Tag Archive for barack obama

State of Dysfunction

January 24, 2012 Freedomworks Comments Off

State of Dysfunction

Tonight, Americans who tune in to the State of the Union will watch the work of a rhetorical master with a flair for illusion. President Barack Obama will take to the floor of the Capitol in hopes of laying the groundwork for a political debate on his terms–one where he stands on emotional appeals, populism, and class warfare, not the shaky ground of his crumbling record. And looking right back at him will be the U.S. Senate, which has for the past 1,000 days failed to pass a budget–a total shirking of their fundamental duty to be diligent stewards of the taxpayers’ dollars.

The President will thus rely on the power of his words. With flourish, he will tell the story of America through a progressive’s eyes–one where “fairness” takes on a new meaning, where America’s core values are brushed aside, and where the truth about a failed presidency is forgotten in the shadows of his country’s collective memory. The President will speak from the high ground of his vaulted office. The question is whether the elevation conferred by his office will allow him to escape the soaring deficits, depths of unemployment, or miles of job-killing regulation that his Administration has wrought.

Before considering the President’s record, first consider his message–that economic populism is the core of America’s principles, that the federal government should be the guarantor of equal outcomes and that “fairness” of achievement should be decided by legions of bureaucrats in Washington. It is a theme that the President unveiled in a speech last month in Osawatomie, Kansas, and it’s one he plans to return to tonight. This vision is at the root of the President’s progressive ideal. It is not, however, the ideology on which our country was founded. The Heritage Foundation’s Matthew Spalding, vice president of American Studies and director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics, explains:

America is exceptional because it is dedicated to the principle of universal human liberty: that all are fundamentally equal by nature and equally endowed with unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This principle and the constitutional framework of law that enlivens it are the foundation of the American Dream…

What is truly revolutionary about the United States is that the ladder of opportunity became available to everyone. As a result, poverty has been vastly diminished. Even more important, it is no longer a permanent condition from which there is no real possibility of escape.

The “ladder of opportunity” exists so that people may apply their God-given talents and abilities in order to better themselves and pursue the American dream. That is the liberty that makes the United States unique. The President, though, does not stand for that dream. Instead, as he has made clear, he believes that it is through government engineering that society can advance–through more government power, federal education programs, economic regulations, and infrastructure spending, all funded by “fair” taxes on “wealthy” Americans.

This sort of progressivism has its roots in 100 years of history and 100 years of failure. But the country need not look back into the annals of time to see the proof. They only need to see the President’s record of the past three years–facts that will undoubtedly receive short shrift in tonight’s speech.

Obama enacted a purely progressive agenda with his expansion of the state under Obamacare, his trillion-dollar stimulus bill, the government takeover of the auto industry, the proliferation of regulations under the Dodd-Frank regulatory reform bill, the crony capitalism of the Solyndra scandal, and the illegal appointments to the unrestrained Consumer Financial Protection Agency and the National Labor Relations Board. The result: Some 13.1 million Americans remain unemployed, job creation has been abysmal for much of the past three years, and the President’s promise to turn around the U.S. economy has gone unfulfilled.

Meanwhile, the Senate has largely acceded to the President’s agenda while leaving undone the budgeting process for the past 1,000 days. Instead of respecting the people’s money and putting it to its appropriate use, the Senate has chosen to pass short-term “business as usual” continuing resolutions, one after another, all while government spending continues to skyrocket, deficits are exploding, the country’s credit rating is in jeopardy, Social Security and Medicare are in crisis states, and future generations are left holding the bag.

The President’s “populist” message is designed to appeal to the American people–and this is after all what all American politicians try to do. It is fair, however to ponder how the people have fared under the President’s policies. It is hard to miss the mass of unemployed Americans, the plodding economy, the businesses that are afraid to grow and expand, and the jobs that are being left on the table. It is understandable that the President will not want to bring up these “achievements.”

Christopher Columbus discovered the New World in 70 days. The Empire State Building was built in 410 days. Yet for 1,000 days, the U.S. Senate has failed to pass a budget. Find out more in our newest video, “1,000 Days Without A Budget.”

Danger to America

January 22, 2012 Freedom Fighting News Comments Off

The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.”

It may be to late as were pretty well toast unless things change and I pray every day that they do!

Written by unknown

 

Why Is Andrew Sullivan So Dumb?

January 17, 2012 BigGovernment Comments Off

 

Joel B. Pollak

by Joel B. Pollak

“Why Are Obama’ Critics So Dumb?” That’s the question posed by
Andrew Sullivan in the cover story of this week’s Newsweek.
But you’d have to be stupid, fanatical, and dishonest to argue–as
rig Truther Sullivan does–that Barack Obama’s failures are part of
an ingenious “long game” that is destined to succeed.

If this is the best Obama’s supporters can do, Obama’s only hope
for re-election is the weak Republican field.

Sullivan, who claims to care about national debt, begins by arguing,
contrary to reality,that Obama’s massive $787 billion stimulus
(actually, $862 billion) turned the economy around. He offers no
proof other than the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy familiar from
basic economics. Sullivan also ignores the composition of the stimulus,
which shoveled cash to cronies and bloated big states with their
massive public sector obligations.

In addition, Sullivan claims that Obama’s auto bailout succeeded–when
in fact it pushed aside property rights and subsidized failed “green”
cars, rather than allowing car makers to rebuild through normal
bankruptcy. He also commends Obama for continuing George W. Bush’s
bank bailouts–but does not mention the Dodd-Frank financial “reforms”
that enshrine “too big to fail,” hurt small businesses and fail to
address Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Next, Sullivan tries to defend Obama on taxes, pointing out that the
president passed tax cuts as part of the stimulus. He ignores the
numerous new taxes and tax increases that Obama signed into law–from
higher cigarette taxes to the many ObamaCare taxes–as well as the
glaring fact that Obama has been campaigning for the past several
years on the promise to raise taxes on the rich, and would have done
so if not for Congress.

Sullivan’s defense of ObamaCare is that it is more “moderate” than
it might have been. That is hardly a measure of success–and after
devious accounting tricks, thousands of waivers, and the abandonment
of ObamaCare’s Community Living Assistance Services and Supports
(CLASS) program, the law is clearly on a path to failure.
Fundamentally, it is unconstitutional–a reality Sullivan does
not care to note in his encomium to Obama.

On foreign policy, Sullivan hails Obama’s success in the death of
Osama bin Laden–giving a fantastical account of the president’s
courage, and perpetuating the false meme that Bush had “ignored”
Al Qaeda. In fact, it was the war in Iraq–and the interrogation
methods that Sullivan decries–that produced the intelligence that
led to bin Laden.

Aside from the war on Al Qaeda, Obama squandered every diplomatic
and military success bequeathed to him by Bush. He destroyed missile
defense in Europe, and wasted hard-won gains in Iraq by withdrawing
troops against the advice of the military. While appeasing Iran and
gutting the future of our defense, Obama alienated and undermined
U.S allies. Sullivan, who detests Israel, even applauds Obama’s
pointless confrontation with Benjamin Netanyahu–hardly a way to sell
a second Obama term.

Having dealt with conservatives (in his own mind at least), Sullivan
lists reasons that the left should be pleased with the president they
elected. He’s correct that liberals should back Obama; they will never
again see a U.S. president with such radical policies and pedigree.
But he overlooks the degree to which Obama has discredited left-wing
theory by exposing its flaws in practice–the real reason the left is
distancing itself from him.

What is most telling in Sullivan’s admonition to liberals is his use
of Obama’s inaugural metaphor of the “clenched fist.” The president,
he says, “begins by extending a hand to his opponents” and outwits
them when they respond “by raising a fist.” Yet Obama was referring
to foreign policy, not U.S. politics. Once in office, of course,
Obama embraced America’s enemies and bullied domestic opponents–as
even the left knows all too well.

