Billy Roy says his old buddy Ray Stevens has outdone himself with his new video and song satirizing and making fun of the illegal immigration thing, "The latest stats are that 1 of every 12 children born in the USA today are to illegal immigrants. At present, it is estimated that some 11 million undocumented immigrants live in the U.S. -- with Latinos accounting for 75% of undocumented U.S. immigrants and about 85% of the births among that group. How do we punish these illegals? We make their babies full American citizens and spend an estimate of $338,000,000,000 (that is billions) a year on education, welfare, health care, and services for illegals. No wonder folks feel like things in today's world are just turned upside down."
Scott Riddle, whose cows may or may not cause global warming in downtown Hubbard every July and August depending on where you take your coffee, says there is hope. In fact he attended a meeting last night to meet Bill Flores a US Congressional candidate running in District 17 against a longtime career politician. Seems candidates are flocking to the Hubbard City Cafe to gain support and backing from the prestigious coffee drinkers who call the Cafe their Semi-World Headquarters.
Seems like Scott Riddle feels that a country running a $1.4 trillion deficit every year because of spending habits worse than pipeline cowboys on a Saturday night could benefit from electing some actual experienced and successful business people who are willing to go work to get the kinks out of Washington D.C.
Scott says, "Bill Flores is a CPA, MBA, and former successful CEO of an Oil Company. He grew up on a ranch and knows what hard work is. He is a Conservative first, and believes in limited government. There aren't many guys around these days that would go to Washington to help clean up the Obama/Pelosi/Reid mess."
When I asked Scott about Bill's opponent, Chet Edwards, the answer was, "He is a career politician who voted with a majority of his Democratic colleagues 96.1% of the time during the current Congress. What else do you need to know?"
Butch Jackson, not to be left out of the conversation, said, "This all comes as that guy in the White House just lost his third CEO of Obama Motors, formerly known as GM until Obama gave it to the United Auto Workers. Obama's takeover team is made up of politicians, academics, middle aged revolutionaries, and wall street crooks. There is not a reputable business man that could stomach Obama's socialistic takeover of this country. And Obama thinks businesses aren't adding jobs because of what is happening in Greece. Hell, most small business people who create 3/4 of the jobs don't even know where Greece is."
Well certainly the folks have given you thinking people enough to ponder so here are a couple of links to peruse during your pondering.
First, Ray Stevens new video (really good):
http://budurl.com/cometotheusa
Next, Bill Flores Web Site (a really good guy)
http://billfloresforcongress.com/
Think about it,
Jim
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Finally, Californians Are Asking For Help From The Folks
To: Billy Roy Mitchum in care of the Hubbard City Cafe
From: Dave Hanna (friend of Jim Hammock)
Subject: California Needs Your Help
BM, I follow your group discussions at the Cafe closely. I also know that you guys follow our struggles here in California and want you to know there is hope on the horizon for us. In fact we are approaching one of the most important races in the country here in my backyard. California’s gubernatorial election is between Meg Whitman, a Republican and former CEO of eBay, and Jerry Brown, an ultra-liberal and career politician.
Meg joined eBay in March 1998, when it had 30 employees and revenues of approximately $4 million. During her time as CEO, the company grew to approximately 15,000 employees and $8 billion in annual revenue by 2008. BM, I know you will agree that Meg produced more jobs at eBay than the entire Obama administration has in their combined careers. This is just what we need at this moment in our country's history.
I am serving as a Co-Chair for Meg’s campaign and doing everything I can to make sure that she’s elected in November. Meg will be in Texas on Monday, August 16th, for three private fund raising events . I’ve included her schedule below and hope that you will encourage your Hubbard City Cafe followers to attend one of her events.
BM, as my good friend Jim Hammock knows, I am a huge fan of the State of Texas. I lived there as an IBM salesman in Houston in the late 6os. I've been in Texas politics starting in 1999 when I served as then Governor Bush's High Tech Co-Chair for California. I'm currently one of two co-chairs in California for the George W. Bush Presidential Center at SMU.
And now we Californians, who are trying to straighten out our mess, need help from our Texas friends.
Here is Meg's schedule:
Monday, August 16th
Breakfast – San Antonio 8:00 AM at the Club Giraud
Lunch – Houston 12:00 PM at The Houstonian Hotel
Reception – Dallas 5:00 PM at Crescent Club
Those wishing to attend or make contributions to Meg's campaign may contact Alison McIntosh at 214-520-2194 or Alison@mcintoshcompany.com.
Thanks for your consideration, and I will stop by the Cafe on my next trip through Hubbard.
Dave
From: Dave Hanna (friend of Jim Hammock)
Subject: California Needs Your Help
BM, I follow your group discussions at the Cafe closely. I also know that you guys follow our struggles here in California and want you to know there is hope on the horizon for us. In fact we are approaching one of the most important races in the country here in my backyard. California’s gubernatorial election is between Meg Whitman, a Republican and former CEO of eBay, and Jerry Brown, an ultra-liberal and career politician.
Meg joined eBay in March 1998, when it had 30 employees and revenues of approximately $4 million. During her time as CEO, the company grew to approximately 15,000 employees and $8 billion in annual revenue by 2008. BM, I know you will agree that Meg produced more jobs at eBay than the entire Obama administration has in their combined careers. This is just what we need at this moment in our country's history.
I am serving as a Co-Chair for Meg’s campaign and doing everything I can to make sure that she’s elected in November. Meg will be in Texas on Monday, August 16th, for three private fund raising events . I’ve included her schedule below and hope that you will encourage your Hubbard City Cafe followers to attend one of her events.
BM, as my good friend Jim Hammock knows, I am a huge fan of the State of Texas. I lived there as an IBM salesman in Houston in the late 6os. I've been in Texas politics starting in 1999 when I served as then Governor Bush's High Tech Co-Chair for California. I'm currently one of two co-chairs in California for the George W. Bush Presidential Center at SMU.
And now we Californians, who are trying to straighten out our mess, need help from our Texas friends.
Here is Meg's schedule:
Monday, August 16th
Breakfast – San Antonio 8:00 AM at the Club Giraud
Lunch – Houston 12:00 PM at The Houstonian Hotel
Reception – Dallas 5:00 PM at Crescent Club
Those wishing to attend or make contributions to Meg's campaign may contact Alison McIntosh at 214-520-2194 or Alison@mcintoshcompany.com.
Thanks for your consideration, and I will stop by the Cafe on my next trip through Hubbard.
Dave
Monday, August 9, 2010
Marriage, Bailouts, and the Long Hot Summer in Hubbard
Letter to: The Hubbard City Cafe
From: Jim Hammock (Maxine's Youngest Boy)
Date: August 9, 2010
There are some pretty interesting items in the news recently, and I know with the Global Warming thing sapping your strength there in August, it is hard to hold discussions and fix everything. So I thought I might pick up the slack by giving some of my personal views on some fairly important things like marriage.
Well California has done it again. A gay federal judge overturned California's same-sex marriage ban Wednesday in a landmark case that could eventually land before the U.S. Supreme Court to decide if gays have a constitutional right to marry in America. Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker made his ruling in a lawsuit two gay couples filed, arguing that that the voter-approved ban violated their civil rights.
Supporters of the ban countered that it was necessary to safeguard the traditional understanding of marriage and to encourage responsible childbearing. California voters passed the ban as Proposition 8 in November 2008, five months after the state Supreme Court legalized gay marriage. Looks like a big tug of war between citizens and liberal courts.
Arguments to support ruling against the will of the people mostly centered around the fact that everyone has equal rights under the law. The historical issue of outlawing mixed marriages (black and white races) was used to show how you can't trust the citizens to protect people's rights, and we must depend on judges and their interpretation of the Constitution instead. It seems to me this is the wrong way to look at the issue since a huge majority of citizens today would clearly agree that all races have equal rights to marriage.
The issue is what is marriage? For some time, most of the world has defined marriage as the sacred union between one man and one woman. That definition would exclude multiple men and women, animals, children, objects, and yes, men marrying men and women marrying women. While most of us would agree that all men and women have equal rights to marry, we would not agree that all men, women, children, animals, etc. have the right to define marriage as they and the judges desire. Maybe that is why in every one of the thirty-one states that have put the issue before the people for a vote, true marriage has prevailed. Only judges have ruled otherwise.
In summary, it is pretty simple. Define marriage first, and then determine who has rights to this union. My guess is you should be careful with your definition because gay marriage is just the beginning of a movement to break down, weaken, and even destroy the concept of marriage and family.
Justice Anthony Scalia worries about this slippery slope. He has argued that marriage is the cornerstone of society. He feels marriage is not only a “sacred obligation,” but also a civil contract governed by law. State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, bestiality, child pornography, statutory rape, and polygamy are based on moral choices of society who wishes to protect the time honored concept of the family.
Bottom line, with the problems we are having in this country I feel we should be for most anything that strengthens the family and against most anything that weakens the family. Marriage should be strengthened not weakened. Period.
Also, did you guys notice the Democractic Congress called folks back to Washington to give a $26 Billion bailout to their teacher and police unions in hopes to get out the vote in November. They say don't worry about the deficit because they will raise taxes on businesses to pay for the legislation. This came out the same week that news about The city of Oakland, California made the rounds. Our California friends laid off over 10 percent of its police force after failing to negotiate a settlement with the police union — whose members earn an average compensation of $162,000 a year.
“What’s going on in Oakland is an example of a phenomenon being seen across the country: states and cities choosing between providing services to the public or maintaining luxury compensation for public employees,” Josh Barro, the Walter B. Wriston Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, writes for the Real Clear Markets website.
As the result of the loss of 80 police officers, Oakland’s police chief says cops will no longer respond to 44 categories of crimes, including grand theft (a large Obama voting group).
Well guys, I will continue to keep watch down here in the cool City of Austin until temperatures drop a little there in Downtown Hubbard City. I know how that Global Warming saps your strength. Don't worry, surely your BAILOUT is in the mail.
Think about it,
Jim
From: Jim Hammock (Maxine's Youngest Boy)
Date: August 9, 2010
There are some pretty interesting items in the news recently, and I know with the Global Warming thing sapping your strength there in August, it is hard to hold discussions and fix everything. So I thought I might pick up the slack by giving some of my personal views on some fairly important things like marriage.
Well California has done it again. A gay federal judge overturned California's same-sex marriage ban Wednesday in a landmark case that could eventually land before the U.S. Supreme Court to decide if gays have a constitutional right to marry in America. Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker made his ruling in a lawsuit two gay couples filed, arguing that that the voter-approved ban violated their civil rights.
Supporters of the ban countered that it was necessary to safeguard the traditional understanding of marriage and to encourage responsible childbearing. California voters passed the ban as Proposition 8 in November 2008, five months after the state Supreme Court legalized gay marriage. Looks like a big tug of war between citizens and liberal courts.
