Congressional Leaders React to Obama’s Jobs Plan



  • Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV): “I have serious questions about the level of spending.”
  • Presidential Contender/Former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA): “All the ideas that didn’t work with 850 billion dollars he now wants to try to get it to work with 450 billion. He has zero pay-fors. He’s got to quit being a candidate, and actually be president for awhile.”
  • Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL): “He didn’t tell us where the money is coming from.  Many of these proposals just won’t work.”
  • Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY): “This isn’t a jobs plan. It’s a re-election plan. That’s why Republicans will continue to press for policies to empower job creators, not DC. Obama’s economic policies don’t work. His jobs plan is to try these same policies again, and then accuse anyone who doesn’t support them of being political or overly partisan.”
  • Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX): co-chairman of the “supercommittee” on deficit reduction: “The President wants us to find additional budget savings to pay for his $447 billion jobs plan. By asking the Joint Select Committee to increase the $1.5 trillion target to cover the full cost of his plan, the president is essentially tasking a committee designed to reduce the deficit to pay for yet another round of stimulus.”
  • Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI): Chairman, Ways and Means Committee: “We already have a difficult job trying to reduce the deficit with very little cooperation from the Democrats. Now he has given us a plan that won’t reduce the deficit by one penny. He wants us to spend more money on the same programs which have produced so few jobs.”
Published in: on September 15, 2011 at 3:07 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

ATTN MILITARY- SB 724 has garnished 61 votes (list inside) allowing military to get paid despite a govt shtudown.


ATTN MILITARY- From what I understand we have garnished enough Senatorial votes needed to pass SB 724 that will entitle military members and defense contractors to get paid.

A similar bill is being pushed through the House. Will keep you updated as it develops. ♥

Here are the cosponsors of SB 724, please call their office and thank them.

For my Floridian friends, please note that Senator Bill Nelson (Democrat) is NOT on the list and vote accordingly come 2012.

However, Senator Marco Rubio has supported this legislation so a big THANK YOU goes out to Senator Rubio.

Is YOUR Senator on the list?

Sen. Alexander, Lamar [R-TN]
Sen. Ayotte, Kelly [R-NH]
Sen. Barrasso, John [R-WY]
Sen. Baucus, Max [D-MT]
Sen. Bennet, Michael [D-CO]
Sen. Bingaman, Jeff [D-NM]
Sen. Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT]
Sen. Blunt, Roy [R-MO]
Sen. Boozman, John [R-AR]
Sen. Brown, Scott [R-MA]
Sen. Burr, Richard [R-NC]
Sen. Casey, Robert P., Jr. [D-PA]
Sen. Chambliss, Saxby [R-GA]
Sen. Coats, Daniel [R-IN]
Sen. Collins, Susan M. [R-ME]
Sen. Corker, Bob [R-TN]
Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX]
Sen. Crapo, Mike [R-ID]
Sen. DeMint, Jim [R-SC]
Sen. Durbin, Richard [D-IL]
Sen. Ensign, John [R-NV]
Sen. Enzi, Michael B. [R-WY]
Sen. Graham, Lindsey [R-SC]
Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA]
Sen. Hagan, Kay [D-NC]
Sen. Hatch, Orrin G. [R-UT]
Sen. Hoeven, John [R-ND]
Sen. Inhofe, James M. [R-OK]
Sen. Isakson, Johnny [R-GA]
Sen. Johanns, Mike [R-NE]
Sen. Johnson, Tim [D-SD]
Sen. Johnson, Ron [R-WI]
Sen. Kirk, Mark [R-IL]
Sen. Klobuchar, Amy [D-MN]
Sen. Kyl, Jon [R-AZ]
Sen. Lee, Mike [R-UT]
Sen. Lieberman, Joe [ID-CT]
Sen. Lugar, Richard [R-IN]
Sen. Manchin, Joe [D-WV]
Sen. McConnell, Mitch [R-KY]
Sen. Moran, Jerry [R-KS]
Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK]
Sen. Portman, Rob [R-OH]
Sen. Pryor, Mark [D-AR]
Sen. Risch, James E. [R-ID]
Sen. Roberts, Pat [R-KS]
Sen. Rockefeller, Jay [D-WV]
Sen. Rubio, Marco [R-FL]
Sen. Sessions, Jeff [R-AL]
Sen. Shelby, Richard [R-AL]
Sen. Snowe, Olympia J. [R-ME]
Sen. Stabenow, Debbie [D-MI]
Sen. Tester, John [D-MT]
Sen. Thune, John [R-SD]
Sen. Toomey, Pat [R-PA]
Sen. Udall, Mark [D-CO]
Sen. Udall, Tom [D-NM]
Sen. Vitter, David [R-LA]
Sen. Warner, Mark [D-VA]

Attached is SB 724, if you want to read it in its entirety.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-724

 

Obama’s defensive speech for the US’s Libyan operations- “F” for Failure & Fabrication of Truth.


On March 28, 2011- President Obama took to the podium at the National Defense University in Fort McNair, Washington DC in defense of his premature actions in Libya and his “forgetfulness”  in consulting Congress before committing to air strikes and an offensive approach in Libya.

Watching Obama’s speech with a mixture of skepticism, unbelief and at this point- pure resentment for getting us involved in a battle that we have no means (personally or financially) to be a part of, I had to balk at some of President Obama’s “talking points”.

Who is Obama trying to convince that this war on Libya was a good idea- the general public or himself?

While I understood what President Obama was trying to accomplish with the freeze of $33 billion assets on Qaddafi’s regime, furthering our sanctions and imposing an arms embargo in an attempt to convince Qaddafi to stop using massive force against his people, Ive questioned from the beginning if the United States knew who they were supporting in an attempt to rid Qaddafi of his regime.

Then, out of the blue, I heard reports that the United States were going to lead an offensive air strike against Qaddafi since he violated the UN restricted “no fly zone” (another military operation that I was against from the beginning and as I said- would result in a war with Libya and her allies.)

During his defensive speech, President Obama stated, “And so nine days ago, after consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action to stop the killing and enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973.”

Whoa, wait a second- Did President Obama just state that he consulted Congress before engaging in an offensive attack? I had to rewind the program and check the written transcripts, yes- he sure did.

That statement is a BOLD FACE LIE. President Obama DID NOT consult Congress which is why there is an uproar from people on the Right and the Left as President Obama violated Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution by not consulting Congress or declare war before entering Libya on the offensive.

Not that it surprises me that President Obama lied as he has a history of saying one thing and doing the other but it floored me that night as it is shameful that President Obama did not follow the US Constitution (especially since he was a Constitutional Professor, one would think he would recognize the US Constitution of its importance- especially when going into war) but he flat out lied, to the People, about how this war started.

How could he consult Congress when the Congress was not even in session?  Im still shocked that he would, so openly, try to twist the truth of the uninformed voters.

President Obama stated that we were joined by a “strong coalition” of France, the United Kingdom, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Spain, Greece, Turkey and the Arab League but were we really?

The only countries that I have seen really step up to the plate is France, Britain and the United States. In this instance, I feel that we are the “holy trinity” with the other countries in the background cheering us on.

Granted, Canada has stepped up more now that NATO is implemented and the United States will fall under Canadian Lt General Bouchard in which I am grateful. It is also true that Qatar from the Arab League has stepped up a smidgen but they are far from the leads on this offensive.

Not too mention where is the rest of the Arab League? One of the main pushes for going into the Libyan war is that the Arab League asked for our involvement but then when we got involved- they hid in the shadows. Was that their plan all along?

In an almost comical statement from our President, “It is true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action.”-  I have to wonder if he applied that logic to the Libyan operations.

It sure doesnt seem like it as President Obama has not given a budget or financial impact report on Libya. It is known that within the first day, $100 million were spent on Tomahawk Missiles and basic overhead cost with the cost increasing exponentially, piling on top of our already massive $14.3 trillion debt.

President Obama stated, “So while I will never minimize the costs involved in military action, I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America.”

I have to disagree as Defense Secretary Robert Gates stated that Libya was NOT an immediate threat. Granted, we receive 2% of our oil from Libya and we prefer Libyan oil as it is sweeter and much easier to refine so that would be a major complication but our safety was not at risk and is untruthful for Obama to continue to state otherwise.

In a confused statement, Obama proclaimed, “To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq. Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq’s future. But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.”

If that is the case, then why has President Obama not laid out a clear, decisive and directive plan and exit strategy? Looks like more fluff and empty statements from our “Commander in Chief” (and I use that term loosely).

Obama then stated, “I have made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies, and our core interests. That is why we are going after al Qaeda wherever they seek a foothold.”

What Obama is failing to grasp is that the US and her people were not “attacked” and Libya did not pose a direct threat to our safety.

Further, how can Obama state that we are going after Al Qaeda in places like Afghanistan yet are willing to take a chance in supporting them (and Obama is pushing to coordinate their command centers and arming the opposition) when Defense Secretary Robert Gates claimed that he has “not ruled out that the Libyan opposition is infiltrated with Al Qaeda”.

Who is really the enemy here? Isnt that slight hypocritical, and dangerous, on our part to blindly support the opposition without knowing who is really pulling the puppet strings and without knowing their intentions and long term plan as the Middle East is more militaristic than democracy driven.

It appears that the general consensus on Obama’s speech left the public flat, uninspired and even more skeptical of our involvement in Libya.

I dont feel that Obama made any case for our involvement other than appealing to our emotional side but I am a woman of logic, facts, financial figures and strategy.

Since he did not give any true detail on that- I give Obama a huge F for FORGETTING that the US Constitution must be followed at all times, for FABRICATING the Truth and claiming he received Congressional Approval when it is a known fact that he did not and for FAILING the American People as our President.

Copyright (c) April 1, 2011. All rights reserved.

Massive solar flare gives a peek as to what we can expect in late 2012/early 2013. In related news, Obama defunds NASA.


A massive solar flare,which measured 8 times the size of the Earth, burst from the sun on February 14, 2011 (video below).

The class X solar flare – the most powerful kind of solar flare – unleashed a wave of charged particles that streamed immediately toward Earth, as well as coronal mass ejections, or blobs of plasma, that took days to arrive here.

When they did, they interacted with Earth’s magnetic field to cause geomagnetic storms that wiped out radio communications in the Western Pacific Ocean and parts of Asia, and caused airlines to reroute some polar flights to avoid radio outages.

Right after the mega solar flare, a first wave of radiation hit Earth.

Did you feel it?

With 8 minutes of the initial solar flare, jamming effects were conducted on radio communication and GPS systems,” said Phil Chamberlin, deputy project scientist for NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO).

Massive flares such as this,  also churn out streams of protons and electrons called coronal mass ejections (CMEs) that can take 24 hours or more to reach Earth- making it possible for us to still be feeling the after effects of the flare up.

“These alerts are sent out to electrical power grid companies, airlines, GPS, military, ocean shipping routes, just to name a few industries that may be affected by the impacts of a solar flare and associated coronal mass ejection (CME) like the one we just had,” Chamberlin told SPACE.com.

Despite the federal government continually disregard of the seriousness of solar activity, the concern is still very real.

Last autumn, NASA warned that sun is ramping up activity as part of its normal 11 year circle with a peak in the solar activity in 2013 could cause serious geomagnetic storms.

The difference between 2012’s solar flares and past solar flares? The sun will be in a position where spiraling beam of solar particles would have a direct chance of hitting the Earth unlike February 14’s eruption which passed behind the Earth yet still causing disruption to our satellite communications.

Space weather hasn’t posed quite such a threat before, because during the last solar maximum, around 10 years ago, the world wasn’t as dependent on satellite telecommunications, cell phones and global positioning system (GPS) – all technologies that could be disrupted by solar flares.

“Many things we take for granted today are so much more prone to the effects of space weather than was the case during the last maximum.  The problem is likely to get even worse as the world could likely become more technologically dependent by the time the next solar maximum rolls around, and the next.”

Back in 2010, NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) promised unprecedented views of the sun, uninterrupted measurements of solar activity, and high- resolution images that showcase our parent star in spectacular detail.

With SDO constantly gazing at the sun, the observatory’s instruments are able to collect a wealth of information about our nearest star. The spacecraft records a new image every second, and transmits a staggering 1.5 terabytes of data to Earth every day.

The main goals of the SDO mission are to study the sun’s active regions, and the violent solar events that trigger effects in the Earth’s upper atmosphere. Over the course of the spacecraft’s five-year nominal mission, it will also observe the sun as it progresses through the 11-year solar cycle. These observations will help scientists better predict the sun’s activity as it waxes and wanes over the cycle.

“One of the big studies SDO was designed for was to look at eruptive events, like solar flares, jets and spicules,” Chamberlin said. “With the big eruptions, we’re seeing every part of their evolution. We’re able to see the buildup below the surface and how much output from the sun goes into the Earth’s upper atmosphere. We’re getting the complete picture for the first time. If there’s an event on the sun, we see everything we need to see. There’s no data gap.”

Perhaps a 2009 report from NASA influenced the creation of the SDO.

Back in 2009, by a panel of scientists assembled by NASA said that a sustained and powerful solar flare outbreak could overwhelm high-voltage transformers with electrical currents and short-circuit energy grids.

The report, titled “Severe Space Weather Events — Understanding Societal and Economic Impacts” warned that such a catastrophic event could cost the United States alone up to two trillion dollars in repairs in the first year — and it could take up to 10 years to fully recover.

While it is said that the solar flares will not cause bodily harm, it does have the potential to wreak havoc on our communicative  way of life. Not too mention that this valid concern is not even acknowledged by the Obama administration and could add up to $20 trillion over 10 years to our national debt which is $6 trillion more in debt that we are currently facing.

We need to take proactive steps NOW to reinforce our power grid and satellites so that we are not left scrambling in late 2012/early 2013 if solar flares collide with Earth’s magnetic field.

One can only hope that Congress and President Obama wake up to the importance and significance of space research and exploration before it’s too late.

To read about how Obama is sitting on his hands in hopes of commercial contractors for NASA, please visit:  https://theheartofamerica.wordpress.com/2011/02/15/2012-budget-nasa-obama-kicks-the-funding-to-the-curb-sits-on-his-hands-in-the-hopes-of-commercial-contractors/

In my radio show, I mention Obama cutting $289 million from NASA and transferring it to a local COPS program and my thoughts on this abusive crossing of federal/state powers.  Please listen: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/heart-of-america-radio/2011/02/19/heart-of-america-united-we-stand-divided-we-fall

Copyright (c) February 21, 2011. Al rights reserved.

Marine Corps’ EFV will be eliminated to make room in the 2012 budget.


Defense Secretary Robert Gates last month announced plans to cancel several hardware programs in the 2012 budget plan as part of a broader effort that unearthed $150 billion in savings.

Gates plans to take some of those monies and shift them to other needs — but some lawmakers and analysts say the secretary might loose a good chunk as Congress grapples with paring down the federal deficit.

“I don’t expect any major surprises” next week when the next budget plan is made public, said Jim Thomas of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

“I don’t think there will be more immediate program cuts,” Thomas added Sunday during “This Week in Defense News.”

Chris Preble of the CATO Institute said deficit-reduction efforts will not be the lone hurdle for Gates’ so-called “efficiencies” effort. Keeping the $150 billion in savings could be further complicated if the planned troop draw downs in Iraq and Afghanistan do not go as planned.

“A lot of the efficiencies [program] is based on troop levels coming down. That’s where you get real savings,” Preble said. “That’s a big if.”

And, he added, there is opposition in Congress — especially among House Republicans — to trim one dime from the Pentagon budget.

“There are already people in Congress saying we shouldn’t be considering budget cuts until the wars are over,” Preble said.

One major program Gates announced he will propose terminating in the 2012 plan is the Marine Corps’ Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV). Its overall expected price tag had grown to $14 billion, and the secretary and Marine leaders said last month that was simply too expensive.

EFV prime contractor General Dynamics and some Republican lawmakers are fighting back, saying the service should buy about 200 and upgrade over 300 of its current amphibious troop-hauling truck.

The analysts said the expeditionary vehicle battle in Congress this year will be a telling sign of calls for deeper defense spending cuts.

Preble said after years of developmental issues, the troubled EFV program has for some time been on just about every “cut list.”

“So if you can’t cut this one,” he said, “then it’s going to be really tough to cut anything else.”

Copyright (c) February 7, 2011. All rights reserved.

Take heed of Ronald Reagan’s defense policy and apply it to Egypt.


“Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem. — The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and Im here to help.”

As we reflect on the life and legacy of President Ronald Reagan on his 100th birthday and pondering on our current foreign policy failure- One has to wonder, how we could have gotten so far from Reagan’s policy and purpose.

3 of Reagan’s important pillars of national security policy were (1) peace through strength; (2) trust but verify; and (3) beware of evil in the modern world.

We followed that wisdom. Communism collapsed. The Soviet Empire crumbled. Tyrants everywhere fell onto the ash heap of history. Emerging democracies and markets gave promise to the long held desire of human kind for peace and prosperity.

Now we are facing a socialistic takeover on the domestic front and an Islamic takeover on our foreign front. We refuse to support democracy and freedom in a known hostile region because of our political history with Egypt. The same Egypt who had a dictator for 30 years and enforced perilous conditions for the people of Egypt.

Egypt is now a prime example of President Reagan’s 3 pillars of  defense.

The first pillar, “strength”, Reagan described was both military and economic—the two worked hand in hand. We did not apologize for our military power. It created the peace.

The second pillar, “agreements or deals”, whether with friend or foe were, only as good as our ability to ensure their implementation. While verification was most associated with the arms control agreements Reagan negotiated with the former Soviet Union, it applied to much more. The corollary was that in the absence of verifiability, we did not trust our adversaries. That is, always verify your sources before you make a decision.

The third pillar is an “axis of evil”, Reagan understood that evil stalks the modern world. And this was true, whether it was the communism of the Soviet Union, the gulag that was Vietnam and Cambodia, or the murderous regimes in Iran, Syria, North Korea, Grenada or Cuba, Russia or North Egypt or as important, their terrorist allies and accomplices.

Reagan had no illusions about Moscow’s intentions. He said as much at his very first Presidential press conference, noting that Soviet empire reserved for itself the right to lie, cheat and steal, to murder and terrorize, to achieve its goals.The audible “gasp” among the drive-by press corps at the time is well known.

At the time, the chief argument against Reagan’s view of the Soviet Union was that classifying Moscow as a terrorist sponsoring state–whether true or not– would “upset détente” and “undermine peaceful coexistence”. Reagan’s view was precisely the opposite—peace in the Soviet empire could be purchased only with its collapse, not with propping it up!

When coupled with a strong US dollar, tax rate reductions and economic policies that pushed investment, growth and job creation, America’s economy grew strong along with her military. With the decontrol of energy prices, which actually led to lower gasoline prices, the US and economies everywhere benefited. America indeed came to be seen as more and more formidable.

Yet as we got friendlier, our military got stronger.

Pacifists opposed the funding for Reagan’s strategic nuclear modernization program, especially money for the Peacekeeper missile, originally known as the MX, the INF missiles, the B2 bombers, and Trident submarines.

In the spring of 1983, many of these issues reached a climax. The Scowcroft Commission report thoroughly endorsed the Reagan modernization program, “strength”, while also artfully combining it with the President’s call for START reductions in nuclear weapons to half their current level, “peace”.

The latter half of the equation—major reductions in nuclear weapons—could be implemented because our satellites could determine the levels of Soviet deployments of such nuclear weapon platforms. This was the “verify” part of the “trust” equation.

At the same time, the President surprised many with his March 1981 announcement of a parallel US effort to build missile defenses, or the Strategic Defense Initiative.

This was related to the third pillar of Reagan’s defense and security ledger–there were indeed evil regimes in the world.

In the President’s view, even if U.S. and Russian nuclear offensive weapons were reduced, even eliminated, the US needed the insurance policy of missile defense. It would be an added plank to the existing platform of deterrence and would protect the American people from such weapons especially those in the hands of rogue regimes.

This is a point he would make repeatedly in his negotiations with Gorbachev in Reykjavik, that even should the US and the USSR eliminate their nuclear arsenals, there was still the need for missile defenses to defend against the rogue regime or evil dictator intent upon acquiring such weapons.

Eventually the USSR conceded to removing all its deployed INF nuclear weapons from Europe and Asia, exactly as Reagan had originally called for.

In early 1981, just as they had with the administration’s proposals on strategic modernization and START arms control, the drive-by media and their allies in academia, Hollywood and on Capitol Hill, immediately derided the missile defense proposals. An editorial in The Hartford, Connecticut Courant sneered at such a “Star Wars” proposal, as they called it.

This was at a time of potentially grave peril for the United States. In the span of two years, Pope John II, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, and President Ronald Reagan all came into office. Nevertheless, assassins had tried to kill all three of these great leaders with bullets and bombs.

Fortunately, Reagan’s proposed US strategic modernization program was approved. The combined might of the US and its allies forced the Soviets to negotiate on our terms. Their military hold over Eastern Europe could then be challenged, first by Solidarity in Poland and then by Vaclav Havel in Czechoslovakia. The Soviet Union then collapsed and hundreds of millions of people were liberated as the communist evil empire ended.

Unfortunately, the US then gradually proceeded to forget these very important Reagan pillars, or “lessons of history”. The late President had specifically warned us about this problem of “civilizational forgetfulness” in his 1988 farewell address.

In “While America Sleeps”, Donald and Frederick Kagan warned that the US was deluding itself into believing military weakness would not have terrible consequences for the future.

A peace dividend was declared too rapidly, and American forces were dropped to dangerous levels.

We were told it was the end of history, in that the military strength needed to end the Cold War and defend freedom, keep the peace and promote liberty was increasingly viewed as no longer necessary.

Sound familiar? It should as the Democrats currently in power are looking for easy ways out in slashing the budget so that they can produce “feel good” numbers when in reality it hurts our long term prosperity.

Let’s be real– One of  our major threats (especially now that Egypt is in turmoil) is the Muslim Brotherhood, which now seeks to seize power in Egypt. Too many are simply ignoring this danger. The vast majority of Egyptians want neither the radical totalitarianism of the Brotherhood nor the authoritarian corruption of the Mubarak regime.

But, unfortunately, US military power, represented symbolically by the current government of Egypt because of its association and alliance with us, is the enemy of many on the radical left. They are fueled almost exclusively by an antipathy to such military power.

Thus we hear the claim that whatever the outcome of a rapid transfer of power, “anything is better” than the current Mubarak regime.

Enter El Baradei, the former Director of the International Atomic Energy Administration in Vienna but has lived abroad most of his life. Swooping into Egypt when the turmoil started, seeking opportunistic advantages.

Despite public disapproval, El Baradei seems to be taken a prime leadership position within the Anti-Mubarack demonstrators.

It is a very real possibility that El Baradei is elected into a Cabinet position- if not, replaces the President in its entirety.

Thus it is important to note Reagan’s thrill pillars when judging our future policy and foreign aid  in Egypt.

First, strength, both military and economic, is indispensable to liberty, freedom and peace. A strong Egypt allied with the US and Israel is necessary for future safety and prosperity.

Second, to accept the promises of a terrorist group such as the Muslim Brotherhood–”trust”– to renounce violence has enough sense as buying oceanfront property in Arizona.

Third, as for evil, just look at Iran, Syria, North Korea, parts of Russia, Northern Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan and the extremists groups that run amok between them.

We may not be able to direct events in Cairo, but US leadership remains indispensable to “provide for the common defense” and in order to ensure our a democracy, it is imperative that we follow President Reagan’s 3 pillar layouts closely as he was successful with the collapse of the Soviet Union and when dealing with the Islamic and Socialists regime-  failure is not an option.

Copyright (c) February 6, 2011. All rights reserved.

Published in: on February 7, 2011 at 3:58 am  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Slashing big oil tax breaks to fund energy efficient buildings.


President Obama will outline his latest energy policy goal Thursday amid uncertainty in Congress about energy legislation and mounting challenges by Republicans to the administration’s climate change agenda.

In remarks at Penn State University on Thursday, Obama will detail a plan to make commercial buildings more energy efficient. The central goal of the proposal will be reducing by 2020 the overall energy intensity of commercial buildings by 20 percent.

Obama will outline a multi-part plan for making commercial buildings more efficient, which, if completed, would save business owners more than $40 billion per year, according to the White House.

As part of the plan, the Small Business Administration will work to encourage lenders to give more financing for commercial retrofits. In addition, the administration will call on Congress to provide grants for local and state governments that streamline building codes and regulations as well as provide new tax credits for energy efficient buildings.

The president will call on corporate executives and heads of major universities to retrofit their buildings to save energy. He will also announce that he is using existing authorities to establish a program to train workers to retrofit buildings.

Obama will detail the cost of his proposal in his upcoming budget request. A senior administration official and a spokesperson for the White House Office of Management and Budget both refused to give a cost estimate of the proposal.

“There is a lot of information in the budget and it will be out in due course,” the senior administration official said.

A White House plan to eliminate tax breaks for the oil industry will pay for the energy efficiency proposal, the administration official said. The oil industry tax breaks proposal will also be outlined in Obama’s budget request.

A noble idea of the Obama administration but one that I do not feel is concrete or even well thought out.  Before this is implemented, a requirement should be that the Budget is passed and outlined to see how much this is going to cost the tax payers.

While Obama is optimistic that the tax breaks to big oil will fund this new environmental attempt- I would be surprised to see that happen.

Even though I am a Republican, I support Obama in his attempt and appreciate his focus on alternative energy and wish him the best of luck in this endeavor.

Copyright (c) February 3, 2011. All rights reserved.

US Ambassador to China put in his resignation, speculation on 2012 run.


U.S. Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman has tendered his resignation, opening the door to a possible run for the presidency.

Huntsman offered his resignation on Monday, according to a senior administration official. The resignation is effective in April.

Huntsman is a former governor of Utah who gave up that position to become U.S. ambassador to China in 2009.

When Huntsman took the job, the White House was seen as taking a potential tough opponent out of the field in 2012, and it remains unclear how Huntsman would explain his work for the administration to conservative GOP primary voters.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Monday that Huntsman had told several people in the White House that he planned to leave the administration during the first part of this year.

Ironically, Huntsman hinted at a run for the White House in an interview with Newsweek published earlier this month.

“You know, I’m really focused on what we’re doing in our current position,” Huntsman said. “But we won’t do this forever, and I think we may have one final run left in our bones.”

Back in the spring of 2009, it was Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe, who identified Huntsman as one potential GOP contender who makes him a “wee bit queasy.” The president named Huntsman Ambassador to China later that same month.

Late last week, GOP operative Susie Wiles was hired as executive director of what’s expected to be Huntsman’s political action committee. The former governor also has a core of top advisers already laying the groundwork for a possible run.

Before January’s state dinner at the White House, Huntsman was asked if he was considering a run in 2012. He answered, “We’re loyal to our country and our president.”

The core of Republican strategists who have started to pave the way for a potential Huntsman bid see a big opening for the former governor in the current field of rumored hopefuls, despite the conventional wisdom that suggests he’s too centrist to make it through a primary.

Should he run, Huntsman will pitch his extensive foreign policy credentials, which are easily the deepest among the current GOP field. Huntsman backers are also pushing the notion that his ties to President Obama are more easily explained away than are former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s healthcare woes.

Said one GOP strategist, earlier Monday, who’s aligned with the pro-Huntsman crowd: “He was a hugely successful and popular governor, with a solid record.”

Another take from a strategist who worked on Romney’s 2008 campaign — the former Massachusetts governor should welcome a Huntsman candidacy, “because it moves him further away from Obama.”

While Jon Huntsman Jr worked for Obama, I do not feel that he catered line and point for him. I urge Huntsman to throw his ring into the hat, Lord knows we need a friend in China.

Copyright (c) February 1, 2011. All rights reserved.

As Egyptian Unrest Builds, Obama’s left with indecision.


As Egyptian ruler Hosni Mubarak clings to power and protesters continue to storm the streets of Cairo for a sixth (6) straight day, the Obama administration is increasingly looking at a choice between two bad options.

On one side is Mubarak, who has presided over a corrupt government and meager economy without holding free elections for over 30 years and is now paying the price.

Unfortunately for President Obama, he’s a key U.S. ally and recipient of billions in U.S. military aid.

On the other side is the big unknown. Though many protesters are not taking to the streets armed with religious slogans, analysts warn that the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood — an outlawed, but significant, opposition group — could be jockeying to take power if Mubarak falls.

If they do, Egypt’s peace with Israel, friendliness toward the West and key role in the Israeli-Palestinian talks could be in jeopardy.

No wonder the White House keeps insisting it’s not taking sides.

“We have backed the wrong horse for 50 years,” said former CIA officer Michael Scheuer. “To think that the Egyptian people are going to forget that we backed dictators for 50 years, I think is a pipe dream.”

President Obama Friday night tried to dial back the tension, announcing that he had spoken personally with Mubarak and told him to take “concrete steps” toward improving the rights and addressing the grievances of the Egyptian people.

His remarks reflected a desire for Mubarak to, without using violence, learn from the crisis and parlay the unrest into a reformed political system. Under that scenario, the United States keeps its ally and some semblance of stability, while still siding with the ideals of the protesters.

Mubarak’s decision Friday to dissolve and recreate his Cabinet failed to mollify the protesters Saturday. Elliott Abrams, a former Middle East Adviser to George W. Bush and a current fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, questioned the effectiveness of that move, noting that the people on the streets are objecting specifically to Mubarak.

“Changing the puppets in that puppet show is not going to have an effect,” Abrams stated.

He said Obama should be calling publicly for free and fair elections, suggesting that would be a way for the United States to keep a “moderate, centrist type of government” in place.

Yet, some doubt free elections would follow. Observers count the Muslim Brotherhood — along with the Egyptian military and former International Atomic Energy Agency head Mohamed ElBaradei, who has returned to Egypt and called on Mubarak to leave — as viable possibilities for filling the void should Mubarak fall.

At this point, the general consensus of US officials following the Egyptian turmoil is that if Mubarak goes down, the Islamists in Egypt are the only ones with the institutions to replace the existing ones.

Why The Brotherhood is not listed as a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department is beyond me. Terror groups like Hamas spawned from the decades-old organization and Usama bin Laden’s deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri used to be a member.

It advocates for Islamic law to be applied by the government.

In a move of boldness, the White House stated that if Mubarak stays in power without making critical reforms made clear Friday that the country’s $1.5 billion in military and economic aid would be in jeopardy. That aid has been expanding ever since Egypt made peace with Israel in 1979.

According to the State Department, the United States helps support education and other programs, but most importantly the Egyptian military. U.S. assistance has over the years provided Egypt with F-16 fighter jets, Apache helicopters, tanks and other vital equipment.

The US must tread very carefully on this issue as if we back the current President and he falls- we will fall with him.

Yet, if we back the Egypt extremist movement and they somehow fail (which I dont think they will)- we will have made an enemy out of Egypt.

The best thing that the US can do is to encourage free elections and to repeatedly say that they are “with the People” while working to encourage diplomatic actions on behalf of the current Egyptian government.

Also, it would be wise to stay strict with the threat that we will reduce Egyptian’s aid if they fail to adhere to a diplomatic election.

Lord knows, we could use that money directed to the problems at home.

Copyright (c) January 30, 2011. All rights reserved.

Warning- Tunisian Islamist party leader returns home


The leader of a Tunisian Islamist party that was long outlawed by authorities has returned to his homeland after two decades in exile.

About 1,000 people crowded into the Tunis airport Sunday to welcome Rachid Ghanouchi, leader of the Ennahdha, or Renaissance, party.

His return from London follows the ouster of President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, who was forced from power by violent protests this month after 23 years in power.

Ennahdha was branded an Islamic terrorist group.

Mohamed Ghannouchi, Prime Minister under ex-President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali, was the first to take on power as massive protests on Friday caused President Ben Ali to flee the country. Presenting himself as “interim President.”

As the continued protests were directed towards the self-appointed interim President, Mr Ghannouchi stepped back.

The Tunisian constitution was followed, and parliamentary President Fouad Mebazaa was named the country’s new interim President. Mr Ghannouchi was re-appointed Prime Minister and asked to name a broad coalition government today, including opposition forces.

Looks like Ghanouchi came home just in time to plan the celebration of “freedom”.  Keep a watchful eye on Tunisian. This could come back to bite us.

Copyright (c) January 30, 2011. All rights reserved.