Tag Archives: Democrats

Random New: June 15, 2011

Stories I find interesting.

Economic Indicator to Worry About! If Congress doesn’t raise the debt limit, the U.S. will go into default on loans. Seriously, why is it that I heard this only the BBC this morning. I saw no other reports. This economic indicator should be cause for great concern. And yet NO ONE is paying attention.

Historic Markers Made Naturally. How did the native Creek and Cherokee find their way such long distances that history shows that they traveled? Apparently, the trail was marked with intentionally crooked trees. How interesting is that? Check out the website of the Mountain Stewards, the group compiling a list of these trees.

Palin isn’t the only one…U.S. students don’t about the history of their country. Schools should do a better job of creating well-rounded students instead of test taking automatons.

Economic Food for Thought. How do you gauge how the economy is doing? Look at all the signs. Small businesses are generally not expanding and perhaps shrinking the size of business. Is this caution or an indicator? You decide.

The Problem with the Politics & Politicos Today.  The NY Times editorial hit the nose on the head, though I would expand this to all politicians NOT just the Elephants. The politicians are not talking about substance, they are sound and fury signifying nothing. But people are buying their hot air.

Legalize small amounts of Marijuana? New York is considering it. The other interesting point in this article is a discussion of how these “crime prevention” arrests affect the lives and futures of the folks who perhaps were NOT bent on other crimes.


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Georgia’s New Money Pit

As State of Georgia employees see benefits shrink and unpaid furlough days, the Honorable Sonny Perdue announces that he will appoint a “special attorney general” to sue the United States government over health care reform. Why, pray tell, must Georgia retain “special” counsel when the State has an elected Attorney General? Partisan politics. The current attorney general Thubert Baker, Democrat and lawyer, is running for Governor. Did you know, this is an election year? Perdue, a Republican and veterinarian, believes that the recent healthcare legislation should be challenged.

Now, after threatening the livelihoods of thousands of State employees and releasing many others from employment for lack of money, Perdue proposes to hire an attorney to file this splendid lawsuit. Creating a special attorney general is not as simple as hiring one lawyer. No, a lawsuit of this type will require several lawyers, support staff, and researchers. First, the attorney(s) will need to research the issue, thoroughly, to determine if a suit is viable. Next, pleadings will be drafted. Mediation will probably be ordered. Court hearings. Negotiations. All the while, money will be spilling out of the State’s coffers. I would sooner bury the money in a pit than invest it in a frivolous lawsuit.

I would like to ask Governor Perdue how he can justify this useless expense when the attorneys that the State already pays for are required to take furloughs and reductions in pay. We have gotten the government for which we voted. Now is the time to speak up! Say something.

Whether or not you agree with the healthcare legislation, the expense of this lawsuit to the State will be enormous with little to no positive results.


Filed under 1

Presidential Prerogative

A day after President Barack Obama announced that he would support the continued use of military tribunals to dispose of some cases involving terrorists I read that Karl Rove was questioned by federal prosecutors regarding an investigation related to the firing of U.S. Attorneys during the Bush administration.

Yesterday, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs danced like a boxer dodging blows. His response to questions should have started with…The President of the United States believes modified military tribunals are the best way to handle these issues. That should have been the end of the discussion. Obama was elected President and he has the prerogative to change his mind. No explanation necessary. But, Mr. Gibbs sounded like an unprepared 8th grader presenting a book report.

Presidential prerogative: Mr. Obama, if he accepted that concept, would also have to accept that the President has the right to make many decisions, including who will be prosecuting attorney for the United States. If he chooses to fire U.S. Attorneys, individuals appointed to serve at the pleasure of the President, then he can. If the President chooses to stop the release of CIA photos, he can. If the President chooses to modify the rules and continue military tribunals upon further consideration, that’s his decision.

A President exercises the right to be surrounded and supported by the people he chooses. If a President chooses to release individuals who are appointed, but not serving lifetime appointments, then why not fire them? Did anyone forget that President Clinton did the same thing? Is the U.S. Attorney investigating those firings as well?

The ingenue, Senator Obama, shifted to lead actor, President Obama, but had no idea the magnitude and impact of his earlier naive speeches. The knee-jerk liberals elected the ingenue but increasingly find disappointment in the lead actor. Grow up! The administration needs to “act like a man” in the words of Don Corlene to Johnny Fountain. Make a decision and everyone in the administration should stop APOLOGIZING for decision making. If y’all don’t want to make necessary decisions, Mr. Cheney would be happy to do it for you.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, News, Politics, Presidents

News Flash: We’ll never see Social Security Money

Since the age of 25, I have understood that the money I pay into social security will NEVER be returned to me despite the sales pitch that it’s an investment. The Obama administration reported dire numbers yesterday about the funding of both social security and medicare. Surprise! No, it shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. Babyboomers, aptly named for sharp increase in child birth post-World War II, are retiring now and have been for quite a while. Now the government expects that younger generations will pay at a higher rate to support more people per individual than babyboomers had to support.

Social Security is a giant ponzi scheme. I am ordered by the government to “invest” money in social security to fund the retirement of others. The government expects that when I reach 65 or whatever retirement age might be that others will be around to pay for my retirement. Sound like any other schemes you’ve heard about recently. Mr. Madoff’s idea echoes this plan however he didn’t have legislation.

If I am given to understand, younger generations are required to save money as the economy tanks, support our immediate families, and now potentially pay more money to the government to support people we don’t even know with the expectation that this “investment” might be paid off later. No thanks.

Leave a comment

Filed under 1

Bipartisanship or Selling a Soul?

President Barack Obama promised bipartisanship in his administration. Perhaps the President’s definition of bipartisanship does not match the definition to which the Republicans ascribe. Based on the reports from Washington and beyond, the President’s idea of bipartisanship is to use his charisma to convince Republicans that he is right instead of listening to what the Republicans have to say. The times when bipartisan agreements are achieved include some give and take by both parties not the wholesale purchase of the other side’s idea. In order for “bipartisanship” to work, the President and his sycophants need to be open to changing their positions as they are so eager for Republicans to do. Basic tenets of mediation and negotiation require some exchange.

If not, the President will find there will be little “Bipartisanship” whatever the definition. Republicans are finding traction with now skeptical voters who see the massive waste of TARP money by people who receive annual salaries that far exceed the income of some local communities. How can legislators support a bill they haven’t even read? How will those legislators who did justify that vote to taxpayers who now carry the burden of the sinking economy and fear that their personal economy will be impacted more severely? 

A vote in favor of the bill without some give by the Democrats would be like selling one’s soul without any benefit whatsoever. Why would Republicans do that?

Bipartisanship implies some agreement between the parties or members of two parties. Unfortunately, the Democrats behave now like a “ruling party” of parliamentary governments instead of like a majority party of U.S. legislative history. So long as the Democrats maintain an attitude of supremacy, the Republicans will have little choice but to question the new establishment and fight the Democrat party line. Until the ruling party finds some humility, the news out of Washington will continue to ponder, as a New Times article today, the challenges of “bipartisanship.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Democrat Party, Media, News, Politics, Presidents


Senator Barack Obama spent the better part of the weekend comparing his qualifications to the qualifications of Governor Sarah Palin. Why? Following nomination as Presidential candidate for the Democrats, Obama focused a significant amount of energy comparing the qualifications of the Presidential candidate to the qualifications of the would-be Republican Vice Presidential candidate. Why?

Because Obama’s accomplishments fall far short of John McCain’s actual accomplishments. Obama says that his campaign is a movement for change. What change has he accomplished? What legislation has his name on it? None.

McCain found a running mate who bucks the system, stands up for an objective standard of right, and who has in fact been an agent of change. Palin’s successes in Alaska make Obama appear to be the Washington establishment elitist that he is. Obama shouldn’t be comparing himself to Palin. But if he does, all the better, he’s just conceding that McCain is more qualified.

Leave a comment

Filed under 2008 Election, Media, News, Politics

The Democrat Plague: Foot in Mouth Speech

Senator Clinton now apologizes for any insult that may have inured from her analogy to former Senator Bobby Kennedy’s campaign during which Senator Kennedy murdered. Senator Clinton and Senator Obama spend quite abit of time apologizing for or excusing misstatements. Neither candidate appears to think before speaking. Senator Clinton’s apology however rings more in the tone of “I’m sorry if I offended anyone, but I’m not sorry for the analogy.” Senator Obama also “misspoke” in San Francisco when he demeaned small town people. His explanation, “that didn’t come out the way I meant it to.” Neither apologizes for the thought or expresses a change of opinion, no they just what people to forgive their thoughtless speech without intending to change the way the candidate thinks or perceives the American public.

Senator Clinton and Senator Obama both lack a skill necessary to diplomacy: tack and timing. Neither candidate understands that the nouveau political philosophy of asking for forgiveness instead of thinking before one speaks creates rancor among voters and adversaries. What would happen if either Senator, as president, insulted a foreign leader? “Oh, I apologize, that statement didn’t come out of my mouth the way I intended.” No, that is not acceptable. Such bad manners and training could result in a war, particularily if Senator Obama had his wish to negotiate with Iran and its hard line terrorist leader.

We all misspeak but when your every word is being heard and tracked by media and foreign leaders, shouldn’t you be held to a higher standard? Voters should consider who and what they want in a President based on criteria other than race, gender or one SPECIFIC political issue.


Filed under 2008 Election, Democrat Party, Media, News, Politics, Presidents, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama