Archive

Monthly Archives: April 2012

645.) President Obama has been touting his “buffet rule” by saying, “I should pay more taxes”. You know what I find odd, President Obama is lying. He doesn’t think that he should pay more taxes, nor would passing the “buffet rule” even effect him.  The proof behind my claims comes from President Obama’s tax returns, and are as fallows:

First on the block is the fact that President Obama made $789,674 in 2011, that is less then $1,000,000. So he would not be affected by the “buffet rule”. So raise taxes so long as they don’t apply to me.

President Obama tax return included something odd, he paid a tax rate of less then  20.5%, with his income being over $700,000 he should have paid a higher tax rate. What this means is that he used tax deductions to lower what he had to pay to the federal government such as:

  • A morgates deduction on his house in Chicago which saved him $13,318
  • He donated 22% of his income to charity, which I support and applaud him for. What I find interesting is that he then claimed that donation on his taxes.

So President Obama believes that the rich should pay more in taxes, and that they shouldn’t have all of these loop holes to get out of paying their fair share, he claims that he should pay more taxes, yet he proposes a tax cut that he would not be affected by, then claims federal income tax deductions. This is classic do as I say not as I do, I am above the law mentality that President Obama has shown sense he was elected President.  If he truely believed that the rich should pay more taxes he would act as an example and not take tax deduction, he would be a moral guide for the rich. Yet he is nothing more than a fat cat playing the system, and once again banking on our ignorance to protect him from the light of God’s eternal truth. .

 

644.) Did your kids enjoy theirspring break trip to Mexico, the sun, the history, and the amazing beaches? Oh wait, I am willing to bet most of you did not send your kids to Mexico over spring break. You either probably could not afford it or you wouldn’t let your 13 year old travel to Mexico due to the travel advisory against it. The Obama family does not worry about such minor things such as costs, or safety, they are above all of that. Why would they worry about the costs of a trip to Mexico when the tax payers are covering it?

In case you are un-aware of the President’s daughters travel plans allow me to explain. President Obama thought it was okay for his eldest daughter to travel to Mexico with 12 of her friends.Why would President Obama let his little girl travel to such a dangerous country, was he not afraid of what could happen to her, did he not realize that she would be a prime target? Oh that’s right, I forgot, why would he worry, he is the President of The United States; the tax payers will cover the bill for her and her friends protection. 25 secret service agents traveled with the young Miss.Obama and her friends. How much is that costing the tax payers?

So here are my questions/concerns about this story:

  • What kind of parent lets their 13 year old daughter, and her friends, travel to a country that the United States Government recommends its citizens not travel to? Who puts their daughter in that kind of danger?
  • I could not afford a spring break trip; my cousins could not afford a spring break trip, why should the President’s daughter be allowed to go on a trip costing tax payers more money?
  • The President attacks fat cats, and demands that they pay more in taxes out of fairness, it’s not fair that his daughter gets to go on a vacation, and burn through more money that our nation doesn’t have.

641.) The first shots in the Republican “war on women” were fired when those evil conservatives took issues with the government striping an employers right to choose whether or not to provide free birth control. Of course the progressives are trying to turn this into an issue of Republicans hating women. 

Well an interesting little fact has surfaced from the bowels of the White House.  President Obama has gone on the record several times talking about the disperity in wages between men and women. In July of 2010 President Obama said, “Paycheck discrimination hurts families who lose out on badly needed income, and with so many families depending on women’s wages, it hurts the American economy as a whole.” Well that is shocking, seeing as the Women working at the White House earn on average $60,000 a year, where as their male counter parts make on average $71,000 a year, thats an 18% difference.  So if there is a war on women, are Democrats and Progressives really on their side, is it really Republicans and Conservatives who are out to get them? In the end its just another case of politics as usual and President Obama’s hipocrisy.

642.) This is dealing with an earlier post “President Obama Almighty”. There was a hailstorm after President Obama’s remarks about the Supreme Court, to try to calm things down President Obama sent his Jay Carney our to set the record straight, here is the line of questions that caught my interest.
“Henry: The president is a former constitutional law professor. One of his professors is Laurence Tribe. He now says, in his words, the president “obviously misspoke earlier this week”, quote “he didn’t say what he meant and having said that in order to avoid misleading anyone, he had to clarify it.” I thought yesterday you were saying repeatedly that he did not misspeak. What do you make of the president’s former law professor saying he did?

Carney: The premise of your question suggests that the president of the United States in the comments he made Monday, did not believe in the constitutionality of legislation, which is a preposterous premise and I know you don’t believe that.
Henry: Except this is from Laurence Tribe, who knows a lot more than you and I about constitutional law.
Carney: What I acknowledged yesterday is that speaking on Monday the president was not clearly understood by some people because he is a law professor, he spoke in shorthand.”
What I found interesting here is first the arrogance of Jay Carney. Oh we aren’t smart enough to understand the President because he was using some strange language that only legal experts understand. I understood it pretty clearly, it sounded like a political speech, what President Obama was trying to say was pretty clear.  So yet another example of the arrogance of the Obama Administration.

The second item that I found interesting, and just continues to drive me up a wall, is that people actually believe that President Barack Obama was at one time a Consitutional Law Professor, he was never actually a professor he was what is known as a Senior Lecturer. The school has come to consider him to have basically been a part time professor, but he never held the professor title.  A technicallity I know, but it bothers me. It probably wouldn’t had he not called himself a professor in 2007 then say “which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution” then upon his election tare the Consitution up and decided to run the country like outside of the law.

 
643.) Most of us have heard about the attack on Ann Romeny by Democrat strategist Hilary Rosen, if you have not hear is what she said, “His wife has actually never worked a day in her life. She’s never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school and how do we . . . why we worry about their future”. Now Ms. Rosen has sense appologized and many of those on the inside of the administration have expressed outrage over the comment.  That is not what bothers me. No what bothers me once again rest on the shoulders of President Obama’s Press Secretary Jay Carney.
 
Whenever there is a scandaless comment made in the world of politics questions arise, and people demand answers. Where do you go when you want answers, why the source.  When asked about the subject Mr. Carney answered by stating how President Obama has helped women and how those Evil Republicans have waged a relentless war against the fairer sex.  When pushed about about the fact that Ms. Rosen was a frequent visitor at the White House, having been there 35 times according to the White House logs, Carney had this outrageous answer to give, “I haven’t seen the records. I don’t know that Hillary Rosen– I know three personally, women named Hillary Rosen. So I‘m not sure that those represent the person we’re talking about necessarily.” That is the best answer that he can give, that is what he resorts to, I don’t know if it is the same person, does that really mesh in anyones mind? To all of you progressives out there do you really believe that there is a doubt if the Hillary Rosen, the Democrat Strategist, is the Hillary Rosen who visited the White House, which is currently occupied by a Demcorat President, 35 times? The arrogance, the sheer and unadulterated contempt of the American People makes my blood boil. 
 
There are other ways of handling this issue, for example you start off just as he had, “I haven’t seen the records,” then you could say something like, “so I personally cannot confirm that,” okay so you established you haven’t seen the records, you established that you cannot confirm if she had been at the White House 35 times, now you continue the respectful tone, “Once I know more I can address that.” then if you must you could throw a joke in there, “I know three Hilary Rosens, I hate to tell you that it was the one, and it turn out that it was one of the others who made all those trips”. You come off as funny, respectful and don’t full an already raging fire of political outrage.  But no, Mr. Carney has to slap everyone in the face.

640.) President Obama is trying to gain support for his “Buffet Rule”, or as it will go down in history as “the Obama Tax on Success”.  While campaigning in Florida President Obama invoked the name of a one of America’s great presidents from the past, who did he turn to to try and garner support for his tax hikes, was it  Woordrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Jimmy Carter, or perhapes Bill Clinton? Actually the answer is none of the above, in fact strangely enough to sell his tax hike President Obama called upon Ronald Reagan the champion of the conservative movement.

When I first heard this story my mind was sent spinning, why would President Obama call upon the name of Reagan to sell his tax policy. My world was further rocked when I heard President Obama call Ronald Reagan “That wild eyed, socialist, tax-hiking, class warrior”. My jaw dropped, did President Obama really just call the 40th President Of the United States Ronald Reagan a socialist? The man was a champion of small government, he made popular phrases like “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.'” and “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem” how on earth could President Obama actually call him a socialist. Once my world quit spinning, and I was able to pull my jaw up through the floor, I remembered that President Obama is a progressive, so he just rewrites history to match his needs, who cares about facts. But like John Adams once said, “facts are a stuborn thing”.

What President Obama was trying to do is to rewrite history, and try to make it appear as though Ronald Reagan called for raising taxes on the rich out of “fairness”.  The speech that President Obama cited was one that President Reagan gave on October 22nd, 1986 when he signed into law sweaping tax reforms. In the speech President Reagan did metion fairness, the rich, and the poor, but that is about where the similarities end. You see President Obama did not pay attention, or just didn’t care about the history that he was citing. President Reagan was not talking about raising taxes on the rich, he was talking about cutting taxes for everyone, making the tax code simpler. Thats odd, I believe that is something that conservatives are calling for in the congress right now, and President Obama has ignored.  In this speech President Reagan mocked the progressive income tax, and cited the lies that surround it. “But when our Founding Fathers designed this government—of, by, and for the people—they never imagined what we’ve come to know as the progressive income tax. When the income tax was first levied in 1913, the top rate was only 7 percent on people with incomes over $500,000. Now, that’s the equivalent of multimillionaires today. But in our lifetime we’ve seen marginal tax rates skyrocket as high as 90 percent, and not even the poor have been spared. As tax rates escalated, the tax code grew ever more tangled and complex, a haven for special interests and tax manipulators, but an impossible frustration for everybody else. Blatantly unfair, our tax code became a source of bitterness and discouragement for the average taxpayer. It wasn’t too much to call it un-American.” President Reagan was not calling low taxes on teh rich unfair he was calling high taxes on the poor and middle class, unfair. So he wasn’t some radical communist like President Obama is trying to make him out to be. 

President Obama constantly tries to rewrite history, and calling President Reagan a socialist and trying to make it sound as if the champion of liberty was someone similar to President Obama the Champion of tyranny is nothing more than a sign of desperation.  He is trying anything to trick Americans into thinking that Republicans are just out to force the average American to starve in the street while they smoke cigars made out of 100 dollar bills.  The truth is a stuborn thing. Facts are facts, and the facts of the mater are President Obama lied, what a shock. 

639.) President Obama has a diluted view of the world that he lives in, and a perverted understanding of the office that he holds. He fancies himself asthe head of our government, master of the subservient branches. He fails to realize that he is but one piece of a three part system. The other two branches of government, the congress, and the courts, are not lesser entities meant to bow before him, but rather equals who serve beside him. That was the whole concept behind the way the founders laid out our Republic. If they had wanted one man to have power over all, they would not have gone through the painstaking steps of creating a two housed legislator, a federal court, and the executive branch. They would have simply made Washington king and been done with it. Washington had no intention of being king, and our founders feared the slavery that giving one man unlimited power would bring to the nation. So there is a system of checks and balances placed upon the branches to prevent anyone from gaining power over the other. This helps to insure that the laws of the land are followed by the citizens who inhabit the seats in our capitol.

Well this is no good for President Obama; laws are a troublesome thing when you are trying to convert a free nation into a communist state. So any time these checks are applied on the Presidents power he throws a fit and strikes out at those who dare stand in his way. This time the victim of this verbal assault is the Supreme Court of the United States.

What, you might ask, has the Supreme Court done that has President Obama so up in arms? Well, nothing, all they have done is heard oral arguments about the constitutionality of President Obama’s health care bill. The discussion did not appear favorable to the bill as many statements questioned the fundamental principles behind the individual mandate. Statements like the one made by Justice Kennedy “Can you create commerce to regulate it?” made everyone take notice, and put President Obama on edge.

As I said President Obama is the head of the United States government, it is President Obama’s job to keep the lesser branches in line. He has to make sure that they don’t get this notion that they are able to overturn his policies. So he had a few things to say to the Supreme Court of The United States “Ultimately I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress” He then continued “And I‘d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack ofjudicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn aduly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.”

Back in the real world, where laws exist, President Obama is not the head of the United States government he is merely one of three equal branches. The Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches were designed as equal parts of the government, each having a series of checks on the other to make sure that the system did not come out of balance. So seeing as President Obama is not king, it would probably be a good idea for us to check the validity of his statements. Yes it is now time for a history lesson, yes history the bane of Progressives everywhere as it dispels the myths that they build up around their radical agenda.

We might as well start at the beginning with “Ultimately I am confidentthat the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented,extraordinary step of overturning a law” is it really unprecedented, or extraordinary for the Supreme Court to overturn a law passed by congress? The answer is no, the Supreme Court has, as of 2002, overturned a total of 1,315 laws, 158 of those being Federal laws passed by a democratically elected congress. The concept of judicial review has been established sense 1789. So President Obama was wrong, it is not unprecedented, in fact there exists almost two centuries of precedents.

Moving right along “of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” This statement is nothing more than an example of President Obama trying to rewrite history; he is lying to us, hoping we are too ignorant to catch him. Let’s turn the clocks back, tothat far off time of 2010. The House of Representatives has 435 members, in March of 2010 the Democrat party had a 75 seat majority. The United States Senate has 100 members with the Democrats holding 58 seats, with two independents that caucus with them. When Obama care was passed, it passed in the house by a vote of 219-212, it passed in the Senate by a vote of 60-39. So of the possible 535 votes on Capitol Hill Obama care received only 279, or only 52%, that is not a strong majority. So yes Obama care was passed by a democratically elected congress, but it was not a strong majority, President Obama either forgot, or he is lying to us.

Next on the chopping block, “And I‘d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on thebench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law” Okay well let’s take a look at this claim of judicial activism, or lack ofjudicial restraint.
Judicial Activism: is when judges act like a legislature (legislating from the bench) rather than like a traditional court. In so doing, the court takes for itself the powers of Congress, rather than limiting itself to the powerstraditionally given to the judiciary.
So how would striking down Obama care be a case of judicial activism? Is the court making law from the bench, no, is the court creating a new power for itself, no. So would overturning Obama care be a case of judicial activism, no.
Judicial Restraint: is a legal term that describes a type of judicial interpretation that emphasizes the limited nature of the court’s power.Judicial restraint asks judges to base their judicial decisions solely on the concept of stare decisis, which refers to an obligation of the court to honor previous decisions.
So would overturning Obama care be an example of a lack of judicial restraint? No it wouldn’t, it is within the Supreme Court’s power to strike down a law if it is unconstitutional. So the answer to this question is also no.

Two more claims go down in smoke, the claims made by the President are falling faster than American’s patients with the price of gas. The next claim we will examine is that of “that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.” Unelected, he just said that the Supreme Court of The United States of America is unelected? I guess technically he is correct, the Supreme Court Justices are not elected by a popular vote, but in all reality they are elected. The President appoints members of a court, they then have to be approved by the United States Senate, which is done by a vote, so yes they are elected. I would like to point out to President Obama that these “unelected” people have more authority, are more legitimate, and are more accountable to the people than half of his cabinet. I guess President Obama forgot about all of the Czars that he has appointed, who approved them, what are they doing to the laws of this country, who are they accountable too? Are they accountable to the senators, the people of the United States? No of course not, they are only accountable, and loyal to the president. President Obama has appointed over 42 Czars in his presidency. The character of these 42 individuals is sketchy at best, there are members of the communist party, members of Acorn, and of course there was Van Jones (who has sense resigned due to the outrage of his appointment). What are these people doing, these individuals who are part of our government but don’t have to be approved by the Senate like normal cabinet positions do. This may seem like I am trying to make something out of nothing, but the reason I bring these individuals up is because President Obama is the last person who should be trying to take the moral high ground when it comes to letting”unelected” people make decisions about how the country is to be run,he does it all the time. (Cue the progressive left onslaught).

Finally, this is the part that makes me sick to my stomach, President Obama had the audacity to call his health care law a “duly constituted and passed law”. The law was not duly passed; they played tricks to slipped it past the rules of the Senate via the reconciliation process. Reconciliation allows a bill to become law with a simple majority vote rather than the usual 61 votes needed in the Senate.There are rules about using this process, one of which is that the bill in question cannot add to the deficit. Well due to some progressive funny math, the bill looked as though it passed that rule, unfortunately, if the senators had actually read the bill that they voted for they would have realized that there was a critical issue with Obama care. That issue is that it double counted the savings in Medicare.The revenues generated under the law were to go to funding benefits to already insured members. These same revenues were also supposed to some how fund an expansion of Medicare. So if the revenues go to cover the new benefits, then congress has to spend more money to fund the expansion. If the revenues go to cover the expansion, congress has to authorize more spending to cover the benefits, thus you have an increase in the deficit. So no Obama care was not a duly constituted and passed law.

Now of course there are going to be those who will read this and accuse me of being racist, a hater, ignorant, and try to defend the law. The fact is that whether or not you agree with the law is irrelevant, the biggest issue here is that the President of the United States is not only lying to the American Public but trying to assert dominance onto one of the other branches of government. I don’t know if it stems from immaturity or arrogance but it is a terrifying thought, the executive branch trying to make the other branches irrelevant.

I know this is not the first time that a President has challenged the court,Andrew Jackson was probably the first time, and there have been others. I do not support one branch trying to belittle the others. I would also like to point out that this is not the first time that President Obama has tried to bully the Supreme Court. He called them out in his first State of The Union Address, and lets not forget that he ignored their ruling on the drilling moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico.