Sunday, July 15, 2012

Hope and Change?

"Middle Class Americans" is a Democrat made-up-term

google books ^ | 2012 | google

Of the 300+ books on google books using the term, "middle class America", only one earliest is 1971, a few in 1980`s and 95% in 1990`s and 2000`s til now.

I never heard the term "middle class Americans" in my youth, not even in college sociology classes in 1960`s. It appears to be a made-up-term borrowed from English social class structure as defined by Webster.

These communist sociologists try to force an Englsh social model upon America which is impossible- to make a square peg fit a round hole in an fallacious attempt to define a fluid social dynamic of American society as a static factor, which it is not.
These revisionist precaricators attempt to falsely tell us that other 18th century and 19th century authors wrote about the "American Middle class" yet it appears that I couldn`t find one instance of a direct quote using that term in those eras.
They are repeating this lie so often for so many years and teaching it in schools and colleges that everyone actually believes there is a static frozen American middle class , which there just ain`t. You can browse these volumes and see the communist propaganda there disguised as "class" this and "class" that which is a lie.
viz: "Karen Halttunen draws a vivid picture of the social and cultural development of the UPWARDLY MOBILE MIDDLE CLASS" [my caps],...1986, ;Confidence men and painted women:...'
Sorry Obummer but "middle class" is a term origninated in England to denote people bewtween the nobility and the working people.
Webster`s Dictionary definition of "middle class". p.532:
"In England, people who have an intermediate position between the nobility and or leisured class and the working class. It includes professional men, bankers, merchants, and small landed proprietors."
Googlebooks search 300+ examples after 1980`s etc except for one in 1971:
"The Emergence of the Middle Class: Social Experience in the ... Stuart M. Blumin - 1989 - 434 pages - Preview
"This book traces the emergence of the recongnizable 'middle class' from the 1760-1900."

Middle-class Blacks in a white society: Prince Hall Freemasonry in ...
"Children and arson: America's middle class nightmare" S. Wooden, Martha Lou Berkey - 1984 - 267 pages - Snippet view =======================================================
"The cult of youth in middle-class America: Volume 69" L. Rapson - 1971 - 118 pages - Snippet view

"Confidence men and painted women: a study of middle-class culture ...' Halttunen - 1986 - 262 pages - Preview
"Karen Halttunen draws a vivid picture of the social and cultural development of the upwardly mobile middle class, basing her study on a survey of the conduct manuals and fashion magazines of mid-nineteenth-century America."
"The aristocracy of labor: the position of skilled craftsmen in the ..." Mackenzie - 1973 - 208 pages - Preview
"Dr Mackenzie's study is designed to test the common assertion in the press and in recent American academic sociology that the line separating the working class from the middle class is becoming increasingly blurred, leading to the ..."
====================== >p? "Work in America: A - M".: Volume 1 - Page 628 - 369 pages - Google eBook - Preview
'In Babbitt (1922),Lewis examines the unimaginative aspirations of the American middle class, the role work plays in defining white-collar worth,and the unending quest for profit and status'

========================= A. Muraskin - 1975 - 318 pages - Full view


Senate Leadership Refuses Vote on Obama Tax Plan

Semi-News/Semi-Satire ^ | 14 July 2012 | John Semmens

Despite insistent pleas from Republicans, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) steadfastly refuses to allow a vote on President Obama’s proposal to extend the Bush Era tax cuts for families making under $250,000 per year. Neither will he permit a vote on the GOP proposal to extend those cuts for all taxpayers.

“Look, the president’s objective has already been achieved,” Reid contended. “All the media reported that the President proposed tax cuts for the middle class. For us to debate the specifics or to attempt to pass a bill would only muddy the waters and obscure that message.”
One of the specifics that may be troubling Reid is that the president’s proposal would, if enacted, result in higher taxes for the vast majority of small businesses—an event likely to have negative consequences for economic growth. As a result, several Democratic senators are suspected of favoring extending the Bush tax cuts for all taxpayers. One of them is Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) who pointed out that “in New Jersey, a two-income household comprising a police officer and a teacher earns more than $250,000 a year. Do we want to go on record penalizing these hard-working public servants?”
“Rather than give in to Republican efforts to confuse and obstruct we feel it would be best for voters to have a clear choice in front of them,” Reid explained. “If the President is reelected he will have a simple mandate to implement the taxes he deems most appropriate without any further Congressional meddling.”
f you missed any of this week's other semi-news posts you can find them at...

According to President Obama, Entrepreneurs Don’t Build Businesses

Principles & Policy ^

Last night, President Barack Obama delivered some telling remarks to a fire station full of people in Roanoke, Virgina. I’ll save you the trouble of reading the (long and uninspired) speech and provide you with the most interesting part:

“If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” – President Barack Obama, July 13th, 2012.

It would be easy to respond with something along the lines of, “Somebody else made that happen? Who? Who magically imagined the product or service, started the business, built it up, and created the jobs? Who was it? The tooth fairy?” And to some extent, President Obama’s statement is so ridiculous as to merit that sort of quick, flippant response.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Thanks to Team Obama's Reckless 'Felon' Accusations, Tony Rezko Issue NOW IN PLAY

How 'bout a little refresher re. Obama political Godfather
and actual (16-count!) convicted felon Tony Rezko...?

The Syrian-born Rezko is an infamous Chicago slumlord, fast-food restauranteur, and sleazy political operator who played a key role in the Blagojevich case- as well as the unlikley ascension to power of Barrack Hussein Obama.

Obama's longtime ally, friend, and top fundraiser was found guilty of 16/24 counts of felony influence peddling back in June 2008. Of course the story was mostly buried/detached from his bud Barry in the run-up to that year's most unfortunate (for us) presidential election whilst the jury convicted Rezko of wire and mail fraud, money laundering and aiding and abetting bribery
(he was acquitted of attempted extortion).

Prosecutors said Rezko squeezed various Illinois companies for some $7 million in kickbacks. In the dramatic trial, former state official Ali Ata told jurors he bought his post with bribes to Rezko and campaign contributions to Blagojevich. Ata was also one of several witnesses who said Rezko talked of a plot to kill the criminal probe against him by pulling strings with the
Obama White House to get U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald fired.

Sadly for Rezko, he received the same amount of loyalty all allies who bring heat or no longer serve Obama's purposes get
-i.e. Wright, Ayers, Farrakhan, Pfleger, Khalidi, and Blago- and was treated like yesterday's garbage, because to self-preserving narcissist Obama that's exactly he is.

According to the Chicago Sun-Times, Obama was the unnamed 'political candidate' referred to in the filing. This charge had accused Rezko of orchestrating a scheme in which a firm hired to handle state teacher pension investments had to pay Big Ton' $250,000 in sham 'finder’s fees'. From that money, $10,000 was donated to Obama’s successful run for the Senate in the name of a Rezko business associate who acted as a straw donor, according to the court filings.

The relationship between Rezko and Obama goes back over 20 years, and is as labrylinthine as it is problematic. Tony Rezko raised in excess of $250,000 in contributions for Barack Obama's campaigns over the years, a number triple the amount Obama had publicly acknowleged prior to the trial.

Tony Rezko was also appointed by Obama to serve on his U.S. Senate campaign finance committee, where he raised more than $14 million, according to Federal Election Commission records, helping send Obama to Washington in 2004.

In return, Obama was a primary force in getting city and state money approved for Rezko to build and maintain 'affordable housing' in Obama’s district. Scandalously, many of Rezko's projects in Chicago are primarily known for being uninhabitible due to substandard work and a negligent maintenance. People froze in the winter, the plumbing leaks, and a 3 year old boy was even crushed to death by shoddy construction.

For more than five weeks during the brutal winter of 1997, tenants shivered without heat in one of these government-subsidized apartment buildings on Chicago's South Side. It was just four years after the landlords -Rezko and his partner Daniel Mahru- had 'rehabbed' the 31-unit building in Englewood with a loan from Chicago taxpayers.

Parc Grove Plaza

While Rezko and Mahru couldn't seem to find money to get the heat back on, their company -Rezmar Corp- continued to receive city and state funding... even as earlier projects fell into disrepair and financial troubles. AND the same company somehow managed to make ongoing donations to the political campaign fund of Barack Obama, the newly elected state senator whose district included the unheated building.

In fact, eleven of Rezko's buildings were in Obama's state Senate district. In this diminutive area -where anyone could walk around and in one day get a basic knowlege of all major residential zones- Obama later claimed he was 'unaware' of the conditions at slumlord Rezko's projects- the very ones he had worked enthusiastically to fund with government subsidies(!).

Also deeply involved with Rezko was Valerie Jarrett, Obama's trusted friend and Senior White House Adviser. Judicial Watch -a public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption- linked Jarrett to a series of real estate scandals, including projects operated by Rezko and Allison Davis, a former boss of Obama's. Housing projects developed and/or operated by Davis and Rezko have been manifestly substandard and beset with code violations.

As CEO of The Habitat Company, Jarrett managed a controversial housing project located in Obama’s district called Grove Parc Plaza, which according to the Boston Globe was considered “uninhabitable by unfixed problems, such as collapsed roofs and fire damage. In 2006, federal inspectors graded the condition of the complex an 11 on a 100-point scale -a score so bad the buildings in question were simply demolished.

After news reports revealed that Obama had personally engaged in a real estate transaction in 2005 with Tony Rezko’s wife Rita (at a time when Rezko was known to be under investigation) that got the movin'-on-up Obamas a huge South Side mansion then on the cusp of affordability for them, the young senator flippantly dismissed the episode as 'boneheaded' and 'a mistake.'

