On March 11, 2008 by a vote of 229 to 182, House Resolution 895 was approved by the Congress of the United States. By the passage of this matter, the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) was created. Not quite 2 1/2 years later this group is under attack by the Congressional Black Caucus as being guilty of "unfairly targeting" black members of Congress. What has caused this irrational, knee jerk reaction by a racial minority group in Congress are the actions that are pending against Charlie Rangel (D - NY) and Maxine Waters (D-Calf).
Rangel and Waters, who are both black, are charged with ethics violations and will have separate hearings before the Ethics Committee of the House unless a "plea" is first negotiated. Misusing their offices for personal financial advantage are the bottom line of these pending charges.
To label the acts of the OCE as being even remotely unfair is evidence of either a foolishly loyal attempt to protect someone strictly because of their skin color or an admission that there is an ignorance as to how this Office works.
The Office of Congressional Ethics consists of 6 (six) members each of whom is not a current member of Congress. Three of the members are nominated by the Republican House leader and have to be approved by the Democrat House leader. The other 3 (three) are the reverse -nominated by the Democrat leader and approved by the Republican leader. Each member so selected can only serve for 2 (two) consecutive terms of 4 (four) years each. As you can imagine, the internal procedure of this Office is strictly defined and absolutely followed with neither political party allowing the other an advantage.
The best that this group of 6 (six) can do is recommend action by the Congressional Ethics Committee and from time-to-time release reports on what the OCE is doing and what they have determined as factual. They have no power to enforce or punish.
The Black Congressional Caucus is urging that no investigation can begin by the OCE unless a signed, sworn complaint is received from an American citizen and that the OCE cannot disclose to the public any one whom it is investigating or the veracity of anything alleged. If these limitations are passed by Congress, then the OCE will cease to be of any real use.
What a strange situation. With a thinly veiled reference to a "racist" attitude by the members of the OCE, the Black Congressional Caucus wants to pressure Congress to gut the power of the OCE. One has to believe that many current House members, the vast majority of whom are Democrats, are so afraid of even a hint of a "racist" label that they will fold on their own ethics standards. It also makes you wonder what the members of the Black Congressional Caucus want so desperately to hide.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
NONE HAVE A CLUE
As the 1st of January 2011 approaches, and yes I know that this event is more than 5 months away, it brings not only the traditional New Year celebrations but also the termination of the President Bush tax cuts that have been enjoyed by most Americans. As absolute evidence of how lost the Obama Democrats are when it comes to this tax matter, you only have to consider statements from Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke and Timothy Geithner.
Alan Greenspan has clearly stated that Obama must let the Bush tax cuts die but quickly adds that he fully understands that the imposition of the old tax rates will negatively impact the growth of the American economy. With a few modifying terms Greenspan projects that economic growth will be slowed with the loss of the lower tax rates.
Taking the opposing position, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has publicly opined that Obama should preserve these same Bush tax cuts. His rationale is simple - keeping the tax cuts in place will act as a continuing stimulus for American economic growth.
Timothy Geithner - Treasury Secretary - has expressed a middle of the road thought by urging that the Bush tax cuts stay in place for all Americans that annually earn less that $250,000.00 but no extension of the tax breaks are granted to those who make greater than $250,000.00. Part of his thinking is that the federal government needs this tax source to cover the ever growing sum of federal deficits.
The clear but sad truth is that the Obama Administration has no clear plan on how to revitalize the American economy or how to reduce the massive debt that Washington has incurred.
One matter that cannot be ignored is that since Obama was sworn in as President, the American economy has lost 3,100,000 jobs and our national debt has grown by an immense amount.
The only supportable facts are that a successor to BHO will be elected in November of 2012 and sworn in about 90 days later. That person will have an almost impossible task of curing the American economy including how to handle the federal tax rates.
Alan Greenspan has clearly stated that Obama must let the Bush tax cuts die but quickly adds that he fully understands that the imposition of the old tax rates will negatively impact the growth of the American economy. With a few modifying terms Greenspan projects that economic growth will be slowed with the loss of the lower tax rates.
Taking the opposing position, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has publicly opined that Obama should preserve these same Bush tax cuts. His rationale is simple - keeping the tax cuts in place will act as a continuing stimulus for American economic growth.
Timothy Geithner - Treasury Secretary - has expressed a middle of the road thought by urging that the Bush tax cuts stay in place for all Americans that annually earn less that $250,000.00 but no extension of the tax breaks are granted to those who make greater than $250,000.00. Part of his thinking is that the federal government needs this tax source to cover the ever growing sum of federal deficits.
The clear but sad truth is that the Obama Administration has no clear plan on how to revitalize the American economy or how to reduce the massive debt that Washington has incurred.
One matter that cannot be ignored is that since Obama was sworn in as President, the American economy has lost 3,100,000 jobs and our national debt has grown by an immense amount.
The only supportable facts are that a successor to BHO will be elected in November of 2012 and sworn in about 90 days later. That person will have an almost impossible task of curing the American economy including how to handle the federal tax rates.
GALLUP LIES
It was not long ago that there was no doubt as to the neutral standing of the prestigious Gallup Poll organization as to issues pertaining to national politics. That impression has been destroyed.
Most recently Gallup published the "results" of a nationwide, state-by-state analysis of how each of the 50 states was leaning politically. What caught my eye immediately was the report on the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Gallup reported that Kentucky was leaning Democrat.
Let's look at the real facts. A majority of the voters in the State of Kentucky cast their ballots for the Republican Presidential candidates in 2000 and 2004 and 2008. These same voters have elected Republicans to both of Kentucky's US Senate seats and currently 4 out of 6 Kentucky members of Congress are Republicans. How in the world can these open and clear facts in any way support a representation that Kentucky is leaning in favor of the Democrat Party?
Currently the very conservative, Republican, Tea Party backed Rand Paul is ahead in the polls (not Gallup) over his Democrat opposition for the US Senate seat being vacated by Republican Jim Bunning. Polls also show that President Obama currently has no chance to carry Kentucky should he seek re-election in 2012.
There are only 3 possibilities for this misleading Gallup report: 1) Gallup is lazy and just did not do a good reach job; 2) Gallup made an error and failed to catch it before publication; or 3) Gallup itself or maybe the employee assigned to the Kentucky desk are Obama fans and did everything possible to slant the results.
The record can be set straight by understanding that Kentucky is a conservative state; traditionally dominated by Democrats in local elections; but absolutely not willing to back an over-reaching, intrusive federal government led by individuals who can be easily identified as liberal/socialist/progressives.
As much as Gallup would like it, Kentucky is not nationally leaning Democrat and will never elect Obama or anyone like him.
Most recently Gallup published the "results" of a nationwide, state-by-state analysis of how each of the 50 states was leaning politically. What caught my eye immediately was the report on the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Gallup reported that Kentucky was leaning Democrat.
Let's look at the real facts. A majority of the voters in the State of Kentucky cast their ballots for the Republican Presidential candidates in 2000 and 2004 and 2008. These same voters have elected Republicans to both of Kentucky's US Senate seats and currently 4 out of 6 Kentucky members of Congress are Republicans. How in the world can these open and clear facts in any way support a representation that Kentucky is leaning in favor of the Democrat Party?
Currently the very conservative, Republican, Tea Party backed Rand Paul is ahead in the polls (not Gallup) over his Democrat opposition for the US Senate seat being vacated by Republican Jim Bunning. Polls also show that President Obama currently has no chance to carry Kentucky should he seek re-election in 2012.
There are only 3 possibilities for this misleading Gallup report: 1) Gallup is lazy and just did not do a good reach job; 2) Gallup made an error and failed to catch it before publication; or 3) Gallup itself or maybe the employee assigned to the Kentucky desk are Obama fans and did everything possible to slant the results.
The record can be set straight by understanding that Kentucky is a conservative state; traditionally dominated by Democrats in local elections; but absolutely not willing to back an over-reaching, intrusive federal government led by individuals who can be easily identified as liberal/socialist/progressives.
As much as Gallup would like it, Kentucky is not nationally leaning Democrat and will never elect Obama or anyone like him.
Friday, July 23, 2010
TEA PARTY TASK
Just a few days ago this space was used to lament a situation in our nation that allowed some 20,000,000 individuals to be full time, paid government employees. This number includes local, state and federal branches of government. Almost on cue a report came out of California concerning an absolute obscenity centered on the pay levels of public servants in the town of Bell, California.
Bell is a city of approximately 40,000 people. The administrative structure of the city includes a city manager, an assistant city manager and a police chief. It should be said the "former" city manager, assistant city manager and police chief for each resigned their offices when it became public that their combined annual salaries were just over $1,600,000.00.
Here is the break down on the applicable annual pay numbers:
1) Robert Rizzo - City Manager - $800,000.00
2) Angela Spaccia - Assistant City Manager - $376,288.00
3) Randy Adams - Police Chief - $475,000.00
The questions that immediately come to mind include: How is this possible? How could other city officials allow this to happen? Were the salaries publicly and openly declared at least annually? Just what is the financial status of Bell, California? I would wager that like the rest of California there is a sizable public debt.
Millions of Americans are long-termed unemployed and just this week the Obama government was successful in having extended unemployment benefits enacted. These benefits were even enacted retroactively. Every American tax payer will eventually contribute to the cost of this added unemployment funding and the nation will almost immediately be placed greater-in-debt to such friendly creditors as Communist China. With this in mind, how is it possible that just three city employees in Bell, California were able to take from the city taxpayers, in just one year, over a million and a half dollars in salary?
Clearly this is a nationwide situation that must be explored, exposed and corrected. I would urge that every Tea Party organization across the nation accept the challenge and immediately explore just how much money local government officials are receiving to be servants of the public.
More Bell, California outrages will be found and must properly rectified.
Bell is a city of approximately 40,000 people. The administrative structure of the city includes a city manager, an assistant city manager and a police chief. It should be said the "former" city manager, assistant city manager and police chief for each resigned their offices when it became public that their combined annual salaries were just over $1,600,000.00.
Here is the break down on the applicable annual pay numbers:
1) Robert Rizzo - City Manager - $800,000.00
2) Angela Spaccia - Assistant City Manager - $376,288.00
3) Randy Adams - Police Chief - $475,000.00
The questions that immediately come to mind include: How is this possible? How could other city officials allow this to happen? Were the salaries publicly and openly declared at least annually? Just what is the financial status of Bell, California? I would wager that like the rest of California there is a sizable public debt.
Millions of Americans are long-termed unemployed and just this week the Obama government was successful in having extended unemployment benefits enacted. These benefits were even enacted retroactively. Every American tax payer will eventually contribute to the cost of this added unemployment funding and the nation will almost immediately be placed greater-in-debt to such friendly creditors as Communist China. With this in mind, how is it possible that just three city employees in Bell, California were able to take from the city taxpayers, in just one year, over a million and a half dollars in salary?
Clearly this is a nationwide situation that must be explored, exposed and corrected. I would urge that every Tea Party organization across the nation accept the challenge and immediately explore just how much money local government officials are receiving to be servants of the public.
More Bell, California outrages will be found and must properly rectified.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Government Employees Equal Financial Drain
It is no secret that the American economy is in a recession. It is also no secret that the federal government as well as almost all state and local governments are in terrible financial shape. We read almost daily of the huge debt our nation owes other countries, particularly Communist China, and of the new government debt being continuosly incurred.
This government spending is out of control and one of the reasons is that the American government, that is state, federal and local units, employ some 20,000,000 people.
The 20,000,000 figure is bad enough but surveys have also shown that these government workers are hourly compensated at a rate which is greater than private workers in the same labor sector. The most recent reported wage comparison shows that government workers receive, on an average, $39.50 per hour while private workers receive $26.90 per hour. This report also listed government labor unions as contributing to the problem by requiring excess staffing and unaffordable benefits and generous, unaffordable pensions.
This pension issue has become so extreme that at least three states (New York, California and Michigan) have indicated that in 2011 they will seek financial assistance from the Obama Administration to fund the ever growing cost of current, not to mention future, state pensions.
There are solutions but none are comfortable.
The complete program of government employee retirement has to be reworked to require pension funding by a combination of social security and 401K type accounts. Regular tax payers need relief from being made to fund the retirement plans of government workers.
It may be necessary to freeze current pension payments and stop augmenting them with cost-of-living increases. A real possibility exists that a percentage decrease in the current retirement benefits of 10% may have to be mandated.
However, the most obvious solution to these financial problems is to curtail new hirings and reduce drastically the number of government employees.
We all well realize that Obama will never do anything to aggravate any potential voter so the debt of the federal government will continue to grow to cover government salaries and government pensions. This conclusion may not be the same for state and local governments in that each of us has greater control over these public servants.
Only a conservative President who holds the overall interests of the nation above all other concerns can solve this and other government monetary issues. November 2010 and November 2012 cannot come fast enough.
This government spending is out of control and one of the reasons is that the American government, that is state, federal and local units, employ some 20,000,000 people.
The 20,000,000 figure is bad enough but surveys have also shown that these government workers are hourly compensated at a rate which is greater than private workers in the same labor sector. The most recent reported wage comparison shows that government workers receive, on an average, $39.50 per hour while private workers receive $26.90 per hour. This report also listed government labor unions as contributing to the problem by requiring excess staffing and unaffordable benefits and generous, unaffordable pensions.
This pension issue has become so extreme that at least three states (New York, California and Michigan) have indicated that in 2011 they will seek financial assistance from the Obama Administration to fund the ever growing cost of current, not to mention future, state pensions.
There are solutions but none are comfortable.
The complete program of government employee retirement has to be reworked to require pension funding by a combination of social security and 401K type accounts. Regular tax payers need relief from being made to fund the retirement plans of government workers.
It may be necessary to freeze current pension payments and stop augmenting them with cost-of-living increases. A real possibility exists that a percentage decrease in the current retirement benefits of 10% may have to be mandated.
However, the most obvious solution to these financial problems is to curtail new hirings and reduce drastically the number of government employees.
We all well realize that Obama will never do anything to aggravate any potential voter so the debt of the federal government will continue to grow to cover government salaries and government pensions. This conclusion may not be the same for state and local governments in that each of us has greater control over these public servants.
Only a conservative President who holds the overall interests of the nation above all other concerns can solve this and other government monetary issues. November 2010 and November 2012 cannot come fast enough.
Monday, July 19, 2010
RACIST CHARGE DID NOT WORK
As an absolute ally of B. H. Obama, there was little choice for the NAACP but to take some headline grabbing action aimed at damaging the reputation and hopefully the political impact of the Tea Party. The Tea Party is strongly anti-Obama and since March of 2009 has grown into a nationwide, loosely organized group of American citizens who have had enough of the federal government in general and the Obama Administration in particular.
The NAACP has only one weapon and it was used. They announced that the Tea Party was racist. Of course the media failed to include that this "racist" label was hedged by the NAACP as belonging only to a small segment of the Tea Party.
Why this course of action was taken is easily explained.
The NAACP is afraid of the Tea Party and for a good reason. These Black leaders see millions of Americans joining with the Tea Party and via the ballot box removing the Congressional supporters of Obama in 2010 and then Obama himself in 2012. It is easy to envision a "meeting" at the White House with the task being given to the NAACP to malign an Obama opposition group. Not being stupid, the NAACP limited its "official" charge of racist so when it seeks federal money after 2012 from Obama's Republican successor it can say with a straight face that the term "racist" was directed at others in the Tea Party and not the victor or his followers.
And then Biden opens his mouth.
After the NAACP "racist" declaration, Vice President Joseph Biden, stated, "But I don't believe it, the President doesn't believe that the Tea Party is a racist organization. Very conservative. Very different views on government and a whole lot of things. But it is not a racist organization."
Here are three possible interpretations of these Biden comments: 1) he misread the White House memo on the Tea Party accidentally adding the word "not" before the racist term; 2) part of the original plan was for someone from the White House to make peace by quickly countering the NAACP statement but not the President; and 3) the initial public reaction to the "racist" charge was so negative that a retreat was necessary but again it could not come from the infallible Obama.
The bottom line it this, the Tea Party has been a success and continues to impact as a major force in American politics. Accordingly the Obama camp grows more fearful daily and has to defend itself with media enhanced attacks. The NAACP became a pawn. Fortunately each of these attacks does nothing more than make the Tea Party and other Obama opponents stronger and more dedicated to victories in 2010 and 2012.
The NAACP has only one weapon and it was used. They announced that the Tea Party was racist. Of course the media failed to include that this "racist" label was hedged by the NAACP as belonging only to a small segment of the Tea Party.
Why this course of action was taken is easily explained.
The NAACP is afraid of the Tea Party and for a good reason. These Black leaders see millions of Americans joining with the Tea Party and via the ballot box removing the Congressional supporters of Obama in 2010 and then Obama himself in 2012. It is easy to envision a "meeting" at the White House with the task being given to the NAACP to malign an Obama opposition group. Not being stupid, the NAACP limited its "official" charge of racist so when it seeks federal money after 2012 from Obama's Republican successor it can say with a straight face that the term "racist" was directed at others in the Tea Party and not the victor or his followers.
And then Biden opens his mouth.
After the NAACP "racist" declaration, Vice President Joseph Biden, stated, "But I don't believe it, the President doesn't believe that the Tea Party is a racist organization. Very conservative. Very different views on government and a whole lot of things. But it is not a racist organization."
Here are three possible interpretations of these Biden comments: 1) he misread the White House memo on the Tea Party accidentally adding the word "not" before the racist term; 2) part of the original plan was for someone from the White House to make peace by quickly countering the NAACP statement but not the President; and 3) the initial public reaction to the "racist" charge was so negative that a retreat was necessary but again it could not come from the infallible Obama.
The bottom line it this, the Tea Party has been a success and continues to impact as a major force in American politics. Accordingly the Obama camp grows more fearful daily and has to defend itself with media enhanced attacks. The NAACP became a pawn. Fortunately each of these attacks does nothing more than make the Tea Party and other Obama opponents stronger and more dedicated to victories in 2010 and 2012.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
REAL BAD NUMBERS
This week the Obama White House pointed to the new national unemployment figure, 9.5%, smiled and stated that the recovery was slowly working. As is typical of this liberal/progressive/socialist leader of our nation, the truth was ignored.
Washington continues to acknowledge that there are 14,600,000 Americans out of work. However this government published figure is greatly manipulated and Obama has elected to exclude from the calculation those Americans who are employed on a part-time schedule while seeking a full-time position and to exclude those Americans who have just stopped trying altogether to find work.
In the last 12 months some 2,600,000 of our fellow citizens have been dropped from the official unemployment ranks because they have given up the job search. Another 8,600,000 individuals are not included as unemployed because they are "part-timers" which most commonly means that they have accepted some limited employment while seeking a full-time job. It is no mystery that Obama discounts these groups because they total 11,200,000 and would bring the real unemployed figure up to 25,800,00. An inclusive approach to the unemployment situation places at least 16.8% and maybe as many as 22% of Americans in that category of being without a full time job and with an amazing average of over 420,000 newly jobless signing up for benefits each week.
Obama's motivation for misleading the nation is that he is just unable to admit that he is personally failing or that he is failing in any segment of his Presidency. This character flaw will help carry him straight to an election defeat in November of 2010 as his Congressional supporters are retired and in November of 2012 when he, as President, is retired.
Washington continues to acknowledge that there are 14,600,000 Americans out of work. However this government published figure is greatly manipulated and Obama has elected to exclude from the calculation those Americans who are employed on a part-time schedule while seeking a full-time position and to exclude those Americans who have just stopped trying altogether to find work.
In the last 12 months some 2,600,000 of our fellow citizens have been dropped from the official unemployment ranks because they have given up the job search. Another 8,600,000 individuals are not included as unemployed because they are "part-timers" which most commonly means that they have accepted some limited employment while seeking a full-time job. It is no mystery that Obama discounts these groups because they total 11,200,000 and would bring the real unemployed figure up to 25,800,00. An inclusive approach to the unemployment situation places at least 16.8% and maybe as many as 22% of Americans in that category of being without a full time job and with an amazing average of over 420,000 newly jobless signing up for benefits each week.
Obama's motivation for misleading the nation is that he is just unable to admit that he is personally failing or that he is failing in any segment of his Presidency. This character flaw will help carry him straight to an election defeat in November of 2010 as his Congressional supporters are retired and in November of 2012 when he, as President, is retired.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
KEY WORDS - PAY OFF
The reported background facts for this piece of disturbing, or should I say revealing, news involving the Democrat Party of Kentucky are:
1. Kentucky Lt. Gov. Daniel Mongiardo and Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway ran against each other in the May Democratic primary for the position of US Senator.
2. Jack Conway won the primary by just 4173 votes but Daniel Mongiardo raised issues about the validity of the results and talked about an official recanvass.
3. A backroom deal was reached which had Mongiardo abandon the recanvass idea and endorse Conway. Conway would help Mongiardo to pay off $80,000.00 of Mongiardo campaign debt.
4. Neither event has occurred and Mongiardo has gone to the media.
Is it possible that two of our leading Democratic party leaders are as shallow as this information indicates? The obvious sad messages are that for $80,000.00 Mongiardo will endorse you for statewide office and that Conway cannot be trusted to follow through with his promises. These facts do not speak well of either of these politicians who currently serve the citizens of Kentucky. Every one of our elected officials have to beyond the public impression that their endorsements can be purchased or that their promises go unfulfilled. In the above scenario, all reported in detail by The Courier-Journal of Louisville, the key words published are, even if taken out of context, "pay off".
Conway will now face Rand Paul, the Republican candidate and favorite of the Tea Party, in November for the position of US Senator. It appears very obvious that the better man, the better candidate and the next US Senator from Kentucky has to be Rand Paul.
1. Kentucky Lt. Gov. Daniel Mongiardo and Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway ran against each other in the May Democratic primary for the position of US Senator.
2. Jack Conway won the primary by just 4173 votes but Daniel Mongiardo raised issues about the validity of the results and talked about an official recanvass.
3. A backroom deal was reached which had Mongiardo abandon the recanvass idea and endorse Conway. Conway would help Mongiardo to pay off $80,000.00 of Mongiardo campaign debt.
4. Neither event has occurred and Mongiardo has gone to the media.
Is it possible that two of our leading Democratic party leaders are as shallow as this information indicates? The obvious sad messages are that for $80,000.00 Mongiardo will endorse you for statewide office and that Conway cannot be trusted to follow through with his promises. These facts do not speak well of either of these politicians who currently serve the citizens of Kentucky. Every one of our elected officials have to beyond the public impression that their endorsements can be purchased or that their promises go unfulfilled. In the above scenario, all reported in detail by The Courier-Journal of Louisville, the key words published are, even if taken out of context, "pay off".
Conway will now face Rand Paul, the Republican candidate and favorite of the Tea Party, in November for the position of US Senator. It appears very obvious that the better man, the better candidate and the next US Senator from Kentucky has to be Rand Paul.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Manipulating An Election
Most recently I was involved in a conversation with a friend who is bright, conservative and stays current on political issues. She is also strongly anti-Obama. During this exchange we both expressed hope and optimism that the results of the November 2010 elections would severely weaken the ability of BHO to continue to push America toward the status of a liberal/progressive/socialist nation. These same election results would serve as a forecast that the 2012 elections would retire Obama from the White House.
After a brief pause, she then told to me of her fear that if the political pundits were predicting an Obama loss as election day 2012 approached, there would be no federal elections. She felt that there would occur a national or international crisis of such an extreme that Obama would "for the good and safety" of our nation suspend all pending federal elections until "tranquility returns". This crisis, she felt, would be secretly designed and implemented by Obama backers.
My reaction was that even Obama is not that evil but today a published quote from an Obama advisor, Ron Shapiro, has lessened the sureness of my disbelief.
Shapiro addressed the forecast that the Democrats will suffer significant losses in both the House and Senate once the November 2010 votes are tallied. He stated, "He (Obama) has to find a way between now and November of demonstrating that he is a leader who can command confidence, short of a 9/11 event or an Oklahoma City bombing. I can't think of how he could do that."
What a strange expression, "... short of a 9/11 event or an Oklahoma City bombing." Is it possible that these two terrible terrorists attacks are being mentioned as the type of event that must be created to better the position of their leader, BHO, and augment his White House years? The mere consideration of such conduct is so extremely wrong that a long jail sentence is mandated for anyone promoting this notion.
I refuse to believe that America can sink to the level of many third world nations in which it is not uncommon for national elections to be postponed or even cancelled. I elect to believe that Obama is not that sinister to allow the engineering of a "crisis" so to justify an interruption of the ultimate American right of electing our leaders.
Unfortunately, I am not as sure as I was just a few days ago.
After a brief pause, she then told to me of her fear that if the political pundits were predicting an Obama loss as election day 2012 approached, there would be no federal elections. She felt that there would occur a national or international crisis of such an extreme that Obama would "for the good and safety" of our nation suspend all pending federal elections until "tranquility returns". This crisis, she felt, would be secretly designed and implemented by Obama backers.
My reaction was that even Obama is not that evil but today a published quote from an Obama advisor, Ron Shapiro, has lessened the sureness of my disbelief.
Shapiro addressed the forecast that the Democrats will suffer significant losses in both the House and Senate once the November 2010 votes are tallied. He stated, "He (Obama) has to find a way between now and November of demonstrating that he is a leader who can command confidence, short of a 9/11 event or an Oklahoma City bombing. I can't think of how he could do that."
What a strange expression, "... short of a 9/11 event or an Oklahoma City bombing." Is it possible that these two terrible terrorists attacks are being mentioned as the type of event that must be created to better the position of their leader, BHO, and augment his White House years? The mere consideration of such conduct is so extremely wrong that a long jail sentence is mandated for anyone promoting this notion.
I refuse to believe that America can sink to the level of many third world nations in which it is not uncommon for national elections to be postponed or even cancelled. I elect to believe that Obama is not that sinister to allow the engineering of a "crisis" so to justify an interruption of the ultimate American right of electing our leaders.
Unfortunately, I am not as sure as I was just a few days ago.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
See A Trend?
There is an on-line publication called Real Clear Politics. It is a wonderful source of worldwide news on a wealth of topics. One of its everyday features are poll numbers for the US Congress and for President B. H. Obama. The poll question is simply do you approve or disapprove of the actions of these two branches of the federal government. The numbers for Congress are terrible with an average negative feeling margin of almost 50 points above the positive voters. These same poll results pertaining to our President have most recently crossed a threshold.
For a substantial period of time, the poll participants have voted consistently in favor of the efforts of Obama but not by a large margin. Then the following entries were published:
June 17: Pro Obama - 48.2% Anti Obama - 47.3%
June 25: Pro Obama - 46.7% Anti Obama - 46.8%
June 28: Pro Obama - 46.9% Anti Obama - 46.9%
June 30: Pro Obama - 47.0% Anti Obama - 46.7%
July 7: Pro Obama - 46.0% Anti Obama - 46.3%
July 9: Pro Obama - 46.4% Anti Obama - 47.9%
July 12: Pro Obama - 47.1% Anti Obama - 47.1%
The obvious question has to be centered on just what is the cause of this decrease, even if it is slight, in popularity being suffered by Obama?
It would be easy to say that the oil spill disaster has shifted a number of ecology minded voters, who are most commonly pro-Obama, away from the current occupant of the White House. However, such a narrow view would negate the impact of growing negative feelings on the part of Americans on such areas as the economy and the unemployed and the deficit and the loss of GI life in Afghanistan. On all of which Obama has nothing but failing marks.
What a conflict in feelings! We all want the status of life in America to improve but such an improvement would most likely shift some support to BHO and that pro-Obama shift is something our nation just cannot endure.
For a substantial period of time, the poll participants have voted consistently in favor of the efforts of Obama but not by a large margin. Then the following entries were published:
June 17: Pro Obama - 48.2% Anti Obama - 47.3%
June 25: Pro Obama - 46.7% Anti Obama - 46.8%
June 28: Pro Obama - 46.9% Anti Obama - 46.9%
June 30: Pro Obama - 47.0% Anti Obama - 46.7%
July 7: Pro Obama - 46.0% Anti Obama - 46.3%
July 9: Pro Obama - 46.4% Anti Obama - 47.9%
July 12: Pro Obama - 47.1% Anti Obama - 47.1%
The obvious question has to be centered on just what is the cause of this decrease, even if it is slight, in popularity being suffered by Obama?
It would be easy to say that the oil spill disaster has shifted a number of ecology minded voters, who are most commonly pro-Obama, away from the current occupant of the White House. However, such a narrow view would negate the impact of growing negative feelings on the part of Americans on such areas as the economy and the unemployed and the deficit and the loss of GI life in Afghanistan. On all of which Obama has nothing but failing marks.
What a conflict in feelings! We all want the status of life in America to improve but such an improvement would most likely shift some support to BHO and that pro-Obama shift is something our nation just cannot endure.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Obama Again Misleads
Many problems face our nation but three of them are really huge concerns. Those are unemployment; on-going governmental deficit spending; and the current debt owed by the America government to other nations.
As to national unemployment, most recently the Obama Administration praised a report that unemployment in our nation had again decreased. This time the federal government's monthly calculation showed that the national unemployment figure had dropped from 9.7% to 9.5%. This is an absolute false representation and here are the facts.
In June some 652,000 Americans stopped looking for work and were, by some strange standard used by Obama, removed from the total listing of our unemployed.
In June government agencies laid-off 208,000 employees (the vast majority being temporary census workers) while private enterprise hired 83,000 new employees. This calculation shows that a monthly net loss of 125,000 jobs was realized.
In June the combination of net lay offs and the number of those no longer looking for work totaled 777,000.
As of the end of June there were still 339,000 temporary federal census employees who will be added to the unemployment ranks in the next 90 days.
One economist, who is not affiliated with the White House, stated that the June employment data was "not a reflection of strength but rather a sign of discouragement among the ranks of the unemployed." However, BHO pointed to this claimed reduction in the percentage of unemployed and proudly stated that his efforts were showing success.
It truly has became an absolute requirement to independently confirm any claim made by Obama because it is most like a manipulated and untrue statement.
As to national unemployment, most recently the Obama Administration praised a report that unemployment in our nation had again decreased. This time the federal government's monthly calculation showed that the national unemployment figure had dropped from 9.7% to 9.5%. This is an absolute false representation and here are the facts.
In June some 652,000 Americans stopped looking for work and were, by some strange standard used by Obama, removed from the total listing of our unemployed.
In June government agencies laid-off 208,000 employees (the vast majority being temporary census workers) while private enterprise hired 83,000 new employees. This calculation shows that a monthly net loss of 125,000 jobs was realized.
In June the combination of net lay offs and the number of those no longer looking for work totaled 777,000.
As of the end of June there were still 339,000 temporary federal census employees who will be added to the unemployment ranks in the next 90 days.
One economist, who is not affiliated with the White House, stated that the June employment data was "not a reflection of strength but rather a sign of discouragement among the ranks of the unemployed." However, BHO pointed to this claimed reduction in the percentage of unemployed and proudly stated that his efforts were showing success.
It truly has became an absolute requirement to independently confirm any claim made by Obama because it is most like a manipulated and untrue statement.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Some Quick Thoughts
Most recently the head of NASA presented himself for a news conference and discussed the future of the American space program. The event was not very stimulating until Charles Bolden, he is the NASA Head Administrator, voluntarily stated that President Obama wants me "... to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations...".
What in the world is he talking about and more to the point what in the world is Obama doing? Charles Bolden has only one task to focus upon and that is to insure the continued success of American exploration of space. Our nation should treat every friendly Islamic nation in a professional and courteous manner. However, the absolutely last issue that should be on the mind of the heads of our space program is how to "reach out" and "engage" Muslim nations. If Obama is so eager to cater to the whims of this type of nation (most of which are oil producing), he has Hillary and her staff to do that job. A report like this one can only renew the question of just how Islamic leaning is Obama?
Another recent Obama activity is much more telling. In the upcoming November elections, Harry Reid is seeking to hold on to his seat in the US Senate. This extremely pro-Obama Democrat is being strongly challenged by Sharron Angle, who some pollsters show as holding a lead over this incumbent. The situation is so drastic that the White House has announced that Obama will be traveling this weekend to Nevada to rally for Reid.
Anytime a President removes himself from Washington to campaign for an office seeker only two possible explanations exist - both obviously being political. Choice one is that this is a sure winner with whom the President wants affiliation and choice two is that the race is very close with a win being almost an absolute need. Traditionally in these close races the President makes an appearance just before election day so that his act is fresh in everybody's mind. Mid-July is not close to the November elections. The conclusion has to be that Obama is making this trip as merely a required pay-back to a past loyal supporter and when the voters retire Reid in November, which Obama fully expects to happen, he can face critics and say, "I tried!".
In the most recently Obama filed federal case against the enforcement of Arizona's state law to help control illegal immigrants, many lines caught my eye but these two really stuck out. Obama is claiming that Arizona will "disrupt the constitutional order by undermining the federal government control over the regulation of immigration". Immediate thought is what federal control is being disrupted in that there is little if any federal enforcement of the immigration laws? If anyone is disrupting "constitutional order" it is Obama. The second line is the claim that for the federal government to undertake the immigration control that Arizona wants there would be "diverting federal resources away from the control of dangerous aliens". The reaction is, are there that many "dangerous aliens" in our nation that it is impossible to seal our borders? If the truthful answer is yes, then bring all of our GIs home and assign them to border security.
Finally, the liberal media is calling for the firing of Michael Steele, the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, for calling the situation in Afghanistan "Obama's war". These all-knowing experts have forgotten that when Obama was sworn in as President almost 18 months ago all American governmental activities became the responsibility of President Obama. By continuing and expanding the war in Afghanistan, there is no doubt that this war is now solely the property of President Obama.
What in the world is he talking about and more to the point what in the world is Obama doing? Charles Bolden has only one task to focus upon and that is to insure the continued success of American exploration of space. Our nation should treat every friendly Islamic nation in a professional and courteous manner. However, the absolutely last issue that should be on the mind of the heads of our space program is how to "reach out" and "engage" Muslim nations. If Obama is so eager to cater to the whims of this type of nation (most of which are oil producing), he has Hillary and her staff to do that job. A report like this one can only renew the question of just how Islamic leaning is Obama?
Another recent Obama activity is much more telling. In the upcoming November elections, Harry Reid is seeking to hold on to his seat in the US Senate. This extremely pro-Obama Democrat is being strongly challenged by Sharron Angle, who some pollsters show as holding a lead over this incumbent. The situation is so drastic that the White House has announced that Obama will be traveling this weekend to Nevada to rally for Reid.
Anytime a President removes himself from Washington to campaign for an office seeker only two possible explanations exist - both obviously being political. Choice one is that this is a sure winner with whom the President wants affiliation and choice two is that the race is very close with a win being almost an absolute need. Traditionally in these close races the President makes an appearance just before election day so that his act is fresh in everybody's mind. Mid-July is not close to the November elections. The conclusion has to be that Obama is making this trip as merely a required pay-back to a past loyal supporter and when the voters retire Reid in November, which Obama fully expects to happen, he can face critics and say, "I tried!".
In the most recently Obama filed federal case against the enforcement of Arizona's state law to help control illegal immigrants, many lines caught my eye but these two really stuck out. Obama is claiming that Arizona will "disrupt the constitutional order by undermining the federal government control over the regulation of immigration". Immediate thought is what federal control is being disrupted in that there is little if any federal enforcement of the immigration laws? If anyone is disrupting "constitutional order" it is Obama. The second line is the claim that for the federal government to undertake the immigration control that Arizona wants there would be "diverting federal resources away from the control of dangerous aliens". The reaction is, are there that many "dangerous aliens" in our nation that it is impossible to seal our borders? If the truthful answer is yes, then bring all of our GIs home and assign them to border security.
Finally, the liberal media is calling for the firing of Michael Steele, the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, for calling the situation in Afghanistan "Obama's war". These all-knowing experts have forgotten that when Obama was sworn in as President almost 18 months ago all American governmental activities became the responsibility of President Obama. By continuing and expanding the war in Afghanistan, there is no doubt that this war is now solely the property of President Obama.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)