Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Obama’


Do we really want judges making law from the bench based on their own beliefs of how things should be?  Do we really want to obfuscate the legislative process by having unelected jurists – a party of one – make our laws?  President Obama has stated, as recently as yesterday, that he wants jurists who render decisions based solely on the law and to look at the existing law and U.S. Constitution for their decisions.

If he really believes this than why did he nominate Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court?  Once again we have to watch both hands when he speaks.  He appears to be shaking your hand with his right hand and quietly picking your pocket with his left hand.  I say this because Sonia Sotomayer is clearly a jurist who openly brags about making policy from the bench.  She has laughingly talked about legislating from the bench. 

We do not need to look at her prior decisions, when she has openly, and I might add arrogantly, admitted legislating or making policy from the appellate bench.  A recent YouTube clip says it all!  Yet she is nominated for the highest court in the land, and is young enough, that if affirmed, will serve for the next thirty years.  Is this what was intended by checks and balances?  If you don’t believe me and you have not seen the clip click here, remember she is the one speaking to law students.  She is explaining where they might best pursue a law career.  She is suggesting appellate court experience, since that is where policy is made.

If we continue to allow jurists to make decision on how they wish the law to be and not how it stands as written, an enterprising defense attorney will, sooner or later, use the “I disagree with the law as written and I feel it should be different, just as Justice so and so does on a regular basis” defense.

Had enough yet?  If you believe in the rule of law and not law of the judge, you may want to get on the phone with your Senators and tell them to keep looking for a balanced jurist.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »


Many people in perceived fairness say that President Obama is in office a little more than two months, so we  should give him a chance.  To these people I ask, how long do you give a new nanny who demonstrates poor child rearing skills, with your children?  For the ladies, how long do you allow a  new beautician who is clearly doing her own thing and not doing what is best for you to continue before you yell stop?  We are seeing so called fixes to our economic problems that are not economic problem fixes.  We are seeing major changes to our civic culture under the guise of fixing our economic problem.  We are seeing a serious threat to our constitution, by a man who openly does not like our constitution the way it was written. 

President Obama is a “big government” – government is intended to take care of people – kind of guy.  Just listen to his own words.  He is asking to spend hundreds of billions on energy, health care, and education – sounds noble, but he has no plan on how to spend this money.  No businessman in the world could borrow money without a business plan, yet he wants multiple billions without a plan – he wants you to buy into his wishes sight unseen – something like buying land (swampland) in Florida.  This massive spending on noble targets may sound great, but you need to lift the hood to see just what happens when the big government engine is turned on.  In the world of gross domestic product, government produces nothing – it is a drain.  It does not foster job growth.  It does not provide the necessesary economic energy to sustain growth and to keep on delivering.  Government simply takes from the producers and the only thing it gives back is a portion of what it has taken – the rest is government overhead.  Over time, the producers stop producing because there is no upside for them to produce.

Sure government can create jobs, government jobs, and this does two things that should make you run from government intrusion in your life.  First, any government job created takes away from the producers the ability to produce, grow, and create jobs with a multiplier effect.  It must continue to take from the producer to support the government created job.  Second, the government created job, as it takes away from private sector job growth, keeps you permanently chained to the government to keep your job.  Some may say – “what is wrong with a good job from the government?” – the answer is that the government job is not sustainable and that over time, the ecomony and quality of life shrink.  As the economy shrinks, the government must take more and more from the remaining producers to sustain those made up government jobs – remember, government jobs produce nothing and add nothing to the economy.  As more and more is taken, the producers produce less due to loss of economic motivation – this becomes a cycle of doom.  Countless countries have tried this and met the same result – failure.

Throughout history in Latin America, South America, Europe, and Asia (most of the globe), power hungry despots and some well meaning socialists have adopted the control afforded by socialism and the “government can do it all” approach, and failed miserably.  Our current President is an academic with a law degree.  He has never produced, never managed anything, and appears to have never studied history on the failure rate of big government socialism.  That is, unless he is not concerned with 100% failure rate or the success of the venture (we cannot call it an experiment since the experiment failed in a plethora of tests around the globe), and he is only seeking the control and power that comes to a few, not the masses, from the big government socialist venture.

The following is Barack Obama, when he was a state senator, in his own words describing why our constitution is flawed and in need of change.  If this does not send chills up your spine, then you have not been paying attention.  He feels that the constitution does not provide government with sufficient powers.  In this video Mr. Obama telegraphs just where he wants to take this country with the big government socialist approach.  The video was found on a blog Bob’s Bites. (Thank you Bob’s Bites).

This bullet train approach to CHANGE toward a big government socialist nation with an understanding that the constitution does not permit the kind of change being attempted, must be stopped.  Unfortunately, President Obama will be in office for four years and the current very left, very socialist Democratic Party controlled Congress will be intact for two years, making the stopping of this train very difficult, but not impossible.

We need to pressure the members of the U.S. Senate’s Democratic Party who hold the more moderate and conservative economic voting records in the Democratic Party Senate caucus and three Republican RINO’s (republicans in name only) to act as a buffer and to take steps to retard the hi-speed approach to socialist economic change.  We must pressure these Senators to slow the massive government spending for big government.  This government spending is not sustainable and simply cannot be repaid.  You see, right now, the government is a sub-prime borrower seeking an unsustainable mortgage – have you heard this before?  This is what got us into this mess and now we are attempting to spend our way to prosperity and borrow our way out of debt – show me one budget text book that portends a happy outcome when you spend more than you can produce for a sustained time.  One book does explain this unique economic plan – it is the bible – the new testament to be exact.  It is commonly known as the “Miracle of the Loaves and the Fishes”.  Unfortunately for us, while Barack Obama may think he can walk on water – he cannot and he cannot perform the “Miracle of the Loaves and the Fishes” or make wine from water!

Do what you can to stop this bullet train, before it is too late! Tell them (cut and paste the statement if you wish):

“Stop the over the top spending and borrowing now – don’t destroy our country!  Socialism does not work!”

The Democratic Senators in the Senate, with the most conservative economic voting records and the three Republicans (RINOs), who should be pressured are:

Baucus, Max – (D – MT)

 

511 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2651
Web Form: baucus.senate.gov/contact/emailForm.cfm?subj=issue

 

Bayh, Evan – (D – IN)

 

131 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5623
Web Form: bayh.senate.gov/contact/email/

 

Byrd, Robert C. – (D – WV)

 

311 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3954
Web Form: byrd.senate.gov/contacts/

 

Carper, Thomas R. – (D – DE)

 

513 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2441
Web Form: carper.senate.gov/contact/

 

Conrad, Kent – (D – ND)

 

530 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2043
Web Form: conrad.senate.gov/contact/webform.cfm

 

Dorgan, Byron L. – (D – ND)

 

322 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2551
E-mail: senator@dorgan.senate.gov

 

Landrieu, Mary L. – (D – LA)

 

328 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5824
Web Form: landrieu.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm

 

McCaskill, Claire – (D – MO)

 

717 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6154
Web Form: mccaskill.senate.gov/contact/

 

Nelson, Ben – (D – NE)

 

720 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6551
Web Form: bennelson.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

 

Tester, Jon – (D – MT)

 

724 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2644
Web Form: tester.senate.gov/Contact/index.cfm

 

Webb, Jim – (D – VA)

 

248 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4024
Web Form: webb.senate.gov/contact/

 

Wyden, Ron – (D – OR)

 

223 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5244
Web Form: wyden.senate.gov/contact/

 

Collins, Susan M. (R – ME)

 

413 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2523
Web Form: collins.senate.gov/public/continue.cfm?FuseAction=Contact…

 

Snowe, Olympia J. (R – ME)

 

154 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5344
Web Form: snowe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactSenat…

 

Specter, Arlen (R – PA)

 

711 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4254
Web Form: specter.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Co…

Read Full Post »


President Obama, I have a question.  Very often during your campaign for President, you were adamant about eliminating earmarks.  You stated that you would go line by line in every bill looking for earmarks and have the earmarks eliminated before you sign the bill into law.  The current $410 Billion Omnibus Bill before the Senate and passed by the House, with your encouragement and support, contains nearly 9,000 earmarks.  Some of these earmarks are absolutely insane, especially in a time of fiscal crisis.  One item in the Senate version of the bill was an earmark submitted by you when you were a Senator from Illinois.  This earmark has now had your name removed, but it is yours just the same, because while you name was removed, the earmark remains in the bill – you did not eliminate your own earmark.

Perhaps, after the Stimulus Bill, The American Recovery Act, it is too soon to challenge you on this earmark thing, because we have been told by you and you’re your spokesman, Mr. Gibbs, that the Stimulus bill did not contain any earmarks.  However, we know this was true only in the technical sense, but if pork looks like an earmark, spends like an earmark, is not debated like an earmark, and is slipped in like an earmark, then it is an earmark.  The current Omnibus Bill earmarks explanation from your Mr. Gibbs is even more strange.  It is that these were last years earmarks and thus don’t count toward your pledge.  Please understand that I and many others find this to be a moronic, disingenuous explanation from the Obama Administration.  

For two years you campaigned against earmarks and yet you will not come out against last years, as yet to become law, earmarks?  Mr. Obama, will you veto this bill if it ever gets through the Senate?  This pork laden earmark filled (9,000) bill was written by the Democratic leadership in the House.  Even that ultra small band of fiscally conservative former Democrat colleagues of yours in the Senate are choking on this bill and are joining the Republicans in fighting this bill.  If they have come out against it, why haven’t you?

Mr. Obama, I have noticed a pattern in your positions.  You have verbal positions that are presented to the people and you tell us what we want to hear and you have actionable positions on the same issue that are just the opposite of what you told us.  You did promise transparency, so is this lack of transparency in your actions on purpose?  Can we expect this I will tell you one thing and regularly do the opposite to continue throughout your term of office?  Yes I said one question, but I got carried away.

Read Full Post »


A surprising number of people today are seeking a socialist government because they have a hope that a nanny state will improve their lives.  Many of these people, group one, are of modest income, brought about by modest education, and some early life mistakes.  Let’s not confuse these folks with those who want socialism because it gives them control of how we should all live, group two.  Group two is the alpha group with generally higher education and income levels.  This posting is targeted to those who are of modest means in group one.  There are three types of people: those who don’t know and know they don’t know; those who know and know they know; and those who don’t know and think they know – these are the dangerous ones and a bulk of these people fall into group two.  You will find a lot of these folks in Hollywood and in the Capitol Building.

Group one was provided an education in our schools run by controlling far left educators – group two.  The educators in their wisdom most likely dismissed the in depth teaching of U.S. and world history.  Group one simply does not realize exactly what they are seeking.  They have been sold a Utopian view by the far left of the Democratic Party, members of group two, with nary an explanation that all previous attempts at beneficial socialism worldwide have been abject failures.   China’s people are benefiting from improved prosperity and some limited advances in personal freedom, but these advances and improved prosperity are only brought about by shifts toward capitalism.  I cannot think of one nation that has adopted socialism and has seen economic prosperity and experienced widespread individual freedoms for its people through socialism.  The populace of these nations have no incentive to become wealthy and are generally regulated to death.  The socialist movement deflates any opportunity for a “rags to riches” rise.

Rather than use one of an unending list of failed socialist foreign nations as an example, I thought I would highlight one of our fifty states that entered into the socialism track years ago.  It is a state that has passed law after law impinging qualified personal freedom to the limit of our U.S. Constitution and has tried to be the most prolific nanny state that it can be.  It is a state where no one is held personally accountable.  I point out that personal freedom is qualified because their definition of freedom is unique to the rest of the country.  Smoking pot is good, but the rules on personal business expansion and prosperity are onerous.  It is a state that is suffering through and sharing the current U.S. and world severe recession, but is also suffering a self imposed economic collapse as a direct result of its attempt to be a nanny state.  It is a state that during a recession, where millions are suffering due to unemployment and rising costs, has decided it is good to increase taxes.  It has chosen to increase a regressive tax, the sales tax, to help solve the budget problem.  This is almost incredulous since they are raising taxes disproportionately on the people who have been weaned to depend on the nanny state.  How brilliant is that?

If you have not guessed as yet, it is the State is California.  This very liberal experiment in creating a nanny state, which included onerous rules on businesses and outrageously high taxes, is tanking faster than a falling meteoroid.  This State is suffering years of debt taken on to achieve the very liberal social programs that are the underpinning of the “nanny state”.  I hope the millions who are seeking the Nanny States of America take a moment to see what will become of the United States of America, if we continue on this path to a national socialistic nanny state.  One look at California and the multi-tentacled sink hole it has become should be enough to demonstrate to those of modest means, that in the long run the nanny state will only bring them abject misery.

This post is not targeted to group two socialism control freaks who truly believe that they know better how we should live and what our culture should look like – these are just misdirected fools and there is nothing you can tell or show them that will change their minds, since it is all about control to them.  They have no problem with constantly repeating history but with an expectation of a different result.  Fortunately for the conservatives and moderates who populate this nation, they cannot accomplish this trek to socialism on their own.  They need the votes of those with modest means.  They try to obtain these votes by promising stuff, lots of stuff.  They get these votes by pounding into these folks just how badly they have it and how dastardly corrupt business types are.

All we need to do is to point out California in detail to these modest means folks over and over again, and maybe we can wakeup some of these folks to the reality that their invitation from group two that says “we would like to have you for dinner” really means that they are the dinner.

Read Full Post »


Our new Attorney General, Eric Holder, has recently come out against semi-automatic weapons.  He says that our laws permitting semi-automatic weapons are fostering the shipment of these weapons to Mexico for the drug cartels, exacerbating the drug violence at the border.  Thus we must control the sale of these weapons in the United States and restrict ownership to address this crisis.  Boy does this ever sound reasonable.  I personally have no use for semi-automatic weapons, but I think that we do need to agree that the second amendment gives my solid citizen neighbor a right to own these weapons.

The truth, not told by our Attorney General, is that the Mexican drug cartels use not only these semi-automatic weapons, but fully automatic P90’s, hand grenades, and RPG’s as well.  The truth of the matter, not heard from Mr. Holder, is that the semi-automatic weapons are being purchased in the United States in such bulk as to be a currently illegal sale or they are bartered for drugs, also not legal.  The truth of the matter is that the Mexican authorities have not installed the proper detection equipment at the border to catch these weapons coming in to Mexico.  The truth of the matter is that Mr. Holder is using the Obama Administration playbook to “not let a good crisis go to waste”.   As was done with the stimulus bill and with the omnibus spending bill, we are told that an action is needed to solve a crisis, when in reality the bulk of these actions are designed to install their brand of socialism and government control of how we live.   For a very good and informative read on the Mexican gun and drug violence, read Stratfor’s piece: Mexico: Dynamics of the Gun Trade.

Mr. Holder has told us just enough to justify the Administration’s longstanding desire to eliminate gun ownership to fight crime.  Do you really think drug dealers apply for a gun permit before acquiring a gun?  Just how much illicit gun violence is there from permit carrying gun owners?  Mr. Holder would do better to spend his time marshalling his forces to track down and stop the wholesale market for illicit guns going to the drug cartels.   He need not spend his time trying disingenuously to snuff out the second amendment, simply because he and the rest of the Administration do not like it.

There are many people in this country who really want socialism, just read various blog comments on the internet.  Those who want socialism should study up on the effects of socialism.  It is a disease that slowly deprives a populace of freedom, and prosperity, with the non-workable utopian hope that the government can right all ills by bringing economic balance from those who have more to those who have less.   There are also many who open mindedly want to cut the Obama Administration slack because they feel that the Administration is working to solve our problems.  These people should stop and take a very close look at what the Administration is doing, under the guise of fixing a financial crisis.  If they did look under the hood, so to speak, they would find a host of actions that have nothing to do with fixing a financial crisis, and everything to do with installing heavy government control over the citizens. 

We must start to really listen to the Administration when its members speak, and we must really start to look at the people who are chosen to be in this Administration.  We cannot assume that because they say they are fixing our problems, that they are.  We must prevent them from acting like that distant cousin who shows up to stay, acts like he is mowing our lawn and fixing our shingles to help us out, but is really quietly cleaning us out of our silverware and other valuables.  When Erik Holder and other members of this Administration speak, listen very carefully to the actual words used, and you will hear the real agenda.  You will hear the very slick use of the English language to make you believe one thing, while they are doing something else.

Be sure to vote at: Rate the Obama Administration – Vote Here

Read Full Post »


Last night’s nonsense and unprofessional journalistic approach to the speech by Governor Jindal exhibited by the MSNBC team demonstrates the lack of objectivity in the media today.  The Republican Party clearly has another hurdle to return as a prominent party.  The media is necessary to getting your story and image out to the public.  When the outlets selectively make it difficult to get your image and message out, not only the party suffers but America suffers.  While last night’s show was a commentary show, a minimum of respect is necessary to allow a fair presentation.  Listen carefully to the MSNBC personnel coment and laugh as Jindal walks toward the microphone.  The man said nothing and already the MSNBC folks were making fun of and demeaning the man.  Where was the professionalism?  Even in a commentary show, comment should be withheld until after the man has spoken.  Governor Jindal did not purport himself and the Republican party well with his speech – it was a downright awful presentation, but he should have been allowed to fail without the stage being set for failure prior to his speaking.

If the Republican Party does not yet see its biggest challenge, it has no chance of recovery.  The main stream media has all but become totally corrupt in selecting and slanting the news.  It materially controls free speech and a free electoral process.  It is getting harder to find news, nothing but the news, to be informed of national and world events affecting this country and our lives.

The fourth estate as it was once called was given freedom of the press to insure its role as an independent check and balance to government actions.  When the fourth estate uses that freedom of the press to turn public opinion with often doctored reporting and suppresses news that does not support the media’s agenda, then the fourth estate has lost its right to freedom of the press.  Along with that right, comes the responsibility to be the purveyor of truth.

It is clear that the left in this country has co-opted the main stream media.  MSNBC has clearly become the Obama house organ.  What can be done about it?  This twisting of the news for political agenda is not new.  Way back at the formation of this country, Alexander Hamilton had about enough with newspapers in the tank for Thomas Jefferson, that he co-founded a newspaper to get his message and his party’s message  out (The Federalists) – it was the New York Post founded in 1801 as a daily publication.  Yes the same Post of today.  Oddly enough it was founded to combat the media’s one sided adoration of the new Democratic Party and its leader, Thomas Jefferson.

The Republican Party needs to find people who have the wherewithal to buy a major newspaper or a network and bring in real journalists.  These people should be respected balanced journalists who understand that the message is truth and not agenda.  I am not suggesting that this newly acquired media achieve an agenda.  If it did, then nothing would be made right.  The fourth estate would still be unworthy to hold the right of freedom of the press.  If it has to have an agenda, then it must be the agenda of truth without the partisan diatribe.  The agenda should be “All the news that is fit to print” – wait that is taken and it has been seriously abused by the New York Times.  The Times should be sued for false advertising.

Republican Party!  Unless and until you can get your message out you cannot bring balance back to this great land.  Michael Steele, start the process of finding balanced people who will assume control over some of the failing agenda driven papers and networks, so that a message of truth will be delivered.  Only then will the Republican Party be able to get a fair chance to serve the public.

Read Full Post »


The AFL-CIO’s web site says this about the Employee Free Choice Act:

“The Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 800, S. 1041), supported by a bipartisan coalition in Congress, would enable working people to bargain for better wages, benefits and working conditions by restoring workers’ freedom to choose for themselves whether to join a union. It would:
• Establish stronger penalties for violation of employee rights when workers seek to form a union  and during first-contract negotiations.
• Provide mediation and arbitration for first-contract disputes.
• Allow employees to form unions by signing cards authorizing union representati
on.”

This web site offers a few very interesting statements on why this act should pass in Congress.

First it calls the act a bipartisan coalition.  Know this, in the Senate no Republicans have sign on and that one of this Bill’s co-sponsors is now President-Elect Obama.   In the House the Bill has 234 co-sponsors, of which 6 are Ohio and Northeast Republicans – some bipartisan coalition?

Second it slyly says that the Act will

“Allow employees to form unions by signing cards authorizing union representation.”

In another area of the web site it says

“But the current system for forming unions and bargaining is broken. Every day, corporations deny workers the freedom to decide for themselves whether to form unions to bargain for a better life. They routinely intimidate, harass, coerce and even fire workers who try to form unions and bargain for economic well-being.”

One would think that with all this “bipartisan” support in Congress and the need to prevent the coercion of workers in forming a union, this Bill must pass.  Nowhere does the web site state that today workers enjoy the private ballot to decide whether they form a union or not.

Yes, a private ballot currently protects workers from both union and management coercion and intimidation.  This private ballot protects workers from being fired for making a choice against management and from being blackballed by the union should they vote against the union, and it succeeds.  The only reason to strip workers of a private ballot is to allow union organizer coercion from unions to force workers to complete a “Card Check” form in front of the union organizer to form unions – say hello to big Domenic and three fingers Vinnie, your friendly neighborhood union organizers.  Remember unions have had management from time to time charged with and convicted of racketeering and other not so nice crimes.

Here is the real story.  The Democrats want more unions, because the unions will collect dues of 1% to 2% of the employees pay.  These dues will be used to pay union member salaries and as contributions to Democratic political campaigns and Political Action Committees.  The Democrats see this as more unions, means more union dues, means more contributions to its candidates.  Thus the Democrats are ready willing and able to outright strip today’s workers of the democratic right to a private ballot in a true free choice union organizing election.  How democratic of the Democrats to eliminate a secret ballot for a good portion of the membership of their own party who are currently workers in non-union companies.  The icing on the cake is the name they gave the Act.   It is called the Employee Free Choice Act.  How apropos is it that there is no free choice in the Act?  We asked for Change and change we will get.  The candles on the cake is that this act will not apply to government workers, whom will be working for the democrats.

The Heritage Foundation has studied this Act and produced a number of articles and reports on the matter.  The Foundation has determined that “…the EFCA would disenfranchise 105 million American workers, which encompasses more than two-thirds, or 68.8 percent, of the American workforce.”   Read the whole report at The Employee Free Choice Act Would Disenfranchise 105 Million Workers.

The word needs to get out on this charade carried on by the Democratic party in power.  Come January 20th, 2009, the House with a Democrat majority, the Senate with a possible filibuster majority, and a co-sponsor of the bill in the White House, Barack Obama, will disenfranchise 105 million workers by passing this bill.  By removing the secret ballot and encouraging the flourishing of unions without real worker choice, the Democrats will start the march to socialism in this country.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: