What Did Obama Say in his State of the Union Address?

by Paul A. Rahe

January 28, 2010

Big Government

Several items I found quite telling in last nights self adulation teleprompter read. 1. Obams comments on nuclear power, and offshore drilling will be introduced in the next version of Eric Clapton’s  CD When Hell Freezes Over. 2. He will stand on the side of freedom and human dignity, tell that to the Iranian dissidents as they were beaten  and murdered in the street and Obama said nothing. 3. I loved when he was laughed at when he continues his delusion  about proceeding with an agenda to limit CO2.  Apparently he is unaware that the data “supporting” said effort, has been proven false. 4. While he continued to blame the banks for TARP funds and lack of transparency, he forgets the progressive policy that set all of this in motion. 5. His proposed freeze is a total joke, it represents nothing when compared to the size of the deficit. Let’s not forget, the areas  to be frozen already have received a 35% increase in funding last year, making the issue moot, or shall I be bold enough to say another lie? 6. His calling out the Supreme Court for their decision last week was beyond arrogant and fitting of the dictator he hopes to become. 7. Last, less I bore you to death re-sawing sawdust, his lame attempt to continue on with his form of health care denial, the vast majority of the American voters loath.  Random thoughts, while observing the State of the Union, yea I said I wouldn’t watch it. But couldn’t find the I Love Lucy re-runs, J.C.

The State of the Union Address that Barack Obama delivered last night bore little, if any, resemblance to the speech that, in my opinion, he should have delivered. The actual speech was, in fact, all too typical of the genre. It ran for an hour or more, and it consisted of an interminable laundry list of putative accomplishments and proposals. When, near the end, the President said, “I don’t quit,” I found myself thinking, “No, surely! But I very much wish you would.” In the course of an hour, I felt as if I had spent three weeks listening to the man. I very much doubt that I was alone.


Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who's the biggest liar of them all?

Seven things stood out.

First, at no point did Barack Obama acknowledge that the promises that he made in campaigning for the so-called stimulus bill have gone unredeemed and that unemployment has continued to grow in a fashion that, he told us, it would not.

Second, much of the speech consisted in self-praise that, in the grim circumstances that we now face, seemed out of place.

Third, despite what the Climategate scandal has revealed concerning the dishonesty of those who have shilled for bills like the cap-and-trade measure passed by the House of Representatives, the President insists on our basing American public policy on discredited science.

Fourth, our President is still telling the same old lies concerning the healthcare reform measures passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives; and, despite everything that has happened, he intends to push for their reconciliation and passage into law by one means or another.

Fifth, he intends to raise taxes on the investing class — both by means of imposing a tax on the large banks and investment operations which will be passed on to those who make use of the services they provide, and by allowing the tax cuts introduced by President Bush to lapse for those making over $250,000 a year — and he has no appreciation for the role which the investing class, if not denied the rewards for which it has incurred considerable risks, can play in creating new jobs and fostering prosperity.

Sixth, Barack Obama has a vast array of programs that he wants to put in place, and he provided no information as to how these would be paid for.

Seventh, he is not in any way serious in the arguments that he makes for fiscal prudence.

I doubt that President Obama helped himself or his party with his State of the Union Address. A year ago, such a speech might have done him some good and would have done him no harm. By now, however, too many people are aware that they are being had. If anything, his decision to continue pushing his signature measures — cap and trade and healthcare reform — is likely to wreak havoc on his party in November.


Yea Obey but you had the help of Congress and I had more fun

Little Johnny Finally Gets his Magic Decorder Ring Before Obama’s State of the Union Teleprompter Read

There is still time for you to get yours. It will work for the entire year of Obama's Bullshit

BREAKING NEWS: scientist admits IPCC used fake data to pressure policy makerss

And we thought the “climategate” scandal was the final nail in the coffin.  This admission by a prominent member of the IPPC will shut down any further relevance to the issue. Now any proposed legislation signed into law must be challenged in court to shut these ignorant people down for good.  The EPA arguably serves no useful purpose and plans to slam carbon penalties upon us with absolutely no evidence that CO2 harms the climate.  What can the climate hysterics possibly use to make their case? They have already admitted to shredding the data in the two universities that stored it.  Shredding data, an easy task for the ill informed tree hugger, they do it with the Constitution with any legislation they attempt to pass. Random thoughts while observing nit wits try and take over our country, J.C.

Lockyer for Treasurer – California Among 10 States Suing EPA Over

California Among 10 States Suing EPA Over Greenhouse Gases, PDF, Print, E-mail extraordinary amount of the carbon dioxide and other harmful emissions,
http://www.lockyer2010.com/index.php?option=com_content…; – Cached

23 01 2010

The IPCC is now damaged goods. Pachauri is toast, and nobody will be able to cite the IPCC AR4 again without this being brought up.

The Daily Mail’s David Rose in the UK broke this story, it is mind boggling fraud to prod “government action” and grants. Emphasis in red mine.

From the Daily Mail

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.

‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’

Chilling error: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change wrongly asserted that glaciers in the Himalayas would melt by 2035

Dr Lal’s admission will only add to the mounting furore over the melting glaciers assertion, which the IPCC was last week forced to withdraw because it has no scientific foundation.

According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’.

The claim that Himalayan glaciers are set to disappear by 2035 rests on two 1999 magazine interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain, which were then recycled without any further investigation in a 2005 report by the environmental campaign group WWF.

It was this report that Dr Lal and his team cited as their source.

The WWF article also contained a basic error in its arithmetic. A claim that one glacier was retreating at the alarming rate of 134 metres a year should in fact have said 23 metres – the authors had divided the total loss measured over 121 years by 21, not 121.

Last Friday, the WWF website posted a humiliating statement recognising the claim as ‘unsound’, and saying it ‘regrets any confusion caused’.

Dr Lal said: ‘We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was “grey literature” [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.’

In fact, the 2035 melting date seems to have been plucked from thin air.

SEIU Calls Senators ‘Terrorists’

by Bret Jacobson

Big Government

Why does this posting not surprise me?  Seems to me it’s about time to break up some unions.  Virtually everything Obama has pulled or tried to pull is not within the confines of the Constitution.  It’s time to go after the thugs at the top and take them down. Random thoughts, while watching the parade of socialist, Marxist thugs attempt to take over the country, J.C.

Wow, this is beyond the pale. Andy Stern has called two Senators “terrorists” for not going along with the plan to socialize the nation’s medical system. Analysis from TheTruthAboutEFCA.com:

You probably thought it was outrageous that SEIU president Andy Stern has persecuted his own members and driven away large chunks of his own organization.

You probably thought it was incredible that he dropped tens of millions of dollars on politics after leading a split in labor because the other federation was spending too much on politics.

You probably thought it was horrifying to hear how SEIU badgers — almost terrorizes — companies that don’t cave into the union’s card check demands.

Even with all that, you’ll probably still manage to be shocked that Stern has criticized Sen. Joe Lieberman and Sen. Ben Nelson for halting disastrous health care legislation by saying, “There are a lot of terrorists in the Senate who think we are supposed to negotiate with them when they have their particular needs that they want met.”

Stern has flown the cuckoo nest. We wonder if the rest of the labor movement really wants to tie their wagon to this guy.

Time to Eliminate Czars and Handmaidens, Mr. President!

By John Lillpop

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Canada Free Press

Contest: Go to Carl’s Jr. Pick up a hundred whoppers, see if you can eat them faster than you hear them during the liar-in-thief’s teleprompter read this evening.  This president has no idea what is about to hit him and his party come November. Random thoughts while preparing to buy some whoppers while listening to the same, J.C.

Scores of millions of Americans are fitfully waiting the unveiling of the new and improved President Obama, set to roll out at 9 tonight.

A word of caution, Mr. President: People are looking for real CHANGE this time, mostly to the wrong-headed policies and decisions that you have implemented over the past 12 months.

We hear that you will propose a spending “freeze” in order to address the huge deficit that you, Speaker Pelosi and Senate Leader have rung up.

With all due respect, sir, isn’t a freeze just too little, too late?

Is it really possible to freeze in hell?

From a taxpayers’ perspective, it certainly seems that the Obama deficit has grown so unwieldy that only a legitimate slash and burn effort stands a chance at making a difference. Running in place should not be an option.

When it comes to identifying unneeded bloat in government, you could make a decent start simply by looking around the White House itself.

For instance, why in Hades does a man with an IQ of 170 need 40 “czars” to keep track of doings in government? Better to slash the unneeded programs AND the czars. Do it now for the people!

And can you please explain to the American people, many of whom have lost their homes or are in the process of suffering that indignity, why the FLOTUS needs 30 or so hand maidens to tend to her personal needs?

Surely, there must be a less costly way to provide a family of four with luxury and comfort in the White House?

When it comes to wasteful spending, why not propose a freeze on all non-essential congressional travel? Like Speaker Pelosi’s million dollar extravaganza in which she loaded a few Air Force jets with leftist cheerleaders to watch you fail at the global warming farce in Copenhagen?

Why not force Pelosi to justify why she had to go to Copenhagen and why it was necessary for her to take most of San Francisco with her on a winter’s holiday—at taxpayer expense?

Only real CHANGE will do, sir. Complete Story

The Marxist Roots of Obama’s Economic ‘Pivot’

by Joel B. Pollak

Big Government

January 27, 2010

There is absolutely nothing Obama will say  tonight that can be believed.  He is a Marxist, the economic model he follows has never been shown in the entire history of the world to bring a country out of the abyss he is “leading” us.  I say over and over a gain, no country in history has ever taxed itself into prosperity.

Now we could give this guy a break for not studying American History and not being around this country most of his life, but he learned his lessons well from the socialists and Marxists he has admitted always seeking to mentor him while at the university.

The actual quote begin quote: To avoid being mistaken for a [racial] sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets. We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets. At night, in the dorms, we discussed neocolonialism, Franz Fanon, Eurocentrism, and patriarchy”. (Barack Obama, Dreams of my Father: Pages 75 and 76)  Random thoughts while observing the parade of socialists, Marxists, and the radical left destroy our country, J.C.

President Obama’s advisers assure us that he will use his State of the Union address tonight to deal with our nation’s ailing economy. Americans have already begun to hear talk of a “hard pivot” at the White House, away from health care and towards jobs.

Yet in economic terms, the president’s shift thus far has been more of the same: more government control and less individual freedom.

Karl Marx

His attacks on banks—including a new tax that will invariably be passed on to consumers—caused stocks to plummet last week. He has targeted some banks for being “too big,” but without ending the costly policy of “too big to fail,” which removes the discipline of risk and reward. He crowed, “We want our money back,” but wants to use “our” money for his own spending programs, not for tax relief.

The central idea of the President’s new plan appears to be shaping up as a jobs program, in imitation of FDR’s public employment programs during the Great Depression, and funded by new taxes on Wall Street.

The plan is not about job creation—more jobs could be created by the private sector—nor is it about recouping the bailout. It is primarily about redistribution—and is based on old, bad ideas.

Look for two key words likely to appear in the President’s speech: “productive” and “unproductive.” These come from Democrat strategist Robert Creamer, who recently wrote a blog at the Huffington Post entitled: “Tax Bank Bonuses and Capital Gains of Wealthy to Pay for Jobs Program.” Creamer argued that the government should tax the “unproductive financial sector” and “incentivize productive work” instead.

Creamer is no obscure pundit. He is the likely architect of the Democrats’ political strategy on health care reform, outlining it in a book he wrote in federal prison in 2006. He has also been a guest at the Obama White House, together with his spouse, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL). And his Huffington Post columns frequently coincide with the White House message of the week, both in substance and style.

The false distinction between so-called “unproductive” and “productive” work has a long and sordid history. It was a cornerstone of Marxist economic theory, and was also a staple of antisemitic rhetoric in Europe. Jews, barred by law from owning land and practicing certain trades, became prominent in finance—“unproductive” work, to their detractors—and were scapegoated during times of economic turmoil.

Last week, Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League feuded with radio host Rush Limbaugh over whether the Obama administration’s attacks on banking had any antisemitic resonance. Regardless, the policy is wrong, motivated and by a tired and self-destructive Marxist idea: using the heavy hand of government to shift wealth from “unproductive” Wall Street to “productive” Main Street.  Complete Story:

Chris Matthews: Fair and Balanced or Partisan Hack and DNC Water Boy?

That Matthews should ridicule such a common-sense request is absurd on its face; but his approach is pure Alinksy-esque tactics.

However, what the Main Stream Media doesn’t want you to remember or recognize is that the highly flaunted electronic image of the COLB which the Obama campaign puts forth to defend his claims to be eligible for office was recognized as a forgery from the beginning. Complete Story and great read from Post and Mail