Would Alfred Nobel Be Proud of Obama's 12 Days of Accomplishments?

By now, the whole world knows that President Barack Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009. This dubious (and I use that word in its truest sense) honor was based upon only the first 12 days of Obama's presidency. Let's see just what Obama accomplished in his first few days of office:

Day One (half day really): He was sworn in as president, then went to a parade, and later attended a huge "party".
Day Two: He asked bureaucrats to re-write guidelines for requesting information and held an "open house" party at the White House (for certain "invited" guests only??)
Day Three: He signed a few Executive Orders, among which was one requiring Executive Branch workers to take ethics pledge (Oh, yeah? That's not working so well, is it?), another was for re-affirming Army Field Manual techniques for interrogations (and later added the requirement of Miranda rights to be given in the field of battle!), and yet another was to close Gitmo Detention Center within one year (but no one wants to take the prisoners - so, now what?).
Day Four: He ordered the release of federal funds to pay for abortions -- in foreign countries (WHY?), and then had lunch with Joe Biden before meeting with Tim Geithner later in the day.
Day Five: He held a budget meeting with his economic team. (Here comes the "fundamental transformation" of our monetary system!)
Day Six: Whew! He was so tired from all that activity, he skipped church.
Day Seven: He gave a speech about jobs and energy, then had a quickie meeting with Hillary Clinton before attended Geithner's swearing in ceremony.
Day Eight: He took time to meet with some Republicans and later hopped on Air Force One to go speak at a clock tower in Ohio.
Day Nine: He sat through economic meetings in the morning and then met with the Defense secretary in the afternoon.
Day Ten: He signed the Ledbetter Bill which overturned a Supreme Court decision on lawsuits over wages. Then it was party time in the State Room. And, he met with his buddy Joe (Biden - not the plumber!) before the end of his workday.
Day Eleven: He met with his economic advisers, gave speech on the Middle Class Working Families Task Force, then met with a few senior enlisted military officials.
Day Twelve: He took the day off, (Even Presidents are actually due one, you know!) And stayed pretty much hidden from public view.
Day Thirteen: Being off yesterday wasn't enough rest, so Obama skipped church again, but he threw one heck of a Super Bowl party from all reports.

So, with the honor of the Nobel Peace Prize being bestowed upon Obama based upon those "accomplishments", one can't help but be in a quandary about why he was selected when there are many others who have the "credentials" usually associated with a Nobel Peace Prize winner. The Nobel Prize, according to the Nobelprize.com site, has been awarded for "humanitarian efforts and peace movements... for work in a wide range of fields including advocacy of human rights, mediation of international conflicts, and arms control." (Somebody please give me some concrete examples of just how Obama has fulfilled these things?)

Let's face it. It actually speaks volumes on the Nobel Committee's politics rather than their humanitarianism, and thus in my opinion, it is not at all flattering to the Nobel organization and even cheapens their integrity. (If you're one of those who think perhaps they were including his accomplishments up to and including his first 12 days in office. Just as a reminder, he was one of the best "present" voters in the Senate prior to campaigning for President!)

Awarding Obama this once prestigious award (specifically based on those first twelve days) just says that words count more than actions. (But let's face it, Obama can read a speech that someone else has written better than just about anybody out there. We know he doesn't use original material, he even had to borrow parts of his campaign speeches from his friends to make some of his points - even if he didn't remember to mention it to the friend beforehand.)

Because the Nobel Committee gave this award to an "as yet tested or proven" nominee simply because of the implication of politics involved, it casts a shadow upon the award for those previous award winners who certainly proved their qualifications. (So, it's politics, not actual effort?) That is not to say that any of those individuals didn't deserve to earn their awards (except perhaps Al Gore, but granted, he has worked hard on his global warming shtick that is now being called climate change!). It is to say, however, that previous winners had done some really meaningful things to earn the respect of the world. Those winners truly deserved the kind of recognition the Nobel Prize once stood for, and therefore, the award should remain reserved only for those who have spent considerable time impacting the world.

So, again in my opinion, this award granted to Obama was based upon literally no accomplishments of that caliber, and further -- and worse -- has lessened the true value of the prize that has been enjoyed by the special few since 1901. Indeed, it has served to undermine the prestige of both the committee and the prize.

