Basketball vs Revolution and Disaster

Interesting (and concerning) that during this time of global difficulty, our President has little time for anything other than basketball.

He spoke a few weeks ago, encouraging the youth of the middle east to rise up and demonstrate. Now that Libya is in flames, he is silent.

Japan has experienced their worst disaster of any kind since World War II, but they are handling it peacefully. No violence, no protests, no looting. And our President is silent.

Instead, he attends basketball games and releases his picks for March Madness.

Oil Rig Sinking

Well, I feel a little bit better in one way, though not so much in another.

On the one hand, at least I'm not the only one thinking this, but on the other hand, if it's true, that's scary.

I just heard a local (relatively local, in Tennessee, but nationally-syndicated) radio host say that he was thinking the same thing.

OK, I'm leading in to something.

I was simply thinking that it seems quite a coincidence that we've had a lot of mining disasters in the past year or so. And now, we've had an oil rig sink, resulting in probably a bigger oil spill than the Exxon Valdez.

This particular oil rig survived the brunt of Katrina. We know it was in the path for that. It was probably in the path for a lot more, like Ivan (which I was in Pensacola FL during). And now the pressure from fire hoses from fire boats was enough to break it off its moorings and cause it to sink? Really? After an unexplained fire?

Is it just coincidence that we've had all these situations, right now as those in political power are pushing for restrictions and fees on fossil fuels?

Is it a coincidence that we had an oil rig mysteriously blow up and sink - and that the fail-safe auto-cap mechanism also mysteriously failed - and all without any ability to investigate what happened to either one?

And right after a President who has made no secret of his dislike of the petroleum industry, under strong pressure from members of his own political party, just approved research into off-shore drilling? A move that is now suspended indefinitely, making him look like he was on the right side all along?

A President who has worked all his political life among "community organizer" groups who are used to "heavy-handed" tactics to get their way?

A President who has worked all his political life in and around Chicago, the home of political corruption perhaps only second to New Orleans?

Which is, coincidentally, the home of the group he worked with most of his working life, ACORN, and their brother group, SEIU. And, coincidentally, where the oil rig incident occurred.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm no conspiracy nut. I tend to believe people mean exactly what they say, until proven otherwise. And I tend to believe the Ockham's Razor theory - that if there are two possibilities, the simpler answer is more likely the correct answer.

But you also know what they say about something that seems like too much of a coincidence...

33 Mine Accidents; Coincidental?

There have been 33 mine accidents so far this year, with associated investigations into operational safety, and it's only April.

President Obama hates coal mining. In a discussion on energy (back a while, concerning Cap and Trade), he said he was going to put coal mining out of business.

President Obama is very close with union thug organizations (SEUI and the group formerly known as ACORN).

Conspiracy fans could go nuts.

Arizona declares illegal activity to be illegal

Arizona just declared the federally-illegal activity of crossing the border illegally to be against state law.

Then President Obama promptly says that's unfair, and he orders the courts to look into the Constitutionality of the new law.

The Constitutionality of enforcing the existing law? Come on!

Healthcare: They'll "Do Whatever It Takes"

Well, President Obama and Speaker Pelosi have exposed a little more about themselves.

They have both said that they'll do "whatever it takes" to pass comprehensive government-regulated healthcare.

The problem is what it is "taking: things that are unconstitutional, and things that used to be considered illegal.

Things that are unconstitutional, like:

Requiring everyone to purchase something just for being a citizen.

Everyone makes the comparison with car insurance, but that's not accurate. For one, the law (which is state law, by the way, not federal) does not require comprehensive insurance; only other people are protected, not the owner. On the side of health care, other people were already protected from an individual's actions -- under criminal and tort law.

Secondly, auto insurance does not include wear-and-tear on the vehicle. That's the range of warranties and "extended warranties", and no state requires a car owner purchase or maintain an extended warranty on his or her car.

And things that are illegal, like:

Giving Congressmen Federal jobs if they promise to vote the "right" way. One Congressman has been promised the ambassadorship to NATO. One has been promised the administration of of NASA (they have an "administrator" rather than a "director").

These aren't "iffy" things like pork benefits to the Congressman's district that indirectly benefit the Congressman him/herself -- these are things that reasonably have cash value, since a job, even a cushy, appointed job, involves a salary. In fact, the cushy ones tend to have more monetary value than the others, since they also tend to have perks. NATO is based in Belgium -- a nice spot for a vacation home, from what I understand. And a vacation home paid for by other people that is, us, the tax-payers) is so-much-the-better.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has promised to "kick through the door" to pass this regulation. The problem is that it's the door to someone else's house. And she knows it. And she doesn't care -- she wants in. And she wants everything you've got, so she can give it all away to her friends.

Get ready -- she's kicking on your door, and she's got a freight truck with her.

State of the Union: Brief summary

Didn't comment yesterday on this - the State of the Union speech went late, and I didn't think to post then.

Summary: Lots of promises, most of which have already been repeatedly broken. Things like:

Full transparency. The President -- not just Congress and Senate, who have done it too -- has had closed-door meetings on healthcare. This is is not exactly an issue of national security, so that can't be used as an excuse. And he specifically promised that all discussions would be carried on C-SPAN, but not only were the meetings not on C-SPAN, but he didn't even allow the press to attend.

No favors or earmarks. Not only has he signed bills containing THOUSANDS of earmarks, he himself negotiated exemptions for unions from healthcare taxes.

Get all lobbyists out of Washington. He has appointed lobbyists to his own cabinet!

Allow gays to openly serve in the military. Whether you agree or not, he has promised it. And it came up a few months ago. And he specifically decided make the change. In the State of the Union speech, he said he would repeal the law -- but it's not a law, it's a policy. and as such, he can change that with a stroke of his pen. But he chose not to do it, despite his promises.

Oh, and he continued to blame his problems on Bush, uh, inherited issues. He has been President for over a full year now. They're his issues now. And many of the issues we have, he actually created himself. While the TARP program might have come under Bush (and I do blame Bush for it as well), he did vote for it.

Promised Transparency? Clear as Concrete...

President Obama promised that all healthcare discussions would be televised live on C-SPAN.

The Congress did not do that, but the President could not control whether or not they would comply with his own promise.

This week, President Obama had healthcare meetings at the White House. This was his opportunity to fulfill his promise. Did he? Were all discussions carried on C-SPAN?

Not only were the meetings NOT televised, but no reporters -- at all -- were even allowed in the room.

But we know one thing that came out of the meeting. The unions were promised that they will be exempted from the taxes on "high-value" health insurance that everyone else will have to pay.

Deadliest month in Middle East, still no decision by President

With the recent deaths in Afghanistan, this month is the deadliest since the war in the Middle East started in 2002. And the deadliest since...well...August.

What do these months have in common? Simple - both months went without the reinforcements requested by the commanders in the field. Reinforcements requested formally in July and repeatedly requested in briefings since May.

Ummm, didn't Candidate Obama say that he, unlike his predecessor, would LISTEN to his commanders in the field? Didn't he say that he would do what it takes to complete the operation in Afghanistan?

Looks like Bush and Obama have more in common than they like to admit. They both dragged out this war without defined objectives and without giving their commanders what they need to get the job done. And they have both stood idly by as men and women of our armed forces die almost daily.

Get it done or get out. I don't care what your party is. Get it done or get out.

President Obama: Act of Treason?

President Obama is planning to sign a UN global warming treaty.

The problem is, under the US Constitution, the President does not have authority to sign any treaties until first ratified by 2/3 of the Senate. And with the current members of the Senate, such a treaty will never get anywhere close to a 67/23 vote. Or, not in favor of it anyway. The Senate recognizes that their constituents are so firmly against such a thing that they will never approve it, and even if ALL the Democrats did vote for it (which they won't; the "blue dog" Democrats won't vote for it), there are enough Republicans (even after discounting the RINOs ["Republican In Name Only]) to ensure any such UN treaty to ensure a firm rejection.

Without this authority, the President is undermining the government and meeting the very definition of treason.

Perfect example of Liberalism

We have just been handed a perfect example of one side of Liberalism.

That side? Liberalism considered talk to be the same as action.

President Obama has just been given the Nobel Peace Prize. It was given to him for giving "hope for a better future", including reducing nuclear arms and talking with Iran about peace.

But Obama has only TALKED about reducing nuclear arms (which will not actually improve peace, since the radical nations will not give up theirs, but that's another matter), and he has TALKED about meeting with Iran. He has not actually done EITHER. Other Presidents have DONE both; Obama has TALKED about doing both.

ACORN: Promoting prostitution, including child prostitution

News broken this morning:

ACORN, the organization that President Obama worked for as an attorney and "community organizer", the organization that has been given charge of the 2010 census by the White House - and the organization that has been charged in many states with election fraud...

ACORN - has been caught on tape with several members, not just a "rogue" employee, actually showing people how to engage in prostitution, including child prostitution, and how to do so with the appearance of legality.

They said to report the business activity as "performing arts", and to register the children as dependents for tax credit.

This group is getting MILLIONS, maybe even BILLIONS of dollars from US, the American taxpayers.

We've seen before how they register people like "Mickey Mouse" and others as voters.

We've seen how they bus people in from out of state to vote in places where advance registration is not required.

We've seen them organize protests and bus tours of the AIG executive homes, to make it seem that the general public was upset.

We've seen them "participate" at town hall forums concerning the President's healthcare agenda and we've seen them yell and get violent, so as to give the impression that those who object to the plan were unruly - when it was actually ACORN (and SEIU) people doing it all along.

And now we see them showing others how to do what they do best - how to game the system for personal benefit, even when the "personal benefits" are clearly and notoriously illegal.

Transparent and Ethical Government as promised?

AmeriCorps is a public service organization under the Federal Government.

President Obama just fired the Inspector General of AmeriCorps. Why? He was "confused and disoriented". What's that mean? Is that like Joe Biden is everytime he speaks publicly? Or like Obama is everytime he doesn't have his teleprompter?

Obama sent notification to the Senate seven days after the firing. Part of the problem is that a law THAT OBAMA SIGNED requires 30-days advance notice is to be given to the Senate before starting procedures to fire any Inspector General. In other words, President Obama expressly broke the law, and a law he himself approved.

Why was Inspector General Walpin fired? Because the board of directors wanted him fired. Why did they want him fired? Because he had just investigated an organization for misuse of taxpayer funds provided by AmeriCorps. That organization, the St. HOPE Academy of Sacramento, was founded by an Obama supporter who used the $850,000 he got from AmeriCorp (for arts programs) for things like increasing salaries for his organization and personal car washes. After the investigation, While St. HOPE was not charged criminally, they agreed to repay half the grants.

In other words, Inspector General Walpin was doing his job, investigating misuse of taxpayer funds. But it turned out that those he was investigating supported Obama. And he was fired, without valid reason and directly contrary to the law.

Reference: http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/06/16/obama-accuses-fired-inspector-general-of-americorps-of-being-confused-disoriented

Pay controls for everyone

The President's office has just announced pay "guidelines" that apply to all employees at all public companies. Not just financial companies, not just companies that accepted bailout funds. Everyone.

Do you expect executives for companies that have been growing and making lots of money will keep working hard when their pay is cut? Do you think they will work hard to keep as many jobs as they can? Will they work to keep costs down so they can keep wages high?

Why should they try to keep employee wages up if the government will mandate lower wages?

Do you work at a fast-food restaurant or big box store? Any job that could be considered entry-level? Do you want to have your pay changed to minimum wage?

This is un-Constitutional. There is no provision in the Constitution for government to get involved in regulating business. At all.

If the Federal government wants to tie wages to performance, let them start at home. Cut Congressional pay rates. Tie the President's pay to performance - as the economy dries up, let his pay dry up. Drop the excuses blaming everything on a guy who left office in January when you've effectively been in charge since last November. Try pay for performance there first before you mandate it on everyone else in the country and kill off what economy we still have.

The President seeks to appease a religion?!?

Why does our President feel it necessary to appease a religion, to meet with leaders of that religion, fly to nations with majorities of that religion, and have long, extended speeches specifically to speak to members of that religion?

He flew to Egypt to speak to "the Muslim world". Not the Arab world, not the middle eastern world. The Muslim world. Did he fly to Italy to speak to "the Catholic world"? Did he fly to Israel to speak to "the Orthodox Jewish world"? Did he fly to Germany to speak to "the Lutheran world"? Did he fly to Japan to speak to "the Buddhist world"?

Then why select one specific religion to speak to? Repeatedly? And specifically to apologize to them? On two separate world tours?