This Woman is a total embarassment to the United States...She takes NO responsibility for anything!...She needs to get voted out of office this November!
Pelosi blames Bush administration for BP oil spill.
By: Joel S. Gehrke Jr.
05/29/10 7:38 AM EDT
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., blamed the Bush administration for any lack of oversight leading up to the Gulf oil spill. The Obama administration, on the other hand, is blameless.
From Talk Radio News Service:
“Many of the people appointed in the Bush administration are still burrowed in the agencies that are supposed to oversee the [oil] industry,” Pelosi said when asked if Democrats could have prevented or mitigated the crisis by keeping a closer watch on the industry.
Added the Speaker, “the cozy relationships between the Bush administration’s agency leadership and the industry is clear…I’ve heard no complaints from my members about the way the president has handled it,” Pelosi stated.
On Friday, the Washington Examiner requested that Speaker Pelosi’s office release the list of Bush appointees to whom she was referring. We’ll let you know when we hear back.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
This is the Person that KNOWS what's going on! He's more in charge than Obama!
Bobby Jindal has been at the front lines every day...He knows more about what is going on than anyone else and he has more vested interest in getting it stopped and fixed...If the media wants to talk about someone that cares.... it's Jindal, not Obama. It's a disgrace that he hasn't gotten everything he wanted, but he's a Republican afterall and this partisan White House/Administration/President wouldn't want anyone to think he might have an answer that would work....
NO NATIONAL PLAN
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal on ABC’s “This Week:”
“…we needed just simply more resources. Back on May 2nd, May 3rd, when we saw there was no national or BP plan, we came up with our own plan…As I told the president, for us, it's trust but verify. You know, it's that old saying that we've heard promises, we want to see that happen on the ground… Now, we have said for weeks now we'd much rather fight this oil on a sandy barrier island than fight it inside our wetlands. We've got miles and miles of these islands… [and w]e proposed a plan, 24 segments, to rebuild or refortify these islands.
“After weeks -- and if they had approved this when we first asked, we could have built 10 miles. Ten miles… Yesterday, the Army Corps of Engineers approved six segments out of 24, over 40 miles out of 100. But here's where our concern was. The federal government only ordered BP to pay for to do one of those six segments. That's two miles out of 100. Our message to the president today was, make BP pay for this. The federal government shouldn't be making excuses for BP. This is their spill, their oil. They're the responsible party. Make them responsible.
…
“Look, I've been very clear. I think there could have been a greater sense of urgency [on the part of the deferral government.]”
NO NATIONAL PLAN
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal on ABC’s “This Week:”
“…we needed just simply more resources. Back on May 2nd, May 3rd, when we saw there was no national or BP plan, we came up with our own plan…As I told the president, for us, it's trust but verify. You know, it's that old saying that we've heard promises, we want to see that happen on the ground… Now, we have said for weeks now we'd much rather fight this oil on a sandy barrier island than fight it inside our wetlands. We've got miles and miles of these islands… [and w]e proposed a plan, 24 segments, to rebuild or refortify these islands.
“After weeks -- and if they had approved this when we first asked, we could have built 10 miles. Ten miles… Yesterday, the Army Corps of Engineers approved six segments out of 24, over 40 miles out of 100. But here's where our concern was. The federal government only ordered BP to pay for to do one of those six segments. That's two miles out of 100. Our message to the president today was, make BP pay for this. The federal government shouldn't be making excuses for BP. This is their spill, their oil. They're the responsible party. Make them responsible.
…
“Look, I've been very clear. I think there could have been a greater sense of urgency [on the part of the deferral government.]”
Enraged???? I thought he was in "control"...IF that were the case you would have understood the chances for success
Another example that this President is NOT in control.....IF he were in control he certainly would have understood that there was a good chance this top kill wouldn't work. In my opinion he started out thinking this was a crisis that couldn't to go waste and when it got worse he realized he needed to appear he was in control..then he visited for the second time in 40 days and used it just as a photo op....ON HIS Way to VACATION where he is now....This guy is a JOKE!
President 'Enraged' Over Latest Failure to Stop Oil Gusher
Published May 29, 2010
| Associated Press
CHICAGO -- President Barack Obama said Saturday that the failure of BP's latest effort to stop the damaging flow of oil into the Gulf of Mexico is "as enraging as it is heartbreaking."
Obama commented after BP officials reached the disappointing conclusion that a dayslong effort to stop the flow of oil, known as a "top kill," by packing the well with mud had failed.
It was the latest in a series of failed attempts by BP to cut off the flow of oil.
BP will now try anew by cutting the pipe that lies deep underwater and fitting a containment valve over the leak, an effort expected to take four to seven days.
The disappointing news came a day after Obama interrupted a long holiday weekend at his home in Chicago to visit the Louisiana coast on Friday and show its angry residents that he is in command of the situation.
"As I said yesterday, every day that this leak continues is an assault on the people of the Gulf Coast region, their livelihoods, and the natural bounty that belongs to all of us," Obama said. "It is as enraging as it is heartbreaking, and we will not relent until this leak is contained, until the waters and shores are cleaned up, and until the people unjustly victimized by this manmade disaster are made whole."
Obama said he discussed the situation Saturday with Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, who is overseeing the response to the spill, and Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson, and senior White House advisers John Brennan and Carol Browner.
Obama said the approach BP plans to turn to next is risky and hasn't been tried before at a depth of 5,000 feet.
He said that while officials were hopeful the "top kill" procedure would succeed, "we were also mindful that there was a significant chance it would not."
Obama pledged anew to pursue "any and all responsible means" of stopping the leak until BP completes the drilling of a relief well. But while the relief well is permanent solution to the problem, BP says it won't be ready until August.
In the six weeks since the spill began, the government estimates that between 18 million and 40 million gallons of crude have poured into the Gulf, damaging beaches and wildlife and the local economy.
President 'Enraged' Over Latest Failure to Stop Oil Gusher
Published May 29, 2010
| Associated Press
CHICAGO -- President Barack Obama said Saturday that the failure of BP's latest effort to stop the damaging flow of oil into the Gulf of Mexico is "as enraging as it is heartbreaking."
Obama commented after BP officials reached the disappointing conclusion that a dayslong effort to stop the flow of oil, known as a "top kill," by packing the well with mud had failed.
It was the latest in a series of failed attempts by BP to cut off the flow of oil.
BP will now try anew by cutting the pipe that lies deep underwater and fitting a containment valve over the leak, an effort expected to take four to seven days.
The disappointing news came a day after Obama interrupted a long holiday weekend at his home in Chicago to visit the Louisiana coast on Friday and show its angry residents that he is in command of the situation.
"As I said yesterday, every day that this leak continues is an assault on the people of the Gulf Coast region, their livelihoods, and the natural bounty that belongs to all of us," Obama said. "It is as enraging as it is heartbreaking, and we will not relent until this leak is contained, until the waters and shores are cleaned up, and until the people unjustly victimized by this manmade disaster are made whole."
Obama said he discussed the situation Saturday with Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, who is overseeing the response to the spill, and Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson, and senior White House advisers John Brennan and Carol Browner.
Obama said the approach BP plans to turn to next is risky and hasn't been tried before at a depth of 5,000 feet.
He said that while officials were hopeful the "top kill" procedure would succeed, "we were also mindful that there was a significant chance it would not."
Obama pledged anew to pursue "any and all responsible means" of stopping the leak until BP completes the drilling of a relief well. But while the relief well is permanent solution to the problem, BP says it won't be ready until August.
In the six weeks since the spill began, the government estimates that between 18 million and 40 million gallons of crude have poured into the Gulf, damaging beaches and wildlife and the local economy.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Congratulations Governor Jan Brewer...you've made the right move...I wouldn't put it past your Democratic Attorney General from conspiging with Obama
You made the right decision Governor...I wouldn't put it past this corrupt Administration from dirty dealing to get what they want whether it's right or not. You and your state have made a bold choice...one I wish my state of Texas would make it appears to be totally constitutional to me...but when dealing with this corrupt, dishonest administration you need to make certain the legal help on your side of the arguement is strong and committed!...congrats Governor!
State & Local
Arizona Governor Removes State's Top Attorney From Defense of Immigration Law
Published May 29, 2010
| FOXNews.com
Gov. Jan Brewer has pushed aside Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard in the state's defense of its new law clamping down on illegal immigrants. (AP)
Gov. Jan Brewer has pushed aside the state's attorney general in Arizona's defense of its new law clamping down on illegal immigrants, accusing him of conspiring with the Obama administration as it considers whether to sue the state.
Brewer issued a statement late Friday night saying her legal team will defend the state against lawsuits challenging the measure. She invoked a provision in the law to have private attorneys represent the state. They already are representing her in some of the legal challenges to the law that name her as a defendant.
But Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard says Brewer can't kick him off the case. Goddard's top aide, Tim Nelson, said Saturday that Brewer can't invoke the provision because it hasn't taken effect yet and that there are constitutional questions.
"We have real concerns about the constitutionality of that," Nelson said. "It's an open question."
Brewer's decision came after Justice Department officials met with Goddard -- a Democrat who will likely challenge Brewer, a Republican, in her re-election bid -- before meeting with her legal team.
"For some inexplicable reason, the Department of Justice officials met with the Arizona attorney general hours before meeting with the state of Arizona's legal team, and then allowed the attorney general to hold a press conference to discuss the meeting," she said in the statement.
"This level of coordination between the attorney general and the Obama administration is disturbingly similar to the coordination with Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Gifford earlier this week on President Obama's still unclear plan to deploy up to 1,200 National Guard troops to the border," she said.
Justice officials told Goddard and later Brewer's team that the Obama administration is prepared to go to court if necessary in a bid to block the new law, which takes effect July 29.
Even though Goddard has criticized the law, he vowed to defend it after the meeting.
"While Senate bill 1070 is far from perfect, it is a response to a very serious problem," he said at the news conference. "I told the lawyers that it would be just plain wrong for the federal government to sue to stop Arizona from dealing with something that the federal government has ignored for so many years."
But Brewer wasn't convinced, saying the immigration law she signed gave her the authority to assemble the state's legal team because of the Legislature's "lack of confidence" in Goddard's "willingness to vigorously defend this legislation that is so critical to protecting the safety and welfare of Arizona's citizens."
"Due to Attorney General Goddard's curious coordination with the U.S. Department of Justice today and his consistent opposition to Arizona's new immigration laws, I will direct my legal team to defend me and the state of Arizona rather than the attorney general in the lawsuits challenging Arizona's immigration laws," she said.
Brewer's legal team told Justice officials that Arizona's law would be "vigorously defended all the way to the United States Supreme Court if necessary," she said, adding that the officials "were advised that I believe the federal government should use its legal resources to fight illegal immigration, not the state of Arizona."
Obama and his top officials have expressed concern that the new law may be unconstitutional and will promote racial profiling.
Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller noted that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder met with a number of police chiefs Wednesday in Washington "to hear their concerns about the impact of the Arizona law on their ability to keep communities safe.
"We continue to have concerns that the law drives a wedge between law enforcement and the communities they serve and are examining it to see what options are available to the federal government," Miller said.
While numerous police chiefs have criticized the law, several Arizona associations representing rank-and-file police officers support it.
State & Local
Arizona Governor Removes State's Top Attorney From Defense of Immigration Law
Published May 29, 2010
| FOXNews.com
Gov. Jan Brewer has pushed aside Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard in the state's defense of its new law clamping down on illegal immigrants. (AP)
Gov. Jan Brewer has pushed aside the state's attorney general in Arizona's defense of its new law clamping down on illegal immigrants, accusing him of conspiring with the Obama administration as it considers whether to sue the state.
Brewer issued a statement late Friday night saying her legal team will defend the state against lawsuits challenging the measure. She invoked a provision in the law to have private attorneys represent the state. They already are representing her in some of the legal challenges to the law that name her as a defendant.
But Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard says Brewer can't kick him off the case. Goddard's top aide, Tim Nelson, said Saturday that Brewer can't invoke the provision because it hasn't taken effect yet and that there are constitutional questions.
"We have real concerns about the constitutionality of that," Nelson said. "It's an open question."
Brewer's decision came after Justice Department officials met with Goddard -- a Democrat who will likely challenge Brewer, a Republican, in her re-election bid -- before meeting with her legal team.
"For some inexplicable reason, the Department of Justice officials met with the Arizona attorney general hours before meeting with the state of Arizona's legal team, and then allowed the attorney general to hold a press conference to discuss the meeting," she said in the statement.
"This level of coordination between the attorney general and the Obama administration is disturbingly similar to the coordination with Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Gifford earlier this week on President Obama's still unclear plan to deploy up to 1,200 National Guard troops to the border," she said.
Justice officials told Goddard and later Brewer's team that the Obama administration is prepared to go to court if necessary in a bid to block the new law, which takes effect July 29.
Even though Goddard has criticized the law, he vowed to defend it after the meeting.
"While Senate bill 1070 is far from perfect, it is a response to a very serious problem," he said at the news conference. "I told the lawyers that it would be just plain wrong for the federal government to sue to stop Arizona from dealing with something that the federal government has ignored for so many years."
But Brewer wasn't convinced, saying the immigration law she signed gave her the authority to assemble the state's legal team because of the Legislature's "lack of confidence" in Goddard's "willingness to vigorously defend this legislation that is so critical to protecting the safety and welfare of Arizona's citizens."
"Due to Attorney General Goddard's curious coordination with the U.S. Department of Justice today and his consistent opposition to Arizona's new immigration laws, I will direct my legal team to defend me and the state of Arizona rather than the attorney general in the lawsuits challenging Arizona's immigration laws," she said.
Brewer's legal team told Justice officials that Arizona's law would be "vigorously defended all the way to the United States Supreme Court if necessary," she said, adding that the officials "were advised that I believe the federal government should use its legal resources to fight illegal immigration, not the state of Arizona."
Obama and his top officials have expressed concern that the new law may be unconstitutional and will promote racial profiling.
Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller noted that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder met with a number of police chiefs Wednesday in Washington "to hear their concerns about the impact of the Arizona law on their ability to keep communities safe.
"We continue to have concerns that the law drives a wedge between law enforcement and the communities they serve and are examining it to see what options are available to the federal government," Miller said.
While numerous police chiefs have criticized the law, several Arizona associations representing rank-and-file police officers support it.
Obama's Photo Op in Louisiana...He doesn't CARE!
To my point earlier this morning...the President's trip to Louisiana was nothing more than a PR/photo op trip. He doesn't care...he isn't in charge....he's a huge waste of time! Not to mention an out and out liar!
BP busses in hundreds of temp workers for Obama photo-op
By Brett Michael Dykes - Updated: 05/29/10 at 3:26 AM
President Barack Obama, center, LaFourche Parish president Charlotte Randolph, and U.S. Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen, National Incident Commander for the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, take a tour of areas impacted by the Gulf Coast oil spill on Friday, May 28, 2010 in Port Fourchon, La. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
Perhaps you saw news footage of President Obama in Grand Isle, La., on Friday and thought things didn’t look all that bad. Well, there may have been a reason for that: The town was evidently swarmed by an army of temp workers to spruce it up for the president and the national news crews following him.
Jefferson Parish Councilman Chris Roberts, whose district encompasses Grand Isle, told Yahoo! News that BP bused in “hundreds” of temporary workers to clean up local beaches. And as soon as the president was en route back to Washington, the workers were clearing out of Grand Isle too, Roberts said.
News of 11th-hour spruce-up brigade spread rapidly Friday afternoon and infuriated locals. One popular radio host, WWL’s Spud McConnell, suggested that the Coast Guard and the White House may have been involved in setting up the “perfect photo op.”
BP busses in hundreds of temp workers for Obama photo-op
By Brett Michael Dykes - Updated: 05/29/10 at 3:26 AM
President Barack Obama, center, LaFourche Parish president Charlotte Randolph, and U.S. Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen, National Incident Commander for the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, take a tour of areas impacted by the Gulf Coast oil spill on Friday, May 28, 2010 in Port Fourchon, La. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
Perhaps you saw news footage of President Obama in Grand Isle, La., on Friday and thought things didn’t look all that bad. Well, there may have been a reason for that: The town was evidently swarmed by an army of temp workers to spruce it up for the president and the national news crews following him.
