Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Obama Lies: I'm not trying to 'redistribute wealth'!

Washington Examiner ^ | 4/9/12 | Joel Gehrke
President Obama, who famously called for tax increases on the wealthy to "spread the wealth around," denied today that his tax increases on the rich are an attempt to "redistribute wealth." "So these investments -- in things like education and research and health care -- they haven't been made as some grand scheme to redistribute wealth from one group to another," the president said today at Florida Atlantic University. "This is not some socialist dream," Obama added as hecalled for tax increases on millionaires today to pay for those investments.
(Excerpt) Read more at campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com ...

Obama is a communist and we had better understand that!

Obama – Saul Alinsky's star student

Exclusive: Mychal Massie sees BHO's hand in delay of Trayvon Martin outrage

Gas Prices Grow More Under Obama than Carter!

US News ^ | 04/09/12 | Lauren Fox

Marking the similarities between President Barack Obama's time in office and former president Jimmy Carter's is nothing new. But as of Monday, Obama has hit one more Carter benchmark - both saw gas prices double in their first term of office.
In fact, while just barely, Obama has seen an even higher gas price increase than Carter dealt with under his administration.
Under the Carter administration, gas prices increased by 103.77 percent. Gas prices since Obama took office have risen by 103.79 percent. No other presidents in recent years have struggled as much with soaring oil prices. Under the Reagan administration, gas prices actually dropped 66 percent. When Bill Clinton was president, gas prices grew by roughly 30 percent, and under both Bush presidencies, gas prices rose by 20 percent.

The National Republican Congressional Committee called attention to Obama's recent "dishonorable distinction," blaming the Democrats' rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline as a major factor for skyrocketing gas prices.

Nation turning into 'people sitting on a couch waiting for their next government check'

NJ.com ^ | April 10, 2012 | Megan DeMarco
Gov. Chris Christie said the country is becoming a "paternalistic entitlement society" this morning in a speech at a conservative conference headed by former President George W. Bush.
Addressing Bush and other national Republicans, Christie said he hasn't seen a less optimistic period in the country in his lifetime.
"Government's telling them stop dreaming, stop striving, we'll take care of you," he said at a theater at the New York Historical Society. "We're turning into a paternalistic entitlement society. That will not just bankrupt us financially, it will bankrupt us morally."
"We'll have a bunch of people sitting on a couch waiting for their next government check," Christie said.

(Excerpt) Read more at nj.com ...

Illiterate Obama

Gallup tries but can’t get its happy face to stick to Obama’s reelection chances!

coachisright.com ^ | April 10, 2012 | Kevin "Coach" Collins
At 46% approval, Gallup’s new numbers show Barack Obama is still under the 50% he needs for reelection. With the exception of Harry Truman no president has been reelected with a sub 50% approval rating. The rest of Gallup’s message holds more bad news for Obama.
He hasn’t averaged 50% approval for a full month since last May when we killed bin Laden. His previous full month of 50% approval was February 2010.
Gallup reports the much talked about BIG lead Obama has with women really isn’t very big at all. In 2008 Obama won women 56/43. Al Gore and John Kerry both won women (with 54% and 51% respectively) and both lost anyway. Today Gallup says Obama’s approval with women is at 49%; off 7 points since 2008.
In 2008 Obama won 18 – 29 year olds 66/31; they now approve of Obama at just a 54% rate. He won Hispanics 67/31 but that’s down to 55% approval. Although only 45% of those over 65 voted for Obama, that’s down to 41%. Working your “retirement” as a Walmart greeter will do that.
Overall Democrat support has fallen 3 points to 83% which is important because it is moving in the wrong direction. His support among Independents has shrunk to 42% a 10 point slip from 2008.
Obama has even lost 6 points (95% now 89%) among Blacks. Of course this number will balloon to 100% on Election Day, but how can this be helpful to his reelection?
The problem with this number and the numbers for 18 to 29 year olds is enthusiasm to vote. Among both groups it is down sharply.

In March 2008 Blacks were 78% enthusiastic to vote and young voters were 76% enthusiastic to vote. Today both groups are 48% enthusiastic…umm, umm, umm!

(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...

Santorum suspends campaign, but “we are not done fighting” to defeat Obama

Michelle Malkin ^ | 4/10/12 | Michelle Malkin
Rick Santorum fought hard, he fought well, and he gave voice to a large contingent of grass-roots conservative activists across the country who wanted a candidate who lived the values he preached. He held Mitt Romney’s feet to the fire on health care, challenged Newt Gingrich’s green flirtations and past support for the individual mandate, and took on Ron Paul’s foreign policy extremism. His presence improved everyone else’s game — and that will serve the GOP ticket well this fall, whoever ends up on it.

(Excerpt) Read more at michellemalkin.com ...

Strip Search

ObamaCare EMS Unit

Marbury vs. Madison


More Taxes

got hate?

Cats & Dogs


Top Earners Pay Higher Tax Rates Even Without Buffett Rule

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | April 10, 2012 | by Richard Rubin

President Barack Obama is promoting a "Buffett rule" setting a minimum tax rate for top earners to ensure they pay a higher percentage of their income than middle- class families. For the most part, they already do.
"The Buffett rule, amongst economists, could also be called the stupid rule," said Kevin Hassett, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington group that supports free enterprise. "It's basically just a back-door way to hike taxes on capital."
Obama has framed his push for the Buffett rule as a fairness issue, and made the case by comparing effective tax rates paid by different income groups.
A 30 percent tax rate "shouldn't be too much to ask," said Seth Larson, a spokesman for Whitehouse.

"Those who can afford it should pay a little more in taxes," Larson said. "This has been a guiding principle of our tax code for generations, and the Paying a Fair Share Act would simply restore that balance."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...

Obamacare’s fake accounting

Washington Post ^ | April 10, 2012 | Jennifer Rubin
Charles Blahous, a senior research fellow George Mason University and one of the two public trustees for the Social Security and Medicare programs, is out with a study that confirms the common-sense argument conservatives have been making for years: You can’t vastly expand and subsidize gold-plated health-care insurance and expect to save money.
What is at issue is the difference between government accounting and a realistic assessment of our future costs. Although the Congressional Budget Office and Medicare Trustees accounting conventions have obscured the economic impact of Obamacare, in plain terms it will cost us more money than it will save.

Almost comically, the White House responded by saying CBO says we’re okay, so there is no problem.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...

Army Of IRS Enforcers Can't Make ObamaCare Legitimate

IBD Editorials ^ | April 9, 2012

Big Gov't: After foisting its 2,700-page health law on the public, the White House now plans to enforce its detested mandate by siccing the IRS on unwilling citizens. All that stands in the way is "the consent of the governed."
Back in 2009, when ObamaCare was being debated in Congress, then-House Minority Leader John Boehner warned that the takeover of the health care system could only lead to armies of enforcers from the Internal Revenue Service forcing Americans to buy insurance of the government's choosing.
Boehner recognized that this so-called reform would inevitably trigger major public resistance.
Boehner was mocked as an alarmist by Obama's Democratic allies. But in reality, he was right, and nobody knew it better than the Obama administration itself.
That's why the behemoth ObamaCare bill sneakily left out the detail that it intended to hire 500 Internal Revenue Service agents to enforce the unpopular mandate, while 300 other IRS operatives would be added to push "free" benefits to the indigent to ensure their complete dependence on the state.
Cost: Half a billion dollars, paid for off-the-books by taxpayers through a massive $1 billion Health and Human Services slush fund that got tucked into the bill.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...

Slow Jobs Growth Underscores Obamanomics' Failure

IBD Editorials ^ | April 9, 2012

Economy: Darin Wedel, an out-of-work Texas electronics engineer who more than two months ago sent his resume to the White House at the request of President Obama, is still unemployed. It's a tale for our times.
Wedel sent his resume to the White House after Obama told Wedel's wife in a Jan. 30 Internet forum that the U.S. doesn't have enough home-grown engineers to fill all the opportunities.
Turns out, that's not exactly true. "Not even recruiting companies are calling anymore," Jennifer Wedel, a Fort Worth, Texas, mother of two, said of her jobless hubby.
As the Wedel family might tell you — and as April's mediocre gain of 120,000 new nonfarm payroll jobs shows — the economy's employment engine isn't in high gear.
Numbers tell the story. Since Obama entered office promising a jobs boom from his "stimulus," the economy has lost 1.6 million jobs. Since the employment peak in early 2008, 5.2 million jobs have disappeared.
Labor participation rates have plunged in recent years, in part due to retirements, but mostly due to people just dropping out — they can't find jobs at all.

Today, a record 100.5 million Americans older than 16 don't have jobs, up 34% since 2000. As Eddy Elfenbein, editor of the Crossing Wall Street blog, notes, "If we were to have the same jobs-to-population ratio as 12 years ago, there would have to be 14.6 million more jobs, or 22.6 million fewer people.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...

Restricting Supply To Boost Prices

IBD Editorials ^ | April 9, 2012
Energy Policy: The administration claims there's no "silver bullet" to lower gas prices and that they've kept rising in the face of higher domestic production, as if the law of supply and demand has suddenly been repealed.
It hasn't, and increased production on private and state lands doesn't blunt the impact on prices when 94% of federal onshore lands and 97% of federal offshore lands are off-limits to oil and gas drilling.
A key factor in gas prices is and always has been future supplies and potential disruptions to those supplies.
Another is the fact that we are the only major nation to deliberately limit domestic oil production even as war clouds and unstable governments place foreign sources in jeopardy.
We saw the effect of supply on oil and gas prices when oil prices fell by $2 a barrel overnight on a mere rumor that the U.S. and Britain might jointly tap their reserves.
On Monday, oil prices fell 2% as revived talks on Iran's nuclear program eased fears of supply disruptions. Imagine the effect on oil and gas prices tomorrow if President Obama opened all federal lands and our vast reserves to oil and gas drilling.
After a brief rise in offshore oil production thanks to Bush administration policies, domestic production on federal lands has declined under Obama by 275,000 barrels per day from its 2010 peak and by 17,000 barrels a day since he took office in January 2009, according to a Congressional Research Service report.

The Institute for Energy Research reports that crude oil and lease condensate production on federal and Indian lands is 13% lower than in fiscal year 2010.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...

‘Almost Uniformly White’: How Diverse is Obama’s Campaign Staff, Really?

The Blaze ^ | April 9, 2012 | Mytheos Holt
In yet another example of its ongoing attempts to be “media savvy,” the Obama campaign has posted a photo of its staff on the campaign’s Tumblr, intended to show off the (presumably) totally cool and hip people working for Obama. Yet Andrew Stiles at the Washington Free Beacon noticed something rather odd about the photo, and decided to kill their buzz by pointing it out:
Yet the “army of twenty-somethings” campaign manager Jim Messina has assembled in the president’s hometown is almost uniformly white, according to photos contained in a detailed BuzzFeed report Monday.

(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...

Health-Care Law Will Add $340 Billion To Deficit, New Study Finds

Washington Post ^ | April 09, 2012
By Lori Montgomery
Obama’s landmark health-care initiative, long touted as a means to control costs, will actually add more than $340 billion to the nation’s budget woes over the next decade, according to a new study by a Republican member of the board that oversees Medicare financing.
The study is set to be released Tuesday by Charles Blahous, a conservative policy analyst whom Obama approved in 2010 as the GOP trustee for Medicare and Social Security. His analysis challenges the conventional wisdom that the health-care law, which calls for an expensive expansion of coverage for the uninsured beginning in 2014, will nonetheless reduce deficits by raising taxes and cutting payments to Medicare providers.
The 2010 law does generate both savings and revenue. But much of that money will flow into the Medicare hospitalization trust fund — and, under law, the money must be used to pay years of additional benefits to those who are already insured. That means those savings would not be available to pay for expanding coverage for the uninsured.

“Does the health-care act worsen the deficit? The answer, I think, is clearly that it does,” Blahous, a senior research fellow at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center, said in an interview. “If one asserts that this law extends the solvency of Medicare, then one is affirming that this law adds to the deficit. Because the expansion of the Medicare trust fund and the creation of the new subsidies together create more spending than existed under prior law.”

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...

Progressive Solution for 25% Real Black Unemployment? Price Them Out-of-the-Market w/ $10 Min. Wage!

Reaganite Republican ^ | April 10, 2012 | Reaganite Republican

"The minimum wage is the
'Black Teenage Unemployment Act'...

The guaranteed way of holding the poor, the minorities
and the disenfranchised out of the mainstream is
if you price their original services too high..." -Art Laffer

As Rep Duncan Hunter (R-Ca) attempts to floor a bill that would force the US Labor Department to publish real unemployment numbers -ones that actually reflect the all-time-record number of Americans who have given up/left the labor force- some Democrats are now planning to unveil ill-advised legislation that would hike the federal minimum wage to as much as ten bucks an hour... a monstrous and unprecedented 35% leap from the current $7.25/hr (!)

Small wonder the Obama Administration feels the need to lie about the appalling number of jobless Americans today...
all he's planning to do is make it worse.

Such a gargantuan increase in the minimum wage will only help those who already have jobs, and anybody (and their dog) can tell you that this sort of thing -along with massive tax hikes- is about the worst possible idea the Dems could propose here in the midst of the Great Recession.

Alas- since the habitually dishonest Obama regime is so skilled at purporting that they're helping the economy by crippling it, winning wars by quitting, and bringing us together by igniting race wars, nobody should be too surprised to see them tell unemployed young blacks they're 'helping' them while pricing their labor completely out of the market.

Politics is obviously at the core of this transparent election-year stunt (along with pressure from Bolshevik boneheads of the #occupy movement, desperate to produce some 'gain' from the last few wasted months), yet 'income-equality' is just another manufactured 'debate' (i.e. 'access-to-birth control' charades) the White House is keen to introduce to the conversation this year (and shift the topic from myriad reasons to not vote for them):
Many Democrats and their labor allies say the time is right to push for another increase, and not just because it is hard to live on the $15,080 a year earned by a person working full time at minimum wage.
They say a public debate now over the merits of increasing wages is bound to put many Republicans on the defensive during an election year and would encourage low-income Americans — an important part of the Democratic base — to go to the polls this November.

“It’s always good to surface an issue that captures voters’ enthusiasm and distinguishes the bad guys and the good guys,” said Jen Kern, minimum wage campaign coordinator at the National Employment Law Project, an advocacy group for low-wage workers.

This one's just like Barack likes 'em, too... he can pretend to be aiding unemployed blacks and others while actually ensuring hordes of entitlement-dependent serfs remain surgically-attached to the 'progressive' Left for the foreseeable future- perfect.

Simply put, Barack Obama is black America's worst enemy: Van Jones may think that Obama owns you, but imho it might be time for more African-Americans to take a real hard look at what this guy has actually done for you... which is in-reality squat by any measure (unless you happen by odd chance to be running a scam 'green energy' outfit).

Holder's Corrupt Opposition to Voter ID Laws

Townhall.com ^ | April 10, 2012 | David Limbaugh
Can anyone think of an innocuous reason that President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder oppose state voter ID laws?
Obama and Holder appear to view almost everything through the prism of race or, at the very least, use race as an excuse to justify otherwise very dubious policies, from immigration enforcement to voter intimidation actions to strong-arming banks to make loans via allegations of racism.
In December, along these lines, Holder criticized redistricting maps that had been drawn by the Texas Legislature and used the opportunity to call for an aggressive federal review of voter identification laws in not just Texas but other states.
But what does all this have to do with voter ID laws? Well, Republicans have been engaged in lobbying for state voter ID laws throughout the nation as an effort to enhance fair and lawful elections and prevent voter fraud. These laws are simple and transparent; they would require voters to present a government-issued form of identification as a condition to voting.
Predictably, Democrats -- led by Obama and Holder -- claim that the move is a GOP ruse to suppress minority voting. Holder called on the parties "to resist the temptation to suppress certain votes in the hope of attaining electoral success and, instead, achieve success by appealing to more voters."
Notice the automatic assumption and, in turn, barely veiled accusation of GOP racism. Notice further how utterly patronizing Holder's attitude is to minorities.
Is Holder's position that minorities are incapable of or ill-equipped at obtaining identification to vote? Why shouldn't people be required to prove they are who they say they are in order to participate in the electoral process?
I would think minorities would be offended at the suggestion that laws requiring them to prove their identity as a prerequisite to voting would somehow disadvantage them. I would think they would have every bit as much interest in ensuring fair, fraud-free elections as non-minorities.
It is sheer common sense that our election authorities should demand proof of the identity of all voters before allowing them to cast votes that will ultimately determine critical decisions affecting the future of their state and nation. I don't remember ever being allowed to vote, by the way, without presenting an ID, even though the precinct workers know me and I know them. This isn't the least bit offensive, but even if it were, it wouldn't justify jeopardizing the integrity of elections.
Political correctness causes people to adopt absurd and indefensible positions, which is precisely how we should characterize efforts to resist voter ID laws.
Obama, Holder and the Democratic Party establishment don't even bother to counter the irrefutable argument that proof of ID is essential to reduce voter fraud. Instead, they just throw out the slanderous allegation that the GOP is trying to suppress the minority vote, which itself is born of the same type of categorical judgment about groups of people that lies at the heart of the sin of racism.
I am not a big fan of so-called bipartisanship, because I think it's a one-way street for Democrats, who only demand it when they want Republicans to cater to their demands, and not the other way around. I'm also realistic enough to recognize that today the parties are so far apart in their goals for the nation and the means to achieve them that we're just better off presenting our alternative cases to the people and letting them decide. But if there were ever an issue that screams out for bipartisanship, ensuring fair elections by verifying the identity of voters would have to be at the top of the list.
The administration's cavalier dismissiveness about the need for voter identification to improve ballot security has been exposed as the cynical fraud it is with the recent release of a video from filmmaker James O'Keefe. The video showed how easy it was for an associate of O'Keefe's to check in as Eric Holder in Holder's polling place without presenting identification, though he neither signed the poll book nor proceeded to cast a ballot. The poll worker, who obviously didn't know O'Keefe, much less Eric Holder, didn't even want to be bothered with the presentation of an ID. "As long as you're in here and you're on our list and that's who you say you are, we're OK," he said.
It's outrageous that Holder is accusing Republicans of wanting to suppress the minority vote through these laws. But it's not outrageous to suggest that Holder and his party, through their specious invocation of the race card to oppose these laws, have no legitimate basis to oppose them and indeed must have an ulterior reason for doing so -- one that involves rigging the election process in their favor.

Obama's Contempt for Law (Chavismo Comes to Washington)

Townhall.com ^ | April 10, 2012 | Mona Charen
Last month the Obamas hosted a White House conference on bullying. It was intended as a show of support for victims, but watching this president in action, it might just as easily have been a tutorial.
We've gotten glimpses of Obama's intimidating instincts from the beginning. Now as his administration flounders, his aggressiveness is becoming less and less veiled.
His first targets, as so often with bullies, were unpopular figures that few were inclined to defend. At a 2009 meeting with bankers, Obama arranged the atmospherics to convey his displeasure. According to Politico, whereas White House meetings are usually comfortable affairs with snacks and beverages offered, the bankers got different treatment. There was one glass of water at each place -- no refills. Obama pressured those present to reduce executive salaries and warned: I'm "the only thing between you and the pitchforks." Thanks, Evita.
This president rewards his friends and punishes his enemies (his words) -- with little concern for the rule of law. In the bailouts and restructurings of General Motors and Chrysler, the president forced some of the companies' secured creditors to take 30 cents on the dollar while giving much more generous terms to the United Auto Workers. Secured creditors are those who lend money to a strapped company only because they are guaranteed to be paid off first in the event of bankruptcy. But the Obama administration has contempt for such economic realities to say nothing of the law. The obvious consequence will be that companies will find it harder to find financing in future. It was also an early signal that this administration respects few boundaries.
Contempt for law and procedure characterized Obama's response to the Gulf oil spill as well. After the well was capped, a swaggering president described his intentions toward BP: "I will meet with the chairman of BP and inform him that he is to set aside whatever resources are required to compensate the workers and business owners who have been harmed as a result of his company's recklessness." Twenty billion was the amount the president demanded. The president never described by what authority he was requiring BP to set aside this funding -- presumably it was the same authority implied in the case of the bankers -- the "pitchforks."
That BP should have been held responsible for the damage it caused is not in question. But we have laws and procedures for this sort of thing. Or we once did. We are not accustomed to presidents arbitrarily ordering private actors to make restitution. You might have expected this high-handedness to alarm civil libertarians among the press corps. No, all of the press's outrage was expended on a Texas congressman who mentioned that BP was the target of a "shakedown." It was.
At the same time, the president used the spill as an excuse to shut down drilling in the Gulf altogether for an extended period. A federal judge issued an injunction against the moratorium and later declared the Obama administration to be "defiant." "Such dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the re-imposition of a second blanket and substantively identical moratorium," wrote Judge Martin Feldman, " . . . provide this court with clear and convincing evidence of the government's contempt." Undeterred, the administration switched tactics and simply stopped issuing new permits -- a clear abuse of regulatory discretion.
The economic effects have been severe to a region already damaged by Katrina and the spill itself. An industry group, Greater New Orleans, Inc. reports that 50 percent of businesses have laid off employees due to the moratorium; 76 percent have lost cash reserves; and 46 percent have moved all or some of their businesses away from the Gulf region.
What, except overweening contempt for law, can explain President Obama's decision to give Charles Cordray a recess appointment as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, when the Senate was not in recess? "What I'm not going to do is wait for Congress," Obama told "60 Minutes." "So whenever we have an opportunity and I have executive authority . . . we're just going to go ahead." Or even without executive authority apparently.
Last week the president returned to bullying the Supreme Court (He had done so once before, during a State of the Union address). The president warned the court that its legitimacy was suspect because its members are "unelected." This is brutish talk from any political figure, all the more from one who preens that he taught constitutional law. What's next? Warning that Obamacare is all that stands between the justices and the pitchforks?

Hugo Chavez is ailing. But his spirit is thriving in the White House.