¡Bienvenido a los Foros de Univision! Participa, intercambia mensajes privados, sube tus fotos y forma parte de nuestra Comunidad. | Ingresa | Regístrate Gratis
Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005


Is Obama’s Unparalleled Record of Failure Making Him Lose His Mental Balance?
Evil Conservative Radio ^ | 26 Jan 10 | EC

In the wake of comments made by outgoing US Rep. Marion Berry (the Democrat congressman from Arkansas - not the crackhead mayor of DC), and Obama’s unparalleled record of failure (six major flops that I can count) EC raises a few compelling questions, not the least of which is whether Barack Obama is fully in charge of his mental faculties... or is our wonderful savior just a little touched?

Barack Obama is in denial

By Toby Harnden

January 26th, 2010

The Telegraph, U.K.

Barack Obama is in trouble. His signature health care reform has been doomed by the Democrats losing their Senate super-majority. He needs to reconnect with ordinary Americans, his advisers tell him. So what does he do? He does a long interview with Diane Sawyer, the new ABC News anchor, in which he states that his big mistake was “we started worrying more about getting the policy right than getting the process right”.

Then the White House pushes out the disastrous Valerie Jarrett – who recently and hilariously described the Obama administration as “speaking truth to power” by bashing Fox News – to tell Politico that “there’s no one more frustrated than President Obama” and that the Scott Brown Massachusetts massacre was, er, nothing to do with Obama. “I don’t think it was directed at Barack Obama,” she said. “In fact, Senator Brown said himself he didn’t run against the President.”

This comes after Representative Marion Berry of Arkansas, announcing he would not fight an election he would almost certainly lose in November, revealed that Obama had told Blue Dog conservative Democrats that the difference between 1994 and 2010 was that “You got me.”

So which is it? It’s nothing to do with Obama but then again it’s all about him? Good luck with that message in November.

Democrats who (unlike Obama) face re-election in November are noting that the President campaigned for candidates in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts – all of which he won comfortably in 2008 – but they still bombed.

The Obama line that Massachusetts is about disgust with “process” not policy and the Jarrett line that it is about some vague unfocused frustration lead to the inevitable conclusion that this White House just doesn’t get it.

As William McGurn in the WSJ points out, the central problem is that Americans – only 20 per cent of whom view themselves as liberal – view the Obama agenda as too far Left. “There’s no sign that Obama buys any of this,” writes McGurn. “His team argues, apparnetly oblivious to the inherent condescension, that no intelligent American could possibly oppose his health-care agenda on substance.”

Yep, the mindset is one of: sooner or later these dumb Americans will realise that we know what’s best for them.

Obama also gave the game away during the Sawyer interview when he yet again compared governing the US to the election campaign.

“I’ve gone through this before,” he said. “I went through this through the campaign. When your poll numbers drop, you’re an idiot. When your poll numbers are high, you’re a genius. If my poll numbers are low, then I’m cool and cerebral and cold and detached. If my poll numbers are high, well, he’s calm and reasoned.”

So in the parallel universe that Obamaland has become, this is just like the summer of 2007 when the poll numbers of the man who Oprah Winfrey would call “the One” were slumping and Hillary Clinton was riding high – and then America woke up and realised that Obama was the answer to all their problems.

Well, I’d say that although Obama and his team have not moved on, Americans have. Things are different from the campaign. It’s now all about Obama only to the extent that his policies and their results are now being judged. It’s not all about Obama in the sense that his transcendent personality will trump everything in November.

Obama himself doesn’t seem to be able to grasp this. He’s suffering from what his predecessor George W. Bush was so often accused of: he’s in a state of denial.

Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005


Newsmax/Zogby Poll: Scott Brown Could Defeat Obama in Presidential Race

By: David A. Patten

A stunning new poll conducted by Newsmax/Zogby reveals that Massachusett's new Republican Senator-elect Scott Brown could defeat President Barack Obama in a presidential election.

The Newsmax/Zogby poll released Tuesday found that the pair would be statistically deadlocked if the presidential election was held today.

The poll indicates surprisingly weak support for the president among independent voters, who favor the tyro Brown by 48.6 percent to 36 percent in a hypothetical matchup against Obama.

Mark McKinnon, the respected political strategist who created former President George W. Bush's successful television ad campaigns in 2000 and 2004, told Newsmax that the survey results should trigger alarms for Team Obama.

"The real problem for Obama is that he has lost the middle, and losing the middle means losing independents," McKinnon said. "And it is independents that are responsible for swinging elections one way or the other in this country. So if you lose independents, you're going to lose the presidency."

The poll asked likely voters: "If the election for president of the United States were held today and the only candidates were Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Scott Brown, for whom would you vote?"

Based on the 4,163 responses, Obama leads Brown by 46.5 percent to 44.6 percent. That amounts to a statistical tie because the Zogby survey has a margin of error of plus or minus 1.5 percent.

The survey's real message is that President Obama appears politically vulnerable, Larry J. Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics.

"I’ve seen other candidates essentially tie Obama in other surveys, including Mike Huckabee," Sabato told Newsmax. "It’s really more about Obama’s weakness as he begins his second year, than any Republican’s strength."
Obama "has developed real problems with independents," Sabato said, adding that that could change, if the economy strengthens considerably by 2012.

Some pundits are calling for the administration to undertake a mid-course correction and tack to the political center to regain momentum.

The day after the stunning Bay State election, the president appeared to signal a willingness to pare down his ambitious transformation of the U.S. healthcare system. His aides backtracked from that notion on the Sunday talk programs, however, insisting that healthcare reform remains very much on the table, despite the nation's ailing economy and high unemployment.

John Zogby, the founder and chairman of Zogby International, told Newsmax: "Clearly, this result is more a sign of trouble for Obama than it is good news for Brown. Over the first few months of his presidency, there was substantial support among independents, which has now moved to a serious deficit."

Independents may be reacting to heavy federal spending that has yet to dent the high unemployment rate, Zogby said.

Interestingly, press reports indicate that President Obama will call for a freeze on some domestic spending in his State of the Union address set for Wednesday.

The Newsmax/Zogby poll does show some political silver linings for Obama. Obama's rich versus poor strategy seems to be paying off with lower income voters. Voters with incomes under $50,000 back Obama 54 percent to 37 percent for Brown.

To win back middle class voters and independents, Obama will have to show he is fighting for fiscal discipline, Zogby argued.

"Obama is going to have to show to them that their tax dollars haven't been wasted," he said. "Brown received support after what was perceived to be a national victory, which means now he's on the national political radar.

"Someone else I recall was once a state senator and was launched to national prominence through a U.S. Senate election. Now we'll see if history repeats itself. You never know," Zogby said.

Brown has been the focus of national attention since his surprising upset last week of Democrat Martha Coakley in the Massachusetts race, which gave Republicans the 41st vote they need to filibuster measures in the Senate.

New York City political analyst Andy Ostroy recently blogged: "With his law degree, his stint in the Massachusetts State Senate, and in what could now be an incredibly influential role in the U.S. Senate, Brown could grow into quite the formidable opponent to Obama in 2012. Honestly, with the sheer lack of sexiness and excitement in the GOP right now, if I were the party leaders I'd have started grooming this guy for a presidential run yesterday."

Such unbridled enthusiasm, however, overlooks the long odds that Brown would face in a national GOP primary.

Richard Viguerie, a stalwart conservative marketing guru, told Newsmax: "While Senator-elect Scott Brown appears to have a very bright future in the Republican Party, it's silly season to think of him as a presidential candidate in 2012.

"We know very little about Brown," Viguerie said. "And some of his positions that may have been helpful in the Massachusetts U.S. Senate race would work against him in a Republican nomination battle — such as his support for abortion rights and his record in the state legislature of voting for liberal legislation."

Sabato concurred, saying: "I think it’s fair to say Scott Brown is the flavor of the month. He’s had a very positive introduction to the American public with almost no critical scrutiny. That won’t be the case in a GOP primary or a general election.

"Brown’s positions on abortion and gay rights are quite liberal. It’s highly unlikely the national GOP would actually nominate him for president. Most Republicans are unaware of those positions, or they were willing to overlook them because it was Massachusetts," he said.

Sabato said he expects new contenders for the GOP nomination to emerge from November's midterm elections.

Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005


[ Editado ]
EDITORIAL: Obama, the god that failed


President Obama said Monday that he would "rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president." He will be lucky if he's not an abject failure. There's usually a reason for a presidency lasting a single term, as Mr. Obama's slow-motion train wreck is demonstrating.

