Who is Barack Obama?
Very interesting and something that should be considered
in your choice.
this is very scary to think of what lies ahead of us
here in our own United States... better heed this
We checked this out on 'snopes.com'.
It is factual. Check for yourself.
Who is Barack Obama?
Probable U. S. presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama
was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a
black MUSLIM from Nyangoma-Kogel,
Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white ATHIEST from
Wichita, Kansas. Obama's parents met at the University
of Hawaii. When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced.
His father returned to Kenya. His mother
then married Lolo Soetoro, a RADICAL Muslim from Indonesia.?
When Obama was 6 years old, the family
relocate to Indonesia. Obama attended a MUSLIM
school in Jakarta. He also spent two years in a
Catholic school.
Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is
a Muslim. He is quick to point out that, 'He was once a Muslim,
but that he also attended Catholic school.'
Obama's political handlers are attempting to make it
appear that he is not a radical. Obama's introduction
to Islam came via his father, and that this influence
was temporary at best. In reality, the senior Obama
returned to Kenya soon after the divorce, and never
again had any direct influence over his son's education.
Lolo Soetoro, the second husband of Obama's mother,
Ann Dunham, introduced his stepson to Islam. Obama
was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta.
Wahabism is the RADICAL teaching that is followed
by the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad
against the western world. Since it is politically expedient
to be a CHRISTIAN when seeking major public office
in the United States, Barack Hussein Obama has joined
the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay
his Muslim background. ALSO, keep in mind that when
he was sworn into office he DID NOT use the Holy
Bible, but instead the Koran.
Barack Hussein Obama will NOT recite the Pledge of
Allegience nor will he show any reverence for our flag.
While others place their hands over their hearts, Obama
turns his back to the flag and slouches. Let us all
remain alert concerning Obama's expected presidential
candidacy.
The Muslims have said they plan to destroy the
US from the inside out, what better way to start than
at the highest level - through the President of the
United States, one of their own!!!!
Would you want this man leading our country?
...... NOT ME
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Friday, May 29, 2009
Another good article from Investors Business Daily
An Unhealthy Infatuation With Obama
By ROBERT SAMUELSON | Posted Friday, May 29, 2009 4:20 PM PT
The Obama infatuation is a great unreported story of our time. Has any recent president basked in so much favorable media coverage? Well, maybe John Kennedy for a moment; but no president since. On the whole, this is not healthy for America.
Our political system works best when a president faces checks on his power. But the main checks on Obama are modest. They come from congressional Democrats, who largely share his goals if not always his means.
The leaderless and confused Republicans don't provide effective opposition. And the press — on domestic, if not foreign, policy — has so far largely abdicated its role as skeptical observer.
Obama has inspired a collective fawning. What started in the campaign (the chief victim was Hillary Clinton, not John McCain) has continued, as a study by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism shows.
It concludes: "President Barack Obama has enjoyed substantially more positive media coverage than either Bill Clinton or George W. Bush during their first months in the White House."
The study examined 1,261 stories by the Washington Post, the New York Times, ABC, CBS and NBC, Newsweek magazine and the "NewsHour" on PBS. Favorable stories (42%) were double the unfavorable (20%), while the rest were "neutral" or "mixed."
Obama's treatment contrasts sharply with coverage in the first two months of the presidencies of Bush (22% of stories favorable) and Clinton (27%). Unlike Bush and Clinton, Obama received favorable coverage in news columns and opinion pages.
The nature of stories also changed. "Roughly twice as much of the coverage of Obama (44%) has concerned his personal and leadership qualities than was the case for Bush (22%) or Clinton (26%)," the report said. "Less of the coverage, meanwhile, has focused on his policy agenda."
When Pew broadened the analysis to 49 outlets — cable channels, news Web sites, morning news shows, more newspapers and National Public Radio — the results were similar, despite some outliers.
No surprise: MSNBC was favorable, Fox was not. Another study, released by the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, reached parallel conclusions.
The infatuation matters because Obama's ambitions are so grand. He wants to expand health care subsidies, tightly control energy use and overhaul immigration.
He envisions the greatest growth of government since Lyndon Johnson.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates federal spending in 2019 at nearly 25% of the gross domestic product. That's well up from the 21% in 2008, and far above the post-World War II average; it would also occur before many baby boomers retire.
Are his proposals practical, even if desirable? Maybe they're neither. What might be unintended consequences? All "reforms" do not succeed; some cause more problems than they solve.
Johnson's economic policies, inherited from Kennedy, proved disastrous; they led to the 1970s' stagflation. The "war on poverty" failed. The press should not be hostile, but it ought to be skeptical.
Mostly, it isn't. The idea of a "critical" Obama story is a tactical conflict with congressional Democrats or criticism from an important constituency. Larger issues are minimized, despite ample grounds for skepticism.
Obama's rhetoric brims with inconsistencies. In the campaign, he claimed he would de-emphasize partisanship — and also enact a highly partisan agenda; both couldn't be true. He got a pass.
Now he claims he will control health care spending even though he proposes more government spending. He promotes "fiscal responsibility" when projections show huge and continuous budget deficits. Journalists seem to take his pronouncements at face value even when many are two-faced.
The cause of this acquiescence isn't clear. The press sometimes follows opinion polls; popular presidents get good coverage, and Obama is enormously popular. By Pew, his job performance rating is 63%.
But because favorable coverage began in the campaign, this explanation is at best partial.
Perhaps the preoccupation with the present economic crisis has diverted attention from the long-term implications of other policies. But the deeper explanation may be as straightforward as this:
Most journalists like Obama; they admire his command of language; he's a relief after Bush; they agree with his agenda (so it never occurs to them to question basic premises); and they don't want to see the first African-American president fail.
Whatever, a great edifice of government may arise on the narrow foundation of Obama's personal popularity. Another Pew survey shows that since the election both self-identified Republicans and Democrats have declined. "Independents" have increased, and "there has been no consistent movement away from conservatism, nor a shift toward liberalism."
The press has become Obama's silent ally and seems in a state of denial. But the story goes untold: Unsurprisingly, the study of all the favorable coverage received little coverage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is exactly what I have been saying about the fawning media all along here.
By ROBERT SAMUELSON | Posted Friday, May 29, 2009 4:20 PM PT
The Obama infatuation is a great unreported story of our time. Has any recent president basked in so much favorable media coverage? Well, maybe John Kennedy for a moment; but no president since. On the whole, this is not healthy for America.
Our political system works best when a president faces checks on his power. But the main checks on Obama are modest. They come from congressional Democrats, who largely share his goals if not always his means.
The leaderless and confused Republicans don't provide effective opposition. And the press — on domestic, if not foreign, policy — has so far largely abdicated its role as skeptical observer.
Obama has inspired a collective fawning. What started in the campaign (the chief victim was Hillary Clinton, not John McCain) has continued, as a study by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism shows.
It concludes: "President Barack Obama has enjoyed substantially more positive media coverage than either Bill Clinton or George W. Bush during their first months in the White House."
The study examined 1,261 stories by the Washington Post, the New York Times, ABC, CBS and NBC, Newsweek magazine and the "NewsHour" on PBS. Favorable stories (42%) were double the unfavorable (20%), while the rest were "neutral" or "mixed."
Obama's treatment contrasts sharply with coverage in the first two months of the presidencies of Bush (22% of stories favorable) and Clinton (27%). Unlike Bush and Clinton, Obama received favorable coverage in news columns and opinion pages.
The nature of stories also changed. "Roughly twice as much of the coverage of Obama (44%) has concerned his personal and leadership qualities than was the case for Bush (22%) or Clinton (26%)," the report said. "Less of the coverage, meanwhile, has focused on his policy agenda."
When Pew broadened the analysis to 49 outlets — cable channels, news Web sites, morning news shows, more newspapers and National Public Radio — the results were similar, despite some outliers.
No surprise: MSNBC was favorable, Fox was not. Another study, released by the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, reached parallel conclusions.
The infatuation matters because Obama's ambitions are so grand. He wants to expand health care subsidies, tightly control energy use and overhaul immigration.
He envisions the greatest growth of government since Lyndon Johnson.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates federal spending in 2019 at nearly 25% of the gross domestic product. That's well up from the 21% in 2008, and far above the post-World War II average; it would also occur before many baby boomers retire.
Are his proposals practical, even if desirable? Maybe they're neither. What might be unintended consequences? All "reforms" do not succeed; some cause more problems than they solve.
Johnson's economic policies, inherited from Kennedy, proved disastrous; they led to the 1970s' stagflation. The "war on poverty" failed. The press should not be hostile, but it ought to be skeptical.
Mostly, it isn't. The idea of a "critical" Obama story is a tactical conflict with congressional Democrats or criticism from an important constituency. Larger issues are minimized, despite ample grounds for skepticism.
Obama's rhetoric brims with inconsistencies. In the campaign, he claimed he would de-emphasize partisanship — and also enact a highly partisan agenda; both couldn't be true. He got a pass.
Now he claims he will control health care spending even though he proposes more government spending. He promotes "fiscal responsibility" when projections show huge and continuous budget deficits. Journalists seem to take his pronouncements at face value even when many are two-faced.
The cause of this acquiescence isn't clear. The press sometimes follows opinion polls; popular presidents get good coverage, and Obama is enormously popular. By Pew, his job performance rating is 63%.
But because favorable coverage began in the campaign, this explanation is at best partial.
Perhaps the preoccupation with the present economic crisis has diverted attention from the long-term implications of other policies. But the deeper explanation may be as straightforward as this:
Most journalists like Obama; they admire his command of language; he's a relief after Bush; they agree with his agenda (so it never occurs to them to question basic premises); and they don't want to see the first African-American president fail.
Whatever, a great edifice of government may arise on the narrow foundation of Obama's personal popularity. Another Pew survey shows that since the election both self-identified Republicans and Democrats have declined. "Independents" have increased, and "there has been no consistent movement away from conservatism, nor a shift toward liberalism."
The press has become Obama's silent ally and seems in a state of denial. But the story goes untold: Unsurprisingly, the study of all the favorable coverage received little coverage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is exactly what I have been saying about the fawning media all along here.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Article I found to be worth sharing
A Time For Choosing Again?
By THOMAS KRANNAWITTER | Posted Thursday, May 21, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Ronald Reagan's 1964 speech, "A Time for Choosing," arguably, was the pivotal moment when Reagan became the Reagan America knows. He gave "the speech," as he often referred to it, not long after switching from FDR's Democratic Party to the Republican Party of Lincoln. The theme of Reagan's speech was that Americans had to choose between up versus down, freedom versus servitude, self-government versus bureaucratic fiat.
"The Founding Fathers knew a government can't control the economy without controlling people," Reagan explained, "and they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose." So, he concluded, "we have come to a time for choosing."
Reagan became Reagan by studying the political science of the American founding, without which he could not have ushered into American politics a new kind of conservatism, Reagan conservatism. Reagan sought to reign in government by recovering the authority of the Founders' Constitution and the principles that informed it. He believed nothing less would save freedom in America.
Reagan's challenge was to remind Americans of the importance and goodness of constitutional government in a time of constitutional darkness, a time when virtually all the leading intellectual and political lights in America had come to ignore or twist beyond recognition the meaning of the Constitution.
In this way, Reagan's statesmanship paralleled that of Lincoln, who tried to preserve the principled ground of constitutional self-government — the idea that each human being is endowed by the Creator with equal, unalienable, natural rights — at a time when that idea was denied and ridiculed by most prominent minds in America.
Today, the lights of the Constitution have again grown dim, as the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats unfold what is amounting to be the most massive government budgetary and regulatory expansions in American history.
Everyone seems fixated on the costs associated with Obama's corporate bailouts, universal healthcare, environmental regulations, and other items on his liberal to-do list. But few people, in or out of government office, ask whether these policies are constitutional. The reason, sadly, is that few people care.
Our challenge today of recovering the authority of the Constitution is greater than Reagan's and perhaps even greater than Lincoln's was. Since Roosevelt launched the New Deal in the 1930s, several generations of Americans have grown up knowing nothing but big, paternalistic government.
The feisty independence and healthy suspicion of government power that characterized the founding generation of Americans — think of the people who defiantly flew the flag with the coiled-up snake announcing, "Don't Tread on Me" — is now mainly the stuff of boring history textbooks.
• Thomas Krannawitter is associate professor of political science at Hillsdale College in Michigan
By THOMAS KRANNAWITTER | Posted Thursday, May 21, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Ronald Reagan's 1964 speech, "A Time for Choosing," arguably, was the pivotal moment when Reagan became the Reagan America knows. He gave "the speech," as he often referred to it, not long after switching from FDR's Democratic Party to the Republican Party of Lincoln. The theme of Reagan's speech was that Americans had to choose between up versus down, freedom versus servitude, self-government versus bureaucratic fiat.
"The Founding Fathers knew a government can't control the economy without controlling people," Reagan explained, "and they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose." So, he concluded, "we have come to a time for choosing."
Reagan became Reagan by studying the political science of the American founding, without which he could not have ushered into American politics a new kind of conservatism, Reagan conservatism. Reagan sought to reign in government by recovering the authority of the Founders' Constitution and the principles that informed it. He believed nothing less would save freedom in America.
Reagan's challenge was to remind Americans of the importance and goodness of constitutional government in a time of constitutional darkness, a time when virtually all the leading intellectual and political lights in America had come to ignore or twist beyond recognition the meaning of the Constitution.
In this way, Reagan's statesmanship paralleled that of Lincoln, who tried to preserve the principled ground of constitutional self-government — the idea that each human being is endowed by the Creator with equal, unalienable, natural rights — at a time when that idea was denied and ridiculed by most prominent minds in America.
Today, the lights of the Constitution have again grown dim, as the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats unfold what is amounting to be the most massive government budgetary and regulatory expansions in American history.
Everyone seems fixated on the costs associated with Obama's corporate bailouts, universal healthcare, environmental regulations, and other items on his liberal to-do list. But few people, in or out of government office, ask whether these policies are constitutional. The reason, sadly, is that few people care.
Our challenge today of recovering the authority of the Constitution is greater than Reagan's and perhaps even greater than Lincoln's was. Since Roosevelt launched the New Deal in the 1930s, several generations of Americans have grown up knowing nothing but big, paternalistic government.
The feisty independence and healthy suspicion of government power that characterized the founding generation of Americans — think of the people who defiantly flew the flag with the coiled-up snake announcing, "Don't Tread on Me" — is now mainly the stuff of boring history textbooks.
• Thomas Krannawitter is associate professor of political science at Hillsdale College in Michigan
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
The liberal run senate do the right thing?
Today, the Senate broke with Obama, voted 90-6 to block $80 million in funding to close Guantanamo and transfer detainees to the U.S.
FINALLY they did something right! HALLELUJAH! There is a GOD.
FINALLY they did something right! HALLELUJAH! There is a GOD.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Liberals aliens?
You know I read an article recently regarding Obama seeing the new star trek movie. He said everyone was saying he was spock, well dang I always knew he acted like he didn't live in this reality-now I have proof. HE REALLY IS AN ALIEN ! I think Pelosi must be from his planet too, cause she doesn't seem to live in this reality either.
There ya have it people the liberals are aliens and we have been invaded.
ROFL !!!!!
There ya have it people the liberals are aliens and we have been invaded.
ROFL !!!!!
Friday, May 15, 2009
This pretty much sums up what I think of Pelosi
This is pretty much what I think of Pelosi. I am not only the one that has this opinion by the way. Even a lot of folks who misguidedly hate Bush, can't stand this freak of nature.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
This is what I have been saying all along about government run healthcare.
