Tag Archives: liberal

BUSTED! Soledad O’Brien Caught Using Left-Wing Blog to Slam Ryan

Excuse me, while I sift through this bulls**t

I had a REALLY bad episode of insomnia last night, therefore, I was unable to promptly respond to a tweet sent to me by Robert Stacy McCain concerning Ali Akbar exposing CNN’s Soledad O’Brien’s latest incident in liberal media bias.  Did she use Wikipedia again?

Noel Sheppard of NewsBusters said “bravo, Ali! bravo” and who can disagree with him.  Ali Akbar of Viral Read reported on August 13th that Soledad O’ Brien– while guest hosting for Anderson Cooper– used a Talking Points Memo post to slam Republican Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan in an exchange with Virginia House of Delegates member and Romney Senior Campaign Adviser Barbara Comstock:

She was reading The Myth of Paul Ryan The Bipartisan Leader. She never cited it, but used its contents. In fact, she claimed to be reading a direct statement from Senator Wyden’s (D-OR) office, but was in fact reading this excerpt from the blog:

The Romney campaign’s lone evidence that Ryan is a bipartisan leader amounts to a vague blueprint he co-wrote with Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) late last year that mirrors key elements of his Medicare plan. Wyden voted against Ryan’s budget and said Romney’s characterization of their work was dishonest.

“Governor Romney is talking nonsense. Bipartisanship requires that you not make up the facts,” Wyden’s office said in a statement. “I did not ‘co-lead a piece of legislation.’ I wrote a policy paper on options for Medicare. Several months after the paper came out I spoke and voted against the Medicare provisions in the Ryan budget. Governor Romney needs to learn you don’t protect seniors by makings things up, and his comments sure won’t help promote real bipartisanship.”

Uh-OH!

 

BUSTED! This is just as entertaining as the time when Ms. O’Brien used Wikipedia to define Critical Race Theory in an interview with Breitbart’s Joel Pollak last March.   Robert Stacy McCain also posted about this unbelievable event writing– “The Most Trusted Name in News”? She’s a disgrace.

H/T Viral Read

H/T Ali Akbar

In Deep with Michelle Ray

When: Friday, August 10th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: In Deep with Michelle Ray on Blog Talk Radio

What: Join Social Media Director of ConservativeDailyNews.com, Michelle Ray (@GaltsGirl) as she discusses the issues that impact America.

Tonight:Tonight: A Republic, if you can keep it and a quick visit from Brandon Combs on the California SB249 issue he is fighting.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on Blog Talk Radio

Obamacare Costs $1.9 Trillion AND Still Leaves 30 Million Uninsured

I need to know how many quality years this patient has left STAT

Since the 5-4 decision to uphold Obamacare as constitutional through the taxing authority of Congress, the CBO gave their final grade. .  But it’s not biggie.  This entire overhaul is “deficit neutral” and will save money in the long run.  That’s what the Left try to sell us.  Even Joe Six Pack knows that something can’t be deficit neutral when you spend over a $1 trillion dollars on a new entitlement program.  As Jeffrey Anderson of The Weekly Standard wrote on July 27:

So, what — besides less liberty — would Americans get for their $1,930,000,000,000 and change?  Well, the CBO now says that Obamacare would cause between 4 and 6 million Americans to lose their employer-sponsored insurance, writing, “Between 4 million and 6 million fewer people are estimated to have coverage through an employer, compared with coverage in the absence of the [Affordable Care Act].”

Moreover, the CBO and/or the Medicare chief actuary have previously said that Obamacare would raise health insurance premiums, would raise overall U.S. health costs, would raise taxes on Americans and on American businesses, and would siphon something approaching $1 trillion (from 2014 through 2023) out of Medicare.  In the process (according to the Medicare chief actuary), Obamacare would reduce reimbursement rates for Medicare providers to the point where they’d be lower even than the notoriously low reimbursement rates paid to Medicaid providers — therefore jeopardizing seniors’ access to care.  Oh, and Obamacare would also establish the unelected and largely unaccountable 15-member Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) to institute further Medicare cuts.

Lastly, one of the most intrusive pieces of legislation will still leave 30 million uninsured a decade from now.

However, we shouldn’t be surprised. The CBO reported back in March that 20 million could lose their coverage as a result of Obama’s health care takeover.  Heritage’s Mike Brownfield cited this report on March 16 in The Foundry:

In one of the CBO’s reported scenarios20 million Americans could lose their employer-sponsored health benefits, and 49 million more Americans could become dependent on government-sponsored health care. And it won’t come cheaply for American taxpayers. Projecting through 2022, Obamacare could cost as much as $2.134 trillion, and individual and employer mandate penalties could hit $221 billion.

Then there’s the issue of the unconstitutional individual mandate that forces Americans to buy government dictated health insurance or pay a penalty, as well as the anti-conscience mandate that religious employers, including schools, hospitals, and charities, must provide abortion-inducing drugs and contraception despite the fact that such services totally contradict many of these groups’ core religious beliefs.

