Archive for January 2009
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan (stimulus package) passed in the House of Representatives yesterday with only Democrat support. Not a single Republican Senator voted for the stimulus package. The bill will now make its way to the Senate next week.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan will not recover the current economic crisis (big government spending is not stimulative). The plan will be a massive reinvestment in big government which has got to be the last thing we need at this time. So how do we prevent the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan from being approved? The answer is simple: utilize the filibuster.
If Senate Republicans and fiscally conservative Democrats are truly concerned that the stimulus package will do nothing to stimulate the economy, then they must exercise their right to filibuster. Here is a little history of the filibuster:
In the early years of Congress, representatives as well as senators could filibuster. As the House of Representatives grew in numbers, however, revisions to the House rules limited debate. In the smaller Senate, unlimited debate continued on the grounds that any senator should have the right to speak as long as necessary on any issue.
There have been few better times in the U.S. Senate for a blow hard Senator to use his or her gift of gab for a more common good. If I were a U.S. Senator, I would literally speak non-stop accept when out of session for the next month on how bad this bill is. I would provide an alternate plan that doesn’t rape the American People. People would be so sick of listening to me by the time I was done, they would pass any alternative (tax cut incentive) stimulus package I put in front of them.
I have called on my Senator Jon Kyl to exercise his right to filibuster. Although Senator Kyl has made a stand on many issues, I fear he and his fellow Republicans will not make use of their filibuster powers. During the recent election, the Republican Party was so concerned that they would not have enough Senators elected and would find themselves in a filibuster proof Senate, but that didn’t happen. The Republicans garnered enough Senate seats to guarantee their right to filibuster. Since they secured the filibuster right, they really ought to make use of it. I fear they won’t.
Is it too much to ask that our Congress members have some idea of how an economy works and some recollection of accurate historical reference? The answer is, YES, that is too much to ask. Today, the House of Representatives passed the stimulus package also known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan (or as I like to refer to it, liberal spending bullshit and socialism plan) by a vote of 244-188.
According to MyWay.com, Nancy Pelosi had this to say:
A mere eight days after Inauguration Day, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the events heralded a new era. “The ship of state is difficult to turn,” said the California Democrat. “But that is what we must do. That is what President Obama called us to do in his inaugural address.”
Nancy, the ship of state is not hard to turn when you hold a measurable majority in Congress and you put in rules to thwart the voices of the minority party. In the long run Nancy your behemoth of a ship will sink straight to the bottom of the Potomac and the nation will hold you and all of your Democratic colleagues responsible.
In the same article, Pelosi’s colleague, David Obey had this to say:
“Another week that we delay is another 100,000 or more people unemployed. I don’t think we want that on our consciences,” said Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee and one of the leading architects of the legislation.
OK Representative Obey, when the private sector shows job losses exceeding 100,000 next week and next month will you be conceding that this is the result of your utterly ridiculous legislation? I doubt it, but you like Pelosi and Obama will go down with the sinking ship.
On the rational side of the house, John Boehner had this to say:
The party’s leader, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, said the measure “won’t create many jobs, but it will create plenty of programs and projects through slow-moving government spending.” A GOP alternative, comprised almost entirely of tax cuts, was defeated, 266-170.
So just remember that America, you could have had a thoughtful tax cut incentives stimulus package for this economy, but instead you got a pork filled, lard infested, piece of donkey dung that will spiral this nation further downward.
Aren’t you stupid suckers glad you voted for hope and change. Now grow up, learn something about politics, vet your candidates before you vote for their dumb asses and Think America Think! All we have now is the Republicans and a few smart Democrats in the Senate to save us.
For those interested in some particulars of the vote see the following:
There was not a single Republican in the House of Representatives voting yes on the stimulus bill. There was one Republican Representative, Ginny Brown-Waite who did not vote.
The following are Democrats in the House who should be commended for voting no on the stimulus bill:
Voting specifics obtained from The Washington Post.
While watching the beginning of the debate this morning in the House of Representatives for the stimulus package which was broadcast on CSPAN, I was dumbfounded by a procedural issue that passed by the House with almost unequivocal House Democrat support. The issue that arose had to do with some amendments to the stimulus package.
In the Energy and Commerce committee 6 amendments to the bill were passed by both the Democrats and Republicans; however, these 6 amendments did not make it into the stimulus package that the House of Representatives is voting on today. Republicans brought up this issue before the Congress and also pointed out that Nancy Pelosi had released a statement that the stimulus had bipartisan support, yet those Republicans who were supporting the stimulus package or portions thereof were doing so with their amendments included. When those amendments did not make it into the bill, of course, the Republican support for those portions of the bill were no longer valid. The House then took a vote on this procedural issue and passed overwhelmingly by Congress Democrats to proceed with the discussion of the stimulus package and vote on the stimulus package without these pre-approved amendments included in it.
How can the House of Representatives in good faith vote on a stimulus package today when they can’t even get approved in committee amendments accurately included in the bill? The more you watch our Country’s Representatives in the House in action, you ask yourself would the majority of these dolts keep their jobs if they worked in the private sector. No, they’d be fired. It’s time to get yourself involved in politics and fire these idiots. Our country can’t afford their mistakes any longer.
Today, the House of Representatives and the Senate will be voting on the final version of the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.” The final version of the bill was not made final until yesterday. Nancy Pelosi and other Democrat leadership stated that they would allow 48 hours to review the final version of the bill, yet another promise they will now not be keeping.
How long are you going to let Nancy Pelosi and her colleagues lie to you before you have had enough?
I find it absolutely despicable that the Senate voted to confirm Timothy Geithner’s appointment as Treasury Secretary today. Is there absolutely no ethics left in this country? As a student of ethics in college, I honestly do not see how anyone can make the argument that a person who apparently (and I only use the word apparently because I do not have indisputable proof) defrauded and knowingly cheated on his 2001–2004 tax returns should lead the Treasury Department which is also in charge of the IRS. I don’t buy the argument that he is the only person qualified to take the position during this economic crisis. Call me crazy, but just a shred of propriety, just an ounce of decency, just an inkling of ethics from our government would be greatly appreciated by its constituents. When will we begin holding our elected officials accountable for their actions?
I think the only thing that bothers me more about this appointment is the media’s reporting of it. The media knows that this confirmation even on the liberal side is not popular with the American people, so how does the media report it? The Associated Press claims the following:
The 60-34 vote, in which handfuls of Republicans and Democrats voted against their party leaders, put Geithner at the helm of Obama’s economic team as it races to halt the worst financial slide in generations.
The final vote for Timothy Geithner’s confirmation was 60 to 34 with 4 Senators not voting. And the Associated Press claims handfuls of Democrats and Republicans opposed the confirmation. It appears the Associated Press does math as well as Geithner. The truth is only 3 democrats voted nay against the confirmation that’s roughly 5% of Democrats voting nay. On the other hand, 27 republicans voted nay against the confirmation which is roughly 60% of Republicans voting against the confirmation. I would venture a guess that the Republican Senators came much closer to reflecting the people’s sentiments in this confirmation. Why can’t the media get simple statistics correct? It is such a mischaracterization of the votes to say handfuls of Republicans and Democrats voted against the confirmation. An accurate report by the Associated Press would have stated that a couple of Democrats and a majority of Republican Senators voted against the confirmation. The Associated Press researched the actual votes as they reference further accurate statistics in their article, but they chose not to use language that accurately reflected those votes at the beginning of their article. Not only was this a despicable confirmation but the reporting of it was despicable as well.
Here is a list of how each Senator voted as provided by the U.S. Senate’s website:
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress – 1st Session as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Question: On the Nomination(Confirmation Timothy F. Geithner, of New York, to be Secretary of the Treasury ) Vote Number: 15 Vote Date: January 26, 2009, 06:00 PM Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Nomination Confirmed Nomination Number: PN64-6 Nomination Description: Timothy F. Geithner, of New York, to be Secretary of the Treasury
Vote Counts: YEAs 60 NAYs 34 Not Voting 4
Alphabetical by Senator Name
Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Alexander (R-TN), Nay
Barrasso (R-WY), Nay
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Begich (D-AK), Yea
Bennet (D-CO), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Bond (R-MO), Not Voting
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Brown (D-OH), Not Voting
Brownback (R-KS), Nay
Bunning (R-KY), Nay
Burr (R-NC), Nay
Burris (D-IL), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Nay
Coburn (R-OK), Nay
Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Collins (R-ME), Nay
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
DeMint (R-SC), Nay
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Nay
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Nay
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagan (D-NC), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Nay
Johanns (R-NE), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kaufman (D-DE), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Not Voting
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Nay
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Nay
Martinez (R-FL), Nay
McCain (R-AZ), Nay
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Merkley (D-OR), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Nay
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Risch (R-ID), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shaheen (D-NH), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Nay
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Nay
Udall (D-CO), Yea
Udall (D-NM), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (D-VA), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
Wicker (R-MS), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Not Voting
Dictionary.com defines hypocrisy, in part, as:
a pretense of having some desirably or publicly approved attitude.
I am afraid that is what many voters went to the polls on November 4th with hypocrisy in their hearts, i.e., that Barack Obamaheld the same desirable and publicly approved attitudes that they did. So let me ask you a few simple yes or no questions to find out how in-line your beliefs and attitudes are with President Obama’s.
- Global warming (man-made or otherwise) is unequivocally true.
- Late-term abortions are fine and should be allowed without any restrictions.
- Federal Government spending is the only way to end the recession/economic crisis we are currently experiencing.
- It is OK to force wealthier Americans to pay more in taxes and impoverished Americans to pay no federal tax and receive “tax credits” even though they didn’t pay any federal taxes to begin with. In other words, impoverished Americans can receive a check from the IRS even though they didn’t pay any federal taxes.
- Terrorists have the same legal rights and in particular habeas corpus rights as U.S. Citizens.
- Nationalized health care also known as socialized medicine must be implemented in America.
- Continuing policies that ensure America does not produce more of its own oil resources or expand its nuclear energy production.
If you answered YES to all 7 questions above and voted for Obama, then you did the right thing because you obviously are in “lock step” with our new President. However, if you answered NO to several of the questions above, or a majority the questions above, and you voted for Barack Obama, then you might just be a victim of the hypocrisy of hope.
Personally, I answered NO to all 7 questions above, and if I had to venture a guess, I would imagine that a vast majority of Americans would answer NO to a minimum of 4 of the 7 above questions, so how in the heck did 62 million Americans vote for the hypocrisy of hope, Barack H. Obama?
The answer is quite simple, when the media doesn’t vet a candidate, and you in turn do not do your own vetting of that same candidate, then you get the result that we got in this election. Unfortunately, elections have consequences, so when hopey, dopey, change is preferred over serious analysis of the issues at hand the outcome may not be the intended result.
Over the next four years, those of you whom voted for the hypocrisy of hope will be living in your own disillusionment, and I’m afraid it won’t find you in a happy place. For the rest of us who went into this with our blinders fully removed we’ll do our best utilizing all of our political means at our disposal to attempt to mitigate the hypocrisy of hope to the best of our abilities. You might now hope that we are successful.
As Barack Obama was sworn in as the 44th President of the United States of America, there are still those who believe he is not eligible due to Article 2, Section 1 of the United States Constitution that he just pledged to uphold. The relevant passage states in part:
No person, except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President…
There are those who believe that President Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen and therefore is not eligible to be President of the United States of America.
What really is at question here is not the definition of what it is to be a natural born citizen but loyalty to the United States of America for the crux of the issue that surrounded the inclusion of the Natural Born Citizen mandate for the Office of President in our Constitution was in fact an assurance of loyalty to this new Nation. It was imperative to the success of our Nation that its citizenry be loyal and that the highest office of the land be held by one of unquestionable loyalty. This is truly the issue before us today.
To simply state that Barack Obama is not loyal to this country without a preponderance of evidence is to potentially lack loyalty yourself. It is a question that cannot be answered in a few words, a few sentences or a few paragraphs, but rather a long discourse with arguments from all sides surrounding issue.
First the question must be asked, what does it mean to be loyal to the United States of America? This in itself is a profound asking but can probably be most effectively summed up as freedom, freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness, freedom to prosper as an individual and as a collective, freedom to ensure that these self-evident truths remain intact for all our citizenry and future generations.
To outrightly dismiss Barack Obama’s loyalty to the United States of America is naïve at best, dangerous at its worst but remains an intellectually prudent exercise. To not look upon the Inauguration of America’s first African-American President, to deny the struggles of this Nation in its quest for equality is a cynical exercise on a historical day. So with the breadth and the depth of the history made today, and with the struggles and triumphs of a Nation of people, all people, we will exercise our prudence and at least look if only for a moment at the important question of loyalty, specifically, loyalty to the United States of America.
Barack Obama was born to Barack Obama Sr., a Kenyan native and British Subject and Stanley Ann Dunham, a Kansas native and resident at the time of his birth of the 50th state of the Union, Hawaii. Barack Obama’s father left his mother when President Obama was 2 years old and was never a physical presence in President Obama’s life. Stanley Ann Dunham seemed to have a persuasion to foreigners as she later married Lolo Soetoro an Indonesian citizen and moved the family to Indonesia. President Obama lived in Indonesia for several years returning to Hawaii to live with his grandparents.
I provide this brief parentage synopsis to point out that President Obama did not have your standard issue American life and was subject to a more global world at an early age than many of his fellow citizens. Like those before him with a world view and who have lived outside of the United States, you either grow a deeper appreciation for our country or recognize and learn from the world outside of ours or you do both.
There are many questionable characters in President Obama’s life including but not limited to: Frank Marshall Davis, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Rashid Khalidi, William Ayers, Samantha Power, and the list can go on. Many of these characters we would not categorize with the American loyalty crowd; however, it may yet to be seen how their influence will affect Mr. Obama’s Presidency.
On this day, at this time, I do not possess the energy nor the inclination to tackle the question of President Barack Hussein Obama’s loyalty to this country. The occasion is too great, the stakes too high to make misstatements or contort the record.
What I believe we saw today is the representation of who we are as Americans. We cast aside our racial bias to elect the first African American President. We see represented in our 44th President a diversity of background. We find ourselves with yet another lawyer as President of the United States. And we see the common man elevated to our country’s highest position. For that we are grateful.
If you feel this day does not warrant the above reverence, if you are still concerned about holding the highest office of the land requirements be met, if you fear the liberal left will lead this country to damnation, then you should start today to change the ideological views of its populace from as our President states “the bottom up” rather than the “top down.” For no one man can entirely change this country in just one term or two. No one man, no matter his power, can thwart the will of the people in a free and just nation. No man is the bastion for what is right or what is wrong, what is good or evil. The citizenry of this country are free; we will remain free, and will fight for that freedom regardless our leadership. That is the promise of our Constitutional Republic, and our promise to ourselves.
Yesterday, when I saw the desecration of the flag with Barack Obama, I thought wow have we really come this far, are we now simply like our third world brethren? The first problem with the Obama flag is that it is in direct violation with the United State Flag code which states in one part that:
The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.
Does the following flag seem to conform with that code? No it does not.
The second problem with the Obama flag is that it is another arm of the propaganda machine. If you do not think or are not aware that the entire Obama campaign and successive appointment (not election) is just pure unadulterated propoganda, then you are hopelessly lost and probably won’t find much on this Weblog of use to you; however, if you are concerned about America joining its 3rd world brethren in propagand for a man instead of belief in the principles of a nation, then read on and provide your comments.
Evidence of propaganda and there is much of it, so I’ll attempt to confine the list to pictures and captions:
Religions use symbols; men typically don’t create symbols for themselves.Petty Dictators and despots love to see their own image.The Obama airplane was the first indication that there wasn’t much respect for the American flag.Obama makes his own presidential seal.Propaganda image to make you see strength and fitness.Obama creates an office that has never before existedIf all of that isn’t propaganda folks I don’t know what is?