Jan 5, 2011 Political
The nanny state is alive and well. Nanny Pelosi spoke after a group of Democrats presented their views on repeal of Obamacare. They gave the standard lies and some said how much it would cost to repeal, standard stuff one expects from the nanny state but Nanny Pelosi took the case.
In this video from The Blaze (linked from WBAL Radio) Pelosi states that even if everyone in America was happy with their health care and it was affordable for all, the government takeover was necessary because the system was not sustainable.
Listen to what this moron is saying. She indicates that even if EVERYONE had health care and liked it and it was affordable she and her nanny state Democrats would have had to take it over because it was not sustainable.
Excuse me while I laugh. OK, I am back. If everyone has what they want and they can afford it then the system IS sustainable. The system is and has been sustainable but according to Pelosi even if the system was completely ideal and everyone had coverage they liked and could afford, the government would need to take it over.
This is more proof that the takeover had nothing to do with the stated goals and everything to do with involving government in our lives.
It is absolute proof that this is about one thing and one thing only. CONTROL! They want to control us and they know it will be easier if they control our health care.
I have an idea. Government as we know have it is unsustainable. Spending is out of control and we are 14 TRILLION dollars in debt. We have a bloated government that is simply unsustainable.
So let’s take it over. It is necessary and, according to Nanny Pelosi, the proper thing to do.
We started today and if the Republicans don’t do the right thing we will fire them and replace them with people who will. We will keep replacing these people until we get folks who will do what is right by this country and the people who make it work.
Never surrender, never submit.
Jan 27, 2010 Political
The Alinksy radicals in the White House have worked hard to marginalize FOX News. The Whote House picked a fight with FOX and declared it was not a real news organization. In a piece at Salon, former Obama economic adviser Robert Reich wrote:
In December 1994, Bill Clinton proposed a so-called middle-class bill of rights including more tax credits for families with children, expanded retirement accounts, and tax-deductible college tuition. Clinton had lost his battle for healthcare reform. Even worse, by that time the Dems had lost the House and Senate. Washington was riding a huge anti-incumbent wave. Right-wing populists were the ascendancy, with Newt Gingrich and Fox News leading the charge. Bill Clinton thought it desperately important to assure Americans he was on their side. Big Journalism
The problem with this statement is that FOX News did not exist in 1994.
The radicals will do and say anything to marginalize those seen as the enemy to their agenda. But FOX has the last laugh:
CABLE NEWS RACE
TUES., JAN., 26, 2010
FOXNEWS O’REILLY 3,581,000
FOXNEWS BECK 3,196,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 3,133,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 2,624,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 2,415,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 2,187,000
CNNHN BEHAR 949,000
CNNHN GRACE 914,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 818,000
CNN KING 796,000
MSNBC MADDOW 726,000
That, as they say, is a good old fashioned ass whoopin’
Jan 26, 2010 Political
What a difference a campaign makes. Back when Obama was a candidate he opposed the idea of a spending freeze. In the presidential debates John McCain said he would consider a spending freeze for the government except for veteran’s programs, national security and certain other vital programs. Obama said that the problem with this was that it was taking a hatchet to the budget when a scalpel was needed. Obama said that the freeze would halt vital programs that would hurt people.
Obama is expected to call for a spending freeze during tomorrow night’s State of the Union Address:
The freeze would take effect in October and limit the overall budget for agencies other than the military, veterans affairs, homeland security and certain international programs to $447 billion a year for the remainder of Obama’s first term, senior administration officials said Monday, imposing sharp limits on his ability to begin initiatives in education, the environment and other areas of domestic policy. Washington Post
When John McCain proposed this idea Obama poo pooed it but now that he finds it necessary to tact to the right he is in favor of it. The right is not happy because Obama raised the budgets of most agencies by as much as 50% so the freeze will be at a higher level and the left is upset because it does not want any freeze on its ability to spend, spend, spend.
By requesting this freeze Obama is admitting that the country cannot afford his agenda. He tried pushing it and the public became outraged at the excessive spending particularly in these hard economic times. Obama has ceded the fact that we cannot afford what he wants and has given the right ammunition. Any Democrats who oppose the freeze will be labeled as out of touch while the right points out that even Obama wants the freeze. If things in the economy get better during Obama’s time in office and he tries to push his agenda the public will quickly be reminded that he admitted we could not afford what he wants.
Considering that Obama has tripled the deficit which will hit 1.4 TRILLION dollars again this year, the freeze amounts to very little but it is nothing different than what McCain called for and Obama discounted out of hand. Obama is a rookie and this pandering to the middle class will not work. People have seen the man behind the curtain and they do not like what they have seen.
Nancy Pelosi tried to pin the deficit increase on Bush but Gateway Pundit sets the record straight:
For the record, during the Bush years, despite the 2000 Recession, the attacks on 9-11, the stock market scandals, Hurricane Katrina, and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush Administration was able to reduce the budget deficit from 412 billion dollars in 2004 to 162 billion dollars in 2007, a sixty percent drop. In 2004 the federal budget deficit was 412 billion dollars. In 2005 it dropped to 318 billion dollars. In 2006 the deficit dipped to 248 billion dollars. And, in 2007 it fell below 200 billion to 162 billion dollars. During the Bush years the average unemployment rate was 5.2 percent, the economy saw the strongest productivity growth in four decades and there was robust GDP growth. These were amazing accomplishments considering the unexpected challenges. You certainly didn’t read much about this in the press.
But, things changed in 2007. Democrats took over Congress, gas prices started to rise, and at the end of the year and into 2008 several financial institutions started to crumble as the housing bubble began to burst. Of course, it should be noted that President Bush publicly called for the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Democrats, on the other hand, blocked reform numerous times. It was later reported after the 2008 election that Bush had nothing to do with the financial crisis. Hoover Institution visiting fellow Scott S. Powell wrote in Barron’s in February of 2009 that the present crisis began in the 1970s, during the Carter administration, with passage of the Community Reinvestment Act to stem bank redlining and liberalize lending in order to extend home ownership in lower-income communities. This risk was acknowledged in the Bush administration’s first fiscal-year budget, released in April 2001. Sadly these warnings were ignored by Congress.
Obama said he would rather be a real good one term president than a mediocre two term one. Of course people who have real good first ones usually get a second one. Obama will be lucky to be as high as mediocre when his first (and only) term ends.
Barack Obama took an axe
And gave the budget 40 whacks
When the libs saw what he’d done
His term in office was just one.
Dec 15, 2009 Political
Al Gore, fresh off denying the Climategate emails made any difference, was out hawking more doom and gloom for the world because of global warming. Gore was talking about the polar ice cap on the North Pole and he said that there was a 75% chance that the cap would be gone in 5 to 7 years:
In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.” Times Online UK
Now keep in mind that these are fresh figures. The numbers are just in. This is hot, hot, hot! We have new numbers and there is a 75% chance the north polar ice cap will be gone in 5 to 7 years.
The only problem is that the scientist Gore mentioned says that he does not know where Gore got those numbers and that he [Dr. Maslowski] would not make that kind of prediction.
Gore backtracked on the issue by admitting that the 75% came from a ballpark figure that Maslowski used several years ago.
The numbers are FRESH but he got them several years ago.
This just shows that Gore will say anything to push his agenda. He told us the numbers were fresh but he did not just get them so he deliberately misled people when he said it. He is no different than the scientists who cooked the books on the whole global warming issue.
Gore is hyping global warming so he can make money off it. He will say and do anything in order to sell his product and he has little regard for opposing opinion or, apparently, the truth.
Hey Al, take a look at the south polar cap. I believe it is getting bigger.
May 15, 2009 Political
Barack Obama has broken one promise after another. On the issue of transparency alone he has broken his word a number of times. He will never be transparent as long as his birth certificate is sequestered as he spends millions to keep it that way.
Obama was a darling to the America hating crowd when he was a candidate because he said what they wanted to hear and he told them time and again that Bush was wrong about one thing or another. When he took office he left in place some of the things Bush had enacted because things look a lot different when you are on the inside.
One of the things Obama has worked on is closing Gitmo and stopping military tribunals. He has announced the closing of Gitmo but is running into the same problems Bush did; where to send the inmates. He put a halt to the tribunals but is now starting them back up and this has made the folks at Amnesty International very unhappy.
President Obama is reinstating the same deeply-flawed military commissions that in June 2008 he called an ‘enormous failure.’ In one swift move, Obama both backtracks on a major campaign promise to change the way the United States fights terrorism and undermines the nation’s core respect for the rule of law by sacrificing due process for political expediency. Common Dreams
I have no problem with the tribunals and want the criminals at Gitmo to be held accountable for their acts. They are enemies of this country and they should be dealt with as such. Try them and then dispense with them according to the results of the trial.
However, I am not one of the folks Obama made his promise to though I heard him discuss how Bush had this all wrong and how he would do it differently.
Looks like the folks at AI were paying attention as well because they are clear in their disgust with Obama’s broken promise.
Change you can believe in. Right.