Remember this?
"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."
That was the central pledge on which Barack Obama was elected President.
hmmmmm.......
Whning Will Get You Nowhere Mr. President
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
The Real Reason Obama Supports Reverend Wright - HUMAN EVENTS
by Dinesh D'Souza hits out at the lies of the left, as it tries to invent Obama the Religious in his series:
The Real Reason Obama Supports Reverend Wright - HUMAN EVENTS
Approximately two decades ago, while he was working as an activist in Chicago, Obama came to the Trinity Church in order to hear its pastor Jeremiah Wright. Obama was not particularly religious; in fact, when pastors asked which church he attended, he typically hemmed and hawed. But, in The Audacity of Hope, Obama writes, “I was drawn to the power of the African American religious tradition to spur social change.” Trinity, Obama had heard, was that kind of church. Obama’s interest was sharply boosted when he saw a sign spiked into the grass outside the church building: FREE SOUTH AFRICA. In the Reverend Wright, Obama encountered a man who frequently wore a dashiki or other African garb. A charismatic figure who was also an intellectual, Wright was capable of moving between the First World and the Third World, and of blending literary and political references with his biblical themes.
The sermon Obama heard that first day was called “The Audacity of Hope.” It was a cosmopolitan address: Wright spoke of hardship in America, but he also spoke of Sharpeville, South Africa, and Hiroshima. Wright said, “The world … seems on the brink of destruction. Famine ravages millions of inhabitants in one hemisphere, while feasting and gluttony are enjoyed by inhabitants of another hemisphere.” Obama reproduces the following passage as one that especially struck him. “It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks’ greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere.… That’s the world!” The anti-colonial themes are obvious here: North versus South; rich, white Europeans versus the poor, dark-skinned people of Africa and the Caribbean. These were the themes of Obama’s life, and he was drawn in from the start.
Since Wright’s name surfaced during the presidential campaign, there has been much speculation about why Obama picked Trinity as his home church. After all, there were plenty of others to choose from, including several large churches that would also have served as a strong political base for Obama, and others that were closer to the South Side of Chicago where Obama lived. Many conservative critics of Obama pointed to Wright’s controversial statements—such as his chant of “God damn America!” or his insistence that the U.S. government was deliberately spreading AIDS in the black community—and insisted that Obama must have agreed with them. Obama himself said he never heard those statements, and his liberal supporters suggested that perhaps he didn’t quite know what Wright was all about.
None of this makes any sense. Certainly it is preposterous to suggest that Obama shared Wright’s crackpot conspiracies about AIDS and the government. Nor can I envision Obama himself joining with Wright in chanting “God damn America.” On the other hand, it is equally absurd to claim that Obama was clueless about Wright’s real views. He attended the church for two decades. Throughout this time, the Obamas supported the church financially, and in 2007 they donated $22,500 to Trinity, their single largest charitable contribution. Wright presided over Obama’s wedding and baptized his two children. Even more telling, just as Obama took his father’s name Barack as a tangible sign of his identification with him, so too Obama took the title of Wright’s sermon “The Audacity of Hope” and made it the title of his second book. Some have suggested that Wright became a kind of surrogate father for Obama. In any event, over time Obama and Wright developed a close relationship. And clearly an intelligent man like Obama knew who Wright was and what he stood for; in fact, those were his main reasons for choosing Trinity and staying there.
What was it about Wright that appealed so much to Obama? The crucial issue was anti-colonialism, and this is a central theme in Wright’s sermons, but it’s been ignored because hardly anyone has taken what the man says seriously. Yet Wright has been stressing this theme all along.
This is the third in a three part series adapted from The Roots of Obama’s Rage by Dinesh D’Souza (Regnery, 2010.), which is available in stores and on Amazon.
The Real Reason Obama Supports Reverend Wright - HUMAN EVENTS
Approximately two decades ago, while he was working as an activist in Chicago, Obama came to the Trinity Church in order to hear its pastor Jeremiah Wright. Obama was not particularly religious; in fact, when pastors asked which church he attended, he typically hemmed and hawed. But, in The Audacity of Hope, Obama writes, “I was drawn to the power of the African American religious tradition to spur social change.” Trinity, Obama had heard, was that kind of church. Obama’s interest was sharply boosted when he saw a sign spiked into the grass outside the church building: FREE SOUTH AFRICA. In the Reverend Wright, Obama encountered a man who frequently wore a dashiki or other African garb. A charismatic figure who was also an intellectual, Wright was capable of moving between the First World and the Third World, and of blending literary and political references with his biblical themes.
The sermon Obama heard that first day was called “The Audacity of Hope.” It was a cosmopolitan address: Wright spoke of hardship in America, but he also spoke of Sharpeville, South Africa, and Hiroshima. Wright said, “The world … seems on the brink of destruction. Famine ravages millions of inhabitants in one hemisphere, while feasting and gluttony are enjoyed by inhabitants of another hemisphere.” Obama reproduces the following passage as one that especially struck him. “It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks’ greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere.… That’s the world!” The anti-colonial themes are obvious here: North versus South; rich, white Europeans versus the poor, dark-skinned people of Africa and the Caribbean. These were the themes of Obama’s life, and he was drawn in from the start.
Since Wright’s name surfaced during the presidential campaign, there has been much speculation about why Obama picked Trinity as his home church. After all, there were plenty of others to choose from, including several large churches that would also have served as a strong political base for Obama, and others that were closer to the South Side of Chicago where Obama lived. Many conservative critics of Obama pointed to Wright’s controversial statements—such as his chant of “God damn America!” or his insistence that the U.S. government was deliberately spreading AIDS in the black community—and insisted that Obama must have agreed with them. Obama himself said he never heard those statements, and his liberal supporters suggested that perhaps he didn’t quite know what Wright was all about.
None of this makes any sense. Certainly it is preposterous to suggest that Obama shared Wright’s crackpot conspiracies about AIDS and the government. Nor can I envision Obama himself joining with Wright in chanting “God damn America.” On the other hand, it is equally absurd to claim that Obama was clueless about Wright’s real views. He attended the church for two decades. Throughout this time, the Obamas supported the church financially, and in 2007 they donated $22,500 to Trinity, their single largest charitable contribution. Wright presided over Obama’s wedding and baptized his two children. Even more telling, just as Obama took his father’s name Barack as a tangible sign of his identification with him, so too Obama took the title of Wright’s sermon “The Audacity of Hope” and made it the title of his second book. Some have suggested that Wright became a kind of surrogate father for Obama. In any event, over time Obama and Wright developed a close relationship. And clearly an intelligent man like Obama knew who Wright was and what he stood for; in fact, those were his main reasons for choosing Trinity and staying there.
What was it about Wright that appealed so much to Obama? The crucial issue was anti-colonialism, and this is a central theme in Wright’s sermons, but it’s been ignored because hardly anyone has taken what the man says seriously. Yet Wright has been stressing this theme all along.
This is the third in a three part series adapted from The Roots of Obama’s Rage by Dinesh D’Souza (Regnery, 2010.), which is available in stores and on Amazon.
When Barry Out Nixons Nixon the Press Ignores Him
The Wrongdoing, the Cover-Up, and Executive Privilege
Jennifer Rubin - 09.28.2010 - 8:37 AM
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/364051
Like any administration snared in a Beltway scandal, the Obama team has two problems in the New Black Panther Party scandal: the wrongdoing and the cover-up.
The wrongdoing is not merely that the Obama administration dismissed a blatant case of voter intimidation. It is not merely that an NAACP attorney pressured the Obama team to dump the case. It is not merely that the Obama Justice Department explicitly told attorneys not to enforce Section 8 of the Voting Rights Act, which helps prevent voter fraud. It is that the Obama team believes that the civil rights laws run only one way and offer protection only to certain racial or ethnic groups. That’s not the law (or the Equal Protection Clause has no meaning), and it runs afoul of Americans’ basic sense of fairness. That is why the Obama administration denies that it holds such a view. They may be radicals, but they aren’t dumb.
The cover-up takes two forms. There are the false statements put out by the Justice Department and made under oath by the assistant attorney general for civil rights, Thomas Perez, first, denying that political appointees were involved in the case and, second, disclaiming the existence of hostility toward race-neutral enforcement of voting laws. But there is also the Nixonian abuse of executive privilege to prevent scrutiny of the Justice Department. It is this latter issue that has gotten too little attention.
The administration has refused to produce witnesses and documents, employing a spurious claim of “deliberative process” privilege. Case law and Justice Department memoranda make clear that this is an offshoot of the executive privilege that is applicable only when invoked by the president (or, some would say, a Cabinet-level official). But Obama hasn’t done this. After all, “executive privilege” sounds bad. It reeks of “cover-up.” But without a formal invocation of the privilege, it is lawlessness, pure and simple, to withhold documents and witnesses in response to lawful subpoenas, FOIA requests, and a federal statute (which obligates the DOJ to cooperate with the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights).
Jennifer Rubin - 09.28.2010 - 8:37 AM
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/364051
Like any administration snared in a Beltway scandal, the Obama team has two problems in the New Black Panther Party scandal: the wrongdoing and the cover-up.
The wrongdoing is not merely that the Obama administration dismissed a blatant case of voter intimidation. It is not merely that an NAACP attorney pressured the Obama team to dump the case. It is not merely that the Obama Justice Department explicitly told attorneys not to enforce Section 8 of the Voting Rights Act, which helps prevent voter fraud. It is that the Obama team believes that the civil rights laws run only one way and offer protection only to certain racial or ethnic groups. That’s not the law (or the Equal Protection Clause has no meaning), and it runs afoul of Americans’ basic sense of fairness. That is why the Obama administration denies that it holds such a view. They may be radicals, but they aren’t dumb.
The cover-up takes two forms. There are the false statements put out by the Justice Department and made under oath by the assistant attorney general for civil rights, Thomas Perez, first, denying that political appointees were involved in the case and, second, disclaiming the existence of hostility toward race-neutral enforcement of voting laws. But there is also the Nixonian abuse of executive privilege to prevent scrutiny of the Justice Department. It is this latter issue that has gotten too little attention.
The administration has refused to produce witnesses and documents, employing a spurious claim of “deliberative process” privilege. Case law and Justice Department memoranda make clear that this is an offshoot of the executive privilege that is applicable only when invoked by the president (or, some would say, a Cabinet-level official). But Obama hasn’t done this. After all, “executive privilege” sounds bad. It reeks of “cover-up.” But without a formal invocation of the privilege, it is lawlessness, pure and simple, to withhold documents and witnesses in response to lawful subpoenas, FOIA requests, and a federal statute (which obligates the DOJ to cooperate with the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights).
Monday, September 20, 2010
The Curious Logic of Our Governing Elites
In an age where even thinking about the hypocracy of the left will get you fired, demonized, audited and possibly indicted, Randall Hoven hits their tiny, little, pointy headed ignorance, right on the head.
September 20, 2010
The Curious Logic of Our Governing Elites
By Randall Hoven
George Orwell said, "There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them." What follows is my beginning of a list of ideas that some very intelligent people seem to believe.
The air should be taxed. More precisely, what every animal on earth exhales and what every plant on earth inhales can and should be taxed.
President Bush was bad for the economy because he spent too much. President Obama is helping the economy by spending a lot.
A jury is better informed if evidence is withheld from it.
The Boy Scouts are wrong for having policies that inhibit pedophilia. The Catholic Church was wrong for not having policies that inhibit pedophilia.
An economy in which government accounts for about 40% of economic activity, which owns a similar percentage of all land, and which enforces a stack of regulations the size of 64 Bibles (or 30 New Deals) is considered a radical laissez-faire free market.
Grabbing a person by his shirt and pulling him toward you is an "enhanced interrogation technique" not in the Army Field Manual. It is therefore "tantamount to torture" and out of bounds for any government agency or contractor to use when asking a terrorist what his plans are. Simply dropping a bomb on him, though, with neither trial nor tribunal, and killing him and anyone near him, including his wife, children, family and friends, is OK.
Stopping Saddam Hussein by force was wrong because he did not have WMD. Using force against the Taliban is OK despite no one even claiming the Taliban has, or ever had, or ever intend to obtain, WMD. It was also OK to use force against the government of Yugoslavia, which had no WMD and had never harmed or threatened anyone outside Yugoslavia.
Using force against Saddam Hussein just because he was a mass murderer was wrong because we cannot be the policeman for the world. This despite two wars that he started, killing about one million people, mostly Muslims; despite hundreds of mass graves containing hundreds of thousand of bodies; despite using chemical weapons on his own people; and despite a record of torture. However, using force, including the bombing of population centers, against the Serbs for killing perhaps 2,000 people -- many in the KLA, a certified terrorist organization -- was OK.
It was wrong to use force against Saddam Hussein because the inspections/sanctions regime was working. However, the inspections/sanctions regime was wrong because it was killing half a million Iraqi children.
It was foolish to let Saddam Hussein go in 1991. It was foolish to go after him in 2003.
It is wrong to use force against any country just because you think it might obtain or develop nuclear weapons; that is preemptive. It is wrong to use force against a country that already has nuclear weapons, since that could start a nuclear war. It is wrong to defend against incoming nuclear bombs because that is seen as provocative against countries that have nuclear bombs. Sanctions are also wrong because they kill children and provoke people (see above). In summary, it is wrong to defend yourself against nuclear weapons or any WMD, at any stage of their development or use, by any means other than politely asking your enemies to "stop that."
It is wrong to ask any person for his papers, even after that person has committed a crime and fits the profile of an illegal immigrant, and even though all non-citizens must carry identification papers per federal law. It is OK to ask every citizen in the U.S. to prove he or she has health insurance.
The federal government can force a state to recognize gay marriages because of the 14th Amendment. The federal government cannot force a state to not recognize gay marriages because of the 10th Amendment.
Toilet tank capacity is interstate commerce. "Public use" of private property includes handing it over to another private owner. Large seasonal puddles connected to no other bodies of water are "navigable waters" as far as the government and its regulators are concerned.
The phrase "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law" means (a) it is OK to deprive property owners of their property and (b) it is not OK for a state to outlaw depriving life to any baby whose head has not left the birth canal.
The phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" means it's OK to outlaw owning or carrying handguns.
The clause "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" means a public school must prohibit voluntary, student-led prayer at all school events, including football games. But it is OK for government to subsidize "art" such as a crucifix in a pitcher of urine.
The clause that says Congress shall make no law "abridging the freedom of speech" does not include workplace speech that might be considered racially or sexually offensive, commercial speech not approved by a federal regulatory agency, or political speech too close to an election.
A guy who made a $34,000 mistake on his own taxes is the best choice to be in charge of the IRS and the entire federal treasury. The guy with thirteen House ethics charges against him, including misusing federal resources and not paying taxes on his villa in the Dominican Republic, should be in charge of writing the country's tax laws. The guy who told us in 2005 that a housing bubble was nonsense and Fannie Mae was in fine shape should be writing in 2010 the regulations to overhaul all finance conducted in this country.
One way to a colorblind society is to ask for "race" on every official form. Another way is to add points for certain races on civil service exams and to use different cutoffs for different races on things like ACT, SAT, and LSAT scores when deciding whom to accept in educational institutions.
The way to increase jobs is to raise taxes on those who provide them and give money to those who don't have them.
The way to reduce health care costs is to mandate that every person have health insurance and that that insurance cover every possible physical health- and mental health-related cost, including massage therapists, social workers, drug and alcohol abuse treatment, acupuncture, hair prostheses, and about two thousand other insurance mandates levied by government.
It was right to take John McCain to court, through oral arguments and written opinion, to prove that he is "natural born," despite both his parents being U.S. citizens their whole lives and despite being the son and grandson of U.S. Navy admirals. It was wrong, even insane, to think Barack Obama should have to prove his birth status to anyone prior to taking the oath of office as president.
Enough for now. I started this with a quote from Orwell, and that is how I will end it.
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
Randall Hoven is the creator of Graph of the Day. He can be contacted at randall.hoven@gmail.com or via his website, randallhoven.com.
from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/the_curious_logic_of_our_gover.html at September 20, 2010 - 07:09:55 AM CDT
September 20, 2010
The Curious Logic of Our Governing Elites
By Randall Hoven
George Orwell said, "There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them." What follows is my beginning of a list of ideas that some very intelligent people seem to believe.
The air should be taxed. More precisely, what every animal on earth exhales and what every plant on earth inhales can and should be taxed.
President Bush was bad for the economy because he spent too much. President Obama is helping the economy by spending a lot.
A jury is better informed if evidence is withheld from it.
The Boy Scouts are wrong for having policies that inhibit pedophilia. The Catholic Church was wrong for not having policies that inhibit pedophilia.
An economy in which government accounts for about 40% of economic activity, which owns a similar percentage of all land, and which enforces a stack of regulations the size of 64 Bibles (or 30 New Deals) is considered a radical laissez-faire free market.
Grabbing a person by his shirt and pulling him toward you is an "enhanced interrogation technique" not in the Army Field Manual. It is therefore "tantamount to torture" and out of bounds for any government agency or contractor to use when asking a terrorist what his plans are. Simply dropping a bomb on him, though, with neither trial nor tribunal, and killing him and anyone near him, including his wife, children, family and friends, is OK.
Stopping Saddam Hussein by force was wrong because he did not have WMD. Using force against the Taliban is OK despite no one even claiming the Taliban has, or ever had, or ever intend to obtain, WMD. It was also OK to use force against the government of Yugoslavia, which had no WMD and had never harmed or threatened anyone outside Yugoslavia.
Using force against Saddam Hussein just because he was a mass murderer was wrong because we cannot be the policeman for the world. This despite two wars that he started, killing about one million people, mostly Muslims; despite hundreds of mass graves containing hundreds of thousand of bodies; despite using chemical weapons on his own people; and despite a record of torture. However, using force, including the bombing of population centers, against the Serbs for killing perhaps 2,000 people -- many in the KLA, a certified terrorist organization -- was OK.
It was wrong to use force against Saddam Hussein because the inspections/sanctions regime was working. However, the inspections/sanctions regime was wrong because it was killing half a million Iraqi children.
It was foolish to let Saddam Hussein go in 1991. It was foolish to go after him in 2003.
It is wrong to use force against any country just because you think it might obtain or develop nuclear weapons; that is preemptive. It is wrong to use force against a country that already has nuclear weapons, since that could start a nuclear war. It is wrong to defend against incoming nuclear bombs because that is seen as provocative against countries that have nuclear bombs. Sanctions are also wrong because they kill children and provoke people (see above). In summary, it is wrong to defend yourself against nuclear weapons or any WMD, at any stage of their development or use, by any means other than politely asking your enemies to "stop that."
It is wrong to ask any person for his papers, even after that person has committed a crime and fits the profile of an illegal immigrant, and even though all non-citizens must carry identification papers per federal law. It is OK to ask every citizen in the U.S. to prove he or she has health insurance.
The federal government can force a state to recognize gay marriages because of the 14th Amendment. The federal government cannot force a state to not recognize gay marriages because of the 10th Amendment.
Toilet tank capacity is interstate commerce. "Public use" of private property includes handing it over to another private owner. Large seasonal puddles connected to no other bodies of water are "navigable waters" as far as the government and its regulators are concerned.
The phrase "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law" means (a) it is OK to deprive property owners of their property and (b) it is not OK for a state to outlaw depriving life to any baby whose head has not left the birth canal.
The phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" means it's OK to outlaw owning or carrying handguns.
The clause "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" means a public school must prohibit voluntary, student-led prayer at all school events, including football games. But it is OK for government to subsidize "art" such as a crucifix in a pitcher of urine.
The clause that says Congress shall make no law "abridging the freedom of speech" does not include workplace speech that might be considered racially or sexually offensive, commercial speech not approved by a federal regulatory agency, or political speech too close to an election.
A guy who made a $34,000 mistake on his own taxes is the best choice to be in charge of the IRS and the entire federal treasury. The guy with thirteen House ethics charges against him, including misusing federal resources and not paying taxes on his villa in the Dominican Republic, should be in charge of writing the country's tax laws. The guy who told us in 2005 that a housing bubble was nonsense and Fannie Mae was in fine shape should be writing in 2010 the regulations to overhaul all finance conducted in this country.
One way to a colorblind society is to ask for "race" on every official form. Another way is to add points for certain races on civil service exams and to use different cutoffs for different races on things like ACT, SAT, and LSAT scores when deciding whom to accept in educational institutions.
The way to increase jobs is to raise taxes on those who provide them and give money to those who don't have them.
The way to reduce health care costs is to mandate that every person have health insurance and that that insurance cover every possible physical health- and mental health-related cost, including massage therapists, social workers, drug and alcohol abuse treatment, acupuncture, hair prostheses, and about two thousand other insurance mandates levied by government.
It was right to take John McCain to court, through oral arguments and written opinion, to prove that he is "natural born," despite both his parents being U.S. citizens their whole lives and despite being the son and grandson of U.S. Navy admirals. It was wrong, even insane, to think Barack Obama should have to prove his birth status to anyone prior to taking the oath of office as president.
Enough for now. I started this with a quote from Orwell, and that is how I will end it.
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
Randall Hoven is the creator of Graph of the Day. He can be contacted at randall.hoven@gmail.com or via his website, randallhoven.com.
from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/the_curious_logic_of_our_gover.html at September 20, 2010 - 07:09:55 AM CDT
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Obama and His Ilk Have No Idea What Makes America Great
By David Catron on 9.16.10 @ 6:08AM
During the past several weeks, as the shadow of the midterms has loomed darker and darker over congressional Democrats, the commentary of progressive pundits has become noticeably querulous. In response to a spate of surveys showing widespread voter dissatisfaction with the President and his partners on Capitol Hill, the op-ed writers and bloggers of the New York Times, Washington Post, and a variety of lesser liberal outlets have used their columns and posts to vent frustration with the electorate's inability to see that the current regime has been a success. Why, they ask, is the public not grateful for the "historic" health reform bill, the stimulus package and Wall Street reform? What, they demand to know, are the voters not getting?
Given a chance to respond to this query, most voters would probably provide a one-word answer: "results." The Democrats simply haven't produced. Their signature legislative "achievement," the ironically named Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, is actually exacerbating the problems it was ostensibly passed to solve. Meanwhile, unemployment has doubled since the Democrats recaptured Congress and the federal deficit has skyrocketed at a truly alarming rate. That such high-profile failures have produced disapprobation for congressional Democrats and their eloquent accomplice in the White House should not be surprising, but the phenomenon seems to have shocked and angered many progressive pundits.
Jonathan Alter's recent cri du coeur in Newsweek is typical of the resultant outbursts: "[N]o good deed goes unpunished, and the GOP seems headed for a takeover of the House of Representatives in November." Alter is piqued and perplexed by the public's refusal to give credit where he thinks credit is due. The president, he huffs, "prevented another Great Depression" while providing "Wall Street reform added to health care." That most of the voters already had health care and see no evidence that any Democrat policy has improved the economy, is evidently lost on Alter. In the end, he concludes that the problem is "the cognitive dissonance of the American voter."
Alter's conclusion that the voters are suffering from some kind of psychological malfunction is echoed throughout the progressive commentariat. His Newsweek colleague, Eleanor Clift, avers that "The heightened role for government in the economy and health care has triggered mass psychosis among voters." At the Huffington Post, Carla Seaquist writes that voter anger has become "more volatile and incoherent the more it untethers from reality" and that it has "spawned a kind of madness." Over at the New York Times, Paul Krugman describes voter disenchantment as a kind of recurring insanity: "Anyone who remembered the 1990s could have predicted something like the current political craziness."
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/09/16/accountability-and-its-discont
During the past several weeks, as the shadow of the midterms has loomed darker and darker over congressional Democrats, the commentary of progressive pundits has become noticeably querulous. In response to a spate of surveys showing widespread voter dissatisfaction with the President and his partners on Capitol Hill, the op-ed writers and bloggers of the New York Times, Washington Post, and a variety of lesser liberal outlets have used their columns and posts to vent frustration with the electorate's inability to see that the current regime has been a success. Why, they ask, is the public not grateful for the "historic" health reform bill, the stimulus package and Wall Street reform? What, they demand to know, are the voters not getting?
Given a chance to respond to this query, most voters would probably provide a one-word answer: "results." The Democrats simply haven't produced. Their signature legislative "achievement," the ironically named Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, is actually exacerbating the problems it was ostensibly passed to solve. Meanwhile, unemployment has doubled since the Democrats recaptured Congress and the federal deficit has skyrocketed at a truly alarming rate. That such high-profile failures have produced disapprobation for congressional Democrats and their eloquent accomplice in the White House should not be surprising, but the phenomenon seems to have shocked and angered many progressive pundits.
Jonathan Alter's recent cri du coeur in Newsweek is typical of the resultant outbursts: "[N]o good deed goes unpunished, and the GOP seems headed for a takeover of the House of Representatives in November." Alter is piqued and perplexed by the public's refusal to give credit where he thinks credit is due. The president, he huffs, "prevented another Great Depression" while providing "Wall Street reform added to health care." That most of the voters already had health care and see no evidence that any Democrat policy has improved the economy, is evidently lost on Alter. In the end, he concludes that the problem is "the cognitive dissonance of the American voter."
Alter's conclusion that the voters are suffering from some kind of psychological malfunction is echoed throughout the progressive commentariat. His Newsweek colleague, Eleanor Clift, avers that "The heightened role for government in the economy and health care has triggered mass psychosis among voters." At the Huffington Post, Carla Seaquist writes that voter anger has become "more volatile and incoherent the more it untethers from reality" and that it has "spawned a kind of madness." Over at the New York Times, Paul Krugman describes voter disenchantment as a kind of recurring insanity: "Anyone who remembered the 1990s could have predicted something like the current political craziness."
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/09/16/accountability-and-its-discont
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Ground Zero Mosque Developer Evicted - Doesn't Pay Rent
Apparently property taxes are not the only thing that the Muslim extremist building a muslim victory mosque at Ground Zero doesn't pay. This same muslim extremist is being evicted from his SOHO office space for unpaid rent and it's not the first time.
Of course, the NY City king of political correctness wants taxpayers to put up interest free dollars, for the victory mosque and now we see why. This developer is a deadbeat and using the people's money is the only sure way to get their bills paid.
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/09/15/2010-09-15_ground_zero_mosque_developer_evicted.html
Sharif El-Gamal, who runs the real estate firm Soho Properties and is heading the project two blocks from Ground Zero, was slapped with eviction proceedings last month after tallying up $39,000 in back rent, a Manhattan Housing Court filing shows.
The management company that runs 552 Broadway, where El-Gamal leases space, said in the filing that he was warned in July and given until mid-August to pay up.
But when the August deadline passed, management company Royal Crospin Corp. filed the eviction notice.
It's not the first time El-Gamal's company has fallen behind in rent.
Royal Crospin sued Soho Properties last year for nearly $89,000 in back rent. El-Gamal's firm paid $56,000 to settle.
Of course, the NY City king of political correctness wants taxpayers to put up interest free dollars, for the victory mosque and now we see why. This developer is a deadbeat and using the people's money is the only sure way to get their bills paid.
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/09/15/2010-09-15_ground_zero_mosque_developer_evicted.html
Sharif El-Gamal, who runs the real estate firm Soho Properties and is heading the project two blocks from Ground Zero, was slapped with eviction proceedings last month after tallying up $39,000 in back rent, a Manhattan Housing Court filing shows.
The management company that runs 552 Broadway, where El-Gamal leases space, said in the filing that he was warned in July and given until mid-August to pay up.
But when the August deadline passed, management company Royal Crospin Corp. filed the eviction notice.
It's not the first time El-Gamal's company has fallen behind in rent.
Royal Crospin sued Soho Properties last year for nearly $89,000 in back rent. El-Gamal's firm paid $56,000 to settle.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Among All the Things America Expected from Obama - Poverty is the Prevalent
Poverty Soars Under Obama
The Associated Press reports that Census Bureau data due next week will show a record increase in the poverty rate. There is much that could be said about this--"poverty" isn't what it used to be--but what is interesting to me is how the AP ties the news to the Obama administration and the Democrats:
The number of people in the U.S. who are in poverty is on track for a record increase on President Barack Obama's watch, with the ranks of working-age poor approaching 1960s levels that led to the national war on poverty. ...
It's unfortunate timing for Obama and his party just seven weeks before important elections when control of Congress is at stake.
The anticipated poverty rate increase--from 13.2 percent to about 15 percent--would be another blow to Democrats struggling to persuade voters to keep them in power.
The Democrats, of course, are like the arsonist who works for the fire department. They will argue that soaring poverty demands more government spending. But if even the AP is onto them, they will have trouble selling that line.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/09/027206.php
The Associated Press reports that Census Bureau data due next week will show a record increase in the poverty rate. There is much that could be said about this--"poverty" isn't what it used to be--but what is interesting to me is how the AP ties the news to the Obama administration and the Democrats:
The number of people in the U.S. who are in poverty is on track for a record increase on President Barack Obama's watch, with the ranks of working-age poor approaching 1960s levels that led to the national war on poverty. ...
It's unfortunate timing for Obama and his party just seven weeks before important elections when control of Congress is at stake.
The anticipated poverty rate increase--from 13.2 percent to about 15 percent--would be another blow to Democrats struggling to persuade voters to keep them in power.
The Democrats, of course, are like the arsonist who works for the fire department. They will argue that soaring poverty demands more government spending. But if even the AP is onto them, they will have trouble selling that line.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/09/027206.php
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
My Twit is Better Than Your Twit: Obama and the Politics of Stupidity
America is fed up and getting ready to do something about it. Come November second, control of both houses of congress may revert to adult control for the first time since... well, the first time in a very long time.
Congress has been mishandled by profiteers, loony tunes, leftists and lunatics for decades and voters are about to set it right. Look out below, the bottom is coming into sight and the free fall is faster then you think.
As the Obama-nator falls, so fall the leftists.
New Polls Showcase Obama’s Freefall
By STEPHEN COLLINSON
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/33121
New opinion polls Tuesday made painful reading for President Barack Obama’s Democrats, cementing conventional wisdom that they face a pounding by Republicans in November’s congressional elections.
The surveys, published after the traditional campaign kick-off date of the Labor Day weekend, suggest voters have soured on Obama, see him as too liberal and are increasingly pessimistic about the sluggish economic recovery.
At a time of high unemployment and economic pain, it appears that the cocktail of hope and change that powered Obama to the presidency has drained away and that a short era of Democratic political dominance may be closing.
Yet the polls also suggest that despite its anger at incumbent Democrats, the public has little genuine affection for Republicans, opening possible lines of attack for the White House as it seeks to limit the damage.
A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows Republicans have a yawning 49 percent to 40 percent advantage among likely voters, which would probably be enough for them to grab back control of the House of Representatives.
Congress has been mishandled by profiteers, loony tunes, leftists and lunatics for decades and voters are about to set it right. Look out below, the bottom is coming into sight and the free fall is faster then you think.
As the Obama-nator falls, so fall the leftists.
New Polls Showcase Obama’s Freefall
By STEPHEN COLLINSON
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/33121
New opinion polls Tuesday made painful reading for President Barack Obama’s Democrats, cementing conventional wisdom that they face a pounding by Republicans in November’s congressional elections.
The surveys, published after the traditional campaign kick-off date of the Labor Day weekend, suggest voters have soured on Obama, see him as too liberal and are increasingly pessimistic about the sluggish economic recovery.
At a time of high unemployment and economic pain, it appears that the cocktail of hope and change that powered Obama to the presidency has drained away and that a short era of Democratic political dominance may be closing.
Yet the polls also suggest that despite its anger at incumbent Democrats, the public has little genuine affection for Republicans, opening possible lines of attack for the White House as it seeks to limit the damage.
A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows Republicans have a yawning 49 percent to 40 percent advantage among likely voters, which would probably be enough for them to grab back control of the House of Representatives.
Monday, September 6, 2010
What Do The Tea Parties Want?
Basically, they want choice.
http://oregonmag.com/
it might be a choice about whether or not the U.S. Government should run multi-trillion-dollar deficits.
Or does or doesn't spend your money rehabilitating minarets (mosque architectural components) in nations who harbor terrorists who want to kill every Jew in Israel.
Or, if you are a Catholic, whether or not your government uses your money to pay for "free" abortions under the auspices of a socialized medicine program.
It's quite simple, actually. Conservatives and Libertarians want freedom.
Liberals (progressives) want to own everything and everybody, like a medievil monarch. The word "progressive" means "change," and implies change in a "forward" direction. Change to what, you ask? You'd like to know just what a progressive means by forward? Well a different U.S. Constitution, for a start. For example, they would like to have a nation which practices massive redistribution of income. Taking from those who earn a living, then giving the money to those who don't.
The government would be the "agent" here, taking a commission for transferring the funds.
http://oregonmag.com/
it might be a choice about whether or not the U.S. Government should run multi-trillion-dollar deficits.
Or does or doesn't spend your money rehabilitating minarets (mosque architectural components) in nations who harbor terrorists who want to kill every Jew in Israel.
Or, if you are a Catholic, whether or not your government uses your money to pay for "free" abortions under the auspices of a socialized medicine program.
It's quite simple, actually. Conservatives and Libertarians want freedom.
Liberals (progressives) want to own everything and everybody, like a medievil monarch. The word "progressive" means "change," and implies change in a "forward" direction. Change to what, you ask? You'd like to know just what a progressive means by forward? Well a different U.S. Constitution, for a start. For example, they would like to have a nation which practices massive redistribution of income. Taking from those who earn a living, then giving the money to those who don't.
The government would be the "agent" here, taking a commission for transferring the funds.
Obama Spending Labor Day With Real THUGS
Our community-organizer-in-chief, is all for corruption and the patently dishonest AFL-CIO alliance. As usual, the Iman Obama can be found cavorting with trash and pretending he's dancing with stars.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Obama-spending-Labor-Day-with-real-thugs-719584-102172594.html
Michelle Malkin: Obama spending Labor Day with real thugs
By: Michelle Malkin
Examiner Columnist
September 3, 2010
To mark Labor Day 2010, President Obama will join hands with AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka in Milwaukee and pose as champions of the working class. Bad move. Trumka's organizing record is a shameful reminder of the union movement's violent and corrupt foundations.
The new Obama/AFL-CIO power alliance -- underwritten with $40 million in hard-earned worker dues -- is a midterm shotgun marriage of Beltway brass knuckles and Big Labor brawn. Trumka warmed up his rhetorical muscles this past week with full-frontal attacks on former GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. He indignantly accused her of "getting close to calling for violence" and suggested that her criticism of Tea Party-bashing labor bosses amounted to "terrorizing" workers.
Trumka and Obama will cast Big Labor as an unassailable force for good in American history. But when it comes to terrorizing workers, Trumka knows whereof he speaks.
Meet Eddie York. He was a workingman whose story will never scroll across Obama's teleprompter. A nonunion contractor who operated heavy equipment, York was shot to death during a strike called by the United Mine Workers 17 years ago.
Workmates who tried to come to his rescue were beaten in an ensuing melee. The head of the UMW spearheading the wave of strikes at that time? Richard Trumka.
Responding to concerns about violence, he shrugged to the Virginian-Pilot in September 1993: "I'm saying if you strike a match and you put your finger in it, you're likely to get burned." Incendiary rhetoric, anyone?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Obama-spending-Labor-Day-with-real-thugs-719584-102172594.html
Michelle Malkin: Obama spending Labor Day with real thugs
By: Michelle Malkin
Examiner Columnist
September 3, 2010
To mark Labor Day 2010, President Obama will join hands with AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka in Milwaukee and pose as champions of the working class. Bad move. Trumka's organizing record is a shameful reminder of the union movement's violent and corrupt foundations.
The new Obama/AFL-CIO power alliance -- underwritten with $40 million in hard-earned worker dues -- is a midterm shotgun marriage of Beltway brass knuckles and Big Labor brawn. Trumka warmed up his rhetorical muscles this past week with full-frontal attacks on former GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. He indignantly accused her of "getting close to calling for violence" and suggested that her criticism of Tea Party-bashing labor bosses amounted to "terrorizing" workers.
Trumka and Obama will cast Big Labor as an unassailable force for good in American history. But when it comes to terrorizing workers, Trumka knows whereof he speaks.
Meet Eddie York. He was a workingman whose story will never scroll across Obama's teleprompter. A nonunion contractor who operated heavy equipment, York was shot to death during a strike called by the United Mine Workers 17 years ago.
Workmates who tried to come to his rescue were beaten in an ensuing melee. The head of the UMW spearheading the wave of strikes at that time? Richard Trumka.
Responding to concerns about violence, he shrugged to the Virginian-Pilot in September 1993: "I'm saying if you strike a match and you put your finger in it, you're likely to get burned." Incendiary rhetoric, anyone?
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Dems Run AWAY From Health Care
With the integrity of a inner city 3 Card Monty Dealer, democrats are terrified to publicize their supposed, greatest achievement. In a world where left is so wrong, that the left has to pretend their hardest fought win never existed, it's not surprising to see democrats hiding from Obama-care as the march toward defeat, in November.
There's only one thing to say about democratic chances this Fall.
Sucks To Be You!
By JENNIFER HABERKORN | 9/5/10 7:24 AM EDT Updated: 9/5/10 12:25 PM EDT
A handful of House Democrats are making health care reform an election year issue — by running against it.
At least five of the 34 House Democrats who voted against their party’s health care reform bill are highlighting their “no” votes in ads back home. By contrast, party officials in Washington can’t identify a single House member who’s running an ad boasting of a “yes” vote — despite the fact that 219 House Democrats voted in favor of final passage in March
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/41777.html
There's only one thing to say about democratic chances this Fall.
Sucks To Be You!
By JENNIFER HABERKORN | 9/5/10 7:24 AM EDT Updated: 9/5/10 12:25 PM EDT
A handful of House Democrats are making health care reform an election year issue — by running against it.
At least five of the 34 House Democrats who voted against their party’s health care reform bill are highlighting their “no” votes in ads back home. By contrast, party officials in Washington can’t identify a single House member who’s running an ad boasting of a “yes” vote — despite the fact that 219 House Democrats voted in favor of final passage in March
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/41777.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)