Posts Tagged ‘Reid’

Democrats WHO HAVE NO BUDGET PLAN OF THEIR OWN Unceasingly Demonize Republicans For Bothering To Have A Plan

June 25, 2011

Keep this in mind: the Democrats DO NOT HAVE A BUDGET.  President Obama – our Disgrace-in-Chief – submitted such an absolute laugher that not even a single DEMOCRAT in A DEMOCRAT-CONTROLLED SENATE could vote for it.  It isn’t a Republican talking piont to claim that President Obama has no plan and he is not leading; it is a documented FACT.  But that is only half of it, because it has now been 782 days since the Democrat-controlled Senate passed any kind of a budget.

Democrats have no ideas whatsoever.  They have no budget whatsoever.  Their entire plan consists in demonizing Republicans who are trying to lead in spite of the fact that the failure in the White House is a Democrat.

The following was true a month ago when Democrats had no plan other than to lie and demonize.  It is still true today:

May 25th, 2011 11:29 AM
Dem Strategy for 2012: Hide Our Record, Demonize the Opposition
by Bill O’Connell

The most recent trial balloon was in New York’s 26th Congressional District special election. There Democrat Kathy Hochul ran on the demagoguery that Paul Ryan’s budget plan, which her Republican opponent Jane Corwin supported, meant the end of Medicare. Hochul said:

“We had the issues on our side—did we not have the right issues on our side?” Ms. Hochul said at her victory party, as supporters chanted “Medicare! Medicare!”

We had the issues on our side? “We can balance our budget the right way and not on the backs of our seniors,” she said. Democrats said the program [Medicare] should be steadied through other measures. Okay, tell us, just what are those measures? Anyone?

Where is balancing the budget on the back of seniors in the Ryan plan? Better yet, how does the Ryan plan stack up against the Democrats plan? Oh, that’s right, the Democrats don’t have a plan. The Democrats want to continue the status quo of spending us into oblivion. They want to take the only real plan on the table, the Ryan plan, and not challenge it with ideas of their own, but try to hang it around the necks of the Republicans.

SenateDemocrats were expected to bring up the House Republicans’ 2012 budget plan for a vote this week, but not their own plan, which remains under lock and key.

The Democrats want to get the Republicans in the Senate on record as supporting the Ryan plan as did all but four Republicans in the House. They believe that by pointing to support for the Ryan plan, they are home free to retake the House while retaining the Senate, reelect President Obama and finish the job of destroying America, the America we know and the America our founders envisioned. But don’t take my word for it, listen to Harry Reid.

“There’s no need to have a Democratic budget, in my opinion,” Reid told the Los  Angeles Times last week. “It would be foolish for us to do a budget at this  stage.”

After all if you have a plan, people can look at it and evaluate it and from where the Democrats are coming from it would be suicidal to actually admit through a vote what they are trying to do.

Next to the lackluster economy and a persistently high 9 percent unemployment rate, runaway spending and debt remain among the voters’ greatest concerns. But the Democrats‘ strategy right now is not to grab the deficit by the horns and wrestle it into submission. It is to play political games with the issue and with the American people, to help the Democrats win back control of the House and rebuild their dwindling forces in the Senate. — Washington Times, 24 May 2011

The Democrats who have added $5 trillion to the debt since re-taking control of Congress in 2006, have not passed a budget and have no intention of doing so and as every household and business knows, without a budget spending will be out of control.

While the Democrats draw up their battle plans to smear, lie, and distort the issues, and terrorize seniors in the hope that they will remain ignorant and not question the accuracy of their statements, it will fall upon the Tea Party to ramp up another education effort to spread the truth. I’ll let Mr. Ryan lead off here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJIC7kEq6kw&feature=player_embedded

Originally posted at Liberty’s Lifeline.

Donald Trump is a loudmouth fool who started out running as a Democrat but is now threatening to run as an independent.  Trump is angry at the Republicans because they care enough about their country to lead, instead of being only concerned with pure political posturing like Trump and like the Democrats.

Please have a brain in your head.  Please understand that the DEMOCRATS REFUSED TO PASS A BUDGET FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS.  Please understand that we are spiralling completely out of control while fools and ideologues like Trump and like Democrats say that their plan is to sit back and do nothing but attack the people who try to lead and try to fix our closing-in-on-being-insurmountable-problems before it’s too late.

Donald Trump’s corporation has been bankrupt FOUR TIMES: 1991, 1992, 2004 and 2009.  He is a crony capitalist without integrity or honor who has made a good life for himself by knowing how to play the system against itself and by sticking his nose up the right butthole.  He creates a corporation, runs that business into the ground, and then walks away scott free to create another one.  And then another.  And another.  And of course another.

Anyone who votes for Donald Trump regardless of what party he tries to exploit is almost as big of an A-hole as Trump is.

Democrats refused to support Barack Obama’s budget because even they understood that it was guaranteed to bankrupt America.  They also know that whatever they do will necessarily bankrupt America.  So their plan is to sit back like the fearmongering lying demagoguing slanderers that they are and hope that the American people accept enough of their lies to regain power over our lives.

Advertisements

Afghanistan and Iran: Weakling President Obama Confronted By ‘Strong’ Candidate Obama

September 28, 2009

Anne Bayefsky yesterday characterized Obama’s foreign policy as “the mouse who roared.”

Words don’t mean anything unless a leader has the character, integrity, courage, and resolve to stand behind them.

In July 15, 2008, candidate Obama roared regarding Afghanistan:

I have argued for years that we lack the resources to finish the job because of our commitment to Iraq. That’s what the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said earlier this month,” Obama proclaimed in a major foreign policy address on July 15, 2008. “And that’s why, as president, I will make the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be. This is a war that we have to win.”

In March 27, 2009, President Obama roared:

So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That’s the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just.

But now, just six months later, Obama is hiding from his generals and refusing to even LOOK AT his own General’s (Gen. Stanley McChrystal) troop request which will be necessary to carry out Obama’s own strategy.  Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Obama doesn’t even want to look at it yet.

Here’s the current situation:

Within 24 hours of the leak of the Afghanistan assessment to The Washington Post, General Stanley McChrystal’s team fired its second shot across the bow of the Obama administration. According to McClatchy, military officers close to General McChrystal said he is prepared to resign if he isn’t given sufficient resources (read “troops”) to implement a change of direction in Afghanistan:

“Adding to the frustration, according to officials in Kabul and Washington, are White House and Pentagon directives made over the last six weeks that Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, not submit his request for as many as 45,000 additional troops because the administration isn’t ready for it.”

Here’s the current situation:

In interviews with McClatchy last week, military officials and other advocates of escalation expressed their frustration at what they consider “dithering” from the White House. Then, while Obama indicated in television interviews Sunday he isn’t ready to consider whether to send more troops to Afghanistan, someone gave The Washington Post a classified Pentagon report arguing more troops are necessary to prevent defeat.

Here’s the current situation:

Those officials said that taking time could be costly because the U.S. risked losing the Afghans’ support. “Dithering is just as destructive as 10 car bombs,” the senior official in Kabul said. “They have seen us leave before. They are really good at picking the right side to ally with.”

The roaring mouse has been replaced by a timid, weak, pandering, patronizing, appeasing – and most certainly DITHERING – president.

Bush used to talk to his troop commanders in Afghanistan and Iraq every week; Obama has spoken JUST ONCE with Gen. McChrystal in the last seventy days.

Obama has spent more time talking with David Letterman than he has his key general in Afghanistan!!!

Clear implication to McChrystal: Talk to the hand.

A recent article entitled, “Pentagon worried about Obama’s commitment to Afghanistan” ended with this assessment from a senior Pentagon official:

“I think they (the Obama administration) thought this would be more popular and easier.  We are not getting a Bush-like commitment to this war.”

Which answers the question as to why our troops so overwhelmingly supported Bush, and sat on their hands when their new commander-in-chief addressed them.

Charles Krauthammer points out the sheer cynical depravity of Barack Obama and the Democrat Party as regards Iraq and Afghanistan by pointing to what the Democrats themselves said:

Bob Shrum, who was a high political operative who worked on the Kerry campaign in ’04, wrote a very interesting article in December of last year in which he talked about that campaign, and he said, at the time, the Democrats raised the issue of Afghanistan — and they made it into “the right war” and “the good war” as a way to attack Bush on Iraq.In retrospect, he writes, that it was, perhaps, he said, misleading. Certainly it was not very wise.

What he really meant to say — or at least I would interpret it — it was utterly cynical. In other words, he’s confessing, in a way, that the Democrats never really supported the Afghan war. It was simply a club with which to bash the [Bush] administration on the Iraq war and pretend that Democrats aren’t anti-war in general, just against the wrong war.

Well, now they are in power, and they are trapped in a box as a result of that, pretending [when] in opposition that Afghanistan is the good war, the war you have to win, the central war in the war on terror. And obviously [they are] now not terribly interested in it, but stuck.

And that’s why Obama has this dilemma. He said explicitly on ABC a few weeks ago that he wouldn’t even use the word “victory” in conjunction with Afghanistan.

And Democrats in Congress have said: If you don’t win this in one year, we’re out of here. He can’t win the war in a year. Everybody knows that, which means he [Obama] has no way out.

Reminds me of Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who said, “I believe myself that … this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything.”  Reminds me of Democrat House Majority Whip James Clyburn openly acknowledging the fact that good news for American troops in Iraq would actually be bad news for Democrats.

The party of cut-and-run is already preparing to cutand run.  On the war they said we needed to fight and win in their campaign rhetoric.

By the way, Obama’s refusal to use the word “victory” is right here.  Nearly a year to the day after Obama said “This is a war we need to win,” Obama said (you can go here for the interview):

I’m always worried about using the word ‘victory,’ because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur.

Well, first of all, Obama is factually wrong in his history: Hirohito didn’t sign the surrender to MacArthur.  Secondly, he is utterly morally wrong in his foreign policy.

Let’s compare Obama’s refusal to pursue victory with the strategic vision of a great president:

“Here’s my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose.” – Ronald Reagan

Reagan’s America: winner; Obama’s America: loser.

Let’s turn now to Obama’s abject failure in Iran.

In his April 16th, 2008 debate with Hillary Clinton, Obama roared:

“I have said I will do whatever is required to prevent the Iranians from obtaining nuclear weapons.”

But he did nothing.  NOTHING.  And now Iran already has them at their whim.

And  in The Jerusalem Post, we get a picture of the REAL Obama:

The Iranians have already called Obama’s bluff. An Iranian newspaper referred to the American agenda on July 26 this way: “[T]he Obama administration is prepared to accept the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran… They have no long-term plan for dealing with Iran… Their strategy consists of begging us to talk with them.”

Obama had a historic opportunity at the United Nations gathering: he was the first American president EVER to serve as the chair of the UN Security Council.  He had the power to shape the agenda, and confront Iran over its now overwhelmingly clear nuclear weapons program.

He pissed his opportunity away, and drove NOTHING.

Anne Bayefsky described how Obama utterly failed to force any kind of showdown with Iran – even when the opportunity was literally handed to him.  She concludes by saying, “There is only one possible answer: President Obama does not have the political will to do what it takes to prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb.”

Remember that pandering, appeasing, pathetic weakness when Iran gets the bomb and the ballistic missile system to deliver it.  Remember that when they launch wave after wave of terror attack with impunity.  Remember that when they shut down the Strait of Hormuz and send the price of gasoline skyrocketing to $15 a gallon.

As for Israel?

Only a brain-dead and witless minority of 4% of Israelis believe Obama hasn’t sold them down the river; by contrast, 88% of Israelis believed Bush was pro-Israel.

