Monday, December 5, 2011

Nancy Pelosi, Ethics Violator Extraordinaire

Nancy Pelosi, in an interview with Talking Points Memo, let it be known that she has plenty of dirt on Newt Gingrich that she'll share "when the time is right":
“One of these days we’ll have a conversation about Newt Gingrich,” Pelosi told Talking Points Memo. “When the time is right. … I know a lot about him. I served on the investigative committee that investigated him, four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year. A thousand pages of his stuff."
Two things.
1. Wouldn't the "right time" for the American people be, oh, I don't know...NOW?  Or by "right time" does she mean when Newt has won the nomination and it takes dumping some filth on him for Obama to win, since he can't win on his own merits, record, broken promises, and billion dollars?
2. As she pointed out, Nancy served on the ethics committee that investigated Newt in the late '90s for campaign finance violations and cheating on taxes (Thank God no one has investigated none of the current admin's staff, cabinet, and appointees...).  Um....
Under House Rule XI(3)(d), every member and staffer of the Ethics Committee must execute the following oath or affirmation before obtaining access to confidential information:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will not disclose, to any person or entity outside the Committee on Ethics, any information received in the course of my service with the committee, except as authorized by the committee or in accordance with its rules.”
The Committee rules clearly prohibit disclosure to persons outside the Committee of information relating to an investigation or any investigative or adjudicatory proceedings and ban making any confidential information public absent “an affirmative vote of a majority of members of the Committee.” See Ethics Committee Rule 7 (b), (c) & (d).
Let's see.... Add this to her crooked insider-trading (but legal for Congress) practices and maybe she'll get an ethics investigation of her own!

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

A Funny Thing Happened On Michele Bachmann's Way To Late Night With Jimmy Fallon......

When Michele Bachmann walked onto the set of "Late Night with Jimmy Fallon" on Monday, she was accompanied by Fallon's band playing the song "Lyin' A** B****".  .............Really, Jimmy?  Really, NBC???  Really, NO(championforallwomen'scauseseverywhereregardlessofpoliticalpartyaffiliation)W?

After taking some heat for it, Fallon's band leader / drummer Questlove (The Roots) apologized (if that's what you want to call it) for the tragic um..coincidence(?) with this statement:
“The performance was a tongue-in-cheek and spur of the moment decision. The show was not aware of it and I feel bad if her feelings were hurt. That was not my intention.”
Which is funny, because before her appearance, he tweeted: “late night walkon song devotees: you love it when we snark: this next one takes the cake. ask around cause i aint tweeting title.”
Then after the show, he re-tweeted a fan's post: 
“perfect entry song for her.”

Hmm.... Spur of the moment? Looks to me like the only L.A.B. on Late Night Monday night was Questlove.

Now, two days later, NBC has failed to comment or apologize for the incident.  Nor has their been any comment made or action taken by the Nat'l Organization for Women (who, by the way, is STILL surprisingly silent about the multiple sexual assaults that have occurred at occupy camps around the country).  I'm pretty sure (as Bachmann herself pointed out) that had it been Michelle Obama or Hillary Clinton, not only would NOW have rallied behind them with cries of sexism and the insistence that Questlove be fired, but that NBC would have gone out of their way to issue apologies of  the greatest nature, both publicly and privately.  I guess when the target is a strong conservative woman, well.........she deserves it, right?  Maybe Bachmann should hire Gloria Allred to muscle an apology out of NBC...

We (thankfully) live in a country where you are free to dislike Michele Bachmann as a politician or even as a person.  But no matter your politics, there are lines you don't cross.  Turn the tables and I doubt Questlove would be too excited about being welcomed on stage by a derogatory song with the "N" word in the title.  Nor do I think he would appreciate his own mother being mocked by a song with the "B" word in the title.  Michele Bachmann isn't just some woman running for office.  She is a mother.  So, for future reference, Questlove, maybe you can set a rule for yourself that if you wouldn't say it about your own mother, don't say it about any other woman. Period.

Way to have this woman's back, National Organization for WOMEN.  "Actions speak louder than words" comes to mind.......

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

Nancy Pelosi: Fair Share?

Nancy Pelosi has said on several occasions that the wealthy should "pay their fair share".... A lot of people are asking what "fair share" is, so I thought I'd weigh in.

I think what Mrs. Pelosi actually means by "fair share" is 28%.  Here's why. That's about how much of her monthly insurance premium she pays. Our tax dollars pay the remaining 72%.

So, in short....
Nancy Pelosi. Net worth $58,000,000. Pays 28% of her own monthly premium. Pays 0% of mine.
Pollytick Chick. Net worth ((laughs)).  Pays 100% of her own monthly premium. Pays 72% of Nancy Pelosi's.

So there you go.  28%.  Fair share.  You might want to go look up the definition of "fair"...

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Dear N.O.W......

According to the "About" section on the website for the National Organization for Women, or NOW (, their mission is as follows:

The National Organization for Women (NOW) is the largest organization of feminist activists in the United States. NOW has 500,000 contributing members and 550 chapters in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Since its founding in 1966, NOW's goal has been to take action to bring about equality for all women. NOW works to eliminate discrimination and harassment in the workplace, schools, the justice system, and all other sectors of society; secure abortion, birth control and reproductive rights for all women; end all forms of violence against women; eradicate racism, sexism and homophobia; and promote equality and justice in our society.
Mmmmm k. The highlighted text confuses me. Here's why.... The following "hot topics" can be found on NOW's homepage right now:
  • 850 articles and references to Herman Cain
  • A letter to the Secretary of Health & Human Services pleading for abortion to be covered under Obamacare
  • An article bashing a Dr. Pepper ad for discriminating against women
  • A letter to Penn State's Board of Trustees about recent child sexual assault allegations
  • Numerous articles intended to scare us into believing the Super Committee is going to abolish Social Security and Medicare (it isn't.)
  • A suggestion for legislation to make it illegal for an employer to check an applicant's credit history
  • A plea for women to speak up on "Love Your Body" day
  • An article on how to care for your hair after having extensions-and finally,
  • Why you should love your breasts and wear them proudly.
What you WON'T find anywhere on any of NOW's numerous websites is a single reference to MULTIPLE rapes and sexual assaults at OWS camps across America.
So, to NOW, I pose the following questions:
  • What about the14 year old girl who was SEXUALLY ASSAULTED at Occupy Dallas?
  • What about the 19 year old girl who was RAPED at Occupy Cleveland?
  • What about the man who was arrested for SEXUALLY ASSAULTING 2 different women at Occupy Wall Street?
  • What about the 10 alleged SEXUAL ASSAULTS at Occupy Wall Street that weren't reported to the police?
  • What about the 23 year old woman who was RAPED at Occupy Philadelphia?
  • What about the man arrested at Occupy Seattle for exposing himself to little children?
  • What about the pamphlet drafted and passed around Occupy Baltimore that discouraged protesters from reporting sexual assaults to police?
Shameful.  And dangerous.  But thanks for the tips on taming my frizzy hair!

Monday, November 14, 2011

How To Make $11,000,000 in 20 Years.... Run For Congress!

How would you like to have a job that would allow you to:

  • Start with a minimum salary of $174,000 per year.
  • Retire after working as few as 5 years.
  • Receive guaranteed retirement pay for life as potentially high as $2,000,000.
  • Determine your own salary.
  • Increase your net worth by more than $10,000,000 in just 20 years.
  • Be the beneficiary of a savings account into which your employer pays 1% of your base salary, whether you contribute or not (Similar to a 401k with the exception that you aren't required to deposit even a penny.)
  • Have guaranteed premium health insurance for life and only pay 1/3 of the cost.
Well, you can. All you have to do is be elected to Congress.

With all the talk about the necessity to reduce government spending lately, there's one area I haven't heard any congressmen refer to in their pleas to cut spending on wasteful programs. Congressional pensions and benefit packages.

To start with, Congress is made up of a staggering amount of men and women who individually have a net worth in the millions (in some cases, tens of millions) of dollars. I blogged about the number of millionaires in Congress who enjoy cushy health insurance plans at the cost of the American tax payer; you can read it here:

We know that for the most part, it takes great wealth to run for office on the national level.  I don't begrudge anyone's hard earned wealth. I do, however, have a problem with my tax dollars paying a lifelong pension that greatly exceeds the salary they earned while serving. Keep in mind that a pension is NOT the same as a retirement plan... so while most of Americans' 401k plans have taken painful hits over the past few years as our economy has been in a downward spiral, congressional pension plans haven't wavered.  Like most retirement plans, a congressman's pension increases the longer they serve. No wonder we have so many die-hard career politicians clinging to their seats, no matter the cost. I would, too! Especially given that the benefits that come with these pension plans prove to be double - sometimes triple - those of regular retirement plans.  Naturally, there's a COLA (cost of living adjustment) raise each year..... that just happens to be a larger increase than those offered in private sector. And while most retirement plans are calculated by averaging an employee's 5 largest yearly salaries, then adding 1.5%,  (sit down for this...) Congressional pensions are formulated by averaging the THREE, not five, highest yearly salaries, plus 2.5%.  If you need a reminder of where all this money comes from, it's your pocket.  Private (and most public) sector employees are eligible for retirement at age 65 after working the required number of years. In comparison, one can retire from Congress at the age of 62 after only FIVE years of service...  Seriously?!? Or at the ripe, old age of 50 if they've put in 20 years.... Or at ANY age after they have put in 25 years... And that goes for their staffers, too. Um.....where do I sign up?

And that's not all.  Not only does Congress get to live for the rest of their lives on a grossly inflated (tax-funded) pension, they also enjoy cushy tax-deferred savings plans..... of which, TAX PAYERS match almost dollar for dollar. Or more. As I mentioned earlier, this is similar to a 401k plan. The difference is that employees are required to deposit into their own 401k. Members of Congress aren't required to deposit any amount into their "Thrift Savings Plan". Must be nice to be able to save other people's money for your own retirement <rolls eyes>.

As for health insurance, members of Congress are given a wide variety of providers and plans from which to choose; most of which are far superior to the private plans available to the American public.  There's a widespread myth that members do not pay for these plans, but in fact, they do.  A whopping 1/3.  You and I pay the remaining 2/3 for them.  For life.  Multimillionaires pay 1/3 of their monthly premium....and we pay the rest. Call me crazy, but last time I checked, being a millionaire means you have a lot more money than me. This is in addition to Medicare, by the way...

According to the National Taxpayers Union, a LARGE number of men and women who have retired from Congress will draw $1,000,000 after retirement and some may even draw as much at $2,000,000. WHAT?

Members of Congress also receive Social Security, and like most private sector employees, pay around 6.2% of their salary up to $106,800 into the system.  To be fair, I should point out that they also pay into the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund, from which their pensions are paid.  About 1.3% of their salary.  Really...a whopping 1.3%. If you're wondering where the other 98.7% of monies in the fund come from, again... your pocket. Tax dollars.

What's even better is that, as I said earlier, these benefits are guaranteed. And by "guaranteed" I mean not even a crime conviction will strip a congressional retiree of their benefits. The late Dan Rostenkowski (D-Illinois..... surprise) who chaired the House Ways and Means Committee under Reagan was asked to step down after an indictment for several charges including embezzlement. He accepted a plea agreement, plead guilty to the lesser charge of mail fraud, was convicted and sentenced to 17 years in prison (15 of which he served).  All the while, law-abiding American citizens continued to pay Rostenkowski's $96,000+ per year pension. And he isn't alone. According to the National Taxpayers Union, we shell out $800,000 every year in pensions to congressmen CONVICTED OF CRIMES. That includes Illinois crook (I mean governor) Rod Blagojevich's pension of $15,000 per year (plus health insurance, plus savings plan). Thankfully, in June of this year a bill (Congressional Integrity and Pension Forfeiture Act of 2011) was introduced that would prohibit convicted congressmen from receiving pension pay. Whether or not it will pass is the question.

In stark contrast to the guaranteed congressional pensions that average around $60,972 per year, less than four out of ten Americans will receive a pension after retirement. Those that do aren't guaranteed. The lucky ones (less than 15%) will receive an average pension of about $7,500. That's fixed for life, with no yearly COLA increase like those in Congress' pensions.

Add to all of this the privilege of being able to LEGALLY buy or sell stocks and participate in shady land deals based on insider trading information in Congress, and you've got one lucrative job. No wonder none of them ever leave. And when they finally do, wow.... Take former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert. Hastert's net worth when he was elected in 1986 was around $300,000. When he retired in 2007, his net worth was in excess of $11,000,000, thanks to a $207,000,000 earmark he inserted into a federal highway bill for a parkway that just happened to be very close to some land he owned in Illinois (again, Illinois....shocker).

So, to recap....
Most employees with private sector jobs work an average of 43 years and retire at age 67.
Congressmen are eligible for retirement after as few as 5 years at as young as age 50.

Most pensions are calculated by averaging the employee's 5 highest years' pay and adding 1.5%.
Congressional pensions are calculated by averaging the highest THREE years' pay and adding 2.5%.

The average yearly retirement pay for the Americans fortunate enough to have it is $7,500 (does not increase in time; remains $7,500 for life).
The average yearly pension for congressmen is $60,972 (increases yearly based on cost of living).

Americans are eligible for Medicare coverage at the age of 65. Most Americans on Medicare also purchase supplemental plans that they pay for out of their own pockets.
In addition to Congressmen being eligible for Medicare coverage at the age of 65, they also keep their plush health insurance plans, 2/3 of which are paid for by tax payers. Most of whom don't have health insurance themselves.

Most Americans who have 401k plans are required to deposit a minimum amount per year which their employer will match on different scales.
Congressmen are given "Thrift Savings Accounts" into which they may deposit funds that their employer (a.k.a. YOU and I) will match. They are not required to deposit any funds into these accounts, in which case their employer (yeah, us) will still deposit 1% of their base salary.

Soooooo...... about that whole "pay your fair share" thing....

Sources: National Taxpayers Union,,

Wednesday, November 9, 2011


A big, fat shout out to ALL of the men & women who have proudly served in the military of the United States of America!
A big personal THANK YOU! to my daddy, grandfathers, great-grandfathers, and uncles who proudly served and fought for MY freedom, and to a nephew who is currently deployed in Iraq.
Thank you to the wives, husbands, mothers, fathers, children, and families of all of our veterans who sacrificed time - sometimes years - with their loved ones in support of their time served.
God bless America!

Friday, November 4, 2011

Me & Jesse Ventura? Um...

Just a quick update on Jesse Ventura suit against the TSA for unsolicited airport molestations...

It's a sad day when I agree with Jesse Ventura [she says in a low, raspy, screaming-ish whisper].... Save for the fact that I am NOT giving up on my country, I will ALWAYS stand with hand over heart for the National Anthem, and I will NEVER call my country the Fascists States of America. There may be fascists / marxists / communists / socialists living in my country's house at the present time, but I plan on changing that in November 2012.
(And I'm not a crazy conspiracy theorist, either.)
Oh, and I have it on good authority that Ron Paul would NOT consider Ventura as a running mate, so all you Libertarians can sleep well tonight. Whew.
Okay, maybe I don't actually agree with Jesse Ventura on anything at all, except this whole TSA groping / molesting / invasion of privacy thing.
Sidenote: TSA fired an employee this week for a crude note left inside a passenger's suitcase referencing a sex toy found in the suitcase during inspection.  Kudos to TSA for that.

Click here to read Alex Jones's article on the outcome of the case today:
(I also don't align myself in any way, shape, or form with Alex Jones, either. Not even a little.)

And now the TSA is making random highway stops in Tennessee to look for terrorist-ish-y things on vehicles.  Ron Paul and Don't Tread On Me stickers are on the list, by the way.  Here's to hoping this lawsuit attempt is only one of more to come!

Friday, October 28, 2011

More Wall Street Awesomeness.

God bless this student and others like her who actually get it!

(And I've graciously accepted $16million from Wall Street in 2012 campaign contributions so far.... More than all the GOP candidates combined. But whatever.)

I just don't remember anyone holding a gun to my head, forcing me to sign a student loan...

Okay, maybe this isn't Wall Street specific, but it might as well be. And it's funny.

Guess why I don't have an iPhone. Because I can't afford one. Weird.


Even more priceless.

If a 13 year old gets it....
(Sorry for the curse word.)

The lack of "will work for" signs at the occupations never dawned on me until I came across this cartoon. Pretty interesting, no?

'Nuff said.

Thursday, October 27, 2011

Oh, Wall Street.......

Thought I'd share some of my favorite "Occupation" images with you.... (Wasn't "occupation" considered a bad thing when it applied to Russia and Germany?)
Enjoy these for starters and look for more to come!

Apparently a large portion of occupiers don't just hate "Big Business", they hate "Big Deodorant", too.

Ummmmm............ Sooooooo......... Corporate bailouts are bad, buuuuuut the UAW bailout was different?
Looks like someone forgot they got a bailout, too. Oops!

Genius:  Bashing rich Jews while sporting the logo of one of the most luxury watchmaker in the world, whose  Chairman & CEO just happen to be, um, Jewish.


I particularly like the rocket science bit. (Inside joke.)

Clearly his colleg edjukashun should have been free...

In the interview, this woman says, "Jews have been run out of 109 countries in history, and they need to be run out of this one."  ...... Because that makes a TON of sense coming from someone whose people have been discriminated against. Oh, and she's a teacher. Yeah.

I didn't know that being patriotic made you look old & frumpy, but I totally agree with the rest...

Like I said about the anti-semitic dude in the Movado hat.....

More to come!!

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Food For Thought...... Guns & Tubs.

I could write for miles when it comes to gun control, but for now, I just want to make a quick point about why stricter laws aren't always the answer.

Bob Beckel, a media personality, cited today a statistic reflecting the number of children who have died in the last ten years as a result of accidental shootings by legally owned firearms in the home, and argued that the stat is a reason we should have more and stricter gun laws in America.  I'm not going to quote the number he stated, because I haven't looked it up, but I will say that it is SIGNIFICANTLY less than that of another killer inside the home.

According to the Center for Disease Control, two children under the age of 14 die EVERY DAY in America as a result of accidental drowning, making it the SECOND LEADING CAUSE of accidental death in children.  The highest threat when it comes to drowning, according to the CDC? Bathtubs. And while the number of deaths by accidental drowning increases each year, the number of deaths by accidental shooting decreases; by nearly 60% in 20 years, despite a 40% increase in gun ownership, according to the ATF and National Safety Council.

Soooooo......based on the logic Mr. Beckel gave today, that guns should be made illegal based on accidental deaths of children in the home, should we also ban bathing? Should it be illegal to have a private pool in your backyard?  Should beach, lake, waterpark, and pool vacations be outlawed?

Stupid questions? Yeah... that's my point. Far more children die each year in bathtubs, pools, and other bodies of water than in accidental shootings, and what are we doing about it? Writing laws? Of course not. We depend on informing and educating parents on the safety and responsibilities required to protect their children from death by accidental drowning, so why can't we do the same when it comes to gun ownership?  Making gun ownership illegal isn't the only way to prevent accidental deaths inside the home. To the contrary, it may be the only way to save lives in some situations. A shotgun inside the home of Iowa Congressman Leonard Boswell is the ONLY thing that ended a brutal attack on his daughter by an intruder who broke into the home over the weekend and fled when the Congressman's grandson pointed the gun at him. If laws had prevented that gun from being in the home, who knows what the outcome would have been or to what lengths the intruder would have gone? I mean, sure, bathtubs might be more deadly, but I imagine pointing one at an intruder might be a little harder than it sounds.

Monday, June 13, 2011

Federal Funding... A True Gem.

Thank you, FEMA, for proving my point.

The very day Tuscasloosa, AL was forever changed, virtually wiped off the map, by one of the most destructive tornadoes in history, HUNDREDS (and by now, thousands) of people from multiple non-profit organizations were on the scene offering relief in numerous ways.  Since, MILLIONS of dollars have been donated by people around the country and the world to assist in the relief efforts.... Millions of dollars that have already and continue to reach and aid victims devastated by the storm.

Meanwhile, this family is re-applying for FEMA assistance because (almost two months later) their home didn't suffer sufficient damage to qualify for aid..... according to a FEMA inspector who ACTUALLY SAW the "house"....

Actual verbiage in the letter: 
"Based on your FEMA inspection, we have determined that the disaster has not caused your home to be unsafe to live in.
Although the disaster may have caused some minor damage it is reasonable to expect you or your landlord to make these repairs. At this time you are not eligible for FEMA housing assistance."

So... Our government believes the above is "minor damage" and is safe to live in.....  If that's compassion, you can count me out and call me whatever you want.  And if you can explain to me why this kind of "assistance" deserves more funding at the cost of our nation's future, my ears are wide open.

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Fence Me In. For The Love Of Pete, Fence Me In.


What is 37,000 about?.  Well.... it's about
* 4,000 more than the number of US casualties in the ENTIRE Korean War.
* Twice the population of the county I live in.
* Six times the number of US casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2003.
* 2,000 more than the student populations of Yale, Harvard, Columbia, Occidental College, and the University of Hawaii. Combined.
* The number of deaths along the U.S. / Mexico border in the last 4 years.

First, I want to make it clear that this piece is NOT an attack on ANY man, woman, or child, Hispanic or otherwise. It is solely directed at POLICY, not people.  I understand the desire and promise of a better life and better opportunities for one's family in America.  I have a brother-in-law from Mexico City & Cancun.  He now lives in Georgia.  Legally.  And the process took FOREVVVVER.  So I understand the lure of crossing the border illegally.  I do.  But that doesn't make it okay.

For years now, we have been overly lenient & lax on border security, and as the results of our laziness become worse and worse year after year, we continue to fail in protecting our border and we refuse to see it as a problem of the same magnitude as the other wars we are currently fighting overseas. Our leaders couldn't care less about the number of undocumented, illegal immigrants entering the U.S. every day.  Mind you, none of us actual citizens can ENTER or LEAVE the country without more than one form of identification, but the millions jumping the border? No prob.

President Obama spoke last week in El Paso, Texas, regarding the border, its security, and how America's immigrant issue should be addressed. He pointed out plenty of immigrants who have made HUGE contributions to not only America, but the world, and our way of living.  But here's the thing.... he failed to point out that those immigrants came to America LEGALLY.  While he doesn't see any distinction between Ellis Island and jumping the Rio Grande, I do.  His speech was rife with sarcasm towards those who believe border security is a serious problem for America, to the extent that he joked about building a moat across the border and stocking it with alligators....... less than 24 hours later, two border patrol agents were killed while chasing a group of illegal immigrants along a portion of the border that is greatly lacking in security.  An upcoming blog will break down his speech in detail and highlight numerous mistakes he made in the statistics he presented. I say "mistakes" because I don't want to say "lies". Most of those stats are addressed here, too.

"As Commander in Chief, I have no greater responsibility than protecting our national security." Barack Obama, April 13, 2012

Really? Is that why his trip to El Paso last week was his FIRST visit to the border since he was elected?  Is that why when Arizona proposed a plan to build a secure border fence itself with its own funds, the White House intervened twice and stopped it?  Is that why not one governor from a U.S. border state was allowed to attend President Obama's closed-door meeting regarding the border a few weeks ago (But AFL-CIO big boss Richard Trumka was there... Just sayin'.)? 

We're fighting a war halfway around the world in Iraq.... for someone else.
We're fighting a war halfway around the world in Afghanistan.... for someone else.
We're fighting a war halfway around the world in Libya.... for someone else.
We're NOT fighting a war that is raging on our own soil.... for ourselves. Why is that?

Why are we ignoring the battle that's taking place in our own backyard and on our own soil? There is a MAJOR war going on along the border and we have made a conscious decision to turn a blind eye...  to the tune of thousands upon thousands of lives lost.  We refuse to build a border fence. We refuse to deploy the number of troops (National Guardsmen) necessary to protect dangerous spots along the border (this year 12,000 have been pulled from the Arizona border, despite Gov. Jan Brewer's request for an extension of their services).  We refuse to use ALREADY ALLOCATED funds to increase security (we actually cut Homeland Security funding for border security by $1.4Billion).  We refuse to deport illegal immigrants convicted of violent crimes in America, including MURDER. Yeah... I said murder.

You don't think we're in a war on the border?  Maybe this will change your mind.

*  Just in the last 4 years, 37,000 people have been KILLED along the US / Mexico border, on both sides (Reuters).   30,913 of the 37,000 deaths were execution-style murders, according to a Mexican government database. Mass graves are discovered more and more frequently, containing HUNDREDS of bodies of both Americans and Mexicans.

*  In that same amount of time, the number of civilians killed in Afghanistan, where we're FIGHTING A WAR, is 8,80037,000 civilians dead here...8,800 civilians dead there.

33,686 people were killed in the Korean War. The entire Korean War.

15,273 of those 35,000 murders occurred in 2010. 

* In 2009, ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) RELEASED, as in set free, not deported, 890 illegal immigrants convicted of violent crimes including rape and murder, some of them repeat offenders, onto American soil and made no effort to document their names, fingerprints, nor record in any way their identities or criminal records. According to the Dept. of Homeland Security Inspector General, many of these illegals were considered the "most egregious criminal aliens who pose a significant public safety risk". we set them free.  To kill again. (The release was ordered by ICE Chief Jim Moran under President Obama's instruction.)

*  The murder rate in Ciudad Juarez, just over the border, increased 40% from 163 in Feb. 2010 to 229 in Feb. 2011.  One month. 229 people. Dead. Including Americans.

*  According to the US State Dept, 111 Americans were killed last year in Ciudad Juarez.  That's just the number of deaths that were reported; many deaths go unreported each year.

*  Drug cartel wars have claimed the lives of 6,000 people in Ciudad Juarez in just the last two years.

*  May 12, 2011: 2 Border Patrol Agents, Hector Clark & Eduardo Rojas, killed while pursuing a group of illegal immigrants in Arizona. 
*  May 9, 2011: 13 killed on the U.S. side of the border in Falcon Lake, TX (about 50 miles from the border).
*  April 5, 2011:  2 Americans: Kevin Romero, 28, and Sergio Salcido, 25, murdered while waiting to cross the border.
*  April 2011:  177 bodies found in a mass grave; deaths attributed to Zeta drug cartel.
*  March 7, 2011: 18 people killed in Abasolo, Mex. 150 miles south of McAllen, TX.
*  Feb 28, 2011:  Associated Press reported at least 28 killed along US / Mexico border over the weekend.

*  Feb 15, 2011:  1 killed, 1 injured.. ICE Agent Jaime Zapata, 32, killed; Agent Victor Avila injured in San Louis Potosi shooting.
*  Dec 14, 2010:  1 killed: Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, 40, murdered near Arizona border.
Should I go on?   

*  US Dept. of Justice has deemed Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations as the greatest drug trafficking threat to the US, to the tune of TENS OF BILLIONS of dollars a year in drug, weapons, and related trade.

*  Reporters Without Borders reported that in 2010, more journalists were killed in Mexico than in any other country in the world.

There's the humanitarian angle...
Hundreds, sometimes thousands, of migrants die trying to cross the border each year by drowning, heat stroke, dehydration, hypothermia, etc. Just TODAY, 513 migrants were discovered, packed like sardines in two semi trucks, trying to cross the border. Each had paid $7,000 for the opportunity to jump the border in conditions so poor that officials believe a number of them would have died if kept in the truck trailers much longer. Some more numbers for you:
417 migrants died while trying to cross the border in 2009
500+ migrants died in 2005.
1,954 migrants died between 1998-2004.... That's just on the American side.
1,452 migrants died on the Mexican side of the border while trying to cross in a 4 year period of time, according to the Mexican Secretariat for Foreign Affairs.
And those numbers are of bodies found; they don't include the hundreds, maybe thousands, of those never discovered.

We're willing to risk American lives and spend American dollars in the name of a humanitarian crisis in Libya, but we aren't willing to address the one that exists on our very soil???? THAT'S who we want to be?

There's the economic angle....
Considering the current condition of our economy and the debate over federal funding and spending, I give you a 2002 report by the Center for Immigration Studies: Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes (okay, well at least that part pleases me), creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household.
And that was 2002.... Nine years ago. Factor in inflation and how drastically the prices of EVERYTHING have increased, and yeah...

Rewind to the part about the number of convicted criminal illegals who are released from prisons onto US soil.... before they're released, while they're in custody, our tax dollars are paying for them to be there.  And those we actually DO deport, we pay for their incarceration, too.  The US deported 393,000 illegal immigrants in 2010 at the low, low price of $12,500 per person. That's almost FIVE BILLION DOLLARS. If we deported the currently estimated 11 million illegal immigrants.... almost $138 BILLION.  Can we afford to deport every illegal immigrant in the US? No. Can we strengthen border security to decrease the number of illegals coming into the US and committing crimes? We have to. Otherwise, we continue to spend billions and billions of hard earned American taxpayer dollars to house them in US prisons. According to the GAO (Government Accountability Office), it cost America $1,149,000,000 (billion) to house criminal aliens in 2009. Not only do tax dollars pay for incarceration, tax dollars also pay for any and all costs pertaining to prosecuting criminal illegals.
Want to know what it actually costs per inmate per year to house some of these criminal aliens?
*California: $34,448
*New York: $29,523
*Florida: $14,828
*Arizona: $14,093
*Texas: $12,168
(66% of Americans make less than $45,000 per year.)

.......We're fighting tooth and nail over the lack of funds available for programs that benefit LEGAL American citizens like Medicare, but not a single person is discussing the MULTIPLE BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars we spend incarcerating and deporting illegal immigrants???  At a time we're fighting over how to care for our own, we're ignoring the amount of money we spend on caring for someone else's.

Incarceration might be the lamest expense Americans suffer because of the government's blase' attitude towards illegal immigrants, but it certainly isn't the only way tax payers are footing the bill for them.  Healthcare...Medicaid....Social Security...WIC....HUD housing... All those programs that are part of the current funding debate? Maybe if we limited those programs to LEGAL US citizens, there would be no need to debate funding cuts or increases.... Just a suggestion.  Maybe these numbers will make it a little more personal for you:

$1,117 ... The average amount a LEGAL US CITIZEN paid in taxes in 2010 to pay for services received by ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.
$52 BILLION ... What American taxpayers spent on educating children of illegal immigrants in 2010.
51% of illegal households receive at least one form of tax funded government assistance.  This translates roughly to about 1.4 MILLION households. NOT people; households.
28% of illegal households receive TWO OR MORE forms of tax funded government assistance.

Not only do illegals benefit from US taxpayer funded programs, they get to decide which politicians that may or may not support those programs are elected. Colorado recently discovered that over 12,000 ILLEGAL immigrants are registered to vote in the state. 5,000 of them voted in the 2010 election in which the Senate seat was narrowly won.  By less than 5,000 votes.  Hmm....that's pretty interesting, no?  And if they have *discovered* 12,000, how many more might there be?  Another perk for illegals comes with the Obama-praised DREAM Act that (among other things) grants in-state tuition for universities in several states for illegal immigrants.... not for American citizens born in AMERICA, but for illegal immigrants.

And then there's al-Qaeda.....along with other terrorist organizations.
I'm hoping you have read enough by this point to consider the importance of contacting your elected representatives to stress concern over border security.  If not, maybe this will do it:  DOZENS or more of Iraqi nationals are apprehended every year trying to illegally enter the U.S. through Mexico; some of whom have admitted belonging to terrorist organizations like Hezbollah.  In particular, an apprehended Hezbollah fundraiser acquired a Mexican visa through the consulate in Lebanon, entered Mexico legally, and tried to enter the U.S. stuffed in the trunk of a car. According to US Representative Silvestre Reyes (Texas), America has intelligence regarding al-Qaeda using Latin America as a way of illegally entering America. And just last month, an I.E.D. (Improvised Explosive Device) was discovered along Hwy 77 in BROWNSVILLE, TEXAS. TEXAS!!! Not Baghdad. Texas.  On May 5th of this year, a tunnel was found on the Arizona / Mexico border (Surprise! The part that is least guarded!) that measured 15 feet deep and 250 feet long, complete with electricity, running water, and a ventilation system. Hmm........  Wonder if there's a "All Terrorists & Cartels Welcome!" sign at the Arizona exit point.

Like I said, by no means am I attacking individuals.  Well.... maybe the criminal ones.  I absolutely understand the desperation that drives people to risk their lives crossing the border illegally. The 513 people discovered yesterday; what they were willing to endure to get here breaks my heart. The conditions they suffered were horrendous.  But would they have been subjected to such if we had stricter border security and they knew it was harder to cross the border into America illegally?  Who knows...

Don't get me wrong, I am honored that my country is one in which others seek refuge; a better life; bigger opportunities.  And I think it's GREAT that others can escape here from poor conditions in their own countries. If we had the means, I would say bring it on!  Let's take care of every one from every corner. But we're doing it now when we don't have the means. And we're stepping on our own to take care of others. Our economy is in the tank. Unemployment is up for the 5th week in a row. Gas continues to climb. Food prices are soaring. The dollar is under massive strain... And every American feels it. How long can we sacrifice our own to give to others?

By the way, guess what Mexico is currently doing on its southern border.....
Building a fence to keep out the Guatemalans. Huh... how 'bout that?

Monday, May 9, 2011

I Totally Just Fixed Medicare. Winning!

"Why should the federal government save money on the backs of seniors at the same time that they are giving tax breaks to millionaires, giving subsidies to Big Oil, and tax cuts to companies that send jobs overseas?" ~Nancy Pelosi, speaking to seniors in Orlando, FL, April 20, 2011.

Problem solved! Thanks, me.

Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats in Congress are flagging down every man, woman, and child with a video camera for the chance to warn America that left to the Republicans, all seniors will STARVE and DIE. STARVE and DIE. Well...unless they eat cat food.
Really, Nancy? Really???

Okay, first I'd like to point out that the Paul Ryan / Republican budget plan DOES NOT change Medicare funding for current recipients, nor for any who qualify FOR THE NEXT TEN YEARS. The ONLY cuts in the Ryan plan are the ones the DEMOCRATS already outlined in Obamacare.
But still... Republicans want to kill seniors. Really? Has anyone noticed the average age of Republicans in Congress?? Pretty sure they're not into killing seniors. Just sayin'.

Here's the thing. The average net worth of members of the US House in 2009 was about $4,000,000.  The average net worth of members of the US Senate in 2009 was almost $14,000,000. Democrats play the role of representing the "little man" while painting a picture of greedy Republicans as only looking out for their own... the wealthy, greedy, Wall-Street CEOs and banker types. But here's the thing. 7 of the 10 wealthiest members of Congress are NOT Republicans. They're Democrats. Huh...weird.
Here's a sampling of some 2010 net worth numbers, though these aren't all necessarily in the top 10:

Dianne Feinstein (D-Cali): $108,100,000.00
John Kerry (D-Mass): $294,900,000.00
Darrell Issa (R-Cali): $451,100,000.00
Mark Warner (D-VA): $283,100,000.00
Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): $58,000,000.00

And so on and so on and so on, but frankly, the more names & numbers I give you, the sicker I become.  

55 out of 261 members of Congress have an average wealth of $10 million or more. Of those 55, 8 have an average wealth of $100 million or more.

Now, about that health insurance the Republicans want to strip from seniors.....
Members of Congress have the option of choosing from more than 10 different plans and providers; one of the more popular ones being a Blue Cross Blue Shield plan that costs $1,120.47 per month.  To their credit, members do pay a portion of their monthly premium. Up to 25% of it, to be precise. The remaining 72-75% of it however, is paid for by the government a la American taxpayer (a.k.a. YOU. ME.) dollars. Hey, guess who pays taxes that help fund Congress health insurance plans......  Seniors. The same Seniors for whom the Dems show soooooo much concern and distress. Awesome.

In contrast to the plush Congress plans, Medicare is Medicare. There is no option of choosing from more than 10 plans and providers. You get what you get. You take what they give you or you don't take Medicare.  And let me tell ya.... it ain't pretty.  What is covered under Medicare, when compared to what is covered under the "Cadillac" plans our federal representatives and employees enjoy, is peanuts. And not even delicious, honey-roasted peanuts. More like the blah blah unsalted peanuts you buy for a quarter to feed elephants at the zoo. As is the case in Congress plans, the government (a.k.a. our tax dollars) pays for 75% of the monthly premium and the remaining 25% is taken out of the recipient's monthly Social Security check.

So here's what I'm thinking. Virtually every Democrat member of Congress has said (repeatedly.... over. and over. and over. and ovvvver.) it's time the rich in this country start paying their "fair share" stop "sitting around, doing nothing" as President Obama put it in a recent speech. Well, Misters and Missuses Congresspeeps, bring it. Put your money where your mouth is.  Based on the net worth of virtually every one of you, YOU ARE the "rich" to whom you refer. Clearly, you can all afford to pay for your own health insurance. And since you care so much for the seniors of America who will soon be living off of cat food if they're in fact still living at all and haven't starved to death, surely you're all willing (if not ecstatic) to re-allocate the tax dollars that pay for your health insurance to Medicare instead. Especially given that a month's premium for one of your plans would pay a month's premium for two, three, maybe even four Medicare recipients.  

Remember when President Obama said we'd all have to make sacrifices?  What better sacrifice than one that isn't really even a sacrifice to begin with?  If it's time for the wealthy to step up and pay their fair share, who better to lead by example than the ones who are telling the wealthy to step up in the first place?

Old people eating cat food...... Losing. Congress actually practicing what they preach for once....... Winning! (Sorry...I'm really starting to miss Charlie Sheen's nuggets of gold.)
So c'mon. Whatdaya say? Step up? Fair share? Everybody in? Awesome.

Wednesday, May 4, 2011

The Photos: To Show Or Not To Show..... THAT Is The Question (A Pretty Simple One, If You Ask Me)

Here's the thing.... I don't need to see an actual photo of Jesus Christ nailed to the cross to know He died and rose again.  So I don't care whether or not I see a picture of (I refuse to use his name)'s brain matter running down his face to prove he is dead.  As far advanced as photo editing is today, I fear I may wonder if the photo is valid. And that saddens me. My faith is in God, and in my government, whose members took an oath to speak and spread the truth.... So I choose to believe them. However, I didn't lose a loved one on 9/11. Or in the 1998 US Embassy bombings in Kenya, Nairobi, Tanzania, and Dar es Salaam. Or to any other terrorist action carried out by al-Qaeda.
Those who did are singing a different tune. And rightfully so. So does the White House, out of respect, owe it to the families whose loved ones were brutally attacked and murdered at the hand and command of this man to show them proof that he is dead?  Is simply saying he's dead enough for them?  And not just those families, but the whole nation..... we may not all have lost people that day, but we ALL lost a part of our country, a part of our security, and a part of ourselves, that September day.  For those who need to see it, is it really too much to ask? Especially given that the story of how the operation went down has changed multiple times in the last two days...
I'm not President Obama. I'm not Leon Panetta. I'm not Hillary Clinton. And I don't envy the position they and others are in right now. I fully respect the gravity of the situation and the decisions that come with it, and I can't say with any certainty what I would do were I in their shoes right now.
That being said...... here's the thing. We're being given two separate, understandable reasons for why the photos will not be released. *Pause for dramatic effect.*  But are the reasons really valid? Let me break it down.

Reason # 1. The photos are too gruesome:
Really? I mean...the dude was shot in the face. I think we get that. The thought that President Obama would like to spare the American people the damage of being subjected to a gnarly, gruesome image is sweet and all, but when we all KNOW and expect a photo of a gunshot wound to the face to be less than pleasant and ask / demand to see it anyway, what's the problem? 
*We're talking about people who buried PARTS, not bodies, of their loved ones who were killed on 9/11, if they were lucky. IF THEY WERE LUCKY. Most of them have lived 10 years without complete closure because not even a bone, a tooth, a hair of their loved ones were recovered to be buried.
*We watched, some with their own eyes and some on live TV, people JUMPING TO THEIR DEATHS from the towers of the World Trade Center because they didn't want to burn to death.  We saw bodies strewn everywhere, covered in ash, dismembered, beheaded on the streets of New York. We watched towers fall with THOUSANDS of people trapped inside, knowing none would survive.
*We see images everyday of bloodied, dismembered, and dead soldiers and civilians in the Middle East.
*We saw gruesome images of Sadaam Hussein's sons after they were killed.
*We saw Sadaam Hussein's limp, dead body after he was hanged.
*Should I even mention the movies & video games the entertainment industry gives us these days???
Clearly, gruesome images are not a rare sight for us.... So why not?  Well, apparently because:

Reason #2. We don't want to inflame and anger the Muslim world.
Again.... REALLY??? Okay, for starters, any peaceful, loving Muslim that we're concerned about offending WON'T be offended by a picture of a man who distorted their religion, used it for evil, and changed the world's view of it.  Period.  I'm not saying that as a Muslim, it's just a hunch (What is a hunch, anyway? Note to self: Look up origin of "hunch".). Now, if the concern is over inciting radical Jihadist Muslims like al-Qaeda, Taliban, Muslim Brotherhood, etc.... ARE YOU SERIOUS RIGHT NOW??? Yeah, let's look at that:
*We watched al-Qaeda slit American journalist Daniel Pearl's throat and then decapitate him ON A VIDEO THAT THEY RELEASED ON THE INTERNET.
*We're talking about a group of people whose MISSION IN LIFE is to kill us, destroy our country, and eradicate the world of every Christian, Jew, man, woman, and child who doesn't follow their screwed up, hateful form of religion. So, frankly I don't care if a photograph offends them. And the White House shouldn't, either.  What courtesy have they ever extended us by NOT showing gruesome images of the thousands they have brutally murdered???
*We're talking about a group of people who parade the dead, dismembered bodies of their victims in the streets in celebration; who proudly post pictures in their media and on the internet of slain Americans, Christians, and Jews. 
*We're talking about a group of people who use women and children as human shields. Who use children as "martyrs" to carry out suicide bombings. Who shot a missile into an Israeli school bus full of children last month..... Really??
Radical Islam is Radical Islam. Guess what. They're already angry. They already hate us. They already want to kill us. They already wage war against us. They already hijack our planes. They already blow up our embassies. They already kill THOUSANDS of our soldiers. They already bomb buildings, trains and subway stations. They already spread their message of hate for us "infidels" and proclaim their intent to destroy us. SO SHOW THEM THE FREAKIN' PICTURE!!!
Sorry, I got excited. But really... show them that we aren't scared. Show them that we can win. Show them that THEY should be afraid. Show them OUR victory!
Look, I can understand not publishing the photos in every newspaper, magazine, publication, or on every website in every country in the world. Sure. But these photos are a reeeeeeeeally big deal to the families of a LOT of 9/11 victims. Why not invite them to the White House or some other location, show them the proof their hearts yearn to see, have a brief memorial for those who died at the hands of this evil man, and give them the closure that they need and deserve? 
It's the right thing to do... and America hasn't done a lot of that lately.
Please, Mr. President. Please. Please hear their cries. Give them what they need. Please do the right thing.

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Free Speech: It's For Everyone! Well... You Know..... Except For Some.

Not that I was there or anything, but I'm somewhat of the opinion that when addressing our right to free speech, our founding fathers weren't referring to the right of a grown man to scream obscenities at a 14 YEAR OLD GIRL while she's exercising her own right to free speech and assembly.

The American Tea Party movement continues to be billed as an ignorant, angry, violent, racist organization by virtually all media outlets and the American Left........ most of whom have never attended a Tea Party rally themselves, nor have any idea what the movement is about....or that there are not only black Tea Party members, but whole black tea parties themselves.......... no, America just joins the collective opinion because it's the popular thing to do. Even when evidence and truth prove how wrong they are.

To the contrary, all the union protesters gathering in cities across America to make their voices be heard (and I maintain that the majority of them are protesting for the sake of protesting, because they don't actually know what they're protesting) are admired, applauded, and called "inspiring" by the media and the Left.

In short, the opinion is:
Tea Party rallies are comprised of violent, angry, racist mobs of rich, greedy white people.
Union protests are comprised of peaceful, unfairly treated, oppressed workers exercising their right to free speech and assembly so their voices can be heard by those who oppress them.
I previously blogged about this issue in general (you can read it HERE), but something happened over the weekend that SERIOUSLY disturbed me.  While the union protesters have gathered daily for months in Madison, WI, exercising their right to do so, no one has tried to stop them. No one has threatened them. No one has interrupted them. No one has heckled them. No one has bullied them. No one has overtaken their protests and kept them from speaking. For two months now, they have been allowed to gather in protest. And though there have been counter-protests from Walker supporters, I am unaware of any of them impeding the union workers' rights to assemble.  If I'm wrong, let me know and I'll change that statement.
So while unions have been bussed in to protest every day for months without interruption, I guess some Tea Party peeps assumed they had the same right to do so. But when a 14 year old girl started to exercise her right to free speech....... well, you'll see. **VERY STRONG LANGUAGE WARNING. VERY.**

I know, I know, I can hear it now... they'll say this guy was a plant.  Any Tea Party protester who mouths off is a racist hillbilly, but any pro-union protester who mouths off was planted there. Fine. And what about the hundreds of others heckling the poor girl?

The right to assemble and the right to free speech are guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States of America. Guaranteed RIGHTS. What was it the unions were protesting in the first place? Oh yeah! An INFRINGEMENT ON THEIR "RIGHTS"! But they don't mind infringing on someone else's rights... Huh.... Interesting.

If they had taken one second to actually listen to what this young woman had to say, perhaps they would have realized she made great points.  I can't help thinking that the only problem the Left has with this entire speech is that it didn't come from them.  Remove the phrase "Tea Party" and they would find that everything she says falls directly in line with everything they're fighting for.

Close your eyes, open your mind, and listen to what she has to say. There's a great chance you'll agree with her and her vision for this great nation. It's a mere 7 minutes that just might change you, your life, and how you think. If not, it was just 7 minutes...get over it. (Insert winking face here)

Pretty amazing, if you ask me. Especially for a 14 year old. Barack Obama issued a call for youth around the world to rise up. Be heard. Make a difference. Be the REVOLUTION. I think this is what he meant.

As a side note, at this same rally, the union crowd BOOED the National Anthem. So loudly that it couldn't be heard. Additionally, other video shows numerous union peeps saying things like "God d*** America!", "F*** America!", and the winner, "I wipe my a** every night with the American flag." Last time I checked, there were about 195 countries in the world... And last time I checked, no one is forced to live in this one if they hate it. Just saying. The beautiful irony is that they're living in one of the few countries that allows them to openly express their hateful opinions without the risk of negative consequence. It would be funny if it weren't so sad......

"If we do not come to the defense of the free speech rights of the most unpopular among us, even if their views are antithetical to the very freedom the First Amendment stands for, then no one's liberty will be secure." ~ACLU, South Dakota Chapter website.

One more thing... the African-Americans that are absent from Tea Party rallies (which the Left says makes them racist)..... how many did you count just now among the union protesters?


Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Summer Means Flip-Flops!! Especially In Washington.....

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.
Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion.That is “trillion” with a “T.” That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President’s budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.
Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we’ll spend on Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation, and veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America.
And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.
Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America’s priorities."
Senator Barack Obama
Senate Floor Speech on Public Debt
March 16, 2006

Obviously, Senator Obama was referring to George W. Bush's failed leadership, but now that's he's in charge, he's singing a different tune.  He now regrets his vote against raising the debt that our government faces the issue of needing to raise it again. Another rung on the ladder of hypocrisy.  What's the point in having a ceiling if it doesn't serve the purpose of keeping something under the ceiling? Has it occurred to anyone in America that if we ran our personal finances the way we allow and enable our government to, we would have all been thrown in jail long ago?!?!  If you called your bank and said, "Hey, uh... I know I haven't made a payment in 10 years, and I can't make a payment now, but uh.... can you increase the spending limit on my card?" do you think for a second they would say yes??? Uhhhhh, no. I can pretty confidently say no.

I have a BIG problem with raising our debt ceiling. But I have a BIGGER problem with the way it is perceived and judged by the media and the "Left" now that the issue exists under Obama rather than Bush. While raising the debt ceiling under Bush was seen by Dems as irresponsible and harmful to America, it apparently is now the responsible thing to do.......even though spending under Obama has exceeded beyond understanding at a phenomenal rate of speed, and our national debt is nearly DOUBLE what it was at the time of the 2006 vote to raise the ceiling. Again, double standard to the max.  That would be double standard # ................nevermind, I quit counting.

Let's review: Democrats who voted against raising the debt ceiling under Bush.....
Barack Obama
Steny Hoyer
Harry Reid
Claire McCaskill (Who called increasing the debt limit in 2006 "profoundly irresponsible...")
John Kerry  (Who, by the way, said the purpose of his vote was “to demand a course correction from the Bush fiscal policies that had turned record budget surpluses into record deficits with no end in sight”....... Hmm...)
Joe Biden
Barbara Boxer
Diane Feinstein
Jay Rockefeller
Patrick Leahy
Hillary Clinton
................. okay, who am I kidding? EVERY Democrat that voted on the issue voted in favor of raising the debt ceiling. And that is NOT a sarcastic remark. It is the actual voting record.
Weird, huh?  And would you believe that many of them now say they regret their vote at the time??? Nooo, really? Imagine that...

 To be fair, most Republicans in 2006 voted in favor of raising the debt limit, though some did vote against.  However, even though we were in a down economy, we were no where close to the risky position we're in now in terms of our national debt, budget, economy and future.  In the words of Dallas Federal Reserve Bank President Richard Fisher, "If we continue down this path on which the fiscal authorities put us, we will become insolvent."  ........... Not if. When.

And they think raising the ceiling again might somehow be good for us?  Yeah....thanks, but no thanks.

Coming Up!

Upcoming topics to look for on Pollytick Chick!

  • "As Commander In Chief, I have no greater responsibility than that of protecting our national security." -Barack Obama
    Does this include addressing the problem we have with the US / Mexico border?  The thousands of deaths that occur there and the convicted murderers that are allowed to roam free on American soil?

  • Goverment Spending:  Is cutting spending on government programs really the more harmful choice for the future of America and those programs, or is it actually better than adding to the national debt to the point that America's economy is insolvent and there is no longer ANY funding for ANY programs?

  • Is what's good for the goose really good for the gander?: Are the American media and public holding President Obama to the same standards as President Bush, or is he getting a free pass for doing many of the same things?

Look for these (AND MORE!) posts coming soon!

Monday, April 4, 2011

Why Should You Follow Pollytick Chick?

Because I'm awesome, duh!

Kidding, but can I brag just a little? K, thanks.......

Last week, after Obama's Libya address, I pointed out that the number of troops killed in Afghanistan under the president who campaigned on bringing troops home is (in only 2 years) almost double the number of troops killed in Afghanistan in all 8 years of his predecessor's administration.

**Today, a main headline on the Drudge Report was about the number of troops killed in Afghanistan under Obama.**

On March 23, I blogged about the "We Are One" rallies being held today and how they sort of spit in the face of Martin Luther King and the civil rights he fought for.

**Today, Fox News did a segment on why today's rallies are an insult to Dr. King's legacy.**

In last week's blog in response to Obama's Libya address, I suggested the president look in a mirror.....

**This is a screenshot from Neil Cavuto today:

I have presidential mind control?!?!?! I don't know, but watch out, world, I'm on FIYAH!  If I didn't know better, I'd say I know what's up before it's up. And that's what's up.

A Sunday Smorgasbord of Stupid (on Monday... 'cause Sunday was a sick day)

1. Barack Obama announced today he will be running for re-election in 2012, to the tune of a ONE BILLION DOLLAR campaign. Are you serious???  Can't wait to see who & where those donations come from.

2.  White City, Oregon... A citizen with the legal right to use medicinal marijuana is being pressured by the county Sheriff to relinquish her legal permit to own a gun.
Uhhh....... because smoking pot to ease your pain from cancer is WAY more dangerous than getting liquored up and shooting your wife?

3. The price of gas has more than doubled what it was when Bush left office and Obama took over. Anyone in the media want to address this? Even just a little bit? Anyone? .....Anyone? ....Bueller?

4.  Acts of violence recently brought to light in any number of Islamic countries warrants US intervention in the name of humanity, but years and years and years of violence against one lone Jewish nation.....not so much?
Annnnnnnnd out of all those Islamic countries and the sole Jewish country, how many are nations that have NOT produced violent radicals who have carried out acts of terror against America / Americans? I can name one........... (Hint: It's not one we're helping so much right now......)
Granted, these other countries are suffering oppression at the hands of their leaders, which is NOT the case in Israel. But they sure are getting bullied by the same tyrannical dictators that are torturing their own people.

5. AFL-CIO and unions across America are holding "We Are One" rallies / protests across America today, standing in solidarity (*vomit) with Martin Luther King, Jr............... On the anniversary of the day he was shot..... in Memphis........ protesting unions and their gross mistreatment of African-Americans.
Good one, unions. Good one. Perhaps you should do a little research on the CIVIL RIGHTS for which he gave his life. You know, the right to live and be treated like a human being, not the "right" to bargain collectively or the "right" to a sweet pension plan paid for by American taxpayers.

6. A recently released study determined that at least 5,000 "citizens" who voted in the 2010 election in Colorado were not actually........ citizens. They were illegal immigrants. And the number of illegal immigrants registered to vote in CO is actually suspected to be much higher, closer to 12,000. Uh..... ??? Whether or not it makes a difference (I'll tell you what I think...), CO's Democratic governor beat the Republican candidate by a very narrow margin... Hmm....
Not that this isn't ridiculous enough on its own, Colorado's Sec. of State (a Republican) who conducted the study (actually) said (with his own mouth), “We don’t have a screen for citizenship on the front end when people register to vote.” UHHHH..........???????????????? Problem?????
Then again, I guess if you don't have to be screened for citizenship to RUN FOR PRESIDENT, it's only fair that you don't have to be screened to vote, either...

7. Last week President Obama received an award for transparency in government from groups that advocate transparency in government.... he was given the award (get this) behind closed doors and without the press having been made aware of the occasion. CLASSIC! Really... it doesn't get much better than that. Although, I do happen to believe he is VERY transparent. VERY. Just not in the ways he promised he would be.

Thursday, March 31, 2011

Obama's Address On Libya (The Cynical Translation)

Name that Prez: "The American people and the United States have an interest first of all in making sure that where a brutal dictator is threatening his people and saying he will show no mercy and go door to door hunting people down, and we have the capacity under international sanction to do something about that, I think it's in America's national interest to do something about it,"  
Who said it? George W. Bush in 2003 or Barack Obama in 2011?
While you're thinking, please to enjoy a lil breakdown of the President's speech on Libya this past Monday night, March 28, 2011.

Good evening. Tonight, I'd like to update the American people on the international effort that we have led in Libya - what we have done, what we plan to do, and why this matters to us.

"...that we have led in Libya..." Er...hasn't the Obama administration gone out of its way in every available opportunity to stress that the U.S. is NOT leading the coalition in Libya? Didn't Hillary Clinton state in her press conference in Paris that "we are NOT leading this", but rather France and the U.K. are the ones leading the coalition; that America's ONLY role is one of support?

I want to begin by paying tribute to our men and women in uniform who, once again, have acted with courage, professionalism and patriotism. They have moved with incredible speed and strength. Because of them and our dedicated diplomats, a coalition has been forged and countless lives have been saved. Meanwhile, as we speak, our troops are supporting our ally Japan, leaving Iraq to its people, stopping the Taliban's momentum in Afghanistan, and going after al Qaeda around the globe. As Commander-in-Chief, I am grateful to our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen, and their families, as are all Americans.

Amen as a whole, but.... "...countless lives have been saved." I assume you aren't referring to the innocent civilians who have been killed by our efforts because we haven't yet developed the missile that can actually distinguish good guys from bad guys.... And are you aware of how many civilians were slaughtered before we took this humanitarian "kinetic military activity"?...
"...stopping the Taliban's momentum in Afghanistan," Is that why twice as many troops have been killed in Afghanistan under you in two years than in all eight years of the Bush administration? Just wondering.... (roughly 575 from 2001-2009, almost 900 from 2009-2011)
I do thank you, though for commending our troops and I stand in agreement with you there.

For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and advocate for human freedom. Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world's many challenges. But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act. That is what happened in Libya over the course of these last six weeks.

Errrrr....... we have interests and values at stake in Libya that we didn't have in Iraq? Really?? Wow... who knew?
And in your dictionary, is "unique role as an anchor of global security and advocate for human freedom" the definition of arrogant? The need for which you had to profess to the world an apology on behalf of the United States of America the second you took office?

Libya sits directly between Tunisia and Egypt - two nations that inspired the world when their people rose up to take control of their own destiny. For more than four decades, the Libyan people have been ruled by a tyrant - Moammar Gaddafi. He has denied his people freedom, exploited their wealth, murdered opponents at home and abroad, and terrorized innocent people around the world - including Americans who were killed by Libyan agents. opposed to Saddam Hussein, who was an angel? K. 

Last month, Gaddafi's grip of fear appeared to give way to the promise of freedom. In cities and towns across the country, Libyans took to the streets to claim their basic human rights. As one Libyan said, "For the first time we finally have hope that our nightmare of 40 years will soon be over." 

.........unless those we are helping are even more cruel (if possible) than Qaddafi. Unfortunately we don't know, because we didn't actually take the time to RESEARCH WHO THEY ARE. 

Faced with this opposition, Gaddafi began attacking his people. As President, my immediate concern was the safety of our citizens, so we evacuated our Embassy and all Americans who sought our assistance. We then took a series of swift steps in a matter of days to answer Gaddafi's aggression. We froze more than $33 billion of the Gaddafi regime's assets. Joining with other nations at the United Nations Security Council, we broadened our sanctions, imposed an arms embargo, and enabled Gaddafi and those around him to be held accountable for their crimes. I made it clear that Gaddafi had lost the confidence of his people and the legitimacy to lead, and I said that he needed to step down from power.

It took 10 days to began talk of evacuation the U.S. embassy.... but whatever. And if we truly believe our little asset freeze may actually affect Gaddafi, we should all turn in our high school diplomas and call it a day. This guy doesn't have access to millions (billions?) other than his bank held assets? His fellow tyrants in the Middle East won't bend over backwards to fund him in any and every way they can? Right. And the Panthers might win the Superbowl. Ever. AND I'm Miss America.

Oh, and that last line? "....lost the confidence of his people and the legitmacy to lead, and I said that he needed to step down from power." I couldn't agree more, Mr. President. There are plenty of mirrors in the White House.....look in one. 

In the face of the world's condemnation, Gaddafi chose to escalate his attacks, launching a military campaign against the Libyan people. Innocent people were targeted for killing. Hospitals and ambulances were attacked. Journalists were arrested, sexually assaulted, and killed. Supplies of food and fuel were choked off. The water for hundreds of thousands of people in Misratah was shut off. Cities and towns were shelled, mosques destroyed, and apartment buildings reduced to rubble. Military jets and helicopter gunships were unleashed upon people who had no means to defend themselves against assault from the air.

Confronted by this brutal repression and a looming humanitarian crisis, I ordered warships into the Mediterranean. European allies declared their willingness to commit resources to stop the killing. The Libyan opposition, and the Arab League, appealed to the world to save lives in Libya. At my direction, America led an effort with our allies at the United Nations Security Council to pass an historic Resolution that authorized a no fly-zone to stop the regime's attacks from the air, and further authorized all necessary measures to protect the Libyan people.

"At my direction....." really with the patting your own back? Really?
".........America led an effort with our allies...." Again... "WE" led? With all due respect, Mr. President, do you HAVE a memory? 
Friendly Reminder: Hillary Clinton, March 8, 2011: "I think it's very important that this not be a US-led effort..." (A.P.)
"President Barrack Obama on Friday afternoon' made it clear that the United States would not lead efforts to protect the people of Libya, but would join forces of other nations to seek goal." (A.P.) 

Ten days ago, having tried to end the violence without using force, the international community offered Gaddafi a final chance to stop his campaign of killing, or face the consequences. Rather than stand down, his forces continued their advance, bearing down on the city of Benghazi, home to nearly 700,000 men, women and children who sought their freedom from fear.

At this point, the United States and the world faced a choice. Gaddafi declared that he would show "no mercy" to his own people. He compared them to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment. In the past, we had seen him hang civilians in the streets, and kill over a thousand people in a single day. Now, we saw regime forces on the outskirts of the city. We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi - a city nearly the size of Charlotte - could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.

I could be wrong.... but I have been under the impression that our (non-U.S. led) effort in Libya was a humanitarian one, not one meant to topple a regime, unlike Bush's effort to topple Hussein's regime in Iraq. The above paragraph sort of sounds like the opposite.... and begs the question, how can a humanitarian effort to free people from a violent, oppressive dictator be successful without toppling the regime? Would not the dictator return to his normal behaviors if his regime were to remain in power?

It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen. And so nine days ago, after consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action to stop the killing and enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973. We struck regime forces approaching Benghazi to save that city and the people within it. We hit Gaddafi's troops in neighboring Ajdabiya, allowing the opposition to drive them out. We hit his air defenses, which paved the way for a no fly-zone. We targeted tanks and military assets that had been choking off towns and cities and we cut off much of their source of supply. And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Gaddafi's deadly advance.

I mean.... that's good news and all, but...... can you reeeeally "report that we have stopped Gaddafi's deadly advance"?? Like....we have proof of that and all or we should just take your word for it?
And consulted Congress?

In this effort, the United States has not acted alone. Instead, we have been joined by a strong and growing coalition. This includes our closest allies - nations like the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Spain, Greece, and Turkey - all of whom have fought by our side for decades. And it includes Arab partners like Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, who have chosen to meet their responsibility to defend the Libyan people.

No comment.

To summarize, then: in just one month, the United States has worked with our international partners to mobilize a broad coalition, secure an international mandate to protect civilians, stop an advancing army, prevent a massacre, and establish a no fly-zone with our allies and partners. To lend some perspective on how rapidly this military and diplomatic response came together, when people were being brutalized in Bosnia in the 1990s, it took the international community more than a year to intervene with air power to protect civilians.

" just one month.." LOVE a great pat on one's back! Really, I do. You must tend to do it quite often (but that's another subject).
Let me get this right... we have stopped an advancing army and prevented a massacre? Maybe it's just me, but thousands of men, women, and children slain and dumped in mass graves smells a lil like a massacre. But I could be wrong.
As for the time it took to respond in Libya vs. Bosnia..... Didn't you and your colleagues pitch a stinky fit over Bush going into Iraq half-cocked without consulting and acquiring Congressional approval (which he did, by the way... unlike, well... you get the picture). Another great pat on the back, by the way.

Moreover, we have accomplished these objectives consistent with the pledge that I made to the American people at the outset of our military operations. I said that America's role would be limited; that we would not put ground troops into Libya; that we would focus our unique capabilities on the front end of the operation, and that we would transfer responsibility to our allies and partners. Tonight, we are fulfilling that pledge.

"...consistent with the pledge that I made to the American people at the outset..." Uh, NO, actually, because you DIDN'T MAKE A PLEDGE. YOU DIDN'T EVEN ADDRESS THE ISSUE UNTIL WE WERE DAYS INTO THE OPERATION AND YOU WERE ON VACATION. (I'm not bitter.)
"Tonight we are fulfilling that pledge." Yay! Except no, we didn't. Oops.

Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and No Fly Zone. Last night, NATO decided to take on the additional responsibility of protecting Libyan civilians. This transfer from the United States to NATO will take place on Wednesday. Going forward, the lead in enforcing the No Fly Zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Gaddafi's remaining forces. In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role - including intelligence, logistical support, search and rescue assistance, and capabilities to jam regime communications. Because of this transition to a broader, NATO-based coalition, the risk and cost of this operation - to our military, and to American taxpayers - will be reduced significantly.

I appreciate your concern for the American taxpayers. Perhaps you could, oh I don't know.... lower our taxes or I don't know.... STOP SPENDING US INTO OBLIVION. Just sayin'.

So for those who doubted our capacity to carry out this operation, I want to be clear: the United States of America has done what we said we would do.

To be clear, are you referring to what you "said we would do" during the days you said nothing about the issue whatsoever, or are you referring to what you "said we would do" when you said what we would do is play a support-only, non-leading role in the coalition (that you know say we led)?

That is not to say that our work is complete. In addition to our NATO responsibilities, we will work with the international community to provide assistance to the people of Libya, who need food for the hungry and medical care for the wounded. We will safeguard the more than $33 billion that was frozen from the Gaddafi regime so that it is available to rebuild Libya. After all, this money does not belong to Gaddafi or to us - it belongs to the Libyan people, and we will make sure they receive it.

(I think the money belongs to Michael Moore.)

"...provide assistance to the people of Libya, who need food for the hungry and medical care for the wounded." Which part of this statement translates to supplying rebel forces (who may be al-Qaeda) with weapons?

Tomorrow, Secretary Clinton will go to London, where she will meet with the Libyan opposition and consult with more than thirty nations. These discussions will focus on what kind of political effort is necessary to pressure Gaddafi, while also supporting a transition to the future that the Libyan people deserve. Because while our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives, we continue to pursue the broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, but to its people.

Huh... change "Gaddafi" to "Hussein" and "Libyan" to "Iraqi" and it sure sounds like the same exact objective. Except they are absolutely, positively, unequivocally NOT the same.....or so we're told.

Despite the success of our efforts over the past week, I know that some Americans continue to have questions about our efforts in Libya. Gaddafi has not yet stepped down from power, and until he does, Libya will remain dangerous. Moreover, even after Gaddafi does leave power, forty years of tyranny has left Libya fractured and without strong civil institutions. The transition to a legitimate government that is responsive to the Libyan people will be a difficult task. And while the United States will do our part to help, it will be a task for the international community, and - more importantly - a task for the Libyan people themselves.

Iraq, anyone?

In fact, much of the debate in Washington has put forward a false choice when it comes to Libya. On the one hand, some question why America should intervene at all - even in limited ways - in this distant land. They argue that there are many places in the world where innocent civilians face brutal violence at the hands of their government, and America should not be expected to police the world, particularly when we have so many pressing concerns here at home.

It is true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what's right. In this particular country - Libya; at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique ability to stop that violence: an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries, and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves. We also had the ability to stop Gaddafi's forces in their tracks without putting American troops on the ground.

"...violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique ability to stop that violence.."
Darfur. Sudan. Rwanda. North Korea. Syria. Chad. Yemen. Israel. Tunisia. Congo. Sri Lanka. Bahrain.
Hundreds. Of thousands. Of Civilians. Murdered.

To brush aside America's responsibility as a leader and - more profoundly - our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.

"..images of slaughter."
.......pick the country of your choice from the Middle East. Turn on your TV. Read a newspaper. Turn on your computer. If our responsibility as America and as human beings to to act upon inhumane atrocities in every country they are taking place, does that mean we are going into every country (and more) that I listed above? Or will we turn a blind eye to those atrocities?
As for mass graves..... we're a little late.

Moreover, America has an important strategic interest in preventing Gaddafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya's borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful - yet fragile - transitions in Egypt and Tunisia. The democratic impulses that are dawning across the region would be eclipsed by the darkest form of dictatorship, as repressive leaders concluded that violence is the best strategy to cling to power. The writ of the UN Security Council would have been shown to be little more than empty words, crippling its future credibility to uphold global peace and security. So while I will never minimize the costs involved in military action, I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America.

So.... cost of military action in Libya, justified. Cost of military action in Iraq & Afghanistan, you're still complaining about. Uhh...k.

Now, just as there are those who have argued against intervention in Libya, there are others who have suggested that we broaden our military mission beyond the task of protecting the Libyan people, and do whatever it takes to bring down Gaddafi and usher in a new government.

Of course, there is no question that Libya - and the world - will be better off with Gaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through nonmilitary means. But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.

Forgive me, but I'm not so sure writing Gaddafi a letter is gonna do it. And .... you DID say previously that he WILL be removed from power whether it is by military or non-military action.
Barack Obama at the White House, March 18, 2011: “If Gadhafi does not comply, the international community will impose consequences, and the resolution will be enforced through military action,” ....just sayin'.

The task that I assigned our forces - to protect the Libyan people from immediate danger, and to establish a no fly-zone - carries with it a UN mandate and international support. It is also what the Libyan opposition asked us to do. If we tried to overthrow Gaddafi by force, our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground, or risk killing many civilians from the air. The dangers faced by our men and women in uniform would be far greater. So would the costs, and our share of the responsibility for what comes next.

To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq. Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq's future. But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.

Can I point out that going into Iraq, we didn't have an eight year plan? We didn't plan on thousands of lives being lost. We didn't plan on trillions of dollars being spent. As a matter of fact......
MARCH 19, 2011
OBAMA:'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world'...
MARCH 19, 2003
BUSH:'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger...
Huh....weird. Bush didn't mention "eight years" in that statement that sounds JUST LIKE your statement eight years later (to the day).

As the bulk of our military effort ratchets down, what we can do - and will do - is support the aspirations of the Libyan people. We have intervened to stop a massacre, and we will work with our allies and partners as they're in the lead to maintain the safety of civilians. We will deny the regime arms, cut off its supply of cash, assist the opposition, and work with other nations to hasten the day when Gaddafi leaves power. It may not happen overnight, as a badly weakened Gaddafi tries desperately to hang on to power. But it should be clear to those around Gadaffi, and to every Libyan, that history is not on his side. With the time and space that we have provided for the Libyan people, they will be able to determine their own destiny, and that is how it should be.

Like I said.....let's not be naive enough to believe we can actually cut off Gaddafi's cash supply. Nor his supply of arms. Let's not underestimate his history and level of insanity. Please.

Let me close by addressing what this action says about the use of America's military power, and America's broader leadership in the world, under my presidency.

(pats himself on back..)

As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than keeping this country safe. And no decision weighs on me more than when to deploy our men and women in uniform. I have made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies, and our core interests. That is why we are going after al Qaeda wherever they seek a foothold. That is why we continue to fight in Afghanistan, even as we have ended our combat mission in Iraq and removed more than 100,000 troops from that country.

"...when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies, and our core interests." mean like the way we're swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally defending our ally Israel? (Just sayin')

There will be times, though, when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and values are. Sometimes, the course of history poses challenges that threaten our common humanity and common security - responding to natural disasters, for example; or preventing genocide and keeping the peace; ensuring regional security, and maintaining the flow of commerce. These may not be America's problems alone, but they are important to us, and they are problems worth solving. And in these circumstances, we know that the United States, as the world's most powerful nation, will often be called upon to help.

Wait...I thought all those things are what make us the most ARROGANT nation, not the most POWERFUL...

In such cases, we should not be afraid to act - but the burden of action should not be America's alone. As we have in Libya, our task is instead to mobilize the international community for collective action. Because contrary to the claims of some, American leadership is not simply a matter of going it alone and bearing all of the burden ourselves. Real leadership creates the conditions and coalitions for others to step up as well; to work with allies and partners so that they bear their share of the burden and pay their share of the costs; and to see that the principles of justice and human dignity are upheld by all.

That's the kind of leadership we have shown in Libya. Of course, even when we act as part of a coalition, the risks of any military action will be high. Those risks were realized when one of our planes malfunctioned over Libya. Yet when one of our airmen parachuted to the ground, in a country whose leader has so often demonized the United States - in a region that has such a difficult history with our country - this American did not find enemies. Instead, he was met by people who embraced him. One young Libyan who came to his aid said, "We are your friends. We are so grateful to these men who are protecting the skies."


This voice is just one of many in a region where a new generation is refusing to be denied their rights and opportunities any longer. Yes, this change will make the world more complicated for a time. Progress will be uneven, and change will come differently in different countries. There are places, like Egypt, where this change will inspire us and raise our hopes. And there will be places, like Iran, where change is fiercely suppressed. The dark forces of civil conflict and sectarian war will have to be averted, and difficult political and economic concerns addressed.

Annnd let's pray that those revolting and overtaking their governments don't actually pose a larger threat to the U.S. than the current regimes.... sort of like, I don't know... the Muslim Brotherhood taking power in Egypt.

The United States will not be able to dictate the pace and scope of this change. Only the people of the region can do that. But we can make a difference. I believe that this movement of change cannot be turned back, and that we must stand alongside those who believe in the same core principles that have guided us through many storms: our opposition to violence directed against one's own citizens; our support for a set of universal rights, including the freedom for people to express themselves and choose their leaders; our support for governments that are ultimately responsive to the aspirations of the people.

(the way the American government listened to poll after poll after poll that clearly showed that the American people did NOT want Obamacare)

Born, as we are, out of a revolution by those who longed to be free, we welcome the fact that history is on the move in the Middle East and North Africa, and that young people are leading the way. Because wherever people long to be free, they will find a friend in the United States. Ultimately, it is that faith - those ideals - that are the true measure of American leadership.

Er.. I'm going to pretend you aren't actually referencing our founding fathers who are rolling in their graves, k? And I'm going to pretend that you just said people will find a friend in the United States when they want to be free, because know..... Israel?

My fellow Americans, I know that at a time of upheaval overseas - when the news is filled with conflict and change - it can be tempting to turn away from the world. And as I have said before, our strength abroad is anchored in our strength at home. That must always be our North Star - the ability of our people to reach their potential, to make wise choices with our resources, to enlarge the prosperity that serves as a wellspring of our power, and to live the values that we hold so dear.

" can be tempting to turn away from the world.", say go golfing.... or spend your time filming yourself filling out your NCAA bracket.... or go on vacation to Brazil... stuff like that.
"....the ability of our people to reach their potential" Translation: the ability of our people to reap the benefits of someone else's hard work and potential.
" make wise choices with our resources" choosing to give violent, oppressive regimes billions of dollars for oil instead of drilling the vasts amounts available on American soil.
"...and to live the values that we hold so dear." those of our founding fathers that you and the Left seek to ignore and destroy... you know... the Christian ones?

But let us also remember that for generations, we have done the hard work of protecting our own people, as well as millions around the globe. We have done so because we know that our own future is safer and brighter if more of mankind can live with the bright light of freedom and dignity. Tonight, let us give thanks for the Americans who are serving through these trying times, and the coalition that is carrying our effort forward; and let us look to the future with confidence and hope not only for our own country, but for all those yearning for freedom around the world. Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.

I'll just give that one an Amen and thank God you have a speech writer. Amen.

Oh, and the quote that began this post? Barrack Obama. 
Don't tell me this isn't about a regime change. If it looks like a regime change, walks like a regime change, and quacks like a regime's a regime change. Quack, quack, Mr. President.