Ill-Conceived Taxes
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, May 13, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Health Care: Many question how the high cost of government-run medical care available to all can be paid for. No problem. Just raise federal revenues by making consumer goods cost more.
And don't forget tax-exempt employer-provided health care benefits. That's a rich source of untapped government revenues if lawmakers take away the tax-exemption status.
Washington, at least the left side of the swamp, is determined to provide universal health care whether or not we need it, want it or can even afford it.
Make no mistake, the cost will be steep. The Lewin Group, a health care consulting firm, has estimated that universal medical care will require roughly $1.5 trillion to $1.7 trillion over 10 years.
Len Nichols, an economist who heads the health policy project at the New America Foundation, has issued similar findings. He figures that the cost of guaranteed coverage will run $125 billion to $150 billion a year.
Projected costs of government programs, particularly entitlements, are always low. Medicare loses $60 billion each year, roughly half of one analyst's annual cost of health care for all, due to fraud.
But even if those estimates are accurate, there's still the problem of funding a program for which a single dollar has yet to be appropriated.
Rather than cut back on other programs, the Washington solution is to raise new taxes. To fund health care, the Senate Finance Committee is thinking about placing levies on soft drinks, alcoholic beverages, cigarettes, health savings accounts and junk food, and taxing, for the first time, employer-provided health care benefits.
The public needs to understand that it will be paying more for goods and services in return for national health care. Grocery bills will be higher; that bottle of wine that should go with dinner might have to be left on the store shelf instead; a cold Coke on a hot summer day would be a rare luxury rather than a frequent pleasure;guilty indulgences could simply become unaffordable to many.
Americans also need to be aware of the failings of government-run health care in other nations. Disease survival rates in developed countries with nationalized systems tend to be lower than in the U.S., while waiting times are much longer and poor treatment more common.
Higher costs, diminished results. Americans won't like a system that's more expensive and delivers less. But that's what we'll get as long as the public doesn't have a full understanding of how ruinous government-run health care is.
_______________________________________________________________________________
This article is for all the people who seem to think that socialist run healthcare is ok. ITS NOT and it doesn't work, but I am guessing we are gonna have to find that out the hard way. I just hope we will be able to undo the damage when that time comes.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, May 13, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Health Care: Many question how the high cost of government-run medical care available to all can be paid for. No problem. Just raise federal revenues by making consumer goods cost more.
And don't forget tax-exempt employer-provided health care benefits. That's a rich source of untapped government revenues if lawmakers take away the tax-exemption status.
Washington, at least the left side of the swamp, is determined to provide universal health care whether or not we need it, want it or can even afford it.
Make no mistake, the cost will be steep. The Lewin Group, a health care consulting firm, has estimated that universal medical care will require roughly $1.5 trillion to $1.7 trillion over 10 years.
Len Nichols, an economist who heads the health policy project at the New America Foundation, has issued similar findings. He figures that the cost of guaranteed coverage will run $125 billion to $150 billion a year.
Projected costs of government programs, particularly entitlements, are always low. Medicare loses $60 billion each year, roughly half of one analyst's annual cost of health care for all, due to fraud.
But even if those estimates are accurate, there's still the problem of funding a program for which a single dollar has yet to be appropriated.
Rather than cut back on other programs, the Washington solution is to raise new taxes. To fund health care, the Senate Finance Committee is thinking about placing levies on soft drinks, alcoholic beverages, cigarettes, health savings accounts and junk food, and taxing, for the first time, employer-provided health care benefits.
The public needs to understand that it will be paying more for goods and services in return for national health care. Grocery bills will be higher; that bottle of wine that should go with dinner might have to be left on the store shelf instead; a cold Coke on a hot summer day would be a rare luxury rather than a frequent pleasure;guilty indulgences could simply become unaffordable to many.
Americans also need to be aware of the failings of government-run health care in other nations. Disease survival rates in developed countries with nationalized systems tend to be lower than in the U.S., while waiting times are much longer and poor treatment more common.
Higher costs, diminished results. Americans won't like a system that's more expensive and delivers less. But that's what we'll get as long as the public doesn't have a full understanding of how ruinous government-run health care is.
_______________________________________________________________________________
This article is for all the people who seem to think that socialist run healthcare is ok. ITS NOT and it doesn't work, but I am guessing we are gonna have to find that out the hard way. I just hope we will be able to undo the damage when that time comes.
Pelosi, D-Calif., and other House Democrats had met with Obama and Vice President Joe Biden in the Oval Office just before going outside to make their announcement. No Republicans were present, and neither were any senators.
The final financing package is likely to include a mix of tax increases and spending cuts in federal health programs. Among the possibilities are tax increases on alcoholic beverages, tobacco products and sugary soft drinks, and restrictions on other health care-related tax breaks, such as flexible spending accounts.
Senators also are considering limiting — but not eliminating — the tax-free status of employer-provided health benefits.
The president adamantly opposed such taxes during the campaign, arguing they would undermine job-based coverage. Obama's aides now say he's open to suggestions from Congress, even if he criticized Republican presidential rival John McCain for proposing a sweeping version of the same basic idea.
These are key excerpts from this article
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_overhaul
Here we go. I knew this day was coming,I was just praying it wasn't going to be this soon. I know that our current system has problems, there is no denying that. Socialized medicine is NOT the answer. We will go broke,like ENGLAND, trying to provide for everyone. IT WON"T WORK and in fact will only make things worse, much much worse. Care will start to get rationed and be seriously subpar. I am scared to death of this crazy lady and her puppet Obama. Obama is hypocrate and a liar. Pelosi is just plain phsyco.
Why am I not surprised that they are planning to up my taxes to take care of everyone else? I am not at all. They are liberals, thats what they do best. Tax me to death to pay for all these socialized programs designed to "take care" of everyone from cradle to grave. I resent being FORCED to help out. I should have the choice to help and give when I WANT to. I resent that my husband is being forced to work to pay for everyone elses needs. ITS NOT RIGHT!
This is a link to a UTUBE video that is worth paying close attention because this is what we are headed to thanks to Obama. It is a speech by Daniel Hannan Conservative MEP for South East of England. Its like listening to him talk about Obama. Its scarey to think this is the road we are headed to. This man makes more sense and knows from whence he speaks. PAY ATTENTION TO THIS GUY.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs
The final financing package is likely to include a mix of tax increases and spending cuts in federal health programs. Among the possibilities are tax increases on alcoholic beverages, tobacco products and sugary soft drinks, and restrictions on other health care-related tax breaks, such as flexible spending accounts.
Senators also are considering limiting — but not eliminating — the tax-free status of employer-provided health benefits.
The president adamantly opposed such taxes during the campaign, arguing they would undermine job-based coverage. Obama's aides now say he's open to suggestions from Congress, even if he criticized Republican presidential rival John McCain for proposing a sweeping version of the same basic idea.
These are key excerpts from this article
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_overhaul
Here we go. I knew this day was coming,I was just praying it wasn't going to be this soon. I know that our current system has problems, there is no denying that. Socialized medicine is NOT the answer. We will go broke,like ENGLAND, trying to provide for everyone. IT WON"T WORK and in fact will only make things worse, much much worse. Care will start to get rationed and be seriously subpar. I am scared to death of this crazy lady and her puppet Obama. Obama is hypocrate and a liar. Pelosi is just plain phsyco.
Why am I not surprised that they are planning to up my taxes to take care of everyone else? I am not at all. They are liberals, thats what they do best. Tax me to death to pay for all these socialized programs designed to "take care" of everyone from cradle to grave. I resent being FORCED to help out. I should have the choice to help and give when I WANT to. I resent that my husband is being forced to work to pay for everyone elses needs. ITS NOT RIGHT!
This is a link to a UTUBE video that is worth paying close attention because this is what we are headed to thanks to Obama. It is a speech by Daniel Hannan Conservative MEP for South East of England. Its like listening to him talk about Obama. Its scarey to think this is the road we are headed to. This man makes more sense and knows from whence he speaks. PAY ATTENTION TO THIS GUY.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs
Monday, May 11, 2009
Why I am a conservative/republican
I AM A PROUD REPUBLICAN, although I am definitely ticked at them lately because they aren't adhering to the conservative principles that made them great in the first place. They are too busy sucking up to the Liberals unfortunately and have forgotten their roots.I am a conservative because I believe in their basic principles. FREE MARKET, CAPITALISM, SELF RELIANCE- NOT GOVERNMENT RELIANCE,The RESPECT for HUMAN LIFE-ALL human life, JUSTICE for ALL,The STRENGTH to stand up to DICTATORS and TERRORISTS-which includes keeping our military strong and taking care of our vets, and LOVE OF COUNTRY and GOD.When this country gets back to those values,then we will be great again. Until then I will stand strong against the socialist, liberal onslaught that is warping this country. I love my country too much to ever give up on it.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
One more reason out of many to despise Obama
OBAMA IS SURPRISED VETS DON'T WANT TO PAY THEIR OWN MEDICAL EXPENSES
Here is Obama's RESPONSE WHEN HE BACKED OFF FROM HIS DECISION TO LET THE MILITARY PAY FOR THEIR WAR INJURIES........
(SEND THIS TO EVERYONE TO SHOW JUST WHAT HE THINKS OF OUR MILITARY WHO FIGHT FOR OUR COUNTRY AND GET HURT PROTECTING OUR FREEDOM)
Bad press, including major mockery of the plan by comedian Jon Stewart, led to President Obama abandoning his proposal to require veterans carry private health insurance to cover the estimated $540 million annual cost to the federal government of treatment for injuries to military personnel received during their tours on active duty.
The President admitted that he was puzzled by the magnitude of the opposition to his proposal.
"Look, it's an all volunteer force," Obama complained.
"Nobody made these guys go to war. They had to have known and accepted the risks. Now they whine about bearing the costs of their choice ? It doesn't compute.."
"I thought these were people who were proud to sacrifice for their country," Obama continued.
"I wasn't asking for blood, just money. With the country facing the worst financial crisis in its history, I'd have thought that the patriotic thing to do would be to try to help reduce the nation's deficit. I guess I underestimated the selfishness of some of my fellow Americans."
I guess OBAMA just doesn't get that the American people love and appreciate our military guys and gals who lay their lives on the line so we can lay our heads down at night in peace.
That's because he is not an AMERICAN at heart. That much is obvious. Why in the world people voted for him I'll never know, but we all will surely pay the price and rue the day that he took office. America is getting change but not the change they were looking to get.
It's a shame but the people have been had again. (AS FOREST GUMP SAYS: "Stupid is as stupid does".)
Here is Obama's RESPONSE WHEN HE BACKED OFF FROM HIS DECISION TO LET THE MILITARY PAY FOR THEIR WAR INJURIES........
(SEND THIS TO EVERYONE TO SHOW JUST WHAT HE THINKS OF OUR MILITARY WHO FIGHT FOR OUR COUNTRY AND GET HURT PROTECTING OUR FREEDOM)
Bad press, including major mockery of the plan by comedian Jon Stewart, led to President Obama abandoning his proposal to require veterans carry private health insurance to cover the estimated $540 million annual cost to the federal government of treatment for injuries to military personnel received during their tours on active duty.
The President admitted that he was puzzled by the magnitude of the opposition to his proposal.
"Look, it's an all volunteer force," Obama complained.
"Nobody made these guys go to war. They had to have known and accepted the risks. Now they whine about bearing the costs of their choice ? It doesn't compute.."
"I thought these were people who were proud to sacrifice for their country," Obama continued.
"I wasn't asking for blood, just money. With the country facing the worst financial crisis in its history, I'd have thought that the patriotic thing to do would be to try to help reduce the nation's deficit. I guess I underestimated the selfishness of some of my fellow Americans."
I guess OBAMA just doesn't get that the American people love and appreciate our military guys and gals who lay their lives on the line so we can lay our heads down at night in peace.
That's because he is not an AMERICAN at heart. That much is obvious. Why in the world people voted for him I'll never know, but we all will surely pay the price and rue the day that he took office. America is getting change but not the change they were looking to get.
It's a shame but the people have been had again. (AS FOREST GUMP SAYS: "Stupid is as stupid does".)
Saturday, May 2, 2009
This is very thought provoking and frankly made me count my blessings
This is from Miss Margo, an advice column similar to Ann Landers. It touched my heart and made me count my blessings.
This is just for the wOw family. It will not go to the newspapers that carry my column. It is also a first. I have made errors in judgment before, and I have owned up to them, but there has never been a situation where I was so totally uninformed about a subject I thought I understood reasonably well. The subject is domestic abuse. I feel the need to share my new understanding with others.
We will call her Miss X.
The abuse in my new, "loving" relationship started slowly. By the time my mother was dead I had no place to go but with him as I had exhausted my resources on my family. By that time I was $30,000 in credit-card debt because I had given him access to my accounts. I was in a new state with no friends. The night I was beaten and thrown into a dumpster the police drove me to a DV shelter, where I was told I would not be safe IN THE SHELTER; that they could only keep me overnight because a middle-class white woman would make the other residents uncomfortable. I had no place to go. I went back. It got worse, but I continued to go to work. We moved to another state. I worked and came home to abuse on a daily basis. I made no friends, for how can an intelligent person admit she is living this life? How can you admit that you are still trying to prove to yourself that nothing will break you, ever!? I now have a four-year-old. I entered the shelter system in NYC, and let me tell you, the system is broken. I cannot overstate how broken the system is, which is currently set up to "help" abused women. I was beaten, raped, subjected to verbal abuse on a daily basis and nearly choked to death in my relationship, but I could not get supervised visitation for my child with her father. The things I experienced and saw in the shelter system would make a decent human being break down in tears.
I tell you all of this for this reason: Abused women are not "slow learners." They are human beings who are seeking a small sign of kindness and affection from wherever they can get it. They are scared, if they are smart, that the cycle will perpetuate and their children will be exposed to the same horrors they have seen. I have not been with a man since my daughter was conceived, nearly five years ago. I am lonely, but I will not take the chance that my daughter is hurt by poor choices on my part. I have not succeeded in rescinding my daughter’s father’s rights to unsupervised visitation. She tells me he spanks her, which kills me, but I have no control. I have no money and went through four court-appointed lawyers, none of whom wanted to hear my story or cared about the details.
If the friends of the lady who is in the bad relationship want to do something, they should take her out. Spend time with her. Listen to her. Validate the truth of her situation. Support her. If their friend does the unthinkable and marries this abuser, a friend will still stay by her side. If you judge a person who is used to abuse, and turn away in disgust, you only serve the purposes of the abuser. You have isolated her further and allowed him to be the sole source of emotional solace. The only way that the cycle of abuse can be stopped is in the light of day. Full transparency, loads of patient, sympathetic, empathetic friends, and empowerment of the victim. Please do not ever call a victim of domestic violence a "slow learner."
This is just for the wOw family. It will not go to the newspapers that carry my column. It is also a first. I have made errors in judgment before, and I have owned up to them, but there has never been a situation where I was so totally uninformed about a subject I thought I understood reasonably well. The subject is domestic abuse. I feel the need to share my new understanding with others.
We will call her Miss X.
The abuse in my new, "loving" relationship started slowly. By the time my mother was dead I had no place to go but with him as I had exhausted my resources on my family. By that time I was $30,000 in credit-card debt because I had given him access to my accounts. I was in a new state with no friends. The night I was beaten and thrown into a dumpster the police drove me to a DV shelter, where I was told I would not be safe IN THE SHELTER; that they could only keep me overnight because a middle-class white woman would make the other residents uncomfortable. I had no place to go. I went back. It got worse, but I continued to go to work. We moved to another state. I worked and came home to abuse on a daily basis. I made no friends, for how can an intelligent person admit she is living this life? How can you admit that you are still trying to prove to yourself that nothing will break you, ever!? I now have a four-year-old. I entered the shelter system in NYC, and let me tell you, the system is broken. I cannot overstate how broken the system is, which is currently set up to "help" abused women. I was beaten, raped, subjected to verbal abuse on a daily basis and nearly choked to death in my relationship, but I could not get supervised visitation for my child with her father. The things I experienced and saw in the shelter system would make a decent human being break down in tears.
