When Obama had his stimulus package he pressured Congress to pass it without reading it. He did this by saying he was going on vacation and wanted it signed by the time he got back in four days. They did just that and now it is a big waste. This package was supposed to keep unemployment down to 8%, instead it is up to 10% now and still growing. It contains taxes on everything and money to Hamas totaling 900 million.
Now a climate change bill comes along and the same thing happens. Only this time it's Nancy Pelosi doing the pressuring. She said "we have to pass this before we adjourn for the summer" so they did without reading it even though there were notations written on the sides that should have been discussed. It passed in the House by 219 to 212 vote. Eight Republicans voted with Democrats to pass the bill; 44 House Democrats voted against it. This bill will cost thousands of jobs (a conservative estimate), double our electric bills, and add taxes to us from estimates of $175 a year according to House Democrtic leader Steny Hoyer to $2000 a year according to some conservative pundits. There is even talk the gov't will require us all to have special boxes installed in our homes to measure the amount of carbon emissions in our home. That's the government coming into our homes. Our only hope is that it fails in the senate.
Next comes Obama's radicalization of healthcare. I heard Dick Morris the other day warning about this and he said there are 800,000 doctors in this country that have to deal with 200 million people. When you nationalize healthcare that will up the ante to 300 million and something will have to give. Morris also pointed out that in Canada with their national healthcare people have to wait up to 8 months for colonoscopies and MRI-s and other procedures which is why the cancer rate is higher there than here. People die waiting for operations.
Here is Dick Morris' recent column on Obama's healthcare: The photo op was too good to be true. Health care providers trooped out of the White House and trumpeted their goal of saving $1.7 trillion of costs over the next decade in health spending. Now these drug companies, hospitals, insurance companies, medical device manufacturers, labor unions and doctors have laid out their plans in more detail.
And right there, in plain print, is the beginning of medical care rationing. Now that the cameras have been put away and the media is no longer watching, their secret emerges: They are going to cut medical costs by cutting medical care. Right now, they cite four targets. They plan to:
1. Cut diagnostic imaging tests like MRIs and CAT scans.
2. Reduce the use of antibiotics.
3. Perform fewer Caesarean sections.
4. Cut care for management of chronic back pain
These decisions will not be medical but financial. They will not be based on a doctor’s opinion of what his or her patient needs, but a bureaucrat’s and an accountant s opinion of what the new health care system can afford.
And you will not be able to bypass their rulings and pay for this care yourself. The rules laid down must be followed and private payments will not be permitted to override them. What we now call a private fee for service will metastasize into a bribe.
But this is just the very beginning of rationing. The total of health care spending now runs about $2.3 trillion a year in the United States. Over ten years, that’s likely to reach $30 trillion. So a cut of $1.7 trillion is a mere drop in the bucket.
More rationing is coming, and coming soon.
In our new book (coming out on June 23rd) Catastrophe, we explain exactly what rationing will mean and what it has done to patient care in Canada.
It’s not a pretty picture and Obama will bring it here soon unless we stop him. Forewarned is forearmed!
Obama is also proving to be a dangerous one indeed with foreign affairs also and very weak in the eyes of the world. He's turning our friends into enemies and enemies into friends. He says we shouldn't meddle in Iran, yet he has no problem meddling with Isreal telling them not to build anymore settlements. Dick Morris also says it quite adequately here:
In the meantime, Obama’s pathetic performance vis-à-vis Iran and North Korea cannot but send a message to all of America’s enemies that the president of the United States does not believe in using power — that he is a wimp and they can get away with whatever they want. A dangerous reputation indeed.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Monday, June 22, 2009
Iranian Protests! For What It's Worth . FREEDOM
There was a popular protest song in the 60's called "For What it's Worth" by Buffalo Springfield that said,"Paranoia strikes deep/Into your heart it will creep/Starts when you're always afraid/step out of line and they'll come and take you away/Stop,hey what's that sound/Everyone look what's going around." That song could apply to what's happening in Iran today. Everyone look what's going on!!! Thousands and thousands are clamoring in the streets for the overthrow of the Islamo fascist Amadinajad regime, illegally and unfavorably elected, in favor of freedom and what does our illustrious half black muslim president say? "Don't meddle in their affairs." Naturally Hillary has to go along with her boss and issues a statement saying 'The Iranian people will have to decide their own fate." Thanks for making us look like complete wimps in the eyes of the world guys!!!!!!
A few weeks ago when this debate started, Obama took credit for it citing his speech in Cairo which was absurd. Now that it is in full swing he's silent and says "don't meddle." The Iranians aren't looking for us to send troops, they would just like to know we support their struggle like Germany, France and Great Britain are doing. For Obama to say his speech influenced this movement is totally absurd and beyond reason. Iran sees what's happening to their neighbor in Iraq thanks to us being there and over throwing a monstor like Saddam. Thanks to us the rape rooms are gone, the mass graves have stopped, the torture rooms have stopped, women can hold positions in government there where they couldn't before. Women can hold jobs there now. We built schools for the children and helped start businesses there. We've built roads and hospitals there for them. People are free to vote and a few years ago held their first free election that went fair and square not like the fiasco vote in Iran today that they are rebelling against...That's the key, Freedom. Freedom is contagious and Obama says we should sit on our hands and see what happens. What a wimpy moron!!! His sycophants in the media are saying for him not to say anything is a good thing otherwise the Iranian mullahs will blame America. How insane is that???? We're the leader in the free world ,at least we were before the annoited one came along.
Obama would do well to view the attached link I have posted here for all of you to see, but then again deep in his heart maybe he's one of them since these are the people he apologized to and sent 900 million dollars to Hezbollah.. Check this out. It's a bit long, but frightening and true and Obama wants to talk to these people? These are the ones he apologized to and the students are rebelling against. Obama you wimp!!!!!!!
The Islamic Mein Kampf - Terrorism Awareness Project
A few weeks ago when this debate started, Obama took credit for it citing his speech in Cairo which was absurd. Now that it is in full swing he's silent and says "don't meddle." The Iranians aren't looking for us to send troops, they would just like to know we support their struggle like Germany, France and Great Britain are doing. For Obama to say his speech influenced this movement is totally absurd and beyond reason. Iran sees what's happening to their neighbor in Iraq thanks to us being there and over throwing a monstor like Saddam. Thanks to us the rape rooms are gone, the mass graves have stopped, the torture rooms have stopped, women can hold positions in government there where they couldn't before. Women can hold jobs there now. We built schools for the children and helped start businesses there. We've built roads and hospitals there for them. People are free to vote and a few years ago held their first free election that went fair and square not like the fiasco vote in Iran today that they are rebelling against...That's the key, Freedom. Freedom is contagious and Obama says we should sit on our hands and see what happens. What a wimpy moron!!! His sycophants in the media are saying for him not to say anything is a good thing otherwise the Iranian mullahs will blame America. How insane is that???? We're the leader in the free world ,at least we were before the annoited one came along.
Obama would do well to view the attached link I have posted here for all of you to see, but then again deep in his heart maybe he's one of them since these are the people he apologized to and sent 900 million dollars to Hezbollah.. Check this out. It's a bit long, but frightening and true and Obama wants to talk to these people? These are the ones he apologized to and the students are rebelling against. Obama you wimp!!!!!!!
The Islamic Mein Kampf - Terrorism Awareness Project
Friday, June 19, 2009
Wake Up America
Every time I hear some anti-Bush, anti-Iraq ,anti-war protestor complain I want to puke. When I hear Obama and his ilk say we can discuss our differences and if you're nice to them they'll be nice to us, I would suggest they view this little video. It says it better than I can and I can say things pretty good as you all know. Just click on the link. When it comes up a page will tell you to click on the new site. Just click there and view it. It's quite scary and what we're up against the left turns a blind eye to.
Wake Up America
Wake Up America
Sunday, June 14, 2009
The Taking of Pelham 123: A Review
I just returned from seeing the new updated version of The Taking of Pelham 123 which has always been one of my favorite movies. The original starred Robert Shaw as a hijacker with a group of gun toting men who hijack a NYC subway car and hold it for ransom with passengers for 1 million dollars. Walter Matthau is the NYC Transit Authority Lieutenant who takes the call and keeps in contact with Shaw as he figures a way out of the situation. This new version has John Travolta as the hijacker with a band of colorless henchmen and Denzel Washington in the Walter Matthau role only insteads of being a transit authority cop he's a dispatcher who just happens to pick up the call from Travolta.
I thought this new version was well done, but lacks the humor and sharp wit and stinging New York attitude that was so prevalent in the first one. I also thought Travolta was good, but too excitable and maniacal most of the time compared to Shaw's cool, calm, calculating, always in charge demeanor. In the orginal when Matthau asks Shaw,"Who is this?" Shaw replies, "I'm the man who stole your train." Here when Denzel askes Travolta "Who is this?" Travolta goes into a rant saying 'look at your board. Don't you see what I've done?" It just wasn't the same effect for me. Also his band of henchmen were just colorless figures toting submachine guns whereas Shaw's gang were colorful parties with personalities we got into. There was Hector Elizondo as the crazy, nerve twitching gunman who was a former transit worker, Martin Balsam as the former subway motorman who was reluctant to go along with the plan and Earl Hindman (who later played Wilson on Home Improvement). Even the passengers had more personality than these passengers.
In the original, Shaw is a former English mercenary soldier looking to make a cool million thru hijacking a subway train with a well thought out plan. Travolta's hijacker is a former wall street guy who ciphoned money from the city's pension system and went to jail for it. The money was never fully recovered and he decides to hijack a train and ask for 20 million to drive stock prices down and send gold prices up which he'll invest in. John Turturro is an excelllent no nonsense hostage negotiator and James Gandolfini as a Guiliani type mayor of NYC. The press even askes him about his divorce which annoys him. There is also an excellent car chase with Denzel after Travolta in a stolen taxi cab reminiscent of the famous car chase in the French Connection. Over all it's not a bad movie and good entertainment and the connection between Denzel and Travolta is intriguing, however it would have been a better movie had there been no original.
I thought this new version was well done, but lacks the humor and sharp wit and stinging New York attitude that was so prevalent in the first one. I also thought Travolta was good, but too excitable and maniacal most of the time compared to Shaw's cool, calm, calculating, always in charge demeanor. In the orginal when Matthau asks Shaw,"Who is this?" Shaw replies, "I'm the man who stole your train." Here when Denzel askes Travolta "Who is this?" Travolta goes into a rant saying 'look at your board. Don't you see what I've done?" It just wasn't the same effect for me. Also his band of henchmen were just colorless figures toting submachine guns whereas Shaw's gang were colorful parties with personalities we got into. There was Hector Elizondo as the crazy, nerve twitching gunman who was a former transit worker, Martin Balsam as the former subway motorman who was reluctant to go along with the plan and Earl Hindman (who later played Wilson on Home Improvement). Even the passengers had more personality than these passengers.
In the original, Shaw is a former English mercenary soldier looking to make a cool million thru hijacking a subway train with a well thought out plan. Travolta's hijacker is a former wall street guy who ciphoned money from the city's pension system and went to jail for it. The money was never fully recovered and he decides to hijack a train and ask for 20 million to drive stock prices down and send gold prices up which he'll invest in. John Turturro is an excelllent no nonsense hostage negotiator and James Gandolfini as a Guiliani type mayor of NYC. The press even askes him about his divorce which annoys him. There is also an excellent car chase with Denzel after Travolta in a stolen taxi cab reminiscent of the famous car chase in the French Connection. Over all it's not a bad movie and good entertainment and the connection between Denzel and Travolta is intriguing, however it would have been a better movie had there been no original.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Where Have All the Feminists Gone? Long Time Passing
Where have all the feminists gone? I haven't seen hide nor hair of them since the Clarence Thomas /Anita Hill hearings in almost 20 years now. With recent events they should be swarming to the defense of current women in peril. For those of you too young to remember, feminists were a group of angry women started by and led by a fairly attractive woman named Gloria Steinem. They consisted mostly of masculine and butch type women who demanded equal rights for women in the work force and protection of women against abuse and violence. They made excellent strides for women and succeeded in getting legislation passed that gave women equal pay for equal rights in the work force and protected them against abusive husbands and violence and discrimination which I applauded them for. Rush Limbaugh in his 21 truths of life stated that feminism was started to give ugly women access to the mainstream. I used to cringe at that and say"Awww c'mon Rush that's not nice," but now when I look back I see that he was right or as Frank Sinatra sang in MyWay, "I find it all so amusing."
Throughout the Clinton years things started to change with the feminists and they showed they weren't for all women, just liberal women. Where were the feminists when Bill Clinton had a state trooper bring Paula Jones up to his room and exposed himself to her? Where were the feminists when Clinton forced himself on kathleen Willey and stuck his tongue down her throat and grabbed her breasts? Where were the feminists when Clinton was having oral sex with Monica on our time in the oval office with an intern his daughter's age? Where were the feminsts when Juanita Broaderick brought her rape charge against Clinton? The feminists used to say when it came to a woman making an accusation it wasn't whether she was telling the truth or not "it was the nature of the charge." Well here were plenty of charges made by women and the feminists just sat on their hands and gritted their teeth and found excuses for Bill's abuses each time.
Today there are women in peril and where are the feminists? Silent as usual. Do they still exist? Where were the feminists when Sarah Palin was brutalized by the media who made an intelligent woman governor who is considered the top governor in the country look like a dunce? Where were the feminists with Miss California Carrie Prejean when that flaming gay idiot judge Perez Hilton called her a "dumb bitch" and said if she won he would go up on the stage and knock the crown off her head and run out the door with it. Even Greta Van Sustern,(who I've come to like over the years) last night said she was a feminist and came to the aid of Sarah Palin and her daughter against David Letterman's lowly rape joke about her 14 year old daughter being "knocked up by Alex Radriguez." Greta also stuck up for Miss California who I think is a brave woman and said what she sincerely believed which is why her crown was taken away from her. Like I said, feminists aren't for all women, just liberal women. Even Greta asked "Where are the feminists?" Yes, Greta, to take from a popular folk song,"Where have all the feminists gone? Long time passing."
Throughout the Clinton years things started to change with the feminists and they showed they weren't for all women, just liberal women. Where were the feminists when Bill Clinton had a state trooper bring Paula Jones up to his room and exposed himself to her? Where were the feminists when Clinton forced himself on kathleen Willey and stuck his tongue down her throat and grabbed her breasts? Where were the feminists when Clinton was having oral sex with Monica on our time in the oval office with an intern his daughter's age? Where were the feminsts when Juanita Broaderick brought her rape charge against Clinton? The feminists used to say when it came to a woman making an accusation it wasn't whether she was telling the truth or not "it was the nature of the charge." Well here were plenty of charges made by women and the feminists just sat on their hands and gritted their teeth and found excuses for Bill's abuses each time.
Today there are women in peril and where are the feminists? Silent as usual. Do they still exist? Where were the feminists when Sarah Palin was brutalized by the media who made an intelligent woman governor who is considered the top governor in the country look like a dunce? Where were the feminists with Miss California Carrie Prejean when that flaming gay idiot judge Perez Hilton called her a "dumb bitch" and said if she won he would go up on the stage and knock the crown off her head and run out the door with it. Even Greta Van Sustern,(who I've come to like over the years) last night said she was a feminist and came to the aid of Sarah Palin and her daughter against David Letterman's lowly rape joke about her 14 year old daughter being "knocked up by Alex Radriguez." Greta also stuck up for Miss California who I think is a brave woman and said what she sincerely believed which is why her crown was taken away from her. Like I said, feminists aren't for all women, just liberal women. Even Greta asked "Where are the feminists?" Yes, Greta, to take from a popular folk song,"Where have all the feminists gone? Long time passing."
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Obama's Latest Government Control Over Our Lives. Now A PayCzar?
Below is an article posted by Bob Eberle of The Loft which I think is very revealing and says a lot:
We sure have seen a lot in the nearly five months that Barack Obama has been president. Who could have imagined that the government would be controlling certain financial institutions? Who would have thought that General Motors would be under the control of Obama? Who knew that it was possible to create more debt in five months than all previous presidents combined? Welcome to the new America.
But, it doesn't stop there. We've heard so much weirdness coming from Obama like the jobs that have been "created or saved," when job losses continue and the unemployment rate keeps going up, but it doesn't stop there. Today we see yet another step down the path to government control, and another effort by Obama to take freedom away from the American people. In particular, I'm talking about Obama's new plan to appoint a "Pay Czar" to monitor what people are getting paid. We have now entered the Twilight Zone...
As noted in an Associated Press story, "the Obama administration is ready to issue new regulations limiting the compensation of top executives at financial institutions that have received government rescue funds." FOXNews.com reports that the position will be a "pay czar" formally known as a "special master for compensation." Special master for compensation? Are they serious?
As noted in the stories, the position focuses on those financial institutions that received funds from the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). Now, perhaps there are those who believe that if a troubled business accepts government (tax payer relief) then it should come with strings attached. In some ways that makes sense. I, as an investor, would like to see a return on this investment (bailout), but I also realize that the companies are in the best position to manage things... not me or the government.
Now people are probably jumping up and down saying, "If the companies were so good at running things, they wouldn't be in this mess." Well, that's partly true. We all have to keep in mind that this "mess" was created by forcing lending institutions to loan money to people who would normally be considered "bad risks."
Ok, back to the main point... regardless of whether a financial institution received government funds, the government has no business telling the institution how to run itself. Wages, regulations, policies, etc. are established by the company or institution. They form contracts between management and employees. That is how companies are run. For Obama to now say that he wants to control what they get paid shows two things: 1) it further reveals his desire to move America toward more and more government control. 2) It shows that Obama has no understanding of business.
If Obama limits the salaries of top executives at companies A, B, and C, don't you think those executives are more likely to go work for companies D, E, and F? What does that do for companies A, B, and C which are already "troubled?" I guess we already know the answer to that one when we look at General Motors: government "ownership" of production.
But, of course, Obama is not stopping there. Just check out the news story:
The government, however, is not stopping at federally assisted institutions. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke want to give the Fed, which regulates banks, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, which oversees the financial markets, greater powers to set compensation guidelines across the financial sector.
Can you believe this? Now, we are not just talking about institutions that accepted TARP funds. We are talking about an entire sector of the economy. Just look at what Obama's treasury secretary had to say:
"I think boards of directors did not do a good job," [Treasury Secretary Timothy] Geithner said Tuesday. "I think shareholders did not do a good job in terms of discipline and compensation practices."
So, Geithner blasts boards of directors (the managers) and the shareholders (the people). If the managers and regular folks are to blame, what's left to save the day? That's right... the government. Can we please wake up from this bad dream?
We sure have seen a lot in the nearly five months that Barack Obama has been president. Who could have imagined that the government would be controlling certain financial institutions? Who would have thought that General Motors would be under the control of Obama? Who knew that it was possible to create more debt in five months than all previous presidents combined? Welcome to the new America.
But, it doesn't stop there. We've heard so much weirdness coming from Obama like the jobs that have been "created or saved," when job losses continue and the unemployment rate keeps going up, but it doesn't stop there. Today we see yet another step down the path to government control, and another effort by Obama to take freedom away from the American people. In particular, I'm talking about Obama's new plan to appoint a "Pay Czar" to monitor what people are getting paid. We have now entered the Twilight Zone...
As noted in an Associated Press story, "the Obama administration is ready to issue new regulations limiting the compensation of top executives at financial institutions that have received government rescue funds." FOXNews.com reports that the position will be a "pay czar" formally known as a "special master for compensation." Special master for compensation? Are they serious?
As noted in the stories, the position focuses on those financial institutions that received funds from the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). Now, perhaps there are those who believe that if a troubled business accepts government (tax payer relief) then it should come with strings attached. In some ways that makes sense. I, as an investor, would like to see a return on this investment (bailout), but I also realize that the companies are in the best position to manage things... not me or the government.
Now people are probably jumping up and down saying, "If the companies were so good at running things, they wouldn't be in this mess." Well, that's partly true. We all have to keep in mind that this "mess" was created by forcing lending institutions to loan money to people who would normally be considered "bad risks."
Ok, back to the main point... regardless of whether a financial institution received government funds, the government has no business telling the institution how to run itself. Wages, regulations, policies, etc. are established by the company or institution. They form contracts between management and employees. That is how companies are run. For Obama to now say that he wants to control what they get paid shows two things: 1) it further reveals his desire to move America toward more and more government control. 2) It shows that Obama has no understanding of business.
If Obama limits the salaries of top executives at companies A, B, and C, don't you think those executives are more likely to go work for companies D, E, and F? What does that do for companies A, B, and C which are already "troubled?" I guess we already know the answer to that one when we look at General Motors: government "ownership" of production.
But, of course, Obama is not stopping there. Just check out the news story:
The government, however, is not stopping at federally assisted institutions. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke want to give the Fed, which regulates banks, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, which oversees the financial markets, greater powers to set compensation guidelines across the financial sector.
Can you believe this? Now, we are not just talking about institutions that accepted TARP funds. We are talking about an entire sector of the economy. Just look at what Obama's treasury secretary had to say:
"I think boards of directors did not do a good job," [Treasury Secretary Timothy] Geithner said Tuesday. "I think shareholders did not do a good job in terms of discipline and compensation practices."
So, Geithner blasts boards of directors (the managers) and the shareholders (the people). If the managers and regular folks are to blame, what's left to save the day? That's right... the government. Can we please wake up from this bad dream?
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Obama's Naievete
In his speech in Cairo to muslims throughout the world, Obama said several times "The Koran tells us this and the Koran tells us that". US??? US????. He was obviously including himself with the other muslims in saying that. I thought he was supposed to be a Chirstian or so he says. Therefore he should have said , "The Koran tells YOU this and YOU that." A true Christian follows the bible not the Koran.
During the campaign we couldn't mention his muslim background and we couldn't mention his middle name ,Hussein, now in his speech he referred to his muslim upbringing in Kenya and mentioned his middle name. He told about his father being a muslim and influence on him. I thought he said in the campaign and his book that his father wasn't religious and more of an atheist.
I had to laugh at the recent photograph on the cover of friday's New York Post. It showed several black head masked and combat fatiqued terrorists holding loaded rifles while watching Obama's speech on television. If Obama is going to be so naieve in thinking he's going to end terrorism by talk and appeasing muslims he has another thing coming.
During the campaign we couldn't mention his muslim background and we couldn't mention his middle name ,Hussein, now in his speech he referred to his muslim upbringing in Kenya and mentioned his middle name. He told about his father being a muslim and influence on him. I thought he said in the campaign and his book that his father wasn't religious and more of an atheist.
I had to laugh at the recent photograph on the cover of friday's New York Post. It showed several black head masked and combat fatiqued terrorists holding loaded rifles while watching Obama's speech on television. If Obama is going to be so naieve in thinking he's going to end terrorism by talk and appeasing muslims he has another thing coming.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Barack Hussein Osama Obama
Obama is in the Middle East now telling them we are the largest muslim nation in the world and the media is having orgasms over him and not challenging him. On MSNBC today reporterette Lara Logan said "all the muslims all over the world are having their hopes raised for him and muslims all over the world are expecting so much from one man." What high hopes and what are they expecting? Radical muslims have stated that they intend to make us a muslim state under Sharia law by 2020 and intend to take over from within. They may have their wish sooner than that if Obama has his way. I sincerely believe he is their chosen one for that purpose. He has no knowledge of our history and what is what population wise. So far muslims make up only 1% of the population. Lebanese American author Brigette Gabriel who writes against radical Islamists recenly stated she was shocked to hear Obama in France saying we are a muslim nation. She said Obama should tell muslims to unite against radical islamic extremists and he is very wrong in trying to appease them.
When critics challenge his statement about us being a muslim country, his supporters in the media quickly point out that "he really meant this and he really meant that." Well why can't HE say what he means then instead of them interpreting and spinning for him. He better choose his words more carefully. He can land us all in big trouble which is what he seems to be doing anyway. A few months ago in Europe he said "we are not a Christian nation." Our country was founded on Judeo Christian principles. Obama claims he is a Christian, but I don't believe him, especially after attending that weird church of Rev.Wright's and listening to his anti American retoric for 20 years. It was bound to make an indelible impression on his mind. I don't think he ever converted from being a muslim. A good Christian wouldn't be going around the world apologizing for his country. A good Christian wouldn't bash his country like Obama is doing and a good Christian wouldn't hang around people like William Ayers who doesn't regret setting off bombs at the pentagon, New York police station and U.S. capital.
He also stated that although we have freedom of speech in the United States we shouldn't force our values on other countries. FORCE???? We have fought for liberty and freedom in all our wars in history to liberate people from oppression and dictatorships. When Bush was in office he said how "countries around the world yearn for freedom and we will be there to support that freedom." This is what Obama should be extolling, not trying to wimp out and apologize for everything we've done. That makes us look so weak in the world because he is weak.
Obama hates this country it is plain and clear to see as he goes around the world apologizing for us and making us look like wimps in the eyes of the world. We even fought and shed blood in places to save muslims in Bosina, Serbia ,Kosovo and other places recently and liberated muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan from brutal dictators like Saddam Hussein and the taliban and are still doing so. He should expound on these details and tell the muslim people how the United States was always there for them and not resort to appeasement like he is doing.
With his speech in Cairo it is said it consisted of 6000 words. That's all it was, a lot of words. He called for a new beginning with muslims and the U.S. and called on Isreal to stop settlements. Isreal is one of our most valued allies in the mid-east and Obama is turning our friends into enemies and enemies into friends. Rush Limbaugh pointed out seveal factual errors in Obama's speech like saying Islam is responsible for Algebra when it originated in Greece or saying Islam contributed geat music to the world culture when music is banned in most Islamic countries. He also mentioned about the great inventions of Islam like the compass when the compass actually originated in either China or Central America. Whoever writes his speeches should do their research or maybe it was just him kissing up to the muslims. It's nice he's trying to reach out to the muslim world, but I think he's incredibly naieve about the existence of evil in our time. Like I said, his speech was just a lot of words.
Meanwhile, Osama Bin laden issued a new message from his cave somewhere in Afghanistan comparing Obama to Bush in sending American troops to mid-east countries. Meanwhile the media here calls Osama and Al Zawhiri "has-beens" and makes Obama out to be the new leader of muslims in the world. Obama and the media better be careful what they say. The majority of muslims in the world may be decent people, but remember it only took 19 extremists to kill 3000 of our people on Sept. 11 th and there is talk the next one will be worse.
When critics challenge his statement about us being a muslim country, his supporters in the media quickly point out that "he really meant this and he really meant that." Well why can't HE say what he means then instead of them interpreting and spinning for him. He better choose his words more carefully. He can land us all in big trouble which is what he seems to be doing anyway. A few months ago in Europe he said "we are not a Christian nation." Our country was founded on Judeo Christian principles. Obama claims he is a Christian, but I don't believe him, especially after attending that weird church of Rev.Wright's and listening to his anti American retoric for 20 years. It was bound to make an indelible impression on his mind. I don't think he ever converted from being a muslim. A good Christian wouldn't be going around the world apologizing for his country. A good Christian wouldn't bash his country like Obama is doing and a good Christian wouldn't hang around people like William Ayers who doesn't regret setting off bombs at the pentagon, New York police station and U.S. capital.
He also stated that although we have freedom of speech in the United States we shouldn't force our values on other countries. FORCE???? We have fought for liberty and freedom in all our wars in history to liberate people from oppression and dictatorships. When Bush was in office he said how "countries around the world yearn for freedom and we will be there to support that freedom." This is what Obama should be extolling, not trying to wimp out and apologize for everything we've done. That makes us look so weak in the world because he is weak.
Obama hates this country it is plain and clear to see as he goes around the world apologizing for us and making us look like wimps in the eyes of the world. We even fought and shed blood in places to save muslims in Bosina, Serbia ,Kosovo and other places recently and liberated muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan from brutal dictators like Saddam Hussein and the taliban and are still doing so. He should expound on these details and tell the muslim people how the United States was always there for them and not resort to appeasement like he is doing.
With his speech in Cairo it is said it consisted of 6000 words. That's all it was, a lot of words. He called for a new beginning with muslims and the U.S. and called on Isreal to stop settlements. Isreal is one of our most valued allies in the mid-east and Obama is turning our friends into enemies and enemies into friends. Rush Limbaugh pointed out seveal factual errors in Obama's speech like saying Islam is responsible for Algebra when it originated in Greece or saying Islam contributed geat music to the world culture when music is banned in most Islamic countries. He also mentioned about the great inventions of Islam like the compass when the compass actually originated in either China or Central America. Whoever writes his speeches should do their research or maybe it was just him kissing up to the muslims. It's nice he's trying to reach out to the muslim world, but I think he's incredibly naieve about the existence of evil in our time. Like I said, his speech was just a lot of words.
Meanwhile, Osama Bin laden issued a new message from his cave somewhere in Afghanistan comparing Obama to Bush in sending American troops to mid-east countries. Meanwhile the media here calls Osama and Al Zawhiri "has-beens" and makes Obama out to be the new leader of muslims in the world. Obama and the media better be careful what they say. The majority of muslims in the world may be decent people, but remember it only took 19 extremists to kill 3000 of our people on Sept. 11 th and there is talk the next one will be worse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