Mr. Obama took office with historically high approval ratings based on a combination of hope for his administration, reaction against President George W. Bush's second-term unpopularity and a degree of irrational exuberance, best illustrated by Newsweek editor Evan Thomas' cultish imageof Mr. Obama "standing above the country, above - above the world, he's sort of God." For his first 100 days, Mr. Obama's approval rating remained relatively high, and the percentage of Americans thinking the country was on the right track grew from about 10 percent the previous October to more than 40 percent.

By May 2009, Americans began to lose confidence in Mr. Obama, and the god began to bleed. The numbers saying the country was on the wrong track crept back upward. Mr. Obama' public approval rating began its great decline, the most rapid of any first-year president, according to Gallup. The decline has been broad and deep; Mr. Obama has lost support nearly uniformly from men and women across all age groups and all incomes.

The most striking slump occurred with the white middle class, which bears the brunt of Mr. Obama's wildly irresponsible fiscal policies. White approval dropped from 60 percent to 39 percent, and among middle-income Americans, support declined from 65 percent to 46 percent. Independent voter support declined from 66 percent to 45 percent. Among those who attend church weekly, approval dropped from 60 percent to 42 percent, and there was an almost identical decline among married couples and those older than 65. This explains why Mr. Obama is attempting to pander to the middle class, without whose support he cannot be re-elected.

It's not hard to understand Mr. Obama's historic descent. After 100 days, Americans took the measure of the man in office and found him wanting. They saw his inexperience, his penchant for liberal ideology over common sense and his unprecedented drive to expand government controls over every aspect of American life. He pressed for more taxes, more regulations, greater federal control over the economy and increased dependence on Washington. He rammed through a $787 billion stimulus bill that was an off-budget wish list of congressional pork. He ran up more debt in the first month of his first budget than the federal government accrued in all of 2007. He promised the stimulus bill would limit unemployment to 8 percent; unemployment is now in double digits.

Mr. Obama promised to renew America's relations with the world, but his reach has exceeded his grasp. His grand designs for peace in the Middle East and South Asia have collapsed. His outreach to the Muslim world has not stemmed the tide of terrorism. America's adversaries mock the president, and our friends watch the decline of U.S. power in wonder and disappointment.

Mr. Obama came to Washington promising a new tone, an end to bitter partisanship, a new openness and frankness with the American people. But transparency was obscured, partisan lines hardened, and the White House became an ivory tower of arrogance. As Mr. Obama steps to the podium to give his State of the Union address tonight after a year in office, the man who stood above the world has crashed back down to Earth.

Mensaje editado por sirjohn

Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009


The Grasping Hand (modern democratic state pillages its productive citizens)
City Journal ^ | winter, 2010 | Peter Sloterdijk

The modern democratic state pillages its productive citizens.

To assess the unprecedented scale that the modern democratic state has attained in Europe, it is useful to recall the historical kinship between two movements that emerged at its birth: classical liberalism and anarchism. Both were motivated by the mistaken hypothesis that the world was heading toward an era of the weakening of the state. While liberalism wanted a minimal state that would guide citizens almost imperceptibly, leaving them to go about their business in peace, anarchism called for the total death of the state. Behind these two movements was a hope typical of the European nineteenth century: that man’s plunder of man would soon come to an end. In the first case, this would result from the elimination of exploitation by unproductive classes, that is, the nobility and the clergy.

In the second case, the key was to reorganize traditional social classes into little groups that would consume what they produced. But the political history of the twentieth century, and not just in its totalitarian extremes, proved unkind to both classical liberalism and anarchism. The modern democratic state gradually transformed into the debtor state, within the space of a century metastasizing into a colossal monster—one that breathes and spits out money.

This metamorphosis has resulted, above all, from a prodigious enlargement of the tax base—most notably, with the introduction of the progressive income tax. This tax is the functional equivalent of socialist expropriation. It offers the remarkable advantage of being annually renewable—at least, in the case of those it has not bled dry the previous year. (To appreciate the current tolerance of well-off citizens, recall that when the very first income tax was levied in England, at the rate of 5 percent, Queen Victoria worried that it might have exceeded acceptable limits. Since that day, we have become accustomed to the fact that a handful of productive citizens provide more than half of national income-tax revenues.)

