax burden? And, if they haven't, are they suggesting we can continue on the present course without coming to a day of reckoning? If we don't do this, inflation and the growing tax burden will put an end to everything we believe in and our dreams for the future.

We don't have an option of living with inflation and its attendant tragedy, millions of productive people willing and able to work but unable to find a buyer for their work in the job market. We have an alternative, and that is the program for economic recovery.

True, it'll take time for the favorable effects of our proposal to be felt. So, we must begin now. The people are watching and waiting. They don't demand miracles. They do expect us to act. Let us act together.

Thank you, and good night.

-Ronald Reagan

February 18, 1981

Note: The President spoke at 9 p.m. in the House Chamber at the Capitol. He was introduced by Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., Speaker of the House of Representatives. The address was broadcast live on radio and television.

Following implementation of Reagan's economic policies America experience "the longest sustained period of economic growth" in it's history to date.
-red

1999 NY Times Article Revealed True Cause of Financial Meltdown




This is probably an article that the New York Times wishes it didn't have in its archives because it reveals the true culprits behind the current Fannie Mae meltdown. You will find "uncomfortable" truths in this September 30, 1999 article by Steven A. Holmes starting with the title, "Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending," that you won't find in current editions of the New York Times (emphasis mine):

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

Get that? Pressure by the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans by lowering its credit requirements.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

That would be the same Franklin Raines whom the Washington Post identified as a mortgage and housing adviser for the Obama campaign until that newspaper told us not to rely on its own reporting. We return you now to the article that the New York Times wishes didn't exist:

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

Oops! And that is exactly what has happened nine years later. And who were the "killjoys" at the time warning against Fannie Mae easing the credit requirements? That answer is also provided in the NY Times article:

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

Yup. The conservative American Enterprise Institute was accurately warning about this impending financial disaster back in 1999. If you don't believe me, then check out the New York Times archive.

—P.J. Gladnick is a freelance writer and creator of the DUmmie FUnnies blog.

NEXT we have the Barney Frank and Chris Dodd connection.
From The Independent UK-
"What is the proximate cause of the collapse of confidence in the world's banks? Millions of improvident loans to American housebuyers. Which organisations were on their own responsible for guaranteeing half of this $12 trillion market? Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the so-called Government Sponsored Enterprises which last month were formally nationalised to prevent their immediate and catastrophic collapse. Now, who do you think were among the leading figures blocking all the earlier attempts by President Bush – and other Republicans – to bring these lending behemoths under greater regulatory control?
Step forward, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd."








Truth... shall set you free

See "Financial Crisis" and "The Financial Crisis Myths" for more complete rundown.

Democrat(ic) Party Is Pack Of Crazed Wild Chimps... What to do?















Crybabies on the left are upset over this NY Post cartoon now, but seemed to overlook the NY Times photos -(About.com, a part of The New York Times Company) which compared George W Bush directly to Monkeys, the movies about a Bush assassination and much worse.

But first... the Chimp in the NY Post cartoon above is not drawn to look like Barack Obama... I've seen pictures on the net that did and this ain't even close, so the Chimp in the NY Post Cartoon is obviously representing Travis the crazed chimp recently killed in Connecticut.

Secondly, Obama didn't write the stimulus bill, he just opened the doors to the cages.

A wild pack of crazed Monkeys led by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were locked in a room with nothing but typewriters, keypads and piles of money, came up with something like 1500 pages of nonsense and government baloney worth over $1 trillion in debt and nothing to show for it... and called it "Stimulus" (part 1). Not one of those Monkeys that voted for it has read the entire thing or even knows what is in it. Monkeys at best.

I suspect the artist is saying that only a crazed Chimpanzee could have come up with that so-called stimulus bill that isn't a stimulus and it's as simple as that.

But to me the cartoon depicts the Democrat(ic) party as the poor crazed Chimpanzee that had to be 'put down'.... which, now that I think of it,... is a pretty good predictor for the next two elections... metaphorically speaking of course.

Monday, February 23, 2009

Report From Iraqi's: New Iraq Emerges From Tyranny and War


From "Iraq The Model" blog.










New Iraq Emerges from Tyranny and War


"Iraq has started to reap the benefits of the status of forces agreement with the United States. The United Nations Security Council voted to set the ground for relieving Iraq from the restrictions of Chapter Seven of the UN Charter.

In fact, the remaining effects of previous resolutions will from now on serve only to protect Iraq’s assets from claims by other parties, not to impose anything on the people of Iraq. Sovereignty, which was lost two decades ago under Saddam Hussein’s capricious and belligerent reign, is being restored to the nation.

The Security Council resolution 1859 states, among other things, that Iraq is no longer a threat to its neighbors, region, or the world. The United States has succeeded in transforming a bellicose, autocratic state into a friendly one that is making steady progress towards becoming a self-sustaining democracy — the international community is finally coming to recognize this transformation.
This resolution is bound to make a positive impact on the domestic and regional levels. First and foremost it is a testimony to the United States’ true desire to help Iraq get on its feet and relieve it from restrictions that belong to a past era — the United States is indisputably a friendly protector of Iraq, not an occupier as many like to claim.

However, this achievement did not receive as much attention in the Arab media as did the shoes of a disturbed young journalist — not surprisingly, since the resolution strengthens the credibility of the United States, which the dictators in the region always love to attack.
The headlines, as expected, were reserved for the resignation of the speaker of Iraq’s parliament. It was an attempt to highlight political contests in Iraq that ironically ignores two important facts. First is the fact that pluralistic parliaments tend to look “messy”; second, that other parliaments in the region enjoy fake stability only because they exist under the rule of one man, one party, or one family.

Domestically, the resolution is a blow dealt to all those nostalgic for the totalitarian past. Those people had exhausted their lungs screaming and rallying against a security agreement with the United States. The voice that prevailed at the end was that of Iraq’s elected parliament in choosing to open a new era of cooperation and mutual respect between Iraq and the nation that liberated it from tyranny, and continues to protect its interests as we speak.

Whereas Arab nationalists and Islamist extremists ended up with a pair of shoes, Iraqis ended up with their sovereignty, democracy, and friendship with the United States. Those hypocrites did not lift a finger to help Iraq at a time of hardship. On the contrary, they used all the means they could muster to bring democratization in Iraq and the Middle East to a halt. But despite the vicious attacks, Iraq and the United States moved hand in hand to overcome the countless obstacles and present the model of reform and democracy that is taking shape with every dispute Iraqis resolve in the parliament and every new brick they lay in a new building.

The headlines for those cynics do not go beyond the throw of a shoe, whereas my headlines look into the future and speak of a new Iraq. My headlines speak of agreements with our friends in American industries who will help us have 24 hours of electricity and equip a strong army dedicated to serving and protecting the Iraqi nation. This is a future where Iraq’s billions are used in transparent contracts to build the country and improve economic ties with our true allies and friends, not in shady deals for building palaces, supporting terrorists, and procuring tools of aggression.

My headlines speak of symbols of sovereignty returned to Iraqi hands, of France forgiving Iraqi debts, and of the first Christmas festival ever in downtown Baghdad. Iraqis gathered on the beautiful street of Abu Nawas to celebrate Christmas and to honor Iraqi Christians who stood with their brethren courageously against the forces of evil.

My headlines look up to new elections in which many incumbent and new parties will compete for Iraqi’s votes. Whether those parties are qualified or not is something for the Iraqi voters to decide. What popular participation in elections by both voters and parties indicates is that everyone knows their part in building the country, through ballots not bullets — more and more people are adhering to the model of the future and moving away from the shadows of a dark past.
My headlines speak of universities, airports, businesses, and parks that we build with patience and hope.
My headlines say that coup rumors were, well, rumors and that all officers arrested have been released with dignity. Today in Iraq the state does not execute people on mere suspicions, as was the case in the past. Today in Iraq power is transferred by means other than coups.

When hypocrites and extremists sober up from their shoe hangover they will see a new Iraq which will not be easy for them to recognize. Even harder for them will be to contain the tides of freedom and democracy which are bound to reach their shores and shake the foundations of dictatorships and extremism."

Labels: , ,

The Left's Romance With Tyranny and Terror

United in Hate
By Ben R. Furman
BlackHawkPress.com | Monday, February 23, 2009



United In Hate -- The Left's Romance With Tyranny and Terror
is a book that examines the seamy underbelly of the radical Left which considers Western society and its values an anathema. Dr. Jamie Glazov, the Editor of FrontPage Magazine, methodically details the causational factors that have lead modern Leftists to adhere to the death and destruction mantra of tyrannical Islamic Jihadists.

The Twin Towers are destroyed, 2973 people die in the attack and the radical Left cheers; the war in Iraq is won and the Left expels a disgusted sigh; totalitarian thugs kill innocent millions that the Left justifies as a “cleansing” required to forge a utopian society; suicidal Jihadists shred shoppers in malls with nail bombs and are excused by the Left as door-matted victims striking back at their oppressors; women are vilified, stoned, mutilated and killed by radical Muslims as Leftist feminists remain silent, save here in America where they rail mightily against a country club that’s denied membership to a female executive.

What draws Leftists moth-like toward the annihilating fires of unbridled totalitarianism, or drives them to slavishly worship at the feet of dictators that kick them to the curb when they are considered no longer useful? Why does the Left cleave to a radical Islamic terrorism that vows to destroy all non-believers, including them? Dr. Glazov answers these and other “head scratching” questions in a court-ready presentation of the Left’s mindset that will make forensic psychologists proud.

The Left’s hatred and rejection of Western civilization, its freedoms and values, begins with an acute sense of alienation from it, and unable to “fit in” the Left believes radical societal change, regardless of the consequences, is necessary. After all it’s the West’s fault that the Left has no sense of purpose or direction. Although the Left vehemently argues against this premise, its words and actions prove Dr. Glazov’s case.

The ideological descendents of the communist/progressive Left that spent its capital hoping the West would lose the Cold War to the Soviet Union are today’s leftist core. Based on their hatred for the United States, the Left has forged a symbiotic relationship with radical Islam, whose hatred for America equals theirs. Both make it clear that they consider Western civilization evil and unworthy of preservation. Violent revolution is the Left’s path to change; the Jihadists’ follow the path of war and annilation.

Some might think Dr. Glazov has taken a wrong turn in his analysis of the radical Left’s agenda and beliefs. If so, they should read the scurrilous quotes of Michael Moore extolling the virtues of the “Iraqi freedom fighters,” or Ward Churchill’s and Jeremiah Wright’s crowing after 9/11 that “America’s chickens have come home to roost.” Or, they should examine the genuflexing before the world’s tyrants by the likes of Jimmy Carter, Sean Penn and Tom Hayden. Dr. Glazov’s take on the radical Left is correct and as sharp as a tightly focused laser.

Should the book cause even one radical Leftist to re-examine his or her contorted beliefs and return from the “dark side,” Dr. Glazov’s efforts will be a resounding success. A great thought provoking read!

The official release date of United in Hate is March 3. To pre-order the book on Amazon, click here.

Ben R. Furman is the FBI's Former Counterterrorism Chief. He writes a blog at blackhawkpress.com/blog.