History is Made – White House Website Changes to Obama

 

 

While Barack Obama was taking the oath of office, the radical socialist had his staff put up the new White House web site:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/

Many conservatives commented about how President Obama’s inauguration speech had many ideas that they could applaud and support.

Obama’s speech may be the “Reagan Mask” used to seduce Republicans to provide support for Obama’s proposed legislation.

Time to ripe off the mask and confront reality by pointing out exactly what President Obama stands for.

The next time they call you a racist or play the “race card” for stating his policies, just call him a radical socialist–an accurate description.

 

 
Shelby Steele – “Racial Masking” in American Popular Culture

  

 

Shelby Steele – Race and the Obama Campaign

 

Before Republicans get carried away, may I suggest they visit the Civil Rights page of the new White House web site:

The majority of the American people, both Democrats and Republicans, do not agree or support his radical socialist Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) agenda including the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), opposition to a Constitutional ban on same sex marriage and the repeal of Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell policy in the military: 

 

“…Support for the LGBT Community

“While we have come a long way since the Stonewall riots in 1969, we still have a lot of work to do. Too often, the issue of LGBT rights is exploited by those seeking to divide us. But at its core, this issue is about who we are as Americans. It’s about whether this nation is going to live up to its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with dignity and respect.”– Barack Obama, June 1, 2007

• Expand Hate Crimes Statutes: In 2004, crimes against LGBT Americans constituted the third-highest category of hate crime reported and made up more than 15 percent of such crimes. President Obama cosponsored legislation that would expand federal jurisdiction to include violent hate crimes perpetrated because of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or physical disability. As a state senator, President Obama passed tough legislation that made hate crimes and conspiracy to commit them against the law.
• Fight Workplace Discrimination: President Obama supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. While an increasing number of employers have extended benefits to their employees’ domestic partners, discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace occurs with no federal legal remedy. The President also sponsored legislation in the Illinois State Senate that would ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
• Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.
• Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: President Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.
• Repeal Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell: President Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. The President will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.  …”

http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/civil_rights/

When it comes to President Obama I recommend you ignore what he says and follow what legislation he proposes for Congress to pass.

Go to the energy and the environment page for a real job destroyer and economy killer:

 

“…ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT

 

The energy challenges our country faces are severe and have gone unaddressed for far too long. Our addiction to foreign oil doesn’t just undermine our national security and wreak havoc on our environment — it cripples our economy and strains the budgets of working families all across America. President Obama and Vice President Biden have a comprehensive plan to invest in alternative and renewable energy, end our addiction to foreign oil, address the global climate crisis and create millions of new jobs.

The Obama-Biden comprehensive New Energy for America plan will:

• Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future.
• Within 10 years save more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela combined.
• Put 1 million Plug-In Hybrid cars — cars that can get up to 150 miles per gallon — on the road by 2015, cars that we will work to make sure are built here in America.
• Ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.
• Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050. …”

http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/energy_and_environment/

President Obama has drinked the Al Gore “kool aid” of man-made global warming requiring a new cap and trade tax .

If passed such a cap and trade tax  would significantly increase every American’s electrical bill, cost of heating oil and spending on gasoline.

The cost of goods and services would also increase since they too require energy in the form of electricity, heating and transportation.

A command and control economy where the central government picks winners and losers destroyed both the Soviet and Chinese economies.

Seems like the radical socialists in the White House are now trying to destroy the US economy with their new age religion of global warming based on the junk science of computer climate models. Global warming has now changed to climate change, given the recent decline in global temperatures.

Stop using taxpayer’s hard earned money to subsidize with tax credits alternative energy sources such as wind turbines, solar, and geothermal.

Let the American people choose the most affordable source of their electricity and what type of cars and trucks they want to drive.

Mind your own business and stop meddling.

Leave the American people and economy alone.

Lawyers do not know how to run businesses and economies.

Federal government intervention in the home mortage market is primarily responsible for this recession together with years of Federal deficit spending and its impact on the value of the dollar and the cost of gasoline. 

When major cities and urban areas experience brown-outs and black-outs and a prolonged recession, they will dump both the Democrats and Republicans that supported this continuing economic nonsense.

If there is any adult supervision left in Washington D.C., it is long past the time to call a stop to this meddling where the government has no business or expertise. 

President Reagan was right, government is the problem.

Milton Friedman was right, government spending is the problem.

Time to face reality.

 

 

Background Articles and Videos

 

The all-new, improved “humble” White House website

By Michelle Malkin  

“…“Humility” was a big theme of the $150 million inaugural today. With that in mind, behold the all-new, improved “humble” White House website.

Remember, friends, it’s not about him. …”

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/20/the-all-new-improved-humble-white-house-website/

 

 

 

Rush Limbaugh on Hannity: Does Rush Want Obama to Succeed?

Rush Limbaugh on Hannity Part 2: The Future of Conservatism

The Current State of World Affairs

The Future of Austrian Economics

Socialism and Fascism pt.1

Rothbard’s “Left and Right”: 40 Years Later

Socialism and Fascism pt.2

Socialism and Fascism pt.3

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian 1

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian 2

DOMA Watch

“…In 1996, Congress adopted the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Pub. L. 104-199, 100 Stat. 2419 (Sept. 21, 1996). Congress passed DOMA because of a decades-long assault on marriage, and particularly in response to a Hawaii court decision that suggested there is a right to same-sex “marriage” in the Hawaii Constitution. The legislative history reflects a congressional concern about the effect that legalizing same-sex “marriage” in Hawaii would have on other states, federal laws, the institution of marriage, traditional notions of morality, and state sovereignty. H.R. Rep. No. 104-664 at 1-18 (1996), reprinted in 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2905-23.

DOMA has two sections, one defining “marriage” for purposes of federal law, and the other affirming federalism principles under the authority granted by Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution, the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The first section states that for purposes of federal law, marriage means a legal union between a man and a woman:

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

Pub. L. 104-199, sec 1, 100 Stat. 2419 (Sep. 21, 1996), codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 (1997). The second section reaffirmed the power of the states to make their own decisions about marriage:

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Pub. L. 104-199 sec. 2, 100 Stat. 2419 (Sep. 21, 1996), codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1738C (1997).

Legislative History

DOMA was signed by President Clinton on Sept. 21, 1996, becoming Pub.L. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419, codified at 1 USC 7 and 28 USC 1738C.  It passed the Congress as H.R. 3396. 

DOMA passed the U.S. House on July 12, 1996 by a vote of 342-67 (vote no. 316).  Floor statements on the bill will appear in the Congressional Record of that day.  House hearings on DOMA  were held on May 15, 1996 in a subcommittee of the Judiciary, Committee on the Constitution. The leading legislative record is the House Report, No. 104-664. The hearing before the subcommittee can be found here.

DOMA passed the U.S. Senate, unamended, on September 10, 1996, by a vote of 85 to 14 (vote no. 280).  The Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on July 11, 1996 (on the bill S. 1740), and they were printed as Senate Hearings 104-533.   

http://www.domawatch.org/about/federaldoma.html

 

Religious Denominations Weigh In on Same-Sex Marriage

“…These actions by the Churches are generally in line with the views of most Americans. Two-thirds of American voters prefer defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Only 29% believe marriage can be defined as the union of any two people. Most also believe it is inappropriate for gay or lesbian church members to serve as pastors or bishops in Christian Churches. That view is especially strong among those who attend Christian Churches.

There is a strong link between belief in Scripture and opposition to same-sex marriage. Polling data from 32 states (see State-by-State Summary) clearly illustrates this correlation.

When it comes to who is responsible for determining the appropriateness of homosexuals in Church leadership roles, 86% of all voters believe decisions about gay and lesbian pastors should be left to churches themselves to resolve.

In the case of same-sex marriage, which has social ramifications beyond the Church, just 12% of Americans believe that judges should have a role in defining marriage, while only 5% think that elected officials should make such decisions. Overwhelmingly, 67% think that voters should make decisions regarding the definition of marriage. When voters are given the chance to weigh in on this issue through ballot initiatives, they routinely support traditional definitions of marriage. …”

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/general_current_events/religious_denominations_weigh_in_on_same_sex_marriage

Rasmussen Reports Tracking Surveys

                                500 Interviews per State

Surveys conducted July 1 7 – August 15, 2006.  Click on State for details.

(Question wording below table)                                                          

 http://legacy.rasmussenreports.com/MembersOnly/2006%20issues/082106%20Views%20on%20cultural%20issues.htm

 

LGBT for Obama

 

Obama DOMA

 

Michelle at LGBT Caucus

 

Michelle Obama Speaks to DNC’s Gay & Lesbian Leadership Council

 

Charlie Rose: October 2, 1998–Interview with Shelby Steele

 

 

Black America Could Have Done Better

By Shelby Steele

Shelby Steele

“… hope this administration does not succeed in dumping vast amounts of printing-press money into the economy, so that taxes must later be raised to withering levels. I hope it fails to universalize health care or to sustain race-based affirmative action. I hope school choice happens in inner cities despite Mr. Obama’s animus toward it.

Barack Obama’s victory was an ideological defeat for modern conservatism and a devastating blow to the Republican Party. It wasn’t just a case of one centrist candidate slipping past another centrist candidate at the finish line. This defeat — helped along by a sinking economy — was on the level of ideas. It points to nothing less than a new and still unfolding Obama “progressivism” in which Keynes replaces Friedman and “trickle-down” gives way to “bottom-up.”

This progressivism sees economic inequality as America’s gravest problem, and blames it on the conservatism of free markets, lower taxes, fewer regulations and smaller government. It wants to engineer equality through redistributive tax policies, the restructuring of markets through increased regulation, an expansion of entitlements, and more governmental activism. …”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123249658994100325.html

 

Shelby Steele: No, Obama’s victory is not a triumph for conservatism

By Michelle Malkin 

“…Glad I’m not the only minority conservative who rejects the increasingly popular notion on the Right that Barack Obama’s ascension should be embraced as a moral victory for our side. The promise of post-racialism is a bogus one.

Shelby Steele, one of the most articulate voices on race matters, weighs in in the WSJ: …”

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/21/shelby-steele-no-obamas-victory-is-not-a-triumph-for-conservatism/ 

 

Shelby Steele Nails It in WSJ

“…White guilt in the West — especially in Europe and on the American left — confuses all this by seeing Islamic extremism as a response to oppression. The West is so terrified of being charged with its old sins of racism, imperialism and colonialism that it makes oppression an automatic prism on the non-Western world, a politeness. But Islamic extremists don’t hate the West because they are oppressed by it. They hate it precisely because the end of oppression and colonialism — not their continuance — forced the Muslim world to compete with the West. Less oppression, not more, opened this world to the sense of defeat that turned into extremism. * * *

But the international left is in its own contest with American exceptionalism. It keeps charging Israel and America with oppression hoping to mute American power. And this works in today’s world because the oppression script is so familiar and because American power cringes when labeled with sins of the white Western past. Yet whenever the left does this, it makes room for extremism by lending legitimacy to its claim of oppression. And Israel can never use its military fire power without being labeled an oppressor — which brings legitimacy to the enemies she fights. Israel roars; much of Europe supports Hezbollah.

Over and over, white guilt turns the disparity in development between Israel and her neighbors into a case of Western bigotry. This despite the fact that Islamic extremism is the most explicit and dangerous expression of human bigotry since the Nazi era. Israel’s historical contradiction, her torture, is to be a Western nation whose efforts to survive trap her in the moral mazes of white guilt. Its national defense will forever be white aggression.

But white guilt’s most dangerous suppression is to keep from discussion the most conspicuous reality in the Middle East: that the Islamic world long ago fell out of history. Islamic extremism is the saber-rattling of an inferiority complex. America has done a good thing in launching democracy as a new ideal in this region. Here is the possibility — if still quite remote — for the Islamic world to seek power through contribution rather than through menace.

Mr. Steele, research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford, is the author of “White Guilt” (HarperCollins, 2006). “

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2006/08/shelby_steele_n.html

 

LGBT

“LGBT (or GLBT) is an initialism referring collectively to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender/transsexual people.^[1][2] In use since the 1990s, the term “LGBT” is an adaptation of the initialism “LGB” which itself started replacing the phrase “gay community” which many within LGBT communities felt did not represent accurately all those to which it referred.^[1][2] In modern usage, the term LGBT relates to the diversity of sexuality and gender identity‐based cultures and is sometimes used to refer to anyone who is non‐heterosexual instead of exclusively to people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender.^[1][3] The term has been adopted by the majority of LGBT community centers and LGBT media in most English‐speaking countries.^[2] 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT

 

CA Courts Force Same-Sex Marriage on Californians!

 

Don’t Ask Don’t Tell – 60 Min. Special (Part 1)

 

Don’t Ask Don’t Tell – 60 Min. Special (Part 2)

44% Say Global Warming Due To Planetary Trends, Not People

 

“…Al Gore’s side may be coming to power in Washington, but they appear to be losing the battle on the idea that humans are to blame for global warming.

Forty-four percent (44%) of U.S. voters now say long-term planetary trends are the cause of global warming, compared to 41% who blame it on human activity.

Seven percent (7%) attribute global warming to some other reason, and nine percent (9%) are unsure in a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Democrats blame global warming on human activity, compared to 21% percent of Republicans. Two-thirds of GOP voters (67%) see long-term planetary trends as the cause versus 23% of Democrats. Voters not affiliated with either party by eight points put the blame on planetary trends.

In July 2006, 46% of voters said global warming is caused primarily by human activities, while 35% said it is due to long-term planetary trends.  …”

 

“…Last August, when prices at the gas pump were soaring, 65% of Americans said finding new sources of energy is more important that reducing the amount of energy Americans now consume. Twenty-eight percent (28%) said reducing current usage is more important.

Male voters by two-to-one put the emphasis on finding new energy sources while women are much more narrowly divided. Fifty-nine percent (59%) of investors say new sources of energy are more important, compared to 54% of non-investors.

Sixty-six percent (66%) of Republicans favor finding new sources of energy, as do 50% of Democrats and 53% of unaffiliated voters.

One of those new sources of energy is the building of more nuclear power plants. For three decades, nuclear power plants have generally been unpopular and the target of environmental groups, but 55% of voters now say more nuclear power plants should be built in the United States. Just 29% oppose new plants, with 15% undecided.

Sixty-four percent (64%) of GOP voters favor building new nuclear plants, with 22% opposed. The numbers are nearly identical for unaffiliated voters. Among Democrats, though, just 42% support the building of new plants, and 39% are against it.

Investors certainly like the idea of new plants, too. Sixty-three percent (63%) want to see new nuclear plans built, compared to 43% of non-investors.  …”

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/issues2/articles/44_say_global_warming_due_to_planetary_trends_not_people

 

Unstoppable Solar Cycles

 

Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause? – Pt 1 of 4

 

Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause? – Pt 2 of 4

 

Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause? – Pt 3 of 4

 

Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause? – Pt 4 of 4

 

LOL

Alternative Energy Sources…

 

The Economic “Stimulus”

By Thomas Sowell

“…New things require long delays before they can get started, especially when they have to be done by politicians. Someone once said that Congress would take 30 days to make instant coffee– and Congress is just the beginning of the delays, as all sorts of competing interests jockey for position at the public trough.

Just putting together an environmental impact report for something new to be built can be a long process, especially if its findings are challenged by environmental extremists, who pay very little price for challenging, even if the delays caused by their challenges cost others millions of dollars.

In short, it can be years before the money that is supposed to stimulate the economy actually gets into the economy. And nobody knows what the economy will be like when that money finally gets into circulation.

A common problem with government economic policies in general is that it is very hard to predict how long it will be before the policy actually affects the economy. An economic stimulus policy created during a contraction in demand can take effect during an inflationary expansion of demand– and fuel still more inflation.

A trillion dollars or so, created out of thin air by a government that already has a huge deficit, can set off another round of inflation that can take some very painful new policies to bring under control– or can have even more painful effects, if it is not brought under control. The new administration may need that get-out-of-jail-free card.”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/01/the_economic_stimulus_1.html

 

Lured to Disaster

By Thomas Sowell

“…The difference is that today there is some arbitrary percentage of one’s income that sets the limit to what the government will consider to be affordable housing. It used to be 25 percent but it might be 30 percent or some other proportion.

But, whatever the percentage, it is no longer the individual’s responsibility to choose housing that fits within that limit. It is somehow the taxpayers’ job to make up the difference, when someone chooses housing whose cost exceeds that magic number.

It is certainly no longer considered to be the individual’s own responsibility to acquire the work skills and experience to be able to earn enough to afford better housing as the years passed. Why do that, when the government can simply “spread the wealth around,” to use another political phrase?

The ultimate irony is that increasing government intervention in the housing market over the years has generally made housing less affordable than before, by any standard.

A hundred years ago, Americans spent a smaller percentage of their incomes on housing than they do today. In 1901, housing costs took 23 percent of the average American’s income. By 2003, it took 33 percent of a far larger income.

In particular places where government regulations and restrictions have been especially severe, such as coastal California, rents or monthly mortgage payments have averaged as high as 50 percent of the average person’s income.

Most of our problems are not nearly as severe as political “solutions.” In housing, government policies have lured people into situations that were untenable to them and to the country.”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/01/lured_to_disaster.html

 

 LOL

Economic Stimulus plan…

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

 

Words of Wisdom From The Loyal Opposition

Identity Politics: Blacks, Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transsexuals for Obama?

Barack Obama’s Socialist Green Commissar Carol Browner

Barrack Obama’s Kansas Values–Killing Babies in Cold Blood?

Let Them Eat Cake Act: American Elites Killing and Starving The American People

ANWR: Pristine–Pristine–Pristine–Desolute–Desolute–Desolute–Drill–Drill–Drill– McCain/Romney: Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less!

McCain: Cut–Drill–Victory vs. Obama: Increase–Talk–End

2008 Presidential Choice: Leader or Diletant–McCain or Obama 

Al Gore 2.0 and The Coming Renewable Energy Ice Age–The Big Chill  

National Center for Policy Analysis–A Global Warming Primer

Global Warming is The Greatest Hoax, Scam and Disinformation Campaign in History

Global Warming Videos

Global Warming Books

Global Warming Sites

Al Gore: Agent of Influence or Useful Idiot of Disinformation

Al Gore: Agent of Influence and Planetary Propeller Head!

Al Gore’s Little White Lie: Man-Made Global Warming Causing Polar Bears To Drown 

Al Gore’s Big Whopper–Sea Levels Rise By 2100: Gore 20 Feet vs IPCC 2 Feet? 

Clinton’s Cap and Trade Tax on The American People for Consuming Electricity and Driving Cars, SUVs and Trucks!

Facing Fundamental Facts

Presidential Election 2008: American Elites Vs. American People

	How voters see cultural issues
	Definition of marriage		Bible true		On topic of abortion
	Man/woman	Any two	Yes	No	Pro-choice	Pro-life
AK	60	36	37	50	x	x	AK
AL	83	14	75	19	38	50	AL
AR	83	14	75	18	38	55	AR
AZ	63	33	46	41	52	39	AZ
CO	62	34	41	50	56	38	CO
FL	63	33	46	43	54	39	FL
GA	74	22	60	29	46	43	GA
HI	51	45	28	57	64	26	HI
IA	66	30	47	39	54	40	IA
IL	58	38	45	39	54	34	IL
KS	72	24	56	28	44	47	KS
MA	47	51	22	63	70	24	MA
MD	54	41	40	50	64	27	MD
ME	53	43	34	51	67	25	ME
MI	69	26	54	33	53	40	MI
MN	60	36	46	40	55	37	MN
MT	65	29	49	39	55	40	MT
NE	76	20	54	35	43	51	NE
NJ	54	42	30	53	66	28	NJ
NV	58	38	33	52	62	32	NV
NY	52	44	36	52	65	29	NY
OH	66	31	51	39	48	43	OH
PA	62	34	43	44	56	37	PA
RI	51	45	31	52	64	31	RI
SC	75	22	62	27	47	42	SC
TN	80	17	68	21	39	51	TN
TX	71	26	60	32	44	48	TX
VA	71	26	53	40	51	40	VA
VT	44	49	22	59	68	24	VT
WA	57	39	39	51	61	30	WA
WI	63	35	43	41	53	40	WI
WV	80	16	70	21	38	55	WV