Obama, Democrats and their thin skin

During the 2008 presidential election we heard how Obama was going to unit us. Obama said he was going to listen to people who disagree with him as well as people who agree with him. Voters was so inspired that they elected him.
I, like other Republicans, was not sold. Out of the concerns I had about Obama, one concern I predict would come true has. I predicted that no one will be able to criticize Obama and the Democrats with out being called extreme, irrational and/or racist. Over the last two years everyone Tea Party participant was called everything from hater to racist. After the shooting in Arizona, Democrats blamed Palin, Glenn Beck and every out spoken conservative/ Tea Party participant for creating an environment filled with hate and racism.
I want to turn you attention to two videos to compare:





As you can see, both Republican Sarah Palin and Democrat Steve Cohen used the term, "blood libel," but Cohen does not get as much attention for his use as Palin did for hers. What about Representative Weiner speech before the House floor last week



Why should Republicans, conservatives, and Tea Party participants get blame for their rhetoric but not liberals and Democrats?
I say to my fellow Republicans, stand strong and don't be discouraged from expressing your self.

from winning to white flag

The nation remember this. This was a time when the president of the United States made a commitment to man space exploration and the United States would be take the lead. By contrast, the current our current president believe we shouldn't take the lead. The Obama administration is going to cut founds from NASA. Under he Obama plan, American astronauts would ride in other nations' spacecraft.
So instead of of taking the lead, we are going to follow the leader? No!!!
Congress, don't cut NASA because a nation that leads the world require us to lead in space. America, vote in Republican majorities this fall and vote Obama out in 2012.

1st Post since my tripe from Europe

Hi all,
this is my first post since my tripe from Europe. I'm going to start of with health care since this is the big issue. I want to turn you attention to HR 3200. This is the recent health care legislation that was approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Title II Subtitle B is where it briefly talks about a public health plan, but it doesn't got in to a lot of detail. As of now, my only objection to a public health plan is the subsidize to the public plan. If the public plan would receive no subsidize, no government financial help and compete like a private plan, then I would have not objection. But I plan that can reduce their price because of government subsidize would not be fair private insurance and would lead to government monopoly.
Next I want to turn you attention to Title IV A) part III Sec.401. This is a Tax on individuals with out health insurance. If you don't pay your taxes, you could be arrested. So if an individual can be arrested for being without health insurance. This are my concerns with this health insurance plans. I'm prochoice. I believe its women's right to have an abortion. Thus, for me to support a individual mandate to get health insurance would me a conflict to me. There for I'm oppose to this plan.

Too naive to critical think.

Well,
it looks like Obama's Hopeful dream to Change America's health-care system is starting to look like a wishful dream from a naive child. After Close critical examination, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) concluded that the plan that is currently being pushed proposed by the congressional Democrats would cost more money for
this Country. This information could be the death nail the Obama's dream. Mike Ross, Democratic Representative from Arkansas oppose the bill. He came on the record in saying that members of the Blue Dog Democratic coalition would oppose the current bill. I have been of the view that we can't improve the health-care system until he job market improve. The expansion of government programs would require an expanded tax base. With more people employed, more people can afford there own health-care insurance.

Democratic push Back

It looks like Democrats are objecting to Obama's spending proposal as well as Republicans. The Democrats are objecting to the tax cuts part. They want more spending on the part of the government. In my last post, I talk about adding military spending to the infrastructure spending that Obama is proposal. Knowing Obama wants his proposal to pass with by-partisan support, here are my proposals.

1. Increase military spending. Spend on recruitment to insure you adults could stay employed. Don't close any bases because some rural economy depend on these bases.
   
2. Increase spending on public transpotation, public highways, and Amtrak to assure that people could access employment. Spending on transpotation will increase jobs through public works.
3. Across the board tax cuts. Even the rich should get a tax cut to encourage them to spend more. Give tax cradits to employers that hire unemployed.
   
4. Make the Bush tax cuts permanent and anounce it to give wallstreet a sense of sablility
5. extend unemployment. Spending cuts for unemployment will occur when more people are hired.
   

These four proposals should get by-partisan support. Republicans will get their tax cuts and Democrats will get some of their spending. It does not have to pass with John Kerry's vote, thereare 41 other Republicans to court.

Feldstien's increase military spending argument

In Martin Feldstien argues that increase in defense spending would help the economy in his article , Defense Spending would be Great Stimulus.
The Department of Defense is preparing for spending cuts due to the economy. Obama argues more spending for public works, like highways, would help the economy. President Eisenhower signed the Federal-Aid Highway act of 1956 that lead to the nation's highway system. Feldstien argues that defense spending sould increase as long with spending for public works. Increase in defense spending will employ people building new equipment. Alone with spending on equipment, Feldstien also argus for lax in recuitment standards to help the youth get employed.

Why conservative read conservative

When Obama sent an op-ed piece to the New York times, the Times published it. But when McCain sent an op-ed piece to the times, the times refused to published it. Obama's piece argued that he would bring the troops home within 16 months, while McCain argued that the troops would come home as Iraqi troop's strength improve. The times claim that they would published an op-ed from McCain when he lays out a plan. McCain does have a plan, it just that the liberals at the Times don't agree with the plan. Since the times feel that McCain's op-ed would impede their cause, they decided not to publish the op-ed. 

This is why conservatives read conservatives. Conservatives, like another people, want to feel that their voices are being heard. When liberals in the media behave like this, conservatives feel their voices are not being heard. This is why conservatives turn to conservative news sources like Fox News. If the time thought that readers wouldn't have a chance to read McCain's op-ed, they were wrong. Not only readers read it, but op-ed got more attention not being published in the times than if the Times published it. 

Troop withdraw

In light Obama's trip to the Middle East, the debate over troop withdraw has resurfaced. It started when  a German Magazine quoted Iraqi's Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki saying that he endorsed Obama's plan to withdraw troops within 16 month. Later a spokesman for the Prime Minister said that the German paper Misquoted the Prime Minister. What Malikia said he agreed, with slight changes, with the frame; however, the determination to withdraw is based on security improvements on the ground. John McCain has been saying all along that withdraw should be based on security improvements all along. While McCain want to see troop withdraw too, he believes that if we withdraw too quickly, it could impede on security improvements. So we have both candidates want troop withdraw, but one candidate wants a public time table. 

never underestimate your enemy

Just to let you know, never underestimate your enemy. I just saw a CNN report on how Obama eliminate the competion when he ran for state senate. According to the report, the Obama campaign eliminated the campetion by challenging the validity of the competion. Red more from the CNN report. 

Also, there's a new controvery relating ot Obama's paster. This time it's a white prist. This is an issue because voters don't know enough about Obama. There has been no major accoumplishment by Obama. So voter judge him base on his friends, family, and pastor. 

This Saturday I will be in Branson Missouri for the Missouri Republican Convention. I will be Blog more news as news past. 

Obama is going to take us to World War III

"Let me make this clear," Obama said. "There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will." Obama's stupid speech Ooooo, tough talk, but very unpresidential. In fact, it sounds like something that you’ll read from a campus news paper than a presidential candidate. Does Obama-Clown know that Afghanistan is a landlocked country and we have to flay of over Pakistan to get to Afghanistan? I bet he doesn’t even know where the county is.
Look at the map and learn about the region. You Afghanistan and Pakistan to the south. We can get to Pakistan by sea, but we have to fly over Pakistan to Afghanistan. Pakistani President Musharraf is allowing us fly over his country over the objections of his own people.
Now lets see what would happen if we attack Pakistan. First, Pakistan would fight back. So now we have to fly our troop over Pakistani’s rockets to get to Afghanistan. Since Pakistan is shooting at us, we shoot at Pakistan. Second, seeing this, India will side with us. India has been at odds at Pakistan over the region of Kashmir, so if India wins a war against Pakistan, India takes Pakistan. Third, Iran will side with Pakistan. Fourth, Israel bomb Iran. Israel, Pakistan, India, and the United States have nukes. Whether Iran have them or not, this would be the start of Nuclear War/World War III. Fortunately, there are other candidates in the Democrat Primary Democrats can choose from. No Republican in the Republican Primary is this stupid.