Obama's Katrina

>> Thursday, May 27, 2010

"The problem with political jokes is they get elected." ~ Henry Cate VII

Five (5) weeks has now elapsed since the BP oil disaster in the gulf took place. Obama has made one (1) short visit to the gulf area in that time.

One visit.

And, some of Obama's staunchest supporters are, to say the least, disappointed in their hero.

Here's some quotes I came across today:

"He blew it. Obama faces a meltdown akin to the unraveling of his predecessor, George W. Bush. A press conference and a visit to the region are simply too little too late. It doesn't matter whether government could do any better than the oil companies. The political fallout has taken hold. Obama failed to manage a massive crisis. There's no fixing this failure. His only hope now is changing the subject. Good Luck."

Here's another:

"Thinking before doing is one of Barack Obama’s strengths, but not in this oil crisis. The President’s famously deliberative style has not served him well.

When an uncontrollable gusher of this magnitude threatens the economy and ecosystem of an entire region, it’s not enough for Obama to essentially adopt a wait-and-see stance in letting the oil industry tinker and experiment in vain.

The President’s pattern is to swoop in at the last minute and close the deal. He’s good at it.

But sometimes presidents cannot wait to see what everyone else thinks and does before acting. When it comes to the Gulf region in environmental chaos, we needed a starter, not a closer."

And, another:

"[I]t just looks like he's not involved in this! Man, you have got to get down here and take control of this!..."

...Put somebody in charge of this and get this thing moving! We're about to die down here!"

The first quote is by one of Obama's chief water carriers, Craig Crawford, a particularly rabid Liberal propagandist.

The second comes from an article by Mike Lee, who was commenting on Craig Crawford's quote.

The third quote is by former Clinton Strategist, and Obama supporter, James Carville.

For more from Mr. Carville, watch this:

Unlike Liberals, who placed the full weight of the blame for the destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina (an unpreventable natural disaster) squarely on George W. Bush's shoulders, I won't blame Obama for the colossal oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. I understand he had nothing to do with the causation of the spill.

However, at least Bush made a fairly timely appearance in Louisiana to assess the situation first hand.

Obama hasn't even attempted a photo op in relation to the oil spill.

Obviously, there is nothing he could have done to prevent the spill, and nothing he could have done to stem the leak. But, he could have at least pretended he was trying to do something.

What is he doing instead, you might ask?

He is appearing in San Francisco, campaigning for California Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer, and when he is done with that, he will be taking a vacation back in sweet home Chicago. Three campaign events, including a stopover at the home of one America's wealthiest families.

Ironically, a family that gained their wealth in the oil industry.

And, skipping the traditional Memorial Day visit to Arlington to honor the nation's war dead on Memorial Day, something that sitting United States Presidents have been doing annually for decades.

But, you know what? I support his decision not to uphold the Presidential tradition of honoring our fallen soldiers on Memorial day. As I said on my Facebook page,

"I think Obama doesn't deserve to share the spotlight with those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice for their country. This celebration should be for those who love this country, not those who hate it."

Now, Blogger buddy Lone Ranger says, "Currently, about one out of five democrats who supported him, now oppose him."

It seems to me the only Democrats left who still support this guy are those who are willfully blind, deaf, and ignorant.

Cross posted at Casting Pearls Before Swine.


The New Plantation & It's Progressive Masters

We either fix this now, or we're doomed; the American dream will die. (it's on life-support, now, as it is)

From WashingtonExaminer.com

Slaves to the government dole

Examiner Editorial
May 26, 2010

Throughout our history, politicians and pundits have often said "America is at a crossroads." Sometimes it was true, as in the final convulsive years leading up to the Civil War when we decided to end slavery. New data on personal income, taxes and dependency makes clear that the country is again at a historic crossroad and another form of slavery is the central issue. There are no iron chains involved this time, but dependence on government for economic sustenance is no less an enslavement.

Based on Bureau of Economic Analysis data, USA Today reported Tuesday that the portion of personal income received from private sector paychecks declined to 41.9 percent, its lowest point ever, during the first quarter of 2010. The figure was 44.6 percent in December 2007 at the outset of the current recession and 47.6 percent in the first quarter of 2000. By contrast, the personal income received from government programs climbed to 17.9 percent. Add another 9.8 percent for government employee compensation and 27.7 percent of all personal income is derived from government sources. (The remaining 30.1 percent of personal income results from small-business proprietor profits, farm profits, privately funded pensions, investment sales and dividends, and insurance annuities.)

The problem is that government only redistributes income to dependent individuals after taking it from productive individuals, a process that is reflected in tax returns. As the Tax Foundation recently pointed out, 36 percent of all individual returns in 2008, the most recent year for which data is available, showed no net tax liability. That is the highest level of non-paying tax filers in American history. As recently as 1990, only 21 percent of tax filers paid no levies. The result of this trend is that millions more Americans today pay nothing for the benefits they receive, which are paid for by productive taxpayers.

It's no surprise then that measures like the Heritage Foundation's Index of Dependency are curving steeply upward. Preliminary figures from Heritage's Center for Data Analysis show a 13.9 percent increase for 2009, the biggest single-year increase since 1962. The massive one-year jump in dependency -- indexed according to changes in government spending on housing, retirement, health and welfare, etc. -- was mainly caused by President Obama's unprecedented expansion of federal deficit spending and national debt through corporate bailouts and the economic stimulus program. But what happens when productive taxpayers can no longer pay enough taxes to support benefits promised by "progressive" politicians to dependent America? With European welfare states like Greece teetering on this threshold of collapse, our crossroad is whether to continue down the same road or to return to the path that once made us the freest and most prosperous country the world has ever seen.

The progressive model currently running the show has shown itself to be both defective and unjust. The Left will obviously disagree with this assessment, and will try to obfuscate and redirect attention to unrelated issues. But as one commenter stated: for the Left, the issue is not the issue; the issue is CONTROL. And the 'progressive' Left would rather gain complete control rather than ensure liberty for all. Liberty is counter to control. Liberty to the Left, therefore, is the enemy.


The Buck Stops...Where?

>> Monday, May 24, 2010

"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." ~ Mark Twain

My Liberal Doctor nephew posted this on his Facebook page. He said he still loves Obama but imagines this must be what might be going through his mind, if he were in Obama's shoes.

Alas, I feel my beloved nephew underestimates Obama's strength of arrogance.

Pathological Narcissists don't ever doubt themselves.

Cross-posted at Casting Pearls Before Swine


The Tea Party Movement: Problematic For Republicans

>> Friday, May 21, 2010

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." ~ George Santayana

I am beginning to think this National Tea party movement may end up doing serious damage to the Republican Party's efforts to unseat Obama in the Presidential election of 2012. In the aftermath of recent primary victories by "Tea Party" candidates across the nation, to me, it is troubling that some of these candidates are actively campaigning more vigorously against Republicans than Democrats.

The Tea parties were a great idea in the beginning, when Americans across the country began to realize how dangerous the Obama administration's policies are. They served as an resounding wake-up call to those who were in the middle of the road and still unconvinced that electing Obama was a colossal mistake.

The Tea Party movement served it's purpose at the time.

Now, it's time to get back to the business of throwing the Liberal Democrats out of office. It will take a concerted effort by Republicans to accomplish that goal. But, sadly, we cannot do that with a "Tea Party".

I sense a split in the Republican party, and that isn't a good thing.

Third party candidates, for whatever reason, never win.

All they manage to do is insure a victory for the party that didn't split.

In 1912, Former Republican President Theodore Roosevelt attempted to wrest the Republican nomination from William Howard Taft* , and when he failed, he launched the Bull Moose Party. In the election, Roosevelt became the only third party candidate to come in second place, beating Taft but losing to Woodrow Wilson, who, many feel, was among the worst Presidents in our history.

Democratic Alabama Governor George Wallace ran for President as an independent in 1972, effectively splitting the Democrat vote between himself and George McGovern. If you remember, Democrat George McGovern was defeated by Republican Richard Nixon as a result.

Republican John B. Anderson ran for President as an Independent in 1980 against President Jimmy Carter and Republican Ronald Reagan. Although Anderson was a Republican, he was endorsed by many Liberal Democrats, which probably split the vote among Democrats, many of whom obviously felt that Jimmy Carter was an atrocious President, but could not bring themselves to vote for a Conservative Republican.

Likely, many Democrat voters felt that a Liberal Republican was preferable to a Conservative Republican, and Conservatives owe them a debt of gratitude for that, since Conservative Republicans hold Ronald Reagan up as the paradigm of Conservatism to this day.

In 1992, George H.W. Bush probably would have retained the Presidency had it not been for a Republican-turned-independent candidate, H. Ross Perot, who successfully pulled enough Republican voters away from Bush to insure Clinton a victory despite his numerous scandalous distractions (Gennifer Flowers, etc).

If, in 2012, the choice of Conservative candidates for President is split between the Republican party and the Tea Party, Obama will win the Presidency again.

This is something that Conservatives cannot allow.

Even a RINO President is preferable to a Marxist President.

If a Tea Party candidate is selected to run for President, he must be selected to run by the Republican National Convention, and not as an independent third party.

*Taft was as big as two men, so it was fortunate that he had two names, both William and Howard.


If Obama Weren't Such a Failure in Chief...

Arizona would not have felt compelled to defend itself. But Obama, it appears, only feels it's the government's responsibility to defend 49 states. Obama, it appears, is only interested in defending laws (to say nothing of borders), it can subvert or flout. Oop! He's Failure in Chief! He can subvert and flout any law he desires... my bad.

And don't get me started on Mexican President Philippe Calderon's own hypocrisy (YouTube Video, beginning 4:10 in), or the traitorous applause awarded him by Democrats.

I praise God for his wisdom in setting Obama upon the 'throne of state' in America. I just wish I understood His wisdom.


If Bush Has Done It

>> Monday, May 10, 2010

Obama's latest pick for the US Supreme Court has never been a judge. There will of course be many who'll say 'so what? in decades and centuries past not all justices were judges prior to nomination.'

Now for a reality check. Can any of these folks dismissive of Obama's pick's lack of judicial experience honestly claim they would have been just as dismissive if Bush had nominated to the Supreme Court someone without judicial experience?

Don't bother, I'll answer that:


Of course not. You all would have accused Bush of any number of things from ineptitude in the performance of his duty as President to charges of judicial and ideological activism. Both Roberts and Alito had served as judges prior to their appointments and STILL were dragged through the mud by the Senate. But again, imagine what would have happened if Bush had nominated someone as lacking in experience as Elena Kagan...

OH! He did! Remember Harriet Miers? What happened? She was attacked from both the left and right-- more so, much more so from the Left. The question now is, will the Left attack Obama's choice for the same reason?

LOLOL!!!! Of course not! Excuses are already being laid out for Elena Kagan:

"Kagan has not had judicial experience because GOP blocked her nomination. Kagan was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1999 by President Clinton, and the Senate, then controlled by Republicans, blocked her nomination."

--Media Matters

Truth is, Kagan was not nominated for her judicial experience. She was chosen for her judicial/constitutional ideology. She was nominated because she thinks like the man who nominated her. This country is suffering enough because of how this man thinks. Do we really want to saddle this nation with his(her) judicial philosophy for decades to come?


As with the nuclear black family of yesteryear...

So too now with 'most EVERY family?

I heard this expressed on Radio over the weekend.

