By John W. Lillpop
President Obama is obviously eager to show that he is a "hands on" president, doing all he possibly can to create new jobs for working class Americans during the dreadful economy that was inherited from George W. Bush.
That explains why the president went out of his way to visit Columbus, Ohio last week just to celebrate the creation of 25 new police recruit positions, made possible by the trillion dollar stimulus package that Obama signed on February 17.
While trumpeting the success of stimulus pork in creating new jobs, Obama challenged doubters with these words, among others (Reference 1):
"For those who still doubt the wisdom of our recovery plan . . . I ask them to come to Ohio and meet the 25 men and women who will soon be protecting the streets of Columbus because we passed this plan,' President Obama says at the swearing-in ceremony."
Meanwhile, as Obama was slapping himself and fellow liberals on the back for creating those 25 new jobs, figures released by the Department of Labor on the same day show that 651,000 jobs were lost in February.
When asked, administration sources said they were unsure about whether that 651,000 included the employment windfall brought about by Obama's stimulus.
If not, then, just for the record, there were only 650, 975 positions wiped out in Obama's first full month in office.
As reported in Reference (2), in part:
"Largely in line with expectations, the economy shed 651,000 jobs last month according to figures released this morning by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Declines in employment were widespread. All the major sectors of the economy, with the exception of government and healthcare, shed jobs in February."
When challenged to justify the big hoopla raised over 25 new jobs when 650, 975 others were lost, Team Obama provided the following explanation:
All of the jobs lost in February were inherited from the Bush administration, whereas, all of the jobs gained were due to the Obama stimulus.
Again, Obama saves the day by blaming his predecessor for all bad news, while taking credit for all good tidings!
(1)
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-stimulus7-2009mar07,1,5452257.story
(2)
http://www.shopfloor.org/2009/03/06/february-job-losses-top-600000-for-third-consecutive-month/
9.3.09
Whither Obama's "Great Opportunity" for Baby Boomers?
By John W. Lillpop
The Obama administration, including the president himself, is trying to sell the current economic Armageddon as a "great opportunity" for anxious Americans.
Which begs the question, "Since Obama takes great pains to blame President George W. Bush for the downside of the economic crisis, does he also plan to credit the former president for his part in delivering this "great opportunity?"
Rhetorical question, that was.
As reported, in part, at Yahoo News:
"Trying to buck up a dispirited nation, President Barack Obama on Saturday promised that prosperous days will return and cast these bleak times as nothing less than a 'great opportunity.' Packing some heft with his hope, he defended his fast-moving and expensive agenda."
Obama's naive, cheery perspective may sound cool and comforting to some, especially those whom prefer fairly tales to reality. AKA, liberal Democrats.
However, what about that great American phenomenon known as the "Boomer Generation,' those born between the years of 1946-1964? Approximately 75 million Americans, or 25 % of the total U.S. population, are boomers.
Obviously, there is no single way to pigeonhole everyone born between 1946 and 1964; nonetheless, large numbers of boomers unquestionably share the following profile:
They worked hard for forty or more years to achieve middle class goals and objectives, ergo, the American Dream.
They paid tens of thousands of dollars in local, state, and federal taxes, and served honorably in defense of their homeland.
They scrimped and sacrificed in order to educate their children and to provide said offspring with a decent chance at acquiring and living the American Dream.
They scrimped and saved to build up nest eggs in 401(k), IRA, and other retirement accounts.
They invested in home ownership as a means for building equity.
From the perspective of many boomers in their 60s and once hopeful of enjoying dignified retirements, the American Dream has turned into a bruising nightmare, worthy of profane cursing, or worse.
Many have seen hard earned retirement savings and home equities all but liquidated during the economic meltdown, or time of "great opportunity" as Barack Obama sees it.
Retirement is no longer an option for many, a crisis sure to be exacerbated by the Social Security and Medicare bubbles bound to burst, sooner rather than later.
While retirement is out of the question, securing gainful employment for older Americans is all but impossible in a society that reveres youth and which punishes anyone with the audacity to show any sign suggesting that aging has advanced beyond 40.
All of which is made even more foreboding in an economy that shed more than 600,000 jobs in the early weeks of the Obama presidency.
Unfortunately, the failed liberal programs that led to the current crisis will not be reversed, but will be expanded, by socialists in the Obama administration and U.S. Congress.
With life savings and home equities plundered, retirement plans in ruin, and ageism running rampant, just where is the "great opportunity" for baby boomers?
7.3.09
California Proposition 8: Just What "Civil Rights" Are in Jeopardy?
By John W. Lillpop
California's Supreme Court met on March 4 to conduct a hearing on the constitutionality of voter-approved Proposition 8 which consists of the following 14 words:
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
Period.
Just 14 words that express how the majority in a a free and Democratic society feel about a major social and moral issue.
Just 14 words that confirm the teachings of most who adhere to Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity.
Just 14 words that reflect a social and moral standard observed by most civilized societies throughout human history.
