| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
It seems to me that for years, the Democrat leadership has pushed for big government in terms of both government spending, and government control over the people via welfare/entitlements/legal restrictions; and the Republican leadership has put the brakes on that just enough to get the votes of conservatives, and not a bit more. In effect, the leadership of both parties has been pro-big-government for decades.
Now that we're dealing with multi-trillion dollar national debt, the people seem to want a more sound national fiscal policy.
IBOPE Zogby National Debt Poll: Majority Prefer Cuts Over Revenue Increases
July 2011
UTICA, NY - Nine in 10 voters say it is important for Congress and President Barack Obama to reduce the nation’s long-term debt, and a majority prefer spending cuts over increased revenues as the means of accomplishing that goal, a new IBOPE Zogby Interactive poll finds
But with decades of big government spending supported by leadership of both parties, there appears to be no candidate with sufficient standing to run, who can be relied on to seek such a policy. It may take several election cycles to get such a candidate into office and to get party leadership in either party, who supports such a policy.
In the meantime, Romney has some advantages:
And we have got to get Obama out of office. His huge-spending, pro-sociialist, anti-capitialist policies, as well as his unending attacks on jobs and US industries, and his continuous support abroad for the most fundamentalist-Islamic side of a confrontation, have been massively disastrous with regard to the US economy, employment, US fiscal health, and world peace.
CONCLUSION
For decades the US public has not focused on US national debt. Political leaders of both parties have capitalized on this to borrow and spend massive amounts of money, endangering the fiscal health of the nation. This decades-long trend is unlikely to be eliminated within a single election cycle. As an initial movement to return the nation to fiscal health, it is reasonable to:
Our correspondent in Egypt, Huda N. (not her real name), reports:
Now a days all liberal parties are in hibernation within the streets of Egypt. The only active parties are the Horreya and Adala (Freedom and Justice) of the Muslim Brotherhood's party and the Nour (The light) the Salafie's party are the active ones within the poor communities of Egypt, which are the majority. All you find in television and newspapers are talks and interviews of brotherhood leaders.
Islamists have hijacked the revolution. On Friday 29th July 2011 the Islamist arranged a million protestor march ito Tahrir square. They summoned all their followers from all over Egypt. Their aim was to prove that they are the ones in control and leaders of the revolution. The cries were Islamic Islamic and we are all Osama Bin Laden, calling for the implementation of the Sharia law and establishing an Islamic state in Egypt. Many educated and cultured Egyptians protested and were very angry about it, but nothing was seriously done. It seems were are facing a difficult and dark political future.
Tomorrow Friday 9th, September 2011. the other parties and the Youth of the revolution plan a million protestor revolt to correct the path of the revolution. They have several requests among which are stopping the military trials of civilians and the alteration of the Parliamentary laws that were issued for the upcoming elections at the end of September 2011. These laws divide Egypt into sectors and allow half the number of members to be elected as a combined party lists and the other half as individual members. This will only be in favour of the Muslim Brotherhood and will not give the chance for new parties to have a role in the new Parliamentary elections. After months of struggle liberals were unable to postpone the elections nor were they able to set a Bill of Rights to ensure the secularity of the coming government and ensure equal rights among all citizens of Egypt (whether Christians, women, non believers, socialists, left wing, other religions and so on). It seems Egyptians are blinded by religious calls and do not see what is behind these calls a monster that awaits to devour all green and dry.
Note that, per Huda, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was a key organizer of the Friday, July 8th march in Tahrir Square, at which one of the chants was, "We are all Osama Bin Laden." Yet the Obama administration supports the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. From the LA Times:
Reporting from Washington — The Obama administration said for the first time that it supports a role for groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, a banned Islamist organization, in a reformed Egyptian government.
The LA Times article continues to say that "The organization must reject violence and recognize democratic goals if the U.S. is to be comfortable with it taking part in the government, the White House said." In that case, the Obama administration's support for the Muslim Brotherhood can only be said to have been wildly premature, since the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt supports Osama bin Laden.
From The Atlantic: "Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood Sticks With Bin Laden"
From The Weekly Standard:
The Muslim Brotherhood’s most influential theologian, Sheikh Yousef al Qaradawi, has repeatedly justified suicide bombings, called on Muslims to support the insurgency against American forces in Iraq, and justified the killing of civilians.....“Those who oppose martyrdom operations and claim that they are suicide are making a great mistake,” Qaradawi added.
From the National Review Online: "When They Think the West Isn’t Listening, the Muslim Brotherhood Praises bin Laden"
From The Guardian: "Egypt's influential Muslim Brotherhood condemned the 'assassination' of Osama bin Laden..."
Not only that, Obama has three members of the Muslim Brotherhood working in the White House.
Obama's actions are aligned, whether through ignorance, incompetence, or intention, with the enemies of the United States. Obama defrauded the American people when he hid his socialist and Islamist leanings during the 2008 election campaign. The American people would never have elected him had he revealed his true intentions during that campaign. For this reason and many others, Obama must go.
Harry Truman famously had a sign on his desk that read, "The Buck Stops Here!":
Obama should have a sign on his desk that says, "The Buck Bounces Here." Or "No Bucks Allowed." He should have a machine labelled "Buck-Repelling Forcefield." His new logo should be of him running away from the buck.
All the guy does is blame other people. He's famous for it.
...and those are just from the last 4 days!
Obama couldn't fix the economy he inherited from Bush. So how can anybody to expect him to fix the economy now that it's so much worse?
When Obama blames other people he's admitting that they have more power to control things than he does. The crybaby on the playground can't get away with that, and Obama shouldn't either.
I'll leave you with this video that's had over 4 million views on YouTube. Blame it on the e-e-e-e-Economy!
But Obama has been pulling this string, of creating division within the US, too long. Enough Americans of both political parties are puzzled and/or outraged by Obama's behavior in this matter, that it will do significant damage to Obama's chances to be re-elected.
With unemployment at near-historic highs; with the dollar at near-historic lows; with the US national debt at dangerously high levels, after Obama added $4 trillion to it in just a few short years; and with the unconstitutional travesty of Obamacare threatening to do further harm - it is essential that Obama be defeated in the 2012 Presidential elections.
Reposting, in its entirety, from Dan Perrin at Redstate:
“Mr. President, I send an unprinted Amendment to the desk, and ask for its immediate consideration,” are the exact words that any U.S. Senator can say when offering this amendment on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
This amendment, below, should be walked down to the floor of the U.S. Senate and voted on prior to any vote on the floor of the U.S. House, in order to prepare the legal battlefield for the court challenge against the Alice-in-Wonderland-like-Red-Queen, Speaker Pelosi, and her dictatorial and unconstitutional scheme to pass the Senate Health Care bill without voting on it. While we are uncertain that we will be fighting on this ground, it is essential to prepare the battlefield, if we do.
This amendment, I am reliably advised, was written by a former judge on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals who was on President Bush’s short list for the Supreme Court (Roberts beat him out) and is recently retired and is teaching Constitutional law at one of the most prestigious national law schools at University on the west coast.
So, in other words, don’t mess with the language of this amendment. Just launch it, now on whatever bill is now pending on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
START OF TEXT OF THE AMENDMENT:
Unprinted Amendment No.___ .
Intended to Proposed by Mr. _________.
Viz:
Add at the end of the bill the following new Section:
“Sec.___ . a) Inasmuch as Sections Five and Seven of Article I of the United States Constitution mandate a certain process for the enactment of a federal law and do not allow a measure to become a law by “deeming” it passed by either House of Congress, it is the Sense of the Senate and its judgment that the House of Representatives is required by the Supreme Law of the United States, to vote directly and up or down on H.R. 3590 in order to send that measure lawfully to the President, if, and only if, it shall have been approved by a majority vote of each such House taken on an identical measure; and, more particularly, it is the Sense of the Senate that, in conformity with Article I of the Constitution, the House of Representatives, unless the measure is returned to the Senate with an Amendment by the House, must vote directly on the language sent to it by the Senate precisely as it was duly enrolled at the direction of the Senate by its Enrolling Clerk, certified as an Act of the Senate by the Secretary of the Senate, and thereupon transmitted by the Senate’s Messenger to the House Chamber while the House of Representatives was in actual Session.
b) It is the further Sense of the Senate that the exact words that the Senate caused to be enrolled on parchment and taken by messenger to the House of Representatives, constitute the sole document and the only document upon which Members of the House can lawfully cast their vote, whether Yeah or Nay, under the process expressly mandated by the United States Constitution; and it is also the Sense of the Senate and its judgment that to do otherwise by “deeming” rather than voting would void any purported enactment, deprive it of the force of law, justify disobedience to it, and cause irreparable violence and harm to our system of government and its fundamental law through fraud, deception, abuse of power, and usurpation of the civil rights of the People.
c) This Section maybe cited as the “Congressional Voting Rights Resolution.”.
END OF AMENDMENT TEXT.
I further ask all patriots and Americans who care deeply about the U.S. Consititution to re-post the text of this Amendment every where possible on the internet. Specifically, wallpaper the web with the text of the this Amendment, today.
The unions had been opposing Obama's health-care bill due to the high tax it is to impose on so-called "Cadillac" insurance plans. Yesterday came news that Obama had gotten the union leaders on board. This post will show that Obama achieved this in a particularly vicious manner.
From Fox:
The breakthrough announced Thursday was a biproduct of the previous days talks: a deal on so-called "Cadillac" insurance plans. The White House and top union leaders heralded the agreement, which shields all union workers for five years from significant taxes on health benefit packages that non-union workers will face starting in 2013.
Obama lured in union leaders, not by offering them a way to improve the plan itself, but by telling them that the government will discriminate against non-unionized workers. For five years non-union workers will pay a tax that union workers will not.
This government-backed discrimination is vicious. It appealed to the worst instincts in the union leaders, who will use it as a hammer against non-unionized businesses.
Why are Reid, Pelosi, and Obama trying to push through the health care bill when the majority of the public opposes it?
Background: From Rasmussen polls, December 7th, 2009:
The Senate worked through the weekend on its version of the national health care bill, with President Obama stopping by for a rare Sunday visit, but for the second week in a row, only 41% of U.S. voters favor the health care plan proposed by the president and congressional Democrats.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 51% oppose the plan. And as has been the case for months, the emotion’s on the sign of the naysayers: 40% Strongly Oppose the plan, while just 23% Strongly favor it.
As Megan McAardle puts it:
It's pretty clear at this point that any health care reform which passes is going to have more voters against it than for it.
There's exactly one explanation. Led by Obama, Reid and Pelosi don't care about the will of the people. They want to destroy democracy and put their boots on our necks. They're tired of being servants of the people. They don't like always being worried about losing their jobs in the next election, and they don't like having to answer to huge number of pesky "voters." What they want to do is give the government the power to control our health so that nobody will dare to oppose them again.
They must be stopped. Their agenda must be destroyed. And the American people owe a huge debt of gratitude and support to every Republican Congressman and Senator who is holding the line against them, because these Republicans are the only thing standing between us and the destruction of democracy by Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and every Democrat who supports this health care bill.
Want to force out the people who know how to do the job? That's what destroyed the financial strength of Harvard University. From Vanity Fair:
The fall of Harvard Management Company
• The longtime head of Harvard Management Company, Jack Meyer, quit to start his own hedge fund in 2005 after growing fed up with criticism over the eight-figure salaries some of his managers were pulling down and with persistent meddling from top Harvard officials. Two particular annoyances were Summers, who had been questioning Meyer’s investment strategies, and Robert Rubin, a member of the Harvard Corporation, who frowned on Meyer’s aggressive strategies and wound up on the “warpath” with Meyer, as one person put it.• When Meyer left, he took much of Harvard Management Company with him — including 30 portfolio managers and traders, as well as the chief risk officer, chief operating officer, and chief technology officer. The place became “like a Ferrari without the engine,” according to a portfolio manager who arrived after Meyer left. This angered Rubin, according to someone who knows him well: “In Rubin’s opinion, Meyer crippled the institution.”
Now Obama wants to inflict precisely this kind of destruction on the very companies he pretended he wanted to save with the bailouts.
The Obama administration is set to dictate incomes to Americans at companies who foolishly believed that accepting government bailouts didn't give the government the right to dictate to them what they could and could not do with their lives. From the NY Times:
Responding to the growing furor over the paychecks of executives at companies that received billions of dollars in the government’s financial rescue, the Obama administration will order the companies that received the most aid to deeply slash the compensation to their highest paid executives, an official involved in the decision said on Wednesday.
Under the plan, which will be announced in the next few days by the Treasury Department, the seven companies that received the most assistance will have to cut the annual salaries of their 25 best-paid executives by an average of about 90 percent from last year. Their total compensation — including bonuses and retirement contributions — will drop, on average, by about 50 percent. The companies are Citigroup [C 4.42 -0.01 (-0.23%) ], Bank of America [BAC 16.51 -0.50 (-2.94%) ], American International Group [AIG 38.96 -1.47 (-3.64%) ], General Motors, Chrysler and the financing arms of the two automakers.
In March I posted:
Obama Wants to Turn the U.S. Into a Government-Managed “Planned Economy”
Obama is proving that some of the change he wants is to replace our market-driven economy, with one in which business decisions are made by the government and forced by law on we, the people. He wants greatly increased government control over health care, education, and energy......
Obama wants the government to control executive pay at all these financial firms. This kind of central planning of business decisions, controlled by the state, is called a "Planned Economy." From Wikipedia:
A planned economy or directed economy is an economic system in which the government or workers' councils manages the economy. It is an economic system in which the central government makes all decisions on the production and consumption of goods and services. Its most extensive form is referred to as a command economy, centrally planned economy, or command and control economy. In such economies, central economic planning by the state or government is so extensive that it controls all major sectors of the economy and formulates all decisions about their use and about the distribution of income. The planners decide what should be produced and direct enterprises to produce those goods. Planned economies are in contrast to unplanned economies, such as a market economy, where production, distribution, pricing, and investment decisions are made by the private owners of the factors of production based upon their own and their customers' interests rather than upon furthering some overarching macroeconomic plan.
Want to know what countries have, or have had, "planned economies"?
Important planned economies that existed in the past include the economy of the Soviet Union, which was for a time the world's second-largest economy[citation needed], China during its Great Leap Forward, and India, prior to its economic reforms in 1991, Afghanistan under the Soviet occupation and under the Taliban, and Iraq under Saddam Hussein from 1979 to 2003. ...Although most economies today are market economies or mixed economies (which are partially planned), planned economies exist in some countries such as Cuba, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, and Burma.
Yeah, baby! Let's turn the United States' economy into one like those of the Soviet Union, China, Afghanistan, Cuba, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and North Korea!
Frankly, that's change that nobody can believe in.
But that's what Obama is going for.
And just to rub in that what he wants is absolute rulership rather than to serve the people, Obama is threatening to cut people's salaries by 50% to 90%
That means people losing their homes.
That's the kind of rulership Obama wants to have over all the people.
Fight it or lose your freedom.
So many doctors oppose Obamacare. Sample headlines:
70 percent of specialty doctors oppose health-care reform proposals
45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul
A.M.A. Opposes Government-Sponsored Health Plan - NYTimes.com
So of course, since under Obama the Dems try to destroy public debate, and care nothing about the will of the people, and care nothing about the opinions of the people who actually are experts in the subject, today we see the Dems trying to bribe doctors into supporting health care. From AP:
Senate Dems seek higher doctor payments
WASHINGTON — Maneuvering to boost prospects for sweeping health care legislation, Senate Democrats hope first to win quick approval for a bill that grants doctors a $247 billion increase in Medicare fees over a decade but raises federal deficits in the process, officials said Wednesday.
If that isn't bad enough, it's part of a huge deception the Dems are hoping to perpetrate. The Dems are planning to claim that the main health care bill won't add to deficits (don't be fooled: a huge new study reveals it places tremendous costs on all Americans) -- all the while, packing the deficit-increasing items into a separate bill:
By creating a two-bill approach, Democrats intend to claim the more comprehensive health care measure meets President Barack Obama's conditions — that it will neither add to deficits nor exceed $900 billion in costs over 10 years.
The corruption, the intention to rule the people by force instead of representing them as public servants, is ghastly. Obama cannot be trusted to lead. All the Dems need to be voted out of office, because they are presenting a danger to the freedoms this country is built on.
The health insurance industry criticized Obamacare, and immediately, in return, Democrats in Congress are actually threatening insurers with a legal change that would be harmful to them. This is a massive assault on free speech by the Democrats. They are actually attempting to use the power of the state to halt criticism of Obamacare.
Here are the specifics. From AP, two days ago:
Insurance companies aren't playing nice any more. Their dire message that health care legislation will drive up premiums for people who already have coverage comes as a warning shot at a crucial point in the debate, and threatens President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.
Democrats and their allies scrambled on Monday to knock down a new industry-funded study forecasting that Senate legislation, over time, will add thousands of dollars to the cost of a typical policy. "Distorted and flawed," said White House spokeswoman Linda Douglass. "Fundamentally dishonest," said AARP's senior policy strategist, John Rother. "A hatchet job," said a spokesman for Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont.
But the health insurance industry's top lobbyist in Washington stood her ground. In a call with reporters, Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans, pointedly refused to rule out attack ads on TV featuring the study, though she said she believed the industry's concerns could be amicably addressed.
At the heart of the industry's complaint is a decision by lawmakers to weaken the requirement that millions more Americans get coverage. Since the legislation would ban insurance companies from denying coverage on account of poor health, many people will wait to sign up until they get sick, the industry says. And that will drive up costs for everybody else.
Insurers are now raising possibilities such as higher premiums for people who postpone getting coverage, or waiting periods for those who ignore a proposed government requirement to get insurance and later have a change of heart.
...The study projects that the legislation would add $1,700 a year to the cost of family coverage in 2013, when most of the major provisions of the Baucus bill would be in effect.
Premiums for a single person would go up by $600 more than would be the case without the legislation, it estimated.
In 10 years' time, premiums would be $4,000 higher for a family plan, and $1,500 more for individual coverage.
Today, the Democrats responded by abusing the power of the state to threaten the insurers with an attack. From Politico:
Democrats launch attack on insurer exemption
The long-simmering tension between insurers and congressional Democrats is erupting into open warfare, with lawmakers stepping up their push to revoke a key federal protection for the insurance industry.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Wednesday will call for an amendment to the health care reform bill that would remove the long-standing antitrust exemption for insurers, echoing a push by other Democrats to crack down on the industry.
The Government is supposed to defend free speech; to be public servants, not our masters, overlords, or rulers. Under Barrack Obama, the Democrats are presenting a literal threat to freedom of speech in this country. They all need to be voted out of office, because they are presenting a danger to the freedoms this country is built on.
Update 10-26-09
From Dick Morris:
The medical device industry had its day at the White House as did the insurance industry, the drug makers, the nurses, and the doctors. In turn, each group heard the White House request that they come up with voluntary cuts in their health care costs and support Obama's proposed changes in return for assurances that Congress would not impose deeper cuts (or, in the case of the doctors, that it would actually rescind cuts already scheduled under current statutes).
But, unlike all these other groups, the medical device industry refused the deal. This posture enraged the tyrants in the White House who vowed to punish the industry with cuts imposed by Congress. The result was a decision by the revenue-hungry Senate Finance Committee to extract billions in funds from the industry.
The legislation does not work like a sales or excise tax. Rather it follows the model of the punitive tobacco settlement imposed on cigarette companies in the 90s. It assesses an industry-wide payment which firms must make in proportion to their market share. It bars the them from passing along the cost of the assessment by charging more for certain basic products, but allows them to raise the price of others to raise the funds for the fee.
So, the result will be that virtually every piece of advanced surgical equipment will be subject to a price increase to meet the levy from Washington. No matter that these devices often make the difference between life and death and that, in effect, taxing them raises the cost of vital treatments. The vengeful White House will have its pound of flesh from the medical device industry for daring to be independent and to refuse to knuckle down to Administration pressure!
This tax, imposed in a spirit of haughty arrogance, falls on totally inappropriate objects. Valves, prosthetic limbs, pacemakers, hearing aids, and such are essential therapies that make life longer, better, and less painful. To tax them makes no sense. Except in the world of sharp elbows and interest group politics that grips this take-no-prisoners and show-no-mercy White House.
Obama uses the power of the state to oppose people's right to free speech, and our right to be free.
Before we get to Obama's offer of help to the Taliban, let's review who the Taliban are.
From Infoplease.com:
The Taliban's popularity with the Afghan people surprised the country's other warring factions. Many Afghans, weary of conflict and anarchy, were relieved to see corrupt and often brutal warlords replaced by the devout Taliban, who had some success in eliminating corruption, restoring peace, and allowing commerce to resume.
The Taliban, under the direction of Mullah Muhammad Omar, brought about this order through the institution of a very strict interpretation of Sharia, or Islamic law. Public executions and punishments (such as floggings) became regular events at Afghan soccer stadiums. Frivolous activities, like kite-flying, were outlawed. In order to root out "non-Islamic" influence, television, music, and the Internet were banned. Men were required to wear beards, and subjected to beatings if they didn't.
Most shocking to the West was the Taliban's treatment of women. When the Taliban took Kabul, they immediately forbade girls to go to school. Moreover, women were barred from working outside the home, precipitating a crisis in healthcare and education. Women were also prohibited from leaving their home without a male relative—those that did so risked being beaten, even shot, by officers of the "ministry for the protection of virtue and prevention of vice." A woman caught wearing fingernail polish may have had her fingertips chopped off. All this, according to the Taliban, was to safeguard women and their honor.
.....The Taliban allowed terrorist organizations to run training camps in their territory and, from 1994 to at least 2001, provided refuge for Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organization. The relationship between the Taliban and bin Laden is close, even familial—bin Laden fought with the mujahideen, has financed the Taliban, and has reportedly married one of his daughters to Mullah Muhammad Omar.
The Taliban destroyed treasures of the world - the ancient statues of Buddha. From USA Today, 2001:
One of the Buddhas that have been destroyed. The two black figures in the center near the bottom are men who are sitting down.
In Afghanistan recently, supreme Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar issued an edict against un-Islamic graven images, which means all idolatrous images of humans and animals. As a result, the Taliban are destroying all ancient sculptures. Explosives, tanks, and anti-aircraft weapons blew apart two colossal images of the Buddha in Bamiyan Province, 230 kilometers (150 miles) from the capital of Kabul.
The reason we went into Afghanistan in the first place was because the Taliban, who were running Afghanistan, had aided Bin Laden, who had just killed 3,000 Americans on 9-11. From Wikipedia:
The War in Afghanistan, which began on October 7, 2001 as the U.S. military's Operation Enduring Freedom and the British military's Operation Herrick, was launched in response to the September 11 attacks.
The stated aim of the invasion was to find Osama bin Laden and other high-ranking Al-Qaeda members and put them on trial, to destroy the whole organization of Al-Qaeda, and to remove the Taliban regime which supported and gave safe harbor to Al-Qaeda.
To sum up: The Taliban supported Al-Qaeda, and have a tight bond to Bin Laden - the enemies of America who killed 3,000 Americans on 9-11.
So now what's Obama proposing? Merely to take their side against the U.S. army and put them back into involvement with the political future of Afghanistan - when the entire mission of the U.S. army in going into Afghanistan, was to get rid of the Taliban.
Does that sound impossible? From FoxNews and AP:
WASHINGTON -- President Obama is inclined to send only as many more U.S. troops to Afghanistan as are needed to keep Al Qaeda at bay, a senior administration official said.
The official, in an interview with The Associated Press, also added that the president is prepared to accept some Taliban involvement in Afghanistan's political future, reiterating what Obama said in March.
The assessment comes from an official who has been involved in the president's discussions with his war council about Afghanistan strategy.
Let's list the outrages:
How many different ways can Obama attack the interests of the American people before he utterly exposes himself as one who can no longer be trusted to lead?
