Let me ask you, folks... did Brazil hate us back in the "bad ol' Bush days?"
Remember when even where it came to "wars of choice" the Brits could be counted on to follow the lead of any U.S. President?
Iraq...??? Totally Bush! Obama inherited that one! No one can or should say any different. And yet... Libya... Syria...???
(*SHRUG*)
The Arab spring? (First Obama supports the overthrow of longtime U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak and the coming to power of longtime U.S. adversary the Muslim Brotherhood. Next Obama publicly denounces the military-judiciary "coup" against the Muslim Brotherhood... while privately applauding it...)
(*HEADACHE*)
If it was Obama who "got" Osama bin Laden then was it also Obama who was responsible for the deaths of all those Seal Team Six members (and other Americans) in a helicopter crash which some in Congress suspect wasn't "just another wartime tragedy?"
Over 1,000 days of gas prices over $3/gal. Bush's fault...??? I think not!
(And about that Keystone pipeline that Obama is still blocking...)
Folks... the state of the Union is not good! Obama is a lousy president! Both Democrats and establishment Republicans fail to acknowledge that the true definition of insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result!
I'll keep posting newsbites...
(*NOD*)
...you keep reading them!
5 comments:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/359368/obama-world-more-stable-it-was-five-years-ago-andrew-johnson
Speaking before the United Nations General Assembly, President Obama justified the NSA’s spying programs, arguing they have helped to stabilize the world in the five years since he took office.
(*SNORT*)
“As a result of this work, and the cooperation of its allies and partners, the world is more stable than it was five years ago,” the president said on Tuesday morning.
* SERIOUSLY, FOLKS... THE MAN IS DELUSIONAL. FORGET SYRIA, LIBYA, EGYPT, YEMEN, SUDAN... BRAZIL... HOW THE BRITS NOW VIEW US...
* ARE OUR RELATIONS WITH CHINA AND RUSSIA BETTER NOW THAN DURING THE BUSH YEARS? NO FRIGGIN' WAY! DO BOTH CHINA AND RUSSIA DIRECTLY CHALLENGE US MORE THAN THEY HAVE SINCE THE COLD WAR? DAMN STRAIGHT!
* FOLKS... OBAMA'S FOREIGN POLICY HAS BEEN A DISASTER FOR AMERICAN INTERESTS AND THE WORLD!
Nonetheless, Obama also told the audience that the United States would review its surveillance practices due to concerns raised by the international community.
* BUT NOT IN RESPONSE TO DOMESTIC CONCERNS...? HMM! NOTICE THAT...?!?! (THAT'S WHAT HE'S ACTUALLY ADMITTING! THAT FOREIGNERS HAVE MORE IMPACT UPON HIM AND HIS POLICIES THAN DO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!)
Prior to the president’s speech, in her own remarks, Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff sharply criticized the U.S. program, calling it a “breach of international law” and “totally unacceptable.”
(*PURSED LIPS*)
* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324665604579080921594857770.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
As close observers of history and human nature, James Madison and the other Founders of the U.S. Constitution knew that the equal and unbiased application of the law to all people - especially elected officials - is essential to freedom and justice and one of the primary safeguards from authoritarianism and oppression by a ruling class.
And so, referring to the members of Congress, James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 57: "[T]hey can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society."
Today, elected officials need to be reminded of these truths.
Under pressure from Congress, the White House has carved out a special exemption for Congress and its staffers from ObamaCare — the law it recently deemed necessary for the entire country.
No Republicans voted for ObamaCare. (Yet it appears that some of them support the exemption President Obama approved on his own — so they would not have to go on record with a vote for or against it.)
* I WISH THE AUTHOR WOULD NAME NAMES.
This is the height of hypocrisy, and worse, a trampling of the Founders' code of equal application of the law.
Having forced a health law on the American people, the White House and Democrats now seek to insulate themselves from the noxious portions of the law, and from the implementation struggles, indecision and uncertainty that many other Americans face today. (In other words, Congress's health-care premiums will not rise, but yours may.)
* ONE... MORE... TIME...
In other words, Congress's health-care premiums will not rise, but yours may.
Members of Congress will be able to afford to keep their health-insurance plan, but you may be kicked off yours.
* ONE... MORE... TIME...
Members of Congress will be able to afford to keep their health-insurance plan, but you may be kicked off yours.
They will be able to afford to keep their doctors, but you may have to find a new one.
* ONE... MORE... TIME...
They will be able to afford to keep their doctors, but you may have to find a new one.
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)
Rep. Ron DeSantis, a Republican from Florida, recently put forward legislation — aptly named the James Madison Congressional Accountability Act — which would end the special exemption. In the Senate, Republicans David Vitter of Louisiana and Mike Enzi of Wyoming have also introduced legislation to end the exemption.
* A SINGLE BILL MUST BE PUT BEFORE BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS. SINGLE... SIMPLE... DIRECT... NO MORE THAN A FEW SENTENCES OR FEW PARAGRAPHS MAX!
In response, several Democratic senators have reacted by drafting legislation that would punish anyone who votes for Sen. Vitter's plan by permanently blocking an exemption from them and their staff, even if Mr. Vitter's law doesn't pass. It doesn't get more vindictive and petty than that.
* STUPIDITY. NO SUCH LAW COULD EVER PASS COURT CHALLENGE. LET'S NOT WASTE TIME ON SUCH NONSENCE... BUT... BUT... JUST FOR YUCKS LET'S GET THE NAMES OF THESE DEMOCRAT SENATORS - I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHO THEY ARE.
All this began when Congress passed the Affordable Care Act in 2010.
* THE ONE THEN-SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE SAID "LET'S PASS IT SO WE CAN FIND OUT WHAT'S IN IT."
It...
* THE ACTUAL BILL WHICH WAS PASSED AND SIGNED INTO LAW...
...compelled Congress and its staff to participate in ObamaCare and its insurance exchanges like other Americans who don't have employer-provided plans. But in their haste and confusion over legislation so long that few even read it all...
* FEW...? I DOUBT ANY REPRESENTATIVE OR SENATOR READ THE FULL BILL.
(*SHRUG*)
...some members of Congress voted for the law without realizing that the final bill had no mention of the very generous premium contributions the government makes to federal employees as part of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.
Imagine the horror when these elected officials, who make $174,000 a year, realized that not only must they and their staffers be subject to inferior-quality health exchanges like the millions of ordinary Americans, but they might also have to shell out thousands of dollars for increased premiums if they exceed the subsidy income cutoff.
The White House, under heat from Congress, directed the Office of Personnel Management to carve out special rules so that the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program can continue to contribute to the health plans used by Congress and congressional staff.
* THIS IS THE PRESIDENT... THE DEMOCRATS... AND RINO REPUBLICANS OPERATING AS AN OLIGARCHY.
Regardless of whether or not they support ObamaCare, members of Congress should refuse the special exemption. The law they enacted should apply to them.
* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/359212/news-flash-food-stamps-need-reform-robert-rector
* OBAMA'S AMERICAN WELFARE STATE...?
Food stamps are merely the tip of a much larger iceberg.
In 2012, government spent $916 billion on more than 80 different means-tested welfare programs, not including Social Security or Medicare.
* NOT INCLUDING SOCIAL SECURITY OR MEDICARE...
These programs provide cash, food, housing, medical care, and social services to poor and low-income Americans. Food stamps accounted for 10% of that total.
* FOLKS... NOTE... I CALLED IT THE OBAMA WELFARE STATE. IT IS. IT'S GROWN UNDER HIM. BY LEAPS AND BOUNDS! IT'S GROWN UNDER HIM AND THE DEMOCRATIC SENATE HE'S HAD THROUGHOUT HIS ENTIRE PRESIDENCY SO FAR!
* YES... REPUBLICANS HAVE CONTROLLED THE HOUSE SINCE JANUARY 2011. THEY SHARE RESPONSIBILITY. BUT IN CONTRAST TO THE DEMS... THE RECORD (JUST LOOK AT OPPOSITION TO THE PORK-LADEN FARM BILL!) IS THAT AT LEAST MANY REPUBLICANS HAVE TRIED TO RESTRAIN THE GROWTH OF THE AMERICAN WELFARE STATE.
* OH... AND A FINAL "YES." YES... I REMEMBER GEORGE W. BUSH'S MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUGS ADD-ON. I OPPOSED IT AT THE TIME. SO DID MANY TRUE CONSERVATIVES. IT PASSED. AND COMPARED TO OTHER WELFARE STATE EXPANSION ONE CAN ACTUALLY MAKE THE CASE - BASED UPON THE NUMBERS - THAT FOCUSING ON PREVENTIVE MEDICATION HAS LED TO FEWER AND LESS-LONG-LASTING HOSPITALIZATIONS.
* ANYWAY... MY POINT... NOPE... I'M NOT GONNA OFFER "BLANKET AMNESTY" TO REPUBLICANS. I CALL 'EM AS I SEE 'EM AND I'LL NEITHER MISLEAD THROUGH LIES NOR OMISSION OF FACT IN ORDER TO TRY AND MAKE MY CASE.
Each month, one out of every three Americans receives aid from at least one of these anti-poverty programs.
(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)
* OF COURSE THEY'RE INCLUDING CHILDREN... INCLUDING THE CHILDREN OF NON-CITIZENS AND EVEN THE CHILDREN OF ILLEGALS.
Overall spending comes to around $9,000 per recipient per year.
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)
Over the next decade, government will spend around $12.7 trillion on these programs.
This spending represents the hidden welfare state, because most policymakers and citizens are unaware of its existence.
[R]eformers should call for the moral transformation of welfare.
These programs should not be one-way handouts.
Instead, they ought to be based on a reciprocal obligation between taxpayers and recipients. Those in need of aid should receive assistance; in return, they should take steps toward supporting themselves. This principle was the foundation of welfare reform in 1996. The main problem was that we reformed only one anti-poverty program out of 80.
Americans overwhelmingly agree with this principle of reciprocal obligation. More than 95%, according to a Heritage survey, agree that “able-bodied adults that receive cash, food, housing and medical assistance should be required to work or prepare for work as a condition of receiving those government benefits.” In fact, over 95% of self-identified Democrats agree with this.
Of the 80-plus anti-poverty programs operating today, only two have meaningful work rules. The food-stamp program is not one of them.
* REPEAT...
Of the 80-plus anti-poverty programs operating today, only two have meaningful work rules. The food-stamp program is not one of them.
It is tempting to call food stamps a fossil, but that would be flattery. The program is worse today than when it was created four decades ago. Changes in eligibility standards have allowed states to enroll an ever-broadening recipient base, all on the federal taxpayers’ dime.
(*PURSED LIPS*) (*NOD*)
[A]lmost any effort is better than doing nothing. Policymakers can’t simply reauthorize the food-stamp dinosaur and allow it to trundle along for another five years.
True, the efforts of the current House to reform food stamps have been flawed. Budget cutters have once again painted themselves into a corner by proposing cuts to a single welfare program without a preparatory discussion about the overall size of the welfare state. This renders reformers needlessly vulnerable to the traditional “stinginess” counter-punch from liberals. Worse, the “work requirements” in the House food-stamp bill are remarkably feeble, nothing more than suggestions. The measure would only make it optional, for instance, for states to require work or work-related activity in exchange for food stamps.
Post a Comment