As typical of Father Barrack, who is known for lecturing people (even during a holiday weekend!), the President took the opportunity to attack businesses.  He said “for decades, middle class families felt the sting of stagnant incomes and declining economic security.  Companies were rewarded with tax breaks for creating jobs overseas.”  Later in his speech he again talks about this by saying he “ended a tax loophole that encouraged companies create jobs overseas.”

This is all very disingenuous.  This President has handed out, through his bailouts, billions to overseas businesses.

Here are some examples:

Bailout Call Center shipped out to El Salvador

Almost $2B in Stimulus for renewable energy sent overseas

GM’s bailout requires more cars to be produced offshore

AIG bailout rescued banks around the world

Mr. President, be honest with the American people.

Many Senators and Congressman are willing to at least talk about the issue.  Senator Reid has even proposed an outline (it may be a self-serving impractical outline, but it’s good to see he knows the topic can’t be ignored).  Senator McCain wants the Federal government to finish building the wall it started but President Obama quashed.

As a candidate on November 15, 2007, Obama said, “As president I will make sure that we finally have the kind of border security that we need.”  Thus far, he has done nothing to improve our borders.  In fact, his own Homeland Security Security Janet Napolitano has said that it’s “as secure now as it’s ever been”, which, of course, is not saying alot.

This all stems from the passage of an Arizona law that does nothing more than reiterate Federal law.  You can read the Arizona law here.  Arizona’s Republican Governor, Jan Brewer, has said she signed the law primarily due to the Federal government’s lack of enforcement of its laws.

Brewer has attacked Napolitano’s statement.  Brewer said regarding the borders, “well, they’ve never been secure.”  Brewer went on to say “We are a gateway for every illegal immigration and criminal element into the United States.”

For myself, the negative reaction to this legislation is perplexing.  There are protests, riots, boycotts, etc all aimed at removing this law.  Even President Obama chimed in (no surprise there since he doesn’t know how to be silent on an issue) and said that he felt the legislation was “misguided.”

However, Arizona was very careful to mirror Federal law.  The new law happily coincides with existing law.  All it does is allow Arizona State enforcement agencies to do exactly what the Federal enforcement agencies should be doing.

President Obama should feel embarrassed that a State feels that his administration is doing such a poor job enforcing the law that they have to do his job.  Instead of feeling embarrassed and admitting his failures, he pushed off addressing the systemic problem until it is more convenient for his political motives.

I hope the Republicans are smart enough to capitalize on this.

So…Did you figure out what’s wrong with the bill?  Hint:  It’s not the bill itself.  I think the concept of free health care for all is very noble.  Just it’s very misguided.  Here are some random thoughts:

* The more benefits people get for being poor ruins incentive to actually work.  I want people to have to work hard in life.  The fear of “what happens if I lose my job” SHOULD be big.  If not, people slack off, and us people who do actually work just pay for their slacking off.

* Why increase taxes so much on successful Americans?  They should be rewarded for their hard-work/determination/inventions/etc.

* The government shouldn’t be able to FORCE innocent people to do anything – especially if the reason is “it’s for your own good.”  Let people decide for themselves.  If they have the money and want the safety of insurance, they will get it.  Otherwise, they are smart enough to know they are risking their financial and physical well-being.  With freedom comes responsibility, and people need to learn that.

* Where does it stop?  What is the next thing the government is going to try to intrude on?

* The process was corrupt.  The bill was created by Democrats with essentially zero input from the Republicans.  The D’s did not invite the R’s to their backroom meetings or White House deals.

* Democrats in the House knew it was such a bad bill that they tried to get it into law without voting on it!  They didn’t want their “Yes” vote in their record!

* Literally, a majority of Americans were opposed to the bill.  It is extreme arrogance on the part of Democrats to say, “I know you don’t like this, but trust us, this is good for you.”

There are many more reasons this is a bad bill for America.  For signing up Americans to pay $1 trillion, it should be something they love, not loathe.

Why did we have to purchase new street signs, and pay people to rip out the old signs and concrete in the new ones?  There were dozens of signs that were replaced.  Sure seems like a waste of taxpayer money.  Were none of them functional any more?

In addition, and what really caught my eye, is that the new signs are harder to read!  They are in “mixed case,” as opposed to the old ones which were all in capital letters.

You be the judge…  If you are in your car, driving 30 miles per hour, is it easier to read “Delaware” or “DELAWARE”?

President Obama asked for an accounting of jobs saved or created.  Why not ask for an accounting of expenses avoided?

Gruber was contracted by HHS for $297,600 to provide “technical assistance” evaluating the various health reform proposals.  His function is to advise internal staff to make a more informed recommendation.

He has publicly defended his support of the tax on “Cadillac insurance plans.”  These public positions – talking to the press, writing articles, etc – were supposedly done on his own time.

So President Obama’s administration hires a non-objective economist to evaluate proposals?  Why?  Can’t we find an objective one that doesn’t need the spot light?

Also, nearly $297,600 was spent obtaining this one person for a short-term contract to evaluate these plans.  Is this cost being included in President Obama’s estimates of how much health care is costing us?  How many more contractors like him exist?  The people deserve to know.

Give us the full cost, President Obama.  Make it transparent, as promised.

On August 5th, 2009 President Obama said at a town hall meeting in Portsmouth, New Hampshire:

“UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. It’s the Post Office that’s always having problems.”

It is rather unbelievable that our President would insult yet another branch of government.  Earlier in the summer he insulted the Cambridge police force, saying they “acted stupidly.”

President Obama:  You are a proponent of a large federal government.  Why are you insulting federal employees?  And if federal employees are having so many problems and can’t compete with private industry, why do you keep proposing more federal programs?

Stop saying what you think people want to hear.  You insulted thousands of your federal employees in an attempt to sell ObamaCare.

It is appalling that the Department of Justice used some very creative reasoning to justify the continued flow of money to ACORN.  The Congress has spoken, yet the Obama Administration wants to circumvent the voice of the people.

The DOJ focused on a phrase in the law that reads, “None of the funds made available by this joint resolution or any prior Act may be provided to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), or any of its affiliates, subsidiaries, or allied organizations.”  The DOJ argued in their Memorandum Opinion to HUD that the phrase “provided to” does not exclude the possibility of funding existing contracts.

How?

“No funds … provided to … ACORN.”

The intent seems pretty clear to me.

Their memo even cites several dictionary sources to support their finding.  For example, the memo cites the American Heritage Dictionary (2006), which says “supply” or “furnish”.

“No funds … supplied to … ACORN.”

I still don’t see the ambiguity.  The memo essentially concedes the American Heritage Dictionary does not coincide with their findings, so the DOJ goes on to quote other dictionaries, such as the Oxford English Dictionary (1989).

The argument goes on to say the word “provide” has a “forward-looking aspect”, which makes the intent of the law unclear.  So let’s assume “provide” implies “in the future.”  So that could be interpreted as:

“No funds … provided (in the future) to … ACORN.”

I’m still not seeing the mystery.

I think the DOJ wanted the law to say “No contracts … provided (in the future) to … ACORN.”  Alas, it does not.

It is very clear that the intent of Congress was to cease the support of an organization which aided people to lie and deceive the government.

How anyone can interpret this law any other way just perplexes me.

I am sure President Obama will issue directives to his staff to stop all funding, in order to comply with the spirit of the law, if not the letter.

In March, President Obama ordered 20,000 troops into Afghanistan.  It is expected that on Tuesday, during his prime time speech, he will announce that he is sending another 34,000.  There are currently about 68,000 troops in Afghanistan.

I think it is great that President Obama is willing to win the war.  As public support for the war continues to slip (according to Tuesday’s CNN poll, 66% believe the war is going badly), we will see how committed he is to his victory.

This is obviously a very dangerous situation.  As much as I dislike President Obama’s policies, I strongly believe we need to keep him safe, and the Prime Minister of India.

I hope this serves as a wake up call for President Obama.

President Obama:  You are over-stretched.  You are fighting two wars in the middle of a major recession, while proposing new, large programs such as government run health care.  We need to take care of the basics before you can jump into your idealistic dreams.

Even the fact that Vice President Biden took multiple pictures with this lady, Michaele Salahi, shows a severe threat to our security.  If people can sneak into the White House and cuddle up with the Vice President, how safe are we??

It started, as best as I can recall, in April of 2008 when he called a female factory worker in Allentown, PA the derogatory term ‘Sweetie.’  Then again in May of 2008 he used the term ‘Sweetie’ when referring to female reporter Peggy Agar while trying to avoid her.  He said to her, “Hold on one second, sweetie.”  You can see the clip below:

He used this demeaning and dismissive term twice, during a time he was running against Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nominee.  So as he proved that America moved beyond its racial stereotypes by being our first black President, he himself, through his words, proved that sexism still exists.

President Obama called Peggy Agars and left an apologetic voicemail.

Next, in March of 2009, he insulted the disabled community.  During his interview on “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno,” he said :

I bowled a 129 … it was like Special Olympics

You can see the video here:

After telling this “joke,” President Obama called the chairman of the Special Olympics and apologized.

On July 22nd, 2009, President Obama said the “Cambridge police acted stupidly” for arresting his friend Henry Louis Gates for disorderly conduct.  The President went on to imply that race was a factor in the arrest.

These comments not only divided the country as white versus black, but he also insulted our law enforcement personnel.

President Obama once again regretted his words. He later held a press conference to say the Officer is a “good man,” and subsequent to that he created the infamous “Beer Summit,” which he said could be a teachable moment.

To continue with his apologies, President Obama has apologized for America to Arab television (January, 2009), the United Nations (September, 2009), Turkish high school and college students (April, 2009), and elsewhere.  He has apologized for our “arrogance,” for defending ourselves, and our freedoms.

These apologies to other nations do nothing to unite the American people.  Instead, they dishonor those who have served our country and worked hard to make it the beacon of hope that it is today.

President Obama continues to build walls within our nation, instead of bringing us together for a common purpose.

President Obama:  Tear down these walls