I tell you all of this for this reason: Abused women are not "slow learners." They are human beings who are seeking a small sign of kindness and affection from wherever they can get it. They are scared, if they are smart, that the cycle will perpetuate and their children will be exposed to the same horrors they have seen. I have not been with a man since my daughter was conceived, nearly five years ago. I am lonely, but I will not take the chance that my daughter is hurt by poor choices on my part. I have not succeeded in rescinding my daughter’s father’s rights to unsupervised visitation. She tells me he spanks her, which kills me, but I have no control. I have no money and went through four court-appointed lawyers, none of whom wanted to hear my story or cared about the details.
If the friends of the lady who is in the bad relationship want to do something, they should take her out. Spend time with her. Listen to her. Validate the truth of her situation. Support her. If their friend does the unthinkable and marries this abuser, a friend will still stay by her side. If you judge a person who is used to abuse, and turn away in disgust, you only serve the purposes of the abuser. You have isolated her further and allowed him to be the sole source of emotional solace. The only way that the cycle of abuse can be stopped is in the light of day. Full transparency, loads of patient, sympathetic, empathetic friends, and empowerment of the victim. Please do not ever call a victim of domestic violence a "slow learner."
Friday, May 1, 2009
article worth noting from Investors Business Daily
Not Much To Show For 'First 100 Days'
By LARRY ELDER | Posted Thursday, April 30, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Aided by an eagerly compliant, Democratic-controlled Congress, a sycophantic media and a bunch of squishy Republicans, President Obama has taken the country on a radical, mind-boggling leap into collectivism.
Obama — to use one of his favorite expressions — doubled down, no, tripled and quadrupled down on Bush's "stimulus" and "rescue" packages, spending trillions of dollars to "bail out" financial institutions, too-big-to-fail businesses and even deficit-running states.
Obama promises to use taxpayer money to rescue "responsible homeowners" — whatever that means — from foreclosure, thus artificially propping up prices that shut out renters who would love to buy now-much-cheaper houses.
Obama proposes spending billions (or trillions?) more on "creating or saving" — whatever that means — 4 million, 3.5 million or 2.5 million jobs. Pick a number.
Given the government's vast business expertise, Obama proposes spending gobs of money to "invest" in green jobs. And he's just warming up. He wants taxpayers to guarantee, presumably to all who request it, a "world-class education" — whatever that means.
Firmly in charge of much of the domestic car industry, Obama effectively fired the CEO of General Motors. He threatens to fire still more executives in the parts of the financial services industry currently under the management, direction or control of Uncle Sam — that eminent, well-regarded banker.
Obama blames the financial crisis on "greed" and the "lack of regulatory oversight."
Funny thing about greed. Celebrated investor-turned-Obama-supporter/adviser Warren Buffett says, "Be fearful when others are greedy, and be greedy when others are fearful." Apparently, some practice good greed, while others engage in greedy greed.
As for regulation, the SEC already heavily regulates most of the troubled financial institutions. The world's largest insurer, AIG, operated under heavy regulation. The government-sponsored entities Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae — blamed for irresponsibly buying, packaging and selling bad mortgages — are regulated by a government agency, called the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. Its sole responsibility is to oversee those two agencies. OFHEO, shortly before the government takeover of Freddie and Fannie, gave them two thumbs up.
Did the president, after campaigning against pork and earmarks, really sign bills that include both? Yes.
Will the president's new budget really triple and quadruple the annual deficit? Yes.
Will the president's budget really double the national debt within a few years and increase it still more beyond that? Yes.
Do the president and members of Congress, many of whom never operated so much as a T-shirt concession booth, really believe they can "modernize" health care, "saving" taxpayers buckets of money? Yes.
America traditionally represents the greatest possibility of someone's going from nothing to something.
Why? In theory, if not practice, the government stays out of the way and lets individuals take risks and reap rewards or accept the consequences of failure. We call this capitalism — or we used to.
Today's global downturn reflects too much borrowing and too much lending. But would borrowers and lenders — at least in America — have engaged in the same kind of behavior but for artificially low interest rates under the Federal Reserve System?
Would borrowers and lenders have acted as precipitously but for the existence of Fannie and Freddie, which bought up their mortgages?
Would banks have so readily lent money to those who clearly could not repay it but for the Community Reinvestment Act? That law pressured banks into relaxing their normal lending standards to help low-income borrowers.
Now let's turn to Job No. 1 — national security. We no longer call the war on terror the "war on terror." We no longer call Islamofascist enemy detainees "enemy detainees." The president embarked on an I'm-not-Bush and we're-sorry-for-being-arrogant international tour.
To the receptive, admiring G-20 nations, the president flogged America, calling us domineering and overbearing.
What did the swooning leaders give in return? Virtually nothing. He wanted more assistance in fighting the war in Afghanistan. The NATO members offered more advisers and trainers, all, mind you, out of harm's way and only on a temporary basis.
The president offered a new relationship with Iran, provided Iranians "unclench their fist." The president even sent a shout-out video to the Iranians on one of their holidays.
What did he get in return? Iran promised to continue its march toward the development of a nuclear weapon and called Israel the "most cruel and racist regime."
Obama offered North Korea a kinder, gentler foreign policy.
What did he get in return? The North Koreans, in violation of a United Nations resolution, tried to launch a long-range missile. The president condemned the act. The U.N. Security Council convened an emergency session. What happened? Nothing.
Well, not exactly nothing. North Korea kicked out the U.N.'s nuclear inspectors and announced the resumption of its nuclear weapons program. And North Korea, along with Iran, arrested and imprisoned American journalists.
On the other hand, Washingtonian magazine graced us with a spiffy, Photoshopped cover of a fit and toned, swimsuit-wearing President Obama. So all is not lost.
At least he looks good.
By LARRY ELDER | Posted Thursday, April 30, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Aided by an eagerly compliant, Democratic-controlled Congress, a sycophantic media and a bunch of squishy Republicans, President Obama has taken the country on a radical, mind-boggling leap into collectivism.
Obama — to use one of his favorite expressions — doubled down, no, tripled and quadrupled down on Bush's "stimulus" and "rescue" packages, spending trillions of dollars to "bail out" financial institutions, too-big-to-fail businesses and even deficit-running states.
Obama promises to use taxpayer money to rescue "responsible homeowners" — whatever that means — from foreclosure, thus artificially propping up prices that shut out renters who would love to buy now-much-cheaper houses.
Obama proposes spending billions (or trillions?) more on "creating or saving" — whatever that means — 4 million, 3.5 million or 2.5 million jobs. Pick a number.
Given the government's vast business expertise, Obama proposes spending gobs of money to "invest" in green jobs. And he's just warming up. He wants taxpayers to guarantee, presumably to all who request it, a "world-class education" — whatever that means.
Firmly in charge of much of the domestic car industry, Obama effectively fired the CEO of General Motors. He threatens to fire still more executives in the parts of the financial services industry currently under the management, direction or control of Uncle Sam — that eminent, well-regarded banker.
Obama blames the financial crisis on "greed" and the "lack of regulatory oversight."
Funny thing about greed. Celebrated investor-turned-Obama-supporter/adviser Warren Buffett says, "Be fearful when others are greedy, and be greedy when others are fearful." Apparently, some practice good greed, while others engage in greedy greed.
As for regulation, the SEC already heavily regulates most of the troubled financial institutions. The world's largest insurer, AIG, operated under heavy regulation. The government-sponsored entities Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae — blamed for irresponsibly buying, packaging and selling bad mortgages — are regulated by a government agency, called the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. Its sole responsibility is to oversee those two agencies. OFHEO, shortly before the government takeover of Freddie and Fannie, gave them two thumbs up.
Did the president, after campaigning against pork and earmarks, really sign bills that include both? Yes.
Will the president's new budget really triple and quadruple the annual deficit? Yes.
Will the president's budget really double the national debt within a few years and increase it still more beyond that? Yes.
Do the president and members of Congress, many of whom never operated so much as a T-shirt concession booth, really believe they can "modernize" health care, "saving" taxpayers buckets of money? Yes.
America traditionally represents the greatest possibility of someone's going from nothing to something.
Why? In theory, if not practice, the government stays out of the way and lets individuals take risks and reap rewards or accept the consequences of failure. We call this capitalism — or we used to.
Today's global downturn reflects too much borrowing and too much lending. But would borrowers and lenders — at least in America — have engaged in the same kind of behavior but for artificially low interest rates under the Federal Reserve System?
Would borrowers and lenders have acted as precipitously but for the existence of Fannie and Freddie, which bought up their mortgages?
Would banks have so readily lent money to those who clearly could not repay it but for the Community Reinvestment Act? That law pressured banks into relaxing their normal lending standards to help low-income borrowers.
Now let's turn to Job No. 1 — national security. We no longer call the war on terror the "war on terror." We no longer call Islamofascist enemy detainees "enemy detainees." The president embarked on an I'm-not-Bush and we're-sorry-for-being-arrogant international tour.
To the receptive, admiring G-20 nations, the president flogged America, calling us domineering and overbearing.
What did the swooning leaders give in return? Virtually nothing. He wanted more assistance in fighting the war in Afghanistan. The NATO members offered more advisers and trainers, all, mind you, out of harm's way and only on a temporary basis.
The president offered a new relationship with Iran, provided Iranians "unclench their fist." The president even sent a shout-out video to the Iranians on one of their holidays.
What did he get in return? Iran promised to continue its march toward the development of a nuclear weapon and called Israel the "most cruel and racist regime."
Obama offered North Korea a kinder, gentler foreign policy.
What did he get in return? The North Koreans, in violation of a United Nations resolution, tried to launch a long-range missile. The president condemned the act. The U.N. Security Council convened an emergency session. What happened? Nothing.
Well, not exactly nothing. North Korea kicked out the U.N.'s nuclear inspectors and announced the resumption of its nuclear weapons program. And North Korea, along with Iran, arrested and imprisoned American journalists.
On the other hand, Washingtonian magazine graced us with a spiffy, Photoshopped cover of a fit and toned, swimsuit-wearing President Obama. So all is not lost.
At least he looks good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
