Free JavaScripts provided
by The JavaScript Source

AMERICA~LAND OF THE FREE~

AMERICA~LAND OF THE FREE~

MY RANTINGS AND RAVINGS ABOUT MY COUNTRY & OTHER THINGS GOING ON IN THE WORLD TODAY. ENJOY AND FEEL FREE TO COMMENT,OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, BUT IF YOU LEAVE BS IT WILL BE DELETED. THANKS FOR READING & LOOKING & HAVE A GREAT DAY! BLESS YOU ALWAYS.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Wednesday, February 03, 2010

OBAMA LIES AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN


Obama reminds Americans he inherited the high deficit from Republicans
THE POST IS FURTHER DOWN...BUT LETS READ THE COMMENTS FIRST....

We would all well be reminded that the surplus created from 1992 to 2000 was done by a person who used social security funds. Research it. This person reallocated the money from the "Social Security Administration", of which is now lacking in any funds, and used the money to make the U.S. Government look like it was running a surplus. The 1992 to 2000 Administration also had the opportunity to rein Bin Laden in to save future generations from Bin Laden’s doings. They failed to do so. Read about it. The administration from 2000 to 2008 had to deal with terrorists and Osama Bin Laden’s network that the administration in the 1990’s let go. The last administration called for the SEC to disallow much of the shenanigans regarding lending and insurance on loans. The 2003 Congress would not let that administration do it. The administration in the first decade of this century basically was challenged in salvaging what the prior administration had torn apart because the 1992-2000 Administration was too busy making things look good instead of getting down to work.

when congress was recaptured by the democrats in 2006, they sat on their hands for the next two years. Didn’t do a thing to solve any problem facing this country. Their sole agenda was to do nothing so Bush could be blamed for the problems over the next two years.

It amazes me how Bush is blamed for the financial crisis, but congress administers the funds, not the president. The democrats are as guilty as any republican because they wasted two years up to the “crisis” in Oct 2008. Then, since an election was around the corner, they got religious and screamed regulation of the financial industry needed to happen right away.

John McCain had been screaming for regulating the financial industry in those two years, but democrats like Rangel, Frank and Dodd would have nothing to do with it, Only after everything fell apart in Oct of 2008 did they scream for regulation.

Those democrats should be put in jail for that.

During 7 of Bush’s 8 years in office, the deficit increased to approx. $500B. In the last six months of his last year, the Congress (including Obama) passed, and Bush signed, the $800B bailout package (necessitated by Democrat failures over the years as much as Republican). This $800B was a LOAN, not an “expenditure,” but the federal accounting process does not have any way to account for a loan, so this went down as “spending,” artificially increasing the deficit to the mythical, and false, $1.3 trillion figure. Now, for all you screaming that “it wasn’t a loan!,” guess what? $500B has already been repaid!! That’s what’s called “a loan.” There is little doubt the other $300B will be repaid as well. Thus, the REAL deficit left by Bush to Obama was $500B, not the $1.3 trillion figure that Obama likes to use to lie to the public. Now, if I know that, and (almost) everyone else knows that, how come Obama doesn’t? Well, there are 2 choices: (1) he does know that, but he’s a liar, or (2) he doesn’t know this and he’s ignorant. Ignorant or a liar, either way he’s in over his head.

Obama inheriting a huge deficit from Bush, blah blah blah. Amazingly, a lot of people still swallow this nonsense.
Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress,and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party. They controlled the budget process for FY 2008 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011. In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases. For FY 2009, though, Pelosi and Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a ma$$ive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.
And where was Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009.
If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is, I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.

I have not noticed the current administration changing their historical pattern of free spending ways. They’re response to irresponsible spending is…more spending. Throw ‘em all out!

Our labor unions demand what the companies can not pay and price us out of the market by doing so. Our Gov’t gives non citizens more help than they do a native born American. You can not spend your way out of debt.

NOW....HERE IS THE POST THOSE COMMENTS RELATE TO.

Lest there be any doubt, President Barack Obama, a Democrat, blames Republicans for leaving him a huge deficit when he took office.

Heard that before? Many times, probably. The president, who is under pressure for spending associated with the $787 billion stimulus package, bank bailouts and car company rescues, introduced his budget on Monday with another reminder of what he faced when he came into office.

“The fact is, 10 years ago, we had a budget surplus of more than $200 billion, with projected surpluses stretching out toward the horizon,” Obama said.

“Yet over the course of the past 10 years, the previous administration and previous Congresses created an expensive new drug program, passed massive tax cuts for the wealthy and funded two wars without paying for any of it — all of which was compounded by recession and by rising health care costs,” he said.

The result: a $1.3 trillion deficit when he first took over the Oval Office.

On Monday his administration forecast a $1.56 trillion deficit in 2010.

Administration officials acknowledge that even though Obama didn’t create the full problem, it’s now his to fix.

What do you think? Is it right for Obama to put most of the blame for the high deficit on the opposition party and his predecessor, George W. Bush?

Expect to hear the reminder again.

Photo credit: Reuters/Jason Reed (Obama)


http://blogs.reuters.com/frontrow/2010/02/01/obama-reminds-americans-he-inherited-the-high-deficit-from-republicans/

Labels: , ,

Thursday, August 06, 2009

OBAMA HAS CALLED ON HIS THUGS TO GO TO TOWNHALL MEETINGS NOW~WHAT A JERKOFF !














You all need to follow the link to this post. Obama has sent out a email to all his cronny Kool aide drinking followers instructions about going to town hall meetings to defend his HEALTH/DEATH POLICY.
This is unreal what he has had his staff send out to all on his email list. UN BELIEVEABLE !! DAMN...THESE PEOPLE ARE VERY VERY SICK.
TAKE AMERICA BACK FORM THESE THUGS AND MOBSTERS. WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON IN THIS COUNTRY. Be afraid be very afraid.





HCAN Playbook For Thwarting Town Hall Protesters



http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2009/08/hcan-playbook-for-thwarting-town-hall-protesters.php?page=1

Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

OLD FOLKS NEED TO HURRY UP AND DIE, SO OBAMACARE CAN HELP YOUNGER FOLKS, SAYS NEW YORK TIMES









Is NYT Encouraging Old Folks to Give up and Die to Help Pay for Obamacare?

Hey, grandma, hurry up and die so that Obamacare can pay for healthcare for more worthy, younger folks. That seems to be the message that The New York Times is selling in order to smooth the waters for the nationalized healthcare system that president Obama is trying to peddle to us all.

The Times is running a series titled "Months to Live" in order to help spread the sort of end of life issues that are helpful to Obama's healthcare agenda, one of which seems to be the idea that elderly should forgo any sort of heroic measures to keep them alive so as not to waste those resources that might be able to go to younger, more vital patients.

In a July 8 article reporting on the end of life care afforded Catholic Nuns in Pittsford, New York, the Times hailed the "dignified" way that nuns end life there with particular emphasis on how many of them refuse extraordinary efforts to keep themselves alive. Apparently, the Times thinks we should emulate the nuns and just let ourselves die without trying too hard to keep on living.

But, even in its first few paragraphs the Times displayed several conflicting talking points one being that the nun that serves as the article's initial subject may be uninterested in life saving procedures, but her sister is definitely not of that same opinion. This tends to show that not everyone wants to just wither way and die without fighting to stay alive as the Times seems to be suggesting we should be.

The Times also tries to make a point on how many elderly people "are often overmedicated" and showcases how this nun refused most of the "23 medications not essential for her heart condition," but then adds that these medications were winnowed by a geriatrician. So, was she prescribed these medications or not? It isn't quite clear. This makes a poor case for the claim of overmedication and seems more like an assertion by the writer that is not germane to the case.

The Times goes on to describe how the sisters and several priests along with the church pay for this hospice-like care of those at the end of their lives, the story making it all seem like the perfect system. But one cannot help but realize that we are talking about a system built to serve a small handful of people with the support of the church behind them. How this financial burden can be translated to 300 millions of citizens is never addressed.

Misleadingly, the Times also tries to make it seem as if the church system being described quells any talk of both rationing of care and euthanasia of the elderly.

Laura L. Carstensen, the director of the Center on Longevity at Stanford University, says the convent setting calms the tendency for public policy discussion about end-of-life treatment “to devolve into a debate about euthanasia or rationing health care based on age.”

“Every time I speak to a group about the need to improve the dying process, somebody raises their hand and says, ‘You’re talking about killing old people,’ ” Dr. Carstensen said. “But nobody would accuse Roman Catholic sisters of that. They could be a beacon in talking about this without it turning into that American black-and-white way of thinking: Either we have to throw everything we’ve got at keeping people alive or leave them on the sidewalk to die.”


The problem with this rhetoric is that it denies the simple fact that should these concepts become federalized in a national healthcare system, then the patient's choice in the matter will be summarily dispensed with as rules and regulations prescribing procedures will take over.

In short, the second these ideas become the norm, government MUST by necessity of control begin to determine which citizens are "worth" saving and which aren't worth the efforts and should be denied services. And from there it won't be long before prescriptions of euthanasia for those "not worth" the costs of government largess will become de rigueur everywhere.

So, while the process of dying practiced by these nuns described in the Times might have something going for it, translating it to a nationalized healthcare system is fraught with eugenics styled evils.

But, if it soothes suspicions about Obamacare, why the Times is happy to oblige.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2009/07/13/nyt-encouraging-old-folks-give-die

Labels: , , , , , ,

Tuesday, July 07, 2009

ABC IN BED WITH OBAMA ON HEALTHCARE AND EVERYTHING HE WANTS TO DO














How ABC Stacked the Deck for Obama

With the very first question of its prime time special, Questions for the President: Prescription for America, ABC set the tone that essentially confirmed for viewers that the president was right in his desire to radically remake America's healthcare system. As the infomercial began, "moderator" Charles Gibson asked a seminal question of the doctors and other participants that were about to hear the president speak: "How many of you agree with the president that we need to change our healthcare system?" Naturally they all raised their hands.

Imagine that? This handpicked crowd all agreed with ABC and Obama that "change" was paramount. Surprised? Hardly.

So, as the viewer is introduced to the infomercial, they start off with the unanimous affirmation that the president is right, radical changes have to be made. The premise is set and even the sharp questions to the president later in the show are blunted by the assumption that some major change is needed. And since the president is the only person allowed to offer any plan during this ABC special, the further assumption promulgated is that he is the one that must affect that change.

For viewers of this healthcare infomercial, Obama wins thanks to an assist by ABC. The viewer is deftly led to the desired conclusion.

The problem with the "change" question is, what sort of change are we talking about? Why is Obama's change the only plan on the table, here? Is there no other plan for change out there? ABC's viewers sure won't know from what they got Wednesday night.

Granted, ABC did throw some pointed questions at the president. But, sadly, his non-answers were rarely challenged and Obama was allowed to dole out his talking points without opposition. For instance, the president kept to his "you can keep your plan if you want to" talking point even as more and more politicians, political pundits, and healthcare and economics experts are beginning to say this claim is an untruth. Obama himself recently moderated his claim a bit by saying that he really meant that government wouldn't specifically require that people must lose their current plans. The difference is he went from explicitly saying no one would lose their current plan to tacitly admitting that his policies will force people to lose their plans whether government specifically says they must or not. It's as if he were slowly inching toward the truth. Unfortunately, Obama was not pressed on this point during the ABC infomercial and was allowed to reiterate his earlier, obviously false, claims. A recent study shows that "anywhere from 10.4 million to 119.1 million people could end up switching from their current plans" and onto the public plan if it gets implemented. This will not be a voluntary move, but one forced on them by their employers dropping their current plan in favor of the public option.

ABC did a masterful job setting up the claim that they were fair and balanced, too. A webpage has been launched to "fact check" the president's Wednesday appearance where ABC says that the president was "eager to make his case to the public -- but sometimes glossing over the thorny details of how to achieve reform." But, while they do talk of some of the president's errors, it is unlikely that more than a small percentage of Americans will ever see this webpage. The chances that only one or two percent of the TV audience will see the "fact check" webpage is strong. Even as ABC can say they corrected the president, most people that saw the special will come away on the president's side due to how the show was presented.

Finally, without any strong, intelligent counter voices, this ABC special was all Obama. It did not do much to advance the education of the audience or better inform those at home watching and left anyone viewing with the impression that the only "solutions" are coming from Obama.

Only The One cares. That was ABC's message.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2009/06/25/how-abc-stacked-deck-obama

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Monday, November 03, 2008

Obama, say it aint so, No coal plants in America, No nuke Plants ? WHAT A SCUMBAG !

Obama said he will will bankrupt the coal industry. Just shows you what an idiot he is. What a damn shame this man got this far. That Kool aide he has been dishing out must have been some strong stuff !

In the interview, Obama had said that his "aggressive" cap-and-trade plan would charge polluters for every unit of carbon or greenhouse gas they emit, a plan that would render polluting coal plants financially unviable.

"He said that, sure, if the industry wants to build coal-fired power plants, then they can go ahead and try, he says, but they can do it only in a way that will bankrupt the coal industry, and he's comfortable letting that happen."

"So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can," he said. "It's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."



If Barack Hussein Obama is anything, he is nothing at all what you describe. You must have tongue in cheak whilst writing that post.
Obama is merely what MSNBC and other liberal media say he is - merely what they say!
Actually he is a charlatan bilking people that believe what the liberal secular media say he is. His background is rotted and corroded by unAmerican, even anti-American associates like the not so Reverend Wright, Bill the domostic terrorist and murderer Ayers, Palistinian leaders, not to mention the ultra liberal law faction at the out of touch Harvard University that would like to see one of theirs in the White House. A more unAmerican person couldn't have run for the presidency in today's America.
I reject him and all that he stands for and I will use the only power I have as a citizens - my vote - and not vote for him.

Barry reminds me so much of what I imagine Adolf Hitler was like - smooth talking, surface-plausible to the inexperienced/uneducated, egomaniac, power-mad. But completely ignorant (or completely disinterested) in the effects of his socialist policies on the average hard-working American.

The evidence on 'global warming' is completely against the purported goals of his 'coal-fired' clampdown. There's no need for such precipitous action except as another insidious socialist 'spread the wealth' scam.

Yet B. Hussein would drive poor families out on the streets with raised electricity rates (or more likely force higher taxes on the rest of us to pay for it).

Vote NO on the Anschluss! Vote Yes for McCain/Palin!

Want change? Real Change? Change that means change to an unAmerican life style? Change in why you get up or don't get up to go to work? Change from an America that is a strong leader to a European-like weak socialist America at the mercy of radical Islam?
than, you vote for Obama!
I am not voting for his kind of change...too radical for me!
Barney Frank and the like! Fear McCain and Palin's adminitration now!
Join me, McCain and Palin...straight talkers and non-unAmericans to clean out the crud in Congress.
Vote McCain/Palin ticket I am.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

OBAMA SAYS~SPREAD THE WEALTH AROUND, VIDEO~TRUE AND FUNNY

Obama says "spread the wealth around". You have got to see this video. Funny and true.

Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, October 26, 2008

Virgina McCain Supporters give CNN reporter hell ! YEAH ~VIDEO

The McCain supporters in Virgina put a CNN reporter in his place about media bias and all of Obama's lies and such and tells it like it is when it comes to the main stream media outlets that have been in bed with Obama from day one. CBS,NBC,MSNBC,ABC,CNN. Yeah that's the way to tell em ! It's about time someone stand up to their sorry asses.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

VIDEO WITH OBAMA/PIG TELLING PLUMBER ABOUT SOCIALISM AND HOW HE WILL SPREAD THE WEALTH AROUND

OBAMA TELLS A PLUMBER IN OHIO ABOUT HIS SOCIALIST PLANS.DAMN !! OBAMA REALLY IS A NUTCASE. GUESS HE DRANK TO MUCH KOOLAIDE AND SHOT TO MANY DRUGS AND SMOKED TOO MUCH CRACK AND SNIFFED TO MUCH COKE AND SMOKED TOO MUCH WEED. IT WHACKED HIS BRAIN.



THE PLUMBER CALLS IN TO FOX AND TALKS WITH NEIL ABOUT WHAT HE THOUGHT.



Now this one is a long video but it tell it all. Socilism and radicalism and Barack Obama. Amazing.

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, September 18, 2008

Barack Obama is a liar !! HOW SHAMEFUL !

A Connection Barack Obama Doesn't Want the American People to Know About
While Senator Barack Obama has been on the campaign trail this week telling voters that John McCain is beholden to greedy corporate executives, he has forgotten to tell those same voters the truth about his record.
With the exception of Senator Chris Dodd, Barack Obama has received more money from mortgage giant Fannie Mae during his three years in office than any other politician in the United States has received in the company's entire history. Senator Obama talks a lot about not taking money from lobbyists, but he d oes not seem to mind taking record sums of cash from corrupt corporate executives at Fannie Mae. The truth is that Obama holds these greedy corrupt executives in such high regard that he decided to have one of them, Jim Johnson, lead his search for finding a vice presidential running mate.
Learn more here:
Obama's Ties to Fannie Mae Run Deep
The American people are paying a huge price to bailout Fannie Mae. Corporate executives at Fannie Mae and other companies have violated the trust of the American people, and yet Barack Obama is willing and eager to take their money and involve them deeply in the affairs of his campaign. Simply put, the American people deserve better.
John McCain has a 25 year track record of fighting for the American people and taking on special interests. John McCain has taken on tobacco companies; John McCain has taken on the pharmaceutical industry; John McCain has ta ken on Washington lobbyists; and now John McCain is ready to take on the greed of corporate executives and Wall Street.
Debate Watching Parties
We're in the midst of a busy fall season with just under 50 days left until Election Day. The first presidential debate will be held next Friday, September 26th at the University of Mississippi. After months of refusing to hold joint town hall meetings with John McCain, Senator Obama will finally have to face John McCain one-on-one.

Must Clicks
In these times of economic crisis, American families cannot afford the policies that Barack Obama would institute as President. From painful tax increases to massive new government spending programs, the McCain campaign's latest ad exposes what effect an Obama presidency would have on the economy.
Watch the Ad Here:
The Obama Economy
Gove rnor Sarah Palin held a one-on-one interview with Sean Hannity from Fox News earlier this week.
You Can Watch the Clips from the Interview Here:
Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3
Must ReadsRecent Obama Ads More Negative Than Rival's, Study SaysBy Howard KurtzThe Washington PostSeptember 18, 2008
Despite perceptions that Sen. John McCain has spent more time on the attack, Sen. Barack Obama aired more negative advertising last week than did the Arizona Republican, says a study released yesterday.
To read more, click here:
Recent Obama Ads More Negative Than RIval's, Study Says
McCain, Palin Town Hall Meeting Impresses West Michigan RepublicansBy Ted RoelofsThe Grand Rapids PressSeptember 18, 2008
As John McCain looked on, the question was all but put on a tee for Sarah Palin on Wednesday at Grand Rapids Community College.
To read more, click here:
McCain, Palin Town Hall Meeting Impresses West Michigan RepublicansOur View on Bipartisanship: Who's the Better Uniter?USA TodaySeptember 18, 2008
McCain, in Congress for 26 years to Obama's four, has the longer record of producing bipartisan alliances on tough issues. He has bucked his party again and again to do just that-- on immigration, federal judges and campaign finance, to name three on which he enraged many Republicans by defying the party position and working with Democrats.
To read more, click here:
Our View on Bipartisanship: Who's the Better Uniter

Labels: , , , , , ,