Those who support same-sex marriage came away from the hearing gravely concerned that the justices did not appear inclined to overturn the will of the people when voters passed Proposition 8 last November 4.
Many warned that if their fears came to pass, ergo, if Proposition 8 is upheld, gays and lesbians will be victimized by egregious civil-rights abuses. Sean Penn, the actor who earned an Academy Award for his portrayal of Harvey Milk in the movie Milk, even called the need for overturning Proposition 8 "essential."
According to same sex advocates, the issue is all about civil rights and equality. However, if the Supreme Court does leave Proposition 8 intact, just what "rights" will homosexuals be denied?
Will they:
Be forbidden from exercising 1st Amendment free speech rights?
Be denied their 2nd Amendment rights to keep and bear arms?
Be forced to quarter troops, in violation of the 3rd Amendment?
Be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure, in violation of the 4th Amendment?
Be denied protections against self-incrimination, double jeopardy, and due process as set forth in the 5th Amendment?
Be unable to receive a speedy trial and right to counsel as guaranteed by the 6th Amendment?
Be denied a jury trial as provided for by the 7th Amendment?
Be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the 8th Amendment?
Be denied other rights not specially addressed in the Constitution as provided for in the 9th Amendment?
Be denied power of the states and people as found in the 10th Amendment?
Beyond the original 10 Bill of Rights, would upholding Proposition 8 deny homosexuals the right to be free from slavery (Amendment 13), racial suffrage (Amendment 15), gender suffrage (Amendment 19), poll taxes (Amendment 24), or right to vote at age 18 (Amendment 26)?
In addition, will they:
No longer be free to live where they wish and with whom they wish?
No longer be protected against discrimination in education, housing, or employment?
Be denied driver's licenses?
Be unable to enter same sex unions?
Be prohibited from attending the church or religious service of their choice?
Be restricted from moving about freely, unable to cross-state borders when and where they wish?
In the final analysis, the same-sex marriage debate seems not to be about civil rights; rather, it seems to be about whether or not society should be forced to accept homosexual values and morals as mainstream and normal.
Even in its opposition to homosexuality, society does not seem willing to deny any person his or her basic civil rights because of sexual orientation.
Bottom line: How can the same sex marriage be marketed and adjudicated as a "civil rights" issue when no fundamental rights are even remotely threatened?
California's Supreme Court met on March 4 to conduct a hearing on the constitutionality of voter-approved Proposition 8 which consists of the following 14 words:
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
Period.
Just 14 words that express how the majority in a a free and Democratic society feel about a major social and moral issue.
Just 14 words that confirm the teachings of most who adhere to Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity.
Just 14 words that reflect a social and moral standard observed by most civilized societies throughout human history.
Those who support same-sex marriage came away from the hearing gravely concerned that the justices did not appear inclined to overturn the will of the people when voters passed Proposition 8 last November 4.
Many warned that if their fears came to pass, ergo, if Proposition 8 is upheld, gays and lesbians will be victimized by egregious civil-rights abuses. Sean Penn, the actor who earned an Academy Award for his portrayal of Harvey Milk in the movie Milk, even called the need for overturning Proposition 8 "essential."
According to same sex advocates, the issue is all about civil rights and equality. However, if the Supreme Court does leave Proposition 8 intact, just what "rights" will homosexuals be denied?
Will they:
Be forbidden from exercising 1st Amendment free speech rights?
Be denied their 2nd Amendment rights to keep and bear arms?
Be forced to quarter troops, in violation of the 3rd Amendment?
Be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure, in violation of the 4th Amendment?
Be denied protections against self-incrimination, double jeopardy, and due process as set forth in the 5th Amendment?
Be unable to receive a speedy trial and right to counsel as guaranteed by the 6th Amendment?
Be denied a jury trial as provided for by the 7th Amendment?
Be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the 8th Amendment?
Be denied other rights not specially addressed in the Constitution as provided for in the 9th Amendment?
Be denied power of the states and people as found in the 10th Amendment?
Beyond the original 10 Bill of Rights, would upholding Proposition 8 deny homosexuals the right to be free from slavery (Amendment 13), racial suffrage (Amendment 15), gender suffrage (Amendment 19), poll taxes (Amendment 24), or right to vote at age 18 (Amendment 26)?
In addition, will they:
No longer be free to live where they wish and with whom they wish?
No longer be protected against discrimination in education, housing, or employment?
Be denied driver's licenses?
Be unable to enter same sex unions?
Be prohibited from attending the church or religious service of their choice?
Be restricted from moving about freely, unable to cross-state borders when and where they wish?
In the final analysis, the same-sex marriage debate seems not to be about civil rights; rather, it seems to be about whether or not society should be forced to accept homosexual values and morals as mainstream and normal.
Even in its opposition to homosexuality, society does not seem willing to deny any person his or her basic civil rights because of sexual orientation.
Bottom line: How can the same sex marriage be marketed and adjudicated as a "civil rights" issue when no fundamental rights are even remotely threatened?
6.3.09
Sir Ted Kennedy: Duke of Chappaquiddick!
Satire by John W. Lillpop
How utterly clever of the British to steal an American legend right from under our very own bar stool in the U.S. Senate.
As everyone knows, Senator Ted Kennedy has misrepresented the Great State of Massachusetts and worked to destroy America since 1962.
His most notable accomplishment to date has been to avoid criminal prosecution for the manslaughter of Mary Jo Kopechne, a young staff worker whom Kennedy left to drown after running his automobile off a bridge in 1969.
Though he was able to escape with his own miserable life, Kennedy paid a heavy price (for a Kennedy) because the stigma prevented him from buying the presidency.
During the 40 years since Chappaquiddick, Teddy has given alcoholics a bad name by drinking while voting on the floor of the United States Senate, and by whoring himself out as a blimp for Beefeaters whiskey.
All of which makes him an attractive target for a wonky queen who would like nothing better than to embarrass her unruly former subjects by honoring a man more suited for a drunk cell than Knighthood!
Ted Kennedy is a leftist extremist whose last sober breath occurred at about the same time as he called the police on the morning of July 19, 1969, twelve hours after abandoning Ms. Kopechne's drowning body at the bottom of Poucha Pond.
Which is why he deserves to be called Sir Ted!
Sir Ted, the Duke of Chappaquiddick.
When it comes to highlighting foolish Americans, Queen Elizabeth should keep on going! Why not Knight Slick Willie, the Duke of Oral Sex in the White House?
Or what about the blessed Obama, the Duke of Jihad currently in the process of destroying America?
That would immediately convert 300 million of us into subjects of Queen Liz.
And that would be bloody jolly for the old dame, say what?
5.3.09
Of GM's Looming Bankruptcy and W.'s Enduring Legacy
By John W. Lillpop
One of the last and most foolish acts of President George W. Bush while still in power was to send billions of taxpayer money to General Motors in order to keep the sinking auto maker afloat a while longer.
Nearly every Republican in Congress warned W. that sending additional funds to Detroit was "good money, chasing bad."
Everyone but W. knew that those billions would not be enough to save GM, and that there was virtually no chance that any of the so-called "loans" would ever be repaid.
Thus, it should be no great surprise to learn that General Motors is on the cusp of bankruptcy and the American people are on the cusp of being taken ripped off to the tune of another $13 billion dollars.
As reported, in part, at Yahoo.com:
"General Motors Corp.'s auditors have raised "substantial doubt" about the troubled automaker's ability to continue operations, and the company said it may have to seek bankruptcy protection if it can't execute a huge restructuring plan.
The automaker revealed the concerns Thursday in an annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
'The corporation's recurring losses from operations, stockholders' deficit, and inability to generate sufficient cash flow to meet its obligations and sustain its operations raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern,' auditors for the accounting firm Deloitte & Touche LLP wrote in the report.
The automaker has received $13.4 billion in federal loans as it tries to survive the worst auto sales climate in 27 years. It is seeking a total of $30 billion from the government. During the past three years it has piled up $82 billion in losses, including $30.9 billion in 2008."
Once again, the legacy of George W. Bush as the "worst president in U.S. history" is confirmed.
Even more tragically is the fact that Bush's failed presidency continues to give "cover" to the corrupt Marxist regime now in power.
One of the last and most foolish acts of President George W. Bush while still in power was to send billions of taxpayer money to General Motors in order to keep the sinking auto maker afloat a while longer.
Nearly every Republican in Congress warned W. that sending additional funds to Detroit was "good money, chasing bad."
Everyone but W. knew that those billions would not be enough to save GM, and that there was virtually no chance that any of the so-called "loans" would ever be repaid.
Thus, it should be no great surprise to learn that General Motors is on the cusp of bankruptcy and the American people are on the cusp of being taken ripped off to the tune of another $13 billion dollars.
As reported, in part, at Yahoo.com:
"General Motors Corp.'s auditors have raised "substantial doubt" about the troubled automaker's ability to continue operations, and the company said it may have to seek bankruptcy protection if it can't execute a huge restructuring plan.
The automaker revealed the concerns Thursday in an annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
'The corporation's recurring losses from operations, stockholders' deficit, and inability to generate sufficient cash flow to meet its obligations and sustain its operations raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern,' auditors for the accounting firm Deloitte & Touche LLP wrote in the report.
The automaker has received $13.4 billion in federal loans as it tries to survive the worst auto sales climate in 27 years. It is seeking a total of $30 billion from the government. During the past three years it has piled up $82 billion in losses, including $30.9 billion in 2008."
Once again, the legacy of George W. Bush as the "worst president in U.S. history" is confirmed.
Even more tragically is the fact that Bush's failed presidency continues to give "cover" to the corrupt Marxist regime now in power.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)