Obama Speaks Against Military Coup

Not to be a knitpicker but Obama is not out to do away with term limits. Which one of the Amendments is he trying to have abolished? This sounds remarkably similar to liberals pining against Bush during his second term. Good ol' politics. Its kind of like Bible fanatics who twist every word to fit their interpretation.

Honduras is none of our business. He should not be voicing his opinion but rather focusing on the task at hand but has any modern day politician ever done that?

Twil it's HJR 5. It asks for the repealof the 22nd amendment that sets term limits for the president. Although from looking at the following website it hasn't made it out of commitee..yet!

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hj111-5

Thank you mhbouncer. I didn't have the time to look it up yesterday and I wanted to post my appreciation of our Presisdent's concern for the coup that ousted a power-hungry Honduran President. Yes! Twilcox, it is a bill to repeal that part of the Constitution. Not that it should be too surprizing since this administration has very little respect for that scrap of paper (as they see it not me). They have ignored the essense of what that document means. They wish to take away our freedom of speech by controlling the media and removing talk radio; our right to bear arms by passing bills that restrict guns and eventually will take our guns completely; and finally they want to get rid of the limit to the reign of a President. They've already taken control of the banks and other private companies. They began to tax the people in ways nobody has ever dreamed possible including trying to tax our insurance premiums! And so much more! But America is too distracted by more important news while the rats in the white house gather in secret to plan their own quiet coup to overthrow true democracy. But don't worry. I'm sure that it is all just the rantings of a RWE blonde with nothing better to do. (Time 5:10am)

twilcox...can you please email me at opinionmissy2009@yahoo.com? There are some nuclear ("anti") people who are interested in your research and the facts you have provided. They would like to be able to speak with you ASAP. Thanks.

I am not saying this to appease anyone but I would lay down a month's wages to say that Obama will not be re-elected. That being said, that somewhat makes HJR 5 irrelevant.

I dont know a ton about this but that situation in Honduras is justified. Zelaya is just a small-time version of Auguston Pinochet. They should remove him and Obama should be supporting this. Power-hungry dictators being removed should be applauded. The fact that they chose not to put up with it any longer and on their own with minimal bloodshed removed this guy is somewhat commendable.

twil, I might agree with ya if the American public decides to take back the country instead of dipstick putting into play everything he can to keep control. Guess it will all come down to who runs in the next election, if we can keep big brother off us long enough.

This "just" in...

3.4 million jobs lost. This number is a bit higher however because not everyone who is unemployed is reported (if they do not get benefits they are not included in this number).

1.1 TRILLION plus in debt.

Dems want to raise taxes and see that as one of the few ways to "fix" things.

Per Roger Simon, an economist, "Obama owns this economy and will be held accountable for his decisions." (My note: he is not accountable! WE are accountable.)

The "stimulus" plan was never meant to be an instant fix...it is a "2 year plan."

There is 1/3 of the population without insurance. Under health care reform, 1/2 of the population will be uninsured. Cost for this program, as proposed, is a HUGE problem because of the cost.

We will still lose another 2 million jobs PLUS...before things "turn around."

"Defensive" medicine would save billions and billions BUT...it is costly and insurance does not like to pay for "defensive" medicine because of the upfront costs to find a problem. So, they would rather take their chances.

Re: Stimulus

Money was to go to "shovel ready" projects. It has NOT which has been part of the problem.

10% of the money has been spent to date. On what? Not really sure.

Money was to help with small business start up. It did not because the banks have CUT credit and made it hard to borrow (AFTER they took their stimulus money).

Stimulus was to CUT taxes.

Corporate taxes were to be cut from 35% to 25%. Sure, they need more tax cuts. I wonder what AIG, Chrysler and GM got in tax cuts.

AIG to pay out more bonus bucks on July 15, 2009. Does anybody know that status of that gem?

Yes! Change I believe in. We can only HOPE he does not get reelected. We can only hope.

I'll do more than HOPE OM. I will use my voice and add it to millions of others that will denounce this false prophet and try to get someone who has some common sense in the office.