When this levy is combined with a long list of other fees and taxes, which target consumers most of all, this is the surprising result: each year, modern states claim half the economic proceeds of their productive classes and pass them on to tax collectors, and yet these productive classes do not attempt to remedy their situation with the most obvious reaction: an antitax civil rebellion. This submissiveness is a political tour de force that would have made a king’s finance minister swoon.

With these considerations in mind, we can see that the question that many European observers are asking during the current economic crisis—“Does capitalism have a future?”—is the wrong one. In fact, we do not live in a capitalist system but under a form of semi-socialism that Europeans tactfully refer to as a “social market economy.” The grasping hand of government releases its takings mainly for the ostensible public interest, funding Sisyphean tasks in the name of “social justice.”

Thus, the direct and selfish exploitation of a feudal era has been transformed in the modern age into a juridically constrained and almost disinterested state kleptocracy. Today, a finance minister is a Robin Hood who has sworn a constitutional oath. The capacity that characterizes the Treasury, to seize with a perfectly clear conscience, is justified in theory as well as in practice by the state’s undeniable utility in maintaining social peace—not to mention all the other benefits it hands out. (In all this, corruption remains a limited factor. To test this statement, it suffices to think of the situation in post-Communist Russia, where an ordinary party man like Vladimir Putin has been able, in just a few years as head of state, to amass a personal fortune of more than $20 billion.) Free-market observers of this kleptocratic monster do well to call attention to its dangers: overregulation, which impedes entrepreneurial energy; overtaxation, which punishes success; and excessive debt, the result of budgetary rigor giving way to speculative frivolity.

Free-market authors have also shown how the current situation turns the traditional meaning of exploitation upside down. In an earlier day, the rich lived at the expense of the poor, directly and unequivocally; in a modern economy, unproductive citizens increasingly live at the expense of productive ones—though in an equivocal way, since they are told, and believe, that they are disadvantaged and deserve more still.

Today, in fact, a good half of the population of every modern nation is made up of people with little or no income, who are exempt from taxes and live, to a large extent, off the other half of the population, which pays taxes.

If such a situation were to be radicalized, it could give rise to massive social conflict. The eminently plausible free-market thesis of exploitation by the unproductive would then have prevailed over the much less promising socialist thesis of the exploitation of labor by capital. This reversal would imply the coming of a post-democratic age.

At present, the main danger to the future of the system involves the growing indebtedness of states intoxicated by Keynesianism. Discreetly and ineluctably, we are heading toward a situation in which debtors will once again dispossess their creditors—as has so often happened in the history of taxation, from the era of the pharaohs to the monetary reforms of the twentieth century.

What is new is the gargantuan scale of public debt. Mortgaging, insolvency, monetary reform, or inflation—no matter, the next great expropriations are under way. Today, the state’s grasping hand even reaches into the pockets of generations unborn. We have already written the title of the next chapter of our history: “The pillage of the future by the present.”

Peter Sloterdijk is a German philosopher; his article was translated by Alexis Cornel.

Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009


BREAKING NEWS: Obama Lies About Lobbyists
Tonight, Barack Obama said, "To close that credibility gap we must take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; and to give our people the government they deserve.

"That's what I came to Washington to do. That's why -- for the first time in history -- my Administration posts our White House visitors online. And that's why we've excluded lobbyists from policy-making jobs or seats on federal boards and commissions."

Maybe this explains why his national security policies are so weak. He put William Lynn in the Pentagon as Deputy Defense Secretary. Mr. Lynn was a lobbyist for Defense Contractor Raytheon. I guess the Deputy Defense Secretary is not a policy-making job.

But it is not just Lynn.

* Eric Holder, attorney general nominee, was registered to lobby until 2004 on behalf of clients including Global Crossing, a bankrupt telecommunications firm [now confirmed].
* Tom Vilsack, secretary of agriculture nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year on behalf of the National Education Association.
* William Lynn, deputy defense secretary nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for defense contractor Raytheon, where he was a top executive.
* William Corr, deputy health and human services secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until last year for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a non-profit that pushes to limit tobacco use.
* David Hayes, deputy interior secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until 2006 for clients, including the regional utility San Diego Gas & Electric.
* Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for financial giant Goldman Sachs.
* Ron Klain, chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, was registered to lobby until 2005 for clients, including the Coalition for Asbestos Resolution, U.S. Airways, Airborne Express and drug-maker ImClone.
* Mona Sutphen, deputy White House chief of staff, was registered to lobby for clients, including Angliss International in 2003.
* Melody Barnes, domestic policy council director, lobbied in 2003 and 2004 for liberal advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Constitution Society and the Center for Reproductive Rights.
* Cecilia Munoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, was a lobbyist as recently as last year for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group.
* Patrick Gaspard, White House political affairs director, was a lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union.
* Michael Strautmanis, chief of staff to the president's assistant for intergovernmental relations, lobbied for the American As

Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005



The Spender-in-Chief’s Fiscal Freeze Follies

By Michelle Malkin On January 28, 2010 In FrontPage


There are more loopholes in President Obama’s proposed “spending freeze” than in an Olympic volleyball net. Gargantuan government entitlements (Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) are exempt. A half-trillion in unspent stimulus money is exempt. Foreign aid is exempt. The Democrats’ proposed $154 billion jobs bill (Stimulus II) is exempt.

Pet federal education programs will be exempt (including $4 billion for the White House “Race to the Top” standards initiative and an additional $1.35 billion he just requested in the 2011 budget). Green jobs spending will be exempt. (Obama proposed $10 billion in new clean energy spending earlier this month.) Electorally driven tax-credit expansions will be exempt. The health care [1] takeover plan is not included. As even The New York Times reported, the “estimated $250 billion in savings over 10 years would be less than 3 percent of the roughly $9 trillion in additional deficits the government is expected to accumulate over that time.”

Which amounts to a molecule in a drop of the ocean of red ink in which American taxpayers have been drowning.

The current Spender-in-Chief unveiled details of this lofty new work of political fiction on Monday with more fanfare than a new “Twilight” title. It was supposed to be the centerpiece of the State of the Union address. But by Tuesday morning, Obama’s illusion of fiscal discipline had been shredded left, right and center. By Tuesday afternoon, irritated White House spokesman Robert Gibbs was already downplaying the gimmickry. It’s just something Obama will “mention,” Gibbs bristled.

After campaign videos of Obama repeatedly deriding “hatchet”-wielding spending freezes spread like Kudzu across the Internet, official White House blogger Jared Bernstein tried to control the widespread hypocrisy charges:

“During the campaign, you may recall that John McCain touted option 1 — the hatchet approach of an across-the-board freeze.

“The President was critical of that approach then, and we would be critical of it now. It’s not what we’re proposing. To the contrary, the entire theory of the President’s proposed freeze is to dial up the stuff that will support job growth and innovation while dialing down the stuff that doesn’t. Under our plan, some discretionary spending will go up; some will go down.

That’s a big difference from a hatchet. …

“President Obama deeply understands the various imperatives of this moment in time, even if they don’t always point in the same direction.”

So, he had a hatchet on Monday when he wanted headlines praising his return to austerity in the wake of the GOP’s Massachusetts Senate victory; a scalpel on Tuesday when he needed to mollify the big-government left. What will he wield at the State of the Union address on Wednesday night? A variable-speed Dremel rotary tool?

Some conservative Beltway analysts are cheering Obama’s fiscal freeze follies as a step in the right direction, a rhetorical victory and a “good start.” Pardon me for not joining in the standing ovation for the latest performance of White House kabuki theater. Praising the president for carrying on the charade of budget reform because a few piddling cuts are real is like complimenting the Naked Emperor’s fingernails: So he didn’t have any clothes. At least his cuticles were real. It’s a start!

Moreover, who believes this freeze will last for the entire, cynically timed three-year period that the White House announced fewer than 72 hours ago? McDonald’s French fries have a longer shelf life than Obama’s pledges of fiscal accountability. All it’ll take is one more bad jobs report, one Chicken Little Congress-induced panic, to drop the budget restrictions faster than reality dad Jon Gosselin’s ex-girlfriends.

One year after riding into town on a wave of adulation and ambition, Obama has lost his “swagga.” His pre-State of the Union appearances have been listless and perfunctory. His dependence on a teleprompter — even for a standard 6-minute stump statement at an elementary school — is now the butt of universal mockery. And his political machine has been forced to lay down enough fake Astroturf support to cover a football field.

This is the time to nail the phonies in the White House, not to beg for meetings in hopes of bipartisan problem-solving. There’s little triumph in Obama’s empty “concessions” on the need to cut spending. They are fueled not by sincere commitment to reining in Washington’s appetites, but by craven political self-preservation.

The president has lately regressed into his “I will fight for you” campaign sloganeering — by which, of course, he means, “I will fight for me.” There will be no hands reaching across the aisle. Obama’s too busy using them to point fingers at everyone else for his own political meltdown.

Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009


Not True”


January 28, 2010 –  Before the State of the Union yesterday, I watched Rep. Joe Wilson (who famously yelled “You lie!” the last time Obama addressed Congress) on Neil Cavuto’s show, who was there to discuss the upcoming speech by the President. Mr. Wilson proved to be a humble guest by profusely apologizing (yet again) for his outburst, and by politely disagreeing with the President’s spending policies during a short two or three minute interview that exuded sincerity.

It was a sharp contrast from President Obama’s State of the Union address, head held high, a few hours later, where the same annoying arrogance permeated the speech, so much so that a dumb little interview showed more humility on the part of Mr. Wilson for one mistake, than Obama showed during his 70 minutes long speech for big mistakes that affect us all. (I have no choice but conclude that Mr. Wilson has more integrity in his pinky toe than President Obama.)

Last year the President’s idea of fixing problems catapulted the deficit into unknown and dangerous territory. The Wall Street Journal reports that according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office “over the first three years of the Obama Presidency, 2009-2011, the federal government will borrow an estimated $3.7 trillion. That is more than the entire accumulated national debt for the first 225 years of U.S. history.”

This government largesse led to the public revolt of 2009, also known as the “tea party” revolt. Protesters led the public debate against big government and Obama‘s liberal spending policies. These concerns were not just ignored by the President last night but he mistakenly misinterpreted the angst as well.

You see Mr. Obama blames everyone and anyone besides himself for the bad economy; banks, brokers, speculators, Congress, Washington, corruption, Bush, health insurance companies, corporations and stubborn Republicans who refuse to “cooperate”. But he says nothing about the out of control spending that has occurred under his watch and has – and this is important – contributed to the bad economy.

At some point, Mr. Obama has to realize or at least acknowledge that we cannot spend our way out of this serious debt problem and that if we do not stop spending right now, we risk deteriation of the dollar and possible collapse of the free market as we know it.

A great President once said that the best thing government could do for business in America is get out of the way. That is the sentiment that the country is expressing today, and as smart as everyone wants to portray the President, it’s kind of dumb that he did not acknowledge that this Whitehouse and its Democrat controlled Congress is spending too much money that we do not have on projects that failed to stimulate jobs in private industry last year. What makes anyone think that continued spending will work now?

Although the President did not use the term “saved or created” when referencing jobs last night, he certainly relied on its faux data. Mr. Obama claims that if it wasn’t for the various spending bills of last year, the economy would have experienced a deep depression, yet there is no reliable evidence that this assertion is true unless you rely on the “saved or created” model.

“Saved or created” is a term invented by the Obama administration so that the rate of jobs created can be manipulated. The two words are used in conjunction always, otherwise the scheme doesn’t work.

It is impossible to count the amount of jobs “saved” by last year’s mass Stimulus bill that poured billions of dollars into state governments, but you can quantity a “created” job because there is no ambiguity. With a “saved” job, some state governments reported “saved” jobs by the thousands, by tabulating every government job (i.e. teachers, fireman, police) that may have been lost if the federal government did not intervene.

So the Whitehouse can come out and say we “saved or created” “x” amount of jobs without being tied down to facts or circumstances, like a job was really created. I heard three different figures from the Obama administration just this past week, “thousands”, “1.5 million” and “2 million” jobs were “saved or created” thanks to the Stimulus bill. They might as well say 10 million jobs were “saved or created” because no one can dispute it based upon the “save or created” threshold.

The President claims he wants a three year freeze on government spending (starting in 2011) that excludes non-discretionary spending such as the military and entitlement programs that comprise approximately 83% of the budget, to show the American people that the federal government knows how to tighten its belt. It’s a start, right?

Wrong. The Obama administration increased spending on discretionary items last year so much so that it bypassed the usual increases of 3-4% to a whooping 20+%. If Congress agrees to freeze spending in those areas, it actually locks the increased budgets where they are — which ultimately benefits big-spending officials who do not have to fight off their fiscally conservative counterparts who may want to decrease the federal budget for real.

Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009



Sheer hypocrisy can only explain the continued and ridiculous blame game by President Obama.

He calls on Congress to be transparent, but he hides behind closed doors with Union leaders to work out a sweetheart deal. He calls on Congress to post earmarks on-line before submitting bills for signature, but he did not do the same for the proposed healthcare “reform” bill. He tells us to stop the partisan bickering as he name calls Republicans in the same breath. He calls on the American people to look forward, but we cannot move forward until lessons are learned from the past.

Remember folks, it was President Obama who looked you in the eye last night and apologized for not explaining the healthcare “reform” bill well enough. He begrudgingly admitted that you are angry, but went on to lecture that he knows what’s right for you, and sooner or later you will love what he has proposed.

Mr. President, the American people have been telling you for about a year now and it’s getting quite tired. We want the federal government to STOP. Stop spending money, stop trying to transform America, and for heaven’s sake stop the lies. We do not like the healthcare reform bill because it stinks to high heaven, that message is clear.

Forge ahead with new spending bills, forge ahead with Obamacare and forge ahead with Cap & Trade legislation, is he kidding me? Mr. President – da...mn it – take your hands off your ears!

The President continues to pursue the idea that the earth is warming due to man- made carbon emissions, even though the evidence is mounting against the global warming theory first advocated by former Vice President Al Gore.

Cap & Trade is a scheme to collect funds from the rich and redistribute those funds to poor and underdeveloped nations. This idea that somehow instituting new taxes on businesses for excess carbon emission will save the economy and make us leading innovators of the world, that’s if you believe we are not already the most innovative country in the world, is complete and utter rubbish.

Cap & Trade legislation will raise consumer costs, extend government control on industry, and do nothing to control climate change. The climate changes minute by minute, hello!

Furthermore, the President’s continued delusion that Islamic terrorism is a reaction to Western imperialism is a stale argument that doesn’t fly anymore. Every minute of every single day Islamic terrorists are plotting to kill Americans and our way of life. Devoting ten minutes to an issue as important as national security is both scary and depressing. The President is more afraid of offending terrorists, than the backlash he will receive from the public if he fails to protect us.

Obama is also facing mounting criticism for offering suspected terrorists the same rights under the law as the average criminal. Instead of addressing the topic head on; he chose to ignore it, as if it is not even happening. Funny, liberal journalists accuse tea party people of living in an alternate universe!

Finally, and I promise this is my last point, the President criticized the recent Decision of the US Supreme Court that overturned parts of the McCain Feingold Act that restricts corporations from free speech. If you are a conservative like me, you welcome the decision, but if you are a liberal like Obama, you denounce it.

I found it odd that the President chose this venue to criticize the US Supreme Court while the Justices were sitting in the front row, but whatever! What I did find very interesting was the phrase mouthed by Justice Alito in response to the President’s criticism – “not true” – two simple words that succinctly summarize the contents of Mr. Obama’s State of the Union. For the first time all night — I cheered!

Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005


God bless Sam Alito
Lame Cherry ^ | January 27, 2010 |

When Massachusetts elected Senator Scott Brown it was the Scott heard round the world.

When Barack Obama attacked the Supreme Court of these United States for upholding Constitutional Law in his State of the Union lecture, it was Obama being a 3rd world thug. (OTRO HUGO CHAVEZ)

When Justice Sam Alito responded to Obama with “NOT TRUE”, as the maniacal mob of Democrats were jeering and having bodily secretions like at a cock fight, it was an American Patriot in Sam Alito rekindling the words, “Don’t Tread on Me!”

This is not about protocols in what Obama did in smashing the decorum of the US Capitol which is the People’s House with his attacking another branch of Government, but it is about Barack Obama overstepping his Executive authority as nowhere in the Constitution does it give the Executive the right to browbeat the Supreme Court, hold it hostage in the US Capitol and then turn a jeering mob screaming at it loose on that sacred body to terrorize it.

That is intimidation and assault. It is exactly the motive and operation of Obama threatening US bankers with pitchfork mobs. In Obama State of the Union lecture, the mob was Charles Schumer and his pitchfork was was his tongue screaming at innocent Americans.

Chief Justice John Roberts has not done his job on the Supreme Court in protecting the Constitution. Justice Scalia has noted to Attorney Orly Taitz that it requires one more Justice to hear the Obama usurpation case. That Justice is no doubt Justice Kennedy who is surrounded by the patrician ilk of Ginsburg and associates.

It is past time that Justice Kennedy join now in heeding his Constitutional responsibility in protecting the United States Supreme Court as Barack Hussein Obama just threatened that 3rd branch of Government with assault. In true terror fashion, Barack Hussein Obama attempted to intimidate the United States Supreme Court in the United States Capitol.

For the protection of the Court as Mr. Obama has now progressed from Lawrence Sinclair, to bloggers, to Rush Limbaugh, to FOX News and now to the US Supreme Court to bully it so Obama’s re election will be on his criminal ACORN money fraud grounds which allowed him to steal the Presidency of these United States in 2008.

This must stop immediately and the American Justices on the Court must now be roused to hold an immediate hearing, demanding that Barack Hussein Obama be held accountable for assault upon the 9 Justices of the Supreme Court of these United States. Mr. Obama’s assault was an attack upon the Constitutional Government of these United States and the shattering of his oath he took twice. (OBAMA DEBE SER REMOVIDO POR VIOLAR LA CONSTITUCION COMO FUE ZELAYA)

As evidence against Mr. Obama, he also attacked minority Constitutional rights in his lecture by threatening Republicans to not filibuster in the United States Senate, but instead to bow to Obama’s mandates and join with his illegal destruction of the United States form of government.

The US Supreme Court in checks and balances can indeed schedule hearings to investigate, and demand that Barack Hussein Obama produce his real Hawaiian birth certificate, US passport, college tuition information, all to prove he is or is not a US Citizen. Thus finding he is not, the US Court can negate every single issue Mr. Obama is connected to as unConstitutional.

Justice Sam Alito in upholding Truth, Justice and the American Way spoke the most resilient of Free Speech in informing the cheering Obamaniac mobs that their leader is a liar. Mr. Obama broke his oath in promising to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States by attacking the US Supreme Court in 3rd world thuggery.

Mr. Obama must be removed by the US Supreme Court in a case of their own making as the final check and balance on a Barack Obama making war on branch of the United States Government.

Semper Fi Justice Alito.

Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005





Editors of NRO

Everything changes except President Obama. His agenda doesn’t change. He has had no second thoughts about the wisdom of his health-care policies, or any of his policies; resistance is always and only a reason for redoubling. Also unchanging is the condescension with which he articulates his agenda: He faulted himself for not explaining health care well enough to the easily confused American public. The same familiar strawmen dot the landscape of his rhetoric. (Republicans want to “maintain the status quo” on health care. This president is willing to listen to Republican ideas, just so long as he can then forget that he has ever done so.)

Narcissism, too, is a constant companion. The opening of the speech, and the end, invited us to regard Obama as the embodiment of the nation. But it is not the country’s future that has suddenly come under doubt. It is his administration’s. It is not the country’s spirit that is in danger of breaking. It is contemporary liberalism’s.

“Let’s try common sense,” said the president. For Obama, that means that expanding Medicaid is the way to reduce the deficit. That increasing the price of energy is the way to create jobs. That further socializing medicine is the way to stay ahead of India. Nothing in his speech suggested that the government’s most important economic task might be to create the context of stability in which growth can occur. (Perhaps that thought would have interfered with the theme of “change.”)

Beyond a pro forma sentence, nothing in the speech suggested that any positive economic trend could ever take hold without a direct assist from the federal government. Without its help, firms wouldn’t export or get credit. The proposal to forgive student-loan debt on special terms for people who go into “public service” typifies this administration’s attitude toward the economy: Producing wealth is less noble than rearranging it. On one of the country’s true economic challenges, runaway entitlement spending, Obama punted to a commission.

The president’s foreign-policy remarks were both perfunctory and otherworldly. Bringing our resources and our ideals into balance is always the difficulty in American foreign policy. Obama resolved the tension by pretending that he had consistently favored democrats and freedom-fighters the world over. In Iran, in Cuba, in China, his actual policy has been the reverse.

Anyone could find something to agree with in an endless speech, and we will dutifully applaud the president’s professed desire for new nuclear plants. All in all, though, our impression was of an administration that has no real understanding of the political straits in which it finds itself and thus no way to escape them.