http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/04/obama.schools/index.html

Some of the controversy surrounding Obama's speech stems from a proposed lesson plan by the U.S. Education Department to accompany the address. An initial version of the plan recommended that students draft letters to themselves discussing "what they can do to help the president."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/03/white-house-withdraws-students-help-obama/

Another assignment for students after hearing the speech was to discuss what "the president wants us to do."

I try to imagine what I would have written when I was in school. I would have started the essay with, "Uhh... Uhh... Umm... Uhh..." When I was young there was a fishing show that my dad watched; it came on the local channel. The guy on the show would say "Uhh" before just about every word. One day my sister and I noticed this, and said something to my dad. He was trying to watch the show, and was telling us to keep it down. Then after a little while he noticed it too. "Uhh... you Uhh... take the Uhh... hook, and Uhh..." Then my dad started laughing and changed the channel. It was so bad he couldn't watch it anymore. I think we ruined it for him! It went down kind of like the SNL skit "More Cowbell" and the Blue Oyster Cult song "(Don't Fear) The Reaper."

The president addressing school children is not in and of itself strange, but I can understand why people are upset about this. IT'S CREEPY! The president wants children to find ways to "help the president", and "discuss what the president wants them to do"? This sounds more like something that a Third-World dictator would say.

Why is everything so personal with this president? I think that worries people. Why not ask of the children, "What can you do for your community or country"? It is very strange that the president wants to inject himself into a classroom scenario, where he demands that children "help him", and understand what he is "doing for them". That is strange, at least in America.

I think it's going to go down like this... Obama is going to give a normal pep-talk speech to school children. Don't drop out, stay away from drugs, brush your teeth, the usual. Then democrats on the left are going to point at anyone who expressed misgivings about the speech and try and paint them as fools. By that time, the news about what the initial speech entailed will have been forgotten.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

The gay marriage debate has been going on for years. I find it interesting that both sides of the argument are discussing two completely unassociated points.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112513826

Supporters of gay marriage:

"It's really about civil rights, about having the same things that every other loving couple has," Ryan says. "I have full confidence that the people of Maine will do the right thing and honor our commitments and honor civil rights for all Mainers."

Those against gay marriage:

"It isn't about anything other than the definition of marriage, what it's going to mean to us and how it's going to be defined in society," says Marc Mutty, the executive chairman of Stand for Marriage Maine.

I find it interesting that one argument is that of "rights", while the other argument is simply over the definition of the word. Of course these are just two examples, but they seem to encompass the heart of the debate.

Consider, what if there were a movement just to redefine a word. Let's take murder for example. Just ponder for a moment, what would happen if one state adopted a law in which murder was redefined. What if murder no longer explicitly involved death. What if the scope of the word murder were expanded to include slander, and even embarrassment -- character assassination if you will. The legal ramifications would be unimaginable. There would be people jailed on murder charges without any "traditional" murder having taken place. Of course redefining the word murder would never happen; that would be absurd. How then is redefining marriage any less absurd?

From what I have seen the "real" reason behind the gay marriage movement has nothing to do with rights. It seems to have more to do with benefits. There are certain advantages to marriage which gays are not privy to. The gay marriage movement is an attempt to "jump ahead". If the word marriage is redefined, gays will automatically assume all of the benefits of opposite sex married couples overnight. If those behind the gay marriage movement were more honest about their concerns, perhaps things would go differently.

There is no movement to keep gays from having benefits. There is no movement to keep those couples who are of the opposite sex, and are not married from having benefits. If the argument from the gay marriage supporters were indeed a rights issue, and not a benefits issue, could single people also claim civil rights violations?

The problem for those in support of gay marriage is simple. The majority of people are not in support of gay marriage.

Those in support of gay marriage are not just "pissing in the wind". They are pissing at a tornado, spawned by an approaching hurricane.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/31/obama-faces-calls-grab-health-care-reins-congress/

With public support waning, President Obama is at a crossroads on health care reform: Does he attempt to breathe life into Congress' efforts or do something more drastic -- offer his own solution?

I thought this was funny! At least Fox News pointed out the fact that there is NO OBAMA health care plan! There is only one plan, it's in congress right now. The bill that the majority of Americans dislike.

Remember the bill is all that matters. Obama is going on about things that are not mentioned in the real health care bill. Obama is trying to separate himself from the legislation that most Americans don't want, the legislation Obama owns.

Let people know; congress doesn't vote on what Obama says, congress votes on the content of the bill.

For Obama's next comedy routine he has to get himself as far away from the health care bill as possible. This is brought to light by the fact that Obama has been out of the news for the past week. There are only two reasons for a sitting president to not take advantage of the bully pulpit when the congress is at recess. Those reasons being:

1. Obama wants to distance himself from the legislation. He was pushing the health care bill for a month straight, and getting nowhere. Perhaps he doesn't want to go down in a blaze of -- well you couldn't call it Glory could you?

2. The Democrats have finally realized that the more Obama is in the news, the more the American people dislike him, or at least the legislation he is pushing.

Which of these two possibilities could it be? I think that Obama's ego is going to answer that question for us...

I think that Obama can get away with distancing himself from the bill. This cartoon is a perfect example of how Obama can get away with distancing himself from the current health care legislation. The cartoon was touted by many as racist. This acted, at least for me, as a trial balloon to see how many Americans actually understand how the U.S. government works on a basic level. The fact that the cartoon was an issue for so long is a testament to how many people have no idea what is happening within government, at any level.

The only way that someone could see this cartoon as racist is if they thought that bills originated from the President of The United States, not Congress. Anyone who votes should at least know where bills originate from. PBS once aired the cartoon series "School House Rock", even it explains the process! Many of you might remember this.

Gross misunderstanding of government on the part of the American public is the most useful tool in the shed; when it comes to slowly removing that public's freedoms. - Jeff Michaels

Note: Congress needs "0" votes from Republicans to pass the health care bill. The Democrats have a majority in both houses and could pass the bill without any Republican votes! You might ask yourself; why the Democrats keep claiming there is a need for some kind of "bipartisan agreement" in order to pass the bill? With the majority in both houses, that could only mean one thing; the Democrats can't find the numbers within their own party to pass their health care reform bill!

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

The Obama administration and the democrat party have increased government spending to the tune of bankrupting the entire nation. You will be hard pressed to find an economist who believes that the government's current rate of spending is sustainable. This style and sort of spending has happened before and with dire consequences. This spending took place in the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union was considered by some to be the best example of a Marxist society, many leftists adored it. Ronald Reagan had a much different view of the Soviet Union. Reagan viewed the Soviet Union as not only a threat to the U.S., but a threat to freedom around the world. Reagan essentially caused the bankruptcy of the Soviet Union through the world's largest arms race, The Cold War. Many economic events took place during the Cold War which lead to the eventual collapse of the soviet union, but there was no denying the Reagan's foreign policy had a large roll in the collapse.

We are seeing a similar tactic used today. The difference is, this tactic is being used against the U.S. taxpayer, by its own government! Combine increased spending in nearly all areas of government while trying to expand government; the Obama administration and the democrats in power have racked up a bill the likes of which the world has never seen. The majority of the spending is said to be necessary to get the economy moving again. However there is absolutely no explanation as to how the government is going to foot the bill for the increased spending.

The increased spending has lead to much unrest in the financial markets. People are reluctant to invest, because as the government spends more money, the value of the dollar declines. The threat of increased regulations also scare investors. The result is less foreign investment (in U.S. based stocks) and further weakening the dollar.

Every industry in which the government has inserted itself has suffered a loss of capital. Government cannot create wealth. Government can only redistribute wealth. For this reason government run industries are never profitable. Public transportation is a good example, Amtrak, the U.S. Postal Service, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac. All of these government enterprises are black holes for tax payer dollars. The most important note when it comes to government enterprises; government enterprises do not add to GDP.

The government is inserting itself into the health care industry. The health care industry comprises roughly 1/6th of the U.S. GDP. This puts the government in control of the largest single sector of the economy. Given the history of government insertion in industry; one can only conclude that there will be a major reduction in capital as far as the health care industry is concerned. This will result in a massive reduction of the overall U.S. economy and decreased GDP.

All of the proposed (and current) spending and huge resulting loss of capital is said to be a good thing? Obama is saying that this can all be done without tax increases. Meanwhile his own officials will not say, on the record, that there will be no tax increases.

The truth is that there will be a huge tax increase on everyone in the United States. That is the only way to pay for all of the programs that have been instated. As the GDP shrinks; so does the base from which the majority of taxes are taken. Obama and the democrats are waging a cold war on the American tax payer.

By combining the effects of increased spending, massive capital reductions, and a shrinking GDP; Obama and the democrats are going to spend the United States into bankruptcy. Unless of course there is a massive tax increase.

The U.S. government is currently building the worlds largest house of cards. When it falls the U.S. taxpayer is going to have to pick it up.


Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

http://www.newsmax.com/us/us_cash_for_clunkers/2009/08/25/251900.html

All sales under the program ended Monday evening. But after already pushing back the deadline to submit records for the car rebate deals to noon Tuesday, the Transportation Department said late Monday that dealers may have more time to submit pending claims, due to continued problems with its Web site.

Government computers set up to handle the filings were deluged by dealers trying to send in their sales agreements at the last minute. Before the extension, all the paperwork was supposed to be submitted by Monday night, but the big rush of submissions shut down the government's computer filing system temporarily. That raised concern among dealers that they wouldn't be repaid for the $3,500 or $4,500 per vehicle incentives, and prompted them to push for an extension.

"We continue to address technical problems with the CARS website, and have determined that the website will not be fully functional before (Tuesday) morning," the Transportation Department said in a statement. "Dealers should be assured that they will be provided time to submit pending deals equivalent to the time that was lost this afternoon while the system was down."

Geoff Pohanka, who heads about 15 dealerships in Maryland and Virginia, said he had submitted about 910 clunker deals to the government and had only received payment for 16. He estimated the government owed his dealership about $4 million for the outstanding claims and was hopeful to get the final 90 voucher submissions into the system.

"Every 30 seconds, we're going back to the computer to see if we can get them in," he said.

...some energy experts have said the pollution reduction is too small to be cost-effective.

Well there you have it. We have traded nearly 1 million "gas guzzling" cars, and the effects are NOT cost effective!

I find it interesting that The Department of Transportation website can't handle the volume of claims. Meanwhile the television show American Idol is breaking records in the number of text messages they can receive in one night...

http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=20499

SBC Network Processes Hundreds of Millions of Calls on American Idol Final Voting Night

100 Million More Calls Than a Typical Week Night

San Antonio, Texas, May 21, 2003

American Idol fans across the country were lighting up the phone lines casting votes for their favorite singer...or chatting about the final round of competition with friends. Here are some facts about the SBC networks' performance last night during the three-hour voting period for the Fox hit reality show:

* More than 260 million calls were processed by our networks during American Idol voting last night -100 million calls greater than a typical three-hour period of weeknight calling, a 62 percent increase.

A television network can come up with a computer system which can handle more than 100 million text message votes in a three hour period in 2003!

The federal government, spending billions of tax dollars, can't put together a system which can accept less than 1 million claims in a period of time spanning more than one month!

But the government, without rationing, can make health care cheaper, and more effective? There is rationing in the Cash for Clunkers program right now! Some of the dealers will not be reimbursed for the cars they received, because the government system was overwhelmed. Hmm...

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.