Ted Nugent on the Second Amendment
Hat tip---the Green Room (by Keemo)
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Obama—"We have failed to give them the support they need or pay them the respect they deserve."
Our President has a message for “We” the people on this Memorial Day weekend:
“We have a responsibility to serve all of them as well as they serve all of us,” Obama said. “And yet, all too often in recent years and decades, we, as a nation, have failed to live up to that responsibility. We have failed to give them the support they need or pay them the respect they deserve.
“That is a betrayal of the sacred trust that America has with all who wear and all who have worn the proud uniform of our country,” he said.
“We have failed to give them the support they need or pay them the respect they deserve.”
Mr. Obama,
It is my opinion that you use the word “we” all too inclusively when addressing this nation. Let’s start with one particular “we”, our government’s responsibility. Yes, to a large extent, our government has failed to provide the basic needs of our veterans. Given your tendency to identify people as belonging to some minority, (that you seem to use as a tool to drive your socialist agenda of “spreading the wealth” or re-distribution), the veteran rates some where in the “minority” category that all too often gets shuffled into a file of “we’ll address this problem later”. While this is not exclusive to any party, I have rarely heard the statement above spoken earnestly by any Democratic leader. Only during the Walter Reed incident/travesty, (scandal), did the self-righteous liberal media bring attention to the needs of veterans. But the indignation was used as a tool to shame one party, while many in our current leadership still looks the other way. Where are the stories on the front pages of our newspapers of our “vets in need” since Walter Reed? The liberal biased media that elected you spent their every moment sensationalizing every alleged incident, that occurred to denigrate our veterans fighting and dyeing for our freedoms, while calling their endeavors and sacrifices “Bush’s War”. This tasteless tactic further divided this nation and its resolve to liberate two nations living in tyranny and devastation. The partisan atrocities of YOUR Democratic leadership, (fueled by a zealous media hell-bent on destroying one political party), will go down in history as one of the most egregious assaults on our military and our veterans. From Harry Ried’s “this war is lost” and John Murtha’s persecution of his own Marines, and even your own statements of “just air-raiding villages and killing civilians”, the Democrat Party has done everything possible to defame and desecrate our military/veterans for purely political gain. And you, Mr. President used these veterans’ sacrifices to further divide this nation for political gain in campaigning for the office that is dedicated to the principals of supporting our military/veterans as our Commander in Chief. Shame on you.
Further, in the current political climate, your third in command, (our Speaker of the House), has chosen to insult our CIA by falsely accusing them of lying to Congress, while YOU, yourself chose to release redacted portions of harsh interrogation memos that prevented American citizens from being murdered, yet still refuse to release the full report. Where’s the “WE” in this Mr. President?
Meanwhile, WE, a major portion of this nation’s citizens HAVE supported and respected our military and our veterans at every step of the way, praising their fortitude, devotion to country, and yes crying when they did not come home alive, or came home less than whole. Where are the stories from our pathetic media of the heroic battles and personal sacrifices our soldiers make every day? Where are the stories of those veterans who died in the past giving their all for our country? Why is it only on two single days of a year, (Veterans Day and Memorial Day), that we pay tribute to the fallen who dedicated their lives to keep this nation free when we provide an entire month to Black History, (a worthwhile cause), Clean Air Month, Lesbian & Gay History Month, and even a National Stuttering Awareness Week? Why does this nation shamelessly dedicate only two days of the calendar year to recognize our men and women in arms while you, Mr. President have the gall to say “We have failed to give them the respect they deserve.”? The “we” that you use so liberally is pejorative, condescending, and a contemptuous insult to the strongest and most patriotic institution ever devised by our forefathers, our military veterans. No, Mr. President, it is NOT “WE”—IT IS YOU, AND MANY OTHERS that have failed to live up to that responsibility.
( In honor of my father, that landed on the shores of Guadalcanal, and to every veteran who has dedicated their lives to this nation's continued freedom, I salute you on this Memorial Day Weekend. And to Dad, who's now in God's hands---Semper Fi! )
Cross-posted in the Green Room (Hot Air)
Our President has a message for “We” the people on this Memorial Day weekend:
“We have a responsibility to serve all of them as well as they serve all of us,” Obama said. “And yet, all too often in recent years and decades, we, as a nation, have failed to live up to that responsibility. We have failed to give them the support they need or pay them the respect they deserve.
“That is a betrayal of the sacred trust that America has with all who wear and all who have worn the proud uniform of our country,” he said.
“We have failed to give them the support they need or pay them the respect they deserve.”
Mr. Obama,
It is my opinion that you use the word “we” all too inclusively when addressing this nation. Let’s start with one particular “we”, our government’s responsibility. Yes, to a large extent, our government has failed to provide the basic needs of our veterans. Given your tendency to identify people as belonging to some minority, (that you seem to use as a tool to drive your socialist agenda of “spreading the wealth” or re-distribution), the veteran rates some where in the “minority” category that all too often gets shuffled into a file of “we’ll address this problem later”. While this is not exclusive to any party, I have rarely heard the statement above spoken earnestly by any Democratic leader. Only during the Walter Reed incident/travesty, (scandal), did the self-righteous liberal media bring attention to the needs of veterans. But the indignation was used as a tool to shame one party, while many in our current leadership still looks the other way. Where are the stories on the front pages of our newspapers of our “vets in need” since Walter Reed? The liberal biased media that elected you spent their every moment sensationalizing every alleged incident, that occurred to denigrate our veterans fighting and dyeing for our freedoms, while calling their endeavors and sacrifices “Bush’s War”. This tasteless tactic further divided this nation and its resolve to liberate two nations living in tyranny and devastation. The partisan atrocities of YOUR Democratic leadership, (fueled by a zealous media hell-bent on destroying one political party), will go down in history as one of the most egregious assaults on our military and our veterans. From Harry Ried’s “this war is lost” and John Murtha’s persecution of his own Marines, and even your own statements of “just air-raiding villages and killing civilians”, the Democrat Party has done everything possible to defame and desecrate our military/veterans for purely political gain. And you, Mr. President used these veterans’ sacrifices to further divide this nation for political gain in campaigning for the office that is dedicated to the principals of supporting our military/veterans as our Commander in Chief. Shame on you.
Further, in the current political climate, your third in command, (our Speaker of the House), has chosen to insult our CIA by falsely accusing them of lying to Congress, while YOU, yourself chose to release redacted portions of harsh interrogation memos that prevented American citizens from being murdered, yet still refuse to release the full report. Where’s the “WE” in this Mr. President?
Meanwhile, WE, a major portion of this nation’s citizens HAVE supported and respected our military and our veterans at every step of the way, praising their fortitude, devotion to country, and yes crying when they did not come home alive, or came home less than whole. Where are the stories from our pathetic media of the heroic battles and personal sacrifices our soldiers make every day? Where are the stories of those veterans who died in the past giving their all for our country? Why is it only on two single days of a year, (Veterans Day and Memorial Day), that we pay tribute to the fallen who dedicated their lives to keep this nation free when we provide an entire month to Black History, (a worthwhile cause), Clean Air Month, Lesbian & Gay History Month, and even a National Stuttering Awareness Week? Why does this nation shamelessly dedicate only two days of the calendar year to recognize our men and women in arms while you, Mr. President have the gall to say “We have failed to give them the respect they deserve.”? The “we” that you use so liberally is pejorative, condescending, and a contemptuous insult to the strongest and most patriotic institution ever devised by our forefathers, our military veterans. No, Mr. President, it is NOT “WE”—IT IS YOU, AND MANY OTHERS that have failed to live up to that responsibility.
( In honor of my father, that landed on the shores of Guadalcanal, and to every veteran who has dedicated their lives to this nation's continued freedom, I salute you on this Memorial Day Weekend. And to Dad, who's now in God's hands---Semper Fi! )
Cross-posted in the Green Room (Hot Air)
Friday, May 22, 2009
John Piper---No President Obama
From a commentor at Hot Air:
John Piper has been the pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, MN for more than a quarter-century. When I first met him in 1989, BBC was a small urban church with barely a hundred members. It now has a membership in the thousands, on two campuses, with multiple services and a worldwide publishing ministry.
Piper’s un-watered-down message of the radical grace of Jesus Christ has not changed one whit since the day I met him. I have never met any other living person with a greater sense of humility, nor a greater, more palpable joy in knowing the Savior. He exudes passion for the Gospel like no one I have ever met.
