The Great Divider

President Obama Announces
the 2012 Launch of African Americans for Obama

I can only imagine the cries of racism that would rightly follow, if the one of the Republican candidates were to announce that he has a website where "white people" were organizing to get him elected. Well Obama has done just that in reverse with "African Americans for Obama".

This is not only divisive but some would call it racist and the opposite of what was hoped for when President Obama was elected. In the message, President Obama explains that African Americans need to organize along with him to get him re-elected.

This would be fine, if he was also speaking to white Americans and those of other races, but Obama can't seem to help himself. He can't help but appear to be anything other than what any fair-minded person would conclude if the speaker were appealing to a whites only group .... RACIST.

Is it a stretch for some to understand that organizing along racial lines is divisive and racist regardless of who is doing the organizing?

It appears to be impossible for Obama to represent the best interests of all Americans.

Nudging ...

A Calculated Confrontation

If you ever wanted to see a clear example of President Obama playing politics as usual ...

the absurd forced contraception and abortion insurance issue is it.


This is a perfect example of the president deceiving the people.

First of all, Obama is being dishonest when he says that his opponents will attempt to play politics with this issue. Not only is he playing politics with the issue, he introduced the issue with the intention of using the issue to rally his far left base, and divide the electorate, and he is deliberately manipulating the electorate.


Apparently, the far left who are in charge of the mainstream media and President Obama, decided to introduce contraception as an issue for Obama to run on in the coming election in their campaign strategy planning. Running on Obama's record is not an option for them. I saw this first in the recent Republican debate when George Stephanopolous asked; "do you believe the states have the right to ban contraception"

It is not a mere coincidence that both Stephanopolous and Obama would bring this issue front and center for anything other than political purposes. In the face of the real problems facing America, this is unquestionably a sham issue. This is the Democrats attempt to change the subject.


MSM and Obama Are Clearly Under
The Control Of The Extreme Left


A Silly Question


The calculation was that Obama would nudge the electorate with the issue, get everyone upset on both political extremes. The far left which is disenchanted with Obama would now have an issue to fight for. This is good for fund raising and getting his base mobilized. He then would offer a compromise and now has has scored a victory on an issue that was not even an issue in the first place. And for sure we won't be talking about unemployment, jobs, putting Americans back to work, or the runaway budget deficits or worse yet Obama's failed policies.

This Cap Sunstein "Nudge" concept may have worked perfectly here unless Obama and the silly game he is playing wakes up conservative Catholics, and the Tea Party Movement is once again mobilized to defeat him.

Obama must think Americans are ignorant.

The problem for Obama is that this is a different electorate than the one that voted for him in 2008. This time around, the people are up to his manipulative skills; and they are mad as hell, and they're not gonna take it anymore.

With our most precious religious and personal liberties at stake, there is much for God loving, and freedom loving Americans to stand up and fight for.

In Contempt

In Contempt: Progressives and the Constitution

Progressives hold the U.S. Constitution in the highest regard.
That’s not a line you hear often outside of a parody or a conversation with someone who has recently suffered a closed-head injury, but it’s true.


Progressives hold the parts of the Constitution they like in high regard but only when applied to other progressives. The rest, particularly the parts they like to use against conservatives, are held in contempt.


I got to thinking about this after reading a piece in The New York Times entitled, “’We the People’ Loses Appeal With People Around the World,” which made the case fewer and fewer nations around the world look to our Constitution as a model for their own.

Frankly, this reminds me of the famous line of parents everywhere: “If your friends jumped off a bridge, would you?” And the answer for the Times and for many progressives seems to be “yes.” Not literally – I conjured the same thought.

Why has our Constitution fallen out of favor with the rest of the world? Aside from the fact progressives in this country tell the world it’s a horrible document, steeped in racism and inequality, the Times suggests, “The United States Constitution is terse and old, and it guarantees relatively few rights.”

What the Times ignores, what all progressives ignore, but what a 5-year-old could understand from reading it, is our Constitution doesn’t grant or “guarantee” us rights. It prevents, or attempts to prevent, the government from infringing upon rights with which we were born.

The First Amendment doesn’t grant or guarantee the right to free speech or freedom of religion. It says the government can’t infringe upon it. That’s what the “Congress shall make no law” bit is all about.

This confuses the people at the Times. “The commitment of some members of the Supreme Court to interpreting the Constitution according to its original meaning in the 18th century may send the signal that it is of little current use to, say, a new African nation,” the piece says.

Only progressives could even think such a muddled thought. But then, only progressives could hear we have a record number of people on food stamps, then hear the phrase “food stamp president” and think “racism.” That’s because only progressives could hear that phrase and think, “black people.”

Only progressives could read, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” and think somehow “the people” means only the “well-regulated militia” mentioned earlier in the Second Amendment. This odd construction, of course, gives them license to infringe on this right as much as they see fit.

In reality, they know exactly what they’re doing. They know they can’t completely ignore the Constitution, so they chip away at the edges. Once one part is chipped off it’s easier to chip away others.

This week, the president wasn’t chipping … he was trying to take a jackhammer to the First Amendment. When he ordered Catholic organizations to provide birth control, sterilization and the morning-after pill to all their employees, free of charge, against church dogma, there was outrage. That outrage was justifiable.

Progressives cheered the order as a triumph for women, as if the free birth control pills given out at clinics across the country, the low price of condoms and the in-expense of simply not having sex were not option enough for people. No, the government had to go further. Without any sense of hypocrisy, the “keep-your- religion-out-of-our-politics” crowd lauded the insertion of government into religion.

But the destruction of religion by government was not the goal of this move; that will come later. This was the magician talking and waving one hand around to catch your eye while he slips the “disappearing” coin into his pocket with the other. When President Obama “caved to pressure” from people on both sides of the aisle, it was heralded as a victory for liberty. It was anything but.

So, the First Amendment was not jackhammered this week after all. But our liberty was.

President Obama didn’t force religious organizations to violate their deeply held beliefs. But in its place, he put the onus of providing what he wanted on insurance companies, who now will be forced to provide everything he wants for “free,” then past the cost on to us.

But the cost isn’t the issue. It’s the concept. While we were distracted by the waving of the one hand, we missed the other that had the president mandating coverage, coverage of anything, by health insurance companies. That’s a power that didn’t exist. It’s a power that shouldn’t exist, according to the Constitution.

The federal government has mandates in Medicare and Medicaid, which are both government-run insurance plans. But private sector health insurance is regulated by the states. Or at least it used to be. That’s why there has been a push to allow the purchase of health insurance across state lines. Some states mandate more things be covered than others, which drives up the price.

The news this week isn’t that the president “caved to pressure” and no longer will force religious organizations to violate their teachings. It’s that the president decided he simply could dictate what you, as an individual, need (and now will have to pay for) as far as your health insurance goes. And if he can simply walk off the golf course one day and will this into existence, what can’t he do?

Now that I think of it, what I tweeted out the other day is even more appropriate today. It was, “Obama wants birth control to be free because if he gets a 2nd term he plans on screwing the country even more & doesn't want the kids.” It’s funny because it’s true. It’s sad for the same reason.

In Contempt: Progressives and the Constitution Derek Hunter; Townhall.com 2/12/2012

Economic Chaos

I realize this is not the happy talk the politicians think people want to hear but ...

Let's talk about the REAL mess that we're in.

Federal 2010 Medicare and Medicaid expenditures totaled $800 billion.

The projected annual growth of both programs is about 7 percent.

Social Security expenditures are more than $700 billion a year.



According to the 2009 Social Security and Medicare trustees reports, by 2030, 49 percent of federal revenues will go for Social Security and Medicare payments. The unfunded liability of both programs is already $106 trillion.

But not to worry. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that it's possible to sustain today's level of federal spending and even achieve a balanced budget. All that Congress would have to do is raise the lowest income tax bracket of 10 percent to 25 percent and the middle tax bracket of 25 percent to 66 percent and raise the 35 percent tax bracket to 92 percent. That's a static vision that assumes that people will have no response and they'll work just as hard and send more money to Washington. If Congress did legislate such tax increases, it would be the economic equivalent of committing national hara-kiri.

Professor Daniel Klein, editor of Econ Journal Watch, and Professor Tyler Cowen, general director of the Mercatus Center, both based at George Mason University, organized a symposium to promote a better understanding of the U.S. debt crisis. The symposium's title, "U.S. Sovereign Debt Crisis: Tipping-Point Scenarios and Crash Dynamics" (http://econjwatch.org), is a strong hint about the seriousness of our nation's plight.

Professor Cowen introduced the symposium pointing out that in 2011, the major crisis was in the eurozone, where Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ireland dealt with the risk of default. The survival of the eurozone is now seriously doubted. Cowen added: "When it comes to a sovereign debt crisis, it is no longer possible to say 'it can't happen here.' Right now, we are borrowing about 40 cents of every dollar the federal government spends, and the imbalance has no end in sight."

Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, associate professor of economics at San Jose State University, says that a default on Treasury securities appears inevitable. He says that the short-run consequences for the economy will be painful but that the long-run consequences, both political and economic, could be beneficial. That's because an economic collapse is the only way we will come to our senses. That's a tragic statement about the foresight of the American people.

Participant Garrett Jones, associate professor of economics at George Mason University, is a bit more optimistic, seeing default as being less likely. But he argues that "default is still possible, and the GOP offers a uniquely American path to default: an unwillingness to raise taxes."

Dr. Arnold Kling is a member of the Financial Market Working Group at the Mercatus Center and tells us that the "U.S. government has made a set of promises that it cannot keep." He says that the "promises that are most important to change are Social Security and Medicare."

Joseph J. Minarik is senior vice president and director of research at the Committee for Economic Development. He argues that a "U.S. financial meltdown today is eminently avoidable. The wealthiest nation on earth, despite a painful economic slowdown, maintains the wherewithal to pay its bills. The open question is whether it maintains the will and the wisdom."

Peter J. Wallison holds the Arthur F. Burns chair in financial policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. He agrees with Kling that "the most likely source of a U.S. sovereign debt crisis ... is a failure of the U.S. political system to address the growth of the major entitlement programs -- Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid."

My translation of the symposium's conclusions is that it is by no means preordained that our nation must suffer the same decline as have other great nations of the past -- England, France, Spain, Portugal and the Ottoman and Roman empires. All evidence suggests that we will suffer a similar decline because, as Professor Cowen says, "the American electorate has dug in against both major tax increases and major spending cuts."
Economic Chaos Ahead; Dr. Walter E. Williams Townhall.com 2/8/2012
*****************************************

The political rhetoric must end. Obama is pretending he has somehow delivered on solving America's Crisis. The Republican candidates are locked in a battle attacking each other. Meanwhile, congress has basically taken the year off.

The only people focused on solving our real economic problems are Paul Ryan and a few other members of congress.

We need for these clowns to debate the real issues!!!

Groundhog Day

NOW AND THEN ...

Have you ever felt like the rhetoric never ends?

Well this clip proves it.

President Obama would have people believe that he has
accomplished more than any president since Abraham Lincoln.

President Obama is delusional.

This is the post that needs to be passed around the United States ...
over and over and over again during the coming months.

POLITICAL RHETORIC ... plain and simple.

Groundhog Day was a funny movie but it is an ignorant and irresponsible way to run a country.

The key question is: Has obama delivered on a single one of these Groundhog promises? The Answer: NO ... NO ... NO!

THIS FOOLISHNESS MUST END!!!

FORWARD THIS TO YOUR FRIENDS ...
They will thank you for it.

Bob West

The Class Warfare President

Here is a good example of the president twisting the truth.

He actually says: "you can call this class warfare all you want."

O.K. ... this is class warfare.

In France ... they have a wealth tax. Every year they add up all of your assets and charge you a percentage against your wealth. With this system, a government can confiscate everything you own in a few short years. Obama wants America to be another France. I say never!


The supposed Buffett Rule is a sham issue that allows the president to change the subject from his failed policies to a phony solution that he well knows will not solve the problem he is a pretending to speak to.

Obama is so blatant about this deception that he has put it into a video clip from his state of the union address for all of us to view.

He clearly knows that increasing the capital gains tax to 30 percent amounts to double taxation in most cases. This is not a solution to the jobs crisis or the deficit problem facing Americans but rather a smooth sleight of hand. A sales gimmick of quickly changing the subject.

He also knows that if all of the millionaires paid sixty percent in taxes it would not even put a small dent in the existing problem.

The tax system is clearly broken. The same deductions Obama is pointing to are used by millions of average Americans to avoid unfair taxation. This is just another tax scam. Alternative minimum tax actually turned out to be a new unfair tax on millions of average Americans.

Should everyone pay their fair share? Yes of course. But the real question is what is a fair tax when fifty percent of Americans pay zero??? Romney will now be vilified for only paying fourteen percent, but he actually paid three million dollars in taxes in a single year. Romney also gave three million to charity. It is evil for politicians to twist words and somehow vilify a person who legally paid three million dollars in taxes.

The problem is that Obama and his plans to confiscate America's wealth will continue to shut down American businesses costing more lost American jobs. If all of the opportunities to make a return on an investment of money that has already been taxed are close ... people will stop investing in businesses.

His plan is if he just can get a majority of the people mad at the rich, they will not be focusing on his three year record of incompetence and failure. And then he will win regardless of the truth or what is best for everyone.

Call it class warfare all you want he says.
Alright, I will call it class warfare ...
and I also call it deliberately deceiving the American people.
Politics as usual.
Dazzle em with your footwork, Mr. president.

But ... this time it won't work Americans are too smart for that.

We want to hear Obama about the Canadian oil pipeline Obama just rejected. And instead of quoting manipulated jobs numbers, what is America going to do to put unemployed and displaced Americans back to work? And how is cutting 500 billion from medicare not going to hurt seniors? What about Solyndra? What about Fast and Furious, Mr. President?

We're still waiting ...