I love how BO is back pedalling on his own words now that it seems his "plan" isn't working. Now it's gonna take months and years before his shovel ready projects are ready. Now it's gonna take MORE stimulus to get people back to work. How about giving the AIG bonuses to US. Let US go out and spend some cash instead of giving it to the banks and letting them sit on it drawing interest.

All I got to say is, "How's that hopey, changey thing workin' for ya now?"

I hope that after college that I can bring the down-to-earth, blue-collar, logical perspective to the public sector. Being the son of a cowboy turned carpenter and a career maid, my siblings were raised in an old-fashioned way. Life was rather simple and mostly good. Those values will never be obsolete and so hopefully I can put them to use at the highest level.

"Money was to help with small business start up. It did not because the banks have CUT credit and made it hard to borrow (AFTER they took their stimulus money)."

I will agree, they are busted on this one. So much for fiscal responsibility.

It seems from an outsider point of view that they vastly underestimated the situation and felt rushed to make something big happen. Patience would have been a great virtue. This is not a simple matter and so needs a broad perspective on it not just some Harvard-educated politicians.

Common Sense is all I have left Bazooka. Only a little college here and no money left. I guess you pay with what ya have...lol.

Twil, there is NO fiscal responsibility in congress right now. The false prophet tells the liberals what he wants. They churn it out over night and vote on it before the ink is dry. If a conservative tries to throw a wrench in the works they just steam roll right over him (or her) and do what they want. Now with the current make up of the congress there's no one to stop Obama and his gang from getting whatever they want. In a country where guys who make 7 figure salaries get 6 figure bonuses, Where banks get BILLIONS of OUR dollars to keep the doors open yet won't loan a guy $3000 to buy a used car for his family. Where we have a president with no commons sense or intelligence is telling a congress that fauns over him to spend MORE and MORE to get us out of debt. You tell me what is going to happen next? How long before someone puffs a little air at this house of cards BO has built over the last 6 months and topples it? How long before one of the dictators Obama is trying to appease, takes us for the weak country the liberals are trying to turn us into, and blows something up in the name of a peaceful god?

As a country we are being lulled into a false sense of secuity. Obama and the left wing media have 52% of the population convinced there is a light at the end of the tunnel, but they don't tell you the tunnel is around a corner and up a hill. They fail to tell you that this country isn't anymore safe than it was on 19 Jan. If the truth be told we are in a more precarious spot because Obama thinks he can BS his way out of a problem like he did to get elected. Obama panders to terrorist nations like they are buddies out on the basketball court. He doesn't realize the danger he has placed us in by "Offering these countries a hand", they have never nor will they ever open their fist when it comes to us. All you have to do is watch the REAl news.

Truth be told we are no safer today than we were 11 Sept 2001. ANd we truly need what Glenn Beck is asking for. To be the Americans we were on 12 Sept 2001!!!

History has shown that outright aggression has not always paved the way to peace. Your solution would be to obliterate them. Just annihilate Iraq and to heck with anybody else. Oh and when everyone in the world stops trading with us, we will just digress as a society. Interesting scenario but Napoleon tried to do the same thing and it did not work out for him. I dont think that we should be having tea with them but just annihilating them sounds like someone has no conscience and is just an actor.

I don't think I ever said anything about obliterating anyone either. I walways beleive there is a time for diplomacy. As a police officer I never had to fire my weapon. Most people did what was asked of them simply because we were there. Others had to be told and some just had to feel the cold steel of handcuffs before they got it. And I think some of them never got it anyways. There were a handfull of times where my weapon was drawn and pointed at something I truly intended to kill if it came to that. Thank God it never did. But the underlying theme in all of this is the fact that there was peace through superior firepower. Not that it was being USED but that the POTENTIAL for use was ther. And standing behind that pontential was someone most willing if the case came to it. That is the reason for a standing, active duty military. People trained in war fighting ready to go when the call arises. But go and ask them Twil. Ask them if they WANT to go to war. Ask them if they WANT to put ordinance down range knowing that someone will die. Most of them will tell you no. Most will tell you they'd rather sit in safe ol' Mountain Home and train for war than to actually go. But very few of these men and women would say no if the call came.

