18
Oct
This is getting nuttier every day. In 1993, when the Democrats controlled everything in DC, they passed a piece of legislation that pretty much everyone hated. It was affectionately referred to as the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994“. Now, a lot of people don’t keep track of things like they should so I’ll remind everyone how the Senate voted:
| Akaka (D-HI), Yea Baucus (D-MT), Yea Bennett (R-UT), Yea Biden (D-DE), Yea Bingaman (D-NM), Yea Bond (R-MO), Yea Boren (D-OK), Yea Boxer (D-CA), Nay Bradley (D-NJ), Yea Breaux (D-LA), Yea Brown (R-CO), Nay Bryan (D-NV), Yea Bumpers (D-AR), Yea Burns (R-MT), Yea Byrd (D-WV), Yea Campbell (D-CO), Yea Chafee (R-RI), Yea Coats (R-IN), Yea Cochran (R-MS), Yea Cohen (R-ME), Yea Conrad (D-ND), Yea Coverdell (R-GA), Nay Craig (R-ID), Yea D’Amato (R-NY), Nay Danforth (R-MO), Yea Daschle (D-SD), Yea DeConcini (D-AZ), Yea Dodd (D-CT), Yea Dole (R-KS), Nay Domenici (R-NM), Nay Dorgan (D-ND), Not Voting Durenberger (R-MN), Yea Exon (D-NE), Yea Faircloth (R-NC), Yea |
Feingold (D-WI), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Yea Ford (D-KY), Yea Glenn (D-OH), Yea Gorton (R-WA), Nay Graham (D-FL), Yea Gramm (R-TX), Nay Grassley (R-IA), Yea Gregg (R-NH), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Nay Hatfield (R-OR), Nay Heflin (D-AL), Yea Helms (R-NC), Nay Hollings (D-SC), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea Inouye (D-HI), Yea Jeffords (R-VT), Yea Johnston (D-LA), Yea Kassebaum (R-KS), Yea Kempthorne (R-ID), Yea Kennedy (D-MA), Yea Kerrey (D-NE), Yea Kerry (D-MA), Yea Kohl (D-WI), Yea Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea Leahy (D-VT), Yea Levin (D-MI), Yea Lieberman (D-CT), Yea Lott (R-MS), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea Mack (R-FL), Nay Mathews (D-TN), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Nay |
McConnell (R-KY), Yea Metzenbaum (D-OH), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Yea Mitchell (D-ME), Yea Moseley-Braun (D-IL), Yea Moynihan (D-NY), Yea Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea Nickles (R-OK), Nay Nunn (D-GA), Yea Packwood (R-OR), Nay Pell (D-RI), Yea Pressler (R-SD), Nay Pryor (D-AR), Yea Reid (D-NV), Yea Riegle (D-MI), Yea Robb (D-VA), Yea Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea Roth (R-DE), Nay Sarbanes (D-MD), Yea Sasser (D-TN), Yea Shelby (D-AL), Yea Simon (D-IL), Yea Simpson (R-WY), Yea Smith (R-NH), Yea Specter (R-PA), Nay Stevens (R-AK), Yea Thurmond (R-SC), Yea Wallop (R-WY), Nay Warner (R-VA), Yea Wellstone (D-MN), Nay Wofford (D-PA), Yea |
I hilite the “yea””s for a reason. Wannna guess what it is? OK, I’ll give one clue. Democrats passed this thing 51-12. Without one single Republican needing to vote, they passed it. The military didn’t like it, the gay community didn’t like it, no one liked it. The Democrat controlled House, the Democrat controlled Senate, and the Democrat President rammed it through anyway. According to Clinton, it wasn’t perfect, but it was a start. Media pretty much ignored “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” for a while until it became expedient. Over time, it became purely a Republican issue as the Republicans did exactly as the Democrats did years before and effectively ignored it. The media bias culminated itself this year when Lady Gaga chastised Republicans for talking about filibustering the bill that would eliminate Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell:
“I will not stop calling until I reach them to tell them to vote with Sen. Harry Reid to end John McCain’s ‘shameless filibuster,’” she said.
She then calls two Democrats who refuse to take her call. There was no filibuster, Harry Reid never sent it to the floor. The gays returned to attacking the hell out of Republicans only even though the Democrats once again had all the votes they needed to pass the legislation to end it. All the while, no one was mentioning the fact that a lawsuit was working it’s way through the legal system to undo what Bill Clinton and the Democrats did in 1993. It wasn’t filed by Lady Gaga. It wasn’t filed by any Democrat. It was filed by the Log Cabin Republicans. And then a weird thing happened. They won. Republicans, who controlled nothing in DC, did what Harry Reid refused to do. They ended “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. The Obama administration thought about it for a couple of days. And, knowing how the gays felt about DADT, had this to offer:
You read that right. The Obama Administration is asking for a delay in the ruling so the Obama Administration can prepare an appeal to the ruling. They wanna fight it. So, even though the Democrats wrote DADT, passed DADT, have ruled over DADT for nine of the seventeen years it’s been existance, refused to vote to end DADT, and now are fighting legally to keep DADT, I bet you good money there won’t be a single liberal gay person come out and point their finger where the problem is, has been, and continues to be. If they do, I’d love to see their comments here. The reason DADT has survived all these years considering no one seems to like it is because the Democrats know they won’t be held accountable for it so no need to antagonize their moderate to conservative base, and the Republicans know that no matter what they do they won’t get any credit so they have no reason to antagonize their base either. When media and gays become less partisan and more objective then maybe they’ll get what they want.
Until then, they’ll have to keep relying on the Republicans. It’s a core issue with Republicans in a way most people don’t really think about. In expecting the government to protect a minority, the government has to do it in a way that is equitable to all people affected by the minority. Sometimes that doesn’t necessarily work to the minority’s advantage. By NOT recognizing the minority as a minority, it removes the issue of being a minority and allows the issues that affect that minority to be addressed. There is no reason to protect gays in the military. They are already protected by our Constitution. What needs to be protected are the rights gays have as US citizens. When that occurs, gays will have all the same rights as anyone else in the military and I am quite sure that would make everyone happy. Repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell therefore is kind of moot to me. What needs to happen is all references to discriminating on the basis of sexual preferance need to be eliminated. I really don’t buy the argument that it would be disruptive to the military at all. Obama may want you to believe that, but I don’t.
OK, so the lady who has vehemently opposed Bush’s tax cuts for the last eight years now supports most of those cuts as long as you don’t give any credit to Bush. Right? Or, does she truly think people will forget the tax cuts were implemented before Obama was President? Or, for that matter, the fact the tax cuts have been in place since before Obama was even a Senator? From the time he was elected to the Senate, and then to the Presidency, Obama ignored the fact that the tax cuts applied to pretty much everyone. The wealthy actually paid a heavier burden. So, what he’s been arguing for the last four years is simply a lie. Pelosi’s taking that lie to the next level. Obama’s never made a tax cut. Ever. He offered a one time bonus of $250, but that was an incentive, not a tax cut, and it’s a thing of the past. There is no “extension” here regarding Obama. None. “Middle-income tax cuts” is a beauty as well. By not INCREASING your taxes, she’s saying it’s a tax cut. They’re not cutting your taxes, not by a LONG SHOT.
If something’s the same as it ever was, it’s not a “cut”.
Second bottom line, here, Nancy sucks at Orwellian politics. She needs to get her facts straight. It’s going to confuse the hell out of historians who will now forever try to figure out how Obama passed tax cuts for everyone years before he was ever elected to anything and then spent the next eight years complaining about his tax cuts.
Someone should have yelled “Liar” at her. The BS coming from this administration is mind boggling at times.
Still waiting for her to drain the swamp.
13
Sep
I’m still trying to figure this all out.
John Boehner said he might play nice with Obama and support whatever tax cuts Obama wants, since it’s better than nothing. Robert Gibbs immediately attacked Boehner pointing out it was the policies of the last eight years that got us in this mess now. That reflects what Obama said in Cleveland last week as well. So, now Boehner is being attacked for saying he will possibly support Obama. Which side is the “party of No”?
The bigger problem I see here is Obama is still playing a dangerous game in my opinion. He is reacting to Bush. He’s still putting Bush in control. He’s not being Presidential. He’s saying that in order to keep what was happening eight years ago from happening again, and to assure more of what is happening now keeps happening, we need to listen to Obama and not the people who are not in charge. Now, to illustrate my point here, take this poll real quick:
[polldaddy poll=3756484]
I’m gonna bet, before this is even voted on, that 2010′s not going to rate up there terribly highly. Now, what Obama’s banking on is people will look back on, say, 2005, and think how much worse it was than now. Two immediate problems, things weren’t so bad in 2005. And, people are concerned a lot more about right now than they are some point in the past. If they’re out of a job right now, and they had a job in 2005, the man in charge right now’s just not going to fare too well. And, the message Obama keeps delivering is not that he’s going to give that person a job, it’s that that person should be happy that it’s not 2005 all over again. I just don’t think that’s working too well:
Quite frankly, until Obama gets off this bizarre obessive compulsive blame game and starts acting like a leader, he’s going to dig himself even deeper into holes he won’t be able to get out of. I personally think he’s already there.
26
Aug
A few months or so ago, Obama hit the beach and started delivering his “economy is recovering, but not enough” message. Some think this was in response to the rather catastrophic forecast of the first Tuesday in November. Personally, I do. “It’s the economy, stupid.” Simple message, hard to debate. The message then was that the recovery was so obvious even his critics had to admit it. He wouldn’t say who they were, but you know who they are because they would go home and take credit for the successes. Well, as of today, it’s not being reflected on Wall Street. That’s who Obama blames for all of our problems.
When he gave that speech, the Dow had just topped 10,500. As of today, it’s 9,985. What’s scarier is some finance guys are forecasting 5,000 in less than two years. I won’t rule them out. I’m looking for that “critic” that has to admit that negative growth is an obvious sign of recovery.
In the time he gave that speech, new housing permits have dropped from historic lows. I don’t think anyone in housing construction is quite ready to admit that negative growth is an obvious sign of recorvery either.
In the time since he gave that speech, unemployment has dropped .2%. However, employment has dropped precipitously as well. It’s not that fewer are claiming unemployment benefits because they’re finding jobs, it’s that fewer people are even trying to at this point. I don’t think too many critics will admit that fewer people working is an obvious sign of recovery either.
Quite frankly, the speech he made on May 18, 2010 claiming his critics were going home taking credit for the obvious recovery is just a flat out lie. It looked bad then, it looks much worse now. I’d shout out “You lie!”, but then I’d be called a racist. So, I won’t. I’ll just type it very quietly here.
The prevailing story that liberals have hung their hat on for the last couple of years is Obama can’t win because he was strung with funding two wars. No economy can sustain that. Case closed. Sounds simple enough. Numbers should back that one up, right?
Look close at that again. Make sense? Try again. Without going into a whole lot of detail, quite simply, in his first year, Barack Obama spent more on his stimulus than the entire Iraq War. The CBO puts the actual cost of the Iraqi war at $709 billion. Not the $3 trillion cited by Obama.
It’s not that he was slightly wrong on an estimate or anything, he was way off. No one has a clue where that number came from. That amounts to about $100 billion a year. To put it in perspective, his stimulus plans have accounted for about $800 billion. A year. All those wonderful things he could have done with that $3 trillion never would have existed. He lied to you.
To put it in proper perspective, his one year of stimulus cost us more than the entire eight years of the Iraq War. Raise your hands, how many people benefited from the stimulus? We could have benefitted probably, but his special interests got it first. I’m not in a union, it didn’t do squat for me.
If we couldn’t afford those wars, then it’s obvious we can’t afford Obama.
H/T: K2.
7/22/2010: “Now that the heavy lifting is over, we can go out and make our case,”, Joe Biden. The legislative season is over. The big stuff is all done. No more contentious votes for a fwe months. Nancy Pelosi even went so far as to completely skip the funding process because of the increbible issue that this is an election year. Congress is now expedient.
7/29/2010: Ethics charges stemming back to 2007 are filed against Charlie Rangel. Obama refers to him in the past tense.
8/2/2010: Maxine Waters faces ethics charges regarding her making sure her husband’s bank received special considerations by investigators. Obama hasn’t referred to her in the past tense yet.
Nancy Pelosi, vowing to keep on keeping on cleansing the Democrat culture of corruption, added these strong words:
Just call it a hunch.
28
Jul
If you can smile when things go wrong , you have someone in mind to blame.
22
Jul
We got the news that unemployment claims have risen this week. That’s in July. That’s as in traditionally one of the busiest months of the year. That puts Obama on a course of distinction:
| President | Avg Unemp |
|---|---|
| Obama | 9.5 |
| Ford | 7.8 |
| Reagan | 7.5 |
| Carter | 6.5 |
| GHW Bush | 6.3 |
| Kennedy | 6.0 |
| GW Bush | 5.3 |
| Clinton | 5.2 |
| Nixon | 5.0 |
| Eisenhower | 4.9 |
| Truman | 4.2 |
| Johnson | 4.2 |
The Senate passed the finance reform package. They’re sending it to Congress. It’ll pass. It’s 2,300 pages. It’s 390,000 words. When I asked a finance person what the impact would be on my personal bank, and my investments, he said “very little, if any”. Obama’s advice was a little more direct:
“Unless your business model depends on cutting corners or bilking your customers, you have nothing to fear.”
Who defines “cutting corners”?
Who defines “bilking”?
How does Obama assure that US companies are not competing with companies in other countries that are allowed to “cut corners” and “bilk” their customers?
I’m about to sign Wall Street reform into law, to protect consumers and lay the foundation for a stronger and safer financial system, one that is innovative, creative, competitive and far less prone to panic and collapse,” Obama said.
It can be innovative and creative so long as it’s not “cutting corners” or “bilking”. It can be competitive so long as it’s not “too big”. And, “safer” means less risk. Anyone who’s had anything to do with investing knows what happens when you have no risk. There won’t be any panic and collapse because they won’t have anything to lose. If they guarantee people 3% return on their money, that money will go to the Caribbean or Europe. People won’t be satisfied with limited returns. You read that here first ( I’m sure ). What’s Obama going to do when the “too bigs” decide to move to another country as opposed to being dissected? What’s Obama going to do when European and Asian banks get “too big to fail” on US citizens’ money? It will happen a lot faster than anyone expects. Why isn’t MSBC or CNN asking those questions?
A federal judge in Massachusetts tossed out the federal Defense of Marriage Act. His logic, get this, is it encroaches on states. Here’s Federal Judge Joseph Tauro’s Ruling On DOMA:
Federal Judge Joseph Tauro’s Ruling On DOMA
Now, this is where being conservative gets fun for me. I’m with Judge Tauro 100%. First, let’s clear the air a litte bit:
I’m going to answer that the same way every single time. My logic is simple. Go to the US Constitution, In this case, go to the part where it defines marriage. Read it aloud. Repeat it three times to make sure you clearly understand its intent. Don’t translate it. Don’t “intperpret” it. Just read it.
What’s that you say? It doesn’t discuss marriage?
Bingo.
Don’t give me some commerce crap that a person who gets married in Florida impacts life in Oregon. It doesn’t have to be that way. You think it does? OK, let’s go back to the US Constitution again and look at the part that says any company has the right to use the entire country as it’s cost basis.
What’s that you say? It doesn’t mention cost management?
Bingo.
Do I need to continue?
I don’t “support” gay marriage because of other reasons, mostly intangible reasons. But, I absolutely oppose the federal government sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong every single time. If every state in the nation decides to ban gay marriage, that’s another issue entirely and they have the right to that. But, that does not condone the Defense of Marriage Act.
The next question is whether Obama/Holder will challenge Judge Tauro’s decision. My bet is no. And if he does, as with Arizona, he will lose.
