Thursday, December 15, 2011
December 14, 2011 at 12:09 pm)
With the Orwellian name "New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions" or NAT-GAS (H.R. 13), it is another taxpayer funded income redistribution effort aimed, as usual, at Democratic Party supporters with deep pockets and failed ideological efforts, IMO.
Figures. Between, congress's legal insider trading, high profile Senate multimillionaires (John Kerry, John Edwards [disgraced Kerry vice-presidential pick], to name a few), Sen. Chris Dodd's sweetheart deals with Countrywide, Rep. Barney Frank's Mortgage meltdown, President Obama's handing off billions of taxpayer dollars to corporate losers, and a history of reprehensible behavior, the so-called party of the blue collar working family boldly proves they are not. I just gave to wonder when the blue collars are going to wake up to this un-American conduct.
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Here are my issues with his gas pedal. While it is nice for working Americans to pay less in taxes (always a good thing), economists agree the payroll tax reduction of 2% has had little affect on job creation.
Better put: Obama has tried to step on the gas pedal, missed it, and landed firmly on the brakes... Again.
We saw the same with the 2009 stimulus bill, his failed foray into governmental venture capitalism (Solyndra & others), and personalization of Corporate bankruptcy law (GM) and his uncanny ability to claim it is all someone else's fault. This may reveal why liberals despise capitalism: they cannot grasp the concept.
Since he obviously does not know how to drive, how could he possibly drive us out of the ditch?
But why should Americans turn down a payroll tax cut extension? You do not want the elderly to become homeless, or worse: move into your home, when they can no longer pay their bills and the government is completely out of money and a closed credit line.
The payroll tax is the source of all of SS's funding. All of it. The 2011 Social Security Trustees Report shows red ink in 2010 ("the first time since 1983"). This plan will put much more red on the ledger. And it wasn't so long ago that Democrats were wailing and gnashing their teeth over a plan to redirect 2% to do what? Voluntarily move two percent of the payroll tax into personal retirement accounts. If it was going to bankrupt SS under Bush, how is it helpful under Obama with eight million fewer workers paying into it?
Driving, creating jobs, balancing a budget, leading: It is all a mystery to our President. Time to show him the door.
Monday, August 22, 2011
Did she just threaten bodily Harm to political opponents?
What kind of American does that?
Opinion: The kind that should not be in government.
Sunday, July 3, 2011
Of course that is complete nonsense. The terrorist, targeting English speaking people, does not know what he's talking about, but that's OK with the 550 US city mayors* who produced the advertisement. (less than 6 percent US city mayors).
A disclaimer near the end of the video proves the lie of the spoken words.
"Terror suspects can buy semi-automatic assault rifles from private sellers with no background check"Truth is the first casualty in the Progressive war on American freedoms and this ad proves it. The lie here is designed to gain support for changing the lefts imagined "gun show Loophole". The ad lays that out.
FYI: It has been unlawful to purchase an automatic weapon in the USA without a BAFT permit since 1934 and the NRA supported background checks have been required at gun shows since 1994
*NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino, co-chairs of the 550-member Mayors Against Illegal Guns coalition gun control production. This should finally prove to any doubters that hizzonor Michael Bloomberg embodies the term RINO.
If you are going to contact your representative in congress, be sure to tell them that you support the Second Amendment to the US Constitution and that sworn (or affirmed) government officials who willfully and intentionally violate their oath of office should be removed from office.
Read more about it at the NRA
Monday, June 13, 2011
They want their followers to help them dig. I post opinions at Huffington Post so I'm on their emailing list. They sent an email, Subject: "Read Sarah Palin's Inbox", asking if I would like to help Advance the persecution.
The email reads in part (entire email below),
"This afternoon, we'll post the documents online and provide a place for you to leave notes on the emails you see." and
"If you want to be among the first to read Sarah Palin's emails and help The Huffington Post write great stories about them, please sign up by following the link below."
While it might be interesting to gain insight into admired political figures; Who has the time to spend on this witch hunt. My guess would be the paid hunters have time and the motive, while their followers will drink it all in.
Sorry, Mr. Soros, I won't be signing up. I don't fear her, or her message, as your people seem to.
I suppose if the left had more time to spend on real issues, they might learn that they have been undermining this country for many decades now, and they certainly do not want to learn that.
The entire Email, rec'd June 10th, 2011 from .
Subject: Read Sarah Palin's Inbox
HuffPost Eyes & Ears to me
Today, the U.S. media will get its first glimpse of more than 24,000 emails sent and received by Sarah Palin during her tenure as governor of Alaska. These emails were originally requested by journalists, citizens and other groups in 2008, when Palin was Sen. John McCain's running mate on the Republican presidential ticket. They are being released now after years of delays.
If you want to be among the first to read Sarah Palin's emails and help The Huffington Post write great stories about them, please sign up by following the link below.
If you want to be among the first to read Sarah Palin's emails and help The Huffington Post write great stories about them, please sign up by following the link below.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Of course, the Governor has sent an email to Mr. Hewitt claiming he misunderstood the question.
If he misunderstood the question, then he has no business being President of The United States. I believe over the past three years we have experienced what happens when a president hasn't understood questions. I.e., massive new debt, prolonged high unemployment, programs that depress the job markets and no indication that he has learned anything since taking office.
That question was followed with a question on the Defense of Marriage Act, signed by President Clinton in 1996. His answer was ambiguous while registering his support for same-sex civil unions.
I don't recall the the exact quote, if a candidate mostly sees the government the way you do, vote for him/her. If not, vote for someone else. My hope is that this guy does not win the GOP nomination. Voting for him could be difficult.
What do you think?
Hugh Hewitt show transcript excerpt (from his blog):
HH: Would you veto an assault weapons ban?
JH: I would not veto an assault weapons ban.
HH: Would you veto repeal of the Defense Of Marriage Act?
JH: I personally am for civil unions. I don’t think we do an adequate job when it comes to equality at that level. I am for traditional marriage. I would have to look carefully at the language.
The Governor's assault weapon correction is posted on Hugh Hewitt's blog.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Lately, they have not only blamed capitalism, but are quick to point out that the current recession started under the previous administration. I believe it is important to add two unchangeable facts to the conversation.
1. The US President cannot appropriate a single dime from anyone, any business or anywhere, without the US Congress first passing a law to appropriate those funds. The president can only veto the legislation if he has been advised to oppose it.
2. The country's, and the world's economy was doing just fine until 2007, when the Democrats took control of the US Congress.
The democrats are still in control of the presidency and the US Senate.
June 2011, the recession continues*.
The Republicans in control of the US House of Representatives cannot make any legislation into law without the cooperation of the US Senate and the president.
We can blame zero percent of this recession and its continuation to Republicans, although they are partially complicit in setting up the playing field for an economic meltdown.
Come November 2012 we will have an opportunity reduce the influence of the US Congress' and this president's failure to understand what they are doing by putting Republicans in control.
* The government's definition of an official recession is not the definition any unemployed person who lost their home and/or life's savings would use. Much like the way the politicians calculate inflation, it is designed to minimize blame on those politicians make and enforce (or not) those laws.
Friday, June 10, 2011
Someone should send these to our Progressives.
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealth out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work, because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
Received in one of those emails that works its way around the internet. I do not know who to credit, but it makes perfect sense to me.
BTW: Number five has already begun to destroy this once great nation.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
First though, I received a humorous email with a story that may or may not be true or accurate, but it made sense to me and is chock full of head nodding truths that might apply to the US Congress and the government as a whole.
The truth is spelled out in the monkey experiment, where 5 monkeys are in a tall cage with a ladder and bananas at the top. As each monkey attempts to climb up to reach the bananas he is hosed down. After a while none try as they have learned something. Each monkey is then replaced, one at a time, and the "experienced" monkeys prevent the new member from climbing. After a while, when all monkeys are replaced with monkeys that were never sprayed, they still prevent any from climbing even though they do not know why.
That is what Group think does.
Such is congress. Group think overrules everything. Trickling in a few new new representatives only continues the political mindset. Replace them all at once and the paradigm will change.
Of course, congresspersons do not start that way. The appearance is that once an idealistic and selfless new congressperson has been among the veterans, they learn the rules of the road. These rules include poll watching, reading legacy media opinion pages, grasping any fault and applying it to the opposition, espousing their service while responsibly (their word) spending other people's earning and justifying it all in name of the common good.
We have an opportunity to replace every Representative every two years and every senator over an 18 year period. So the Senate would be a big glitch in any repair model.
Of course, replacing them all is probably over the top and even though they are politicians, they are probably able reason better than monkeys, although we have little proof of this.
Friday, May 13, 2011
One of the many things a soldier learns is operational security: doing everything humanly possible to deprive the enemy of any information about your security operations. The idea is to prevent the enemy from knowing what you are doing and what you know about their operations. This only makes sense. If the enemy doesn't know what you are doing, what your strengths and shortcomings are, where you secure your assets, and how you conduct military operations, along with many other considerations, they will have a much harder time fighting your forces. Or in the case of Al Quaeda, avoiding them. On their side, if they do not know what we know about them, they are much more vulnerable and may be defeated with less loss of life and limb on both sides of the conflict.
One major consideration is to prevent the enemy from piecing together a picture of your state of readiness by getting bits of information from here and there, that many times seem unrelated, but just may be the the final puzzle piece that they need to get an advantage over your forces and this can will cost lives.
The very last thing the Commander in Chief should be doing is bragging on national, rather international, TV and giving the terrorists pieces of our intelligence about them: that he has taken out the enemy's leader and that we now have a "treasure trove" of information about Al Qaeda's organization and assets.
Many may not know why that was an extraordinarily bad idea and why the continued releasing of more details of the operation makes the situation worse. So I will try to help.
The first is that the enemy now knows their leader is dead and will have to quickly find another to take his place. Delaying the news leaves the enemy without a leader, without an explanation of his absence and would be far more disruptive to their operation than being notified within a few hours of Osama Bin Laden's death by the President and his staff.
If the announcement had been made a few weeks or months after it happened, our forces would have had time to use the intelligence that was gained from the OBL. If some of their mass murdering plans had been set in motion, we were in a position to stop them. But, now that they know what they are doing they will have to re-plan their attack. Some will say, "but delaying them is a good thing". Maybe, but wouldn't it be better to find and stop them and confiscate any equipment, supplies, and funds they may have? Instead, they will just try again next week or next month when we don't know what they are up to. As it is, they have the knowledge to start protecting themsleves by discarding cell phones, changing locations and names and moving their finances and supplies to avoid losing it.
But don't get me wrong. The president deserves credit for making the decision to take out OBL. But his inexperience, coupled with advisers who seem to be inexperienced, and quite frankly, juvenile, have taken a great advantage in the war on terrorism, the demise of OBL and the gathering of valuable intelligence on our enemies, and squandered it for a few minutes of chest thumping.
Generally speaking, we probably all know that no one man, or woman, can expert on all things. When you apply for a job, you may not know all aspects of the job that you must be knowledgeable on. This includes the job of President of the United States. For the president, these shortcomings can be overcome through the use of expert advisers. His current crop of advisers apparently cannot help him effectively on national and operational security (among other things). He needs a new set of advisers and he needs them fast.
(1) Remarks by the President on Osama Bin Laden
(2) Press Briefing by Senior Administration Officials on the Killing of Osama bin Laden,
(3) Bin Laden’s Death Yields Flood Of New Al Qaeda Intel
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
It is important to be truly represented. You can only do this by voting and by communicating with your representative. This an email I sent my US Congressman, Vern Buchanan.
Re: President Obama's call to Remove Four Billion Dollars in Oil Industry Subsidies
Dear Representative Buchanan.
If the business expense tax incentives are removed from the American oil industry it will have the affect of raising the cost of energy and especially at the gas pump. Businesses always pass on their expenses to the consumer.
A better idea to influence a downward pressure on oil prices would be to update and improve a control on the futures market. Currently speculators risk up 5 to 15 percent in cash holdings up front to play the futures in oil. If that were changed at least 50 percent up front, it would throttle back the volatility of the market make it more stable. If the 50 percent rule were in place, oil would not be over $110.00 per barrel and regular gas at the pump would still be below $3.00 per gallon.
I drive 55 miles round trip to work each day and my vehicle gets around 17 miles per gallon. Since 2009, my cost in gasoline just to drive to work and back has more than doubled and dominates my family budget. I cannot buy a more efficient vehicle: at least this one is paid for.
Something needs to be done sooner rather than later. Reigning in the futures market, along with a push for domestic drilling, and removing the ethanol subsidies (another triple whammy in wasted tax dollars, higher gas prices & lower gas mileage) would help working Floridians and all Americans who need relief from the unreasonable inflationary effects of government's mishandling of America's energy needs.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Sorry Lady, but that is simply ridiculous. Nobody I know is concerned about the race of the president. It is only liberals, progressives and Democrat partisans who are fixated on race and use accusations of racism to stifle opposition.
It's not working.
President Obama has been given a chance. But after two full years we see that he lacks leadership with his wait-and-see MO, recklessly spends "hope dollars" on special interests and corporate welfare, disregards centuries of accepted contract law, and is bankrupting the country. Some of the terms used to describe his actions such as "feckless", "inexperienced", and "serial flip-flopper", have surfaced recently. His Orwellian speeches, saying one thing after doing the opposite, emphasis this perception.
Additionally, he doesn't seem to care that Americans, especially those on fixed incomes (Social security & Disability recipients are suffering under his two year COLA freeze), along with his dollar devaluation (due to unprecedented borrowing), the 50% increase in fuel prices at the pump over that last year that forces prices up on everything (especially food), and the loss of millions of family homes that could have been prevented (and would have cut the recession short). Instead he prolongs the jobless situation.
We can only assume that his advisers believe that people who want to "give him a chance" will forget all this if the economy picks up despite his actions by November 2012.
Friday, March 25, 2011
While I believe this to be true (the widening gap) I do not believe it is based in racism as greed and self-promotion couldn't care less about race.
Our so-called leaders had an opportunity to help prevent average Americans of all races from losing their homes and it may still possible to stop the further loss of homes and saving accounts. There was and is only one answer to the mortgage securities crisis that caused and is causing families of all races to lose their homes.
A moratorium on foreclosures.
There are many reasons this is a good way to help Americans and improve the economy.
1. People would be able to stay in their homes, so families would not be uprooted, traumatized and homeless without an address to put on a job application.
2. There would not be a flood of homes on the market driving down prices wiping out trillions of dollars in overall value.
3. The financial institutions, who are mostly responsible for the crisis would not be double dipping into middle class America's wallets. (Pay & Pay, then Take it Away).
4. Fairness: The government will use borrowed money to extend unemployment insurance payments for periods up to 99 weeks, but will not prevent the banks from taking the unemployed person's home while they try to get back on their feet. We know the governmen is willing to take the "property" of a corparation and give to someone else. This is precisely what they did in response to the GM bankruptcy.
5. There would have been no need for the bailouts. Today most of the bailout money has been paid back, but no one is saying how the banks became profitable enough to earn hundreds of billions of dollars in profits that allowed them to pay back hundreds of billions of dollars in TARP loans. Thia tells me that TARP was not needed in the first place.