Twil, Bazooka is right. If a person is bent on breaking into a home and they know I have a gun and you live next door and don't, I know who's house they are gonna hit. Only the stupid or the ones that think they out gun me would come through my door. That's why you see very few home invasions in Idaho. Yeah, you are seeing a few in he Boise area but it is homes in neighborhoods where they feel pretty safe and either don't have guns or they are locked up for "safety". but for the most part, in backwoods towns like ours, coming through the front door will probably get you a few more holes in ya than God and planned for.

In response to many of my posts, certain individuals have repeatedly stated that BO should man up and "nuke" or "destroy" the area. We should show strength by laying down a final solution. I will not quote these two exactly but the point is shown. We should show the world that we are not to be messed with by making sure that it is felt. That sounds an awful lot like annihilating the area(s) and caring not how it affects anybody else.

For example, I would have supported a full scale operation to remove/kill/whatever Bin Laden and his followers. When that was done then call it good and move out. Diplomacy, in my opinion, was not needed for that.

I wont argue this anymore but Reagan had nothing to do with the Berlin Wall coming down. I can speak/read fluent German and have read many accounts of why it came down. America and Russia were not involved.

On a friendlier note, I had a friend in high school whose family had a collection of guns that I have never seen the like of since. Antiques and modern day stuff. I would estimate it at 400 or so . Handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc. I always said that I felt sorry for the person that tried to break in to that house.

Soooo...who gave the order for the East German guards not to fire on the protesters? Did the order come from someone in Berlin or was it in Moscow? The border guards had up to that point pretty much shot the crap out of anyone who stepped one foot across the line towards the wall.

So either the guards defied orders from their commanders and didn't fire OR someone higher up said to leave the protesters alone. Since the USSR pretty much ran that end of the world for decades and since Reagan and Gorbachev were pretty civil towards each other...what do you think REALLY happened Twil.

The whole reason that we went into Iraq was due to a long-standing agreement. Years ago, the US promised them that if they continue to supply us with oil, that we in turn would protect them from their enemies. They gave us oil and when they began to scream about being oppressed or afraid that the neighbors were gonna kill them off, America had to come to the rescue. It was a promise made long ago. Now, the question is, how long does that promise stand? Did the powers that be ever think about that? A life-time? Or did we fulfill that promise and need to be done with it? (Time 6:42am)

Ok, quick history quiz. What neighboring countries opened up their borders prior to the Berlin Wall coming down? Next question, What government was on the brink of bankruptcy and could not afford to send guards? Final question, What group or pact was finding its members leaving as quickly as they could? If you can answer these three then it will be self-explanatory.

Pressure from the West had some small influence on the answers to the three questions. Ultimately they did not cave in just because Americans wanted them to. It may have happened eventually but the final decision was not made by Reagan nor any American.

So what you are saying is that neither the USSR nor the East Germans could afford to pay troops to stand guard facing the United States and the West German army. So what we did worked. We made them try and one up us until they were broke. Yeah we may have been too but we won the fight...without firing a shot...at least on THAT border. So much for a SMALL influence.

So there you have it. Twil has explained what will happen when you use socialist ideals to run a government. Your people starve, your military weakens. Your neighbors aren't strong enough to help or really don't care. When your people rebel, and they surely will, you can't stop them. Your attempt at spreading the wealth amongst all your comrades isn't nearly as good as you thought it was. And the only ones with any true power, any wealth is the people running the country and their lackeys who kiss a little behind to make sure they aren't run out of business. Hmm...does any of this sound familiar?

I heard an interesting comment from an author on communism. Maybe you guys can give your thoughts on it. The comment went something like this....For communism to really work the society must come from Capitalism first. Intresting! (Time 6:37am)

as always, certain individuals cannot answer questions. They are basic and not all that difficult but maybe I held the bar too high.

What was to answer Twil? Apparently having grown up with buildings with big yellow fall out shelter signs didn't give me an insight to how things happened. I watched in awe as people climbed to the top of the wall and partied like the world had ended. And for some it did. The oppressive regimes had lost hold and the rebellious masses had revolted.

Regardless of WHO started the revolt, it happened, no questions asked. People from all sides can claim it as a victory. I guess it depends on who's books you read to what happened. Remember there are still people out there who claim the holocaust never happened and that Japan was the victim at Pearl Harbor.

Kim, communism sprouted during the reign of the Czars of Russia. The social elite lived like Kings..as some thought they were, while the common folk starved. During this time my own family decided it was time to get the heck out and come to the promised land. Someone came along with a better song and dance and said "Down with the Czars", and heads rolled, literally. Several years later Germany was in a HUGE depression. ALong came a slight man with huge appeal to the masses that were downtrodden. They were ruled at the time if the Kaiser. A quite literal translation of "King" (as was Czar), see the similarities?) He spoke with an eloquent voice and raised the starving people to revolt. Though some needed to be pursuaded.

I'm no expert as some loudly tell me on here, but I see from MY history books that most socialist and communist societies come from a people so oppressed they don't see the only way out is the worse of the options.

Ok, here are the answers. Hungary opened its borders in August 2009. East Germany allowed "tourists" to leave their country and go to Hungary. There were rules that on paper stated that they had to return but enforcing these rules was more trouble than they were worth. Next, Czechoslavakia opened the borders. Finally, Poland opened their borders making overly costly to stem the tide. These East Germans were leaving through these points and then coming back into the West.

Next, the USSR was bankrupt. They may not have broadcast this but published reports and common sense have clued us in. Being broke usually means influence and control wash away as well.

Finally, the Warsaw Pact was shrinking in numbers. East Germany was one of the last members before it was officially disbanded. Some of the members that exited in the years before 1989; Poland, Czechoslavakia, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Romania, Bulgaria. Hmmm... if your allies wont cooperate with your isolationist policies it makes it cost-inefficient.

American influence did not come in the form of some courageous demand. It came in the form of giving these other countries ideas and hopes. Reagan's demand was largely symbolic. Gorbachev did not demand the wall to come down. His policies and their success made it apparent that people did not enjoy nor support socialism.

Yes Marx did write what you stated above. Marx was a strange character. If you truly read Das Kapital you will find that he did not support military-ran totalitarianism. His ideas centered around the proletariat (peasants) rising up eventually and through many cycles of conflict coming to the conclusion of communism. Lenin's version was not a direct translation. He felt that he could fast forward the process. Evidently, he was wrong.

Fascism is trying to revert to the past. Communism and Fascism in philosophy and definition are not related. However as we have all noticed some tried to push their fascist agenda under the veil of communism.

I am not a socialist. I understand the motivation behind it. It is characterized by good intentions but it is counter-intuitive to human nature. We take care of ourselves first and everybody later.Governments cant possibly meet all the demands or needs of a society. Not everyone sends price signals to the market about everything they want. Obama and his crew are trying to please everyone. What they fail to see is that not everyone needs this high standard of living. Nor do they really want it. They are trying to predict that everyone wants the mortgage, 52-inch TV, Land Rover, etc. Ok, so ends the tirade.

Quick check but I think you meant 1989 when Hungary opened it's borders. As for the rest we are in the same book on ides..just different pages....or I'm holding mine upsdie down...lol. But all in all Communism/Socialism/Facsism is truly a bad idea. History has taught that lesson over and over again. But then again you would have to read the history to get the message. BO and his gang are trying to write history instead of learning from the past. And as Bazooka said, "And those who will not learn from history............................"

Yes, 1989, is what I meant. I would agree that history has taught us that lesson but some seem to want to be the pioneer who finally makes it work. Well as laughable as it is, Americans need to demand that this not come to fruition.

Funny you should mention that since I have been maing notes on Czars the past two days and hope to have the infomation I need to post soon. I am looking at a few one and I will reveal the info of who they are so be watching for that soon.

Yes Bazooka..I did say CZARS..as in KINGS who answer to no one....like taxpayers...hmmm

Obama does have some socialist ideas. I would hope that some of these ideas dont come to fruition. Some say that it is inevitable. I would say that change is that. Socializing the debt of corporate America teaches everybody that they dont have to uphold a higher code of ethics. Communist he is not. It takes a little of all that America has to offer to be successful.

What would really help is for someone or some group to show definitively the effects of these policies in an objective and balanced manner. If I knew others who could collaborate, I might take it upon myself to perform the analysis but on a solo basis would be a daunting task. Americans need to know what the true effect of this will be. "This" being increased taxes, increased borrowing, and increased regulation.