About Me

Name: Bob Wood aka...
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Just where does he get these crazy ideas?

Obama urges people to serve their communities

Quote:
COLLEGE STATION, Texas (AP) - Calling public service "the essence of our liberty," President Barack Obama on Friday urged Americans to step up and volunteer in their communities.

Speaking at a community service forum in Texas, Obama said there's only so much government can do in tackling the nation's problems. He said government can build the best schools, but it can't run the PTA. It can buy the armed forces the best equipment, he said, but it can't give a home-cooked meal to a military family stretched thin.

Pardon me, sir, but the essence of our liberty is to be free - free to do what we want to do, free to achieve whatever lofty heights our abilities and hard work can bring, and free to keep what we earn for our own use and that of our posterity. Government's only responsibility is to make sure that I don't infringe on someone else's freedom to do the same.

If you had your way, government WOULD run the PTA and give a home-cooked meal to every family stretched thin (oops, government DOES do those things, doesn't it. You run the teacher part of the PTA, and I know you've heard of food stamps, welfare, and the thousands of other gubmint programs that keep the populace subservient to government.)

Quote:
"The need for action always exceeds the limits of government," Obama said. "While there's plenty that government can and must do ... there's a lot that government can't and shouldn't do and that's where active, engaged citizens come in."

Maybe you do understand that government has its limits, but you don't seem to know what those limits are. I would like to suggest a reading of the U.S. Constitution which is written in very plain English, so that all of its citizens could understand what the government was empowered to do. It will take a lot less time to read than the 1,000 pages of legalese you and Congress used to take from the people $787 billion and spend it in ways we can not fathom. It would take less time to read than the 1,000 pages of legalese in the Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Tax bill that you support which will make energy rates for all families skyrocket. And it would take less time to read than the 1,000 pages of legalese that will be written in order for the government to destroy the best healthcare system in the world while claiming to make it more affordable.

In a few short pages of simple English, The Founding Fathers set forth the Supreme Law of The Land, which served us well for almost two hundred years. But then something terrible happened. All three branches of our federal government decided that they knew better how to take care of the American people than the American people knew about caring for their own best interests. And we let you get away with it.

Well, enough is enough!

Quote:
Former President George H. W.) Bush first spoke of the "thousand points of light" in his acceptance speech at the 1988 Republican convention, using it as a metaphor for all the things Americans do, individually and in groups, to help fellow citizens. He created the Daily Point of Light Award in 1989 to honor volunteers. Friday's event honored the 20th anniversary of his volunteer movement.

In recognizing that initiative, Obama said Bush "didn't call for one blinding light to shine from Washington, but for a vast galaxy of people and institutions to solve problems in their own backyards."

No, Mr. Obama, President Bush did NOT call for "one blinding light to shine from Washington", but your proposed solution to every perceived problem is a solution from on high in Washington, DC. It would be a lot simpler and infinitely less expensive to taxpayers for government to get out of our way so that we - the people - can solve our daily problems.

Quote:
"In the end, service binds us to each other and to our community and to our country in a way that nothing else can," (Obama) said.

This is nothing more than empty rhetoric, Mr. President. The Founders said it much more eloquently than you ever will when they "pledged our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor" to establish a country in which we could pursue - without government interference - our God-given (not government-given) rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

You, Mr. Obama, said:
Quote:
... there's a lot that government can't and shouldn't do and that's where active, engaged citizens come in."

It's a sad commentary that you couldn't hear our millions of voices on September 12, 2009 at your residence in Washington, DC. We, the people, have been trying to get your attention through all of the letter-writing and all of the TEA Parties all over the country.

It is so sad that you just will not listen to us.

--------------------

BTW, don't you find it at least a LITTLE uncomfortable to be on the same stage with a President Bush when you spend so much of your effort trashing his son, President Bush. If only some of his grace would rub off on you and your Democrat predecessor.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The $24,000 Date


"Taxpayers footed the bill for the big night on the town, which included a total of at least $24,000 for the three aircraft used to ferry the Obamas, aides and reporters to New York and back. Dinner costs and orchestra seat tickets -- at $96.50 apiece -- were paid by the Obamas."

How big of President Obama to pay for his own dinner and theatre tickets!  No mention of how much Secret Service cost for the night.  And just who among the rest of us would take aides and reporters on a "date?"

What IS this man thinking?  We taxpayers are supposed to tighten our belts, pay more taxes, more for food/clothing/shelter, more for utilities, and then we are expected to "volunteer" for community service so that some "community organizer" will have something to organize.  Meanwhile, he blows $24 large in one night!

This episode - as have so many others - shows the utter contempt this man has for his subjects...

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Napolitano MUST be FIRED!

How did this woman get her job?

The border for dummies

Quote:
In an interview broadcast Monday on the CBC, Ms. Napolitano attempted to justify her call for stricter border security on the premise that "suspected or known terrorists" have entered the U. S. across the Canadian border, including the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack.

All the 9/11 terrorists, of course, entered the United States directly from overseas. The notion that some arrived via Canada is a myth that briefly popped up in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, and was then quickly debunked.

Informed of her error, Ms. Napolitano blustered: "I can't talk to that. I can talk about the future. And here's the future. The future is we have borders."

Just what does that mean, exactly?

Just a few weeks ago, Ms. Napolitano equated Canada's border to Mexico's, suggesting they deserved the same treatment. Mexico is engulfed in a drug war that left more than 5,000 dead last year, and which is spawning a spillover kidnapping epidemic in Arizona. So many Mexicans enter the United States illegally that a multi-billion-dollar barrier has been built from Texas to California to keep them out.

In Canada, on the other hand, the main problem is congestion resulting from cross-border trade. Not quite the same thing, is it?

And then, there is this item:

DHS Chief Napolitano: Illegal Immigration Is Not a Crime

Quote:
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano stunned many listeners during an appearance on CNN when she asserted that illegal immigration is really not a crime. ...

“What we have to do is target the real evil-doers in this business, the employers who consistently hire illegal labor, the human traffickers who are exploiting human misery.

“And yes, when we find illegal workers, yes, appropriate action, some of which is criminal, most of that is civil, because crossing the border is not a crime per se. It is civil. But anyway, going after those as well.”

The fact is, crossing the border without authorization is a crime. The statute reads: “Any alien who enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers . . . shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both.” (emphasis mine)

What part of "illegal" does she not understand? Yet, Napolitano seems to think that Sheriff Joe Arpaio and employers are the main problems.

Janet Napolitano is in charge of Homeland Security! She obviously does not know enough to do the job!

She MUST be FIRED! Not allowed to resign, but FIRED!

{I just looked up the word "inept", and there was her picture next to the word. So I looked up "unqualified", and there she was again - right next to Obama.)
_________________
Your comments are welcomed...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama's Tuesday Press Conference

The Mechanics and Staging:
 
The Tuesday night Press Conference started a lot of conversation amongst some of my friends about PrezBO's use of a TelePrompTer for virtually every speech or opening statement.  One of my friends said, "I have 2 words for the teleprompter critics: So What?"
 
Use of a TelePrompTer would not be an issue if he wasn't so reliant upon them at every speaking opportunity. His biggest failure in the use of TPT's is that his eyes are always fixed on the damn machine, as if he doesn't rehearse these statements and internalize them before giving the speech. During the campaign, I noticed that his head was always tilted up - toward one of the TPT screens - even though his audience was (in most venues) six to ten feet below him physically. When you are looking down your nose, it is hard to make eye contact with the people to whom you are speaking.

His staff has even said that they were investigating ways to incorporate a monitor in the Presidential lecturn during press conferences so that staff could feed answers to him in real time.

Some time ago I had an experience with a TelePrompTer at a major company's employee meeting in Georgia. The TPT operator was feeding the text of the keynoter's address to the TPT while I was on-stage doing the "Testing, testing..." thing with the microphones and one of my associates was setting the equalization on the sound system. Never having seen the address before - and not knowing any of the technical jargon - I began reading from the TPT and two LCD monitors in front of the stage as I walked back and forth. It is not easy to do, but you can read ahead of your voice a few words and make eye contact as you complete a sentence. PrezBO hasn't learned after two years of TPT experience to do this.

