Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Ignorant Voters
People blame our government for the shape the country is in, but the government isn’t at fault. It’s the voters who are to blame. People are as ignorant as the day is long when it comes to voting and what their priorities for government are. How do you think Bush got elected to a second term? It was all up to Ohio in the second election and what did the Ohio voters do? They voted for Bush because he was against abortion and same sex marriages. Meanwhile innocent lives were being taken and billions of dollars were being spent on a war that we didn’t need to be in and big corporations were getting tax breaks.
While abortion and same sex marriage may be important to voters, it’s not the biggest problem facing our country right now, nor was it the most important problem facing our country when Bush ran for a second term. We were in a war with Iraq, a country that was not a threat to us, nor did they have weapons of mass destruction like Bush’s government said they did. They lied to us and it cost us billions of dollars that ultimately led us spiraling down the road that led to the shape that we’re in today. Politicians lie, it’s in their DNA. The sooner you the voter realize that the better off we will all be.
But the only thing the voters were concerned about was abortion and same sex marriage. First of all I am not pro nor con when it comes to abortion and same sex marriage, I really don’t care either way. But I do care about the economy and what our elected officials are doing with our lives and our money. We need to set our priorities straight. Being against abortion and same sex marriage is not going to get us out of the problems we’re facing today. Americans need jobs, we need job security; we need big corporations and Wall Street to quit looking after themselves and start looking after the people.
I realize that corporations are considered people now thanks to a pathetic law passed by our Judicial System. Exactly how corporations are people is beyond me. I wonder how much money they paid the judges to vote that way. I wonder how much money our elected officials got from big corporations to vote the way they do. The members of Congress can tell us how to live yet they can’t tell the big oil companies how much to charge for gas. I saw recently that gas prices may reach $5.00 a gallon before the end of the year. Most Americans can’t afford $5.00 a gallon for gas, I can’t. And what does Congress have to say about it? “We can’t do anything about that.” They can’t do anything about it or don’t want to do anything about it, that is the question. And the reason is big oil companies give billions of dollars to Congressmen. They can tell you how to live your life when they don’t live by the same rules they pass for us to live by. They can tell us which healthcare we need, yet they don’t have the same health care that we do. They have a great healthcare system, it pays 100%. They get their full salaries until they die, yet everyday Americans are being laid off without any compensation at all. And all we’re concerned about is a gay couple getting married and a woman having an abortion?
Mitt Romney is probably going to be our next President, unless everyone thinks Obama is doing a great job – which he’s not. Romney is a corporate man. If he gets elected we’re just going to keep spiraling down that road to destruction. If Newt Geingrich is elected, it will be the same thing; if Rick Sanatorium gets elected it will be the same thing. In fact, Santorium is playing the abortion card now because he knows that’s what the voters want.
Ron Paul wants to quit sending billions of dollars to foreign countries. He wants to get out of the foreign countries and let them take care of their own problems. Maybe we should vote for Ron Paul, but that will never happen. That’s change that Americans aren’t ready for – Ignorance, that’s all it is.
We’re sending billions of dollars to Columbia to control drug traffic, yet drugs are a bigger problem today than ever before. We don’t even know where all that money is going. We have no idea whose hands it’s getting into, but we keep sending it to them.
Marijuana has been proven time and time again to be great medicine and it helps cancer patient’s deal with their pain, it cures stress, most of which is brought on by our government, and it’s far less harmful than alcohol or cigarettes, both of which are legal, but marijuana is illegal and always will be because the voters want it to be – ignorance, that’s all it is. Why will marijuana never be legal? Congress has too much to lose from the drug companies who put billions of dollars into their campaigns to keep it illegal. Meanwhile the voters are too strung out on Prozac and Valium to care.
Our prison system is over crowded with people who were caught smoking a weed that grows out of the ground. I read recently where police broke down a man’s door and went into his house and arrested him for sitting on his couch smoking marijuana while watching TV, hurting no one. Now he’s in prison with rapists and murderers and gang members, all because of one joint. There is something terribly wrong with this picture.
We’re sending billions of dollars to countries that don’t even like us and vote against us every time in the United Nations, yet we just sit back and let it happen. As long as abortion is illegal and gay couples can’t get married it’s okay. That is beyond pathetic, it’s detestable.
How do you think Barack Obama got elected when he knew nothing about how our government runs? He’d only been in Congress for one term and before that he was nothing but a community organizer. He wasn’t a community leader, he was a community organizer. Anybody can be a community organizer. He’s arrogant and he’s ignorant when it comes to policy, yet he was elected. Why, because black people voted for him just because he’s black. They thought that by electing a black president things would get better for them, but it didn’t happen, did it?
Mexicans have it better than Americans; they’re getting social security and didn’t even pay anything into it. No wonder our social security system is broke. I’m not against them coming to America for a better life, but I am against them taking jobs away from hard working Americans and living a life they haven’t earned. If they’re going to get social security, let them put something into it first. And if they’re going to live here, make them learn our language – English.
The unemployment rate is higher than ever in this country for both black and white people, so apparently electing Obama didn’t help the black people at all. But I’m sure they will vote for him again just because he’s the same color. They can’t see the big picture.
We need to set our priorities straight. We need to quit sending billions of dollars to other countries and start spending more on America. We’re building schools in other countries and at the same time we’re laying off teachers in America and cutting back on education. Education is the key. So why does our government keep cutting education, it’s simple - because they want to keep the voters ignorant. They don’t want smart voters; they want ignorant voters, the only kind that will vote for their two-faced sorry asses.
We can’t save the whole world, that’s obvious, so we need to quit trying. But we can be more concerned with who we vote for so things will change in this country.
Quit voting for the candidate that looks the best or the one who is the same color, or the one the TV tells you to vote for and vote for the one who is going to change the way our government is run. Do your own research; don’t leave it up to someone else. I know why you don’t do it. It’s because you’re too busy running you own life to worry about the politicians. And our government is why you don’t have the time. Politicians have made it that way on purpose. It’s a catch 22 and it in their favor and they love it.
We can bring about change. It can be done, we just have to quit being so ignorant when it comes to voting. If voters want change they can get it. All they have to do is vote for the right person. We need to vote for the one who will do what they say they will do. And if they don’t do it, vote them out. It’s that simple. Get on all the social networks, find like minded people and join together and let’s change the way our government is run.
If you can’t see that Barack Obama knows nothing about running the country and Mitt Romney is nothing more than just another corporate guy who’s going to do everything he can to get corporations everything they want, then you need to have your eyes checked.
People are ignorant when it comes to voting and our government wants to keep it that way because that’s the only way they’re going to get elected. Fortunately ignorance can be fixed and that’s the purpose of this article, to help you look beyond your ignorance and vote the right way.
Our country can get back on its feet but it’s going to be up to the voters, not the government to do it. Obviously our government can’t fix it; all they can do is make it worse.
America can’t take much more of this crap. Something has to change and it has to change pretty quickly. And that change needs to be this – quit being so ignorant when you vote.
While abortion and same sex marriage may be important to voters, it’s not the biggest problem facing our country right now, nor was it the most important problem facing our country when Bush ran for a second term. We were in a war with Iraq, a country that was not a threat to us, nor did they have weapons of mass destruction like Bush’s government said they did. They lied to us and it cost us billions of dollars that ultimately led us spiraling down the road that led to the shape that we’re in today. Politicians lie, it’s in their DNA. The sooner you the voter realize that the better off we will all be.
But the only thing the voters were concerned about was abortion and same sex marriage. First of all I am not pro nor con when it comes to abortion and same sex marriage, I really don’t care either way. But I do care about the economy and what our elected officials are doing with our lives and our money. We need to set our priorities straight. Being against abortion and same sex marriage is not going to get us out of the problems we’re facing today. Americans need jobs, we need job security; we need big corporations and Wall Street to quit looking after themselves and start looking after the people.
I realize that corporations are considered people now thanks to a pathetic law passed by our Judicial System. Exactly how corporations are people is beyond me. I wonder how much money they paid the judges to vote that way. I wonder how much money our elected officials got from big corporations to vote the way they do. The members of Congress can tell us how to live yet they can’t tell the big oil companies how much to charge for gas. I saw recently that gas prices may reach $5.00 a gallon before the end of the year. Most Americans can’t afford $5.00 a gallon for gas, I can’t. And what does Congress have to say about it? “We can’t do anything about that.” They can’t do anything about it or don’t want to do anything about it, that is the question. And the reason is big oil companies give billions of dollars to Congressmen. They can tell you how to live your life when they don’t live by the same rules they pass for us to live by. They can tell us which healthcare we need, yet they don’t have the same health care that we do. They have a great healthcare system, it pays 100%. They get their full salaries until they die, yet everyday Americans are being laid off without any compensation at all. And all we’re concerned about is a gay couple getting married and a woman having an abortion?
Mitt Romney is probably going to be our next President, unless everyone thinks Obama is doing a great job – which he’s not. Romney is a corporate man. If he gets elected we’re just going to keep spiraling down that road to destruction. If Newt Geingrich is elected, it will be the same thing; if Rick Sanatorium gets elected it will be the same thing. In fact, Santorium is playing the abortion card now because he knows that’s what the voters want.
Ron Paul wants to quit sending billions of dollars to foreign countries. He wants to get out of the foreign countries and let them take care of their own problems. Maybe we should vote for Ron Paul, but that will never happen. That’s change that Americans aren’t ready for – Ignorance, that’s all it is.
We’re sending billions of dollars to Columbia to control drug traffic, yet drugs are a bigger problem today than ever before. We don’t even know where all that money is going. We have no idea whose hands it’s getting into, but we keep sending it to them.
Marijuana has been proven time and time again to be great medicine and it helps cancer patient’s deal with their pain, it cures stress, most of which is brought on by our government, and it’s far less harmful than alcohol or cigarettes, both of which are legal, but marijuana is illegal and always will be because the voters want it to be – ignorance, that’s all it is. Why will marijuana never be legal? Congress has too much to lose from the drug companies who put billions of dollars into their campaigns to keep it illegal. Meanwhile the voters are too strung out on Prozac and Valium to care.
Our prison system is over crowded with people who were caught smoking a weed that grows out of the ground. I read recently where police broke down a man’s door and went into his house and arrested him for sitting on his couch smoking marijuana while watching TV, hurting no one. Now he’s in prison with rapists and murderers and gang members, all because of one joint. There is something terribly wrong with this picture.
We’re sending billions of dollars to countries that don’t even like us and vote against us every time in the United Nations, yet we just sit back and let it happen. As long as abortion is illegal and gay couples can’t get married it’s okay. That is beyond pathetic, it’s detestable.
How do you think Barack Obama got elected when he knew nothing about how our government runs? He’d only been in Congress for one term and before that he was nothing but a community organizer. He wasn’t a community leader, he was a community organizer. Anybody can be a community organizer. He’s arrogant and he’s ignorant when it comes to policy, yet he was elected. Why, because black people voted for him just because he’s black. They thought that by electing a black president things would get better for them, but it didn’t happen, did it?
Mexicans have it better than Americans; they’re getting social security and didn’t even pay anything into it. No wonder our social security system is broke. I’m not against them coming to America for a better life, but I am against them taking jobs away from hard working Americans and living a life they haven’t earned. If they’re going to get social security, let them put something into it first. And if they’re going to live here, make them learn our language – English.
The unemployment rate is higher than ever in this country for both black and white people, so apparently electing Obama didn’t help the black people at all. But I’m sure they will vote for him again just because he’s the same color. They can’t see the big picture.
We need to set our priorities straight. We need to quit sending billions of dollars to other countries and start spending more on America. We’re building schools in other countries and at the same time we’re laying off teachers in America and cutting back on education. Education is the key. So why does our government keep cutting education, it’s simple - because they want to keep the voters ignorant. They don’t want smart voters; they want ignorant voters, the only kind that will vote for their two-faced sorry asses.
We can’t save the whole world, that’s obvious, so we need to quit trying. But we can be more concerned with who we vote for so things will change in this country.
Quit voting for the candidate that looks the best or the one who is the same color, or the one the TV tells you to vote for and vote for the one who is going to change the way our government is run. Do your own research; don’t leave it up to someone else. I know why you don’t do it. It’s because you’re too busy running you own life to worry about the politicians. And our government is why you don’t have the time. Politicians have made it that way on purpose. It’s a catch 22 and it in their favor and they love it.
We can bring about change. It can be done, we just have to quit being so ignorant when it comes to voting. If voters want change they can get it. All they have to do is vote for the right person. We need to vote for the one who will do what they say they will do. And if they don’t do it, vote them out. It’s that simple. Get on all the social networks, find like minded people and join together and let’s change the way our government is run.
If you can’t see that Barack Obama knows nothing about running the country and Mitt Romney is nothing more than just another corporate guy who’s going to do everything he can to get corporations everything they want, then you need to have your eyes checked.
People are ignorant when it comes to voting and our government wants to keep it that way because that’s the only way they’re going to get elected. Fortunately ignorance can be fixed and that’s the purpose of this article, to help you look beyond your ignorance and vote the right way.
Our country can get back on its feet but it’s going to be up to the voters, not the government to do it. Obviously our government can’t fix it; all they can do is make it worse.
America can’t take much more of this crap. Something has to change and it has to change pretty quickly. And that change needs to be this – quit being so ignorant when you vote.
Labels: bad politics, government, ignorant voters, stupid voters
Friday, October 28, 2011
Walmart
Walmart
1 . Americans spend
$36,000,000 at Wal-Mart Every hour of every day.
2.. This works out to $20,928 profit every minute!
3. Wal-Mart will sell more from January 1 to St.
Patrick's Day (March 17th) than Target sells all year.
4. Wal-Mart is bigger than Home Depot + Kroger + Target +
Sears + Costco + K-Mart combined.
5. Wal-Mart employs 1.6 million people and is the largest
private Employer, and most speak English.
6. Wal-Mart is the largest company in the history of the
World.
7. Wal-Mart now sells more food than Kroger & Safeway
combined, and keep in mind they did this in only 15 years.
8. During this same period, 31 supermarket chains sought
bankruptcy.
9. Wal-Mart now sells more food than any other store in the
world.
10. Wal-Mart has approx 3,900 stores in the USA of which
1,906 are Super Centers; this is 1,000 more than it had
5 Years ago.
11. This year 7.2 billion different purchasing experiences
will occur At a Wal-Mart store. (Earth's population is
approximately 6.5 Billion.)
12. 90% of all Americans live within 15 miles of a
Wal-Mart.
You may think that I am complaining, but I am really laying
the ground work for suggesting that MAYBE we should hire the
guys who run Wal-Mart to Fix the economy.
This should be read and understood by all Americans
Democrats, Republicans, EVERYONE!!
To President Obama and all 535 voting members of the
Legislature,
It is now official you are ALL corrupt morons:
* The U.S. Post Service was established in
1775. You have had 234 years to get it right and it is
broke.
* Social Security was established in 1935.
You have had 74 years to get it right and it is broke.
* Fannie Mae was established in 1938. You
have had 71 years to get it right and it is broke.
* War on Poverty started in 1964. You have
had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is
confiscated each year and transferred to "the
poor" and they only want more.
* Medicare and Medicaid were established
in 1965. You have had 44 years to get it right and they are
broke.
* Freddie Mac was established in 1970. You
have had 39 years to get it right and it is broke.
* The Department of Energy was created in
1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has
ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a
year and we import more oil than ever before. You had 32
years to get it right and it is an abysmal failure.
You have FAILED in every "government service" you
have shoved down our throats while overspending our tax
dollars
AND YOU WANT AMERICANS TO BELIEVE YOU CAN BE TRUSTED WITH A
GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM??
I don’t think so.
1 . Americans spend
$36,000,000 at Wal-Mart Every hour of every day.
2.. This works out to $20,928 profit every minute!
3. Wal-Mart will sell more from January 1 to St.
Patrick's Day (March 17th) than Target sells all year.
4. Wal-Mart is bigger than Home Depot + Kroger + Target +
Sears + Costco + K-Mart combined.
5. Wal-Mart employs 1.6 million people and is the largest
private Employer, and most speak English.
6. Wal-Mart is the largest company in the history of the
World.
7. Wal-Mart now sells more food than Kroger & Safeway
combined, and keep in mind they did this in only 15 years.
8. During this same period, 31 supermarket chains sought
bankruptcy.
9. Wal-Mart now sells more food than any other store in the
world.
10. Wal-Mart has approx 3,900 stores in the USA of which
1,906 are Super Centers; this is 1,000 more than it had
5 Years ago.
11. This year 7.2 billion different purchasing experiences
will occur At a Wal-Mart store. (Earth's population is
approximately 6.5 Billion.)
12. 90% of all Americans live within 15 miles of a
Wal-Mart.
You may think that I am complaining, but I am really laying
the ground work for suggesting that MAYBE we should hire the
guys who run Wal-Mart to Fix the economy.
This should be read and understood by all Americans
Democrats, Republicans, EVERYONE!!
To President Obama and all 535 voting members of the
Legislature,
It is now official you are ALL corrupt morons:
* The U.S. Post Service was established in
1775. You have had 234 years to get it right and it is
broke.
* Social Security was established in 1935.
You have had 74 years to get it right and it is broke.
* Fannie Mae was established in 1938. You
have had 71 years to get it right and it is broke.
* War on Poverty started in 1964. You have
had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is
confiscated each year and transferred to "the
poor" and they only want more.
* Medicare and Medicaid were established
in 1965. You have had 44 years to get it right and they are
broke.
* Freddie Mac was established in 1970. You
have had 39 years to get it right and it is broke.
* The Department of Energy was created in
1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has
ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a
year and we import more oil than ever before. You had 32
years to get it right and it is an abysmal failure.
You have FAILED in every "government service" you
have shoved down our throats while overspending our tax
dollars
AND YOU WANT AMERICANS TO BELIEVE YOU CAN BE TRUSTED WITH A
GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM??
I don’t think so.
Labels: bad politics, government, government soending
Monday, July 25, 2011
Budget Cuts
These are all the programs that the new Republican House has proposed cutting. Read to the end.
• Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy. $445 million annual savings.
• Save America 's Treasures Program. $25 million annual savings.
• International Fund for Ireland . $17 million annual savings.
• Legal Services Corporation. $420 million annual savings.
• National Endowment for the Arts. $167.5 million annual savings.
• National Endowment for the Humanities. $167.5 million annual savings.
• Hope VI Program. $250 million annual savings.
• Amtrak Subsidies. $1.565 billion annual savings.
• Eliminate duplicative education programs. H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon, eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually.
• U.S.. Trade Development Agency. $55 million annual savings.
• Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy. $20 million annual savings.
• Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding. $47 million annual savings.
• John C. Stennis Center Subsidy. $430,000 annual savings.
• Community Development Fund. $4.5 billion annual savings.
• Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid. $24 million annual savings.
• Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half. $7.5 billion annual savings
• Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20%. $600 million annual savings.
• Essential Air Service. $150 million annual savings.
• Technology Innovation Program. $70 million annual savings.
• Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program. $125 million annual savings.
• Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization. $530 million annual savings.
• Beach Replenishment. $95 million annual savings.
• New Starts Transit. $2 billion annual savings.
• Exchange Programs for Alaska , Natives Native Hawaiians, and Their Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts . $9 million annual savings
• Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants. $2.5 billion annual savings.
• Title X Family Planning. $318 million annual savings.
• Appalachian Regional Commission. $76 million annual savings..
• Economic Development Administration. $293 million annual savings.
• Programs under the National and Community Services Act. $1.15 billion annual savings.
• Applied Research at Department of Energy. $1.27 billion annual savings.
• FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership. $200 million annual savings.
• Energy Star Program. $52 million annual savings.
• Economic Assistance to Egypt . $250 million annually.
• U.S. Agency for International Development.. $1.39 billion annual savings.
• General Assistance to District of Columbia . $210 million annual savings.
• Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. $150 million annual savings.
• Presidential Campaign Fund. $775 million savings over ten years.
• No funding for federal office space acquisition. $864 million annual savings.
• End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services.
• Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. More than $1 billion annually.
• IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury, instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget. $1.8 billion savings over ten years.
• Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees. $1 billion total savings.WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
• Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees. $1.2 billion savings over ten years.
• Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of. $15 billion total savings.
• Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress.
• Eliminate Mohair Subsidies. $1 million annual savings.
• Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. $12.5 million annual savings
• Eliminate Market Access Program. $200 million annual savings.
• USDA Sugar Program. $14 million annual savings.
• Subsidy to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). $93 million annual savings.
• Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program. $56.2 million annual savings.
• Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs. $900 million savings.
• Ready to Learn TV Program. $27 million savings..
• HUD Ph.D. Program.
• Deficit Reduction Check-Off Act.
• TOTAL SAVINGS: $2.5 Trillion over Ten Years
My question is, what THE HELL is all this doing in the budget in the first place?
• Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy. $445 million annual savings.
• Save America 's Treasures Program. $25 million annual savings.
• International Fund for Ireland . $17 million annual savings.
• Legal Services Corporation. $420 million annual savings.
• National Endowment for the Arts. $167.5 million annual savings.
• National Endowment for the Humanities. $167.5 million annual savings.
• Hope VI Program. $250 million annual savings.
• Amtrak Subsidies. $1.565 billion annual savings.
• Eliminate duplicative education programs. H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon, eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually.
• U.S.. Trade Development Agency. $55 million annual savings.
• Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy. $20 million annual savings.
• Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding. $47 million annual savings.
• John C. Stennis Center Subsidy. $430,000 annual savings.
• Community Development Fund. $4.5 billion annual savings.
• Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid. $24 million annual savings.
• Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half. $7.5 billion annual savings
• Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20%. $600 million annual savings.
• Essential Air Service. $150 million annual savings.
• Technology Innovation Program. $70 million annual savings.
• Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program. $125 million annual savings.
• Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization. $530 million annual savings.
• Beach Replenishment. $95 million annual savings.
• New Starts Transit. $2 billion annual savings.
• Exchange Programs for Alaska , Natives Native Hawaiians, and Their Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts . $9 million annual savings
• Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants. $2.5 billion annual savings.
• Title X Family Planning. $318 million annual savings.
• Appalachian Regional Commission. $76 million annual savings..
• Economic Development Administration. $293 million annual savings.
• Programs under the National and Community Services Act. $1.15 billion annual savings.
• Applied Research at Department of Energy. $1.27 billion annual savings.
• FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership. $200 million annual savings.
• Energy Star Program. $52 million annual savings.
• Economic Assistance to Egypt . $250 million annually.
• U.S. Agency for International Development.. $1.39 billion annual savings.
• General Assistance to District of Columbia . $210 million annual savings.
• Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. $150 million annual savings.
• Presidential Campaign Fund. $775 million savings over ten years.
• No funding for federal office space acquisition. $864 million annual savings.
• End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services.
• Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. More than $1 billion annually.
• IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury, instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget. $1.8 billion savings over ten years.
• Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees. $1 billion total savings.WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
• Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees. $1.2 billion savings over ten years.
• Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of. $15 billion total savings.
• Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress.
• Eliminate Mohair Subsidies. $1 million annual savings.
• Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. $12.5 million annual savings
• Eliminate Market Access Program. $200 million annual savings.
• USDA Sugar Program. $14 million annual savings.
• Subsidy to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). $93 million annual savings.
• Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program. $56.2 million annual savings.
• Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs. $900 million savings.
• Ready to Learn TV Program. $27 million savings..
• HUD Ph.D. Program.
• Deficit Reduction Check-Off Act.
• TOTAL SAVINGS: $2.5 Trillion over Ten Years
My question is, what THE HELL is all this doing in the budget in the first place?
Labels: crooked government, crooked politics, government, money
Friday, July 01, 2011
Yes We Can Enforce
Yes, We Can Enforce
BY RICH LOWRY
What the Supreme Court’s E-Verify decision symbolizes.
After it passed a robust immigration-enforcement measure last year, Arizona was practically expelled from the union.
The great and good denounced the state for its Gestapo tactics. The Obama administration sued it. The professionally outraged announced boycotts. Arizona stood condemned before the world, a byword for hatred and defiance of federal law.
And yet the Supreme Court last week implicitly ratified Arizona’s leadership role on immigration enforcement. It’s everyone else who is out of line, not Arizona.
The Supreme Court upheld the state’s requirement that businesses use the federal E-Verify system — a database accessible through the Internet — to confirm the legal status of employees. This is different from last year’s law saying that police should, when practicable, check the immigration status of suspected illegal immigrants, but the echoes are clear enough. The same critics (the business community and civil-rights groups) used the same tactics (loud condemnations and lawsuits) over the same essential issue (whether the state had gone beyond federal law).
Arizona passed the E-Verify law in 2007, and the Chamber of Commerce fought it all the way to the Supreme Court. The organization’s courtroom tenacity shows just how dangerous it is to get between the Chamber and its illegal employees. The dirty little secret of the Chamber is not, as the Democrats shamelessly alleged in the 2010 elections, Chinese money; it’s Mexican workers.
The Chamber maintained that Arizona had gone too far in requiring E-Verify because Congress had only made the program voluntary. But Congress didn’t forbid states from mandating the program. The Arizona law is careful to stay within the bounds set out by Congress. The punishment in Arizona for knowingly hiring illegal workers is the loss of a business license. Federal law says that states may “through licensing and similar laws” sanction businesses employing illegal immigrants.
Congress has been adept through the years at passing laws and programs notionally targeting illegal immigration, but with no intention of acting on them. It’s enforcement by pretense. Arizona’s offense is to take the federal law at face value and act on it. So if Congress creates a widely ignored voluntary system to verify the status of employees, Arizona will actually use it as a tool of enforcement.
According to an Institute for the Study of Labor report, Arizona accounts for one-third of all employers nationwide enrolled in E-Verify. Roughly 700,000 of Arizona’s new hires between October 2008 and September 2009 were checked with E-Verify, about half of all the state’s new hires.
This increased attention to the legal status of employees has had the effect any reasonable person would expect — it has made it harder for illegal immigrants to get jobs and therefore made Arizona less hospitable terrain. The Institute for the Study of Labor finds a statistically significant reduction in the state’s population of Hispanic noncitizens, a category overlapping heavily with illegal immigrants. The result holds even when accounting for the recession. The study looked at Arizona’s population of Hispanic naturalized citizens — who are obviously not targeted by the law — and found no such decline.
The Supreme Court decision will encourage other states to follow Arizona’s lead. Already, South Carolina, Utah, and Mississippi have passed similar laws. As more and more states make E-Verify mandatory, it will make more sense for Congress to require the system nationwide.
There are shopworn objections to any kind of immigration enforcement. We are told that the simple expedient of building a fence on our southern border is a gross un-American symbol of exclusion. Is it also un-American to ask that employers do a few clicks of due diligence to ensure that they are abiding by the nation’s laws? We are told we can’t deport 11 million people. Is it impossible, too, to make it a little harder to come here and find a job?
Slowly, we are beginning to move from a culture of permissiveness to a culture of enforcement on illegal immigration. For that, we can all say, “Thank you, Arizona.”
— Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review. He can be reached via e-mail at comments.lowry@nationalreview.com. © 2011 by King Features Syndicate
BY RICH LOWRY
What the Supreme Court’s E-Verify decision symbolizes.
After it passed a robust immigration-enforcement measure last year, Arizona was practically expelled from the union.
The great and good denounced the state for its Gestapo tactics. The Obama administration sued it. The professionally outraged announced boycotts. Arizona stood condemned before the world, a byword for hatred and defiance of federal law.
And yet the Supreme Court last week implicitly ratified Arizona’s leadership role on immigration enforcement. It’s everyone else who is out of line, not Arizona.
The Supreme Court upheld the state’s requirement that businesses use the federal E-Verify system — a database accessible through the Internet — to confirm the legal status of employees. This is different from last year’s law saying that police should, when practicable, check the immigration status of suspected illegal immigrants, but the echoes are clear enough. The same critics (the business community and civil-rights groups) used the same tactics (loud condemnations and lawsuits) over the same essential issue (whether the state had gone beyond federal law).
Arizona passed the E-Verify law in 2007, and the Chamber of Commerce fought it all the way to the Supreme Court. The organization’s courtroom tenacity shows just how dangerous it is to get between the Chamber and its illegal employees. The dirty little secret of the Chamber is not, as the Democrats shamelessly alleged in the 2010 elections, Chinese money; it’s Mexican workers.
The Chamber maintained that Arizona had gone too far in requiring E-Verify because Congress had only made the program voluntary. But Congress didn’t forbid states from mandating the program. The Arizona law is careful to stay within the bounds set out by Congress. The punishment in Arizona for knowingly hiring illegal workers is the loss of a business license. Federal law says that states may “through licensing and similar laws” sanction businesses employing illegal immigrants.
Congress has been adept through the years at passing laws and programs notionally targeting illegal immigration, but with no intention of acting on them. It’s enforcement by pretense. Arizona’s offense is to take the federal law at face value and act on it. So if Congress creates a widely ignored voluntary system to verify the status of employees, Arizona will actually use it as a tool of enforcement.
According to an Institute for the Study of Labor report, Arizona accounts for one-third of all employers nationwide enrolled in E-Verify. Roughly 700,000 of Arizona’s new hires between October 2008 and September 2009 were checked with E-Verify, about half of all the state’s new hires.
This increased attention to the legal status of employees has had the effect any reasonable person would expect — it has made it harder for illegal immigrants to get jobs and therefore made Arizona less hospitable terrain. The Institute for the Study of Labor finds a statistically significant reduction in the state’s population of Hispanic noncitizens, a category overlapping heavily with illegal immigrants. The result holds even when accounting for the recession. The study looked at Arizona’s population of Hispanic naturalized citizens — who are obviously not targeted by the law — and found no such decline.
The Supreme Court decision will encourage other states to follow Arizona’s lead. Already, South Carolina, Utah, and Mississippi have passed similar laws. As more and more states make E-Verify mandatory, it will make more sense for Congress to require the system nationwide.
There are shopworn objections to any kind of immigration enforcement. We are told that the simple expedient of building a fence on our southern border is a gross un-American symbol of exclusion. Is it also un-American to ask that employers do a few clicks of due diligence to ensure that they are abiding by the nation’s laws? We are told we can’t deport 11 million people. Is it impossible, too, to make it a little harder to come here and find a job?
Slowly, we are beginning to move from a culture of permissiveness to a culture of enforcement on illegal immigration. For that, we can all say, “Thank you, Arizona.”
— Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review. He can be reached via e-mail at comments.lowry@nationalreview.com. © 2011 by King Features Syndicate
Labels: crooked politicians, crooked politics, government, national debt
Will Obama Get Elected Again?
DR. WALTER E WILLIAMS predicts that Obama cannot lose the 2012 election.
In addition to the voting blocks he mentions, there is another huge group: the nearly one-half of all adults who do not pay any taxes and, in fact, most of them receive money from the government. these people do not want to "shake the boat" to do anything to stop the flow of taxpayer money to themselves.
Dr. Williams' prediction: Maybe you have read some newspaper articles written by Dr. Walter E Williams, a conservative economist who happens to be Black. He has taught at several Universities and is currently teaching at George Mason University. No Matter What By Dr. Walter Williams
Can President Obama be defeated in 2012? No. He can't. I am going on record as saying tha President Barack Obama will win a second term. The media won't tell you this because a good election campaign means hundreds of millions (or in Obama's case billions) of dollars to them in advertising.
But the truth is, there simply are no conditions under which Barack Obama can be defeated in 2012.
The quality of the Republican candidate doesn't matter. Obama gets reelected. Nine percent unemployment? No problem. Obama will win. Gas prices moving toward five dollars a gallon? He still wins. The economy soars or goes into the gutter. Obama wins. War in the Middle East? He wins a second term.
America's role as the leading Superpower disappears? Hurrah for Barack Obama! The U.S. government rushes toward bankruptcy, the dollar continues to sink on world markets and the price of daily goods and services soars due to inflation fueled by Obama's extraordinary deficit spending? Obama wins handily.
You are crazy Williams. Don't you understand how volatile politics can be when overall economic, government, and world conditions are declining? Sure I do.
And that's why I know Obama will win. The American people are notoriously ignorant of economics. And economics is the key to why Obama should be defeated.
Even when Obama's policies lead the nation to final ruin, the majority of the American people are going to believe the bait-and-switch tactics Obama and his supporters in the media will use to explain why it isn't his fault. After all, things were much worse than understood when he took office.
Obama's reelection is really a very, very simple math problem. Consider the following:
1) Blacks will vote for Obama blindly. Period. Doesn't matter what he does. It's a race thing. He's one of us,
2) College educated women will vote for Obama. Though they will be offended by this, they swoon at his oratory. It's really not more complex than that,
3) Liberals will vote for Obama. He is their great hope,
4) Democrats will vote for Obama. He is the leader of their party and his coat tails will carry them to victory nationwide,
5) Hispanics will vote for Obama. He is the path to citizenship for those who are illegal and Hispanic leaders recognize the political clout they carry in the Democratic Party,
6) Union members will vote overwhelmingly for Obama. He is their key to money and power in business, state and local politics,
7) Big Business will support Obama. They already have. He has almost $1 Billion dollars in his reelection purse gained largely from his connections with Big Business and is gaining more everyday. Big Business loves Obama because he gives them access to taxpayer money so long as they support his social and political agenda,
8) The media loves him. They may attack the people who work for him, but they love him. After all, to not love him would be racist,
9) Most other minorities and special interest groups will vote for him. Oddly, the overwhelming majority of Jews and Muslims will support him because they won't vote Republican. American Indians will support him. Obviously homosexuals tend to vote Democratic. And lastly,
10) Approximately half of independents will vote for Obama. And he doesn't need anywhere near that number because he has all of the groups previously mentioned. The President will win an overwhelming victory in 2012.
Dr. Walter Williams
In addition to the voting blocks he mentions, there is another huge group: the nearly one-half of all adults who do not pay any taxes and, in fact, most of them receive money from the government. these people do not want to "shake the boat" to do anything to stop the flow of taxpayer money to themselves.
Dr. Williams' prediction: Maybe you have read some newspaper articles written by Dr. Walter E Williams, a conservative economist who happens to be Black. He has taught at several Universities and is currently teaching at George Mason University. No Matter What By Dr. Walter Williams
Can President Obama be defeated in 2012? No. He can't. I am going on record as saying tha President Barack Obama will win a second term. The media won't tell you this because a good election campaign means hundreds of millions (or in Obama's case billions) of dollars to them in advertising.
But the truth is, there simply are no conditions under which Barack Obama can be defeated in 2012.
The quality of the Republican candidate doesn't matter. Obama gets reelected. Nine percent unemployment? No problem. Obama will win. Gas prices moving toward five dollars a gallon? He still wins. The economy soars or goes into the gutter. Obama wins. War in the Middle East? He wins a second term.
America's role as the leading Superpower disappears? Hurrah for Barack Obama! The U.S. government rushes toward bankruptcy, the dollar continues to sink on world markets and the price of daily goods and services soars due to inflation fueled by Obama's extraordinary deficit spending? Obama wins handily.
You are crazy Williams. Don't you understand how volatile politics can be when overall economic, government, and world conditions are declining? Sure I do.
And that's why I know Obama will win. The American people are notoriously ignorant of economics. And economics is the key to why Obama should be defeated.
Even when Obama's policies lead the nation to final ruin, the majority of the American people are going to believe the bait-and-switch tactics Obama and his supporters in the media will use to explain why it isn't his fault. After all, things were much worse than understood when he took office.
Obama's reelection is really a very, very simple math problem. Consider the following:
1) Blacks will vote for Obama blindly. Period. Doesn't matter what he does. It's a race thing. He's one of us,
2) College educated women will vote for Obama. Though they will be offended by this, they swoon at his oratory. It's really not more complex than that,
3) Liberals will vote for Obama. He is their great hope,
4) Democrats will vote for Obama. He is the leader of their party and his coat tails will carry them to victory nationwide,
5) Hispanics will vote for Obama. He is the path to citizenship for those who are illegal and Hispanic leaders recognize the political clout they carry in the Democratic Party,
6) Union members will vote overwhelmingly for Obama. He is their key to money and power in business, state and local politics,
7) Big Business will support Obama. They already have. He has almost $1 Billion dollars in his reelection purse gained largely from his connections with Big Business and is gaining more everyday. Big Business loves Obama because he gives them access to taxpayer money so long as they support his social and political agenda,
8) The media loves him. They may attack the people who work for him, but they love him. After all, to not love him would be racist,
9) Most other minorities and special interest groups will vote for him. Oddly, the overwhelming majority of Jews and Muslims will support him because they won't vote Republican. American Indians will support him. Obviously homosexuals tend to vote Democratic. And lastly,
10) Approximately half of independents will vote for Obama. And he doesn't need anywhere near that number because he has all of the groups previously mentioned. The President will win an overwhelming victory in 2012.
Dr. Walter Williams
Labels: Barack Obama, crooked politics, government, stupid voters
What a difference 100 years make
The year is 1911 --- One hundred years ago.
What a difference a century makes!
Here are some statistics for the Year 1911:
************ ********* ************
The average life expectancy for men was 47 years.
Fuel for this car was sold in drug stores only.
Only 14 percent of the homes had a bathtub.
Only 8 percent of the homes had a telephone.
There were only 8,000 cars and only 144 miles of paved roads.
The maximum speed limit in most cities was 10 mph.
The tallest structure in the world was the Eiffel Tower !
The average US wage in 1910 was 22 cents per hour.
The average US worker made between $200 and $400 per year ..
A competent accountant could expect to earn $2000 per year,
A dentist $2,500 per year,
a veterinarian between $1,500 and $4,000 per year,
and a mechanical engineer about $5,000 per year.
More than 95 percent of all births took place at home .
Ninety percent of all Doctors had NO COLLEGE EDUCATION!
Instead, they attended so-called medical schools, many of which
were condemned in the press AND the government as "substandard."
Sugar cost four cents a pound.
Eggs were fourteen cents a dozen.
Coffee was fifteen cents a pound.
Most women only washed their hair once a month,
and used Borax or egg yolks for shampoo.
Canada passed a law that prohibited poor people from
entering into their country for any reason.
The Five leading causes of death were:
1. Pneumonia and influenza
2. Tuberculosis
3. Diarrhea
4. Heart disease
5. Stroke
The American flag had 45 stars...
The population of Las Vegas , Nevada , was only 30!!!
Crossword puzzles, canned beer, and iced tea hadn't been invented yet.
There was neither a Mother's Day nor a Father's Day.
Two out of every 10 adults couldn't read or write and only 6 percent
of all Americans had graduated from high school.
Marijuana, heroin, and morphine were all available over the counter
at the local corner drugstores.
Back then pharmacists said, "Heroin clears the complexion,
gives buoyancy to the mind, Regulates the stomach and bowels,
and is, in fact, a perfect guardian of health!"
( Shocking? )
Eighteen percent of households had at least one full-time servant or domestic help ....
There were about 230 reported murders in the ENTIRE U.S.A. !
What a difference a century makes!
Here are some statistics for the Year 1911:
************ ********* ************
The average life expectancy for men was 47 years.
Fuel for this car was sold in drug stores only.
Only 14 percent of the homes had a bathtub.
Only 8 percent of the homes had a telephone.
There were only 8,000 cars and only 144 miles of paved roads.
The maximum speed limit in most cities was 10 mph.
The tallest structure in the world was the Eiffel Tower !
The average US wage in 1910 was 22 cents per hour.
The average US worker made between $200 and $400 per year ..
A competent accountant could expect to earn $2000 per year,
A dentist $2,500 per year,
a veterinarian between $1,500 and $4,000 per year,
and a mechanical engineer about $5,000 per year.
More than 95 percent of all births took place at home .
Ninety percent of all Doctors had NO COLLEGE EDUCATION!
Instead, they attended so-called medical schools, many of which
were condemned in the press AND the government as "substandard."
Sugar cost four cents a pound.
Eggs were fourteen cents a dozen.
Coffee was fifteen cents a pound.
Most women only washed their hair once a month,
and used Borax or egg yolks for shampoo.
Canada passed a law that prohibited poor people from
entering into their country for any reason.
The Five leading causes of death were:
1. Pneumonia and influenza
2. Tuberculosis
3. Diarrhea
4. Heart disease
5. Stroke
The American flag had 45 stars...
The population of Las Vegas , Nevada , was only 30!!!
Crossword puzzles, canned beer, and iced tea hadn't been invented yet.
There was neither a Mother's Day nor a Father's Day.
Two out of every 10 adults couldn't read or write and only 6 percent
of all Americans had graduated from high school.
Marijuana, heroin, and morphine were all available over the counter
at the local corner drugstores.
Back then pharmacists said, "Heroin clears the complexion,
gives buoyancy to the mind, Regulates the stomach and bowels,
and is, in fact, a perfect guardian of health!"
( Shocking? )
Eighteen percent of households had at least one full-time servant or domestic help ....
There were about 230 reported murders in the ENTIRE U.S.A. !
Labels: crooked politics, government, politicians government
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
EGYPT WOKE UP WHY HAVEN'T WE!
EGYPT WOKE UP WHY HAVEN'T WE!
Friends, would you believe that Lee Iacocca is 82 years old and is still kickin butt? Check out his latest rant.
Just as true today as it was when his book first came out.
He was, and still is, a brilliant businessman!
Often we need to be reminded of Iacocca's words.
Remember Lee Iacocca, the man who rescued Chrysler Corporation from its death throes? He's now 82 years old and has a new book, 'Where Have All The Leaders Gone?'.
Lee Iacocca Says:
'Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage with this so called president? We should be screaming bloody murder! We've got a gang of tax cheating clueless leftists trying to steer our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even run a ridiculous cash-for-clunkers program without losing $26 billion of the taxpayers' money, much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, 'trust me, the economy is getting better..' Better? You've got to be kidding. This is America , not the damned 'Titanic'. I'll give you a sound bite: 'Throw all the Democrats out, along with Obama!'
You might think I'm getting senile, that I've gone off my rocker, and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country anymore..
The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs.. While we're fiddling in Afghanistan , Iran is completing their nuclear bombs and missiles and nobody seems to know what to do. And the liberal press is waving 'pom-poms' instead of asking hard questions. That's not the promise of the ' America ' my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for. I've had enough. How about you?
I'll go a step further. You can't call yourself a patriot if you're not outraged. This is a fight I'm ready and willing to have. The Biggest 'C' is Crisis! (Iacocca elaborates on nine C's of leadership, with crisis being the first.)
Leaders are made, not born. Leadership is forged in times of crisis. It's easy to sit there with thumb up your ass and talk theory. Or send someone else's kids off to war when you've never seen a battlefield yourself. It's another thing to lead when your world comes tumbling down.
On September 11, 2001, we needed a strong leader more than any other time in our history. We needed a steady hand to guide us out of the ashes. A hell of a mess, so here's where we stand.
We're immersed in a bloody war now with no plan for winning and no plan for leaving.. But our soldiers are dying daily.
We're running the biggest deficit in the history of the world, and it's getting worse every day!
We've lost the manufacturing edge to Asia , while our once-great companies are getting slaughtered by health care costs.
Gas prices are going to skyrock again, and nobody in power has a lucid plan to open drilling to solve the problem. This country has the largest oil reserves in the WORLD, and we cannot drill for it because the politicians have been bought by the flea-hugging environmentalists.
Our schools are in a complete disaster because of the teachers' union.
Our borders are like sieves and they want to give all illegal's amnesty and free healthcare.
The middle class is being squeezed to death every day.
These are times that cry out for leadership.
But when you look around, you've got to ask: 'Where have all the leaders gone?' Where are the curious, creative communicators? Where are the people of character, courage, conviction, omnipotence, and common sense? I may be a sucker for alliteration, but I think you get the point..
Name me a leader who has a better idea for homeland security than making us take off our shoes in airports and throw away our shampoo?
We've spent billions of dollars building a huge new bureaucracy, and all we know how to do is react to things that have already happened.
Everyone's hunkering down, fingers crossed, hoping the government will make it better for them. Now, that's just crazy.. Deal with life.
Name me an industry leader who is thinking creatively about how we can restore our competitive edge in manufacturing. Who would have believed that there could ever be a time when 'The Big Three' referred to Japanese car companies? How did this happen, and more important, look what Obama did about it!
Name me a government leader who can articulate a plan for paying down the debt, or solving the energy crisis, or managing the health care problem. The silence is deafening. But these are the crises that are eating away at our country and milking the middle class dry.
I have news for the Chicago gangsters in Congress. We didn't elect you to turn this country into a losing European Socialist state. What is everybody so afraid of? That some bonehead on NBC or CNN news will call them a name? Give me a break. Why don't you guys show some spine for a change?
Had Enough? Hey, I'm not trying to be the voice of gloom and doom here. I'm trying to light a fire. I'm speaking out because I have hope - I believe in America .. In my lifetime, I've had the privilege of living through some of America 's greatest moments. I've also experienced some of our worst crises: The 'Great Depression,' 'World War II,' the 'Korean War,' the 'Kennedy Assassination,' the 'Vietnam War,' the 1970's oil crisis, and the struggles of recent years since 9/11.
Friends, would you believe that Lee Iacocca is 82 years old and is still kickin butt? Check out his latest rant.
Just as true today as it was when his book first came out.
He was, and still is, a brilliant businessman!
Often we need to be reminded of Iacocca's words.
Remember Lee Iacocca, the man who rescued Chrysler Corporation from its death throes? He's now 82 years old and has a new book, 'Where Have All The Leaders Gone?'.
Lee Iacocca Says:
'Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage with this so called president? We should be screaming bloody murder! We've got a gang of tax cheating clueless leftists trying to steer our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even run a ridiculous cash-for-clunkers program without losing $26 billion of the taxpayers' money, much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, 'trust me, the economy is getting better..' Better? You've got to be kidding. This is America , not the damned 'Titanic'. I'll give you a sound bite: 'Throw all the Democrats out, along with Obama!'
You might think I'm getting senile, that I've gone off my rocker, and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country anymore..
The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs.. While we're fiddling in Afghanistan , Iran is completing their nuclear bombs and missiles and nobody seems to know what to do. And the liberal press is waving 'pom-poms' instead of asking hard questions. That's not the promise of the ' America ' my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for. I've had enough. How about you?
I'll go a step further. You can't call yourself a patriot if you're not outraged. This is a fight I'm ready and willing to have. The Biggest 'C' is Crisis! (Iacocca elaborates on nine C's of leadership, with crisis being the first.)
Leaders are made, not born. Leadership is forged in times of crisis. It's easy to sit there with thumb up your ass and talk theory. Or send someone else's kids off to war when you've never seen a battlefield yourself. It's another thing to lead when your world comes tumbling down.
On September 11, 2001, we needed a strong leader more than any other time in our history. We needed a steady hand to guide us out of the ashes. A hell of a mess, so here's where we stand.
We're immersed in a bloody war now with no plan for winning and no plan for leaving.. But our soldiers are dying daily.
We're running the biggest deficit in the history of the world, and it's getting worse every day!
We've lost the manufacturing edge to Asia , while our once-great companies are getting slaughtered by health care costs.
Gas prices are going to skyrock again, and nobody in power has a lucid plan to open drilling to solve the problem. This country has the largest oil reserves in the WORLD, and we cannot drill for it because the politicians have been bought by the flea-hugging environmentalists.
Our schools are in a complete disaster because of the teachers' union.
Our borders are like sieves and they want to give all illegal's amnesty and free healthcare.
The middle class is being squeezed to death every day.
These are times that cry out for leadership.
But when you look around, you've got to ask: 'Where have all the leaders gone?' Where are the curious, creative communicators? Where are the people of character, courage, conviction, omnipotence, and common sense? I may be a sucker for alliteration, but I think you get the point..
Name me a leader who has a better idea for homeland security than making us take off our shoes in airports and throw away our shampoo?
We've spent billions of dollars building a huge new bureaucracy, and all we know how to do is react to things that have already happened.
Everyone's hunkering down, fingers crossed, hoping the government will make it better for them. Now, that's just crazy.. Deal with life.
Name me an industry leader who is thinking creatively about how we can restore our competitive edge in manufacturing. Who would have believed that there could ever be a time when 'The Big Three' referred to Japanese car companies? How did this happen, and more important, look what Obama did about it!
Name me a government leader who can articulate a plan for paying down the debt, or solving the energy crisis, or managing the health care problem. The silence is deafening. But these are the crises that are eating away at our country and milking the middle class dry.
I have news for the Chicago gangsters in Congress. We didn't elect you to turn this country into a losing European Socialist state. What is everybody so afraid of? That some bonehead on NBC or CNN news will call them a name? Give me a break. Why don't you guys show some spine for a change?
Had Enough? Hey, I'm not trying to be the voice of gloom and doom here. I'm trying to light a fire. I'm speaking out because I have hope - I believe in America .. In my lifetime, I've had the privilege of living through some of America 's greatest moments. I've also experienced some of our worst crises: The 'Great Depression,' 'World War II,' the 'Korean War,' the 'Kennedy Assassination,' the 'Vietnam War,' the 1970's oil crisis, and the struggles of recent years since 9/11.
Labels: government, government spending
entitlement My Ass
Entitlement my ass, I paid cash for my social security insurance!!!! Just because they borrowed the money, doesn't make my benefits some kind of charity or handout!! Congressional benefits, a.k.a. free healthcare, outrageous retirement packages, 67 paid holidays, three weeks paid vacation, unlimited paid sick days, now that's welfare, and they have the nerve to call my retirement entitlements !!!!!!.....scroll down...............
What the HELL's wrong???
WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!
Tuesday's Daily Bulletin paper, ran two articles on the front page side by side :
1- California's 20 Billion Dollar Budget Deficit
2- The California Supreme Court ruling that ILLEGALS can attend college and get benefits.
Why don't they just deport them when they arrive to register?
3- Last year they ran an article on the yearly costs to California Taxpayers from Illegals using Hospital Emergency Rooms for their general health care -
At just one hospital the cost to tax payers totaled over 25 million a year.
Someone please tell me what the HELL's wrong with all the people that run this country!!!!!!
We're "broke" & can't help our own Seniors, Veterans, Orphans, Homeless etc.,???????????
In the last months we have provided aid to Haiti, Chile, and Turkey. And now Pakistan... home of bin Laden. Literally, BILLIONS of DOLLARS!!!
Our retired seniors living on a 'fixed income' receive no aid nor do they get any breaks while our government and religious organizations pour Hundreds of Billions of $$$$$$'s and Tons of Food to Foreign Countries!
They call Social Security and Medicare an entitlement even though most of us have been paying for it all our working lives and now when it’s time for us to collect, the government is running out of money. Why did the government borrow from it in the first place?
We have hundreds of adoptable children who are shoved aside to make room for the adoption of foreign orphans.
AMERICA: a country where we have homeless without shelter, children going to bed hungry, elderly going without 'needed' meds, and mentally ill without treatment, etc., etc.
YET....................
They have a 'Benefit' for the people of Haiti on 12 TV stations, ships and planes lining up with food, water, tents clothes, bedding, doctors and medical supplies.
Imagine if the *GOVERNMENT* gave 'US' the same support they give to other countries.
Sad isn't it?
99% of people won't have the guts to forward this.
I'm one of the 1% -- I Just Did
“Disobedience to Tyranny, Is Obedience to God”
"Government is not the solution to our problems,Government is the problem" Ronald Regan
"When the people fear the government we have tyranny. When the government fears the people we have liberty."
Thomas Jefferson.
What the HELL's wrong???
WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!
Tuesday's Daily Bulletin paper, ran two articles on the front page side by side :
1- California's 20 Billion Dollar Budget Deficit
2- The California Supreme Court ruling that ILLEGALS can attend college and get benefits.
Why don't they just deport them when they arrive to register?
3- Last year they ran an article on the yearly costs to California Taxpayers from Illegals using Hospital Emergency Rooms for their general health care -
At just one hospital the cost to tax payers totaled over 25 million a year.
Someone please tell me what the HELL's wrong with all the people that run this country!!!!!!
We're "broke" & can't help our own Seniors, Veterans, Orphans, Homeless etc.,???????????
In the last months we have provided aid to Haiti, Chile, and Turkey. And now Pakistan... home of bin Laden. Literally, BILLIONS of DOLLARS!!!
Our retired seniors living on a 'fixed income' receive no aid nor do they get any breaks while our government and religious organizations pour Hundreds of Billions of $$$$$$'s and Tons of Food to Foreign Countries!
They call Social Security and Medicare an entitlement even though most of us have been paying for it all our working lives and now when it’s time for us to collect, the government is running out of money. Why did the government borrow from it in the first place?
We have hundreds of adoptable children who are shoved aside to make room for the adoption of foreign orphans.
AMERICA: a country where we have homeless without shelter, children going to bed hungry, elderly going without 'needed' meds, and mentally ill without treatment, etc., etc.
YET....................
They have a 'Benefit' for the people of Haiti on 12 TV stations, ships and planes lining up with food, water, tents clothes, bedding, doctors and medical supplies.
Imagine if the *GOVERNMENT* gave 'US' the same support they give to other countries.
Sad isn't it?
99% of people won't have the guts to forward this.
I'm one of the 1% -- I Just Did
“Disobedience to Tyranny, Is Obedience to God”
"Government is not the solution to our problems,Government is the problem" Ronald Regan
"When the people fear the government we have tyranny. When the government fears the people we have liberty."
Thomas Jefferson.
Labels: congress, crooked politics, government, government spending
Change is Comin'
Yes, he told us in advance what he planned to do. Few were listening.
The following is a narrative taken from a 2008 Sunday morning televised "Meet The Press'.
From Sunday's 07 Sept. 2008 11:48:04 EST, Televised "Meet the Press" THE THEN Senator Obama was asked about his stance on the American Flag.
General Bill Ginn' USAF (ret.) asked Obama to explain WHY he doesn't follow protocol when the National Anthem is played.
The General stated to Obama that according to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171...
During rendition of the national anthem, when the flag is displayed, all present (except those in uniform) are expected to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. Or, at the very least, "Stand and Face It".
NOW GET THIS !!
'Senator'Obama replied:
"As I've said about the flag pin, I don't want to be perceived as taking sides". "There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression.." "The anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all that sort of thing."
(ARE YOU READY FOR THIS???)
Obama continued: "The National Anthem should be 'swapped' for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song 'I'd Like To Teach the World To Sing'. If that were our anthem, then, I might salute it. In my opinion, we should consider reinventing our National Anthem as well as 'redesign' our Flag to better offer our enemies hope and love. It's my intention, if elected, to disarm America to the level of acceptance to our Middle East Brethren. If we, as a Nation of waring people, conduct ourselves like the nations of Islam, where peace prevails - - - perhaps a state or period of mutual accord could exist between our governments ...."
When I become President, I will seek a pact of agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity, and a freedom from disquieting oppressive thoughts. We as a Nation, have placed upon the nations of Islam, an unfair injustice which is WHY my wife disrespects the Flag and she and I have attended several flag burning ceremonies in the past".
"Of course now, I have found myself about to become the President of the United States and I have put my hatred aside. I will use my power to bring CHANGE to this Nation, and offer the people a new path..My wife and I look forward to becoming our Country's First black Family. Indeed, CHANGE is about to overwhelm the United States of America "
WHAAAAAAAT, the Hell is that???
Yes, you read it right.
I, for one, am speechless!!!
Dale Lindsborg , Washington Post
The following is a narrative taken from a 2008 Sunday morning televised "Meet The Press'.
From Sunday's 07 Sept. 2008 11:48:04 EST, Televised "Meet the Press" THE THEN Senator Obama was asked about his stance on the American Flag.
General Bill Ginn' USAF (ret.) asked Obama to explain WHY he doesn't follow protocol when the National Anthem is played.
The General stated to Obama that according to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171...
During rendition of the national anthem, when the flag is displayed, all present (except those in uniform) are expected to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. Or, at the very least, "Stand and Face It".
NOW GET THIS !!
'Senator'Obama replied:
"As I've said about the flag pin, I don't want to be perceived as taking sides". "There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression.." "The anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all that sort of thing."
(ARE YOU READY FOR THIS???)
Obama continued: "The National Anthem should be 'swapped' for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song 'I'd Like To Teach the World To Sing'. If that were our anthem, then, I might salute it. In my opinion, we should consider reinventing our National Anthem as well as 'redesign' our Flag to better offer our enemies hope and love. It's my intention, if elected, to disarm America to the level of acceptance to our Middle East Brethren. If we, as a Nation of waring people, conduct ourselves like the nations of Islam, where peace prevails - - - perhaps a state or period of mutual accord could exist between our governments ...."
When I become President, I will seek a pact of agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity, and a freedom from disquieting oppressive thoughts. We as a Nation, have placed upon the nations of Islam, an unfair injustice which is WHY my wife disrespects the Flag and she and I have attended several flag burning ceremonies in the past".
"Of course now, I have found myself about to become the President of the United States and I have put my hatred aside. I will use my power to bring CHANGE to this Nation, and offer the people a new path..My wife and I look forward to becoming our Country's First black Family. Indeed, CHANGE is about to overwhelm the United States of America "
WHAAAAAAAT, the Hell is that???
Yes, you read it right.
I, for one, am speechless!!!
Dale Lindsborg , Washington Post
Labels: Barack Obama, government, politics., president
Saturday, May 07, 2011
Where Are Jobs Going Now? Peru, Bulgaria, Bangladesh. . .
By DANNY KING
Take heart, America. Yours isn't the only country to lose jobs to developing nations.
Australia, Canada and Israel, among others, have dropped off the list of best places for information-technology and business-processing services, according to a report that research firm Gartner released Monday.
As more developing countries have created workforces that can handle those tasks at lower cost, Ireland, New Zealand, Singapore and Spain are also no longer on Gartner's list of the 30 best countries for outsourcing, which considers both costs and skill sets.
Meanwhile, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Colombia, Peru and Mauritius have all joined the list for the first time, while Panama, Sri Lanka and Turkey reappeared after an absence during previous years. Those nations join South American countries, such as Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Colombia, as well as the Asian powerhouses of China and India.
Competition for Outsourcing Grows
The changes reflect the growing trend of cost-cutting via outsourcing, which started with U.S. companies and spread to other parts of the world.
Countries such as Mexico, Chile and Costa Rica have created government programs that boost education and upgrade the domestic labor pool. China and Malaysia, among others, have improved their infrastructure to make them attractive to tech companies. And Brazil's relatively stable government status keeps the country attractive to many different types of companies.
"In this increasingly dynamic global environment, multinational providers will continue to extend their footprint in different geographies, carrying with them their expertise and maturity, while local providers will strive to become offshore providers, searching for opportunities and niches they can explore," Ian Marriott, research vice president at Gartner, said in a statement. "Even though some countries are rated poorly for some categories, clients may find individual providers -- global and local -- whose capabilities mitigate some of the risks."
Where Are the Jobs Going?
Increased outsourcing has hindered the U.S.'s economic recovery and may pose similar problems to other countries that have been bumped off the list.
In November, the U.S. unemployment rate rose to 9.8% from 9.6% in October, with the U.S. private sector adding just 50,000 jobs -- about a third of what analysts had forecast. Additionally, the underemployment rate, which includes both the unemployed and those working part time who are seeking full-time jobs, remained flat at a staggering 17%, while the number of people out of work for at least six months increased to 6.3 million.
The threat of a similar "jobless recovery" means more could be at stake for countries, such as Canada and Israel that have fallen off the list.
"In the past four decades, American-born workers have faced greater and greater competition from robots, far-away foreigners, recent immigrants and microprocessors," wrote Edward Leamer, director of UCLA'S Anderson Forecast, in a presentation earlier this month. "Technology and international trade have fundamentally altered the demand for skills and have changed the business cycle dynamics."
Take heart, America. Yours isn't the only country to lose jobs to developing nations.
Australia, Canada and Israel, among others, have dropped off the list of best places for information-technology and business-processing services, according to a report that research firm Gartner released Monday.
As more developing countries have created workforces that can handle those tasks at lower cost, Ireland, New Zealand, Singapore and Spain are also no longer on Gartner's list of the 30 best countries for outsourcing, which considers both costs and skill sets.
Meanwhile, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Colombia, Peru and Mauritius have all joined the list for the first time, while Panama, Sri Lanka and Turkey reappeared after an absence during previous years. Those nations join South American countries, such as Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Colombia, as well as the Asian powerhouses of China and India.
Competition for Outsourcing Grows
The changes reflect the growing trend of cost-cutting via outsourcing, which started with U.S. companies and spread to other parts of the world.
Countries such as Mexico, Chile and Costa Rica have created government programs that boost education and upgrade the domestic labor pool. China and Malaysia, among others, have improved their infrastructure to make them attractive to tech companies. And Brazil's relatively stable government status keeps the country attractive to many different types of companies.
"In this increasingly dynamic global environment, multinational providers will continue to extend their footprint in different geographies, carrying with them their expertise and maturity, while local providers will strive to become offshore providers, searching for opportunities and niches they can explore," Ian Marriott, research vice president at Gartner, said in a statement. "Even though some countries are rated poorly for some categories, clients may find individual providers -- global and local -- whose capabilities mitigate some of the risks."
Where Are the Jobs Going?
Increased outsourcing has hindered the U.S.'s economic recovery and may pose similar problems to other countries that have been bumped off the list.
In November, the U.S. unemployment rate rose to 9.8% from 9.6% in October, with the U.S. private sector adding just 50,000 jobs -- about a third of what analysts had forecast. Additionally, the underemployment rate, which includes both the unemployed and those working part time who are seeking full-time jobs, remained flat at a staggering 17%, while the number of people out of work for at least six months increased to 6.3 million.
The threat of a similar "jobless recovery" means more could be at stake for countries, such as Canada and Israel that have fallen off the list.
"In the past four decades, American-born workers have faced greater and greater competition from robots, far-away foreigners, recent immigrants and microprocessors," wrote Edward Leamer, director of UCLA'S Anderson Forecast, in a presentation earlier this month. "Technology and international trade have fundamentally altered the demand for skills and have changed the business cycle dynamics."
Labels: crooked politics, government, jobs, politicians, unemployment
Saturday, April 02, 2011
The Constitution
Constitution of the United States, document embodying the fundamental principles upon which the American republic is conducted. Drawn up at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787, the Constitution was signed on Sept. 17, 1787, and ratified by the required number of states (nine) by June 21, 1788. It superseded the original charter of the United States in force since 1781 (see Confederation, Articles of) and established the system of federal government that began to function in 1789. The Constitution is concise, and its very brevity and its general statement of principles have, by accident more than by design, made possible the extension of meaning that has fostered growth. There are seven articles and a preamble; 27 amendments have been adopted (see the table entitled Text of the Constitution of the United States).
The wording of the Constitution is general, necessitating interpretation, and any short summary is only rough and approximate. From its very beginnings, the Constitution has been subject to stormy controversies, not only in interpretation of some of its phrases, but also between the loose constructionists and strict constructionists. The middle of the 19th cent. saw a tremendous struggle concerning the nature of the Union and the extent of states' rights. The Civil War decided the case in favor of the advocates of strong union, and since that time the general tendency has been toward the centralization and strengthening of federal power.
The Preamble
The Preamble does not confer power, but its first words, We the People of the United States, describe the source of the powers conferred by the rest of the Constitution and have been used by the advocates of a strong union arguing against the proponents of states' rights. The Preamble also states the purpose of the document. One of the statements of purpose, to … promote the general welfare, has been of great importance in the 20th cent. in upholding social legislation, for which no warrant could be found in the enumerated powers of Congress.
The Articles
The first three articles set up the threefold separation of powers, said to have been modeled on Montesquieu's study, which on this point was incorrect, of the British government. In actuality this separation has been weakened by the granting of greater powers to the President and his administrative agencies, which now have legislative and judicial as well as executive functions.
1: Congress
Article 1 provides for the establishment of the bicameral Congress composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The various powers of the Congress and the respective houses, together with their methods of election, are enumerated in the article. The Seventeenth Amendment, passed in 1916, instituted the direct popular election of Senators and removed the power of their election from the state legislatures as had originally been provided in Article 1.
Section 4 of Article 1 gives the states power over the conduct of federal elections but permits the Congress to alter such regulations at any time. In 1842 the Congress imposed the district system on the United States. In 1962 the Supreme Court dealt with proper apportionment of election districts and in its decision in Baker v. Carr allowed voters to go into a federal court to force equitable representation in a state legislature. This decision was, however, based on the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Later, the court ruled (1964) that state legislative apportionment must reflect the one-person one-vote principle.
As a legislative body Congress has certain inherent powers. Among these are the power to investigate pursuant to legislative needs. Congressional investigations have led to a great many court decisions concerning the right of a witness before a Congressional committee to refuse to testify even when granted immunity from prosecution.
Section 8 of Article 1 lists the enumerated powers of the Congress. The clause of this section, the commerce clause, which grants the Congress the right to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, has, in the 20th cent., been used as a strong argument for the expansion of government power. Since the historic case of Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), the commerce clause has been the battleground over which much of the struggle for and against increased federal regulation of private enterprise has been fought. Until the late 1930s Congress exercised its powers under the clause solely with reference to transportation. But after a series of dramatic reversals by the Supreme Court, Congress began to enter areas that had previously been controlled only by the states. The commerce clause is now the source of important peacetime powers of the national government and an important basis for the judicial review of state actions.
Besides its enumerated and inherent powers, the Congress has implied powers under Article 1 to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the enumerated or expressed powers. Sections 9 and 10 of Article 1 contain guarantees of the writ of habeas corpus, prohibit bills of attainder and ex post facto laws, and also improve certain limitations on state power.
2: The Executive Branch
Article 2 creates the executive branch of government headed by the President, elected, along with the Vice President, for a term of four years (see president; electoral college). The Twenty-second Amendment (1951) provides that no person may be elected President more than twice. The Twenty-third Amendment (1961) permits District of Columbia residents to vote in presidential elections. Since the adoption of the Constitution there have been two conflicting views of Article 2. The first is that the powers of the President are limited to those enumerated in the article. The opposite view is that the President is given executive power not limited by the provisions of the rest of the article. Every President has had to make the choice of interpretations for himself.
3: The Judiciary
Article 3 provides for a judiciary and defines treason. Besides its enumerated powers, the judiciary has the inherent authority to interpret laws and the Constitution with an authority that must be deferred to. Article 3 also guarantees trial by jury in criminal cases and lays the basis for federal jurisdiction. The Eleventh Amendment (1798), which prohibits suits against any state by citizens of another state or foreigners (see sovereignty), was passed in reaction to the Supreme Court's accepting jurisdiction of a suit against a state by a citizen of another state.
4: The States
Article 4 deals with the relations of the states (see conflict of laws), providing that Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State. Section 2 prohibits any state from discriminating against citizens of other states, or in favor of its own. It also provides for the extradition of criminals. The article guarantees a republican form of government to every state and provides for the admission of new states as well as the government of territories.
5: Amending the Constitution
Article 5 provides for amending the Constitution. The supremacy of the federal Constitution and of federal law over those of the states is the heart of the federal system and is established by Article 6. Article 6 also provides for an oath of office for members of the three branches of the federal government and the states and specifically forbids any religious qualification for office. Article 7 declares that the Constitution should go into force when ratified by nine states.
The Amendments
The Constitution has undergone gradual alteration with the growth of the country. Some of the 26 amendments were brought on by Supreme Court decisions. However, the first 10 amendments, which constitute the Bill of Rights, were added within two years of the signing of the federal Constitution in order to ensure sufficient guarantees of individual liberties. The Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. But since the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868), many of the guarantees contained in the Bill of Rights have been extended to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Bill of Rights
The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of worship, of speech, of the press, of assembly, and of petition to the government for redress of grievances. This amendment has been the center of controversy in recent years in the areas of free speech and religion. The Supreme Court has held that freedom of speech does not include the right to refuse to testify before a Congressional investigating committee and that most organized prayer in the public schools violates the First Amendment.
The right to keep and bear arms—adopted with reference to state militias but interpreted (2008) by the Supreme Court as essentially an individual right—is guaranteed by the Second Amendment, while freedom from quartering soldiers in a house without the owner's consent is guaranteed by the Third Amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects people against unreasonable search and seizure, a safeguard only more recently extended to the states.
The Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be held for a capital or otherwise infamous crime without indictment, be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb for the same offense, be compelled to testify against himself, or be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The privilege against self-incrimination has been the center of a great deal of controversy as a result of the growth of Congressional investigations. The phrase due process of law, which appears in the Fifth Amendment, is also included in the Fourteenth Amendment. As a result there has been much debate as to whether both amendments guarantee the same rights. Those in favor of what is termed fixed due process claim that all the safeguards applied against the federal government should be also applied against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The supporters of the concept of flexible due process are only willing to impose those guarantees on the states that are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right of speedy and public trial by an impartial jury in all criminal proceedings, while the Seventh Amendment guarantees the right of trial by jury in almost all common-law suits. Excessive bail, fines and cruel and unusual punishment are prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. The Ninth Amendment states that The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
By the Tenth Amendment The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Powers reserved to the states are often termed residual powers. This amendment, like the commerce clause, has been a battleground in the struggle over states' rights and federal supremacy.
The Other Amendments
Of the succeeding sixteen amendments, the Eleventh, Seventeenth, Twenty-second and Twenty-third Amendments have already been discussed under Articles 1, 2, and 3. The Twelfth (1804) revised the method of electing President and Vice President. The Thirteenth (1865), Fourteenth (1868), and Fifteenth (1870) are the Civil War and Reconstruction amendments; they abolish slavery, while guaranteeing civil rights and suffrage to U.S. citizens, including former slaves. The Sixteenth Amendment (1913) authorizes the income tax. Prohibition was established by the Eighteenth Amendment (1919) and repealed by the Twenty-first (1933). The Nineteenth (1920) grants woman suffrage. The Twentieth (1933) abolishes the so-called lame-duck Congress and alters the date of the presidential inauguration. The poll tax and any other tax made a requirement for voting in primaries and elections for federal office was outlawed by the Twenty-fourth Amendment (1964). The Twenty-fifth (1967) establishes the procedure for filling the office of Vice President between elections and for governing in the event of presidential disability. The Twenty-sixth Amendment (1971) lowers the voting age in all elections to 18. The Twenty-seventh Amendment (1992), first proposed in 1789, establishes procedures for Congressional pay increases.
The wording of the Constitution is general, necessitating interpretation, and any short summary is only rough and approximate. From its very beginnings, the Constitution has been subject to stormy controversies, not only in interpretation of some of its phrases, but also between the loose constructionists and strict constructionists. The middle of the 19th cent. saw a tremendous struggle concerning the nature of the Union and the extent of states' rights. The Civil War decided the case in favor of the advocates of strong union, and since that time the general tendency has been toward the centralization and strengthening of federal power.
The Preamble
The Preamble does not confer power, but its first words, We the People of the United States, describe the source of the powers conferred by the rest of the Constitution and have been used by the advocates of a strong union arguing against the proponents of states' rights. The Preamble also states the purpose of the document. One of the statements of purpose, to … promote the general welfare, has been of great importance in the 20th cent. in upholding social legislation, for which no warrant could be found in the enumerated powers of Congress.
The Articles
The first three articles set up the threefold separation of powers, said to have been modeled on Montesquieu's study, which on this point was incorrect, of the British government. In actuality this separation has been weakened by the granting of greater powers to the President and his administrative agencies, which now have legislative and judicial as well as executive functions.
1: Congress
Article 1 provides for the establishment of the bicameral Congress composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The various powers of the Congress and the respective houses, together with their methods of election, are enumerated in the article. The Seventeenth Amendment, passed in 1916, instituted the direct popular election of Senators and removed the power of their election from the state legislatures as had originally been provided in Article 1.
Section 4 of Article 1 gives the states power over the conduct of federal elections but permits the Congress to alter such regulations at any time. In 1842 the Congress imposed the district system on the United States. In 1962 the Supreme Court dealt with proper apportionment of election districts and in its decision in Baker v. Carr allowed voters to go into a federal court to force equitable representation in a state legislature. This decision was, however, based on the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Later, the court ruled (1964) that state legislative apportionment must reflect the one-person one-vote principle.
As a legislative body Congress has certain inherent powers. Among these are the power to investigate pursuant to legislative needs. Congressional investigations have led to a great many court decisions concerning the right of a witness before a Congressional committee to refuse to testify even when granted immunity from prosecution.
Section 8 of Article 1 lists the enumerated powers of the Congress. The clause of this section, the commerce clause, which grants the Congress the right to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, has, in the 20th cent., been used as a strong argument for the expansion of government power. Since the historic case of Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), the commerce clause has been the battleground over which much of the struggle for and against increased federal regulation of private enterprise has been fought. Until the late 1930s Congress exercised its powers under the clause solely with reference to transportation. But after a series of dramatic reversals by the Supreme Court, Congress began to enter areas that had previously been controlled only by the states. The commerce clause is now the source of important peacetime powers of the national government and an important basis for the judicial review of state actions.
Besides its enumerated and inherent powers, the Congress has implied powers under Article 1 to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the enumerated or expressed powers. Sections 9 and 10 of Article 1 contain guarantees of the writ of habeas corpus, prohibit bills of attainder and ex post facto laws, and also improve certain limitations on state power.
2: The Executive Branch
Article 2 creates the executive branch of government headed by the President, elected, along with the Vice President, for a term of four years (see president; electoral college). The Twenty-second Amendment (1951) provides that no person may be elected President more than twice. The Twenty-third Amendment (1961) permits District of Columbia residents to vote in presidential elections. Since the adoption of the Constitution there have been two conflicting views of Article 2. The first is that the powers of the President are limited to those enumerated in the article. The opposite view is that the President is given executive power not limited by the provisions of the rest of the article. Every President has had to make the choice of interpretations for himself.
3: The Judiciary
Article 3 provides for a judiciary and defines treason. Besides its enumerated powers, the judiciary has the inherent authority to interpret laws and the Constitution with an authority that must be deferred to. Article 3 also guarantees trial by jury in criminal cases and lays the basis for federal jurisdiction. The Eleventh Amendment (1798), which prohibits suits against any state by citizens of another state or foreigners (see sovereignty), was passed in reaction to the Supreme Court's accepting jurisdiction of a suit against a state by a citizen of another state.
4: The States
Article 4 deals with the relations of the states (see conflict of laws), providing that Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State. Section 2 prohibits any state from discriminating against citizens of other states, or in favor of its own. It also provides for the extradition of criminals. The article guarantees a republican form of government to every state and provides for the admission of new states as well as the government of territories.
5: Amending the Constitution
Article 5 provides for amending the Constitution. The supremacy of the federal Constitution and of federal law over those of the states is the heart of the federal system and is established by Article 6. Article 6 also provides for an oath of office for members of the three branches of the federal government and the states and specifically forbids any religious qualification for office. Article 7 declares that the Constitution should go into force when ratified by nine states.
The Amendments
The Constitution has undergone gradual alteration with the growth of the country. Some of the 26 amendments were brought on by Supreme Court decisions. However, the first 10 amendments, which constitute the Bill of Rights, were added within two years of the signing of the federal Constitution in order to ensure sufficient guarantees of individual liberties. The Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. But since the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868), many of the guarantees contained in the Bill of Rights have been extended to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Bill of Rights
The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of worship, of speech, of the press, of assembly, and of petition to the government for redress of grievances. This amendment has been the center of controversy in recent years in the areas of free speech and religion. The Supreme Court has held that freedom of speech does not include the right to refuse to testify before a Congressional investigating committee and that most organized prayer in the public schools violates the First Amendment.
The right to keep and bear arms—adopted with reference to state militias but interpreted (2008) by the Supreme Court as essentially an individual right—is guaranteed by the Second Amendment, while freedom from quartering soldiers in a house without the owner's consent is guaranteed by the Third Amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects people against unreasonable search and seizure, a safeguard only more recently extended to the states.
The Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be held for a capital or otherwise infamous crime without indictment, be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb for the same offense, be compelled to testify against himself, or be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The privilege against self-incrimination has been the center of a great deal of controversy as a result of the growth of Congressional investigations. The phrase due process of law, which appears in the Fifth Amendment, is also included in the Fourteenth Amendment. As a result there has been much debate as to whether both amendments guarantee the same rights. Those in favor of what is termed fixed due process claim that all the safeguards applied against the federal government should be also applied against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The supporters of the concept of flexible due process are only willing to impose those guarantees on the states that are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right of speedy and public trial by an impartial jury in all criminal proceedings, while the Seventh Amendment guarantees the right of trial by jury in almost all common-law suits. Excessive bail, fines and cruel and unusual punishment are prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. The Ninth Amendment states that The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
By the Tenth Amendment The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Powers reserved to the states are often termed residual powers. This amendment, like the commerce clause, has been a battleground in the struggle over states' rights and federal supremacy.
The Other Amendments
Of the succeeding sixteen amendments, the Eleventh, Seventeenth, Twenty-second and Twenty-third Amendments have already been discussed under Articles 1, 2, and 3. The Twelfth (1804) revised the method of electing President and Vice President. The Thirteenth (1865), Fourteenth (1868), and Fifteenth (1870) are the Civil War and Reconstruction amendments; they abolish slavery, while guaranteeing civil rights and suffrage to U.S. citizens, including former slaves. The Sixteenth Amendment (1913) authorizes the income tax. Prohibition was established by the Eighteenth Amendment (1919) and repealed by the Twenty-first (1933). The Nineteenth (1920) grants woman suffrage. The Twentieth (1933) abolishes the so-called lame-duck Congress and alters the date of the presidential inauguration. The poll tax and any other tax made a requirement for voting in primaries and elections for federal office was outlawed by the Twenty-fourth Amendment (1964). The Twenty-fifth (1967) establishes the procedure for filling the office of Vice President between elections and for governing in the event of presidential disability. The Twenty-sixth Amendment (1971) lowers the voting age in all elections to 18. The Twenty-seventh Amendment (1992), first proposed in 1789, establishes procedures for Congressional pay increases.
Labels: constitution, government, politics
Folks wanted change-------and they got it.
After 2 Years of CHANGE
After two years of Obama and a Democratic Congress
January 2009 TODAY % chg Source
Avg. retail price/gallon gas in U.S. $1.83 $3.104 69.6% 1
Crude oil, European Brent (barrel) $43.48 $99.02 127.7% 2
Crude oil, West TX Inter. (barrel) $38.74 $91.38 135.9% 2
Gold: London (per troy oz.) $853.25 $1,369.50 60.5% 2
Corn, No.2 yellow, Central IL $3.56 $6.33 78.1% 2
Soybeans, No. 1 yellow, IL $9.66 $13.75 42.3% 2
Sugar, cane, raw, world, lb. fob $13.37 $35.39 164.7% 2
Unemployment rate, non-farm, overall 7.6% 9.4% 23.7% 3
Unemployment rate, blacks 12.6% 15.8% 25.4% 3
Number of unemployed 11,616,000 14,485,000 24.7% 3
Number of fed. employees, ex. military (curr = 12/10 prelim) 2,779,000 2,840,000 2.2% 3
Real median household income (2008 v 2009) $50,112 $49,777 -0.7% 4
Number of food stamp recipients (curr = 10/10) 31,983,716 43,200,878 35.1% 5
Number of unemployment benefit recipients (curr = 12/10) 7,526,598 9,193,838 22.2% 6
Number of long-term unemployed 2,600,000 6,400,000 146.2% 3
Poverty rate, individuals (2008 v 2009) 13.2% 14.3% 8.3% 4
People in poverty in U.S. (2008 v 2009) 39,800,000 43,600,000 9.5% 4
U.S. rank in Economic Freedom World Rankings 5 9 n/a 10
Present Situation Index (curr = 12/10) 29.9 23.5 -21.4% 11
Failed banks (curr = 2010 + 2011 to date) 140 164 17.1% 12
U.S. dollar versus Japanese yen exchange rate 89.76 82.03 -8.6% 2
U.S. money supply, M1, in billions (curr = 12/10 prelim) 1,575.1 1,865.7 18.4% 13
U.S. money supply, M2, in billions (curr = 12/10 prelim) 8,310.9 8,852.3 6.5% 13
National debt, in trillions $10.627 $14.052 32.2% 14
Just take this last item: In the last two years we have accumulated national debt at a rate more than 27 times as fast as during the rest of our entire nation's history.
Over 27 times as fast. Metaphorically speaking, if you are driving in the right lane doing 65 MPH and a car rockets past you in the left lane. 27 times faster, it would be doing 7,555 MPH!
Sources:
(1) U.S. Energy Information Administration; (2) Wall Street Journal; (3) Bureau of Labor Statistics; (4) Census Bureau; (5) USDA; (6) U.S. Dept. of Labor; (7) FHFA;
(8) Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller; (9) RealtyTrac; (10) Heritage Foundation and WSJ; (11) The Conference Board; (12) FDIC; (13) Federal Reserve; (14) U.S. Treasury
After two years of Obama and a Democratic Congress
January 2009 TODAY % chg Source
Avg. retail price/gallon gas in U.S. $1.83 $3.104 69.6% 1
Crude oil, European Brent (barrel) $43.48 $99.02 127.7% 2
Crude oil, West TX Inter. (barrel) $38.74 $91.38 135.9% 2
Gold: London (per troy oz.) $853.25 $1,369.50 60.5% 2
Corn, No.2 yellow, Central IL $3.56 $6.33 78.1% 2
Soybeans, No. 1 yellow, IL $9.66 $13.75 42.3% 2
Sugar, cane, raw, world, lb. fob $13.37 $35.39 164.7% 2
Unemployment rate, non-farm, overall 7.6% 9.4% 23.7% 3
Unemployment rate, blacks 12.6% 15.8% 25.4% 3
Number of unemployed 11,616,000 14,485,000 24.7% 3
Number of fed. employees, ex. military (curr = 12/10 prelim) 2,779,000 2,840,000 2.2% 3
Real median household income (2008 v 2009) $50,112 $49,777 -0.7% 4
Number of food stamp recipients (curr = 10/10) 31,983,716 43,200,878 35.1% 5
Number of unemployment benefit recipients (curr = 12/10) 7,526,598 9,193,838 22.2% 6
Number of long-term unemployed 2,600,000 6,400,000 146.2% 3
Poverty rate, individuals (2008 v 2009) 13.2% 14.3% 8.3% 4
People in poverty in U.S. (2008 v 2009) 39,800,000 43,600,000 9.5% 4
U.S. rank in Economic Freedom World Rankings 5 9 n/a 10
Present Situation Index (curr = 12/10) 29.9 23.5 -21.4% 11
Failed banks (curr = 2010 + 2011 to date) 140 164 17.1% 12
U.S. dollar versus Japanese yen exchange rate 89.76 82.03 -8.6% 2
U.S. money supply, M1, in billions (curr = 12/10 prelim) 1,575.1 1,865.7 18.4% 13
U.S. money supply, M2, in billions (curr = 12/10 prelim) 8,310.9 8,852.3 6.5% 13
National debt, in trillions $10.627 $14.052 32.2% 14
Just take this last item: In the last two years we have accumulated national debt at a rate more than 27 times as fast as during the rest of our entire nation's history.
Over 27 times as fast. Metaphorically speaking, if you are driving in the right lane doing 65 MPH and a car rockets past you in the left lane. 27 times faster, it would be doing 7,555 MPH!
Sources:
(1) U.S. Energy Information Administration; (2) Wall Street Journal; (3) Bureau of Labor Statistics; (4) Census Bureau; (5) USDA; (6) U.S. Dept. of Labor; (7) FHFA;
(8) Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller; (9) RealtyTrac; (10) Heritage Foundation and WSJ; (11) The Conference Board; (12) FDIC; (13) Federal Reserve; (14) U.S. Treasury
Labels: crooked politics, government, Obama
Wednesday, March 02, 2011
An Obituary You Should Read
July 28, 2010 | By Larry Winget | In Money & Personal Dev |
From a London newspaper:
Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape.
He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as:
- Knowing when to come in out of the rain;
- Why the early bird gets the worm;
- Life isn’t always fair;
- and maybe it was my fault.
Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don’t spend more than you can earn) and reliable strategies (adults, not children, are in charge).
His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a 6-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.
Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly children. It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer sun lotion or an aspirin to a student; but could not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.
Common Sense lost the will to live as the churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims. Common Sense took a beating when you couldn’t defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.
Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement. Common Sense was preceded in death, by his parents, Truth and Trust, by his wife, Discretion, by his daughter, Responsibility, and by his son, Reason.
He is survived by his 4 stepbrothers; I Know My Rights, I Want It Now, Someone Else Is To Blame, and I’m A Victim.
Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone. If you still remember him, pass this on. If not, join the majority and do nothing.
From a London newspaper:
Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape.
He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as:
- Knowing when to come in out of the rain;
- Why the early bird gets the worm;
- Life isn’t always fair;
- and maybe it was my fault.
Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don’t spend more than you can earn) and reliable strategies (adults, not children, are in charge).
His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a 6-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.
Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly children. It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer sun lotion or an aspirin to a student; but could not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.
Common Sense lost the will to live as the churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims. Common Sense took a beating when you couldn’t defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.
Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement. Common Sense was preceded in death, by his parents, Truth and Trust, by his wife, Discretion, by his daughter, Responsibility, and by his son, Reason.
He is survived by his 4 stepbrothers; I Know My Rights, I Want It Now, Someone Else Is To Blame, and I’m A Victim.
Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone. If you still remember him, pass this on. If not, join the majority and do nothing.
Labels: Education, government, politics
Opinion: How Obama Lost His Magic (and How He Can Get It Back)
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach
(Oct. 26) -- The erosion of President Barack Obama's popularity has lessons in it for every American who wishes to remain interesting and current, both professionally and personally.
The real story in this election is not that America has no jobs, that the economy continues to falter or that the national debt continues to balloon. While all three are true and, more importantly, Obama has failed to fix them, it is also true that these conditions existed prior to Obama's election. Yet somehow his personal charisma and captivating charm elevated the electorate.
The real story of campaign 2010 is how boring Obama has become.
Obama, who had never run anything except a campaign in his entire life, performed an almost unprecedented conjuring act in 2008, getting the electorate to embrace him regardless of the utter absence of managerial skills.
They believed not necessarily in Obama's capacity to fix America's transient problems but in his ability to focus us on more eternal, upbeat themes like hope, faith and the future. Yet, this time his very presence seems irritating. A man whose oratory lifted him to earth's highest office can't seem to deliver a single uplifting speech.
As a connoisseur of great oratory, I used to love hearing Obama's staccato delivery, perfect timing and mesmeric self-confidence -- the mark of any great speaker -- even as I disagreed with him on many of the issues. But Obama's speeches have now become insufferable, devoid of charisma and personal magnetism.
Here are three principal reasons why.
Obama has utterly overexposed himself. As a marriage counselor, I always advise husbands and wives that, paradoxically, their marriages require intimacy on the one hand, but barriers and distance on the other. Overexposure, as everyone knows, breeds contempt.
But Obama is forever in our face. From weighing in on every issue right down to the ground zero mosque to becoming the president who traveled most in his first two years, Obama lives permanently in the sun. Even on holiday he is constantly photographed buying ice cream and shooting hoops.
Less is more, Mr. President. Sometimes you have to give the people the opportunity to miss you. Superman knows that his grand entrances depend on being disguised the rest of the time as Clark Kent. But by being forever available, Obama has made himself pedestrian. He went from Messiah to mortal, rock star to bland stone.
Obama has betrayed a lack of substance. When he was more mysterious, Obama encouraged our belief that there was subterranean depth beneath the gleaming surface. Just give the man some time and out will come the magic. It turned out that vacuous speeches on hope and change were not the thin veneer that concealed great complexity but the very substance itself. I have yet to hear one truly new or exciting idea from Barack Obama since becoming president.
President George W. Bush was dismissed as a lightweight. But love it or hate it, the Bush doctrine of pre-emption and its corollary of exporting democracy to recalcitrant states was a compelling and divisive idea that invited ferocious debate. With Obama we are back to the tired, yawn-inducing discussions of big versus limited government and whether Keynesian stimulus spending or reducing the national debt is the best way to kindle the economy. I'm bored.
Obama comes across as perfect. The most interesting people are always the most tortured. Bill Clinton clogged his arteries with cheeseburgers and had sex with an intern in the Oval Office. Yet, he left the presidency with a 60 percent approval rating. America never lost its fascination with this angst-ridden and highly imperfect leader.Sponsored L
No-drama Obama evinces an imperturbable cool utterly bereft of inner trauma. Of course we don't want the president to cheat on his wife. But show us a tiny demon or two, other than the fact that you light up a cigarette. Demonstrate that you wrestle with moods the way we do when we can't pay our bills that you struggle with life's disappointments like us ordinary mortals.
I believe Obama was poorly served by seemingly being a golden boy who suffered few setbacks, even though in truth he has endured a life of considerable adversity. Perfect people are boring and monolithic. But flawed human beings who rise above adversity to reach great heights are inspirational.
And if the president wants to recapture the public imagination, he would do well to expose a wart or two.
(Oct. 26) -- The erosion of President Barack Obama's popularity has lessons in it for every American who wishes to remain interesting and current, both professionally and personally.
The real story in this election is not that America has no jobs, that the economy continues to falter or that the national debt continues to balloon. While all three are true and, more importantly, Obama has failed to fix them, it is also true that these conditions existed prior to Obama's election. Yet somehow his personal charisma and captivating charm elevated the electorate.
The real story of campaign 2010 is how boring Obama has become.
Obama, who had never run anything except a campaign in his entire life, performed an almost unprecedented conjuring act in 2008, getting the electorate to embrace him regardless of the utter absence of managerial skills.
They believed not necessarily in Obama's capacity to fix America's transient problems but in his ability to focus us on more eternal, upbeat themes like hope, faith and the future. Yet, this time his very presence seems irritating. A man whose oratory lifted him to earth's highest office can't seem to deliver a single uplifting speech.
As a connoisseur of great oratory, I used to love hearing Obama's staccato delivery, perfect timing and mesmeric self-confidence -- the mark of any great speaker -- even as I disagreed with him on many of the issues. But Obama's speeches have now become insufferable, devoid of charisma and personal magnetism.
Here are three principal reasons why.
Obama has utterly overexposed himself. As a marriage counselor, I always advise husbands and wives that, paradoxically, their marriages require intimacy on the one hand, but barriers and distance on the other. Overexposure, as everyone knows, breeds contempt.
But Obama is forever in our face. From weighing in on every issue right down to the ground zero mosque to becoming the president who traveled most in his first two years, Obama lives permanently in the sun. Even on holiday he is constantly photographed buying ice cream and shooting hoops.
Less is more, Mr. President. Sometimes you have to give the people the opportunity to miss you. Superman knows that his grand entrances depend on being disguised the rest of the time as Clark Kent. But by being forever available, Obama has made himself pedestrian. He went from Messiah to mortal, rock star to bland stone.
Obama has betrayed a lack of substance. When he was more mysterious, Obama encouraged our belief that there was subterranean depth beneath the gleaming surface. Just give the man some time and out will come the magic. It turned out that vacuous speeches on hope and change were not the thin veneer that concealed great complexity but the very substance itself. I have yet to hear one truly new or exciting idea from Barack Obama since becoming president.
President George W. Bush was dismissed as a lightweight. But love it or hate it, the Bush doctrine of pre-emption and its corollary of exporting democracy to recalcitrant states was a compelling and divisive idea that invited ferocious debate. With Obama we are back to the tired, yawn-inducing discussions of big versus limited government and whether Keynesian stimulus spending or reducing the national debt is the best way to kindle the economy. I'm bored.
Obama comes across as perfect. The most interesting people are always the most tortured. Bill Clinton clogged his arteries with cheeseburgers and had sex with an intern in the Oval Office. Yet, he left the presidency with a 60 percent approval rating. America never lost its fascination with this angst-ridden and highly imperfect leader.Sponsored L
No-drama Obama evinces an imperturbable cool utterly bereft of inner trauma. Of course we don't want the president to cheat on his wife. But show us a tiny demon or two, other than the fact that you light up a cigarette. Demonstrate that you wrestle with moods the way we do when we can't pay our bills that you struggle with life's disappointments like us ordinary mortals.
I believe Obama was poorly served by seemingly being a golden boy who suffered few setbacks, even though in truth he has endured a life of considerable adversity. Perfect people are boring and monolithic. But flawed human beings who rise above adversity to reach great heights are inspirational.
And if the president wants to recapture the public imagination, he would do well to expose a wart or two.
Labels: crooked politics, crooks, Democrats, government
Friday, December 17, 2010
Government by Wishful Thinking
posted at 6:00 pm on December 6, 2009 by Steven Den Beste
Way back in the depths of time, Greek philosophers ended up with two basic and incompatible ways of looking at the universe. One way was materialism, which says that there is a material universe which behaves in a consistent way, and if you study it you can learn the way it works.
That’s the world view of engineers and scientists — and businessmen, for that matter. It’s the world view of people who understand and use mathematics, and statistics. It is a place where cause leads to effect. It’s the place that game theory studies. It isn’t necessarily inherently atheistic; a lot of religious people live in the materialist world.
But there are people who don’t. A different epistemological view is teleology, which says that the universe is an ideal place. More or less, it
exists so that we humans can live in it. And human thought is a fundamental force in the universe. Teleology says that if a mental model is esthetically pleasing then it must be true. Teleology implies that if you truly believe in something, it’ll happen. Wikipedia says:
A teleological school of thought is one that holds all things to be designed for or directed toward a final result, that there is an inherent purpose or final cause for all that exists.
And in its modern form that final result is presumed to be creation of a world of peace and harmony, a utopia, in which all men live in peace and brotherhood, in harmony with nature.
At least, that’s the distorted form of Teleology that has come down to some of us in the modern era, mainly on the left wing. Aristotle probably wouldn’t recognize his red-headed step child as it exists today, though. Like many philosophically pure ideas adopted into popular culture, it’s gotten mutated nearly beyond recognition and almost all the mutations were negative.
One way to compare and contrast those two world views is to consider what they think about socialism. Materialists look at history since Marx and point out that socialism has been tried many times, in many nations, in various forms, and it has always failed. In places where it was fully implemented the result was decline and economic collapse. When it was only partially implemented you got slower decline. It often looks like it’s working in the early stages, but in the longer term it has never succeeded.
So to materialists, it’s apparent that socialism is a nice idea, but one that doesn’t work and shouldn’t be adopted.
To teleologists, none of that matters. What matters is the fact that it’s a beautiful idea. It’s how things should be. In a world in which socialism was implemented and which worked the way the teleologists think it should work, you really would have a utopia. The fact that it’s invariably failed when used doesn’t change any of that. (When asked to explain all the failures, usually the answer is, “They didn’t do it right.” But for teleologists, a long string of failures doesn’t matter because fundamentally teleologists don’t believe things like that make any difference.)
It’s teleologists who drive around with bumper stickers that say, “Imagine world peace.” I can imagine it just fine. I don’t expect to see it in my lifetime, though. Why would they want me to imagine it?
It’s because teleologists believe that human thought truly affects things. Of course it does; thought precedes action, and actions change history, right? Yeah, but that’s not the point. Teleologists believe that thought directly affects things. The mere act of thinking about something and wanting it a lot directly changes reality, even if the thought doesn’t get translated into action.
It was teleologists who were mainly involved in the anti-war movement about five years ago when it was at its greatest. I remember reading about how they’d have a demonstration somewhere. Lots of people would come out. They’d parade about carrying signs saying, “End the war!” Someone would burn a giant mockup of President Bush’s head. And afterwards they’d all talk about how successful the demonstration had been.
Successful how? It didn’t have any political effect that I ever noticed. The war didn’t end because of the demonstrations. So what was it that they thought was successful? Well, if you asked them they’d talk about how there was all sorts of positive vibes. How good it felt to be out there. And how so many people were feeling the same thing. Which sounds like masturbation, if you’re a materialist, but genuinely makes sense for a teleologist. They really thought that if enough of them got together and wanted the war to end strongly enough, it would spontaneously end. Not because getting enough voters on their side would have electoral consequences, but because the act of wanting it would directly bring that about.
To a materialist this sounds like insanity. It is, as Chip Morningstar memorably put it, “epistemologically challenged”. And it doesn’t survive real world test. But to teleologists, “real world tests” don’t matter. The teleological world view inherently rejects all of that stuff.
Why does teleology (in this mutated form) matter? Because right now we have a teleologist as our President.
Matthew Continetti says that we’re in “a year of magical thinking.” And to someone who has grown up with a materialist view of the universe, it could certainly seem that way. But what’s really going on is that Obama has this kind of world view. And that explains everything he’s done.
It explains his foreign policy. To a teleologists, it just makes sense that everyone should want to get along. If you unclench your fist and hold out
your hand, everyone else will unclench their fists, and become your friends. So Obama is doing that, and as we know the result has been a shambles.
It explains his economic policy. Teleologists inherently don’t believe in unintended side effects when it comes to implementing their idealistic policies. Obviously it should be possible to provide free health care to everyone without wrecking the economy; it’s just how things really should be, so that’s how it will be. Where will the money come from? That’s the kind of question that materialists ask; teleologists don’t concern themselves with such trivial. It’ll happen somehow, because it’s obviously how it should turn out. To say we shouldn’t do it is to be heartless, uncaring — and those things are more important than mundane claims that it won’t work. If you just believe, it will work.
Of course, it won’t work. The materialists are right about that. But when it fails (if it gets tried) the teleologists will blame the negative vibes of all the materialist doubters for the failure. If only they’d come on board and supported it, then it would have come out OK.
It explains his dealings with Congress in general. He has been telling Congress in very general terms what he wants from them, and seems to think that this is all he really has to do. He wants the bills enough so that Congress will spontaneously create exactly the bills he wants and send them to him as soon as he says. Nothing else need be done by him except to want them.
The teleological world view on the left has been a factor in American politics to a greater or lesser extent since the 1960’s, but this is the first time it was largely in control. And the most likely outcome of it is to make most Americans understand just how deeply worthless, and outright damaging, it is. Which, in the long run, will be very good for America.
The only concern is that we can come through the remaining three years of Obama’s first (and almost certainly his only) term of office without sustaining irreparable damage. If Congress had moved at the speed Obama wanted them to, we might have suffered such damage, but now that we’ve almost made it through his first year and are moving into an election year, with public opinion polls moving strongly against Obama and his policies, I am becoming cautiously optimistic that we can survive this.
This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
Way back in the depths of time, Greek philosophers ended up with two basic and incompatible ways of looking at the universe. One way was materialism, which says that there is a material universe which behaves in a consistent way, and if you study it you can learn the way it works.
That’s the world view of engineers and scientists — and businessmen, for that matter. It’s the world view of people who understand and use mathematics, and statistics. It is a place where cause leads to effect. It’s the place that game theory studies. It isn’t necessarily inherently atheistic; a lot of religious people live in the materialist world.
But there are people who don’t. A different epistemological view is teleology, which says that the universe is an ideal place. More or less, it
exists so that we humans can live in it. And human thought is a fundamental force in the universe. Teleology says that if a mental model is esthetically pleasing then it must be true. Teleology implies that if you truly believe in something, it’ll happen. Wikipedia says:
A teleological school of thought is one that holds all things to be designed for or directed toward a final result, that there is an inherent purpose or final cause for all that exists.
And in its modern form that final result is presumed to be creation of a world of peace and harmony, a utopia, in which all men live in peace and brotherhood, in harmony with nature.
At least, that’s the distorted form of Teleology that has come down to some of us in the modern era, mainly on the left wing. Aristotle probably wouldn’t recognize his red-headed step child as it exists today, though. Like many philosophically pure ideas adopted into popular culture, it’s gotten mutated nearly beyond recognition and almost all the mutations were negative.
One way to compare and contrast those two world views is to consider what they think about socialism. Materialists look at history since Marx and point out that socialism has been tried many times, in many nations, in various forms, and it has always failed. In places where it was fully implemented the result was decline and economic collapse. When it was only partially implemented you got slower decline. It often looks like it’s working in the early stages, but in the longer term it has never succeeded.
So to materialists, it’s apparent that socialism is a nice idea, but one that doesn’t work and shouldn’t be adopted.
To teleologists, none of that matters. What matters is the fact that it’s a beautiful idea. It’s how things should be. In a world in which socialism was implemented and which worked the way the teleologists think it should work, you really would have a utopia. The fact that it’s invariably failed when used doesn’t change any of that. (When asked to explain all the failures, usually the answer is, “They didn’t do it right.” But for teleologists, a long string of failures doesn’t matter because fundamentally teleologists don’t believe things like that make any difference.)
It’s teleologists who drive around with bumper stickers that say, “Imagine world peace.” I can imagine it just fine. I don’t expect to see it in my lifetime, though. Why would they want me to imagine it?
It’s because teleologists believe that human thought truly affects things. Of course it does; thought precedes action, and actions change history, right? Yeah, but that’s not the point. Teleologists believe that thought directly affects things. The mere act of thinking about something and wanting it a lot directly changes reality, even if the thought doesn’t get translated into action.
It was teleologists who were mainly involved in the anti-war movement about five years ago when it was at its greatest. I remember reading about how they’d have a demonstration somewhere. Lots of people would come out. They’d parade about carrying signs saying, “End the war!” Someone would burn a giant mockup of President Bush’s head. And afterwards they’d all talk about how successful the demonstration had been.
Successful how? It didn’t have any political effect that I ever noticed. The war didn’t end because of the demonstrations. So what was it that they thought was successful? Well, if you asked them they’d talk about how there was all sorts of positive vibes. How good it felt to be out there. And how so many people were feeling the same thing. Which sounds like masturbation, if you’re a materialist, but genuinely makes sense for a teleologist. They really thought that if enough of them got together and wanted the war to end strongly enough, it would spontaneously end. Not because getting enough voters on their side would have electoral consequences, but because the act of wanting it would directly bring that about.
To a materialist this sounds like insanity. It is, as Chip Morningstar memorably put it, “epistemologically challenged”. And it doesn’t survive real world test. But to teleologists, “real world tests” don’t matter. The teleological world view inherently rejects all of that stuff.
Why does teleology (in this mutated form) matter? Because right now we have a teleologist as our President.
Matthew Continetti says that we’re in “a year of magical thinking.” And to someone who has grown up with a materialist view of the universe, it could certainly seem that way. But what’s really going on is that Obama has this kind of world view. And that explains everything he’s done.
It explains his foreign policy. To a teleologists, it just makes sense that everyone should want to get along. If you unclench your fist and hold out
your hand, everyone else will unclench their fists, and become your friends. So Obama is doing that, and as we know the result has been a shambles.
It explains his economic policy. Teleologists inherently don’t believe in unintended side effects when it comes to implementing their idealistic policies. Obviously it should be possible to provide free health care to everyone without wrecking the economy; it’s just how things really should be, so that’s how it will be. Where will the money come from? That’s the kind of question that materialists ask; teleologists don’t concern themselves with such trivial. It’ll happen somehow, because it’s obviously how it should turn out. To say we shouldn’t do it is to be heartless, uncaring — and those things are more important than mundane claims that it won’t work. If you just believe, it will work.
Of course, it won’t work. The materialists are right about that. But when it fails (if it gets tried) the teleologists will blame the negative vibes of all the materialist doubters for the failure. If only they’d come on board and supported it, then it would have come out OK.
It explains his dealings with Congress in general. He has been telling Congress in very general terms what he wants from them, and seems to think that this is all he really has to do. He wants the bills enough so that Congress will spontaneously create exactly the bills he wants and send them to him as soon as he says. Nothing else need be done by him except to want them.
The teleological world view on the left has been a factor in American politics to a greater or lesser extent since the 1960’s, but this is the first time it was largely in control. And the most likely outcome of it is to make most Americans understand just how deeply worthless, and outright damaging, it is. Which, in the long run, will be very good for America.
The only concern is that we can come through the remaining three years of Obama’s first (and almost certainly his only) term of office without sustaining irreparable damage. If Congress had moved at the speed Obama wanted them to, we might have suffered such damage, but now that we’ve almost made it through his first year and are moving into an election year, with public opinion polls moving strongly against Obama and his policies, I am becoming cautiously optimistic that we can survive this.
This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
Labels: crooked politics, government, political humor, Washington
What Charlie Reese Has to Say
By Charlie Reese
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered; if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.
You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.
If the Army &Marines are in IRAQ , It's because they want them in IRAQ
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people and they alone, are responsible.
They and they alone, have the power.
They and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.
Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.
We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.
What you do with this article now that you have read it.......... Is up to you.
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge T ax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Sales Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Ser vice FeeTax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge=2 0Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
THINK THIS IS FUNNY? Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
What in the ____ happened? Can you spell 'politicians?'
And I still have to 'press 1' for English!?
I hope this goes around THE USA at least 100 times!!! YOU can help it get there!!!
GO AHEAD - - - BE AN AMERICAN!!!
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered; if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.
You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.
If the Army &Marines are in IRAQ , It's because they want them in IRAQ
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people and they alone, are responsible.
They and they alone, have the power.
They and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.
Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.
We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.
What you do with this article now that you have read it.......... Is up to you.
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge T ax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Sales Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Ser vice FeeTax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge=2 0Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
THINK THIS IS FUNNY? Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
What in the ____ happened? Can you spell 'politicians?'
And I still have to 'press 1' for English!?
I hope this goes around THE USA at least 100 times!!! YOU can help it get there!!!
GO AHEAD - - - BE AN AMERICAN!!!
Labels: crooked politics, government, political humor
Friday, October 29, 2010
Opinion: How Obama Lost His Magic (and How He Can Get It Back)
(Oct. 26) -- The erosion of President Barack Obama's popularity has lessons in it for every American who wishes to remain interesting and current, both professionally and personally.
The real story in this election is not that America has no jobs, that the economy continues to falter or that the national debt continues to balloon. While all three are true and, more importantly, Obama has failed to fix them, it is also true that these conditions existed prior to Obama's election. Yet somehow his personal charisma and captivating charm elevated the electorate.
The real story of campaign 2010 is how boring Obama has become.
Obama, who had never run anything except a campaign in his entire life, performed an almost unprecedented conjuring act in 2008, getting the electorate to embrace him regardless of the utter absence of managerial skills.
They believed not necessarily in Obama's capacity to fix America's transient problems but in his ability to focus us on more eternal, upbeat themes like hope, faith and the future. Yet, this time his very presence seems irritating. A man whose oratory lifted him to earth's highest office can't seem to deliver a single uplifting speech.
As a connoisseur of great oratory, I used to love hearing Obama's staccato delivery, perfect timing and mesmeric self-confidence -- the mark of any great speaker -- even as I disagreed with him on many of the issues. But Obama's speeches have now become insufferable, devoid of charisma and personal magnetism.
Here are three principal reasons why.
Obama has utterly overexposed himself. As a marriage counselor, I always advise husbands and wives that, paradoxically, their marriages require intimacy on the one hand, but barriers and distance on the other. Overexposure, as everyone knows, breeds contempt.
But Obama is forever in our face. From weighing in on every issue right down to the ground zero mosque to becoming the president who traveled most in his first two years, Obama lives permanently in the sun. Even on holiday he is constantly photographed buying ice cream and shooting hoops.
Less is more, Mr. President. Sometimes you have to give the people the opportunity to miss you. Superman knows that his grand entrances depend on being disguised the rest of the time as Clark Kent. But by being forever available, Obama has made himself pedestrian. He went from Messiah to mortal, rock star to bland stone.
Obama has betrayed a lack of substance. When he was more mysterious, Obama encouraged our belief that there was subterranean depth beneath the gleaming surface. Just give the man some time and out will come the magic. It turned out that vacuous speeches on hope and change were not the thin veneer that concealed great complexity but the very substance itself. I have yet to hear one truly new or exciting idea from Barack Obama since becoming president.
President George W. Bush was dismissed as a lightweight. But love it or hate it, the Bush doctrine of pre-emption and its corollary of exporting democracy to recalcitrant states was a compelling and divisive idea that invited ferocious debate. With Obama we are back to the tired, yawn-inducing discussions of big versus limited government and whether Keynesian stimulus spending or reducing the national debt is the best way to kindle the economy. I'm bored.
Obama comes across as perfect. The most interesting people are always the most tortured. Bill Clinton clogged his arteries with cheeseburgers and had sex with an intern in the Oval Office. Yet, he left the presidency with a 60 percent approval rating. America never lost its fascination with this angst-ridden and highly imperfect leader.
No-drama Obama evinces an imperturbable cool utterly bereft of inner trauma. Of course we don't want the president to cheat on his wife. But show us a tiny demon or two, other than the fact that you light up a cigarette. Demonstrate that you wrestle with moods the way we do when we can't pay our bills, that you struggle with life's disappointments like us ordinary mortals.
I believe Obama was poorly served by seemingly being a golden boy who suffered few setbacks, even though in truth he has endured a life of considerable adversity. Perfect people are boring and monolithic. But flawed human beings who rise above adversity to reach great heights are inspirational.
And if the president wants to recapture the public imagination, he would do well to expose a wart or two.
The real story in this election is not that America has no jobs, that the economy continues to falter or that the national debt continues to balloon. While all three are true and, more importantly, Obama has failed to fix them, it is also true that these conditions existed prior to Obama's election. Yet somehow his personal charisma and captivating charm elevated the electorate.
The real story of campaign 2010 is how boring Obama has become.
Obama, who had never run anything except a campaign in his entire life, performed an almost unprecedented conjuring act in 2008, getting the electorate to embrace him regardless of the utter absence of managerial skills.
They believed not necessarily in Obama's capacity to fix America's transient problems but in his ability to focus us on more eternal, upbeat themes like hope, faith and the future. Yet, this time his very presence seems irritating. A man whose oratory lifted him to earth's highest office can't seem to deliver a single uplifting speech.
As a connoisseur of great oratory, I used to love hearing Obama's staccato delivery, perfect timing and mesmeric self-confidence -- the mark of any great speaker -- even as I disagreed with him on many of the issues. But Obama's speeches have now become insufferable, devoid of charisma and personal magnetism.
Here are three principal reasons why.
Obama has utterly overexposed himself. As a marriage counselor, I always advise husbands and wives that, paradoxically, their marriages require intimacy on the one hand, but barriers and distance on the other. Overexposure, as everyone knows, breeds contempt.
But Obama is forever in our face. From weighing in on every issue right down to the ground zero mosque to becoming the president who traveled most in his first two years, Obama lives permanently in the sun. Even on holiday he is constantly photographed buying ice cream and shooting hoops.
Less is more, Mr. President. Sometimes you have to give the people the opportunity to miss you. Superman knows that his grand entrances depend on being disguised the rest of the time as Clark Kent. But by being forever available, Obama has made himself pedestrian. He went from Messiah to mortal, rock star to bland stone.
Obama has betrayed a lack of substance. When he was more mysterious, Obama encouraged our belief that there was subterranean depth beneath the gleaming surface. Just give the man some time and out will come the magic. It turned out that vacuous speeches on hope and change were not the thin veneer that concealed great complexity but the very substance itself. I have yet to hear one truly new or exciting idea from Barack Obama since becoming president.
President George W. Bush was dismissed as a lightweight. But love it or hate it, the Bush doctrine of pre-emption and its corollary of exporting democracy to recalcitrant states was a compelling and divisive idea that invited ferocious debate. With Obama we are back to the tired, yawn-inducing discussions of big versus limited government and whether Keynesian stimulus spending or reducing the national debt is the best way to kindle the economy. I'm bored.
Obama comes across as perfect. The most interesting people are always the most tortured. Bill Clinton clogged his arteries with cheeseburgers and had sex with an intern in the Oval Office. Yet, he left the presidency with a 60 percent approval rating. America never lost its fascination with this angst-ridden and highly imperfect leader.
No-drama Obama evinces an imperturbable cool utterly bereft of inner trauma. Of course we don't want the president to cheat on his wife. But show us a tiny demon or two, other than the fact that you light up a cigarette. Demonstrate that you wrestle with moods the way we do when we can't pay our bills, that you struggle with life's disappointments like us ordinary mortals.
I believe Obama was poorly served by seemingly being a golden boy who suffered few setbacks, even though in truth he has endured a life of considerable adversity. Perfect people are boring and monolithic. But flawed human beings who rise above adversity to reach great heights are inspirational.
And if the president wants to recapture the public imagination, he would do well to expose a wart or two.
Labels: Barack Obama, Capitol Hill, crooked politics, deocrats, government
Monday, August 23, 2010
Sarah Palin's No Tina Fey: 'Palinisms' Fall Flat, What About Biden's Gaffes? Carl M. Cannon
It's always good, especially in these dark days for journalism, when a working scribe can make a buck for himself and his publisher, so for years I ignored conservatives' complaints and applauded Jacob Weisberg for figuring out how to monetize George W. Bush's penchant for faux pas. Jacob's Bushisms books sold a bundle and made people laugh, the former president included. What's the harm in that?
Anyway, a thin new volume arrived over the transom this week, an offering from Jacob Weisberg called Palinisms: The Accidental Wit and Wisdom of Sarah Palin. There are a few nuggets here, but it would seem from this little paperback that Sarah Palin is not the dimwit liberals make her out to be. Palinisms made me miss George W. Bush -- and Ronald Reagan, too. It also implicitly raises the question of where the comparable volume is for Joe Biden, the gaffe-prone pol who actually holds the job Sarah Palin sought in 2008.
Weisberg's critics have long complained that he's a liberal with an obvious partisan agenda, and while I can't speak to that, it's apparent than in modern political writing a point of view can be a shrewd marketing technique. My father, Lou Cannon, pioneered the literary conceit of the "Reaganism of the Week," ending each Reagan & Co. column with one of them, but those were an eclectic compilation, catering neither solely to Reagan lovers nor Reagan haters.
Some "Reaganisms" made The Gipper sound foolish, as when he mused about his "suspicion" that the Mount St. Helens volcano released more sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere than 10 years' worth of automobile driving. Others Reaganisms were clever. "I'm not worried about the deficit -- it's big enough to take care of itself." The best Reaganisms rendered his listeners speechless, which is how the leader of the free world left Mikhail Gorbachev in 1985 when Reagan sought to establish common ground by telling the Soviet premier that if Earth was attacked by aliens, the Russians and American would fight the extraterrestrial invaders together. And some of the most memorable Reaganisms were statesmanlike -- as when Reagan stood at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin and declared: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"
The most endearing Reaganisms were self-deprecating: "It's true hard work never killed anybody," Reagan liked to quip, "but I figure why take the chance?" When a wire service reporter Reagan knew asked him to autograph a photo from Bedtime for Bonzo, the 1951 screwball comedy starring Ronald Reagan, the president signed it, "I'm the one with the watch."
Unfortunately, it's a different era now; we're supposed to laugh mirthlessly at those we voted against, and to use verbal misfires as proof of their idiocy -- whether or not they are laughing along with us at their own fallibility.
While giving the commencement speech at his alma mater, Yale, President George W. Bush said: "And to you 'C' students, -- you too can be president of the United States." Another time, while campaigning for reelection at a town hall in Ohio in 2004, one of Dubya's questioners identified himself as an operator of air compressor stations – a man who sells air. Bush retorted quickly: "You and I are in the same business. Is it hot air, by any chance?"
Such cleverness could be quickly negated, by George W. Bush's own hand -- or rather his tongue. The same day as the Ohio rally -- at a bill-signing ceremony, no less – the president uttered one of his most famous Bushisms: "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
Everyone has their favorite Bushism. "Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?" he said while discussing education in South Carolina on Jan. 11, 2000. "I know the human being and the fish can co-exist peacefully," was his contribution to environmental thought. His economic theory? "We ought to make the pie higher."
The Texan's saving grace -- at least to some -- was that he was in on the joke, something that Jacob Weisberg himself explained. "People often assume that because I've spent the past nine years collecting Bushisms, I must despise George W. Bush," Weisberg wrote at the end of Bush's tenure in the White House. "To the contrary, Bushisms fill me with affection for the man -- and not just because of the income stream they've generated..."
Less than two years into a new administration, we're in a political environment that is even more polarized and poisonous. Into this milieu comes Palinisms. Two things can be said about the woman nicknamed in high school "Sarah Barracuda" and who calls her political allies "mama grizzlies." The first is that barracudas and grizzlies don't laugh, they bite. In other words, Sarah Palin doesn't easily laugh at herself -- not in public, anyway. The second point is that she's not all that funny, which helps explain why Palinisms is so thin.
The book is tiny -- 5-by-7 inches -- and fits in a back pocket. It's 95 pages, but the preface goes to page 13. And though the pages are small, the type is big -- and double-spaced with a picture on about half the pages. You can read the whole thing in five minutes. Worse, you've heard much of this stuff before, although Tina Fey said it better: "I can see Russia from my house!" is hilarious. But what Palin actually said in her infamous interviews with Katie Couric was: "They're our next door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska." Not that funny.
Scanning this booklet, something else occurs to a discerning reader: Sarah Palin may be more careful than people think. She has given numerous interviews, talks, and campaign speeches since John McCain plucked her out of obscurity two years ago, and yet of the 116 Palinisms in Palinisms, eight are from her (ghost-written) autobiography Rogue. Another seven are from a single talk she made while speaking about her faith at Wassilla Assembly of God church; six are from those Katie Couric interviews; five from a speech she made in Ontario, Canada last April to raise money for Charity of Hope, which helps needy children; four came from her resignation as governor; three from an interview with Charlie Gibson.
The Palin material from the Gibson interview certainly isn't elegant, but it's simply not in Bush's league for being off-kilter or entertaining. "You are a cynic," she told Gibson (page 50), "because show me where I have ever said that there's absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any effect -- or no effect -- on climate change." Maybe I'm cynical, too, but that clunky prose sounds to me like the mind-numbing obfuscation that is a politician's stock-in-trade.
None of the Palinisms in this booklet are lifted from her 2008 debate with Joe Biden. And there's the rub: In that debate, Biden said numerous things, which, had Palin uttered them, would have generated pressure for John McCain to drop her from the ticket the following day. Palin wasn't perfect. Twice she referred to the top U.S. military officer in Afghanistan as "General McClellan." (His name is David McKiernan), she claimed that McCain's $5,000 tax credit for health coverage was some how "budget-neutral," and she combined the last names of the Democratic ticket when she called opponent "Senator O'Biden," reminiscent of Biden's gaffe of introducing Obama to a crowd as "Barack America."
But Biden's performance that October night in 2008 wasn't characterized by slips of the tongue so much as wildly inaccurate claims about everything from the basics of the Afghanistan war to Constitutional provisions of the office he was seeking.
Joe Biden claimed that McCain voted against a nuclear test ban treaty "that every Republican has supported" (McCain actually voted with 50 other Republicans to kill the treaty), credited Pakistan with having intercontinental nuclear-armed ballistic missiles (it doesn't), and asserted that he had opposed Bush's support for holding elections on the West Bank (Biden actually gave a spirited defense of this policy). He also maintained -- while prefacing his point with the statement "facts matter" -- that the United States spends "more money in three weeks on combat in Iraq than we spend on the entirety of the last seven years that we have been in Afghanistan." Biden was so taken with this statement that he repeated this ludicrous claim, which was off by 2,000 percent.
Biden tried to establish his common-man bona fides by inviting voters to walk down Union Street in Wilmington and talk to regular folks at "Katie's Restaurant," which would have been hard to do because the diner (actually located on Scott Street) had been closed for 20 years. More substantively, Biden excoriated Dick Cheney for his "bizarre notion" about Article I of the Constitution (Cheney was correct) in a confused riff that reminded one commentator of John Belushi's famous rant in Animal House: "Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?"
Biden has continued in this vein as vice president. No less an aficionado of the official gaffe than Jacob Weisberg oversaw their collection for Slate. Weisberg explained to me that they didn't get a big response. Perhaps this is because Slate's readership trends liberal. Or, as Weisberg says, the problem might be that Biden's goofiness is so situational it doesn't translate well to print -- you have to be there to really appreciate the outlandishness -- which was often the case with John Kerry's verbal blunders.
Maybe the moral of the story is that employment is not the only thing in short-supply -- these aren't great days for political humor, either. Of course, there's always Twitter, and this may be the saving grace for collectors of Palinisms. A post-script to Palinisms pays homage to this truism with a "top 10 tweets" postscript. These are pretty good, and many of which have already been topped since the book went to press. My favorite: "Research is your friend, News Media," Palin tweeted on May 15. "Try it sometime."
To that, I'd say: Be careful what you wish for, Sarah Barracuda. You, too, Joe "Regular Guy" Biden.
Anyway, a thin new volume arrived over the transom this week, an offering from Jacob Weisberg called Palinisms: The Accidental Wit and Wisdom of Sarah Palin. There are a few nuggets here, but it would seem from this little paperback that Sarah Palin is not the dimwit liberals make her out to be. Palinisms made me miss George W. Bush -- and Ronald Reagan, too. It also implicitly raises the question of where the comparable volume is for Joe Biden, the gaffe-prone pol who actually holds the job Sarah Palin sought in 2008.
Weisberg's critics have long complained that he's a liberal with an obvious partisan agenda, and while I can't speak to that, it's apparent than in modern political writing a point of view can be a shrewd marketing technique. My father, Lou Cannon, pioneered the literary conceit of the "Reaganism of the Week," ending each Reagan & Co. column with one of them, but those were an eclectic compilation, catering neither solely to Reagan lovers nor Reagan haters.
Some "Reaganisms" made The Gipper sound foolish, as when he mused about his "suspicion" that the Mount St. Helens volcano released more sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere than 10 years' worth of automobile driving. Others Reaganisms were clever. "I'm not worried about the deficit -- it's big enough to take care of itself." The best Reaganisms rendered his listeners speechless, which is how the leader of the free world left Mikhail Gorbachev in 1985 when Reagan sought to establish common ground by telling the Soviet premier that if Earth was attacked by aliens, the Russians and American would fight the extraterrestrial invaders together. And some of the most memorable Reaganisms were statesmanlike -- as when Reagan stood at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin and declared: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"
The most endearing Reaganisms were self-deprecating: "It's true hard work never killed anybody," Reagan liked to quip, "but I figure why take the chance?" When a wire service reporter Reagan knew asked him to autograph a photo from Bedtime for Bonzo, the 1951 screwball comedy starring Ronald Reagan, the president signed it, "I'm the one with the watch."
Unfortunately, it's a different era now; we're supposed to laugh mirthlessly at those we voted against, and to use verbal misfires as proof of their idiocy -- whether or not they are laughing along with us at their own fallibility.
While giving the commencement speech at his alma mater, Yale, President George W. Bush said: "And to you 'C' students, -- you too can be president of the United States." Another time, while campaigning for reelection at a town hall in Ohio in 2004, one of Dubya's questioners identified himself as an operator of air compressor stations – a man who sells air. Bush retorted quickly: "You and I are in the same business. Is it hot air, by any chance?"
Such cleverness could be quickly negated, by George W. Bush's own hand -- or rather his tongue. The same day as the Ohio rally -- at a bill-signing ceremony, no less – the president uttered one of his most famous Bushisms: "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
Everyone has their favorite Bushism. "Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?" he said while discussing education in South Carolina on Jan. 11, 2000. "I know the human being and the fish can co-exist peacefully," was his contribution to environmental thought. His economic theory? "We ought to make the pie higher."
The Texan's saving grace -- at least to some -- was that he was in on the joke, something that Jacob Weisberg himself explained. "People often assume that because I've spent the past nine years collecting Bushisms, I must despise George W. Bush," Weisberg wrote at the end of Bush's tenure in the White House. "To the contrary, Bushisms fill me with affection for the man -- and not just because of the income stream they've generated..."
Less than two years into a new administration, we're in a political environment that is even more polarized and poisonous. Into this milieu comes Palinisms. Two things can be said about the woman nicknamed in high school "Sarah Barracuda" and who calls her political allies "mama grizzlies." The first is that barracudas and grizzlies don't laugh, they bite. In other words, Sarah Palin doesn't easily laugh at herself -- not in public, anyway. The second point is that she's not all that funny, which helps explain why Palinisms is so thin.
The book is tiny -- 5-by-7 inches -- and fits in a back pocket. It's 95 pages, but the preface goes to page 13. And though the pages are small, the type is big -- and double-spaced with a picture on about half the pages. You can read the whole thing in five minutes. Worse, you've heard much of this stuff before, although Tina Fey said it better: "I can see Russia from my house!" is hilarious. But what Palin actually said in her infamous interviews with Katie Couric was: "They're our next door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska." Not that funny.
Scanning this booklet, something else occurs to a discerning reader: Sarah Palin may be more careful than people think. She has given numerous interviews, talks, and campaign speeches since John McCain plucked her out of obscurity two years ago, and yet of the 116 Palinisms in Palinisms, eight are from her (ghost-written) autobiography Rogue. Another seven are from a single talk she made while speaking about her faith at Wassilla Assembly of God church; six are from those Katie Couric interviews; five from a speech she made in Ontario, Canada last April to raise money for Charity of Hope, which helps needy children; four came from her resignation as governor; three from an interview with Charlie Gibson.
The Palin material from the Gibson interview certainly isn't elegant, but it's simply not in Bush's league for being off-kilter or entertaining. "You are a cynic," she told Gibson (page 50), "because show me where I have ever said that there's absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any effect -- or no effect -- on climate change." Maybe I'm cynical, too, but that clunky prose sounds to me like the mind-numbing obfuscation that is a politician's stock-in-trade.
None of the Palinisms in this booklet are lifted from her 2008 debate with Joe Biden. And there's the rub: In that debate, Biden said numerous things, which, had Palin uttered them, would have generated pressure for John McCain to drop her from the ticket the following day. Palin wasn't perfect. Twice she referred to the top U.S. military officer in Afghanistan as "General McClellan." (His name is David McKiernan), she claimed that McCain's $5,000 tax credit for health coverage was some how "budget-neutral," and she combined the last names of the Democratic ticket when she called opponent "Senator O'Biden," reminiscent of Biden's gaffe of introducing Obama to a crowd as "Barack America."
But Biden's performance that October night in 2008 wasn't characterized by slips of the tongue so much as wildly inaccurate claims about everything from the basics of the Afghanistan war to Constitutional provisions of the office he was seeking.
Joe Biden claimed that McCain voted against a nuclear test ban treaty "that every Republican has supported" (McCain actually voted with 50 other Republicans to kill the treaty), credited Pakistan with having intercontinental nuclear-armed ballistic missiles (it doesn't), and asserted that he had opposed Bush's support for holding elections on the West Bank (Biden actually gave a spirited defense of this policy). He also maintained -- while prefacing his point with the statement "facts matter" -- that the United States spends "more money in three weeks on combat in Iraq than we spend on the entirety of the last seven years that we have been in Afghanistan." Biden was so taken with this statement that he repeated this ludicrous claim, which was off by 2,000 percent.
Biden tried to establish his common-man bona fides by inviting voters to walk down Union Street in Wilmington and talk to regular folks at "Katie's Restaurant," which would have been hard to do because the diner (actually located on Scott Street) had been closed for 20 years. More substantively, Biden excoriated Dick Cheney for his "bizarre notion" about Article I of the Constitution (Cheney was correct) in a confused riff that reminded one commentator of John Belushi's famous rant in Animal House: "Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?"
Biden has continued in this vein as vice president. No less an aficionado of the official gaffe than Jacob Weisberg oversaw their collection for Slate. Weisberg explained to me that they didn't get a big response. Perhaps this is because Slate's readership trends liberal. Or, as Weisberg says, the problem might be that Biden's goofiness is so situational it doesn't translate well to print -- you have to be there to really appreciate the outlandishness -- which was often the case with John Kerry's verbal blunders.
Maybe the moral of the story is that employment is not the only thing in short-supply -- these aren't great days for political humor, either. Of course, there's always Twitter, and this may be the saving grace for collectors of Palinisms. A post-script to Palinisms pays homage to this truism with a "top 10 tweets" postscript. These are pretty good, and many of which have already been topped since the book went to press. My favorite: "Research is your friend, News Media," Palin tweeted on May 15. "Try it sometime."
To that, I'd say: Be careful what you wish for, Sarah Barracuda. You, too, Joe "Regular Guy" Biden.
Labels: crooked politics, government, joe biden, president, Sara Palin
Monday, August 16, 2010
Putting things into perspective: What If George W. Bush had ...
Unattributed | July 1, 2009
Posted on Wednesday, July 01, 2009 5:52:20 PM by Zakeet
What If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?
If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?
If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current on their income taxes, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to “Cinco de Cuatro” in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the Fifth of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?
If George W. Bush had misspelled the word advice would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potato as “proof” of what a dunce he is?
If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on “Earth Day”, would you have concluded he’s a hypocrite?
If George W. Bush’s administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually “get” what happened on 9-11?
If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how he is inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?
If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?
If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?
So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 10 weeks -- so you'll have three years and nine-and-a-half months to come up with an answer.
Posted on Wednesday, July 01, 2009 5:52:20 PM by Zakeet
What If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?
If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?
If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current on their income taxes, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to “Cinco de Cuatro” in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the Fifth of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?
If George W. Bush had misspelled the word advice would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potato as “proof” of what a dunce he is?
If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on “Earth Day”, would you have concluded he’s a hypocrite?
If George W. Bush’s administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually “get” what happened on 9-11?
If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how he is inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?
If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?
If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?
So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 10 weeks -- so you'll have three years and nine-and-a-half months to come up with an answer.
Labels: Barack Obama, corruption, crooked politics, Democrats, government, president obama
Friday, July 30, 2010
As BP Oil Gushes, Obama's Energy Call Falls Flat By SAM GUSTIN
There's an old saying that if you try to do too many things at once, you won't do any of them well.
Fifty-seven days into the catastrophic BP (BP) Deepwater Horizon oil spill, President Barack Obama tried to reassure increasingly desperate Gulf Coast residents that the U.S. government is doing everything it can to stanch the gushing well and was hard at work cleaning up the toxic mess befouling their shoreline. In his first-ever address from the Oval Office on Tuesday night, Obama also used the opportunity to issue a call for the U.S. to embark on a "national mission" to wean itself off petroleum.
On the first two counts, Obama was less than convincing. He offered qualified promises but no actual program to stop the leak, other than a mysterious reference to "additional equipment and technology." On the third count, the president was roundly criticized -- by liberals for not demanding a massive federal green technology push, and by conservatives for politicizing the catastrophe. And on all counts, Obama was faulted for being too vague about the concrete steps needed to achieve his goals -- from stopping the leak, to cleaning the oil, to transforming America's fossil-fuel-based economy.
Obama used war-tinged rhetoric to describe the black sludge that has been "assaulting our shores and our citizens" since Deepwater Horizon exploded 40 miles off the coast of Louisiana, killing 11 workers and injuring 17 others.
Bipartisan Criticism
Both friends and foes alike found the speech deficient. "Where was the 'How?' in this speech, when the nation was crying out for 'How?'" asked Keith Olberman, MSNBC's liberal pundit. "I don't think he aimed low, I don't think he aimed at all." Colleague Rachel Maddow lamented that the speech was not a "clarion call" for energy reform.
Appearing on Fox News immediately after the speech, former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin told host Bill O'Reilly that "We haven't had the assurance by the president that [stopping the oil leak] has been his top priority. Instead, what his top priority is, Bill, is cap and tax. It is using this crisis, not letting it go to waste, but to use this crisis to increase the cost of energy."
After weeks of failed attempts to halt the toxic gusher, Obama sought to offer Gulf Coast residents a measure of hope, saying the U.S government has "directed BP to mobilize additional equipment and technology. And in the coming weeks and days, these efforts should capture up to 90% of the oil leaking out of the well." But his qualified language -- "should capture up to" -- left what was meant as a note of reassurance sounding hollow.
A Dry and Detached Recitation
In his speech, Obama tried to accomplish a difficult political high-wire act: maintaining the focus on the spill while making a larger point about U.S. fossil fuel consumption, all without appearing to take advantage of the disaster for political gain. But after a dry, almost detached recitation of the number of National Guardsmen deployed and maritime vessels marshaled -- followed by equally dry talk of dreaded blue-ribbon panels and his Nobel Prize-winning experts, Obama only seemed to become engaged when he directly linked the crisis to energy reform.
"The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean-energy future is now," Obama said. "Now is the moment for this generation to embark on a national mission to unleash America's innovation and seize control of our own destiny."
Using language lifted almost entirely from his rhetoric during last year's epic political struggle over health care, Obama said he was "happy to look at other ideas and approaches from either party, as long as they seriously tackle our addiction to fossil fuels. . . . But the one approach I will not accept is inaction. The one answer I will not settle for is the idea that this challenge is somehow too big and too difficult to meet."
"You know," he continued, "the same thing was said about our ability to produce enough planes and tanks in World War II. The same thing was said about our ability to harness the science and technology to land a man safely on the surface of the moon." But those on the left looking for details of a full-scale Manhattan Project-style mission to transform our economy away from petroleum must have been disappointed.
Separating the Issues Would Be Better
In trying to have it both ways -- making the energy reform pitch, but not so strongly as to be accused of politicization -- Obama simultaneously managed to appear political and yet failed to make a strong political argument. The president would have been much better off focusing on the spill and cleanup, and leaving the energy push for another speech -- like, say, after he has done the necessary heavy lifting to dislodge his energy bill from the legislative purgatory that is the U.S. Senate.
Obama used the oil spill to push his energy reform agenda, but didn't have the courage to demand immediate action.
Fifty-seven days into the catastrophic BP (BP) Deepwater Horizon oil spill, President Barack Obama tried to reassure increasingly desperate Gulf Coast residents that the U.S. government is doing everything it can to stanch the gushing well and was hard at work cleaning up the toxic mess befouling their shoreline. In his first-ever address from the Oval Office on Tuesday night, Obama also used the opportunity to issue a call for the U.S. to embark on a "national mission" to wean itself off petroleum.
On the first two counts, Obama was less than convincing. He offered qualified promises but no actual program to stop the leak, other than a mysterious reference to "additional equipment and technology." On the third count, the president was roundly criticized -- by liberals for not demanding a massive federal green technology push, and by conservatives for politicizing the catastrophe. And on all counts, Obama was faulted for being too vague about the concrete steps needed to achieve his goals -- from stopping the leak, to cleaning the oil, to transforming America's fossil-fuel-based economy.
Obama used war-tinged rhetoric to describe the black sludge that has been "assaulting our shores and our citizens" since Deepwater Horizon exploded 40 miles off the coast of Louisiana, killing 11 workers and injuring 17 others.
Bipartisan Criticism
Both friends and foes alike found the speech deficient. "Where was the 'How?' in this speech, when the nation was crying out for 'How?'" asked Keith Olberman, MSNBC's liberal pundit. "I don't think he aimed low, I don't think he aimed at all." Colleague Rachel Maddow lamented that the speech was not a "clarion call" for energy reform.
Appearing on Fox News immediately after the speech, former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin told host Bill O'Reilly that "We haven't had the assurance by the president that [stopping the oil leak] has been his top priority. Instead, what his top priority is, Bill, is cap and tax. It is using this crisis, not letting it go to waste, but to use this crisis to increase the cost of energy."
After weeks of failed attempts to halt the toxic gusher, Obama sought to offer Gulf Coast residents a measure of hope, saying the U.S government has "directed BP to mobilize additional equipment and technology. And in the coming weeks and days, these efforts should capture up to 90% of the oil leaking out of the well." But his qualified language -- "should capture up to" -- left what was meant as a note of reassurance sounding hollow.
A Dry and Detached Recitation
In his speech, Obama tried to accomplish a difficult political high-wire act: maintaining the focus on the spill while making a larger point about U.S. fossil fuel consumption, all without appearing to take advantage of the disaster for political gain. But after a dry, almost detached recitation of the number of National Guardsmen deployed and maritime vessels marshaled -- followed by equally dry talk of dreaded blue-ribbon panels and his Nobel Prize-winning experts, Obama only seemed to become engaged when he directly linked the crisis to energy reform.
"The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean-energy future is now," Obama said. "Now is the moment for this generation to embark on a national mission to unleash America's innovation and seize control of our own destiny."
Using language lifted almost entirely from his rhetoric during last year's epic political struggle over health care, Obama said he was "happy to look at other ideas and approaches from either party, as long as they seriously tackle our addiction to fossil fuels. . . . But the one approach I will not accept is inaction. The one answer I will not settle for is the idea that this challenge is somehow too big and too difficult to meet."
"You know," he continued, "the same thing was said about our ability to produce enough planes and tanks in World War II. The same thing was said about our ability to harness the science and technology to land a man safely on the surface of the moon." But those on the left looking for details of a full-scale Manhattan Project-style mission to transform our economy away from petroleum must have been disappointed.
Separating the Issues Would Be Better
In trying to have it both ways -- making the energy reform pitch, but not so strongly as to be accused of politicization -- Obama simultaneously managed to appear political and yet failed to make a strong political argument. The president would have been much better off focusing on the spill and cleanup, and leaving the energy push for another speech -- like, say, after he has done the necessary heavy lifting to dislodge his energy bill from the legislative purgatory that is the U.S. Senate.
Obama used the oil spill to push his energy reform agenda, but didn't have the courage to demand immediate action.
Labels: crooked politics, government, gulf oil spill, president obama
