Sunday, February 28, 2010
Saturday, February 27, 2010
FairTax Friday | On-Line Tax Revolt March - Not too late to join-up and maybe make a difference
FairTax Friday | On-Line Tax Revolt March
| |||||||||||
Question #2
Question #3
Question #4
Arrogant ObamaCare TAX Increase Announced
From
|
Alan M. Gottlieb
Chairman, AmeriPAC
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Surely this is true!
This should be published Nation Wide
Great quote. To bad we don't know who wrote it....
The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency. It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to an electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president." -- Author Unknown
Great quote. To bad we don't know who wrote it....
The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency. It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to an electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president." -- Author Unknown
Saturday, February 20, 2010
What Americans Don't Understand about Obamacare
February 20, 2010
What Americans Don't Understand about Obamacare
By Brad O'LearyIn his State of the Union
speech, President Obama tried to offer a mea culpa of sorts for the unraveling of his health care bill. Calling health care "a complex issue," the president said, "I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people."
Mr. President, you are correct. We Americans don't understand.
However, our lack of understanding is not because we're incapable of deciphering complex issues. Rather, we don't understand how Obamacare itself is supposed to make our health care system any better.
Here is a short list of what we specifically don't understand:
How will our health care system improve by giving a $300-million payoff to Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu in Louisiana in exchange for her vote?
Three hundred million was the price tag for Landrieu's "yes" vote on the 3,000-plus-page Obamacare bill. This may improve the health of Senator Landrieu's reelection prospects, but not the health of our nation.
What is positive about exempting Nebraska from having to pay future Medicare costs but making other states foot the bill?
Democratic Senator Ben Nelson was the final Democratic senator holding out support for the bill. After closed-door negotiations, Senator Nelson provided his full support. The reason for Nelson's sudden change of heart? His state was given a special exemption and would not have to pay the projected billions of dollars in additional Medicare costs that Obamacare would create.
Why are labor unions singled out from all other Americans and given an eight-year pass on paying taxes, while non-union workers have to pick up the tab?
In another closed-door negotiation, this time with Big Labor bosses and lobbyists, union members were exempted from paying the dreaded "Cadillac tax" on premium health care plans until 2018. In dollar terms, this would save union workers over $60 billion, while the rest of us have to come up with an additional $90 billion over the same time period.
Why should taxpayers be forced to pay for elective abortions?
After being repeatedly reassured by you, Mr. President, that taxpayer-funded abortions would not be included in your health care bill, why did your Secretary of Health and Human Services brag to the pro-abortion lobby that the Senate version of Obamacare includes taxpayer-funded abortion? How does this improve our health care system?
How does putting the federal government between Americans and their doctors improve anyone's health?
The Senate version of Obamacare would make Americans enroll in a "qualified health care plan" and then dictates that doctors may receive compensation under such plans only if they perform procedures allowed by the federal government.
How does a closed-door legislative process help us understand the complexities of Obamacare?
If health care is a "complex issue" that requires clear explanation to the American people, then how does it help when all of the explaining is being done to lobbyists behind closed doors?
Mr. President, what we don't understand is why a bill that is so good and necessary requires secrecy, bribes, and lies to ensure its passage. Why do you feel the need to hide the bill from us? Why do your biggest supporters need their palms greased before they come on board with your plan? Why do you tell us one thing about the cost of your bill, only for us to find out later that you understated the actual cost by over 300 percent?
In short, Mr. President, why should we believe anything you tell us about health care anymore?
Brad O'Leary is publisher of "The O'Leary Report," a bestselling author, and a former NBC Westwood One talk show host. Tell your senators and congressmen where you stand on Obamacare at healthcarevote.com.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Call them what they are -- TRAITORS...
There are fools and there traitors hiding behind the moniker Democrat. Then there are the Socialists who are both, fools and traitors. They control the House, the Senate, and the Oval Office. How much plainer can it be. Bush wasn't perfect, sometimes he made silly mistakes, sometimes his diction left much to be desired but his heart was in the right place and he wasn't famous for lying (except to those professional liars, our Democrat Socialists) which is easy to contrast with our present leadership, most of which aren't worth the oxygen they use.
Call them what they are -- TRAITORS...
