In a clear example of racial HATRED, White House news correspondent, Helen Thomas stated that the Jews should leave Palestine and go back to Poland and Germany where they belong. Apparently Ms. Thomas is also a huge supporter of the Holocaust as well.
Unfortunately, she is revered and "respected" by the Lame Stream media as one of the cheerished White House "reporters." If Thomas's remarks were directed toward ANY other group but the Jews, she would have been out of work a long time ago. That alone should give you cause NOT to trust the media.
Action to Take
Let your local media outlets know that Helen Thomas should be BANNED from any future reporting because of her hate speech attitudes.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Friday, June 4, 2010
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Why We Need an Investigation
The hardest thing to prove in a bribery case is the “quid pro quo.” A quid pro quo is something for something which a party receives in return for something they do, give, or promise. Congressman Sestak was promised a “non-paying” job by President Clinton on behalf of Rham Emanuel if he would drop-out of the Pennsylvania primary against Arlen Spector.
The fact that Sestak did NOT get the job is proof if the bribe! The offer was made by the White House and Congressman Sestak did NOT do what the offer requested. Thus he did NOT get the job! That’s a pretty simple observation of what transpired.
If this is a job that Sestak could take uncompensated and remain in Congress, then why didn’t he get the job? Doesn’t this support the concept of the quid pro quo? It does!
Action To Take
Contact your representatives and demand an independant investigation into the “alleged” bribe. Americans need to know the TRUTH of what transpired and whether the White House staff or the President broke the law.
The fact that Sestak did NOT get the job is proof if the bribe! The offer was made by the White House and Congressman Sestak did NOT do what the offer requested. Thus he did NOT get the job! That’s a pretty simple observation of what transpired.
If this is a job that Sestak could take uncompensated and remain in Congress, then why didn’t he get the job? Doesn’t this support the concept of the quid pro quo? It does!
Action To Take
Contact your representatives and demand an independant investigation into the “alleged” bribe. Americans need to know the TRUTH of what transpired and whether the White House staff or the President broke the law.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Featured Article - Obama's Incompetence
Obama doesn’t have a clue
By Dick Morris: Former advsor to Bill Clinton
Conservatives are so enraged at Obama’s socialism and radicalism that they are increasingly surprised to learn that he is incompetent as well. The sight of his blithering and blustering while the most massive oil spill in history moves closer to America’s beaches not only reminds one of Bush’s terrible performance during Katrina, but calls to mind Jimmy Carter’s incompetence in the face of the hostage crisis.
America is watching the president alternate between wringing his hands in helplessness and pointing his finger in blame when he should be solving the most pressing environmental problem America has faced in the past 50 years. We are watching generations of environmental protection swept away as marshes, fisheries, vacation spots, recreational beaches, wetlands, hatcheries and sanctuaries fall prey to the oil spill invasion. And, all the while, the president acts like a spectator, interrupting his basketball games only to excoriate BP for its failure to contain the spill.
The political fallout from the oil spill will, indeed, spill across party and ideological lines. The environmentalists of America cannot take heart from a president so obviously ignorant about how to protect our shores and so obstinately arrogant that he refuses to inform himself and take any responsibility.
All of this explains why the oil spill is seeping into his ratings among Democrats, dragging him down to levels we have not seen since Bush during the pit of the Iraq war. Conservatives may dislike Obama because he is a leftist. But liberals are coming to dislike him because he is not a competent progressive.
Meanwhile, the nation watches nervously as the same policies Obama has brought to our nation are failing badly and publicly in Europe. When Moody’s announces that it is considering downgrading bonds issued by the government of the United States of America, we find ourselves, suddenly, in deep trouble. We have had deficits before. But never have they so freaked investors that a ratings agency considered lowering its opinion of our solvency. Not since Alexander Hamilton assumed the states’ Revolutionary War debt has America’s willingness and ability to meet its financial obligations been as seriously questioned.
And the truth begins to dawn on all of us: Obama has no more idea how to work his way out of the economic mess into which his policies have plunged us than he does about how to clean up the oil spill that is destroying our southern coastline.
Both the financial crisis and the oil come ever closer to our shores — one from the east and the other from the south — and, between them, they loom as a testament to the incompetence of our government and of its president.
And, oddly, to his passivity as well. After pursuing a remarkably activist, if misguided and foolhardy, agenda, Obama seems not to know what to do and finds himself consigned to the roles of observer and critic.
America is getting the point that its president doesn’t have a clue.
He doesn’t know how to stop the oil from spilling. He is bereft of ideas about how to create jobs in the aftermath of the recession. He has no idea how to keep the European financial crisis contained. He has no program for repaying the massive debt hole into which he has dug our nation without tax increases he must know will only deepen the pit.
Some presidents have failed because of their stubbornness (Johnson and Bush-43). Others because of their character flaws (Clinton and Nixon). Still others because of their insensitivity to domestic problems (Bush-41). But now we have a president who is failing because he is incompetent. It is Jimmy Carter all over again.
Who would have thought that this president, so anxious to lead us and so focused on his specific agenda and ideas, would turn out not to know what he is doing?
By Dick Morris: Former advsor to Bill Clinton
Conservatives are so enraged at Obama’s socialism and radicalism that they are increasingly surprised to learn that he is incompetent as well. The sight of his blithering and blustering while the most massive oil spill in history moves closer to America’s beaches not only reminds one of Bush’s terrible performance during Katrina, but calls to mind Jimmy Carter’s incompetence in the face of the hostage crisis.
America is watching the president alternate between wringing his hands in helplessness and pointing his finger in blame when he should be solving the most pressing environmental problem America has faced in the past 50 years. We are watching generations of environmental protection swept away as marshes, fisheries, vacation spots, recreational beaches, wetlands, hatcheries and sanctuaries fall prey to the oil spill invasion. And, all the while, the president acts like a spectator, interrupting his basketball games only to excoriate BP for its failure to contain the spill.
The political fallout from the oil spill will, indeed, spill across party and ideological lines. The environmentalists of America cannot take heart from a president so obviously ignorant about how to protect our shores and so obstinately arrogant that he refuses to inform himself and take any responsibility.
All of this explains why the oil spill is seeping into his ratings among Democrats, dragging him down to levels we have not seen since Bush during the pit of the Iraq war. Conservatives may dislike Obama because he is a leftist. But liberals are coming to dislike him because he is not a competent progressive.
Meanwhile, the nation watches nervously as the same policies Obama has brought to our nation are failing badly and publicly in Europe. When Moody’s announces that it is considering downgrading bonds issued by the government of the United States of America, we find ourselves, suddenly, in deep trouble. We have had deficits before. But never have they so freaked investors that a ratings agency considered lowering its opinion of our solvency. Not since Alexander Hamilton assumed the states’ Revolutionary War debt has America’s willingness and ability to meet its financial obligations been as seriously questioned.
And the truth begins to dawn on all of us: Obama has no more idea how to work his way out of the economic mess into which his policies have plunged us than he does about how to clean up the oil spill that is destroying our southern coastline.
Both the financial crisis and the oil come ever closer to our shores — one from the east and the other from the south — and, between them, they loom as a testament to the incompetence of our government and of its president.
And, oddly, to his passivity as well. After pursuing a remarkably activist, if misguided and foolhardy, agenda, Obama seems not to know what to do and finds himself consigned to the roles of observer and critic.
America is getting the point that its president doesn’t have a clue.
He doesn’t know how to stop the oil from spilling. He is bereft of ideas about how to create jobs in the aftermath of the recession. He has no idea how to keep the European financial crisis contained. He has no program for repaying the massive debt hole into which he has dug our nation without tax increases he must know will only deepen the pit.
Some presidents have failed because of their stubbornness (Johnson and Bush-43). Others because of their character flaws (Clinton and Nixon). Still others because of their insensitivity to domestic problems (Bush-41). But now we have a president who is failing because he is incompetent. It is Jimmy Carter all over again.
Who would have thought that this president, so anxious to lead us and so focused on his specific agenda and ideas, would turn out not to know what he is doing?
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Monday, May 31, 2010
Crime or No Crime
Despite the fact that Obama promised to be transparent and change the way Washington operates, he's up to the same-old dirty Chicago-style politics as usual.
In the case of the Sestak scandal (alias "ObamaGate"), Obama has vouched to the American public "I can assure the public that nothing improper took place." Of course, that remains to be seen. If President Obama has nothing to hide, then he should not stop an in dependant investigation into Sestak's allogations of bribery from the White House. He could be trying to avoid impeachment. To date, he has stonewalled this possibility.
If you examine what transpired, it is apparent that there was more backroom bargaining, favor trading, stonewalling, and political maneuvering. Aren't these the things that Obama promised would NOT happen under his watch? While running for election, Obama held himself to a higher standard. He spoke of an open and transparent administration. He was the outsider who could change Washington. Now he's failed to deliver.
Instead, The White House has been reluctant to say ANYTHING about this matter since it became public knowledge in February. Instead, Press Secretary Gibbs has been avoiding answering ANY questions about it until just recently when the White House realized that it wasn't going away.
The explanations given now raise more questions. Why use ex-President Clinton to offer a non-paying low post position to a Congressman if he would drop out of the Pennsylvania primary? That's like killing an ant with a sledge hammer. Did President Obama know about this? If so, when did he know about it? What exactly was Obama's involvement? Was Sestak lying when he claimed that he was offered a high-ranking position in the administration for dropping-out of the PA primary?
Americans demand to know what happened. Did our President commit a crime? Did his staff? We need to find out.
In the case of the Sestak scandal (alias "ObamaGate"), Obama has vouched to the American public "I can assure the public that nothing improper took place." Of course, that remains to be seen. If President Obama has nothing to hide, then he should not stop an in dependant investigation into Sestak's allogations of bribery from the White House. He could be trying to avoid impeachment. To date, he has stonewalled this possibility.
If you examine what transpired, it is apparent that there was more backroom bargaining, favor trading, stonewalling, and political maneuvering. Aren't these the things that Obama promised would NOT happen under his watch? While running for election, Obama held himself to a higher standard. He spoke of an open and transparent administration. He was the outsider who could change Washington. Now he's failed to deliver.
Instead, The White House has been reluctant to say ANYTHING about this matter since it became public knowledge in February. Instead, Press Secretary Gibbs has been avoiding answering ANY questions about it until just recently when the White House realized that it wasn't going away.
The explanations given now raise more questions. Why use ex-President Clinton to offer a non-paying low post position to a Congressman if he would drop out of the Pennsylvania primary? That's like killing an ant with a sledge hammer. Did President Obama know about this? If so, when did he know about it? What exactly was Obama's involvement? Was Sestak lying when he claimed that he was offered a high-ranking position in the administration for dropping-out of the PA primary?
Americans demand to know what happened. Did our President commit a crime? Did his staff? We need to find out.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Featured Article - Obama's Oil Spill
Oil Spill Culprits Run Deep
By Charles Krauthammer - syndicated columnist.
"WASHINGTON Here's my question: Why are we drilling in 5,000 feet of water in the first place?
Many reasons, but this one goes unmentioned: Environmental chic has driven us out there. As production from the shallower Gulf of Mexico wells declines, we go deep (1,000 feet and more) and ultra deep (5,000 feet and more), in part because environmentalists have succeeded in rendering the Pacific and nearly all the Atlantic coast off-limits to oil production. (President Obama's tentative, selective opening of some Atlantic and offshore Alaska sites is now dead.) And of course, in the safest of all places, on land, we've had a 30-year ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
So we go deep, ultra deep – to such a technological frontier that no precedent exists for the April 20 blowout in the Gulf of Mexico.
There will always be catastrophic oil spills. You make them as rare as humanly possible, but where would you rather have one: in the Gulf of Mexico, upon which thousands depend for their livelihood, or in the Arctic, where there are practically no people? All spills seriously damage wildlife. That's a given. But why have we pushed the drilling from the barren to the populated, from the remote wilderness to a center of fishing, shipping, tourism and recreation?
Not that the environmentalists are the only ones to blame. Not by far. But it is odd that they've escaped any mention at all.
The other culprits are pretty obvious. It starts with BP, which seems not only to have had an amazing string of perfect-storm engineering lapses but no contingencies to deal with a catastrophic system failure.
However, the railing against BP for its performance since the accident is harder to understand. I attribute no virtue to BP, just self-interest. What possible interest can it have to do anything but cap the well as quickly as possible? Every day that oil is spilled means millions more in losses, cleanup and restitution.
Federal officials who rage against BP would like to deflect attention from their own role in this disaster. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, whose department's laxity in environmental permitting and safety oversight renders it among the many bearing responsibility, expresses outrage at BP's inability to stop the leak, and even threatens to "push them out of the way."
"To replace them with what?" asked the estimable, admirably candid Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, the national incident commander. No one has the assets and expertise of BP. The federal government can fight wars, conduct a census and hand out billions in earmarks, but it has not a clue how to cap a one-mile-deep, out-of-control oil well.
Obama didn't help much with his finger-pointing Rose Garden speech in which he denounced finger-pointing, then proceeded to blame everyone but himself. Even the grace note of admitting some federal responsibility turned sour when he reflexively added that these problems have been going on "for a decade or more" – translation: Bush did it – while, in contrast, his own interior secretary had worked diligently to solve the problem "from the day he took office."
Really? Why hadn't we heard a thing about this? What about the September 2009 letter from Obama's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration accusing Interior's Minerals Management Service of understating the "risk and impacts" of a major oil spill? When you get a blowout 15 months into your administration, and your own Interior Department had given BP a "categorical" environmental exemption in April 2009, the buck stops.
In the end, speeches will make no difference. If BP can cap the well in time to prevent an absolute calamity in the Gulf, the president will escape politically. If it doesn't – if the gusher isn't stopped before the relief wells are completed in August – it will become Obama's Katrina.
That will be unfair, because Obama is no more responsible for the damage caused by this than Bush was for the damage caused by Katrina. But that's the nature of American politics and its presidential cult of personality: We expect our presidents to play Superman. Helplessness, however undeniable, is no defense.
Moreover, Obama has never been overly modest about his own powers. Two years ago next week, he declared that history will mark his ascent to the presidency as the moment when "our planet began to heal" and "the rise of the oceans began to slow."
Well, when you anoint yourself King Canute, you mustn't be surprised when your subjects expect you to command the tides."
By Charles Krauthammer - syndicated columnist.
"WASHINGTON Here's my question: Why are we drilling in 5,000 feet of water in the first place?
Many reasons, but this one goes unmentioned: Environmental chic has driven us out there. As production from the shallower Gulf of Mexico wells declines, we go deep (1,000 feet and more) and ultra deep (5,000 feet and more), in part because environmentalists have succeeded in rendering the Pacific and nearly all the Atlantic coast off-limits to oil production. (President Obama's tentative, selective opening of some Atlantic and offshore Alaska sites is now dead.) And of course, in the safest of all places, on land, we've had a 30-year ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
So we go deep, ultra deep – to such a technological frontier that no precedent exists for the April 20 blowout in the Gulf of Mexico.
There will always be catastrophic oil spills. You make them as rare as humanly possible, but where would you rather have one: in the Gulf of Mexico, upon which thousands depend for their livelihood, or in the Arctic, where there are practically no people? All spills seriously damage wildlife. That's a given. But why have we pushed the drilling from the barren to the populated, from the remote wilderness to a center of fishing, shipping, tourism and recreation?
Not that the environmentalists are the only ones to blame. Not by far. But it is odd that they've escaped any mention at all.
The other culprits are pretty obvious. It starts with BP, which seems not only to have had an amazing string of perfect-storm engineering lapses but no contingencies to deal with a catastrophic system failure.
However, the railing against BP for its performance since the accident is harder to understand. I attribute no virtue to BP, just self-interest. What possible interest can it have to do anything but cap the well as quickly as possible? Every day that oil is spilled means millions more in losses, cleanup and restitution.
Federal officials who rage against BP would like to deflect attention from their own role in this disaster. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, whose department's laxity in environmental permitting and safety oversight renders it among the many bearing responsibility, expresses outrage at BP's inability to stop the leak, and even threatens to "push them out of the way."
"To replace them with what?" asked the estimable, admirably candid Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, the national incident commander. No one has the assets and expertise of BP. The federal government can fight wars, conduct a census and hand out billions in earmarks, but it has not a clue how to cap a one-mile-deep, out-of-control oil well.
Obama didn't help much with his finger-pointing Rose Garden speech in which he denounced finger-pointing, then proceeded to blame everyone but himself. Even the grace note of admitting some federal responsibility turned sour when he reflexively added that these problems have been going on "for a decade or more" – translation: Bush did it – while, in contrast, his own interior secretary had worked diligently to solve the problem "from the day he took office."
Really? Why hadn't we heard a thing about this? What about the September 2009 letter from Obama's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration accusing Interior's Minerals Management Service of understating the "risk and impacts" of a major oil spill? When you get a blowout 15 months into your administration, and your own Interior Department had given BP a "categorical" environmental exemption in April 2009, the buck stops.
In the end, speeches will make no difference. If BP can cap the well in time to prevent an absolute calamity in the Gulf, the president will escape politically. If it doesn't – if the gusher isn't stopped before the relief wells are completed in August – it will become Obama's Katrina.
That will be unfair, because Obama is no more responsible for the damage caused by this than Bush was for the damage caused by Katrina. But that's the nature of American politics and its presidential cult of personality: We expect our presidents to play Superman. Helplessness, however undeniable, is no defense.
Moreover, Obama has never been overly modest about his own powers. Two years ago next week, he declared that history will mark his ascent to the presidency as the moment when "our planet began to heal" and "the rise of the oceans began to slow."
Well, when you anoint yourself King Canute, you mustn't be surprised when your subjects expect you to command the tides."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