Arguments to support ruling against the will of the people mostly centered around the fact that everyone has equal rights under the law. The historical issue of outlawing mixed marriages (black and white races) was used to show how you can't trust the citizens to protect people's rights, and we must depend on judges and their interpretation of the Constitution instead. It seems to me this is the wrong way to look at the issue since a huge majority of citizens today would clearly agree that all races have equal rights to marriage.
The issue is what is marriage? For some time, most of the world has defined marriage as the sacred union between one man and one woman. That definition would exclude multiple men and women, animals, children, objects, and yes, men marrying men and women marrying women. While most of us would agree that all men and women have equal rights to marry, we would not agree that all men, women, children, animals, etc. have the right to define marriage as they and the judges desire. Maybe that is why in every one of the thirty-one states that have put the issue before the people for a vote, true marriage has prevailed. Only judges have ruled otherwise.
In summary, it is pretty simple. Define marriage first, and then determine who has rights to this union. My guess is you should be careful with your definition because gay marriage is just the beginning of a movement to break down, weaken, and even destroy the concept of marriage and family.
Justice Anthony Scalia worries about this slippery slope. He has argued that marriage is the cornerstone of society. He feels marriage is not only a “sacred obligation,” but also a civil contract governed by law. State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, bestiality, child pornography, statutory rape, and polygamy are based on moral choices of society who wishes to protect the time honored concept of the family.
Bottom line, with the problems we are having in this country I feel we should be for most anything that strengthens the family and against most anything that weakens the family. Marriage should be strengthened not weakened. Period.
Also, did you guys notice the Democractic Congress called folks back to Washington to give a $26 Billion bailout to their teacher and police unions in hopes to get out the vote in November. They say don't worry about the deficit because they will raise taxes on businesses to pay for the legislation. This came out the same week that news about The city of Oakland, California made the rounds. Our California friends laid off over 10 percent of its police force after failing to negotiate a settlement with the police union — whose members earn an average compensation of $162,000 a year.
“What’s going on in Oakland is an example of a phenomenon being seen across the country: states and cities choosing between providing services to the public or maintaining luxury compensation for public employees,” Josh Barro, the Walter B. Wriston Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, writes for the Real Clear Markets website.
As the result of the loss of 80 police officers, Oakland’s police chief says cops will no longer respond to 44 categories of crimes, including grand theft (a large Obama voting group).
Well guys, I will continue to keep watch down here in the cool City of Austin until temperatures drop a little there in Downtown Hubbard City. I know how that Global Warming saps your strength. Don't worry, surely your BAILOUT is in the mail.
Think about it,
Jim
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Afghanistan: Obama's Viet Nam?
Many folks think it would be nice if our current White House resident spent less time attending $30,000 a plate dinners and bashing George Bush while spending more time on supporting our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq with an intelligent war strategy.
Butch Jackson, the local historian and student of things that happened a long time ago, has always been troubled by the Viet Nam War. Butch calls it the perfect example of the typical failed Liberal War Policy. His narrative goes like this, "Afghanistan looks like a Viet Nam clone. In Viet Nam a liberal President Kennedy got us involved initially making mistake after mistake including ordering South Viet Nam Generals to murder their President Diem who was the best leader in the country to fight Communism. It seems Kennedy's Harvard guys didn't think Diem was 'American enough'. Johnson then escalated the war and ran it from Washington. He, his fellow Liberals, and the liberal press brought constant pressure on South Viet Nam regime after regime to fight the war like Americans (be nice!!) even though they were being relentlessly attacked by the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army fighting out of sanctuaries in Laos and Cambodia and supplied by both Communist China and Russia. The Liberal war strategy, as always, was to only escalate incrementally (a key word) with the goal of reaching a peace agreement with what they considered to be reasonable Communist. All of this of course without offending China, Russia, Cambodia, Laos, the French, etc."
Butch caught his breath, "And then comes President Nixon into office. He unleashes the Air Force and Navy to bombard the North in addition to Laos and Cambodian supply routes every time the enemy launches a major attack. Contrary to press reports the US and South Vietnamese defeat the enemy in the TET offensive and the larger 1972 Christmas attacks. Over the course of the war over 1.2 million of the the enemy was killed while Americans lost 50,000 troops. When the North then signed peace treaties in Paris, it was under a strong threat from Nixon that he would bomb the hell out of them if they did not comply with the agreements. The Liberal Congress then blocked Nixon by passing a War Powers Act prohibiting US military involvement in South East Asia. They then impeached Nixon, Russia and China quadrupled their support of the North. Needless to say without US support the South was annihilated within months. Then the murders and tortures began."
The Chairman, Billy Roy Mithum, interceded as only he can, "What the heck does this have to do with Afghanistan?"
Butch sucked it up, "Here we go. A Liberal President is escalating the 'good war' in Afghanistan because that is where al Queda used to be. Of course now al Queda has cleared out. So we are really fighting the Taliban, who George Bush ran out of office after 911 by cleverly fighting 'dirty' and using the CIA supporting local tribesmen in an insurgency strategy. Meanwhile Obama will not admit he is fighting the Taliban just as Johnson would rather act as if we were fighting the Viet Cong than the North Vietnamese backed by the Chinese and Russians. Obama plans to incrementally (that word again) pressure the Taliban to the point they will negotiate an agreement to stop trying to overthrow the current Afghanistan government, and instead form a new government with Taliban participation (looks like Paris Peace Talks, huh?). Meanwhile the Libs and the US Media constantly harp on the corruption and incompetence of the current Afghan government just as they did in Viet Nam. Additionally they join the ACLU in monitoring whether we are being 'nice' in our interrogations and rules of engagement tying one hand behind the backs of our troops and allies. On top of all this, Obama announces our withdrawal schedule signaling we have not intentions of defeating the Taliban but really just want to get out. What the Afghans hear from the current American president is a surge with an expiration date. An Afghan facing the life-or-death choice of which side to support can be forgiven for hedging his bets with the Taliban."
Billy Roy summed up, "Let me cut through this Butch. My guess is you think the result will be the same as Viet Nam. That being the Taliban will agree to anything, wait till we get out, and then slaughter anyone who doesn't support them. I am not sure of the total number of people slaughtered in Southeast Asia after we stopped out support, but I do know that over 700,000 Vietnamese alone died as they tried to flee in boats. I also know we took in over 1.5m boat people here in the US, and they seem to be mostly great citizens. Also, not only South Viet Nam fell but Laos and Cambodia as well were victims of horrible atrocities. In the Middle East my guess in the Islamic Radicals will take Afghanistan and then Pakistan soon after we pull out. Then Iraq and, who knows, Saudi Arabia and the other Middle Eastern 'moderates' could go as well."
"So was Bush making the same mistakes as Obama?", BM wanted to know.
"Nope, " Butch was quick to reply after shrewdly anticipating the question. "During the Bush administration, U.S. goals for Afghanistan were modest. First, the Americans intended to keep al Qaeda bottled up and to impose as much damage as possible on the command structure. Second, they intended to establish an Afghan government, regardless of how ineffective it might be, to serve as a symbolic core (avoiding the Viet Nam mistake of constantly changing regimes). Third, they planned very limited counter terrorists operations against the Taliban, which had regrouped and increasingly controlled the countryside after they had been thrown out of office. The Bush administration was basically in a holding operation in Afghanistan. It accepted that U.S. forces were neither going to be able to impose a political solution on Afghanistan nor create a coalition large enough to control the country. US strategy was extremely modest under Bush: to harass al Qaeda from bases in Afghanistan, maintain control of cities and logistics routes, and accept the limits of US interests and power avoiding the mistakes made by Russia. Obama ran against the bad war in Iraq proclaiming Afghanistan the good war. Maybe this was a good campaign strategy to prove his was show he was tough, but it is a terrible war against terror strategy. Now he has trapped himself, us, and our UN allies in his folly. He has already fired two generals blaming them for his flawed plan. The Libs will pressure Obama to withdraw, he will, and the rest we have seen before."
And Billy Roy's last words, "How many of these darn Liberal Incremental Wars do we have to have before the folks wise up?"
Think about it as we approach November,
Jim
Butch Jackson, the local historian and student of things that happened a long time ago, has always been troubled by the Viet Nam War. Butch calls it the perfect example of the typical failed Liberal War Policy. His narrative goes like this, "Afghanistan looks like a Viet Nam clone. In Viet Nam a liberal President Kennedy got us involved initially making mistake after mistake including ordering South Viet Nam Generals to murder their President Diem who was the best leader in the country to fight Communism. It seems Kennedy's Harvard guys didn't think Diem was 'American enough'. Johnson then escalated the war and ran it from Washington. He, his fellow Liberals, and the liberal press brought constant pressure on South Viet Nam regime after regime to fight the war like Americans (be nice!!) even though they were being relentlessly attacked by the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army fighting out of sanctuaries in Laos and Cambodia and supplied by both Communist China and Russia. The Liberal war strategy, as always, was to only escalate incrementally (a key word) with the goal of reaching a peace agreement with what they considered to be reasonable Communist. All of this of course without offending China, Russia, Cambodia, Laos, the French, etc."
Butch caught his breath, "And then comes President Nixon into office. He unleashes the Air Force and Navy to bombard the North in addition to Laos and Cambodian supply routes every time the enemy launches a major attack. Contrary to press reports the US and South Vietnamese defeat the enemy in the TET offensive and the larger 1972 Christmas attacks. Over the course of the war over 1.2 million of the the enemy was killed while Americans lost 50,000 troops. When the North then signed peace treaties in Paris, it was under a strong threat from Nixon that he would bomb the hell out of them if they did not comply with the agreements. The Liberal Congress then blocked Nixon by passing a War Powers Act prohibiting US military involvement in South East Asia. They then impeached Nixon, Russia and China quadrupled their support of the North. Needless to say without US support the South was annihilated within months. Then the murders and tortures began."
The Chairman, Billy Roy Mithum, interceded as only he can, "What the heck does this have to do with Afghanistan?"
Butch sucked it up, "Here we go. A Liberal President is escalating the 'good war' in Afghanistan because that is where al Queda used to be. Of course now al Queda has cleared out. So we are really fighting the Taliban, who George Bush ran out of office after 911 by cleverly fighting 'dirty' and using the CIA supporting local tribesmen in an insurgency strategy. Meanwhile Obama will not admit he is fighting the Taliban just as Johnson would rather act as if we were fighting the Viet Cong than the North Vietnamese backed by the Chinese and Russians. Obama plans to incrementally (that word again) pressure the Taliban to the point they will negotiate an agreement to stop trying to overthrow the current Afghanistan government, and instead form a new government with Taliban participation (looks like Paris Peace Talks, huh?). Meanwhile the Libs and the US Media constantly harp on the corruption and incompetence of the current Afghan government just as they did in Viet Nam. Additionally they join the ACLU in monitoring whether we are being 'nice' in our interrogations and rules of engagement tying one hand behind the backs of our troops and allies. On top of all this, Obama announces our withdrawal schedule signaling we have not intentions of defeating the Taliban but really just want to get out. What the Afghans hear from the current American president is a surge with an expiration date. An Afghan facing the life-or-death choice of which side to support can be forgiven for hedging his bets with the Taliban."
Billy Roy summed up, "Let me cut through this Butch. My guess is you think the result will be the same as Viet Nam. That being the Taliban will agree to anything, wait till we get out, and then slaughter anyone who doesn't support them. I am not sure of the total number of people slaughtered in Southeast Asia after we stopped out support, but I do know that over 700,000 Vietnamese alone died as they tried to flee in boats. I also know we took in over 1.5m boat people here in the US, and they seem to be mostly great citizens. Also, not only South Viet Nam fell but Laos and Cambodia as well were victims of horrible atrocities. In the Middle East my guess in the Islamic Radicals will take Afghanistan and then Pakistan soon after we pull out. Then Iraq and, who knows, Saudi Arabia and the other Middle Eastern 'moderates' could go as well."
"So was Bush making the same mistakes as Obama?", BM wanted to know.
"Nope, " Butch was quick to reply after shrewdly anticipating the question. "During the Bush administration, U.S. goals for Afghanistan were modest. First, the Americans intended to keep al Qaeda bottled up and to impose as much damage as possible on the command structure. Second, they intended to establish an Afghan government, regardless of how ineffective it might be, to serve as a symbolic core (avoiding the Viet Nam mistake of constantly changing regimes). Third, they planned very limited counter terrorists operations against the Taliban, which had regrouped and increasingly controlled the countryside after they had been thrown out of office. The Bush administration was basically in a holding operation in Afghanistan. It accepted that U.S. forces were neither going to be able to impose a political solution on Afghanistan nor create a coalition large enough to control the country. US strategy was extremely modest under Bush: to harass al Qaeda from bases in Afghanistan, maintain control of cities and logistics routes, and accept the limits of US interests and power avoiding the mistakes made by Russia. Obama ran against the bad war in Iraq proclaiming Afghanistan the good war. Maybe this was a good campaign strategy to prove his was show he was tough, but it is a terrible war against terror strategy. Now he has trapped himself, us, and our UN allies in his folly. He has already fired two generals blaming them for his flawed plan. The Libs will pressure Obama to withdraw, he will, and the rest we have seen before."
And Billy Roy's last words, "How many of these darn Liberal Incremental Wars do we have to have before the folks wise up?"
Think about it as we approach November,
Jim
Friday, July 30, 2010
Who Is To Blame For These Deficits? Numbers Don't Lie
D. L. Holyman, a former local banker and semi-infrequent attendee of coffee at the Cafe, made an appearance recently and was furiously ranting and raving.. D. L. is normally about as cool as banker's get, which is near ice cold, but on this day he was just plain fed up, "I am so tired of hearing about the 'Bush Recession' and what this joke in the White House inherited. I am equally tired of hearing uninformed and forgetful Republicans surrender by agreeing that Bush went crazy with his spending in his last years in the White House. It is time to look at the facts. They follow:
1. Bill Clinton ran deficits from 1993 until 1994 with a Democratic Congress that averaged $225B. The Gingrich revolution began in 1995 and deficits decreased from $164B to $22B over the next three years.
2. Clinton/Gingrich then actually had surpluses of $69B, $125B, and $236kB in the next three years as Gingrich held the Dems feet to the fire and Clinton governed to his newly found middle which even included Welfare Reform. The economy prospered over these years from the Internet and Wall Street Bubble.
3. Bush entered office in the year 2001 as the Internet Bubble was popping and the deficit went from a $236B surplus in '00 to a $127B deficit in '01, Bush's first year.
4. Bush enjoyed a Republican Congress until 2007 when Pelosi and Reid took over. The deficit in 2007 was $162B. Not bad at all compared to things going on today.
5. The deficit grew rapidly with the Democratic Congress and Bush to $455B in 2008.
6. Obama joined up with his Democratic Congress in 2009, and with this one party rule, the deficit exploded to $1,400B. That is $1.4 TRILLION for those of you at the Drug Store and over a 200% increase.
7. Deficits with Obama/Pelosi/Reid are projected to exceed $1,400B again this year with no reductions in sight, and Obamacare starting to kick in next year.
"While Presidents can veto spending, the budgets are created and controlled in Congress. Democratic Congressional leaders have their finger prints all over our out of control spending since 2008 as they destroyed the disciplined spending practices of the Gingrich Revolution. While I think Bush did not veto enough spending in his last two years, my personal guess is he made a deal with the Demonic Democrats that he would allow some domestic spending increases if they would approve his Iraq War and Home Land Security budgets. However, there is no doubt that our EXPLOSION in 2009 is clearly the fault of Obama/Pelosi/Reid. I defy anyone to study these deficit facts and argue otherwise."
Billy Roy Mitchum responded, "Seems like Newt gave us a surplus, Pelosi is bringing bankruptcy, and the Teleprompter says 'BLAME BUSH AND AMERICAN CAPITALISTS' while using the 'CRISIS' to spread our money around to his cronies Seems like folks need to study the facts and decide what they want, and they have between now and November to do it. Heck, we would be better off with a congress of drunken sailors on shore leave."
Think about it,
Jim
1. Bill Clinton ran deficits from 1993 until 1994 with a Democratic Congress that averaged $225B. The Gingrich revolution began in 1995 and deficits decreased from $164B to $22B over the next three years.
2. Clinton/Gingrich then actually had surpluses of $69B, $125B, and $236kB in the next three years as Gingrich held the Dems feet to the fire and Clinton governed to his newly found middle which even included Welfare Reform. The economy prospered over these years from the Internet and Wall Street Bubble.
3. Bush entered office in the year 2001 as the Internet Bubble was popping and the deficit went from a $236B surplus in '00 to a $127B deficit in '01, Bush's first year.
4. Bush enjoyed a Republican Congress until 2007 when Pelosi and Reid took over. The deficit in 2007 was $162B. Not bad at all compared to things going on today.
5. The deficit grew rapidly with the Democratic Congress and Bush to $455B in 2008.
6. Obama joined up with his Democratic Congress in 2009, and with this one party rule, the deficit exploded to $1,400B. That is $1.4 TRILLION for those of you at the Drug Store and over a 200% increase.
7. Deficits with Obama/Pelosi/Reid are projected to exceed $1,400B again this year with no reductions in sight, and Obamacare starting to kick in next year.
"While Presidents can veto spending, the budgets are created and controlled in Congress. Democratic Congressional leaders have their finger prints all over our out of control spending since 2008 as they destroyed the disciplined spending practices of the Gingrich Revolution. While I think Bush did not veto enough spending in his last two years, my personal guess is he made a deal with the Demonic Democrats that he would allow some domestic spending increases if they would approve his Iraq War and Home Land Security budgets. However, there is no doubt that our EXPLOSION in 2009 is clearly the fault of Obama/Pelosi/Reid. I defy anyone to study these deficit facts and argue otherwise."
Billy Roy Mitchum responded, "Seems like Newt gave us a surplus, Pelosi is bringing bankruptcy, and the Teleprompter says 'BLAME BUSH AND AMERICAN CAPITALISTS' while using the 'CRISIS' to spread our money around to his cronies Seems like folks need to study the facts and decide what they want, and they have between now and November to do it. Heck, we would be better off with a congress of drunken sailors on shore leave."
Think about it,
Jim
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Barack Hussein Obama: The Common Man Sharing Our Pain
"When the current resident of the White House ran for office he talked frequently of his advantage in helping the folks because of his family's experiences. He said, 'it was only a short time ago that Michelle and I were running up credit card debt like common people do'," Butch opened the discussion on this sunny July afternoon as the folks huddled in the Hubbard City Cafe in an effort to avoid the global warming in the downtown area. The folks braced knowing that Butch may be semi-skeptical of our President's claim of being one of the common folks. Sure enough, Butch continued, "Last night the President met with close friends and contributors in New York City, after filming his chat with the girls on the View. He raised $3 million by charging these common Democratic Progressives $30,000 per plate for dinner and conversation with the Messiah."
Sweet Lou Tekell jumped on this one, "Just a few weeks ago Londoners were astonished at Obama's arrival for the G20 summit where the world's leaders were exchanging ideas in an austere atmosphere on how to cut back on deficit spending, unemployment, and weak economies. So here comes Barry arriving with a staff of 500 people, including 200 Secret Service Agents, a team of six doctors, the White House chef and staff with the President's own food and water. It doesn't stop here. He also had 35 vehicles, 4 speech writers, and of course no fewer than 12 teleprompters. You know he thinks he can talk his way out of anything. Not only did they take Air Force One, of course, but also the presidential helicopter, Marine One, plus a flight of identical decoy helicopters to ferry him from Stansted airport to central London. I am not making this up. It was in the London press, but of course, not picked up by the government controlled media here in the States. Brits and world leaders were appalled."
This turned into an Obama slug fest as my Mom, and most Hubbard people's second Mom, entered the discussion, "He even has Aunt Martha's dogs upset. Last week the Obamas arrived in Maine for their vacation and the local paper, the Morning Sentinel, described the scene: 'The president was the first to walk onto the tarmac, dressed casually in a pale blue Oxford shirt and khakis. A few minutes later, the first lady, dressed in black Capri's, a tank-top and sandals, walked onto the runway. Shortly afterward, Malia and Sasha joined their parents."
"Now it gets good. Arriving in a small jet before the Obamas was the first dog, Bo, a Portuguese water dog given as a present by the late U.S. Sen Ted Kennedy, D-Mass.; and the president’s personal aide Reggie Love. The president who said the rest of us are going to have to sacrifice to get out of these hard economic times let his dog fly on his own plane? Not enough room on Air Force One for a Portuguese water dog and Reggie Love? One writer added 'There was some concern because the 747 cargo conversion carrying the First Couple’s egos was a bit late in arriving'. Just how common are these folks? And Aunt Martha's dogs saw this story and want their own jet, too. Thanks Obama."
Billy Roy Mitchum, unelected but unquestionably the Chairman of the Hubbard City Cafes Coffee Folks summed up as is usually the case, "And this is the guy that is going to spend our way out of these deficits. If spending will do it, it appears he is the man for the job. But I am afraid that we know, at best he is a incompetent spoiled academic. At worst he is a corrupt Socialist freeloader. I just saw the percentage of people in his administration with business backgrounds, which might come in handy if you are managing a worldwide recession and the world's largest economy. His is the lowest in history at an astounding 8%. Even Kennedy was 30% and Carter 32%. Real Chief Executives like George Bush was 55%, Reagan was 56%, and Eisenhower 57%. Even Slick Willie was smart enough to have 39% of his staff and cabinet with business backgrounds. It appears the only business people Obama can stomach are those paying $30 thousand a plate for the privilege of his company and government kick backs."
And BM closed, "God Bless Us All and hopefully no later than November."