· Friday, November 18, 2005
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. A man who has nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance at being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." --John Stuart Mill
Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution notes: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."
The Left is at it again.
Senators Harry Reid, Dick Durbin and Ted Kennedy have accused President George W. Bush of lying about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, insisting that he "lied us into war." Some Demo wing nuts are even floating the idea of impeachment. Their charges have no substance, of course; they're merely contrived to keep Republicans off balance through next year's midterm elections. In other words, Democrat Party leaders are using the gravely serious matter of the Iraq War for trivial political fodder -- and their politicization of our mission there has put our Armed Forces in the region in greater peril.
Let's be clear: There is nothing wrong with honest criticism of an American president; to the contrary, we have written extensively about President Bush's policy failures. The dishonest and politically motivated accusations of Kennedy, Reid, Durbin and their ilk, however, are nothing short of -- and we don't use this term lightly -- treasonous.
Here are their accusations:
Reid: "We all know the Vice President's office was the nerve center of an operation designed to sell the war and discredit those who challenged it. ... The manipulation of intelligence to sell the war in Iraq ... the Vice President is behind that." (Reid, you may recall, recently called the President "a loser" while speaking to a high-school civics class.)
Durbin: "I seconded the motion Sen. Harry Reid made last week. Republicans in Congress have refused, despite repeated promises, to investigate the Bush administration's misuse of pre-war intelligence, so Senate Democrats are standing up and demanding the truth." (Durbin, you may recall, recently compared U.S. troops to the Nazis and Pol Pot.)
Kennedy: "The Bush administration misrepresented and distorted the intelligence to justify a war that America should never have fought." (Kennedy, you may recall, got kicked out of Harvard for cheating. In addition, you may recall, he drunk-drove his car off a bridge at Chappaquiddick, leaving Mary Jo Kopechne to drown while he went back to his hotel, called his lawyer, concocted an alibi and went to sleep.)
Naturally, the Democrats' media lemmings are reporting these charges as de facto truth, but there is considerable evidence that these and other Demo-gogues believed Iraq had WMD long before President George Bush came to Washington.
Leading the bogus "Bush lied" charge, Ted Kennedy proclaimed last week, "What was said before does matter. The President's words matter." Indeed they do, as do the words of Kennedy and his fellow revisionists. What follows, then, is a collection of words that will shine a bright light on their treachery. We'll begin with an important piece of Clinton-era legislation.
The Iraq Liberation Act: Passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by Bill Clinton in 1998, the Act stated, "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." This legislation passed the House by a vote of 360 to 38, and it passed the Senate without a single vote in opposition. Here's what Democrats were saying before the 2000 election of George W. Bush:
President Bill Clinton: "[M]ark my words, [Saddam] will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. ... Iraq [is] a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity. ... Some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."
Clinton on Operation Desert Fox: "Our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. ... Saddam must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological-weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. ... I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again." (That was Bill Clinton, two years before 9/11, announcing Operation Desert Fox. Question: If Iraq didn't have, or wasn't developing, WMD, then what on earth was Clinton attacking? Ah, that's right -- it was a "baby formula" factory.
Clinton VP Albert Gore: "Saddam's ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat ... to the security of the world."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State: "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction. ... Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Advisor and Plea-Copping Classified Document Thief: "[Saddam will] use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983."
Harry Reid: "The problem is not nuclear testing; it is nuclear weapons. ... The number of Third World countries with nuclear capabilities seems to grow daily. Saddam Hussein's near success with developing a nuclear weapon should be an eye-opener for us all. [Saddam] is too dangerous of a man to be given carte blanche with weapons of mass destruction."
John Kerry: "If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."
John Edwards: "Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, it's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."
Dick Durbin: "One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that...Iraq...may acquire or develop nuclear weapons. [Saddam's] chemical and biological weapons capabilities are frightening."
Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons-inspection process."
Sens. Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry in a letter to Bill Clinton: "We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
After the 2000 election:
When President Bush was sworn into office in 2001, his administration was handed eight years' worth of intelligence analysis and policy positions from the Clinton years -- years of appeasement, when Saddam was tolerated, when opportunities to kill Osama bin Laden were refused, and when the 9/11 terrorists were free to get drivers licenses and take flying lessons. Notably, Mr. Bush retained Clinton's CIA director, George Tenet, who was the arbiter of Bush administration's position on Iraq's WMD.
In the weeks prior to the invasion of Iraq, Democrats, who had access to the same intelligence used by the Bush administration (much of which was compiled under the Clinton administration), were clear in their concern about the threat of Iraq's WMD capability.
Here's what Democrats were saying in advance of Operation Iraqi Freedom:
Harry Reid: "Saddam has thumbed his nose at the world community and I think the President is approaching this in the right fashion."
Ted Kennedy: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
John Kerry: "I will be voting to give the president of the U.S. the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security. ... Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... These weapons represent an unacceptable threat."
Hillary Clinton: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qa'ida members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. ... There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I've followed for more than a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. ... Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price. ... I can support the President because I think it is in the long-term interests of our national security."
Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons, there is no question about that."
In October 2002, by a large margin, a bipartisan majority of the Congress authorized President Bush to use force to deal with the continued threat posed by Saddam Hussein. In the legislation, the U.S. Congress stated that Iraq "poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States ...[by] continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations."
These assessments were echoed by intelligence agencies from countries that included Great Britain, France, Germany and Russia, and by the United Nations Security Council in more than a dozen different Security Council resolutions between 1990 and 2000.
On 22 July 2003, four months after the launch of OIF, Bill Clinton said in a nationally-televised interview, "It is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons [in Iraq]." That's "incontestable" as in irrefutable, unquestionable, incontrovertible, undeniable and indisputable.
So, Harry and Nan, Ted and Dick, what's your real agenda?
Clearly this Democrat "leadership" is willing to turn our national-security interests into political fodder by accusing the President of the United States of lying us into a war. Problem is, the President had no political motive for Operation Iraqi Freedom -- only a legitimate desire to fulfill the highest obligation of his office: that of defending our liberty against all threats.
Ted, Dick and Harry, on the other hand, have plenty of political motivation for their perfidy -- and they've placed America's uniformed Patriots in the crossfire.
For his part, President Bush has finally responded: "While it is perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war ... it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. ... We will never back down. We will never give in. We will never accept anything less than complete victory."
"Deeply irresponsible"? He is much too kind.
In the end, American Patriots must call out Kennedy, Durbin, Reid, et al., for what they are: TRAITORS. How else to describe political leaders who so eagerly embolden our Jihadi enemies and erode the morale of our fighting forces in Iraq and around the world?
Perhaps the most distressing conclusion about this treachery, though, is that so many Democrats don't seem to care about the truth. For them, the end justifies any means.
One of only a few sane Democrat voices:
"I strongly supported the war in Iraq. I was privileged to be the Democratic cosponsor, with the senator from Virginia, of the authorizing resolution, which received overwhelming bipartisan support. As I follow the debates about prewar intelligence, I have no regrets about having sponsored and supported that resolution because of all the other reasons we had in our national-security interest to remove Saddam Hussein from power -- a brutal, murdering dictator, an aggressive invader of his neighbors, a supporter of terrorism, a hater of the United States of America. He was, for us, a ticking time bomb that, if we did not remove him, I am convinced would have blown up, metaphorically speaking, in America's face. ... The questions raised about prewar intelligence are not irrelevant, they are not unimportant, but they are nowhere near as important and relevant as how we successfully complete our mission in Iraq and protect the 150,000 men and women in uniform who are fighting for us there." --Senator (and Gore's 2000 VP candidate) Joseph Lieberman on the Senate floor Tuesday (Kudos to you for taking the high road, Senator Lieberman.)
UPDATE: The Demos surrender, retreat and defeat plan:
"The idea that we're going to win this war ... is just plain wrong." --DNC chairman Howard Dean
"There is no reason that young american soldiers need to be going into Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, uh, uh, uh, women...." --John Kerry
"Everyone knows there is no military solution to the difficulties we face in Iraq. ... Our message to the president is clear. It is time to begin ending this war -- not next year, not next month -- but today. ... The answer for this is, let's elect more Democrats in 2008. That will help solve the problem." --Hillary Clinton
More sanity from Mr. Lieberman: "It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he'll be commander-in-chief for three more years. We undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid adopts Newsweek's surrender line and declares the United States has lost the war in Iraq. "This war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday."
Ted Kennedy defended Mr. Reid's assertion: "Who are we surrendering to? This is an unconventional war and it has to be dealt with in unconventional ways. ... What is failure is this bankrupt policy, this ineffective no-win policy of the administration?"
House Minority Leader John A. Boehner called on Mr. Reid to retract the statement: "He is telling our enemies they have won. While Mr. Reid may be willing to throw in the towel and declare this a lost cause, I am certain that American troops are not. ... Mr. Reid's comments are demoralizing to our troops, and just plain wrong."
John Kerry, arguing for American defeat in Iraq, claimed, "We heard that argument over and over again about the bloodbath that would engulf the entire Southeast Asia, and it didn't happen".
Well, here's a summary of what what happened after America abandoned Vietnam: Some one million people were imprisoned without formal charges or trials; 165,000 people died in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam's "re-education" camps; Tens of thousands were abused or tortured; Prisoners were incarcerated for as long as 17 years, according to the U.S. Department of State, with most terms ranging from three to ten years.
In Laos, tens of thousands were sent to "re-education" camps and an unknown number died. In Cambodia, more than 1.7 million of Cambodia's 8 million inhabitants perished from disease, starvation, overwork, or outright execution in a notorious genocide" perpetrated by the infamous Khmer Rouge. John Kerry claims to have supplied weapons to the Khmer Rouge during his four-month tour in Vietnam.
Next time he's asked if he told the truth about post-war Vietnam, Kerry should reply, "It didn't happen."
"Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the war on terrorism have...revealed our lack of preparation for defensive and stability operations. ... What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. ... We're not going to baby sit a civil war. ... [OIF] is proven to be a foreign policy disaster." -- Barack Obama
There is a confluence of analysis from the warfront in Iraq that OIF has turned a corner. Clearly, good news is bad news for those Leftists who have staked their political fortunes on America's failure, surrender and retreat from Iraq. Asked about the political implications should commanding Gen. David Petraeus report significant progress in Iraq, House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) replied, "Well, that would be a real big problem for us, no question about that."
Good news out of Iraq is "a real big problem"? Guess that depends upon whose side you're on.
(Regarding the position of Barack Hussein Obama on OIF and OEF, see Clinton-Obama on Iraq: The silence is deafening and Obama: National security neophyte.)
In the final analysis, consider these words from Cicero: "A nation can survive its fools, even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy of the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves against those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear." --Marcus Tullius Cicero was a Roman statesman, lawyer, political theorist, and philosopher
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4878 (20100218) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
part000.txt - is OK
part001.htm - is OK
http://www.eset.com
THE HOLLOW MAN]
I don't know who wrote this nor where it came from but I am in agreement with almost every statement.
> > >> The Hollow Man. A MUST read. Only one year has gone by. We are in >> deep trouble >> >> >> >> Barack Obama is less of a person than an image--a brand. People see >> whatever they want, as they do on a Rorschach test. But does anyone really know >> him? >> >> >> >> >> In fact, he is: >> >> >> An empty suit. >> A man with no birth certificate.. >> A man who was deserted in childhood by his biological father. >> A man whose birth records, both in the United States and Kenya, are >> sealed by government order. >> A man whose childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, spied on U.S. >> military installations in Hawaii for the Soviet Union , edited a communist >> newspaper, authored pornographic novels, and wrote poetry in praise of Joseph >> Stalin. >> >> A man who added more to the National Debt in 100 days than all other >> Presidents did in the past 220 years, yet feels qualified to lecture Americans >> about "fiscal responsibility". >> A man mentored by and still supported by radical Muslims. >> A man who promised transparency in government, but has spent over a >> million dollars in legal fees hiding information that would determine his >> eligibility to be President. >> A former drug user. >> A man whose academic records are sealed from kindergarten through law >> school. >> A man who arrived in New York in June of 1981 without enough money to get >> a hotel room, but one month later flew to Indonesia and Pakistan ... >> Why did he go? >> Who paid his expenses? >> A man who traveled to Pakistan when it was illegal for U.S. citizens to >> do so. So what country's passport did he use? >> A man whose Law School Admission Test scores and grades at Columbia >> University are known to have been mediocre, but was admitted to Harvard Law >> School through the intervention of a Saudi named Khalid al-Mansour. >> A law review editor who never published an