Congress has failed the American citizen
Published: July 6, 2009
Updated: July 6, 2009
Let’s look at the recent performance of Congress as it relates to you, the American citizen. On each one of these issues, they ignored you and you did nothing:
1. Largest spending bill in hstory passed without reading
2. Largest tax bill, called Cap and Trade, passed without reading
3. Failed to secure our borders and enforce immigration laws
4. Gave $300 billion to illegal welfare
5. Bailed out failed business
6. Failed to implement the system-verification
7. Gave U.S. jobs to non-U.S. citizens
8. Failed to drill here and drill now
Now it’s time to act. You can call, write or e-mail your congressional representatives and tell them we have had enough, and if they don’t fix these problems by October we will vote them out in November and:
1. Make all laws apply to Congress
2. Delete congressional privileges
3. Restrict Congress from voting for its own raises
4. Make Congress pay into Social Security, live within their means
5. Stop giving benefits to 20 million illegal immigrants
6. Limit congressional representatives to no more than two terms
7. Get own 401(k) plan and reform congressional medical insurance
8. Throw out all congressional members who vote for bills without reading them
9. Do not reward lawbreakers
10. Start no war unless willing to win
11. Speak only English
12. Defend our borders
13. Balance budget
14. Protect our currency
John J. Callahan
Culpeper
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Opa, it’s pointless.
You just want to use recent sources, and not dig into 2007 and prior. I know what’s he has been saying for about a year.
Just in US News and World Report, there were hundreds of sources in their archives of what he has said as a candidate.
Again, you should not get all excited as if you have to convince me to like him or not. I just like to stay in reality, and yours does not have all the history that I need.
OW, your words remind me that words are cheap. You say that the sources I cited are “limited” and “incomplete.” Yet you offer no sources at all as backup. Offer some proof to backup your absurd claims. Or, can’t you?
You may believe that as a Senator and during his campaign Obama said he “wanted to bring ALL the troops home.” However, you are absolutely wrong. Cite a source that substantiates your false belief. I can find none. On July 14, 2008, candidate/Senator Obama announced a plan — if elected — to deploy additional 7,000 troops to Afghanistan. “As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan” “We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there” “I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq,“
Also, in Paris on July 25, Obama said in the joint news conference with French President Nicolas Sarkozy “Afghanistan is a war that we have to win” because al-Qaeda and the radical Islamic Taliban movement cannot be allowed to establish new havens for planning “terrorist attacks . . . that could affect Paris or New York.“ Obama declared that there were no effective options to this policy, saying, “So we don’t have a choice; we’ve got to finish the job.“ Obama said the United States “needs to send two additional brigades at least” to Afghanistan and praised Sarkozy for his willingness to send more French troops to that country. (See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama#Afghanistan)
Your point about ALL only goes to re-enforce my opinion that you have a reading comprehension problem. The subject of the NY Times article was troop withdrawal, only from Iraq and not from the whole region including Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia which were not mentioned by Obama. That’s why I didn’t mention it. Only you mentioned it with no supporting cite. See the NY Times article As Candidate, Obama Craves Antiwar Stance at http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B02E1DF1E3EF935A15751C0A9619C8B63&sec;=&spon;=&pagewanted=2 Note that Obama’s, Edwards’ and Clinton’s positions are listed under “Three Plans for Iraq” and therefore restricted to Iraq. Obama said “Begin redeployment of troops to the U.S., Afghanistan and other points in the Middle East no later than May 1, 2007, with the goal of removing all combat brigades by March 31, 2008. Redeployment can be suspended if Congress agrees that the Iraqi government has met 13 benchmarks for progress laid out by the Bush administration.”
Why would he “not bring them ALL home?” Reported in the cited NY Times article Obama said “A residual U.S. presence may remain in Iraq for force protection, training of Iraqi security forces and pursuit of international terrorists.“ As for the troops in Afghanistan, see the above cited sources where he called for an additional 7,000 troops in Afghanistan, and the joint news conference with French President Nicolas Sarkozy.
Again OW, if as you say, “there are more than enough references to what he said on the campaign trail and as Senator to verify as truth what you say, then provide some (even a) cites. Same with your absurd, unsupported claim that “it has been reported in the news” that Obama tried to propose Vets pay for their wounds by private insurance. What “news?“ Name even one credible source. If there are indeed many, that should be easy enough. Or is it you who “just wants to believe what you want to believe and that’s ALL there is to it.” In other words, put up or shut up. Show that you’re not just a ranting, opinionated, know-nothing bore.
OPA, your review remains as I’ve said, incomplete. The same for the limited sources you cited.
When Obama was on the campaign trail and as a Senator, I think he made it rather clear when he said he wanted to bring ALL the troops home, that it included those in Iraq and in Afghanistan. It is of late that he has segregated the two regions. Comprehension: ALL means ALL, and that’s ALL that ALL means. The subject was troop withdrawal, both from Iraq and the whole REGION, including Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia as were specifically mentioned by him. Why did you leave that out? Let’s use common sense, why would he not bring them ALL home? What is our purpose in being there in the first place? Obama never thought we should have went in the first place, even to occupy Afghanistan. So your argument does not make sense for the type of man Obama is, and what he campaigned on. And there are more than enough references to what he said on the campaign trail and as Senator to verify that. And our discussion was about what he FIRST said, not what he’s transitioned into as President. Why do you think the anti-war and far left people are so mad at him now?
Why don’t you look into what it was that the Senator from Hawaii would not let out of committee? You won’t even discuss that part of it. You won’t even discuss that Obama would propose such a thing. And if I’m off on it, then so must be the rest of the world, as that’s how it has been reported in the news, so much so, that Jon Stewarts satire came out about it. You just want to believe what you want to believe and that’s ALL there is to it.
I have different reasons that I am against occupying other countries, and I believe in fighting wars differently than Obama, but I did believe him when he said he would stop the waste of money spending over there and that he would bring our kids home. And he has not, and he is spending just as much of our tax money there as Bush did, if not more now.
OW, my review of what I researched is both correct and complete. Yours is not. Mine is the whole story. Yours is fiction. Obama did not make any “proposal” for Vets to pay for private insurance to cover war injuries. He didn’t even suggest it. As I previously asked, cite your source. You didn’t and can’t. It was never “proposed” by anyone, merely considered and rejected in committee in the VA; a long way from Obama.
You are also incorrect re both Obama’s long held proposals re Iraq and Afghanistan and my stated position re same which I stand by. When Obama was running for President he did not say he’d bring “ALL the troops home.” As I stated, his position has always been to get them out of Iraq and to build up our presence in Afghanistan. He has always differentiated between the two war sites. This was made clear in the NY Times article you referenced. The quote from this article re Obama’s Iraq position is “Begin redeployment of troops to the U.S., Afghanistan and other points in the Middle East no later than May 1, 2007, with the goal of removing all combat brigades by March 31, 2008. Redeployment can be suspended if Congress agrees that the Iraqi government has met 13 benchmarks for progress laid out by the Bush administration.” The subject was Iraq not Afghanistan. See http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B02E1DF1E3EF935A15751C0A9619C8B63&sec;=&spon;=&pagewanted=2 Also see his Plan for Iraq published 14 July 2008 at www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html?_r=1
I trust that you must have a reading comprehension problem that accounts for your obvious confusion.
Yea, Opa, you should listen to RJMA, he and EL have lost so many debates with me this past year that we’ve all lost count. RJMA latest loss hit him harder than usual cause he’s not usually so exposed.
Your review of what you researched is correct, but incomplete. It is not the whole story. What Obama proposed for the Vets to pay in private insurance was shot down by the Senator from Hawaii, the committee chairman as soon as it was proposed, therefore never got out of committee.
So you don’t find his proposal a bad idea? One that if it wasn’t shot down by another thoughtful person instead of one of Obama’s worshippers, might have made it. It was SOOO bad that Jon Stewart made Obama look like a jerk for even suggesting such a thing.
Yes, I find it sad for Obama that he now agrees with McCain on building up the Afghan war and dumping $10-$30 billion a month into that country. You are wrong on Obama’s stance on the war when you stated: “Further, your thinking that Obama was going to stop all this and bring our kids home” from Afghanistan is also incorrect. His position has always been to get them out of Iraq and to build up our presence in Afghanistan.“
When Obama was running for President, he said he’d bring ALL the troops home, not just the ones in Iraq. It was later (I believe, like after election) that he switch his focus and differentiated between the two war sites. But we all know that he was against the war in Iraq and only wanted us to hunt down Bin-Laden in Afghanistan, not occupy it. The New York Times, Feb. 26, 2007, Senator Obama’s “Plan for Withdrawal” was to start moving troops to other points in Middle East and Afghanistan no later than May 1, 2007, with a goal of ALL COMBAT BRIGADES REMOVED in the entire region by March 31, 2008. So, in less than a years time, Obama said he was going to bring our kids home…and he’s not, is he?
You need’nt be concerned that I’m an Obama basher. I think he’s doing a better job than I expected (although still early).
OW, thank you. I did google it and read all that you wrote. As suspected, the truth is that Obama neither said nor “tried to propose” any such thing. According to The Spokesman-Review dated March 17, 2009, “The president spoke Monday (March 16) at the Department of Veterans Affairs to commemorate its 20th anniversary and said he hopes to increase funding by $25 billion over the next five years. But he said nothing about the plan to bill private insurers for service-related medical care.” “Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki said that the plan was ‘a consideration.’ He also acknowledged that the VA’s proposed budget for next year included it as a way to increase revenue. But Shinseki told the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee that ‘a final decision hasn’t been made yet.’”
(www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/mar/17/veterans-health-care-may-go-private/ )
Further, your thinking that Obama was going to stop all this and bring our kids home” from Afghanistan is also incorrect. His position has always been to get them out of Iraq and to build up our presence in Afghanistan.
Opa, don’t fall for this. OW’s tactic is the old tired bait and switch. She first posts a bogus smear of the president, thinking it was fact, when it was actually satire. Refuses to acknowledge that it is bogus. Refuses to apologize. Does the old “you shouldn’t take it personally” as if somehow I am the one who did something wrong, and that I need to do more research. Then comes the switch to a related one-day story that is old news. Sorry, OW, go find someone else who wants to play your games. Why would anyone want to debate with you?
Opa, you can google it, or did you check out what I wrote below truthorfiction.com?
OW, where did you ‘learn’ that “Obama tried to propose less funding for medical expenses for vets, and make them pay for private insurance premiums at VA hospitals”? Skeptical (for many reasons) I searched for any source w/o success. Can you provide a cite that verifies your claim?
rjma, I have admitted mistakes, and certainly don’t mind in this case or any.
You are going to have to stop taking things so personal when you don’t follow up on things well. I even suggested at the end when I put this in order to spark a good talk, to do “your homework, and you’ll see why veteran organizations don’t trust Obama.“
I’m glad you did.
Matter of fact, I have a hard time with you saying: “Maybe it’s just me, but I tend to take people at their word. When they say something I believe them unless I have info to indicate otherwise.“ I’ve always noticed that you would do your homework and verify what people wrote.
So, back to the topic I brought up…do you think that the fact that Obama tried to propose less funding for medical expenses for vets, and make them pay for private insurance premiums at VA hospitals is ok? Or do you still want to argue about Jon Stewarts making fun of Obama?
Advertisement