Why Did Obama Come Out Of The Closet?
May 10, 2012 Political
Barack Obama announced his support for gay marriage yesterday after his hand was “forced” by his gaffe prone VP, Joe Biden. Over the weekend Biden expressed support for gay marriage and the media frenzy began until Obama was “forced” to address the issue.
Obama claims his opinion on the issue has evolved and that discussions with gay people, his wife and children helped him evolve on the issue. While it might be true that he spoke with them about the issue it had nothing to do with evolving.
Obama has always supported gay marriage. Actually, he has said he does and that he doesn’t and that he does. It all depended on the time and the audience. Rather than evolving it would be more accurate to say Obama’s opinion has been revolving because he keeps going round and round on it.
Obama has always supported gay marriage. He just has not always voiced that support.
In fact, the announcement of this evolution is something that has been ongoing as he and his aides discussed whether he should announce it or not before the election (more flexibility after) and if before, when would be the best time politically? Obama wanted the announcement to provide the biggest bang for the buck, so to speak.
In just 90 minutes after his announcement he received a million dollars in donation from the gay activists. Of course, the obligatory fundraising email went out last night.
Obama is an opportunist. He planned on “evolving” all along but wanted to wait until after the election. He is in a tough fight so he wanted to get the gay community and his liberal base back in the fight. The African American community is strongly against gay marriage but Obama has little to worry about as many will vote Democrat no matter what and many who don’t vote or like his positions will go out and vote for him just because he is black. That is a fact that many blacks have already made public. There are some who question whether Obama will get that support though.
Obama risks losing more of the Independent voters who are not in favor of gay marriage. Obama risks losing those in the majority of states that have already rejected gay marriage.
This is all a political stunt. Obama has always believed in gay marriage. He knows that gay issues (like marriage) are part of the tactics used to brainwash a nation and make it Communist.
He wants this to happen but he wanted to wait until after the election and he would have had Biden not opened his mouth.
Obama, always the politician, has left himself some wiggle room. He announced that he is in favor of gay marriage BUT that he supports the concept of states deciding the issue.
He can pander to his base for votes and cash while making the blatantly obvious point that this IS a state’s rights issue.
Then again so was abortion before the federal government involved itself.
Obama would love nothing more than for a court to decide that gay marriage is a federal issue and conjure up a right out of thin air like it did with abortion. He would love for a court to say that all states have to honor the marriage of a gay couple that was legally performed in a state that allows it. It would be his way of using the backdoor (pun intended) to get gay marriage in all states.
Funny, Obama would oppose any legislation that would allow a concealed carry permit to be recognized in all states.
For now though, he will have to be content to state his support of an issue that he cannot possibly affect because, as he said, it is an issue that is up to each state.
And the gays will swallow this hook, line, and sinker…
The Washington Post has a good editorial.
As for me, I don’t have anything against gay people. I have an issue with the attempt to redefine marriage. And let us remember, there is no right to marry…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: campaign, deceit, evolving, gay marriage, gays, lies, money, Obama, pandering, revolving
Obamascare, The New Path To Bad Medicine
Apr 30, 2012 Political
Anyone who thinks the Food and Drug Administration is in business to protect people is living in a fantasy world. The FDA approves drugs and says whether they can be used and by whom and then when there is a problem the FDA has no responsibility. It points fingers to the drug manufacturer. Of course those who made the drug are culpable but so are those who approved the drug.
The FDA is so concerned about the health of people that it is considering removing the need for a prescription for certain drugs like those to treat high blood pressure and high cholesterol.
This means that patients would not need to see a doctor in order to get those medications. While that might be reasonable for some medications (like 800 mg Ibuprofen) it is not wise for others like blood pressure medication.
These conditions require monitoring by a doctor. The medications often require blood tests and other testing to ensure the medication is therapeutic and not causing damage. It is also important that people do not take the drugs to treat perceived rather than actual maladies.
What if the high blood pressure is caused by another condition?
The FDA is doing this for what reason?
It is considering making some medications over the counter (OTC) to reduce the cost of Medicare which is even more burdened by Obamacare.
The cost and not the health of the patient is the overriding factor in this decision. If people get injured or die as a result of this decision then it is a small price to pay to keep costs under control (which might not be under control for those not on Medicare as insurance companies decide not to pay for OTC medication).
Sounds like a back door death panel to me.
While I think the FDA does stupid things and makes some drugs prescription when they do not need to be I also think the random removal of drugs in order to save money is criminal.
Then again, Obamacare is a criminal law.
If we are going to have an FDA then it needs to make sound decisions that protect the public.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Obama Goes From Stopping To Defending Super PAC Money
Feb 7, 2012 Political
Barack Obama said he was against super PACs and their involvement in American politics. He excoriated the Supreme Court for its decision in the matter of political donations during one of his State of the Union Addresses. In 2010 Obama said that PACs were a corporate takeover of our Democracy (we have a Republic). Here is what he had to say about it:
“The worst thing of all they don’t have to reveal who is having to pay for them.” Obama said, criticizing Republicans for “keeping the American public in the dark.”
“We cannot allow a corporate takeover of our democracy,” Obama added, vowing to fight this type of advertising. “Let’s challenge every elected official who benefits from these ads to defend this practice or join us is stopping it.” he declared.
“Millions of Americans are struggling to get by and their voices shouldn’t be drowned out by millions of dollars in secret special interest advertising,” Obama added, “Their voices should be heard.” [emphasis mine] Washington Examiner
Obama said our voices needed to be heard and that the challenge was for every elected official to defend the infusion of PAC money or to join Obama in stopping it.
Looks like the Won, the messiah, the change we can believe in has changed his mind on the subject.
In a change of position, Barack Obama’s reelection campaign will begin using administration and campaign aides to fundraise for Priorities USA Action, a super PAC backing the president. CNN Political Tracker
In a change of position, well he did promise us change.
Obama is now playing the game he said he opposed. He is getting involved in the super PAC game in order to raise money for his reelection effort. His minions (and no doubt his toadies who will read this) claim that he needs to do this because of the large influx of money from super PACs on the Republican side.
Obama is doing this because he needs more money and that is supposed to make it OK. The same argument could be made that those who do not oppose super PAC money take it because they need the money to get elected. They too are outgunned (David Axelrod said there is an “array of guns pointed at us” so is this a violent metaphor we can use to blame him if there is violence?) by the people who they are running against. Democrats get large amounts of money from donors (despite the claims of small donors there are lots of big name and big money donors) and they use that money for Democrats to get elected.
A few years ago when Obama was getting boatloads of money for his campaign would he, Axelrod (or any other Democrat) have accepted the excuse from John McCain that he had an array of guns pointed at him so he needed to take PAC money? Hell no! They would have screamed what Obama said in 2010 about corporations taking over our Democracy.
But since Obama wants the money it is now OK to be involved with super PACs.
Here is a video of Obama slamming John Edwards for claiming to be against this kind of money but taking it. Obama says that you can’t just talk the talk; you have to walk the walk.
Mr. Obama, you are now taking the money when you claim to be opposed to it. You can’t talk the talk; you have to walk the walk.
Obama is a hypocrite. I know that liberals will defend this position because they will claim lil’ Barry has to keep up with opponents but that does not make it right. He said he was against the money so he should not take the money.
Then again, this is the guy who said that George Bush was unpatriotic and demonstrated poor leadership for adding trillions of dollars in debt to the country and then promptly added 5 trillion dollars of debt to the country.
If you voted for Obama in 2008 to prove you were not a racist you must vote against him in 2012 to prove you are not an idiot.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Buddy Can You Spare A Trillion?
Jan 13, 2012 Political
Barack Obama went to Congress with hat in hand and asked for another trillion dollars of debt. He wants the debt ceiling raised another trillion dollars so he can borrow and spend more. This will likely be done because Congress can do nothing to stop it.
Under the deal struck last year, Obama can ask for the increase and unless Congress votes not to allow it then it will happen. Since the Democrats control the Senate they will likely not vote to stop it and if they do (it is an election year) Obama can veto them and there are not enough votes to override the veto.
Obama and his policies have given us the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression and he is on track to borrow more than all the presidents from Washington to Clinton combined!
According to the Washington Post, Obama formally notified Congress on 12 January that he will raise the debt ceiling by 1.2 trillion dollars. The Congress has 15 days to say no or it will automatically happen. The House does not return until the 17th and the Senate the 23rd. So Congress will have very few days to actually work on this. This also brings up an off topic question.
Obama’s justice Department sided with him on his recess appointments saying that Obama is unable to communicate with the Senate because it is not in session. He, according to Justice, was able to make recess appointments because he can’t communicate with the Senate because they are not there. How is it then, he is able to communicate with Congress regarding his desire to raise the debt ceiling? How can he formally notify them of his desire to raise the debt and then claim he can’t formally notify them of nominations because they are not there?
OK, back on target. I think Obama will raise the ceiling because the cowards in Congress set it up so they do not have to deal with it. They can claim they never raised the ceiling even if they make a show of trying to stop it. They gave up their power on this issue just as they have done with many other powers they have.
I think that Obama is going to have a hard time convincing people that we need to keep borrowing to get out of debt. Borrowing money to put it into the economy does not stimulate anything and makes as much sense as taking water from the deep end of a pool and putting it in the shallow end and claiming that the shallow end is getting deeper while the deep end is getting shallower.
It simply does not work.
But it is an election year and Obama needs more seed money to pay off his base.
We need a do over on government. We need to get rid of them all and start over with the fresh minds of people who have not been corrupted by their position in office.
November is our revolution.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: Congress, debt limit, lies, money, Obama, power, stimulus
Bankrupt Cities
Dec 20, 2010 Political
So, the city of Central Falls, RI, says that they cannot continue to exist because they simply cannot afford to. They need to merge with a larger city AND receive state help (cash), or they will collapse fiscally.
Oh, and the state already took over their school system and gave the city $604 million in the past 2 decades. The city says they need $2.1 million immediately from the state. Oh, and the city has a $48 million unfunded pile o cash that they owe to government employees. Oh, and another $36 million they owe in government employee health care payouts.
The city has only 19,000 subjects and owes $80 million that they don’t have. In case you’re interested, that’s over $4,000 for every man, woman, and child in the city, that they owe right now, not including ANY current obligations or to keep the city running. Quick: what’s the solution?
Of course, it’s make other taxpayers give them money. The state, the feds, other cities, whatever. Just take the money and give it to them because they want it.
The other solution, a nice, freedom-based solution, would be to let the city go bankrupt. And I don’t mean one of these halfway bankruptcies, where they continue to exist and just don’t pay back loans and that stuff. Let the city cease to exist. Other than government employees, do you think anyone would notice? I bet not.
Of course, if the city did just disband, opportunities would abound. People could start up schools without government interference (well, maybe not, because of state laws). People could create businesses to do the things the city was doing (like trash collection) at a lower rate (well, it is a union state, so they might not be allowed to). Arrests would likely go down because police would not be spending all their time trying to raise revenue for the failing city.
In the end, if a city should cease to exist, I think most non-government employees honestly would not care and would, in fact, be MUCH better off than being forced to continue to support a failed system. Sadly, in America today, a country based on government control and power, that will never happen. Instead, tax rates will be raised and other people will be forced to pay to continue the pointless city of Central Falls. Why? Because government employees will continue to use force to rationalize (and pay for) their own existence.
If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.
Tags: bankrupt cities, government, money, taxpayer bailout