Congratulations - per the LA Times, you are now helping to finance a new car company, Fisker Automotive Inc.:
Plug-in hybrid maker Fisker Automotive gets $529 million from Obama administration
The loan will go toward development and production of its Karma plug-in hybrid sedan and development of Project Nina, its next-generation plug-in.In its latest bid to help finance the car of tomorrow, the Obama administration said it would lend more than $500 million to Irvine-based Fisker Automotive Inc. to develop a pair of plug-in hybrids.
This isn't GM or Chrysler, where the government could argue that it would be wrong to let such large institutions fail. This is a relatively unknown car company, that the Obama admin thought you should invest in, while simultaneously denying you your fair share of profits, of the kind you would get if you had bought stock.
You should also be aware that it's not just a mere half-a-billion dollars that the Obama administration is forcing taxpayers to invest in this way. Not at all. In fact, this is just the tip of a $25 billion iceberg:
The loans, announced Tuesday, come from a $25-billion Department of Energy program to fund development of alternative vehicles. According to the administration, the funding will help create or save 5,000 jobs at Fisker and its suppliers.
It's not just Fisker you're now an investor in. There are many other companies your tax dollars have already been invested in as well:
The $528.7-million low-interest loan "is another critical step in making sure we are positioned to compete for the clean-energy jobs of the future," Energy Secretary Steven Chu said. Over the summer, the department lent $8 billion to a variety of other automakers and suppliers under the same program.
What clause of the Constitution provides the government with the authority to force Americans to invest in companies of the government's choosing, and to deny them the share of profits they would be entitled to had they invested as stockholders?
Unbelievable - not to be missed - this undercover video expose of Acorn, on Andrew Breitbart's new site, BigGovernment.com, will fry your brain.
Here's a quick list of Obama's insults of those who disagree with him, from last night's healthcare speech.
Obama called opponents 'cynical, irresponsible liars':
"Instead of honest debate, we have seen scare tactics."
"Some of people’s concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren’t so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple."
"In fact, I want to speak directly to America’s seniors for a moment, because Medicare is another issue that’s been subjected to demagoguery and distortion during the course of this debate."
Obama called opponents 'bickering game-players who make wild claims':
"Well the time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed."
"And to my Republican friends, I say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have. But know this: I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it’s better politics to kill this plan than improve it. I will not stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are. If you misrepresent what’s in the plan, we will call you out. And I will not accept the status quo as a solution. Not this time. Not now. "
Obama is following Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. Alinsky's Rule #12:
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
Obama is insulting those who disagree with him, and insults are by definition, the opposite of civil debate. He is doing this to attack civil debate because civil debate leads to people discovering the truth - the truth which will set you free - the truth which, if widely recognized, spells an end to his efforts to turn America into a totalitarian state.
Under Obama, the Democrats are the party that attacks civil debate.
This leaves a massive opportunity for the Republicans to accurately brand themselves as the party that welcomes civil debate, that loves civil debate, that invites civil debate from all sides, all parties, all races, creeds, and colors, because it leads to the truth, and brings us together, after the motto of the U.S. - "E Pluribus Unum": "Out of Many, One."
From the front page of yesterday's LA Times:
The caption reads, "President Obama waves to union members after a speech at the AFL-CIO's Labor Day picnic in Cincinnati. Obama said it was time for the healthcare debate to end and accused opponents of spreading lies and fear."
Under Obama, the Democrats are the party that attacks civil debate. Per yesterday's LA Times, Obama said "it was time for the healthcare debate to end" - explicitly demanding an end to the public debate on healthcare reform. And to further attack civil public debate, Obama insulted those who disagree with him, saying they are "spreading lies and fear."
Obama is following Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. Alinsky's Rule #12:
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
Obama is insulting those who disagree with him, and insults are by definition, the opposite of civil debate. He is doing this to attack civil debate because civil debate leads to people discovering the truth - the truth which will set you free - the truth which, if widely recognized, spells an end to his efforts to turn America into a totalitarian state.
This leaves a massive opportunity for the Republicans to accurately brand themselves as the party that welcomes civil debate, that loves civil debate, that invites civil debate from all sides, all parties, all races, creeds, and colors, because it leads to the truth, and brings us together, after the motto of the U.S. - "E Pluribus Unum": "Out of Many, One."
