Haven't
heard this on the news.
Monday, December 19, 2011
Sunday, December 18, 2011
January 3, 2007
click on title to read
The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.
For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this...
BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!
THANK YOU DEMOCRATS (especiallyBarney ) for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% Unemployment...to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!
(BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie -starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy).
Barney blocked Bush and called it a "Chicken Little Philosophy" (and the sky did fall!)
And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA
And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?
OBAMA and the Democrat Congress, especially BARNEY!!!!
In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.
For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budget.
And where was Barack Obama during this time?He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period:
If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.
If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.
In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is "I inherited a deficit that I voted for, and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th."
NO ONE
I'VE HEARD HAS
A VIABLE ANSWER TO REDUCING FEDERAL SPENDING, AND
AS A WISE PERSON ONCE SAID. “IF WE ARE
NOT CAREFUL, WE ARE
GOING TO END UP IN THE DIRECTION WE'RE HEADED!”
The day the Democrats took over was not January
22nd 2009, it was
actually January
3rd 2007, the day
the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the
very start of the 110th Congress.
The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.
For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this...
January 3rd, 2007, the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the
Congress:
The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
The GDP growth for the previous quarter was 3.5%
The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!
The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
The GDP growth for the previous quarter was 3.5%
The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!
Remember that day. January 3rd, 2007 was the day that BarneyFrank took over the
House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking
Committee.
The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?
The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?
BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!
THANK YOU DEMOCRATS (especiallyBarney ) for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% Unemployment...to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!
(BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie -starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy).
Barney blocked Bush and called it a "Chicken Little Philosophy" (and the sky did fall!)
And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA
And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?
OBAMA and the Democrat Congress, especially BARNEY!!!!
So when someone tries to blame Bush...
REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!"
Bush may have been in the car but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal and steering wheel they were driving the economy into the ditch.
Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party.
Furthermore, theDemocrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.
REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!"
Bush may have been in the car but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal and steering wheel they were driving the economy into the ditch.
Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party.
Furthermore, theDemocrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.
In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.
For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budget.
And where was Barack Obama during this time?He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period:
If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.
If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.
In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is "I inherited a deficit that I voted for, and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th."
Friday, December 16, 2011
UNHAPPY BIRTHDAY
click on title to read
December the 15th was the 220th “birthday”
of the day our forefathers ratified the United States Bill of Rights.
I don’t know if it was merely a coincidence
or if intentional, but exactly on the 220th birthday of that historical
day, congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA).
When this becomes law, we will no longer have rights. Obama
has declared his intent to sign the legislation into law.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
WARNING
click on title to read
YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE BEING TAKEN AWAY
This week, Congress is debating more proposals that violate our fundamental right to be free from government restraint, absent a proven case of criminal behavior. This, too, was articulated by the framers when they wrote in the Fifth Amendment: "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." This recognizes the right to be free from restraint by the government, unless the government, utilizing due process, can make a case against you. That means a fair trial in your presence, with lawyers defending you and jurors deciding your case under the guidance of a neutral judge.
Yet, Congress are about to authorize the president to violate your natural rights by enacting legislation that would permit him to use the military to arrest Americans and restrain them without due process. Even King George III, against whose armies the colonists fought for freedom, did not have the power to do that. And, just because Congress votes to make these acts of tyranny legal does not mean they are constitutional. The Constitution is a higher law than anything Congress can write; and all that Congress writes must conform to it.
Since the Constitution was written to keep the government from violating our natural rights, what can you do when the very government we have hired to protect those rights is violating them? Well, for starters you can help by voting every politician out of office that does not believe the Constitution means what it says.
YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE BEING TAKEN AWAY
This week, Congress is debating more proposals that violate our fundamental right to be free from government restraint, absent a proven case of criminal behavior. This, too, was articulated by the framers when they wrote in the Fifth Amendment: "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." This recognizes the right to be free from restraint by the government, unless the government, utilizing due process, can make a case against you. That means a fair trial in your presence, with lawyers defending you and jurors deciding your case under the guidance of a neutral judge.
Yet, Congress are about to authorize the president to violate your natural rights by enacting legislation that would permit him to use the military to arrest Americans and restrain them without due process. Even King George III, against whose armies the colonists fought for freedom, did not have the power to do that. And, just because Congress votes to make these acts of tyranny legal does not mean they are constitutional. The Constitution is a higher law than anything Congress can write; and all that Congress writes must conform to it.
Since the Constitution was written to keep the government from violating our natural rights, what can you do when the very government we have hired to protect those rights is violating them? Well, for starters you can help by voting every politician out of office that does not believe the Constitution means what it says.
ONLY VOTE FOR
CANDIDATES THAT SUPPORT AND
DEFEND OUR CONSTITUTION. IF YOU DON’T KNOW WHO THEY ARE, IT’S TIME FOR YOU TO DO YOUR HOMEWORK!!!
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Tthe NAACP and Democrats believe blacks stupid
click on title to read
Both the NAACP and Democrat Party believe blacks are too
stupid to obtain a photo ID.
Wake up people. You
must show a photo ID to vote in a union election, to cash a check, drive a car,
board an airplane, use a credit card, and a host of other things. For example, you can’t even buy beer at your
local Wal-mart without showing a photo ID.
THIS IS A UNION ELECTION
I think we all know the real reason the NAACP and Democrats are opposed to this.
HOW STUPID DO THEY THINK WE ARE?
Letting Hispanics vote six times is fair and reasonable? Why is government promoting the election of any race or ethnic group?
Republican concerns are well-founded and justified, while the Democrats’
efforts to prevent measures to prevent voter fraud not only defy common sense
but also appear to be nothing less than a conspiracy to allow it.”
The extent to which minority advocates can overreach became obvious in a
recent story out of Port Chester, NY.
As reported:
Port Chester NY- How do you get minorities elected to power in districts
where they don’t have enough votes? Why just let them vote 6 times , you know,
just to be fair. Do you think this happened in a dark Chicago
alley with Daley, Obama or Blagojevich?
No, this is happening in New York State
and not in the dark of night but in the light of day with the full blessing of
the federal judge who heard the case. The judge is black and was appointed to
the federal bench by George W. Bush!”
Letting Hispanics vote six times is fair and reasonable? Why is government promoting the election of any race or ethnic group?
Of course, when one citizen is allowed to vote six times, the votes of five
other people are suppressed. Where is the good in that?
The precious right to vote must never be infringed upon based on a desire to
prevent any person from voting because of that individual’s political
tendencies or voting preferences.
However, it is just as important that fool-proof procedures be in place to
suppress voting by:
- Illegal aliens
- Those not registered to vote
- Those attempting to vote more than once
- The dead (A whole lot of dead people vote in Chicago)
Requiring would be voters to provide proof of ID is small price to pay in
order to guard against voter fraud of the sort listed.
Those who oppose voter ID are being unreasonable and are, themselves, a
danger to the exercise of our most precious right—the right to vote!
Monday, December 12, 2011
Saturday, December 10, 2011
OBAMA DOES NOT WANT MORE JOBS
LINKS ARE INCLUDED TO BACK UP EVERYTHING IN THIS BLOG
President Obama claims he wants to see more Americans working, but then he rejects private sector projects that would create tens of thousands of American jobs. It appears that the President prefers pandering to special interest above job creation and a sustained economic recovery.
Consider what Obama said during his trip to Brazil earlier this year. He told the Brazilians, “We want to work with you. We want to help with technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely, and when you’re ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=M2V4EM_jaFg
There’s no problem with buying oil from the Brazilians. But why does the President have a problem with building the Keystone XL pipeline to allow Americans to buy more oil from the Canadians? U.S. companies work with the Canadians to produce oil in Canada, and American workers would build the majority of the Keystone XL. Also, getting more oil from Canada would mean fewer imports from less friendly countries.
My blog from November 20th. http://cyberpolyticks.blogspot.com/2011/11/pipeline-poker.html
It is no secret that the
Obama administration supports
higher gas prices.
The Keystone XL pipeline would have provided more stability in oil supply and pricing at a time when crude oil from Mexico and Venezuela is declining. The pipeline would have provided refiners in the Gulf region with a secure supply—and a supply from a friendly source. Less supply means higher prices.
Without the XL pipeline on the horizon, prices are predicted to increase as they did following the delay announcement. Higher oil prices translate to higher prices at the pump. With the cover of environmental concerns as the cause, President Obama could put the pipeline off and raise gas prices without the average person realizing his responsibility for the increasing costs. With higher gasoline prices, the Government Motors Chevy Volt becomes more attractive—giving the president a win/win.
So President Obama chose to appease the environmental base and raise gas prices rather than to support the jobs that he claims to want. Additionally, the pipeline would have brought foreign money into the United States through increased exports of refined gasoline and provided a strong signal to the world markets that America is putting a long-term sustained strategy for expanding the domestic oil supplies we will need for decades to come.
TransCanada expected that the pipeline would be routinely approved—all previous cross-border pipeline requests have been granted. They went through all the open houses and public meetings, did the environmental impact studies, and endured the most exhaustive and detailed review ever conducted for a crude oil pipeline. Nebraska, and most of the United States, is already a web of pipelines. However, they chose the cheapest route for the Keystone XL pipeline—which took it through the environmentally controversial area of Nebraska’s Sand Hills. By choosing the short route, rather than adding about 250 miles of pipeline, they gave the environmentalists an unlikely alliance: Nebraska’s Republican lawmakers and traditionally conservative farmers.
Now that TransCanada has agreed to re-routing, they’ve called his bluff .
The Keystone XL pipeline would have provided more stability in oil supply and pricing at a time when crude oil from Mexico and Venezuela is declining. The pipeline would have provided refiners in the Gulf region with a secure supply—and a supply from a friendly source. Less supply means higher prices.
Without the XL pipeline on the horizon, prices are predicted to increase as they did following the delay announcement. Higher oil prices translate to higher prices at the pump. With the cover of environmental concerns as the cause, President Obama could put the pipeline off and raise gas prices without the average person realizing his responsibility for the increasing costs. With higher gasoline prices, the Government Motors Chevy Volt becomes more attractive—giving the president a win/win.
So President Obama chose to appease the environmental base and raise gas prices rather than to support the jobs that he claims to want. Additionally, the pipeline would have brought foreign money into the United States through increased exports of refined gasoline and provided a strong signal to the world markets that America is putting a long-term sustained strategy for expanding the domestic oil supplies we will need for decades to come.
TransCanada expected that the pipeline would be routinely approved—all previous cross-border pipeline requests have been granted. They went through all the open houses and public meetings, did the environmental impact studies, and endured the most exhaustive and detailed review ever conducted for a crude oil pipeline. Nebraska, and most of the United States, is already a web of pipelines. However, they chose the cheapest route for the Keystone XL pipeline—which took it through the environmentally controversial area of Nebraska’s Sand Hills. By choosing the short route, rather than adding about 250 miles of pipeline, they gave the environmentalists an unlikely alliance: Nebraska’s Republican lawmakers and traditionally conservative farmers.
Now that TransCanada has agreed to re-routing, they’ve called his bluff .
The facts, though, about job creation in the energy sector are undeniable. And we’re not talking about the green energy experiments like Solyndra that went bankrupt and laid off its workers. We’re talking about affordable energy development in places like North Dakota, where production in the Bakken Shale has resulted in the lowest unemployment in the country (3.5 percent).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)