About Me

Name: Teresa
Email: tsipesrice@gmail.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Obama: The Abominable President

Posted by Teresa on Sunday, December 13, 2009 1:32:44 PM
Our President, the leader of the free world, has bowed in subservience to both the Saudi King and the Japanese Emperors Akhito. This displayed just how weak a President that he is. By bowing to other heads of state he is signaling to the rest of the world that the U.S. is a weak nation compared to the rest of the world. I believe that Obama's policies have made us a weaker nation and susceptible to security breaches which could result in another terrorist attack.
Obama and his Democratic cronies want to take over 1/6 of our economy by having control over our health care. The Democrats in congress do not want to fix our health care accesssibility and affordability crisis in a meaningful way. They only want to have more power and control over our lives and take away our freedom and liberty. The Republicans health care reform plan does not include them or any part of the government taking over our health care equalling 1/6 of our economy. If the Dems did care about health care reform than they would have included State - Based Exchanges which includes Interstate Insurance, and tort reform to reign in frivolous medical lawsuits, but Dems have not. The Democrats do not want to and will not take care of the excessive costs caused by frivolous lawsuits because most of the Democrats out there are in the lawyers backpockets and support the Dems monetarily. The Patients’ Choice Act would give every American the opportunity to choose the health care plan that best meets their individual needs. The core concepts of the Patient Choices Act are: Emphasize Prevention, Create a Market works for patients, Guarantee Choice of Coverage Options, Insist on Fairness to Every Patient, Fairly Compensate Patient Injuries, No Tax Increases or Government Spending, Restore Accountability To Government Programs, Includes Ideas From Governors and States. The Patient Choices Act also makes sure that pre-existing conditions are covered by the insurance companies.
 

The Obama administration is giving $900 million to help rebuild the Gaza Strip, and help strengthen the Palestinian Authority (PA). But Hamas controls the Gaza Strip, so how in the hell is the Obama administration going to bypass Hamas to give aid to the Palestinians? The Palestinian Authority replaced the terrorist group known as the Palestinian Liberation Organization. But, the PA continues to wage war of terrorism against Israel. It seems as though the only thing that changed was the name. And, the fact that the PA is still a terrorist group means that the Obama administration is in effect aiding our enemy. This is tantamount to giving aid and comfort to our enemy. This is outrageous!!! The Obama administration's actions have shown to be anti-American in nature.

The most Anti-American decision of all is the Obama administration making the decision to try KSM in a New York City civilian courtroom. This is a slap in the face to every American, and especially all the vitims of 9/11 families. The Obama administration is endangering the lives of every American by putting on a show trial, and giving KSM a platform to spew both his hatred for America, and to promote terrorism across the world. This would not be possible if KSM was being tried by a military commission.

Well, gee... it seems that both the terrorists and the Obama administration are on a hate America campaign!
 
crossposted to: teresamerica
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Farce of Peggy Noonan as a Conservative

Posted by Teresa on Friday, July 17, 2009 5:35:40 PM
This is my response to a cruel article on Sarah Palin by Peggy Noonan. She had supportive and positive words regarding the possibility of an Obama administration. Since she displayed positive words of support for Obama, how conservative could she really be?

Peggy Noonan’s roots are firmly grounded in and around New York City. She was raised in one of the most elitist and liberal cities in the country. She still lives in NYC. Peggy Noonan did work on the T.V. drama series West Wing. West Wing was a “left” ideological T.V. drama. She was a producer at CBS news in New York and wrote news specials for CBS. She also wrote Dan Rathers daily commentary for him. Dan Rather is a liberal democrat. Is this a model of a true conservative?