Under Obamacare, costs will go up, people will lose the coverage they have, and quality of care will decline. Individuals and businesses will face penalties, seniors will feel the effects of Obamacare’s cuts to Medicare, doctors will suffer from increased regulation and lower government reimbursement for services, taxpayers will face new taxes, jobs will be lost, millions of Americans will remain uninsured and stuck in overcrowded emergency rooms, religious institutions and the faithful will suffer the loss of their religious liberties, and future generations will pay the costs.

While the cost of this bill is astronomical, the scary number for me is 49 million.  An additional 49 million Americans dependent on government run health care services, which coupled with the 67 million Americans already receiving funds from at least one federal program, is a staggering 116 million people who need Washington to survive.  If you don’t believe the political left is pushing a pernicious dependency agenda, you’re insane.  Obamacare is a cornerstone in their lust to make everyone dependent on government since a federal program is considered, by liberals, to be an inherent good and an equalizer in outcomes.  Note that opportunity has become a fossilized term in the lexicon of the far left.

However, since Obamacare is the largest tax increase in history, especially for middle class families, let’s see what we all owe Uncle Sam and the consequences we will have to endure in the coming years compliments of Alyene Senger.

 

  • 20 million. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that as many as 20 million Americans could no longer have their current employer-based health coverage by 2019; others predict it could be as high as 35 million.
  • 85 million. The Office of the Actuary at CMS estimates that, by 2020, Medicaid enrollment will increase from 54 million in 2010 to 85 million, pushing America closer to government-run health care.
  • 400 percent of the federal poverty level. Individuals earning over $44,680 a year and families earning over $92,200 a year are not eligible for any federal subsidies to help purchase coverage under Obamacare.
  • $1 trillion. Based on an updated CBO score, Obamacare imposes 18 new taxes or penalties totaling over $1 trillion from 2013 to 2022 that will directly or indirectly impact families, including those earning below $250,000.
  • 8.1.2012. Starting August 1, Obamacare forces many employers, regardless of their religious or moral convictions, to offer abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception.
  • $1.683 trillion. Obamacare expects to spend over one-and-a-half trillion dollars between 2012 and 2022 on its coverage expansion provisions alone, according to the CBO.
  • 30 million. Updated CBO estimates show that despite spending over a trillion dollars, Obamacare will leave 30 million Americans uninsured in 2021.
  • $716 billion. Although Medicare faces $37 trillion in unfunded obligations, Obamacare takes $716 billion out of Medicare to pay for non-Medicare coverage provisions, according to CBO’s latest update.
  • 15. The number of unelected officials that will be in charge of cutting Medicare payments for millions of seniors under the Independent Payment Advisory Board in Obamacare.
  • 50.8 percent. The majority of Americans continue to support repeal. The Real Clear Politics Average from March 10, 2012, to July 28, 2012, shows that voters support repeal by an 8-point margin.

Repeal needs to be the primary initiative for a, God willing, Romney administration with the help of a Republican Congress.  No time to debate with squishy Republicans.  The Obama administration has raised the Dependency Index by 23% in two years.  That’s where the 67 million new dependents come from.

In addition, almost half the nation doesn’t pay income taxes.  We’re dealing with a larger proportion of a dependent demographic that’s subsidized by a smaller and smaller tax base. A tax base that the political left feels it can squeeze more revenue out of and still maintain its social welfare commitments, which, as George Will astutely noted, is the flawed logic of trying to leap a chasm in two bounds. To complicate matters, the president holds a deep antipathy towards small business owners and the wealthy, who are also known as the job creating and investing class.  A class that pays 70% of all the income taxes filed. They’re the ones who keep the dependents alive and will  pay for this new entitlement program nobody wants, but will keep the Democratic base of freeloaders pacified. With the cost of $1.9 trillion dollars and about the same number of uninsured as we have right now a decade out, it’s just another episode highlighting the failure of big government policies.

The Insufferable Left Wing Crusade Against Chick-Fil-A

Public Enemy #1…If You’re Liberal

I’m shocked at Chick-fil-A.  They advocate for a traditional family unit as described in the bible.  This is very controversial and marginalizing their bases of operation is critical in stopping bigotry and would be a critical victory for the gay rights movement.  That’s literally what liberals think about this whole kerfuffle surrounding what Dan Cathy, President and COO of Chick-fil-A, said about the company’s stance on gay marriage.  After a report was released by Equality Matters, a branch of the liberal Media Matters for America, the contents revealed that “Chick-fil-A donated more than $3 million between 2003 and 2009 to Christian groups that oppose homosexuality. In 2010 alone, the company gave nearly $2 million to such causes, according to the report.”  Wow.  People who are opposed to homosexuality and gay marriage.  I’m shocked. Yet, I’m not convinced that Dan Cathy said anything that could be classified as anti-gay.

As reported in the LA Times:

Chick-fil-A is very much supportive of the family, according to Dan Cathy, president of the popular fast food chain. That is, the biblical definition of the family unit, he said. And that doesn’t include Adam and Steve, suggests Cathy, whose father S. Truett Cathy founded the Atlanta-based company. In a new interview with Baptist Press, Cathy puts on the record what critics say his company’s actions have indicated for years. Well, guilty as charged, he said in the interview when asked about Chick-fil-A’s backing of families led by a man and a woman. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives,” Cathy said. The chain, according to the report, has 1,608 restaurants, sales of more than $4 billion and employees who are trained to focus on values rooted in the Bible. Chick-fil-A’s across the country shut down on Sundays. We don’t claim to be a Christian business,” Cathy said. But as an organization we can operate on biblical principles.

I didn’t hear any epithets or anti-gay rehtoric.  All I heard was that Mr. Cathy and the company he works for doesn’t support gay marriage.  There is a difference.

Well, this has set off the biggest left wing overreaction  that I haven’t seen in a long time and it’s downright hilarious as it is disturbing. Apparently, Big Bird lobbied heavily to get The Muppets to cut ties with the company and donate all their proceeds to GLAAD.  It’s sad to see a great cornerstone in children’s entertainment become so easily swayed by the nonsense spewed by left wing activists.  They’ve whored themselves out to the radical left and I blame Swedish Chef for not being vocal enough in stopping this inane move by the Jim Henson Company. I personally feel that Mr. Snaffalupagus should have curb stomped Bird Bird.  We all know he was a closet liberal.

It’s all your fault!

However, more politicians are getting their panties in a bunch over this.  As Chicago is drowning in its own blood, Mayor Rahm Emanuel decided to put a hold on everything and declare war on chicken sandwiches. In fact, “he said the comments disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents, and therefore building the restaurant in Chicago would be a bad investment, since it would be empty.”  Have you had their sandwiches Mr. Mayor? They’re F-ing delicious!

In Boston, which is known for their tolerance since the city desegregated their schools in the 1970s, Mayor Menino “sent a letter to Chick-Fil-A’s President Dan Cathy. In the letter Menino calls out Cathy for his  prejudiced statements against same-sex marriage and said that having a branch of the restaurant chain across from City Hall would be an insult.”

Menino got the Human Rights Campaign slobbering all over him in their statement:

We applaud Mayor Menino for calling out Chick-fil-A’s anti-LGBT practices. We have been asking people to make their own decisions about whether to continue supporting Chick-fil-A based on the facts available, and Mayor Menino has done just that. Mayor Menino’s rebuke of Chick-fil-A sends a strong messages that their habit of supporting hateful organizations that demonize LGBT Americans are out-of-step with not just Bostonians, but the majority of fair-minded Americans. Chick-fil-A is on the wrong side of history, and we look forward to seeing more and more elected officials and businesses speak out against their discriminatory practices.

So will HRC condemn Mayor Emanuel’s public embrace of Louis Farrakahn? As Kyle Becker of the Independent Journal posted today:

The Weekly Standard reports, Farrakhan was careful to couch his opposition to gay marriage as ‘not homophobic’:

Males coming to males with lust in their hearts as they should to a female,” he said. “Now don’t you dare say Farrakhan was preaching hate; he’s homophobic. I’m not afraid of my brothers and sisters or others who may be practicing what God condemned in the days of Lot. That’s not our job to be hateful of our people. Our job is to call us to sanity.”

Farrakhan goes on to call out clergy who support gay marriage, saying they are placing society’s needs over God’s.

“Is this the book that you believe in, but now you(‘re) backing down from an aspect of it because people will get offended?” he asked.”

Nothing Mr. Cathy said was anti-gay.  Again, he’s for traditional marriage, which half the country supports.  It’s not controversial.  Some people are simply against gay marriage and the Left needs to get over it.  However, I’m glad to see that some liberals are noticing that this isn’t the right battle.  Adam Serwer of Mother Jones stated:

Menino and Moreno have it wrong. Blocking construction of Chick-fil-a restaurants over Cathy’s views is a violation of Cathy’s First Amendment rights. Boston and Chicago have no more right to stop construction of Chick-fil-As based on an executive’s anti-gay views than New York City would have had the right to block construction of an Islamic community center blocks away from Ground Zero. The government blocking a business from opening based on the owner’s political views is a clear threat to everyone’s freedom of speech—being unpopular doesn’t mean you don’t have rights.

While we may disagree concerning the Ground Zero Mosque, Serwer hits it on the head concerning the threat this could pose to our  First Amendment rights.  It’s also anti-capitalist.  This Chick-Fil-A “controversy” is a convenient smoke screen initiated by the left to hide the president’s record since they’re running out of excuses.  While I plan to attend National Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day on August 1st, I will take pleasure as I sink my teeth into that chicken sandwich that the Olympics will overshadow this trivial episode in American politics.

Every Republican Governor Elected in 2010 Reduced Unemployment

Gov. Scott Walker is a prime example of the success derived from GOP policies

While liberals remain aloof to our economic recession in Washington, every Republican governor elected in 2010 has reduced unemployment and spurred an economic recovery at a rate faster than the national average in their respective states.  Tony Lee of Breitbart.com stated that “the average drop in the unemployment rate in these states was 1.35%, compared to the national decline of .9%, which means, according to the analysis, that the job market in these Republican states is improving 50% faster than the national rate.”

According to Kate Hicks of Townhall.com, that’s seventeen states where the model of cutting taxes, spending, and reducing the size of goverment has proven to be an effective formula in stimulating economic growth.  Again, that’s seventeen examples that disproves Mr. Obama’s agenda and that of the institutional left.

Here are some examples of GOP executive success courtesy of Robert Elliott at Examiner.com:

 

Kansas – 6.9% to 6.1% = a decline of 0.8%

Maine – 8.0% to 7.4% = a decline of 0.6%

Michigan – 10.9% to 8.5% = a decline of 2.4%

New Mexico – 7.7% to 6.7% = a decline of 1.0%

Oklahoma – 6.2% to 4.8% = a decline of 1.4%

Pennsylvania – 8.0% to 7.4% = a decline of 0.6%

Tennessee – 9.5% to 7.9% = a decline of 1.6%

Wisconsin – 7.7% to 6.8% = a decline of 0.9%

Wyoming – 6.3% to 5.2% = a decline of 1.1%

Alabama – 9.3% to 7.4% = a decline of 1.9%

Georgia – 10.1% to 8.9% = a decline of 1.2%

One side has policies that are proven to reduce unemployment.  The other side has overseen an unemployment rate remain above 8% for the past 40 months. Is this really a choice?

Sen. Barbara Boxer Ignores Liberal Hypocrisy on PFA

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-California)

Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer’s interview with Chuck Todd on The Daily Rundown was the typical liberal jargon that is commonly seen on MSNBC.  However, this time the political opportunism amongst Senate Democrats was palpable, especially with this “fair pay” business.  We’ve all heard the statistics that women make only 77 cents for every dollar a man earns, but when this so-called Paycheck Fairness Act failed was pushed added to the agenda, I was floored.

First of all, as Chuck Todd reiterated this morning, the bill was never going to get the sixty votes needed to proceed to a vote for approval.  Therefore, this willful campaign of self-martydom by liberals was a ploy to make Republicans look evil and continue the war on “women narrative.”  However, what is fascinating is the fact that Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s female staffers earn 27.6% less than their male counterparts.  According to the Washington Free Beacon:

Pelosi’s female employees earned an average annual salary of $96,394 in fiscal year 2011. Male employees earned $123,000 on average, a difference of 27.6 percent.

The gap is even larger if calculated using the median salaries for men and women. For Pelosi’s female employees, the median annual salary was $93,320 in 2011, compared to $130,455 for male employees—a difference of $37,135, or 40 percent.

Pelosi’s entire staff—men and women—earned an average annual salary of $108,150 and a median salary of $114,662. By both measures, women made considerably less.

 In the Senate:

Barbara Mikulski (D., Md.), Patty Murray (D., Wash.), Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.), Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) and Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.)—three pay their female staff members significantly less than male staffers.

Murray, who has repeatedly accused Republicans of waging a “war a women,” is one of the worst offenders. Female members of Murray’s staff made about $21,000 less per year than male staffers in 2011, a difference of 35.2 percent.

That is well above the 23 percent gap that Democrats claim exists between male and female workers nationwide. The figure is based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, and is technically accurate. However, as CNN’s Lisa Sylvester has reported, when factors such as area of employment, hours of work, and time in the workplace are taken into account, the gap shrinks to about 5 percent.

A significant “gender gap” exists in Feinstein’s office, where women also made about $21,000 less than men in 2011, but the percentage difference—41 percent—was even higher than Murray’s.

Barbara Boxer stated on the senate floor that “Senator Mikulski’s bill says you can’t be reprimanded or punished because you’re trying to find out if you’re being paid fairly. That’s why we have to pass this law and anyone voting against it– is taking a stand against women, is taking a stand against fairness, is taking a stand against justice — is taking a stand against our families.”  Yet, her female staffers made $5,000 less than male staffers last year.

The Left Unleashes: Kill Scott Walker!

In the aftermath of the progressive left’s epic fail to remove Scott Walker from office, they’re resorting to their usual petulant attitude by issuing death threats on Twitter.  Twitchy posted this story VERY early this morning and displayed the tolerant and tasteful nature of the political left.  Three cheers for discourse.

Stay Classy Liberals

 

(H/T Twitchy)

Barack Obama and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Presidency

When we all heard his speeches during the 2008 campaign, it was something akin to the Lesley Gore’s Sunshine, Lollipops, and Rainbows. He promised more transparency and a return of civility in politics.  He was everything George Bush wasn’t, which provided the hot air that led him to the presidency.  Bush did run deficits and the orgy of spending and corruption scandals that plagued Republicans in 2006, that were not forgotten in 2008, allowed Democrats to control the narrative on a key Republican issue: Taxes and Spending.  The “tax and spend label” that usually sinks liberal candidates, or at least makes the race a competition, faded away.  Obama vowed to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term and that was music to the ears of independent voters sick of Dubya.  However, when the ballots closed that miserable day in November, Barack Obama rode that wave of “hope and change” into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue on a flawlessly executed campaign that ushered in our first black president.  However, after a $800 billion dollar stimulus, a trillion dollar new entitlement program, stagnant economic growth, a volatile job market, and high unemployment, the banner of hope and change is looking more like a Kafka-esque nightmare.  We’ve all transformed into beetles.

As for the so-called “stimulus,” we should thank the president.  He finally and irrevocably proved that government spending doesn’t spur economic growth and, therefore, killed the cornerstone of Keynesian economics.  We’ve had eleven recessions and recoveries in the past sixty years and, as Harvey Golub wrote in the Wall Street Journal yesterday:

This recovery is near the bottom of all 11. Cumulative nonfarm job growth is just 1.9% 34 months into recovery, the ninth-worst performance and well below the average job growth of 6.5%. Cumulative GDP growth is just 6.8% 11 quarters into this recovery, less than half the average (15.2%) and the worst of all 11…fiscal policy, under the control of the president and his party, increased expenditures by about $700 billion per year since 2008 and launched a spending package of about $800 billion (along with various “targeted” temporary tax reductions), all of which resulted in an increase in national debt of over $5 trillion. In other words, we borrowed $5 trillion, for which we will pay interest for who knows how long, in order to stimulate the economy now.

Moreover, Obama’s concerted effort to pass health care reform at the expense of job creating-centered policies, only created more uncertainty in the economy. Furthermore, Obama’s cornerstone of his health care reform is that it would curb costs and save trillions over the long term.  However, the $940 billion dollar price tag for this monstrosity actually has doubled to $1.76 trillion over the next ten years.  In all, the cost of this bill will incur $3.5 trillion dollars in deficits through 2022.  For liberals, this is the apotheosis of fiscal discipline. Moreover, for this bill to be SLIGHTLY palatable, Democrats would need to cut Medicare by $500 billion, institute the Medicare Doc Fix, and tax union “cadillac” health care plans by 2014.  None of which was expected to happen on The Hill. It was nothing more than a surreptitious expansion of the state and quietly edge away individual rights and liberties.  Concerning transparency, that pledge was hastily broken during the Obamacare negotiations.  Talk about changing the culture in Washington.

When this bill is fully implemented in 2014,  20 million Americans would be dropped from their coverage, while another 49 million will be dependent on government run health services.  This comes after reports show the Dependency Index, which decreased under Ronald Reagan, has increased 23% over the last two years. That’s an additional 67 million Americans dependent on government services.  Lastly, since the beginning of this year, 1200 companies have received HHS waivers highlighting Obamacare’s crushing costs and regulatory arduousness.  Sadly, I think the President missed what  George Will stated on This Week some two years ago that eighty-five percent of Americans had health insurance and ninety-five percent of the insured liked their insurance.

Concerning the unemployment rate, the Obama team promised if the stimulus was passed we would have robust economic growth and unemployment never to rise above 8%.  As the events played out, unemployment has been over 8% for the past thirty-eight months.  Treasury Secretary Geithner considers it a success, but I digress.  No president has been re-elected with unemployment above 7.2% since FDR and with an additional $5 trillion in new debt and nothing, but anemic growth to show for it; Barry should be updating his resume.  In fact, Jeffrey H. Anderson of The Weekly Standard wrote

Over the past quarter of a century (a total of 300 months), dating back to May 1987 and the Reagan administration, here are the 30 worst months (that is, the bottom 10 percent) for the employment-population ratio, along with the president who happened to be in office at that particular time.

1. (tie) July 2011, 58.2 percent, President BarackObama
1. (tie) June 2011, 58.2 percent, Obama
1. (tie) November 2010, 58.2 percent, Obama
1. (tie) December 2009, 58.2 percent, Obama
5. (tie) August 2011, 58.3 percent, Obama
5. (tie) December 2010, 58.3 percent, Obama
5. (tie) October 2010, 58.3 percent, Obama
8. (tie) April 2012, 58.4 percent, Obama
8. (tie) October 2011, 58.4 percent, Obama
8. (tie) September 2011, 58.4 percent, Obama
8. (tie) May 2011, 58.4 percent, Obama
8. (tie) April 2011, 58.4 percent, Obama
8. (tie) February 2011, 58.4 percent, Obama
8. (tie) January 2011, 58.4 percent, Obama
15. (tie) March 2012, 58.5 percent, Obama
15. (tie) January 2012, 58.5 percent, Obama
15. (tie) December 2011, 58.5 percent, Obama
15. (tie) November 2011, 58.5 percent, Obama
15. (tie) March 2011, 58.5 percent, Obama
15. (tie) September 2010, 58.5 percent, Obama
15. (tie) August 2010, 58.5 percent, Obama
15. (tie) July 2010, 58.5 percent, Obama
15. (tie) June 2010, 58.5 percent, Obama
15. (tie) March 2010, 58.5 percent, Obama
15. (tie) February 2010, 58.5 percent, Obama
15. (tie) January 2010, 58.5 percent, Obama
15. (tie) November 2009, 58.5 percent, Obama
15. (tie) October 2009, 58.5 percent, Obama
29. February 2012, 58.6 percent, Obama
30. (tie) May 2010, 58.7 percent, Obama
30. (tie) April 2010, 58.7 percent, Obama
30. (tie) September 2009, 58.7 percent, Obama

Interestingly, the 30 (or 32, including ties) worst months for employment in the past 25 years have all come after the most recent recession ended, in June 2009.  In other words, they’ve all come during the Obama “recovery.”

Yes. Let’s go Forward.

As the election draws closer, we have a president who simply cannot run on his record.  He is trying to strike it rich with this narrative of fairness. A political tactic that is not gaining traction with the independent voters, of which 57% think that American society is fair. As Alexis Simendinger wrote on Real Clear Politics, “these voters care about the size of government and debts and blame Congress more than Wall Street and special interests for gridlock and policy myopia.”  Issues that don’t necessarily favor the political left.  It gets even more bizarre with Obama’s position about private equity.

He bashed Romney in a rather apocryphal ad that showed how Bain Capital, the private equity firm Romney founded, closed down a steel plant, GST Steel, in Kansas City, Missouri.  What is interesting about this two minute exercise in inaccuracy is the fact that Romney left Bain in 1999 and GST Steel closed in 2001.  The managing director for Bain at the time was Jonathan Lavine who happens to be an Obama bundler and raised between $100-200,000 for the president.  This guy was still around when GST Steel was shut down.  Yet, the president accepts money from him.  Additionally, Anderson Cooper commented on the hypocrisy when Obama attended a fundraiser hosted by Tony James of Blackstone Group, a private equity firm, on the very same day the Bain attack ad was released.  Can you smell the cynicism?

As a result, many on the left have flocked to the support of private equity, including some of the president’s staunchest supporters.   Not the result you want in a time where you’re fighting for your political life.  This makes the second political blunder, the first being the Life of Julia that detailed the sixty-five year presidency of Obama, by what was thought to have been an inerrant political campaign.  One that has rapidly lost its luster.  I think we can safely say that Obama’s political acumen was not gauged properly four years ago.

A student of the far left, Barack Obama’s presidency is marred by high unemployment, increased debt, sky high deficits, a new trillion dollar entitlement that failed to curb costs, and a government sponsored recovery package that is painfully anemic.  He failed in his promise to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term and has peddled a dependency agenda that is inherently dangerous to the socio-economic health of the nation.  He has prevaricated at every event to tackle our debt and deficit responsibly by nixing Simpson-Bowles and creating a “Super Committee” in the fallout of the debt ceiling debacle last summer to avoid taking on the issue personally.  We cannot afford another $5 trillion in new debt.  We cannot afford Obamacare.  We cannot afford another four years of Barack Obama. It’s 2012 and I’ll do everything I can to see that Mitt Romney is elected.   I look forward to saying goodbye to this terrible, horrible, no good very bad presidency.  Game on!

 

Stupidity With A Side of Nazi Please

The Nazi allegations are floating around again.  Like racism, being labeled a Nazi by anyone in the political spectrum, left and right, is not only irresponsible, but grossly sophomoric behavior that is akin to sixth grade antics in the lunchroom.  To put it simply, there is no vast national socialist plot to takeover the country.  We have a constitution that prevents the rapid centralization of power that would fit the governing model of a national socialist government.  Yes, Barack Obama and George Bush are both at fault for expanding the six and scope of government to unacceptable levels, but that doesn’t make them Nazis.

While I have great respect for Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist, I found his remarks about Sen. Chuck Schumer and Sen Casey’s tax law that would mandate that wealthy people prove they didn’t renounce their citizenship for tax reasons.  This comes in light of  Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin’s renunciation of U.S. citizenship before the social media site went public last Friday.  According to Bernie Becker and Erik Wasson of The Hill,

“the targeting people that turn in their passports reminded him of regimes that had driven people out of the country, only to confiscate their wealth at the door.  I think Schumer can probably find the legislation to do this. It existed in Germany in the 1930s and Rhodesia in the ’70s and in South Africa as well, said Norquist. “He probably just plagiarized it and translated it from the original German.” The Nazis infamously implemented a departure tax on Jews who tried to flee Germany before World War II.”

One could have argued that there are bigger issues at hand with the economy and our entitlement structure than focusing on whether a few wealthy Americans abandon their citizenship in the future. Instead of Nazi references, Grover could have made an eloquent attack on this law by discussing the gross overreach of congressional power, the reasons why we should expand our 72,536 page tax code, and how will this new law make collecting revenue more efficient.  I’m guessing the cost to collect the tax from would-be ex-patriots would outweigh the benefits.

On the left, we have left-wing blowhard Stephanie Miller comparing Mitt Romney to Hitler due to his past “bullying” episode and the inability for liberals to understand or stomach the amoral disposition of capitalism.  On an equally idiotic footing, she also compared GOP policies as promoting”state sponsored rape” against women.  Newsbusters broke a story surrounding Michelle Goldberg, contributor to Newsweek/Daily Beast, who penned a piece even comparing Ann Romney to Hitler and Stalin.

The source of the controversy centered on a piece Ann Romney wrote for USA Today for Mother’s Day:

Cherish your mothers. The ones who wiped your tears, who were at every ball game or ballet recital. The ones who believed in you, even when nobody else did, even when maybe you didn’t believe in yourself. Women wear many hats in their lives.

Daughter, sister, student, breadwinner. But no matter where we are or what we’re doing, one hat that moms never take off is the crown of motherhood.

There is no crown more glorious.

I guess motherhood really got the fascists going, but I think it’s really hedged on liberals engaging in their usual stupidity.  Goldberg responded by saying that “I found that phrase ‘the crown of motherhood’ really kind of creepy, not just because of its, like, somewhat you know, I mean, it’s kind of usually really authoritarian societies that give out like The Cross of Motherhood, that give awards for big families. You know, Stalin did it, Hitler did it.”  Yep, where did I leave my steel-toed boots again, I’m ready to march.

The truth of the matter is that Nazism is a rather hybrid of various political leanings.  It’s not exclusively right or left wing.   Both fascists and communists espoused totalitarian governing styles, with an emphasis on organized labor, and the view of capitalism as a failed ideology.  The only exception to the rule is that communism advocated a classless, international proletariate controlling the goods and means of production, while fascists espoused celebrating the triumph of their respective nation.  In other words, they decided to flip off the fraternity notion and go their own way celebrating their own racial or ethnic superiority.  Not an overly brotherly disposition.  In all, since Nazism is a political philosophy with more that 50 shades of grey, I propose we have a indefinite moratorium on using this label to smear or attack political opponents, unless they actually espouse a national socialist platform, which will never happen.  It’s ignorant, stupid, and lacks sophistication to just call one’s opponent a “Nazi.”  We’re conservatives with the truth, facts, and numbers on our side.  Do we really need to engage in this nonsensical behavior?  As for the left, I would say the same thing, but being that the world is your oyster; it’s bound to slip through the cracks of your shamefully spineless philosophy.

The Coming Entitlement Crisis

In February of last year, conservative commentator  George Will gave a great lecture at the Navy War College in Rhode Island.  In that lecture, he detailed two major battles we will face in the coming election, which are taxes and entitlement reform. Despite what the liberal media says about conservatives, we are not trying to destroy Medicare. We are trying to salvage it.  It’s the same for Social Security.  The math simply doesn’t work anymore.  People are living longer through the advancements in medicine. This is a good thing, but it is also incredibly expensive.

When Social Security was instituted, the average length of time from retirement to death was two years.   That is no longer true.  The fastest growing demographic in the U.S. is the very elderly who are people aged 85 or older.  Furthermore, baby-boomers are retiring in droves at a rate of 10,000 a day, every day for the next two decades. This is causing unbearable tension on the already stressed Medicare and Social Security payrolls.

By 2025, there will be a paltry two workers per retiree versus the fourteen workers per retiree in 1950. 

The retirement age will have to go up and keep going up in increments to ensure solvency.  We will have to discuss the possibility of creating private retirement accounts to decrease the burden on the system.  The introduction of choice and subsequent competition are usually effective in reducing costs.  The Heritage Foundation has also released policy prescriptions for Medicare that suggests, amongst many things, raising the eligibility age to sixty-eight.  The premium support that is outlined in Congressman Paul Ryan’s Path to Prosperity is essential.  It injects choice, personal responsibility, and fiscal discipline into a rigid system that incentivizes waste.  In short, recipients receive a voucher to buy a plan that fits their critical needs.  It is not a wasteful one size fits all approach. With this, Americans have more of a stake in how their money is spent on their insurance and reestablishes discipline and responsibility. This is not an alien concept.  During the Kennedy Administration, the average recipient paid forty-seven cents for every dollar of Medicare spending.  Medicare, of all entitlements, is the one that needs priority attention since it carries  $37 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities, which will fiscally destroy us if it is not dealt with soon.

Now, Grandma and Grandpa will fight hard to keep their welfare state intact.  They vote more often than the younger generation and will oust any politician who seeks to make these critical changes.  Democrats will try to co-opt seniors, since admitting Medicare as an insolvent program invalidates their liberal ideology, and paint Republicans as heartless. However, the “gravy train” is over.  It may have been great for our parents’ parents, but it has become a gross transfer of wealth from the young to the elderly, which in the end leaves almost nothing for succeeding generations.

In fact, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner stated that Social Security is solvent for only another 20 years.   After which, full benefits payouts to recipients will not be possible.  Moreover, the Trustees Report also included the insolvency of Medicare that will be unable to cover seniors’ hospital bills by 2024, which is three years earlier than what was projected last year.

George Will asks, succinctly, how much wealth are we willing to spend subsidizing the last twenty-five years of American life.  That is a tough question, but with new fiscally disciplined and conservative Republicans in the House, under the leadership of Congressman Ryan, we have a solution.  We are still waiting on President Obama’s proposals to seriously deal with this fiscal disaster.  So far, none have materialized.  In the meantime,  America’s young and vibrant workers are at risk of becoming trapped in a gerontocracy.

