Where your tax dollars are going...

[lightsoutcalls]

*** ATTENTION****   If you are easily offended by true information that casts a negative light on the current administration, you may be offended by the information contained in the articles linked in this post. 

The state department has spent $70,000 on copies of obama's book "Dreams From My Father". 

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/25/state-department-buys-70000-worth-obama-memoir/

Copies of the book have been given as "Christmas gratuities" and to "stock key libraries" around the world. 

Yes, your tax dollars at work.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that authors get royalties on the sale of their books...  If that is the case, this would mean that the spending of your tax dollars helped pad the pocket of mr obama.  Would that be considered a conflict of interests?

Here is some good insight on mr obama from Forbes magazine:

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0927/politics-socialism-capitalism-private-enterprises-obama-business-problem.html

Not trying to stir any pots... just providing information. 

[hookedspur]

You know what scares me most about this post ? I read it and found that it didn't surprise me at all ,I just said to myself : well that figures !!

[mossy835]

You know what scares me most about this post ? I read it and found that it didn't surprise me at all ,I just said to myself : well that figures !!

Could not have said it better.

[handcannon]

Thats about as wrong as two little boys holding hands.

[Dylan T]

No biggie. The books would be used for propaganda purposes in foreign countries. Obama donates a chunk of royalties to charities so its a win win win. Bit of a media beat up imo.

[Struttinhusker]

The Dinesh D'Souza piece is pop psychology at its worst.  Even Pat Robertson is telling the Republican candidates to get away from the silliness or lose.

[bird]

This should at least be considered a criminal act and every American no matter what their party beliefs should be upset about this.  Tax Payer dollars are being spent "wasted" to purchase a sitting Presidents book for gifts.  Why would any normal thinking person think any different.

bird

[GobbleNut]

The question this incident raises for me is whether or not this is an unusual occurence, or not?  If this is the first time something like this has happened, then yes, I would be questioning it.  I'm not at all sure that it is, however.  If this is real "news", I am absolutely certain it will all be played out in the media,...from all perspectives.

From the little bit I have read on this, it appears that Obama had nothing to do with the decision by other government entities to purchase his books.  If he did, and he personally profits from the sales, then this is worth talking about.  If not, then it isn't. 

Is there a legitimate reason why his book would be chosen to be sold in other countries and would be popular there?  Of course there is!  The reasons for that do not need to be detailed,...they should be obvious.

We all know that the government spends our money questionably in many ways.  Is this particular way more unusual than others?  Perhaps,...perhaps not.    Is any "wasteful" spending right?   No, it is not.,....and something needs to be done about it.  That is the point to be made here.   

The problem we have is the system, in general,.... not an individual......

[lightsoutcalls]

The Dinesh D'Souza piece is pop psychology at its worst.  Even Pat Robertson is telling the Republican candidates to get away from the silliness or lose.

Such statements will only carry weight with persons that already hold your line of reason, values and beliefs.  Dinesh D'souza lays out in great detail in his book "The Roots of Obama's Rage" how obama's values and mindset (which are evident in his policies and agenda) were formed after being abandoned by his father, then later by his mother.  After reuniting with his father, he held in high regard a man who was a heavy drinker, beat his mother and espoused radical anti-establishment beliefs.  You'll notice that the title of obama's book is not Dreams "OF" My Father, but "Dreams FROM My Father".  D'souza explains how this gives insight as to where much of obama's foundation for beliefs comes from.  He goes on to say how, with this kind of belief system, it is not a stretch to see why obama could sit under such anti-American teaching from the likes of Rev. Jeremiah Wright (of "Not God bless America, No, no - God d@&^ America" fame) and domestic terrorist Bill Ayers without objection. 
  As was stated in the initial post, the intent was not to stir the pot or inflame, it was to inform.  Some folks are not aware of some of the conservative news sources that provide insight that the network news sources won't touch.  Our nation has for too long sat back on its uninformed collective butts as the organized liberal machine has crafted its anti-family, anti-values agenda.  I, for one, cannot and will not sit by any longer and ignore it.  The popular definition of insanity is to continue doing the same thing while expecting different results. (I can state this with confidence, as I have worked in the mental health field for the past 7 years and observe this principle in action daily.)  I can't sit idly by and watch persons with agendas in direct opposition to what made this nation great take us farther away from those very values and principles. 
   As for Pat Robertson...  you may not be aware that he recently lost much of his credibility with many conservatives when he shared his opinion that a man whose wife had alzheimers should be free to divorce his wife, as alzheimers is a "kind of death".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/under-god/post/pat-robertson-divorce-an-option-for-alzheimers-spouses-video/2011/09/15/gIQATaQzUK_blog.html
   I do not agree with the line of reason he expresed.  Marriage being one of the foundational covenants of the Christian faith and crucial to any discussion on family and values, he did a great disservice to evangelicals by making such a statement. 
   All that said, your comment does not take away from the fact of the initial post that an agency under the authority of a sitting president purchased books written by that president.  In turn, the president directly benefited financially from that purchase.  Attempt to deflect focus from this do nothing to invalidate the facts.

[lightsoutcalls]

Is there a legitimate reason why his book would be chosen to be sold in other countries and would be popular there?  Of course there is!  The reasons for that do not need to be detailed,...they should be obvious.

  Actually, the reasons for that DO need to be detailed, BECAUSE they are not obvious to many.  The writer of the article linked from Forbes magazine, Dinesh D'souza, provides much insight into how this book reveals much about obama's agenda and his basis for political thought.  It gives insight to his radical ideals and his father's hatred for America, capitalism and the exceptionalism of this nation.  These are all basis for obama's agenda and evident in his political focus and mandates.  Although many countries shared such beliefs long before obama was even born, our government, charged with the protection of its own people, is now advancing such contrasting and dangerous idealogies by presenting copies of this book as gifts... and you are paying for it.  If that doesn't trouble you, I'm sorry to have wasted your time.
   

[GobbleNut]

What troubles me most, once again, is that our system is screwed up!  It is not the fault of one individual, or one party.  To blindly continue to promote nonsensical arguments by picking and choosing headlines in an effort to lead people towards one's way of thinking, when the factors involved are infinitely more complicated and complex than that of pointing a finger at a single individual, is disingenuous.  

The issues this country and this world face are not black or white.  There are many shades of gray.  To state that ultra-conservatism, or ultra-liberalism, is the answer to all problems, is to not recognize reality. As the current "leader of the free world", Obama espouses a political philosophy that, whether you agree with it or not, is of interest to a significant number of people thoughout the globe.  That is the reason there is a demand for his book.  Disagreeing with his political philosphy is not going to change that, ....or invalidate it.
 

[Struttinhusker]

Where was the righteous outrage on this site when billions of dollars literally vanished in Iraq?  This is about hatred for Barack Obama rather than wasteful government spending, which we all know exists.

As for the psychological piece on the president, I have a similar piece called "Contemporary Conservatism:  Ideology or Psychology".  I believe it perfectly describes much of what goes for political discourse here.  But I do not know the credentials of the individual who wrote it and thus consider it pop psychology.  I would never post it on this site because, despite what some have said, I am not trying to push a liberal agenda.  I only respond to the agenda others wish to foist on others.  If, as has been alleged, everyone who reads or participates on this site is an extreme conservative, why do you need to make them hate Obama more?  That would be like trying to make a pregnant woman more pregnant or a dead person more dead.

It has also been said that I am like the patron of a chicken place who goes in and complains because I can't get a hamburger.  I see that analogy a different way.  I think I am like a patron who walks into a place that advertises itself as a chicken place and then is forced to listen to a bunch of other patrons who see it as their job to let the rest of us know all about their political and/or religious beliefs.  That doesn't happen in the places I frequent, and if it did day after day, week after week, it would be they, not I, who would be told they weren't welcome.

[mossy835]

I think you are wrong it is not about "hatred". "the color of his skin", it is about his inability to run this great nation. The post had nothing to do with "Iraq" and the mess Clinton left there.

As to the content it was clearly stated:

*** ATTENTION****   If you are easily offended by true information that casts a negative light on the current administration, you may be offended by the information contained in the articles linked in this post. 

The point there was if you do not like it do not read it, seems to the point and fairly simple to me. But maybe not.

As to the chicken place your saying the places you hang out in or frequent have a different point of view then by all means go there hang out there but do not expect us to follow you and try and change your point of view on the issues.

What people ac cross this great nation are waking up to is we can no longer bury our heads in the sand and many are looking at and reading more on what is going on as we are in real trouble.

Now for the ("This is about hatred for Barack Obama rather than wasteful government spending, which we all know exists"). Part of your post no one is trying to get you to hate the man or dislike him as he is doing a good enough job of that him self for most of us. If you follow what he is doing has done and is "not doing" you will not need to be led anywhere. No President has complete backing but this one will ultimately beat Carter for the worst of the worst in time which is sad because he could have done a lot but chose not to.

So if you do not like a post do not read it or comment if you do then responses are going to happen and I personally hope the future for you here is about the turkeys you hunt the weapon you use or any other thing of intrest (what I am saying I for one am not asking or wanting you to leave). But there are many posts here that I start to read and do not comment on for many reasons some of which might upset the "general membership.

[lightsoutcalls]

What troubles me most, once again, is that our system is screwed up!  It is not the fault of one individual, or one party.  To blindly continue to promote nonsensical arguments by picking and choosing headlines in an effort to lead people towards one's way of thinking, when the factors involved are infinitely more complicated and complex than that of pointing a finger at a single individual, is disingenous.   

The issues this country and this world face are not black or white.  There are many shades of gray.  To state that ultra-conservatism, or ultra-liberalism, is the answer to all problems, is to not recognize reality. As the current "leader of the free world", Obama espouses a political philosophy that, whether you agree with it or not, is of interest to a significant number of people thoughout the globe.  That is the reason there is a demand for his book.  Disagreeing with his political philosphy is not going to change that, ....or invalidate it.

  I would whole-heartedly agree with your opening statement that the whole system is messed up, and further, that blame cannot be lumped on one person or one party.  I have no beef with that, and never claimed that previous administrations, regardless of party, have not made mistakes or contributed to the current state of our nation.  As I have already stated twice, the intent was to provide information, not to influence or win over anyone to one side or another.  There was absolutely nothing blind about providing this information.  I recently found out about the situation and simply shared the information, as I found it interesting, frustrating and eye-opening.  Let's see if I can get you to agree with this line of thinking...

FACT - George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon et.al. are no longer president.  Right?
FACT - The persons mentioned above will not be running for president in 2012.  Right?
FACT - Although we can discuss, agree with, disagree with, love or hate anything that any one of these men contributed, promoted, passed or did away with during their time in office, we cannot change the past.  Right?
FACT - Barring anything unforseen, Barak Obama will be running for re-election in 2012. Right?

Each of these has likely made negative contributions to our current social, political and/or financial situation.  Although we can learn from mistakes or accomplishments of each of these men, only one of them will be running for president in 2012. 

You state that the issues we face are not black and white. I realize there are many variables to most issues and many issues that impact other issues (job creation comes to mind).  I also realize that often what is presented as a solution to issues does not begin to deal with the actual root cause of the issue (budget deficits come to mind).  Again, this applies to the system, not specifically to one person.

I understand your point about that simply because obama is in the most influential office in the world, there will be curiosity or interest in his ideals.  I get that.  I don't understand, though, how that justifies that our tax dollars be spent to spread his ideals across the world at a profit to the president, regardless of whether his policies are good, bad or neutral. 

Let me give you a very different argument in principle, but very alike in theory.  Remember Timothy McVeigh?  He and some of his associates used very simple, and then, very accessible materials to create a bomb that killed hundreds.  Although I don't condone in the least what he did, there was a huge and immediate interest in just what ingredients were used in making this explosive composition.  Just because there was an interest, would it be acceptable then to provide that information freely across the world, simply because there was an interest?  I would venture to say that some of the sentiments expressed and espoused by mr obama are much more dangerous to our country than a list of common chemicals.  The effects may not be felt immediately, and they may not produce a one-time body count, but at least as many people feel passionately about their harmful effects on society and generations to come.

I gave adequate disclaimers in the opening of the original post as to the content.  At the end of the day, we all have our own opinions, and for now, at least, we are free to express them.  We all have our reasons for believing as we do, whether it be about brand of truck, caliber of rifle, political affiliation or cause of social ills.  Viewpoints expressed contrary to our own beliefs will have one of two effects.  They will either change the way we look at the issue, or they will further solidify our held beliefs.  As long as we can present this information in a civil way without attempting to demean those we do not agree with, the exchange of information is healthy. 

[Struttinhusker]

I've thought about ignoring the political posts on this site, but I admit I'm weak and cannot turn away.  It's like trying not to watch some natural or man-made disaster unfold - it's human nature.