His preaching is deeply exegetic - that is, he digs into the text to uncover its meaning, looking at the original texts (Piper taught Greek at the university level before being called to preach) and cross-comparing them to other Biblical and non-Biblical texts to uncover the author’s meaning. A running joke is Piper closing a sermon with, “I had ten things I wanted to say about this verse, but we only got through three of them. We’ll see you next week.” he preached through the Book of Romans start to finish - it took him four years.
I’m proud that John was my pastor for many years. He baptised me and my wife and officiated at our wedding. skydaddy on May 18, 2009 at 3:40 PM
Now listen to John Piper properly reprimand our President:
From a commentor at Hot Air:
John Piper has been the pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, MN for more than a quarter-century. When I first met him in 1989, BBC was a small urban church with barely a hundred members. It now has a membership in the thousands, on two campuses, with multiple services and a worldwide publishing ministry.
Piper’s un-watered-down message of the radical grace of Jesus Christ has not changed one whit since the day I met him. I have never met any other living person with a greater sense of humility, nor a greater, more palpable joy in knowing the Savior. He exudes passion for the Gospel like no one I have ever met.
His preaching is deeply exegetic - that is, he digs into the text to uncover its meaning, looking at the original texts (Piper taught Greek at the university level before being called to preach) and cross-comparing them to other Biblical and non-Biblical texts to uncover the author’s meaning. A running joke is Piper closing a sermon with, “I had ten things I wanted to say about this verse, but we only got through three of them. We’ll see you next week.” he preached through the Book of Romans start to finish - it took him four years.
I’m proud that John was my pastor for many years. He baptised me and my wife and officiated at our wedding. skydaddy on May 18, 2009 at 3:40 PM
Now listen to John Piper properly reprimand our President:
Friday, May 15, 2009
Sarah Palin's First 100 Days (by Victor Davis Hanson)
President Palin’s First 100 Days
A near disaster.
By Victor Davis Hanson
WASHINGTON (AP) — The first 100 days of the Palin presidency, according to a consensus of media commentators, have proven a near disaster. Perhaps it was Palin’s scant two years’ experience in a major government position that has eroded her gravitas, or maybe it was her flirty reliance on looks and informal chit-chat. In any case, the press has had a field day, and it is hard to see how President Palin can ever recover from the Quayle/potatoe syndrome. Here is a roundup of this week’s pundit mockery.
LET THEM EAT MOOSE
“Ted Stevens may have gotten off,” wrote Bob Herbert in the New York Times, “but he taught our Sarah something first — like using $100-a-pound beef for her state dinners. And what’s this $50 mil for her inauguration gala? Since when do you fly in your favorite pizza-maker from across the country on our dime? Or send the presidential 747 for a spin over the Big Apple for a third-of-a-million-dollar joyride? Does Palin think she’s still in Alaska and has to have everything flown in from the South 48 by jumbo jet?”
WASILLA CHIC
Also in the Times, Gail Collins weighed in on the already-tired yokelism of the new commander in chief. “What we’re getting is Wasilla chic. That’s what we’re getting. She arrives in the Oval Office, and first thing sends back Blair’s gift of the Churchill bust as if it’s a once-worn Penney’s outfit. Then she gives the Brits some unwatchable DVDs as a booby prize — as if she idled the old Yukon and ran into Target’s sale aisle. Did Sarah send Bristol into Wal-Mart back in Anchorage for that ‘engraved’ iPod for the queen? And what’s this don’t-bow-to-the-queen stuff, but curtsy for a Saudi sheik? Maybe that explains why she brags to Stephanopoulos about her ‘Muslim faith.’ So far, the best things going for her are Todd’s biceps.” ..................
Please treat yourself and go read the whole priceless post.
President Palin’s First 100 Days
A near disaster.
By Victor Davis Hanson
WASHINGTON (AP) — The first 100 days of the Palin presidency, according to a consensus of media commentators, have proven a near disaster. Perhaps it was Palin’s scant two years’ experience in a major government position that has eroded her gravitas, or maybe it was her flirty reliance on looks and informal chit-chat. In any case, the press has had a field day, and it is hard to see how President Palin can ever recover from the Quayle/potatoe syndrome. Here is a roundup of this week’s pundit mockery.
LET THEM EAT MOOSE
“Ted Stevens may have gotten off,” wrote Bob Herbert in the New York Times, “but he taught our Sarah something first — like using $100-a-pound beef for her state dinners. And what’s this $50 mil for her inauguration gala? Since when do you fly in your favorite pizza-maker from across the country on our dime? Or send the presidential 747 for a spin over the Big Apple for a third-of-a-million-dollar joyride? Does Palin think she’s still in Alaska and has to have everything flown in from the South 48 by jumbo jet?”
WASILLA CHIC
Also in the Times, Gail Collins weighed in on the already-tired yokelism of the new commander in chief. “What we’re getting is Wasilla chic. That’s what we’re getting. She arrives in the Oval Office, and first thing sends back Blair’s gift of the Churchill bust as if it’s a once-worn Penney’s outfit. Then she gives the Brits some unwatchable DVDs as a booby prize — as if she idled the old Yukon and ran into Target’s sale aisle. Did Sarah send Bristol into Wal-Mart back in Anchorage for that ‘engraved’ iPod for the queen? And what’s this don’t-bow-to-the-queen stuff, but curtsy for a Saudi sheik? Maybe that explains why she brags to Stephanopoulos about her ‘Muslim faith.’ So far, the best things going for her are Todd’s biceps.” ..................
Please treat yourself and go read the whole priceless post.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
PELOSI VS. THE CIA-----IT'S ON!
The Speaker of the House has decided to claim that the CIA lied to her and others in the intel they provided to House intelligence committees while also claiming this is a pattern from the Bush administration's WMD's that were MIA. Nancy Pelosi's weekly press conference had a more than exuberant press corp waiting to hear her pile of excuses for why she remained silent while the CIA performed harsh interrogations on terrorist, (including waterboarding), that were a threat to this nation. S.A Miller at the Washington Times reports that Pelosi's on a mission:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday said the Bush administration "misled Congress" with inaccurate and incomplete information about harsh interrogation techniques for terrorism suspects and denied being briefed by the CIA about them.
"They mislead us all of the time," she said. "They misrepresented every step of the way."
Mrs. Pelosi, California Democrat, has come under fire for criticizing the use of the techniques, despite recently released documents that show she was briefed about them by the CIA in September 2002.
She has become the center of the controversy about the techniques — including the simulated drowning method known as "waterboarding" — as the Democrat-controlled Congress attempts to use the documents to prosecute Bush administration lawyers and other officials over the approval of the methods." link
Charles Krauthammer, on Fox's Special Report gives Pelosi more than a bad "report card":
OUCH!
While Allahpundit at Hot Air has one take on this "assault" on the CIA, Ice Cold, (a very astute commenter) has a slightly different take:
AP, you’re about as wrong on your point concerning leaks as you could possibly be.
The situations and issues and actions are entirely different.
Any CIA leaks now are RESPONSES to an unprovoked, classless, possibly dangerous, and contemptible attack on CIA regarding interrogation methods. And the leaks concern facts - setting the record straight with facts about concrete matters (briefings of Congress on specific topics).
The leaks (and it went way beyond that) that were intended to be damaging to Bush were not a response to anything, they concerned POLICY as well as on-going operations, and they all represented an agency or personnel/former personnel out of their lane, or even acting criminally.
The outing of the SWIFT operation and the NSA surveillance of domestic connections to foreign terror organizations were criminal violations of federal laws by arrogant reckless morons who appointed themselves FISA appeals chamber judges, Galactic Arbiters of What’s Right, and President (with declassifying authority) all in one. There isn’t the slightest similarity to the Pelosi affair, on any aspect in question.
The absurd game of tendentious and silly NIEs intended to preserve the Ba’athist tyranny, er, prevent the Iraq war, or to prevent any effective interference with the Iranian nuclear weapons program was about policy - way out of their lane, not criminal, and repeated only because the Bush Admin. lacked the judgement or guts to publicly humiliate the perps for their absurd and unimpressive “analysis” (this would have paid enormous benefits in national security and making the CIA a more serious agency).
Again, there was no retaliation for an unprovoked assault on the agency for authorized (and successful, and vital) activities by a ridiculous, mendacious, despicable political creature - which is the Pelosi matter in a nutshell.
I see that Theworldisnotenough has seized on the same point about the difference (or one of them) between the two cases.
If anyone around here is going to be concerned, be concerned (no, appalled and sickened) by the mediocrity of so much CIA “analysis”, the politicization (i.e., adherence to brain-dead Beltway mindsets as reflected in the MSM and the Dem party and half the GOP) of so many federal agencies incl. CIA, the collapse of any standards of decency or respect in the public square (from Durbin to Murtha to Pelosi to Reid) concerning life and death matters in time of war, and the cowardice and mediocrity of the GOP (and in the Bush years, perhaps simply the incomprehension) that fails to reject and resist these things and thus lets them become the new normal.................IceCold on May 14, 2009 at 8:05 PM
(as soon as I find IceCold, I'll let him/her know I tend to agree with this)
The Speaker of the House has decided to claim that the CIA lied to her and others in the intel they provided to House intelligence committees while also claiming this is a pattern from the Bush administration's WMD's that were MIA. Nancy Pelosi's weekly press conference had a more than exuberant press corp waiting to hear her pile of excuses for why she remained silent while the CIA performed harsh interrogations on terrorist, (including waterboarding), that were a threat to this nation. S.A Miller at the Washington Times reports that Pelosi's on a mission:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday said the Bush administration "misled Congress" with inaccurate and incomplete information about harsh interrogation techniques for terrorism suspects and denied being briefed by the CIA about them.
"They mislead us all of the time," she said. "They misrepresented every step of the way."
Mrs. Pelosi, California Democrat, has come under fire for criticizing the use of the techniques, despite recently released documents that show she was briefed about them by the CIA in September 2002.
She has become the center of the controversy about the techniques — including the simulated drowning method known as "waterboarding" — as the Democrat-controlled Congress attempts to use the documents to prosecute Bush administration lawyers and other officials over the approval of the methods." link
Charles Krauthammer, on Fox's Special Report gives Pelosi more than a bad "report card":
OUCH!
While Allahpundit at Hot Air has one take on this "assault" on the CIA, Ice Cold, (a very astute commenter) has a slightly different take:
AP, you’re about as wrong on your point concerning leaks as you could possibly be.
The situations and issues and actions are entirely different.
Any CIA leaks now are RESPONSES to an unprovoked, classless, possibly dangerous, and contemptible attack on CIA regarding interrogation methods. And the leaks concern facts - setting the record straight with facts about concrete matters (briefings of Congress on specific topics).
The leaks (and it went way beyond that) that were intended to be damaging to Bush were not a response to anything, they concerned POLICY as well as on-going operations, and they all represented an agency or personnel/former personnel out of their lane, or even acting criminally.
The outing of the SWIFT operation and the NSA surveillance of domestic connections to foreign terror organizations were criminal violations of federal laws by arrogant reckless morons who appointed themselves FISA appeals chamber judges, Galactic Arbiters of What’s Right, and President (with declassifying authority) all in one. There isn’t the slightest similarity to the Pelosi affair, on any aspect in question.
The absurd game of tendentious and silly NIEs intended to preserve the Ba’athist tyranny, er, prevent the Iraq war, or to prevent any effective interference with the Iranian nuclear weapons program was about policy - way out of their lane, not criminal, and repeated only because the Bush Admin. lacked the judgement or guts to publicly humiliate the perps for their absurd and unimpressive “analysis” (this would have paid enormous benefits in national security and making the CIA a more serious agency).
Again, there was no retaliation for an unprovoked assault on the agency for authorized (and successful, and vital) activities by a ridiculous, mendacious, despicable political creature - which is the Pelosi matter in a nutshell.
I see that Theworldisnotenough has seized on the same point about the difference (or one of them) between the two cases.
If anyone around here is going to be concerned, be concerned (no, appalled and sickened) by the mediocrity of so much CIA “analysis”, the politicization (i.e., adherence to brain-dead Beltway mindsets as reflected in the MSM and the Dem party and half the GOP) of so many federal agencies incl. CIA, the collapse of any standards of decency or respect in the public square (from Durbin to Murtha to Pelosi to Reid) concerning life and death matters in time of war, and the cowardice and mediocrity of the GOP (and in the Bush years, perhaps simply the incomprehension) that fails to reject and resist these things and thus lets them become the new normal.................IceCold on May 14, 2009 at 8:05 PM
(as soon as I find IceCold, I'll let him/her know I tend to agree with this)
Saturday, May 09, 2009
Thursday, April 30, 2009
3.4 TRILLION BUDGET PASSED AND WHAT DOES YOUR PRESIDENT DO? GOES ON NATIONAL TV IN PRIME TIME AND TALKS ABOUT EVERYTHING BUT THE ECONOMY
President Obama put on a national press conference last night and received the usual softball questions from his adoring mainstream media supporters. Not one reporter/"journalist" asked how this administration intends on paying for the largest budget ever passed in U.S. history.
This thread is not finished...........I have to cool down a bit.......do some fact checking, and return in a calmer mode........
President Obama put on a national press conference last night and received the usual softball questions from his adoring mainstream media supporters. Not one reporter/"journalist" asked how this administration intends on paying for the largest budget ever passed in U.S. history.
This thread is not finished...........I have to cool down a bit.......do some fact checking, and return in a calmer mode........
Friday, April 17, 2009
Friday, April 10, 2009
Champions of The Game at The Masters
The first round at this years Masters is filled with past champions at the top of the leaderboard.
The back nine at Augusta yesterday was where most players scored, especially after they left amen corner. Chad Campbell was an exception with his phenomenal string of five straight birdies out the gate to a first round lead of 7-under 65. Had Campbell not pulled his tee shots off the last two holes, the course record 63 might have very well been achieved. But, while Campbell’s round was impressive, 2003 U.S. Open champion Jim Furyk played his round to a bogey-free 6-under 66, just one stroke back. Hunter Mahan had nine birdies and two bogeys to tie Furyk and also remain one stroke off the lead. Shingo Katayama and Larry Mize were just two strokes back posting 5-under 67’s, with both players recording only one bogey on their cards. The next eight players scored 4-under 68’s, just three strokes off the lead, that included 2007 U.S. Open champ Angel Cabrera, 2004 British Open champ Todd Hamilton, 2003 Master’s champion Mike Weir, 1987 Master’s winner Larry Mize, and the ever dangerous Kenny Perry. 2007 British Open champ Padraig Harrington scattered five birdies and two bogeys for a 3-under 69, just four shots off the early lead. Other notables that shot 2-under 70’s, five shots back, include Lee Westwood who recorded 13 top 10 finishes in 2008, including runner up four times at the US Open, World Golf Hall of Famer and two-time British Open champion Greg Norman at the age of 54, along with two-time Master’s winner and also a World Golf Hall of Famer Bernhard Langer. Oh yeah, I forgot to mention four-time Master’s champion, and still the worlds number one ranked golfer Tiger Woods is also in the field at 2-under carding four birdies and two bogeys in keeping with his “tradition” of never scoring a first round at the Masters in the sixties. Defending Masters Champion Trevor Immelman opened his title defense with 71, six shots off the pace.
Disappointments included Michelson, Garcia, Ogilvy, Villegas, and V. J. Singh, (who are in the top ten in the world rankings), all shot one over par 73’s, eight shots off the lead. Past Masters champs Ben Crenshaw and Freddy Couples were also at one over. Seventy-four year old legend and three-time Masters Champion Gary Player shot a six over par 78 in what he says will be his last full performance at Augusta.
Needless to say, there are a lot of Champions and past Champions at the top of the leader-board after the first round of the 2009 Masters. Bobby Jones would be in good company.
The first round at this years Masters is filled with past champions at the top of the leaderboard.
The back nine at Augusta yesterday was where most players scored, especially after they left amen corner. Chad Campbell was an exception with his phenomenal string of five straight birdies out the gate to a first round lead of 7-under 65. Had Campbell not pulled his tee shots off the last two holes, the course record 63 might have very well been achieved. But, while Campbell’s round was impressive, 2003 U.S. Open champion Jim Furyk played his round to a bogey-free 6-under 66, just one stroke back. Hunter Mahan had nine birdies and two bogeys to tie Furyk and also remain one stroke off the lead. Shingo Katayama and Larry Mize were just two strokes back posting 5-under 67’s, with both players recording only one bogey on their cards. The next eight players scored 4-under 68’s, just three strokes off the lead, that included 2007 U.S. Open champ Angel Cabrera, 2004 British Open champ Todd Hamilton, 2003 Master’s champion Mike Weir, 1987 Master’s winner Larry Mize, and the ever dangerous Kenny Perry. 2007 British Open champ Padraig Harrington scattered five birdies and two bogeys for a 3-under 69, just four shots off the early lead. Other notables that shot 2-under 70’s, five shots back, include Lee Westwood who recorded 13 top 10 finishes in 2008, including runner up four times at the US Open, World Golf Hall of Famer and two-time British Open champion Greg Norman at the age of 54, along with two-time Master’s winner and also a World Golf Hall of Famer Bernhard Langer. Oh yeah, I forgot to mention four-time Master’s champion, and still the worlds number one ranked golfer Tiger Woods is also in the field at 2-under carding four birdies and two bogeys in keeping with his “tradition” of never scoring a first round at the Masters in the sixties. Defending Masters Champion Trevor Immelman opened his title defense with 71, six shots off the pace.
Disappointments included Michelson, Garcia, Ogilvy, Villegas, and V. J. Singh, (who are in the top ten in the world rankings), all shot one over par 73’s, eight shots off the lead. Past Masters champs Ben Crenshaw and Freddy Couples were also at one over. Seventy-four year old legend and three-time Masters Champion Gary Player shot a six over par 78 in what he says will be his last full performance at Augusta.
Needless to say, there are a lot of Champions and past Champions at the top of the leader-board after the first round of the 2009 Masters. Bobby Jones would be in good company.
Friday, April 03, 2009
Spending Our Way Into History........
It was an historic day yesterday. While our President made nice around the world trying to say there should be more participation from other nations in shouldering more of the financial burden, he makes no comment, (present again), about Nancy Pelosi grinning from ear to ear as she gaveled down the largest spending budget in this nation's history, (3.55 trillion in pure debt), and New York Times editor in chief Bill Keller says the fate of his newspaper is considerable to the devastation in Darfur, one has to question what are the priorities of the liberal left.
While the daily struggles continue for the average American just trying to make ends meet, your government spends money at a pace of a billion a day. And it's not over yet:
2010 cannot come soon enough.
It was an historic day yesterday. While our President made nice around the world trying to say there should be more participation from other nations in shouldering more of the financial burden, he makes no comment, (present again), about Nancy Pelosi grinning from ear to ear as she gaveled down the largest spending budget in this nation's history, (3.55 trillion in pure debt), and New York Times editor in chief Bill Keller says the fate of his newspaper is considerable to the devastation in Darfur, one has to question what are the priorities of the liberal left.
While the daily struggles continue for the average American just trying to make ends meet, your government spends money at a pace of a billion a day. And it's not over yet:
So Harry Reid thinks saving Americans "under water" is necessary while drowning the next two generations in debt. 3.6 trillion and the democrats say spending on health care, energy, and education will come later this year after the shock has worn off on the enormous debt this government has bestowed upon every American. No, Mr Reid, this is not an inherited debt. This is a debt created and owned by your party, your President, and your own drunken lunacy.WASHINGTON -- Acting in quick succession, the House and Senate approved budgets Thursday night drawn to President Obama's specifications and pointing the way toward major legislation later this year on health care, energy and education.
On a long day and night, the House was first to vote, and approved its version of the budget on a 233-196 roll call that fell largely along party lines. It calls for spending of $3.6 trillion for the budget year that begins Oct. 1, and includes a deficit of $1.2 trillion.
The Senate acted a few hours later, with Vice President Joe Biden presiding. The vote was 55-43 for a slightly different blueprint that calls for spending $3.5 trillion and forecasts a deficit of $1.2 trillion.
"It's going to take a lot of work to clean up the mess we inherited, and passing this budget is a critical step in the right direction," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said. "Staying true to these priorities will help turn around the economy for the many Americans who are underwater right now."
Republicans in both houses accused Democrats of drafting plans that would hurt the recession-ravaged economy in the long run, rather than help it, and saddle future generations with too much debt.
"The administration's budget simply taxes too much, spends too much and borrows too much at a moment when we can least afford it," said the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. Link (emphasis mine)
2010 cannot come soon enough.
Monday, March 23, 2009
WHY IS FRANCE AND GERMANY APPLAUDING OBAMA'S PLAN TO NATIONALIZE BANKS?~~~FOLLOW THE MONEY
Andrew Hitchcock WROTE A BOOK CALLED "THE HISTORY OF THE MONEY CHANGERS", AND IT'S A MUST READ FOR MANY WHO WONDER WHAT DRIVES THIS ADMINISTRATION TO RUN THIS NATION INTO FINANCIAL RUIN.
In what's called a model or template of world powerbrokers that have historically controlled currency, (usury in earlier centuries), today's run on the world financial markets are filled with corruption and deception that puts the United States right in the middle of an old plan that can not be completed with out the blessings and cooperation of our government. In the History of the Money Changers, you will see clearly how currency in all forms, (gold, silver, and paper), is manipulated on some of the grandest scales that moved wealth from one nation to WORLD CENTRAL BANKS while operating in the guise of everyone's best interest, and the FEDERAL RESERVE is at the heart of this run.
"Economists continually try and sell the public the idea that recessions or depressions are a natural part of what they call the “business cycle”.
This timeline below will prove that is simply not the case. Recessions and depressions only occur because the Central Bankers manipulate the money supply, to ensure more and more is in their hands and less and less is in the hands of the people."
When you finish reading Hitchcock's illustrated version of this historical timeline, it all begins to make sense where loading up debt and deficit spending could very well be a calculated manipulation by world Central Bankers that are using diversions such as global warming, energy shortages created by environmental laws and yes WARS to facilitate this current economic crisis into another wealth distribution plan on a grander scale than anyone could foresee.
Excerpts from the "Money Changers":
1916
President Wilson began to realize the gravity of the damage he had done to America, by unleashing the Federal Reserve on the American people. He stated,
"We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled governments in the civilized world - no longer a government of free opinion, no longer a government by ...a vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.
Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."
1924
Shortly before his death this year, President Woodrow Wilson made the following statement in relation to his support for the Federal Reserve,
"I have unwittingly ruined my country."
Despite the claims of how the Federal Reserve would protect the country against depressions and inflation, they continued to further contract the money supply. Between 1929 and 1933, they reduced the money supply by an additional 33%. Even, Milton Friedman, the Nobel Peace Prize winning economist stated the following in a radio interview in January 1996,
"The Federal Reserve definitely caused the Great Depression by contracting the amount of currency in circulation by one-third from 1929 to 1933."
In only a few weeks from the day of the crash, 3 billion dollars of wealth vanished. Within a year, 40 billion dollars of wealth vanished. However, it did not simply disappear, it just ended up consolidated in fewer and fewer hands, as was planned. An example of this is Joseph P. Kennedy, John F. Kennedy's father. In 1929 he was worth 4 million dollars, in 1935 that had increased to over 100 million dollars.
1932
Republican Representative Louis T. McFadden of Pennsylvania, the Former Chairman of the House Banking & Currency Commission during the great depression, states,
"We have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board...This evil institution has impoverished...the people of the United States...and has practically bankrupted our government. It has done this through...the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it."
In just one hour of your precious time, (more like 30 minutes, because I'm a slow reader), Hitchcock's "MONEY CHANGERS" may very well open up your eyes to what the motives are in our current crisis. Or, it will at least allow you to ask more questions, and lead you to follow the money........
Late Update: Dafydd at Big Lizards covers just about all of Obama's autocratic government and thinks he's heard it before. You could make a case that Dafydd's written a piece of the puzzle. And it's certainly Déjà Vu About Vujà Dé (sidenote to the big lizard~~Can we add the Federal Reserve to this mixure of manure given the history in this post?)
Andrew Hitchcock WROTE A BOOK CALLED "THE HISTORY OF THE MONEY CHANGERS", AND IT'S A MUST READ FOR MANY WHO WONDER WHAT DRIVES THIS ADMINISTRATION TO RUN THIS NATION INTO FINANCIAL RUIN.
In what's called a model or template of world powerbrokers that have historically controlled currency, (usury in earlier centuries), today's run on the world financial markets are filled with corruption and deception that puts the United States right in the middle of an old plan that can not be completed with out the blessings and cooperation of our government. In the History of the Money Changers, you will see clearly how currency in all forms, (gold, silver, and paper), is manipulated on some of the grandest scales that moved wealth from one nation to WORLD CENTRAL BANKS while operating in the guise of everyone's best interest, and the FEDERAL RESERVE is at the heart of this run.
"Economists continually try and sell the public the idea that recessions or depressions are a natural part of what they call the “business cycle”.
This timeline below will prove that is simply not the case. Recessions and depressions only occur because the Central Bankers manipulate the money supply, to ensure more and more is in their hands and less and less is in the hands of the people."
When you finish reading Hitchcock's illustrated version of this historical timeline, it all begins to make sense where loading up debt and deficit spending could very well be a calculated manipulation by world Central Bankers that are using diversions such as global warming, energy shortages created by environmental laws and yes WARS to facilitate this current economic crisis into another wealth distribution plan on a grander scale than anyone could foresee.
Excerpts from the "Money Changers":
1916
President Wilson began to realize the gravity of the damage he had done to America, by unleashing the Federal Reserve on the American people. He stated,
"We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled governments in the civilized world - no longer a government of free opinion, no longer a government by ...a vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.
Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."
1924
Shortly before his death this year, President Woodrow Wilson made the following statement in relation to his support for the Federal Reserve,
"I have unwittingly ruined my country."
Despite the claims of how the Federal Reserve would protect the country against depressions and inflation, they continued to further contract the money supply. Between 1929 and 1933, they reduced the money supply by an additional 33%. Even, Milton Friedman, the Nobel Peace Prize winning economist stated the following in a radio interview in January 1996,
"The Federal Reserve definitely caused the Great Depression by contracting the amount of currency in circulation by one-third from 1929 to 1933."
In only a few weeks from the day of the crash, 3 billion dollars of wealth vanished. Within a year, 40 billion dollars of wealth vanished. However, it did not simply disappear, it just ended up consolidated in fewer and fewer hands, as was planned. An example of this is Joseph P. Kennedy, John F. Kennedy's father. In 1929 he was worth 4 million dollars, in 1935 that had increased to over 100 million dollars.
1932
Republican Representative Louis T. McFadden of Pennsylvania, the Former Chairman of the House Banking & Currency Commission during the great depression, states,
"We have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board...This evil institution has impoverished...the people of the United States...and has practically bankrupted our government. It has done this through...the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it."
In just one hour of your precious time, (more like 30 minutes, because I'm a slow reader), Hitchcock's "MONEY CHANGERS" may very well open up your eyes to what the motives are in our current crisis. Or, it will at least allow you to ask more questions, and lead you to follow the money........
Late Update: Dafydd at Big Lizards covers just about all of Obama's autocratic government and thinks he's heard it before. You could make a case that Dafydd's written a piece of the puzzle. And it's certainly Déjà Vu About Vujà Dé (sidenote to the big lizard~~Can we add the Federal Reserve to this mixure of manure given the history in this post?)
Saturday, March 21, 2009
NATIONAL ECONOMIC COLLAPSE CERTAIN UNDER OBAMA'S RUNAWAY SPENDING PLAN
AMERICAN CITIZENS APPEAL TO DEMOCRATIC LEADERS~~"PLEASE STOP THIS TRAINWRECK!"
While the Iranians race to produce their nuclear weapon to destroy their "enemies", Barack Obama appears to be in a similar race to destroy the most powerful nation in the world---from within. And while Iranian citizens have shown a tolerance to their leadership, American's across this country are becoming frightfull of a reckless agenda that amounts to criminal generational theft:
By ANDREW TAYLOR
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama's budget would produce $9.3 trillion in deficits over the next decade, more than four times the deficits of Republican George W. Bush's presidency, congressional auditors said Friday.
The new Congressional Budget Office figures offered a far more dire outlook for Obama's budget than the new administration predicted just last month - a deficit $2.3 trillion worse. It's a prospect even the president's own budget director called unsustainable. link
It will take more than a tea party to stop this trainwreck!
AMERICAN CITIZENS APPEAL TO DEMOCRATIC LEADERS~~"PLEASE STOP THIS TRAINWRECK!"
While the Iranians race to produce their nuclear weapon to destroy their "enemies", Barack Obama appears to be in a similar race to destroy the most powerful nation in the world---from within. And while Iranian citizens have shown a tolerance to their leadership, American's across this country are becoming frightfull of a reckless agenda that amounts to criminal generational theft:
By ANDREW TAYLOR
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama's budget would produce $9.3 trillion in deficits over the next decade, more than four times the deficits of Republican George W. Bush's presidency, congressional auditors said Friday.
The new Congressional Budget Office figures offered a far more dire outlook for Obama's budget than the new administration predicted just last month - a deficit $2.3 trillion worse. It's a prospect even the president's own budget director called unsustainable. link
It will take more than a tea party to stop this trainwreck!
Saturday, March 14, 2009
"A Fundamentally Sound Economy"
Sound Familiar?
Ed Driscoll reports that Obama has had a "self-reckoning" moment.
"Took him about half a year, but Barack Obama finally agrees with John McCain. Philip Klein suggests that the former owes the latter an apology. Good luck collecting!"
In other news:
Report: Cuba, Venezuela could host Russian bombers
MOSCOW – A Russian Air Force chief said Saturday that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has offered an island as a temporary base for strategic Russian bombers, the Interfax news agency reported.
The chief of staff of Russia's long range aviation, Maj. Gen. Anatoly Zhikharev, also said Cuba could be used to base the aircraft, Interfax reported.
The Kremlin, however, said the situation was hypothetical.
"The military is speaking about technical possibilities, that's all," Alexei Pavlov, a Kremlin official, told The Associated Press. "If there will be a development of the situation, then we can comment," he said. (emphasis mine)
This sounds like our nation needs to revisit the Monroe Doctrine. I'm certain our President will get right on this, (hypothetically speaking of course).
Sound Familiar?
Ed Driscoll reports that Obama has had a "self-reckoning" moment.
"Took him about half a year, but Barack Obama finally agrees with John McCain. Philip Klein suggests that the former owes the latter an apology. Good luck collecting!"
In other news:
Report: Cuba, Venezuela could host Russian bombers
MOSCOW – A Russian Air Force chief said Saturday that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has offered an island as a temporary base for strategic Russian bombers, the Interfax news agency reported.
The chief of staff of Russia's long range aviation, Maj. Gen. Anatoly Zhikharev, also said Cuba could be used to base the aircraft, Interfax reported.
The Kremlin, however, said the situation was hypothetical.
"The military is speaking about technical possibilities, that's all," Alexei Pavlov, a Kremlin official, told The Associated Press. "If there will be a development of the situation, then we can comment," he said. (emphasis mine)
This sounds like our nation needs to revisit the Monroe Doctrine. I'm certain our President will get right on this, (hypothetically speaking of course).
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Broken Promises---Earmarks & "Unfinished Business"
Now that “President-elect”* Barack Obama has broken his landmark campaign promise to end earmark, (pork barrel) legislation, the public can begin to ask----“was there any critical part of your campaign where you told us the truth Mr. Obama?”
Unfinished business
Jon Ward at the Washington Times observes that the spin cycle coming out of the White House is that the $410 billion omnibus bill, (written and passed by Nancy Pelosi’s democrats), was “unfinished business”:
“White House officials have said that the omnibus is "unfinished business" from last year, and on Monday, Mr. Gibbs argued that the government needs the bill to be passed so it can continue to function. Appropriations bills are done "usually before the fiscal year ends, generally before Congress recesses, most assuredly before the next Congress convenes. And I think blowing through all those hurdles rightly makes it last year's business," he said.” (link)
While these spinmiesters claim a bill with 9000 earmarks is unfinished business, maybe we can explain that 70% of the previously steroid-pumped baseball players deserve a break because it was unfinished business.
So, with this premise in mind, Obama marches up to his teleprompter this week and announces his “new” plan for earmark reform:
"Let there be no doubt: this piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business, and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability," Obama said in discussing his decision to sign the controversial measure.
"I am signing an imperfect ... bill because it's necessary for the ongoing functions of government, and we have a lot more work to do. We can't have Congress bogged down at this critical juncture in our economic recovery," he said.
Obama outlined a plan that would enable lawmakers to continue to earmark spending with a "legitimate and worthy public purpose," but would make the process more transparent and offer opportunities for public feedback before approval. (link)
Obama, who criticized earmarked spending during his presidential campaign, went behind closed doors to sign the $410 billion spending bill, which was approved by the Democratic-controlled Congress following a contentious debate.
What? No ceremony? Four months of a pork barrel spending at a billion a month is not worth celebrating? That was just peanuts:
"In just 50 days, Congress has voted to spend about $1.2 trillion," said Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the U.S. Senate. "To put that in perspective, that's about $24 billion a day, or about $1 billion an hour -- most of it borrowed."
O.K.-----Now can we celebrate?????? Not yet.
Read back up on this post where Obama says this is a “new era of responsibility and accountability” and see how he plans to reform earmark legislation with a "legitimate and worthy public purpose”. Here’s the key word, (public). Obama went on to explain in his speech that it was the earmarks that went to private entities that allowed the most corruption while the PUBLIC earmarks would pass with far less scrutiny. (Have you “got it” yet? Ding ding ding!----not yet?)
OK-----let me put this plainly------public means GOVERNMENT------and private means all the rest including small private businesses that provides the largest amount of tax revenue to our GOVERNMENT. If you want a school built in your district, it will be funded with a public earmark and preformed by UNION LABOR. Is this card-check legislation that congress will pass getting past your thinking cap?
Obama’s complete agenda is to make your government the sole enterprise in structuring and building this nation. If you own a private business that wants to compete in the process, go to the back of the line and wait for the union reps to show up. And certainly don’t look for any earmarks.
* (I called Obama President-elect out of respect for the fact that this legislation was last years unfinished business when the man had yet to be anointed)
Sunday, March 08, 2009
Saturday, March 07, 2009
Silencing Those Who Criticize Our Government
Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted a story on Friday that question's the reversal of David Brook's criticism of Barack Obama's economic plans, suggesting that Brooks was taken to the woodshed and changed his "opinion". While the White House chose to engage Rush Limbaugh's recent dissent of many of Obama's plans, it appears that other critics are some how either reversing their opinions or becoming mysteriously silent. Of course the typical way the left wing media's, (and now Obama's personal attack dogs, Paul Begala and James Carville) reaction to Rush, is to take a comment out of context and publish it. Limbaugh has made his point crystal clear that he wants Obama's economic policies to FAIL:
"I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed." "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails."
What the media and rest of the liberal left loonies left out was the CONTEXT:
"Were the liberals out there hoping Bush succeeded or were they out there trying to destroy him before he was even inaugurated? Why do we have to play the game by their rules? Why do we have to accept the premise here that because of the historical nature of his presidency, that we want him to succeed? This is affirmative action, if we do that. We want to promote failure, we want to promote incompetence, we want to stand by and not object to what he's doing simply because of the color of his skin? Sorry. I got past the historical nature of this months ago. He is the president of the United States, he's my president, he's a human being, and his ideas and policies are what count for me, not his skin color, not his past, not whatever ties he doesn't have to being down with the struggle, all of that's irrelevant to me. We're talking about my country, the United States of America, my nieces, my nephews, your kids, your grandkids. Why in the world do we want to saddle them with more liberalism and socialism? Why would I want to do that? So I can answer it, four words, "I hope he fails." And that would be the most outrageous thing anybody in this climate could say. Shows you just how far gone we are. Well, I know, I know. I am the last man standing.".......(READ RUSH'S COMPLETE POST HERE)
But I digress. A commenter at Hot Air summed up the phenomenon that appears to be happening to "the critics":
"One wonders what sort of intimidation tactics are being used here. Santelli’s been quiet lately, including canceling an appearance on The Daily Show. Cramer was taken to task by the White House, although he’s not likely to shut up anytime soon. We all know what they’re trying to do to Rush. And now this with David Brooks.
Maybe there are a lot more Obama skeptics out there than we realize, but with the current economic state we’re in, they’re too afraid to risk their job security by taking on this administration"........Doughboy on March 6, 2009 at 9:48 AM
Morrissey's story, Revolt over: White House puts Brooks back on the leash points out David Brooks has "returned to the fold" after a scathing post about Obama's liberal and socialist policies:
"On Tuesday, I wrote that the Obama budget is a liberal, big government document that should make moderates nervous. The column generated a large positive response from moderate Obama supporters who are anxious about where the administration is headed. It was not so popular inside the White House. Within a day, I had conversations with four senior members of the administration and in the interest of fairness, I thought I’d share their arguments with you today." (READ THE COMPLETE HOT AIR POST HERE)
Is there a "silencing of the lambs" movement going on by the President's people? And does President Obama condone this form of speech suppression? What has been said to these critics of our government that changed their minds or opinions? Were they subtle threats or outright career busters? Will David Brooks, (and others) write in his memoirs thirty years from now, how he was intimidated or even threatened to change his tune, or else?
So far, our constitution guarantees freedom of the press and the rights of our citizens to express their opinions and grievances without the threat of harm from its government. If, (and this is a BIG IF), our "leadership" is in any way attempting to silence public dissent by intimidation or actual threats, and the President IS aware of, AND condoning this with his expressed consent, I believe this IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
Could Barak Obama really be this stupid to have a "Nixon / Watergate Moment" where he's allowing his "henchmen" to desecrate the first amendment? While he's moving full steam ahead with his agenda to nationalize private enterprises with trillions of unfunded dollars, he may want to be extremely careful how he goes about silencing those who may want his policies to fail.
Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted a story on Friday that question's the reversal of David Brook's criticism of Barack Obama's economic plans, suggesting that Brooks was taken to the woodshed and changed his "opinion". While the White House chose to engage Rush Limbaugh's recent dissent of many of Obama's plans, it appears that other critics are some how either reversing their opinions or becoming mysteriously silent. Of course the typical way the left wing media's, (and now Obama's personal attack dogs, Paul Begala and James Carville) reaction to Rush, is to take a comment out of context and publish it. Limbaugh has made his point crystal clear that he wants Obama's economic policies to FAIL:
"I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed." "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails."
What the media and rest of the liberal left loonies left out was the CONTEXT:
"Were the liberals out there hoping Bush succeeded or were they out there trying to destroy him before he was even inaugurated? Why do we have to play the game by their rules? Why do we have to accept the premise here that because of the historical nature of his presidency, that we want him to succeed? This is affirmative action, if we do that. We want to promote failure, we want to promote incompetence, we want to stand by and not object to what he's doing simply because of the color of his skin? Sorry. I got past the historical nature of this months ago. He is the president of the United States, he's my president, he's a human being, and his ideas and policies are what count for me, not his skin color, not his past, not whatever ties he doesn't have to being down with the struggle, all of that's irrelevant to me. We're talking about my country, the United States of America, my nieces, my nephews, your kids, your grandkids. Why in the world do we want to saddle them with more liberalism and socialism? Why would I want to do that? So I can answer it, four words, "I hope he fails." And that would be the most outrageous thing anybody in this climate could say. Shows you just how far gone we are. Well, I know, I know. I am the last man standing.".......(READ RUSH'S COMPLETE POST HERE)
But I digress. A commenter at Hot Air summed up the phenomenon that appears to be happening to "the critics":
"One wonders what sort of intimidation tactics are being used here. Santelli’s been quiet lately, including canceling an appearance on The Daily Show. Cramer was taken to task by the White House, although he’s not likely to shut up anytime soon. We all know what they’re trying to do to Rush. And now this with David Brooks.
Maybe there are a lot more Obama skeptics out there than we realize, but with the current economic state we’re in, they’re too afraid to risk their job security by taking on this administration"........Doughboy on March 6, 2009 at 9:48 AM
Morrissey's story, Revolt over: White House puts Brooks back on the leash points out David Brooks has "returned to the fold" after a scathing post about Obama's liberal and socialist policies:
"On Tuesday, I wrote that the Obama budget is a liberal, big government document that should make moderates nervous. The column generated a large positive response from moderate Obama supporters who are anxious about where the administration is headed. It was not so popular inside the White House. Within a day, I had conversations with four senior members of the administration and in the interest of fairness, I thought I’d share their arguments with you today." (READ THE COMPLETE HOT AIR POST HERE)
Is there a "silencing of the lambs" movement going on by the President's people? And does President Obama condone this form of speech suppression? What has been said to these critics of our government that changed their minds or opinions? Were they subtle threats or outright career busters? Will David Brooks, (and others) write in his memoirs thirty years from now, how he was intimidated or even threatened to change his tune, or else?
So far, our constitution guarantees freedom of the press and the rights of our citizens to express their opinions and grievances without the threat of harm from its government. If, (and this is a BIG IF), our "leadership" is in any way attempting to silence public dissent by intimidation or actual threats, and the President IS aware of, AND condoning this with his expressed consent, I believe this IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
Could Barak Obama really be this stupid to have a "Nixon / Watergate Moment" where he's allowing his "henchmen" to desecrate the first amendment? While he's moving full steam ahead with his agenda to nationalize private enterprises with trillions of unfunded dollars, he may want to be extremely careful how he goes about silencing those who may want his policies to fail.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
A Presidents Promise of Change Comes to Light
When President Obama promised a change in how government will work if he was elected, few understood how far the "change" would go. Most who supported him thought this to mean that his "transparency" would bring a new trust to a Congress that rated all time lows in national public polls. Our government in Washington would be run differently from the "failed" years in the past. What Obama didn't understand is that the powerbrokers and the already established party of the center-left Democrats, (already two years in control, and further expanded by the 2008 elections), had a more sinister agenda. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid had waited patiently for a Democrat President to rubber stamp their own agenda that has included a calculated assault on capitalism, the life-blood of a free democracy. They have used this "perfect storm" of an economic crisis to advance every program and entitlement that free market forces had kept in check. The levels of deficit spending from the previous administration was already getting out of control, and yet in the first month of Obama's tenure this government has more than tripled the debt in new spending that is supposed to be stimulating our economy while preserving the job market. So far, nothing has worked to return confidence in the markets or convince consumers to spend their guarded paychecks. But, what people don't understand is the Democratic Party is perfectly fine with this in their plan to destroy capitalism and replace it with a socialist model similar to Western European governments.
Unemployment rose as high as 6.3% after 9/11 and gradually worked down to as low as 4.4% in October of 2006. The Democrats swept into power that fall and now we are at 7.5%, (10% in California), and rising. Meanwhile, this mantra of unfunded bailouts (in the trillions) in an attempt to prop up failed housing, banks, and "other financial institutions", has done little to stop the bleeding while piling up generational debt.
While the Nation rejoiced in this new incoming government, the sleeping giant of a housing market ponzi scheme (created and supported for more than twenty years) raised its ugly head. While there are many who argue that this "social experiment" gone awry was the result of little over-sight or regulation, I would submit it was just the opposite. Our government not only encouraged the practice of unqualified home ownership, they supplied the vehicle for lenders to dump their volatile paper into the government created Fannie Mae and Freddi Mac institutions all bundled in the false title of "securities".
So, how does our new government react to a financial crisis that impacts world economies? Spend, spend, and spend.
Not only has Barack Obama and the Democrat Party spent trillions in new programs and entitlements (with no plan to repay this debt), they also plan in this years agenda to turn our health care system over to this same "responsible" government that is breaking this nation. And the more folks begin to understand a system of government controlled medical/health care that will dictate the choices of procedure, the level of professional care, and, for starters deny doctors a license who refuse to preform abortions, they will (hopefully) begin to realize that this will be another unfunded massive program that will pale the price of Social Security.
Now comes the really scary (part 1):
The democrats agenda is clear:
1st amendment = under attack
2nd amendment = under attack
No taxation without representation = gone
Privately owned banks and financial institutions = gone
Government control of food production = coming soon
Government control of health care = almost here
Term limits on Supreme Court Justices = coming soon
Term limits of U.S. Presidents = suspension coming soon
And now the really, REALLY SCARY (PART TWO)
Guess Who?
*I was born in one country, raised in another. My father was born in another country. I was not his only child. He fathered several children with numerous women. *
*I became very close to my mother, as my father showed no interest in me. My mother died at an early age from cancer. *
*Later in life, questions arose over my real name. *
*My birth records were sketchy and no one was able to produce a legitimate,reliable birth certificate. *
*I grew up practicing one faith but converted to Christianity, as it was widely accepted in my country, but *
*I practiced non-traditional beliefs & didn't follow Christianity, except in the public eye under scrutiny. *
*I worked and lived among lower-class people as a young adult, disguising myself as someone who really cared about them. *
*That was before I decided it was time to get serious about my life and I embarked on a new career. *
*I wrote a book about my struggles growing up. It was clear to those who read my memoirs that I had difficulties accepting that my father abandoned me as a child. *
*I became active in local politics in my 30's then with help behind the scenes, I literally burst onto the scene as a candidate for national office in my 40s. They said I had a golden tongue and could talk anyone into anything. That reinforced my conceit. *
*I had a virtually non-existent resume, little work history, and no experience in leading a single organization. Yet I was a powerful speaker and citizens were drawn to me as though I were a magnet and they were small roofing tacks. *
*I drew incredibly large crowds during my public appearances. This bolstered my ego. *
*At first, my political campaign focused on my country's foreign policy. I was very critical of my country in the last war and seized every opportunity to bash my country. *
*But what launched my rise to national prominence were my views on the country's economy. I pretended to have a really good plan on how we could do better and every poor person would be fed & housed for free. *
*I knew which group was responsible for getting us into this mess. It was the free market, banks & corporations. I decided to start making citizens hate them and if they were envious of others who did well, the plan was clinched tight. *
*I called mine "A People's Campaign" and that sounded good to all people. *
*I was the surprise candidate because I emerged from outside the traditional path of politics & was able to gain widespread popular support. *
*I knew that, if I merely offered the people 'hope' , together we could change our country and the world. *
*So, I started to make my speeches sound like they were on behalf of the downtrodden, poor, ignorant to include "persecuted minorities" like the Jews. My true views were not widely known & I needed to keep them unknown, until after I became my nation's leader. *
*I had to carefully guard reality, as anybody could have easily found out what I really believed, if they had simply read my writings and examined those people I associated with. *
*I'm glad they didn't. Then I became the most powerful man in the world. And the world learned the truth. *
*Who am I? .........*
*ADOLF HITLER. *
Perhaps this wasn't quite the change Americans had in mind when they chose Barack Obama. The Democrat Party had different ideas------or did they?
When President Obama promised a change in how government will work if he was elected, few understood how far the "change" would go. Most who supported him thought this to mean that his "transparency" would bring a new trust to a Congress that rated all time lows in national public polls. Our government in Washington would be run differently from the "failed" years in the past. What Obama didn't understand is that the powerbrokers and the already established party of the center-left Democrats, (already two years in control, and further expanded by the 2008 elections), had a more sinister agenda. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid had waited patiently for a Democrat President to rubber stamp their own agenda that has included a calculated assault on capitalism, the life-blood of a free democracy. They have used this "perfect storm" of an economic crisis to advance every program and entitlement that free market forces had kept in check. The levels of deficit spending from the previous administration was already getting out of control, and yet in the first month of Obama's tenure this government has more than tripled the debt in new spending that is supposed to be stimulating our economy while preserving the job market. So far, nothing has worked to return confidence in the markets or convince consumers to spend their guarded paychecks. But, what people don't understand is the Democratic Party is perfectly fine with this in their plan to destroy capitalism and replace it with a socialist model similar to Western European governments.
Unemployment rose as high as 6.3% after 9/11 and gradually worked down to as low as 4.4% in October of 2006. The Democrats swept into power that fall and now we are at 7.5%, (10% in California), and rising. Meanwhile, this mantra of unfunded bailouts (in the trillions) in an attempt to prop up failed housing, banks, and "other financial institutions", has done little to stop the bleeding while piling up generational debt.
While the Nation rejoiced in this new incoming government, the sleeping giant of a housing market ponzi scheme (created and supported for more than twenty years) raised its ugly head. While there are many who argue that this "social experiment" gone awry was the result of little over-sight or regulation, I would submit it was just the opposite. Our government not only encouraged the practice of unqualified home ownership, they supplied the vehicle for lenders to dump their volatile paper into the government created Fannie Mae and Freddi Mac institutions all bundled in the false title of "securities".
So, how does our new government react to a financial crisis that impacts world economies? Spend, spend, and spend.
Not only has Barack Obama and the Democrat Party spent trillions in new programs and entitlements (with no plan to repay this debt), they also plan in this years agenda to turn our health care system over to this same "responsible" government that is breaking this nation. And the more folks begin to understand a system of government controlled medical/health care that will dictate the choices of procedure, the level of professional care, and, for starters deny doctors a license who refuse to preform abortions, they will (hopefully) begin to realize that this will be another unfunded massive program that will pale the price of Social Security.
Now comes the really scary (part 1):
The democrats agenda is clear:
1st amendment = under attack
2nd amendment = under attack
No taxation without representation = gone
Privately owned banks and financial institutions = gone
Government control of food production = coming soon
Government control of health care = almost here
Term limits on Supreme Court Justices = coming soon
Term limits of U.S. Presidents = suspension coming soon
And now the really, REALLY SCARY (PART TWO)
Guess Who?
*I was born in one country, raised in another. My father was born in another country. I was not his only child. He fathered several children with numerous women. *
*I became very close to my mother, as my father showed no interest in me. My mother died at an early age from cancer. *
*Later in life, questions arose over my real name. *
*My birth records were sketchy and no one was able to produce a legitimate,reliable birth certificate. *
*I grew up practicing one faith but converted to Christianity, as it was widely accepted in my country, but *
*I practiced non-traditional beliefs & didn't follow Christianity, except in the public eye under scrutiny. *
*I worked and lived among lower-class people as a young adult, disguising myself as someone who really cared about them. *
*That was before I decided it was time to get serious about my life and I embarked on a new career. *
*I wrote a book about my struggles growing up. It was clear to those who read my memoirs that I had difficulties accepting that my father abandoned me as a child. *
*I became active in local politics in my 30's then with help behind the scenes, I literally burst onto the scene as a candidate for national office in my 40s. They said I had a golden tongue and could talk anyone into anything. That reinforced my conceit. *
*I had a virtually non-existent resume, little work history, and no experience in leading a single organization. Yet I was a powerful speaker and citizens were drawn to me as though I were a magnet and they were small roofing tacks. *
*I drew incredibly large crowds during my public appearances. This bolstered my ego. *
*At first, my political campaign focused on my country's foreign policy. I was very critical of my country in the last war and seized every opportunity to bash my country. *
*But what launched my rise to national prominence were my views on the country's economy. I pretended to have a really good plan on how we could do better and every poor person would be fed & housed for free. *
*I knew which group was responsible for getting us into this mess. It was the free market, banks & corporations. I decided to start making citizens hate them and if they were envious of others who did well, the plan was clinched tight. *
*I called mine "A People's Campaign" and that sounded good to all people. *
*I was the surprise candidate because I emerged from outside the traditional path of politics & was able to gain widespread popular support. *
*I knew that, if I merely offered the people 'hope' , together we could change our country and the world. *
*So, I started to make my speeches sound like they were on behalf of the downtrodden, poor, ignorant to include "persecuted minorities" like the Jews. My true views were not widely known & I needed to keep them unknown, until after I became my nation's leader. *
*I had to carefully guard reality, as anybody could have easily found out what I really believed, if they had simply read my writings and examined those people I associated with. *
*I'm glad they didn't. Then I became the most powerful man in the world. And the world learned the truth. *
*Who am I? .........*
*ADOLF HITLER. *
Perhaps this wasn't quite the change Americans had in mind when they chose Barack Obama. The Democrat Party had different ideas------or did they?
Monday, March 02, 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Obama----Liberal Democrats Are Breaking This Nation
And no one knows how to stop the madness
"Stimulus" bill............................................$878 billion
Omnibus spending bill...............................$410 billion (covering four months)
President Obama's proposed budget*.......$3.6 trillion!!!!!
* $750 billion put into an emergency fund specifically to bail out more banks.
U.S. Budget, Spending Plans Will Bring Deficit to $1.75T
'President Obama's proposed budget, which is being released later this morning, will include an additional $250 billion that could be used to bail out struggling banks, and the total government spending plan will bring the 2009 budget deficit to a soaring $1.75 trillion, officials said this morning..........(it was just reported on another news outlet that the bank reserve funds are $750 billion, not $250)
But the spending plan is not free of the budgetary maneuvers routinely found in any new president's first attempt at reducing his vision for the nation to cold, hard numbers, sources said. Congressional Democrats defended the proposal, while conceding that the chances of achieving its goals are highly uncertain........."(Washington Post)
"Achieving its goals"??? Obama's budget-busting proposal is on its way to Nancy Pelosi's House of spending ill repute. I would be willing to bet my entire assets, (slim pickens), that this budget will leave the House above Obama's numbers.
And where do you folks think all this money is going to come from????? The Post goes on to attempt to ask/explain this question:
"And though Obama told Congress on Tuesday that his budget team has "already identified $2 trillion in savings" to help tame record budget deficits, about half of those "savings" are actually tax increases, administration officials said. A big chunk of the rest of the savings comes from measuring Obama's plans against an unrealistic scenario in which the Iraq war continues to suck up $170 billion a year forever..........." link
"Barack Obama is proposing that the U.S. alter the relationship between the national government and private sector that was put in place by Ronald Reagan and largely continued by the presidencies of Bill Clinton and the Bushes. Then, the private sector led the economy. Now Washington will chart its course......." (Dan Henninger at WSJ)
With all due respect to my dear cousin that has scolded me for using the word "socialism" out of context, just what do you call this radical change in how our capitalistic system is changing right before our eyes? Why does this nation refuse to see the levels of government dependency that will never be rectified or reversed?
Henninger ends his article by heeding this warning:
"Gov. Bobby Jindal's postspeech reply did not come close to recognizing the gauntlet Mr. Obama has thrown down to the opposition. Unless the GOP can discover a radical message of its own to distinguish it from the president's, it should prepare to live under Mr. Obama's radicalism for at least a generation."
The "radical message" needs to not only come from the GOP. It needs to come from every American in this nation---------STOP THE FUCKING SPENDING BEFORE YOU DESTROY US ALL!.........
And no one knows how to stop the madness
"Stimulus" bill............................................$878 billion
Omnibus spending bill...............................$410 billion (covering four months)
President Obama's proposed budget*.......$3.6 trillion!!!!!
* $750 billion put into an emergency fund specifically to bail out more banks.
U.S. Budget, Spending Plans Will Bring Deficit to $1.75T
'President Obama's proposed budget, which is being released later this morning, will include an additional $250 billion that could be used to bail out struggling banks, and the total government spending plan will bring the 2009 budget deficit to a soaring $1.75 trillion, officials said this morning..........(it was just reported on another news outlet that the bank reserve funds are $750 billion, not $250)
But the spending plan is not free of the budgetary maneuvers routinely found in any new president's first attempt at reducing his vision for the nation to cold, hard numbers, sources said. Congressional Democrats defended the proposal, while conceding that the chances of achieving its goals are highly uncertain........."(Washington Post)
"Achieving its goals"??? Obama's budget-busting proposal is on its way to Nancy Pelosi's House of spending ill repute. I would be willing to bet my entire assets, (slim pickens), that this budget will leave the House above Obama's numbers.
And where do you folks think all this money is going to come from????? The Post goes on to attempt to ask/explain this question:
"And though Obama told Congress on Tuesday that his budget team has "already identified $2 trillion in savings" to help tame record budget deficits, about half of those "savings" are actually tax increases, administration officials said. A big chunk of the rest of the savings comes from measuring Obama's plans against an unrealistic scenario in which the Iraq war continues to suck up $170 billion a year forever..........." link
"Barack Obama is proposing that the U.S. alter the relationship between the national government and private sector that was put in place by Ronald Reagan and largely continued by the presidencies of Bill Clinton and the Bushes. Then, the private sector led the economy. Now Washington will chart its course......." (Dan Henninger at WSJ)
With all due respect to my dear cousin that has scolded me for using the word "socialism" out of context, just what do you call this radical change in how our capitalistic system is changing right before our eyes? Why does this nation refuse to see the levels of government dependency that will never be rectified or reversed?
Henninger ends his article by heeding this warning:
"Gov. Bobby Jindal's postspeech reply did not come close to recognizing the gauntlet Mr. Obama has thrown down to the opposition. Unless the GOP can discover a radical message of its own to distinguish it from the president's, it should prepare to live under Mr. Obama's radicalism for at least a generation."
The "radical message" needs to not only come from the GOP. It needs to come from every American in this nation---------STOP THE FUCKING SPENDING BEFORE YOU DESTROY US ALL!.........
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)