ACORN's Web

Probably most of us didn't know much about ACORN until just before the election last year. As we are learning, ACORN has its fingers, if not hands and arms (whole body???), into just about everything. If it's political and there's any money or power involved that they can leverage, they're into it. Just take a look at the organizations and individuals that are linked either directly or very closely to ACORN. (Click on the link below to see how expansive this organization is!)

ACORN WEB

And if you want to know just who really is behind the government takeover of healthcare?




We probably wouldn't have known as this much about ACORN to this day if Obama had not been the candidate of choice for this organization. It's as if they have overplayed their hand, meaning that there was a more blatant movement by ACORN to get people registered to vote.... and "quotas" apparently were the method of choice for registrations, even if they didn't exit or were cartoon characters! Uh-oh!

There are alleged voter registration fraud cases uncovered in several states involving ACORN, particularly in Nevada where officials have uncovered actual proof that the rank-in-file have been following a manual of instructions laying out how to register people. It describes a pay-per-registration program, which in Nevada is a felony. Some of these workers have already been indicted and in the Nevada case, ACORN is also a co-defendent.

Then there's the undercover videos provided by James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles in several of ACORN's Housing Corporation offices in several states that have revealed ACORN's involvement in tax evasion practices, their counseling on how to set up illegal businesses, and assisting in making fraudulent housing loans.

But we can go back years when Dale Rathke, the brother of ACORN's founder Wade Rathke, was reported to have embezzled approximately $1M, which was supposed to have been repaid by Dale and a private individual. but kept quiet even from the ACORN Board. And he was never fired. (However, a more complete investigation by a Democrat Louisiana prosecuting attorney is now showing that it's more like $5M that had been embezzled during Wade Rathke's tenure as head of ACORN. It is becoming more apparent that corruption in this organization began at the top and has filtered down to the bottom. Thus far, the blame for infractions have been pushed off on those poor shmoes at the bottom who have been fired or charged with their misdeeds.

Just the vastness of organizations and the individuals who have ties to ACORN in either giving or receiving funding is very disconcerting. Just how much more illegal activities are there to uncover? The volume is overwhelming and extremely alarming. Thus, it appears it will take an enormous amount of push to keep the pressure on until this gigantic organization with all it's many, many tentacles can be examined and all the corruption exposed. But it has to be done! It's a HUGE start in cleaning up the corruption that goes on at all levels in this country.

Americans are getting fed up with the government pandering to special interests groups like ACORN and their turning blind eyes and deaf ears when corrupt organizations are brought to their attention. Most of the politicians are in bed with ACORN. And they have been lining their pockets with kickbacks and gaining votes by granting favors. It keeps politicians in power and rich. But if those who are expressing outrage at this point in time will continue to rattle cages and act upon their disgust, these things can be reined in, and we can begin put a stop to this blatant corruption which is pervasive.

As voters, we have the opportunity over the next 13 months to evaluate who is and who is not willing to take on the challenge of cleaning up ACORN and SEIU. At the end of that time, we will have the right and the responsibility to vote out those Congressmen who are sleeping with corruption. And we will!

An Open Letter to US Congress

Dear Members of US Congress:

It's obvious that you Members of Congress do watch the polls. You may say that you don't take any stock in them; but lately, there have been some hints in your public statements that reveal you not only pay attention to the polls, but you will go out of your way to find a poll that favors your particular political position, especially on the hot items of public interest. That way you can spin the media reports the way you want them and give validity to your actions which are in opposition to what most polls show the majority of Americans want.

Of course you know you were elected based upon your promises to represent your state or district in Washington and you vowed to uphold the Constitution of the United States. In terms of legislation, though, how many of you have actually considered the constitutionality of the laws when you either wrote or voted on them? In addition to upholding the Constitution and representing your constituents, you made pledges of reaching across the aisles and bipartisanship which have been but empty words.

Instead of keeping the promises you made which got you to Washington, you play stupid political games and participating in hateful partisan politic. All the while, the folks back home have blindly trusted you to do what was best for them. They never expected that your endeavours would almost entirely comprise favors you could for another congressman in exchange for a position on a committee or their vote on particular piece of legislation or sponsorship of legislation that would promote the desires of special interest groups. Instead of fidelity to your constituents and to your sworn duty to uphold the Constitution, you have become faithful to your "party". You have made a career of participating in partisan politics and political game-playing and in dealing with special interest groups. You haven't contributed to changing these activities. They are just as rampant in the halls of Congress as they ever have been, and in fact, getting worse!

