Posts Tagged ‘foreign policy’

MITT ROMNEY FOR PRESIDENT

March 6, 2012

Mitt Romney will rebuild the foundations of the American economy on the principles of free enterprise, hard work, and innovation. His plan seeks to reduce taxes, spending, regulation, and government programs. It seeks to increase trade, energy production, human capital, and labor flexibility. It relinquishes power to the states instead of claiming to have the solution to every problem.

Any American living through this economic crisis will immediately recognize the severity of the break that Mitt Romney proposes from our current course. He is calling for a fundamental change in Washington’s view of how economic growth and prosperity are achieved, how jobs are created, and how government can support these endeavors. It is at once a deeply conservative return to policies that have served our nation well and a highly ambitious departure from the policies of our current leadership. In short, it is a plan to get America back to work.

http://www.mittromney.com/

Advertisements

Could we expect the same?

May 24, 2010

Dear President Obama: 

I’m planning to move my family and extended family into Mexico for my health, and I would like to ask you to assist me. 

We’re planning to simply walk across the border from the U.S. Into Mexico, and we’ll need your help to make a few arrangements. 

We plan to skip all the legal stuff like passports, immigration quotas and laws. 

I’m sure they handle those things the same way you do here. So, would you mind telling your buddy, President Calderon, that I’m on my way over? 

Please let him know that I will be expecting the following: 

1. Free medical care for my entire family. 

2. English-speaking government bureaucrats for all services I might need, whether I use them or not. 

3. Please print all Mexican government forms in English. 

4. I want my grandkids to be taught Spanish by English-speaking (bi-lingual) teachers. 

5. Tell their schools they need to include classes on American culture and history. 

6. I want my grandkids to see the American flag on one of the flag poles at their school. 

7. Please plan to feed my grandkids at school for both breakfast and lunch. 

8. I will need a local Mexican driver’s license so I can get easy access to government services. 

9. I do plan to get a car and drive in Mexico, but, I don’t plan to purchase car insurance, and I probably won’t make any special effort to learn local traffic laws. 

10. In case one of the Mexican police officers does not get the memo from their president to leave me alone, please be sure that every patrol car has at least one English-speaking officer. 

11. I plan to fly the U.S. Flag from my house-top, put U.S. Flag decals on my car, and have a gigantic celebration on July 4th. I do not want any complaints or negative comments from the locals. 

12. I would also like to have a nice job without paying any taxes, or have any labor or tax laws enforced on any business I may start. 

13. Please have the president tell all the Mexican people to be extremely nice and never say critical things about me or my family, or about the strain we might place on their economy. 

14. I want to receive free food stamps. 

15. Naturally, I’ll expect free rent subsidies. 

16. I’ll need Income tax credits so although I don’t pay Mexican Taxes, I’ll receive money from the government. 

17. Please arrange it so that the Mexican Govt pays $4,500 to help me buy a new car. 

18. Oh yes, I almost forgot, please enroll me free into the Mexican Social Security program so that I’ll get a monthly income in retirement. 

I know this is an easy request because you already do all these things for all his people who walk over to the U.S. From  Mexico . I am sure that President Calderon won’t mind returning the favor if you ask him nicely. 

Thank you so much for your kind help. You’re the man!!!

 
 

TOYOTA (TOYODA) RECALLS 8 MILLION CARS

February 17, 2010

I guess Government Motors found their nitch (cough..cough) I mean bitch.  This latest witch hunt has more to do with the United Auto Workers than it does your safety.  Don’t be fooled.

Rush Limbaugh’s Letter to President Obama

January 28, 2010
RUSH: I penned a message to Obama that I would like to deliver now.  Because Mr. Obama, I think it’s time we had a heart to heart talk.  Let me be the father that you never had or never really knew, because I think you need some guidance.  It’s time to man up.  It’s time to grow up.  That speech last night was an embarrassment.  You couldn’t focus, you lashed out in all directions, you refused to accept responsibility for your own actions, and you were angry.  And he was, folks! He was mad.  Being president is a big job.  It’s a big responsibility.  You wanted the position, Barack.  You campaigned for it.  You told the public to trust you with it, and they elected you — and you’re now president of the greatest country mankind has ever known, and yet you act like this was all coming to you, like you deserve it, that you’re better than the people you are supposed to serve and that you have no tolerance for debate or dissent.  That’s not the way it works as president, Barack.  We have a Constitution, we have checks and balances, we have separation of powers, we have states — and most of all, we have the people.  You don’t get to impose your programs and policies on the nation and the people without our consent.  

This is a representative republic, not a banana republic, and let me remind you: Karl Marx and Saul Alinsky are not our Founding Fathers.  This is a nation built on individuality, built on liberty, free markets, and faith.  Yet you, Barack, demand fidelity to a different belief system: A system that crushes individual initiative and free will.  The president does not berate Supreme Court justices who are guests of the Congress and who have no ability to respond to your attacks.  You’ve made such a mess of things, Barack, and it’s time to stop deluding yourself. It’s time to stop blaming others.  You are delusional.  You are delirious.  It’s time for you to assume the responsibilities of a president rather than pretending to be one.  

You’ve driven the nation’s debt over the edge.  It is your responsibility to fix it now.  Otherwise, our young people will have no future.  You were wrong to grant terrorists constitutional rights. Even the libs in New York don’t want the trial there now!  You, Mr. President, are endangering the security of this nation.  Now fix it!  Reverse course, and end the terrorists — all of them — back to Guantanamo Bay, where they belong.  You are wrong to nationalize one industry after another from automobiles to banks.  You are destroying competition and jobs.  You need to stop what you were doing before million of more families go broke from your misguided policies.  It’s not too late to stop this.  I know you’re not going to stop it because last night you said you don’t quit, and I know what you mean.  

You’re gonna keep plugging for the same agenda, which is going to destroy this country even more — which makes me think, Barack, that’s your objective.  You know, Barack, unlike most presidents you’re dealing with a Congress that has super majorities in both houses, fellow Democrats.  It amazes me that with all the talk about your ability to persuade and communicate, that you can’t even hold your own party members together anymore.  Is that Bush’s fault, too? Is it is fault of the banks and the insurance companies and the lobbyists that you can’t keep your own Democrat Party unified — or is it a problem with your leadership, Barack, or lack of leadership?  It’s the latter, Mr. President. I’ll tell you, you are not a leader. You are an agitator and an organizer, and a process guy, but you are not a leader.  It is you who are doing something wrong.  

The people in Virginia don’t like it.  The people in New Jersey don’t like it.  The people in Massachusetts don’t like it.  The people in Massachusetts and all over the country have the ability to inform themselves outside of your sycophant press corps, and they are doing so.  Members of your own governing majority don’t like what you are doing.  I mean, this calls for some self-reflection and some circumspection.  Has it occurred to you, Mr. President, even once that you’re not as cool as you think you are?  Has it occurred to you that you are screwing up?  And if it has, are you happy about that?  Has it occurred to you that you have a great deal to learn and that you need to take your own measure, or are you Mr. Perfect?  Are you God-sent?  

Are you The One that you’ve been waiting for?  See, I have a little concern there may be a psychological issue at play here.  I don’t say this to demean you, Barack.  I say it because I’m concerned.  I mean, Tom Daschle was always “concerned” and I like the word. I’m concerned.  You seem to have a whole lot of enemies, at least in your own mind.  A partial list would include Fox News, insurance companies, banks, oil companies, the “special interests,” the Supreme Court, Republicans, talk show hosts, executives, anyone or any business that earns over $250,000 a year, mortgage companies, credit card companies — and the list goes on and on and on.  You have the longest enemies list of anybody I’ve ever known.  

These people are not your enemies, though, Barack.  They are Americans.  They are part of this country.  They are part of what makes the nation work.  You are not.  You have nothing to do, and have had nothing to do, with this nation’s greatness.  You can’t lay claim to greatness on any scale, not even rhetorical.  But you have no direct relationship to the greatness of this country.  You are damaging the possibility of further greatness.  Nevertheless, like a bully, you continue to threaten all of these people.  The Supreme Court, Big Oil, Big Pharmaceutical, Big Retail, talk show hosts, Fox News, the list goes on.  You threaten anybody who does not agree with you.  You try to intimidate them.  You smear them.  Your sycophantic media goes right along and carries your water. But this is not what presidents do.  

You’re supposed to lead not by threatening people but by encouraging them, by embracing them, by thanking them, by inspiring them.  Most of all you don’t seem to appreciate the magnificence of this nation!  I know you don’t.  The way you’ve been educated about this country it’s painfully obvious.  You think this country is guilty, period. Guilty and unjust.  You seem to think this country needs to be torn down so you can rebuild it.  But you were elected to be president, not some kind of dictator.  You must operate within the confines of the Constitution.  You are not bigger than the law, and you are not bigger than the people.  You were elected to serve the people, not dictate to them.  Anyway, I’m sure this little lecture will not do you much good, particularly given the spectacle of your speech last night.  You really are full of yourself.  But I truly hope that this little talk does do you some good down the way, because something is going to have to change in you or we are doomed for at least the next three years.  

 

25 British-born Muslims are plotting to bomb Western airliners.

December 29, 2009

The 23-year-old Nigerian has told security chiefs of a sinister network in Yemen who are ready and waiting to strike.

The reports come after The Sun revealed that cops fear that 25 British-born Muslims are plotting to bomb Western airliners.

The fanatics, in five groups, are now training at secret terror camps in Yemen.

It was there London-educated Abdulmutallab prepared for his Christmas Day bid to blow up a US jet.

The British extremists in Yemen are in their early 20s and from Bradford, Luton and Leytonstone, East London.

They are due to return to the UK early in 2010 and will then await internet instructions from al-Qaeda on when to strike.

A Scotland Yard source said: “The great fear is Abdulmutallab is the first of many ready to attack planes and kill tens of thousands.

 “We know there are four or five radicalized British Muslim cells in the Yemen.

The source added: “Imams would have promised them rewards in heaven for becoming suicide bombers prepared to kill Westerners.”

Abdulmutallab’s failed plot was the 2nd act of terrorism on US soil since Obama took an oath to protect our Country.  I certainly hope this gets addressed before health care when Congress is back in session.

The only “catastrophic failure” is Barack Obama himself.  Al-Qaeda in Yemen warned the West four days before Friday’s attack that a bombing was imminent.  This would’ve been the time to increase The United States government’s national threat level to Orange!

Source:  http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2785733.ece#ixzz0awcSZjJk

http://www.nationalterroralert.com/updates/2009/12/27/25-british-born-muslims-plotting-to-bomb-western-airliners/

THE FIRST TERRORIST ATTACK ON U.S. SOIL SINCE 9/11

November 11, 2009

terrorist

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, is an “Islamist extremist.”   Obama & commies do not want to release this information because they can’t afford to admit that the most destructive terrorist act to be committed on American soil since 9/11; happened on their watch!  The only thing Obama & commies are watching is your wallet! 

Could this TERRORIST ATTACK ON U.S. SOIL been prevented?  This attack may have been prevented if Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was a “rightwing extremist” instead of a “Islamist extremist”.  Maybe then the DHS would have had him listed on their “watchdog list”.

How many more attacks will we have to endure on Obama’s watch??  One is too many.  George Bush kept us safe for 8 years; Obama for only 8 months.  

Obama better react to this TERRORIST ATTACK ON U.S. SOIL!  We all remember what happened when Bill Clinton failed to react to the attack on the USS Cole….

LIBERALS ARE UN-AMERICAN!

August 16, 2009

Why do we continue to allow these moonbats to call us “un-American”?? 

AND WE’RE UN-AMERICAN?? 

LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!

THE LEFTIST DISRESPECT & DOWNPLAY THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE AMERICAN DEATHS AT A 9/11 MEMORIAL AND YET THEY HAVE THE NERVE TO CALL US UN-AMERICAN??

 

CONSERVATIVES LOVE THIS COUNTRY AND HONOR THOSE WHO HAVE DIED FIGHTING TO PROTECT IT!

 

ANY COMMUNIST WHO FEELS ANGERED BY MY LOVE FOR THIS COUNTRY AND OUR TROOPS… CRY HERE… FLAG@WHITEHOUSE.GOV

The Second Revolution; not of Violence but Pressure!!

August 16, 2009

 

The number to the congressional switchboard is no longer in use… go figure..  Please call the White House at 202-456-1111!

FOR ALL THE LIBERAL CRACK HEAD MOONBATS… CLICK HERE TO TURN ME IN TO THE CEO OF THE UNION STATES OF AMERICA!!    flag@whitehouse.gov

I’VE BEEN TURNED IN OVER AND OVER!!  FREEDOM OF SPEECH STILL LIVES ON!

Meet Ezekiel Emanuel.. The Future of our Health Care!

August 16, 2009
obamacare3
 
Ezekiel J. Emanuel, 1996
 
Where Civic Republicanism and Deliberative Democracy meet  is there a relationship between defects in our medical ethics and the reason the United States has repeatedly failed to enact universal health coverage?  I will begin to suggest an answer to this question by clarifying the locus of allocating decisions.  The allocation of health care resources can occur on three levels.  The social or, in the economist’s language, the macro level entails the proportion of the gross national product (GNP) allocated to health care.  The patient, or micro, level entails determining which individual patients will receive specific medical services; that is, whether Mrs. White should receive this available liver for transplantation.  Finally, there is an intermediate level called the service or medical level that entails determining what health care services will be guaranteed to each citizen.  These socially guaranteed services have been called “basic” or “essential” medical services or what the President’s Commission designated as “adequate health care.” Clearly, these three levels are connected.  A larger proportion of the GNP going to health care permits coverage of more services. Similarly, as demonstrated by the end-stage renal disease program, providing specific services to a wider range of patients causes upward pressure on the proportion of the GNP going to health care and/or reduces the range of services covered as part of basic medical services.  Despite these connections, these three levels are conceptually distinct.  The fundamental challenge to theories of distributive justice for health care is to develop a principled mechanism for defining what fragment of the vast universe of technically available, effective medical care services is basic and will be guaranteed socially and what services are discretionary and will not be guaranteed socially.  Such an approach accepts a two-tiered health system some citizens will receive only basic services while others will receive both basic and some discretionary health services.  Within the discretionary tier, some citizens will receive few discretionary services, other richer citizens will receive almost all available services, creating a multiple-tiered system.  Underlying the repeated failure of attempts to provide universal health care coverage in the United States is the failure to develop a principled mechanism for characterizing basic health services.  Americans fear that if society guarantees certain services as “basic,” the range of services guaranteed will expand to include all or almost all available services (except for cosmetic surgery and therapies not yet proven effective or proven ineffective).  So rather than risk the bankruptcy of having nearly every medical service socially guaranteed to all citizens, Americans have been willing to tolerate a system in which the well insured receive a wide range of medical services with some apparently basic services uncovered; Medicare beneficiaries receive fewer services with some discretionary services covered and some services that intuitively seem basic uncovered; Medicaid beneficiaries and uninsured persons receive far fewer services.  On this view, the reason the United States has failed to enact universal health coverage is not primarily political or economic; the real reason is ethical it is a failure to provide a philosophically defensible and practical mechanism to distinguish basic from discretionary health care services.  What is the reason for this failure of medical ethics?  There are two opposing explanations. One explanation points to the inherent limits of ethics.  Some philosophers, such as Amy Gutmann and Norman Daniels, argue that we lack sufficiently detailed ethical intuitions and principles to establish priorities among the vast array of health care services.  Every time we try to define basic services our intuitions “run out.”  As Gutmann once wrote: I suspect that no philosophical argument can provide us with a cogent principle by which we can draw a line within the enormous group of goods that can improve health or extend life prospects of individuals . . . The remaining question of establishing a precise level of priorities among health care and other goods is appropriately left to democratic decision making. 
 
Taken at face value, this moral skepticism is extremely dangerous; it suggests that there can be no principled mechanism to define basic health care services and, therefore, that the efforts to ensure universal access will always founder on the fear that guaranteeing any health care to all citizens means guaranteeing all available services.  It suggests we should just give up on a just allocation of health care resources because we can never succeed. The second explanation holds that the problem with defining basic health services is not a general lapse of ethics, but a specific lapse of liberal political philosophy that informs our political discourse, including the allocation of health care resources. The problem is that priorities among health care services can be established only by invoking a conception of the good, but this is not possible within the frame work of liberal political philosophy.  Liberalism divides moral issues into three spheres: the political, social, and domestic.  It then holds that within the political sphere, laws and policies cannot be justified by appeals to the good.  To justify laws by appealing to the good would violate the principle of neutrality and be coercive, imposing one conception of the good on citizens who do not necessarily affirm that conception of the good.  But without appealing to a conception of the good, it is argued, we can never establish priorities among health care services and define basic medical services.  This is Dan Callahan’s view with which I agree: . .. there can be no full discussion of equality in health care without an equally full discussion of the substantive goods and goals that medicine and health care should pursue … Unless there can be a discussion of the goals of medicine in the future as rich as that of justice and health has been, the latter problem will simply not admit of any meaningful solution.  Fortunately, many, including many liberals, have come to view as mistaken a liberalism with such a strong principle of neutrality and avoidance of public discussion of the good.  Some think the change a result of the critique provided by communitarianism; others see it as a clarification of basic liberal philosophy.  Regardless, a refined view has emerged that begins to create an overlap between liberalism and communitarianism.  This overlap inspires hope for making progress on the just allocation of health care resources.  This refined view distinguishes issues within the political sphere into four types: issues related to constitutional rights and liberties;  issues related to opportunities, including health care and education; issues related to the distribution of wealth such as tax policies; and other political matters that may not be matters of justice but are matters of the common good, such as environmental policies and defense policies.  While there still may be disagreement about the need for a neutral justification for rights and liberties, there is consensus between communitarians and liberals that policies regarding opportunities, wealth, and matters of the common good can only be justified by appeal to a particular conception of the good.  As Rawls has put it: Public reason does not apply to all political questions but only to those involving what we may call “constitutional essentials.” More expansively, Brian Barry has written: Examples of issues that fall outside [the principle of neutrality include] two distinct kinds of items.  One set of items (tax and property laws) contains matters that are in principle within the realm of “justice as fairness” but are subject to reasonable disagreement about the implications of justice … The other set… contains issues that in the nature of the case cannot be resolved without giving priority to one conception of the good over others . . . There is no room for a complaint of discrimination simply on the ground that the policy by its nature suits those with one conception of the good more than it suits those with some different one.  This is unavoidable.  Thus, it seems there is a growing agreement between liberals, communitarians, and others that many political matters, including matters of justice and specifically, the just allocation of health care resources–can be addressed only by invoking a particular conception of the good.  We may go even further. Without overstating it (and without fully defending it) not only is there a consensus about the need for a conception of the good, there may even be a consensus about the particular conception of the good that should inform policies on these nonconstitutional political issues.  Communitarians endorse civic republicanism and a growing number of liberals endorse some version of deliberative democracy.  Both envision a need for citizens who are independent and responsibile and for public forums that present citizens with opportunities to enter into public deliberations on social policies.  This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just allocation of health care resources.  Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic.  Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed.  An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.  A less obvious example is guaranteeing neuropsycho- logical services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason.  Clearly, more needs to be done to elucidate what specific health care services are basic; however, the overlap between liberalism and communitarianism points to a way of introducing the good back into medical ethics and devising a principled way of distinguishing basic from discretionary health care services. Perhaps using this progress in political philosophy we can begin to address Dan’s challenge, begin to discuss the goods and goals of medicine.
 
 
 
OH MY GOD, WELCOME TO OBAMACARE!  IT’S TIME TO ORDER THE BACK UP GENERATOR FOR GRANDMA! 

When The Giant Wakes; The Revolution Begins..

August 11, 2009

 

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.
Thomas Paine

Americans have the right to attend town hall meetings without being labeled “un-American”.  Pelosi, I thought it was a right under the 1st Amendment to peaceably assemble and petition?  Pelosi, it is you that is “un-American”.