article in any law review. >> A lawyer with no significant accomplishments in the law and no reputation >> in the legal community. >> A former State and U.S.. Senator, who never authored a piece of >> legislation. >> A disciple of the Marxist, Saul Alinsky. >> A product of the Chicago political machine - the most corrupt political >> organization in America. >> A man who selects Marxists, corrupt politicians, and criminals as his >> close political associates and personal friends. >> A man whose presidential candidacy was endorsed by the Democratic >> Socialists of America, the Socialist International, and the Workers International >> League. >> A man lauded for the literary brilliance of two memoirs, both of which >> were ghost-written by others. >> A so-called Christian who says that knowing when human life begins is >> "above his pay-grade," but somehow knows that abortion is permissible at any >> stage. >> A man who thinks "tle="http://en.wikipedia.org/wik i/Waterboarding"" is >> immoral, but that partial-birth abortion is moral. >> A man who publicly laments slavery in America - which was abolished 150 >> years ago - but praises Islam, which still practices both slavery and the >> sexual mutilation of young girls. >> A man who speaks endlessly about helping the less fortunate, but gives >> almost none of his sizeable income to charity - not even to his >> half-brother, who is living in squalor in Kenya. >> A man who had the most left-wing voting record in the United State >> Senate, but was predicted by the press to "govern from the middle." >> A man who has never created a job, met a payroll, or even operated a >> lemonade stand, but wants to tell Detroit how to make cars. >> A President who has never before served as an executive in either the >> private or the public sector. >> A Commander-in-Chief who doesn't know how to shoot a rifle, throw a >> hand-grenade, drive a tank, fly a plane, or con a ship. >> A Commander-in-Chief who has publicly divulged some of our nation's most >> important intelligence secrets. >> A man who has been put in charge of the largest economic engine that ever >> existed, but has never invested in the stock market and admits total >> ignorance of it. >> A President who says that science will guide his administration, but has >> no education in the sciences. >> A man who is proficient in reading what is written for him on a >> teleprompter, but jerks and stammers his way through any 'off-the-cuff speaking.' >> A man whose health records are sealed from childhood to the present day. >> A man whose educational records are sealed from childhood through law >> school. >> A man who spent 20 years in a church whose pastor espouses Marxist >> Liberation Theology, anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Semitism, but >> claims he never heard his pastor utter anti-American and anti-Semitic >> statements. >> A man who publicly expressed disdain for the U.S. Constitution on a >> Chicago radio station, because it limited the government's ability to >> "redistribute wealth." >> The first American President to bow before a foreign head of state -- a >> Muslim dictator. >> A man who sits and listens submissively while his country is castigated >> by Daniel Ortega -- Communist thug whose own daughter accused him of raping >> her. >> A narcissist who gave the Queen of England a present from the United >> States -- an iPod containing recordings of his own speeches. >> A man who can name hundreds of America's shortcomings, yet none of its >> great accomplishments. >> A President who claims the moral high ground by closing Gitmo, yet >> supports the transfer of terror suspects to countries where horrific torture is >> certain. >> A President who scoffed at being called a socialist, yet acted to >> nationalize the auto industry, the banking industry, and the insurance industry >> ... and now seeks to nationalize the healthcare industry. >> A President who violates private property rights, the sanctity of >> contracts, and the rule of law -- three essential principles that go back over a >> thousand years in the Common Law tradition. >> A man who promised 95% of all Americans a tax cut, but is increasing >> taxes on 100% of the population through inflation --the cruelest tax of all. >> A lawyer who represented ACORN---an organization now indicted in several >> states for voter fraud -- whose stated goal is to get as many people on >> welfare as possible in order to destroy our financial system. >> A President who cheated GM's bondholders by giving their property to the >> UAW in a political payoff. . >> >> >> An American President who frequently criticizes his own country when >> speaking in foreign countries, but never praises America's generosity, >> goodness, or greatness. >> A President whose Secretary of the Treasury cheated on his taxes---as did >> several other appointees and advisors. >> A President who, despite the current federal debt of 100 trillion >> dollars, wants to add the greatest debt ever by nationalizing healthcare. >> A President who scoffs at being called a socialist, yet has appointed 28 >> "Czars" to circumvent constitutional government, including: >> A "Science Czar" who has advocated compulsory abortions for American >> women and the "surrender of sovereignty" to a "comprehensive Planetary >> Regime." >> A self-professed communist as his "Green Jobs Czar". >> A "Pay Czar" to regulate the pay of corporate executives. >> A President who swore an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the >> constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic," yet has nominated a >> domestic enemy of the Constitution to the Supreme Court. >> A President whose Homeland Security Chief classified pro-lifers, >> veterans, and supporters of traditional marriage as terrorists. >> A President who stood silent while the Iranian government hacked unarmed >> protestors to death with axes, because it was an internal matter, but >> freely offers his opinions about the internal affairs of Israel and Honduras . >> . >> A President who refused to intercept or inspect a North Korean ship >> virtually certain to be carrying Weapons of Mass Destruction to Burma. >> A President who wants to cancel all missile defenses while rogue nations >> are developing long-range ballistic missiles. >> An American President who blames the violence in Mexico on America. >> A President who berates American CEO's for flying in private planes at >> private expense on company business, but whose wife spends hundreds of >> thousands of tax payer dollars flying to Paris for a shopping spree. >> A President who promised a transparent administration, but requires all >> questions be screened before "impromptu" appearances. >> A man who freely admitted that his energy policies are designed to >> bankrupt the American coal industry. >> A President who has presided over the loss of 14.7 million jobs and whose >> "energy policy" will cause the loss of another 1 million jobs. >> A President whose "energy policy" will increase the average American's >> utility bills by over $2,000 a year in the middle of the Great Recession. A >> man about whom liberal journalist Tom Brokaw said: "There's a lot about >> him we don't know."---just one week before the election." >> >> >> >> >> The vast majority of Americans do not know who he is, but someone surely >> does... >> >> Someone paid for his travel expenses to Pakistan and Indonesia. >> >> Someone engineered legal challenges to all of his election opponents for >> the State Senate and had them disqualified. >> >> Someone straightened and leveled his path to the U.S. Senate when a >> Democrat Judge made public the child custody records of his Republican >> opponent. >> >> >> >> When he was a candidate for the U..S. Senate... >> >> Someone arranged for him to speak at the 2004 Democratic National >> Convention. >> >> Someone saw to it that all of his records were sealed, both at home and >> abroad. >> >> Someone assembled the massive organization for his run for the >> Presidency. >> >> Someone knows all about him. >> >> >> >> WHO? >> >> As Americans we should not be shocked that Obama was given the Nobel >> Peace Prize with no accomplishments to his name. >> >> >> >> >> We gave him the White House based on the same credentials. >> >> >>
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4877 (20100218) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
part000.txt - is OK
part001.htm - is OK
http://www.eset.com
I'm Sick of "Inherited" BS
| The Washington Post babbled again today about Obama inheriting a huge deficit from Bush, blah blah blah. Amazingly enough, a lot of people swallow this nonsense.
So, I'll try a short civics lesson. Final budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party. They controlled the budget process for FY 2008 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011. In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases. For FY 2009, though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets. And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period: If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself. In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th. | ||
| |
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4877 (20100218) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
- is OK
> MIME > part000.txt - is OK
> MIME > part001.htm - is OK
ATT000041.jpg - is OK
http://www.eset.com
BO Administration recognizes GWB
>
> Recognition of George W Bush by the Obama Administration
>
> Just heard that the Obama Administration will be honoring the 43rd
> President of the United States by naming the gap between the tectonic
> plates (geological movement) beneath Haiti after him.
>
> The area will now officially be referred to as "Bush ' s Fault"
>
>
>
> Recognition of George W Bush by the Obama Administration
>
> Just heard that the Obama Administration will be honoring the 43rd
> President of the United States by naming the gap between the tectonic
> plates (geological movement) beneath Haiti after him.
>
> The area will now officially be referred to as "Bush ' s Fault"
>
>
>
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4877 (20100218) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
part000.txt - is OK
Monday, February 15, 2010
executive orders
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bBj7wj0Lx7c&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bBj7wj0Lx7c&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4869 (20100215) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
part000.txt - is OK
part001.htm - is OK
http://www.eset.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
