Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Obama is Releasing 30,000 Illegal Aliens to Scare Americans w/ Sequesteria!

If Bush, or any Republican President, had done this he would be impeached!



So, along with handing lawbreakers a Get Out of Jail Free card what do you bet the Obama Administration signs the illegals up for Food Stamps and gives them a voter registration application!

Monday, February 25, 2013

Obama's Unending Campaign: The Very Definition of Corruption

To paraphrase Ed Morrissey: Is anyone surprised that a corrupt Chicago politician turned out to be a corrupt Chicago politician?

Can you believe this? Obama's campaign organization isn't disbanding following his re-election, they are growing larger. Why? Who knows but even MSNBC and the NY Times have noticed that something isn't quite kosher about it all.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air has the story with excerpts from the New York Times and a video report at MSNBC that detail the troubling aspects of selling access to the President and top staff in return for money to keep his campaign operation in business. From the MSNBC report:
Excuse us? This just looks bad. It looks like the White House is selling access. The definition of how you define selling access. If you believe money has a stranglehold over the entire political system, this is ceding the moral high ground. And the President always has, from the moment he first announced his presidential bid in Springfield, six years ago, he stressed the need to curb the influence of special interests in Washington.
Two things bother me about this. First, I remember how big money corrupted the Nixon re-election campaign in 1972. Corruption that eventually led to Watergate and Nixon's resignation. But no fear of Obama being forced to resign. The same media that hounded Nixon from office is actively covering up for Obama. David Freddoso's new book, Spin Masters: How the Media Ignored the Real News and Helped Elect Barack Obama, lays it all out for any who haven't been paying attention.

Second, maintaining a campaign operation is yet another signal that Obama does not intend to lead in the tradition of past presidents who sought to bring the country together. It signals that Obama intends to continue being President of the Left while actively seeking to damage Republicans. No wonder Gallup rates Obama as the most polarizing President in modern American history.

Just one more bit of proof that you can take the politician out of Chicago but you can't take the Chicago out of the politician. So much for hope and change!

Winter Got You in It's Grip?

Or is it just Obama's Sequester that is driving you nuts?

A second giant snow in less than a week is gripping the United States. Similar snows are gripping the United Kingdom where this cheeky squirrel braved the weather in the Yorkshire Dales. More at the Daily Mail.

 photo Squirrel_zps3dbc7ec5.jpg

Also at the Daily Mail from last week, a stunning series of photos shot by a professional photographer as the meteor exploded over Russia. Or maybe it was just Obama's Sequester scare campaign bombing?

Michelle Obama Praises Hollywood as an Example for Nation's Children

Really? Example of what? How to commit mass murder?

Media mavens gasped with delight and surprise when Michelle Obama showed up via videolink to present the Best Movie award at the Oscars on Sunday. You might wonder their reaction if Mitt Romney had been elected and his wife Ann showed up.

But it's not really much of a shocker for Michelle to show up. After all, Hollywood was among Obama's biggest group of supporters and in turn, Hollywood's rich and powerful got hundreds of millions in tax breaks in the fiscal cliff deal at the same time America's middle and lower income workers saw a huge tax increase. Besides, Michelle never turns down an opportunity to party!

But it's what Michelle said in her remarks that really perked my interest. She praised Hollywood as an example to our children:
MICHELLE OBAMA: “These lessons apply to all of us – no matter who we are or what we look like or who we love, but they are especially important for our young people. Every day, through engagement in the arts, our children learn to open their imagination, to dream just a little bigger , and to strive every day to reach those dreams. And I want to thank all of you here tonight for being part of that vitally important work.”
Was part of that "vitally important work" the Hollywood films that motivated the Aurora, Colorado shooter at the theater showing the Batman movie last year? Was it that deranged killer's imagination that was stimulated with the goal to "dream just a little bigger" in the planning for his crime? And what about the Newtown school shooter. We know the role violent video games, which go hand in glove with Hollywood movies, played in the Adam Lanza's spiral into evil.

Then there's mass murder which goes on in Obama's hometown of Chicago every single day despite some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. Young black men killing each other and innocent children along with them. Do these shooters "learn to open their imagination, to dream just a little bigger" because of the violence they see depicted on screen?

Django Unchained won an Oscar Sunday night. It's the film where star Jamie Foxx, who called Obama our "lord and savior," joked that "I kill all the white people in the movie. How great is that?"
Here's a clip from the film. Tell me this is art....


Michelle Obama: "our children learn to open their imagination, to dream just a little bigger."

It's no coincidence that in Obama's great gun grab campaign we hear next to nothing about the erosion of cultural values by violent Hollywood films. Such a declaration would get in the way of a good party for Michelle and might endanger Obama's reputation with his best friends, the Hollywood super rich!

George Will: Obama as "Hysteric in Chief"

What will we do when the President who cried wolf once too often faces a crisis that is NOT one manufactured for political effect?

Great column Sunday by George Will. Here's an excerpt:
Even during this desultory economic recovery, one industry thrives — the manufacture of synthetic hysteria. It is, however, inaccurate to accuse the Hysteric in Chief of crying “Wolf!” about spending cuts under the sequester. He is actually crying “Hamster!”

As in: Batten down the hatches — the sequester will cut $85 billion from this year’s $3.6 trillion budget! Or: Head for the storm cellar — spending will be cut 2.3 percent! Or: Washington chain-saw massacre — we must scrape by on 97.7 percent of current spending! Or: Chaos is coming because the sequester will cut a sum $25 billion larger than was just shoveled out the door (supposedly, but not actually) for victims of Hurricane Sandy! Or: Heaven forfend, the sequester will cut 47 percent as much as was spent on the AIG bailout! Or: Famine, pestilence and locusts will come when the sequester causes federal spending over 10 years to plummet from $46 trillion all the way down to $44.8 trillion! Or: Grass will grow in the streets of America’s cities if the domestic agencies whose budgets have increased 17 percent under President Obama must endure a 5 percent cut!

The sequester has forced liberals to clarify their conviction that whatever the government’s size is at any moment, it is the bare minimum necessary to forestall intolerable suffering.
It's that last paragraph that really stands out for me. Obama and the Dems jacked up federal spending by 5% above the standard post World War II GDP average and now even the slightest dent in that mountain of pork spells Armageddon? Just how dumb does Obama think we are?

Here's a graph which illustrates the level of spending with and without the sequester. Look at it and tell me why the doom and gloom scenario Obama is peddling makes sense:

Full size image here.
Last week Obama put on quite a show with his Sequester photo-op with Emergency First Responders. He followed that up with interviews on local television in selected cities where he continued to bash Republicans and demand they raise taxes again.

If the latest fiscal crisis were real, don't you think that Obama might actually want to reach out to Republicans and show the presidential leadership necessary to find a solution? Isn't that what we elect our Presidents to do? Apparently, he missed that briefing, along with so many others on national security. Obama is campaigning, not leading. Even some in the media have noticed:
“Obama’s been virtually absent from the legislative process” of replacing his sequester, reports Politico. After getting the $600 billion in tax hikes he wanted last month (with no spending cuts), “there has been no discernible effort by the White House to work on a bill that might pass.”
  • “The Obama administration seems to be spending far more time warning of the consequences of the sequester — and blaming Republicans for it — than engaging in actual negotiations that would prevent it,” says ABC News.
  • “The president hasn’t actually come up with a proposal to avert sequestration,” says David Brooks in the New York Times, “let alone one that is politically plausible.”
  • “Tuesday's event had the feeling of a campaign commercial that went too far to be believed,” says the Los Angeles Times.
  • Politico says calls to GOP leaders were “perfunctory,” meant to “inoculate” the president from criticism that he’s campaigning instead of urging Senate Democrats to follow the House and pass legislation replacing his sequester. Their headline asks, “Is President Obama overplaying sequester hand?
  • At some point over the next four long years it's a certainty that this country will face a REAL crisis in either national security or fiscal issues. With a President who has shown ZERO interest in the kind of leadership necessary to solve problems that can only mean the situation will be more dire than it otherwise might. When that day comes we all know who to blame and it won't be George Bush!

    Saturday, February 23, 2013

    It's Obama's Armageddon

    Process for what he claims are dire automatic cuts was HIS IDEA!

    Seems there are a lot of people who will believe anything Obama says no matter what. But even some of them are having a hard time accepting his latest scaremongering campaign blaming the GOP for dire consequences if he doesn't get another tax increase before the sequestration of automatic cuts kicks in next Friday.

    The famous and widely respected Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward of Watergate fame has had enough of the lies. On Friday he published an article in the Post absolutely laying out the documentation proving the sequester was Obama's idea:
    The finger-pointing began during the third presidential debate last fall, on Oct. 22, when President Obama blamed Congress. “The sequester is not something that I’ve proposed,” Obama said. “It is something that Congress has proposed.”

    The White House chief of staff at the time, Jack Lew, who had been budget director during the negotiations that set up the sequester in 2011, backed up the president two days later.

    There was an insistence on the part of Republicans in Congress for there to be some automatic trigger,” Lew said while campaigning in Florida. It “was very much rooted in the Republican congressional insistence that there be an automatic measure.”

    The president and Lew had this wrong. My extensive reporting for my book “The Price of Politics” shows that the automatic spending cuts were initiated by the White House and were the brainchild of Lew and White House congressional relations chief Rob Nabors — probably the foremost experts on budget issues in the senior ranks of the federal government.
    Woodward goes on to point out that Lew, in his confirmation hearings to be Secretary of the Treasury repeated the falsehood. Lying to the Senate in your confirmation hearing. What a great way to get off to a good start as a member of the Obama cabinet. It's almost a prerequisite for the job!

    Here's more:
    Second, Lew testified during his confirmation hearing that the Republicans would not go along with new revenue in the portion of the deficit-reduction plan that became the sequester. Reinforcing Lew’s point, a senior White House official said Friday, “The sequester was an option we were forced to take because the Republicans would not do tax increases.”

    In fact, the final deal reached between Vice President Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in 2011 included an agreement that there would be no tax increases in the sequester in exchange for what the president was insisting on: an agreement that the nation’s debt ceiling would be increased for 18 months, so Obama would not have to go through another such negotiation in 2012, when he was running for reelection.

    So when the president asks that a substitute for the sequester include not just spending cuts but also new revenue, he is moving the goal posts. [Mike: Has everyone forgotten his threat to veto any short term substitute?] His call for a balanced approach is reasonable, and he makes a strong case that those in the top income brackets could and should pay more. But that was not the deal he made.
    So, not only is Obama and his top people lying to Congress and the American people they are breaking an earlier agreement that tax increases for this round were off the table along with a short term fix. But I suppose that since most people aren't paying attention to any of this all they will hear is Obama's class warfare and scare tactics.

    Krauthammer: Sequester "Most Ridiculously Hyped Armageddon Since The Mayan Calendar"

    Speaking of those scare tactics, those who are paying attention know it's all a big lie. Charles Krauthammer isn't the only talking head who has noticed that Obama's hype doesn't match reality:
    JONATHAN KARL ABC NEWS: The spending cuts represent only a fraction of total federal spending. With the cuts, the federal government will spend about $15 billion more this year than it spent last year. Their impact won't be felt right away. The government must give employees 30 days notice before they can force them to take that one unpaid day off. That means you're really going to see the impact sometime in April.

    BILL PLANTE CBS NEWS: People here admit that it could take several months for the public to really feel the pain.

    MAJOR GARRETT CBS NEWS: Those terrible things, should they occur, won't happen rapidly. The public could say, maybe the president cried wolf.
    The problem is that so few people will actually be well enough informed on this or any other big Washington issue to know who is lying. They'll just keep following Obama, the Pied Piper of more and more spending and ever higher taxes right off that "fiscal cliff" he said he would save us from!

    Wednesday, February 20, 2013

    Here We Go Again: Obama Gins Up Crisis Mill w/ Photo Op of Firefighters

    RE-RUN: Trying to scare the poorly informed with straw men and blame it all on the Republicans!

    Will he EVER get serious and provide honest leadership on key issues?

    Another crisis, another photo op, more political posturing!
    On Tuesday Obama surrounded himself with Emergency "first responders" in yet another photo op substitute for presidential leadership. Like the Middle Class photo op that lead to a whopping tax increase on the Middle Class or the school kids photo op for gun control that would do next to nothing to stem gun violence this too is yet another empty, transparently political gesture.

    And to prove the point, Obama used some of the worst scaremongering he could muster. The man has no shame:
    OBAMA: Emergency responders like the ones who are here today -- their ability to help communities respond to and recover from disasters will be degraded.  Border Patrol agents will see their hours reduced.  FBI agents will be furloughed.  Federal prosecutors will have to close cases and let criminals go.  Air traffic controllers and airport security will see cutbacks, which means more delays at airports across the country.  Thousands of teachers and educators will be laid off.  Tens of thousands of parents will have to scramble to find childcare for their kids.  Hundreds of thousands of Americans will lose access to primary care and preventive care like flu vaccinations and cancer screenings.
    In short, you will either lose your job or your kids will die if you don't do what I want right away. And what is it that he wants? Another "balanced approach" like all the other balanced approaches, namely another whopping big tax increase with more spending on wasteful big government programs that only serve the interest of promoting Obama's liberal agenda.

    And as with every Obama campaign-style speech there's a dig at Republicans:
    I know that Republicans have proposed some ideas, too.  I have to say, though, that so far at least the ideas that the Republicans have proposed ask nothing of the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations[.]
    ...
    So now Republicans in Congress face a simple choice:  Are they willing to compromise to protect vital investments in education and health care and national security and all the jobs that depend on them?  Or would they rather put hundreds of thousands of jobs and our entire economy at risk just to protect a few special interest tax loopholes that benefit only the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations?  That's the choice.
    Considering how much effort Obama has put into preserving and creating tax loopholes that benefit HIS big corporate friends that last bit is just pure malarkey!

    It's OBAMA's Plan to Recklessly Slash Spending!

    While Obama knows most Americans haven't been paying attention, some have. In a rare moment of honesty this gem of truth appeared on CNN of all places:


    WOLF BLITZER: Explain why, if this is such a horrible idea – these forced spending cuts – why did the White House come up with this plan in 2011 to begin with?
    GLORIA BORGER: The President kept calling this a manufactured crisis. Well, “in fact, was manufactured right here in Washington by the President of the United States
    House Speaker Boehner responds: “Today the president advanced an argument Republicans have been making for a year: his sequester is the wrong way to cut spending. That’s why the House has twice passed legislation to replace it with common sense cuts and reforms that won’t threaten public safety, national security, or our economy. But once again, the president offered no credible plan that can pass Congress – only more calls for higher taxes. Just last month, the president got his higher taxes on the wealthy, and he’s already back for more. The American people understand that the revenue debate is now closed. We should close loopholes and carve-outs in the tax code, but that revenue should be used to lower rates across the board. Tax reform is a once-in-a generation opportunity to boost job creation in America. It should not be squandered to enable more Washington spending. Spending is the problem, spending must be the focus.
    Obama continues his campaign of scares, partisanship, class warfare and disinformation. Meanwhile, the Middle Class he repeatedly claims to care about continues to suffer more and more due to his policies. High gas prices, higher health care costs. Fewer jobs. All are the bitter fruit of the first four years of Obama! What does he care? One photo op after a million dollar golfing weekend isn't enough to hide his indifference and incompetence!

    Tuesday, February 19, 2013

    Newton School Shooter Addicted to "Thousands of Dollars of Graphically Violent Video Games "

    Instead of going after lawful gun owners why not focus on possible underlying causes of the shooting?

    Noel Sheppard at Newsbusters asks why we only learn this fact now months after the deadly mass shooting? That's easy to answer. It's because it doesn't fit the political agenda of those seeking to limit the freedom of lawful gun owners. Sheppard points out that "if they had found a book by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Ann Coulter, or Glenn Beck it would have been all over the news. But mass quantities of violent video games and hardly a peep.

    We should note that the only attention given to violent video games was Obama's proposal to spend $10 million on a study of the problem. Yeah, that will help.

    Next time some gun grabber starts moralizing on the need for more gun control ask them why they don't do something about the real root of the problem!



    Saturday, February 16, 2013

    A Watershed Moment for Marco Rubio?

    Nah. But you'd be drinking too (and something stronger) if you had just listened to Obama's State of the Union speech and knew how much more your taxes were going up!


    Silly liberal media. They made more noise about Rubio's drink of water than they did the murder of our Ambassador and three other Americans in Libya!

    Despite Over $1 Billion Profit Facebook Pays ZERO Federal Tax

    It's pays to be a Facebook "friend" of Obama!

    It PAYS BIG to be a "friend" of Obama!
    I have two Obama quotes to share with you. One you've heard over and over and over and over. The other, probably not but they connect in this story.

    Variants of the first quote used widely: "millionaires and billionaires should pay their fair share." The second spoken to a Latino audience in 2010: "We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends."

    When it comes to being "friends" with Obama the Facebook corporate crowd is right in tight. Chris Hughes, one of Facebook's founders left the company to help the first Obama campaign with their new media strategy. Obama has been very close to Facebook and it's CEO Mark Zuckerberg is described as having "long maintained a positive and public relationship with President Obama."
    It won't surprise anyone that Facebook's employees have been very generous to the Obama campaign.

    So, considering how Facebook is a fully paid up friend of Obama, it's no surprise they get a payback. But what a whopper!
    Citizens for Tax Justice: Earlier this month, the Facebook Inc. released its first “10-K” annual financial report since going public last year. Hidden in the report’s footnotes is an amazing admission: despite $1.1 billion in U.S. profits in 2012, Facebook did not pay even a dime in federal and state income taxes. Instead, Facebook says it will receive net tax refunds totaling $429 million. Facebook’s income tax refunds stem from the company’s use of a single tax break, the tax deductibility of executive stock options.
    There's a third often used Obama quote. In a speech delivered to a joint session of Congress in 2009 Obama said: "if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime." It's a pledge he's made over and over and repeatedly broken. And while middle and lower income workers have seen dramatic tax increases under Obama, Facebook hasn't had to shell out a "single dime" in taxes for 2012.

    For the record, let's note that the GOP proposed closing tax loopholes on corporations as part of the Fiscal Cliff deal. Obama, who had been for closing loopholes up until the time the GOP proposed them promptly changed course and said "NO." Why? Because he won the election and wasn't about to accept anything from the GOP except complete surrender.

    Let's also note that during the Fiscal Cliff negotiations in which Obama rejected closing corporate tax loopholes he insisted on $76 billion in additional tax benefits for his big corporate buddies like Warren Buffet. It sure does pay to be a friend of Obama!

    The next time Obama demands that millionaires and billionaires should pay more in taxes just remember that this doesn't apply to his friends. It only applies to the rest of us. And guess who ends up paying most under Obama's schemes? The little guy; lower and middle income workers!

    Friday, February 15, 2013

    How the Left Romanticizes the Murderous Rampage of Chris Dorner

    It's almost as if they are justifying  gun violence in the service of a political agenda!

    A few days ago I posted on the news that some on the left were openly embracing Cop Killer Chris Dorner as he remained at large. Now, after Dorner was killed in a stand off with police he is taking on the status of a hero, perhaps even a martyr to some on the left who willfully overlook his crimes in an attempt to advance their political agenda. To them Dorner is more than a whistleblower, he's a Paul Revere figure riding through the land warning of injustice and racism.

    Writing in Salon, Matthew Cunningham-Cook suggested we needed to overlook Dorner's "mental illness and homicidal rage," and focus more on the message he tried to convey. After all, Cunningham-Cook writes:
    Dorner is a wholesale product of a society gone mad on racism and war, of a state that aggressively punishes dissent, of an intellectual milieu where telling the truth has become a dangerous act.
    The cable news media got on this crazy train too. Some liberal outlets spent more time covering the Dorner story and it's aftermath than they did the killing of our Ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi. Why? Because that story and others like it don't fit their narrative for blaming America's problems on some perceived social injustice. Marc Lamont Hill, a contributor to Fox News, (I thought that was a right wing channel) was also on CNN and said this:
     As Dorner himself goes, he’s been like a real-life superhero to many people. Now, don’t get me wrong, what he did was awful, killing innocent people is bad. But when you read his manifesto, you read the message that he left, he wasn’t entirely crazy. He had a plan and a mission, here. And, many people aren’t rooting for him to kill innocent people; they’re rooting for someone who was wronged to get a kind of revenge against the system. It’s almost like watching ‘Django Unchained’ in real life. It’s kind of exciting.”
    Innocent victims of a "real-life superhero"

     
    Did Keith Lawrence and Monica Quan deserve to die to advance the killer's agenda?

    This "superhero" did kill innocent people. Two law enforcement officers were killed by Dorner. But the only link to his two other victims, Lawrence and Quan, was Monica's father who represented Dorner at his LAPD termination hearing.

    On Rush Limbaugh's radio program this week a caller raised the issue of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh who committed mass murder while promoting a far right militia agenda. Imagine the hell that would break loose if anyone dared say we should overlook McVeigh's crime and focus on his message.

    Yet here we have the left, using Dorner as a symbol and rallying cry.  Chauncy DeVega suggests "Christopher Dorner will be transformed through popular culture and storytelling into a figure talked about for decades and centuries to come, with multiple versions of his tales and exploits, shaped by the griots and bards for their respective audiences?" Sickening!

    The message here? Gun crimes and murder can serve a useful purpose to advance a left wing political agenda. No matter how many innocents die. After all, it's like a super hero in your favorite movie!

    Thursday, February 14, 2013

    If Romney's Cayman Islands Bank Account Disqualified Him for Prez Why Does Obama Nominate Treas. Sec. w/ Offshore Accts?

    Just another of many examples of the hypocrisy so evidently on display in the Obama White House!

    Do you remember how the Obama campaign tarred and feathered Mitt Romney over his Cayman Islands bank account? They ran ads attempting to raise suspicion that Romney had something to hide and that having an offshore account wasn't quite the American thing to do [video]. Obama's campaign surrogates and media accomplices spread the notion that Romney "bet against America." Apparently, that's OK but imagine the hell that would break loose if a Republican leader hinted that Obama was "un-American."

    Well, if having an offshore account is such a bad thing then why did Obama nominate Jack Lew who also has a Cayman Islands bank account and while working for Citibank was in charge of quite a few Cayman Islands investments? Twice Obama referred to investments such as Lew's as the "biggest tax scam on record.”

    And let's not forget that Lew also walked away from Citibank with nearly a million in salary and bonuses after the company received more than $45 billion in government bailouts. Obama demonized Wall Street fat cats who walked away with millions of taxpayer bailout money but not a peep about his pal Jack Lew.

    The lesson here is that if you are a friend of Obama's you can "bet against America" using the "biggest tax scam on record" and walk off with hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars and that's somehow OK.

    Just remember that next time Obama starts pointing the finger at millionaires and billionaires in another round of class warfare. Like so much of his fine rhetoric he really doesn't mean it if you have a "D" after your name!

    Wednesday, February 13, 2013

    Obama's Recycled "Not One Dime" Rhetoric in State of the Union Speech

    His audience should have learned their lesson from the last time he broke his "not one dime" pledge on taxes!

    I didn't watch Obama's State of the Union address. I didn't have to. I've heard him say the same things, with nearly the exact wording for four years now. It's no accident that every time he speaks it's like deja vu. It seems they just dust off last years State of the Union speech, change a few dates and voila! It doesn't matter that his rhetoric doesn't match his record. For many, it's Obama and he just sounds so darn earnest and convincing they'll swallow it whole each time.

    Well he did it again on Tuesday. In a speech filled with the usual straw men attacks on Republicans and false promises he recycled some past campaign rhetoric when he described his new spending plans this way: “nothing I’m proposing tonight should increase our deficit by a single dime."

    Obama obviously choose his words carefully and he is correct. Republicans were quick to point out that he hasn't added a "single dime" to the deficit but over 58 trillion dimes and counting.

    Here's video example of his recycled "not one dime" rhetoric:



    Of course lower and middle income workers who heard his campaign promise that he wouldn't raise their taxes by a single dime already know how shifty he was on that one with last month's payroll tax increase; not to mention the tax increases in ObamaCare and a host of others.

    This latest campaign speech by Obama was shocking for the absence of any mention, let alone real leadership on the serious issues confronting the nation. Here's a graphic which illustrates Obama's lack of seriousness on these issues:


    Obama's Address confirms the trend we have seen with his Inaugural Address and every speech since his re-election. We're in for four years of endless political discord led by the Divider in Chief. Meanwhile, our problems will only continue to grow with little hope for real solutions!

    Marco Rubio Gives Vision for a Better State of the Union

    A bit nervous at times but the Marco Magic was there in force!

    Giving the response to the State of the Union speech is a thankless task. After watching the pomp and theater of a joint address to Congress it's a bit an anticlimax to watch one speaker delivering  an address with nothing in the room but a television camera and a teleprompter.

    But like a good soldier Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) made the effort.  He was a bit nervous at first and clearly had dry mouth which prompted a rather unfortunate grab for a bottle of water (photo). There was no cheering crowd to draw out his energy as in the excellent speech he gave to the GOP Convention last summer (video).

    However, to millions of Americans who are tired of slick and care more about substance, Rubio's words were like a Reagan homecoming.



    Excerpts from the full text as prepared for delivery:
    Presidents in both parties – from John F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan – have known that our free enterprise economy is the source of our middle class prosperity.

    But President Obama? He believes it's the cause of our problems. That the economic downturn happened because our government didn't tax enough, spend enough and control enough. And, therefore, as you heard tonight, his solution to virtually every problem we face is for Washington to tax more, borrow more and spend more.

    This idea – that our problems were caused by a government that was too small – it's just not true. In fact, a major cause of our recent downturn was a housing crisis created by reckless government policies.

    And the idea that more taxes and more government spending is the best way to help hardworking middle class taxpayers – that's an old idea that's failed every time it's been tried.

    More government isn't going to help you get ahead. It's going to hold you back.

    More government isn't going to create more opportunities. It's going to limit them.
    ...
    There are valid reasons to be concerned about the President's plan to grow our government. But any time anyone opposes the President's agenda, he and his allies usually respond by falsely attacking their motives.

    When we point out that no matter how many job-killing laws we pass, our government can't control the weather – he accuses us of wanting dirty water and dirty air.

    When we suggest we strengthen our safety net programs by giving states more flexibility to manage them – he accuses us of wanting to leave the elderly and disabled to fend for themselves.

    And tonight, he even criticized us for refusing to raise taxes to delay military cuts – cuts that were his idea in the first place. But his favorite attack of all is that those who don't agree with him – they only care about rich people.

    Mr. President, I still live in the same working class neighborhood I grew up in. My neighbors aren't millionaires. They're retirees who depend on Social Security and Medicare. They're workers who have to get up early tomorrow morning and go to work to pay the bills. They're immigrants, who came here because they were stuck in poverty in countries where the government dominated the economy. The tax increases and the deficit spending you propose will hurt middle class families. It will cost them their raises. It will cost them their benefits. It may even cost some of them their jobs.

    And it will hurt seniors because it does nothing to save Medicare and Social Security.

    So Mr. President, I don't oppose your plans because I want to protect the rich. I oppose your plans because I want to protect my neighbors.

    Hard-working middle class Americans who don't need us to come up with a plan to grow the government. They want a plan to grow the middle class.
    Rubio went on to point out that Obama's solution to every problem is more taxes and more spending. Apparently, it doesn't matter to Obama whether those ideas work or not. Americans, especially those in the Middle Class, can see how a left wing big government ideology leaves them in the lurch.

    As an audition for the 2016 GOP nomination Rubio didn't do so well on the optics. But he understands the problem and can communicate them effectively when he's not in need of hydration.

    P.S. On the You Tube page with Rubio's speech another lover of civility left the message "somebody shoot this guy." Another left wing fascist. What else is new?

    Tuesday, February 12, 2013

    North Korea Nuke Test a Rebuke of Obama's Failed Foreign Policy

    North Korea "mocks Obama's no nukes fetish" in State of the Union Address!

    Just yesterday I posted an excerpt from Obama's big foreign policy speech as he began his campaign for President in 2007. In light of North Korea's detonation of a nuclear device yesterday, Obama's words from 2007 are worth repeating. In his address at the Woodrow Wilson Center then Senator Obama said:
    OBAMA: And I won’t hesitate to use the power of American diplomacy to stop countries from obtaining these weapons or sponsoring terror. The lesson of the Bush years is that not talking does not work. Go down the list of countries we’ve ignored and see how successful that strategy has been. We haven’t talked to Iran, and they continue to build their nuclear program. We haven’t talked to Syria, and they continue support for terror. We tried not talking to North Korea, and they now have enough material for 6 to 8 more nuclear weapons.
    ...
    I will work with our friend and allies, but I won’t outsource our diplomacy in Tehran to the Europeans, or our diplomacy in Pyongyang to the Chinese. I will do the careful preparation needed, and let these countries know where America stands. They will no longer have the excuse of American intransigence.
    In a companion article in the journal Foreign Affairs Obama went one step further saying he would put together the "strong international coalition," that would "eliminate North Korea's nuclear weapons program." He couldn't help blaming Bush for the current problem "our first measure must be sustained, direct, and aggressive diplomacy -- the kind that the Bush administration has been unable and unwilling to use."

    All those fine sounding words cannot cover up the massive failure from the last four years of Obama's indifferent, inconsistent and incompetent foreign policy.

    Let's "go down the list" again and see where we are. Iran is five years closer to building a bomb. Early in his first term Obama ignored the Persian "spring" as protesters in Tehran called to him for help in overthrowing the theocracy that continues to fund and fuel terror around the world. In Syria, Obama does nothing while the Syrian government continues to slaughter it's citizens by the tens of thousands. And North Korea continues without pause it's missile and nuclear weapons programs.

    Obama: North Korean nuke test "a threat to U.S. national security "

    Obama did have some strong words in the White House statement released following news of the latest nuke test:
    North Korea’s nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs constitute a threat to U.S. national security and to international peace and security. The United States remains vigilant in the face of North Korean provocations and steadfast in our defense commitments to allies in the region.
    ...
    The danger posed by North Korea’s threatening activities warrants further swift and credible action by the international community. The United States will also continue to take steps necessary to defend ourselves and our allies. We will strengthen close coordination with allies and partners and work with our Six-Party partners, the United Nations Security Council, and other UN member states to pursue firm action.
    More empty words. Especially so when you consider that in his State of the Union address Tuesday Obama will propose further cuts in the U.S. nuclear arsenal. This on top of earlier drastic cuts to missile defense.

    Since Obama's foreign policy can be summed up by the words of one White House aide as "leading from behind" there's little likelihood more empty, recycled rhetoric from Obama will change the dangerous downward trajectory that "international peace and security" is on. That  "strong international coalition" hasn't materialized. Perhaps because there has been no "sustained, direct, and aggressive diplomacy" that would bring it into being.

    Obama hailed Hillary Clinton as a great Secretary of State as she stepped down last month. But even a great Secretary of State, which Mrs. Clinton was not, is not enough to lead the world in dealing with these complicated problems. It takes direct, personal engagement and leadership from the President of the United States and that's something we have not got.  We shouldn't be too surprised. After all, Obama wasn't engaged as Americans were being murdered in the Benghazi September 11th attacks. He's done nothing to lead on the world stage. Nothing but empty words and recycled speeches.

    I have no doubt we would all be better off if President Bush were still in the White House!

    Monday, February 11, 2013

    Obama Policy to Kill American Citizens Without Judicial Review Stands in Stark Contrast to Promises of Candidate Obama

    Across the board in foreign affairs, national security and civil liberties his policies and their consequences are worse than anything of which George Bush was accused!

    Obama's declaration that he has the right to kill American citizens suspected of terrorism without judicial review was a shock but not a surprise to many. It's a cliché by now to repeat that Obama's deeds in so many things did not match the high sounding positions he took as a candidate before the 2008 election. But it's worth a reminder of just how far Obama has gone from those days when he promised to restore America's moral standing in the world.

    August 1, 2007 then Senator Obama delivered one of those carefully crafted teleprompter speeches with all the right sounding words. His address laid out a multi point plan to address what he said were America's weak points in foreign affairs and national security policy including the war on terrorism. It's worth reading just to see how little he has accomplished. But then, for Obama words mean more than deeds or accomplishments.

    Obama was particularly harsh in criticizing Bush Administration policy in fighting the war on terror:
    OBAMA: I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom. That means no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.
    Of course Obama continued with ALL of the Bush Administration policies he referenced above and added the new one recently authorizing killing American citizens. While I was reading the speech transcript I couldn't help noticing a few other areas:
    OBAMA: And I won’t hesitate to use the power of American diplomacy to stop countries from obtaining these weapons or sponsoring terror. The lesson of the Bush years is that not talking does not work. Go down the list of countries we’ve ignored and see how successful that strategy has been. We haven’t talked to Iran, and they continue to build their nuclear program. We haven’t talked to Syria, and they continue support for terror. We tried not talking to North Korea, and they now have enough material for 6 to 8 more nuclear weapons.
    ...
    I will work with our friend and allies, but I won’t outsource our diplomacy in Tehran to the Europeans, or our diplomacy in Pyongyang to the Chinese. I will do the careful preparation needed, and let these countries know where America stands. They will no longer have the excuse of American intransigence.
    The problem is that Obama's talking, or at least trying to, to rogue states like Iran and North Korea hasn't worked any better. Iran is further along with a nuclear device than they were five years ago and continues to export arms and terrorism. The recent discovery of a massive Iranian arms shipment to radicals in Yemen is proof enough of that. And what a shame we don't have a White House press corps that could ask Obama how his policy of engagement has paid off in Syria with the death toll there rising over 60,000.

