On particular pathetic day in November 2008, obama gave his little victory speech and told an adoring, yet uninformed populace, “Change has come to America!”
Now, nearly two years removed from that adulation, which a White House aide now says was “…sort of fake,” obama is telling much smaller crowds that “Change is going to come…”
Don’t know when, but it’s coming…trust me!
America is saying, hmmm.
It’s morning in America and people are rolling out of bed and leaving obama alone with his pillow and his narcissistic dreams.
With incredulity, obama realizes that far too many feel that the sex wasn’t as good as the fantasy and now he is forced to call his date on the phone and ask for another chance.
“You’ve got to stick with me…” obama recently begs like a jilted lover to a crowd in Madison, WI.
In Virginia, the land of lovers, obama pleads with people not to “give up” and asks them not to “abandon” his administration.
obama then channels Ronald Reagan for a DNC rally in D.C. featuring that musical genious B.o.B, urging the crowd to “stay on course.”
What’s next…a new rendition of Jesse Jackson’s “Keep Hope Alive?”
However, obama needs to first convince those in his own party.
obama isn’t even getting any love from his own dog – fellow democrats – some who have left his administration or are planning on leaving, and others running for office who are suddenly silent about the obama cure.
The Wall St. Journal printed a story on how “loyalty” to obama and his agenda has had the reverse affect of Viagra for supporters of Democrat congressional candidates.
The story mentioned that those Democrats running against obama/Pelosi’s demagoguery are doing better than those Democrats who are still drinking the obama Kool-Aid.
Former Clinton advisor Dick Morris says Democrat candidates “make no attempt to defend the administration, but run away from it…”
Democratic strategist and Karl Rove wanna-be Ted Devine, who claims to have advised 17 winning US Senate campaigns and 10 “winning” campaigns “abroad” for presidents or prime ministers, says Democrats need to avoid making the midterm elections a referendum on the obama/Pelosi agenda…despite once supporting the same agenda.
Run from your party leader and your record.
Like the thrill for obama in 2008, this “loyalty” thing is also “sort of fake” anyway.
obama himself dissed loyalty back in March when he threatened to withdraw his support during the midterm elections for any Democratic congressmen not supporting obama-care.
I’m sure that the 31 Democrat House Members who signed a letter with Republicans telling Pelosi that they support extending President George W.Bush’s tax cuts for all Americans, even the rich ones, are getting a similar scolding from obama.
Also, according to a NY Times article, obama’s team is “zealously” guarding their list of 2008 grassroots donors, limiting congressional Democratic candidates’ access for their own 2010 campaigns, causing much in-party grumbling.
This is where obama has found himself.
obama seeks to re-energize a majority of voters and non-voters who are less inclined to pee themselves when he speaks, and his own party is giving him the cold political shoulder.
This is where he will be in 2012.
Still begging for another chance, still promising that change is on its way, and still blaming Republicans, President George W. Bush, non-attentive voters, traitorous Democrats, and Fox News for holding up the mulit-colored bus.
Change you can believe in.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Monday, September 20, 2010
OBAMA'S GOVT SNIPING FROM WITHIN
Lately, news stories on a republican “civil war” are as numerous as fruit flies in a Starbucks pastry display.
Apparently it is a new phenomenon when during primaries opposing candidates of the same party bicker and fight like the Kate Gosselin family.
“Tea Party’s wins fuel a ‘civil war’ within GOP” read a USA Today headline this past week. CNN limped in today with their contribution to media setting the political narrative: “Inner-GOP sniping increases in wake of Tea Party successes.” Geek-dom got its two cents in on the implosion of the GOP with Alan Colmes’ little liberal-and-proud-of-it web posting. The Huffington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine, and Reuters are just a few that have joined the fray like stains on a Lewinski dress.
I’m sure MSNBC’s contribution to non-professional journalism, Keithy Olbermann, has had his little thesaurus working overtime on this story line.
And it wouldn’t surprise me if ‘columnists DeWayne Wickham and Leonard Pitts (truly) found a black angle to the conventional press opinion by which to meet their deadlines.
Critics are trying to marginalize a segment of the Republican Party, placing them to the right of President Ronald Reagan and knocking them for their inexperience, as if to say, “Give me a break,” mimicking democratic President Bill Clinton’s criticism of democrat obama’s run for the White House.
Let’s focus one eye on the cracks that have appeared in the once-thought-impenetrable democrat controlled government of obama; “change has come to America.”
During the summer of 2009 debate over obama-care, democrats were in disarray over what the final plan ought to look like and obama’s democratic administration took to making deals and promises with democratic legislators to bribe…to gain their support and help make obama look presidential with a later afternoon Rose Garden signing.
ABC News reported in March 2010 that “tension at the highest levels of power” in the obama White House (Rahm “I want to be mayor” Emanuel vs. David Axelrod) brought a reminder from obama that they need to be “playing on the same team.”
A Washington Times story in June reported that Democratic strategist James “I am Bill Clinton’s brain” Carville was railing against democratic president obama for lack of action following the BP oil spill. Democratic House member Charlie Rangel of NY also got into the act, telling an interviewer that the democratic administration of obama doesn’t have “the slightest clue” about what to do about the oil spill.
In July 2010, a Four-Star General is obama-retired over publically-aired disdain for the ways of his boss.
obama mouthpiece Robert Gibbs reportedly “infuriated” fellow Democrat Nancy “Plastic” Pelosi in July when he conceded that Democrats may lose control of the House of Representatives during midterm elections against the Republicans/Tea Partiers.
In August 2010, democratic non-tax-paying tax committee chairman Charlie Rangel (out of this one) took to the floor of the U.S. House to say “Hell no, I won’t go!” after democrat obama inferred that Rangle ought to resign his House seat rather than air the party’s dirty laundry in a quasi-public ethics trial.
On September 16, an Associated Press story reported that Democrats “are facing deep divisions in their nervous ranks” (emphasis mine) over whether to support no new taxes for anybody or nervously support democratic president obama’s call for further redistribution of wealth from those people and businesses making over $250,000. Yes, Virginia, some democrats are now favoring Republican President George Bush’s tax cuts.
Democratic House member Chet Edwards of Texas is running a campaign ad that states: “When (democratic) president obama and (democrat) Nancy Pelosi pressured (democrat) Chet Edwards, Chet stood up to them and voted ‘no’ against their trillion-dollor healthcare bill.”
Currently, there are rumblings from fellow democrats that democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ought to take her tax-payer funded airplane and her petrified hair-do on a one way trip back to California.
On September 18 the Wall St. Journal ran a story over the “dissent” Pelosi is facing from her own party.
The story states that democratic members have signed a Republican petition for a vote to repeal the Pelosi-supported obama-care healthcare bill;
other democrats (like Chet in Texas) are airing campaign ads that distance themselves from obama and Pelosi’s majority democrat run government; Alabama Democrat Bobby Bright’s ad states: “Bobby stands up to (democrat) Nancy Pelosi;”
31 democrats joined republicans in the house to tell Pelosi they will support President George Bush’s tax cuts rather than her call for unity on obama’s spread-the-wealth tax plan;
Democrat Congressman and Iraq War vet Brett Gordon of Tennessee said Pelosi should step down as Speaker and should not seek the top House role during the next legislative session (assuming she has the chance);
and democrat leadership aides are acknowledging that Pelosi is a “liability” to their party in this years elections.
Common sense and poll numbers tell us that all cannot be so sparkly in the land of Oz-obama.
There have been no obama beer-fests in the Rose Garden; no vacations for at least 3 weeks; and no Amy –Carter like inquisitives from little Malia concerning the job obama is doing.
With RealClear Politics poll numbers showing more people disapproving of obama’s presidential performance than those still wearing rose-colored glasses and approving of his muddling blindly along, as well as nearly 75% of those polled feeling non-too impressed with the work of obama’s democratic controlled Congress, you can be sure that egos and self-preservation are making huge scratching noises in obama’s changed Washington D.C.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
OBAMA'S GOVT THREATENS FREE SPEECH
Threaten to burn the Qur’an; you get a call from obama asking you to reconsider.
Organize a protest against obama-care in a national park; you get jail.
The latter example may become reality if obama’s Department of Justice has its way.
A recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruling stated that requiring permission to speak your mind in a national park is just plain B.S.
obama’s Justice Department, led by Eric Holder, are threatening an appeal of this ruling so they can control which words will matter.
This is the same Eric Holder who as U.S. Deputy Attorney General in May 1999 advocated for the implementation of restrictions and regulations on internet speech.
Now as top law-dog (and lap-dog) in the country, and teamed up with someone who thinks words matter only when they come from his mouth, Holder is threatening to withhold a basic American right from someone who may want to discuss which First Lady has had the biggest over-bite with other visitors to the African American Civil War Memorial.
obama’s government argued in this case that restricting free speech in a National Park preserves the “peace and tranquility” of the park.
Do you think obama’s government would go after Martin Luther King for bringing all those people to the Lincoln Memorial and disturbing that park’s “peace and tranquility?”
Oh, hell no!
Glen Beck? Perhaps this is at the cusp of the obama government’s attack on free speech.
Eric Holder has probably not met with any TeaParty members to discuss ways of preventing partisan-motivated violence, however, United States Attonrey General Eric Holder¸ who’s own website promotes “Open Government,” did hold a meeting on September 7, 2010 with members of an “interfaith” group to discuss his department’s commitment in protecting their speech…the meeting was closed to the press.
Open government.
Freedom.
Words matter.
Read more: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.create&editor=True#ixzz0zvdgfmry
Organize a protest against obama-care in a national park; you get jail.
The latter example may become reality if obama’s Department of Justice has its way.
A recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruling stated that requiring permission to speak your mind in a national park is just plain B.S.
obama’s Justice Department, led by Eric Holder, are threatening an appeal of this ruling so they can control which words will matter.
This is the same Eric Holder who as U.S. Deputy Attorney General in May 1999 advocated for the implementation of restrictions and regulations on internet speech.
Now as top law-dog (and lap-dog) in the country, and teamed up with someone who thinks words matter only when they come from his mouth, Holder is threatening to withhold a basic American right from someone who may want to discuss which First Lady has had the biggest over-bite with other visitors to the African American Civil War Memorial.
obama’s government argued in this case that restricting free speech in a National Park preserves the “peace and tranquility” of the park.
Do you think obama’s government would go after Martin Luther King for bringing all those people to the Lincoln Memorial and disturbing that park’s “peace and tranquility?”
Oh, hell no!
Glen Beck? Perhaps this is at the cusp of the obama government’s attack on free speech.
Eric Holder has probably not met with any TeaParty members to discuss ways of preventing partisan-motivated violence, however, United States Attonrey General Eric Holder¸ who’s own website promotes “Open Government,” did hold a meeting on September 7, 2010 with members of an “interfaith” group to discuss his department’s commitment in protecting their speech…the meeting was closed to the press.
Open government.
Freedom.
Words matter.
Read more: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.create&editor=True#ixzz0zvdgfmry
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
OBAMA SHOWING CUBA NO LOVE
obama was against the Cuban embargo before he was for it.
A YouTube video shows obama in 2004 saying “it’s time to end the embargo” and “the Cuban embargo has failed.”
While campaigning, obama promised “real change in Cuba.”
While pandering to locals in a May 2008 Miami, Florida campaign appearance, where he “sprinkled his speech with Spanish words and phrases,” obama criticized Senator John McCain for “embracing failed policies” in the context of American/Cuban relations.
obama called for a “’new alliance of the Americas,” where neighbors such as Cuba would not be treated as “junior partners” in some idealistic socialist world order.
In this vein, obama promised that as president he would appoint a Special Envoy to the Americas to work with our southern neighbors, especially Cuba, in improving relations and in the end doing away with the embargo that has harmed the people of Cuba more than it has punished the government of Castro.
Our southern neighbors still await this appointment while the Middle East, Afghanistan/Pakistan, Sudan, and Haiti, to name a few, have been assigned special envoys by obama (makes you wonder what the hell Hillary Clinton is doing as Secretary of State).
Oh, there were rumors, such as Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd being offered the position. Might be logical, he will be out of a job in November.
obama said President George Bush’s policies were not “advancing freedom in Cuba.”
Currently, obama embraces the majority of those same policies toward Cuba…with the same effects.
McCain vowed to maintain the embargo until its communist government makes moves toward accepting human rights and democratic elections.
While castigating President George W. Bush, Senator John McCain, and Senator Hillary Clinton (and anyone else who wasn’t Cuban) for setting “preconditions” on meeting with enemy leaders, such as Raul Castro of Cuba, obama was setting his own.
obama has maintained the embargo - as president he hasn’t even called for its review by Congress - saying Cuba has not made the necessary positive steps by which he would consider ending the embargo.
obama has, however, made the traditional embargo policy less restrictive, his version of the carrot and stick game I assume, but that has been seen as doing too little.
obama campaigned on the ideal that when he becomes president his talk and hug approach to foreign policy would make despot states like Cuba change their ways and move toward democracy and an acceptance of human rights.
NPR released a story in August of this year which reported that international opinion was that the Castro regime has not, despite the hugs and talk from obama, made significant moves on its “ugly human rights record.
Thus, it appears obama’s policies with respect to Cuba are having no positive affect.
``It's important for the United States not just to talk to its friends, but also to talk to its enemies,'' obama said in a Texas debate against Senator Hillary Clinton.
The President of Cuba’s National Assembly sought to come to the U.S. to talk in October 2009…obama’s government denied him a visa.
Actions often matter more than words.
obama’s government has maintained Cuba on the list of foreign states that are sponsors of terrorism, saying in August of this year that “Havana provides safe haven to terrorists…”
More recently, the Trading With The Enemy Act (TWEA), which restricts trade, travel, and economic ventures with Cuba (Cuba is the only country this Act currently mentions), was due to expire on September 14, 2010.
obama extended the Act against Cuba on September 2, 2010 (Federal Register: September 7, 2010 Volume 75, Number 172,Presidential Documents, pp. 54457).
Yet on the website Cuba Travel USA, it is George W. Bush that is pictured with the label, “enemy of freedom to travel.”
Liberals around the globe have been calling on Cuba’s behalf for obama to lift the sanctions that have hurt the Cuban families of our US citizens.
Amnesty International called on obama not to extend TWEA, calling the sanctions against Cuba the “United States’ single most ridiculous and demonstrably failed foreign policy.”
Got nowhere with that.
Writing for the Washington Times, Eli Lake said that human rights groups are beginning to question obama’s “commitment” to their issues; “From a civil liberties perspective, [obama’s] report card shows an incomplete,” said Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU.
The National Foreign Trade Council has called on obama to open Cuba to all U.S. travelers and let U.S. companies work on the island.
Carlos Lazo, U.S. National Guardsmen, Cuban activist, and member of the board of directors of the Center for Democracy in the Americas, said “it is time to eliminate all restrictions on travel to Cuba for all Americans.”
Getting nowhere with that.
Steve Clemons, noting that Cuba, at this time, does not represent a great political prize for obama, yet urging him to change his policies, said, “Drop the counterproductive, compulsive obsessiveness with ‘conditionality.’ It does not work and undermines American interests.”
"When I lived in Cuba, they didn't let me leave the country," said Jose, a Bank of America employee who arrived here from Havana five years ago, who gave only his first name. "Now that I live in Miami, they don't let me go there. The two governments seem the same."
Read more: http://www.myspace.com/iosoluno
Read more: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=510446062&blogId=538964257#ixzz0yxvnReGS
A YouTube video shows obama in 2004 saying “it’s time to end the embargo” and “the Cuban embargo has failed.”
While campaigning, obama promised “real change in Cuba.”
While pandering to locals in a May 2008 Miami, Florida campaign appearance, where he “sprinkled his speech with Spanish words and phrases,” obama criticized Senator John McCain for “embracing failed policies” in the context of American/Cuban relations.
obama called for a “’new alliance of the Americas,” where neighbors such as Cuba would not be treated as “junior partners” in some idealistic socialist world order.
In this vein, obama promised that as president he would appoint a Special Envoy to the Americas to work with our southern neighbors, especially Cuba, in improving relations and in the end doing away with the embargo that has harmed the people of Cuba more than it has punished the government of Castro.
Our southern neighbors still await this appointment while the Middle East, Afghanistan/Pakistan, Sudan, and Haiti, to name a few, have been assigned special envoys by obama (makes you wonder what the hell Hillary Clinton is doing as Secretary of State).
Oh, there were rumors, such as Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd being offered the position. Might be logical, he will be out of a job in November.
obama said President George Bush’s policies were not “advancing freedom in Cuba.”
Currently, obama embraces the majority of those same policies toward Cuba…with the same effects.
McCain vowed to maintain the embargo until its communist government makes moves toward accepting human rights and democratic elections.
While castigating President George W. Bush, Senator John McCain, and Senator Hillary Clinton (and anyone else who wasn’t Cuban) for setting “preconditions” on meeting with enemy leaders, such as Raul Castro of Cuba, obama was setting his own.
obama has maintained the embargo - as president he hasn’t even called for its review by Congress - saying Cuba has not made the necessary positive steps by which he would consider ending the embargo.
obama has, however, made the traditional embargo policy less restrictive, his version of the carrot and stick game I assume, but that has been seen as doing too little.
obama campaigned on the ideal that when he becomes president his talk and hug approach to foreign policy would make despot states like Cuba change their ways and move toward democracy and an acceptance of human rights.
NPR released a story in August of this year which reported that international opinion was that the Castro regime has not, despite the hugs and talk from obama, made significant moves on its “ugly human rights record.
Thus, it appears obama’s policies with respect to Cuba are having no positive affect.
``It's important for the United States not just to talk to its friends, but also to talk to its enemies,'' obama said in a Texas debate against Senator Hillary Clinton.
The President of Cuba’s National Assembly sought to come to the U.S. to talk in October 2009…obama’s government denied him a visa.
Actions often matter more than words.
obama’s government has maintained Cuba on the list of foreign states that are sponsors of terrorism, saying in August of this year that “Havana provides safe haven to terrorists…”
More recently, the Trading With The Enemy Act (TWEA), which restricts trade, travel, and economic ventures with Cuba (Cuba is the only country this Act currently mentions), was due to expire on September 14, 2010.
obama extended the Act against Cuba on September 2, 2010 (Federal Register: September 7, 2010 Volume 75, Number 172,Presidential Documents, pp. 54457).
Yet on the website Cuba Travel USA, it is George W. Bush that is pictured with the label, “enemy of freedom to travel.”
Liberals around the globe have been calling on Cuba’s behalf for obama to lift the sanctions that have hurt the Cuban families of our US citizens.
Amnesty International called on obama not to extend TWEA, calling the sanctions against Cuba the “United States’ single most ridiculous and demonstrably failed foreign policy.”
Got nowhere with that.
Writing for the Washington Times, Eli Lake said that human rights groups are beginning to question obama’s “commitment” to their issues; “From a civil liberties perspective, [obama’s] report card shows an incomplete,” said Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU.
The National Foreign Trade Council has called on obama to open Cuba to all U.S. travelers and let U.S. companies work on the island.
Carlos Lazo, U.S. National Guardsmen, Cuban activist, and member of the board of directors of the Center for Democracy in the Americas, said “it is time to eliminate all restrictions on travel to Cuba for all Americans.”
Getting nowhere with that.
Steve Clemons, noting that Cuba, at this time, does not represent a great political prize for obama, yet urging him to change his policies, said, “Drop the counterproductive, compulsive obsessiveness with ‘conditionality.’ It does not work and undermines American interests.”
"When I lived in Cuba, they didn't let me leave the country," said Jose, a Bank of America employee who arrived here from Havana five years ago, who gave only his first name. "Now that I live in Miami, they don't let me go there. The two governments seem the same."
Read more: http://www.myspace.com/iosoluno
Read more: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=510446062&blogId=538964257#ixzz0yxvnReGS
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
OBAMA CAN RELAX; THE TEA PARTY IS JUST A FAD
Well, that is if you subscribe to columnist DeWayne Wickham’s way of thinking; which is possible if you squint your eyes and twist your mind.
Wickham’s latest masterpiece appeared today in USA Today (Aug. 31, 2010, p. 11A) and was, naturally, titled, “Jackson, Sharpton Rallies Carry More Influence Than Beck’s.”
Which is why, I suppose, the media has spent so much time attacking Beck’s rally.
Anyhoo, the gist of Wickham’s little essay is that suddenly old players like Jackson and Sharpton have the ability to “spur” the “core constituency” of the Democratic Party, blacks, to get up off the couch and stop watching SportCenter (to borrow a phrase from obama) and head to the polls in November to rescue the Democratic Party.
I use the term ‘black’ due to a Radio One poll in October 2008 that found 42% of those polled prefer to be called ‘black’ rather than African American (www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/28/liggins.vote/index.html).
I’m all for giving this ultra-minority a voice.
While Wickham says the Jackson/Sharpton rallies will create Hope and Change V2.0, he predicts that the Tea Party “will be short-lived.”
Where were Jackson, Sharpton, and their “core constituents” a month after obama’s election when Democrats were losing two seats in black districts in Louisiana – including New Orleans? Wickham’s charges were missing in Georgia during a December 2008 Senate run-off election which was run by a Republican by 15%. Why were Jackson, Sharpton, and Wickham not spurring their “core” to vote in 2009 during governor’s races in Virginia and New Jersey where surveys were showing drops in black voter turnout upwards to 40% as compared with the general election in 2008? (http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/62967-democrats-ponder-a-big-drop-in-turnout-among-black-voters).
Wickham is placing much faith in an unreliable voting block and two uninspiring men with racial chips on their shoulders.
The Tea Party, Wickham says, is a “21st century incarnation of the anti-immigration Know-Nothing Movement of the 1850s.” Thus the crux of his death knell.
Here Wickham, like so many, confuse the extreme nativist ideology of the Know-Nothings with the reasonable, conservative anti-illegal immigration belief of the Tea Partiers.
The difference on this point is as wide as a Reagan victory over Jimmy Carter.
Due to the majority two-party hold on our politics, and given the fact that members of both major parties and states like Michigan are fighting to keep a formal Tea Party party off election ballots, we most likely will not be able to compare electoral successes between the two movements.
The Know-Nothings, prior to imploding due to their extremism, did have some electoral success.
Formally known as the American Party, the Know-Nothings actually won 62 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives during the 1854 midterm elections.
They made their way onto the 1856 Presidential ballot with candidate Millard Fillmore, who received nearly 1 million votes.
This, and more, from a party that basically morphed its way into being seen as a joke.
However, Tea Party support has led to more elective offices for their supported candidates than has the support of obama for his chosen candidates.
Wickham wastes his time comparing a formal political party built on an extreme anti-immigration ideology with a group aligned to support candidates that support various conservative issues.
Wickham and Sharpton are filled with vigor when liberal groups march and coalesce for a candidate and a cause, but are threatened and become hypocritical when conservatives choose a similar path to make their voices heard.
I’m just surprised Wickham didn’t bring up Sarah Palin.
Read more: http://www.myspace.com/iosoluno/blog?bID=538747843#ixzz0yFC2lwix
Wickham’s latest masterpiece appeared today in USA Today (Aug. 31, 2010, p. 11A) and was, naturally, titled, “Jackson, Sharpton Rallies Carry More Influence Than Beck’s.”
Which is why, I suppose, the media has spent so much time attacking Beck’s rally.
Anyhoo, the gist of Wickham’s little essay is that suddenly old players like Jackson and Sharpton have the ability to “spur” the “core constituency” of the Democratic Party, blacks, to get up off the couch and stop watching SportCenter (to borrow a phrase from obama) and head to the polls in November to rescue the Democratic Party.
I use the term ‘black’ due to a Radio One poll in October 2008 that found 42% of those polled prefer to be called ‘black’ rather than African American (www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/28/liggins.vote/index.html).
I’m all for giving this ultra-minority a voice.
While Wickham says the Jackson/Sharpton rallies will create Hope and Change V2.0, he predicts that the Tea Party “will be short-lived.”
Where were Jackson, Sharpton, and their “core constituents” a month after obama’s election when Democrats were losing two seats in black districts in Louisiana – including New Orleans? Wickham’s charges were missing in Georgia during a December 2008 Senate run-off election which was run by a Republican by 15%. Why were Jackson, Sharpton, and Wickham not spurring their “core” to vote in 2009 during governor’s races in Virginia and New Jersey where surveys were showing drops in black voter turnout upwards to 40% as compared with the general election in 2008? (http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/62967-democrats-ponder-a-big-drop-in-turnout-among-black-voters).
Wickham is placing much faith in an unreliable voting block and two uninspiring men with racial chips on their shoulders.
The Tea Party, Wickham says, is a “21st century incarnation of the anti-immigration Know-Nothing Movement of the 1850s.” Thus the crux of his death knell.
Here Wickham, like so many, confuse the extreme nativist ideology of the Know-Nothings with the reasonable, conservative anti-illegal immigration belief of the Tea Partiers.
The difference on this point is as wide as a Reagan victory over Jimmy Carter.
Due to the majority two-party hold on our politics, and given the fact that members of both major parties and states like Michigan are fighting to keep a formal Tea Party party off election ballots, we most likely will not be able to compare electoral successes between the two movements.
The Know-Nothings, prior to imploding due to their extremism, did have some electoral success.
Formally known as the American Party, the Know-Nothings actually won 62 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives during the 1854 midterm elections.
They made their way onto the 1856 Presidential ballot with candidate Millard Fillmore, who received nearly 1 million votes.
This, and more, from a party that basically morphed its way into being seen as a joke.
However, Tea Party support has led to more elective offices for their supported candidates than has the support of obama for his chosen candidates.
Wickham wastes his time comparing a formal political party built on an extreme anti-immigration ideology with a group aligned to support candidates that support various conservative issues.
Wickham and Sharpton are filled with vigor when liberal groups march and coalesce for a candidate and a cause, but are threatened and become hypocritical when conservatives choose a similar path to make their voices heard.
I’m just surprised Wickham didn’t bring up Sarah Palin.
Read more: http://www.myspace.com/iosoluno/blog?bID=538747843#ixzz0yFC2lwix
Sunday, August 29, 2010
OBAMA SCAMS SENIOR VOTERS
obama has been using the draw -down of American troops in Iraq as a “hey, look at me and what I’ve done” moment.
Constantly we hear him saying that removing all combat troops from Iraq by the summer of 2010 was a campaign pledge he made and a campaign pledge he is keeping.
We heard this empty boast as troops began to leave; he said it again today during his national radio broadcast, and you can bet your next Social Security check that he will emphasize this point during his speech to the nation on Tuesday.
Stepping over the fact that he did absolutely nothing to make this pledge come true, other than giving the order to leave, let’s look at a one campaign promise he made that has been left out on the sidewalk like yesterday’s garbage.
The spring of 2008 found obama’s campaign struggling in the primaries against Senator Hillary Clinton in attracting the support of the elderly.
Reports of the “SuperTuesday” multi-state primary results in February 2008 were showing that obama received only 35% of those primary voters over the age of 60 while Senator Clinton received 56% of these votes (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/05/politics/main3795497.shtml).
obama also lost the primary votes of older Latinos by 40-60% percentage points to Senator Clinton in Texas, New Mexico, and California; by April 2008 the obama campaign admitted the elderly vote issue was becoming a problem (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9902.html ).
So, obama takes to doing what any good politician would do when they need to attract the votes of a certain voting demographic: pander to them.
Realizing that his opponent in the general election would be against an old white guy (Senator John McCain), obama panders to the most experienced of our population by promising them a tax break.
In August 2008 an AP story is widely circulated among most news agencies that obama was promising senior citizens that as president he would see to it that senior citizens making less than $50,000 annually would pay no income taxes.
obama was telling us that this promise would give more than 7 million citizens an average of $1,400 a year (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/12/obama-seniors-making-unde_n_118348.html).
Perhaps obama’s pandering to the post-youthful generation worked.
CNN’s national exit polls reveal that during the presidential election against Senator John McCain, obama received 50% of the votes from people age 45-64, and 45% of those votes from people over age 65 (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/).
Then obama came to Washington D.C., brought his mother-in-law, planted a garden, held a public barbecue, went on The View, and forgot all about his pledge to the elderly.
There were tax cuts in the non-stimulating stimulus bill, but none for the elderly…well; he did give those receiving Social Security an extra, one-time bonus of $250.
obama presented Congress with his first budget in January 2009; no tax cut for the elderly.
On April 15, 2009 obama gave a speech about reforming the tax code; no mention of a tax break for the elderly (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/24/end-income-tax-for-seniors-making-less-than/).
Yet he pushes obama-care into law which cuts Medicare benefits to the elderly Advantage program.
Now his wreck-the-social-security-system commission readies a proposal to decrease benefits, increase eligibility requirements, or increase taxes.
True, obama never set a time for his senior citizen tax promise to actually take place, except that it would happen with him as president.
True, obama never added the little caveat to his promise during the campaign that some other politicians may be against his little promise, or that politics might make things difficult to get this done.
That would make him different, a change, from normal pandering politicians.
While you listen to obama taking credit for keeping a pledge that even Joe Biden could have kept, note that besides the fake-out of the elderly citizens in America, there are 21 other promises (politifact.com) obama made during his run for the White House that he has also either abandoned or had little stomach to fight for.
Change you can believe in?
Read more: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=510446062&blogId=538669294#ixzz0y0ZFrsqS
Constantly we hear him saying that removing all combat troops from Iraq by the summer of 2010 was a campaign pledge he made and a campaign pledge he is keeping.
We heard this empty boast as troops began to leave; he said it again today during his national radio broadcast, and you can bet your next Social Security check that he will emphasize this point during his speech to the nation on Tuesday.
Stepping over the fact that he did absolutely nothing to make this pledge come true, other than giving the order to leave, let’s look at a one campaign promise he made that has been left out on the sidewalk like yesterday’s garbage.
The spring of 2008 found obama’s campaign struggling in the primaries against Senator Hillary Clinton in attracting the support of the elderly.
Reports of the “SuperTuesday” multi-state primary results in February 2008 were showing that obama received only 35% of those primary voters over the age of 60 while Senator Clinton received 56% of these votes (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/05/politics/main3795497.shtml).
obama also lost the primary votes of older Latinos by 40-60% percentage points to Senator Clinton in Texas, New Mexico, and California; by April 2008 the obama campaign admitted the elderly vote issue was becoming a problem (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9902.html ).
So, obama takes to doing what any good politician would do when they need to attract the votes of a certain voting demographic: pander to them.
Realizing that his opponent in the general election would be against an old white guy (Senator John McCain), obama panders to the most experienced of our population by promising them a tax break.
In August 2008 an AP story is widely circulated among most news agencies that obama was promising senior citizens that as president he would see to it that senior citizens making less than $50,000 annually would pay no income taxes.
obama was telling us that this promise would give more than 7 million citizens an average of $1,400 a year (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/12/obama-seniors-making-unde_n_118348.html).
Perhaps obama’s pandering to the post-youthful generation worked.
CNN’s national exit polls reveal that during the presidential election against Senator John McCain, obama received 50% of the votes from people age 45-64, and 45% of those votes from people over age 65 (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/).
Then obama came to Washington D.C., brought his mother-in-law, planted a garden, held a public barbecue, went on The View, and forgot all about his pledge to the elderly.
There were tax cuts in the non-stimulating stimulus bill, but none for the elderly…well; he did give those receiving Social Security an extra, one-time bonus of $250.
obama presented Congress with his first budget in January 2009; no tax cut for the elderly.
On April 15, 2009 obama gave a speech about reforming the tax code; no mention of a tax break for the elderly (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/24/end-income-tax-for-seniors-making-less-than/).
Yet he pushes obama-care into law which cuts Medicare benefits to the elderly Advantage program.
Now his wreck-the-social-security-system commission readies a proposal to decrease benefits, increase eligibility requirements, or increase taxes.
True, obama never set a time for his senior citizen tax promise to actually take place, except that it would happen with him as president.
True, obama never added the little caveat to his promise during the campaign that some other politicians may be against his little promise, or that politics might make things difficult to get this done.
That would make him different, a change, from normal pandering politicians.
While you listen to obama taking credit for keeping a pledge that even Joe Biden could have kept, note that besides the fake-out of the elderly citizens in America, there are 21 other promises (politifact.com) obama made during his run for the White House that he has also either abandoned or had little stomach to fight for.
Change you can believe in?
Read more: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=510446062&blogId=538669294#ixzz0y0ZFrsqS
Sunday, August 22, 2010
OBAMA'S GOV'T SUSPENDS CHALLENGES TO POPULATION COUNT
While the media focuses on the ruckus surrounding birth certificates, mosques, and vacations, there has taken place within obama’s government something much more ominous and threatening to our notions of voice, fairplay, and democracy.
Each year the U.S. Census Bureau produces estimates of the U.S. population for each age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin group using the previous completed census count as the base population, then adding or subtracting based on among other things, births, deaths, and international migration (legal or otherwise as far as the current governmental elite are concerned).
This is the Population Estimates Program.
These annual estimates are used in the allocating of federal funds to local, county, and state governments ( http://www.census.gov/popest/overview.html).
In other words, they are pretty damn important; and it’s important to get them right.
Since 1979 it has been codified in federal law (Title 15, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 90) that local, county, and state governments have the right to challenge the government’s population estimates.
This is the Population Estimates Challenge Program.
There were 99 accepted challenges to the government’s estimates in 2007 and 2008 and for every accepted challenge except for 2 there was recorded an increase in the population estimates made by the government (http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/challenges.html).
Then came obama.
obama needed to fill the Secretary of Commerce cabinet position, as well as the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau’s position, and it appears no one from the global community-minded Tripartisan Commission (http://www.augustreview.com/issues/globalization/the_trilateral_commission:_usurping_sovereignty_2007080373/) was available.
The Secretary of Commerce overseas the U.S. Census Bureau and his power, as stated in 13 U.S.C 4, is basically as he sees it; “..the Secretary may issue rules and regulations, as he deems necessary to carry out his functions and duties…”
Just like Katherine Sebalius can do with obama-care.
Therefore, much of what the Secretary would like to do in the context of the U.S. Census and its processes is beyond Congressional oversight.
After first striking out with New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who was at the time bearded and enbalttled, obama then asked New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg (R) to be his new commerce secretary.
Apparently Gregg declined to take the position when obama refused to oppose the use of statistical sampling, rather than individual head counts, in running the decennial census program, as well as not assuring Gregg that obama political operatives wouldn’t be interfering with Gregg’s running of the Census bureau and its processes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/28/AR2010022803364.html).
Perhaps Gregg feared being attacked in the shower by a naked Rahm Emmanuel.
Democrats and Republicans for years have disagreed on whether the census should be based on a strict head count or done by “statistical adjustment,” which is favored by Democrats so that hard-to-track people, like illegal aliens, are counted (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/02/obama-taps-robert-groves-census-director/).
Juan Williams, NPR radio analyst and author of “Eyes on the Prize: America’s Civil Rights Years, 1954-1965,” stated that most challenges to the U.S.Census have come from the left as they claim blacks, Hispanics, and the homeless (and this year, illegals) have been under-counted (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/28/AR2010022803364.html).
Statistical sampling done by a liberal left government would of course be beneficial to these groups.
The Netherlands and Germany employ such statistical sampling for their censuses.
Finally, obama finds his commerce secretary, a Mr. Lok Gaa-Fai .
His given English name is Gary Locke, former Democratic Governor of Washington State and Hillary campaign chief in that state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Locke).
Locke would be in lock-step with obama on just about anything. As one former pollster said of his old boss, “He’s more of a manager than a bold leader or a visionary” (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1881587,00.html).
That ought to bode well for the U.S. as we struggle with our international trade gap.
obama then chose Robert Groves of the University of Michigan to be the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau.
Groves has been known to do cart-wheels over random statistical sampling.
Why count everybody when counting a few and making an educated guess as to the whole would be close enough for government work?
"With the nomination of Robert Groves, [obama] has made clear that he intends to employ the political manipulation of census data for partisan gain," North Carolina Congressman Patrick McHenry cautioned.
Other lawmakers called Groves an "incredibly troubling selection" who must be watched for "statistical sleight of hand" (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1889793,00.html).....
President George H.W. Bush (the first Bush) brought Groves on board in 1990 to help with that year’s Census. However, his use of statistical models to fill in gaps of undercounting rubbed then Commerce Secretary Robert Mosbacher the wrong way (Montopoli, Brian, "Obama To Tap Sampling Expert To Be Census Director," CBS News, April 2, 2009).....
Mosbacher called Groves’ statistical techniques “political tampering” (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/02/obama-taps-robert-groves-census-director/).
Currently, however, Groves, as Director of the U.S. Census Bureau, answers to no rational thinking human being; pragmatic yes, rational no.
On the obama payroll for less than a year, Groves would immediately find fault with the 1979 Population Estimates Challenge Program.
So what does he do now that he has this administration backing him up?
Groves acts against the Population Challenge Estimate law like no other Bureau Director has before him.
He suspends the law and thus any challenges to what he as Census Bureau chief will say what the latest annual population estimates will show (Federal Register, Vol. 75, No.1, Mon. Jan., 4, 2010, pp44-46, http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/E9-31171.pdf).
Why?
(1) to focus on the 2010 Census;
(2) it would be “pointless” to do a population estimate and deal with the challenges of that estimate while work is being done on the decennial Census;
(3) it would be a cost-effective means to ensure allocation of sufficient resources for the demographic analysis of the 2010 Census;
(4) to redesign the Challenge Program to make it more demographically accurate;....
(5) to reduce the need for a post-estimate review process;
(6) and, it will allow the Census Bureau to better integrate the date from the 2010 Census into the Population Estimates Program (Federal Register, 75,1, 1/4/2010).
Basically he’s taking a direct approach to ensuring that his love affair with statistical sampling will become a trusted tool in future U.S. Census Bureau processes.
What better way to sure up the liberal left’s voting base and thus ensure a liberal left congressional representative majority.
Groves claims the Challenge Program will resume in 2012, but remember, the Census Bureau is allowed to act without Congressional oversight.
The timing is questionable: suspended right before 2010 congressional elections and then continuing, ostensibly, following the next presidential election.
In the context of the actual Census taking, Groves has also acted in a troubling manner.
This year the government launched a multi-million dollar ad campaign to increase Census participation.
How to pay for this? The U.S. Census bureau was given $250 MILLION of the stimulus monies to run their little Census advertising campaigns ("Obama Picks Robert Groves for Census Director," The Washington Post Online, April 2, 2009).
What’s next? Stimulus paid-for advertising campaigns in 2012 to urge those too stupid (or those considered disenfranchised) to realize that it’s time to vote again for president?
We want everyone counted, right?
I wonder. It appears the obama administration feels that some need to be pushed in that direction a little harder than the rest of the population.
Guess who that would be?
obama announces in February of 2009 that the Casa Blanca would monitor how the census was conducted in order to assure that the Latino and black populations were not disenfranchised (."Growing political battle over the Census: Latinos versus Republicans," Los Angeles Times Online, Feb. 9, 2009).
I bet.
In April 2010 Groves announces plans to seek help from major Spanish news outlets in order to build support for the Census among Latinos (El Nasser, Haya, "Hispanic groups call for Census boycott," USA Today, April 15, 2009).
I wonder how much advertising and reaching out the Census Bureau did in poor, white areas in the Adirondacks.
According to Groves’ own admission, not as much.
In January 2010 Groves appeared before a Pew Research conference and stated the following (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1477/census-director-robert-groves-explains-process-safeguards-participation-evaluation):
* Because we're trying to reach everyone, we have disproportionately spent locally rather than nationally. We are disproportionately spending in language groups.”
During the same conference Groves also used these phrases to describe the Census process: “..is like a moon shot in its planning horizon,” and “It’s a little harder than fighting a war…”
A “little harder?”
Let obama tell that to returning Iraq War veterans.
And more ominously, given his love with statistical sampling and liberal supporters in charge of our government: “We have a group working right now on the 2020 design, believe it or not.”
Oh, I believe it!
Then just recently in August 2010, Secretary Lok Gaa-Fai announces that due to set-aside contingency funds in the Census Bureau’s budget being unused, that the Census Bureau saved over $1 BILLION dollars during the 2010 Census (http://www.commerce.gov/blog/2010/08/10/secretary-locke-announces-16-billion-2010-census-savings).
He didn’t mention that he had been given $1 BILLION in stimulus funds to begin with, or that the Bureau no longer would be spending time and money fighting those pesky Population Estimate Challenges that were once the law of the land, but now were just archives in Director Groves little file cabinet.
So, while you’re watching Entertainment Tonight and Inside Edition for the latest news on the obama administration, remember that you are not receiving the latest news that matters on the obama administration.
One avenue for your voice has been taken away without any congressional debate, vote, or, more importantly, without your input.
How many more?
Read more: http://www.myspace.com/iosoluno/blog#ixzz0xNasxvJW
Each year the U.S. Census Bureau produces estimates of the U.S. population for each age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin group using the previous completed census count as the base population, then adding or subtracting based on among other things, births, deaths, and international migration (legal or otherwise as far as the current governmental elite are concerned).
This is the Population Estimates Program.
These annual estimates are used in the allocating of federal funds to local, county, and state governments ( http://www.census.gov/popest/overview.html).
In other words, they are pretty damn important; and it’s important to get them right.
Since 1979 it has been codified in federal law (Title 15, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 90) that local, county, and state governments have the right to challenge the government’s population estimates.
This is the Population Estimates Challenge Program.
There were 99 accepted challenges to the government’s estimates in 2007 and 2008 and for every accepted challenge except for 2 there was recorded an increase in the population estimates made by the government (http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/challenges.html).
Then came obama.
obama needed to fill the Secretary of Commerce cabinet position, as well as the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau’s position, and it appears no one from the global community-minded Tripartisan Commission (http://www.augustreview.com/issues/globalization/the_trilateral_commission:_usurping_sovereignty_2007080373/) was available.
The Secretary of Commerce overseas the U.S. Census Bureau and his power, as stated in 13 U.S.C 4, is basically as he sees it; “..the Secretary may issue rules and regulations, as he deems necessary to carry out his functions and duties…”
Just like Katherine Sebalius can do with obama-care.
Therefore, much of what the Secretary would like to do in the context of the U.S. Census and its processes is beyond Congressional oversight.
After first striking out with New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who was at the time bearded and enbalttled, obama then asked New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg (R) to be his new commerce secretary.
Apparently Gregg declined to take the position when obama refused to oppose the use of statistical sampling, rather than individual head counts, in running the decennial census program, as well as not assuring Gregg that obama political operatives wouldn’t be interfering with Gregg’s running of the Census bureau and its processes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/28/AR2010022803364.html).
Perhaps Gregg feared being attacked in the shower by a naked Rahm Emmanuel.
Democrats and Republicans for years have disagreed on whether the census should be based on a strict head count or done by “statistical adjustment,” which is favored by Democrats so that hard-to-track people, like illegal aliens, are counted (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/02/obama-taps-robert-groves-census-director/).
Juan Williams, NPR radio analyst and author of “Eyes on the Prize: America’s Civil Rights Years, 1954-1965,” stated that most challenges to the U.S.Census have come from the left as they claim blacks, Hispanics, and the homeless (and this year, illegals) have been under-counted (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/28/AR2010022803364.html).
Statistical sampling done by a liberal left government would of course be beneficial to these groups.
The Netherlands and Germany employ such statistical sampling for their censuses.
Finally, obama finds his commerce secretary, a Mr. Lok Gaa-Fai .
His given English name is Gary Locke, former Democratic Governor of Washington State and Hillary campaign chief in that state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Locke).
Locke would be in lock-step with obama on just about anything. As one former pollster said of his old boss, “He’s more of a manager than a bold leader or a visionary” (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1881587,00.html).
That ought to bode well for the U.S. as we struggle with our international trade gap.
obama then chose Robert Groves of the University of Michigan to be the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau.
Groves has been known to do cart-wheels over random statistical sampling.
Why count everybody when counting a few and making an educated guess as to the whole would be close enough for government work?
"With the nomination of Robert Groves, [obama] has made clear that he intends to employ the political manipulation of census data for partisan gain," North Carolina Congressman Patrick McHenry cautioned.
Other lawmakers called Groves an "incredibly troubling selection" who must be watched for "statistical sleight of hand" (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1889793,00.html).....
President George H.W. Bush (the first Bush) brought Groves on board in 1990 to help with that year’s Census. However, his use of statistical models to fill in gaps of undercounting rubbed then Commerce Secretary Robert Mosbacher the wrong way (Montopoli, Brian, "Obama To Tap Sampling Expert To Be Census Director," CBS News, April 2, 2009).....
Mosbacher called Groves’ statistical techniques “political tampering” (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/02/obama-taps-robert-groves-census-director/).
Currently, however, Groves, as Director of the U.S. Census Bureau, answers to no rational thinking human being; pragmatic yes, rational no.
On the obama payroll for less than a year, Groves would immediately find fault with the 1979 Population Estimates Challenge Program.
So what does he do now that he has this administration backing him up?
Groves acts against the Population Challenge Estimate law like no other Bureau Director has before him.
He suspends the law and thus any challenges to what he as Census Bureau chief will say what the latest annual population estimates will show (Federal Register, Vol. 75, No.1, Mon. Jan., 4, 2010, pp44-46, http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/E9-31171.pdf).
Why?
(1) to focus on the 2010 Census;
(2) it would be “pointless” to do a population estimate and deal with the challenges of that estimate while work is being done on the decennial Census;
(3) it would be a cost-effective means to ensure allocation of sufficient resources for the demographic analysis of the 2010 Census;
(4) to redesign the Challenge Program to make it more demographically accurate;....
(5) to reduce the need for a post-estimate review process;
(6) and, it will allow the Census Bureau to better integrate the date from the 2010 Census into the Population Estimates Program (Federal Register, 75,1, 1/4/2010).
Basically he’s taking a direct approach to ensuring that his love affair with statistical sampling will become a trusted tool in future U.S. Census Bureau processes.
What better way to sure up the liberal left’s voting base and thus ensure a liberal left congressional representative majority.
Groves claims the Challenge Program will resume in 2012, but remember, the Census Bureau is allowed to act without Congressional oversight.
The timing is questionable: suspended right before 2010 congressional elections and then continuing, ostensibly, following the next presidential election.
In the context of the actual Census taking, Groves has also acted in a troubling manner.
This year the government launched a multi-million dollar ad campaign to increase Census participation.
How to pay for this? The U.S. Census bureau was given $250 MILLION of the stimulus monies to run their little Census advertising campaigns ("Obama Picks Robert Groves for Census Director," The Washington Post Online, April 2, 2009).
What’s next? Stimulus paid-for advertising campaigns in 2012 to urge those too stupid (or those considered disenfranchised) to realize that it’s time to vote again for president?
We want everyone counted, right?
I wonder. It appears the obama administration feels that some need to be pushed in that direction a little harder than the rest of the population.
Guess who that would be?
obama announces in February of 2009 that the Casa Blanca would monitor how the census was conducted in order to assure that the Latino and black populations were not disenfranchised (."Growing political battle over the Census: Latinos versus Republicans," Los Angeles Times Online, Feb. 9, 2009).
I bet.
In April 2010 Groves announces plans to seek help from major Spanish news outlets in order to build support for the Census among Latinos (El Nasser, Haya, "Hispanic groups call for Census boycott," USA Today, April 15, 2009).
I wonder how much advertising and reaching out the Census Bureau did in poor, white areas in the Adirondacks.
According to Groves’ own admission, not as much.
In January 2010 Groves appeared before a Pew Research conference and stated the following (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1477/census-director-robert-groves-explains-process-safeguards-participation-evaluation):
* Because we're trying to reach everyone, we have disproportionately spent locally rather than nationally. We are disproportionately spending in language groups.”
During the same conference Groves also used these phrases to describe the Census process: “..is like a moon shot in its planning horizon,” and “It’s a little harder than fighting a war…”
A “little harder?”
Let obama tell that to returning Iraq War veterans.
And more ominously, given his love with statistical sampling and liberal supporters in charge of our government: “We have a group working right now on the 2020 design, believe it or not.”
Oh, I believe it!
Then just recently in August 2010, Secretary Lok Gaa-Fai announces that due to set-aside contingency funds in the Census Bureau’s budget being unused, that the Census Bureau saved over $1 BILLION dollars during the 2010 Census (http://www.commerce.gov/blog/2010/08/10/secretary-locke-announces-16-billion-2010-census-savings).
He didn’t mention that he had been given $1 BILLION in stimulus funds to begin with, or that the Bureau no longer would be spending time and money fighting those pesky Population Estimate Challenges that were once the law of the land, but now were just archives in Director Groves little file cabinet.
So, while you’re watching Entertainment Tonight and Inside Edition for the latest news on the obama administration, remember that you are not receiving the latest news that matters on the obama administration.
One avenue for your voice has been taken away without any congressional debate, vote, or, more importantly, without your input.
How many more?
Read more: http://www.myspace.com/iosoluno/blog#ixzz0xNasxvJW
Thursday, August 19, 2010
OBAMA ATTACKED LIKE NO OTHER PRESIDENT
So says Jesse Jackson.
Well, that is if I assume correctly that his comment “have we ever witnessed anything like the unrelenting assault on Barack Obama?” refers to obama as a president and not obama as a celebrity; in which case I’m pretty sure even Lindsay Lohan’s press would prove Jesse wrong.
I don’t actually know who this Lindsey character is, I just hear her name on radio and TV and see it often in the headlines; I couldn’t pick the tramp out of a lineup.
Jesse’s new gig it appears is writing for the Chicago Sun Times, where his current racial angst is directed at the media, which he calls “ideological propaganda outlets,” and urges them to “Back off Obama” (http://www.suntimes.com/news/jackson/2605222,CST-EDT-jesse17.art icle).
Jesse has never been one for backing off; except possibly when stories of his infidelity and birthing babies out of wedlock were making the rounds of the “ideological propaganda outlets."
He sure wasn’t for backing off George Bush during the 2004 election when he ran around the country campaigning for John Kerry and attacking Bush for everything from Super Bowl boobs to super tsunamis (metaphorically speaking but you get the point).
Jesse was not for backing off George Bush when he helped organize thousands to march in anti-Bush protests and exhibit civil disobedience during the 2004 GOP National Convention in New York City.
But that was just Jesse being Jesse; now he’s like the Tidy Bowl Bubbles of politics – he plays the race card so obama doesn’t have tooooooooooooooo.
However, stepping over Jesse’s hypocrisy and his short term memory, let’s remember when the media was seen as obama’s little propaganda outlet.
HBO’s Bill Maher underscored the media’s drooling “professionalism” with his comment about MSNBC’s coverage of obama’s 2008 Democratic National Convention: “…I mean these guys were ready to have sex with him” (HBO, Real Time, August 29, 2008).
A Pew Research Poll in October 2008 found that 70% of those responding felt that the media was in the tank for obama (http://people-press.org/report/463/media-wants-obama).
Tony Blankley, writing for RealClearPolitics in September 2008: “The mainstream media have gone over the line and are now straight-out propagandists for the Obama campaign” (http://realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/the_man_who_never_ was.html).
Now Jesse bemoans the fact that some in the media are taking the shine out of the little fantasy rainbow that is obama, which may lie in the fact that those that pay attention are in the majority in their disapproval of the job obama is doing as ‘president’ (RealClearPolitics.com, 8/17/2010).
Let us also not forget the culture of hate that spewed forth from the media during George Bush’s two terms as President of the United States.
Let’s not forget the New York Times asking us on its front page: “Is George Bush Smart Enough to Be President?” (June 19, 2000).
Hating and criticizing George Bush became a cottage industry in all forms of media. You couldn’t walk through a Border’s store without tripping over anti-Bush books (Carl Cannon, Washington Monthly, Vol. 38, Issue 3, p24.).
Author Matt Bai, in his book on how the democrats supposedly rebuilt their party after two consecutive defeats to George Bush (2007, The Battle Inside: The Battle to Remake Democratic Politics), wrote that “all the leading arbiters of American culture had been united in their determination” to defeat George Bush (p19).
Who were these “leading arbiters of American culture” that were not backing off George Bush? Bai tells us they were Hollywood celebrities, New York financiers, the country’s leading editorial pages and magazine editors, best-known novelists, scientists, and great political minds like Bruce Springsteen and Eminem (p17).
It says a lot about your culture if the likes of Springsteen and Eminem are considered to be “leading arbiters” of that culture.
The Bush/Kerry campaign of 2008 saw fake television journalists (Dan Rather) using fake documents to create fake stories in an attempt to secure victory for a fake personality (Kerry).
To go along with Jesse’s “birthers,” those who claimed that obama is not a US citizen, Bush also had his wing-nut critics. Author Stephen Hanchett, tapped out as a writer and gasping for literary success, came up with this gem of a book: “Is George Bush the Anti-Christ?”
A Pew Research poll in October 2004 said that 50% of those polled felt newspaper reporters and TV journalist were too eager in their disdain for Bush.
Is Jesse’s question evidence of his slipping into dementia or just further evidence of those still-obama supporters who cannot believe that the nation is no longer drooling like Chris Matthews or Keith Olberman over obama?
Jesse wonders in print why republicans are not working with obama to solve problems.
Jesse’s dementia or his dilated passion keeps him from seeing that obama’s ego doesn’t allow for much outside suggestions toward policy. Take obama’s Race To The Top school funding program, either your state conforms its reform program to his way of thinking about school reform, or your state does not get a share of his funding monies.
obama feels nearly 100% congressional democratic approval of his policies is people doing the right thing, while 100% of republican disapproval is partisan politics.
Take note, while obama and his love-hounds criticize republicans in congress for their obstructionism, their negativity, their short-term memories, and their overall distaste for most things obama, they are also criticizing a majority of Americans…you..
Read more: http://forums.myspace.com/p/4826049/71486812.aspx?fuseaction=forums.viewpost#71486812#ixzz0x3iIy2WF
Well, that is if I assume correctly that his comment “have we ever witnessed anything like the unrelenting assault on Barack Obama?” refers to obama as a president and not obama as a celebrity; in which case I’m pretty sure even Lindsay Lohan’s press would prove Jesse wrong.
I don’t actually know who this Lindsey character is, I just hear her name on radio and TV and see it often in the headlines; I couldn’t pick the tramp out of a lineup.
Jesse’s new gig it appears is writing for the Chicago Sun Times, where his current racial angst is directed at the media, which he calls “ideological propaganda outlets,” and urges them to “Back off Obama” (http://www.suntimes.com/news/jackson/2605222,CST-EDT-jesse17.art icle).
Jesse has never been one for backing off; except possibly when stories of his infidelity and birthing babies out of wedlock were making the rounds of the “ideological propaganda outlets."
He sure wasn’t for backing off George Bush during the 2004 election when he ran around the country campaigning for John Kerry and attacking Bush for everything from Super Bowl boobs to super tsunamis (metaphorically speaking but you get the point).
Jesse was not for backing off George Bush when he helped organize thousands to march in anti-Bush protests and exhibit civil disobedience during the 2004 GOP National Convention in New York City.
But that was just Jesse being Jesse; now he’s like the Tidy Bowl Bubbles of politics – he plays the race card so obama doesn’t have tooooooooooooooo.
However, stepping over Jesse’s hypocrisy and his short term memory, let’s remember when the media was seen as obama’s little propaganda outlet.
HBO’s Bill Maher underscored the media’s drooling “professionalism” with his comment about MSNBC’s coverage of obama’s 2008 Democratic National Convention: “…I mean these guys were ready to have sex with him” (HBO, Real Time, August 29, 2008).
A Pew Research Poll in October 2008 found that 70% of those responding felt that the media was in the tank for obama (http://people-press.org/report/463/media-wants-obama).
Tony Blankley, writing for RealClearPolitics in September 2008: “The mainstream media have gone over the line and are now straight-out propagandists for the Obama campaign” (http://realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/the_man_who_never_ was.html).
Now Jesse bemoans the fact that some in the media are taking the shine out of the little fantasy rainbow that is obama, which may lie in the fact that those that pay attention are in the majority in their disapproval of the job obama is doing as ‘president’ (RealClearPolitics.com, 8/17/2010).
Let us also not forget the culture of hate that spewed forth from the media during George Bush’s two terms as President of the United States.
Let’s not forget the New York Times asking us on its front page: “Is George Bush Smart Enough to Be President?” (June 19, 2000).
Hating and criticizing George Bush became a cottage industry in all forms of media. You couldn’t walk through a Border’s store without tripping over anti-Bush books (Carl Cannon, Washington Monthly, Vol. 38, Issue 3, p24.).
Author Matt Bai, in his book on how the democrats supposedly rebuilt their party after two consecutive defeats to George Bush (2007, The Battle Inside: The Battle to Remake Democratic Politics), wrote that “all the leading arbiters of American culture had been united in their determination” to defeat George Bush (p19).
Who were these “leading arbiters of American culture” that were not backing off George Bush? Bai tells us they were Hollywood celebrities, New York financiers, the country’s leading editorial pages and magazine editors, best-known novelists, scientists, and great political minds like Bruce Springsteen and Eminem (p17).
It says a lot about your culture if the likes of Springsteen and Eminem are considered to be “leading arbiters” of that culture.
The Bush/Kerry campaign of 2008 saw fake television journalists (Dan Rather) using fake documents to create fake stories in an attempt to secure victory for a fake personality (Kerry).
To go along with Jesse’s “birthers,” those who claimed that obama is not a US citizen, Bush also had his wing-nut critics. Author Stephen Hanchett, tapped out as a writer and gasping for literary success, came up with this gem of a book: “Is George Bush the Anti-Christ?”
A Pew Research poll in October 2004 said that 50% of those polled felt newspaper reporters and TV journalist were too eager in their disdain for Bush.
Is Jesse’s question evidence of his slipping into dementia or just further evidence of those still-obama supporters who cannot believe that the nation is no longer drooling like Chris Matthews or Keith Olberman over obama?
Jesse wonders in print why republicans are not working with obama to solve problems.
Jesse’s dementia or his dilated passion keeps him from seeing that obama’s ego doesn’t allow for much outside suggestions toward policy. Take obama’s Race To The Top school funding program, either your state conforms its reform program to his way of thinking about school reform, or your state does not get a share of his funding monies.
obama feels nearly 100% congressional democratic approval of his policies is people doing the right thing, while 100% of republican disapproval is partisan politics.
Take note, while obama and his love-hounds criticize republicans in congress for their obstructionism, their negativity, their short-term memories, and their overall distaste for most things obama, they are also criticizing a majority of Americans…you..
Read more: http://forums.myspace.com/p/4826049/71486812.aspx?fuseaction=forums.viewpost#71486812#ixzz0x3iIy2WF
Sunday, August 15, 2010
OBAMA BEEFS UP BORDER SECURITY WITH BALONEY
Suddenly obama is at a loss for words.
Often the lack of words matter.
On Friday obama was left with only Janet “I’m not Janet Reno” Napolitano to trade fist bumps as he signed a new $600 MILLION border security funding bill (S.3721/H.R.6080) in the Oval Office with only photographers present to record the moment.
No reporters were allowed in the room by this new transparent administration.
There were no pretty speeches before the assembled media for which to provide CNN with a 30 second sound-bite it could play over and over for obama fanatics.
No “see, I promised this during my campaign and I have delivered” type talk like obama gave when he announced a troop draw-down in Iraq.
Why so hush-hush?
Could it be that obama wants to keep this under the radar of Hispanic and Latino supporters who also happen to be supporters of illegal immigration?
Illegal immigration supporters complain that this bill did not provide a “path to citizenship” for illegals.
Margaret Moran (no doubt pronounced “mo-ron”), president of the League of United Latin American Citizens says the bill represents anti-immigration xenophobia (AP, YahooNews, 8/13/10).
It actually represents anti-illegal immigration xenophobia; let’s not confuse the two.
Could obama’s mostly silent Oval Office ceremony be due to the fact that he may have read the NY Times on July 31, 2010 which told of a Quinnipiac University poll that found only 38% of Hispanics approve of the way obama is handling illegal immigration?
…or, this is great, the same poll also found that only 47% of Hispanics think that obama has been a better president than President George W. Bush.
When your election victory rested on 10 states (worth 142 electoral votes) that were decided by minority voters, you need to pay attention to this stuff (http://www.frey-demographer.org/reports/R-2009-2 HowRaceAffect2008Election.pdf).
Could it be that obama realizes any talk of “bipartisan” group-hugs on this matter is blatantly baloney?
Democrat obama and his democrat point-man in the Senate on this bill, Chuckie Schumer of New York, rejected 3 amendments by republican Senator John McCain of Arizona, that would have made this bill, which Schumer described as “smart and tough (Congressional Record, 8/5/10, p.S6838),” smarter and tougher.
obama constantly talks of the need for republican cooperation, yet when they offer cooperation obama turns his back and says, “I was only kidding; it’s more fun to call you all obstructionist.”
McCain wanted to include an amendment that would have provided $20 MILLION for a law enforcement center that would help governments identify illegals and immigration eligibility status (CR, p. S6839).
Republicans want to make sure who is here legally and who is here illegally, like we are supposed to do according to U.S. law.
In July obama called for immigration reform that would contain measures for “more workplace scrutiny (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0701/Despite-difficul t-politics-Obama-pitches-immigration-reform).”
No, Schumer told McCain.
Are obama and his generals hypocrites?
We will pay for it from stimulus monies, said McCain.
No, said Schumer, the stimulus is only for things that create jobs (CR, p.S6839).
Really?
Unemployment is higher now than it was when obama took office and started spending the stimulus money.
How many jobs were created by spending $1.5 BILLION of the stimulus money for the Department of Education to guarantee student loans? (CR, p.S6839).
Republicans say the obama administration has spent $20 MILLION of the stimulus (your tax dollars) on putting up street signs throughout the country that identify certain projects as creations of obama’s great use of your tax dollar (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/signs-stimulus/story?id=11163180& page=1).
Democrats say republicans lie…it has only been $5 MILLION (but $28 MILLION has been allocated and could be used for this purpose).
Republicans say ok; in July they introduce a bill that would stop spending stimulus money on these blatantly political road side signs.
No, democrats defeat the bill.
Could obama’s relative silence on this bill, which is an “emergency supplemental appropriations act,” be due to the fact that it is of the same type that he and democrats railed against Bush’s use of to fund the Iraq War?
In 2007 obama voted against an “emergency supplemental appropriations” bill to support the troops in Iraq.
Could obama’s silence on this issue also be due to the fact that it taxes legal immigrants?
What would a democratic bill be without new taxes?
Answer: Hope and change.
Chuckie Schumer says, “The best part of this border package is it is fully paid for and will not increase the deficit by a single penny (CR, p. S6838).”
Hmmm.
The bill (S.3721)spends (funds “to remain available until”) the $600 million until next year, September 30, 2011.
obama’s new tax on immigrants coming to this country on L1 or H1B visas ($2250 and $2000 respectively), will, according to the Congressional Budget Office, raise $552 MILLION “over ten years (http://www.gop.gov/bill/111/2/hr6080).”
Yet the bill only calls for this new immigrant tax until 2014…four more years.
Wait a minute…
obama spends $600 MILLION over the next year in this bill…
Chuckie says it won’t cost the taxpayer a dime because it is funded by the new immigrant tax…
Yet the CBO says the new immigrant tax raises $552 over 10 years.
I think we’re short some millions there somewhere…oh, like in the first freakin year!
Robbing Peter to pay Paul, the bill does make up some of the shortfall however; it takes $100 MILLION from US Customs and Border Protection, which was used for “border security, fencing, infrastructure, and technology.”
However, now little democrats can scurry home and tell their non-minority constituents that they are doing something about illegal immigration (and, actually, legal immigration), “…something other than suing the State of Arizona…”(Alabma Senator Jeff Sessions, (R), CR, p. S6839) for doing something about illegal immigration.
Balogna; when you don’t have the stomach for beef.
Read more: http://www.myspace.com/iosoluno/blog?bID=538248607#ixzz0wgk 7Q9GZ
Often the lack of words matter.
On Friday obama was left with only Janet “I’m not Janet Reno” Napolitano to trade fist bumps as he signed a new $600 MILLION border security funding bill (S.3721/H.R.6080) in the Oval Office with only photographers present to record the moment.
No reporters were allowed in the room by this new transparent administration.
There were no pretty speeches before the assembled media for which to provide CNN with a 30 second sound-bite it could play over and over for obama fanatics.
No “see, I promised this during my campaign and I have delivered” type talk like obama gave when he announced a troop draw-down in Iraq.
Why so hush-hush?
Could it be that obama wants to keep this under the radar of Hispanic and Latino supporters who also happen to be supporters of illegal immigration?
Illegal immigration supporters complain that this bill did not provide a “path to citizenship” for illegals.
Margaret Moran (no doubt pronounced “mo-ron”), president of the League of United Latin American Citizens says the bill represents anti-immigration xenophobia (AP, YahooNews, 8/13/10).
It actually represents anti-illegal immigration xenophobia; let’s not confuse the two.
Could obama’s mostly silent Oval Office ceremony be due to the fact that he may have read the NY Times on July 31, 2010 which told of a Quinnipiac University poll that found only 38% of Hispanics approve of the way obama is handling illegal immigration?
…or, this is great, the same poll also found that only 47% of Hispanics think that obama has been a better president than President George W. Bush.
When your election victory rested on 10 states (worth 142 electoral votes) that were decided by minority voters, you need to pay attention to this stuff (http://www.frey-demographer.org/reports/R-2009-2 HowRaceAffect2008Election.pdf).
Could it be that obama realizes any talk of “bipartisan” group-hugs on this matter is blatantly baloney?
Democrat obama and his democrat point-man in the Senate on this bill, Chuckie Schumer of New York, rejected 3 amendments by republican Senator John McCain of Arizona, that would have made this bill, which Schumer described as “smart and tough (Congressional Record, 8/5/10, p.S6838),” smarter and tougher.
obama constantly talks of the need for republican cooperation, yet when they offer cooperation obama turns his back and says, “I was only kidding; it’s more fun to call you all obstructionist.”
McCain wanted to include an amendment that would have provided $20 MILLION for a law enforcement center that would help governments identify illegals and immigration eligibility status (CR, p. S6839).
Republicans want to make sure who is here legally and who is here illegally, like we are supposed to do according to U.S. law.
In July obama called for immigration reform that would contain measures for “more workplace scrutiny (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0701/Despite-difficul t-politics-Obama-pitches-immigration-reform).”
No, Schumer told McCain.
Are obama and his generals hypocrites?
We will pay for it from stimulus monies, said McCain.
No, said Schumer, the stimulus is only for things that create jobs (CR, p.S6839).
Really?
Unemployment is higher now than it was when obama took office and started spending the stimulus money.
How many jobs were created by spending $1.5 BILLION of the stimulus money for the Department of Education to guarantee student loans? (CR, p.S6839).
Republicans say the obama administration has spent $20 MILLION of the stimulus (your tax dollars) on putting up street signs throughout the country that identify certain projects as creations of obama’s great use of your tax dollar (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/signs-stimulus/story?id=11163180& page=1).
Democrats say republicans lie…it has only been $5 MILLION (but $28 MILLION has been allocated and could be used for this purpose).
Republicans say ok; in July they introduce a bill that would stop spending stimulus money on these blatantly political road side signs.
No, democrats defeat the bill.
Could obama’s relative silence on this bill, which is an “emergency supplemental appropriations act,” be due to the fact that it is of the same type that he and democrats railed against Bush’s use of to fund the Iraq War?
In 2007 obama voted against an “emergency supplemental appropriations” bill to support the troops in Iraq.
Could obama’s silence on this issue also be due to the fact that it taxes legal immigrants?
What would a democratic bill be without new taxes?
Answer: Hope and change.
Chuckie Schumer says, “The best part of this border package is it is fully paid for and will not increase the deficit by a single penny (CR, p. S6838).”
Hmmm.
The bill (S.3721)spends (funds “to remain available until”) the $600 million until next year, September 30, 2011.
obama’s new tax on immigrants coming to this country on L1 or H1B visas ($2250 and $2000 respectively), will, according to the Congressional Budget Office, raise $552 MILLION “over ten years (http://www.gop.gov/bill/111/2/hr6080).”
Yet the bill only calls for this new immigrant tax until 2014…four more years.
Wait a minute…
obama spends $600 MILLION over the next year in this bill…
Chuckie says it won’t cost the taxpayer a dime because it is funded by the new immigrant tax…
Yet the CBO says the new immigrant tax raises $552 over 10 years.
I think we’re short some millions there somewhere…oh, like in the first freakin year!
Robbing Peter to pay Paul, the bill does make up some of the shortfall however; it takes $100 MILLION from US Customs and Border Protection, which was used for “border security, fencing, infrastructure, and technology.”
However, now little democrats can scurry home and tell their non-minority constituents that they are doing something about illegal immigration (and, actually, legal immigration), “…something other than suing the State of Arizona…”(Alabma Senator Jeff Sessions, (R), CR, p. S6839) for doing something about illegal immigration.
Balogna; when you don’t have the stomach for beef.
Read more: http://www.myspace.com/iosoluno/blog?bID=538248607#ixzz0wgk 7Q9GZ
Sunday, August 8, 2010
OBAMA STEPS UP FAILED PHILANTHROPIC AID POLICY IN PAKISTAN
A history of US policy towards Pakistan since the 1950s has played out like a LifeTime Channel movie: at times endearing, and at other times demonizing.
Lawrence Korb, the government’s and the media’s go-to-guy on these matters since the 1980s, testified before John Kerry’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2007 on how the US policy towards Pakistan since the 1950s has…well, has sucked( www.americanprogress.org, Dec. 6, 2007).
With the Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan ideology still in vogue at the time (dolling out dollars for democracy), the US gave over $3 BILLION to Pakistan between 1954 and 1964. In 1964 The Beatles even stopped in Pakistan to refuel their plane and probably to buy some really good weed.
Then in 1965 Pakistan behaved badly towards their neighbor India and the two would stir things up in the region for the next 6 years.
The US took away their allowance and would only send about $5 BILLION in aid to them over the next 15 years.
Smilin’ Jimmy Carter would reduce this further in 1979 when he found out that Pakistan was playing with nuclear toys.
Late in 1979, when Jimmy was fighting off swimming attack rabbits, the Soviets decided to invest in some really rocky real estate and they invaded Afghanistan.
During most of the 1980s, the US once again coddled Pakistan with American tax dollar aid by using them as a go-between to “covertly” fund the anti-Soviet tribes in Afghanistan.
Some of this “covert” support came in the form of weapons, like surface to air missiles, which according to the WikiLeak documents have been used against US forces now fighting in Afghanistan.
The US would send about $5 BILLION in aid to Pakistan between 1980 and 1990.
George Bush I would cut off most aid to Pakistan in 1990 because, as a former head of the CIA, he knew damn well they were still playing with that nuclear stuff.
Bill Clinton just ignored the whole region and let things go all to hell and less than ½ BILLION in aid made its way to Pakistan up to the new millennium, 2000.
Christian Science Monitor writer Dan Murphy says (7/26/10) it was during this time that the Taliban rose with crucial support coming from Pakistan’s intelligence services and despite the BILLIONS in aid to Pakistan since then, the Taliban-Pakistan intelligence ties have never been broken.
Then came Florida, George Bush II, 9/11, and the War on Terror and Pakistan was once again on the US payroll…big time!
During the Bush II years, nearly $12 BILLION was sent to Pakistan to urge them to fight the Taliban, capture Bin Laden, and let Kashmir be just another Shangri-la in a Led Zeppelin song.
You can count on us, said Pakistan as they worked to undermine the work of the US military in Afghanistan – thus being responsible for who knows how many American lives.
Then came Hope and Change and Pakistan had to deal with both Hillary and obama at 3 in the morning.
They have been smiling on their way to the bank ever since.
Hillary starts it off with a call for $110 MILLION in US aid to Pakistan in May of 2009. She called it “essential” (USA Today, 5/20/09).
Apparently Pakistan’s agreement with the Taliban, which gave the Taliban free reign over the Swat Valley area, had produced over 2 million homeless Pakistani refugees.
Who woulda thunk it?
Let’s get this straight.
America is at war with Taliban. American gives $12 BILLION to Pakistan to assist American in war with Taliban. Pakistan “covertly” undermines US war in Afghanistan against Taliban. Pakistan enters into agreement with Taliban giving them control of a piece of Pakistan. Pakistanis suffer at hands of Taliban. Pakistan asks US for help. Hillary and obama agree that help for Pakistan is needed.
Then along comes the anti-war war “hero” John Kerry, who having both fought for and denounced the Vietnam war effort and yet not having learned a damn thing, and introduces a bill to send over $7 BILLION in US taxes to Pakistan.
Kerry has what is seen as a special relationship with Pakistan; he has welcomed the country’s army chief to his house for dinner and accepted flowers from the country’s president (Boston Globe, July 27, 2010).....
obama, knowing full well that Pakistan has been working against the US war effort in Afghanistan, agrees and signs Kerry’s little bill.
Hillary called the obama-kerry Pakistan policy “different than anything that has been tried before” (USA Today, 5/20/09).
Pretty much. It is more money being sent to Pakistan in a five year period than any previous administration had doled out to this unfriendly ally.
But Hillary said it is different because the financial assistance comes with “stern advice and counsel” (NYTimes, 5/20/09).
This administration depends way too much on the idea that “words matter.”
How much faith can you have in people that wear robes and sandals to war?
Pakistan wants the Kerry spending largesse, yet they are not altogether happy with the conditions; conditions they say are “humiliating” and a “violation of sovereignty” (UK Reuters, 10/07/09). Protests have taken place in Pakistan against accepting the conditions.
Kerry says that the Pakistanis are crying over nothing and that his bill contains nothing new in the way of conditions that do not already exist, mainly that they have to help us fight the Taliban…but really this time.
While the Kerry-obama Pakistan policy was morphing itself into a tax payer burden, Hal Holbrooke..I mean Richard Holbrooke, who along with George Mitchell of Maine has been doing much of the heavy lifting for prop Secretary of State Clinton, and as an obama selected special envoy for the US in Pakistan and Afghanistan, felt that the $7.5 BILLION Kerry bill was not large enough (Bloomberg.com, 4/17/09).
So a party is thrown in Tokyo, Japan and over 20 countries are invited to attend.
Over $5 BILLION more is collected from the attendees to support….Pakistan.
Even Iran gave $300 MILLION. Hmmm…that could be troubling.
The US gave the first installment of Kerry’s $7.5 bill to this effort, $1 BILLION (Christian Science Monitor, 4/18/09).
On announcing the successful collections at the Tokyo “conference,” sub Secretary of State Holbrooke discusses a new phase of the obama policy toward the Taliban in Pakistan: “The US wants to appeal to the majority of Taliban who fight with the group, without agreeing with their ideology.”
Yeah, agreeing with their ideology probably wouldn’t be a great political move here in the US.
But let’s keep the printing presses running for the dollar bills!
Ashley Tellis, a South Asia analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said that this is more of the same, the US “cutting checks to Pakistan without knowing how this money is going to be spent” (Christian Science Monitor, 4/18/09).
Christine Fair, a regional expert at the RAND Corp questions the policy based on the “minimal” returns on our investment thus far: “In some cases, the US knew it was funding programs that were bound to fall flat…because their real purpose was more a ‘strategic bribe’ to gain influence over the military regime in Islamabad” (Christian Science Monitor, 4/18/09).
A “strategic bribe.”
Hope and change, baby!
obama says this is ok, everything has changed with respect to US/Pakistan relations since George Bush went away.
In May 2009, before the WikiLeak stuff, obama said “you’re starting to see the Pakistan military take much more seriously the armed threat from militant extremists” (economictimes.indiatimes.com, 5/1/09). ....
John Kerry in July of this year said he would continue fighting for future funding and that the Pakistani officials were “sincere and committed” toward fighting the Taliban (Boston Globe, 7/27/10).
Really?
India, Pakistan’s other neighbor, does not see it that way.
India says that “sections of the Pakistan establishment continue to use terror as a state policy;” that the Pakistani Army continues to train and arm militant groups; and that there seems to be “no real inclination” on the part of Pakistan to move against the Taliban.
But here in the US, while people watch American Idol and Entertainment Tonight, obama can get away with his b.s. against reality.
Afghanistan has told the US as recently as July of 2010 that the war efforts in Afghanistan will have little effect as long as Pakistan is hedging its bets with the Taliban within Pakistan borders (Christian Science Monitor, July 26, 2010).
American officials believe Pakistan has the means but not the will to capture the Taliban head in Pakistan, Mullah Omar.
Hillary told Fox News and NBC News in July 2010 that some in the Pakistan government are aware of the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden (Sify.com, India internet news, 7/21/10).
Perhaps they need another BILLION DOLLARS.
The reality of Pakistan’s perception of the US according to an April 2010 Pew Research Center poll: 17% of Pakistanis have a favorable view of the US – 15% have a favorable view of the Taliban; 59% of Pakistanis describe the US as an “enemy” of Pakistan – 23% of Pakistanis see the Taliban as their greatest threat (Christian Science Monitor, 7/30/10).
Which may be why the obama administration was quick to announce an additional $10 MILLION would be sent to Pakistan to aid them in dealing with the recent floods in the region(WCSH6 News, Maine, www.wcsh.com, 8/1/10); in competition with the Taliban to provide relief.
The reality of the Pakistan nation that the obama administration is setting records for the receipt of US aid is captured in this piece by former US Ambassador Marc Ginsberg as it appeared on the Huffington Post (7/25/10): ....
“In the global diplomatic supermarket Pakistan occupies prominent real estate on the "can of worms" shelf. Every imaginable toxic threat to America's security lurks there: salafist (more descriptive than "Islamist") extremism, Al Qaeda command and control operatives, a rogue intelligence service aiding the Taliban, a corrupt political establishment, nuclear weapons, serial nuclear proliferators, a foundering economy, a bad case of India-envy, summer camps for wayward westerners taking in the waters at an Al Qaeda terror school, and a rabidly anti-American media, just to name a few! ....
In a country where Americans are blamed for everything from a cricket loss to the latest Taliban suicide bombing, Pakistanis lay at America's feet every real and imagined calamity that befalls them. Never in the annals of conspiracy theory provocateurs has there been so much time and effort devoted to make America out to be the bogeyman.”....
It’s a mess folks, and a former community organizer is in way over his head.....
Read more: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&#ixzz0w3aX4TL1
Lawrence Korb, the government’s and the media’s go-to-guy on these matters since the 1980s, testified before John Kerry’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2007 on how the US policy towards Pakistan since the 1950s has…well, has sucked( www.americanprogress.org, Dec. 6, 2007).
With the Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan ideology still in vogue at the time (dolling out dollars for democracy), the US gave over $3 BILLION to Pakistan between 1954 and 1964. In 1964 The Beatles even stopped in Pakistan to refuel their plane and probably to buy some really good weed.
Then in 1965 Pakistan behaved badly towards their neighbor India and the two would stir things up in the region for the next 6 years.
The US took away their allowance and would only send about $5 BILLION in aid to them over the next 15 years.
Smilin’ Jimmy Carter would reduce this further in 1979 when he found out that Pakistan was playing with nuclear toys.
Late in 1979, when Jimmy was fighting off swimming attack rabbits, the Soviets decided to invest in some really rocky real estate and they invaded Afghanistan.
During most of the 1980s, the US once again coddled Pakistan with American tax dollar aid by using them as a go-between to “covertly” fund the anti-Soviet tribes in Afghanistan.
Some of this “covert” support came in the form of weapons, like surface to air missiles, which according to the WikiLeak documents have been used against US forces now fighting in Afghanistan.
The US would send about $5 BILLION in aid to Pakistan between 1980 and 1990.
George Bush I would cut off most aid to Pakistan in 1990 because, as a former head of the CIA, he knew damn well they were still playing with that nuclear stuff.
Bill Clinton just ignored the whole region and let things go all to hell and less than ½ BILLION in aid made its way to Pakistan up to the new millennium, 2000.
Christian Science Monitor writer Dan Murphy says (7/26/10) it was during this time that the Taliban rose with crucial support coming from Pakistan’s intelligence services and despite the BILLIONS in aid to Pakistan since then, the Taliban-Pakistan intelligence ties have never been broken.
Then came Florida, George Bush II, 9/11, and the War on Terror and Pakistan was once again on the US payroll…big time!
During the Bush II years, nearly $12 BILLION was sent to Pakistan to urge them to fight the Taliban, capture Bin Laden, and let Kashmir be just another Shangri-la in a Led Zeppelin song.
You can count on us, said Pakistan as they worked to undermine the work of the US military in Afghanistan – thus being responsible for who knows how many American lives.
Then came Hope and Change and Pakistan had to deal with both Hillary and obama at 3 in the morning.
They have been smiling on their way to the bank ever since.
Hillary starts it off with a call for $110 MILLION in US aid to Pakistan in May of 2009. She called it “essential” (USA Today, 5/20/09).
Apparently Pakistan’s agreement with the Taliban, which gave the Taliban free reign over the Swat Valley area, had produced over 2 million homeless Pakistani refugees.
Who woulda thunk it?
Let’s get this straight.
America is at war with Taliban. American gives $12 BILLION to Pakistan to assist American in war with Taliban. Pakistan “covertly” undermines US war in Afghanistan against Taliban. Pakistan enters into agreement with Taliban giving them control of a piece of Pakistan. Pakistanis suffer at hands of Taliban. Pakistan asks US for help. Hillary and obama agree that help for Pakistan is needed.
Then along comes the anti-war war “hero” John Kerry, who having both fought for and denounced the Vietnam war effort and yet not having learned a damn thing, and introduces a bill to send over $7 BILLION in US taxes to Pakistan.
Kerry has what is seen as a special relationship with Pakistan; he has welcomed the country’s army chief to his house for dinner and accepted flowers from the country’s president (Boston Globe, July 27, 2010).....
obama, knowing full well that Pakistan has been working against the US war effort in Afghanistan, agrees and signs Kerry’s little bill.
Hillary called the obama-kerry Pakistan policy “different than anything that has been tried before” (USA Today, 5/20/09).
Pretty much. It is more money being sent to Pakistan in a five year period than any previous administration had doled out to this unfriendly ally.
But Hillary said it is different because the financial assistance comes with “stern advice and counsel” (NYTimes, 5/20/09).
This administration depends way too much on the idea that “words matter.”
How much faith can you have in people that wear robes and sandals to war?
Pakistan wants the Kerry spending largesse, yet they are not altogether happy with the conditions; conditions they say are “humiliating” and a “violation of sovereignty” (UK Reuters, 10/07/09). Protests have taken place in Pakistan against accepting the conditions.
Kerry says that the Pakistanis are crying over nothing and that his bill contains nothing new in the way of conditions that do not already exist, mainly that they have to help us fight the Taliban…but really this time.
While the Kerry-obama Pakistan policy was morphing itself into a tax payer burden, Hal Holbrooke..I mean Richard Holbrooke, who along with George Mitchell of Maine has been doing much of the heavy lifting for prop Secretary of State Clinton, and as an obama selected special envoy for the US in Pakistan and Afghanistan, felt that the $7.5 BILLION Kerry bill was not large enough (Bloomberg.com, 4/17/09).
So a party is thrown in Tokyo, Japan and over 20 countries are invited to attend.
Over $5 BILLION more is collected from the attendees to support….Pakistan.
Even Iran gave $300 MILLION. Hmmm…that could be troubling.
The US gave the first installment of Kerry’s $7.5 bill to this effort, $1 BILLION (Christian Science Monitor, 4/18/09).
On announcing the successful collections at the Tokyo “conference,” sub Secretary of State Holbrooke discusses a new phase of the obama policy toward the Taliban in Pakistan: “The US wants to appeal to the majority of Taliban who fight with the group, without agreeing with their ideology.”
Yeah, agreeing with their ideology probably wouldn’t be a great political move here in the US.
But let’s keep the printing presses running for the dollar bills!
Ashley Tellis, a South Asia analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said that this is more of the same, the US “cutting checks to Pakistan without knowing how this money is going to be spent” (Christian Science Monitor, 4/18/09).
Christine Fair, a regional expert at the RAND Corp questions the policy based on the “minimal” returns on our investment thus far: “In some cases, the US knew it was funding programs that were bound to fall flat…because their real purpose was more a ‘strategic bribe’ to gain influence over the military regime in Islamabad” (Christian Science Monitor, 4/18/09).
A “strategic bribe.”
Hope and change, baby!
obama says this is ok, everything has changed with respect to US/Pakistan relations since George Bush went away.
In May 2009, before the WikiLeak stuff, obama said “you’re starting to see the Pakistan military take much more seriously the armed threat from militant extremists” (economictimes.indiatimes.com, 5/1/09). ....
John Kerry in July of this year said he would continue fighting for future funding and that the Pakistani officials were “sincere and committed” toward fighting the Taliban (Boston Globe, 7/27/10).
Really?
India, Pakistan’s other neighbor, does not see it that way.
India says that “sections of the Pakistan establishment continue to use terror as a state policy;” that the Pakistani Army continues to train and arm militant groups; and that there seems to be “no real inclination” on the part of Pakistan to move against the Taliban.
But here in the US, while people watch American Idol and Entertainment Tonight, obama can get away with his b.s. against reality.
Afghanistan has told the US as recently as July of 2010 that the war efforts in Afghanistan will have little effect as long as Pakistan is hedging its bets with the Taliban within Pakistan borders (Christian Science Monitor, July 26, 2010).
American officials believe Pakistan has the means but not the will to capture the Taliban head in Pakistan, Mullah Omar.
Hillary told Fox News and NBC News in July 2010 that some in the Pakistan government are aware of the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden (Sify.com, India internet news, 7/21/10).
Perhaps they need another BILLION DOLLARS.
The reality of Pakistan’s perception of the US according to an April 2010 Pew Research Center poll: 17% of Pakistanis have a favorable view of the US – 15% have a favorable view of the Taliban; 59% of Pakistanis describe the US as an “enemy” of Pakistan – 23% of Pakistanis see the Taliban as their greatest threat (Christian Science Monitor, 7/30/10).
Which may be why the obama administration was quick to announce an additional $10 MILLION would be sent to Pakistan to aid them in dealing with the recent floods in the region(WCSH6 News, Maine, www.wcsh.com, 8/1/10); in competition with the Taliban to provide relief.
The reality of the Pakistan nation that the obama administration is setting records for the receipt of US aid is captured in this piece by former US Ambassador Marc Ginsberg as it appeared on the Huffington Post (7/25/10): ....
“In the global diplomatic supermarket Pakistan occupies prominent real estate on the "can of worms" shelf. Every imaginable toxic threat to America's security lurks there: salafist (more descriptive than "Islamist") extremism, Al Qaeda command and control operatives, a rogue intelligence service aiding the Taliban, a corrupt political establishment, nuclear weapons, serial nuclear proliferators, a foundering economy, a bad case of India-envy, summer camps for wayward westerners taking in the waters at an Al Qaeda terror school, and a rabidly anti-American media, just to name a few! ....
In a country where Americans are blamed for everything from a cricket loss to the latest Taliban suicide bombing, Pakistanis lay at America's feet every real and imagined calamity that befalls them. Never in the annals of conspiracy theory provocateurs has there been so much time and effort devoted to make America out to be the bogeyman.”....
It’s a mess folks, and a former community organizer is in way over his head.....
Read more: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&#ixzz0w3aX4TL1
Monday, August 2, 2010
OBAMA'S STEADFAST LEADERSHIP ENDS IRAQ WAR
If you can stop laughing, review obama’s timeline with respect to the war while you listen to him crowing like a morning rooster in announcing the end to combat operations on the most receptive news organizations that any President had the pleasure of facing.
2004: obama surprisingly elected US Senator from Illinois.
A vocal critic of the Iraq war while safe at home in Illinois, once in Washington the “level of his criticism lowered.”
His first year in Senate he gives only 1 speech on the war in Iraq and calls for a phased withdrawal of US troops by the end of 2006 (his first line-in-the –sand target for troops returning from Iraq.).
November 2006: obama redraws his line-in-the-sand (his 2nd), calling for a drawdown of US troops from Iraq beginning in March/May 2007.
January 2007: obama feels Bush’s “surge” in troops to Iraq is not going to work.
He introduces legislation into the US Senate that would force a redeployment of troops in Iraq and cap the level of those troops in Iraq at the pre-surge levels.
His bill says that troops must be brought home by spring of 2008 (obama’s 3rd line- in- the- sand in the context of the Iraq war).
Legal scholars question the constitutionality of this bill since the president has control of military forces.
obama rejects that notion noting that he knows he’s right because he taught constitutional law for 10 years.
February 2007: Democrats were defeated in their attempt to pass a resolution sharply rebuking President Bush’s “Iraq Surge” plans.
obama and Ted “burp” Kennedy supported the resolution.
September 2007: President Bush announces almost 6,000 troops will return home by end of 2007.
Little Harry Reid attacks Bush’s announcement saying that this merely brings troop levels in Iraq down to pre-surge levels.
Something that Reid’s fellow Democrat obama tried to get passed in his January bill, only Bush was doing it sooner.
September 2008: Bush says 8,000 troops will return home from Iraq in February 2009. He said more forces would be brought home in the first half of 2009 if conditions improve in Iraq.
Similar words to obama’s “conditions on the ground.”
Bush’s plan follows recommendations from Robert Gates, Mike Mullen, and General Patraeus…all three now working for obama.
obama, at this time hot on the campaign trail, promises to withdraw combat troops from Iraq within 16 months, which would draw the next line- in- the- sand (his 4th target date) at January 2010, a line 2 years after the 2008 date he called for redeployment in his January 2007 legislation.
obama, while on the campaign trail in Ohio, also criticizes Bush’s troop redeployment numbers (8,000) as “coming up short.”.
Yet obama’s 2007 failed legislation would have retained similar pre-surge numbers in Iraq.
The situation on the ground in Iraq seemed to depend on whether one was campaigning for President.
December 2008: Bush and Iraqis agree on US-Iraqi security agreement.
This replaces a UN mandate for US occupation and calls for the removal of all troops in Iraq by the end of 2011 ( a little over a year from obama’s announcement today).
Bush’s agreement calls for American troops to leave Baghdad and other Iraqi cities by June 2009.
Other troops will remain and serve as “training and mentoring teams.”
Similar to what obama announces today.
February 2009: Hijacking the Bush-Iraqi agreement, obama publicly announces a draw down in troops in Iraq and that “tens of thousands of US personnel will remain” in Iraq until 2011.
August 2010: Hijacking the successful Bush administration plan to end the Iraq War, obama announces the end is near with todays’ press-receptive announcement.
I feel real secure with the level of steadfastness obama has shown over the situation in Iraq the last 6 years.
This is similar to the line-in-the-sand that he keeps drawing with respect to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and now we learn, thanks to the the WikiLeak documents, that Iran has been smuggling weapons into Afghanistan.
obama’s coddling of Pakistan hasn’t been any more reassuring.
Supposedly obama and his administration have known of Pakistan’s stabbing our troops in the back yet obama and Hillary keep announcing billions of dollars in aid going to Pakistan.
obama may have been great at registering dead people to vote, but at being a leader….even Ted Kennedy would want to drive over a bridge – oops, he already did that once.
Where I got this stuff:....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16896534/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-02-06-iraq-resoluti on_x.htm
Thursday, September 13, 2007 FOX NEWS
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/bush-set-to-bring-8000-american-tro ops-home-from/85389/
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0848420220080909
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26612311/
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/12/14/bush-iraq.html
http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=134300
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/us/politics/12campaign.html?pa gewanted=print
Read more: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.create&editor =True#ixzz0vUs8bfyd
Read more: http://forums.myspace.com/t/4819168.aspx?fuseaction=forums.viewthread#ixzz0vUuyqSEo
2004: obama surprisingly elected US Senator from Illinois.
A vocal critic of the Iraq war while safe at home in Illinois, once in Washington the “level of his criticism lowered.”
His first year in Senate he gives only 1 speech on the war in Iraq and calls for a phased withdrawal of US troops by the end of 2006 (his first line-in-the –sand target for troops returning from Iraq.).
November 2006: obama redraws his line-in-the-sand (his 2nd), calling for a drawdown of US troops from Iraq beginning in March/May 2007.
January 2007: obama feels Bush’s “surge” in troops to Iraq is not going to work.
He introduces legislation into the US Senate that would force a redeployment of troops in Iraq and cap the level of those troops in Iraq at the pre-surge levels.
His bill says that troops must be brought home by spring of 2008 (obama’s 3rd line- in- the- sand in the context of the Iraq war).
Legal scholars question the constitutionality of this bill since the president has control of military forces.
obama rejects that notion noting that he knows he’s right because he taught constitutional law for 10 years.
February 2007: Democrats were defeated in their attempt to pass a resolution sharply rebuking President Bush’s “Iraq Surge” plans.
obama and Ted “burp” Kennedy supported the resolution.
September 2007: President Bush announces almost 6,000 troops will return home by end of 2007.
Little Harry Reid attacks Bush’s announcement saying that this merely brings troop levels in Iraq down to pre-surge levels.
Something that Reid’s fellow Democrat obama tried to get passed in his January bill, only Bush was doing it sooner.
September 2008: Bush says 8,000 troops will return home from Iraq in February 2009. He said more forces would be brought home in the first half of 2009 if conditions improve in Iraq.
Similar words to obama’s “conditions on the ground.”
Bush’s plan follows recommendations from Robert Gates, Mike Mullen, and General Patraeus…all three now working for obama.
obama, at this time hot on the campaign trail, promises to withdraw combat troops from Iraq within 16 months, which would draw the next line- in- the- sand (his 4th target date) at January 2010, a line 2 years after the 2008 date he called for redeployment in his January 2007 legislation.
obama, while on the campaign trail in Ohio, also criticizes Bush’s troop redeployment numbers (8,000) as “coming up short.”.
Yet obama’s 2007 failed legislation would have retained similar pre-surge numbers in Iraq.
The situation on the ground in Iraq seemed to depend on whether one was campaigning for President.
December 2008: Bush and Iraqis agree on US-Iraqi security agreement.
This replaces a UN mandate for US occupation and calls for the removal of all troops in Iraq by the end of 2011 ( a little over a year from obama’s announcement today).
Bush’s agreement calls for American troops to leave Baghdad and other Iraqi cities by June 2009.
Other troops will remain and serve as “training and mentoring teams.”
Similar to what obama announces today.
February 2009: Hijacking the Bush-Iraqi agreement, obama publicly announces a draw down in troops in Iraq and that “tens of thousands of US personnel will remain” in Iraq until 2011.
August 2010: Hijacking the successful Bush administration plan to end the Iraq War, obama announces the end is near with todays’ press-receptive announcement.
I feel real secure with the level of steadfastness obama has shown over the situation in Iraq the last 6 years.
This is similar to the line-in-the-sand that he keeps drawing with respect to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and now we learn, thanks to the the WikiLeak documents, that Iran has been smuggling weapons into Afghanistan.
obama’s coddling of Pakistan hasn’t been any more reassuring.
Supposedly obama and his administration have known of Pakistan’s stabbing our troops in the back yet obama and Hillary keep announcing billions of dollars in aid going to Pakistan.
obama may have been great at registering dead people to vote, but at being a leader….even Ted Kennedy would want to drive over a bridge – oops, he already did that once.
Where I got this stuff:....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16896534/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-02-06-iraq-resoluti on_x.htm
Thursday, September 13, 2007 FOX NEWS
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/bush-set-to-bring-8000-american-tro ops-home-from/85389/
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0848420220080909
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26612311/
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/12/14/bush-iraq.html
http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=134300
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/us/politics/12campaign.html?pa gewanted=print
Read more: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.create&editor =True#ixzz0vUs8bfyd
Read more: http://forums.myspace.com/t/4819168.aspx?fuseaction=forums.viewthread#ixzz0vUuyqSEo
Saturday, July 31, 2010
OBAMA LISTENS TO THE PEOPLE
Well, that is if you listen to his party’s national chairman.
According to DNC Chair Tim Kaine (who won a screaming contest with Howard Dean to get this position), Republican opposition to the campaign finance bill, which Democrats support as a means to drown out the voice of the Supreme Court, amounts to Republicans trying to “drown out the voices of Americans…” (USA Today July 28)
So obama’s ignoring the voices of the majority of Americans who opposed obama-care was what?
So obama’s ignoring the voices of the majority of Americans who supported Arizona’s law against illegals was what?
obama ignores 61% of the American voices that say the country is on the wrong track (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html) as he shuffles around the country telling us how great his administration and his congress (which 72% of American voices disapprove of) (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html) are doing.
Often obama does not even listen to his echo.
His administration’s defense to legal challenges to obama-care use the defense that no one has yet been harmed by the bill, thus any challenge to it is moot.
No one had yet been harmed by Arizona’s just illegal immigrant law either but obama’s administration argued the likeliness of harm justified killing the law.
obama’s puppets tell Americans to start vacationing in the Gulf…yet obama takes his little family to Maine.
obama calls his party the party of inclusion, yet his “Race to the Top” state school funding program excludes approximately 2/3 of the country.
obama speaks of racial respect and then ignores the racial sensitivity of blacks by calling them mongrel people (which I’m sure black author Larry Elder would add to his book of 10 Things You Can’t Say in America: which ought to be subtitled, …Unless Your Black).
obama told us during the 2008 campaign that his family ought to be off limits to campaign politics (so don’t say my wife has a big ol’ butt) but then he drags little Malia into the politics of the Gulf oil spill by publically quoting her: “Did you plug the hole yet, daddy?”
obama wrote in one of his fiction novels that he likes to hear his own voice.
Not yours…his.
How does he deal with the hypocrisy?
According to DNC Chair Tim Kaine (who won a screaming contest with Howard Dean to get this position), Republican opposition to the campaign finance bill, which Democrats support as a means to drown out the voice of the Supreme Court, amounts to Republicans trying to “drown out the voices of Americans…” (USA Today July 28)
So obama’s ignoring the voices of the majority of Americans who opposed obama-care was what?
So obama’s ignoring the voices of the majority of Americans who supported Arizona’s law against illegals was what?
obama ignores 61% of the American voices that say the country is on the wrong track (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html) as he shuffles around the country telling us how great his administration and his congress (which 72% of American voices disapprove of) (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html) are doing.
Often obama does not even listen to his echo.
His administration’s defense to legal challenges to obama-care use the defense that no one has yet been harmed by the bill, thus any challenge to it is moot.
No one had yet been harmed by Arizona’s just illegal immigrant law either but obama’s administration argued the likeliness of harm justified killing the law.
obama’s puppets tell Americans to start vacationing in the Gulf…yet obama takes his little family to Maine.
obama calls his party the party of inclusion, yet his “Race to the Top” state school funding program excludes approximately 2/3 of the country.
obama speaks of racial respect and then ignores the racial sensitivity of blacks by calling them mongrel people (which I’m sure black author Larry Elder would add to his book of 10 Things You Can’t Say in America: which ought to be subtitled, …Unless Your Black).
obama told us during the 2008 campaign that his family ought to be off limits to campaign politics (so don’t say my wife has a big ol’ butt) but then he drags little Malia into the politics of the Gulf oil spill by publically quoting her: “Did you plug the hole yet, daddy?”
obama wrote in one of his fiction novels that he likes to hear his own voice.
Not yours…his.
How does he deal with the hypocrisy?
Monday, July 26, 2010
OBAMA NAILS ASSESSMENT OF ECONOMY
Not really, I was just kidding; trying to give you hope.
obama struts around the country telling you how good things are and will be, while also telling you not to believe the naysayers, which is basically anyone that disagrees with him, the facts be damned.
Economists are naysayers.
A USA Today July 2010 survey of economists (“Economists’ optimism wanes”) found that 8 in 10 surveyed have downgraded their economic outlook, calling it “gloomier than April’s” outlook.
These same naysaying economic experts cite “lackluster job growth, a weak housing market, and a slowdown in factory output” as being the facts of obama’s economy.
obama says that “every economist who’s looked at it says that the Recovery act has done its job.”
Those folks who work at the FDIC (the federal bank deposit insurer guys) are naysayers.
This federal regulatory body has just closed its 103rd bank this year…compared with 64 at this same time in 2009.
Steve Forbes of Forbes magazine writes that “Obama is Clueless” (July 24, 2010).
He’s a major naysayer.
Michael J. Boskin, Professor of economics at Stanford University, writing in the Wall St. Journal (July 21, 2010) says that obama’s speeches on the economy are like “fish stories,” they come with “extreme exaggeration.”
Boskin says that not only are obama’s statements on the economy divorced from reality (well, I said that, not him) but they are divorced “from those of his own economic advisers” (the economics professor guy said this).
Those traitorous naysayers!
Bloomberg Business writer Caroline Baum is a naysayer with a job and a working mind.
She wrote that “Obama’s Stimulus Spin is an Embarrassment” (July 21, 2010).
The bureaucrats who work at the Bureau of Labor Statistics are also naysayers.
In July of this year these folks reported that 2.5 MILLION non-farm jobs have been lost since obama’s stimulus policy was passed…all of them in the private sector.
And finally, you and I are naysayers.
Katie Couric’s news station, CBS, found in a recent poll (July 13, 2010) that 8 in 10 naysayers polled believed the economy is bad…which is 5 points higher than the number of naysayers saying the same thing last month.
CBS’s poll also found that only 13% of Americans say that obama’s economic policies have helped them personally, the rest of you are all negative, doom and gloom naysayers and Joe Biden will be coming to make you better understand how things are really, really good with the economy.
CBS’s sister station on cable, CNN, also conducted a poll (April 1, 2010) and 48% of Americans say Republicans in Congress would do a better job of dealing with the economy than the likes of obama, Reid, Pelosi, Dodd, and Fwank would do…or have done…45% said these twits could do a better job…and they are.
Shame on CBS and CNN for being such naysayers when their political poster child has done so much for their ratings.
American Research Group’s July 2010 poll shows that 44% of Americans are naysayers as they feel the economy is getting worse. On a more personal note, ARG’s poll found that 40% of those polled say their household financial situations are getting worse.
Those selfish naysayers.
ARG’s poll found that 68% of Americans rate the economy as bad, very bad, or terrible.
These naysayers must be listening to FOX News.
obama’s “Main St.” economic plan does not seem to be impressing those who live on Main St.
BrainyQuote.com included this purported quote by economic guru obama: “A good compromise, a good piece of legislation, is like a good sentence; or a good piece of music. Everybody can recognize it. They say, ‘huh. It works. It makes sense.’”
Do you recognize it? Do you think it has made sense?
America’s majority says no.
You damned naysayers.
Read more: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&bID=5 37557076#ixzz0uo7mkJyo Read more: http://forums.myspace.com/t/4815866.aspx?fuseaction=forums.viewthread#ixzz0uoB4lkWZ
obama struts around the country telling you how good things are and will be, while also telling you not to believe the naysayers, which is basically anyone that disagrees with him, the facts be damned.
Economists are naysayers.
A USA Today July 2010 survey of economists (“Economists’ optimism wanes”) found that 8 in 10 surveyed have downgraded their economic outlook, calling it “gloomier than April’s” outlook.
These same naysaying economic experts cite “lackluster job growth, a weak housing market, and a slowdown in factory output” as being the facts of obama’s economy.
obama says that “every economist who’s looked at it says that the Recovery act has done its job.”
Those folks who work at the FDIC (the federal bank deposit insurer guys) are naysayers.
This federal regulatory body has just closed its 103rd bank this year…compared with 64 at this same time in 2009.
Steve Forbes of Forbes magazine writes that “Obama is Clueless” (July 24, 2010).
He’s a major naysayer.
Michael J. Boskin, Professor of economics at Stanford University, writing in the Wall St. Journal (July 21, 2010) says that obama’s speeches on the economy are like “fish stories,” they come with “extreme exaggeration.”
Boskin says that not only are obama’s statements on the economy divorced from reality (well, I said that, not him) but they are divorced “from those of his own economic advisers” (the economics professor guy said this).
Those traitorous naysayers!
Bloomberg Business writer Caroline Baum is a naysayer with a job and a working mind.
She wrote that “Obama’s Stimulus Spin is an Embarrassment” (July 21, 2010).
The bureaucrats who work at the Bureau of Labor Statistics are also naysayers.
In July of this year these folks reported that 2.5 MILLION non-farm jobs have been lost since obama’s stimulus policy was passed…all of them in the private sector.
And finally, you and I are naysayers.
Katie Couric’s news station, CBS, found in a recent poll (July 13, 2010) that 8 in 10 naysayers polled believed the economy is bad…which is 5 points higher than the number of naysayers saying the same thing last month.
CBS’s poll also found that only 13% of Americans say that obama’s economic policies have helped them personally, the rest of you are all negative, doom and gloom naysayers and Joe Biden will be coming to make you better understand how things are really, really good with the economy.
CBS’s sister station on cable, CNN, also conducted a poll (April 1, 2010) and 48% of Americans say Republicans in Congress would do a better job of dealing with the economy than the likes of obama, Reid, Pelosi, Dodd, and Fwank would do…or have done…45% said these twits could do a better job…and they are.
Shame on CBS and CNN for being such naysayers when their political poster child has done so much for their ratings.
American Research Group’s July 2010 poll shows that 44% of Americans are naysayers as they feel the economy is getting worse. On a more personal note, ARG’s poll found that 40% of those polled say their household financial situations are getting worse.
Those selfish naysayers.
ARG’s poll found that 68% of Americans rate the economy as bad, very bad, or terrible.
These naysayers must be listening to FOX News.
obama’s “Main St.” economic plan does not seem to be impressing those who live on Main St.
BrainyQuote.com included this purported quote by economic guru obama: “A good compromise, a good piece of legislation, is like a good sentence; or a good piece of music. Everybody can recognize it. They say, ‘huh. It works. It makes sense.’”
Do you recognize it? Do you think it has made sense?
America’s majority says no.
You damned naysayers.
Read more: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&bID=5 37557076#ixzz0uo7mkJyo Read more: http://forums.myspace.com/t/4815866.aspx?fuseaction=forums.viewthread#ixzz0uoB4lkWZ
Saturday, July 24, 2010
OBAMA MOTORS ENTERS RISKY LOAN MARKET
Bad credit?
No problem.
Following the failed financial policy oversight of the past by Congressional Committees headed by Democrats Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, where subprime mortgage lending was allowed to grow like hope and change on a cold November day and where by the spring thaw saw 25 subprime mortgage lenders collapse like a NAACP call to fire a government official, obama’s favorite car company, GM, has announced they will spend $3.5 billion of tax payer received bailout funds to purchase AmeriCredit so that they can get into the subprime auto loan lending business big time.
Despite living through the costly chaos caused by subprime mortgage lending, obama-selected GM CEO Eddie Whitacre said that giving auto loans to people who really cannot afford them will make GM more competitive(USA TODAY, 7/23/2010).
There are a lot of people chomping at the bit to buy a car built by obama-motors.
According to auto credit firm Experian Automotive, 40% of US car buyers are categorized as non-prime or subprime.
This is like Rent-A-Center on wheels; except that it is backed up by your tax dollars.
Will we see another government bailout of GM?
obama’s new financial overhaul policy excludes auto makers from the credit oversight that other financial institutions and credit lenders have to endure.
obama’s candidate to head the newly created government consumer credit watchdog division, Elizabeth Warren, who also doubles as the chairman of the congressional panel that oversees the TARP stimulus program, said that “over-priced credit products” and “risky subprime” loans are costly; “dangerous financial products” can wipe out savings, jobs, marriages, retirements, and lead to broken lives (NY Times, 7/24/2010).
Elizabeth, obama, and Whitacre need to have a talk. Timmy Geitner, obama’s chosen Treasury Secretary would not be invited – he and ‘liz don’t exactly exchange fist pumps.
Author, MBA, and personal finance and investing expert Lita Epstein wrote a piece for AOL’s money and finance site (Daily Finance, 12/1/2009) that told of the busy holiday season auto repo men throughout the country were enjoying in December of ’09.
CBS Evening News ran a story in March of last year that stated there is a “booming business for car repo men.”
The repo market is booming and the 60% US taxpayer owned GM (AP, 4/21/2010) would like to see even more people who cannot afford expensive car loans to have access to them.
In 2008, US News reported that “nationwide, repossessions are up about 15%”(http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/daily-news /080307-120206/).
Suddenly our economy is in such great shape that we can once again peddle tax payer backed loans to risky borrowers?
obama gave GM nearl $7 BILLION of taxpayer money after the “failed policies of the past.” How many more, mr. president, how many more?
No problem.
Following the failed financial policy oversight of the past by Congressional Committees headed by Democrats Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, where subprime mortgage lending was allowed to grow like hope and change on a cold November day and where by the spring thaw saw 25 subprime mortgage lenders collapse like a NAACP call to fire a government official, obama’s favorite car company, GM, has announced they will spend $3.5 billion of tax payer received bailout funds to purchase AmeriCredit so that they can get into the subprime auto loan lending business big time.
Despite living through the costly chaos caused by subprime mortgage lending, obama-selected GM CEO Eddie Whitacre said that giving auto loans to people who really cannot afford them will make GM more competitive(USA TODAY, 7/23/2010).
There are a lot of people chomping at the bit to buy a car built by obama-motors.
According to auto credit firm Experian Automotive, 40% of US car buyers are categorized as non-prime or subprime.
This is like Rent-A-Center on wheels; except that it is backed up by your tax dollars.
Will we see another government bailout of GM?
obama’s new financial overhaul policy excludes auto makers from the credit oversight that other financial institutions and credit lenders have to endure.
obama’s candidate to head the newly created government consumer credit watchdog division, Elizabeth Warren, who also doubles as the chairman of the congressional panel that oversees the TARP stimulus program, said that “over-priced credit products” and “risky subprime” loans are costly; “dangerous financial products” can wipe out savings, jobs, marriages, retirements, and lead to broken lives (NY Times, 7/24/2010).
Elizabeth, obama, and Whitacre need to have a talk. Timmy Geitner, obama’s chosen Treasury Secretary would not be invited – he and ‘liz don’t exactly exchange fist pumps.
Author, MBA, and personal finance and investing expert Lita Epstein wrote a piece for AOL’s money and finance site (Daily Finance, 12/1/2009) that told of the busy holiday season auto repo men throughout the country were enjoying in December of ’09.
CBS Evening News ran a story in March of last year that stated there is a “booming business for car repo men.”
The repo market is booming and the 60% US taxpayer owned GM (AP, 4/21/2010) would like to see even more people who cannot afford expensive car loans to have access to them.
In 2008, US News reported that “nationwide, repossessions are up about 15%”(http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/daily-news /080307-120206/).
Suddenly our economy is in such great shape that we can once again peddle tax payer backed loans to risky borrowers?
obama gave GM nearl $7 BILLION of taxpayer money after the “failed policies of the past.” How many more, mr. president, how many more?
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
OBAMA'S PEOPLE RIGHT ON TOP OF THINGS!
Like the nuclear family of old, Congress delegates roles and assignments.
While they all assist in creating garbage, some are assigned the task of seeing to it that it reaches the curb.
While they all feed from the dishes (some appear to doing more feeding than others), some are assigned the task of keeping the dishes clean in case company stops by.
Mom and dad assign these roles in the family context.
In Congress, these roles are assigned depending on which party controls Congress; the many congressional committees represent the family member who’s task it is to take out the garbage and clean the dishes.
Since taking over majority control of Congress in 2006, Democrats have been in control of Congress, and thus, in control of the many committees of Congress.
Since taking over majority control of Congress 2006, Democrats have been in control of taking out the garbage and keeping the dishes clean.
“Committees are an essential part of the legislative process. Senate committees monitor on-going governmental operations, identify issues suitable for legislative review, gather and evaluate information, and recommend courses of action to the Senate.”
In other words, Congressional committees are the watchdogs of government and the private sector, ensuring that everything works as it should.
Someone’s allowance ought to be taken away.
While American slipped into a banking and mortgage crisis, which precipitated the great recession, Democrats sat on the couch playing Wii instead of taking out the garbage and cleaning the dishes.
The U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs has jurisdiction over matters related to banks and banking, as well as matters concerning public and private housing.
Heading the Democrat- majority Senate Banking Committee has been Connecticut Democrat Chris Dodd.
This from Dodd’s Senate web page:
“ As Chairman, Senator Dodd sets the committee’s agenda; guiding the consideration of legislation under committee jurisdiction. A 29-year member of this Committee, Sen. Dodd has made his first year as Chairman about protecting consumers and their investments, ensuring that investment in our nation is monitored and that ultimately, Americans benefit from it, and keeping our economy on sound footing.”
No allowance for Chris. Fortunately, in 2010 Dodd announced he will run away from home so another sibling will be assigned his position in the next Congress.
In the House, there’s another committee that is supposed to oversee the financial services industry, which includes the banking and housing industry.
That committee is the House Committee on Financial Services (this sounds really funny when said with a lisp), or the House Banking Committee.
Dodd’s fellow New Englander, Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, leads the majority Democrat membership of this committee.
No allowance for Ba’ney.
Then there is the Senate and House Natural Resources Committees.
In the Senate, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, this Democrat controlled committee is led by New Mexico Democrat, Jeff Bingaman.
Bingaman and his Democrat buddies are assigned the task of regulating many activities that deal with our good earth, among these are mining and oil and gas drilling regulation.
The Democrat controlled House Natural Resources Committee is headed by Democrat Nick Rahall, II, of West Virginia.
Can you say Upper Big Branch Mine, 2010; the country’s worst mine disaster in 40 years?
Can you say Deep Horizon Oil Rig Explosion, 2010; the country’s worst oil spill ever?
No allowance for Jeff and Nick.
Then there is the Interior Department and its little bastard son, the Minerals Management Service. These guys are responsible for protecting our natural resources and watching over everything that affects our natural resources, like mining and oil drilling. This is government down to its finite parts, below the constitutional committees and overseen by them.
Former Colorado Democrat Kenny Salazar was appointed by obama to lead this group in December of 2008.
Passing the buck, Kenny has just ordered that the MMS be broken up into 3 separate divisions…ah, room for 3 more Democrats to “lead.”
No allowance for Kenny.
If your little Johnny forgot to take out the garbage, but then rolls out the cans as the truck rolls on down the street, do you pat him on the head and reward him?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)