The Not So Great Communicator
Nov 7, 2010 Political
Barack Obama is supposed to be a great orator and communicator though anyone with a brain can see that when he does not have a teleprompter and a script he sounds like a stuttering fool. Obama blamed the beating his party took in the last election on his inability to communicate how good his agenda was and how good what they did was for the average schmo on the street. Yep, you folks are too dense to see what is good for you.
Truth be told, Obama spoke about his health care reform more than 50 times and his minions were out on the streets trying to explain it as well. The reality is that he communicated it quite well and the American public did not buy it. We did not buy his health care, cap and trade, his ramming things down our throats or the arm twisting and back room deals that took place.
“Making an argument that people can understand,” Mr. Obama continued, “I think that we haven’t always been successful at that. And I take personal responsibility for that. And it’s something that I’ve got to examine carefully … as I go forward.”
We heard it and we understood it. It was not bad communication Barack, it was bad policy.
But maybe, just maybe, your minions and you would have been able to communicate the health care bill better if say, you all had read it.
Remember, while you were communicating it to us Nancy Pelosi said we had to pass it to see what was in it.
That sounds like a recipe for disaster and you felt that disaster on election day.
Keep on believing that you did not communicate well enough and you will be in for another trouncing come 2012.
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: communicate, election, health care, law, lies, Obama, shellacking
Brewer To Obama: Do Your Job
Jun 26, 2010 Political
After Arizona passed its immigration law the liberals went nuts and started screaming about racial profiling even though the law mirrors federal law and even though none of them had, at the time, read the thing. The Obama regime is suing Arizona over the law saying that immigration is a federal issue and the states are not allowed to make immigration policy. If the federal government had done its job this would not be an issue but Obama is not willing to secure our borders until he gets immigration reform passed. Governor Brewer of Arizona takes issue with the regime’s claim that the border is more secure now than ever.
Imagine that. The Arizona border is so secure that there are warning signs indicating that illegal aliens and drugs are being smuggled in and that it is not safe for American citizens to be in those areas. If the federal government was doing its job then we would not need these signs and Arizona would not need to enact laws to enforce immigration. As Governor Brewer put it to Obama; Do your job.
I don’t understand why Brewer does not put her national guard troops on the border and heavily arm them. The troops belong to the state unless they are federalized. Since they have not been federalized (at least not all of them) she can use them as she sees fit to protect her state. Heavily arm them and tell them to apprehend those who enter illegally and that if violence breaks out to use lethal force.
While Obama is engaged in extortion with regard to securing the border after immigration reform the area along the border (and as far as 80 miles in) is being ceded to the Mexicans who come and go as they please.
As far as the lawsuit goes, what leg does the federal government have to stand on? Will it claim that immigration enforcement is the responsibility of the federal government and that states are not allowed to make immigration policy?
If this is the argument then how does the federal government explain sanctuary cities? Providing sanctuary to illegal aliens is an immigration policy and if Arizona does not have the legal right to make policy keeping illegals out then other places have no legal right to enact policy to keep illegals in.
If Arizona loses the lawsuit then all sanctuary cities must be eliminated.
Even if Arizona wins, it has the only policy designed to actually uphold the rule of law but I bet the liberals will never see it that way.
I am with Governor Brewer and the people of Arizona on this. If the feds can’t do their job then it is up to the adults to step in and take care of things.
Or, to paraphrase Obama; we don’t need the people who caused the mess to be saying a whole lot about it. Just get out of the way and let us get things done.
Big Dog salute to American Power
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: arizona border, brewer, federal ineptitude, ILLEGAL immigration, law, Obama
Cut Off Their Federal Funds
May 30, 2010 Political
A college in California is offering a scholarship to immigrants and the criteria recognizes ILLEGAL immigrants. That is right folks, an illegal immigrant is eligible for a scholarship that your citizen children are not.
A public community college in California has set up a scholarship fund for immigrant students — including illegal immigrants. The $2,500 scholarship has sparked anger by some, including at least one lawmaker who is threatening to cut off federal funding to the school. FOX News
This school receives federal funding and it is time for them to drop the eligibility of illegals or lose federal money. End of story.
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: california, illegal immigrant, law, scholarship
Al Sharpton Ready To March Again
Apr 25, 2010 Political
Al Sharpton, a guy they call reverend but who I have never seen leading a congregation in a church, is ready to go to Arizona to stand hand in hand with the Hispanic population that is upset by the new law that allows the police to verify that people are here legally. Al Sharpton will be out there rabble rousing and stirring up trouble. You know how it is, these left wing nut jobs go out and use hateful speech (inspired by the hateful speech of Obama) which causes the unstable people on the left to commit violence.
We have seen this with Sharpton before and people have died. He starts yelling about something and the nuts on the fringe left start killing. Bill Clinton described this last week when he was trying to paint the peaceful TEA Party group as potentially violent but Bill was wrong about the group. It is the left that commits the violence.
Sharpton is liable to go to Arizona and whip the illegals into a frenzy and they will commit acts of violence. We might get another Tim McVeigh in Arizona if the left is not careful.
I can understand why some folks are upset because they are rightly worried about how the law will impact those who are here legally and they claim racial profiling will take place. Of course this is wrong because Hispanic is not a race it is an ethnicity.
Be that as it may, the groups who are opposed to this have as much blame as anyone else in this matter. For years these advocacy groups have been working to hide illegals and to make it easier for them to get here and to stay here. These groups have been helping illegals break the law and they oppose any effort to get illegal immigration under control. If they had worked to keep illegals out and to help people come here legally we would not have a problem but since they assisted the illegals things have gotten steadily worse and the citizens of Arizona have said “enough”.
Arizona has decided to take matters in its own hands to fix a problem that has been ignored by the federal government and that has been exacerbated by the intrusion of advocacy groups who are as eager and willing to break the law as those who sneak across the borders. They are as much to blame and whining about what is taking place now will not garner them any sympathy.
People can see these groups for what they really are and what they really do.
But Sharpton will be happy to show up and rally for the illegals. Sharpton is not a stranger to breaking the law and he is not a stranger to inciting violence so this might be real interesting.
Be kind of funny if Sharpton showed up and huge crowds gathered and they engaged in civil disobedience. Things would get out of hand and stuff would get broken. Then the police would have to show up and make arrests.
The beauty of it is now that the law has been passed the cops will be able to check and see if the people Sharpton is there to stir up are here legally.
Sharpton might actually help rid the country of a large number of illegals.
But the folks in Arizona should be particularly vigilant because those left wing nut jobs get stirred into a violent frenzy really easy and Al Shapton will be there to whip them up.
Where is Bill Clinton to discuss this?
Is there a fat intern missing?
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: arizona, Clinton, illegal aliens, law, Obama, sharpton
Democrats Wrestle With Court Decision
Jan 25, 2010 Political
This past week the Supreme Court ruled that corporations were allowed to spend as much as they want to support or oppose a political candidate or issue. Corporations are still limited in how much they can donate to a candidate but they are now allowed to spend what they want on things like political ads that favor or oppose a candidate. The issue revolves around free speech and the Court ruled that this was a free speech issue.
Democrats had expected this ruling and are now looking at ways to curb the process. Several ideas are floating around that would involve CEOs being required to get shareholder approval before funding political advertisements and not allowing the costs to be deducted as a business expense on taxes. There is also an idea that would require the CEO to be the voice on the ad approving the message.
Will any of these restrictions apply to the unions? SEIU spent millions of dollars in support of Obama and helped get him elected. The unions spent over half a million dollars trying to get Coakley elected in Massachusetts. The unions, and you can name them from SEIU to the teacher’s unions, spend huge sums of money on Democrats in order to get them elected. There has never been any concern among Democrats with regard to curbing the spending of their supporters. Since they view this ruling as something that will favor Republicans they now want restrictions placed on the process.
I don’t like the idea of any group spending a fortune to get a candidate elected or to push a particular agenda but they have the right to spend their money as they wish. My problem lies in the expected favors that follow. Groups spend money (in favor of or opposed to both political parties) and when all is said and done they expect payback. Democrats have their feathers ruffled now but they have been the recipients of huge sums of money from their supporters who seem to be able to spend as much as they want.
I wonder why the unions don’t have to get the permission of union members before they spend money on a candidate. Perhaps if the unions stopped spending millions and millions of dollars on candidates and issues they would have the money to fulfill the obligations they have to their members. Maybe then they would not have to come to the taxpayer with hat in hand looking for us to pay their way.
We scream about Wall Street paying huge salaries and bonuses and then taking taxpayer money to get right and yet we do not make a sound when the unions spend millions on candidates and then beg us for money to keep their members employed and plush with benefits.
I don’t like all the influence that is bought by any organization spending money on politics but it is their money and they can spend it however they wish. But if the Democrats are going to impose all kinds of rules then those rules need to apply to everyone, including their friends in the unions.
Source:
WSJ
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: donations, free speech, influence, law, politics, supreme court