Tag Archives: BarackObama

An Ego With No End

Posted on by

Fox News is reporting today that the Obama Administration has made some small additions at WhiteHouse.gov to biographies of former Presidents–going all the way back to Calvin Coolidge. I am sorry that anyone has the power to tamper with biographical information on the official White House site, but I guess if you are the President, it comes with the territory. President Obama has added little fact boxes at the end of the biographies of former Presidents relating his accomplishments to theirs.

The article reports:

For instance, the following line was added to the official bio of the late President Ronald Reagan: “In a June 28, 1985, speech, Reagan called for a fairer tax code, one where a multimillionaire did not have a lower tax rate than his secretary. Today, President Obama is calling for the same with the Buffett Rule.” 

Well, that kind of egotistic ridiculousness deserves a response, and the people at the Daily Caller were more than happy to provide one. A few of their suggestions:

On his desk in the Oval Office, President Harry Truman had a sign that read, “The Buck Stops Here.” After three years in the White House, President Obama’s 2012 campaign has internalized a similar motto: “The Buck Stops with George W. Bush.”
 
Coca-Cola was first sold at Jacob’s Pharmacy in Atlanta, Ga., in 1886. One of the two main ingredients in the original recipe was cocaine. In 1929, Coca-Cola became completely cocaine-free. During the 1980s, it is unclear if Barack Obama was totally Coca-Cola-free, but unlike Coca-Cola, he definitely wasn’t cocaine-free.
 

 In 1905 Theodore Roosevelt became the first sitting president to win the Nobel Peace Prize. He earned the prestigious award for helping end the Russo-Japanese war. In 2009, President Obama became the third sitting president — and the fourth president overall — to win the Nobel Peace Prize. He won the award for not being George W. Bush.

Please follow the link to the Daily Caller to read the entire article. It is the correct response to the meddling with the presidential biographies at WhiteHouse.gov.
 
 
 
 
Enhanced by Zemanta

Is This News ? Not Really. Is It Important ? Maybe.

Posted on by

Wednesday morning President Obama stated in an interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America‘s” Robin Roberts, “I’ve just concluded that for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”

He cited an evolution involving his Christian faith for the reason for changing the position he held in 2008. Needless to say, various spiritual leaders across the country are making statements saying that the position he is supporting is not the Biblical position.

Today’s Weekly Standard points out:

But what this might actually mean in terms of policy is a little murkier. Perhaps most pressing is the issue of a so-called “nondiscrimination executive order” that gay-rights groups have been pushing. The president has refused—and continues to refuse—to sign it.

“The order, which has been drafted for months awaiting the president’s signature, would prohibit discrimination by federal contractors on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity,” the Washington Post reported. “It has become a major focus for gay-rights groups, but in recent weeks activists began to worry that the White House might opt against approval.”

Why do I not consider this news? The President worked to repeal “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” The President stated that his Justice Department would not defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Why is his statement a surprise to anyone?

There is one thing about this discussion that concerns me. If gay marriage becomes legal, will there be a conscience clause that allows people who hold the Biblical view of marriage to opt out of performing or supporting gay marriages in any way?

The U. S. Constitution has always supported the right of Americans to practice their religion freely without government interference, will the President’s statement on gay marriage change this?

Gay marriage changes thousands of years of cultural tradition. I need to mention that I am not opposed to Civil Unions–I want gay couples to have healthcare rights, visitation rights in hospitals, legacy rights, etc. I just think that if gay marriage is legalized, the rights of Bible-believing Christians will be compromised.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

This Slogan Only Works If You Ignore The Facts

Posted on by

The Washington Free Beacon posted an article today reminding us of some inconvenient truths about the government bailout of the automobile industry. Since one of the campaign slogans of President Obama’s campaign this year will be, “Osama Bin Laden is dead, and General Motors is alive,” it might be wise to take a look at some of the facts surrounding the auto bailout.

The article reports:

The administration has already written off $7 billion in taxpayer losses in the American takeover of Chrysler and General Motors; those losses are expected to climb as high as $23 billion—27 percent of the $85 billion spent on the bailout.

While the bailout is widely credited with saving the two companies, increasing taxpayer losses have made it nearly as unpopular in 2012 as it was when Obama was elected. More than half of Americans still disapprove of the auto bailout compared with 61 percent in 2008.

Aside from the taxpayer losses involved, there is the violation of bankruptcy laws. We have laws for a reason–if they are wrong they need to be changed (these particular laws are not wrong), but until they are changed, they have to be followed.

As was pointed out at rightwinggranny in June of 2009, in bailing out Chryster, laws were broken:

The issue here is the secured debt.  The government is trying to pressure those who hold secured bonds to accept less than the value of the bonds so that other creditors can be paid.  We need to remember that one of the basic principles of bankruptcy law is that secured creditors (who loaned money only on the contractual promise that if the debt was unpaid they’d get specific property back)  get paid off in full before unsecured creditors get anything.  To do anything else is a violation of the US Constitution and its rules on private property rights.

Laws were broken in the auto bailouts in order to hand the companies over to the unions. Some Americans remember that. General Motors is alive, but aside from the taxpayer losses, the government and the unions have much more power in running the company than is appropriate.

The article at the Free Beacon further reports:

“They came in and forced these companies into pre-packaged bankruptcy where unions were made whole and creditors were squeezed out,” the expert said. “In normal bankruptcy they don’t rearrange stakeholders rights willy-nilly…there’s no way those union contracts would have been untouched.”

Labor is not the only constituency to which Obama has tried to appeal by championing the bailout.  “After three decades of inaction, we’re gradually putting in place the toughest fuel economy standards in history for our cars and pickups,” Obama said in the same February speech. “That means the cars you build will average nearly 55 miles per gallon by the middle of the next decade—almost double what they get today.”

Obama tied the bailouts to strict environmental standards that have led to increasingly efficient cars, an achievement he has used to woo green advocates. The move has affected more than just the environment, establishing “dangerous” legal precedents, according to some legal experts.

General Motors may be alive, but it is a whole lot less free than it was before President Obama said, “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help you.”

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Running The White House By Chicago Rules

Posted on by

At the risk of sounding totally disrespectful, I fully believe that in 2008 we elected a Chicago thug to the White House. The list of reasons why I believe this is long–it includes disregard for the Constitution (attacking the Supreme Court), trying to undermine the right to bear arms (Fast and Furious), and just general tackiness (which I guess is not a serious crime, but sometimes it ought to be!).

As we approach the 2012 election, the press, possibly in an effort to regain some semblance of credibility before they begin to act as Obama campaign workers, are beginning to report things that we all knew, but they weren’t reporting.

The Weekly Standard posted an article today citing a rather lengthy New York Times article (is there any other kind?) entitled, “White House Opens Door to Big Donors, and Lobbyists Slip In.” Are we supposed to be surprised?

The article at the Weekly Standard reports:

Patrick J. Kennedy, the former representative from Rhode Island, who donated $35,800 to an Obama re-election fund last fall while seeking administration support for a nonprofit venture, said contributions were simply a part of “how this business works.”

“If you want to call it ‘quid pro quo,’ fine,” he said. “At the end of the day, I want to make sure I do my part.”

It seems to me that that shouldn’t be “simply a part of how this business works.” It really is time to clean house in Washington–and the house cleaning has to be the President, the Congress, and the bureaucrats who continue to spend taxpayer money recklessly–whether they are staffers or government employees. The taxpayers of America need to take our country back.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Not-So-Transparent Transparency

Posted on by

The Washington Examiner posted an article yesterday about the White House’s attempt to spin the “working wives vs non-working wives” dust-up. It seems that when President Obama took office, in a move toward historic transparency, he opened up the White House visitor logs to the public. That really is nice–I think Americans have a right to know who their President is talking to. However, there seems to be a slight snag in the process.

The article reports some dodging and weaving by Press Secretary Jay Carney:

“The point I was making yesterday is that often when we get inquiries about the visitor list, the WAVES list, just based on names, it turns out that people with common names appear  . . .  sometimes there are other people with the same names,” Carney told reporters today. “So all I was simply saying is that at that point, we had no way of verifying that this was one person.”

Carney was explaining why he responded, “I know three, personally, women named Hilary Rosen. So I’m not sure that those represent the person we’re talking about necessarily,” when he was asked about Rosen’s many trips to the White House. (Obama was exposed to embarrassment when Rosen, a Democratic strategist and familiar figure in the White House, said that Ann Romney had “never worked a day in her life.”)

The article then asks, “If the White House visitor logs can’t be used for “verifying” the identity of White House visitors, are the logs “still providing the American people with an unprecedented amount of information about their government” as promised?” That is a very good question. 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Will We Have Any Friends Left In The World After Four Years Of Barack Obama ?

Posted on by

I am sure many countries in Eastern Europe cringed at President Obama’s open mike moment with Russian President Medvedev. The idea of President Obama becoming more flexible in his policies of missile defense is much scarier to those countries than it is to most Americans. They must be wondering how valuable friendship with America is. Now the Israelis must be wondering the same thing.

Fox News is reporting that John Bolton has accused the Obama Administration of leaking secret information about Israel in order to prevent Israel from attacking Iran this spring. Ambassador Bolton was responding to an article in Foreign Policy magazine that quoted government sources claiming Israel had been granted access to airfields in Azerbaijan — along Iran’s northern border. Azerbaijan would make strategic sense as a base for any Israeli operation against Iran.

Fox News reports:

The Foreign Policy article quoted what were identified as “high-level sources … inside the U.S. government.” It specifically mentioned “four senior diplomats and military intelligence officers.” 

One intelligence officer, who was unnamed, told the magazine that the U.S. was “watching” the activity and was “not happy about it.” 

The Foreign Policy article did not specify whether any of the information came from the White House, and there is no direct evidence that this was a coordinated leak.

“Clearly, this is an administration-orchestrated leak,” Bolton told FoxNews.com. “This is not a rogue CIA guy saying I think I’ll leak this out.” 

“It’s just unprecedented to reveal this kind of information about one of your own allies,” Bolton said. 

Would you  be friends with America after your secret information had been leaked?

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

More Questions Without Answers

Posted on by

A blog called the Daily Pen posted some information on Friday that may turn out to be important. Please take a look. There are an awful lot of unanswered quesitons about the history of President Obama. Even some in the major media are starting to wonder about his school records, etc. Forbes Magazine has posted an excerpt from a book called, “Hope Is Not A Strategy.”  Normally, a President’s college grades, educational history, etc. are public information. Why is there so much secrecy surrounding President Obama?

NOTE: The Forbes article referred to above has disappeared from the Internet.

Gateway Pundit has the story.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

This Issue Just Seems To Keep Going

Posted on by

Diana West posted her syndicated column on her blog yesterday. The column begins with a warning:

Warning: This column contains news of evidence of possible forgery and fraud in the long-form birth certificate of the president of the United States and – bonus – his Selective Service registration card.

I figure the warning is necessary to prevent Americans, particularly Americans who work in news media and politics, from hurting themselves on any hard, sharp facts that might poke through my discussion of what is surely the biggest scandal to emerge around the seemingly dodgy docs Barack Obama is using to verify his identity.

I refer to the logic- and history-defying news and political blackout of the March 1 press conference called in Maricopa County, Ariz., by Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse.

I watched the entire press conference. The information given is very compelling. I really do not know what to think. There is also a video circulating of Bill Ayer’s mother’s mailman stating that Mrs. Ayers introduced him to a foreign student (Barack Obama) that they were helping with his education.

Please follow the link to Diana West’s blog to read her entire article. There just seems to be an awful lot of aspects of the President’s history that don’t quite add up and a number of missing documents.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Truth About Oil And Gas Production In America

Posted on by

Yesterday John HInderaker posted an article at Power LIne about President Obama’s claim that he has increased oil and gas production in America during his term as President.

This chart says it all:

The chart makes very clear that private lands have increased their production of oil and natural gas and public lands have not. Please follow the link above to the article. The article provides a time line of what the Obama Administration has done to limit oil and gas production on federal land.

The article concludes:

…A week ago I was talking with a Republican Congressman from Minnesota who described an encounter with President Obama, in which he tried to explain to Obama that FDA regulations are devastating the medical device industry, of which Minnesota is a major center. After the Congressman had explained the problem, Obama put his hand on his shoulder and said, “There isn’t really much I can do about that. The FDA is an independent agency, you know.”

The Congressman described this as an instance of Obama’s “cluelessness,” but I think he gave the president too much credit. Obama knew perfectly well what the consequences of staffing the federal alphabet-soup agencies with hard-line left-wingers would be. He tries, now, to distance himself from the terrible consequences of his own appointees’ actions, but he is fully responsible for them. The Obama administration has gone out of its way to make you poorer. Anyone who votes to re-elect the president deserves another four years of misery.

We need to pay attention–this matters.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Question Here Is Why The Truth Is Coming Out Now

Posted on by

Mickey Kaus at the Daily Caller posted a story about a Washington Post story detailing what happened during the negotiations on the deficit last summer. As you probably remember, the media story was that the Republicans were intransigent and the Democrats couldn’t do anything about it. Well, it seems as if what we were told was not actually true.

The article at the Daily Caller summarizes the information in the Washington Post:

According to the Post,  the two sides (Obama and Boehner) were close to a deal. Then Obama foolishly trumpeted a “Gang of Six” proposal that had a much higher tax number, which had the effect of making the deal look small. ** He then demanded a 50% increase ($400 billion) in new revenues. When the talks then blew up, he tried to get his old deal back, but it was too late.

I believe the Republicans stated this at the time, but I seriously doubt anyone heard them above the roar of the media template.

Please follow the link to the Daily Caller to read the entire article. It is a great read. It makes very clear that President Obama’s inexperience as a negotiator was responsible for the difficulty in coming together. The article also reminds us that part of the Democrat plan was to raise the age of eligibility for Medicare. I think it’s time to remind the baby boomers of that before they vote in November.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Fact Checking Some Of The President’s Recent Statements On Energy

Posted on by

CNS News posted an article posted a story yesterday about the President’s recent statements about his administration’s energy policy:

The article reports:

In his March 10, 2012, Weekly Address, President Obama said that “[u]nder my Administration, oil production in America is at an eight-year high. We’ve quadrupled the number of operating oil rigs, and opened up millions of acres for drilling.”

He continued: “But you and I both know that with only 2% of the world’s oil reserves, we can’t just drill our way to lower gas prices – not when we consume 20 percent of the world’s oil. We need an all-of-the-above strategy that relies less on foreign oil and more on American-made energy – solar, wind, natural gas, biofuels, and more.”

Well, he seems to have conviently overlooked a few things.

Some inconvenient facts reported in the article:

As CNSNews.com has reported, oil production on federal lands declined in fiscal year 2011 from fiscal year 2010 by 11 percent, and natural gas production on federal lands dropped by 6 percent during the same timeframe.

In contrast, oil production on private and state lands accounted for the entire increase, reported the IER, as production was up 14 percent from 2010 to 2011. Natural gas also was up 12 percent from 2010 to 2011.

The article also reported that the reason America is producing more oil has to do with permits issued in the two year period before President Obama took office. It takes about three to five years to bring on production in oil fields.

Please follow the link to CNS News to read the entire article. There is an awful lot of smoke and mirrors in what the President is saying about his energy policies, and the article explains what the facts actually are and how the President is skewing the information.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Surefire Way To Increase The Price Of Gas

Posted on by

Yesterday CNS News posted an article about the White House’s plan to end the tax breaks oil companies currently receive. Obviously, this will increase the tax burden on the oil companies. As I have previously stated–corporations don’t pay taxes–they simply pass them on to the consumer. Guess what? This is a recipe for even higher gas prices at the pump.

The article reports:

“From our perspective, it’s a fairness issue,” Zichal (Heather Zichal, deputy assistant to the president for energy and climate change) said. “At a time when we’re making difficult decisions about the budget and where to make investments and where to cut, the fact that oil and gas companies are making record profits and at the same time getting $4 billion in subsidies annually, those subsidies should be repealed. The president has called for that, and I believe the Senate will be acting to vote on this as well.”

What about fairness to the consumers who need to gas to get to work?

Enhanced by Zemanta

About That Fairness Thing

Posted on by

Thomas Sowell posted an article at Townhall.com dealing with the subject of fairness in tax policy.

Mr. Sowell describes the supposed justification for higher taxes on the rich, and then asks a questions we should all be asking:

He pointed out that a child born to a poor woman in the Bronx enters the world with far worse prospects than a child born to an affluent couple in Connecticut.

No one can deny that. The relevant question, however, is: How does allowing politicians to take more money in taxes from successful people, to squander in ways that will improve their own reelection prospects, make anything more “fair” for others?

How much has the billions of dollars spent of the War on Poverty actually helped alleviate poverty in America?

Mr. Sowell points out that giving money to single mothers has not helped alleviate their poverty problems–instead, it has increased the number of single mothers. Since children raised by a single parent do not do as well as children who grow up with their two original parents, increasing the number of single parents is not ‘fair’ to anyone.

Mr. Sowell concludes:

High tax rates in the upper income brackets allow politicians to win votes with class warfare rhetoric, painting their opponents as defenders of the rich. Meanwhile, the same politicians can win donations from the rich by creating tax loopholes that can keep the rich from actually paying those higher tax rates — or perhaps any taxes at all.

What is worse than class warfare is phony class warfare. Slippery talk about “fairness” is at the heart of this fraud by politicians seeking to squander more of the nation’s resources.

We have reached the point where half of Americans pay no income taxes. If we don’t level out the tax burden to the point where everyone pays something, we will find ourselves with a very small number of people trying to support those who are not paying taxes and have no interest in what the tax rate is. We are almost there already.

Enhanced by Zemanta

This Is Just Getting More Complicated

Posted on by

As I have previously stated, I have no idea what to make of this. There seem to be some valid questions about President Obama’s eligibility to be President. On Monday wnd.com reported that in addition to the court case in George about putting the President on the ballot (see rightwinggranny.com), there are other states taking a closer look at how they qualify candidates for elections.

The article reports:

Whatever the outcome in Georgia, the issue is gaining traction in other states, too, including Alabama, Tennessee, Arizona, New Hampshire, and even Illinois, Obama’s home political base.

There, in a complaint recently filed by Stephen F. Boulton of McCarthy Duffy LLP and Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, their client is asking for a change in state law to allow the vetting of political candidates.

Whatever happens in Georgia, Americans have the right to be fully confident that a candidate on the ballot has been checked to make sure he meets the qualifications for the office he is seeking.

The article points out:

The newest round of court actions do not try to have a judge determine Obama is not qualified for the Oval Office and remove him from it, they simply challenge his eligibility for the 2012 election.

Many of the cases cite Minor v. Happersett, a U.S. Supreme Court opinion from 1875 that said a “natural born citizen” would be a person whose parents both were citizens.

“This complaint does not request any injunction against any state or federal government official. Instead this complaint asserts that the private entity, Defendant Democratic Party, intends to act negligently or fraudulently in a manner that will cause irreparable harm to the plaintiffs, to the states, and to the citizens of the United States,” said one of the filings.

