President Obama gave a speech on Tuesday regarding his new job creation plan. Here is the complete transcript of that speech. If you remember from February, the Stimulus/Spending package passed was to stimulate the economy. It was to employ people by creating "shovel ready" projects. Well it seems the shovels just kind of sat in the garage.
54 Percent of Recovery Act Highway and Transit Funds in Projects Under Way Shovels are in the ground on projects accounting for more than half of the funds targeted to highway and transit investments under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure announced today.
As we end the year, 11 months later and just a little over half of those projects are starting. Unemployment has not gone down, in fact it has gone up.
Remember in the cartoon when Bullwinkle would try to pull a rabbit out of the hat:
No disrespect to Sarah Palin on that one, the video had the best sound I could find. But no matter how many times Bullwinkle went to that hat, the results were different. The rabbit never appeared. So it seems like President Obama is now going back to the hat.
The stimulus/spending package did not accomplish what it was signed to do. It was simply another pork spending bill. But now we have President Obama talking about a real plan. Why didn't he do this in February? Did it take him that long to find his Reagan guidebook to the US Economy? So what does Obama have in mind that I approve of so greatly:
First, we're proposing a series of steps to help small businesses grow and hire new staff. Over the past 15 years, small businesses have created roughly 65 percent of all new jobs in America. These are companies formed around kitchen tables in family meetings, formed when an entrepreneur takes a chance on a dream, formed when a worker decides it's time she became her own boss. These are also companies that drive innovation, producing 13 times more patents per employee than large companies. And it's worth remembering, every once in a while a small business becomes a big business -- and changes the world.
source Thank you Mr. President, it was a long time coming, but you finally saw the light. You bailed out the banks, bailed out the poorly managed automakers (Why is Ford doing so well?) and you realize that even if those corporations are doing well, GUESS WHAT? NO ONE has any money to buy anything. Small business is what founded this country. Before there was a Walmart in every little Podunk, it was a 5 and 10 store in Arkansas. Before Bass Pro had over 40 stores nationwide, it was a bait section in the back of Mr. Morris' liquor store. It is time to restart Middle America. From the corner gas station to the neighborhood doughnut shop, these small business' are where recovery will begin.
46 percent of "shovel ready" projects from February have not started. Where is that money? Why the delay? The simple answer is government bureaucracy. Let's hope the tax cuts and small business loans are processed quicker. I commend President Obama for finding a solution that may actually work, too bad it took most of his first year in office. Let's see if he can stay on this right track next year as well.
"I'm always worried about using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur," Obama told ABC News.
Gates yesterday:
Gates says he will try to assure Karzai and his advisers "that we are not going to repeat the situation in 1989" and that "we intend to be their partner for a long time to come."
And from the Joint Chief of Staff:
On Monday, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen bluntly told troops at Ft. Campbell, Ky. — including some bound for Afghanistan — that "we are not winning, which means we are losing and as we are losing, the message traffic out there to (insurgency) recruits keeps getting better and better and more keep coming."
It is a simple concept, if you are not winning, you are losing. You go to war for victory. That victory may be defined different in each conflict, but it is the end goal. In July Obama said a goal would be "to contract the ability of Al Qaeda". Those words are too soft. We should eliminate Al Qaeda so they have NO ability to operate. As long as there is even a minute presence, there will continue to be violence.
The Washington Post ran this collection of opinions back in August on whether we should be at war. The majority of them agreed we should. But to understand the war you have to understand the history. The Civil War in Afghanistan dates back to 1978. It began with a coup that resulted in the death of the current president and implementation of Communistic rule. The Taliban ruled the country from 1996 to 2001, when the United States entered the conflict. So what is the United States doing different that has not been done in the last 31 years?
Do we have victory defined? Is that attainable? Secretary Gates outlines the ultimate goal:
He also says he will press Karzai and Afghanistan Defense Minister Gen. Abdul Rahim Wardak on efforts to recruit and train more Afghan soldiers and police officers. McChrystal has set the goal of building the Afghan security force to 400,000 by 2013. There are roughly 94,000 Afghan police officers and 97,000 soldiers today.
We can not occupy a country forever. It seems the plan here is similar to Iraq. Stabilize the country, stop the violence and then show them how to build their own army. But what country does the Taliban move to next? Are we solving the problem or just moving it? How will victory be measured?
The president starts his job tour today in Allentown, PA. A town made famous as much by the Billy Joel song as anything. A city where in the 1980's Bethlehem Steele went bankrupt and most of the town was unemployed. Here are the prepared remarks from the president. It is no coincidence that he picked Allentown. Their unemployment is at 9.8 percent and their economy has not been spared by this recession. But it seems like true American's they are trying to change that image.
Even during the current deep recession, residents don't see themselves ''living here in Allentown, and they're closing all the factories down,'' as Joel sang. In fact, the region -- about equidistant between New York and Philadelphia -- diversified away from big manufacturing and today mirrors America as a whole.
President Obama's speech was of course sprinkled with references to health care and education. This last paragraph was sort of, kind of reassuring:
"Here's why we have to do all this: because for decades, Washington avoided doing what was right in favor of doing what was easy. And the middle class took a beating for it. Well, I didn't run for President to sweep our messes under the rug with the next election in mind. I ran for President to solve our problems – once and for all – with the next generation in mind."
But yet, health care reform if passed starts in 2013. I also see a veiled reference to the Bush administration in this remark. Let me affirm again, just as the Afghanistan war is now yours, Mr. Obama, this economy is yours. It became yours the second you signed a bill to fund the economy. Let's stop talking about the past and work towards the future.
The job summit and the city tour of course came up on the heals of damaging report of the Recovery Act. Among other errors reported, there were 9,000 reports totaling $1 billion stimulus money being spent but no jobs created. Where did that money go? It is obvious the Recovery Act did not have the intended effect. I am glad this administration realizes that. They are now regrouping and making new plans. Hopefully these will put more people back to work. And instead of Senate holding hearings on party crashers, let's hope they schedule some time to review where all our taxpayer money has gone. The American people deserve the right to know, especially the unemployed ones.
Last night President Obama spoke to the nation. He announced 30,000 more soldiers will be sent to Afghanistan. His word was actually troops. I think the word soldiers actually personalizes the war. Daddy or Mommy is a soldier, they are not a troop. But that is an entire different blog post.
And at least one person in Afghanistan confirms what I believe. This quote is all revealing and places focus on the big picture:
"Even if they bring the whole of America, they won't be able to stabilise Afghanistan," said the young construction worker out on a Kabul street corner on Wednesday morning. "Only Afghans understand our traditions, geography and way of life."
A young construction worker who may have more logic than our current administration. How long has there been conflict in Afghanistan? When will America realize they can not solve all the problems of the world? For too long we have played that role and in many instances we have failed.
Terrorism continues to be a threat to this country on our own soil. There are several plots we have heard about and probably several more we will not. The common argument is fight them over they so you won't have to here. But the fact is we are fighting them in both places. I feel more focus should be placed on securing our borders and knowing who is in the country. National defense should be a priority over any attempted stabilization of a foreign country.
So why are we sending more troops for a war that can not be won? How many of our brave men and women will have their blood shed for a country that does not believe in the American way? A country that would rather continue to kill their own citizens than aspire to peace. Until this administration can answer those questions our foreign policy will continue to fail.
It was a busy news week. We had Tiger woods meeting a tree, White House party crashers, and the story I wrote about this morning with Mike Huckabee and his involvement with Maurice Clemmons. You will note that is the only story of the three I blogged about.
I primarily blog about politics. I have followed Mike Huckabee since the 2008 campaign, even went to a book signing. So that was a main influence in deciding which story to opine about. But what I find fascinating is how the mainstream media reports different stories.
Finally tonight, Tiger Woods is towards the end of the newscast. He will be ticketed for careless driving and that's the end of that story. But the media wants to dig further and try to make a story more than it is. But really whatever else happened is the Wood's family business. Their life is not for the benefit of the media. They are owed a certain level of privacy. Whatever Tiger wants to reveal about the details is his choice. I was very amused by the nightly reports of Tiger not speaking to FHP. The simple fact is he didn't have to speak to them. It was yet another non story.
Then we have the socialite party crashers who either did or didn't crash a White House state dinner. They were on NBC this morning claiming they were invited. They claimed they had invitations and emails to prove it. There is more to that story. I kind of wonder why they couldn't reveal it all this morning. I guess by keeping it for another day they can have even more publicity. I believe that is called being infamous. They really haven't done anything noteworthy. But of course there will be Senate hearings. Really? Does our Senate not have anything better to do? How about letting Treasury do an internal investigation? But let us not forget this is the same Senate that thought they need to investigate steroid usage in baseball.
And finally, to what I believe is the only newsworthy story. Mike Huckabee commuted the sentence of police killer Maurice Clemmons. Maurice Clemmons was shot and killed by an officer this morning. The media is running with this story and placing main fault on Huckabee. But what I am not hearing is how Clemmons was released from Pierce County jail just 6 days before the murders. It is easier for the media to leave out that detail. Smearing a former governor and presidential candidate boosts the ratings. By focusing on Huckabee they can further criticize a conservative who was soft on criminals. Any other day the media would be faulting conservatives for being heartless. Maurice Clemmons is proof that some criminals are not fixable. The chain of events that led to the loss of four men and women sworn to protect life could not have been predicted. But the media chooses how to portray the story. They choose the slant to take. And we as viewers make the choice on which news source we rely on.
It seems that Senator Lugar (R-IN) has a good idea today. He is finally a voice of reason on Capitol Hill.
“The war is terribly important,” Lugar said. “Jobs and our economy are terribly important. So this may be an audacious suggestion, but I would suggest we put aside the health care debate until next year, the same way we put cap and trade and climate change, and talk now about the essentials: the war and money.”
I have commented before that this administration is like a child with several puzzles. The only problem is they are starting new puzzles before they complete the first.
So exactly where is all the money coming from? How far into debt will this country go?
This national debt clock is the most detailed I have seen. I think it should be posted on every television station every night. How many Americans actually know about our debt in this much detail? Most only know we are over 12 trillion in debt. But did you know that is around 85 percent of the GDP? Take a look at some of the other numbers. I was completely surprised by many of these myself.
We can not bailout corporations, fix the economy, save the planet from global warming, fight a war on two fronts and reform health care at the same time. At some point someone has to say stop. I commend Senator Lugar for doing just that. I hope more of our elected officials will do the same.
Meanwhile, President Obama, for the sake of this nation, complete ONE puzzle at a time.
President Obama did an interview with Major Garrett on Wednesday night. This was his first interview with Fox News since July. I was under the impression from Glenn Beck that President Obama had not gone on Fox News since January, and this is incorrect. This of course comes just a few days before Anita Dunn is scheduled to resign. I do have to wonder what Ms. Dunn thought of the interview. Was it just entertainment to her?
I think it was a great interview. It even started with the exchange of holiday wishes. But alas, Huffington reports:
The interview comes after a verbal battle between the White House and FOX News, in which the White House called the network a "wing of the Republican Party." The war of words was not brought up in the interview, which remained civil throughout.
I really would have liked to see that come up in the discussion. But really that is not a priority for the president. It shouldn't be a priority. The priority is the issues that affect this country and it's future. Those issues are far more important than an staffer condemning one particular news network. I am glad President Obama did this interview and I hope to see him and his administration on the network more in the future.
It seems the hot topic currently is what President Obama bowing to foreign leaders means. Personally I think it means he is following protocol and showing respect. But as is typical, some are focused on the wrong issue. The most important issue right now is of course KSM and 4 other terrorists coming to New York City to stand trial. Eric Holder made a statement yesterday to defend this decision:
"We know that we can prosecute terrorists in our federal courts safely and securely because we have been doing it for years," he said. "And at the end of the day, it was clear to me that the venue in which we are most likely to obtain justice for the American people is in federal court."
source I disagree with that analysis. The Geneva Convention defines an prisoner of war. In my opinion they fall under Article 4 part 2:
Article 4 A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: 1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. 2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions: (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) That of carrying arms openly; (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
This unclassified document details the evidence against Khalid Shaykh Muhammad. It further supports my belief that he meets the requirement for a prisoner of war. Of course many say that the whole detainment at Guantanamo Bay has been against the Geneva Convention. The irony is that had they been declared prisoners of war, they would now be facing military tribunals. But instead they are considered "unlawful combatants" and the convention rules did not apply to them. Lew Rockwell outlines many of these alleged violations. He sums up his contentions bluntly:
Unlawful combatants don't deserve any human rights whatsoever because the biggest gun on the planet says so. It doesn't matter that every other nation calls a POW a POW, the USA is above other nations, it is above the law, it is above its own citizens and it is above even reality. US President Bush loves pointing out that, "America is liberating Iraqis from human rights abuses by Saddam Hussein." However America abuses the rights of anyone it so chooses by just by giving them a different label.
Of course that was before 2008. The administration has changed as well as the ideology. But that still does not change the rules. The public outrage is illustrated in this article about mothers of 9/11 victims.
"It's frightening and upsetting and it's like putting the whole thing right back in our faces again," said Reiss. "These are very dangerous people and I think they are making New York City a target again by bringing them up here. I'm a Democrat and worked for and voted for President Obama, but now I feel like a woman without a party. The Democrats have fallen down on keeping us secure and the Republicans don't want to give us health care."
No matter how the lawyers act, and no matter what inclinations Mohammed may have, the trial will be controlled by a federal judge. The nation cannot afford to have this jurist be anything but tough as nails on everyone, including prosecutors.
The controversy will just grow. The trials in New York will take time and during that time millions will be spent. I respectively disagree with Attorney General Holder. This is not in the best interest of the people, this is not the best venue for justice. In 2001 we declared a war on terror. These are not enemy combatants, they are prisoners of war. They should be tried in military tribunals as such. To do any less betrays the painful losses of that fateful day.
1989- a lone protester stands in front of a tank rolling into Tienanmen Square.
2009- exercising free speech by selling what would be a controversial shirt even in America.
I was watching Fox News around 11 pm last night. They were showing President Obama in China.(Photos) The audience was mainly students. After he spoke, he then began to explain how American town halls work. He then answered questions from students in the audience. I was thinking to myself how amazing it was that this is China and here are students freely asking questions. At the moment I did not think about the screening process, where it would be broadcast or how it would be analyzed on Monday. In my view it could have taken place just as easily in my own city.
The White House had wanted this shown live throughout China. However, it ended up being shown live only in Shanghai. (Video) It was also broadcast on the White House website. As you can tell from the article, the Chinese government still exercised a large degree of control over the entire event. But I think the fact that it even occurred shows that China has made great progress.
I don't remember much about the events in 1989. This first hand account was very revealing. The fact that over 7,000 people would die for democracy is just not fathomable. But just like we have seen in Iraq, eventually some change in government will occur. The people will only be silent and oppressed for so long. To come from that point to having an town hall meeting to me shows great hope for the future. President Obama even made remarks at the town hall about China and their internet censorship. I imagine even 10 years ago that would not be allowed.
We should all view China as a success story. True, they still have a long way to go to be a truly open and free society. But drastic changes take time. I feel it also takes dialogue between other world leaders such as our own president. We should also be reminded to never take our own first amendment rights for granted. Not all citizens of China saw the event and many won't be able to find accurate details on the internet. However,it can not be lost that this can be traced back twenty years to one person standing in front of a tank.
At the end of November, White House communications director Anita Dunn will step down. She will then be free to write her book on how she idolizes Mao. She will be replaced by Obama buddy Dan Pfeiffer. You will notice his wiki lists several campaigns he has worked on. I hope in that process he has learned the importance of free press. The White House is claiming that Dunn was only temporarily doing the job.
But it just seems kind of odd after the fuss Fox News made over her. I think this is just another Van Jones. Fox News did their journalistic duty. Comment about Mao is at :36 of this video:
Here is what Media Matters had to say about Glenn Beck and the Mao claims. Here is Anita Dunn's own response to the controversy.
And here is what Anita Dunn thinks about Fox News:
I wonder if CNN paid her for the free advertising? And note she says when Obama goes on Fox he knows he is facing his critics. Remind me again, exactly when did Obama appear on Fox? She must have meant last November. But this is not about agreeing with Anita Dunn's views. This is about the press, namely Fox News having limited access to the White House. President Obama stated in his campaign that he would have a transparent administration. I guess he only meant the mainstream networks. In a sense this can be seen as payback from Fox News. You talk bad about me, let's see what we can dig up on you. While their intentions may not have been noble, it does not change the facts. Ms. Dunn has failed as director of communications. She has however succeeded in boosting Fox News ratings. Let's hope Dan Pfeiffer can do a fair and balanced job.
Congratulations to new Republican Governors McDonnell (VA) and Christie (NJ). There was much speculation what this election meant. Here is how the networks are reporting it this morning:
As suspected, the story is if President Obama's performance played a role in this election. Note the ABC story has one headline on the main page, but when you click through it is a different headline.
This is the results from CNN exit polls:
Further proof that this election was not solely focused on Obama, 56 percent of Virginians said that the president was not a factor when it came down to their vote. In New Jersey, that number increased to 60 percent of the people who went to the polls on Tuesday.
I did find it interesting that CNN was the only network to outright claim it was not a referendum. But their exit poll is the ageless glass full, glass empty. The fact that about 40 percent of voters in both states said the president was a factor should be cause for concern. Common sense tells us that if a president is not bringing us back to prosperity, it has a negative effect on any candidates of their party. I would hope most people still vote for the most qualified candidate regardless of party.
MSNBC predicts what most of us already know:
They could also be ominous for Democrats ahead of next year's midterm elections, when a third of the Senate, all of the House of Representatives and most governorships are on the ballot.
If MSNBC ever had a correct speculation, I hope it is this one. I am already looking forward to next year. I am ready to put the map on the wall and stay up late coloring states red.
Fox News was of course dramatic with their story:
Republican gubernatorial wins in New Jersey and Virginia mark a troubling turn for President Obama, whose personal efforts couldn't stop the fall of Democrats facing a voter backlash over the economy and a notable uptick in the government's would-be role in people's lives.
Were two states governor elections and one states senate race that important? Does it warrant the terms "fall of Democrats"? Sure, why not. I mean if the 2008 election could be called a "mandate" by many networks this description of last night seems reasonable.
ABC News gives us this quote from Press Secretary Gibbs:
"I don't think the president is looking at these and believes that they say anything about our future legislative efforts or our future political efforts," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said of the two gubernatorial races.
Remember when you hear Mr. Gibbs speak, the opposite is probably true. If these had been Democratic victories I am sure the quote would be completely different. And here is ABC News exit polls:
57 percent of voters in New Jersey and 51 percent in Virginia said they approve of Obama's job performance. A distinct minority of voters said their votes were connected to the president's leadership.
Note the 57 and 51 percent are approval numbers, not whether they effected the vote. Exactly what is a "distinct minority"? If you are doing an exit poll, wouldn't you have numbers for that too? I guess the terms serve to minimize the issue.
Finally, we have CBS who decides to bring in the race and youth factor:
Exit polls back this up: African-American turnout was 15 percent this year (20 percent in 2008) and voters aged 18-29 only made up 10 percent of the vote today – down over 50 percent from last year, when young voters made up 21 percent of Virginia’s vote.
So different groups of people where voting yesterday than a year ago. This was a governor's race, what does that say about the 2010 Congressional races? Can we expect the same demographics?
I think Michael Steele summed up last night best:
“The Republican Party’s overwhelming victory in Virginia is a blow to President Obama and the Democrat Party, It sends a clear signal that voters have had enough of the president’s liberal agenda.”
The elections are now less than a year away. Our congress people should be concerned at this point. Last night was a referendum on Obama regardless of what some networks state. They are only using their typical spin to keep the viewers happy. In 2010 reality will set in and we can look back on this governor election as a first warning.
Don't blame me, I voted for McCain. As I write this, it is November 3rd. A year ago today, we as a country exercised our spirit of democracy. The result was history. We elected the first black president, a senator with three years experience. G.W. Bush of course was not even on the ballot, but he is eligible for blaming at least a few years. Now that we have almost completed a year of the Obama administration, the country is different. President Obama's campaign pledge was hope and change. Most of us are still waiting for the hope.
It seems there are two camps regarding this administration. First we have the Obama optimists (see also reality challenged) and the Obama pessimists (see also those that comprehend news) These are the two extremes that many Americans are in. There are many people that don't fit into these groups. Some people just prefer to ignore anything political or even watch the evening news. But to be a member of either the optimist or pessimist group can be mentally unhealthy.
The Obama optimists voted on November 3rd and expected miracles on January 20th. They feel the president and government itself can solve all their problems. A good example of this was the thousands of people who stood in Detroit waiting for stimulus money. Please do not try to question the facts presented by this group. They believe we are in an economic recovery even as they sit home without employment. To be a member of this group you of course have to follow the White House closely. That is where your talking points such as condemning Fox News will come from. It is easy to be part of the optimists, just listen to the president and various assorted politicians who claim to have the best interest of the country in mind. They assure us the country will prosper quickly, but only if we vote for their bill of the day. Meanwhile the optimists are not concerned about what is in the 1,000 page bills. They know it is all okay, because they were told it would be. They just go about their day with a smile plastered on their face and the Obama bumper sticker on their cars.
The Obama pessimists, arguably can actually be a worse group. Many of these people, such as myself, voted against Obama more than they did for McCain. A moderate Republican was a better alternative than a liberal Democrat. But this group is all about gloom and doom. Since they lost the election, the country has been collapsing around them. They are more likely to watch cable news and also research stories on the internet. What is being searched for is how each story fits into the Obama master plan. That plan of course is to turn us into a socialist country. The health care reform is just the latest piece to this puzzle. Then back in the dark corner of this group we still have the birthers. Those who just don't trust a birth certificate from Hawaii and are still holding out hope for a disqualification. I say this could be the worse group, because they are predisposed to a tainted view. They can not see any good this president or Congress accomplishes. President Obama could announce tomorrow that pepperoni pizza is an essential party food. This group would immediately investigate what companies are making pepperoni and how much they contributed to the campaign. This group when participating in online discussions, will have a daily list of why they hate President Obama. They will start going down that list, first thing in the morning, not even stopping for a friendly greeting. Yes, they also still have the McCain/Palin stickers on their cars. I actually removed mine so I would have a space for the Fire Congress sticker. You really have to know where the blame is properly placed.
The fact of the situation is there are at least three more years of President Obama. In one year many seats in Congress may change. As citizens we will all survive this administration. With unemployment approaching ten percent, it may not be the most pleasant years. But I encourage people to not look at an issue with a preconceived notion. Keep an open mind and don't assume there is always a hidden agenda. Look at the basis of the current events, research the facts for yourself and then use your own mind to make a conclusion. Know your candidates for 2010 and vote for the future of this country. In as much democracy built this country, it can also ruin it. Make sure you know who you are voting for and why.
Happy Halloween. The one time of year that children can go door to door and beg for candy. They of course have to be in costume first, that is assuming their family can afford one this year. And as they walk to the door their phrase is "Trick or Treat". Many know this came from an old tradition. Back even before my time, if you were not so generous to give a treat, then you would receive a trick. Eggs on the house, toilet paper in the tree, flaming bag of Fido's finest on your porch. Yes, the good ole days. But it seems we have had our own version of Halloween since January. And frankly Scarlet, it is getting downright scary.
Yes, today I will exploit a simple holiday for my own amusement. I have no qualms about it, and if you are reading this far, you don't either. The big treat waiting on the other side of the door is of course health care reform. There have been at least 5 different bills for that. The latest proposed by the wicked witch from the west has 1,990 pages. And we thought 1,017 pages was big. That bill only dreams about Speaker Pelosi's. And then meanwhile in the background we have the scarecrow with his own senate version. It seems Sen. Reid is going to shove that public option down our throat. I look forward to it as much as an apple with a razor blade. This health care reform is enough to make you sicker than eating all your candy in one swoop tonight.
Then we have several tricks. Only the Obama campaign refers to them as "promises". These little things I say I will do if you elect me. Now, I know that is that way of politicians, but really haven't we had enough tricks this year? And wait there is still one on the way. GMAC financing is going back for a third time to the bottomless government money well. What did they do with all that money we gave them? This is the kid given $30 to go to a movie on Friday and they need more money on Saturday. Where is the accountability in this trick?
Of course we all love terrorists. The great trick of this administration is the treat of soon having them on our own soil. Never mind that these are in my opinion prisoners of war. Wouldn't a military tribunal just be a wonderful thing? And our troops keep dying. I know that is part of war. But for the few campaign ads I did watch, I remember the treat would be bringing the soldiers home. I never heard anything about the trick of sending them to Afghanistan instead. Oh, and Mr. President, change your Dover policy. Flag draped coffins are sacred, they are not photo opportunities.
So those families that are not part of the close to ten percent unemployment, can actually enjoy this holiday. They will send their children much as corporations sent their CEO, to beg from the neighbors. But unlike this simple candy redistribution, it is voluntary. You can simply turn out your porch light if you don't want to participate. But all of the stimulus and TARP bills don't have a light on the porch. As taxpayers we will all eventually pay for this debt. It is Halloween today, only for one day. But I have a feeling the scary feeling will continue for at least another year. In 2010 use your vote to tell your congress person "boo". Tell them they are like ghosts and you do not believe in them. Perhaps then we can all sleep soundly with the lights off.
You may rememember Sen. Collins from this post back in February.. At the time she was one of three Republicans to vote for the spending/stimulus bill. Yesterday, Senator Collins was leading a committee hearing regarding the kingdom of czars. Unlike Glenn Beck, who has identified 32 such positions, Sen. Collins is focused on only 18 czars. These include the Guantanamo closure czar and the pay czar I talked about yesterday. The White House sent their counsel Greg Craig who promptly informed the committee that the czars would not be testifying. Sen. Collins had previously wrote a letter to the counsel:
The letter asked the president to describe the roles of each czar, explain the vetting process the White House used, and whether each of them would “agree to any reasonable request to appear before, or provide information to, Congress.”
I think we would all be interested in the vetting process. For instance whether Van Jones background was common knowledge and if it was just ignored. And of course White House communication director Anita Dunn has her own blog entry regarding the czars.
Just to be clear, the job title "czar" doesn’t exist in the Obama Administration. Many of the officials cited by conservative commentators have been confirmed by the Senate. Many hold policy jobs that have existed in previous Administrations.
Ms. Dunn is correct, the term czar was created by the media. And she is careful to use quotes around the word czar every time so we are assured it does not exist. But if Ms. Dunn would look up the definition of the word, I think she would agree it is justly applied in this case. Yes, other administrations did have czars, but not as many as the Obama White House. She lists 9 positions that were confirmed by the Senate, something that Glenn Beck never mentioned. That still leaves 23 that were not confirmed. What was their vetting process?
And finally to sum it up, Fox scores a victory. If you are a viewer or read other blogs, you may know the White House has a anonymity to Fox News to say the least. In their view Fox News is not even a news outlet. But this week the White House tried to block the pay czar from appearing on Fox News. To my memory, no White House official has appeared on Fox News since January. They really don't want to face their critics. But amazingly, the head of the Washington Bureaus banned together over this one. They decided if Fox doesn't do the interview, no one will. And as important as that air time is to this administration, they relented. I hope he is prepared, this will not be the normal softball game seen on other networks. Anyone who has watched Fox News knows they ask the questions that matter, they could care less about how your golf game is. I commend all the networks for this bold step. For if one network is being denied an interview, what network is next?
My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.
It seems pay czar Kenneth Feinberg is going to do a little adjusting to executive pay. The pay of top executive in companies that have not paid back their TARP money will be cut an average of 90 percent.
The seven companies under Feinberg’s purview are Citigroup, Bank of America, General Motors, Chrysler, GMAC, Chrysler Financial and American International Group. These firms have received a total of about $250 billion in bailout funds from the Troubled Assets Relief Program, adopted last year by Congress, and benefited from hundreds of billions of dollars more in government guarantees and other support.
So let's take a look at how much a few of these people make. Citgroup paid their CEO $10.8 million in 2008. His new salary would be $1.08 million. Simple math, just move the decimal. GM CEO is being paid $8.5 million, his new salary would be a paltry $850,000. And finally, last year GMAC paid their CEO $11.6 million so the new salary will be $1.16 million.
Now of course most of us could live on that much in one year. But it is my guess that if you are used to making $10 million a year, you also have a lifestyle to match. They are probably not driving economy cars around and living in a one bedroom apartment. So this drastic pay cut may require some cutbacks. They may have to start buying store brand and the grocery store and not dine in the top restaurants every night. I am pretty sure they will survive.
But it is not just salary that will be cut:
The administration will also curtail many corporate perks, including the use of corporate jets for personal travel, chauffeured drivers and country club fee reimbursement, people familiar with the matter have said.
But wait, our congress people are also receive taxpayer money. I wonder if they are forfeiting the same benefits?
The point of contention is does the government have the right to do this? I remember a post I wrote when GM and Chrysler were bailed out. I stated that the government owns them now and they will do as told. This is a prime example of that. For as much as I disagreed with the bailout, the deal with the devil has been made.
President Obama has stated he does not want to be in the car business, does not want to be in the banking business. So perhaps this will encourage these seven companies to pay back their TARP money. With the recession predicted to be over, profits should be returning. The sooner these companies are out of government control, the better they will be. It is only then that this economy will truly return to the free market.
The award of President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, has created a large debate. Simply, did he deserve to win the award? Many feel that his accomplishments or lack of, did not warrant the prize. We can compare the past winners (Al Gore excepted) and their massive accomplishments until next years prize are awarded. But really what is at the root of this debate?
As anyone who pays the least attention to current events knows, their is an underlying current in this country. Ever since November, there has become a growing factor that wants our president to fail. Let's flashback to what my post was on election night:
It is over. I concede. McCain has lost, as have we all. At this moment I am sick, I am ready to vomit on my screen. I am not going to place blame, I am not going to whine like the Gore campaign did. Obama has won with twice as many electoral votes as McCain. Why? I have no idea. I could yell and scream, I could call names. But why bother? It will not change anything. I am not going to pray for a miracle and a recount. I can only question why the delusional voters have foresaken their country. It is over, welcome to the depression. Welcome to the change you never saw in your worse nightmare.
I was obviously upset and emotional at that time. We all knew the election would favor Obama, but we didn't expect the landslide. And then I made the Welcome to the Winter of our Demise on January 2nd. A little more reasonable, considering the issues, considering past elections. I was of course more comfortable with that post. Then on inauguration day I made this post:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Dear President Obama, As you say these words today: Remember Remember you have made history, and you will write it as well. Remember those that have come before you that have paved the way, for they are watching. Remember those that gave their life that you may take the oath today, their sacrifice was priceless. Remember the whole world is watching, not just today, but the next 4 years, make it count. Remember there will always be people who want you to fail, do what is right, WE are watching. Remember there will always be love in this world, there will always be hate, assure the love prevails. And most important of all. Remember this if nothing else: You are now leader of the most powerful country in the world. Keep us safe and return us to prosperity. We are watching. God Bless you on this day.
As various events happen in our country, I often go back and read that post. That is the nice thing about a blog. It is a chronological record of your thoughts and you can often go back and reflect and see how they have changed. I will have to say I have become more accepting of the fact of who is sitting in the oval office. In a way I have become softer on this administration. That isn't really a bad thing, but as this post shows, it is a wave of hope. I have realized as it was since I watched politics, Congress is in charge. I know there are people from both parties that will be the voice of reason and prevent illogical legislation from passing. President Obama's job is to direct Congress based on his agenda and he of course has final power in the form of a veto.
But what various media outlets are showing is an increasing growing group. That group of protesters that from day one wished for President Obama's failure. I agreed with Rush Limbaugh when he made his statement, and I will quote it directly as I know he would appreciate it:
Why would I want that to succeed? I don't believe in that. I know that's not how this country is going to be great in the future, it's not what made this country great. So I shamelessly say, no, I want him to fail, if his agenda is a far- left collectivism, some people say socialism, as a conservative heartfelt, deeply, why would I want socialism to succeed?
Rush wanted the agenda to fail, not the president. For if the agenda succeeds, that would forever change the political and economical landscape of America. Socialism is of course a trigger word. Taking from the rich to give to the poor. It defies the basic concept of self-reliance. I believe in charity, but it should be voluntary. I decide who I donate time or money too, not the government. But the current debate over health care takes that to a higher level. The extreme rich will be further taxed in order to provide health care for the less fortunate. That is not the American way.
So I look at failure on an issue basis. I do not wish this administration to fail. My views have changed much since the urge to vomit in November. I have heard the comparision that it has been 9 months, the same time it takes to bring a human life into this world. Actually October 20th will be 9 months, but a minor detail. But if this Congress fails, what will be the results? The results will of course determine who stays in office in 2010. And looking further into the future, President Obama's failure would make him a one term president. But do we really want that failure bad enough? Is the fate of our country the price we will pay to ensure a Democrat is not in office in 2012?
The announcement has been made. The Nobel Prize this year goes to President Obama. Here is a list of previous winners and why there were given the prize. President Obama was nominated for this award less than two weeks after taking office. What did the committee see in those mere 13 days? How does he compare with other presidents who have won the prize:
Obama is the third sitting U.S. president--and the first in 90 years--to win the coveted peace prize. His predecessors won during their second White House terms, however, and after significant diplomatic achievements. Woodrow Wilson was awarded the price in 1919, after helping to found the League of Nations and shaping the Treaty of Versailles; and Theodore Roosevelt was the recipient in 1906 for his work to negotiate an end to the Russo-Japanese war.
So their great accomplishments were the League of Nations and ending the Russo-Japanese war. I am impressed.
Our president has received the prize for:
his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.
There is much criticism including my own. The prize is being awarded for his "extraordinary efforts". When was the last time you received something solely for your efforts? Hey, Fred, you made a good effort on that potential client, good job, wish we could have signed him. No, you really don't hear that much.
Those efforts of course are to "strengthen international diplomacy". This one he may have done. Of course he did it by touring the world and apologizing for America's transgressions on every soil he set foot on. He became the beta-male to the other world leaders. Meanwhile how diplomatic do countries like Afghanistan and Iran feel we are?
Finally we have "cooperation between peoples". That sounds like a world level community organizer. I wonder if ACORN International can be reached for comment? Anyone with an understanding of the issues and personal interrelation skills can accomplish the same thing. President Obama just happens to have the big plane and all the staff he has surrounded himself with to help.
President Obama is also being praised for working towards a nuclear free world. Ronald Reagan also had this lofty goal. But in reality it is a continuing struggle. Until all the countries of the world have ultimate trust, they will not disarm their nuclear weapon. Many will see this nobel prize as a salute to world wide diplomacy. But they miss the point. That diplomacy would not be possible were it not for the vast military resources of the various countries. Why should any country negotiate if there is no threat of force being used? If Country X existed with no military and no civilians trained to use firearms, who would negotiate with them?
I belief the decrease in nuclear weapons is a worthy goal. I would like to hope that even our crazy third world leaders are not crazy enough to use them. But as our role of world police, we must remain forever vigilant and take whatever steps needed to ensure that. Diplomacy will only work to a certain point, sanctions are eventually needed. After that comes the all too often seen use of military force. It is my hope that in that regard President Obama will differentiate himself from his predecessor. If we go to war and risk the life of our soldiers, let us make sure we are there for the right reason and it is a war we can win. While I highly disagree with the choice of the Nobel prize, I still see hope for the international policies of this administration. But if the United States is continued to be portrayed as an apologetic and weaker country, this prize will be meaningless.
During his trip to Copenhagen, President Obama did meet with General McChrystal.. Keep in mind the general was flown to Copenhagen, the president did not go to him. It seems the general has been elusive lately, the two of them just can't work it into the schedule to meet. Prior to that meeting, they had spoke once in 100 days. It seems President Obama does not want to follow in the footsteps of his predecessor:
Mr. Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, made a point of speaking with his Iraq commander roughly once a week at the height of the war there, a habit that forged a close working relationship between them even if it effectively bypassed the normal chain of command. Mr. Obama’s aides said he relied on General McChrystal’s advice but did not feel the need to duplicate Mr. Bush’s personal engagement with battlefield generals.
I am hoping this is because he feels the war will be over shortly. This kind of arrangement doesn't make sense for a long term occupation. As the old saying goes, straight from the horses mouth. Any information that President Obama does not get directly from the front can be either watered down or incorrect. You can not really run a war with just memos. There is also a level of anonymity between the two since the "secret" report recommending 40,000 more troops were needed. But instead of addressing this issue, many are criticizing the general for not following chain of command. First the secret report was to be just that. I would like to think it was not intended to be leaked to the press. If that is what our military generals must resort to get the president's attention, than we have already lost this war. Whether he is prepared for it or not, on January 20th, President Obama became commander in chief. Part of that role seems to entail speaking with your generals. So why hasn't it happened more often?
If we remember back to November, a campaign promise was to bring our troops home from Iraq. But now this White House faces the reality of Afghanistan. Did they really think it would be a church picnic over there? So instead of bring all the troops home, the front is just changing. This is yet another issue that reflects negatively on President Obama. Perhaps the meetings wouldn't fit into his 2012 campaign that he already seems to have started. Were he meeting with his general every week, that of course would be covered in at least a few news networks. And we have all seen how media coverage works thanks to ACORN. The president just doesn't need more negative press.
My feelings remain the same since Bush was talking with General Petraeus. If you want to know the true story of the war, talk to the generals. They are the one on the front, they are commanding the soldiers. Remember the soldiers, President Obama? Those men and women that are risking their life everyday for a war that is becoming increasingly unpopular? Eight of those soldiers died on Saturday in a attack. They were someones son or daughter, father or mother, sister or brother. They were loved and will be forever missed. For this administration to give any less than their ultimate attention to the war is a travesty. Either win the war or bring our country's heroes home.
Just reported today, Chicago will not host the 2016 Olympics. Yes, even after President Obama, the first lady and Oprah flew to Copenhagen, it was to no avail. And what was the cost of this trip:
The effort and energy needed to make the president and first lady's quick trips to Copenhagen possible could be considered Olympic-sized by some estimates. The approximate cost of flying Air Force One round trip for 18 hours calculates to more than $1.2 million -- roughly $67,000 per hour. The estimated greenhouse gas emissions of Air Force One for that trip amount to more than 1 million pounds of carbon dioxide. Compare that to a roundtrip on Amtrak from New York to Washington D.C. emits 220 pounds of carbon dioxide. The president's trip is the equivalent to 4,500 of those round trips. The Boeing 757 the first lady rode separately emits nearly 374,000 pounds of carbon dioxide.
Someone call Al Gore quickly. But since this attempt failed, shouldn't the taxpayers be reimbursed? If you look at this subjectively, the Olympics would benefit the city of Chicago. To have a president so blatantly spend tax money for just the benefit of his home city, is ridiculous. Sure it would bring more tourists to the country, but many Olympics in the past did not make money. Many in fact are still in millions of debt. The IOC also requires an 80,000 seat stadium for any chosen venue. Chicago of course does not have that and one would have to be built.
According to a recent Chicago Tribune/WGN poll, only 47 percent of Chicagoans favor bringing the Games here, while 45 percent oppose it.
So at least now we know Chicago will not host the Olympics. That should save this country from yet another embarrassment from that city known for it's corruption. The remaining cities are Rio and Madrid. Myself I vote for Rio. Meanwhile I will be waiting for that refund check from our president.
The G-20 summit went well in Pittsburgh. Unless of course you were a cop in riot gear, then you had a bad weekend. See how well you paid attention with this quiz. And of course the big news was the fabulous three condemning Iran. Yes, President Obama stood united with England and France in warning Iran to desist nuclear activity. And as a show of their compliance, Iran just mere days later, test fires short range missiles. Some countries will never change. But the rhetoric was so firm, I am surprised they defied it.
"The Iranian government must now demonstrate through deeds its peaceful intentions or be held accountable to international standards and international law,"
Confronted with the serial deception of many years, the international community has no choice today but to draw a line in the sand
"If by December, there is not an in-depth change by the Iranian leaders, sanctions will have to be taken"
Those quotes are from Obama, Brown and Sarkozy in that order. Compare that to this quote from G.W. Bush:
"Whether they doubled it or not, the idea of Iran having a nuclear weapon is unacceptable," Mr Bush said. "We must double our effort to work with the international community to persuade the Iranians that there is only isolation from the world if they continue working forward on such a programme."
source Note, that was in 2006, some things do not change.
So what we have is a country that does not listen to rhetoric. Let me make an observation before I go into that though. First of all, like a birthday party, you can not just launch a missile overnight. There is planning, you have to fuel it up, stick it on the pad and actually point it somewhere. So my wild speculation is that our intelligence knew about this planned launch before the three wonder boys even made a speech. How could they have not? Their words in front of the G-20, were just that. They had not deterring effect. But one has to wonder if Iran has CNN. Did they not see what we did to their neighbor? I mean they are the moron that after seeing the house next to them burn down, they continue to have open fires on the living room floor. It just does not make sense.
But then again when did anything in the Middle East make sense? For so many years we have played the world police. We felt it was our prerogative to save those lesser countries from themselves. We went to Iraq to bring democracy to the people and free them from their evil master. It didn't hurt that they had massive supplies of oil, that was supposedly just a side issue though.
So here we are in 2009. That part of the globe is no more stable than it was 10 years ago. With the exception of the countries we have troops in of course. We still have terrorists driving from Denver to New York with the intent of slaughtering the innocent. We still have known terrorists training , possibly even in our own country. So what has our foreign policy accomplished? Has the blood of over 4,000 soldiers been shed for a purpose? What is the answer to the global turmoil and the threat of nuclear weapons?
In my view the talk can come later. Sanction them now, cut off their supplies. Only when they are starving might they listen to logic. The United States and the free world can not risk this threat. A nuclear weapon in the hands of a deranged leader such as Iran will have disastrous results.
(80%)
WIDGETIZE