It doesn’t take a genius to understand that the Obama administration has crossed over the line of federal government authority, failure to uphold constitution rights and committed what appears to be quid pro quo actions to favor the union movement. The question is whether the federal bankruptcy judge and the state of California will have the strength to push back after being leaned on by Obama?
The duly elected representative of the state of California, after much discussion and debate, took measures to trim the budget. Part of the reduction came in a percentage decrease in state employee wages. One of the unions that raised millions of dollars for the democrat’s presidential campaign called the President and enlisted his interference in the state of California’s internal budget process. President Obama threatened to withhold billions of dollars in stimulus money if the state didn’t cancel the pay cut.
The federal bankruptcy laws are clear on who has preference in a bankruptcy settlement. Secured creditors who have paid a premium to be secured creditors have preference when funds are being dispersed. The Obama plan would have secured creditors receiving 30% on the dollar while union creditors would receive 50%. Where in the constitution or federal bankruptcy law does the president of the United States have the right or power to make such decisions? Again, a powerful union, which raised millions of dollars for the democrats, would be on the receiving end of a presidential power play.
What happened to "The Rule of Law"? Where are the protectors of the provisions written in the United States Constitution? Why is the Congress sitting by saying little to nothing about the trampling of Federal Bankruptcy laws? Where is the federal or special prosecutor looking into what appear to be quid pro quo favors to powerful union by the man and his administration that are honor bound and have taken an oath to uphold the laws of this nation and it’s Constitution?
Saturday, May 16, 2009
The unbiased media
Where do I begin?
On Friday on CBS' The Early Show the former Miss California co-executive director stated that the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is a hate group. This was in response to her quitting her position because Carrie Prejean was not forced to give back her Miss California title. There was no rebuttal or follow up question about the NOM hate group comment from commentator Julie Chen.
Leon Panetta, current CIA director, came out swinging at Pelosi and her comments that the CIA lied to her about waterboarding. On Friday CBS and NBC made no mention of his comments. Only ABC found it newsworthy enough to report on. That being said it took all three networks 3 weeks to finally report on the Pelosi shifting stories on her briefing. ABC spent a whole 28 seconds on Good Morning America reporting on it showing the importance of the story. Interestingly that was the same amount of time they spent on a report about a the rescue of a kangaroo caught in deep water off an Australian beach.
On Friday's inside Washington Evan Thomas, talking about the Pelosi controversy insisted “it doesn't” matter, maintaining “this is all noise, this is all noise.” NPR's Nina Totenberg declared “I don't think it matters, except that it is a diversion that is encouraged by former Bush people who don't want to have this conversation.”
Watch and see how the speech at Notre Dame by Obama is presented by the media. How much coverage have you seen about the latest Gallup Poll showing more Americans are Pro Life than Pro Abortion. News is not what it use to be.
On Friday on CBS' The Early Show the former Miss California co-executive director stated that the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is a hate group. This was in response to her quitting her position because Carrie Prejean was not forced to give back her Miss California title. There was no rebuttal or follow up question about the NOM hate group comment from commentator Julie Chen.
Leon Panetta, current CIA director, came out swinging at Pelosi and her comments that the CIA lied to her about waterboarding. On Friday CBS and NBC made no mention of his comments. Only ABC found it newsworthy enough to report on. That being said it took all three networks 3 weeks to finally report on the Pelosi shifting stories on her briefing. ABC spent a whole 28 seconds on Good Morning America reporting on it showing the importance of the story. Interestingly that was the same amount of time they spent on a report about a the rescue of a kangaroo caught in deep water off an Australian beach.
On Friday's inside Washington Evan Thomas, talking about the Pelosi controversy insisted “it doesn't” matter, maintaining “this is all noise, this is all noise.” NPR's Nina Totenberg declared “I don't think it matters, except that it is a diversion that is encouraged by former Bush people who don't want to have this conversation.”
Watch and see how the speech at Notre Dame by Obama is presented by the media. How much coverage have you seen about the latest Gallup Poll showing more Americans are Pro Life than Pro Abortion. News is not what it use to be.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Dems looking for money anywhere
The Senate Finance Committee has begun looking for more money. Proposals range from a higher tax on cigarettes, Pepsi and booze to taxing health savings accounts and your health benefits. It's clear nothing is safe. So what could be next? Where could big $$ lie?
I know this isn't new but it's been mentioned that government is trying hard to find a way into our 401 K's and retirement accounts. Perhaps offering a "safe" alternative to the risky stock market. Loan them your money and they will pay you 3% guaranteed interest!! How about tapping into your home equity for the government? Taxing the internet will be just too hard to resist, it's only a matter of time. Increasing taxes for gas, cell phone use, cable services and anything else people won't want to give up.
