Saturday, January 31, 2009

Obama Hates White People

More than 1,000,000 people in Indiana, and Kentucky are without power and heat after this week's ice storms.

Where is the Obama Administration's FEMA?

Oh, that's right - Indiana and Kentucky voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004, then John McCain in 2008.

Meanwhile, the New York Times reported on Thursday, Jan 29th that:

“…the capital flew into a bit of a tizzy when, on his first full day in the White House, President Obama was photographed in the Oval Office without his suit jacket. There was, however, a logical explanation: Mr. Obama, who hates the cold, had cranked up the thermostat.

“He’s from Hawaii, O.K.?” said Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, David Axelrod, who occupies the small but strategically located office next door to his boss. “He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there.”

Could this be the same Barack Obama who said last May that:

“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times… and then just expect that other countries are going to say ‘OK.’ … That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen.”

While the first BLACK President of the United Staobama without suitcoattes of America sits in his toasty warm Oval office free to crank up the thermostat whenever he pleases, people in Indiana and Kentucky (who oddly, didn't vote for him) are freezing to death without electricity and power for nearly a week now.

Where is Barack Hussein Obama's FEMA, and why aren't they helping the WHITE PEOPLE of Indiana and Kentucky?

Must be because Obama HATES white people.

Here's your change alright.

Ahmadinejad: Obama's offer to talk shows U.S. failure

A.P. January 31, 2009

US President Barack Obama's offer to talk to Iran shows that America's policy of "domination" has failed, the government spokesman said on Saturday.

"This request means Western ideology has become passive, that capitalist thought and the system of domination have failed," Gholam Hossein Elham was quoted as saying by the Mehr news agency.

"Negotiation is secondary, the main issue is that there is no way but for (the United States) to change," he added.

After nearly three decades of severed ties, Obama said shortly after taking office this month that he is willing to extend a diplomatic hand to Tehran if the Islamic republic is ready to "unclench its fist".

In response, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad launched a fresh tirade against the United States, demanding an apology for its "crimes" against Iran and saying he expected "deep and fundamental" change from Obama.

Iranian politicians frequently refer to the US administration as the "global arrogance", "domineering power" and "Great Satan".

Tensions with the United States have soared over Iran's nuclear drive and Ahmadinejad's vitriolic verbal attacks against Washington's close regional ally Israel.

Former US president George W. Bush refused to hold talks with the Islamic republic -- which he dubbed part of an "axis of evil" -- unless it suspended uranium enrichment, and never took a military option to thwart Tehran's atomic drive off the table.

The new administration of Obama has also refused to rule out any options -- including military strikes -- to stop Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Iran denies any plans to build the bomb and insists its nuclear programme is solely aimed at peaceful ends.


Lest there be any doubt, the 'rookie mistakes' by Obama have been piling up these last few weeks.  First with a bloated "economic stimulus" which is really a payoff to unions and the socialist hippies of the '60s and now Iran.

From a foreign policy perspective, the first sign of weakness on the part of the Obama Administration (and therefore the United States of America) was Obama's declaration that Gitmo would be closed.  The second sign of weakness was Obama's reaching out to Iran "without preconditions" to open a discourse.

Make no mistake about it, the Liberals will never learn: appeasement never works, period.  America has been weakened by a stupid, inept liberal rookie as President of the United States.  By the time this fool is done, he may end up making Jimmah Carter look like a genius by comparison.


Obama the "Uniter"

Economic Stimulus? Obama Wants Your Medical Records ^

A little-discussed provision in President Obama's economic stimulus plan would demand that every American submit to a government program for electronic medical records without a choice to opt out, and it has privacy advocates more than a little alarmed.

Patients might be alarmed, too, privacy advocates said, if they realized information such as documentation on abortions, mental health problems, impotence, being labeled as a non-compliant patient, lawsuits against doctors and sexual problems could be shared electronically with, perhaps, millions of people.

Sue A. Blevins, president of the Institute for Health Freedom, said unless people have the right to decide "if and when" their health information is shared, there is no real privacy.

"President Obama has pledged to advance freedom," she said. "Therefore the freedom to choose not to participate in a national electronic health-records system must be upheld."

Blevins' organization, one of the few raising the alarm at this point, said the stimulus plan would impose an electronic health records system on every person in the U.S. without any provision for seeking patient consent or allowing them not to participate.

"Without those protections, Americans' electronic health records could be shared – without their consent – with over 600,000 covered entities through the forthcoming nationally linked electronic health-records network," Blevins said.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Make no mistake here folks, this is the first step towards Socialized Medicine.  There is no opt-out in this plan, you will be forced to submit your medical records to big-daddy Government, who will then determine what is best for you.

This is wrapped up in Obama's so-called "Economic stimulus plan."  Someone needs to tell us, the American people exactly how the government having control of our medical records "stimulates" the economy. 

Even worse, Google is lobbying for the "sale of electronic medical records" and pushing provisions in the "Economic Stimulus Plan" so that it may sell patient medical information to it's advertising clients on the new 'Google Health Database.'

You should know that Google CEO Eric Schmidt is a major Obama supporter and campaign contributor.  Schmidt also sat on Obama's "Economic Stimulus Panel" and had direct insight and input into the contents of the plan.  We leave it up to you our reader to decide if this action is ethical or not.  -ED

Public Support for OBummer's "Stimulus" Bill Slips to 42%

Rasmussen Reports

Public support for the economic recovery plan crafted by President Obama and congressional Democrats has slipped a bit over the past week. At the same time, expectations that the plan will quickly become law have increased.

Forty-two percent (42%) of the nation’s likely voters now support the president’s plan, roughly one-third of which is tax cuts with the rest new government spending. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 39% are opposed to it and 19% are undecided. Liberal voters overwhelmingly support the plan while conservatives are strongly opposed.

Last week, support for the President’s plan was at 45% and opposition at 34%.

As they consider the size and scope of the $800-billion-plus economic recovery plan, 46% are worried that the government will end up doing too much while 42% worry that it will do too little (see trends).

A plurality of women now support the recovery plan, but a plurality of men take the opposite view. Those who earn less than $40,000 a year are more likely to support the plan than those with higher incomes. (Likely because they don't pay taxes in the first place - ED.)

Over the course of the past week, there has been little change in the views of either Republicans or Democrats towards the legislation. Seventy-four percent (74%) of Democrats support the plan along with just 18% of Republicans. Both those figures are up just a single point from the previous poll.

However, support among unaffiliated voters has fallen. A week ago, unaffiliateds were evenly divided on the plan, with 37% in favor and 36% opposed. Now, 50% of unaffiliated voters oppose the plan while only 27% favor it.


Friday, January 30, 2009

25 Reasons To Support Obama's Failure

Andrew Roman, Roman Around

I found this while perusing Conservative Blogs and saw that someone else was thinking along the same lines as I've been, in that they've begun listing the reasons they want Obama to fail.

Surely this is likely an extension of Rush Limbaugh's "I want Obama to Fail, if it means implementing Socialism in America" radio rant last week, but I think it's much larger than Limbaugh's rant.  Here is the first clear, concise representation of why those of us in the Conservative movement want to see Obama fail.  Each reason that Andrew Roman lists below speaks to my heart, and what I've loved about our great country since first saying the Pledge of Allegiance as a kindergarten student in 1967. Likely not many of my readers today will remember saying the Pledge of Allegiance as it was a practice that was literally banned in the early 1970's.

Andrew's list is presented in the order listed on his blog, please give him a a click using the link above to send your comments to him.

1. If President Barack Obama is resolute on reversing Bush administration measures that have served to keep this country safe from attack for over seven years, I want him to fail.

2. If the President believes that enemy combatants captured on the field of battle are due the same Constitutional rights as American citizens, I want him to fail.

3. If the President believes that “direct diplomacy” with despotic leaders of murderous regimes is the best way to keep America strong, I want him to fail.

4. If the President is willing to trod upon one of the fundamental rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence - namely, the right to life - with his illimitable support of abortion, I want him to fail.

5. If the President believes that taxpayer dollars should be used to fund abortions, I want him to fail.

6. If the President wishes to use taxpayer dollars to fund embryonic stem cell research, I want him to fail.

7. If the President wishes to appoint judges to the Supreme Court who view the Constitution as a document that breathes and bends with time, I want him to fail.

8. If the President wants to infringe on my Constitutional right as a law abiding American to own a firearm, I want him to fail.

9. If the President believes that government is better equipped to solve the problems of Americans than Americans themselves, I want him to fail.

10. If the President attempts to follow through on his campaign promise to fundamentally transform the United States of America, I want him to fail.

11. If the President wishes to send me a check that I didn’t earn, paid for with other people’s hard-earned tax money, and call it a tax cut, I want him to fail.

12. If the President wishes to send a so-called stimulus check to those who did not pay federal income taxes, I want him to fail.

13. If the President believes that government bailouts of private sector businesses are the way to tend to an ailing economy, I want him to fail.

14. If the President believes that the government should set pay limits on executives of companies who receive bailout money, I want him to fail.

15. If the President believes that government spending of unprecedented amounts of taxpayer money is the way to deliver the economy from recession, I want him to fail.

16. If the President believes that the planet is in danger of catostrophic ruin due to man-made global warming, and is willing to implement so-called “green” policies that will damage this country’s economy, I want him to fail.

17. If the President wishes to undertake an unparalleled “domestic infrastructure” plan that puts untrained non-professionals on the government’s payroll with the belief that this will stimulate the economy, I want him to fail.

18. If the President believes that people who fall into the highest tax brackets in this country need to pay more taxes, I want him to fail.

19. If the President believes that the military of the United States is a venue for social engineering - such as lifting the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy - I want him to fail.

20. If the President believes that healthcare is not only a right but a moral obligation of government, I want him to fail.

21. If the President believes that it is a good idea to attack those who listen to conservative talk radio as a means of fostering unity, I want him to fail.

22. If the President supports a reinstatement of the so-called Fairness Doctrine, effectively ending talk radio as we know it, I want him to fail.

23. If the President is unwilling to boldly deal with illegal immigration into the United States, and chooses to try and come up with something “comprehensive” to solve the problem, I want him to fail.

24. If the President is unwilling to take a serious look at nuclear energy as a viable and safe alternative source of energy, while wasting time focusing on wind turbines and solar paneling, I want him to fail.

25. If the President decides that he will continue his class-warfare style assault on big corporations - such as oil and pharmaceutical companies - as he did during his campaign by punishing them with higher tax rates, I want him to fail.

Not because he is black. Not because he is a liberal. Not because I seek some sort of vengance on the deranged, lunatic Bush-bashers of the past eight years.

I want him to fail because each and every one of these policies hurts my country.


There are more to be added, I’m certain.

This particular list is a breathing document.


Economists slam Obama's 'Stimulus' Package

Alex Singleton, London Telegraph

The line from Barack Obama and Joe Biden is that all economists agree with a stimulus package to expand government spending. So they won't have been happy to see a full page advertisement in today's New York Times disagreeing, signed by around 200 academic economists, including three Nobel prize-winners.

Economists speak out against the stimulus package

According to Mr Biden: "Every economist... from conservative to liberal, acknowledges that direct government spending on a direct program now is the best way to infuse economic growth and create jobs."

Barack Obama said earlier this month that: "There is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy."

But the economists who signed the advert, funded by the Cato Institute in Washington DC, say that: "we the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan's "lost decade" in the 1990s."

They propose instead that: "To improve the economy, policymakers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth."

This is a message that, over on this side of the Pond, Gordon Brown should also listen to - but won't.

'Obama's $900B "Stimulus" Isn't "Post Partisan" But Democrat Controlled Congress Will Approve Anyway

The House approveed Barack Obama's now nearly $900 billion stimulus bill after Mr. Obama yielded some points to the minority after a meeting with Congressional Republicans yesterday, including:

  • $69 billion to prevent the Alternative Minimum Tax from hitting middle-class families.
  • Removed $200 million to update the National Mall.
  • Removed Medicaid coverage for family planning.

Still, many Republicans are unlikely to support the bill, which includes:

  • $356.6 billion for infrastructure.
  • $180 billion for jobless benefits and Medicaid.
  • $275 billion in tax relief, including a $500 payroll tax holiday

Critics say the plan won't really stimulate the economy and amounts to a Democratic attempt to rewrite the social contract with low-income workers and the poor.

Supporters say the plan will create millions of jobs and seeks to reverse 25 years of GOP-led efforts to tilt the playing field in favor of the wealthy, and against low-income workers and the working poor.

After declaring "I won," President Obama reportedly said he "would not compromise...on his campaign promise for a middle-class tax credit that would also go to low-wage workers who earn too little to pay income taxes but are subject to payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare," The NY Times reports.

10 Reasons to Whack Obama's "Stimulus" Plan

James Pethokoukis, Yahoo Finance

Some people are going to oppose President Obama's ginormous stimulus package just because they're on a different political team. But when you look at the economic evidence, it sure seems like an economic recovery package that's heavy on government spending and light on tax cuts is just the opposite of what we should be doing right now. Try this closing argument on for size:

1) A 2005 study by Andrew Mountford and Harald Uhlig "analyzed three types of policy shocks: a deficit-financed spending increase, a balanced budget spending increase (financed with higher taxes) and a deficit-financed tax cut, in which revenues increase but government spending stays unchanged. We found that a deficit-spending shock stimulates the economy for the first 4 quarters but only weakly compared to that for a deficit-financed tax cut." In other words, FDR vs. Clinton vs. Reagan, Reagan wins.

2) Harvard economist Robert Barro looked at the multiplier effect of World War II military spending -- supposedly the Mother of All Stimulus Plans and found that "wartime production siphoned off resources from other economic uses -- there was a dampener, rather than a multiplier." Barro prefers eliminating the corporate income tax to massive government spending.

3) Alberto Alesina of Harvard and Luigi Zingales of the University of Chicago want to adress the fear and confidence issue by creating "the incentive for people to take more risk and move their savings from government bonds to risky assets. There is no better way to encourage this than a temporary elimination of the capital-gains tax for all the investments begun during 2009 and held for at least two years."

4) An initial CBO analysis found that a mere $26 billion out of $274 billion in infrastructure spending, just 7 percent, would be delivered into the economy by next fall. An update determined that just 64 percent of the stimulus would reach the economy by 2011.

5) University of Chicago economist and Nobel laureate Gary Becker doubts whether all this stimulus spending will do much to lower unemployment: "For one thing, the true value of these government programs may be limited because they will be put together hastily, and are likely to contain a lot of political pork and other inefficiencies. For another thing, with unemployment at 7% to 8% of the labor force, it is impossible to target effective spending programs that primarily utilize unemployed workers, or underemployed capital. Spending on infrastructure, and especially on health, energy, and education, will mainly attract employed persons from other activities to the activities stimulated by the government spending. The net job creation from these and related spending is likely to be rather small. In addition, if the private activities crowded out are more valuable than the activities hastily stimulated by this plan, the value of the increase in employment and GDP could be very small, even negative."

6) Christina Romer, the new head of the Council of Economic Advisers, coauthored a paper in which the following was written about taxes: "Tax increases appear to have a very large, sustained, and highly significant negative impact on output. Since most of our exogenous tax changes are in fact reductions, the more intuitive way to express this result is that tax cuts have very large and persistent positive output effects." And former Bush economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey tack on this addendum: "The macroeconomic benefits of tax cuts can be two to three times larger than common estimates of the benefits related to spending increases. The relative advantage of tax cuts over spending is even clearer when the recession is centered on the household balance sheet."

7) Economists Susan Woodward and Robert Hall find that the multiplier effect from infrastructure spending maybe just 1-for-1, less than that 3-to-1 ratio for tax cuts that Romer found: "We believe that the one-for-one rule derived from wartime increases in military spending would also apply to increases in infrastructure spending in a stimulus package. We should not count on any inducement of higher consumption from the infrastructure stimulus."

8) Economist John Taylor thinks it better to let the Federal Reserve deal with the short-term problems in the economy, while fiscal policy should attend to long-term issues: "In the current context of the U.S. economy, it seems best to let fiscal policy have its main countercyclical impact through the automatic stabilizer ... It seems hard to improve on this performance with a more active discretionary fiscal policy, and an activist discretionary fiscal policy might even make the job of monetary authorities more difficult. It would be appropriate in the present American context, for discretionary fiscal policy to be saved explicitly for longer-term issues, requiring less frequent changes. Examples of such a longer-term focus include fiscal policy proposals to balance the non-Social Security budget over the next ten years, to reduce marginal tax rates for long run economic efficiency, or even to reform the tax system and Social Security."

9) Massive stimulus didn't work in the Great Depression. As this Heritage Foundation study notes: "After the stock market collapse in 1929, the Hoover Administration increased federal spending by 47 percent over the following three years. As a result, federal spending increased from 3.4 percent of GDP in 1930 to 6.9 percent in 1932 and reached 9.8 percent by 1940. That same year-- 10 years into the Great Depression--America's unemployment rate stood at 14.6 percent." Same goes for Japan and its Great Stagnation of the 1990s.

10) Olivier Blanchard, the chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, coauthored a paper which found "that both increases in taxes and increases in government spending have a strong negative effect on private investment spending."

Bottom line: There is another model out there. One that worked in 2003, 1997 and 1981. (They were called TAX CUTS)  But will America use it?













Friday, January 23, 2009

58% Think Closing Gitmo "Stupid"

In Obama's home state of Illinois no less, 58% of those polled called Obama's decision to close Gitmo, where the worlds worst terrorists are currently being held "stupid."

Gitmo is also the home to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the  KhalidMohammed mastermind  of the Sept. 11th, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center in which more than 3,000 people lost their lives.

The decision to close Gitmo by January 22nd, 2009 effectively puts all trials on-hold until these terrorists are re-located presumably to American soil where they will then inherit all rights and privileges of American citizens.

Just imagine, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11th, 2001 attacks having the same rights as you and I.

Change we can believe in, to be sure.

Excuse me while I hurl.

Thursday, January 22, 2009

Obama Shows His Colors on First Full Day

An Ultra-Left Wing Liberal From The Start

During the waning days of the Presidential Campaign as the American economy began to unravel, Barack Hussein Obama promised all Americans that were "hurting" because of the economy that he would focus first on their needs, presumably to "fix" the economy.

During his first full day in office however, Obama chose a completely different set of priorities as he now seeks to 'pay off' his supporters and begins his re-election bid for 2012.obama-fraud

And we thought a 2 year campaign was long?  Hang onto your hats folks.  This is going to be ugly.

Obama's first action was to announce repealing "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" forcing our military to accept open homosexuals into their ranks.  Score one for the homosexual lobby.

Second, Obama announced at 12:04pm on the Whitehouse.Gov website that he is now for full "gay rights" including all federal benefits, legal protections and civil unions.  This is a complete 180 from his campaign stance.  Score two for the homosexual lobby.

Third, Obama announced a new ban on all offshore drilling for our  own oil.  If you loved $4.50/gallon gas during the summer of 2008, just wait.  Score one for the Environmental-Whacko's and the Islamists as well, as they'll reap the benefits of higher cost of oil as a result.

Fourth, Obama then went on to announce a ban on oil shale development in the Western United States.  This not only increases our dependence on foreign oil/energy sources, it kills American jobs, drives the cost of oil and gasoline higher, and is a "tax" on Americans in the form of higher energy prices. Score another win for the Environmental Whacko's and Islamofascists, who control more than 60% of the worlds oil.

Today, Obama announced via executive order that Club Gitmo will be closed one year from today, yet there is NO PLAN for what will happen to the detainees, notably Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9-11-01 attacks who was about to go on trial in a military court!  Yep, Obama stopped the trial too.  Score another for the Islamofascists that want to kill us all.

Thank you Obama Voters, for bringing us "Change."   You're going to get us all killed.

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

It's The Obama Economy Now


Never in the history of the United States nor the Stock Market has the stock market lost 4% of its value on the same day as a new President was inaugurated.

And that was just the Dow Jones.  The S&P 500 lost more than 5%.  S&P 500 Index Funds are where most American's have their investments.

Welcome to the Obama Economy.

Chart for S&P 500 

Dow            7,949.09          -323.13      -4.01%

Nasdaq       1,440.86             -88.47      -5.78%

S&P 500        805.22             -44.90      -5.28%

That's historic.  As "historic" as the Obama Presidency.  At this rate, we're about 24 days of the Dow being ZERO.

Since the November Elections in which the most inexperienced, liberal Senator in the U.S. Senate was elected President, the markets have lost just over 23% of their value.  No doubt due to the 18 months that Obama, the Democrats and the liberal mainstream media spent talking down the economy.

While the news media may try and spin this as remnants of the "Bush economy" the reality is this: Markets don't price the past, they price the future.  The markets are telling us that our future is less bright under Obama, and this mess was created in large part by a Democrat Controlled Congress beginning in 2007.  Until Democrats took over Congress and now the White House, unemployment was a low 4.5% and the Markets were at all time highs, above 14,000.

As this is now Obama's economy, we have officially entered the post election Obama led bear market.  Today was the beginning fruits of Obama's stated policy since his election last November.

Here's your change. 

Mourning in America


The United States of America

A Nation in dire distress


Title 4, Chapter 1.  The Flag

Section 8.  Respect for Flag

"The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property"

As this once great, proud Nation has elected the most inexperienced President in the history of the country and placed the lives of its citizens in danger of new terrorist threats, this flag shall fly upside down until the threat of Barack Hussein Obama is removed from office.