It continued, “Because Mr. Obama has admitted that his father was not a U.S. citizen, and because this fact has been confirmed by the U.S. State Department, any reasonable person with knowledge of these facts would doubt Mr. Obama’s constitutional qualifications. Therefore, any representation by the Democratic Party certifying said qualifications would be negligent, absent further evidence verifying Mr. Obama’s natural-born status.

“Plaintiffs further request an injunction prohibiting the Democratic Party from making any representation to any state official asserting, implying, or assuming that Mr. Obama is qualified to hold the office of president, absent a showing by the party sufficient to prove that said representation is not negligent.”

Van Irion, lead counsel for Liberty Legal Foundation, also is working on several of the issues, and has brought the question in court in Arizona.

The question is out there. It will be interesting to see what happens next. Meanwhile, have you read about this in the mainstream media?

Enhanced by Zemanta

I Honestly Have No Idea What To Think Of This

Posted on by

Before I post this article, I would like to say that I think the whole thing is moot. The only reason I am posting it is that no one in the news is talking about it. Is that because it is silly or is there something there? I have no idea, but here is the information.

On Thursday, a website called The National Patriot posted the testimony from a trial going on in Georgia to settle the question of whether President Obama is eligible to be on the Georgia presidential ballot. Yes, you read that right.

Some excerpts from the article:

The case revolved around the Natural Born clause of the Constitution and whether or not Obama qualifies under it to serve. More to the point, if found ineligible, Obama’s name would not appear on the 2012 ballot in Georgia.

…Immigration Services documents entered into evidence regarding Obama Sr.

June 27th, 1962, is the date on those documents. Obama’s father’s status shown as a non citizen of the United States. Documents were gotten through the Freedom of Information Act.

Testimony regarding the definition of Natural Born Citizen is given citing Minor vs Happersett opinion from a Supreme Court written opinion from 1875. The attorney points out the difference between “citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen” using charts and copies of the Minor vs Happersett opinion.

It is also pointed out that the 14th Amendment does not alter the definition or supersede the meaning of Natural Born. It is pointed out that lower court rulings do not conflict with the Supreme Court opinion nor do they over rule the Supreme Court Minor vs Happersett opinion.

…Enters into evidence a portion of letter received from attorney showing a renewal form from Obama’s mother for her passport listing Obama’s last name something other than Obama.

State Licensed PI takes the stand.

She was hired to look into Obama’s background and found a Social Security number for him from 1977. Professional opinion given that this number was fraudulent. The number used or attached to Obama in 1977, shows that the true owner of the number was born in the 1890. This shows that the number was originally assigned to someone else who was indeed born in 1890 and should never have been used by Obama.

Same SS number came up with addresses in IL, D.C. and MA.

…Expert in document imaging and scanners for 18 years.

Mr. Vogt testifies that the birth certificate, posted online by Obama, is suspicious. States white lines around all the type face is caused by “unsharp mask” in Photoshop. Testifies that any document showing this, is considered to be a fraud.

States this is a product of layering.

Mr. Vogt testifies that a straight scan of an original document would not show such layering.

Also testifies that the date stamps shown on Obama documents should not be in exact same place on various documents as they are hand stamped. Obama’s documents are all even, straight and exactly the same indicating they were NOT hand stamped by layered into the document by computer.

Next witness, Mr. Sampson a former police officer and former immigration officer specializing in immigration fraud.

Ran Obama’s SS number through database and found that the number was issued to Obama in 1977 in the state of Connecticut . Obama never resided in that state. At the time of issue, Obama was living in Hawaii.

Serial number on birth certificate is out of sequence with others issued at that hospital. Also certification is different than others and different than twins born 24 hours ahead of Obama.

Please follow the link to the article to read the entire testimony and draw your own conclusions. I have no idea what to think.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Who Gets Rich In The Obama Economy

Posted on by

Today’s Daily Caller posted an article about President Obama’s speech in Las Vegas calling for a plan to boost the American use of natural gas. I’m sure it is only a coincidence that George Soros will benefit greatly if the plan is put into action.

The Daily Caller reports:

Westport Innovations, a recent purchase by Soros, would benefit from the windfall of policies that pursue the use of natural gas for transportation. The company, whose shares have been projected to explode if Congress were to approve the Natural Gas Act, makes natural gas engines for heavy-duty trucks.

“Soros’s investment funds have pumped about $122 million into WPST, and he’s added to his control as recently as December and March, when he picked up over a million shares, bringing his total to 5.5 million shares,” reported BigGovernment.

“If Westport reaps the predicted windfall, one of the chief beneficiaries will be George Soros, a major Obama donor and supporter. Soros’s hedge fund holds.

There have been a lot of investments in ‘green energy’ by political leaders who felt that they could put policies in place that would reward them rather than be in the best interests of America. We need to remember that specific legislation was passed before Solyndra declared bankruptcy that put the American taxpayer on the hook for the loss rather than the investors in the company. We also need to remember that in the bankruptcy of Chrysler, the interests of the unions were protected over the interests of the Preferred Stockholders, which is against bankruptcy law.

Crony capitalism seems to be one of the strongest traits of the Obama Administration. When November comes, we need to end both crony capitalism and the Obama Administration.

 

 
Enhanced by Zemanta

Another Foreign Policy Blunder

Posted on by

Hot Air posted an article today about the status of the oil exploration that the Obama Administration loaned Brazil’s oil company Petrobras $2 billion to support.

President Obama stated at the time the money was given to Brazil:

“We want to work with you. We want to help with technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely, and, when you’re ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers.”

At the same time the President was giving the $2 billion for Brazilian oil exploration, he was drastically slowing down leasing and permitting in the US and whining about “subsides” to US oil corporations. It was okay to subsidize Brazilian companies doing oil exploration, but for some reason it was not okay to subsidize American oil companies.

The article points out:

The country’s state-controlled oil company, Petrobras, expects to pump 4.9 million barrels a day from the country’s oil fields by 2020, with 40 percent of that coming from the seabed. One and a half million barrels will be bound for export markets.

The United States wants it, but China is getting it.

Less than a month after President Obama visited Brazil in March to make a pitch for oil, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff was off to Beijing to sign oil contracts with two huge state-owned Chinese companies.

This is not good news. When America has a weak President, bad things happen.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Who Are The Extreme Environmentalists ?

Posted on by

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article yesterday linking to an American Spectator article about the people who claim to be protecting the environment. The article points out that many of the environmental activists are part of a wealthy leisure class whose income and lifestyle will not be impacted by the policies they support.

The best quote from the article:

As the Forest Service used to say, the person who built his mountain cabin last year is an environmentalist. The person who wants to build one this year is a developer.

Further proof of this mentality can be found if you examine the ‘carbon footprint’ of some of those who believe in global warming and support restrictions on other Americans’ use of energy. Remember too that the wealthiest Americans fighting the development of American energy resources are not concerned about the rising cost of energy to the average American.

The American Spectator points out:

It is not that the average person is not concerned about the environment. Everyone weighs the balance of economic gain against a respect for nature. It is only the truly affluent, however, who can be concerned about the environment to the exclusion of everything else. Most people see the benefits of pipelines and power plants and admit they have to be built somewhere. Only in the highest echelons do we hear people say, “We don’t need to build any pipelines. We’ve already got enough energy. We can all sit around awaiting the day we live off wind and sunshine.”

In regard to the recent decision by the Obama Administration not to build the Keystone Pipeline:

The Laborers’ International Union of North America (LIUNA) left the BlueGreen Alliance on Friday, citing a disagreement with the group’s members over the Keystone XL pipeline.

LIUNA, a vocal Keystone supporter, took aim at other unions for opposing the project.

“We’re repulsed by some of our supposed brothers and sisters lining up with job killers like the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council to destroy the lives of working men and women,” LIUNA General President Terry O’Sullivan said in a statement.

I hope some of the other unions wake up and realize the impact the policies of President Obama are having on American jobs. President Obama has blocked economic growth through excessive regulation and extreme environmentalism. Our economy will not recover until the over-regulation is dealt with. Protecting the environment is crucial, but it can be done in a way that allows the production of domestic energy and the creation of new jobs.

Enhanced by Zemanta

When Is A Recess Not A Recess ?

Posted on by

One of the reasons I love Power Line Blog is that John Hinderaker, its main writer, is a lawyer and explains everything in a logical, lawyerly way. I don’t always understand what he is saying, but I appreciate the logical approach.

Today Mr. Hinderaker posted an opinion by Michael McConnell on the Justice Department’s statement that President Obama’s recess appointments, made when Congress was not really in recess, are legal.

The Opinion places enormous weight on the fact that the Senate’s resolution providing for pro forma sessions declared that there would be “no business conducted.” There are two problems with this, as a legal matter. First, as the Opinion concedes, the important question is whether at these sessions the Senate is “capable” of exercising its constitutional functions – not whether, on any particular occasion, it has chosen not to do so. Second, in actual fact the Senate has conducted major business during these sessions, including passing the payroll tax holiday extension during a pro forma session on December 23. The Opinion weakly responds that, notwithstanding this evidence of actual practice, the President “may properly rely on the public pronouncements of the Senate that it will not conduct business.” It is hard to see why the Senate’s stated intention not to do business takes legal and constitutional precedence over its manifest ability to do so. The President is well aware the Senate is doing business on these days, because he has signed two pieces of legislation passed during them.

Please follow the above link to the article to read the entire opinion. The article concludes with the following statement:

Given the extent to which Barack Obama and Eric Holder have politicized the Department of Justice, it is really not too surprising that in the view of Obama’s DOJ, the law really does depend on which party occupies the White House.

These appointments showed a total disregard for the Constitution and the separation of powers. The Republicans need to make a big deal of this. We don’t have a king–we have a President whose appointments are subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. The Senate needs to object to being ignored in this process. I have a feeling that if George W. Bush had done this, we might have heard a lot more about it.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Things To Watch In The 2012 Campaign

Posted on by

President Obama had two powerful weapons in the 2008 campaign–one was the fact that the country was war-weary and the constant attacks on George W. Bush and the Republicans were beginning to bear fruit. The other was the fact that the country knew very little about Barack Obama and the news media made sure it stayed that way. One pesky little fact that kept on coming up on conservative talk radio shows was President Obama’s 20-year membership in the Trinity United Church of Christ pastored by the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

Big Government posted a story today about a recent speech by David Axelrod in which “Axelrod described the initial news reports in 2008 on Obama’s long-time family pastor and mentor as “ninety seconds of vitriol plucked from thirty years of sermons by some enterprising opposition researcher.””

Please follow the link above to see the video of some of the preaching of the Reverend Wright.

The article at Big Government concludes:

Clearly, Axelrod’s purpose was not to inform, but to inspire. He suggested that Obama would reiterate the “hope and change” message of his 2008 campaign in 2012, and would emphasize economic equality as well as economic growth.

Axelrod’s defense of Jeremiah Wright, however, is a sign that the Obama camp is still resisting and obscuring the degree to which Obama’s own inspirations and ideas remain outside the political mainstream.

There will be a lot of lies told on the campaign trail. We need to learn to sort the lies and the spin from the actual truth.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Avoiding The Constitution When Necessary

Posted on by
English: Detail of Preamble to Constitution of...

Image via Wikipedia

This is the Oath of Office the President of the United States takes when he assumes office:

I, <name>, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
 
Preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution all imply that the holder of the office will honor the Constitution. Unfortunately, President Obama has recently chosen not to do that.
 
CNS News is reporting today that in a recess appointment President Obama has appointed Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Unfortunately for the President, Congress is technically not in recess.
 
The article at CNS News points out:
 
The Senate, in fact, is not formally in recess. It rejected a resolution of adjournment – required by the Constitution to end a congressional session – meaning that the current 112th session of Congress continues. The pro-forma sessions Pfeiffer referred to are short, formal sessions of Congress that typically last a few minutes or less and are not intended to conduct business. They are intended to keep Congress technically in session, specifically for the purpose of preventing the president from making recess appointments.

Both chambers of Congress have held pro-forma sessions every three days, in order to comply with the constitutional requirement that Congress not recess for more than three days during a session without the consent of both houses.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) called Obama’s decision on Cordray a “power grab,” saying that it would devastate the traditional balance of power between the Executive and Legislative branches.

 
Admittedly the pro forma sessions are part of the game routinely played in Washington. However, up this point, both sides have at least respected the rules.
 
The article further reports:
 
Cordray, former Attorney General of Ohio, was nominated over the summer, but was blocked by Senate Republicans who wanted to make the CFPB more accountable to Congress before it began its regulatory work. The Senate rejected Cordray’s nomination on December 8 when it failed to gain enough votes for it to be brought to the floor.

 
I don’t know what the options are for Congress at this point, but if the Congressmen think the Constitution means anything, I suggest they stand up for it.
 
Just to add to the confusion, The Hill reported today:
 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who previously held pro forma sessions to block recess appointments by President George W. Bush, said Wednesday he supported President Obama’s decision to ignore those sessions to push through one of his key nominees.

“I support President Obama’s decision,” he said in a statement.

This is one of the reasons I think most Democrats are sleazy–they have no defining principles–it’s all about politics. There is no respect for the Consitution–it’s all about the party–not the country.

    
 
Enhanced by Zemanta

You Can Choose Your Friends But Not Your Relatives

Posted on by

As we end the holiday season, there may be someone out there who agrees with the headline of this article. I suspect President Obama would agree. Dr. Milton R. Wolf, a cousin of President Obama, published an opinion piece in the Washington Times yesterday about the Obama Presidency. He was not overly kind.

Dr. Wolf states:

 Mr. Obama may care deeply for America, but he believes in only one thing: Barack Obama. And you are not Barack Obama.

That seems a little harsh, but I would say that a President on a $4 million vacation when the country is struggling financially is a more than a little tone deaf.

Dr. Wolf further states:

As recently as this month, the food-stamp president of 13 million unemployed Americans declared himself the fourth-most-accomplished president in the history of the United States, eclipsing, in his own mind, President Reagan and even our nation’s father, George Washington. That in only three years. Barack the Magnificent won’t allow trivialities like $15 trillion debts or historic national credit downgrades dissuade him.

Please follow the link to the Washington Times and read the entire commentary. Dr. Wolf notes our loss of freedom under the Obama Administration (the government is taking over health insurance, telling us what cars to buy, and limiting our choice of light bulbs).

This election needs to be an election of change–we need to get rid of the Washington political class. I am waiting to see who emerges as the Republican candidate to see if that will happen. I am willing to support anyone except Ron Paul.

Enhanced by Zemanta

It’s Time To Repeal Obamacare

Posted on by

Remember the words “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.” Well, it hasn’t exactly worked out that way. Obamacare is not yet fully in effect, and yet it is already having a major negative impact on the average working American’s health insurance.

The Weekly Standard reported yesterday:

Now, Gallup reports that from the first quarter of 2010 (when Obama signed Obamacare into law) to the third quarter of this year, 2 percent of American adults lost their employer sponsored health insurance. In other words, about 4.5 million Americans lost their employer-sponsored insurance over a span of just 18 months. 

This is not a good thing. The article further reports:

Rather, the CBO had predicted that Obamacare would increase the number of people with employer-sponsored insurance by now.  It had predicted that, under Obamacare, 6 million more Americans would have employer-sponsored insurance in 2011 than in 2010 (see table 4, which shows the CBO’s projected increase of 3 million under (pre-Obamacare) current law and an additional 3 million under Obamacare). So the CBO’s rosy projections for Obamacare (and even these paint a frightening picture) are already proving false.  

This is one of many problems with Obamacare. I reported on September 23 (rightwinggranny) that the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) Act portion of Obamacare has been abandoned because its cost would spiral out of control. Unfortunately, the CLASS portion of Obamacare was the part that was supposed to make Obamacare reduce the deficit in its early years (that was done by forcing people who wanted to participate in the CLASS program to contribute to it for a number of years before actually receiving benefits). Eventually, those initial contributions would be used up and the expenses of the program would quickly spiral out of control.

How many promises does Obamacare have to break before it is repealed?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Solyndra Through The Eyes Of James Pethokoukis

Posted on by
Image representing Solyndra as depicted in Cru...

Image via CrunchBase

On Friday, James Pethokoukis at Reuters posted an article about the scandal surrounding government loans to Solyndra. Mr. Pethokoukis reminds us that President Obama intended to reorganize the American economy around ‘green energy’ in view of the dangers of global warming (which is NOT settled science).

The article points out:

At its core, Obamanomics is about the top-down redistribution of wealth and income. Government spending on various “green” subsidies and programs, along with a cap-and-trade system to limit carbon emissions, would enrich key Democrat constituencies: lawyers, public sector unions, academia and non-profits.

Oh, and Wall Street, too. Who was the exclusive financial adviser to Solyndra when it was trying to secure the $535 million loan from Washington? Goldman Sachs. And had the cap-and-trade scheme been enacted, big banks stood ready to reap billions from the trading of carbon emission credits.

Thank God cap and trade did not pass. The entire ‘green energy’ plan was a scheme to put money into Democrat party supporters’ pockets so that they could in turn donate substantial amounts of that money to Democrat campaigns.

My understanding of the Solyndra business plan was that they would build a solar panel for six dollars and then sell it for three. Even under new math, that won’t work for very long. The good news here is that Americans are aware of what happened and the crony capitalism that was involved. We need to understand that there will always be some degree of crony capitalism. Think about it–if you hold office, wouldn’t you rather do business with someone you know than someone you don’t know? The challenge is to avoid using large amounts of taxpayer money to fund businesses that do not have a viable business plan.

Part of the problem with the Obama administration is that it exists in the first place. We as voters need to be more aware of the backgrounds of the people we nominate and the people we elect. I cannot guarantee that John McCain would have made a better President, but I can say that I did not feel that John McCain was the best candidate the Republicans had to offer. The challenge for all Americans in the coming year is to be involved in the primary election process and to do everything we can to make sure that the candidates chosen represent us–regardless of which side of the political spectrum we fall on.

Enhanced by Zemanta

President Obama’s Jobs Speech

Posted on by
The western front of the United States Capitol...

Image via Wikipedia

Heritage.org posted a fairly detailed analysis of President Obama’s jobs speech tonight. Please follow the link for the details. I will try to highlight it.

In reference to regulations, Heritage.org points out:

“What we can’t do,” he said, “is let this economic crisis be used as an excuse to wipe out the basic protections that Americans have counted on for decades.  I reject the idea that we need to ask people to choose between their jobs and their safety.”

But no one is suggesting that any basic protections be erased — instead the pressing need now is to stop the tidal wave of regulation — costing almost $40 billion dollars — that has swamped Americans and the economy since the president was elected.

The infrastructure bank the President is proposing would simply increase the size of government and take more money out of the private sector, thus further reducing jobs in the private sector.

President Obama has fought spending cuts since he was elected to the Senate. It is unlikely that his request to the debt ceiling committee to pay for his increased spending with spending cuts will get the necessary results.

The President is calling for tax increase on those people who create jobs. Remember, corporations do not pay taxes–they pass the extra expense on to their customers. Any increase in corporate taxes is an additional tax on the consumer.

The President totally ignored developing America’s energy resources as a way out of the current recession.

This was a campaign speech that rehashed a lot of ideas that have already been rejected. It’s only purpose was to put forth a lot of bad ideas the Republicans would reject so that the President would have a campaign issue.

Enhanced by Zemanta