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 : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (101642)	3/19/2011 10:19:41 PM
From: Follies	5 Recommendations Respond to of 224755

That is great, the Obama Doctrine. Never be a Leader.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (101642)	3/19/2011 11:12:35 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224755

The Wisconsin Way Posted 03/18/2011 06:35 PM ET Labor: Unions' favorite target asks why there are no organized mobs hanging from the rafters of Congress or picketing the White House. Wisconsin will have better benefits, that's why — and a balanced budget. It's a fair question to ask: Why was limiting the collective bargaining rights — some would say collectivist bargaining rights — of public-sector unions so terrible, when Wisconsin workers are still much better off than their federal government counterparts? In a Washington Post op-ed, Gov. Scott Walker noted that most federal workers do not have collective bargaining rights for wages and benefits. He reminded us that his successful plan requires a relatively modest 5.8% pension contribution and a 12.6% health insurance premium payment. These are well below what is paid by private-sector workers and government workers who must contribute 28% of health insurance costs. "It's enough to make you wonder why there are no protesters circling the White House," Walker observes. Perhaps it's because the federal government — which, unlike Wisconsin, can print money — is the patron saint of public employee unions that are virtually the only area of union and employment growth in an economy in which true unemployment, including those who've given up looking, remains in double digits. "The Wisconsin way," Walker opines, "allows local governments to balance the budget through reasonable benefit contributions. These reasonable contributions will save local governments almost $1.5 billion. The financial savings in our budget reforms will protect 1,500 jobs this fiscal year and 10,000 jobs over the next two years." Unfortunately, it's not the federal way or the way of many state and local governments on the brink of bankruptcy. Walker notes that President Obama instituted a pay freeze on federal workers, something he was able to do only because federal workers enjoy fewer collective-bargaining rights than do Wisconsin government workers even after Walker's "draconian" reforms. A union protest will take place in Washington, D.C., but not to protest federal hypocrisy on the issue of union bargaining rights. It is set for April 4, the 43rd anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King as he was supporting striking sanitation workers in Memphis, Tenn. It will be a shameless attempt to wrap union greed in the mantle of the civil rights struggle. "April 4 (is) the day on which Martin Luther King Jr. gave his life for the cause of public collective bargaining," AFL-CIO chief Richard Trumka said in a speech in Washington last Wednesday. On the AFL-CIO blog, there's this notice: "Join us to make April 4, 2011, a day to stand in solidarity with working people in Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana and dozens of other states where well-funded, right-wing corporate politicians are trying to take away the rights Dr. King gave his life for." No, they're not. What these "right-wing corporate politicians" are trying to do is the will of the people who elected them to balance the state budget. They're trying to end the incestuous cycle of government workers — paid by taxpayers — extorting more money from those taxpayers who can't flee the state like Democratic lawmakers and must show up at their jobs every day. "Union rights are no different than civil rights," Labor Secretary Hilda Solis told officials of the Communications Workers of America during a Wisconsin strategy conference call two weeks ago. But they are different: Union "rights" are negotiable, civil rights are not. "It is delusion, bordering on abomination, to try to equate what Martin Luther King was doing in Memphis to public workers getting Cadillac benefits for which they contribute very little, or nothing, at taxpayers' expense," says Peter Kirsanow, a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, who's also served on the National Labor Relations Board. We don't think King was fighting for the right of government union workers to have taxpayer-funded health plans that cover Viagra.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (101642)	3/19/2011 11:12:49 PM
From: MJ	Respond to of 224755

Interesting that Obama supports the United nations in acting against Libya. What will Obama do when the United nations turns its eire on long term allies or on America. Is Obama transferring power to the United Nations????

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (101642)	3/19/2011 11:13:21 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 224755

little break from flipping burgers today ????

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (101642)	3/20/2011 12:04:17 AM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 224755

Just paid $4/gallon gas. It's Palm Beach, but still not nice price. 10:49 AM Mar 15th via Twitter for BlackBerry®

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (101642)	3/20/2011 12:04:30 AM
From: jlallen	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224755

lol

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (101642)	3/20/2011 1:21:01 AM
From: FJB	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224755

MARCH 19, 2011 OBAMA: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world'... MARCH 19, 2003 BUSH: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger'...

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (101642)	3/20/2011 2:00:01 AM
From: FJB	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 224755

Qaddafi Letter to Obama: To our son, the honorable Barack Hussein Obama, As I have said before, even if, God forbid, there were a war between Libya and America, you would remain my son and I would still love you. I do not want to change the image I have of you. All of the Libyan people are with me, ready to die, even the women and children. We are fighting nothing other than al-Qaida in what they call the Islamic Maghreb. It's an armed group that is fighting from Libya to Mauritania and through Algeria and Mali. ... If you had found them taking over American cities by the force of arms, tell me what you would do?"

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (101642)	3/20/2011 8:20:42 AM
From: TideGlider	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224755

The lead? The US led the attack with over over a hundred tomahawk missiles and followed up with US Bombers dropping 40 bombs on an airstrip. There may not be troops on the ground , but the US definitely led the assault. At the same time, US Air Force fighter jets conducted missions searching for Libyan ground forces to attack.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (101642)	3/20/2011 10:02:55 AM
From: locogringo	5 Recommendations Respond to of 224755

Farrakhan to Obama: 'Be Careful, Brother. Who The Hell Do You Think You Are?' hapblog.com Liberal Democrats in uproar over Libya action A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday. politico.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (101642)	3/20/2011 10:16:30 AM
From: locogringo	3 Recommendations Respond to of 224755

Doctrine?? HA HA HA HA HA How come the LAME_STREAM media is not reporting this stuff? They did 24/7 for Bush. African Union wants Libya attacks to stop The African Union's panel on Libya has called for an "immediate stop" to all attacks after the United States, France and Britain launched military action against Muammar Gaddafi's forces. news.com.au China expresses regret over allied strike on Libya Beijing - China expresses "regret" over punishing airstrikes by the U.S. and European nations against Libya to enforce a U.N. no-fly zone. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu says China "consistently disagrees with the use of force in international relations" and expressed "regret" over the Saturday attacks. seattlepi.com Moscow regrets western mission over Libya en.rian.ru

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (101642)	3/20/2011 12:18:39 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224755

Citing pension costs, Costa Mesa, Calif., plans to lay off nearly half its employees washingtonpost.com Nearly half the city workers in Costa Mesa received layoff notices last week. Street sweepers. Firefighters. Mechanics. Payroll clerks. Animal control workers. In all, about 210 of the city’s 472 employees, many of whom have worked there for decades. On Thursday, as the notices were being handed out, one maintenance worker committed suicide by jumping from the city hall roof.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (101642)	3/20/2011 12:19:35 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224755

On Monday, Brent crude, which closed at $113.93 a barrel on Friday, could target a February peak of $119.79 a barrel. U.S. crude, which closed at $101.42 a barrel on Friday may also extend last week's 4.2 percent gain, adding to concerns about inflation around the world. "The Middle East and North Africa are a powder keg attached to a slow-burning fuse. The attacks on Libya and naval blockade, the troubles in Bahrain which are causing tension between Saudi Arabia and Iran, could cause the whole thing to blow up," said Jonathan Barratt, managing director of Commodity Broking Services. "The key is really how Saudi and Iran play out. Cool heads need to prevail. It's contained at the moment but if things worsen, you see a Mid East premium very quickly. If they start exchanging fire, it could easily drive the market above the record high." CRUDE UP 20 PERCENT IN 2011 Simmering tensions in North Africa and the Middle East, sparked by a revolt in Tunisia in January that spread to other nations including Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain and Libya have helped drive up oil prices by around 20 percent so far this year. Brent crude traded at almost $120 a barrel, its highest since a spike to just below $150 in mid-2008. So far in March, Brent has risen just 2 percent on expected lower demand following the Japan earthquake and eased on Friday after two days of gains, as Libya declared a ceasefire, easing the threat of further damages to oil facilities. Oil production in the nation, the world's twelfth biggest exporter, has fallen dramatically since the unrest started -- down from around 1.6 million barrels per day to around 400,000 barrels. Oil exports have slowed to a trickle, but they will likely dry up as military action continues.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (101642)	3/20/2011 1:03:22 PM
From: locogringo	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224755

Arab League condemns 'bombardment of civilians' in Libya Tripoli - Western forces pounded Libya's air defenses and patrolled its skies on Sunday, but their day-old intervention hit a serious diplomatic setback as the Arab League chief condemned the "bombardment of civilians". (Snip) But Arab League chief Amr Moussa said what was happening was not what Arabs had envisaged when they called for the imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya. "What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians," he said. jpost.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (101642)	3/20/2011 1:07:41 PM
From: locogringo	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224755

I thought Gadhafi HAD TO GO? AP begins the EXCUSES for the failed president: Mullen: Chance Gadhafi could cling to power WASHINGTON — The international military assault on Libya could achieve its stated goals without forcing Moammar Gadhafi from power, the top U.S. military officer said Sunday as the bombing campaign continued. (Snip)Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staffs, described the campaign's aims as "limited" saying it "isn't about seeing him (Gadhafi) go." Appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press," Mullen was asked whether it was possible that the mission's goals could be achieved while leaving Gadhafi in power. "That's certainly potentially one outcome," he replied. Pressed on this point later in an interview on CNN's "State of the Union," Mullen was more vague. "How this ends from the political standpoint, I just can't say," Mullen said. He said it was too early to speculate. msnbc.msn.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (101642)	3/20/2011 8:46:53 PM
From: TideGlider	4 Recommendations Respond to of 224755

Just 31% Now Give Obama Positive Marks for the Economy Sunday, March 20, 2011 Email to a Friend ShareThis.Advertisement The number of voters nationwide who give President Obama good or excellent marks for his handling of economic issues has fallen to a new low. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Voters show that just 31% rate Obama’s handling of economic issues as good or excellent. Forty-five percent (45%) say the president is doing a poor job handling these issues. (To see survey question wording, click here.) Positive ratings for the president on these issues are down from 34% last week and are the lowest since he took office in early 2009. Voters ages 40 and older are more critical of the president's economic performance than those who are younger. Sixty percent (60%) of Democrats rate the president’s handling of the economy as good or excellent, compared to seven percent (7%) of Republicans and 26% of voters not affiliated with either of the major parties. (Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook. The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on March 14-15, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology. Americans are fairly gloomy about the country’s economic prospects these days. Homeowners are more pessimistic about the short-term housing market, but now fewer than half the nation's homeowners expect the value of their homes to go up in the next five years. Data from the Rasmussen Consumer and Investor Indexes shows that consumer and investor confidence have fallen since February. Only one-out-of-three (33%) workers nationwide expects to earn more money a year from now, marking the lowest level of optimism in nearly two years. The number of voters who think America's best days still lie ahead is now at its lowest level in 17 months. Voters give the president a bit more credit on national security issues. Forty-one percent (41%) say the president is doing a good job handling those issues, while 36% give him a poor rating. Those numbers have held relatively steady for the past several months. A majority of voters, for the first time, however, support an immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Afghanistan or the creation of a timetable to bring them all home within a year. Eighty percent (80%) of voters now think terrorism is a bigger threat to the country than traditional wars. Forty-four percent (44%) of voters think the United States is safer today than it was before the 9/11 terrorists attacks nearly 10 years ago. Thirty-six percent (36%) disagree with that assessment, and another 20% are not sure.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (101642)	3/20/2011 10:04:45 PM
From: lorne	5 Recommendations Respond to of 224755

Liberal Democrats in uproar over Libya action By JOHN BRESNAHAN & JONATHAN ALLEN 3/19/11 politico.com A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday. Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part. Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Iraq — only to be blocked by his own leadership — asked why the U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses. Kucinich also questioned why Democratic leaders didn’t object when President Barack Obama told them of his plan for American participation in enforcing the Libyan no-fly zone during a White House Situation Room meeting on Friday, sources told POLITICO. And liberals fumed that Congress hadn’t been formally consulted before the attack and expressed concern that it would lead to a third U.S. war in the Muslim world. While other Democratic lawmakers have publicly backed Obama — including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and top members of the Armed Services, Foreign Affairs and Intelligence committees — the objections from a vocal group of anti-war Democrats on Capitol Hill could become a political problem for Obama, especially if “Operation Odyssey Dawn” fails to topple Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi, leads to significant American casualties, or provokes a wider conflict in the troubled region of North Africa. (Pelosi did not participate in Saturday’s call; she is in Afghanistan to meet with U.S. military and diplomatic officials.) U.S. warships fired more than 100 Tomahawk cruise missles on Saturday in a bid to knock out Libya’s air-defense systems, targeting command-and-control and radar units near Tripoli, the Libyan capital, and the city of Misurata, according to Pentagon officials and media reports. French aircraft attacked armored units loyal to Qadhafi around the city of Benghazi after they ignored international calls for a cease-fire. Saturday’s conference call was organized by Rep. John Larson (Conn.), chairman of the Democratic Caucus and the fourth-highest ranking party leader. Larson has called for Obama to seek congressional approval before committing the United States to any anti-Qadhafi military operation. “They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress,” one Democrat lawmaker said of the White House. “They’re creating wreckage, and they can’t obviate that by saying there are no boots on the ground. … There aren’t boots on the ground; there are Tomahawks in the air.” “Almost everybody who spoke was opposed to any unilateral actions or decisions being made by the president, and most of us expressed our constitutional concerns. There should be a resolution and there should be a debate so members of Congress can decide whether or not we enter in whatever this action is being called,” added another House Democrat opposed to the Libyan operation. “Whose side are we on? This appears to be more of a civil war than some kind of a revolution. Who are protecting? Are we with the people that are supposedly opposed to [Qadhafi]? You think they have a lot of people with him? If he is deposed, who will we be dealing with? There are a lot of questions here from members.” The unrest among Hill Democrat resembles, in part, the debates inside the White House, Pentagon and State Department over the last few weeks as the Libyan crisis has unfolded. The White House has worked to put out a narrative over the last 48 hours portraying Obama as initially opposed to any involvement in a Libyan campaign, with a major change in the president’s viewpoint developing over the course of the last week as Qadhafi loyalists appeared to be gaining the upper hand and a humanitarian crisis appeared inevitable. While Defense Secretary Robert Gates led administration opponents of any U.S. role in the anti-Qadhafi operation, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton backed calls from the French and British governments for a NATO-led effort to assist the Libyan rebels. The Clinton clique eventually prevailed in the debate, and Clinton then worked with U.S. allies to craft a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing the mission. The Security Council then approved a resolution on Friday authorizing a “no-fly zone” for portions of Libya controlled by anti-Qadhafi rebels, as well as “all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country,” according to a U.N. statement. With U.S. attacks already being launched, it was unclear what, if anything, Democratic opponents of the Libyan campaign could actually do to stop it. They could try to offer an amendment for under the 1973 War Powers Act, which would require a withdrawal of U.S. forces from any conflict within 60 days if the president lacks congressional approval, although it is unlikely that pass. They could also seek to cut off funding for any extended military effort, although it is unclear how long or what the White House anticipates the cost of the operation could be. Kucinich’s call to explore the impeachment question “got no support from anyone else on the call,” said another Democrat. Yet there is growing unhappiness within Democratic ranks on Obama’s handling of the Afghanistan conflict, and with Obama gearing up for his 2012 reelection campaign, he will need the backing of liberal and progressive factions within his party — already disenchanted over some of the president’s fiscal and tax policies — in order to defeat any Republican challenger. Recent opinion polls show the American public is also tiring of the Afghan war. On Thursday, 85 House Democrats — and eight Republicans — backed a Kucinich resolution calling for removal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan by Dec. 31. A total of 321 House members, including Pelosi and Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.), opposed the Kucinich measure. On the Senate side, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) offered a similar resolution, but so far, it has only garnered three cosponsors.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (101642)	3/20/2011 10:12:57 PM
From: lorne	4 Recommendations Respond to of 224755

kenny..ya gotta love this..a crazy moslum telling off hussein obama...LOL "Who The Hell Do You Think You Are?" Farrakhan Blasts Obama For Calling For Qaddafi to Step Down (Video) Farrakhan goes on a rant on Chicago radio about Obama calling for Qaddafi to step down, this is from yesterday youtube.com FARRAKHAN: "I warn my brother do you let these wicked demons move you in a direction that will absolutely ruin your future with your people in Africa and throughout the world...Why don't you organize a group of respected Americans and ask for a meeting with Qaddafi, you can't order him to step down and get out, who the hell do you think you are?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (101642)	3/21/2011 8:07:44 AM
From: lorne	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 224755

Where is the Constitution? March 21, 2011 By Henery Lamb wnd.com President Obama swore an oath to "... preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." He should have sworn to obey it. Congress, alone, has the power to declare war, and to make all the laws necessary to engage in military conflict. The War Powers Act defines precisely what is required of the president before military action may commence. Obama launched 118 missiles and dropped 40 bombs on Libya without a thought about Congress or the Constitution. He was quite concerned, however, about the United Nations. He hardly noticed the attacks on protesters until the United Nations Security Council approved a resolution authorizing the use of force against the Libyan government. Within hours after U.N. approval, the U.S. military was engaged – without the knowledge or approval of Congress. This event is proof-positive evidence of two staggering realities: Obama refuses to accept the limitations on government, and particularly on his office, imposed by the Constitution, and Obama considers the United Nations to be a higher authority than Congress. This event should be grounds for severe congressional censure, if not impeachment. When President Bush bombed Iraq, he had congressional approval. Nevertheless, the left went berserk in protest, claiming that "Bush lied; people died." In response to a question from a Boston Globe reporter, Obama said: "As president, I will not assert a constitutional authority to deploy troops in a manner contrary to an express limit imposed by Congress and adopted into law" (Source: Boston Globe questionnaire on Executive Power Dec 20, 2007). Obviously, Obama lied; people died. Where are the leftist protesters? This issue is far more serious than simply pointing out again the duplicitous action (or inaction) of the progressive left. The fact that Obama disregarded the Constitution while submitting to the United Nations Security Council, and engaging the U.S. military on the authority of a few leaders of other nations gathered in Paris, is behavior that cannot go unchallenged. Obama's action is not simply endorsement of global governance; it is submission to it. No power on earth is superior to the sovereignty of the United States government – unless the U.S. government yields its sovereignty voluntarily. Obama has consistently indicated that he wants the U.N. to exercise global sovereignty by supporting several treaties that expand U.N. authority. Now he has removed all doubt. Obama must be held accountable for ignoring the Constitution and for obeying instructions issued by an international committee. Social media sites are abuzz with comments about Obama's failure to consult with, and secure approval from, Congress before launching into military action. Every representative and senator should be deluged with phone calls from constituents demanding that the president be, at least, reprimanded for his behavior – and possibly impeached. If Obama's flagrant anti-American behavior is allowed to go undisciplined, America is doomed to become little more than an administrative unit of the United Nations. Most of the member nations of the U.N. despise the United States and are eager to see her wealth redistributed to the underdeveloped nations. This, too, is a goal with which Obama apparently agrees. Global governance is quite real. As early as 1995, Gustave Speth, former Clinton transition team member appointed to head the U.N. Development Program, told the World Conference on Rio+5, that: "Global governance is here, here to stay, and, driven by economic and environmental globalization, global governance will inevitably expand." Speth defined global governance to be: "a set of interacting guidance and control mechanisms that include both state and non-state actors, actors both public and private, both national and multilateral." The meeting in Paris on March 19, attended by Hillary Clinton and representatives from other nations, was a group of "state actors issuing guidance and control mechanisms" that resulted in the bombing of a sovereign nation – using U.S. military assets without congressional approval. This action is global governance in action. Global governance must be rejected and national sovereignty reaffirmed as the only authority that governs the citizens of the United States. If Barrack Hussein Obama cannot accept this concept, then he must be impeached. If there are too many progressive globalists still in Congress to accomplish this feat, then they too must be replaced with candidates who not only swear to "... preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" but who pledge to obey it in every law and action. The election in November 2010 was a good start toward restoring the Constitution. The election in 2012 will determine whether we do, in fact, respect and restore the Constitution or continue down Obama's road toward global governance.