Category Archives: 2009 Stimulus Bill

Charles Krauthammer, What Scott Brown’s win means for the Democrats, January 22, 2010, Obama ABC interview, Democrats delusional, Obama and Democrats blame Bush, Obama blames insurance companies

From the Washington Post, January 22, 2010, Charles Krauthammer.

“What Scott Brown’s win means for the Democrats”

“On Jan. 14, five days before the Massachusetts special election, President Obama was in full bring-it-on mode as he rallied House Democrats behind his health-care reform. “If Republicans want to campaign against what we’ve done by standing up for the status quo and for insurance companies over American families and businesses, that is a fight I want to have.”
The bravado lasted three days. When Obama campaigned in Boston on Jan. 17 for Obamacare supporter Martha Coakley, not once did he mention the health-care bill. When your candidate is sinking, you don’t throw her a millstone.

After Coakley’s defeat, Obama pretended that the real cause was a generalized anger and frustration “not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years, but what’s happened over the last eight years.”

Let’s get this straight: The antipathy to George W. Bush is so enduring and powerful that . . . it just elected a Republican senator in Massachusetts? Why, the man is omnipotent.

And the Democrats are delusional: Scott Brown won by running against Obama, not Bush. He won by brilliantly nationalizing the race, running hard against the Obama agenda, most notably Obamacare. Killing it was his No. 1 campaign promise.

Bull’s-eye. An astonishing 56 percent of Massachusetts voters, according to a Rasmussen poll, called health care their top issue. In a Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates poll, 78 percent of Brown voters said their vote was intended to stop Obamacare. Only a quarter of all voters in the Rasmussen poll cited the economy as their top issue, nicely refuting the Democratic view that Massachusetts was just the usual anti-incumbent resentment you expect in bad economic times.”

“The reason both wings of American liberalism — congressional and mainstream media — were so surprised at the force of anti-Democratic sentiment is that they’d spent Obama’s first year either ignoring or disdaining the clear early signs of resistance: the tea-party movement of the spring and the town-hall meetings of the summer. With characteristic condescension, they contemptuously dismissed the protests as the mere excrescences of a redneck, retrograde, probably racist rabble.”

“Democrats must so rationalize, otherwise they must take democracy seriously, and ask themselves: If the people really don’t want it, could they possibly have a point?

“If you lose Massachusetts and that’s not a wake-up call,” said moderate — and sentient — Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, “there’s no hope of waking up.””

Read more:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012103500.html

 

Obama ABC George Stephanopoulos interview, Obama blames Bush for MA senate loss

Thanks to commenter Patriot Dreamer

Parker Griffith announcement, Switches parties, Griffith Republican, Griffith leaves Democrat party, Health care bill bad for doctors

Representative Parker Griffith of Alabama announces his switch from the Democrat to Republican party.

Parker Griffith did not just vote against the Health care bill and other harmful legislation, he sent a strong signal that the Democrat party is not good for this country.

From CBS News blog, December 22, 2009.

“Parker Griffith, Democratic Representative, Switches Parties to GOP”

“Rep. Parker Griffith, a freshman Democrat from Alabama, announced Tuesday that he is switching parties to become a Republican.

“I believe our nation is at a crossroads and I can no longer align myself with a party that continues to pursue legislation that is bad for our country, hurts our economy, and drives us further and further into debt,” Griffith, 67, said at a press conference at his home, according to the Associated Press.

Some aren’t surprised by Griffith’s switch. He has voted against all major Democratic initiatives this year, including the stimulus, cap and trade and health care bills.

He’s also spoken out against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, saying that he would not vote for her to be speaker again.”

“A radiation oncologist, Griffith cited the Democrats’ health care plans as a reason for his switch. He was one of 39 Democrats to vote against the bill in the House last month.

“I want to make it perfectly clear that this bill is bad for our doctors,” he said at the press conference, according to the AP. “It’s bad for our patients. It’s bad for the young men and women who are considering going into the health care field.”

“The success of Republicans in the off-year elections last month also appears to be a reason for his decision to switch parties. Griffith told Politico then that he wanted to be called an independent Blue Dog, not a Democrat. “I should be nervous,” he added.”

“When a Member of Congress decides to leave a 258 seat majority to join a deep minority, it is a sure sign that the majority party has become completely disconnected from seniors, young workers, and families in America,” Cantor said in a statement. “We welcome Parker Griffith to the Republican Conference, and will continue to stand and fight against the damaging agenda of this Administration working in tandem with the Pelosi/Reid run Congress.”

“Parker Griffith is a dedicated public servant who has consistently put the best interests of his constituents first, and it is in that spirit that Republicans welcome him,” Boehner added. “With today’s decision, Congressman Griffith has added his voice to the growing chorus of Americans who have had it with Democrats’ wrong-headed policies and lack of leadership.””

Read more:

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/22/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6009974.shtml

Parker Griffith Republican congressman, Griffith switches to GOP, Alabama representative Griffith at odds with Democrat Party, Health care bill, Huntsville AL district

From Politico, December 22, 2009.

“Rep. Parker Griffith switches to GOP”

“POLITICO learns Rep. Parker Griffith will announce today that he’s switching parties to become a Republican.”

“POLITICO has learned that Rep. Parker Griffith, a freshman Democrat from Alabama, will announce today that he’s switching parties to become a Republican.
According to two senior GOP aides familiar with the decision, the announcement will take place this afternoon in Griffith’s district in northern Alabama.
Griffith’s party switch comes on the eve of a pivotal congressional health care vote and will send a jolt through a Democratic House Caucus that has already been unnerved by the recent retirements of a handful of members who, like Griffith, hail from districts that offer prime pickup opportunities for the GOP in 2010.
The switch represents a coup for the House Republican leadership, which had been courting Griffith since he publicly criticized the Democratic leadership in the wake of raucous town halls during the summer.
Griffith, who captured the seat in a close 2008 open seat contest, will become the first Republican to hold the historically Democratic, Huntsville-based district. A radiation oncologist who founded a cancer treatment center, Griffith plans to blast the Democratic health care bill as a prime reason for his decision to switch parties—and is expected to cite his medical background as his authority on the subject.”

“Signs of Griffith’s dissatisfaction with his party began to surface publicly during the summer recess, when he received an earful of criticism from constituents.
In August — one month after Republicans picked up his former state legislative seat in a special election — Griffith told a local newspaper that he wouldn’t vote for Nancy Pelosi to remain as House Speaker because she’s too divisive. He joked that if she didn’t like it, he’d provide her with a gift certificate to a mental health center.
He added that if the Democratic leadership wouldn’t commit to working in a more bipartisan manner, “perhaps we should look at altering that.””

Read more:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30896.html

Thanks to commenter Patriot Dreamer.

Obama, Federal government will go bankrupt, December 16, 2009, ABC News, Charles Gibson, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Health care taxes needed, Obama fears 2010 2012 elections

Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the rest of the out of control socialist, Democrat controlled Congress, have been spending taxpayer money at a rate that would bankrupt any cash flow. Today, Hillary Clinton, speaking in Copenhagen, committed $ 100 billion to poor countries for climate change. Yesterday, December 16, 2009, Barack Obama stated during a Charlie Gibson interview on ABC News that failure to pass the Senate Health Care Bill will bankrupt the federal government.

Barack Obama’s intent was to scare senators and citizens into believing that voting for the Senate Health Care Bill is an emergency necessity and no brainer. However, Obama “let the cat out of the bag.”

This is really about the 2010 and 2012 elections and presenting a more favorable deficit position to voters.

How does this work?

Remember, our taxes will go up immediately but benefits (and probably some problems)  from the new health care plan will not kick in for approximately three years. How convenient for Obama. More money will enter the Treasury and he can continue to talk about the pie in the sky benefits of the new plan without experiencing all of the negative impacts.

John Charlton at the Post & Email sheds some light on Obama’s remarks.

“DESPERATION AT SEEING HEALTH CARE BILL DIE IN THE SENATE, HURLS INFANTILE THREAT”

“The Post & Email featured an exposé on Obama’s politics of fraud today, wherein he claims one thing and works for the opposite agenda.

Last night during his interview on ABC with Gibson, Obama was up to his old tricks.  Desperate that his Health Care Bill might die in the Senate, he threw a childish tantrum, threatening the nation that if the Health Care Bill is not passed the Federal Government will “go  bankrupt”!

Not a word that the massive spending increases he has pushed through in 2009 early doubling the national debt; the Health Care Bill included.

Obama is desperate.  The Health Care Bill has nothing to do with preventing the increase of the Federal debt.  It has everything to do with causing it.

It likewise has nothing to do with solving the health care problem, it has everything to do with imposing his power upon every individual and creating a pretext to deny care and thus murder anyone in the country.

Noted doctors have come forward and said that with Obama Care life expectancy will fall for all Americans.  Rationed health care means death.  I can testify to it personally, since I had a good friend, who was an M.D., but who lived in Europe where medicine is rationed, die this year because they scheduled his heart check up 3 days too late!

Socialized medicine is nothing but state control over life and death, and it results in the deaths of 10’s of thousands annually in each country where it is imposed, out of sheer bureaucratic negligence.”

“The Post & Email surmises that Obama’s desperation comes from the fact that Congressman Nathan Deal and his colleagues wrote him a letter asking for his original vital records, and that leading supporters who once believed all of his lies, now realize that he is in an untenable position if he fails to disclose them.”

Read more:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/12/17/obama-throws-a-govt-will-go-bankrupped-tantrum/

Obama grade, Real grade F -, Narcissist, Liar, Real grade not president, David Limbaugh, If B’s Were F’s Obama Still Wouldn’t Deserve a B-Plus

Barack Obama, the narcissist, liar, illegal, usurper occupant of the White House, believes that he deserves a grade of B plus for his performance. If he truly believes this, he is also still using drugs.

From David Limbaugh, December 14, 2009.

“If B’s Were F’s, Obama Still Wouldn’t Deserve a B-Plus”

“It’s bad enough for America that President Barack Obama is a committed far-left ideologue, but when you couple that with his narcissism, you’ve got a recipe for a major disaster.

He told Oprah Winfrey he deserves “a good solid B-plus” for his first year in office. The only things standing in his way for that coveted A are — for the most part — other people, such as evil Republicans who oppose socialized medicine.

It’s obvious that Obama is as self-absorbed as he is delusional. While most Americans are worried about the financial destruction of our country and our resulting inability to bequeath our heirs a land of liberty, Obama is fretting over the stresses the job is placing on him.

“The biggest burden on me right now is that economic growth has happened, but job growth has not happened.” Note the “burden on me.” Similarly, he said his painfully belabored decision to send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan hit him “in the gut.”

Obama insists economic growth has returned and job recovery is just a matter of time, but many are not so sure of either. But all are sure that his unwavering debt path is unsustainable and suicidal.

When the George W. Bush economy was humming for almost eight years, Obama and his media friends gave Bush no credit because, they said, we were experiencing “jobless growth.” These partisan charlatans characterized 4.5 percent unemployment as “joblessness.” What does that make 10 percent — especially in light of Obama’s promise to keep it less than 8 percent?

Shouldn’t Obama be held to the same standard that he and his liberal friends set for President Bush? A June 10, 2007, editorial by George F. Will had it just right: “In 2002, when (Bush’s) tax cuts kicked in and the economy began 65 months — so far — of uninterrupted growth, critics said: But it is a ‘jobless recovery,’ (even though) the unemployment rate steadily declined (to) 4.5 percent.””

“How he can give himself credit for Iraq is beyond comprehension. He vigorously opposed the surge, which everyone acknowledges turned the war around, and he steadfastly refused to admit he was wrong. Our withdrawal from Iraq is only possible because wiser heads prevailed. As for Afghanistan, he ultimately made the right decision to listen to the generals — partially. He refused to send the number of troops they requested, demoralized our forces and emboldened the enemy in needlessly delaying his decision, and telegraphed our lukewarm commitment to the war by setting a short-term withdrawal date just as he was increasing troop deployments.

How about Obama’s restoration of America’s image? Well, he’s gone around the world telling people how terrible we are — not exactly the smartest PR move. He’s consistently insulted our greatest ally, Britain; a Wall Street Journal article this week notes that he snubbed Britain by failing to mention its support in Afghanistan while touting nations offering less support. He disses our ally Israel, treating it as a terrorist nation and demanding that it unilaterally cease settlements in a portion of its own land.

And how about Obama’s promotion of cap and trade in the midst of ClimateGate, his refusal to back down on Obamacare despite 56 percent public opposition, and his plan to spend the billions of TARP repayments while the nation is on the brink of bankruptcy from his spending?”

Read more:

http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/mt/archives/2009/12/new_column_if_b.html#more

Two words define Barack Obama

Narcissism

Lies

Obama lies, Mortgage crisis, Unemployment, December 14, 2009, Obama Bankers meeting, ACORN, Democrats, Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Obama ACORN and Democrats caused housing and jobs crisis

“ACORN’s alliance with the Democratic Party is at the root of the current financial meltdown. And Barack Obama has stayed true to ACORN’s ways.”…Stanley Kurtz

 

Obama

Lies

Mortgage, Unemployment Crisis

Who is to blame?

 

The lying, SOB, usurper, Barack Obama is meeting with bankers today. Obama is attempting, once again, to coerce banks to lend money to people who cannot afford the loans. Consistent with his trend of lying, he blames the bankers for the mortgage and unemployment crisis.

However, facts and reality are not on Obama’s side.

The Citizen Wells has provided numerous articles on ACORN corruption, ACORN’s involvement in pressuring banks to make risky loans and Barack Obama’s long time ties to ACORN.

An article dated September 15, 2009 is loaded with facts that indict Obama and ACORN.

October 8, 2008 – Straight from the horse’s mouth

“ACORN Report
The ACORN Report is published by ACORN’s National Office and contains up-to-date information. We have ACORN Reports indexed by date and topic available.”

“City Limits February 1999
During its 15 years in New York City, ACORN has helped squatters claim derelict city-owned property, forced bankers to invest in low-income communities, and organized a war against the city’s workfare program.

It’s also developed a reputation for no-holds-barred tactics—getting results through adversarial campaigns against bankers, politicians and bureaucrats using confrontation and concession rather than consensus. ACORN, unlike most social service non-profits, scorns charity. Their goal is to help poor people seize power.”

This comes straight from the Acorn national office.
Note the following:

“Their goal is to help poor people seize power”

October 13, 2008 – Acorn contribution to mortgage crisis

“FOR years, ACORN had combined manipulation of the CRA with intimidation-protest tactics to force banks to lower credit standards. Its crusade, with help from Democrats in Congress, to push these high-risk “subprime” loans on banks is at the root of today’s economic meltdown.””

““Instead, Democrats like Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Reps. Kennedy and Waters allied with the Clinton administration to broaden the acceptability of risky subprime loans throughout the financial system, thus precipitating our current crisis.

ACORN had come to Congress not only to protect the CRA from GOP reforms but also to expand the reach of quota-based lending to Fannie, Freddie and beyond. By steamrolling the GOP that March, it had crushed the last potential barrier to “change.”””

““ACORN’s alliance with the Democratic Party is at the root of the current financial meltdown. And Barack Obama has stayed true to ACORN’s ways.””

The Truth about Obama and ACORN

September 28, 2009 – Bank of America and other banks ignored warnings

“Do any Catholics work for Bank of America?
From Catholic News Service October 16, 2008.

“Bank of America takes recent allegations made against Acorn and Acorn Housing Corporation employees very seriously,”
What planet has Bank of America been on the past year?

Is this indicative of the power of the mainstream media?

Was Bank of America controlled by the Democrats or Obama camp?

No wonder Bank of America had financial problems.”

Bank of America ignored warnings

Fox News reports on Obama meeting with bankers, December 14, 2009

“White House Tells Bankers to Boost Lending After Bailout Successes”

“President Obama is calling on the financial industry to help dig the economy out of the pit the White House says it helped create, as the president and bank executives headed into a potentially tense meeting Monday morning.”

“The president set the tone for the meeting in an interview broadcast the night before in which he called Wall Street bankers “fat cats” whom he has little obligation to help. In response, the bankers plan to tell the president to stop oversimplifying their concerns.”

“”What the president’s going to say to the bankers is, you guys were part of the problem, you helped create an economic crisis here that cost 7 million Americans their jobs and now you have to be part of the solution,” White House senior adviser David Axelrod said on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

Axelrod said the industry has to “accelerate lending to credible small businesses” and suggested Congress would take harsh action against the sector if it does not.

“People are not going to tolerate a situation where the bankers have a party, they pick up the tab and then the bankers pay themselves huge bonuses and they’re not lending,” Axelrod said, adding that bankers should be awarded with long-term stock as opposed to up-front cash bonuses.

The White House also wants Wall Street to fall in line with Obama and back a proposal for a consumer protection agency that cleared the House last week.”

“”He can say what he wants, but we’re not going to go back to the kind of lending that put us in this mess,” said a person who is helping prepare executives for the meeting but spoke anonymously because of lack of authorization to discuss the plans.”

Read more:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/14/obama-slams-fat-cat-bankers-eve-meeting/

I, for one, am fed up with the lies and manipulation coming from the lying SOB Obama and cronies such as David Axelrod. I am asking you to spread this information far and wide. The American people must know the truth.

Michele Bachmann warning, Breaking News, ACORN, TARP II, CFPA Oversight Board, Barney Frank, Democrats, Taxpayer bailouts permanent solution, systemic risk regulator, Breitbart TV interview

Representative Michele Bachmann has put out an urgent plea to stop a dangerous bill about to be voted on.

From Michele Bachmann’s site.

“Bachmann: House Preserves ACORN’s Role in TARP II

 
 
Washington, D.C., Dec 10 –

(Washington, D.C.) U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (MN-06), member of the House Financial Services Committee, made the following statement after the Democrat Leadership denied the entire House an opportunity to vote on her amendment to prevent ACORN from participating in the Consumer Financial Protection Agency’s Oversight Board.  The Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) is an expansive new government bureaucracy with far-reaching powers to make decisions for consumers about the kinds of mortgages, small business loans, and other financial products they may access.  The Oversight Board will be tasked with advising the Agency’s director on strategies and policies.

“An organization that has repeatedly shown an inability to adhere to even the most basic standards of ethics should not have a role in overseeing our nation’s financial system,” said Bachmann.  “By rejecting consideration of my amendment, the Democrat Majority protected ACORN instead of American taxpayers and investors.”

In recent months, the IRS, U.S. Census Bureau, and Congress have taken numerous actions to sever ties with ACORN.  In fact, less than two months ago, the House Financial Services Committee accepted another amendment offered by Bachmann that would prevent ACORN from serving on a similar board established in the exact same bill under consideration this week.

“There is a clear consensus amongst the American people that ACORN is unfit to receive federal funds and partner with federal organizations.  The Democrat Leadership’s decision today robs Congress from having the opportunity to take an up-or-down vote on my amendment and keep ACORN out of our financial markets,” said Bachmann.”

Star Tribune: Giving more power where power is not due
Wall Street and bureaucracy would benefit from pending reform.

 
Washington, D.C., Dec 11 –

The majority of Americans last fall were united against the $700 billion Wall Street bailout known as TARP. Proponents of the bill urged immediate action, claiming that a failure to act quickly would send the financial industry over the brink. They promised to examine the root cause of the crisis once financial markets were secure. One year later, the House is considering legislation that will result in the most far-reaching reforms of the financial services industry in our nation’s history.

But instead of addressing the real causes of the financial collapse and fixing bad government policies that led to the crisis, congressional Democrats want to codify the fiscally irresponsible bailout mania. Their bill would make taxpayer bailouts the permanent solution for dealing with reckless financial institutions in the future.

The 1,300-plus-page bill the House is scheduled to vote on today creates a “systemic risk regulator” tasked with determining which firms meet an undefined “too big to fail” test. It allows the government to tap a multibillion-dollar bailout fund to save troubled firms whenever it wants. This fund will be initially financed by a massive new tax on financial institutions and is expected to take $55 billion out of the hands of small businesses and job creators, leading to a loss of as many as 450,000 jobs. Should that fund run dry, taxpayers are on the hook to replenish it. And unlike TARP, this bill authorizes the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve to completely bypass congressional approval and directly provide such lifelines to flailing firms.

The moral hazard this bill creates will ripple through the entire financial marketplace. Providing banks with a bailout guarantee will perpetuate a cycle of irresponsibility, shielding creditors from taking the fall for making risky decisions and forcing taxpayers to ante up again and again.

Rather than increasing transparency within the Federal Reserve and directing it to focus on the nation’s monetary policy, this bill drastically expands the powers of the Fed to intervene in the private marketplace. But the Federal Reserve has already proven its inability to preemptively catch systemic risks as demonstrated by the financial crisis that occurred under its watch. Giving more power to government bureaucracies that have failed in the past will do nothing to stabilize our markets.

I support an alternative plan that addresses both the core problems in our financial system and promises American taxpayers that they will not be on the hook for Wall Street’s mistakes ever again. Three key principles guide this proposal: 1) It ends government bailouts of financial institutions; 2) It stops allowing the government to pick winners and losers in the financial industry; and 3) It reinstates market discipline by removing moral hazards that exist today.

Minnesotans know when Washington is trying to pull a fast one. While the government takeover of health care and total lack of job growth is at the forefront of everyone’s minds, we cannot let this permanent bailout legislation slip through Congress without a fight.”

http://bachmann.house.gov/News/

Must hear interview of Michele Bachmann

Breitbart TV

 

http://www.breitbart.tv/bachmann-on-the-b-cast-a-conservative-call-to-action/#

Thanks to commenter Katie.

Sarah Palin book tour, Rush Limbaugh interview, November 17, 2009, Going Rogue, Governor Palin interview, Republicans, Independents, Reagan

Sarah Palin, former vice presidential candidate, and now author of a new book, “Going Rogue”, was interviewed by Rush Limbaugh today, Tuesday, November 17, 2009.

Here are some exerpts from the transcripts:

“RUSH: We are going to open this hour with a rare personal interview, a rare guest.  It doesn’t happen much on this program, but we are happy to have with us former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, whose book, Going Rogue, hits the shelves today and it’s already headed for I think a record in sales.  Governor Palin, thanks for making time.  It’s great to talk to you again.  We spoke last Thursday in an interview for the Limbaugh Letter, but it’s great to have you here on the radio.
GOV. PALIN:  Hey, thank you so much, and dittos from an Alaskan.
RUSH:  Where are you, by the way?  Where are we speaking to you from? 
GOV. PALIN:  In a hotel room in New York City.  I’m going to do a couple of interviews after that and then head to Grand Rapids for the kickoff of the book tour.
RUSH:  This is going to be exciting.  Are you looking forward to that? 
GOV. PALIN:  I am so looking forward to this.  I cannot wait to meet some of these good Americans all across this country.  It’s going to be a blast.
RUSH:  They can’t wait to meet you, judging by the reception you got during the campaign.  Now, ladies and gentlemen, Governor Palin, when we spoke last Thursday I spoke to her a lot about the things in her book regarding the campaign.  That stuff you’ll read in the Limbaugh Letter, and I predicted to Governor Palin then that much of her book would be ignored in light of the dirt that she was supposedly dishing from the campaign.  So Governor Palin what I’d like to do here is go some different directions from what we did in the newsletter interview and start with the economy.  We have 10.2% unemployment.  We see no end in sight.  The administration and others are suggesting next year could be just as bad with unemployment going up to 11%.  What would you do differently than is being done now?
GOV. PALIN:  It’s over 10%, and in fact it could be closer to 17 or 18 when you consider those who have kind of given up and are not applying for unemployment benefits. So it’s bad, it’s really bad and then of course Fed Chair Bernanke announced that there are still weak job prospects for the very short term and probably long term, and that’s an uncomfortable place for our country to be.  What we need to do is shift gears and really head in another direction because what we’re doing right now with the Fed, it’s not working. We need to cut taxes on the job creators.  This is all about jobs, creating jobs.  We have to ramp up industry here in America, and of course reduce the federal debt, quit piling on and growing more.  But those commonsense solutions there, especially with the cutting taxes on the job creators, that’s not even being discussed.  In fact, increased taxes is the direction it sounds like Obama wants to go.
RUSH:  You mean that you don’t even hear it being discussed on the Republican side or within the administration?
GOV. PALIN:  Within the administration, and as it is discussed on the Republican side, Republicans need to be bolder about it.  Independents need to be bolder about that solution that has got to be considered and plugged in.  This is the only solution that will be successful.  We need to rehash some history that proves its success.  Let’s go back to what Reagan did in the early eighties and stay committed to those commonsense free market principles that worked.  He faced a tougher recession than what we’re facing today.  He cut those taxes, ramped up industry, and we pulled out of that recession.  We need to revisit that.
RUSH:  Why do you think this administration is ignoring that blueprint?  What is their ultimate objective here?  They’re sitting in the middle of abject failure of their number-one stated goal, and that’s job creation.  So what are they really trying to do here do you think?
GOV. PALIN:  Well, you wonder, you wonder because history proves what will work and you wonder if they’re realizing that and if it’s just perhaps a stubbornness at this point that they are so committed to going down this road of growing government and interjecting the Feds’ control in the private sector more and more, which will prove to be more failure.  I don’t know if it’s obstinate thinking that they’re engaged in right now or if they truly just do not believe what the free market, free enterprise economic solutions are that built up this country.
RUSH:  Do you think this is going to be a major issue in the congressional elections in 2010, and if so, how would you advise Republicans to pursue it?
GOV. PALIN:  It better be a major issue, absolutely.  Of course, national security will be, too, and hopefully we’ll talk a little bit about some of the decisions being made in that arena that cause so many of us concern but, yeah, the economy, that’s what it’s going to be because it’s all about jobs, it’s all about Americans who are hurting right now and what those solutions are that are so obvious, so commonsense that need to be plugged in.  And those are Republican, they’re commonsense conservative principles that we just need to apply.
RUSH:  New York-23 is being portrayed as a race in which you and I — because we supposedly went up there — handpicked Doug Hoffman, he supposedly lost, even though that race, they still haven’t finished counting the votes.  It’s two weeks!  This is not Chicago.  They haven’t finished counting the votes.  He says he wishes he could un-concede now.  But they’re trying to diminish conservatism, and I think in the process intimidate the Republican Party from going in that direction.  What’s your read on New York-23?
GOV. PALIN:  I think this is exciting.  It’s encouraging.  No matter the outcome even with his recount of some of those, well, uncounted ballots, it’s exciting that the race is going to be even closer, and it’s a clearer and clearer picture that what Americans are seeking, even in a district there in New York, they are seeking commonsense, conservative solutions to all the challenges that we’re facing.  I’m glad to see this.
RUSH:  So the positive thing there is that the Republican Party was rebuffed in nominating essentially a RINO, a liberal?

GOV. PALIN:  Well, I think what you saw there is — and of course it’s not just the Republican machine, it’s the Democrat machine, too.  You know, if you’re not the anointed one within the machine, sometimes you have a much tougher row to hoe and that’s what Hoffman faced. He was the underdog.  I think great timing for him, though, to stand strong on his conservative credentials and essentially come out of nowhere and prove that an American without that resume, without that machine backing can truly make a difference in an election like this.

RUSH:  Well, now, you used the term, “If you’re not the anointed one by the party machine, you’re the underdog and you have a tough row to hoe.”  Based on things that I read, the Republican establishment would not anoint you to be a nominee of their party should you choose to go that way.  I’m not asking you the question because I know you’re not going to answer and give away what your plans are in 2012.

GOV. PALIN: (chuckles)

RUSH: Do you consider yourself one of these unanointed ones within your own party?

GOV. PALIN:  Well, to some in both parties, politics is more of a business.  It’s not so much a commitment to an agenda or a person or values or issues.  It’s more of a business — and, no, I’m not a part of that.  So if they’re going to keep using that way of thinking in their decisions on who they anoint, who they will support or not then, no. I’ll never be a part of that. But hopefully we’re going to see a shift with independents, with the Republican Party and the Democrat Party, and we’re going to get back to what the issues are, what really matters, and then hopefully we’re going to go from there, which will be much fairer to the electorate.

RUSH:  All right, independents, slash, third party.  A lot of people — mistakenly, in my view — are looking at New York-23 as evidence that, see, a third party could actually do well. But that’s not a good example because there was no primary there.  As you said, the party bosses chose Dede Scozzafava on the Republican side and a Democrat.  Had there been a primary, New York-23 would not have been constituted as it was.  So what are your thoughts now on the viability of a third party if the Republican Party can’t be brought around?

GOV. PALIN:  You know, to be brutally honest, I think that it’s a bit naive when you talk about the pragmatism that has to be applied in America’s political system. And we are a two-party system. Ideally, sure, a third party or an independent party would be able to soar and thrive and put candidates forth and have them elected, but I don’t think America is ready for that.  I think that it is… Granted it’s quite conventional and traditional, but in a good way that we have our two parties, and I think that that’s what will remain. And I say that, though, acknowledging that I’m not an obsessive panther, I understand why people — good people like my own husband — refuse to register in a party. Todd’s not a Republican and yet he’s got more commonsense conservatism than a whole lot of Republicans that I know because he is one who sees the idiosyncrasies of the characters within the machine and it frustrates him along with a whole lot of other Americans who choose to be independent.  But in answer to your question, I don’t think that the third party movement will be what’s necessary to usher in some commonsense conservative ideals.”

Read more:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_111709/content/01125120.guest.html

New York City terrorist trial, US Constitution, 9/11 criminals, Al Qaeda, November 18, 2009 protest, Eric Holder, Larry Sinclair for Congress, Michele Bachmann, Jim DeMint, Trent Franks, Steve King

I oppose conducting the 9/11 terrorists trial in New York City because the defendants are war criminals and not US Citizens. They should be tried by a military tribunal or other setting appropriate for judging war criminals. Other people oppose trying them in NY for other reasons. I respect their wishes.

Larry Sinclair is running for Congress in Florida District 24. Larry Sinclair has a love for this country and much common sense. I spoke to Larry last night and we were in agreement. The 9/11 terrorists are not US Citizens and not entitled to the protection of the US Constitution.

This was posted here last night.

Wednesday, November 18, 9:30 am protest of 9/11 trial in New York City

“Dear Supporters,

Americans, it is time to unite, not as Republicans or Democrats, not as conservatives or liberals or progressives. It is time to unite as citizens.

President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have forgotten that their chief duty is the safety and the security of the American people. It is time for us to remind them.

AG Eric Holder will appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, November 18, to testify about the administration’s plan to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed back to the scene of Al Qaeda’s greatest single atrocity — Ground Zero — where he will brag about the slaughter of 3,000 innocent men, women and children and his lawyers will tell a “jury of his peers” that HE is a victim of the U.S. Government.

This is insanity.

Please join 9/11 Families for a Safe & Strong America, the firefighters of TheBravest.com and Keep America Safe in Washington, D.C. to tell Eric Holder, President Obama and their supporters in Congress: “We will fight you all the way!”

We know this is short notice, but that’s how the Administration planned it. They are counting on you just sitting this out, yelling at the cable news coverage of this outrage — instead of showing up and changing the narrative in the MSM echo chamber.

Where:
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room G-50
Constitution Avenue and 1st Street, NE
U.S. Capitol, Washington, D.C.

When:
Wednesday, November 18, 9:30 am (Get there at very early, as seating is limited.)

Who:
Attorney General Eric Holder

Sincerely,

Keep America Safe

P.S. Over 100,000 concerned Americans have joined us and signed our letter to President Obama. If you haven’t done so already, please read and sign the letter today!”

 
Today, Tuesday, November 17, 2009 at 11:00 a.m, at the House Triangle outside the U.S. Capitol
 
“TODAY REP MICHELE BACHMANN, SEN JIM DEMINT JOIN AMERICANS AGAINST GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER”

“Congresswomen Michele Bachmann (R- Minnesota), Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina), Congressman Trent Franks (R-Arizona), and Congressman Steve King (R-Iowa) are among those who are planning to be present at this event.

Janet Folger, founder and president of Faith2Action, will also be one of the participants in this press conference. “Pink slips nearly 3 times the size of the Washington Monument have already been delivered to Congress demanding that the government stay out of health care, energy, and speech,” declared Folger, “it’s encouraging to know that message is finally being heard-and not a moment too soon.”

Senator DeMint stated that “these pink slips are getting to people right now. It’s the only reason people haven’t passed something [the health care bill] in the Senate. …Keep it up and let’s keep trying to draw attention to it.”

Meanwhile, more than 4.5 million pink slip warning notices have already been sent to Congress by concerned citizens across the nation through WorldNetDaily and the website: www.SendCongressaPinkSlip.com.

“Placed end to end, the ‘pink slips’ would stretch from the District of Columbia to the Sears Tower in Chicago,” said Joseph Farah, CEO of WorldNetDaily, who will also be participating in the press conference.  “If stacked, the pile of pink would be taller than the Sears Tower itself.”

U.S. Representative Tom Price (R-Georgia) said, “They’re talking about it, but they’re only talking about it behind closed doors and in the elevators as they go up and down and in very whispered tones.  Because, what you hear are people saying, ‘How many of those did you get or how many people came to your office today? And what are you going to do and how are you going to vote on this?””

Gerald Walpin, Inspector General, Obama administration fired, Obama ally Kevin Johnson fraud, Sacramento Mayor, Walpin filed suit in federal court, Walpin cleared in probe

From the Hot Air blog, November 11, 2009.

“Walpin vindicated, will demand job back”

“In June, the White House fired Gerald Walpin as Inspector-General of the Corporation for National and Community Service after he objected to an unusually-favorable settlement of fraud charges against a Barack Obama ally in Sacramento.  The Obama administration insisted that Walpin got fired for instability and strongly hinted that Walpin was senile, but a series of actions against IGs seemed to show that Obama had decided to attack their independence.  Yesterday, the IGs struck back by clearing Walpin of the White House’s allegations through their professional board, and now Walpin wants his job back:”

“Among the documents was an Oct. 19 letter from the Integrity Committee of the Council of the Inspectors General for Integrity and Efficiency telling him that the probe against him had been closed.
“After carefully considering the allegations described in the complaint together with your response, the IC determined that the response sufficiently and satisfactorily addressed the matter and that further inquiry or an investigation regarding the matter was not warranted,” committee Chairman Kevin L. Perkins wrote.”

“The entire matter revolves around Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson and an earlier finding of fraud against him by the CNCS.  Johnson admitted that federal funds got misused and had to repay over $400,000.  Instead of barring Johnson from handling federal CNCS funds, which would have been the normal action but would have deprived Sacramento of those monies as long as Johnson was mayor, the White House overlooked it — and Walpin was determined to find out why.”
“For having the temerity to point out the obvious — that Johnson got favorable treatment because of his alliance with Obama — Walpin not only got fired, but also got slandered as non compos mentis when the White House decided to play The Chicago Way.  Had someone in a private corporation tried that in an employment dispute, this administration’s EEOC would have leaped to Walpin’s defense, filing charges of age discrimination faster than one can say Geritol.   Instead, Obama and his team decided to destroy Walpin for his independence as the first salvo against Inspectors General and independent review of executive power in the federal government.”

Read more:

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/11/walpin-vindicated-will-demand-job-back/