Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for August, 2011

Almost eclipsed by the PR disaster of his lavish vacation at Martha’s Vineyard was the PR debacle of President Obama’s “listening tour,” in which he blasted through small towns in a gigantic motorcade dominated by two million-dollar Canadian buses, pausing to give political speeches before hand-picked audiences.  Although clearly a part of Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign, this was all funded by the U.S. taxpayer, and the expense was enormous.

It turns out it might have been even more enormous than we thought, because the whole “bus tour” was a gigantic fraud.  As related by Rob Port at Say Anything:

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said that the buses were necessary because “The president needs to get out in the country and meet with real folks in real places.”

“A plane [the size of Air Force One] is hard to get into small communities.”

But here’s the thing: Apparently President Obama only rode the buses for a couple of miles at a time, spending the rest of the time flying from community to community in Air Force One. What’s more, the buses were flown from stop to stop as well. It’s normal practice for the President’s entire motorcade to be loaded up on cargo planes and flown from destination to destination. The buses were just a new part of that motorcade.

But why wouldn’t the presidential limousine have sufficed? Or one of the other armored vehicles that routinely travel with the President? Apparently because the President wanted the imagery of a bus. And buses are what he got.  Read more.

Read Full Post »

Remember when Warren Buffett — a staunch Obama supporter — said that rich people like him would be willing to pay more taxes to help out? If you do, it will probably shock you that his company, Berkshire Hathaway, has back taxes dating back to 2002.


The New York Post explains:


That’s right: As Americans for Limited Government
President Bill Wilson notes, the company openly admits that it owes
back taxes since as long ago as 2002.

“We anticipate that we will resolve all adjustments proposed by the
US Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) for the 2002 through 2004 tax years
… within the next 12 months,” the firm’s annual report says.

It also cites outstanding tax issues for 2005 through 2009.


That’s a big revelation. And given the gravity of it, the New York Post lets Buffett have it:


Obvious question: If Buffett really thinks he and his “mega-rich
friends” should pay higher taxes, why doesn’t his firm fork over what it
already owes under current rates?

Likely answer: He cares more about shilling for President Obama —
who’s practically made socking “millionaires and billionaires” his
re-election theme song — than about kicking in more himself.

Read full story here.

Read Full Post »


(h/t Newsmax – see article here)

Jennifer Jacobs, chief political writer at the Des Moines Register, spoke with some of the top political observers and bloggers in Iowa to find out what they thought about a presidential run for Sarah Palin.  They’ve listed eight reasons why she should, and eight reasons why she should not run.  I’ve listed a few, along with my take on their views.

Some of the reasons she should run:

– She believes she can win
– She can fire up the base
– Tea party power
– She’s a money magnet
– She’s already been vetted
– She has a winning message


Sounds like she’s got it in the bag!  Need I go on?  All of these things are true.  She is confident, tough and tenacious, and she’s definitely a fighter.  She’s been through the ringer with the media, and never wavered.  The main stream media, liberal Democrats, and even those in her own party, have dug up every bit of dirt on Governor Palin, and have come up with nothing, zip, zero, nada.  There are no skeletons in her closet.  And, her message is clear.  Americans are tired of the reckless spending, and they’re tired of not being listened to by the people that were elected to represent them.  Enough is enough.  

Some reasons why she shouldn’t run:

– High negatives
– Indecision a turn off
– She’s a half-term governor
– Allergy to reporters
– Attacks on family


It’s true that she does have high negatives.  However, if she did become the Republican nominee, the party would get behind her.  As to her “indecision”, she has every right to weigh her options, check out the field, and decide on what’s right for her.  The media, and others, are just angry, because she’s not doing things in the traditional timetables…it’s just one more reason for them to criticize her. 

People have also criticized Palin relentlessly for leaving office mid-way through her term.  However, she felt it was the right thing to do, not only for herself and her family, but for the people of Alaska.  It was costing her, and the taxpayers, a fortune to fight off all of the frivolous, completely baseless lawsuits thrown at her by people only looking to smear her name and destroy her career.  The costs to taxpayers were estimated at just under $2 million.  In addition to the financial hardship it was causing, there was also the matter of the time it was taking away from her duties, as well as those of her staff and state lawyers, to fight the charges.

As to the “allergy to reporters”, I find this quite entertaining, to be frank.  It seems awfully bold of the media to demand anything of her, since they’ve never given one iota of consideration to her and her family.  During Palin’s One Nation tour, the media resorted to paparazzi tactics, because Sarah wouldn’t give them her itinerary.  And why should she?  She’s a private citizen, running for no political office.  She didn’t owe them a thing.  I say good for her, for turning the tables on the entire angry, mean-spirited lot of them.  Now, some may say that she needs the media, as do all presidential candidates, if she wants favorable press.  Ha!  Like that’s ever going to happen.  Their only mission is to destroy her, in every sense of the word.  Again, she owes them nothing. 

Some think the attacks on Sarah and her family have taken a toll.  I don’t know how much it has affected her poll numbers, but even though she hasn’t even announced her candidacy, she’s still polling higher than half of the current candidates.  What happens if and when she does throw her hat in the ring remains to be seen.  I, for one, look forward to that day.

Read Full Post »


A large protest organized by the pro-Obama SEIU
and other Big Labor groups descended upon a highly respected Wisconsin
Catholic school that found itself dealing with the first vandalism of
its campus in over a decade.

This video is both shocking and a dire warning of what appears
likely to come in this country as we head further into the 2012 election
cycle.  Big Union labor groups, fearing further rebuke of their
tactics as was seen by Republican Governor Scott Walker in Wisconsin,
are preparing for all out war against any and all who oppose them. 
Their greatest weapon will be the continued support coming in the form
of a second presidential term for Barack Obama. 

Read more.

Read Full Post »


This is the most ridiculous story I’ve heard in a long time….well, other than 90% of the political stories I read every day. 

This mentality is exactly what’s wrong with our country.  We’re spoiling our children.  Spoiled kids grow up to be spoiled adults, and then they sue their parents.  Good grief!  These two should be fined for taking up the court’s time on this preposterous lawsuit!  Infuriating!

Adult children’s ‘bad mothering’ lawsuit dismissed   (h/t Drudge Report)

Chicago • Raised in a $1.5 million
Barrington Hills, Ill., home by their attorney father, two grown
children have spent the last two years pursuing a unique lawsuit against
their mom for “bad mothering” that alleges damages caused when she
failed to buy toys for one and sent another a birthday card he didn’t
like.


The alleged offenses include failing to take
her daughter to a car show, telling her then 7-year-old son to buckle
his seat belt or she would contact police, “haggling” over the amount to
spend on party dresses and calling her daughter at midnight to ask that
she return home from celebrating homecoming.


Last week, at which point the court record
stood about a foot tall, an Illinois appeals court dismissed the case,
finding that none of the mother’s conduct was “extreme or outrageous.”
To rule in favor of her children, the court found, “could potentially
open the floodgates to subject family childrearing to … excessive
judicial scrutiny and interference.”
Read more.


Read Full Post »

In his weekly memo for the pro-Obama super PAC Priorities USA, former
White House spokesman Bill Burton attacks Republican presidential candidate, Governor Rick Perry, claiming he’s too extreme to be trusted in the White House.

“Rick Perry thinks that Medicare and Social Security are unconstitutional
— he wrote it in his book. When the health care debate was heating up,
he raised the specter of secession. And when asked about the chairman of
the Federal Reserve, he used the word ‘treasonous’.”

Perry’s view that Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional is —
to him — a very real justification for the House Republican plan that
would essentially end Medicare. … Perry’s threat that Texas may secede
from the union was popular among Texas Republicans and conservatives.
51% of Texas Republicans approved of his comments. His statement is
consistent with the Tea Party’s broad hatred of the federal government.


Perry’s very loose and dangerous use of the term “treason” is something
that brought him criticism from many corners — just not Republican
primary voters.


Voters who are disturbed by ending Medicare, what it means when a major
governor threatens secession in the 21st century, and what it means for a
major national figure to throw around terms like “treason” should be
just as worried about this Republican Party as they are about Texas
Governor Rick Perry.  (full story here.)


Let’s look at these criticisms….

1) Medicare and Social Security are unconstitutional.  There’s a simple answer to this.  It Is.  The Constitution gives Congress the authority to “provide for the general welfare” in Article 1, Section B, which some use to justify these programs, but it is for the “general welfare of the United States”, which means the people, as a whole, benefit from a government action.  This does not include programs such as Medicare and Social Security.  While this may be a controversial issue, Perry’s opinion that it’s unconstitutional is not even close to an “extreme” position.   In addition, whether he thinks it’s unconstitutional or not, Perry has no intention of doing away with it.  There are proposals already on the table, from Paul Ryan and others, for making changes to the program, but it has been made clear, many times over, that the changes will not affect anyone currently on or close to being on Medicare.  So this claim is way off base.

2) Perry raised the specter of secession.  He did make some comments about this issue, but never advocated secession.  His comments were as follows:  “I think there’s a lot of different scenarios. Texas is a unique
place. When we came in the union in 1845, one of the issues was that we
would be able to leave if we decided to do that.”  He continued “You know, my hope is that America and Washington in particular pays
attention. We’ve got a great union. There is absolutely no reason to
dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the
American people, you know, who knows what may come out of that? But
Texas is a very unique place and we’re a pretty independent lot to boot.” 

While Perry is incorrect about Texas being able to secede, his comments were really in making the point about the Obama administration not listening to or focusing on the real issues of the American people.  When asked about his comments a year later, in a Newsweek interview, Perry remarked “I said that we live in an incredibly wonderful country, and I see
absolutely no reason for that to ever happen. But I do understand
people’s concern and anger about what this administration is doing from
an economic standpoint–in particular, the long-term debt that’s being
created for not only them but for future generations.”  That doesn’t radical to me….what about you?

3) When asked about the chairman of the Federal Reserve, he used the word ‘treasonous’.  His actual comments were “If this guy prints more money between now and the election, I dunno what
y’all would do to him in Iowa but we would treat him pretty ugly down
in Texas. Printing more money to play politics at this particular time
in American history is almost treacherous – or treasonous in my
opinion.”  I don’t disagree with him on this!  The reason the media is so up in arms about it is because Perry hit a nerve.  Obama’s policies and the actions of the Federal Reserve is causing the devaluation of the dollar, and voters are angry about it.

These claims against Perry’s “extreme” views are just further proof of the fact that Obama is vulnerable, and Democrats are worried.  Perry stepped into this race only a couple of weeks ago, and has already taken a big lead over former frontrunner, Mitt Romney.  While it’s still early, and things can change quickly, Perry has already proven himself to be a viable candidate in this race, and Democrats and the main stream media are going to sling as much mud as possible, and hope something sticks. 

Read Full Post »

Does the Obama administration, the “most transparent administration in history”, having yet another transparency issue??  Say it ain’t so….

August 10, 2011, President Obama hosted his third annual Iftar dinner celebrating Ramadan at the White House.  Neil Munro of the Daily Caller noted that the invite list was much shorter than previous years and had been scrubbed of several “controversial” Muslim leaders who had attended in the past.  Daniel Pipes,  writing at the Investigative Project, identified three Islamist attendees who were not on the official list released by the White House but who are reported to have attended:

  • Mohamed Magid, President of the Islamic Society of North America;
  • Awais Sufi, Chairman of Muslim Advocates; and
  • Haris Tarin, Director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council.

Why did the White House conduct a cover-up of the attendance by these three Muslim leaders of Islamist lobbying and advocacy groups?   Read more.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »