Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Are you ready for a new Vietnam?
Now, on top of all of that, a 5 percent war surtax.
They have to tax you — squeeze you of every penny — for two reasons:
First, because they have spent us into oblivion. It's great you are suddenly concerned with making sure we find a way to pay for the war, David Obey. But where were your concerns over the last six years as the debt as more than doubled? No amount of surtaxes would help. You could take 100 percent of profits from all Fortune 500 companies each year and 145 years later you'd finally be done paying our debt. And that doesn't include interest!
So please, spare me the phony "oh, how are we going to pay for this?" concern on the war. You clearly do not care about paying for things. I've seen the debt clock.
Second, this is just another excuse for you to help bring about that redistributive change. The final chapters — if we don't wake up, America — are being written of the economy and of our country. We cannot sustain this.
And when our framework is destroyed from the reckless spending, what will the old be replaced with? A Venezuelan-style utopia wonderland. Oh, it will be great. And we're getting closer to it. Progressivism has finally reached our troops as they are now being used as a tool for the redistribution of wealth, in the form of a war tax on the rich.
Does the bagger at the grocery store not enjoy the same security and freedom I do? Are farmers exempt from their "patriotic duty," as Joe Biden called paying taxes? Did only the rich die on Sept. 11?
If there is one thing in the universe that should qualify as a "shared sacrifice," it's war.
As someone who believes in a strong military, you are not sharing sacrifice already if you are an uber-liberal. ROTC not allowed in schools, kicking them out of San Francisco. Shared sacrifice? Shave your armpits and sign up for a tour of duty! Some of us have family in the military — you've never even heard of shared sacrifice. Your shared sacrifice is not getting part of the $300 million in bribe money in the health care bill.
But Washington only seems concerned with sharing the wealth, not shared sacrifice. The right thing to do is sell war bonds and get everyone involved. But that doesn't fit with their agenda.
And they don't want to sacrifice any part of their domestic agenda. God forbid we take budget money away from "any other initiative" or "investments we need to make in our own economy" to pay for additional troop support in Afghanistan.
Where are our priorities? How can the president sit around and twiddle his intellectual thumbs while he plays professor and takes a semester to make a decision on our troops in the field?
Oh he can't rush this decision!
Really? I don't accept that excuse.
Not from the guy who rushed through the stimulus because of an imminent financial crisis. Not from the guy who tried to jam cap-and-trade down our throats because global warming is coming. Not from the guy who is ramming health care through, because there is a crisis of coverage.
Well, guess what: I don't see Americans dying in the streets as they are waiting in line at our hospitals. But do you know where I do see them dying? In Afghanistan.
I saw the four American soldiers who died in a bombing in Kabul this week. I saw the 59 soldiers who died last month — the deadliest month for U.S. troops in the entire eight-year war. I saw the 51 who died in August and 45 this past July.
But what I don't see are the media flashing the pictures of our fallen heroes every day. Why not? Where is the outrage? Four Americans died in Kabul this week. It's Tuesday. Nobody died because they didn't have health care. Nobody.
You fought so hard to make sure the press was allowed to take pictures of the caskets coming back home — well, where the hell are you, media? You only cover the caskets when it shows President Obama saluting in what was definitely not a photo op.
How can the media sit by and pretend they don't notice that the generals in the field are saying one thing and the president is either saying nothing or something different? How can the press sit idly by as this administration basically admits they care more about the redistribution of wealth than helping our soldiers?
Either we fight this thing to win or we get our men and women the hell out of there. I will continue the fight to give them every bit of help they deserve. If there is one thing we can all agree on, it's our troops deserve the very best. And they deserve, just as I said to President Bush, to be unleashed with the full force of the American military behind them or to be sent home. It's one or the other. There is no grey area.
But apparently that's a little too much for our brilliant Harvard president to grasp. He's got to think that one through. And the decision is reportedly "middle ground." You know what happens when you don't choose one side of the road or the other and you stand in the middle, right? You get run over. I've seen presidents try to micromanage wars before. It does not end well. Remember the job President Linden Johnson did in creating his conflict.
Mr. President, send them in guns a-blazing or send them home. It's that simple. You'll never please everyone, so stop trying. Do what is right. Don't just try to make it palatable for your good ol’ buddies in Washington who are in the business of supporting and maintaining your ego.
Friday, November 20, 2009
If President Bush was that big of an idiot.....
If George Bush was that big of an idiot. . . ..
If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how he inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?
If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?
If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia , would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?
If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo, and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?
If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as proof of what a dunce he is?
If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?
If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?
If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?
If George W. Bush had created the position of over 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America , would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt in one year, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had then proposed to more than quadruple the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how he inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?
If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?
If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia , would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?
If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo, and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?
If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as proof of what a dunce he is?
If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?
If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?
If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?
If George W. Bush had created the position of over 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America , would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt in one year, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had then proposed to more than quadruple the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had taken an ineffective trip to Asia to further placate to foreign interests and bow to heads of state without a single consideration let alone promise to align to U.S. concerns on human rights, environmentalism, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had then allowed his appointees to put forward the 1st Governmental suggestion coming AGAINST a test that HAS WORKED to lower the risk of dying from breast cancer, would you have approved?
So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 7 months -- so you'll have more than three years to come up with an answer. This is not for the purpose of partisan debate or argue that George W. Bush did a perfect job. Just seriously consider who our country is choosing as its new leader and protector.
So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 7 months -- so you'll have more than three years to come up with an answer. This is not for the purpose of partisan debate or argue that George W. Bush did a perfect job. Just seriously consider who our country is choosing as its new leader and protector.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Friday, November 13, 2009
Obama's Science Czar Considered Forced Abortions, Sterilization as Population Growth Solutions
by Joseph Abrams
John Holdren, director of the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy, considered compulsory abortions and other Draconian measures to shrink the human population in a 1977 science textbook.
President Obama's "science czar," John Holdren, once floated the idea of forced abortions, "compulsory sterilization," and the creation of a "Planetary Regime" that would oversee human population levels and control all natural resources as a means of protecting the planet -- controversial ideas his critics say should have been brought up in his Senate confirmation hearings.
Holdren, who has degrees from MIT and Stanford and headed a science policy program at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government for the past 13 years, won the unanimous approval of the Senate as the president's chief science adviser.
He was confirmed with little fanfare on March 19 as director of the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy, a 50-person directorate that advises the president on scientific affairs, focusing on energy independence and global warming.
But many of Holdren's radical ideas on population control were not brought up at his confirmation hearings; it appears that the senators who scrutinized him had no knowledge of the contents of a textbook he co-authored in 1977, "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment,"
The 1,000-page course book, which was co-written with environmental activists Paul and Anne Ehrlich, discusses and in one passage seems to advocate totalitarian measures to curb population growth, which it says could cause an environmental catastrophe.
The three authors summarize their guiding principle in a single sentence: "To provide a high quality of life for all, there must be fewer people."
As first reported by FrontPage Magazine, Holdren and his co-authors spend a portion of the book discussing possible government programs that could be used to lower birth rates.
Those plans include forcing single women to abort their babies or put them up for adoption; implanting sterilizing capsules in people when they reach puberty; and spiking water reserves and staple foods with a chemical that would make people sterile.
To help achieve those goals, they formulate a "world government scheme" they call the Planetary Regime, which would administer the world's resources and human growth, and they discuss the development of an "armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force" to which nations would surrender part of their sovereignty.
Holdren's office issued a statement to FOXNews.com denying that the ecologist has ever backed any of the measures discussed in his book, and suggested reading more recent works authored solely by Holdren for a view to his beliefs.
"Dr. Holdren has stated flatly that he does not now support and has never supported compulsory abortions, compulsory sterilization, or other coercive approaches to limiting population growth," the statement said.
"Straining to conclude otherwise from passages treating controversies of the day in a three-author, 30-year-old textbook is a mistake."
But the textbook itself appears to contradict that claim.
Holdren and the Ehrlichs offer ideas for "coercive," "involuntary fertility control," including "a program of sterilizing women after their second or third child," which doctors would be expected to do right after a woman gives birth.
"Unfortunately," they write, "such a program therefore is not practical for most less developed countries," where doctors are not often present when a woman is in labor.
While Holdren and his co-authors don't openly endorse such measures on other topics, in this case they announce their disappointment -- "unfortunately" -- that women in the third world cannot be sterilized against their will, a procedure the International Criminal Court considers a crime against humanity.
Click here to see the passage on sterilizing women | Click here for the full section on "Involuntary Fertility Control"
"It's very problematic that he said these things," said Ben Lieberman, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation. Lieberman faulted Holdren for using government as a solution to every problem and advocating heavy-handed and invasive laws.
But other members of the scientific community said accusations against Holdren are wholly misplaced.
"John Holdren has been one of the most well-respected and prominent scientific voices urging the federal government to address global warming," wrote Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, in a statement.
Holdren's co-authors, Paul and Anne Ehrlich, said in a statement that they were "shocked at the serious mischaracterization of our views and those of John Holdren," caused by what they called misreadings of the book.
"We were not then, never have been, and are not now 'advocates' of the Draconian measures for population limitation described -- but not recommended" in the book, they wrote.
Still, William Yeatman, an energy policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, faulted the Senate for not screening Holdren more strenuously during his hearings before confirming his nomination by unanimous consent both in committee and in the full Senate.
Despite "the litany of apocalyptic warnings that turned out to be incorrect, no one was willing to stick his neck out" and vote no, Yeatman said.
Some of Holdren's views on population came under fire during the otherwise quiet confirmation hearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, where Sen. David Vitter, R-La., asked him to revisit his past statements about environmental catastrophes that have never come to pass.
"I was and continue to be very critical of Dr. Holdren's positions -- specifically his countless doomsday science publications and predictions that have been near universally wrong," Vitter told FOXNews.com.
"I wish that the Commerce Committee had taken more time to evaluate his record during his nomination hearing, but like with everything else in this new Washington environment, the Democratic majority and the White House were pushing to speed his nomination along," Vitter said.
Vitter grilled Holdren during the hearing, asking him to clear up his 1986 prediction that global warming was going to kill about 1 billion people by 2020.
"You would still say," Vitter asked, "that 1 billion people lost by 2020 is still a possibility?"
"It is a possibility, and one we should work energetically to avoid," Holdren replied.
Sen. John Kerry, a leading Democrat on the committee, said the renewed scrutiny was essentially a Republican smear on Holdren's good record. Kerry said that senators already had "ample opportunity" to question Holdren, who "made clear that he does not and never has supported coercive approaches, end of story.
"The Commerce Committee and the Senate then unanimously concluded what I have long known -- that John Holdren is a leading voice in the scientific community and we are fortunate to have him lead the fight to restore the foundation of science to government and policymaking that has been lacking for almost a decade."
Holdren has confronted a number of challenges during his four-decade scientific career, including nuclear arms reduction, and was part of a group that shared the 1995 Nobel Peace Prize "for their efforts to diminish the part played by nuclear arms in international politics," as the Nobel Committee said.
Now his greatest focus is global warming, which he said in a recent interview poses a threat akin to being "in a car with bad brakes driving toward a cliff in the fog."
Holdren told the Associated Press in April that the U.S. will consider all options to veer away from that cliff, including an experimental scheme to shoot pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays and cool the earth, a last resort he hoped could be averted.
"Dr. Holdren is working day and night for the Obama Administration and the American people, helping to develop science and technology policies to make the country stronger, more secure, and more energy independent, and to make Americans healthier and better educated,"
Four months after Holdren's confirmation, his critics are keeping a wary eye on his work in the White House, where they assert that he has the president's ear on scientific issues.
"It is interesting that this 30-year-old book is finally coming to light," said Lieberman, of the Heritage Foundation.
"To the people who are concerned about Holdren, quite frankly we didn't do enough homework."
Friday, November 6, 2009
Reality check people!!!!!! This is not a partisan argument. this is the plain and simple facts which if unchecked, could take a lifetime to fix. Everyone agrees our current system needs an overhaul, but we should not mortally wound ourselves to try and remedy an illness. Please consider the facts before agreeing to added taxation on everyone of us (the young and the poor too!!!!!!)
How the Pelosi Plan Kills Jobs
Today the Bureau of Labor and Statistics reported that despite all of the Obama administration’s job creation claims, unemployment has risen to 10.2%. Instead of focusing on job creation, the left in Congress continues to pursue other priorities like their $1.5 trillion health care plan which is partially finance by job killing employer mandates.
A recent study by the Kaufman Foundation found that small businesses have led America out of its last seven recessions, generating about two of every three new jobs during a recovery. But as Heritage’s John Ligon explains, Pelosi care discourages small business hiring at a time when government should be getting out of the way:
Health care reform cannot ignore how such legislation’s employer coverage mandates would negatively impact small businesses. The Pelosi plan eliminates the exemption for businesses with 25-49 workers created in the Baucus plan, and it would also impose new marginal penalties on small firms with 25 or fewer workers. This creates a punitive cost for firms, which significantly raises the costs for businesses on the margin.
Establishing disincentives for small firms to grow would lead to a slower, less robust economy–and labor market. Altering these incentive structures is harmful to small businesses and the way they allocate labor. Federal health care reform legislation, therefore, should avoid creating steep new marginal costs relating to business growth–particularly in terms of wages and worker compensation.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln
I wonder if I could send Lincoln a message, how he would respond when I share how desperately frustrated I am with how my privacy, right to choose health, right to conduct business, and right to retain the fruit of my labor are all being compromised for the sake of the "Greater Good". All goodness in our society has been born from freedom. We the people are being led like sheep by the very wolves who seek to manipulate, control, and destroy us, with promises of greener pastures which they will shepherd with "love of all men" as their crafty mantra.
Freedom is what makes men equal, both in spirit and truth. When one class of citizen decides they have the right to decide and enforce its agenda upon another, we the people suffer while our freedoms slip away quietly into the night. I urge you to scrutinize anyone who would ask you to sell your freedoms for there promise of a better tomorrow and ask yourselves if you can truly trust that their motives are pure. This challenge is for all people regardless of ideologies and positions.
Freedom is what makes men equal, both in spirit and truth. When one class of citizen decides they have the right to decide and enforce its agenda upon another, we the people suffer while our freedoms slip away quietly into the night. I urge you to scrutinize anyone who would ask you to sell your freedoms for there promise of a better tomorrow and ask yourselves if you can truly trust that their motives are pure. This challenge is for all people regardless of ideologies and positions.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
So after listening to a whole lot of coverage for tonight's elections across the nation, several questions come to mind..
For instance, when did 'liberals' start calling themselves 'progressives' and what progress do they want to achieve???? Does it mean that anyone who would oppose their ideologies are incapable of ideas which would bring about progress. And who is measuring how much progress has been made or how the term should be defined.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)