    As far as candidate Obama's complaint about "outsourcing our diplomacy" that's exactly what President Obama has done in critical situations like Libya where one White House aide described Administration policy as "leading from behind." We've all seen how that worked out.

    Then there's this:
    Al Qaeda’s new recruits come from Africa and Asia, the Middle East and Europe.
    ...
    We know where extremists thrive. In conflict zones that are incubators of resentment and anarchy. In weak states that cannot control their borders or territory, or meet the basic needs of their people. From Africa to central Asia to the Pacific Rim– nearly 60 countries stand on the brink of conflict or collapse. The extremists encourage the exploitation of these hopeless places on their hate-filled websites.
    Under Obama the anarchy that fuels Al Queda has spread to Libya, Algeria and our once stable ally Egypt. Also, states like Mali are currently under siege by Al Queda whose hand was strengthened by American provided training for local troops that then defected to the enemy.

    Finally, in Obama's 2007 speech he talked about viewing world trouble spots from a helicopter as a U.S. Senator and wondered "when those faces look up at an American helicopter, do they feel hope, or do they feel hate? " Do those faces now look up and fear the next American drone attack? So much for hope and change!

    Saturday, February 09, 2013

    Left Wing Obama Loving Cop Killer Goes on Murder Spree

    Why are his connections to Obama and the left being covered up?

    Remember how some in the "news" media did their best to link mass shootings in Arizona and Colorado to right wing groups? And despite every bit of evidence to the contrary they continued to push the line that the shootings might have been motivated by something as innocuous as Sarah Palin's PAC using a target in her political advertising.

    Well, what would happen if you had an actual racist right wing Rambo who openly proclaimed support for conservatives leaders and causes while going on a killing spree? Do you think that might lead newscasts from coast to coast and capture the front page of every newspaper?

    One of many Social Media postings praising Dorner.
    Imagine the outcry if a conservative did this!
    So, why are news reports of the African American cop killer, Christopher Dorner, who  praised Obama, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton and supported liberal causes in his manifesto largely silent on these connections? Remember how they tried to link Jared Loughner's mass shooting in Tucson to Rush Limbaugh and talk radio? Why no mention that Dorner was a big fan of left wing commentator Piers Morgan on CNN?

    And let's not leave out the fact that some left wingers are openly supporting Dorner on Social Media. Imagine the outcry if Tea Party members did that for a killer?

    Not only is the so called "news" media not reporting these connections, they are actively omitting them from much of the reporting.

    Here's the bottom line. We have a killer on the loose with clear affinity for left wing politicians and causes. Can we now demand these left wingers live up the same standard for political discourse and accountability for their words that they daily demand from those on the right?

    Yeah. Thought not!

    Thursday, February 07, 2013

    Obama AWOL During September 11th Benghazi Attack

    What WAS he doing that was more important than the lives of our Ambassador and other Americans?

    Shocking, though not surprising, testimony Thursday at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Both Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey were asked repeatedly what Obama knew and when did he know it about the Al Queda attack in Libya last fall that left our Ambassador and three other Americans dead.

    Here are video excerpts of the relevant portions with questions from Senators Ayotte (R-NH) and Graham (R-SC:


    The bottom line? Obama was informed that the attack was occurring at a brief regularly scheduled meeting. Secretary Panetta said that Obama authorized action to "do everything we needed to do to protect lives there." That appears to be the only directive Obama issued though there is apparently no paper trail even for that. There was no follow-up contact with Obama or anyone at the White House as the attacks proceeded.

    Not only that, but nothing was done to protect our personnel. Both Graham and Ayotte, along with Senator McCain (R-AZ) were left incredulous that no forces were sent to help.

    Considering how the Obama Administration used the photo of Obama in the Situation Room during the raid to kill Osama bin Laden to demonstrate his style as a hands on Commander in Chief, it's a fair question to ask why neither Obama, or anyone else at the White House, expressed any interest in this attack, happening as it did on September 11, 2012. When you consider the political hay made by the left as President Bush remained in the classroom with school children for a few minutes before assuming full command during the original September 11th attack the questions about Obama's conduct, or the lack of it, during the many hours this attack progressed only continue to mount!

    Wednesday, February 06, 2013

    Ban Democrats, Not Guns

    Is it any coincidence that nearly all the cities with the highest gun rate of gun deaths are Democrat enclaves with a majority Democrat population run by generations of Democrat politicians?

     It's a safe bet that these cities have strict gun laws that criminals ignore. Dems also oppose many of the community policing practices that have proven so effective in reducing gun crime.


    In his push for gun control Obama is fond of saying "if there's one life we can save, we've got an obligation to try." Columnist Ron Hart points out: "Only 323 deaths last year were caused by assault weapons; 496 Americans were killed with hammers and 650 with knives; 12,000 people died because of drunk drivers. Millions of Americans are dying from obesity-related causes; perhaps a one-week waiting period to buy a Twinkie is next? Or shall we confiscate all forks?"

    One more gun related quickie. This from the Sheriff of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. In a nutshell: It's too late to call 911 when the wolf is at the door. Don't be a victim. Defend yourself!

     
    There are many stories to back up the Sheriff's concern.  Should these folks who lawfully defended themselves be put at risk by misguided legislation that won't stop criminals?
     

    Q: As Obama Declares Right to Kill American Citizens w/o Due Process, Where is the Civil Liberties Crowd Who Hounded Bush?

    A: They're working in the White House!

    Three American citizens, including a 16 year old boy, were killed by an Obama drone strike in 2011. Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan were known Al Queda terrorists but  Abdulrahman the 16 year old teenage son of al-Awlaki, born in Denver, had no record as a terrorist. None of the three American citizens was afforded the same due process that the Obama Administration would extend to the captured Al Queda terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. No lawyers, no trial, no judicial review before their killing. According to the Justice Department opinion authorizing such action, killing of American citizens can be based on the arbitrary decision of ambiguous U.S. officials.

    Remember all the caterwauling against the Patriot Act, FISA monitoring of terrorist communications, Gitmo and the waterboarding of JUST THREE terrorists? Obama and the Democrats used each of these to accuse the Bush Administration of trampling on the Constitution and civil liberties. Now, the Obama team assumes the power to kill American citizens without due process and we hear hardly a squeak from the professional worry warts who screamed about Bush policies. Forget death panels in health care. We now have an officially sanctioned Obama death squad!

    Before he was elected Senator Obama said "When I am president we won't work in secret to avoid honoring our laws and Constitution, we will be straight with the American people and true to our values."  As a candidate he also promised to end "warrantless wiretaps" that Democrats falsely called "domestic spying" and rein in the Patriot Act as well as Close the detention facility at Gitmo. He failed on all counts.


    Pete Wehner writing in Commentary Magazine had this take on the issue:
    So what do you think Senator Barack Obama would have said if President George W. Bush had pursued these policies? And how do you think the press and the political class would have reacted? 
     Let me suggest as well that a man who feels wholly at ease with drone strikes that have killed American citizens suspected of engaging in terrorist activities without the benefit of a trial and which have, in the process, killed hundreds of innocent people should be a tad bit more careful when it comes to lecturing about the immorality of enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs). Joe Scarborough, for example, argued that what Bush did with EITs is “child’s play” compared to what Obama has done.
    During the 2008 campaign and much of the early part of his presidency, Barack Obama obsessively argued that waterboarding all of three individuals–September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and senior al-Qaeda leaders Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri–was a violation of human rights and a grave moral offense. Here’s the thing, though: unlike Mr. Obama’s drone strikes, no American citizens, no terrorists and no innocent children have died due to waterboarding. Yet the president’s press spokesman is defending Mr. Obama’s policies as “legal,” “ethical,” and “wise.”
    Jim Treacher adds "Is it okay to pour water on a terrorist’s face if it’s dropped from an unmanned drone? He goes on to say: "It’s almost as if lefties don’t really believe the things they harangue the rest of us about. It’s almost as if their only principle is obtaining and maintaining power." I've been saying the same thing for years Jim. Pick an issue. Any issue. The left's position on it is relative to whether the President in power has a D or an R after their name.

    Jon Stewart on the Daily Show showcases the hypocrisy of the Obama Administration and their lack of transparency in how they reached this decision. But hypocrisy is nothing new for Obama.

    Finally, Rich Lowry ponders whether the Obama officials who devised this policy will face the same kind of public scrutiny directed at Vice President Cheney and war planners in the Bush White House? Yeah, right! From Rich's column in Politico:
    Barack Obama was going to be different. We had this on the highest possible authority: Barack Obama. As the junior senator from Illinois in 2007, he set out his alternative vision: “The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.”

    In a speech as president in 2009, he said we are at war with Al Qaeda and must update our institutions to deal with it. “But,” he added, pointedly, “we must do so with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process; in checks and balances and accountability.”
    ...
    It’s not for nothing that the author of the white paper sounds like he could have worked for Dick Cheney. The Obama administration’s approach reflects the logic of the laws of war, the structure of American government and the exigencies of the fight against Al Qaeda.
    ...
    This is not to say that the white paper is beyond reproach, or that it made sense to keep it secret for so long, but the basic point would seem obvious. Democratic partisans might be confused. They considered Bush a threat to America’s liberty because of his defense of his war powers, yet their hero stands on similar ground. How to resolve the contradiction? Easy. Conclude that they were wrong the first time.
    Like that will ever happen!

    As Hillary Clinton would say "what difference does it make?" When a Democrat is President those who profess concern for civil liberties, or any other value, are largely silent.

    February Gas Prices at Record Highs

    The Obama war on oil means YOU pay more for gas!
    CNBC: According to AAA, the national average price of regular gasoline is $3.52 a gallon, 4 cents higher than the average price a year ago. The average price was $3.35 a gallon a week ago and $3.30 a gallon a month ago.  

    Meanwhile, the U.S. Energy Information Administration reported Monday that gasoline expenditures in 2012 for the average U.S. household reached $2,912, or just under 4 percent of income before taxes. This was the highest estimated percentage of household income spent on gasoline in nearly three decades,
    Obama continues to block oil projects that would increase supply and bring the price down. It's been 1600 days since the application for the Keystone XL Pipeline was first submitted. The House Energy and Commerce Committee points out :
    • It took 491 days to build the Pentagon.
    • Lewis and Clark took 1,121 days to explore the American West.
    • It took the Greatest Generation 1,366 days to fight and win World War II,
    • It took President Obama and congressional Democrats 428 days to ram through Obamacare and transform our health care system under their one party rule.
    An Energy and Commerce subcommittee is currently conducting hearings to determine the latest overview of American domestic energy supplies of oil, gas and coal. One conclusion is already clear: We could gain American Energy Independence in a short period of time if the government got out of the way

    Instead, Obama and the Democrats keep their boot on the throat of American energy in hopes that the billions wasted in green energy projects run by Obama campaign contributors will take off. Meanwhile, we discover that not only are these green firms going bankrupt and leaving taxpayers on the hook for billions, overseas subsidiaries of American firms have been creating jobs in foreign countries with Obama cash!

    Finally, Obama's big push for electric cars is going nowhere. Despite massive government subsidies the electric car industry is failing. Further proof that the free market, not government, is the best driver of change. Too bad Obama isn't listening.

    Saturday, February 02, 2013

    Obama Blames "Bad Decisions in Washington" for Bad Economic News

    Yet refuses to accept any of the responsibility for those "bad decisions" as he doubles down on the spending requests "investments" that have done nothing to spur growth!

    After four years of weak economic growth and high unemployment you would think Obama would learn. But apparently the blame game and politics is all he knows how to do.

    Here's an excerpt from his Weekly Address. I've highlighted certain phrases for discussion:
    [T]his week, we also received the first estimate of America’s economic growth over the last few months. And it reminded us that bad decisions in Washington can get in the way of our economic progress.

    We all agree that it’s critical to cut unnecessary spending. But we can’t just cut our way to prosperity. It hasn’t worked in the past, and it won’t work today. It could slow down our recovery. It could weaken our economy. And it could cost us jobs – now, and in the future.

    What we need instead is a balanced approach; an approach that says let’s cut what we can’t afford but let’s make the investments we can’t afford to live without. Investments in education and infrastructure, research and development – the things that will help America compete for the best jobs and new industries.

    Already, Republicans and Democrats have worked together to reduce our deficits by $2.5 trillion. That’s a good start. But to get the rest of the way, we need a balanced set of reforms.

    For example, we need to lower the cost of health care in programs like Medicare that are the biggest drivers of our deficit, without just passing the burden off to seniors. And these reforms must go hand-in-hand with eliminating excess spending in our tax code, so that the wealthiest individuals and biggest corporations can’t take advantage of loopholes and deductions that aren’t available to most Americans.

    2013 can be a year of solid growth, more jobs, and higher wages. But that will only happen if we put a stop to self-inflicted wounds in Washington. Everyone in Washington needs to focus not on politics but on what’s right for the country; on what’s right for you and your families. That’s how we’ll get our economy growing faster. That’s how we’ll strengthen our middle class. And that’s how we’ll build a country that rewards the effort and determination of every single American.

    "Bad decisions in Washington can get in the way of our economic progress. "

    You mean like ObamaCare? Or perhaps your quest to shut down development of energy resources other than the massive spending on green energy (with so many of those firms going bankrupt). And what about the massive regulatory burden your Administration is placing on business?

    No... Obama doesn't mean any of that. It's just another political dig at Republicans.\

    "Balanced approach; an approach that says let’s cut what we can’t afford but let’s make the investments "

    Oh, there's that "balanced approach again." Like the balanced approach in the so-called "fiscal cliff" deal that saw a HUGE tax increase and next to nothing in cuts? And there's the word "investment" again  too. A code word for more wasteful spending on liberal programs that do nothing to generate economic growth or create jobs.

    "We need to lower the cost of health care in programs like Medicare that are the biggest drivers of our deficit,"

    Sounds great. But when has he EVER put forward a realistic plan to do that? Instead, Republicans like Paul Ryan have put forward plans and Obama has used them as a political football.

    "Reforms must go hand-in-hand with eliminating excess spending in our tax code, so that the wealthiest individuals and biggest corporations can’t take advantage of loopholes and deductions that aren’t available to most Americans. "

    Oh, that's rich (pun intended)! It was Obama who insisted that his Hollywood and Big Business buddies like billionaire Warren Buffet got special tax breaks totaling $76 billion in the same fiscal cliff deal that saw payroll taxes go up on middle and lower income workers.

    "Everyone in Washington needs to focus not on politics but on what’s right for the country; on what’s right for you and your families. That’s how we’ll get our economy growing faster. That’s how we’ll strengthen our middle class."

    When has Obama done anything BUT focus on the politics? And when it comes to the Middle Class, he'll stand with them for a photo op at the same time he's raising their taxes!

    Four More Years of THIS?

    Obama's very partisan Inaugural Address was the first sign that he intends to continue with the same misguided policies and leadership style that made the last four years such a colossal mess. His Weekly Address merely confirms the trend. No doubt he'll continue playing his brand of hardball Chicago politics since it's obvious that's all he knows. Meanwhile, the country, and especially the Middle Class Obama claims to care so much about, will suffer. It's no wonder he's ranked by Gallup as one of the most polarizing Presidents ever!

    My Summer with John and Jim Hargaugh

    From small town Ohio to the Super Bowl!

    When I was about 11 years old a new family moved into the very modest two bedroom home alongside our backyard in Bowling Green, Ohio. Two boys,  Johnny and Jimmy came over to play that summer. We would all go to the City Park and the pool. Johnny, age 7, was always well behaved and rather more soft spoken than Jimmy, age 6, who was a bit brasher for a kid five years younger than the rest of us. Jimmy always wanted to do what the big kids were doing and that included going on the high dive at the pool.

    They were both nice kids and it's a shame their family moved on after a year when their father took a coaching job in Iowa.

    Obviously both boys have done quite well for themselves and I wish them both luck in Sunday's game!

    Friday, February 01, 2013

    IRS Mandates New ObamaCare Policy w/ Premium 30% Higher Than 2012 Average

    And if you don't like it, you can pay the IRS a penalty and go without!


    I know that asking a low information Obama voter to remember what Obama said last week might be asking too much. After all, even these folks must have figured out by now how hollow Obama's words are. But some may recall how many times Obama promised that under his health care plan insurances rates would go down by $2500 for families. I put a refresher video at right in case you forgot.

    As premiums have risen sharply following the enactment of ObamaCare even Politifact, the liberal truth teller couldn't cover for Obama on that one and had to rate it as a "Promise Broken." Now, with the full implementation of ObamaCare premiums are set to rise even higher.
    (CNSNews.com) – In a final regulation issued Wednesday, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) assumed that under Obamacare the cheapest health insurance plan available in 2016 for a family will cost $20,000 for the year.
    In it's 2012 Annual Survey, the Kaiser Foundation finds that the average coverage for a family of four to be $15k-$16k. That means the new ObamaCare policy will cost approximately 30% more. One of he prime reasons is all the goodies Obama loaded onto the insurance coverage that we all must buy. Things like free breast pumps for nursing mothers, free contraception and the abortion pill not to mention coverage for those with pre-existing conditions.
     Well, so much for Obama's other solemn and often repeated pledge that "if you like your health care plan you can keep it. Period!"

    And costs will only go up from here. A new report from Forbes describes how insurance companies are preparing a new round of double digit rate hikes.

    Heap on all the costs of ObamaCare, the higher cost of gas and energy, food and clothing and the latest increase in taxes and you find that middle and lower income families are getting walloped. But not to worry. I'm sure Obama will soon have another photo-op with persons hardest hit by the strain his policies are putting on family budgets and promise help That sure to solve the problem, right?

    Unemployment Goes Up Again While Obama Axes Jobs Council

    ↑7.9%
     
    How much longer will Obama and the Dems continue to play the blame game and shirk the responsibilities and accountability of leadership?

    Economic growth declined in the last quarter of 2012 and now unemployment ticks up again to 7.9% In his 2nd Inaugural Address Obama said "An economic recovery has begun." Is this what he meant?

    Add to that another decline in the labor participation rate and a whopping 8.5 million people have now given up work, or looking for work, during Obama's first four years in office.

    What's Obama doing about it other than blame Republicans? Nothing. He even allowed his much vaunted Jobs Council to go out of business this week. Not that it matters much. The Council met only a handful of times and produced no new ideas. Reminder: Obama claimed that the Council was not a  “Show Council” merely for appearances. But in so much else Obama's words don't match with Obama's deeds.

    If anyone was looking for any new ideas from Obama to address the problem of jobs and the economy they will have to wait. Obama announced that he will not meet the deadline required by law for submitting a new budget. I guess he was too busy vacationing in Hawaii last month to bother. Not that it matters.  Senate Democrats haven't passed a budget in over 1,000 days even though such an act is also required by law.

    For those who want to point the finger at House Republicans I would remind them that the House passed 40 bills relating to job creation in the last congress. Senate Democrats refused to bring them up for a vote and now that the new Congress has been sworn in they are now dead.

    One thing we can count on... while Obama doesn't have any new ideas for addressing negative economic growth or job creation we can know at some point he will surround himself with unemployed workers and give a heartfelt speech about how much he cares. Nothing will change, but like Hillary says "what difference does it make!"

    fsg053d4.txt Free xml sitemap generator