Walt's Posts (11)

Sort by


Well, that is if you subscribe tocolumnist DeWayne Wickham’s way of thinking; which is possible if yousquint your eyes and twist your mind.

Wickham’s latestmasterpiece appeared today in USA Today (Aug. 31, 2010, p. 11A) and was,naturally, titled, “Jackson, Sharpton Rallies Carry More Influence ThanBeck’s.”

Which is why, I suppose, the media has spent so muchtime attacking Beck’s rally.

Anyhoo, the gist of Wickham’s littleessay is that suddenly old players like Jackson and Sharpton have theability to “spur” the “core constituency” of the Democratic Party,blacks, to get up off the couch and stop watching SportCenter (to borrowa phrase from obama) and head to the polls in November to rescue theDemocratic Party.

I use the term ‘black’ due to a Radio One pollin October 2008 that found 42% of those polled prefer to be called‘black’ rather than African American (www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/28/liggins.vote/index.html).

I’mall for giving this ultra-minority a voice.

While Wickham saysthe Jackson/Sharpton rallies will create Hope and Change V2.0, hepredicts that the Tea Party “will be short-lived.”

Where wereJackson, Sharpton, and their “core constituents” a month after obama’selection when Democrats were losing two seats in black districts inLouisiana – including New Orleans? Wickham’s charges were missing inGeorgia during a December 2008 Senate run-off election which was run by aRepublican by 15%. Why were Jackson, Sharpton, and Wickham notspurring their “core” to vote in 2009 during governor’s races inVirginia and New Jersey where surveys were showing drops in black voterturnout upwards to 40% as compared with the general election in 2008? (http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/62967-democrats-ponder-a-big-drop-in-turnout-among-black-voters).

Wickhamis placing much faith in an unreliable voting block and two uninspiringmen with racial chips on their shoulders.

The Tea Party, Wickhamsays, is a “21st century incarnation of the anti-immigrationKnow-Nothing Movement of the 1850s.” Thus the crux of his death knell.

HereWickham, like so many, confuse the extreme nativist ideology of theKnow-Nothings with the reasonable, conservative anti-illegal immigrationbelief of the Tea Partiers.

The difference on this point is aswide as a Reagan victory over Jimmy Carter.

Due to the majoritytwo-party hold on our politics, and given the fact that members of bothmajor parties and states like Michigan are fighting to keep a formal TeaParty party off election ballots, we most likely will not be able tocompare electoral successes between the two movements.

TheKnow-Nothings, prior to imploding due to their extremism, did have someelectoral success.

Formally known as the American Party, theKnow-Nothings actually won 62 seats in the U.S. House of Representativesduring the 1854 midterm elections.

They made their way onto the1856 Presidential ballot with candidate Millard Fillmore, who receivednearly 1 million votes.

This, and more, from a party thatbasically morphed its way into being seen as a joke.

However, TeaParty support has led to more elective offices for their supportedcandidates than has the support of obama for his chosen candidates.

Wickhamwastes his time comparing a formal political party built on an extremeanti-immigration ideology with a group aligned to support candidatesthat support various conservative issues.

Wickham and Sharptonare filled with vigor when liberal groups march and coalesce for acandidate and a cause, but are threatened and become hypocritical whenconservatives choose a similar path to make their voices heard.

I’mjust surprised Wickham didn’t bring up Sarah Palin.

Read more…
Since Arizona's just illegal immigrationlaw states in large part what federal law already states, why arepro-illegal groups and persons not protesting out in front of the WhiteHouse and threatening D.C. with silly boycotts?

Since 1986,federal law (Title 8 US Code, 1304 & 1324)has held that: it is acrime for aliens to refuse to register and be fingerprinted;

aliens 18 years and older must carry an alien registration card or proof of registration;

employers are prohibited from hiring illegal aliens;

employersmust verify identify and eligibility of all new hires through thepresentation of specified documents - if they do not have the correctdocuments that cannot be employed.

News reports on Arizona's newlaw love to mis-use the word "now" when telling listeners/readers thatimmigrants must "now" carry documents to prove their legal status inArizona.

This has been the case since 1986 throughout the wholecountry, thus the word "now" is used to inflame the controversy andoverstate the significance of the new law.

But that's expected,many reporting the news, like Katie Couric, have never really proventhemselves to be professional newspersons.

obama hasn'tinvalidated these laws so shouldn't he be included in the criticismfrom those who favor illegals making themselves at home?

Similarly,obama's Homeland Security chief, Janet Napolitano, as democrat governorof Arizona in 2007 signed the Legal Arizona Workers Act which gavecourts the right to revoke the business license of any business thatemploys illegals...why are they not protesting Janet?

Now thatshe is in obama's government however, Janet is questioning theconstitutionality of the current illegal immigration law signed by thecurrent republican governor.

That's being sort of Kerry-esque: "I was actually tough on immigration before I was weak on it."

In2007 there were at least 35 local ordinances passed along the samelines as the Arizona law, so Arizona's law is not nearly as historicaland earth shattering as CNN would leave you to believe, yet it isgetting played as such.

Some twit with a crayon included aneditorial cartoon in USA Today on Thursday which showed a sheriffconfronting a group of people holding the constitution and demanding tosee their "papers."

This has been ok under federal law since 1986, has he used this cartoon before? Probably not.

Federallaw illegal immigration law since 1986 has not been carried out -enforced, there in lies the source of today;s discontent.

Aphoto caption in April 28 edition of USA Today said that demonstratorsin Illinois were recently arrested as they attempted to interfere withthe scheduled transportation of immigrants ordered to be deported.

They are protesting the carrying out of the law...incredible.

These people ought to be put on hold when they next call 911.

Anotherphoto caption showed protesters of Arizona's law in NY City anddescribed these twits as "supporters of illegal immigrants..."

Supporting illegal activity?

What other laws would you like us to ignore?

Can I choose one?

Read more…


Now that obama has put his little signature on his healthcare bill itis up to the bureaucracy to really screw it up...remember obamaknocking the US Mail Service?

Bureaucratic heads make up the rules of the game to attempt to meet the goals and intent of the legislation.

Chosen as bureaucratic head of the Medicare and Medicaid services unit of thefederal government and thus a major portion of obamacare is DonaldBerwick.

Like many on obama's team, Berwick comes from the private sector as head of a non-profit in MA (Institute For HealthcareImprovement) that consults with hospitals and such on how they cancontain costs.

He has received criticisms as head of this organization for apparently not worrying about containing his ownsalary...which I assume is passed onto hospitals who hire hisconsulting firm.

The medical journal Modern Healthcare criticized Berwick for making $769,000 in 2003, $630,000 in 2004, andtax filings for 2008 show he earned $637,000 (so reported the BostonGlobe 3/31/2010).

Facts released by his consulting non-profit but personally profitable institute have also been criticized.

In 2006 researches found problems with his institutes claim that they had"averted" 122,000 deaths through a program focusing on better controlof hospital errors and infections.

The researches allege that 14% of hospitals never submitted data about the program and not all ofthe data submitted was audited (same Globe story).

If you listen to the 2008 documentary Money Driven Medicine you will hear Berwickbemoaning the culture of competition in the healthcare industry...he'sagainst competition in the healthcare field.

Has obama not repeatedly told us that his healthcare plan would promote competition?

If Berwick sets the rules according to this ideology then how willnon-competitive Medicare/Medcaid progams look to future members?

Berwick likes to take a business approach to medical care; such as qualitycontrol programs, "lean manufacturing," and "optimizing flow" ...whichmeans sort of like having checkout times from a hospital like they doin motels.

Berwick was made an honorary knight from the UK for his great help in revamping their healthcare system.

The HealthCare Economist on 4/28/2008 did a piece on healthcare plansaround the world and included this information on the Berwick-revampedGreat Britain system based on the Michael Tanner book, The Grass Is NotAlways Greener: A Look at Healthcare Systems Around the World:

- Great Britian spends 7.5% of GDP on healthcare (at what cost?);

- long waiting lists for treatment are "endemic;" there are 750,000people on admissions waiting lists; 40% of cancer patients never see anoncologist; "minimum" waiting times are mandated so that hospitals willcut costs and must be followed or they lose funding;

- rationing "pervades" the system; rationing is "explicit" for services such askidney dialysis, open heart surgery and terminal ill care;

- patients have little choice of providers;

-there is little access to specialists;

- physicians and nurses are basically government employees;

- due to contract negotiations over pay and work hours, few physicians are available nights and weekends;

- due to low pay there is a shortage of specialists.

Berwick must be confirmed by the Senate.
Call your Senator today.
Read more…


Last Sunday morning, as I basked in the sunlight outside a coffee shop with the New York Times, I came upon an op ed piece entitled "Big Money's Alarming Political Edge."

The occasion for naming a new Supreme Court Judge has rekindled the liberal bitterness among some in the media over the Court's Citizens United ruling in January which gave freedom of speech protections to corporations, unions, and non-profits.

Theuse of the word "Alarming" in the article title no doubt meant that theauthor felt republicans would benefit more from the Court's decision.

Any doubts were erased when the article was read.

According to the author of this piece, due to the ruling the US Chamber of Commerce was putting into action its "most aggressive drives ever" to raise money "to favor mainly republicans" in 50 races this fall....

..."most aggressive drives ever" the piece said, while unions were merely "working to keep pace" for their democrat favorites.

Really? Merely "working to keep pace?"

According to data on OpenSecrets.organd provided by the Federal Election Commission as of March 21, 2010,union donations to democrat candidates and causes have amounted to morethan "working to keep pace."

Since 1990, those unions rated in the top 50 of industry donors as ranked by OpenSecrets.org have donated $636 million to democrats while donating $52 million to republicans (92% vs. 8%).

ServiceEmployees International Union President Andy Stern said, "We spent afortune to elect barack obama." To which Joe Biden would later reply," we owe you."

Republicans enjoy no such huge advantage from any industry in OpenSecret's top 50 rankings.

Nosingle industry group on the list donated more than $333 million torepublicans over the same time period when unions were investing over ahalf billion to democrats.

Even the oil and gas industrydonations fell short of the unions while donating a paltry $186 millionto republicans such as Bush/Cheney since 1990.

The writer of the NY Times piece suffers from the same misconception of republicans and big business donations and lobbying efforts as most of the public.

APew Research Center Report in February 2010 found that commondescriptions of the republican party were, "for the rich, corporateinterests and greed."

Democrats were seen in the same report asthe party that "stands for the average person, the middle-class and theworking class."

Asked which party is more influenced bylobbyists and special interests, 40% of respondents said thatrepublicans were, while 32% chose democrats.

Thus, it is not surprising from this report that many across the U.S.A. would incorrectly figure that the Citizen's United ruling would favor republicans.

Excludingunions from the OpenSecrets top 50 industry list, we find that since1990 total industry donations to political campaigns/causes/lobbying ofdemocrats equals $3.959 BILLION, while the same source of donations torepublicans over the same period totaled $3.954 BILLION....virtuallyeven but democrats with slight edge.

If you add the unions backinto that mix, then totals to democrats go to $4.595 BILLION, whilerepublicans increase to $4.006 BILLION (53% VS. 47%), a larger edge todemocrats.

Since Citizens United was the political action groupresponsible for this ruling, let us look at how liberal groups andconservative groups compare over the last 20 years in supporting theirrespective causes/candidates.

Democrat/liberal groups, such as MoveOn.org,have since 1990 donated or invested $141 million in political races andcauses, while republican/conservative groups, such as Citizens Unitedhave given $106 million to their side...again, a slight edge todemocrats.

If we look at just the top 10 industry groups whichhave donated to political causes/campaigns over the last 20 years(includes biggies like lawyers/law firms, securities/investment, realestate, health professionals, insurance, and oil and gas industries),we find that dems lead this top 10 group with $2.45 billion compared tothe $1.99 billion received by republicans...edge to democrats.


Since1990 non-profit organizations have donated $47 million to democratswhile only $15 million has gone to republicans...edge to democrats.

Thismisconception about big business being in the pocket of republicans isperpetuated by ignorance and false rhetoric from the media and thegovernment.

Chris Good writing for the Atlantic (Jan. 21, 2010)said: "as the pro-business party in US politics, republicans have had aclose relationship with business than have democrats."


CNN's"legal expert" Jeffrey Toobin said on Mar. 15, 2010: "The politicaleffect of, if not intention for, the decision was clear: Citizens United looks to be a big win for republicans, who are the likely beneficiaries of the newly lubricated corporate largess."

Uh huh.

Democrat Senator Arlen Spector called the Court's decision, "conservative activism."

The Slate'sNathaniel Persily was silly in writing on Jan. 25, 2010: "Corporationmoney will flow in great amounts towards ads supporting republicancandidates. Union money will flow as well, but not as much, so democrats and their causes might be at an disadvantage."

But not as much. horny.gif

A New York Times (Jan22, 2010) story said about the Court's ruling: "A conservative majorityhas distorted teh political system to ensure that republican candidateswill be at an enormous advantage in future elections."

Reporting for the Washington Post (2/17/2010), reporter Dan Eggan stated: "Corporations have traditionally favored republicans in their contribution patterns."

Read more…


...are you better off today than you were a year ago?

How would you answer.

Fair question; Bill Clinton asked a similar question of voters while campaigning for Al Gore in 2000.

obama's surrogates (if not himself) from the media and from the citizenry asked it many times during the 2008 election.

Thus, conventional wisdom would hold that our voting decision ought to rest heavily on this type of comparison.

Perhaps we should ask this question as we enter the 2010 midterm elections.

At this point in time, it appears many would answer, "hell no!"

According to a March 15-25 poll by Hart Research Associates, my more than a 2-1margin Americans say they are worse off financially than a year ago.

59% of respondents think that the economic bottom has not yet occurred.

80% said they would rank the economy as either fair or poor.

Similarly, a RealClearPolitics April poll asking people about the direction of thecountry shows that 58% believe it is on the wrong track.

However, we do hear better speeches today.
Read more…

Yet Out Of The Other Side Of His Mouth...

When obama hooks up the corner of his mouth to the side of his face during a speech, it must make you wonderwhat he is trying to hide, or how is he trying to deceive us with theuse of pretty words.

The body language gives him away.

Katie "Jane, you ignorant slut" Couric suffers the same affliction.

Let's consider obama's takeover of the student loan business and his healthcare bamboozle.

obama's recent gobbling up of private sector business comes in the formof his giving the government full control of the federal student loanmarket.

The problem obama says is that the subsidies the government was payingto banks to run the program was merely a sweetheart deal for the banksand was needlessly costing the government billions of dollars.

So obama takes away the middleman and another revenue stream from thebanks (that ought to help the economy) and says that students willapply for and receive their student loans directly from the federalliberal government.

Doing away with government paid subsidies for student loans will save us billions.

However, speaking out of the other side of his mouth, obama iscurrently on another 'obama tour' trying to indoctrinate the citizenryinto accepting the notion that government paid subsidies to theinsurance industry is change that is good and will also save usbillions.

How does that work when the insurance industry surely dwarfs that ofthe student loan industry and the subsidies will thus be larger?

What role for taxes and fees and fines not called taxes?

obama says this healthcare program is an important first step, abeginning. Does that mean he will eventually bump his head and realizethat paying subsides to insurance companies has also cost us needlessbillions, thus, the government will now take over offering healthcareto it's 'citizens' directly?

And what strings will be attached to student loans? Will applicantsonly receive cash if they attend some college created by the governmentthat has a professor named Sharpton, Jackson, Wright, Pelosi, Reed,Geithner, or Emanuel?

Will applicants have to major in community agitation as theorized by the likes of Saul Alinsky or those at ACORN?

His strings have been there before. Many recipients of his jobsprogram money said thanks, but no thanks, due to government mandated'strings." Not all states applied for Sec. of Education arne "I haveno educational degree" Duncan's recent funding program due to it's'strings.' Under obamacare insurers must offer health care plans thatmeet minimum requirements....requirements set by obama's government.

America wake up.

Before obama steals your alarm clock.

Read more…


Yet, similar to how he won the election,his admirers and most important, he himself, are satisfied that usingrhetoric to exaggerate the extent of his successes will be enough toindoctrinate far too many of the voting citizenry with a belief insuccessful change.

The nation's unemployment rate as of February 2010, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, remains just under 10%.

This despite the promise that billions for a shovel ready jobs bill would bring it down below 8% within a year.

And they've added billions more to it while also tying every bill that comes before them as being a jobs creator.

The rhetoric and the reality do not match.

Then there was the trillion dollar purchase of mortgage backedsecurities...to save people's homes and ignite the home buying market.

For the past 12 consecutive months foreclosures have averaged over 300,000per month and sales of new homes in Feb. 2010 fell by 2.2% to an annualpace of only 308,000, the slowest rate of growth since records werefirst recorded in 1963.

The government's purchase of these securities is expected to end this month, the special $8,000 tax breakis due to end in April, mortgage rates are expected to rise, and withonly 170,000 mortgages restructured as part of this plan, they areapproimately 3.8 million restructured mortgage short of their goal.

The rhetoric and the reality do not match.

Then there's the transparency we were promised. Bloomberg News and Fox Newshad to file separate lawsuits, which a federal appeals court ruled onin their favor, to gain access to documents that show which banksreceived emergency short term lending from the the Federal Reserveafter obama's government denied their requests.

And now we have great rhetoric being hurled about on his healthcare "reform." We havethe line in the sand with Iran being continuously redrawn. We haveChina telling us no, Israel telling us no, and Russia making it looklike Carter is still President.

obama's track record leaves us with little hope.

While those that criticize him do so for the most part with remarkably little informed criticism, the rhetoric wins.

Read more…


..but the republican effort was quite lame.

Despite what the majority of the public thinks (50.8% opposed,RealClear Politics poll average, 3/28), obama and the main stream mediaare all giddy over the passing of obamacare.

He has won the war of rhetoric and since we will not know for sure thatthis bill is a front and a fraud for another 7-10 years, obama has thewon the privilege to run about the country as egotistical as ever.

Some in the media will print what lies in the bill below obama'sguess-work rhetoric and expose what the bill really means to theaverage American.

Despite the sensibility of some of these discoveries, some exposed byfacts, obama has the advantage in knowing none of it will be actuallyproven until his presidency is dead and gone.

What a wonderful position for a sleazy politician to find himself.

obama has put off the guts of the bill for another 5 years and untilthen he and his foot soldiers will be able to cast any opposingopinions on the bill as right-wing, tea-bagging nonsense...as politicsas usual and as actions of the status quo.

He'll use pretty speeches and half-assed comedic statements on thestump to energize and indoctrinate his already blind supporters inbelieving his continued rhetoric.

Because we will not see the tragic consequences of this bill's passing until it slaps us up side the head.

obama's staff has told us that they have a mega-marketing campaignplanned to get the word out on what is in the bill. Shouldn't thishave been something they did months ago?

Actually they have, using the same rhetoric and dragging out some poorcrippled person or cancer patient to exploit for political gain.

They will not tell us what is actually in the bill or what it willactually mean to us, really, what they will tell you is how greatchange is and this is something you can believe in.

If you are not questioning why we never heard detailed specifics on howthis bill will work and its affects on the country from obama, his footsoldiers, and the media, then obama's rhetoric will fire you up sillyand you will clap your hands with glee while God blesses your ignoranceand the Constitution protects it.

We will be indoctrinated, not informed, with the message theadministration wants us to believe this bill will do and what itmeans. Unless we dig and search for the truth, obama has the advantageof hiding behind the curtain and providing us only with bright lights,pretty words, and stories of woe.

Most presidents will seek support from the public before a bill ispassed, obama has changed this method by first passing the bill nomatter what the public thinks.


Because he is well aware of how infatuated the public can be overpretty speeches and clever denouncements of the opposition's silly, offfocus antics; especially when supported by a biased and unprofessionalmedia.

With that infatuation, that indoctrination, obama can claim a hugevictory for change and thus an even bigger 'I told you so' at electiontime...yet, like his election, a claim based solely on style andlacking substantive substance.

It could have been different. Republicans in Congress should have donetheir job and reported to their constituencies the more egregiouselements of this bill. Similarly, the voting public could have donetheir research and added a little thought to imagine what couldactually happen under this bill and its affect on further legislation.

Republicans instead stuck by the "scrap it and start over" plan whichwas not a crowd pleaser and which was heavily criticized by the media.Not a good plan.

They played into obama's play on the obstructionist angle and they paid for it.

Then when they did offer 29 amendments to change the bill, obama's foot soldiers gleefully rejected the whole lot.

Yet it did not matter, obama has won the war of rhetoric.

obama could sleep with eldrick's leftovers now and it wouldn't matter for health care...he has won the war of rhetoric.

Read more…


How has your small business been doing under obama’s administration?....

A recent USA TODAY/Manta.com survey askeda similar question of small business owners.....

11% of respondents said things were good.....

13% of respondents said things haven’t changed (“change you can believe in!”).....

77% of small business respondents said that obama’s small business policies have negatively affected their small businesses.....

This can’t be!....

As part of the non-spurring stimulus bill left to obama’s administration toimplement, $200 BILLION was to be used to assist small business owners.....

It was to be Main St. over Wall St.....

However, the owner of your favorite coffee shop down the street sat with his other smallbusiness buds and watched as obama’s great economic minds handed out TARP cashto banks and large corporations.....

Things were not going as obama’s treasury secretary Timmy Geitner had originallyplanned.....

So, in March 0f 2009, obama had another plan.....

Give them more money (since the money was notcoming directly from the Treasury, no Congressional approval would benecessary.)....

obama goes for political points as he makes a tiger woods-like public announcementthat $15 BILLION more would beallocated from TARP monies to help out small business guys.....

“This will unlock our frozen credit markets which is essential for economicrecovery,” obama assured us.....

obama’s chosen SBA chief, Karen Mills, said that small businesses “create 70%” of newjobs each quarter.....

The plan was to use tax-payer monies to back 100% of SBA loans. The thinking was that this would loosen upcapital, create jobs and give small business owners “change they can believein.”....

How’s that unemployment rate working out for ya?....

We’re not investment bankers, but we play them in D.C.....

To spur interest, obama signed off on removing the restrictions on executivecompensation for those receiving TALF (small business bailout plan) funds.....

Did it work?....

Between June 2008 and June 2009, 6 months after obama’s small business plan, small business bankruptcies were up81%.....

For the first 3 quarters of 2009 (latest for which figures are available), smallbusiness bankruptcies were up 13%.....

In October 2009, Democratic Senator Mark Warner of Virginia said, woa, we needmore cash for this thing. He proposes thatanother$50 BILLION be made available for this most excellent plan.....

Oh, it worked in some places.....

Back in Maine, where obama’s chosen SBA chief Karen Mills hails from in her pastlife as a venture capitalist; aluminum trailer maker Alcom, Inc easily receiveda $1.1 million dollar loan from obama’s government.....

But down in Fort Lee, New Jersey, small business owner James Daigle said that hewas “laughed off” when he attempted to get a loan for his business.....

They are cheering in Oman and Bahrain however.....

obama’s SBA announced in February of 2010 that they had just entered into a partnershipwith Middle East and African countries to provide access to capitol and tostrengthen small enterprise in those regions.....

Greaaaat; Oman, Bahrain. Those aren’t cities inSouth Dakota.....

Also in February of 2010, obama said an additional $30 BILLION should besent to little community banks around the country…I think he meant thiscountry, not sure. ....

It appears that too many banks that received the original funds for this most awesome plan were just hoarding the cash andnot lending it and the little guys were getting screwed…or so the storygoes. ....

Who’s ordering dusty daiquiris in Bahrain right now?....

Toyota wasn’t doing to bad with the plan.....

$750 million of the original plan funds were to go to World Omni Financial Corp, thecompany that makes loans through Toyota Motor Corp. And a great American company it is.....

Massive amounts of tax-payer money paid out in stimulus funds by the obamaadministration and we watch as large banking executives continue to awardthemselves billions in bonuses.....

Massive amounts of tax-payer money paid out by the obama administration for a jobsstimulus and unemployment rises; then billions more are asked for.....

Massive amounts of tax-payer money paid out by the obama administration for the homemortgage industry and still we see increases in mortgage bankruptcy filings.....

Massive amounts of tax-payer money paid out by the obama administration for a failedsmall business bailout; and still more money is allocated.....

I’ve got another plan. Let’s stop givinganything incorporated any of our money, and start giving the billions out toindividual tax-payers. We will spend,we’re good at that. We’ll savebusinesses, help the economy, and then travel to Bahrain to buy a Toyota.....

Read more…


Right from the get-go the rhetoric was direct and passionate…yet still only rhetoric.

obama told a crowd in Iowa during a December 2007 speech that “I’m running to tell lobbyists in Washington thattheir days of setting the agenda are over.”

As an Illinois Senator, 40% of obama’s campaign cash came from political action committees,corporations, and unions.

In May of 2008 obama and his party criticized Presidential opponent John McCain for being “less than sincere” onlobbying reform while talking tough but then hiring former lobbyists to work onhis campaign.

As President-elect, November, 2008, obama brings on board to his transition team and eventual WhiteHouse staff at least 9 former lobbyists.

June 6, 2008, obama tells a crowd in Bristol, Virginia: “We (the DNC and democrat party) will not take a dime from Washington lobbyists orspecial interest PACs. We’re going tochange how Washington works. They willnot fund my party. They will not run myWhite House. And they will not drown outthe voice of the American people when I’m president of the United States ofAmerica.”

And the crowd cheered wildly. Are they cheering now?

During a March 2009 radio address, obama told the nation that was listening of the looming battle between lobbyists and federal budgetwriting efforts: “…they’re gearing up for a fight…My message to them, so am I.”

Direct, passionate...yet merely rhetoric.

On February 12, 2010, OpenSecrets.org releases a report that shows lobbyists spent a record setting historic amountof cash lobbying obama’s government in 2009.

The OpenSecrets.org report stated that in 2009 lobbyists spend $3.5 billion attempting to influence obama’s government.


Not bad during tough economic times and with unemployment at 25 year highs.

Influence peddling has reached historic heights during the obama administration.

The top agencies in the federal government that were targeted by lobbyists in 2009 were the obama led and democrat controlled House ofRepresentatives; the obama led and democrat controlled US Senate; theDepartment of Defense; and obama’s White House Office.

Of the total monies lobbyists spent that went directly to campaign donations for members of obama’s Congress, 68% of that total went todemocrats with Senate leader harry reid being the number one benefactor.

obama told his biographer in the book “Hopes and Dreams: The Story of barack obama”that following a speech in college: “I really wanted to stay up there, to hearmy voice.”

Aside from a few people in Bristol, VA. And on MySpace.com, nobody else is as thrilled to hear obama’s voice.

The government that he leads hasn’t been listening.

The Congress that his party leads hasn’t been listening.

His party hasn’t been listening.

Direct, passionate…yet merely rhetoric.

Read more…


obama’s elitist persona has been the subject of many insightful articles since he realized that he, in his words, “had game” andcould play at the federal political level.

obama’s body language has revealed signs of arrogance, egoism, and deception.

Aside from his silly obama-isms (and you thought Bush was the only one could whip out a zinger), his words have only strengthened theseimages while also revealing his attitude toward the average citizen.

The common working man has been a jocular target of obama’s.

During the 2008 campaign he spoke of the people of Pennsylvania and “small towns” throughout the Midwest as “clinging to their guns andreligion,” about their being “bitter” and using “anti-immigrant…antipathetic” sentiments to excuse their own failures.

obama traveled to Massachusetts to lend his over-hyped, over-estimated clout to the senate election campaign of Martha Coakley andwhile there he publicly mocked opponent Scott Brown’s use of a pickup truck totravel between campaign stops…

…sort of like al gore mocking owners of SUVs for their gas guzzling, energy burning ways while he himself traveled by private jet or a with a parade of non-greenfriendly vehicles.

While criticizing the executives of the bailed out banks, he implied that it is common for Americans to run to Vegas and blow the rent ortuition money while imagining we were Phil Ivey.

According to obama before he came along Americans feared the coming end of America.

During his inaugural address, obama said we had no “confidence” in America, and we believed that “America’s decline wasinevitable.”

We were a lost people within a lost country and only obama saved us from ourselves.

During the 2009 State of the Union speech, obama said that anyone who was against obama-care, which was a majority of the populationoutside the Democratic Caucus, was stupid.

He said that he hadn’t explained it well enough for us to understand the plan.

In other words, we do not know what we know unless obama has had an opportunity to tell us what we know.

obama also used his annual message to the nation to take cheap, classless, political, potshots at the Supreme Court and thus atdemocracy itself.

As a supposed former community agitator, or organizer, obama hypocritically mocked the “teabaggers” for their grass-roots efforts, sayingthey were merely “playing games…waving their little tea bags around.”

The word “little” is such a condescending little word.

Again, this type of democratic activity roils the elitism in obama.

obama admittedly stands before a black audience and belittles, insults them for what he sees as a their cultural ignorance.

He said that he “often speaks a language that is foreign to them,” thus, he has to change his speaking style, his diction, to suit theblack audiences he faces.

He also pigeon holes whites as he recounted how he felt that his mother “was like most white people” who feel uneasy when they encounterblack strangers.

obama has made light of the mentally handicapped while on Jay Leno and has said that doctors are more interested in making money thancuring the patient .

obama told us that “words matter.”

Thus, his words matter.

His words show that to him the average American matters little.

Read more…