Category Archives: Lies and Other Political Promises

Obama’s chickeeeens have come hooome!

Posted on by

I was listening to a news item on the radio this morning and this paraphrased quote came to mind. “Obama’s chickeeeens, have come hooooome, to roost!” It seem that the Detroit city council, now that they’ve delivered 75% of Detroit’s voters to Obama, want pay-back. They’re demanding the Obama bail out their city.

Detroit councilwoman to Obama: We voted for you, now bail us out

Posted: Dec 05, 2012 6:00 AM CST, Updated: Dec 05, 2012 7:39 AM CST

DETROIT (WJBK) — The city of Detroit faces a major financial crisis and one member of city council thinks President Barack Obama should step in and help.

City Council member JoAnn Watson said Tuesday the citizens support of Obama in last month’s election was enough reason for the president to bailout the struggling the city. (Click the video player to listen)

“Our people in an overwhelming way supported the re-election of this president and there ought to be a quid pro quo and you ought to exercise leadership on that,” said Watson. “Of course, not just that, but why not?”

Nearly 75 percent of Wayne County voters pulled the lever for Obama in November.

“After the election of Jimmy Carter, the honorable Coleman Alexander Young, he went to Washington, D.C. and came home with some bacon,” said Watson. “That’s what you do.”

I would like you to note that Councilman JoAnn Watson is NO relation of mine. Obama was re-elected, in part by promising everyone the moon. Now those voters want Obama to keep those promises.  The response from the White House on these demands is…  ** crickets…crickets **.

***

The democrats continue with their agenda to marginalize the military and military veterans. The dems added an amendment to a defense bill passing through the Senate. The amendment would allow the Veteran’s Administration to rescind veteran’s 2nd Amendment rights if those veterans are deemed “mentally incompetent” by the VA or the military services.

How long do you think it’d be before every serviceman who ever served overseas in a combat zone, or a potential combat zone, or sailed in or close to a combat zone, or flew over a combat zone, is deemed to suffer PTSD and therefore sufficient cause to prohibit them from owning and/or purchasing a firearm? Senator John McCain was upset that Senator Rand Paul promised to filibuster the amendment and threatened to vote with the dems.

Change on veterans’ gun rights lights fire

Coburn wants decisions by judge rather than VA for impaired troops

By David Sherfinski, The Washington Times, Monday, December 3, 2012A major defense-spending bill hit an unexpected bump on its journey through the U.S. Senate over an amendment on veterans’ gun rights, which devolved into a heated floor debate and foreshadows a potential battle over Democrats’ vows to tweak the filibuster rules in the clubby, traditionally collegial body.

Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, wants veterans who have been deemed “mentally incompetent” to have their cases adjudicated by a judge — rather than the Department of Veterans Affairs, as happens currently — and argued that veterans who simply cannot support themselves financially are needlessly given the label and, as such, cannot buy or possess firearms.

“We’re not asking for anything big,” Mr. Coburn said Thursday evening on the Senate floor. “We’re just saying that if you’re going to take away the Second Amendment rights … they ought to have it adjudicated, rather than mandated by someone who’s unqualified to state that they should lose their rights.”

The late-night tussle served to pick at the scab of the ongoing debate over Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s bid to reform the chamber’s filibuster rules to place limits on the minority party’s ability to hold up debate on legislation, however.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, objected to Mr. Coburn’s proposal once he found out it was part of a package of amendments to the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act the body was to vote on.

“I love our veterans; I vote for them all the time, they defend us,” Mr. Schumer said. “But if you are mentally ill, whether you’re a veteran or not, just like if you’re a felon, if you’re a veteran or not, and you have been judged to be mentally infirm, you should not have a gun.”

Note Senator Schumer equating veterans to felons.  The veterans have committed no crimes, other than to serve the country, but Schumer wants them treated the same as convicted felons.  The difference is that the veterans have committed no crime, never been convicted and are only declared incompetent by the VA. The veterans, under the amendment, would have no recourse—except through the VA—Judge, Jury and Executioner all in one federal agency.  Totalitarianism at its best. Veterans, call your Senators if you want to retain your 2nd Amendment rights. Your 1st Amendment rights are under fire from the dems as well.

Facebook

ABC…Anybody but Claire

Posted on by

Todd Akin, depending on the poll, is within 2pts of Claire McCaskill. I’m told there are still some conservatives who don’t know for whom they’ll vote. Frankly, I find that hard to believe for true conservatives. I’d expect that response from those who reflect the views of whomever they are around at that moment. Chameleons may be a better description.

McCaskill is trying to market herself as a moderate. The truth is she’s no where near a moderate. Not with a voting record that supports Obama and Harry Reid 98% of the time.

But, for those of you who are really undecided, let’s sift the facts on Claire’s record. Here’s a list of issues and McCaskill’s stance on them. (From OnTheIssues.org)

Abortion:

  • Support embryonic stem cell research but not cloning. (Oct 2006)
  • Support a ban on partial-birth abortion. (Oct 2006)
  • Continue promising stem-cell research. (May 2006)
  • Voted NO on restricting UN funding for population control policies. (Mar 2009)
  • Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
  • Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
  • Voted NO on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
  • Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
  • Provide emergency contraception at military facilities. (Apr 2007)
  • Ensure access to and funding for contraception. (Feb 2007)
  • Emergency contraception at all military health facilities. (Dec 2009)

You’ll notice that she was against the Partial-Birth Abortion ban. However, that was in 2006 during an interview on Meet The Press with Tim Russert , Oct 8, 2006. Since being elected to the US Senate, however, she has voted FOR every abortion issue and against restricting abortion. There’s a disconnect between what Claire says…or said in this case, and what she actually does—her voting record once in office.

Budget and the Economy:

  • Take on sacred cows that gave us $8 trillion debt. (Oct 2006)
  • $300 billion in Iraq is a lot of money. (Oct 2006)
  • Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)
  • Voted YES on modifying bankruptcy rules to avoid mortgage foreclosures. (May 2009)
  • Voted YES on additional $825 billion for economic recovery package. (Feb 2009)
  • Voted NO on $60B stimulus package for jobs, infrastructure, & energy. (Sep 2008)
  • Voted NO on paying down federal debt by rating programs’ effectiveness. (Mar 2007)
  • Require full disclosure about subprime mortgages. (Dec 2007)
  • Ban abusive credit practices & enhance consumer disclosure. (Feb 2009)

 The disconnect with Claire’s word and her actions continue when it’s the economy. You’ll notice in the bullet points above a difference when George Bush was President and when Claire was elected Missouri’s Senator. In 2006 she was against more spending—especially when it was for the war in Iraq. Once in office she made a 180° turn. In office she voted against paying down the federal debt (2007), voted for more stimulus spending (2009), and voted for legislation on mortgage “abuses” that provided more federal taxpayer money to support underwater mortgages.

In fact if you examine Claire’s voting record, every vote that was the least bit “moderate” was one where the outcome was already decided. In otherwise a safe vote where Claire’s “moderate” vote had no effect on the outcome.

Let’s continue with McCaskill’s record.

Corporations:

  • Limit TARP recipients’ executive compensation to $400,000. (May 2010
  • Rated 86% by UFCW, indicating an anti-management/pro-labor record. (May 2012)

Like all liberals, they refuse to acknowledge how and why corporate executives are paid.  Executives are paid for performance. They are given goals by the corporation’s Board of Directors and if those executives meet those goals, they are well paid—with a good salary, bonuses and stock options. It’s not easy to meet those corporate goals. That’s why the tenures of a CEO is short, a handful of years in most cases. Why? Because the first time that CEO fails to meet his goals, he’s out the door. 

If you limit his compensation, like McCaskill voted, what is the incentive for that CEO? He knows he won’t stay long as CEO. That’s the nature of business—perform or you’re out. So he’s expected to work and work hard with no incentive?

No, he won’t. He’ll go where he can be paid for what he’s worth.  Only the ignorant believes otherwise—or those who refuse to understand the nature of business. Business exists for profit. Without profit, the business will cease to exist. It’s the CEO’s task to insure that profit or get fired.

Let’s look at McCaskill’s stance on energy.

  • Energy independence by 2020 via alternative fuels. (May 2006)
  • Voted NO on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. (Apr 2011)
  • Voted YES on protecting middle-income taxpayers from a national energy tax. (Apr 2009)
  • Voted YES on requiring full Senate debate and vote on cap-and-trade. (Apr 2009)
  • Voted YES on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (Jun 2008)
  • Voted YES on addressing CO2 emissions without considering India & China. (May 2008)
  • Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)
  • Voted YES on making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal. (Jun 2007)
  • Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)

Again, McCaskill voted for initiatives that hurt the economy unless it was a safe vote. She voted against banning excesses by the EPA (2011), voted for Federal support (and taxes) for Global Warming (2007), voted for Cap ‘n Tax (2008), and supported the so-call Green Initiatives and have been a financial disaster (2008).

Finally, let’s examine McCaskill’s record on Healthcare and Obamacare.

  • Opposes annual limit on federal Medicare spending. (Sep 2006)
  • Expand Medicare for people, not for drug companies. (May 2006)
  • Negotiate for lower Rx prices and re-importation. (May 2006)
  • Uncovering Medicaid waste reduces cost of medicine. (Dec 2005)
  • Voted NO on the Ryan Budget: Medicare choice, tax & spending cuts. (May 2011)
  • Voted YES on regulating tobacco as a drug. (Jun 2009)
  • Voted YES on expanding the Children’s Health Insurance Program. (Jan 2009)
  • Voted YES on overriding veto on expansion of Medicare. (Jul 2008)
  • Voted YES on means-testing to determine Medicare Part D premium. (Mar 2008)
  • Voted NO on allowing tribal Indians to opt out of federal healthcare. (Feb 2008)
  • Voted YES on adding 2 to 4 million children to SCHIP eligibility. (Nov 2007)
  • Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Apr 2007)
  • Establish a national childhood cancer database. (Mar 2007)
  • Preserve access to Medicaid & SCHIP during economic downturn. (Apr 2008)
  • Disclose payments from manufacturers to physicians. (Jan 2009)

Once again, McCaskill followed the liberal party line. Her stance before being elected to the Senate in 2006 was decidedly different after being elected. Before, she was in favor of curbing Medicare costs, afterward, it was curbing Medicare benefits.When she voted for Obamacare, she robbed Medicare to $700billion to feed the Obamacare monster. Note, too, that 70% of Missouri voters voted against Obamacare (Prop C). That didn’t deter McCaskill at all. She ignored Missouri’s vote against Obamacare and voted the dem party line.

She voted to allow the Indian Tribes to opt out of Obamacare when you could not. She voted for Medicare cuts and more limitations on Medicare reimbursement for Physicians, Hospitals and Drugs forcing many Physicians and private hospital to refuse any new Medicare patients while driving up the cost of healthcare for individuals. In addition, she voted against Paul Ryan’s Medicare Reform plan.

When you examine Claire McCaskill’s record, there is nothing moderate about it. Yes, she did vote on occasion to support some conservative issues like gun control, but if you look at the actual vote in the Senate, those issues already had a clear outcome. McCaskill just hitched a ride to ease her opposition at home in Missouri.

Claire McCaskill is a liberal. Worse, she’s a lying liberal who attempts to mask her true nature. When you enter the voting booth next week. Vote NO against McCaskill and FOR Todd Akin. Akin, considering all his foibles, is still a true conservative—one who won’t sell his vote for expediency or personal gain.

Facebook

Promises vs. Commitments

Posted on by

This may be a bit different from my usual run of posts.  The world abounds with examples of people, families, businesses, and governmental entities making promises and then failing to keep those promises.  When this happens the recipients of those promises are up in arms.  And, in some cases, rightly so.  But a promise is NOT a commitment.  There’s a difference, albeit in the view of some, a minor one.

If you look up the words in a dictionary, both are viewed as legally binding, but are they?  In real world usage, both are verbal.  If they are written, they become something beyond a promise or a commitment. If written, they become contracts and covenants.

A promise, in my opinion, is to make a best effort to accomplish a goal.  “I promise to cut the grass tomorrow.”  If conditions grant that the task can be done, it will be done. But, if tomorrow brings a constant rain, no one expects me to be mowing my grass in the rain.  To make a promise then, is to make a “best effort, barring unforeseen occurrences” to accomplish that which has been promised.

A commitment, however, is different as I was taught by my old boss.  If you make a promise and fail to meet it, you’ll likely get another chance to complete that promise although not as original conceived.  A commitment means if you don’t deliver as specified, you’re fired!

Consequently, you’ll not be surprised that I make few commitments. I do make promises and do my best, when I do, to meet those promises. But a commitment…ahhh, that’s different.

When I married my wife, I made a commitment to her.  My vows were standard, love, cherish, be faithful.  I did not make a promise. I made a commitment and I’ve kept that commitment for…uh, lemme see now, 43 years.  A commitment means keeping that vow regardless of personal issues, regardless of unforeseen circumstances, regardless of the unexpected, regardless of “acts of God.”

It’s not surprising that people confuse the two.  A local example occurred this year with my county government.  There is a county road that passes a couple of schools and has heavy traffic.  It is narrow and needs to be widened.  A promise was made to the local residents to widen the road.  Funding for the project came from a number of sources, some from the state, some from a bond issue, and more from the county’s general budget.

Then reality hit.  The county government made some bad estimates in revenue.  They thought the revenue stream, all from a county sales tax, would grow at a small rate.  It didn’t. With the recession/depression, people started conserving. They bought less, only those items that were necessary.  The county income failed to meet the amount required to fulfill the promises made by the prior political incumbents.

Promise meet commitment.  The road project was a promise…until conditions changed that made meeting the promise untenable.  The county has/is/will cut expenses.  People have been laid off. Routine maintenance has been slowed.  State revenues are also down and money from the state for road projects have been cut as well.

Promise meet commitment.  When the choice is paying for lights at the County Jail and Sheriff’s office or using that money to widen a road, which has priority?  The county has a commitment to keep the Sheriff’s office running. The road project is a promise. See the difference?

Consider all the examples of these two.  Some consider Social Security and Medicare commitments. Others, myself included, consider them promises. Until the 1930s, Social Security did not exist. Until the late 1960s, Medicare did not exist.  When my mother was diagnosed with cancer in 1960 there was no Medicare. She had private insurance from two sources. One as a benefit of being an elementary school teacher and the other as being the spouse of a UMWA member.  From whom was the promise of healthcare?  Certainly it was not from the federal government.

Therefore, what is the commitment of the federal government? There is only one: to uphold and defend the Constitution.

All else are nothing more than promises. As we move towards the future, let’s not be confused with governmental promises and commitments.

They are not the same.                           

Pelosi: We want Republicans to be like Democrats

Posted on by
It shouldn’t be any surprise to anyone that the establishment of both parties, the Ruling Class as described by the American Spectator, really have few differences. We’ve had examples of that this week with Boehner’s so-call spending cuts. After examination, it’s been found that actual cuts are less then $10Bn because the CR deal included money unspent from last year by the 2010 Census and some projects that were to be killed anyway—cuts already planned and approved by Obama and congressional leaders. 
The whole CR deal is a fraud.
The dems are escatic.  The deal just reinforced what the “insiders” already knew.  The ‘pub establishment is not all that much different from the dems.

Oh, those elections last fall?  That don’t matter according to Nancy Pelosi. She urges the ‘pubs to take back their party from those interfering Tea Partiers.

To my Republican friends: take back your party. So that it doesn’t matter so much who wins the election, because we have shared values about the education of our children, the growth of our economy, how we defend our country, our security and civil liberties, how we respect our seniors. Because there are so many things at risk right now — perhaps in another question I’ll go into them, if you want. But the fact is that elections shouldn’t matter as much as they do…But when it comes to a place where there doesn’t seem to be shared values then that can be problematic for the country, as I think you can see right now.  — The Weekly Standard, April 12, 2011.

Boehner and other ‘pub congressional leaders say that the CR doesn’t really matter.  The big effort is the 2012 budget and Rep. Paul Ryan’s proposal.

I don’t believe them.  If the ‘pubs didn’t have enough backbone to stand up for their campaign promise to cut $100Bn this year, why should be believe they’ll have the backbone to standup to the dems, MSM, and the rest of the socialists when that plan cuts Trillions?

Frankly, I don’t.  Come 2012, we must remove the rest of the ‘pub establish and elect more Tea Partiers and take control of the Republican Party root, trunk, branch and leaf.

John Boehner, if he had one iota of a conscience, would resign and go back to Ohio.
Just to give some perspective to the money we’re talking about, here, again, is Michael Ramirez’s cartoon from earlier this week.