Tag: bush

Political

3 Years and 8 Months: Still George Bush’s Fault!!
Blame George Bush
Another original Obama supporter’s idea: Blame George Bush …

walthe310 says:

George W. Bush did what you accuse the Obamas of doing and he did it first.

So …. what is your point? Is it that two wrongs make a right?  Sorry Dude.  That just does not wash!

George W. Bush was not a conservative Republican.  He would probably be considered a moderate, or maybe even a liberal, Republican.  Did he spend too much money?  Absolutely he did!  That is not an excuse for Obama’s tripling down on the same bad fiscal policies!  Especially after attacking Bush for excessive spending … even calling it unpatriotic (Obama’s words; not mine)!

And, by the way, the Tea Party is fighting for  “Fiscal Responsibility”  for the whole government!  That includes all Americans: African-Americans,  White-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Italian-Americans, German-Americans, Indian-Americans, Iraqi-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Greek-Americans, American-Americans, Martian invader-Americans, Swedish Swimsuit Model-Americans, Conservative-Americans, and yes, even Liberal-Americans … which, according to Pelosi, Obama, Reid, and Debbie Wasserman-SHULTZ, etc;  makes the Tea Party racist!  Can you follow the logic in that?

Did George Bush use Executive Orders a bit too often.  He did!  Again, that does not excuse Obama’s tripling down on the same … or Obama’s creating a shadow government of radical Czars (his mostly communist cronies who answer to nobody), or Obama’s repeatedly by-passing the Congress to inflict increased regulation or bad economic policy by imperial fiat, or sneaking through legislation that the majority of people of this country had already rejected on principle.  Again … after attacking Bush … and calling Bush’s presidency imperialistic!  Bush’s imperialism pales on comparison to Obama’s!

So by your logic, we should excuse James Eagan Holmes who killed 12 and wounded 58 in Aurora, Co; because Jame Edward Plough killed 11 and wounded 6 in Jacksonville, Fl.

And finally, a major difference … George W. Bush did not actively seek to ignore or even destroy the U.S. Constitution, or to eliminate American’s individual rights by putting American citizens under the control of the United Nations, or to create an unsustainable socialist nanny-state by promising “free Bush money” to anyone foolish enough to drink the cool aid and vote for him.  Obama has done all those things and more.

So I ask you, when our country goes bankrupt … and you don’t actually get the “free Obama money” you have been promised by Our Anointed Emporer, Barack Hussein Obama; because he simply hasn’t got it … are you going to riot in the streets, smash windows, and burn small businesses and private property … like the entitlement-zombies did in Greece?  Are you still going to chant the same tired old mantra “Blame George Bush” because Obama did not keep his foolish and irresponsible promises to you?

You know …  I bet you will!

Related articles
Political

OBAMA REALITY CHECK … Is Obama A Tin-Horn Dictator?

Do you remember these Obama campaign promises:

“My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government” — Barack Obama, January 28, 2009

Promising “a new era of openness in our country,” President Obama [said]: “Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency” — CNN, January 21, 2009

“A democracy requires accountability, and accountability requires transparency. As Justice Louis Brandeis wrote, ‘sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.’ In our democracy, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which encourages accountability through transparency, is the most prominent expression of a profound national commitment to ensuring an open Government. At the heart of that commitment is the idea that accountability is in the interest of the Government and the citizenry alike. . . .

All agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, in order to renew their commitment to the principles embodied in FOIA, and to usher in a new era of open Government” — Barack Obama, January 21, 2009

How does Obama square his “new era of open government” with left-wing liberal’s  refusal to investigate Acorn’s rampant corruption, intimidation techniques and voter fraud ? 

Why would the Congress use the cover of Michael Jackson’s spectacle of a funeral to slip through Cap & Trade is “open government” is now they name of the game? 

Why is Obama so very anxious to pass a healthcare bill he hasn’t even read? 

 Obama was asked in a press conference about Section 102 of the Health Care Reform Bill and he could not answer  … stating he was unfamiliar with that section.   That is simply amazing to me since Obama has promised us that if we have andwant to keep our private insurance  we can … and Section 102 deals precisely with that issue.   

While Section 102 does not “outlaw” private health insurance as some have claimed, it does regulate it out of existance:

Secton 102.a does allow individual plans to be grandfathered in so long as they do not ever change their benefits, cost shares, terms & conditions (except as required by law), or enroll any new people except dependants after the date this plan goes into effect. But how realistic is that? How long can the plan remain competitve without enrolling new members or changing something? This means that they can’t reduce the cost shares the enrollee has to pay without it being “required by law” or they lose their grandfathered status, right? They can’t increase their benefits without it being “required by law” to better serve their enrollees without losing their grandfathered status. Yes, this will prevent them from reducing benefits and cost shares, but it also prevents the reverse.

Section 102.c states that any individual plan that is not grandfathered (meaning static and not allowed to change to reflect new technologies and procedures that are not “required by law”) “may only be offered as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan.”

And what about all these Czars?  How do they fit into Obama’s  “open and transparent government?”  By most counts, Obama currently has nearly three dozen czars in his administration, managing everything from closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility to ending the genocide in Darfur.  It is interesting to me that both Republicans and Democrats seem to have a problem with this Czarist system:

“The accumulation of power by White House staff can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances,” Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W. Va., wrote in a letter to Obama.

Rep. Jack Kington, R-Ga., promised legislation to address what he’s call a “parallel government” that he says diminishes the Senate advice and consent role.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, expressed concern that the president may be breaking his promise of transparency stating that by “creating these czars that are insulated from accountability, whose work is not transparent, he’s moving in exactly the opposite direction.”

How about this little tidbit?  According to the watchdog organization overseeing the federal government’s financial bailout program, the full tab for bailouts and stimulus since 2007 amounts to a whopping $23.7 trillion dollars.  Thats about $80,000 for every American citizen.

According to the Associated Press, that $23.7 trillion figure is comprised of  “about 50 initiatives and programs set up by both the Bush and Obama administrations as well as by the Federal Reserve.”

In testimony delivered to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Neil Barofsky, the inspector general for the TARP, will tell Congress that “the Treasury Department has repeatedly failed to adopt recommendations aimed at making the TARP program more accountable and transparent.”  According to Barofsky, taxpayers are in the dark as to who has received the money and what they are doing with it.

Oh yeah … I remember now … they are buying pork!   It seems that the Department of Agriculture has awarded a contract worth $1,191,200 for 2 lbs of “Frozen Ham, Sliced”.

So … I wonder  … where is all this “sunshine” and transparent government you promised your voters Mr. Obama?  Or … was it all exactly what I believed it to be …  a big, fat charismatic lie?

Hey… does it bother anyone else that Obama now controls OnStar?

Oh wait …. I know …   it is all Bush’s fault we now have a left-wing shadow government and at its head … a tin-horn dictator.

Political

Project For The New American Century

I guess, If we are going to discuss the PNAC, we should start with an examination of the mission statement of the PNAC. There are several signatures at the bottom of this statement … including, interestingly enough, Francis Fukuyama.

This was, of course, before his ant-Bush “Road to Damascus” experience and his book, America at the Crossroads.

It is important to point out, though, that Francis Fukuyama still claims to hold to his neocon beliefs … he just feels that they have been abandoned, or lost, by the Bush administration.

Here is the mission statement from the PNAC website:

Statement of Principles

June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America’s role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world’s preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital — both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements — built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation’s ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration’s success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities.

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

While mission statements and purposes in any movement can become corrupted, or lost in the shuffle, or temporarily misplaced … I see nothing in this mission statement I strongly disagree with. I do see, however, where areas could lead to abuses of power by certain individuals … but that is always the case in any underlying or guiding policy developed by any political body.

If anyone thinks that, given her track record, Hillary Clinton does not abuse her political power, or would not abuse her presidential power, were she elected president … they are monumentally naive.

Political

The Truth About “Blood For Oil”

Blood For Oil?

Blood For Oil

Do you really think the War in Iraq and its relationship to oil is that simple?

When will the public demand the real truth from our government officials? There is so much misinformation available today it is scary. Some are naive enough to think that the war in Iraq is simply about oil! Well, maybe it was for France, Germany, and Russia. Those countries signed lucrative oil deals with Saddam Hussein not too long before the U.S. led invasion of Iraq to oust that despotic, brutal, murdering dictator in an effort to help stabilize the Middle East region. No wonder they didn’t support U.S. actions … it seems that oil before principles … was their watchword!

The U.S. does consume something like 14 million barrels per day. As Americans, we like our SUVs, our four-wheel-drives, and our liberal elite sure do like their private jets … despite the fact that doing so directly contradicts their politically correct lip service to the “global warming” problem!

Private Jets

Senator Hillary Clinton is busily doing her share … contributing to the global warming problem, and not just through her campaign rhetoric … even if it is just a lot of hot air.

Liberal environmentalists love chastise jet travelers because (according to them) the CO2 emitted by jets at high altitude is supposed to have a more rapid, negative impact on the climate than the same amount of CO2 emitted at sea level. This “fact” is often used as a justification for liberal elitist claims that we “common people” should be riding on trains … instead of flying home to see the family at Christmas.

However, despite the supposed horrors of global warming, Senator Hillary is still spending a great bit of time running around on private jets, as she campaigns for her version of a new Clinton Presidency, thus making her own, very real contributions to the global warming issue.

Adding to the irony, Senator Hillary spends a large part of her campaign time railing against corporate largess and executive pay scales.

So, just to get this straight in my mind … Hillary Clinton is against “corporate largess” … except for case of corporate largess involving corporate buddies of the Clinton’s … who are allowing their corporate jets to be used by Hillary so she can jet around the country…complaining about corporate largess and global warming.

Something is rotten in Denmark … me thinks!!

There is, however, a humorous part to this story. One of her corporate supporters is being sued by the corporation’s shareholders for wasting millions of dollars of corporate funds, including $900,000 spent on flying around … guess who … Bill and Hillary Clinton.

While all this is very interesting, however, the real truth is that oil plays very little role in the American War in Iraq, or global warming for that matter.

Did you know that the top source for crude oil imports to the U.S. is Canada at 1.944 million barrels per day. And … while Saudi Arabia is clearly second at 1.479 million barrels per day, Mexico comes third at 1.198 million barrels per day), Nigeria comes in fourth at 1.163 million barrels per day, and Venezuela comes in fifth at 1.135 million barrels per day. Of the top five exporters of crude oil to the U.S. …. only one is a Middle Eastern nation.

Or … to put it another way, of the top five exporters of crude oil to the U.S., only about 20% is imported from the Middle East. By the way, none of the oil the U.S. imports comes from Iraq!

Personally, I would like to see all imports of crude oil from the Middle East (and Venezuela … at least while Hugo Chavez is in charge) to the U.S. stopped … why don’t we instead buy more crude oil from Canada, Mexico, or even Nigeria. It seems silly to support the very terrorists who trying to blow us off the face of the earth!

Blood for Oil

Are our Arab allies really our allies … or are we being duped into financing the payments being made to the insurgents we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hmmmmmmm?

Pelosi and Reid To The Rescue

Reid & Pelosi

Quick to act, but not to think … our non-all-seeing democratic leadership is declaring a new direction in energy policy. The House, on Saturday, edged toward passing $16 billion in taxes on oil companies and offering tax breaks and incentives for renewable energy and conservation efforts. Will someone please explain to me how raising the taxes on oil companies by $16 billion going to lower the cost of gas or reduce our dependency on crude oil form the Middle East?

Republican opponents of this proposed new direction in our national energy policy state the legislation ignores the need to produce more domestic oil, natural gas and coal. One GOP lawmaker pointed out the “the pure venom …,” our liberal democratic leaders in congress have. ” … against the oil and gas industry.”

I am not surprised … can you say “nest of vipers?” I knew you could!

Alaskan Oil Drilling Alternative

Pipeline Bears

Would drilling for oil in an Alaskan wildlife refuge help ease our dependency on oil imports?

With oil prices nearing last year’s record highs, President Bush renewed his call for Congress to authorize oil exploration in Alaska’s largest wildlife refuge as part of a broader energy bill. Bush urged lawmakers to pass the energy bill that has stalled in Congress since the beginning of his first term, saying it would help wean the United States away from overseas sources of crude.

It might if that oil was used for that purpose. And … we are talking about an area that, in scale, is like a postage stamp in relation to the wildlife refuge. Also … modern oil drilling methods are vastly improved over the leaky oil rigs often visualized by those arguing against the idea of drilling in Alaska. The negative environmental impact to Alaskan wildlife is, in all honesty, essentially zero!

But is oil drilling in Alaska economically viable as a means to decrease U.S. dependency on foreign oil? Many experts say that Alaskan oil is simply to expensive logistically to transport by ship, truck, or pipeline to the continental U.S., and that it would make much more sense to sell Alaskan oil to Japan, and intead increase our imports of crude oil from Canada and Mexico.

President Bush has called on Congress to back the development of “clean coal” technology, which would allow broader use of the most abundant U.S. energy source with less environmental damage; encourage the construction of new nuclear power plants; and overhaul aging electrical grids and pipeline networks.

Sounds like a pretty good plan to me … why the opposition Pelosi? … Reid? … could it simply be partisanship politics?

Political

America Has Lost A True Hero!

\

Charlton Heston, the actor who played such memorable roles as Moses in “The Ten Commandments” and who met Jesus Christ face-to-face as a Jewish slave in the 1959 film, “Ben Hur,” a role which earned him an Oscar for best actor, died Saturday night at his Beverly Hills home. He was 84-years-old.

Heston “was seen by the world as larger than life,” his family said in a statement.

The actor is also remembered for his political activism, including his involvement in the civil-rights movement and his stand for the right to bear arms. He was at one time a Democrat (before the democratic party took a hard left turn) having campaigned for John F. Kennedy. During the 1972 American presidential election, Heston declared his support for Richard Nixon, the Republican candidate … and later, became a strong Reagan Republican. Charlton Heston marched with civil rights leader Martin Luther King against segregation. And, like Ronald Reagan, served as president of the Screen Actors Guild.

Charlton Heston had a prolific second career as a strong gun-rights activist, and helped to legitimize gun issues in the national conscience.

“He put a good, honest, legitimate face on the great majority of legal gun owners in this country,” said Bob Baumann, a Long Island regional director of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association.

Heston led the National Rifle Association from 1998 to 2003. In one speech, Heston famously would say that the only way his gun would be taken away is “from my cold, dead hands.”

“It put it in those simple terms, ‘You’re not taking this from me,'” said Brian Pemberton, president of the Matinecock Gun Club in Glen Cove. “It put a lot of weight into that feeling. His legacy is that; that he’s a man that stood firm.”

Heston often defended the NRA against attacks from gun control advocates.

Senator John McCain stated that, “Off-the-screen, Charlton Heston was also a real-life leader. He served his country and proudly gave his voice in support of some of our most basic rights.”

Frank Sinatra once remarked that Charlton Heston had better watch out … if he’s not careful, he’ll give actors a good name.

Heston stood opposed to abortion and appeared in the introduction to a 1987 pro-life documentary on late-term abortions.

Charlton Heston also spoke frequently of the culture war waged by liberals. In a speech in 1997, Heston charged that a generation of liberal media, educators, entertainers, and politicians were waging a war against “the God-fearing, law-abiding, Caucasian, middle-class Protestant, or even worse, evangelical Christian, Midwestern or Southern, or even worse, rural, apparently straight, or even worse, admitted heterosexual, gun-owning, or even worse, NRA card-carrying, average working stiff, or even worse, male, working stiff because, not only don’t you count, you are a downright obstacle to social progress,” according to The Times Online.

President Bush, who presented the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Heston in 2003, praised Heston as “one of the most successful actors in movie history and a strong advocate for liberty.”

“He was a man of character and integrity, with a big heart,” Bush said.

I say Charlton Heston was a patriot warrior!