Let's see Illegal &spotlight.....looks like this is exactly where we want them......when they reach the "spotlight" ARREST them!
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/12/12/dream-act-shelved-immigrants-look/
Sunday, 12 December 2010
A Nation of Character - Rep. Forbes (4th District VA.)
Times of challenge reveal true character. And oftentimes, difficult times are a reminder of the values and foundation that are most important to us. This is true for individuals and it is true for our nation. There is no doubt that our country faces many challenges today. I have frequently said that our priorities as we head into a new year and a new Congress must be getting our federal fiscal house in order, supporting policies that create jobs, and working towards an economic future that is sustainable. But at the centerpiece of those issues are the values and foundations that are most important to us as a nation. We cannot lose sight of those historical threads that make our nation unique. If we brush them aside, or allow them to be pulled apart, we will begin to unravel the very foundational freedoms that birthed the United States.
Last month, in an address to the University of Jakarta in Indonesia, President Obama said "But I believe that this history of both America and Indonesia should give us hope. It is a story written into our national mottos. In the United States, our motto is E Pluribus unum - out of many one...our nations show that hundreds of millions who hold different beliefs can be united in freedom under one flag.”
But E Pluribus unum is not our national motto. And we are united under something greater than one flag.
“In God We Trust” has been a foundational phrase used throughout our nation’s history, from Presidential proclamations, to engravings in both the House and Senate chambers, to the oath taken by all federal employees. And in 1956, Congress passed and President Eisenhower signed the law establishing “In God We Trust” as the official national motto of the United States. The motto is referred to in the national anthem and is engraved on U.S. coins and currency. The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag says that we are united as “one nation under God.” These truths are established by the Declaration of Independence, the foundational document for freedom around the world.
The President’s inaccuracy may on the surface seem like a simple mistake or a small omission. But in his inaccuracy, the President cast aside an integral part of American society. The very essence of our nation is that rights belong to the individual, and that our rights are God-given and not granted by the government. The religious underpinnings of our nation are not evident merely because of the existence of a phrase “In God We Trust.” Rather, the very foundation upon which our nation was built was a trust in God. To lose sight of those principles, to overlook those principles, or to omit those principles is to forget the true character of our nation.
At a time in our nation’s history when the federal government is reaching further into the lives of Americans in a way that has not been seen before, it is even more important to remember where our freedoms are derived from. If the federal government is the giver of those rights, the federal government can take our rights away. But if we have a certain set of inalienable rights, given by a Creator, as is established by the Declaration of Independence, then neither citizens nor government can take them away.
President Obama’s words were symbolic. They are representative of a growing trend, not only in the Administration but across the nation, to require the exclusion of God from matters of government and public life. In so doing, it is removing the foundation upon which our nation was built and omitting a principle that has been embedded into the fabric of society and history in the United States. President Reagan once warned that “If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.”
This week, I joined with members of the bipartisan Congressional Prayer Caucus in sending a letter to President Obama asking him to simply issue a correction to the speech he gave in Jakarta, acknowledging that his words did not accurately reflect this important and central American statement. In the letter, we offered to meet with the President to discuss our concerns in person. The President’s correction would not directly move us towards reducing our debt, placing our economy back on a sustainable path, or creating jobs for Americans. But the correction would be emblematic. His correction would acknowledge that we as Americans have a certain set of God-given rights that the government cannot take away. It would acknowledge that our principles and our nation’s character are important. And it would send a message that our first step in meeting the great challenges of our day is to remember the true character of our nation.
Last month, in an address to the University of Jakarta in Indonesia, President Obama said "But I believe that this history of both America and Indonesia should give us hope. It is a story written into our national mottos. In the United States, our motto is E Pluribus unum - out of many one...our nations show that hundreds of millions who hold different beliefs can be united in freedom under one flag.”
But E Pluribus unum is not our national motto. And we are united under something greater than one flag.
“In God We Trust” has been a foundational phrase used throughout our nation’s history, from Presidential proclamations, to engravings in both the House and Senate chambers, to the oath taken by all federal employees. And in 1956, Congress passed and President Eisenhower signed the law establishing “In God We Trust” as the official national motto of the United States. The motto is referred to in the national anthem and is engraved on U.S. coins and currency. The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag says that we are united as “one nation under God.” These truths are established by the Declaration of Independence, the foundational document for freedom around the world.
The President’s inaccuracy may on the surface seem like a simple mistake or a small omission. But in his inaccuracy, the President cast aside an integral part of American society. The very essence of our nation is that rights belong to the individual, and that our rights are God-given and not granted by the government. The religious underpinnings of our nation are not evident merely because of the existence of a phrase “In God We Trust.” Rather, the very foundation upon which our nation was built was a trust in God. To lose sight of those principles, to overlook those principles, or to omit those principles is to forget the true character of our nation.
At a time in our nation’s history when the federal government is reaching further into the lives of Americans in a way that has not been seen before, it is even more important to remember where our freedoms are derived from. If the federal government is the giver of those rights, the federal government can take our rights away. But if we have a certain set of inalienable rights, given by a Creator, as is established by the Declaration of Independence, then neither citizens nor government can take them away.
President Obama’s words were symbolic. They are representative of a growing trend, not only in the Administration but across the nation, to require the exclusion of God from matters of government and public life. In so doing, it is removing the foundation upon which our nation was built and omitting a principle that has been embedded into the fabric of society and history in the United States. President Reagan once warned that “If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.”
This week, I joined with members of the bipartisan Congressional Prayer Caucus in sending a letter to President Obama asking him to simply issue a correction to the speech he gave in Jakarta, acknowledging that his words did not accurately reflect this important and central American statement. In the letter, we offered to meet with the President to discuss our concerns in person. The President’s correction would not directly move us towards reducing our debt, placing our economy back on a sustainable path, or creating jobs for Americans. But the correction would be emblematic. His correction would acknowledge that we as Americans have a certain set of God-given rights that the government cannot take away. It would acknowledge that our principles and our nation’s character are important. And it would send a message that our first step in meeting the great challenges of our day is to remember the true character of our nation.
Sunday, 5 December 2010
Patriots
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/12/lloyd_marcus_top_ten_tea_party.html
CAGW Names Sens. Carper and Voinovich November Porkers of the Month
Washington, D.C.) - Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today named Sens. Tom Carper (D-Del.) and George Voinovich (R-Ohio) November 2010 Porkers of the Month for proposing a gas tax increase for infrastructure improvements, when tens of billions of dollars in gas taxes have repeatedly been wasted on frivolous infrastructure projects.
According to a November 9, 2010 article in The Hill, the two senators wrote to President Obama’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform advocating for a gas tax increase, suggesting, ‘“That the commission include an increase in the federal tax on gasoline and diesel as part of your report to the president . . . We suggest that the taxes be increased by one cent per month for 25 months — a total of 25 cents over a three-year period.”’
The Power of Liberal Media - Speaking from both sides of their mouth
- "The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won't be posted here."--New York Times, on the Climategate emails, Nov. 20, 2009
- "The articles published today and in coming days are based on thousands of United States embassy cables, the daily reports from the field intended for the eyes of senior policy makers in Washington. . . . The Times believes that the documents serve an important public interest, illuminating the goals, successes, compromises and frustrations of American diplomacy in a way that other accounts cannot match."--New York Times, on the WikiLeaks documents, Nov. 29, 2010
Thanks for sharing.......
Thursday, 2 December 2010
Let's Hope this Man one day Runs for President (to show what a real president does)
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie gave the keynote speech at the Jeb Bush Excel in Education Annual Summit in Washington, D.C. Tuesday night. In his 50-minute speech on education reform – one of Christie’s most passionate topics – the governor left no room to question how he feels about teachers’ unions, most specifically the New Jersey Education Association (NJEA).
In short: he doesn’t like them.
Here You go....Find your reps vote on banning earmarks (Va. Split)
Senate roll vote on banning earmarks
Posted: 12/01/2010 03:28:01 PM PST
Updated: 12/01/2010 03:28:01 PM PST
The 56-39 roll call Tuesday by which the Senate rejected a ban on lawmakers inserting earmarks or pet projects in spending bills.
A "yes" vote was a vote to prohibit earmarks.
Voting yes were 7 Democrats and 32 Republicans.
Voting no were 46 Democrats, 8 Republicans and 2 independents.
Democrats Yes
Bayh, Ind.; Bennet, Colo.; Feingold, Wis.; McCaskill, Mo.; Nelson, Fla.; Udall, Colo.; Warner, Va.
Democrats No
Akaka, Hawaii; Baucus, Mont.; Begich, Alaska; Bingaman, N.M.; Brown, Ohio; Cantwell, Wash.; Cardin, Md.; Carper, Del.; Casey, Pa.; Conrad, N.D.; Coons, Del.; Dodd, Conn.; Dorgan, N.D.; Durbin, Ill.; Feinstein, Calif.; Franken, Minn.; Gillibrand, N.Y.; Hagan, N.C.; Harkin, Iowa; Inouye, Hawaii; Johnson, S.D.; Kerry, Mass.; Klobuchar, Minn.; Kohl, Wis.; Landrieu, La.; Lautenberg, N.J.; Leahy, Vt.; Levin, Mich.; Lincoln, Ark.; Manchin, W.V.; Menendez, N.J.; Merkley, Ore.; Murray, Wash.; Nelson, Neb.; Pryor, Ark.; Reed, R.I.; Reid, Nev.; Rockefeller, W.V.; Schumer, N.Y.; Specter, Pa.; Stabenow, Mich.; Tester, Mont.; Udall, N.M.; Webb, Va.; Whitehouse, R.I.; Wyden, Ore.
Democrats Not Voting
Boxer, Calif.; Mikulski, Md.; Shaheen, N.H.
Republicans Yes
Alexander, Tenn.; Barrasso, Wyo.; Brown, Mass.; Bunning, Ky.; Burr, N.C.; Chambliss, Ga.; Coburn, Okla.; Corker, Tenn.; Cornyn, Texas; Crapo, Idaho; DeMint, S.C.; Ensign, Nev.; Enzi, Wyo.; Graham, S.C.; Grassley, Iowa; Gregg, N.H.; Hatch, Utah;
Hutchison, Texas; Isakson, Ga.; Johanns, Neb.; Kirk, Ill.; Kyl, Ariz.; LeMieux, Fla.; McCain, Ariz.; McConnell, Ky.; Risch, Idaho; Roberts, Kan.; Sessions, Ala.; Snowe, Maine; Thune, S.D.; Vitter, La.; Wicker, Miss.Republicans No
Bennett, Utah; Cochran, Miss.; Collins, Maine; Inhofe, Okla.; Lugar, Ind.; Murkowski, Alaska; Shelby, Ala.; Voinovich, Ohio.......Scroundrels
Republicans Not Voting
Bond, Mo.; Brownback, Kan.
Independents No
Lieberman, Conn.; Sanders, Vt.
Wednesday, 1 December 2010
Congressional Earmarks: Embracing and Ignoring a Message from Voters
House Republicans seem ready to declare at least an earmark moratorium. After early resistance, most senior Senate Republicans accepted the people's November 2 verdict on earmarks, but the body, with eight foolish Republicans defending them, resolved to retain earmarks. Big mistake.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/12/congressional_earmarks_embraci.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/12/congressional_earmarks_embraci.html
The Essential (and Exceptional) American
by Newt Gingrich
12/01/2010
It has been said that times of great challenge reveal the great character of our nation.
This observation is typically used to highlight the extraordinary sacrifices and heroics of the American people. Time and again, whether we have been tested by war or great tragedy, the American people have revealed their fundamental bravery, compassion and honor.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=40290
12/01/2010
It has been said that times of great challenge reveal the great character of our nation.
This observation is typically used to highlight the extraordinary sacrifices and heroics of the American people. Time and again, whether we have been tested by war or great tragedy, the American people have revealed their fundamental bravery, compassion and honor.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=40290
Tuesday, 30 November 2010
Facts are Facts.
Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and card were not to be used for identification purposes. Since nearly everyone in the United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the message, NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION, was removed.
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised: 1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,
No longer Voluntary 2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program, Now 7.65% on the first $90,000 3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year, No longer tax deductible 4.) That the money the participants put into the independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and, Under Johnson the money was moved to The General Fund and Spent 5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income. Under Clinton & Gore Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed Since many of us have paid into FICA for years andare now receiving a Social Security check every month and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put away' -- you may be interested in the following: Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically
controlled House and Senate. Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding? A: The Democratic Party.
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities? A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants? A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The democratic Party gave these payments to them,even though they never paid a dime into it! Then, after violating the original contract (FICA),the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
They Voted to Keep EarMarks
The following Republicans voted in opposition of banning earmarks.........please keep their names in mind as just because the (R) id after the name does not mean all is well.
The eight Republicans in opposition were Sens. Bob Bennett of Utah, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Susan Collins of Maine, Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, Dick Lugar of Indiana, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Richard Shelby of Alabama and George Voinovich of Ohio. Bennett, Cochran, Murkowski, Shelby and Voinovich all serve on the Appropriations Committee.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45724.html#ixzz16nn1r7No
The eight Republicans in opposition were Sens. Bob Bennett of Utah, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Susan Collins of Maine, Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, Dick Lugar of Indiana, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Richard Shelby of Alabama and George Voinovich of Ohio. Bennett, Cochran, Murkowski, Shelby and Voinovich all serve on the Appropriations Committee.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45724.html#ixzz16nn1r7No
Monday, 29 November 2010
Education Secretary, Republicans to Support Bill Giving Legal Status to Illegals Who Go to College Monday, November 29, 2010 By Fred Lucas
I'm sorry but for the umpteenth time, Illegal is Illegal.....
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/education-secretary-republicans-support
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/education-secretary-republicans-support
The Professor and the Prosecutor
Gov. Chris Christie has mastered the politics of austerity. Can Obama learn from his success?
Just Another WikiLeak On An Already Sinking Ship - Heritage Foundation
There is nothing positive that can be said about the release of more than a quarter-million confidential American diplomatic cables by the rogue hacker organization WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks has recklessly and inexcusably put lives at risk. Any U.S. person who cooperated with WikiLeaks has committed a crime and should be prosecuted to the maximum extent of the law.
That said, WikiLeaks is not the end of the world. The fundamentals of U.S. relationships with other nations remain unchanged. Leaks are not going to stop nations from cooperating with the U.S., or for that matter sharing secrets with us. Nations cooperate with the U.S. because it is in their interest to do so. And no leak will stop nations from acting in their self-interest.
.............The President should also make it a publicly top priority to hunt down any American connected with these leaks and prosecute them. This is not the first WikiLeak. This is, in fact, the third time that WikiLeaks has undermined our nation’s national security, and the Obama Department of Justice has been silent each time. Nobody gets more cooperation than a winner. The Obama Administration can begin to right its foreign policy ship by stopping and successfully prosecuting the WikiLeakers.
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/11/29/morning-bell-just-another-wikileak-on-an-already-sinking-ship/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
That said, WikiLeaks is not the end of the world. The fundamentals of U.S. relationships with other nations remain unchanged. Leaks are not going to stop nations from cooperating with the U.S., or for that matter sharing secrets with us. Nations cooperate with the U.S. because it is in their interest to do so. And no leak will stop nations from acting in their self-interest.
.............The President should also make it a publicly top priority to hunt down any American connected with these leaks and prosecute them. This is not the first WikiLeak. This is, in fact, the third time that WikiLeaks has undermined our nation’s national security, and the Obama Department of Justice has been silent each time. Nobody gets more cooperation than a winner. The Obama Administration can begin to right its foreign policy ship by stopping and successfully prosecuting the WikiLeakers.
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/11/29/morning-bell-just-another-wikileak-on-an-already-sinking-ship/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
Sunday, 28 November 2010
Things to be Thankful For
Rule of law, Equality, Equality for women, Self-government, Freedom of speech, Freedom of religion, Property and contract.....and here are the details http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/things-to-be-thankful-for/
Friday, 19 November 2010
TSA - Security?
Security? Not really. Let's not kid ourselves, while it is promoted as the fair approach to force all passengers to equal screening at airport security in the end we are less secure, less efficient and out of pocket with tax $s.
Grandma groin search please.....4 year olds the same......please people...wake up. The political correctness of today makes a farce of our nation and government. Political correctness is the opposite of what it says it is.....a group of a few decide what is acceptable for all.
Face facts on WHO should be scrutinized and who not. Complain, gripe and let your reps know your opinion on such.
A great article form Krauthammer on the issue;
Grandma groin search please.....4 year olds the same......please people...wake up. The political correctness of today makes a farce of our nation and government. Political correctness is the opposite of what it says it is.....a group of a few decide what is acceptable for all.
Face facts on WHO should be scrutinized and who not. Complain, gripe and let your reps know your opinion on such.
A great article form Krauthammer on the issue;
Government Intervention ruin (example case - we feel daily)
(From Boortz)
In an interview yesterday with MSNBC, Barney Frank had the gonads to say this: "What we are seeing from Republicans is a double whammy. First it was Republican policies under George W. Bush that caused this terrible recession, and now they are resisting our efforts to get out of it."
To combat this complete revision of history, I am going to pull out the big guns. We are going to a column by Thomas Sowell to correct this idea that the Republican policies under George W. Bush caused this recession ...
"Another political fable is that the current economic downturn is due to not enough government regulation of the housing and financial markets. But it was precisely the government regulators, under pressure from politicians, who forced banks and other lending institutions to lower their standards for making mortgage loans. These risky loans, and the defaults that followed, were what set off a chain reaction of massive financial losses that brought down the whole economy.
Was this due to George W. Bush and the Republicans? Only partly. Most of those who pushed the lowering of mortgage lending standards were Democrats-- notably Congressman Barney Frank and Senator Christopher Dodd, though too many Republicans went along.
At the heart of these policies were Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who bought huge amounts of risky mortgages, passing the risk on from the banks that lent the money (and made the profits) to the taxpayers who were not even aware that they would end up paying in the end.
When President Bush said in 2004 that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be reined in, 76 members of the House of Representatives issued a statement to the contrary. These included Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters and Charles Rangel.
If we are going to talk about "the policies that created this mess in the first place," let's at least get the facts straight and the names right."
In an interview yesterday with MSNBC, Barney Frank had the gonads to say this: "What we are seeing from Republicans is a double whammy. First it was Republican policies under George W. Bush that caused this terrible recession, and now they are resisting our efforts to get out of it."
To combat this complete revision of history, I am going to pull out the big guns. We are going to a column by Thomas Sowell to correct this idea that the Republican policies under George W. Bush caused this recession ...
"Another political fable is that the current economic downturn is due to not enough government regulation of the housing and financial markets. But it was precisely the government regulators, under pressure from politicians, who forced banks and other lending institutions to lower their standards for making mortgage loans. These risky loans, and the defaults that followed, were what set off a chain reaction of massive financial losses that brought down the whole economy.
Was this due to George W. Bush and the Republicans? Only partly. Most of those who pushed the lowering of mortgage lending standards were Democrats-- notably Congressman Barney Frank and Senator Christopher Dodd, though too many Republicans went along.
At the heart of these policies were Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who bought huge amounts of risky mortgages, passing the risk on from the banks that lent the money (and made the profits) to the taxpayers who were not even aware that they would end up paying in the end.
When President Bush said in 2004 that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be reined in, 76 members of the House of Representatives issued a statement to the contrary. These included Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters and Charles Rangel.
If we are going to talk about "the policies that created this mess in the first place," let's at least get the facts straight and the names right."
Earmarks
These need to be stopped. Earmarks are a method of taking federal tax $ and using them for local projects. The president's administration submits his budget to congress for their approval and currently with earmarks Congressmen and Senators tack on their pet projects and approve the overall budget. While many representatives use these limitedly some use these in extreme fashion. This is a misappropriation of our tax $s and should not be allowed. I am all for a ban on earmarks and would go further than the current proposal of a 2 year moratorium....make it banned forever.
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/11/19/earmark-spending-2011?test=latestnews
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/11/19/earmark-spending-2011?test=latestnews
Concerning.... (S510)
I was advised by a friend on the recent activity of a bill in the Senate (S510). It is the usual deep-ended text with a lot of plug-ins though what seems as good intention looks to be too evasive. Read up and write your Senators of your opinion.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-510
http://www.prisonplanet.com/senate-bill-510-the-declaration-of-dependence.html
Virginia residents I added our Senators links below;
http://webb.senate.gov/contact.cfm
http://warner.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Contact
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-510
http://www.prisonplanet.com/senate-bill-510-the-declaration-of-dependence.html
Virginia residents I added our Senators links below;
http://webb.senate.gov/contact.cfm
http://warner.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Contact
A Good start
This outlines a proposal for tax reform.... from the selected deficit commission, Democrat Erskine Bowles and Republican Alan Simpson. While I believe we should go further (eliminating the IRS and utilizing a national sales tax) this is better than what we currently have.
This is taken from a 2nd website as the original was in the WSJ and I do not subscribe.
http://neveryetmelted.com/2010/11/19/8-14-23/
This is taken from a 2nd website as the original was in the WSJ and I do not subscribe.
http://neveryetmelted.com/2010/11/19/8-14-23/
Friday, 12 November 2010
Added to the Reading List
http://philvalentine.com/index.shtml
Task force faces uphill battle on plan to cut deficit $3.8T
By Richard Wolf, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — The leaders of a bipartisan panel charged with finding ways to cut the $13.7 trillion national debt Wednesday recommended more than $3.8 trillion in savings over the next decade, but they met quick resistance from Democrats.
The proposal includes sweeping changes to Social Security, the elimination of popular tax breaks and nearly $1.5 trillion in suggested cuts from defense and domestic spending programs.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-11-10-federal-savings-social-security_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip
WASHINGTON — The leaders of a bipartisan panel charged with finding ways to cut the $13.7 trillion national debt Wednesday recommended more than $3.8 trillion in savings over the next decade, but they met quick resistance from Democrats.
The proposal includes sweeping changes to Social Security, the elimination of popular tax breaks and nearly $1.5 trillion in suggested cuts from defense and domestic spending programs.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-11-10-federal-savings-social-security_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip
Rich Nations Urged to Weigh 'Robin Hood' Tax to Help Poor
....? say again....
The Robin Hood tax -- a global financial transaction fee that could raise hundreds of billions of dollars to pay the cost of the global financial crisis and support developing nations struggling to recover -- is not popular.
While Britain, France and Germany have championed a bank tax for all G-20 nations, finance chiefs from the industrialized nations shot down the idea at a previous summit held in Toronto last summer.
Still, the tax's supporters, which include unions, environmental groups, Comic Relief, UNICEF and others in a multinational coalition, say the tax could go to canceling debt from poor nations. Or it could be used for social programs to fight hunger, diseases such as HIV/AIDS and malaria or other causes, programs to which the United States and other nations already donate billions.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/10/obama-world-leaders-urged-consider-global-tax-rich-help-poorer-nations/
The Robin Hood tax -- a global financial transaction fee that could raise hundreds of billions of dollars to pay the cost of the global financial crisis and support developing nations struggling to recover -- is not popular.
While Britain, France and Germany have championed a bank tax for all G-20 nations, finance chiefs from the industrialized nations shot down the idea at a previous summit held in Toronto last summer.
Still, the tax's supporters, which include unions, environmental groups, Comic Relief, UNICEF and others in a multinational coalition, say the tax could go to canceling debt from poor nations. Or it could be used for social programs to fight hunger, diseases such as HIV/AIDS and malaria or other causes, programs to which the United States and other nations already donate billions.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/10/obama-world-leaders-urged-consider-global-tax-rich-help-poorer-nations/
Repeal
Here are some facts you need to know about ObamaCare:
•Costs taxpayers a staggering $1 trillion over the next decade.
•Increases health care spending by more than $200 billion.
•Raises drug prices and the cost of premiums.
•Raises taxes on small businesses.
•Burdens state governments with costs nearing $10 billion between 2014 and 2019.
•Forces companies to drop employer-provided health coverage for workers.
•Incentivizes individuals to drop their own coverage, pay a penalty, and only get health insurance when they get sick.
Despite all these problems, President Obama and his liberal allies still defend the law as good for American business.
+
Facing a $25 billion deficit for their next two-year budget cycle, Texas lawmakers are considering closing the gap by dropping out of Medicaid. “This system is bankrupting our state,” State Representative Warren Chisum told The New York Times. “We need to get out of it. And with the budget shortfall we’re anticipating, we may have to act this year,” he said.
And Texas is not alone. American Legislative Exchange Council director of the health and human services Christie Herrera tells NYT: “States feel like their backs are against the wall, so this is the nuclear option for them. I’m hearing below-the-radar chatter from legislators around the country from states considering this option.”
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/11/12/morning-bell-the-obamacare-burden-to-your-state-budget/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
•Costs taxpayers a staggering $1 trillion over the next decade.
•Increases health care spending by more than $200 billion.
•Raises drug prices and the cost of premiums.
•Raises taxes on small businesses.
•Burdens state governments with costs nearing $10 billion between 2014 and 2019.
•Forces companies to drop employer-provided health coverage for workers.
•Incentivizes individuals to drop their own coverage, pay a penalty, and only get health insurance when they get sick.
Despite all these problems, President Obama and his liberal allies still defend the law as good for American business.
+
Facing a $25 billion deficit for their next two-year budget cycle, Texas lawmakers are considering closing the gap by dropping out of Medicaid. “This system is bankrupting our state,” State Representative Warren Chisum told The New York Times. “We need to get out of it. And with the budget shortfall we’re anticipating, we may have to act this year,” he said.
And Texas is not alone. American Legislative Exchange Council director of the health and human services Christie Herrera tells NYT: “States feel like their backs are against the wall, so this is the nuclear option for them. I’m hearing below-the-radar chatter from legislators around the country from states considering this option.”
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/11/12/morning-bell-the-obamacare-burden-to-your-state-budget/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
Wednesday, 10 November 2010
Veterans Day - Thank you to All Vets
Citizens Against Government Waste
Citizens Against Government Waste’s crack Research Team has identified 459 pork-barrel earmarks, costing taxpayers $329.6 million, in the House version of the fiscal year 2011 Department of Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development (THUD) Appropriations Act.
Tell us which of the following THUD pet projects YOU think is the most wasteful, irresponsible expenditure by lawmakers in the face of our nation’s $1.3 trillion deficit:
•$6,800,000 for streetscape design in 12 cities across the country. House appropriator Norm Dicks (D-Wash.) requested the largest amount, $1,000,000 for downtown Tacoma, Wash.
•$1,750,000 requested by House appropriator Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) and Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) for “The Wave,” a 2.7-mile downtown streetcar system in Fort Lauderdale that is estimated to cost $46 million per mile.
•$750,000 added by Reps. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.) and Dina Tutus (D-Nev.) for the construction of a solar power array at the Three Square Food Bank in Las Vegas. According to the organization’s website, $1 can pay for three individual meals, so for the cost of the solar power array, needy citizens could receive 2,250,000 meals.
•$500,000 for a new ferry service in Berkeley, Calif. Requested by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), these federal tax dollars will pay for the acquisition of two ferries, which would come equipped with solar panels.
•$150,000 added by Rep. Mark Schauer (D-Mich.) for renovation of the Tibbits Opera House in Coldwater, Mich. According to financial information provided in the opera house’s most recent annual report, charging an additional $3.56 per ticket would offset the cost of the renovations without burdening federal taxpayers, the vast majority of whom will never visit the Tibbits Opera House.
Please take a moment right now to take our PORK ALERT SURVEY. http://membership.cagw.org/site/Survey?SURVEY_ID=3480&ACTION_REQUIRED=URI_ACTION_USER_REQUESTS&autologin=true
We will publicize and use the results to demonstrate overwhelming public opposition to our elected officials’ frivolous, self-serving spending that is corrupting the budgetary process and driving the federal deficit to record levels.
Tell us which of the following THUD pet projects YOU think is the most wasteful, irresponsible expenditure by lawmakers in the face of our nation’s $1.3 trillion deficit:
•$6,800,000 for streetscape design in 12 cities across the country. House appropriator Norm Dicks (D-Wash.) requested the largest amount, $1,000,000 for downtown Tacoma, Wash.
•$1,750,000 requested by House appropriator Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) and Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) for “The Wave,” a 2.7-mile downtown streetcar system in Fort Lauderdale that is estimated to cost $46 million per mile.
•$750,000 added by Reps. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.) and Dina Tutus (D-Nev.) for the construction of a solar power array at the Three Square Food Bank in Las Vegas. According to the organization’s website, $1 can pay for three individual meals, so for the cost of the solar power array, needy citizens could receive 2,250,000 meals.
•$500,000 for a new ferry service in Berkeley, Calif. Requested by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), these federal tax dollars will pay for the acquisition of two ferries, which would come equipped with solar panels.
•$150,000 added by Rep. Mark Schauer (D-Mich.) for renovation of the Tibbits Opera House in Coldwater, Mich. According to financial information provided in the opera house’s most recent annual report, charging an additional $3.56 per ticket would offset the cost of the renovations without burdening federal taxpayers, the vast majority of whom will never visit the Tibbits Opera House.
Please take a moment right now to take our PORK ALERT SURVEY. http://membership.cagw.org/site/Survey?SURVEY_ID=3480&ACTION_REQUIRED=URI_ACTION_USER_REQUESTS&autologin=true
We will publicize and use the results to demonstrate overwhelming public opposition to our elected officials’ frivolous, self-serving spending that is corrupting the budgetary process and driving the federal deficit to record levels.
Uhm, Lost in Space...I mean San Francisco
San Francisco Supervisors Approve Fast Food Toy Ban
What a bunch of nuts. The is the reality of today where a local government has moved to tell a private restaurant chain what they can and can not sell. Government wastes.....here is the link http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2010/11/02/san-francisco-supervisors-approve-fast-food-toy-ban/ and afterwards look at the comments posted...hopefully the officials will catch a clue or either move to Cuba.
......So, our borders are wide open, terrorists are mailing bombs everywhere, elderly women are being targeted by thugs, unemployment is at record highs but our tax money is being used to get those dangerous Happy Meals off the street. How about those politicians, huh?
.......AMEN to that!! I posted something similar. I can’t believe the issues some of our cities here in Cali think take priority over the things you mention. It’s embarrassing to call myself a Californian these days.
......THIS is what San Francisco is worried about??? LOLOL! OMG that is too much. They have tons of homeless. Illegals killing people. Extreme budget problems and THIS is the issue that needs tackling?! What whack jobs.
......just crazy and cracked. something is really wrong here.
What a bunch of nuts. The is the reality of today where a local government has moved to tell a private restaurant chain what they can and can not sell. Government wastes.....here is the link http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2010/11/02/san-francisco-supervisors-approve-fast-food-toy-ban/ and afterwards look at the comments posted...hopefully the officials will catch a clue or either move to Cuba.
......So, our borders are wide open, terrorists are mailing bombs everywhere, elderly women are being targeted by thugs, unemployment is at record highs but our tax money is being used to get those dangerous Happy Meals off the street. How about those politicians, huh?
.......AMEN to that!! I posted something similar. I can’t believe the issues some of our cities here in Cali think take priority over the things you mention. It’s embarrassing to call myself a Californian these days.
......THIS is what San Francisco is worried about??? LOLOL! OMG that is too much. They have tons of homeless. Illegals killing people. Extreme budget problems and THIS is the issue that needs tackling?! What whack jobs.
......just crazy and cracked. something is really wrong here.
A Spade a Spade.....
Perry calls Social Security bankrupt 'Ponzi scheme'
By Josh Baugh - Express-News
Gov. Rick Perry stopped off in the Alamo City on Tuesday for a bite of barbecue and a bit of promotion for his new book — and called for completely repealing President Barack Obama's health care legislation while he was at it. http://www.mysanantonio.com/entertainment/books/perry_touts_new_book_in_san_antonio_107002198.html
By Josh Baugh - Express-News
Gov. Rick Perry stopped off in the Alamo City on Tuesday for a bite of barbecue and a bit of promotion for his new book — and called for completely repealing President Barack Obama's health care legislation while he was at it. http://www.mysanantonio.com/entertainment/books/perry_touts_new_book_in_san_antonio_107002198.html
Let the Repeal Begin.....
Top Senate Republican Signs on to Support Lawsuit Challenging Health Care Overhaul
November 10, 2010
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/11/top-senate-republican-signs-on-to-support-lawsuit-challenging-health-care-overhaul.html
November 10, 2010
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/11/top-senate-republican-signs-on-to-support-lawsuit-challenging-health-care-overhaul.html
Tuesday, 9 November 2010
American Pride
American Pride, where is it? It is alive and strong. Many of you have the similar feeling that we live in the greatest nation on earth -bar none. Some of us have seen what other options are out there and we feel even stronger on this.
I was reading a book to our children on Ronald Reagan and an excerpt stated,"In 1977, Jimmy Carter became president. And Reagan? He went home to his ranch. And he waited to see what would happen.
He didn't like what he saw. Prices were going up. people were out of work. many families could not afford to buy what they needed. In the middle eastern country of Iran, there was an uprising. Rioters captured more than sixty Americans there. They were being held, blindfolded and helpless.
Reagan said that Americans were losing pride in their country. That made him angry. It was time to do something."
Does this sound familiar? I can remember Nov. 3rd 2008. A day that was one of the saddest in my life. Many only saw the election of the first black president (which being true though also a racist perspective). I honestly did not look at him as a black man, I looked at him as a socialist and a danger to our nation. Many did not understand. And today? I believe many do finally understand and the rejection of him and his agenda was loud and clear this past Nov. 2nd. We do not want you Mr. Obama, we want you to be a one term president as your mentor Jimmy Carter. And US? Well we ARE Proud of our country and we are looking for a Reagan type character for 2012.
Get to Work Protecting America - From the Heritage Foundation
"I believe that the primary Constitutional function of the federal government is national defense, bar none," reads the very first sentence of Sen.-elect Rand Paul's (R-KY) issue page on national defense. Sen.-elect Paul is right. It is right there in the Preamble to the United States Constitution: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Someone remind the Dolly-bama about this.
Someone remind the Dolly-bama about this.
Monday, 8 November 2010
Look's like He's Getting What He Wants
In 2012 put this jerk in the unemployment line.
Obama acknowledges decline of US dominance
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Obama-acknowledges-decline-of-US-dominance/articleshow/6885877.cms
Obama acknowledges decline of US dominance
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Obama-acknowledges-decline-of-US-dominance/articleshow/6885877.cms
Get to Work Stopping the Obama Tax Hikes - Heritage Foundation
November 8th, 2010
Last night, during a taped interview with 60 Minutes, President Barack Obama told Steve Kroft: “I thought the economy would have gotten better by now. One of the things I think you understand as president is you’re held responsible for everything. But you don’t always have control of everything.” President Obama is right: presidents often do get too much of the credit and too much of the blame for the economic performance of the country. But there is one aspect of the economy that President Obama does have control over: taxes. And at a time when our nation’s unemployment still hovers around 10%, President Obama’s tax plan raises taxes by $1.8 trillion over the next 10 years.
The White House wants you to believe that only the wealthy will pay higher taxes under the President’s plan. Don’t believe them for a second. These hikes include reducing the child tax credit, re-imposing the marriage penalty, raising taxes on small businesses (the American jobs engine), raising dividend taxes (draining seniors’ incomes), raising capital gains taxes (diverting money from job-creating investments) and raising some personal tax rates.
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/11/08/morning-bell-get-to-work-stopping-the-obama-tax-hikes/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
Last night, during a taped interview with 60 Minutes, President Barack Obama told Steve Kroft: “I thought the economy would have gotten better by now. One of the things I think you understand as president is you’re held responsible for everything. But you don’t always have control of everything.” President Obama is right: presidents often do get too much of the credit and too much of the blame for the economic performance of the country. But there is one aspect of the economy that President Obama does have control over: taxes. And at a time when our nation’s unemployment still hovers around 10%, President Obama’s tax plan raises taxes by $1.8 trillion over the next 10 years.
The White House wants you to believe that only the wealthy will pay higher taxes under the President’s plan. Don’t believe them for a second. These hikes include reducing the child tax credit, re-imposing the marriage penalty, raising taxes on small businesses (the American jobs engine), raising dividend taxes (draining seniors’ incomes), raising capital gains taxes (diverting money from job-creating investments) and raising some personal tax rates.
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/11/08/morning-bell-get-to-work-stopping-the-obama-tax-hikes/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
ABC, CBS & NBC - Socialist Networks, by MRC
For the last two years, conservative grassroots activists across the country knocked on doors, made phone calls, donated money, talked to their friends, families and coworkers every day. On Tuesday, Nov. 2nd, their efforts were rewarded as the radical agenda of the liberal media and other leftists was resoundingly rejected!
But, the liberal media's lies, distortions and attacks are not over. They have now shifted focus to convincing the conservatives that they were attacking only a week ago, to "moderate." This effort to steal from activists the fruits of their hard fought victory will not go unchallenged!
George Stephanopoulos, Matt Lauer and Harry Smith are all pushing for newly elected conservatives to part with their "anger" and learn to "compromise." Unable to cope with the historically stunning defeat of their socialist agenda, and apparently still unaware of the fact that they are decidedly out of step with the American people, the liberal media have gone on the attack.
On Wednesday, Good Morning America's George Stephanopoulos questioned newly minted Kentucky Senator Rand Paul. George wondered if Paul would hold firm on his commitment to balance the budget, "even if it means you're going to be a one-term senator?"
NBC's Matt Lauer characterized Paul's victory as a "wave of anger and energy," and asked if he'd heard the words of Harry Reid who said the two parties needed to work together.
The CBS post-election drum-beat was similar, as Harry Smith fretted over the 'No Compromise' Republicans who are seeking to dismantle Obamacare. He also discounted their fiscally conservative legislative goals, saying mockingly, "So the equation then is lower taxes, lower the deficit, and the jobs will come flooding in?"
But, the liberal media's lies, distortions and attacks are not over. They have now shifted focus to convincing the conservatives that they were attacking only a week ago, to "moderate." This effort to steal from activists the fruits of their hard fought victory will not go unchallenged!
George Stephanopoulos, Matt Lauer and Harry Smith are all pushing for newly elected conservatives to part with their "anger" and learn to "compromise." Unable to cope with the historically stunning defeat of their socialist agenda, and apparently still unaware of the fact that they are decidedly out of step with the American people, the liberal media have gone on the attack.
On Wednesday, Good Morning America's George Stephanopoulos questioned newly minted Kentucky Senator Rand Paul. George wondered if Paul would hold firm on his commitment to balance the budget, "even if it means you're going to be a one-term senator?"
NBC's Matt Lauer characterized Paul's victory as a "wave of anger and energy," and asked if he'd heard the words of Harry Reid who said the two parties needed to work together.
The CBS post-election drum-beat was similar, as Harry Smith fretted over the 'No Compromise' Republicans who are seeking to dismantle Obamacare. He also discounted their fiscally conservative legislative goals, saying mockingly, "So the equation then is lower taxes, lower the deficit, and the jobs will come flooding in?"
Sunday, 7 November 2010
Sworn to uphold the US Constitution
From soldiers to politicians we are all sworn in to abide by and protect the US Constitution, the supreme law, of the United States. All other countries can think or do as they please though don't tread on US.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQTOqXC0qYs&feature=aso
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQTOqXC0qYs&feature=aso
Saturday, 6 November 2010
Bankruptcy of U.S. is ‘Mathematical Certainty,’ Says Former CEO of Nation's 10th Largest Bank
Thursday, November 04, 2010
By Terence P. Jeffrey
(CNSNews.com) - John Allison, who for two decades served as chairman and CEO of BB&T, the nation's 10th largest bank, told CNSNews.com it is a “mathematical certainty” that the United States government will go bankrupt unless it dramatically changes its fiscal direction.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/former-bbt-ceo-bankruptcy-us-mathematica
By Terence P. Jeffrey
(CNSNews.com) - John Allison, who for two decades served as chairman and CEO of BB&T, the nation's 10th largest bank, told CNSNews.com it is a “mathematical certainty” that the United States government will go bankrupt unless it dramatically changes its fiscal direction.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/former-bbt-ceo-bankruptcy-us-mathematica
Chinese Professor
How true...........Nov 2nd was a good 1st step!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTSQozWP-rM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTSQozWP-rM
Friday, 5 November 2010
A recoil against liberalism
By George F. Will
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Unwilling to delay until tomorrow mistakes that could be made immediately, Democrats used 2010 to begin losing 2012. Trying to preemptively drain the election of its dangerous (to Democrats) meaning, all autumn Democrats described the electorate as suffering a brain cramp, an apoplexy of fear, rage, paranoia, cupidity - something. Any explanation would suffice as long as it cast what voters were about to say as perhaps contemptible and certainly too trivial to be taken seriously by the serious.
It is amazing the ingenuity Democrats invest in concocting explanations of voter behavior that erase what voters always care about, and this year more than ever - ideas. This election was a nationwide recoil against Barack Obama's idea of unlimited government.
The more he denounced Republicans as the party of "no," the better Republicans did. His denunciations enabled people to support Republicans without embracing them as anything other than impediments to him.
He had defined himself as a world-class whiner even before Rahm Emanuel, a world-class flatterer, declared that Obama had dealt masterfully with "the toughest times any president has ever faced" - quite a claim, considering that before the first president from Illinois was even inaugurated, seven of the then-34 states had seceded. Today's president from Illinois, a chronic campaigner and incontinent complainer who is uninhibited by considerations of presidential dignity, has blamed his difficulties on:
George W. Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, the Supreme Court, a Cincinnati congressman (John Boehner), Karl Rove, Americans for Prosperity and other "groups with harmless-sounding names" (Hillary Clinton's "vast right-wing conspiracy" redux), "shadowy third-party groups" (they are as shadowy as steam calliopes), the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and, finally, the American people. They have deeply disappointed him by being impervious to "facts and science and argument."
Actually, as the distilled essence of progressivism, he should feel ratified by Tuesday's repudiation. The point of progressivism is that the people must progress up from their backwardness. They cannot do so unless they are pulled toward the light by a government composed of the enlightened - experts coolly devoted to facts and science.
The progressive agenda is actually legitimated by the incomprehension and anger it elicits: If the people do not resent and resist what is being done on their behalf, what is being done is not properly ambitious. If it is comprehensible to its intended beneficiaries, it is the work of insufficiently advanced thinkers.
Of course the masses do not understand that the only flaw of the stimulus was its frugality, and that Obamacare's myriad coercions are akin to benevolent parental discipline. If the masses understood what progressives understand, would progressives represent a real vanguard of progress?
Of course the progressive agenda must make infinitely elastic the restraints imposed by the Founders' Constitution and its principles of limited government. Moving up from them - from the Founders and their anachronistic principles - is the definition of progress.
Recently, Newsweek's Jonathan Alter decided, as the president has decided, that what liberals need is not better ideas but better marketing of the ones they have: "It's a sign of how poorly liberals market themselves and their ideas that the word 'liberal' is still in disrepute despite the election of the most genuinely liberal president that the political culture of this country will probably allow."
"Despite"? In 2008, Democrats ran as Not George Bush. In 2010, they ran as Democrats. Hence, inescapably, as liberals, or at least as obedient to liberal leaders. Hence Democrats' difficulties.
Responding to Alter, George Mason University economist Don Boudreaux agreed that interest-group liberalism has indeed been leavened by idea-driven liberalism. Which is the problem.
"These ideas," Boudreaux says, "are almost exclusively about how other people should live their lives. These are ideas about how one group of people (the politically successful) should engineer everyone else's contracts, social relations, diets, habits, and even moral sentiments." Liberalism's ideas are "about replacing an unimaginably large multitude of diverse and competing ideas . . . with a relatively paltry set of 'Big Ideas' that are politically selected, centrally imposed, and enforced by government, not by the natural give, take and compromise of the everyday interactions of millions of people."
This was the serious concern that percolated beneath the normal froth and nonsense of the elections: Is political power - are government commands and controls - superseding and suffocating the creativity of a market society's spontaneous order? On Tuesday, a rational and alarmed American majority said "yes."
georgewill@washpost.com
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Unwilling to delay until tomorrow mistakes that could be made immediately, Democrats used 2010 to begin losing 2012. Trying to preemptively drain the election of its dangerous (to Democrats) meaning, all autumn Democrats described the electorate as suffering a brain cramp, an apoplexy of fear, rage, paranoia, cupidity - something. Any explanation would suffice as long as it cast what voters were about to say as perhaps contemptible and certainly too trivial to be taken seriously by the serious.
It is amazing the ingenuity Democrats invest in concocting explanations of voter behavior that erase what voters always care about, and this year more than ever - ideas. This election was a nationwide recoil against Barack Obama's idea of unlimited government.
The more he denounced Republicans as the party of "no," the better Republicans did. His denunciations enabled people to support Republicans without embracing them as anything other than impediments to him.
He had defined himself as a world-class whiner even before Rahm Emanuel, a world-class flatterer, declared that Obama had dealt masterfully with "the toughest times any president has ever faced" - quite a claim, considering that before the first president from Illinois was even inaugurated, seven of the then-34 states had seceded. Today's president from Illinois, a chronic campaigner and incontinent complainer who is uninhibited by considerations of presidential dignity, has blamed his difficulties on:
George W. Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, the Supreme Court, a Cincinnati congressman (John Boehner), Karl Rove, Americans for Prosperity and other "groups with harmless-sounding names" (Hillary Clinton's "vast right-wing conspiracy" redux), "shadowy third-party groups" (they are as shadowy as steam calliopes), the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and, finally, the American people. They have deeply disappointed him by being impervious to "facts and science and argument."
Actually, as the distilled essence of progressivism, he should feel ratified by Tuesday's repudiation. The point of progressivism is that the people must progress up from their backwardness. They cannot do so unless they are pulled toward the light by a government composed of the enlightened - experts coolly devoted to facts and science.
The progressive agenda is actually legitimated by the incomprehension and anger it elicits: If the people do not resent and resist what is being done on their behalf, what is being done is not properly ambitious. If it is comprehensible to its intended beneficiaries, it is the work of insufficiently advanced thinkers.
Of course the masses do not understand that the only flaw of the stimulus was its frugality, and that Obamacare's myriad coercions are akin to benevolent parental discipline. If the masses understood what progressives understand, would progressives represent a real vanguard of progress?
Of course the progressive agenda must make infinitely elastic the restraints imposed by the Founders' Constitution and its principles of limited government. Moving up from them - from the Founders and their anachronistic principles - is the definition of progress.
Recently, Newsweek's Jonathan Alter decided, as the president has decided, that what liberals need is not better ideas but better marketing of the ones they have: "It's a sign of how poorly liberals market themselves and their ideas that the word 'liberal' is still in disrepute despite the election of the most genuinely liberal president that the political culture of this country will probably allow."
"Despite"? In 2008, Democrats ran as Not George Bush. In 2010, they ran as Democrats. Hence, inescapably, as liberals, or at least as obedient to liberal leaders. Hence Democrats' difficulties.
Responding to Alter, George Mason University economist Don Boudreaux agreed that interest-group liberalism has indeed been leavened by idea-driven liberalism. Which is the problem.
"These ideas," Boudreaux says, "are almost exclusively about how other people should live their lives. These are ideas about how one group of people (the politically successful) should engineer everyone else's contracts, social relations, diets, habits, and even moral sentiments." Liberalism's ideas are "about replacing an unimaginably large multitude of diverse and competing ideas . . . with a relatively paltry set of 'Big Ideas' that are politically selected, centrally imposed, and enforced by government, not by the natural give, take and compromise of the everyday interactions of millions of people."
This was the serious concern that percolated beneath the normal froth and nonsense of the elections: Is political power - are government commands and controls - superseding and suffocating the creativity of a market society's spontaneous order? On Tuesday, a rational and alarmed American majority said "yes."
georgewill@washpost.com
A return to the norm
A return to the norm
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, November 5, 2010
For all the turmoil, the spectacle, the churning - for all the old bulls slain and fuzzy-cheeked freshmen born - the great Republican wave of 2010 is simply a return to the norm. The tide had gone out; the tide came back. A center-right country restores the normal congressional map: a sea of interior red, bordered by blue coasts and dotted by blue islands of ethnic/urban density.
Or to put it numerically, the Republican wave of 2010 did little more than undo the two-stage Democratic wave of 2006-2008 in which the Democrats gained 54 House seats combined (precisely the size of the anti-Democratic wave of 1994). In 2010 the Democrats gave it all back, plus about an extra 10 seats or so for good - chastening - measure.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/04/AR2010110406581.html
Get to Work Repealing Obamacare
During his post-election press conference Wednesday, President Barack Obama was asked: "As you’re well aware, obviously, a lot of Republicans ran against your health care law. Some have called for repealing the law. I’m wondering, sir, if you believe that health care reform that you worked so hard on is in danger at this point, and whether there’s a threat, as a result of this election."
The President replied:
Well, I know that there’s some Republican candidates who won last night who feel very strongly about it. I’m sure that this will be an issue that comes up in discussions with the Republican leadership. As I said before, though, I think we’d be misreading the election if we thought that the American people want to see us for the next two years relitigate arguments that we had over the last two years.
The President just doesn't get it. According to the national exit poll just 16% of voters want to leave Obamacare as is. A full 48% of voters want to see it outright repealed and another 31% want to see it changed in some way.
Our government has no right to enact legislation to force any citizen to purchase a commodity, good or service. It's that simple. Repeal it or just strike it down as unconstitutional, just get rid of it.
More @ http://blog.heritage.org/2010/11/05/morning-bell-get-to-work-repealing-obamacare/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
The President replied:
Well, I know that there’s some Republican candidates who won last night who feel very strongly about it. I’m sure that this will be an issue that comes up in discussions with the Republican leadership. As I said before, though, I think we’d be misreading the election if we thought that the American people want to see us for the next two years relitigate arguments that we had over the last two years.
The President just doesn't get it. According to the national exit poll just 16% of voters want to leave Obamacare as is. A full 48% of voters want to see it outright repealed and another 31% want to see it changed in some way.
Our government has no right to enact legislation to force any citizen to purchase a commodity, good or service. It's that simple. Repeal it or just strike it down as unconstitutional, just get rid of it.
More @ http://blog.heritage.org/2010/11/05/morning-bell-get-to-work-repealing-obamacare/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
Looking Good
Was out this week though surely stayed tuned in for Tuesday's results and it was good. Could have been better though let's just call it a good start. As well please let this signify that each and everyone of us CAN make a difference and the Tea Party stands for patriots of our nation......let's keep it UP!
187 Democrats - Net Change GOP +61 - Republicans 240
218 Seats Needed For Majority
187 Democrats - Net Change GOP +61 - Republicans 240
218 Seats Needed For Majority
Saturday, 30 October 2010
Solutions for Conservatives
Solutions for Conservatives
October 29, 2010 By Bethany Murphy
Heritage experts have identified 23 policy areas of concern for candidates and Americans, Solutions for America. This guide offers clear policy recommendations on today’s most important issues. These recommendations include:
1. Federal Spending. Government spending is out of control—so much so that a new political movement, the tea party, has sprung up to rein it in. America has a spending problem, and Heritage has a solution. The majority of our spending growth is on entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—to say nothing of Obamacare—and Heritage has created a series of recommendations that the new Congress should enact in order to correct the out of control spending that will tack on an additional trillion dollars to our national debt in the next decade.
2. Health Care. Heritage urges a total and immediate repeal of Obamacare, and this needs to be a top priority for the new Congress. But Congress shouldn’t stop there: Heritage supports free market solutions (link in PDF) as opposed to a big government takeover of one-sixth of the nation’s economy.
3. Government Regulations. The amount of government regulation in the past year has been unprecedented, costing taxpayers an additional $26.5 billion in 2010 alone. These costs will affect Americans in many ways. It will raise the price of the cars they buy and the food they eat, for example, while destroying an untold number of jobs. Worse, the amount of red tape is set to rise in the coming year. Congress must keep in mind that the more regulations placed on Americans, the more they are restricting their freedoms.
All of these recommendations have one thing in common – reducing the federal government’s involvement in our everyday lives.
October 29, 2010 By Bethany Murphy
Heritage experts have identified 23 policy areas of concern for candidates and Americans, Solutions for America. This guide offers clear policy recommendations on today’s most important issues. These recommendations include:
1. Federal Spending. Government spending is out of control—so much so that a new political movement, the tea party, has sprung up to rein it in. America has a spending problem, and Heritage has a solution. The majority of our spending growth is on entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—to say nothing of Obamacare—and Heritage has created a series of recommendations that the new Congress should enact in order to correct the out of control spending that will tack on an additional trillion dollars to our national debt in the next decade.
2. Health Care. Heritage urges a total and immediate repeal of Obamacare, and this needs to be a top priority for the new Congress. But Congress shouldn’t stop there: Heritage supports free market solutions (link in PDF) as opposed to a big government takeover of one-sixth of the nation’s economy.
3. Government Regulations. The amount of government regulation in the past year has been unprecedented, costing taxpayers an additional $26.5 billion in 2010 alone. These costs will affect Americans in many ways. It will raise the price of the cars they buy and the food they eat, for example, while destroying an untold number of jobs. Worse, the amount of red tape is set to rise in the coming year. Congress must keep in mind that the more regulations placed on Americans, the more they are restricting their freedoms.
All of these recommendations have one thing in common – reducing the federal government’s involvement in our everyday lives.
U.S. Air Force Helicopter Math Needs a New Calculator
U.S. Air Force Helicopter Math Needs a New Calculator
Posted on October 26th, 2010 by MacMillin Slobodien
Reports that the U.S. Air Force is considering a sole-source contract for a multi-billion dollar helicopter should make taxpayers queasy, and question who the Air Force has in its pocket. In fact, the basis of this math is the Economic Act of 1932.
Using the depression-era Economic Act of 1932 as a premise for a procurement is a desperate attempt at circumventing DoD’s initiatives about competition and could be a test case for avoiding competition for future defense procurement. CAGW asks the Air Force to consider competition as a way to bring the best value to the government and the taxpayer.
http://swineline.org/?p=4695
Posted on October 26th, 2010 by MacMillin Slobodien
Reports that the U.S. Air Force is considering a sole-source contract for a multi-billion dollar helicopter should make taxpayers queasy, and question who the Air Force has in its pocket. In fact, the basis of this math is the Economic Act of 1932.
Using the depression-era Economic Act of 1932 as a premise for a procurement is a desperate attempt at circumventing DoD’s initiatives about competition and could be a test case for avoiding competition for future defense procurement. CAGW asks the Air Force to consider competition as a way to bring the best value to the government and the taxpayer.
http://swineline.org/?p=4695
CAGW Names Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz October Porker of the Month
(Washington, D.C.) - Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today named Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) October Porker of the Month for exaggerating the effect of the failed economic stimulus program, making dubious claims about jobs numbers, and misleading the American people about the true economic picture.
Rep. Wasserman Schultz made the following claim about job creation, “On the pace that we’re on with job creation in the last four months — if we continue on that pace — all the leading economists say it is likely that we will — we will have created more jobs in this year than in the entire Bush presidency.”http://www.cagw.org/newsroom/porker-of-the-month/
Thursday, 28 October 2010
Opportunity knocks for voters on Nov. 2
To the Editor:
“When opportunity knocks, open the door” is a widely known expression, and many times we do not realize that we have missed an opportunity until after the fact.
In less than a week in our 4th Congressional District of Virginia, and on a larger scale, our nation, we will have opportunity knocking on our door. The approaching elections represent such an opportunity as a starting point to improve our lives today.
The vote on the 4th District congressional representation is our local opportunity, though at the same time, we should pay close attention to what takes place in other parts of our nation as they will elect representatives who will make decisions that will affect us as well.
We may feel that politics is a distant subject from our daily lives, though would any community member feel the local mill closure as distant? Politicians have the power to issue new laws, new regulations and implement tax changes that do affect how small and large businesses plan for profitability and their future.
This November, open the door to the opportunities at hand and ensure that we put candidates in office who bring with them common sense, realistic initiatives, and best of all, a pro-business outlook that is the only way any government will ever assist in creating a single job.
Jonathan E. Varnell
Franklin
http://www.tidewaternews.com/2010/10/27/opportunity-knocks-for-voters-on-nov-2/
“When opportunity knocks, open the door” is a widely known expression, and many times we do not realize that we have missed an opportunity until after the fact.
In less than a week in our 4th Congressional District of Virginia, and on a larger scale, our nation, we will have opportunity knocking on our door. The approaching elections represent such an opportunity as a starting point to improve our lives today.
The vote on the 4th District congressional representation is our local opportunity, though at the same time, we should pay close attention to what takes place in other parts of our nation as they will elect representatives who will make decisions that will affect us as well.
We may feel that politics is a distant subject from our daily lives, though would any community member feel the local mill closure as distant? Politicians have the power to issue new laws, new regulations and implement tax changes that do affect how small and large businesses plan for profitability and their future.
This November, open the door to the opportunities at hand and ensure that we put candidates in office who bring with them common sense, realistic initiatives, and best of all, a pro-business outlook that is the only way any government will ever assist in creating a single job.
Jonathan E. Varnell
Franklin
http://www.tidewaternews.com/2010/10/27/opportunity-knocks-for-voters-on-nov-2/
So Simple a caveman could understand:
Why did Bernie Madoff go to prison? To make it simple, he talked people into investing with him. Trouble was, he didn't invest their money. As time rolled on he simply took the money from the new investors to pay off the old investors. Finally there were too many old investors and not enough money from new investors coming in to keep the payments going.
Next thing you know Madoff is one of the most hated men in America and he is off to jail. Some of you know this. but not enough of you.
Madoff did to his investors what the government has been doing to us for over 70 years with Social Security. There is no meaningful difference between the two schemes, except that one was operated by a private individual who is now in jail, and the other is operated by politicians who enjoy perks, privileges and status in spite of their actions.
A side-by-side comparison:
BERNIE MADOFF-Takes money from investors with the promise that the money will be invested and made available to them later.SOCIAL SECURITY-Takes money from wage earners with the promise that the money will be invested in a "Trust Fund" and made available later. BERNIE MADOFF-Instead of investing the money Madoff spends it on nice homes in theHamptons and yachts..
SOCIAL SECURITY-Instead of depositing money in a Trust Fund the politicians use it for general spending and vote buying.BERNIE MADOFF-When the time comes to pay the investors back Madoff simply uses some of the new funds from newer investors to pay back the older investors.SOCIAL SECURITY-When benefits for older investors become due the politicians pay them with money taken from younger and newer wage earners to pay the geezers.BERNIE MADOFF-When Madoff's scheme is discovered all hell breaks loose. New investors won't give him any more cash.SOCIAL SECURITY-When Social Security runs out of money they simply force the taxpayers to send them some more.
Bernie Madoff is in jail.
Politicians remain in Washington.
'The taxpayer: That's someone who works for the federal government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. ' - Ronald Reagan
"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert , in five years there’d be a shortage of sand.” Milton Friedman
Next thing you know Madoff is one of the most hated men in America and he is off to jail. Some of you know this. but not enough of you.
Madoff did to his investors what the government has been doing to us for over 70 years with Social Security. There is no meaningful difference between the two schemes, except that one was operated by a private individual who is now in jail, and the other is operated by politicians who enjoy perks, privileges and status in spite of their actions.
A side-by-side comparison:
BERNIE MADOFF-Takes money from investors with the promise that the money will be invested and made available to them later.SOCIAL SECURITY-Takes money from wage earners with the promise that the money will be invested in a "Trust Fund" and made available later. BERNIE MADOFF-Instead of investing the money Madoff spends it on nice homes in theHamptons and yachts..
SOCIAL SECURITY-Instead of depositing money in a Trust Fund the politicians use it for general spending and vote buying.BERNIE MADOFF-When the time comes to pay the investors back Madoff simply uses some of the new funds from newer investors to pay back the older investors.SOCIAL SECURITY-When benefits for older investors become due the politicians pay them with money taken from younger and newer wage earners to pay the geezers.BERNIE MADOFF-When Madoff's scheme is discovered all hell breaks loose. New investors won't give him any more cash.SOCIAL SECURITY-When Social Security runs out of money they simply force the taxpayers to send them some more.
Bernie Madoff is in jail.
Politicians remain in Washington.
'The taxpayer: That's someone who works for the federal government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. ' - Ronald Reagan
"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert , in five years there’d be a shortage of sand.” Milton Friedman
You Don't Have to be Crazy to be a Democrat, But it Helps
by Ann Coulter
10/27/2010
With the media sneering about the Tea Party candidates being a bunch of nuts, how about we take a look at some of the Democrats running this year?
We've got Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank, who personally presided over the housing crash after getting that gay prostitution business behind him. Of course, Frank's actions are nothing compared to Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul's alleged participation in a college prank. Now, THERE'S a scandal!
California Sen. Barbara Boxer refuses to say whether a newborn baby is a human life. When Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Penn., asked her on the Senate floor a few years ago whether she believed a baby born alive has a constitutionally protected a right to live, Boxer was stuck for an answer. Her nonresponsive replies included these:
"I support the Roe v. Wade decision. ...
"I think when you bring your baby home, when your baby is born -- and the baby belongs to your family and has all the rights. ...
"Define 'separation' ...
"You mean the baby has been birthed and is now in its mother's arms? ...
"The baby is born when the baby is born. That is the answer to the question. ...
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39614
10/27/2010
With the media sneering about the Tea Party candidates being a bunch of nuts, how about we take a look at some of the Democrats running this year?
We've got Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank, who personally presided over the housing crash after getting that gay prostitution business behind him. Of course, Frank's actions are nothing compared to Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul's alleged participation in a college prank. Now, THERE'S a scandal!
California Sen. Barbara Boxer refuses to say whether a newborn baby is a human life. When Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Penn., asked her on the Senate floor a few years ago whether she believed a baby born alive has a constitutionally protected a right to live, Boxer was stuck for an answer. Her nonresponsive replies included these:
"I support the Roe v. Wade decision. ...
"I think when you bring your baby home, when your baby is born -- and the baby belongs to your family and has all the rights. ...
"Define 'separation' ...
"You mean the baby has been birthed and is now in its mother's arms? ...
"The baby is born when the baby is born. That is the answer to the question. ...
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39614
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Citizens Against Government Waste
www.cagw.org