...gettingpaidtowatch » Obama

WAR: Obama’s failure to protect us at home

bobsikes — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:39:00 +0000

It will have to be left to the blogosphere to be the record. AJ Strata details how and why the Obama administration has failed to protect America from radical Islamists. While the Clinton adminstration failed to do more that through prosecutors at the problem, Clinton did not have the national will behind him that came from 9-11. We’ll never really be sure what happened with any clarity regarding Bin Laden as Sandy Berger seems to have destroyed the paper trail.

But now, Democrats have lost credibility with respect to fighting people who’s purpose is to kill as many Americans as they can. Couple that with lost credibilty on the economy and health care.

EJ Dionne says that Tea Partiers are Anti Statist Radicals

bobsikes — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 12:04:32 +0000

Well, yea.

Long a shill for Democrats, Dionne continues to advance party talking points that attempt to dismiss and demonize the movement. The headline conveys the tone deafness and detachment from middle America that President Obama and his enabling left-wing members of Congress have acquired.

So what effect does Dionne’s quip-like headline have on folks who are Tea Partiers or identify with the movement’s values?

Answer: None.

Voters that Dionne is attempting to marginalize and humiliate see statism as the agenda that’s currently being advanced by the Democrat Party. See the simple and easy to read list that follows:

The government owning General Motors: statist.

Strong arming GM’s creditors: statist.

Cap and Trade (tax): statist.

Government take over of health care: statist.

Attempts to control the banking system: statist.

Using the EPA to unilaterally impose carbon regulations: statists.

Pay Czars: Really statist.

Czars in general: so statist it’s crazy.

Attempts to pre-determine the census by using ACORN as census takers: you have to be kidding me statist.

Dionne is not clear whether or not he considers statsim to be bad or whether he believes Tea Partiers meerly call Obamaism statist. Perhaps he feels that by dropping the radicalist bomb best serves his party’s spin. Whatever Dionne’s intent, its unmasks the Democrats problem.

Onward we go with the same Democrat agenda that’s served to embolden the GOP and that’s launched a movement that’s galvanized independent voters. It’s likley will get stronger if Dionne and his party continue their current path.

Mary Landrieu tries to hide behind Bobby Jindal on the Louisiana Purchase

bobsikes — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 13:49:12 +0000

What took her so long to come up with this one? She should have defended he vote in this manner from the start. Say’s Jindal:

“I’m against the health care bill and always have been. You would have to live in a cave not to know that. I opposed it even with the FMAP language in it. I am glad the health care bill is dead. We can have honest debates about the issues and honest disagreements. I thought the health care bill was awful. Some members of Congress disagreed with my position and voted for it. That’s OK. The bottom line is that we are all going to have to work together and across party lines to fix the faulty FMAP formula that unfairly penalizes the health care needs of the poorest people in our state. That is an effort that can stand on its own merits,” he said.

Landrieu’s being a little too cute with the e-mail sent from Jindal’s cheif of staff. It signal’s that she is in big trouble at home. She have noticed President Obama publically telling Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln that there will be no move that protects Democrats interests.

The public under the bus toss of Lincoln’s political career further reveals Obama’s disturbing philosophy. He’s not a partisan democrat and any illusion of him being a pragmatist can be thrown out. He indeed wants to fundamentally change America in ways that his long time personal associates have always wanted.

UPDATE: Landrieu also tells Republicans to “shut their mouths”

Just how bad have Obama and Democrats wrecked the ecomomy with their lust for power?

bobsikes — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:27:58 +0000

Jim Hoft, the talented proprietor of Gateway Pundit, has aan easy to read piece at American Issues Project. Here’s the telling nember on how many jobs Obama and Democrats have killed since January:

The US lost over 2.5 million jobs in the first four months of this year under the Obama Administration. The US economy lost 598,000 jobs in January, 706,000 jobs in February, 742,000 jobs in March, 545,000 jobs in April, 485,000 jobs in May, and 473,000 jobs in June. That’s a total of 3,549,000 lost jobs since the beginning of this year. The US unemployment rate has risen from 7.6 percent to 9.5 percent under Obama, the highest rate in 26 years. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, via Sweetness and Light, released a map of the unemployment rate over the last ten years. It’s not pretty. The US has lost 16,000 jobs each day since Democrats passed their non-Stimulus bill, the largest redistribution of wealth from the private sector to government officials in US history. President Obama promised that the unemployment rate would not rise above 8.0 percent with the Stimulus. Today, he says it will climb over 10 percent.

Wow.

Ohio polling more positive for Rob Portman

bobsikes — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 15:55:40 +0000

According to Michael Barone, Portman still trails Lee Fisher and Jennifer Brunner but has narrowed it to within the margin for error. These numbers parallel with President Obama’s plumeting approvals. Democrats are going to need for Fisher to win that nimination as Jennifer Brunner is tainted by protecting ACORN in her job as Secretary of State. Republicans will be using that as a hammer and it will likley play well with the Tea Party voting block.

OMG….HELEN THOMAS called out Robert Gibbs on their orchestrated briefings

bobsikes — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 02:25:18 +0000

Gotta hand it to Thomas in her even handedness.

While I understood Obama’s call to Nico Pitney of HuffPo on the Iranian protests, the efforts by ABC, NBC, and the town hall meetings with Dem operatives is pathetic.

Obama on board with USA Communist Party on Honduras

bobsikes — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:35:46 +0000

Hoo boy.

H/T Kyle-Anne Shiver at American Thinker

Another local voice tells the world why Honduras was right to throw out Zeleya

bobsikes — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 05:20:00 +0000

But Obama and the UN were right.

It has been revealed that the Supreme Court informed him of not only the illegality of such an act, but also told him of the potential consequences. When faced with the facts, it is said the Zelaya was given an option; either proceed with the vote and face prosecution under the law or resign as President and receive safe passage to a neutral country.

My understanding is that he signed a letter of resignation and opted to go into exile, rather than face the music.

With that said, and if it is indeed fact, this is where I take issue with those organizations and countries which provided a knee-jerk reaction to the unfolding situation in Honduras.

Specifically, I take issue with the Organisation of American States. This entity, which is led by Secretary General Jose Miguel Insulza, immediately called for the re-instatement of the “democratically elected President of Honduras”. My disdain with the OAS runs deeper than just this matter, but I will attempt to remain focused.

Sotomayor rulings kept innocent man imprisoned for 16 years

bobsikes — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 05:04:12 +0000

Poor judgement again.

“In a career that took her from a Bronx housing project to Princeton University, Yale Law School, various jobs and now the federal bench, she (Sotomayor) has said that she tries to keep in mind the real-life implications of her rulings when meting out justice,” he wrote.

Such “empathy,” in fact, was one reason Obama explained he picked her.

“Such a high-minded moral standard is what we, as a society, should expect and seek from all our judges, especially a Supreme Court justice. But considering that we are talking about a lifetime appointment to the nation’s highest court, we should see if, in practice, her rulings reflect that,” Deskovic said. “A review of her record in my case shows that Sotomayor’s practice does not live up to her promise.

“All seven of my appeals were turned down. Two stops along the way were in Sotomayor’s courtroom,” he said.

Now he’s working to alert Americans to the dangers he feels Sotomayor presents to the public. He assembled a group on Facebook encouraging contacts with members of the Senate to oppose Sotomayor. He also said he’d like to testify against her at her Senate hearings, scheduled to take place within a few weeks.

Deskovic told WND that if Sotomayor’s appointment is affirmed, “It means that our rights are very much at risk.

“I think the fact she is being considered for an even higher position of responsibility, considering we’re talking about a lifetime appointment, that affects all of our rights.

“She’s supposed to be scrutinizing every case that comes across her desk,” he said, not using technicalities.

“What I don’t understand is why none of the U.S. senators is paying attention to this issue. … Do they agree with what (happened)?” he wondered.

He also suggested politics is playing an huge role, “If this judge had been nominated by a Republican president, the Democrats would have been all over this.”

But he said there’s no excuse, either, for the GOP not to be raising the question.

“Despite Sotomayor’s rhetoric, her ruling in my case showed a callous disregard for the real-life implications of her rulings. She opted for procedure over fairness and finality of conviction over accuracy. Many of the victims of wrongful convictions serving long sentences had exhausted their appeals long before they were exonerated. In how many of those cases did Sotomayor vote to refuse to even consider evidence of innocence?” wrote Deskovic. “My case is far from unique in an age when the reality of wrongful convictions is well-established.

“In my case, Judge Sotomayor did not demonstrate that understanding. If that is her idea of ‘empathy,’ a trait that Obama sought in his appointee, then God help us all,” Deskovic said.

Obama, Clinton sides with leftist thug in Honduras and against the country’s people, laws and constitution

bobsikes — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 02:08:28 +0000

From Glen Garvin writing in the Miami Herald:

For weeks, Zelaya — an erratic leftist who styles himself after his good pal Hugo Chávez of Venezuela — has been engaged in a naked and illegal power grab, trying to rewrite the Honduran constitution to allow him to run for reelection in November.

First Zelaya scheduled a national vote on a constitutional convention. After the Honduran supreme court ruled that only the country’s congress could call such an election, Zelaya ordered the army to help him stage it anyway. (It would be ”non-binding,” he said.) When the head of the armed forces, acting on orders from the supreme court, refused, Zelaya fired him, then led a mob to break into a military base where the ballots were stored.

His actions have been repudiated by the country’s supreme court, its congress, its attorney-general, its chief human-rights advocate, all its major churches, its main business association, his own political party (which recently began debating an inquiry into Zelaya’s sanity) and most Hondurans: Recent polls have shown his approval rating down below 30 percent.

In fact, about the only people who didn’t condemn Zelaya’s political gangsterism were the foreign leaders and diplomats who now primly lecture Hondurans about the importance of constitutional law. They’re also strangely silent about the vicious stream of threats against Honduras spewing from Chávez since Zelaya was deposed.

Warning that he’s already put his military on alert, Chávez on Monday flat-out threatened war against Honduras if Roberto Micheletti, named by the country’s congress as interim president until elections in November, takes office.

”If they swear him in we’ll overthrow him,” Chávez blustered. “Mark my words. Thugetti — as I’m going to refer to him from now on — you better pack your bags, because you’re either going to jail or you’re going into exile.”

So why are Obama and Clinton siding with Chavez and a man who seeks to circumvent his own country’s constitution? Either of two possible reasons are unacceptable to America and freedom loving peoples of ther world. One, they are incompetant and just don’t know what they are doing. Two, they themselves side with enemies of American and its allies in freedom.

Is this what Democrats mean by smart foreign policy?

H/T Real Clear Politics