Man, this man is expensive!!!

Posted on by
Reply

It has been widely reported that President Barrack Obama has held more re-election fundraisers that the previous five US Presidents combined, in what some are calling a “PERMANENT CAMPAIGN”.   A great article on the UK’s daily mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2136851/Obama-held-fundraisers-previous-Presidents-combined-visits-key-swing-states-permanent-campaign.html) points out that the President has held 124 fundraisers, while Carter held only four, Reagan held ZERO, Bush Sr. held 19, Clinton held 14, and Bush Jr held 57.

That’s A LOT.  For illustration purposes:

WHEN HE SAID CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN, HE MEANT THE CHANGE IN YOUR POCKET!!!

In 2008, Obama’s message was one of open government, accountability, and responsiveness.  What we got instead has been a travesty of behind close-door deals, super-pact influence, no-accountability, no-budgets, and an economic crisis to equal most others.

What’s funny is that although the fundraiser-in-chief has managed to pull in $191.6 million dollars as of last month, he is significantly behind where he thought he would be.  His associates were calling for a $1 billion dollar fund.  That can be used to buy a lot of votes.

Obama’s incredible list of lies and reversals, which started with his public money flip flop in 2008, continues, as his administration accounted on 6 February 2012 that his administration would embrace unlimited corporate donations to his campaign.  Very large corporations will contribute as his first three years have been riddled with stories of supporters getting preferential treatment (GE, Solyndra), and they hope to cash in on the action.  Can you say your government for sale?

In addition to that, he continues to use his 532 bundlers, who get outstanding access to the President and provide that access to the bundled.  These people have raised a whopping $106,300,000 for the prez (opensecrets.org).  Talk about having influence.  Among the top industries:

  • Lawyers/Law Firms: $21,600,000
  • Securities & Investment (WALL STREET): $14,800,000
  • Business Services: $10,750,000
  • Real Estate: $7,300,000
  • Ent. Industry: $6,950,000

What do these people (full list found here: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/bundlers.php?id=N00009638) get in return:

  • Money:
    • Already heard tons about Solyndra
    • $25M to Solazyme – Employes an Obama team member that “played a key role in developing the energy provisions in the economic stimuli bill”.  Not a bad return on their $360K Obama campaign investment.
  •  Access (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/us/politics/white-house-doors-open-for-big-donors.html?_r=2&smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto)
    • NY Times article depicts how Antoinette Bush, who with her husband have donated over $70K and held a $17.9K a plate dinner fundraiser for the President is a regular visitor at the White House, brining her Lobbyist friends to lobby the cash-register-in-chief
    • While lobbying on behalf of his company, Joe Kiani, got access to the white house in a regular basis, all the while donating $35.8K in that time period

And so it goes.  The list is sadly really to long to cover.

While Obama has made a point of not accepting direct contributions from registered lobbyists, those lobbyists pay his big contributors for access to the White House.  What’s interesting is that people who donated less than $30K to the white house had access less than 20% of the time, but those who donated $100,000.00 or more got access a whopping 75% of the time.

This is pathetic folks, truly pathetic.  While we are going broke, he and his friends are getting rich off your back.  Maybe instead of Occupy Wall Street and the 99%/1% definition that the liberals put out there, it should be Occupy White House, and the 99% is you, the taxpayer, and the 1% are the Obama administration cronies and donors that are receiving billions of dollars of our tax payer dollars in exchange for campaign donations.

 

Fluke you liberals… Double standard exposed beautifully!

Posted on by
Reply

The town criers on the left came roaring at the defense of Sandra Fluke, the oversexed wealthy girl with the very rich socialist boyfriend that said that it was her right to get laid and that we, the taxpayers, were responsible for paying her $9 per month bill for pills.  When Rush Limbaugh called her a slut, the left went up in flames and demanded that he be immediately fired.    Even President Do-As-I-Say-Not-As-I-Do came to her defense immediately, calling Ms. Fluke and saying that:

“The reason I called Ms. Fluke is because I thought about Malia and Sasha and one of the things that I want them to do as they get older is to engage in issues they care about, even ones that I may not agree with the on. And I don’t want them attacked or called horrible names because they’re being good citizens… I wanted Sandra to know that I thought her parents should be proud of her, and that we want to send a message to all our young people that being part of a democracy involves argument and disagreements and debate. And we want you to be engaged, and there’s a way to do it in a way that doesn’t involve you being demeaned and insulted.”

BUT, no one on the left, not President Obama, not Michelle Obama, not Sandra Fluke, not NOW, no one has come to the defense of the many insults that people from the left use against conservative women.  Apparently, the left’s mantra is that only empowered feminists should be defended.
Do you remember fat-al-gore impersonator MSNBC Ed Schultz calling Laura Ingraham a slut?  Well, Laura never talks about her need to have sex and we pay for her pills/condoms/whatever else.  He called her that because his views are different from hers and 90% of America.  And although MSNBC suspended him, the cries on the left brought him back quickly.
Bill Maher has made a career of insulting conservative women.  You name them, and he has insulted them.  But someone somewhere thinks he is funny (not sure who because unlike other liberal comedians, he is not), he keeps on trucking on superliberal HBO.
Mr. Assclown Keith Olbermann called Ann Coulter a slut.  Again, based on just a disagreement on political ideology.  To make it worse, when she was called a slut, leftie Barbara Walters (baba wawa if you were alive in the 70s) just laughed.
How about David Letterman, who insulted Sara Palin, saying she had a “Slutty flight attendant look?”
It goes on and on and on.  All of these women are insulted and called sluts because their political belief do not align with those of Karl Marx, President Obama, or the rest of the Socialist/Progressive movement.

The left continues to try to make this about the Catholic Church. It is not.  It is 100% about US the TAXPAYERS having to pay for someone’s Birth Control.  IT IS NOT ABOUT THEIR  ACCESS TO CONTRACEPTIVES.  It’s about US PAYING FOR IT.

And for Rush, he called a girl that came out and demanded that we the taxpayers pay her for her contraceptives a slut.  She is the one that brought up her sexual activity, not him.  Yet, he quickly apologized.  BUT, the left continues to go after him.  Yet, there is a very loud silence on the left on Palin, Coulter, Ingraham, Malkin, etc.  That, my friends, it the top of hypocrisy.   The left has never been about fairness, but calling for fairness when they know they are loosing.  They are never about civility, unless the mood is against them.  They are complete hypocrites who care only about themselves.
And that hypocrisy crosses many areas.  Just look at the civility comments that Obama made in Arizona, yet he never calls for civility when the left attacks the right.  Maxine Waters called Republicans demons, yet no one on the left cared.  It just goes on and on.
And when it comes to the Palins, there are no holds barred.  The insults on Sara and Bristol Palin have been huge.  Yet not one socialist town crier cared.
That’s where young Bristol Palin comes in.  She wrote a beautifully crafted open letter to the President pointing out the hypocrisy.

Here is the beautifully crafted letter from Bristol Palin to President Obama.  Well done, young Palin, well done!

“Dear President Obama,

“You don’t know my telephone number, but I hope your staff is busy trying to find it. Ever since you called Sandra Fluke after Rush Limbaugh called her a slut, I figured I might be next. You explained to reporters you called her because you were thinking of your two daughters, Malia and Sasha. After all, you didn’t want them to think it was okay for men to treat them that way:

“‘One of the things I want them to do as they get older is engage in issues they care about, even ones I may not agree with them on,’ you said. ‘I want them to be able to speak their mind in a civil and thoughtful way. And I don’t want them attacked or called horrible names because they’re being good citizens.’

“And I totally agree your kids should be able to speak their minds and engage the culture. I look forward to seeing what good things Malia and Sasha end up doing with their lives.

“But here’s why I’m a little surprised my phone hasn’t rung. Your $1,000,000 donor Bill Maher has said reprehensible things about my family. He’s made fun of my brother because of his Down’s Syndrome. He’s said I was ‘f—-d so hard a baby fell out.’ (In a classy move, he did this while his producers put up the cover of my book, which tells about the forgiveness and redemption I’ve found in God after my past — very public — mistakes.)

“If Maher talked about Malia and Sasha that way, you’d return his dirty money and the Secret Service would probably have to restrain you. After all, I’ve always felt you understood my plight more than most because your mom was a teenager. That’s why you stood up for me when you were campaigning against Sen. McCain and my mom — you said vicious attacks on me should be off limits.

“Yet I wonder if the presidency has changed you. Now that you’re in office, it seems you’re only willing to defend certain women. You’re only willing to take a moral stand when you know your liberal supporters will stand behind you.

“But…

“What if you did something radical and wildly unpopular with your base and took a stand against the denigration of all women … even if they’re just single moms? Even if they’re Republicans?

“I’m not expecting your SuperPAC to return the money. You’re going to need every dime to hang on to your presidency. I’m not even really expecting a call. But would it be too much to expect a little consistency? After all, you’re President of all Americans, not just the liberals.”

Why do liberals hate us Catholics so much?

Posted on by
2

As many of you are aware, the Catholic Church has been under attack by the liberal establishment for many years.  However, those attacks are becoming more poignant and overt, and the double standard against Catholics has never been worse.

Obama’s attack on the Catholic Church has been impressive.  Even before he forced the Catholic Church to provide contraceptives and abortions, he has kept a steady attack on our Religion.  The Catholic Church provides more social assistance, schools, and hospitals than any other organization in our country outside of Government. The Church, outside of its religious services (managing our churches and parishes), has more than 200 universities serving over 750,000 students, has 6981 elementary and secondary schools, has 600 hospitals, and 1400 long term care centers. Mr. Obama has steadily attacked us because he sees us as competition for his socialist agenda.  The Church, with other charity focused institutions, provide a fundamental layer that provides services to people.  That layer works well in free democratic countries, but it does not work on a true socialized society, as the Government must be the center of everything.  Our Theological fight is their Ideological fight.

Just last month, the Supreme Court, in a rare 9-0 decision, struck down an Obama Equal Employment Opportunity Commission rule that the Catholic Church did not have the right to control its hiring and firing according to our beliefs.  The Obama EEO actually wanted Government to decide who the Church could hire and fire.

Catholics are used to being treated differently.  The fact that John F. Kennedy was forced to give a speech in which he said that he would not blindly follow the Pope’s directions just because he was Catholic was, as Rick Santorum pointed out, shameful.

The fact that Rick Santorum was attacked because he said he felt ashamed that Kennedy had to do that speech was also shameful.  He never said he was ashamed of Kennedy, but the fact that he felt he had to do that speech.

Just a couple of weeks ago came the revelation of a letter that Cardinal Timothy Dolan sent to his brother bishops revealing a shocking conversation between his staff and the white house:

“At a recent meeting between staff of the bishops’ conference and the White House staff, our staff members asked directly whether the broader concerns of religious freedom—that is, revisiting the straight-jacketing mandates, or broadening the maligned exemption—are all off the table. They were informed that they are. So much for “working out the wrinkles.” Instead, they advised the bishops’ conference that we should listen to the “enlightened” voices of accommodation, such as the recent, hardly surprising yet terribly unfortunate editorial in America. The White House seems to think we bishops simply do not know or understand Catholic teaching and so, taking a cue from its own definition of religious freedom, now has nominated its own handpicked official Catholic teachers”

This President actually thinks that he knows more about our religion than our own Bishops.  Wow.

But this does not stop with Obama.  Democrats are running adds like that that you see on the right. Every single day, you can read anti-Catholic articles in the Huffington Post, Salon Magazine, NBC News, MSNBC, CNN, etc.  You really do not have to look too far at someone making fun my Religion.

I already mentioned the add on the right.  What is peculiar about this add is that it’s the actual Democratic party attacking the Church.  Yes, the Minnesota Democratic Party, which there is called the DFL (Democratic Farmer Labor Party which resulted in a merger of the Democrats and the Farmer Labor Parties) ran that add that you see on the right.  The button says “Ignore the poor” in what is clearly a priest.  This goes against everything the Church does and teaches us.  The war on Catholics by the Democrats in no longer covert.  It’s wide open and shown in that picture on the right.

But what would happen if just one person went against the tide and showed the bigotry of the liberals and their controlled press?  Well, that happened last week.  You see, a Wisconsin based anti-Catholic group called “Freedom from Religion” placed an anti-Catholic add in the New York Times.  The add was extremely offensive to all Christians but it was focused on the Catholic Church.  The New York Times gladly ran the add.  Then stepped in well known Patriot Pamela Geller, who basically took the add and changed it to say the same thing, except instead of going after the Church, it went after Islam.  Geller designed an add that mimic the Anti-Catholic piece, but called for Muslims to quit their Religion instead.  The New York Times, being a very leftist institution, of course refused.  To them, attacking Catholics is just fine, but you better not attack the liberal’s allies in the Muslim world.  “This shows the hypocrisy of The New York Times, the gold standard in journalism, and its willingness to kowtow to violent Islamic supremacist intimidation,” she told Fox News.

I don’t think anyone was surprised.

I think even liberal Catholics now understand that we are under attack.  We Catholics are 25% of the population of this country, and 75% of us think that our religion is either important or very important to us.  The attack and hatred against us has gone unanswered for far too long. Now that our Church leaders have awoken and see more clearly that the attacks from the left are aim at dismantling the Church, I think that we will finally start to see a stronger anti-left alignment in the American side of the Church.  For far too long, some of our leaders have compromised their beliefs with the left, but the left has now laid a very solid line between us and them.  I hope that more and more fellow Catholics recognize that line and line up instead at the ballot box in November to start voting out all of those liberals, starting with President Obama, and put people in place that respect Religious Freedom.

I am fed up and I’m not going to take it anymore.

 

Endorsement for Ted Cruz in 2012 Texas Senate Race

Posted on by
Reply

I am pleased to endorse Ted Cruz for the Republican US Senate race because he is exactly the type of candidate that we need to move this country in the right direction.   His record proves that he is the right person to stand up for Texas:  Committed, Successful, and unwavering in his support for our liberty.

In my opinion, Ted is the future of our Republican party.  Since 1988, the Republican party has become a duplicate of what the Democrat party used to be.  Both parties have moved significantly to the left, where the Democrats openly talk about their socialist state, and the Republicans are stuck holding the line in a centrist position.  Gone from both parties is the mainstream thinking of our federal union as a federated union ruled by one guiding document called the Constitution.   Both parties now actively look at choke-hold regulations as something normal and all but given up on free enterprise.  Thankfully, people like Ted Cruz have dedicated their political lives to lead the charge in defending liberty, our constitutional government, and to reduce the huge socialist fabric being woven over our government.  We need to take charge now and start electing people who are committed to the constitution as our roadmap and liberty as our goal.

Of all of the candidates running for the US Senate in this current race, Ted Cruz, in my opinion will be our best choice to represent our great state of Texas.  He is a fighter and he has backbone.  He is not part of that big Republican establishment that pushed middle of the road candidates on us.  He has the right vision and the right approach.

What is that vision, you ask?  Well, for a complete overview of what he stands for, I suggest that you go to his site at http://www.tedcruz.org.  However, I think that in order to judge a person’s views, you must first look at his record.  Ted has a pretty impressive record in defending liberty:

  • Fighting for our free-market economy to go back to a free enterprise systems:  He has championed the 10th amendment on the virtues of our federalist state and how the federal government’s intrusion threatens to destroy our free enterprise system, and with it, our economy and the American dream.  He has led the fight against the massive intrusion of ObamaCare and the prescription drug program.
  • He continues to defend our sovereignty:  Cruz successfully sued the Bush administration to stop the federal government’s intrusion into Texas’ right to protect it’s citizens from brutal criminals.
  • He has many times stood up for our religious freedoms, defending our right to keep the Texas ten commandments monument in Austin, defending the Texas pledge of allegiance to keep the words “under God” in it, etc.
  • He has many times played a leading role in defending life by successfully arguing against the overreaches by the Federal government in their pro-abortion agenda.
  • He continues to fight for our right to keep and bear arms, to defend our borders, to provide us with energy independence, fighting voter fraud and defending the photo-id law, etc.

As for the others, it’s not that they are not good people, it’s just that I don’t think they have the track record.  There really is only 3 others that can win: David Dewhurst, Craig James, and Tom Leppert:

  • David Dewhurst:  Although our Lt. Gov. has the best name recognition, he is the least conservative.  Some call him the Mitt Romney of Texas, because the powers that be in the Republican party have all but given the seat to him.  Since then, Cruz’ numbers have steadily climbed to where Cruz and Dewhurst are close to being in a statistical tie (see the Feb 21 UT/Texas Tribune poll).  DD has 38% and Ted Cruz has 27% with a ~6% margin of error.  That’s pretty slim considering few people know who Cruz is.  The problem that Dewhurst has is a credibility gap in conservative issues:  He supported the very large budget drafted last year in the senate versus the more fiscally conservative option offered by the house.  He went against governor Perry in his effort to promote a responsible agenda for improving our universities.  Instead of supporting making teaching a higher priority, reducing costs, and making universities more accountable and transparent, he went against it by naming a liberal democrat to chair the Senate’s higher Education committee, destroying the Governor’s responsible and well thought out plan.  I particularly dislike that the ignored property tax caps.  I would rank him as a party insider and as a moderate conservative, so he is not my first option.
  • Craig James:  He is a very likeable former football player who has the right positions but no experience.  Unfortunately, at this very critical point in our history, we cannot have on the job training for such a high level position.  His association with Rick Santorum is a smart way to get his name out on the political field, and although Santorum is crushing the field in Texas polls (See the Feb 20 UT/Texas Tribune Poll), I don’t think that good will is transferable.  Having said that, I feel that anytime that you have a candidate being attacked by the left strongly, it shows that the candidate has value.  Recently, Mr. James became the victim of a Google Bomb (look it up) saying that he killed 5 hookers.  He obviously did not, but it shows that the left will stop at nothing to stop good candidates from coming out.
  • Tom Leppert:  The former mayor of Dallas has a mixed record, but strong name appeal in Dallas.  I don’t like the approach that he took in attacking Cruz over his refusal to support John Cornyn for Whip, however.  I don’t dislike the guy, I just don’t find much appeal in him.

And so it goes.  In my research on the candidates, I found a bastion of fellow Republicans endorsing Ted Cruz.  What was amazing is who they were.  They were not the tired old GOP guard that let us down during the 90s and 00s.  They are the up and comers.  Conservative Women, Young Conservatives of Texas, the Tea Party Express.  2012 is not your standard election year.  This one is going to be tough.  The establishment GOP is fighting back and hard to keep its leadership of the party, but the party supporters are no longer supporting the establishment.  We want candidates that fight harder for our principles and that do not use compromise for personal gain but for political ideology advancement.  We want true change.  We want to bring our fiscal house under control.  We want to bring the rule of law back.  We want to rollback overreaching legislature and regulations like Obamacare.  We want liberty back.  We want free enterprise back.  We want common sense policy both domestic and foreign.

We want Ted Cruz.

LULAC does not speak for me. Please fight for me, Texas AG Greg Abbott

Posted on by
Reply

If you are not from Texas, you might not know the fight that we are having with another major government overreach, but this time coming from three activist judges in San Antonio.

The great state of Texas is a conservative state.  That conservatism stretches across boundaries thru people of all races and creeds.  For example, when GWB ran for governor, he won over 40% of the Hispanic vote.  Hispanics here do not vote in blocks, and a large number of us are proud conservatives.

Every 10 years, our legislature is compelled to come up with a districting map that fairly represents the people of the state.  Using the counts from elections, etc., the legislature drew a map that was fair and did not overreach to get too many seats from this growing conservative state.  However, the whiners in the Democratic party, together with their race-baiting supporters from LULAC, the Mexican American LEgal Defense and Education Fund, and other liberal organizations sued in a liberal court on the state and that map was thrown out.  Then those same activist judges came up with a map that would actually give unearned seats to democrats, who are a clear minority in this state, by gerrymandering the maps.  Judges drawing maps?  COME ON!

Lost in all this is the shuffle are the facts:

  • The democrats and their allies claim that Hispanics grew by 5.1 million in the last 10 years, while whites grew only 1.1 million.  There are a couple of important questions left out:  How many of those 5.1 million actually have a right to vote (as is the case, the majority of those are illegal) and why do you assume that those who vote are liberal?  Again, 40% supported GWB.
  • LULAC and the other groups do not represent people like me.  There are large numbers of conservative Hispanics who are “counted” as democrat votes to draw those districts.  THAT TAKES AWAY MY CIVIL RIGHTS.  Why is it that only the civil rights of liberals seem to count?
  • The supreme court rejected the map of these activist judges and sent it back to the drawing board.  It clearly asked those activist judges to based their changes on the legislature created maps, explaining how those changes would nullify their concerns about violations of the 1965 voting rights act.  Lost in the shuffle again is the fact that the will of the people is being rolled by the needs a small minority (those liberal organizations) and they are not taking into account the reality of Texas being a conservative state.
Our Attorney General is doing a great job fighting this travesty.  He has successfully defended the state against federal overreach many times, but, as he stated in an update email response to me: “No decision about redistricting maps is made without the express approval of the Governor, Lt. Governor, and the Speaker of the House. Even then, no formal agreement can be submitted to the three-judge panel in San Antonio.  Suggestions can be made about how to comply with the Voting Rights Act.  It is then up to the Court to decide how to draw the maps.  If the final maps issued by the Court contravene the law, then the State can appeal.”
What’s surprising on all of this is that outside of Judge Orlando Garcia who was appointed by Bill Clinton and is a Politician (TX house of reps 1983-1991 Democrat), the other two judges have solid backgrounds.  Judge Xavier Rodrigues is a highly respected lawyer with strong family roots.  He was appointed by Bush.  The third judge is 5th US circuit court of appeals judge Jerry Smith, who is a long term judge initially appointed by the great Ronald Reagan.
I will close out this blog by pleading that we stop this non-sense and adopt something very close to what the legislature drew.  When it comes down to civil rights, its time that we start looking at everyone’s civil rights, not just those of the whiners on the left.

So much to say about the many infringements of government in our life, so little time

Posted on by
Reply

As a proud American, I find it abhorable that the President of this great country has gone and violated one of its basic freedoms:  the freedom of Religion.  As a practicing Catholic, I find it pathetic that the President is forcing us to do something that we find morally wrong.

There  is something in our Catholic religion that we call the “Social Sin”.  Social sin is that which is defined as society forcing individuals to break our Theological and Cardinal virtues.  We believe that Theological virtues are those that come from God and Cardinal, or moral, virtues are those learned from man.  It’s one of the basic tenets of being a Catholic.  Upholding life, being at its beginning, during, or at the end, is one of our basic responsibilities.

The liberals, in support of our Kevorkian President, are using the following arguments a variety of arguments.  The sheer stupidity is that no one is counteracting those arguments.  For example, they say:

  • “Everyone has a right to contraception”:  No, it’s not a right.  However, in our country, everyone has a access to them.  But it’s not a right.  They don’t have a right to FREE contraception, and they don’t have a right to it.   Anyone can walk into a store and get condoms or even birth control.  No one is disputing that access.  It’s already there.  What we are disputing is the government forcing Catholic entities to supply it.  And don’t even get me started on abortions.  Everyone knows that it’s good to brush your teeth 3 times a day with fluoride laden toothpaste.  Then, why not toothpaste and toothbrushes.  How about dental floss.
  • “The republicans want to stop you from getting birth control and contraceptives”.  This is the stupidest of their arguments, as they cannot point to a single bill anywhere sponsored by a Republican that is trying to change this.  However, we are against our taxes being used to pay for this.
  • “This is not a freedom of religion question, its a freedom of choice question”.  No it’s not.  No one is trying to take anything away.  We just object to forcing our religious institutions to go against their moral mandates.
  • and my favorite: “This doesn’t just affect Catholics, it affects moslems and other religions”.  Well, the reason that this is a big deal is because of our charitable nature, there are a huge number of Catholic hospitals for everyone to use.  Catholic Charities is one of the largest benevolent organizations in the US, helping 10 million people (most non-Catholic), including food to 7.1 million, services to 1.06 million, community serves to 4.2 million, housing to 498 thousand, and spend $4.2 billion doing this.  Catholic schools provide education to over 2 million people.  The Catholic Church is one of the largest providers of services to everyone.  I dare you to find another religion that does so much for people OUTSIDE their religion.  So, yes, it might affect everyone, but we do not discriminate.

Unfortunately, we all saw this coming.  President Obama has reached deep into our rights to destroy them.  It does not surprise me one bit.

Mr. Obama, this I will tell you.  You didn’t win by that much, and unfortunately some fellow Catholics votes for you.  But this I will promise, I will do everything in my power to let every Catholic know that what you are doing is patently anti-Catholic and we, as Catholics, will make sure that everyone in our community knows how you have tried to destroy the teachings of our Church.

“Unbelievable but it looks legit” said my friend

Posted on by
Reply

Every now and again, you get an email that just burns you up.  My friend sent me an email with that title, and in the inside, it stated: “I know this is going to p**s you off”.  He was 100% correct.  The object of my ire:  ”the Obama phone”.  What is that, you may ask?  THAT is an apparent program that our dumba** leadership has come up with that gives people is socialized programs a free cell phone.  So, what this means is that the millions of people who work hard everyday to

 

barely scrape a living and cannot afford a cell phone are paying taxes to provide FREE phones and SERVICE to those who don’t.  That, my friends, is amazing.

 

I have the text of the email below.  Feel free to check out the links to make sure this to convince yourself that this is not BS.  I was so shocked I didn’t want to believe it.

 

Obama talks about paying your fair share.  How about if the people who are not paying taxes and receive all these benefits start providing a fair share of support.  What about mayb

e making them work A LITTLE for all the free crap they get.  Welfare is supposed to be a “net” to keep people from starving and living in the streets, not a program to provide those who do not want to work with the same lifestyle that those people who bust their butts everyday do.  THIS, MR OBAMA, IS NOT BEING FAIR, IT’S THEFT.

 

NOW, FOR THE TEXT OF THE EMAIL…

Unbelievable

 

This is TRUE, TRUE, TRUE!    Several people have come into our library to use our computers so they could sign up for the “Obama phone”.   At first, I didn’t know what they were talking about.  Then, as this article points out, one just has to type in the word SafeLink phone and sign up.  It is free and they have a choice of how many minutes they are allowed etc.

 

The Obama Phone -

Just when you think you’ve heard it all, our illustrious Congress quietly comes up with a new zinger to put their hands in your pockets, and pick them while you aren’t watching. Isn’t this just wonderful?

I was standing in line at the checkout counter at Wal Mart and as I looked at the line behind me, I saw a couple of people talking about what looked like identical new cell phones, bragging about the fact that their phones were free and so was the airtime.

The woman in line behind me had heard the same exchange and turned to the young man behind her and asked, ‘Is that a new type of cell phone?’ The young man replied, ‘Yes, this is my new Obama phone. She asked him what an Obama phone was, and he went on to say that, ‘Welfare recipients are now eligible to receive what he described as (1) a FREE new cell phone, and (2) approximately 250 FREE minutes of air time every month.’

Needless to say, I was a little skeptical about his answer, so when I got back home, I Googled it, and lo and behold, he was telling the truth. This was what I discovered:

SafeLink Wireless is a government supported program that provides a free cell phone and airtime each month for income-eligible customers. In other words, your tax dollars are being distributed to a wireless phone provider to provide welfare recipients with free cell phones and airtime. I don’t know about you, but as for me, enough is enough. We are $14 Trillion in debt, Congress is balking at continuing unemployment payments to those who want to work, and Congress is increasing the dole-out to dead beats.

The ship of State is sinking, and it’s sinking fast. The old concept of getting ahead through hard work has flown out the window. It has been replaced by Obama’s and Congress’ idea of Hope and Change. The country has changed all right, changed to “Why should I work for it, when I can get it for free?”

You can click on the link below to confirm for yourself that the Obama Phone is real.

Just have a barf bag ready.

https://www.safelinkwireless.com/EnrollmentPublic/Home.aspx

I work every day and pay for my Own Cell Phone and buy My Own minutes…..
HOW ABOUT YOU! Doesn’t this just burn you up ??

 

 

 

 

Buying a cup of SOPA for PIPA. By cup, I mean a Senator or a Legislator.

Posted on by
1

If you are living under a rock and don’t know what SOPA and PIPA is, it stands for “Stop Online Piracy Act” and “Protect IP Act”.  But what is it?  Well, it’s a very misguided attempt by congress to protect the record company and movie company’s intellectual property.  SOPA is the house version and PIPA is the Senate section.

How can it be bad to protect someone’s intellectual property, you ask?  Well, there are two primary concerns, according to the Cato Institute: “The virtual certainty that it will result in the ancillary blocking of much legitimate free speech, and the damage it would do to the basic architecture of the open Internet.”  According to the Cato institute, this would create an architecture for censorship. That’s not unlike censorship  practiced by China, Iran, and North Korea.  The Cato Institute’s outstanding analysis on this can be found at http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/sopa-an-architecture-for-censorship/.

The real problem with this piece of legislation is that it would give the Justice Department the power to block supposed pirate domains and private parties could seek similar orders.

So in a nutshell, content owners, like Warner Brothers, Fox, NCB, and EMI would have extraordinary power over the internet by just claiming it violates its IP.  So in a great example used by Gizmodo on their excellent article What is SOPA, “If Warner Bros., for example, says that a site in Italy is torrenting a copy of The Dark Knight, the studio could demand that Google remove that site from its search results, that PayPal no longer accept payments to or from that site, that ad services pull all ads and finances from it, and—most dangerously—that the site’s ISP prevent people from even going there.”.  Folks, that’s not BS, its a very distinct possibility.  And what is even worse, its that the legislation, as it stands, would let IP owners take this actions WITHOUT APPEARING IN COURT.  According to Gizmodo, all that is required is a single letter climbing a “good faith brief” that the target has infringed.  It would also allow organizations like the MPAA to create “black lists” to shut sites down.  ALL THIS WITHOUT JUDICIAL OVERVIEW.

So, how do we get to the point were there was bi-partisan support on both chambers of congress?  It’s all in the money.  Thankfully, the blackout of sites over the last couple of days has forced the hands of several supporters, including the White House, which rightfully came out against it today due to the political upheaval that it’s about to create.  But following the money, the list is impressive in its reach.  Here is a sample from opencongress.org that shows how much money the supporting interest groups of SOPA and PIPA have given to Senate supporters:

I’m sure that some of the supporters of this bill really thought that IP must be protected against international pirating, but this bill does not achieve that and it gives a carte-blanche to organizations whose interests are only those of self.

Hopefully the American people learned a lesson from the stupidity that occurred in order to pass Obamacare.  People have read the bill and they DO NOT LIKE the bill.  We need to make sure that the bills that pass thru C0ngress and are signed by the President are vetted and reviewed in an environment of transparency, and not because our legislators participated in a piñata that was full of cash.  As PJ O’Rourke said in his excellent 90s book, this is a Parliament of Whores.

 

 

It’s 2012 and this world is in serious trouble. Too bad we don’t have a leader.

Posted on by
Reply

The US media will make it sound like the world is a much better place in 2012 than it was in 2008 just to get their guy back in the White House.  Results be dammed, what matters is holding the office.  I have seen reports in CNN, CBS, NBC, and ABC talking about how things are getting better thanks to Obama’s action on the mess left by Bush.  Yes, they are still blaming Bush, and yes, it’s sticking.  The net result will be an election much closer than it deserves to be for what has been one of the greatest failures in governing in history.

In the next few weeks, I will go into detail into some of the areas that I’m talking about in this space.  I will also not mention the astronomical failures at home, unless they are connected to a world that is far more dangerous than it’s ever been.

Before I detail the areas of trouble that come to mind, I want to address the trouble of rogue nations owning nuclear weapons.  When the Soviet Union had a huge stockpile pointed at us and we had a huge stockpile pointed at them, we knew that the mutually assured self destruction would deter anyone from actually using those weapons.  In those days, every nation fell into either of the two camps.  We had the allied nations and the free world (OAS nations, ASEAN nations, NATO nations, etc) and the Soviets had the Soviet block (declared communist nations) and what was called non-aligned countries (pre-communist nations that were aligned with them).  The danger of a nut job in North Korea or Iran owning a nuclear weapon is that since the US is seen as a week government, the potential use of that weapon on another nation no longer guarantees immediate destruction back.   We need to remember that the lack of action on anything paired with a growing influence by Iran in world affairs spells nothing but trouble for  the US and our true allies.

Before I start on my view of the world, I want to state that I will likely have to come back and fill in holes.  There are SO many danger areas in the world right now that its virtually impossible for me to outline them all.  In this blog I will only address the danger coming from our back yard in Latin America and the Caribbean.  In a nutshell, Latin America is in deep trouble thanks to complete inaction by the Obama administration, and the US has lost most of its influence in the region.  Latin America loves a strong US (and to complain about it) and a strong US highly benefits from a a strong Latin America.  When the US is weak and Latin America goes left, economies in the region sink, trade sinks, and influence dissapears.

In order to get a good understanding of the gigantic failure that has been Latin American policy under Obama, maybe these words from President Obama at a speech before the Summit of the Americas, will explain:

As President, I’ve committed the United States to a new era of partnership with the region based on equality, shared responsibility, mutual interests and mutual respect. This reflects the reality that Latin America is a dynamic and growing region in which nations are playing a greater role in advancing prosperity and security, across the Americas and around the world. And at the upcoming Summit of the Americas, I look forward to deepening our cooperation.

Some in the region—including the Venezuelan government — have demonstrated anti-American tendencies. But to be blunt, I don’t think the people of the Americas want to live in the past because they’re interested in the future. I believe that most people in the Americas are tired of refighting old ideological battles because it doesn’t do anything to help their daily lives. Our citizens want to know what we stand for, not just what we stand against. Our citizens are focused on what our governments can do to help them realize their aspirations, like jobs that pay good wages, education for our children, security in their communities, and a future where our economies and countries are tied together more closely and where fundamental human rights are respected. That’s what our people want. That’s what we owe them.

This Carter-like misunderstanding of the role of the United States in the Americas is extremely dangerous.  Here is an overview of the results of Mr. Obama’s policies.

The Americas

I would say that the US has never been in such a precarious situation in its own back yard.  Here is a listing of where the problem areas are, from North to South:

Canada: Canada is not only our best friend in the world, but also our sister country.    While we have been busy worrying about the freedom of enemies of our allies in the Arab world, Canada has started focusing a lot more on China and Russia.  Both the Chinese and the Russians have taken controlling interests in mining companies in Canada, and the Chinese are investing heavily in Canada to extend Oil Sands projects.  Canadian companies are jumping at these deals because the US is nowhere to be found.  Not in investments or in consumption.  The political delay of the keystone pipeline project has cost jobs on both sides of the border, and the Canadians are doing something about it by letting the Chinese invest.  This is a long term issue for the US.

Mexico: Our other sister country is rapidly falling into the category of a failed state.  Instead of helping terminate the root cause of the issue (the mexican drug mafia and the Zetas), the Obama administration instead adopted a policy of watching from the outside and tracking weapons movements from the US for political reasons against the second amendment.  The net result was that weapons that were sold by his administration in an extremely stupid attempt to track weapons ended up killing two brave US lawman (Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agent Jamie Zapata) as well as THOUSANDS of Mexicans (with at least 200 directly linked to those guns).  In the meantime, Mexico is loosing the war.  The entire country is in flames.  There have been dozens of Police Chiefs assassinated.  This war, which should be at the forefront for the Obama administration is horrible.  There are over 50,000 dead, including almost 3000 Mexican police officers.  Because of Obama’s inaction on this war, the Mexican government is extremely unstable, and the friendly governments of the past 12 years are just about history.  The socialist PRI party has a 2-1 margin in the polls right now.

Guatemala: The only good news in the region for the US last year was the election of a pro-democracy president in Otto Perez, after the Hugo Chavez aligned criminal former President, Alvaro Colon, tried to break the Guatemalan constitution to be re-elected thru his wife (ala Argentina).  The  big problem, however, is similar to Mexico’s, where the Mexican drug cartels, which were clearly aligned with Colon, start making trouble through their allies in Guatemala.  President Perez has ordered the army to hit the drug gangs hard and has said that he will have an “iron fist” against narco-traffic.  At the very least, Guatemala will be faced with extreme violence in the near future.

Honduras: After Honduras fought partners Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Hugo Chavez in defending its constitution against Socialist and Chavez ally former President Zelaya, the Honduras government has executed in its constitutional duty of democracy by electing President Pepe Lobo according to it’s pro-democracy constitution.  Sounds great, right?  Not so much.  Since Obama has all but abandoned Central America, President Lobo is getting cozier with Chavez to get oil-money assistance.  If you can’t beat them, buy them, right?  Where will this lead is just a guest at this time.

El Salvador: In 2009, Socialist Mauricio Funes was elected President over the pro-democracy candidate.  However, he has luckily governed mostly from the middle.  Outside of a Solyndra type scandal, his two years in office have been quiet.

Nicaragua: Nicaragua is a case all on its own.  Former and once again dictator Sandinista Daniel Ortega was elected in 2005 with 37.99% of the vote as he worked a behind the scenes deal with a former President who was in jail for corruption.  In exchange for his freedom, that former President successfully split the opposition vote, giving Ortega the Presidency.  Under the Nicaraguan constitution (which is similar in this regard to Mexico’s, Guatemala’s, and Honduras’), a President can only have one term.  That specific constitutional point is in place to avoid the legalization of dictatorships, which have destroyed Nicaragua throughout its history.   In 2011, Mr. Ortega, disregarding that constitutional point, sued the Nicaraguan government to run again.  The suit was filed in a rush in a Supreme court that was at the time devoid of any non-Sandinista justices, literally sneaking the suit in as the non-Sandinista justices left, and was given an immediate approval to run.  The whole process was unconstitutional because it violated Supreme Court rules, but the Sandinista led Supreme Electoral Council ran the election anyway.  The election, which happened last November, was rife with total and complete fraud: at one point, the Supreme Electoral Council and the Sandinistas were denying entrance to the opposition to 20% of voting stations.   Even the socialist aligned OAS (Organization of American States) said they were denied access.  According to Roberto Courtney, the executive director of Ethics and Transparency (the Nicaraguan arm of Transparency International), “For the first time in more than 20 years, we had an election that failed”.  The result, Ortega was reelected.

What does this mean to the US?  Well, first, that the Obama administration is weak against anyone who supports Democracy.  The Nicaraguan people protested by the hundreds of thousands and there was no support whatsoever from Obama, Clinton, or anyone outside the anti-communist members of the US Congress.  This was widely reported to be Chavez’ test for his own 2012 re-election.  Dammed the torpedoes (and the democratic constitutions), full speed ahead for Chavez driven socialism/communism.  It also means that Iran gets yet another of their very friendly governments to stay longer.  Iran’s madman and Ortega go way back and are more aligned than even Chavez.  Worse of all, Nicaragua is about the same distance to Houston, TX as Houston is to Washington.    Chavez and his ministers have taken to demeaning the US and Obama, calling him “el negrito” (the little black man), a clown and an embarrassment, the US a second rate power, etc.  Now, thanks to Obama, we have at best 6 more years of the same crap, and at worse, an armed enemy at our doorstep.

Ortega, during his 80s dictatorship, became a wealthy man.  However, much has been written about how the Russians did not trust him, so his fortune had to be stolen from the Nicaraguan people.  During the last 6 years, Mr. Ortega has received over $2 billion from Chavez, much of it going to into his pockets.  Ortega is now indeed a very wealthy man, and with his absolute power he has begun to take over businesses and properties that he has no claim to. Now Ortega is stealing from the Nicaraguan people AND being bribed by daddy Chavez.

The slow and steady destruction of democratic and free market institutions has quickly stepped up.  There is a rash of government property and business appropriations since his re-election and with Oil money from new Oil finds about to rush into the country, the greed machine is about to step into high gear.

Bad times, indeed, are coming to Nicaragua.

Lastly, Mr. Ortega and Costa Rican president Socialist Laura Chinchilla hate each other and are provoking each other on the border.  Likelyhood of a really stupid border war seems more and more likely every day.

Venezuela: Chavez took one of the strongest democracies in the Americas and destroyed it, but that’s a story we all know.  What most people don’t know is that the once prosperous country is now broke, importing food, and the natives are starting to finally get restless.  However, the elections are likely to be once again stolen.  Even the head of the Army stated that the Army would not recognize any other government, regardless of the elections.  This dictatorship is here to stay folks, and unlike Obama, most of us know that it’s not now nor has it been the will of the people for a great number of years.  AND it won’t end with the death of Chavez.

The problems that Chavez poses for the US are many, but here are a few:

  • The Chavez formula to stay in power.  Chavez looks for countries where the left has a chance to win an election due to neglect from the US.  Since Obama doesn’t have a Latin America policy, that majority of the countries in the region.  Once that opposition is identified, Chavez invests big.  Promising free refineries, free meals, and free puppies (I exaggerated with the last one), he typically “buys” the free democratic election for his crony. Once that process has been completed, he makes that country a member of ALBA, Chavez own socio-political organization of the countries he owns.  Every single one of those countries votes as a block in the OAS and the UN, support Chavez causes globally, and basically act for their master.  Once in power, the newly elected President starts to slowly dismantle the security anchors for democracy until they have absolute control.  Once elections are upon them again, that President goes about violating the constitution of their country in the simplest, quietest manner possible.  Once the constitution becomes irrelevant, they can stay and govern for life.  This has been the case in Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and other countries, and was tried in Honduras (almost successfully thanks to Hillary Clinton and Obama) and in Guatemala where they got nowhere.  The net-net is that once they take over a country, that country’s democratic institutions are dismantled in favor of dictatorial socialism.  Very few of those countries escape this cycle.
  • His alliance with Cuba:  While Cuba might be pretty insignificant in the US, its still a big subject in Latin America.  The investment that the Soviets made thru 70 years of intervention in Latin America still has roots, and there are many Socialists and Communists thru the region.  Regionally, Chavez has used Castro and Cuba to align that power base thru the region.  The result has been a huge growth in influence in the region, and complete misalignment for the US.  ALBA now consists of 8 countries, all under direct control of Chavez, and 4 other countries are under heavy influence.  In all likelihood, Mexico will come under that influence in 2012.  Bad for us, considering that there are only 20 countries in the region.  The ethos of the US being weak since Obama took office is now one that is repeated thru the region.  US allied governments in the region are nervous about complete abandonment as the socialist influence in the region grows.   Latin America is burning and Obama is playing his fiddle.
  • His alliance with Iran:  Chaves and Ahmadinejad are strong allies that support each other in the global stage and off.  Thanks to Chavez, Iran’s business with Latin America since 2005 has increased significantly, as has Iran’s influence.  Chavez is acting like Iran’s marriage broker, guaranteeing the support of his controlled countries in the UN and other bodies while Iran provides cold hard cash to Venezuela.   Iran is now trying to use Chavez to mend fences with Brazil, its biggest trading partner, after Brazil’s new President, Dilma Rousseff took office and directly taking on Iran’s human rights record.
  • His alliance with China:  This is a three pronged alliance.  First, Venezuela sells its oil to China on a “china first” basis (over the US).  An energy hungry China pays cold hard cash.  Second, China gets complete access to Chavez’ friend’s Natural Resources in the region, and China pays cold hard cash.  Third, they mutually protect each other from allegations of Human Rights violations and promote each other on the world stage.  China, recognizing that its growth depends on a healthy US economy has chosen not to take more from Venezuela as to not starve its dumbest ally (the US under Obama), but it will happen at some point in time.  From a Cato institute study on Chinese influence with Venezuela:  The breakdown is as follows: $32 billion in loans, some in dollars, some in yen, not all delivered in cash; financing of $4 billion in weapons and airplanes; a promise by the Chinese to invest $40 billion in the heavy oil deposits of the Orinoco river region (not yet materialized) and some $4 billion in technical assistance in railroad, port and housing construction, as well as mining, agriculture and space technology.
If you are asking yourself why Chavez has chosen to pick so much on Obama, the answer is simple:  Because he can and he must.  He can because Obama is weak.  He must because Chavez cannot be the anti-US leader of Latin America without being anti-US.  That is one reality that Obama and his half witted diplomats will never understand.
In addition to the problem that his government possess for the US, the treaty is a lot worse for his people.  Having dismantled all democratic pillars and having tight control over means of communications, there are few ways for people in the country to know what is going on outside.  But the worse thing that he has done is to destroy Venezuela’s economy.  Venezuela’s economic-miracle-in-reverse has had a devastating effect on Venezuelans:  In a market economy, Venezuelans had access to everything, now finding products on the supermarket shelves is almost impossible.  Hardest to find is cooking oil, but chicken, powered milk, sugars, and meat are also scarce.  Foreign debt, in a country that has so much oil, has grown in Obama like numbers, almost tripling during his tenure.  Much worse, he has taken production of Oil to 2.1 millions of barrels of oil per day from 3.15 in 2000.  That huge decline is due to complete mismanagement of the oil sector, nationalization of assets, etc.  This is a country in trouble.
Ecuador: Chavez bought the election for his puppet Rafael Correa in Ecuador in 2007 and he made some of the same moves as Chavez.  He is slowly dismantling the democratic institutions, but it might be all for naught as the stagnant economy is making him extremely unpopular.  His legacy so far is slow GDP growth despite large oil reserves.  Despite the huge collections from oil, he has managed to outspend the increases due to high oil prices and has managed to create the first deficit in the country since the dollar was adopted as the country’s currency.  What’s really sad is that the level of poverty reduction has significantly trailed that of market based democracies in the region by significant margins, just like Correa’s boss in Venezuela.    The problem with Ecuador is the problem with ALBA.  Anything that Chief Chavez says or does goes double for Correa.
Brazil:  President Dilma Rousseff, a left of center President and handpicked by former President Lula, took over last year.  Although the international political impact that she has had has been a very pleasant surprise, her first year had several warning signs.  To describe Brazil, you now have to describe its oil fortunes.   Thanks to advances in oil recovery technologies, Brazil has found itself with some very large reserves deep offshore.  The country has had three GIGANTIC oil finds in very deep waters that have propelled the country to number 15 in the world.  Because of these finds, HUGE investments have come into the country and the country has experienced a huge boom.  The growth was so large, that the term BRIC for Brazil, Russia, India, and China was invented to showcase the similarities in these four booming economies.
President Rousseff was rumored to be much further left than Lula, but it has not worked out that way.  She openly reprimanded Iran for its human rights violations while killing demonstrators last year, which was very un-leftist like (and which Obama failed to do).  She has maintained the same policies of her predecessor and has not rocked the boat.  However, her first year in office did experience some turmoil:  the economy grew much slower, there were several scandals in her cabinet (as 6 ministers had to resign), and she was largely seen as an international political novice (which in my opinion is not necessarily bad).
Now for the bad news:  Brazil, instead of the US, is widely seen as the most influential country in the region.  China’s is set to surpass the US as Brazil’s biggest trading partner and again, Obama’s lack of Latin America policy is to blame.
Bolivia: Evo Morales is the number one ally of Chavez, who paid for his election.  Morales is not exactly what you would call an intelligent person, and has made some really stupid moves.  Following his buddy Chavez’ moves in VZ, Morales announced his intent to re-nationalize hydrocarbon production, irking Petrobras, who consumes all of its gas.  Petrobras has announced that it will replace Bolivian Gas with its own in 2012.  Although he has been a failure, Chavez’ help while dismantling the democratic ideals of the country resulted in his re-election in 2009.
The Caribbean:  To be examined at a later time, but has been the playground of Chavez and Castro.
Although left of center governments were elected in several other countries, those other countries are not yet behaving in a manner seen as anti-liberty.
As you all can see, Obama has been an abject failure in our own backyard.  While not mentioned anywhere, the danger created in our own backyard is more significant than the danger created a world away.  Let’s pray that we can get someone in office who understands this.