J's Cafe Nette

Archive for the ‘Obama Administration’ Category

Not only does Vice President Biden apparently believe that the current administration is responsible for the successes achieved in Iraq, but the administration is also pushing the mantra that the Vice President is responsible for the country securing free and fair elections:

Gibbs said that “the vice president’s been deeply involved in fixing the political process there so that elections can be held and so that our troops can come home as scheduled this summer.”

Gee, I wonder what this was that took place on January 30, 2005?

For Iraqis, 2005 was a year in which they participated in two elections and a referendum. They voted on January 30, October 15, and December 15. The first vote, on January 30, was held despite the explicit warnings from Al Qaeda in Iraq not to attempt this step toward democracy. Looking back at the reports being filed in the weeks leading up to the election, one notes that no one was optimistic about the outcome, often with good reason. According to Dexter Filkins of the New York Times, he and his colleagues had started an office pool to see who could predict the percentage of Iraqis who would vote; the precentages being considered were between fifteen and twenty-four percent. By the end of the day, however, all observers were impressed by the courage of the Iraqi citizens and the long lines of Iraqis who walked to the polling stations to vote. Estimates of the actual turnout vary between fifty and sixty percent. The photos of Iraqis with purple fingers, inked at the voting centers to show that they had voted, were spread around the world.

Fast forward to October and December of 2005:

On October 15, Iraqis went to the polls to vote on a referendum for the new Constitution; it was ratified by a wide margin. And then, on December 15, there was a general election to seat the new 275-member Parliament. The United Iraqi Alliance ticket won 128 seats, the largest share of any of the parties, followed by the Democratic Patriotic Alliance of Kurdistan with 53, Iraqi Accord Front with 44, and the Iraqi National List with 25.

This administration must consist of miracle workers.

These are the same individuals who told the American people that the surge in Iraq would fail yet with a wave of their magical imaginary wands, they have now won the war and will bring the troops home on the same timetable agreed upon before former President Bush left office. Wow, impressive.

November 9, 2009:

Under a security agreement drawn up between Iraq and the United States last year, all U.S. military forces have to withdraw by the end of 2011.

If all goes according to plan, U.S. combat operations will end by August 31, 2010, although 50,000 troops will remain until 2012 to train Iraqi security forces and conduct targeted counter-terrorism operations.

Here is Senator Biden, (in his own words in 2007):

Senator Joseph Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the day before hearing the testimony by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, already dismissed the results. “I really respect him, but I think he’s dead flat wrong,” Biden said about General Petraeus on September 9, 2007. After two days of testimony, Senator Biden was still not persuaded that the new strategy was working. In an interview a few days after the hearing, Senator Biden said, “I give the strategy no chance of succeeding. Zero.”

How about the former Senator from the state of Illinois?

July 2007:

“Here’s what we know. The surge has not worked. And they said today, ‘Well, even in September, we’re going to need more time.’ So we’re going to kick this can all the way down to the next president, under the president’s plan.”

This game of sleight of hand which is being played out in Washington is beyond reproach. Barack Obama was elected and poof, the world became a safer place immediately. All the accomplishments of our military personnel occurring prior to January 2009 vanished. After all, if success was acknowledged someone else, anyone, might have to receive credit.

Given everything above, prior and current statements , the belief this administration must have that their magic dust will cloud the memory of American citizens, and the self delusional talk of how they somehow they stabilized Iraq by nothing more than their presence,
there is one thing they seem to have forgotten.

The war in Iraq was not won by any politician (standing up a viable government in Iraq withstanding) in Washington. The country was not secured by armchair generals or television pundits.

Citizens in Iraq are free to vote, to attend school, own and operate businesses, receive medical attention, no longer live in fear of torture or mass murder and speak their mind without intimidation due to our military and the allies who fought by their side.

You can provide all the strategy in the world, but without those who execute orders, there is zero chance of success. It is my belief former President Bush understood that fact. In today’s environment of make believe, not so much.

Credit where credit is due:

*All emphasis in the above post- admin.

(Update): Wish I would have seen this before I wrote the post above. It’s less than 2 minutes, delivered by a member of our Special Forces (Retired), and it says it all. *Warning, Strong Language

Tweet This Post

What a difference a day makes. HT: The Hill via Memorandum

Last evening Obama railed against the participation of special interest groups in American politics. Today, they were invited to “private briefings” hosted by the White House:

A day after bashing lobbyists, President Barack Obama’s administration has invited K Street insiders to join private briefings on a range of topics addressed in Wednesday’s State of the Union.

The Treasury Department on Thursday morning invited selected individuals to “a series of conference calls with senior Obama administration officials to discuss key aspects of the State of the Union address.”

How do certain lobbyists feel about being bashed one moment and embraced in another?

A handful of lobbyists told The Hill on Thursday morning that they received the invitations and were planning to call in.

Some lobbyists say they are extremely frustrated with the White House for criticizing them and then seeking their feedback. Others note that Democrats on Capitol Hill constantly urge them to make political donations.

One lobbyist said, “Bash lobbyists, then reach out to us. Bash lobbyists’ [while] I have received four Democratic invitations for fundraisers.”

Oh, and about that transparency we keep hearing about….well, dream on.

….As a reminder, these calls are not intended for press purposes.”

Uh-huh.

Tweet This Post

Dick Morris says it time to call your Congress critters.

If his information is correct, then health care legislation is far from dead:

Highly informed sources on Capitol Hill have revealed to me details of the Democratic plan to sneak through Congress Obamacare, despite collapsing public approval for healthcare “reform” and disintegrating Congressional support in the wake of Republican Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts.

President Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate leader Harry Reid have all agreed to the basic framework of the plan.

Their plan is clever but can be stopped if opponents of radical healthcare reform act quickly and focus on a core group of 23 Democratic Congressman. If just a few of these 23 Democrats are “flipped” and decide to oppose the bill, the whole Obama-Pelosi-Reid stratagem falls apart.

Here’s what I learned top Democrats are planning to implement.

Senate Democrats will go to the House with a two-part deal.

First, the House will pass the Senate’s Obamacare bill that passed the Senate in December. The House leadership will vote on the Senate bill, and Pelosi will allow no amendments or modifications to the Senate bill.

How will Pelosi’s deal fly with rambunctious liberal members of her majority that don’t like the Senate bill, especially its failure to include a public option, put heavy fines on those who don’t get insurance and offering no income tax surcharge on the “rich”?

That’s where the second part of the Pelosi-deal comes in.

Behind closed doors Reid and Pelosi have agreed in principle that changes to the Senate bill will be made to satisfy liberal House members — but only after the Senate bill is passed and signed into law by Obama.

This deal will be secured by a pledge from Reid and the Senate’s Democratic caucus that they will make “fixes” to the Senate bill after it becomes law with Obama’s John Hancock.

Read it all, and I’m sure you will not be amazed or amused at the lengths our leaders will go to in order to save face.

HT:Slublog

Tweet This Post

There may have been some hope held out after Scott Brown’s amazing win in Massachusetts, that the current administration would take a step back and look in the mirror as to why they lost a Senate seat which bled blue for so many years.

Not so.

Today Robert Gibbs affirmed that a win for Scott Brown was Massachusetts affirmation of Barack Obama and his policies:

Robert Gibbs on Scott Brown’s win: That may be what he campaigned on but that’s not what the voters in Massachusetts said in the Washington Post poll… They did a poll of voters who participated in why they voted. Right. More people voted express their support for Barack Obama than to oppose him.

It must be so self gratifying to live in a delusional bubble.

On the other hand…

We the people of the United States owe Scott Brown’s sup porters a huge debt of gratitude. They didn’t merely elect a senator. They ripped the façade off the Obama presidency.

Just as Dorothy and Toto exposed the ordinary man behind the curtain in “The Wizard of Oz,” the voters in Massachusetts revealed that, in this White House, there is no there there.

It’s all smoke and mirrors, bells and whistles, held together with glib talk, Chicago politics and an audacious sense of entitlement.

At the center is a young and talented celebrity whose worldview, we now know, is an incoherent jumble of poses and big-government instincts. His self-aggrandizing ambition exceeds his ability by so much that he is making a mess of everything he touches.

He never advances a practical idea. Every proposal overreaches and comes wrapped in ideology and a claim of moral superiority. He doesn’t listen to anybody who doesn’t agree with him.

The question is, which man, Mr. Goodwin or Mr. Gibbs, has more than a tin ear when it comes to listening to the electorate? It is unfortunate for the United States that it seems to be the former.

Tweet This Post

Not even the children can escape the clumsiness of the current administration:

Tweet This Post

A man from Nigeria, whose father is the head of Nigeria’s largest bank and warned the U.S. embassy there of his son’s militant ties possibly to Al Qaeda, gets on an American flight from Amsterdam to Detroit.

Just while the plane is preparing for final approach the Nigerian goes into the bathroom because he has “stomach cramps”. In actuality, he had the makings of an incendiary device sewn into his underwear and had to retrieve them. He returned to his seat and used a blanket because the “stomach cramps” were making him cold.

In fact, he was trying to inject a liquid from a syringe into the powder he already had ready. When the sound of firecrackers was heard an alert and brave passenger from the Netherlands actually jumped over seats with people to get to this man and stop him from blowing up the plane. He suffered burns on his hands and arms, but put out the fire.

The perpetrator suffered from second degree burns on his legs, apparently, as he had no pants legs on him when taken to the front of the plane.

The President of the United States was on vacation in Hawaii and was not notified of this situation for 3 to 3 1/2 hours after the attack. His response? Call the Attorney General and put this armed combatant in jail, after reading his rights and providing a lawyer, and it appears this will be treated as a criminal case instead of the act of war it is.

The Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, said the “system worked”. The system didn’t work. We were just lucky an alert Dutchman took this man down.

Now Americans are going to have to be frisked at American airports, can take only one carry-on bag on an overseas flight, American Airlines (not even the airline involved) is refusing to provide blankets and pillows to passengers, and no one can stand up in the plane within one hour of landing.

The problem was in the Amsterdam airport and the authorities in the embassy for not getting this man on a no-fly list after his own father, a prominent citizen, reported him.If you want to put an incendiary device together under a blanket you can just as easily put it together under your coat. The man had only one carry-on bag and it didn’t contain the explosives, and the highest elected official in our country was not notified for three or more hours just so the staff that did notify him could be “sure” of what happened.

This man deserves no constitutional rights and should be sent to a military tribunal for his crime of terror against the United States.

Are we as a government making it harder for people in foreign airports to come and go as they please, while American passengers must be delayed by an already slow system to board an airplane? I don’t mind being checked, and usually get the full treatment, but I want everyone checked that way here and abroad.

This man had a multiple entry visa to this country while Great Britain revoked his visa for saying he wanted to take a course that did not exist in that country.

It’s time to get out of the 9/10 mentality. We have had a soldier killed at a recruiting station, eleven people killed by a mad psychiatrist on one of our Army bases and now this. The perpetrators will be treated as criminals instead of war criminals, and given every right under the constitution a common thief would be given.

I think Mr. Obama, his staff and Napolitano have a lot of explaining to do. Instead of pushing a health care bill the majority of Americans do not want and pushing other huge spending bills, maybe Obama should divert the money to national security, which seems to have suffered during his short time in office. But then again he doesn’t want to offend his Arab cousins. And before anyone criticizes that statement remember his father is listed as Arab and African. The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

Tweet This Post

What in the name of heaven are these ornaments doing adorning the White House Christmas Tree?

I won’t even reproduce them and post them here, but do check them out at Big Government.

What a disgrace, and once again a display of arrogance and self indulgence by this White House.

Tweet This Post

Dr. Sowell, as usual, nails the state of America under the Obama administration:

Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate but simply one of the many “czars” appointed by the President, could arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50 percent or 90 percent?

Did you think that another “czar” would be talking about restricting talk radio? That there would be plans afloat to subsidize newspapers– that is, to create a situation where some newspapers’ survival would depend on the government liking what they publish?

Did you imagine that anyone would even be talking about having a panel of so-called “experts” deciding who could and could not get life-saving medical treatments?

Scary as that is from a medical standpoint, it is also chilling from the standpoint of freedom. If you have a mother who needs a heart operation or a child with some dire medical condition, how free would you feel to speak out against an administration that has the power to make life and death decisions about your loved ones?

Does any of this sound like America?

The above was quoted from part one.

Dr. Sowell offers further thoughts in Part II of “Dismantling America”:

The memory of that long-ago episode has come back more than once while observing both the actions of the Obama administration and the fierce reactions of its supporters to any questioning or criticism.

Almost never do these reactions include factual or logical arguments against the administration’s critics. Instead, there is indignation, accusations of bad faith and even charges of racism.

Here too, it seems as if so many people have invested so much hope and trust in Barack Obama that it is intolerable that anyone should come along and stir up any doubts that could threaten their house of cards.

Among the most pathetic letters and e-mails I receive are those from people who ask why I don’t write more “positively” about Obama or “give him the benefit of the doubt.”

No one– not even the President of the United States– has an entitlement to a “positive” response to his actions. The entitlement mentality has eroded the once common belief that you earned things, including respect, instead of being given them.

Read both pieces in their entirety at the links provided above.

Tweet This Post

There was a day when an election to public office meant something. It highlighted honesty, integrity and humility in an individual. Men and women were humbled by the fact that their fellow Americans had entrusted them with not only their well being but that of the country.

Those elected to the highest office of our land understood they may be called to defend her and in doing so would be responsible for the lives of those in harms way as well as her citizens. They also had pride in those who wore the uniform and their admiration and support carried over to our citizens.

Some believe the transformation of politics began in the sixties and to some degree I concur. Vietnam highlighted the best and worst of our society. Washington was not committed to winning a war which our military was commissioned to fight.

In their push for political cover they abandoned those on the battlefield and allowed the protests and draft dodgers to become the face of war. They hid behind media coverage who each night made the effort to not show the hardships endured by our troops at the hand of our government, but rather the carnage, both ours and that of the enemy, that painted our military as inept and floundering.

Think back no further than the coverage of the My Lai massacre. While there is no question that those who commit a crime in a time of war should be prosecuted just as a civilian would be, the coverage of this incident moved an already angry America (in many sectors) to hatred of those who wore the uniform of this country.

There was no “thanks for your service” or “welcome home” for the men and women who came home war weary. They now had many who viewed them as failures, incapable of completing their mission. The scorn of many fellow Americans was at times unbearable for many of our finest, and far too many bear the scars long after. What exactly did Washington do to correct this misconception?

Vietnam had touched nearly every family in the United States on some level or another be it a family member or friend who was called to serve and yet those in power were content to allow their reputations to be tarnished in exchange for political cover.

What was the price paid by those elected to serve? Not running for another term?

That is a far cry from the ridicule of being called a baby killer or feeling warm spit hit your skin or tarnish your uniform. There is no comparison in a cushy Washington job and that of standing at attention to honor another of your fellow soldiers who has paid the ultimate price in a war Washington was determined never to win.

The stakes were high in the sixties. America, when called to action, believed in victory.

Today, the stakes have been raised. Victory may just define not only our but the existence of other nations, however, we are again witnessing a Washington which has put our troops on the back burner in lieu of reshaping this country. While Washington talks, men and women are dying and being maimed. Have you heard the wordvictory uttered by this administration?

There is one major difference today versus the sixties.

This time, if our troops are withdrawn from Afghanistan prior to victory the majority of our people will not see them as having gone down to defeat. They will be applauded for their efforts and enduring conditions which most of us will never face. The onus will sit squarely on the shoulders of those who make calculated moves based on political power and that is precisely where it belongs.

Perhaps I am hoping for too much. For the sake of our country and those who wear her uniform, I hope not.

Tweet This Post

Brit Hume remarks on the White House effort to discredit Fox News Network:

Further here is Jake Tapper once again asking a real question of Robert Gibbs. That of course does not imply he received a real answer.

Tweet This Post

They keep digging the hole deeper and deeper: (Via:Breitbart)

These numbers should give them pause, but no, not these folks.

Tweet This Post

It must be difficult when you are of such superior intelligence as are the members of this administration, to find yourself in a room full of individuals who simply can’t grasp an explanation to a question:

While the journalistic bent of some reporters may not sit well with a segment of the population, they are, for the most part educated individuals who attend White House press briefings to garner information not to be lectured in a condescending way.

Gibbs final statement in the video relays the message that the topic is closed.

Truly, it’s within the purview of the President to root for America, but maybe I’m wrong.

Why was that “but” necessary? Does Gibbs think those in the room are thinking thoughts which would be contrary to complete acceptance of any decision this White House makes? Or, is it simply more of that nose in the air, “we won” mentality to which we are subjected daily?

Perhaps Rick Moran should be the Press Secretary, as he has a handle on why Barack Obama feels the need to travel to Copenhagen.

In a word, payback.

Now, that was succinct, truthful, and informative, in more ways than one.

Tweet This Post

Note to the current administration, we are not your children. If you wish to drive a point home it might be a much better idea to deal with the public as though they were your equal and not subordinates.

In other words, get off the soap boxes, and be willing to accept that others may have differing opinions than yours. All this preachy talk will get you nowhere with intelligent, thinking adults.

When it comes to greenhouse-gas emissions, Energy Secretary Steven Chu sees Americans as unruly teenagers and the Administration as the parent that will have to teach them a few lessons.

Speaking on the sidelines of a smart grid conference in Washington, Dr. Chu said he didn’t think average folks had the know-how or will to to change their behavior enough to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.

“The American public…just like your teenage kids, aren’t acting in a way that they should act,” Dr. Chu said. “The American public has to really understand in their core how important this issue is.” (In that case, the Energy Department has a few renegade teens of its own.)

[emphasis-admin] HT: Drudge

I don’t know about Dr. Chu but I raised two children and both were responsible teenagers who were employed and did well in school. Did they have their moments, yes, but overall this “unruly behavior” which he cites marks all teenagers as flighty, irresponsible individuals and that is something, whether years ago or in the present, by which I cannot abide.

It makes one wonder how in touch with America these folks in Washington are.

Tweet This Post

Breaking News:

Van Jones resigns. Surprise. No responsibility for his own actions taken.

More here, and
here.

Meanwhile……

Tweet This Post

Fool us once:

While an administration official told ABC News that controversial White House official Van Jones’s signature on a 2004 petition suggesting that the Bush administration let 9/11 happen in order to justify war was because he did not carefully review the language in the petition, another link between Jones and the Truther movement has emerged.

This is becoming problematic for the Obama administration, which spent much time and energy belittling the fringe “Birther” movement of those alleging, despite myriad evidence, that President Obama was not born in the U.S.

Jones said in a statement yesterday that he did not agree with the 2004 Truther petition and it “does not reflect my views now or ever.”

But in March 2002, a march in San Francisco was called to demand a congressional inquiry into 9/11. Jones was on the “organizing committee.”

[emphasis-mine-admin]

Read further to discover the beliefs of those involved in the above mentioned San Francisco march and then ask yourself if Mr. Van (republicans are a……s) Jones is someone who should be entrusted with a position of power within our government.

Update: About that 2004 petition which Mr. Jones now says he did not fully understand, if this information is correct then someone is not being straightforward:

Mike Berger, a spokesman for 911Truth.org, told the Washington Times over the phone that all of the signers had been verified by their group. He said 9/11Truth.org board members “spoke with each person on the list by phone or through email to individually confirm they had added their name to that list.”

Tweet This Post

In more than one conversation as George W. Bush was wrapping up his tenure as President, there were those who expressed that perhaps he should offer a blanket pardon to himself and those in his administration, primarily those who were involved in any facet of the War on Terror.

Recognizing the character and conviction of the former president, it never entered my mind that he would do such a thing.

Mr. Bush had realized foreign policy decisions based on intelligence afforded by not only our, but other nation’s intelligence, and was guided by legal opinions offered by those in the Justice Department.

He obeyed his Oath of Office in his choice to protect this country from all enemies foreign and domestic, and made the most difficult decision any Commander In Chief must, to commit our men and women to war.

Many who initially supported Bush in these decisions became weak-kneed as it became politically expedient to do so, but to his credit, he never did.

Were there errors in judgment by the former President, members of his administration and military personnel in the execution of the war, yes. Did they work to correct those missteps? Yes.

Has there ever been throughout history, a perfect war, one which did not require a change if not a complete overhaul of strategy? If there had been, we would never have had to mourn the loss of one of our bravest.

Channeling back to the original thought of this post, the pardons, after reading this today, I admit that my thinking they would never be necessary may have been reckless:

And then there is the Center for Constitutional Rights, a Marxist organization that for years has coordinated legal representation for terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay. The CCR has been attempting to convince Germany, France, Spain, and other countries to file war-crime indictments against former Bush administration officials, including President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Secretary Rumsfeld. In representing America’s enemies, CCR has collaborated with many private lawyers, who also volunteered their services — several of whom are now working in the Obama Justice Department. Indeed, Holder’s former firm boasts that it still represents 16 Gitmo detainees (the number was previously higher). And, for help shaping detainee policy, Holder recently hired Jennifer Daskal for DOJ’s National Security Division — a lawyer from Human Rights Watch with no prior prosecutorial experience, whose main qualification seems to be the startling advocacy she has done for enemy combatants.

Put it all together and it’s really not that hard to figure out what is going on here.

Transnationalists from outside and, now, inside our government have been ardent supporters of prosecutions against American officials who designed and carried out the Bush counterterrorism policies that kept this country safe after 9/11. The U.N.’s top torture monitor is demanding legal action, almost certainly as a prelude to calling for action by an international tribunal — such as the ICC — if the Justice Department fails to indict. Meantime, law-enforcement authorities in Spain and elsewhere are weighing charges against the same U.S. officials, spurred on by the CCR and human-rights groups that now have friends in high American places. In foreign and international courts, the terrorist-friendly legal standards preferred by Europe and the U.N. would make convictions easier to obtain and civil suits easier to win.

Read the entire piece by Andrew McCarthy. It encompasses a great deal of research which lend credence to his conclusions. Should things play out in the fashion he describes, America would face devastating consequences at the hands of those doing nothing more than appeasing a small voting block which they must please in order to remain in power.

The Holder DOJ has proven they are willing to take on the CIA. Would or will they move to allow foreign nations to attempt to prosecute American citizens, including a former President and Vice President, for war crimes?

At one time I would have offered a resounding no! The top law enforcement official of our land would never sacrifice an American (to another nation) for political gain. Today, I’m not so certain, and that to me is a great tragedy.

Tweet This Post

Congress and the White House may have the power to change not only America, but the lives of individuals fortunate to reside within her boundaries. However, when it comes to September 11, 2001, it is inconceivable they would make any attempt to hijack the hearts and minds of those who witnessed the most horrific terrorist attack this country has ever experienced.

The Obama White House is behind a cynical, coldly calculated political effort to erase the meaning of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks from the American psyche and convert Sept. 11 into a day of leftist celebration and statist idolatry.

This effort to reshape the American psyche has nothing to do with healing the nation and everything to do with easing the nation along in the ongoing radical transformation of America that President Obama promised during last year’s election campaign. The president signed into law a measure in April that designated Sept. 11 as a National Day of Service, but it’s not likely many lawmakers thought this meant that day was going to be turned into a celebration of ethanol, carbon emission controls, and radical community organizing.

The administration’s plans were outlined in an Aug. 11 White House-sponsored teleconference call run by Obama ally Lennox Yearwood, president of the Hip Hop Caucus, and Liv Havstad, the group’s senior vice president of strategic partnerships and programs.

It escapes me how the following commemorates the tragedies which occurred in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington D.C.:

Of this National Day of Service, Jones says little except that it will be a great opportunity “for people to connect, to find other people in your peer group who are also passionate about repowering America but also greening up America and cleaning up America.”

On the same day, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson, and Department of Energy Under Secretary Kristina Johnson and activists held a low-key press conference. At it, Yearwood said the National Day of Service will be “the first milestone” of a larger effort called Green the Block that is attempting to convince Americans that the utopian fantasy of a so-called green economy is possible without turning the U.S. into a Third World country.

emphasis- admin

I felt compelled to bold the entire two paragraphs above as they highlight the arrogance of this concept.

There is no mention of the victims or their families, no talk of those who have tirelessly fought to eradicate those who would do this country further harm, nor any mention of the profound affect this tragedy had on all Americans who were its witness.

Where is the decency in this? Why not a reverent, quiet remembrance of those who were senselessly murdered and those they left behind?

Try as they may, no member of our government, or those they task to try, will ever erase these memories from my mind:

I have to believe most Americans feel the same.

Tweet This Post

Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush had only one.

Bill Clinton had three, George W. Bush, four.

Barack Obama, thirty two and counting.

Senator Byrd questions these appointments constitutionality:

Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), who for decades has battled White House power and championed congressional clout, is questioning President Obama’s appointment of “czars” to oversee key policy areas, including energy and climate.

“The rapid and easy accumulation of power by White House staff can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances,” Byrd wrote in a letter to Obama. “At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials.”

The Senator offers a good argument against the executive selection of czars. They are not duly elected officials, yet they wield a tremendous amount of power and are accountable to only a sitting President.

What is striking about the excessive use of these appointments by the current administration, is the lack of publicity surrounding them.

Imagine for a moment the coverage if the four former presidents referenced above would have stacked their White House with thirty-two powerful overseers who had no Congressional accountability.

Has the pounding drum beat left your head yet?

This may well be the strategy by those in the White House to keep Obama above the fray.

He cannot be held accountable for decisions his czars have made, after all, he would only choose the best and the brightest to assume these tasks, and if they provide him with faulty information it cannot possibly be his responsibility, right?

We are witnessing the change promised for months upon end. A federal government run by men and women selected, not elected, and this time, the phrase is one hundred percent factual. (Click image for further information)

*Welcome to the readers linking from Free Republic and Flopping Aces*

Tweet This Post

Bill Clinton returned two Americans home to their families.

The White House didn’t like it, so says Mayor Willie Brown.

An inside source tells me the White House was not all that happy with former President Bill Clinton being selected to bring the two journalists home from North Korea.

From what I hear, they didn’t even want him to come off the plane when it landed for the cameras in Burbank.

If Mayor Brown’s sources are correct, then this question must be asked; why in the world would any Administration not wish to see their citizens on American soil and not locked up in some hard labor prison in North Korea, no matter who got the credit for their return?

HT:Don Surber

Tweet This Post

Where was this oversight when the administration and their czars moved to take over a private enterprise?

Via Real Clear Politics:

:Now that the Obama administration has spent billions of dollars on the bailouts of General Motors and Chrysler, Congress is considering making its first major management decision at the automakers.

Under legislation that has rapidly gained support, GM and Chrysler would have to reinstate more than 2,000 dealerships that the companies had slated for closure.

The automakers say the ranks of their dealers must be thinned in order to match the fallen demand for cars. But some of the rejected dealers and their Capitol Hill supporters argue that the process of selecting dealerships for closure was arbitrary and went too far.

Since federal money has been used to sustain the automakers, they say Congress has an obligation to intervene.

emphasis-admin

Upside down. That’s what we are as a country right now.

If GM and Chrysler were failing they should have pursued the normal bankruptcy channels and either reorganized or closed their doors.

Would that have created further havoc in the job market, sure, but on the other hand it would have avoided a virtual take-over by the federal government.

The next thing we’ll hear is how many jobs were created by Congress if and when these dealerships are reopened.

Tweet This Post

If there are those who believe they are exempt from the change which has been thrust upon us in short order by those currently in political power, think again.

This is a prime example of how little consideration is being afforded those who have worked all their lives to build security for their family only to see our government (shamefully) and the unions whisk it away without a second thought.

I fear this is only the beginning.

(Link fixed. Apologies to any who attempted to access the piece at Right Wing Nut House and instead were treated to a topic totally unrelated to the post.)

Tweet This Post

My grandmother used to say you don’t get far in this life without
common sense.

Well…..

Tweet This Post

Vladimir Bukovsky, the great anti-Soviet dissident, once reproved me for quoting the old joke about the two main official Soviet newspapers: “There’s no truth in Pravda [Truth] and no news in Izvestia [News.]” He pointed out that you could learn a great deal of truthful news from both papers if you read them with proper care.

In particular, they often denounced “anti-Soviet lies.” These lies had never previously been reported by them. Nor were they lies. And their exposure as such was the first that readers had been told of them. By reading the denunciation carefully, however, intelligent readers could decipher what the original story must have been. It was a roundabout way of getting information — but it worked.

John O’Sullivan wrote that in his article, The Song of the Kerry Boatmen, in National Review in the fall of 2004, a few months before the presidential election. (…Ah, good times, good times).

Bukovsky’s words offer insight to us as the Obamachination of the news ramps up to hype the “First 100 Days”.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tweet This Post

How about this for picture of the week?

Senator DeMint has shown great courage lately through his actions in the Senate. Calling for a vote on the Fairness Doctrine as early as next week would be another moment worth watching:

Sen. Jim DeMint announced that he will force a vote next week on a bill that prevents the Federal Communications Commission from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.

The South Carolina Republican’s bill, the Broadcaster Freedom Act, is cosponsored by John Thune, R-S.D., and 27 others and will be offered as an amendment to the D.C. Voting Rights bill…

Let’s get it out in the open. America should see how each of their elected officials lean on this matter.

Cowards, huh? That’s a heck of a thing for a Attorney General of the United States to say.

Here is the best take down of Holder’s statement I have read to date.

If anyone can tie coffee, the courts and the porkfest legislation into one neat package it is Alfonzo Rachel..just watch:

Have a good weekend all. Hopefully by Monday this bug will have departed altogether. Maybe then this exhausting, exasperating monster will allow me to post something original and intelligent.

Tweet This Post

Following a link provided at Right Wing Nuthouse I discovered one of the best articles published on the stimulus package to date.

In addition to providing a comprehensive list of the projects which will move our economy forward, there’s this little gem:

Perhaps the worst part, however, appears in Section 1607 of the final bill. This section essentially says that if a governor refuses to accept stimulus funds allocated to his or her state, the state legislature can override the governor’s decision by passing a concurrent resolution. It means that governors, such as South Carolina’s Gov. Mark Sanford, who have said that they would not accept the money, could be overridden by their state legislative bodies.

Usurping the power of a states Governor is now acceptable in Washington.

What a pet project, pork filled power grab this is.

*Ms. de Rugy continues the breakdown of the bill here. It doesn’t get any better.

*Also: Dan Riehl gives us a glimpse of the topics to be addressed in the not too distant future (via CNN):

The following week, the president will host what the White House is billing as a “fiscal responsibility” summit on February 23. The goal of the summit is to begin weighing the impact of massive federal programs like Social Security and Medicare just days before the president plans to unveil his first annual budget to Congressional leaders.

Emphasis-mine

Remember when former President Bush attempted to address the size and scope of Social Security? Look no further than this:

The money quote from this video comes at approximately the 3:00 minute mark and is delivered by Senator Dick Durbin:

Do you want to saddle your children and mine with five trillion dollars of debt?

What a difference a few years makes.

.

Tweet This Post

I must admit to a growing sense of nervousness and fear as we draw closer to the Inauguration of a new president.

I can’t quite put my finger on the source of these feelings, but they are real to me and I have never been so troubled as I am now for our country.

Perhaps this is how the people with BDS felt when President Bush was inaugurated the first time; I don’t know.

We have a man we know almost nothing about because he has refused to release any kind of records to tell us anything about him about to be sworn in as the Leader of the Free World.

He spent ten uneventful years as a state senator in Illinois, racking up numerous “present” votes instead of taking one side or the other on specific issues.

He was in the United States Senate for four years, two of them spent on the campaign trail for the job he is about to take, by his own admission.

What is his experience? What kind of leader is he? What does he mean by change and everyone will have to sacrifice?

He has a strong ally or opponent in Nancy Pelosi, who just Sunday announced she has no problem with raising taxes by repealing the Bush tax cuts that are set to expire in 2010 anyway.

When asked how she can raise taxes during a recession she just gave a gobbledy-gook answer and basically said that’s what she wants. (See transcript.)

When asked if she supports investigating the Bush Administration for crimes committed she said she thinks we should look into that, even though the incoming president says we must look ahead and not behind. Even though she herself signed off on what she is now calling illegal practices and asked if we could do something more harsh than water-boarding.

Is Mr. Obama capable of standing up to this old hand in Washington, or is he so fresh it will be impossible for him to do so?

Already campaign promises are being broken and we are being told all cannot be accomplished in one term. It certainly doesn’t sound like the sure-minded voice of Candidate Obama while he proclaimed across the nation, “Yes, we can!” Yes, we can what?

He has appointed a man who flagrantly refused to pay his back income taxes to be the head of the Treasury Dept. and in charge of the IRS. How can any citizen be honestly prosecuted for not paying their share of income taxes when the head of the agency overseeing this process is guiltier than they?

He has appointed a man who OK’d the pardons of Marc Rich and the FALN so Hillary Clinton could win the Puerto Rican vote in NY and so they could pay back Rich for money given to the Clinton Library.

Holder has also defended Chiquita Company in a lawsuit brought against them in which the company pled guilty to knowingly dealing with Colombian terrorists in order to purchase bananas. Holder then said it was the corporation that was guilty and not any individuals.

It reminds me of the time I had to work all night and get off at 7 am, and was scheduled to return to work at 10 am. I was told the computer made the schedule, but some person had to have programmed the computer.

The corporation made a mistake, but corporations are run by people and to argue they should not be punished is ridiculous, but he won the case.

We have a former congressman and chief of staff to Bill Clinton, Leon Panetta, named as the new CIA head. In a time of two wars do we want someone who knows absolutely nothing about intelligence gathering to head our spy agency?

Obama can’t even make up his mind about what kind of dog to get and I’m supposed to be calm and trust his decisions he made even before the one that seems of such small consequence in the whole scheme of things?

Maybe I can’t put my finger on it because the worries and problems seem so large I must wrap my arms around them to be able to understand why I feel this way.

Tweet This Post