The Washington Post babbled again today about Obama inheriting a huge deficit from Bush. Amazingly enough, a lot of people swallow this BULL. So once more, a short civics lesson
Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party.
Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for FY 2008 & FY 2009 as well as FY 2010 & FY 2011. (FY = fiscal year)
In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.
For FY 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.
And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period: (below)
If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, including Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.
If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.
In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted forand then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th. There is no way this will be widely publicized unless each of us sends it on! This is your chance to make a difference.Stay Focused, Connected, Informed & Inspired.
Before I begin the main part of this post I am again sending my condolences to the loved ones of the victims who were killed in this violent massacre. My thoughts and prayers go out to all the victims who were hurt and their families as they recover from this horrific tragedy.
It is truly sickening in our country when politics enters into a national tragedy, and the Left tries to capitalize on a bloody situation to further their political gain. For the Left to make false accusations and try to make the connection between either symbols or fiery debate on issues and this shooting is extremely disturbing and unwarranted. The main reason I am writing this post is to correct misinformation by the Left.
The NY Times is one news outlet that is trying to connect opposition to the President's policies and fiery rhetoric as a cause for the shooting or playing a role in some way in this shooting. First, Jared Lee Loughner, the shooter, was NUTS!!! .... mentally unstable and to say that politics or fiery rhetoric made him do this evil act is journalistic malpractice in my opinion. Second, his political leanings were of a liberal anarchist and to try to connect the Tea Party, conservative commentators, or any conservatives to either him or this incident is absurd. Brian Lilley of Lilley's Pad points out that it is truly sick for people to try and connect this shooting with Sarah Palin when it is solely the lone gunman's responsibility for his committing this heinous act. He also points out the spin being played by the liberal media. Just because I point out that Loughner has liberal leanings doesn't mean that that is that I'm attributing his actions to his politics. Brian Lilley shows two targeted maps of districts one used by Republicans and the other by Democrats. So, for Democrats and the liberal media to act as if Democrats have never done anything remotely similar to Sarah Palin while denouncing her political map and casting aspersions is despicable and hypocritical.
The New York Times article states: "But it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge. Many on the right have exploited the arguments of division, reaping political power by demonizing immigrants, or welfare recipients, or bureaucrats." The NY Times provides NO PROOF to back up their accusation. Does the NY Times have proof that a Tea Party member, or a conservative who listens to Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, or other conservative media played a role in any of the violent acts which took place right after the health care law was passed? Heck, it could have been a liberal trying to make conservatives look bad or simply a nut. So, I say to these liberal Commie journalists either prove it or retract a most irresponsible and unproven allegation.
When an administration's spending is way out of control, and government takes over health care, car companies, student loans, banks, Obama uses the EPA to bypass Congress and institute his Cap & Trade policies, he uses unconstitutional Czars to implement unconstitutional regulations, conservatives had/have every right to express anger. When DHS labels opponents of the Left's ideology as "right-wing extremists" how the heck are we supposed to respond? By heating up the rhetoric and stating the absurd - labeling conservatives "right-wing extremists" - those in the Obama administration have effectively made themselves enemies of half of the country. But, that was done on the Obama administration's own volition. And, these libs wonder why conservatives might get a little angry, expressing our righteous anger against this indignant, ignorant and radical administration.These libs are so clueless. I guess the temperature of the rhetoric should have been lowered during the Bush years and activists against both wars needed to stop using their freedom of speech to promote hatred, vile acts, and should have just fallen in line and been alright with all of the Bush administration's policies. Of course not, because the New York Times and the rest of the liberal media ONLY care about liberals freedom of speech. Here are some examples of the heated rhetoric by the anti-war Left which was directed toward President Bush. The ignorant, illegitimate Left wing Media were silent as a Church mouse when there was heated rhetoric under Bush. I am against THREATS TO ALL POLITICAL FIGURES.
A protester with a sign saying “Kill Bush” and advocating that the White House be bombed, at the March 18, 2007 anti-war rally in San Francisco.
Unfortunately place and time weren't documented.
“Save Mother Earth, Kill Bush” says this sign from a November 20, 2003 protest.
Original source unknown.
A recommendation that Bush should hang, from an October 27, 2007 protest in Los Angeles.
"Bush is the disease, Death is the cure,” says this protester at an anti-war rally in San Francisco.
This man calls for “Death to...Bush” at the March 18, 2007 anti-war rally in San Francisco.
A sign saying "Bush — the only dope worth shooting,” at the March 15, 2008 anti-war rally in Los Angeles.
Bush being burned in effigy, at a November 3, 2004 post-election anti-Bush rally in San Francisco.
Bush being beheaded by a guillotine, at an Obama campaign rally, Denver, October 26, 2008.
An effigy of Bush being killed, at the April 10, 2004 anti-war rally in San Francisco.
The anti-Israel conspiracy site nogw.com hosts this pdf file which describes a mock trial and execution of George Bush for a bizarre litany of purported crimes; included in the document is this image of Bush being hanged at the trial.
Then Sen John Kerry responded in such a way to Bill Maher in October of 2006 on the HBO showReal Time which could have been construed as a threat:
Maher: You could have went to New Hampshire and killed two birds with one stone.
Kerry: Or, I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone.
On August 4, 2000, when Bush won the Republican nomination (but before he was president), Craig Kilborn on CBS’s The Late Late Show with Craig Kilborn ran a graphic of the words “SNIPERS WANTED” under George Bush as he gave his acceptance speech. Although CBS belatedly apologized five days later, Kilborn was never investigated, questioned or punished, and continued to host the show for four more years.
Now the progressives or liberals reaction to this horrible tragedy is to take away even more of our rights. TCLhas posted information on Congressman Brady's plan to introduce a bill against inflammatory language. Who decides what is considered inflammatory speech? What is considered inflammatory to one person may not be considered inflammatory to another person. Matt of Conservative Hideout exposes Leftist hate. Maggie at Maggie's notebook has posted on Blaming the Tea Party and Sarah Palin for Giffords shootings.
It seems like a greater number of threats and violent acts occur during economic downturns. If there are indeed more threats happening under Obama than under Bush it may have something to do with the fact that under most of Bush's presidency the unemployment rate was around 5.5 % and the unemployment rate now is presently at 9.4% and this brings the nut jobs out.
Freedom of speech is precious and is a right afforded to we the people by the Constitution and we cannot let progressives use one horrific tragedy to limit our first amendment right to free speech.
I didn't see this video when it first aired on TV. This is great! Bush gives Matt Lauer the smackdown. Bush also makes it clear that he is doing exactly what needs to be done and authorizing exactly what needs to be done in order to protect Americans after September 11, 2001 attacks on America and its citizens.
Mike Malloy, a liberal talk show host, has displayed journalistic malpractice by calling for the deaths of Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck. Have I heard one peep from the MSM calling out Mike Malloy for his incendiary comments? NOPE. The MSM is illegitimate. They need to give up their day jobs because they really suck at it. MSM, give it up and find a new career where you might actually be able to live up to the ethical standards of your new employment. Maybe, clowns or pimps would be good jobs? The MSM is a joke. Plus, the MSM is an arm of the Democratic Party just pimping out their leftist agenda for Obama. They are the little pimps listening to and following the head pimp and obey his every command just like a bunch of hypnotic robots that have no brains, and thus rendering them incapable of thinking for themselves. They have drank the Obama Kool-Aid, drenched in it from head-to-toe, inside and out, and have been mesmerized into a state of pathetic journalistic malpractice. Mike Malloy is not only fanning the flames he is igniting, stoking, and spreading those flames so that grave harm may come to Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Beck. This is outrageous and I do not condone violence, period. The silence of the media in NOT taking a stand against Mike Malloy's outrageous statements makes them complicit, and they should be held responsible in some fashion if some act of violence does occur against Beck, O'Reilly, or Limbaugh. There are some congressmen and pathetic MSM propagandists who are stoking the flames, distorting the reality about the Tea Party movement and spreading outright lies claiming that the Tea Party movement and the GOP is promoting violence because of the Democrats usurpation and outright misconduct in their ignorance shown to the American people. This is flat out LIE and wrong!!! The TEA PARTY movement is PEACEFUL!!! Democrats and Obama through their actions have plain as day said FUCK YOU to the American people, and shoved this piece of crap bill down our throats all so that they can have more power and control over our lives. They couldn't give a rat's ass about the American public or the President and Democrats would have tried to sell the bill, compromised and listened to what portion of the bill citizens liked before the bill was shoved down our throats, instead of trying to sell this monstrosity afterward. The Tea Party is a movement that promotes taking back our country via the use of peaceful means - by voting and informing the rest of America about all the disinformation that the President and the Democrats have relayed to the American people regarding this bill that just became law.
For many years the MSM in its pitiful negligence ignored the Left's threats against President Bush while he was in office. And, now the MSM is touting far and wide their false propaganda that the few who have gone off the deep end somehow makes up the totality of the Tea Party movement when there is no empirical evidence to even suggest that any of these displays of violence are in fact connected to the Tea Party movement in any way, shape, or form. The MSM has violated its ethical obligations. Their needs to be a clean sweep of ALL of the MSM and some real ethical jouranalists need to be brought in as their replacements. Below, I will show you the pictatorial evidence I obtained from ZOMBLOG. There is further evidence of the death threats that were made against President Bush at ZOMBLOG. Obama and the Democrats are intent on destroying the very Foundation of our ountry and shredding the U.S. Constitution. And, as citizens of this great nation we must abide by the Constitution, start the new Revolution at the ballot box in November and vote out both the RINOS and Democrats peacefully. God Bless the USA!!!
This is a fabulous article about the rising of a democracy. This article is about the emergence of a democracy in Iraq. Victory seems to be in the air. This would never have been possible without President Bush and our brave men and women serving in the military. Thank God for freedom. Freedom is one of America's core principles and that is exactly what former President Bush and our troops helped to spread. Freedom Reigns!!! God Bless America!! You can look at some Iraq street scenes here.
Rebirth of a Nation
Something that looks an awful lot like democracy is beginning to take hold in Iraq. It may not be 'mission accomplished'—but it's a start.
By Babak Dehghanpisheh, John Barry and Christopher Dickey NEWSWEEKÂ
Published Feb 26, 2010
From the magazine issue dated Mar 8, 2010
"Iraqi democracy will succeed," President George W. Bush declared in November 2003, "and that success will send forth the news from Damascus to Tehran that freedom can be the future of every nation." The audience at the National Endowment for Democracy in Washington answered with hearty applause. Bush went on: "The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution."
In Iraq, meanwhile, an insurgency was growing, terrorism was spreading, and American forces were in a state of near panic. They had begun rounding up thousands of the Iraqis they had come to "liberate," dragging them from their homes in the middle of the night and throwing them into Abu Ghraib Prison. At the time of Bush's speech, some of those detainees were being tortured and humiliated. Iraq had entered a spiral of gruesome violence that would kill scores of thousands of its people and cost more than 4,000 U.S. military personnel their lives. American taxpayers month after month, year after year—and to this day—would spend more than $1.5 billion per week just to keep hundreds of thousands of beleaguered troops on the ground, fearful that if they withdrew too quickly, or at all, the carnage would grow worse and war, not democracy, would spread throughout the region.
Bush's rhetoric about democracy came to sound as bitterly ironic as his pumped-up appearance on an aircraft carrier a few months earlier, in front of an enormous banner that declared MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. And yet it has to be said and it should be understood—now, almost seven hellish years later—that something that looks mighty like democracy is emerging in Iraq. And while it may not be a beacon of inspiration to the region, it most certainly is a watershed event that could come to represent a whole new era in the history of the massively undemocratic Middle East.
The elections to be held in Iraq on March 7 feature 6,100 parliamentary candidates from all of the country's major sects and many different parties. They have wildly conflicting interests and ambitions. Yet in the past couple of years, these politicians have come to see themselves as part of the same club, where hardball political debate has supplanted civil war and legislation is hammered out, however slowly and painfully, through compromises—not dictatorial decrees or, for that matter, the executive fiats of U.S. occupiers. Although protected, encouraged, and sometimes tutored by Washington, Iraq's political class is now shaping its own system—what Gen. David Petraeus calls "Iraqracy." With luck, the politics will bolster the institutions through which true democracy thrives.
Of course, as U.S. Ambassador to Baghdad Christopher Hill says, "the real test of a democracy is not so much the behavior of the winners; it will be the behavior of the losers." Even if the vote comes off relatively peacefully, the maneuvering to form a government could go on for weeks or months. Elections in December 2005 did not produce a prime minister and cabinet until May 2006. And this time around the wrangling will be set against the background of withdrawing American troops. Their numbers have already dropped from a high of 170,000 to fewer than 100,000, and by August there should be no more than 50,000 U.S. soldiers left in the country. If political infighting turns to street fighting, the Americans may not be there to intervene.
Anxiety is high, not least in Washington, where Vice President Joe Biden now chairs a monthly cabinet-level meeting to monitor developments in Iraq. But a senior White House official says the group is now "cautiously optimistic" about developments there. "The big picture in Iraq is the emergence of politics," he notes. Indeed, what's most striking—and least commented upon—is that while Iraqi politicians have proved noisy, theatrical, inclined to storm off and push confrontations to the brink, in recent years they have always pulled back.
Think about what's happened just in the last month. After a Shiite--dominated government committee banned several candidates accused of ties to the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein, there were fears that sectarian strife could pick up again. Saleh al-Mutlaq, who heads one of the largest Sunni parties, was disqualified. He says he tried complaining to the head of the committee, Ahmad Chalabi, and even met with the Iranian ambassador, thinking Tehran had had a hand in what he called these "dirty tricks"—but to no avail.
Two weeks later Mutlaq nervously paced the garden of the massive Saddam--era Al-Rashid Hotel as he weighed his dwindling options. "I got a call from the American Embassy today," he said, grimly. "They said, 'Most of the doors are closed. There's nothing left for us to work.'Â " He shook his head. "The American position is very weak."
But what's most interesting is what did not happen. There was no call for violence, and Mutlaq soon retracted his call for a boycott. The elections remain on track. Only about 150 candidates were ultimately crossed off the electoral lists. No red-faced Sunni politicians appeared on television ranting about a Shiite witch hunt or Kurdish conspiracy. In fact, other prominent Sunni politicians have been conspicuous for their low profile. Ali Hatem al--Suleiman, a tough, flamboyant Sunni sheik who heads the powerful Dulaim tribe in Anbar province, is running for Parliament on a list with Shiite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. He scoffs at effete urban pols like Mutlaq: "They represent nothing. Did they join us in the fight against terrorists? We are tribes and have nothing to do with them."
What outsiders tend to miss as they focus on the old rivalries among Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds is that sectarianism is giving way to other priorities. "The word 'compromise' in Arabic—mosawama—is a dirty word," says Mowaffaq al-Rubaie, who served for many years as Iraq's national--security adviser and is running for Parliament. "You don't compromise on your concept, your ideology, your religion—or if you do," he flicked his hand dismissively, "then you're a traitor." Rubaie leans in close to make his point. "But we learned this trick of compromise. So the Kurds are with the Shia on one piece of legislation. The Shia are with the Sunnis on another piece of legislation, and the Sunnis are with the Kurds on still another."
The turnaround has been dramatic. "The political process is very combative," says a senior U.S. adviser to the Iraqi government who is not authorized to speak on the record. "They fight—but they get sufficient support to pass legislation." Some very important bills have stalled, most notably the one that's meant to decide how the country's oil riches are divvied up. But as shouting replaces shooting, the Parliament managed to pass 50 bills in the last year alone, while vetoing only three. The new legislation included the 2010 budget and an amendment to the investment law, as well as a broad law, one of the most progressive in the region, defining the activities of nongovernmental organizations.
The Iraqis have surprised even themselves with their passion for democratic processes. In 2005, after decades living in Saddam Hussein's totalitarian "republic of fear," they flooded to the polls as soon as they got the chance. Today Baghdad is papered over with campaign posters and the printing shops on Saadoun Street seem to be open 24 hours a day, cranking out more. Political cliques can no longer rely on voters to rubber-stamp lists of sectarian candidates. Those that seem to think they still might, like the Iranian-influenced Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, have seen their support wane dramatically. Provincial elections a year ago were dominated by issues like the need for electricity, jobs, clean water, clinics, and especially security. Maliki has developed a reputation for delivering some of that, and his candidates won majorities in nine of 18 provinces. They lead current polls as well. CONTINUED HERE
Eagleburger on Newsweek's 'Victory' in Iraq Cover: 'They Changed Staff or Somebody's Getting Honest'
