BOC Contract with Gwinnett Clean and Beautiful Terminated

In its first meeting of the New Year, the Gwinnett County Board of Commissioners voted to terminate the contract with Gwinnett Clean and Beautiful Services. This is in response to the temporary injunction issued by the courts in December. The recommendation was added to the agenda by Commissioner Kevin Kenerly, and passed unanimously. A couple of my favorite sites following this are Trash Gwinnett by Don S and Mack Perrys blog. Both attended the meeting yesterday and voiced their opinions.
Unfortunately, they were out numbered by the scores of employees from Waste Pro and Advanced Disposal. Many of which have jobs that depend on the previously exclusive contracts these two companies had with the county. While I do feel these two companies are victims in this whole mess, I don't believe most of the appeals they made were appropriate for this venue. Their major theme rallied around trying to get the injunction reversed and exclusive contracts upheld. While these companies invested in good faith for new capitol and job creation, I feel they should be making their arguments in front of the courts who issued the injunction. I'm not a lawyer but, if that fails they may be able to seek damages for breech of contract. In any case, just asking the Board of Commissioners to reinstate their contracts can not be done at this time.

Additionally, arguing some of their employees may loose their jobs if the exclusive contracts are not upheld should be pointless. Remember, these jobs are replacing the ones held by the previous companies. In fact, the number of jobs associated with the Solid Waste Disposal Industry in Gwinnett should be less if there are only two exclusive contracts covering the whole county.

In conclusion to the comments, Commissioner Mike Beaudreau stated this is not the end of issue. He said "anyone that says we don't have a trash problem in Gwinnett County needs to wake up and look out the windows. We have trash everywhere," he said. "But going back to the old way, in my opinion, is not acceptable. It will not work going forward." He then invited those wanting to help in a solution to contact him and join a new "Blue Ribbon Committee". You can find contact information for Mike and the rest of the board here.

I'm sorry Mr. Beaudreau, but the problem in Gwinnett is not as bad as you make it out to be. Gwinnett is still one of the cleanest Metro Atlanta counties. Yes, there are some problems under the old plan, but exclusive contracts with mandatory payments added to your tax bill is not an acceptable option either.

Some suggestions going forward should include:

• Enforcement of our dumping and littering laws by punishing those who are actually breaking the law.
• Lowering the number of trucks providing service without giving up the consumers power of free choice.
• Establishing one day each week for service in each area.
  
• Increase consumer recycling through technology and positive incentives, not fines.
• Definitely do not add it to our tax bill. This is a utility that should be able to be canceled if not needed. Even if it turns into a single government run department, like Water, we should be able to cancel it when it is not needed.

There may be many challenges to overcome, but it can be done. I look forward to working with this new committee and encourage everyone to get involved and be informed.

Read more...

More than just trash collection stinks in Gwinnett County

My interest and knowledge in the new plan for waste and recycling in Gwinnett has grown by leaps and bounds over the last month. My first post only touched on what really appears to be happening. I find it a bit amusing that Gwinnett Clean and Beautiful (GCB) was surprised ...

and is questioning the temporary injunction ordered by Judge Michael Clark yesterday. According to a document named SW_History.pdf, still available on their site, a similar ruling on July 16, 1990. This document states:

By the late 80’s, citizens and businesses were demanding even more convenient collection and recycling systems. The Gwinnett County Board of commissioners took action to meet these needs and updated the solid waste system.

In October, 1989 a new system was put into place. The new system:

* Required all residents to use a private hauler (some minor exceptions)

* Granted 7 year exclusive franchises vs. 1 year to private haulers

* Increased the monthly fees to $12.95/month, payable 3 months in advance with periodic price increases based on the Consumer Pricing Index

* Granted a $8.00/month fee to the disabled and senior citizens

* Provided for Gwinnett County to collect any unpaid fees thru a levy against serviced property

Some members of the private solid waste sector found this system unacceptable. On May 4, 1990, Independent Sanitation, an unauthorized solid waste hauling company, filed a lawsuit against the County to address their concerns.

On July 16, 1990, a judge in the Gwinnett County Superior Court ruled that the County’s 1989 solid waste ordinance was unconstitutional and void for the following reasons:
* No constitutional authority was given to the Board of Commissioners to take the action they did

* No bids were taken and this lessened the competition and encouraged a monopoly

* Citizen were required to use a designated hauler, not select a hauler of their choosing

* The County could not act as a debt collector for a private company

I guess they don't even read their own documents. Of course with all the uproar recently, the GCB site has removed many direct links to articles, like the one I quoted above. They are still there and as of today you can still find them using their own search function.

What adds to this case, and also makes it smell of corruption, is who the GCB is made up of. If you use that same search function and look for “advisory board” you will find many familiar names there. Many members of the board of directors are current county politicians, elected officials and sitting judges. Can you say conflict of interest? How could they not know this would be challenged? Is it any surprise why none of this was announced until 3 days after the election? Also, you should look at the amount of money involved. A portion of that monthly fee goes directly to GCB from the county. This portion alone is several millions of dollars. Then they want to collect fines as well as any revenue from recycling.

I say let's recall those responsible! A good site to keep up on this issue is www.trashgwinnett.com.

Let me know what you think in a comment.

Read more...

Should We Bailout General Motors, Ford and Chrysler? Or Let Them Go Bust!

You must have heard by now. The government is bailing out the financial institutions and now pushing the bail out of the Detroit Big Three; General Motors, Ford and Chrysler.

The statement has been made, “THEY ARE TOO BIG TO LET FAIL”. It’s true; these companies employ millions of people, and about 10% of all American businesses are tied to the Auto Industry. Think about it, dealerships, used car lots, insurance, car repair, auto parts, custom accessories, the list goes on. If the Big Three went bust, it could throw this major economic recession, into the greatest depression we have ever seen. It is estimated that at least another 2.5 to 3 million more people will loose their jobs if these companies were “permitted” to fail. But, should Congress rush to bailout these Big Companies just because they are Mega Employers? There definitely is some logic to this argument. But is this the only, or even main reason, President-elect Obama and congress are in such a haste?

I don’t think so. Let’s look at the situation. Why have these companies been closing factories all over the United States in the last several years? It can’t be the recent raise in fuel prices and the collapse of the SUV market. They have been doing this before the SUV became such a status symbol. While the Big Three are closing plants, other companies like BMW, Toyota, Hyundai, VW and Nissan have been opening new factories in the US. It’s not they have such a superior product but more so a better business model. For obvious reasons, these foreign car companies discovered that it could reduce costs if they produced their vehicles near there largest customer. If these foreign companies can do it profitably, why can’t GM, Ford and Chrysler who are based here?

In order for these companies to pull this off, they are building these factories in states like Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina. They are building in states where they can employ Non-Union labor. This fact alone reduces costs, and increases productivity and quality. They can pay their employees based on the merit, not the tenure or status in the Union. Production labor costs are reduced, while the workers can earn and keep more of their money. The workers don’t have to give a large percentage of their income to the Almighty Union. This is the same Union that spends millions of their dollars to sway the opinions of, or should I say buying, politicians. The same Union that tells the laborers who, or what, to vote for. The same Union that makes laborers so dependant on them by discouraging free speech, silent vote, and even individuals expanding their talents into other non-union industries.

Union laborers typically do not have a secondary education, and are skilled only in one trade. They are discouraged by the Union from doing their best, or over achieving. After all, if they do their best it will result in fewer workers. Fewer workers result in less money for the Unions. The Unions would have to raise membership dues, resulting in less take home income and more work for the laborer. As long as they are good loyal union members that are promoting membership, their pay and benefits will grow. What a vicious cycle!

I think this is the reason why the leftwing wants to bail them out so bad. They are using this economic down turn as an opportunity to appease one of their largest lobbyists. The same philosophy of social dependency, used by these lobbyists to increase their power and profitability, is exactly what the democrats and leftwing thrive on. If GM, Ford and Chrysler go into Chapter 11, it will allow them to reorganize and change their business model, in which Unions will lose, or at least have less influence. When they emerge they will be stronger and more competitive. They will produce a better, more fuel efficient product, whose value will increase demand, and thus they will expand to employ more Americans.

Don’t get me wrong, Unions did have their time and place in history. They did help end what was little more than slave labor, but that part of our history is past. Instead of protecting the laborers from big companies, they are promoting a dependency on big unions. I say, let General Motors, Ford and Chrysler reorganize. They will still need skilled workers, but on a more competitive level. Any money that should be spent in this area should be to train displaced workers in other skills.

Let me know your views by posting a comment. I will reply to defend my opinions, or admit defeat.

Read more...

The People have spoken; the election is over, where do we go from here?

Even though the election did not turn out the way I, or many others wanted it to, I do have to say this; it is truly a great historic day for the United States of America.

I am still very proud to call myself an American and I’m grateful I live in the greatest nation in the world. This election is proof that in this country all men and women are created equal. In this country you are not judged by your gender, race or religion. This moment in time marks when the people of the United Sates elected its first African-American President. This election proves that we can look at ourselves as a nation that has overcome bigotry and racism and thus ending the time of racial preferences. As Americans we should be all be proud. I know that as an American I will proudly serve my President and my Country in with the rights and freedom this great Nation provides. But realistically what type of President will Barack Obama be?

Barack Obama and the Democratic Party ran a brilliant campaign and should be commended. But how will this campaign affect his Presidency? After all, his brief performance and voting record as a Senator earned him the title of one of the most liberal Senators in Congress from the National Review. He was ranked as 16th in 2005, 10th in 2006 and the number 1 most liberal Senator in 2007. Now to be honest the National Review is considered a rightwing conservative magazine; but I have found several other leftwing sources that reflect the same record and scores, and many that point to the National Review rankings with pride. The point here is not who said what, but more so that there is a trend reflected in these rankings.

Is this nation moving to, or has it moved to the far left? I don’t believe so. I do, however, believe it did move more center left. I believe that this country is looking for change, but it did not give the overwhelming mandate the far leftwing was hoping for. After all, while both houses did gain Democratic seats, both houses fell short of numbers hoped for by the Party. Even more evident is the Obama Presidential Campaign itself. I believe his quest to be President started well before his term as Senator. In fact, I believe this goal and ambition was set back in his college days or earlier. But, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that! I commend him on this. Setting and achieving goals are part of the American dream. The point I want to make here, is not when he set his goals and ambitions, but more so how he achieved them.

He is a great speaker and an eloquent orator, but these alone would not achieve his goals if nobody heard him. I will not dwell on his associations with people like Bill Ayers, ACORN and reverend Wright other than to say these were all a means to achieve public notice, and launch his career to the White House. It was through these associations that he became a community activist and then on to the State Senate in 1996. These associations were apparently more for political expedience, at least I hope. As they became more of a liability to him, he did distance himself from what they did or said. This is not new or unique to him or his party. Almost all politicians practice this; liberal, centrist or conservative. If truth be told, we as a people do this as well.

As the approval ratings of the Bush administration and Republican Congress plummeted (due to the war in Iraq, response to hurricane Katrina, deficit spending, etc), Barack and others saw and opportunity to make it on the National Stage, a seat in the Senate. After all, getting to be the Commander in Chief is usually done through a major political office like Vice President, Senator or Governor, especially if you did not have military experience. The time was right to take the seat vacated by Republican Illinois Senator Peter Fitzgerald, and start his Presidential run. But before he could do this, he would have to get his parties nomination.

You may ask, what does this have to do with his senatorial voting record moving more and more liberal? I can see two reasons. First, it is true the political landscape in Washington in 2006 was moving more left, but this would put it back towards the center. The Senate ended up split with 49 democrats, 49 republicans, and 2 independents. Remember it was just 2 years earlier that George W Bush was reelected. I don’t believe he would not have made it to the US Senate as an ultra liberal. Second, if he tried to upstage his parties’ leaders like the Clintons, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry as a junior Senator he would have been abandoned. He has to earn their respect and his place in the party. After all it was widely believed that Hillary Clinton was going to be the next democratic nomination for the Presidency, and thus make history as being the first female presidential nominee. So he started towards the center of his parties’ ideology.

When he announced his run for the nomination, it was considered by many as a mere token attempt to get noticed. Maybe he could make a name for him self for an upcoming attempt. He was relatively unknown on the national stage and had little financial backing. He did however have a couple of things going for him. First and foremost he has his outstanding skills as a statesman. Second and I hate to say it, or it have any bearing on an election; but he is a young, attractive man. He is very appealing, easy to listen to as well as look at. This is a key to capture the young vote. These, as well as the canvassing of his previous association got him noticed, started his financial backing, and kicked off his run for the nomination. The more he was seen the more popular he became. But he still had to defeat the Hillary Clinton and the Democratic machine.

One very important thing can not be overlooked. Obama knew that the people of this country were crying out for change, and the leadership of his party wants to push a far left agenda in order to appeal to its growing liberal base. If he wanted to gain the support of Howard Dean, Al Gore and John Kerry, Obama has to appear more liberal than Hillary and thus goes his voting record. Now, on the other hand, Hillary was already looking past the party nomination to the General Election. In doing so, she has to play a more centrist roll. Also, since she was considered to be the front runner, she was under constant attack by the rightwing. This started in the Clinton administration when she was accused of making the decisions for Bill. It only grew worse when she kicked off her own political career as Senator of New York. The rightwing opinions were then further echoed by the other front runners for the Democratic Party nomination.

While the front runners for both the Democrats and Republicans fought it out against Hillary, the appeal of Obama enabled him to a gain very favorable position and coverage with the mainstream media. This young, attractive, well spoken African American man, seeking a major party nomination could only help their ratings and viewership. Everybody likes the stories of the underdog making it big. This was the political situation and coverage he needed. Everyone was attacking the front runner and he was gaining popularity. He knew that as he gained popularity he would also become the target of attacks. But this was, and still is, a very touchy issue. How does one go about criticizing a political figure who is a “person of color” without being labeled a racist? It’s sad to have this still going on today, but it’s true. It’s not just the civil rights activists, but even the mainstream media promoted and fostered this separatist ideology. In fact, even when someone tried to express a favorable opinion of this Senator by saying “he is charismatic” or an “eloquent speaker”, they were labeled as being racist. I just don’t see it. What is wrong or racist about noticing these outstanding qualities? Not many people have this notoriety, and personally I would be honored. It is really saying this person has the same great qualities as other outstanding leaders in their time; people like Bill Clinton, Mother Teresa, Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Regan, Gandhi, John F Kennedy, Winston Churchill, the list goes on.

For the media labeling political figures as racist, points to scandal, corruption and bias, for which the public will pay for in the way of subscriptions and advertisements. This sells as much as, if not more than, those sexy ads we see for Victoria Secrets, Levi Jeans and others. This made it very hard to run against him, and affectively gave Obama a free pass from criticism. Anything said about him, his character, or questionable associations would get you labeled as a racist. The conservative rightwing media started pointing out his previous associations with ACORN, Ayers and Reverend Wright only when the race for the Democratic Nomination narrowed. It wasn’t until then these associations started to become a liability, and thus necessitated a gentle subdued distancing. After all, these associations had influence on many people and got him to this point. Since he still had to defeat Hillary, he could not afford a negative influence by these relationships. If this base, many of which are black Americans, lower income people, and liberal left supporters, jumped to Hillary, his run would be over. Then again, he didn’t have to do a major and repeated denouncement. As long as he did say something, it would satisfy the mainstream press; and if Hillary Clinton or John McCain pushed the issue, they would be branded as attacking his race, and not his character. You have to admit making this play was a brilliant political move.

Such a long and hard fought race just to secure the nomination was not something Hillary expected, or really was prepared for. She, and her campaign, felt that after few primaries and caucuses she could focus on the General Election. But for Barack, this long process did nothing but help. Since they were both fighting for their parties’ base, they had to present a more leftwing agenda that focused on ending the war in Iraq, along with several very expensive and liberal social issues. Issues of growing government control of most everything from education and college funding to healthcare and medication. Of course these were going to be paid for by taxing big corporations (like the oil companies) and the wealthy. Hillary, while still having her eye on the General Election, did not move as far left as Barack; but she did move more than she wanted. She did however focus more on the experience issue, and this probably had the greatest effect. She felt that her being in the Senate longer than he, as well as being First Lady, represented she had more executive experience, and could be called upon in the middle of the night.

Other than the experience issue, the tactics and attacks used by Hillary had little negative effect on Barack. They may have even helped him to refine his “rhetorical flourishes” to fend off attacks, as well as suggest agendas without committing or revealing too much. After all was said and done, Barack Obama made history as the first African-American to secure the nomination for president by a major party.

I believe that Barack himself did not truly believe he would make it this far on his first attempt. More likely, Barack felt that if he made it to the top three or four on the democratic ticket he succeeded, and better positioned himself for 2012. I might be wrong; but either way, it was now time to focus on the General Election, and there was little time left. Now was the time he (and the DNC) had to present his campaign in a way that would appeal to the country as a whole. They new they had to win over the independents.

Again, the criticism that seemed to take hold the most, was that of experience. With the country currently in two wars, and John McCain being a war hero, this would definitely be a hurdle. He also had to show he was an effective leader; one that could handle not only domestic issues, but foreign policy and defense issues as well. Without going into all the pros and cons of the VP possibilities, or if Hillary would have accepted and created a super ticket; I will just say that Joe Biden was chosen to limit the impact of experience and foreign policy issues.

It is at this point his policies and agendas also had to move toward the center. While it is true the country is in transition, it has only been from the slight center right position to more of a centrist position, and at most, only slightly center left. Now, instead of withdraw of all military troops by early 2010, it must be a calculated and coordinated withdraw that will take 18 months. Instead of himself, unconditionally sitting down with terrorist leaders, he would open communication channels with them utilizing lower government representatives. Instead of increasing the tax on the wealthy and big corporations, we would just go back to the plan under the Clinton Administration. Instead of raising the capitol gains tax to 40 percent, maybe 15 to 20 would do. He will also reduce taxes for 95 percent of all Americans. Of course, he even redefines this again, from “all” Americans to “working” Americans.

Now the election is over, and history has been made. We have elected our first African-American President. But this election did more than just that. Because of the disapproval of the current administration, congress has moved more to a center left position. This once again puts control of both Houses of Congress and the Presidency in one party. This has many on the right very afraid only ultra liberal agendas will be presented and passed.

Can it really be this bad? Are we as doomed, as the ultra right would have us believe? I hope not, and don’t really think so. After all, having these two branches of government under one party is not new; and it will change once again. Both parties have had it, and both parties have lost it. When the Democrats lost it the last time, it was under the first part of the Clinton Administration when President Clinton tried pushing a liberal agenda. The people saw this and spoke out then as well. President Clinton then had to move more towards the center. I’m sure Barack does not want his legacy to be diminished by losing democratic control once again. I think he is much smarted than that. If he wants a second term and a great legacy, which I'm sure he does, he will have to govern from the middle. If not, this moment in history will be tarnished.

Am I concerned? Yes I am. Am I hopeful? Yes I am. But, I will be watching, and I’m not afraid to vote.

Read more...

San Francisco Ballot Insults President Bush…

I just heard about this today and can’t believe I missed it. It is official!!

The San Francisco Chronicle confirmed on July 18, there is a proposal on the San Francisco Ballot that would rename the city’s “Oceanside Sewage Treatment Plant” after President George W Bush. It is Proposition R on the San Francisco Ballot and carries a “yes” “no” vote. It is due to the diligent hard work of the Presidential Memorial Commission of San Francisco that made this possible. As expected, all of the Republican and Conservative posts I’ve found on this find it disgraceful, insulting, degrading, and even hateful towards the great office of the President of the United States. The White House has refused to comment on such an issue. After all, most presidents are remembered with Memorials, Monuments, Dams, Bridges and Highways. Not Sewage Plants! But surprisingly it’s not just the Right Wing that disagrees with this Proposition. According to CBS 5 in San Francisco some of the workers at the plant “find it insulting”.

"It's not amusing to me, nor my folks who are true professionals," said Assistant Manager Tommy Moala. "And a lot of them have been here since the plant went online. They run it 24/7, 365 days a year."

Well it is well known that San Francisco is a safe haven for liberal lifestyles, philosophies, ideals, and of course politics. So it is not surprising to find that President Bush is as welcome there as salt in a wound. It could also be understandable that some of the workers at the plant may feel degraded working at a place named after a president they don’t identify with. And of course it is also easy to see why people like Nancy Pelosi and Cindy Sheehan and many of the other people in this city want to link the name of George W. Bush to every toilet in the city. The Los Angeles Times Reports…

“We think this is a fitting tribute to this president,” said Brian McConnell, a member of the group, whose insignia shows the presidential seal with an American eagle holding two toilet plungers. “It’s fair to say that we’re going to be cleaning up a substantial mess over the next decade or more, thanks to Bush. Environmental degradation. A war in Iraq that cost a trillion-dollars plus. It’s going to be a big job.”

Of course as twisted as I am, there might just be a different way of looking at this. I personally think the right wing conservatives should be honored with such a monument and the left wing liberals should be embarrassed. Even though I don’t always agree with President Bush, is this not a cry out to him and his party to clean up all the “crap” and “waste” the leftists liberals in San Francisco have created.
After all, the planning of, and events that led to September 11th and the war on terror happened under the previous Democratic Bill Clinton administration. Also, during this same administration did we, and the UN, not repeatedly try to negotiate with, impose sanctions on, and diplomatically resolve the ambitions of Sedam Husain? These efforts resulted in many UN resolutions which included independent inspections for weapons of mass destruction. Did not Sedam Husain repeatedly ignore these resolutions, as well as expel these inspectors because they looked in places he did not approve? Did not the Clinton administration also cut the defense budget, including massive cuts in intelligence gathering and reporting? Did not Saudi Arabia also offer to Bill Clinton Osama Bin Laden prior to the attacks on the United States? It was also under the Clinton administration that the “Dot Com” fiasco happened, the collapse of which started the economy going down even before Sept. 11th. Also it was the Clinton administration’s policies to increase home ownership that led to sub-prime lending, negative amortization loans, and under qualified loans that caused the massive bailout and economic mess we are in now.

In contrast, wasn’t it the Bush administration that inherited an economy that was declining? Wasn’t he only in office less than nine months prior to the largest terrorist attack in the US history? And wasn’t it the administration under George Bush that got the UN to approve a resolution to use force in Iraq, get overwhelming support of both houses of congress for this, as well as put together one of the worlds largest coalitions to carry this out? Didn’t this administration also restructure our defense forces so that better communications would take place? Wasn't his administration also challenged by one of this nations greatest natural disasters, hurricane Katrina?

And from San Francisco, was it not the speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi that repeatedly tried to end funding to our fighting troops overseas? Did she not fight against the military surge which is leading to a victory in Iraq? Does she not repeatedly try to prematurely pull our troops out of Iraq? The results of which would lead to defeat and demean the lives of those brave men and women who gave so much in service to our nation. This retreat would also make Iraq the perfect gift to its archenemy Iran, making it the most powerful and oil rich country in the Middle East.

With all of this in mind I believe San Francisco and the left have created, and continue to create a massive amount of waste that needs to be treated. If the right wing and President Bush are not willing to be honored as being able accomplish this, maybe Joe the Plumber would.

Read more...

Why Are They Calling The Obama Tax Plan Socialist?

All over the news you here people are referring to Barack Obama and his tax policies as socialist. I have to emphatically say THIS ABSOLUTLY JUST IS NOT TRUE!!!

After all, in his proposed tax policies he says he wants to only (and I quote) “raise the taxes on the wealthy”, “those who are making over $250,000 a year” and, “those who can afford it”. He goes on to say, (which I again quote) he wants to “lower taxes on 95% of Americans”, “especially for those lower and middle income”, “those who are less fortunate”. He wants to “level the playing field”. If these quotes of views are not accurate, can someone please leave me a comment with his correct tax plans.

It are these tax based ideas that are being labeled as socialist. Who are making these totally false accusations? Of course, the right wing capitalist pigs. Everybody knows that socialism is : “a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.”

Now it is true that many of his other proposed regulations and plans (like health care) could be called this, but definitely NOT his tax plan and I can prove it. After all, he wants to take more “from those who can afford it” because they not only have the “ability”, but as Biden said, would be “more patriotic”. He would then “spread the wealth” of these taxes to those “less fortunate”, those who “need” it. Notice the words ability and need. After all this is actually saying “From each according to his ability and to each according to his need”. This famous phrase is actually attributed to Karl Marx in 1875. Marx wrote this in a letter summarizing the principles of communism and the transition from capitalism.

GEES! I really wish they would get this right. It is not socialism; it is based on the theory of Karl Marx and is therefore Marxism.

Read more...

Don't mark his word because he meant to say...

At a press conference yesterday, Barack attempted to cover up and limit the damages of Joe Biden's comments Tuesday about the world testing the Obama presidency in the first 6 months. In the words of Senator Biden:

Read the full Biden quote

"And here's the point I want to make. Mark my words. Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. And he's gonna have to make some really tough - I don't know what the decision's gonna be, but I promise you it will occur. As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it's gonna happen. I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate. And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you, not financially to help him, we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right.”

The press conference followed a foreign policy meeting that he had with several top democratic security advisors including senators Sam Nun and Gary Hart. According to the Huffington Post this meeting was planned a couple of weeks ago with the goal of showing his team was not "so focused on the economy" that he stopped "keeping pace" with challenges pertaining to Afghanistan, Al Qaeda and Iraq.

You know, this just does not pass the smell test. Surprisingly enough, if this was planned in advance, the one person that Barack should have required to attend would be the chairman of the foreign relations committee who just so happens to be his running mate Senator Joe Biden. After all, one of the main reasons that he was picked to be the VP running mate was to lend creditability and experience to Barack's foreign policy. If he wants to show his team is not just campaigning on the current state of the economy, and is still concerned with foreign policy, shouldn't his team be present? According to his campaign, Joe Biden attended by phone and was not present. I think a preplanned campaign event like this would have including the more appropriate scheduling. Moreover wouldn't the press conference that followed have all their foreign policy talking points? In view of all of this, I believe this was a hastily conceived last second event to cover up the gaff and refocus the presses attention to what Barack wants them to see.

I just happened to listen to the press conference that followed and as Ronald Regan once said: “There you go again”. Barack once again only vaguely addressed foreign policy with a couple of lines before speaking about his plans for the economy. On the generated foreign threats guaranteed by Biden, Barack said the following which pretty much made up what he said on foreign policy. He then used this to lead into his talking points on the economy and continued attacks on John McCain and “Joe the Plumber”.

“Look, as I said before, you know, I think that Joe sometimes engages in rhetorical flourishes, but I think his core point was that the next administration is going to be tested, regardless of who it is.”

If this is true Barack, why would Joe directly address you and your presidency? Did he not say that they would test your mettle? I think Joe knows exactly what he said, and meant it. After all, in his presidential campaign he was making these same comments about you and your readiness for command. He did not address these concerns against Hilary Clinton nor John McCain.

Although, I have to give it to Barack. Like the character in Oliver Twist, he has earned the title of “The Artful Dodger”. Not only is he an artist with great ways of avoiding questions by using a dictionary full of meaningless flowery words to say nothing, but he is able to do this while picking your pocket with his income redistribution aspirations. He has constantly used this technique of misdirection throughout his campaign, and therefore I have to repeat those famous words, “There you go again”.

Read more...

Who is Biden Wanting To Be President?

In a recent address Obama's running mate, Joe Biden stated emphatically that if Obama is elected to the Presidency the Unites States would be tested with a new crisis. I don't know about the rest of America, but I do not want the US tested again.

Read more...