Tweet This!

Showing posts with label President Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label President Obama. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 17, 2012

The Obama-Romney-Johnson Three Way Race - Their Stance On The Issues!

FYI - From The Examiner:  A three way race between President Obama, Gov. Romney, and Gov. Johnson.

This is their different stances on the issues.  This debate can happen with your support! By law, if Gov. Johnson can poll at 15% nationally, he will have to be included in the general election presidential debates.  Help us to get his message out!  PLEASE visit http://www.GaryJohnson2012.com.

-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"




Examiner
The Obama-Romney-Johnson three way race - their stance on the issues

Gary JohnsonThe three most likely candidates to be on the ballot in all 50 states for the office of President are current President Obama, Republican Mitt Romney and Libertarian Gary Johnson. Many American voters have been asking where exactly do they stand on the major issues affecting Americans.

The mainstream media has its focus on side issues rather than the hardcore issues. We do our best to inform the public here.

Marrige Equality: Obama and Romney are against it, Gary Johnson is for it.

Legalization of Medicinal Marijuana: Obama and Romney are against it. Gary Johnson is for it.

Staunch Advocate for Gun Rights: Obama and Romney have voted for gun control, Johnson supports more adherence to the 2nd Amendment.

War: Obama and Romney either have or have voiced support of engaging in unconstitutional wars. Johnson is not for war except in cases of true defense of the U.S.A. and potentially where innocent civilians are being killed by their oppressive governments or "warlords".

Best on Civil Liberties: the ACLU rated Gary Johnson best in their Liberty Watch Report with Obama a distant third and Romney coming in last - tied with Rick Santorum.

Committed to slashing the federal budget: Obama and Romney have not offered a plan to do so and have plans to do the opposite. Gary Johnson has committed to presenting a balanced budget slashing the federal budget by 43% in his first year as President.

Increasing taxes: Romney and Obama both voted or signed legislation to increase government spending and increase taxes while in office. Gary Johnson while Governor of New Mexico vetoed such legislation and decreased government spending and taxes in the state.



Continue reading on Examiner.com:
The Obama-Romney-Johnson three way race - their stance on the issues - West Palm Beach Libertarian | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/libertarian-in-west-palm-beach/the-obama-romney-johnson-three-way-race-their-stance-on-the-issues#ixzz1sDbiqcLC

Sunday, January 30, 2011

Rep. Ron Paul & Senator Rand Paul Discuss The State of the Union Address.

FYI - Some good food for thought.  The Paul's discuss the President's State of the Union Address.

-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"


Dr. Rand Paul, MD, U.S. Senator (R-KY)







Dr. Ron Paul, MD, U.S. Representative (R-TX14)


Wednesday, January 5, 2011

President Obama Signs Post-9/11 G.I. Bill Improvements Act Into Law.

FYI -
-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"

*From The U.S. Senate's Veterans' Affairs


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                     Contact:    Gina Drioane (Veterans’ Affairs)
January 4, 2011                                                                                                       (202) 224-9126

PRESIDENT OBAMA SIGNS SENATOR AKAKA’S POST-9/11 VETERANS EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE IMPROVEMENTS ACT INTO LAW

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, President Barack Obama signed into law the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements Act of 2010.  The bill was introduced by Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI) last year to make improvements to the education benefit for veterans: 

“The young men and women in the Armed Forces provide an incredible service to our nation,” said Senator Akaka, a World War II veteran who attended college on the original GI Bill.  “With the signing of this bill, young veterans will now have an easier time utilizing the education benefits they have earned.  I applaud President Obama and my colleagues in Congress for enacting this important legislation.”

The Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements Act (S. 3447) provides for a streamlined, less complex, and more equitable program for veterans who have served on active duty since September 11, 2001. 

The new law expands the number of eligible veterans by including a group of National Guard/Reserves veterans who were inadvertently omitted from the original legislation in 2008.  It increases educational opportunities by paying benefits for on-job and vocational training.  It also provides an annual $1,000 book allowance to service members training while on active duty.  

S. 3447 was passed by the Senate on December 13, 2010, and approved by the House of Representatives on December 16. 


-END-

Thursday, December 30, 2010

U.S. jobless claims hit 2-year low.

I am truly happy that our economy is starting to recover and more and more Americans are finding work. As this continues to happen, less and less tax payer money will have to be used for unemployment and social benefit programs. With that being said, federal spending (of our tax dollars) is still out of control. Democrats and Republicans both must work hard to cut spending, reduce our deficit, and balance the budget. A way to do this is to urge your Senators and Representative to support Senator-elect Rand Paul's projected Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment during this upcoming Congress.


U.S. jobless claims hit 2-year low | Barack Obama For President - 2012


Dr. Rand Paul: Constitutional Amendment Needed To Balance The Budget  (part 1)

Dr. Rand Paul: Constitutional Amendment Needed To Balance The Budget  (part 2)



-ADY"A Regular Guy On The Issues"

Sunday, October 31, 2010

50% Of Democrats Want President Obama To Face A Primary In 2012!

Some REAL good food for thought. This article can also be viewed via AP/Huffington Post Online at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/30/obama-primary-challenge_n_776443.html

-ADY
______________________________________________________________________________________
Obama Primary Challenge? Nearly Half Of Dems Want 2012 Fight!


WASHINGTON — Democratic voters are closely divided over whether President Barack Obama should be challenged within the party for a second term in 2012, an Associated Press-Knowledge Networks Poll finds.

That glum assessment carries over into the nation at large, which is similarly divided over whether Obama should be a one-term president.

A real Democratic challenge to Obama seems unlikely at this stage and his re-election bid is a long way off. But the findings underscore how disenchanted his party has grown heading into the congressional elections Tuesday.

The AP-KN poll has tracked a group of people and their views since the beginning of the 2008 presidential campaign. Among all 2008 voters, 51 percent say he deserves to be defeated in November 2012 while 47 percent support his re-election – essentially a tie.

Among Democrats, 47 percent say Obama should be challenged for the 2012 nomination and 51 percent say he should not be opposed. Those favoring a contest include most who backed Hillary Rodham Clinton's unsuccessful faceoff against Obama for the 2008 nomination. The poll did not ask if Democrats would support particular challengers.

Political operatives and polling experts caution that Obama's poll standings say more about people's frustrations today with the economy and other conditions than they do about his re-election prospects. With the next presidential election two years away – an eon in politics – the public's view of Obama could easily improve if the economy revives or if he outmaneuvers Republicans on Capitol Hill or in the presidential campaign.

"Democrats currently disappointed with Obama will likely be less disappointed if he spends the next two years fighting a GOP Congress" should Republicans do well on Election Day, said Charles Franklin, a University of Wisconsin political science professor and polling analyst.

Even so, the poll illustrates how Obama's reputation has frayed since 2008. It suggests lingering bad feelings from Democrats' bitter primary fight, when he and Clinton – now his secretary of state – roughly split the popular vote. Political professionals of both parties said the findings are a warning for the president, whose formal re-election effort is expected to begin stirring next year.

"It's an indicator of things he needs to address between now and then," said Kiki McLean, a Democratic strategist who worked in Clinton's 2008 campaign.

The White House declined comment on the results.

The 1,254 randomly chosen people in the survey are from a group that was polled 11 times during the 2008 campaign by AP, Knowledge Networks and Yahoo News. The poll finds that over that period, Obama has retained most supporters while seeing some erosion:

_Nearly 3 in 10, or 29 percent, of Democrats who said during the spring of 2008 that they were backing Obama for the Democratic nomination now say they want him to be challenged in 2012. Seven in 10 want him renominated.

_Sixty-one percent of Democrats who said in spring 2008 that they were backing Clinton now say Obama should face an opponent for the party's nomination.

_More than 8 in 10 overall who on Election Day 2008 said they'd voted for Obama want to re-elect him, though 1 in 7 say he should be defeated.

_More than 1 in 4 who said in October 2008 that Obama understands the problems of ordinary Americans now say he doesn't. The same is true for those who said he is innovative, cares about people like them and shares their values.

_Of those who said right after the 2008 election that they had a favorable opinion of Obama, nearly one-quarter now view him negatively.

"Nobody wants to work with this guy," said Steven Fagin, 45, of Cincinnati. A Democrat and 2008 Obama voter, he cited deep divisions between Democrats and Republicans. "We're never going to get anything done."

The survey found that those likeliest to oppose Obama's re-election include men, older people, those without college degrees and whites. Those groups mostly supported his 2008 Republican opponent, John McCain.

Three in four Democrats want Obama re-elected while nearly 9 in 10 Republicans oppose it. Independents lean slightly against Obama, 46 percent to 36 percent.

Democrats saying Obama should face a primary challenge tend to be less educated, less liberal and likelier to have been 2008 Clinton backers.

Democratic activists say there are no signs of a serious primary challenge to Obama, though some speculate an effort could come from liberals who think he's drifted too far to the center.

Recent history shows presidents' early polling numbers mean little about their re-election prospects.

At this stage two years before their re-elections, Presidents Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan had approval ratings that were lower than Obama's now, according to the Gallup Poll; both men won a second term. The ratings for Presidents George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter were better than Obama's; both lost.

"Presidents Mondale, Dole and McCain all speak to the very substantial limits of off-year polling results," said Bill McInturff, McCain's 2008 pollster, as he named three politicians who fell short of the White House. Walter Mondale lost to Reagan in 1984 while Clinton defeated Bob Dole in 1996.

The AP-Knowledge Networks Poll was conducted from Sept. 17 to Oct. 7. The original panel of adults was randomly selected using traditional telephone polling methods, but interviews were conducted online. People without computers or Internet access were given that technology for free.

The margin of sampling error for all 1,254 adults is plus or minus 4.4 percentage points. It is plus or minus 6.5 points for the 571 Democrats, and 5.3 points for the 852 people who said on Election Day 2008 that they had voted.

Friday, October 8, 2010

Anti-war liberals can vote Libertarian

Some VERY good things to consider when deciding who to vote for in the upcoming elections -

Anti-war liberals can vote Libertarian

Republicans: Bill Clinton's New Fan Club —

Some interesting food for thought -

*Via NewsMax.com

Republicans who once loathed former President Bill Clinton are having second thoughts about him, The New York Times reports. The GOP is seeing the good that Clinton did in reaching across the aisle and compromising with Republicans — especially after they have fought for nearly two years with the Obama administration. Top Republicans — from Orrin Hatch to Paul Ryan — are praising the former president they battled a decade ago.

Bill Clinton “will go down in history a better president,” than Barack Obama, declared Sen. Hatch, R-Utah. “I enjoy Bill Clinton,” said U.S. Rep. Ryan, a six-term Republican from Wisconsin. “The first two years of his first term was one thing, but the rest of his presidency was tempered with moderation, and the nation benefited.”

Even Fox News commentator Sean Hannity, who has criticized Clinton sharply in the past, recently bestowed “good old Bill” on the former president — while continuing his sharp attacks on the Democrat who is in the White House now.

Meanwhile the Times' story openly asks how Obama will “manage his legislative and political agenda should the Republicans take back the House next month.” But Obama may hit resistance from his own base if he tries to do what Clinton did after his own midterm 1994 defeats and move toward the middle.

“If Obama moves to the center it may be practical but his base won’t like it,” said Vin Weber, a former Republican congressman from Minnesota.

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Obama's Stimulus Jobs Report—Separating Facts from White House Fiction.

It needs to be said, though, that Republicans always preach low taxes and tax cuts, but seem to forget about cutting spending. In order for tax cuts to be effective and successful long term, spending has to also be cut. These principals go hand-in-hand because if you cut taxes but continue to spend like crazy ( and yes, that's the way our government does spend), you eventually end up jacking up taxes again even worse than before in order to cover your debts. For more information on an economic plan that works, please visit HTTP://WWW.LP.ORG/ISSUES

FYI - This Op-Ed can also be viewed online @ GOP.gov by visiting the following web address:

http://www.gop.gov/policy-news/10/07/19/obamas-stimulus-jobs-report-separating#share

-Aaron

______________________________________________________________________________________

Obama's Stimulus Jobs Report—Separating Facts from White House Fiction

JULY 19, 2010

On July 14, 2010, the president’s Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) released its fourth quarterly report on spending from the Democrats’ $862 billion “stimulus” (including the $347 billion CBO estimated for interest payments on the borrowed money, the cost of the stimulus is actually $1.2 trillion). Vice President Biden echoed the chorus of the administration, touting the success of the bill and stating that “The economic initiatives that we took, they are working ... they are working.” White House spin aside, the facts show that the stimulus has failed to create jobs in the economy and that CEA’s deceptive report is preposterous.

CLAIM: “As of the second quarter of 2010, we estimate that the Recovery Act has raised employment by 2.5 to 3.6 million relative to what it otherwise would have been.”

FACT: The stimulus has not created net jobs in the economy. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)—the official government agency responsible for tallying employment stats—there have been 3.42 million gross jobs lost since the stimulus was passed and 2.53 million net jobs lost.

CLAIM: “A key way that the CEA estimates the effects of the Recovery Act on GDP and employment is to use existing estimates of the macroeconomic effects of fiscal policy. That is, one can use mainstream estimates of economic multipliers for the effects of fiscal stimulus.”

FACT: The White House determines the impact of government stimulus spending by plugging numbers into a Keynesian “Multiplier Model.” This system simply multiplies the amount of dollars spent by the number of jobs the administration thinks the money should produce. This voodoo math doesn’t consider actual employment statistics, and thus allows the White House to claim that the stimulus is creating jobs as the economy sheds them.

CLAIM: “For example, the Act, by stabilizing the economy and restoring confidence, may have played a role in healing the financial sector and jump-starting private demand.”

FACT: The private sector has not been “jump started.” To the contrary, 3.2 million private sector jobs have been lost and total private sector employment has decreased by 2.5 million jobs since the passage of the stimulus. In fact, researchers at Harvard Business School released a study in May, 2010, which “suggests that federal spending in states appears to cause local businesses to cut back rather than grow.”

CLAIM: “Following implementation of the [stimulus], the trajectory of the economy changed dramatically.”

FACT: Since the stimulus was passed the economy has remained sluggish and employment has declined dramatically. According to the Bureau of Economic Statistics (BEA), GDP growth has averaged a lethargic 1.4 percent since the stimulus. Following a recession, growth rates are typically much higher. In the ten quarters following the 1982 recession, for instance, growth averaged 9.3 percent each quarter. Unfortunately, after the stimulus passed, unemployment rose to 10 percent and has hovered there for months. And, according to the National Federation of Independent Businesses, confidence amongst small businesses fell in June 2010 at the sharpest level since October 2008.

No matter how they spin their numbers, the administration can’t hide the fact that the stimulus has failed. The truest fact included in the CEA’s report is this: “The CEA model will obviously not yield exact figures for the effects of the Recovery Act.” Obviously.

Friday, July 16, 2010

Rep. Myrick: Hezbollah Major Threat on Mexican Border.

FYI - Some good food for thought.

-Aaron


______________________________________________________________________________________

Rep. Myrick: Hezbollah Major Threat on Mexican Border

Thursday, 15 Jul 2010 08:12

By: Jim Meyers

Rep. Sue Myrick tells Newsmax it is “very frightening” that the Iran-backed terrorist group Hezbollah has been sending agents to Mexico — and some have already entered the United States across the porous border.

The North Carolina Republican has asked Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to set up a special task force to investigate the reports that Hezbollah is cooperating with drug cartels along the Mexican border.

In an exclusive Newsmax interview, Myrick — a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the GOP’s Deputy Whip — was asked what is known about Hezbollah’s threat to America.


“Our intelligence sources have really clarified that they are in Mexico, that there is an operation that is quite large in place there, and it’s very frightening to me because this is national security,” says Myrick, who was first elected in 1994.

“Yes, immigration’s a problem too, but this particular situation [involves] people who don’t like us for various reasons.

“We know some of them have gotten across the border in the past, and now we know that there are people from Iran who are going to Venezuela. They are actually learning Spanish, and then they come up through Mexico to cross our border. So they’re working in cahoots with Venezuela as well.”

About Hezbollah’s intentions in the U.S., Myrick says: “We don’t know. It used to be that most of those groups did not really target the United States. They were targeting other countries or they were staying inside their own area of influence. Now they are starting to target the United States and that’s my concern.

“I do want a task force of both U.S. and Mexican officials. Let’s get to the bottom of this and find out what is going on.

“The response I have received was a call that they would like to give me a private intelligence briefing because I’m on the Intelligence Committee. I said that would be fine, but I would like an answer about the task force first because once I get a briefing, I can’t talk about it.”

Sen. John Kyl, an Arizona Republican, has said he met privately with President Barack Obama and implored him to secure the border. Kyl claims Obama told him that if he did secure the border it would remove the incentive for comprehensive immigration reform or amnesty for illegals. Myrick says that “makes no sense whatsoever.”

She tells Newsmax: “It’s obvious that’s what he wants, amnesty. He’s said it over and over again. I don’t see it that way.

“Our responsibility at the federal government is to make sure that our borders are secure. Once the border is secure, like it is in some other places where we don’t have the problems that we do in the areas where it’s porous, then we’ll know who is in the country. We can control who comes into the country.

“It makes no sense to me whatsoever that you can’t secure the border because you can’t get amnesty.”

Myrick takes issue with Attorney General Eric Holder, who has filed suit against Arizona’s tough new law to battle illegal immigration.

“The federal government has not done its job,” she declares.
“Arizona is only trying to do what a state as the right to do, and that is to protect themselves.”

Turning to Iran, Myrick charges that the Obama administration is dragging its feet on dealing with the nuclear threat posed by the Islamic Republic.

“I think we should take a tougher stance and work harder with our partners in the world to make sure they do too,” she says.

The United Nations in its attempts to deal with Iran is “just a joke,” she adds. “They aren’t doing their job.”

Asked about the possibility that Israel may attack Iran’s nuclear facilities on its own, Myrick responds:

“I think Israel has the right to defend themselves. That option is there.

“I hope it does not come to that, but there needs to be something done to have a tougher stand with Iran.

“They aren’t going to be our friends. You can’t convince them they’re going to be our friends. They don’t operate that way. They don’t want to be friends. They want to conquer the world.”




© Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Thursday, July 15, 2010

Monday, July 12, 2010

President's New Drilling Moratorium Threatens More Jobs in Gulf

FYI...


President's New Drilling Moratorium Threatens More Jobs in Gulf http://bit.ly/a6Q84I

Tuesday, June 1, 2010

Help Repeal ObamaCare - Contact Congress NOW! Support Rep. Paul's H.R. 5444: Private Option Health Care Act




June 01, 2010


Dear Friends of Liberty,

Unlike the statists in Washington, the freedom movement understands that our health care is too important to be left to the whims of politicians and bureaucrats.

More Americans are realizing that the Obama administration’s version of “change” means giving the federal government’s corporatist allies even greater power, like rewarding insurance companies with millions of customers who will be forced to buy their product.

Legitimate reform starts with the principles found in two new bills introduced by Ron Paul.

H.R. 4995, the End the Mandate Act, repeals the recently-passed federal mandate requiring Americans to carry government-approved health insurance.

And just this past Thursday, Congressman Paul introduced H.R. 5444, the “Private Option Health Care Act,” which would completely repeal ObamaCare and replace it with free market solutions.

In sharp contrast to mandates and force, H.R. 5444 would:

Provide all Americans with a tax credit for 100% of health care expenses. The tax credit is fully refundable against both income and payroll taxes;

Allow individuals to roll over unused amounts in cafeteria plans and Flexible Savings Accounts (FSA);

Provide a tax credit for premiums for high-deductible insurance policies connected with Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and allow seniors to use funds in HSAs to pay for "medigap" policies;

Repeal the 7.5% threshold for the deduction of medical expenses, thus making all medical expenses tax deductible;

Guarantee individuals can purchase health insurance across state lines;

Permit a tax credit for negative outcomes insurance purchased before medical treatment, reducing expensive malpractice suits;

Reduce barriers to importing FDA-approved prescription drugs.


As Congressman Paul said in his speech introducing H.R. 5444, “the Private Option Health Care Act allows Congress to correct the mistake it made last month by replacing the new health care law with health care measures that give control over health care to individuals, instead of the federal government and politically-influential corporations.”

Urge your congressman to strengthen our health care system by cosponsoring and fighting for a standalone, up or down vote on H.R. 5444, the Private Option Health Care Act, and H.R. 4995, the End the Mandate Act. You can find your Representative's contact information by visiting the Campaign For Liberty website -

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/congress.php

The same movement that gave Audit the Fed unprecedented momentum can achieve real reform in health care.

Contact Congress right away!


In Liberty,






John Tate
President, C4L

*************************************************************************************
Congressman Ron Paul's Statement concerning H.R. 5444:


Statement of Congressman Ron Paul

United States House of Representatives

Statement Introducing the Private Option Health Care Act

May 27, 2010


Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Private Option Health Care Act. This bill places individuals back in control of health care by replacing the recently passed tax-spend-and-regulate health care law with reforms designed to restore a free market health care system.

The major problems with American health care are rooted in government policies that encourage excessive reliance on third-party payers. The excessive reliance on third-party payers removes incentives for individual patients to concern themselves with health care costs. Laws and policies promoting Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) resulted from a desperate attempt to control spiraling costs. However, instead of promoting an efficient health care system, HMOs further took control over health care away from patients and physicians. Furthermore, the third-party payer system creates a two-tier health care system where people whose employers can afford to offer "Cadillac" plans have access to top quality health care, while people unable to obtain health insurance from their employers face obstacles in obtaining quality health care.

The Private Option Health Care Act gives control of health care back into the hands of individuals through tax credits and tax deductions, improving Health Savings Accounts and Flexible Savings Accounts. Specifically, the bill:

A. Provides all Americans with a tax credit for 100% of health care expenses. The tax credit is fully refundable against both income and payroll taxes;

B. Allows individuals to roll over unused amounts in cafeteria plans and Flexible Savings Accounts (FSA);

C. Provides a tax credit for premiums for high-deductible insurance policies connected with a Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and allows seniors to use funds in HSAs to pay for medigap policies;

D. Repeals the 7.5% threshold for the deduction of medical expenses, thus making all medical expenses tax deductible.


This bill also creates a competitive market in heath insurance. It achieves this goal by exercising Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause to allow individuals to purchase health insurance across state lines. The near-monopoly position many health insurers have in many states and the high prices and inefficiencies that result, is a direct result of state laws limiting people's ability to buy health insurance that meets their needs, instead of a health insurance plan that meets what state legislators, special interests, and health insurance lobbyists think they should have. Ending this ban will create a truly competitive marketplace in health insurance and give insurance companies more incentive to offer quality insurance at affordable prices.

The Private Option Health Care Act also provides an effective means of ensuring that people harmed during medical treatment receive fair compensation while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. The bill achieves this goal by providing a tax credit for negative outcomes insurance purchased before medical treatment. The insurance will provide compensation for any negative outcomes of the medical treatment. Patients can receive this insurance without having to go through lengthy litigation and without having to give away a large portion of their awards to trial lawyers.

Finally, the Private Option Health Care Act also lowers the prices of prescription drugs by reducing barriers to the importation of Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved pharmaceuticals. Under my bill, anyone wishing to import a drug simply submits an application to the FDA, which then must approve the drug unless the FDA finds the drug is either not approved for use in the United States or is adulterated or misbranded. This process will make safe and available imported medicines affordable to millions of Americans. Letting the free market work is the best means of lowering the cost of prescription drugs.

Madam Speaker, the Private Option Health Care Act allows Congress to correct the mistake it made last month by replacing the new health care law with health care measures that give control to health care to individuals, instead of the federal government and politically-influential corporations. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Friday, May 28, 2010

President Obama to skip wreath laying at Arlington for Memorial Day - makes sure not to miss Paul McCartney

Some good food for thought...especially when thinking about Election Day 2010 and 2012. FYI...

-Aaron

______________________________________________________________________________________
Obama to skip wreath laying at Arlington for Memorial Day; makes sure not to miss Paul McCartney


POSTED AT 9:57 PM ON MAY 25, 2010 BY CASSY FIANO

Last year, Obama did his duty as Commander-in-Chief and paid his respects for the fallen at Arlington National Cemetery for Memorial Day. This year, he’s sending Joe Biden in his place, because he’s got more important things to do… like go to Chicago.

President Barack Obama plans to spend a long holiday weekend in Chicago.

The White House says Obama and his family will travel to their hometown on Thursday and stay through the weekend. It will be their first trip back home since a visit for Valentine’s Day weekend in February 2009.

On Monday, Obama is scheduled to participate in a Memorial Day ceremony at Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery in Elwood, Ill.

In Obama’s absence, Vice President Joe Biden will participate in the customary wreath-laying ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Cemetery outside Washington.

As Doug Powers noted at Michelle’s blog, he won’t be missing a visit with Paul McCartney. Nice to see where his priorities lie.

Memorial Day should be a pretty big priority for the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces. The wreath-laying ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery is not just some arbitrary meaningless tradition. It actually means something, and Obama is just blowing it off so that he can go hang out in Chicago. I understand the desire to go home for a little while, but when you’re the president, Memorial Day ceases to be just another holiday where you get to take an extra day off for a weekend and have a barbecue. For him, he still has to work. It’s part of his responsibility as president. Blowing off paying his respects to the fallen at Arlington National Cemetery — our country’s most sacred shrine — on Memorial Day is inexcusable. It’s despicable and he does not deserve the title of Commander-in-Chief if he has this little respect for the heroes who have given their lives for their country.

If he doesn’t like it, he can always resign.

I’m curious how much golf he’ll play while he’s in Chicago.

Saturday, May 22, 2010

TOP TEN INDICATORS THAT YOUR EMPLOYER HAS CHANGED TO OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE PLAN.

FYI...A little humor followed by some real food for thought.

-Aaron


______________________________________________________________________________________

TOP TEN INDICATORS THAT YOUR EMPLOYER HAS CHANGED TO OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE PLAN:


(10) Your annual breast exam is done at Hooters.


(9) Directions to your doctor's office include "Take a left when you enter the trailer park."


(8) The tongue depressors taste faintly of Fudgesicles.


(7) The only proctologist in the plan is "Gus" from Roto-Rooter.


(6) The only item listed under Preventative Care Coverage is "an apple a day."


(5) Your primary care physician is wearing the pants you gave to Goodwill last month.


(4) "The patient is responsible for 200% of out-of-network charges," is not a typographical error.


(3) The only expense covered 100% is…. "Embalming."


(2) Your Prozac comes in different colors with little M's on them.


AND THE NUMBER ONE SIGN YOU'VE JOINED OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE PLAN:


(1) You ask for Viagra, and they give you a Popsicle stick and duct tape



*****
Will you patiently wait for health care at the end of a 32,000,000 person line? Proponents of ObamaCare are betting you will. In 2006, Massachusetts passed a version of health care reform which, like ObamaCare, promised to reduce wait times, particularly in emergency rooms. However, a recent poll by the American College of Emergency Physicians has found that two-thirds of Massachusetts residents reported that wait times haven't decreased at all. In many cases, they've increased. The reason is simple: by expanding insurance coverage and ignoring physicians' needs, lawmakers increased demand but did nothing to encourage supply. ObamaCare makes the same mistake. In fact, ObamaCare's replica of the Massachusetts health care fiasco is so good that health care scholars now glumly predict "the new healthcare law will pack 32 million newly insured people into emergency rooms already crammed beyond capacity."

Meanwhile, your doctor is about to take a 21 percent pay cut. Will you fight for him? Advocates of ObamaCare are betting you won't. In order to hide the real costs of ObamaCare, Congress declined to include the so-called "doc-fix" in the recent health care legislation. However, that left doctors exposed to Medicare reimbursement rates at the 2001 level-despite the fact that the costs of senior care have increased 20 percent in the last decade. If Congress fails to act before June 1, physicians will have to bear a 21.3 percent drop in Medicare payments. Of course, this will hurt seniors even more than it hurts the doctors who care for them.

But have no fear: a check is in the mail! If you're over 65, you may have a bitter taste in your mouth from watching ObamaCare strip $500 billion from Medicare. To make amends, proponents of ObamaCare are now offering seniors a palate cleanser in the form of a $250 rebate. Seniors may use these dollars to offset the drop in prescription drug coverage known as the Medicare "doughnut hole." Of course, every little helps, but the reality is that a senior's out-of-pocket drug costs can exceed $3,000 annually. Compared to the theft of $500,000,000,000 from Medicare, a less-than-ten-percent rebate on prescription drug costs is hardly the way that America's senior citizens should be treated.

"You can keep your insurance if you like it." You may remember President Obama's most famous health care promise. It turns out the President's campaign pledge isn't worth the teleprompter it was uploaded to. The numbers speak for themselves. Because of ObamaCare:

An estimated 19 million employees will lose their employer-based insurance coverage.
As many as 11.5 million Americans will lose Medicare Advantage.

33 million Medicare beneficiaries will experience massive cuts in quality and access.
In addition to these incredible statistics, all indications suggest that in the coming months millions more will lose their employer-based insurance as companies discover how much they can save by booting employees into government-provide insurance pools.

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Outrage: Obama Administration Targets Military for Pay Reductions!!!

This is outrageous!!! As a veteran this makes my blood boil! The President, with the help of Congress, pump billions of dollars into corporate bailouts, welfare benefits, government bureaucracies, and then forces a healthcare bill down our throats (that 57% of Americans oppose). How does he choose to try to pay for all of these "entitlements" you ask?...by asking Congress to reduce the amount of the annual military pay raise! I think the President needs to pick up a rifle, and stand a post or go on a patrol before he makes these kinds of decisions!

-Aaron

_________________________________________________________________________________________

***Via Newsmax.com

Outrage: Obama Administration Targets Military for Pay Reductions
Sunday, 09 May 2010 11:27 PM
By: Newsmax Wires

President Barack Obama — who came to power with the help of government employee unions across the nation and has lavished on them hundreds of billions in stimulus funds to keep them on federal, state and local payrolls with no strings attached — is moving to cut spending on salaries for military personnel.

This weekend The Washington Post headlined story, "Pentagon Asking Congress to Hold Back on Generous Increases in Troop Pay,” disclosed that the Obama administration is “pleading” with Congress to give military personnel a much smaller increase in pay than lawmakers have proposed.

The Pentagon contends that Congress simply has been too generous with troops during the past decade.

In fact, lawmakers have lavished so much money on troops, according to the Post, that service members are now better compensated than workers in the private sector with similar experience and education levels.

For example, the military brass claims that an average sergeant in the Army with four years of service and one dependent would receive $52,589 in annual compensation, according to the paper. This figure includes basic pay, housing, and subsistence allowances, as well as tax benefits.

Meanwhile, a U.S. postal letter carrier, with no supervisory or hazardous duty, makes approximately $80,000 a year when all benefits are factored in.

Critics of the Obama administration’s efforts to cut soldier’s pay say America’s security has been strengthened by higher pay rates, as qualified veterans are re-enlisting at record rates, reversing the problem the military witnessed just a few years ago.

"Any attempt to link rising military personnel costs with shrinking military readiness is total nonsense," said Thomas J. Tradewell Sr., who leads the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the largest and oldest major combat veterans organization.

"If the Defense Department needs a larger budget for personnel programs, then let the VFW carry that message to Congress. Just don't pin the budget blame on service members and military retirees."

Tradewell's ire was targeted this past week at Clifford L. Stanley, the Defense undersecretary of personnel and readiness, who said during recent testimony before the personnel subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee: "Rising personnel costs could dramatically affect the readiness of the department."


"What's hurtful," said Tradewell, a combat-wounded Vietnam veteran from Sussex, Wis., "is a continuing perception that DoD is more concerned about the budget than they are about recruiting and retaining a professional volunteer force that's been at war now for more than eight years."

According to Stanley, last year was the military's most successful recruiting year since the establishment of the all-volunteer force in 1973.

Although advocates for military families argue that the decade-long spending spree reverses severe cuts that the military suffered in the 1990s, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and other military brass fear that the spending will threaten security in the years to come. That will mean less money to buy weapons and maintain aging equipment.

On Saturday, Gates told reporters that massive deficits can impact how the president and policy makers confront emerging threats like Iran.

Lawmakers consistently have overruled the Pentagon and mandated more-generous pay raises than requested by both the Bush and Obama administrations. Congress has also rejected attempts by the Pentagon to slow soaring healthcare costs, which Gates told reporters are "eating us alive," by raising co-pays or premiums.

The military admits the improving compensation for troops is helping retention.

For example, improvements in pay and benefits have made it more likely that sailors will stick around longer, Vice Adm. Mark E. Ferguson III, the chief of naval personnel, told the Post.

A Navy survey last year found that about 60 percent of spouses wanted their sailors to make a career of Navy life, meaning a stint of at least 20 years. In 2005, only about 20 percent of spouses felt the same way.

"I think pay was previously a concern, but it's started to change," Ferguson said. Congress had been "extremely generous" but rising personnel costs were already influencing what the Navy spends to operate, maintain and modernize its fleet, he added.

The Pentagon wants a pay raise of 1.4 percent for service members next year, an increase based on the Employment Cost Index, which the Labor Department uses to measure private-sector salary increases.

Congress, as it has for the past several years, has indicated it favors a slightly bigger bump, of 1.9 percent.

Although that extra half of a percent may not seem like much, one expert told the Post that it would accrue annually and cost about $3.5 billion over the next decade.

But congressional supporters of the men and women in the Armed Services are questioning why they are being singled out for future pay cutbacks when other government agencies and unions are not.

The U.S. Postal Service, for example, is slated to give letter carriers an increase of 1.9 percent this coming year.

And postal employees are considered to be grossly overpaid compared with their private counterparts. A postal supervisor, for example, can make $70,000 or year or more, plus significant benefits.

Last year, Congress had to help fill a $3.8 billion deficit at the federally backed agency, but there has been no discussion of salary cuts for postal employees. Instead, postal officials have focused on reducing service, including Saturday delivery.

© Newsmax. All rights reserved

Sunday, May 9, 2010

Wayne Allyn Root on "The Real Obama Economic Plan."

FYI...the below article can also be viewed on Wayne's website by visiting this link -

http://bit.ly/b0ydMw

-Aaron

______________________________________________________________________________________

***The Real Obama Economic Plan: Overwhelming the System to Destroy Capitalism and Freedom***

It's time to stop mincing words. Obama is not a fool. He is not incompetent. He is not a madman. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis, and social chaos- thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within. But the bonus is brilliant...as he destroys and taxes to death business owners, he also cripples his political opposition.
Rahm Emanuel cynically said, "You never want a crisis to go to waste." It is now becoming clear that the crisis he was referring to is Obama's Presidency. As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Obama is following the plan of Cloward & Piven, two professors at Obama's Columbia University. In 1966, they outlined a plan to socialize America by OVERWHELMING the system with government spending and entitlement demands. Add up the clues below. Taken individually they're alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to overwhelm the system, wreck the U.S. economy, damage or destroy the free market, in order to turn the U.S. into a socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that desperately needs government for survival.

*Universal healthcare. The healthcare bill had very little to do with healthcare. It had everything to do with adding millions of new union and government employees (sixteen thousand new IRS agents) feeding at the public trough. Obama doesn't care that giving free healthcare to 30 million Americans will add TRILLIONS to the national debt. Or that not one new doctor was added to the system, thereby causing a healthcare crisis. What he does care about is that it overwhelms the system and cements the dependence and loyalty of those 30 million voters to Obama and big government. Who but a socialist revolutionary would pass this reckless spending bill in the middle of a depression? Why now? Why the rush? Why risk destroying the economy on a reckless, unproven scheme? There is only one answer -- OVERWHELM THE SYSTEM.

*Cap and trade. Like healthcare legislation having nothing to do with healthcare, cap and trade has nothing to do with global warming. It has everything to do with overwhelming the system, redistribution of income, government control of the economy and a criminal payoff to unions and Obama's biggest contributors. Those powerful and wealthy unions and contributors (like GE who owns NBC, MSNBC and CNBC) can then be counted on to support everything and anything Obama wants. They will kick back hundreds of millions in contributions to Obama and the Democratic Party to keep them in power. The bonus is that all the new taxes on Americans with bigger cars, bigger homes and businesses helps Obama "spread the wealth around." Who but a socialist revolutionary would pass this reckless tax and spending bill in the middle of a depression? Why now? Why the rush? Why risk destroying the economy on a reckless, unproven scheme? There is only one answer -- OVERWHELM THE SYSTEM.

*Make Puerto Rico a state. Why? Who's asking for a 51st state? Certainly not the Puerto Ricans, who have repeatedly voted against it, and certainly not American taxpayers. Who's asking for millions of new welfare recipients and government entitlement addicts in the middle of a depression? But this has been Obama's plan all along. His goal is to add two new Democrat Senators, five Democrat Congressman and a million loyal Democratic voters who are dependent on big government. Who but a socialist revolutionary would support this reckless scheme in the middle of a depression? Why now? Why the rush? There is only one answer -- OVERWHELM THE SYSTEM.

*Legalize 12 million illegal immigrants. Just giving these 12 million potential new citizens free healthcare alone could overwhelm the system and bankrupt America. But hey...it adds 12 million reliable new Democrat voters- who can be counted on to support big government. Add another few trillion dollars in welfare, aid to dependent children, food stamps, free medical, education, tax credits for the poor, and eventually Social Security. Who but a socialist revolutionary would support this in the middle of a depression? Why now? Why the rush? There is only one answer -- OVERWHELM THE SYSTEM.

*Card check. This disastrous bill creates more union employees EVERYWHERE- all of them Democratic voters. More union employees mean more union dues and hundreds of millions of new dollars to spend on campaign contributions to Democrats. Who cares that it will damage the capitalist system? Who but a socialist revolutionary would support this scheme in the middle of a depression? Why now? Why the rush? There is only one answer-- OVERWHELM THE SYSTEM.

*Stimulus & Bailouts. Where did all that money go? It went to Democrat contributors, organizations (ACORN), and unions- including billions of dollars to save the jobs of government employees across the country, and billions more to hire new government employees. It went to save GM and Chrysler, so that their employees could keep paying union dues. It went to AIG so that Goldman Sachs could be bailed out (after giving Obama almost $1,000,000 in contributions). A staggering $125 billion went to teachers (thereby saving their union dues to teachers unions). All those public employees will vote loyally Democrat to protect their bloated salaries and pensions that are bankrupting America. And their union dues will be forwarded directly to Obama and Democrat politicians. All while the private sector is melting down. Pretty soon a government job will be the only game in town. The country goes broke, future generations face a bleak future, but Obama, the Democrat Party, government, and the unions grow more powerful. The ends justify the means. OVERWHELM THE SYSTEM.

*Spend trillions on bailouts. Who needs welfare mothers, when you can addict America's largest companies on welfare? These companies are now beholden to Democrat politicians and therefore powerless to criticize anything Obama does. The trillions to GM, Chrysler, AIG will never be paid back. But, that's no concern to a socialist revolutionary who wants to destroy capitalism, control business, and OVERWHELM THE SYSTEM.

*Raise taxes ONLY on small business owners, high-income earners, and job creators. Put the entire burden on 10% of the population, redistribute the income, punish success, and reward those who did nothing (except vote for Obama). Why? Because such a plan destroys the group that contributes the most money to fiscally conservative politicians and causes. Reagan wanted to dramatically cut taxes in order to "starve the beast" (by cutting off funds for government). Obama wants to starve his political opposition by taxing them to death. OVERWHELM THE SYSTEM.

With the acts outlined above, Obama and his regime have created a vast and rapidly expanding constituency of voters dependent on big government; a vast privileged class of public employees who work for big government; and a government dedicated to destroying capitalism and installing themselves as socialist rulers by OVERWHELMING THE SYSTEM.

My God...Add it up and you've got the perfect Marxist scheme.

Only one thing stands in their way - you and me, the American taxpayers. If we want to save the greatest country and economic system in world history, we had better get busy. We had better fight back hard. Our children and grandchildren's futures are at stake. And please don't assume the GOP is the answer. They had their chance. Bush spent irresponsibly; Bush never vetoed a single spending bill; Bush supported bailouts, earmarks and stimulus; Bush was responsible for the Medicare expansion; Bush spent a trillion dollars on two never-ending wars; Bush was the disaster that opened the door for Obama.

The answer is to support true fiscal conservatives who understand that national debt is the real global threat to our survival. Libertarians who truly support economic freedom are the real Tea Party candidates who want to truly change "business as usual" in Washington D.C. Libertarians don't just talk the talk- we walk the walk. On November 2nd let's throw every incumbent in Congress out (with a few exceptions like Ron Paul)...and if the new class let's us down...let's throw them all out again in 2012. Eventually they'll get the message- the citizens are in charge.
Wayne Allyn Root was the 2008 Libertarian Vice Presidential candidate. His new book is entitled, "The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gambling & Tax Cuts." For more information on Wayne, please visit Wayne's web site at: ROOTforAmerica.com