IS GM REALLY ALIVE?

The Democrats, and espceially VP Joe Biden, made the claim that "...and GM is Alive". Is that true?

Well it depends on what alive means. Consider this article, The Democrats' GM Fiction, as published in the NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE. George W Bush started the TARP bailout, but...

President Obama’s unique contribution was effectively to nationalize the company, seeing to it that the federal government violated normal bankruptcy processes and legal precedent to protect the defective element at the heart of GM’s troubles: the financial interests of the UAW. It did this by strong-arming GM’s bondholders into taking haircuts in order to sweeten the pot for the UAW. The Obama administration also creatively construed tax law to relieve GM of tens of billions of dollars in obligations — at the same time that Barack Obama & Co. were caterwauling about the supposed lack of patriotism of firms that used legal means rather than political favoritism to reduce their tax bills.

This amounts to Corporate Welfare. It creates a dependency on our Government by using taxpayers money.

On the other hand, Mitt Romney proposed this.

Mitt Romney’s proposal for a structured bankruptcy would have necessitated considerable federal involvement, too, but with a key difference: The UAW contracts would have been renegotiated, and GM’s executive suites would have been cleaned out, placing the company on a path toward innovation and self-sufficiency rather than permanent life support. Which is to say, Obama did for GM what he is doing by un-reforming welfare: creating a dependent constituency.

President Obama's bailout of GM has had other consequences.

The Democrats cling to the ridiculous claim that the bailout of GM and its now-Italian competitor, Chrysler, saved 1.5 million U.S. jobs. This preposterous figure is based on the assumption that if GM and Chrysler had gone into normal bankruptcy proceedings, the entire enterprise of automobile manufacturing in the United States would have collapsed — not only at GM and Chrysler but at Ford and foreign transplants such as Toyota and Honda. Not only that, the Democrats’ argument goes, but practically every parts maker, supplier, warehousing agency, and services firm dedicated to the car industry would have collapsed, too. In fact, it is unlikely that even GM or Chrysler would have stopped production during bankruptcy: The assembly lines would have continued rolling, interest and debt payments would have been cut, and — here’s the problem — union contracts would have been renegotiated. Far from having saved 1.5 million jobs, it is not clear that the GM bailout saved any — only that it preserved the UAW’s unsustainable arrangement.

In fact many analysts are prediction that GM will probably go bankrupt shortly after the November Election.

Bill Clinton bizarrely tried to claim that the bailout has been responsible for the addition of 250,000 jobs to the automobile industry since the nadir of the financial crisis. Auto manufacturers and dealerships have indeed added about 236,000 jobs since then, but almost none are at GM, which has added only about 4,500 workers, a number not even close to offsetting the 63,000 workers that its dealerships had to let go when the terms of the bailout unilaterally shut them down.

MORE PROOF WE NEED NATIONAL VOTERS IDS?

One of the most sacred values of the United States of America is the concept of "One Man, One Vote". Voter fraud in any form is not tolerable, but when anyone votes 2 or more times, it disenfranchises all the legitimate voters.

We have seen instances of dead voters, felon voters, non-citizen and non-existant voters still on the voters rolls. In some cases these illegal non-legimate voters have actually voted. Every time this happens it diminishes all the legimate voters.

Consider the latest instance of  voter fraud from the State of Maryland, as reported by the The Baltimore Sun newspaper.

Wendy Rosen, the Democratic challenger to Republican Rep. Andy Harris in the 1st Congressional District, withdrew from the race Monday amid allegations that she voted in elections in both Maryland and Florida in 2006 and 2008.

The article claims:

State Democratic Chairwoman Yvette Lewis said an examination of voting records in Maryland and Florida showed that Rosen participated in the 2006 general election and the 2008 primaries in both states.

Not only is she accused of voting twice, once in each state, but she admitted this fact.

Rosen, 57, a Cockeysville businesswoman and Maryland voter, told The Baltimore Sun that she registered to vote in Florida several years ago in order to support a "very close friend" running for the St. Petersburg City Council and to vote on local issues there.

Is this the reason Democrats are so opposed to Voter Photo ID laws?

WHAT IF IT SAID WHITE?

Photo By JESSICA RINALDI/REUTERS

A convention-goer stands on the convention floor on the first day of the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina, September 4, 2012.

Do you consider this racist?

DEMOCRATS APPEAR TO HAVE A NEW THEME

The latest Democratic Name Calling Theme is apparently references and comparisons to Nazis. S.C. Dem. Chair Compares GOP Gov. to Hitler's Mistress is the latest. The Weekly Standard is quoting South Carolina's Slate

S.C. Democratic Chairman Dick Harpootlian, never a loss for a quick quip, tossed a few stinging one-liners at the Wednesday delegation breakfast.
On Gov. Nikki Haley participating in daily news briefings in a basement studio at the NASCAR Hall of Fame: “She was down in the bunker a la Eva Braun.”
[Emphasis in Article]

The Weekly Standard adds.

The comparisons of Nazis and Hitler to the Republicans seems to be an emerging theme from this Democratic convention. Yesterday, a top Democratic delegate from Kansas compared Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan to Hitler. The day before, a Democratic delegate from California compared Ryan to Nazi Joseph Goebbels.
 

MICHELL OBAMA NOT QUITE FACTUAL

Fact Check: First Lady's False Fairy Tale of Struggle shows Michell Obama gave a very good speech, but bent the truth somewhat.

Both Michelle Robinson and Barack Obama began their adult lives with a leg up on the rest of America. They attended elite schools: Michelle went to Whitney Young, the public magnet school for Chicago’s upper class, while Barack attended Punahou, the private prep school for the top stratum of Hawaiian society. They were accepted to Ivy League schools despite undistinguished credentials, and both attended Harvard Law School.
 

It may be true as Michell claimed that "... our combined monthly student loan bills were actually higher than our mortgage...” but also consider this. The had very good paying jobs and...

They had expensive tastes, reflected in the $277,500 two-bedroom condo they bought in 1993--a high price even by today’s standards. Several years later, they moved into their $1.65 million mansion in Hyde Park--with the help of fraudster Tony Rezko. Barack often told a story of hardship on the campaign trail in 2008 about having his credit card declined--once. The fact that he thought this counted as real hardship speaks volumes.
 

In fact their combined income increased when Barack Obama was elected to the US Senate.

As her husband moved onto the national political stage, Michelle Obama began to enjoy a lavish lifestyle at taxpayer expense, directly and indirectly. When Barack Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate, he obtained a $1 million earmark for the University of Chicago Hospital--and his wife’s salary as Vice President for Community Affairs jumped from $121,910 to $316,962. Her job: pushing poor, uninsured patients to other hospitals.
 

The Obama's, Liberals and Democrats have claimed that Mitt Romney is a Rich Guy, But so are the Obama's.

If, as the Democrats eagerly pointing out, Mitt Romney enjoyed the privilege of private wealth, the Obamas have enjoyed privilege funded by public money and public life. And until entering the national spotlight, they gave little to charity, contributing instead to a church that preached racial grievance. “[T]ruth matters,” Michelle Obama told the nation last night. That, too, is a lie--because so far, she has evaded it without consequence.
 

I don't believe there is anything wrong with being Wealthy and Living Comfortably. It is after all the American Dream to become Suscessful. Just be honest about your past, present and future.

DNC DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, DNC CHAIR/CONGRESSWOMAN CAUGHT

Flordia Congresswoman and Chairman of he Democratic National Committee,Debbie Wasserman Schultz, claims she did not say what she said. DNC chair: That awful conservative newspaper misquoted me by, er, accurately writing what I said

The Washington Examiner earlier reported that Wasserman Schultz had quoted Israel’s ambassador to the US, Michael Oren, as saying “ that what the Republicans are doing is dangerous for Israel.” Ambassador Oren released a statement yesterday evening categorically denying he’d said any such thing. Wasserman Shultz claimed in an interview on Fox shortly afterward that some conservative newspaper had “deliberately” misquoted her, and that she had never said any such thing.[Note: Video Included]
 

Actually this quote shows she did say "any such thing".

We know — and I’ve heard no less than Ambassador Michael Oren say this — that what the Republicans are doing is dangerous for Israel. They’re undermining Israel’s security by suggesting that the United States and Israel don’t have anything other than a unique and close and special relationship [Note: Video Included].
 

Since this is the Chair of the DNC, I will let you draw your own conclusions about the Truth.

 

 

BY THE NUMBERS 4.5M=300K OBAMA JOBS

On the Democratic Campaign Trail and at the Democratic National Convention there is a lot of highlighting of the 4,500,000 jobs created during the Obama Administration. An article at CNN.com has revealed that the 4.5M jobs number is correct, BUT only for a part of the Obama Presidency.

The Key Note Speaker, San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, Former Obama Chief of Staff and now Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, and Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, who followed Mitt Romney as Governor in Massachusetts all echoed the Great Jobs Creation Record of 4,500,000 jobs created during the last four years.

Anyone listening would get the impression that the Obama White House has been responsible for a real positive job growth. But as this article CNN Fact Check: About those 4.5 million jobs ...  makes clear

The figure of 4.5 million jobs is accurate if you look at the most favorable period and category for the administration. But overall, there are still fewer people working now than when Obama took office at the height of the recession.
 

The 4.5M number is only accurate for the period from January 2010 to the present. Considering the whole period of the Obama Presidency

... it's only a net gain of 300,000 over the course of the Obama administration to date.
 

UPDATE: Guy Bensen provides some interesting facts. Team Obama: Oh, You Bet Americans Are Better Off Today

Unemployment: 7.8% then, 8.3% now
Median income: $54,983 then, $50,964 now
Gas prices: $1.85 per gallon then, $3.78 now
National debt: $10.6 trillion then, $15.9 trillion now (with the debt hitting the magic $16 Trillion mark tonight, appropriately)
Half of all Americans are now considered "poor" or "low income."
One out of every six Americans is living in poverty -- an increase of millions since Obama took office.
Food stamp usage has increased by 45 percent under this president.
Average family health care premium costs have increased to roughly $15,000 per year.

ROMNEY'S TAX RATE

According to the Internal Revenue Service, Mitt Romney paid a higher tax rate than 90% of rest of of us. The IRS has released its data on the 2010 tax year. That report is over 300 pages of information as compiled by the IRS. If you don't want to take the time to read all of this, I suggest you read this article. Mitt Romney Pays a Higher Percent in Taxes than 90% of all Americans

...in 2010, somewhere between 90 and 95 percent of Americans had a lower effective income tax rate than Romney’s 13.9 percent. In 2011, somewhere between 95 and 97 percent of Americans had a lower effective income tax rate than Romney’s 15.4 percent, at least according to the latest IRS data from 2010.

Based on this data, it would appear to me that the RICHEST of American Tax Payers are already paying their fair share.

HOW GOOD IS OUR NATIONAL DEFENSE?

Could we be attacked or invaded easily by Foreign Nations? Actually we have been. Illegal entry into the USA is rampant. It is not just the Illegal Aliens, although they represent a real threat. It is also Russia in the form of Nuclear Attack Subs able to spend a month undetected in the Gulf of Mexico. This startling admission comes from this article "Silent Running" published in The Washington Free Beacon.

A Russian nuclear-powered attack submarine armed with long-range cruise missiles operated undetected in the Gulf of Mexico for several weeks and its travel in strategic U.S. waters was only confirmed after it left the region...

Based on that article, I'd say our National Defense is not great. So I ask the question - Why does the Obama Government feel now is the time to cut Defense Spending?

The Obama administration’s defense budget proposal in February cut $1.3 billion from Navy shipbuilding projects, which will result in scrapping plans to build 16 new warships through 2017. The budget also called for cutting plans to buy 10 advanced P-8 anti-submarine warfare jets needed for submarine detection.

This rather unsettling fact was also revealed in this article.

Under the terms of the 2010 New START arms accord, such exercises require 14-day advanced notice of strategic bomber drills, and notification after the drills end. No such notification was given.

I believe a strong National Defense requires a strong Economy. We are currently borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend because of our National Debt. We cannot have a strong National Defense without a strong Economy. Have any of the Democrats put forth a Budget Proposal? Yes. President Obama did, BUT it was rejected by a vote of 96-0. President Obama did not get even 1 vote from his own party. Have the Republicans put forth a Budget Proposal? Yes. Paul Ryan's which passed the House, but Harry Read the Democratic Leader of the Senate will not allow it to go through the Senate.

NANCY PELOSI - WITHOUT STIMULUS UNEMPLOYMENT 14.5%

Former Speaker of the Most Ethical House of Representatives EVER says in reference to The 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, (2009 Stimulus to us)

"Without the Recovery Act and accompanying federal interventions, whether from the Fed, or Cash for Clunkers, or other initiatives, the unemployment rate last year at the time of the election would have been fourteen and a half percent, not nine and a half percent,"

This quote is reported in the Weekly Standard article Pelosi Says Unemployment Rate Would Have Hit 14.5% Without 2009 Stimulus

It would appear that Representative Pelosi, who is currently the Minority Leader of the House, has a rather short memory. There are two inconvient facts about which Ms Pelosi should be aware. 1) The current realistic Unemployment Rate is already at 14 -16% when the number of Unemployed who have stopped looking are added and 2) When the $862 Billion Stimulus Bill was being considered by Congress, the American Public was assured that passage of the Stimulus would insure that Unemployment would not rise above 8%. Despite those facts, Ms. Pelosi thinks the Stimulus was a success.

Now she is saying the current Obama Jobs Bill is also going to be a success. If the Stimulus was a success, what's her definition of a Failure?

ARE LIBERALS HYPOCRATS?

When George Bush was in the White House a few years ago, the Liberals were emphatically against passage of the Patriot Act. Many claimed this legislation gave the Government too much authority to gather personal information in violation of the Constitution. After all Article 4 of the Constitution prohibits unreasonable search and seizure of the people. The Patriot Act allowed the interception of email and telephone eavesdropping without a warrant in many situations. And even those situations where a warrant was necessary, this warrant did not have to be granted BEFORE the supposed illegal activity took place.

Yet many of these same people allow OnStar to track them. OnStar can and DOES track those who have the blue button, even if the service is discontinued. But the Liberals don't make complaints about this intrusion into personal life. In fact many Liberals (the same ones who complain about the Patriot Act) pay for this service. The same is true of LoJack and some ADT plans. They allow eavesdropping, and tracking of movements without warrants.

Now the Obama Administration is proposing a special rule, as part of OBAMACARE, which would require all health insurance providers to give the Government everyones' medical information. Obamacare HHS rule would give government everybody’s health records

Where is the outcry from the Liberals?

GOVERNMENT SPENDING TO CREATE JOBS

UPDATE Joe Biden's Cincinnati Comments of today at end of this Post

Many on the Left (most Democrats) insist that the stimulus program did not spend enough money to create enough jobs to turn the economy around. President Obama, appears ready this week to ask Congress to approve more GOVERNMENT spending to "jump start" the economy and create jobs. Now Rep. Maxine Waters Calls For A Trillion-Dollar Jobs Program. Based on her past history, I assume this means another stimulus program. One which will follow the 1st failed stimulus program.

"I’m talking about a jobs program of a trillion dollars or more. We’ve got to put Americans to work. That’s the only way to revitalize this economy. When people work they earn money, they spend that money, and that’s what gets the economy up and going."

Do we do this by giving companies government stimulus money/tax credits to hire the workers? In a similar fashion to what the 1st Stimulus did for GM and Chrysler?. Isn't this essentially putting the employees (whose jobs are created by the Government Stimulus Payment) on the Government's Payroll?

Besides GM and Chrysler, haven't we already done this years ago with Amtrak and the United States Postal System? How did that work out? For another clue read this. Postal Service Is Nearing Default as Losses Mount What's the cause of the Postal System excessive losses?

...decades of contractual promises made to unionized workers, including no-layoff clauses, are increasing the post office’s costs. Labor represents 80 percent of the agency’s expenses, compared with 53 percent at United Parcel Service and 32 percent at FedEx, its two biggest private competitors. Postal workers also receive more generous health benefits than most other federal employees.

Amtrak is mostly due to lousy service and lack of public ridership (due in large part to lousy service). As for GM and Chrysler, it was the unions who benefited most from the 1st bailout.

Jimmy Hoffa, Jr is telling his Union Workers this.

"We got to keep an eye on the battle that we face: The war on workers. And you see it everywhere, it is the Tea Party. And you know, there is only one way to beat and win that war. The one thing about working people is we like a good fight. And you know what? They've got a war, they got a war with us and there's only going to be one winner. It's going to be the workers of Michigan, and America. We're going to win that war," Jimmy Hoffa Jr. said to a heavily union crowd.

That's what he told the crowd as a warm-up to President Obama's address in Detroit today. Hoffa Threatens GOP At Obama Event: "Take These Son Of Bitches Out"

"President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let's take these son of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong," Hoffa added. Obama addressed the crowd shortly after Hoffa.

After he took the stage, President Obama has this to say about Jimmy Hoffa Jr's remarks.Obama Says He Is "Proud" Of Hoffa After Union Leader's Remarks President Obama also made this Faux Pas during his address.
[Emphasis Mine]

"I think putting money back in the pockets of working families is the best way to get demand rising because that then means business is hiring. That means the government -- that means that the economy is growing."

Did he start to say what he really believes? That Government should pay the wages of the working families? If this would really work, why doesn't the Government pay everyone, instead of your employer paying their employees? Along that line of reasoning, if everyone worked for the Government, the economy would be back on track. The Government (oops the Taxpayers) could own everything. Then all employers would be like Government Motors (GM).

But wait, hasn't that already been done in other parts of the world? Like Russia, China, Cuba and Venezuela? Is this what is really good for America? Is this what we really want? I Don't!!

UPDATE: Vice President Joe Biden made these remarks at a Cincinnati AFL-CIO gathering today. (Video)

"You Are The Only Folks Keeping The Barbarians From the Gates"

Sounds to me that the Democrats do not want to run on accomplishments or their abysmal record. They want to turn politics into Class Warfare

THE PARTY OF NO...IS THE DEMOCRATS

...Democrats in Washington still won't let a good crisis go to waste. Their current gambit is to use Hurricane Irene as a pretext to prevent spending cuts to one of Washington's most notorious boondoggles.

That quote is from the Wall Street Journal article Leveraging a Hurricane Remember it was the Democrats who claimed on the issue of the Debt Crisis, that the Republicans (especially the Tea Party) said no to every proposal of the Left. In truth this is impossible because there was no specific plan from the Democrats or the President. We only got general statements and the accusation that the Tea Party was refusing to budge on any proposal. Actually the Tea Party and the Republican lead House proposed at least 4 different plans and passed 2. All would have ended the Debt Crisis and insured that our obligations as a country were paid.

Paul Ryan and Michele Bachmann each proposed solutions which would have averted any default. However, it was the Democratic Senate and the Democrat in the White House who said no. Now they are doing it again.

WARREN BUFFETT IS QUALIFIED TO BE A HYPOCRITE

Warren Buffett, hypocrite is the title of an article in the NEW YORK POST. A hypocrite because he said recently that people like him should pay more taxes, yet his company admits, according to the Post article that it owes back taxes.

As Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson notes, the company [Berkshire Hathaway] openly admits that it owes back taxes since as long ago as 2002.

Mr. Buffett owns Berkshire Hathaway. In addition, Berkshire Hathaway apparently still has unresolved tax issues for tax years 2005 through 2009.

Obvious question: If Buffett really thinks he and his “mega-rich friends” should pay higher taxes, why doesn’t his firm fork over what it already owes under current rates?

By the way, there is no law that prevents someone from writing a check to the IRS. In fact the law specifically provides for that kind of payment. Therefore if anyone feels they underpay their taxes, the remedy is simple send a check!

When someone like Warren Buffett makes the claim, that he pays a smaller percentage of his income in taxes than many of his employees do, he is being a little disingenuous.

...he wrote in The New York Times, he paid only 17 percent of his income last year to the government -- even as many working stiffs who make far less than him coughed up higher percentages.

Disingenuous because he makes most of his money in the form of qualified dividends. Dividends which are taxed when he receives them at a rate of 15%. (All citizens pay from 0% to a maximum of 15% on qualified dividends.) But the actual rate on those dividends for Mr. Buffett is closer to 40% or more, because they are also subject to taxation when Berkshire Hathaway files their corporation return.

Raise the top tax rate on them by 13 percent, as Obama wants (from 35 percent to 39.6 percent) and you bring in only another $26 billion, tops -- and that’s if your tax hike doesn’t stifle the economy and kill jobs (which it surely would). Yet what’s $26 billion in a world of $4 trillion federal budgets with trillion-dollar-plus deficits?

The $26 Billion is not enough to pay our $4 Trillion debt, so when Obama and friends say millionaires and billionaires, they also must tax those who make as little as $200 thousand. $200,000 is quite a lot, but it takes five of those taxpayers to get to $1,000,000.

What about the 51% of taxpayers who pay nothing, nada, zip? Shouldn't they pay something? Not only do the top half pay all the income taxes, many in the other half get back all they paid plus some of what the top half payed.

WARREN BUFFETT PROBABLY NOT QUALIFIED TO BE TREASURY SECRETARY

Warren Buffett thinks Millionairs and Billionairs should pay higher taxes. After all they can afford it. But the fact is Warren Buffett’s Taxing the Rich Won't Solve Deficit, Says Tax Foundation

Taxing millionaires and billionaires more – a position advocated by billionaire Warren Buffett and President Barack Obama – won’t make much of a dent in the national debt or the record federal budget deficits, a new study finds.

Why? The answer is simple - there are not enough US citizens who make a Million Dollars or more. It is interesting to note that even though President Obama has used the terms "...millionaires and billionaires need to pay their fair share...", the fact is President Obama will start taxing at the $200,000.00 level. Why? Because apparently he considers someone who makes $200,000.00 a millionaire?

“Even taking every last penny from every individual making more than $10 million per year would only reduce the nation's deficit by 12 percent and the debt by 2 percent,” the non-partisan Tax Foundation’s David Logan writes.

Something else to consider. Fortunately for our life savings, the Tax Laws do not tax that which we have already accumulated, only the growth is taxes. That is one reason that Millionaires and Billionaires do not pay as much taxes. They have already earned the money that makes them Millionaires and Billionaires. They have already paid taxes on the ACCUMULATED millions and billions they have.

“My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress,” wrote Buffett.

Therefore unless we wish to change the Tax Law to include some sort of "look-back" provision, the fault Mr. Buffett sees is in the past when he acquired his wealth. By the way this is still wrong headed thinking, because if Mr. Buffett and friends had not been "coddled" by Congress, they wouldn't be where they are today. And more importantly, the jobs they created when they earned their wealth would not exist. We would all be a lot poorer if they had not been "coddled

".[A]ccording to the Tax Foundation study written by Logan, even taxing the nation’s millionaires at 50 percent – even eliminating loopholes and deductions – would only reduce the deficit by 8 percent and the national debt by 1 percent.

The truth is that we cannot pay our national debt with taxes, unless you wish to consider this:

In fact, the only way for the government to solve its fiscal issues with revenue would be to confiscate every single dollar from every single American making $200,000 or more per year, the study said

It is clear that the best way to pay off our National Debt is to reduce spending. Raising the Debt Ceiling should only be a stop-gap measure to insure that our credit standing is maintained. As the Standard and Poor's reasoning for the downgrading of the US Credit rating indicates: The problem is the unstanable level of spending by the Government.

We currently use over 40 cents of every dollar borrowed just to pay the interest on our National Debt. Congress does not have the will power to reduce spending but a Constitutional Admendment requiring a balanced budet would make Congress feel the will power of the people they represent.

DEBT CRISIS DEFAULT - BUT NOT EXACTLY

Remember a couple of weeks ago when the Democrats said the Republicans were reckless by not passing President Obama's plan? A plan, by the way, that only existed in the mind of our President, because NOTHING was ever put on paper. Well it is time to go to the "Way Back" machine for this from March 3, 2009 when President Obama said this:

"Let me say this as plainly as I can. If you buy a car from Chrysler or General Motors, you will be able to get your car serviced and repaired just like always," Obama said in a speech. "Your warranty will be safe. In fact, it will be safer than it has ever been. Because starting today, the United States will stand behind your warranty."

That does not sound like President Obama was only talking in terms of from this day forward and yet consider the latest development at Government General Motors.

General Motors Co (GM.N) is seeking to dismiss a lawsuit over a suspension problem on more than 400,000 Chevrolet Impalas from the 2007 and 2008 model years, saying it should not be responsible for repairs because the flaw predated its bankruptcy.

So let us recap. The Democrats denounce Republicans for being reckless over not approving what they demanded, but were unwilling to put specifically on paper. While the Republican House presented 3 different plans, (2 of which passed the House) and a resolution by Michele Bachmann which would have reaquired payment of all legal debts. But the Democrats are not reckless when promises made to all General Motors purchasers that their warantee claims would be paid are not going to be honored. How does that add up?

BIBLICAL SUBMISSION IS...

Kirsten Powers has it right as she explaines Biblical Submission in Stop Attacking Evangelicals!

Since Rep. Michele Bachmann was asked in a debate whether she would be submissive to her husband as president, the punditry has morphed into a morass of armchair theologians pushing flawed interpretations of what submission means in a biblical context.

To the vast majority of Bible reading Christians, the word submission is interpreted to mean respect and love for one another. It applies to more than just Husband and Wife. The original language of this part of the New Testament Bible was translated from the Greek. In this context Submission does not mean to obey. Further the word submission is applied to all Christians in their relationships with each other and the world in general. The meaning is clear to anyone who will take the time to do a little thinking.

It’s also not what any evangelical I’ve spoken to believes is even implied in the doctrine of submission. Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who as an ordained Southern Baptist minister knows a few things about the Bible, explained it to me this way: “This is not about a woman being a doormat. It’s about mutual, reciprocal, selfless, sacrificial love.”

Notice the words "mutual, reciprocal, selfless and sacrificial in the last sentence of Mike Huckabee's quote! It does not apply to just wives, as Michele Bachman clearly explained. It is a respect for each other as partners in a marrage.

Kathy Keller, the wife of pastor Tim Keller of the evangelical Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City, speaks regularly on the Bible and gender issues. A graduate of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, she knows of what she speaks. She told me: “Women and men who understand the Bible’s actual teaching on headship and submission will see instantly that this issue is being defined by those on the extreme left and the extreme right, who both caricature what the Bible teaches.”

As Kristin correctly points out it is the fringe Left and Right who have perverted the true meaning understood by the vast majority of Christianity.

She [Kathy Keller] said: “A man’s headship in a marriage consists of imitating the way Jesus has died for … the church. In no Christian marriages that I know of does a husband presume to tell his wife how to do her job, whether that is homemaking or heart surgeon or commander in chief. For a woman, being submissive in your marriage means bringing all your giftedness into the marriage in support of both your husband and your marriage. If this isn’t an issue for married men, who if they are professing Christians should be willing to die for their wives, then it shouldn’t be made into an issue for a woman.”

Kristin ends her article with this paragraph.

Furthermore, look at the two highest-profile evangelical women in American politics—Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann—and tell me with a straight face that they aren’t treated with respect by their husbands. If you doubt that, I can assure you that five minutes with either lady will set you straight.

DRILL BABY DRILL

There are many reasons we should be drilling for Oil and Gas domestically. In the Atlantic, Pacific Oceans and the Gulf of Mexico we should be drilling. In Alaska and also in the Oil Shale of the Rockies we should be drilling. In Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and all the other places where we can produce Oil and Gas we should be drilling.

While it is true that drilling for Domestic Oil and Gas would not keep us from being dependent on additional Imported Oil and Gas, Domestic production would decrease the amount we have to Import and IT WOULD CREATE JOBS.

Why aren't we? Ask the Environmentalists, the Liberals and President Obama? They are the one's to blame. This group have prevented Domestic drilling for Oil and Gas. While it is true we could have another disaster as happened in the Gulf of Mexico when the BP well ruptured, or when the Exxon Valdez ran aground in Alaska, the benefits of Domestic Exploration, Drilling and Production of Oil and Gas far outway the negatives.

The is even more evident in light of the recent debunking, according to a NASA study, that Global Warming is a serious threat. New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism The computer models are wrong! Global Temperatures over the last decade are not rising, although the CO₂ (carbon dioxide) levels have significantly increased. So forget Global Warming due to Man-Made Carbon Dioxide.

Now there is an additional reason for Immediate Domestic Oil and Gas Drilling. Cuba has Licensed several Drilling sites in the Gulf of Mexico. Drill, Bebé, Drill

Sometime over the next three months, if all goes according to plan, Cuban workers on a Chinese-built, Spanish-owned rig will start drilling for oil in the mile-deep waters just off the north coast of Cuba, 70 miles from the Florida Keys.

If you think the BP spill was bad, what do you think about the Chinese having a blow-out? We must ask ourselves - Would I rather have US controled, inspected and regulated Domestic Drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Or would I trust the Chinese to do that same drilling knowing they do not have the same controls, inspection and regualtion?

An oil blowout in Cuban waters could reprise the nightmare that was last year’s Gulf of Mexico oil spill, and send crude spewing to the beaches of Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina

.A blowout is more likely in part because the componets are inferior to US parts. In other words, the Chinese will be using second-rate parts and equipment.

They (the Cuban Licensed rigs) will have to buy copycat or second-tier parts,” Lee Hunter, president of the Houston-based International Association of Drilling Contractors, told National Journal. Hunter and other experts say that, to date, it appears that the Cuban government, fearful of the devastation an oil spill could wreak on its economy, wants to use the lessons learned from the BP oil disaster to develop a rigorous safety and oversight program. But it will be nearly impossible for drillers in Cuba’s waters to legally use the safest equipment. “The Cubans want to use good technology; they want to drill safely,” Hunter said. “But … their ability to drill safely is extremely compromised.”

In light of this development and the loss of an extimated 200,000 US jobs because of the US (Presidential Executive Order and Congressional actions), do we really want Cuba, China, Russia, Brazil, etc to be responsible for Gulf of Mexico Oil and Gas Production?

We should take immediate actions to Domestically "Drill Baby Drill".

AL GORE NEEDS TO RETHINK GLOBAL WARMING

According to a new study released by NASA, the disaster of Global Warming is rather overheated. New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

The fact is the computer models are wrong.

The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Cooler heads than Al Gore have been exonerated.

In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.

PRESIDENT OBAMA ACCUSED

Joseph Curl writing for "The WASHINGTON TIMES" asks the following question.

Is Obama a pathological liar?"

As we all know, the percentage of Politicians who "expand" or "bend" the truth is close to if not 100%. This is a class of people who want to please everyone. Therefore they promise things they can't or shouldn't deliver.

In the weird world that is Washington, men and women say things daily, hourly, even minutely, that they know deep down are simply not true. Inside the Beltway, we all call those utterances “rhetoric.”

RHETORIC is an interesting word!

But across the rest of the country, plain ol’ folk call ‘em lies. Bald-faced (even bold-faced) lies. Those folks have a tried-and-true way of determining a lie: If you know what you’re saying is patently false, then it’s a lie. Simple.

The article continues and points out President OBAMA'S lies.

And lately, the president has been lying so much that his pants could burst into flames at any moment.

I will leave it to the reader to follow the link above for the rest of the story.