Half a week gone by and no good news for Dems

So what are the Democrats up to?

Things have been in regroup since Scott Browns win in the now infamous Massachusetts race for Teddy Kennedy's Senate seat.

Obama wades into Republican territory in hopes of showing a "Not afraid of the Lion" stare down and of course the press gives it good coverage. Even so he avoids any real proof of life. At the very best he can be seen as trying to put the blame on the Republicans for not being partisan and not having anything to offer on health care. All of which was rebuked when discussed with him by some junior Congressmen who really knew their shit.

All in all it didn't gain him any political equity to fall back on in the immediate future, and if anything showed him as defiant and unconscious as to the real damage his personal agenda has fraught upon his party .So where do the Dems stand ?

What they will be trying to do once they get their breath back from th Brown gut punch is go into the "see I told you so" mode of calling the Republicans the party of "NO".

They may attempt to revive health care but truth be told not even the far left really wants to deal with it again before November. I think they will wait until they see how they fair in the upcoming midterm elections and then if it looks like they haven't lost a third of their seats in both the Senate and the House they may try for an end run with amnesty, to gain more election votes for a second Obama leap and then push health care again. and for the White House, and then force health care if they can.

For the very resent I don't really see Obama doing much of anything but continue in his rhetoric and doing the opposite of what he says he is going to do. The Dems are floundering for issues that could bring them back to having a chance. I still see them beginning to abandon Obama if he does not show any signs of pulling himself back towards a more centrist position, which he won't. And then still their is the issue of leadership. He has not shown any leadership towards his own party nor guidance as well. So whats left?

Well there is the trial in and now out of New York. No matter where it is moved to it is still a black eye for Obama and the Democratic party may not stand behind him on this one. They or at least many of the Democratics come from legal background and they must know that what is going on in Holder mind is legally wrong. If it continues it will be huge talking fodder for the Republicans and further alienate the Independents.

So will Holder be abandoned? Will the trial anywhere other than on a military base under military law be an end to his cabinet position? I think so. Obama holds no prejudices when throwing people under the bus.

And what about Hillary? I think its pretty safe to say that Hillary will run against Obama. I look to see her resign as his Secretary of State come about December of this year or at least the beginning of 2011. It only makes sense that she actually has one more chance at running and to be elected. Especially with Obama's popularity right now being so low and the Republican's still not having a unified platform. She could carry the female vote and the moderates. She may even be capable of pulling in a fair share of Independents back towards the Democrats.

Yet at the same time the people fear, high inflation right around the corner, no jobless let up and the threat of more unemployed from the ranks of low labor and illegals who will drain even more of the publics taxed income to support them. Republican or Democrat will not win votes with threats of more taxes with out some proof of life for the jobless Americans. Obama so far is repeated promises of things coming but they never do. A year and nothing, people are tired of waiting . They don't care about a year from now they want to feed their families now.

The entire election of 2012 will depend on what the Conservatives are able to put across to the people as a viable platform on which to run. After a year of Obama and more of the same to come I expect that there is going to be a very large emphasis of heavy braking. People are scared of losing even more than they have already and scared that we could be stuck in this rut for a very long time.

It appears the waters have been tested on the three points most accepted by the public concerning health care. Competition by removing state boundaries, preexisting condition acceptance, and no public option. The general consensus is these would be accepted by most all but the parasites and far left. Abortion falls in there two but hands down I believe at least the women in this country would be leaning more towards funding abortion than not. But health care in any form is not what is most on peoples minds.

People are willing to talk about health care once they see a horizon brightening job solutions, and not at all before. The Friday night 20/20 television did a show on the Medicare rip off and its timing couldn't have been better. Actually it should have been put on the air before Scott Brown. I t would have made an explosion If people could be convinced to watch what is already happening with Medicare . What makes people not think that the whole health care renovation is nothing more than a bigger way for the thieves in government to steal much larger sums of public money much more quickly. I have heard a mumble about getting the waste and theft of Medicare under control or eliminated but that's it just a mumble. The real focus should be about that. Not new programs but fixing what is already in place and not functioning properly. With what is saved in loss could save Medicare in its present form right now with no more added increase in costs. After jobs the public would be open to hearing debate on these issues. The present health care all 2000 pages of it should be scrapped.

For the upcoming month there is the Presidents budget, going before the house this week. It should become lively a lot of what happens will show the real mode of Congress and where they perceive they stand. I think the public will be watching as to how much transparency and is given into. Also I don't look to see the Republicans move much to back Obama now that they have him in somewhat of a corner. BO will be calling for unity, while the Repubs will be calling for lower spending and continued Bush tax cuts. I look to see it get bogged down, and round two of Obama's tax increases to go into overdrive. Military spending will go through most probably as planned, but more taxes on the over $250,000 a year crowd is going to meet a wall of opposition. Social security bonus will pass and so will tax credits to the middle class, but there will be much fighting over states spending.

Another thing to watch is what is happening to Obama's seat vacated when he won the presidency. It now appears the Republicans are eying a chance that it is may happen, which would be another blow to Obama.

Less than a week after his now pathetic SOTUS it is apparent Obama must begin to get serious by actions not words or he will be vying for bottom rung with Jimmy Carter when it comes to Presidential ratings.The Democratic party is adrift without a rudder nor an oar.

P.S. Don't be surprised if in the immediate future Obama doesn't make a move and focus on world problems such as Iran more to draw away from his problems on the domestic scene, and show himself as a stronger leader. I wouldn't be surprised to see him follow Bush's lead and at some point in time hint of WMD potential on Irans part and its threat of support of such to terroists.

The Obamarang, Victory Davis Hanson says it clearly

Posted By Victor Davis Hanson

All politicians fudge on their promises. But this president manages to transcend the normal political exaggeration and dissimulation. Whereas past executives shaded the truth, Barack Obama trumps that: on almost every key issue, what Obama says he will do, and what he says is true, is a clear guide to what he will not do, and what is not true. It is as if “truth” is a mere problem of lesser mortals.

1. Obama now rails against a pernicious Washington and its insiders: ergo, Obama controls Washington through both houses of Congress and the White House, and wants to expand Washington’s control over the auto industry, health care, energy, student loans, transportation, etc.

2. Obama bashes the Supreme Court on weakening public efforts to curb campaign contributions. Therefore, we know Obama has done more than any other president in destroying public campaign financing by being the first presidential candidate in a general election to refuse public funds — in confidence that he could raise a record $1 billion, much of it from big moneyed interests on Wall Street.

3. Obama calls for a freeze on government spending and deplores deficits. Hence, we know that the possible $15 billion savings in some discretionary spending will not affect the Obama record budget deficits that will continue to grow well over an annual $1.5 trillion a year — as Obama piles up the greatest budgetary shortfalls in any four-year presidential term in history.

4. The president calls for the Guantanamo Bay detention center to be closed within a year of his inauguration, and Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the architect of 9/11, to be tried in New York. Accordingly, we know that Guantanamo won’t be closed within a year and KSM won’t be tried in New York.

5. Obama issues four serial deadlines in autumn 2009 for Iran to comply with non-proliferation accords. Presto — we know that Iran will get the bomb unimpeded by U.S. opinion.

6. Obama promised an end to earmarks and lobbyists in government — of course, we assume, then, that lobbyists will be ubiquitous among his presidential appointments, and there will be thousands of earmarks.

7. Obama announces that he will end the war in Iraq by removing all combat brigades by August 2010. As a result, we understand that George Bush long ago signed an agreement with the Iraqis for a joint agreement on removing U.S. combat forces by August 2010.

8. Obama laments that his fall in popularity resulted from a failure to communicate directly with the American people. We conclude as a result that Obama has given more interviews, radio and TV appearances, and stump speeches than any first-year president in history.

9. Obama reiterates that “this is not about me.” That reflects the fact that he has employed the first-person pronouns “I,” “me,” and “my” more than any prior president.

10. Obama assures on eight occasions he will televise all health-care deliberations on C-SPAN. This is clear proof that nothing will be televised as debate occurs behind closed doors, punctuated by votes purchased through $300 million bribes and state exemptions from federal statutes.

11. Obama promises to be a tax-cutter. So we know that vast new taxes will come through revised income tax rates, caps lifted off payroll taxes, Cadillac health care charges, and a variety of surcharges.

12. Obama warned that if another stimulus were not passed, unemployment would reach double-digits; hence, we were assured that the jobless rate would reach 10%.

13. Obama calls for bipartisanship and an end to finger-pointing. Of course, then, he will begin and end nearly every speech with attacks on George Bush and the prior administration.

I could continue ad nauseam, but you get the picture. So why does Obama serially tell untruths, mislead, and do the opposite of what he promises?

Here are four brief reasons. They are complementary, rather than mutually exclusive.

1) He does this because he can. Obama, from college at Occidental to Chicago organizing, has never been called to account. He was always assured that his charm, his ancestry, or his rhetoric alone mattered, while his record, actions, and accomplishments were mere footnotes. He channels our hopes and dreams and need not traffic in reality. We, the people, like the media, have tingly legs and believe the president is “some god,” and therefore need not question the charismatic face on the screen.

2) Obama is a reflection of an era of liberal academic postmodernism. There are no absolute facts; truth is only an illusion in the eye of the beholder. Reality instead is relative, and predicated on the basis of power. Ergo, what others say is true is simply a reflection of their race/class/gender/religion/cultural privileges. Speaking “truth” to power means simply opposing those who, you deem, have more advantages than you and yours.

3) Obama is a neo-socialist who believes the ends of social justice justify most means necessary to achieve them. As a philosopher-king who knows what is best for ignorant lesser folk, who can’t possibly appreciate all the ways in which he works and suffers on our behalf (Cf. Michelle’s “deigns to run”), Obama reluctantly must employ Platonic “noble lies” to achieve the common good: OK, we don’t understand ObamaCare and therefore fear it and the way it is packaged and sold; but once it is forced down our throat, we will come to love — what is good for us.

4) Obama is a narcissist, who believes that his reality is our reality, that his rules are our rules. If the king, the autocrat, the heart-throb, the prophet, or the messiah says something is true, then facts and reality adjust accordingly. Facts and corrections are boring. And if confronted with contrary evidence, the self-infatuated simply smiles with the assurance that the problem is others’, not his.

And it is, sort of.

---

Article printed from Works and Days: http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/the-obamarang/

Just to be different today no real news

EMBED-How To Report The News - Watch more free videos

And now a few lies from Harry Reid

Yesterday evening, President Obama delivered his State of the Union address to update the American people on what has been achieved over the past year and to lay out the pathway forward. Much of his speech focused on the progress being made to address the economic crisis, which has hit Nevada particularly hard.

While our country is not yet out of the woods, Sen. Reid and the Obama Administration have played a crucial role bringing the economy back from the brink of a depression caused by the disastrous economic policies of the Bush Administration.

A year ago, the U.S. economy was shedding close to 700,000 jobs a month. It was the leadership of Sen. Reid and President Obama that stemmed those losses.

No one works harder to deliver for Nevada than Sen. Reid. He led passage of the Recovery Act which invested $1.6 billion into the state while putting $500 million back into the pockets of middle-class families. He helped save CityCenter, which is now open for business and employing 12,000 Nevadans. He took action to address the housing crisis, pressuring banks to work with homeowners to reduce foreclosures and holding the Federal Reserve's feet to the fire to do more to help Nevada's struggling homeowners.

What's more, he understood early on how important clean energy technology is for creating good paying jobs in Nevada. Last evening, he invited six top clean energy leaders to attend the State of the Union after hosting a roundtable on how to bring more clean energy jobs to the state. He has already secured over $300 million of Recovery Act funding to invest in job creating renewable energy projects. Additionally financed by the Recovery Act, Senator Reid brokered an agreement to construct a clean energy transmission line between White Pine and Clark counties that will create hundreds of jobs and promote our nation's energy independence.

However, while positive steps have been taken, they don't mean very much to Nevada families who are struggling every month to pay their mortgage and who are wondering where their next pay check is coming from.

That's why Sen. Reid and President Obama will not stop fighting. They recognize that there is still much to achieve.

Sen. Reid will continue fighting to pass health insurance reform that brings down premiums for Nevada families, strengthens Medicare, and keeps insurance companies honest.

He is working to hold Wall Street accountable with strong credit card and banking reforms that crack down on unfair practices and curb the reckless greed that caused the financial crisis.

Sen. Reid will continue investing in Nevada's roads, bridges, schools, and hospitals to create good paying jobs.

And he will continue working to get credit flowing to small businesses - the engine behind job creation - which will provide a much needed incentive for hiring.

During the first year of President Obama's Administration we have done so much of the heavy lifting to bring our economy back from complete meltdown.

As President Obama said last night, this is a "new year".

And Sen. Reid is determined to work closely with the president to continue moving Nevada forward.

Sincerely,

Brandon Hall
Campaign Manager

So the POTUS contiues to campaign, commit to nothing and accomplish zero

As a child Obama must have gotten away with lying quite frequently.Sso much so that he is still doing it and knows no better.

Ultimately, the President's SOTU was deceptive, none committal, passing the buck and blaming Bush again. Which goes to the issue of character, which leads directly to the question of whether he can be trusted. For those who still haven't figured it out, he can't. Double entendre"s abounded last nights speech all the way through.

His statement that "he is working and providing leadership to "advance the prosperity for all people.", is a rehash of "spreading the wealth" campaign rhetoric.

He kept saying that he "wouldn't walk away from" the job he was elected to do, but he gave no road map and presented no plan, and convinces me that he is hollow. He fails to get the message of what his job is. The President apparently has no clue that he is out of touch with reality.

Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, said last night. "If Obama is serious about improving the economy, "he will give Republicans a seat at the table. If not, then we know that this is just more spin, arrogance and a refusal to listen to the American people."

*Rep. Marion Berry, D-Ark., who is retiring at the end of the year, said of Obama what some Americans have said all year, "'You're trying to do too much too quickly.'" Berry said, "Maybe we should listen to them," . "If we don't listen to them, then they will make you listen to them in November."

Still yet House and Senate Democratic leaders are scrambling to see if they can salvage the ambitious health care package, which Republicans almost universally oppose. Obama's pep talk was a call to arms, but he offered no new strategies for overcoming the steep parliamentary and political hurdles they face. He is clueless as to the needs of his own party and blind to anything outside of his own agenda. He's fails dramatically as a leader.

Without naming George W. Bush, he pointedly noted that the previous administration left him a big deficit and a deeply troubled economy. For good measure, Obama said the United States killed more al-Qaida terrorists in 2009 than in 2008 . But he failed to state that more soldiers died in one year than the entire eight years of Bush, ever had die on his watch, in a similar time frame.

Obama rebuked the Supreme Court for a recent decision that "reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests" and foreign corporations to make unlimited campaign contributions.

At that, conservative Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito made a dismissive face, shook his head in disagreement and seemed to mouth the words "not true" as the president spoke. Maybe he meant to say "you lie".

However Obama ignores or is in self denial about all of the questions related to foreign donations alleged to have gone into his campaign coffers when he ran for President. And how he opted not to go with his promise of accepting public financing which would have restricted his private contributions.

Obama still believes that he can say anything and people will believe it -- He doesn't seem to understand that words have to be associated with reality -- not to mention truth and accuracy.

Although the stimulus act did give that broad based tax cut to workers, and Obama statement about cutting taxes is technically true, it deceives his long term intent of raising every ones taxes especially the rich. Not just those over $250, 000 per year as he promised.

The key word in his statement was "working." Obama's claim is based on a tax cut intended to offset payroll taxes. Under the stimulus bill, single workers got $400, and working couples got $800. The Internal Revenue Service issued new guidelines to reduce withholdings for income tax, so many workers saw a small increase in their checks in April 2009. Only because health care hasn't been passed ans signed into law can he still reiterate that claim.

His call for repeal of don't ask don't tell is simply a bone to the far left to try and keep them in his camp. pretty weak he has already lost many of the far left for good

Obama is like the Captain whose ship is grounded on the rocks, yet he thinks he can return it to the sea. Ever so rapidly the his crew begin to abandon him for the safety of the foreign shore. Until only the Captain is alone with his charge, and is unmercifully shredded into tiny pieces by the jagged rocks, then carried out beyond the waves until they are consumed by the pelagic fishes who rapidly recycle him into depths beyond his ability to fathom.

Obama has been true to form. He came into his job suspiciously obscure, with a past full of non accomplishments. He remains exactly the same after a year in office.

Me 1 -BO -1

Busy evening .. I don't ever listen to BO speeches. I read them after the fact. And sometimes I check YOU TUBE clips for ripe moments.

School tonight learning a new method of Graphic Communications, strictly for amusement, and very entertaining.

Just a quick glance confirms I was right so far on BO's Bush blame .... should I say still?

Shall rise early and browse over other results to compare my prediction with reality.

BO is like a t.v. series. You are assured that within the first 15 minutes you can figure out the plot and anticipate the usual canned phraseology. Predictable and not much excitement.

About the only thing those type of shows are good for is when you need to waste some time during which you really don't want to be thinking about anything important. You are merely watching it for the noise.

Well tomorrow I want to see the audience attendance that should be quite revealing.

Good night all. Oh by the way, I apologize for my earlier writing today I seem to have gone on over kill with the word "it" that is because I did not take the time to edit. So sorry IT is unusual for me to ignore such a blunder. I am not a professional writer as many of you out there can already tell, and I need more time to go over my work once I am getting close to publishing it for my audience. Tonight was kind of rushed earlier, and now I am just plain tired.

Thanks for reading though

No comments yet

I have been holding off trying to get a glimpse of tonight's speech by the POTUS. A glimpse of excerpts are posted on Drudge and if that is it or the direction it will be taking, clearly it will be a huge disappointment. It will also be a "passing of the buck" and simply no more than an extended
canned campaign speech.

One item that Drudge pointed out is that Obama will call for an end to " don't ask, don't tell" . Geez doesn't he understand the simple principals of human interaction. You can't force people to accept something that they simply don't understand without some form of education on the issue.

Obama is not only naive he is purposeful for all the wrong reasons. This is an issue that need not be addressed at least during the times of war, and perhaps never. The next thing he will be pushing for cross dressers to be allowed to wear the uniforms of the opposite sex. Does he not understand human nature?

Its not like most soldiers don't already know who swings which way, but it is like leave them with the without the solid answer. Believe me in a combat situation its best not known in absolute.
Truthfully nobody really cares which way you go. At least with "don't ask don't tell" it remains a private issue. And that is not promoting remaining in the closet, it is common sense. The military need not be politically correct in all social issues.

Does the POTUS know that a military soldier does not enjoy the same rights that a none military civilian does in the outside world? And whether you agree or not, it is for reason of national security, and it works.

As a former military commander of men. I don't think there have not been many under my command that I didn't know which way that they swayed with regards to sexual preference and it made no difference. If anything it gave cause for me to be a bit more sensitive to their personal issues and rise to making sure they were treated fairly, because they were good soldiers and performed their jobs with dedication. What they did or who they slept with out of uniform was on no consequence nor my business.

Any way that's all I have for comment until after the PREZ lays out his much anticipated bullshit. I don't expect much difference in him except to drive the nails of his leftist leanings more aggressively. Another Orwelian speech filled with innuendos of opposite meanings, no acceptance of direct responsibility, and perhaps a bit of Bush blame. Whats new? Oh yes, the come out of the closet idea, is just a diversionary topic and talking point to avoid real issues.

Lies, Lies and Lies again, will he never stop?

Once again the President is pumping out sheer bullshit! First he puts us in hock and then he wants to say he is a populist by demanding a freeze on his very own actions of putting the country in the red. Deeper in debt than any President before him.

But is he going to pull back on his huge plot to bankrupt us? Not.... He only wants to do a paperwork shuffle, Chicago lawyer style. Which boils down to just over 1% of what he has already dumped in our economic black hole of depression.

At the rate he is going, the first half of his wish most definitely will come true. He will be a one term President! The second half may not be very much of a surprise in 3 more years. That is he will trump Jimmy Carter as the worst President ever.

The Foundry: Published by the Heritage Foundation lays it out below.

Is Obama’s underwhelming spending freeze a fakeroo?

Posted By Alison Fraser On January 26, 2010 @ 11:41 am In Entitlements, Ongoing Priorities | No Comments

The President has the right idea with his proposal to freeze spending. Unfortunately ,after driving spending to a record $3.7 trillion—nearly 26% of GDP—last year with the accompanying $1.4 trillion deficit, the proposal is at best a bit….underwhelming.

According to the administration, only $447 billion in spending would be subject to the freeze with a total of $15 billion to be saved ^[1]. So this freeze would reduce the deficit by 1.1 percent or less than half a percent off of last year’s spending. Details have yet to be announced, but those that have trickled out do make one wonder what spending forecasts the White House budgeters are reading.

The good:

Spending is out of control. Under Obama, federal spending increased in every category ^[2]—in many cases massive increases driving spending to its highest point since WWII. Spending needs to be frozen and reduced. Reallyreduced. If the President is serious about restoring confidence in his ability to control the excesses of Washington, he must go much further.

The bad:

Bush fad catching on Internationally

A man threw his shoe at Sudanese President Omar Hassan Al-Bashir in a public conference in the capital on Monday, a particularly insulting action in Arab culture, eye-witnesses said.

They said the unidentified man was swiftly detained by about 10 presidential guards although the projectile missed Bashir. It was not immediately clear why the man hurled his shoe. The presidency denied any shoe was thrown and said the man was stopped by security while carrying an envelope he wanted to deliver to Bashir.

In the Arab culture, it is rude even to show the sole of your shoe to a colleague and shoes are left at the door of mosques.

As we all know President George W Bush was subjected to the same insult in Iraq in 2008 when an Iraqi journalist threw both his shoes at him.

“The man was close to the podium and threw the shoe but it didn’t reach him,” said one eye-witness, stating the incident appeared to shock the dozens of officials gathered for the conference on strategic planning for governing Sudan.

Three other eye witnesses who had been inside the Friendship Hall in Khartoum, all of whom asked not to be named, confirmed the incident to an International news service. They said the man was in his late 40s or early 50s, was dressed smartly and said nothing.“He seemed calm, even after he was arrested,” said another of the witnesses.

Witnesses said journalists at the event had recording equipment and cameras taken from them by security after the incident. Presidential spokesman denied the shoe incident, saying: “The man just wanted to give the president a note... but was intercepted by the security.”


This is the second time since the Bush incident that shoes being thrown at public officials has made international news. Perhaps the fad is catching on.

Girl sailor pounded in violent storm, Is Laura Dekker watching?

SYDNEY (AFP) - An Australian schoolgirl bidding to become the youngest person to sail solo around the world admitted Sunday that a brutal storm which upended her boat in giant waves has made her question her trip.

Sixteen-year-old Jessica Watson faced the toughest conditions to date on her non-stop, unassisted circumnavigation when she endured hurricane-force winds and waves up to 10 metres high in the South Atlantic Ocean Friday.

The Queenslander was left bruised and feeling “like I’ve aged a good 10 years” while her yacht, Ella’s Pink Lady, suffered minor damage during the eight-hour storm which tossed the boat beneath crushing waves.
“It was certainly one of those times when you start questioning exactly why you’re doing this,” she wrote in her blog.

“But at no point could I not answer my own question with a long list of reasons why the tough times like that aren’t totally worth it.”
Watson left Sydney in her bright pink yacht more than three months ago and during the storm passed the 11,000 nautical mile mark on her voyage.

The tempest was the first time the schoolgirl had experienced a “knockdown” — when the mast goes below horizontal and dives into the sea.
Watson, who was strapped into a seat below deck throughout the ordeal, said she spent the storm “with my whole body clenched up holding on, various objects flying around the cabin and Ella’s Pink Lady complaining loudly under the strain.”

“We experienced a total of 4 knockdowns, the second was the most severe with the mast being pushed 180 degrees in to the water,” she wrote.

“Actually pushed isn’t the right word, it would be more accurate to say that Ella’s Pink Lady was picked up, thrown down a wave, then forced under a mountain of breaking water and violently turned upside down.”

U.S. Drone allegedly shot down over Pakistan again

A suspected US drone has been shot down in North Waziristan, some four kilometres northwest of the main town of Miranshah, sources said Sunday.
The local tribesmen claimed that they had shot down the unmanned aircraft in Hamzoni area. Other drone aircraft were also reportedly witnessed hovering over the area following the incident.

Intelligence officials and a local resident added that the suspected US drone had crashed in the tribal area, which was also reported by The Washington Post.
Local resident Saudur Rehman said he heard gunfire just before he saw the drone crash and local tribesmen were congratulating each other for shooting it down.

A similar crash occurred in September 2008, but the Pakistan Army had denied claims by intelligence officials that troops and local people shot down the aircraft. It said it was a technical problem.

Hamzoni area of Datta Khel is dominated by Taliban, and where there have been over 14 drone strikes over the past few weeks.

Will the Obama administration admit that the U.S. may have lost another drone? Or does their transparency only go as far as exposing CIA tactics and operational control centers within combat areas as they did last year?

Send to Friend

Enter Your Infomation

Your Name*

Your eMail*

Add Friends Informations

Friend's Name: *

Friend's Email : *

Friends(upto 5)

Enter Your Message

Prediction for the week. Tim Geithner will resign or be fired!

ABC's Moran Lets Dem Guests Blame Budget Deficit On Bush

Outrageous outrageous outrageous!

If Joe public can't see what is going on here after Obama's speech in response to Scott Brown's victory over the late Ted Kennedy's Senate seat. In which Obama said that NOW he gets it! (another lie) Joe will never get it. Then Obama went on to blame George W. Bush once again for our woes.

Below is copy of today's writings from News Busters which pretty much spells it out that it's "business as usual" and don't sway from Alinskyish approach to 1984's "new speak" "the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year". And "double think" the act of simultaneously accepting as correct two mutually contradictory beliefs. It is related to, but distinct from, hypocrisy and neutrality.

These are the most Orwellian times we have ever lived in politically. It makes me feel like we are reliving perhaps a similar time, but not as techno sci-fish' in bizarre-O-narro, that of which was the preemptive epoch of the reign of Hitler.

Hitler had his propaganda machine by which he laid the blame on the jews and the previous sympathies of the reigning Prussian President Hindenburg. Obama has Axelrod, such an appropriate name, if imagined literally , kind of a double entendre Axel.... Rod, same same.

ARTICLE

Published on NewsBusters.org (http://newsbusters.org)

By Noel Sheppard

Created 01/24/2010 - 12:47

Two Democrats on Sunday blamed the soaring budget deficit on George W. Bush, and ABC's Terry Moran didn't challenge either one of them.

First up on "This Week" was senior White House adviser David Axelrod who told substitute host Moran, "President Clinton left a $237 billion surplus, President Obama received a $1.3 trillion deficit."

Moran didn't challenge this, nor did he press Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) when he uttered virtually the exact same Democrat talking point moments later, "When George Bush came to office, he had a $236 billion surplus; Barack Obama was handed a $1.3 trillion deficit."

Here's how a REAL journalist might have responded the second time somebody made the same stupid comment in the course of about 15 minutes:

• On March 14, 2008, then Sen. Obama voted in favor of the 2009 budget which authorized $3.1 trillion in federal outlays along with a projected $400 billion deficit. The 51-44 vote that morning was strongly along party lines with only two Republicans saying "Yes."
• When the final conference report was presented to the House on June 5, not one Republican voted for it.
• This means the 2009 budget was almost exclusively approved by Democrats, with "Yeas" coming from Obama, his Vice President Joe Biden, his Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
• On October 1, 2008, Obama, Biden, and Clinton voted in favor of the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program designed to prevent teetering financial institutions from completely destroying the economy.
• In February, 2009, a $787 billion stimulus bill was passed with just three Republican votes, and later signed by Obama.
• Weeks later, Congress approved and Obama signed $410 billion of additional spending.

Add it all up, and Obama approved every penny spent in fiscal 2009 either via his votes in the Senate or his signature as President.

"Journalists" like Moran should know this, and should challenge anyone that says otherwise. When they don't, they look like White House stooges.

Nice job, Terry. If your appearance on Sunday's "This Week" was an audition to eventually replace George Stephanopoulos as permanent host, you failed miserably.

On the other hand, if ABC is looking for someone to be just as liberally-biased as Stephanopoulos, and just as unwilling to challenge Democrats when they utter non sequiturs, Moran passed with flying colors.

---

Source URL:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/01/24/abcs-moran-lets-dem-guests-blame-budget-deficit-bush

Brown people haters will kill immigration, and amnesty

Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, a Democratic strategist and founder of the left-wing blog “The Daily Kos,” told reporters Thursday that “comprehensive immigration reform” legislation sponsored by Rep. Luiz Gutierrez (D-Ill.) -- which would provide a “pathway to citizenship” for illegal aliens -- has a good shot at passage this year.

But Moulitsas said that “teabaggers” and Republicans who “hate brown people” would try to push back against it.

“I think the votes want to be there in the Senate -- I think the House is fairly solid -- I think the votes want to be there,” he said of an immigration bill’s chances, “but you have this growing ‘teabagger’ movement that is going to be pushing very hard from the other side.”

Moulitsas said the issue was going to expose a rift within the Republican Party.

“It’s going to be (a) battle of wills --I think --between Republicans who realize the danger in losing the Latino vote for a generation or longer and the danger that poses in places like Arizona, New Mexico and Florida -- places that are battleground states that could be torn away from them because of demographic shifts -- and those Republicans who demand ideological purity and hate brown people and really kowtow to the Tom Tancredos of this country.”

Tancredo, a former presidential candidate and Republican member of the House of Representatives from Colorado, was a founder of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus in 1999, and a firm opponent of illegal immigration. Tancredo also opposed the immigration plans pushed by the Bush administration in 2006 and 2007.

Moulitsas made his comments at the liberal think-tank, the Center for American Progress (CAP), which held a panel discussion with the blogger and some of its staff called: “Next Up, Comprehensive Immigration Reform.”

Anther panelist, Andrea Nill, who writes on immigration issues for the CAP, added to the insinuations of racism, explaining that there is a network of opponents to immigration in America.

“The groups that are going to be driving it are part of this network: we call it the ‘nativist lobby,” she said.

One group she named was the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), a group that describes itself on its Web site as “an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit research organization” and a “think tank devoted exclusively to research and policy analysis of the economic, social, demographic, fiscal, and other impacts of immigration on the United States.

But Jessica Vaughan, policy director for CIS, told CNSNews.com she would “absolutely reject the label of nativist” and said it was an example of “people who disagree with us calling us names instead of coming up with a fact-based response. That’s what happens when people aren’t getting their way.”

Vaughn added: “We’re not a lobbying organization -- we’re a research institute. Our work speaks for itself.”

“We’re animated by a pro-immigrant, low-immigration vision for immigration policy in America,” Vaughn said. “(A)nother way of putting that would be ‘fewer immigrants, but a warmer welcome.’”

Vaughn said much of her group’s work has been oriented to looking at how to make the application process better for immigrants.

“Reporting objective facts on the size and composition of our immigration flow and on the policy issues that have to do with immigration law enforcement is not necessarily anti-immigrant and I think that any reader can discern that themselves by reading what we actually say, not what they think we mean,” Vaughan told CNSNews.com.

She said that the Gutierrez bill -- the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America’s Security and Prosperity Act -- is so far to the left that it does not register on the political spectrum.

“I don’t think it even falls on the spectrum of bills that Americans would consider to be reasonable immigration reform,” she said.

“It is a massive expansion of immigration--an amnesty for just about everyone, a decimation of immigration law enforcement, and creation of unnecessary temporary worker programs -- did I miss anything?

“The reality is that this is not something that most Americans would support,” she added.

Moulitsas and Nill, meanwhile, both said that while they liked the House bill, and it was a good starting point, the heavy legislative lifting would be left to the Senate, where Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) will begin drafting a version of the bill that could better attract bipartisan support.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has indicated that she will not push for the House to pass any immigration reform measure before the Senate does so, because she had already completed a number of legislative “heavy lifts” on health care and cap-and-trade bills that have proven politically unpopular.

Hey Barack don't think we haven't been keeping score!

What else is there to say!

Obama voices discontent for the First Amendment

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama on Thursday strongly criticized a Supreme Court ruling removing limits on corporate donations for political campaigns, saying it was a major victory for banks and oil and health insurance companies.

Barack Obama

"With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics," Obama said in a statement.

"We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less."

Barack Obama

Petraeus sees long Afghan campaign

General David Petraeus, head of U.S. Central Command, has said he is focused on how to get troops into Afghanistan, not how to get them out.
August 2011, the target set by U.S. President Barack Obama for the start of U.S. troop withdrawals from Afghanistan, is "some time away in military terms," Petraeus said Thursday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
"Right now the emphasis is on the rapid deployment of the new troops," Petraeus said. The president approved an additional 30,000 troops for Afghanistan last December. Petraeus expected that they would all be "on the ground by the end of August."
He stressed that August 2011 would mark the "beginning of a transition" to a greater role for Afghan troops but that the pace of U.S. withdrawal would be "conditions-based."
"I thought from the start that Afghanistan would be the longest campaign in the 'long war' (against terrorism)," Petraeus said.
The United States plans to expand Afghan security forces by 100,000 in the next two years. Petraeus conceded that it was an ambitious target. He said he will divert at least one combat battalion deployed to Afghanistan to the mission of training Afghan troops.
Did anyone have any doubts about Obama's promise of withdrawl? If you don't already know his promises are shallow and unsupported just look at his year in office.

Another Republican Actor takes takes a hit for being honest

I'm sorry people but I have to agree with Scott!

Some of you might consider me a racist for agreeing with Scott Baio of television and reality show fame, plus "Happy Days" both not of my genre.

I Never really saw much of him or any of that stuff.

Come to find out that he has received death threats against him for making the comment "Wow he wakes up to that every morning!" about the picture above of Michelle Obama.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/21/scott-baio-tweets-michell_n_431214.html


Granted it is a very unflattering picture of her.

At some point in our lives we all have been caught in compromising expression on film, I would think. But that doesn't mean Baio or any one of us is a racist for making such a comment, or deserves death threats for the right of freedom of expression.

How about if I said Eleanor Roosevelt was huguly! There's no denying it, she was definitely no beauty queen. But does that make me a racist? Maybe if I were a black Republican saying it, it would according to left wing thinking. But only if I were republican.
Jerimiah Wright can call us all Whitey and get away with it.

Political correctness has gone way over the edge to become the abuser and oppressor of free speech and expression, in defense of anything the right has to say about the left. Anyone who thinks not, just look at the most recent exposure from the new book "Game Change" by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann.

In that incident because the uproar created by Harry Reid's statements about Barack Obama as "light skinned" with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one",See what Rush Limbaugh provides on this matter http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011110/content/01125109.guest.html, the left came to Reid's defense in a hypocritical move against Republican call for equality in treatment dealing with Reid.

Ironically it is some of these same people defending Reid who called for Republican Trent Lott to resign and step down from his majority leader post. This was after he made remarks in 2002 praising former segregationist presidential candidate and long-time Senator Strom Thurmond. One of those demanding his removal was Reid himself.

Now here we have Scott Baio an actor and declared Republican(new to my knowledge), making a crack about the scariness of how Michelle Obama looks in this made for scarring the rats photo, and he gets called racist and receives death threats.

Funny its always from the left where hate mongering and intimidating death threats come from, remember "I wish he would die " Wanda Sikes commenting about Rush Limbaugh. It is so terribly obvious whom the ones are continuously contradicting themselves as to how free speech should be applied.I can't help but think every time I see this behavior how
adolescent these people are.

Its as if they are all little children playing in a game of tag and each time they have the misfortune of getting pegged they fall into denial or attempt to change the rules.

Maybe Baio's comments weren't all that much in good taste, but I confess I have no special sabor for Michelle Obama's looks either.

Ever since she has become a public figure and the First Lady, the press has been trying to make a platform idol out of her.
I think she is the epitome of an "angry black woman" in very stereotypical fashion.

What makes it even worse, she carries it stereoscopically further by going over board with her high brow persona and expenditure on material goods such as her taste in fashion during these lean times.This is indicative of someone who suddenly comes into fame and money but has never learned the principles of frugality. She comes across more like a million dollar lottery winner than a first lady.

There is no denying Michelle Obama is smart and talented. Unfortunately she comes off as someone who is terribly insecure,and has never learned to channel that insecurity into personal value in her adult development.

What is the saying "You can take the boy out of the country but you can't take the country out of the boy". wWtch me be accused of being a racist for using the word "boy"

Michelle cannot deny that to the majority of the American public she got off on the wrong foot, with her statement in February 2008

"For the First Time in My Adult Lifetime, I'm Really Proud of My Country"

As I've said her persona strikes me more as "the angry black woman".
somewhat uncontrollable with her rise to power as First Lady.She is more like Naomi Campbell in character than Kate Moss both extremely self conscious about their looks Truthfully I think Barack Obama is terrified of her.

I have to stand with Scott Baio and his call for recognition of the fact that Michelle Obama is NOT all that attractive, instead somewhat frightening.
I will give the both of them credit though, for two ugly people BO and MO they sure have some cute kids.

Call me a racist and see if I give a s---. I'm sure I can disprove the accusation by providing you with some photos of me and my Mexican gardener, who is illegal in this country by the way

Lightning reaction to Brown's win despite all the B.S. threats

Hot tip to Hot Air

Talk about ass whoopin!

Message delivered — message received:

Obama insisted today that the Senate wait for Brown to be seated before they make any changes to its version of the health care reform legislation. …

“Here’s one thing I know and I just want to make sure that this is off the table: The Senate certainly shouldn’t try to jam anything through until Scott Brown is seated,” the president said. “The people of Massachusetts spoke. He’s got to be part of that process.”

“I would advise that we try to move quickly to coalesce around those elements of the package that people agree on,” he said.

The president said there are “core elements” to the health care legislation that both Republican and Democrats agree on and they must come together to work for comprehensive reform.

“We know that we need insurance reform, that the health insurance companies are taking advantage of people. We know that we have to have some form of cost containment because if we don’t, then our budgets are going to blow up,” he said. “And we know that small businesses are going to need help so that they can provide health insurance for their families. Those are the core, some of the core elements of this bill.”

Suddenly, Obama sounds a lot less combative, does he not? As I wrote earlier, that was nothing more than empty bravado. Democrats on the Hill made it clear in the aftermath of Scott Brown’s victory that they would not march where Obama ordered them. This is nothing more than an acknowledgment of political reality, and nothing less than what we have repeatedly suggested over the last several months as the path to an easy legislative victory.

Expiration date of that Obama promise: 48 hours.

Now, if he gets a bill accomplished in this manner, Obama can’t even take credit for leadership. He got forced into this position and only offers this because it’s his only escape route. It’s a capitulation to a frightened Democratic caucus, and it calls into question whether Nancy Pelosi may wind up paying the political price for it. If Democrats were smart, they’d vote her out of her position as Speaker and install someone with more centrist sensibilities — and do it now. (via Yid with Lid, who has more thoughts)

Supreme Court has special session tomorrow 1/21/10

The Supreme Court announced today that it will hold a special public session tomorrow at 10 a.m., reports SCOTUSblog.

The news has fueled speculation that the justices will hand down their long-awaited decision in the campaign finance case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Anticipating this possibility, campaign finance watchers moved their post-decision sessions to tomorrow. Since the Court has no Thursday arguments scheduled, it seems possible that the purpose of this session is to hand down opinions. That said, the Court did not reveal a reason for the move.

Massachusetts earthquake puts everything in play

From American Thinker

By James Simpson

Scott Brown's stunning electoral victory in Massachusetts yesterday confirms to the world what we have known all along: patriotism and common sense are alive and well. Real Americans remain a majority in this country, and the massively-funded, corrupt Democrat machine, engorged with our tax dollars, radical billionaire money and lock-step union support, cannot buy elections, even in hardcore Democrat states, once the sleeping giant has awoken.

And make no mistake about it: we are wide awake!

The Democrats were certainly hamstrung by choosing an impossibly bad candidate. Martha Coakley made a fool of herself repeatedly, yet throughout it all carried herself with an astonishing sense of conceited entitlement, seemingly contemptuous of even having to campaign at all. Meanwhile, her campaign took on an air of ugly thuggishness. Two scenes captured on video during this short campaign say it all. Everyone has seen the first one, where a reporter is pushed to the ground by a Coakley supporter while she does nothing. Remember, she is the Massachusetts attorney general. The second one has received less attention, but is even more telling: a female reporter getting thrown out of a Coakley campaign office with shouts of "Nazi." Someone even used the "F" bomb. What class acts!

The real problem is that Coakley's campaign defines what the Democratic Party has become today: arrogant, boorish, incomprehensibly ignorant and downright thuggish. Former Vermont Governor and Presidential candidate Howard Dean, for example, reacted to Brown's victory by saying that now Democrats have to get tough, and not "deal with Republicans anymore." Stunning. So that's what we've been witnessing all year, with Democrats violating Senate rules, holding closed-door meetings, locking Republicans out of discussions, rejecting outright any Republican proposals and violating their own promises of "transparency." But they haven't been tough enough. Simply amazing.

Scott Brown's election was certainly about healthcare. Massachusetts already has its own expensive plan. They don't need or want even more government intrusion. It was also about national security. Brown's own internal polling convinced the campaign this was true. People feel insecure with this President and his administration, and with good reason.

But it was even more than that. People have had enough. We have had enough of bald-faced lies from Democrats. We have had enough of big spending bills being disingenuously presented as "deficit reducers." We have had enough of massive government programs guaranteed to cripple the economy and lose jobs. We have had enough of ever more intrusive government attempting to take over every aspect of our daily lives. We have had enough of blatant corruption and coddling of terrorists. We have had enough of radicals attempting to ram their virulently anti-American agenda down our throats and calling us "domestic terrorists" for objecting.

This election is a game changer. Make no mistake about it. Not only is the U.S. Senate in play for Republicans in November, but so is the House of Representatives, state legislatures and governor's mansions. Last night, Sarah Palin said to Greta Van Susteren on Fox News "We just witnessed a wicked political pivot... This is a tidal wave sweeping the country..." She is right.

Now, Republicans have an uncanny ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. We have seen it time and again and that is a real danger here. So let me tell you what this victory is not. It is not about getting Republicans a seat at the Democrat table. Let me repeat that.

This election is not about getting Republicans a seat at the Democrat table.

If nothing else has become clear over the past year, Republicans have to have at least realized this: Democrats don't share. Any effort to use this victory to give Republicans a better "negotiating position" on Democrat-sponsored bills will simply make it easier for Democrats to pursue their reckless agenda, only now they will have "bipartisan" support. Come November, voter contempt for Republicans will be as palpable as it is now for Democrats. Republicans will lose.

Going along to get along is out. Compromise is out. And if Republicans don't get it they will be repeating the mistakes that put them back into the minority in the first place.

The reason We the People are in open revolt is because we finally clearly recognize that the entire Democrat agenda is willfully destructive. Republicans need to get this through their heads. We are not merely dealing with a Party of "opposing views." We are dealing with an international movement that will destroy our Republic by snatching our freedoms, our wealth and our independence, with the ultimate goal of, as Barack Obama said, "fundamentally transforming" our Constitutional Republic into a socialist dictatorship.

Republicans have no excuse to be supporting or even compromising with that agenda. Their job should be preventing Democrats from imposing this nation-wrecking agenda, while convincingly articulating their reasons for doing so and offering superior alternatives.

As for Martha Coakley, good riddance and don't let the door smack you on the rear on the way out.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/massachusetts_earthquake_puts.html at January 20, 2010 - 10:52:39 AM CST

It didn't quite take a year and already the legacy that Bush left us with is being rewritten favorably; by the left!

It's almost hard to believe but Wednesday, January 20 marks exactly one year since President Bush left the White House.

During his last public ceremony as commander in chief, he was booed by thousands of Americans who simutaneously cheered for Barack Obama as he was sworn into office on the steps of the U.S. Capitol.

Except for a June 17 speech in Erie, Pennsylvania in which Bush defended his policies and criticized Obama’s, the former president has been remarkably silent about his successor. He has not fired back at Obama despite the new administration inappropriately blaming Bush for all of their failures.

One year after taking office however, Obama has done a total reversal on his isolationist, non-interventionist foreign policy, and is now pushing President Bush’s neo-conservative philosophy as a justification for starting a new war in Afghanistan. What the Democratic Party once criticized as an over-simplified good vs. evil argument has become the cornerstone of Obama’s reasoning.
“Evil does exist in the world,” Obama recently admitted. “A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism – it is recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of man.”

In the wake of this stunning adoption of the Bush foreign policy doctrine, there is little, if any dissent. The same people who crucified Bush for liberating Iraq are hardly criticizing Obama for using force to promote democracy in Afghanistan.

Recent Gallup polls find that 62 percent of Americans think Obama’s war in Afghanistan “is the right thing” whereas only 39 percent of Americans think Bush made the right decision by sending troops to Iraq.

Any American who thinks that Bush was misdirected when he sent troops to Iraq in 2003 can’t possibly deny that renewing war in Afghanistan in 2009 to hunt Al Qaeda, eight years after the Sept. 11 attacks is, at the least, equally fallible.

Still, Obama is receiving the kind of public support that an American president, any president, deserves during wartime. Many anti-war activists, journalists and elected officials have been remarkably quiet, affording the new commander in chief the opportunity to launch a successful war campaign.

Very few Americans showed the same faithfulness to President Bush, including members of his own party. Republicans who favored non-interventionism to nation building abandoned Bush, and Democratic senators like John Kerry, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton who voted for the war turned against it before the 2004 elections so they would have the ammunition they needed to criticize their incumbent opponent.

America quickly forgot about how President Bush charismatically lifted our spirits during some of the darkest moments of our nation’s history when the Twin Towers collapsed. After all, even Senator Kerry admitted Bush’s handling of the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks was “terrific,” during the 2004 presidential debates.

But after President Bush successfully secured America in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, he was rewarded with accusations of committing human rights violations and war crimes – an incredible irony since his policies were responsible for liberating tens of millions of people in Afghanistan and Iraq. Some Americans accused Bush of lying and starting a war under false pretenses simply because our troops never found actual weapons of mass destruction.

Despite what Michael Moore implied in his film "Fahrenheit 9/11," Congress did not base their 2002 authorization for the Iraq War solely on the premise that Saddam Hussein either had or was trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Their legislation reads very clearly that America’s purpose in sending troops back to Iraq was to enforce U.N. resolutions, some of which were violated in the 1990’s and probably should have been enforced by President Clinton. Whether actual weapons were found or not, the war in Iraq was legally and morally justifiable, and necessary.

In addition to enduring criticism for his war policies, millions of Americans demanded the new Obama administration prosecute Bush for his decision to indefinitely holding detainees charged with war crimes. When President Obama signed an executive order in May that reinforced that same Bush policy, the far left was mute.

Almost no one said a word. Apparently, its acceptable for Obama to indefinitely hold detainees, just not Bush.

As Obama continues to make decisions that mirror the Bush doctrine, it is becoming apparent that the former president was not ignorant or irrational in his foreign policy decisions despite the harsh criticism and disloyalty he endured. He was in fact, ahead of his time, a visionary who understood politics and warfare in the modern age of terrorism.

That is why Obama is now following his lead.

It should be obvious now, even to Obama’s most passionate supporters that shielding the free world requires more than mere words like “hope” and “change.” Bush’s detractors should be embarrassed having arrogantly thought they could do it better, and those Republicans who abandoned Bush when he needed them most should take a moment to reflect on their fortitude or lack thereof.

Americans who chastised President Bush for removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq should apologize and show him the same respect they are now showing President Obama as he neutralizes the Taliban in Afghanistan.

George W. Bush seemed to have an almost mystical understanding of what the American people needed when we needed it most. He reminded all of us of why we should be proud to be Americans at a time when there was a whisper that we brought the Sept. 11 attacks upon ourselves for promoting democracy abroad.

President Bush deserves our respect, not our betrayal.

Jeffrey Scott Shapiro is a journalist and lawyer who served on Senator John F. Kerry’s legal team during the 2004 election. He is currently organizing a nationwide effort called “Honor Freedom” to correct the historical record about President Bush and the Bush foreign policy doctrine, which can be reached at www.honorfreedom.com and on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=41317929699&ref=ts or Twitter at http://twitter.com/honorfreedom.

HOORAH, Scott Brown for President !!

Just kidding ... at least for now.

You be the judge

The progressive non-profit MoveOn.org solicited members to sign a petition Friday requesting that credit card companies waive processing fees for charitable donations. "Credit card companies shouldn't be getting rich off of Americans' generosity. They should waive all fees on charitable contributions from today on," the petition reads.

214,000 people signed the petition since Friday and the liberal group hopes to reach 250,000 by the end of this week.

Indignation over the issue ensued after revelations that the Haiti tragedy serves as an economic boon for credit card companies, most of whom take 1 to 3 percent in transaction fees from donations. The Huffington Post estimated that credit card companies make roughly $250 million a year from charitable donations.

In light of the situation, Visa, MasterCard, American Express and Discover announced they will waive some of the Haiti-related fees for the near future. But MoveOn says that isn't enough.

"It's the least they could do after the role they played in crashing the entire global economy last year," says the email imploring members to sign the petition.

One last thought about Brown

I think what should be noted about the Massachusetts election is not so much what Scott Brown stands for or supports as to what he doesn't stand for or support.I think it's important to realize more than anything is the mood of the people.

Recently in an article I read it was mentioned that Charles Manson could be elected right now over Barack Obama. Well I think the same could be said about the Scott Brown/ Martha Coakley special election. The Boston Strangler could get elected against a Democratic candidate.

I am not so sure that what Scott Brown stands for is the key issue here. I think it is the corruption and tyranny that he doesn't stand for. Looking back at the Democratic welfare system we presently have, one can surmise that it is ramped with corruption. Not only is it mired in big government bureaucracy but it reeks of how the Democrats sell off portions of that particular bureaucracy to special interests I am sure that I'm not the only person looking at it this way.

Living in Nevada I have a first hand insight as to the local sentiment towards our own nemesis Harry Reid. For months the signs have already been on peoples front lawns, "Harry Sucks", "Anyone butt Harry" "Reid's gotta go", "We don't want your stinkin health care Harry" and many more.

The country as a whole has made a major shift toward the right. And at present just about anyone who declares himself or herself a rightest has more than a thin chance of winning an elected position. The public is so fed up with this administration that they are of the mind set that ANYONE is better than who we have especially as a Democrat.

Mind you the Republicans aren't really much better off, but at least they can escape most all of the blame for the particular bill being fought over right now. Whether that sentiment lasts with the people through this years election still remains to be seen. The amazing part though is that despite the MSM slanted reporting the peoples voice has found a way to get through.

My father was a Bostonian whom to my knowledge all of his life was a registered Democrat although I know for sure he didn't always vote the " D " ticket My uncle was an aid to the late Speaker of the House from Massachusetts John McCormick.

In my early twenties I became privy to much of what was going on at the time in Washington and Massachusetts through my frequent visits to my uncle's home which rendered me to an early exposure of back room politics. In college I actually worked for the McGovern campaign as a photographer in southern California to get to know what he was made of.

After that little jaunt I have forever after been an independent voter . Never have I seen so much corruption as I saw with the Democrat elitists then as I am made aware of now with Obama and company.

Anyway back to Brown. I think that Massachusetts is strictly voting on sentiment and nothing more. It matters not what Brown stands for, only that he is not a Democrat. There have been innuendos from both sides, the far left, and the far right who have said Brown is not what he projects himself to be.

Frankly I think the voice of Massachusetts (the people) don't care. They are indicative of how the rest of the country is now feeling. And of course this is particularly bad for the Democrats, who by now should clearly understand the wrath about to be bestowed upon them in the year to come.

Brown may not be the answer to all of the problems that this administration is creating but he certainly has become the voice of resentment toward how the public at large is feeling.

I say he very well may be the stick that gets caught in the spokes of the wheels of radical change.
The People have spoken.

Only Moments Ago Here is a Transcript of Scott Brown's Remarks

4:47 PM, Jan 17, 2010 ·

BY John McCormack

Here's a transcript of Scott Brown's remarks, as prepared for delivery, at today's rally in Worcester:

Thank you very much. What a privilege it is to share the stage with John Ratzenberger, Lenny Clarke, Doug Flutie, Curt Schilling, Fred Smerlas, Steve DeOssie, and many, many others - and my favorite singer, Ayla Brown.

As you know, Curt Schilling made the news just a couple of days ago when my opponent didn’t recognize his name. Of all the many false accusations she’s made in this campaign, one of the strangest was to call Curt Schilling a Yankee fan. Let me properly identify the guy she’s been smearing on the radio: His name is Curt Schilling, formerly of the World Champion Red Sox - you know, a baseball team that plays at Fenway Park.

Doug Flutie, what can I say, great guy, great career, and I am proud you are here. John Ratzenberger, a wonderful actor, you brought a lot of laughs to us during your many years with Cheers. Fred and Steve, you are legends and good friends. Ayla, thank you for again sharing your beautiful voice. Millions have seen her on national TV, and going through this campaign I’ve got an idea of what Ayla went through on “American Idol.” She had to deal with Simon Cowell, and I had to deal with David Gergen.

Our campaign is going strong, and the finish line is in sight. The day of decision is almost here. The whole nation is watching, but the choice on Election Day belongs to you and no one else. Friends and fellow citizens, I’m Scott Brown, I’m from Wrentham, I drive a truck and I’m asking for your vote.

When we started this campaign just a few months ago, the political machine wrote us off. A Senate seat in Massachusetts, we were told, was already spoken for – and this special election was just a minor detail that wouldn’t get in the way. The political machine already had a short-term placeholder in the Senate. Now all they needed was a long-term placeholder, and everything had been arranged.

Well, there was just one little problem with that plan – the independent-thinking people of Massachusetts wanted a real choice, and they – and you -- have made this a real contest.

The voters are doing their own thinking, and the machine politicians don’t quite know how to react. So they put in a distress call to Washington, and the next thing you know, Air Force One is landing at Logan.

My first response is very simple: Democrat or Republican, the president of the United States is always welcome in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Now, it wasn’t exactly a scheduled visit. Sort of a last-minute thing. The political machine controlled that Senate, he was told, and it was going to stay that way.

Well, the party bosses gave the president some bad information. This Senate seat belongs to no one person and no one political party – it belongs to the people of Massachusetts.

Maybe they also told President Obama that I had no chance at all. After all, who ever heard of guy from Wrentham getting elected to the U.S. Senate? But as the president might remember, upsets like that have been known to happen.

The president may recall as well how much he used to talk about a new kind of politics – about campaigns based on conviction, instead of just false and small-minded negative ads. Well, as long as he’s paying a visit, he might want to talk to Martha about that. Not only are her ads negative, they are malicious. How quickly the politics of hope have become replaced by the politics of desperation. Shame on Martha.

Before the president rushed to the scene, we saw my opponent standing with a former president, the governor, the senior senator, the appointed senator – the whole party establishment, right on down the line.

At the beginning, it felt like me against the machine. But guess what? I was wrong. It’s us against the machine.

I don’t need an establishment to prop me up. I stand before you as the proud candidate of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents across Massachusetts, north and south, east and west.

The party machine is in high gear for my opponent. The establishment is afraid of losing their Senate seat. You can all remind them that this is not their seat, it is yours.

Should I have the honor of representing our state in Washington, D.C., I will serve no faction but Massachusetts. I will pursue no agenda but what is right. I will be nobody’s senator but yours.

One of the great advantages of being independent is that you meet voters of every kind. And you learn what people are really thinking about the big issues facing our state and our country. The political experts are still wondering how this little campaign of ours grew so fast and gathered so much strength and momentum. The reason is simple.

We do not want a senator whose only question on health care is to ask Harry Reid, “How do you want me to vote?” Massachusetts wants real reform, and not this trillion-dollar Obama health care bill being forced on the American people.

This bill would raise taxes. It would cut Medicare by half a trillion dollars. It would be unfair to our veterans. It would destroy jobs, and run our nation deeper into debt. It is not in the interest of our state or country – and as your senator, I will insist we start over.

I will work in the Senate to reform health care in the right way, the honest way. No more closed-door meetings behind the scenes. No more arrogant party leadership. We can do better, and as the 41st senator I’ll make sure of it.

In health care, we need to start fresh, work together, and do the job right.

On the question of taxes, my opponent this week endorsed yet another tax increase. She summed up her whole approach by saying, quote, “We need to get taxes up.”

She has it exactly wrong: We need to get job creation up, and taxes down. I will work in the Senate to put government back on the side of people who create jobs – and as John F. Kennedy taught us, that starts with a tax cut for the American people.

As a lieutenant colonel and 30-year member of the Army National Guard, I will keep faith with all who serve, and with our veterans, too. I will work in the Senate to defend our nation’s interests and to keep our military second to none.

In our debate, my opponent insisted that there are no longer any terrorists in Afghanistan. Maybe the president can pull her aside today and explain the basics: There are still many terrorists in Afghanistan, Martha! They are at war with the United States, and for the safety of this nation we must defeat them

As an attorney, I believe that our Constitution and laws exist to protect this nation – they do not grant rights and privileges to enemies in wartime. In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them.

Raising taxes, taking over our health care, and giving new rights to terrorists is the agenda of a new establishment in Washington. And they think you’re on board with all of it. They think they own your vote. They’re sure they can’t lose. But on Election Day, the Bay State will set them straight.

We are witnesses, you and I, to something historic. We have run a race never to be forgotten. We are in a cause that deserves all that we can give it. In these final forty-eight hours, let us see it through to victory.

All along, I have counted on the goodwill and support of independent-minded people like you, and never more than right now. I ask for any help you can give, and above all for the honor of your vote.

In return, I make this pledge to you and to every citizen of Massachusetts: If I am entrusted with the people’s seat, I will give everything that is in me to be a good and faithful senator, and to make you proud.

Thank you all very much.

---