Initially, the owner of the home would not sell it to Obama because he didn't have enough money to buy both the house and the large lot next to it- and the seller insisted both had to be sold together. So, Obama bought the house, and Rezko the lot next door. Intriguingly, the house was sold $300k under the asking-price... while Mrs Rezko paid full price for the empty lot. Then the Rezkos simply sold Obama a 10 ft strip of their new property, making his remaining portion of this lot unbuildable.

'There’s no doubt I should have seen some red flags in terms of me purchasing a piece of property from him' Obama explained -once the press uncovered the deal, anyway. In the event, Obama in got a mansion worth twice what he paid for it, as in reality the otherwise unusuable neighboring parcel also became the Obama’s private property.

And the real estate agent? None other than Patti Blagojevich- Hot Rod's wife. Powerful Chicago Alderman Richard Mell's daughter Patricia Blagojevich was, in-fact, a partner and real-estate agent for many of Rezko’s transactions that appear to be pay-for-play vehicles in Chicagoland political deals.... where she had made over $700,000 in commisions. Actually, one of the primary causes of Blago's desperation for money -as heard on the FBI's tapes- was the loss of family income from his wife's lucrative real-estate deals with Rezko, which evaporated once Tony was in Federal custody.

Those of us who waited-in-vain for the media to get off their fat asses and perform their implied Constitutional duty to properly vet candidates in 2008 have long given up hope that they'd hang-up their pom-poms and get to work. They were always more interested in discrediting or explaining-away red flags regarding The One's past than any effective form of scrutiny.

Instead, they preferred to write stories about his puppy, how he likes to play basketball and listen to Ludacris, 'cool' neckties, etc. To them, the smoke eminating from Illinois politics was just another 'distraction' and our intentions are suspect if we ask to know the details.

The MSM somehow don't feel the need to be concerned with Obama’s upbringing in the cauldron of Chicago Machine politics, and how such a nobody rose to State senator, US senator, and President-elect in just a few years with no tangible achievements while somehow assumed to be pure as the driven snow.

Now watch Obama pardon Rezko in exchange for keeping his mouth shut- then we're full-circle back to The Chicago Way.

Worst. Recession. Jobs. Recovery. Ever. Updated. ^ | July 15, 2012 | Political Calculations

Today's post is an update of a chart we originally featured back on 5 January 2011. It speaks for itself.  
In the chart, we're measuring the strength of all the post World War II recession recoveries as measured from the very bottom of payroll jobs lost. The last time we featured it, the recovery from the 2007 recession was just barely the worst ever.

And today, it is definitively the worst recession jobs recovery ever.

Worst. Recession. Jobs. Recovery. Ever.

If the major headlines posted on Google News on Friday, 6 July 2012 are any indication, the June 2012 Employment Situation Report for the United States was "tepid" at best, and "dismal" at worst.
But we found a bright spot! For one select group of Americans, June 2012 represented the best month ever since the total employment level of the U.S. economy peaked in November 2007, just before the so-called "Great Recession" officially began!
Even better, the gain in jobs for this group was enough to increase their numbers in the U.S. workforce to levels not seen since September 2009, just three months after the so-called "Great Recession" officially ended!
Who is this mysterious select group of Americans who prospered while so many others suffered? Are they the evil 1%?
Let's make that the evil 3.2%. The brightest spot in the June 2012 jobs report is represented by U.S. teens, who saw their numbers among the 142,415,000 Americans counted as being employed jump upward by 140,000, increasing to 4,528,000, or 3.2% of the entire U.S. workforce:
Change in Number of Employed by Age Group Since Total Employment Peak Reached in November 2007
The last time there were more teens with jobs in the U.S. was September 2009, when 4,641,000 people between the ages of 16 and 19 were counted as being employed. Oh, and every month before that going back to March 1965.
So why are teens making out so well in this first month of summer while everyone else, well, isn't? The Daily Kos reports from 5 May 2012:
President Obama's Summer Jobs+ program, which is lining up commitments from the private sector and from government to create summer jobs and internships for young people, has announced commitments for 90,000 paying jobs, up from the 70,000 previously announced in January, with many more unpaid internships and mentorships (which absolutely must be strictly overseen so that kids aren't just used as free labor without gaining skills or prospects; unpaid work of any kind is a poor enough substitute for paid work without being directly exploitative).
You don't suppose those commitments to hire teens are taking money and resources away from those companies being able to hire others at this time, do you?

Obama vows to fight for middle class in Roanoke appearance ^ | July 14, 2012 | Mason Adams

"Their basic theory is if wealthy investors are doing well, everybody does well," Obama said.
But he added, "I just want to point out we tried their theory for almost 10 years, and here's what it got us: We've got the slowest job growth in decades. We've got deficits as far as the eye can see. Your incomes and your wages didn't go up."

Obama then laid out what he sees as his alternative to trickle-down economics: "I believe that the way you grow the economy is from the middle out. I believe that you grow the economy from the bottom up. I believe that when working people are doing well, the country does well. I believe in fighting for the middle class, because if they're prospering, all of us will prosper."

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Federally funded college education for adults

by reaganator

I know many people in their 40's, 50's 60's taking college courses, some for many years after being on unemployment, after being released from prison, attempting recovery for drug addiction, any number of situations. With the nation approaching $16 Trillion in debt I wonder and have many questions about this. 

Seems they can continue a $1500 a year nicotine habit or spend in other nonessential areas and it does not matter. A man in his mid-50's told me, "If they are going to give it to me, I'm going to take it." He's been taking college courses for at least 3 years now. He is a outspoken conservative. 

I believe the Democrats' goal is to get as many people dependent on government in any form, through government employment, welfare assistance, the increase in Social Security disability receipients, medical care, education assitance this often compels people to vote Democrat. 

I suspect this is a payback to Education for their support of Obama. Do any of you also see a sudden increase in the people you know receiving funds from the federal government to take college course and live on while they do so? I really don't know how to word the questions I have, any info on this would be helpful.

Perry is right to reject ballooning Medicaid costs

Michael Quinn Sullivan, Local Contributor

Medicaid is failing Texans. Recipients are dissatisfied with the care they receive, and fewer doctors are participating in the program.

By refusing to expand Medicaid at the whim of the expensive Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Gov. Rick Perry is recognizing that the first step in getting healthy begins with stopping what has made us ill.
Let's be clear: the Obamacare expansion of Medicaid being discussed isn't about more help for the poor, it is about expanding the program well past the poverty line and into the middle class.
If the only measure of success is found in spending money, then Medicaid fits that bill. As the Texas Conservative Coalition Research Institute noted earlier this year, "total Medicaid spending more than doubled between 1991 and 2001, and has more than doubled again over the past decade."
One oft-cited justification for expanding Medicaid is the number of uninsured Texans. Yet uninsured status is a misleading measure of access to care. As the conservative coalition points out, if Medicaid spending had any substantive relationship with the state's uninsured rate, the number of uninsured should have dropped as spending increased. But it has not.
Rather than discussing whether to expand Medicaid, Texas and every other state is close to wondering whether it can afford this federally mandated cost-driver at all.
Studies by the Texas Comptroller's Office and the Texas Public Policy Foundation paint the same bleak forecast: Medicaid spending is outstripping Texans' ability to pay for it. In a decade, it could consume nearly 40 percent of the state's budget.
Medicaid spending is crowding out funding for public education, law enforcement and transportation. In short, Texas' core responsibilities will be on the chopping block to feed Medicaid.
If the program actually performed, that would change the discussion. But it has not, does not and will not, as long as the federal government remains in the driver's seat.
Medicaid is ultimately an inflexible model for delivering health care, mandated by Washington bureaucrats with little knowledge of the diverse needs of Texas' dynamic, growing population. The challenges faced by Medicaid-eligible individuals vary. The inflexibility of a one-size-fits-all approach just doesn't fit the needs of Texans.
More than a million Texans are legally eligible to receive Medicaid benefits yet do not chose to enter the program. Why? It might be because they simply don't trust Medicaid to deliver. Volumes of clinical research bear out such concerns.
A nationwide study of 900,000 surgical procedures from 2003 to 2007 by the University of Virginia found Medicaid patients were 13 percent more likely to die than those without any insurance normalizing for the procedure performed, age, gender and other factors. Similar findings have been reported by the University of Pennsylvania and other studies.
If Medicaid is having a hard time recruiting new clients, it's losing providers at an even faster clip. WOAI, the NBC affiliate in San Antonio, recently reported that the number of doctors accepting new Medicaid patients has been on a steady decline because he program doesn't begin to reimburse them for the cost of care. Private insurance might pay 80 percent of the bill, but Medicaid reimburses physicians up to just 60 percent. Medicaid spending has risen faster than any other facet of the budget it has far outpaced population growth and inflation — but it isn't even adequately paying doctors for their medical services!
We're constantly told by Medicaid advocates, including those at the Center for Public Policy Priorities, that increasing services and spending will reduce costs elsewhere, such as by limiting "the money (Texas) spends providing health care in emergency rooms and health clinics to people without insurance."
I am entertained when fiscal conservatism is used as an excuse for irresponsible government expansion. The inconvenient truth is that as Medicaid has expanded over the last decade, use of emergency room services for non-emergency cases has escalated. That requires a solution other than a glib demand to expand Medicaid.
Let's allow Texans take care of Texas. We should demand that Washington let Texas redesign Medicaid to fit its health care needs. We should give Texas' Medicaid-eligible population the dignity of a program that serves their needs well, while not bankrupting their fellow Texans.
Following the governor's lead, Texas legislators should aggressively pursue every avenue for increasing the state's Medicaid flexibility, whether through block grants or waivers. It is abundantly clear that Washington must not be allowed to continue dictating health care policy to Texans.
A program that is outlandishly expensive and provides too little satisfaction for patients and doctors should be discontinued, not put on steroids. Doing more of the same with more dollars is a prescription for bigger bills, not a healthier Texas.
Sullivan is president of Empower Texans and Texans for Fiscal Responsibility;

Solar Cells 23,000 Times Worse for Environment Than Carbon Dioxide! ^ | Monday, June 25, 2012

Solar Cells Linked to Greenhouse Gases Over 23,000 Times Worse than According to New Book, Green Illusions ... Solar cells do not offset greenhouse gases or curb fossil fuel use in the United States according to a new environmental book, Green Illusions (June 2012, University of Nebraska Press), written by University of California - Berkeley visiting scholar Ozzie Zehner. Green Illusions explains how the solar industry has grown to become one of the leading emitters of hexafluoroethane (C2F6), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). These three potent greenhouse gases, used by solar cell fabricators, make carbon dioxide (CO2) seem harmless. – PR Newswire
Dominant Social Theme: Say what? Tony the Tiger says solar cells are just Grrrrrrreeat! And Tony never lies.
Free-Market Analysis: Hoo boy! Whom can you trust anymore? For decades, we've been hearing about the promise of solar power and now it turns out that solar cells may be terrible for the environment.
Bottom line according to this new book, Green Illusions: Hexafluoroethane has a potential that is 12,000 times higher than CO2.
This isn't just some statistic with a dubious genealogy. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) makes this assessment. And it gets worse. Hexafluoroethane is "100 percent manufactured by humans, and survives 10,000 years once released into the atmosphere."
Here's some more from the press release:
Nitrogen trifluoride is 17,000 times more virulent than CO2, and SF6, the most treacherous greenhouse gas, is over 23,000 times more threatening. The solar photovoltaic industry is one of the fastest-growing emitters of these gases, which are now measurably accumulating within the earth's atmosphere according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
A NOAA study shows that atmospheric concentrations of SF6 have been rising exponentially. A paper published in the peer-reviewed journal Geophysical Research Letters documents that atmospheric NF3 levels have been rising 11 percent per year.
"If photovoltaic production grows, so will the associated side effects," claims Zehner. "Even worse, there's no evidence that solar cells offset fossil fuel use in the American context." Zehner explains that alternative energy subsidies keep retail electricity costs incrementally lower, which then spurs demand. "It's a boomerang effect," remarks Zehner. "The harder we throw alternative energy into the electrical grid, the harder demand comes back to hit us on the head. Historically, we've filled that demand by building more fossil fuel plants, not fewer."
Zehner advocates shifting to energy taxes and other conservation measures. He claims that even some of the most expensive options for dealing with CO2 would become cost competitive long before today's solar cell technologies.
"If limiting CO2 is our goal, we might be better off directing our time and resources to those options first; solar cells seem a wasteful and pricey strategy," says Zehner. "It is hard to conceive of a justification for extracting taxes from the working class to fund installations of Stone Age photovoltaic technologies high in the gold-rimmed suburbs of Arizona and California."
Green Illusions highlights and author biography are available at:
A friend of the Daily Bell adds the following:
"Subsidiary irony here is that solar hot water is a much better investment than solar PV. For that matter, so is insulation, envelope and duct leak repair, new windows, appliances upgrades. All these pay off faster than either solar, in NPV $$s or CO2 avoided ...
"But try to sell solar hot water in California. Fat chance. Why? Bad rep from last round in the 70's is one reason, the first greenie push. The sexy front end of the green push has been until recently on solar PV... to go along with their and Agenda 21 theme."
Conclusion: Ban solar cells! We won't hold our breath. At least not until the oxygen runs out ...

How much does Washington DC spend per day?

Little House on Unaka | July 15, 2012 | don-o

Expenditures: $2.796 trillion

Divide by 365 days - $7.66 billion per day!

I believe I heard that Obama's proposal to raise the rates on earners above $250,000 would generate an additional $50 billion per year. 

Obama: Perpetuator-in-Chief of political cliché!

Digital Journal ^ | July 8, 2012 | John David Powell

Democrats think your money is theirs to give to other people, while Republicans believe your money is your money to do with as you please. Yes, that is a tired, old political cliché, but all clichés are born out of some level of truth.

President Obama seems to be both a Democrat and Perpetuator-in-Chief of political clichés by coming up with a novel, yet oh-so-liberal, way of raising money for his re-election campaign. In the true fashion of someone who believes wholeheartedly that he can put your money to better use than you can, President Obama has set up an event registry ( on his re-election Web site (
That’s right, my friends, thanks to the leader of the free world, there’s no more need to rack your brain about finding that perfect gift for a friend or a loved one.
We all know by now that it takes a whole lot of spending money to buy an election. The bigger the office, the more money you need. Dog catcher, not so much. With President of the United States, however, you cannot be a serious contender without access to hundreds of millions of dollars.
You are not going to come up with that kind of scratch by nickel-and-diming your family and friends. You are not even going to come up with that amount of cash if you held daily breakfasts, lunches, and dinners with every one-percenter from L.A. to D.C.
Mitt Romney’s Victory Fund ( and the Republican National Committee ( could only raise a little more than $100 million in June, even with the Supreme Court ( doing everything but handing out blank checks to Republicans and Independents by upholding the Affordable Care Act ( and calling the individual mandate a tax.
Romney also outraised Obama in May: $77 million to $60 million.
But before you go off with your hair on fire about this being another example of the evil GOP one-percenters with too much money that needs to be taxed, just remember than in September 2008 the junior senator from the great state of Illinois set a single-month fund-raising record by hauling in $150 million. And trust me, he didn’t get that from bake sales and selling campaign trinkets.
In fact, he recently reminded some of his deep-pocket pals just how big they came through four years ago, and he put the touch on them for more moolah this time around. Using what we’re told is a special campaign phone on Air Force One, the Pitchman-in-Chief tried to put the fear of GOP into them by threatening the possibility that Republican special interests are going to pool their cash and end up buying Congress and the White House.
Apparently special interests have no place in national politics, unless they are Democratic special interests.
But this bit of political irony is why Obama’s gift registry is such a brilliant idea. It has the potential to eliminate the financial influences of all special interests except for one: Obama’s. And that only works if you and all of your friends get all of their friends to log on and sign up.
The whole idea behind this event registry thing is to allow blushing brides-to-be a way to set aside their personal wants and needs for the good of their country by telling everyone to donate to President Obama’s campaign what they would have spent on wedding gifts.
That’s right, instead of starting a new life with a few things for the bed, bath, and, well, beyond, the most powerful man in the world would prefer your cold, hard cash so he can stay the most powerful man in the world.
What’s that, you say? No wedding in your future? At least not before the election? No problem. The president will gladly let you divert your well-earned birthday, anniversary, bar mitzvah and bat mitzvah, graduation, baptism, and tooth-fairy money to his re-election campaign.
In fact, that unemployment money you get will just go for food that ends up flushed down the toilet, so why not contribute it to a worthy and needy cause?
But just so no one can say the Obama campaign is a crass and thoughtless money machine, know this: the campaign did not ask you to donate your funeral benefits to the cause. Yeah, but that’s because they know Uncle Sam has first dibs on it.
John David Powell writes his Lone Star Award-winning columns from ShadeyHill Ranch in Texas. His email is

Obama ‘Outsourcing’ Fundraising… to China

canadafreepress ^

While Obama tries to get America focused on the false claim that Romney outsourced jobs as the chief of Bain Capitol, what was the President doing? Why, outsourcing his fundraising, of course. Outsourcing it to Shanghai, China, to be precise.

On July 11, Obama’s big money men were holding a nice fundraiser in Red China for the President. It headed up by Technology for Obama co-chairman Robert Roche, who has committed to raising $500,000 for Obama.

Here is the fundraising webpage for the Shanghai event...

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Our Disgraceful President ^ | July 15, 2012 | Derek Hunter

Warren G. Harding was corrupt, as was Richard M. Nixon. Bill Clinton and John F. Kennedy were like blind golfers, looking for a hole, any hole, every hole. Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt were power-mad narcissists convinced they knew best how everyone else should live. Jimmy Carter was clueless. But as we approach the 100-year anniversary of the first of these men to serve as president, all have been lapped in debasing their office by its current occupant: Barack Obama.

It is understandable President Obama would not want to run on his record. Who would? “Give me four more years so I can make up for the first four” is not the stuff of campaign slogan greatness.

But even that wouldn’t work because, as he told CBS News this week, “The mistake of my first term - couple of years - was thinking this job was just about getting the policy right. And that's important. But the nature of this office is also to tell a story to the American people that gives them a sense of unity and purpose and optimism, especially during tough times.” In other words, his only flaw is he’s too damn close to perfect.

It’s like someone bragging about being the most humble person on the planet.

The president of the United States thinks he needs to tell us stories to give us “a sense of unity, purpose and optimism…”

This struck me as odd because a.) he’s already told us stories, the story of his life, in – count ‘em – two autobiographies written before he accomplished anything, and b.) he’s made zero effort to bring people together at any point in his presidency.

Putting aside his autobiographies, which should be moved to the fiction section of the bookstore considering the 38 provable falsehoods uncovered in them – remember the uproar when James Frey’s A Million Tiny Pieces turned out to have exaggerations and lies? Obama does it; crickets – the fact this man would feel comfortable enough to speak the word “unity” without laughing is a testament to just how far we’ve fallen as a nation.

Barack Obama has done nothing but try to turn American against American based on income and accomplishment. He’s done nothing but sit silently by, smirking, while his defenders, allies, surrogates and staff have called Americans who disagree with him racists, homophobes, sexists, xenophobes, rednecks, idiots, Uncle Toms and anything else you can call someone when you can’t rebut what they say with facts or accomplishments.

Silence while disgraceful words are spoken on your behalf is just as disgraceful as uttering them yourself, which, of course, makes Barack Obama a disgraceful president.

When his attorney general isn’t dodging subpoenas and being held in contempt by Congress, he’s calling anyone who thinks we should have to present a photo ID to vote a klansman. MSNBC, a network that seems to exist only to parrot the president’s line, unsurprisingly gets praised by the White House. This is unity?

The White House has to use and condone this because the alternative is reality, and reality is not Barack Obama’s friend.

The president decided, against the express language in the law itself, he could unilaterally remove the work requirement from President Clinton’s welfare reform law. There is no precedent or legal justification for this action, but to question it is to be anti-poor.

Putting aside the unconstitutional nature of all this, it remains a mystery how it could be anti-poor to support a law that provably improves the lives of poor Americans, gives them their best shot at autonomy and helps move them get out and stay out of poverty. But the charge gets made, the grenade gets thrown, and the person doing it gets an invite to the next Georgetown cocktail party or White House concert.

The administration of Barack Obama embodies the worst characteristics of the worst Presidents in our history – the abuse of power, the incompetence, the laziness, the bigotry, the disinterest, the dishonesty, the arrogance. The reason he’s still personally popular is the same reason we know the names Paris Hilton, Nicole Richie, Perez Hilton or that TMZ exists – A large portion of our culture now celebrates what it used to shun, cheers that which used to drive people into hiding and rewards existence over accomplishment.

That’s why the media parrots and trumpets attacks on Mitt Romney’s incredibly successful private-sector record but ignores President Obama’s public-sector failures. How people can question what Romney does with his own money but ignore Obama wasting literally trillions of ours is disgraceful. That President Obama would sanction the charge is worse.

Rush Limbaugh is correct when he calls President Obama “President Kardashian.” Only we’re on the receiving end of what Kim Kardashian became famous for. To paraphrase Andy Warhol, in the future we’ll all have our own reality show for 15 minutes. Unfortunately the ratings will suck and it will serve only as a perch from which to watch the economy collapse. We can call it “Disgraceful.”

November could not be more important, and it cannot come quickly enough.

Obama Took Cash From Bain Outsourcing Execs - Breitbart ^ | 13July12 | Ben Sharipo

Barack Obama’s campaign has been quick to rip Mitt Romney for his association with Bain Capital, which outsourced certain jobs during restructuring of companies. There’s only one problem: many of the very executives who were running Bain Capital during the 1999-2002 period now under media scrutiny donated to Obama’s presidential campaign. 

And Obama was more than happy to cash the checks. The same SEC form from February 2001 that lists Mitt Romney as “sole shareholder, sole director, Chief Executive Officer and President of Bain Capital … the controlling person of Bain Capital” also lists over a dozen other managing directors of Bain Capital, Inc. -- all of whom were undoubtedly more active than Romney was during this period. And President Obama took money from many of them. Take Joshua Bekenstein. Bekenstein has been a managing director of Bain Capital since 1986. In 2008, he signed Barack Obama a $4,600 check. In 2004, he gave a $50,000 donation to the Democratic National Committee. That’s outsourcing money, plain and simple. And Obama was happy to take it. Or how about Stephen Pagliuca? Last year, he cut a $35,800 check to Barack Obama’s Victory Fund. Then he cut another $30,800 check to the DNC. And another $30,800 check to the DCCC. Jonathan Lavine and Mark Nunnelly have both maxed out to Obama already, as well as to the DNC. Lavin was a bundler for Obama, and raised over $100,000 for him. Michael Krupka gave Obama $4,600 in 2008. As we’ve seen, the leftist media thinks it’s a disaster if a private citizen, Mitt Romney, made money from an investment company that outsourced jobs to save companies. < click link for the remainder of the text >
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Remember When Being on the Government Tit Was a Bad Thing? ^ | July 15, 2012 | Doug Giles

When I was a young dork growing up in West Texas in the 70s and 80s, my folks raised me to believe that making good money via righteous and industrious means was actually a good thing—y’know, something to aspire to. Remember that notion?

My folks would point out people in the neighborhood and community who busted their butts and got rewarded for the goods and/or services they provided and would say, “See Johnny, Dougie? Johnny studied. Johnny worked hard and smart, and now Johnny’s rich, and you’re still a weed-smoking dipthong working at a frickin’ gas station high as a kite on Colombian gold.”
Yep, Johnny had a good life. And me, eh … not so much. The reason why? Well, it wasn’t because wealthy fat cats suppressed me. It wasn’t because I wasn’t afforded knowledge (because I was); I just chose to esteem it lightly. In addition, it wasn’t because I didn’t have enough after school government pimped-out programs at my disposal to help my wayward self.
No, my lack was based not on a deficiency of opportunity but primarily because I watched Fast Times at Ridgemont High, thought Spicoli was cool, and ran with that. Yes, I blame Sean Penn. Damn you, Sean Penn.
As Providence would have it, at the ripe old age of 21, I extracted my head from my backside via Christ’s effectual grace, and all the advice my folks gave me regarding knowledge and hard work came rushing back to my bong resin clogged cranium. Call me a late bloomer.
Since I had an affectation for organic stuff, I got into landscaping—planting grass, trees, shrubs, and installing sprinkler systems and custom curbing. I bought a used CJ-7, a crappy trailer, a sod roller, some machetes, rakes, hoes and shovels, and within one year I was doing a solid six figures in sales. No government handouts. No pity money from Christians. No, “woe is me, I used to be a drug addict.” No, “I’m lost and need to get on the government tit.” Nope, I accomplished the aforementioned at a young age via hard work. Just hard work. Nothing but good ol’ hard work.
Yes, children, when I was a wee lad, my parents taught me that taking money from the government when one didn’t truly need it was scummy. Matter of fact, we viewed those who did milk the system as shameful thieves—a veritable affront to what it means to be a man.

Stark Economic Realities After The Hope-And-Change Hangover! ^ | July 15, 2012 | Austin Hill

“I thought I could get free healthcare by making someone else pay for it...”

Those words appear in a clever graphic that’s making its way around Facebook – perhaps you’ve seen it.

The sentence sits atop a photo of an attractive young adult woman, likely in her late 20’s or early 30’s, as she stands looking forlorn with her eyes cast downward.

Then the sentence beneath the photo explains the woman’s new discovery: “…Now I realize that I am that somebody else.”

As Facebook posts go, this one qualifies as witty, yet the economic reality of the Obama agenda is no laughing matter. Thanks to President Obama and his party in Congress that forced Obamacare upon us, every American who works and produces income is a target for more government confiscation of their money.

For those of us who treasure our freedom -and who know better than to take it for granted- the realities of Obamacare are terrifying. But for those who are just emerging from a hope-and-change hangover and are only mildly irritated by the “bummer” of higher taxes, a few questions are appropriate. First, consider this: why did you ever believe all the President’s promises about healthcare in the first place?

Barack Obama spent the first two years of his presidency crossing the country and making promises about “healthcare reform.” “If you like your Doctor, you’ll be able to keep your Doctor.” “Healthcare reform will be a job creator.” The promises were never ending.

But even a cursory understanding of history over the past fifty years or so depicts a bleak picture for governmental promises. Whether it’s Chairman Mao’s China, Castro’s Cuba, Kim’s North Korea or Chavez’ Venezuela, the lesson is the same: governmental leaders who promise to provide for your every need are ultimately seeking to spend other people’s money for their own selfish purposes. Were Obama supporters so ignorant of history that they are genuinely surprised by his deception?

And here’s another important question: who manages wealth the best – private individuals and groups, or politicians and government bureaucrats? For most of my adult life the United States federal government has been fairly respectful of every American’s right to create, and possess wealth, and has mostly avoided being punitive towards the wealthiest in society.

Additionally, our government’s leadership has been fairly accepting of the notion that when Americans are permitted to keep more of their own wealth, rather than less of it, they usually do productive things with it that ultimately benefit the overall economy. Even Democrat President Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisors noted in 1994 that "It is undeniable that the sharp reduction in taxes in the early 1980s was a strong impetus to economic growth."

Yet today our nation is afflicted with a terrible philosophical malaise – I call it “the politics of envy.” With a President who campaigned on a pledge to “spread the wealth around,” many Americans today make the assumption that the wealthiest among us achieved their earnings by immoral means and deserve to have ever-increasing portions of it taken from them. Likewise the assumption is made that when individuals possess large sums of wealth they only do self-serving things with it, whereas politicians can force wealthy people to expand their businesses and “create jobs” and can spend people’s money in ways that benefit “everyone.”

This blessed view of government seems terrific – but is it really accurate? The agenda of President Obama and his Democrat party has helped create an environment where roughly half of the population pays no income taxes, so presumably the President has spread at least some wealth around.

But have the new controls and mandates and regulations placed on businesses, made in the name of the “collective good” and including the Obamacare mandates, really been beneficial to anybody? As Steve Wynn, CEO of Wynn Resorts, LTD recently noted, “those of us who have business opportunities and the capital to do it are going to sit in fear of the President…” Indeed treating business owners and the wealthy as though they are something less than dignified respectable human beings has produced a stagnant economy, and the constant threat from the President to raise taxes on the wealthy makes matters worse and not better.

And here’s another soul-searching question for the Obama partisans: is America strengthened when growing portions of its citizens are content to live off of the largess of others? According to the Congressional Budget Office, “Obamacare” has led many of our fellow Americans to believe that they simply no longer need to work for a living because of all the “free” assistance they can now get from our government.

This is not just political “spin” or partisan punditry. It comes directly from Douglas Elmendorf, the Director of the non-partisan C.B.O. It was none other than Mr. Elmendorf himself who noted in late 2010 that, outside the healthcare sector of our economy, the greatest impact of the Obamacare agenda will be in the labor market as the program incentivizes people to not work.

Is this really something that puts America on the “right track?” It may be creating more Obama re-election voters but it is certainly not leading our country to prosperity and productivity.