Tag Archives: George W Bush

We Have a Huge Problem, Dallas!

gop amnesty 1986

The Hispanic Vote in the Republican Party

These statistics are taken from a Pew Research Poll.

 1980  56% Carter     Reagan    35%

1984  61% Mondale Reagan    37%

 1988  69% Dukakis  Bush 41   30%

(Amnesty in 1986 resulted in 7% drop)

1992  61% Clinton   Bush 41   25%

1996  72% Clinton   Dole         21%

2000  62% Gore       Bush 43   35% 

(After 6 yrs as Gov, Bush trails Gore by 27%)

 2004  58% Kerry     Bush 43   40%

2008  67% Obama   McCain   31%

2012  71% Obama   Romney   27%

About 2.6 million illegals were amnestied in 1986 (over a million the number projected), but only one fourth voted for Bush 41 in 1992. Bob Dole supported amnesty, but he got 21%, the lowest of all. If the Amnesty Bill is passed, it is projected that the estimated 11 million that will be legalized could be as high as 20 million, according to various sources.  With those facts and the Republican Party’s track record in mind, here is George W. Bush on “Immigration Reform.” Please go straight to the 7:00 minute mark where talk on reform begins.

I am not laughing!!

This clip was to speak about what he is doing in Africa, which I found compelling enough; however, in politics there is always something behind the photo-op. George Bush doesn’t want to make news by criticizing the President or weighing in on controversial issues. He says he wants to stay off stage in politics, unless there’s an issue he believes in, but he chimes in anyway. The reporter smoothly made the transition for him by adding that he has one he cares deeply about “You tried very hard to get Comprehensive Immigration Reform through.. How big a missed opportunity will it be if it FAILS this time around?”

George Bush says “it’s important to fix a broken system, (psst, that’s taken straight out of the communist playbook on Immigration. Please go to my previous article for the exact quote and how long it’s been said.) to treat people with respect, and to have confidence in our capacity to assimilate people. Its a difficult bill to pass because there’s a lot of moving parts. The Legislative process is an ugly process, but it looks like they’re making progress.”

With a war on terror not called terror going on, four scandals and a mess of an economy.. George Bush decides to discuss this. I would much rather hear him talk about Benghazi or Egypt, as what he did best in office was to protect us.

I know people like him, but if I hear they like him one more time, I will simply answer it this way:  How much does likability COST US?  Amnesty is no laughing matter.  The 20 million added illegals is no laughing matter, so can someone please help me wipe that grin off of George Bush’s face?! Thank you.

jack ass

Here is Bush 43 peaking at a citizenship ceremony in Dallas, again, insisting that we have a problem.. that the laws governing the immigration system aren’t working; that the system is broken, and we have to be more compassionate.

Mr. Bush, the politicians are broken, and that is why the laws are not working!

After all I have learned about Immigration Reform being a Communist-driven agenda, I personally wonder why anyone would come out to support this bill, and yet, here they are. The Bushes. Pushing Amnesty when they know we do not want it.  When they (should know) it will not help the Republican Party.  Are the Bushes getting Alynsky-itish?  Based on what I’ve seen.. It looks like they might be. We have a huge problem, Dallas!



Filed under In The News, Politics

George W. Bush Hosts Third Annual W100K Bike Ride for Wounded Warriors

By Gary P Jackson

President George W Bush constantly does things to support our troops, especially those wounded in battle. Today he hosts the third annual 100 kilometer [62.1371 mile] bike ride. Bush, possibly our most physically fit president in history, is an avid bike rider.

Here are some tweets, and more.

Knowing that President Bush is always doing something for the troops makes me proud as a Texan, and an American. President Bush is a class act.

From Twitchy:


George W. Bush is hosting, and participating in, the third annual W100K bike ride for Wounded Warriors. President George W. Bush had this to say about the event:I’ll be riding across the deserts of Texas with wounded warriors to show the unbelievable character of our men and women in uniform…it’s a ride to herald people who were dealt a severe blow and said, ‘I’m not going to let it tear me down’.”

Beautiful and touching.

The Bush Center has more information about this outstanding program:

President George W. Bush will host the third annual W100K on May 23-25, 2013 at President and Mrs. Bush’s Prairie Chapel Ranch near Crawford, TX. Fourteen members of United States service personnel who were seriously wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan will participate in this year’s 100-kilometer mountain bike ride. The W100K, part of the Bush Institute’s Military Service Initiative, highlights the bravery and sacrifice of warriors and recognizes organizations that support America’s heroes.

Hundreds of veterans recently arrived in Texas to participate in the “Wounded Warrior Weekend.”

Read more here.

Leave a comment

Filed under In The News, Politics

Bad News: Obama is a War Criminal Worse Than Bush, Says Ralph Nader!


By Gary P Jackson

Ralph Nader calls Nobel Peace Prize Winner© Barack Obama a war criminal, and worse than President Bush. That kinda sums it all up rather nicely, doesn’t it.

Democrats to start calling Ralph Nader a racist in 3… 2… 1…

Vodpod videos no longer available.

He’s gone beyond George W. Bush in drones, for example. He thinks the world is his plate, that national sovereignties mean nothing, drones can go anywhere.

1 Comment

Filed under In The News, Politics

Happy 35th Anniversary President Bush and Laura

By Gary P Jackson

Didn’t want the day to go by without wishing President and Mrs Bush, George and Laura, a happy 35th anniversary.

These two are easily the classiest Ex-President and First Lady our nation has had in decades. They’ve retired and are quietly supporting our troops, and other worthy charities.

As a Texan I’m proud they represent the Lone Star State. May they enjoy many more happy years together.


Filed under In The News

Unbiased Expert: Palin Helped McCain

By Stacy Drake

There are a lot of talking heads who, for various reasons, like to imply that Governor Palin somehow cost John McCain the election in 2008. We know that’s completely out of touch with reality, but it doesn’t stop people from trying to sell the idea.

Her supporters, and grassroots Conservatives were there. We know that she energized the ticket and gave people a reason to vote for McCain. She inspired the base, and without her efforts, the Republican ticket would have no doubt suffered a much greater loss.

That said, the Los Angeles Times offered up some strong evidence on Tuesday to support what we already know to be true:

James E. Campbell, chairman of the political science department at the State University of New York, Buffalo, agreed with Gelman about the potential home-state boost, and added:

As to Palin, I think that, on balance, she helped McCain. He went into the conventions behind and came out ahead. The later drop was tied to the financial meltdown. The evidence of that was that Bush’s approval numbers, as low as they were, dropped further and at the same time as McCain. There is no reason why Palin would have cost Bush approval points.

Chairman Campbell is absolutely correct, and the data backs him up. Governor Palin gave her speech at the 2008 Republican National Convention on September 3rd of that year. On that day, John McCain trailed Barack Obama by 5 point, with Obama carrying 48% and McCain with 43%. On September 7th, McCain/Palin took the lead in the race by 10 points. That’s a 15 point gain in four days!

Now, let’s take a look at President George W. Bush’s poll numbers from that same time period to verify Mr. Campbell’s assertion:

George W. Bush had a whopping 30.4% approval rating on September 7th, the same day that McCain was up over Obama by 10. If you look closely, you will see he actually got a small bump after the GOP Convention. Oh, the irony…

By October, after the economic collapse had started to take it’s toll on the country. George W. Bush’s already low numbers did as Chairman Campbell suggested, and dropped further, leaving him with an embarrassing low 25.7% approval rating.

According to another LA Times article from 2008:

The most decisive event in this campaign wasn’t anything either of the candidates said at their respective conventions or in any of the debates. It wasn’t a sound bite from a speech or interview, or a memorable assertion in a television commercial or e-mail attachment.

The turning point in this election didn’t happen on the campaign trail but rather on Wall Street. In the last week of September, the race was essentially tied. Then Wall Street collapsed — and it collapsed right on top of John McCain

It certainly didn’t help, as I’ve pointed out many times, that McCain’s campaign was being run by an incompetent lobbyist, who thought it was a good idea to suspend McCain’s campaign for photo-ops at the White House during the financial meltdown. But enough about Steve Schmidt.

As you can see, McCain also suffered from the news and reality of the economy. On the same day that George W. Bush hit his all-time low, McCain had dropped back down below Obama by almost 7 points.

Nobody who reads this website on a regular basis needed this information. We knew Governor Palin electrified the Republican base in 2008. We knew that the people running John McCain’s campaign fumbled the ball on many occasions, and we knew the economic collapse (on top of other matters) had damaged the Republican party beyond repair.

If any two-bit hack journalist, GOPe talking-head, HBO movie, or left-wing Democrat operative tries to push the the theory that Governor Palin “cost John McCain the election in 2008,” you know they’re full of it, not only because you saw it with your own eyes, but the historical data proves what really cost Republicans the White House in 2008. To say otherwise, is a lie.

(H/T: Steve)


Filed under In The News, Politics, sarah palin

Sorry Liberals: Bush Era “Operation Wide Receiver” Is NOTHING Like The Obama Regime’s Fast and Furious

By Gary P Jackson

The Obama regime’s most enduring strategy seems to be: “If all else fails, blame it on Bush.”

The latest lie coming from the regime, and all of it’s sycophants in the corrupt media is Operation Gunwalker [Fast & Furious] was started under the Bush administration, and the benevolent Dear Leader, Barack Obama, ended it.


Not only did President Obama and Attorney General Holder cook this whole thing up, they used stimulus dollars, that were supposedly to be used for job creation, to fund this operation!

The Bush program the radicals are pointing to was called Operation Wide Receiver. This was a controlled program with ATF PHYSICALLY tracking each and every weapon. The Obama regime’s murderous program merely recorded serial numbers.

Townhall’s Guy Benson points out the lies from the regime, as well as the differences between the two programs:

Throughout today’s House Oversight Committee hearings on possible contempt charges for Attorney General Eric Holder, Democrat members repeatedly asserted and intimated that the deadly gun-running program had originated under the previous administration. 

Their clear aim was to muddy the waters on who is ultimately culpable for this blood-stained travesty, to suggest that Republicans are engaged in a shameless partisan witch hunt, and to feed the pliant mainstream media a handy alternate narrative as they begin to cover the controversy. Katie documented why this variant of “Blame Bush!” isn’t remotely applicable to Fast & Furious in her book, and former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy exposed and distilled the Left’s deliberate obtuseness on this subject last November:

The key to [Democrats’] strategy is conflating two very different programs: Operation Fast & Furious and a Bush era ATF initiative known as “Operation Wide Receiver. In the questions from Judiciary Committee Democrats (principally, Senators Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer — there may have been others but, again, I didn’t see the entire hearing), it emerged that Wide Receiver began in 2006, when Alberto Gonzales was the Bush administration attorney general…Wide Receiver actually involved not gun-walking but controlled delivery. Unlike gun-walking, which seems (for good reason) to have been unheard of until Fast & Furious, controlled delivery is a very common law enforcement tactic. Basically, the agents know the bad guys have negotiated a deal to acquire some commodity that is either illegal itself (e.g., heroin, child porn) or illegal for them to have/use (e.g., guns, corporate secrets).

The agents allow the transfer to happen under circumstances where they are in control — i.e., they are on the scene conducting surveillance of the transfer, and sometimes even participating undercover in the transfer. As soon as the transfer takes place, they can descend on the suspects, make arrests, and seize the commodity in question — all of which makes for powerful evidence of guilt.  Senator Schumer’s drawing of an equivalence between “tracing” in a controlled-delivery situation and “tracing” in Fast & Furious is laughable. In a controlled delivery firearms case, guns are traced in the sense that agents closely and physically follow them — they don’t just note the serial numbers or other identifying markers. The agents are thus able to trace the precise path of the guns from, say, American dealers to straw purchasers to Mexican buyers.

To the contrary, Fast & Furious involved uncontrolled deliveries — of thousands of weapons. It was an utterly heedless program in which the feds allowed these guns to be sold to straw purchasers — often leaning on reluctant gun dealers to make the sales. The straw purchasers were not followed by close physical surveillance; they were freely permitted to bulk transfer the guns to, among others, Mexican drug gangs and other violent criminals — with no agents on hand to swoop in, make arrests, and grab the firearms. The inevitable result of this was that the guns have been used (and will continue to be used) in many crimes, including the murder of Brian Terry, a U.S. border patrol agent. In sum, the Fast & Furious idea of “trace” is that, after violent crimes occur in Mexico, we can trace any guns the Mexican police are lucky enough to seize back to the sales to U.S. straw purchasers … who should never have been allowed to transfer them (or even buy them) in the first place. That is not law enforcement; that is abetting a criminal rampage.

Another crucial distinction: The Bush-era gun tracing program known as “Wide Receiver” was executed in concert with the Mexican government, which was fully involved at every step of the process.  “Fast & Furious” was conceived and launched without the knowledge of the Mexican government — and its citizens have paid a very dear price as a result.  Even Holder himself has acknowledged that Fast & Furious was entirely an Obama-era endeavor:

Read more here.

It should be fully understood, that unlike the Bush program, the Obama regime embarked on this criminal enterprise without notifying the Mexican government. The regime made absolutely no attempt to track any of these guns from the point of sale to the violent criminals whose hands they ended up in.

There’s a reason for this, something we’ve mentioned before. This wasn’t about tracking guns and arresting criminals. This was about putting American guns in the hands of Mexican criminals, and allowing mass murders to occur, so the regime could use these tragic events as a way to create a climate in America that would allow them to take guns away from law abiding American citizens.

Marxists like Obama and Holder [and liberals in general] have long dreamed about disarming the American people. They understand the only way to fully enslave a people is to disarm them.

Not only did the regime anticipate the mass murders that have occurred, it needed them to happen for their dastardly plan to work. They needed people to die so they could sell their gun grabbing plan to the public.

We have a regime that has facilitated mass murder in Mexico and Capital murder here in America, as American border patrol agents have been slaughtered by guns Obama and Holder put in the hands of criminals.

Obama and Holder facilitated mass murder. Until they have been indicted and convicted of capital murder, justice will continue to be denied.

It’s disgraceful and disgusting to see the regime, and the Democrat Industrial Media Complex, blame President Bush for this disaster. The program the Bush administration put together was successful and no innocent people were slaughtered.

We are living under the most evil of regimes. Obama and his crew of thugs must be defeated. Liberalism itself must be defeated. It’s a diseased ideology that subscribes to the idea that the ends justify the means.

Barack Obama is a student of Communist Saul Alinsky [as is Hillary Clinton, BTW] who had this to say about the end justifying the means, in his book Rules for Radicals:

The end is what you want, the means is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work. … The real arena is corrupt and bloody.

The means-and-ends moralists, constantly obsessed with the ethics of the means used by the Have-Nots against the Haves, should search themselves as to their real political position. In fact, they are passive — but real — allies of the Haves…. The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means… The standards of judgment must be rooted in the whys and wherefores of life as it is lived, the world as it is, not our wished-for fantasy of the world as it should be…

The real arena is corrupt and bloody.” Alinsky was quite prophetic, as what the Obama regime has done is both corrupt and incredibly bloody.

This goes along with Rahm Emanuel’s infamous statement that no crisis should ever go to waste.

These are evil people guided by an evil ideology.

Leave a comment

Filed under In The News, Politics

Meme: Politicians Can’t Do Much About Gas Prices

Click image to enlarge.


Filed under In The News, Politics

So RomneyCare was all Bush’s Fault? The Galen Institute on What Went Wrong

By Gary P Jackson

I ran across this bit of information from the “Galen Institute,” a tax and health care policy think tank. The author is trying hard to make the case that RomneyCare, thanks to factors like a democrat legislature and pressure from the Bush administration, is not much like the original proposal Romney sought to have put into law.

I think we can argue all day long over the merits of this. And yeah, chances are, the Bay State was going to have some form of government run health care no matter who was in office, and maybe Mitt did stop it from being a lot worse than it is. Still, you’d think anyone with a lick of common sense would know you never let a democrat get it’s nose under the tent. Once they are in, it’s all over.

Romney has owned this screw-up from the start. And by owning it, I mean he’s never distanced himself from it, or admitted it was a mistake. Now this may be spin, with Romney figuring it’s better to own it than admit defeat, but who knows.

The article is worth reading because it does set some things straight, and it also reminds us that some of the things Romney [and other candidates ] have promised to do, regarding ObamaCare, simply cannot be done. This leaves us with two solutions: Hope the Supreme Court finds it unconstitutional, and repeal it. It will probably take a combination of both.

Romney’s Best Defense: The Truth About Romneycare

Even though Mitt Romney has had a string of primary wins, support for his presidential bid still is tepid among Republican voters nervous about Romneycare. He could calm them if he were to more fully explain the difference between his vision for reform and the law that ultimately was enacted in Massachusetts.

Gov. Romney gets big applause when he pledges to repeal Obamacare, but he faces silence when he tries to defend Romneycare. He insists, for example, that his individual mandate only impacted the 8 percent of residents who were uninsured (the mandate covers everyone), that he didn’t cut Medicare (states have no authority over Medicare), and that he would issue a waiver to the states to implement Obamacare their way (a president can’t undo an Act of Congress with a waiver).

The voters are not reassured. Gov. Romney can get off the defensive and change the subject by explaining that the Massachusetts law which was passed by the overwhelmingly Democratic legislature diverged significantly from his vision for reform, and then describe what his reform plan would be as president.

During the presidential debate in Jacksonville, Florida, in late January, Romney took a small step in this direction when he acknowledged that his successor, Gov. Deval Patrick, has taken a much more liberal track in implementing Romneycare. “If I were governor,” Romney said, “it would work a heck of a lot better.” Indeed, when it passed the law, the legislature was counting on a Democrat governor to succeed Romney to put the real regulatory thumb screws in place.

The Massachusetts law is different in important ways from the plan that Romney pushed as governor. Few voters know, for example, that Romney strongly opposed the employer mandate and wanted an escape from the individual mandate — allowing people to instead be able to post a bond if they were uninsured and had big medical bills. When Romney signed the law, he believed it contained the escape hatch, but legislators removed it before final passage.

Romney vetoed eight provisions of the Massachusetts bill, and every one of his vetoes was overridden by the legislature. Should Romney have known this was likely? Yes. Should he have known exactly what he was signing? Absolutely. But voters may be more forgiving if he tells them he wanted to give citizens and employers a way out.

Why did he push Romneycare? The state was at risk of losing $385 million in federal Medicaid money, and the Bush administration insisted Massachusetts make changes to get more residents covered and keep the money flowing.

Romney also wanted to find a way to make it easier for small businesses and individuals to get insurance that would be portable from job to job. To get around federal tax law restrictions and to make health insurance portable, he adopted the Heritage Foundation’s proposal to create exchanges that would allow individuals to have portable insurance and pay premiums with pre-tax dollars.
TODAY ROMNEY SAYS, “The market can work to solve our health care needs.” The policy recommendations on his campaign website back up his perspective on patient-centered reform. But primary voters aren’t. He needs to get off the defensive and take charge of this issue.

Here’s a three-step plan:

Step 1: Focus on Repeal of Obamacare.

Gov. Romney needs to get his message straight, or he will be hammered in the general election over false promises. He calls for repeal of Obamacare while saying he would immediately issue an executive order to give flexibility to the states to implement the law their way. That sets the stage to massively confuse the political agenda: He would be sending the states off to begin to implement Obamacare while Congress works in Washington to repeal it.

Further, the Congressional Research Service issued a report that said Obamacare’s major provisions are Acts of Congress, and they simply cannot be changed through an executive order.

His focus should be on repeal. Waivers to the states from Obamacare are not a solution and, in fact, might well detract from the ultimate goal of repealing the law and replacing it with a genuine free market alternative. If Gov. Romney is serious about repealing Obamacare, he will have to devote all of his energies to doing that as soon as possible.

The House of Representatives passed a repeal bill a few weeks after Republicans took control last year. In the Senate, many parts of Obamacare could be repealed through reconciliation with only 51 votes should Republicans take control there, allowing them to enact legislation repealing the spending provisions that are the biggest threat to the economy and to the federal deficit.

He also could calm voters by emphasizing that a federal mandate to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional and detail more reasons why Obamacare’s government-centric approach is wrong.

Step 2: Explain what really happened with passage of Romneycare.

Gov. Romney’s support for states’ rights is important, saying the law worked for Massachusetts but that other states need their own solutions in our diverse and complex country. But conservatives would feel better knowing what he initially proposed in the Bay State. For example:

• Mandate escape. Few voters know that Romney wanted an escape from the individual mandate. Voters may be more forgiving if he were to tell them he wanted to give citizens a way out and that he strongly opposed the employer mandate.

• Real insurance. Romney wanted people to be able to purchase real health insurance that would have covered catastrophic events. Instead, the legislature insisted on including all of the 50-plus health insurance mandates already on the books. The legislature allowed the high-deductible plans only for some young people aged 18-26.

After the Massachusetts law was passed by the legislature, Romney continued to try to reshape it with his line-item veto. For example:

• Employer mandate: Vetoed. The bill called for a mandate on employers with 11 or more workers to provide health coverage or pay an annual fee of $295 per worker. Overridden.

• Covering certain immigrants: Vetoed. The bill included a provision that would allow some non-citizens to qualify for coverage under the new health plan. Overridden.

• New bureaucracy: Vetoed. The bill created a powerful new bureaucracy, called the Public Health Council. Overridden.

• Limiting improvements to Medicaid: Vetoed. The bill restricted changes to Medicaid to make the program more efficient. Overridden.

Gov. Romney must clarify that in working with a Republican Congress on a new health reform agenda, he would start with a very different vision than Romneycare and work much harder to make sure the consumer-friendly structure is what becomes law.

Step 3: Emphasize his vision for market-based health reform, with a much clearer description of what a President Romney’s plan would look like.

He needs to talk about what he would do so he can stop having to defend Romneycare. A handful of specifics would do, many of which are included on his campaign website:

Help states set up functional pools so people with pre-existing conditions are protected.

Provide new subsidies for the uninsured to purchase the coverage of their choice.

Encourage the states to set up marketplaces for people to buy insurance and allow policies to be purchased across state lines.

Boost insurance rules to guarantee that if people have coverage, they can keep it and their premiums won’t skyrocket if they get sick, etc.

Move toward a system of tax credits and deductions to allow individuals to buy and own portable health insurance.

And regarding the “free-rider” problem Romney says that the Massachusetts law was designed to stop: This can be addressed without a mandate and in a way that is likely to be much more effective. For example, if people don’t buy coverage with the credit, then the credit could be used to automatically enroll them in a private plan that would cover their major medical bills. Properly structured incentives would be more effective than a mandate in expanding coverage.

The health reform plan Gov. Romney pushed in Massachusetts was different in key respects from the model that became Obamacare but few people know the truth about Romneycare.

Unless Gov. Romney takes steps to clarify and remedy his position, he will continue to have trouble convincing Republican voters he is serious about repeal and will have an even harder time mapping a clear plan on health reform should he be elected president.

I read all of this and see some good points, but it still comes down to leadership. We see that, as Governor, Romney tried to veto some really bad elements of the health care law, but what exactly did he do in the run up to this monstrosity? No where do I find an effort on Romney’s part to sell his ideas to the people of Massachusetts. No where do I see an effort to get the people on his side of the battle against the legislature. If there were town halls and citizen workshops, I’m not finding them.

Now look, as a Texan, I can’t fathom the sort of Big Government intrusion RomneyCare caused. I can’t understand a people who would allow their state government to take away their Liberty and Freedom, not to mention make their health care far more costly, with fewer services. But then again, this is a state whose voters keep sending radicals to their state house and to Washington. It’s a socialist state, so losing Liberty and Freedom might not concern them.

It might be, as portrayed, that Romney wanted to do the “right thing” but was unable to stop his runaway democrat legislature. But one has to ask, knowing who and what democrats are, why allow the situation that led to RomneyCare’s final product in the first place?

I understand that pressure from both inside the state and the federal government played a huge roll in RomneyCare’s birth, but wasn’t there a far better, market based solution? Wasn’t there a way to reform the process and keep government involvement to a minimum? Wouldn’t a real leader have done more to get his plan enacted over one that is now in place? Wouldn’t a real leader side stepped the legislature and the media, and gone directly to the people?

It’s obvious that Romney isn’t totally to blame for the huge mess in Massachusetts, but it’s just as obvious that he didn’t put forth nearly the effort he should have to get his own vision put in place over the one that now exists.

So here’s the deal. Has Romney learned his lesson? Does he now understand that you can’t give the left an inch, that there really is no dealing in good faith with them? Has he come to realize what a huge mistake he made?

Those are questions that must be answered.


Filed under Uncategorized

President Bush’s Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill Compares Tea Party To al Qaeda

These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value.

Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776

By Gary P Jackson

Lest you think only Joe Biden and the democrats are capable of vile, despicable statements, like calling fellow Americans “terrorists,” here’s President George W. Bush’s former Treasury Secretary comparing all of us to al Qaeda.

Folks, the problem isn’t just democrats, though they all must go, it’s the entire establishment, the Ruling Class, that must be destroyed. These corrupt bastards want to hold on to power and continue the rape of America. Their desperation is showing. It’s time for every American to stand up and say enough is enough. It’s getting just about time to start with the pitchforks, hot tar, and feathers.

From The Hill:

Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill compared lawmakers trying to block a debt-ceiling increase to terrorists.

Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill compared lawmakers trying to block raising the debt ceiling to “al Qaeda terrorists.”

The people who are threatening not to pass the debt ceiling are our version of al Qaeda terrorists. Really,” O’Neill, Treasury secretary in the Republican administration of George W. Bush, said Wednesday in an interview with Bloomberg Television’s InBusiness with Margaret Brennan.

They’re really putting our whole society at risk by threatening to round up 50 percent of the members of the Congress, who are loony, who would put our credit at risk,” O’Neill said.

His remarks come just a day after Obama administration Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner slammed recent discussions over whether or not to raise the debt ceiling as “ridiculous” and “irresponsible.

Both O’Neill’s and Geithner’s comments are in response to House Republicans who have recently threatened to vote to raise the debt ceiling only if that also means passing certain other deficit-reduction proposals.

In the same interview, O’Neill said the debt-ceiling debate is a symptom of a broken political system.

I do believe we have a broken political system that is capable of doing irresponsible things,” O’Neill said. “This whole conversation is irresponsible.

Incredible. This is what all of the hacks in Washington think about us, the American people. We are nothing more than a hindrance to them. These corrupt bastards have been draining the treasury and enriching themselves far to long. To them, the American people are nothing but their private ATM, and anyone who tries to stop the withdrawals is an evil terrorist.

All the American people want is a responsible government that will get out of our way and let us prosper. What we have now is a tyrannical group of mad men [and women] who want to control every facet of our lives, while they pick our pockets and make themselves even richer.It’s immoral and quite evil.

It’s time to clean house at every level of government. We simply cannot allow these people to participate in the process any longer. They are all crooks and con men. They have destroyed our nation and should be made to pay for it.

Stand up and be counted my friends. Stand up and be counted.

H/T: Stacy Drake


Filed under In The News, Politics

Flashback: Trump Trashed Bush Revealed Man Crush On Obama/What Is His Real Game?

By Gary P Jackson

Does anyone know what Donald Trump is really up to?

Donald Trump is making noise about running for President as a “Republican” and yet, he has a record of bashing Republicans and supporting democrats. Case in point, in 2008 while in Scotland trying to set up a mega-dollar golf resort, Trump trashed President George W Bush to the world’s media, and heaped a sickening amount of praise on Barack Obama.

ABERDEEN, Scotland – The Donald to W: “You stink.”

Donald Trump trashed President Bush Tuesday as a “terrible” president who has destroyed the world economy – but insisted the global crunch wouldn’t stall his planned $2 billion golf resort.

We have a president in the United States who’s terrible. He stinks,” Trump said. “Now the world is in chaos.

Trump said he can’t wait to see Bush head back to Texas after the November election is done.

Hopefully we’ll have a good, new president, whoever he is,” Trump said.

He praised both major party candidates, but gushed over Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee.

(Obama) has done an amazing job,” Trump said. “He came from nowhere.

The tycoon was more measured about John McCain, saying the Republican is “a friend of mine.”

Read more here.

Trump has a lot of Republicans’ hearts palpitating, but do they really know where this guy is coming from, or is it just name recognition combined with his loud voice?

Trump has thrown some money at Republicans lately [mostly über liberal “Republicans“] but history shows he’s given more support to extreme left wing candidates.

From Open Secrets: [emphasis mine]

In all, Trump has contributed to 96 candidates running for federal political office since the 1990 election cycle, the Center finds. Only 48 of the recipients — exactly half — were Republicans at the time they received their contribution, including ex-Gov. Charlie Crist (I-Fla.) and ex-Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), who both of whom received their Trump contributions as Republicans.

Since the 1990 election cycle, the top 10 recipients of Trump’s political contributions number six Democrats and four Republicans. Embattled Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.), who was censured last year by his U.S. House colleagues, has received the most Trump money, totaling $24,750. The most recent contribution from Trump to Rangel was a $10,000 gift during the 2006 election cycle.

In the most recent election cycle, Trump doled out $22,500 to political candidates, of which $16,200 benefited Democrats.

The top Republican recipient of Trump’s money is Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) who has collected $13,600 from the billionaire magnate, the second most of any politician. Trump did not contribute to McCain during the 2010 election cycle, during which the former presidential candidate was facing re-election.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) is the recipient of $12,000 in Trump contributions, including $10,000 for his 2006 re-election campaign.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has received the fourth-largest amount of Trump’s contributions, including $4,800 in the successful 2010 campaign against Tea Party favorite Sharron Angle. In total Trump has contributed $10,400 to Reid.

In 2010, Trump also contributed $4,000 to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who easily won re-election. Schumer has received $8,900 from Trump since the 1996 election cycle. Trump has also been generous to New York’s other Democratic U.S. senator, Kirsten Gillibrand, who’s received $5,850 in Trump money.

After McCain, the Republican with the largest amount of Trump’s contributions is former Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.), who left office in disgrace in 2006 when his online solicitation of male House pages became known. Trump contributed $9,500 to Foley between the 1996 and 2006 election cycles.

Trump has also supported other notable politicians, including:

$7,000 to former Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), the “liberal lion of the Senate

• $7,500 to former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani (R)

• $5,500 to Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) including $2,000 during his 2004 presidential run

• $5,000 to former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.)

• $4,000 to former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.)

• $2,000 to former President George W. Bush (R)

• $1,000 to then-Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.)

Trump’s donations to various political action committees and 527 groups also demonstrate his bipartisan checkbook.

During the most recent election cycle, Trump contributed $170,000 to the Republican Governor’s Association, $50,000 to the ultra-conservative American Crossroads PAC, $30,400 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee and $10,000 to the Democratic Party of New York.

However, of the nearly $420,000 Trump has donated to committees, the largest recipient has been the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee with $116,000 — or more than one fourth of his total contributions to all party and political action committees.

Read the details here.

Many of these donations are troubling. Trump donated $12,000 to radical leftist Farnk Lautenberg (D-N.J.) who just a few weeks ago said of Conservatives and Tea party members:

They don’t deserve the freedoms that are in the Constitution! But we’ll give it to them anyway.

Never mind the fact God gives us our rights, and the Constitution is designed to protect us FROM the government, Lautenberg is a despicable little man, and not someone who any right minded human being would give money to.

Trump has given big money to Harry Reid, another sad excuse for a man. He’s given big money to Chuck Schumer as well. They don’t get more dishonest, more extreme, or more leftist than those two.

Now some could say Trump was just covering his bases since he has major casinos in Las Vegas and New Jersey, as well as hotels in New York, but that doesn’t explain his huge donations to the DSCC.

Of the Republicans Trump has donated to, there’s not a Conservative or a Tea Party type in the bunch. Other than George Bush, they are are left leaning RINOs. In fact, both Charlie Crist and Arlen Specter left the Republican party, placing personal ambition over principled leadership.

As for the American Crossroads PAC, which Open Secrets describes as ” ultra-conservative,” that’s Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie’s deal. Nothing Conservative about it. Just a couple of GOP establishment hacks trying to stay relevant.

In fact, Rove goes out of his way to trash Conservatives and the Tea Party, unless he can use them to his advantage. It was Rove’s divide and conquer, pander to every group with a different message strategery that lost Congress in 2006, and sunk Bush’s approval ratings. But that’s a different story for a different day.

Point is, what is Trump REALLY up to?

One thing Open Secrets doesn’t mention is the fact Trump gave $50,000 to Barack Obama’s former chief-of-staff, Rahm Emanuel for his successful bid to be Chicago’s Mayor. Nor does it mention that Rahm’s brother Ari Emanuel is Trump’s agent and a close friend. How can anyone tied up with these two ultra-leftists be considered as anything but the same himself?

Also, while it’s entertaining to watch, why is Trump spending so much time on Obama’s birth certificate? This helps Obama more than it hurts him, and at this point is an absurd waste of time.

Seriously, legitimate cases were submitted to the United States Supreme Court in December of 2008 and January of 2009 and all were rejected in conference. The Court refused to hear them.

In my opinion the Court did the people of the United States a grave disservice by not hearing these challenges, especially the ones surrounding Obama’s eligibility based on the fact his father was not a U.S. Citizen, and therefore he wasn’t “natural born” as constitutionally requires.

With that said, the time to have gotten behind all of this was 2008-2009. It’s too late now, and a major distraction from real issues that must be solved.

Other than grabbing huge headlines, Trump’s continued talk about the birth certificate accomplishes absolutely nothing. It benefits no one but Obama, because it fires his base up, and it takes away precious time that could be spent talking about serious issues.

The blood libel media is all too happy to spend ink and bandwidth talking about Trump and “birthers” rather than Obama’s pathetic performance as President.

Instead of Libya, $5 gasoline, the budget, the drug war on our southern border, and other serious issues, thanks to Trump and his circus act, the nation’s newsrooms are cranking out story after story about Trump’s nonsensical quest to find Obama’s birth certificate. This gives Obama a pass on every serious issue simply because no one in the media is taking time away from Trump to talk about it!

Oh, us political junkies are well informed, but the casual news observers sees Trump and nothing else. Somehow I imagine the White House is loving it all, despite half-hearted protests to the contrary!

Personally, I have serious questions about Obama’s eligibility based on his father’s British citizenship. [Kenya was under British rule when Barry was born] However, the Supreme Court has already proven it wants no part of any of this, and Congress isn’t about to waste time on impeachment proceedings.

The best way to get rid of Obama, which should be the nation’s goal, is to beat him on ideas. Then beat him at the ballot box in November of 2012.

So again, what is Trumps angle?

He’s now on record threatening to run as an independent if he doesn’t win the Republican nomination, so obviously this is all about him, and not the country.

This, of course, is in the fine tradition of the sore loser wing of the Republican Party that includes such upstanding members as De De Scozzafava, Charlie Crist, and of most notably, Lisa Murkowski. Left wingers all. All more interested in holding on to their power than listening to the will of the voters.

Trump flirted with a presidential run in 2000. The website On The Issues labeled him at the time as a “left leaning populist.” Not sure much, besides the rhetoric, has changed.

Again, one must ask, what is Trump really all about?

Is he just trying to gin up publicity to draw more viewers to his cheesy reality TV show?

Is he a left wing plant, trying to take the real issues out of the spotlight with the birth certificate nonsense?

I’ve heard talk this is a plot cooked up by the Clintons to get back at Obama. After all, Rahm Emanuel was a Clinton stooge long before he worked for Obama.

Maybe Trump’s over-sized ego and incredible narcissism has finally taken over? Seriously, as big of a narcissist as Obama is, he doesn’t hold a candle to the grandiosity that comes out of Trump’s mouth on a daily basis. Everything he does is “the biggest,” “the best,” and so on. The guy is a self parody.

It’s bad enough with Obama. Can the nation really put up with four years of Trump and his ego in the White House?

All I know for sure is America has real issues. Serious issues. We need serious people, not rodeo clowns and circus side shows.

For me, Trump doesn’t pass the smell test. I honestly do not know what his end game is, but I seriously doubt it has anything to do with the goal Conservatives have of limited, principled government, and the advancement of personal Liberty and Freedom.

Conservatives need to think long and had before they fall for Trump’s shuck and jive. Something tells me he ain’t for real.

You should also check out Jonathan Hoenig: Donald Trump is No Capitalist for more on “The Donald’s” so-called “business expertise” and what his philosophy of government’s role in business really means for the nation, and the world.


Filed under In The News, Politics