In her scathing article, Peggy Noonan said that Sarah Palin is both bad for Republicans and bad for the Republic. That is an outrageous!!!! statement. I believe that the elitism of New York City has contributed to Peggy Noonan's deranged thoughts. Palin has similar political views as President Ronald Reagan, yet Noonan believes that Palin is not good for our country. As a speechwriter for Ronald Reagan, did Noonan really believe in what she wrote for Reagan? After 2005, Peggy’s liberal tendencies have surfaced more notably. Examples of this are her positive words supporting Obama, being content with an Obama administration, and her displays of cruel negativity with regard to Sarah Palin.

Peggy Noonan even said that Sarah Palin should not have responded to Letterman’s attacks on her two daughters. What kind of a mother would not respond to vile attacks on their daughters? Noonan criticizes Palin for stumbling in interviews. Palin had to endure vicious scathing attacks and gotcha interviews. Peggy Noonan has never had to endure the kind of scathing attacks or gotcha interviews that Palin did, so what justifies her criticisms of Sarah Palin? Peggy sits behind her desk and has the availability to look up terms such as Bush Doctrine and has plenty of time to write up an article.

Peggy Noonan's displays of conceit with regard to her elitism, have contributed to her snobbish personality, which has made it impossible for her to comprehend the importance of "regular joes." Peggy is an elitist who exemplifies her disdain for the success of "regular joes." Sarah Palin stands up for the “regular joes” all across our country. She is the ANTI-ELITIST. She bucks the usual party politics. Noonan has made it clear that she likes being among the status quo of elitists in NYC, and sticking to the same old tune of politics as usual. Is she really a conservative?

Peggy Noonan said the "The elites made her." Noonan is wrong. Palin did not have help from the elites while working her way up the ranks in becoming Governor of Alaska. I think Noonan in an egotistical way wants to take some credit for Palin’s introduction to the national stage. Well, Peggy bought into the fallacies, charm of the liberals sayings “change” and “hope”, and even delved into gutter politics, just like a liberal. Is Peggy Noonan really a conservative?
Here is a link To Peggy Noonan's article:http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html
Cross Posted to http://teresamerica.blogspot.com/
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Zero House Democrats Willing to Adopt Government Run Health Care for Themselves

Posted by Teresa on Friday, July 17, 2009 5:27:15 PM
Rep. John Fleming along with
twenty seven other Republicans have sponsored:


House Resolution 615
Which consists of:
 
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Members who vote in favor of the establishment of a public, Federal Government run health insurance option are urged to forgo their right to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and agree to enroll under that public option.
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that Members who vote in favor of the establishment of a public, Federal Government run health insurance option are urged to forgo their right to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and agree to enroll under that public option.
 
NO Democrats have agreed to this Resolution
 
Why?
 
If Democrats really think Obama's Govt. run health care is so great why haven't they agreed to enroll under the public option? I think the House Democrats know that this program doesn't even come close to the high quality of health insurance and health care, that they are provided under their Federal Health Benefits Program. So, why would they want the American people to have a lesser quality of health care then they do? I don't know. Doesn't this show exactly how much House Democrats care about U.S. citizens' health care?
 
Very Little, If at all
Only When Its Time to Vote
 
 
Cross posted to http://teresamerica.blogspot.com/
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

ABC, Obama, and Health Care -- A Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy

Posted by Teresa on Sunday, June 21, 2009 3:12:08 PM
In an article written by Jennifer Harper of The Washington Times on Friday June, 19, 2009, she writes about the 60-minute ABC program, to air live from the White House on Wednesday.
Is there a conflict of interest in ABC doing this hour long feature promoting Obama’s health care reform? YES
Here is one example:
“ABC employees gave 80 times as much money to Mr. Obama's 2008 campaign for president than to his rival's. According to an analysis of campaign donations by the Center for Responsive Politics, conducted at The Times' request, ABC employees in several divisions donated $124,421 to the Obama campaign, compared with $1,550 to the presidential campaign of Sen. John McCain.”

ABC is not allowing any airing of opposing views or which offer a different viewpoint during ABC’s hour at the White House. ABC has become the propaganda machine for the White House. Does ABC have some stake in promoting the President’s health care plan? There is talk that if ABC helps Obama then ABC will get a bailout from Obama, if they need one. If that is true, then I believe that the relationship that ABC news and Obama has in ABC promoting his health care reform is a probably one of the biggest conflicts of interest in history. Obama has stated that he will consider all suggestions and all other health care reform proposals brought before him . By him not allowing any alternate views on health care reform during this ABC hour at the White House, and not allowing the American people to hear different options during this town hall question-and-answer session, the President is sending the opposite message. Both ABC and Obama are sending a clear message that it must be the Obama health care plan or else. What happened to giving the American people an opportunity to hear all the options regarding health care that are on the table? What happened to giving Americans choice? Or do the Democrats only promote that agenda when its in line with their agenda and when convenient for them, like in the case of abortion. Forevermore, since ABC news has become the propaganda machine for the White House, it shall be renamed the ALL Barack Channel. Under Obama, this is becoming the land of forcing stuff down your throat and not letting you get all the facts, only the positive facts that Obama wants to give you, but not the whole truth.

“Denied a chance to question Mr. Obama on his policy or buy advertising time on the program, Republicans said ABC denied them equal time for the town-hall-style event, accusing the network of turning "its entire programming over to President Obama and his big-government agenda," RNC Chairman Michael S. Steele said in the organization's second public letter to the network in 48 hours.”

According to Harper, “An informal online poll at the New York Daily News on Thursday found that 75 percent of the respondents did not "trust" ABC to provide even-handed coverage.”

"ABC is in bed with their source, so to speak. ABC is supposed to be a news organization, not a producer of infomercials for national health care. And I wonder what they would have done if the Bush administration had asked for positive programming to support the war on terror or Social Security initiatives," said Dan Gainor, BMI vice president of business and culture.

Ted Devine, a Democratic strategist, says that he detected the vast right-wing conspiracy from Republicans. I guess if you call wanting more than one option presented to the American people regarding health care reform a vast right-wing conspiracy, then the GOP and conservatives are guilty. The GOP actually wants to present more options to the American people other than the one option which would be clearly a government-run health care system. The government has underestimated costs and screwed up anything and everything to do with government from social security to welfare. What makes you think that the President’s projected costs for his health care proposal are correct? Do we really want a single-payer health care system? Does Obama want the U.S.’s health care to look like Canada or England? These countries have long lines and patients must even wait for much needed life saving medical procedures. I believe that Obama’s health care plan must be stopped!!!! If Obama’s health care reform proposal is passed through Congress I believe that this will be the death of the greatest health care in the world -American health care.

Yes, I do believe that the health care industry does need some kind of overhaul. I do not think that government-run health care is the answer. I do believe that the cost of health care services must be reduced. Health care professionals must stop being beholden to the private insurance companies. I believe that if the Democrats get their way, then physicians will be subservient to the government and whether the government will approve a medical procedure based on the cost effectiveness of the procedure., and not based on whether the patient actually needs the medical procedure or not.

Is this an example of the vast left-wing conspiracy?
 
Cross-Posted to http://teresamerica.blogspot.com/
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

My Response to Obama's Cairo Speech

Posted by Teresa on Monday, June 08, 2009 6:47:44 PM
At Cairo, President Obama stated,"More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.
And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear."

Obama is way off base when he refers to colonialism as denying rights to Muslims. If Obama is referring to Iraq, that is not colonialism. The United States went into Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people who were living under a brutal dictator, Saddam Hussein. American troops went into Iraq to assist the Iraqi people with starting a new life, which includes freedom, which they did not have under Hussein. The United States did not go into Iraq to set up a mini model of the United States. Iraq is still a Muslim nation. The United States did not force its Judeo-Christian roots onto the Iraqi people or its government. The American troops are and have been in Iraq fighting the terrorists and bringing peace to the Iraqi people.

Obama accuses the United States of ignoring Muslims aspirations during the Cold War. The United States primary goal during the Cold War was in its defense against Russia. President Ronald Reagan's main priority was defending the U.S. and making sure that Russia did not have the opportunity to create and launch a nuclear strike against the United States. Obama is not happy about how the Muslims were left alone during the Cold War. He again, is not happy with the U.S. in helping Muslims in Iraq. It seems to me that nothing makes him and other liberals happy. We stay out of the Muslims business during the Cold War and liberals are not happy. Then The United States tries to help Muslims in Iraq and Obama and other liberals aren't happy either. I am wondering if Obama is only happy when he has the power to decide what role the United States plays in Muslim affairs.

I find Obama's last statement appalling. For him to think that its his responsibility as the President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam is absurd. When a group of people takes it upon themselves to kill 3000 innocent American lives, they as Muslims have created their own labeling as being terrorists. The United States did not attack Muslims on Spetember 11, 2001. Muslims are the ones that committed this heinous act. Muslims are the ones that need to change the way people perceive them. Americans are not the ones that need to change. It is the President's respomsibility to defend us against the terrorists, who just happen to be of Muslim descent.It is not the President's responsiblity to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam or Muslims.
 
Crossposted to http://teresamerica.blogspot.com/
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Should Republicans block Sotomayors Nomination?

Posted by Teresa on Tuesday, May 26, 2009 1:55:12 PM
Today, President Obama nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court. Would it be wise for Republicans to oppose her nomination and try and block her from being approved by the Senate?

Since Sotomayor is a Latina woman, does the GOP want to offend the Latino community by opposing her nomination? On the other hand, I have found out that she is a liberal, activist judge that wants to make policy from the bench. Should GOP fight the nomination and espouse their conservative values? Republicans traditionally believe in a strict constructionist approach to Judges with regard on how they interpret the Constitution. Judge Sotomayor clearly would do the exact opposite of what Republicans believe in how a good Justice would handle court decisions on the bench.

In 2005, Judge Sotomayor one example regarding that the Courts proper place is "where policy is made."

In a videotaped statement, she goes on to say, “And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don't make law. I know. O.K. I know. I'm not promoting it. I'm not advocating it. I'm — you know."

Below, this statement shows an example of Judge Sotamayor agreeing with the President's assesment of how a judge should make court decisions.

"It's exactly what the president has talked about. He likes that. He thinks that liberal judges are so smart and so enlightened and have such great instincts about what policy should be that they should be making the decisions about policy for the rest of us."

We do not yet know exactly what her postion is on abortion. I have searched extensively and it seems no one knows for sure what her position is regarding the abortion issue. Some articles written suspect she is in favor of the Roe V. Wade decision. But, then there are decisions on the bench that she clearly sided with Pro-Life groups based on the law.

Judge Sotamayor was appointed to the Circuit Court of Appeals in by George H.W. Bush , a Republican President. Does this make her a truly bi-partisan choice? Was President George H.W. Bush really a conservative?

Sotomayor stated, "Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging." Should this influence her court decisions?

Then, here is Sotomayor's stating that a "wise Latina woman" makes better judicial decisions than a white man because of the richness of her experience. Is this statement both sexist and racist?


MY OPINION: I believe that Republicans should demonstrate to Democrats just how extreme and left-wing Sotomayor is regarding her opinions both in court and out of court. I believe that the GOP should espouse their conservative views and their concern on how how she is clearly not a moderate. I believe that judges should adhere to the strict constructionist interpretation of laws according to the Constitution. I am against her nomination based on her being an activist judge, who clearly believes she has the right to make laws according to her liberal beliefs.
 
Crossposted to: http://teresamerica.blogspot.com/
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Regarding National Security:Obama Blames and Cheney Fires Back

Posted by Teresa on Friday, May 22, 2009 1:46:31 PM

While President Obama claims that he wants to move forward and look to the future he is continually focusing on the past and playing the blame game. Obama has an obsession of pointing out how he wants to distance and differentiate himself from Bush administration policies. At every possible chance Pres.Obama criticizes the Bush administration and loves making a theatrical scene while promoting himself at the same time. Today, Dick Cheney took the opportunity to defend the Bush administration foreign policy decisions. Cheney even had the courage to challenge President Obama on much of his foreign policy rhetoric and claimed that Obama is putting politics before national security.

Cheney gave a very moving speech with an account of where he was and how he was touched and changed on September 11,2001. Cheney expressed how he and others' in the Bush administration realized that they had an obligation to protect Americans and prevent another terrorist attack from happening on U.S. soil again.
Cheney said:
"Part of our responsibility, as we saw it, was not to forget the terrible harm that had been done to America … and not to let 9/11 become the prelude to something much bigger and far worse.That attack itself was, of course, the most devastating strike in a series of terrorist plots carried out against Americans at home and abroad...and then the hijackings of 9/11, and all the grief and loss we suffered on that day.
Nine-eleven caused everyone to take a serious second look at threats that had been gathering for a while, and enemies whose plans were getting bolder and more sophisticated. Throughout the 90s, America had responded to these attacks, if at all, on an ad hoc basis. The first attack on the World Trade Center was treated as a law enforcement problem, with everything handled after the fact - crime scene, arrests, indictments, convictions, prison sentences, case closed.That's how it seemed from a law enforcement perspective, at least - but for the terrorists the case was not closed. For them, it was another offensive strike in their ongoing war against the United States. And it turned their minds to even harder strikes with higher casualties. Nine-eleven made necessary a shift of policy, aimed at a clear strategic threat - what the Congress called "an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States." From that moment forward, instead of merely preparing to round up the suspects and count up the victims after the next attack, we were determined to prevent attacks in the first place."
As many Americans look back and ponder which of the Bush foreign policies including enhanced interrogation techniques worked or didn't work, whether they were justified or not, and whether any of these techniques constitute torture or not; we as Americans while in deep thought must remember the great threat Americans faced on Sept.11,2001.

I believe unless a person has actually has been in President Bush's shoes, or Cheney's shoes in having to deal with the aftermath of 9/11, in which these two officials knew that they had to protect Americans from another terrorist attack, a person would not know for sure exactly how they would have reacted being given the chance to be in that same exact situation. I believe No person has the right to judge the Bush administration in that regard. Even President Obama was not acting there as commander-in-chief on that tragic day, so how can he really know how he would have reacted had it actually been him who was commander-in-chief on that tragic day?

What gives a person the moral authority to judge others' when we have no idea what the "true" intentions of our commander-in-Chief consisted of after 9/11 happened? I believe Bush's interests were in acting for the good of the country in order to keep us safe from another terrorist attack. So, I believe we should give him the benefit of the doubt instead of judging him and others in the Bush administration harshly.

Yesterday, Obama said that the United States reacted out of fear. I know for me, when 9/11 happened that brought fear to the forefront. Were you afraid after 9/11 happened? I think fear in that circumstance was the most natural response a person could have had. As a United States citizen I feared that another attack would happen on U.S. soil. In reaction to this real, imminent and grave threat against the United States the Bush administration felt the need to stop the terrorists over in the mideast before the terrorists entered the United States.

For a President who wants to distance himself as much as possible from the previous administration, Obama, contrary to his mantra, has adopted many of Bush's foreign policy positions. He has adopted re-instating military tribunals, The Patriot Act, Wire Tapping, Iraq and Guantanomo just to name a few. I encourage you to read an article By Charles Krauthammer which includes more information on this topic.
President Obama even reserves the right to use or request the use of these enhaned interrogation techniques when necessary for the safety of our country. If he truly categorically rejects the use of enhanced interrogation techniques and believes that the Bush administration was taking the low road than why is he reserving the right to make use of these very same techniques?
 
I think that former President Bush and his administration deserve the benefit of the doubt in that they loved the United States so much as to want to do everything necessary to prevent another terrorist attack. That is exactly what happened for the past 7 or so years. I just am thankful that President Obama is adopting many of the same policies of the Bush administration. I say to everyone, let us hope and pray that all things necessary are enacted from henceforth in order to prevent another future terrorist attack.

http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2009/05/22/obama_in_bush_clothing_america_fights_on
 
crossposted to:http://teresamerica.blogspot.com/
 

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

You Might Be a Left-Wing Extremist If....

Posted by Teresa on Monday, April 27, 2009 12:46:45 PM

You Might be a Left-Wing Extremist if. . . .

During the last week or so I have been thinking about how our government is targeting and labeling citizens who have religious beliefs and believe in the sanctity of human life for both the born and unborn, as right-wing extremists. Here is something I came up with that is a combination of the truth and a spin-off of Jeff Foxworthy’s You might be a redneck if.. In response I would like to call out the left-wing extremists:

You might be a Left-Wing Extremist If…You believe in socialism.

You might be a Left-Wing Extremist If…You believe in rewarding the poor for doing nothing.

You might be a Left-Wing Extremist IF… like Janeanne Garofalo you hate rednecks.

You might be a Left-Wing Extremist IF…You believe in paying higher taxes and rewarding a wasteful government.

You might be a Left-Wing Extremist IF…You believe in tea bagging, while mocking the tea party protesters.

You might be a Left-Wing Extremist IF… You believe in unrestricted abortion which kills innocent unborn children.

You might be a Left-Wing Extremist IF… You watch Keith Olbermann.

You might be a Left-Wing Extremist IF… You believe in the Hollywood way of life.

You might be a Left-Wing Extremist IF… You ascribe to the “green” movement, global warming hysteria, and want to raise utility prices sky high.

You might be a Left-Wing Extremist IF… You belong to Moveon.org.

You might be a Left-Wing Extremist IF… You like George Soros.

You might be a Left-Wing Extremist IF… You listen to Air America.

You might be a Left-Wing Extremist IF…You like hanging out with the America’s enemies and acting like they are our allies.

You might be a Left-Wing Extremist IF… You believe an adulterous husband should have the right to starve and dehydrate his comatose wife to death.
Since our government has chosen to target conservatives who are law abiding citizens, I have chosen to call out on the left-wing extremists which may include segments of our government as well.
Crossposted to http://teresamerica.blogspot.com/
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Notre Dame - Slap In The Face To All Pro-Lifers

Posted by Teresa on Saturday, March 28, 2009 2:13:02 PM

Notre Dame administrators are honoring Barack Obama by inviting him to make the commencement address and will award him an honorary degree.  Just because he is President doesn't make him the best person to be giving the commencement speech or receive an honorary degree from Notre Dame, which is a Catholic university.

The Catholic Church stands up for the dignity of all human life, from conception to natural death, and Notre Dame being a Catholic university is obligated to represent the Catholic Church's teachings and values.

Barack Obama is pro-abortion and pro-embryonic stem cell research.  He opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which would have granted a child who survived an abortion procedure protection under the law.  He has absolutely no respect for the dignity of all human life.  By having Barack Obama give the commencement address, Notre Dame is slapping the face of every pro-life Catholic.  The adminstrators should be ashamed of bowing down to moral relativism.  I am appalled and outraged by Notre Dame's decision to have Barack Obama give as the commencement speaker as well as giving him an honorary degree. 

I made a youtube video expressing my outrage:
 
 
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Congress: Do As I Say, Not As I Do

Posted by Teresa on Tuesday, March 24, 2009 5:49:48 PM
      The Government is continuing spending our hard earned tax dollars on Bills that include huge amounts of money that go to PORK, while Congress has a temper tantrum over top executives wasting money.  Now, I am not saying these executives deserved the money, but there is so much hypocrisy in Congress trying to give a financial responsibility lesson to these executives.
 
 
                                                Do you think Congress needs to lead by example?
 
 
 
      If Congress would start practicing fiscal responsibility and stop demanding wasteful pork projects that cost taxpayers billions of dollars, then the American people would start to listen and sympathize with their complaints.  But right now, in my book, Congress has no right to lecture executives on financial responsibility. 
 
                                                Congress's motto is :  Do As I Say, Not As I Do
 
 
 
               Here is a partial list of wasteful PORK projects in the 3 major Bills passed in 2009:
 
                                              $332, 500 for a school sidewalk in Franklin, Texas
                                              $209, 000 for Blueberry production and efficency
                                              $2.1 million for Center for Grape Genetics
                                              $335 million for STD research and,
                                              $75,000 for a Totally Teen Zone in Albany, NY
 
 
      The current budget that just passed included $7.7 Billion dollars in earmarks.  I know that this was less than 2% of the whole Bill,  but that is an aweful lot of money to waste.  Congress needs to stop justifying the amount of PORK in a bill by saying that it is less than 2% of the whole bill.  Each person in Congress needs to take a hard look in the mirror and ask themselves whether they think that $7.7 Billion is alot of money or not.  Then, the person needs to ask themselves, Should I be voting for a Bill that wastes this much money? This money could be going to greater causes, like paying off China.  That way we could begin decreasing our debt to them and eventually no longer be indebted to China.  Maybe this would bring the jobs back to the United States?
 
 
                                       
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Doing "Nothing" About the Border

Posted by Teresa on Sunday, March 22, 2009 1:57:00 PM
      Both Republicans and Democrats have failed to secure our borders.  Both parties are afraid of losing votes, instead of prioritizing the security of this country at the borders.  The Police Chief Jack Harris of Phoenix has done an outstanding job in dropping the crime rates on the domestic front, and now he needs assistance from the Federal Government to curtail the drug cartels efforts to advance their agenda in the United States.  I would encourage Washington to bypass the political thinking and instead think about this country's safety.
 
      First, The American Government needs to put pressure on the Mexican Government to stop these drug cartels.  Then, the U.S. Government needs to put into action a clear plan to stop illegal immigration at the border.  When the politicians start thinking about their constituents safety then the people will start having confidence in them again.
 
       Some people may think that if we open our borders and legalize drugs in the U.S. all of the problems associated with the drug cartels will get better.  Mexico has ignored the problems that are associated with drug cartels, and have drug cartels retreated or are drug cartels starting to invade and brutalize "ordinary" Mexicans?  In Mexico the cartels selling of drugs have exploded into gang violence which is further destroying an already fragile economy in Mexico.  If we allow drugs to be legalized and let anyone into this country, with an open borders policy, then this country will turn into complete chaos.  Gangs from Mexico already have a presence in this country and are responsible for large part of the violent crimes committed.  There would be infighting between the different drug cartels, more dangerous gangs would spread throughout the U.S., illegal immigrants would "steal" United States citizens jobs so unemployment would continue to rise.  So, if anyone thinks the answer to the country's drug cartels problems is open borders and legalizing drugs I would like to know what you are smoking?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

AIG BONUSES: Dems Scheme For Power

Posted by Teresa on Saturday, March 21, 2009 2:24:04 PM
 
      After reviewing articles on March 20, 2009 from both The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review over the outrage to AIG bonuses, I noticed that the Post-Gazette explained how the Democrats were taking actions to clean up the problems, but didn't state how the Democrats were responsible for the provision in the bailout package, allowing AIG executives to receive their bonuses. This article showed a broader view and glossed over the details as to why some Republicans voted against the bill that would tax executives, and gave a podium to Nancy Pelosi, who denied any wrongdoing, and continued laying the blame on the Bush administration. The Tribune-Review showed a more detailed picture in explaining the 90% tax on the AIG bonuses, while explaining both sides of the story, with including that Senator Chris Dodd was the person who crafted the amendment that enabled to executives at AIG to receive their bonuses.  Even, Tim Geithner, presently our Treasury Secretary, while in charge at the NY Fed,  also helped to broker the deal with AIG execs.  House Minority Leader John Boehner expressed concern on whether this Bill to tax the executives 90% is a legal action.
 
   Yes, I am outraged.  Do these executives that ran AIG into the ground really deserve these bonuses?  The answer is NO!!!  Bonuses are for people who perform outstanding work and bring money into the company, but not those that make bad decisions and cost the company large sums of money.    

      But, unfortunately Democratic Senator Chris Dodd was the person who spearheaded the language in the Bill to ensure that the AIG executives received their bonuses.  Dodd, Obama, as well as other Democrats had received monetary contributions from AIG.  Was the bonus clause there to make sure more contributions kept on rolling in for the Democratic party?  Tim Geithner is one of those who orchestrated the contracts for AIG, so do you really think that he didn't know ahead of time that these executives would receive bonuses?  

      Is it unconstitutional to enact an ex post facto law? This gets kind of complicated because even though the bonuses were being paid for the year 2008, the monies were actually paid in 2009.  But another complicating factor is the fact that Congress knew about these bonuses before the stimulus money was given to AIG.  Now Congress is trying to make themselves look good in the public eye by retroactively taxing the bonuses that the Democrats enabled AIG to keep in an amendment in the stimulus package.
 
      As outraged as I am that undeserved AIG execs are receiving bonuses, I am even more outraged at Congress for abusing their power to punish executives.  If enacted, this could set a very dangerous precedent, where any group that the president or Congress disagrees with could be targeted.  Congress is already incompetent and abuses its powers to some extent.  Do we really want to give Congress more ammunition to control  who gets taxed more, or to punish cerain groups acorss the country for disagreeing with political policies?
 
      Did the Democrats enact this amendment to allow AIG execs to receive bonuses in order to be able to tax one particular segment of society?  Did the Democrats let this happen in order to open the door for targeting  additional particular sectors of society in order to promote their political agenda?  Was this the real reason why they allowed the bonuses to be paid in the first place?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Devil-in-chief! - Response to David Limbaugh's review of Levin

Posted by Teresa on Friday, March 20, 2009 10:29:00 AM
The Obama administration is promoting the devil's work.  They want to take advantage of the most innocent human beings, unborn babies, and perform experiments in order to find the "perfect" cure. The Obama administration is following in Hitler's footsteps. The democrats like to promote moral relativism, which includes death, and the destruction of our capitalist system. President Obama is lying when he says he wants to work with the GOP and cross the aisle. What he really wants is for the Republicans to give up our moral principles and come over to his side, and that's no compromise. His debacles with the prime ministers of England and Ireland, shows incompetence at its worst. And the fact that he considers negotiating with Iran before conservatives, and his changes in the war on terror shows how much of a muslim sympathizer he is.

The GOP needs to resist these evil temptations. Working together is not possible with the democrats and this administration. The GOP needs to start standing up, speaking, and leading by example in expressing our conservative values.  We need to try to figure out a better approach in order to reach americans.  Somehow, we are perceived as the party for the "rich". I know that we are the party that wants everyone to succeed, wants less government, and are for the freedom of religion and the right to bear arms, but somehow we have to get through to more americans that just because we believe in less government, that doesn't mean we do not want you to succeed.  This means we want people to kick the habit of being dependent on the government which will give them a sense of pride and self-confidence about themselves.

This administration is far over reaching in many of their policies. Yes, they are sending us into socialism, at its worst.  And the pure fact that Obama and the democrats have this narcissistic and immature attitude - we won the election and we'll do what we want - shows how selfish this administration is.  This could even turn into a totalitarian state, the way the democrats want to contol everything, even freedom of speech.
 
Let's march on, revolutionize this country,

and stand up for its core values!!!
 
 
 
 

 

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »