Posts Tagged obama
A Seussical Take on Cap and Trade
You know I always love a good poem about politics. Here is another one sure to please!
“ Uncle-Sam-I-Am “
By Katy Zastrow DuBois
“Cap and Trade, Cap and Trade
Don’t you like the deals I’ve made?
I’m Obama, yes I am
And I’m your brand new Uncle Sam”
( WE’RE THE PEOPLE! Yes we are!
You haven’t listened much, so far! )
Cap and Trade, Cap and Trade
I do not like the deals you’ve made
I think they’re all just Crap and Scam
I do not like them Uncle Sam
“Don’t you want less green-house gas?
Don’t you want Health Care to pass?
Don’t you want to go all ‘green’?
Don’t you like what all you’ve seen?
Fund my programs, YES WE CAN
Trust me- I’m your Uncle Sam”
The gas this will effect so far
Is how much I’ll pay to drive my car!
Funding with the Health Care Bill
Will cost the working stiffs more still!
I do not want to fund your stuff
Of you, I think we’ve had enough!
I think it’s all just Crap and Scam
I do not trust you, Uncle Sam
“Would you, could you, love new jobs?
Don’t worry who it really robs!
You didn’t like my ‘Green Jobs Czar’
I’ve tried to CHANGE it all so far!
Don’t you BELIEVE it’s not a scam?
Don’t you have HOPE in Uncle Sam?”
Just who is it you want to please?
The new jobs will go overseas!
The jobs will move from higher tax
Domestic workers get the ax!
I BELIEVE you’ll put us in a jam
I think you’re HOPELESS, Uncle Sam!
“Try not to be Rejectionists!
You sound just like Protectionists!
You need to have a ‘global view’
So what if all this hurts a few?
Why all the fuss? Why give a damn?
I know what’s best, I’m Uncle Sam!”
You think you have a ‘global view‘?
WE’RE on this ‘globe‘, it hurts us too!
You’ll cost us all and make it hard
You’re crapping in your own back yard!
You took an oath- What does that mean?
Not very much, from what we’ve seen
But we have figured out the score
You push for power-you want more
It’s obvious you won’t relent
Until you have big government
You say it’s just the need for ‘green’?
So get rid of your limousine!
If you were so involved with that
You’d cut down your own thermostat!
And let us not too soon forget
The gas to fly Pelosi’s jet-
The cost for THAT will really soar
And yet you’ll burden us with more!
40 billion more in added tax
You think that we don’t know the facts?
YOU’VE GOT A PLAN! You’ve got it set!
You’re only racking up more debt!
Electric bills will go sky high
So this is how you’ll SHARE THE PIE?
And THOSE WHO ARE COMING UP BEHIND
Will pay the price, and they WILL mind
You really just want more control
You’ll dig us in a bigger hole!
You see, I am a realist
Who see’s that you’re a Socialist
Chavez! Obama! You’re just the same
But we will beat you at your game
For if we let you have your way
You’d have us be the USSA
But it’s still AMERICA! ( Last time I checked )
A country you have not yet wrecked!
Your legacy will never fade
If we get stuck with Cap and Trade
But you’re about your power and fame
As presidents go, you’re pretty lame
SO HEAR US LOUD! NO CRAP AND SCAM!
And we will fight this, Uncle Sam!
3 comments September 10, 2009
My favorite poet takes on Healthcare
“ Health Care, Health Care!
Get it while it’s hot!
Forced upon the populous
But on the Whitehouse, NOT! “
A Letter to Obama, The Congress, and The Senate:
( Thoughts on The Health Care Reform Bill! )
You say you know “ what’s best “ for them
Or what is best for me-
We working stiffs will pay it all,
While for the rest, it’s free!
You want to change our health care,
To accommodate a few-
The majority wants it’s private care,
The arrogance of you!
You think you’re slick, that we won’t know,
What all is in this Bill-
WE took the time to peak inside,
UNLIKE those on Capitol Hill!
Decisions made by health care Czars?
Our fate not up to us!
You wonder why at town halls meets,
There’s come up such a fuss!
Long waiting lists for treatment,
And no choice in Senior care?
Limits for the handicapped?
You think that THIS is fair?
Accessing all my bank accounts?
And forced enrollment plans?
Illegal’s get more benefits,
With no payment from their hands!
You’ll audit any business
Who won’t accept this health care scheme!
“ More tax , for they can pay it! “
Communistic, it would seem!
So now you want this Great Reform,
And opposition gone!
Why aren‘t you changing out your care?
Why aren’t YOU signing on?
Our movement is not “ Astroturf “
Our objections you resent?
What happened to Hillary screeching:
“ It’s patriotic to dissent ! “
You’ve kicked us out of gatherings
You want to squelch our voice
You try to ram this down our throats
To take away our choice
But woe to those who pass this Bill
I hope that THIS you’ll note:
Our one choice that will still remain
You’ll see it when we VOTE!
( Do you want the government deciding when you’re a senior to stop your health care options and mandate you go on ” end of life ” care? Do you want limited access to health care for special needs people, ie: Autistic, Downs Syndrome, etc….? Do you want rationed health care? If not- copy this, email it, and KEEP IT GOING!!!- Katy )
1 comment August 9, 2009
Back for more. Finally. Letters #15-20
So I have been on a mental break these past couple weeks. So many stressful things put me in a crabby mood. So I took as much of a break as I could from all things stressful. But alas, I need to get back to reality. There are so many topics right now that I have some major opinions and strong feelings on, but for tonight I am going to continue on my Federalist Papers. I decided to read letters 15-20 and post at the same time since they are dealing with the same topic.
This grouping of letters deals with the issue, Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union.
At this point no one is in disagreement that the present national system was unable to protect the Union. Not even the ones who were against the Constitution argued the basic premise. The country was at the bottom of the barrel as far as how they were viewed by other countries. “We have neither troops, nor treasury, nor government”
None of the states individually could effectively regulate themselves. They needed a government to help settle internal disputes. Another objection is the fear that the government would ultimately be too powerful.
There was a great passage in letter 15 regarding government. Here it is for your reading pleasure:
Government implies the power of making laws. It is essential to the idea of a law that it be attended with a sanction; or, in other words, a penalty or punishment for disobedience. If there be no penalty annexed to disobedience, the resolutions or commands which pretend to be laws will, in fact, amount to nothing more than advice or recommendation. This penalty, whatever it may be, can only be inflicted in two ways; by the agency of the courts and ministers of justice, or by military force; by the coercion of the magistracy, or by the coercion of arms.”
I found this interesting given all of today’s politicians and celebrity figures who break the law and then do not pay the penalty. (ie. Geithner) It is true, laws should have consequences for all. But that was not really the main focus of the letters.
There was a great deal of historical background given into Grecian republics as well as German nations. All had strengths and weaknesses. Finally the author gives a history of the United Netherlands. All of this information was given to give historical background and precedent for setting up a national government and making the states into one Union. By studying societies of the past we can learn from their experience which provides truth and wisdom.
2 comments March 30, 2009
Revenue, Economy and the Union
I have to say I am finding reading these to be very interesting. Seeing how some of the things they said correlate to our country today is amazing. Timeless principles of government.
Letter 12 – The Utility of the Union in Respect to Revenue
This letter deals obviously with streams of revenue for the country both with taxes and with trade. – “A nation cannot long exist without revenue.”
Commerce is the most useful, productive source of income and has such become important in political arenas. All craftsmen and laborers look forward to the reward that comes from the purchase of their created items. It is suggested that as commerce flourishes, land value rises. We know that is true.
“The ability of a country to pay its taxes must always be proportioned in a great degree to the quantity of money in circulation and to the celerity with which it circulates. Commerce must render the payment of taxes easier and facilitate the requisite supplies to the treasury. Tax laws have in vain been multiplied; new methods to enforce the collection have in vain been tried; the public expectation has been uniformly disappointed, and the treasuries of the States have remained empty.”
If the states remained smaller Confederacies there would be competition within them in the issue of lowering duties levied to other countries. As a United States we would only guarding one territory for trade – the Atlantic. This would allow us to patrol our own shores and make sure that there were no rogue operators seeking to interfere with trade.
This line sounds curiously like a Fair Tax precursor – “Personal estate, from the difficulty of tracing it, cannot be subjected to large contributions by any other means than by taxes on consumption.”
Letter 13 – Advantage of the Union in Respect To Economy in Government
This is a shorter letter, dealing with costs of Government. If the states are united into one Union there will only be one civil budget to operate. If they remain individuals states/countries then the expenses would be unnecessarily multiplied. As each group would necessitate a government on the same scale as the one being proposed for the Union. On size and population of the smaller entities alone it would be easy to see how they would struggle to compete with larger states. “Nothing can be more evident than that the thirteen states will be able to support a national government better than one half, or one third, or any number less than the whole.” – With that said, I am sure they never had ANY idea we would get ourselves into the economic mess that our government now is.
Letter 14 – Objections to the Proposed Constitution from Extent of Territory Answered
We open here with again alluding to the differences between a democracy and a republic and confusion that complicates this. “In a democracy the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic they assemble and administer it by their represetnatives and agents. A democracy covers one small spot . A republic can cover a large region.” The limitations of a democracy are that it assembles in one spot. That has easily been done with all the 13 states being in attendance at gatherings. With all the mathematical calculations of the states at the time, the territory was about as large as some European countries, not even much larger than Germany. Poland, France, Spain, Great Britian all with sizes comparable or inferior still have to travel as far for their governmental meetings.
Here is an intersting tidbit – “First, It is to be remembered that the general government is not to be charge with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdicition is limited. Subordinate governments retain due authority and activity.”
Second, “the immediate object of the Constitution is to secure the union of the thirteen primitive states, and to add to them other states.”
Third, “intercourse through the Union will be facilitated by new improvements – roads, travel accommodations, navigation on water, canals.”
Fourth, “and more important is that as almost every State will on one side or other be a frontier.” Even if it would be difficult to get their representatives to the seat of the national government they would find it more troublesome to try and defend themselves against intruders.” As one Union there would be great benefit and great reward.
4 comments March 13, 2009
Ahoy there and why we need a Navy . . .
Letter 10 – A continuation of The Union as a Safeguard against Domestic Faction and Insurrection
As the title states, the letter deals with domestic faction. We are told that there are two ways to remove faction (Conflict within an organization or nation; internal dissension) - one is to remove it cause; the other is to control its effects. Put another way is to destroy the liberties needed for existence or by giving all citizens the same opinions, passions, and interests.
Obviously removing liberty is not truly an option as it would make the situation worse in the first place. The second is not practical either. All men have their own ideas, passions and interests and it could not ever be assumed that they would have the same naturally. The differences are a natural occurrence that make us all individuals.
Since it is not possible to actually prevent or control faction, ways are suggested to control the effects. When the faction is a minority it could easily be dealth with by a regular vote. However when the faction is the majority the public under the law would be forced to do as they would vote.
Publius suggests that with these things in mind, a true democracy would never work in this situation. Instead a repulic, a government in which the scheme of representation takes place – has promise for what our country was seeking. Here are two specific ways that a republic would differ from a democracy.
1. The delegation of the government , in the republic is to a small number of citizens elected by the rest
2. The great number of citizens and greater sphere of country over which the republic may be extended.
Basically in the democracy there are less people choosing what will happen to all the citizens. In a republic there will be more representatives chosen by the citizens to help make decisions. This was an interesting line: As each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for the unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried. I don’t think our candidates have problems running vicious elections these days. That is the norm.
Essentially the thought was with the republic would be easy to keep running smoothly with proper, equal representation provided by the Constitution. So the whole point of the confusing long letter was that as a United States we would be more able to control the effects of faction within the country since there would be more representation in place to protect the citizens.
Letter 11: The Utility of the Union in Respect to Commercial Relation and a Navy
This letter deals with our ability to arrange commerce with other countries through maritime uses. By working with other countries we can establish our own trade arrangements and agreements making such arrangements beneficial to all, but especially to ourselves. Another topic would be the necessity of creating a federal navy. We would need a respectable maritime army to help protect us against the other two major countries.
An active commerce, an extensive navigation, a flourishing marine, would then be the offspring of moral and physical necessity.
Naval protection and maritime commerce were both necessary to the country. There was no real option. A larger country working together would be more able to succeed in both of these arenas as opposed to each smaller confederacies or states. Europe had long dominated the other countries and we have the opportunity to change that. “It belongs to us to vindicate the honor of the human race, and to teach the assuming brother moderation. Union will enable us to do this. Let Americans disdain to be the instruments of European greatness! Let the thirteen states, bound together in a strict and indissoluable Union, concur in erecting one great American system superior to the control of all transatlantic force or influence and able to dictate the terms of the connections between the old and the new world!”
I have to say these letters are still long and confusing. I am doing the best that I can to find interesting points in each letter. Overall I find the argument for a Union to make great sense. They are giving sufficient reasioning in my opinion that the states were better off as a United States.
Add comment March 11, 2009
No actual use for them
So today Obama lifted a ban on Embryonic Stem Cell research that was previously in place under President Bush. He stated the following . . .
“In recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values,” Obama said during the signing ceremony. “In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent. As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering. I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research – and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly.”
My quick question . . . How is this sound science when after nearly ten years of research, there are no approved treatments or human trials using embryonic stem cells. Science is a trial and error proposition. Life either is or isn’t. You can not play it both ways. Not to mention the promise of expanded funding. How many jobs is that going to create in today’s hurting marketplace? Not too many I think. In every argument for stem cells they say it can, it might, it may, perhaps, nothing gives a definitive. I have no problem with using cord blood harvested at birth, adult stem cells, or even if they happen to get stem cells from miscarried pregnancies – not from embryos created just for this purpose. There should be plenty of people willing to donate to help further this research.
I see this more as an opportunity to just take back anything and everything that Bush put into place as a matter of principle. Congressional Democrats are now gearing up to make it permanent and ensure that future presidents will be helpless to put research bans in place.
2 comments March 11, 2009
Childrens Books Abound
A quick break from my Federalist Papers to review a children’s biography on none other than . . . Nancy Pelosi. I could not help myself from checking out to read myself. I am amazed at all these biographies that are popping up on the current politicians. There are tons of books on Barack and Michelle Obama already. These would not even cover his presidency. He has not done anything yet. Why not wait until he has actually been in office for a period of time to discuss his career? I never got around to posting this picture from the bookstore the day of the inauguration there were so many different biographies out for Obama. Remember, this was also around Lincoln’s birthday celebration this year too and there was no big display about him.
I was shocked and awed that there was even a biography about Pelosi. In case you had not followed any of my previous posts, I am not what I would call a fan. The book is titles, Political Profiles – Nancy Pelosi by Sandra H. Shichtman. The publisher also has titles for the following: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Al Gore, Rudy Giuliani, and Arnold Schwarzenegger.
I get that she is the first woman speaker of the house, (which actually frightens me a good bit that she is third in line for chain of command) so maybe that is why she has a children’s biography. But here is what I learned:
Nancy’s dad was a 5 term congressman and three term mayor. It clearly defined her father as a New Deal Democrat under FDR, because they “believed that the government should help people who needed it.”
The most notable thing in the book to me just confirmed what I have always believed Nancy can not be bi-partisan. It is not part of her, it is not in her blood. She just can’t do it. There is a story of a worker for the GOP giving 7 year old Nancy a toy elephant at a polling location. Nancy gave it right back to the man and when she was asked about it now . . . “He thinks I don’t know what this is. I was offended. In our family it was about whose side you are on; the whole idea of working for families and the opportunity they had.” It goes on to say how even when she was young Nancy knew that the Democratic Party was her party. (please note the italics on her are taken directly from the text, not from me to imply spoken language.)
So her whole family was in politics, she worked in politics her whole life helping promote other candidates, etc. Then when her own children were grown she ran for office the first time. This was in 1987. Would just like to remind people that she has been voted in since then. You keep sending her back. Nancy is very anti-Bush to put it nicely. She has had nothing good to say about him and in act has been pretty nasty. I had never heard this fine quote of hers, “President Bush in an incompetent leader. In fact, he’s not a leader . . He’s a person who has no judgment, no experience, and no knowledge of the subject he has to decide on.” Nice Nancy.
So I gave you what I saw as some major points in the biography. It does chronicle what her different positions are and what she has “done” in office. I use that a bit loosely as I do not agree with ANY of her viewpoints. In fact I have not come up with one thing that she supports that I agree with. I will have to keep looking. I don’t think she can move to the center. Growing up with a father who is very pro New Deal I am not surprised at all at Pelosi’s quick leap into promoting other New Deal type initiatives. Even though historians and economists all say that the New Deal actually prolonged the depression rather than actually helping. Frankly I think we are recreating the exact same thing. The Depression ended when the war began.
3 comments March 10, 2009
Country in crisis – strategy for disaster
The market keeps failing. Stocks keep dropping. Confidence is down. The bailouts, spending, stimulus, etc. that are supposed to be helping are having the exact opposite effect and things are getting worse.
But the question comes . . . Is this all being done on purpose? Is the economy being manipulated to in effect create a society even more dependent upon social programs and big government? I do not usually buy into conspiracy theory, but when there is logical reasoning behind them I think they should be at least looked into.
There is a strategy known as the Cloward-Piven Strategy that forces political change through orchestrated crisis. It was proposed in 1966 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.
Cloward and Piven saw the welfare system as their first target done by capitalizing on the racial unrest of the 1960s. They hired George Wiley, who created the National Welfare Reform Organization (NWRO) to implement the strategy. Moreover, this kind of mass influence is cumulative because benefits are continuous. Once eligibility for basic food and rent grants is established, the drain on local resources persists indefinitely.
The huge expansion of welfare in New York City that came of the NWRO’s Cloward-Piven tactics sent the city into bankruptcy in 1975. Rudy Giuliani also credited Cloward-Piven with changing the cultural attitude toward welfare from that of a temporary expedient to a lifetime entitlement, an attitude which in-and-of-itself has caused perhaps the greatest damage of all. Cloward and Piven by name as being responsible for “an effort at economic sabotage.”
- 1. Register as many Democrat voters as possible, legal or otherwise and help them vote, multiple times if possible.
- 2. Overwhelm the system with fraudulent registrations using multiple entries of the same name, names of deceased, random names from the phone book, even contrived names.
- 3. Make the system difficult to police by lobbying for minimal identification standards.
There is also cause to wonder if this strategy also contributed to the current mortgage crisis as well. The mortgage crisis has some blame falling back as far as the Carter administration. It began with theCommunity Reinvestment Act(CRA), signed into law in 1977 by President Jimmy Carter. The CRA was Carter’s answer to a grassroots activist movement started in Chicago, and forced banks to make loans to low income, high risk customers.
Stan Leibowitz wrote in the New York Post: In the 1980s, groups such as the activists at ACORN began pushing charges of “redlining”-claims that banks discriminated against minorities in mortgage lending. In 1989, sympathetic members of Congress got the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act amended to force banks to collect racial data on mortgage applicants; this allowed various studies to be ginned up that seemed to validate the original accusation
Obama represented ACORN in the Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 1994 suit against redlining. Most significant of all, ACORN was the driving force behind a 1995 regulatory revision pushed through by the Clinton Administration that greatly expanded the CRA and laid the groundwork for the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac borne financial crisis we now confront.
New York Post article – A 1995 strengthening of the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to find ways to provide mortgages to their poorer communities. It also let community activists intervene at yearly bank reviews, shaking the banks down for large pots of money.
Ironically, an enthusiastic Fannie Mae Foundation report singled out one paragon of nondiscriminatory lending, which worked with community activists and followed “the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted.” That lender’s $1 billion commitment to low-income loans in 1992 had grown to $80 billion by 1999 and $600 billion by early 2003.
4 comments March 3, 2009
Lots o’links
So I have been meaning to write about all these different things but alas a sick child at home kept me from getting the full story written. So I will do a few quick synopses just to get these done with so I can stay more current.
Obama appointed Biden to administer the Stimulus Bill this week. I find this most curious since Biden is the one who said that there is a 30% chance the bill will fail. So obviously he has some doubts about this one. Part of me wonders if Biden is going to be the scape goat if it does fail. If he is the one overseeing it and it does not succeed will the blame fall more on him, or more on Obama?
Then there was the happening Address to Congress. Long – 52 minutes long. Beck had some great points to be made about saying what you mean, and meaning what you say. There are numerous instances where Obama said one thing was going to happen, yet in reality they are doing it anyway. The transparency is not there. The funding does not make any sense. Economists have been trying to crunch numbers about all these new programs that were mentioned and the costs are astronomical. Another interesting comment refers to the promise to cut the deficit in half by 2013. Stephen Moore commented in the same Beck interview shown below that, The Congressional Budget Office has also said that if nothing were done at all the deficit would fall by 70% in the same time span. But instead by spending an addition trillion dollars now, it will change to 50%. Here is the CBO estimate of the budget for 2009.
That’s all for now . . . . .
Add comment February 27, 2009
Porkulus Poetry
My favorite political poetess is back with a new edition. Katy is back with more rhyming fun. This time she tackled the Stimulus Bill. (Porkulus, Spendulous, Generational Theft Act, or the Congressional Relief Action Project) It is smashing fun. (and in case you have missed her previous works – There is Barry Barry What’cha Doin and Twas the Night Before Election – 2008
So here it is straight from the author:
” Just Drink The Kool-Aid Up And Let It Roll ” by Katy, Durham NC
Reflections on the Stimulus Bill ~ ( To the tune of ” Easter Parade ” )
Something to ponder….
And the scariest one of all……..
“We cannot expect the Americans to jump from capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of socialism until they suddenly awake to find they have Communism.”
- Soviet Leader Nikita Khrushchev, 1959
2 comments February 24, 2009
