A relationship not worth sustaining anymore.  Enough political correctness already!

I see where Obama is concerned about spending.  You can tell this by how concerned he is about spending $40 billion to send the additional troops to Afghanistan as requested by General McChrystal.  He didn’t mind giving Citibank $45 billion in the bailout of the banks.  What are they doing with these funds?  They are not loaning it out for businesses – bonuses maybe, and buying gold and investing for more money!  Then of course Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac got billions and billions and are now asking for more.  However, now they are going into rentals, keeping those who bought houses they couldn’t afford inside those homes.  I understand many of them are free rentals and Fannie and Freddie will be doing the repairs and maintenance.  Good use of taxpayers money…. I think not!

Obama and the Democrats are using all of their time and efforts to pass a budget busting, physically irresponsible bill.  With their health care bill, they have put in a part to have people who don’t get their insurance, when passed, face massive fines and jail time.  Unconstitutional is the softest expression I can use to describe this.  I can’t use the language that would really apply.  There are other things in this bill that are covered up with double-speak.  There is no tort reform.  Lawyers give the Democrats half of their campaign funds.  There is also no putting into place policies that would allow crossing state lines by insurance companies to encourage competition by the insurance companies.  This might also allow them to compete with the plan by the Democrats to have government take over health care in total.  What a tragedy that would be.

See this article:

From Sunlen Miller:

During an exclusive interview with ABC News’ Jake Tapper today, President Obama said that penalties are appropriate for people who try to “free ride” the health care system but stopped short of endorsing the threat of jail time for those who refuse to pay a fine for not having insurance.

“What I think is appropriate is that in the same way that everybody has to get auto insurance and if you don’t, you’re subject to some penalty, that in this situation, if you have the ability to buy insurance, it’s affordable and you choose not to do so, forcing you and me and everybody else to subsidize you, you know, there’s a thousand dollar hidden tax that families all across America are — are burdened by because of the fact that people don’t have health insurance, you know, there’s nothing wrong with a penalty.”

Under the House bill those who can afford to buy insurance and don’t’ pay a fine. If the refuse to pay that fine there’s a threat – as with a lot of tax fines – of jail time. The Senate removed that provision in the Senate Finance Committee.

Mr. Obama said penalties have to be high enough for people to not game the system, but it’s also important to not be “so punitive” that people who are having a hard time find themselves suddenly worse off, thus why hardship exemptions have been built in the legislation.

“I think the general broad principle is simply that people who are paying for their health insurance aren’t subsidizing folks who simply choose not to until they get sick and then suddenly they expect free health insurance.  That’s — that’s basic concept of responsibility that I think most Americans abide by,” Mr. Obama said, “penalties are appropriate for people who try to free ride the system and force others to pay for their health insurance.”

The President said that he didn’t think the question over the appropriateness of possible jail time is the “biggest question” the House and Senate are facing right now.

Read more from Jake Tapper’s interview with President Obama HERE.

-Sunlen Miller

We have had free speech in this country since it was founded.  Even Father Charles Coughlin and the German Bund, prior to World War II, were allowed to speak antisemitism and communism against Jews and others they hated.  The Muslims in this country are allowed to speak openly, espousing their views currently.  FDR put in internment camps for the Japanese people, some Germans and Italians during World War II and now, because of political correctness, no Muslims may be questioned, even if they espouse views encouraging other Muslims in other parts of the world to hate and portray violence on America and its citizens.  They cannot be questioned and so our world towers were attacked by Muslims.  This is what caused the Fort Hood terrorist act and an effort is being made to place this terrorist act as the work of a madman.  BULLSHIT!

The Third Reich would not allow anyone to speak in dissent and Americans voiced our disapproval.  Now, in this country, efforts are being made to stifle dissent.  It isn’t anymore “Loose lips sink ships,” but “Dissent cannot be voiced by American citizens because loose lips can sink an administration.”  That is horrible.  See the following article:

In a case that raises questions about online journalism and privacy rights, the U.S. Department of Justice sent a formal request to an independent news site ordering it to provide details of all reader visits on a certain day.

The grand jury subpoena also required the Philadelphia-based Indymedia.us Web site “not to disclose the existence of this request” unless authorized by the Justice Department, a gag order that presents an unusual quandary for any news organization.

Kristina Clair, a 34-year old Linux administrator living in Philadelphia who provides free server space for Indymedia.us, said she was shocked to receive the Justice Department’s subpoena. (The Independent Media Center is a left-of-center amalgamation of journalists and advocates that – according to their principles of unity and mission statement – work toward “promoting social and economic justice” and “social change.”)

The subpoena (PDF) from U.S. Attorney Tim Morrison in Indianapolis demanded “all IP traffic to and from www.indymedia.us” on June 25, 2008. It instructed Clair to “include IP addresses, times, and any other identifying information,” including e-mail addresses, physical addresses, registered accounts, and Indymedia readers’ Social Security Numbers, bank account numbers, credit card numbers, and so on.

“I didn’t think anything we were doing was worthy of any (federal) attention,” Clair said in a telephone interview with CBSNews.com on Monday. After talking to other Indymedia volunteers, Clair ended up calling the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco, which represented her at no cost.

Under long-standing Justice Department guidelines, subpoenas to members of the news media are supposed to receive special treatment. One portion of the guidelines, for instance, says that “no subpoena may be issued to any member of the news media” without “the express authorization of the attorney general” – that would be current attorney general Eric Holder – and subpoenas should be “directed at material information regarding a limited subject matter.”

Still unclear is what criminal investigation U.S. Attorney Morrison was pursuing. Last Friday, a spokeswoman initially promised a response, but Morrison sent e-mail on Monday evening saying: “We have no comment.” The Justice Department in Washington, D.C. also declined to respond.

Kevin Bankston, a senior staff attorney at the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation, replied to the Justice Department on behalf of his client in a February 2009 letter (PDF) outlining what he described as a series of problems with the subpoena, including that it was not personally served, that a judge-issued court order would be required for the full logs, and that Indymedia did not store logs in the first place.

Morrison replied in a one-sentence letter saying the subpoena had been withdrawn. Around the same time, according to the EFF, the group had a series of discussions with assistant U.S. attorneys in Morrison’s office who threatened Clair with possible prosecution for obstruction of justice if she disclosed the existence of the already-withdrawn subpoena — claiming it “may endanger someone’s health” and would have a “human cost.”

Lucy Dalglish, the executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of The Press, said a gag order to a news organization wouldn’t stand up in court: “If you get a subpoena and you’re a journalist, they can’t gag you.”

Dalglish said that a subpoena being issued and withdrawn is not unprecedented. “I have seen any number of these things withdrawn when counsel for someone who is claiming a reporter’s privilege says, ‘Can you tell me the date you got approval from the attorney general’s office’… I’m willing to chalk this up to bad lawyering on the part of the DOJ, or just not thinking.”

Making this investigation more mysterious is that Indymedia.us is an aggregation site, meaning articles that appear on it were published somewhere else first, and there’s no hint about what sparked the criminal probe. Clair, the system administrator, says that no IP (Internet Protocol) addresses are recorded for Indymedia.us, and non-IP address logs are kept for a few weeks and then discarded.

EFF’s Bankston wrote a second letter to the government saying that, if it needed to muzzle Indymedia, it should apply for a gag order under the section of federal law that clearly permits such an order to be issued. Bankston’s plan: To challenge that law on First Amendment grounds.

But the Justice Department never replied. “This is the first time we’ve seen them try to get the IP address of everyone who visited a particular site,” Bankston said. “That it was a news organization was an additional troubling fact that implicates First Amendment rights.”

This is not, however, the first time that the Feds have focused on Indymedia — a Web site whose authors sometimes blur the line between journalism, advocacy, and on-the-streets activism. In 2004, the Justice Department sent a grand jury subpoena asking for information about who posted lists of Republican delegates while urging they be given an unwelcome reception at the party’s convention in New York City that year. A Indymedia hosting service in Texas once received a subpoena asking for server logs in relation to an investigation of an attempted murder in Italy.

Bankston has written a longer description of the exchange of letters with the Justice Department, which he hopes will raise awareness of how others should respond to similar legal demands for Web logs, customer records, and compulsory silence. “Our fear is that this kind of bogus gag order is much more common than one would hope, considering they’re legally baseless,” Bankston says. “We’re telling this story in hopes that more providers will press back and go public when the government demands their silence.”

Update 1:59pm E.T.: A Justice Department official familiar with this subpoena just told me that the attorney general’s office never saw it and that it had not been submitted to the department’s headquarters in Washington, D.C. for review. If that’s correct, it suggests that U.S. Attorney Tim Morrison and Assistant U.S. Attorney Doris Pryor did not follow department regulations requiring the “express authorization of the attorney general” for media subpoenas — and it means that neither Attorney General Eric Holder nor Acting Attorney General Mark Filip were involved. I wouldn’t be surprised to see an internal investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility; my source would not confirm or deny that.

There has been a current example of money buying votes by the Obama administration for the passing of the House health care bill.  Buying votes and earmarks have destroyed any confidence in our elected officials.  Jesus drove the money changers from the temple.  Now those politicians sit in Washington.  The only danger to them is the voters.  I hope they come through.  Let’s hope there is no march on Washington by the unemployed.

Obama the liar catches OUR pants on fire!

Obama – the Pied Piper of Government – dulcet tones read from a teleprompter, his eyes going from left to right following his speech as written by some of his socialist companions… there is no doubt that he is a good orator, but only if he has his teleprompter to refer to.  Without it, he is pathetic in his delivery.  However, what this country needs is not a good orator, but a leader who is willing to make decisions predicated on the country’s needs – not following strictly political aims.  His political aims are what makes him attack the Chamber of Commerce, insurance companies, Fox News and Wall Street.

I quote Charles A. Beard, “It is sobering to reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence.”  Even though Obama calls the founding fathers “so-called”, I will quote one of them, Thomas Jefferson, “I predict the future happiness of Americans if they can prevent the government wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” ~ which is what Obama is attempting to do.

Now I hear Obama is wanting to give aid and comfort to the newspaper industry.  I can hardly understand how they would merit any aid, as they have abandoned their principals and purpose.  I suppose he would want to give aid only to those who support him and his views.  That’s what I mean when I say they have abandoned their principals and purpose.  You know the newspapers I am referring to – I don’t have to say – except to say THEY DESERVE FAILURE!

Oriana Fallaci says, “The moment you give up your principals and your values, you are dead, your culture is dead, your civilization is dead. PERIOD.”

The media of all kinds who are able to express their opinions and points of views and keep track of government crimes, keep track of political acts and their ramifications and fail to do so deserve to fail and be swept up in the dust of history.  The same applies to all those companies that were saved by the use of taxpayers’ money, even though they had failed caused by their own greed and failure to run their businesses in a professional manner.

The Democratic party, Barney Frank and others, forced banks to lend money for homes to people who could not afford them and consequently placed a burden on the banks that broke their backs.  Even Chris Dodd, Kent Conrad and other Democrats took advantage of sweetheart deals with Countrywide lenders.  They have managed to keep any examination of their acts away from the ethics committee or anyone else – similar to no charges having been filed against Charles Rangel for his crooked acts.  Remember how the Democrats rushed to protect the Democratic Representative, William Jefferson, with bribery money in his freezer?  You could hardly escape the Democrats failure to pay their taxes.  However, they expect us to, so they tax any way they can knowing they needn’t pay it themselves.

I have never seen someone who won an election and continued non-stop campaigning after taking Office for NINE MONTHS.  Obama won Office by lying.  He said his would be a transparent governance; that all bills would be put on the internet for five days before voting; CSPAN cameras would be at every meeting for sunshine purposes; and other lies to obtain votes from the people and not ACORN and the SEIU, of course.

Another great quote is by George Bernard Shaw, “A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul.”  That, I think, is what Obama figures.  And it’s working!  I think he thinks he is better than how he describes our “so-called” founding fathers.  See attached:

Obama vs. The President He Said He’d Be

By Tom Bevan

Only liberals would want their children in these hands!

Obama and his administration are very slow in sending additional troops to Afghanistan, as his appointed Military Commander asked for.  He knew right away what he wanted to do on health care, but doesn’t have the time to decide on helping the young troops over ‘there’ and keep more of ‘them’ alive – choices too hard to make.  He has no problem with wrecking the country with his health care reform by adding a massive deficit to be paid for by our children, grand children and their children.   He is not the only one shorting the troops.  Both the Democrats and Republicans shorted the troops when they took $2.1 billion out of the defense budget for their own little earmarks, to get themselves re-elected.

Originally published 04:45 a.m., October 15, 2009, updated 09:02 a.m., October 15, 2009

U.S. troop funds diverted to pet projects

Shaun Waterman THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Senators diverted $2.6 billion in funds in a defense spending bill to pet projects largely at the expense of accounts that pay for fuel, ammunition and training for U.S. troops, including those fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to an analysis.

Among the 778 such projects, known as earmarks, packed into the bill: $25 million for a new World War II museum at the University of New Orleans and $20 million to launch an educational institute named after the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat.

While earmarks are hardly new in Washington, “in 30 years on Capitol Hill, I never saw Congress mangle the defense budget as badly as this year,” said Winslow Wheeler, a former Senate staffer who worked on defense funding and oversight for both Republicans and Democrats. He is now a senior fellow at the Center for Defense Information, an independent research organization.

Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, called the transfer of funds from Pentagon operations and maintenance “a disgrace.”

“The Senate is putting favorable headlines back home above our men and women fighting on the front lines,” he said in a statement.

RELATED STORIES:
• Michigan town lobbies for Gitmo transfers
• Top Treasury posts stay empty in financial crisis
• VA Dept. hospitals botched treatments

Mr. Wheeler, who conducted the study, compared the Obama administration’s requests for funds with the $636 billion spending bill that the Senate passed. He discovered that senators added $2.6 billion in pet projects while spending $4 billion less than the administration requested for fiscal 2010, which began Oct. 1.

Mr. Wheeler said that senators took most of the cash for the projects from the “operations and maintenance” or O&M accounts.

“These are the accounts that pay for troop training, repairs, spares and supplies for vehicles, weapons, ships and planes, food and fuel,” Mr. Wheeler said.

Raiding those accounts to fund big-ticket projects the military does not want, but that benefit senators’ home states or campaign contributors, amounts to “rancid gluttony,” he said.

The administration’s budget requested $156 billion for the regular O&M account and $81 billion for O&M for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill passed by the Senate cut $2.4 billion from the regular account and $655 million from the war O&M fund.

Senate appropriators insisted that the O&M accounts, despite the cuts, do not shortchange the troops.

“The operation and maintenance title is fully funded,” Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel K. Inouye, Hawaii Democrat, said during the debate on the bill. “There is no shortage. … The committee is deeply concerned that the critical operational needs of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are met with the finest equipment available.”

Money for the Kennedy Institute was inserted by Mr. Inouye and Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat. Sen. Mary L. Landrieu, Louisiana Democrat, and Sen. David Vitter, Louisiana Republican, sought the funding for the World War II museum.

Whitney Smith, a spokesman for Mr. Kerry, said the earmark was “a worthy investment.”

“Sen. Kennedy served on the Armed Services Committee for 27 years, where he fought to deliver top-of-the-line body armor and armored Humvees to protect our troops and save lives. Educating Americans about these battles is a core mission for the Edward M. Kennedy Institute, which showcases one senator’s ability to make a difference,” Mr. Smith wrote in an e-mail. “This funding will help the Edward M. Kennedy Institute become one the nation’s pre-eminent civic educational institutions, and Sen. Kerry is proud to have worked with Chairman Inouye to make it possible.”

Mrs. Landrieu said she was “proud to fight” for money for the World War II museum, which is not just a “monument to the brave men and women who served during World War II,” but also “a constant reminder to future generations about the tremendous sacrifice of millions of Americans.” She added that the earmarked funds “will help to increase tourism to New Orleans.”

Beyond those two earmarks, the largest in the Senate bill are:

- $20 million for Humvee maintenance at an Army National Guard installation in Maine, sponsored by Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe, Maine Republicans. The senators said cuts in the maintenance program proposed by the administration would result in the “layoff of 175 employees in a region already suffering” from the recession.

- $20 million for the Maui Space Surveillance System in Hawaii, requested by Mr. Inouye.

- $25 million inserted by Mr. Inouye for the Hawaii Federal Health Care Network. Mr. Inouye’s Web site says the health care program “supports applied research, development and deployment of technology to improve access and the quality of care to service members, military families and impacted communities.”

Laura Peterson, of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan spending watchdog, told The Washington Times, “Earmarks like these take money away from other defense programs that the Defense Department actually wants. While military health care is certainly a worthwhile venture, it’s hard to see how a program located in Hawaii that openly favors Hawaii-based industries guarantees [the Department of Defense] the best value for such an exorbitant price tag.”

Mr. Inouye had a total of 35 earmarks worth more than $206 million in the final bill, and the ranking Republican on the committee, Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi, sponsored 48 worth $216 million.

Mr. Cochran defended earmarking as part of Congress’ responsibility to direct government spending.

“I am not ready to cede the power of the purse to any administration,” he told The Times in an e-mail. “It is vested by the Constitution in the Congress.” He added that appropriators had “reviewed the budget request very carefully, conducted public hearings and reported the appropriation bills that the committee thinks will serve the public interest.”

In addition to the $2.6 billion in earmarks, the bill includes $2.5 billion for 10 Boeing C-17 cargo planes that the military says it does not need, and $1.7 billion for an extra DDG-51 destroyer not requested in the Pentagon’s budget proposal.

Mr. Coburn mounted a rear-guard action on the Senate floor to try to restore some of the money to its original purpose. One proposed amendment restored $100 million to the accounts by correcting the economic projections used in the bill to estimate future costs. That passed, but other amendments to prevent the use of O&M money to fund earmarks were soundly defeated.

Mr. Wheeler said senators had raided O&M accounts to pay for narrowly targeted projects in every budget since 2002, with dire results for troops on the front lines.

“Air Force and Navy combat pilots training to deploy are getting about half of the flying hours they got at the end of the Vietnam War,” he wrote in his analysis. “Army tank crews get less in tank training today than they did during the low-readiness Clinton years.”

Mr. Wheeler told The Times that the figures were drawn from the Pentagon’s budget justification.

Mr. Coburn said in May that the Navy had been forced to curtail at-sea training and flying because of a shortfall in 2009 O&M funds.

The White House Office of Management and Budget has called on lawmakers to reverse the cuts.

“These reductions would hurt force readiness and increase stress on military people and equipment,” the agency said.

The House approved its version of the bill in July. Ms. Peterson said that lawmakers still could restore the funding in the conference that reconciles the two versions of the bill.

The conference “presents a final opportunity for Congress to take their hands out of the cookie jar and put some dough where it’s really needed – protecting our fighting men and women,” she said.

This Congress is really the pits.  They gave themselves a raise and raised their budgets to help with their partying and flitting around to desirable locales.  They really put themselves out, seeing to it that the seniors didn’t get the cost of living adjustment.  I don’t know where they get this cost of living figure.  They must not go into grocery or drug stores.  But why would they when they can pay someone else to do it for them?

When Obama appoints Kevin Jennings to be in charge of safe schools, what does that say about Obama?  Remember when Obama had the charter schools stopped in D.C. so his daughters wouldn’t have to possibly brush up against the non-elites?  What a dad!  At least there is a group in Congress asking for the removal of Kevin Jennings.  If you don’t know his history, look it up:

Fifty-three House Republicans have written President Barack Obama asking him to remove “safe schools czar” Kevin Jennings from that position.

The lawmakers accused Jennings of “pushing a pro-homosexual agenda” and said that Jennings’s past writings exhibit a record that makes him unfit for the position.

“We respectfully request that you remove Kevin Jennings, the Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, from your Administration,” the Republicans wrote. “It is clear that Mr. Jennings lacks the appropriate qualifications and ethical standards to serve in this capacity.”

Jennings has come under scrutiny from conservative personalities like talk show host Sean Hannity for his handling of an alleged incident involving underage sex, as well as Jennings’s own reported personal history with drugs and alcohol — charges the GOP members echoed.

The letter was primarily assembled by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), and was joined by 52 Republican colleagues, including two members of leadership: House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (Ind.) and House Republican Conference Vice Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.).

Jennings, who founded the Gay and Lesbian Independent School Teacher Network (GLISTeN), was appointed by Obama to head the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, a position Jennings assumed in July.

“Kevin Jennings cannot gain the approval of parents who want their children safe and their schools drug free,” the Republican congressmen said. “You should replace him with someone who has a record of educating children in a safe and moral environment.”

The Jennings controversy follows the Sept. 6 resignation of Green Jobs Czar Van Jones and the long-blocked nomination of Cass Sunstein as regulatory czar.

Find the entire letter, with signatories, below:

October 15, 2009

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President,

We respectfully request that you remove Kevin Jennings, the Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, from your Administration. It is clear that Mr. Jennings lacks the appropriate qualifications and ethical standards to serve in this capacity.

As the founder of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), Mr. Jennings has played an integral role in promoting homosexuality and pushing a pro-homosexual agenda in America’s schools—an agenda that runs counter to the values that many parents desire to instill in their children. As evidence of this, Mr. Jennings wrote the foreword for a book titled Queering Elementary Education: Advancing the Dialogue About Sexualities and Schooling. Throughout his career, Mr. Jennings has made it his mission to establish special protections for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered students to the exclusion of all other students. The totality of Mr. Jennings’ career has been to advocate for public affirmation of homosexuality. There is more to safe and drug free schools than can be accomplished from the narrow view of Mr. Jennings who has, for more than 20 years, almost exclusively focused on promoting the homosexual agenda.

Equally troubling is Mr. Jennings’ self-described history of ignoring the sexual abuse of a child. In his book, One Teacher in Ten, Mr. Jennings recounts a 15-year old student confiding in him that he had a sexual relationship with a much older man. Mr. Jennings’ only response was to ask if the underage boy used a condom. As a mandatory reporter, Mr. Jennings was required by law to report child abuse, including sex crimes. Mr. Jennings cannot serve as the “safe schools” czar when his record demonstrates a willingness to overlook the sexual abuse of a child.

As the “safe schools” czar, Mr. Jennings is also charged with ensuring our schools and students are drug free. It is clear that Mr. Jennings is unfit to serve in this capacity, as well. His own history of unrepentant drug and alcohol abuse indicates that he is of the opinion that getting drunk and high as a young person is acceptable. In his memoir, Mama’s Boy, Preacher’s Son, Mr. Jennings describes his use of illegal drugs, without expressing regret or acknowledging the devastating effects illegal drug use can have on a person’s life.

Everyone that deals with the education of the most vulnerable must be a positive role model.  Our children are not blessed with the wisdom to discern and reject. Children presume the adults who educate them are approved by the larger society and their parents.  Kevin Jennings cannot gain the approval of parents who want their children safe and their schools drug free. You should replace him with someone who has a record of educating children in a safe and moral environment.

Given these very serious issues with Mr. Jennings’ record, we urge you to remove him immediately.

Sincerely,

KING
Alexander
Aderholt
Akin
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Bartlett
Barton
Boozman
Broun
Brown, H.
Carter
Chaffetz
Coffman
Cole
Conaway
Davis, Geoff
Fallin
Fleming
Foxx
Franks
Garrett
Gingrey
Gohmert
Hunter
Issa
Jordan
Lamborn
Latta
LuetkemeyerMarchant
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller, J.
Myrick
Neugebauer
Olson, P.
Pence
Pitts
Posey
Rogers (AL)
Rooney
Ryan, Paul
Shuster
Smith, C
Smith, L.
Wamp
Westmoreland
Jones, Walter

When you see the czars Obama appoints, don’t it make you wonder?

This administration talks about the fact that the leader of Afghanistan was elected by fraudulent voting… HEY, WHAT’S NEW?  Did ACORN fraudulently vote in Obama?  Could be.  With ACORN’s fraud and those voters who voted in Obama because of their desire to break the color bar, which was good intent, look what it brought us.  Who’s sorry now?  Anyone who thinks that Obama has ever stopped campaigning and planting questions in the audience, check today in New Orleans.  Has he gone to any state that he didn’t win since the election?  Does it make you wonder why he wants the leader that was removed in Honduras, President Manuel Zelaya, to be returned to power even though he tried to overturn their constitution to retain power?  Their supreme court threw him out.  Does Obama have a similar desire for power and would he go against OUR Constitution?

We know there is no transparency, as he promised.  He has lied and denied since being in Office.  He went on the Letterman show – could they be of the same stripe?  Look at the czars he appointed.  Is Code Pink keeping Obama from sending troops to Afghanistan?  Wonder why Obama never stopped by Mississippi to see THEIR Katrina damage.  Could it be he didn’t carry Mississippi in the election?

My previous article made an inference that Obama was like a Punch and Judy character when you watched him speak with the tv sound muted.  This brings to mind the fact that Punch and Judy require someone behind the curtain doing the thinking and talking.  We don’t know who writes the words on his teleprompter.  Could it be David Axelrod – surely not Biden with his history of plagiarism.  In any event, he seems to be unable to speak without the use of his teleprompter.  You never see the teleprompters in the pictures supplied by the media.  Reminds me of how they never showed FDR in a wheelchair or on crutches.  I guess Obama’s use of teleprompters is the same as crutches.  What I would dearly love to see is some sort of glitch that shuts down his teleprompter in the middle of a speech.  It would be like a Punch and Judy show in progress would be if its handler all at once shut up.  Who is really behind the curtain?

Obama’s lyrical promises don’t ring true.

The stock market this week had a slight correction and many liberals were in newspapers, radio, and tv touting how Obama was turning around the economy.  How droll.  I hope this week is a trend and the stock market and people’s 401k continue to improve, however… I have doubts.  During the election and during the first two months Obama played down the economy and now he is saying how everything is going to be fine.  But who can count on anything he says?  His promises were not made to keep.

Obama racks up list of broken promises
Just 2 months into term, president abandons numerous commitments

---

Posted: March 12, 2009
11:30 pm Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

After only two months in office, President Obama may have fallen short on a number of his campaign promises.

As a candidate, he promised to allow public comment before signing bills, eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses, provide tax credits to businesses for hiring new employees, allow Americans to withdraw funds from 401(k) and retirement accounts without penalties, ban lobbyists from serving in his administration, reform earmarks, bring all combat troops home from Iraq in 16 months, sign the “Freedom of Choice Act,” give Americans $4,000 in credits for college and run a “transparent” administration.

However, after giving his word to the American people on so many issues, Obama has yet to fulfill many commitments.

WND has compiled the following extensive list of those abandoned promises:

Broken promise No. 1: ‘Sunlight Before Signing’

When Obama campaigned for the Democratic presidential nomination in Manchester, N.H., on June 22, 2007, he announced his “Sunlight Before Signing” promise.

“When there is a bill that ends up on my desk as the president, you the public will have five days to look online and find out what’s in it before I sign it,” he said.

He repeated that promise on his campaign website:

“Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.”

However, Obama signed his first bill, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, on Jan. 20 – only two days after its passage.

He signed a second bill expanding the State Children’s Health Insurance Program just three hours after Congress passed it.

Again, on Feb. 17, Obama signed his 1,000-page $787 billion stimulus aimed at jolting the declining U.S. economy. He did so only one business day after it passed through Congress – without allowing for five days of public comment.

Broken promise No. 2: Capital gains tax elimination

According to his comprehensive tax plan released during his campaign, Obama promised to “eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses.”

Just weeks prior to the election, Obama advisers Austan Goolsbee and Jason Furman told the Wall Street Journal that Obama planned tax cuts that included “the elimination of capital gains taxes for small businesses and start-ups.”

People who invest in small businesses have only been allowed to exclude 50 percent of that gain from capital gains taxes. While Obama’s $787 billion economic-stimulus package reduces that tax liability – raising the exclusion to 75 percent – it does not eliminate it.

Broken promise No. 3: New American jobs tax credit

During his transition, Obama’s promised to provide a $3,000 refundable tax credit to existing businesses for every additional full-time U.S. employee hired in 2009 and 2010.

“If a company that currently has 10 U.S. employees increases its domestic full time employment to 20 employees, this company would get a $30,000 tax credit – enough to offset the entire added payroll tax costs to the company for the first $50,000 of income for the new employees,” the transition website stated. “The tax credit will benefit all companies creating net new jobs, even those struggling to make a profit.”

Obama’s promise was never included in the stimulus package.

Broken promise No. 4: Hiatus on 401(k) penalties

Many unemployed and financially strapped Americans have considered early withdrawals on 401(k) and retirement accounts to survive the current recession. However, the IRS imposes strict penalties of up to 10 percent plus federal, state and local income taxes on such advances.

Workers who have taken $10,000 in early withdrawals from retirement plans have lost as much as 40 percent to taxes and penalties, depending upon tax brackets.

In October 2008, Obama released his “Rescue Plan for the Middle-Class” in which he promised to allow financially distressed Americans to withdraw up to $10,000 from their 401(k) accounts and retirement savings without having to pay penalties. They would only pay income taxes on the amount.

“Since so many Americans will be struggling to pay the bills over the next year, I propose that we allow every family to withdraw up to 15% from their IRA or 401(k) – up to a maximum of $10,000 – without any fine or penalty throughout 2009,” Obama said. “This will help families get through this crisis without being forced to make painful choices like selling their homes or not sending their kids to college.”

However, Obama’s promise was never included in his recent stimulus package.

Broken promise No. 5: ‘No jobs for lobbyists’

William J. Lynn III

Obama promised America he would loosen the grip of lobbyists on Washington.

In his Nov. 10, 2007, speech in Des Moines, Iowa, Obama declared:

I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists — and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president.

During his campaign, Obama also said, “I have done more to take on lobbyists than any other candidate in this race. I don’t take a dime of their money, and when I am president, they won’t find a job in my White House.”

However, USA Today reported Obama’s campaign fundraising team included 38 members of law firms that were paid $138 million in 2007 to lobby the federal government.

William Corr

“Those lawyers, including 10 former federal lobbyists, have pledged to raise at least $3.5 million” for Obama’s campaign, the report states. “Employees of their firms have given Obama’s campaign $2.26 million.”

It wasn’t long before he allowed at least two dozen exceptions and broke his promise.

Obama’s own ethic rules barred officials of his administration from lobbying their former colleagues “for as long as I am president.” He also said former lobbyists would be prohibited from working for agencies they had lobbied within the past two years. President Obama later waived his rules for at least two of his nominees – William J. Lynn III, undersecretary at the Department of Defense and recent lobbyist for Raytheon, and William Corr, deputy secretary for the Department of Health and Human Services and anti-tobacco lobbyist for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

Broken promise No. 6: Earmark reform

As WND reports, at the first presidential debate in Oxford, Miss., Obama declared, “[W]e need earmark reform. And when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.”

However, in February, Obama passed his $787 billion stimulus aimed at jolting the declining U.S. economy. Before a joint session of Congress, Obama declared: “Now, I’m proud that we passed a recovery plan free of earmarks.”

Some chuckled in amusement when he claimed the bill contained no pork.

“There was just a roar of laughter – because there were earmarks,” Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., told CNN.

U.S. News & World Report found at least eight earmarks in his stimulus bill.

Obama also signed a $410 billion omnibus bill for 2009. More than 9,000 earmarks in the spending bill total an estimated $7.7 billion.

Even though the Democrat-controlled Congress crafted the bill after Obama’s election, the administration claims the added pork is just “unfinished business” from last year.

The White House website states, “Obama and Biden will slash earmarks to no greater than 1994 levels and ensure all spending decisions are open to the public.” However, watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense reports that the omnibus pork alone already totals $7.7 billion – just less than the total of $7.8 billion in earmarks in 1994 – and the figure does not include $6.6 billion in earmarks contained in three previous spending bills Congress passed amid the bailout crisis last year.

During his three years in the Senate, Obama requested more than $860 million in earmarks, according to the group. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has 16 earmarks – worth approximately $8.5 million – in the bill.

Broken promise No. 7: Bring troops home in 16 months

On his campaign website, Obama promised he would “remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.”

His commitment to bring combat troops home by May 20, 2010, and end the war gave him an edge among Democrats over candidate Hillary Clinton.

However, on Feb. 27, Obama declared, “Let me say this as plainly as I can: By Aug. 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.”

If Obama adheres to his plan, combat troops will return home months later than originally promised. The New York Times reports, Obama will withdraw only two of the 14 brigades before December.

As part of a “new era of American leadership,” he also said he would leave behind a residual force of 35,000 to 50,000 troops and remove all U.S. soldiers from Iraq by Dec. 31, 2011 – the same deadline the Bush administration negotiated with the Iraqi government last year in its Status of Forces Agreement.

Additionally, some combat units would remain in Iraq beyond Obama’s declared August 2010 withdrawal. Rather than returning home, they would simply face reassignment as “advisory training brigades.”

Even as combat troops are brought home, Pentagon officials have said fresh units will continue deploying to Iraq.

Broken promise No. 8: Sign ‘Freedom of Choice Act’

On July 17, 2007, Obama told the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, “The first thing I’d do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That’s the first thing that I’d do.”

Obama expressed his support for the sweeping plan that would repeal all national and state regulations of abortion passed over the last 35 years.

His agenda regarding “reproductive choice” is posted on the White House website. It states, Obama “has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority in his Administration.”

Obama chose radical pro-abortion Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to serve as the Health secretary, moved to void job protections for health workers who oppose abortion and repealed a ban on U.S. taxpayer funding of foreign abortions. While many pro-life advocates consider it a blessing that Obama has no fulfilled his promise to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, he has made no mention of the legislation since he took office.

Broken promise No. 9: $4,000 college credit

Obama pledged to make college “affordable for all Americans” when he announced his American Opportunity Tax Credit.

His campaign promise read: “This universal and fully refundable credit will ensure that the first $4,000 of a college education is completely free for most Americans, and will cover two-thirds the cost of tuition at the average public college or university

and make community college tuition completely free for most students. Recipients of the credit will be required to conduct 100 hours of community service.”

While the American Opportunity Tax Credit was included in the recent stimulus bill, it offers a credit of only $2,500 for up to two years and requires no commitment to community service.

Broken promise No. 10: Transparency

On the White House website, the Obama administration claims it will be “the most open and transparent in history.

The administration released a memo on Jan. 21, stating:

My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. …

However, Congress and the administration hurried the $787 billion, 1,027-page American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to a vote after allowing lawmakers just a few hours to read the bill. It was also available online in a form that could not be keyword searched.

While former administrations immediately posted transcripts of presidential speeches – including some remarks before delivery – the White House website often waits until days or even weeks after an event to release transcripts.

Also, some say recent reports of tax evasion by Obama nominees is evidence that the administration is not as transparent as promised.

Timothy Geithner

Just before Obama named Timothy Geithner to be his treasury secretary, the president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank quietly paid $26,000 in back taxes and interest due since 2001 and 2002.

Obama characterized the eight-year tax evasion as “an innocent mistake.”

But as many as five of his picks defaulted on taxes, including former nominee for health and human services secretary, Tom Daschle; former nominee for chief performance officer, Nancy Killefer; U.S. trade representative nominee Ron Kirk and Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis.

Furthermore, while the president posted his own weekly “fireside chats” on YouTube during the campaign, many journalists report that he has a history of being less than welcoming to the Fourth Estate.

Columbia Journalism Review noted Obama’s treatment of the press: “During the campaign, reporters’ access to Obama was severely limited. On-the-record conversations with the candidate were even more so. Indeed, Obama’s overall treatment of the press – not just in his general rejection of the day-to-day news cycle, but also in his tendency to shun his national traveling press corps … created the impression that its members were, to him, a buzzing nuisance. Instead of the voice of the people.”

WND’s correspondent at the White House, Les Kinsolving, raised the issue in February that most of the reporters recognized for questions in the briefing room were among the same handful over and over again. Some of them had been given four or even five opportunities for questions while other reporters were not recognized at all.

Kinsolving, a senior journalist in the White House press corps, was not allowed to voice his questions on issues on which millions of WND readers have expressed an interest. There were also complaints about the time of the November election that not only did Obama rely on a few key reporters for questions, those reporters were chosen ahead of time.

And, finally, WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

Obama’s alleged Certification of Live Birth is not his original 1961 birth certificate

However, Obama has refused repeated calls to publicly release his Hawaiian birth certificate, which would include the actual hospital that performed the delivery. His campaign posted an alleged “Certification of Live Birth” online, but it is not the same as a Hawaii birth certificate. COLBs have been issued by Hawaii to parents whose children are not born in the state.

Instead of providing the documentation to end the lawsuits, a series of law firms have been hired on Obama’s behalf around the nation to prevent any public access to his birth certificate, passport records, college records and other documents. – even after more than 320,000 people signed a petition demanding that he live up to his promise of transparency by releasing the certificate to the public.

Nonetheless, during his campaign and after he took office, Obama maintained that his administration would have an unyielding commitment to transparency.

“The American people want to trust in our government again – we just need a government that will trust in us,” he said in a campaign speech. “And making government accountable to the people isn’t just a cause of this campaign – it’s been a cause of my life for two decades.”

The White House declined to respond to WND’s request for comment on Obama’s promises.

Obama does have his cheerleaders and proponents of anything he does or says.  They are the “Promote Obama” PR firm of Chris Matthews, Jon Stewart, Steve Colbert, Jay Leno, Keith Olbermann, and David Letterman – assisted by ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, NPR, CNN, and PBS.  Detractors have the whole firm giving them hell and taking them to task similar to anyone, even scientists saying global warming caused by humans doesn’t exist.  They are soundly and quickly trounced.  Even Bush and McCain were taken in with this propaganda war.

As far as I am concerned, the greatest threats to this country are Al Gore, Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid.  I dread their actions against this country more than I do al-Qaeda.  The carbon tax pushed by Al Gore and being one of Obama’s aims will lead to more outsourcing than this country has ever known.  There will no longer be any steel production in this country, electricity will be limited, at times, as in Iraq.  The cost of gas for average Americans that have to commute will destroy them, and the country will be more of a class divided country and poorer than it ever was in its history – by poor I mean in spirit, outlook, and drive towards the future.  I really don’t want this to happen to my country.

• Isn’t it nice that Obama’s children will not have to go to school with those poor children?  Obama saw to that.
• Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, although they deny this, are the Hatfields and McCoys of Congress.
• Knowing who would follow Obama in the Presidency if he were to be unable to perform that duty scares the hell out of me!
• Summers and Volcker have sold their principals and character to ride the Obama express to financial ruin for the country, but at least they paid their taxes.
• Obama may hate Churchill but FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, and JFK thought he was a man of heroic stature.

Make Wednesday, party day for Obama, become your “Check on your 401K day“!