Hearkening back to the Carter Administration which Obama’s frighteningly resembles, Carter’s National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, wants to make it clear to Israel that if they attempt to attack Iran’s nuclear weapons sites the U.S. Air Force will stop them.

Apparently, Saudi Arabia is a better friend of Israel than the United States.

I believe God will supernaturally protect Israel when they are attacked by an enemy that will be emboldened because of American abandonment of Israel and a perception of American weakness.

Alas, America won’t be so fortunate.

I had crystal clear clarity when I heard that Barack Obama’s pastor of 23 years shouted:

“No, no, no!  Not God bless America, God damn America!”

And Barack Obama’s incredibly weak and pandering response was that:

Rev. Wright “is like an old uncle who says things I don’t always agree with.”

I believe that God WILL damn America under this President.  And I believe that that damnation has already began.

Obama’s Energy Plan: Inflate Here, Inflate Now, Pay More

August 2, 2008

Even as we hear Ludacris’ racist, misogynistic, hateful rap playing in the background noise of a culture that liberals are screwing up more every day, we can consider Barack Obama’s contribution to that which is truly ludicrous:

There are things you can do individually, though, to save energy,” Obama said. “Making sure your tires are properly inflated – simple thing. But we could save all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling – if everybody was just inflating their tires? And getting regular tune-ups? You’d actually save just as much!”

In short, Obama is saying, “Inflate here. Inflate now. Pay More.”

There’s no question that properly inflating one’s tires and getting regular tune-ups can in fact contribute to fuel efficiency. That’s why I check my tire pressure regularly and top-off as necessary. Not enough people check their tire pressure, which is why the only truly over-inflated thing in this country is Barack Obama’s ego.

But come on!!!

An individual driver can in fact save up to 3% of his or her fuel economy by keeping the tires properly inflated.  But do you see what Obama did here?  In order to “inflate” the power of his statistic, he arbitrarily assumes that every single car in the nation currently has four under inflated tires.  There’s lies, damn lies, statistics – and now we have ourselves a fourth category – “Obama statistics.”

If we everybody properly inflated our tires we could save oil (though by nowhere near the amount Obama says). Yes, and if everybody drove less we could also save oil. If everybody drove slower we could save oil. If everybody drove electric electric cars we could save oil. If everybody rode bikes we could save oil. If everybody had Star Trek transporters we could save oil. If everybody rid themselves of their physical bodies and became non-corporeal entities we could save oil.

I see an overwhelming majority of people fly by me on the freeway and realize every single day that these “ifs” have virtually nothing to do with the real world. If everybody had wings we could save oil. We need oil because we consume a lot of energy in a country that has millions of miles of roads, and we need oil because oil will continue to provide 85% of our total energy consumption for decades to come.

It reminds me of a joke…

How many Democrats does it take to change a light bulb? 1,001. One to hold the light bulb, and 1,000 to turn the house around and around. Frankly, it’s far easier for a relative few Democrats in the Congress to vote to allow for increasing our oil supply than it is to demand that 300,000,000 Americans change their behavior. Drill here. Drill now. Pay less.

I guess there’s one good thing about Obama’s “We can inflate our way out of our energy crisis” remark: its addition brings to an even ten my list of the stupid and bogus pseudo-reasons that Democrats are using to avoid passing drilling legislation, even as it further corroborates my claim that we really are talking about “the three stooges” here.

We can add this sheer idiocy to Nancy Pelosi’sI’m trying to save the planet! I’m trying to save the planet!” insanity and Harry Reid’scoal makes us sick, oil makes us sick, its Global Warming, its ruining our Country, its ruining our World” craziness.

The Democrats seem to think that if they just stall long enough as regards increasing our domestic oil production, that just maybe they will get a large enough majority in Congress to repeal the law of supply and demand.

Until then we can count on them to use every procedural trick in the book to block any debate over drilling for oil to increase our desperately-needed energy supply.

Note to self: only vote for sane people.