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
Sunday, August 15, 2010
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)