Sullivan quotes George Orwell: “To see what is in front of one’s nose
needs a constant struggle.” What is in front of Sullivan’s nose is
Obama’s incompetence. He has coasted on the military success of his
Republican predecessor, and is taking credit for moderate economic
progress enabled by a Republican Congress that has held taxes,
regulation, and spending in check. If he wins in 2012, Obama will
again have Republicans to thank.

Why is the guy president?

January 16, 2012 Freedom Fighting News Comments Off

Will MSM Report on Obama Membership in Socialist New Party?

By P.J. Gladnick | October 08, 2008 | 15:15

The mainstream media thought that the membership of Todd Palin, who is not a candidate for any office, in the Alaska Independence Party important enough to report in such outlets as the Los Angeles Times, MSNBC, and the New York Times, among others.

So now that Barack Obama’s membership in the far left New Party has been unearthed, will they report his membership in that Socialist organization?

Proof of Obama’s membership in the New Party was discovered by the Politically Drunk On Power blog:

In June sources released information that during his campaign for the State Senate in Illinois, Barack Obama was endorsed by an organization known as the Chicago “New Party”. The ‘New Party’ was a political party established by the Democratic Socialists of America (the DSA) to push forth the socialist principles of the DSA by focusing on winnable elections at a local level and spreading the Socialist movement upwards. The admittedly Socialist Organization experienced a moderate rise in numbers between 1995 and 1999. By 1999, however, the Socialist ‘New Party’ was essentially defunct after losing a supreme court challenge that ruled the organizations “fusion” reform platform as unconstitutional.

After allegations surfaced in early summer over the ‘New Party’s’ endorsement of Obama, the Obama campaign along with the remnants of the New Party and Democratic Socialists of America claimed that Obama was never a member of either organization. The DSA and ‘New Party’ then systematically attempted to cover up any ties between Obama and the Socialist Organizations. However, it now appears that Barack Obama was indeed a certified and acknowledged member of the DSA’s New Party.

On Tuesday, I discovered a web page that had been scrubbed from the New Party’s website. The web page which was published in October 1996, was an internet newsletter update on that years congressional races. Although the web page was deleted from the New Party’s website, the non-profit Internet Archive Organization had archived the page.

From the October 1996 Update of the DSA ‘New Party’:
“New Party members are busy knocking on doors, hammering down lawn signs, and phoning voters to support NP candidates this fall. Here are some of our key races…

Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last Spring and face off against Republican opponents on election day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary).”

You can find the above quote from the scubbed New Party web page at this Internet Archive Organization link. More confirmation of Obama’s membership in the New Party can be found at an article in the November 1996 Progressive Populist magazine:

New Party members and supported candidates won 16 of 23 races, including an at-large race for the Little Rock, Ark., City Council, a seat on the county board for Little Rock and the school board for Prince George’s County, Md. Chicago is sending the first New Party member to Congress, as Danny Davis, who ran as a Democrat, won an overwhelming 85% victory. New Party member Barack Obama was uncontested for a State Senate seat from Chicago. 

The Democratic Socialist Party of America also reported on Obama’s New Party membership in its July/August 1996 edition:

The Chicago New Party is increasely becoming a viable political organization that can make a different in Chicago politics. It is crucial for a political organization to have a solid infrastructure and visible results in its political program. The New Party has continued to solidify this base.

First, in relation to its infrastructure, the NP’s membership has increased since January ’95 from 225 to 440. National membership has increased from 5700 in December ’95 to 7000. Currently the NP’s fiscal balance is $7,000 and receives an average of $450/month is sustainer donations.

Secondly, the NP’s ’96 Political Program has been enormously successful with 3 of 4 endorsed candidates winning electoral primaries. All four candidates attended the NP membership meeting on April 11th to express their gratitude. Danny Davis, winner in the 7th Congressional District, invited NPers to join his Campaign Steering Committee. Patricia Martin, who won the race for Judge in 7th Subcircuit Court, explained that due to the NP she was able to network and get experienced advice from progressives like Davis. Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration. The lone loser was Willie Delgado, in the 3rd Illinois House District. Although Delgado received 45% of the vote, he lost by only 800 votes. Delgado commented that it was due to the NP volunteers that he carried the 32nd Ward. Delgado emphasized that he will remain a visible community activist in Humbolt Park. He will conduct four Immigration workshops and encouraged NP activists to get involved.

Kudos to Politically Drunk On Power for digging up this information about Obama’s membership in the socialist New Party. The question now is if the MSM will deem his party membership important enough to report on. They sure didn’t hesitate to report on Todd Palin’s membership in the Alaska Independence Party.

UPDATE: Yet more proof of Obama’s close involvement in the socialist New Party from NewsBusters’ Hermano who provided this link to the Chicago Democratic Socialists of American September-October 1995 New Ground 42 edition:

About 50 activists attended the Chicago New Party membership meeting in July. The purpose of the meeting was to update members on local activities and to hear appeals for NP support from four potential political candidates. The NP is being very active in organization building and politics. There are 300 members in Chicago. In order to build an organizational and financial base the NP is sponsoring house parties. Locally it has been successful both fiscally and in building a grassroots base. Nationwide it has resulted in 1000 people committed to monthly contributions. The NP’s political strategy is to support progressive candidates in elections only if they have a concrete chance to “win”. This has resulted in a winning ratio of 77 of 110 elections. Candidates must be approved via a NP political committee. Once approved, candidates must sign a contract with the NP. The contract mandates that they must have a visible and active relationship with the NP.

The political entourage included Alderman Michael Chandler, William Delgado, chief of staff for State Rep Miguel del Valle, and spokespersons for State Sen. Alice Palmer, Sonya Sanchez, chief of staff for State Sen. Jesse Garcia, who is running for State Rep in Garcia’s District; and Barack Obama, chief of staff for State Sen. Alice Palmer. Obama is running for Palmer’s vacant seat.

So Obama signed a contract with the New Party? Verrrry interesting.


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/10/08/will-msm-report-obama-membership-socialist-new-party#ixzz1jeFvBvxs

 

Morning Bell: So, You Think You’re Free?

January 13, 2012 The Heritage Foundation Comments Off

Mike Brownfield

January 13, 2012 at 10:21 am

So you think you’re free? Thanks to big government spending and exploding debt, the United States — and indeed the world — is less economically free today than it was a year ago, according to the 18th annual Index of Economic Freedom, released yesterday by The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal.

Economic freedom — the ability of individuals to control the fruits of their labor and pursue their dreams — is central to prosperity around the world. Heritage and The Wall Street Journal measure economic freedom by studying its pillars: the rule of law, limited government, regulatory efficiency, and open markets. Things like property rights, freedom from corruption, government spending, free trade, labor policies, and one’s ability to invest in and create businesses all factor in to a country’s economic freedom.

Sadly, economic freedom declined worldwide in 2011 as many countries attempted — without success — to spend their way out of recession. The editors of the Index explain what has led to this troubling decline:

Rapid expansion of government, more than any market factor, appears to be responsible for flagging economic dynamism. Government spending has not only failed to arrest the economic crisis, but also–in many countries–seems to be prolonging it. The big-government approach has led to bloated public debt, turning an economic slowdown into a fiscal crisis with economic stagnation fueling long-term unemployment.

Though some might think that the United States — the land of the free, the home of the brave — is of course a leader in economic freedom, they would be wrong. The United States fell to 10th place in the world for economic freedom, and its score continues to drop. The U.S. ranked 6th in 2009, 8th in 2010 and 9th in 2011.

Heritage President Ed Feulner writes, “Under President Barack Obama, [the United States] has moved to the back of the band. Its economic freedom score has dropped to 76.3 in 2012 from 81.2 in 2007 (on a scale of 0-100).” The culprit? Government spending, which has grown to a level equivalent to over 40 percent of GDP, and total public debt, which exceeds the size of the economy.

Americans have been feeling the effects of the exploding government and resulting reduction in economic freedom. Some 13.1 million Americans are out of work, the unemployment rate has hovered between 8 and 9 percent, and the economy has merely been plodding along on the road to a very slow recovery. Though 200,000 jobs were added in December, Heritage’s James Sherk and Rea Hederman Jr., write, ”At that pace, the unemployment rate will not return to normal levels (or 5.2 percent) for four and a half years–not until September 2016.”

America’s job creators know that it’s the policies emanating from Washington that are constraining their ability to create new jobs. According to a new survey of small businesses by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, more than 80 percent are very concerned about the prospect of new regulations, mandates, and higher taxes. There’s another thing Americans should be worried about, as well: According to the Index, the United States has seen its “Freedom from Corruption” score drop, as well, due to the Obama Administration’s pursuit of increased regulations. As Feulner writes, “Each new edict means a new government bureaucracy that individuals and businesses must navigate. Each new law opens the door for political graft and cronyism.”

The United States isn’t alone in the trend away from increased economic freedom. Canada and Mexico lost ground in the Index, and 31 of the 43 countries in Europe saw reduced freedom, as well. Given Europe’s huge welfare programs and out-of-control social spending, that’s unfortunately not surprising. As the world suffers the economic repercussions of Europe’s debt crisis, the price of pursuing policies that constrict economic freedom should be clear.

For all the bad news that the Index uncovered, there is some good news for economic freedom around the world. Four Asia-Pacific economies–Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand–lead the Index with top scores this year, Taiwan has seen increased gains in economic freedom, and eleven of the 46 economies in sub-Saharan Africa gained at least a full point on the Index’s economic freedom scale. And Mauritius eighth place score is the highest ever achieved by an African country.

Much of the world, though, isn’t so lucky. While some countries have seen their economic freedoms increase, others such as India and China are constrained by government control and bureaucracy. Considering that areas like health and education are highly correlated with high levels of economic freedom, governments would serve their people well by pursuing the freedoms that many in the rest of the world enjoy.

Likewise, the United States would be best served by pursuing an agenda of economic freedom at home, too. The liberty to pursue happiness and profit from one’s talents and abilities is central to the American ideal. The Land of the Free should work to ensure that ideal is not just a dream but a reality as it leads the world by example in the quest for greater economic freedom.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/01/13/morning-bell-so-you-think-youre-free/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell

Buffett to Republicans: if you pay, so will I

January 11, 2012 Freedom Fighting News Comments Off
ReutersReuters –
  • Berkshire Hathaway Chairman Warren Buffett attends a news conference after the opening ceremony of Tungaloy Corp's new plant in Iwaki, Fukushima Prefecture November 21, 2011. REUTERS/Kim Kyung-HoonBerkshire Hathaway Chairman Warren Buffett attends a news conference after the opening ceremony of Tungaloy Corp’s new plant in Iwaki, Fukushima Prefecture November 21, 2011. REUTERS/Kim Kyung-Hoon

WASHINGTON/BOSTON (Reuters) – Warren Buffett is willing to put his money where his mouth is, if only congressional Republicans would join him.

The American billionaire investor, in the new issue of Time magazine, says he would donate $1 to paying down the national debt for every dollar donated by a Republican in Congress. The only exception is Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell – for whom Buffett said he would go $3-to-$1.

The idea stems from a New York Times opinion piece Buffett wrote last August in which he said the rich ought to pay more taxes. It sparked an instant controversy, with some Washington conservatives calling on the 81-year-old “Oracle of Omaha” to voluntarily pay extra.

McConnell said at the time that if Buffett felt “guilty” about paying too low a tax rate, he should “send in a check.” This was quickly followed by introduction of a bill to give taxpayers an option on tax forms to make voluntary donations.

“It restores my faith in human nature to think that there are people who have been around Washington all this time and are not yet so cynical as to think that can’t be solved by voluntary contributions,” the Buffett told Time for an article hitting newsstands on Friday.

An aide to McConnell suggested that the Berkshire Hathaway CEO should expand his matching offer to President Barack Obama and his Democrats.

“Senator McConnell says that Washington should be smaller, rather than taxes getting bigger. And since some, like President Obama and Mr. Buffett want to pay higher taxes, Congress made it possible for them to call their own bluff and send in a check,” said Don Stewart, McConnell’s deputy chief of staff.

“So I look forward to Mr. Buffett matching a healthy batch of checks from those who actually want to pay higher taxes, including Congressional Democrats, the President and the Democratic National Committee,” he added.

The jabs over voluntary payments come as higher taxes for the wealthy and extension of payroll tax breaks for middle-class Americans are becoming increasingly contentious issues for the 2012 presidential race. Obama is trying to paint Republicans as only favoring the wealthy, while Republicans are trying to brand the president as relying on tax hikes to fund excessive spending.

Buffett said in the Time interview the United States needed a tax system that favored people who were not born investors.

“We need a tax system that takes very good care of people who just really aren’t as well adapted to the market system, and to capitalism, but are nevertheless just as good citizens, and are doing things that are of use in society,” he said.

Buffett, who has raised money for President Barack Obama recently, also takes swings at Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich in the Time interview, criticizing Gingrich’s track record and Romney’s ties to the private equity business.

(Reporting By Ben Berkowitz and David Lawder; Editing by Eric Walsh)

NOTICE HOW BUFFET WON’T PAY MORE UNLESS SOMEONE ELSE HAS TO TOO! IT’S IDEOLOGIAL RHETORIC THAT HE’S SPEWING…. TAX THE RICH…. BUT I PERSONALLY DON’T WANT TO PAY MORE TAXES……Oh Buffet is old now. He’s trampled on those he needed to trample on to make his billions and is worried about getting into heaven at this point. It’s the same argument Matt Damon made. “millionaires like me could pay more.” GO RIGHT AHEAD…. THERE IS A LINE ON YOUR W-2 THAT YOU CAN REVISE ANY TIME YOU LIKE WHERE YOU CAN MAKE ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS. The reality is that every single dollar that is sucked out of the market and funneled into the government, whether it’s a rich mans dollar or a poor mans dollar, is another dollar that is being used to it’s least potential…..To service government Chinese debt, or to service SSI, Medicare and Medicaid debt….. Or pay for congress and the senates ear mark habit. Every dollar sucked out of the economy and into the government is a dollar that could have been used to give someone a raise, pay for better benefits or grow a company by hiring someone new.Taxes do not create jobs….. Capital/ cash creates jobs. Buffet sitting atop his billions in his twilight whining about how the government won’t tax him enough is hypocrisy of the highest order…. when he was young and struggling and hungry to build his company I don’t think he would have appreciated some old, waiting to die juggernaut saying that he should pay more. Companies in America are already saddled with a hyper-antagonistic regulatory environment… thats why companies move jobs over seas…. Because you can’t manufacture general goods in America and sell them at good price points with the enviro, labor compliance, SSI, taxes, FICA, FUTA, and workmans comp requirements we place on companies…. A frickin pair of Made in the USA jeans cost $200.00 but you can buy Mexican and chinese jeans for $30.00.Buffet’s grandstanding in his twilight. Its like someone playing a sport for a decade, then winning the championship, then retires to become and analyst and just whines about how the sport is meaningless and stupid and how all the players are egotistical idiots who can’t read…. But you weren’t #$%$ about it when you were champion of the sport and making your millions were you? Hypocrisy.

Comment above by the The Federalist