Rep. Mike Bost (R-Murphysboro), launched into a tirade this Tuesday as he complained about the amount of power Speaker Madigan wields. Bost screamed, yelled and threw papers as he expressed frustration about the Democrat-led plan to overhaul the state pension system, which would require the State to raise property taxes to fund pension costs that are now picked up by the state, ....pensions undoubtabley "negotiated" by Unions.
Cowboy's comment: I guess the U.S. Congress isn't the only legislative body to have idiots like Nancy "pass the bill to find out whats in it" Pelosi.
In part Bost shouts “Total power in one person’s hands – not the American way!” The he threw several sheets of paper in the air and punch them as they landed. “These damn bills that come out here all the damn time, come out here at the last second!” Bost said as he threw the papers on the floor. “I’ve got to figure out how to vote for my people! You should be ashamed of yourselves! I’m sick of it!” Bost went on. “Every year! We give power to one person! It was not made that way in the Constitution!”
You Go Mr Bost! You're a Patriot!!
Cowboys and the Tea Party political movement have a lot on common. Both believe in individual responsibility; judging a man by his actions not words; and, both are disgusted with government intrusions into our lives and particularly our God given rights.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Only in America
The next time you get into a debate with a Liberal maybe these short facts can help you clearly articulate a reply......before you walk away, because in the end you really cannot argue with someone who cannot use facts nor critical thinking to arrive at a reasonable conclusion.
1) Only in America could politicians talk about the greed of the rich at a $35,000 a plate campaign fund raising event.
2) Only in America could people claim that the government still discriminates against black Americans when we have a black President, a black Attorney General, and roughly 18% of the federal workforce is black. 12% of the population is black.
3) Only in America could we have had the two people most responsible for our tax code, Timothy Geithner, the head of the Treasury Department and Charles Rangel who once ran the Ways and Means Committee, BOTH turn out to be tax cheats who are in favor of higher taxes.
4) Only in America can we have terrorists kill people in the name of Allah and have the media primarily react by fretting that Muslims might be harmed by the backlash.
5) Only in America would we make people who want to legally become American citizens wait for years in their home countries and pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege while we discuss letting anyone who sneaks into the country illegally just become American citizens.
6) Only in America could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country's Constitution be thought of as "extremists."
7) Only in America could you need to present a driver's license to cash a check or buy alcohol, but not to vote.
8) Only in America could people demand the government investigate whether oil companies are gouging the public because the price of gas went up when the return on equity invested in a major U.S. oil company (Marathon Oil) is less than half of a company making tennis shoes (Nike).
9) Only in America could the government collect more tax dollars from the people than any nation in recorded history, still spend a trillion dollars more than it has per year for total spending of $7 million PER MINUTE, and complain that it doesn't have nearly enough money.
10) Only in America could the rich people who pay 86% of all income taxes be accused of not paying their "fair share" by people who don't pay any income taxes at all.
Only in America,...Damn shame too.
1) Only in America could politicians talk about the greed of the rich at a $35,000 a plate campaign fund raising event.
2) Only in America could people claim that the government still discriminates against black Americans when we have a black President, a black Attorney General, and roughly 18% of the federal workforce is black. 12% of the population is black.
3) Only in America could we have had the two people most responsible for our tax code, Timothy Geithner, the head of the Treasury Department and Charles Rangel who once ran the Ways and Means Committee, BOTH turn out to be tax cheats who are in favor of higher taxes.
4) Only in America can we have terrorists kill people in the name of Allah and have the media primarily react by fretting that Muslims might be harmed by the backlash.
5) Only in America would we make people who want to legally become American citizens wait for years in their home countries and pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege while we discuss letting anyone who sneaks into the country illegally just become American citizens.
6) Only in America could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country's Constitution be thought of as "extremists."
7) Only in America could you need to present a driver's license to cash a check or buy alcohol, but not to vote.
8) Only in America could people demand the government investigate whether oil companies are gouging the public because the price of gas went up when the return on equity invested in a major U.S. oil company (Marathon Oil) is less than half of a company making tennis shoes (Nike).
9) Only in America could the government collect more tax dollars from the people than any nation in recorded history, still spend a trillion dollars more than it has per year for total spending of $7 million PER MINUTE, and complain that it doesn't have nearly enough money.
10) Only in America could the rich people who pay 86% of all income taxes be accused of not paying their "fair share" by people who don't pay any income taxes at all.
Only in America,...Damn shame too.
Monday, May 28, 2012
Vast Right Wing Conspiracy: Dems Accuse GOP of Economic Sabotage — Again
From a story on The Blaze.
WASHINGTON (AP/The Blaze) — Are Republican lawmakers deliberately stalling the economic recovery to hurt President Barack Obama’s re-election chances? Some top Democrats say yes, pointing to GOP stances on the debt limit and other issues that they claim are causing unnecessary economic anxiety and retarding growth. The latest Democratic complaint came after House Speaker John Boehner said Tuesday that when Congress raises the nation’s borrowing cap in early 2013, he will again insist on big spending cuts to offset the increase. Boehner, R-Ohio, continues to reject higher tax rates, which Democrats demand from the wealthy.
Cowboy's Comment: No, the Republicans are stalling. In fact it would be in their interests to work with Obama and help get him a second term. Yes, tht right, get Obama a second term. If the Country doesn't tank, then the Republicans may just win the Exeuctive Office and both Houses of Congress for the next several decades as people will remember the incredible damages of an eight year Obama Presidency. If the People through the bum out this November as the Republicans get a slim, but working majority in the Senate and retain the House,....I just don't think it will be enought to get this country back on track and they will get the blame for it, then another anti-American, anti-capitalist Democrat will come out of nowhere and then it may be all she wrote for this Country. Anyway, back to the article:
That led Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., to say Boehner is virtually assuring another debt-ceiling crisis as bad or worse than the one that shook financial markets nine months ago. “The last thing the country needs is a rerun of last summer’s debacle that nearly brought down our economy,” Schumer said in a statement. In an interview, Schumer added: “I hope that the speaker is not doing this because he doesn’t want to see the economy improve, because what he said will certainly rattle the markets.”
Boehner responded in a statement: “Republicans have passed nearly 30 bills that would help small businesses create jobs and we are waiting on Senate Democrats to vote on these common-sense measures. The failure to act on these jobs bills, as well as our crushing debt burden, is undermining economic growth and job creation.”
Democrats say Republicans loaded their jobs bills with provisions certain to doom them in the Senate, such as restrictions on unions and on regulatory agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency. Regardless of whether Schumer’s suspicions are correct, there’s evidence that unceasing partisan gridlock and the prospect of big tax increases and spending cuts in January are causing some companies to postpone expansions.
Even small economic slowdowns are bad news for Obama, who is seeking re-election amid high unemployment. The Washington Post this past week compiled a list of military contractors, hospitals and universities that are delaying hires and bracing for cuts, partly because of fears that Washington’s partisan divisions will not abate.
The most obvious showdown will happen soon after the Nov. 6 election. Unless a lame-duck Congress can make deals, the economy will suffer a double whammy of large tax increases and spending cuts, starting Jan. 1. The tax increases would hit virtually every working American and the spending cuts would affect military and domestic programs. Economists say that what Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke calls a “fiscal cliff” could possibly lead to another severe recession.
On top of that, perhaps by late January or so, Congress and the president — be it Obama or Republican Mitt Romney — will again confront the need to raise the country’s borrowing limit or else trigger a first-ever government failure to pay its debts. A partisan showdown over this issue last summer led to a downgrade in the nation’s credit worthiness and a sharp stock market drop. These crucial decisions will occur after the presidential election.
But investors, planners and business owners make decisions about hiring, expansion and investments months in advance. The more they worry about a serious economic downturn in nine months or so, the more reluctant they are to expand operations and hire workers now. “All that uncertainty has us cautious, and we’re scaling back our hiring expectations,” said Eric Remington, vice president of Kaman Corp., which recently canceled plans to hire 200 new workers at a defense aerospace plant in Jacksonville, Fla.
Schumer and other top Democrats have said for months that GOP lawmakers may be trying to strangle the economic recovery for political reasons. “Their strategy is to suffocate the economy for the sake of what they think will be a political victory,” Obama’s campaign manager, Jim Messina, wrote in an email to supporters last October, when Congress was debating a jobs bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said his Republican counterpart was not cooperating on that legislation “in hopes that he can get my job, perhaps.”
Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, chairman of the Democratic Governors Association, told The Associated Press last year that some GOP lawmakers, “through their intransigence, cleverly set up a situation for America’s economy to fail, either by needlessly driving us to default, or needlessly driving us into massive public-sector layoffs.” Federal, state and local government layoffs have been under way for months. They may be necessary to reduce deficits and survive recessions. But they increase unemployment, a problem for any president seeking a second term.
Since February 2010, when the Labor Department started reporting a steady decline in unemployment, the private sector has gained 4.2 million positions. But federal, state and local governments during that time have cut more than 500,000 jobs – and those are just job cuts in the public sector.
What about the number of people who have dropped out of the workforce? “In April the number of people not in the labor force rose by a whopping 522,000 from 87,897,000 to 88,419,000 [emphasis added],” Zero Hedge reports. Bottom line: the economy created only 115,000 jobs in April, 522,000 people left the labor force, the “official” unemployment rate is 8.1 percent, and total employment for the month actually fell 169,000, according to CNBC.
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California did not ascribe partisan motives to Boehner’s latest warnings about the next debt ceiling showdown. But she said he may be unnecessarily hurting the economy. “It already can be damaging, just the fact that it’s brought up,” Pelosi told reporters Thursday. Republicans say it’s absurd to make such an accusation. They point to bipartisan efforts to pass jobs-creation bills, trade pacts and, after some arguments, an extension of the payroll tax cut that Obama originally had proposed for only one year.
GOP lawmakers want Congress to act this year to ensure that none of the Bush-era income tax cuts will expire, as scheduled, on Jan. 1. Such assurance, they say, could lead investors and business owners to start expanding and hiring now. Democrats say the move, by itself, would increase the deficit dramatically. They want to end the tax cuts for the wealthiest and they note that the economy boomed during Bill Clinton’s presidency, before the big tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 were enacted.
Boehner’s aides say the speaker supports tax law changes, including eliminating some loopholes and exemptions, that could result in greater revenue even if rates remain the same or are reduced. As for the debt limit, “allowing America to default would be irresponsible,” Boehner said Tuesday at an economic forum. “But it would be more irresponsible to raise the debt ceiling without taking dramatic steps to reduce spending and reform the budget process.”
Democrats say that’s precisely the type of economic saber-rattling that can frighten investors and employers, and damage Obama’s re-election hopes. Boehner disagrees. “I said that we should not wait until the 11th hour to address these issues,” Boehner told reporters Thursday. “The only ones who are talking about drama or brinksmanship are my Democrat colleagues.” The danger of another credit-rating downgrade “comes from continued inaction on the deficit, and our piling debt,” he said, not from “calls for action.”
WASHINGTON (AP/The Blaze) — Are Republican lawmakers deliberately stalling the economic recovery to hurt President Barack Obama’s re-election chances? Some top Democrats say yes, pointing to GOP stances on the debt limit and other issues that they claim are causing unnecessary economic anxiety and retarding growth. The latest Democratic complaint came after House Speaker John Boehner said Tuesday that when Congress raises the nation’s borrowing cap in early 2013, he will again insist on big spending cuts to offset the increase. Boehner, R-Ohio, continues to reject higher tax rates, which Democrats demand from the wealthy.
Cowboy's Comment: No, the Republicans are stalling. In fact it would be in their interests to work with Obama and help get him a second term. Yes, tht right, get Obama a second term. If the Country doesn't tank, then the Republicans may just win the Exeuctive Office and both Houses of Congress for the next several decades as people will remember the incredible damages of an eight year Obama Presidency. If the People through the bum out this November as the Republicans get a slim, but working majority in the Senate and retain the House,....I just don't think it will be enought to get this country back on track and they will get the blame for it, then another anti-American, anti-capitalist Democrat will come out of nowhere and then it may be all she wrote for this Country. Anyway, back to the article:
That led Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., to say Boehner is virtually assuring another debt-ceiling crisis as bad or worse than the one that shook financial markets nine months ago. “The last thing the country needs is a rerun of last summer’s debacle that nearly brought down our economy,” Schumer said in a statement. In an interview, Schumer added: “I hope that the speaker is not doing this because he doesn’t want to see the economy improve, because what he said will certainly rattle the markets.”
Boehner responded in a statement: “Republicans have passed nearly 30 bills that would help small businesses create jobs and we are waiting on Senate Democrats to vote on these common-sense measures. The failure to act on these jobs bills, as well as our crushing debt burden, is undermining economic growth and job creation.”
Democrats say Republicans loaded their jobs bills with provisions certain to doom them in the Senate, such as restrictions on unions and on regulatory agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency. Regardless of whether Schumer’s suspicions are correct, there’s evidence that unceasing partisan gridlock and the prospect of big tax increases and spending cuts in January are causing some companies to postpone expansions.
Even small economic slowdowns are bad news for Obama, who is seeking re-election amid high unemployment. The Washington Post this past week compiled a list of military contractors, hospitals and universities that are delaying hires and bracing for cuts, partly because of fears that Washington’s partisan divisions will not abate.
The most obvious showdown will happen soon after the Nov. 6 election. Unless a lame-duck Congress can make deals, the economy will suffer a double whammy of large tax increases and spending cuts, starting Jan. 1. The tax increases would hit virtually every working American and the spending cuts would affect military and domestic programs. Economists say that what Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke calls a “fiscal cliff” could possibly lead to another severe recession.
On top of that, perhaps by late January or so, Congress and the president — be it Obama or Republican Mitt Romney — will again confront the need to raise the country’s borrowing limit or else trigger a first-ever government failure to pay its debts. A partisan showdown over this issue last summer led to a downgrade in the nation’s credit worthiness and a sharp stock market drop. These crucial decisions will occur after the presidential election.
But investors, planners and business owners make decisions about hiring, expansion and investments months in advance. The more they worry about a serious economic downturn in nine months or so, the more reluctant they are to expand operations and hire workers now. “All that uncertainty has us cautious, and we’re scaling back our hiring expectations,” said Eric Remington, vice president of Kaman Corp., which recently canceled plans to hire 200 new workers at a defense aerospace plant in Jacksonville, Fla.
Schumer and other top Democrats have said for months that GOP lawmakers may be trying to strangle the economic recovery for political reasons. “Their strategy is to suffocate the economy for the sake of what they think will be a political victory,” Obama’s campaign manager, Jim Messina, wrote in an email to supporters last October, when Congress was debating a jobs bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said his Republican counterpart was not cooperating on that legislation “in hopes that he can get my job, perhaps.”
Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, chairman of the Democratic Governors Association, told The Associated Press last year that some GOP lawmakers, “through their intransigence, cleverly set up a situation for America’s economy to fail, either by needlessly driving us to default, or needlessly driving us into massive public-sector layoffs.” Federal, state and local government layoffs have been under way for months. They may be necessary to reduce deficits and survive recessions. But they increase unemployment, a problem for any president seeking a second term.
Since February 2010, when the Labor Department started reporting a steady decline in unemployment, the private sector has gained 4.2 million positions. But federal, state and local governments during that time have cut more than 500,000 jobs – and those are just job cuts in the public sector.
What about the number of people who have dropped out of the workforce? “In April the number of people not in the labor force rose by a whopping 522,000 from 87,897,000 to 88,419,000 [emphasis added],” Zero Hedge reports. Bottom line: the economy created only 115,000 jobs in April, 522,000 people left the labor force, the “official” unemployment rate is 8.1 percent, and total employment for the month actually fell 169,000, according to CNBC.
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California did not ascribe partisan motives to Boehner’s latest warnings about the next debt ceiling showdown. But she said he may be unnecessarily hurting the economy. “It already can be damaging, just the fact that it’s brought up,” Pelosi told reporters Thursday. Republicans say it’s absurd to make such an accusation. They point to bipartisan efforts to pass jobs-creation bills, trade pacts and, after some arguments, an extension of the payroll tax cut that Obama originally had proposed for only one year.
GOP lawmakers want Congress to act this year to ensure that none of the Bush-era income tax cuts will expire, as scheduled, on Jan. 1. Such assurance, they say, could lead investors and business owners to start expanding and hiring now. Democrats say the move, by itself, would increase the deficit dramatically. They want to end the tax cuts for the wealthiest and they note that the economy boomed during Bill Clinton’s presidency, before the big tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 were enacted.
Boehner’s aides say the speaker supports tax law changes, including eliminating some loopholes and exemptions, that could result in greater revenue even if rates remain the same or are reduced. As for the debt limit, “allowing America to default would be irresponsible,” Boehner said Tuesday at an economic forum. “But it would be more irresponsible to raise the debt ceiling without taking dramatic steps to reduce spending and reform the budget process.”
Democrats say that’s precisely the type of economic saber-rattling that can frighten investors and employers, and damage Obama’s re-election hopes. Boehner disagrees. “I said that we should not wait until the 11th hour to address these issues,” Boehner told reporters Thursday. “The only ones who are talking about drama or brinksmanship are my Democrat colleagues.” The danger of another credit-rating downgrade “comes from continued inaction on the deficit, and our piling debt,” he said, not from “calls for action.”
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Tea Party Battle in Texas over Senate Seat
We'll soon see just how far the Tea Party has come with the Texas Republican Primary for retiring Kay Bailey Hutchison's Senate seat. Current Deputy Governor David Dewhurst is thought to be in the lead and has the most name recognition, but Tea Party favorite Ted Cruz, former Texas Solicitor General is right behind him.
Cruz has probably got his momentum from several things, but the standing environment of general distrust of the old party politicians who sole goal seems to be to get re-elected and the bad economic straight they have put this coutnry in with the debt and tanking economy,....I know, I know most of this is the fault of the Democrats, but failure of congress to get anything done makes both parties look terrible,......what? a 8% approval rating for congress?
Cruz enjoys another bump with the endorsements of Sarah Palin and Rick Santorum, as well as the Tea Party apparatus in Texas. While Dewhurst has Governor Rick Perry standing firmly behind him. This will be an interesting race and there are several other candidates (foprmer Dallas Mayor Leppert and former NFL Craig James) in the mix, that could siphon of votes for Dewhurst and Cruz and lead to a run off between the two largest vote getters prior to the November elections.
On the surface, the candidate list for the GOP seems to make it look like we has a depth of good candidates as opposed to the ballot for anyplace who has Nancy Pelosi, Schumer, Barney Frank and Harry Reid types on it. Can't you just see Democrats voters holding their nose when they pull the lever for any of those clowns? But the tight race in the Texas Republican Senate primary is not such a good thing when it seemingly forces the canddiates to butcher each other in ads and speeches. I think we'l all tired of this. Lay out who you are, what you stand for, and what your legislative priorities will be and let the people decide. The negative campaigning, as we can see from the Republican Presidental primaries just hurt the candidate with all voters.
Cruz enjoys another bump with the endorsements of Sarah Palin and Rick Santorum, as well as the Tea Party apparatus in Texas. While Dewhurst has Governor Rick Perry standing firmly behind him. This will be an interesting race and there are several other candidates (foprmer Dallas Mayor Leppert and former NFL Craig James) in the mix, that could siphon of votes for Dewhurst and Cruz and lead to a run off between the two largest vote getters prior to the November elections.
On the surface, the candidate list for the GOP seems to make it look like we has a depth of good candidates as opposed to the ballot for anyplace who has Nancy Pelosi, Schumer, Barney Frank and Harry Reid types on it. Can't you just see Democrats voters holding their nose when they pull the lever for any of those clowns? But the tight race in the Texas Republican Senate primary is not such a good thing when it seemingly forces the canddiates to butcher each other in ads and speeches. I think we'l all tired of this. Lay out who you are, what you stand for, and what your legislative priorities will be and let the people decide. The negative campaigning, as we can see from the Republican Presidental primaries just hurt the candidate with all voters.
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Congress to Eliminate Military Spending on NASCAR sponsorship?
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Who killed Osama Bin Laden?
Who killed Osama Bin Laden and deserves the credit for it? Here's a Marine's answer: "America is not at war, the US Marines are at war; America is at the mall."
Let's be clear on this: OBAMA did NOT kill Osama Bin Laden. An American sailor, who Obama, just a few weeks before, was debating whether or not to PAY, did!
In fact, if you remember a little less than two years ago, his administration actually charged and attempted to court-martial three Navy Seals from Seal Team Six when a terrorist suspect they captured complained they had punched him during the take-down and bloodied his nose. Obama's administration further commented how brutal they were. The left were calling them Nazis and Baby Killers. Now all of a sudden the very brave men they vilified are now heroes when they make his administration look good.
Obama just happened to be the one in office when the CIA finally found Osama and Seal Team Six took him out. Essentially, Obama only said Yes or No to him being taken out. This is NOT an Obama victory, but an AMERICAN victory!! Ed Schreiber, Col. US MC (Ret.) "Semper Fi"
OBAMA ' S OWN WORDS TRAP HIM:
2008: "Navy Seal Team 6 is Cheney ' s private assassination team."
2011: "I put together Seal Team 6 to take out Bin Laden."
2008: "Bin Laden is innocent until proven guilty, and must be captured alive and given a fair trial."
2011: "I authorized Seal Team 6 to kill Bin Laden."
2008: "Guantanamo is entirely unnecessary, and the detainees should not be interrogated."
2011: "Vital intelligence was obtained from Guantanamo detainees that led to our locating Bin Laden."
To be fair, the White House has a different perspective of the events surrounding Osama Bib Laden's death. And according to a new regulation that the Obama Administration recently enacted, they are entitled to both their opinions AND their own facts. Here is the Administration's account of the OBL Raid.
note: clicking on the photos should bring up a clearer slide show.
Let's be clear on this: OBAMA did NOT kill Osama Bin Laden. An American sailor, who Obama, just a few weeks before, was debating whether or not to PAY, did!
In fact, if you remember a little less than two years ago, his administration actually charged and attempted to court-martial three Navy Seals from Seal Team Six when a terrorist suspect they captured complained they had punched him during the take-down and bloodied his nose. Obama's administration further commented how brutal they were. The left were calling them Nazis and Baby Killers. Now all of a sudden the very brave men they vilified are now heroes when they make his administration look good.
Obama just happened to be the one in office when the CIA finally found Osama and Seal Team Six took him out. Essentially, Obama only said Yes or No to him being taken out. This is NOT an Obama victory, but an AMERICAN victory!! Ed Schreiber, Col. US MC (Ret.) "Semper Fi"
OBAMA ' S OWN WORDS TRAP HIM:
2008: "Navy Seal Team 6 is Cheney ' s private assassination team."
2011: "I put together Seal Team 6 to take out Bin Laden."
2008: "Bin Laden is innocent until proven guilty, and must be captured alive and given a fair trial."
2011: "I authorized Seal Team 6 to kill Bin Laden."
2008: "Guantanamo is entirely unnecessary, and the detainees should not be interrogated."
2011: "Vital intelligence was obtained from Guantanamo detainees that led to our locating Bin Laden."
To be fair, the White House has a different perspective of the events surrounding Osama Bib Laden's death. And according to a new regulation that the Obama Administration recently enacted, they are entitled to both their opinions AND their own facts. Here is the Administration's account of the OBL Raid.
note: clicking on the photos should bring up a clearer slide show.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Judge Blocks National Defense Authorization Act
I realize that this, the NDAA, is a subject that good men (and women) can disagree on, but the way our system is supposed to work is that the Judicial Branch reins in the other two Branches of Government when actions or laws are Unconstitutional. It seems like one Federal Judge felt that way over the National Defense Authorization Act which allows the military to detain US Citizens in this country.
From a Adam Klasfeld, Courthouse News Service article
A federal judge granted a preliminary injunction late Wednesday to block provisions of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act that would allow the military to indefinitely detain anyone it accuses of knowingly or unknowingly supporting terrorism. Signed by President Barack Obama on New Year’s Eve, the 565-page NDAA contains a short paragraph, in statute 1021, letting the military detain anyone it suspects “substantially supported” al-Qaida, the Taliban or “associated forces.” The indefinite detention would supposedly last until “the end hostilities.”
In a 68-page ruling blocking this statute, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest agreed that the statute failed to “pass constitutional muster” because its broad language could be used to quash political dissent. “There is a strong public interest in protecting rights guaranteed by the First Amendment,” Forrest wrote. “There is also a strong public interest in ensuring that due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment are protected by ensuring that ordinary citizens are able to understand the scope of conduct that could subject them to indefinite military detention.”
Weeks after Obama signed the law, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges filed a lawsuit against its so-called “Homeland Battlefield” provisions. Several prominent activists, scholars and politicians subsequently joined the suit, including Pentagon Papers whistle-blower Daniel Ellsberg; Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Noam Chomsky; Icelandic parliamentarian Birgitta Jonsdottir; Kai Wargalla, an organizer from Occupy London; and Alexa O’Brien, an organizer for the New York-based activist group U.S. Day of Rage. They call themselves the Freedom Seven.
In a signing statement, Obama contended that the language in Section 1021 “breaks no new ground” and merely restates the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF). Government lawyers whistled the same tune to swat away the lawsuit, but they failed to convince the judge that no changes had been made. “Section 1021 tries to do too much with too little – it lacks the minimal requirements of definition and Scienter that could easily have been added, or could be added, to allow it to pass constitutional muster,” Forrest wrote.
Scienter refers to a person’s knowledge that a law is being violated. “For the reasons set forth below, this court finds that § 1021 is not merely an ‘affirmation’ of the AUMF,” Forrest wrote. “To so hold would be contrary to basic principles of legislative interpretation that require Congressional enactments to be given independent meaning. To find that § 1021 is merely an ‘affirmation’ of the AUMF would require this court to find that § 1021 is a mere redundancy – that is, that it has no independent meaning and adds absolutely nothing to the government’s enforcement powers.”
Brushing aside that argument, Judge Forrest took aim at government arguments that the NDAA did not affect Hedges and his co-plaintiffs personally. “Here, the uncontradicted testimony at the evidentiary hearing was that the plaintiffs have in fact lost certain First Amendment freedoms as a result of the enactment of § 1021,” Forrest wrote. At a hearing in March, three of the plaintiffs testified that the possibility of government repression under the NDAA made them reconsider how they approached their journalism and activism.
Guardian journalist Naomi Wolf read testimony from Jonsditir, who prepared a statement saying that she would not visit the U.S. for fear of detention. Forrest alluded to this testimony in her decision. “Hedges, Wargalla, and Jonsdottir have changed certain associational conduct, and O’Brien and Jonsdittir have avoided certain expressive conduct, because of their concerns about § 1021.
Moreover, since plaintiffs continue to have their associational and expressive conduct chilled, there is both actual and continued threatened irreparable harm,” she wrote. “In addition, it is certainly the case that if plaintiffs were detained as a result of their conduct, they could be detained until the cessation of hostilities – i.e., an indeterminate period of time,” Forrest continued. “Being subjected to the risk of such detention, particularly in light of the Government’s inability to represent that plaintiffs’ conduct does not fall with § 1021, must constitute a threat of irreparable harm. The question then is: Is that harm immediate?
Since the Government will not say that the conduct does not fall outside of §1021, one cannot predict immediacy one way or the other. The penalty we know would be severe.” The judge added that she did not make the decision lightly. “This court is acutely aware that preliminarily enjoining an act of Congress must be done with great caution,” she wrote. “However, it is the responsibility of our judicial system to protect the public from acts of Congress which infringe upon constitutional rights.
As set forth above, this court has found that plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits regarding their constitutional claim and it therefore has a responsibility to insure that the public’s constitutional rights are protected.” In a phone conference, the plaintiffs’ attorneys Bruce Afran and Carl Mayer hailed what they called a “complete victory.” “America is more free today than it was yesterday due to the courageous and righteous and very sound ruling by Judge Forrest,” Mayer said. “I think this is a hugely significant development… I think it’s also a testament to the courage of the plaintiffs here.” One of those plaintiffs, O’Brien, was also jubilant in a separate interview. “I am extremely happy right now, and what I’m most happy about it is that this ruling has given me trust,” O’Brien said, “Trust is the foundation of just and stable governments, and this ruling gives me hope that we can restore trust in the foundations of government.”
While the U.S. Attorney’s office declined comment on the ruling, Mayer urged the Obama administration to “drop it,” and forego an appeal. “They have to come to terms with the fact that it’s wholly unconstitutional,” Mayer said
From a Adam Klasfeld, Courthouse News Service article
A federal judge granted a preliminary injunction late Wednesday to block provisions of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act that would allow the military to indefinitely detain anyone it accuses of knowingly or unknowingly supporting terrorism. Signed by President Barack Obama on New Year’s Eve, the 565-page NDAA contains a short paragraph, in statute 1021, letting the military detain anyone it suspects “substantially supported” al-Qaida, the Taliban or “associated forces.” The indefinite detention would supposedly last until “the end hostilities.”
In a 68-page ruling blocking this statute, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest agreed that the statute failed to “pass constitutional muster” because its broad language could be used to quash political dissent. “There is a strong public interest in protecting rights guaranteed by the First Amendment,” Forrest wrote. “There is also a strong public interest in ensuring that due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment are protected by ensuring that ordinary citizens are able to understand the scope of conduct that could subject them to indefinite military detention.”
Weeks after Obama signed the law, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges filed a lawsuit against its so-called “Homeland Battlefield” provisions. Several prominent activists, scholars and politicians subsequently joined the suit, including Pentagon Papers whistle-blower Daniel Ellsberg; Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Noam Chomsky; Icelandic parliamentarian Birgitta Jonsdottir; Kai Wargalla, an organizer from Occupy London; and Alexa O’Brien, an organizer for the New York-based activist group U.S. Day of Rage. They call themselves the Freedom Seven.
In a signing statement, Obama contended that the language in Section 1021 “breaks no new ground” and merely restates the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF). Government lawyers whistled the same tune to swat away the lawsuit, but they failed to convince the judge that no changes had been made. “Section 1021 tries to do too much with too little – it lacks the minimal requirements of definition and Scienter that could easily have been added, or could be added, to allow it to pass constitutional muster,” Forrest wrote.
Scienter refers to a person’s knowledge that a law is being violated. “For the reasons set forth below, this court finds that § 1021 is not merely an ‘affirmation’ of the AUMF,” Forrest wrote. “To so hold would be contrary to basic principles of legislative interpretation that require Congressional enactments to be given independent meaning. To find that § 1021 is merely an ‘affirmation’ of the AUMF would require this court to find that § 1021 is a mere redundancy – that is, that it has no independent meaning and adds absolutely nothing to the government’s enforcement powers.”
Brushing aside that argument, Judge Forrest took aim at government arguments that the NDAA did not affect Hedges and his co-plaintiffs personally. “Here, the uncontradicted testimony at the evidentiary hearing was that the plaintiffs have in fact lost certain First Amendment freedoms as a result of the enactment of § 1021,” Forrest wrote. At a hearing in March, three of the plaintiffs testified that the possibility of government repression under the NDAA made them reconsider how they approached their journalism and activism.
Guardian journalist Naomi Wolf read testimony from Jonsditir, who prepared a statement saying that she would not visit the U.S. for fear of detention. Forrest alluded to this testimony in her decision. “Hedges, Wargalla, and Jonsdottir have changed certain associational conduct, and O’Brien and Jonsdittir have avoided certain expressive conduct, because of their concerns about § 1021.
Moreover, since plaintiffs continue to have their associational and expressive conduct chilled, there is both actual and continued threatened irreparable harm,” she wrote. “In addition, it is certainly the case that if plaintiffs were detained as a result of their conduct, they could be detained until the cessation of hostilities – i.e., an indeterminate period of time,” Forrest continued. “Being subjected to the risk of such detention, particularly in light of the Government’s inability to represent that plaintiffs’ conduct does not fall with § 1021, must constitute a threat of irreparable harm. The question then is: Is that harm immediate?
Since the Government will not say that the conduct does not fall outside of §1021, one cannot predict immediacy one way or the other. The penalty we know would be severe.” The judge added that she did not make the decision lightly. “This court is acutely aware that preliminarily enjoining an act of Congress must be done with great caution,” she wrote. “However, it is the responsibility of our judicial system to protect the public from acts of Congress which infringe upon constitutional rights.
As set forth above, this court has found that plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits regarding their constitutional claim and it therefore has a responsibility to insure that the public’s constitutional rights are protected.” In a phone conference, the plaintiffs’ attorneys Bruce Afran and Carl Mayer hailed what they called a “complete victory.” “America is more free today than it was yesterday due to the courageous and righteous and very sound ruling by Judge Forrest,” Mayer said. “I think this is a hugely significant development… I think it’s also a testament to the courage of the plaintiffs here.” One of those plaintiffs, O’Brien, was also jubilant in a separate interview. “I am extremely happy right now, and what I’m most happy about it is that this ruling has given me trust,” O’Brien said, “Trust is the foundation of just and stable governments, and this ruling gives me hope that we can restore trust in the foundations of government.”
While the U.S. Attorney’s office declined comment on the ruling, Mayer urged the Obama administration to “drop it,” and forego an appeal. “They have to come to terms with the fact that it’s wholly unconstitutional,” Mayer said
Monday, May 21, 2012
The Turn Around in Wisconsin
Wisconsin Republican Governor Scott Walker released 2011 jobs figures on Wednesday in an attempt to counter Democrat crying about Walker’s campaign against Union graft.
Governor Walker is facing a re-call election on June 5th, mostly spurred on by public worker unions pissed off that Walker was successful in taking away collective bargaining rights last year.
They (the liberal deficit building unions) can certainly say that Walker took away collective bargaining rights, but now the facts are in and they cannot say Walker’s leadership is hurting the state economy. The Democrats led by Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett have claimed that Walker caused the state to lose almost 34,000 jobs but the new job figures reflect that 23,000 jobs were created, not lost. Not only that, but tax revenues are up,….schools are now operating in the black as opposed to the City of Milwaukee still in the red,…thanks Mayor Barrett. As Walker puts it: “Mayor Barrett, you said this election is about jobs; I couldn't agree more………… the facts are the facts and facts don't lie." Wisconsin, just like Ohio and Indiana, are well on the road to recovery, despite Obama Administration big government regulatory efforts against recovery. That’s because of conservative leadership.
Compare this to California,..losing jobs each and everyday and trying to raise taxes,...both sales taxes 3 or 4 cents per 100 dollars and property taxes to try and knock out their $16 Billion deficit. What California Governor Jerry Brown (a Democrat by the way) won't freely admit is that at least half of the deficit is for state retirement salaries,.....public unions don't you know!
They (the liberal deficit building unions) can certainly say that Walker took away collective bargaining rights, but now the facts are in and they cannot say Walker’s leadership is hurting the state economy. The Democrats led by Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett have claimed that Walker caused the state to lose almost 34,000 jobs but the new job figures reflect that 23,000 jobs were created, not lost. Not only that, but tax revenues are up,….schools are now operating in the black as opposed to the City of Milwaukee still in the red,…thanks Mayor Barrett. As Walker puts it: “Mayor Barrett, you said this election is about jobs; I couldn't agree more………… the facts are the facts and facts don't lie." Wisconsin, just like Ohio and Indiana, are well on the road to recovery, despite Obama Administration big government regulatory efforts against recovery. That’s because of conservative leadership.
Compare this to California,..losing jobs each and everyday and trying to raise taxes,...both sales taxes 3 or 4 cents per 100 dollars and property taxes to try and knock out their $16 Billion deficit. What California Governor Jerry Brown (a Democrat by the way) won't freely admit is that at least half of the deficit is for state retirement salaries,.....public unions don't you know!
Saturday, May 19, 2012
Another Tea Party Win - This Time Nebraska
This Tea Party victory sets up a race between Deb Fishcer and former senator Bob Kerrey (D) for the seat being vacated by retiring Sen. Ben Nelson (D)......remember him?,...the guy who took the special conditions or thinly hid bribes from Obama in order to support Obamacare? Kerrey is popular in Nebraska but lately has been getting heat from living out of state, in New York of all places, where he has served as the president of a school in New York City.
It is telling that Kerrey has been distancing himself from Obama and the Democratic party by emphasizing his record of deviating from his party's tax and spend methodology. This will be an interesting race. We'll see how long it takes before the dried up liberal women's menagerie starts bashing Senator Fischer.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Stuff you Find On Your Shoe
I had this epiphany late last night watching Obama speak on television and watching reports on all sorts of political activity. I suddenly realized that politics and certainly the politics and agenda practiced by Obama and his team of creeps was similar to stepping in dog shit. It's annoying,...smells bad,.... hard to get rid of and contaminates about everything else.
Then I woke up this morning to a Blaze report on The Reverend Jeremiah "God Damn America" Wright now confirming what we all believed to be true and that is Obama's people got to him (Wright) to tone down his Anti-America/Anti-White/Anti-Capitalist rhetoric in order for Obama not to appear so radical before the election.
From Madeleine Morgenstern's report, we learn that Edward Klein's book "“The Amateur", which is unauthorized biography of Obama (Boy! sure going to have to read this!), recites Rev. Jeremiah Wright as saying that members of Barack Obama’s team tried to buy his silence until after the 2008 election.
The New York Post on Sunday published a conversation between Wright and Klein, from which Wright said once his fiery sermons surfaced during the 2008 campaign, he received an email asking him not to preach until after November, and that he was offered $150,000 for his silence by an Obama associate.
Perhaps the most damning incident of all is then Senator Obama meeting Wright in person ans asking for Wright to stop speaking until after the election (2008). And this is before Obama has denied hearing any of Wright's hateful sermons during his many years of attending Wright's Church....which is the Church of Hate All Things Americans 'cept the Entitlement Programs.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Who said the Tea Party is Dead?
Richard Mourdock, state treasurer R-IN, beat incumbent six term Senator Richard Lugar R-IN, 60% to 39% for the 2012 Republican candidate for Senate in Indiana. This was not just a win,....this was a butt whooping. Lugar is the same, less-than-conservative-big-government Senator who was re-elected to his sixth six-year term with over 87% of the vote.
The Tea Party movement within the state of Indiana, as well as Nationally, made a tremendous statement with the nomination of Mourdock. This should answer the question, at least in Indiana, if the Tea Party is going to be the players they were in the historical 2010 election where there was a 60+ shift in seats from Democrats to Republicans in the house.
Democrats are running so scared in Indiana that Harry Reid D-NV, Senate Speaker, has dropped money into the race on behalf of the Democratic candidate, whose names doesn't matter as their politics are all the same,...bad for this country.
Watch the video below as Real News discussing the race and repercussions on the national scene.
Monday, May 14, 2012
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Obama's Latest
So when Obama says he needs four more years, the logical reply is "Why, so you can TOTALLY destroy this country?" He asked us to keep believing in him. What?!? Are you kidding me? Remember Ronbald Reagan who asked, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" Well, Obama's question is, "Will this country be better off four years from now?" Obama say's, "If people ask you what this campaign is about, you tell them 'it's still about hope.' You tell them 'it's still about change,". It's the kind of change that bring this country to it's knees and hope is about all gone unless we remove this man from office in November 2012.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Mike Lee - Fighting for the Constitution
Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) is a gem. He continually stands up to the seemingly daily attacks upon the U.S. Constitution by the Obama Administration.
Senator Lee is currently co-sponsoring a bill to make the Obama Administration, and future Administrations, Democrat or Republican, have to seek Congressional approval for any regulations formed through the Departments, like the EPA, that have more than a $100 million effect on the national economy as determined by the GAO.
This is a welcome and much needed change, as Obama directs his administration to legislate through their implied regulatory authority as opposed of going through the People's representatives in Congress. What has transpired is hundreds of regulations that are choking our economy and individual/states rights.....
He is also looking to scale back the federal government's control over federally owned land within a state. Just this week Lee introduced a bill in the Senate that would require the federal government to seek approval from a state legislature prior to making a federal land designation in that state. Such designations could include classifying an area as a national park, national monument or national recreation area.
"Too often, the federal government ignores the people's rights to determine for themselves how best to utilize their own land," Lee said in a statement announcing the bill's introduction. "States with smaller populations, like Utah, end up with only a limited voice in Congress. The process should include greater protections for states and local communities against unwanted and often economically damaging decisions."
The bill comes on the heels of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar dedicating two new conservation areas in southern Utah this week. The areas are a result of a bill that passed through Congress in 2009 sponsored by Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, and Lee's predecessor, Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah. Had Lee's proposal been in place then, the state Legislature would have had to sign off on the land designations.
The proposal also would have an effect on the president's ability to use the Antiquities Act to designate areas of federally owned land as national monuments. President Bill Clinton designated a portion of southern Utah as a monument via the act in 1996. Under Lee's proposal the president would need approval from the state legislature before the president's actions become permanent.
In the video below, Senator Lee appears before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, testifying against President Obama's unconstitutional appointments to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the National Labor Relations Board. Mike Lee is a first term Senator and rising star in the Republican party and Tea Party community. It gives me hope to see Legislators like him, Allan West, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul and a few others.
This is a welcome and much needed change, as Obama directs his administration to legislate through their implied regulatory authority as opposed of going through the People's representatives in Congress. What has transpired is hundreds of regulations that are choking our economy and individual/states rights.....
He is also looking to scale back the federal government's control over federally owned land within a state. Just this week Lee introduced a bill in the Senate that would require the federal government to seek approval from a state legislature prior to making a federal land designation in that state. Such designations could include classifying an area as a national park, national monument or national recreation area.
"Too often, the federal government ignores the people's rights to determine for themselves how best to utilize their own land," Lee said in a statement announcing the bill's introduction. "States with smaller populations, like Utah, end up with only a limited voice in Congress. The process should include greater protections for states and local communities against unwanted and often economically damaging decisions."
The bill comes on the heels of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar dedicating two new conservation areas in southern Utah this week. The areas are a result of a bill that passed through Congress in 2009 sponsored by Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, and Lee's predecessor, Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah. Had Lee's proposal been in place then, the state Legislature would have had to sign off on the land designations.
The proposal also would have an effect on the president's ability to use the Antiquities Act to designate areas of federally owned land as national monuments. President Bill Clinton designated a portion of southern Utah as a monument via the act in 1996. Under Lee's proposal the president would need approval from the state legislature before the president's actions become permanent.
In the video below, Senator Lee appears before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, testifying against President Obama's unconstitutional appointments to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the National Labor Relations Board. Mike Lee is a first term Senator and rising star in the Republican party and Tea Party community. It gives me hope to see Legislators like him, Allan West, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul and a few others.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
The National Patriot Primer
Anderson starts by linking Obama's slogan "Forward" to Communist and Socialists movements/publications of the same name (Forward) from many other countries, saying "(Forward)..it stands for the same thing regardless of the language......
Avante!, organ of the Portuguese Communist Party
Avanti!, organ of the Italian Socialist Party Eteenpäin,
Finnish-language newspaper in the United States Új Előre (‘New Forward’),
a Hungarian-language newspaper in the United States Voorwaarts!,
organ of the Communist Youth Movement (Netherlands)
Andersen moves on to succinctly sum up Obama's makeup. We don’t know who he really is but we DO know WHAT he really is.
We don’t know where he came from but we DO know where he’s leading us.
We don’t know what he wrote in his college thesis but we DO know what he writes in his Executive Orders.
We don’t know who paid for his college education but we DO know he wants US to pay more.
We know he cares more for Hamas and the Palestinian Authority than he care for Israel.
We know that he wanted a dictator out of Egypt so he could be replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood.
He has his own law enforcement arm which supplied weapons to Mexican drug cartels.
He swore to uphold and defend our Constitution and both he and the head of his law enforcement arm have subverted it.
We know he stands FOR illegal immigration and AGAINST individual states that want to enforce federal immigration law.
We know he takes credit for what others have done and assesses blame to others for what he has done. We know the Social Security number associated with him came from a state in which he never lived and belonged to someone else.
We know he attended a church for 20 years where the preacher, a close family friend and his spiritual adviser spoke of “God DAMN America” and he claimed to have no idea of Rev. Wright’s ideology.
We know he wants class warfare and stands with the occupy fringe.
We know he’s a race baiter. We know he traveled the world apologizing for American exceptionalism.
We know he bowed down to foreign leaders.
Sunday, May 6, 2012
Illinois Failing - Pensions Have To Change
Illinois Governor Pat Quinn is one of these Democrats who are seeing the light. Whether or not they are coming to terms because of their political viability being threatened or because they can actually see the bleak future of spending money they don't have is besides the point, at least the conversations are taking place and solutions being explored.
According to Reuters, Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn announced a series of proposals to help save the state's floundering pension systems. For years Illinois' pension program has been in crisis and has continued to be short of billions of dollars worth of funds. The governor's proposals would slash costs associated with the programs while making several major changes in the requirements:
* The state pension systems is approximately $85 billion short of the money needed to fully fund it, the Chicago Sun-Times reported.
* Roughly 90 percent of current state retirees receive some state assistance or subsidies for health care and Illinois is expecting to spend $950 million on retiree health care for the next fiscal year.
* Gov. Quinn said regarding his suggestion pension program changes, "I didn't create the problem. But I'm here to solve it. I know that I was put on earth to get this done," the Chicago Tribune reported.
* The governor is proposing the state raise the retirement age from 60 to 67 for full benefits, according to the University of Illinois at Springfield.
* If the suggested changes take place, employee contributions would increase 3 percent, but while participating in the plan is voluntary for state employees, those who do not participate will forfeit their retirement health care coverage.
* The governor is also proposing to reduce the cost-of-living increase in retirement pensions to the lesser of 3 percent or half of what the consumer price index is at. The Huffington Post reported that overall, the planned reforms, which would be slowly phased in over several years, would save the state $65 billion to $85 billion by 2045.
* Pensions are expected to cost the state about $5.2 billion, or 15 percent of general of general revenue spending, in the upcoming fiscal year.
* Even Cook County 's pension funds are struggling to stay afloat and they are expected to be fully tapped out in 26 years without changes.
* Pensions in the public sector would be limited to only state employees, a move that comes after a Chicago Tribune investigation revealed individuals employed by unions and groups, have been able to collect state retirement pensions. So there it is, controlled by self serving Dems for decades, Illinois is now at a Greece like point where major changes are necessary in order to have the system.
Friday, May 4, 2012
Volts and Hybrids and Failures, Oh My
There have recently been Obama Adminstration people and supporters in the print and air media recently trying to stem the tide of bad publicity on the Chevy Volt, in light of Obama talking this car up like it's the solution to our energy crisis, and also in light of the facts as to what an albatross this car is and the giant failure of this Adminstration to develop this country's virtually unlimited energy resources.
One of the things these Obama pundits have stated over and over is that recently Hybrids are being bought in record numbers. While this is technically true, the consumers aren't buying the Volt, even with the Federal Government handout,...err,..bribe,...... err,....$7,500 tax credit....They are largely buying Japanese hybrid models.
Obama has alot of credibility riding on the sucess of the Volt since all his other green energy programs have become debacles,..sometimes looking like a scam, and sometimes people close to the Adminstration profiting.
Again, while hybrids are being bought in record numbers, when those numbers are small to begin with, that is not such a feat. And again, the ones being bought are not Volts but Toyota's, Honda's and Nissan's.....and this is given the fact that the premium you pay on these Japanese hybrids won't be made up until after some 11 years of projected gas savings.
One reason these hybrids are selling better than before is that gas prices are more than double what they were when Obama took over 3 years ago. Not counting the 30-40% increase across the board for food products,.....I am spending $175 to $200 more per month just on fuel.
How about you? Going to buy a Volt or other hybrid anytime soon? Are you better off now than you were 3 years ago?
One of the things these Obama pundits have stated over and over is that recently Hybrids are being bought in record numbers. While this is technically true, the consumers aren't buying the Volt, even with the Federal Government handout,...err,..bribe,...... err,....$7,500 tax credit....They are largely buying Japanese hybrid models.
Obama has alot of credibility riding on the sucess of the Volt since all his other green energy programs have become debacles,..sometimes looking like a scam, and sometimes people close to the Adminstration profiting.
Again, while hybrids are being bought in record numbers, when those numbers are small to begin with, that is not such a feat. And again, the ones being bought are not Volts but Toyota's, Honda's and Nissan's.....and this is given the fact that the premium you pay on these Japanese hybrids won't be made up until after some 11 years of projected gas savings.
One reason these hybrids are selling better than before is that gas prices are more than double what they were when Obama took over 3 years ago. Not counting the 30-40% increase across the board for food products,.....I am spending $175 to $200 more per month just on fuel.
How about you? Going to buy a Volt or other hybrid anytime soon? Are you better off now than you were 3 years ago?
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Now This is a Commencement Address!
The Cold, Cold Wind of Reality.
Neal Boortz is a Texan, a lawyer, a Texas Aggie (Texas A&M), and now a nationally syndicated talk show host from Atlanta . His commencement address to the graduates of a recent Texas A&M class is far different from what either the students or the faculty expected. His views are thought provoking.
"I am honored by the invitation to address you on this august occasion. It's about time. Be warned, however, that I am not here to impress you; you'll have enough smoke blown up your bloomers today. And you can bet your tassels I'm not here to impress the faculty and administration. You may not like much of what I have to say, and that's fine. You will remember it though. Especially after about 10 years out there in the real world. This, it goes without saying, does not apply to those of you who will seek your careers and your fortunes as government employees.
This gowned gaggle behind me is your faculty. You've heard the old saying that those who can - do. Those who can't - teach. That sounds deliciously insensitive. But there is often raw truth in insensitivity, just as you often find feel-good falsehoods and lies in compassion. Say good-bye to your faculty because now you are getting ready to go out there and do. These folks behind me are going to stay right here and teach.
By the way, just because you are leaving this place with a diploma doesn't mean the learning is over. When an FAA flight examiner handed me my private pilot's license many years ago, he said, Here, this is your ticket to learn.' The same can be said for your diploma. Believe me, the learning has just begun.
Now, I realize that most of you consider yourselves Liberals. In fact, you are probably very proud of your liberal views. You care so much. You feel so much. You want to help so much. After all, you're a compassionate and caring person, aren't you now? Well, isn't that just so extraordinarily special. Now, at this age, is as good a time as any to be a liberal; as good a time as any to know absolutely everything. You have plenty of time, starting tomorrow, for the truth to set in.
Over the next few years, as you begin to feel the cold breath of reality down your neck, things are going to start changing pretty fast... Including your own assessment of just how much you really know.
So here are the first assignments for your initial class in reality: Pay attention to the news, read newspapers, and listen to the words and phrases that proud Liberals use to promote their causes. Then, compare the words of the left to the words and phrases you hear from those evil, heartless, greedy conservatives. From the Left you will hear "I feel." From the Right you will hear "I think." From the Liberals you will hear references to groups -- The Blacks, the Poor, The Rich, The Disadvantaged, The Less Fortunate. From the Right you will hear references to individuals. On the Left you hear talk of group rights; on the Right, individual rights.
That about sums it up, really: Liberals feel. Liberals care. They are pack animals whose identity is tied up in group dynamics. Conservatives think -- and, setting aside the theocracy crowd, their identity is centered on the individual.
Liberals feel that their favored groups have enforceable rights to the property and services of productive individuals. Conservatives, I among them I might add, think that individuals have the right to protect their lives and their property from the plunder of the masses.
In college you developed a group mentality, but if you look closely at your diplomas you will see that they have your individual names on them. Not the name of your school mascot, or of your fraternity or sorority, but your name. Your group identity is going away. Your recognition and appreciation of your individual identity starts now.
If, by the time you reach the age of 30, you do not consider yourself to be a conservative, rush right back here as quickly as you can and apply for a faculty position. These people will welcome you with open arms. They will welcome you, that is, so long as you haven't developed an individual identity. Once again you will have to be willing to sign on to the group mentality you embraced during the past four years.
Something is going to happen soon that is going to really open your eyes. You're going to actually get a full time job!
You're also going to get a lifelong work partner. This partner isn't going to help you do your job. This partner is just going to sit back and wait for payday. This partner doesn't want to share in your effort, but in your earnings.
Your new lifelong partner is actually an agent; an agent representing a strange and diverse group of people; an agent for every teenager with an illegitimate child; an agent for a research scientist who wanted to make some cash answering the age-old question of why monkeys grind their teeth. An agent for some poor demented hippie who considers herself to be a meaningful and talented artist, but who just can't manage to sell any of her artwork on the open market.
Your new partner is an agent for every person with limited, if any, job skills, but who wanted a job at City Hall. An agent for tin-horn dictators in fancy military uniforms grasping for American foreign aid. An agent for multi-million dollar companies who want someone else to pay for their overseas advertising. An agent for everybody who wants to use the unimaginable power of this agent's for their personal enrichment and benefit.
That agent is our wonderful, caring, compassionate, oppressive government. Believe me, you will be awed by the unimaginable power this agent has. Power that you do not have. A power that no individual has, or will have. This agent has the legal power to use force, deadly force to accomplish its goals.
You have no choice here. Your new friend is just going to walk up to you, introduce itself rather gruffly, hand you a few forms to fill out, and move right on in. Say hello to your own personal one ton gorilla. It will sleep anywhere it wants to.
Now, let me tell you, this agent is not cheap. As you become successful it will seize about 40% of everything you earn. And no, I'm sorry, there just isn't any way you can fire this agent of plunder, and you can't decrease its share of your income. That power rests with him, not you.
So, here I am saying negative things to you about government. Well, be clear on this: It is not wrong to distrust government. It is not wrong to fear government. In certain cases it is not even wrong to despise government for government is inherently evil. Yes, a necessary evil, but dangerous nonetheless, somewhat like a drug. Just as a drug that in the proper dosage can save your life, an overdose of government can be fatal.
Now let's address a few things that have been crammed into your minds at this university. There are some ideas you need to expunge as soon as possible. These ideas may work well in academic environment, but they fail miserably out there in the real world.
First is that favorite buzz word of the media and academia: Diversity! You have been taught that the real value of any group of people - be it a social group, an employee group, a management group, whatever - is based on diversity. This is a favored liberal ideal because diversity is based not on an individuals abilities or character, but on a person's identity and status as a member of a group. Yes, it's that liberal group identity thing again.
Within the great diversity movement group identification - be it racial, gender based, or some other minority status - means more than the individuals integrity, character or other qualifications.
Brace yourself. You are about to move from this academic atmosphere where diversity rules, to a workplace and a culture where individual achievement and excellence actually count. No matter what your professors have taught you over the last four years, you are about to learn that diversity is absolutely no replacement for excellence, ability, and individual hard work. From this day on every single time you hear the word "diversity" you can rest assured that there is someone close by who is determined to rob you of every vestige of individuality you possess.
We also need to address this thing you seem to have about "rights." We have witnessed an obscene explosion of so-called "rights" in the last few decades, usually emanating from college campuses.
You know the mantra: You have the right to a job. The right to a place to live. The right to a living wage. The right to health care. The right to an education. You probably even have your own pet right - the right to a Beemer for instance, or the right to have someone else provide for that child you plan on downloading in a year or so.
Forget it. Forget those rights! I'll tell you what your rights are. You have a right to live free, and to the results of 60% -75% of your labor. I'll also tell you have no right to any portion of the life or labor of another.
You may, for instance, think that you have a right to health care. After all, President Obama said so, didn't he? But you cannot receive health-care unless some doctor or health practitioner surrenders some of his time - his life - to you. He may be willing to do this for compensation, but that's his choice. You have no "right" to his time or property. You have no right to his or any other person's life or to any portion thereof.
You may also think you have some "right" to a job; a job with a living wage, whatever that is. Do you mean to tell me that you have a right to force your services on another person, and then the right to demand that this person compensate you with their money? Sorry, forget it. I am sure you would scream if some urban outdoors men (that would be "homeless person" for those of you who don't want to give these less fortunate people a romantic and adventurous title) came to you and demanded his job and your money.
The people who have been telling you about all the rights you have are simply exercising one of theirs - the right to be imbeciles. Their being imbeciles didn't cost anyone else either property or time. It's their right, and they exercise it brilliantly.
By the way, did you catch my use of the phrase "less fortunate" a bit ago when I was talking about the urban outdoors men? That phrase is a favorite of the Left. Think about it, and you'll understand why.
To imply that one person is homeless, destitute, dirty, drunk, spaced out on drugs, unemployable, and generally miserable because he is "less fortunate" is to imply that a successful person - one with a job, a home and a future - is in that position because he or she was "fortunate." The dictionary says that fortunate means "having derived good from an unexpected place." There is nothing unexpected about deriving good from hard work. There is also nothing unexpected about deriving misery from choosing drugs, alcohol, and the street.
If the Liberal Left can create the common perception that success and failure are simple matters of "fortune" or "luck," then it is easy to promote and justify their various income redistribution schemes. After all, we are just evening out the odds a little bit. This "success equals luck" idea the liberals like to push is seen everywhere. Former Democratic presidential candidate Richard Gephardt refers to high-achievers as "people who have won life's lottery." He wants you to believe they are making the big bucks because they are lucky. It's not luck, my friends. It's choice. One of the greatest lessons I ever learned was in a book by Og Mandino, entitled, "The Greatest Secret in the World." The lesson? Very simple: "Use wisely your power of choice."
That bum sitting on a heating grate, smelling like a wharf rat? He's there by choice. He is there because of the sum total of the choices he has made in his life. This truism is absolutely the hardest thing for some people to accept, especially those who consider themselves to be victims of something or other - victims of discrimination, bad luck, the system, capitalism, whatever. After all, nobody really wants to accept the blame for his or her position in life. Not when it is so much easier to point and say, "Look! He did this to me!" than it is to look into a mirror and say, "You S. O. B.! You did this to me!"
The key to accepting responsibility for your life is to accept the fact that your choices, every one of them, are leading you inexorably to either success or failure, however you define those terms.
Some of the choices are obvious: Whether or not to stay in school Whether or not to get pregnant. Whether or not to hit the bottle. Whether or not to keep this job you hate until you get another better-paying job. Whether or not to save some of your money, or saddle yourself with huge payments for that new car.
Some of the choices are seemingly insignificant: Whom to go to the movies with. Whose car to ride home in. Whether to watch the tube tonight, or read a book on investing. But, and you can be sure of this, each choice counts. Each choice is a building block - some large, some small. But each one is a part of the structure of your life. If you make the right choices, or if you make more right choices than wrong ones, something absolutely terrible may happen to you. Something unthinkable. You, my friend, could become one of the hated, the evil, the ugly, the feared, the filthy, the successful, the rich.
The rich basically serve two purposes in this country. First, they provide the investments, the investment capital, and the brains for the formation of new businesses. Businesses that hire people. Businesses that send millions of paychecks home each week to the un-rich.
Second, the rich are a wonderful object of ridicule, distrust, and hatred. Few things are more valuable to a politician than the envy most Americans feel for the evil rich.
Envy is a powerful emotion. Even more powerful than the emotional minefield that surrounded Bill Clinton when he reviewed his last batch of White House interns. Politicians use envy to get votes and power. And they keep that power by promising the envious that the envied will be punished: "The rich will pay their fair share of taxes if I have anything to do with it." The truth is that the top 10% of income earners in this country pays almost 50% of all income taxes collected. I shudder to think what these job producers would be paying if our tax system were any more "fair."
You have heard, no doubt, that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Interestingly enough, our government's own numbers show that many of the poor actually get richer, and that quite a few of the rich actually get poorer. But for the rich who do actually get richer, and the poor who remain poor .. there's an explanation -- a reason. The rich, you see, keep doing the things that make them rich; while the poor keep doing the things that make them poor.
Speaking of the poor, during your adult life you are going to hear an endless string of politicians bemoaning the plight of the poor. So, you need to know that under our government's definition of "poor" you can have a $5 million net worth, a $300,000 home and a new $90,000 Mercedes, all completely paid for. You can also have a maid, cook, and valet, and a million in your checking account, and you can still be officially defined by our government as "living in poverty." Now there's something you haven't seen on the evening news.
How does the government pull this one off? Very simple, really. To determine whether or not some poor soul is "living in poverty," the government measures one thing -- just one thing. Income.
It doesn't matter one bit how much you have, how much you own, how many cars you drive or how big they are, whether or not your pool is heated, whether you winter in Aspen and spend the summers in the Bahamas, or how much is in your savings account. It only matters how much income you claim in that particular year. This means that if you take a one-year leave of absence from your high-paying job and decide to live off the money in your savings and checking accounts while you write the next great American novel, the government says you are living in poverty."
This isn't exactly what you had in mind when you heard these gloomy statistics, is it? Do you need more convincing? Try this. The government's own statistics show that people who are said to be "living in poverty" spend more than $1.50 for each dollar of income they claim. Something is a bit fishy here. Just remember all this the next time Charles Gibson tells you about some hideous new poverty statistics.
Why has the government concocted this phony poverty scam? Because the government needs an excuse to grow and to expand its social welfare programs, which translates into an expansion of its power. If the government can convince you, in all your compassion, that the number of "poor" is increasing, it will have all the excuse it needs to sway an electorate suffering from the advanced stages of Obsessive-Compulsive Compassion Disorder.
I'm about to be stoned by the faculty here. They've already changed their minds about that honorary degree I was going to get. That's OK, though. I still have my PhD. in Insensitivity from the Neal Boortz Institute for Insensitivity Training. I learned that, in short, sensitivity sucks. It's a trap. Think about it - the truth knows no sensitivity. Life can be insensitive. Wallow too much in sensitivity and you'll be unable to deal with life, or the truth, so get over it.
Now, before the dean has me shackled and hauled off, I have a few random thoughts.
* You need to register to vote, unless you are on welfare. If you are living off the efforts of others, please do us the favor of sitting down and shutting up until you are on your own again.
* When you do vote, your votes for the House and the Senate are more important than your vote for President. The House controls the purse strings, so concentrate your awareness there.
* Liars cannot be trusted, even when the liar is the President of the country. If someone can't deal honestly with you, send them packing.
* Don't bow to the temptation to use the government as an instrument of plunder. If it is wrong for you to take money from someone else who earned it -- to take their money by force for your own needs -- then it is certainly just as wrong for you to demand that the government step forward and do this dirty work for you.
* Don't look in other people's pockets. You have no business there. What they earn is theirs. What you earn is yours. Keep it that way. Nobody owes you anything, except to respect your privacy and your rights, and leave you the hell alone.
* Speaking of earning, the revered 40-hour workweek is for losers. Forty hours should be considered the minimum, not the maximum. You don't see highly successful people clocking out of the office every afternoon at five. The losers are the ones caught up in that afternoon rush hour. The winners drive home in the dark.
* Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection.
* Finally (and aren't you glad to hear that word), as Og Mandino wrote,
1. Proclaim your rarity. Each of you is a rare and unique human being.
2. Use wisely your power of choice.
3. Go the extra mile, drive home in the dark.
Oh, and put off buying a television set as long as you can. Now, if you have any idea at all what's good for you, you will get out of here and never come back. Class dismissed"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)