Barack Obama

[randolph]

I just read an article by Tom Burghart on www.globalresearch.ca
Titled; "Who Would Benefit Politically from a Terrorist Incident on American Soil? The Strange Case of Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab"
I am not into conspiracy theories but his article is interesting. Politically, the Republicans benefited enormously from 9/11. He presents the question who would now benefit politically from a successful terrorist attack on the US? Humm, it certainty isn't President Obama and the Democrats.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

I just read an article by Tom Burghart on www.globalresearch.ca
Titled; "Who Would Benefit Politically from a Terrorist Incident on American Soil? The Strange Case of Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab"
I am not into conspiracy theories but his article is interesting. Politically, the Republicans benefited enormously from 9/11. He presents the question who would now benefit politically from a successful terrorist attack on the US? Humm, it certainty isn't President Obama and the Democrats.

"Who benefits politically" seems to imply some kind of sneaky underhanded thing. Why does it benefit republicans? For no other reason other than because they handled the problem. They didn't ignore the problem and they went on the offensive. The Bush administration also kept terrorism out of America from 9/11/01 on to the end of his terms. That's no small feat, as BO is finding out. He's already got the Fort Hood attack and the nearly successful xmas jet bombing under his belt.

BTW, why is Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, aka Underwear Bomber, not being tried as an enemy combatant? He's not a US citizen. In his indictment there's no mention of terrorism or Al Qaeda even though we know that he is a part of Al Qaeda and he was caught with a bomb in is pants on a jet.

BO today claimed full responsibility for the security failings. Great. Let the heads start rolling. National Counterterrorism Center director Michael Leiter was on a ski trip when the xmas bomber incident occurred. What did he do when he heard the news? Continued with his ski trip. Department of Homeland Security head Janet Napolitano says the system works. She's turning that department into a joke. But BO says he's not firing anyone.

Plus all the other stuff like inflating the deficit by over $2 trillion, pushing for national health care that no one but the far left wants.

I'm seeing fewer and fewer people on here defending him. Let's just call it like it is. Can we all agree that BO is a failure?

[TracyCoxx]

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01...y6068237.shtml

An aggregate of 21 Gallup and USA Today/ Gallup polls from 2009 show that 40 percent of Americans call themselves conservative, while 36 percent identify as moderate and 21 percent identify as liberal. In 2008, by contrast, moderates matched conservatives at 37 percent while 22 percent called themselves liberal.

So let me get this straight. National Health care is a liberal plan. So why is a representative government such as ours going full speed ahead for this plan when only 21% of the country is liberal?

They know they're doing something terribly wrong because they're putting this bill together behind closed doors. Here is Obama lying to us 8 times.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPMf6kW_1Nw

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01...y6068237.shtml



So let me get this straight. National Health care is a liberal plan. So why is a representative government such as ours going full speed ahead for this plan when only 21% of the country is liberal?

They know they're doing something terribly wrong because they're putting this bill together behind closed doors. Here is Obama lying to us 8 times.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPMf6kW_1Nw

In the last election, a majority of the voters voted for universal health care, we are a "democracy" right? The democratic majority was charged with coming up with a plan the people want. Instead, they came up with a plan the drug and insurance companies want. So the voters are frustrated and pissed off with good reason. It looks like we actually have a plutocracy rather than a democracy, greed rules!

[randolph]

* The Wall Street Journal www.wsj.com

* OPINION: DECLARATIONS
* JANUARY 7, 2010, 6:33 P.M. ET

The Risk of Catastrophic Victory
Obama is in the midst of one. Can the GOP avert one of their own?

*
By PEGGY NOONAN

Passage of the health-care bill will be, for the administration, a catastrophic victory. If it is voted through in time for the State of the Union Address, as President Obama hopes, half the chamber will rise to their feet and cheer. They will be cheering their own demise.

If health care does not pass, it will also be a disaster, but only for the administration, not the country. Critics will say, "You didn't even waste our time successfully."

What a blunder this thing has been, win or lose, what a miscalculation on the part of the president. The administration misjudged the mood and the moment. Mr. Obama ran, won, was sworn in and began his work under the spirit of 2008?expansive, part dreamy and part hubristic. But as soon as he was inaugurated ,the president ran into the spirit of 2009?more dug in, more anxious, more bottom-line?and didn't notice. At the exact moment the public was announcing it worried about jobs first and debt and deficits second, the administration decided to devote its first year to health care, which no one was talking about. The great recession changed everything, but not right away.

This is an excellent article, well worth reading the rest of it.

[randolph]

OK, here's an answer to Peggy Noonan.
January 8, 2010, 12:11 pm
One health care reform, indivisible

Jonathan Chait reads Peggy Noonan, so I don?t have toPaul Krugman)

The public in 2009 would have been happy to see a simple bill that mandated insurance companies offer coverage without respect to previous medical conditions. The administration could have had that?and the victory of it?last winter.

Instead, they were greedy for glory.

Chait explains why this is nonsense. But let me explain at fuller length, because this is one of the great misunderstood keys to the whole health care debate.

Start with the proposition that we don?t want our fellow citizens denied coverage because of preexisting conditions ? which is a very popular position, so much so that even conservatives generally share it, or at least pretend to.

So why not just impose community rating ? no discrimination based on medical history?

Well, the answer, backed up by lots of real-world experience, is that this leads to an adverse-selection death spiral: healthy people choose to go uninsured until they get sick, leading to a poor risk pool, leading to high premiums, leading even more healthy people dropping out.

So you have to back community rating up with an individual mandate: people must be required to purchase insurance even if they don?t currently think they need it.

But what if they can?t afford insurance? Well, you have to have subsidies that cover part of premiums for lower-income Americans.

In short, you end up with the health care bill that?s about to get enacted. There?s hardly anything arbitrary about the structure: once the decision was made to rely on private insurers rather than a single-payer system ? and look, single-payer wasn?t going to happen ? it had to be more or less what we?re getting. It wasn?t about ideology, or greediness, it was about making the thing work.

It's complicated, isn't it?

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by randolph

In the last election, a majority of the voters voted for universal health care, we are a "democracy" right?

Wrong. We are a republic, not a democracy. Totally big difference there.

Main Entry: de?moc?ra?cy
Pronunciation: \di-ˈm?-krə-sē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural de?moc?ra?cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dēmokratia, from dēmos + -kratia -cracy
Date: 1576
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy — C. M. Roberts>
4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

Democracy=majority rule

Main Entry: re?pub?lic
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈpə-blik\
Function: noun
Etymology: French r?publique, from Middle French republique, from Latin respublica, from res thing, wealth + publica, feminine of publicus public — more at real, public
Date: 1604
1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French Fourth Republic>
2 : a body of persons freely engaged in a specified activity <the republic of letters>
3 : a constituent political and territorial unit of the former nations of Czechoslovakia, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or Yugoslavia


Read the part in italics. "Governing according to law". Democracy is a system based on the wants of the collective. If enough people get pissed off or want something for some reason, it becomes law no matter how irrational it may be. This is why there is no mention of the word "democracy" anywhere in the US Constitution.

The word "republic" is mentioned because it denotes a system governed by a predetermined set of laws, in our case, The US Constitution. The Constitution is a construct and all the laws and powers of the government that is beholden to it must fit within the construct.

A government mandate of "universal healthcare" is inherently unconstitutional because it does not fall within what the powers of the government are entitled to do according to the United States Constitution.

Some will try to use this quote from the Preamble to justify "UH":

Originally Posted by The United States Constitution"

promote the general Welfare,

and they will be wrong. Why you ask? Let's ask what some of the guys who WROTE the Constitution had to say about the "General Welfare" clause:

"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare.... [G]iving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one...."
-- James Madison, letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:
"With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. If the words obtained so readily a place in the "Articles of Confederation," and received so little notice in their admission into the present Constitution, and retained for so long a time a silent place in both, the fairest explanation is, that the words, in the alternative of meaning nothing or meaning everything, had the former meaning taken for granted."

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817

Healthcare is an individual need and thus must be looked after by the individual himself, not by a government entity.

[jimnaseum]

I remember during Iraq War II I would hear Tony Blair say something, and it would sound beautiful, then I would hear Bush II say the EXACT SAME THING and it would sound like horseshit!!! A reasonable person might say I was guilty of being unfairly prejudiced against Bush, until a reasonable person figured out Bush was full of shit!!! While he read his prepared speeches, written by highly paid academic speechwriters, truckloads of cash ran nightly from the pockets of hard working Americans straight to the vaults of the Military Industrial Complex. So while Bush and Cheney were definately HORRID leaders, they sure were smooth businessmen!!!
Bush and Obama are servants to the exact same Constitution. Word for Word. You can stand poised to pounce on everything Obama says if you want to, but in seven years, the fruits of his actions will be evident. The truckloads of cash will be running all night, but in the opposite direction. Back to the people who work for a living. Hey, Obama, show 'em what you can do! You Watch!!!

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

Bush and Obama are servants to the exact same Constitution. Word for Word.

Except you generally can't trust anything BO says. This: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPMf6kW_1Nw
is only the most obvious.

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

You can stand poised to pounce on everything Obama says if you want to, but in seven years, the fruits of his actions will be evident. The truckloads of cash will be running all night, but in the opposite direction. Back to the people who work for a living. Hey, Obama, show 'em what you can do! You Watch!!!

Niiiiice. But wait, he just printed over $2 trillion of money we don't have. Aren't we going to have to deal with that? Usually the feds have to raise interest rates to get that money back so they can destroy it. They haven't yet because they're trying to get the economy going, but make no mistake, they will have to. Those trucks of money will be going from people who work for a living to the US treasury and into the fire.

[CCC]

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

I remember during Iraq War II I would hear Tony Blair say something, and it would sound beautiful, then I would hear Bush II say the EXACT SAME THING and it would sound like horseshit!!! A reasonable person might say I was guilty of being unfairly prejudiced against Bush, until a reasonable person figured out Bush was full of shit!!! While he read his prepared speeches, written by highly paid academic speechwriters, truckloads of cash ran nightly from the pockets of hard working Americans straight to the vaults of the Military Industrial Complex. So while Bush and Cheney were definately HORRID leaders, they sure were smooth businessmen!!!
Bush and Obama are servants to the exact same Constitution. Word for Word. You can stand poised to pounce on everything Obama says if you want to, but in seven years, the fruits of his actions will be evident. The truckloads of cash will be running all night, but in the opposite direction. Back to the people who work for a living. Hey, Obama, show 'em what you can do! You Watch!!!

WOW You are wacked out !!!! 7 YEARS? No way in the world will he be pres for 7 years. He'll be lucky to finish 1. There's truck loads of cash traveling every night right from the treasury printing presses to every Democrat whore willing to take it.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

In the last election, a majority of the voters voted for universal health care, we are a "democracy" right? The democratic majority was charged with coming up with a plan the people want. Instead, they came up with a plan the drug and insurance companies want. So the voters are frustrated and pissed off with good reason. It looks like we actually have a plutocracy rather than a democracy, greed rules!

As Postman says, we're a republic, not a democracy. At least we're supposed to be. Our democratic representatives, which constitute a majority, are failing at representing us.

In the 2008 election the people did not vote for health care. There was a big mindless push for "change" where no one (especially the media) was asking what kind of change BO was talking about. The election was going McCain's way, until the financial problems showed up, and BO made it work for him.

The people voted for what they thought would fix the economy, and for what they thought would create more jobs. The administration insults the American people by passing enormous spending bills that will do neither, and only dumps obscene amounts of money into their pet projects. Then they concentrate all their efforts on health care, which no one was clamoring for.

[randolph]

My goodness! When I signed up for this tranny porn site, I had no idea I would be getting lessons in civics. Yes, there is no question the country has strayed away from the concepts of the founding fathers. But keep in mind the country in 1790 was very different from today. Boston had 18,000 population, Philadelphia 28,000 and New York 33,000. By today's standards they would be considered small towns. The rest of the country consisted mainly of self sufficient farmers. Very few people had "jobs" as we now know it. The concerns of the designers of the Constitution were very real, they wanted a small central government. My how times have changed, we are no longer an agrarian country of self sufficient farmers, we are citified and most people have "jobs", that is, we are beholden to a corporate entities, which did not exist in their present form in 1790. By design, corporations are only beholden to their stockholders, they have no legal responsibilities to their workers or the public or the environment. Consequently, it has been necessary for the government to enact laws to protect the workers and the environment that were not anticipated by the founding fathers. For the most part, government protection of workers from exploitation by corporations has been moderately successful. Unfortunately corruption and greed continue to put the worker at a disadvantage in the struggle for a decent standard of living.

[jimnaseum]

Hey, if people can argue and steal, amongst themselves, that's just about par for the last three thousand years. The U. S. owes it's world dominance primarily to the invention of the Atom Bomb, followed by a world class standard of living, and we're losing ground in both those areas.

Tracy Darling, fly over to Germany for a couple weeks (if you can afford it) The Seniors there get two free weeks in Health Spas. The minimum wage is like twenty bucks an hour or something. The bread and the beer put the US to shame! The cabs are Mercedes. When you get back to the US you'll see things with new eyes.

During WWII, we spent ONE THIRD of our gross national product on the development of the Atom Bomb. ONE THIRD! While at War! We should do the same thing again in the development of a car that runs on steam or corn or atoms. The only invention Wall St has come up with is a way to make a one dollar loaf of bread cost two dollars.

China is becoming more American than we are now. And with an extra billion people, that ain't good. No matter how you spin it.


What are we going to have to pay back from the Bush years? How about that trillion we still owe China so we wouldn't have to raise taxes! How about all the infrastructure that was completely ignored while Bush drove this economy into the tank! Who is going to save us, Rush Limbaugh? Haw haw haw. Fox news couldn't save itself without Homer Simpson.