Showing posts with label Bad Government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bad Government. Show all posts

Sunday, November 24

Photo of President Obama Celebrating Iran Deal with Iran's President Hassan Rouhani

 News out of Switzerland today has US President Obama claiming a deal with Iran as a victory for his Administration. Below is a photo of the two leaders celebrating.

According to the Deal, Iran gives up basically nothing. The US in return unfreezes $7 Billion in Iranian funds.

Keep in mind that it is not the US that made Iran a dangerous State. A recognized and internationally sanctioned State Sponsor of Terrorism. We now have a President who not only green-lights running guns to drug gangs in Mexico, but is now the World's number one Iran Sanctions violator.

For that, President Obama is our Idiot politician of the Day. Not that he isn't every day....
 See more at my original post here (Obama - Chavez - Ahmadinejad (Photo)).
 --------------------
Add to Google
--------------------

Monday, November 18

UPDATE: ObamaCare - If a Corporation Did This, People Would Go To Jail

Back in March (ObamaCare - If a Corporation Did This, People Would Go To Jail) I noted that if private corporations did what the Government was doing with Obamacare, that the Government would go after them for criminal activity. The basis of my argument was the dodgy financial justification the Democrats made for passage of Obamacare in that it would save the country and citizens billions of dollars. In reality, the savings were always an illusion at the real expenses were hidden in the years after the Government's ten year accounting review. Corporations however are not permitted such accounting gimmickry.

Now that the HealthCare.Gov website is proven to be even more of a disaster than expected and given the millions of health insurance cancellation notices that Americans are receiving, others are making the connection that President Obama's Democrat Administration is openly behaving in a way that would result in criminal prosecutions had they acted this way as a private business.
President Obama’s oft-repeated falsehood, “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan” — something the administration knew was untrue — would almost certainly be a textbook case of deceptive advertising, punishable under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practice in or affecting commerce.” This includes a “representation, omission or practice that is likely to mislead the consumer,” such that the consumer would be “likely to have chosen differently but for the deception.” - Andrew Stiles, National Review
The article also notes that the HealthCare.Gov website provides in many cases very inaccurate insurance cost estimates, by design. Go read the whole article. Also read my initial post on this subject which covers the financial lies that were used to pass Obamacare in the first place. All of this should be remembered when the next election comes around.

--------------------
Add to Google
--------------------

Sunday, November 17

UPDATE: I Told You So: 'Obama: Legalize illegals to get them health care'

I noted back in 2009 when the Health Care debate was going on that 'What they are not telling you is that once they have stuck us all with more expensive 'free' health care, they are going to grant all of the illegal aliens not only legal status, but also citizenship. And with Citizenship, they will surely get free health care.' (Link) This prediction was confirmed later in 2009 by President Obama himself:
Simply put, this is how Democrats can claim that no illegal aliens are going to receive US Health care, because they plan to legalize all of them:
President Obama said this week that his health care plan won't cover illegal immigrants, but argued that's all the more reason to legalize them and ensure they eventually do get coverage.- FFI
 Now we have Idiot Politician of the Day, Democrat Congressman Jared Polis from Colorado oddly declaring that the problem with Obamacare (as if there is only one) is that Obamacare does not cover illegal aliens.
Illegal immigrants are one of the few categories of people in the U.S. who aren’t subjected to Obamacare’s individual mandate requiring all people to have health insurance coverage. They also aren’t eligible for taxpayer subsidies to buy insurance on the health exchanges, nor are they supposed to be getting assistance under Medicaid.

But Mr. Polis said leaving them outside of the health mandate means that they end up using emergency care, but don’t end up paying their own bills — leaving the rest of the country to pick up those costs. - Washington Post
Of course what he does not explain is how most of the illegal aliens in the country if legalized will be net takers of the system.Worse, many 'legalized' illegal aliens would not purchase medical insurance, instead taking advantage of the system in much of the same way as they do now. As it is, they have access to free health care for their children. When I was living in DC, I had asked the doctor, how come they do not have to pay a co-pay like everyone else? The response was that if they had to pay ANYTHING, they wouldn't bring their children to the doctor. Good luck getting them to pay anything legalized or not. Legalization will just increase how much money the Government gives them each month...
--------------------
Add to Google
--------------------

Wednesday, October 30

The Presidential Lie: "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan."

News is getting out not only that millions of Americans with personal health insurance plans are going to lose their plans, but also that the Obama Administration and the President himself knew that this was going to happen. First, a reminder of how the President repeatedly told this lie:



Here is NBC News reporting that President Obama's Administration knew that the "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan" was a lie.
None of this should come as a shock to the Obama administration. The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be “grandfathered,” meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they don’t meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date -- the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example -- the policy would not be grandfathered.

Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.”

That means the administration knew that more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them.

Yet President Obama, who had promised in 2009, “if you like your health plan, you will be able to keep your health plan,” was still saying in 2012, “If [you] already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance. - NBC News
Keep in mind that the Regulations issued by the Obama Administration are written to disqualify as many existing plans as possible, doing their best to undue the grandfather clause that was put into the law.
--------------------
Add to Google
--------------------

Tuesday, May 7

Obama's UN Speech Supported the State Dept's Benghazi Lie

Slowly the facts are coming out about what happened during the Sept 11 attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi. This attacks were initially blamed on some video that muslims rioted over because they were told by their peers that the video insulted Mohammad.

In reality, proof is coming out that the Government knew from the start that the attack on the US Consulate was a terrorist attack and not some video protest that turned tragically violent. Take a look at the following timeline, keeping in mind that right from the start, they knew this was a terrorist attack (See the full timeline here which includes numerous other instances where the video was blamed):
  • 11 Sept
    • During the day - Protests in Egypt over the Mohammad video
    • In the evening - Attack on US Consultate - Ambassador killed
    • Later that evening - Attack on CIA Safe House - Two Americans killed
    •  Hilary Clinton blames video for violence
  • 16 Sept
    • Susan Rice Makes TV show rounds and blames the video
  • 25 Sept
    • Obama makes his speech at the UN
President Obama, surely knowing that this was a terrorist attack, still pushed the video lie in his speech to the United Nations.
There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an Embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan. - Link
President Obama's entire UN speech reinforces the lie created by Hilary Clinton and his State Department, that the deaths of 3 Americans were the result of some video that nobody saw. His UN speech only mentions terrorists once, and that is in reference to Iran. Instead, he refers to the terrorist attack on the US Consulate as some mere violent religious outrage. The President was right in that there was no video that justified an attack on a US Embassy. However, terrorists do not have to justify their actions.

Now the President's UN speech might not matter just yet, but once Congress hears evidence from Administration officials who have direct knowledge of what actually happened, everything the President, Secretary of State Clinton and other Administration officials said about this attack will become an issue. Even more so if it turns out that lies were made to protect Obama's reelection. At the very least, Obama's speech was a full two weeks after the attack. All of the relevant Administration officials would have been aware of the facts or will have been told a lie agreed upon by others high up in the Government.

This growing scandal might even bring down the Obama Administration. Even better if it ends Hilary's 2016 run for the White House. As it stands, both persons were very likely fully knowledgeable of both the facts and the lies put forward.

--------------------
Add to Google
--------------------

Monday, April 15

Simply Put - A path to citizenship for Illegal Aliens is AMNESTY


Senator Marco Rubio was out on the Sunday talk shows stating that the draft Illegal alien immigration bill about to be dropped on the US Senate is not amnesty.

This is a lie if there is any path to citizenship in the bill for illegal aliens. You can legalize them, give them the right to work and this alone will solve the issue at hand of them being in the country already, illegally. 

There is no reason to put citizenship on the table. The illegal alien issue can be solved solely by providing a path to legal residency. It is fiction to say that those here will simply be put at the end of the line as many of them could not even get in line to come here if they had stayed in their own counter.

Personally I think they should all be deported, but as a realist, if this is not possible, then fine offer some path to legalization for those who have not committed crimes other than illegal entry and working without authorization. And for the others, show them the door. We have enough criminals here already.

Citizenship is a valuable reward for those who come here legally and agree to live by our rules. We should not give this reward away so cheaply.

As for Senator Rubio and any other Republican who backs this POS legislation, don't count on my vote for President. I'd just assume not vote at all.
--------------------
Add to Google
--------------------

Wednesday, April 10

Police Officer Poll Confirms that Anti-Gun Legislation in Congress Will Do Nothing to Prevent Gun Crime

The Police Officer Gun Control Survey posted at PoliceOne.com is an amazing confirmation that the Democrat-push gun control legislation will do little to no good in combating gun crime, starting with the Democrat demand of banning high capacity magazines.
Virtually all respondents (95 percent) say that a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would not reduce violent crime.


The high capacity ban that the Democrats are pushing is stupid for a number of reasons.
  • There are literally millions of them in existence already.
  • It takes but a second to change out magazines
  • Banning high capacity magazines does nothing to prevent shootings. Are Democrats saying that it is not so bad if a shooter manages to shoot up to ten people as opposed to shooting more?
And let's not forget the idiotic and completely unenforceable law in New York State forbidding you to put more than 7 rounds in your magazine. Of course there is plenty of opportunity for police to catch law-abiding people breaking this law. They can also catch criminals breaking this law, but they will already have them for criminal use of a firearm. A crime they are likely to punish them lightly.

Of course, the cornerstone of current anti-gun legislation is the goal of banning 'assault weapons'. The police polled, logically noted that this is not very useful legislation. One reason of course is that rifles and handguns that are not classified as assault weapons function identically to the targetted weapons and are equally lethal.

2.) The majority of respondents — 71 percent — say a federal ban on the manufacture and sale of some semi-automatics would have no effect on reducing violent crime. However, more than 20 percent say any ban would actually have a negative effect on reducing violent crime. Just over 7 percent took the opposite stance, saying they believe a ban would have a moderate to significant effect.


The two issues above are the biggest gun control legislative goals of Congressional Democrats. As far as America's police are concerned, these measures are useless at best and worse potentially harmful.

--------------------
Add to Google
--------------------

Thursday, April 4

Canadian Oil Forced to Rail by Obama Keystone XL Boycott = Oilspill

As noted before, (Canada Shipping Oil to US By Rail To Get Around Obama's Keystone XL Blockade) crude oil from Canada is going to come to the US, whether the Keystone XL pipeline get built or not. The failure of the Obama Administration to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline has been a boon to the railroads who are shipping ever greater amounts of crude oil to the US. Unfortunately, rail transport is not as efficient or safe as rail when transporting liquids.

So, it comes as no surprise to me that one of these trains has derailed, spilling oil.
A mile-long train hauling oil from Canada derailed, spilling 30,000 gallons of crude in western Minnesota on Wednesday, as debate rages over the environmental risks of transporting tar sands across the border.

The major spill, the first since the start of a boom in North American crude-by-rail transport three years ago, came when 14 cars on a 94-car Canadian Pacific train left the tracks about 150 miles northwest of Minneapolis near the town of Parkers Prairie, the Otter Tail Sheriff's Department said. - Daily Mail, UK
It is going to happen again. Surely many other transportation professionals will agree. Such large quantities of crude oil should be moved by pipeline.
'It is good business for the rails and bad safety for the public,' said Jim Hall, a transportation consultant and former chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board.

'Railroads travel through population centers. The safest form of transport for this type of product is a pipeline. This accident could - and ought to - raise the issue for discussion.' - Daily Mail, UK
As I said before, Liberals, you want the pipeline...
--------------------
Add to Google
--------------------

Monday, April 1

This makes sense: ‘Illegal immigration is to immigration what shoplifting is to shopping’

I love the following analogy:
‘Illegal immigration is to immigration what shoplifting is to shopping’ - Link
There is video discussion at the link.

Simply put, we need to have immigration rules. For them to mean anything, we need to ensure that the rules are respected and to ensure that, they need to be enforced.

The alternative is the situation that we have now. There is no fear of breaking immigration law. There is little fear of being caught and even if they are caught, there are many examples of people being set free to continue living (and working) here illegally.

Anyway, if the country is so willing to legalize illegal aliens, why not just annex Mexico. Then we can offer citizenship to all Mexicans, not just those who decided to violate our immigration laws.
--------------------
Add to Google
--------------------

Monday, March 11

Jim Rogers - Central planners' policies are punishing the prudent in favor of rescuing the irresponsible

I read the following by financial commentator Jim Rogers and it really fits with what I think has been happening for the last couple of years:
To Rogers, the bigger danger that concerns him is the hollowing out of the 'saving class' resulting from this situation. Central planners' policies are punishing the prudent in favor of rescuing the irresponsible. This has happened before in world history, and the aftermath has always had grievous economic, social -- and often human -- costs:
Throughout our history – any country’s history – the people who save their money and invest for their future are the ones that you build an economy, a society, and a nation on.

In America, many people saved their money, put it aside, and didn’t buy four or five houses with no job and no money down. They did what most people would consider the right thing, and what historically has been the right thing. But now, unfortunately, those people are being wiped out, because they are getting 0% return, or virtually no return, on their savings and their investments. We’re wiping them out at the expense of people who went deeply into debt, people who did what most people would consider the wrong thing at the expense of people who did the right thing. This, long-term, has terrible consequences for any nation, any society, any economy.

If you go back in history, you'll see what happed to the Germans when they wiped out their savings class in the 1920s. It didn’t lead to good things down the road for Germany. It didn’t lead to good things for Italy, which did the same thing. There were plenty of countries where it wiped out the people who saved and invested for their future. It’s usually a serious, political reaction, desperation in some cases, and looking for a savior and easy answers is usually what happens when you destroy the people who save and invest for the future.
- PeakProsperity.com
The United States all of a sudden has no shortage of irresponsible people. Nothing is anyone's fault anymore. Too many demand free money and more from the Government. And all too often Liberals and even Conservatives are giving it to them, in exchange for votes at election time.

Don't get me wrong, some people do legitimately deserve assistance, but way less than we are supporting now. And none of these people are going to help build a better country. It is the saver who invest and it is investment that drivers our country and others to an ever better future. It is also savings and investment that improves the welfare of many. Take the 'evil' oil companies. If they really were making so much money and were such cash cows, why not say 'me too' and put some money into these corporations? You can do direct investing in ExxonMobil for as little as $250. Is that too much money, well that is the point of saving. You save until you have enough to buy what you want. Point to someone who has no money and I bet I can point to their way too expensive sneakers, sunglasses, clothing, car, gadgets, vacations, etc... that they also don't have money for but somehow manage to get anyway.

Worse, many of them are liable to have children that will also require support for most of their lives. The Democrats are counting on this, because these people will continues to be their base voters for years to come. 

This is also why the Democrats are pushing to legalize illegal aliens and provide them with a 'Path to Citizenship'. Many of these illegal aliens are 'High Needs' parents. It does not mean that there is something wrong with their children or that their children need special care. Instead, it is the parents that need to be told and reminded about everything about being a good parent to their children. This was as explained to me by a pediatrician in Washington, DC. My kid's first pediatrician. This was during a checkup where she was advising us that she was leaving because she was being burned out due to all the high needs parents she had to deal with. It just so happened that these 'high needs' parents bills were being paid by tax payers. Even the co-pay. It was not that the parents did not have $10, $15 or even $20 to pay for the ability to take their kid to the doctor. It was simply because if they did have to pay anything, they would not take their kid to see a doctor. 

This is the heart of the problem. And this problem will only grow until we stop paying out like a broken ATM.

--------------------
Add to Google
--------------------

Friday, March 1

Canada Shipping Oil to US By Rail To Get Around Obama's Keystone XL Blockade

So it is two months since my last post on the Keystone XL pipeline (Keystone XL Pipeline - You Don't Get a Much Better Example of How Anti-Business (and Petty) This Administration is) and our petty President has still not gotten out of the way of construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. 

His liberal followers are doing their best to silence criticism of the President in this matter. Take a look at a recent post on Business Insider, 'Why We'll Have To Keep Waiting For Obama's Decision On The Keystone XL Pipeline', where Liberals killed every comment by flagging them as offensive, including a comment by the author who eventually turned comments off for the post. They even flagged their own comments which is unfortunate as it is interesting to see their thinking, which included comments that since thie project will only product 5,000 jobs, that it was irreverent in terms of creating work. But as I have said before, the Democrats Hate Your Job, especially jobs like these.

But they cannot stop the flow of oil coming out of Canada. One recent story which validates my original post is the following noting the rising demand for tank cars for the transport of oil:
The number of tank cars ordered for shipping crude and expected to be delivered by the end of 2014 will be enough to move two million barrels of oil per day, almost three times what is currently extracted from the Bakken shale basin, Mr. Kolstad said.

That’s the size of two Keystone XLs and one Seaway pipeline.

As much as 40% of the orders are from Canadian entities desperate to get their crude out of Western Canada and into U.S. refineries in the East and on the Gulf Coast. - Financial Post (22 February 2013)
Read the rest of the story. So good job liberals. The oil you hoped to keep trapped in Canada is coming to the US, in a more expensive mode of transportation, which happens to also be less safe and less green.
--------------------
Add to Google
--------------------

Monday, February 11

Americans Being Treated Worse Than Illegal Aliens - Immigration

Talk about being unequal before the law. Americans are forced to go through evermore humiliating inspection and investigation at the border, while millions of illegal aliens bypassed our border controls and now enjoy near immunity when it comes to being held to account for violating our immigration laws:
The Department of Homeland Security’s civil rights watchdog has concluded that travelers along the nation’s borders may have their electronics seized and the contents of those devices examined for any reason whatsoever — all in the name of national security. - Wired.com
Now compare this with how illegal aliens are free to roam the country with little fear of arrest, even able to appear before Congress.
Breitbart News has learned that one of the witnesses at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on immigration next week will be outspoken illegal immigrant Jose Antonio Vargas--who will be seated at the same table as Chris Crane, leader of the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement employees’ union that is suing the government over Obama administration rules that make it very difficult for ICE agents to arrest illegal immigrants. - Breitbart.com
Jose Antonio Vargas is not just an illegal alien, he has also been caught with bogus documents and has been let go. Imagine what would happen if you were caught with bogus documents these days. Sure he came here when he was twelve so technically you could blame his immigration problems on his parents, but the Government is not going to blame, or punish, them either.

The inequality does not stop at the border either. In order to get a Green Card for my wife I agreed to be fully responsible for her. She is not eligible f or unemployment or welfare until she performs 40 quarters (10 years) of full-time work. In addition, there was the physical, the interviews, the multiple meeting and hours of time wasted not to mention well over $1,000 in fees. 

Any legalization of illegal aliens best come with a boatload of requirements like I was forced to sign. The kicker was that if we got divorced after two years, she would get to stay and I would still be fully responsible. You can bet that the Obama Administration is planning to give legalized illegal-aliens free health care (At least this is my prediction). Funny how they don't do that for legal immigrants even banning access as part of a precondition for entry.
--------------------
Add to Google
--------------------

Wednesday, February 6

Idiot Politician of the Day - Democrat Congressman John Conyers

Here we have a member of Congress not only not upholding the law, but also advocating the destruction of the rule of law. This is simply inexcusable.
Opening the first immigration hearing of the new Congress, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee warned his colleagues not to use the term "illegal immigrant" as the debate goes on.

"I hope no one uses the term illegal immigrants here today. Our citizens are not — the people in this country are not illegal. They are are out of status. They are new Americans that are immigrants," said Rep. John Conyers Jr., Michigan Democrat. - Washington Times
If this is the position of Democrats, then can they please explain why the rest of us, actual documented American citizens and documented residents and immigrants have to be subjected to what used to be considered protecting our borders but now only seems to be harassment, unfair and unequal treatment before the law. We might as well get rid of immigration at the airports and save the expense and hassle.

Everyone arriving by air and sea is pre-checked by immigration prior to starting travel to the US. So why do we have to be poked and prodded once we get here? Illegal aliens are not. Along with that, why are we subjected to a customs inspection? Do you think illegal aliens have to put up with this crap? Hell, legal immigrants are forgiven at the airport for all sorts of violations because they may not understand the law, while Americans are whacked with fines in the hundreds of dollars for simple violations of having with them sandwiches, made in Europe by their mom (As documented on one of the border reality shows. See another example here). You could say that the US Government is discriminating against US Citizens and legal residents compared to how they treat illegal aliens.

Idiot politicians like John Conyers are our immigration problem.


--------------------
Add to Google
--------------------