Tag Archives: Obama

1 Comment

I read an article today that makes a few political predictions that I found interesting and makes a commitment to rethink her political views if the predictions are wrong.

The author's predictions:

So, here are my foreign policy predictions:

At the end of Obama's first four-year term:

1. The US will still have an active military presence in Iraq.
2. The US will have attacked at least one more country that poses no direct threat to us. (I'm not even going to count his early air strikes on Pakistan.)
3. Military spending will have increased.
4. US citizens will be no safer from terrorist attacks. I say this because I believe the (sadly all-too-accurate) perception of the US as an imperialist warmongering nation will persist. I realize this one is open to interpretation. I would just ask you to honestly ask yourselves at the end of these four years whether this is the case.

[...]

What I do predict is the following. By the end of Obama's first term in office:

1. More than 1% of US adults will still be in prison. This number will very likely be even higher than it is today, and the black and Hispanic portion of that population will not have decreased by any significant amount.
2. We will still suffer from the kind of police abuse that is becoming more and more common: military-style raids on unarmed civilians in their homes; the shooting and tasering of unarmed citizens; and police and judicial corruption leading to the jailing of many more innocent people than can be acceptable under any system. The militarization and aggressive behavior of police forces will probably become worse before they get any better. This is another one that is somewhat open to interpretation. I would ask you to rely on your own honest judgement regarding whether you believe things have really changed in this area.
3. "No-Fly" lists will still be in place, and there may even be more restrictions on travel.
4. There will be more restrictions on gun ownership and the right to self-defense.
5. The police tactics and suppression of dissent at the 2012 RNC and DNC conventions will be just as brutal as they were in 2008.
6. Government surveillance of US citizens will continue (remember that bill Obama voted for that gave immunity to the telecoms companies that assisted with this in the past?),

[...]

My prediction: By the end of Obama's first four years in office, the US economy will be in much, much worse shape than it is now. Specifically:

1. The US will have massive inflation. The dollar will lose at least 50% of its value against most goods and services, and certainly against the goods and services most people use every day. This is a very conservative estimate. It will probably be much worse.
2. Unemployment in the US will be worse than it is now. It will be at least in the double digits.

 

I'm going to post the article in its entirety in June of 2012 and look at the predictions and see how they play out (assuming that the inflation thing doesn't rule out my blogging.)  (first unplanned difficulty...wordpress won't let me publish that far ahead...so I'm setting it to publish in Decempber of this year and will edit the date stamp accordingly.)

My (sometimes) weekly collection of interesting links, along with a few sprinkled thoughts...

~~~

Lesbian students sue a Christian school for expelling them for breaking the rules.

We know that persecution is on the way...the more we cling to orthodoxy, to historical values and truths...the closer it gets.

~~~

WTF?

Think that the use of WTF? is offensive?  So is the murder of unborn children.

~~~

"Stimulas Proposal Facts"

Remember...change is good...

hope...change...hope...change...pork...pork...pork...

(From the Heritage Foundation:  If Government Spending solved recessions, we would never have recessions.)

~~~

nuff said.

~~~

President Obama's pick for Treasury Secretary?  Owes the IRS.

hope...change...hope...change...

~~~

No...it's not what it looks like...

~~~

How long did it take?

It's not as if it surprises me.

~~~

A quote by an early women's movement leader:

“We have made a fetish of the Bible long enough. The time has come to read it as we do all other books, accepting the good and rejecting the evil it teaches.” --Elisabeth Cady Stanton

~~~

more later (on lunes)

Yippee.  Just as the "big three" are gasping their last breathes, our wonderful legislature is talking about raising gasoline taxes and 50% hikes in vehicle registration.

And Obama tags our faithful (Democrat) governor to be on his economic advisory team.

Okay..."Which state has the worst economy in the country?

Highest unemployment rate?  check.

Highest forclosure?  check."

Let's pick THAT governor...yeah...we want HER to explain to fix the economy."

Business are leaving the state?  Let's raise business taxes!

11% unemployment?  Let's raise gasoline taxes!

Massive looming layoffs?  Let's raise vehicle registration!

Yes...kick us when we're down.

2 Comments

Finance fraud:

It turns out that half of Obama’s haul in 2008 has come in contributions of $200 dollars or less. These small donations do not require public disclosure under FEC guidelines, and the Obama campaign refuses to make public its list of contributors.

It turns out that half of Obama’s haul in 2008 has come in contributions of $200 dollars or less. These small donations do not require public disclosure under FEC guidelines, and the Obama campaign refuses to make public its list of contributors.

~~~~~

From PowerLine

I've read recent reports of the Obama campaign receiving donations from dubious names and foreign locales and it got me wondering: How is this possible?

I run a small Internet business and when I process credit cards I'm required to make sure the name on the card exactly matches the name of the customer making the purchase. Also, the purchaser's address must match that of the cardholders. If these don't match, then the payment isn't approved. Period. So how is it possible that the Obama campaign could receive donations from fictional people and places? Well, I decided to do a little experiment. I went to the Obama campaign website and entered the following:

Name: John Galt
Address: 1957 Ayn Rand Lane
City: Galts Gulch
State: CO
Zip: 99999

Then I checked the box next to $15 and entered my actual credit card number and expiration date (it didn't ask for the 3-didgit code on the back of the card) and it took me to the next page and... "Your donation has been processed. Thank you for your generous gift."

This simply should not, and could not, happen in any business or any campaign that is honestly trying to vet it's donors. Also, I don't see how this could possibly happen without the collusion of the credit card companies. They simply wouldn't allow any business to process, potentially, hundreds of millions in credit card transactions where the name on the card doesn't match the purchasers name.

In short, with the system set up as it is by the Obama camp, an individual could donate unlimited amounts of money by simply making up fake names and addresses. And Obama is doing his best to facilitate this fraud. This is truly scandalous.

Our reader was not yet done. He tried the experiment on the McCain site: "I tried the exact same thing at the McCain site and it didn't allow the transaction." He then repeated the experiment at the Obama site:

I went back to the Obama site and made three additional donations using the names Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Bill Ayers, all with different addresses. All the transactions went through using the same credit card. I saved screenshots of the transactions.

~~~~~

From the NextRight

I just contributed $5 to Barack Obama.

I didn't want to. Ideally, I could have contributed $0.01 and cost them money. But it was the only way to confirm the root cause of the fraudulent micro-donations to the Obama campaign ("Doodad Pro" for $17,300 and "Good Will" for $11,000).

The Obama campaign has turned its security settings for accepting online contributions down to the bare minimum -- possibly to juice the numbers, and turning a blind eye towards the potential for fraud not just against the FEC, but against unsuspecting victims of credit card fraud.

The issue centers around the Address Verification Service (or AVS) that credit card processors use to sniff out phony transactions. I was able to contribute money using an address other than the one on file with my bank account (I used an address I control, just not the one on my account), showing that the Obama campaign deliberately disabled AVS for its online donors.

~~~~

DISCLAIMER:  I'VE SEEN A NUMBER OF THESE "EXPERIMENTS" SO I'M HESITANT TO SAY THAT THEY'RE ALL AUTHENTIC.  AT THE SAME TIME I HAVE NO DESIRE TO DONATE TO OBAMA'S CAMPAIGN TO PROVE THEM RIGHT.

Obama on FOCA"The Bad Old Days of Abortion"

What did pre-legalization abortions look like in practice? There were physicians who ran abortion mills, physicians who did selected abortions on their own patients, physicians who worked patients in through loopholes in the law. In addition to physician abortionists, there were the professional non-physicians, often operating with training, equipment, medications, and back-up provided by physicians. Here are more representative stories of pre-legalization abortions:

~~~

Who performed abortions before they were legal?

(hint:  doctors)

~~~

The bombing of abortion clinics

The last murder of an abortion clinic worker was 10 years ago Thursday.

~~~

~~~

What is FOCA?

A government may not

(1) deny or interfere with a woman’s right to choose –

(A) to bear a child;
(B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or
(C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or

(2) discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.

Section 6 adds:

This Act applies to every Federal, State, and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act.

The section highlighted above in bold italics means that FOCA, if passed, will accomplish two things:

  1. it would invalidate all current and future statutes, ordinances, regulations, administrative orders, decisions, policies, or practices--at any level of government--that regulate or restrict abortion in any way;
  2. it would mandate taxpayer funds to be used at the state and federal level for abortion services (not to do so would discriminate against the "rights" of abortion set forth in the bill).

The National Organization of Women says that FOCA "would sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws, policies." Planned Parenthood says FOCA "would invalidate existing and future laws that interfere with or discriminate against the exercise of the rights protected."

What are some of these state laws? The Family Research Council has complied the following list:

  • All 50 states have abortion reporting requirements
  • 46 states have conscience-protection laws for individual health-care providers
  • 44 states have laws about parental notification
  • 40 states have laws restricting late-term abortions
  • 38 states have bans on partial-birth abortions
  • 33 states have laws requiring counseling before an abortion
  • 16 states have laws about having ultrasounds before an abortion

From Between Two Worlds

~~~

Heart, Mind, Soul and Strength

Do you know what you get if you run a DNA test on an embryo, a fetus, and a baby? Human, I expect, and I would be very shocked to hear anyone even try to maintain otherwise. Too easy to take samples to labs and have the matter settled once and for all. I mean, you could hardly screen for Down Syndrome in utero if you didn't know where in the human DNA sequence to look for the genetic problem, could you? In the case of a human pregnancy, "embryo" is an early stage in human development. "Fetus" is a later stage in human development. "Baby" is, in Abortion Rights terms, a still later stage in human development. What cannot be so easily escaped at this point is that we are talking about an early stage in human development: the developing human being is not fully developed but is fully human. The Abortion Rights supporters have long confused the two issues, equating "human" with a certain developmental stage. This is the ground on which they are, factually, simply wrong. We have some options in bringing this to light. We could factually call that which is aborted:

  • human life in the early stages of development
  • the embryonic (or fetal) stage of human development
  • developing humans at the embryonic (or fetal) stage.

~~~

From Slice of Laodicia

Note: At 4:48pm central, a call was made to the Clarion Hotel in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. The clerk was asked to confirm whether a discount was offered to patients at the Cherry Hill Women’s Center (abortion clinic). The female clerk answered, “Yes. The rate would be $59 dollars a night instead of $109.” The caller than said: “Let me get this straight, if I KILL my baby, I get a discount from your hotel. If I KEEP my baby, I don’t.”

The clerk answered, “Yes.”

Wow. Just wow.

~~~

On the "Born Alive" act

Obama's case against the bill did not revolve around existing state law, as he seemed to suggest last night. The law Obama referred to in the debate was the Illinois abortion statute enacted in 1975. But at the time of the debate about the Born Alive Act, the Illinois Attorney General had publicly stated that he could not prosecute incidents such as those reported by nurses at Christ Hospital in Chicago and elsewhere (including a baby left to die in a soiled linen closet) because the 1975 law was inadequate. It only protected ''viable'' infants-and left the determination of viability up to the ''medical judgment'' of the abortionist who had just failed to kill the baby in the womb. This provision of the law weakened the hand of prosecutors to the vanishing point. That is why the Born Alive Act was necessary-and everybody knew it. Moreover, the Born Alive Act would have had the effect of at least ensuring comfort care to babies whose prospects for long-term survival were dim and who might therefore have been regarded as ''nonviable.'' As Obama and the other legislators knew, without the Born Alive Act these babies could continue to be treated as hospital refuse. That's how the dying baby that Nurse Jill Stanek found in the soiled linen closet got there.

This is the bill that Obama voted against even allowing the bill to leave committee and be voted on by the full Senate and voted "present" when it was voted on.

~~~

How many late term abortions are elective?

In the middle of 1998, the state of Kansas instituted a mandatory reporting policy that required Tiller to submit information about the abortions that he performs.  The Kansas Department of Health and Environmental Statistics has recently published this information: http://www.kdhe.state.ks.us/hci/absumm.html.

The information sends a clear message: the majority of late-term abortions are purely elective.  They typically involve healthy babies and healthy mothers.  If you are inclined to disagree, or if you have a hard time believing that mainstream abortion practitioners would be willing to kill babies that are months from being born, then I ask that you continue reading.  You will be amazed—and hopefully outraged—when you see the data for yourself.

~~~

What happens when the people paying most of the taxes are not paying enough to cover the direct tax credits that are promised to the people who even now are paying little or nothing?

What will happen when the 40% of the people who pay 95% of income taxes can no longer pay for the checks that the feds (under Obama) will be sending those of the 40% of the people who currently pay ZERO taxes, who will be getting the direct tax credits (not deductions) under Obama's plan?

What will happen when the 5% who pay 60% of the taxes cannot cover Obama's new spending?