Think about it,
Jim
Sweet Lou Tekell jumped on this one, "Just a few weeks ago Londoners were astonished at Obama's arrival for the G20 summit where the world's leaders were exchanging ideas in an austere atmosphere on how to cut back on deficit spending, unemployment, and weak economies. So here comes Barry arriving with a staff of 500 people, including 200 Secret Service Agents, a team of six doctors, the White House chef and staff with the President's own food and water. It doesn't stop here. He also had 35 vehicles, 4 speech writers, and of course no fewer than 12 teleprompters. You know he thinks he can talk his way out of anything. Not only did they take Air Force One, of course, but also the presidential helicopter, Marine One, plus a flight of identical decoy helicopters to ferry him from Stansted airport to central London. I am not making this up. It was in the London press, but of course, not picked up by the government controlled media here in the States. Brits and world leaders were appalled."
This turned into an Obama slug fest as my Mom, and most Hubbard people's second Mom, entered the discussion, "He even has Aunt Martha's dogs upset. Last week the Obamas arrived in Maine for their vacation and the local paper, the Morning Sentinel, described the scene: 'The president was the first to walk onto the tarmac, dressed casually in a pale blue Oxford shirt and khakis. A few minutes later, the first lady, dressed in black Capri's, a tank-top and sandals, walked onto the runway. Shortly afterward, Malia and Sasha joined their parents."
"Now it gets good. Arriving in a small jet before the Obamas was the first dog, Bo, a Portuguese water dog given as a present by the late U.S. Sen Ted Kennedy, D-Mass.; and the president’s personal aide Reggie Love. The president who said the rest of us are going to have to sacrifice to get out of these hard economic times let his dog fly on his own plane? Not enough room on Air Force One for a Portuguese water dog and Reggie Love? One writer added 'There was some concern because the 747 cargo conversion carrying the First Couple’s egos was a bit late in arriving'. Just how common are these folks? And Aunt Martha's dogs saw this story and want their own jet, too. Thanks Obama."
Billy Roy Mitchum, unelected but unquestionably the Chairman of the Hubbard City Cafes Coffee Folks summed up as is usually the case, "And this is the guy that is going to spend our way out of these deficits. If spending will do it, it appears he is the man for the job. But I am afraid that we know, at best he is a incompetent spoiled academic. At worst he is a corrupt Socialist freeloader. I just saw the percentage of people in his administration with business backgrounds, which might come in handy if you are managing a worldwide recession and the world's largest economy. His is the lowest in history at an astounding 8%. Even Kennedy was 30% and Carter 32%. Real Chief Executives like George Bush was 55%, Reagan was 56%, and Eisenhower 57%. Even Slick Willie was smart enough to have 39% of his staff and cabinet with business backgrounds. It appears the only business people Obama can stomach are those paying $30 thousand a plate for the privilege of his company and government kick backs."
And BM closed, "God Bless Us All and hopefully no later than November."
Think about it,
Jim
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
The Proven Reagan Roadmap
Billy Roy picked up on last week's coffee talk about Ronald Reagan's warning to our country of the dangers of the people allowing a totalitarian regime from taking over our government. Reagan felt, " The best defense against these regimes was to insure that government actions and policies were based on solid values and principles.
"President Reagan based his beliefs and actions on good old fashioned 'values'. In fact when he joined the Republican Party he said 'We, the members of the New Republican Party, believe that the preservation and enhancement of the values that strengthen and protect individual freedom, family life, neighborhoods and the liberty of our beloved nation should be at the heart of any legislative or political program presented to the American people'.
"Reagan continued, 'Families must continue to be the foundation of our nation. Families -- not government programs -- are the best way to make sure our children are properly nurtured, our elderly are cared for, our cultural and spiritual heritages are perpetuated, our laws are observed and our values are preserved. ... We fear the government may be powerful enough to destroy our families; we know that it is not powerful enough to replace them'.
"Today the totalitarian regime in office with its pack of socialists are attacking families every way possible even though Obama's words would try to convince you that he is a supporter. As always his actions speak differently and it starts with an attack on marriage. God created man, woman, and marriage between one man and one woman. It is a God given right and yet Obama's crew would let anyone define a family in anyway that suits them. Additionally, our liberal laws have made divorce easy while creating a welfare system that rewards those for having children out of wedlock. Our liberals in Hollywood rarely marry at all and set horrible examples for our young people. Obama praises the Muslim faith which practices polygamy while many times brutalizing their wives under Sharia law. Estimates are that anywhere from 50 to 100 thousand Muslims in the US are practicing illegal polygamy."
"Reagan also believed that America's future was dependent upon our spiritual heritage. Listen to this, 'Our party must be based on the kind of leadership that grows and takes its strength from the people. ... And our cause must be to rediscover, reassert and reapply America's spiritual heritage to our national affairs. Then with God's help we shall indeed be as a city upon a hill with the eyes of all people upon us'.
"Here again there are powerful so called progressive forces at work to separate God from government every way possible. Gingrich calls them 'secular socialist'. The communist have always known they can only succeed if they can get people to look to the government and not God for their needs. They take every opportunity to paint our founders as old white racists and religious radicals. At times they try to produce evidence that one to the founders was an atheist when the truth is they were largely men of faith, most colonies were based on religious values, and all but one of the first universities were faith based schools."
"Lastly, Reagan's comments about the economy when he took over the huge mess from Jimmy Carter should be heeded by all Americans today. He said, 'Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business ... frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise (Does this sound like the World today?). They are the residue of centralized bureaucracy, of government by a self-anointed elite."
"In his 1981 inaugural address, President Reagan assured the nation: 'The economic ills we suffer ... will not go away in days, weeks, or months, but they will go away (and they did under his leadership). They will go away because we, as Americans, have the capacity now, as we have had in the past, to do whatever needs to be done to preserve this last and greatest bastion of freedom. In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem'.
"While Reagan gave very strong warnings about the evils of totalitarianism he was always an optimist with a positive message. His final words at the 1992 Republican convention reflect that appeal: 'And whatever else history may say about me when I'm gone, I hope it will record that I appealed to your best hopes, not your worst fears, to your confidence rather than your doubts. My dream is that you will travel the road ahead with liberty's lamp guiding your steps and opportunity's arm steadying your way. My fondest hope for each one of you -- and especially for young people -- is that you will love your country, not for her power or wealth, but for her selflessness and her idealism. May each of you have the heart to conceive, the understanding to direct, and the hand to execute works that will make the world a little better for your having been here. May all of you as Americans never forget your heroic origins, never fail to seek divine guidance, and never lose your natural, God-given optimism. And finally, my fellow Americans, may every dawn be a great new beginning for America and every evening bring us closer to that shining city upon a hill."
"On the other hand, Barack Hussein Obama appeals to the worst in his constituents -- their fears, doubts, dependence on the state, greed and envy, brokenness, pessimism and sense of helplessness. His regime rules by attempting to create crisis at every turn. He has twisted JFK's inaugural appeal to read: 'Ask what your country can do for you, not what you can do for your country'. It is important to remember the government cannot give to anybody anything that government does not first take from somebody else.”
Sounds like we have some work to do. Thank goodness Ronald Reagan has given us a proven road map.
Think about it,
Jim
"President Reagan based his beliefs and actions on good old fashioned 'values'. In fact when he joined the Republican Party he said 'We, the members of the New Republican Party, believe that the preservation and enhancement of the values that strengthen and protect individual freedom, family life, neighborhoods and the liberty of our beloved nation should be at the heart of any legislative or political program presented to the American people'.
"Reagan continued, 'Families must continue to be the foundation of our nation. Families -- not government programs -- are the best way to make sure our children are properly nurtured, our elderly are cared for, our cultural and spiritual heritages are perpetuated, our laws are observed and our values are preserved. ... We fear the government may be powerful enough to destroy our families; we know that it is not powerful enough to replace them'.
"Today the totalitarian regime in office with its pack of socialists are attacking families every way possible even though Obama's words would try to convince you that he is a supporter. As always his actions speak differently and it starts with an attack on marriage. God created man, woman, and marriage between one man and one woman. It is a God given right and yet Obama's crew would let anyone define a family in anyway that suits them. Additionally, our liberal laws have made divorce easy while creating a welfare system that rewards those for having children out of wedlock. Our liberals in Hollywood rarely marry at all and set horrible examples for our young people. Obama praises the Muslim faith which practices polygamy while many times brutalizing their wives under Sharia law. Estimates are that anywhere from 50 to 100 thousand Muslims in the US are practicing illegal polygamy."
"Reagan also believed that America's future was dependent upon our spiritual heritage. Listen to this, 'Our party must be based on the kind of leadership that grows and takes its strength from the people. ... And our cause must be to rediscover, reassert and reapply America's spiritual heritage to our national affairs. Then with God's help we shall indeed be as a city upon a hill with the eyes of all people upon us'.
"Here again there are powerful so called progressive forces at work to separate God from government every way possible. Gingrich calls them 'secular socialist'. The communist have always known they can only succeed if they can get people to look to the government and not God for their needs. They take every opportunity to paint our founders as old white racists and religious radicals. At times they try to produce evidence that one to the founders was an atheist when the truth is they were largely men of faith, most colonies were based on religious values, and all but one of the first universities were faith based schools."
"Lastly, Reagan's comments about the economy when he took over the huge mess from Jimmy Carter should be heeded by all Americans today. He said, 'Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business ... frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise (Does this sound like the World today?). They are the residue of centralized bureaucracy, of government by a self-anointed elite."
"In his 1981 inaugural address, President Reagan assured the nation: 'The economic ills we suffer ... will not go away in days, weeks, or months, but they will go away (and they did under his leadership). They will go away because we, as Americans, have the capacity now, as we have had in the past, to do whatever needs to be done to preserve this last and greatest bastion of freedom. In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem'.
"While Reagan gave very strong warnings about the evils of totalitarianism he was always an optimist with a positive message. His final words at the 1992 Republican convention reflect that appeal: 'And whatever else history may say about me when I'm gone, I hope it will record that I appealed to your best hopes, not your worst fears, to your confidence rather than your doubts. My dream is that you will travel the road ahead with liberty's lamp guiding your steps and opportunity's arm steadying your way. My fondest hope for each one of you -- and especially for young people -- is that you will love your country, not for her power or wealth, but for her selflessness and her idealism. May each of you have the heart to conceive, the understanding to direct, and the hand to execute works that will make the world a little better for your having been here. May all of you as Americans never forget your heroic origins, never fail to seek divine guidance, and never lose your natural, God-given optimism. And finally, my fellow Americans, may every dawn be a great new beginning for America and every evening bring us closer to that shining city upon a hill."
"On the other hand, Barack Hussein Obama appeals to the worst in his constituents -- their fears, doubts, dependence on the state, greed and envy, brokenness, pessimism and sense of helplessness. His regime rules by attempting to create crisis at every turn. He has twisted JFK's inaugural appeal to read: 'Ask what your country can do for you, not what you can do for your country'. It is important to remember the government cannot give to anybody anything that government does not first take from somebody else.”
Sounds like we have some work to do. Thank goodness Ronald Reagan has given us a proven road map.
Think about it,
Jim
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