Isn't this a tax on the Dems constituents? Don't more poor people (Dem voters) use cigs, and alcohol and would have a tougher time paying a higher bill for gas or their cell phone. Will these people ever wise up?
I know this isn't new but it's been mentioned that government is trying hard to find a way into our 401 K's and retirement accounts. Perhaps offering a "safe" alternative to the risky stock market. Loan them your money and they will pay you 3% guaranteed interest!! How about tapping into your home equity for the government? Taxing the internet will be just too hard to resist, it's only a matter of time. Increasing taxes for gas, cell phone use, cable services and anything else people won't want to give up.
Isn't this a tax on the Dems constituents? Don't more poor people (Dem voters) use cigs, and alcohol and would have a tougher time paying a higher bill for gas or their cell phone. Will these people ever wise up?
Obama at ASU
Perhaps it was fitting that the Pres. came to the top party school in the US. An institution that is more focused on fun, pop culture and political correctness than actual academics.
Obama was his inspirational self. Telling graduates that they can do anything and challenging them to "step up". He talked about the environment of greed and irresponsibility. He made the call for sacrifice and told the audience that hard choices would need to be made. He stressed that the new job seekers should consider forgoing the corner office for jobs that will "benefit" society. Things such as inner city work and volunteerism. He reminded graduates that they are beginning their careers in troubled times. All in all a very nice speech.
Pondering what the President had said I'm a little bewildered. His call for giving back to society instead of moving up the ladder is nice in theory but if we all do volunteer work who will have the money to give to the needy? If we forgo the million dollar companies where will government get their money to waste? It's a nice thought but how many millions have Bill Gates and Warren Buffet given to charities? Would they have been as beneficial to society if they had served in a soup kitchen for the last 50 years?
My next problem is Obama's comment about greed and irresponsibility. This coming from a guy who throws parties each week for his supporters. Who's wife spends $540 on tennis shoes and makes over a million dollars a year. The projected deficit by his administration is higher than all the formers presidents combined. I think he needs to look in the mirror and at his party to see irresponsibility. Look up irresponsibility in the dictionary and you'll see a picture of a politician.
And then he tells graduates to step up. This from a President who is trying to nationalize the nation. Who is telling people it isn't their fault and we (the government) are here to bail you out. I believe his message to his supporters is vote for me and I can take care of all your needs. Hardly a message to step up.
Once again Obama has shown a skillful manipulation of the press and the people who follow it. One one hand he delivers a message of boot strap economics and sacrifice and on the other he enacts policies that are completely the opposite of his rhetoric. Are the American people really that stupid?
Obama was his inspirational self. Telling graduates that they can do anything and challenging them to "step up". He talked about the environment of greed and irresponsibility. He made the call for sacrifice and told the audience that hard choices would need to be made. He stressed that the new job seekers should consider forgoing the corner office for jobs that will "benefit" society. Things such as inner city work and volunteerism. He reminded graduates that they are beginning their careers in troubled times. All in all a very nice speech.
Pondering what the President had said I'm a little bewildered. His call for giving back to society instead of moving up the ladder is nice in theory but if we all do volunteer work who will have the money to give to the needy? If we forgo the million dollar companies where will government get their money to waste? It's a nice thought but how many millions have Bill Gates and Warren Buffet given to charities? Would they have been as beneficial to society if they had served in a soup kitchen for the last 50 years?
My next problem is Obama's comment about greed and irresponsibility. This coming from a guy who throws parties each week for his supporters. Who's wife spends $540 on tennis shoes and makes over a million dollars a year. The projected deficit by his administration is higher than all the formers presidents combined. I think he needs to look in the mirror and at his party to see irresponsibility. Look up irresponsibility in the dictionary and you'll see a picture of a politician.
And then he tells graduates to step up. This from a President who is trying to nationalize the nation. Who is telling people it isn't their fault and we (the government) are here to bail you out. I believe his message to his supporters is vote for me and I can take care of all your needs. Hardly a message to step up.
Once again Obama has shown a skillful manipulation of the press and the people who follow it. One one hand he delivers a message of boot strap economics and sacrifice and on the other he enacts policies that are completely the opposite of his rhetoric. Are the American people really that stupid?
Twitter and Tweets
Maybe it's my age or lack of tech knowledge but I do not get twitter. Not only do I not get it but I think it's ridiculous. Can someone tell me why I care what Ashton Kutcher is eating or thinks of Obama's dog? Also why would anyone care what I'm thinking while sitting on the john or what movie I'm seeing tonight. Isn't this the pinnacle of self love? "I'm so important that everyone wants to follow my every move" Please explain!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)