REASONS FOR OBAMA GETTING NOBEL PEACE PRIZE??

Barack Obama today admitted he does not think he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize after being sensationally awarded the honour.

The  president said he was both "surprised and deeply humble"' to win the award.
The Nobel Committee has shocked the world by choosing Mr Obama

It used to be the rule that the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to politicians if they could point to tangible political successes. American presidents and politicians have consistently been recipients of the award: Theodor Roosevelt received the award in 1906 for his role in securing a peace deal between Russia and Japan. Woodrow Wilson was honored with the prize in 1919 for his work on the creation of the League of Nations, the precursor to the United Nations. Martin Luther King was presented with the award in 1964 for his commitment to civil rights for African Americans. The former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was even controversially given the nod in 1973 for his role in negotiating an end to the Vietnam War.

Now it is the turn of the 44th president of the United States, Barack Obama, who was awarded the prize on Friday for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples," in the words of the Nobel committee.
It is possible to reward diplomatic efforts and thus make them more effective. The former German Chancellor Willy Brandt greatly benefited from that in 1971, when he was awarded the Nobel Prize for his famous Ostpolitik policy of rapprochement with the Warsaw Pact states. At the time, Brandt was no less controversial within Germany than Barack Obama is within the US today; the opposition was up in arms and ridiculed him in the most objectionable fashion. But Brandt, who like Obama was a fan of international diplomacy, had already signed the Eastern Treaties when the committee handed down its decision.

In contrast, who has accepted Obama's outstretched hand today? Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? The Taliban? North Korea's Kim Jong-Il? Russia's Vladimir Putin or Dmitry Medvedev? Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas? None of them. Nowhere is there any success in sight.
Former Polish president and 1983 Peace laureate Lech Walesa slammed the decision as 'too early'.

'So soon? Too early. He has no contribution so far. He is still at an early stage. He is only beginning to act,' he said today to a London Daily Mail reporter.He added: 'This is probably an encouragement for him to act. Let's see if he perseveres. Let's give him time to act.'

But his "soul mate", former president Jimmy Carter congratulated Obama saying:
"it was a bold statement from the Nobel committee. It shows the hope his administration represents not only to our nation but to people around the world".


My question is since the nomination was made nine days after Obama was sworn in as president. Who nominated him? And was this an award for the man who lost the Olympics for Chicago, but was rewarded for his radical shift of America towards European socialism?

This morning the field for the Nobel Peace Prize still appeared wide open.

'It's quite likely this committee will reward somebody who is engaged in current processes,' said Kristian Berg Harpviken, head of the International Peace Institute in Oslo (PRIO). Could it be he got the Nobel because he was not Bush?
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1219201/Barack-Obama-awarded-Nobel-Peace-Prize

LESSONS FROM NHS IN GREAT BRITAIN AND COMMENT ABOUT NOBEL PRIZE

Before I write about the subject that I chose for todays blog. I aam comeled to offer this feature article that appears in the London Telegraph about our President winning the Nobel Peace Prize. It illustrates the absurdity of the prize for a man who has been president for only 37 weeks and has not overwelmed all in Great Britain.
"Barack Obama has won the Nobel Peace prize and I’m still reeling at the shock. Most of us are, I should think.

Here are my theories as to how it might have come about:
1. Unlike in most of the rest of the world Øbama Køøl Aid (TM) remains Oslo’s most popular beverage.
2. The Norwegian prize committee’s sense of irony is growing ever more sophisticated, as it hinted when it gave the prize in 2002 to comedy ex-president Jimmy Carter, and hinted more strongly when it gave the prize in 2007 to climate-fear-promoting comedy failed-president Al Gore.
3. The other candidates on the shortlist were Robert Mugabe; Osama Bin Laden; Ahmed Jibril; and the late Pol Pot". (not everyone is swooning over the selection) It is important to note the fact that Obama was nominated in January when he was in the office of president less than a month!!


While Obama and his sycophants Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi are trying to take over 1/6th of the economy with their socialized medicine scam. I think it is important that we all understand the problems incumbent upon any government controled program, particularly our personal Health Care!
The number of NHS( in England, Scotand and Wales) errors putting patients at risk has soared by 12 per cent in just six months, according to figures released yesterday.

They show that 459,500 patient safety incidents occurred between October 2008 and March this year, compared to around 410,000 in the previous six months.
Of the latest cases, more than 5,700 victims died or suffered serious harm as a result.
At risk: The number of NHS errors rose 12 per cent in six months
Health service bosses say the rise is likely to have occurred since trusts are being encouraged to report incidents, rather than because the number of mistakes is actually increasing. ( YOU MEAN THEY WERE NOT REPORTING ERRORS BEFORE BEING ORDERED?)
But critics argue stringent Whitehall targets make doctors and nurses more likely to make serious mistakes. GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS WILL DO THIS HERE IN THE USA!

They say the latest figures are likely to be only the tip of the iceberg, as so many previous mistakes have been swept under the carpet rather than being reported to the authorities.
The National Patient Safety Agency revealed most reported incidents - 303,016, or 66 per cent - resulted in no harm to the patient, while 122,246, or 27 per cent, resulted in low harm.
A further 28,521 (6 per cent) of incidents resulted in moderate harm while 5,717 (1 per cent) resulted in death or severe harm.

The most commonly reported incident was an accident involving the patient that could possibly have been prevented..
This was followed by errors or near misses with treatments or procedures (10.1 per cent) and medication (9.4 per cent).
Reports were provided by 382 out of the 392 health trusts in England.

Around 28,000 reports, six per cent of the total, resulted in moderate harm which included mistakes made in surgery that would require a repeat operation, a patient falling out of bed and knocking themselves unconscious for a short period or wrong blood given a patient resulting in temporary kidney failure.

The 3,717 reports of severe harm will have included things like a patient given the wrong medication which they are allergic to making their heart stop resulting in brain damage, ambulance crews moving a patient with a back injury resulting in paralysis or wrong blood given to a young woman meaning she will develop antibodies that could affect any future pregnancy. SOURCE:LONDON TELEGRAPH
Forget the cost of private insurance. You can always absorb this cost, but if the socialization of our medical care costs you your life or a loved one. No amount of savings or expenditure will restore it!

THE LIES AND CHICANERY OF DEMOCRATS HEALTH SCHEME

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan


Many people will question why I used the title I used for this blog. Read on and you will se just  few of the many reasons I used the terms in the title.
A senior aide to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told CNSNews.com that it is “likely” that Reid will use H.R. 1586—a bill passed by the House in March to impose a 90-percent tax on bonuses paid to employees of certain bailed-out financial institutions—as a “shell” for enacting the final version of the Senate’s health care bill, which Reid is responsible for crafting.

Under the procedure, the substance of House Resolution 1586 would be removed and replaced with the entire Senate health care package. The maneuver would initially require the support of 60 senators to vote for cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 1586 (i.e., end debate on the congressional procedure and move forward).
If Reid wins 60 votes, then debate begins on his health care package. Reid could then decide to block all amendments and attempt to get a vote on the entire package.

The Democrats including Senator Max Baucus of Montana have repeatedly used the American Journal of Public Health claims that 44,789 working-age adults die each year because they lack basic health insurance.

Researchers at Harvard Medical School and Cambridge Health Alliance found that uninsured Americans have a 40 percent higher risk of death than those who carry some sort of insurance. This number is up from a 25 percent excess death rate found in 1993. I wonder how they made this assumption. Did they consider the following statistics of the 2,426,264 who died in 2006 to come to their drastic and ominous decision, or where political bias the motivating factor. Any one who has watched Harvard for any time realizes that it is a Left wing Institution.
However, anotrher study done in 2008, Stan Dorn, a senior research associate at the Urban Institute, published another study based on the IOM methodology, again using more recent data, and found that 22,000 die due to lack of insurance. Who can you believe?
Certainly not anyone who carries the water for Obama.
In 2006 the number of people who died and the cause are listed as found in the NHI report.

Heart disease: 631,636
Cancer: 559,888
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 137,119
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 124,583
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 121,599
Diabetes: 72,449
Alzheimer's disease: 72,432
Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,326
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 45,344
Septicemia: 34,234
Source: NIH Deaths: Final Data for 2006,

With so many causes for the death of over 2 million people, the scare tactic of using a claim that almost 50,000 die without Health Insurance(was used by Sen. Baucus yesterday) is suspicious at the very least. But then since  Obama took over the White House and the Democrats gained control of Congress. Claims of crisis and disaster has been the modus operandi!

He(president Obama) has said repeatedly that he will not raise taxes on the midle class, but the Baucus Bill would raise taxes severly!

It will tax medical devices 29 million dollars, that will  not be  absorbed by the manufacturers, but passed on to the consumer.Everything from breast pumps for new mothers to atificial hips will be taxed.
And when the concept of reforming our present health insurance system that comprises 17% of our GNP, it was sold to tthe people as a way  to cover all people who do not have insurance. BUT the Baucus Bill that Obama supports will not cover 25 million people!!

ROBBING PETER TO PAY PAUL IN DETROIT

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

Apparently Ronald Reagan had it right when he said" if it stops moving subsidize it". The "IT" he was refering to was not the it that is being subsidizes(aka given), but  money given to the non-earners from hard working tax payers.

When you compare the billions given to Wall Street bankers with the amount that is now given in Detroiy,15 million dollars, it is insignificant. But when you realize that 99% of the recipients are minorities who will vote for Democrats in 2010, and the bankers will not only vote but contribute large sums of money to re-elect those who gave them the money. You can understand that this is just another example of reditribution of wealth only to those who support Obama and the Democrats!

The stimulus bill was sold to the public as a "shovel ready program" that would put people back to work, but with the unemployment hovering around 10%  it appears that all the stimulus is doing is reassuring that Obama and his Congressional sycophants get re-elected!

The assistance in Detroit, announced by the media today, is from a 15 million dollar pile of money coming to Detroit, Michigan as part of the stimulus package.
I believe in charity for the homeless in the form of food kitchens and temporary housing for the really homeless, but it should come from the private sector via the Churches and Community organizations like San Francisco's Glide Memorial Center, which has been doing GODS work for decades. Not from the tax payers!

The thing that is going on Detroit has two fatal flaws that make it a non-starter before it began. One is that if you give money in the form of cash or check how do you know that the people whom you are giving it to will spend it on the intended purpose for which you gave the money?
The second is the final qualification sentence in the list of things that woul qualify a person or family for  the assistance. "That they must be able to maintain housing after receiving assistance. How can a homeless person do this?And by the wat how will those giving away the money determine that those who apply as homeless have bee residents of Detroit for at least six months. Will they evn try?
Also, a resident must make 50 percent less than the median area income, which would be less than $24,850 for single Detroit residents and less than $35,500 for a family of four.

All this is accomplishing is redistributing the wealth as we know Obama has promised he will do.
But there is a brewing problem with this seemingly good deed. The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center recently disclosed that close to half of all households will pay no income tax this year. Some will pay less than zero -- that is, they'll get money from those of us who do pay taxes.


The Tax Policy Center adds that this year the average income-tax rate for the bottom 40 percent of earners will be negative and that their cash subsidy will equal 10 percent of the total amount the income tax brings in, thanks to the Earned Income Tax Credit and President Obama's "Making Work Pay" program.

The view from the top also shows the lopsidedness of the tax system. The top 20 percent of earners makes about 53 percent of the income in America but pays 91 percent of the income tax. The top 1 percent pays 36 percent. The IRS says the bottom half of earners pays less than 3 percent.
This presents a serious problem because government has such vast powers to dispense favors. As Shaw suggested, people who pay no tax will not hesitate to vote for politicians who promise big spending. Why not? They will get stuff without having to pay for it. Source:PatriotPost.com

And to the  insult of the tax payers. The City of Chicago was visited today by the U.S.  Attorney General and the Secretary of Education to meet with officials of the Chicago leadership. The meeting was held because of the national outrage from the TV pictures of an honor high school student being beaten to death with large boards.Why did they not visit Los Angeles or New York where crime is rampant?
Why now? I believe that the Obama administration lost the bid to bring the Olympics to Chicago which would have brought millions to Chicago politicians. So now they are going to get money from Obama that will be handed over in the name of reducing the killing of teens, but will in fact be used to buy continued support for Democrats and Obama.
The amount is unspecified as is what they will use it for. Clinton when he was president sent millions to major cities including Chicago to establish midnight basket ball. But the plan failed to stop the killing!

Not one of the participants in the "meeting" mentioned increasing law enforcement and severe punishment for offenders. This is a dirty thought for Liberals who believe, as they have for decades, if you throw money at problems they will fade away. As Thomas Sowell says; ".the problem with the political left is that they seem to have no sense of the tragedy of the human condition. All problems seem to them to be due to other people not being as wise or as noble as they are".
So unknown millions will go to Chicago and it will still have a crime rate among the youth unless the law enforcement people begin a war against the gangs!.

Don't hold your breath until that happens, as long as the Daley machine and the Obama machine believe in spending other peoples money will stop crime and solve all of societies problems!

IS THE MUSLIM RELIGION THE ONLY RELIGION OBAMA MEETS WITH?

IN THE RECENT PAST THE CHINESE COMMUNIST FLAG WAS FLOWN ON THE WHITE HOUSE LAWN.AND TtHERE WAS A MUSLIM CELEBRATION HELD IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE WHITE HOUSE LAST MONTH. PRESIDENT OBAMA SPOKE ADMIRINGLY OF THE RELIGOUS VALUES OF THE MUSLIM RELIGION.

And when he visited Cairo, Egypt last year he said this:"I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

However, for the past eight years, the White House recognized the National Day of Prayer with a service in the East Room, but this year, President Obama decided against holding a public ceremony.

Under the Bush administration, the White House hosted an interfaith service each year, inviting protestant, Catholic and Jewish leaders for an event at the East Room.

President Ronald Reagan and President George H.W. Bush also marked the day with a White House observance.
Despite numerous attempts to get a representative from the executive office to attend, "it doesn't appear they are going to fulfill our request," said Becky Armstrong, marketing and media manager of the National Day of Prayer Task Force.source:CNN.com


The National Day of Prayer goes all the way back to 1775,it  was temporarily ended at the end of the Revolution, and then was re-established in 1795, while George Washington was president. But, now that President Obama doesn’t need to fake any belief to get elected (anyone want to bet that he starts attending a church in 2011?) and he can’t attend a bigoted, separatist, hard left church, well, he is taking that position to say “sc**w you” to tradition and religious believers.( note to readers, to date Obama has not chosen a church to attend!)
Of course it is for God to determine, but I have not seen the ‘fruits’ on Christianity in this man.

His answer to the question ‘what is sin’? He answered, “Being out of alignment with my values.” (Based on this answer, I’d say he either has a god complex, or doesn’t have a clue what God says about sin).I belive it is the former.


Now Onbama has stiffed the Dali lama, the Tibetan titular leader of the Buddist religion, by refusing to even meet with him! The reason his sycophants give is that he does not want to offend the Cinese whom he will vist shortly!
The decision came after China stepped up a campaign urging nations to shun the Tibetan spiritual leader.

It means Mr Obama will become the first president not to welcome the Nobel peace prize winner to the White House since the Dalai Lama began visiting Washington in 1991.

Obama's decision dismayed human rights and Tibetan support groups, who said he had made an unnecessary concession to the Chinese, who regard the Dalai Lama as a "splittist", despite his calls for autonomy rather than independence for Tibet. The Chinese invaded in 1950, forcing the young leader to flee.

Sophie Richardson, Asia advocate for Human Rights Watch, said: "Presidents always meets the Dalai Lama and what happens? Absolutely nothing.

Mr Obama has changed his position on Tibet since his election campaign.


In April 2008, he was joined by Hillary Clinton, then his rival for the Democratic nomination and now his Secretary of State, in calling on George W Bush to boycott the Beijing Olympics opening ceremony in protest at the bloody repression of a popular uprising in Tibet.
"If the Chinese do not take steps to help stop the genocide in Darfur and to respect the dignity, security, and human rights of the Tibetan people, then the President should boycott the opening ceremonies," they said.

Frank Wolf, a Republican congressman and outspoken critic of China's human rights record, said: "What would a Buddhist monk or Buddhist nun in Drapchi prison think when he heard that President Obama, the president of the United States, is not going to meet with the Dalai Lama?


"It's against the law to even have a picture of the Dalai Lama. I can almost hear the words of the Chinese guards saying to them that nobody cares about you in the United States."
Ms Richardson said treating human rights as separate from other issues guaranteed failure "across the board". source:Telegraph UK.com

The idea that if you are nice to the Chinese Communist Party up front you can cash in later is just wrong. If you lower the bar on human rights they will just move it lower and lower." This also aplies to our diplomatic relations to the Russians. Obama's giving way to Putin's demand that the USA abandon the bases in Poland and the Czech Republic for missile defense is an example of a "QUID" with no "PRO QUO"!


My opinion is only worth the words that I put in my blog but I believe I say the truth when I say: We removed prayer from schools, we have the highest abortion rate in the world, we want to remove every reference of God from all the public places, and we called Good things bad and bad things Good. But God in His sovereign ways will not force in to us His will but rather will let us make our own choices. It is evident that as a nation we decided to remove God from our lives. As a result of these choices, He is no longer present in this nation and in our lives to protect us from the one who wants to destroy us and his minions. A nation without God is a nation in serious trouble and ultimately in a path for judgment.

THE CONITIVE DISSONANCE OF POTUS, aka OBAMA

Cognitive dissonance is described by webster: "as refusing to process facts that conflict with deeply held beliefs". And this aptly describes the way Obama has been acting the past few months, and came to a culmunation when he chaired the UN Securuty Council meeting with 19 other leaders of Countries sitting at the table.

His position was and still is, that we can talk the madmen in control of Iran not to build nuclear bombs. While he spoke to the Security Council he had in his mind, and for all I know, in his pocket news that Iran has buit a new facility for enriching uranium securely within a mountain. But even though he had these facts he talked of his dream of a nuclear free world and the abilty of talking Iran out of developing nuclear weapons.
This feckless naivete brought shock and disbelief to the president of France and any person who acknowledges that North Korea is also in the process of getting nuclear weapon cabapability.

In March of this year Obama said this:"“Let me be clear: Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran’s neighbors and our allies. The Czech Republic and Poland have been courageous in agreeing to host a defense against these missiles. As long as the threat from Iran persists, we intend to go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven.” That was President Obama, speaking in Prague. What or whom changed his mind? source:CSN NEWS.com

In December 2007, the National Intelligence Estimate announced, “We assess with moderate confidence [that] Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.” Well, Tehran just admitted it has a second uranium enrichment facility. Fuel produced there could be used to develop nuclear weapons.

When Obama addressed the General Assembly,he actually said, "No one nation can dominate another nation." That adolescent mindlessness was followed with the declaration that "alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War" in fact "make no sense in an interconnected world." Has he discounted Borth Korea also?

Now while he dithers over General McCrhrystal's request for more troops, Obama has decided to abrogate the pact with Poland and the Czech Republic to set up a defensive missile base and radar station to detect icoming missiles. It appears that this was decided when Obama visited with Russia's KGB man, Putin, because Putin stongley objected! What did we get in return? Nothing fro m Russia and Communist China, who keep sending gasoline and strategigic materials and weapons to Iran!
The reason given was that Iran is developing short range missiles more than they are long range missiles that could reach Europe and our Middle East bases.
Strangly, the administration claims that we don’t need the sites in eastern Europe since “U.S. missile-defense capabilities and technologies have advanced in recent years.” That ought to be an argument to deploy them even more widely, not to scrap one site because the defenses elsewhere (say in Alaska or California) are working.And since Naval ship based missiles are subject to the new anti-ship missiles that we know Iran has recieved from China, now makes them vulnerable to destruction if they come into firing range. They offer little to our Iranian nuclear missile defense, if and when they are needed.


By canceling the missile defense plans for Europe we are affectively telling  the world that “America is harmless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend.” By abandoning promises to our allies and failing to share the benefits of our missile defenses. Abandoning the planned anti-missile sites results in producing a self-inflicted wound we cannot afford at this critical time of our Republic!


And to further make my point that Obama ignores facts. Try this on for size! Obama publicly sends McCrystal to Afghanistan as the new commander and asks for his assessment of the situation. McCrystal does not tell Obama what he wants to hear (in private) so he decides to do something other than what his commander on the ground tells him he needs to do, and then has the gaul to say it publicly at a military conference in England.
Apparently this angered Obma. So he summond the general to ameeting in Copenhagen in his 747. Apparently to remind the general who is Commander in Chief, even though he does not act like it I believe!
As he has done much of the time, when issues are divisive to the voters. He sends out his sycophants, as he did yesterday when General Jones appeared on two networks to dicredit the man POTUS sent to Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban. The Securitry adviser is a retired Army General who is acting as hatchet man for Obama to discredit the Commander in the field by stating that there are many other isues that must be decided before POTUS decides to send 40,000 more troops as were requested!  Like how to placate the anti war movement that voted for Obama who when in the Senate ,opposed the Iraq war!!

Apparently Obama reacted like Truman did to General McArthur when he spoke out to the public about bombing China to win in Korea. Obama I believe was very mad and demanded a meeting with McCrhrystal in Copenhagen to tell him who was in charge! The meeting lasted only 25  minutes. Just long enough for a one way conversation by Obama!

What apparently prompted the meeting was that in London, Gen McChrystal, who heads the 68,000 US troops in Afghanistan as well as the 100,000 Nato forces, flatly rejected proposals to switch to a strategy more reliant on drone missile strikes and special forces operations against al-Qaeda.

He told the Institute of International and Strategic Studies that the formula, which is favoured by Vice-President Joe Biden, would lead to "Chaos-istan".
When asked whether he would support it, he said: "The short answer is: No."
He went on to say: "Waiting does not prolong a favorable outcome. This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely, and nor will public support."

The remarks have been seen by some in the Obama administration as a barbed reference to the slow pace of debate within the White House.
Gen McChrystal delivered a report on Afghanistan requested by the president on Aug 31, but Mr Obama held only his second "principals meeting" on the issue last week! Jones said thre more meetings were scheduled!!

OBAMA CAN'T BLAME BUSH FOR THE ioc DECISION

Joined by his wife Michelle, Mr Obama gave an impassioned presentation to the IOC committee, the first by a US president on behalf of a city bidding for the games, in which he hailed Chicago as "the most American of American cities".

But the speeches by both the Obamas were like a they were on he campaign trail to the White House. Apparently what the IOC wanted to hear was how Chicago and the Obamas were going to handle the "nuts and blots" of pulling off the Olympics in Chicago. Obama nor Michelle talke about how the mechanics of running a successful Olympics would be acomplished.
I guess they thought BHO's star power and Michelle's charm would bring home the Olympics just as their pitch on the campaign trail of Hope and Change fooled Americans. But they were eliminated on the first ballot!!

After spending the last nine months traveling around the World apologizing for Americas faults and past misdeads. How could any right thinking man belive that all he.,Michelle and Oprah had to do was show up in Copenhagen, and the IOC would swoon like too many voters did last Novemeber, and give them the prize?!
Rio de Janeiro got the prize! They will  host the 2016 Olympic Games There had been widespread expectations in the US that the president's star power would prove all-conquering, so there was shockin the leftist media and Chicago, when Chicago was the first city to be eliminated.

Instead of being able to celebrate another Obama success, the White House was forced to fend off accusations that the president had taken a political body blow.
Obamas' appearance in Copenhagen was the culmination of several weeks of campaigning on Chicago's behalf.

As well as personally calling heads of state or lobbying them at the United Nations and G20 summits, the president recorded five pro-Chicago video messages, set up a special office at the White House and hosted Olympic athletes on the lawn, even fencing with a toy light sabre.

Civil rights leader Reverend Jesse Jackson, who has long been based in Chicago, said he surprised by the city's loss.

"I'm shocked and saddened. We were emotionally prepared for it," he said, noting that the United States had sent its "A team" of President Obama and his wife Michelle, whose home base is Chicago, to push the city's bid. I guess the "A" team struck out!!

THE NAIVETE OF PRESIDENT OBAMA, OR IS HE?

"One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half. Never run away from anything. Never!"...Winston Churchill


On March 27, following a "careful policy review," Mr. Obama proclaimed Afghanistan and Pakistan as "the central front in the war on terror," announced a "comprehensive new strategy" for the region and ordered 21,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan -- increasing the number of Americans there to 68,000 by the end of this year. A month and a half later, he made Gen. Stanley McChrystal -- an advocate of pursuing a counterinsurgency campaign -- the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan. On Aug. 17, the president declared: "This is not a war of choice; it is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al-Qaida could plot to kill more Americans."Source:PatriotPost.com

IT APPEARS TO ME THAT OBAMA HAS A VERY SHORT MEMORY, OR PERHAPS SOMETHING THAT IS TOO HORRIBLE TO CONTEMPLATE, THE ANTI-WAR 50 CONGRESSMEN LED BY "RED" PELOSI HAS CHANGED OBAMA'S MIND!

It was just six months ago in Prague that Obama said:  “Let me be clear: Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran’s neighbors and our allies. The Czech Republic and Poland have been courageous in agreeing to host a defense against these missiles. As long as the threat from Iran persists, we intend to go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven..”
But last month he canceled the plans to build a missile base in Poland and a radar station to track incoming
enemy missiles in the Czech Republic. This after both countries, that were over run by the Communist USSR during World war II, had defied Russian objections to the bases! This now puts hundreds of thousands of people in both countries at the wrath of Putin and his KGB buddies!

Historian  Bernard Lewis has warned, the U.S. can’t afford to tell the world that “America is harmless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend.” Yet we’re doing exactly that by abandoning promises to our allies and failing to share the benefits of our missile defenses. Canceling the planned sites is a self-inflicted wound we cannot afford. Source: E. Feulner


If this were not enough to enbolden our enemies and strike terror in the hearts of those who count on our military might to protect them. Then the dithering about the request for more troops from the commander in Afghanistan should convince them that they have a leader of the USA that is naive and indicesive that makes him no match for their determination to destroy US and Israel!

Could you imagine FDR having three meetings with his miliatry advisors that took over thirty days after Pearl Harbor was bombed by the Japanese? No FDR declared war the next day and began plans for Doolittle's bombing raid on Tokyo!
But we have a president who recieved a request from the field commander for more troops over 30 days ago, and all he has done since then is have a teleconference meeting with three more scheduled before he makes his decision! And then left to travel to Denmark to help persuade the Olympic Committee to grant Chicago the 2016 Olympics!
And to make the situation more dangerous. Fifty(50) Congressmen sent a letter demanding that Obama not send more troops to Afghanistan before a complete exit strategy is formed. This is insanity and in my opinion tantamont to defeatism, and that is what the anti-victory people want1

But any right thinking person realizes that if we let the Taliban drive us out of Afghanistan it will become the 21sr Century version of VietNam and will destroy the military might and MORALE  that this Country once had.

Is it possible that is part of the master plan that POTUS has for the CHANGE he wants to accomplish?

THE ABSURDITY OF OBAMA'S DELAY ON McCHRYSTAL REQUEST

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

It appears to me that our president is more interested in promoting the Chicago bid for the 2016 Olympics than he is in acting on the request of his appointed Commander in the field of war, General McChrystals request for more troops.
On August 30, Gen. Stanley McChrystal sent Defense Secretary Robert Gates a war assessment in which he said more U.S. troops are needed if the U.S. is to defeat the insurgents in Afghanistan.

Since that Aug. 30 date, a total of 43 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines have died in a war that is now the subject of  too much discussion,and apparently some confusion!

Forty-two of those casualties have been identified by name in U.S. Defense Department press releases, while the 43rd casualty, which occurred yesterday, has been confirmed in press reports, but not by name.
In his confidential report, which was leaked to the Washington Post on Sept. 21, Gen. McChrystal warned that defeating the insurgents will not be possible if the United States fails to "gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum" over the next 12 months.Does Obama accept the word defat, or does he not like it as he prefers not to use the word victory?

When will Obama decide that the war protestors who voted for him will be unhappy unless he declares the war un- winable and brings the troops home, and abondons yet another of his campaign promises. The promise that he would wage war against al Qaeda in Afghanistan!

If Obama fails to agree to the request of his man in charge of defeating the Taliban and al Qaeda, it will put the United States in much greater danger, because failure in Afghanistan will turn into a base for attacks on the U.S. and its allies.And when (not if)  Iran gets it's nuclear weapons. Afghanistan will become a staging ground for missile launchers and "suitcase bombs" to blow up cities in the USA you can be sure!

Despite the urgency of the request, the Obama White House has said repeatedly that the president would consider McChrystal's recommendations, and those of other advisers, carefully and methodically before announcing his next move. Obama has said the goal of the U.S. presence in Afghanistan is to disrupt, dismantle and destroy the al-Qaida terrorist network and its sympathizers.
What is to consider? Either you give the commander in the field what he wants or you relieve him and replace him with a general who will preside over the defeat!

History shows those who care to look that "dictators" and plolitical leaders who do not listen to their field comanders loose. Field Marshal Erwin Rommell advised and requested that Hitler move all the Panzer tank divisions from the Eastern front to the coast of France prior to the June 6th invasion of Normandy by the allies. Hitler refused Rommell and the landing was a success, although costly and bloody for the allies.And Germany lost the war. I am thankful that they did loose, but you get the point.


In our own country the Admiral in charge of the fleet at Pearl Harbor in 1941 specifically asked, by dispatch and in person, for all information aboutt the Japanese. Admiral Kimmel never received the secret "Magic" dispatches that showed vital information about the Japanese intentions. He also never received the famous 14-part message the Japanese were delivering in response to the U.S. "ultimatum" of November 26. Especially not the 14th part which indicated the 1:00 p.m. (EST) delivery of the message and ordering the destruction of the "coding" equipment, even though this had been decoded some nine hours before the attack. Washington either decide to withhold the information or delayed in sending it to Kimmel. Either way we will never know, but had he received the Japanese ultimatum he could have put his forces on alert and avoided many deaths at Pearl Harbor.

When will our leaders decide to proceede as leaders should when they want to defeat the enemy? I know that Obama does not like the word "VICTORY", nor do his sycophants want us to call it a war on terrorists, but either you win or you loose! And we are fighting radical Islamics who do not only want to win. Not only win, but wipe us and Israel off the face of the map if they could!

Will we become the strongest nation of the world who sends its brave men and women off to war to win? Or will we become like the Socialist Country of Denmark that is consisdering prosecuting three of their soldiers waging war in Afghanistan, for having in their hand guns and possesion hollow point bullets!?

The penalty if convicted is life in prison, so says the Denmark papers. They call the bullets that have the stopping power that normal nine millimeter bullets do not, "dum dum bullets", These are used regularly by the FBI and many law enforcement agencies in the USA, because the only use for a hand gun is in close combat and it is kill or be killed! The dum dum bullets stop the enemy in one shot, and many times that is all one gets!.

IS POTUS A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR??

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

If  you believe half of what an aspiring politician tells and promises during his/her election campaign. I think you are a gullible person who is a candidate for buying a piece of the Brooklyn bridge.
But when a man consistently tells untruths and exaggerates his accomplishments i begin to suspect that he is a person who does not recognize the truth if it bit him. A pathological liar!

The Truth About Deception defines pathological liar as: "A pathological liar is usually defined as someone who lies incessantly to get their way and does so with little concern for others. Pathological lying is often viewed as coping mechanism developed in early childhood and it is often associated with some other type of mental health disorder. A pathological liar is often goal-oriented (i.e., lying is focused - it is done to get one's way). Pathological liars have little regard or respect for the rights and feelings of others. A pathological liar often comes across as being manipulative, cunning and self-centered" Does this sound familiar?

There are too many lies that Obama told to get into the White House and since he got there to enumerate them all, but the two that I think reveals the true nature of Obama's deception are the promise that if elected he would not raise taxes on the middle class and would make the Afghanistan war his main foreign policy.
He promised he would do everything to win in the fight against al Qaeda and their leader Osama bin Laden!

In July 2008, then-candidate Obama told CNN, “We allowed the Taliban and Al Qaeda to regenerate itself when we had them on the ropes. That was a big mistake, and it’s one I’m going to correct when I’m president.”

On Mar. 27, 2009, Obama announced a “comprehensive new strategy” for Afghanistan, saying that this policy came after careful review by military commanders and diplomats, government officials in Afghanistan, NATO allies, and members of Congress. “The situation is increasingly perilous,” said Obama, and “the safety of people around the world is at stake.”

“I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan and to prevent their return to either country in the future,” said Obama in March.

Last Monday, however, Obama said he was not willing to send troops “beyond what we already have” until he was sure the United States was employing the right strategy in the region. Currently, there are about 56,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. McChrystal says an additional 40,000 is needed to effectively implement a counterinsurgency strategy and bring political and civil order to the country.

On several occasions during the campaign, Obama also said he wanted to treat Afghanistan like the primary front in the war on terror that he believed the Central Asian nation to be.

 Back on Aug. 1, 2007, Obama was already talking about the redeployment he would order as president: “Our troops have fought valiantly there [Afghanistan], but Iraq has deprived them of the support they need -- and deserve. … As president, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counterterrorism operations and support NATO’s efforts against the Taliban.”

On July 20, 2008, Obama took a trip to Afghanistan and told Lara Logan of CBS: “For at least a year now, I have called for two additional brigades, perhaps three.” He also told Logan he believed “this has to be our central focus, the central front, on our battle against terrorism.”

That same month, Obama made a speech on foreign policy outside the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington, D.C. There, on July 8, he said he thought Afghanistan was more central to the security of the United States than Iraq. “If another attack on our homeland comes, it will likely come from the same region where 9/11 was planned,” said Obama. “And yet today, we have five times more troops in Iraq than Afghanistan.”
He also told the audience that the top-priority mission in Afghanistan was failing because of the troop commitment to Iraq.
“Our troops and our NATO allies are performing heroically in Afghanistan, but I have argued for years that we lack the resources to finish the job because of our commitment to Iraq,” Obama said

Despite those comments, Obama recently indicated he may not give McChrystal the 40,000 troops the top military authority in Afghanistan says he needs for success, at least until he is satisfied that the “right strategy” is in place, and apparently in place of the “new comprehensive strategy” he outlined in March.

Now, last Monday, Sept. 21, the president told ABC’s Charles Gibson: “Until I'm satisfied that we've got the right strategy, I'm not going to be sending some young men or women over there beyond what we already have.”

Apparently, Obama cannot remember what he "said" yesterday, let alone the flagrant lies he told on the campaign "trail.". Maybe that is why he carries a pocket teleprompter.?

THE CAP AND TRADE SCHEME EXPOSED

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

The hypothesis of dangerous human-caused warming caused by CO2 emission is embroiled in uncertainties of the fundamental science and its interpretation, and by fallacious public discussion. It is utterly bizarre that, in face of this reality, public funding of many billions of dollars is still being provided for climate change research. It is even more bizarre that most governments, urged on by environmental NGSs and other self-interested parties, have either already introduced carbon taxation or trading systems (Europe; some groups of US States), or have indicated a firm intention to do so (Australia).

At its most basic, if scientists cannot be sure that temperatures are today rising, nor establish that the gentle late 20th century warming was caused by CO2 emissions, then it is nonsense to propose that expensive controls are needed on human carbon dioxide emission.
Claims by Stephen Schneider, a biologist, that melting Greenland ice will drown today’s coastlines and trigger a worldwide belief in the need for action to combat imagined “catastrophic global warming” are scientifically-unjustified and unjustifiable, says the Science and Public Policy Institute – a Washington, D.C. research organization.

A recent blog posting by Schneider saying, “We cannot pin down whether sea levels will rise a few feet or a few meters in the next century or two” is unfounded. The UN’s climate panel, the IPCC, says sea level will rise just 17 inches in the 21st century, compared with 8 inches in the 20th. The IPCC also says Greenland would only lose half of its vast ice sheet if global surface temperatures remained at least 2 degrees Celsius higher than the present for several thousand years. Since the turn of the millennium on 1 January 2001, global temperatures have fallen for eight straight years at a rate equivalent to 1 degree Celsius per century.

Mathematical proof that there is no “climate crisis” appears today in a major, peer-reviewed paper in Physics and Society, a learned journal of the 4,600-strong American Physical Society, SPPI reports.


Christopher Monckton, who once advised Margaret Thatcher, demonstrates via 30 equations that computer models used by the UN’s climate panel (IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is “climate sensitivity” (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2’s effect on temperature in the IPCC’s latest climate assessment report, published in 2007.



Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered [http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/index.cfm] demonstrates that later this century a doubling of the concentration of CO2 compared with pre-industrial levels will increase global mean surface temperature not by the 6 °F predicted by the IPCC but, harmlessly, by little more than 1 °F. Lord Monckton concludes –

 Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC’s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no ‘climate crisis’ at all. … The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.”Source:Science and Public Polict Institute-

And our president appears to realize the political implications of a Cap and Tax bill even though he has not left the Goreites global warming ponzi scam completely.
Perhaps it is the report of the  pesky CBO report that has alerted Congress and the voting public that passing Cap and Trade will affect unemployment and productivity, although less than the experts whom I quote in this blog.

A cap-and-trade bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions passed in the House but stalled in the Senate, and appears further in doubt after a new Congressional Budget Office report warned the measure could hurt employment and growth.


"Reducing the risk of climate change would come at some cost to the economy," the nonpartisan CBO said.
The budget office estimated the House bill would reduce gross domestic product by between 1 percent and 3.5 percent below expected levels in 2050.

The CBO called the potential reduction "modest," however, noting that adjusted GDP for 2050 is expected to be about 2.5 percent higher than it is now.
The CBO also noted that a move away from carbon-producing industries would reduce employment "a little," since labor markets would not be able to easily adjust to shifting demands.

Although relatively minor, the CBO's conclusions further complicate Obama's efforts to get cap and trade passed.
As many as 35 serious scientific errors or exaggerations, all pointing towards invention of a threat that does not exist at all, or exaggerations of phenomena that do exist, do not reflect credit on the presenter of the movie or on those who advised him. The movie is unsuitable for showing to children, and provides no basis for taking policy decisions. Schools that have shown the movie to children are urged to ensure that the errors listed in this memorandum are drawn to the children’s attention.



In addition to providing ammunition to opponents, the economic cautions contained in the report are political trouble for Obama in key electoral states like Michigan, Ohio and other carbon emissions hot spots, which already have higher-than-average unemployment rates. Source: jmason@washingtonexaminer

And with this year's $1.6 trillion budget deficit and President Barack Obama's proposal to double the national debt over the next decade have made spending restraint and deficit reduction vitally important. Despite the President's pledges to "bend the curve" of health care spending growth downward and to "not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits--either now or in the future," the leading health care plans in Congress would add trillions of dollars in new spending, even if they are deficit neutral. And to please his ecology zealot voters Obama is willing to follow a xheme that is disputed by hundreds of climate scientists!


These bills represent a staggering abandonment of fiscal responsibility and would result in higher taxes and slower economic growth for current and future generations.

IT IS TIME TO RECOGNIZE THAT OBAMA IS MAKING THE USA LESS SAFE

Despite the fact that in the last week terrorist threats have ben reported at least three times. The latest was friday when a 19 year old Muslim was apprehended trying to blow up a 65 story ofice building in Dallas, Texas.
Fox News is reporting that: A Jordanian man living outside Dallas and an ex-convict who wrote letters to John Walker Lindh (the American turned Muslim terrorist )were in custody on Friday after each tried to blow up what they thought were vehicles packed with explosives outside a Texas skyscraper and an Illinois courthouse.
Public records show Finton was in an Illinois prison from 1999 until 2005 aggravated robbery and aggravated battery convictions. After getting out, Finton told his parole officer he had converted to Islam, the affidavit said.


AND an immigrant from Afghanistan who lived legally in Denver was plotting one of the most serious terrorist attacks on American soil since Sept. 11, 2001, federal authorities say.
A law enforcement official told The Associated Press on Thursday that Zazi had associates in New York who were in on the plot. Court papers say that during the summer, Zazi and three unidentified associates bought "unusually large quantities" of hydrogen peroxide and acetone — a flammable solvent found in nail-polish remover — from beauty supply stores in the Denver area, products with names like Ion Sensitive Scalp Developer and Clairoxide.


Najibullah Zazi, 24, made his home in the United States, working as a Denver airport shuttle driver in Colorado and owning a coffee cart in New York City.
Authorities say Zazi scoured the Web and visited beauty supply stores in a hunt for chemicals needed to build bombs for Al Qaeda.

They characterized the suspected plot against New York City subways and trains as one of the most significant threats to the United States since 9/11.


Despite these attempted terrorist threats,the news from Washington is not that we will be beafing up our security on our southern border. But reducing the already thin line of defense against terrorists and illegals from pouring over our border! Gues where we will be sending border pratrol agents? The Canadian border!
Where the Canadian border service has not had to fire the only weapon they have, a hand gun, for almost a year.
Agency officers are stationed at more than 1,200 locations across Canada, including 14 international airports and 119 land crossings.


Canadian guards who began to carry sidearms in July 2007 are now pulling them from their holsters about three times a month!

The report says no guns were actually fired in the 34 cases where the sidearm was used last year. Batons were brought out five times but never used.
Pepper spray was discharged four out of the seven times it was displayed to aggressive travellers. No one was seriously injured in any of the incidents.

Compare this with the violence at our southern border where drug cartels carry automatic machine guns.

The Border Patrol is responsible for securing a total of 8,607 miles of border, including the U.S.-Mexico border, the U.S.-Canada border from Washington state to Maine, and sectors of coastline in the Gulf of Mexico, Florida, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.And we are sending guards to the Canadian border. Has this administration lost it. collective mind!

In the May 7 update of its performance review, DHS said the Border Patrol’s goal for fiscal 2009 was to have 815 of the 8,607 miles of border for which the agency is responsible under “effective control.” The review also said the Border Patrol’s goal for fiscal 2010 was to again have 815 miles of border under “effective control,” meaning DHS was not planning to secure a single additional mile of border in the coming year.

However, Acting Deputy Assistant Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Todd Owen told a House committee in July that the Border Patrol already had 894 miles of border under effective control as of May 31 of this year. These 894 miles, Owen said, included 697 miles on the Mexican border, 32 miles on the Canadian border and 165 miles in the coastal sectors.

The entire U.S.-Mexico border is 1,954 miles long,( and horray, we have 697 miles covered!!)according to the International Boundary and Water Commission. While 697 of those miles are now under “effective control,” according to the Border Patrol, 1,257 miles are not under “effective control.”

The Border Patrol now reports that almost 1,300 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border is not under effective control, and the Department of Justice says that vast stretches of the border are “easily breached,” and the Government Accountability Office has revealed that three persons “linked to terrorism” and 530 aliens from “special interest countries” were intercepted at Border Patrol checkpoints last year, the administration is nonetheless now planning to decrease the number of Border Patrol agents deployed on the U.S.-Mexico border.

Border Patrol Director of Media Relations Lloyd Easterling confirmed this week that his agency is planning for a net decrease of 384 agents on the U.S.-Mexico border in fiscal 2010, which begins on October 1.

A Department of Homeland Security annual performance review updated by the Obama administration on May 7 said the Border Patrol “plans to move several hundred Agents from the Southwest Border to the Northern Border to meet the FY 2010 staffing requirements, with only a small increase in new agents for the Southwest Border in the same year.” Why don't the Obama administration just put welcome signs all across the Mexican border!!

IS OBAMA DESTROYING THE USA MILITARY CAPABILITY?

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan
Posted by Jax Hawk on Friday, September 25, 2009 9:04:49 AM



Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

Earlier this year, President Obama wrote to Russian President Medvedev and said he was willing to bargain away U.S. missile defense plans in Europe if the Russians helped to completely eliminate Iran's threats to global security.

Furthermore, an Administration spokesman recently admitted that the so-called third site for missile defense won't protect Europe from a strike launched in Iran. But this ignores the fact that Iran is not the only place from which a ballistic missile could hit Europe -- and in that case, if our missile defenses will not protect Europe, what will?

President Obama's personal popularity in the international community will protect them. Or the self-imposed restraint of terrorist states. Or the moral force of U.N. Security Council Resolutions. No, missile defense is our best chance to check the aggression of imperialist regimes and terrorist thugs alike. It undermines their motivations to spend billions on missile technology.

This is why former leaders of Central and Eastern European countries recently wrote an open letter to President Obama to remind him of the sacrifices they had made on behalf of freedom and the need for leadership now from Washington. It is also why Poland and the Czech Republic have bravely volunteered to host the "third site." Its deployment there makes the most strategic sense, both for the United States and our allies, and also represents the most cost-efficient option available to us. BUT OBAMA SAYS NO!!

At issue is whether missile defense represents a threat to the security and stability of the world or whether missile defense is, in fact, as Ronald Reagan said, the greatest hope the cause of peace has ever had.

It says a great deal about the world that enemies of freedom reflexively distrust missile defense, and that free people have difficulty understanding why anyone would find it even remotely controversial. It says even more about the United States and the American people that, even as the world's lone superpower, our greatest achievement in military technology is exclusively defensive in nature. No powerful society in history could ever make such a boast -- indeed, no other society would want to. SOURCE: HERITAGE FOUNDATION
From the words of his speech yesterday to the UN general assembly it appears that he is still apologizing for the USA strength and protection of the free world. He has cozied up to tyrants like Chavez, Castro and yesterday Kadafi, the mastermind behind the killing of 290 people in the Lockerbie plane bombing.

His own words say that he was more comfortable with his leftist(Marxist) professors and the radical students of all ilk while attending college. And he sat in a pew of a church whose pastor was anti-American, race bater and anti- free enterprise zealot for twenty years.

WE do not know what his thesis was based upon when he attended Harvard law school, nor do we know what type articles he wrote while being head of the Law Review, as they are strangely and ominously sealed!

What we do know is that he campaigned against Bush's Iraq War, and said we should take the fight to Afghanistan. Now that he is president and the casualties are rising. The general in charge has recommended that the Commander in Chief dispatch 40,000 more troops to avoid defeat at the hands of the Taliban. But Obama says he is not certain he will do send more troops!

I wrote a blog several months ago predicting that Obama would allow the Afghanistan war to become the 21 st Century version of the Viet Nam war. If he does not do what the commanders in the field wants him to do. How can he expect him to lead our brave troops to VICTORY?

I know victory is a dirty word in Obama's mind, but is he willing, as Commander in Chief of the armed forces, willing to send our brave men and women into a massacre? For if he lets them die on the vine rather than pull out if he does not want a victory. He is guilty of dereliction of his duty as president, and I believe impeachable!

Tags: troops History Afghanistan obama Military Vietnam

THE WELFARE STATE IS US!

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

Pollster Frank Luntz understands wahtpresident "Rexus Magnumus" meant!. In a recent column for The New York Daily News, Luntz reports on his interview survey of 6,400 people, the results of which appear in his new book "What Americans Really Want ... Really." Luntz discovered that people are angry with the government because of the lack of accountability by our leaders and a lack of progress on anything meaningful in Washington.


The "absence of accountability," he writes, "ranks No. 1 in the hearts and guts of the average American. It is as though they get elected and move to Washing ton, and forget who sent them. I sincerely believe they live in a unpenitrible bubble only accessed through and by special interests that will keep them in their powerful seat!
Washington spends billions to bail out big business and then can't explain where the money went. Washington spends $800 billion on a stimulus package filled with earmarks and pork projects. And now Washington is trying to create a trillion-dollar health-care experiment when over 85 percent of Americans are satisfied with their health care just as it is."

Luntz continues: "This could be forgiven, perhaps, if those elected officials from Washington exhibited even an ounce of respect for the voters who pay their salaries. But the combination of a political class that ignores those with whom they disagree and a business class that ignores the very real suffering of the working class (if they are, in fact, working) while pocketing million-dollar bonuses has convinced the public that no one cares."

 As a candidate for president, Barack Obama decried the financial toll that the Iraq war was taking on the economy, but Obama’s proposed spending on welfare through 2010 will eclipse Bush’s war spending by more than $260 billion.That is a quarter of a trillion. The figure we never heard about until Obama and his Congress took over!


Even after he has been in office for eight months he is still blaming Bush for the deficits we are builing. It is time for people to realize that he owns the debt now and has done nothingto reduce it, but doubled up on the debt!
“Because of the Bush-McCain policies, our debt has ballooned,” then-Sen. Barack Obama told a Charleston, W.V., crowd in March 2008. “This is creating problems in our fragile economy. And that kind of debt also places an unfair burden on our children and grandchildren, who will have to repay it.”

During the entire administration of George W. Bush, the Iraq war cost a total of $622 billion, according to the Congressional Research Service.

President Obama’s welfare spending will reach $888 billion in a single fiscal year--2010--more than the Bush administration spent on war in Iraq from the first “shock and awe” attack in 2003 until Bush left office in January.

Obama’s spending proposals call for the largest increases in welfare benefits in U.S. history, according to a report by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. This will lead to a spending total of $10.3 trillion over the next decade on various welfare programs. These include cash payments, food, housing, Medicaid and various social services for low-income Americans and those at 200 percent of the poverty level, or $44,000 for a family of four. Among that total, $7.5 trillion will be federal money and $2.8 trillion will be federally mandated state expenditures.

“One in seven in total federal and state dollars now goes to welfare. But this is a completely unknown story,” Rector said. “This is not being reported. No one knows Obama is spending $10 trillion on welfare.”

Welfare spending has taken its toll on the federal debt. Since the beginning of the “war on poverty,” $15.9 trillion has been spent on welfare programs. The total cost of every war in American history, starting with the American Revolution, is $6.4 trillion when adjusted for inflation.

Welfare has been the fastest growing part of the federal government’s spending, increasing by 292 percent from 1989 to 2008. That’s compared to Social Security and Medicare, which grew 213 percent, the study says.And the Left ignores their handy work, and screams about the increased cost of private medical care!

Adjusted for inflation, welfare is 5 percent of the gross domestic product today. It was only 1.2 percent of GDP in 1965, the report says. Also, over the next decade, $1.5 trillion in welfare benefits will be paid to low-skilled immigrants.
Adjusted for inflation, welfare is 5 percent of the gross domestic product today. It was only 1.2 percent of GDP in 1965, the report says. Also, over the next decade, $1.5 trillion in welfare benefits will be paid to low-skilled immigrants. Mostly to people who sneaked across our pourus border!

Still, high levels of poverty are reflected by the U.S. Census Bureau because shockingly, the bureau counts only 4 percent of the total welfare spending as income when it calculates poverty. Thus, most discussions on poverty begin on the virtual premise that welfare does not exist, the study says.

“None of the $800 billion being spent is counted as income, so the Census comes back and they say, ‘Oh my goodness, we have 40 million poor people. We need to spend more money,’” Rector explained. “That is a game WE taxpayers can never win.”

THE FOX IN THE HEN HOUSE IS OBAMA

When Obama ran for president those close to him and his rich, socialist friends like George Sorros, knew full well that this was a born and bred socialist they were backing. But the electorate who put him in the White House thought he was the savior that would clean up corruption in Washington, and enhance the great country they lived in.

Now we know that he is not the "messia" who will make this country great  and clean out the corruption in Washington. He is in the bed with the corrupt organization ACORN and the "thug" run SEIU union. In fact SEIU has briefing regularly in the White House!

It appears that more than 52% of Americans voted for a Marxist socialist who detests the free enterprise system and feels the Constituttion we live by is a flawd document that does not address redistribution of wealth. A hallmark of a man who thinks of Socialism as the only way to run a country! Take from those who earn and give to those who are on the government dole!

His legislative proposals have been nothing short of trying to dismantle the free enterprise system and concentrate the powers that are granted in our Bill of Rights and from GOD to the Federal government.
 The more his dangerous agenda unfolds, from Mirandizing battlefield jihadists to scrapping our missile defense systems to unilaterally disarming our nukes when rogue nations like IRAN, North Korea are nuking up, tohis emasculating the CIA by letting the Attorney General investigate and possibly prosecute CIA members who were doing their duty, and attacking the salariest of middle- and upper-income earners.I hope this will bring more Americans to oppose his blueprint for Socialism!


But, remember Obama has been groomed for and anticipated this moment for decades, and will not abandon his ambitions -- no matter how much resistance he encounters from the American people -- because in the end, he believes, like all radicals, that he knows better than the people what is in their best interests.
And if you doubt he is a page right out of Alinsky's" Rules For Radicals". I want you to reflect on his interview Sunday with George Stepanopolus.When George asked him if he thought the tax on those who fail to buy health insurance was a tax? He followed Alinsky's fifth rule:" ridicule your opponent".
When he was told by Stepanopolus  that he had looked up the deffinition of a tax in the Marion Webster dictionary. Obama replied that if he had to look the word up, "that indicates to me that you are stretching a bit"! He then said, "you can't just make up that language and call it a tax increase!"
He compared the fine to buying auto insurance, which any right thinking man would not make that comparison.  Obama talked over Stepanopouls questions and flatly denied that if you do not buy health insurance there will be a tax imposed. Mr. President we can read!!!

There are 12 rules for radicals, but I will just list the first five to give you an idea of what we fcaewith the " fox in the hen house"!
Some of these rules are ruthless, but they work. Here are the rules to be aware of:

RULE 1: "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have." Power is derived from 2 main sources - money and people. "Have-Nots" must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)

RULE 2: "Never go outside the expertise of your people." It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don't address the "real" issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)

RULE 3: "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy." Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

RULE 4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity's very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)

RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)

Americans WAKE UP!! Your life depends on defeating this man!!

A CONSTITUTIONAL AND MORAL CRISIS

Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), a physician who chairs the Republican Study Committee, said he’s actually read the 1,018-page bill that emerged from the House Ways and Means Committee, and he called it “medical malpractice.”

“This is the farthest reach of government in decades,” Price said. “This debate is not about health care, it’s about freedom. We should write into law that patients, families and doctors make medical decisions, not the government,” Price said. “We’ve got to solve the challenge of lawsuit abuse.”

Despite Obama's protestations that "HIS" bill will not include money for abortions. All the House bills and one of the Senate bills includes language that would provide funding for private organizations for abortions.

President Barack Obama’s assertion that the Democrat-backed health care overhaul would not publicly fund abortions is “demonstrably false and extraordinarily misleading,” Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) told the conservative Values Voters summit on Friday.

Smith predicted that abortions would increase by as much a one third if the Democrats’ health care legislation is enacted.

“Never have I been more concerned about the promotion of abortion coming out of the White House,” Smith said. “The unborn child and his or her mother are more at risk now than ever, since Roe v. Wade itself.

A recent Gallup poll showed a majority of Americans are pro-life and abortions have been declining, Smith said. “Against all that, the abortionists teamed up with Barack Obama, the abortion president, to coerce you and I to support abortion” with federal tax dollars, Smith said.


The former president of the American Medical Association, Dr. Donald Palmisano, a surgeon, warned that if the Obama administration did not slow down on its drive for a government-led health care overhaul, the treatment choices available to patients would be undercut.

He added that the president’s “public option” plan in particular would be a disaster for patients and medical innovation.

“When it comes to health system reform: slow down. Patients’ lives are at risk,” Palmisano told reporters at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday. “Today, in America, we have the best health care system in the world – a system that provides urgent, preventative, and long-term care in every community at all hours of the day.
"The health care system is never closed in the United States,” he said. Let’s put the patient in control, with the doctor as trusted adviser,” he said. “Let’s not lose the liberty that is our right as Americans.”

“On health care, we must stand firm for no further diminution of protection of the unborn child and no further expansion of culture of death,” Smith said.

Although, for me, abortion is a moral issue not a right. There are many people who believe it is a right " to choose" and I respect their opinion. They are wrong in that it is not a rirght given by the Constitution or Bill or Rights, but a LICENSE to remove the baby from what should be the safest place in the world. The mother's womb!
But by giving the government, specificaly the president the control over all of our nealth care should ring alarm bells for anyone who appreciates and wants to protect our personal freedoms.
 
The health care bill under consideration in the House of Representatives would give President Obama the authority to name a new federal “Health Choices Commissioner” who would have sweeping power to govern the health insurance plans offered in a so-called "exchange" where millions of Americans would get their health insurance if the bill is enacted.


These powers would include deciding which treatments are covered, which companies can participate, which states can run their own exchange, and enrolling individuals into the public exchange.
The Health Choices Commissioner would establish “the benefits to be made available under Exchange-participating health benefit plans during each plan year,” according to page 84 of the 1,018-page bill. That means the commissioner would determine what benefits the participating insurance companies must offer participating customers in the exchange.


The commissioner would also set rules for insurance companies to participate in the health insurance exchange, and establish criteria for individuals to receive federal subsidies to purchase insurance in the exchange, according to section 142 on page 42 of the legislation.
Further, the commissioner would have the authority to establish “automatic enrollment” of individuals who qualify for the health insurance exchange.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) believes giving one bureaucrat this much power over the health insurance of Americans is among the least noticed provisions of the legislation.

“The American people want two things from health care reform: lower costs and more choices,” Boehner said in a statement. “Yet Democrats have done exactly the opposite coming up with a bill that actually raises costs--increasing the deficit by $240 billion--and letting a new federal bureaucrat make health care decisions that should be left to patients and their doctors.”
The legislation also gives the commissioner power to determine who can participate and under what conditions.

And if you could trust the leadership of the Democrat party before this attack on 1/6th of our economy. You should be convinced that by now they will say anything and do anything( even go to bed with ACORN and SEIU) to gave absolute power!
This interaction with Speaker Pelosi illustrates the duplicity of the Democrats and some RINOs.

"While many pro-life Democrats in the House of Representatives say they will not vote for a health care reform bill unless it explicitly prohibits federal funding for abortion through insurance plans, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has declined to state whether the final legislation should address the issue.

On the July 26 edition of CNN’s State of the Union, for example, host John King asked Pelosi: “If this bill passes and there’s a public option, should that public option cover abortions?”

Pelosi said: “That’s not--that’s not the issue. The issue is people go out there to--we’ll be working on that issue. But that’s not the issue to people like me. And it should be an issue for the 60 million Catholics in the USA and all Christians and Jews that beleive in the Commandment "Thou shal not kill"!

We must stop this atrocity masked as a welfare reform from happenening. Write, call and email your representatives in Washington, an go to TEA partys and rallys, and we will stop this abomination from happening!!