Is it true that under Obamacare an older married couple could save upwards of $10,000 a year on health insurance if they would simply divorce, continue living together...

"...and take advantage of the government grants to help them, as individuals rather than a married couple, buy their health insurance."

What kind of sick government would force this kind of choice on married couples?

But then again, is it true? It wouldn't surprise me if it is, but...

Anyone have any comments or insight? I did find this:

The New Federal Wedding Tax: How Obamacare
Would Dramatically Penalize Marriage

Why does our government see the need to penalize/punish married couples? Didn't we manage to kill the marriage penalty? Why then is it back, seemingly slipped unawares into the healthcare bill? We know that not one of our senators or representatives read the entire bill before voting on it. So why shouldn't we expect occasional pockets of outright malicious evil to pop up throughout the dough of this horrid piece of legislation?

That the government would penalize the institution of marriage is deplorable.


Political Correctness Will Get Us All Killed

>> Tuesday, May 4, 2010

"Lord, what fools these mortals be!" ~ William Shakespeare.

Here is something I was going to post an an entry about, but didn't get around to it, and now it's too late, but I'll post anyway, because the motive is still questionable:

The guy in the video who was seen near Times Square removing his sweat shirt minutes after (before?) the SUV was found with all the explosive devices aboard. look at this:

Why was he considered a suspect?

I've tried to understand what it is about a man removing a sweatshirt and placing it into the bag he is carrying that arouses suspicion, but I can't.

Now, if he just threw the sweatshirt away and walked on, possibly there might be reason to question that action.

But, If I am walking, and I get hot, and I remove my outer shirt or jacket, I will hold onto it, and If I am carrying a bag of some type, I would likely place the shirt in there.

I think I have an idea why this one man, out of all the other passers-by, was singled out as a possible suspect.

He is white, and apparently forty-ish.

Which is, in itself, in this politically correct, all inclusive, topsy-turvy world, a world created by journalists, a particularly dangerous combination.

The media would like nothing more than to find a typical white man to suspect of terrorist intentions, and if he happens to be a Conservative tea partier, all the better.

Forget the fact that, with few exceptions, terrorists are young brown-skinned middle eastern Muslim men. The exceptions are white men who have converted to Islam. But, they are still young. Not forty-ish.

So, while police possibly wasted many man-hours researching this man who had the misfortune to take his sweatshirt off at the wrong place and the wrong time, the real suspect was preparing to escape to Dubai.

And guess what? The real suspect is a young, brown skinned, middle eastern Muslim male.

Go figure.

It is only a matter of time before these Liberal, blame America first, terrorist loving, love-everybody-regardless-of-how-evil-they-are-except-innocent-God-fearing-Americans, so-called journalists will distract law enforcement officers long enough to let a real terrorist kill hundreds of people.

It's not a question of "if" it happens. It is only a question of "when and where" it will happen.

OK. That's my opinion. Anyone have a better explanation for suspecting this man?


Radio Host Calls Tim Tebow A Nazi

>> Saturday, May 1, 2010

"There is nothing worse than aggressive stupidity." ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Remember Don Imus getting fired a while back for calling the Rutger's woman's basketball team a bunch of "nappy headed ho's"?

Remember that for several weeks, numerous articles and news stories flooded our newspapers and TV sets calling for Imus' resignation and/or firing? Remember we couldn't go two minutes without hearing some breaking news update about the "racist" Don Imus? Remember all the threats directed toward Imus for his callous remarks?

So why has no one heard about this?

The fact that a radio host can get away with this with no outcry from the mainstream media is more evidence of American descent.

Fred "Toucher" Toettcher, a Boston Sports radio talk show host, called ex University of Florida Quarterback Tim Tebow's NFL Draft party, "some kind of Nazi rally". He went on to say, "So lily-white is what I'm trying to say."

(Toettcher is a German name if I'm not mistaken, isn't it? Well, maybe he has first hand experience with Nazism.)

See, my point here is this: Just because someone holds a party that happens to have a proportionately majority of white attendees, it is not a logical conclusion to assume they are all Nazi's. Or KKK. Or White Supremacists.

We might as well assume that anyone with a German last name is a Nazi.

See the stupidity of the reasoning?

Or perhaps I'm off-base here. Maybe Toettcher just stupidly assumes that Christians are Nazi's. That's a stereotypical assumption often made by the Liberal elite.

Here is a more logical assumption: Toettcher is an idiotic racist, typical Liberal elitist.

Whatever. In any case, Toettcher's remarks should not be ignored. He must be called to account for his dangerously racist comments.

But, but, but--- doesn't he have the right to free speech?

Imus didn't. Well, I guess Toettcher gets a pass because he's a Liberal.

But wait a minute. Imus, although he calls himself a Republican is not exactly a Conservative.

So, what is the difference?

The American media certainly didn't seem to have a problem with censorship when Imus was on the hotseat.

Toettcher's seat isn't even warm.

What's wrong with this picture?

If Imus was wrong, so is Toettcher. I am calling for the Media to treat this incident with the same zealousness and fervor with which they so unmercifully attacked Imus. It's only fair, and, after all, isn't "fairness" the Liberal's buzzword?

I am officially calling for Toettcher to be fired for making racist comments.

Who's with me?

(Cross posted at "Casting Pearls Before Swine".)

(I might as well stop posting over there
. No one comments there anymore.)


Barry Obama : The Young Turk

Young Turk:
Date: 1908
Function: noun
Etymology: Young Turks, a 20th century revolutionary party in Turkey
:an insurgent or a member of an insurgent group especially in a political party : radical; broadly
:one advocating changes within a usually established group.

Photos: 1980 Taken by, Lisa Jack / M+B Gallery


"House Negro" "No One Messes with Joe" "O" "The One" 08-Election 1984 2009 Inaugural 2012 Election 9/11 abortion abortionists Air Obama Al Franken Al Gore Al-Qaeda American Youth Americarcare Assassination Scenario Atheism Barry O Bi-Partisanship Biden Billary Birth Certificate Border Security Bush Bush Legacy Change Change-NOT child-killers Christians Christmas Civilian Defense Force Clinton Code Pink Congress Conservatism Constitution Creation Darwin Del McCoury Democrat Hypocrisy Democrats Dick Morris Dr. Tiller Dubya Earth Day Elian Gonzalez Ends Justify Means Evil Evolution Evolution-Devolution Failure in Chief Fairness Doctrine Feodork Foreign Relations Free Speech Frogs Fuck America - Obama Has Gates George Orwell Gestapo Global Cooling Global Idiots Global Warmong God GOP Descent Graphic Design Great American Tea Party Gun-Control Guns hackers Harry Reid hate haters Heath Care Heretic Hillary Howard Dean Hussein ident in History identity theft Illegal Immigration Iraq Jackboots Jesus Jihadist-Lover Jimmy Carter Joe Biden Jon Stewart Kanye West Karl Rove Katrina Las Vegas Left-Wing Media Leftists Liar Liberal Media liberal tactics Liberals Liberty Lying Media Marriage Penalty Martyr Marxism McCain Media MSNBC/Obama Administration murderers Norm Coleman Obama Obama 2012 Obama Administration Obama Dicatorship Obama Lies Obama Wars Obama's Army Obamacare Obamists Olympia Snowe Partisanship perversion Piracy Police State Political Hell Political Left Populist Rage Pragmatist Prayer Proof of Citizenship Proposition 8 Racism Regime Change Revolution Ronald Reagan Rush Limbaugh Second Amendment Separation of Powers Slavery Socialist Government Tea-Bagging Tea-Parties terrorists The Raw Deal Thuggery Tom Tancredo Traitors War Criminal War on Weather War-Crimes Worst President in History

  © Blogger template Werd by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009

Back to TOP