About Me

Name: General Guan's...
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

So what have we to show?

Posted by General Guan's Garden on Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:04:38 PM
1. The Ballooning Deficit our fearless leader attacked under George Dubya is now worse then ever! In fact he even points to his predecessors stupidity in the bailouts to justify his plan which WILL bankrupt the USA!
 
2. We are still at war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
 
3. Gitmo is still open....and his proposal to bring them to the US Defies intelligent thought.
 
4. His foreign policy lack of experience has now been proven. Iran is laughing at us as it rushes toward nuclear capability and North Korea is now WORSE then it was under Dubya!!! They've tested a nuke and declaired we are in a defacto state of war.
 
5.Inspite of his many claims to protect the constitution , our Fuhrer has iniated too many unconstitutional government actions to count under the guise of businesses being to big to fail.
 
6. Our borders are insecure and will get worse as we go bankrupt into a world of Nuclear North Korean Arms sales.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Sotomayor, Obama completing the chain of events to Socialism

Posted by General Guan's Garden on Wednesday, May 27, 2009 11:54:10 PM
Yet another Socialist is DNC clothing is about to be appointed as well meaning and well intentioned useful idiots sit by cheering president wonderful. All the while she bided her time playing left of main jurist she idolized Norman Thomas ....known for quotes like
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."
 – Norman Thomas, American socialist
 
Now she will be in position to be helping that vision along!!! As her princeton yearbook quoted Thomas
 
is it really just a BS quote from 30 years ago Steve? or demonstrative of a woman who's foundational views of Government are like Obama's Based in Socialism??? Wake up!!!!After as Sotomayor herself said...."the Court MAKES Policy"!!!
 
My Fellow American's...the die is caste. Wake up before Thomas words become true. Grasp the spirit that Thomas Jefferson intended and realize that your comfy cozy lives will soon be at end regardless!
 
Sotomayor is a friend to the anti second amendment lobby and her future decision will deprive American's of the right to bear arms. When this is gone, there will be no deterant to Obama, Acorn and their Ild from continuing to steal the vote due to falsification, busing in homeless and false registrations.
 
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional Law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
 
16 Am. Jur. Sec 177 late 2d 256
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Coming Nuclear Exchange

Posted by General Guan's Garden on Tuesday, May 26, 2009 12:43:20 PM
As we find out, Israel has been warned that the Obama administration has now thrown up it's hands expecting an Nuclear Iran is inevitable. In addition, it has strongly cautioned Israel that if it attacks Iran there will be hell to pay and iranian retaliation against the US would be viewed a being caused by Israel!!!
 
http://www.newsmax.com/morris/nuclear_iran_israel/2009/05/24/217793.html
 
This unfortunately puts Israel between a Rock and a hard place. Now one can reason that eventually Iran would surely get Nuclear weapons however the problem is for them to obtain the weapons at this time and under this regime (that has vowed to Wipe Israel off the map) is unacceptable.
 
The logical action for israel unfortunately may well mean a pre-emptive nuclear strike which not only damages Iranian Facilities but in effect changes regieme by leveling Tehran.
 
By showing its mighty fist Iran may very well fulfill the old adage "be careful what you ask for because you might get it"...The only problem is the nuclear weapons they get may find them on the recieving end!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

North Korea tests Nuke as Obama sits helpless

Posted by General Guan's Garden on Monday, May 25, 2009 11:06:15 PM
President Obama often criticized Previous US policy of not negotiating with Iran and North Korea. In response he had been charectorized by many of his opponents during this campaign for being Naieve...Well in spite of his efforts to talk to Iran, that nation has thumbs it's nose at us. Considers us inept and weak and pushses ahead full steam in it's nuclear aspirations.
 
North Korea as I am sure you all know just thumbed their nose at Obama by Testing an underground nuclear devise. We all know had this of happened during the campaign , Prez Obama would have been waiving his finger and pointing this out to the media. Now it's no big deal?
 
With our continued failure to reign in special interests and secure our borders it is a matter of time before wayward Nukes end up in the American homeland....look in the mirror folks if you want to find the person to blame!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Government Crushing you with Kindness!

Posted by General Guan's Garden on Saturday, May 23, 2009 1:55:30 PM

Moody's says overspending threatens U.S. debt rating
http://www.gata.org/node/5919
 
First proposed in 1966 At Obama's Alma Mata and named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, the "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.
 
The key to sparking this rebellion would be to expose the inadequacy of the welfare state. Cloward-Piven's early promoters cited radical organizer Saul Alinsky as their inspiration. "Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules," Alinsky wrote in his 1972 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judaeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system's failure to "live up" to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist "rule book" with a socialist one.


http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6967
 
 
This lead David Alinsky to publicly state "
“Barack Obama’s training in Chicago by the great community organizers is showing its effectiveness,” Alinsky Jr. wrote to the Globe.  “It is an amazingly powerful format, and the method of my late father always works to get the message out and get the supporters on board.  When executed meticulously and thoughtfully, it is a powerful strategy for initiating change and making it really happen.  Obama learned his lesson well.
“I am proud to see that my father’s model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008.  It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday.”
 
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4784
 
Obama's Socialist Career Kick off:
"Beyond the archived web page from the Socialist New Party is the recognition by the "Progressive Populist" magazine in November 1996 that Obama was indeed an acknowledged member of the Socialist Party.

"New Party members and supported candidates won 16 of 23 races, including an at-large race for the Little Rock, Ark., City Council, a seat on the county board for Little Rock and the school board for Prince George's County, Md. Chicago is sending the first New Party member to Congress, as Danny Davis, who ran as a Democrat, won an overwhelming 85% victory. New Party member Barack Obama was uncontested for a State Senate seat from Chicago. "
http://web.archive.org/web/20010306031216/www.newparty.org/up9610.html
More here
http://politicallydrunk.blogspot.com/2008/10/web-archives-confirm-barack-obama-was.html
and here
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/10/021747.php
 
 
"GOD GRANTS LIBERTY ONLY TO THOSE WHO LOVE IT, AND ARE ALWAYS WILLING TO GUARD AND DEFEND IT!"
 
Daniel Webster
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The timelyness of Shays Rebellion

Posted by General Guan's Garden on Saturday, May 23, 2009 12:35:43 AM

Thomas Jeffersons letter to James Madison in response to Shay's rebellion.
 
Paris, January 30th, 1787
Thomas Jefferson Thomas Jefferson

Dear Sir,

My last to you was of the 16th of December; since which, I have received yours of November 25 and December 4, which afforded me, as your letters always do, a treat on matters public, individual, and economical. I am impatient to learn your sentiments on the late troubles in the Eastern states. So far as I have yet seen, they do not appear to threaten serious consequences. Those states have suffered by the stoppage of the channels of their commerce, which have not yet found other issues. This must render money scarce and make the people uneasy. This uneasiness has produced acts absolutely unjustifiable; but I hope they will provoke no severities from their governments. A consciousness of those in power that their administration of the public affairs has been honest may, perhaps, produce too great a degree of indignation; and those characters, wherein fear predominates over hope, may apprehend too much from these instances of irregularity. They may conclude too hastily that nature has formed man insusceptible of any other government than that of force, a conclusion not founded in truth or experience.

Societies exist under three forms, sufficiently distinguishable: (1) without government, as among our Indians; (2) under governments, wherein the will of everyone has a just influence, as is the case in England, in a slight degree, and in our states, in a great one; (3) under governments of force, as is the case in all other monarchies, and in most of the other republics.

To have an idea of the curse of existence under these last, they must be seen. It is a government of wolves over sheep. It is a problem, not clear in my mind, that the first condition is not the best. But I believe it to be inconsistent with any great degree of population. The second state has a great deal of good in it. The mass of mankind under that enjoys a precious degree of liberty and happiness. It has its evils, too, the principal of which is the turbulence to which it is subject. But weigh this against the oppressions of monarchy, and it becomes nothing. Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietam servitutem. Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs.

I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.

If these transactions give me no uneasiness, I feel very differently at another piece of intelligence, to wit, the possibility that the navigation of the Mississippi may be abandoned to Spain. I never had any interest westward of the Allegheny; and I will never have any. But I have had great opportunities of knowing the character of the people who inhabit that country; and I will venture to say that the act which abandons the navigation of the Mississippi is an act of separation between the Eastern and Western country. It is a relinquishment of five parts out of eight of the territory of the United States; an abandonment of the fairest subject for the payment of our public debts, and the chaining those debts on our own necks, in perpetuum.

I have the utmost confidence in the honest intentions of those who concur in this measure; but I lament their want of acquaintance with the character and physical advantages of the people, who, right or wrong, will suppose their interests sacrificed on this occasion to the contrary interests of that part of the confederacy in possession of present power. If they declare themselves a separate people, we are incapable of a single effort to retain them. Our citizens can never be induced, either as militia or as soldiers, to go there to cut the throats of their own brothers and sons, or rather, to be themselves the subjects instead of the perpetrators of the parricide.

Nor would that country quit the cost of being retained against the will of its inhabitants, could it be done. But it cannot be done. They are able already to rescue the navigation of the Mississippi out of the hands of Spain, and to add New Orleans to their own territory. They will be joined by the inhabitants of Louisiana. This will bring on a war between them and Spain; and that will produce the question with us, whether it will not be worth our while to become parties with them in the war in order to reunite them with us and thus correct our error. And were I to permit my forebodings to go one step further, I should predict that the inhabitants of the United States would force their rulers to take the affirmative of that question. I wish I may be mistaken in all these opinions.

Yours affectionately,

Th. Jefferson
 
"a little rebellion now and then is a good thing" for America. Unlike other leaders of The Republic, Jefferson felt that the people had a right to express their grievances against the government, even if those grievances might take the form of violent action.

Jefferson airs his sentiments in a letter to James Madison on January 30, 1787, expressing justification for the series of protests led by Daniel Shay and a group of 1,200 farmers.

Jefferson also writes of his concern over John Jay's impending negotiations with Spain. Under consideration would be proposals to extend privileges in Spanish ports to American ships, while providing navigation rights on the Mississippi River to Spain.

In his letter to Madison, Jefferson expresses his belief that the agreement might be interpreted as opening up the Mississippi to Spanish rule, thus provoking a war between settlers in the west and Spain, and eventually, dividing the nation.

 
One might ask if the Author of our Constitution felt betrayed as American's are ignored in their wishes to secure their borders and not to be forced to compete with foreign workers on their own soil! A debt is being brought about by government borrowing that will in effect enslave our Children!!!!
 
ENOUGH!!!!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

How Could Sportsmen Be For Obama?

Posted by General Guan's Garden on Saturday, September 20, 2008 9:57:21 AM
I recently looked across the Net for Obama's position on the 2nd Amendment. I actually came across some shadow looing groups I had never heard of which "Sportsmen for Obama" , A closer look however revealed these were really just Blogs/groups on his website claiming to be from Sportsman and NRA members I couldn't find anywhere else on the net.
 
All in all once again there seems to be confusion as to Obama's actual Position on the issue, not suprising as he seems to follow the Approach "Tell them what they want to hear" and according to who he's in front of...that's his position. Here is an Example of the kind of conufusion caused..
 
So for the sake of Clarity if the issue means something to you the following may help you understand his position:
Here's the National Rifle Position on Mr. Obama.
http://www.nraila.org/barackobama/barackobama4.htm?gclid=CIuLqIK_6pUCFQuXGgodHDfafA
 
SO here's what you need to know,

On a 1996 Questionnaire, Obama Answered "Yes" To Question About His Support For Legislation To "Ban The Manufacture, Sale And Possession Of Handguns." Question: "Do you support state legislation to ... ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? [Obama's Response:] Yes." (Independent Voters Of Illinois Independent Precinct Organization 1996 General Candidate Questionnaire, Barack Obama Responses, 9/10/96)

Scholar John Lott Recalls Obama Stating: "I Don't Believe That People Should Be Able To Own Guns." John Lott: "In fact, I knew Obama during the mid-1990s, and his answers to IVI's question on guns fit well with the Obama that I knew. Indeed, the first time I introduced myself to him he said 'Oh, you are the gun guy.' I responded 'Yes, I guess so.' He simply responded that 'I don't believe that people should be able to own guns.'" (John R. Lott Jr., "Obama And Guns: Two Different Views," Fox News, http://www.foxnews.com, 4/7/08)

In 2003, Obama Voted In Support Of Legislation That "Would Have Banned Most Of The Privately Held Hunting Shotguns, Target Rifles, And Black Powder Rifles" In Illinois. "[I]n 2003, Obama voted in support of SB1195, which, if passed, would have banned most of the privately held hunting shotguns, target rifles, and black powder rifles in the state. If the ban was enacted, law enforcement officials would have been authorized to forcibly enter private homes to confiscate newly banned firearms." (Illinois State Rifle Association, "ISRA Blasts Candidate Obama On His Record Of Hostility Toward L aw-Abiding Firearm Owners," Press Release, 8/24/04)

SB 1195 Caused Furor; Would Have Banned Shotguns, Muzzleloaders. "The gun furor basically revolves around Senate Bill 1195, sponsored by Democratic Sen. Antonio Munoz. It would ban shotguns with a bore of .50 caliber or more, the net result, according to numerous interpretations, being to outlaw a variety of shotguns, and even muzzleloaders." (Lew Freedman, Op-Ed, "Hunters Need Not Worry--Yet," Chicago Tribune, 4/19/03)

FACT: Obama Believes D.C. Gun Ban Is Constitutional:

Obama Believes The D.C. Gun Ban Is Constitutional. "[T]he campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he '...believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.'" (James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins, "Court To Hear Gun Case," Chicago Tribune, 11/20/07)

NOTE: The D.C. Gun Ban Bars Handguns, Operable Rifles And Shotguns In The Home. "The D.C. law, like laws in Chicago and New York City, doesn't explicitly bar handguns; it requires that all residents register them with the city. Since the city stopped registering handguns in 1976, no one who hadn't registered by then can have a handgun at home. The result, effectively, is a ban. D.C.'s law also bars residents from keeping any other firearm, such as a rifle or a shotgun, loaded or assembled." (Emma Schwartz, "The Right To Bear Arms," U.S. News & World Report, 3/6/08)

FACT: Before Running For President, Obama Came Out In Support Of Many Anti-Gun Policies:

Obama Was Director Of Anti-Gun Joyce Foundation, Which Spent Millions On Gun-Control Causes. "Adding even further skepticism to Obama's claim of support for the 2nd Amendment is his previous service as a director of the Joyce Foundation. Since 2000, the Joyce Foundation has provided over $15 Million in funding to radical gun control organizations such as the Violence Policy Center and the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence. The Joyce Foundation is tightly linked to the Soros Open Society Institute -- an extremis t group that advocates a worldwide ban on civilian firearm ownership." (Illinois State Rifle Association, "ISRA Blasts Candidate Obama On His Record Of Hostility Toward Law-Abiding Firearm Owners," Press Release, 8/24/04)

In 2004, Obama Voted Against Legislation "Drafted To Protect Homeowners From Prosecution In Cases Where They Used A Firearm To Halt A Home Invasion." "[O]bama cast a total of 4 votes in opposition to SB2165. SB2165 was drafted to protect homeowners from prosecution in cases where they used a firearm to halt a home invasion. Once again, Obama found himself on the wrong side of the issue as overwhelming majorities of both the House and the Senate voted in favor of this important legislation. Obama's steadfast opposition to SB2165 is indicative of his misplaced priorities on issues of self-defense and personal firearm ownership." (Illinois State Rifle Association, "ISRA Blasts Candidate Obama On His Record Of Hostility Toward Law-Abiding Firearm Owners," Press Release, 8/24/04)

The Bill Was In Response To Homeowner Who Shot Burglar Who Had Broken Into His Home - Twice. "The state handgun bill Obama voted against was a response to the case of a suburban Chicago restaurant owner who shot a burglar who had broken into his home twice." (Mike Robinson, "Keyes Rips Obama Over Opposition To Gun Bill," The Associated Press State & Local Wire, 8/24/04)

In 2004, Obama Called For Federal Legislation To Pre-empt State Concealed Carry Laws. "In a February survey of Democratic primary candidates for the U.S. Senate by the Tribune, Obama said he opposed allowing ordinary citizens to carry concealed weapons and that a federal law banning concealed carried weapons except for law enforcement is needed." (Liam Ford, "Keyes Backs Law On Concealed Guns," Chicago Tribune, 8/25/04)

Obama Recently Spoke Out Against Concealed Carry. Obama: "I am not in favor of concealed weapons ... I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations." (Mike Wereschagin and David M. Brown, "Candidates' Gun Control Positions May Figure In Pa. Vote," Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 4/2/08)

In 2001, Obama Voted Against And Helped Defeat Bill To Allow Individuals To Carry Concealed Weapon When They Have Valid Order Of Protection Against Another Person. (S.B. 604, Senate Floor Third Reading, Failed, 29-27-0, 4/4/01, Obama Voted Nay)

"After Extensive Debate On The Senate Floor ... State Sen. Barack Obama (D-13) Helped Defeat A Bill That Would Allow People Who Receive An Order Of Protection To Possess And Carry A Concealed Firearm." (Todd Spivak, "Sen. Obama Helps Defeat A Concealed Firearm Bill," Hyde Park Herald, 4/11/01)

Obama: "Concealed-carry laws would only increase the problem of handgun violence and ultimately make the streets less safe everywhere ... It was a bad idea and I'm glad it failed..." (Todd Spivak, "Sen. Obama Helps Defeat A Concealed Firearm Bill," Hyde Park Herald, 4/11/01)

In The U.S. Senate, Obama Voted Twice To Hold Manufacturers, Distributors, Dealers And Importers Of Firearms And Ammunition Liable For The Acts Of Criminals. (S. 397, CQ Vote #206: Motion Agreed To 66-32: R 53-1; D 13-30; I 0-1, 7/26/05, Obama Voted Nay; S. 397, CQ Vote #219: Passed 65-31: R 50-2; D 14-29; I 1-0, 7/29/05, Obama Voted Nay)

FACT: Obama Has Received "F" Ratings From The National Rifle Association:

In 2004, 2002 And 1998, Obama Received "F" Ratings From The National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund. The NRA has given Obama 3 "F's." (National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund Website, http://www.nrapvf.org, Accessed 1/8/08; National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund Website, http://www.nrapvf.org, Accessed 1/8/08; 1998 Illinois National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund Political Preference Chart, p.2)

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

Truth , Justice and a Friend to Veterans?

Posted by General Guan's Garden on Friday, September 19, 2008 8:00:50 PM
One of the big Issues I hear in any discussion of John McCain recently is that inspite of his war Service, he is no friends to Vets.
Well being one myself , I simply have to take issue with this statement. Due to Campaign Politic's ,Many in the Obama camp are tossing out McCains failure to Vote on the Webb GI Bill and Obama's support of it as Proof and that's not quite accurate.
 
The really funny thing is ,it is often put forth in various net forums by young folks, who well meaning are simply parroting what they are told without looking into it! The question should be , Why would he do something like that?
 Now folks, sometimes you just can't take things at face value, If I tell you something here I fully expect any intelligent person would check what I am saying. Fortunately for some politician's they have loyal throngs who accept their words as Gospel due to the alleged frequent church attendance even though they strangely don't recall what goes on there.
Now, You may not agree but you'll know how I came to my conclusions but I'll point to sources you can easily check. Checking deeper is important to being informed as to picking a candidate unless of course your mindlessly running with a group.  When you have a good memory and notice one candidate making claims and statements apparently designed to appeal to whoever he is speaking to at the time. But, judge this for yourself. The following is a clip of Senator Obama talking about Veterans rights and benefits and how important it is to him due to his fathers service in WW2.
 
The only problem perhaps is that Mr. Obama's father nevered served in WW2 he was in Kenya at the time. Now I know some might say this was just a slip...I often forget my father served when I know he was born in another country and didn't come to the US til years after (In the Kennedy Administration if memory serves)...But maybe just in case you feel I'm being to harsh here is one more example...The Famous claim that Senator Obama's Uncle was one of the first to go into Auschwitz, this story was complete with his recounting the moving family tale of his having seen the horrors and having to spend solace alone in the attic to get over them.
Well those of Us who know this was a fib, *Auschwitz was of course liberated by the Soviet army*. Noticed the GOP pounced on his Lie with a vengence.... However, Due to a Media totally in love with one particular candidate this fire was put out by the news reassuring the puzzled masses of the Obama Campaigns claims that the GOP was making a mountain out of a mole hill...
The senator simply slipped and meant to say his uncle liberated Buchenwald which was liberated by the US and that this is a none issue...but was it???? New Assertions have documented Senator OBama does not in fact have an "Uncle" as his mother was an Only Child! He did in fact have a great Uncle who served in ww2 but before we pass this off as another Misspeak , Please understand The US. NAVY never assisted in Liberating any death camps! So the following clip entitled a lie about a lie is still very much relevant to those who covet truth especially from someone claiming to be a new type of Truthful Politician.
 
So Now back to McCain and the WEBB GI BILL...
 
First of all the Webb GI bill was an educational Bill (that's all it was supposed to be anyway). Sen. McCain, who in fact had his own Gi Bill up for Consideration, didn't care for some of the wording not to mention the add on's (earmarks) to the bill.
Obama seized this opportunity to play the Roll of Defender of the Veterans and with righteous indignation, stood to make McCain look like the cold hearted Vet who didn't care!Needless to say McCain having gone through a living hell as a POW, was rightfully insulted being lectured by a man who never served his country, associated with a crowd that really didn't seem to appreciate it (no, no, no, God Damn America) and considering his behaviour in regard to other bills , hadn't shown Concern for Vets where it counted even more (I'll touch on that in a second)!
 
So what's the whole story?
The whole story was McCain already had a GI Bill of his own and I have to tell you being a Vet ,as much as I like more benefits there comes a time where you have to asl whats the bigger picture here?  Not Only did McCain worry about the expense of the bill or it's potential negative impact on retention but in that not additional incentives were there for someone re-uping (Reenlisting) as opposed to someone who just completes their initial enlistment. The cost promised to be Emmense. That's not all, McCain is notoriously against Earmarks (and Folks don't let anyone fool you)... Earmarks drew senators to this bill like Flies!
Not only did folks like senator Obama sign on to it (it not only provided the opportunity to spin around to the home crowd what a pal you are to our servicemen and women , but it got you a nice slice of Pork as well! Alas we come to the real deal.... a roughly 15.6 Billion dollar educational Bill  had earmarks placed on to it and brought it to over 200 BILLION in spending for those senators who wanted more money to fight forrest fires in the mid west and california, and to folks like senator Obama who wanted to go back home and say Hey, I got you millions in subsidies for low income home heating That likely had Hugo Chavez (remember that Generous Citco offer to Americans?) on the recieving end...Oh but that's not all...Those on Unemployment found that they got as extra 13 weeks bringing to total from 26 weeks of collecting unemployment ins. pay to 39!!!!
 
Now this isn't to say McCain is heartless and wouldn't approve the bill but he has a problem with earmarks and holding someone's bill hostage in order to get your goodies slipped through in the trunk. If a bill has merit it should be put out and voted on NOT EARMARKS and that's something I have to admire!
 
So what was I talking about earlier with Obama and why I suspect Obama didn't really sign on for the troops but rather the Credit and the earmarks???
Well one of the things I liked (or at least used to) about Joe Biden was that when he felt he was right on an issue he fought tooth and nail , he was a man of his conviction whether you agreed or not...but something changed when he got the VP nod from Mr. Obama. Here's a verbatim transcript of Joe Biden who at the time was a candidate for the Democratic Presidential Nomination talking to Tim Russett (May 07)
 
Tim Russert to Biden "many democrats will say senator Biden is to cut off Funding, everything else is small talk and unless your willing to do that you will not be the democratic nominee!
 
Biden" If you tell me I've got to take away the protection for these kids, in order to win the election, some things aren't worth it! Some things are worth losing over! That would be worth losing over! Hundreds of lives are being saved,and will be saved by us sending these vehicles over which we are funding with this supplmental legislation. And I want to ask any of my other colleages ...Would they in fact cut off the money for those troops to protect them? That's the right question! This isn't cutting off the war, this is cutting off support, that will SAVE the LIVES of thousands of American troops!
 
In Spite of  Joe saying this to his fellow DNC Candidates Barrack OBAMA Voted Against funding, Body Armor etc..No Fooling..(link at the bottom folks)///So let me ask you if you were in Iraq or Afghanistan are you more concerned about the Body Armor and the Armored Humvees or that McCain's GI Bill might offer a little less then the Webb Bill?
 
So I have two Questions to the DNC candidates..Senator Obama why did you chose to become upset about Educational funding for Vets after not caring how many were killed due to lack of Body armor?
 
And Two  for Senator Biden... now that your VP what did Barrack give as his reason to Vote AGAINST saving thousands of American Lives? YOUR WORDS NOT MINE!!! Is that water under the bridge of your conscience Joe?...Will it be when your VP and lives are at stake in an Obama presidency and he decides to sacrifice thousands to make another point to someone else?

 Obama's vote against funding here...
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00181 and
http://archive.newsmax.com:80/archives/ic/2007/5/25/72454.shtml
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »