jarasan's Blog

Salary of retired US Presidents .............$180,000 FOR LIFE

Salary of House/Senate .......................$174,000 FOR LIFE This is stupid

Salary of Speaker of the House .............$223,500 FOR LIFE This is stupid

Salary of Majority/Minority Leaders ....... $193,400 FOR LIFE This is stupid

Average Salary of a teacher ................ $40,065

Average Salary of Soldier

DEPLOYED IN AFGHANISTAN . $38,000

In Honor of Valentines Day

MONEY
A man will pay $2 for a $1 item he needs.
A woman will pay $1 for a $2 item that she doesn't need but it's on sale.
BATHROOMS
A man has six items in his bathroom: toothbrush and toothpaste, shaving cream, razor, a bar of soap, and a towel.
The average number of items in the typical woman's bathroom is 337. A man would not be able to identify more than 20 of these items.
ARGUMENTS
A woman has the last word in any argument.
Anything a man says after that is the beginning of a new argument.
FUTURE
A woman worries about the future until she gets a husband.
A man never worries about the future until he gets a wife.
MARRIAGE
A woman marries a man expecting he will change, but he doesn't.
A man marries a woman expecting that she won't change, but she does.
OFFSPRING
Ah, children. A woman knows all about her children.
She knows about dentist appointments and romances, best friends, favorite foods, secret fears and hopes and dreams.
A man is vaguely aware of some short people living in the house.
THOUGHT FOR THE DAY
A married man should forget his mistakes.
There's no use in two people remembering the same thing!

Here are two separate articles saying the same thing in different language; please read then both.

Remember the day the Democrats took over.

Or, in other words, It's still Bush's Fault because so many people don't remember.

Don't just skim over this, read it slowly and let it sink in. If in doubt, check it out.

The day the democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007 the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, the start of the 110th Congress.

The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.

For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this:

January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress:

At the time:

The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77

The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%

The Unemployment rate was 4.6%

George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!

Remember the day...

January 3rd, 2007 was the day that

Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and

Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.

The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?

BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES !

THANK YOU DEMOCRATS for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% Unemployment... to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!

(BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy).

And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac?

OBAMA

And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?

OBAMA and the Democrat Congress

So when someone tries to blame Bush...

REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!"

Bush may have been in the car but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal and steering wheel they were driving.

Set the record straight on Bush!

"It's not that liberals aren't smart, it's just that so much of what they know isn't so" -Ronald Reagan

B-B-B-B-But it's his Fault! As president Reagan said (paraphrasing): "These facts can be difficult things to deal with."

PLEASE KEEP THIS ONE GOING IN HOPES THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY MAKE PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHOSE FAULT THIS HUGE DEFICIT ACTUALLY IS!!!!!!!!!

The Washington Post babbled again recently about Obama inheriting a huge deficit from Bush. Amazingly enough, a lot of people swallow this BULL.

So once more, a short civics lesson.

Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party.

Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 &2011 .

In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budgets. What is amazing is that the government is continued to run from that time until now (2012) without passing a budget. Keep in mind that these continuing resolutions have built into them a base line increase of 8% per year. How many of us have gotten a 8% increase in our spending over the last four years?

And where was Barack Obama during 2008 ? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009.

Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period: (below)

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending . After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.

If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for

and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.

Kind of silly from the man who pledge to cut the deficit in half in his campaign rhetoric.

So if you look back at the real history of events, (not the rhetoric that comes from both sides), just the facts, why in the world do the American people allow this charade to continue? They allow it to continue because they have been told lies for so long, they actually believe them. As I learned in my marketing class in college, the professor said this " People will believe anything if they are told it long enough". i.e. the quad track razor.

Do I believe President Obama is not patriotic? Absolutely not. He believes this is the path to achieving Ameritopia. What I do not appreciate is the lies that are put forward that veil the truth about a individuals intentions. Although I must admit he did say his vision was to fundamentally change America. Is this the change we need!!!

If you take a frog and put it in a pan of water and slowly raise the heat. He will stay in there until he gets cooked. I wonder if the government has turned up the heat enough? Do the American people get it? If they do not get it soon and get out of the water, they are getting cooked.

Boy, oh boy.  talk about a big lie,  not even 15 trillion Hail Marys and another 15 trillion Our Fathers.........  Lying to an archbishop is bad.   Real bad.  Let it be known,  I betcha the POTUS has never been in a confessional.  He don't know how ask for forgiveness,  the ego wouldn't fit in there. 

Chalk up a big one.

An lesson in Adobe.   This shows how f'ing stupid the fascists in power think you are.  It actually took them over a day to realize the DUMMY they had fake the document was a DUMMY.

Enjoy but most importantly learn about all the ADOBE products.

The biggest caliber center fire (bolt action) .905 in action.

Enjoy!

Iranian president Mahmud Ahmadinejad calls President Obama and tells him, "Barack, I had a wonderful dream last night. I could see America, the whole beautiful country, and on each house I saw a banner." 

"What did it say on the banners?" Obama asks. 

Mahmud replies, "UNITED STATES OF IRAN." 

Obama says, "You know, Mahmud, I am really happy you called, because believe it or not, last night I had a similar dream. I could see all of Tehran, and it was more beautiful than ever, and on each house flew an enormous banner." 

"What did it say on the banners?" Mahmud asks. 

Obama replies, "I don't know. I can't read Hebrew."

 I laugh long time. DFWI.

The fascists are telling us there are no ovens.  Here is the truth:

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000071275

Harry's Solar Company

The Solar thing just got a little more interesting.......REALLY!

The Tonopah Solar company in Harry Reid's Nevada is getting a $737 million loan from Obama's DOE.

The project will produce a 110 megawatt power system and employ 45 permanent workers.

That's costing us just $16 million per job.

One of the investment partners in this endeavor is Pacific Corporate Group (PCG).

The PCG executive director is Ron Pelosi, who is the brother to Nancy's husband.

He is also the uncle of California's Lt. Governor Calvin Newsome

Don't ask any questions, just move along folks.....nuthin' crooked goin' on here.

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/12/ron-pelosis-connection-to-tonopah-solar-energy/

The SOTUS campaign speech had several props last night including the Buffett secretary she makes between $200,000.00 and $500,000.00 that is somewhere around a half million dollars. Oh yeah, and the FLOTUS <snip>tail dress was a $2500 designer model.  That speech was riddled with made up $h1T all over the place.

This is from Forbes:

Warren Buffett's Secretary Likely Makes Between $200,000 And $500,000/Year

Warren Buffet’s secretary, Debbie Bosanek, served as a stage prop for President Obama’s State of the Union speech. She was the President’s chief display of the alleged unfairness of our tax system – a little person paying a higher tax rate than her billionaire boss.

Warren Buffett's Effective Federal Income Tax Rate Was Just 11%

We can get an approximate answer by consulting IRS data on tax rates by adjusted gross income, which would approximate her salary, assuming she does not have significant dividend, interest or capital-gains income (like her boss). I assume Buffet keeps her too busy for her to hold a second job. I also do not know if she is married and filing jointly. If so, it is deceptive for Obama to use her as an example. The higher rate may be due to her husband’s income.  So I assume the tax rate Obama refers to is from her own earnings.

Insofar as Buffet (like Mitt Romney) earns income primarily from capital gains, which are taxed at 15 percent (and according to Obama need to be raised for reasons of fairness), we need to determine how much income a taxpayer like Bosanek must earn in order to pay an average tax rate above fifteen percent. This is easy to do.

The IRS publishes detailed tax tables by income level. The latest results are for 2009. They show that taxpayers earning an adjusted gross income between $100,000 and $200,000 pay an average rate of twelve percent. This is below Buffet’s rate; so she must earn more than that. Taxpayers earning adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 to $500,000, pay an average tax rate of nineteen percent. Therefore Buffet must pay Debbie Bosanke a salary above two hundred thousand.

We must wait for further details to learn how much more than $200,000 she earns. The tax tables tell us about average ranges. For all we know she earns closer to a half million each year, but that is pure speculation.

I have nothing against Debbie Bosanke earning a half million or even more. Buffet is a major player in the world economy. His secretary deserves good compensation. At her income, however, she is scarcely the symbol of injustice that Obama wishes her to project.

I imagine that there are any number of secretaries who would want her job and her place in the Congress gallery for the President’s State of the Union address.

Oh yes, I see the similarities now……..

The cops in Brownsville, TX kill a 15yr old dumb kid holding a pellet gun.

An 18yr. old woman kills an intruder with a shot gun, great thing to do,  no question,  but for God's sake enough already.

Why ITF are they not covering the murdered by police kid with a pellet gun at school????????????? P.S.  He was shot 3X.  Unions,     that is the difference,   think about it.

From an e-mail : Please read

All Hail King Barack the First

Creating any form of a democratic form of government is tough and America's Founders had it tougher than most. One must remember that what they were attempting to do hadn't ever been done before, they were essentially making it up as they went along. But one thing they were very clear about: they had no interest in being ruled by a King or any other type of autocrat. If anything, they went out of their way in ensuring that such a thing would never happen in this nation, crafting a document that was very clear and specific regarding the equal division of powers among three equal branches of government (one of which was further divided in two) and clearly specifying exactly what each branch could, and more importantly, could not do.

Historians have often argued that our first autocratic President was Abraham Lincoln, who took extraordinary measures during a time of great crisis to ensure the overall survival of the Union itself, with little regard to the potential long-term consequences of some of his decisions. However, it took another 40 years or so for Presidents to decide that they had the power to rule over the land, using their own personalities to point our nation in the direction in which they believed it should go. Theodore Roosevelt, who was soon followed by Woodrow Wilson, were both  Progressives, in the sense that they believed government was a powerful force for good and should be used to correct the wrongs that they witnessed. It could literally be argued that those two men radically altered the look of the nation, bringing in a host of new laws and ideas that still impact our lives today.

Roughly a century after Theodore Roosevelt left office, another charismatic young man seeks to re-shape the country based on his own ideas, backed up with the power of his own rhetoric. That man is Barack Obama, former Illinois state legislator and professional agitator who seems little bothered with the restrictions put into place by the very Constitution he claims to have once taught. Need powerful agency directors whom you don't want to be bothered by Congressional oversight? No problem, just about a couple of dozen "Czars" who can implement your desired changes free from Congressional authorization. Union backers facing the prospect of seeing their companies go under after years of union-led abuse? No problem, let's just buy those companies outright, then fudge the books in such a manner as to make it appear as if these were profitable deals. The list is as endless as the one containing his campaign promises.

This leads us to His majesty's latest outrage: the direct appointment of Richard Cordray as head of a newly-created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. One moment while we leaf through the Constitution searching for the clause giving the Executive Branch the power to create such an agency...

The Cordray appointment is controversial in two regards:

First, his appointment was already blocked by the Senate, using the power exclusively granted to that segment of the Legislative Branch. Obama is blatantly circumventing the authority which is expressly granted to the Senate alone. The Executive Branch does not possess the Constitutional authority to make such appointments without consent, see Article Two, Section Two. One would think a former professor of Constitutional law might be aware of this fact.

Secondly, a so-called "recess appointment" can only be made after the Senate has been out of session for at least 10 days, while the Senate is actually still in what is known as a "pro-forma" session, which the Senate website defines as:

pro forma session - A brief meeting (sometimes only several seconds) of the Senate in which no business is conducted. It is held usually to satisfy the constitutional obligation that neither chamber can adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other.

In other words, the Senate is still technically in session, which should negate the ability of the Executive Branch to make appointments which can only be made when Congress is in recess.

What this all boils down to is this: a vain, self-absorbed man who rose to the highest office in our nation entirely on his ability to publish allegedly ghost-written memoirs and speak beautifully while reading a teleprompter, is attempting to consolidate as much power as possible in his own hands, Constitution be <snip>ed. This president often reads flowery speeches from his teleprompter which talk about supporting Americans who "play by the rules" and "do what's right". In other words, playing by the rules is only for the little guy, not for His Majesty, King Barack the First.

The way the fascists and commies do it.   You think it was bad before it has gotten worse.  From the Washington Times. by Stephen Dinan and Susan Crabtree.

President Obama used his recess appointment powers Wednesday to name a head for the controversial Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and three new members to the National Labor Relations Board — moves Republican lawmakers said amounted to an unconstitutional power grab.

The president acted just a day after the Senate held a session — breaking with at least three different precedents that said the Senate must be in recess for at least three days for the president to exercise his appointment power. Mr. Obama himself was part of two of those precedents, both during his time in the Senate and again in 2010 when one of his administration’s top constitutional lawyers made the argument for the three-day waiting period to the Supreme Court.

Mr. Obama tapped former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray to head the CFPB, and named three others to the labor board — all of which had been stymied by congressional Republicans who said Mr. Obama is accruing too much power to himself through those two agencies.

In strikingly sharp language, Republicans said the Senate considers itself still in session for the express purpose of blocking recess appointments, and the move threatened to become a declaration of war against Congress.

“Although the Senate is not in recess, President Obama, in an unprecedented move, has arrogantly circumvented the American people,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican.

GOP House Speaker John A. Boehner called the move “an extraordinary and entirely unprecedented power grab by President Obama that defies centuries of practice and the legal advice of his own Justice Department.”

“The precedent that would be set by this cavalier action would have a devastating effect on the checks and balances that are enshrined in our Constitution,” the Ohio Republican said in a statement.

The White House, though, argues Republican senators have been stonewalling his nominees for so long that Mr. Obama had no choice but to circumvent them.

The president introduced Mr. Cordray during a trip to Ohio Wednesday, telling a supportive crowd that the Senate Republicans’ ongoing blockade of his nomination “inexcusable.”

“I refuse to take ‘No’ for an answer. I’ve said before that I will continue to look for every opportunity to work with Congress to move this country forward. But when Congress refuses to act in a way that hurts our economy and puts people at risk, I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them,” Mr. Obama said.

CPFB supporters has said the lack of a top executive has blocked the fledgling agency from taking on a number of tasks in its mandate to police the financial sector and protect consumers from fraud. Mr. Cordray was accompanying the president on the trip, and briefly spoke to reporters.

He said he would begin work immediately, adding: “We’re going to begin working to expand our program to non-banks, which is an area we haven’t been able to touch until now.”

The Constitution gives the president the power to make appointments when the Senate is not in session and able to confirm them. Traditionally, that has been understood to mean when the Senate has adjourned for a recess longer than 10 days, and a Clinton administration legal opinion said a recess must be at least three days.

Mr. Obama’s own top constitutional lawyers affirmed that view in 2010 in another case involving recess appointments. Asked what the standard was for making recess appointments, then-Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal told the justices the administration agreed with the three-day rule.

“The recess appointment power can work in a recess. I think our office has opined the recess has to be longer than 3 days,” Mr. Katyal said