Tag Archives: SOTU

State Of The Union 2014

Obama_SOTU

Weary citizens have a pretty good idea of what to expect, summing up tonight’s #SOTUInThreeWords, while a new Rasmussen poll reveals that 62% of Americans feel SOTU is ‘mostly just for show’. It is, in all reality, nothing but a circus!

If you want to play along in tonight’s 2014 State Of The Union Drinking Game: The Executive Authority to Take a Drink, check out the Official Rules and Guidelines! There’s also a new State Of The Union Bingo game. Play along, and see if Obama checks all the boxes!

You can also get a looking inside the #InsideSOTU Campaign. And if you are a Duck Dynasty fan, be on the lookout for Willie Robertson, who will be attending. Be sure to keep your eyes on Harry Reid, who says he has fallen asleep during State of the Union in the past.

The latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows that “when Obama mounts the podium tonight for the State of the Union Address and looks into the cameras, no one is going to believe him when he says how terrific everything is”. This latest poll reveals that 68% of the American public is less than impressed with his presidential performance! The truth is, there is a lie that hangs over the State of the Union! The GOP has put out an ad blasting ‘Empty Suit’ Obama ahead of tonight’s State Of The Union Speech. The very sad truth is the state of the union is divided, troubled and deteriorating! Will tonight’s State of the Union bring a greater divide? Or will Obama get his mojo back

It doesn’t matter if Obama gets his mojo back or not. Barack Obama’s own cousin says he is the “worse president in our time!” Questions about Obama’s competency plague his Administration. But the truth is, Obama is not America! Wake up! YOU are America, NOT Barack Obama! But too many American’s today do not want to stand up and fight for this country, they are more interested in “looking for a little humor in their political news”. How can the State of the Union be strong when both parties can’t stand each other? A viral video is actually making the rounds which actually “glorifies America’s problems: pot, steak, and vodka.”  All the while, we continue to ask God to bless America, and wonder why we have the problems we have in our country!

The BIG NEWS for tonight’s SOTU Address is that OBAMA TO DISQUALIFY HIMSELF FROM OFFICE OF PRESIDENT, choosing to stick with his pattern of utter Lawlessness! So what else is new?!

Valerie Jarrett has declared that Americans are “hungry” for an Imperial Presidency, and White House adviser John Podesta announced that President Obama is “warming up” to the idea of  ruling like a dictator! Remember when he “assured” Americans that he was the President, not a dictator? Now an Internal Memo reveals that Obama is deadly serious about launching his full dictatorship in 2014! He also wants everyone to invest in government debt as their retirement. He’s going to need your money, because he’s going to ignore Congress and give a 39% raise to government drones with an Executive Order! These Executive Orders are “very dangerous”, and John Boehner has even issued a “stern warning” to Obama concerning his Executive Orders, telling him, “We have a Constitution!”  Do you think Barack Obama really cares about the Constitution? He’s already proven he’s going to do things his way, come hell or high water!

Meanwhile, Obama’s ever-faithful media pals are standing right behind him- ABC is pushing Obama’s efforts to unilaterally ‘act without Congress’, seemingly forgetting that just 8 years ago the same network was outraged at George W. Bush for “being unwilling to compromise!” MSNBC’s Ed Schultz declares Obama is EXACTLY RIGHT to take action without Congress!

And while he’s at it, he is going to raise minimum wage 39% for employees of federal contractors! Mitt Romney calls this act “desperate!” And don’t forget… he just recently cut military pay! All these 39% increases, while the Obama ‘recovery’ goes limp yet again! These 22 well-sourced facts  show just how ugly things really are in the Obama Economy! A new report warns legalizing illegal aliens won’t help the economy, but this little nugget of truth about amnesty will obviously be one thing that will be missing from tonight’s State Of The Union!

He is also seeking to use the EPA, who  is once again scheming to expand its power, [and]violate our constitutional rights.” There is currently a Bill in The House which seeks to stop the EPA power grab!

Obama’s lies about Obamacare choices has Americans nationwide suffering the consequences! It is just one fiasco after another! Oklahoma Republican Senator Tom Coburn has announced that his ObamaCare coverage won’t cover treatment from his cancer specialist. Michelle Obama is doing everything she can to save their namesake legislation, asking Americans: Hey! Can you spare at least $10 to help protect Obamacare? The real question now is, where will the Canadians go for health care now?

We must face the new reality and ask ourselves this very troubling question…. is America now a Fascist State? It has been revealed that Valerie Jarrett has ordered companies to start hiring – or else, while Congress secret votes to sends guns to Syria.

No matter what happens in tonight’s State Of The Union Address, Obama is sure to “come up short in the eyes of millions.” How far will he go? We soon shall see!

 

Obama’s SOTU: We Must, We Might, I Want

obama0

“…and I want a fire truck, and a baseball glove, and a cowboy hat!”

So seemed to go President Obama’s State of the Union wish list. It sounded like Christmas with captive parents in the form of the Congress and a few Supreme Court Justices. Repeatedly, he went so far as to challenge Congress to pass bills, that he would immediately sign.

Interestingly, but hardly surprising to me, was the president’s line that the government should work for the many, not the few. It was almost a shame that an address which had at its beginning the admonition that Americans do not expect government to solve every problem, melted into such a typical democrat-soapbox scolding and special interest parade. And by the way, if the people on CNBC, Bloomberg, and Fox Business were not paying attention, the president has also declared the economic crisis to be “over”.

President Obama says he now wants “reasonable compromise” with Congress on bills and spending, and one wonders if he means an actual working together and arriving at a consensus, or more of the usual media-led narrative of Republican obstructionism and of the bogus narrative of Democrats trying their hardest to do the tough jobs. The president warned that “…sudden, harsh, and arbitrary cuts” would cost Americans jobs. Suddenly taking heavy-handed measures that seriously affect an economy, matter.

Speaking of affecting the economy in a heavy-handed way, the president also now wants to reform Obamacare, basing the changes on the Simpson-Bowles commission’s recommendations. The president would also like to reform the bloated tax code – not in any serious way, but to eliminate tax loop-holes (they’re simply costing the government too much money to continue to allow them). Closing his thoughts on the economy, the president says with a straight face that we cannot pass our current debt and deficit on to future generations.

We must rebuild the middle class as well. Predicating a rebuilt middle class, President Obama says, is ensuring people receive training so they can gain employment. This blogger is unsure how job training will create positions for middle class workers to fill, but that is in the presidential plan’s fine print, I am sure. The president’s emphasis on education will first be felt however, by ensuring that three and four-year old children have access to pre-schools. (Again, making something available, is far from making sure that children actually attend those pre-schools.)

Going forward in his wishlist, President Obama wants to see cars completely off oil for good. One would be tempted to ask, what kinds of cars would Americans drive then? With a power grid that is already taxed, and with EPA regulations closing coal-fired power plants, how would electric cars fill that gap? See, the president has thought that out as well, and he would like to see far more investment in alternative energy sources, like solar power and wind power. Along with those switches, he would like to see the power grid revamped to ensure better delivery and usage of electricity. (Who would necessarily pay for that? The president would probably say, “the power creating and distributing companies”. The power creating and distributing companies would, of course, turn and look at their customers…)

A problem that continues to hamper U.S. growth, is the aging infrastructure. The aforementioned power grid is old, and the roads and bridges are in need of new asphalt and paint. The president says CEOs would necessarily flock back to the United States if the country would only build them roads to haul their goods across, and high-speed rail to travel over. “If you build it, they will come” – yes, the president says as much. He would have us believe that jobs can develop as a by-product of paving roads and  creating high-speed rail routes.

To ensure fewer families have to struggle to meet their basic necessities, President Obama also would like to see the federal minimum wage increased. Without mentioning the effect of hurting first-time job seekers, and making minimum wage jobs even tougher to get, Obama paints a minimum wage increase as a help to all minimum wage workers.

Toward the end, the president finally mentions some of the less important things bothering Americans. First, he acknowledged a poor, 102 year old lady, who had to wait hours just to vote. There is no word on whether he has decided to invite discouraged voters in Philadelphia, intimidated by night-stick holding Black Panthers, to his next State of the Union Address to address their voting issues.
He also mentioned the unavoidable, and often seized-upon-by-the-left topic, gun violence in America. He made mention in glowing words of a gunned down young girl, from Chicago, killed only three weeks after having attended the presidential inauguration. Despite the murder of the young girl, being committed illegally, in a harsh gun-control city, Obama would like to see more laws on the books to further scare criminals into becoming law-abiding citizens…

So, to recap:

  • His presidency, marked by massive gifts to special interests, should work for everyone.
  • The most partisan administration ever wants “reasonable compromise”.
  • Obamacare, over-reaching and over-promising, needs revision before it is entirely in effect.
  • The middle class who cannot find jobs now, due to an anemic economy, need to be better trained. Then they will suddenly find jobs.
  • Oil, which has been for over 100 years the driver of the American economy, needs to be replaced. Ostensibly with something that is as cost-effective and energy rich as petroleum.
  • Road and rails will bring jobs. We need better roads and rails, and suddenly the jobs will begin flooding back into the United States from countries with potholes and uneven rails.
  • Finally, minimum wage needs raising. Why? Because the workers who make it already are not being challenged enough by the Obama economy, and need another ball to juggle.

You will pardon me if I scoff at the entirety of the State of the Union address, and at the president’s continuing naivete on anything economic. He shows once again, that he is a great theorist and philosopher, but where the electric-powered rubber meets the newly-paved road – he has not moved an inch where he started, four years ago.

The entire State of the Union address can be found here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/12/president-barack-obamas-state-union-address

Rebuttal of Obama’s SOTU lies about America’s nuclear deterrent

arton1691

When he delivers the SOTU tonight, Obama will likely mention his plan to deeply cut (read: dramatically weaken) further America’s already excessively cut nuclear deterrent at a time when Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan, and India are all growing and modernizing nuclear arsenals, and just a day after North Korea tested a nuclear weapon – thus utterly refuting Obama’s notions of a “nuclear-free world”.

Republicans have the duty and the power to stop his cuts of America’s nuclear deterrent while explaining to the public – in their rebuttal of Obama’s SOTU as well as on other occassions – why Obama’s policy is suicidal and treasonous and why America needs a large nuclear deterrent and will need it for the foreseeable future.

The following is offered as advice on how to refute the lies that Obama is likely to make in his remarks.

Obama will likely falsely claim that:

1) “America has more nuclear weapons than needed for national security.”

Yet, on close inspection, this claim is completely false.

A significantly smaller nuclear arsenal will not be able to meet most, let alone all, of America’s defense requirements and those of its allies. It will not be able to effectively deter America’s enemies for the simple reason that it will be too small. Being significantly smaller, it will not be survivable enough and will thus be much easier for both Russia and China to destroy in a nuclear first strike on the US. Even if they refrain from such a drastic action, they will certainly use America’s weakness to intimidateWashington and its allies and to attack American allies and interests around the world. Don’t delude yourself that Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran would refrain from doing that if they had the opportunity to do so.

The fact is that a nuclear arsenal, in order to be survivable, MUST be large – there’s no way around that fact. In order to be an effective deterrent, it also must be able to hold the vast majority of enemy military and economic assets at risk. A smaller arsenal and the new nuclear strategy prepared for Obama’s signature will be utterly unable to do so.

This is because there are simply so many strategic and nonstrategic weapon sites and other important military (and economic) targets in Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran that being able to target a majority of them will require far more warheads than Obama would allow – not a mere 1000-1100, but at least 1,550, if not more. The Heritage Foundation’s nuclear weapons experts have estimated that about 2,700-3,000 nuclear warheads are required for that.

And why is it important to target at least a majority, if not the vast majority, of an enemy’s assets? Because only then will he suffer a truly devastating and prohibitively costly retaliation if he commits aggression. If he loses only a minority of his assets – even if they’re the most important ones – he will not be deterred from attacking. Only if the vast majority of his assets are held at risk will he refrain from aggression.

A small nuclear arsenal could only target Russian, Chinese, North Korean, and Iranian population centers, as it would be woefully insufficient to hold the majority of enemy military assets at risk. This would mean a shift from counterforce to countervalue targeting – i.e. targeting innocent civilian populations (which Russian, Chinese, NK, and Iranian leaders don’t value anyway) instead of enemy warmaking capability. Is this the policy we want? The proponents of arms reduction do.

But such a policy would arguably be immoral, and would not be accepted by most Americans. So the only credible and acceptable policy is counterforce – which requires a large number of warheads.

Yet, Obama and his bureaucrats and apparatchiks don’t care about that. All they care about is disarming the US and creating their pipedream “world without nuclear weapons”, a fiction that will never exist (as NK’s nuclear test yesterday proves).

So instead of reviewing possible targets and then deciding on how many warheads the US needs, they’ll instead impose an ideological, arbitrary warhead cut on the military: no more than 1000-1100 warheads, and the military will have to adapt its targeting strategy to that.

They’ve got it exactly backwards. They’re imposing an arbitrary warhead limit on the military and forcing it to THEN come up with a targeting strategy to fit that limit.

2) “Nuclear weapons are relics of the Cold War.”

This false claim doesn’t even meet the straight face test. Nuclear weapons are highly relevant in today’s security environment.

The biggest military threats to America are Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran. The first three have nuclear weapons; Iran is racing to acquire them. The biggest threat posed by these countries is that of a large-scale nuclear or (in Russia’s or China’s case) attack by them.

Russia has a very large strategic nuclear arsenal (2,800 warheads, 1,500 of them deployed and 1,300 in reserve) and the means to deliver it:

  • Over 250 strategic bombers (64 Tu-95s, 16 Tu-160s, and 151-171[1] Tu-22Ms), each capable of carrying six nuclear-tipped cruise missiles and a nuclear freefall bomb;
  • 14 ballistic missile submarines (5 Delta III class, 7 Delta IV class, 1 Typhoon class, and 1 Borei class submarine), which can carry 16 ballistic missiles each (the Typhoon class boat can carry 20); these missiles include the 12-warhead Liner SLBM and the 10-warhead Bulava SLBM;
  • 434 ICBMs, including (numbers in parentheses refer to the maximum warhead carriage capacity):
  1. 58 SS-18 Satan missiles (10 warheads and 30 penetration aids each);
  2. 136 SS-19 Stiletto missiles (6 warheads/missile);
  3. 171 SS-25 Sickle (RT-2PM Topol) missiles (single-warhead);
  4. 74 SS-27 Sickle B (RT-2UTTH) missiles (single-warhead);
  5. at least 18 SS-29 (RS-24) missiles (4 warheads/missile).

The Satan fleet alone can carry 580 warheads to the CONUS. Russia’s ICBMs are not currently loaded with the maximum possible number of warheads, but can be thus loaded at any time, if the Kremlin so orders.

Russia also has a huge tactical nuclear arsenal – far larger than America’s. It is estimated to have at least 1,000-4,000 tactical nuclear warheads – by any measure, far more than the US has (about 500). These are warheads of various types: missile warheads, aircraft bombs, nuclear depth charges, nuclear torpedo warheads, nuclear artillery shells, etc. They are deliverable by a wide range of systems, including aircraft (e.g. the Su-24, Su-25, Tupolev bombers, and the Su-27/30/33/34/35 Flanker family; Russia plans to procure 200 Su-34s), short-range ballistic missiles (e.g. the SS-26 Stone), surface warships, submarines, and artillery pieces.

So Russia alone has a huge nuclear arsenal which America must defend itself and its allies against. It has, in recent years, made repeated threats (over a dozen in the last 4 years alone) to use these weapons against the US or its allies if they don’t succumb to Russia’s demands on various issues.

Thus, the Russian threat, by itself, is huge and justifies the retention of a large US nuclear arsenal.

China has 1,800, and potentially up to 3,000, nuclear warheads, as determined in objective, impartial studies independently by Professor Philip Karber (Georgetown) and Col. Gen. Viktor Yesin, a former Russian missile force chief of staff. Their estimates are based on Chinese fissile material stockpiles, delivery system inventories, potential targets for China, and itsst, 3,000-mile-long network of tunnels for nuclear missiles (which the US has to be able to destroy to be capable of credible retaliation if China attacks). China’s nuclear arsenal is so large and so sophisticated and survivable that General Yesin visited the US last year to warn US policymakers about that fact.

North Korea has about 12 nuclear warheads and the capability to deliver them to the US, as demonstrated by its successful December 2012 test of a genuine ICBM and the fact that it can mate nuclear warheads to ballistic missiles. North Korea, of course, also has large arsenals of SRBMs and MRBMs.

Iran is currently developing nuclear weapons and may have them by next year. It is also developing an ICBM capable of hitting the US, which US intel estimates it may have by 2015, and already possesses ballistic missiles which can hit targets as far away as Warsaw (e.g. the Sejjil missile).

Moreover, while Russia and China are threats to many but protectors to nobody, the US has to provide a nuclear deterrent not only for itself but also for 30 allies, many of whom would otherwise develop their own nuclear weapons. If the US nuclear arsenal is further cut significantly, they (especially Japan and South Korea) will have no choice but to “go nuclear.” This will make the proliferation problem much worse.

3) “Nuclear weapons are too costly to maintain. We can save a lot of money by cutting their number.”

This claim is also utterly false. The entire ICBM leg of the nuclear triad costs only $1.1 bn to maintain; the bomber leg, only $2.5 bn. The total nuclear arsenal and its supporting facilities and workforce cost $32 bn to $35 bn per year to maintain according to the Stimson Center. That’s a drop in the bucket compared to the DOD’s annual budget (over $600 bn), the annual federal budget deficit ($1 trillion), or the total annual federal budget ($3.6 trillion).

Eliminating both the bomber and ICBM legs of the triad would “save” a tiny $3.6 bn per year – 0.1% of the total federal budget. It’s nothing. It’s less than a rounding error.

4) “Cutting our nuclear arsenal will convince others to give up their nukes. If we give up ours, North Korea will give up its.”

This false claim is downright laughable. There is zero evidence supporting it. In fact, while the US has been dramatically cutting its nuclear arsenal since the Cold War’s end – from over 20,000 warheads in 1991 to 5,000 today – two new states (Pakistan and North Korea) have joined the nuclear club and fielded ICBMs, while China has dramatically expanded its nuclear arsenal. India and Israel have grown theirs. Moreover, all of these countries consistently refuse to even talk about, let alone give up, their nuclear arsenals. China has recently categorically rejected nuclear disarmament and North Korea has just tested a nuclear weapon. What’s more, China has actively AIDED North Korea’s development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.

Other countries don’t give a damn about America’s “moral example” or “leadership by example”. They don’t care about American gestures. All they care about is THEIR military strength and how it compares to America’s. If the US cuts its nuclear arsenal, they will only see it as a sign of weakness – which it would be. It will never convince them to give up their nuclear arms.

Signing and implementing New START has not convinced other countries to give up their nukes.

Moreover, further cuts to America’s arsenal will not enhance America’s “credibility” in the yes of the “international community” or convince that community to place meaningful pressure on North Korea and Iran; the “international community” has utterly failed to do so.

That Obama (reportedly) plans to cynically use North Korea’s nuclear test to justify further deep reductions in America’s own deterrent is mindboggling, ridiculous, despicable, and outrageous. As North Korea, China, and Russia grow their nuclear arsenals, it is foolish and suicidal to cut America’s. North Korea’s nuclear test is an argument AGAINST Obama’s US nuclear arsenal cuts, not for them.

In sum, there are absolutely NO reasons to cut the US nuclear arsenal. But there are many reasons NOT to do it. Republicans should study the above facts and disseminate them widely to counter the blatant lies that Obama will likely make tonight to defend his indefensible, deep cuts in America’s nuclear deterrent and thus America’s deterring power. Republicans also have the power AND the duty to STOP Obama’s gutting of America’s nuclear arsenal.

For more information and analysis of America’s nuclear deterrence needs, check out my website. Recommended reading includes this, this, this, this, this, this, this, thisthis, and this article.

Also, Dear Readers, please call your Congressman and both of your Senators and tell them that you will NEVER vote for them again if they don’t stop America’s unilateral disarmament by Obama.

My Valentine’s Date with Obama: Google Hosts Fireside Chat

images

imagesOn Tuesday President Obama will deliver his State of the Union address. On the following Thursday the President will sit down with Americans from across the country in an exclusive Google+ Hangout dubbed the Fireside Chat. During this time Mr.Obama promises to field questions from regular Americans regarding the issues that concern them the most. I am beyond thrilled and honored to tell you, dear reader that I will be one of those Americans invited to question the President. The organizers at Google have made a concerted effort to find people from all across the political spectrum. While certainly the White House will have final approval of all questions, as one Google executive told me, “We’re not looking for ‘rah rah Mr.President’ questions; we’re looking for folks who will offer thoughtful, challenging but respectful questions that truly offer the President the chance to answer questions he wouldn’t necessarily hear from the media”. To that end, this conservative blogger and housewife will be asking at least one of those questions on Thursday.

I’ve had a lot of suggestions on what exactly I should ask the President. Some serious, some not-so-serious (no, I’m not going to ask him where he gets his jeans). The bad news is I’ve already submitted my questions for approval and I wouldn’t use my one chance to talk to the leader of the free world to be a smartass. Some of you would, but not me. The good news is that you can pose your own questions and you may see the President answer them. All you need to do is head to YouTube.com/whitehouse and ask a question. Rifle through the questions already there (sorry, I didn’t mean to use a GUN reference; I’m a part of the problem!!!) and vote them up or down. The questions that get voted to the top will be given to Mr.Obama. So far I see a lot of questions about internet access and legalizing marijuana. We can probably do better than that! Go ahead to the site and flood it with common sense and good votes. This is our chance to ask the questions the media won’t. And don’t forget to tune in to Google+ this Thursday at 4:50pm ET to see me! Well, me and that other dude who runs the country…but mostly, me! See you there!

Obama’s Hypocrisy Exposed (Again)

This excellent video points out two cases of delicious irony in one fell swoop.  Our president has recently called Sandra Fluke to let her know that he doesn’t approve of meanies like Rush Limbaugh calling her a “slut” while simultaneously taking $1 million (via super pac) from Bill Maher.  (who “unapologetically” calls Sarah Palin a C_NT)   The Irony Police are looking over the report to see which smacks more of hypocrisy:  His condemnation of Limbaugh while glossing over remarks by Maher.  Or his sudden change of heart when it comes to embracing Super PACs.  Anyone else remember when he scolded the Supreme Court for the Citizens United decision?  (h/t @red_red_head on Twitter)

Mitchell & Ray – 1/26 – SOTU and Stupid Conservatives

When: Thursday, January 26th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where:Streaming Internet Radio

What: Join independent political commentators Michelle Ray and Rich Mitchell as they discuss the issues impacting Americans.

 

Tonight: SOTU, Stupid Conservatives, the Candidate-Go-Round, Debt ..Ceiling? and Military Cuts.

 

Show Recordings:

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio

[mp3player width=300 height=75 config=fmp_jw_widget_config.xml file=http://media2.conservativedailynews.com/shows/mitchell-and-ray/show_1-26-12-1.mp3]

and .. the non-flash, iGadget-friendly version:

CDN radio hosts let loose

The U.S State-Run Electric Company

At the recent State of the Union  speech, President Obama declared, “The differences in this chamber may be too deep right now to pass a comprehensive plan to fight climate change. But there’s no reason why Congress shouldn’t at least set a clean energy standard that creates a market for innovation. So far, you haven’t acted. Well, tonight, I will. I’m directing my administration to allow the development of clean energy on enough public land to power 3 million homes. And I’m proud to announce that the Department of Defense, working with us, the world’s largest consumer of energy, will make one of the largest commitments to clean energy in history – with the Navy purchasing enough capacity to power a quarter of a million homes a year.

That statement pretty much sums up Barack Obama’s entire first term in office and his vision of the “transformation of America” that he has promised the country.

First, he refuses to acknowledge the fact that his Senate Democrats  have virtually eliminated any chance of  Congress legislating properly by refusing to allow any votes on the numerous House-passed legislative bills currently sitting on Senate leader Harry Reid’s desk, as per the United States Constitution and Congressional by-laws. Harry Reid is simply advancing Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign strategy of running against a do-nothing Congress.

Secondly, Barack Obama, the much-ballyhooed “Constitutional scholar” appears to be quite ignorant, as far as the separation of defined powers of the three branches of government are concerned. Obama declares that he has “directed” the DOD to get into the clean energy business on public lands. Has the constitutional scholar forgotten that the United States House of Representatives is supposed to control the taxpayers purse strings? Will Congress and the American citizenry allow Barack Obama to turn the DOD into the next DNC slush fund such as that which is now known as the Solyndra pay-for-play scandal?

Finally, the United States Government has no authority, nor any business attempting to interfere in the U.S. energy sector. Providing for national security is now being used as a template for big government control of everything from light bulbs to the U.S auto industry, to what your children can or cannot eat. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist nor a Harvard graduate to see that this is a Hugo-Chavez-style attempt to open the door for a complete takeover of the energy sector by the U.S. Government.  As Chavez himself explains, his “Socialist Plan of the Nation” is right out in the open for all to see, while Barack Obama is attempting to do it behind the scenes with such things as ordering the DOD  to start clean energy projects on public lands.  Would Americans be comfortable writing a check to pay their electric bills to the current U.S Government that has added over $5T (in 3 short years) to the current mind-boggling $15 trillion dollars in debt? Can Barack Obama and the current crop of irresponsible, don’t-have-time-to-read-the- bills-before-they-sign-them ignorant misfits of Congress just demand that the DOD start using public lands in any way they see fit, without so much as a vote by the people whom are paying for all of this? Yes they can, if people do not start standing up to the nanny-state manipulators in our current government. Standing up to this freedom-robbing big government plutocracy starts at the voting booth in 2012. Vote Republican.

Note: To quote Hugo Chavez in regards to his government taking over the entire Venezuelan economy, including the energy sector, ” To the contrary, we are obligated to continue advancing the socialist plan,” said the president.

 

 

 

Snippets From The SOTU: Obama Asks For More Power

Now I may be reading this wrong, but the last few sentences of this quote make it sound like our president is asking for Congress to grant the Executive branch (even) more powers.  (wording in bold is my emphasis)

“Some of what’s broken has to do with the way Congress does its business these days. A simple majority is no longer enough to get anything – even routine business – passed through the Senate. Neither party has been blameless in these tactics. Now both parties should put an end to it. For starters, I ask the Senate to pass a rule that all judicial and public service nominations receive a simple up or down vote within 90 days.

The executive branch also needs to change. Too often, it’s inefficient, outdated and remote. That’s why I’ve asked this Congress to grant me the authority to consolidate the federal bureaucracy so that our Government is leaner, quicker, and more responsive to the needs of the American people.”  -President Barack Obama (SOTU 2012)

Now, let’s start with the first paragraph; there are two funny statements in it.  The first one is his lament that a simple majority “can’t get anything done” anymore.  What’s funny is that when Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, I don’t think Barack Obama gave one thought to how “easy” or “hard” it was to get anything done, but now that the Republicans have a chance to stand their ground, methinks the president doesn’t like it so much.

The second funny thing is that he asks for “judicial and public service” nominations to receive a simple up or down vote within 90 days.  Ya know…  I just have to wonder if that request was on his mind after some recent shenanigans with a “recess appointment”.

But the not so funny thing I noticed comes at the end of that second paragraph.  When the average person hears Barack Obama says he wants to “consolidate bureaucracy” and make government “leaner” and “quicker”, they probably think it sounds reasonable.  But when I hear that statement (in its entirety), I wonder exactly what “authority” our president is asking Congress to grant him.  And when he says he wants government to be more “responsive to the needs of the American people”, I wonder what he will interpret those needs to be.  I mean not too long ago, he interpreted our needs to be stimulus for “shovel ready jobs” that didn’t exist.