Social Security Spends $700,000 on a Conference
When you are the CEO of Tyco and you hold outrageous, lavish “company outings,” and you steal money from your company, what do you get? The answer would be, you get thrown in jail.
Dennis Kozlowski was found guilty of stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from Tyco and sentenced to 8 to 25 years in prison.
When you are the Social Security Department and you hold a “conference” that includes dancers and costs the taxpayers $700,000 and you also steal hundreds of millions of dollars from the taxpayers every year, it is business as usual.
I ask you, which is worse? At least Dennis Kozlowski was stealing from his own company. Social Security is stealing from all taxpaying Americans.
All I ask is that the government is held to the same standards that they hold private citizens to. Is that so unreasonable?
When you or any other average American is having trouble paying the bills and making ends meet what do you do? Most people cut down of frivolous spending in order to keep paying for life’s necessities. Almost all of us have been there and that is what we do. If we decide to spend money that we do not have we will go bankrupt.
Evidently Joe Biden is one of those people who have never been in that situation, or if he has he has not learned what needs to be done when in that situation.
With the president spending trillions of dollars that the country does not have and as the country spirals downward toward bankruptcy this is what Joe Biden had to say to the AARP:
You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’” Biden said. “The answer is yes, I’m telling you.”
That is liberal thinking all wrapped up in one nice, tidy little sentence. While people cut back on spending when they do not have extra money, Joe Biden and this administration are proposing that the only way to stave off bankruptcy is to spend MORE money that we do not have.
Is it any wonder that this administration has already failed in its attempt to stimulate the economy with that type of logic? President Obama has spent more money than all of the previous presidents combined and he has done it in his first six months as president and he has done it when the country can afford it the least. If Joe Biden is any indication of what this administration believes is the way to stave off bankruptcy the country is doomed.
According to this article the healthcare reform bill includes taxpayer funded abortion on demand.
Despite the fact that large majorities of Americans don’t want to fund abortion, the Obama-Kennedy-Dingle bill will nevertheless force every taxpayer and every premium payer in the United States to pay for and facilitate every abortion in the country
That statement was made by Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey who then went on to say the following.
Despite President Obama’s statement to the pope just last week that he wants to reduce abortion, the ugly truth is that the so-called health care reform bill, if enacted and if not amended, will lead to millions of additional dead children and wounded mothers
That is a good point. President Obama told the pope that he wanted to reduce abortions in America. How is providing free abortions going to bring down the number of abortions? It won’t, abortion rates will rise if they are made free.
Why should people who are opposed to abortion be forced to watch their tax dollars being sent to provide abortions? As bad as the idea of nationalizing healthcare is on its own, this just makes it truly unacceptable to me.
If a woman wants to have an abortion that is one thing, I don’t agree with it but it isn’t my choice. But if that woman cannot pay for it and she wants me to pay for it I have a big problem. I should not be forced to sit here and watch my tax dollars being spent on something that I find as horrible as abortion.
To tell you the truth I would have been surprised if there wasn’t a provision for taxpayer funded abortion in this disastrous legislation, after all Barack Obama is the most pro-death president to ever inhabit the White House.
Free abortions for all, HUZZAH!
During her confirmation hearing Sonia Sotomayor was asked about judicial activism by Sen. Jon Kyl, and how she believes that a justice should rule. This was her answer:
I wouldn’t approach the issue of judging in the way the president does…Judges can’t rely on what’s in their heart. They don’t determine the law. Congress makes the law. The job of a [judge] is to apply the law,” Sotomayor said, in response to question by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) “It’s not the heart that compels conclusions in cases, it’s the law.”
Sotomayor went on to say a judge’s feelings were irrelevant to the correct outcome in a case. “We apply law to facts. We don’t apply feelings to facts,”
Great answer! That is the answer that I wanted to hear. That was also the answer that Jon Kyl and other strict constitutionalists wanted to hear. This is the answer that anyone who believes in the constitution wanted to hear.
I would feel a little better about that answer and about Sonia Sotomayor except that I am not sure that she really believes what she said. I think that she just told me and everyone else what they wanted to hear.
She has been rehearsing and training for this moment since she was nominated to take a seat on the Supreme Court. She knew this question was coming and she knew what answer she should give. But do you remember what she said in an unscripted moment when she forgot that she was being recorded? She held just the opposite opinion.
court of appeals is where policy is made, and I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know
During this unscripted moment she admitted that she believes the court of appeals makes laws, but then remembering that she was being recorded she tried to backtrack. She seemed to realize that she shouldn’t say what she was about to say but couldn’t stop herself, and then she tried to make it seem as if she were joking.
So the question is, which side of this issue do you think that Sonia Sotomayor really believes? Do you believe her answer from the hearing in which she had time to prepare and give us all the answer we wanted to hear? Or do you believe what she said when she forgot that she was being recorded and she was just being herself?
She appears to hold two positions on judicial activism and ruling from the heart depending on which audience she is talking to. One of these views is her real view and I suppose we will not find out the truth until she is seated on the Supreme Court. At least officially, I have a pretty good idea what her true position is and I do not like it.
Obama’s Historic Presidency Continues; Deficit Hits $1 Trillion for the First Time in History
It isn’t often that one person can make history twice in his or her lifetime not to mention twice in eight months but that is what President Obama has done. President Obama made history when he became the first black president and now he has made history once again.
For the first time in history the federal deficit has topped $1 trillion, congratulations are in order for Barack Obama as he has spent more money in his first eight months as president than all the other presidents combined.
But fear not, as President Obama told Hollywood at a fundraiser, “you ain’t seen nothing yet.” The spending is far from over, we still have the pending climate change and healthcare bills as well as talk of a second stimulus bill.
This record deficit is projected to almost double by the fall to about $1.85 trillion, making it a record that quite possibly will never be broken. That is unless Barack Obama is elected to a second term.
The hits just keep on coming. With all of the president’s spending that the country cannot afford and with the borrowing of money from China and with the printing presses rolling we can consider one more thing history if we keep spending at this rate– our country.
I have made my feelings known about Sarah Palin, they can be read here, so this post is not designed to be a defense of Sarah Palin but rather a look at the difference in media coverage between Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama.
Since Sarah Palin’s announcement that she was resigning as governor of Alaska she has been labeled a quitter and weak. She has been called someone who does not honor the commitment that she made to her state. I agree with most of the criticism, I think that when she announced that she was not running for re-election she should have made the decision to stay on as governor. But that is not the point here, the point is how the media has been portraying her this way and how I can site two examples of the media not covering other politicians in the same light.
The first example is Hillary Clinton. She was a sitting senator in New York who left her state to campaign for president. While it is true that she did not resign her position to run for president the fact is that she was absent for the final two years of her commitment. Once Barack Obama named her the Secretary of State (unconstitutionally) she quit on her state to join the administration. She did not honor her commitment to her state, she left her state for personal political goals. The media did not call her a quitter, and they did not call her weak, they did not say that she failed to honor her commitments. Just the opposite was the case.
But an even more glaring case of a politician quiting on his state before his commitment was complete is Barack Obama. This man served less than two years of his commitment as senator to Illinois. When he was being pressured to run for president he initially declined saying that he wasn’t ready to be president. Suddenly he changed his mind and began campaigning for president, leaving his state behind less than a third of the way through his FIRST term. Yet the media did not call him a quitter and they did not call him weak, they did not say that he was not honoring the commitment that he made to his state.
With Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama the media coverage was generally positive, there were no negative attacks as there are with Sarah Palin. In Hillary’s case she has been running for president since she won election in New York, that is the sole reason that she ran for senator in the first place. In Obama’s case he fulfilled less of his commitment to his state than did Sarah Palin to her’s.
What is the difference here? We all know that Sarah Palin is running for president so the motives between the three are identical, yet there is quite a difference in the media coverage. The only difference that I can see is that while Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were still collecting a paycheck for the duties that they were no longer providing to their states, Sarah Palin will be giving up her pay as a lame duck governor.
We all know the reason why the coverage has been so different between Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Sarah Palin. I don’t even need to say it but I will any way. Political affiliation.
This is just the latest example of the bias that is in the media. It isn’t surprising, it is expected. But considering the role the media plays in politics today it is a little disconcerting.
It looks like the climate change Ponzi scheme bill that the House recently passed is going to face more opposition in the senate than I thought. One of President Obama’s closest allies, Claire McCaskill, had this to say about the climate change Ponzi scheme:
We’ve got to be very careful with what we do with this legislation, we need to be a leader in the world, but we don’t want to be a sucker.
That is exactly what this administration, and all of the other global warming alarmists, are playing us for– suckers. Claire McCaskill is a proponent of global warming legislation, she cares about saving the planet, but there is one thing that she cares about even more– getting re-elected. That’s fine, I am not complaining, I am glad she is putting her state above the president’s radical agenda. Her state is a coal dependent state and she knows that if she were to vote for this legislation and her vote helped to cripple the state, as it surely will, (remember Obama admitted during the election that he would put the coal industry out of business) that she would be looking for a job very soon.
I don’t care what her reasons are for being leery of this bill just as long as she puts the needs of her state above the president’s agenda. If she can be used as a barometer for the way many of the senators who represent states that will be unfairly harmed by this legislation, than perhaps there is hope that this bill will be killed after all. That is a possibility that I didn’t dare dream about before.
President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, and other Republicans were accused of using the “politics of fear” to win elections. We heard Democrats say that it was time to move beyond the “politics of fear'” yet as we can see in this article the “politics of fear” is still being used in full force. Only now it is being used by the Democrats and it is being used on a different issue.
When President Bush tried to warn the American people about the very real threat of terrorism he was accused of using the “politics of fear.” But just look at the following quote from the above linked article and then try to convince me that Barbara Boxer is not engaging in the “politics of fear.”
If the Senate doesn’t pass a bill to cut global warming, Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer says, there will be dire results: droughts, floods, fires, loss of species, damage to agriculture, worsening air pollution and more.
How is she not using the “politics of fear” when she makes those claims. But this is nothing new from this administration, they have been using the “politics of fear” since Barack Obama became president. The only difference between President Obama and President Bush is the issue that they use the “politics of fear” on.
While President Bush used the “politics of fear” on terrorism President Obama has used the “politics of fear’ on other issues. This example is the latest usage of the “politics of fear,” but it is not the first time since the election that Democrats have used the “politics of fear.” As a matter of fact the “politics of fear” is becoming a mainstay with Democrats and the Barack Obama administration.
President Obama used the “politics of fear” in order to demand swift approval of his stimulus bill. Remember when he said a catastrophe would happen if the stimulus bill was not passed right away? I do, this was the “politics of fear” and as we have seen with the failure of the stimulus bill that while the economy still isn’t improving there is no catastrophe.
I am getting so sick and tired of hearing all of these doomsday profits; Barbara Boxer, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John McCain, and Al Gore, the list goes on and on, try to tell us that they know what is going to happen with the weather years down the road when meteorologists can’t even predict the weather that is coming two days from now.
These people need to be arrested, and thrown in jail for attempted fraud. This is the biggest Ponzi scheme in history, dwarfing even Bernie Madoff. And there doesn’t seem to be anything that we can do about it.
What do you do when you are a liberal activist group and there is a liberal nominee to the Supreme Court who has been overturned by the Supreme Court over 60% of the time?
If you are the People for the American Way instead of trying to justify the Supreme Court nominee you are backing, you try to slander the man who recently won a Supreme Court decision that reversed your nominee’s last decision just days ago.
The People for the American Way are urging reporters to go after Frank Ricci, the New Haven firefighter who took the fire department to court because he was discriminated against. Sonia Sotomayor sided with the fire department and basically thought that it was okay for Ricci to be discriminated against because of his skin color. That decision was overturned just days ago by the Supreme Court, which ruled that discrimination because of skin color was not allowed, reversing Sotomayor’s decision.
For committing the crime of being discriminated against the People for the American Way, instead of being happy that discrimination was ruled unconstitutional and instead of opposing a judge that would write discrimination into law, are beginning a campaign against Frank Ricci. They cannot defend Sonia Sotomayor’s decision so instead they try to criminalize the victim in the New Haven firefighters case.
I am not sure how that is supposed to show us that Sonia Sotomayor belongs on the Supreme Court. Maybe they are trying to show us that she is the one who made the right choice and the Supreme Court’s reversal of her decision was wrong. Maybe they are siting this as an example of why she does in fact belong on the Supreme Court– because the court needs a makeover.
I would argue that if a judge is overturned by the Supreme Court over 60% of the time than it is that judge that needs the makeover, and not the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has told Sonia Sotomayor that she was wrong about the law 60% of the time, she is the one who doesn’t understand either the role of a judge or the laws that she has been ruling on.
And for this she has been nominated to the very court which has ruled against her more than they have sided with her. It is no wonder the People for the American Way have decided that they can’t defend her record and why they have decided to slander a victim of racial discrimination instead.
Spam Emails are as Bad for the Environment as SUVs
You should be ashamed of yourself. As you sit here and read yet another global-warming-is-a-hoax post by yours truly you are contributing to the warming of the planet.
At least that is what this article claims.
Wissner-Gross estimates every second someone spends browsing a simple web site generates roughly 20 milligrams of C02. Whether downloading a song, sending an email or streaming a video, almost every single activity that takes place in the virtual environment has an impact on the real one.
Or even reading articles about how you can save the planet, right? What can be more unbelievable than the claim that sitting behind a computer monitor is destroying the planet? How about a new “green internet?”
As millions more go online each year some researchers say the need to create a green Internet ecosystem is not only imperative but also urgent.
Naturally the article never actually mentions what the hell a “green internet ecosystem is. That is because there is no such thing, this whole “issue” is made up. The only “green internet ecosystem” that I can come up with is that the government is going to take our “green” away from us through taxes and regulations. Maybe we can implement an email cap and trade policy.
The article goes on to claim the following:
Anti-virus software firm McAfee reports that the electricity needed just to transmit the trillions of spam emails sent annually equals the amount required to power over two million homes in the United States while producing the same level of greenhouse gas emissions as more than three million cars.
“Most people don’t appreciate that the computer on your desk is contributing to global warming and that if its electricity comes from a coal power plant it produces as much C02 as a sports utility vehicle,” said Bill St. Arnaud of Canarie, a Canada-based internet development organization.
There you have it, spam emails are just as harmful to the planet as SUVs and we have all seen the scrutiny that SUV drivers have been under in recent years. If spam emails are helping to destroy the planet, that means all emails are destroying the planet, the planet cannot differentiate between a spam email and a non-spam email. Doesn’t that mean that emails need to be regulated (through taxes of course) in order to save the planet?
I am probably more tired of writing about this subject than you are about reading about it but with the House already passing climate change legislation we need to bring the fraudulent nature of this “issue” to light before it is too late.
The more that we read from these alarmists the more insane they sound. This is an “issue” that we can not let slip through the senate without a fight.
