8 posts tagged “george w bush”

Obama.smoking

Have the “people” elevated President Barack Obama to the status of a “Living God” ?

Former Presidents do not have the courage to stand by our Constitution and criticize President Obama.

Obama.smoking

The Obama Cult

My tag line is: “George W. Bush is LBJ with a human face.” Now this is a take off from Alexander Dubcek the former Premier of communist Czechoslovakia when his attempt at liberalizing his country met with the Soviet invasion in 1968; he wanted to create “socialism with a human face”. Well LBJ was ugly and Bush has become an even bigger socialist than Johnson. Bush was definitely not a conservative, his foreign policy was too far reaching and reckless, his domestic policy was too expensive and tried to create a heaven on earth which is what one would expect from the left.

I give President George W. Bush the dubious credit for destroying the remainder of Reaganism that his father didn't dismantle. I really think that the Bush family is poison for the Republican Party. There is no longer a vision that has political legs, which will propel America forward in the 21st century in the tradition of the Bill of Rights. The Washington DC culture is so corrupt that I doubt that America can be saved. 1913 when the 16^th Amendment and the Federal Reserve was passed may have doomed America to fascism/ socialism. Is this the death of the conservative movement?

The credit bubble was created by the Federal Reserve and Congress through the Community Reinvestment Act and allowing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy no document home loans. This last economic expansion was created artificially through the over expansion of credit.  Destroying the traditional standards that financial institutions had used before extending credit has ruined the balance sheets of most public companies that were in the business of extending credit.  Congress and the President have created more debt to throw good money after bad in bailing out insolvent companies. I find it terribly ironic that the institutions that created these bad loans like the money was free are getting bailed out with taxpayer’s money and debt while citizens who are in trouble because of their debt may actually face bankruptcy while in the long term be subject to additional taxation to service this debt and dollar repudiation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

I am very sad for my country. Changing the President doesn’t create a positive reality. Barack Obama’s appointments are the same beltway insiders that created this mess in the first place. While I want my country to succeed, I am not a cheerleader for the Obama administration.

“Lyndon Johnson is directly responsible for the deaths of 58,000 Americans, but Nixon is vilified for covering up a break-in. Carter nearly bankrupted the country and his incompetence in the hostage crisis was stunning, yet Reagan brought down the Soviet Union, but he is ridiculed for being out of touch. Clinton brought sleaze and criminality to the Oval Office and stood idly bye while terrorists attacked the World Trade Center, the USS Cole, Kobart Towers in Saudi Arabia, our embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Kenya which paved the way to 9/11, but Bush is hated for declaring war on terrorism because he didn’t fight it the way the liberals wanted.”

--Ted West TedWest The Naked Conservative

FOXNews.com - IgNobels for Obama - Opinion
IgNobels for Obama
Thursday , October 30, 2008
By Steven Milloy

 Seventy-six American Nobel laureates in science endorsed Barack Obama this
week. Despite their scientific successes, their political analysis just doesn’t
make the grade.
Featuring signatories such as James Watson -- the co-discoverer of the structure
of DNA who shocked the world in 2007 with his assertion that blacks were not as
intelligent as whites -- the Nobelists praised Obama in an Oct. 28 letter as a
“visionary leader who can ensure the future of our traditional strengths in
science and technology and who can harness those strengths to address many of
our greatest problems: energy, disease, climate change, security, and economic
competitiveness.”
Although the election is between Obama and John McCain, the letter first
criticized President Bush for “stagnant or declining federal support” of science
and politicizing the scientific advisory process.
But in 2007, Bush asked Congress to double the funding for AIDS programs from $3
billion per year to $6 billion per year. During the Bush administration, the
budget for the National Institutes of Health increased by 38 percent from $17.1
billion to $23.7 billion. Bush increased funding for climate change research by
15 percent from $1.75 billion to $2.02 billion. The National Science Foundation
budget went from $4.4 billion in 2001 to $6.0 billion budget in 2008. The budget
for the National Institute of Standards and Technology increased by 34 percent
from 2002 to 2008 ($692 million to $931).
In August 2007, Bush even signed the so-called “America Competes Act,” a law
that would double federal funding for basic science research by 2016.
Ironically, it is the Democratic-controlled Congress that so far has failed to
appropriate funds to implement the law.
Although the Obama Web site says,“Barack Obama and Joe Biden support doubling
federal funding for basic research over ten years…,” there’s no indication
they’ve made any progress in convincing their fellow congressional Democrats on
this point.
While the Nobelists claim that “Senator Obama understands that Presidential
leadership and federal investment in science and technology are crucial elements
in successful governance of the world’s leading country,” they overlook the fact
that McCain also supported the America Competes Act and, on his web site, says
he “will fully fund” the law.
The Nobelists’ assertion about the Bush administration politicizing science is
also a canard that boils down to their political differences with Bush on
subjects like embryonic stem cell research and global warming.
The Nobelists wrote that, “We have lost time critical for the development of new
ways to provide energy, treat disease, reverse climate change, strengthen our
security and improve our economy.” But what does any of this really mean?
Shouldn’t the 48 signatories who won their Nobels for chemistry and physics
return their prizes for signing a letter that calls for climate change to be
“reversed”? Just how would that be physically accomplished? And, then, reverse
the climate to what point? What it was in, say, 1750, 1850 or 1950? Let’s say,
for the sake of argument, that they actually did reverse climate change; how
would they keep climate from changing the moment after they got it where they
wanted it?
On the other hand, there’s not a single climate expert among the letter’s
signatories -- so maybe they really didn’t understand what they were signing.
The “treat disease” comment in the letter is undoubtedly aimed at the embryonic
stem cell research controversy. But despite limitations in the U.S., the rest of
the world was free to conduct such research. Has there been any progress?
There’s been nothing to speak of except a lot of fraud -- remember South Korean
researcher Hwang Woo-suk?
Is Obama really a science “visionary” as compared to McCain? As liberal-leaning
Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein wrote on Oct.16, “Both presidential
candidates… offer policies farther from the president than they are from each
other. They advocate mandatory caps on the main global warming gas and favor
federal funding for embryonic stem cell research -- positions opposite the Bush
Administration.”
A quick review of the political contributions of the 76 Nobelists revealed that
at least 28 of them have contributed to Democratic politicians, including Barack
Obama. There seems to be no recent record of any of the signatories contributing
to any Republicans.
Contrary to the Nobelists positioning themselves as independent geniuses looking
out for the nation’s best interests, the group appears to be nothing more than a
collection of liberal academics who rely on their elite status rather than
well-reasoned argument to promote a political candidate.

Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and manages the Free Enterprise Action
Fund. He is a junk science expert and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive
Enterprise Institute.

"George W Bush is LBJ with a human face." This is my tagline as I have been saying it for years now.  I never liked LBJ and only tolerate the Bush family. But I'm not trying to stick it to anybody, I just repudiate Federal activism and the notion that "nation building" is a valid concept. That's why I'm voting for Ron Paul in the Arizona Republican Primary. I have met Paul several times since the 1980's and voted for him in 1988 when he was the Libertarian Party nominee.