Notes And Quotes
Nov 2, 2009 Political
RINO in New York quits race
Republican (In Name Only) Dede Scozzafava in New York’s 23rd Congressional District decided to drop out of the race after Conservative Party member Doug Hoffman took a lead in the polls and Scozzafava ran low on money and could not continue her campaign. Hoffman should win the contest but anything can happen (his opponent is backed by ACORN) and this will be a blow to Obama who selected the former Republican Congressman to be Secretary of the Army in hopes of getting a Democrat in the seat.
Scozzafava was an appealing choice to Democrats as well because she held all of their positions. She was pro-choice, endorsed by ACORN, supported Cap and Trade, supported the stimulus and has taken a number of positions that align her with the liberals. If a Republican had to win this then she was the one Obama could live with. Unfortunately for Obama, a conservative entered the race. Hoffman is also a concern for a Republican establishment that has not learned that acting like liberals does not lead to success at the polls.
Hoffman received endorsements from establishment yes men like Newt Gingrich and Michael Steele along with the RNC but Hoffman received endorsements from true conservatives like Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty and Fred Thompson, people who were not willing to support someone just because an R was next to her name. If Hoffman wins there will be a message for Obama in it but also one for the Republican establishment.
Valerie Jarrett, an Obama adviser, said this:
“It’s rather telling when the Republican Party forces out a moderate Republican and it says, I think, a great deal about where the Republican Party is right now,” she said. Fox
What is rather telling is that Jarrett thinks someone with Scozzafava’s positions is moderate. This just goes to show how out of touch she is because she believes that the radical positions of the administration are moderate.
How much of a Republican is Scozzafava?
She endorsed the Democrat in the race, a move that Jarrett welcomed.
Ever wonder why it is that people like Jarrett will make statements like she did about Republicans rejecting a “moderate” candidate when her party is eviscerating its own moderates because they will not support the health care takeover?
What a difference an administration makes
Attorney General Eric Holder says a lawsuit in San Francisco over warrantless wiretapping threatens to expose ongoing intelligence work and must be thrown out.
In making the argument, the Obama administration agreed with the Bush administration’s position on the case but insists it came to the decision differently. A civil liberties group criticized the move Friday as a retreat from promises President Barack Obama made as a candidate. AP
After all the campaigning Obama did and all the carping he did about Bush and wiretaps his AG wants the lawsuits dismissed because of national security. I applaud the decision but wonder why an apology to Bush was not rendered at the same time.
The claim here is that Obama’s folks came to the same conclusion by different means. While I doubt this, who cares? If Bush said it was bad for national security and Obama says the same thing, who cares about how they arrived at that conclusion? The important thing is both of them state their goals as protecting national security.
Some people are unhappy with ObaMao because they claim he is breaking his campaign promise.
Here is a newsflash for them. He has broken a whole bunch of them. All of his promises come with an expiration date so get use to it.
I agree with Hillary Clinton 100%
I do not often agree with Hillary Clinton. She is another Socialist but just not as far out there as her boss. But when she gets something correct I have to give her credit. During her visit to Pakistan she noted that [in Pakistan] “…the percentage of taxes on GDP is among the lowest in the world”.
She then made a statement that I agree with:
We (the United States) tax everything that moves and doesn’t move, and that’s not what we see in Pakistan,” she said. Daily Times
Hillary is correct that we tax everything and if the morons in government get their way with cap and tax they will tax us for breathing (since we produce CO2). This is about as far as I go with Clinton because while she was astute enough to observe our tax situation she is also one of the people responsible for those taxes. She is a tax and spend liberal who thinks nothing of increasing taxes or adding a new tax in order to get more money flowing into government.
Yes Hillary, we tax everything and you are one of the reasons.
I guess I should feel good for her. They say that recognizing the problem is the first step to recovery.
Tags: Clinton, election, New York, Obama, pakistan, scozzafava, wiretapping
As Terror Looms, Obama Defends Gitmo Closing
May 22, 2009 Political
Four people were arrested today for attempting to reign terror in New York. The media described them as a home grown terrorist group but, in reality, the group of men were Muslim converts who wanted to bomb Jewish synagogues and shoot at military aircraft. They might have been here but their terror was not home grown. It was grown from the seeds of hatred sewn in the Middle East.
While this news was fresh, Obama was giving a speech defending his decision to close Gitmo. In that speech he did not rule out bringing some of the terrorists at Gitmo to the United States. The Won stated that he would not bring those who were a danger to us into the country which tells me he means those who would not be in jail. How could the ones in jail be a danger?
Obama said that some of them would be brought here and placed in Super Max prisons while they awaited trial. That might work out well if they are convicted of crimes but what happens if they are found not guilty? Other countries are not willing to take them and we will not be able to put them back in jail so what will we do with them? Just because they are found not guilty does not mean they are not a threat.
If we are forced to let these people loose in America then they should be placed in the neighborhoods of the Democrats who want them released. Obama should be required to take a few of them in at the White House and let them around his daughters with no Secret Service protection. That is what he is proposing happen to the rest of us because if they are released they will certainly be living near our children and we don’t have law enforcement guarding us.
Obama has no plan. He did not think through this process and he figured that all he had to do was smile and say “hope and change” and other countries would take these people. He, as stated by his Press Secretary, made a hasty decision and now he is trying to figure out how to make it happen. He is finding out that it is not very easy to get rid of the people at Gitmo or Bush would have done so.
It was interesting listening to him because he blamed everything on George Bush and then said that Gitmo was used as a recruiting tool for the terrorists and that we are less safe because of the place.
Right, and the fact that we have not been attacked since 9/11 is proof that we are less safe.
The terrorists captured today by the FBI claim they were motivated by our actions in Afghanistan. Obama has increased the number of troops in that country so it is safe to say his actions made them want to wage jihad.
Is it safe to say that Obama is a recruiting tool for the terrorists?
America became less safe when Obama took office. The events in New York show that the threat is still out there and we will be attacked again. It is only a matter of time.
Keep this in mind folks because when it happens Obama will not be able to claim it was Bush’s fault though I have no doubt he will try.
The best news of the day is that Dick Cheney gave a speech at the same time Obama did (Obama evidently changed his to coincide with Cheney’s – probably and effort to take the spotlight from Cheney) and Cheney laid it all on the line and schooled the youngster.
Sources:
WCBSTV
New York Daily News
NBC New York
Daily Mail UK
Al-Reuters
[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]
New York Needs Money, Raise Taxes
May 21, 2009 Political
New York is one of those liberal states that is broke, much like California and Maryland (though Maryland does well because of its proximity to DC). Politicians in New York have been trying to raise taxes to ease their deficit but they have done little to curb spending.
Now New York has a plan to raise 100 million dollars a year. The politicians want to add a one cent tax on each can of non diet soda. Once again the politicians are slipping a tax in on people. But Big Dog, it is only a penny and that means it is less than a quarter for a case of soda. Besides, this will get people to stop drinking sugary drinks and improve their health.
Right. The idea here is that New York needs money so it will add a tax on a product in hopes that people will use less of the product. Let’s suppose that a number of people stop drinking sugary soda, how will that help the deficit? This is like the inane argument that an increase in tobacco tax is needed to fund children’s health care and will make more smokers quit. If they quit, who will fund the children’s health care?
No society ever taxed itself into prosperity and raising taxes during an economic downturn is foolish. People will react with their feet. Those who live near other states will shop in them. I shop in Delaware for some things because there is no state tax there. It only makes sense to stop at the store when I am up there for business and get what I need because I will pay less.
New Yorkers are hosed with taxes in every aspect of their lives just as those in California are and it is obvious that this tactic does not work. Taxing soda or anything else will do nothing to help the situation and will change people’s habits with regard to shopping.
Those habit changes will be detrimental to the state’s budget.
Cut spending and cut taxes. It works every time it is tried.
Source:
Daily News
[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]
Obama Strafes New York, Terrorizes Citizens
Apr 29, 2009 Political
The Obama White House needed some publicity photos of Air Force One so they decided to send the plane out on a secret mission. That mission was to fly low around New York with a fighter jet in pursuit and get some nice Kodak moments near the Statue of Liberty. Some police agencies were notified of the stunt but everyone was sworn to secrecy under threat from the feds. Unsuspecting New Yorkers saw the events unfold and had flashbacks of 9/11. Anxieties ran deep as buildings were evacuated of people who thought they were under attack once again.
This whole episode is wrong on many levels. We will get to the terror inflicted by Obama in a minute. Let’s look at a few other issues first.
How much money did it cost to pull off this little stunt? US aircraft were flying around for no good reason and costing tens of thousands of dollars per hour. The taxpayer footed the bill for this publicity stunt and that is unacceptable. The Obama people are not good stewards of our money. They are supposed to be tech savvy though. Do they expect us to believe that they have never heard of Photo Shop? All they had to do was get a few pictures of Air Force One and Photo Shop it to look any way they wanted. That would have cost a heck of a lot less and it would have prevented a terrorist attack on New York. They could have gone from Photo Op to Photo Shop and saved a major headache. Total cost of the stunt is reported to be $328,000 and they could buy a lot of copies of Photo Shop for that kind of money.
How about the carbon footprint that this episode left behind? Obama wants us all to drive wind up cars, keep our tires inflated, and keep our thermostats down so that we can conserve and get off the nasty oil those Arabs sell us. His little stunt burned a whole lot of fuel (probably more than 50 cars will use in a year) and for no good purpose. Photo Shop could have saved all that fuel and the associated carbon footprint.
Normally I could care less about the carbon issue or burning fuel but our tax dollars pay for the fuel and Obama is the one telling people they have to conserve. He is kind of like Al Gore. Conserve while I use all I want.
The FAA warned that such a flight would cause panic but the government forced New York officials to keep the photo op secret and there were threats of federal sanctions if the story leaked out. This has to be one of the more disturbing issues. If they had just been boneheaded and neglected to think of the anxiety the flight would cause we could just say they were incompetent but they were warned by the adults that this could cause a real problem and they still did it. What harm could come from telling people that planes would be flying low for an exercise?
Obama claims to be furious about this. It is his plane and it was his White House that did this so he is responsible for it because it happened under his watch and it happened right under his nose. It is not like I am blaming him for things people did in an Iraqi prison that is thousands of miles away; he is right where the decisions were made. Furious or not, this is all on him.
The people of New York were terrorized by the Obama Administration. It is probably a good thing he renamed it from the War on Terror or he might be guilty of terrorism.
The people of New York are not happy because they were not warned about the event. New York City went overwhelmingly blue in the presidential election but I wonder how they feel about their messiah now considering what he did to them.
Obama repays their support by strafing their city and terrorizing them.
He has been in office 100 days and made 100 mistakes (at least). Was this act of terror one of them?
Maybe that is why his terrorist buddies admire him.
[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: airplane, New York, Obama, photo shop, strafing, terror
Why Is Paterson’s Color An Issue?
Apr 7, 2009 Political
New York Governor David Paterson is a poor leader. It is not hard to see (no pun intended) that he is lost in his position much like Obama is lost in his. Paterson, the accidental governor, is doing stupid things to try to close a budget deficit and he is causing a lot of problems. He is making Democrats nervous because they are worried that he might lose the next election to some evil Republican.
The high rollers in the Democratic party have told Paterson that he has until November to get his poll numbers up or they might decide to run someone else for his position. This is the business of the Democrats and of New Yorkers so I really don’t care about it but while reading the story I came across this:
“Nobody really wants to go to a sitting Democratic governor who’s African-American and say, ‘Hey. You’re a disgrace. Get out.'” NY Daily News
Why is it that his color makes any difference? They had to say that no one wants to go to an African American and tell him he is a problem. Why is this? Is it because they do not want to be labeled racist? The left screams racism all the time. I just can get my hands around the issue of his color. Why is it any part of the equation? They would not worry about color if they had to tell a white guy he was doing a terrible job.
They could have easily said no one wants to go to a sitting governor and say “Hey, You’re a disgrace. Get out” and left the race component out of it. Does the left have to constantly put race into an issue? I know the left is full of racists but a statement like this translates to; “we can’t get rid of the black guy. He has been oppressed and if we don’t help him out he will never get anywhere. Besides, people will say we were racially motivated.”
David Paterson is incompetent. His color has nothing to do with that. He is incompetent because he cannot lead. He and Obama have that in common, neither can lead. I don’t care what color they are because incompetence is not confined to one’s skin color. It is simple, he is incompetent because he cannot lead. He espouses liberal philosophies, the philosophies that have caused many cities and states to run up huge deficits. He is in the same boat and his inability to lead makes it impossible for him to solve the problem.
Democrats in New York have to worry about color but that color is red. That is the color of the ink the state is drowning in.
[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: color, Democrats, election, governor, incompetent, New York, paterson, race