I use Yahoo all the time and it always irks me how pro--Obama their front page stories are. Also pro-global warming, anti-Bush, etc. Well not today! Imagine my joy when I opened yahoo and the main headline is 7 Stories Obama Doesn't Want Told. Check it out!
Also, here's a funny skit about Obama's love affair with his teleprompter.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Friday, November 20, 2009
David Hamilton? Is that the Best You Could Find, Obama?
Another week, another sneaky Saturday night vote by our representatives on a plan to destroy the American healthcare system. Another 2,000 page bill no one who is voting on it has read. Another provision to give Americans who refuse to buy health insurance jail time. Another provision that says that if you are a member of the government run plan, a portion of your premiums go to fund abortions. Sigh.
In other news, an Obama nominee to the 7th circuit court of appeals got confirmed - David Hamilton. I never heard of this guy until today unfortunately. Even more unfortunately for him, a GA senator (as well as a TN senator) voted to allow the vote on this guy to take place. He will be hearing from me after this email is typed.
About David Hamilton:
- he used to be a fund raiser for ACORN (need I say more?)
- he is radically pro-abortion. In Indiana, he kept an informed consent measure from being enforced, which prevented women from finding out about alternatives to and risks of abortion.
- he prevented the Indiana Speaker of the House of Representatives from permitting "sectarian" prayers to be offered during the official House proceedings. What's a sectarian prayer? I'm glad you asked. According to Hamilton, a "sectarian" prayer is one that uses the name of Christ. However, it is not a "sectarian" prayer if the name of Allah is used. This guy won't allow you to say Jesus in a prayer but will allow you to say Allah.
Click here and here to read more. Now, I'm off to call Saxby Chambliss's office to let him have it.
In other news, an Obama nominee to the 7th circuit court of appeals got confirmed - David Hamilton. I never heard of this guy until today unfortunately. Even more unfortunately for him, a GA senator (as well as a TN senator) voted to allow the vote on this guy to take place. He will be hearing from me after this email is typed.
About David Hamilton:
- he used to be a fund raiser for ACORN (need I say more?)
- he is radically pro-abortion. In Indiana, he kept an informed consent measure from being enforced, which prevented women from finding out about alternatives to and risks of abortion.
- he prevented the Indiana Speaker of the House of Representatives from permitting "sectarian" prayers to be offered during the official House proceedings. What's a sectarian prayer? I'm glad you asked. According to Hamilton, a "sectarian" prayer is one that uses the name of Christ. However, it is not a "sectarian" prayer if the name of Allah is used. This guy won't allow you to say Jesus in a prayer but will allow you to say Allah.
Click here and here to read more. Now, I'm off to call Saxby Chambliss's office to let him have it.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
That's a Load of Bull$%&# Obama
Read the first two paragraphs of this Reuters story:
BEIJING, Nov 18 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama gave his sternest warning yet about the need to contain rising U.S. deficits, saying on Wednesday that if government debt were to pile up too much, it could lead to a double-dip recession.
With the U.S. unemployment rate at 10.2 percent, Obama told Fox News his administration faces a delicate balance of trying to boost the economy and spur job creation while putting the economy on a path toward long-term deficit reduction.
WHAT THE HECK? He is warning us about containing U.S. deficits? Who's run up the largest U.S. deficit ever seen in a mere 10 months? Who is going to put us another trillion dollars in the hole with this health care plan that no one gives a flying flip about right now? His administration is "trying to boost the economy and spur job creation while putting the economy on a path toward long-term deficit reduction"? Does anyone really believe he is trying to spur job creation? Does anyone really believe he is putting our economy on a path toward deficit reduction?
BEIJING, Nov 18 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama gave his sternest warning yet about the need to contain rising U.S. deficits, saying on Wednesday that if government debt were to pile up too much, it could lead to a double-dip recession.
With the U.S. unemployment rate at 10.2 percent, Obama told Fox News his administration faces a delicate balance of trying to boost the economy and spur job creation while putting the economy on a path toward long-term deficit reduction.
WHAT THE HECK? He is warning us about containing U.S. deficits? Who's run up the largest U.S. deficit ever seen in a mere 10 months? Who is going to put us another trillion dollars in the hole with this health care plan that no one gives a flying flip about right now? His administration is "trying to boost the economy and spur job creation while putting the economy on a path toward long-term deficit reduction"? Does anyone really believe he is trying to spur job creation? Does anyone really believe he is putting our economy on a path toward deficit reduction?
Saturday, November 14, 2009
9/11 Attackers in NYC on Our Dime
Why is Obama allowing five 9/11 terrorists to come to the New York, less than 1,000 yards from where their mass murders were committed, to attend a US civilian trial? They will get all the same constitutional protections as American citizens!! What if some bleeding heart judge doesn't like the fact that they had some water splashed in their faces and throws the confessions out or some portions of the evidence out? Why is my tax money paying for this? What was wrong with keeping them at Guantanamo Bay?
As this article points out, there are HUGE problems with this scenario:
- There are discovery requirements placed on prosecutors. In a civilian trial of the bombers of the trade center in 1993, prosecutors were required to turn large amounts of sensitive intelligence information over to the defense. Those exact documents were later found in an al-Qaeda hideout!
- Khalid Sheikh Mohammed , the mastermind, was captured in Pakistan. The intelligence that led to that raid is not known by the general public, but man oh man would al-Qaeda like to know how he was captured. They could learn that at trial.
- A liberal leaning judge could toss out the whole case and send the animals home. These men should have been strung up by their toenails but instead they are going to clean up, put on fancy suits, and have a top notch defense team at our expense.
The article points out that perhaps Obama wants the case to fail. Does that sound crazy? A little, but he just approved new rules for military tribunals that make obtaining convictions there much more difficult or impossible in some cases. Under the new rules, a defendant must have access to classified information used against him, which may lead to fewer prosecutions being sought if the prosecution does not want to damage the source of the information.
As this article points out, there are HUGE problems with this scenario:
- There are discovery requirements placed on prosecutors. In a civilian trial of the bombers of the trade center in 1993, prosecutors were required to turn large amounts of sensitive intelligence information over to the defense. Those exact documents were later found in an al-Qaeda hideout!
- Khalid Sheikh Mohammed , the mastermind, was captured in Pakistan. The intelligence that led to that raid is not known by the general public, but man oh man would al-Qaeda like to know how he was captured. They could learn that at trial.
- A liberal leaning judge could toss out the whole case and send the animals home. These men should have been strung up by their toenails but instead they are going to clean up, put on fancy suits, and have a top notch defense team at our expense.
The article points out that perhaps Obama wants the case to fail. Does that sound crazy? A little, but he just approved new rules for military tribunals that make obtaining convictions there much more difficult or impossible in some cases. Under the new rules, a defendant must have access to classified information used against him, which may lead to fewer prosecutions being sought if the prosecution does not want to damage the source of the information.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Paying for Abortions
Wow - just saw this on Drudge report. Did you know that Speaker Pelosi's (aka Obama's) health care bill that will be voted on this weekend contains a provision that very explicitly says that each participant in the government option will have a minimum of $1 of his monthly premium set aside for abortions? So if my family is somehow forced off our private insurance and onto this plan, we will be paying $48 a year at a minimum for someone to do something that we consider murder?
In addition, the Health and Human Services Secretary is the one who will decide when abortion is allowed under the plan.
Click to read more: http://republicanleader.house.gov/blog/?p=666
In addition, the Health and Human Services Secretary is the one who will decide when abortion is allowed under the plan.
Click to read more: http://republicanleader.house.gov/blog/?p=666
You're a Complete Amateur!
The website hotair.com is chock-full of conservative news and commentary, and they also have a hilarious feature called the "Obamateurism of the Day" which highlights what a complete amateur Obama is by showing something ridiculous he's done that day.
Today's was pretty surprising. Obama has a press conference to discuss the shooting at Fort Hood. An extremely serious matter, right? At the beginning of the speech, he says he wants to "give a shout out" to a Native American Congressional Medal of Honor winner. He then spends two full minutes talking about the Tribal Nations Conference. He then says he wanted to spend a lot more time talking about the challenges that lie ahead for Native Americans, but darn it there's been a shooting at Fort Hood. Which is the WHOLE reason everyone was watching.
Could he be any more un-Presidential? He gives a "shout out" to someone, then talks about a Tribal Nations conference, then complains that he has to talk about the Ft. Hood shooting? Somehow it doesn't surprise me that he's more concerned with Native Americans that with our men in uniform. Click here for the video and a transcript.
Today's was pretty surprising. Obama has a press conference to discuss the shooting at Fort Hood. An extremely serious matter, right? At the beginning of the speech, he says he wants to "give a shout out" to a Native American Congressional Medal of Honor winner. He then spends two full minutes talking about the Tribal Nations Conference. He then says he wanted to spend a lot more time talking about the challenges that lie ahead for Native Americans, but darn it there's been a shooting at Fort Hood. Which is the WHOLE reason everyone was watching.
Could he be any more un-Presidential? He gives a "shout out" to someone, then talks about a Tribal Nations conference, then complains that he has to talk about the Ft. Hood shooting? Somehow it doesn't surprise me that he's more concerned with Native Americans that with our men in uniform. Click here for the video and a transcript.
Monday, November 2, 2009
More $$ for Trial Lawyers!!
I'm sure you've heard that the House is set to vote on a 1,900 page health care bill this week.
It's going to destroy health care in America and will cost us $2.24 million for every word that's written in that 1,900 page bill. I've heard so many negative things about this bill - like states can opt out of participating in the bill, but not paying for it; that the bill requires 42 studies on a variety of medical issues be performed; that the word "tax" is used 214 times and the word "shall" is used 3,425 times - but here's a rather interesting tidbit I heard today.
In Section 2531, the bill establishes an incentive program for states to adopt alternatives to medical liability litigation. That's great, right? Medical malpractice suits are part of the reason health care costs so much. But wait - a state is not eligible for those payments if they limit trial attorneys' fees or impose a cap on damages.
Now wait a second, why would this bill disallow states to limit trial attorneys' fees in medical malpractice cases? That would help bring the cost of health care down, right? This is supposed to be a bill to help fix our health care system, right? Could it be because 95% of trial attorneys' political contributions go to Democrats?
It's going to destroy health care in America and will cost us $2.24 million for every word that's written in that 1,900 page bill. I've heard so many negative things about this bill - like states can opt out of participating in the bill, but not paying for it; that the bill requires 42 studies on a variety of medical issues be performed; that the word "tax" is used 214 times and the word "shall" is used 3,425 times - but here's a rather interesting tidbit I heard today.
In Section 2531, the bill establishes an incentive program for states to adopt alternatives to medical liability litigation. That's great, right? Medical malpractice suits are part of the reason health care costs so much. But wait - a state is not eligible for those payments if they limit trial attorneys' fees or impose a cap on damages.
Now wait a second, why would this bill disallow states to limit trial attorneys' fees in medical malpractice cases? That would help bring the cost of health care down, right? This is supposed to be a bill to help fix our health care system, right? Could it be because 95% of trial attorneys' political contributions go to Democrats?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
