Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Violence in the Cities as Egypt Unravels

The delusion of the Arab Spring leaves Egypt on the brink of "collapse!"

Dozens dead, hundreds injured and the rule of law breaking down in major Egyptian cities as the Muslim Brotherhood refuses to recognize the legitimate and democratic rights of those citizens who do not share the Brotherhood's zeal for imposing Sharia Law.

The New York Times has a comprehensive report.  Fears of martial law enshrining yet another radical Islamist dictatorship as in Iran may be driving some of the unrest.

Where is Obama?

Where is the United States in all this? Not a peep from Obama. The same president who almost daily demanded the removal of Egypt's President Mubarak two years ago is now silent as chaos spreads. It reminds me of his silence when Iranians were being butchered in the streets several years ago while calling out for his help.

One protester in Tahrir Square did reach out to Obama:

So much for making the world respect us again hunh?

Across North Africa chaos and violence is spreading. The Obama Administration has no effective policy for dealing with the situation. Their only response appears to be what Hillary Clinton said during Senate testimony last week: "what difference does it make."

UPDATE: Top Morsi aide believes Nazi Holocaust was a U.S. invention. Six million Jews didn't die in Europe. They moved to the U.S.

Want to know just how whacked out the Muslim Brotherhood leaders who now control Egypt are? Read what the top aide to President Morsi said about the Holocaust. These views are widespread among radical Islamists.

Morsi himself recently warned visiting U.S. Senators that U.S. media is controlled by Jews who he claims distorted his comments calling Jews “bloodsuckers” and “descendants of apes and pigs.” What lovely people Obama has allied himself with!

Negative Economic Growth Report May Signal Beginning of Obama Recession

The impact of defense cuts, tax increases, and over regulation are now being felt!

It was just nine days ago at his second Inauguration when Obama told Americans that "An economic recovery has begun." You would have thought he should choose his words more carefully as the 4th quarter 2012 dip into negative economic growth is hardly a sign that economic growth "has begun." If the next quarter also shows a dip we will officially be in a recession. Not that the millions who remain unemployed or have given up work have thought otherwise.

Who is to blame for this latest dip? Well, if a Republican was in the White House the news we all know that news reporting of this event would lay the blame solely on the President. But since Obama occupies that office and apparently can do no wrong, it's the Republicans fault anyway! White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said as much on Wednesday when he faulted Republicans for opposing Obama's wasteful big spending programs that have been miserable failures in creating economic growth or job creation. When asked what new ideas Obama had to spur economic growth Carney suggested more of the same failed policies.

Does it never occur to Obama and his team that their policies of wasteful spending on green jobs for firms that go bankrupt won't grow the economy and create jobs? Are they not aware that draconian restrictions on energy production cuts economic activity and job growth while increasing the cost? Have they no clue that the mountain of new business regulation strangles economic activity?

At what point will Obama be held accountable for his corrupt and incompetent management of fiscal and economic policies? Who knows. I suppose that an Administration, whose Secretary of State can dismiss the lies and incompetence so evident in the killing of four Americans in Libya by saying "what difference does it make?" can pretty much get away with anything in the economic sphere too. At least for now.

Monday, January 28, 2013

Do the Dems Really Want to Limit Gun Violence?

If so, why won't the gun grabbers listen to the experts on preventing gun crime?

Democrats took the first big step in their gun grabbing agenda with a bill introduced by Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA). Not surprisingly, Feinstein exempted government officials from the requirements imposed on law abiding citizens.

What's most irksome to me throughout this debate is how marginalized the voice of many in the law enforcement community has been. When George Bush was managing the war in Iraq badly the Dems shouted in chorus "listen to the generals." Of course that all changed when Obama became President so I suppose we shouldn't be surprised that the voice of law enforcement experts in reducing gun crime has been largely ignored. Unless of course those voices echo the gun grabbers agenda.

But why not listen to former New York police commissioner William Bratton? As New York's top cop in the mid 1990's he oversaw effective programs that took New York from the status as a major murder capital to one where violent gun crime is a much rarer occurrence.

Bratton supports some measure of gun restriction and registration but the measures he cites as most helpful are ones that many liberals oppose. We pick up the story in the Wall Street Journal as Bratton describes how he turned New York around:
For starters, they wouldn't ignore minor crimes such as prostitution, aggressive panhandling, excessive noise and underage drinking. It was an application of what would become famous as the "broken windows" theory, which held that even small signs of disorder would, if left untended, breed further disorder, crime and fear.

"Stop the behavior when it's small, stop the cancer when it's small," Mr. Bratton says, an approach he says is as useful today as it was then. It turns out that those who committed minor offenses often also committed major ones. When police started arresting subway turnstile-jumpers, one in seven had an outstanding warrant and one in 25 carried a gun.

Another innovation was the almost obsessive use of timely crime data to drive tactics and accountability. Police began questioning every person arrested with a gun about where, when and how it was obtained. Detectives were instructed to investigate all shootings as if they were murders.
...
Another part of the anti-violence solution was the 1968 Supreme Court ruling Terry v. Ohio, which held that a police officer is allowed to stop, question and frisk a person on the street if the officer has "reasonable suspicion" that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. "Stop-and-frisk" became a central feature of policing—and now, in a transformed New York two decades later, it has become a matter of controversy. Liberals want it banned.

Critics of stop-and-frisk argue that it discriminates against blacks and Hispanics, who are the subjects of a majority of stops. Proponents say this simply reflects the demographic realities of crime. Although blacks make up only 23% of New York's population, for example, they accounted for more than 60% of all murder victims in 2011 and committed some 80% of all shootings. The issue is now in the federal courts, where for the first time a judge last week ruled a part of the program unconstitutional.recent ruling, he predicts a reversal "when it goes to the Supreme Court."

Listen to Sheriff David Clark of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin in the public service announcement where he declares that citizens must be partners with the police in their own defense. In a recent radio interview Sheriff Clark made it clear that it's too late to call 9-11 if the wolf is already at the door.

Related News:
  • If assault weapons are so bad why is the Dept. of Homeland Security buying 7,000 for "personal defense?"
  • And what about the newspaper reporters whose paper published the names of people holding legitimate permits for firearms leading to at least one criminal attempt to steal the lawful weapons? When confronted on video reporters at the paper refused to stand up for their principles when asked to place a "gun free house" sign on their property.
  • The top five gun control states (California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, New York and Connecticut (yes, CT, state where the Sandy Hook school shooting took place) average higher in gun crime than other states.
  • Then there's the recently released confession of Jake Evans, a teen who killed his mother and sister after being inspired by a violent Hollywood movie. What a shame that Obama has had nothing to say about violence in films and music. Much of it coming from supporters of his campaign.
  • Finally, a lengthy discourse on gun control from David Mamet, acclaimed playwright and author. Mamet is incredulous that we accept guns to protect banks and jewelry stores but not schools.
If you REALLY want to reduce gun crime why not listen to ALL good ideas on the subject? Unless of course this is just another political exercise.....

Friday, January 25, 2013

What do House Flies Know About Obama? Or, The Bug Stops Here!

And why did Beyoncé fake singing Nation Anthem at Obama's Inaugural?

Odd connection between the two stories? Perhaps. Or then again, perhaps not.

The Bug Stops Here!
First, what is it about house flies and Obama? On Thursday a fly was all over Obama as he announced two more nominations to his Administration. See the Daily Mail for the full story with more photos.

This might be just an odd story if it was the first time such a thing happened but it's not. Once is odd, twice is a coincidence but four times is downright weird. I'll leave it to readers to discuss what the message is.

Then, there's singer Beyoncé, who reportedly faked her performance at Obama's Inaugural earlier in the week. Speculation is she didn't have time to rehearse or that she might be saving herself for her performance at the Super Bowl. Either way, it's a real slap in the face to Obama who part of her celebrity posse. It's a real honor to be asked to sing at such a major national event but apparently, Beyoncé could only give it lip service!

I believe there is a connection between the two stories but I'll leave it up to readers to speculate on what that might be!

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Direct Link Between Algeria Attack that Killed 3 Americans and Libya Attack that Killed 4

The Obama Administration's indifference to attacks emboldens terrorists and invites future attacks!

On September 11, 2011 four Americans, including our Ambassador to Libya were killed in Benghazi. Obama vowed "make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people." Then, for several weeks his Administration engaged in a farcical effort to convince the American people that the only reason the attack occurred was because of an offensive Internet video.

Meanwhile, violence continued to spread across Africa with all out war in Mali being conducted by Al Queda. Three Americans were killed last week in Algeria when this same Al Queda group attacked a natural gas processing facility near the Libyan border. Outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said "we’ve got to fight back," But the best Obama could muster was to issue a statement saying "we will remain in close touch with the Government of Algeria to gain a fuller understanding of what took place so that we can work together to prevent tragedies like this in the future."

Now we learn that the two attacks are linked with participants from the September 11th attacks in Libya also on hand to kill Americans again. This despite Obama's vow to track them down. No action has been taken to bring ANY of these terrorist killers to justice.

Considering the weak U.S. response, this report from the Washington Post comes as no surprise:
A week of violence in Algeria and Mali has transformed al-Qaeda’s North Africa branch into a cause celebre for militant Islamists around the globe, boosting recruitment and fundraising for the jihadists and spurring fears of further terrorist attacks in the region and beyond.

Even after suffering tactical defeats in both countries in recent days, the movement known as al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb is being lionized in Internet chat rooms and in official statements by extremist groups, some of which are urging reprisal campaigns against Western interests.

U.S. officials and terrorism analysts are pointing to last week’s hostage drama in eastern Algeria as a turning point for the al-Qaeda offshoot, boosting its credibility while marking its transition from a predominantly Algeria-focused organization to a true multinational threat able to draw manpower, weapons and resources from across the region.
Hillary Clinton: "What Difference Does it Make?"

An emotional and defensive Secretary of State Hillary Clinton finally testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday. This was after months of delay in getting her on the record for her role leading up to and the aftermath of the Benghazi attacks and the wider issue of terrorism spreading in Africa. Along with Obama and other top Administration officials Hillary pushed the big lie that what happened in Benghazi was not so much terrorism as a violent protest to an offensive web video. When asked to explain why and how the Administration pushed that lie Hillary exploded "what difference at this point does it make!" [video]

Sorry Hillary, but it makes a big difference. During the campaign Obama repeatedly said that "Al Queda is on the run." Clearly they are on the run to attack Americans and Western interests at every opportunity. They are NOT on the run from the U.S. They are growing stronger and apparently the Obama Administration is not able to admit that to itself or to take the action necessary to counter it.

Even today, with all these facts so obvious for any and all to see the Obama Administration continues in denial. In his second Inaugural Address Obama never mentioned terrorists, terrorism or Al Queda once. However, Obama did say that "A decade of war is now ending."

Well, the decade may be over but the war is not. The cancer is spreading fast and the Obama Administration appears indifferent to the danger and incompetent in doing anything to stop it. Those who killed our Ambassador in Libya got away with murder and have struck again and will continue to do so. If and when they launch a spectacular attack killing many more Americans Obama will be to blame. But don't expect the liberal news media to agree. They've covered up Benghazi and Algeria and like Hillary Clinton, they proclaim a loud "what's the difference!"

Monday, January 21, 2013

Obama's Crowd Booed Paul Ryan At Inaugural

As Obama speaks of national unity, his supporters show what he really means by unity and civility!

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), Chairman of the House Budget Committee didn't have to attend Monday's Inauguration on the steps of the U.S. Capitol. He and Mitt Romney lost the election to Obama but Ryan felt it was his duty to attend. In a statement he said:
"I congratulate President Obama on his inauguration, and I join the country in celebrating this American tradition.

"The president and I were political opponents. We had strong disagreements over the direction of the country—as we still do now. But today, we put those disagreements aside. Today, we remember what we share in common.

"We serve the same country, one that is still in need of repair—and is still the freest on earth. We serve alongside men and women from both parties, who govern in good faith and good will. Finally, we serve the same people, who have honored us with their charge.
But when he showed up at the Inauguration, what did he get for his trouble? Booed, by Obama Kool Aid drinkers who no doubt will insist Republicans be respectful and civil in their disagreements with Obama.

While Obama was up on the platform calling for national unity, his supporters expressed the real tone behind Obama's empty words.

Conservatives now have free license to oppose Obama's policies in any way they see fit. Speaking for me, Obama is president in name only. He and his supporters do not uphold the finest traditions of American democracy and have no right to expect respect in return for the disrespect and uncivil behavior they daily shower on the rest of us.

1460 days before this nightmare ends and the real national healing can begin once the adults are back in charge!


UPDATE: Michelle Obama's rudeness to John Boehner at Inaugural lunch

How do you work with people who have such thinly veiled contempt for you that they cannot even be civil at an Inaugural lunch? Look at Michelle Obama's classless performance before answering that question. As she shovels food into her face her expressions towards House Speaker John Boehner, who sits right next to her, say it all.



Also, I can't help noticing Michelle going to town on that food. This is the same woman who constantly lectures the rest of us to watch our diet.

What kind of people are these?

UPDATE 2: Guy Who Started the Booing is a radical hire at the Dept. of Justice!

And he bragged about it. Exactly the kind of behavior we would expect from these lovers of civility and tolerance!

Four More Years of THIS?

Obama's second swearing in means America's problems will only get worse!


I almost laughed when I read this from Obama's second Inaugural Address:
"We cannot mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate."
Of course Obama meant to criticize Republicans but it was really about himself. You wouldn't find any Republican willing to charge Democrats with wanting dirty air and water as Obama did, or say the other party wanted old people and children with disabilities to fend for themselves. And that was the kind of rhetoric he used more than a year before the 2012 election. Nor would any Republican use the slavery metaphor of putting blacks back in chains as V.P. Joe Biden did.

It's all attack, all politics, all the time with these guys and the resulting mess can't be blamed on George W. Bush any more.

The last four years saw nearly $6 trillion in new debt. Obama said it was "unpatriotic and irresponsible" when Bush ran up $5 trillion in eight years. In the next four there's nothing but more and more red ink.

And what did we get for that record run-up in debt? More than 8 million dropped out of the workforce during the last four years and only half of those eligible to retire with Social Security benefits. The longest and most extended dip in employment in the modern era. Billions wasted on "green energy" that created few jobs as firms that got taxpayer money went bankrupt in droves. But never mind that, Obama's big campaign backers got their share up front. Meanwhile, Obama's reckless fiscal policy, particularly the printing of money to finance debt means gas prices have nearly doubled along with all energy and everyday items like food impacting lower and middle class families the hardest.

Further adding to the middle and lower income misery are falling wages and greater health care costs. The impact of ObamaCare over the next few years will make this situation worse as employers cut hours to avoid being forced into higher cost health plans.

Sadly, with all this economic distress Americans are tuning out Obama's foreign and national security policy disasters. The radicalization of Egypt and the murders of four Americans in Libya are only the first of many more such nightmares as violence and radicalism spread unchecked across Africa. Obama continues to ignore the problem hoping someone else will step up and deal with it. That's a recipe for worse to come over the next four years. Despite Obama's campaign promise that "Al Queda is on the run," from the jihadi perspective it appears it's America that is cutting and running from a world war that can only get bigger and more deadly the longer we ignore it.

I wish I could find a silver lining here. But since it's clear Obama intends to continue the petty, partisan and divisive politics of the last four years, a record that has earned him a spot of among the lowest approval ratings by Gallup for any modern president, the problems America faces can only get worse. And no matter how many photo ops Obama has pledging his support for children or the Middle Class, they will be hit the hardest.

It's 1460 days until help can finally arrive. Let's hope America can survive!

Saturday, January 19, 2013

Great Freeze in Great Britain

Winter hits the Brits!

 
Two great pages of photos from The Daily Mail (1,2) as Britain is buried in snow.


Friday, January 18, 2013

Obama's Gun Control Orders Ignore Larger Problem of Gang Violence

In Chicago there are 20 times the number of victims of Newtown massacre in 2012. Yet Obama's orders won't do a thing to stop this violence in the black community!

Like most of Obama's big moments, his photo op using children while he signed 23 Executive Orders directed at stemming gun violence was mostly symbolism over substance. Politics over performance. Not one word about the culture of violence stemming from the movies and music created by his Hollywood friends and only a throwaway line or two about studying violent video games.  Writing at the New York post, columnist Michael Walsh headlined the effort as the "Photo op President shooting blanks."

But it wasn't just movies, music and videogames that got a pass. The problem of gang violence wasn't mentioned at all. That oversight is odd considering how the problem of gang related gun violence is epidemic in Obama's hometown of Chicago. Tom Bevan, at Real Clear Politics points out that last year Chicago had 513 homicides. That's 20 times the number killed at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newton, Connecticut. And in the first 16 days of January, 26 people, the same number who died in Newtown, where killed in Chicago.

Excerpting from Bevan's column:
In Washington on Wednesday, as you rolled out a slate of gun control measures quickly cobbled together in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre, you said, “If there is even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there is even one life that can be saved, then we've got an obligation to try.”

If you believe those words, Mr. President, here is a heartfelt suggestion: Come back to your adopted hometown and personally host a summit that grapples seriously with the causes of -- and crafts meaningful solutions to -- gang violence in America’s big cities.
...
The other sad reality, Mr. President, is that almost nothing proposed this week in Washington, D.C., by your administration will do anything to stem the tide of gun violence in our inner cities. Most of these crimes were not committed with semi-automatic assault weapons, they weren’t committed by the mentally ill, and they won’t be stopped by universal background checks.

If you are serious about doing everything in your power to curb gun violence and save lives, then you must harness your immense popularity in Chicago -- and in other big cities -- to address the elephant in the room: the failures of a society grown coarsened, desensitized to violence, and too tolerant of such carnage.
...
Because of your heritage and your stature as the first African-American president, you may be the only person in this country who has the influence and moral standing to speak much needed truths to address this longstanding scourge in the black community.

As you said, “If there is even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there is even one life that can be saved, then we've got an obligation to try.”

There is one thing you can do, Mr. President. Come home to Chicago. Talk to the kids. If they’ll listen to anybody, they’ll listen to you.
A Racial Component?

At the Huffington Post Jeff Kelly Lowenstein wonders why the carnage in Chicago doesn't rate the same attention that mass shootings do:
Others might cite the racial composition of the children.
All but one of the Newtown children in the images we have seen are white.

But 70 percent of the shooting victims in Chicago for whom the race was known were black in a city that in 2011 was 33 percent black, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
Images of Chicago's victims

One Chicago web site tallied a score of 62 school age children murdered in the Windy City in 2012. That's more than twice the number from Newtown. Another Chicago site reminds us that the world's attention is focused every time Israelis kill Palestinian children. A number over several years that is half the death toll of children in Chicago.

Here are a few of the faces you haven't seen on the evening news. Their deaths didn't rate comment from President Obama and the gang violence that led to their deaths is largely ignored by his latest action.

 

13 year old Schanna Gayden (left) was an honor roll student at Ames Middle School in Chicago. She was an all-star basketball player. She died after being caught in gang related gun crossfire. 10 year old Katanna Peterson (right) survived multiple gunshot wounds from a further gang shooting but will be marked for life. Katanna's mother was only 14 years old when she gave birth to Katanna.


From Clutch: Six-year-old Aliyah Shell (left) was standing on the front porch with her mother and younger sister when she was gunned down in a drive-by shooting in Chicago. Seven-year-old Heaven Sutton (right) was standing next to her mother in front of her home selling candy when gunshots rang out on her Chicago block and she crumbled on the pavement, dead from a stray bullet.

Notice something about these victims that might correlate with the lack of interest on the part of Obama and the mainstream media? Kirsten West Savali writing at Clutch, a minority women's magazine did:
President Barack Obama, a Commander-in-Chief for whom murdered black children has never made the itinerary beyond  a Rose Garden soundbite and MTV during the election cycle rushed to Newtown, Connecticut — as he did Aurora, Colorado – to comfort and console the community.
We are reminded also of the media sensation caused by the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. Of course that shooting was more about playing racial politics in the run up to the 2012 election. What political gain is there for Obama and the Democrats to highlight gang murders of young children in Chicago? None.

As Tom Bevan pointed out above, none of what Obama has proposed will do anything to stem the tide of blood on the streets of Chicago. The tougher problems of gang violence and the culture that supports it are deeply rooted in the inner cities where Democrats have held monopoly power for decades. Isn't it time Obama stops posturing for political gain on issues like gun control and actually leads the way to finding solutions that work in the inner city? Or have we given up all hope that he can, or even desires, to be that kind of president?

Thursday, January 17, 2013

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz: Obama "high on his own power"

At least that's a legal substance. For a change!

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is another of the newly minted Republican senators from a minority group. And just as Se. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is known to speak his mind, the Hispanic Cruz also doesn't mince words. But in this interview with Laura Ingraham, Cruz goes one step further than Rubio:
From the Weekly Standard: 
Republican senator Ted Cruz of Texas said Thursday that Barack Obama is "high on his own power" with regard to the president's announced efforts on gun control. Speaking on Laura Ingraham's radio talk show, Cruz, who was just elected to the Senate last November, said "this is a president who has drunk the Kool-Aid."

"He is feeling right now high on his own power, and he is pushing on every front, on guns," Cruz said. "And I think it's really sad to see the president of the United States exploiting the murder of children and using it to push his own extreme, anti-gun agenda. I think what the president is proposing and the gun control proposals that are coming from Democrats in the Senate are, number one, unconstitutional, and number two, they don't work. They're bad policy."

Cruz told Ingraham that he does not believe Obama will be successful in passing gun control legislation and that the political ramifications of pursuing such laws could be bad for Democrats.

"I think he's going to pay a serious political price, and I think the price that's going to be paid on this is going to manifest in Senate races in 2014, in some red states," Cruz said. "And there have got to be some Democrats who are up for reelection in 2014 who are very, very nervous right now that President Obama is picking this fight."
The phrase "high on power" may remind some readers of the excessive pot smoking Obama engaged in as a youth in Hawaii. For those who aren't familiar with that history, ABC News has it. Sorry you didn't hear much about it in any of Obama's two presidential campaigns. It may explain much.

Just one question: will the inevitable attacks on Cruz be portrayed in the media as "anti-Hispanic?" Well, you know the answer to that. Only if the person being criticized is a Democrat will racial motives be assigned to his attackers!

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Obama Uses Kids for Photo Op on Gun Control Orders


Better hope this turns out better than the photo ops Obama had with Middle Class Americans where he promised their taxes wouldn't go up!

Using children as a shield, Obama signs 23
Executive Orders he claims will reduce gun violence.
On Wednesday, Obama pledged to take action to assure we are "keeping our children safe."
Seeing this charade , I am reminded of the number of photo ops (1,2) Obama did with Middle Class Americans where he bragged the deal to prevent the fiscal cliff would prevent a tax increase on the Middle Class. Below, Obama tells one group that the deal would mean "their income taxes [won't] go up one dime." He failed to mention their payroll taxes would go up MORE than the taxes on millionaires and billionaires who will pay higher income taxes.

Here's that photo op shortly before Middle Class taxes went up:


So it is with trepidation that we see Obama promise a group of kids that he is serious about doing something to prevent gun violence. All I can say is I hope the kid's parent's stock up with ammo while their is still time!

Two children we did not see at Wednesday's White House event are the nine year old twins of Donnie and Melinda Herman. They are alive today because their mother, Melinda, had a gun and was able to shoot and stop a violent intruder who entered their Georgia home earlier this month.

Saturday, January 12, 2013

You Have to Laugh: Poor and Middle Class Obama Voters in Shock that THEIR Taxes Went Up!

They made the mistake of believing Obama's promise to protect the Middle Class and soak the rich. They voted for him and now it's costing them PLENTY!

Stunned Obama voters just did not see it coming. They didn't read the fine print when Obama bragged that under the fiscal cliff deal he signed into law "than 98% of Americans and 97% of small business will not see their income taxes go up one dime." Notice he didn't say anything about payroll taxes. Obama voters shouldn't be surprised. After all, this is the same man who made a "firm pledge" when he ran for office in 2008 that those making under $250,000 would not see ANY tax increase of any kind.  "Not a single dime" he said in 2008. Of course that "firm pledge" didn't last long. If his voters didn't learn their lesson the first time, it's hard to have any sympathy for them now.

Now, those lucky enough to have a job after four years of Obamanomics are staring at their paychecks and wondering what happened. It's not just dimes we are talking about but hundreds, even thousands from lower and Middle Class workers.

Twitchy, that wonderful Twitter aggregator has one, two threads of examples of surprised Obama voters. I feel sorry for the guy who Tweeted: "Since I make less than $25k a year I guess I must be an evil rich guy."


The painful reality that many of these folks are waking up to is that Obama's ever expanding welfare state and his corrupt crony capitalism cannot sustain itself on the backs of just 1 or 2% of the taxpayers. The Middle Class is the biggest cash cow and will be asked to pay the bill.

Meanwhile, Obama will continue to give huge tax breaks to his "millionaire and billionaire" Hollywood and Wall Street pals. And why not? Middle and lower income voters will be paying for it!

Thursday, January 10, 2013

Obama Nominates Another Wall Street Insider for Treasury Secretary

Protecting rich Wall Street friends of Obama is more important than restoring the economy for 99% of Americans who aren't Wall Street fat cats!


Bad enough we've had four years of New York insider Tim Geithner as Secretary of the Treasury. Four years of protecting big banks and Wall Street firms ("too big to fail") and NOT ONE prosecution of Wall Street crooks. Contrast that with 1,300 prosecutions of Wall Street crooks during the Bush Administration. Someone should tell Vice President Biden who it is that really "unchained" Wall Street. I guess those contributions to Obama's campaign really do pay off!


So, when Obama nominated Jack Lew to take over for Geithner, he signaled it was business as usual. Lew is cut from the same cloth as Geithner with the same insider connections. And, he's one of the very rich who got a huge bonus with taxpayer bailout money following the financial meltdown in 2008. When Obama talks about millionaires and billionaires not paying their fair share in taxes he might as well include Lew.

The nomination of Lew is also another sign from Obama that he intends to continue with the hardball, divisive and partisan politics which are the hallmark of his first term. Republicans on Capitol Hill have little faith in Lew. In a recent statement Senator Sessions (R-AL) the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee said Lew should "never" be confirmed for lying to the American people about Obama's budget plans. Lew claimed that Obama's 2012 budget plan was one where "we're not adding to the debt anymore; we're spending money that we have each year, and then we can work on bringing down our national debt." Sessions found that to be such a whopper "so outrageous and false that it alone disqualifies" Lew.

Frankly, I don't see why Lew's nomination should be such a big deal. The Obama Administration is already so full of crony-capitalists and people who can't add or understand numbers larger than 100 that another one won't make much difference. So what if 99% of Americans will be left out in the cold as long as Wall Street fat cats are happy!


Liberals Tell Us That Laws to Restrict 12 Million Illegal Aliens Won't Work but Laws to Restrict 300 Million Guns Will?

On a related note, Dems in the U.S. Senate refuse to pass the required annual budget for 1350 days. Will they rush gun laws through?

That pretty much says it all!

Tuesday, January 08, 2013

Obama's War on Women and Blacks Continues with Latest Top Appointments

More old, white men. No blacks or women allowed!

From the Washington Post by way of Hot Air:

Obama, who made women’s issues a core of his reelection bid, has nominated men to serve in three of his most prominent national security positions, including secretary of state, where Sen. John F. Kerry (D) was named last month to replace Hillary Rodham Clinton. The president on Monday announced former senator Chuck Hagel for the defense job and counterterrorism adviser John O. Brennan to head the CIA. …
The Obama Administration response to criticism:
Obama is committed to “finding the very best people for each job,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said Monday, when asked about the lack of women among the second-term appointments. “And that’s what he’s done today, and that’s what he’ll continue to do.”
Ed Morrissey at Hot Air reminds us how the Obama campaign beat up Mitt Romney for saying that as Governor of Massachusetts he kept "binders full of women" to help him fill top jobs.

Maybe Obama needs to get him some binders full of women and minorities!

UPDATE: Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) agrees. Obama has a diversity problem. In an interview the irascible long serving Congressman from New York said it was "embarrassing as hell" and "no excuse" for the lack of diversity in Obama's White House. He said that Obama most likely suffers from the "Harvard problem" of being more comfortable with elitists like himself.

Perhaps the NAACP or Jesse Jackson could hold diversity seminars at the White House.

Only Suspect in Benghazi Murder of 4 Americans Freed in Tunisia

And still no answers to the key questions from Benghazi!

Obama said as little as possible about the Benghazi attacks which killed our Ambassador to Libya and three other Americans on September 11, 2012. But when he did speak about the attacks he vowed to track down the perpetrators and bring them to justice. (1,2)

Yet, when the only suspect to be identified thus far was caught, the Obama Administration showed little interest in interrogating him. It took the personal intervention of U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to get permission for the U.S. to interview the suspect.

Well, now that suspect has been set free by a Tunisian judge. Yet the man behind the internet video that the Obama Administration falsely claimed was the cause of the attack remains in a U.S. jail.

No other suspects have been rounded up. No visible action of any kind has taken place to avenge the killing of our Ambassador and the three other Americans killed in the Benghazi.

And still no answers on many of the key questions surrounding the attack. What action did Obama order when he learned of the attack? Why did it take so long before help arrived? What was our Ambassador doing in Benghazi with such a high threat level?

It's cliché by now to repeat that if George W. Bush were still in office these questions would be on the front page of every newspaper until they were answered. But with Obama, no one seems to care. Meanwhile, America is perceived by our enemies as weak which invites future attacks.



Sunday, January 06, 2013

Health Care Insurance Skyrockets Under Obama's "Affordable Care Act"

He promised to lower health insurance premiums by $2,500 a year. Many went up that amount instead!

It's not just the higher taxes middle and lower income workers are now paying (higher increase than the rich). It's not just higher gas prices and inflation on food, clothing and other essentials; all of which impacts lower income families the most. Now, add to that the cost of health care under ObamaCare.

Saturday's New York Times tells the story:
Health insurance companies across the country are seeking and winning double-digit increases in premiums for some customers, even though one of the biggest objectives of the Obama administration’s health care law was to stem the rapid rise in insurance costs for consumers.

Particularly vulnerable to the high rates are small businesses and people who do not have employer-provided insurance and must buy it on their own.

In California, Aetna is proposing rate increases of as much as 22 percent, Anthem Blue Cross 26 percent and Blue Shield of California 20 percent for some of those policy holders, according to the insurers’ filings with the state for 2013.

This comes on top of multiple news reports from last year describing how most family have seen increases up to $3000. (1,2)

Remember this?



The official legislative title Democrats choose for ObamaCare was the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act." During his 2008 presidential campaign and while campaigning for passage of the bill Obama repeatedly said that it would save the average family $2,500 a year. Instead the opposite occurred. Politifact rates this as another Obama promise broken. Not one Republican in either the House or Senate voted for the bill. Obama and the Democrats own it and the consequences which flow from their actions.

Actually, the collapse of meaningful reform that would control rising health costs plays right into the hands of those who advocate more big government as it strengthens their case for a complete take over of health care by the federal government. But be warned. Those who think such a system will be either cheaper or provide better care will be as sadly mistaken as those who believed ObamaCare would lower health insurance premiums.

Meanwhile, the unemployed and others struggling in this bad economy continue to see the cost of everything going up and up with no end in sight. You can thank Obama for it!

UPDATE: Let's not forget all those new taxes in ObamaCare which are about to hit!.Expect health care costs to soar even higher!

Saturday, January 05, 2013

Here We Go Again. Obama Tees Up Debt Ceiling Crisis with Demand for MORE Taxes and Spending

Never let a crisis go to waste!

I hate being right ALL the time. But it's especially annoying when three days ago I warned Obama was going to keep right on with the kind of empty, partisan brinkmanship that we saw during the fiscal farce. A deal that ended up raising taxes MORE on lower income workers than it did on the rich while adding over $4 trillion to the national debt.  Some deal hunh? But Obama was able to ramrod that bill through, including $76 billion in giveaways to Obama's big business buddies. So naturally Obama wants more and it took him less than a week to demand it!

Does this look like a man intent on
serious negotiations  on the debt limit?
Obama is still vacationing in Hawaii but took a break to record his Weekly Radio Address. He started out by talking about how what a great deal the fiscal cliff law was for Americans. Obama said "98% of Americans and 97% of small business will not see their income taxes go up one dime." He neglected to mention that the payroll tax increase will hit poorer workers hardest. Workers and small businesses will be seeing plenty of new taxes related to ObamaCare. But somehow that wasn't mentioned.

Obama added that in any debt limit deal "spending cuts must be balanced with more reforms to our tax code." Translation: higher taxes and more smoke and mirrors on spending.

After the obligatory noises about spending cuts Obama warned that we must "cut spending without shortchanging things like education, job training, research and technology." Translation: no real cuts in anything but defense and plenty of new spending for my corporate and green energy campaign contributors.

The Los Angeles Times headlined the latest gambit as "Obama digs in as debt ceiling fight looms." Par for the course. Set up another phony showdown. Paint Republicans as obstructionists who only care about the rich (even though the latest bill would suggest the opposite is true) and play hardball for every partisan advantage you can get.

Is that really the way to bring the country together on the eve of your second Inauguration?

I also find myself in good company this week with columnist Peggy Noonan. Peggy was a bit slow to realize just who and what Obama really is but she wasn't the only one who was fooled so forgiveness is in order. Here's an excerpt from her latest column describing the fiscal cliff deal and Obama's tactics. See if it doesn't remind you of what I said three days earlier:
He won but he did not triumph. His victory didn't resolve or ease anything, and it heralds nothing but more congressional war to come.

He did not unveil, argue for or put on the table the outlines of a grand bargain. That is, he put no force behind solutions to the actual crisis facing our country, which is the hemorrhagic spending that threatens our future. Progress there—even just a little—would have heartened almost everyone. The president won on tax hikes, but that was an emotional, symbolic and ideological victory, not a substantive one. The higher rates will do almost nothing to ease the debt or deficits.

He didn't deepen any relationships or begin any potential alliances with Republicans, who still, actually, hold the House. The old animosity was aggravated. Some Republicans were mildly hopeful a second term might moderate those presidential attitudes that didn't quite work the first time, such as holding himself aloof from the position and predicaments of those who oppose him, while betraying an air of disdain for their arguments. He is not quick to assume good faith. Some thought his election victory might liberate him, make his approach more expansive. That didn't happen.
...

After the past week it seems clear Mr. Obama doesn't really want to work well with the other side. He doesn't want big bipartisan victories that let everyone crow a little and move forward and make progress. He wants his opponents in disarray, fighting without and within. He wants them incapable. He wants them confused.

I worried the other day that amid all the rancor the president would poison his future relations with Congress, which in turn would poison the chances of progress in, say, immigration reform. But I doubt now he has any intention of working with them on big reforms, of battling out a compromise at a conference table, of having long walks and long talks and making offers that are serious, that won't be changed overnight to something else. The president intends to consistently beat his opponents and leave them looking bad, or, failing that, to lose to them sometimes and then make them look bad. That's how he does politics.
...
He is a uniquely polarizing figure. A moderate U.S. senator said the other day: "One thing not said enough is he is the most divisive president in modern history. He doesn't just divide the Congress, he divides the country."
As long as Obama senses he has a partisan advantage in playing the game this way the problems that confront us will never go away. We'll just continue to lurch from one manufactured crisis to another. In his radio address Obama said "our economy can’t afford more protracted showdowns or manufactured crises along the way." But that's just exactly what he has in mind!

Friday, January 04, 2013

New Hampshire Dem Legislator Wants to "Restrict the Freedom" of Conservatives in the Granite State

Imagine for a moment if ANY Republican openly expressed a desire to pass laws restricting the rights of Democrat voters!

At heart many leftists are fascists pure and simple. Whether it's on a college campus, in your local community or here online their goal is to shut down free speech and limit the freedom of those with whom they disagree. From Breitbart here's another example:
A New Hampshire legislator wants her constituents to know that she feels conservatives are the "single biggest threat" her state faces today, and she wants to use her powers to legislate to "pass measures that will restrict" the freedoms of Granite State conservatives.
In her December 21 post, Chase wrote that, "Free Staters are the single biggest threat the state is facing today."
"In the opinion of this Democrat, Free Staters are the single biggest threat the state is facing today. There is, legally, nothing we can do to prevent them from moving here to take over the state, which is their openly stated goal. In this country you can move anywhere you choose and they have that same right. What we can do is to make the environment here so unwelcoming that some will choose not to come, and some may actually leave. One way is to pass measures that will restrict the 'freedoms' that they think they will find here. Another is to shine the bright light of publicity on who they are and why they are coming."
As New Hampshirite Steve MacDonald notes, "this sounds like tyranny."

Imagine if a legislator had written a blog post targeting the freedoms of gays, or women, or some other minority? One would think that the media would go wild with such a story. But here we have an elected official suggesting that government be used in the United States of America to eliminate freedoms for certain citizens in order to gain political control and the media is silent. 

In the past Democrats used organizations like the Ku Klux Klan to intimidate those with differing views. They are more subtle today but the goal is the same!

Surprise! Surpise! Lowest Income Workers Get Screwed Worst in Obama Tax Deal

Don't say we didn't warn you!

Plus other tidbits exposing the incompetence and hypocrisy of Team Obama

UPDATE:

*Joseph Curl reports the whining of Obama voters who just figured out how much the tax increase will cost THEM!

*Matthew Continetti points out that the 99% who will pay $100 billion in higher taxes are also funding the tens of billions to Obama's 1% friends and campaign contributors. Do all those super rich Hollywood and big business billionaires like Obama buddy Warren Buffet really need billions in tax breaks?

*Michael Goodwin reminds us that Leona Helmsley once said "only the little people pay taxes." Under Obama she's right! Goodwin also recounts how the super rich, like former Vice President Al Gore, rushed to sell assets before the end of the year to avoid paying more after the increase in capital gains taxes. V.P. Joe Biden said paying taxes was "patriotic." What does this say about Al Gore, the Hollywood crowd and mega billionaires like Warren Buffet?

*Millionaires, Billionaires and the Middle Class Get Screwed

Obama is like a broken record when it comes to taxes. Millionaires and billionaires should "pay their fair share" in a "balanced approach" that protects the Middle Class. Obama even held a campaign style event at the White House as the deal reached the final stages where he praised how this would protect the Middle Class.

So, who gets screwed the most in the Obama tax deal? Middle and lower income workers. While income taxes are going up on higher income workers, the payroll tax cut was left to expire. As a result the  the overall tax increase will be greater on lower income workers.

One Democrat online activist got the shock in his paycheck today. "My paycheck just went down by an amount that I don’t feel comfortable with." You got what you voted for pal!

*Unemployment up again. Women, blacks and young hardest hit



Many in Obama's key voting blocs may yet escape the tax increase. That's because more of them are out of work. While the overall unemployment rate was revised up by only .1% the rate for younger workers and blacks has gone dramatically higher. The rate for women has gone up as well.

Enjoy the time off. You voted for it!

Photobucket* Hurricane Sandy Victim Victimized by Obama

Remember this photo? Obama hugging a victim of Hurricane Sandy in New Jersey. It helped Obama turn around his failing campaign in the wake of Mitt Romney's stellar debate performance. Obama promised Donna Vanzant "immediate help" and all she got when she emailed to follow up was a form letter.

In a recent interview Donna described her experience with Obama:
When you get a hug from the President of the United States, you feel like there’s something there. A promise was made. I have two grown kids. One is a U.S. Navy diver. The other one lives at the marina with his wife and new baby, and they lost everything. But I raised my kids to know that your word is your word. You promise something, you keep it, and that was a broken promise. I’ve never been a person to expect free handouts, but the President gave me hope. But now, I just don’t know.
Sorry Donna. Obama got what he needed from you and all you got were empty words. There are a lot of other folks who feel the same!

Obama White House Still Discriminating Against Women

Actions speak louder than words. During the 2012 campaign Dems claimed Republicans were waging a "war on women" just because we didn't want to pay for birth control. Yet the real war on women is happening every day in the Obama White House where women are few in high places and get paid on average 18% less than male workers.

Don't worry girls. You can always get a hug from Obama when he needs a photo-op!


Thursday, January 03, 2013

A Mass Shooting You Did NOT Hear About

One day after the Newton massacre, a gunman in Texas was stopped by an armed guard at a San Antonio, Texas movie theater.

Thanks to Always on Watch for this story.

Another tragedy was averted in Texas but you probably didn't hear about it. Instead of news images of bloody survivors or funerals the outcome was an injured shooter who is now in custody.

Armed guards are not the only answer to preventing such tragedies. But they certainly are part of the solution. Better mental health policies is another. Gun control would not have stopped ANY of these shootings! But don't tell Democrats who are hell bent on punishing over 99% of Americans who own firearms and conduct themselves lawfully.

Meanwhile, Obama's hometown, Chicago Illinois, is the murder capital of the U.S.A. followed closely by Detroit, Michigan. Both have strict gun laws. On the flip side, Aurora, the second largest city in Illinois and previously a very violent place, had ZERO murders in 2012. The difference wasn't gun control, but a campaign targeting violent gangs.

Odd how Democrats in Washington, DC haven't figured out that targeting gang violence and those who misuse firearms does more to prevent violent crime than gun control measures that largely serve to punish lawful gun owners. I wonder why that is? Perhaps Dems are more interested in scoring political points than solutions?

Wednesday, January 02, 2013

Fiscal Cliff Farce

When will Democrats become more serious about actually solving problems than scoring cheap political points?

Republicans buckled on the Fiscal Cliff farce and gave Obama most of what he wanted. In return, Obama is demanding more spending and even higher taxes. Obama continues to assert that he favors a "balanced" approach yet the deal he demanded favored new taxes over cuts by a ratio of 41:1. Worse still, with all the corrupt pork (Obama calls them "investments) in the bill, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill will increase the deficit by $4 trillion more than had Congress not enacted it. So much for fiscal sanity.

And were not enough, this sad charade will be played out again with yet other engineered crisis; this time on another debt ceiling increase.

If you have been paying attention the last four years, one constant stands out. Obama always seeks to either exploit or engineer a crisis then demand action. But instead of actually solving the problem Obama is content to attack Republicans then declare victory at whatever point it suits him and move on to the next. This is true of more than just fiscal issues; health care, immigration, gun control, energy you name it. Obama's focus is always on politics and never on providing the leadership that would actually help both parties come together and solve problems.

The above is hardly an original thought. In his book, "The Price of Politics" Bob Woodward describes Obama's weak and ineffectual leadership style. But what Woodward and others like Victor Davis Hanson miss is that politics, especially the corrupt Chicago Way is all that Obama knows and he is incapable of doing more even if he wanted to.

Obama probably feels that because he was re-elected that people like what he is doing. Perhaps he should ask his campaign team who know better. Had Republicans mounted a more aggressive field challenge in five key states instead of wasting the money on campaign ads we'd be preparing to inaugurate Mitt Romney.

Instead, we are stuck with four more years like the last four. Bitter partisanship with Obama failing to lead and only dividing the country more while the problems just keep piling up higher and higher. By the time a Republican gets in the White House in 2017 the mess will be so huge perhaps even Democrats will know who to blame this time. But don't hold your breath!

UPDATE: Billions in Pork for Obama's Corporate Friends

The Washington Examiner has the story on how the White House insisted that billions in giveaways to big corporations and Hollywood found themselves inserted into a bill that was supposed to serve the public good by addressing fiscal problems. It's more pay to play, the Chicago Way. The only game Obama knows.

Turning the Tables on Hollywood's Gun Hypocrites

The same celebrities who lecture us on guns produce many of the movies with the most gun violence!

The usual Hollywood crowd came out last week and produced a video demanding tougher gun laws. That means that while these pampered, rich actors will continue to have an army of armed guards to protect them, they want law abiding citizens to surrender their Second Amendment rights. In the video called "Demand a Plan to End Gun Violence" various celebrities read the names of recent mass shootings. The following video splices in this reading with clips from each of their films which show graphic gun violence:


Jamie Fox: "Kill all the white people in the movie"

Isn't it great that these empty headed celebrities, who made their fortunes glorifying gun violence now want to put an end to mass shootings? Perhaps they should start by refusing to play violent roles! Nah...why should THEY sacrifice for the public good?

On a related topic, the White House petition demanding that CNN anchorman Piers Morgan be deported for this anti-constitutional rants against gun owners has reached over 100,000 signatures. But like every other plea from average citizens who are not members of a union favoring Obama or campaign contributors, this too will be ignored!
fsg053d4.txt Free xml sitemap generator