Paul Broun Compares Barack Obama to Hitler
President-elect Obama made some comments that recently showed up on youtube about creating a civilian national security force that has drawn the ire of people who are wondering what the hell he is talking about. This is more than a neighborhood watch program as he states it should be as equally funded as the military.
Paul Broun, a congressman from Georgia had this to say about Barack Obama’s plan:
“It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he’s the one who proposed this national security force,” Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press. “I’m just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may — may not, I hope not — but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism.”
And he didn’t stop there:
“That’s exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it’s exactly what the Soviet Union did,” Broun said. “When he’s proposing to have a national security force that’s answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he’s showing me signs of being Marxist.”
He then says that he is not actually comparing Barack Obama to Hitler, but warns that we had better watch our backs:
“We can’t be lulled into complacency,” Broun said. “You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I’m not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I’m saying is there is the potential.”
Yes you are comparing him to Hitler. I have called the soon to be president a Marxist, socialist, totalitarian, un-American, anti-semite, and many, many other names. But I would never compare him to Hitler. Stalin maybe, but not Hitler. How dare you campare a United States president to Hitler, you should be ashamed of yourself, uh wait a minute……
Just when I thought that I might be willing to defend Obama on this I remembered this:
And I started to ask myself why should I condemn Broun and defend Obama when this is the type of defamation that President Bush was subjected to? How many of the people who believe that Bush=Hitler are now outraged by the congressman’s remarks? I would guess that most of them are.
How many Bush haters who have called Bush the world’s leading terrorist will now have the audacity (of hope) to complain about this?
I will not defend Obama from this attack, but I also will not defend Broun either, however because of the treatment that Bush has recieved over the last eight years, neither will I condemn Broun.
If it was fair to compare Bush to Hitler than it must be okay to compare Obama to Hitler. Fair is fair.
I keep hearing on the television that it is time to get behind Barack Obama, that it is time to unite, yet these pictures above show how the current president was treated. There was no call for unity then, was there?
I am having trouble with the notion that we are supposed to unite behind this new president when the same people that tell us to unite are the ones who tried to divide us over the years. Why should I listen to the people who created such offensive pictures of the president now that their guy is in office?
The left had no thought of unification when they were in the minority, they spent eight years trying to destroy President Bush and the Republicans but now that they are in the majority we Republicans are just supposed to acquiesce to their every whim?
I am sorry but I am just having trouble trying to justify why I should get behind the same people who created such horrific images of President Bush.
I can’t bring myself to so it.
White House Defends Bailout, “it’s not Socialism”
Last Friday the white house once again defended the bailout bill, this time addressing claims that it is a socialistic policy.
The federal government’s $700 billion bailout of Wall Street, which includes purchasing shares in the nation’s banks, does not undermine free market capitalism, the White House said on Friday.
“We’re very, very far away from that line of socialism, wherever that’s drawn out there,” White House spokesman Tony Fratto said.
He continued:
“There’s absolutely zero appetite for government ownership and government control of private businesses, and that should be clear to everyone,”
Well you know what? It isn’t clear to me, I see the government taking over the banking system with no requirement to ever give control back to the private sector. That sounds like socialism to me.
Today the government threw even more money at AIG and took partial ownership in the company. That also soundls like socialism to me. And it sounds like socialism to many others.
“He says it doesn’t cross the line into socialism, but it does,” Gamrat told CNSNews.com, referring to Fratto. “We do have a precedent with Chrysler. That did work, but there was a plan involved. The problem now is that we don’t have a plan. The Treasury is spending $700 billion without a cohesive plan of what to do with it.”
No exit strategy, where have we heard this before? The government is taking over more and more private companies and we are just supposed to sit back and watch? We are supposed to believe that the government will make it all better for us? When has the government taken over any industry and made it better? NEVER! We are supposed to trust the government to willingly give back power that it seized from private companies?
America as we know it is slipping away, the government owns the economy, the mortgage industry, the banks, AIG, soon it will own the automobile industry and it won’t stop there. Where will the tentacles of the government reach next?
This government takeover of the economy and business through purchases in the name of helping the American people must be stopped.
The white house claims that this is not socialism, but it sure does smell like socialism to me.
Rahm Emanuel’s Association with Freddie Mac
Much was made about President-elect Barack Obama’s association with some very shady characters to no avail. People that were informed just didn’t care. Most people don’t even know who Obama associated with during his years as a Chicago politician.
President-elect Obama filled his first cabinet position when he named Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff. Let’s look at one of Rahm Emanuels’ associations, he was a board of director on Freddie Mac during the time when the scandal was just becoming news.
Rahm Emanuel, served on the board of directors of the federal mortgage firm Freddie Mac at a time when scandal was brewing at the troubled agency and the board failed to spot “red flags,” according to government reports reviewed by ABCNews.com.
Much like Barney Frank Rahm Emanuel saw no need to regulate or even to warn congress that something needed to be done to reign in the fraud that was occurring at the company at which he was a board of director. The entire board of directors is being accused of negligence in government documents.
the entire board was later accused by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) of having “failed in its duty to follow up on matters brought to its attention.”
The board of directors failed in it’s duty to follow up on the fraud that Freddie Mac was involved in. Rahm Emanuel was on that board.
During the years 2000, 2001 and 2002, according to the SEC, Freddie Mac substantially misrepresented its income to “present investors with the image of a company that would continue to generate predictable and growing earnings.”
Rahm Emanuel was on the board from 2000-2001, during the height of the scandal. His spokesperson would have us believe that he was concerned about the fraud.
while on the board, Emanuel “believed that Freddie Mac needed to address concerns raised by Congressional critics.”
Yet he did nothing and he said nothing. The board was told about possible accounting problems, yet did nothing.
The oversight report said the board had been apprised of the suspect accounting tactics but “failed to make reasonable inquiries of management.”
Evidently the board and Emanuel didn’t think that their wrongful accounting was worthy of addressing, no matter how they try to spin it now.
Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae are the two biggest players in the mortgage meltdown which led to the economic crisis and credit crunch that we are now feeling and Rahm Emanuel was on the board of directors during the time that the fraud was being committed. He was silent, he did nothing and he said nothing. Now the economy may be headed into a recession.
Americans may not care about Obama’s associations, but isn’t Rahm Emanuel’s association with Freddie Mac an association that Americans should care about?
Lawmakers Want the Bailout Bill to Extend to Automakers
Here is the problem with the federal goverment bailing out and nationalizing the banks, the economy,and the mortgage industry. Here is the problem with the bailout bill. Or should I say A problem. It’s not the only problem.
Now the auto manufacturers are looking for a federal bailout to save their sorry asses. Not that this comes as a surprise to me, I wrote about it here. It is still frustrating though. The only part of this whole attempt to socialize America that Bush has gotten right is his resistance to bailout the auto industry. It is not the responsibility of the taxpayer to bailout any of these private companies and it certainly is not the responsibility of the governmet to make sure these companies stay solvent.
George W Bush has begun the United States down a path towards socialism and it is only going to continue and get worse under President Obama. While the current president has resisted the urge to spend our money bailing out the auto indusrty Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are recommending action being taken to help the auto industry. What do you think Barack Obama will decide to do after listening to these two clowns?
With the nation’s automotive industry hemorrhaging cash, congressional leaders called on the Bush administration yesterday to offer government assistance to the car companies as part of the Treasury Department’s $700 billion emergency rescue program.
Where will it stop?
If the request is granted, it would expand the federal government’s role in private enterprise far beyond the financial sector. Critics have warned that a bailout of GM would attract a long line of other companies to Washington to argue that their survival, too, is critical to the economic health of the country. The move would push the Bush administration to decide winners and losers in yet another huge sector of the economy, and it would force President-elect Barack Obama to manage a complex restructuring of the ailing automotive industry.
The next industry will be the airlines, and then on and on it goes. Our money is being pissed away to bailout private companies that should be left to fend for themselves.
The government is using fear as an excuse to take over and nationalize industries one at a time, the federal government is following in the footstepsof Hugo Chavez.
The only difference is Chavez is honest about his motives.
President-elect Obama gave his first official press conference since winning the election. During press conference he said the following:
“I have spoken to all of them who are living,” he responded. “I didn’t want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about doing any séances.”
This was supposed to be a shot at Nancy Reagan, evidently he didn’t realize that Nancy Reagan used astrologers and didn’t hold any seances. But anyway, in his first press conference he took a cheap shot at the widow of the man that conservatives consider their icon and he is the man that is supposed to heal our souls and bring America together? That’s the way to reach across the isle and unite the country?
Barack Obama failed in his first official act before he is officially the president. I will give him credit for one think though. He called Nancy Reagan and apologized. I just wish that the candidate who won because he promoted his judgement had actually used good judgement in his first press conference.
Is it Still Patriotic to Oppose the President?
In order to counter cries from the right that left was not patriotic the Democrats began to claim that opposing the president and his policies was in fact a patriotic thing to do. Hillary Clinton had this to say at one point:
I am sick and tired of people who call you unpatriotic if you debate this administration’s policies. We are Americans and have the right to participate and debate any administration.
The question now is, is it still patriotic to oppose an administration’s policies? Hillary claimed that is was patriotic to debate ANY administration’s policies.
I oppose President-elect Obama, i oppose his policies and what he stands for. I intend to be right here writing about everything that Obama does that I do not agree with, and there is quite a bit. Does that make me patriotic? According to Hillary it does. Or does that only apply to certain administrations?
The left attacks all of those who oppose Obama with smears and claims of racism. Evidently if you oppose Obama’s policies you are not only not patriotic but you are in fact a racist. When you try to debate the administration’s policies, as Hillary claims that we have the right to do, the left will smear you instead of debating your point.
The racism card is a convenient and easy way out of debating the issues, it is easier to try and destroy a person by painting them as a racist than it is to debate them on the issues. Debating and opposing a person’s policies is not a personal attack, it is not the politics of personal destruction, it is a legitimate form of conversation on the issues that Americans are divided on.
When you oppose President Bush you are patriotic, when you oppose president-elect Obama you are a racist. This overused and outdated smear is just plain insulting.
Chris Mathews Says it is his Job to Make Obama Successful
President-elect Obama has now filled three of his cabinetpositions. First he named Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff, then he filled his press secretary position. He has now evidently filled a third cabinat position, he has named Chris Mathews as his minister of propaganda.
He feels that it is his job as a journalist to make the next president successful? He is openly admitting that he intends to be nothing more than a mouthpiece of the Obama administration?
The media is no longer even pretending to be non-biased any more.
Some House Democrats Won by Running as Conservatives
This is perhaps the most frustrating aspect of last Tuesday’s election, the fact that some Democrats won by campaigning on traditional Republican issues.
Some of the incoming Democrats oppose the government financial bailout, for example, but also support gun rights and some form of tax cuts – traditionally conservative and Republican views.
While I support any Democrat who holds these “traditionally conservative and Republican views” I understand that if they want to win re-election and have the support of the Democrat party when it is time for re-election that they will be pressured to tow the party line. If they do not fall in line with the leadership they will fall out of favor and will not be helped when it is time for them to face the voters.
Don’t get me wrong, I hope that these Democrats will hold true to their campaign promises, it will only help to hold back President-elect Obama’s radical left agenda, I just feel as though the leadership will put so much pressure on them that they will succumb to it.
But what I really find frustrating is that in the cases where conservative Democrats prevailed over the moderate Republicans who are in the same mold as John McCain, is that if only Republicans held true to their conservative beliefs we would have never sunk to this level. Democrats out conservated conservatives. If these Republicans ran as conservatives and won there would be no pressure from above for them to “change”, they could have stalled the radical left agenda that is coming. But democrats one upped them and even if these conservative Democrats are legitimate conservatives the pressure from the far left leadership will trump their beliefs. Or they will be gone.
Republican candidates moved to a more moderate position because they thought that it would be a key to helping them win. The reason that they thought this was a winning idea is because John McCain was the Republican nominee and he made his name by bucking Republicans every chance he got. McCain set the mold that led to the Republican’s defeat.
There is a lesson to learn here, and that is that Republicans can win if they run as conservatives, this moderate shit is a loser. Republicans need to come back to the fold and listen to conservatives or the conservatives will continue to say screw you, you deserve to lose.
It is time for the Republican candidates to listen to us, we are your base, stop abandoning us. Stop being ashamed of us, without us you can’t win.
This election proved that.
Harry Reid To Punish Joe Lieberman for Supporting McCain
President-elect Barack Obama promised to heal the wounds of America. He promised to get us past the partisan politics and usher in a new age of enlightenment. He promised that he would work in a bipartisan manner and unite the country.
Nancy Pelosi said much the same thing when she claimed that if the Democrats had a larger majority they would actually be more bipartisan.
Elect us, hold us accountable, and make a judgment and then go from there. But I do tell you that if the Democrats win, and have substantial majorities, Congress of the United States will be more bipartisan,”
Now that the campaign is over and Barack Obama has won, the congress and senate have grown their majorities it is time to see if their actions match the words that they spewed prior to the election. The early indications are just as I thought they would be.
Today Majority Leader Harry Reid sat down with Senator Joe Lieberman to discuss Lieberman’s future as the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
Sen. Joe Lieberman’s affiliation with Democrats was in question after a meeting Thursday with Majority Leader Harry Reid, steamed over the Connecticut independent’s high-profile support of John McCain for president.
Reid, in a sternly worded statement after the 45-minute meeting, said no official decisions have been made. But an aide to the Nevada Democrat said Reid was leaning toward removing Lieberman as chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
Senator Lieberman is most likely going to lose his chairmanship and why? Because he acted in a bipartisan manner and supported the candidate of the Republican party. While Barack Obama promised to work with Republicans and Nancy Pelosi claimed that Democrats would be more bipartisan if they grew their majority Joe Lieberman actually put words into action and broke party lines to support McCain. He knew that this could cost him his committee but he did what he thought was right.
While Obama and Pelosi talk a good game, Lieberman actually did what the others claimed that they would do. What does he get for being bipartisan? Punished.
While I understand that Sen. Lieberman has voted with Democrats a majority of the time, his comments and actions have raised serious concerns among many in our caucus,” Reid said.
They say that actions speak louder than words and not only did Joe Lieberman’s actions speak for him but they spoke for the Democrat leaders as well. The reaction of Democrat leaders speak volumes about who they are. When their majority was slim and they needed Lieberman they tolerated his bipartisanship on this one issue, but now that their majority has grown and they no longer need him they are willing to kick him to the curb.
So much for a larger Democrat majority being more bipartisan. So much for Obama’s promise to bring us together. Campaign rhetoric has given way to political reality.
The more things “change” the more they stay the same.
New York City May Raise Taxes 15%, California May be Next
Americans went to the polls and voted for a man who promised to raise taxes, thus showing a willingness to pay taxes. After all as Joe Biden said, paying taxes is patriotic. (Thankfully the founding fathers didn’t agree)
When it comes to politicians if you give them an inch they will take a mile, and now that Americans have shown that they are willing to pay higher taxes the mayor of New York City has decided to take them up in their new found patriotism.
The mayor proposed raising the income tax by either 7.5 percent or 15 percent.
Fifteen percent! Holy shit! You have to give this man credit though, at least he is going for it all. He doesn’t believe in doing something half assed, if he is going to raise taxes he is going to do it in style. Not only is he proposing this tax increase he is also reneging on a campaign promise to give everybody a property tax rebate of $400.
Let that be a lesson to Democrats, if a Democrat promises to lower taxes, don’t believe it, it just doesn’t happen. (I think that there was another Democrat who promised 95% of Americans a tax break, I can’t wait to see how that plays out.)
New York City isn’t alone, now that California has admitted that they don’t mind paying higher taxes by who they voted for in the presidential election their liberal Republican governor has also decided that he would indulge their patriotic duty and raise their taxes.
He proposed a temporary 1.5 percent sales tax increase
A temporary tax increase, HA! There is no such thing, just ask Massachusetts residents. The toll booths were supposed to be temporary, they were supposed to come down 20 years ago, guess what. They are still operational.
Now that Americans have voted for a president that promised to raise taxes we have two examples of politicians ready to take them up on it. That didn’t take long. Two days to be exact, how many more states and cities will follow?
This is just the beginning.
