Tell us how you think President Barack Obama has handled the economic crisis so far. What's he done right? And what's he gotten wrong?
Mandel Ngan, AFP / Getty Images
obama the worse president #3
To anyone who has been following his words and actions, it's clear that Obama ultimately believes in a world-wide, and domestic as well, re-distribution of wealth, equalizing of wealth, which in reality amounts to the equalization of poverty. Thus, the ONLY bill he has personally sponsored in the Senate is the Global Poverty Act which will commit the US to giving almost a Trillion Dollars to the corrupt UN for the ostensible purpose of eliminating poverty in Africa. That is, over and above the enormous sums we already contribute to the UN, other nations, and other humanitarian causes. While promoting this abomination, he has the gall to complain that the US is $3 Trillion in debt.
On page 1 of the following article, Andrew C. McCarthy at NRO, further discusses Obama's obscene proposal to the Iraqi government to delay the agreement for troop withdrawal until President Obama could take credit for it. Here, McCarthy continues on page 2 to discuss that while Senator Obama caterwauls about our losses in Iraq, he's hoping you won't notice, because of his MSM pretorian guard's complicity in keeping it unreported, that he has already proposed the most jaw-dropping transfer of wealth in American history. The taking of nearly a Trillion dollars out of the pockets of American taxpayers and doling it out to the world's worst regimes through its most corrupt intermediary, the U.N. The Global Poverty Act.
Fraud. Obama as Guardian of the American Taxpayer
obama the worse president #4
Obama is concerned with Fixing Global Poverty First, or rather filling the pockets of corrupt and vile UN and national tyrants, before fixing our own critical financial problems. Before the Social Security and Health Care which fill his speechifying. Before the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which he and his pals refused to deal with months ago when McCain tried to get Congress to get a hold on the situation. The same Fannie & Freddie who contributed more to his campaign than anyone except one other Congressman's.
Regarding Muslims, there may be Muslims who regard him as an apostate. There will also be Muslims who will regard him as a secret Muslim, performing taqiyya. And there will be Muslims who take him for what he says he is, a Christian. Yes, there could be problems regarding this. But there are so many other issues regarding his Presidency. It's hard to say which are the worst ones. This is just one more of the many.
As far as his personal belief goes, as distinguished from his religious affiliations, it's not really anyone's business, and it doesn't matter much, unless he's a believer in a religion that has political ramifications. That being said, I'll venture my nosy and inappropriate opinion. It seems to me religion isn't important to him at all. My guess is that he doesn't think about it much, if at all, and I think he's probably an athiest or an agnostic, although who can really know even if they actually care to know. But his true religion is himself and his ambition, as is his self-promoting leftist, dusted or more so, with James Cone style racist, ideology. On the other hand, his family and other affiliations with Muslims, and more significantly, with Islamists, does matter.
But what's even of much more importance at this moment in time, is that he doesn't believe there is an Islamist threat. He sees Ideologically Radical Islamists as just like any other relgionists, and that the only problem is that some bad people are terrorists. All that needs be done is to invade Pakistan, rout out Osama Bin Ladin, and be done with the problem. As far as he is concerned, there is no problem with any of the tenets of Islam that need to be faced, there is no objection to be made regarding nations adopting the Sharia as public law, there is no serious movement to re-establish the Caliphate to rule the world, there are no sleeper cells awaiting word from Hizbollah or Al Queda which require our determined vigilance to surveil and disempower, there are no stealth Islamists using Lawfare to slowly, step by step, erode the laws of Western nations, much less the US Constitution, and to replace them with the Sharia.
For the simplest and most easily accessible example, see his campaign's choice to exclude all the many truly Moderate Muslims available, and instead choose Ingrid Mattson to say prayers at the Democratic National Convention. She is President of ISNA which has been identified as a front for the Muslim Brotherhood whose stated mission in America is to destroy Western Civilization from within (soft jihad). Also, ISNA has been identified as an Unindicted Co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing trial in the US. This is the least revealing of his ignorance or worse, regarding this issue. Here, McCain largely gets it. Obama doesn't or doesn't want to.
Meet Ingrid Mattson
obama the worse president #5
As just one further example is Obama's association and friendship with Rashid Khalidi over many years. Not just social friends, Obama, through the Woods Foundation, awarded $75,000 to Khalidi's Pro-Palestinian organization. Khalidi, in turn, has given Obama political support. He is a former influential member of the PLO while it was still listed as a terrorist organization, who Obama says has taught him a great deal about the situation in the Middle East. At a later date, of course, when speaking to a Jewish group in Florida, he said he doesn't agree with all of Khalidi's opinions, and he's not an advisor to his campaign.
I wonder, if it was brought to his attention, what his opinion would be about the Somalis violent strike against the Swift company. Or the recent Taxi Driver problems in Minnesota. These are just the tiny steps, the step by steps to slowly supplant US laws with Sharia compliant laws, rules, and customs. Let us not forget the assault being made into our Public School system. Articles and Weblogs on these topics can be found here on this Website. Can't happen here? Check out Canada and Europe. Hey, check out this past week's news about London instituting Sharia law and courts for Muslims.
Swift Fires The Violent Somalis Over Ramadan Violence
Will he do anthing, or will he attempt to prevent anything from being done, to defend against what is called lawful Jihad in the US? McCain has stated that he is aware of this problem, and wants to confront it. There's little doubt who Obama will defend and who he might confront with accusations of racism and Islamophobia.
So many, many of his associations have been with extremists and radicals. That is, aside from the associations with corrupt politicians and outright crooks.
There's obviously some meaning in the fact that all our nations enemies are hoping and praying that he gets elected. It's pitiful that there are those who see the meaning as a positive sign. What happens when a desire for peace at any price meets an insatiable desire for world conquest? That's the question to ask them to answer.
Clifford D. May has some other good questions to ask of those prepared to vote for Obama.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009 9:53 PM
obama the worse president #6
And outright lies? The left says Bush Lied? Just you wait. Politicians may lie at times, but there has never been a Presidential Candidate who has lied as often as Obama. From one day to the next, with a bare face, he just denies or says he was misunderstood.
And the MSM just drools and goes along with anything he says or does. It's other-worldly.
With the loss in confidence in the Republican Administration, the MSM campaigning for him, the recent and coincidentally helpful to his campaign, financial disasters, ACORN well-funded, successful, unreported and unstopped voter fraud perpetrations in all swing states, and the Messiah Myth still carrying some weight, he's got an excellent chance of winning.
Hang on. Did you think the world changed after 9-11? What will the Post Obama world look like in 2016?
For as long as a Democratic majority in Congress lasts through his presidency, and perhaps beyond that -- get ready for terrible race relations. Get ready for anti-free speech laws, as in the recent UN proposal to criminalize speech that criticizes religion, meaning Islam or Islamists, or of the type as was recently exposed in Canada.
Or as in Jordan's new law which can charge anyone at any location in the world with the crime of Islamophobia, and will request extradition to Jordan for trial and punishment. A lot of writers better be careful to which countries they travel. When requested, Denmark refused to extradite their cartoonists.
Will the US give extradition rights to Jordan under pressure and threats from the nuclear empowered Ayatollah or Ahmadinejad who could cut off our access to the Persian Gulf while we're still waiting for windmills and Don Quijote to provide enough energy? Or will we say no and live without our engines and motors? Become the India of 50 years ago. Either way would be better than a nuclear war, many will say. No doubt, Michael Moore will be safe once again, as long as his sexual orientation doesn't change. It might not be such a comfortable time for gays.
Get ready for an atmosphere of fear. Fear of expressing non-PC opinions. Fear of watch groups awaiting a word which doesn't fit within the bounds of their rules, so they can prosecute perpetrators of thought crimes into the poorhouse, or perhaps jail time. Get ready for many more stealth Islamists within the government, within the Cabinet. Get ready for massive poverty and unemployment. Get ready for a rise in crime and violence. Get ready for a rise in anti-semitism with Mearsheimer & Walt's Israel (Jewish) Lobby and the topic of Jewish dominance becoming standard fare in conversation, political and otherwise. Will only those Jews who join in the ranks of the anti-semites be socially acceptable? Perhaps not even them. Get ready for more terrorism on our shores, including nuclear dirty bombs, as Al Queda gains control of Pakistan's nukes, and Hezbollah is supplied with the same by Iran.
I'm not saying Obama will necessarily encourage all of these evils. It's just that his affinities and leanings will. This is what the blank projection screen his Yes We Can chants and enthalling but meaningless speeches have created. This is what his becoming President will mean to many. They are joyfully awaiting their opportunity. The Daily Kos kids for instance, and others already accepted and posted on the Obama campaign website. All he will have to do is nothing. They are and will be a portion of his voters and contributors, let us not forget. And they will gather their own power and gain voice and visibility during his reign.
Get ready for Iranian supremacy in the Middle East and Russian dominance of Europe. Get ready for Russia's taking back total control and oppression of the Eastern European nations, and likely extending into South America. Get ready for the effects on us, while we kow-tow to whatever their demands might be. Get ready for a significant rise in the power of Islamists, both violent and non-violent. And violent revolutions all over the world. Get ready for a World Without Israel and a second Holocaust. One with no pretence of shame and guilt but instead, triumphalism.
We survived Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, but, although misguided, he was all pro-American. Then there was the not so pro-American Jimmy Carter. We survived the economic scourge, but it can't be said without lasting harm. He, after all, brought us an empowered Ayatollah Khomeini and the Rise of Shiite Revolutionary Iran, which has brought us to today. And Now, a world ready for Barack Obama to take the stage perhaps until 2016.
Dependency Index Surges 23% Under President Obama
By JOHN MERLINE, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted 08:02 AM ET
View Enlarged Image
The American public's dependence on the federal government shot up 23% in just two years under President Obama, with 67 million now relying on some federal program, according to a newly released study by the Heritage Foundation.
The conservative think tank's annual Index of Dependence on Government tracks money spent on housing, health, welfare, education subsidies and other federal programs that were "traditionally provided to needy people by local organizations and families."
The increase under Obama is the biggest two-year jump since Jimmy Carter was president, the data show.
The rise was driven mainly by increases in housing subsidies, an expansion in Medicaid and changes to the welfare system, along with a sharp rise in food stamps, the study found.
"You can't get around the fact that policy decisions made over the past two years, on top of those made over the past several decades, are having a large effect on the pace of growth of the index," said William Beach, who authored the Heritage study.
Dependence on the government has climbed steadily since 1962, when the index stood at 19. By 1980, the index had risen to 100. It stood at 294 in 2010, the last year for which the data are available. The D.C.-based Heritage Foundation has produced the index for nine years.
The report also found that spending on "dependence programs" accounts for more than 70% of the federal budget. That, too, is up dramatically. In 1990, for example, the figure stood at 48.5%, and in 1962 just over a quarter of federal spending went to dependence programs.
At the same time, fewer Americans pay income taxes, the report notes. Almost half (49.5%) didn't pay income taxes in 2009, the latest year for which the researchers have data. Back in the late 1960s, only 12% of Americans escaped the income tax burden.
The number of people dependent on the federal government shot up 7.5% over the past two years.
In 2010, for the first time ever, average spending on dependence programs per recipient exceeded the country's per-capita disposable income.
The dependency index has dipped only seven times in the past 49 years, three of which were under President Reagan and two under President Clinton.
Some observers say the rise in dependence under Obama is merely a reflection of the deep and long recession.
But Beach says his team's research shows that economic effects account for only one-fifth of the change in the index.
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Iran is capable of carrying out military strikes on U.S. interests all around the world if the Islamic Republic is attacked by the United States, Iran's ambassador to Moscow said on Wednesday.
The United States has tried to force Tehran to scrap sensitive nuclear work by imposing sanctions targeting Iran's central bank and giving U.S. banks new powers to freeze Iranian government assets.
Iran's ambassador to Moscow said that the United States would be making a serious mistake, akin to suicide, if it risked a military strike on OPEC's No. 2 oil exporter.
Washington has announced no such plans, but has said a military option is always on the table if Iran cannot be otherwise prevented from developing atomic weapons.
"The Americans know what kind of country Iran is. They are well aware of our people's unity," Iranian ambassador Seyed Mahmoud-Reza Sajjadi told a news conference in Moscow.
"And that's why Iran is fully able to deliver retaliatory strikes on the United States anywhere in the world," he said, speaking through an interpreter.
"Even if it attacks, we have a list of counter actions. (The United States) would be disappointed with their huge mistake."
Iran has increasingly issued threatening statements against the West in recent weeks as tension has increased over its uranium enrichment program, which it moved last month to a mountain bunker better protected from possible air strikes.
Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful while Western powers fear Tehran is trying to build a nuclear bomb.
"The issue of a military attack from America on the Islamic Republic of Iran has been on the agenda for several years," said Sajjadi, adding that Iran would never strike first.
Iran has warned its response to any such strike would be "painful," threatening to target Israel and U.S. bases in the Gulf, along with closing the Strait of Hormuz used by one third of the world's seaborne oil traffic.
Russia, the world's biggest energy producer, opposes further U.N. Security Council sanctions over Tehran's nuclear program and has sharply criticized U.S. and European Union sanctions.
The world’s greatest snow-capped peaks, which run in a chain from the Himalayas to Tian Shan on the border of China and Kyrgyzstan, have lost no ice over the last decade, new research shows.
The discovery has stunned scientists, who had believed that around 50bn tonnes of meltwater were being shed each year and not being replaced by new snowfall.
The study is the first to survey all the world’s icecaps and glaciers and was made possible by the use of satellite data. Overall, the contribution of melting ice outside the two largest caps – Greenland and Antarctica – is much less then previously estimated, with the lack of ice loss in the Himalayas and the other high peaks of Asia responsible for most of the discrepancy.
Bristol University glaciologist Prof Jonathan Bamber, who was not part of the research team, said: “The very unexpected result was the negligible mass loss from high mountain Asia, which is not significantly different from zero.”
The melting of Himalayan glaciers caused controversy in 2009 when a report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change mistakenly stated that they would disappear by 2035, instead of 2350.
Looks like Al Gore is going to have to make another movie to keep up the momentum of the "Global Warming" hysteria.
Excerpt from The Weekly Standard-
In an address recently delivered to an AIPAC audience in New York, New Jersey governor Chris Christie articulated a responsible view of America’s role in the world, stressing the importance of us standing by our friends and taking action against our adversaries.
“America should stand by its friends and its democratic allies, even, and sometimes especially, when it’s unpopular to do so,” Christie said, outlining his foreign policy vision. “And you know I know, that it may not be fashionable in some of the chancelleries, the foreign ministries, and salons around the world to talk about why America stands with Israel – but that’s no excuse not to be saying, and saying it loudly.”
Christie continued: “I read a quote from President Franklin Roosevelt which has thought made this point much better than I ever could. He says, ‘Please judge me by the enemies I have made.’ In that same spirit, I would like to say to all of you tonight: I admire Israel for the enemies it has made.”
The New Jersey governor went on to explain that Israel’s enemies are America’s, and that the two countries share important values. “We both believe in self-government, we both believe in democracy, and unalienable rights,” Christie said.
On Iran, the New Jersey governor warned how dangerous it is to allow Iran to acquire nuclear capability. “Both Americans and Israelis believe – we know deep in our bones – that if the Islamic Republic of Iran acquires a nuclear weapons capability, it will be an existential threat to Israel, to America, and to world civilization itself.” Christie warned President Obama he would be directly responsible if this happens. “I believe, like you, that stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability must be a top priority of the United States of America. Any president, Republican or Democrat, who allows such a thing to occur on his watch, would be acting in a way that is profoundly against the national security interests of the United States and the security interests of our friends in Israel.”
“It’s only by speaking the truth boldly, or by speaking the truth to power that we will prevent this from happening,” Christie continued, explaining his stark warning to the president. “It is only by decisive action by leaders who truly understand that a threat to Israel is a threat to America. A threat to the Israeli way of life is a threat to the American way of life. Not only for here in America, but for all the nations that emulate our democracy or are trying to emulate our democracy around the world.”
As a governor, Christie is more known for policies that directly effect New Jersey. This speech suggests that he has given serious consideration to formulating how he sees America’s role in the world—and how he might seek to advance that vision if ever he were to, say, consider running for another office.
Other people asked questions on similar topics, check out the answers they received:
Other people asked questions on various topics, and are still waiting for answer. Would be great if you can take a sec and answer them