Monthly Archives: February 2011

510.) Recently videos have been coming out showing workers at “planned parent hood” showing individuals posing as pimps how to get abortions for underaged girls.  Well the tapes have caused a huge uproar.  President Obama’s response to the issue is a great one, “I think sometimes these issues get manufactured, they get alot of attention in the blogosphere.” This is news to me, I did not know that that issue was manufactured. Does that mean that the tapes were facked? Why then hasn’t the main stream media been informed? Has President Obama actually done tests to see if the video was doctored or fake? He is making assumptions again, trying to down play a major issue that has come up. This orginization recieves a lot of its money from a donation from the tax payers. What I mean by that is that the government gives a lot of money to planed parent hood, and if they are doing criminal actions like this we need to seriously reconsider whether or not we should be funding this through tax payer dollars. President Obama is a pro-abortion man, and so are many of his supporters.  His base is wearing out so he cannot afford to irritate his loyal fallowers.  The President said “You know my bottom line is that I think that Planned Parent Hood in the past has done good work. If there was a specific problem at this center, it should be addressed, but we shouldn’t get so distracted with some of these issues.” Planned Parent Hood might have done good int he past, I am not going to argue that point, but that is not the issue here.  There have been tapes from more than one center released, so there is a chance that this is not just an isolated incident. President Obama is hoping that he can just sweep this under a rug and move on. This way he doesn’t have to face the idea of pulling federal funding from them.  These videos show a horrible crime being commited, and they are not to be taken lightly as the President seems to think. I guess child prostitution is ignorable, as long as it keeps the base happy.

511.) I know this will come as shocking news, but, President Obama has decided to put his nose into states buisness to support the Unions. As many of you most likely know there are huge protests taking place in Wisconsin. The Unions are in an uproar because the govenor who ran on ending collective bargining, is trying to end collective bargining.  The Democrat state senators have fled the state, afraid to have a vote.  So the Unions have been protesting in the street. President Obama cannot stand by and just let these union workers fight the fight alone. So he spoke up about the problem, sticking his nose where it doesn’t belong. “Some of what I’ve heard coming out of Wisconsin, where you’re just making it harder for public employees to collectively bargain generally seems like more of an assault on unions. And I think it’s very important for us to understand that public employees, they’re our neighbors, they’re our friends. These are folks who are teachers and they’re firefighters and they’re social workers and they’re police officers. They make a lot of sacrifices and make a big contribution. And I think it’s important not to vilify them or to suggest that somehow all these budget problems are due to public employees” No one is vilifying the workers more then themselves. They are holding up signs that say things like “f_ck Scott Walker”, the teachers who are protesting went on strike shuting down the schools. They put the children of Wisconsin’s education on the line to protest, very heroric.  Some of them even have fake doctors excuses to get off of work.  It is not the goal of the govenor to turn the Unions into villians they are doing that themselves.  The govenor is only asking the Unions to give some very reasonable concessions. These people are rioting in the streets “fearing” for their homes and way of life when all the Govenor is asking is that State Union workers pay contribute 5.8% to their pensions, and 12.8% to their health care plan.  Yet President Obama jumps to the aid of the teachers who refuse to teach, the union members who refuse to do go do their jobs. 

512.)President Obama has decided that he will no longer enforce law banning same sex marriages because he thinks it is unconstitutional. That is a clear over reach of Presidential power. He does not have the authority to choose what laws he does or does not enforce, he does not have the power to deem an existing law unconstitutional.  The only time the President has that power is when the congress passes legislation, he then can veto that legislation.  If he doesn’t veto it, it then becomes law and he is charged with enforcing that law.  If a President can just decide “nope that is no longer a law” at whim, the concept of democracy cannot work.  We become a nation of men instead of a nation of law. Subject to the changing fancies of who ever may occupy the office.  The only branch that can deem a law unconstitutional is the judicial branch.  This is not about the issue of gay rights, this is an issue of the President assuming more executive power, something that he blasted his predecessor for.  There is a right and a wrong way to do things. The right way, the legal way, would be for President Obama to enter new legislation into the congress, who then votes on it, he can then sign it, and there for do away with the law that he doesn’t want to enforce.  President Obama decided that method takes far too long, in his version of the United States you only have to use congress when it is convenient to you, the government only has to fallow the law when it helps you, so sense there is no way he could get the change in the law through the peoples house, he decided he would break the law and just do whatever he wanted to.  What he did was illegal, and sets yet another scary president.  Where are the people who hated President Bush assuming more executive power? Oh that’s right they were cry baby progressives who only hate large federal governments when a Republican is in charge. When their socialist savior is in office, it is something to be praised.  The ends do not justify the means. 

513.) President Obama said today that he is not worried about the situation in Libya’s effect on oil prices, he thinks we will be able to ride out the economic effects.   Really? Or could is the reason that he is not worried because he does not actually care if gas prices sky rocket.  He has said in the past that he doesn’t mind four dollar a gallon gas. He said his cap and trade system would cause energy prices to necessarly sky rocket.  So what does he care if Libya causes prices to spike, he can blame his agendas negative effects on the economy on the events in the middle east, and probably somehow on George W. Bush.

508.) President Obama put out his budget for 2011, this was the moment of truth, the time for us to see whether or not he is serious about fighting the deficit and debt that he has racked up. His new budget includes in it $3.73 trillion dollars in spending,  with a deficit of $1.65 trillion dollars, reflecting the wreakless spending habit of the government over the last several years. But don’t worry he pledges it has $1.1 trillion in deficit savings over the next ten year.  let us examine this claim of $1.1 trillion in deficit savings. The word savings implys that you are keeping money in your pocket, and plan on using it later, maybe to pay off a debt. So does this new budget really have $1.1 trillion in spending cuts? The answer is no.  Hidden inside of the budget are 15, yes 15 new taxe increases, which according to business insider these taxes could increase the tax burden of the citzens of the United States by $1,500,000,000,000.00 (1.5 trillion) over the next ten years. After doing some digging the group Americans for Tax Reform identified the fallowing taxes.

  • Raising the top income tax rate from 35% to 39.6%, basically undoing the compromise at the end of 2010 to keep tax rates the same. At this rate most small businesses income would face taxation.
  • Raising captial gains and dividends tax from 15% to 20%
  • Raising the death tax from 35% to 45%.  He also proposed lowering the exemption rate from $5,000,000 to $3,000,000. (that is a $98 billion a year tax increase)
  • New Bank Taxes ammounting to over $30 million over ten years
  • Capping the value of itemized deductions at the 28% bracket rate.  This will effectively cut tax deductions for mortgage interest, charitable contributions, property taxes, state and local income or sales taxes, out-of-pocket medical expenses, and unreimbursed employee business expenses.  A new means-tested phaseout of itemized deductions limits them even more.  This is a $321 billion/ten year tax hike
  • New international corporate tax hikes totaling $129 billion over ten years
  • New life insurance company taxes totaling $14 billion over ten years
  • Massive new taxes on energy, including LIFO repeal, Superfund, domestic energy manufacturing, and many others totaling $120 billion over ten years
  • Increasing unemployment payroll taxes by $15 billion over ten years
  • Taxing management capital gains in an investment partnership (“carried interest”) as ordinary income.  This is a tax hike of $15 billion over ten years
  • not letting companies deduct the cost of punitive damages from a lawsuit settlement. A nice gift to trail lawyers. This is a tax hike of $300 million over ten years
  • Increasing tax penalties, information reporting, and IRS information sharing.  This is a ten-year tax hike of $20 billion.

You can’t claim savings by jacking up taxes over the next ten years by $1.5 trillion dollars. He is not saving any money he is just taking it from people who provide services to the country. He is taking it from people who create jobs in this country. He knows people do not wnat their taxes to go up, after all there is a pesky group who like to meet up in the streets of D.C. who are outraged by the spending of this government and afraid of the tax hikes they knew was coming. They just won really big in the november elections, the TEA Party. I think people forget that TEA is an acronym standing for Taxed Enough Already. Knowing that this highly popular group will be outraged by the new taxes he decides to hide them in his new budget, and tell us that we are actually saving money. When in truth there will be no savings, there will be an increase in spending.  President Obama’s new budget was supposed to save us $1.1 trillion over the next ten years, these new taxes amount to $1.5 trillion dollars, if those taxes work as the progressives think they will with no negative affect on the economy, shouldn’t the deficit go down by $1.5 trillion?  There is in fact a $400,000,000,000.00 increase in spending in the bill.  So much for fighting the debt, I guess we are going to fight the debt by spending more money. I do love the first tax increase in that list a income tax hike on the employers of the country.  President Obama has decided that if you make money and have employees you need to give up your income so that he can spend more money, oh I am sorry we are supposed to use new fancy lingo sense spending is highly frownd upon,  he wants your money so he can invest more.

Under President Obama’s new budget proposal he is going to “save money” by raising taxes on Coal and Oil companies. He claims it will bring in $46 billion over the next ten years. A tax increase is not a magical source of money. That money comes from the pockets of the companies they are levied against. What a tax hike is, is an increase in opperating costs. In the real world if opperating costs go up profit goes down so changes have to be made. Employees are fired, wages are cut, and the price we pay goes up. So raising taxes on coal and oil, those prower our country.  Oil makes plastics, think about everything you buy that has plastic in it, the price of all of those items will go up. Oil makes gasoline and disesel, a tax increase on oil will definatly cause prices at the pump to go up.  Not only to fuel prices go up in this case, but the prices of everything transported by a gasoline or disesel powered truck goes up, as it affects opperating costs a crossed the board. If that is not bad enough lets think about that tax increase on Coal. Coal is used to make steal, steal is used in road construction, building construction, rail way construction, and in our automobiles, how will an increase in costs of those items affect the nation? President Obama wants to double down on his spending on infinistructure “invetments”, how will an increase in the cost of steal affect our national debt? The more dangerous impact from this tax hike will hit us hardest when we go to pay our electricity bill. 54% of our nations electricity is produced in a coal fired power plant, 54%. Over half of us will see our electricty rates “necessarily sky rocket”.

President Obama in his quest to “lower the deficit”, has had to make some hard choices, raising taxes on coal and oil, raise taxes on the evil rich, but by far the hardest he had to make was the decission to skip entitlement reform and instead choose to cut $78,000,000,000.00 from the pentagon’s budget. So far it looks like President Obama is going right down the progressive check list of things they hate and he is either cutting funding, or raising taxes on it.

509.) President Obama’s new budget proposal has massive increases in new infrastructure spending. He wants $556,000,000,000 to improve the countries highway, transit, and rail infrastructure.  I may be wrong but I am pretty sure that in 2009 we passed a $787,000,000,000.00 bill that was supposed to address many of the same issues. Under the first bill we were suppossed to get high speed rail, resurect the highway system, what happened why do we need to double down? Was the porkulus bill not effective, or wasted?  Could the reason for the double down be that the increase in government infrastructure spending would help out government unions?  President Obama seems to be addicted to spending.

505.) President Obama did an interview with Bill O’Reilly, and during this interview there were several things that should be noted.

during the interview Mr. O’Reilly asked the President, if he denied the claim that he was a man who wanted to redistribute wealth.  President Obama replied “absolutely”, Mr. O’Reilly then said “You deny that?” To which President Obama said “Absolutely I did not raise taxes once, I lowered them over the last two years.”  President Obama is claiming here that he does not believe in redistribution of wealth. That is really weird, because I remember in 2008 hearing something quite different.  If I remember correctly there was a fairly sizable uproar when a plumber by the name of Joe asked the president about this same issue, to which President Obama replied with the statement “I thinking money works best when you spread it around.”  If we go even further back into history, there is a radio interview with President Obama where he said that one of the failings of the civil rights movements was that they were unable to bring about redistributive change through the courts. Redistributive change… it pops up yet again.  President Obama says that he doesn’t believe in it, and cites not raising taxes as proof.  However, there are other parts of his record that contradict this.  One of the best examples of redistributive change is when President Obama approved the governments buying of GM.  They seized private property, in order to prevent it from going into bankruptcy. They took money from share holders, and bond holders, and gave their ownership in the company to the UAW.  Once the Unions had an ownership stake in GM the government let them file for bankruptcy.  The reason way President Obama approved the purchase of GM was because if they were to file for bankruptcy they have a chance to change contracts, which would bring the UAW back into control, cut their benefits and return GM to profitability, if the unions had an ownership stake the likely hood of this happening was far reduced.  So he took from someone who had property, and gave to someone who didn’t have property. That is redistribution of wealth, that is what the President said he didn’t do.

When he first took office in 2009 he signed a tax increase on tobacco products.  That was a while ago he may have just forgotten that. I could give him the benefit of the doubt on that one. More recently President Obama’s health care law does in fact contain tax hikes.  For example there is a new tax on tanning beds. There was also a provision that individuals making $200,000 a year and couples making $250,000 a year will now have a .9% increase in Medicare taxes. Also in the bill those individuals making $200,000 a year or couples making $250,000 a year have a brand new Medicare tax of 3.8% on their investments.  There is also a new tax on high priced health care plans.  The health care law also includes the individual mandate, which depending on who President Obama is talking to can be seen as either a tax hike or as a requirement.  If he is talking to his employers the American People, it is not a tax, if he is talking to a judge trying to defend his position and keep his hallmark legislation intact he says it is a tax. In the “tax cut compromise” taxes were actually raised.  The Bush Tax Rate, which has been on the books for ten years, the estate tax was down to 0%, under President Obama’s tax plan the estate tax is now 35%.   Those are clear increases in taxes.

When the health care bill was brought up President Obama had this to say “here’s what I think a lot of people saw, over the last two years, at a time when people were concerned about the economy and about jobs, what they saw was a lot of arguing in congress, which is what they always see is a lot of arguing in congress. And they don’t like the process and they felt that our focus wasn’t on what they’re focused on, which is how to win the future, how to make sure that jobs are right here in the United States of America. How are we building a competitive society at a time when we’re losing jobs.”  That is not what people were upset with.  We were upset that President Obama and the rest of his progressive ilk ram rodded this bill that the majority of Americans did not want through congress. We were upset not with the fact that debate was going on, but because it wasn’t a debate about the bill it was a debate about how anyone who opposed the bill was a toothless redneck.   We were sick of the arrogance that President Obama and the progressives spewed out over the air waves. We were sick of the lies, like republicans were holding up the process, when the truth was that the democrats didn’t need one republican vote to pass it, they were using conservatives as whipping boys.    We were mad about his big government policies. The porkulus supporter thank you bill, the gifting of GM to the Unions, these had ticked us off to begin with, and then they slapped this health care bill on top of that.  He tries to make light of it, by saying we were just frustrated that they weren’t doing enough for the economy. We were mad because they were doing too much for the government.  He doesn’t take us seriously; we are just the simple minded folk. This is a common tactic of the president, try to change the opponent’s argument to one that he can stand against, and it irritates me.

President Obama was defending his health care law in the interview and once again jumping to his talking points that he reiterated countless times during 2010. “Bill I just want to be clear about this, because if you look at what we’ve done, what we said was, if you have health care you like you can keep it.” Mr. O’Reilly cut him off before he could go much further down that path. President Obama continues to tout this lie that if you have health care you like you can keep it. This is just not true.  Under the bill if your insurance doesn’t meet government standards you have to change it. 

Mr. O’Reilly said “Yeah, some people see it that way, but other people see it’s a huge government intrusion and you guy just want to take over, basically, decision making for Americans. It’s an ideological argument.” There was the president’s talking point about how we can “keep our doctors”, fallowed up by this “And what I hear you saying, Bill, for example, is that the notion that us saying to people that don’t have health insurance, don’t make me pay for your health insurance, if you get sick, you have a responsibility to make sure that you have got coverage. There’s nothing socialist about that. that’s saying to Americans, we’re going each of us be responsible for our own health care.”    I almost was fooled by this statement.  See here is right there is nothing socialist about me not wanting to pay for someone else’s irresponsibility.    However he proved Mr. O’Reilly’s statement correct, that they do want to take over decision making for Americans.   They are telling Americans that they are going to do what the government is deems responsible.  That sounds like a big federal government to me.

When asked if President Obama was moving to the center, he said “I’m the same guy. My practical focus, my common-sense focus right now is how to we out-innovate, out-educate, out-building, out-compete the rest of the world? How do we create jobs here in the United States of America? How do we make sure that businesses are thriving? But how do we also — making sure that ordinary Americans can live out the American dream?”   So the lessons of 2010 were lost on him, he does not plan on changing from big government progressive we saw 2009-2010.  

506.) I have said many times before that President Obama will use the tax code to drive the economy in the way that he thinks makes the most sense.  He will use the federal government’s power to tax to create false market forces, and his recent call for tax reform is proof of this claim.  President Obama wants to close tax loop holes, which is fine, everyone pay their taxes, if that’s the stance he wants to take, that is fine. The problem is he wants to get rid of tax loop holes for oil companies, but keep them for green energy production. He said “Get rid of the loopholes. Level the playing field. And use the savings to lower the corporate tax rate for the first time in 25 years, without adding to our deficit.Again, level the playing field, but only if they fit within my political agenda.  He targets oil company’s tax loopholes, yet they only receive three billion dollars a year in tax breaks, compare that to the $11,000,000,000.00 (11 billion) in tax breaks for green energy.  I am not against ending tax loop holes; I don’t think the tax code should be used by the government to manipulate the economy, but that is not what President Obama is doing, he is merely swapping one set of loop holes for another.  

507.) President Obama said in his State of The Union Address that he wants to freeze government spending, then he said that while freezing it, he would invest more in the country.  He was merely trying to appease the people on the right who are furious at his spending. Proof that he is not serious about cutting government spending and lowering the deficit came this week when he sent Vice President Joe Biden out to announce that President Obama wants $53 billion dollars for high speed rail. He wants us to have a rail system like Europe, Japan, and China. It won’t work in the United States, not how President Obama dreams it. He wants to have the government invest billions into developing them. Now correct me if I am wrong but we have tried government run rail systems before, Amtrak comes to mind. Over the last 10 years Amtrak has lost $13,000,000,000 (13 billion dollars).  The high speed rail will cost billions to develop and if it is run anything like Amtrak it will be yet another drag on the deficit.  They wanted to put a high speed rail in Ohio that would link the Three C’s, Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland.  When all was said and done the average speed of the high speed trains would have been 45 miles an hour, making it slower than driving in your car.  Let us go through the insanity of the system shall we?  Lets say you live in Columbus and want to go see a Cleveland Browns game so you drive to the station in Columbus, find a place to park (most likely have to pay for parking), and then would have to buy a ticket to go to Cleveland, wait for the train to show up.  Once you got on the train, fought for a decent seat you have to travel from Columbus to Cleveland a 125 mile trip at an average speed of 45 miles an hour. Once you finally got there you had to get a cab, rent a car to get anywhere, it was not cost effective and by this time most people’s blood would have begun to boil. The people did not want it so the new Governor John Kasich shut it down.  There is not a market for high speed passenger trains in America.  We had (relatively) high speed rail at one point in time, but we traded trains for cars.  The car represents personal freedom. You can drive where ever you want, stop when you want get out when you want.  A train is the absence of personal freedom, you get on where you are told, get off when you are told, you have to leave when you are told, and you can only go where that individual train goes.  That is why trains have never taken off in America. They don’t fit with the American spirit.  It is a progressive dream; it cuts down on the freedom the car represents. It makes everyone the same.   If the market existed for high speed rail the private American dreamer would have jumped on it by now.  

499.) President Obama claims that he wants to make America the best place in the world to do business, and that he wants to cut regulations, why is it then that when legislation to do just that is being proposed in congress, he is already threatening to veto it. I personally think that he is making this threat because the legislation would limit the administration to regulate c02 gas emissions.  President Obama was unable to get the job killing cap and trade bill through the congress full of democrats, but don’t think that he is going to put an end to his plans oh no, now he is wants to do it through executive power (not creepy at all). Congressional action trumps executive order so he cannot allow a bill that would limit his awesome power to be passed. Limited government what a terrible idea, President Obama is looking out for us don’t you worry.

500.) President Obama went on the air and said to the people of Egypt that he hears them. That he talked to the president of Egypt about stepping down.  He hears them, he offers them support. “Over the last few days the passion and the dignity that has been demonstrated by the people of Egypt has been an inspiration to people around the world, including here in the United States and to all those who believe in the inevitably of human freedom.  To the people of Egypt, particularly the young people of Egypt, I want to be clear.  We hear your voices” He is offering the protesters of the Middle East support, yet he ignores, insults, and lies about the Tea Party in America. It’s nice to know that President Obama is more concerned about them then he is about the concerns of the people for whom he works.  I do have to say though that he is giving them somewhat of the same treatment. He is trying to redefine what it is that they are angry about. When the Tea Party first assembled on tax day to protest the massive amount of government spending and the tax hikes we feared would come as a result, President Obama straight face said let’s not pretend that this is about taxes, this is about health care cost. Now with the situation in Egypt he is acting as if the protesters should be singing his praises, because the President of Egypt is stepping down in eight months. That is not what the protesters want; they want him to step down now. At least he is still trying to tell people what it is they want overseas, I am glad that it is not just a slap in the face reserved for Americans.

501.) The Health Care law that President Obama loves so much was found unconstitutional by a second judge; this was mentioned in the previous post.  President Obama is not one to let a little thing like checks and balances get in his way, don’t you worry the regulations and mandates will be imposed upon us yet.  President Obama’s administration has said that it has no intentions of slowing down the implementation of this now deemed unconstitutional law. The administration said “we will continue to operate as we have previously.”   Full steam ahead, this is the third time the administration has spat in the face of the judicial branch of the nation’s government. The first time was when the president called out the Supreme Court for their ruling on campaign funding, the second time being when they reinstituted the drilling ban in the gulf after the courts struck it down, and now when the a judge rules a law unconstitutional and they plan on implementing it any ways.  It is quite clear that President Obama only believes in our system of government when it works in his favor.  Checks and Balances are nothing but a hindrance to him.

502.) Last month President Obama allowed the EPA to start regulating emissions from power plants and other polluters for the first time.  This was part of his energy plan that he tried to get through a democrat controlled congress and it fell flat on its face. I think the idea that energy prices would “necessarily sky rocket” turned most people off to the president’s plan.  However President Obama does not believe in the concept of Checks and Balances, unless it helps him reach his political goals.  Something as simple as the law making body refusing to take more power, shouldn’t slow down the President’s progressive agenda. After all, global warming is a scientific fact and comes from the most reliable sources imaginable, and there is absolutely no evidence disproving it. Well except for the fact that no serious global warming has occurred sense 2000, and sense 2008 the planet has steadily cooled. There is also that pesky fact that Al-Gore stands to make a killing on the carbon exchange market if the plan is implemented. Oh I almost forgot that Al-Gore contradicts himself on this theory all the time, I vaguely remember in 2000 being told that soon snow would be a thing of the past, kids just wouldn’t know what snow was, yet Al-Gore now claims that all of the snow that has been dumped on the East Coast this year, was caused by the warming (doesn’t really make sense).  So clearly man made global warming is 100% clear cut fact, and just because we the un-washed masses, and the evil Republicans (who couldn’t have stopped the legislation if they wanted to) can’t understand the dangers of climate change, should not be any reason for the President’s plans to be stopped.   The President didn’t get what he wanted through congress, the gate was closed, so he decided he would climb the fence and just use executive power to give the EPA the power to regulate C02 emissions.  This was wrong, has already been done. Fast forward one month, and suddenly the possible effects of this outrageous power granted to the EPA has become evident. Many in America feared that new regulations would stall our economic recovery worse than it already has been, and it turns out that they were right.  Construction on power plants around the country has stalled, costing the nation money and jobs.  President Obama has decided that there are a few of these projects that deserve an exemption from the new rules (social justice at its finest). One such project is the Avenal Power Center, a 600-megawatt power plant, is exempt from new regulations on C02 and N02.  So President Obama circumvented congress to get what he wants, then he grants waivers so some people don’t have to follow the law.  Just why is it that the Avenal Power Center is so special that it gets the first exemption?  I have a thought on this, the head of President Obama’s Council of Jobs and Competitiveness, Mr. Jeffery Immelt, just happens to be the CEO of GE. I am 100% positive that it is just a coincidence that the Avenal Power Center was fully equipped by GE.   President Obama believes in social justice, not equal justice.  This is what leads to some people being more equal than others.  Jeffery Immelt and GE have broadly supported the Obama Administration, so it is only fair that they be above the law.  If President Obama wants to make a new law that will hurt the economy and save the environment he better be willing to enforce the law fairly.  This practice of “wavier for supporters” is a clear and cut example of the federal government abusing its power to regulate, and President Obama abusing his power as an executive.  Corruption at its finest.

503.) President Obama said in his State of the Union address that he wants to reign in government spending. He wants to freeze it at it currently unsustainable level.  I am glad to hear him say that he wants to reign in government spending; he and his progressive allies in Washington have been spending money faster than Al-Gore can lie about global warming. Unfortunately we have heard this before, he ran against the spending President Bush had racked up. He complained about President Bush’s spending in his first State of The Union, but he continued spending. Yet in a speech he gave on February 3rd President Obama told people in Pennsylvania that if they are willing to build green buildings the government is going to help them. He explained how he is willing to create artificial market forces to push the economy towards one set up like the failure in Spain.  He then said “If you’re willing to make your buildings more energy efficient, we’ll provide new tax credits and financing opportunities for you to do so. So you show us the best ideas to change your game on the ground; we’ll show you the money.” We’ll show you the money. That is an interesting claim, he is talking about tax credits, so are they really showing them any money? If they are going to give them a tax credit that means the government is not really showing them any money, they just are taking less, so this is proof that the President doesn’t understand principles of how a government of the people, by the people works.  If you are a progressive and you believe that the government owns the money and just gives us some to live on, President Obama has reneged on his promise to reign in government spending. We’ll show you the money, how can we cut spending if President Obama is handing it out left and right to people willing to fall for his green energy plans.  Whichever way you want to look at it there is a massive issue in his statement.

504.) In all the uproar surrounding Egypt I just realized I forgot to mention the Start Treaty. President Obama got it through the senate, and he signed it.  This is part of his plan for a nuclear free world. In signing the treaty President Obama also got another feather in his cap as he was able to deal another blow to the realtionship between the United States and our greatest ally the United Kingdom of Great Brittian. The Russians demanded that they be given information on the United Kingdom’s nuclear capability.  The treaty between the United States and Russia was not supposed to affect the United Kingdom, but when the Russians demanded more information on the UK’s missle defenses President Obama was only too happy to see what he could do. His administration lobbied the United Kingdom to give up their secrets to the Russians, the United Kingdom of course refused. They want to maintain an element of secrecy when dealing with people like the Russians who are famous for being very trustworthy (that was hard to type even in jest).   President Obama doesn’t care, he doesn’t care that the United Kingdom doesn’t want Russia being able to verify how many missles they have.  President Obama only cares about getting his agenda accomplished, so even though the UK told him no, President Obama agreed to give the Russians the serial numbers of all the Trident Missles that the United States has provided to the Uk.   President Obama truely believes in the ends justifying the means.  He wants a nuclear free world so he is willing to take an ax to the relationship to America’s strongest ally, to get the russians to agree sign the treaty.  Why would he worry about it, after all if he sells the British down the river not only does he get the start treaty passed, but he also gets to fire yet another salvo in his blood fued with the British. 

Trivia Question: Before he shot President Kennedy, from what country did Lee Harvey Oswald get kicked out of?

493.) President Obama urged Egyptian officials to refrain from violence against peaceful protesters. The thought struck me, why should they listen to him? What is he going to do? He has already shown he is either unwilling, or afraid to enforce anything he says; I reference of course his actions against Iran when they where attempting to enrich uranium.

494.) Vice President Joe Biden and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs both have refused to label the President Of Egypt a Dictator. This man has held the country in a state of emergency power for over two decades. Basically he can tap phone lines when he wants, he can detain people with out warrent, he fixes elections, sends out security forces to attack people who vote against him, nothing is really pointing to him not being a dictator. in 2006 he agreed to have a multicannidate presidential election, but he trumped up some fraud charges against his opponet and had him thrown in jail for three years.  How is this man not a dictator?

495.) I said in the previous post that President Obama wanted to push for new green energy jobs, and I also talked about how the government uses taxes and regulations to create false market forces to move the economy to where it thinks it should go. President Obama has proposed new mining regulations which could in his staffs own words “proposed new coal mining regulations to protect streams would eliminate thousands of jobs across the country.” The estimates are as high as 7000 workers could lose their jobs as a result of the President’s plan that is almost a tenth of the coal miners in the nation. Just what do you think will happen to our electricity prices when these regulation take affect? The words “necessarily sky rocket” come to mind.

496.) The number of waivers for obamacare has jumped from 222 to 750. This just a week after the GOP led  house announced investigations into waivers granted to companies. I guess the unions are having a hard time dealing with the cuts they will have to make to compensate for the governments new mandate. Progressives always seem to forget that companies are in the business of makeing money, not providing jobs and health care. That is not their primary function. Their pimary function is to make their owners money. They hire people to work for them in exhange they pay them. The worker is a byproduct not the goal. People like President Obama do not see it that way they see the worker as all important and they believe that the company sprouted to help them. That is backwards. I don’t want to sound evil, and I do not hate workers, I am merely stating a fact. If obamacare is so great, if it is going to solve all the evils in the world, why are so many people having to get waivers from it? It is time for fair and equal protection of the law, make everyone fallow the law that he loves so much, that he thinks is the greatest thing sense man gained his freedom from tyrants.  It is an economic disaster waiting to happen, and he knows it, I am pretty sure in a recent speech he said that he wanted to turn America into the best place in the world for business. How does mandating a company provide costly health care help make our country more friendly to business, well judging by the ever climbing number of waivers he has granted I am willing to bet it doesn’t.

497.) The crowning jewel of President Obama’s first year in office, Obamacare, hit yet another snag yesterday when a Federal Judge ruled the entire law unconsitutional. U.S. District Judge Roger Vison ruled that congress overstepped its consitutional bounds with the individual mandate.  He said “Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void,” he then said, “The individual mandate applies across the board. People have no choice and there is no way to avoid it. Those who fall under the individual mandate either comply with it, or they are penalized. It is not based on an activity that they make the choice to undertake. Rather, it is based solely on citizenship and on being alive,”  Basically this judge said exactly what I have been saying all along, just a lot more eloquently. It is a scary thought, the government having the power not only to regulate what you do, but also what you don’t do? The judge struck down the law, not for politics, not because he doesn’t like democrats, or because he hates old people, but because the law expands the governments power somewhere it is not legally allowed to go. He said in his ruling “It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause. If it has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting — as was done in the act — that compelling the actual transaction is itself “commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce,” it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted.” President Obama is not willing to let go of this new found federal power, and he is definatly not willing to let his beloved healthcare bill go with out a fight. In typical Obama fashion his administration quickly pounced on the ruling, and not by defending the law but trying to smeer the judge. They accuse the judge of “judicial activism”  I do not see how a judge finding no provision in the consitution to punish someone for the lack of activity is judicial activism. An assistant to the President Stephanie Cutter said that the ruling is “a plain case of judicial overreach.” She argued that “courts have a consitutional obligation to preserve as much of a statute as can be preserved.”  The problem with President’s complaint is that the judge is not legislating from the bench, he is just merely fallowing the letter of the law.  You see in their hurry to get the bill ram rodded through congress President Obama and the progressives on the hill forgot to add a severability clause, which would have made it possible for just the individual mandate to be struck down. I would like to hear the President come in front of the public and defend what he has called the linchpin of the health care overhaul, just how is an individual mandate consitutional.

498.) President Obama said “Government should not intrude on private family matters I am committed to protecting this constitutional right. I also remain committed to policies, initiatives, and programs that help prevent unintended pregnancies,” That is odd it really is President Obama just said that the government should not intrude on private family matters, yet he is willing to tell parents what they can pack in their kids lunch. Look at his wife going around the country telling people how they have fed their kids wrong. Is that not a private family matter? Is health insurance not a private family matter? Basically its not okay for the government to tell you not to kill the seeds of the next generation, but it is okay for the government to tell you what you can and can’t eat. Let’s not pretend that President Obama stands for individual liberty and an unintrusive government. If he did he never would have stolen from GM bond holders to fund the unions. President Obama has constantly supported an increase in government power, which means a decrease in personal liberty.  You cannot stand for big government and personal liberty, the two are different sides of the coin.