Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ManyMoose who wrote (378314)	8/15/2010 10:32:11 AM
From: Brumar89	3 Recommendations Respond to of 793755

LOL - I guess they were bragging about him standing up for his principles BEFORE he decided to back off and acknowledge that mosque THERE was really unwise: “I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there." There's a profile in courage to be proud of. I'll bet they also love that Obama's clarification came AFTER Sarah Palin had taken him to task on Facebook: "Mr. President, should they or should they not build a mosque steps away from where radical Islamists killed 3000 people? Please tell us your position. We all know that they have the right to do it, but should they? And, no, this is not above your pay grade. If those who wish to build this Ground Zero mosque are sincerely interested in encouraging positive “cross-cultural engagement” and dialogue to show a moderate and tolerant face of Islam, then why haven’t they recognized that the decision to build a mosque at this particular location is doing just the opposite? Mr. President, why aren’t you encouraging the mosque developers to accept Governor Paterson’s generous offer of assistance in finding a new location for the mosque on state land if they move it away from Ground Zero? Why haven’t they jumped at this offer? Why are they apparently so set on building a mosque steps from what you have described, in agreement with me, as “hallowed ground”? I believe these are legitimate questions to ask." - Sarah Palin facebook.com Sarah posts and Barry caves, again. Now if Obama had said at the iftar dinner that the 911 attack site was an unwise place for a mosque, THAT would have a courageous stand. IOW if he'd said at the dinner what Sarah Palin said above, he'd have shown courage and principled leadership. But he didn't!

To: ManyMoose who wrote (378314)	8/15/2010 10:32:29 AM
From: carranza2	6 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793755

Sticking up for his principles, my a**. He is, as we say in Louisiana, crawfishing [walking backwards] like crazy now that the magnitude of the faux pas is being realized. But crawfishing is even worse from a political standpoint. The details of the issue ... how long the plans were in existence, who the promoter of the mosque might be, whether it is close enough to GZ to matter, First Amendment, etc....don't make a pissant's worth of difference to an electorate that has the attention span of a gnat. All they will remember is O! supported the mosque at GZ, then crawfished when he realized his mistake. No amount of spinning and explaining will do any good for all it does is draw attention to the issue. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Especially at a time when Iran's nuclear weapons program looms. What credibility will he have when he deals with it? The Iranians are gong to think of him as the equivalent of a Jerry Lewis in charge of the most powerful nation on Earth. Political poison, and when mixed in with bad polls, Michelle Antoinette's wastrel ways, Rangel and Waters, a really bad combination, esp. as November approaches. O! does not seem to do well under pressure. I suspect some high-ranking Dems are going to have a chat with him. But forget about GZ mosques, the real issue we will face is Iran and its nukes. There is no doubt in my mind that there will be no US attack on Iran's nukes, but there will be one by Israel. They have no choice, Iran presents an existential threat. Can its military do it? I don't know. To some degree, no doubt. But it will unleash chaos: Hizbollah terrorism throughout the globe, huge spike in oil at a time when our huge offshore oil production has been devastated by O!'s idiotic moratorium. The rigs are gone elsewhere, they cannot wait. The drillers have declared force majeure, and moved on. Very few waited for the legalities to play out. The market responded with its feet. Getting them back will take months, if at all. In the meantime, a substantial part of our domestic oil production is reduced, La. and Texas economies take a huge hit and national security is compromised - all in the name of spin. My god, what a disaster he has been.

To: ManyMoose who wrote (378314)	8/15/2010 5:12:44 PM
From: carranza2	13 Recommendations Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 793755

I am thoroughly, and I do mean thoroughly, enjoying the Left's discomfort on the mosque issue. Maybe everyone can have a beer on the White House lawn. Oooops, Muslims don't drink. An issue that is not only local but full of trouble no matter what O! said. So he sticks his size 12 firmly in his mouth, on a visceral and emotional issue, one that fans the fires for those who have doubts about where his loyalties lie. It doesn't get better than this for those of us who love political theater. I'm tempted to go knock on James Carville's door (he lives 3 blocks away from me) and ask him: "Whatcha think now Jimbo?"

To: ManyMoose who wrote (378314)	8/15/2010 8:19:52 PM
From: mph	16 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793755

what principles???? Obama has a head stuffed full of socialist agendas crammed in by his grandfather, Frank Marshal Davis, Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and other assorted scoundrels. Some think he's a Muslim. I do not necessarily believe that. Obama strikes me as an opportunist who used race and affirmative action to succeed. I do not believe he actually has principles. His over arching concern is to get his and the rest of us be damned. He really believes in nothing but stoking his own ego and stealing what he can.

To: ManyMoose who wrote (378314)	8/15/2010 8:31:01 PM
From: FJB	5 Recommendations Respond to of 793755

How Obama is locking up our land by Michelle Malkin Creators Syndicate Copyright 2010 Have you heard of the “Great Outdoors Initiative”? Chances are, you haven’t. But across the country, White House officials have been meeting quietly with environmental groups to map out government plans for acquiring untold millions of acres of both public and private land. It’s another stealthy power grab through executive order that promises to radically transform the American way of life. In April, President Obama issued a memorandum outlining his “21st century strategy for America’s great outdoors.” It was addressed to the Interior Secretary, the Agriculture Secretary, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency and the chair of the Council on Environmental Quality. The memo calls on the officials to conduct “listening and learning sessions” with the public to “identify the places that mean the most to Americans, and leverage the support of the Federal Government” to “protect” outdoor spaces. Eighteen of 25 planned sessions have already been held. But there’s much more to the agenda than simply “reconnecting Americans to nature.” The federal government, as the memo boasted, is the nation’s “largest land manager.” It already owns roughly one of every three acres in the United States. This is apparently not enough. At a “listening session” in New Hampshire last week, government bureaucrats trained their sights on millions of private forest land throughout the New England region. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack crusaded for “the need for additional attention to the Land and Water Conservation Fund — and the need to promptly support full funding of that fund.” Property owners have every reason to be worried. The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is a pet project of green radicals, who want the decades-old government slush fund for buying up private lands to be freed from congressional appropriations oversight. It’s paid for primarily with receipts from the government’s offshore oil and gas leases. Both Senate and House Democrats have included $900 million in full LWCF funding, not subject to congressional approval, in their energy/BP oil spill legislative packages. The Democrats have also included a provision in these packages that would require the federal government to take over energy permitting in state waters, which provoked an outcry from Texas state officials, who sent a letter of protest to Capitol Hill last month: “In light of federal failures, it is incomprehensible that the United States Congress is entertaining proposals that expand federal authority over oil and gas drilling in state water and lands long regulated by states… Given the track record, putting the federal government in charge of energy production on state land and waters not only breaks years of successful precedent and threatens the 10th Amendment to the United Sates Constitution, but it also undermines common sense and threatens the environmental and economy security of our state’s citizens.” This power grab, masquerading as a feel-good, all-American recreation program, comes on top of a separate, property-usurping initiative exposed by GOP Rep. Robert Bishop and Sen. Jim DeMint earlier this spring. According to an internal, 21-page Obama administration memo, 17 energy-rich areas in 11 states have been targeted as potential federal “monuments.” The lives of coyotes, deer and prairie dogs would be elevated above states’ needs to generate jobs, tourism business and energy solutions. Take my home state of Colorado. The Obama administration is considering locking up some 380,000 acres of Bureau of Land Management land and private land in Colorado under the 1906 Antiquities Act. The Vermillion Basin and the Alpine Triangle would be shut off to mining, hunting, grazing, oil and gas development and recreational activities. Alan Foutz, president of the Colorado Farm Bureau, blasted the administration’s meddling: “Deer and elk populations are thriving, and we in Colorado don’t need help from the federal government in order to manage them effectively.” Indeed, the feds have enough trouble as it is managing the vast amount of land they already control. As the Washington, D.C.-based Americans for Limited Government group, which defends private property rights, points out: “The (National Park Service) claims it would need about $9.5 billion just to clear its backlog of the necessary improvements and repairs. At a time when our existing national parks are suffering, it doesn’t make sense for the federal government to grab new lands.” The bureaucrats behind Obama’s “Great Outdoors Initiative” plan on wrapping up their public comment solicitation by November 15. The initiative’s taxpayer-funded website has been dominated by left-wing environmental activists proposing human population reduction, private property confiscation, and gun bans, hunting bans and vehicle bans in national parks. It’s time for private property owners to send their own loud, clear message to the land-hungry feds: Take a hike. michellemalkin.com