Author Archives: themomteam

U.S. Government for Sale!

Leave a reply

Read This!

Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper

Study: 19 Ambassador Nominees Bundled $4.8 Million for President’s Campaign, Inauguration

If all goes according to plan, Colorado businessman Vinai Thummalapally will soon be moving to a Central American tourist paradise to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to Belize.

Thummalapally was President Obama’s roommate at Occidental College in 1979. As Barbara and Vinai Thummalapally described it to the Colorado Springs Gazette, they “used to party with (the president) in college. He was the guy who’d drink a few beers, maybe take a toke, stay up until 4 a.m. then excuse himself to crank out an ‘A’ paper due that morning. … He was Barry, the mellow guy in the leather jacket, dragging on a cigarette.”

Of course, friendship only goes so far in the world of ambassadorships. It’s Thummalapally’s fundraising for — not partying with — President Obama that is more characteristic of his fellow ambassador nominees. The Coloradan bundled between $100,000 and $200,000 for the Obama campaign and has personally contributed $13,375 to Mr. Obama’s various campaigns since 1999. And according to Federal Election Commission records, Thummalapally’s “not employed/student” children Vishal and Sharanya donated $2,300 and $2,275 to the president.

The information comes from the Center for Responsive Politics, which in a recent study concluded that the president’s new nominees for ambassadorships to Belize, Belgium, Liechtenstein, Romania and Switzerland “brought in at least $1.1 million for Obama’s presidential bid as bundlers, and at least another half-a-million as bundlers for his inauguration. To date, this brings the contribution histories of Obama’s ambassador nominees to roughly $1.8 million in donations since 1989. The 19 ambassadors that CRP has found in our campaign contribution database, along with their spouses and children, have given more than $98,200 to Obama personally, bundled at least $3.4 million for his 2008 presidential run and bundled another $1.4 million for his inauguration.”

As we reported last month, President Obama is hardly the first president to appoint pals and big donors to ambassadorships nor, according to the American Foreign Service Association, is he the worst offender in recent history.

In addition to his former Occidental party pal, President Obama nominated:

Former Virginia lieutenant governor and businessman Donald Beyer for ambassador to both Switzerland and Liechtenstein; he and his wife Megan bundled at least $500,000 for then-Sen. Obama’s presidential campaign, with Megan bundling at least $245,000 for the inauguration;

Lawyer Howard W. Gutman to be ambassador to Belgium; he bundled at least $500,000 for the campaign and another $275,000 for his inauguration;

Entertainment executive Charles Rivkin to be ambassador to France; Rivkin, head of the entertainment company W!LDBRAIN who produces Yo Gabba Gabba!, bundled at least $500,000 for the campaign and $300,000 for the inauguration;

Lawyer John Roos to be ambassador to Japan; he bundled at least $500,000 for the campaign; and

Lawyer and investment banker Louis Susman to be ambassador to the United Kingdom. Nicknamed the “Vacuum Cleaner” because of his skill sucking up checks for Democratic candidates, Susman and his wife bundled at least $100,000 for the Obama for America campaign and at least $300,000 for the inauguration.

The list goes on and on, but you get the picture.

In the ring with Boxing Boxer

Leave a reply

Senator Boxer was so upset by a Brigadeer General who replied to her as “ma’am” that she requested he call her “senator”.  She apparently does not understand that the military use “ma’am” and “sir” as terms of respect to an authority.  If Boxer had been a man, the General would have been using “sir”.

In trying to make it appear that the General was being rude, she actually showed her ignorance of military protocol. That doesn’t surprise me.  No one in the Obama administration nor most Democrats understand how important the military is to our safety.  And, they certainly do not respect our armed forces nor are they willing to financially support their missions!

During a terse exchange, as Boxer pressed Walsh on why the levees in New Orleans are still not repaired nearly four years after Hurricane Katrina, she said to Walsh:

“Could you say ‘senator’ instead of ‘ma’am? It’s just a thing. I worked so hard to get that title. I’d appreciate it.”

The general’s response? “Yes, Senator.”

The blogosphere exploded with reaction following the senator’s comments, with some arguing the senator deserves to be addressed by the title she’s earned through three Senate elections, and others saying it’s the general who deserves a little more respect.

Obama — a Muslim advocate

Leave a reply

Why does our President always choose to support anything that promotes Muslims?

Although President Obama and his followers fervently deny his obeisance to anything remotely associated with Islam, it is obvious that he venerates that tradition…even at the cost of America’s reputation and safety. Almost everything he does or says is based on this devotion.  Obama bowed to the sheik…a muslim.    He has tried to make Israel accept untenable terms that satisfy only the Palestinians…again mostly muslims.  He insists that Guantanamo be closed, despite the majority of Americans wanting it to remain as it is — a prison for the extremely violent, mostly muslim terrorists.  Obama has said that Iran, the most rigid Islamic country in the world,  can have nuclear technology, so long as it’s peaceful………….and, what fool believes that technology will be peaceful or stay in-country?  In every instance, his choice has been pro-Islam.  Unfortunately, Obama does not show any tolerance or ability to recognize that the majority of Americans are NOT Islamic.  While those of that religion are just as worthy of being Americans as any other group, they shold NOT have special privileges!

Unfortunately,  our President can’t seem to understand that he is the President of all of us — liberals, conservatives, independents, Christians, muslims, and any other way you  slice and dice the American public.  He chooses to side with the killer of an American soldier because the killer was a convert to Islam.  He sided with the deceased doctor who performed partial birth abortions because the doctor was an abortionist.  Whether countless babies, or countless soldiers, die is of no consequence to Obama.  His first allegiance is to Islam and his statements and actions as President demonstrate that!

GM — Governmental Madness

Leave a reply

Today, we lost an iconic,  American business in GM’s bankruptcy.  It was brought down by many factors, including excessive union demands and governmental regulations.  And, it won’t be the last company to drown in the politically correct “muck” that makes demands which prevent a company from being competitive in the world.  Too many American companies are weighed down by excessive regulations, expensive union contracts that prevent competitive pricing, environmental concerns that only the American companies must address, and the inevitable  threat of costly litigation if they step “out”  of the politically correct line.

Governmental regulations and intrusion into the business world have cast a long shadow on anyone considering a new business or even investing in a new business.  When the government can arbitrarily decide that one group with no financial stake — i.e., the unions — takes precedence over those who actually invested in a company — i.e., the bond holders — then few are going to be willing to risk their assets in any business that the government could possibly take over.  Usually, this is called nationalization and only happens in third world countries, like Chavez in Venezuela,  where dictators routinely seize assets to improve their own power and control of a country.  For it to happen in America is absolutely unthinkable and absolutely outside the rights granted to our government in our Constitution.  Yet, it did because the Lieberals want to control every aspect of everyone’s life.

So, GM, or Generous Motors is no longer.  Now, it’s hello, GM —  Governmental Madness– the guaranteed method of destroying anyone with ambition… and all to placate the masses. In the long run, destroying those who work hard and save their income has never helped those less successful.   There are always repercussions as New Jersey discovered when they overtaxed millionaires.  Those fortunate enough to leave New Jersey did so, and tax revenue went down!  You can’t make a short man tall by cutting off the legs of a tall man.  And, neither does exorbitant taxation of the wealthy create a harmonious and industrious  society.  Government was meant to facilitate the pursuit of happiness, not become the “Great Measurer” of who gets what.

Judging the Judges……….

Leave a reply

http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/

Tommy DeSeno is quoted on the Drudge as saying:  “Since she is replacing a liberal –  Justice David Souter — the appointment will be of no consequence to America.”  He is speaking, of course, about the newest nominee for the Supreme Court.  And, he obviously doesn’t care whether she is qualified or not.  He just wants her confirmed!

His statement is pure political speech.  There are few jobs more important than those of the judges of the Supreme Court and each and every one of them should be scrutinized right down to their toe nails, just like Clarence Thomas was.  Enough of this political correctness foolishness.  Make sure the nominee is going to make decisions based on the constitution, not on ethnicity, gender, or political philosophy.

Unfortunately, Soltemayor has said that courts DO create policy.  That is contrary to the Constitution.

She HAS said that judicial decisions might be different if they come from a man or woman, a latino or an old white guy.  That, too, is directly opposed to the theory of blind justice that supposedly rules our country, and is a fundamental tenet of our Constitution.

She does not seem to have the judicial temperament that the Constitution requires.  If these comments are truly her philosophy — and there is no reason to doubt it — then, she should NOT BE CONFIRMED.

And, whether you’re a Democrat, Republican, Independent, I hope that you will not be swayed by flippant arguments such as Tommy DeSeno proposes.  EVERY judge on the Supreme Court is important.  And, EVERY judge should be weighed and balanced as to their judicial temperament.  This is a lifetime appointment and we can’t afford to make a mistake just because some want to have “their” nominee win.  Choosing a Justice is not a game.  It is a matter of Supreme urgency.

Which statement is she standing by?

Leave a reply

Pelosi today said that she “stands by her previous statements.”

Does that mean the statement where she denied ever hearing about interrogation techniques?

Or, is it the statement where she acknowledged that she “might” have heard about their potential use, but did not realize the techniques were ACTUALLY in use?

Or, is it the time when she accussed the CIA of lying to her and Congress?

Or, how about when she said she supported the CIA, but was referring to the previous administration when she mentioned that she and Congress had been misled?

It’s really difficult to figure out which statement she is standing by.  That’s the trouble with lying.  My father-in-law used to always recommend telling the truth because it was the easiest to remember.  Apparently, Pelosi would prefer to lie in the hopes that the media won’t hold her to a standard of truth.  Well, she is right.  The media is letting her off.  But, for the rest of us…..which statement is she standing by?

Democrats are Hypocrites

Leave a reply

Even though former Vice President  Dick Cheney was intimately involved in suppressing terrorism while President Bush was in office, he is villified for his opinion that President Obama’s decisions are making America less safe.

Even though Flaherty is a golf announcer and a guy just making a joke, he is forced to apologize for making a joke about speaker Pelosi.

Even though Wanda Sykes made a vicious joke at the correspondents’ dinner about someone she knows only anecdotally–she wished Rush Limbaugh’s kidneys would fail and that he was the 20th hijacker–  President Obama lauged!

What do all these events have in common?  Well, in the first, a Republican is stating his honest belief and yet Democrats loudly bray that he is  fear-mongering.  In the second, a Democrat is the butt of a joke, and the Democrats don’t like that either!  In the third, a Democrat is making fun of a known Republican.  Oh, my!  That is just so funny.

The President of the United States laughed uproariously at the joke.  Understandably, he felt comfortable  in the company of journalists who fawn over him. In fact, from his facial expression, he appeared to find Wanda’s joke hilarious.  Only when it was pointed out that 9/11 was NOT a funny topic, did he back up and have his spokesperson say that was not funny!

It appears that the media is willing to give President Obama yet another pass on this latest gaffe.  That is not surprising when they supported his election with slanted news coverage and pandering columns and “tailored” descriptions of what they purportedly called the news.  Oh, yes.  There are a whole bunch of hypocrites in politics, and the biggest of them all is our very own President!

Brainwashing………

Leave a reply

It’s never enough for the Lieberals to just manufacture statistics about the climate as Al Gore did.  No, they are intent are MAKING everyone agree with their skewed analysis of climate data.  However, it is a tough sell.  So, someone came up with the idea of massaging the message into more likeable terminology.  Hence, the following is the “new” ploy for those who wish to obscure the facts of natural and normal climate change into one where the United States is to blame for a climate best described as “variable”.

Seeking to Save the Planet, With a Thesaurus

By JOHN M. BRODER
Published: May 1, 2009

WASHINGTON — The problem with global warming, some environmentalists believe, is “global warming.”

The term turns people off, fostering images of shaggy-haired liberals, economic sacrifice and complex scientific disputes, according to extensive polling and focus group sessions conducted by ecoAmerica, a nonprofit environmental marketing and messaging firm in Washington.

Instead of grim warnings about global warming, the firm advises, talk about “our deteriorating atmosphere.” Drop discussions of carbon dioxide and bring up “moving away from the dirty fuels of the past.” Don’t confuse people with cap and trade; use terms like “cap and cash back” or “pollution reduction refund.”

EcoAmerica has been conducting research for the last several years to find new ways to frame environmental issues and so build public support for climate change legislation and other initiatives. A summary of the group’s latest findings and recommendations was accidentally sent by e-mail to a number of news organizations by someone who sat in this week on a briefing intended for government officials and environmental leaders.

Asked about the summary, ecoAmerica’s president and founder, Robert M. Perkowitz, requested that it not be reported until the formal release of the firm’s full paper later this month, but acknowledged that its wide distribution now made compliance with his request unlikely.

The research directly parallels marketing studies conducted by oil companies, utilities and coal mining concerns that are trying to “green” their images with consumers and sway public policy.

Environmental issues consistently rate near the bottom of public worry, according to many public opinion polls. A Pew Research Center poll released in January found global warming last among 20 voter concerns; it trailed issues like addressing moral decline and decreasing the influence of lobbyists. “We know why it’s lowest,” said Mr. Perkowitz, a marketer of outdoor clothing and home furnishings before he started ecoAmerica, whose activities are financed by corporations, foundations and individuals. “When someone thinks of global warming, they think of a politicized, polarized argument. When you say ‘global warming,’ a certain group of Americans think that’s a code word for progressive liberals, gay marriage and other such issues.”

The answer, Mr. Perkowitz said in his presentation at the briefing, is to reframe the issue using different language. “Energy efficiency” makes people think of shivering in the dark. Instead, it is more effective to speak of “saving money for a more prosperous future.” In fact, the group’s surveys and focus groups found, it is time to drop the term “the environment” and talk about “the air we breathe, the water our children drink.”

“Another key finding: remember to speak in TALKING POINTS aspirational language about shared American ideals, like freedom, prosperity, independence and self-sufficiency while avoiding jargon and details about policy, science, economics or technology,” said the e-mail account of the group’s study.

Mr. Perkowitz and allies in the environmental movement have been briefing officials in Congress and the administration in the hope of using the findings to change the terms of the debate now under way in Washington.