Loading ...Archive for the ‘Announcements’ Category
That was a muslim terrorist act. Guantanamo is too good for him.
At least now we know for sure who has been listening to the concerns of the American people. Now to find good oponents to boot them out.
A brand new US Navy vessel! A fitting tribute to New York in memory of Sept 11. Steel from the twin towers used in making the ship! I pray terrorists would tremble from her might!
Obama Rewards Party Donors with White House Perks
Remember the Clinton scandal from the 1990s when the Bill and Hillary shamelessly rented out the Lincoln Bedroom at the White House to top Democratic donors? Well, not to be outdone, it appears President Obama is now offering up the entire White House complex for sale.
This according to The Washington Times:
During his first nine months in office, President Obama has quietly rewarded scores of top Democratic donors with VIP access to the White House, private briefings with administration advisers and invitations to important speeches and town-hall meetings.
High-dollar fundraisers have been promised access to senior White House officials in exchange for pledges to donate $30,400 personally or to bundle $300,000 in contributions ahead of the 2010 midterm elections, according to internal Democratic National Committee documents obtained by The Washington Times.
One top donor described in an interview with The Times being given a birthday visit to the Oval Office. Another was allowed use of a White House-complex bowling alley for his family. Bundlers closest to the president were invited to watch a movie in the red-walled theater in the basement of the presidential mansion.
Now The White House, as expected, is downplaying the scandal. White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said in an email to reporters that “it’s no surprise” that some who have contributed to Democratic campaigns have visited The White House. But in his meandering justification, Pfeiffer managed to ignore the central charge against the Obama White House — that party donors given White House access and other perks in exchange for cash donations. Which, of course, could be in violation of a number of federal laws.
Pfeiffer also took his Clintonian defense of the Obama administration one giant step further, claiming that the administration has not only conducted itself with integrity in this situation, but that, overall, it has put into place the “toughest ethics standards in history.” Other than “ethics waivers,” enemies lists, government threats and attacks on businesses, media and talk radio hosts, and politicizing the NEA (see below), etc.?
And what about those White House visitor logs?
Pfeiffer boasted in his email defense that “for the first time in history, records detailing who visited the White House will be made public on a regular basis.”
But this doesn’t come close to telling the full story. The White House did promise that it will release some White House visitor logs in the future but it has not released visitor logs from the first nine months of the administration…which just happens to be the period of time these alleged donor visits took place. We, of course, are fighting to have all of the visitor logs released.
As we said in a press statement about this latest scandal, “Attorney General Holder can demonstrate his independence by appointing a special counsel to conduct an independent investigation of these serious allegations. In the meantime, the Obama White House needs to respond to our and others’ requests for information about White House visitors.”
Too many in the liberal media have fallen for their hero Obama’s line that this is a non-scandal. It will be up to honest news outlets and independent watchdogs like Judicial Watch to try to get to the full truth of this latest Obama scandal.
Respectfully submitted,
Penny Crosson
| From “New American”
Written by Alex Newman |
| Tuesday, 27 October 2009 05:35
|
| President Barack Obama granted himself more broad powers late last week when he declared the swine flu outbreak a national emergency, announcing the decision over the weekend to a chorus of ridicule and fiery criticism.
Officials tried to downplay the importance of the move, with many major media outlets largely echoing government commentators. “This is not a reaction to any new developments; it’s a proactive step, a useful tool going forward,” said White House spokesman Reid Cherlin, quoted in a USA Today article entitled “‘National emergency’ for H1N1 no cause for alarm, experts say.” Some officials are comparing it to declarations of emergency before hurricanes hit land.
The widely touted effect of this emergency declaration is that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will be able to waive some bureaucratic regulations involving hospitals and government programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and others. The order would allow hospitals to bypass federal rules and set up emergency rooms off site to deal with a mass influx of patients, for example.
An anonymous administration official told CNN that it also “gives the federal government more power to help states.” It also helps to implement government triage plans, like one being developed in Florida that calls for pulling the plug on certain people and rationing medical care. In addition, the presidential order further mobilizes the Federal Emergency Management Agency to prepare for potential disaster.
But there is more than simple administrative processes at work. “The stakes just got raised with this proclamation,” Arizona State University health law professor James G. Hodge, Jr. told the Washington Post. “Broader powers of the federal government are now authorized to respond to the emerging outbreak.”
Some analysts are warning about the extraordinary claimed authorities associated with the emergency decrees. Mike Adams, editor of Natural News, highlights some of the purported presidential powers in an article entitled “President Obama declares national emergency over swine flu pandemic; but why?” These include the potential for forcing U.S. citizens to receive vaccinations or be quarantined and even the “effective nullification of the Bill of Rights,” he said.
Other commentators have even suggested the possibility of martial law.
Congress’ research arm confirmed the draconian powers that the President claims for himself. “Emergency powers are not solely derived from legal sources. The extent of their invocation and use is also contingent upon the personal conception which the incumbent of the Presidential office has of the Presidency and the premises upon which he interprets his legal powers,” wrote the non-partisan Congressional Research Service in a 2007 report about “National Emergency Powers,” citing an “authority.” “In the last analysis, the authority of a President is largely determined by the President himself.
The report further notes that under the existing system, “The President may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives of United States citizens.”
So far about 1,000 people have died from swine flu-related complications in the U.S., according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Globally, the World Health Organization claims about 5,000 deaths were linked to the disease. The New York Times reported that millions of Americans have been infected and cites officials who claim there have been about 20,000 hospitalizations.
But on average, the CDC claims 36,000 deaths each year are linked to the seasonal flu. Also, the flu season in the Southern Hemisphere is on its way out, and so far the virus has proven extremely mild. And a recent CBS investigation pointed out that numbers of swine flu victims have been widely inflated. Many observers are wondering what makes the swine flu a veritable emergency in the first place, leading to speculation about what it means.
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger had already declared a state of emergency over the swine flu outbreak back in April. HHS also issued a “formal declaration of a Public Health Emergency” in April even though there had only been 20 confirmed cases of the H1N1 virus.
However unbeknownst to many Americans, the United States was already under a state of national emergency even before the swine flu proclamation. In September, President Obama issued an “Emergency Executive Order” dealing with terrorism to extend the state of national emergency originally declared by Bush in 2001 for another year. So even without the swine flu “emergency,” the executive branch was already claiming the extensive powers purportedly granted by these executive orders.
The administration emphasized that this new declaration was not in response to any developments. Officials also said it has nothing to do with the number of questionable vaccines available being far below the government’s original estimates. It is simply a “proactive” measure, the White House insists. The preparations for a swine flu outbreak developing over the last several months have become increasingly more militarized and draconian, however this trend has gone largely unnoticed by the main stream media.
But the emergency delcaration issue has brought a number of questions into the public debate. Why is government continually behaving as a nanny for the American people, warning them to stay home and take their shots and wash their hands? Why is the President declaring emergencies and claiming for himself extraordinary authorities — particularly when there is not even a semblance of need? Where is any of this authorized in the Constitution?
In fact, there isn’t any authority for this in the Constitution. Emergency declarations do not trump the Supreme Law of the Land, no matter what the President or the media may claim. Hospitals should not be regulated by the federal government in the first place, particularly since it has no authority to do so. Vaccines and treatment, if necessary, will be provided far more efficiently by the private sector. So it is past time to put the government back in its constitutional box and for Americans to assume personal responsibility for their health and decisions. |
Respectfully submitted -
Penny Crosson
Midland, Texas
Posted on RedState by Congressman Frank Lucas Friday, October 23rd at 11:09AM EDT
Frank Lucas represents Oklahoma’s Third Congressional District in the United States House of Representatives. For more Frankly Speakings, please visit Rep. Lucas’ Blog at http://www.house.gov/lucas/frankly-speaking/index.shtml.
One trillion, four hundred twenty billion dollars. It’s an astounding number. It’s more than the entire economy of India and enough to give every man, woman, and child in the United States $4700.
It is also our country’s federal budget deficit for 2009. That means that in the fiscal year 2009, which runs from October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009, the federal government spent $1.42 trillion more than it took in. To put this in perspective, last year’s deficit was $459 billion – still an astounding number, but less than half the deficit for this year.
When our nation runs with a deficit like this year, we increase our national debt – or the total debt we owe over the life of our country. Our current national debt is $9.1 trillion, and climbing every day. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has projected that, under President Obama’s spending plans, our national debt will rise to $17.1 trillion by the year 2019, meaning an increase of $8 trillion over the next ten years. Most of this debt is held by foreign countries. China, not known for their great relations with our country, holds the most – more than $800 billion.
If numbers like this don’t shock you, maybe this thought will: what happens when these investors decide they want to cash in their T-bonds and T-bills? It’s not that hard to imagine. Right now, the United States government seems to have no interest in paying off any of our debts, so investors will be much more like to want to cash in their holdings or to purchase less T-bonds and T-bills. This would result in an even further drop in the dollar’s value and the federal government would be forced to pay higher interest rates to attract more investors.
Higher interest rates leads to an even higher national debt. For FY2009, the federal government paid $190 billion in interest. If our total debt rises to $17.1 trillion as the Congressional Budget Office predicts, our interest would quadruple to almost $800 billion by 2019. In comparison, the budget for the state of Oklahoma for FY2009 was $7.1 billion. So the federal government’s interest in 2019 would be more than one hundred times the state budget of Oklahoma.
Even worse, higher interest rates on T-bills and T-bonds would increase interest rates across the board, resulting in higher rates on loans to buy a home or to expand a business, which can lead to fewer new jobs and a decrease in our overall economy. In addition, the continued decrease in the dollar would cause the price of imported goods to rise, increasing costs for consumers, thus increasing inflation.
While I know there are economists who stand by the president’s plan to spend, spend, spend, I think that we must look down the road to see the real long-term effect it will have. Fiscal responsibility cannot just be a catch phrase used during elections. It must be a philosophy that we practice. If not for us, then at least for future generations on whom we are saddling this enormous debt.
http://www.redstate.com/leslieshedd/2009/10/23/one-trillion-four-hundred-twenty-billion-dollars/
Respectfully submitted,
Penny Crosson
Midland, Texas
From RedState this morning. Article by Dan Perrin.
James Pethokoukis (Reuters) cites two examples of why America is well down the road of a banana republic economy. Our record debt levels and deficits, combined the fiscal fantasy land the White House and Congress work and live in are writ large in both examples.
First, the White House announces a $250 payment to every senior for inflation that didn’t exist. “In effect, a COLA was paid on inflation that no longer existed,” notes Andrew Biggs of the American Enterprise Institute.
Second, the White House in its desperate attempts to get its health reform passed, has tasked the all-too-willing Majority Leader Reid to walk the plank by convincing him to push a $247 billion portion of health reform as an off-budget item, in a separate bill, to be on the Senate floor this week before moving to the merged ObamaCare bill. Even the Washington Post editorial board said “Mr. Reid proposes not to pay for any of it, not even $11 billion, but simply to write a $247 billion IOU.”
Pethokoukis correctly notes the considerable spin associated with JPMorgan Chase economist Jim Glassman’s attempt to convince the world that the falling dollar should rightly be interpreted as a sign of “new economic optimism” because dollar flight means the world economy is getting better and the world is pulling its money out of a safe investment. Really?
Pethokoukis writes the dollar flight is likely exactly the opposite — the world is pulling its money out of a highly unsafe investment — examples one and two above show a White House and Congress which cannot help spending more and more, and piling up more and more debt — all the while insisting with passion and a strained voice that they really do care about the deficit and America’s debt and are for a strong dollar.
But the world is not fooled. America keeps spending and spending. When Speaker Pelosi announces that her ObamaCare bill is only $900 billion it feeds the perception that America’s Congress and White House are continuing to live off the Chinese and Japanese credit card — especially when the White House and the U.S. Senate Majority Leader tell the world that they will not increase the deficit under ObamaCare, but then want to spend $247 billion on health reform off-budget, so it does not count towards the deficit.
The credibility of the U.S. dollar is tied to the credibility of the fiscal discipline of the White House and the U.S. Congress. The world does not think either are credible is evidenced by the decline in the U.S. dollar. And as Pethokoukis says:
Two examples [the $247 billion off budget health spending and the $250 per senior check] — one ridiculously expensive, one just ridiculous. But both reveal a nation completely unwilling to deal with current trillion-dollar deficits or long-term shortfalls many multiples of that number.
What confidence should dollar investors have that America will really cut entitlement spending? Very little. Instead, we are more likely to see huge tax increases that could cripple productivity, or further dollar neglect, or a central bank that turns dovish on inflation. Or perhaps all three.
If Washington doesn’t care to support the dollar, why should investors?”
And on the front page of the Drudge Report you will find this little item, titled “We are ‘worried’ about weak dollar: Eurogroup chief” — after all, if you are Senator Reid, you can spend a quarter of a trillion dollars without counting it in the budget. Neat trick, huh?
Senator Gregg warned a few days ago that the U.S. could be headed towards a “banana republic situation” and Pethokoukis is simply pointing out two examples — the most expensive of which is happening now right now — of why we are well down that road.
Respectfully submitted,
Penny Crosson