Donald Trump’s Contract With The American Voter

 Comments Off on Donald Trump’s Contract With The American Voter
Nov 112016
 

By DONALD TRUMP

October, 22, 2016

What follows is my 100-day action plan to Make America Great Again. It is a contract between myself and the American voter — and begins with restoring honesty, accountability and change to Washington

Therefore, on the first day of my term of office, my administration will immediately pursue the following six measures to clean up the corruption and special interest collusion in Washington, DC:

* FIRST, propose a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress;

* SECOND, a hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce federal workforce through attrition (exempting military, public safety, and public health);

* THIRD, a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated;

* FOURTH, a 5 year-ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service;

* FIFTH, a lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government;

* SIXTH, a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.

On the same day, I will begin taking the following 7 actions to protect American workers:

* FIRST, I will announce my intention to renegotiate NAFTA or withdraw from the deal under Article 2205

* SECOND, I will announce our withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership

* THIRD, I will direct my Secretary of the Treasury to label China a currency manipulator

* FOURTH, I will direct the Secretary of Commerce and U.S. Trade Representative to identify all foreign trading abuses that unfairly impact American workers and direct them to use every tool under American and international law to end those abuses immediately

* FIFTH, I will lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars’ worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal.

* SIXTH, lift the Obama-Clinton roadblocks and allow vital energy infrastructure projects, like the Keystone Pipeline, to move forward

* SEVENTH, cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America’s water and environmental infrastructure

Additionally, on the first day, I will take the following five actions to restore security and the constitutional rule of law:

* FIRST, cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama

* SECOND, begin the process of selecting a replacement for Justice Scalia from one of the 20 judges on my list, who will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States

* THIRD, cancel all federal funding to Sanctuary Cities

* FOURTH, begin removing the more than 2 million criminal illegal immigrants from the country and cancel visas to foreign countries that won’t take them back

* FIFTH, suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur. All vetting of people coming into our country will be considered extreme vetting.

Next, I will work with Congress to introduce the following broader legislative measures and fight for their passage within the first 100 days of my Administration:

  1. Middle Class Tax Relief And Simplification Act. An economic plan designed to grow the economy 4% per year and create at least 25 million new jobs through massive tax reduction and simplification, in combination with trade reform, regulatory relief, and lifting the restrictions on American energy. The largest tax reductions are for the middle class. A middle-class family with 2 children will get a 35% tax cut. The current number of brackets will be reduced from 7 to 3, and tax forms will likewise be greatly simplified. The business rate will be lowered from 35 to 15 percent, and the trillions of dollars of American corporate money overseas can now be brought back at a 10 percent rate.
  2. End The Offshoring Act. Establishes tariffs to discourage companies from laying off their workers in order to relocate in other countries and ship their products back to the U.S. tax-free.
  3. American Energy & Infrastructure Act. Leverages public-private partnerships, and private investments through tax incentives, to spur $1 trillion in infrastructure investment over 10 years. It is revenue neutral.
  4. School Choice And Education Opportunity Act. Redirects education dollars to give parents the right to send their kid to the public, private, charter, magnet, religious or home school of their choice. Ends common core, brings education supervision to local communities. It expands vocational and technical education, and make 2 and 4-year college more affordable.
  5. Repeal and Replace Obamacare Act. Fully repeals Obamacare and replaces it with Health Savings Accounts, the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines, and lets states manage Medicaid funds. Reforms will also include cutting the red tape at the FDA: there are over 4,000 drugs awaiting approval, and we especially want to speed the approval of life-saving medications.
  6. Affordable Childcare and Eldercare Act. Allows Americans to deduct childcare and elder care from their taxes, incentivizes employers to provide on-side childcare services, and creates tax-free Dependent Care Savings Accounts for both young and elderly dependents, with matching contributions for low-income families.
  7. End Illegal Immigration Act Fully-funds the construction of a wall on our southern border with the full understanding that the country Mexico will be reimbursing the United States for the full cost of such wall; establishes a 2-year mandatory minimum federal prison sentence for illegally re-entering the U.S. after a previous deportation, and a 5-year mandatory minimum for illegally re-entering for those with felony convictions, multiple misdemeanor convictions or two or more prior deportations; also reforms visa rules to enhance penalties for overstaying and to ensure open jobs are offered to American workers first.
  8. Restoring Community Safety Act. Reduces surging crime, drugs and violence by creating a Task Force On Violent Crime and increasing funding for programs that train and assist local police; increases resources for federal law enforcement agencies and federal prosecutors to dismantle criminal gangs and put violent offenders behind bars.
  9. Restoring National Security Act. Rebuilds our military by eliminating the defense sequester and expanding military investment; provides Veterans with the ability to receive public VA treatment or attend the private doctor of their choice; protects our vital infrastructure from cyber-attack; establishes new screening procedures for immigration to ensure those who are admitted to our country support our people and our values
  10. Clean up Corruption in Washington Act. Enacts new ethics reforms to Drain the Swamp and reduce the corrupting influence of special interests on our politics.

On November 8th, Americans will be voting for this 100-day plan to restore prosperity to our economy, security to our communities, and honesty to our government.

This is my pledge to you.

And if we follow these steps, we will once more have a government of, by and for the people.

https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/CONTRACT_FOR_THE_VOTER.pdf

Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax plan cut Trump’s taxes.

 Comments Off on Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax plan cut Trump’s taxes.
Nov 072016
 

It was Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax plan that allowed Donald Trump to claim his Altantic City losses and not pay taxes. Honesty would have Bill Clinton stepping up three months ago and owning the law.

From a DNC staffer’s email –

“The Clinton proposal should be good for the real estate market with its easing of the passive loss rules, its easing of the rules that govern pension fund investment in commercial and debt-financed real estate, and its easing of the oversight regarding bank lending policies.”

READ: – Courtesy of Wikileaks…

Date: 2016-05-20 14:19
Subject: RE: WaPo: Trump’s income tax returns once became public. They showed he didn’t pay a cent.

I know very little about this, but from a quick sweep it looks like passive-loss relief was a core component of Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax plan:

AP: Siegel says ripple effects will likely reach other investment markets as well. “The Clinton proposal should be good for the real estate market with its easing of the passive loss rules, its easing of the rules that govern pension fund investment in commercial and debt-financed real estate, and its easing of the oversight regarding bank lending policies.” …

Chicago Sun-Times: Last year, Bentsen’s Senate Finance Committee approved a change in the passive-loss system designed to provide partial tax-relief to property owners – and new buyers – who are “active participants” in real estate trades or businesses. Basically, the plan allowed such owners to escape the clutches of passive-loss treatment, and to write off losses from their real estate against net income derived from real estate. Guess what ended up in Bill Clinton’s tax package? You got it: The very passive-loss relief plan that sailed through Bentsen’s committee.

The Associated Press March 1, 1993, Monday, PM cycle Clinton Plan Has Something For Wall Street
BYLINE: By CHET CURRIER, AP Business Writer
SECTION: Business News
LENGTH: 594 words
DATELINE: NEW YORK

Though President Clinton’s economic ideas have drawn a lot of fire from Wall Street, his plan could well be a boon to the business of banks, brokers and other financial-services industries. In the eyes of some of his critics on the Street, Clinton has presented himself as a Robin Hood intent on redistributing wealth according to a system of “fairness” that is open to dispute. At the same time, however, observers say there is a very real prospect that his proposals could lead to greater demand for a wide variety of Wall Street’s merchandise, from municipal bonds to individual retirement accounts. “Everyone’s got a bellyache about Clinton’s proposal,” observed Ethan Siegel, a Washington analyst at Prudential Securities.

“While the market mulls over the proposal and its likely impact on the economy, I’d point out that there are pluses in the package that cannot be ignored.

“The overall message remains that there is going to be less Washington money for high-income retirees – in both pension and health care benefits. As more and more people find it necessary to provide for their own retirements, this will be a plus for the mutual funds, the financial planners and the banks.”

Analysts like Siegel raise these visions at a time when expectations for financial businesses are already on the rise. As of late last week, Standard & Poor’s index of financial stocks sported a 23.31 percent gain over the past 12 months. That stood in sharp contrast to an advance of just 3.08 percent for S&P’s index of industrial stocks, and a 6.88 percent rise overall for S&P’s 500-stock composite index. The financial group’s performance reflects the fact that financial firms of many types have been recovering from the early-1990s credit crunch, and reviving their profitability, with help from falling interest rates. As many analysts see it, these businesses also stand to benefit from demographic forces as the nation’s population ages in the years ahead, dramatically increasing the size of the over-40 set. This is the group that has always provided many of Wall Street’s best customers.

Richard Hoffman, chief investment strategist at Cowen & Co., cites as a primary market theme of the ’90s “anything that 40-year-olds and above buy and use.” Wall Street is already well into a prolonged marketing blitz seeking to woo this horde of potential clients as it faces the need to prepare in earnest for its retirement years.

Clinton’s proposals already have touched off a boom in the tax-exempt municipal bond business, based on the likelihood of higher tax brackets for upper-income individuals and couples. By the same reasoning, people’s appetites would stand to be whetted as well for annuities, life insurance, and retirement savings vehicles like IRAs, Keogh plans and employer-sponsored 401(k) plans – all of which offer some degree of shelter from taxes. Siegel says ripple effects will likely reach other investment markets as well.

“The Clinton proposal should be good for the real estate market with its easing of the passive loss rules, its easing of the rules that govern pension fund investment in commercial and debt-financed real estate, and its easing of the oversight regarding bank lending policies.”

Many Wall Streeters object to Clinton’s expressed faith in government, rather than private industry and market forces, as a driving force behind change and progress. From another angle, however, says Rao Chalasani at Kemper Securities in Chicago, “the president called for turning to investment, away from consumption.”

Chicago Sun-Times February 26, 1993, 
FRIDAY , FINAL Clinton Economic Plan Gives Real Estate a Break
BYLINE: Kenneth R. Harney
SECTION: HOMELIFE; THE NATION’S HOUSING; Pg. 6;
N LENGTH: 711 words

Real estate owners, investors and brokers could emerge from the 1993 federal legislative sweepstakes with something they haven’t seen since 1981: A tax bill that giveth rather than taketh away. Compared with other key sectors of the economy that were asked to share the pain of deficit-reduction, real estate came out as a net winner in the Clinton administration’s economic recovery program unveiled last week. Not a big winner, to be sure; but not a loser by any stretch.

First, the Clinton administration posted a last-minute hands-off sign on two of the fattest, and most politically sensitive, potential sources of new tax revenue: deductions for home mortgage interest and local property-tax payments. Plans for limiting both were on the table until late in the budget-crafting process, according to administration sources. One official said key staff members favored at least modest cuts in the deductions for philosophical as well as revenue-raising reasons.

Second, the fingerprints of pro-real estate legislators like former Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-Texas), now secretary of the Treasury, are clear in the Clinton package. While chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Bentsen supported efforts to encourage pension funds to put more of their money into housing and real estate. The Clinton plan includes precisely such a plank. Bentsen also supported efforts to roll back features of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 that severely penalized new investment in commercial real estate. Those provisions hampered resales of office buildings, apartment complexes and other property financed by failed S & Ls, which were glutting the market in his home state.

Among the biggest impediments to real estate investment: the controversial “passive loss” system created by the 1986 reform act. That law defined all forms of rental real estate as “passive” activities, no matter how much time and effort owners spend on managing or operating their real estate. Under the law, losses generated by passive activities cannot be deducted against ordinary income from other, active sources. Instead they can only be written off against income generated by other passive activities. If there is no passive income available to a taxpayer, the 1986 reform law required the losses to be “carried forward” – put on ice until the property is sold or the taxpayer generates net passive income to offset the frozen passive losses.

Last year, Bentsen’s Senate Finance Committee approved a change in the passive-loss system designed to provide partial tax-relief to property owners – and new buyers – who are “active participants” in real estate trades or businesses. Basically, the plan allowed such owners to escape the clutches of passive-loss treatment, and to write off losses from their real estate against net income derived from real estate.

Guess what ended up in Bill Clinton’s tax package? You got it: The very passive-loss relief plan that sailed through Bentsen’s committee. But that’s just part of the new tax plan’s lean toward real estate. Consider these other features: Permanent reauthorization of the two most important sources of financing for affordable housing. These are the low-income tax credit for subsidizing rental units, and the mortgage revenue bond program that provides cut-rate mortgage money for more than 100,000 modest-income first-time home buyers per year.

Both programs have expired periodically when Congress failed to approve annual or biannual tax bill reauthorizations. A rollback of the 1992 federal tax bill’s proposed depreciation standards for commercial real estate. The Clinton plan calls for a 36-year depreciation schedule for non-residential property. While that’s up from the 31.5-year schedule included in the current tax code, it’s four years below the 40-year standard contained in the 1992 tax legislation, which was vetoed by President Bush.

Commercial real estate lobbyists would have preferred no change at all, but even last year they accepted the 40-year standard as a necessary revenue-raiser in exchange for passive-loss relief. The Clinton package turns out to be kinder and gentler to real estate, in other words, even when it passes the hat looking for more tax dollars.

 

From: Graham, Caroline
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 12:07 PM
To: Miller, Lindsey; Dillon, Lauren; Bauer, Nick; Roberts, Kelly; Sarge, Matthew Cc: Brinster, Jeremy; Dieter, Austin
Subject: RE: WaPo: Trump’s income tax returns once became public. They showed he didn’t pay a cent.

Brinster – do we have any boomerang here?

These are the specifics on 78/79. As long as Brinster doesn’t see a flag, then I’d like to round all of this up in a doc, but tighten up the frame a bit and make sure we’re driving the “Trump’s always in it for himself” narrative. That should help downplay his call for higher taxes on the wealthy (non-real estate) folks.

Trump Paid No Taxes Due to Losses on Rental Properties. A Division of Gaming Enforcement report from October 1981 stated: “The Division notes that in 1978 and 1979 Trump incurred no federal income tax liability. In 1979, the lack of such liability is primarily attributable to losses incurred by Trump in the operation of rental properties located at Third Avenue, Fifth Avenue, East 56th Street, East 57th Street, East 6lst Street and East 62nd Street, New York City, New York. The expenses for the operation of the aforesaid rental properties were actual cash disbursements as reflected in Trump’s cash disbursements journal. The foregoing losses were also traced to interest due on amounts owed to Fred C. Trump and Chase Manhattan Bank during 1978 and 1979. Additionally, Trump incurred losses during 1978 and 1979 in the operations of the Park Briar Associates, Regency-Lexington Partners and 220 Prospect Street Company, partnerships in which Trump has an interest.” [Division of Gaming Enforcement Report to the Casino Control Commission, 10/16/81]

Advocating for honesty – while supporting a flawed candidate…

 Comments Off on Advocating for honesty – while supporting a flawed candidate…
Oct 012016
 

We established this org to promote ‘the election of officials who perform their responsibilities with honesty and integrity.’

Ugh.

Well, despite obvious and deeply ingrained corruption within many levels and agencies of our federal government – our goal and hope remains. Just as we said from the beginning (because this level of political dishonesty did not happen over night) – we will continue to push for and promote honesty amongst our politicians.

This does not mean we can only vote for those with impeccable character. That would be impossible – for at this point in time there is none.

But the chances of our nation nominating a person of impeccable character in 2016 were never good.

Good character is so sorely lacking within our society as a whole, and hatred of “Christian” standards is too high.  Members of our society openly celebrate vulgarity and self-indulgence, parading it in the streets and glorifying it in movies, books and games. In this environment, when candidates have even mentioned Biblical standards, they have been vilified.

Godly candidates did not win the nomination for presidency. Period.

Good, honest people did run for office of the presidency.  They were not nominated.

That all said, we, as an organization continue to insist our state and federal governments embody honesty and integrity. We will not stop pushing and praying for honest elected officials.

At this point in time – only one of our presidential candidates has a long history of corruption while in office – and this is where the line must be drawn.  Only ONE of our presidential candidates has manipulated the DOJ, FBI and other entities to cover her corruption. Only ONE has used her position of political power to financially benefit herself.

We stand against this person and will do everything in our limited power to keep her out of office.

The following questions were written by a man named YJ Draiman. We believe these unanswered questions (and many others) need to be asked at the next debate:

Mrs. Clinton:

  • When you left the White House after your husband’s last term as president, why did you steal 200,000.00 worth of furniture, china, and artwork that you were forced to return?
  • Mrs. Clinton, when you were Secretary of State, why did you Solicit contributions from foreign governments for the Clinton foundation after you promised President Obama you would not?
  • Mrs. Clinton, why do you and your husband claim to contribute millions of dollars to charity for a tax write off when it goes to your family foundation that gives out less than 15% of the funds you collect and you use the balance to support yourself tax free?
  • Mrs. Clinton, why are you unable to account for 6 billion dollars of State department funds that seem to have disappeared while you were Secretary of State?
  • Mrs. Clinton, why did you say you were broke when you left the White House, but you purchased a 2 million home, built an addition for the secret service, and charge the tax payers of the Untied States rent in an amount equal to the entire mortgage?
  • Mrs. Clinton, how is it that your daughter, Chelsea, can afford to buy a 10.5 million apartment in New York City shortly after you left the White House?
  • Speaking of Chelsea, how is it that her first paying job, in her late 20’s, was for more than the President of the United States’ salary? Was there a quid pro quo of any sort involved?
  • We would also like to know about METRO CARE HOME SERVICES. Their address is the same as Chelsea’s apartment. What’s the deal with that?
  • Mrs. Clinton why did you lie to the American people about the terrorist attack in Benghazi but managed to tell the truth to your daughter the same night it happened?

This is just the tip of the iceberg of questions that must be answered.

http://www.dakotansforhonestyinpolitics.com/

– https://www.facebook.com/DakotansforHonestyinPolitics/

Is the Obama Administration fanning the flames of a Race War?

 Comments Off on Is the Obama Administration fanning the flames of a Race War?
Sep 232010
 

September, 23, 2010

Let’s see, we had Black Panthers, La Raza, NAACP, and Mrs. Obama all talking “us against them.” Now we have President Obama, himself, telling black lawmakers, “

I need everybody here to go back to your neighborhoods, and your workplaces, to your churches, and barbershops, and beauty shops. Tell them we have more work to do. Tell them we can’t wait to organize. Tell them that the time for action is now.”

As many know, in late 2008, the Department of Justice, under President Bush, filed a lawsuit alleging that the ‘New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense’ (NBPPSD) and two of its members had intimidated Philadelphia voters during the Nov. 4, 2008 general election.

According to the complaint, two members of the NBPPSD were stationed at the entrance to a Philadelphia polling station. They wore their uniforms and one carried a “police-style baton weapon.” Two witnesses testified that at least three voters, after seeing the two men in front of the door, turned away without voting and that a black poll watcher was harassed, called a race traitor, and told that if he stepped outside, there would be ‘hell to pay.’

Later the Black Panthers admitted that they had ‘deployed’ members to polling locations nationwide and these two men were part of that deployment.

But soon after Obama took over the presidency, the case was dropped. Apparently, career prosecutors at the DOJ wanted to proceed with the case, but Obama appointees did not. The Obama administration, it was said, won.

According to whistleblower J. Christian Adams, attorney of 18 years and until a few months ago, Department of Justice employee, dropping the case was about ‘race,’ not fidelity to the law.

Hans von Spakovsky, a former career Counsel to the Assistant AG for Civil Rights, thinks this action by the Justice Department is unprecedented and says the DOJ has failed its duty to enforce voting laws. He told The Bulletin that the dismissal by the DOJ, with no notice on the Justice Department press site, particularly against an organization listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, is a horrible miscarriage of justice.

Having heard of Mr. Adams sworn testimony, why didn’t President Obama push for justice in the matter?

Later, one of the NBPPSD members who was at the Philly polling place was video taped at an event, yelling at the crowd that black people have to get with it and ”Kill Some Crackers and Their Babies!”

It is clearly obvious that the Tea Party is multiracial in both leadership and membership, while the Black Panthers are not. And yet, it is the ‘Tea Party’ that Obama’s followers, including the NAACP, are accusing of racism. In truth, who are the ones creating issues over race, i.e. racists?

Last month, the NAACP voted on a Resolution concerning the ‘Tea Party. Although the NAACP refuses to release the language of the Resolution until October, ABC reported that it says

“Tea Party members have used “racial epithets,” have verbally abused black members of Congress and threatened them, and protesters have engaged in “explicitly racist behavior” and “displayed signs and posters intended to degrade people of color generally and President Barack Obama specifically.”

To this date, no one has come forward with any video or audio of Tea Party participants engaging in any of the behavior described – other than displaying signs and posters concerning the misguided politics of President Barack Obama. But no one has supplied evidence of a poster intended to specifically degrade people “of color” on account of their “color.”

Despite the lack of any evidence, the President of the NAACP went on with his claims:

“For more than a year we’ve watched as Tea Party members have called congressmen the N-word, have called congressmen the F-word. We see them carry racist signs and whenever it happens, the membership tries to shirk responsibility,” NAACP President Ben Jealous (an apt surname) said in an interview with ABC News. “If the Tea Party wants to be respected and wants to be part of the mainstream in this country, they have to take responsibility.”

The NAACP unanimously passed this resolution, purportedly calling on Tea Party members to ‘repudiate’ what the NAACP calls “ultra-nationalist and racist factions within the organization.”

Okay…back up. Now they have thrown the word “Ultra-nationalist” into the mix? What’s that supposed to mean? Is that what the left now calls Patriotism? So now Patriotism is a bad thing, inherently associated with racism?  They have no evidence of racism, so they must be going after Patriotism because its the only thing there’s lots of evidence of within the Tea Party!

Yet, there is plenty of footage of the Black Panthers using direct, deliberate racist language towards non-blacks. Has Mr. Jealous taken responsibility and repudiated that clear, undeniable racism – racism from who Mrs. Obama has for some reason called “African” Americans?

Somehow the NAACP’s complaints smell more political than anything else. This isn’t an organization devoted to supporting a people group, it’s an organization devoted to supporting a political party,

Fortunately, not every US citizen of African heritage thinks the NAACP is correct. ABC reports that the Rev. C.L. Bryant, former president of NAACP’s Garland, Texas, chapter and now a leading Tea Party activist, said;

“The idea that the Tea Party is racist or is trying to instigate a racist climate is “simply a lie.”

But the NAACP isn’t alone. Organizations such as the National Urban League, Acorn, and Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Push Coalition all appear to see non- “African” American people in this country as a stumbling block to their political objective.

The Rev. Jim Wallis, founder of the Washington-based social-justice group Sojourners, former leader of the Michigan Students for a Democratic Society (associated with Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground) and a key member of Obama’s faith council, wrote on May 27 that, “There is something wrong with a political movement like the Tea Party which is almost all white…” and claimed that an undercurrent of white resentment is part of the tea party ethos. Apparently not having heard or understood anything that has been said by Conservatives over the last year, he also asked whether the Tea party would even exist if the president of the United States weren’t the first black man to occupy that office.

Willis’ group, Sojourners, BTW, had actively lobbied for communist regimes that seized power in Latin America in the late 1970s, and is currently advocating for the controversial Imam and Mosque in New York.
The left’s constant invective that everyone else in America is racist appears to be a shallow effort to provoke young, minority voters nationwide to rise up and save the Democratic Party over these next two election cycles.

And it appears that Michelle Obama is assisting in that effort. Are we being too hard on her?

First Lady Obama, who wrote in her 1985 undergraduate thesis at Princeton, “I will always be black first and a student second,” and “Princeton made me more aware of my blackness than ever before,” spoke to the NAACP prior to their vote on the Tea Party Resolution. ABC News, as expected, commended her speech in their report headlined, “Michelle Obama Rouses NAACP Before Vote Condemning ‘Racist’ Elements of Tea Party”

Her speech had to do with childhood obesity, but her community focus was very narrow. Many felt her speech was incendiary and race baiting. Her statement that “African American communities are still hit harder than just about anywhere by this economic downturn…” was very hard for someone of a different heritage to hear while struggling to keep the electric bill paid and food on the table. The entire speech was focused on the idea that the “African American” community struggles harder than any other. President Obama has made similar statements.

The Obama’s, like so many in their inner circle, appear to be blind to people of other heritages. Does she honestly believe that the ‘African American’ community has been hit harder by this economy than the Native American community? Does she have statistics to back that up? And is it really hit harder by childhood obesity than the ‘Caucasian’ community, or ‘Latino’ community?

Mrs. Obama went on to say, “African American” children “won’t be in any shape to continue the work begun by the founders of this great organization (NAACP).”

Again…back up. Is that the point of teaching the children good nutrition? So that they will be in good condition to work for the NAACP? I certainly hope that was simply poor speech writing, and not the true goal. Incidentally, what is the work that she is hoping these children will do? And why does Mrs. Obama, the NAACP, and their followers continue to call American citizens with darker skin tones “African” Americans? Why the continual, purposeful pointing out of centuries ‘past’ heritage?

And why the persistent attacks on “America?” Why does the left appear to be continually, purposefully, blaming and riling people? Were initial concerns about the Obama’s twenty-year relationship with Pastor Jeremiah Wright well-founded?

Listening to Sermons such as this one:

The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing “God Bless America.” No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme. ~ Jeremiah Wright (2003 sermon)

Which brings us to one of his more recent ones: an anti-Semitic Palm Sunday Sermon

This is no fluke in thought or sermon. On Palm Sunday, 2010, Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, pastor Emeritus of Trinity United Church of Christ, Chicago, Ill., whose church Barack and Michelle Obama attended for 20 years, gave the following sermon at a Church in Detroit:

Based on 2 Kings 6:8-17, Rev. Wright spoke on “What You Can’t See.”  The passage related how the Prophet Elisha saw God’s invisible host of Angels standing ready to protect him against the King of Syria. Pastor Wright stressed, “Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them…”

Ellis Washington, former editor of the Michigan Law Review and law clerk at The Rutherford Institute was a witness to this sermon and later stated,

“Despite the thunderous shouts of Amen! Praise the Lord! Hallelujah! and hysterical laughter in response to Rev. Wright’s sermon, I knew in my heart that this man standing before me in the pulpit was deceitful to core; a false prophet perverting the word of God like no other person I had ever witnessed.”
“For example, I heard Rev. Wright read the well-known biblical passage …but the political spin he put on it was quite outrageous…

  • Syria-Israel War = America-Iraq War;
    • King of Syria = President George W. Bush;
    • Operation Capture Elisha = Operation Desert Storm;
    • Prophet Elisha = Saddam Hussein (an innocent man with no WMDs);
    • Syrian Army = U.S. military (i.e., an evil pagan army hell-bent on capturing the man of God);
    • Syria’s servants = President George Bush military and political advisers;
    • Elisha’s servants = black Americans whose eyes needed to be open about how evil and irredeemable the US of KKKA is.

Okay, Rev. Wright…so where do the other American minorities fit in? As far as the Tea Party is concerned, they fit in right next to the rest of us. But where do they fit in with the NAACP, and Wrights version of America?

Because, you know, their human and want to fit in somewhere…

A few months ago, Ron Gochez, a LA Unified School District Teacher, railed against conservative Caucasian capitalists at a small Los Angeles rally and called for a Communist Progressive revolution in America. This liberal Revolution would involve killing people in the United States.

On Cinco de Mayo, May 5, 2010, Robert Rodriguez released an “illegal” trailer on Ain’t It Cool News. The trailer implied that the film would be about Machete leading a revolt against conservative anti-immigration politicians and citizens. Very unfunny – and an excellent reason to boycott the movie.

Do Obama and his administration truly believe that Fanning the Flames of Race War will help them win in 2010 and 2012? Are they honestly willing to push America to the edge in order to obtain their goals?

In August, 2010, a man went on a shooting rampage at his former workplace. After shooting 10 co-workers, killing eight, Omar Thornton told the 911 operator,

“This place is a racist place. They treat me bad over here. They treat all the black employees bad over here, too. So I took into my own hands and handled the problem,” he said. “I wish I could have got more of the people.”

Unfortunately, while most people continue to rise above the rhetoric and remember who we are as a country, angry, racial rhetoric is now rising from all sides and heritages. Two years ago, many were not angry and did not say such things as they are saying now. People are growing more frightened of each other; unsure what the other person might be thinking or where they stand. It’s always a relief when one finds out that despite the difference in heritage, the other person still thinks just like you do. Despite the wedge that the left is trying to force between everyone, most of us still want to be neighbors.

This was supposed to be a “post” racial presidency. Why is our leadership fanning these flames?

On September 18, 2010, President Barack Obama , in a speech to just the black lawmakers said, ”

I need everybody here to go back to your neighborhoods, and your workplaces, to your churches, and barbershops, and beauty shops. Tell them we have more work to do. Tell them we can’t wait to organize. Tell them that the time for action is now.”

Why was this message given to only part of the liberal Congress members? Why weren’t non-black lawmakers included?

The president, in effort to secure their support, repeated the First Lady’s claim, saying the recession had struck “with a particular vengeance on African-American communities” and implied that opposition to his policies is based on racism.

Members of “the other side,” Obama said, “want to take us backward. We want to move America forward.”

The caucus dinner with the lawmakers capped a concentrated week of outreach to minority groups. On Monday there was a White House reception for black college officials. On Wednesday there were speeches by the president to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and by first lady to a black caucus legislative conference. Obama told the Hispanic group he is committed to an immigration overhaul, even though it has stalled in Congress. He blamed GOP opposition and said Hispanic voters should keep that in mind.  Obama was also interviewed on “The Tom Joyner Show” radio program last week, which has a large black audience.

I was raised in the DFL, amongst many people that seriously believed that liberal policies would help people. I wonder what some of those older people I grew up around; Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, Don Frazer and Rudy Perpich would be thinking, or are thinking, about the Democratic Party now. They seemed so honest while I was growing up. I have a hard time believing they would support the current administration.

But I’ve also realized for years that it is the liberal mindset that keeps people separated and angry, salting wounds. Having had lots of experience living in very low income communities and on reservations, I began to see how the liberal policies were doing much more harm than good. More recently, I have begun to wonder if that is their real purpose. I still believe the people I grew up around were sincere, but the Democratic Party, at the top, as near as I can tell, is now the party of elite wanting power over the poor.

I see the Democrats today as more closely aligned with the Communists of 60 – 80 years ago, who professed to be for the poor while they terrorized and subjugated them.

You can hear it in their angry words – the venom, rudeness, and hate with which they treat their political opponents. In Blog comments and on twitter, they have been attacking the elderly, vets, and young mothers with disdain and the foulest language. Why? That kind of behavior certainly doesn’t endear them to anyone. It only pushes people farther away from the Democratic Party. People that attack brutely rather than debate maturely are scary people. I do not want them leading us; they are the type that hit when they aren’t obeyed.  However it appears this is the type of people we now have in the White House.

We can not let this small group of ultra-liberals push us into race war.

Not only is race is irrelevant in any context, (including in the U.S. census), race doesn’t even exist. According to Genome Project, there is no such thing as race. There is no gene for race. There are only genes for familial differences, such as facial cheekbones, shade of skin, and texture of hair. Those aren’t race differences; they are family differences. Human genes have been traced back to just one family. (The genome project stopped short of saying that all humans descended from one couple. Too touchy of a statement, I would guess.)

Commenting on current racial tensions, Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, “The NAACP is slamming the Tea Party for racism, as all the while the NAACP supports Planned Parenthood, the most racist arm of genocide in America today. Add to this melee the most recent attack by the Pro-abortion Movement on the Pro-Life Prayer Movement that is sweeping the nation. As the games play out, one thing is apparent. The concept of separate races and consequently racism are a lie.”

“What people need to do is to read the Bible, or at least read my Uncle Martin’s book Strength to Love,” said Dr. King. “Human dignity, bringing love and respect for each other as human beings, not considering ourselves as separate races is the answer to this puzzle.”

Mrs. Obama, what is Racism?

 Comments Off on Mrs. Obama, what is Racism?
Aug 062010
 

First Lady Obama, speaking at NAACP in July, on the eve of their declaring the Tea Party racist, stated,

“When African American communities are still hit harder than just about anywhere by this economic downturn and so many families are just barely scraping by…”
and

“…just like so many other challenges that we face as a nation, the African American community is being hit even harder by this issue.”

Mrs. Obama, like so many in her small circle, appears to be completely blind to the rest of America. Does she honestly believe that the ‘African American’ community is hit harder by the economic downturn than, say…the ‘Native American’ community?  Is it really hit harder by childhood obesity than the ‘Caucasian’ community, or the ‘Latino’ community?  Does she have statistics to back that up?

If she is right, whose fault is it?  How does she propose to fix the ‘issue?’  Will more stimulus funds solve it?

If so, will the funds be targeted at only those served by the NAACP, or will children of other heritages, who Mrs. Obama doesn’t appear to be as concerned about, also benefit?

Mrs. Obama went on to say that if the ‘issue’ of childhood obesity within the ‘African American’ community isn’t resolved, ‘African American’ children “won’t be in any shape to continue the work begun by the founders of this great organization.”  (the NAACP)

And what is that work? Please tell the rest of us, because for years we’ve been lead to believe that the NAACP was a civil rights organization with an altruistic heart for equality of all people.  It sure doesn’t seem that this is the case, anymore.  Maybe it never was.

Lastly, why does Mrs. Obama, the NAACP, and their followers continue to call American citizens of darker skin “African” Americans?  Why is there a continual, purposeful pointing out of centuries old heritage?

I have never been referred to as a “German American.” …Or an “Irish American,” or “Scottish American,” for that matter. (My, my, which one would I choose?)

OH WAIT!  Africa is a continent.  Therefore, I would be called a “European” American.  And by the way – are ONLY people of dark skin who are of African heritage allowed in the NAACP?  What if they have European heritage as well?

Oh, wait, President Obama has more than one heritage.  So…is he considered “African” American or…”European” American, …or both?

Excuse me, but who here are the people most focused on “race” here… aka  – the true racists?

Rep. King, Obama IS a Racist

 Comments Off on Rep. King, Obama IS a Racist
Jun 172010
 

Finally – someone has had the guts to say something.

Iowa Congressman Steve King, in a June 16, 2010, FOX article by Cristina Corbinon, reaffirmed his belief that President Obama has “a default mechanism that breaks down on the side of the minority.”

While he stopped short of calling the president a racist, saying “I don’t know if I want to go so far as to make that allegation,” King ”made no apologies for his comments about Obama favoring Minorities.”

The Iowa Representative meant exactly what he said on G. Gordon Liddy’s radio show Monday: that President Obama favors blacks over whites and “needs to be called to task on that.” He felt he is performing a public service by stating that the President obviously favors blacks over whites.

YES – he had done a public service!  President Obama, Eric Holder, and the extremely large number of people in our country that are doing the same thing DO need to be called on it.  They MUST be called on it, because to continue this ridiculous facade is seriously harming us all.

One of King’s examples was the July 2009 Cambridge, MA, brouhaha where white police officer Sgt. James Crowley arrested black Prof. Henry Louis Gates Jr. outside his home. Before knowing the facts, Obama said the officer had acted “stupidly” by arresting Gates.  Under severe criticism, Obama later ate his words and pretended to make it all better at a White House ”beer summit,” where he and Gates continued their assault on the varied motivations of law enforcement.  (One thing that was noticeable in the press photos of their walk to the table was Crowley’s kind attention in assisting Gates, who uses a cane, while Obama lumbered ahead, oblivious to them both.) 

King said Obama’s initial statement on the incident “brought up race in the beginning” and “concluded with race.”

King went on to cite Obama’s criticism of Arizona’s immigration law and Eric Holders decision to drop the 2008 voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party.  Two members of that party had been standing at the door of a Philedelphia voting center in election day, waving sticks.

Democrats are feigning outrage over King’s remarks, and even some republicans have run hiding.  Never mind he’s speaking to an issue that many of us had been aware of, or have become aware of, over the last year.

While King stops short of calling the president a racist, I have no such hesitancy.

It is beyond me how my husband, who was 100% Native American, was called a racist by the Montana Human Rights Commission simply because he politically opposed what tribal leaders are doing to people of Indian heritage.  Yet, he never showed disdain for the tribe. In fact, everything he did was because he loved his family and friends and hated to see them continue to be hurt by destructive federal Indian policy.  His only crime?  He was taking the same side on the issues as many conservative white people. Therefore, because the left labeled those white people as racist, they labeled him as a racist as well.  In fact, the Montana Human Rights Network claimed that ANYONE who opposed tribal government decisions was inherently a racist.

Yet Obama, Jackson, Sharpton, Rev. Wright, and the like , (I’m referring to ideology here), can behave as they have toward whites – not with simple political opposition, but with constant hate mongering in the form of  false  accusations about the motivations of Caucasians.  And no one is supposed to say anything.

What’s honestly behind the huge outcry against the Arizona law – the one that reflects and upholds federal law?  The only ones making this a racial issue are the ones who are calling the law racist and inferring that Arizonans are as well.  That would be Obama, Holder, Napolitano, and the Mayor of LA… to name just a few.

While the state was forced to enact the law because federal government wasn’t doing its job concerning gang members and drug runners crossing the border in greater numbers, Arizona law enforcement personnel are not idiots, nor are they all racists. For Obama, Holder, various mayors and pandering politicians from the left to accuse them as such is racism in itself.

Arizona Law Enforcement personnel are trained professionals and they deserve respect.  They have arrested criminals of every size, shape, color and persuasion in the past and will continue to do so in the future. While jerks exist in any and every group, (including the White House) Arizona policemen do not intend to eyeball only Latinos for suspicious activity and arrest and let everyone else go on about their crimes.

Further,  the need for a secure border and strict law isn’t only about Latinos! So pretending that Latinos are the only issue – the only ones crossing the border illegally and the only ones to be affected by the bill …is racist.

In case not everyone has heard, we were attacked in 2001, and not one of the attackers was Latino.  Further, on an Arizona reservation just last month, a Pakistani was picked up after crossing the border illegally.

It has also been known for quite awhile that Al-Qaeda has been recruiting Caucasians in Britain to commit terrorist acts. In 2008, a Scotland paper wrote,

“As many as 1,500 white Britons are believed to have converted to Islam for the purpose of funding, planning and carrying out surprise terror attacks inside the UK.”

In Israel, terrorists are now coming in every shape, size, gender, and color.

So let’s get real. We can’t play games with our border, no matter who feels offended and pouts. This is about crime, not race.

Further, quoting Dr. William B. Allen, former Chair of the US Comm. on Civil Rights and Dean Emeritus, Political Science, MSU

(The Arizona Law) …addresses individuals who have broken the law, and looks for ordinary social indications in order to determine who such persons are. … So, in the case of immigration laws, … the laws operate universally, to protect those who enter legally and to condemn those who enter illegally.  It is the individual, personal decision to enter legally that identifies the person as subject to the law, and not the person’s race or ethnicity.

So why does Obama and other keep making it about race?  Who are the real racists?

Obama’s comments and behavior consistently reek racism and even anti-Semitism.  (He couldn’t even bring himself to dine with or have his picture taken with Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel.) 

Some argue Obama can’t be racist because of his mother and grandmother. The fact that Obama’s mother was white is irrelevant. As a Berkeley psychotherapist noted, “His mother disregarded his basic needs, dragged him all over the place, and ultimately abandoned him.” She also wrote that “Barack Sr. was an abusive, alcoholic bigamist.”  But Obama subsequently wrote a book praising his father.

It’s time for the whole ‘racism’ game to stop. Many of us refuse to play anymore.

This is a country full of varied individuals.  Our multi-racial family refuses to even answer questions about ‘race’ posed by the census, school documents, and the like.  Race doesn’t matter!!  It’s liberals who keep trying to make it an issue.  We didn’t answer it on the 1990, 2000, or 2010 census.   We encourage everyone – of every heritage – to stop answering that racist, immaterial question no matter what document it comes on.

They will tell you that the question is only for funding purposes – but that’s part of the problem!  Why is the federal government allocating funds based upon question of race?  It’s way past time for all this garbage to stop!

Mayor Villaraigosa; Who are the Racists?

 Comments Off on Mayor Villaraigosa; Who are the Racists?
May 272010
 

Dear Sir;
While I respect the concern you have regarding racial profiling, I believe that the Law Enforcement Officers of Arizona are professionals.

Many of us in the north are appalled that our southern neighbors have been forced by the federal government to live with violent drug runners racing through their property.  I can’t imagine how frightening that must be.  The fact that a rancher was murdered last month while minding his business, driving on his own land, doesn’t seem to bother the White House at all.

What is our federal government there for, if not to organize and protect our borders?

Sir, the only ones that I see making this a racial issue are the ones that are calling Arizonans racist.

Yes, the law was written because Latinos from Mexico – impoverished families as well as gang members and drug runners – have been illegally crossing the border in greater and greater numbers and with that much hurt has come to Arizona.

But Arizona law enforcement personnel are not idiots. They aren’t the racist rednecks various mayors and pandering politicians from the left have accused them of being.  They are, believe it or not, trained professionals.  I suspect that most have arrested criminals of every persuasion in the past and they expect to do so in the future. While jerks exist in any and every group, (including among White House Staffers) I doubt Arizona policemen intend to eyeball only Latinos for suspicious activity and arrest, and let everyone else go on about their crimes.

The first job of the Police officer, according to SB 1070, is to be about fighting crime and catching law breakers.  That is the number one thing that the Police are supposed to be looking for. Illegal presence in the United States is a secondary factor, and deporting law breakers because they are here illegally is simply common sense.

If a neighbor kid comes into my house and steals something off my dresser…no matter what his heritage is, I’m gonna kick him out and tell him not to come back. (I’ve done the “forgive – let’s talk about this” route before. Forget it.)

Further, it is extremely short sighted to act as if the need for a secure border and strict laws is only about Latinos.

An alert went out this week for someone from Somalia – not a Latino – that is/was attempting to cross the southern Border to commit terrorism.  It has also been known for quite awhile that Al-Qaeda has been recruiting Caucasians in Britain to commit terrorist acts.  In 2008, a Scotland paper wrote,

“As many as 1,500 white Britons are believed to have converted to Islam for the purpose of funding, planning and carrying out surprise terror attacks inside the UK.”

In Israel, terrorists are now coming in every shape, size, gender, and color.

So let’s get real.  The War on Drugs isn’t our only border concern; there is also a War on Terror.  We can’t play games with our border, no matter who feels offended and pouts.  This is about crime, not race.  Any time anyone crosses the border to stay in the United States without permission, it is a crime.

Every state needs to adopt an Arizona type law.  Why should I be afraid of it?   The police already always ask for my ID every time they stop me for speeding.  I also already carry the kids’ birth certificates in a binder because we go to Canada frequently.  I even keep their shot records, our car’s registration, and other documents in it because it’s so convenient.  When we were students there, I kept the visas in the same binder.  And I have NEVER been offended when a Canadian officer has asked to see my documents at the border – it’s their right.

The only ones that should be upset by it are those that are here illegally. (So, Obama, why are you upset?)

Arizona has every right to protect its citizens.  Everyone that has seriously read SB 1070 has been forced to realize that it is definitely constitutional.  Even Eric Holder and his crew haven’t been able to justify a reason to fight it.  That’s why they are sitting on it, claiming that they are going to go slowly in order to mull it over.  As near as many of us can tell, they are sitting on it until the law takes effect in the hopes of catching an Arizona police officer attempting to use it to commit a crime.

I don’t understand how they think that will help their argument against the SB 1070, though.  People commit crimes. That’s why we have laws.  Laws that are thought out and well written don’t cause crime, they address them.  And SB 1070 is a law written – apparently very well – to address and deal with crime being committed by people of every heritage, size, and contortion, even if the impetus was about Mexican citizens.

I certainly pray that the federal government, in their present silliness, doesn’t attempt to set up an entrapment, and that Arizona is left alone to work out the law as they need to.

Now, Honorable Mayor Villaraigosa, as far as your boycott is concerned, according to the CATO institute,

“Preventing such interstate discrimination was, of course, one of the original purposes of the Constitution and, specifically, its Commerce Clause (which grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce).”

It’s one thing for an entity to suggest individual citizens boycott an offending entity. It’s another thing when a government passes a law forcing a Boycott of interstate commerce.  Your boycott, sir, is what is unconstitutional.

So – as much as I love driving Highway 1, visiting the Pier, Universal Studios, relatives in Santa Monica, the Sequoia forest to the north, and much more…I will NOT visit LA or California at all until California officials grow up and cease their foolish attack on Arizona.

By the way – at one point, the Canadian government turned down out request to extend our visas.  We had apparently filled out our paperwork wrong.  Although we disagreed with their assertion, We did not protest or demand an imagined right to stay.  We left, as we were told.  We camped in Glacier Park and returned to the border to do the paperwork again.  This time the visas were granted.  Yes, it cost me another $1200, but we did it and it was legal.  Although we are a multi-racial family, we never accused Canadian officials of racism.  Canada has the right to govern its borders, and so do “we” in the US.

Please remember, Mayor Villaraigosa, as well as President Obama; it’s “We the People” that run this country.  Not a political party, and not a self-important person.

Michelle Obama and her News-Free Zone

 Comments Off on Michelle Obama and her News-Free Zone
Feb 202010
 

Are you kidding me?  In an interview with Mike Huckabee, Michelle Obama said she stays away from news because she wants to formulate her own opinions based on her “experiences.”  Obama said she reads news clips from the headlines, “but I tend and I try to keep home kind of news-free zone.”

At this unusual time in American history – when more Americans are waking up to what’s going on in their government and getting involved, Queen Obama announces that her family home is a “News-Free” zone, because she prefers her own “experience” to those of her fellow citizens.  She has no need for factual events going on with anyone else.

We teach our kids in school to stay on top of current events and we hold discussions with them in classrooms and at our dinner-tables.  Adults gather at watercoolers, lunch tables, and townhall meetings to discuss news.   Many turn to Twitter, Facebook, and other social media to stay informed.  And wait – didn’t liberals mock Sarah Palin when she didn’t answer Katie Couric’s question about magazines she reads?

But not Michelle Obama.  Forget about gathering information and researching facts.  Her home is a “News-Free” zone and her personal experience is all that she needs.

Heaven knows that any news about what the country is actually thinking, doing, or saying is the last thing she wants to hear about.

“Let them eat cake” she may as well have said.

Never mind if her personal experience has been limited to Chicago, and she knows nothing about the experience of rural, non-black, or “less than elite” Americans.

Has she ever been on welfare?  Has she ever slept in the projects?  No?

What about an understanding of middle class America?  She’s been living on the high end for a long time; enjoying the pay-offs that come with her husband’s social and political positions.  Does she have any understanding of what it is like to work your fingers to the bone and still not be able to make ends meet?  Or what it is like to keep a small family business in the black with today’s economy and taxes?  No?  Lived and worked in the rural bread basket of America; known people who gather for coffee in a small town cafe?

I’ve had experience with all those things, and it amazes me that Michelle Obama assumes she can have any understanding of what I or most other Americans are about.  She’ll never understand the Tea Party if she’s going to depend solely on her personal “experiences” to formulate her opinions.  But…maybe she doesn’t want to understand the Tea Party.

But what can we expect.  This is no different then what any of the “progressive” elite are doing.  They really don’t give a rip about the poor or middle class.  Just like John Edwards, they don’t even like being around them.  They feign concern, wailing about “all the poor that can’t afford Health insurance” simply because it makes good sound bites and gives an excuse for their dominating agenda.

But heaven forbid they spend any real time getting their hands dirty.  You won’t see John Edwards or Michelle Obama wiping saliva off the chins of elderly with dementia, much less take the time to really hear what “Tea Partiers” are trying to say.

Lastly, as can be seen on twitter and other social sites – Americans react to news as a group. It’s actually part of who we are.  Before the day is out, most of us know if someone of importance had passed away that day, or if there was a major tragedy a few states away.  We talk about it with people at school, work and home.  Part of the feeling of being “slapped” by her statement is …well, it’s the elitist attitude.  Not only does it seem that she doesn’t care about facts, but it seems she doesn’t care to share in our community news, whether it be national joy or national agnst.   We’re just not important to her.

Obama, Tireless Campaigner, Hires Plouffe to Snow Us Some More

 Comments Off on Obama, Tireless Campaigner, Hires Plouffe to Snow Us Some More
Jan 252010
 

Excuse me? Obama is in trouble for lying to the country, taking over banks and car companies, trying to push legislation down the people’s throats, mocking regular people for speaking up, staffing the White House with socialists and communists, and causing the Democratic Party to take a nose dive – and he responds, not by changing his direction, apologizing, or bringing in new, non-communist people to take crucial lead positions in the administration; he brings in his old campaign manager, David Plouffe.  A political consultant? Are you kidding me?

Remember when it was noted that he was a master campaigner, but wouldn’t know how to run the country? So what is he doing now but continuing to campaign rather than run the country.  That’s all he knows how to do – campaign – and that was noted long ago, as he’d gone from one campaign to another, climbing up the political ladder without ever accomplishing anything; barely spending a year in the US Senate before beginning his campaign for the presidency.

Now, again, it appears that the plan is to do some more campaigning rather than lead the country.  It appears that he’s going to fix all his troubles by getting his campaign manager to come up with a plan to try to snow us – to tell us what they think we want to hear, rather than getting a crew around him that can devise an agenda that will work with our country and our people.

Why?  Why would they respond to the Massachusetts election by hiring David Plouffe?  Because they don’t plan on changing their current agenda.  They plan to change how we perceive their agenda.  Thus begins a new campaign.  Brace yourselves for some fresh propaganda.

White House Tells Artists to Tell Country “What to do”

 Comments Off on White House Tells Artists to Tell Country “What to do”
Sep 222009
 

You are the thought leaders,” the artists were told. “You are the ones that, if you create a piece of art or promote a piece of art or create a campaign for a company, and tell our country and our young people sort of what to do and what to be in to; and what’s cool and what’s not cool. And so I’m hoping that through this group and the goal of all this and the goal of this phone call, is through this group that we can create a stronger community amongst ourselves to get involved in things that we’re passionate about as we did during the campaign but continue to get involved in those things, to support some of the president’s initiatives, but also to do things that we are passionate about and to push the president and push his administration.” This from Michael Skolnik, political director for a hip-hop mogul.

“We’re going to need your help, and we’re going to come at you with some specific ‘asks’ here,” added Buffy Wicks, deputy director of the White House Office of Public Engagement. “But we know that you guys are ready for it and eager to participate, so one we want to thank you, and two, I hope you guys are ready.”  The White House Office of Public Engagement, together with the NEA and “United We Serve,” an initiative created by President Obama, held this telephone conference in August with hand-picked artists from across the country.

They are the “thought leaders,” according to the White House, being directed to change our minds.  They are the thought leaders, whose jobs are to tell us what to do and think. 

How offensive is that?  Who does this administration think they are: first telling hundreds of thousands of the American public – the elderly, veterans, young families, from all walks of life – that they are a “mob,” “astro-turf,” and “racists,” for speaking their minds, and now telling rappers and painters that the public is also so stupid that they will let artists tell them what they are supposed to think?  And at our own (tax-payer) expense?

This administration appears to have no understanding of the American public.  They seem to assume that Americans are lemmings, and any lemming that doesn’t follow must have something wrong with him.

This administration is way off in “left” field.  Art inspires, but only when it touches what is already in the heart.  In other words, the art that becomes popular only becomes so because it is reflecting what people are feeling.  It is public passion that inspires art, not the other way around.

So in the current political climate, on a grass roots level, did you notice how quickly the picture of the President as a joker took off? Or the t-shirts with the words, “RIP Constitution”? Or the “I am the Mob” logos on twitter?   Wow. Artists creating popular political art without the help or instruction of the government.  Have you seen anything from the liberal side catch on like that recently on a grass roots level?   Sure, during the campaign there were things that were meant to inspire the public, but there they were created as campaign tools and died as soon as the campaign was over.  Heard any classrooms singing Obama songs lately?

AND for goodness sake – get off the bandwagon that any news station or host is leading the public.  It is the public that is leading Fox News! Fox News is merely the megaphone for the thoughts and feelings of millions of Americans. It is currently the only station listening to the public and giving them the news they are looking for.  I’ve EVEN heard people say that Bill O”reilly is becoming too soft!  And yes – we know that Beck is a little silly – but he’s offering us documented information that no one else is willing to discuss.  We don’t all draw his same conclusions, but we appreciate the information. When will it occur to the left that people choose to watch programs that reflect what’s already on their hearts – not the other way around?  They are leaving MSM in droves because they know much NBC and ABC are only reporting what they are told to report.

The left is imbedded in the concept that they are able to bend minds.  Thus the efforts to control what is taught in schools, push the “Fairness Doctrine,” and coax artists to support their agenda.  What they forget is that throughout history, other countries attempting to control the thoughts and lives of their citizens have eventually failed at the effort.  People push back. People inherently want freedom and independence. Ever heard of Solzhenitsyn?  Or the underground churches in China?  There were rebels even in Nazi Germany.   It was for rebels like that that leaders created, at best, the re-education camps, at horrific worst, Gulags and even death camps.  No! I’m not suggesting that’s where we are headed.  All I am saying is that when the effort to bend people’s minds’ fails, a government must either push harder, or come to the realization that it just doesn’t work.  So realize it right now.  It doesn’t matter to me what you pay a rapper to sing, a painter to paint, a troll to twitter, or even how well articulated an Obama speech is.  My experience and knowledge tell me it is wrong.Lisa Blogs at http://whitetrashvote.blogspot.com/

Cash for Clunkers Hurts Poor People

 Comments Off on Cash for Clunkers Hurts Poor People
Aug 012009
 

August 1st, 2009

The Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association has predicted that there will be a backlash to the “Cash for Clunkers” program.  I agree, only it will come too late.   “Cash for Clunkers” hurts lower income people, but no one has thought much about that yet – including the lower income people that voted for Obama.

Although I drive a 1994 Suburban, I wasn’t planning on doing the  “Cash for Clunkers”. Gas guzzler that the Suburban is, it’s actually been nice for our size family, who are all too big to be sitting in the back seat of small five-seater cars anymore.  And I can carry and move things.

But even if I wanted to get a more fuel efficient minivan, I can’t afford to participate in  “Cash for Clunkers” program (more officially known as the CAR Allowance Rebate System or the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act of 2009.)   

To participate, a person has to be buying a new car.  Sure you get up to $4500 in a rebate, but you still have to have quite a bit of actual money in order to afford a new car.  People of lower income don’t have the kind of money. But more importantly, because  “Cash for Clunkers” merely replaces your trade-in value, the benefit of the program isn’t as great as many anticipate, and for the American taxpayer, it’s another program that they can’t afford.  As nice as free money (ie: the rebate) sounds, American taxpayers can’t afford to be giving this money away.  And low-income people, most especially, can’t afford to be helping pay for any more bailouts.So I just figured I’d hang onto my car for another dozen or more years, until it becomes valuable as an antique, because there won’t be any other cars of this time period around.  Most will have been crushed.  Maybe we’d fix it up and drive it in the parades!

But here’s when I realized the AAIA is right.  Junk yards that crush the CARS program cars aren’t allowed to pull engines or certain other parts before they are crushed.  Earlier this month, I made use of a junk yard twice – once for a radiator and once for an engine.   I still need to put in an alternator.  Will certain parts for older cars become harder – and more expensive – to get?When all is said and done  –  “Cash for Clunkers” benefits New Car Dealerships primarily, by increasing sales, and the upper and middle class possibly, but giving them an extra few hundred dollars.  But it’s not good news at all for lower income people.   We can’t afford a new car, and we won’t be able to continue fixing our older cars at an affordable price, if we can find the parts at all.  This isn’t good.  In fact, the Obama administration knew they were taking away our options to keep our vehicles running.  They want our cars off the road, and they really don’t care how it affects those of us with very little money.   The little guy isn’t a priority.  Obama pretended to champion the little guy in order to get their vote, but it’s becoming more and more obvious that special interest – those that have received the bailout money and those industries he is choosing to socialize – are what he really champions.  Politics as usual.

I’ll bet many of the people that voted for Obama haven’t even thought of this particular ramification yet.  They’re still waiting for him to pay their mortgages and health insurance.  The  “Cash for Clunkers” program will be all done and over with, with most of the cars crushed, before the little guy realizes that the price of his used part just went up a whole lot.

Crowley Better Bring a Friend to that Beer Party

 Comments Off on Crowley Better Bring a Friend to that Beer Party
Jul 262009
 

July 26th, 2009

So they’re supposed to sit down over a beer and come out all smiles? Come on, you know how it goes. Not one of the three has actually backed down from their positions, and there’s two of them and only one of Crowley. Anyone of us faced with that kind of situation wants to bring emotional support along.

Sergeant Crowley continues to assert that he didn’t do anything wrong and the entire Boston police force stands behind him, stating that everything he did was standard procedure. Further, Crowley, as it turns out, has for years been teaching cadets to avoid racial profiling. He knows that what he did that day was what he would have done in any home under the same circumstances.

Professor Gates, on the other hand, stated Friday evening in an email that he hoped the incident would bring “greater sensitivity on racial profiling,” even though no racial profiling apparently occurred. No apology was given by Gates for misunderstanding Crowley and jumping to conclusions.

Obama has also failed to apologize for his rush to judgment, saying that he only wishes he “calibrated those words differently.” In fact, he went on to say, “I continue to believe, based on what I have heard, that there was an overreaction in pulling Professor Gates out of his home to the station.”

I’m sorry, but I do want the police to ask for identification if there is suspicion that someone doesn’t belong in my home. Even if it’s me that they are requesting ID from.

Now, I understand that Professor Gates had just returned from a long trip. I know that when I come home from a long trip, I am tired and crabby. It had to further aggravate him that when trying to get into his home to finally kick his shoes off and rest, the door was jammed. Topping off a long and tiring day, the police showed up and began questioning him. All he wanted to do was take a hot shower and go to bed, right? That’s all understandable. But none of it was Crowley’s fault and there is no indication that racial profiling occurred.

So now is the time to apologize to the men in blue who were just doing their jobs, and quit the grandstanding.

That all said, will there be humbling apologies over that beer? With both Gates and Obama, proud men that they are, still convinced that profiling occurred and Crowley knowing it hasn’t? his bounds? Not likely. No real apologies, but unfortunately, Crowley will probably feel pressure to suck up whatever spiel the White House wants to put on the beer fest, even if his stomach is turning. After all, the beer is supposed to end the fight, and they are all supposed to come out smiling. We’ve all been faced with similar situations. How can he say no without looking like a jerk?

More on Minority Civil Rights Issues at www.caicw.org
,Lisa

Health Crisis? Liberals Push More Nurses to Quit

 Comments Off on Health Crisis? Liberals Push More Nurses to Quit
Jul 262009
 

July 26th, 2009

Catherina Cenzon-DeCarlo, a nurse from Brooklyn, was forced to assist in an abortion last May. Her supervisors told her that it was a medical emergency, and that if she didn’t participate, she could lose her job. Turns out that there was no medical emergency. For Cenzon-DeCarlo, this was tantamount to murdering a baby, and she’s struggled with it emotionally and spiritually ever since.

And can you believe this? Liberal commentators are saying she shouldn’t have taken the job if she didn’t want to do the work.

Let me get this straight. Obama is all over the place complaining about a so-called health crisis, while at the same time, lefties commenting on the above article are saying things like, “if preforming termination of pregnacy is not you line of work then leave the job,” and “Don’t we file this one under “It comes with the job, toots?

So…those of you that believe Cenzon-DeCarlo should have gotten another job: Do you honestly think that this nurse is the only one that doesn’t want to participate in abortions? Do you think there aren’t any doctors that feel the same way? Do you realize that a large number in the medical profession are Christians? If you are willing to mandate they participate, do you know how many people will walk off the job? Doesn’t matter if you don’t think it’s murder. The people that will walk away from the medical profession do.

I am a former RN. I left the field 16 years ago after I got tired of the way nurses were treated. For one example, I was told I couldn’t tell any of my staff if there was an AIDS patient on the floor due to “patient confidentiality.” My LPN’s and Nsg. Assts were allowed to know any other diagnosis. Patient confidentiality didn’t matter with any other disease. Aids was the only illness they weren’t allowed to know. This was on a unit where an AID’s patient was wiping his feces all over his bedroom walls. People that aren’t responsible for cleaning up that type of thing can say what they want. I stuck up for my staff.

That’s just one of many examples. I’m not the only nurse to walk away over such issues. Others have obviously stayed in the field. But mandating participation in abortions – that’s a major line to cross over.

If you want Canadian style Health Care, where the staff to patient ratio is a fraction of what it is in the states, keep up your rhetoric. Pay your medical professionals less, and tell them they don’t have any rights. Keep it up and see what happens. Then be happy with yourself when someone you love has to wait for days or weeks to get the medical care they need.

Catherina Cenzon-DeCarlo is right to be upset and file suit.  She wasn’t abandoning a patient.  MT Sinai had plenty of time to find a replacement.  Mt Sinai abandoned its staff.  I hope she gets everything she is asking for.  Hospitals should not be allowed to do that to people.  Here in America, we still have Freedom of Religion.  At least for now.
,