Johnny Carson, Jay Leno, Bob Hope, and Jack Benny have used cue cards effectively without impairing their ability to connect with an audience.  They were never so obvious about using cue cards as Obama is about using a TelePrompTer.  With no way of knowing, I would bet that none of his advisors has made Obama sit down and critically watch himself in front of a TPT event. They should. He COULD improve his performance.

My educated guess is that his advisors are aware of this weakness in his public personna, and that is why they dumped the TPT on Tuesday night for the LCD panel. However, I watched his eyes during his statement. They hardly ever left the monitor - even when he turned his head. It is as if he is afraid that he will never find that huge monitor again if he ever looks away from it.  And I am not the only one to make the same observation.
 
My friend says, "One last word about President Obama using a Teleprompter:  Enough!"

As for it being "Enough!", with all due respect, calling George W. Bush "dumb, stupid, etc." for mangling a word here and there was never enough for the last eight years. And we are still hearing from PrezBO about all of the "problems" he inherited. I am tired of hearing "inherited" from this man. He knew what was coming before he ran for the office. He spent two years screaming "the worst economy..." He won. It is time for him to deal with it, if he can.

As for his content during the press conference:
Quote:
"You know, there was a lot of outrage and finger-pointing last week, and much of it is understandable," Obama said of the bonus issue in his opening remarks. "I'm as angry as anybody about those bonuses that went to some of the very same individuals who brought our financial system to its knees."

AIG is an insurance company, not a bank. It just so happens that AIG made huge contributions to Obama, Sen. Christopher Dodd, and others. I have been told that AIG insures the pensions of Congress, though I haven't been able to confirm it with a news source.

Does anyone really think that if AIG had filed Chapter 11 Bankruptcy that the world would have ended? Does anyone really think that State Farm, Allstate, and the hundreds of other insurers would not have stepped in to fill the void? Does anyone remember that New York Attorney General Elliott Spitzer forced Hank Greenburg out as Chairman and CEO of the company that he founded and built into an honorable institution that went downhill after his departure?  Forbes.com has this analysis.

Be that as it may...

Congress enrolled the bailout bill on a Thursday night, voted for it on Friday afternoon without reading it and left town. This was too much of an emergency to let it wait for five days for the public (not to mention, our representatives) to read it.

One problem. PrezBO was headed for Illinois for Valentine's Day with Michelle. He didn't come back to Washington until Monday, and then he had to stage the signing in Detroit for Tuesday! Some emergency!

Quote:
"Bankers and executives on Wall Street need to realize that enriching themselves on the taxpayers' dime is inexcusable, that the days of outsized rewards and reckless speculation that puts us all at risk have to be over," the president told reporters and the nation.

Had ANYONE read the bill, including Obama, they would have known the Dodd Amendment was in it, and that the bonuses were going to be paid.

For that matter, if ANYONE had read the bill and taken their oath of office seriously (to preserve, protect and defend The Constitution), they would have realized that government was overstepping its bounds and voted against this unconstitutional disaster. Taxpayers should have not been put on the hook in the first place.

Quote:
"At the same time, the rest of us can't afford to demonize every investor or entrepreneur who seeks to make a profit. That drive is what has always fueled our prosperity, and it is what will ultimately get these banks lending and our economy moving once more," he said.

Finally, Obama gets it right! (But as you can see, he has taken both sides of the issue!)

And it was him and his fellow Democrats who have demonized the AIG executives and employees and sent their ACORN minions to demonstrate at their homes for the last two weeks. Government policies got us into this mess, but the finger is pointed squarely at private American citizens - not at the politicians who caused the problem in the first place.
As usual, I welcome your comments...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Look at Obama's Auto-Bailout Team

A Look at Obama's Auto-Bailout Team

And not a single one of them has ANY experience at building an automobile... or working on an automobile... or doing market research on what auto buyers want in an automobile... or running a business of any kind...

I am glad Obama picked the best people in the country for the job...
 
Waddayawannabet they come back and tell GM and Chrysler that in order to be profitable, they need to build more "green" (read, "small") cars?
 
Your commens are welcome, as always...
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Obama Economy

Here's an interesting article from the Wall Street Journal:

The Obama Economy
As the Dow keeps dropping, the President is running out of people to blame.


Quote:
As 2009 opened, three weeks before Barack Obama took office, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 9034 on January 2, its highest level since the autumn panic. Yesterday the Dow fell another 4.24% to 6763, for an overall decline of 25% in two months and to its lowest level since 1997. The dismaying message here is that President Obama's policies have become part of the economy's problem.

Americans have welcomed the Obama era in the same spirit of hope the President campaigned on. But after five weeks in office, it's become clear that Mr. Obama's policies are slowing, if not stopping, what would otherwise be the normal process of economic recovery. From punishing business to squandering scarce national public resources, Team Obama is creating more uncertainty and less confidence -- and thus a longer period of recession or subpar growth...

So what has happened in the last two months? ...

What is new is the unveiling of Mr. Obama's agenda and his approach to governance. ... (O)ne negative revelation has been the way he has chosen to spend his scarce resources on income transfers rather than growth promotion. Most of his "stimulus" spending was devoted to social programs, rather than public works, and nearly all of the tax cuts were devoted to income maintenance rather than to improving incentives to work or invest...

The market has notably plunged since Mr. Obama introduced his budget last week, and that should be no surprise. The document was a declaration of hostility toward capitalists across the economy. Health-care stocks have dived on fears of new government mandates and price controls. Private lenders to students have been told they're no longer wanted. Anyone who uses carbon energy has been warned to expect a huge tax increase from cap and trade. And every risk-taker and investor now knows that another tax increase will slam the economy in 2011, unless Mr. Obama lets Speaker Nancy Pelosi impose one even earlier.

Meanwhile, Congress demands more bank lending even as it assails lenders and threatens to let judges rewrite mortgage contracts.

When, indeed, does the Obama Administration start?
 
I welcome your comments...
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Fallout from the Blagojevich Arrest

Let's see if I've got this straight...

Obama Says He Had No Contact With Blagojevich on Senate Seat

Quote:
Dec. 9 (Bloomberg) -- President-elect Barack Obama said he was unaware of the criminal investigation into an alleged attempt by Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich to trade an appointment for Obama’s Senate seat for financial gain.

“I had no contact with the governor or his office and so I was not aware of what was happening, ” Obama told reporters today in Chicago.

But then, there's this: Questions Arise About the Obama/Blagojevich Relationship

Quote:
But on November 23, 2008, his senior adviser David Axelrod appeared on Fox News Chicago and said something quite different.

While insisting that the President-elect had not expressed a favorite to replace him, and his inclination was to avoid being a "kingmaker," Axelrod said, "I know he's talked to the governor and there are a whole range of names many of which have surfaced, and I think he has a fondness for a lot of them."

But then, this comes along: Aide: Ax 'misspoke'

Quote:
An Obama aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity, took back David Axelrod's remark last month that Barack Obama and Rod Blagojevich had spoken recently.

"What the president-elect said today is correct, David Axelrod misspoke," the aide said.

So, I guess "misspoke" now means that "he said it, but he shouldn't have said it." Axelrod's statement above is spoken very authoritatively, it seems to me.

Sounds to me like politics as usual.
When do we get to the "Change?"
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

They've come a long way...

I could not resist this from The Onion:
 
 
Admit it… you laughed because you know someone just like this.
 
Special thanks to The Texas Rainmaker!
 
Your comments and suggestions are welcome...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama Comments about Bankrupting Coal Industry (UPDATED)

Obama Called Out for Comments about Bankrupting Coal Industry

Quote:
CHARLESTON, W.Va. (WSAZ) -- With only hours before election day, coal has become a major topic of Decision 2008.

Sunday an audiotape surfaced from an interview Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama did with the San Francisco Chronicle in January.

In the interview, Obama talks about the importance of coal. He went on to talk about his cap and trade proposal to help curb global warming.

"If somebody wants to build a coal power plant they can, it's just that it will bankrupt them because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted," Barack Obama said to the San Francisco Chronicle in January.
 


 
This would be bad news for Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia. And although he made those statements in January, they are just being reported now - two days before the election?

Where is the MSM? 

{Oh, yeah! In the tank!}

Quote:
The Obama campaign says the quote is being taken out of context and that Obama is actually from a coal state and is a strong supporter of the industry.

The campaign sent a statement today saying "the point Obama is making is that we need a transition from coal burning power plants built with old technology to plants built with advanced technologies."

Talk about trying to have it both ways! It's a wonder this campaign doesn't have a permanent case of whiplash!

But is he being quoted out of context? ABC's Jake Tapper has the answer:

Quote:
Here’s the entirety of Obama’s remarks:

“I voted against the Clear Skies Bill. In fact, I was the deciding vote -- despite the fact that I’m a coal state and that half my state thought that I had thoroughly betrayed them. Because I think clean air is critical and global warming is critical.

“But this notion of no coal, I think, is an illusion. Because the fact of the matter is, is that right now we are getting a lot of our energy from coal. And China is building a coal-powered plant once a week. So what we have to do then is figure out how can we use coal without emitting greenhouse gases and carbon. And how can we sequester that carbon and capture it. If we can’t, then we’re gonna still be working on alternatives.

“But ... let me sort of describe my overall policy. What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade policy in place that is as aggressive if not more aggressive than anyone out there. I was the first call for 100 percent auction on the cap and trade system. Which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases that was emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants are being built, they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted-down caps that are imposed every year.

“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted. That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel, and other alternative energy approaches. The only thing that I’ve said with respect to coal -- I haven’t been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as an ideological matter, as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it, that I think is the right approach. The same with respect to nuclear. Right now, we don’t know how to store nuclear waste wisely and we don’t know how to deal with some of the safety issues that remain. And so it’s wildly expensive to pursue nuclear energy. But I tell you what, if we could figure out how to store it safely, then I think most of us would say that might be a pretty good deal.

“The point is, if we set rigorous standards for the allowable emissions, then we can allow the market to determine and technology and entrepreneurs to pursue, what the best approach is to take, as opposed to us saying at the outset, here are the winners that we’re picking and maybe we pick wrong and maybe we pick right.”

Yes. Obama plans to "fine" the "polluters" (power companies) heavily which will do two things:
    • Make electricity more expensive to everyone.
    • Increase the likelihood of "rolling brownouts."
Just remember, when you tax something, you get less of it. If you like the fact that the light comes on when you flip the switch, Obama is definitely not for you!  And he wants us all to be driving electric cars.  Just how does he think we are going to charge the batteries.

And he won't let us build nuclear power plants, and that is the safest, cleanest form of energy production available. The United States Navy has safely deployed nuclear-powered aircraft carriers - the biggest ships in the fleet - around the world for fifty years.  And now, the Navy is planning to build and deploy nuclear-powered destroyers and battleships because...  It does not make sense that the central ship in a battle group only needs refueling every 30 years, and the support ships are running on convential fuels that must be replenished much more often.  (But that is probably part of Barney Frank's 25% cut in the military budget.)

And there are people planning to vote for Obama? How much evidence of the harm he can do is necessary?
 
UPDATE:
Here's the video of the entire Obama statement:
 
 
I can only marvel at the smoothness with which this man can say nothing that makes any sense.
As always, I welcome your comments...
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama Will Only Raise Taxes On Those Making ...

Obama Will Only Raise Taxes On Those Making
$250k, $200k, $150k, $120k, $70k, $60k, $50k, $40k
Ah, What the Hell? On Everyone!
 
Watch this before you vote!
 
 
 
 
It's about time the RNC went on the attack!
 
As usual, I welcome your comments and debate...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »