FACT CHECK: Obama Left Blanks In Oil Spill Speech

Calvin Woodward of the Associated Press looks into Obama’s speech from last night and how certain claims stacked up against reality:

OBAMA: “We will make BP pay for the damage their company has caused and we will do whatever’s necessary to help the Gulf Coast and its people recover from this tragedy. … Tomorrow, I will meet with the chairman of BP and inform him that he is to set aside whatever resources are required to compensate the workers and business owners who have been harmed as a result of his company’s recklessness. And this fund will not be controlled by BP. In order to ensure that all legitimate claims are paid out in a fair and timely manner, the account must and will be administered by an independent, third party.”

THE FACTS: An independent arbiter is no more bound to the government’s wishes than an oil company’s. In that sense, there is no certainty BP will be forced to make the Gulf economy whole again or that taxpayers are off the hook for the myriad costs associated with the spill or cleanup. The government can certainly press for that, using legislative and legal tools. But there are no guarantees and the past is not reassuring.

It took 20 years to sort through liability after the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska, and in the end, punitive damages were slashed by the courts to about $500 million from $2.5 billion. Many people who had lost their livelihoods in the spill died without ever seeing a check.

___

OBAMA: “In the coming days and weeks, these efforts should capture up to 90 percent of the oil leaking out of the well.”

THE FACTS: BP and the administration contend that if all goes as planned, they should be able to contain nearly 90 percent of the worst-case oil flow. But that’s a big “if.” So far, little has gone as planned in the various remedies attempted to shut off or contain the flow. Possibly as much as 60,000 barrels a day is escaping. BP would need to nearly triple its recovery rate to reach the target.

___

OBAMA: Temporary measures will capture leaking oil “until the company finishes drilling a relief well later in the summer that is expected to stop the leak completely.”

THE FACTS: That’s the hope, but experts say the relief well runs the same risks that caused the original well to blow out. It potentially could create a worse spill if engineers were to accidentally damage the existing well or tear a hole in the undersea oil reservoir.

___

OBAMA: “From the very beginning of this crisis, the federal government has been in charge of the largest environmental cleanup effort in our nation’s history.”

THE FACTS: Early on, the government established a command center and put Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen in charge of coordinating the overall spill response. But officials also repeatedly have emphasized that BP was “responsible” and they have relied heavily on BP in making decisions from hiring cleanup workers to what oil dispersing chemicals to use. Local officials in the Gulf region have complained that often they don’t know who’s in charge _ the government or BP.

___

OBAMA: “We have approved the construction of new barrier islands in Louisiana to try and stop the oil before it reaches the shore.”

THE FACTS: Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and local officials pleaded for weeks with the Army Corps of Engineers and the spill response command for permission to build about 40 miles of sand berms along the barrier islands.

State officials applied for an emergency permit to build the berms May 11, but as days went by Jindal became increasingly angry at federal inaction. The White House finally agreed to a portion of the berm plan on June 2. BP then agreed to pay for the project.

The corps was worried that in some cases such a move would alter tides and drive oil into new areas and produce more harm than good.

___

OBAMA: “Already, I have issued a six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling. I know this creates difficulty for the people who work on these rigs, but for the sake of their safety and for the sake of the entire region, we need to know the facts before we allow deepwater drilling to continue.”

THE FACTS: Obama issued a six-month moratorium on new permits for deepwater drilling but production continues from existing deepwater wells.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

FACT CHECK: Obama Left Blanks In Oil Spill Speech
Calvin Woodward
AP via TownHall.com
June 16, 2010

Advertisements

Letters To Webb And Warner Concerning The Applause Offered To Felipe Calderon By The Democrats

And, here is the latest travel warning from the U.S. State Department regarding fake Mexican Checkpoints:

Travel Warning
U.S. State Department
May 24, 2010

If you were watching the news last week, then you know that when Mexican Presdient Felipe Calderon addressed a joint session of Congress and viciously and hypocritically maligned the United States, the Democrats jumped up and applauded his anti-American diatribe. I have written to both of my Senators, both of whom are Democrats and both of whom jumped up and applauded with their peers.

Feel free to use them as guides in writing your own Senators and Representatives and letting them know that you do not appreciate them applauding a foreign leader coming to America and making hypocritical criticisms.

Any supporters of Jim Webb or Mark Warner are especially encouraged to respond to this post. I would love a public debate about how these two humiliated the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Letter to Webb:

Mr. Webb,

I am writing this letter to express my extreme disappointment, not to mention disgust, in the way you and your fellow Democrats applauded Mexican President Felipe Calderon as he hypocritically criticized a sovereign U.S. State, namely Arizona, for enacting a law meant to protect its citizens from a known threat. This display of anti-Americanism is not only inappropriate coming from a foreign leader addressing the National Legislature, but to have watched elected officials of the United States Congress applaud such hypocrisy was completely insulting.

A little background is in order here. As you know, Attorney General Eric Holder admitted before a Senate committee that he had not read the Arizona law before he offered criticism of it. He further admitted that he only knew what he heard on TV news shows or read in newspapers. Well, we know that the major networks and major newspapers are more for pushing agendas than they are for reporting real news, thus it is easy to understand why Mr. Holder was so far off base in making his unfounded charges. Had Mr. Holder (and the various Democrat members of Congress, including yourself) done due diligence, he would have discovered that the Arizona law simply mirrors Federal law. According to Michael A. Zuckerman, a lawyer writing for CBS, “tucked away in Title 8 of the U.S. Code is a provision that expressly authorizes federal immigration officers, without a warrant, ‘to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States.’ (See 8 U.S.C. 1357). This is eerily similar to the Arizona law.”

Enforcement of U.S. immigration law is among the most lenient in the Americas. It is certainly more lenient than the immigration law enforcement in Mexico, and U.S. law enforcement officials are much more humane in the execution of their duties than are their Mexican counter-parts.

For example: Amnesty International released a report on Mexico’s treatment of illegal aliens coming through its own southern border. Rupert Knox, Amnesty’s Mexico Researcher reported: “Migrants in Mexico are facing a major human rights crisis leaving them with virtually no access to justice, fearing reprisals and deportation if they complain of abuses. Persistent failure by the authorities to tackle abuses carried out against irregular migrants has made their journey through Mexico one of the most dangerous in the world.”

These abuses include kidnapping for ransom, robbery and rape. Mexico’s National Human Rights Commission reported in 2009 that nearly 10,000 were abducted over a six month period. Half of those victims indicated that public officials were involved in their kidnapping. Estimates are that six out of 10 migrant women and girls experience sexual violence at the hands of Mexican authorities.

And yet, the man who oversees all of this saw fit to criticize United States immigration policy in front of a joint session of Congress? How bewildering is that? Even more bewildering is that you and your fellow Democrats gave this man approval of his hypocrisy by applauding him!

I cannot think of anything more offensive or disgusting in regards to illegal immigration. I also cannot think of any reason why you Democrats would assume that average Americans like me wouldn’t see through the sham and not feel that our intelligence is being insulted.

You claim to be a man who was “Born Fightin’” and yet, you roll over like a submissive puppy when a foreign leader who has no integrity on the issue of illegal immigration maliciously insults the United States and you simply go along with your fellow Democrats because it somehow suits you to see the United States so wrongfully and viciously maligned.

If you were truly “Born Fightin’” you would be calling out your fellow Democrats and demanding to know why they rendered such honors to a man who oversees one of the worst human rights abuses in the Western Hemisphere while criticizing a much more humane U.S. system.

If you were truly “Born Fightin’” you would call out Attorney General Eric Holder for offering unjustified criticism on a bill that he hadn’t even read and which only mirrors Federal law which he, as “top cop,” is obligated to uphold.

If you were truly “Born Fightin’” you would demand that the Obama administration enforce Federal law rather than unjustly criticize a U.S. State for daring to enforce a law which the Federal government has been overtly failing to enforce.

I know that as a Democrat you will not do these things since your record clearly shows that you put party above principle and that the concerns of leftist special interests are more important to you than the concerns of the Commonwealth of Virginia. If I am wrong in this assumption, please prove it by publically stating your own disgust at the way the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress reacted to such a brutal display of anti-Americanism from President Calderon.

Personally, I do not believe that you possess the courage or integrity to do any of these things and if you did anything at all, it would be mere lip-service and ultimately inconsequential. You haven’t shown any courage in the past when it comes to standing up to the wrong-doings of your own party and it doesn’t look like you will in the near future. I do not even believe that you will directly address any of the points I made in this letter in your response to me, that is, if you even respond at all.

Also, I know that the major talking point of the Democrats is to say that “the Republicans did it.” This is a cop-out. The Democrats are in power now and, after applauding the hypocrite Calderon, own this issue completely.

2012 is little more than two years away and we are watching you. We are taking note of every time you do something to insult our intelligence, humiliate the Commonwealth or put party above the concerns and wishes of the people of Virginia.

Letter to Warner:

Mr. Warner,

I am writing this letter to express my extreme disappointment, not to mention disgust, in the way you and your fellow Democrats applauded Mexican President Felipe Calderon as he hypocritically criticized a sovereign U.S. State, namely Arizona, for enacting a law meant to protect its citizens from a known threat. This display of anti-Americanism is not only inappropriate coming from a foreign leader addressing the National Legislature, but to have watched elected officials of the United States Congress applaud such hypocrisy was completely insulting.

A little background is in order here. As you know, Attorney General Eric Holder admitted before a Senate committee that he had not read the Arizona law before he offered criticism of it. He further admitted that he only knew what he heard on TV news shows or read in newspapers. Well, we know that the major networks and major newspapers are more for pushing agendas than they are for reporting real news, thus it is easy to understand why Mr. Holder was so far off base in making his unfounded charges. Had Mr. Holder (and the various Democrat members of Congress, including yourself) done due diligence, he would have discovered that the Arizona law simply mirrors Federal law. According to Michael A. Zuckerman, a lawyer writing for CBS, “tucked away in Title 8 of the U.S. Code is a provision that expressly authorizes federal immigration officers, without a warrant, ‘to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States.’ (See 8 U.S.C. 1357). This is eerily similar to the Arizona law.”

Enforcement of U.S. immigration law is among the most lenient in the Americas. It is certainly more lenient than the immigration law enforcement in Mexico, and U.S. law enforcement officials are much more humane in the execution of their duties than are their Mexican counter-parts.

For example: Amnesty International released a report on Mexico’s treatment of illegal aliens coming through its own southern border. Rupert Knox, Amnesty’s Mexico Researcher reported: “Migrants in Mexico are facing a major human rights crisis leaving them with virtually no access to justice, fearing reprisals and deportation if they complain of abuses. Persistent failure by the authorities to tackle abuses carried out against irregular migrants has made their journey through Mexico one of the most dangerous in the world.”

These abuses include kidnapping for ransom, robbery and rape. Mexico’s National Human Rights Commission reported in 2009 that nearly 10,000 were abducted over a six month period. Half of those victims indicated that public officials were involved in their kidnapping. Estimates are that six out of 10 migrant women and girls experience sexual violence at the hands of Mexican authorities.

And yet, the man who oversees all of this saw fit to criticize United States immigration policy in front of a joint session of Congress? How bewildering is that? Even more bewildering is that you and your fellow Democrats gave this man approval of his hypocrisy by applauding him!

I cannot think of anything more offensive or disgusting in regards to illegal immigration. I also cannot think of any reason why you Democrats would assume that average Americans like me wouldn’t see through the sham and not feel that our intelligence is being insulted.

Why do you roll over like a submissive puppy when a foreign leader who has no integrity on the issue of illegal immigration maliciously insults the United States and you simply go along with your fellow Democrats because it somehow suits you to see the United States so wrongfully and viciously maligned?

Why have you not called out your fellow Democrats and demanded to know why they rendered such honors to a man who oversees one of the worst human rights abuses in the Western Hemisphere while criticizing a much more humane and lenient U.S. system?

Why have you not called out Attorney General Eric Holder for offering unjustified criticism on a bill that he hadn’t even read and which only mirrors Federal law which he, as “top cop,” is obligated to uphold?

Why have you not demanded that the Obama administration enforce Federal law rather than unjustly criticize a U.S. State for daring to enforce a law which the Federal government has been overtly failing to enforce?

I know that as a Democrat you will not do these things since your record clearly shows that you put party above principle and that the concerns of leftist special interests are more important to you than the concerns of the Commonwealth of Virginia. If I am wrong in this assumption, please prove it by publically stating your own disgust at the way the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress reacted to such a brutal display of anti-Americanism from President Calderon.

Personally, I do not believe that you possess the courage or integrity to do any of these things and if you did anything at all, it would be mere lip-service and ultimately inconsequential. You haven’t shown any courage in the past when it comes to standing up to the wrong-doings of your own party and it doesn’t look like you will in the near future. I do not even believe that you will directly address any of the questions I ask in this letter in your response to me, that is, if you even respond at all.

Also, I know that the major talking point of the Democrats is to say that “the Republicans did it.” This is a cop-out. The Democrats are in power now and, after applauding the hypocrite Calderon, own this issue completely.

2014 is not far away and we are watching you. We are taking note of every time you do something to insult our intelligence, humiliate the Commonwealth or put party above the concerns and wishes of the people of Virginia.

I’m not holding my breath for any kind of meaningful response from either one of these cowards.

Hypocrisy From The Dems Over Presidential Heckler. Surprised?

I recall during the 2005 State of the Union Address, President Bush was booed by the Democrats. I also recall during the Presidential Inauguration this past January how Democrats in the audience were chanting “Na-na-na-na. Na-na-na-na. Hey! Hey! Goodbye!” in a very derisive manner towards President Bush.

Flashback: Democrats Boo Bush At 2005 State Of The Union
Real Clear Politics
Spetember 10, 2009

So, why are these same people so indignant about what Rep. Joe Wilson said last night during Obama’s pitch for socialized medicine?

President Barack Obama’s address to Congress this evening was moving along fairly smoothly until he pledged that there was nothing in the legislation that would provide health care to the millions of illegal immigrants residing in the nation.

A cry of “You lie!” was audible from the Republican side of the aisle. That heckler was South Carolina Republican Rep. Joe Wilson. (Watch the video HERE.)

“It’s not true,” the president responded to the outburst, while House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, seated behind the president, offered her mother-of-five glare towards the Republican side of the chamber. First Lady Michelle Obama was seen shaking her head from side to side.

Then truth is that if you walk into any hospital emergency room here in the U.S. there is a big sign that says you cannot be turned away for any reason. Most illegal immigrants here in the U.S. are using our emergency rooms as their family doctors’ offices. There is nothing in any of the socialized medicine bills floating around Congress that changes this.

I don’t think Rep. Wilson should have made any kind of apology until the Democrats clean their own house and offer apologies for all the insults they have been sending towards President Bush and towards Americans in general (i.e. calling us “Nazis,” “un-American,” etc.).

You can access the complete article on-line here:

GOP Rep. Joe Wilson: Presidential Heckler
Wall Street Journal
September 9, 2009

Doctors Boo Obama

Obama’s trek towards socialized medicine got off to a rocky start with his speech to the American Medical Association in Chicago last Monday. Part of the reason was that he refused to endorse limiting the payouts of medical malpractice lawsuits.

From Richard Alonso-Zaldivar of the Associated Press:

For all the young president’s popularity, the response he got Monday from doctors at an American Medical Association meeting was a sign his road is only going to get rockier as he tries to sell his plan to overhaul the nation’s health care system.

The boos erupted when Obama told the doctors in Chicago he wouldn’t try to help them win their top legislative priority—limits on jury damages in medical malpractice cases.

Why would Obama go to an AMA conference and say something that he knew would draw the ire of the crowd?

Read on:

If Obama announced support for malpractice limits, that would set trial lawyers and unions—major supporters of Democratic candidates—on the attack. Not to mention consumer groups.

Every other group in the health care debate has a wish list and a top priority. Insurers don’t want competition from the government. Employers don’t want to be told they have to offer medical coverage to their workers. Hospitals want to stave off Medicare cuts. Drug companies want to charge what the market will bear.

Obama can’t give all of them what they want. Instead, he’s got to figure what’s just enough to keep as many groups as possible on board—without alienating others. It’s a fine line for him—and sometimes for them.

Obama and the Democrats can no longer hide the fact that socialized medicine is going to be expensive (about $62,500 per person per year, including illegals) and that people are going to get screwed by the new socialized system.

But, the Dems still say they want to reform the system because the current system is too expensive. Where is that expense coming from?

The article actually hit on it here:

Doctors have special reasons to be wary of the president’s plans to overhaul the health care system.

Not long ago, doctors’ decisions were rarely questioned. Now they are being blamed for a big part of the wasteful spending in the nation’s $2.5 trillion health care system. Studies have shown that as much as 30 cents of the U.S. health care dollar may be going for tests and procedures that are of little or no value to patients.

A very large perecentage of the tests and procedures that have “little or no value” to the patient are requested by the doctors to make sure they didn’t miss anything that they could be sued for. In other words, it is not the patients or the insurance companies driving doctors to request these test, it is the medical malpractice suits that Obama refuses to address that are the driving force behind them.

Obama also tried to say that he is not endorsing a socialized medical system. Either he is lying or he is incredibly ignorant. There are people from Canada and Great Britain who know very well what a socialized medical system is and they see Obama trying to build exactly that.

Here is something to show that Obama really is pushing government run health care:

Since doctors are the ones responsible for ordering tests and procedures, health care costs cannot be brought under control unless they change their decision-making habits.

Obama assured the doctors that his plan would provide them with objective information on what treatments work best, with new computerized tools to better manage their patient case loads, and with support for harried solo practitioners to form networks.

And how would those “decision making habits”change? Through government edict.

Although Obama avoided the term “socialized medicine” he was unable to avoid the desciption of it in his own plan.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Analysis: Doctors’ Boos Show Obama’s Tough Road
Richard Alonso-Zaldivar
Associated Press via Breitbart
June 15, 2009

Fact-Checking Obama’s Speech: His Words Ring Hollow

A look at a few of Obama’s statements from his speech last night. Clearly, as he did with his comments on the deficit, he is trying to lay blame at someone else’s feet if the economy gets worse, which under his policies, it most certainly will.

Here they are:

OBAMA: “We have launched a housing plan that will help responsible families facing the threat of foreclosure lower their monthly payments and refinance their mortgages. It’s a plan that won’t help speculators or that neighbor down the street who bought a house he could never hope to afford, but it will help millions of Americans who are struggling with declining home values.”

THE FACTS: If the administration has come up with a way to ensure money only goes to those who got in honest trouble, it hasn’t said so.

Defending the program Tuesday at a Senate hearing, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said it’s important to save those who made bad calls, for the greater good. He likened it to calling the fire department to put out a blaze caused by someone smoking in bed.

“I think the smart way to deal with a situation like that is to put out the fire, save him from his own consequences of his own action but then, going forward, enact penalties and set tougher rules about smoking in bed.”

Similarly, the head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. suggested this month it’s not likely aid will be denied to all homeowners who overstated their income or assets to get a mortgage they couldn’t afford.

“I think it’s just simply impractical to try to do a forensic analysis of each and every one of these delinquent loans,” Sheila Bair told National Public Radio.

In other words, you and I will be working to pay off mortgages for people like Peggy The Moocher.

OBAMA: “And I believe the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it.”

THE FACTS: Depends what your definition of automobiles, is. According to the Library of Congress, the inventor of the first true automobile was probably Germany’s Karl Benz, who created the first auto powered by an internal combustion gasoline engine, in 1885 or 1886. In the U.S., Charles Duryea tested what library researchers called the first successful gas-powered car in 1893. Nobody disputes that Henry Ford created the first assembly line that made cars affordable.

It’s hard to believe that any Ivy League institution would be proud of an alumnus who can’t get the facts of history straight.

OBAMA: “We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy. Yet we import more oil today than ever before.”

THE FACTS: Oil imports peaked in 2005 at just over 5 billion barrels, and have been declining slightly since. The figure in 2007 was 4.9 billion barrels, or about 58 percent of total consumption. The nation is on pace this year to import 4.7 billion barrels, and government projections are for imports to hold steady or decrease a bit over the next two decades.

Again, scare tactics from the One who wanted to give us “hope and change.” What he is basically saying here is that he wants us all to pony up more money for unproven technologies and make his environmentalist friends and lobbyists rich in the process.

OBAMA: “We have already identified $2 trillion in savings over the next decade.”

THE FACTS: Although 10-year projections are common in government, they don’t mean much. And at times, they are a way for a president to pass on the most painful steps to his successor, by putting off big tax increases or spending cuts until someone else is in the White House.

Obama only has a real say on spending during the four years of his term. He may not be president after that and he certainly won’t be 10 years from now.

And don’t forget that the price tag of the porkulus package is over $1.3 trillion. If Obama’s above statement were true, then there is no deficit right now and our children and grandchildren won’t have to work to pay off our debt. I don’t know of a single reputable economist who would agree with that. Certainly, the Congressional Budget Office does not agree with that assessment since they are predicting that our economy will shrink as a result of the porkulus/spendulus bill.

OBAMA: “Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market. People bought homes they knew they couldn’t afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway. And all the while, critical debates and difficult decisions were put off for some other time on some other day.”

THE FACTS: This may be so, but it isn’t only Republicans who pushed for deregulation of the financial industries. The Clinton administration championed an easing of banking regulations, including legislation that ended the barrier between regular banks and Wall Street banks. That led to a deregulation that kept regular banks under tight federal regulation but extended lax regulation of Wall Street banks. Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, later an economic adviser to candidate Obama, was in the forefront in pushing for this deregulation.

And here you have probably the most glaring example of Obama trying to pass the buck. I can tell you one set of regulations that wasn’t gutted: those regulations in the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act that forced banks to make bad loans to risky home buyers and ultimately resulted in the credit crisis we are in today. Obama actually tells a bold-faced lie here by making it seem like lenders did this voluntarily. Sorry, but it was the 1977 CRA (passed and signed into law by Democrats) that is to blame, not the Republicans.

OBAMA: “In this budget, we will end education programs that don’t work and end direct payments to large agribusinesses that don’t need them. We’ll eliminate the no-bid contracts that have wasted billions in Iraq, and reform our defense budget so that we’re not paying for Cold War-era weapons systems we don’t use. We will root out the waste, fraud and abuse in our Medicare program that doesn’t make our seniors any healthier, and we will restore a sense of fairness and balance to our tax code by finally ending the tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas.”

THE FACTS: First, his budget does not accomplish any of that. It only proposes those steps. That’s all a president can do, because control over spending rests with Congress. Obama’s proposals here are a wish list and some items, including corporate tax increases and cuts in agricultural aid, will be a tough sale in Congress.

Second, waste, fraud and abuse are routinely targeted by presidents who later find that the savings realized seldom amount to significant sums. Programs that a president might consider wasteful have staunch defenders in Congress who have fought off similar efforts in the past.

This also shows Obama’s ignorance on economic matters. Companies do not outsource jobs because the American tax system gives them a break, they outsource them because the tax system already makes it more expensive to hire American than it does to ship the jobs offshore. If our corporate tax code were not so suffocating, fewer jobs would get shipped overseas. Obama’s plans will ensure that more jobs go outside of the United States.

OBAMA: “Thanks to our recovery plan, we will double this nation’s supply of renewable energy in the next three years.”

THE FACTS: While the president’s stimulus package includes billions in aid for renewable energy and conservation, his goal is unlikely to be achieved through the recovery plan alone.

In 2007, the U.S. produced 8.4 percent of its electricity from renewable sources, including hydroelectric dams, solar panels and windmills. Under the status quo, the Energy Department says, it will take more than two decades to boost that figure to 12.5 percent.

And it will cost more to implement and continue to run these energy production facilities than it costs to use the proven technologies we already have. Plus, you have hypocrits like Ted Kennedy opposing windmills near their vacation homes because it somehow disrupts their view.

OBAMA: “Over the next two years, this plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs.”

THE FACTS: This is a recurrent Obama formulation. But job creation projections are uncertain even in stable times, and some of the economists relied on by Obama in making his forecast acknowledge a great deal of uncertainty in their numbers.

The president’s own economists, in a report prepared last month, stated, “It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error.”

It also means they will have wiggle room to blame others when their own policies come up severely short.

Obama’s entire speech was nothing more than window dressing. He and the Democrats are looking for a pipe dream that simply will not come true. Government cannot magically create jobs and energy sources have these nagging little things like the laws of physics to contend with. Further, taxpayers will not appreciate having to bail out people like Peggy the Moocher and other malcontents waiting for a welfare handout while the rest of us actually get off of our rears and at least try to do work.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

FACT CHECK: Obama’s Words On Home Aid Ring Hollow
Calvin Woodward and Jim Kuhnhenn (Tom Raum, Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and Dina Cappiello also contributed)
Associated press via TownHall.com
February 25, 2009

Video: Sarah Palin Addresses The Republican Governor’s

Sarah Palin, despite the insults and personal attacks thrown at her by those who are afflicted with Palin Derangement Syndrome or the insults hurled by those who can’t accept a strong, independent woman in politics, still gives one hell of a speech.

She addressed the Republican Governor’s Association recently and gave her remarks on the current political landscape and where we should go from here.

Regardless of your opinion of her, she is going to be around on the American political scene for a very long time. Here is what she had to say:

According to Town Hall:

Sarah Palin called on fellow Republican governors to keep the new president and his strengthened Democratic majority in check on issues from taxes to health care as she signaled she’ll take a leadership role in a party searching for a new standard-bearer.

Palin noted that Congress is led by the likes of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Rep. Barney Frank, and said it was incumbent upon GOP governors to ensure that the federal government doesn’t take over the health care system. She said if Obama and the new Congress “err on the side of excess taxes, we have to show them the way.”

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Palin Urges GOP Governors To Keep Democrats Honest
Brendan Farrington
TownHall.com
November 13, 2008

What Would Reagan Say? Let Them Go Their Own Way!

Some kind soul unearthed this speech given by Ronald Reagan at the Conservative Political Action Convention on March 1, 1975. It still applies today.

The future President said:

Since our last meeting we have been through a disastrous election. It is easy for us to be discouraged, as pundits hail that election as a repudiation of our philosophy and even as a mandate of some kind or other. But the significance of the election was not registered by those who voted, but by those who stayed home. If there was anything like a mandate it will be found among almost two-thirds of the citizens who refused to participate.

Bitter as it is to accept the results of the November election, we should have reason for some optimism. For many years now we have preached “the gospel,” in opposition to the philosophy of so-called liberalism which was, in truth, a call to collectivism.

Now, it is possible we have been persuasive to a greater degree than we had ever realized. Few, if any, Democratic party candidates in the last election ran as liberals. Listening to them I had the eerie feeling we were hearing reruns of Goldwater speeches. I even thought I heard a few of my own.

Bureaucracy was assailed and fiscal responsibility hailed. Even George McGovern donned sackcloth and ashes and did penance for the good people of South Dakota.

But let’s not be so naive as to think we are witnessing a mass conversion to the principles of conservatism. Once sworn into office, the victors reverted to type. In their view, apparently, the ends justified the means.

The “Young Turks” had campaigned against “evil politicians.” They turned against committee chairmen of their own party, displaying a taste and talent as cutthroat power politicians quite in contrast to their campaign rhetoric and idealism. Still, we must not forget that they molded their campaigning to fit what even they recognized was the mood of the majority. And we must see to it that the people are reminded of this as they now pursue their ideological goals — and pursue them they will.

I know you are aware of the national polls which show that a greater (and increasing) number of Americans — Republicans, Democrats and independents — classify themselves as “conservatives” than ever before. And a poll of rank-and-file union members reveals dissatisfaction with the amount of power their own leaders have assumed, and a resentment of their use of that power for partisan politics. Would it shock you to know that in that poll 68 percent of rank-and-file union members of this country came out endorsing right-to-work legislation?

These polls give cause for some optimism, but at the same time reveal a confusion that exists and the need for a continued effort to “spread the word.”

That is what we need to do. The incoming Obama Administration and the Democrat-controlled Congress are most certainly going to trip up on their own promises and agendas. When (not if but when) that happens, we need to be ready with our message, a message that go right back to our Conservative roots.

More:

Americans are hungry to feel once again a sense of mission and greatness.

I don ‘t know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, “We must broaden the base of our party” — when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.

It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient difference now between the parties that kept a majority of the voters away from the polls. When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has ever been barred from participating?

Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?

Let us show that we stand for fiscal integrity and sound money and above all for an end to deficit spending, with ultimate retirement of the national debt.

Let us also include a permanent limit on the percentage of the people’s earnings government can take without their consent.

Let our banner proclaim a genuine tax reform that will begin by simplifying the income tax so that workers can compute their obligation without having to employ legal help.

And let it provide indexing — adjusting the brackets to the cost of living — so that an increase in salary merely to keep pace with inflation does not move the taxpayer into a surtax bracket. Failure to provide this means an increase in government’s share and would make the worker worse off than he was before he got the raise.

Let our banner proclaim our belief in a free market as the greatest provider for the people. Let us also call for an end to the nit-picking, the harassment and over-regulation of business and industry which restricts expansion and our ability to compete in world markets.

Let us explore ways to ward off socialism, not by increasing government’s coercive power, but by increasing participation by the people in the ownership of our industrial machine.

Our banner must recognize the responsibility of government to protect the law-abiding, holding those who commit misdeeds personally accountable.

And we must make it plain to international adventurers that our love of peace stops short of “peace at any price.”

We will maintain whatever level of strength is necessary to preserve our free way of life.

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.

President Reagan had it exactly right back in 1975. His words are still relevant to us today.

You can access the complete speech on-line here:

Let Them Go Their Own Way
Ronald Reagan
CPAC
March 1, 1975