The Free Lunch Agenda

Conservative commentators and economists, especially George Will, have given lectures and speeches and have written columns about the moral hazard that is rising in the country. If you saw it, I hope you were appalled at the new study that shows virtually half of all Americans do not pay federal income taxes. Forty-nine and half percent of Americans pay no income taxes and receive most of the benefits; thus, they have no vested interest in curbing the size of government of which they are dependent on. Conservatives have known this to be a problem for some time, but liberals ignore the socio-economic consequences. They ignore it because it is an integral part of their  agenda. More people dependent on government equalizes outcome, and you do that by getting everyone to feed on a government program.  President Obama is fully behind this agenda, hence the dark day when Obamacare was passed.

I’m glad that Jack Cafferty of CNN’s The Situation Room mentioned the decrease in tax participation on his blog this past winter.  Nevertheless, the left will stringently advocate that such expansion of government programs and reliance on them are net positives.  We see this with Valerie Jarrett and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney idiotically stating that unemployment checks promotes economic growth.  However, we on the right know that such absurd endeavors offer no incentive for the unemployed to seek employment and that spending of other people’s money to keep them perpetually lethargic is fundamentally unfair.  On ABC’s This Week last January, Austan Goolsbee, the former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors for President Obama, had the temerity to say that the economy had a huge boom last quarter, but is being weighed down by government shrinking too rapidly.  Is the government shrinking too rapidly?

According to MyGovCost.org, which is an affiliate of The Independent Institute, the Obama administration has permanently increased the size and expenditure of government by 16.5% in four years.  In fact, the site states that government expenditure is one-sixth bigger today than originally projected four years ago.  Investors Business Daily revealed earlier this month that government dependency had increased by 23%  in two years!  That is 67 million people reliant on a federal program.  You cannot have a shrinkage of government when 67 million people are added onto a federal program and total federal spending has increased.  Mr. Goolsbee is dead wrong.

This is the left-wing dependency agenda. It’s the delivery of free lunches for 151.7 million Americans.  To make a comparison, the number of people in 1984 who did not pay federal income taxes was at a mere 14.8% or 34.8 million Americans.  If the president wants to talk about the fundamentally unfair landscape of America, he should focus on the people who don’t contribute one cent to the government coffers.  Half pay their fair share so the other half can coast through life.  It is serfdom in all but name.  Yet, the president wants to keep expanding government spending, taxation, and destroy freedom and personal responsibility in the process.  With half of the country not paying any income taxes, it makes the future passage and signage of the Ryan budget into law even more politically treacherous, even though it strives to avert inevitable fiscal disaster.  Without a doubt, the slothful will fight to keep their goody bag as we slowly become a dictatorship of the lazy.

We Love The Earth About As Much As We Love Our Mothers

We’re the society that shows our appreciation to our mothers by taking them out to breakfast one day a year, and then we make a big deal about it.  “Hey, Mom, I took you to a crowded restaurant on one of the busiest mornings of the year, and our food took over an hour to come out.  I love you!  Thanks for spending four grand on braces!”

So it’s not surprising that we’ve bought into this idea that turning our lights off for ONE HOUR a year is supposed to somehow heal the Earth.  “Hey, Earth, I turned my lights off for 60 minutes, but then I kept using all this other stuff that I charged while it was still ‘okay’ to be on the grid.  I love you!  Thanks for all the pretty polar bears and stuff.”

That’s the premise behind the latest feel good crock, Earth Hour.  Starting in Sindey (Australians are bigger hippies than a lot of you think) in 2007, self congratulating human beings decided that turning off the light switch for one hour would somehow heal the damage they say we’ve been doing for the other 8,759 hours a year.  (Unicorn Math is global now)

So what is Earth Hour?  It’s honestly hard to know.  Their own website is contrived and confusing and only seems to offer links to articles about people or countries participating in it.  There even seems to be a mantra:  “I will, if you will”, which sort of reminds one of when mothers would ask their children if they were going to jump off of  a bridge just because everyone else was doing it.  After spending 15 minutes on Earth Hour’s official website, the answer seems to be “yes”.

Watch the video below and see if you can make sense out of it.

The Duke’s Prophetic Words- John Wayne on liberals

this is audio of an interview with John Wayne from 1975. He speaks very prophetic words. Though I miss him, in many ways, I’m glad he’s not here to see how true his words ring true today!

“You’re being conned into keynesianism and socialism now…”

** Just a little note of warning- there are a couple of times he uses language that may be offensive to some viewers. **

Left-Wing Misogyny Mashup *LANGUAGE*

WARNING: Much of the language in the below video may be offensive to many viewers.

This video is an example of how Kirsten Powers hit the nail on the head when she told Megyn Kelly:

“Liberal men are allowed to be misogynist, apparently.”

The description of  this video on YouTube:

In light of the Rush Limbaugh ‘slut’ controversy, its important to take a look at the widespread misogyny talk of major left figures. Ed Shultz, Keith Olbermann and Bill Maher.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »