Saturday, October 31, 2009
Tony Rubolotta: Baiting the Debate
"Government interference and intrusion in the free market has given us more bankrupt and failed programs than I could possibly enumerate in this limited space. Social Security, Medicare, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Post Office, Amtrak, ethanol, GM, some state governments and the federal government itself, all failing and headed toward bankruptcy. ObamaCare will be no different. It is unconstitutional and will fall to the same bureaucratic morass and political corruption that characterizes everything the federal government does."
Photo Op of Saluting Fallen Soliders But No Photos of Golf, Basketball or Smoking
Dear Friends:
When the media was invited to take photos and to shoot video of President Obama saluting our fallen Soldiers at Dover Air Force Base, I wondered why they never showed us photos and films of the many times President Obama takes time to smoke, play basketball and golf. The White House reports the following regarding the numerous time Obama has played golf since taking office.
"The White House press office told CNSNews.com that to confirm every round of golf played by the president since he took office would take “hours” because the only records kept are those sent to the media through e-mails that are not posted on the White House Web site because they are for media planning only."
Isn't it strange that the White House invites the media to take pictures of the President saluting the fallen soldiers, but no photos of the 11 rounds of golf that he has played since taking office, or the number of times he smokes cigarettes and plays basketball while those soldiers were dodging bullets. The media had photos of Dick Cheney hunting, George Bush riding the tractor on his ranch, Obama taking his wife out to dinner, but no photos of how much time Obama spends playing golf, basketball and smoking.
What do you think?
Rev. Wayne Perryman
When the media was invited to take photos and to shoot video of President Obama saluting our fallen Soldiers at Dover Air Force Base, I wondered why they never showed us photos and films of the many times President Obama takes time to smoke, play basketball and golf. The White House reports the following regarding the numerous time Obama has played golf since taking office.
"The White House press office told CNSNews.com that to confirm every round of golf played by the president since he took office would take “hours” because the only records kept are those sent to the media through e-mails that are not posted on the White House Web site because they are for media planning only."
Isn't it strange that the White House invites the media to take pictures of the President saluting the fallen soldiers, but no photos of the 11 rounds of golf that he has played since taking office, or the number of times he smokes cigarettes and plays basketball while those soldiers were dodging bullets. The media had photos of Dick Cheney hunting, George Bush riding the tractor on his ranch, Obama taking his wife out to dinner, but no photos of how much time Obama spends playing golf, basketball and smoking.
What do you think?
Rev. Wayne Perryman
Robert Knight: ObamaCare's Scary October Surprise
"President Obama promised 'transparency' and that any bill would be written in public. That was a lie. This monstrosity was hatched behind closed doors. Obama further promised that his health care initiative would not 'add a dime to the federal deficit,' which he has already tripled since taking office. It was another lie. No one can honestly believe that a gargantuan takeover of the nation's $2.5 trillion health care industry will save taxpayers money. No government program results in savings. Each one grows exponentially; creates dependent constituencies that lobby for yet more tax dollars; and empowers bureaucrats for whom mission failure ensures more staff, more money, and more power. There is simply no governing restraint such as a profit motive or anxious stockholders. The voters? Surely you jest. They are far, far away and kept in check by a compliant leftist media. At least, so far.
"Does anyone really believe that a government plan consisting of nearly two thousand pages will simplify things and leave us a freer people?"
Obama Tells 7 Lies In Under 2 Minutes!
Brother X says "So what, he's basically an honest man even if he lies."
The Numbers Don't Don't Add Up
The President told Americans that he must have a Stimulus Package to keep unemployment around 8% which would help him create and save some three million jobs.
The mere fact that unemployment has risen to almost 10% negates any possibility of saving or creating any jobs, and by his own estimates it means the Stimulus did not or has not as of this date, worked. So the $240,000 figure that is often quoted for creating each of the 650,000 jobs, was virtually spent to create or save no jobs. There were no gains in employment only net losses based on his own figure of keeping unemployment at 8%.
Simple math also tells us that if it cost taxpayers $24,000 for each person who took advantage of the Cash For Clunkers programs, we would have been better off (or cheaper) to just give the cars away. The numbers just don't add up.
Again, let's look at numbers. If the Declaration of Independence only consisted of one page and the Constitution of the United States only four pages, the 1964 Civil Rights Act only eight pages and the Social Security Act only 64 pages (as some news agencies report), why did it take 1,990 pages to put together a government program that would simply:
a. Cover Pre-existing illnesses
b. Prevent persons from being dropped from insurance
c. Give insurance to the un-insured
d. And Reduce premiums
Again, the numbers just don't add up. If this is all the new program is going to do, why do you need 1,990 pages to say this, particularly when you look at other major programs that were thoroughly explained with under 100 pages. What's really in this bill?
Rev. Wayne Perryman
=
The mere fact that unemployment has risen to almost 10% negates any possibility of saving or creating any jobs, and by his own estimates it means the Stimulus did not or has not as of this date, worked. So the $240,000 figure that is often quoted for creating each of the 650,000 jobs, was virtually spent to create or save no jobs. There were no gains in employment only net losses based on his own figure of keeping unemployment at 8%.
Simple math also tells us that if it cost taxpayers $24,000 for each person who took advantage of the Cash For Clunkers programs, we would have been better off (or cheaper) to just give the cars away. The numbers just don't add up.
Again, let's look at numbers. If the Declaration of Independence only consisted of one page and the Constitution of the United States only four pages, the 1964 Civil Rights Act only eight pages and the Social Security Act only 64 pages (as some news agencies report), why did it take 1,990 pages to put together a government program that would simply:
a. Cover Pre-existing illnesses
b. Prevent persons from being dropped from insurance
c. Give insurance to the un-insured
d. And Reduce premiums
Again, the numbers just don't add up. If this is all the new program is going to do, why do you need 1,990 pages to say this, particularly when you look at other major programs that were thoroughly explained with under 100 pages. What's really in this bill?
Rev. Wayne Perryman
=
Jon Christian Ryter: DYING LIKE KINGS OR PAUPERS
"Makes you feel somewhat relieved to know that in the event our political leaders get sick that they won't be wheeled into a terminal care unit like the rest of us under Obamacare and euthanized. Right? Instead, the doctors on staff—the best one...you know the one with the real MDs after his name, not the world 'intern'—will actually take the time and whatever taxpayer dollars are needed) to perform whatever lifesaving surgery is needed to save the Teddy Kennedys and Hillary Clinton's of the world while the rest of us are 'put to sleep' like Old Shep when blindness overcomes him and he runs into walls and craps in the corner because he can't find the doggy door anymore."
Mary Jackson: Don’t Leave It to the BNP to Stand Up for Britain
"The British National Party offers little more than Holocaust denial and far-left economic policies that would ruin the UK."
"The label 'far right' gets attached all too readily to the BNP, but it is as misleading as it is lazy. The BNP is a party of the left. Left-wing journal the New Statesman observes:
A brief skim through BNP manifesto literature brings to light proposals for the following: large increases in state pensions; more money for the NHS; improved worker protection; state ownership of key industries. Under Griffin, the modern-day far right has positioned itself to the left of Labour.
"Griffin describes himself as a 'Strasserite.' Here is what Gregor Strasser has to say:
We are socialists, enemies, mortal enemies of the present capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the economically weak, with its injustice in wages, with its immoral evaluation of individuals according to wealth and money instead of responsibility and achievement, and we are determined under all circumstances to abolish this system!"
Ron Radosh: Why Liberal Journalists are Joining the Obama Administration’s Attack on Fox News
"While the Obama administration continues its war against its media critics, well-known liberal journalists — instead of defending freedom of the press — are joining the attack on a news network they despise as much as does the administration. Gone is any seeming concern for the right of commentators to voice their own opinion, because mainstream liberal editorial writers are sure their opponents are both extremists and wrong."
The watchdogs are now lapdogs.
The watchdogs are now lapdogs.
Pelosicare - How to turn a $1.3T plan into a claim of $104B in deficit reduction
"Total cost of this bill: $1.055 trillion
But hold on a sec you say - Pelosi says cost is $894 billion. Well you see, penalties on individuals and companies are expected to be $161 billion. Let’s just not count that as part of the cost.
'Net' cost: $894 billion
Of yeah, and don’t count the $245 billion increase to Medicare that needs to pass separately.
"How to 'pay' for it?
Tax increases: $572 billion
Cuts to Medicare Advantage etc.: $426 billion
"So here’s how Pelosi math works when you add everything up:
$1.3 trillion grand total health care plans
- $245 billion that doesn’t count
= $1.055 trillion AHCAA cost
- $161 billion in penalties that doesn’t count
= $894 billion ‘net’ AHCAA cost
- $572 billion in tax increases
- $426 billion in program cuts
= ($104 billion) which we claim as deficit reduction
"Isn’t that special?
"Or to sum it up a different way:
$161B in penalties
+ $572B in tax increases
= $733B more collected from 'us' in this bill
"So looking at it that way, you get:
$1.3T total cost
- $733B from us suckers now
- $245B from us suckers later (add it to the deficit)
- $426B in cuts even though we know they won’t happen
= ($104B) in alleged deficit reduction"
Here is how the math was done:
But hold on a sec you say - Pelosi says cost is $894 billion. Well you see, penalties on individuals and companies are expected to be $161 billion. Let’s just not count that as part of the cost.
'Net' cost: $894 billion
Of yeah, and don’t count the $245 billion increase to Medicare that needs to pass separately.
"How to 'pay' for it?
Tax increases: $572 billion
Cuts to Medicare Advantage etc.: $426 billion
"So here’s how Pelosi math works when you add everything up:
$1.3 trillion grand total health care plans
- $245 billion that doesn’t count
= $1.055 trillion AHCAA cost
- $161 billion in penalties that doesn’t count
= $894 billion ‘net’ AHCAA cost
- $572 billion in tax increases
- $426 billion in program cuts
= ($104 billion) which we claim as deficit reduction
"Isn’t that special?
"Or to sum it up a different way:
$161B in penalties
+ $572B in tax increases
= $733B more collected from 'us' in this bill
"So looking at it that way, you get:
$1.3T total cost
- $733B from us suckers now
- $245B from us suckers later (add it to the deficit)
- $426B in cuts even though we know they won’t happen
= ($104B) in alleged deficit reduction"
Here is how the math was done:
New York Times: In ’05 Investing, Obama Took Same Path as Donors
March 2007
"Less than two months after ascending to the United States Senate, Barack Obama bought more than $50,000 worth of stock in two speculative companies whose major investors included some of his biggest political donors.
"One of the companies was a biotech concern that was starting to develop a drug to treat avian flu. In March 2005, two weeks after buying about $5,000 of its shares, Mr. Obama took the lead in a legislative push for more federal spending to battle the disease.
"The most recent financial disclosure form for Mr. Obama, an Illinois Democrat, also shows that he bought more than $50,000 in stock in a satellite communications business whose principal backers include four friends and donors who had raised more than $150,000 for his political committees.
"A spokesman for Mr. Obama, who is seeking his party’s presidential nomination in 2008, said yesterday that the senator did not know that he had invested in either company until fall 2005, when he learned of it and decided to sell the stocks. He sold them at a net loss of $13,000.
"The spokesman, Bill Burton, said Mr. Obama’s broker bought the stocks without consulting the senator, under the terms of a blind trust that was being set up for the senator at that time but was not finalized until several months after the investments were made.
"'He went about this process to avoid an actual or apparent conflict of interest, and he had no knowledge of the stocks he owned,' Mr. Burton said. 'And when he realized that he didn’t have the level of blindness that he expected, he moved to terminate the trust.'
"Mr. Obama has made ethics a signature issue, and his quest for the presidency has benefited from the perception that he is unlike politicians who blend public and private interests. There is no evidence that any of his actions ended up benefiting either company during the roughly eight months that he owned the stocks.
"Even so, the stock purchases raise questions about how he could unwittingly come to invest in two relatively obscure companies, whose backers happen to include generous contributors to his political committees. Among those donors was Jared Abbruzzese, a New York businessman now at the center of an F.B.I. inquiry into public corruption in Albany, who had also contributed to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group that sought to undermine John Kerry’s Democratic presidential campaign in 2004.
"Mr. Obama, who declined to be interviewed about the stock deals, has already had to contend with a controversy that arose out of his reliance on a major campaign contributor in Chicago to help him in a personal financial transaction. In that earlier case, he acknowledged last year that it had been a mistake to involve the contributor, a developer who has since been indicted in an unrelated political scandal, in deals related to the Obamas’ purchase of a home."
"Less than two months after ascending to the United States Senate, Barack Obama bought more than $50,000 worth of stock in two speculative companies whose major investors included some of his biggest political donors.
"One of the companies was a biotech concern that was starting to develop a drug to treat avian flu. In March 2005, two weeks after buying about $5,000 of its shares, Mr. Obama took the lead in a legislative push for more federal spending to battle the disease.
"The most recent financial disclosure form for Mr. Obama, an Illinois Democrat, also shows that he bought more than $50,000 in stock in a satellite communications business whose principal backers include four friends and donors who had raised more than $150,000 for his political committees.
"A spokesman for Mr. Obama, who is seeking his party’s presidential nomination in 2008, said yesterday that the senator did not know that he had invested in either company until fall 2005, when he learned of it and decided to sell the stocks. He sold them at a net loss of $13,000.
"The spokesman, Bill Burton, said Mr. Obama’s broker bought the stocks without consulting the senator, under the terms of a blind trust that was being set up for the senator at that time but was not finalized until several months after the investments were made.
"'He went about this process to avoid an actual or apparent conflict of interest, and he had no knowledge of the stocks he owned,' Mr. Burton said. 'And when he realized that he didn’t have the level of blindness that he expected, he moved to terminate the trust.'
"Mr. Obama has made ethics a signature issue, and his quest for the presidency has benefited from the perception that he is unlike politicians who blend public and private interests. There is no evidence that any of his actions ended up benefiting either company during the roughly eight months that he owned the stocks.
"Even so, the stock purchases raise questions about how he could unwittingly come to invest in two relatively obscure companies, whose backers happen to include generous contributors to his political committees. Among those donors was Jared Abbruzzese, a New York businessman now at the center of an F.B.I. inquiry into public corruption in Albany, who had also contributed to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group that sought to undermine John Kerry’s Democratic presidential campaign in 2004.
"Mr. Obama, who declined to be interviewed about the stock deals, has already had to contend with a controversy that arose out of his reliance on a major campaign contributor in Chicago to help him in a personal financial transaction. In that earlier case, he acknowledged last year that it had been a mistake to involve the contributor, a developer who has since been indicted in an unrelated political scandal, in deals related to the Obamas’ purchase of a home."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)