But here's a flash for you! It's not going to be "politics as usual" anymore. American's aren't blind and they're not stupid. You can't keep on playing your political games as before because the people are now wise to the corruption of Washington's wealth and power and to your deviate ways of doing business there. Both political parties are equally guilty of greediness and both play the same political games - with each other and with the public. They see you talking out of both sides of your mouth, like when you stand before the media and say things out of one side of your mouth to John Q. Public and then speak out of the other side to your peers. They see that you are making deals in backrooms that are in opposition of what you just spoke in public. Again, it's both parties who are equally guilty of massaging truth to fit their positions - neither side of the aisle has a monopoly on this - and both sides are guilty of exactly the same highly questionable practices.

Since the town halls of August, Republican representatives and perhaps a few moderate Democrats have begun to talk about some of concerns that were expressed in those meetings. However, the old Washington way of doing things (the both-sides of the mouth talk) makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to be taken seriously by the opposition or by the public. So, when these congressmen, usually Republican, present the legitimate concerns of the people in their committees or on the floor, it's perceived as politics as usual - same ol', same ol'. Democrats considered it as just more whining because, after all, the Republicans "lost" the election and, of course, they would do or say anything to "go with the flow" of the public swell.

Therefore, Republicans, you have heard the people and some of you are truly wanting to get the people's concerns before the Congress. But those stupid political games that you have played for so many, many years have to this point made the legitimate conservative voice in Congress impotent. So, that has made you pretty useless, hasn't it? If you cannot be effective among your peers and your sincerity is in question, you're done politically. You have no value as a representative of the people.

Democrats, you have proudly displayed a double standard and double-dealing which is turning the stomachs of more than just the conservatives. You display your immense pride because you areriding a high wave with control in both houses. But your partisanship has shown that you don't want to listen to anyone but your own party and only those who agree with you. But Americans in huge numbers are saying something different than your own personal agendas. That is not healthy for this country and not paying attention to Americans and discounting them as "astroturf", not giving validity to their concerns will also cost you.

Americans are clearly seeing all the hyprocisy in Congress. They see how uncompassionate the Democrats can be when a Republican fails morally and how he's virtually and almost immediately drummed out of Washington, but people like Rangel can remain not only in their congressional seats while it takes an eternity to begin an investigation for ethics violations, but remain as chairmen of his committee for months if not years. And what about Congress stealing millions of dollars from the American people's treasury for things like personal airports and eco-bridges for turtles who can't even read the road signs? There's truth to the phrase there is no honor among thieves. Might we paraphrase that into a question: Is there no honor among Congressmen?

It used to be that people believed their representatives would bring change to Washington and some looked to their congressmen for truth and wisdom and some naively trusted them to do what was best for them and for the country. They'd vote out the "dead wood" and just get more of the same. So over time, Americans have become disillusioned. Their apathy has kept lawmakers in office - far too long. However, dear Members of Congress, your eloquent and loquacious words no longer have an effect on the people. It's your actions that are now being closely scrutinized (and reported on primarily through blogs) by Americans exercising their right to free speech. The double standards of Washington have become abhorent to the people, and mainstream America is growing extremely weary of the practice of political games for personal gain. That's why there will be a shake up in Washington beginning in 2010.

What is different this time is that many of those people who have always been apolitical are now becoming actively involved in organizing political groups to keep their neighbors and families informed of the shenanigans and conniving that's going on in Washington. This political activity it's not only going to affect Washington; these people are starting from ground zero. They are looking for candidates to get behind that have the same values and ideals they do. So, those of you reading this who are in local politics, the same politics as usual will not be tolerated there either. So, look for changes in your own towns beginning next year!

"Remember the Alamo!"

What other phrase can rally the hearts and spirits of people much as it did well over a century and a half ago. No one doubts what the battle at the Alamo has come to symbolize. The battle cry, "Remember the Alamo", and that is just what it was, conjures up emotions in the hearts and minds of people all around the world because it represents a valliant struggle against impossible odds - indeed, where men were willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for freedom.

As concerned people come together in groups around the country whether at townhalls or at Tea Parties, that same spirit and call to rally against seemingly impossible odds is very much alive today. Americans, primarily Conservatives, but which include moderate Democrats and Independents as well, are finding a new rallying phrase which is strikingly similar to "Remember the Alamo!" To the chagrin of liberals, a new battle cry which began several months ago is growing louder and stronger.

As time marches on, and the Obama Administration pushes this country further and further into Socialism, imposes governmental takeovers of every sector of the economy, and place limitations on basic American freedoms and Constitutional rights, it's no longer "Remember the Alamo" which is a retrospective battle cry. Rather, there is a new battle cry which is forward-looking. It has become "Remember, 2010 and 2012!"

Dreams of My Father - by Bill Ayers?

Rusty Humphries, of biggovernment.com, -- you know, the same watchdog group who has helped expose the ACORN Housing Corporation debacle -- has written an article on that website that is at the very least provocative. I am not endorsing this information as true, but I will just share with you about what his articles says. Then you can read his article and his supporting documents if you would like.

Anne Leary, as it is pointed out in Humphries article, is a conservative blogger who happened to run into Bill Ayers at Reagan National Airport. She claims that Ayers, for whatever reason, claimed that he, not Barack Obama, is the real author of his bestseller Dreams of My Father. I am a little sceptical of this because while he has been candid about many things in his colored past, he has been tight-lipped on others. It would be to no advantage politically for him to claim authorship of this book at this point in time. I mean, after all, he's seeing someone in office that is pushing the agendas that he espouses. And he's seeing the government transforming before his eyes.

There has been speculation that Obama didn't write the book without help since he hadn't demonstrated that level of skill prior. The reason I would tend to believe that he did have a ghost writer is that without the TOTUS, Obama isn't nearly as smooth in his communication skills as when he reads the words others have written. In fact, sometimes it appears that if he ventures beyond his practiced rhetoric, he doesn't know what to say and resorts to cliches and satirical phrases, as well as throwing blame on the republicans, and in particular Bush. Watch him say, "Hey, look..." and you know it's not going to be eloquent!

There has been some research into whether Ayers played a role in writing the book. Christopher Andersen has written a book on the First Couple and claims that he did in fact play a significant role in authoring the book, even though Obama claims he wrote it with no help. It is suspected that Ayers, if he did ghost write for Obama, even ascribed some of his own life experiences to Obama. That could account for the many discrepancies in Obama's "history". There are too many irregularities and inconsistencies in Obama's recollection of his life as a child... and too many gaps in his life as a young adult.... the tales and gaps continued -- until he became president.

Jack Cashill’s research on the subject and Christopher Andersen’s book combined with the reported Ayers' voluntary statement about him having written the book have created an "uh-oh" moment for the lame-stream media. What will they do about this information? Will they do their job and report on it, dig for the truth, or continue to deny the public the truth? Why would it matter? It would matter because the President’s credibility is on the line -- again. So in that regard, this intriguing revelation demands our attention.

Jack Cashill investigations can be found at The Improvised Odyssey of Barack Obama, Who Wrote Dreams and Why It Matters, and Literary Lion Obama Will Roar No More. Anne Leary's blog is found at http://backyardconservative.blogspot.com/. Rusty Humphrey's article is found at http://bit.ly/34Ddh.

Social Security Sucks You Into Gov't Healthcare

Brian Hall is a senior citizen. He is suing the government over its current mandatory healthcare practices.

Huh?! We don't have a national healthcare bill passed yet, but he's got problems with government-run healthcare already? You betcha!

When Brian turned 65, even though he had private healthcare insurance he wanted to keep, he was forced by the government to enroll in Medicare. That meant he would have to give up his private health insurance which he believed was better than what Medicare offered. He contacted the Department of Health and Human Services and the Social Security Administration and was told he could not opt out of Medicare.

Actually what the Social Security Administration said was that even though he paid into Social Security for his entire working career, he cannot opt out of Medicare without giving up his Social Security. So, he consulted with his own attorneys and he's now suing the government for what he rightfully deserves - his Social Security check.... without the strings of Medicare attached.

We know that Medicare and Social Security are virtually financially broke or soon will be. Actually, Social Security will pay out more in 2010 than they take in. Medicare will be bankrupt within five years. So why are these government's entitlement programs forcing seniors into their healthcare program?

If seniors have the ability to pay for their own hospitalization coverage through private insurance, from a financial standpoint, doesn't it make better sense to let them do it and get them out of the money pit of Medicare? Why won't the government allow seniors to opt out of their most costly portion of their program, Medicare Part A which covers hospital insurance?

The answer is because with each person who opted out of Medicare, it would require the government to give up a small piece of power, and that would put a crack in their universal healthcare plan. They do not want anyone to be able to exercise their legal right to pay for private insurance if that's what the people prefer. So, if you ignorant enough to think that your private insurance will survive if a public option (of any version) gets into healthcare reform, think again!

Just so we're clear, there is no law that says any Social Security recipient must subscribe to Medicare, but some "backdoor" administrative measures which were adopted back about 16 years ago by these entitlement programs are what they are using to push seniors into enrolling in Medicare Part A -- under the threat of losing their Social Security. This current policy is a violation of the individual's right to make their own healthcare choices; and further, it violates both the Social Security and Medicare laws.

So, if this is a foreshadowing of what is to come under the ObamaCare or BaucuSCARE, then even if a "private option" remains on the table along with the "public option", policies have already been put into place that can be adopted across the board which will eventually eliminate the option to chose private insurance or to opt out of Medicare, thereby forcing you out of your private insurance coverage into a governmental plan for health care coverage.

This slight of hand, this political mumbo-jumbo (is it a public option or is it a co-op?), these scare tactics cannot be allowed any longer. Call it what it is. And if you talk to people about the issue, point out the deceptions.

People must be allowed their basic life and health choices rights without governmental blackmail. Go get them Brian Hall!

Obama and Congress Preaching to the Choir on ObamaCare

Apparently, our President has a habit of not listening to the citizens of the U.S. In fact, he would rather "preach to the choir". And this practice applies equally to both parties in Congress as it does to the President. Here are some examples of what I mean.

When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi walks up to a podium to speak (other than her press conferences), she has some of her entourage/puppet-congressmen standing behind her, as well as staff members to the side and left-leaning media in front of her. So, no matter what she says, she has a pro-message audience to preach her propaganda to.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid does the same thing with his cronies, staff, and media, as does John Boehner and most, if not all, of the others in Washington. It's a modus operandi in Washington to surround yourself with "yes" people and even to plant some in the audience for Q&A so you can get at least a few questions to answer to promote your agenda. Obama did the same thing during the campaign, and since he's still campaigning (because that's all he really knows how do to), he's is continuing that practice as of today when, as an example, he invited 150 doctors to the White House to discuss healthcare reform. Well, it was reported that these doctors were handpicked, so it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that these physicians are mostly likely pro-Obamacare. Otherwise, if history teaches us anything, their voices would be ignored.

He did the same thing with some nurses' association representatives not long ago. Well, most healthcare providers, those who are practicing, do not support the ObamaCare plan. And as we learned last week, NY medical caregivers, primarily doctors and nurses are opposed to the mandatory inoculation - just as their peers in other states do as well. So, logically, we can assume that AMA (which represents only a small minority of doctors, and most of whom do not practice medicine) and ANA (American Nurses Association)  do not represent these medical professions as a whole. In fact, polls show the opposite - just ask your doctor and nurse.

So, if this meeting Obama has planned today with the doctors is for "show and tell", it's obviously another ruse. If he brought them to the White House truly not knowing where they stood on the issue and is really seeking to listen to their input, then count this as one of the campaign promises he made that he's really adhering to - and that is to listen to serious debate. Even so, I wonder what he constitutes as "serious" debate. The American people have been trying to debate his issues for months now and he's done his best to not hear what they're saying.

The problem with the issue of preaching healthcare to the choir is that if the preacher turns to preach to the choir, it's obvious that he has his back turned to the congregation. Look for Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Baucus, as well as others, to continue to preach to the choir over the next couple of weeks.... but the choir isn't the congregation. They've stopped listening to a message where cost numbers don't add up, where answers about maintaining quality of care are not direct - much less honest, and discussion on issues that would give incremental reform without trashing everything that works are evaded. There is no open and honest debate from The One who is preaching to the choir!