Bold Colors Blog

Stickin’ it to the libs, one day at a time

Posts Tagged ‘Obama’

Had to REALLY search to find this on the MSNBC site…curious.

Posted by Liberty on April 8, 2009

Orbusmax had this one up today.

MSNBC Poll of 1.8 million:  Obama earns “F”

This article comes to us courtesy of WorldNet Daily.  Apparently the results aren’t really in line with the MSNBC agenda so they’re not making a big deal of it.  I searched for it using the search box at the top of the MSNBC home page and didn’t find it.  When I searched on Google (which, incidentally, significantly increased my carbon footprint) several blog posts came up first but I actually did find the MSNBC poll page.  If you’d like to vote, click here.

Advertisements

Posted in Future of the GOP, Main Stream Media, Obama | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Hilarious blog by TOTUS

Posted by Liberty on March 25, 2009

You may have heard about this blog already but I’m linking it up anyway.  Obama’s teleprompter has quite a lot to say and is also a fairly prolific blogger.  Get the inside view of the administration from the one electronic communications device that knows all–the TOTUS.

Barack Obama’s Teleprompter’s Blog

“Reflections from the hard drive of the machine that enables the voice of the Leader of the Free World”

 

 

Posted in Lighthearted amusement, Obama | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Obama’s poll numbers interpreted

Posted by Liberty on March 15, 2009

Obama’s Poll Numbers Are Falling to Earth

“It is simply wrong for commentators to continue to focus on President Barack Obama’s high levels of popularity, and to conclude that these are indicative of high levels of public confidence in the work of his administration. Indeed, a detailed look at recent survey data shows that the opposite is most likely true. The American people are coming to express increasingly significant doubts about his initiatives, and most likely support a different agenda and different policies from those that the Obama administration has advanced.”

While I agree that it is simply wrong for commentators to keep gushing about Obama’s popularity [while ignoring the growing unpopularity of his socialist policies] it probably isn’t going to stop.  After all, some may say that it was wrong of the MSM to whitewash Obama’s record as the most liberal Senator.  What about ignoring his radical associations with people like Reverend Wright, Father Pfleger and William Ayers?  How about not investigating his career prior to being elected to office?  The MSM has displayed more curiosity about Michelle Obama’s biceps than about the real Barack Obama and how his left-wing policies will affect America.

“Polling data show that Mr. Obama’s approval rating is dropping and is below where George W. Bush was in an analogous period in 2001. Rasmussen Reports data shows that Mr. Obama’s net presidential approval rating — which is calculated by subtracting the number who strongly disapprove from the number who strongly approve — is just six, his lowest rating to date.”

Did you catch that?  Lower than George W. Bush!

“Overall, Rasmussen Reports shows a 56%-43% approval, with a third strongly disapproving of the president’s performance. This is a substantial degree of polarization so early in the administration. Mr. Obama has lost virtually all of his Republican support and a good part of his Independent support, and the trend is decidedly negative.”

And suddenly, I’m feeling positive.

Posted in Arrogant politicians, Conservatism, Educate yourself, Future of the GOP, Liberalism, Main Stream Media, Obama, Positive News, Slavish media bias, Socialist economics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

The dichotomy that is Obama policy

Posted by Liberty on March 13, 2009

Should we believe Obama’s words or actions?

“President Barack Obama calls for an end to earmarks and then signs a budget for the rest of this year containing over 8,000 such congressional raids on taxpayers’ purses.

He calls for a new era of fiscal responsibility and then sends to Congress a ten-year plan for deficits as far ahead as the eye can see.
He calls for sacrifices from all and then proceeds to give 95% of American families a tax cut. He promises to revive the housing industry and then asks Congress to reduce the deductibility of mortgage interest.
He calls for the reform of the education system and then signs a budget that eliminates funds that keep a few poor kids in private schools, and out of the clutches of the Washington education system’s bureaucrats.
Confused or cunning? I report, you decide.”

Check out this article by Irwin Stelzer in the D.C. Examiner.  I heard this guy interviewed on the radio this morning.  He presents a pretty articulate list of issues where the things that Obama says and the things that he does differ.

 

Posted in Arrogant politicians, Innate hypocrisy, Just plain dishonest, Liberalism, Main Stream Media, Obama, Slavish media bias, Socialist economics | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Current poll results

Posted by Liberty on March 12, 2009

From Real Clear Politics:

An average of four polls indicates that 50.8% of those questioned think that the country is on wrong track.  But an average of five polls tracks Obama’s approval rating at 60.8%.  Not sure how people aren’t connecting the two of those numbers yet but I’m confident that it will happen eventually.  Incidentally, as usual, there are a lot of us that disapprove of what Congress is up to.  Not that they seem to care…

Posted in Arrogant politicians, Liberalism, Obama | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Victor Davis Hanson on why Wall Street is still worried

Posted by Liberty on March 12, 2009

Obamafusion

Just a few of the money lines:

“A redistributive economy in which government ensures an equality of result is Wall Street’s worst nightmare.”

And:

“Given the amount of debt the US is incurring (and the decades needed to pay it off), given the loose talk about the ‘rich’, and given the rumors about nationalization, investors are unsure whether the United States will remain a safe haven for investment, or even offer a climate for profit-making, since it would either be taxed to the point of seizure, or its beneficiaries would be culturally and socially demonized.”

And:

“There is much talk about Obama merely returning to the tax rates of the Clinton administration. But that is misleading for two unfortunate reasons: (1) Clinton did not tamper with FICA ceilings and other deductions in addition to the income tax hikes; (2) he had spending limits imposed by the post 1994-Congress, so at least his income tax increases led to a balanced budget. But Obama is not only raising taxes far higher in aggregate than did Clinton with the present trillion-some spending hikes, but ensuring that we will still end up with astronomical deficits. So we get the tax hikes of Clinton — but without the balanced budgets; and we get far higher deficits than under Bush — but sans the tax cuts.”

Posted in Arrogant politicians, Liberalism, Obama, Redistribution of wealth, Social engineering, Socialist economics, Taxes | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Even partisan Democrats are beginning to acknowledge Obama’s lurch to the left

Posted by Liberty on March 7, 2009

Opposition to Obama is forming up fast

“As a lifelong Democrat, I am concerned that President Obama could come out of his first 100 days decidedly weaker than when they began. His November victory was not as strong as anticipated, given the unpopularity of the outgoing Bush administration, a weakening economy, and an often inept McCain-Palin Republican ticket. Yet Obama has proceeded as if he were a landslide winner, like Lyndon Johnson in 1965 and Reagan in 1980, and has pushed forward a costly and ambitious domestic agenda even though we remain in a severe economic downturn.

Obama’s audacity — I consider it politically dangerous overreach — has energized Republicans and, in particular, conservatives as they would not have been had Obama followed the bipartisan, consensus path he promised on taking office. The politically polarizing economic-stimulus package and his proposed federal budget have done it.”

This brings one word to my mind this morning: hope.

Posted in Arrogant politicians, Liberalism, Obama, Socialist economics, Stupid legislation | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Unexpected honesty about Obama’s tax plan from ABC News

Posted by Liberty on March 3, 2009

Upper-Income Taxpayers Look for Ways to Sidestep Obama Tax-Hike Plan

Truly, I didn’t expect to find a story critical of Obama’s tax plan on the ABC news website but there it is!  It certainly comes off as vaguely critical of the messiah, Barack Obama.  The author, Emily Friedman, has focused on how Obama’s tax plan will impact people making over $250,000 annually.  The consensus among the interviewees is that they will do what is necessary to earn less to avoid Obama’s punitive taxes.

“Dr. Sharon Poczatek, who runs her own dental practice in Boulder, Colo., said that she too is trying to figure out ways to get out of paying the taxes proposed in Obama’s plan.

‘I’ve put thought into how to get under $250,000,’ said Poczatek. ‘it would mean working fewer days which means having fewer employees, seeing fewer patients and taking time off.’

‘Generally it means being less productive,’ she said.

‘The motivation for a lot of people like me – dentists, entrepreneurs, lawyers – is that the more you work the more money you make,’ said Poczatek. ‘But if I’m going to be working just to give it back to the government — it’s de-motivating and demoralizing.'”

Dr. Poczatek is absolutely right.  The demoralization that she’s feeling is a natural side-effect of redistributive economics.  The real unintended consequences of Obama’s tax policy will be the loss of productivity.  Think job losses now are bad?  Just wait.

“Obama’s budget proposal calls for $989 billion in new taxes over the next 10 years, most of which will be earned from increased taxes on individuals who make more than $200,000 and from families who make more than $250,000.

The expiration of the Bush administration’s tax cuts at the end of 2010 would garner an estimated $338 billion, $179 billion would come from the elimination of some itemized deductions for higher-income taxpayers and $118 billion would be brought in from a hike in the capital gains tax. The remaining $353 billion would come from taxes on businesses.”

Not many are talking about how the expiration of the Bush tax cuts will affect the economy but we should be.  The expiration of those cuts will equal a tax increase for the bulk of taxpayers.

The ABC news piece also features a poll.  The question is, “is it fair to reduce salaries to sidestep President Obama’s tax proposal?”  As of 8:08 this morning, the answer “Yes. I also would find ways to decrease my salary to avoid taxes” had a significant lead.

Posted in Arrogant politicians, Liberalism, Obama, Redistribution of wealth, Socialist economics, Stupid legislation, Taxes | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments »

Repeating past mistakes

Posted by Liberty on March 2, 2009

Declining Defense

“For all of his lavish new spending plans, President Obama is making one major exception: defense. His fiscal 2010 budget telegraphs that Pentagon spending is going to be under pressure in the years going forward.”

Hope and change = same old Democrat policies.

Posted in Liberalism, National Security, Obama | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Just as you knew he would…

Posted by Liberty on February 28, 2009

Rush Limbaugh Rocks CPAC

From Townhall.com and Matt Lewis:

“Calling it his first ever address to the nation, Rush Limbaugh rocked the house at the Conservative Action Conference (CPAC) today.

From the time he entered the room to The Pretenders ‘My City Was Gone’ (his theme), to the time he exited the stage, Limbaugh inspired the over-flow, packed audience, and enjoyed countless standing ovations.”

 I can’t wait to watch this online!  It is linked up at Rush’s website and he’s posted the transcript as well.  The twits at the Huffington Post are all abuzz about Rush “doubling down” on wanting Obama to fail–their words, not mine.  In my opinion, if a speech by a Conservative gets those mental midgets all worked up, it was probably a great speech!  [I’m not posting a link to their site.  If you want to read that trash, you can find it yourself!  Plus, I don’t want my comment box to be innundated by liberal fruitcakes because of an errant pingback.]

Rush’s First Nationally Televised Address to the Nation:
Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) Keynote Speech

A quick excerpt:

“I want to tell you who conservatives are. We conservatives have not done a good enough job of just laying out basically who we are because we make the mistake of assuming people know. What they know is largely incorrect based on the way we are portrayed in pop culture, in the Drive-By Media, by the Democrat Party.

Let me tell you who we conservatives are: We love people. [Applause] When we look out over the United States of America, when we are anywhere, when we see a group of people, such as this or anywhere, we see Americans. We see human beings. We don’t see groups. We don’t see victims. We don’t see people we want to exploit. What we see — what we see is potential. We do not look out across the country and see the average American, the person that makes this country work. We do not see that person with contempt. We don’t think that person doesn’t have what it takes. We believe that person can be the best he or she wants to be if certain things are just removed from their path like onerous taxes, regulations and too much government. [Applause]

We want every American to be the best he or she chooses to be. We recognize that we are all individuals. We love and revere our founding documents, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. [Applause] We believe that the preamble to the Constitution contains an inarguable truth that we are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life. [Applause] Liberty, Freedom. [Applause] And the pursuit of happiness. [Applause] Those of you watching at home may wonder why this is being applauded. We conservatives think all three are under assault. [Applause] Thank you. Thank you.”

Posted in Conservatism, Constitutional Rights, Freedom of Speech, Future of the GOP, Main Stream Media, Obama, Positive News | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Seattle Tea Party Pictures

Posted by Liberty on February 28, 2009

Seattle Tea Party Protest

Yesterday was a day of tea parties.  While I wasn’t able to attend one in person, believe me, I was there in spirit.  And, I was delighted to find these pictures on Byron Dazey’s blog this morning.  You’ll see that Conservatives are great at protesting, despite the fact that most Conservatives don’t smoke dope, have never been arrested for “the cause” and are gainfully employed.  The photos are awesome and the signs are so clever!  Here’s just one teaser–you’ll have to check out www.myownside.com for the rest!

Posted in Conservatism, Constitutional Rights, Freedom of Speech, Future of the GOP, Liberalism, Obama, Positive News, Redistribution of wealth, Socialist economics, Sticking to their guns, Stupid legislation, Washington State | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Paid for by the people

Posted by Liberty on February 27, 2009

The Obama Revolution

“In the closing weeks of last year’s election campaign, we wrote that Democrats had in mind the most sweeping expansion of government in decades. Liberals clucked, but it turns out even we’ve been outbid. With yesterday’s fiscal 2010 budget proposal, President Obama is attempting not merely to expand the role of the federal government but to put it in such a dominant position that its power can never be rolled back.”

This WSJ editorial shines some much-needed light on Obama’s budget and verifies what anyone with a brain already understands–tax increases are on the way and not just for the mythical wealthy.

“The falling deficit also assumes the largest tax increase in U.S. history, starting in 2011 with the repeal of the Bush tax rates on incomes higher than $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples. The White House says this will yield upwards of $1 trillion, if you choose to believe that tax rates don’t affect taxpayer behavior.

In the real world, two of every three tax filers who fall into this income category are small business owners or investors, who are certainly capable of finding ways to invest that allow them to declare less taxable income. The real impact of this looming tax increase will be to cast further uncertainty over economic decisions and either slow or postpone the recovery. Ditto for the estimated $646 billion from a new cap-and-trade tax, which no one wants to call a tax but would give the political class vast new leverage over the private economy. (See here.)”

And:

“Democrats will want to rush all of this into law this year while Mr. Obama retains his honeymoon aura and they can blame the recession on George W. Bush. But Americans are only beginning to understand the magnitude of Mr. Obama’s ambitions, and how much of their own income will be required to fulfill them. Republicans have an obligation to insist on a long and considerable debate on all of this, lest Americans discover in a year or two that they live in a very different country.”

Posted in Arrogant politicians, Conservatism, Educate yourself, Liberalism, Obama, Socialist economics, Stupid legislation, Taxes | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

From the Big Hollywood Blog–the link between Obama’s negativity and your 401k statement

Posted by Liberty on February 27, 2009

The Anti-Churchill: Obama Talks, The Market Drops

Great blog post from Ernie Mannix.

“All through the campaign Barack Obama told us not to listen to the ‘politics of fear.’ These are the ways of the old guard, the naysayers, the negative ones – he said. Those who won’t sit and talk with the bad men are the warmongers – he called them. These are the guys who created our enemies, he inferred. Don’t listen when they use words like ‘terrorist’ and ‘disaster’ and ignore the call to be vigilant. It’s a neo-con ruse. It’s a plot to scare you.”

Lo and behold, now we’re finding ourselves the victims of Obama’s own brand of domestic terrorism–his continual negativity on America’s economy.

“So what has our president been saying lately? The economic slump is a ‘continuing disaster,’ he told us. He said the economy is ‘in crisis.’ Back in December he told us it was ‘going to get worse.’ Recently he warned of a ‘national catastrophe’ if the stimulus bill wasn’t passed. He kept his speech before the joint session somewhat more positive in a stylistic sense (style points count when you blow off your promise about not tolerating any earmarks). But still, again down goes the Dow.

I can’t remember a president in my lifetime who out of the gate, has been so pessimistic and directly affected the markets so negatively. This man sits in the most powerful position on the globe. His words BOOM above every other chief on the planet.  A president says it – the world listens. He keeps telling us he inherited this problem. No sir, you wanted this problem. You ran on it, with it and for it. Time to stop the blame and deliver on your promises, deliver on your hope. The markets need some.

Now, say for instance you have several million dollars and are thinking about investing in a start up business but you turn on the tube and the leader of the free world is saying words like ‘disaster’ and ‘crisis’ and other doom gloomy tidbits. Maybe you put your dinero back in your pocket? I think so.”

Mannix goes on to make several more really great points such as the utter foolishness of Obama and the Democrats demonizing “big business” while meanwhile, people all over the U.S. are losing their jobs.  He goes on to contrast the way Winston Churchill sought to inspire Britons as Hitler’s bombs dropped with Obama’s class warfare mongering and economic negativity.  Definitely check out his blog to read Churchill’s uplifting speech rewritten in the style of Obama!

Footnote:

Speaking of Churchill and Obama, did you hear that Obama sent a bust of Churchill back to the British? 

Barack Obama sends bust of Winston Churchill on its way back to Britain

The bust was loaned by the British government to President George W. Bush after the September 11 attacks. 

“A bust of the former prime minister once voted the greatest Briton in history, which was loaned to George W Bush from the Government’s art collection after the September 11 attacks, has now been formally handed back.

The bronze by Sir Jacob Epstein, worth hundreds of thousands of pounds if it were ever sold on the open market, enjoyed pride of place in the Oval Office during President Bush’s tenure.

But when British officials offered to let Mr Obama to hang onto the bust for a further four years, the White House said: ‘Thanks, but no thanks.'”

Evidently Sir Winston Churchill is not the kind of hero that Obama wants to see in the Oval Office every day.  This article does say that Obama has replaced the Churchill bust with a statuette of Abraham Lincoln–a supposed hero of Obama’s.  Obama has been trying to draw parallels between himself and Lincoln and they could not be less similar.  Lincoln was a man of principle.  Enough said.

Once Obama has finished exploiting Lincoln’s image for his own gain, I would look for that bust to be slyly replaced with a statue of Saul Alinsky, Che Guevara or Karl Marx.

Posted in Arrogant politicians, International news, Just plain dishonest, Liberalism, Obama, Socialist economics | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Obama’s budget plan calls for increased tax enforcement…just not within his own cabinet

Posted by Liberty on February 22, 2009

Obama’s First Budget Seeks To Trim Deficit

So many things to write about within this article but so little patience for all things Obama!  He knows a lot of  people are outraged about the deficit spending stimulus plan.  By unveiling this latest plan to reduce the deficit, he’ll at least fool some of the huddled masses into thinking he’s not a big spender.  Of course, it doesn’t hurt that the useful idiots in the MSM are continuing their laudatory, incurious coverage of Obama.

I especially like how he’s made a couple of financial policy announcements this weekend–when the markets are closed.  Could it be that Obama has realized that the markets don’t seem to have much confidence in his abilities?  How much has the Dow tanked since America’s first true socialist president took office? 

Obama’s budget calls for higher taxes on businesses and the wealthy [a smart recession move, eh?] and spending cuts.  Of course, Obama has not targeted wasteful spending, layers of bureaucracy and redistributive programs–those things will only grow throughout his administration.  Obama’s spending cuts will be from our ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.  More for food stamps, more to keep uncreditworthy buyers in homes they can’t afford, more for health care [but only if the government deems it cost-effective] and less for defending America against Islamic terrorism.  The bright side of all of this nonsense is that at least Obama is making it easier for Conservatives to make the distinction between their policies and those of the socialist liberals currently in charge.

The real kicker for me in this article was this quote:

“Obama also proposes “a fairly aggressive effort on tax enforcement” that would target corporate loopholes…”

Now why is it that he cares whether or not corporations pay their fair share of taxes while nominating a bunch of tax cheats for positions in his administration?  Geithner, Daschle, Killefer, Solis…those are just the ones we know about so far.  Hypocrisy, any one?

Posted in Arrogant politicians, Conservatism, Future of the GOP, Innate hypocrisy, Just plain dishonest, Liberalism, Main Stream Media, National Security, Obama, Redistribution of wealth, Slavish media bias, Social engineering, Socialist economics, Stupid legislation, Taxes | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Homeowners Hit the Lottery

Posted by Liberty on February 22, 2009

From The Motley Fool:

Homeowners Hit the Lottery

“Of all the government measures to right the economy, President Obama’s plan to aid homeowners seems like the most irresponsible to date.

Why? Not because it helps individuals rather than big banks. Given the choice, I’d much rather help average Joe nine-to-fivers than, say, Citigroup or Bank of America. Anyone would. No one doubts that losing your home is a personal tragedy. I have a heart, thank you very much.

Nonetheless, the proposal to spend $75 billion refinancing mortgages that wouldn’t otherwise be given the time of day is quite literally the epitome of subsidizing failure, without asking for anything in return.”

The author [Morgan Housel] points out the fact that the bank bailout money came with the stipulation that it eventually be paid back.  This mortgage plan does not carry the same requirement.  Housel also mentions that Obama claims the money will not go to speculators or house flippers.  The interesting point is, what really constitutes a speculator?

“What do you call people who bought houses that exploded in value in the previous few years with a ‘subprime and exotic loans with exploding terms?’  I’d call them speculators. What do you call people who bought homes without setting aside enough savings to cover an economic downturn? I’d call them speculators. What do you call people who bought homes that didn’t fit their income profile? By golly, I’d call them speculators.

No matter. We’ve been aiding Wall Street speculators for months now. But — and this is an important but — every dime of taxpayer money injected into failing banks, be it Goldman Sachs or Wells Fargo or AIG, is money demanded to be repaid to the best of their ability, and it came with equity warrants that offer taxpayers upside potential if and when markets recover.

This homeowner aid package has no such clause. Home prices fell after a period of undeniable gluttony (like they do in all markets) and now taxpayers are bailing out speculators (yes, I’m calling them that). Yet if home prices rise in the future (and they will), the bailed-out homeowner keeps the upside. Heads, they win, tails, you lose.”

Posted in Arrogant politicians, Liberalism, Obama, Redistribution of wealth, Social engineering, Socialist economics, Stupid legislation | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Rush’s open letter to President Obama regarding the [un]Fairness Doctrine

Posted by Liberty on February 20, 2009

Mr. President, Keep the Airwaves Free

“As a former president of the Harvard Law Review and a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, you are more familiar than most with the purpose of the Bill of Rights: to protect the citizen from the possible excesses of the federal government. The First Amendment says, in part, that ‘Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.’ The government is explicitly prohibited from playing a role in refereeing among those who speak or seek to speak. We are, after all, dealing with political speech — which, as the Framers understood, cannot be left to the government to police.”

Rush has called Obama out.  The time is right to get the President’s stance on the Fairness Doctrine clarified.  His surrogates have been vocally in favor of this unconstitutional censorship in recent weeks.  This issue is critical to Conservatives and to the outcomes of the 2010 midterm elections.  If Conservative talk radio is shut down, it will help solidify Democrat control for generations to come.  The question is, will Obama vote “present?”

Posted in Arrogant politicians, Conservatism, Constitutional Rights, Freedom of Speech, Future of the GOP, Liberalism, Obama, Social engineering | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Arizona high school students greet Obama with skepticism

Posted by Liberty on February 19, 2009

I logged on this morning wanting to find something positive to post about.  I found this on the front page of the Drudge Report [ok, so that’s not exactly exhaustive research] and had to pass it along.  I love the fact that these kids had at least a little bit of healthy skepticism and weren’t falling all over themselves for the opportunity to ask Obama for their own kitchen and bathroom or better benefits from their minimum wage job.  All in all, I have a little more faith after reading this story than before.  Is the Obama facade crumbling just a little?

STUDENTS QUESTION OBAMA’S PLAN

From The East Valley Tribune, by Tim Hacker

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/135656

“A Dobson High School Advanced Placement government class with strong opinions about Barack Obama watched the president’s speech Wednesday on a small, grainy TV in the corner of their classroom.

Some of the students attentively watched the speech, giving questioning looks and comments, shaking their heads and laughing at some of Obama’s words. Other students listened, occasion ally glancing up to watch, while texting on their cell phones, reading a book or finishing school work.

The gymnasium’s events were shown simultaneously in rooms throughout the Mesa school, and teachers were given discretion on whether to show the speech, the students said. The students in the class were hopeful things will work out but questioned whether Obama’s plan would actually work to dig the country out of its economic woes. They also expected a longer speech.

Senior Syna Daudfar took some notes during the speech and was among the most vocally opposed to Obama’s words.

At one point, when he talked about the costs of his stimulus plan, senior Maaike Albach and Daudfar looked at each other and said, ‘uh-oh.’

‘Overall I think it’s a good idea, but he’s not addressing the issues of the economic crisis,’ said Daudfar, a John McCain supporter who added he leans more toward being a moderate conservative. ‘The spending bill he just passed is just progressing the Democratic agenda rather than addressing the economic issues in the country.’

Daudfar thinks Obama’s plan is backward and deals with the ‘less important stuff’ first. ‘Bailing out businesses’ and ‘providing better regulatory systems for giving out money to businesses’ should have been first, he said.

‘If businesses can’t afford to hire people, then people won’t be able to work and pay off their mortgages,’ he said. ‘It’s kind of like putting money into a funnel.’ Albach, who is also a Republican, said Obama’s plan sounds good but questioned how Obama can want to rely on ‘people’s responsibility’ when that is ‘what got us in this economic crisis in the first place.’

‘This puts us more into debt,’ said Albach, 18. ‘It’s a horrible situation we’re in.’

Senior Brandon Miller wore a shirt with the words, ‘Hitler gave great speeches, too’ above a picture of Obama.

Miller said he had been an Obama supporter ‘because of his speeches,’ but after debating the issues in this class and looking more into Obama’s policies, his vote was swayed toward McCain.

He showed a video on his camera he had just taken of the president’s minutelong motorcade and talked about what a ‘great experience’ it was to watch it. Miller had also spent a couple of hours in front of the school, hanging out and watching the protesters.

‘Even though I don’t support him, I think it’s cool he’s here,’ said Miller, 18. ‘I just don’t believe all the things he’s telling us. His goal is just too big and broad.’

Miller wanted to hear more about the costs and guidelines the stimulus bill entails.

Senior Katelyn Meyer, who also leans more toward being a Republican, said Obama’s plan sounds good, ‘but it’s easier said than done.’

‘I like the refinancing part, and I like the part about mortgages, but I’m afraid we’re going to put the money in but won’t see any effect,’ said Meyer, 18, who still thought it was ‘cool’ to say the president was at her school, even though she didn’t get to see him live.

The students also questioned why Obama chose their school for his speech since he wasn’t talking about education and wondered how much money the district spent on beautifying the campus while district positions and services are being cut.

District officials noted this week that the landscaping project completed over the weekend at Dobson was already in the works and was just expedited by the president’s visit. Funding came from voter-approved bonds.

New sod was laid in front of the school Tuesday, and Daudfar said, ‘The joke at the school is they’re going to take it away when he (Obama) leaves.’

AP government teacher Jeff Sherrer said his students ‘feel very strongly about the issues, maybe more than the general population.’ He thought at least one of his students was outside protesting, and he had planned to take his students outside as a class project to show them what was going on but didn’t get the chance.

‘These kinds of kids really get into it,’ Sherrer said. ‘During the election we had lots of debates on the issues.’

Posted in Conservatism, Obama, Positive News | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Seize the perspective

Posted by Liberty on February 17, 2009

From Carpe Diem today:

Early 1980s vs. Now

Here’s a bit of an antidote for my last post about the plummeting stock markets.  It’s important to remember that, while our economy is bad, it certainly has been worse.  Some of us haven’t been around long enough to remember the last severe recession firsthand, so these statistics bear repeating.  In the early 80’s, America was still recovering from the failed presidency of Jimmy Carter.  How about 18.5% interest on your 30 year fixed mortgage?  It really was that bad in 1981.  14.8% inflation in 1980?  And 10.8% unemployment in 1982?  I’m not saying that we’re not headed there under Obama’s socialist policies but for the time being at least, it could be worse.

Posted in Liberalism, Obama, Socialist economics | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The change we didn’t need…

Posted by Liberty on February 17, 2009

Stocks drop on worries about economy, automakers

“Investors are absorbing the reality of a deepening global recession — and dumping stocks on exchanges around the world. The major U.S. indexes dropped by well over 3 percent, sliding alongside other countries’ stocks. The Dow Jones industrial average sank near the multi-year lows it reached last November.”

Curious timing, there.  Last November, you say?

Posted in Liberalism, Obama, Socialist economics | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

We can’t give up!

Posted by Liberty on February 14, 2009

My apologies for the lack of posting this week.  Sometimes life intervenes.  In my case, this intervention has come in the form of a chocolate lab puppy that we’re watching for a couple of weeks.  And, while I’ve been spending a lot of time outside encouraging this dog to hurry up and drop another land-mine in my backyard, the bad news has just kept on coming. 

The stimulus plan has passed.  No House Republicans crossed over to vote for it.  In the Senate, only three Republicans [Snowe, Collins & Specter] broke ranks and their betrayal was much expected.  In a MSM news-bite I heard yesterday, some Democrat Senator [I think it was Charles Schumer] was blathering on and on about how Republicans didn’t offer a constructive solution, didn’t participate, only said, “no,” blah, blah, blah…  Well, when you’re frozen out of the process and not allowed to introduce alternative solutions–what do those damned Democrats expect? 

Think about the dishonesty that has so far been the hallmark of the Obama administration and this new era of Democrat domination.  No lobbyists…and then Obama employs lobbyists.  A more ethical administration…and the Obama appoints tax cheats.  Open and transparent government…but there’s no time for the public to find out what’s in the stimulus bill.  No time for even the Congressmen and Senators to read it before voting on it.

I know it seems pretty dark right now.  Even more so here in Washington State, where our own little crowd of Democrat dictators are busy in Olympia.  But Conservatives can’t give up.  We need to continue to stand on principle.  We need to continue to clearly define the difference between Republicans and Democrats.  We need to be the loud, active voice of opposition to the Democrats’ plans to remake America in the style of European socialism.  Every advance of liberalism needs to be met with a fight.  Are you ready?

Posted in Arrogant politicians, Conservatism, Future of the GOP, Innate hypocrisy, Just plain dishonest, Liberalism, Main Stream Media, Obama, Redistribution of wealth, Socialist economics, Sticking to their guns, Stupid legislation | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Stimulating the destruction of health care as we know it.

Posted by Liberty on February 10, 2009

Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan: Betsy McCaughey

The Senate is poised to pass Obama’s massive “socialize America” stimulus plan.  Thanks to human jellyfish pseudo Republicans like Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, news blips everywhere will praise the bill’s passing as “bipartisan.”  The unfortunate thing is that there is policy buried in this stimulus that will change the course of our society as we know it. 

Most people don’t even have a clue–they’ve bought the Obama bill of goods that the stimulus will build roads and schools.  Obama has done this country a major disservice by doing his best to shut down discussion on this bill.  If there had been a more honest, open debate, perhaps more people would know about the back-door transition to socialized medicine that’s been included under the guise of improving our economy.  Here I reference a piece that was published yesterday on Bloomberg.com.  Betsy McCaughey has done the work that the celebutard pre-occupied main stream media has refused to do.  Debate rages about Jessica Simpson’s weight gain, Alex Rodriguez’s steriod use and whether or not some R&B artist beat up his girlfriend when it should be focused on the fraud being perpetrated upon us all.  The numbers included in the quotes I’ve pulled from Ms. McCaughey’s article are the page numbers in the  H.R. 1 EH, pdf version.

“The bill’s health rules will affect ‘every individual in the United States’ (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.

But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and ‘guide’ your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what [Tom] Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and ‘learn to operate less like solo practitioners.’”

I don’t know about you but I trust my doctor.  That’s why I go to her instead of down to the DMV when I need medical care.  If you’re wondering what exactly it means to have the federal government “guide” your doctor’s decisions, read on.

 

“Hospitals and doctors that are not ‘meaningful users’ of the new system will face penalties.  ‘Meaningful user’ isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose ‘more stringent measures of meaningful use over time’ (511, 518, 540-541).

What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the ‘tough’ decisions elected politicians won’t make.

The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept ‘hopeless diagnoses’ and ‘forgo experimental treatments,’ and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.”

Is this what you want?  To accept a “hopeless diagnosis” like a European?  To just give up?  What about hope?  Isn’t hope the very thing we’re supposed to have now that Obama has been elected?

“Daschle says health-care reform ‘will not be pain free.’ Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.

Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).

The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.”

Quick, can somebody tell me who the AARP endorsed in the 2008 Presidential election?

The hypocrisy here is simply appalling.  These same “compassionate” liberals that don’t believe in killing terrorists and think that every child should start the day with taxpayer-funded Lucky Charms are implementing policy that will deny medical treatments for the elderly.  How long is it going to be before the doctor approaches the family gathered around dear old aunt Mary’s bedside and says, “The Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research says there’s nothing more we can do.  I think it’s time to put her down.”

“If the Obama administration’s economic stimulus bill passes the Senate in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face similar rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later.

The stimulus bill will affect every part of health care, from medical and nursing education, to how patients are treated and how much hospitals get paid. The bill allocates more funding for this bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined (90-92, 174-177, 181).

Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional. Daschle supported the Clinton administration’s health-care overhaul in 1994, and attributed its failure to debate and delay. A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition. ‘If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it,’ he said. ‘The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol.'”

Arrogance!  Unbelievable arrogance!  Not only does Daschle think that he is above paying taxes, he believes you should not have a say on the implementation of socialized medicine.  Don’t comfort yourself for a second by thinking that at least Daschle has withdrawn his nomination.  That isn’t going to slow this plan down in the least.  The Senate is scheduled to vote today.  You can still call them.

Update, 11:22 am

The bill passed.  Our only hope for stopping this is in the conference committee now.  I thought of two things since I originally posted this morning.  Liberals whipped themselves into a hysteria over the Bush administration’s wire taps on suspected terrorists.  Civil libertarians were absolutely crazed over it.  Do you think they’ll have a problem with a federal bureaucracy over-seeing our health care? 

Also, what about the “my body, my choicer’s?”  They want choice when it comes to killing babies and under Obama’s plan, that’s one option that will probably always be there.  But what will your choices be when the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research dictates your treatment for diabetes, arthritis, kidney stones or any other condition to your doctor?  Why is it important for you to have the choice to kill babies but not to choose what course of treatment is best for cancer, MS or neo-natal care?

Posted in Arrogant politicians, Bureaucratic ineptitude, Celebutards, Constitutional Rights, Health care, Innate hypocrisy, Just plain dishonest, Liberalism, Main Stream Media, Obama, Slavish media bias, Social engineering, Socialist economics, Socialized medicine, Stupid legislation | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Dear old Nancy, then and now. What does the future hold for bipartisanship?

Posted by Liberty on February 7, 2009

Nancy Pelosi, quoted in an October 28, 2008 KGO-TV article:

“Elect us, hold us accountable, and make a judgment and then go from there.  But I do tell you that if the Democrats win, and have substantial majorities, Congress of the United States will be more bipartisan.”

From a November 6, 2008 Boston Globe article:

“House Speaker Nancy Pelosi yesterday pledged that the Democratic-controlled Congress would take a bipartisan approach in working with the incoming Obama administration, saying Democrats need to ‘govern from the middle’to accomplish an ambitious agenda on the economy, energy independence, and healthcare.”

Speaking of the immigration bill in an interview with Al Hunt, re-printed on Real Clear Politics June 15, 2007:

“…we’ll work together in a bipartisan way. This bill affects too many people over a long period of time. We want it to be bipartisan and comprehensive.”

From The Politico, February 6, 2009:

“In a statement sure to rile Republicans, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Friday dismissed calls for bipartisanship as ‘process’ arguments extraneous to passing a stimulus bill — and warned Senate Democrats against slashing proposed increases to education spending.

Pelosi — speaking to reporters on the second day of her retreat with House Democrats at a swank Williamsburg, Va., golf resort — was clearly annoyed with Senate attempts to slash up to $100 billion in spending from the $819 billion package the House passed last week.

At the same time, she urged the need for speed in passing the package — and stopped short of saying that she’d insist on her demands during upcoming conference negotiations with the Senate.

‘Washington seems consumed in the process argument of bipartisanship, when the rest of the country says they need this bill,’ the California Democrat said, seeming to sweep aside the Obama administration initial desire to have broad GOP support for the plan.”

Democrats only like bipartisanship when Republicans cross the lines and vote like Democrats!  They like to pretend that they’re just naturally more open-minded and cooperative [ie. bipartisan] than Republicans but it’s a myth.  The word “bipartisan” has become misconstrued to mean “Democrats getting their own way.” 

I say, it’s time to chuck the concept of bipartisanship.  Our elected Republicans [with the notable exceptions of Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and Arlen Specter] should be reveling in their new-found strength and mentally deleting the word “bipartisan” from their vocabularies.

I appreciate how the majority of Republicans in the Senate have hung together in opposing this shameful pork-packed “stimulus” bill.  If the stimulus is such a great and necessary piece of legislation as the Democrats claim, why don’t they just pass it themselves and get it over with?  They have the votes, especially with human jellyfish pseudo-Republicans like Snowe, Collins and Specter on their side.  Better yet, why don’t they write it up as an Executive Order and Obama can just sign it all into law with a stroke of his mighty pen?  [Picture this…Obama signs the Executive Order to socialize…I mean, “stimulate” the economy and then he turns to Greg Craig to ask what exactly is in the bill.]

The answer is, of course, that the Democrats don’t want to own the consequences of this massive spending plan.  They don’t want the American people to blame them when the economy gets worse instead of better.  They don’t want the electoral consequences when the voters figure out that the stimulus has less to do with fixing the economy and more to do with paying off Democrat supporters like unions, bureaucrats, community organizers and abortionists.

Republicans have probably had about as much influence as they will get over what goes into this bill and how much is spent.  The only thing to do now is to take a principled stand against the stimulus.  We’re going to lose this argument but at least we can go down fighting.

Posted in Arrogant politicians, Conservatism, Future of the GOP, Innate hypocrisy, Liberalism, Obama, Redistribution of wealth, Social engineering, Socialist economics, Sticking to their guns, Stupid legislation, Taxes | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

A pattern of arrogance

Posted by Liberty on February 6, 2009

Husband’s Taxes Delay Solis’s Hearing

“U.S. Rep. Hilda Solis’s nomination to lead the Labor Department was sidetracked Thursday by the disclosure that her husband paid $6,400 Wednesday to settle tax liens outstanding against his auto-repair business.”

Hilda Solis is the fourth Obama appointee to have tax issues.  We’re seeing a real pattern of arrogance in the people that Obama is choosing.  Are they all just above the law, or what?

Posted in Arrogant politicians, Innate hypocrisy, Just plain dishonest, Liberalism, Obama, Taxes | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Here’s a thought? How about capping salaries & benefits for bureaucrats?

Posted by Liberty on February 5, 2009

Executive pay cap could have unintended consequences

“By limiting annual pay to $500,000 and dishing out additional pay in restricted stock that can’t be cashed in until the government bailout money is paid back, a host of unintended consequences may result, ranging from a brain drain of top talent to a potentially less-generous approach to paying employees at other financial firms.”

Obama Lays Out Limits on Executive Pay

“The plan, which represents the most aggressive assault on executive pay by federal officials, includes salary caps of $500,000 for top executives at firms that accept ‘extraordinary assistance’ from the government.

It also restricts severance packages, known as ‘golden parachutes,’ for dismissed executives and requires the disclosure of policies on so-called luxury spending on things such as holiday parties, corporate jets and office renovations.”

The President has spoken.  He has waved his magic wand and limited how much money an executive can earn.  I would say, this is a good example why businesses should not accept government money.  [Although, some of those banks were strong-armed into accepting bail-out money just as strong-armed into making loans to uncreditworthy borrowers.]  A government with the power to give also has the power to take away.

So, here’s what I think.  What’s good for Wall Street ought to be good for all of those bureaucrats in D.C. and beyond.  How about some salary and benefit caps for people working for the government?

Oh, and by the way:

Obama’s Perks: Private Jet, Chef Tax-Free

“America’s CEOs are coming under fire these days not just for their hefty salaries but also for their use of private jets, limos with drivers and free trips to posh resorts.

But they aren’t alone in living this lavish lifestyle — the president of United States gets all these perks and more.

And unlike some of his Cabinet appointments, he doesn’t have to pay taxes on these benefits.

It might be a bit of a stretch to compare today’s corporate titans with the commander in chief, but some Wall Street bloggers clearly upset with President Obama’s attempts to rein in executive pay are doing just that.”

Interesting perspective coming from ABC news!

Posted in Arrogant politicians, Bureaucratic ineptitude, Innate hypocrisy, Liberalism, Main Stream Media, Obama, Social engineering, Socialist economics | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

An Obama appointee with integrity–she’s withdrawing!

Posted by Liberty on February 3, 2009

Performance Czar Killefer Withdraws Candidacy

I’m experiencing that feeling of deja vu this morning.  Yet another Obama appointee has tax issues!  Wow!  Let me predict what is going to be said about performance czarina Nancy Killefer’s tax problem.  “It was an honest mistake.”  Or perhaps, “She had a little glitch with her Turbo Tax.” 

“Ms. Killefer, 55 years old, failed to pay employment taxes on household help for a year and a half, the Associated Press reported. In 2005, the AP said, the District of Columbia filed a $946.69 tax lien on her home for failure to pay the unemployment compensation tax. The error was resolved five months later.”

Oh…the old employment taxes on the household help.  Well, we’ve all had that problem, right?  I couldn’t find the box on the 1040 for that one, either.

As it turns out, though, silly excuses probably won’t be necessary.  Nancy Killefer is withdrawing her candidacy, saying that she doesn’t want her tax problems to be a distraction for the new administration.  There goes the only Obama appointee [so far] who possessed an ounce of shame.  Tom?  Tim?  What about you guys?

Oh, and one more thing.  How badly would the MSM be savaging tax-challenged appointees to a Republican administration?

Posted in Arrogant politicians, Innate hypocrisy, Just plain dishonest, Liberalism, Main Stream Media, Obama, Slavish media bias, Taxes | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »