Don't trust the information you get from Wikipedia!
I see where Wikipedia has assigned two people to check on any Wikipedia entries that might be of less than glowing terms about Obama and remove them accordingly – free speech taken away – shades of Missouri tactics. Could these two be classified as gestapo agents as in the Third Reich? The continuation of these types of things is, as you can readily see by how all the comics, comedians, and late night hosts who used to lambaste Bush and Cheney daily, have not touched Obama or that joke of a Vice President, Joe Biden.
Warren Buffet and Jack Welch criticizing Obama’s policies, however, they rushed to say they loved him. If you notice, anyone who blames Obama for ANYTHING gets trashed immediately – case in point Rush Limbaugh, Rick Santelli, Jim Cramer, Larry Kudlow, and more to follow.
Anyone who has the guts to say anything negative about The Great One will suffer the same fate. Do you suppose Obama’s people will have the temerity or chutzpah to try to trash Warren Buffet, Jack Welch, or Barton Biggs? Don’t think so.
When Obama comes on tv, I mute the sound and watch him talk. He seems, to me, to be a character from a Punch and Judy show. Some of you can remember JFK’s inauguration address when he said “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” I guess you must have seen Obama only believes in the first part, and the gimme people in the country said “AMEN!” With Obama’s arrogance, I doubt if he will listen to Buffet, Welch, and Biggs – probably the only one he would listen to would be George Soros, who placed his money on Obama and the Democrats.
I can only affect the Senators in my state with my vote. However, if either of them or my Representative voted for the proposed budget as is, with the pork or put in the pork themselves, I would vote against them and that includes the two I had a high opinion of, Kit Bond and Richard Shelby – alas that’s gone. In fact, I would vote against many Republicans such as Snowe, Collins, Bond, Shelby, Hatch, Specter, and any Republican colluding with this administration for selfish reasons to undermine this country.
FOXNEWS.COM:
Senate Democrats won over just enough Republicans to move forward Tuesday night on a controversial $410 billion spending bill by the end of the night Tuesday.
But it may come as no surprise that almost all of the Republican senators who voted for the bill have billions of dollars worth of earmarks in the package.
The earmark-mania is not unique to either party — both Democrats and Republicans contributed to what Taxpayers for Common Sense estimates is 8,570 disclosed earmarks worth $7.7 billion in the bill that would fund the government through the end of the fiscal year.
But the Republican crossovers in particular have a lot at stake in the package. Two of the three Republicans that made it onto Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s “definite” list earlier Tuesday had authored 129 total earmarks worth $190 million, according to an updated list from Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., is actually the second-biggest earmarker, according to the list, with 64 earmarks worth $114 million. Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., is a few notches down, with 65 earmarks worth $76 million. Both voted for the bill. On the other hand, Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe, another Republican who voted for the bill, has zero earmarks.
Also voting for the bill were Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., who has $86 million in earmarks; Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, who has $74 million; and Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who has $25 million. Shelby told FOX News Monday that he’s vetted all his earmarks.
“I wouldn’t want to be associated with an earmark on an appropriation that didn’t have a lot of merit to it,” he said, adding that the system has been abused by some lawmakers. “What we need to do is vet it more and more. I wouldn’t want to give up our right to appropriate money,” he said. “Otherwise, we cede it to the president, whoever that is. … But on the other hand, any earmark you have, it ought to have merit, or we shouldn’t do it.”
Shelby’s earmarks span the gamut, from $800,000 for oyster rehabilitation at the University of South Alabama, to $380,000 to the city of Tarrant, Ala., for streetscaping and walkways.
The top earmarker, by value, is a Democrat — Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, with $123 million worth of earmarks. The senator with the most earmarks, regardless of their value, is Specter with 134.
Other Republicans, like Sen. John McCain, have tried unsuccessfully to strip the earmarks from the bill. Democratic Sens. Evan Bayh of Indiana and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin also broke off from their party out of opposition to spending measures like the earmarks.
“It looks as if Congress is just on autopilot, immune to the problems” of Americans, Bayh told a Sunday talk show.
I think it’s about time we should form a third party of Conservatives. Apparently the current Republican party in the majority don’t believe in the loyal opposition. They believe in going along to get along. One thing I would add is that Ron Paul, with the most earmarks of any Republican, has shown his true colors. Robert Bennett put in millions to study the Mormon cricket, and he double-speaks with the best of them. Since they have passed this stimulus bill without listening to the voters, our only recourse is to vote the rascals OUT. Also, if this isn’t a clear message to the voters to push locally for term limits – two terms for Senators and four terms for Representatives, I don’t know how to make it any clearer, or is it as Chuck Schumer says, “The people out there just don’t care about the earmarks.” If that’s true, God help us all!
The Republican party has lost its way since they turned on their own with Trent Lott, and this has continued. Some Republicans are burnishing their great egos on liberal media shows and make outlandish remarks that harm the Republican party – Gingrich against Rush; Gingrey against Rush; Steele, statements against Rush. They are apparently so stupid that they are open to putting their mouth ini high gear and disengaging their brain. The Republicans have a habit of turning on their own for the slightest things while Democrats do criminal things, as Burris did, continuing their criminal activities day to day, as Charlie Rangel does. Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Charlie Rangel – all crooks and all heads of committees in Congress, and the Democrats don’t turn on them.
FOXNEWS.COM:
On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: “I certainly hope he doesn’t succeed.”
Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president.
“We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I’m wanting them to turn against him,” Greenberg admitted.
The pollster added with a chuckle of disbelief: “They don’t want him to fail. I mean, they think it matters if the president of the United States fails.”
Minutes later, as news of the terrorist attacks reached the hotel conference room where the Democrats were having breakfast with the reporters, Carville announced: “Disregard everything we just said! This changes everything!”
The press followed Carville’s orders, never reporting his or Greenberg’s desire for Bush to fail. The omission was understandable at first, as reporters were consumed with chronicling the new war on terror. But months and even years later, the mainstream media chose to never resurrect those controversial sentiments, voiced by the Democratic Party’s top strategists, that Bush should fail.
That omission stands in stark contrast to the feeding frenzy that ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail. The press devoted wall-to-wall coverage to the remark, suggesting that Limbaugh and, by extension, conservative Republicans, were unpatriotic.
“The most influential Republican in the United States today, Mr. Rush Limbaugh, said he did not want President Obama to succeed,” Carville railed on CNN recently. “He is the daddy of this Republican Congress.”
Limbaugh, a staunch conservative, emphasized that he is rooting for the failure of Obama’s liberal policies.
“The difference between Carville and his ilk and me is that I care about what happens to my country,” Limbaugh told Fox on Wednesday. “I am not saying what I say for political advantage. I oppose actions, such as Obama’s socialist agenda, that hurt my country.
“I deal in principles, not polls,” Limbaugh added. “Carville and people like him live and breathe political exploitation. This is all a game to them. It’s not a game to me. I am concerned about the well-being and survival of our nation. When has Carville ever advocated anything that would benefit the country at the expense of his party?”
Carville told Politico that focusing on Limbaugh is a deliberate strategy aimed at undermining Republicans.
“The television cameras just can’t stay away from him,” he said. “Our strategy depends on him keeping talking, and I think we’re going to succeed.”
Greenberg added: “He’s driving the Republican reluctance to deal with Obama, which Americans want.”
In 2006, 51 percent of Democrats wanted Bush to fail, according to a FOX News/Opinion Dynamics poll.
It would behoove those Republicans to turn their loose lips on Democrats and curb their egos and stop beating their own drum at the expense of other Republicans. Another thing they could do would be to tell the people the dangers that are approaching our country in the way of the card check being pushed by the Democrats. The unions bankrupted airlines, steel corporations, and now they are bankrupting the auto industry, and yet the Democrats want them to have the ability to spread their venom and take away one of the most sacred things this country has, the secret ballot.
The next great danger is the carbon tax that the Democrats want to place on industry because of global warming, which has been soundly disputed by most scientists – the get-along, go-along people who have been led by their noses to agree with them. There are so many people in our legislative branch that find it hard to take criticism of any kind and will not dare to buck the conventional thinking. A missive I think you should see:
FOXNEWS.COM
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly requested military aircraft to shuttle her and her colleagues and family around the country, according to a new report from a conservative watchdog group.
Representatives for Judicial Watch, which obtained e-mails and other documents from a Freedom of Information request, said the correspondence shows Pelosi has abused the system in place to accommodate congressional leaders and treated the Air Force as her “personal airline.”
Pelosi’s office disputed the claim, pointing to White House policy enacted after the Sept. 11 attacks allowing for the House speaker to travel to his or her congressional district via military aircraft whenever possible for security reasons. Her office said she typically uses the same kind of aircraft used by her predecessor, Dennis Hastert.
But Judicial Watch said that Pelosi was notorious for making special demands for high-end aircraft, lodging last-minute cancellations and racking up additional expenses for the military.
The e-mails showed repeated attempts by Pelosi aides to request aircraft, sometimes aggressively, and by Department of Defense officials to accommodate them.
“I think that’s above and beyond what other members of Congress are doing and what is expected of our elected officials,” said Jenny Small, a researcher with the group.
In one e-mail, aide Kay King complained to the military that they had not made available any aircraft the House speaker wanted for Memorial Day recess.
“It is my understanding there are NO G5s available for the House during the Memorial Day recess. This is totally unacceptable … The Speaker will want to know where the planes are,” King wrote.
In another, when told a certain type of aircraft would not be available, King wrote: “This is not good news, and we will have some very disappointed folks, as well as a very upset Speaker.”
Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami said the report seemed to be based on only “a few e-mails,” and defended the requests for military aircraft for her colleagues as a “function of the speaker’s office.” Elshami said at least one of the requests in the above e-mails referenced requests made for other members.
Pelosi’s office noted that the Department of Defense ultimately makes all decisions on use of military aircraft for travel, and that Pelosi is “extraordinarily appreciative” of the department’s effort to accommodate Congress.
Make Wednesday, party day for Obama, become your “Check on your 401K day“!
