Last year Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration for his Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program which essentially halted deportation of illegal aliens who were brought to this country (illegally) by their parents when they were children. It's one more step the President has taken to not only ignore illegal immigration but to promote it.
The suit was heard in U.S. District Court in August of last year and sadly, the judge in the case folded to the Obama administration. U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor, who earlier in the year had expressed agreement with the agents’ contention that the deferred deportation program undermined their duty to enforce the law, said that it was not within his court’s jurisdiction to decide on what essentially is a dispute between federal employees and their employer, the U.S. government. Did Holder get to him? No one knows but the judge himself but it's likely.
ICE union president, Christopher L. Crane, is the chief plaintiff in the lawsuit. Crane contends that President Obama has ordered ICE agents not to do their jobs. Judge O'Conner seemingly agrees with Crane but would not hear the case or even make a decision to let it go forward.
The fact is that President Obama picks and chooses the laws he will enforce. He has done the same thing with the Obamacare law - unilaterally making changes to it that are unconstitutional. The President's job is to enforce the laws of the land not make or change them. Apparently that is something our "Constitutional law professor" doesn't seem to understand.
In my opinion the head of ICE should file criminal charges against the President for aiding and abetting illegal immigration. Since he refuses to deport many illegals, refuses to secure our borders to stop the influx of illegal, and refuses to go after sanctuary cities who give shelter to illegals, he is aiding and abetting illegal immigration.
I'm sure there are a few people who will immediately scream "George W. Bush didn't do anything about it either!" And to them I would say "You're correct. He didn't. And that was one of my biggest problems with him. But here's a tip - Bush isn't the President anymore and Obama is signing orders making it easier for illegals to get in and stay in." (Bush haters are nothing if not consistent. They never give up and try to justify what Obama does wrong by comparing it to what Bush did or didn't do in the past. I guess we could go further back and say Clinton, Bush Senior and Carter all did things wrong so let's just give Obama a pass on anything and everything. I don't think so.)
In his State of the Union address the other night the President said of Guantanamo Bay detention center "We have to stand on our Constitutional principles." Yet when Constitutional principles get in his way he goes around them. He has stated publicly that the Constitution gets in the way of things he wants to do. He hates the fact that our founders set the government up that way. They did it specifically to stop future Presidents like Obama from grabbing too much power. Because they knew the day would come when a President would want to be king.
Obama needs to be stopped. We conservatives need to get out there and wake up voters and get them to come out and vote against the Democrat regime in November. America is in crisis and rather than leading us of it President Obama is leading us into it. The Pied Piper and his followers are headed toward the cliff and dragging us along with them. It's time to pull them back despite their desires to blindly follow their leader. And the way to do that is with votes.
Thursday, January 30, 2014
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Obama's "State Of My Union" Address....
I actually watched the State Of The Union address last night. As much as I detest listening to the President lie to us, I wanted to see what he said. I wasn't disappointed. He said a lot of things that were predictable, which are fodder for my post today. I can honestly say it was one of the few times I ever wanted to slap my television - more than once.
The first note I took was his comment that "climate change is a fact." Even though the "scientists" who introduced it to the world have been proved to be liars, and many countries are de-funding global warming/climate change research, President Obama is still pushing it. I found it interesting when he said the country is experiencing drought in the West and "coastal flooding." Really? The only coastal flooding I remember in the last few years was the result of Superstorm Sandy in 2012. Has there been more coastal flooding, before or since then, that didn't make the news? If so, please make it public before you include it in your SOMU speech.
The next thing he talked about was American jobs that have gone overseas. His solution to this problem is to cut taxes for businesses to encourage growth and in-sourcing jobs here at home. But wait - that's a conservative idea and the Republicans have been pushing for his entire reign. Since Obama took office Republicans and conservatives have been saying "Cut taxes for businesses to encourage growth." Liberals say this is a terrible idea. But Andrew Cuomo, Governor of New York, apparently agrees because that's what he's doing in New York. Funny how they use conservative principles when liberal principles fail...
The President bragged about all of our troops being out of Iraq but failed to mention the fact that Iraq is quickly being taken over by Al Qaeda backed forces. Of course he's not mentioning that. It would make his other remarks seem foolish.
The President went on to talk about how he was working to keep terrorists from attacking our country yet his record on this isn't great considering he and others created a narrative about the Benghazi incident that denied a terrorist attack occurred and said it was a video that caused the incident - only to have that narrative completely debunked as a lie a few months later. But if he's working hard to keep terrorists from attacking us - should blatant lies be a part of that?
For the second time in his Presidency the President called for the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. He wants those still held there to integrated into our federal prison system. He said of Guantanamo: "We need to stand on our Constitutional ideas."
That's interesting coming from a man who, just last week said “We’re not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help they need. I’ve got a pen and I've got a phone. And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward in helping to make sure our kids are getting the best education possible, making sure that our businesses are getting the kind of support and help they need to grow and advance, to make sure that people are getting the skills that they need to get those jobs that our businesses are creating.”
That's not Constitutional. The Constitution limits the power of the President to do things unilaterally. Yet this President takes unilateral action on a regular basis. He has changed the Health Care Bill several times. He has complained about the Constitutional limitations on him several times. But he uses the Constitution when it's convenient. When it's not he finds ways around it - as he has promised.
The President talked about our veterans - both those who served safely and those who were wounded in combat. He made it seem like he truly cares about our wounded veterans yet just last week he signed a finance bill into law that cuts benefits for wounded veterans. I'm ashamed of the Republicans and Democrats for this bill but the President signed it into law. And now he's using his address to praise the very veterans he recently screwed out of benefits. How any veteran can support this President is beyond me.
President Obama brought attention to Army Ranger Corey Remsburg, (conveniently seated next to Michelle Obama,) the U.S. Army Ranger who received devastating injuries during his 10th tour in Afghanistan. Sergeant First Class Remsburg received a standing ovation from the entire chamber for his service and dedication to his country. And rightly so. He deserved every minute of it.
That said - I can't help but believe our narcissistic President put SFC Remsburg on display to make himself look good. He talked about the first time they met and then about how their second meeting was when he (the President) went to see SFC Remsburg in the hospital. President Obama praised Remsburg's determination to get better and to return to Army service. And it is definitely praiseworthy. And SFC Remsburg will need all the determination he can get to return to health since that same President just continues to cut pay and benefits for our wounded veterans.
The President chastised the Republicans for cutting unemployment benefits and he had another live example with a sob story in the audience. (He's really good at that.) What the President doesn't seem to understand (or refuses to acknowledge) is that unemployment insurance was never meant to be a career and someone actually has to pay for it. I know we have a seemingly endless supply of money borrowed from China but one day that well will dry up and payment will come due. Where will he get the money for that?
President Obama needs to take a look at North Carolina. Republican Governor Pat McCrory recently cut unemployment benefits in his state. The result was that more people went back to work and the unemployment numbers dropped. Imagine that? People went back to work when they could no longer depend on the government to supply their income. Of course - liberals will deny that this works. But they also said Scott Walker would fail in Wisconsin and look how that's turning out.
And the big one - President Obama once again indicated that if Congress doesn't do what he wants them to do he will render them (and the Constitution) irrelevant and do things unilaterally. So in one segment he says "We need to stand on our Constitutional ideas" and in another he basically says the Constitution doesn't apply to him if it prevents him from doing what he wants. How convenient for him that he can pick and choose when he will and will not follow the Constitution. That's the part that brought about the title of today's post. The President seems to believe it's his union instead of ours.
I'm surprised I actually sat through the entire thing. But I did. And I'm glad I did - I got this nice, long blog post out of it. So thanks for that, Mr. President. I was running short on topics.
The first note I took was his comment that "climate change is a fact." Even though the "scientists" who introduced it to the world have been proved to be liars, and many countries are de-funding global warming/climate change research, President Obama is still pushing it. I found it interesting when he said the country is experiencing drought in the West and "coastal flooding." Really? The only coastal flooding I remember in the last few years was the result of Superstorm Sandy in 2012. Has there been more coastal flooding, before or since then, that didn't make the news? If so, please make it public before you include it in your SOMU speech.
The next thing he talked about was American jobs that have gone overseas. His solution to this problem is to cut taxes for businesses to encourage growth and in-sourcing jobs here at home. But wait - that's a conservative idea and the Republicans have been pushing for his entire reign. Since Obama took office Republicans and conservatives have been saying "Cut taxes for businesses to encourage growth." Liberals say this is a terrible idea. But Andrew Cuomo, Governor of New York, apparently agrees because that's what he's doing in New York. Funny how they use conservative principles when liberal principles fail...
The President bragged about all of our troops being out of Iraq but failed to mention the fact that Iraq is quickly being taken over by Al Qaeda backed forces. Of course he's not mentioning that. It would make his other remarks seem foolish.
The President went on to talk about how he was working to keep terrorists from attacking our country yet his record on this isn't great considering he and others created a narrative about the Benghazi incident that denied a terrorist attack occurred and said it was a video that caused the incident - only to have that narrative completely debunked as a lie a few months later. But if he's working hard to keep terrorists from attacking us - should blatant lies be a part of that?
For the second time in his Presidency the President called for the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. He wants those still held there to integrated into our federal prison system. He said of Guantanamo: "We need to stand on our Constitutional ideas."
That's interesting coming from a man who, just last week said “We’re not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help they need. I’ve got a pen and I've got a phone. And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward in helping to make sure our kids are getting the best education possible, making sure that our businesses are getting the kind of support and help they need to grow and advance, to make sure that people are getting the skills that they need to get those jobs that our businesses are creating.”
That's not Constitutional. The Constitution limits the power of the President to do things unilaterally. Yet this President takes unilateral action on a regular basis. He has changed the Health Care Bill several times. He has complained about the Constitutional limitations on him several times. But he uses the Constitution when it's convenient. When it's not he finds ways around it - as he has promised.
The President talked about our veterans - both those who served safely and those who were wounded in combat. He made it seem like he truly cares about our wounded veterans yet just last week he signed a finance bill into law that cuts benefits for wounded veterans. I'm ashamed of the Republicans and Democrats for this bill but the President signed it into law. And now he's using his address to praise the very veterans he recently screwed out of benefits. How any veteran can support this President is beyond me.
President Obama brought attention to Army Ranger Corey Remsburg, (conveniently seated next to Michelle Obama,) the U.S. Army Ranger who received devastating injuries during his 10th tour in Afghanistan. Sergeant First Class Remsburg received a standing ovation from the entire chamber for his service and dedication to his country. And rightly so. He deserved every minute of it.
That said - I can't help but believe our narcissistic President put SFC Remsburg on display to make himself look good. He talked about the first time they met and then about how their second meeting was when he (the President) went to see SFC Remsburg in the hospital. President Obama praised Remsburg's determination to get better and to return to Army service. And it is definitely praiseworthy. And SFC Remsburg will need all the determination he can get to return to health since that same President just continues to cut pay and benefits for our wounded veterans.
The President chastised the Republicans for cutting unemployment benefits and he had another live example with a sob story in the audience. (He's really good at that.) What the President doesn't seem to understand (or refuses to acknowledge) is that unemployment insurance was never meant to be a career and someone actually has to pay for it. I know we have a seemingly endless supply of money borrowed from China but one day that well will dry up and payment will come due. Where will he get the money for that?
President Obama needs to take a look at North Carolina. Republican Governor Pat McCrory recently cut unemployment benefits in his state. The result was that more people went back to work and the unemployment numbers dropped. Imagine that? People went back to work when they could no longer depend on the government to supply their income. Of course - liberals will deny that this works. But they also said Scott Walker would fail in Wisconsin and look how that's turning out.
And the big one - President Obama once again indicated that if Congress doesn't do what he wants them to do he will render them (and the Constitution) irrelevant and do things unilaterally. So in one segment he says "We need to stand on our Constitutional ideas" and in another he basically says the Constitution doesn't apply to him if it prevents him from doing what he wants. How convenient for him that he can pick and choose when he will and will not follow the Constitution. That's the part that brought about the title of today's post. The President seems to believe it's his union instead of ours.
I'm surprised I actually sat through the entire thing. But I did. And I'm glad I did - I got this nice, long blog post out of it. So thanks for that, Mr. President. I was running short on topics.
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
Scott Walker Suddenly Unimportant To Main Stream Media...
Scott Walker, the Republican governor of Wisconsin, used to be in the spotlight of the main stream media on a regular basis. Opposed by the unions in Wisconsin and the left in general, Walker's conservative policies for the state drew massive protests from the left, with demonstrators being organized and even bussed in from out of state by major unions, such as the SEIU.
The main stream media also supported the recall election, in which Walker, despite the protests and big money spent by left wing organizations, triumphed. But suddenly the mainstream media is very quiet about Walker and the state of Wisconsin. The reason is pretty clear to anyone paying attention.
Using conservative policies and principles, Scott Walker has turned the state of Wisconsin around. In the last three years, despite opposition from the left, he turned a projected $3.6 billion deficit into a $912 million surplus, brought down the unemployment rate, and is now proposing to “rebate the money in the form of tax cuts to the people, who own the money.”
Walker's success should be main stream news. It should be promoted as an example of what other failing states should do as well as what the federal government should be doing. But it's not being reported by anyone other than FOX News and conservative pundits.
Scott Walker life has been threatened, as has been the safety of his family. As Rush Limbaugh said just the other day - “They did everything they could to gin up hate, anger, tried to destroy his reputation, his career, and his life,” he said. “He hung in there. The state of Wisconsin instituted his policy reforms, de-emphasizing the role of unions in the state.”
It's working. And the left hates that. Limbaugh continued:
“He’s going to cut income taxes and property taxes, and he made the point that it’s not just a gimmick of budgeting or accounting. It’s the result of serious, significant policy changes,” Limbaugh said.
The main stream media also supported the recall election, in which Walker, despite the protests and big money spent by left wing organizations, triumphed. But suddenly the mainstream media is very quiet about Walker and the state of Wisconsin. The reason is pretty clear to anyone paying attention.
Using conservative policies and principles, Scott Walker has turned the state of Wisconsin around. In the last three years, despite opposition from the left, he turned a projected $3.6 billion deficit into a $912 million surplus, brought down the unemployment rate, and is now proposing to “rebate the money in the form of tax cuts to the people, who own the money.”
Walker's success should be main stream news. It should be promoted as an example of what other failing states should do as well as what the federal government should be doing. But it's not being reported by anyone other than FOX News and conservative pundits.
Scott Walker life has been threatened, as has been the safety of his family. As Rush Limbaugh said just the other day - “They did everything they could to gin up hate, anger, tried to destroy his reputation, his career, and his life,” he said. “He hung in there. The state of Wisconsin instituted his policy reforms, de-emphasizing the role of unions in the state.”
It's working. And the left hates that. Limbaugh continued:
“He’s going to cut income taxes and property taxes, and he made the point that it’s not just a gimmick of budgeting or accounting. It’s the result of serious, significant policy changes,” Limbaugh said.
“Now, folks, what I just told you was not reported once anywhere in what you would consider mainstream media. It was not reported on one cable network, much less all of them. It was not reported in the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the LA Times,” he added. “It was reported in Wisconsin. There was an AP story on it, maybe some local papers picked it up, but just as a filler.”
“And to me, for us as conservatives, Wisconsin and Governor Walker, I mean, everything that we want to happen, happened there.”
The main stream media is simply ignoring this huge success story because they can't bear that thought of a conservative actually succeeding using conservative ideas, policies and principles. It goes against everything they believe and everything they have pushed for in the last 10 years or so. The main stream media has become a cheer leading squad for the Obama regime and liberalism in general and Scott Walker's success is literally a slap in their faces. How could that happen?
All one need do is take a good look at the states and cities around the country that are failing and those that are thriving and look at their political leaders. Republican led states and cities are either thriving or in the advanced stages of a great recovery (look at Texas, Ohio, Florida, South Carolina....) and many of those led by Democrats are in huge financial trouble (New York, Michigan, California... Did I mention Detroit?) Liberal spending, liberal handouts and liberal tax increases hurt the economy. Bold, conservative moves make positive changes. The state of North Carolina cut unemployment benefits and the numbers of people who went back to work increased dramatically. Go figure.
New York's far-left liberal governor, Andrew Cuomo, detests conservatives and doesn't even want them in his state. Yet to increase business and employment in his state he is offering new businesses a 10 year tax free status if they come to New York. That's a conservative principle. He might say he got it from John F. Kennedy, who cut taxes for individuals and businesses during his administration, but Kennedy was far from being a liberal. He was a conservative Democrat.
As I said - Scott Walker's success in Wisconsin should be broadcast nationwide and around the world. It's proof that conservative principles work. And that's exactly why it won't be shared. Liberals, including the media, don't like conservative success because it goes against everything they believe in. And that's just too difficult to swallow. They want to keep believing that liberalism and liberal policies will bring prosperity to all - even though it's been proved a failure over and over. It makes one wonder...
The Republican "War On Women"
“If the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are hopeless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing them with their prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government, then so be it,”
When former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee uttered those words at a Republican party meeting last week liberals nationwide went crazy, accusing Governor Huckabee of continuing the Republican war on women. They interpreted Huckabee's words as him saying that women cannot control their libidos. Nothing could be further from the truth but it seems truth matters not to the left.
Apparently their hearing and/or reading comprehension is substandard. Huckabee was clear - if the Democrats believe women can't handle their libidos or their reproductive systems then so be it. He said it very clearly yet the liberal media twisted (or simply don't understand) his words and made it out to be something it wasn't. Sadly, the uninformed who get their news from the main stream, liberal media will believe whatever they're told.
The thing is - regardless of what the left says - Huckabee wasn't wrong. Women in this country, particularly young, single women, have been led by the Democrats and the media to believe the government is the answer to everything - including their sex lives. They like to tell Republicans to "stay out of my uterus when it comes to abortion" while at the same time demanding "give me medications to keep me from becoming pregnant." So what they really mean is "I want the government in my uterus as long as it's doing what I want it to do there."
Democrats like to pretend they are the party who does things "for the children" yet the children can only benefit from those things if they survive the womb. And Democrats are making it more and more difficult for children to do that. They (Democrats) scream that conservatives are waging a war on women because they don't believe abortion for just any reason is moral or ethical. Liberals like to tell themselves that a baby is not a human being until it's actually outside the mother. Yet prosecutors all over the country will charge someone with two homicides if they kill a pregnant woman. Apparently it's a baby in that case.
When Sandra Fluke went before Congress and demanded the government provide her and her friends with birth control she became the Democrat sweetheart. She even got to speak at the Democrat National Convention the next year. She proved Huckabee's point nearly three years before he made it. And she became a liberal hero.
IF the government is going to supply birth control to women, or mandate that insurance companies cover birth control for women, why are they not doing the same thing for men? Whether everyone knows it or not, women cannot get pregnant without a man. It doesn't matter if the insemination is accomplished by copulation or artificially - it doesn't happen without the contribution from a man. So why is the government discriminating against men? Do these demanding women think they can get pregnant without us? There has only been one woman in history who did that. And it certainly wasn't Sandra Fluke.
Conservatives against abortion and taxpayer funded birth control for women aren't waging a war on women. They wage a War For Babies. I'm all for birth control for men and women. I simply don't believe I should pay for it for other people. Of course, liberals say it prevents unwanted babies and the cost to the taxpayers for them but they completely ignore personal responsibility. At some point that particular thing comes into the discussion. When did it become the government's job to provide personal responsibility to those who refuse to exercise it themselves? For that matter - if they're not responsible enough to purchase their own birth control why does anyone believe they will be responsible enough to use it if it's provided for free?
The other thing I want to say about the war on women is the upcoming Presidential election in 2016. It's no secret that Hillary Clinton, despite her complete failure and subsequent cover-up of the Benghazi incident, is the front runner for the Democrat nomination for President in 2016. There is absolutely no way she should get that nomination but she will. And any Republican who opposes her and criticizes her for Benghazi, or any other screw up she has committed, will be denounced by the left as sexist. I wouldn't want to be her opponent. No matter what you say, no matter how true it is, you will be branded a sexist and anti-woman. Even if you have a female running mate.
I actually hope the Republicans can come up with a good female candidate in 2016. A black female candidate would be perfect. That would confuse the left. And oh... how I love to do that.
The other hope I have is that in November of this year conservative voters will turn out in droves to keep the House and take over the Senate. It's the only way we can limit the damage to be done by President Obama in the next three years. He has already stated his intention to bypass Congress with his pen. So we need a majority in both Houses to override him at every opportunity. That way, if you like your country you can keep your country. Period.
When former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee uttered those words at a Republican party meeting last week liberals nationwide went crazy, accusing Governor Huckabee of continuing the Republican war on women. They interpreted Huckabee's words as him saying that women cannot control their libidos. Nothing could be further from the truth but it seems truth matters not to the left.
Apparently their hearing and/or reading comprehension is substandard. Huckabee was clear - if the Democrats believe women can't handle their libidos or their reproductive systems then so be it. He said it very clearly yet the liberal media twisted (or simply don't understand) his words and made it out to be something it wasn't. Sadly, the uninformed who get their news from the main stream, liberal media will believe whatever they're told.
The thing is - regardless of what the left says - Huckabee wasn't wrong. Women in this country, particularly young, single women, have been led by the Democrats and the media to believe the government is the answer to everything - including their sex lives. They like to tell Republicans to "stay out of my uterus when it comes to abortion" while at the same time demanding "give me medications to keep me from becoming pregnant." So what they really mean is "I want the government in my uterus as long as it's doing what I want it to do there."
Democrats like to pretend they are the party who does things "for the children" yet the children can only benefit from those things if they survive the womb. And Democrats are making it more and more difficult for children to do that. They (Democrats) scream that conservatives are waging a war on women because they don't believe abortion for just any reason is moral or ethical. Liberals like to tell themselves that a baby is not a human being until it's actually outside the mother. Yet prosecutors all over the country will charge someone with two homicides if they kill a pregnant woman. Apparently it's a baby in that case.
When Sandra Fluke went before Congress and demanded the government provide her and her friends with birth control she became the Democrat sweetheart. She even got to speak at the Democrat National Convention the next year. She proved Huckabee's point nearly three years before he made it. And she became a liberal hero.
IF the government is going to supply birth control to women, or mandate that insurance companies cover birth control for women, why are they not doing the same thing for men? Whether everyone knows it or not, women cannot get pregnant without a man. It doesn't matter if the insemination is accomplished by copulation or artificially - it doesn't happen without the contribution from a man. So why is the government discriminating against men? Do these demanding women think they can get pregnant without us? There has only been one woman in history who did that. And it certainly wasn't Sandra Fluke.
Conservatives against abortion and taxpayer funded birth control for women aren't waging a war on women. They wage a War For Babies. I'm all for birth control for men and women. I simply don't believe I should pay for it for other people. Of course, liberals say it prevents unwanted babies and the cost to the taxpayers for them but they completely ignore personal responsibility. At some point that particular thing comes into the discussion. When did it become the government's job to provide personal responsibility to those who refuse to exercise it themselves? For that matter - if they're not responsible enough to purchase their own birth control why does anyone believe they will be responsible enough to use it if it's provided for free?
The other thing I want to say about the war on women is the upcoming Presidential election in 2016. It's no secret that Hillary Clinton, despite her complete failure and subsequent cover-up of the Benghazi incident, is the front runner for the Democrat nomination for President in 2016. There is absolutely no way she should get that nomination but she will. And any Republican who opposes her and criticizes her for Benghazi, or any other screw up she has committed, will be denounced by the left as sexist. I wouldn't want to be her opponent. No matter what you say, no matter how true it is, you will be branded a sexist and anti-woman. Even if you have a female running mate.
I actually hope the Republicans can come up with a good female candidate in 2016. A black female candidate would be perfect. That would confuse the left. And oh... how I love to do that.
The other hope I have is that in November of this year conservative voters will turn out in droves to keep the House and take over the Senate. It's the only way we can limit the damage to be done by President Obama in the next three years. He has already stated his intention to bypass Congress with his pen. So we need a majority in both Houses to override him at every opportunity. That way, if you like your country you can keep your country. Period.
Monday, January 27, 2014
Shopping Carts Are Dangerous!
In almost unbelievable numbers, children under the age of 15 are injured in shopping cart accidents at the rate of over 24,000 a year, which works out to 66 per day. Many of these injuries are closed head injuries which are treated in emergency rooms throughout the nation.
In a recent study by Nationwide Children's Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, falls from the cart accounted for most of the injuries at a rate of about 70% Others included running into or falling over a cart, the cart falling over, and getting limbs stuck in them. While bruises and bumps on the head are the most common, nearly half were concussions with children under four being the most common victims.
Apparently the safety standards for shopping carts aren't enough. “The findings from our study show that the current voluntary standards for shopping cart safety are not adequate” and should be improved, said Gary Smith, director of the Center for Injury Research and Policy at Nationwide Children’s Hospital.
Suggested changes to reduce these injuries are increased use of restraint devices to keep the child secured in and lowering the child seating area to the bottom of the cart rather than the top. (That will certainly make it an easy task for a parent to deal with a misbehaving child.) More parental supervision, safety information and employee encouragement of parents to use safety practices and restraint systems have also been suggested.
It seems obvious to me what the solution is. Shopping carts are dangerous contraptions that injure children. They should be banned. Think about it... anyone - I mean anyone can go into a store and grab a shopping cart. There are no regulations covering that. It won't be long before a crazed shopping cart in the hands of a disgruntled Walmart shopper injures 20 or 30 people in a mass casualty incident in the store.
If guns are to blame for people being shot by crazy people certainly shopping carts are to blame for the injuries they cause to children (and not the non-attentive parent.) So the answer is government intervention - maybe new cart control legislation banning shopping carts nationwide. If that's not feasible - at least a background check (to include mental health history - particularly for frequent shoppers) and a mandatory shopping cart operational safety class before people are allowed to put their children in them.
Shopping cart incidents are on the rise. It's time the government stepped in to do something about it. After all - you never know when you could be attacked by a shopping cart.
In a recent study by Nationwide Children's Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, falls from the cart accounted for most of the injuries at a rate of about 70% Others included running into or falling over a cart, the cart falling over, and getting limbs stuck in them. While bruises and bumps on the head are the most common, nearly half were concussions with children under four being the most common victims.
Apparently the safety standards for shopping carts aren't enough. “The findings from our study show that the current voluntary standards for shopping cart safety are not adequate” and should be improved, said Gary Smith, director of the Center for Injury Research and Policy at Nationwide Children’s Hospital.
Suggested changes to reduce these injuries are increased use of restraint devices to keep the child secured in and lowering the child seating area to the bottom of the cart rather than the top. (That will certainly make it an easy task for a parent to deal with a misbehaving child.) More parental supervision, safety information and employee encouragement of parents to use safety practices and restraint systems have also been suggested.
It seems obvious to me what the solution is. Shopping carts are dangerous contraptions that injure children. They should be banned. Think about it... anyone - I mean anyone can go into a store and grab a shopping cart. There are no regulations covering that. It won't be long before a crazed shopping cart in the hands of a disgruntled Walmart shopper injures 20 or 30 people in a mass casualty incident in the store.
If guns are to blame for people being shot by crazy people certainly shopping carts are to blame for the injuries they cause to children (and not the non-attentive parent.) So the answer is government intervention - maybe new cart control legislation banning shopping carts nationwide. If that's not feasible - at least a background check (to include mental health history - particularly for frequent shoppers) and a mandatory shopping cart operational safety class before people are allowed to put their children in them.
Shopping cart incidents are on the rise. It's time the government stepped in to do something about it. After all - you never know when you could be attacked by a shopping cart.
Friday, January 24, 2014
There's Always Someone To Blame...
I have made it pretty clear in the last few years that I (and many others) believe President Obama is a narcissist. His arrogant, "I know better than you" attitude, his recent statement that was basically "If Congress won't give me what I want I will simply bypass them to do it," and his complete lack of humility when it comes to taking responsibility not only for his successes but for his failures, all support my belief.
Really, Mr. President? The issue is that you haven't been able to persuade the Republican base that what you're doing is working? Maybe that's because... it isn't!!
Now he is at it again. Earlier this week he said that part of his popularity problem is because he is black and that white voters don't like the idea of a black President. Regardless of the fact that he was elected by a majority and that most of those voters were white, rather than admit that voters on both sides are becoming disillusioned by his failed policies her turns to the race card.
That tactic didn't go over well with the people who supported him and are now disappointed by his actions and policies. Recently, it was reported that in addition to blaming racism for his problems he is once again blaming FOX News and Rush Limbaugh for the "gridlock" in Washington.
In his recent interview with The New Yorker, the President said “The issue has been the inability of my message to penetrate the Republican base so that they feel persuaded that I’m not the caricature that you see on Fox News or Rush Limbaugh, but I’m somebody who is interested in solving problems and is pretty practical, and that, actually, a lot of the things that we’ve put in place worked better than people might think."
Really, Mr. President? The issue is that you haven't been able to persuade the Republican base that what you're doing is working? Maybe that's because... it isn't!!
“There is a core group of Republican House members in particular who know that I lost their districts by twenty-five or thirty points,” Obama continued in the interview, “and that there is a Republican base of voters for whom compromise with me is a betrayal. And that – more than anything, I think – has been the challenge that I’ve needed to overcome. As long as there’s that gap between perceptions of me within the average Republican primary voter and the reality, it’s hard for folks like John Boehner to move too far in my direction.”
The narcissist blames everyone else for his failures. That's part of the disorder. And President Obama has been doing it throughout his Presidency. Not once has he accepted blame for any failure during his watch. Even when he apologized to the American people for telling them over and over (lying to them) they would be able to keep their insurance policies and their doctors he didn't claim responsibility for what he did. He said "I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me." There's no one word in there that says "It was my fault - I wasn't telling you the truth." It's impossible for him to say something like that. (He has yet to admit that he lied about Benghazi as well. They White House has admitted the attack wasn't because of a video but the President has not once admitted he lied or apologized to the American people for it.)
Let's not forget another of his failed policies that he never took responsibility for - the "shovel ready jobs" stimulus. When unemployment continued to fall, rather than say "Hey - I was wrong. This isn't working," he joked "Shovel ready was not as shovel ready as we expected" before a Jobs Council meeting in North Carolina. He simply cannot accept blame for anything.
The fact that the President says his "ability for my message to penetrate the Republican base" is because FOX News and Rush Limbaugh (and others) keep that base from seeing who Obama truly is not only proves his narcissism but reinforces the idea that he believes Americans who disagree with him are basically stupid Republican sheep. Of course, those who blindly follow Obama feel the same way, bolstered by a main stream media who have become a part of the Obama campaign. And he's still campaigning - because he doesn't know how to lead.
Last night on "The Kelly File" on FOX, conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer said “It’s rather unseemly if you are the commander-in-chief, the leader of the free world and the most powerful man on earth who could reduce pieces of the planet to a cinder on his command, to get so whiny.” I must agree.
Just once during his Presidency I'd like to see Mr. Obama say "This was my fault. I was wrong and I take full responsibility for it." It wouldn't make me agree with his failed policies but it just might gain him a little respect - at least for a minute or two.
Thursday, January 23, 2014
John Kerry Mourns Death Of Cop Killer
The state of Texas yesterday told Secretary of State John Kerry to stick it where the sun don't shine. Kerry had been helping the Mexican government try to prevent the execution of a cop killer. He was unsuccessful. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court yesterday evening before they decided, 6 to 3, that Texas could proceed with the execution.
In 1994, Edgar Arias Tamayo shot Houston police officer Guy P. Gaddis three times in the back of the head. Tamayo never denied guilt in the case and he was convicted of capital murder by a jury.
Edgar Tamayo was in the country illegally - what the politically correct crowd calls an "undocumented immigrant." He was an illegal alien who should not have been in the country in the first place.
The Mexican government said that Tamayo was denied consulate rights and diplomatic assistance and therefor the execution should never have taken place. They said the Mexican government would have ensured he had the most competent trial defense possible had they been given more opportunity.
Secretary of State John Kerry said executing Tamayo was "extremely detrimental to the United States," adding "I want to be clear: I have no reason to doubt the facts of Mr. Tamayo's conviction, and as a former prosecutor, I have no sympathy for anyone who would murder a police officer," Kerry wrote. "This is a process issue I am raising because it could impact the way American citizens are treated in other countries."
So the Secretary of State said it's not about whether or not he murdered officer Gaddis but about international politics. It is my humble opinion that if a person enters another country illegally and there commits a crime, he/she gives up consular rights from their home country because of their illegal status. And I feel the same way whether it be an illegal alien in this country or an American who illegally enters a foreign country. (Ever notice there's not a huge number of Americans sneaking across any foreign borders?)
During his Presidency, George W. Bush urged his home state of Texas to give Tamayo a new hearing because of the political posturing. It's one of the few things I disagree with Bush on. Tamayo was guilty. He was found guilty by a jury trial. He never professed that he was not guilty (except in his original plea, I guess.) And he was sentenced to death. It took 20 years for that to happen. He had plenty of time for all of his appeals and they were unsuccessful.
Tamayo's execution was scheduled for 6pm yesterday but was delayed at the last minute for a hearing by the Supreme Court. The execution took place at 9:32pm, shortly after the Supreme Court sided with the state of Texas and allowed them to proceed.
Frankly, I'm not surprised by John Kerry's attempted meddling into this case. He's been an embarrassment to the United States since his Vietnam days. If he wasn't extremely wealthy he wouldn't be where he is today - trying to sell us out at every opportunity.
Thank you, Governor Perry, for telling John Kerry to mind his own business and for continuing to serve and protect the citizens of Texas. I wish you were going to run again.
In 1994, Edgar Arias Tamayo shot Houston police officer Guy P. Gaddis three times in the back of the head. Tamayo never denied guilt in the case and he was convicted of capital murder by a jury.
Edgar Tamayo was in the country illegally - what the politically correct crowd calls an "undocumented immigrant." He was an illegal alien who should not have been in the country in the first place.
The Mexican government said that Tamayo was denied consulate rights and diplomatic assistance and therefor the execution should never have taken place. They said the Mexican government would have ensured he had the most competent trial defense possible had they been given more opportunity.
Secretary of State John Kerry said executing Tamayo was "extremely detrimental to the United States," adding "I want to be clear: I have no reason to doubt the facts of Mr. Tamayo's conviction, and as a former prosecutor, I have no sympathy for anyone who would murder a police officer," Kerry wrote. "This is a process issue I am raising because it could impact the way American citizens are treated in other countries."
So the Secretary of State said it's not about whether or not he murdered officer Gaddis but about international politics. It is my humble opinion that if a person enters another country illegally and there commits a crime, he/she gives up consular rights from their home country because of their illegal status. And I feel the same way whether it be an illegal alien in this country or an American who illegally enters a foreign country. (Ever notice there's not a huge number of Americans sneaking across any foreign borders?)
During his Presidency, George W. Bush urged his home state of Texas to give Tamayo a new hearing because of the political posturing. It's one of the few things I disagree with Bush on. Tamayo was guilty. He was found guilty by a jury trial. He never professed that he was not guilty (except in his original plea, I guess.) And he was sentenced to death. It took 20 years for that to happen. He had plenty of time for all of his appeals and they were unsuccessful.
Tamayo's execution was scheduled for 6pm yesterday but was delayed at the last minute for a hearing by the Supreme Court. The execution took place at 9:32pm, shortly after the Supreme Court sided with the state of Texas and allowed them to proceed.
Frankly, I'm not surprised by John Kerry's attempted meddling into this case. He's been an embarrassment to the United States since his Vietnam days. If he wasn't extremely wealthy he wouldn't be where he is today - trying to sell us out at every opportunity.
Thank you, Governor Perry, for telling John Kerry to mind his own business and for continuing to serve and protect the citizens of Texas. I wish you were going to run again.
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
A Challenge For Texas...
Texas Governor Rick Perry has announced he will not seek re-election. That opens the door to a battle for partisan control of the state. I'm sure state Democrats are gleeful that Perry isn't running again since it gives them a better shot at putting a Democrat in the capitol. In fact, recent Democrat darling, Wendy Davis, has nearly got the Democrat nomination cinched and is fully expected to run against the Republican candidate.
Davis, whose recent popularity came from her filibuster against an anti-abortion bill last year, has readily welcomed the idea of running for governor and has done several interviews and made several advertisements (either her or her PAC) about it. She was recently interviewed on NBC by Maria Shriver and following the interview it was pointed out by several other sources that some of the things Davis says about her past, about her upbringing and single mom status, isn't quite accurate.
During the January 15th interview, Maria Shriver stated "Davis grew up poor and at the age of 18 found herself pregnant and married. By 19, she was getting divorced and living in a mobile home park."
An article written for The Dallas Morning News by senior political writer Wayne Slater, who is by no means a conservative, stated the following: "Davis was 21, not 19, when she was divorced. She lived only a few months in the family mobile home while separated from her husband before moving into an apartment with her daughter."
Not a big deal, right? So she was off by two years on her age at the time and she technically did live in a mobile home park for a short time. There's more.
Shriver went on to say Davis attended Tarrant County Community College near Fort Worth while working two jobs to keep food on the table.
"I knew I was poor," Davis said, "because of the struggles that I and my young daughter Amber were experiencing. I was having a really hard time making ends meet, paying for my child care, paying for a car payment, and making sure that I kept the lights turned on, sometimes didn't happen."
Again - she looks OK, right? Single mom, struggling to make ends meet and raise her daughter as best she could. Except there's more to it than that.
Mr. Slater's article pointed out a slightly different story.
"A single mother working two jobs, she met Jeff Davis, a lawyer 13 years older than her, married him and had a second daughter. He paid for her last two years at Texas Christian University and her time at Harvard Law School, and kept their two daughters while she was in Boston....When she was accepted to Harvard Law School, Jeff Davis cashed in his 401(k) account and eventually took out a loan to pay for her final year there. "I was making really good money then, well over six figures," he said."
Though he didn't put particular time lines in, Slater went on to say "Davis married again for a time and had her second daughter Drew. Life was looking up and she set her sights on one of the most prestigious law schools in the country."
He detailed how the marriage ended: "Over time, the Davis's marriage was strained. In November 2003, Wendy Davis moved out. Jeff Davis said that was right around the time the final payment on their Harvard Law School loan was due. 'It was ironic,' he said. 'I made the last payment, and it was the next day she left'....In his initial divorce filing, Jeff Davis said the marriage had failed, citing adultery on her part and conflicts that the couple could not overcome. The final court decree makes no mention of infidelity, granting the divorce solely "on the ground of insupportability."
Shriver put her finishing touches on it - presumably to help her gain sympathy from women and thereby gaining votes. "It has been a long, hard road for Wendy Davis to have her voice heard. A journey she says she's very proud of, but one she fears that other women may not be able to follow."
As Slater notes toward the end of his article: "Davis is presenting her story on websites, interviews, speeches and campaign videos. Last week, NBC's Today show became the latest media outlet to showcase the story of Davis' difficult early years in a flattering piece. Using her story to inspire new voters, particularly women, youths and minorities, is a key part of the campaign's strategy to overcome the state’s heavy Republican bent."
Wendy Davis' campaign crew is attacking Republicans for saying her story isn't accurate or complete. In fact, she herself said that her presumed Republican opponent, Greg Abbot, doesn't really know much about struggle. In fact, she said that the fact that Abbot is questioning her story just "proves he hasn't walked a day in my shoes."
Greg Abbot has been a paraplegic in a wheelchair for 30 years. Davis' poor choice of words may or my not have been intentional but I'm pretty sure someone who's been a paraplegic for three decades knows at least a little about struggle.
It's not the overall content of Davis' story that's the problem. It's the fact that it contains untruths that she is passing off as truths and there are large parts missing from the story that matter. She's already telling lies on the campaign trail and hasn't retracted any of them. Instead, when they are pointed out, she attacks the person doing it. Just one more typical liberal politician.
Wendy Davis is attractive, intelligent and successful. Her success does stem from hard work and some sacrifice (but it also can be attributed financially to her ex-husband.) She is very pro-abortion - particularly for single women - which is difficult to understand given the fact that she was a single mom who was raised by a single mom. If Davis' mother had felt as strongly about abortion as Davis does, Wendy might not be here to run for governor. Just a thought.
Davis, whose recent popularity came from her filibuster against an anti-abortion bill last year, has readily welcomed the idea of running for governor and has done several interviews and made several advertisements (either her or her PAC) about it. She was recently interviewed on NBC by Maria Shriver and following the interview it was pointed out by several other sources that some of the things Davis says about her past, about her upbringing and single mom status, isn't quite accurate.
During the January 15th interview, Maria Shriver stated "Davis grew up poor and at the age of 18 found herself pregnant and married. By 19, she was getting divorced and living in a mobile home park."
An article written for The Dallas Morning News by senior political writer Wayne Slater, who is by no means a conservative, stated the following: "Davis was 21, not 19, when she was divorced. She lived only a few months in the family mobile home while separated from her husband before moving into an apartment with her daughter."
Not a big deal, right? So she was off by two years on her age at the time and she technically did live in a mobile home park for a short time. There's more.
Shriver went on to say Davis attended Tarrant County Community College near Fort Worth while working two jobs to keep food on the table.
"I knew I was poor," Davis said, "because of the struggles that I and my young daughter Amber were experiencing. I was having a really hard time making ends meet, paying for my child care, paying for a car payment, and making sure that I kept the lights turned on, sometimes didn't happen."
Again - she looks OK, right? Single mom, struggling to make ends meet and raise her daughter as best she could. Except there's more to it than that.
Mr. Slater's article pointed out a slightly different story.
"A single mother working two jobs, she met Jeff Davis, a lawyer 13 years older than her, married him and had a second daughter. He paid for her last two years at Texas Christian University and her time at Harvard Law School, and kept their two daughters while she was in Boston....When she was accepted to Harvard Law School, Jeff Davis cashed in his 401(k) account and eventually took out a loan to pay for her final year there. "I was making really good money then, well over six figures," he said."
Though he didn't put particular time lines in, Slater went on to say "Davis married again for a time and had her second daughter Drew. Life was looking up and she set her sights on one of the most prestigious law schools in the country."
He detailed how the marriage ended: "Over time, the Davis's marriage was strained. In November 2003, Wendy Davis moved out. Jeff Davis said that was right around the time the final payment on their Harvard Law School loan was due. 'It was ironic,' he said. 'I made the last payment, and it was the next day she left'....In his initial divorce filing, Jeff Davis said the marriage had failed, citing adultery on her part and conflicts that the couple could not overcome. The final court decree makes no mention of infidelity, granting the divorce solely "on the ground of insupportability."
Shriver put her finishing touches on it - presumably to help her gain sympathy from women and thereby gaining votes. "It has been a long, hard road for Wendy Davis to have her voice heard. A journey she says she's very proud of, but one she fears that other women may not be able to follow."
As Slater notes toward the end of his article: "Davis is presenting her story on websites, interviews, speeches and campaign videos. Last week, NBC's Today show became the latest media outlet to showcase the story of Davis' difficult early years in a flattering piece. Using her story to inspire new voters, particularly women, youths and minorities, is a key part of the campaign's strategy to overcome the state’s heavy Republican bent."
Wendy Davis' campaign crew is attacking Republicans for saying her story isn't accurate or complete. In fact, she herself said that her presumed Republican opponent, Greg Abbot, doesn't really know much about struggle. In fact, she said that the fact that Abbot is questioning her story just "proves he hasn't walked a day in my shoes."
Greg Abbot has been a paraplegic in a wheelchair for 30 years. Davis' poor choice of words may or my not have been intentional but I'm pretty sure someone who's been a paraplegic for three decades knows at least a little about struggle.
It's not the overall content of Davis' story that's the problem. It's the fact that it contains untruths that she is passing off as truths and there are large parts missing from the story that matter. She's already telling lies on the campaign trail and hasn't retracted any of them. Instead, when they are pointed out, she attacks the person doing it. Just one more typical liberal politician.
Wendy Davis is attractive, intelligent and successful. Her success does stem from hard work and some sacrifice (but it also can be attributed financially to her ex-husband.) She is very pro-abortion - particularly for single women - which is difficult to understand given the fact that she was a single mom who was raised by a single mom. If Davis' mother had felt as strongly about abortion as Davis does, Wendy might not be here to run for governor. Just a thought.
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
So Many Liberals - So Many Topics...
I was listening to someone the other day talk about the children's game of Musical Chairs. For those who may not be familiar with it - which I personally find difficult to imagine - it's a game played with a circle of empty chairs. There is one less chair than participants. Children circle the chairs while music plays and when the music stops everyone sits on a chair. One person will be left standing and that person is out. When the game resumes another chair is removed.
Sounds harmless, right? Sure, there is some competition between kids as a couple of them try to sit on the same chair, but eventually one gets control of the chair and the other is out. The game goes on until their is one chair and one winner. I remember it well.
Sadly, it occurred to me as I was reminiscing that the game of Musical Chairs is probably no longer allowed in today's progressive, politically correct society. The object of Musical Chairs is for everyone to be eliminated from the game until only one person remains. That person wins the game. Liberals, progressives and all the politically correct people will most likely ban the game because the poor children who don't get a chair might feel badly about themselves because of it.
As in youth football and baseball these days - some very misguided adults have decided there should be no winners or losers, only participation. Everyone gets a trophy for playing and no one loses. The are now starting to do the same thing with grades in school. Rather than failing a kid or giving him a bad grade for substandard work they're lowering the standards so the kids who struggle don't feel badly about themselves.
It's not only a ridiculous concept but it's actually harmful to the children. If a kid grows up not understanding the concept of winning and losing, or that some people are simply more or less intelligent than they are, how is he/she ever going to deal with the losses he/she will face as an adult? The first time they're turned down for a job (or screw up and get fired) they'll need serious therapy in order to cope with it. For that matter, the first time they bid on something on e-Bay and don't get it they'll be lost.
Parents who support the "no winners, no losers" concept are actually harming their children. It's poor parenting. Don't be surprised when the first time your adult child gets disappointed he/she moves back in with you because home is the only safe place where there are no disappointments.
In other liberal news - Andrew Cuomo, the current governor of New York, recently appeared on "The Capitol Press Room" on a public radio station in New York. The topic of the differences between moderate and conservative Republicans came up and Governor Cuomo said "Their problem is not me and Democrats, Their problem is themselves. Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right to life, pro assault weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that is who they are and if they are the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the State of New York." Cuomo said.
I find that extremely interesting since on January 9, 2014, Governor Cuomo ended his State of the State address with the following paragraph:
"We are open for business and we welcome everyone here to this great state of New York.’ That is the Statue of Liberty in the harbor. Come one, come all, we don’t care the color of your skin or your religion or how much money you have in your pocket; you come to New York and we will welcome you and work with you and invite you into the family of New York. And while other states say we’re afraid of diversity; while other states are building fences; we say we’re excited by the diversity. We welcome the diversity. The diversity is what made us in the first place, and we believe we can take that diversity and we can take those differences and we can make one from those differences. We believe we can forge community from the people we welcome here. The concept of community is ‘we’re all in this together’ – there is a cord that connects you to you to you and that cord weaves a fabric, and when one of us is raised we’re all raised and when one of us is lowered we’re all lowered, because we’re part of one community and we’re part of one fabric. That is what made New York great and that’s what continues to make New York great. At the end of the day, we are one. We are upstate, we are downstate, but we are one. We are Latino, we are African American, but we are one. We’re New York City and we are Buffalo, but we are one. We are Democrats and Republicans but we are one. That is the promise of this great state. That is E Pluribus Unum, out of many: one. It’s the founding premise, the enduring promise. It’s the promise that we inherited from our parents, and the promise of New York that we’re going to pass on to our children. The promise, my friends, that we are going to make a reality in this great state working together. Thank you and God bless you, and let’s have a great 2014."
So did the governor mean what he said or didn't he? It seems what he meant to say was "We Democrats and progressive Republicans are one. The rest of you Republicans, you moderates and conservatives who don't believe in the progressive agenda, can move somewhere else."
Of course we knew Governor Cuomo was a hypocrite anyway. Hey Governor - where did you get the idea to eliminate taxes for new businesses so they would consider expanding into your state? That's a fiscally conservative idea. You may correctly say that John F. Kennedy did it and he was a Democrat - but he was a conservative Democrat.
Yeah - many liberals are always good for hypocrisy. Funny thing is - they refuse to acknowledge it. They'll deny it, talk around it, flat out lie about it, or call you derogatory names when you blatantly put it in their faces. That's part of what makes them entertaining. But it's also the main reason our country is in such bad shape now. Let's all hope for change in November and again in 2016. Let's get the government out of liberal hands and begin putting the country back together.
Sounds harmless, right? Sure, there is some competition between kids as a couple of them try to sit on the same chair, but eventually one gets control of the chair and the other is out. The game goes on until their is one chair and one winner. I remember it well.
Sadly, it occurred to me as I was reminiscing that the game of Musical Chairs is probably no longer allowed in today's progressive, politically correct society. The object of Musical Chairs is for everyone to be eliminated from the game until only one person remains. That person wins the game. Liberals, progressives and all the politically correct people will most likely ban the game because the poor children who don't get a chair might feel badly about themselves because of it.
As in youth football and baseball these days - some very misguided adults have decided there should be no winners or losers, only participation. Everyone gets a trophy for playing and no one loses. The are now starting to do the same thing with grades in school. Rather than failing a kid or giving him a bad grade for substandard work they're lowering the standards so the kids who struggle don't feel badly about themselves.
It's not only a ridiculous concept but it's actually harmful to the children. If a kid grows up not understanding the concept of winning and losing, or that some people are simply more or less intelligent than they are, how is he/she ever going to deal with the losses he/she will face as an adult? The first time they're turned down for a job (or screw up and get fired) they'll need serious therapy in order to cope with it. For that matter, the first time they bid on something on e-Bay and don't get it they'll be lost.
Parents who support the "no winners, no losers" concept are actually harming their children. It's poor parenting. Don't be surprised when the first time your adult child gets disappointed he/she moves back in with you because home is the only safe place where there are no disappointments.
In other liberal news - Andrew Cuomo, the current governor of New York, recently appeared on "The Capitol Press Room" on a public radio station in New York. The topic of the differences between moderate and conservative Republicans came up and Governor Cuomo said "Their problem is not me and Democrats, Their problem is themselves. Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right to life, pro assault weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that is who they are and if they are the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the State of New York." Cuomo said.
I find that extremely interesting since on January 9, 2014, Governor Cuomo ended his State of the State address with the following paragraph:
"We are open for business and we welcome everyone here to this great state of New York.’ That is the Statue of Liberty in the harbor. Come one, come all, we don’t care the color of your skin or your religion or how much money you have in your pocket; you come to New York and we will welcome you and work with you and invite you into the family of New York. And while other states say we’re afraid of diversity; while other states are building fences; we say we’re excited by the diversity. We welcome the diversity. The diversity is what made us in the first place, and we believe we can take that diversity and we can take those differences and we can make one from those differences. We believe we can forge community from the people we welcome here. The concept of community is ‘we’re all in this together’ – there is a cord that connects you to you to you and that cord weaves a fabric, and when one of us is raised we’re all raised and when one of us is lowered we’re all lowered, because we’re part of one community and we’re part of one fabric. That is what made New York great and that’s what continues to make New York great. At the end of the day, we are one. We are upstate, we are downstate, but we are one. We are Latino, we are African American, but we are one. We’re New York City and we are Buffalo, but we are one. We are Democrats and Republicans but we are one. That is the promise of this great state. That is E Pluribus Unum, out of many: one. It’s the founding premise, the enduring promise. It’s the promise that we inherited from our parents, and the promise of New York that we’re going to pass on to our children. The promise, my friends, that we are going to make a reality in this great state working together. Thank you and God bless you, and let’s have a great 2014."
So did the governor mean what he said or didn't he? It seems what he meant to say was "We Democrats and progressive Republicans are one. The rest of you Republicans, you moderates and conservatives who don't believe in the progressive agenda, can move somewhere else."
Of course we knew Governor Cuomo was a hypocrite anyway. Hey Governor - where did you get the idea to eliminate taxes for new businesses so they would consider expanding into your state? That's a fiscally conservative idea. You may correctly say that John F. Kennedy did it and he was a Democrat - but he was a conservative Democrat.
Yeah - many liberals are always good for hypocrisy. Funny thing is - they refuse to acknowledge it. They'll deny it, talk around it, flat out lie about it, or call you derogatory names when you blatantly put it in their faces. That's part of what makes them entertaining. But it's also the main reason our country is in such bad shape now. Let's all hope for change in November and again in 2016. Let's get the government out of liberal hands and begin putting the country back together.
Monday, January 20, 2014
When All Else Fails - Throw Down That Race Card!
President Obama's ego has to be hurting from his low poll numbers. His numbers are the lowest they have ever been, in the upper 30s, thanks to the disaster that is Obamacare and his failing economic policies. It is so bad for him these days that he has announced he will no longer work with Congress but will assume law-making powers through the use of executive orders to push his agenda on the American people.
In a recent interview with New Yorker Magazine, the President lamented that the reason many white voters don't like him is simply because he's black. “There’s no doubt that there’s some folks who just really dislike me because they don’t like the idea of a black President,” he told the New Yorker. “Now, the flip side of it is there are some black folks and maybe some white folks who really like me and give me the benefit of the doubt precisely because I’m a black President.”
Even the author of the article noticed something though. "The latter group has been less in evidence of late," David Remnick wrote.
I can't argue with either of the President's statements because fundamentally they are both true. Certainly there are some whites out there who don't like President Obama because he's black. But it is in no way the majority. If it was he never would have won the Presidency in the first place. His numbers among Democrats and hard core liberals are falling too. And many of them are the ones who voted for him with being black their idea of his best qualification. So what's the story on that, Mr. President? Have they suddenly become racists?
It wasn't so long ago that the President was telling people that race had nothing to do with how Americans felt about him but it was more about the changes he was bringing to America. "I — I think it — it doesn’t have to do with my race in particular. It has to do with an effort to make sure that people who might otherwise challenge the existing ways that things work are divided," he told PBS "NewsHour" hosts Gwen Ifill and Judy Woodruff.
Then we had the disastrous rollout of Obamacare and many Americans who had been in denial finally got a glimpse of the overall incompetence of the Obama administration. Combine that with overwhelming evidence of his bald faced lies to the American people, not only about Obamacare but about Benghazi, and his statements of complete ignorance of other programs going on in his administration and you see his poll numbers drop. And since he really can't defend his actions or statements once the truth is out there - it turns into racism. What other excuse could there be?
President Obama and the Democrats should be embarrassed - not only for their complete failures as American politicians but for stooping to the race card when they can no longer defend their failures. All one need do is look at the facts around the dropping poll numbers and it becomes clear that the reason for the dropping numbers has nothing to do with race and everything to do with a failing and incompetent Presidential administration.
They should also be embarrassed by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid but that's another blog post.
It's interesting that the "first black President" - who is half white - has finally resorted to using the race card after everything else he has done has failed. He's now blaming us (white voters) for his failures. But I guess that's progress. At least he's no longer blaming Bush.
In a recent interview with New Yorker Magazine, the President lamented that the reason many white voters don't like him is simply because he's black. “There’s no doubt that there’s some folks who just really dislike me because they don’t like the idea of a black President,” he told the New Yorker. “Now, the flip side of it is there are some black folks and maybe some white folks who really like me and give me the benefit of the doubt precisely because I’m a black President.”
Even the author of the article noticed something though. "The latter group has been less in evidence of late," David Remnick wrote.
I can't argue with either of the President's statements because fundamentally they are both true. Certainly there are some whites out there who don't like President Obama because he's black. But it is in no way the majority. If it was he never would have won the Presidency in the first place. His numbers among Democrats and hard core liberals are falling too. And many of them are the ones who voted for him with being black their idea of his best qualification. So what's the story on that, Mr. President? Have they suddenly become racists?
It wasn't so long ago that the President was telling people that race had nothing to do with how Americans felt about him but it was more about the changes he was bringing to America. "I — I think it — it doesn’t have to do with my race in particular. It has to do with an effort to make sure that people who might otherwise challenge the existing ways that things work are divided," he told PBS "NewsHour" hosts Gwen Ifill and Judy Woodruff.
Then we had the disastrous rollout of Obamacare and many Americans who had been in denial finally got a glimpse of the overall incompetence of the Obama administration. Combine that with overwhelming evidence of his bald faced lies to the American people, not only about Obamacare but about Benghazi, and his statements of complete ignorance of other programs going on in his administration and you see his poll numbers drop. And since he really can't defend his actions or statements once the truth is out there - it turns into racism. What other excuse could there be?
President Obama and the Democrats should be embarrassed - not only for their complete failures as American politicians but for stooping to the race card when they can no longer defend their failures. All one need do is look at the facts around the dropping poll numbers and it becomes clear that the reason for the dropping numbers has nothing to do with race and everything to do with a failing and incompetent Presidential administration.
They should also be embarrassed by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid but that's another blog post.
It's interesting that the "first black President" - who is half white - has finally resorted to using the race card after everything else he has done has failed. He's now blaming us (white voters) for his failures. But I guess that's progress. At least he's no longer blaming Bush.
Friday, January 17, 2014
Hillary For President? Really?
During the 2008 Democrat primaries, Hillary Clinton's campaign aired a commercial of the phone in the White House bedroom ringing in the wee hours of the morning. The narrative was "It's 3am and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want to answer the phone?" Voters were reminded that we live in a "dangerous world" and that their votes will determine whether or not we have someone in the White House with experience in national security.
Voters were encouraged to elect Hillary because she had that experience when Barack Obama did not. One could ask how she got that experience but the answer would be just as goofy as the one that people gave when asked what experience she had to be President. The most common answer was "She lived in the White House for eight years."
Chelsea Clinton also lived in the White House for eight years. Is she qualified to be President? Using the same logic apparently she is. I wonder when she'll run?
The bipartisan report released on Wednesday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence indicates that Hillary's national security expertise didn't pan out well leading up to the Benghazi incident. Among findings of the committee were:
Voters were encouraged to elect Hillary because she had that experience when Barack Obama did not. One could ask how she got that experience but the answer would be just as goofy as the one that people gave when asked what experience she had to be President. The most common answer was "She lived in the White House for eight years."
Chelsea Clinton also lived in the White House for eight years. Is she qualified to be President? Using the same logic apparently she is. I wonder when she'll run?
The bipartisan report released on Wednesday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence indicates that Hillary's national security expertise didn't pan out well leading up to the Benghazi incident. Among findings of the committee were:
Finding #1–In the months before the attacks on September 11, 2012, the IC provided ample strategic warning that the security situation in eastern Libya was deteriorating and that U.S. facilities and personnel were at risk in Benghazi.
Finding #2–The State Department should have increased its security posture more significantly in Benghazi based on the deteriorating security situation on the ground and IC threat reporting on the prior attacks against Westerners in Benghazi–including two incidents at the Temporary Mission Facility on April 6 and June 6, 2012.
It's interesting how things worked out. Obama won the Presidency and when that call came in (about 5 in the afternoon) he did absolutely nothing. Hillary became Obama's Secretary of State and when the calls came for increased security in Benghazi she did nothing. They both failed in the clinch. And I won't even go into the lies afterward because I've written about them until my fingers are bruised and still the supporters of these two continue their idol worship.
Hillary has no business being the President of the United States. Not only did she fail in her biggest challenge as SOS but, according to former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, she and Obama opposed the surge in Iraq for political reasons rather than having specific oppositions to it. What we do not need as President is another one who doesn't like or respect the U.S. military and what they do. Nor do we need another one who fails to act in a crisis, or in the time leading up to one.
However, I sadly believe her chances of being elected are good. Many of her followers are living by her comment to the House Oversight Committee: "What difference, at this point, does it make?"
The NRA Is In Trouble Now....!
The National Rifle Association better be careful. They have become a target. Famed movie producer Harvey Weinstein apparently has declared war on the NRA.
In a recent interview with Howard Stern, Weinstein made his intentions toward the NRA known. “I shouldn’t say this, but I’ll tell it to you, Howard. I’m going to make a movie with Meryl Streep, and we’re going to take this head-on. And they’re going to wish they weren’t alive after I’m done with them.”
I'm certain Wayne LaPierre, the current head of the NRA, is already losing sleep over it. After all - what could do more damage to the NRA than a Hollywood film made by a man who has gotten extremely wealthy producing films that contain... guns. And lots of them.
A list of Harvey Weinstein films includes "Rambo", the "Kill Bill" series, "Django Unchained", "Pulp Fiction" and "Reservoir Dogs". So I guess ol' Harvey will now begin producing films for Disney and the Hallmark Channel since he has declared war on guns and the NRA. After all - you can't hate something with such passion and still use it to make money, right?
Weinstein is one of those typical Hollywood celebrities who uses extreme gun violence to sell movie tickets to line his own pockets while at the same time saying that American citizens don't need to own guns. That list of hypocrites includes people like Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Matt Damon, Michael Douglas, and Mark Wahlberg - all of whom have made millions of dollars through the use of gun violence in movies. (I wonder if Mark Wahlberg thinks his new friend Marcus Luttrell shouldn't be allowed to own guns? I can't help but wonder what Marcus Luttrell would think of that...?)
The biggest difference between Weinstein and the other hypocrites is that Weinstein has the narcissistic vision that he can destroy the NRA simply by making a new film. Apparently he's that great - at least in his own mind.
I'm not sure what Weinstein's problem is with the NRA. Their membership is just over 5 million. That's .016% of the population of the USA. It's more than the number of people who have signed up for Obamacare but still - it's minuscule in the grand scheme of things. There are bigger things Weinstein should worry about - particularly since a new movie, whatever it contains, isn't going to hurt the NRA one bit.
Harvey - go for it. I look forward to seeing whatever it is you decide to make that will have such power. Who knows? If you're successful bringing the NRA to its knees maybe you can tackle war next and bring peace to the world....?
In a recent interview with Howard Stern, Weinstein made his intentions toward the NRA known. “I shouldn’t say this, but I’ll tell it to you, Howard. I’m going to make a movie with Meryl Streep, and we’re going to take this head-on. And they’re going to wish they weren’t alive after I’m done with them.”
I'm certain Wayne LaPierre, the current head of the NRA, is already losing sleep over it. After all - what could do more damage to the NRA than a Hollywood film made by a man who has gotten extremely wealthy producing films that contain... guns. And lots of them.
A list of Harvey Weinstein films includes "Rambo", the "Kill Bill" series, "Django Unchained", "Pulp Fiction" and "Reservoir Dogs". So I guess ol' Harvey will now begin producing films for Disney and the Hallmark Channel since he has declared war on guns and the NRA. After all - you can't hate something with such passion and still use it to make money, right?
Weinstein is one of those typical Hollywood celebrities who uses extreme gun violence to sell movie tickets to line his own pockets while at the same time saying that American citizens don't need to own guns. That list of hypocrites includes people like Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Matt Damon, Michael Douglas, and Mark Wahlberg - all of whom have made millions of dollars through the use of gun violence in movies. (I wonder if Mark Wahlberg thinks his new friend Marcus Luttrell shouldn't be allowed to own guns? I can't help but wonder what Marcus Luttrell would think of that...?)
The biggest difference between Weinstein and the other hypocrites is that Weinstein has the narcissistic vision that he can destroy the NRA simply by making a new film. Apparently he's that great - at least in his own mind.
I'm not sure what Weinstein's problem is with the NRA. Their membership is just over 5 million. That's .016% of the population of the USA. It's more than the number of people who have signed up for Obamacare but still - it's minuscule in the grand scheme of things. There are bigger things Weinstein should worry about - particularly since a new movie, whatever it contains, isn't going to hurt the NRA one bit.
Harvey - go for it. I look forward to seeing whatever it is you decide to make that will have such power. Who knows? If you're successful bringing the NRA to its knees maybe you can tackle war next and bring peace to the world....?
Thursday, January 16, 2014
Will We Ever Know The Real Story?
Included in the report on the Benghazi attacks, released by the House Armed Services Committee just yesterday, is an interesting statement about the FBI investigation being hampered because 15 people who were assisting and/or cooperating with the investigation have been killed. The report doesn't say who these people were, how they were killed, or by whom.
One can't help but wonder (at least those of us who think this is more important than a traffic jam in New Jersey) who these 15 people were and who killed them. Are they Libyan civilians who are cooperating with the FBI and being eliminated by terrorists? That would make sense, I suppose. Terrorists don't like when their fellow citizens cooperate with Americans.
But that's not the only possibility. Could it be that the Obama administration is getting rid of evidence? That thought has been voiced by some. Now that we know the President was briefed almost immediately about the attack and that he did nothing to help the victims, then proceeded to make up a story about a protest over a video that wasn't mere disproved but literally blown out of the water, it is conceivable that he would like any further witnesses to be silenced. I'm not accusing him of anything. I'm simply stating that in this day and age it's not impossible.
However, there is another theory that may be more believable to many. And it's based on history that while it hasn't yet been proved, it certainly aids suspicion.
The Clinton political machine is gearing up for a run at the White House in 2016. The report released yesterday clearly shows Hillary did nothing to assure the security of Chris Stevens and the others - either before the attack or during. They were simply left to die by Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Then Obama, Hillary, Susan Rice, and Jay Carney began their cover up in an attempt to make the American people believe the Obama administration was innocent of any wrongdoing. Most thinking people saw through it immediately but they did manage, with the help of the lapdog, main stream media, to fool at least some people for a while.
The thing is - it does matter. And she knows it. Not only did she lie, once again, about the cause of the attack but she wrote off the four dead Americans like they were completely unimportant - on national television. I'm sure damage control began immediately in her camp. So what to do about it?
While nothing has ever been proved - there is a history of mysterious deaths of people who in some way were connected with the Clintons and had what you might call "negative information" about them. The left likes to pretend its nothing but some of those deaths are just plain suspicious. Is it inconceivable that the same people who may have made those happen could also be at work now cleaning up the mess Hillary left behind?
Of course I'm simply speculating and have absolutely no evidence that Hillary's people had anything to do with the deaths of so many cooperating witnesses. But at this point who stands to lose the most having more evidence about the failure of the Obama administration revealed? Certainly not the President. He's in his second term and, barring any forced takeover of the government, he will be done in 2017. Leon Panetta has already moved on. And the terrorists really won't be hurt by the investigation.
No, the only one with anything to lose in this case is the woman who would be nominated as the Democrat candidate for President in 2016. And it does appear the Clintons have ways of making people disappear from the public eye.
Of course, this is my opinion. I could be wrong...
One can't help but wonder (at least those of us who think this is more important than a traffic jam in New Jersey) who these 15 people were and who killed them. Are they Libyan civilians who are cooperating with the FBI and being eliminated by terrorists? That would make sense, I suppose. Terrorists don't like when their fellow citizens cooperate with Americans.
But that's not the only possibility. Could it be that the Obama administration is getting rid of evidence? That thought has been voiced by some. Now that we know the President was briefed almost immediately about the attack and that he did nothing to help the victims, then proceeded to make up a story about a protest over a video that wasn't mere disproved but literally blown out of the water, it is conceivable that he would like any further witnesses to be silenced. I'm not accusing him of anything. I'm simply stating that in this day and age it's not impossible.
However, there is another theory that may be more believable to many. And it's based on history that while it hasn't yet been proved, it certainly aids suspicion.
The Clinton political machine is gearing up for a run at the White House in 2016. The report released yesterday clearly shows Hillary did nothing to assure the security of Chris Stevens and the others - either before the attack or during. They were simply left to die by Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Then Obama, Hillary, Susan Rice, and Jay Carney began their cover up in an attempt to make the American people believe the Obama administration was innocent of any wrongdoing. Most thinking people saw through it immediately but they did manage, with the help of the lapdog, main stream media, to fool at least some people for a while.
However, once the sham was revealed and the FBI began making
progress in the investigation, people in Libya cooperating with the
investigation began dying. Hillary came under fire from the right for her role
(or her complete lack of a role) in the Benghazi incident. Conservative pundits
began relaying the fact that she did nothing as Secretary of State to meet the
extra security demands requested by Chris Stevens and that she told the mother
of one of the victims they would "get the guy who made the video."
Then America watched on TV as she made her now infamous statement concerning
the attack “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was
it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night
decided to go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?”
The thing is - it does matter. And she knows it. Not only did she lie, once again, about the cause of the attack but she wrote off the four dead Americans like they were completely unimportant - on national television. I'm sure damage control began immediately in her camp. So what to do about it?
While nothing has ever been proved - there is a history of mysterious deaths of people who in some way were connected with the Clintons and had what you might call "negative information" about them. The left likes to pretend its nothing but some of those deaths are just plain suspicious. Is it inconceivable that the same people who may have made those happen could also be at work now cleaning up the mess Hillary left behind?
Of course I'm simply speculating and have absolutely no evidence that Hillary's people had anything to do with the deaths of so many cooperating witnesses. But at this point who stands to lose the most having more evidence about the failure of the Obama administration revealed? Certainly not the President. He's in his second term and, barring any forced takeover of the government, he will be done in 2017. Leon Panetta has already moved on. And the terrorists really won't be hurt by the investigation.
No, the only one with anything to lose in this case is the woman who would be nominated as the Democrat candidate for President in 2016. And it does appear the Clintons have ways of making people disappear from the public eye.
Of course, this is my opinion. I could be wrong...
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
Proof That People Died And The Obama Administration Lied
Within 15 minutes of the initiation of the assault on the consulate in Benghazi, General Carter Ham, then head of AFRICOM, the Defense Department command with jurisdiction over Libya, knew the consulate was under a terrorist attack and that Ambassador Chris Stevens had gone missing. Shortly afterward, then Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, were briefed by Ham himself.
Thus is the testimony of General Ham, of which classified documents were declassified within the last few days and made public.
“My first call was to General Dempsey, General Dempsey’s office, to say, ‘Hey, I am headed down the hall. I need to see him right away,’” Ham told the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation on June 26 of last year. “I told him what I knew. We immediately walked upstairs to meet with Secretary Panetta.”
Ham further testified he gave Panetta and Dempsey the information just minutes before they were headed to the White House for a meeting with President Obama. So now one must decide - did Leon Panetta and General Dempsey withhold this vital and real-time information from the President of the United States? Does anyone still believe that?
Yet within hours information was leaked from the White House that the attack on the consulate, which ended up killing four Americans total, including Ambassador Stevens, was simply a mob that attacked the consulate because of anger generated by a video made in America. Four days later, America's then UN Ambassador, Susan Rice, went on the Sunday morning TV talk shows to reiterate the story about the video - which was a complete fabrication.
When the bodies of the slain Americans arrived at Andrews Air Force Base, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told one of the grieving mothers they would find the creator of the video and ensure he was properly punished.
Two weeks after the attack, President Obama went to the floor of the United Nations and repeated the lie about the video.
Even the interim President of Libya said publicly that the story of the video was simply untrue. Yet the Obama administration stuck with the story for as long as they possibly could. Eventually facts were uncovered, witnesses were interviewed, official cables requesting additional security (which was denied) were released and it was evident to any thinking person that the Obama administration not only botched the entire affair but lied to cover it up in an election year.
The White House refused to release documents and the CIA refused to make some witnesses available to the Armed Services Committee for testimony. Conservative pundits and media outlets that still practice journalism stayed on it and eventually began proving the Obama administration had not only lied about the video being the cause - they made it up. But the main stream, left-wing media refused to accurately investigate and/or report the story and Obama supporters nationwide not only refused to acknowledge that he, Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice lied about what really happened but decried anyone who said otherwise.
Jay Carney, the President's Liar in Chief, called it a "phony scandal."
Susan Rice, who was moved from her position in the U.N. to one of National Security Adviser (presumably for her intense loyalty to the President) stated in an interview as late as December 2013 “I don’t have time to think about the false controversy. In the midst of all of swirl about things like talking points, the administration has been working very, very hard across the globe to review our security of our embassies and our facilities. That’s what we ought to be focused on.”
The recently declassified documents prove the Obama administration to be as corrupt and dishonest as they come. I'm not surprise at that. What surprises me is that his supporters still either don't believe it or don't care. And that's frightening.
In other news - the President today said that he won't be waiting for legislation to get things done.
"I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone, and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward in helping to make sure our kids are getting the best education possible, making sure that our businesses are getting the kind of support and help they need to grow and advance, to make sure that people are getting the skills that they need to get those jobs that our businesses are creating."
There's just one problem with that statement. Obama's economy, the threat of raising the minimum wage and the big job killer - Obamacare - are preventing businesses from growing and creating jobs. The only jobs Obama's pen can create are government jobs. And we certainly don't need any more of those - except for federal correctional workers who are losing ground every day against the ever growing population of inmates.
Obama went on to say "And so one of the things that I’m going to be talking to my cabinet about is how do we use all the tools available to us, not just legislation, in order to advance a mission that I think unifies all Americans, the belief that everybody’s got to take responsibility, everybody’s got to work hard..."
It seems odd to hear President Obama talk about unity, responsibility and hard work when he believes in none of those things for the American people. President Obama has divided this country along racial, political and economic lines more than any other President in my lifetime. He presides over the largest number of Americans on food stamps, one of the lowest work forces and the largest national debt ever. He has extended unemployment benefits so many times it is now a career for some. And he's done it all intentionally to further his left-wing, socialistic ideals.
I think President Obama should stick to allowing legislators do their jobs and stop going around them. So far his ideas aren't working very well. That's not just my opinion. Watch some real news.
Thus is the testimony of General Ham, of which classified documents were declassified within the last few days and made public.
“My first call was to General Dempsey, General Dempsey’s office, to say, ‘Hey, I am headed down the hall. I need to see him right away,’” Ham told the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation on June 26 of last year. “I told him what I knew. We immediately walked upstairs to meet with Secretary Panetta.”
Ham further testified he gave Panetta and Dempsey the information just minutes before they were headed to the White House for a meeting with President Obama. So now one must decide - did Leon Panetta and General Dempsey withhold this vital and real-time information from the President of the United States? Does anyone still believe that?
Yet within hours information was leaked from the White House that the attack on the consulate, which ended up killing four Americans total, including Ambassador Stevens, was simply a mob that attacked the consulate because of anger generated by a video made in America. Four days later, America's then UN Ambassador, Susan Rice, went on the Sunday morning TV talk shows to reiterate the story about the video - which was a complete fabrication.
When the bodies of the slain Americans arrived at Andrews Air Force Base, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told one of the grieving mothers they would find the creator of the video and ensure he was properly punished.
Two weeks after the attack, President Obama went to the floor of the United Nations and repeated the lie about the video.
Even the interim President of Libya said publicly that the story of the video was simply untrue. Yet the Obama administration stuck with the story for as long as they possibly could. Eventually facts were uncovered, witnesses were interviewed, official cables requesting additional security (which was denied) were released and it was evident to any thinking person that the Obama administration not only botched the entire affair but lied to cover it up in an election year.
The White House refused to release documents and the CIA refused to make some witnesses available to the Armed Services Committee for testimony. Conservative pundits and media outlets that still practice journalism stayed on it and eventually began proving the Obama administration had not only lied about the video being the cause - they made it up. But the main stream, left-wing media refused to accurately investigate and/or report the story and Obama supporters nationwide not only refused to acknowledge that he, Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice lied about what really happened but decried anyone who said otherwise.
Jay Carney, the President's Liar in Chief, called it a "phony scandal."
Susan Rice, who was moved from her position in the U.N. to one of National Security Adviser (presumably for her intense loyalty to the President) stated in an interview as late as December 2013 “I don’t have time to think about the false controversy. In the midst of all of swirl about things like talking points, the administration has been working very, very hard across the globe to review our security of our embassies and our facilities. That’s what we ought to be focused on.”
The recently declassified documents prove the Obama administration to be as corrupt and dishonest as they come. I'm not surprise at that. What surprises me is that his supporters still either don't believe it or don't care. And that's frightening.
In other news - the President today said that he won't be waiting for legislation to get things done.
"I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone, and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward in helping to make sure our kids are getting the best education possible, making sure that our businesses are getting the kind of support and help they need to grow and advance, to make sure that people are getting the skills that they need to get those jobs that our businesses are creating."
There's just one problem with that statement. Obama's economy, the threat of raising the minimum wage and the big job killer - Obamacare - are preventing businesses from growing and creating jobs. The only jobs Obama's pen can create are government jobs. And we certainly don't need any more of those - except for federal correctional workers who are losing ground every day against the ever growing population of inmates.
Obama went on to say "And so one of the things that I’m going to be talking to my cabinet about is how do we use all the tools available to us, not just legislation, in order to advance a mission that I think unifies all Americans, the belief that everybody’s got to take responsibility, everybody’s got to work hard..."
It seems odd to hear President Obama talk about unity, responsibility and hard work when he believes in none of those things for the American people. President Obama has divided this country along racial, political and economic lines more than any other President in my lifetime. He presides over the largest number of Americans on food stamps, one of the lowest work forces and the largest national debt ever. He has extended unemployment benefits so many times it is now a career for some. And he's done it all intentionally to further his left-wing, socialistic ideals.
I think President Obama should stick to allowing legislators do their jobs and stop going around them. So far his ideas aren't working very well. That's not just my opinion. Watch some real news.
No Charges To Be Filed In IRS Case
In an announcement that came as a surprise to absolutely no one, the FBI yesterday said that while the investigation continues they have no current plans to file criminal charges against anyone over the Internal Revenue Service's "heightened scrutiny" of conservative groups.
Investigators apparently did not find the political bias on behalf of the IRS that would amount to a violation of criminal law, officials said. Instead, officials contend what they found was mismanagement of rule enforcement concerning tax-exemption applications it didn't understand. Sure, OK.
Of course, there wouldn't be any conflict of interest or cronyism going on just because the lead investigator, Barbara Bosserman, is a Democrat who donated over $6000 to President Obama's campaign funds in 2008 and 2012 and was appointed as lead investigator secretly. Nah - nothing to worry about there. Nothing but ethics and transparency in that appointment.
Investigators apparently did not find the political bias on behalf of the IRS that would amount to a violation of criminal law, officials said. Instead, officials contend what they found was mismanagement of rule enforcement concerning tax-exemption applications it didn't understand. Sure, OK.
Of course, there wouldn't be any conflict of interest or cronyism going on just because the lead investigator, Barbara Bosserman, is a Democrat who donated over $6000 to President Obama's campaign funds in 2008 and 2012 and was appointed as lead investigator secretly. Nah - nothing to worry about there. Nothing but ethics and transparency in that appointment.
On January 8th, Republican Representative Darrell Issa,
(CA), sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder that, among other
things, said “We request you immediately remove Ms. [Barbara] Bosserman from
the ongoing investigation. “By selecting a significant donor to President Obama
to lead an investigation into inappropriate targeting of conservative groups,
the Department has created a startling conflict of interest.”
“It is unbelievable that the Department would choose such an
individual to examine the federal government’s systematic targeting and
harassment of organizations oppose to the President’s policies… Please provide
a comprehensive explanation of the decision to assign Ms. Bosserman to the
DoJ/FBI investigation of the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups,” the
letter continued.
“The FBI’s blatant lack of cooperation with the
(Congressional) Committee may rise to the level of criminal obstruction of a
congressional investigation,” the letter concluded.
I must agree with Congressman Issa. Even if Ms. Bosserman is the most honest and trustworthy person in the world (she's a lawyer so that's somewhat doubtful), her appointment as the lead investigator, given her political history, gives the appearance that the Justice Department isn't truly committed to taking proper action against those who interfered with conservative political action groups at a time when they needed to be most active.
No one but the most staunch Obama supporters truly believes the IRS wasn't intentionally targeting conservatives and breaking the law while doing it. Some on the left even have said it should still be occurring, legal or not, to weed out opposition to Obama and the Democrats. What they don't seem to understand is that an administration which will use secret appointments of people who are favorable to their causes will use those same tactics against anyone who gets in their way. Welcome to the gulag....
Monday, January 13, 2014
Over Half Of House Of Representatives Are Millionaires
According to a study by AllGov.com, for the first time in American history the House of Representatives has more millionaires than not. Of the 534 men and women in the House, 268 are now millionaires. Of those in seats in May, 2013 (the filing deadline), the median net worth of members of the House was $1,008,767 - up from $966,000 during the previous year.
It's no secret that politics can be a financially lucrative career. Many politicians get into politics after making their fortunes in the private sector - some as businessmen or entrepreneurs and many as attorneys. Barack Obama was an attorney, a community organizer, a college instructor and an author. It didn't hurt him - he's worth about 14 million dollars now. And that's OK. He earned his money legally as far as we know. However, since he said in April of 2010 "I do think at a certain point you've made enough money." I can't help but wonder Mr. Obama will ever reach that point himself?
Contrary to what some liberals preach there is nothing wrong with being wealthy. America is the land of opportunity - or it was until the economy went South and jobs began disappearing. But there are still opportunities out there for the future Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Darrell Issa (who made his fortune as the magnate of the Viper car alarm system), etc. Some people will take full advantage of that opportunity and gain tremendous wealth and others will only live comfortably. But opportunity is there.
What's interesting about the AllGov study is that there are more Democrat millionaires in Congress than Republicans. Wait... what? Democrats are the party of the working man and the Republicans are the evil, rich ones. That's what Democrats will tell you, anyway. But the median net worth of Democrat Representatives as of the May 2013 filing was $1.04 million versus the $1 million by the Republicans.
".04 million isn't that much," one might say. And that's true (except to those of us who don't have it.) But that's not the point. Democrats decry wealth as evil. They demand that those evil "1 percenters" who have money share it with those who have not and they (Democrat politicians) think they should be the ones who decide how wealth sharing is accomplished. And their liberal supporters agree with them even as those same Democrat leaders (who are also 1 percenters) continue to gain more wealth!
The story is a little different on the Senate side of the House - at least now. Republican Senators currently have a greater net worth than Democrat Senators - $2.9 million versus $1.7 million. However, Senate Democrats' median net worth fell sharply when John Kerry became Secretary of State and Frank Lautenberg passed away, dropping the Senate numbers by a combined total of $335 million. That said - the four richest Senators currently serving are still Democrats: Mark Warner of Virginia ($257 million), Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut ($104 million), Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia ($101 million) and Diane Feinstein of California ($68 million).
A few years ago I posted a blog about Nancy Pelosi, her wealth, her husband's overseas companies that employ people at a wage far below the U.S.'s minimum wage, and the investments they have in companies and businesses here in the States that are non-union businesses - even as Mrs. Pelosi decries wealth and non-union businesses. It's amazing to me that liberals can support people like that who talk a good game for the liberal causes but in reality don't do any of it themselves. And when you point out the hypocrisy to those liberal supporters they somehow think it's OK or they simply choose to ignore it because their candidate is still saying the right things.
Democrats prove, over and over again, they are hypocrites of the worst kind. Some liberals like to point to the "scientific studies that prove liberals are more intelligent than conservatives." Maybe as far as a college education goes that's true. Maybe not. Many Republicans pass college by and go to work, helping to strengthen the economy. I can't help but wonder if you've got a great education and you vote for people who blatantly lie to you, tell you things you should do that they themselves wouldn't do, and want to take your money while continuing to earn far more for themselves than you will see in a lifetime - how intelligent is that?
It's no secret that politics can be a financially lucrative career. Many politicians get into politics after making their fortunes in the private sector - some as businessmen or entrepreneurs and many as attorneys. Barack Obama was an attorney, a community organizer, a college instructor and an author. It didn't hurt him - he's worth about 14 million dollars now. And that's OK. He earned his money legally as far as we know. However, since he said in April of 2010 "I do think at a certain point you've made enough money." I can't help but wonder Mr. Obama will ever reach that point himself?
Contrary to what some liberals preach there is nothing wrong with being wealthy. America is the land of opportunity - or it was until the economy went South and jobs began disappearing. But there are still opportunities out there for the future Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Darrell Issa (who made his fortune as the magnate of the Viper car alarm system), etc. Some people will take full advantage of that opportunity and gain tremendous wealth and others will only live comfortably. But opportunity is there.
What's interesting about the AllGov study is that there are more Democrat millionaires in Congress than Republicans. Wait... what? Democrats are the party of the working man and the Republicans are the evil, rich ones. That's what Democrats will tell you, anyway. But the median net worth of Democrat Representatives as of the May 2013 filing was $1.04 million versus the $1 million by the Republicans.
".04 million isn't that much," one might say. And that's true (except to those of us who don't have it.) But that's not the point. Democrats decry wealth as evil. They demand that those evil "1 percenters" who have money share it with those who have not and they (Democrat politicians) think they should be the ones who decide how wealth sharing is accomplished. And their liberal supporters agree with them even as those same Democrat leaders (who are also 1 percenters) continue to gain more wealth!
The story is a little different on the Senate side of the House - at least now. Republican Senators currently have a greater net worth than Democrat Senators - $2.9 million versus $1.7 million. However, Senate Democrats' median net worth fell sharply when John Kerry became Secretary of State and Frank Lautenberg passed away, dropping the Senate numbers by a combined total of $335 million. That said - the four richest Senators currently serving are still Democrats: Mark Warner of Virginia ($257 million), Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut ($104 million), Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia ($101 million) and Diane Feinstein of California ($68 million).
A few years ago I posted a blog about Nancy Pelosi, her wealth, her husband's overseas companies that employ people at a wage far below the U.S.'s minimum wage, and the investments they have in companies and businesses here in the States that are non-union businesses - even as Mrs. Pelosi decries wealth and non-union businesses. It's amazing to me that liberals can support people like that who talk a good game for the liberal causes but in reality don't do any of it themselves. And when you point out the hypocrisy to those liberal supporters they somehow think it's OK or they simply choose to ignore it because their candidate is still saying the right things.
Democrats prove, over and over again, they are hypocrites of the worst kind. Some liberals like to point to the "scientific studies that prove liberals are more intelligent than conservatives." Maybe as far as a college education goes that's true. Maybe not. Many Republicans pass college by and go to work, helping to strengthen the economy. I can't help but wonder if you've got a great education and you vote for people who blatantly lie to you, tell you things you should do that they themselves wouldn't do, and want to take your money while continuing to earn far more for themselves than you will see in a lifetime - how intelligent is that?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)