Obama Has to Go in November....Get the movement going NOW!!!
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
The REAL Obama Energy Policy....
Here's Obama's REAL energy policy...to get you to pay MORE at the pump...Obama has to go in November unless you want to spend $5 or $6 a gallon and eventually be forced to drive an electric car that has a 40 mile range and MIGHT catch on fire.....
An Article from 2010, but the trend continues...Obama - Our Blamer in Chief....
Here's an opinion piece by Chuck Green who writes "Greener Pastures" for the Denver Post Aurora Sentinel...one of the more liberal papers in the country. Additionally, Mr. Green is a lifelong Democrat...so this is rather a stunning piece... Obama is victim of Bush's failed promises!
Green: Obama is a victim of Bush's failed promises
Posted: Sunday, February 7, 2010 12:00 am
Barack Obama is setting a record-setting number of records during his first year in office.
Largest budget ever. Largest deficit ever. Largest number of broken promises ever. Most self-serving speeches ever. Largest number of agenda-setting failures ever. Fastest dive in popularity ever.
Wow. Talk about change.
Just one year ago, fresh from his inauguration celebrations, President Obama was flying high. After one of the nation’s most inspiring political campaigns, the election of America’s first black president had captured the hopes and dreams of millions. To his devout followers, it was inconceivable that a year later his administration would be gripped in self-imposed crisis.
Of course, they don’t see it as self imposed. It’s all George Bush’s fault.
George Bush, who doesn’t have a vote in Congress and who no longer occupies the White House, is to blame for it all.
He broke Obama’s promise to put all bills on the White House web site for five days before signing them.
He broke Obama’s promise to have the congressional health care negotiations broadcast live on C-SPAN.
He broke Obama’s promise to end earmarks.
He broke Obama’s promise to keep unemployment from rising above 8 percent.
He broke Obama’s promise to close the detention center at Guantanamo in the first year.
He broke Obama’s promise to make peace with direct, no pre-condition talks with America’s most hate-filled enemies during his first year in office, ushering in a new era of global cooperation.
He broke Obama’s promise to end the hiring of former lobbyists into high White House jobs.
He broke Obama’s promise to end no-compete contracts with the government.
He broke Obama’s promise to disclose the names of all attendees at closed White House meetings.
He broke Obama’s promise for a new era of bipartisan cooperation in all matters.
He broke Obama’s promise to have chosen a home church to attend Sunday services with his family by Easter of last year.
Yes, it’s all George Bush’s fault. President Obama is nothing more than a puppet in the never-ending, failed Bush administration.
If only George Bush wasn’t still in charge, all of President Obama’s problems would be solved. His promises would have been kept, the economy would be back on track, Iran would have stopped its work on developing a nuclear bomb and would be negotiating a peace treaty with Israel, North Korea would have ended its tyrannical regime, and integrity would have been restored to the federal government.
Oh, and did I mention what it would be like if the Democrats, under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, didn’t have the heavy yoke of George Bush around their necks. There would be no earmarks, no closed-door drafting of bills, no increase in deficit spending, no special-interest influence (unions), no vote buying (Nebraska, Louisiana).
If only George Bush wasn’t still in charge, we’d have real change by now.
All the broken promises, all the failed legislation and delay (health care reform, immigration reform) is not President Obama’s fault or the fault of the Democrat-controlled Congress. It’s all George Bush’s fault.
Take for example the decision of Eric Holder, the president’s attorney general, to hold terrorists’ trials in New York City. Or his decision to try the Christmas Day underpants bomber as a civilian.
Two disastrous decisions.
Certainly those were bad judgments based on poor advice from George Bush.
Need more proof?
You might recall that when Scott Brown won last month’s election to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts, capturing “the Ted Kennedy seat,” President Obama said that Brown’s victory was the result of the same voter anger that propelled Obama into office in 2008. People were still angry about George Bush and the policies of the past 10 years, and they wanted change.
Yes, according to the president, the voter rebellion in Massachusetts last month was George Bush’s fault.
Therefore, in retaliation, they elected a Republican to the Ted Kennedy seat, ending a half-century of domination by Democrats.
It is all George Bush’s fault.
Will the failed administration of George Bush ever end, and the time for hope and change ever arrive?
Will President Obama ever accept responsibility for something — anything?
Chuck Green, veteran Colorado journalist and former editor-in-chief of The Denver Post, syndicates a statewide column and is at chuckgreencolo@msn.com
Green: Obama is a victim of Bush's failed promises
Posted: Sunday, February 7, 2010 12:00 am
Barack Obama is setting a record-setting number of records during his first year in office.
Largest budget ever. Largest deficit ever. Largest number of broken promises ever. Most self-serving speeches ever. Largest number of agenda-setting failures ever. Fastest dive in popularity ever.
Wow. Talk about change.
Just one year ago, fresh from his inauguration celebrations, President Obama was flying high. After one of the nation’s most inspiring political campaigns, the election of America’s first black president had captured the hopes and dreams of millions. To his devout followers, it was inconceivable that a year later his administration would be gripped in self-imposed crisis.
Of course, they don’t see it as self imposed. It’s all George Bush’s fault.
George Bush, who doesn’t have a vote in Congress and who no longer occupies the White House, is to blame for it all.
He broke Obama’s promise to put all bills on the White House web site for five days before signing them.
He broke Obama’s promise to have the congressional health care negotiations broadcast live on C-SPAN.
He broke Obama’s promise to end earmarks.
He broke Obama’s promise to keep unemployment from rising above 8 percent.
He broke Obama’s promise to close the detention center at Guantanamo in the first year.
He broke Obama’s promise to make peace with direct, no pre-condition talks with America’s most hate-filled enemies during his first year in office, ushering in a new era of global cooperation.
He broke Obama’s promise to end the hiring of former lobbyists into high White House jobs.
He broke Obama’s promise to end no-compete contracts with the government.
He broke Obama’s promise to disclose the names of all attendees at closed White House meetings.
He broke Obama’s promise for a new era of bipartisan cooperation in all matters.
He broke Obama’s promise to have chosen a home church to attend Sunday services with his family by Easter of last year.
Yes, it’s all George Bush’s fault. President Obama is nothing more than a puppet in the never-ending, failed Bush administration.
If only George Bush wasn’t still in charge, all of President Obama’s problems would be solved. His promises would have been kept, the economy would be back on track, Iran would have stopped its work on developing a nuclear bomb and would be negotiating a peace treaty with Israel, North Korea would have ended its tyrannical regime, and integrity would have been restored to the federal government.
Oh, and did I mention what it would be like if the Democrats, under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, didn’t have the heavy yoke of George Bush around their necks. There would be no earmarks, no closed-door drafting of bills, no increase in deficit spending, no special-interest influence (unions), no vote buying (Nebraska, Louisiana).
If only George Bush wasn’t still in charge, we’d have real change by now.
All the broken promises, all the failed legislation and delay (health care reform, immigration reform) is not President Obama’s fault or the fault of the Democrat-controlled Congress. It’s all George Bush’s fault.
Take for example the decision of Eric Holder, the president’s attorney general, to hold terrorists’ trials in New York City. Or his decision to try the Christmas Day underpants bomber as a civilian.
Two disastrous decisions.
Certainly those were bad judgments based on poor advice from George Bush.
Need more proof?
You might recall that when Scott Brown won last month’s election to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts, capturing “the Ted Kennedy seat,” President Obama said that Brown’s victory was the result of the same voter anger that propelled Obama into office in 2008. People were still angry about George Bush and the policies of the past 10 years, and they wanted change.
Yes, according to the president, the voter rebellion in Massachusetts last month was George Bush’s fault.
Therefore, in retaliation, they elected a Republican to the Ted Kennedy seat, ending a half-century of domination by Democrats.
It is all George Bush’s fault.
Will the failed administration of George Bush ever end, and the time for hope and change ever arrive?
Will President Obama ever accept responsibility for something — anything?
Chuck Green, veteran Colorado journalist and former editor-in-chief of The Denver Post, syndicates a statewide column and is at chuckgreencolo@msn.com
Monday, February 27, 2012
Here's how Canada Feels About Obama and Ridiculous Decisions....
This Canadian Reporter makes a lot of sense...
Corruption, Theft, Blackmail and Dirty Dealings within Media Matters...One of Obama's Closest Contacts...
More on the theft, corruption, dirty dealings going on within Media Matters...and this is the organization that meets regularly with the White House...what has happened to our Executive Branch...
Media Matters boss paid former partner $850G 'blackmail' settlement
By Jana Winter Published February 27, 2012 | FoxNews.com
Media Matters chief David Brock paid a former domestic partner $850,000 after being threatened with damaging information involving the organization’s donors and the IRS – a deal that Brock later characterized as a blackmail payment, according to legal documents obtained by FoxNews.com.
In an acrimonious lawsuit settled at the end of last year, Brock accused William Grey of making repeated threats to expose him to the "scorn or ridicule of his employees, donors and the press in demanding money and property." Brock claimed in legal papers that he sold a Rehoboth Beach, Del., home he once shared with Grey in order to meet Grey’s demands, which he called "blackmail" in the lawsuit.
Former Vacation home of Media Matters Founder David Brock, a converted inn house in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. Brock sold the home in May 2010. The current owner razed the house and divided the plot for two new properties.
Brock, 49, heads the non-profit Media Matters for America, which bills itself as a watchdog of the conservative media but has recently come under fire for allegedly coordinating with Democrats in what could be a violation of its tax-exempt status.
Brock’s bitter legal battle with Grey, who is described in a Sept. 14, 2010, police report obtained by FoxNews.com as his domestic partner of more than 10 years, began after Brock began dating Washington, D.C., restaurant impresario James Alefantis about five years ago. For the next three years, Brock and Grey traded angry accusations, which were documented in the police report and were the foundation of a pitched legal battle replete with charges of blackmail, theft and financial malfeasance.
Alefantis was also named as a defendant in Grey's lawsuit.
In his response to Brock's lawsuit, Grey "denies that he committed any "acts of blackmail.""
Grey threatened to go public about Brock and Media Matters' finances after he accused Brock in a civil suit filed in Washington of taking $170,000 in possessions, including an $8,000 Louis Vuitton suit bag, paintings, a rug, a chandelier, a painted bust of a Roman soldier and a pair of carved wooden chairs upholstered with purple fabric. Those possessions were displayed in the Washington townhouse where the couple entertained liberal movers and shakers in happier times.
Brock took Grey’s threats seriously and called police in 2010. In the police report, filed by Metropolitan Police as a stalking incident, Brock accused Grey, also 49, of attempting to blackmail him with a series of emails threatening to "release specific derogatory information about [Brock] and his organization to the press and donors that would be embarrassing to him and cause harm to the organization …"
Some of those emails came out as the lawsuit, filed by Grey on Jan. 28, 2011, wound its way through Superior Court of the District of Columbia last year.
"Please finish this today so I don’t have to waste my time emailing anyone – Biden, Coulter, Carlson, Huffington, Drudge, Ingraham," Grey wrote in a 2008 email.
Nearly two years later, Grey accused Brock of "financial malfeasance" and threatened to undermine Brock’s fundraising efforts.
"Next step is I contact all your donors and the IRS," Grey wrote in an email dated May 19, 2010. "This is going to stink for you if you do not resolve this now."
Brock said in court papers that he paid Grey "under duress."
On March 8, 2011, Brock filed his own suit against Grey for more than $4 million, demanding Grey return the $850,000, plus pay millions more in punitive damages. The two settled two months ago under terms that remain confidential.
Paying off Grey may not have been easy for Brock, even with his salary of nearly $300,000 at Media Matters. Records show Brock had pulled massive amounts of equity from the six-bedroom Rehoboth Beach house as its value skyrocketed during the real estate bubble.
Sussex County property records show he took out a $273,000 mortgage to buy the pale yellow colonial and carriage house for $606,666 in 1995. As the converted inn, built in 1793, continued to rise in value, Brock refinanced his loan on at least two occasions. Records show he had a $1.44 million mortgage on the property, as well as two more loans against the home totaling just over $500,000.
Brock received $1,587,500 for the home on May 25, 2010, in a sale to McLean, Va.-based Vardell Realty Investments. It could not be determined how much Brock still owed on the $1.44 million mortgage, or how much he netted from the sale, if any.
Records indicate that Brock had paid off the two smaller loans at the time of the sale.
Within a year of selling the house, Brock apparently had second thoughts about paying off Grey. In the civil suit, Brock accused Grey of three counts of blackmail, citing a statute that defines blackmail as threatening "to expose a secret or publicize a fact, whether true or false, tending to subject any person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, to impair the reputation of any person."
He countersued to get his $850,000 back, plus $500,000 for each of three counts of alleged blackmail, and another $2 million in compensatory damages based in part on what Brock’s lawyers called abuse of the judicial system and legal fees.
Grey, who relocated to Massachusetts, declined to comment when contacted by FoxNews.com. Brock and Alefantis remain in Washington, where Brock has released a new book attacking Fox News. He is also under scrutiny from several members of Congress amid reports Media Matters for America is in possible violation of IRS laws governing nonprofits.
The Rehoboth Beach home was torn down months after Brock sold it, amid much community opposition, so the buyer could divide the parcel and build two homes. It remains a vacant lot.
Perry Chiaramonte contributed to this report.
Media Matters boss paid former partner $850G 'blackmail' settlement
By Jana Winter Published February 27, 2012 | FoxNews.com
Media Matters chief David Brock paid a former domestic partner $850,000 after being threatened with damaging information involving the organization’s donors and the IRS – a deal that Brock later characterized as a blackmail payment, according to legal documents obtained by FoxNews.com.
In an acrimonious lawsuit settled at the end of last year, Brock accused William Grey of making repeated threats to expose him to the "scorn or ridicule of his employees, donors and the press in demanding money and property." Brock claimed in legal papers that he sold a Rehoboth Beach, Del., home he once shared with Grey in order to meet Grey’s demands, which he called "blackmail" in the lawsuit.
Former Vacation home of Media Matters Founder David Brock, a converted inn house in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. Brock sold the home in May 2010. The current owner razed the house and divided the plot for two new properties.
Brock, 49, heads the non-profit Media Matters for America, which bills itself as a watchdog of the conservative media but has recently come under fire for allegedly coordinating with Democrats in what could be a violation of its tax-exempt status.
Brock’s bitter legal battle with Grey, who is described in a Sept. 14, 2010, police report obtained by FoxNews.com as his domestic partner of more than 10 years, began after Brock began dating Washington, D.C., restaurant impresario James Alefantis about five years ago. For the next three years, Brock and Grey traded angry accusations, which were documented in the police report and were the foundation of a pitched legal battle replete with charges of blackmail, theft and financial malfeasance.
Alefantis was also named as a defendant in Grey's lawsuit.
In his response to Brock's lawsuit, Grey "denies that he committed any "acts of blackmail.""
Grey threatened to go public about Brock and Media Matters' finances after he accused Brock in a civil suit filed in Washington of taking $170,000 in possessions, including an $8,000 Louis Vuitton suit bag, paintings, a rug, a chandelier, a painted bust of a Roman soldier and a pair of carved wooden chairs upholstered with purple fabric. Those possessions were displayed in the Washington townhouse where the couple entertained liberal movers and shakers in happier times.
Brock took Grey’s threats seriously and called police in 2010. In the police report, filed by Metropolitan Police as a stalking incident, Brock accused Grey, also 49, of attempting to blackmail him with a series of emails threatening to "release specific derogatory information about [Brock] and his organization to the press and donors that would be embarrassing to him and cause harm to the organization …"
Some of those emails came out as the lawsuit, filed by Grey on Jan. 28, 2011, wound its way through Superior Court of the District of Columbia last year.
"Please finish this today so I don’t have to waste my time emailing anyone – Biden, Coulter, Carlson, Huffington, Drudge, Ingraham," Grey wrote in a 2008 email.
Nearly two years later, Grey accused Brock of "financial malfeasance" and threatened to undermine Brock’s fundraising efforts.
"Next step is I contact all your donors and the IRS," Grey wrote in an email dated May 19, 2010. "This is going to stink for you if you do not resolve this now."
Brock said in court papers that he paid Grey "under duress."
On March 8, 2011, Brock filed his own suit against Grey for more than $4 million, demanding Grey return the $850,000, plus pay millions more in punitive damages. The two settled two months ago under terms that remain confidential.
Paying off Grey may not have been easy for Brock, even with his salary of nearly $300,000 at Media Matters. Records show Brock had pulled massive amounts of equity from the six-bedroom Rehoboth Beach house as its value skyrocketed during the real estate bubble.
Sussex County property records show he took out a $273,000 mortgage to buy the pale yellow colonial and carriage house for $606,666 in 1995. As the converted inn, built in 1793, continued to rise in value, Brock refinanced his loan on at least two occasions. Records show he had a $1.44 million mortgage on the property, as well as two more loans against the home totaling just over $500,000.
Brock received $1,587,500 for the home on May 25, 2010, in a sale to McLean, Va.-based Vardell Realty Investments. It could not be determined how much Brock still owed on the $1.44 million mortgage, or how much he netted from the sale, if any.
Records indicate that Brock had paid off the two smaller loans at the time of the sale.
Within a year of selling the house, Brock apparently had second thoughts about paying off Grey. In the civil suit, Brock accused Grey of three counts of blackmail, citing a statute that defines blackmail as threatening "to expose a secret or publicize a fact, whether true or false, tending to subject any person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, to impair the reputation of any person."
He countersued to get his $850,000 back, plus $500,000 for each of three counts of alleged blackmail, and another $2 million in compensatory damages based in part on what Brock’s lawyers called abuse of the judicial system and legal fees.
Grey, who relocated to Massachusetts, declined to comment when contacted by FoxNews.com. Brock and Alefantis remain in Washington, where Brock has released a new book attacking Fox News. He is also under scrutiny from several members of Congress amid reports Media Matters for America is in possible violation of IRS laws governing nonprofits.
The Rehoboth Beach home was torn down months after Brock sold it, amid much community opposition, so the buyer could divide the parcel and build two homes. It remains a vacant lot.
Perry Chiaramonte contributed to this report.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Same Incompetent President/Same Possible Short Term Band-Aids.....
Obama did this last time and it had virtually no effect on gasoline prices...
Obama administration coy on possibility of tapping oil reserve as gas prices rise
Published February 25, 2012 | FoxNews.com
The Obama administration is staying mum about the possibility of opening up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as a way to curb the rise in gas prices -- declining to rule it in or out while insisting all along that officials are not interested in "short-term fixes."
Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner stirred speculation on Friday when, in an interview on CNBC, he said "there's a case for the use of the reserve in some circumstances."
Geithner said the administration would "continue to look at those and evaluate that carefully."
But while the Obama administration last summer announced the release of 30 million barrels from the reserve -- a decision derided by Republicans as a political move -- the White House would not tip its hat to its intentions in an election year.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest called the question purely "hypothetical."
"I'm not going to speculate about any sorts of discussions that may or may not be taking place related to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve," Earnest said.
He added: "If somebody is going to promise that they can wave a magic wand or sprinkle the pixie dust or plant the beans in the right place so that we can get out of this problem, they're just not being straight with you and they're not being straight with the American people."
That follows the theme Obama has pushed over the last few days. In a major energy speech earlier in the week, Obama said there is no "silver bullet" for rising gas prices. He repeated the claim in his radio address on Saturday, as he called for an "all-of-the-above" long-term approach to energy independence.
Obama's comments were decried as "defeatist" by Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee.
"Simply by removing the bureaucratic barriers imposed by your own administration we can begin to make progress," he wrote in a letter to the president Friday.
Republicans have, as could be anticipated, called for more domestic oil and gas production. They roundly call on the administration to approve the cross-border permit for the Canada-to-Texas Keystone oil pipeline. Several Republican senators have even introduced a bill to prohibit the Strategic Petroleum Reserve from being opened unless that permit is issued.
The hubbub over gas prices comes as the average price for a gallon of regular rises to $3.67. Though a spring-time jump in prices is typical, it's happening earlier than usual. The $3.67 price is a record for this time of year.
Geithner attributed the early jump to two factors -- recovery in the global economy, as well as fears that Iran could disrupt oil supplies.
The country's Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which currently contains about 700 million barrels, is intended for emergency situations. While potentially opening the door to tapping the reserve, Geithner stuck to the president's message Friday that the country should continue to invest in long-term solutions.
"There's no quick fix to this, no short-term fix to this," Geithner said. "The best strategy for the country is to continue to make some long-term investments, to expand production in the United States, to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, to encourage Americans to use more efficient clean sources of energy, to encourage Americans to be more efficient in how they use energy."
Obama administration coy on possibility of tapping oil reserve as gas prices rise
Published February 25, 2012 | FoxNews.com
The Obama administration is staying mum about the possibility of opening up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as a way to curb the rise in gas prices -- declining to rule it in or out while insisting all along that officials are not interested in "short-term fixes."
Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner stirred speculation on Friday when, in an interview on CNBC, he said "there's a case for the use of the reserve in some circumstances."
Geithner said the administration would "continue to look at those and evaluate that carefully."
But while the Obama administration last summer announced the release of 30 million barrels from the reserve -- a decision derided by Republicans as a political move -- the White House would not tip its hat to its intentions in an election year.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest called the question purely "hypothetical."
"I'm not going to speculate about any sorts of discussions that may or may not be taking place related to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve," Earnest said.
He added: "If somebody is going to promise that they can wave a magic wand or sprinkle the pixie dust or plant the beans in the right place so that we can get out of this problem, they're just not being straight with you and they're not being straight with the American people."
That follows the theme Obama has pushed over the last few days. In a major energy speech earlier in the week, Obama said there is no "silver bullet" for rising gas prices. He repeated the claim in his radio address on Saturday, as he called for an "all-of-the-above" long-term approach to energy independence.
Obama's comments were decried as "defeatist" by Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee.
"Simply by removing the bureaucratic barriers imposed by your own administration we can begin to make progress," he wrote in a letter to the president Friday.
Republicans have, as could be anticipated, called for more domestic oil and gas production. They roundly call on the administration to approve the cross-border permit for the Canada-to-Texas Keystone oil pipeline. Several Republican senators have even introduced a bill to prohibit the Strategic Petroleum Reserve from being opened unless that permit is issued.
The hubbub over gas prices comes as the average price for a gallon of regular rises to $3.67. Though a spring-time jump in prices is typical, it's happening earlier than usual. The $3.67 price is a record for this time of year.
Geithner attributed the early jump to two factors -- recovery in the global economy, as well as fears that Iran could disrupt oil supplies.
The country's Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which currently contains about 700 million barrels, is intended for emergency situations. While potentially opening the door to tapping the reserve, Geithner stuck to the president's message Friday that the country should continue to invest in long-term solutions.
"There's no quick fix to this, no short-term fix to this," Geithner said. "The best strategy for the country is to continue to make some long-term investments, to expand production in the United States, to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, to encourage Americans to use more efficient clean sources of energy, to encourage Americans to be more efficient in how they use energy."
Interesting Article Showing Just What Obama is Doing to Us.
February 25, 2012 4:00 A.M.
The Perversion of Rights
They’re now gifts that a benign king graciously showers upon his subjects.
By Mark Steyn February 25, 2012 4:00 A.M.
Mark Steyn CNN’s John King did his best the other night, producing a question from one of his viewers:
“Since birth control is the latest hot topic, which candidate believes in birth control, and if not, why?”
To their credit, no Republican candidate was inclined to accept the premise of the question. King might have done better to put the issue to Danica Patrick. For some reason, Michelle Fields of the Daily Caller sought the views of the NASCAR driver and Sports Illustrated swimwear model about “the Obama administration’s dictate that religious employers provide health-care plans that cover contraceptives.” Miss Patrick, a practicing Catholic, gave the perfect citizen’s response for the Age of Obama:
“I leave it up to the government to make good decisions for Americans.”
That’s the real “hot topic” here — whether a majority of citizens, in America as elsewhere in the West, is willing to “leave it up to the government” to make decisions on everything that matters. On the face of it, the choice between the Obama administration and the Catholic Church should not be a tough one. On the one hand, we have the plain language of the First Amendment as stated in the U.S. Constitution since 1791: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
On the other, we have a regulation invented by executive order under the vast powers given to Kathleen Sebelius under a 2,500-page catalogue of statist enforcement passed into law by a government party that didn’t even bother to read it.
Commissar Sebelius says that she is trying to “strike the appropriate balance.” But these two things — a core, bedrock, constitutional principle, and Section 47(e)viii of Micro-Regulation Four Bazillion and One issued by Leviathan’s Bureau of Compliance — are not equal, and you can only “balance” them by massively increasing state power and massively diminishing the citizen’s. Or, to put it more benignly, by “leaving it up to the government to make good decisions.”
Some of us have been here before. For most of the last five years, I’ve been battling Canada’s so-called “human rights” commissions, and similar thought police in Britain, Europe, and elsewhere. As I write this, I’m in Australia, to talk up the cause of free speech, which is, alas, endangered even in that great land. In that sense, the “latest hot topic” — the clash between Obama and American Catholics — is, in fact, a perfect distillation of the broader struggle in the West today. When it comes to human rights, I go back to 1215 and Magna Carta — or, to give it its full name, Magna Carta Libertatum. My italics: I don’t think they had them back in 1215. But they understood that “libertatum” is the word that matters. Back then, “human rights” were rights of humans, of individuals — and restraints upon the king: They’re the rights that matter: limitations upon kingly power. Eight centuries later, we have entirely inverted the principle: “Rights” are now gifts that a benign king graciously showers upon his subjects — the right to “free” health care, to affordable housing, the “right of access to a free placement service” (to quote the European Constitution’s “rights” for workers). The Democratic National Committee understands the new school of rights very well: In its recent video, Obama’s bureaucratic edict is upgraded into the “right to contraception coverage at no additional cost.” And, up against a “human right” as basic as that, how can such peripheral rights as freedom of conscience possibly compete?
The transformation of “human rights” from restraints upon state power into a pretext for state power is nicely encapsulated in the language of Article 14 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which states that everyone has the right “to receive free compulsory education.” Got that? You have the human right to be forced to do something by the government.
Commissar Sebelius isn’t the only one interested in “striking the appropriate balance” between individual liberty and state compulsion. Everyone talks like that these days. For Canada’s Chief Censor, Jennifer Lynch, freedom of expression is just one menu item in the great all-you-can-eat salad bar of rights, so don’t be surprised if we’re occasionally out of stock. Instead, why not try one of our tasty nutritious rights du jour? Like the human right to a transsexual labiaplasty, or the human right of McDonald’s employees not to have to wash their hands after visiting the bathroom. Commissar Lynch puts it this way: “The modern conception of rights is that of a matrix with different rights and freedoms mutually reinforcing each other to build a strong and durable human rights system.”
That would be a matrix as in some sort of intricate biological sequencing very few people can understand? Or a Matrix as in the illusory world created to maintain a supine citizenry by all-controlling government officials? The point is, with so many pseudo-“rights” bouncing around, you need a bigger and bigger state: Individual rights are less important than a “rights system” — i.e., a government bureaucracy.
This perversion of rights is killing the Western world. First, unlike real rights — to freedom of speech and freedom of religion — these new freedoms come with quite a price tag. All the free stuff is free in the sense of those offers that begin “You pay nothing now!” But you will eventually. No nation is rich enough to give you all this “free” stuff year in, year out. Spain’s government debt works out to $18,000 per person, France’s to $33,000, Greece’s to $39,000. Thank God we’re not Greece, huh? Er, in fact, according to the Senate Budget Committee, U.S. government debt is currently $44,215 per person. Going by the official Obama budget numbers, it will rise over the next ten years to $75,000. As I say, that’s per person: 75 grand in debt for every man, woman, and child, not to mention every one of the ever-swelling ranks of retirees and disabled Social Security recipients — or about $200,000 per household.
So maybe you’re not interested in philosophical notions of liberty vs. statism — like Danica Patrick, tens of millions of people are happy to “leave it up to the government to make good decisions.” Maybe you’re relatively relaxed about the less theoretical encroachments of Big Government — the diversion of so much American energy into “professional services,” all the lawyering and bookkeeping and paperwork shuffling necessary to keep you and your economic activity in full compliance with the Bureau of Compliance. But at some point no matter how painless the seductions of statism, you run up against the hard math: As those debt per capita numbers make plain, all this “free” stuff is doing is mortgaging your liberty and lining up a future of serfdom.
I used to think that the U.S. Constitution would prove more resilient than the less absolutist liberties of other Western nations. But the president has calculated that, with Obamacare, the First Amendment and much else will crumble before his will. And, given trends in U.S. jurisprudence, who’s to say he won’t get his way? That’s the point about all this “free” stuff: Ultimately, it’s not about your rights, but about his.
— Mark Steyn, a National Review columnist, is the author of After America: Get Ready for Armageddon. © 2012 Mark Steyn
The Perversion of Rights
They’re now gifts that a benign king graciously showers upon his subjects.
By Mark Steyn February 25, 2012 4:00 A.M.
Mark Steyn CNN’s John King did his best the other night, producing a question from one of his viewers:
“Since birth control is the latest hot topic, which candidate believes in birth control, and if not, why?”
To their credit, no Republican candidate was inclined to accept the premise of the question. King might have done better to put the issue to Danica Patrick. For some reason, Michelle Fields of the Daily Caller sought the views of the NASCAR driver and Sports Illustrated swimwear model about “the Obama administration’s dictate that religious employers provide health-care plans that cover contraceptives.” Miss Patrick, a practicing Catholic, gave the perfect citizen’s response for the Age of Obama:
“I leave it up to the government to make good decisions for Americans.”
That’s the real “hot topic” here — whether a majority of citizens, in America as elsewhere in the West, is willing to “leave it up to the government” to make decisions on everything that matters. On the face of it, the choice between the Obama administration and the Catholic Church should not be a tough one. On the one hand, we have the plain language of the First Amendment as stated in the U.S. Constitution since 1791: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
On the other, we have a regulation invented by executive order under the vast powers given to Kathleen Sebelius under a 2,500-page catalogue of statist enforcement passed into law by a government party that didn’t even bother to read it.
Commissar Sebelius says that she is trying to “strike the appropriate balance.” But these two things — a core, bedrock, constitutional principle, and Section 47(e)viii of Micro-Regulation Four Bazillion and One issued by Leviathan’s Bureau of Compliance — are not equal, and you can only “balance” them by massively increasing state power and massively diminishing the citizen’s. Or, to put it more benignly, by “leaving it up to the government to make good decisions.”
Some of us have been here before. For most of the last five years, I’ve been battling Canada’s so-called “human rights” commissions, and similar thought police in Britain, Europe, and elsewhere. As I write this, I’m in Australia, to talk up the cause of free speech, which is, alas, endangered even in that great land. In that sense, the “latest hot topic” — the clash between Obama and American Catholics — is, in fact, a perfect distillation of the broader struggle in the West today. When it comes to human rights, I go back to 1215 and Magna Carta — or, to give it its full name, Magna Carta Libertatum. My italics: I don’t think they had them back in 1215. But they understood that “libertatum” is the word that matters. Back then, “human rights” were rights of humans, of individuals — and restraints upon the king: They’re the rights that matter: limitations upon kingly power. Eight centuries later, we have entirely inverted the principle: “Rights” are now gifts that a benign king graciously showers upon his subjects — the right to “free” health care, to affordable housing, the “right of access to a free placement service” (to quote the European Constitution’s “rights” for workers). The Democratic National Committee understands the new school of rights very well: In its recent video, Obama’s bureaucratic edict is upgraded into the “right to contraception coverage at no additional cost.” And, up against a “human right” as basic as that, how can such peripheral rights as freedom of conscience possibly compete?
The transformation of “human rights” from restraints upon state power into a pretext for state power is nicely encapsulated in the language of Article 14 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which states that everyone has the right “to receive free compulsory education.” Got that? You have the human right to be forced to do something by the government.
Commissar Sebelius isn’t the only one interested in “striking the appropriate balance” between individual liberty and state compulsion. Everyone talks like that these days. For Canada’s Chief Censor, Jennifer Lynch, freedom of expression is just one menu item in the great all-you-can-eat salad bar of rights, so don’t be surprised if we’re occasionally out of stock. Instead, why not try one of our tasty nutritious rights du jour? Like the human right to a transsexual labiaplasty, or the human right of McDonald’s employees not to have to wash their hands after visiting the bathroom. Commissar Lynch puts it this way: “The modern conception of rights is that of a matrix with different rights and freedoms mutually reinforcing each other to build a strong and durable human rights system.”
That would be a matrix as in some sort of intricate biological sequencing very few people can understand? Or a Matrix as in the illusory world created to maintain a supine citizenry by all-controlling government officials? The point is, with so many pseudo-“rights” bouncing around, you need a bigger and bigger state: Individual rights are less important than a “rights system” — i.e., a government bureaucracy.
This perversion of rights is killing the Western world. First, unlike real rights — to freedom of speech and freedom of religion — these new freedoms come with quite a price tag. All the free stuff is free in the sense of those offers that begin “You pay nothing now!” But you will eventually. No nation is rich enough to give you all this “free” stuff year in, year out. Spain’s government debt works out to $18,000 per person, France’s to $33,000, Greece’s to $39,000. Thank God we’re not Greece, huh? Er, in fact, according to the Senate Budget Committee, U.S. government debt is currently $44,215 per person. Going by the official Obama budget numbers, it will rise over the next ten years to $75,000. As I say, that’s per person: 75 grand in debt for every man, woman, and child, not to mention every one of the ever-swelling ranks of retirees and disabled Social Security recipients — or about $200,000 per household.
So maybe you’re not interested in philosophical notions of liberty vs. statism — like Danica Patrick, tens of millions of people are happy to “leave it up to the government to make good decisions.” Maybe you’re relatively relaxed about the less theoretical encroachments of Big Government — the diversion of so much American energy into “professional services,” all the lawyering and bookkeeping and paperwork shuffling necessary to keep you and your economic activity in full compliance with the Bureau of Compliance. But at some point no matter how painless the seductions of statism, you run up against the hard math: As those debt per capita numbers make plain, all this “free” stuff is doing is mortgaging your liberty and lining up a future of serfdom.
I used to think that the U.S. Constitution would prove more resilient than the less absolutist liberties of other Western nations. But the president has calculated that, with Obamacare, the First Amendment and much else will crumble before his will. And, given trends in U.S. jurisprudence, who’s to say he won’t get his way? That’s the point about all this “free” stuff: Ultimately, it’s not about your rights, but about his.
— Mark Steyn, a National Review columnist, is the author of After America: Get Ready for Armageddon. © 2012 Mark Steyn
Obama - The Apologizer-In-Chief
Wouldn't it be great to have a President that wasn't constantly apologizing for America....? We can make that change this November...
Krauthammer is Right....Obama is not only an Idiot, but he totally embarassing to America....
Obama is just showing WEAKNESS!...His own weakness and he's portraying America as being Weak!...That's EMBARASSING!
Obama's Energy Speech....A Bunch Of Lies...
Finally a Real Interpretation of Obama's Energy Speech.....All Obama does is Lie to the American People...It's all rhetoric...it's all spin....it's a President that have NO ANSWERS....it's a President that is Totally Incompetent...
Remember Obama EVERYTIME you fill up your gas tank....he's the reason you are paying so much...
Remember Obama EVERYTIME you fill up your gas tank....he's the reason you are paying so much...
Democrat Hypocricy.....Bush wsa Responsible for high Gas Prices 4 years ago, but Obama's NOT responsible Now???? What????
Isn't it funny how now all the Democrats from Obama on down say they have no control over gas prices...it certainly wasn't that way four years ago when Bush was President...and that was before Obama has done everything possible to restrict oil production and punish the oil industry....Obama IS at fault for much of this..and so are his Democrat Cronies......someone needs to tell them that cars DO NOT run on the little green energy they have created....
Friday, February 24, 2012
More Obama Crony Capitalism, More Corruption, More Coverup....
LightSquared CEO made curious max donation to DNC while seeking White House audience
Published: 12:37 PM 02/24/2012 By Matthew Boyle - The Daily Caller
Broadband company LightSquared’s CEO made a maximum-allowable political donation to the Democratic Party on the same day his lawyers were trying to arrange a meeting between him and top White House technology officials, records and emails obtained by The Daily Caller show. Those same records also show a questionable inconsistency, listing the CEO’s employer as a company he hadn’t worked for in a decade.
The requests and donation came soon after President Barack Obama’s Federal Communications Commission successfully propped up LightSquared, and subsequently demolished its competitor GlobalStar with regulatory muscle.
Nine days after the FCC denied a waiver-extension request, effectively disabling GlobalStar from being able to continue operating in the field, LightSquared’s attorney Henry Goldberg emailed Obama’s White House science and technology chief of staff Jim Kohlenberger to request a meeting. Goldberg wanted Kohlenberger, White House chief technology officer Aneesh Chopra and Tom Kalil, the White House’s deputy director for policy in the office of science and technology policy, to meet with LightSquared’s new CEO, Sanjiv Ahuja.
In the September 23, 2010 email, Goldberg points out that Ahuja would be attending a fundraiser for Obama in the following week.
“In any event, Sanjiv will be at fund-raiser dinner with the President on September 30 and would like to visit with you, perhaps Tom Kalil, and Aneesh Chopra, if it is at all possible,” Goldberg wrote to Kohlenberger, after explaining the status of LightSquared’s network.
Later that day, one of Goldberg’s law firm partners, Dave Kumar, emailed Chopra himself to reiterate the request for a meeting between him, Kalil, Kohlenberger and Ahuja. Kumar also points out how Ahuja was “going to be in DC next week for a fundraising dinner with the president.”
Also on Sept. 23, 2010, Ahuja made a $30,400 donation to the Democratic National Committee. Though he had been LightSquared’s CEO since July of 2010, the Daily Caller has learned that Ahuja’s occupation and employer were curiously listed on the official Federal Election Commission records as “President & CEO” of “Telecordia [sic].” According to a BusinessWeek profile, Ahuja was the president of “Telcordia Technologies” only from 1996 to 2000.
Published: 12:37 PM 02/24/2012 By Matthew Boyle - The Daily Caller
Broadband company LightSquared’s CEO made a maximum-allowable political donation to the Democratic Party on the same day his lawyers were trying to arrange a meeting between him and top White House technology officials, records and emails obtained by The Daily Caller show. Those same records also show a questionable inconsistency, listing the CEO’s employer as a company he hadn’t worked for in a decade.
The requests and donation came soon after President Barack Obama’s Federal Communications Commission successfully propped up LightSquared, and subsequently demolished its competitor GlobalStar with regulatory muscle.
Nine days after the FCC denied a waiver-extension request, effectively disabling GlobalStar from being able to continue operating in the field, LightSquared’s attorney Henry Goldberg emailed Obama’s White House science and technology chief of staff Jim Kohlenberger to request a meeting. Goldberg wanted Kohlenberger, White House chief technology officer Aneesh Chopra and Tom Kalil, the White House’s deputy director for policy in the office of science and technology policy, to meet with LightSquared’s new CEO, Sanjiv Ahuja.
In the September 23, 2010 email, Goldberg points out that Ahuja would be attending a fundraiser for Obama in the following week.
“In any event, Sanjiv will be at fund-raiser dinner with the President on September 30 and would like to visit with you, perhaps Tom Kalil, and Aneesh Chopra, if it is at all possible,” Goldberg wrote to Kohlenberger, after explaining the status of LightSquared’s network.
Later that day, one of Goldberg’s law firm partners, Dave Kumar, emailed Chopra himself to reiterate the request for a meeting between him, Kalil, Kohlenberger and Ahuja. Kumar also points out how Ahuja was “going to be in DC next week for a fundraising dinner with the president.”
Also on Sept. 23, 2010, Ahuja made a $30,400 donation to the Democratic National Committee. Though he had been LightSquared’s CEO since July of 2010, the Daily Caller has learned that Ahuja’s occupation and employer were curiously listed on the official Federal Election Commission records as “President & CEO” of “Telecordia [sic].” According to a BusinessWeek profile, Ahuja was the president of “Telcordia Technologies” only from 1996 to 2000.
Another Democrat and Obama's Friend that was Deep in the Weeds Creating the Financial Disaster, but Now he Working WITH OBAMA...what a hypocrite
Gov. Patrick ‘proud’ of his subprime mortgage work
Published: 2:47 PM 02/24/2012 By Neil Munro
Massachusetts Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick, Barack Obama’s friend and campaign co-chair, told The Daily Caller that he’s proud of the work his did for Ameriquest as it pumped up the nation’s mortgage bubble.
“I served on the board of the holding company for that company, and it was work that I was asked to do with some of their fair-lending issues, and I’m proud of that work,” said Patrick, who was appointed Feb. 22 by Obama as a one of his 2012 campaign’s co-chairs.
Patrick served on the five-member board of Ameriquest’s holding company, ACC Capital Holdings, from 2004 to 2005. This was when the mortgage bubble rapidly inflated under pressure from George W. Bush, 1990s regulations, numerous Democratic-affiliated housing groups, as well as executives in Fannie Mae and Wall Street companies.
Ameriquest was a leading cause of the bubble, in part, because it began the practice of selling mortgages to people that were deemed by other mortgage companies to be a bad credit risk. For example, the company pioneered the practice of selling mortgages to people without asking for documentation of their income, greatly raising the chance that each loan would go into foreclosure.
In turn, Ameriquest sold the flawed mortgages, dubbed no-doc subprime mortgages, to Fannie Mae and Wall Street, and profited from the processing fees.
The subsequent foreclosure of many risky mortgages dragged down Wall Street and the national economy. Since then, the street unemployment rate has remained well above 10 percent, and the nation’s formal debt has risen by $5 trillion. The median wealth of African-American households fell by 53 percent, according to a 2011 Pew study.
Obama tapped his long-time friend for the campaign job, despite Obama’s routine criticism of mortgage company executives. (RELATED: Obama campaign co-chair tied to subprime mortgage crisis)
Published: 2:47 PM 02/24/2012 By Neil Munro
Massachusetts Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick, Barack Obama’s friend and campaign co-chair, told The Daily Caller that he’s proud of the work his did for Ameriquest as it pumped up the nation’s mortgage bubble.
“I served on the board of the holding company for that company, and it was work that I was asked to do with some of their fair-lending issues, and I’m proud of that work,” said Patrick, who was appointed Feb. 22 by Obama as a one of his 2012 campaign’s co-chairs.
Patrick served on the five-member board of Ameriquest’s holding company, ACC Capital Holdings, from 2004 to 2005. This was when the mortgage bubble rapidly inflated under pressure from George W. Bush, 1990s regulations, numerous Democratic-affiliated housing groups, as well as executives in Fannie Mae and Wall Street companies.
Ameriquest was a leading cause of the bubble, in part, because it began the practice of selling mortgages to people that were deemed by other mortgage companies to be a bad credit risk. For example, the company pioneered the practice of selling mortgages to people without asking for documentation of their income, greatly raising the chance that each loan would go into foreclosure.
In turn, Ameriquest sold the flawed mortgages, dubbed no-doc subprime mortgages, to Fannie Mae and Wall Street, and profited from the processing fees.
The subsequent foreclosure of many risky mortgages dragged down Wall Street and the national economy. Since then, the street unemployment rate has remained well above 10 percent, and the nation’s formal debt has risen by $5 trillion. The median wealth of African-American households fell by 53 percent, according to a 2011 Pew study.
Obama tapped his long-time friend for the campaign job, despite Obama’s routine criticism of mortgage company executives. (RELATED: Obama campaign co-chair tied to subprime mortgage crisis)
Democrats NOW Blaming Wall Street for High Gas Prices....No Nancy, it's time to blame OBAMA and YOU and Dirty Harry Reid....
Here go the Democrats AGAIN blaming everyone else for problems they have caused...Pelosi continues to be an idiot...
I'd tell Geithner that he needs to ask the 49.5% of American that pay no tax to pay something!!! For the privilege of Being an American
Let's start asking the 49.5% of Americans that pay NO FEDERAL TAX to start paying some for the privilege of being an American....Everyone should be paying something!!!!!!.....And by the way Geithner have you finally gotten current with your taxes????
Geithner: 'Privilege of Being an American' Is Why Rich Need Higher Taxes
11:00 AM, Feb 24, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPERSingle Page
Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, speaking this morning on CNBC:
"That’s the kind of balance you need," said Geithner. "Why is that the case? Because if you don't try to generate more revenues through tax reform, if you don't ask, you know, the most fortunate Americans to bear a slightly larger burden of the privilege of being an American, then you have to -- the only way to achieve fiscal sustainability is through unacceptably deep cuts in benefits for middle class seniors, or unacceptably deep cuts in national security."
Geithner: 'Privilege of Being an American' Is Why Rich Need Higher Taxes
11:00 AM, Feb 24, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPERSingle Page
Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, speaking this morning on CNBC:
"That’s the kind of balance you need," said Geithner. "Why is that the case? Because if you don't try to generate more revenues through tax reform, if you don't ask, you know, the most fortunate Americans to bear a slightly larger burden of the privilege of being an American, then you have to -- the only way to achieve fiscal sustainability is through unacceptably deep cuts in benefits for middle class seniors, or unacceptably deep cuts in national security."
Where's Obama Spending Cuts????'
You Certainly Don't Hear Obama talking about Spending Cuts!!!! All it is is tax more and more....and if he wants to address "fairness" we need to start to tax those 49.5% of Americans that pay no federal income tax...Everyone needs to pay something!
Poll: Millionaire tax popular, spending cuts too
Feb 24, 4:10 AM (ET) By ALAN FRAM
WASHINGTON (AP) - Most people like President Barack Obama's proposal to make millionaires pay a significant share of their incomes in taxes. Yet they'd still rather cut spending than boost taxes to balance the federal budget, an Associated Press-GfK poll shows, giving Republicans an edge over Democrats in their core ideological dispute over the nation's fiscal ills.
The survey suggests that while Obama's election-year tax plan targeting people making at least $1 million a year has won broad support, it has done little to shift people's basic views in the long-running partisan war over how best to tame budget deficits that lately have exceeded $1 trillion annually.
"Everybody should be called to sacrifice. They should be in the pot with the rest of us," Mike Whittles, 62, a Republican and retired police officer from Point Pleasant, N.J., said of his support for Obama's tax proposal for the wealthy. But Whittles said he still prefers cutting government spending over raising taxes because of federal waste and what he calls "too many rules, too many regulations."
Sixty-five percent of the people in the AP-GfK poll favor Obama's plan to require people making $1 million or more pay taxes equal to at least 30 percent of their income. Just 26 percent opposed Obama's idea.
Yet by 56 percent to 31 percent, more embraced cuts in government services than higher taxes as the best medicine for the budget, according to the survey, which was conducted Feb. 16 to 20. That response has changed only modestly since it was first asked in the AP-GfK poll last March. The question on Obama's tax on the rich was not asked previously.
The poll showed that overall, more people have a positive view of Democrats than Republicans, a ray of hope for Obama and his fellow Democrats with the approach of November's presidential and congressional elections. Fifty-four percent in the poll gave Democrats favorable ratings compared to 46 percent for Republicans, similar to results in January 2011, at the start of the newly elected Congress in which Republicans have run the House and Democrats wield a slender Senate majority.
Though embraced by congressional Democrats, Obama's proposal on taxing millionaires more has virtually no chance of passage by Congress in the political heat of this year's campaigns. But it stands as a rallying cry for Democrats - about 9 in 10 of whom supported the plan in the poll - and it contrasts with proposals by the remaining major GOP presidential candidates, who would lower the current 35 percent top income tax rate.
Obama has spent months touting his plan, nicknamed the Buffett rule after Warren Buffett, the billionaire who has complained that the rich don't pay enough taxes and that his own tax rate has been lower than his secretary's. The wealthy Mitt Romney, a leading GOP presidential contender, has released tax returns showing he paid a rate of around 15 percent the past two years.
Illustrating the wide acceptance for Obama's tax proposal for the rich, the poll showed it was supported by nearly two-thirds of independents and 4 in 10 Republicans. It also won backing from 6 in 10 whites and half of conservatives, two groups that traditionally are more likely to support the GOP, as well as by 6 in 10 people earning at least $100,000 a year.
Not everyone supports the idea.
"If their money goes to taxes, how will they afford more employees, better equipment, better vehicles?" said Republican Cheryl Mickler, 31, of Hope Mills, N.C.
As for the differing strategies for deficit reduction, more than three-fourths of Republicans and the largest share of independents preferred cutting government services. Democrats leaned toward tax increases, but by a narrower 49 percent to 38 percent.
Republicans have an 8 percentage point advantage over Democrats in the public's trust for handling budget deficits, essentially unchanged in recent months.
The GOP has the same edge for protecting the country, an issue it usually dominates. Peoples' trust in the two parties is about even for handling the economy, taxes and job creation.
Congress continues to receive dismal reviews from voters. Just 19 percent approve of the job Congress is doing, virtually unchanged from last December. That's not far from Congress' worst-ever approval rate in the brief history of the AP-GfK poll of 12 percent last August, shortly after Obama and lawmakers resolved a stubborn standoff over raising the debt limit.
"We put them there to do their job and they're not doing their job," said Gary Witalison, 54, a residential painter in Fish Creek, Wis. "They're not working things out. Work together."
The AP-GfK poll was conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs and Corporate Communications and involved cell phone and landline interviews with 1,000 randomly chosen adults. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.1 percentage points.
Poll: Millionaire tax popular, spending cuts too
Feb 24, 4:10 AM (ET) By ALAN FRAM
WASHINGTON (AP) - Most people like President Barack Obama's proposal to make millionaires pay a significant share of their incomes in taxes. Yet they'd still rather cut spending than boost taxes to balance the federal budget, an Associated Press-GfK poll shows, giving Republicans an edge over Democrats in their core ideological dispute over the nation's fiscal ills.
The survey suggests that while Obama's election-year tax plan targeting people making at least $1 million a year has won broad support, it has done little to shift people's basic views in the long-running partisan war over how best to tame budget deficits that lately have exceeded $1 trillion annually.
"Everybody should be called to sacrifice. They should be in the pot with the rest of us," Mike Whittles, 62, a Republican and retired police officer from Point Pleasant, N.J., said of his support for Obama's tax proposal for the wealthy. But Whittles said he still prefers cutting government spending over raising taxes because of federal waste and what he calls "too many rules, too many regulations."
Sixty-five percent of the people in the AP-GfK poll favor Obama's plan to require people making $1 million or more pay taxes equal to at least 30 percent of their income. Just 26 percent opposed Obama's idea.
Yet by 56 percent to 31 percent, more embraced cuts in government services than higher taxes as the best medicine for the budget, according to the survey, which was conducted Feb. 16 to 20. That response has changed only modestly since it was first asked in the AP-GfK poll last March. The question on Obama's tax on the rich was not asked previously.
The poll showed that overall, more people have a positive view of Democrats than Republicans, a ray of hope for Obama and his fellow Democrats with the approach of November's presidential and congressional elections. Fifty-four percent in the poll gave Democrats favorable ratings compared to 46 percent for Republicans, similar to results in January 2011, at the start of the newly elected Congress in which Republicans have run the House and Democrats wield a slender Senate majority.
Though embraced by congressional Democrats, Obama's proposal on taxing millionaires more has virtually no chance of passage by Congress in the political heat of this year's campaigns. But it stands as a rallying cry for Democrats - about 9 in 10 of whom supported the plan in the poll - and it contrasts with proposals by the remaining major GOP presidential candidates, who would lower the current 35 percent top income tax rate.
Obama has spent months touting his plan, nicknamed the Buffett rule after Warren Buffett, the billionaire who has complained that the rich don't pay enough taxes and that his own tax rate has been lower than his secretary's. The wealthy Mitt Romney, a leading GOP presidential contender, has released tax returns showing he paid a rate of around 15 percent the past two years.
Illustrating the wide acceptance for Obama's tax proposal for the rich, the poll showed it was supported by nearly two-thirds of independents and 4 in 10 Republicans. It also won backing from 6 in 10 whites and half of conservatives, two groups that traditionally are more likely to support the GOP, as well as by 6 in 10 people earning at least $100,000 a year.
Not everyone supports the idea.
"If their money goes to taxes, how will they afford more employees, better equipment, better vehicles?" said Republican Cheryl Mickler, 31, of Hope Mills, N.C.
As for the differing strategies for deficit reduction, more than three-fourths of Republicans and the largest share of independents preferred cutting government services. Democrats leaned toward tax increases, but by a narrower 49 percent to 38 percent.
Republicans have an 8 percentage point advantage over Democrats in the public's trust for handling budget deficits, essentially unchanged in recent months.
The GOP has the same edge for protecting the country, an issue it usually dominates. Peoples' trust in the two parties is about even for handling the economy, taxes and job creation.
Congress continues to receive dismal reviews from voters. Just 19 percent approve of the job Congress is doing, virtually unchanged from last December. That's not far from Congress' worst-ever approval rate in the brief history of the AP-GfK poll of 12 percent last August, shortly after Obama and lawmakers resolved a stubborn standoff over raising the debt limit.
"We put them there to do their job and they're not doing their job," said Gary Witalison, 54, a residential painter in Fish Creek, Wis. "They're not working things out. Work together."
The AP-GfK poll was conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs and Corporate Communications and involved cell phone and landline interviews with 1,000 randomly chosen adults. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.1 percentage points.
Obama - A Do Nothing President!
Ok to what are you going to do about it Obama....approve the Keystone XL Pipeling project?....open up the east and west coasts to oil exploration like the Gulf is supposed to be (once your Administration starts to allow new exploration in the Gulf)?...open up drilling in Alaska?...stop wasting taxpayer money on green energy projects that don't create jobs and don't create enough energy to make a difference?.....Barack you know you are not going to do ANYTHING about it...You WANT the price of oil high so you can sell green energy...you don't care about the plight of those that have to pay more for energy NOW!....YOU SIR NEED TO GO IN NOVEMBER....
Obama is an Idiot!
Obama is an Idiot.....now he's pitching Algae for Energy....Is he kidding...it will decades before we will be running our cars on Algae....Get Rid of Obama in November...
Worth the Read
Well worth reading...from the Heritage Foundation's Morning Call -
A Troubling Trend in the Courts
Should judges act based upon reasoned legal arguments, or based upon their personal feelings and media coverage? A controversial recent "statement" made by Justices Ginsburg and Breyer in a case that was the legal equivalent of a slam dunk raises serious questions about what really guides some judges.
In the case, American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock, the Court was asked to address a Montana Supreme Court opinion upholding a Montana ban on independent expenditures by corporations. This should be an easy case—after all, the Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that bans on independent political expenditures by corporations and unions violate the First Amendment.
But Justices Ginsburg and Breyer, who dissented from Citizens United, want another crack at Citizens United. They issued a separate "statement" advocating that the Court take the "opportunity to consider whether, in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates' allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold sway."
As Heritage legal expert Hans von Spakovsky wrote:
What evidence is there before Justices Ginsburg/Breyer that the allegiance of candidates is being bought? The misinformed editorial pages of The New York Times? The propaganda spewed out about Citizens United by MSNBC?
von Spakovsky concludes regrettably that Ginsburg and Breyer are "making decisions based on their personal ideologies and political opinions" instead of relying on "actual evidence submitted in the cases before them."
Personal preferences and subjective editorials clearly shouldn't form the basis for judicial decisions. But what should guide their decisions, and how much power should the Supreme Court exercise? The Founders asserted that the judiciary would be the weakest branch of the federal government. As of late, however, the courts are looking pretty strong, particularly compared to a Congress that refuses to take their duty to interpret the Constitution seriously.
In the latest "Understanding America: What is the Proper Role of the Courts?," Heritage Senior Legal Fellow Robert Alt gives an example of how a "weaker" Congress leads to a "stronger" judiciary involving the very law at issue in Citizens United:
When Congress was considering the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act—popularly known as McCain-Feingold—which imposed numerous restrictions on election-related speech, its Members delivered speeches acknowledging that provisions of the Act were likely unconstitutional. That should have ended the debate.
But some Members surprisingly went on to state that questions of constitutionality were for the Supreme Court, not Congress, to decide, and that Congress should pass the legislation because it was too important not to enact. This was a flagrant abdication of Congress's role in determining the constitutionality of legislation.
In short, Members of Congress failed in their duty to uphold the Constitution and tossed that responsibility to the Supreme Court -- a poor way to run a constitutional government. The Court's power here is only a snapshot of increasingly customary and destructive tendencies toward judicial activism.
The effects of liberal judicial activism are regrettably widespread. Alt writes:
The federal courts have awarded the federal government power to regulate matters well beyond its constitutional authority. The courts themselves have taken over school systems and prisons for decades at a time, created new rights found nowhere in the Constitution, whittled away at constitutional rights (like property rights) that they apparently dislike, and asserted that they have the authority to decide questions concerning how to conduct the War on Terror that are constitutionally reserved to Congress and the President.
Americans should be concerned about the increasingly powerful judicial branch. With politicized appointments and repeated judicial failures to adhere to the Constitution as it is written, the public must demand action from the political branches. Specifically, Americans must insist that the President and Congress do their duty by passing and signing only laws which are consistent with the Constitution's original public meaning -- and that they appoint and confirm only judges who check their personal agendas at the door.
A Troubling Trend in the Courts
Should judges act based upon reasoned legal arguments, or based upon their personal feelings and media coverage? A controversial recent "statement" made by Justices Ginsburg and Breyer in a case that was the legal equivalent of a slam dunk raises serious questions about what really guides some judges.
In the case, American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock, the Court was asked to address a Montana Supreme Court opinion upholding a Montana ban on independent expenditures by corporations. This should be an easy case—after all, the Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that bans on independent political expenditures by corporations and unions violate the First Amendment.
But Justices Ginsburg and Breyer, who dissented from Citizens United, want another crack at Citizens United. They issued a separate "statement" advocating that the Court take the "opportunity to consider whether, in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates' allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold sway."
As Heritage legal expert Hans von Spakovsky wrote:
What evidence is there before Justices Ginsburg/Breyer that the allegiance of candidates is being bought? The misinformed editorial pages of The New York Times? The propaganda spewed out about Citizens United by MSNBC?
von Spakovsky concludes regrettably that Ginsburg and Breyer are "making decisions based on their personal ideologies and political opinions" instead of relying on "actual evidence submitted in the cases before them."
Personal preferences and subjective editorials clearly shouldn't form the basis for judicial decisions. But what should guide their decisions, and how much power should the Supreme Court exercise? The Founders asserted that the judiciary would be the weakest branch of the federal government. As of late, however, the courts are looking pretty strong, particularly compared to a Congress that refuses to take their duty to interpret the Constitution seriously.
In the latest "Understanding America: What is the Proper Role of the Courts?," Heritage Senior Legal Fellow Robert Alt gives an example of how a "weaker" Congress leads to a "stronger" judiciary involving the very law at issue in Citizens United:
When Congress was considering the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act—popularly known as McCain-Feingold—which imposed numerous restrictions on election-related speech, its Members delivered speeches acknowledging that provisions of the Act were likely unconstitutional. That should have ended the debate.
But some Members surprisingly went on to state that questions of constitutionality were for the Supreme Court, not Congress, to decide, and that Congress should pass the legislation because it was too important not to enact. This was a flagrant abdication of Congress's role in determining the constitutionality of legislation.
In short, Members of Congress failed in their duty to uphold the Constitution and tossed that responsibility to the Supreme Court -- a poor way to run a constitutional government. The Court's power here is only a snapshot of increasingly customary and destructive tendencies toward judicial activism.
The effects of liberal judicial activism are regrettably widespread. Alt writes:
The federal courts have awarded the federal government power to regulate matters well beyond its constitutional authority. The courts themselves have taken over school systems and prisons for decades at a time, created new rights found nowhere in the Constitution, whittled away at constitutional rights (like property rights) that they apparently dislike, and asserted that they have the authority to decide questions concerning how to conduct the War on Terror that are constitutionally reserved to Congress and the President.
Americans should be concerned about the increasingly powerful judicial branch. With politicized appointments and repeated judicial failures to adhere to the Constitution as it is written, the public must demand action from the political branches. Specifically, Americans must insist that the President and Congress do their duty by passing and signing only laws which are consistent with the Constitution's original public meaning -- and that they appoint and confirm only judges who check their personal agendas at the door.
Obama Wrongfully Blaming the Republicans Again...If He Could ONLY Tell the Truth!
I've come to learn when Obama blames someone else for a problem, it's most likely his fault....
GOP Hits Back After Obama Blames Congress for High Gas Prices
"11 percent"
-- Reduction in oil production on federally controlled lands in the previous fiscal year according to the free-market Institute for Energy Research.
The gas wars in Washington will continue unabated today as Republicans push hard on President Obama following his effort in a campaign speech in Florida to put the blame on them for blocking his plan for energy independence.
In his speech, Obama said that while he favored increased domestic production of some fossil fuels, he believed that higher taxes on producers were imperative in order to finance federal subsidies for green energy initiatives.
Snatching the "all of the above" slogan from Republicans, Obama has been campaigning on the idea that Republicans are beholden to oil companies while he is interested in having the government use oil profits to develop everything from windmills to ethanol from algae.
Obama has struggled to balance his own environmental goals and the demands of his political base with mounting anger among voters about rapidly rising fuel prices. The straddle has always been a difficult one for Obama who ran on a platform that included aggressive environmental action, but has frequently bowed to mainstream pressure to withhold planned restrictions on the existing energy sector.
For example, when Obama closed off much of the U.S. coast to drilling, he expanded the portions of existing exploration fields open to producers. Obama also was forced to spike aggressive penalties for power companies blamed by environmentalists who believe the planet is growing dangerously warm, but compensated by imposing tough clear air standards that will still shutter many of the same power plants.
The recent rise in gas prices, fueled in large part by deepening unrest in the Middle East, comes at an inconvenient time for Obama who only recently nixed a plan for a massive pipeline to bring Canadian oil to U.S. refineries. The Keystone XL project is hugely popular in surveys, but anathema to environmentalists who believe cheap gasoline is a danger to the planet's climate.
Obma has been relentlessly disciplined in his campaign message since his Labor Day kickoff, casting almost every problem facing the nation as in some way the result of Republican closed-mindedness, corruption or unpatriotic partisanship. And so he is on gasoline prices, saying that if Republicans would have allowed new taxes and spending, energy prices would be heading the right direction.
To bolster his argument that it is Republicans, not him, who are being rigid, Obama has often cited recent increases in domestic oil production. Republicans today, though, are pushing back on the notion, touting statistics that show contraction in oil and gas production on federal lands, the place where the White House can determine the pace.
The GOP is also blaming Obama specifically for higher gas prices suggesting that price spikes have often followed Obama policy decisions.
"He is a speculator's dream," a Republican strategist who advises House leaders told Power Play. "They know he will constrict supply and provide reliable price increases that they can profit from."
GOP Hits Back After Obama Blames Congress for High Gas Prices
"11 percent"
-- Reduction in oil production on federally controlled lands in the previous fiscal year according to the free-market Institute for Energy Research.
The gas wars in Washington will continue unabated today as Republicans push hard on President Obama following his effort in a campaign speech in Florida to put the blame on them for blocking his plan for energy independence.
In his speech, Obama said that while he favored increased domestic production of some fossil fuels, he believed that higher taxes on producers were imperative in order to finance federal subsidies for green energy initiatives.
Snatching the "all of the above" slogan from Republicans, Obama has been campaigning on the idea that Republicans are beholden to oil companies while he is interested in having the government use oil profits to develop everything from windmills to ethanol from algae.
Obama has struggled to balance his own environmental goals and the demands of his political base with mounting anger among voters about rapidly rising fuel prices. The straddle has always been a difficult one for Obama who ran on a platform that included aggressive environmental action, but has frequently bowed to mainstream pressure to withhold planned restrictions on the existing energy sector.
For example, when Obama closed off much of the U.S. coast to drilling, he expanded the portions of existing exploration fields open to producers. Obama also was forced to spike aggressive penalties for power companies blamed by environmentalists who believe the planet is growing dangerously warm, but compensated by imposing tough clear air standards that will still shutter many of the same power plants.
The recent rise in gas prices, fueled in large part by deepening unrest in the Middle East, comes at an inconvenient time for Obama who only recently nixed a plan for a massive pipeline to bring Canadian oil to U.S. refineries. The Keystone XL project is hugely popular in surveys, but anathema to environmentalists who believe cheap gasoline is a danger to the planet's climate.
Obma has been relentlessly disciplined in his campaign message since his Labor Day kickoff, casting almost every problem facing the nation as in some way the result of Republican closed-mindedness, corruption or unpatriotic partisanship. And so he is on gasoline prices, saying that if Republicans would have allowed new taxes and spending, energy prices would be heading the right direction.
To bolster his argument that it is Republicans, not him, who are being rigid, Obama has often cited recent increases in domestic oil production. Republicans today, though, are pushing back on the notion, touting statistics that show contraction in oil and gas production on federal lands, the place where the White House can determine the pace.
The GOP is also blaming Obama specifically for higher gas prices suggesting that price spikes have often followed Obama policy decisions.
"He is a speculator's dream," a Republican strategist who advises House leaders told Power Play. "They know he will constrict supply and provide reliable price increases that they can profit from."
The Religious Freedoms of America go to Court!
Congrats to these states that are doing what they can to save our freedoms...God knows Obama won't....
7 states sue to block contraception mandate
Published February 24, 2012 | NewsCore
Lincoln, Neb. – Seven states filed a lawsuit Thursday to block the federal government's requirement that religious organizations offer health insurance coverage that includes free access to contraception for women.
The attorney generals of Texas, Florida, Michigan, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma and South Carolina jointly filed the lawsuit in a Nebraska US District Court.
Two private citizens, two religious non-profit organizations and a Catholic school also joined the lawsuit against the contraception mandate, which is part of President Barack Obama's sweeping health care law.
The lawsuit asks a federal judge to declare the law unconstitutional and enjoin the government from enforcing the requirement.
The states filed the suit despite a compromise announced by Obama earlier this month in which religious organizations with objections to the law will no longer be required to offer free birth control to female employees next year.
Under Obama's new approach, insurance companies, rather than religious organizations, will be obligated to offer contraception for free to the institutions' employees.
"The president's so called 'accommodation' was nothing but a shell game: the mandate still requires religious organizations to subsidize and authorize conduct that conflicts with their religious principles," Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said in a statement. "The very first amendment to our Constitution was intended to protect against this sort of government intrusion into our religious convictions."
The Obama administration did not comment on the lawsuit Thursday.
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty has previously filed several lawsuits on behalf of religious organizations also seeking to strike down the law.
Houses of worship -- such as churches, synagogues and mosques -- are exempt from the law's requirement of providing contraceptives to female employees, but religious leaders have expressed outrage that other religious organizations -- such as schools and hospitals -- are not barred from the law's reach.
Like the Texas attorney general, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops said earlier its month it still opposed the federal government's mandate after Obama's compromise.
The religious freedom issue has become a major political topic, with each major Republican presidential candidate saying they oppose Obama's requirement.
And on Wednesday, a federal judge blocked a Washington state regulation that forced pharmacists to sell emergency contraceptives over their religious objections.
7 states sue to block contraception mandate
Published February 24, 2012 | NewsCore
Lincoln, Neb. – Seven states filed a lawsuit Thursday to block the federal government's requirement that religious organizations offer health insurance coverage that includes free access to contraception for women.
The attorney generals of Texas, Florida, Michigan, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma and South Carolina jointly filed the lawsuit in a Nebraska US District Court.
Two private citizens, two religious non-profit organizations and a Catholic school also joined the lawsuit against the contraception mandate, which is part of President Barack Obama's sweeping health care law.
The lawsuit asks a federal judge to declare the law unconstitutional and enjoin the government from enforcing the requirement.
The states filed the suit despite a compromise announced by Obama earlier this month in which religious organizations with objections to the law will no longer be required to offer free birth control to female employees next year.
Under Obama's new approach, insurance companies, rather than religious organizations, will be obligated to offer contraception for free to the institutions' employees.
"The president's so called 'accommodation' was nothing but a shell game: the mandate still requires religious organizations to subsidize and authorize conduct that conflicts with their religious principles," Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said in a statement. "The very first amendment to our Constitution was intended to protect against this sort of government intrusion into our religious convictions."
The Obama administration did not comment on the lawsuit Thursday.
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty has previously filed several lawsuits on behalf of religious organizations also seeking to strike down the law.
Houses of worship -- such as churches, synagogues and mosques -- are exempt from the law's requirement of providing contraceptives to female employees, but religious leaders have expressed outrage that other religious organizations -- such as schools and hospitals -- are not barred from the law's reach.
Like the Texas attorney general, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops said earlier its month it still opposed the federal government's mandate after Obama's compromise.
The religious freedom issue has become a major political topic, with each major Republican presidential candidate saying they oppose Obama's requirement.
And on Wednesday, a federal judge blocked a Washington state regulation that forced pharmacists to sell emergency contraceptives over their religious objections.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Obama - NO Answers AGAIN....
This is as crazy as when Obama told the nation the last time fuel prices spiked to check their car's tire pressure and get a "tune up".....He's so out of touch that he doesn't even know that the cars today do NOT get TUNE UPS....
February 23, 2012 2:55pm
Obama: Use 'algae' as substitute for oil
byJoel Gehrke Commentary Staff Writer
President Obama admitted today that he does not have a "silver bullet" solution for skyrocketing gas prices, but he proposed alternative energy sources such as "a plant-like substance, algae" as a way of cutting dependence on oil by 17 percent.
"We’re making new investments in the development of gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel that’s actually made from a plant-like substance, algae -- you've got a bunch of algae out here," Obama said at the University of Miami today. "If we can figure out how to make energy out of that, we'll be doing alright. Believe it or not, we could replace up to 17 percent of the oil we import for transportation with this fuel that we can grow right here in America."
The Department of Energy (DOE) currently spends about $85 million on 30 research projects "to develop algal biofuels," according to the White House, which announced that Obama is committing another $14 million to the idea.
Obama did not say when he expected algae-based fuel to reach that level, but the federal government has a dodgy track record with respect to developing alternative vehicle fuels. Biodiesel, for example, accounted for less than 1 percent of the diesel fuel market as of 2008, according to the Energy Information Administration. And of course there's ethanol -- after four decades, tens of billions of dollars in subsidies, and draconian mandates that force it on unwilling consumers, ethanol was five percent of vehicle consumption (by volume) as of 2008. Although algae-to-gas is a very different idea, it is still in its early stages.
"We're not going to transition out of oil anytime soon," Obama added, before touting the record high domestic gas production right now and the agreement with Mexico to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, while still calling for expanded investment in alternative energy.
Oil industry leaders reject Obama's claim to have given significant support to oil production. "These have been the most difficult three years from a policy standpoint that I've ever seen in my career," Bruce Vincent, president of Swift Energy, an oil and gas company in Houston, said yesterday. "They've done nothing but restrict access and delay permitting."
Obama affirmed the need to protect the planet by developing clean energy alternatives, but The Washington Examiner's Michael Barone argues that he hasn't been consistent even on that front. "We’ve prohibited a pipeline, the safest way to transport oil, from Canada, but we’re aiding Mexico in offshore drilling, which is riskier, and by a firm that lacks the experience of the U.S. firms we have been trying to prevent drilling in the same body of water," Barone wrote yesterday. "Does this make any sense at all?"
February 23, 2012 2:55pm
Obama: Use 'algae' as substitute for oil
byJoel Gehrke Commentary Staff Writer
President Obama admitted today that he does not have a "silver bullet" solution for skyrocketing gas prices, but he proposed alternative energy sources such as "a plant-like substance, algae" as a way of cutting dependence on oil by 17 percent.
"We’re making new investments in the development of gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel that’s actually made from a plant-like substance, algae -- you've got a bunch of algae out here," Obama said at the University of Miami today. "If we can figure out how to make energy out of that, we'll be doing alright. Believe it or not, we could replace up to 17 percent of the oil we import for transportation with this fuel that we can grow right here in America."
The Department of Energy (DOE) currently spends about $85 million on 30 research projects "to develop algal biofuels," according to the White House, which announced that Obama is committing another $14 million to the idea.
Obama did not say when he expected algae-based fuel to reach that level, but the federal government has a dodgy track record with respect to developing alternative vehicle fuels. Biodiesel, for example, accounted for less than 1 percent of the diesel fuel market as of 2008, according to the Energy Information Administration. And of course there's ethanol -- after four decades, tens of billions of dollars in subsidies, and draconian mandates that force it on unwilling consumers, ethanol was five percent of vehicle consumption (by volume) as of 2008. Although algae-to-gas is a very different idea, it is still in its early stages.
"We're not going to transition out of oil anytime soon," Obama added, before touting the record high domestic gas production right now and the agreement with Mexico to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, while still calling for expanded investment in alternative energy.
Oil industry leaders reject Obama's claim to have given significant support to oil production. "These have been the most difficult three years from a policy standpoint that I've ever seen in my career," Bruce Vincent, president of Swift Energy, an oil and gas company in Houston, said yesterday. "They've done nothing but restrict access and delay permitting."
Obama affirmed the need to protect the planet by developing clean energy alternatives, but The Washington Examiner's Michael Barone argues that he hasn't been consistent even on that front. "We’ve prohibited a pipeline, the safest way to transport oil, from Canada, but we’re aiding Mexico in offshore drilling, which is riskier, and by a firm that lacks the experience of the U.S. firms we have been trying to prevent drilling in the same body of water," Barone wrote yesterday. "Does this make any sense at all?"
Obama Administration Stubs It's Toe AGAIN
More examples of an incompetent President and Administration and one more international foreign policy mistake....
U.S. response to Koran burning could fan flames, analysts warn
By Judson Berger Published February 23, 2012 | FoxNews.com
As protests rage across Afghanistan for the third day in response to the burning of Korans at a U.S. military base, some are questioning whether the parade of apologies from the U.S. government may do more harm than good.
The latest installment came Thursday, when the U.S. ambassador delivered an apology letter from President Obama to Afghan President Hamid Karzai. That follows apologies from Afghanistan commander Gen. John Allen, the White House, NATO's International Security Assistance Force and other Pentagon officials.
The backlash began after Korans were burned with garbage at a military base in Afghanistan. Officials said they were removed from the detention center library because the detainees were using them to pass secret and what were described as "extremist" messages to one another. Afghans stepped in to rescue the books, though some were already burned. One official said it was a "breakdown in judgment, not a breakdown in our respect for Islam."
Meanwhile, nearly a dozen people have died in the aftermath, including two U.S. troops. And some analysts are criticizing the U.S. response.
"It just feeds the sense of grievance," Nina Shea, a senior fellow with the Hudson Institute, said of the "constant round of apologies."
Shea, who sits on the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, agreed with the U.S. decision to quickly apologize after the incident late Monday and order an investigation.
But she noted that the subsequent apologies "don't seem to have any effect."
Obama's letter on Thursday reportedly apologized for the "error" and assured Karzai that the U.S. government would take "appropriate steps" to make sure such an incident doesn't happen again, "to include holding accountable those responsible."
Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, an Army Reserve officer who served in Afghanistan from 2003 to 2004, concurred that the burning was "patently stupid" -- not just because it's religiously insensitive but because the messages inside the Korans by detainees could have been used for intelligence purposes.
"These are all threads. These things are threads that can be used to build that tapestry of an intelligence picture," Shaffer said.
But Shaffer said for the U.S. government to repeatedly apologize for the incident is only helping the Taliban.
"They will use that to again flame their own fire," he said. "The more they apologize, the more it's going to inflame them."
At a time when the U.S. is trying to engage elements of the Taliban in peace talks, Shaffer said the apologies just strengthen the Taliban's negotiating position.
Shaffer and Shea said the U.S. should be urging Taliban officials who want to play ball in the broader talks to call off the protests to the extent they can.
Shea said the burning has been inevitably exploited for political purposes. She also said this incident should compel the U.S. to reconsider the decision to provide Korans at prisons in the first place -- since mistakes are bound to happen when Westerners handle them, with deadly results.
"It's a very tricky business, providing Korans to prisoners of war," she said. "It becomes unmanageable."
But Ahmad Majidyar, senior research associate with the American Enterprise Institute, said the U.S. is taking the right approach by stressing the sincerity of its remorse. And he suggested the protests are not as widespread as they're made out to be.
"Many other people, they accepted the apology by the Americans ... and they're just moving on with their lives," he said.
The test, Majidyar said, will be Friday sermons. Fiery sermons, he warned, could lead to more violence -- he urged the United States to go beyond apologies and make sure it's reaching out to all corners of Afghan society to calm down the backlash and avoid that outcome.
The incident follows protests last April over a Florida pastor who wanted to burn the Koran. Afghans stormed a U.N. compound at the height of the clash, killing several employees.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Thursday said the president's latest response via the Karzai letter was entirely appropriate due to the sensitivities involved.
U.S. response to Koran burning could fan flames, analysts warn
By Judson Berger Published February 23, 2012 | FoxNews.com
As protests rage across Afghanistan for the third day in response to the burning of Korans at a U.S. military base, some are questioning whether the parade of apologies from the U.S. government may do more harm than good.
The latest installment came Thursday, when the U.S. ambassador delivered an apology letter from President Obama to Afghan President Hamid Karzai. That follows apologies from Afghanistan commander Gen. John Allen, the White House, NATO's International Security Assistance Force and other Pentagon officials.
The backlash began after Korans were burned with garbage at a military base in Afghanistan. Officials said they were removed from the detention center library because the detainees were using them to pass secret and what were described as "extremist" messages to one another. Afghans stepped in to rescue the books, though some were already burned. One official said it was a "breakdown in judgment, not a breakdown in our respect for Islam."
Meanwhile, nearly a dozen people have died in the aftermath, including two U.S. troops. And some analysts are criticizing the U.S. response.
"It just feeds the sense of grievance," Nina Shea, a senior fellow with the Hudson Institute, said of the "constant round of apologies."
Shea, who sits on the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, agreed with the U.S. decision to quickly apologize after the incident late Monday and order an investigation.
But she noted that the subsequent apologies "don't seem to have any effect."
Obama's letter on Thursday reportedly apologized for the "error" and assured Karzai that the U.S. government would take "appropriate steps" to make sure such an incident doesn't happen again, "to include holding accountable those responsible."
Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, an Army Reserve officer who served in Afghanistan from 2003 to 2004, concurred that the burning was "patently stupid" -- not just because it's religiously insensitive but because the messages inside the Korans by detainees could have been used for intelligence purposes.
"These are all threads. These things are threads that can be used to build that tapestry of an intelligence picture," Shaffer said.
But Shaffer said for the U.S. government to repeatedly apologize for the incident is only helping the Taliban.
"They will use that to again flame their own fire," he said. "The more they apologize, the more it's going to inflame them."
At a time when the U.S. is trying to engage elements of the Taliban in peace talks, Shaffer said the apologies just strengthen the Taliban's negotiating position.
Shaffer and Shea said the U.S. should be urging Taliban officials who want to play ball in the broader talks to call off the protests to the extent they can.
Shea said the burning has been inevitably exploited for political purposes. She also said this incident should compel the U.S. to reconsider the decision to provide Korans at prisons in the first place -- since mistakes are bound to happen when Westerners handle them, with deadly results.
"It's a very tricky business, providing Korans to prisoners of war," she said. "It becomes unmanageable."
But Ahmad Majidyar, senior research associate with the American Enterprise Institute, said the U.S. is taking the right approach by stressing the sincerity of its remorse. And he suggested the protests are not as widespread as they're made out to be.
"Many other people, they accepted the apology by the Americans ... and they're just moving on with their lives," he said.
The test, Majidyar said, will be Friday sermons. Fiery sermons, he warned, could lead to more violence -- he urged the United States to go beyond apologies and make sure it's reaching out to all corners of Afghan society to calm down the backlash and avoid that outcome.
The incident follows protests last April over a Florida pastor who wanted to burn the Koran. Afghans stormed a U.N. compound at the height of the clash, killing several employees.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Thursday said the president's latest response via the Karzai letter was entirely appropriate due to the sensitivities involved.
Hypocritical...
More evidence of the totally hypocritical approach the Obama Administration takes....but I guess when the leader, Obama, is a huge hypocrite it all rolls down hill...
But I am at least pleased that state-run media ABC is at least acting like a real journalist by asking some tough questions....
......In the wake of reporter deaths in Syria, White House grilled on aggressive journalism at home
.By Dylan Stableford Senior Media Reporter
Just as he did following the death of New York Times reporter Anthony Shadid in Syria, White House press secretary Jay Carney began his daily briefing by praising the work of Marie Colvin, the Sunday Times reporter who also was killed there on Wednesday.
Carney called their deaths "tragic," and "a reminder of the incredible risks that journalists take ... in order to bring the truth about what is happening in a country like Syria to those of us at home."
But, Obama's press secretary seemed unprepared for a hard line of questioning from ABC News senior White House correspondent Jake Tapper, who took issue with the administration's applause of aggressive reporting abroad while trying to silence it at home in the United States.
Here's a partial transcript of their exchange:
TAPPER: The White House keeps praising these journalists who are, who've been killed--
CARNEY: I don't know about "keep." I think--
TAPPER: You've done it, Vice President Biden did it in a statement. How does that square with the fact that this administration has been so aggressively trying to stop aggressive journalism in the United States by using the Espionage Act to take whistleblowers to court? You're--currently I think that you've invoked it the sixth time, and before the Obama administration, it had only been used three times in history. You're--this is the sixth time you're suing a CIA officer for allegedly providing information in 2009 about CIA torture. Certainly that's something that's in the public interest of the United States. The administration is taking this person to court. There just seems to be disconnect here. You want aggressive journalism abroad; you just don't want it in the United States.
CARNEY: Well, I would hesitate to speak to any particular case, for obvious reasons, and I would refer you to the Department of Justice for more on that. I think we absolutely honor and praise the bravery of reporters who are placing themselves in extremely dangerous situations in order to bring a story of oppression and brutality to the world. I think that is commendable, and it's certainly worth noting by us. And as somebody who knew both Anthony and Marie, I particularly appreciate what they did to bring that story to the American people. I--as for other cases, again, without addressing any specific case, I think that there are issues here that involve highly sensitive classified information, and I think that, you know, those are--divulging or to--divulging that kind of information is a serious issue, and it always has been.
TAPPER: So the truth should come out abroad, it shouldn't come out here?
CARNEY: Well, that's not at all what I'm saying, Jake, and you know it's not. Again, I can't--specific--
TAPPER: That's what the Justice Department's doing.
CARNEY: Well, you're making a judgment about a broad array of cases, and I can't address those specifically.
TAPPER: It's also the judgment that a lot of whistleblowers' organizations and good government groups are making as well.
CARNEY: Not one that I'm going to make.
Here's a Link to the Video... http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/28393420
But I am at least pleased that state-run media ABC is at least acting like a real journalist by asking some tough questions....
......In the wake of reporter deaths in Syria, White House grilled on aggressive journalism at home
.By Dylan Stableford Senior Media Reporter
Just as he did following the death of New York Times reporter Anthony Shadid in Syria, White House press secretary Jay Carney began his daily briefing by praising the work of Marie Colvin, the Sunday Times reporter who also was killed there on Wednesday.
Carney called their deaths "tragic," and "a reminder of the incredible risks that journalists take ... in order to bring the truth about what is happening in a country like Syria to those of us at home."
But, Obama's press secretary seemed unprepared for a hard line of questioning from ABC News senior White House correspondent Jake Tapper, who took issue with the administration's applause of aggressive reporting abroad while trying to silence it at home in the United States.
Here's a partial transcript of their exchange:
TAPPER: The White House keeps praising these journalists who are, who've been killed--
CARNEY: I don't know about "keep." I think--
TAPPER: You've done it, Vice President Biden did it in a statement. How does that square with the fact that this administration has been so aggressively trying to stop aggressive journalism in the United States by using the Espionage Act to take whistleblowers to court? You're--currently I think that you've invoked it the sixth time, and before the Obama administration, it had only been used three times in history. You're--this is the sixth time you're suing a CIA officer for allegedly providing information in 2009 about CIA torture. Certainly that's something that's in the public interest of the United States. The administration is taking this person to court. There just seems to be disconnect here. You want aggressive journalism abroad; you just don't want it in the United States.
CARNEY: Well, I would hesitate to speak to any particular case, for obvious reasons, and I would refer you to the Department of Justice for more on that. I think we absolutely honor and praise the bravery of reporters who are placing themselves in extremely dangerous situations in order to bring a story of oppression and brutality to the world. I think that is commendable, and it's certainly worth noting by us. And as somebody who knew both Anthony and Marie, I particularly appreciate what they did to bring that story to the American people. I--as for other cases, again, without addressing any specific case, I think that there are issues here that involve highly sensitive classified information, and I think that, you know, those are--divulging or to--divulging that kind of information is a serious issue, and it always has been.
TAPPER: So the truth should come out abroad, it shouldn't come out here?
CARNEY: Well, that's not at all what I'm saying, Jake, and you know it's not. Again, I can't--specific--
TAPPER: That's what the Justice Department's doing.
CARNEY: Well, you're making a judgment about a broad array of cases, and I can't address those specifically.
TAPPER: It's also the judgment that a lot of whistleblowers' organizations and good government groups are making as well.
CARNEY: Not one that I'm going to make.
Here's a Link to the Video... http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/28393420
More Examples of Obama Using YOUR Tax Dollars to Buy Himself Votes....It's just Disgusting!
Alinsky-tied group awarded $56 million federal loan for health insurance project
By Judson Berger Published February 23, 2012 FoxNews.com
A Saul Alinsky-tied group has been awarded a $56 million federal loan to start up a nonprofit health insurance company -- one of several organizations across the country this week tapped to launch a new network of insurers under the sponsorship of the federal health care overhaul.
The Wisconsin group, Common Ground Healthcare Cooperative, was awarded the funding on Tuesday. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, the group is expected to provide coverage statewide within five years after starting on a smaller scale in early 2014.
But Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson questioned the group's credentials -- given its affiliation and lack of experience in the insurance field.
"The indisputable fact is that Common Ground was an outgrowth of the Alinsky operation in Chicago," Wilson said. "We're not giving money to a group with experience in health care issues or in setting up exchanges. ... We're handing the money to people who have been trained by arguably the single most expert individual on community organizing in the last 100 years."
Common Ground, a Milwaukee group that dates back to 2004, is an affiliate of the Alinsky-founded Industrial Areas Foundation.
Alinsky, who died in 1972, is regarded as the godfather of community organizing but has also emerged as a bogeyman of the right. Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has weaved Alinsky's name into his campaign message, repeatedly hammering President Obama as an "Alinsky radical." Like Alinsky, Obama traces his political and activist beginnings to the Chicago world of community organizing.
Alinsky, author of "Rules for Radicals," began as a trained archeologist and criminologist but made his name by working with low-income minority communities for better working and living conditions -- with a distinctly anti-establishment message which called on the masses to seize power from those who held it.
Common Ground, which focuses on social issues in the Milwaukee area, does claim experience in the health care field. The group's top three issues, according to its website, are education, foreclosures and health care.
Common Ground Healthcare Cooperative, an offshoot which technically is independent from Common Ground, is new. According to state records, it incorporated in August 2011, just a few months before the loan applications were due. The group announced its formal launch on Tuesday, along with the $56 million loan decision.
In a statement, the group said it would bring a "new approach to affordable, quality health insurance." The organization said it researched possible health insurance solutions for three years before deciding to apply for the Affordable Care Act funding.
"As a small business owner, I grew tired of the exorbitant increases in health insurance costs with no real additional value. Common Ground Healthcare is a solution to the region's cry for help," board President Bob Connolly said in a statement.
The statement said the organization would start enrolling people in fall 2013 and plans to hire 30 employees over five years.
A representative from the group has not responded to a request for comment from FoxNews.com.
The federal loans announced this week were worth a total of nearly $640 million. Six other organizations in seven states received them. The money is meant for the creation of so-called Consumer Operated and Oriented Plans, which will serve as nonprofit, cooperative-style insurance groups which will offer an alternative to other private plans. The goal is to eventually fund one of these groups in every state and the District of Columbia.
The latest loans will cover start-up costs and cash reserve requirements. Start-up money must be repaid with interest over five years -- the "solvency loans" must be repaid within 15 years. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services stressed in its announcement that the funds can only be tapped "incrementally as milestones are met," and that the program has "extensive provisions to protect against fraud."
CMS said the loans were awarded "on a competitive basis through external and independent expert objective reviews," and following approval by officials with private insurance experience.
But Wilson said some of the other groups awarded appear to have more experience in the field than the Wisconsin organization. He said his group would file a Freedom of Information Act request to the government to find out more about the process.
Wilson described the transaction as a "huge wad of money in a swing state."
Republican Rep. Dave Camp's office also complained that another group, the Freelancers Union, was awarded more than $340 million via federal loans in three states as part of the same program.
In a statement, Camp questioned whether the group was even eligible, describing the loan as a "reward" for "political friends."
By Judson Berger Published February 23, 2012 FoxNews.com
A Saul Alinsky-tied group has been awarded a $56 million federal loan to start up a nonprofit health insurance company -- one of several organizations across the country this week tapped to launch a new network of insurers under the sponsorship of the federal health care overhaul.
The Wisconsin group, Common Ground Healthcare Cooperative, was awarded the funding on Tuesday. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, the group is expected to provide coverage statewide within five years after starting on a smaller scale in early 2014.
But Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson questioned the group's credentials -- given its affiliation and lack of experience in the insurance field.
"The indisputable fact is that Common Ground was an outgrowth of the Alinsky operation in Chicago," Wilson said. "We're not giving money to a group with experience in health care issues or in setting up exchanges. ... We're handing the money to people who have been trained by arguably the single most expert individual on community organizing in the last 100 years."
Common Ground, a Milwaukee group that dates back to 2004, is an affiliate of the Alinsky-founded Industrial Areas Foundation.
Alinsky, who died in 1972, is regarded as the godfather of community organizing but has also emerged as a bogeyman of the right. Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has weaved Alinsky's name into his campaign message, repeatedly hammering President Obama as an "Alinsky radical." Like Alinsky, Obama traces his political and activist beginnings to the Chicago world of community organizing.
Alinsky, author of "Rules for Radicals," began as a trained archeologist and criminologist but made his name by working with low-income minority communities for better working and living conditions -- with a distinctly anti-establishment message which called on the masses to seize power from those who held it.
Common Ground, which focuses on social issues in the Milwaukee area, does claim experience in the health care field. The group's top three issues, according to its website, are education, foreclosures and health care.
Common Ground Healthcare Cooperative, an offshoot which technically is independent from Common Ground, is new. According to state records, it incorporated in August 2011, just a few months before the loan applications were due. The group announced its formal launch on Tuesday, along with the $56 million loan decision.
In a statement, the group said it would bring a "new approach to affordable, quality health insurance." The organization said it researched possible health insurance solutions for three years before deciding to apply for the Affordable Care Act funding.
"As a small business owner, I grew tired of the exorbitant increases in health insurance costs with no real additional value. Common Ground Healthcare is a solution to the region's cry for help," board President Bob Connolly said in a statement.
The statement said the organization would start enrolling people in fall 2013 and plans to hire 30 employees over five years.
A representative from the group has not responded to a request for comment from FoxNews.com.
The federal loans announced this week were worth a total of nearly $640 million. Six other organizations in seven states received them. The money is meant for the creation of so-called Consumer Operated and Oriented Plans, which will serve as nonprofit, cooperative-style insurance groups which will offer an alternative to other private plans. The goal is to eventually fund one of these groups in every state and the District of Columbia.
The latest loans will cover start-up costs and cash reserve requirements. Start-up money must be repaid with interest over five years -- the "solvency loans" must be repaid within 15 years. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services stressed in its announcement that the funds can only be tapped "incrementally as milestones are met," and that the program has "extensive provisions to protect against fraud."
CMS said the loans were awarded "on a competitive basis through external and independent expert objective reviews," and following approval by officials with private insurance experience.
But Wilson said some of the other groups awarded appear to have more experience in the field than the Wisconsin organization. He said his group would file a Freedom of Information Act request to the government to find out more about the process.
Wilson described the transaction as a "huge wad of money in a swing state."
Republican Rep. Dave Camp's office also complained that another group, the Freelancers Union, was awarded more than $340 million via federal loans in three states as part of the same program.
In a statement, Camp questioned whether the group was even eligible, describing the loan as a "reward" for "political friends."
Time to get Tough with Afghanistan...
I guess we should now be looking for a formal letter of apology from the leadership in Afghanistan.......Don't hold your breath.......only our weak President apologizes for America....We need to get tough with this part of the world and show them we mean business. After all the investment and loss of life in this part of the world we not only accept this kind of behavior, but our weak President even apologizes for us....How disgusting!!!!
Afghan soldier kills two U.S. soldiers
Published: Feb. 23, 2012 at 7:52 AM
KABUL, Afghanistan, Feb. 23 (UPI) -- An Afghan soldier, apparently angry over the burning of Korans at a U.S. air base, fatally shot two U.S. troops and wounded four others, Afghan officials said.
The International Security Assistance Force said in a statement two military personnel were killed in eastern Afghanistan Thursday by "an individual wearing an Afghan National Army uniform" but didn't identify the troops' nationality.
CBS News said an Afghan official said the dead and wounded in the attack in the eastern province of Ningarhar were American. The official said the shooting seemed to be motivated by the burning of Korans at the Bagram Air Base north of Kabul, but did not elaborate.
Haji Mohammad Hassan, chief of Khugyani district in Ningarhar province, told CNN, "We don't know who started the shooting first and what kind of guns were used, but we have started our investigation to find out the details of the incident."
Violent anti-American protests erupted across Afghanistan since the U.S. military Tuesday apologized for what it said was the accidental "improper disposal" at Bagram of religious materials, including copies of the Muslim holy book. The United States is working with the Afghan government to investigate the incident.
CBS said violent protests took place again on Thursday at U.S. and NATO military facilities across Afghanistan, including one demonstration in which police apparently shot and killed two protesters.
CNN also reported the Taliban in Afghanistan called on Muslims Thursday to attack NATO facilities and convoys and kill military personnel.
In an e-mail message, the Taliban accused "the invading infidel authorities" of trying to calm the situation with two "so-called shows of apology, but in reality they let their inhuman soldiers insult our holy book."
The e-mail urged Afghans to seek revenge "until the doers of such inhumane actions are prosecuted and punished."
"We should attack their military bases, their military convoys, we should kill their soldiers, arrest their invading soldiers, beat them up and give a kind of lesson to them that they never dare to insult the holy Koran," the message said.
Afghan soldier kills two U.S. soldiers
Published: Feb. 23, 2012 at 7:52 AM
KABUL, Afghanistan, Feb. 23 (UPI) -- An Afghan soldier, apparently angry over the burning of Korans at a U.S. air base, fatally shot two U.S. troops and wounded four others, Afghan officials said.
The International Security Assistance Force said in a statement two military personnel were killed in eastern Afghanistan Thursday by "an individual wearing an Afghan National Army uniform" but didn't identify the troops' nationality.
CBS News said an Afghan official said the dead and wounded in the attack in the eastern province of Ningarhar were American. The official said the shooting seemed to be motivated by the burning of Korans at the Bagram Air Base north of Kabul, but did not elaborate.
Haji Mohammad Hassan, chief of Khugyani district in Ningarhar province, told CNN, "We don't know who started the shooting first and what kind of guns were used, but we have started our investigation to find out the details of the incident."
Violent anti-American protests erupted across Afghanistan since the U.S. military Tuesday apologized for what it said was the accidental "improper disposal" at Bagram of religious materials, including copies of the Muslim holy book. The United States is working with the Afghan government to investigate the incident.
CBS said violent protests took place again on Thursday at U.S. and NATO military facilities across Afghanistan, including one demonstration in which police apparently shot and killed two protesters.
CNN also reported the Taliban in Afghanistan called on Muslims Thursday to attack NATO facilities and convoys and kill military personnel.
In an e-mail message, the Taliban accused "the invading infidel authorities" of trying to calm the situation with two "so-called shows of apology, but in reality they let their inhuman soldiers insult our holy book."
The e-mail urged Afghans to seek revenge "until the doers of such inhumane actions are prosecuted and punished."
"We should attack their military bases, their military convoys, we should kill their soldiers, arrest their invading soldiers, beat them up and give a kind of lesson to them that they never dare to insult the holy Koran," the message said.
Obama - Taking Care of His Friends Again!
Like with everything else Obama does...he doesn't tell the truth for the start AND he only does things that protect and advantage his cronys.....again he's picking winners and losers rather than using the free market. He continues to forget that this is America, not Venezuela or Communist China.....Here everyone/every industry should have the right to succeed...not just those that Obama likes or those that contribute to his political campaign....
This guy is JUST BAD!!!!!
Obama's Crony Capitalist Trap Door
The Obama White House says it hates tax "loopholes," and the American people abhor them with good reason. They're the ultimate in unfairness, allowing those in the know to wiggle their way out of playing by the same rules that apply to the rest of us. That's why, at first glance, the Obama Administration's latest "framework" to cut the corporate tax rate while closing corporate tax loopholes might sound like a good twofer.
Before you give the President a gold star for good governance, take a step back, turn up the lights, look around the room, and you'll see that President Obama has replaced some of those tax loopholes with a giant trap door that's just the right size for all of his political cronies to slip through.
Here are the details of Obama's latest crony capitalist ploy. Yesterday, the President proposed reducing the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 28 percent. That's certainly a landmark moment – a liberal President calling for a lower corporate tax rate is a Nixon goes to China moment. It’s also long overdue, considering that the U.S. corporate tax rate is the second highest in the world, making it nearly impossible for American companies to compete in the global economy. But here's where the trouble begins.
Under the President's "framework," he singles out specific industries he doesn't like -- oil and gas, insurance, and small aircraft manufacturers, for example -- and proposes to close what he asserts are their loopholes, thereby raising their taxes. But with his other hand, he opens a trap door and waves his friends through, cutting their tax rates to 25 percent "and to an even lower rate for income from advanced manufacturing activities."
The President's best friends get access to second trap door leading to even lower rates. Who slides on through? Those who qualify for tax incentives designed to "encourage investment in clean energy." The net effect of all this tax reform subterfuge will be a free pass for the "right" industries, a downfall for the "wrong" ones, and a windfall for lobbyists who can get their clients through the trap doors.
By the way, this new plan to make America's businesses "more competitive" is slated to raise $250 billion over 10 years. You read that correctly: The President is trying to convince America he is lowering taxes to make America stronger by, well, raising taxes to make America weaker.
Another example of how Obama likes to slam those who offend is a set of disastrous proposals for U.S. multinational corporations -- companies that earn income at home and abroad. Today, if a company earns money overseas, it is taxed by the foreign government, taxed again at home, and then run through some convoluted rules to prevent double taxation. Instead of eliminating that domestic double tax (like most countries have), President Obama wants to tax foreign earnings even more heavily. He says he wants to prevent companies from outsourcing around the world.
But instead of convincing those companies to keep their work in the United States, the President will encourage them to close up shop and sell the whole company to the highest foreign bidder. The result? A tax-induced fire sale on U.S. companies sold to foreign companies so that none of their profits will be subject to taxation, and U.S. tax revenues and economic fortunes will plummet.
Next step? American workers will be left holding the bag. Remember that President Obama said he wants to raise corporate taxes on net. Combined with his budget proposal to nearly triple the dividend tax rate, the net effect is likely to raise the hurdle rate on business investment, which means less business investment. Less investment means labor productivity growth slows, and so wage growth slows. In other words, the President would leave American companies less competitive, and he would leave American workers with lower wages.
Tax reform shouldn't work this way. America shouldn't work this way. The U.S. corporate tax rate is too high, and real reform can bring it down. Congress and the President should pursue revenue-neutral corporate tax reform centered on, reducing the corporate tax rate, and reducing the tax rate on small, non-corporate businesses as well, and work to make U.S. companies more competitive around the world. That's a far fairer, far smarter plan than a trapdoor tax policy that benefits the few, the proud, and the privileged.
This guy is JUST BAD!!!!!
Obama's Crony Capitalist Trap Door
The Obama White House says it hates tax "loopholes," and the American people abhor them with good reason. They're the ultimate in unfairness, allowing those in the know to wiggle their way out of playing by the same rules that apply to the rest of us. That's why, at first glance, the Obama Administration's latest "framework" to cut the corporate tax rate while closing corporate tax loopholes might sound like a good twofer.
Before you give the President a gold star for good governance, take a step back, turn up the lights, look around the room, and you'll see that President Obama has replaced some of those tax loopholes with a giant trap door that's just the right size for all of his political cronies to slip through.
Here are the details of Obama's latest crony capitalist ploy. Yesterday, the President proposed reducing the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 28 percent. That's certainly a landmark moment – a liberal President calling for a lower corporate tax rate is a Nixon goes to China moment. It’s also long overdue, considering that the U.S. corporate tax rate is the second highest in the world, making it nearly impossible for American companies to compete in the global economy. But here's where the trouble begins.
Under the President's "framework," he singles out specific industries he doesn't like -- oil and gas, insurance, and small aircraft manufacturers, for example -- and proposes to close what he asserts are their loopholes, thereby raising their taxes. But with his other hand, he opens a trap door and waves his friends through, cutting their tax rates to 25 percent "and to an even lower rate for income from advanced manufacturing activities."
The President's best friends get access to second trap door leading to even lower rates. Who slides on through? Those who qualify for tax incentives designed to "encourage investment in clean energy." The net effect of all this tax reform subterfuge will be a free pass for the "right" industries, a downfall for the "wrong" ones, and a windfall for lobbyists who can get their clients through the trap doors.
By the way, this new plan to make America's businesses "more competitive" is slated to raise $250 billion over 10 years. You read that correctly: The President is trying to convince America he is lowering taxes to make America stronger by, well, raising taxes to make America weaker.
Another example of how Obama likes to slam those who offend is a set of disastrous proposals for U.S. multinational corporations -- companies that earn income at home and abroad. Today, if a company earns money overseas, it is taxed by the foreign government, taxed again at home, and then run through some convoluted rules to prevent double taxation. Instead of eliminating that domestic double tax (like most countries have), President Obama wants to tax foreign earnings even more heavily. He says he wants to prevent companies from outsourcing around the world.
But instead of convincing those companies to keep their work in the United States, the President will encourage them to close up shop and sell the whole company to the highest foreign bidder. The result? A tax-induced fire sale on U.S. companies sold to foreign companies so that none of their profits will be subject to taxation, and U.S. tax revenues and economic fortunes will plummet.
Next step? American workers will be left holding the bag. Remember that President Obama said he wants to raise corporate taxes on net. Combined with his budget proposal to nearly triple the dividend tax rate, the net effect is likely to raise the hurdle rate on business investment, which means less business investment. Less investment means labor productivity growth slows, and so wage growth slows. In other words, the President would leave American companies less competitive, and he would leave American workers with lower wages.
Tax reform shouldn't work this way. America shouldn't work this way. The U.S. corporate tax rate is too high, and real reform can bring it down. Congress and the President should pursue revenue-neutral corporate tax reform centered on, reducing the corporate tax rate, and reducing the tax rate on small, non-corporate businesses as well, and work to make U.S. companies more competitive around the world. That's a far fairer, far smarter plan than a trapdoor tax policy that benefits the few, the proud, and the privileged.
Here He Goes Apologizing for America AGAIN! What a Wimp!
We have already stated that this was done unintentionally....why does Obama now feel we have to formally apologize?.....Would we get a formal apology letter from them if they unintentionally discarded/burnt some Bibles???? This just again shows how weak Obama is....
Obama sends letter of apology to Karzai over Koran burning
Published February 23, 2012 | Associated Press
The Afghan president's office says it has received a letter from President Obama formally apologizing for the burning of Korans at a U.S. military base in Afghanistan.
The statement from President Hamid Karzai's office says the U.S. ambassador delivered the letter on Thursday.
In the letter, which is quoted in the statement, Obama expresses his "deep regret for the reported incident" and offers his "sincere apologies."
According to the statement, Obama wrote: "The error was inadvertent; I assure you that we will take the appropriate steps to avoid any recurrence, to include holding accountable those responsible."
Obama sends letter of apology to Karzai over Koran burning
Published February 23, 2012 | Associated Press
The Afghan president's office says it has received a letter from President Obama formally apologizing for the burning of Korans at a U.S. military base in Afghanistan.
The statement from President Hamid Karzai's office says the U.S. ambassador delivered the letter on Thursday.
In the letter, which is quoted in the statement, Obama expresses his "deep regret for the reported incident" and offers his "sincere apologies."
According to the statement, Obama wrote: "The error was inadvertent; I assure you that we will take the appropriate steps to avoid any recurrence, to include holding accountable those responsible."
Power Grabbing Obama - Whether It's Moral or Legal or Not!
Obama: Leviathan 2012
A daring power grab, on many fronts
By Conrad Black February 23, 2012 4:00 A.M.
The scope of President Obama’s public-policy offensive commands respect. When he spoke admiringly four years ago of Ronald Reagan as “a transformative president,” he must have been sincere, though he clearly disagreed with much of the transformation. And Mr. Obama certainly deserves the same courtesy from those of us who are appalled at what he is trying to do to the country.
I commented here several weeks ago on the State of the Union address, which was largely on the cusp between mendacity and delusion, as it flippantly passed over the deficit and claimed that those who doubted that American prestige was rising in the world didn’t “know what they are talking about.”
Last week, the attempted imposition on Roman Catholic institutions of the cost of insuring employees for the provision of birth control, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs was an unavoidable subject for this column. I do not whitewash the problems the Roman Catholic Church has brought upon itself by cleaving to a counsel of perfection on birth control that its own bishops have assured coreligionists is not an issue that separates them from their Church. The Holy See was asking for trouble and has not failed to attract it.
But the administration was spoiling for a fight and provoked one, using its proxies in the feminist movement and in organized labor to bait and enervate the Catholic episcopate before the main event began. Planned Parenthood, the billion-dollar-a-year, equal-opportunity, no-fault, anti-choice abortion facilitator, and the Service Employees International Union are elements of the Coalition to Protect Women’s Health Care, which, like picadors in a bullfight, are harrying and distracting the Roman Catholic leadership. “We will mobilize our base and we will outnumber the other side,” the president of the ultra-feminist organization EMILY’s List, Stephanie Schriock, eagerly told the New York Times on February 16. The Roman Catholic bishops were clearly judged by the rampaging Boadiceas around Obama to be a spavined, dimming, superannuated bull that would blunderingly deliver its head and lungs to the sword of the matador-president.
Whether they outnumber the other side will depend on how well the counterargument is made. Birth control is not a health issue at all; pregnancy is not a disease or an illness and termination of it is not a cure to a medical problem. Couching it in these terms is an assault on all those who believe in any notion of spirituality, the sanctity of life even as a conditional concept and not an inflexible rule, or in any position for ecclesiastical moral leadership. It is, to boot, an assault on the constitutional rights guaranteed to religious practice in the First Amendment. And there must be a fighting chance that this Supreme Court would defend the First Amendment more vigorously than it has the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth, whose virtual demise it has magisterially overlooked.
There is no question that the great majority of Americans favor accessible contraception (probably, so do most of the Catholic clergy). And early polls show that a slight majority of Catholics favor obligatory insurance of contraception to employees even of Catholic institutions. But the consequences of such a step in respect of abortion and sterilization and the constitutional implications of it have not sunk in.
The Pearl Harbor nature of the move and the unholy alliance between the government and the most abrasive groups in the abortion coalition could cause the administration problems. And even if the majority sticks with the administration, since these are groups that were in its pocket anyway, any slippage in moderate opinion could be decisive.
The abortion tigresses have still not recovered from the collapse of their immense preponderance of public-opinion support in the abortion debate thanks to the eloquent witness of John Paul II, and also to the rise of ultrasound technology that brought people face to face with the human beings in the womb, including as they tried desperately to avoid the abortionist’s vacuum. The bishops always seem a bit stolid, but the Jarretts and Wasserman Schultzes could grate on the country’s nerves quite severely and very soon. They are always overconfident, and get in the face of the undecided.
This should be a ding-dong battle, but before the first round was over, Mr. Obama delivered his budget. This time the beaters and accompanists were not screeching women but history’s wealthiest useful idiot (in political matters), Warren Buffett, the apotheosis of that unique American phenomenon, the very rich know-it-all: Henry Ford, Cyrus Eaton, Armand Hammer redux ad infinitum (et nauseam).
The budget opens up another front in Obama’s program to transform America, both tactically and substantively. Tactically, it torques up his campaign to run as the candidate of the 97 percent, the virtuous, against the 3 percent of “rich” freeloaders (never mind that a family of four earning $250,000 with two children in private schools is lucky to have a thousand dollars over at the end of the year after paying only essential expenses — which is why most of them are in debt). The 3 percent the president is targeting pay more taxes than the other 97 he claims to be defending.
There is a legitimate concern about wealth distribution in the United States, but the answer is not to scapegoat any individual who makes over $200,000 per year and to try to sell the fraud that the government can equitably take the money of those who have earned it and give it to those who haven’t. The answer is to fight unemployment, by workfare rebuilding infrastructure as in the Thirties and Fifties, if necessary; to stop encouraging the people to spend every cent they can make or borrow and to incentivize saving and investment; and to narrow the deficit with credible expense reductions, especially entitlement reform, and taxes on elective spending and not income.
What we have instead is the designation of America’s 10 million most economically productive people as official enemies, and an assault upon them, which will produce, at best, a tokenistic revenue increase. The president tarts this up now as a budget-balancer behind defense-spending reductions that his defense secretary, the capable political plough-horse Leon Panetta, says will not happen, and behind GDP-growth predictions of 3 to 4.1 percent that are a pure exercise in imaginative gymnastics. Obama is the author of the unheard-of profligacy of $5 trillion of new publicly held federal debt in one term, increasing it as a percentage of GDP from under 50 percent to about 80 percent.
Since the administration has not lifted a finger even to pretend to reduce the deficit, it incites the inference that it has deliberately avoided preventive action in order to ensure that the country’s fiscal deterioration makes an assault on the designated wealthy in an election year a mob-pleasing winner. Hence, we are to have 100 percent increases in taxes on capital gains and dividends, almost a 30 percent increase in estate taxes, the end of the payroll-tax reduction, and a “global minimum tax” (unspecified, but we should fear the worst). As if to highlight the trend, General Motors, celebrating the largest profit in its history — after the government disposed of decades of retained expenses and all previous equity, and the taxpayers generously refinanced the company for the benefit of its new owners, the United Auto Workers — distributed $7,000 cash bonuses to all 47,500 unionized workers in the U.S. while cutting benefits to the approximately 15,000 non-union employees.
This all ties in neatly with the donkey kick in the face of the Roman Catholic Church: a gratuitous, nonsensical measure which will be raw meat for the screaming feminists and provide the whole Obama coalition with the inspiriting divertissement of baiting their ancient and now supposedly helpless foe.
Obama’s 2012 campign will be a trifecta: First, it will seek to replace the traditional American ideal of individualist self-help with a permanent majority of takers — the public sector and entitlement recipients and their clerical helpers in the professions, all riveted on the backs of those who actually add value. Second, by misrepresenting contraception as a health issue and hiding abortion behind it, and unleashing the feminist ravers as the shock troops against the religious denominations to shred the First Amendment, it will propose a giant step in the complete emasculation of any independent religious moral authority, or any institutional dissent from the absolute moral fiat of the federal state. Third, it will try to solidify the power of an administration that on its merits should be sent packing, bag and baggage.
If it succeeds, it will be the supreme triumph of what the pope calls “militant secularism,” and of a vision of dialectical materialism: the culmination of the career of Jeremiah Wright’s happy congregant of 20 years, and of Bill Ayers’s co-social-animator misdirecting Walter Annenberg’s generosity. One can only admire the scale of Mr. Obama’s ambition and the ingenuity of his tactical plan. He held his fire until very late and is taking full advantage of the weakness of the Republican candidates. If the country buys it in November, it will be a disaster that will be repealed in four years, but they will be fearful years. America will temporarily cease to be America and will partially succumb to the liberal death wish, like an overdose victim going into a semi-coma, just as there are signs that Europe may, under German ministrations, be starting to recover from that condition.— Conrad Black is the author of Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Champion of Freedom, Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full, and, just released, A Matter of Principle. He can be reached at cbletters@gmail.com.
A daring power grab, on many fronts
By Conrad Black February 23, 2012 4:00 A.M.
The scope of President Obama’s public-policy offensive commands respect. When he spoke admiringly four years ago of Ronald Reagan as “a transformative president,” he must have been sincere, though he clearly disagreed with much of the transformation. And Mr. Obama certainly deserves the same courtesy from those of us who are appalled at what he is trying to do to the country.
I commented here several weeks ago on the State of the Union address, which was largely on the cusp between mendacity and delusion, as it flippantly passed over the deficit and claimed that those who doubted that American prestige was rising in the world didn’t “know what they are talking about.”
Last week, the attempted imposition on Roman Catholic institutions of the cost of insuring employees for the provision of birth control, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs was an unavoidable subject for this column. I do not whitewash the problems the Roman Catholic Church has brought upon itself by cleaving to a counsel of perfection on birth control that its own bishops have assured coreligionists is not an issue that separates them from their Church. The Holy See was asking for trouble and has not failed to attract it.
But the administration was spoiling for a fight and provoked one, using its proxies in the feminist movement and in organized labor to bait and enervate the Catholic episcopate before the main event began. Planned Parenthood, the billion-dollar-a-year, equal-opportunity, no-fault, anti-choice abortion facilitator, and the Service Employees International Union are elements of the Coalition to Protect Women’s Health Care, which, like picadors in a bullfight, are harrying and distracting the Roman Catholic leadership. “We will mobilize our base and we will outnumber the other side,” the president of the ultra-feminist organization EMILY’s List, Stephanie Schriock, eagerly told the New York Times on February 16. The Roman Catholic bishops were clearly judged by the rampaging Boadiceas around Obama to be a spavined, dimming, superannuated bull that would blunderingly deliver its head and lungs to the sword of the matador-president.
Whether they outnumber the other side will depend on how well the counterargument is made. Birth control is not a health issue at all; pregnancy is not a disease or an illness and termination of it is not a cure to a medical problem. Couching it in these terms is an assault on all those who believe in any notion of spirituality, the sanctity of life even as a conditional concept and not an inflexible rule, or in any position for ecclesiastical moral leadership. It is, to boot, an assault on the constitutional rights guaranteed to religious practice in the First Amendment. And there must be a fighting chance that this Supreme Court would defend the First Amendment more vigorously than it has the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth, whose virtual demise it has magisterially overlooked.
There is no question that the great majority of Americans favor accessible contraception (probably, so do most of the Catholic clergy). And early polls show that a slight majority of Catholics favor obligatory insurance of contraception to employees even of Catholic institutions. But the consequences of such a step in respect of abortion and sterilization and the constitutional implications of it have not sunk in.
The Pearl Harbor nature of the move and the unholy alliance between the government and the most abrasive groups in the abortion coalition could cause the administration problems. And even if the majority sticks with the administration, since these are groups that were in its pocket anyway, any slippage in moderate opinion could be decisive.
The abortion tigresses have still not recovered from the collapse of their immense preponderance of public-opinion support in the abortion debate thanks to the eloquent witness of John Paul II, and also to the rise of ultrasound technology that brought people face to face with the human beings in the womb, including as they tried desperately to avoid the abortionist’s vacuum. The bishops always seem a bit stolid, but the Jarretts and Wasserman Schultzes could grate on the country’s nerves quite severely and very soon. They are always overconfident, and get in the face of the undecided.
This should be a ding-dong battle, but before the first round was over, Mr. Obama delivered his budget. This time the beaters and accompanists were not screeching women but history’s wealthiest useful idiot (in political matters), Warren Buffett, the apotheosis of that unique American phenomenon, the very rich know-it-all: Henry Ford, Cyrus Eaton, Armand Hammer redux ad infinitum (et nauseam).
The budget opens up another front in Obama’s program to transform America, both tactically and substantively. Tactically, it torques up his campaign to run as the candidate of the 97 percent, the virtuous, against the 3 percent of “rich” freeloaders (never mind that a family of four earning $250,000 with two children in private schools is lucky to have a thousand dollars over at the end of the year after paying only essential expenses — which is why most of them are in debt). The 3 percent the president is targeting pay more taxes than the other 97 he claims to be defending.
There is a legitimate concern about wealth distribution in the United States, but the answer is not to scapegoat any individual who makes over $200,000 per year and to try to sell the fraud that the government can equitably take the money of those who have earned it and give it to those who haven’t. The answer is to fight unemployment, by workfare rebuilding infrastructure as in the Thirties and Fifties, if necessary; to stop encouraging the people to spend every cent they can make or borrow and to incentivize saving and investment; and to narrow the deficit with credible expense reductions, especially entitlement reform, and taxes on elective spending and not income.
What we have instead is the designation of America’s 10 million most economically productive people as official enemies, and an assault upon them, which will produce, at best, a tokenistic revenue increase. The president tarts this up now as a budget-balancer behind defense-spending reductions that his defense secretary, the capable political plough-horse Leon Panetta, says will not happen, and behind GDP-growth predictions of 3 to 4.1 percent that are a pure exercise in imaginative gymnastics. Obama is the author of the unheard-of profligacy of $5 trillion of new publicly held federal debt in one term, increasing it as a percentage of GDP from under 50 percent to about 80 percent.
Since the administration has not lifted a finger even to pretend to reduce the deficit, it incites the inference that it has deliberately avoided preventive action in order to ensure that the country’s fiscal deterioration makes an assault on the designated wealthy in an election year a mob-pleasing winner. Hence, we are to have 100 percent increases in taxes on capital gains and dividends, almost a 30 percent increase in estate taxes, the end of the payroll-tax reduction, and a “global minimum tax” (unspecified, but we should fear the worst). As if to highlight the trend, General Motors, celebrating the largest profit in its history — after the government disposed of decades of retained expenses and all previous equity, and the taxpayers generously refinanced the company for the benefit of its new owners, the United Auto Workers — distributed $7,000 cash bonuses to all 47,500 unionized workers in the U.S. while cutting benefits to the approximately 15,000 non-union employees.
This all ties in neatly with the donkey kick in the face of the Roman Catholic Church: a gratuitous, nonsensical measure which will be raw meat for the screaming feminists and provide the whole Obama coalition with the inspiriting divertissement of baiting their ancient and now supposedly helpless foe.
Obama’s 2012 campign will be a trifecta: First, it will seek to replace the traditional American ideal of individualist self-help with a permanent majority of takers — the public sector and entitlement recipients and their clerical helpers in the professions, all riveted on the backs of those who actually add value. Second, by misrepresenting contraception as a health issue and hiding abortion behind it, and unleashing the feminist ravers as the shock troops against the religious denominations to shred the First Amendment, it will propose a giant step in the complete emasculation of any independent religious moral authority, or any institutional dissent from the absolute moral fiat of the federal state. Third, it will try to solidify the power of an administration that on its merits should be sent packing, bag and baggage.
If it succeeds, it will be the supreme triumph of what the pope calls “militant secularism,” and of a vision of dialectical materialism: the culmination of the career of Jeremiah Wright’s happy congregant of 20 years, and of Bill Ayers’s co-social-animator misdirecting Walter Annenberg’s generosity. One can only admire the scale of Mr. Obama’s ambition and the ingenuity of his tactical plan. He held his fire until very late and is taking full advantage of the weakness of the Republican candidates. If the country buys it in November, it will be a disaster that will be repealed in four years, but they will be fearful years. America will temporarily cease to be America and will partially succumb to the liberal death wish, like an overdose victim going into a semi-coma, just as there are signs that Europe may, under German ministrations, be starting to recover from that condition.— Conrad Black is the author of Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Champion of Freedom, Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full, and, just released, A Matter of Principle. He can be reached at cbletters@gmail.com.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Another Example of Character of the Democrats in Congress....
Blighted home owned by Conyers family reportedly causes neighbor's insurance to rise
Published February 22, 2012 | FoxNews.com
The decrepit condition of an east Detroit home owned by Michigan Rep. John Conyers' family reportedly has driven up the insurance rate for at least one of the neighbors.
According to MyFoxDetroit, one neighbor claimed her annual homeowners insurance rose from $1,700 to $7,000.
"They raised it because of the abandoned house next door," she told MyFoxDetroit. "They said that my house is being rated up because of the risk of the house (next door) catching on fire."
The Democratic congressman later told MyFoxDetroit that he plans to help the neighbor -- though he also claimed he didn't know who owned the property.
"I've been talking to her. ... I want to help. I'm not trying to hurt her," Conyers said.
According to MyFoxDetroit, the home used to be owned by Conyers after his mother signed it over to him. He then reportedly signed it over to his wife, who is now in prison for bribery. His wife then signed it over to her mother and son, according to MyFoxDetroit.
Published February 22, 2012 | FoxNews.com
The decrepit condition of an east Detroit home owned by Michigan Rep. John Conyers' family reportedly has driven up the insurance rate for at least one of the neighbors.
According to MyFoxDetroit, one neighbor claimed her annual homeowners insurance rose from $1,700 to $7,000.
"They raised it because of the abandoned house next door," she told MyFoxDetroit. "They said that my house is being rated up because of the risk of the house (next door) catching on fire."
The Democratic congressman later told MyFoxDetroit that he plans to help the neighbor -- though he also claimed he didn't know who owned the property.
"I've been talking to her. ... I want to help. I'm not trying to hurt her," Conyers said.
According to MyFoxDetroit, the home used to be owned by Conyers after his mother signed it over to him. He then reportedly signed it over to his wife, who is now in prison for bribery. His wife then signed it over to her mother and son, according to MyFoxDetroit.
The Republican Party should TOTALLY control any/all Presidential debates for Republican Candidates....
I agree with this...the Party should organize these debates and make certain they are not only conducted in a professional manner, but in a way that portrays the party and candidates in the good light. Having PMSNBC and other state-run media outlets televise debates is just ridiculous. Letting the public see George Stephanopolus question republicans when everyone knows he still a democratic strategist is just crazy.....It time for the party to get control back!
The Debate Mistake
By The Editors February 22, 2012 4:00 A.M.
The semiotic search for the racism beneath Newt’s food-stamp line. The dismissal of “the Constitution” in haughty air quotes. The wasting of primetime minutes pondering which wife would make the best first lady. The obsessive deposing of Romney on the legality of condoms. The condescending identity politics of carting out a token Latino to ask an immigration question. The dings. The bells. The buzzers. The Google Chat notification tones. The frightful specter of Donald Trump’s coiffure lurking around the next corner.
These are just some of the lowlights of the umpteen Republican debates thus far. And with the exception of The Donald’s ill-fated quest to moderate, they were all brought to us by the mainstream media. That’s the same media that daily carry water for the Obama administration, approach the tea parties as anthropological curiosities, and persistently skew the public discourse leftward in ways large and small, conscious and unconscious. So why on earth should conservatives trust them to play any substantial role in the selection of our presidential standard-bearer?
The answer, of course, is that we should not. Not again.
Sure, the debates have had their strong moments. But it is telling that a disproportionate number of them came when conservatives and conservative institutions were most involved, such as during the foreign-policy debate cosponsored by the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute; and when the fire of the candidates (particularly Newt) was trained on the moderators and the media itself.
Watching Gingrich savagely skewer moderators has been, at times, richly satisfying. But it is satisfying in the same way that having ice cream instead of eating your vegetables is satisfying: Neither is salutary in the long run. While dismantling the presuppositions of the political media is surely a skill a conservative president would do well to acquire, it does not rank with the ability to clearly and persuasively articulate a conservative policy vision for solving America’s most pressing problems, or with the ability to display fiscal sobriety, strategic acumen, and strong instincts toward liberty when presented with new challenges, foreign and domestic. These abilities — and not the ability to cleverly parry liberal inanities — are what the primary debates are meant to test.
But getting substantive answers requires moderators interested in asking substantive questions. And with few exceptions, none of the current lot have shown themselves to be up to the task.
Therefore, Republicans should work to improve the quality of the debates by building on the model of the AEI/Heritage debate. To this end, we favor the plan recently floated by Hugh Hewitt. Come the 2016 election season, the RNC should set the number, dates, and locations of debates. They should be fewer in number than the 20-odd we will see before this year is out, so that they are not so unduly agenda-setting. And the party should partner with local party officials, conservative think tanks, alternative media, tea-party groups, and grassroots organizations to determine formatting and questions. For broadcasting purposes, the participation of mainstream media may still be necessary, but they should be relegated to the status of junior partners. There can be no more George Stephanopouli asking sideshow questions premised on making conservatives look weird and driving up ratings.
Primaries are, in the best sense of the word, parochial affairs. So it is only right and reasonable that they be organized in the best interests of the party. The alternative is to hope MSNBC and CNN come into the flock between now and 2016. Don’t hold your breath.
The Debate Mistake
By The Editors February 22, 2012 4:00 A.M.
The semiotic search for the racism beneath Newt’s food-stamp line. The dismissal of “the Constitution” in haughty air quotes. The wasting of primetime minutes pondering which wife would make the best first lady. The obsessive deposing of Romney on the legality of condoms. The condescending identity politics of carting out a token Latino to ask an immigration question. The dings. The bells. The buzzers. The Google Chat notification tones. The frightful specter of Donald Trump’s coiffure lurking around the next corner.
These are just some of the lowlights of the umpteen Republican debates thus far. And with the exception of The Donald’s ill-fated quest to moderate, they were all brought to us by the mainstream media. That’s the same media that daily carry water for the Obama administration, approach the tea parties as anthropological curiosities, and persistently skew the public discourse leftward in ways large and small, conscious and unconscious. So why on earth should conservatives trust them to play any substantial role in the selection of our presidential standard-bearer?
The answer, of course, is that we should not. Not again.
Sure, the debates have had their strong moments. But it is telling that a disproportionate number of them came when conservatives and conservative institutions were most involved, such as during the foreign-policy debate cosponsored by the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute; and when the fire of the candidates (particularly Newt) was trained on the moderators and the media itself.
Watching Gingrich savagely skewer moderators has been, at times, richly satisfying. But it is satisfying in the same way that having ice cream instead of eating your vegetables is satisfying: Neither is salutary in the long run. While dismantling the presuppositions of the political media is surely a skill a conservative president would do well to acquire, it does not rank with the ability to clearly and persuasively articulate a conservative policy vision for solving America’s most pressing problems, or with the ability to display fiscal sobriety, strategic acumen, and strong instincts toward liberty when presented with new challenges, foreign and domestic. These abilities — and not the ability to cleverly parry liberal inanities — are what the primary debates are meant to test.
But getting substantive answers requires moderators interested in asking substantive questions. And with few exceptions, none of the current lot have shown themselves to be up to the task.
Therefore, Republicans should work to improve the quality of the debates by building on the model of the AEI/Heritage debate. To this end, we favor the plan recently floated by Hugh Hewitt. Come the 2016 election season, the RNC should set the number, dates, and locations of debates. They should be fewer in number than the 20-odd we will see before this year is out, so that they are not so unduly agenda-setting. And the party should partner with local party officials, conservative think tanks, alternative media, tea-party groups, and grassroots organizations to determine formatting and questions. For broadcasting purposes, the participation of mainstream media may still be necessary, but they should be relegated to the status of junior partners. There can be no more George Stephanopouli asking sideshow questions premised on making conservatives look weird and driving up ratings.
Primaries are, in the best sense of the word, parochial affairs. So it is only right and reasonable that they be organized in the best interests of the party. The alternative is to hope MSNBC and CNN come into the flock between now and 2016. Don’t hold your breath.
Obama's "Fairness"...It doesn't make any sense...
And Obama has the GUTS to talk about fairness when almost 1/2 of Americans pay NOTHING!!!! And to add to that some that pay nothing get money back from the IRS.....I'll pay more when everyone pays something...
Chart of the Week: Nearly Half of All Americans Don’t Pay Income Taxes
Rob Bluey February 19, 2012 at 9:32 am
This year’s Index of Dependence on Government presented startling findings about the sharp increase of Americans who rely on the federal government for housing, food, income, student aid or other assistance. (See last week’s chart.)
Another eye-popping number was the percentage of Americans who don’t pay income taxes, which now accounts for nearly half of the U.S. population. Meanwhile, most of that population receives generous federal benefits.
“One of the most worrying trends in the Index is the coinciding growth in the non-taxpaying public,” wrote Heritage authors Bill Beach and Patrick Tyrrell. “The percentage of people who do not pay federal income taxes, and who are not claimed as dependents by someone who does pay them, jumped from 14.8 percent in 1984 to 49.5 percent in 2009.”
That means 151.7 million Americans paid nothing in 2009. By comparison, 34.8 million tax filers paid no taxes in 1984.
The rapid growth of Americans who don’t pay income taxes is particularly alarming for the fate of the American form of government, Beach and Tyrrell warned. Coupled with higher spending on government programs, it is already proving to be a major fiscal challenge.
“This trend should concern everyone who supports America’s republican form of government,” Beach and Tyrrell wrote. “If the citizens’ representatives are elected by an increasing percentage of voters who pay no income tax, how long will it be before these representatives respond more to demands for yet more entitlements and subsidies from non-payers than to the pleas of taxpayers to exercise greater spending prudence?”
Chart of the Week: Nearly Half of All Americans Don’t Pay Income Taxes
Rob Bluey February 19, 2012 at 9:32 am
This year’s Index of Dependence on Government presented startling findings about the sharp increase of Americans who rely on the federal government for housing, food, income, student aid or other assistance. (See last week’s chart.)
Another eye-popping number was the percentage of Americans who don’t pay income taxes, which now accounts for nearly half of the U.S. population. Meanwhile, most of that population receives generous federal benefits.
“One of the most worrying trends in the Index is the coinciding growth in the non-taxpaying public,” wrote Heritage authors Bill Beach and Patrick Tyrrell. “The percentage of people who do not pay federal income taxes, and who are not claimed as dependents by someone who does pay them, jumped from 14.8 percent in 1984 to 49.5 percent in 2009.”
That means 151.7 million Americans paid nothing in 2009. By comparison, 34.8 million tax filers paid no taxes in 1984.
The rapid growth of Americans who don’t pay income taxes is particularly alarming for the fate of the American form of government, Beach and Tyrrell warned. Coupled with higher spending on government programs, it is already proving to be a major fiscal challenge.
“This trend should concern everyone who supports America’s republican form of government,” Beach and Tyrrell wrote. “If the citizens’ representatives are elected by an increasing percentage of voters who pay no income tax, how long will it be before these representatives respond more to demands for yet more entitlements and subsidies from non-payers than to the pleas of taxpayers to exercise greater spending prudence?”
Obama's taking YOUR Freedoms and Liberties Away One at a Time....
Religious Liberty Under Attack
Today is Ash Wednesday -- the first day of Lent -- the beginning of 40 days of prayer and fasting observed by Christians across the country, culminating in the Easter feast. Likewise in April, Jews will gather to celebrate Passover, one of many traditions observed under the religious freedom that the U.S. Constitution was designed to preserve. Now, though, that freedom is under direct attack by the very government that purports to represent the people, and that is but the first step in Obamacare's re-writing of America's blueprint.
This week, two more Christian colleges joined other religious institutions in fighting back against that attack when they filed lawsuits against the Obama Administration for imposing an anti-conscience mandate under Obamacare. The controversial regulation forces almost all employers to provide health insurance coverage of abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives, and sterilization, without a co-pay.
Heritage's Sarah Torre writes that Geneva College, a private institution in Pennsylvania associated with the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, and Louisiana College, a small Southern Baptist school located in the middle of the state, have deeply held moral objections to the mandate and are left with no choice but to take their case to court:
With an offensively narrow religious exemption that will cover only some formal houses of worship, the mandate leaves many religious employers who hold moral objections to abortion and contraception without recourse. The mandate places the many non-exempted religious employers in an untenable situation: forced either to violate their beliefs by providing coverage of morally objectionable services or forgo providing employee health insurance altogether and pay hefty fines for doing so.
To date, seven lawsuits have been filed in response to this mandate, and those legal actions are but the tip of the iceberg of opposition to the Administration's despotic directive.
The controversy began last August when the White House announced the anti-conscience policy as an interim final rule. Individuals and leaders from various faith backgrounds, including Roman Catholic, Jewish, evangelical, and Protestant traditions spoke out, prompting President Obama to announce an "accommodation" in response. But the proposal announced at a February 10 press conference would have done nothing to resolve the moral problem at the heart of the matter. In fact, more than 300 leaders to signed a letter deeming the gesture "unacceptable."
Moreover, the so-called "accommodation" turned out to be nothing more than a smokescreen, since the Obama Administration ultimately finalized the August version of the rule that had caused the controversy in the first place. Adding insult to injury, the White House finalized the rule within hours of holding a press conference in which the President implied further changes -- repeating the disregard for accountability to the American people first seen when they were told that Congress would have to pass the bill to find out what was in it.
The fight, though, extends beyond the issue of the anti-conscience mandate and speaks to the dangerous, endemic flaws at the root of Obamacare. In a new Heritage video, several political leaders speak out against the anti-conscience mandate while warning that this first assault on religious freedom is but a taste of what's to come under the President's health care law. George Weigel, a prominent Catholic scholar, says that Obamacare puts our society's core in jeopardy:
What is at stake here ultimately is whether civil society will survive, and whether voluntary institutions or voluntary associations ranging from the traditional family to multimillion member organizations like the Catholic Church to small businesses will be allowed to function only if they imitate the government, only if they imitate the state.
Truly, the state will attempt to refashion society using Obamacare as its cudgel and awl. Matthew Spalding, vice president of American Studies at The Heritage Foundation, writes that this new, unaccountable regime of unelected bureaucrats -- with regulatory authority over one-sixth of the American economy -- will issue regulations that will fundamentally alter Americans' way of life. Spalding says the anti-conscience mandate is but one of the ways that individuals will be affected under this new order of governmental dominance:
What is happening has little to do with health care or even public policy and everything to do with the role of government in the most immediate and intimate matters of our lives. All is subject to government control, regulatory dictate, and administrative whim. Nothing will be allowed outside of the new regulatory scheme: no independent state programs, no individuals or businesses permitted not to participate, no true private market alternatives.
In announcing his school's Obamacare lawsuit, Louisiana College president Dr. Joe W. Aguillard declared, "The time for silence is over. Louisiana College will not sit by and allow this or any government to usurp our God-given religious freedoms and our time-honored Baptist heritage." Like Louisiana College, Americans collectively are witnessing their time-honored liberties being trampled upon. They should not sit idly by, either. And Congress should repeal Obamacare forthwith in order to preserve the people's freedom.
Today is Ash Wednesday -- the first day of Lent -- the beginning of 40 days of prayer and fasting observed by Christians across the country, culminating in the Easter feast. Likewise in April, Jews will gather to celebrate Passover, one of many traditions observed under the religious freedom that the U.S. Constitution was designed to preserve. Now, though, that freedom is under direct attack by the very government that purports to represent the people, and that is but the first step in Obamacare's re-writing of America's blueprint.
This week, two more Christian colleges joined other religious institutions in fighting back against that attack when they filed lawsuits against the Obama Administration for imposing an anti-conscience mandate under Obamacare. The controversial regulation forces almost all employers to provide health insurance coverage of abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives, and sterilization, without a co-pay.
Heritage's Sarah Torre writes that Geneva College, a private institution in Pennsylvania associated with the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, and Louisiana College, a small Southern Baptist school located in the middle of the state, have deeply held moral objections to the mandate and are left with no choice but to take their case to court:
With an offensively narrow religious exemption that will cover only some formal houses of worship, the mandate leaves many religious employers who hold moral objections to abortion and contraception without recourse. The mandate places the many non-exempted religious employers in an untenable situation: forced either to violate their beliefs by providing coverage of morally objectionable services or forgo providing employee health insurance altogether and pay hefty fines for doing so.
To date, seven lawsuits have been filed in response to this mandate, and those legal actions are but the tip of the iceberg of opposition to the Administration's despotic directive.
The controversy began last August when the White House announced the anti-conscience policy as an interim final rule. Individuals and leaders from various faith backgrounds, including Roman Catholic, Jewish, evangelical, and Protestant traditions spoke out, prompting President Obama to announce an "accommodation" in response. But the proposal announced at a February 10 press conference would have done nothing to resolve the moral problem at the heart of the matter. In fact, more than 300 leaders to signed a letter deeming the gesture "unacceptable."
Moreover, the so-called "accommodation" turned out to be nothing more than a smokescreen, since the Obama Administration ultimately finalized the August version of the rule that had caused the controversy in the first place. Adding insult to injury, the White House finalized the rule within hours of holding a press conference in which the President implied further changes -- repeating the disregard for accountability to the American people first seen when they were told that Congress would have to pass the bill to find out what was in it.
The fight, though, extends beyond the issue of the anti-conscience mandate and speaks to the dangerous, endemic flaws at the root of Obamacare. In a new Heritage video, several political leaders speak out against the anti-conscience mandate while warning that this first assault on religious freedom is but a taste of what's to come under the President's health care law. George Weigel, a prominent Catholic scholar, says that Obamacare puts our society's core in jeopardy:
What is at stake here ultimately is whether civil society will survive, and whether voluntary institutions or voluntary associations ranging from the traditional family to multimillion member organizations like the Catholic Church to small businesses will be allowed to function only if they imitate the government, only if they imitate the state.
Truly, the state will attempt to refashion society using Obamacare as its cudgel and awl. Matthew Spalding, vice president of American Studies at The Heritage Foundation, writes that this new, unaccountable regime of unelected bureaucrats -- with regulatory authority over one-sixth of the American economy -- will issue regulations that will fundamentally alter Americans' way of life. Spalding says the anti-conscience mandate is but one of the ways that individuals will be affected under this new order of governmental dominance:
What is happening has little to do with health care or even public policy and everything to do with the role of government in the most immediate and intimate matters of our lives. All is subject to government control, regulatory dictate, and administrative whim. Nothing will be allowed outside of the new regulatory scheme: no independent state programs, no individuals or businesses permitted not to participate, no true private market alternatives.
In announcing his school's Obamacare lawsuit, Louisiana College president Dr. Joe W. Aguillard declared, "The time for silence is over. Louisiana College will not sit by and allow this or any government to usurp our God-given religious freedoms and our time-honored Baptist heritage." Like Louisiana College, Americans collectively are witnessing their time-honored liberties being trampled upon. They should not sit idly by, either. And Congress should repeal Obamacare forthwith in order to preserve the people's freedom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)