Jefferson Parish Councilman Chris Roberts, whose district encompasses Grand Isle, told Yahoo! News that BP bused in “hundreds” of temporary workers to clean up local beaches. And as soon as the president was en route back to Washington, the workers were clearing out of Grand Isle too, Roberts said.
News of 11th-hour spruce-up brigade spread rapidly Friday afternoon and infuriated locals. One popular radio host, WWL’s Spud McConnell, suggested that the Coast Guard and the White House may have been involved in setting up the “perfect photo op.”
Obama...What a Disgrace!
Now this is a President that you can be PROUD of....he won't meet with the Governor of Arizona because he doesn't like the law they passed!!!!!.. How childish!...He's supposed to the President for all the people and oh by the way the VAST MAJORITY of Americans are in favor of Arizona's Immigration Law. This President is an absolute DISGRACE!!! I am sure it's more important for him to meet with the major league mens soccer team than meet with the Governor of Arizona to discuss Illegal Immigration! He and his Regime needs to GO!....It all starts in November when we can vote out all liberal, progressive, socialist Democrats (and liberal Republicans) to get Conservative control so we can again start to take control of this country...we need to get some common sense in place...some fiscal responsibility....and some national security and again begin to manage the world stage! I am embarrassed to say that Obama is our president!
President Obama to Arizona Governor: Don't Call Me, I'll Call You
Published May 29, 2010
| FOXNews.com
President Obama has turned down Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's request to meet while she's in Washington next week as tensions mount between his administration and Arizona over the state's new law cracking down on illegal immigrants. (AP)
President Obama has turned down Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's request to meet while she's in Washington next week as tensions mount between his administration and Arizona over the state's new law cracking down on illegal immigrants.
Brewer will be in Washington to meet with other governors. She said Friday that she had asked to meet with Obama and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to discuss border security and immigration but Obama's schedule "doesn't allow for a meeting" with her, White House spokesman Adam Abrams said, adding that the president "does intend to sit down with the governor in the future."
When Obama returns from his Chicago vacation on Tuesday, he will meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Peru President Alan Garcia at the White House. On Wednesday, Obama is meeting with Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, before heading to an event in Pittsburgh and hosting a concert at the White House to honor Paul McCartney.
On Thursday, Obama will speak at Secretary Clinton's reception for a new partnership between U.S. and India. On Friday, the president will welcome the Major League Soccer men's championship team, Real Salt Lake, to the White House.
The apparent snub comes after Justice Department officials told Arizona's attorney general and aides to the governor Friday that the federal government has serious reservations about the state's new immigration law. They responded that a lawsuit against the state isn't the answer.
"I told them we need solutions from Washington, not more lawsuits," said Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat.
The Justice Department initiated separate meetings by phone and face-to-face in Phoenix with Goddard and aides to Brewer to reach out to Arizona's leaders and elicit information from state officials regarding the Obama administration's concerns about the new law.
The strong message that the Justice Department representatives delivered at the private meetings -- first with Goddard, then with Brewer's staff -- left little doubt that the Obama administration is prepared to go to court if necessary in a bid to block the new law, which takes effect July 29.
Goddard said he noted that five privately filed lawsuits already are pending in federal court to challenge the law.
"Every possible argument is being briefed," said Goddard, who is running unopposed for his party's nomination for the governor's race.
Brewer, who is seeking re-election, later said in a statement that her legal team told the Justice Department officials that the law would be "vigorously defended all the way to the United States Supreme Court if necessary."
Brewer, who has hired private attorneys to represent her in the pending cases, said the department officials "were advised that I believe the federal government should use its legal resources to fight illegal immigration, not the state of Arizona."
Key provisions of the sweeping law include a requirement that police enforcing any other law question people about their immigration status if there is "reasonable suspicion" that they are in the country illegally. It also makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally.
Arizona has an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants, and the law's supporters contend it will save taxpayer money and reduce crime by pressuring illegal immigrants to "self-deport."
Federal officials and other critics fear the state law could lead to widespread racial profiling.
Goddard said it would be wrong to assume that Arizona law enforcement officers would not act in a fair and highly professional manner."
The federal officials' trip to Phoenix also was an effort to see if the two sides can find common ground in the debate, which has reignited immigration as a major political issue nationwide.
A number of other states are considering laws similar to Arizona's.
Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller noted that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder met with a number of police chiefs Wednesday in Washington "to hear their concerns about the impact of the Arizona law on their ability to keep communities safe.
"We continue to have concerns that the law drives a wedge between law enforcement and the communities they serve and are examining it to see what options are available to the federal government," Miller said.
While numerous police chiefs have criticized the law, several Arizona associations representing rank-and-file police officers support it.
President Obama to Arizona Governor: Don't Call Me, I'll Call You
Published May 29, 2010
| FOXNews.com
President Obama has turned down Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's request to meet while she's in Washington next week as tensions mount between his administration and Arizona over the state's new law cracking down on illegal immigrants. (AP)
President Obama has turned down Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's request to meet while she's in Washington next week as tensions mount between his administration and Arizona over the state's new law cracking down on illegal immigrants.
Brewer will be in Washington to meet with other governors. She said Friday that she had asked to meet with Obama and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to discuss border security and immigration but Obama's schedule "doesn't allow for a meeting" with her, White House spokesman Adam Abrams said, adding that the president "does intend to sit down with the governor in the future."
When Obama returns from his Chicago vacation on Tuesday, he will meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Peru President Alan Garcia at the White House. On Wednesday, Obama is meeting with Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, before heading to an event in Pittsburgh and hosting a concert at the White House to honor Paul McCartney.
On Thursday, Obama will speak at Secretary Clinton's reception for a new partnership between U.S. and India. On Friday, the president will welcome the Major League Soccer men's championship team, Real Salt Lake, to the White House.
The apparent snub comes after Justice Department officials told Arizona's attorney general and aides to the governor Friday that the federal government has serious reservations about the state's new immigration law. They responded that a lawsuit against the state isn't the answer.
"I told them we need solutions from Washington, not more lawsuits," said Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat.
The Justice Department initiated separate meetings by phone and face-to-face in Phoenix with Goddard and aides to Brewer to reach out to Arizona's leaders and elicit information from state officials regarding the Obama administration's concerns about the new law.
The strong message that the Justice Department representatives delivered at the private meetings -- first with Goddard, then with Brewer's staff -- left little doubt that the Obama administration is prepared to go to court if necessary in a bid to block the new law, which takes effect July 29.
Goddard said he noted that five privately filed lawsuits already are pending in federal court to challenge the law.
"Every possible argument is being briefed," said Goddard, who is running unopposed for his party's nomination for the governor's race.
Brewer, who is seeking re-election, later said in a statement that her legal team told the Justice Department officials that the law would be "vigorously defended all the way to the United States Supreme Court if necessary."
Brewer, who has hired private attorneys to represent her in the pending cases, said the department officials "were advised that I believe the federal government should use its legal resources to fight illegal immigration, not the state of Arizona."
Key provisions of the sweeping law include a requirement that police enforcing any other law question people about their immigration status if there is "reasonable suspicion" that they are in the country illegally. It also makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally.
Arizona has an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants, and the law's supporters contend it will save taxpayer money and reduce crime by pressuring illegal immigrants to "self-deport."
Federal officials and other critics fear the state law could lead to widespread racial profiling.
Goddard said it would be wrong to assume that Arizona law enforcement officers would not act in a fair and highly professional manner."
The federal officials' trip to Phoenix also was an effort to see if the two sides can find common ground in the debate, which has reignited immigration as a major political issue nationwide.
A number of other states are considering laws similar to Arizona's.
Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller noted that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder met with a number of police chiefs Wednesday in Washington "to hear their concerns about the impact of the Arizona law on their ability to keep communities safe.
"We continue to have concerns that the law drives a wedge between law enforcement and the communities they serve and are examining it to see what options are available to the federal government," Miller said.
While numerous police chiefs have criticized the law, several Arizona associations representing rank-and-file police officers support it.
Clinton 'whiff of scandal' returns - The "Obamafia" Administration is at it Again!
This Corrupt, Dishonest, Lying President is at it again....the "Obamafia" approach now involves the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with the involvement of her husband. We cannot trust these Liberal, Progressive, Socialist Democrats!
Clinton 'whiff of scandal' returns - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com
Clinton 'whiff of scandal' returns - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com
This Congress has NO Fiscal Responsibility
This Congress and this Administration JUST DOESN'T GET IT....500,000 Americans voted over the internet to express their desire for Federal Employees (including Congress but NOT impacting any uniformed employees) have their pay frozen this year because of the situation we find ourselves in with out of control spending and mounting national debt. This is exactly what businesses around this are doing and have done time after time when times get tough! Watch this video and see how your Congress just dismissed it. Then also attached is how each House Member voted...those that voted against it need to GO starting this November!
Access this site (link below) to see how your Representative Voted....Those that don't understand the need to stop spending need to find other employment after the election this November...Remember all of these Representatives are up for reelection!
http://republicanwhip.house.gov/YouCut/week2.htm
Access this site (link below) to see how your Representative Voted....Those that don't understand the need to stop spending need to find other employment after the election this November...Remember all of these Representatives are up for reelection!
http://republicanwhip.house.gov/YouCut/week2.htm
Friday, May 28, 2010
President Obama at Gulf: 'Buck stops with me' - Carol E. Lee - DON'T BELIEVE IT!
Looks like Obama's trip to Louisiana was another waste of time...more of a public relations photo op than anything else...he was only there for only three hours (after all he is on his way to vacation in Chicago) and had the guts to tell the governors that if they need anything they know how to reach him!!!!...Bobby Jindal has been trying to get the ok to build barrier islands off the coast for more than two weeks and Obama did nothing until yesterday when they authorized Jindal to build a portion of what he wanted to do....Had he been given the ok two weeks ago there would have been 10 miles of barrier islands in place by now!...This President is a liar...he doesn't want anyone else to find a solution because he might not be able to take credit and especially not a Republican...well he'll take all the credit...all the credit for letting this disaster get way out of control!
President Obama at Gulf: 'Buck stops with me' - Carol E. Lee - POLITICO.com
President Obama at Gulf: 'Buck stops with me' - Carol E. Lee - POLITICO.com
What Obama has been doing while the Gulf Coast dies | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
More Evidence that Obama hasn't been in "control" of the oil spill in the Gulf...He's been too busy attending fund raisers, meeting the Jonas Brothers, meeting the Duke Basketball team. This guy is a REAL Piece of Work not to mention and complete Liar! He wasn't in control and frankly doesn't care!
What Obama has been doing while the Gulf Coast dies | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
What Obama has been doing while the Gulf Coast dies | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
This is Simply Unbelievable...
If you believe this you are pretty gullable....this guy has been talking about this "job offer" since February....he has either been stretching the truth all along which is not likely OR he's not telling the truth now...I would venture that he's not being totally honest now....since he has only put out a written statement...but he is a democrat...the same party that Blumenthal belongs to.....so maybe Sestak didn't lie.....he probably "misspoke"!
RAW DATA: Sestak's Statement on White House Report on Job OfferPublished May 28, 2010
| FOXNews.com
The following is a statement from Rep. Joe Sestak elaborating on the job offer the White House indirectly offered him last summer:
"Last summer, I received a phone call from President Clinton. During the course of the conversation, he expressed concern over my prospects if I were to enter the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate and the value of having me stay in the House of Representatives because of my military background.
He said that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had spoken with him about my being on a Presidential Board while remaining in the House of Representatives. I said no. I told President Clinton that my only consideration in getting into the Senate race or not was whether it was the right thing to do for Pennsylvania working families and not any offer. The former President said he knew I'd say that, and the conversation moved on to other subjects.
"There are many important challenges facing Pennsylvania and the rest of the country. I intend to remain focused on those issues and continue my fight on behalf of working families."
RAW DATA: Sestak's Statement on White House Report on Job OfferPublished May 28, 2010
| FOXNews.com
The following is a statement from Rep. Joe Sestak elaborating on the job offer the White House indirectly offered him last summer:
"Last summer, I received a phone call from President Clinton. During the course of the conversation, he expressed concern over my prospects if I were to enter the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate and the value of having me stay in the House of Representatives because of my military background.
He said that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had spoken with him about my being on a Presidential Board while remaining in the House of Representatives. I said no. I told President Clinton that my only consideration in getting into the Senate race or not was whether it was the right thing to do for Pennsylvania working families and not any offer. The former President said he knew I'd say that, and the conversation moved on to other subjects.
"There are many important challenges facing Pennsylvania and the rest of the country. I intend to remain focused on those issues and continue my fight on behalf of working families."
IF you believe this ONE!
This is another example of the "transparent", "honest", "above board" Administration that Obama is running IF you believe it....I am not sure it's the truth...not sure it's not something just trumped to get out from under what might have been an impeachable offense. The "Obamafia" administration continues to use every Chicago style mobster politic trick to just get what they want...not what the people want...not what is best for the nation...This guy is TERRIBLE....to use a liar like Bill Clinton to try to get you off is beyond embarassing!
How the Sestak job offer became a big deal
Party leaders and campaign operatives -- on nearly a daily basis -- approach challenger candidates seeking to disrupt the established political order with a simple message: Get out or else.
And so, the report this morning that former President Bill Clinton was tasked by White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel to make such an approach to Rep. Joe Sestak -- allegedly offering him an unpaid advisory role on an intelligence board in exchange for getting him to drop his primary bid against Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.) -- would not normally raise much of a stir in official Washington.
That the story has become a major controversy, a regular fixture on cable news chat shows and a momentum-killer for Sestak following his come-from behind victory against Specter in last week's Pennsylvania primary is evidence of how the White House mishandled the controversy, according to conversations with several high-level Democratic strategists.
"How do you make something out of nothing?," asked one such operative who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about the matter. "By acting guilty when you're innocent."
Another senior party official said that the White House "has a lot of egg on their face" and described the events as a "PR nightmare".
The unfolding of events since Sestak told a local television host -- albeit obliquely -- in February that he had received a job offer from the White House speaks to one of the oldest political adages about the presidency: stonewalling almost never works. (The full White House report on the matter is here.)
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was repeatedly asked in the intervening months about Sestak's allegation but deflected comment. As the story became a bigger deal in the wake of Sestak's primary victory, the statements out of the White House grew more and more opaque -- as Gibbs insisted over the weekend that "nothing inappropriate happened" but refusing to engage in the more basic "what happened question."
The matter reached a head during President Obama's press conference yesterday when, asked by Fox News Channel's Major Garrett about the details of the Sestak job offer, the President said only: "I can assure the public that nothing improper took place. But as I said, there will be a response shortly on that issue."
Republicans gleefully highlighted every incident of the White House's practiced silence on the matter, using the Sestak allegation to undermine one of the pillars of the Obama brand: transparency and accountability.
"This issue goes to the heart of Obama's claims to have a different kind of White House and that he would usher in a new era of transparency and accountability," Republican National Committee communications director Doug Heye told the Fix earlier this week.
Allies of the White House argue that the Sestak situation was less PR blunder than conscious choice to accept some short term pain for long term gain (or at least less long term pain).
Their argument is that the White House could have pushed out an answer to the Sestak job controversy quickly but, in so doing, would have run the risk of not having all the facts of a relatively complex situation straight -- making it a real possibility that they would be bludgeoned by the press if there was a mistake or inconsistency in the original statement.
Instead, they chose to conduct an exhaustive review, which led to what we expect to be a detailed document from the White House counsel's office later today, in order to take the public relations hit and quickly move on.
Regardless of the reasoning (or lack therefor, according to their critics) behind the White House's approach to the issue, their extended silence on the matter has created -- at least in the near term -- a major PR problem that could well overshadow the President's visit to the Gulf later today.
It's -- yet more -- evidence that small things can quickly grow into big things in the hothouse atmosphere of official Washington. While Obama and his senior aides decry that fishbowl effect, it has come back to bite them this time around.
How the Sestak job offer became a big deal
Party leaders and campaign operatives -- on nearly a daily basis -- approach challenger candidates seeking to disrupt the established political order with a simple message: Get out or else.
And so, the report this morning that former President Bill Clinton was tasked by White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel to make such an approach to Rep. Joe Sestak -- allegedly offering him an unpaid advisory role on an intelligence board in exchange for getting him to drop his primary bid against Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.) -- would not normally raise much of a stir in official Washington.
That the story has become a major controversy, a regular fixture on cable news chat shows and a momentum-killer for Sestak following his come-from behind victory against Specter in last week's Pennsylvania primary is evidence of how the White House mishandled the controversy, according to conversations with several high-level Democratic strategists.
"How do you make something out of nothing?," asked one such operative who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about the matter. "By acting guilty when you're innocent."
Another senior party official said that the White House "has a lot of egg on their face" and described the events as a "PR nightmare".
The unfolding of events since Sestak told a local television host -- albeit obliquely -- in February that he had received a job offer from the White House speaks to one of the oldest political adages about the presidency: stonewalling almost never works. (The full White House report on the matter is here.)
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was repeatedly asked in the intervening months about Sestak's allegation but deflected comment. As the story became a bigger deal in the wake of Sestak's primary victory, the statements out of the White House grew more and more opaque -- as Gibbs insisted over the weekend that "nothing inappropriate happened" but refusing to engage in the more basic "what happened question."
The matter reached a head during President Obama's press conference yesterday when, asked by Fox News Channel's Major Garrett about the details of the Sestak job offer, the President said only: "I can assure the public that nothing improper took place. But as I said, there will be a response shortly on that issue."
Republicans gleefully highlighted every incident of the White House's practiced silence on the matter, using the Sestak allegation to undermine one of the pillars of the Obama brand: transparency and accountability.
"This issue goes to the heart of Obama's claims to have a different kind of White House and that he would usher in a new era of transparency and accountability," Republican National Committee communications director Doug Heye told the Fix earlier this week.
Allies of the White House argue that the Sestak situation was less PR blunder than conscious choice to accept some short term pain for long term gain (or at least less long term pain).
Their argument is that the White House could have pushed out an answer to the Sestak job controversy quickly but, in so doing, would have run the risk of not having all the facts of a relatively complex situation straight -- making it a real possibility that they would be bludgeoned by the press if there was a mistake or inconsistency in the original statement.
Instead, they chose to conduct an exhaustive review, which led to what we expect to be a detailed document from the White House counsel's office later today, in order to take the public relations hit and quickly move on.
Regardless of the reasoning (or lack therefor, according to their critics) behind the White House's approach to the issue, their extended silence on the matter has created -- at least in the near term -- a major PR problem that could well overshadow the President's visit to the Gulf later today.
It's -- yet more -- evidence that small things can quickly grow into big things in the hothouse atmosphere of official Washington. While Obama and his senior aides decry that fishbowl effect, it has come back to bite them this time around.
Obama will spend ONLY 3 hours in Louisanas when he Regularly spends 5 House playing Golf...Oh Yea He Cares???
The President will spend 3 hours in Louisiana today when he Regularly spends 5 hours a round playing golf....It proves he really doesn't care...he's most likely pissed that it infringed on his vacation to Chicago....This guy is REALLY BAD!.....See the Two Articles Below!
1) President Obama official schedule and guidance, May 28, 2010. Gulf oil spill
By Lynn Sweeton May 28, 2010 8:20 AM
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
_______________________________________________________________________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 27, 2010
In the morning, the President will travel to the Gulf Coast of Louisiana to assess the latest efforts to counter the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The departure from Chicago O'Hare International Airport and the arrival at Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport are open press.
Later, the President will attend a briefing by Admiral Thad Allen at the U.S. Coast Guard Station Grand Isle in Grand Isle, Louisiana. There will be a pool spray for still photographers only at the top of the meeting. The President will then deliver remarks. The President's remarks are pooled press.
In the afternoon, the President will travel to Chicago, Illinois. The departure from Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport and the arrival at Chicago O'Hare International Airport are open press.
In-Town Travel Pool
Wires: AP, Reuters, Bloomberg
Wire Photos: AP, Reuters, AFP
TV Corr & Crew: CNN
Print: Scripps Howard
Radio: AP
Out-of-Town Travel Pool
Wires: AP, Reuters, Bloomberg
Wire Photos: AP, Reuters, AFP
TV Corr & Crew: CNN
Print: AFP
Radio: CBS
CDT
8:10AM THE PRESIDENT departs Chicago, Illinois en route New Orleans, Louisiana
Chicago O'Hare International Airport
Open Press
10:10AM THE PRESIDENT arrives New Orleans, Louisiana
Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport
Open Press
12:10PM THE PRESIDENT attends a briefing by Admiral Thad Allen
US Coast Guard Station Grand Isle, Grand Isle, Louisiana
Pool spray for still photographers at the top of the briefing
12:30PM THE PRESIDENT delivers a statement to the press
US Coast Guard Station Grand Isle, Grand Isle, Louisiana
Pooled Press
1:25PM THE PRESIDENT departs New Orleans, Louisiana en route Chicago, Illinois
Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport
Open Press
3:35PM THE PRESIDENT arrives in Chicago, Illinois
Chicago O'Hare International Airport
Open Press
2) He spends 5 hours REGULARLY playing Golf!
For Obama, Golfing Is a Very Leisurely Pursuit Published: August 27, 2009
OAK BLUFFS, Mass. — Bill Clinton was famous for the creative way he kept score. Both George Bushes would speed-golf through 18 holes as if they had to beat the clock, not the course.
Long, slow rounds. A lot of time hunting for balls in the woods. All dished up with a dollop of trash-talking.
The First Golfer brought his duffer’s game to Martha’s Vineyard this week. By Thursday, Mr. Obama had logged three golf games in four days, appearing at one island course after another. He spent five hours on Monday afternoon playing 18 holes at the Farm Neck Golf Club here, two and a half hours on Tuesday playing nine holes at Mink Meadows Golf Club in Vineyard Haven, and several hours playing Thursday afternoon at the Vineyard Golf Club in Edgartown.
While Mr. Obama has indulged in other vacation activities — he took his family bike riding Thursday morning, went to the beach on Wednesday and took his wife to dinner Tuesday night — golf has been the only recurring one.
So, clearly, the president likes to hit the links. But is he any good at it, especially compared with his predecessors?
“His golf games are long because he’s not very good,” said Don Van Natta Jr., a reporter for The New York Times who wrote “First Off the Tee: Presidential Hackers, Duffers and Cheaters From Taft to Bush” (PublicAffairs, 2003).
Unlike Mr. Clinton, who had a reputation for shaving strokes off his score, Mr. Obama “doesn’t fudge his scores,” Mr. Van Natta said, adding: “If he shoots an 11 on a hole, he will write down 11.” (Mr. Obama shoots in the 90s on a good day, Mr. Van Natta said.)
White House officials, trying to protect their boss from guffaws, refuse to divulge Mr. Obama’s scores. The president himself envelops his golf game in a cloak of secrecy. Unlike the drill with many of his predecessors, who allowed reporters to watch them play the first hole, and then return to the 18th to watch the grand finish, the White House press pool covering Mr. Obama is kept far away from the action.
“The verdant entry to the entry road to the entrance of the Vineyard Golf Club is as close as we get to Potus right now, colleagues,” Elizabeth Williamson of The Wall Street Journal wrote Thursday in the report on the president’s activities that she shared with other White House reporters.
(Much to the disappointment of the press corps, reports that there might be a vacation game with Tiger Woods look to be false.)
The official word on Thursday from the White House deputy spokesman, Bill Burton, was that Mr. Obama has been enjoying his golf game.
But some White House aides — who, to be fair, were not on the golf course with the president on Thursday — said that those who were there mentioned a lot of trash-talking coming from the First Mouth, despite his less-than-Masters-level play. Mr. Obama, whose first sports love is basketball, took up golf seriously in 1997, when he was in the Illinois State Senate. It has been a love affair ever since, and Mr. Obama is now the 15th of the last 18 presidents to play golf, Mr. Van Natta said. “The only nongolfers since Taft are Carter, Hoover and Truman,” he said.
Mr. Obama is notorious for dragging his staff members onto the golf course with him, including the White House trip director, Marvin Nicholson; the White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs; and Ben Finkenbinder, the baby-faced press aide who also happened to play golf at Macalester College in St. Paul, when he was studying there a mere two years ago. On Martha’s Vineyard this week, Mr. Obama was playing with Mssrs. Nicholson and Finkenbinder, along with the chief executive of UBS, Robert Wolf; and Eric Whitaker, a Chicago pal.
This is the first summer vacation that the Obama family has taken with the White House press pool on hand to chronicle Mr. Obama’s every move, and therefore, the first vacation providing an opportunity to get a handle on Mr. Obama’s golf scores. Alas, White House officials continued their veil of secrecy, and would not say. Which means he is probably still in the 90s, respectable for a weekend golfer.
1) President Obama official schedule and guidance, May 28, 2010. Gulf oil spill
By Lynn Sweeton May 28, 2010 8:20 AM
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
_______________________________________________________________________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 27, 2010
In the morning, the President will travel to the Gulf Coast of Louisiana to assess the latest efforts to counter the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The departure from Chicago O'Hare International Airport and the arrival at Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport are open press.
Later, the President will attend a briefing by Admiral Thad Allen at the U.S. Coast Guard Station Grand Isle in Grand Isle, Louisiana. There will be a pool spray for still photographers only at the top of the meeting. The President will then deliver remarks. The President's remarks are pooled press.
In the afternoon, the President will travel to Chicago, Illinois. The departure from Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport and the arrival at Chicago O'Hare International Airport are open press.
In-Town Travel Pool
Wires: AP, Reuters, Bloomberg
Wire Photos: AP, Reuters, AFP
TV Corr & Crew: CNN
Print: Scripps Howard
Radio: AP
Out-of-Town Travel Pool
Wires: AP, Reuters, Bloomberg
Wire Photos: AP, Reuters, AFP
TV Corr & Crew: CNN
Print: AFP
Radio: CBS
CDT
8:10AM THE PRESIDENT departs Chicago, Illinois en route New Orleans, Louisiana
Chicago O'Hare International Airport
Open Press
10:10AM THE PRESIDENT arrives New Orleans, Louisiana
Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport
Open Press
12:10PM THE PRESIDENT attends a briefing by Admiral Thad Allen
US Coast Guard Station Grand Isle, Grand Isle, Louisiana
Pool spray for still photographers at the top of the briefing
12:30PM THE PRESIDENT delivers a statement to the press
US Coast Guard Station Grand Isle, Grand Isle, Louisiana
Pooled Press
1:25PM THE PRESIDENT departs New Orleans, Louisiana en route Chicago, Illinois
Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport
Open Press
3:35PM THE PRESIDENT arrives in Chicago, Illinois
Chicago O'Hare International Airport
Open Press
2) He spends 5 hours REGULARLY playing Golf!
For Obama, Golfing Is a Very Leisurely Pursuit Published: August 27, 2009
OAK BLUFFS, Mass. — Bill Clinton was famous for the creative way he kept score. Both George Bushes would speed-golf through 18 holes as if they had to beat the clock, not the course.
Long, slow rounds. A lot of time hunting for balls in the woods. All dished up with a dollop of trash-talking.
The First Golfer brought his duffer’s game to Martha’s Vineyard this week. By Thursday, Mr. Obama had logged three golf games in four days, appearing at one island course after another. He spent five hours on Monday afternoon playing 18 holes at the Farm Neck Golf Club here, two and a half hours on Tuesday playing nine holes at Mink Meadows Golf Club in Vineyard Haven, and several hours playing Thursday afternoon at the Vineyard Golf Club in Edgartown.
While Mr. Obama has indulged in other vacation activities — he took his family bike riding Thursday morning, went to the beach on Wednesday and took his wife to dinner Tuesday night — golf has been the only recurring one.
So, clearly, the president likes to hit the links. But is he any good at it, especially compared with his predecessors?
“His golf games are long because he’s not very good,” said Don Van Natta Jr., a reporter for The New York Times who wrote “First Off the Tee: Presidential Hackers, Duffers and Cheaters From Taft to Bush” (PublicAffairs, 2003).
Unlike Mr. Clinton, who had a reputation for shaving strokes off his score, Mr. Obama “doesn’t fudge his scores,” Mr. Van Natta said, adding: “If he shoots an 11 on a hole, he will write down 11.” (Mr. Obama shoots in the 90s on a good day, Mr. Van Natta said.)
White House officials, trying to protect their boss from guffaws, refuse to divulge Mr. Obama’s scores. The president himself envelops his golf game in a cloak of secrecy. Unlike the drill with many of his predecessors, who allowed reporters to watch them play the first hole, and then return to the 18th to watch the grand finish, the White House press pool covering Mr. Obama is kept far away from the action.
“The verdant entry to the entry road to the entrance of the Vineyard Golf Club is as close as we get to Potus right now, colleagues,” Elizabeth Williamson of The Wall Street Journal wrote Thursday in the report on the president’s activities that she shared with other White House reporters.
(Much to the disappointment of the press corps, reports that there might be a vacation game with Tiger Woods look to be false.)
The official word on Thursday from the White House deputy spokesman, Bill Burton, was that Mr. Obama has been enjoying his golf game.
But some White House aides — who, to be fair, were not on the golf course with the president on Thursday — said that those who were there mentioned a lot of trash-talking coming from the First Mouth, despite his less-than-Masters-level play. Mr. Obama, whose first sports love is basketball, took up golf seriously in 1997, when he was in the Illinois State Senate. It has been a love affair ever since, and Mr. Obama is now the 15th of the last 18 presidents to play golf, Mr. Van Natta said. “The only nongolfers since Taft are Carter, Hoover and Truman,” he said.
Mr. Obama is notorious for dragging his staff members onto the golf course with him, including the White House trip director, Marvin Nicholson; the White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs; and Ben Finkenbinder, the baby-faced press aide who also happened to play golf at Macalester College in St. Paul, when he was studying there a mere two years ago. On Martha’s Vineyard this week, Mr. Obama was playing with Mssrs. Nicholson and Finkenbinder, along with the chief executive of UBS, Robert Wolf; and Eric Whitaker, a Chicago pal.
This is the first summer vacation that the Obama family has taken with the White House press pool on hand to chronicle Mr. Obama’s every move, and therefore, the first vacation providing an opportunity to get a handle on Mr. Obama’s golf scores. Alas, White House officials continued their veil of secrecy, and would not say. Which means he is probably still in the 90s, respectable for a weekend golfer.
The Inconsistencies of Obama's Statements Yesterday...Again he's not telling the truth
From the Heritage Foundation....
White House in Disarray
A fudgelike goo coating Louisiana's marshes. A thick oil slick stretching across the Gulf of Mexico. A plume of oil miles below the ocean surface. A tragic loss of life. Reverberating economic consequences. Throw in a poll that shows that 53 percent of Americans rate President Barack Obama "poor" or "very poor" in his handling of the Gulf oil spill, and it's no wonder the President yesterday broke his 308-day self-imposed press conference moratorium in hopes of conveying some semblance of leadership amid an environmental, economic and human catastrophe that has spiraled out of his control.
But if Americans were looking for signs of leadership from their President yesterday, they were disappointed. What they got from President Obama was a glimpse of a White House in total disarray, where one hand doesn't know what the other hand is doing and where there are more questions than answers. At 12:45 PM EDT yesterday, President Obama stood before the country and did his best to convey one clear message regarding the oil spill - the federal government is in control and that he will hold BP to account. Obama said:
The American people should know that from the moment this disaster began, the federal government has been in charge of the response effort ... BP is operating at our direction. Every key decision and action they take must be approved by us in advance.
Unfortunately for the President, he couldn't maintain that message for the duration of his 63-minute press conference. When it came time to questions, he admitted that the federal government just doesn't have what it takes to keep the oil spill under control.
What is true is that when it comes to stopping the leak down below, the federal government does not possess superior technology to BP ... Now, when it comes to what's happening on the surface, we've been much more involved in the in-situ burns, in the skimming. Those have been happening more or less under our direction, and we feel comfortable about many of the steps that have been taken.
A lack of technology? More or less in control? Not exactly confidence inspiring. Nor was the President's admission that he did not know whether the director of the Minerals Management Service had resigned or been fired. And in the end, President Obama declared:
In the meantime, my job is to get this fixed. And in case anybody wonders -- in any of your reporting, in case you were wondering who's responsible, I take responsibility
From total control, to lack of control, to personal responsibility - that's heck of a mixed message. What will President Obama do with that responsibility? For one, he announced a halt to all new offshore drilling and called for the United States to move toward "investing in renewable source of energy" in order to "accelerate the competition with countries like China." And he also warned that "easily accessible oil has already been sucked up out of the ground."
The truth, though, is a different story. Unlike us, China is pursuing increased offshore drilling for oil, including deep-sea oil development. And for all the President's talk about China's alternative energy push, the reality is that China's dependence on coal is actually growing. As Heritage's Derek Scissors writes:
Coal now provides 70 percent of the PRC's energy and almost 80 percent of its electricity, with both figures higher than they were a decade ago. These shares may barely shift for decades to come.
As for the President's claim that easy to access oil is becoming more scarce, Heritage's David Kreutzer notes that "billions of barrels of 'easily accessible' oil have been turned into 'impossible to access' oil by federal regulations and moratoria that block any access." That's oil off the coast of California and 10 billion barrels of oil in ANWR.
To be sure, the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is a disaster. BP must bear the economic costs of cleaning up its mess and the cause of the spill must be found. But now is not the time for President Obama to turn an environmental tragedy into an economic disaster. Stopping all new oil development will inflict higher energy costs on average Americans and result in millions of net job losses for a country already suffering under a 9.7% unemployment rate.
White House in Disarray
A fudgelike goo coating Louisiana's marshes. A thick oil slick stretching across the Gulf of Mexico. A plume of oil miles below the ocean surface. A tragic loss of life. Reverberating economic consequences. Throw in a poll that shows that 53 percent of Americans rate President Barack Obama "poor" or "very poor" in his handling of the Gulf oil spill, and it's no wonder the President yesterday broke his 308-day self-imposed press conference moratorium in hopes of conveying some semblance of leadership amid an environmental, economic and human catastrophe that has spiraled out of his control.
But if Americans were looking for signs of leadership from their President yesterday, they were disappointed. What they got from President Obama was a glimpse of a White House in total disarray, where one hand doesn't know what the other hand is doing and where there are more questions than answers. At 12:45 PM EDT yesterday, President Obama stood before the country and did his best to convey one clear message regarding the oil spill - the federal government is in control and that he will hold BP to account. Obama said:
The American people should know that from the moment this disaster began, the federal government has been in charge of the response effort ... BP is operating at our direction. Every key decision and action they take must be approved by us in advance.
Unfortunately for the President, he couldn't maintain that message for the duration of his 63-minute press conference. When it came time to questions, he admitted that the federal government just doesn't have what it takes to keep the oil spill under control.
What is true is that when it comes to stopping the leak down below, the federal government does not possess superior technology to BP ... Now, when it comes to what's happening on the surface, we've been much more involved in the in-situ burns, in the skimming. Those have been happening more or less under our direction, and we feel comfortable about many of the steps that have been taken.
A lack of technology? More or less in control? Not exactly confidence inspiring. Nor was the President's admission that he did not know whether the director of the Minerals Management Service had resigned or been fired. And in the end, President Obama declared:
In the meantime, my job is to get this fixed. And in case anybody wonders -- in any of your reporting, in case you were wondering who's responsible, I take responsibility
From total control, to lack of control, to personal responsibility - that's heck of a mixed message. What will President Obama do with that responsibility? For one, he announced a halt to all new offshore drilling and called for the United States to move toward "investing in renewable source of energy" in order to "accelerate the competition with countries like China." And he also warned that "easily accessible oil has already been sucked up out of the ground."
The truth, though, is a different story. Unlike us, China is pursuing increased offshore drilling for oil, including deep-sea oil development. And for all the President's talk about China's alternative energy push, the reality is that China's dependence on coal is actually growing. As Heritage's Derek Scissors writes:
Coal now provides 70 percent of the PRC's energy and almost 80 percent of its electricity, with both figures higher than they were a decade ago. These shares may barely shift for decades to come.
As for the President's claim that easy to access oil is becoming more scarce, Heritage's David Kreutzer notes that "billions of barrels of 'easily accessible' oil have been turned into 'impossible to access' oil by federal regulations and moratoria that block any access." That's oil off the coast of California and 10 billion barrels of oil in ANWR.
To be sure, the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is a disaster. BP must bear the economic costs of cleaning up its mess and the cause of the spill must be found. But now is not the time for President Obama to turn an environmental tragedy into an economic disaster. Stopping all new oil development will inflict higher energy costs on average Americans and result in millions of net job losses for a country already suffering under a 9.7% unemployment rate.
Stressed out or tone deaf? Obama’s Chicago vacation raises eyebrows | The Daily Caller
This President is neither Stressed OR Tone Deaf....he just doesn't give a shit!...Can you believe that we are in the midst of two wars and HE decides to skip Arlington National Cemetery on Memorial Day?.....Every Serviceman/woman...Every family of every serviceman/woman...Every veteran should be totally OUTRAGED!...How Arrogant!....How Elitist!
Stressed out or tone deaf? Obama’s Chicago vacation raises eyebrows | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
Stressed out or tone deaf? Obama’s Chicago vacation raises eyebrows | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
Clinton: 'The rich are not paying their fair share'
Remember this when Hillary tries for run for President next time...and this is a comment about a country where 52% of the population pays NO FEDERAL INCOME TAXES! Remember she's another Saul Alinsky, "rules for radicals" advocates!....Trust me she'll try to make the run in 2012...but don't forget this comment..she would just be more of the same bad government we have now with Obama.
POLITICO: Clinton: 'The rich are not paying their fair share' - Ben Smith - Clinton: 'The rich are not paying their fair share'
POLITICO: Clinton: 'The rich are not paying their fair share' - Ben Smith - Clinton: 'The rich are not paying their fair share'
He Was Supposed to be Competent
Obama says to never waste a crisis...well as bad as this oil spill is IF we get rid of Obama and crew of "Obamafias" then it might just be worth it....Interesting Article from Peggy Noonan that make the case that the handling of this crisis and several others will be the undoing of Obama.
He Was Supposed to be Competent
By PEGGY NOONAN.
I don't see how the president's position and popularity can survive the oil spill. This is his third political disaster in his first 18 months in office. And they were all, as they say, unforced errors, meaning they were shaped by the president's political judgment and instincts.
There was the tearing and unnecessary war over his health-care proposal and its cost. There was his day-to-day indifference to the views and hopes of the majority of voters regarding illegal immigration. And now the past almost 40 days of dodging and dithering in the face of an environmental calamity. I don't see how you politically survive this.
The president, in my view, continues to govern in a way that suggests he is chronically detached from the central and immediate concerns of his countrymen. This is a terrible thing to see in a political figure, and a startling thing in one who won so handily and shrewdly in 2008. But he has not, almost from the day he was inaugurated, been in sync with the center. The heart of the country is thinking each day about A, B and C, and he is thinking about X, Y and Z. They're in one reality, he's in another.
President Obama promised on Thursday to hold BP accountable in the catastrophic Gulf of Mexico oil spill and said his administration would do everything necessary to protect and restore the coast.
.The American people have spent at least two years worrying that high government spending would, in the end, undo the republic. They saw the dollars gushing night and day, and worried that while everything looked the same on the surface, our position was eroding. They have worried about a border that is in some places functionally and of course illegally open, that it too is gushing night and day with problems that states, cities and towns there cannot solve.
And now we have a videotape metaphor for all the public's fears: that clip we see every day, on every news show, of the well gushing black oil into the Gulf of Mexico and toward our shore. You actually don't get deadlier as a metaphor for the moment than that, the monster that lives deep beneath the sea.
In his news conference Thursday, President Obama made his position no better. He attempted to act out passionate engagement through the use of heightened language—"catastrophe," etc.—but repeatedly took refuge in factual minutiae. His staff probably thought this demonstrated his command of even the most obscure facts. Instead it made him seem like someone who won't see the big picture. The unspoken mantra in his head must have been, "I will not be defensive, I will not give them a resentful soundbite." But his strategic problem was that he'd already lost the battle. If the well was plugged tomorrow, the damage will already have been done.
.The original sin in my view is that as soon as the oil rig accident happened the president tried to maintain distance between the gusher and his presidency. He wanted people to associate the disaster with BP and not him. When your most creative thoughts in the middle of a disaster revolve around protecting your position, you are summoning trouble. When you try to dodge ownership of a problem, when you try to hide from responsibility, life will give you ownership and responsibility the hard way. In any case, the strategy was always a little mad. Americans would never think an international petroleum company based in London would worry as much about American shores and wildlife as, say, Americans would. They were never going to blame only BP, or trust it.
I wonder if the president knows what a disaster this is not only for him but for his political assumptions. His philosophy is that it is appropriate for the federal government to occupy a more burly, significant and powerful place in America—confronting its problems of need, injustice, inequality. But in a way, and inevitably, this is always boiled down to a promise: "Trust us here in Washington, we will prove worthy of your trust." Then the oil spill came and government could not do the job, could not meet need, in fact seemed faraway and incapable: "We pay so much for the government and it can't cap an undersea oil well!"
This is what happened with Katrina, and Katrina did at least two big things politically. The first was draw together everything people didn't like about the Bush administration, everything it didn't like about two wars and high spending and illegal immigration, and brought those strands into a heavy knot that just sat there, soggily, and came to symbolize Bushism. The second was illustrate that even though the federal government in our time has continually taken on new missions and responsibilities, the more it took on, the less it seemed capable of performing even its most essential jobs. Conservatives got this point—they know it without being told—but liberals and progressives did not. They thought Katrina was the result only of George W. Bush's incompetence and conservatives' failure to "believe in government." But Mr. Obama was supposed to be competent.
Remarkable too is the way both BP and the government, 40 days in, continue to act shocked, shocked that an accident like this could have happened. If you're drilling for oil in the deep sea, of course something terrible can happen, so you have a plan on what to do when it does.
How could there not have been a plan? How could it all be so ad hoc, so inadequate, so embarrassing? We're plugging it now with tires, mud and golf balls?
What continues to fascinate me is Mr. Obama's standing with Democrats. They don't love him. Half the party voted for Hillary Clinton, and her people have never fully reconciled themselves to him. But he is what they have. They are invested in him. In time—after the 2010 elections go badly—they are going to start to peel off. The political operative James Carville, the most vocal and influential of the president's Gulf critics, signaled to Democrats this week that they can start to peel off. He did it through the passion of his denunciations.
The disaster in the Gulf may well spell the political end of the president and his administration, and that is no cause for joy. It's not good to have a president in this position—weakened, polarizing and lacking broad public support—less than halfway through his term. That it is his fault is no comfort. It is not good for the stability of the world, or its safety, that the leader of "the indispensble nation" be so weakened. I never until the past 10 years understood the almost moral imperative that an American president maintain a high standing in the eyes of his countrymen.
Mr. Obama himself, when running for president, made much of Bush administration distraction and detachment during Katrina. Now the Republican Party will, understandably, go to town on Mr. Obama's having gone only once to the gulf, and the fund-raiser in San Francisco that seemed to take precedence, and the EPA chief who went to a New York fund-raiser in the middle of the disaster.
But Republicans should beware, and even mute their mischief. We're in the middle of an actual disaster. When they win back the presidency, they'll probably get the big California earthquake. And they'll probably blow it. Because, ironically enough, of a hard core of truth within their own philosophy: when you ask a government far away in Washington to handle everything, it will handle nothing well.
He Was Supposed to be Competent
By PEGGY NOONAN.
I don't see how the president's position and popularity can survive the oil spill. This is his third political disaster in his first 18 months in office. And they were all, as they say, unforced errors, meaning they were shaped by the president's political judgment and instincts.
There was the tearing and unnecessary war over his health-care proposal and its cost. There was his day-to-day indifference to the views and hopes of the majority of voters regarding illegal immigration. And now the past almost 40 days of dodging and dithering in the face of an environmental calamity. I don't see how you politically survive this.
The president, in my view, continues to govern in a way that suggests he is chronically detached from the central and immediate concerns of his countrymen. This is a terrible thing to see in a political figure, and a startling thing in one who won so handily and shrewdly in 2008. But he has not, almost from the day he was inaugurated, been in sync with the center. The heart of the country is thinking each day about A, B and C, and he is thinking about X, Y and Z. They're in one reality, he's in another.
President Obama promised on Thursday to hold BP accountable in the catastrophic Gulf of Mexico oil spill and said his administration would do everything necessary to protect and restore the coast.
.The American people have spent at least two years worrying that high government spending would, in the end, undo the republic. They saw the dollars gushing night and day, and worried that while everything looked the same on the surface, our position was eroding. They have worried about a border that is in some places functionally and of course illegally open, that it too is gushing night and day with problems that states, cities and towns there cannot solve.
And now we have a videotape metaphor for all the public's fears: that clip we see every day, on every news show, of the well gushing black oil into the Gulf of Mexico and toward our shore. You actually don't get deadlier as a metaphor for the moment than that, the monster that lives deep beneath the sea.
In his news conference Thursday, President Obama made his position no better. He attempted to act out passionate engagement through the use of heightened language—"catastrophe," etc.—but repeatedly took refuge in factual minutiae. His staff probably thought this demonstrated his command of even the most obscure facts. Instead it made him seem like someone who won't see the big picture. The unspoken mantra in his head must have been, "I will not be defensive, I will not give them a resentful soundbite." But his strategic problem was that he'd already lost the battle. If the well was plugged tomorrow, the damage will already have been done.
.The original sin in my view is that as soon as the oil rig accident happened the president tried to maintain distance between the gusher and his presidency. He wanted people to associate the disaster with BP and not him. When your most creative thoughts in the middle of a disaster revolve around protecting your position, you are summoning trouble. When you try to dodge ownership of a problem, when you try to hide from responsibility, life will give you ownership and responsibility the hard way. In any case, the strategy was always a little mad. Americans would never think an international petroleum company based in London would worry as much about American shores and wildlife as, say, Americans would. They were never going to blame only BP, or trust it.
I wonder if the president knows what a disaster this is not only for him but for his political assumptions. His philosophy is that it is appropriate for the federal government to occupy a more burly, significant and powerful place in America—confronting its problems of need, injustice, inequality. But in a way, and inevitably, this is always boiled down to a promise: "Trust us here in Washington, we will prove worthy of your trust." Then the oil spill came and government could not do the job, could not meet need, in fact seemed faraway and incapable: "We pay so much for the government and it can't cap an undersea oil well!"
This is what happened with Katrina, and Katrina did at least two big things politically. The first was draw together everything people didn't like about the Bush administration, everything it didn't like about two wars and high spending and illegal immigration, and brought those strands into a heavy knot that just sat there, soggily, and came to symbolize Bushism. The second was illustrate that even though the federal government in our time has continually taken on new missions and responsibilities, the more it took on, the less it seemed capable of performing even its most essential jobs. Conservatives got this point—they know it without being told—but liberals and progressives did not. They thought Katrina was the result only of George W. Bush's incompetence and conservatives' failure to "believe in government." But Mr. Obama was supposed to be competent.
Remarkable too is the way both BP and the government, 40 days in, continue to act shocked, shocked that an accident like this could have happened. If you're drilling for oil in the deep sea, of course something terrible can happen, so you have a plan on what to do when it does.
How could there not have been a plan? How could it all be so ad hoc, so inadequate, so embarrassing? We're plugging it now with tires, mud and golf balls?
What continues to fascinate me is Mr. Obama's standing with Democrats. They don't love him. Half the party voted for Hillary Clinton, and her people have never fully reconciled themselves to him. But he is what they have. They are invested in him. In time—after the 2010 elections go badly—they are going to start to peel off. The political operative James Carville, the most vocal and influential of the president's Gulf critics, signaled to Democrats this week that they can start to peel off. He did it through the passion of his denunciations.
The disaster in the Gulf may well spell the political end of the president and his administration, and that is no cause for joy. It's not good to have a president in this position—weakened, polarizing and lacking broad public support—less than halfway through his term. That it is his fault is no comfort. It is not good for the stability of the world, or its safety, that the leader of "the indispensble nation" be so weakened. I never until the past 10 years understood the almost moral imperative that an American president maintain a high standing in the eyes of his countrymen.
Mr. Obama himself, when running for president, made much of Bush administration distraction and detachment during Katrina. Now the Republican Party will, understandably, go to town on Mr. Obama's having gone only once to the gulf, and the fund-raiser in San Francisco that seemed to take precedence, and the EPA chief who went to a New York fund-raiser in the middle of the disaster.
But Republicans should beware, and even mute their mischief. We're in the middle of an actual disaster. When they win back the presidency, they'll probably get the big California earthquake. And they'll probably blow it. Because, ironically enough, of a hard core of truth within their own philosophy: when you ask a government far away in Washington to handle everything, it will handle nothing well.
McCarthy: Obama hasn't returned call of lawmaker representing district of rig - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
This President Doesn't Give a Damn about Louisiana or America!....Today he will make his second trip to Louisiana...in that SAME TIMEFRAME he has made FOUR trips to California to fund raise for Liberal Barbara Boxer....if that doesn't prove he doesn't care, I don't know what does!....I almost got sick yesterday listening to all the lies he was spewing during his "press conference"....Obama will go down as the Worst President this nation has ever had!
McCarthy: Obama hasn't returned call of lawmaker representing district of rig - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
McCarthy: Obama hasn't returned call of lawmaker representing district of rig - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
These Bills are NOT helping America
Some initial resistance, but we'll have to see what kind of real commitment these Democrats have....don't they realize that the longer you extend unemployment benefits the higher unemployment will go!.....This Congress is so out of touch with reality that it's a crime. AND here's another "emergency" bill that will not be covered by PayGo.
Conservative Dems Balk at Jobless Benefits Package
Published May 27, 2010
| Associated Press
WASHINGTON — Democrats struggled Thursday to extend jobless benefits for people who have been out of work for long stretches as lawmakers worried about the growing budget deficit balked at a scaled down package.
House leaders had scheduled a vote Thursday on a bill that would extend the benefits through November, but they ran into opposition from Republicans and some Democrats concerned about the cost of the overall bill.
"They need to go back to the drawing board," said Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, a member of the conservative Blue Dog coalition.
Coalition members are unhappy with that the bill would add $84 billion to the budget deficit. They met with House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer Thursday morning, but were unmoved.
"We have serious reservations," said Rep. Dennis A. Cardoza, D-Calif. "There are many small sticking points."
Across the Capitol, Senate Democrats had far better success in advancing an almost $60 billion measure to pay for President Barack Obama's troop increase in Afghanistan.
The 69-29 test vote sets the stage for a final vote as early as Thursday evening. About half the money would cover the 30,000 additional U.S. troops in Afghanistan. The bill also includes $5 billion to replenish disaster aid accounts, and there's money for Haitian earthquake relief and aid to U.S. allies in the fight against terror.
If Congress doesn't extend the unemployment benefits, thousands of people would begin to lose jobless benefits when an extension of unemployment insurance expires next week. A 65 percent subsidy for health insurance benefits for the unemployed under the COBRA program also expires.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said the "real emergency" is the growing national debt, which just hit $13 trillion.
"And even some Democrats seem to agree with me," McConnell said Thursday. "That's why we're seeing a quiet revolt over in the House on this bill."
The benefits are part of a sweeping package of unfinished business that lawmakers hope to complete before their Memorial Day recess.
Democratic leaders cut the package of spending and tax cuts Wednesday by about $50 billion — to $143 billion — in an attempt to pick up votes.
It's a tough vote for lawmakers who want to help constituents hit hard by the recession but are wary of being labeled big spenders. The economy is starting to pick up, but unemployment is still high as the nation continues to struggle from the loss of more than 8 million jobs. At the same time, angst over deficit spending is growing as midterm congressional elections near in November.
Time is running short for the House to vote because the bill still has to go to the Senate, which can take days to act. Senate leaders have said they are confident they will have the votes to pass the bill. But some House members are wary of voting for an expensive package, only to have it languish on the other side of the Capitol.
"Unemployment's too high, too many people can't find jobs and obviously we have to act," said Hoyer, D-Md. "But there is still great concern about spending levels."
The expanded jobless benefits provide up to 99 weeks of payments in many states, at a cost of nearly $40 billion. The benefits are part of a bill that includes a one-year extension of about 50 popular tax breaks that expired at the end of last year and a delay in scheduled cuts in Medicare payments to doctors.
Subsidies to help laid-off workers pay for health insurance would continue through November, at a cost of $7 billion. States would get $24 billion to help cover Medicaid costs.
The cost of the bill would be partially offset by tax increases on investment fund managers, oil companies and some international businesses. The tax increases total about $57 billion over the next decade. Changes giving underfunded pensions more time to improve their finances would raise $2 billion.
The original package unveiled last week would have extended unemployment benefits through December and delayed a 21 percent cut in Medicare payments until 2014. The pared-down bill would delay the Medicare cuts until 2012, when lawmakers would have to address the issue again.
Conservative Dems Balk at Jobless Benefits Package
Published May 27, 2010
| Associated Press
WASHINGTON — Democrats struggled Thursday to extend jobless benefits for people who have been out of work for long stretches as lawmakers worried about the growing budget deficit balked at a scaled down package.
House leaders had scheduled a vote Thursday on a bill that would extend the benefits through November, but they ran into opposition from Republicans and some Democrats concerned about the cost of the overall bill.
"They need to go back to the drawing board," said Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, a member of the conservative Blue Dog coalition.
Coalition members are unhappy with that the bill would add $84 billion to the budget deficit. They met with House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer Thursday morning, but were unmoved.
"We have serious reservations," said Rep. Dennis A. Cardoza, D-Calif. "There are many small sticking points."
Across the Capitol, Senate Democrats had far better success in advancing an almost $60 billion measure to pay for President Barack Obama's troop increase in Afghanistan.
The 69-29 test vote sets the stage for a final vote as early as Thursday evening. About half the money would cover the 30,000 additional U.S. troops in Afghanistan. The bill also includes $5 billion to replenish disaster aid accounts, and there's money for Haitian earthquake relief and aid to U.S. allies in the fight against terror.
If Congress doesn't extend the unemployment benefits, thousands of people would begin to lose jobless benefits when an extension of unemployment insurance expires next week. A 65 percent subsidy for health insurance benefits for the unemployed under the COBRA program also expires.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said the "real emergency" is the growing national debt, which just hit $13 trillion.
"And even some Democrats seem to agree with me," McConnell said Thursday. "That's why we're seeing a quiet revolt over in the House on this bill."
The benefits are part of a sweeping package of unfinished business that lawmakers hope to complete before their Memorial Day recess.
Democratic leaders cut the package of spending and tax cuts Wednesday by about $50 billion — to $143 billion — in an attempt to pick up votes.
It's a tough vote for lawmakers who want to help constituents hit hard by the recession but are wary of being labeled big spenders. The economy is starting to pick up, but unemployment is still high as the nation continues to struggle from the loss of more than 8 million jobs. At the same time, angst over deficit spending is growing as midterm congressional elections near in November.
Time is running short for the House to vote because the bill still has to go to the Senate, which can take days to act. Senate leaders have said they are confident they will have the votes to pass the bill. But some House members are wary of voting for an expensive package, only to have it languish on the other side of the Capitol.
"Unemployment's too high, too many people can't find jobs and obviously we have to act," said Hoyer, D-Md. "But there is still great concern about spending levels."
The expanded jobless benefits provide up to 99 weeks of payments in many states, at a cost of nearly $40 billion. The benefits are part of a bill that includes a one-year extension of about 50 popular tax breaks that expired at the end of last year and a delay in scheduled cuts in Medicare payments to doctors.
Subsidies to help laid-off workers pay for health insurance would continue through November, at a cost of $7 billion. States would get $24 billion to help cover Medicaid costs.
The cost of the bill would be partially offset by tax increases on investment fund managers, oil companies and some international businesses. The tax increases total about $57 billion over the next decade. Changes giving underfunded pensions more time to improve their finances would raise $2 billion.
The original package unveiled last week would have extended unemployment benefits through December and delayed a 21 percent cut in Medicare payments until 2014. The pared-down bill would delay the Medicare cuts until 2012, when lawmakers would have to address the issue again.
Why Obama, his Administration, and ALL the Liberal Democrats HAVE TO GO!
This article from the Heritage Foundation is THE reason why we have to vote out Obama, his Administration and ALL the Democrats in the Congress....AND any Republicans that are not truly conservative. This Congress does not even live up to it's own rules...Pelosi has to go!....We have to do everything possible to ensure that even if her liberal San Francisco liberals reelect her she WILL NOT be the Speaker of the House. Soon we will be like Greece IF we don't act starting in November.
This Congress Has No Shame
On February 4, 2010, pushing for passage of her pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) legislation, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said on the House floor: "When I became Speaker of the House, the very first day we passed legislation that made PAYGO the rule of the House. Today we will make it the law of the land. ... So the time is long overdue for this to be taken for granted. The federal government will pay as it goes." That was the promise. But here is the reality: in the three years that Speaker Pelosi has enforced her PAYGO rule, the House has violated it by nearly $1 trillion.
And now with the U.S. Debt Clock officially passing the $13 trillion milestone Wednesday, the House is set to violate their own PAYGO law yet again, this time to the tune of around $150 billion. The legislation clocks-in at almost one-fifth the size of President Barack Obama's original $862 billion failed economic stimulus, and the leftist majority in Congress has titled it "The American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act." And it is a tax-hiking, spending-exploding, job-killing, deficit-hiking wonder.
The Tax Hikes: The entire purpose of this bill was originally to extend some popular and well-established tax cuts that have been around for years but have to be reapproved every year. But being the big government lovers that they are, the left has crafted a bill that actually increases tax revenues by $57 billion over ten years. The biggest items are a job-killing tax on American corporations that compete overseas, a job-killing tax on innovation-creating venture capital partnerships, and a four-fold increase in the tax on oil production that ostensibly is supposed to go to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, but is instead being siphoned off to help pay for completely unrelated new domestic spending.
The Spending: The bill originally clocked-in at almost $200 billion, and Democrats have since cut the spending to just under $150 billion, $95 billion of which will go straight onto our children's credit card bill in flagrant violation of Congress' own PAYGO rules. Goodies include $26 billion for infrastructure, more than $40 billion for yet another unemployment insurance extension, another $24 billion bailout of state Medicaid programs, $8 billion in needlessly expensive health insurance subsidies, and $2.5 billion for states to increase their welfare rolls. Even some Democrats are beginning to question the endless UI extensions, with Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA) telling The Washington Post that businesses back home complain that they want to start hiring but are getting few applicants because Congress has repeatedly extended unemployment benefits.
And then there is what was originally the largest-ticket item in the bill: $65 billion over three and a half years for increasing physician Medicare reimbursements, aka the "doc fix." This one item alone proves that all of President Barack Obama's claims that his health care law reduces the deficit are 100% false. The CBO report this month estimated that $276 billion would be required to shore up the "doc fix" over the next decade. Adding that spending to Obamacare's already $940 billion total would easily push it into the red. That is why Congress did not address the problem in Obamacare. Brandeis University professor Stuart Altman calls the "doc fix" charade "one of the worst pieces of legislation I've ever seen." The House has cut this version of the "doc fix" down to $21.8 billion just through December 2011.
Across the country, millions of American families are struggling to make family budgets and keep to them. Not Congress. For the first time in the history of the budget process, the House of Representatives has failed to plan how they will spend your tax dollars. Instead they will recklessly continue to flagrantly violate their own PAYGO rules as they add billions and billions worth of debt onto your children. This Congress has no shame.
This Congress Has No Shame
On February 4, 2010, pushing for passage of her pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) legislation, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said on the House floor: "When I became Speaker of the House, the very first day we passed legislation that made PAYGO the rule of the House. Today we will make it the law of the land. ... So the time is long overdue for this to be taken for granted. The federal government will pay as it goes." That was the promise. But here is the reality: in the three years that Speaker Pelosi has enforced her PAYGO rule, the House has violated it by nearly $1 trillion.
And now with the U.S. Debt Clock officially passing the $13 trillion milestone Wednesday, the House is set to violate their own PAYGO law yet again, this time to the tune of around $150 billion. The legislation clocks-in at almost one-fifth the size of President Barack Obama's original $862 billion failed economic stimulus, and the leftist majority in Congress has titled it "The American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act." And it is a tax-hiking, spending-exploding, job-killing, deficit-hiking wonder.
The Tax Hikes: The entire purpose of this bill was originally to extend some popular and well-established tax cuts that have been around for years but have to be reapproved every year. But being the big government lovers that they are, the left has crafted a bill that actually increases tax revenues by $57 billion over ten years. The biggest items are a job-killing tax on American corporations that compete overseas, a job-killing tax on innovation-creating venture capital partnerships, and a four-fold increase in the tax on oil production that ostensibly is supposed to go to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, but is instead being siphoned off to help pay for completely unrelated new domestic spending.
The Spending: The bill originally clocked-in at almost $200 billion, and Democrats have since cut the spending to just under $150 billion, $95 billion of which will go straight onto our children's credit card bill in flagrant violation of Congress' own PAYGO rules. Goodies include $26 billion for infrastructure, more than $40 billion for yet another unemployment insurance extension, another $24 billion bailout of state Medicaid programs, $8 billion in needlessly expensive health insurance subsidies, and $2.5 billion for states to increase their welfare rolls. Even some Democrats are beginning to question the endless UI extensions, with Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA) telling The Washington Post that businesses back home complain that they want to start hiring but are getting few applicants because Congress has repeatedly extended unemployment benefits.
And then there is what was originally the largest-ticket item in the bill: $65 billion over three and a half years for increasing physician Medicare reimbursements, aka the "doc fix." This one item alone proves that all of President Barack Obama's claims that his health care law reduces the deficit are 100% false. The CBO report this month estimated that $276 billion would be required to shore up the "doc fix" over the next decade. Adding that spending to Obamacare's already $940 billion total would easily push it into the red. That is why Congress did not address the problem in Obamacare. Brandeis University professor Stuart Altman calls the "doc fix" charade "one of the worst pieces of legislation I've ever seen." The House has cut this version of the "doc fix" down to $21.8 billion just through December 2011.
Across the country, millions of American families are struggling to make family budgets and keep to them. Not Congress. For the first time in the history of the budget process, the House of Representatives has failed to plan how they will spend your tax dollars. Instead they will recklessly continue to flagrantly violate their own PAYGO rules as they add billions and billions worth of debt onto your children. This Congress has no shame.
This Congress Has No Shame
On February 4, 2010, pushing for passage of her pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) legislation, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said on the House floor: "When I became Speaker of the House, the very first day we passed legislation that made PAYGO the rule of the House. Today we will make it the law of the land. ... So the time is long overdue for this to be taken for granted. The federal government will pay as it goes." That was the promise. But here is the reality: in the three years that Speaker Pelosi has enforced her PAYGO rule, the House has violated it by nearly $1 trillion.
And now with the U.S. Debt Clock officially passing the $13 trillion milestone Wednesday, the House is set to violate their own PAYGO law yet again, this time to the tune of around $150 billion. The legislation clocks-in at almost one-fifth the size of President Barack Obama's original $862 billion failed economic stimulus, and the leftist majority in Congress has titled it "The American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act." And it is a tax-hiking, spending-exploding, job-killing, deficit-hiking wonder.
The Tax Hikes: The entire purpose of this bill was originally to extend some popular and well-established tax cuts that have been around for years but have to be reapproved every year. But being the big government lovers that they are, the left has crafted a bill that actually increases tax revenues by $57 billion over ten years. The biggest items are a job-killing tax on American corporations that compete overseas, a job-killing tax on innovation-creating venture capital partnerships, and a four-fold increase in the tax on oil production that ostensibly is supposed to go to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, but is instead being siphoned off to help pay for completely unrelated new domestic spending.
The Spending: The bill originally clocked-in at almost $200 billion, and Democrats have since cut the spending to just under $150 billion, $95 billion of which will go straight onto our children's credit card bill in flagrant violation of Congress' own PAYGO rules. Goodies include $26 billion for infrastructure, more than $40 billion for yet another unemployment insurance extension, another $24 billion bailout of state Medicaid programs, $8 billion in needlessly expensive health insurance subsidies, and $2.5 billion for states to increase their welfare rolls. Even some Democrats are beginning to question the endless UI extensions, with Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA) telling The Washington Post that businesses back home complain that they want to start hiring but are getting few applicants because Congress has repeatedly extended unemployment benefits.
And then there is what was originally the largest-ticket item in the bill: $65 billion over three and a half years for increasing physician Medicare reimbursements, aka the "doc fix." This one item alone proves that all of President Barack Obama's claims that his health care law reduces the deficit are 100% false. The CBO report this month estimated that $276 billion would be required to shore up the "doc fix" over the next decade. Adding that spending to Obamacare's already $940 billion total would easily push it into the red. That is why Congress did not address the problem in Obamacare. Brandeis University professor Stuart Altman calls the "doc fix" charade "one of the worst pieces of legislation I've ever seen." The House has cut this version of the "doc fix" down to $21.8 billion just through December 2011.
Across the country, millions of American families are struggling to make family budgets and keep to them. Not Congress. For the first time in the history of the budget process, the House of Representatives has failed to plan how they will spend your tax dollars. Instead they will recklessly continue to flagrantly violate their own PAYGO rules as they add billions and billions worth of debt onto your children. This Congress has no shame.
This Congress Has No Shame
On February 4, 2010, pushing for passage of her pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) legislation, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said on the House floor: "When I became Speaker of the House, the very first day we passed legislation that made PAYGO the rule of the House. Today we will make it the law of the land. ... So the time is long overdue for this to be taken for granted. The federal government will pay as it goes." That was the promise. But here is the reality: in the three years that Speaker Pelosi has enforced her PAYGO rule, the House has violated it by nearly $1 trillion.
And now with the U.S. Debt Clock officially passing the $13 trillion milestone Wednesday, the House is set to violate their own PAYGO law yet again, this time to the tune of around $150 billion. The legislation clocks-in at almost one-fifth the size of President Barack Obama's original $862 billion failed economic stimulus, and the leftist majority in Congress has titled it "The American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act." And it is a tax-hiking, spending-exploding, job-killing, deficit-hiking wonder.
The Tax Hikes: The entire purpose of this bill was originally to extend some popular and well-established tax cuts that have been around for years but have to be reapproved every year. But being the big government lovers that they are, the left has crafted a bill that actually increases tax revenues by $57 billion over ten years. The biggest items are a job-killing tax on American corporations that compete overseas, a job-killing tax on innovation-creating venture capital partnerships, and a four-fold increase in the tax on oil production that ostensibly is supposed to go to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, but is instead being siphoned off to help pay for completely unrelated new domestic spending.
The Spending: The bill originally clocked-in at almost $200 billion, and Democrats have since cut the spending to just under $150 billion, $95 billion of which will go straight onto our children's credit card bill in flagrant violation of Congress' own PAYGO rules. Goodies include $26 billion for infrastructure, more than $40 billion for yet another unemployment insurance extension, another $24 billion bailout of state Medicaid programs, $8 billion in needlessly expensive health insurance subsidies, and $2.5 billion for states to increase their welfare rolls. Even some Democrats are beginning to question the endless UI extensions, with Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA) telling The Washington Post that businesses back home complain that they want to start hiring but are getting few applicants because Congress has repeatedly extended unemployment benefits.
And then there is what was originally the largest-ticket item in the bill: $65 billion over three and a half years for increasing physician Medicare reimbursements, aka the "doc fix." This one item alone proves that all of President Barack Obama's claims that his health care law reduces the deficit are 100% false. The CBO report this month estimated that $276 billion would be required to shore up the "doc fix" over the next decade. Adding that spending to Obamacare's already $940 billion total would easily push it into the red. That is why Congress did not address the problem in Obamacare. Brandeis University professor Stuart Altman calls the "doc fix" charade "one of the worst pieces of legislation I've ever seen." The House has cut this version of the "doc fix" down to $21.8 billion just through December 2011.
Across the country, millions of American families are struggling to make family budgets and keep to them. Not Congress. For the first time in the history of the budget process, the House of Representatives has failed to plan how they will spend your tax dollars. Instead they will recklessly continue to flagrantly violate their own PAYGO rules as they add billions and billions worth of debt onto your children. This Congress has no shame.
This Congress Has No Shame
On February 4, 2010, pushing for passage of her pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) legislation, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said on the House floor: "When I became Speaker of the House, the very first day we passed legislation that made PAYGO the rule of the House. Today we will make it the law of the land. ... So the time is long overdue for this to be taken for granted. The federal government will pay as it goes." That was the promise. But here is the reality: in the three years that Speaker Pelosi has enforced her PAYGO rule, the House has violated it by nearly $1 trillion.
And now with the U.S. Debt Clock officially passing the $13 trillion milestone Wednesday, the House is set to violate their own PAYGO law yet again, this time to the tune of around $150 billion. The legislation clocks-in at almost one-fifth the size of President Barack Obama's original $862 billion failed economic stimulus, and the leftist majority in Congress has titled it "The American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act." And it is a tax-hiking, spending-exploding, job-killing, deficit-hiking wonder.
The Tax Hikes: The entire purpose of this bill was originally to extend some popular and well-established tax cuts that have been around for years but have to be reapproved every year. But being the big government lovers that they are, the left has crafted a bill that actually increases tax revenues by $57 billion over ten years. The biggest items are a job-killing tax on American corporations that compete overseas, a job-killing tax on innovation-creating venture capital partnerships, and a four-fold increase in the tax on oil production that ostensibly is supposed to go to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, but is instead being siphoned off to help pay for completely unrelated new domestic spending.
The Spending: The bill originally clocked-in at almost $200 billion, and Democrats have since cut the spending to just under $150 billion, $95 billion of which will go straight onto our children's credit card bill in flagrant violation of Congress' own PAYGO rules. Goodies include $26 billion for infrastructure, more than $40 billion for yet another unemployment insurance extension, another $24 billion bailout of state Medicaid programs, $8 billion in needlessly expensive health insurance subsidies, and $2.5 billion for states to increase their welfare rolls. Even some Democrats are beginning to question the endless UI extensions, with Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA) telling The Washington Post that businesses back home complain that they want to start hiring but are getting few applicants because Congress has repeatedly extended unemployment benefits.
And then there is what was originally the largest-ticket item in the bill: $65 billion over three and a half years for increasing physician Medicare reimbursements, aka the "doc fix." This one item alone proves that all of President Barack Obama's claims that his health care law reduces the deficit are 100% false. The CBO report this month estimated that $276 billion would be required to shore up the "doc fix" over the next decade. Adding that spending to Obamacare's already $940 billion total would easily push it into the red. That is why Congress did not address the problem in Obamacare. Brandeis University professor Stuart Altman calls the "doc fix" charade "one of the worst pieces of legislation I've ever seen." The House has cut this version of the "doc fix" down to $21.8 billion just through December 2011.
Across the country, millions of American families are struggling to make family budgets and keep to them. Not Congress. For the first time in the history of the budget process, the House of Representatives has failed to plan how they will spend your tax dollars. Instead they will recklessly continue to flagrantly violate their own PAYGO rules as they add billions and billions worth of debt onto your children. This Congress has no shame.
This Congress Has No Shame
On February 4, 2010, pushing for passage of her pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) legislation, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said on the House floor: "When I became Speaker of the House, the very first day we passed legislation that made PAYGO the rule of the House. Today we will make it the law of the land. ... So the time is long overdue for this to be taken for granted. The federal government will pay as it goes." That was the promise. But here is the reality: in the three years that Speaker Pelosi has enforced her PAYGO rule, the House has violated it by nearly $1 trillion.
And now with the U.S. Debt Clock officially passing the $13 trillion milestone Wednesday, the House is set to violate their own PAYGO law yet again, this time to the tune of around $150 billion. The legislation clocks-in at almost one-fifth the size of President Barack Obama's original $862 billion failed economic stimulus, and the leftist majority in Congress has titled it "The American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act." And it is a tax-hiking, spending-exploding, job-killing, deficit-hiking wonder.
The Tax Hikes: The entire purpose of this bill was originally to extend some popular and well-established tax cuts that have been around for years but have to be reapproved every year. But being the big government lovers that they are, the left has crafted a bill that actually increases tax revenues by $57 billion over ten years. The biggest items are a job-killing tax on American corporations that compete overseas, a job-killing tax on innovation-creating venture capital partnerships, and a four-fold increase in the tax on oil production that ostensibly is supposed to go to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, but is instead being siphoned off to help pay for completely unrelated new domestic spending.
The Spending: The bill originally clocked-in at almost $200 billion, and Democrats have since cut the spending to just under $150 billion, $95 billion of which will go straight onto our children's credit card bill in flagrant violation of Congress' own PAYGO rules. Goodies include $26 billion for infrastructure, more than $40 billion for yet another unemployment insurance extension, another $24 billion bailout of state Medicaid programs, $8 billion in needlessly expensive health insurance subsidies, and $2.5 billion for states to increase their welfare rolls. Even some Democrats are beginning to question the endless UI extensions, with Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA) telling The Washington Post that businesses back home complain that they want to start hiring but are getting few applicants because Congress has repeatedly extended unemployment benefits.
And then there is what was originally the largest-ticket item in the bill: $65 billion over three and a half years for increasing physician Medicare reimbursements, aka the "doc fix." This one item alone proves that all of President Barack Obama's claims that his health care law reduces the deficit are 100% false. The CBO report this month estimated that $276 billion would be required to shore up the "doc fix" over the next decade. Adding that spending to Obamacare's already $940 billion total would easily push it into the red. That is why Congress did not address the problem in Obamacare. Brandeis University professor Stuart Altman calls the "doc fix" charade "one of the worst pieces of legislation I've ever seen." The House has cut this version of the "doc fix" down to $21.8 billion just through December 2011.
Across the country, millions of American families are struggling to make family budgets and keep to them. Not Congress. For the first time in the history of the budget process, the House of Representatives has failed to plan how they will spend your tax dollars. Instead they will recklessly continue to flagrantly violate their own PAYGO rules as they add billions and billions worth of debt onto your children. This Congress has no shame.
This Congress Has No Shame
On February 4, 2010, pushing for passage of her pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) legislation, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said on the House floor: "When I became Speaker of the House, the very first day we passed legislation that made PAYGO the rule of the House. Today we will make it the law of the land. ... So the time is long overdue for this to be taken for granted. The federal government will pay as it goes." That was the promise. But here is the reality: in the three years that Speaker Pelosi has enforced her PAYGO rule, the House has violated it by nearly $1 trillion.
And now with the U.S. Debt Clock officially passing the $13 trillion milestone Wednesday, the House is set to violate their own PAYGO law yet again, this time to the tune of around $150 billion. The legislation clocks-in at almost one-fifth the size of President Barack Obama's original $862 billion failed economic stimulus, and the leftist majority in Congress has titled it "The American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act." And it is a tax-hiking, spending-exploding, job-killing, deficit-hiking wonder.
The Tax Hikes: The entire purpose of this bill was originally to extend some popular and well-established tax cuts that have been around for years but have to be reapproved every year. But being the big government lovers that they are, the left has crafted a bill that actually increases tax revenues by $57 billion over ten years. The biggest items are a job-killing tax on American corporations that compete overseas, a job-killing tax on innovation-creating venture capital partnerships, and a four-fold increase in the tax on oil production that ostensibly is supposed to go to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, but is instead being siphoned off to help pay for completely unrelated new domestic spending.
The Spending: The bill originally clocked-in at almost $200 billion, and Democrats have since cut the spending to just under $150 billion, $95 billion of which will go straight onto our children's credit card bill in flagrant violation of Congress' own PAYGO rules. Goodies include $26 billion for infrastructure, more than $40 billion for yet another unemployment insurance extension, another $24 billion bailout of state Medicaid programs, $8 billion in needlessly expensive health insurance subsidies, and $2.5 billion for states to increase their welfare rolls. Even some Democrats are beginning to question the endless UI extensions, with Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA) telling The Washington Post that businesses back home complain that they want to start hiring but are getting few applicants because Congress has repeatedly extended unemployment benefits.
And then there is what was originally the largest-ticket item in the bill: $65 billion over three and a half years for increasing physician Medicare reimbursements, aka the "doc fix." This one item alone proves that all of President Barack Obama's claims that his health care law reduces the deficit are 100% false. The CBO report this month estimated that $276 billion would be required to shore up the "doc fix" over the next decade. Adding that spending to Obamacare's already $940 billion total would easily push it into the red. That is why Congress did not address the problem in Obamacare. Brandeis University professor Stuart Altman calls the "doc fix" charade "one of the worst pieces of legislation I've ever seen." The House has cut this version of the "doc fix" down to $21.8 billion just through December 2011.
Across the country, millions of American families are struggling to make family budgets and keep to them. Not Congress. For the first time in the history of the budget process, the House of Representatives has failed to plan how they will spend your tax dollars. Instead they will recklessly continue to flagrantly violate their own PAYGO rules as they add billions and billions worth of debt onto your children. This Congress has no shame.
This Congress Has No Shame
On February 4, 2010, pushing for passage of her pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) legislation, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said on the House floor: "When I became Speaker of the House, the very first day we passed legislation that made PAYGO the rule of the House. Today we will make it the law of the land. ... So the time is long overdue for this to be taken for granted. The federal government will pay as it goes." That was the promise. But here is the reality: in the three years that Speaker Pelosi has enforced her PAYGO rule, the House has violated it by nearly $1 trillion.
And now with the U.S. Debt Clock officially passing the $13 trillion milestone Wednesday, the House is set to violate their own PAYGO law yet again, this time to the tune of around $150 billion. The legislation clocks-in at almost one-fifth the size of President Barack Obama's original $862 billion failed economic stimulus, and the leftist majority in Congress has titled it "The American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act." And it is a tax-hiking, spending-exploding, job-killing, deficit-hiking wonder.
The Tax Hikes: The entire purpose of this bill was originally to extend some popular and well-established tax cuts that have been around for years but have to be reapproved every year. But being the big government lovers that they are, the left has crafted a bill that actually increases tax revenues by $57 billion over ten years. The biggest items are a job-killing tax on American corporations that compete overseas, a job-killing tax on innovation-creating venture capital partnerships, and a four-fold increase in the tax on oil production that ostensibly is supposed to go to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, but is instead being siphoned off to help pay for completely unrelated new domestic spending.
The Spending: The bill originally clocked-in at almost $200 billion, and Democrats have since cut the spending to just under $150 billion, $95 billion of which will go straight onto our children's credit card bill in flagrant violation of Congress' own PAYGO rules. Goodies include $26 billion for infrastructure, more than $40 billion for yet another unemployment insurance extension, another $24 billion bailout of state Medicaid programs, $8 billion in needlessly expensive health insurance subsidies, and $2.5 billion for states to increase their welfare rolls. Even some Democrats are beginning to question the endless UI extensions, with Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA) telling The Washington Post that businesses back home complain that they want to start hiring but are getting few applicants because Congress has repeatedly extended unemployment benefits.
And then there is what was originally the largest-ticket item in the bill: $65 billion over three and a half years for increasing physician Medicare reimbursements, aka the "doc fix." This one item alone proves that all of President Barack Obama's claims that his health care law reduces the deficit are 100% false. The CBO report this month estimated that $276 billion would be required to shore up the "doc fix" over the next decade. Adding that spending to Obamacare's already $940 billion total would easily push it into the red. That is why Congress did not address the problem in Obamacare. Brandeis University professor Stuart Altman calls the "doc fix" charade "one of the worst pieces of legislation I've ever seen." The House has cut this version of the "doc fix" down to $21.8 billion just through December 2011.
Across the country, millions of American families are struggling to make family budgets and keep to them. Not Congress. For the first time in the history of the budget process, the House of Representatives has failed to plan how they will spend your tax dollars. Instead they will recklessly continue to flagrantly violate their own PAYGO rules as they add billions and billions worth of debt onto your children. This Congress has no shame.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Remember this in November...The Democrats Do Not Care About Illegal Immigration
Senate
Democrats Strike Down McCain Bid to Send 6,000 National Guard to Border
Published May 27, 2010
| Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- President Obama's Democratic allies in the Senate have repelled a move by presidential rival John McCain to send an additional 6,000 National Guard troops to the U.S-Mexico border.
The Arizona Republican says the security situation along the order has deteriorated so badly that 3,000 guard troops are needed just to help protect his state. But McCain failed to muster the required 60 votes for his plan as the Senate continued debate on an a war funding bill.
Obama on Tuesday promised to send 1,200 Guard troops to the border to support efforts to block drug trafficking and temporarily supplement Border Patrol agents until more agents can be trained.
Former President George W. Bush sent thousands of Guard troops to the border in 2006.
Democrats Strike Down McCain Bid to Send 6,000 National Guard to Border
Published May 27, 2010
| Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- President Obama's Democratic allies in the Senate have repelled a move by presidential rival John McCain to send an additional 6,000 National Guard troops to the U.S-Mexico border.
The Arizona Republican says the security situation along the order has deteriorated so badly that 3,000 guard troops are needed just to help protect his state. But McCain failed to muster the required 60 votes for his plan as the Senate continued debate on an a war funding bill.
Obama on Tuesday promised to send 1,200 Guard troops to the border to support efforts to block drug trafficking and temporarily supplement Border Patrol agents until more agents can be trained.
Former President George W. Bush sent thousands of Guard troops to the border in 2006.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Finally, Democrats blame George W. Bush for Gulf oil spill--Chris Dodd video as the blather spreads
Can you BELIEVE THIS...here's the loser Chris Dodd blaming the oil spill on George Bush...Does he think the American People are stupid?????? Firstly the President has been in office for a year and half...he and his administration was about of award this well and BP a national safety award...and loser Dodd has been the Congress for generations,BUT it's not on their watch???? There is no accountability for anyting from this President and his Administration. This is Laughable!
Make Certain That You See This Video....IT IS UNBELIEVABLE!
Finally, Democrats blame George W. Bush for Gulf oil spill--Chris Dodd video as the blather spreads
Posted using ShareThis
Make Certain That You See This Video....IT IS UNBELIEVABLE!
Finally, Democrats blame George W. Bush for Gulf oil spill--Chris Dodd video as the blather spreads
Posted using ShareThis
This is what can happen IF we elect Conservatives to National Office
Gov. Christie: We're Not Raising Taxes
New Jersey Governor Says He Has Residents Covered Through Fiscal Year 2011 Despite $800 Million Hole
How Did He Do This? Remember The Budget Freeze? Looks Like It Worked Reporting
Marcia Kramer RUTHERFORD, N.J. (CBS) ―
On the surface the news looked pretty grim for Garden State residents on Tuesday – thanks to an unanticipated drop in tax revenues of $402 million this year and $365 million next year.
But a new budget hole of nearly $800 million is not going to give Gov. Christie a single new white hair. At least this time, the governor's message is "gotcha covered."
"We're very confident we've been able to close the additional budget gap in (fiscal year) 2010 and in (fiscal year) 2011 we're going to be able to solve that problem without any new taxes at all and without any real significant cuts," Christie said.
Skipping the "fiscalese," what happened was the budget freeze imposed by Gov. Christie when he took office generated more savings than expected, enough to cover much of the lost tax money.
"I think we're going to be fine," Christie said.
Despite Tuesday's relatively good news negotiating a new budget with the Legislature remains a problem. Christie wants to slash education spending and enact other cuts. They want new taxes, preferably another millionaire's tax.
But Christie isn't going for any new taxes. He said New Jersey taxes have already been raised an unbelievable 115 times.
"We're not raising taxes, Marcia. That's it. It's not happening," Christie said.
How do residents feel?
"I'd rather see a tax on millionaires also. It's about time we stopped paying for everyone else," said Lionel Nazco of Carlstadt.
"Taxing the millionaires sounds great. The only concern I have is the millionaires have the ability to take their money and leave," added Anton Tsamas of Hackensack.
"I don't want to see the service cuts. I want to see the millionaire's tax," said Peter Brehm of Newton.
The governor and Legislature are supposed to reach a budget agreement by the end of next month. If not, they could end up like New York, which is now nearly two months into a budget stalemate.
New Jersey Governor Says He Has Residents Covered Through Fiscal Year 2011 Despite $800 Million Hole
How Did He Do This? Remember The Budget Freeze? Looks Like It Worked Reporting
Marcia Kramer RUTHERFORD, N.J. (CBS) ―
On the surface the news looked pretty grim for Garden State residents on Tuesday – thanks to an unanticipated drop in tax revenues of $402 million this year and $365 million next year.
But a new budget hole of nearly $800 million is not going to give Gov. Christie a single new white hair. At least this time, the governor's message is "gotcha covered."
"We're very confident we've been able to close the additional budget gap in (fiscal year) 2010 and in (fiscal year) 2011 we're going to be able to solve that problem without any new taxes at all and without any real significant cuts," Christie said.
Skipping the "fiscalese," what happened was the budget freeze imposed by Gov. Christie when he took office generated more savings than expected, enough to cover much of the lost tax money.
"I think we're going to be fine," Christie said.
Despite Tuesday's relatively good news negotiating a new budget with the Legislature remains a problem. Christie wants to slash education spending and enact other cuts. They want new taxes, preferably another millionaire's tax.
But Christie isn't going for any new taxes. He said New Jersey taxes have already been raised an unbelievable 115 times.
"We're not raising taxes, Marcia. That's it. It's not happening," Christie said.
How do residents feel?
"I'd rather see a tax on millionaires also. It's about time we stopped paying for everyone else," said Lionel Nazco of Carlstadt.
"Taxing the millionaires sounds great. The only concern I have is the millionaires have the ability to take their money and leave," added Anton Tsamas of Hackensack.
"I don't want to see the service cuts. I want to see the millionaire's tax," said Peter Brehm of Newton.
The governor and Legislature are supposed to reach a budget agreement by the end of next month. If not, they could end up like New York, which is now nearly two months into a budget stalemate.
The TOTAL INCOMPETENCE of Obama and his Administration!
Obama simply does NOT KNOW WHAT HE'S DOING....He's not a leader...he's a community organizer who is more basically a shit stirrer!....What a disaster and this President not only isn't effectively dealing with the problem, but he's deterring action which could/would protect the marshland. Bobby Jindal has been trying to build up barrier islands off the marshland, but the Obama Administration has so far denied their request for permission for over two weeks!!!!! Could that be because Bobby Jindal is a Republican???? I wouldn't put it past this partisan President. The President has been in charge for a year and half now and current regulations were not enforced so what would make us think that more, stricter regulations would get enforced???? This guy is a JOKE! Everything's a reaction...he advocates for Big Government, but when we have crisis that truly fits into the responsiblity of the Federal Government like this one Big Government does NOTHING! I bet you can't wait until this same Federal Government runs your healthcare!!!!
A Crisis of Competence in the Gulf
"Let's be clear: Every day that this oil sits is one more day that more of our marsh dies," Gov. Bobby Jindal (LA) said Monday. "We've been frustrated with the disjointed effort to date that has too often meant too little, too late for the oil hitting our coast," he continued. Specifically, Jindal is frustrated by the failure of the federal government to produce the 8 million feet of oil-blocking booms it asked for back on May 2nd and 3rd. So far Louisiana has only received 815,000 feet of boom, and even then the federal government has failed to place it in the correct locations.
Worse, Obama administration regulators continue to deny Louisiana officials permission to build up barrier islands between the coast's marshes and the gulf. Federal regulators have so far refused to permit the state to act, fearing the unintended long-term damage to local wildlife. So instead of action, the oil continues to float on shore threatening the livelihoods of millions of Louisianans.
Meanwhile the Environmental Protection Agency again demonstrated its uselessness when it informed BP it had 24 hours to find a less toxic alternative to the chemical it had been using to break up the oil. BP informed the EPA that no alternatives were available in sufficient quantity to deal with the spill, and when the EPA's deadline came and went with no change in BP's practices, the EPA meekly said they would study the issue, which was an acknowledgment that it has no answer either.
The federal government's failure to know how to handle the Deepwater Horizon oil spill does not end with the EPA. It goes all the way to the top. Frustrated by his government's inability to master the problem, President Barack Obama reportedly cut aides short recently, ordering them to "plug the damn hole." As if no one had thought of that already. But instead of focusing on the problem at hand, President Obama moved to appoint an unaccountable commission to study the problem substituting process for action at a time when leadership was needed. The commission shifts the responsibility from the persons we elect to oversee these issues to unelected bureaucrats.
The Pew Research Center has released a poll showing a majority of Americans give President Obama and his administration bad marks for its handling of a massive oil spill. To combat this rising discontent, the Obama administration flew Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen up to Washington to provide some clear answers as to who was in charge of the operation. Just this past Sunday, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar had said of BP: "If we find that they're not doing what they're supposed to be doing, we'll push them out of the way appropriately." But when asked about Salazar's comments Monday, Allen responded: "Well, I would -- I would -- I would say that that's more of a metaphor. ... You need equipment and expertise that's not generally within the government -- federal government, in terms of competency, capability or capacity. There may be some other way to get it, but I'm a national incident commander. And right now, the relationship with BP is the way I think we should move forward."
BP, rather than taxpayers, should be held responsible for the costs of the clean-up and liability, and under current federal law that is the case. BP is currently responsible for every penny it costs to clean the mess up. Furthermore, they are responsible for up to $75 million in liability costs (i.e. the secondary costs incurred by businesses and communities) directly, and up to $1 billion additionally comes from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. And the $75 million cap is waived if the responsible party is found to be grossly negligent. Calls to increase these caps retroactively are not needed and are more political expediency then either stopping the leak or mitigating its consequences. Equally frustrating are calls to raise the gas tax, and transfer the costs of this spill onto American consumers.
And that right there, in a nutshell, is the problem not only with the Obama administration's handling of this crisis, but with the entire regulatory state. The Obama administration is set to announce new and stricter regulations on the oil industry tomorrow. But as the NEPA waivers and MMS failures of this accident show, the existing regulatory framework is already not being enforced. So how will new regulations piled on top of the old ones fix the problem? When government micromanages how private enterprises are run, those entities are not incentivized to prepare for the worst outcomes. Now no one has developed a plan or the expertise to deal with this spill.
The Obama administration's leftist narrative is that after eight years of deregulation under the Bush administration, American businesses are dangerously under regulated. But this simply is not true. By every objective measure, regulation increased - not decreased - during the Bush years. Instead of adding on new regulations, the old ones should be reformed to restore incentives through profit and loss. Instead of retroactively raising the cap on BP's economic liability, thus undermining the rule of law, Congress should look to raising or eliminating the cap in the future. But most importantly, President Obama needs to accept the responsibility that the federal government is the ultimate owner of the land BP is drilling on, and as the primary responsible party he must show more leadership in solving this crisis.
A Crisis of Competence in the Gulf
"Let's be clear: Every day that this oil sits is one more day that more of our marsh dies," Gov. Bobby Jindal (LA) said Monday. "We've been frustrated with the disjointed effort to date that has too often meant too little, too late for the oil hitting our coast," he continued. Specifically, Jindal is frustrated by the failure of the federal government to produce the 8 million feet of oil-blocking booms it asked for back on May 2nd and 3rd. So far Louisiana has only received 815,000 feet of boom, and even then the federal government has failed to place it in the correct locations.
Worse, Obama administration regulators continue to deny Louisiana officials permission to build up barrier islands between the coast's marshes and the gulf. Federal regulators have so far refused to permit the state to act, fearing the unintended long-term damage to local wildlife. So instead of action, the oil continues to float on shore threatening the livelihoods of millions of Louisianans.
Meanwhile the Environmental Protection Agency again demonstrated its uselessness when it informed BP it had 24 hours to find a less toxic alternative to the chemical it had been using to break up the oil. BP informed the EPA that no alternatives were available in sufficient quantity to deal with the spill, and when the EPA's deadline came and went with no change in BP's practices, the EPA meekly said they would study the issue, which was an acknowledgment that it has no answer either.
The federal government's failure to know how to handle the Deepwater Horizon oil spill does not end with the EPA. It goes all the way to the top. Frustrated by his government's inability to master the problem, President Barack Obama reportedly cut aides short recently, ordering them to "plug the damn hole." As if no one had thought of that already. But instead of focusing on the problem at hand, President Obama moved to appoint an unaccountable commission to study the problem substituting process for action at a time when leadership was needed. The commission shifts the responsibility from the persons we elect to oversee these issues to unelected bureaucrats.
The Pew Research Center has released a poll showing a majority of Americans give President Obama and his administration bad marks for its handling of a massive oil spill. To combat this rising discontent, the Obama administration flew Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen up to Washington to provide some clear answers as to who was in charge of the operation. Just this past Sunday, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar had said of BP: "If we find that they're not doing what they're supposed to be doing, we'll push them out of the way appropriately." But when asked about Salazar's comments Monday, Allen responded: "Well, I would -- I would -- I would say that that's more of a metaphor. ... You need equipment and expertise that's not generally within the government -- federal government, in terms of competency, capability or capacity. There may be some other way to get it, but I'm a national incident commander. And right now, the relationship with BP is the way I think we should move forward."
BP, rather than taxpayers, should be held responsible for the costs of the clean-up and liability, and under current federal law that is the case. BP is currently responsible for every penny it costs to clean the mess up. Furthermore, they are responsible for up to $75 million in liability costs (i.e. the secondary costs incurred by businesses and communities) directly, and up to $1 billion additionally comes from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. And the $75 million cap is waived if the responsible party is found to be grossly negligent. Calls to increase these caps retroactively are not needed and are more political expediency then either stopping the leak or mitigating its consequences. Equally frustrating are calls to raise the gas tax, and transfer the costs of this spill onto American consumers.
And that right there, in a nutshell, is the problem not only with the Obama administration's handling of this crisis, but with the entire regulatory state. The Obama administration is set to announce new and stricter regulations on the oil industry tomorrow. But as the NEPA waivers and MMS failures of this accident show, the existing regulatory framework is already not being enforced. So how will new regulations piled on top of the old ones fix the problem? When government micromanages how private enterprises are run, those entities are not incentivized to prepare for the worst outcomes. Now no one has developed a plan or the expertise to deal with this spill.
The Obama administration's leftist narrative is that after eight years of deregulation under the Bush administration, American businesses are dangerously under regulated. But this simply is not true. By every objective measure, regulation increased - not decreased - during the Bush years. Instead of adding on new regulations, the old ones should be reformed to restore incentives through profit and loss. Instead of retroactively raising the cap on BP's economic liability, thus undermining the rule of law, Congress should look to raising or eliminating the cap in the future. But most importantly, President Obama needs to accept the responsibility that the federal government is the ultimate owner of the land BP is drilling on, and as the primary responsible party he must show more leadership in solving this crisis.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Mass. health care disaster foreshadows ObamaCare’s fate | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
This is what Obama knows and wants...he knows that his Obamacare will lead to a single payer system in American after it drives all the healthcare providers out of business and then we will all be under the total control of the Federal Government for healthcare. Can they run the system better than private business...NO WAY!...the service will take a huge dive...doctors will leave their practices...rationing will become the norm and all the shortfall in expense will be shoulder by the less than 50% of the population that actually pays Federal Taxes!....Sounds GREAT doesn't it....WE HAVE TO REPEAL THIS TERRIBLE LAW AND ENTITLEMENT! Western European nations are trying to take their healthcare systems BACK TO PRIVATE STATUS because they know they cannot afford to continue.
This President...This Administration....These Liberal, Progessive and Socialist Democrats all have to go!
Opinion: Mass. health care disaster foreshadows ObamaCare’s fate | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
This President...This Administration....These Liberal, Progessive and Socialist Democrats all have to go!
Opinion: Mass. health care disaster foreshadows ObamaCare’s fate | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
Justice Department declines to appoint independent counsel for Sestak case | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
This is another example of this highly transparent Administration....NOT!....they are not even willing to completely investigate a charge of inpropriety from one of their own Democrats...They must be hiding something!
Justice Department declines to appoint independent counsel for Sestak case | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
Justice Department declines to appoint independent counsel for Sestak case | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll...Obama's Lowest Rating EVER
Good that Obama's approval rating is so low, BUT we can't forget that the Democratic Congress is as bad IF NOT WORSE!....
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Posted using ShareThis
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Posted using ShareThis
Obama's Redistribution of Wealth Program is Unfortuately Working...BUT the Outcome will Be TRAGIC!
Who didn't believe Obama was all for redistribution of wealth?...Well he is and it is unfortunatly happening. A Recent Report from the IRS says that almost 52% of Americans paid NO FEDERAL INCOME TAXES!....of the Americans that filed...IF you add those that didn't file the number gets even higher. If there are more Americans in the cart than pulling the cart it isn't sustainable. WE NEED TO CHANGE THIS ADMINISTRATION OUT STARTING IN NOVEMBER IF WE ARE AVOID FINANCIAL DISASTER IN AMERICA.
Paychecks from private business shrank to their smallest share of personal income in U.S. history during the first quarter of this year, a USA TODAY analysis of government data finds.
At the same time, government-provided benefits — from Social Security, unemployment insurance, food stamps and other programs — rose to a record high during the first three months of 2010.
Those records reflect a long-term trend accelerated by the recession and the federal stimulus program to counteract the downturn. The result is a major shift in the source of personal income from private wages to government programs.
The trend is not sustainable, says University of Michigan economist Donald Grimes. Reason: The federal government depends on private wages to generate income taxes to pay for its ever-more-expensive programs. Government-generated income is taxed at lower rates or not at all, he says. "This is really important," Grimes says.
The recession has erased 8 million private jobs. Even before the downturn, private wages were eroding because of the substitution of health and pension benefits for taxable salaries.
The Bureau of Economic Analysis reports that individuals received income from all sources — wages, investments, food stamps, etc. — at a $12.2 trillion annual rate in the first quarter.
Key shifts in income this year:
• Private wages. A record-low 41.9% of the nation's personal income came from private wages and salaries in the first quarter, down from 44.6% when the recession began in December 2007.
•Government benefits. Individuals got 17.9% of their income from government programs in the first quarter, up from 14.2% when the recession started. Programs for the elderly, the poor and the unemployed all grew in cost and importance. An additional 9.8% of personal income was paid as wages to government employees.
The shift in income shows that the federal government's stimulus efforts have been effective, says Paul Van de Water, an economist at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
"It's the system working as it should," Van de Water says. Government is stimulating growth and helping people in need, he says. As the economy recovers, private wages will rebound, he says.
Economist Veronique de Rugy of the free-market Mercatus Center at George Mason University says the riots in Greece over cutting benefits to close a huge budget deficit are a warning about unsustainable income programs.
Economist David Henderson of the conservative Hoover Institution says a shift from private wages to government benefits saps the economy of dynamism. "People are paid for being rather than for producing," he says.
Paychecks from private business shrank to their smallest share of personal income in U.S. history during the first quarter of this year, a USA TODAY analysis of government data finds.
At the same time, government-provided benefits — from Social Security, unemployment insurance, food stamps and other programs — rose to a record high during the first three months of 2010.
Those records reflect a long-term trend accelerated by the recession and the federal stimulus program to counteract the downturn. The result is a major shift in the source of personal income from private wages to government programs.
The trend is not sustainable, says University of Michigan economist Donald Grimes. Reason: The federal government depends on private wages to generate income taxes to pay for its ever-more-expensive programs. Government-generated income is taxed at lower rates or not at all, he says. "This is really important," Grimes says.
The recession has erased 8 million private jobs. Even before the downturn, private wages were eroding because of the substitution of health and pension benefits for taxable salaries.
The Bureau of Economic Analysis reports that individuals received income from all sources — wages, investments, food stamps, etc. — at a $12.2 trillion annual rate in the first quarter.
Key shifts in income this year:
• Private wages. A record-low 41.9% of the nation's personal income came from private wages and salaries in the first quarter, down from 44.6% when the recession began in December 2007.
•Government benefits. Individuals got 17.9% of their income from government programs in the first quarter, up from 14.2% when the recession started. Programs for the elderly, the poor and the unemployed all grew in cost and importance. An additional 9.8% of personal income was paid as wages to government employees.
The shift in income shows that the federal government's stimulus efforts have been effective, says Paul Van de Water, an economist at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
"It's the system working as it should," Van de Water says. Government is stimulating growth and helping people in need, he says. As the economy recovers, private wages will rebound, he says.
Economist Veronique de Rugy of the free-market Mercatus Center at George Mason University says the riots in Greece over cutting benefits to close a huge budget deficit are a warning about unsustainable income programs.
Economist David Henderson of the conservative Hoover Institution says a shift from private wages to government benefits saps the economy of dynamism. "People are paid for being rather than for producing," he says.
Obama Urges Congress to Pass Aid Package to Small Businesses
Isn't this what the $787 Billion Stimulus was to have addressed????? There are still funds left there unspent so why don't we reappropriate them towards small business rather than continuing to invest them to make Govenment Bigger! All this President knows how to do is spend, spend, spend....we will be Greece in a few years.
FOXNews.com - Obama Urges Congress to Pass Aid Package to Small Businesses
Posted using ShareThis
FOXNews.com - Obama Urges Congress to Pass Aid Package to Small Businesses
Posted using ShareThis
Obama will Go Down as the Worst President in American History!
A good narative of just some of the problems of this President and Administration.
Slouching Towards Irrelevance
Earlier this month while in Brussels, Vice President Joe Biden told the European Parliament that while "some American politicians and American journalists refer to Washington, DC as the 'capital of the free world' ... it seems to me that this great city, which boasts 1,000 years of history and which serves as the capital of Belgium, the home of the European Union, and the headquarters for NATO, this city has its own legitimate claim to that title." How revealing.
The European Union is a profoundly anti-democratic institution, created and forced on member states by internationalist leftist elites despite widespread public disapproval. It should be no surprise that the same administration that can't bring itself to enforce our laws and protect our borders would give such strong support to an institution that has so undermined national sovereignty in Europe. And given that the EU's unelected and unaccountable bureaucracy employs more people than the entire British Army it is no wonder that NATO member nations have been unwilling/unable to pull their weight in the Long War.
One might hope that the Obama administration would look at the path Europe has gone down (a bloated welfare state that saps economic growth and bleeds military spending) and decide to change course. But President Barack Obama's speech at West Point on Sunday quashed any such hopes. Speaking to graduating Cadets, President Obama laid out the increasingly identifiable pillars of the Obama Doctrine: greater reliance on international institutions; substituting soft power for hard power; and a more subdued and less self-reliant America – a scheme designed more to manage American decline than to ensure its people remain safe, free and prosperous.
Last Friday Charles Krauthammer gave us a whirlwind tour of what the Obama Doctrinehas looked like in action: failed engagement with Iran, surrender to Russia on missile defense, appeasement of Syria, support for pro-Chavez leftists in Honduras, and a gratuitous slap at Britain over the Falkland Islands. And what has it secured? A completely fake deal between Turkey, Brazil and Iran that will do nothing to slow Iran's nuclear weapons program but has already made new meaningful sanctions next to impossible.
Instead of cutting domestic spending and reining in entitlements, President Obama passed a $862 billion failed stimulus and created a brand new health care entitlement all while laying the ground work for future cuts to our nation's defenses. As Krauthammer wrote Friday: "This is retreat by design and, indeed, on principle."
Perhaps, the worst thing about the speech was that the President made it in front of the men and women who will have to live with the immediate consequences of his actions. The Obama Doctrine will put them in harm’s way without the modern equipment they will need; with allies who will increasingly doubt our resolve; and at the mercy of an international order that will value their lives for less than the power which the White House wants to put in their hands.
Slouching Towards Irrelevance
Earlier this month while in Brussels, Vice President Joe Biden told the European Parliament that while "some American politicians and American journalists refer to Washington, DC as the 'capital of the free world' ... it seems to me that this great city, which boasts 1,000 years of history and which serves as the capital of Belgium, the home of the European Union, and the headquarters for NATO, this city has its own legitimate claim to that title." How revealing.
The European Union is a profoundly anti-democratic institution, created and forced on member states by internationalist leftist elites despite widespread public disapproval. It should be no surprise that the same administration that can't bring itself to enforce our laws and protect our borders would give such strong support to an institution that has so undermined national sovereignty in Europe. And given that the EU's unelected and unaccountable bureaucracy employs more people than the entire British Army it is no wonder that NATO member nations have been unwilling/unable to pull their weight in the Long War.
One might hope that the Obama administration would look at the path Europe has gone down (a bloated welfare state that saps economic growth and bleeds military spending) and decide to change course. But President Barack Obama's speech at West Point on Sunday quashed any such hopes. Speaking to graduating Cadets, President Obama laid out the increasingly identifiable pillars of the Obama Doctrine: greater reliance on international institutions; substituting soft power for hard power; and a more subdued and less self-reliant America – a scheme designed more to manage American decline than to ensure its people remain safe, free and prosperous.
Last Friday Charles Krauthammer gave us a whirlwind tour of what the Obama Doctrinehas looked like in action: failed engagement with Iran, surrender to Russia on missile defense, appeasement of Syria, support for pro-Chavez leftists in Honduras, and a gratuitous slap at Britain over the Falkland Islands. And what has it secured? A completely fake deal between Turkey, Brazil and Iran that will do nothing to slow Iran's nuclear weapons program but has already made new meaningful sanctions next to impossible.
Instead of cutting domestic spending and reining in entitlements, President Obama passed a $862 billion failed stimulus and created a brand new health care entitlement all while laying the ground work for future cuts to our nation's defenses. As Krauthammer wrote Friday: "This is retreat by design and, indeed, on principle."
Perhaps, the worst thing about the speech was that the President made it in front of the men and women who will have to live with the immediate consequences of his actions. The Obama Doctrine will put them in harm’s way without the modern equipment they will need; with allies who will increasingly doubt our resolve; and at the mercy of an international order that will value their lives for less than the power which the White House wants to put in their hands.
Breitbart.tv » ‘Witch Hunt’: O’Reilly Takes on Rep. Weiner Over Goldline Controversy
This is the kind of witch hunt that the Obama Administration and Democrats are all about....I agree with O'Reilly that this is a selective witchhunt by the liberal Democrat that doesn't like Fox OR Glenn Beck....when I hear Glenn Beck pitch this company he says it's not right for everyone, but it's worth checking out. IF Weiner was SO concerned about consumers he wouldn't be agreeing to spend us into huge national debt so that down the road every type of investment (real estate, stocks, bonds etc) will be worthless because we'll be in the same shape that Greece is in now.
We need to vote these BUMS OUT OF OFFICE!
Breitbart.tv » ‘Witch Hunt’: O’Reilly Takes on Rep. Weiner Over Goldline Controversy
We need to vote these BUMS OUT OF OFFICE!
Breitbart.tv » ‘Witch Hunt’: O’Reilly Takes on Rep. Weiner Over Goldline Controversy
Congress Gets Ready to Quadruple Tax on Oil
Here comes the additional taxes on the American People....Want to pay $4.00 a Gallon for gasoline....we'll the Democrats and Obama are going to do everything in their power to make that happen starting with this additional tax on oil...Do they really think this will NOT be passed onto the consumer???? This is yet another overreaction by an inexperienced President and a liberal Congress...We need to Republicans to stand up strong against this!
FOXNews.com - Congress Gets Ready to Quadruple Tax on Oil
Posted using ShareThis
FOXNews.com - Congress Gets Ready to Quadruple Tax on Oil
Posted using ShareThis
Interesting Article from the Birthers....Read with Caution
I am not necessarily a Birther, and there is no way for me to verify this story, but it intrigues me that there is so much interest into Obama's citizenship...that leads me to believe that there is SOME QUESTION about it AND the fact that Hawaii is unwilling to produce the birth certificate! The one thing I am certain of is that Obama is not good for this nation and he and Democratic Crew needs to GO!...and all that starts in November...
Read this and realize that it may or may not be accurate.
VERY QUIETLY OBAMA'S CITIZENSHIP CASE REACHES THE SUPREME COURT
AP - WASHINGTON D.C. -
In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama's qualifications for the presidency, the group "Americans for Freedom of
Information" has Released copies of President Obama's college transcripts from Occidental College . Released today,
the transcript school indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from
Indonesia as an undergraduate. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit
brought by the group in the Superior Court of California . The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student
must claim foreign citizenship. This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama's detractors have been
seeking. Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is
looking pretty grim. The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama's legitimacy
and qualification to serve as President article titled, "Obama Eligibility Questioned," leading some to speculate that the story may
overshadow economic issues on Obama's first official visit to the U.K. In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama's legal
eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey . This lawsuit claims Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. Donofrio's case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama's citizenship or qualification to serve as president.
Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama's campaign spending. This
study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal
resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U..S. Attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter...
LET OTHER FOLKS KNOW THIS NEWS, THE MEDIA WON'T !
Subject: RE: Issue of Passport?
While I've little interest in getting in the middle of the Obama birth issue, Paul Hollrah over at FSM did so yesterday and believes the issue can be resolved by Obama answering one simple question: What passport did he use when he was shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi ?
So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up
with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later? And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi , what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration? The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers. It makes the debate over Obama's citizenship a rather short and simple one.
Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
A : Yes, by his own admission.
Q: What passport did he travel under?
A: There are only three possibilities.
1) He traveled with a U.S. Passport,
2) He traveled with a British passport, or
3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport.
Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department's "no travel" list in 1981.
Conclusion:
When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport. If he
were traveling with a British passport that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims.
And if he were traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967. Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people
need to know how he managed to become a "natural born" American citizen between 1981 and 2008..
Given the destructive nature of his plans for America , as illustrated by his speech before Congress and the disastrous spending
plan he has presented to Congress, the sooner we learn the truth of all this, the better.
If you Don't care that Your President is not a natural born Citizen and in Violation of the Constitution, then Delete this, and then lower your American Flag to half-staff, because the U.S. Constitution is already on life-support, and won't survive much longer.
If you do care then Forward this to as many patriotic Americans as
you can, because our country is being looted and ransacked!
Read this and realize that it may or may not be accurate.
VERY QUIETLY OBAMA'S CITIZENSHIP CASE REACHES THE SUPREME COURT
AP - WASHINGTON D.C. -
In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama's qualifications for the presidency, the group "Americans for Freedom of
Information" has Released copies of President Obama's college transcripts from Occidental College . Released today,
the transcript school indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from
Indonesia as an undergraduate. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit
brought by the group in the Superior Court of California . The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student
must claim foreign citizenship. This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama's detractors have been
seeking. Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is
looking pretty grim. The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama's legitimacy
and qualification to serve as President article titled, "Obama Eligibility Questioned," leading some to speculate that the story may
overshadow economic issues on Obama's first official visit to the U.K. In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama's legal
eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey . This lawsuit claims Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. Donofrio's case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama's citizenship or qualification to serve as president.
Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama's campaign spending. This
study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal
resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U..S. Attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter...
LET OTHER FOLKS KNOW THIS NEWS, THE MEDIA WON'T !
Subject: RE: Issue of Passport?
While I've little interest in getting in the middle of the Obama birth issue, Paul Hollrah over at FSM did so yesterday and believes the issue can be resolved by Obama answering one simple question: What passport did he use when he was shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi ?
So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up
with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later? And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi , what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration? The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers. It makes the debate over Obama's citizenship a rather short and simple one.
Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
A : Yes, by his own admission.
Q: What passport did he travel under?
A: There are only three possibilities.
1) He traveled with a U.S. Passport,
2) He traveled with a British passport, or
3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport.
Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department's "no travel" list in 1981.
Conclusion:
When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport. If he
were traveling with a British passport that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims.
And if he were traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967. Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people
need to know how he managed to become a "natural born" American citizen between 1981 and 2008..
Given the destructive nature of his plans for America , as illustrated by his speech before Congress and the disastrous spending
plan he has presented to Congress, the sooner we learn the truth of all this, the better.
If you Don't care that Your President is not a natural born Citizen and in Violation of the Constitution, then Delete this, and then lower your American Flag to half-staff, because the U.S. Constitution is already on life-support, and won't survive much longer.
If you do care then Forward this to as many patriotic Americans as
you can, because our country is being looted and ransacked!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)