Thursday, January 28, 2010

Snotty Obama Remains Defiant

Remember when Presidents used to get up to the Podium for the State of the Union and run through the issues using the previous years events and the future plans for that particular topic? You could almost follow as he went from one Cabinet Office to the next. President Obama's speech did not do that. Remember when the Presidents would praise Americans and American ingenuity and American businesses? Obama's speech did not do that.

He spent most of his time trying not to break his arm as he patted himself on the back but even those things that he was patting himself on the back for were false. Just a bit of a rehash here from the last time I wrote on here. I said that Obama would talk about himself. He used the terms "I", 'me", "my" by my count 91 times. Others on news programs last night said he used it 96 times. I also said that he would blame the bad things on former President Bush. To be fair, anyone could have predicted that and everyone did. What surprised me was that it took him only about two minutes to do that and then interspersed it into the rest of his speech several more times.

Obama started off his speech with how he inherited economic problems;bad behavior on Wall St.; partisanship; Banks caused the crisis; how he hated the bank bailout. Not one mention of the housing market or how Fannie and Freddie were responsible for the economic problems of the past year. Instead he chose to blame Wall St. and the banks.

Obama claimed that this was all here before he "walked in the door". He stated that the deficit was already over $1 Trillion. This was blatantly false! When President Bush left office the deficit was at $540 Billion.

From there his topics were the following: 1. Jobs Bill, 2. Financial Reform, 3. Clean Energy, 4. Education, 5. Health Reform, 6. Freeze in spending, 7. Lack of Trust of American People, 8. Earmark Reform, 9. Bipartisanship again 10. Patriotism, 11. Nuclear Weapons Reduction, 12. Haiti, 13. Civil Rights, 14. Immigration, 15. Faith lost in Corporations, media and Government 16. Haiti again 17. Wrap up.

I am not going to review all of those here. I am going to talk about a couple of things though.

1. Spending

2. Health Insurance

3. BiPartisanship

4. National Security.

1. Spending

He proposed a freeze in spending. Not now, but beginning next year. However, he proposed spending more money on a Jobs bill, which is nothing more than a sequel to last years failed stimulus bill. He proposed spending on education in the form of tax credits and then forgiving the debt after ten years and sooner if they go into community service. In all, he wants to freeze spending but spend another $150 billion.

2. Health Care Reform

Obama pretty much repeated what he said last year. If you have a better idea, he'll listen. But last year, the Republicans came out with proposals and were left standing outside of a locked door. Obama and the Democrats would not listen to the Republicans. Instead they claimed that the Republicans would not come in and had no proposals. In fact, the Republicans did put out proposals and did offer to sit with the President and his minions to put forth their proposals. But they weren't allowed in.

I'm really curious about this "better idea" statement of Obama's. Who determines if it's a better idea? Him? We've already seen his ideas and the American people didn't like it. 65% of the people in this country did not like the health care plans passed in the House and the Senate.

But during the speech Obama said that the reason that the American people didn't like the Health Care bill was because the debate went on too long and the people were confused by what was in it. This is arrogance at it's height. The people rejected the bill because they had to pay taxes four years before the bill would even be available to them. They rejected it because they don't want government involved in their choices for health care. They rejected it because they didn't want to be thrown in jail if they didn't get health care. WE rejected it because we don't want to see rationing of health care like happens all around the world where they have government run health care.

3. BiPartisanship

This topic was at the beginning of his speech, and interspersed throughout his speech and he ended with it as well. He said that people didn't trust government. He finally got something right. But Obama even managed to insert some partisanship, and downplay the partisanship and give directions of how bipartisanship should be handled or not be handled.

For example, at one point, when talking about the lack of trust in government, he said that the American people don't trust Corporations, media and Government. He then bashed the corporations for making profits and paying bonuses. He bashed the media for their constant yelling back and forth and inciting people against one side or the other. But when it came to government, he talked about lobbyists and how he had the most transparent White House in history.

I actually burst out laughing when he said that about the transparency. I immediately remembered that Vice President Joe Biden held two meetings on Transparency. One as recently as last week. Both of the meetings were closed to the public! Transparency in this administration is a complete lie. Do we have to be reminded that even C-span was denied access to the Health Care negotiations? You really have to go to great lengths to get C-Span to comment in public. This was even after Obama had promised in previous speeches to put the negotiations on C-Span.

In the midst of his discussion about about Deficit of Trust from Americans regarding government, he slid off to talk about the recent Supreme Court decision on campaign finance reform. He actually trashed the Supreme Court during a State of the Union speech! I cannot remember a President ever doing that in my lifetime. I have not been able to find a state of the union speech where any President ever said anything about the Supreme Court in a negative fashion. In addition, he didn't tell the truth while bashing the Supreme Court. Obama said that foreign interests would now have access to our elections with their funding. This is not true of the Supreme Court decision.

This is the second time he's been caught in a lie and that a controversy has come from it. Last year, he said that there were no "death panels" or government in health care decisions. Representative Joe Wilson blurted out loudly "You lie!" This time, when talking about the Supreme Court a camera caught Justice Samuel Alito shaking his head and mouthing what looked like "That's not true".

Yes, Presidents have disagreed with other Supreme Court decisions, but they've never called that Supreme Court out in the middle of a State of the Union speech.

Obama talked about how both sides of the aisle need to work through their disagreements on various topics and not get on news programs and try to embarass the other side for their positions. Then he looked at the Republicans and said that saying "no" to everything is not bipartisan. Apparently, the definition of bipartisanship to this president is agree with me or you're partisan.

He also seemed to blame the Senate rule of 60 votes to get cloture is the Republicans doing. He said that if Republicans insist on 60 votes to get a bill passed, that the Republicans would now have to engage in the legislating.

Obama did nothing in the speech to lead on bipartisanship. He antagonized. That's it.

4. National Security

In my last post, I said that I'd be surprised if Obama talked about National Security first. But what I didn't expect was that National Security wouldn't even be mentioned other than in passing.

President Bush, in at least one of his speeches, didn't mention National Security until the end. I was surpised he didn't lead off with that because that is the most important job of the President of the United States. However, in that speech, Bush saved National Security for last and he was very straight forward about National Security as he saw it. He was solemn, direct and had a laid out plan that he put out for the American people and plain spoken. He was also humble and serious.

We did not get that from Obama. Even the liberal commentators after the speech said they were surprised at how little was said about National Security. He briefly said something about it when he was talking about bipartisanship when he said to stop saying "you're more patriotic than I".

When he actually spoke about National Security, he blew his own horn saying he had prevented attacks. But then he dropped back into the bash Bush mode yet again when he said that he had killed or captured more terrorists during 2009 than had been captured or killed during 2008.

I will give Obama credit here. I don't know if it's true, but it appears that he has been very aggressive in killing terrorists and the leadership of Al Queda. He's using drones and killing terrorists, especially the leadership. We're constantly hearing how one leader or another is being killed. Did the press just not report it in the past? I don't think so. I believe that Obama has actually led and stepped up the attacks on the terrorist leadership.

Obama did not mention the trials planned for New York soon. He did not mention that the underwear bomber in Detroit was read the Miranda rights after only 50 minutes of questioning which led to the bomber lawyering up and then shutting up.

He also claimed that the War in Iraq is ending. He didn't claim victory. He only said the war was ending and all troops would be home by August. Rather than claiming victory, he then admonished the American people to welcome the troops home. Show the proper respect as they come home. As if to say 'we don't want people spitting on the troops as they did following Vietnam'. This was a very condescending comment to the American people.

He made no comment about the terrorists being tried in Federal courts. He made no mention of the three terrorist attacks in this country since he took over. He made no mention of Fort Hood or Arkansas and only said that they have revamped their procedure since the Christmas attack by the underwear bomber.

President Obama was very condescending to the American people. He was downright snotty to the Supreme Court and anyone that disagreed with him. Has he really misread the results of the elections of the past few months? Or is he trying to change what those results mean?

If one of my children had spoken to me in the manner that Obama spoke to the American people in that State of the Union address, they'd have been grounded for not showing the proper respect.

I'm perfectly happy with Obama being snotty and defiant because it means that come next November, he'll be pretty much impotent when it comes to harming the United States of America with his silly ideas and destructive policies. He didn't like that the Senate rejected the commission he wanted to start so he said he'll do it anyway by Executive order. In other words, if Congress won't give me what I want, I'll take it anyway. Just like a snotty little kid. Or a bully. You choose.

This was 70 minutes long, but it seemed to last much longer. I'm not sure which was more aggravating. Listening to him drone on spending money while talking about freezing spending or talking about bipartisanship while being partisan or watching Joe Biden's head bob up and down all night.

This speech wasn't just embarassing, it was a train wreck.

You're welcome to comment.


Monday, January 25, 2010

State of the Union: It's Bush's fault!!!

Over the weekend, I've been listening to the pundits wondering what the President needs to say in his State of the Union Address. All of their concerns are about his lower standing in the country now which has been reinforced with the Democrat losses in Virginia and New Jersey for their Governors, and the most recent in Massachussetts with the election of Scott Brown to the Senate.

I find it interesting that they are more worried about the President losing the backing of the American people and how to get it back rather than what the Republicans will now insist on now that they have a seat at the table by virtue of their new numbers. But that's a discussion for another time.

The State of the Union is a requirement of the Constitution in Article II Section 3. It is not required to be given in person. In fact, he must be invited to the House to be able to even address the Congress. George Washington gave a state of the union address but Thomas Jefferson decided that it resembled too much the Monarchs giving their addresses, and discontinued it. It was picked up and started again by Woodrow Wilson in 1913.

There are things that I think are pretty certain about this President and this State of the Union. These are very simple things that anyone could predict. It's unlikely that National Security will be the first thing he talks about because he and his administration has screwed up so bad in the three terrorist attacks we've had in the past year since he became President. It is the most important thing that a President is responsible for, but with his weakness on National Security I'll be very surprised if he talks about that first.

Another thing we can be pretty assured of is that he'll blame "the previous adminstration" for all of the country's woes. He'll say at least once that he "inherited" whatever topic he's going to talk about. He'll likely make excuses for some of the things he's done that didn't work or that people disagree with saying that they did the same as the previous administration. For example, he'll likely comment on the terrorists being tried in New York saying that Bush did the same thing with the shoe bomber.

It's also a pretty good bet that Obama will use the term "I" an awful lot in his speech and at some point, after talking about himself will say that it's not about him. Or he may start off saying it's not about him, then spend a tremendous amount of time saying "I", or "me".

I'm sure he'll talk about the evils of Wall St., the evils of the Insurance companies, and the evils of Bankers. Yet, he wants to control Wall St., take over insurance and talk more about his bank tax saying it's wrong for banks to pass those costs on to consumers.

One thing I'm sure he won't do is he won't bow to the American people, nor the Congress as he did in Saudi Arabia, Japan and China. It's also pretty much a given that his speech won't be uplifting and positive about the United States. I just wonder if he'll call America and its' people "arrogant" as he has said to other countries about us in the past.

Then we'll turn on CNN or MSNBC and hear the pundits say how his speech will be a "game changer" and how he pefectly laid the blame of the current problems at the feet of George W. Bush.

Gee, now that I know all of this, I guess I don't have to watch it. Perhaps I could watch reruns of Tom and Jerry instead and get some real mind stimulating television viewing in on Wednesday night.

You're welcome to comment.


Friday, January 22, 2010

Obama Devastating America/Kiki Emerges from other Devastation

There are two points to this post. One is what President Obama has done this week and the other is the earthquake in Haiti.

Now that health care reform is dead, Obama has returned to telling Americans how to live. In the past couple of days, he has nationalized the student loans and is now directing where banks may and may not invest their funds as punishment for success.

First he started with trying to put a fee on the banks for paying bonuses on the money they earned last year. Now, I can understand if he wants to complain about banks that still owe money from the bailout program last year, but he didn't limit the fees to just those that owe. It seems to me that it would have been wise for those institutions to pay a bonus for their earnings last year, but the bonuses could have been smaller for the institutions that owe still on the bailout. However, he was wanting to charge all of these institutions for that, even if they didn't receive bailout money.

Someone really needs to sit this man down and explain to him that businesses do not pay the governments fees and taxes. They write the checks, but the money is not paid by them. It's paid by you and me. When the government puts a higher tax or a fee (which really is a tax even if it's called a fee) on a business, the business passes the cost on to the consumer. Higher ATM rates, higher monthly fees for having an account and so on.

In his announcement yesterday about restricting the investments, Obama complained that the institutions were going to pass those fees on to their consumers and said it was the absolutely wrong thing to do. Obama proved to the world that he has no idea how business works. If you go to a store and see a head of lettuce for sale for $1.25, that head of lettuce does not cost the store that much. They must make a profit or they won't be able to pay their bills, pay their employees and operate their business. If the wholesale cost of a head of lettuce is $1.35, you're just not going to see the price at $1.25. Obama seems to think you should.

Obama is acting like the controlling husband or wife. He's the guy that controls every aspect of your day. Tells you when you can talk on the phone, or who you can have as friends, or feeds you a meal that he/she knows you don't like because you wouldn't go out for dinner with them that night or has people watching to make sure that you're living your life as they think you should.

In our everyday lives, most of us know that as abuse. What usually happens when you suffer that abuse? You leave. Obama was told on Tuesday in the election in Massachussetts that the people are leaving him by electing a Conservative Repubican, Scott Brown, to the Senate from a state that is overwhelmingly liberal Democrats.

When Obama started speaking yesterday, the Dow figures were listed in the lower right corner of the television. It was down 173 points. By the time he ended his speech, it was down 227 points.

Obama is like that controlling spouse. He's telling the country to do it his way or else. I'm to the point where I'd like to see the "or else". Can we really be any worse off?

One thing about the American people. If they feel that something is being done wrong in a business, they won't do business with that institution. They don't need an organized boycott or an over-controlling President to punish others for us. The American people are honest and when abuse happens, they will take their business elsewhere, just like they take their lives elsewhere when there is an abusive spouse.

My second comment is about the earthquake in Haiti. I could talk about how the same problems are happening with the rescue efforts in Haiti as happened in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina with the length of time it's taken to get water and food and medicine to the victims of the earthquake, but something good actually came out of the devastation in Haiti.

As you can see by the picture posted there was a success. A young boy was buried in the rubble for a week and a day. No food, no water. Trapped in the rubble. The boy is seven years old. Rescue workers found him. When they dug away the debris, they reached down to grab the youngster to pull him out. But he was scared. He saw the faces that weren't recognizable to him and didn't want to come out.

Some family members were brought to the opening to speak to him to put him at ease. He finally relented and allowed the rescue workers to help him out. What you can't see in the picture is the scared look on his face as he emerged from the hole. But what you do see is his arms spread wide and the biggest smile on his face when everyone starts cheering at his rescue.

There are many dead from this earthquake and the aftershocks that have been hitting almost on a daily basis. Bodies are lined up in the streets and then hauled off to mass graves and buried. But then, a week and a day after the earthquake a young boy is brought out of the rubble and his biggest fear is that strangers are reaching down to try to help him and he doesn't understand all of the strangers being there. When he's brought up, and sees how everyone is happy to see him, he puts on the biggest smile and spreads his arms out wide. The boys name is Kiki. I don' t know who took the picture, but I suspect we'll all know soon and Kiki will likely be remembered for a long time.

With so many problems, whether those problems are in our personal lives, or health, or political or whatever particular problem may be affecting one person, another person or groups of people, it's good to be reminded that good things also come from bad situations and this picture of this little boy is a perfect example of that.

You're welcome to comment.


Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Massachussetts Massacre: R.I.P. Socialized Medicine

Soon, you can say Senator Scott Brown. The Massachussetts Republican becomes the first Republican to win a Senate seat in 38 years replacing the late Ted Kennedy.

The man who ran claiming to be the 41st vote against the Socialized Health Care Takeover beat out Martha (Marcia, according to Patrick Kennedy) Coakley by more than 100,000 votes in the most liberal state in the country.....well, it used to be.

Senator Jim Webb (D) of Virginia has already come out and said that any vote on health care reform should be delayed until Brown is seated in the Senate.

In the meantime, Democrats are blaming each other for the loss of the Senate seat. Obama is blaming Coakley. Coakley is blaming Obama and the DC Democrats. They are all in a circle shooting at each other tonight.

After a year of quadrupling the deficit and adding $2 Trillion to the debt the people of Massachussetts are the third such voters to tell Obama that he's doing it all wrong. This special election and the two in Virginia and New Jersey, both won by Republicans and even the House seat in New York that was barely won by a Democrat in a three way race where the Conservative party candidate was narrowly defeated are the nations first shots fired at Washington DC that the people of this country don't like what they are doing.

The months leading up to November, should be very interesting.

You're welcome to comment.


Irony at it's Best

236 years, one month and three days ago, the people of Boston dressed as Indians and tossed tea into the Boston Harbor. This was one of many protests staged by the citizens of that time in our history protesting against oppressive taxes. For the past fifty years, Massachussets has been a liberal bastion. Even to the point of it being called "Taxachussets."

In the past year, protests have sprung up around the country. They started last February to protest the bailouts, the excessive spending bill called the stimulus and the move towards socialism in less than a month by the new president. They call their protests "Tea Parties". These caught on and on April 15, tea parties were held all over the country. The Democrats held the House, the Senate and the White House and were passing spending bills that were not paid for.

In August, people showed up in droves at Town Hall meetings around the country put on by their Senators and Representatives. Night after night we heard on the news how people who had never been involved in politics before were questioning and calling out there representatives and senators on the proposed health care.

Health care passed the House without one Republican vote. Health care passed the Senate in the dark of night on Christmas eve without one Republican vote. If you believe the polls, more than 60% of the people of this country are against the health care reform bill.

Now the irony. Massachussets, which has its' own government health care plan that is costing a fortune, is holding a special election to replace the late Ted Kennedy. The Republican was behind by over 30 points a month ago. Today, the day of the election, polls are showing that he's up by anywhere from five to ten points. The home of the original Tea Party in 1773, the state that has come to be known as Taxachussets, is now where the bill may finally die.

Not one Democrat, nor the two Independents have backed down despite the will of the people. The White House has not backed down. News reports are all about how they get the health care bill passed if Scott Brown, the Republican, wins today.

There has not been one mention on any news program that this bill may have taken too much and that they should go back and review it and make it more of something that the American people want. In other words, the Republican bill that's been proposed.

Another irony. This is the 365th day of Barack Hussein Obama's presidency. In one year, he has quadrupled the deficit. He has doubled the national debt. We now owe more money than we've ever owed before. We now spend more than we've ever spent before and more than we have.

Republicans have been shut out of the process. The closed door meetings have only included Democrats. They are forcing their will on the American people that do not want their will shoved down their throats.

This election may not solve the problem of the socialist takeover of the health care system. The Democrats are trying to figure out how to pass it even if they don't have the sixty votes needed to pass it. They are going so far as to have the House (which had a much more liberal plan) vote to accept the Senate version just to get the bill passed so that it doesn't have to be voted on in the Senate and thus eliminating the will of the people by electing the 41st Republican which can stop this bill.

The Democrats are perfectly willing to scrap the best health care system in the world in order to take on the flawed systems of Europe and Canada.

In 1773 the Boston Tea Party showed the will of the people, but it was still another two years before the Shot heard round the world in Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775. It was another year before the Declaration of Independence was created making this a new nation.

This election may not solve the problem of eliminating the health care bill that will take away freedom for Americans. However, it should be the catalyst to create a new revolution that will likely start in November with the ousting of Democrats around the country.

The Democrats have shown their hand. They don't want what this country has been about for 234 years. They want to create a new America that is more like Europe. The founding fathers aren't their hero's. They don't look to George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin. Instead they look to Saul Alinsky. They aren't there to represent the people of this country, they are there to make a name for themselves and to take over every aspect of every citizens lives.

I said before that this election has already been lost by the Democrats even if Martha Coakley wins the special election in Massachussets. Whatever the result of todays election, this should be just a precursor of what's to come in the second revolution in this country. Whatever happens, November will be a very interesting election and it all came to fruition in the most unlikely of places. Massachussets, the home of the original Tea Party.

You're welcome to comment.

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Democrats Already Lost Massachussets

The Democrats have lost Massachussets even if they end up with the seat. How is this possible? The people of this country are really upset about the spending that this administration with this congress has implemented.

They've spent billions of dollars on a failed stimulus plan. They've spent millions of dollars on the failed "Cash for Clunkers". The House has already passed the Cap and Tax bill which will increase taxes on all Americans for global warming, which has been shown to be a hoax with the E-mails that were exposed a few months ago.

The Democrats and the administration have proven themselve incompetent when it comes to national security. We had one attack less than seven months after President Bush took office and we were not attacked again the rest of his Presidency. Now, in less than one year, we've already had three terrrorist attacks in this country. One in Arkansas, one in Texas and one in Michigan. They have really shown their incompetence with the latest one in Michigan.

Now we have the administration and the Congress (only Democrats, mind you) working on the health care bill. The American people don't want it. The approval rating for the health care bill is at 36% and dropping. Obama said no less than 8 times that this process would be in the public eye on C-Span. It's not happening. Even Brian Lamb got into it. You have to work really hard to get Brian Lamb to take a position.

After Ted Kennedy's death, the state of Massachusetts decided to change the law to keep the seat in the hands of a Democrat. Let me state that again. They changed the current law because they couldn't trust the people to put a Democrat in the seat formerly held by Kennedy.

Now the people of Massachussets are putting the fear of God into the Democrats. For a Republican to get close to election in the Senate is a miracle. Scott Brown, the nominee for the Republicans is now behind by just 2 points to the Democrat, Martha Coakley. There is less than a week before the election. It will be held on Tuesday, January 19.

Even if Brown wins, the Democrats already have a strategy to do their will rather than the will of the people. They plan to not install him into the Senate until after they have their health care bill voted on.

The Democrats have this habit of working in their own best interests rather than working for the people they represent. Their strategy shows it. Their arrogance in this election shows it. The debate showed it. David Gergen asked Scott Brown about being the 41st vote and stopping the health care reform bill. In his question he asked if he would do that sitting in Teddy Kennedy's seat. Brown's answer is one that should have been stated many times in the past. The seat was occupied by Kennedy, but it wasn't Kennedy's seat. It is the people's seat.

For Scott Brown to be as close as he is to winning in Massachussets is nothing short of a miracle. This should be a wake up call for the Democrats. They've dismissed the tea parties and they've ignored the will of the people. They've all but shut off town hall meetings because they were being told that the people were against their massive spending, their increased taxes and their attempts to destroy this country.

I normally don't believe in moral victories, but this is Massachussets. Or Taxachussets as it's better known. The liberal bastion. For a Republican to even be close, let alone this close a week before the election is a moral victory for the Republicans and the country.

Scott Brown raised $1.3 million in 24 hours this week. He has a real shot at winning this seat. The people of Massachussets have Martha Coakley on the run and panicking. Bill Clinton, John Kerry and Barack Obama are all involved in this race now. When the people of Massachussets are rejecting the Democrats, you would think that the Democrats all around the country would be taking stock of their positions. But they are liberals and can't face the idea that they are wrong and change their tactics and actually start working for what's good for the American people and their wishes.

If Brown wins, we just might see some more Democrats decide to "retire" from their "careers" in the House and Senate. This miracle that we've seen take place is the beginning of a new revolution. It's a repudiation of the liberals in this country.

Brown has shown the Republicans that the Conservative message is the right one and the winning one even if he doesn't win. Just being close is a victory. If Coakley wins, the Democrats may still get their health care bill through (although I still have my doubts about that), but they will lose in huge numbers in November.

You're welcome to comment.