ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report - 20090109

"Daily Motivations"

Do what you can, with what you have, where you are. -- Theodore Roosevelt



"The Patriot Post"

"Resolve to perform what you ought. Perform without fail what you resolve." -- Benjamin Franklin

"A government ought to contain in itself every power requisite to the full accomplishment of the objects committed to its care, and to the complete execution of the trusts for which it is responsible, free from every other control but a regard to the public good and to the sense of the people." -- Alexander Hamilton



"The Web"

If you love something, set it free. Unless it's chocolate. Never release chocolate. -- Renee Duvall

The most remarkable thing about my mother is that for 30 years she served us nothing but leftovers. The original meal has never been found. -- Calvin Trillin

I haven't spoken to my wife in years. I didn't want to interrupt her. -- Rodney Dangerfield



"Simple Truths"

To be what we are, and to become what we are capable of becoming, is the only end of life. -- Robert Louis Stevenson

I attribute my success to this: I never gave or took an excuse. -- Florence Nightingale

Progress always involves risks. You can’t steal second base and keep your foot on first. -- Frederick B. Wilcox



"Accuracy In Media" - As you watch and listen to President-elect Barack Obama, you must come to a conclusion that as we are facing a $1.2 Trillion deficit, Obama is already laying the ground that this largest deficit in our US history belongs to George Bush, when Obama himself, made numerous telephone calls to Democrat leaders on Capitol Hill to support and vote for the "largest bailout" in history. Obama is further calling for more "giveaways", "stimulus's", and/or "bailouts", whatever you care to define and/or call it. - oyh

Obama’s Lies About Government Bailout Plan
By Cliff Kincaid

It’s no wonder the liberal media are losing readers and viewers and going broke.

Our media have been in awe of Barack Obama’s physique, his workouts and basketball skills. But his lies about the proposed federal “stimulus” plan are what really deserve scrutiny.

Mike Allen of Politico.com quotes Republican consultant Frank Luntz as complimenting Obama for coming up with the deceptive phrase, “American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan,” to describe the largest federal spending bill in history that is mainly designed to bail out state and local governments that have already spent too much taxpayer money.

Luntz told Politico that “Obama’s team are the best linguists I’ve ever seen. Republicans aren’t in his league right now.” Those “linguists” include former reporters such as David Axelrod and Linda Douglass.

Explaining the propaganda value of the bill, Luntz said, “Recovery says putting the country back on track, and reinvestment is the next step up from investment.”

Our media are not going to fall for this ploy, are they?

Even before Obama unveiled the title of the bill, a Washington Post article by Michael D. Shear referred to the proposal as “a massive recovery plan for the nation’s struggling economy.” A New York Times article by Jackie Calmes and Carl Hulse on January 3 called it a “two-year economic recovery package.”

Notice that these two major liberal papers have brazenly adopted the terminology of the Democrats as their own.

Obama’s Saturday radio address, where he talked about his “American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan,” was as masterful as any professional magic show full of misdirection and illusions.

Explaining why we must spend more federal money and go further into debt, an approach that could spark hyperinflation and even national bankruptcy, Obama said that “We must make strategic investments that will serve as a down payment on our long-term economic future.” He declared that “this plan must be designed in a new way—we can’t just fall into the old Washington habit of throwing money at the problem.” Yet this is precisely what his plan does.

Obama says that “we must restore fiscal responsibility and make the tough choices so that as the economy recovers, the deficit starts to come down.” The deficit will be increased so that it can eventually “come down?” This is strange logic sometimes called “doublespeak” but also known as lying.

Taking this reckless and dangerous approach one step further, Obama says that, rather than cost money, the spending and debt program will “save” money and “help reduce health care costs by billions of dollars each year.” For too many families, “debts continue to mount,” he says. So the answer is for the federal government to go further into debt and pass on these costs to those who pay the bills―those same families. This will “save” us money?

Our media faithfully accept and report this dishonest rhetoric without any critical scrutiny. But what will the Republicans do?

Having rolled over for Bush and the Democrats on the $700-billion Wall Street bailout bill, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell now calls Obama’s plan “the largest spending bill in the history of our country at a time when our national debt is already the largest in history.”

The liberal blogs are calling McConnell an “obstructionist.” My New Year’s prediction is that this term will start finding its way into the liberal media over the next few days as the “recovery” package is being prepared for passage. The liberal media will attempt to browbeat the Republicans into submission.

“We hope,” McConnell says, “that Democrats in Congress don’t attempt to shut the American taxpayer out of this process by trying to pass a bill that hasn’t been the subject of bipartisan review and that hasn’t been available for public inspection.”

Of course, that is precisely what happened when McConnell joined with the Democrats in passing the Wall Street bailout. That was called the “Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.”

The auto bailout bill was called the “Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act.”

Now we get the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan.”

Peter Schiff of Euro Pacific Capital warns that a proposal of this kind is comparable to an individual trying to “forestall a personal recession by taking out newer, bigger loans when the old loans can’t be repaid.”

He explains, “Governments cannot create but merely redirect. When the government spends, the money has to come from somewhere. If the government doesn’t have a surplus, then it must come from taxes. If taxes don’t go up, then it must come from increased borrowing. If lenders won’t lend, then it must come from the printing press, which is where all these bailouts are headed. But each additional dollar printed diminishes the value of those already in circulation. Something cannot be effortlessly created from nothing.”

A resolution to be introduced at the upcoming meeting of the Republican National Committee puts the GOP on record against all of this.

The bank bailout bill, whose cost rose to $850 billion after Congress added pork to it, “has neither reversed the economic crisis nor protected the taxpayers, but rather has added $850 billion dollars to their tax bill and raised the national debt ceiling from $10 trillion to $11.3 trillion, which has the potential long-term effect of further weakening the economy,” the resolution states.

While the Senate refused to go along with the auto bailout bill, the resolution notes that Bush proceeded to spend the money anyway (illegally and unconstitutionally) by taking the funds out of the bank bailout bill.

Now, the resolution notes, we are being presented by Obama with “a cleverly disguised Government Bailout Plan designed to bail out state and local governments by providing federal tax dollars to repair and rebuild their local infrastructure…” It will be “the biggest earmarked spending program in our Nation’s history.”

It’s up to the GOP to take a stand on this resolution. But the point is that you will never catch the liberal media using the Republican language from this resolution as their own. The Obama proposal will never be described as a government bailout plan.

It’s no wonder the liberal media are losing readers and viewers and going broke. But their Obama worship gets in the way of telling the truth about this man and his agenda.



Another Donor List We Must See: Who Gave Millions to CIA-Director-in-Waiting Leona Panetta?

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2009/01/another_donor_l.html
By Debbie Schlussel

In order to get his wife vetted for Secretary of State, Bill Clinton released the donor list to his foundation. But, now, there's another list we must see: who donated about $10 million to the Leon and Sylvia Panetta Institute for Public Policy?

Panetta, with absolutely no experience in intelligence, is Barack Obama's choice for CIA Director. Since he has no intelligence expertise, he will be especially vulnerable to influence from those who paid most of his salary for the last decade or more. And we need to see the donor list. Frankly, he was more reliant on those donors than Bill and Hillary Clinton were on donors to Mr. Clinton's charity. Panetta and his wife, Sylvia, apparently used the money to live on. Other than serving as a director for the New York Stock Exchange from 1997-2003, the money was the Panetta's apparent main source of income.

Check out a copy of the latest tax filing on record for the Leon & Sylvia Panetta Institute for Public Policy. On the "Support Schedule"--which is the 13th page of the entire tax return--the Panettas list about $4 million for the years 2003-2006. There were likely in excess of $10 million in donations in the eleven years that this organization existed.

Who Paid Leon Panetta's Salary for the Last Eleven Years?
Where did it come from? We deserve to know, so that we know who will potentially influence the U.S. spy game over the next four years or so.

So, come on, Mr. and Mrs. Panetta, release the list of your donors.

Posted by Debbie at January 6, 2009 10:24 AM



"The email Bag" - What is wealth? - oyh

Perspective!

One day, the father of a very wealthy family took his son on a trip to the country with the express purpose of showing him how poor people live.

They spent a couple of days and nights on the farm of what would be considered a very poor family.

On their return from their trip, the father asked his son, 'How was the trip?'

'It was great, Dad.'

'Did you see how poor people live?' the father asked.

'Oh yeah,' said the son.

'So, tell me, what did you learn from the trip?' asked the father.

The son answered: 'I saw that we have one dog and they had four. We have a pool that reaches to the middle of our garden and they have a creek that has no end. We have imported lanterns in our garden and they have the stars at night. Our patio reaches to the front yard and they have the whole horizon. We have a small piece of land to live on and they have fields that go beyond our sight. We have servants who serve us, but they serve others. We buy our food, but they grow theirs. We have walls around our property to protect us, they have friends to protect them.'

The boy's father was speechless.

Then his son added, 'Thanks Dad for showing me how poor we are.' Isn't perspective a wonderful thing? Makes you wonder what would happen if we all gave thanks for everything we have, instead of worrying about what we don't have.

Appreciate every single thing you have, especially your friends!

Pass this on to friends and acquaintances and help them refresh their perspective and appreciation.

'Life is too short and friends are too few.'




Redistribution Must Be By Work

By: Chuck Sproull, Springville In

I believe the best "wealth re-distribution" is through free enterprise, interstate commerce, and capitalism; where all people are free, honest and ambitious enough to:

(1) work and earn their own living making and growing things, and selling products and services to others, and then to

(2) spend their money buying other products and services.

Socialism (and "wealth re-distribution" by "taxation without representation") is inferior to the Constitutional Republic our Founders gave us; because it allows dishonest, selfish, lazy people (who are capable of working but to irresponsible) to receive welfare (our tax money) that only the most needy should receive.