Jon Stewart Shreds Obama On Hypocrisy Over Drones
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/jon-stewart-obama-drone-policy-memo-daily-show-2013-2#ixzz2KRcqp7ue
Maxine Waters: ‘Obama Has Put In Place’ Secret Database With ‘Everything On Everyone’
“The President has put in place an organization with the kind of database that no one has ever seen before in life,” Representative Maxine Waters told Roland Martin on Monday. “That’s going to be very, very powerful,” Waters said. “That database will have information about everything on every individual on ways that it’s never been done before and whoever runs for President on the Democratic ticket has to deal with that. They’re going to have to go down with that database and the concerns of those people because they can’t get around it. And he’s [President Obama] been very smart. I mean it’s very powerful what he’s leaving in place.” – Maxine Waters
http://gopthedailydose.com/2013/02/08/maxine-waters-obama-has-put-in-place-secret-database-with-everything-on-everyone/
PK'S NOTE: I would imagine the only qualification she was considered for was her large donations to his campaign.
Obama Makes An Inspired Choice For The Next Interior Secretary
President Barack Obama nominated Sally Jewell, the CEO of Recreational Equipment Inc., to be his next Interior Secretary. Jewell's selection is an unconventional one because the post is typically "reserved for career politicians from the West."Jewell, on the other hand, has little experience in public policy. Jewell began her professional career as an engineer for Mobil Oil Corporation in Oklahoma and Colorado before moving onto the commercial banking industry for 19 years.
She started as CEO at REI in 2005, where she quickly helped the company build on recent growth. Here's what she told Seattle Business Magazine of her time at the company in a 2012 interview:
"When I began as COO,
our growth was stagnating. We invested in the internet, but we
underinvested in our retail stores, the core of the business. We were
good at colder climates but not so good at southern climates. We
developed great, innovative products, but I felt we had an enormous
opportunity to analyze our member data better to understand what our
customers wanted. We’ve since relocated a lot of our stores to more
convenient places."
The Interior Department controls and maintains millions of acres in national parks and forests.
http://www.businessinsider.com/sally-jewell-obama-interior-secretary-choice-2013-2#ixzz2KRawiOVo
PK'S NOTE: .... and then there's this:
Obama’s new Interior Secretary nominee received Obamacare waiver for her company
President Barack Obama’s newly-named nominee to run the Department of the Interior, REI CEO Sally Jewell, sought and received a waiver from Obamacare requirements for her outdoor
clothing and equipment company in 2011.The Washington Examiner’s Charlie Spiering dug up the revelation Thursday, noting that Obama welcomed Jewell to the White House
in 2009 to jointly argue for the passage of Obamacare.Obama held REI up as a model company.
“And then REI, which has to be fit since they’re a fitness company
,” Obama joked
during the White House meeting on May 12, 2009, “has been doing work
that allows them to provide health care coverage, health insurance, not
only to their full-time employees but also their part-time
employees. Every single employee is covered, but part of the reason
they’re able to do it is because they put a big emphasis on prevention
and wellness.”Two years later, Jewell secured an exemption from the law for REI.REI received an Obamacare waiver around the same time that nearly 20 percent of the businesses in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Northern California district received waivers.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/07/obamas-new-interior-secretary-nominee-received-obamacare-waiver-for-her-company/#ixzz2KRtroDe7
Obama’s Three Cover-Ups
Barack Obama won re-election by perpetrating three frauds.1.) He sold the American people on the idea that we were in the midst of a slow recovery. Given time, he assured us, we would grow our way out of the recession and all would be fine. Nonsense. We now learn — three months after the balloting — that we were entering a recession even as the president spoke. The fourth quarter of 2012 showed a negative growth rate of 0.1 percent, the first contraction in three years. Far from standing on the verge of prosperity, we were tumbling into a new recession.
The question for us now is whether the contraction will continue and grow into a full-fledged recession (the economic definition of a recession is two consecutive quarters of contraction). My bet is that in July — when the second-quarter data is in — it will be evident that we are in a recession and have been since we reelected the president based on his erroneous assertion that we were in recovery.
The fourth quarter of 2012 data does not reflect the impact of the tax increases on the wealthy upon which Obama insisted, or the onset of higher insurance premiums due to ObamaCare, or the re-imposition of the 6.3 percent payroll tax (temporarily reduced to 4.3 percent two years ago).
These looming tax increases, indeed, may have artificially increased economic growth in the last quarter. When income and capital gains rates go up, there is normally an augmented stream of revenue in the quarter before the increases take effect, as people scramble to take profits and capital gains before the higher tax rates come into play. In 1986, during the quarters before Ronald Reagan raised the capital gains tax from 20 percent to 28 percent, revenues from the gains tax almost doubled to $328 billion as investors struggled to get in under the older, lower tax rate.
Now, with the new capital gains rate, income tax bracket and payroll taxes in effect, the impact on the economy should be deadening. Together, they will likely amount to as much as $300 billion — 2 percent of gross domestic product — enough by itself to cause recession.
Not since Woodrow Wilson was narrowly reelected in 1916 on the slogan “he kept us out of war” only to declare war six months after Election Day have we been as clearly misled on the key issue of a presidential election.
2.) The administration’s efforts to characterize the Benghazi attack as the effect of a peaceful demonstration over a movie that got out of hand were not debunked until weeks after the attack. In the interim, Obama sold us on the notion that he had killed al Qaeda when he slew Osama bin Laden. The attack, on the anniversary of 9/11, was obviously a pre-meditated terrorist assault that killed our ambassador.
If Tony Blair was discredited for “sexing up” a memo about the ability of Saddam Hussein to launch a WMD attack on the United Kingdom, Obama should be held accountable for his overt lie of linking the film to the attack so as imply a cause/effect relationship.
(And as we're learning from testimony this week, how much he lied and was egregiously disengaged)
3.) The third cover-up is only gradually becoming apparent — the impact of ObamaCare. Now, after the election is over, the IRS informs us that the minimum health insurance premium for a policy that will meet federal specifications is $20,000 for a family of five. Using Obama’s standard definition of a “hardship” as a premium that exceeds 9 percent of a person’s income, that would mean that health insurance that meets Obama’s requirements would be a hardship for any family of five making up to $220,000 a year. The gold-plating of requirements for insurance included in the Affordable Care Act is going to drive health insurance out of the reach of tens of millions of people and will lead to a vast decrease — not an increase — in coverage.
But Obama craftily did not issue these regulations or the IRS specifications until after the election was over. The third cover-up.
This election was won by deception and deceit covered up by a compliant media.
http://www.dickmorris.com/obamas-three-cover-ups/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
The president is lying about Benghazi
We
all remember when Bill Clinton argued that it all depends on what the
meaning of 'is' is. We were all disgusted that the office of the
President had become so low that we were deciphering legalistic terms
and arguing about sex acts. Oh for the good ole days.
President
Obama's disregard for the truth has made Bill Clinton seem like a
novice. His statements are always riddled with inconsistency. Many
could easily have been dissected with a curious media, but that hasn't
happen. Very few people can lie as well.
Leon
Panetta testified yesterday before congress that the President was only
briefed once at a previously scheduled meeting around 5:00 pm on the
day of the Benghazi attack. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and his staff
were already under attack at that time.Were they in danger, and who
defines danger?
Did the President not care about their safety specifically or did he not expect things to escalate further. No one knows.
The President stated in a press conference on November 14, 2012 as reported in the Canada Free Press:
"If people don't think that we did everything we can to make sure that we saved the lives of folks who I sent there, and who were carrying out missions on behalf of the United States, then you don't know how our Defense Department thinks or our State Department thinks or our CIA thinks," Obama said. "Their number one priority is obviously to protect American lives."
"As Henry raised his hand to follow up, Obama interrupted him and continued with his answer.
"I can can tell you that immediately upon finding out that our folks were in danger, that my orders to my national security team were do whatever we need to do to make sure they're safe. And that's the same order I would give any time that I see Americans are in danger -- whether they're civilian or military -- because that's our number one priority."
This
President was negligent is many ways by failing to engage directly in
these events. We all hope that if this were us or one of our family
members we could count on the support of our President. Maybe he was
not interested and just didn't have time for that "3:00 AM phone call."
He was in the middle of a difficult re-election campaign.
With
something that ended so badly the President was going to need a
statement that would insulate him from liability. His minions would
accept it, his detractors would not and the compliant media would
protect him.
When the President said "immediately" that must have meant when I woke up the next morning. Here we go again.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/02/the_president_is_lying_about_benghazi.html#ixzz2KS3k2LS7
Surprise: Liberal media ignore Carson’s amazing speech
With all of the buzz surrounding Dr. Benjamin Carson’s noteworthy National Prayer Breakfast keynote speech, you’d think it’d be hard for the mainstream media to ignore. But somehow they never cease to amaze…
At the Huffington Post, Carson garnered just one mention
— lumped in with the names of other notable guests. Meanwhile, they
published President Obama’s remarks in their entirety.
Shocking, I
know.
http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2013/02/08/surprise-liberal-media-ignore-carsons-amazing-speech/#more-522911
PK'S NOTE: Gosh, seems like just a few months ago Chicago's teachers were making outrageous demands....
Chicago Police Want 12 Percent Pay Raise
Contract demands by Chicago police officers include much higher pay and something you might not have imagined.Chicago police are reportedly proposing in negotiations that their pay increase by 12 percent over two years.
The union also wants officers to get extra money because they are required to live in the city.
According to the Chicago Sun-Times, the union is proposing a residency stipend of $3,000 per officer.
Police also want to pay less for their health insurance and get more money for their uniform allowance.
The Sun-Times reports, officers also want to reach the top of the pay scale after 20 years, rather than the current 25 years.
To top pay for a patrol officer is $86,000 a year.
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/02/07/chicago-police-want-12-percent-pay-raise/
California Gives Up On Math
California will no longer require eighth-graders to take algebra — a move that is line with the Common Core standards being adopted by most states, but that may leave students unprepared for college.
Last month, California formally shifted to the Common Core mathematics standards, which recommend that students delay taking algebra if they aren’t ready for it. Previously, algebra class was a requirement for all eighth-graders in the state.
The Common Core State Standards Initiative, which is sponsored by the National Governor’s Association, is an effort to unify diverse state education curricula. Forty-five other states and the District of Columbia have signed on so far.
But some education experts worry that the change will further damage struggling students’ college chances, since early proficiency in Algebra I is an excellent predictor of college graduation, according to the Mercury News.
Black and Latino students in California are significantly more likely to fail eighth-grade algebra, and 80 percent of those who fail it once will fail it again when they take it in high school.
A study published by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area claims that some minority students who score well enough to place into advanced math classes are often mistakenly held back.
“School districts have been disproportionately requiring minority students to repeat Algebra I even after they scored proficient or advanced on the Algebra I California standardized tests,” said Kimberly Thomas Rapp, executive director of the committee, in an interview with The Daily Caller News Foundation.
The new standard is a step back for California, and may leave students, particularly minority and low-income students, unprepared for college, said Rapp
Back in ‘97 when the state went to a standard that expected students to take Algebra 1 in the eighth grade, that was really about looking forward to college competitiveness and preparing our public school students to be ready to compete to access college systems after high school,” she said. “The reality is what we’re now doing is lowering the standards.”
Instead, Rapp proposed that California schools improve the mathematics curriculum for students in the fifth, sixth and seventh grades, so that they are better prepared for Algebra I in eighth grade.
The Council of Chief State School Officers, which set the Common Core standards, did not respond to a request for comment.
http://gopthedailydose.com/2013/02/08/california-gives-up-on-math-state-will-no-longer-require-eighth-graders-to-take-algebra/
Some offshore accounts are more equal than others
Mitt Romney was a robber baron capitalist pig for having one. But Obama sees no problem with his nominee for Treasury Secretary, Jack Lew, sheltering his money in the Cayman Islands.CNN:
Multiple reports say an investment listed on 2009 financial disclosure paperwork when Lew was nominated to serve as a deputy secretary in the State Department is a fund based in the Cayman Islands.
The fund is CVCI Growth Partnership, described on the form as an employee investment fund. Prior to his State Department stint, Lew was employed at Citigroup as the chief operating officer of a business unit.
Sen. Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa and member of the Senate Finance Committee, blasted Lew over the investment.
"President Obama has been almost obsessively critical of offshore investments. He called Ugland House 'either the biggest building or the biggest tax scam on record,'" Grassley wrote in a statement late Friday.
Ugland House is a building in the Cayman Islands which is the legal address for thousands of investment funds and businesses; the islands themselves are known as a tax haven for U.S. investors and companies. Obama mentioned Ugland House in the 2009 address Grassley cited, saying it "had over 12,000 business claim this building as their headquarters."
"For years, we've talked about shutting down overseas tax havens that let companies set up operations to avoid paying taxes in America," Obama said. He said his budget proposal would crack down on businesses which incorporate in places such as Ugland House.
Grassley said of the contrast between Obama's statements and Lew's past investment, "The irony is thick.
"On the White House claim that Mr. Lew previously disclosed his Ugland House investment, it was disclosed only if you knew where to look and then were able to put the pieces together. To say this information was fully disclosed to the public is misleading, at best," he charged.The White House says that Lew paid all his taxes on all of his income. But that's not the issue. The issue is the idea that it is evil to have an offshore account - at least it was for Mitt Romney. It raises dark specters of hidden income and avoidance of taxes.
In the case of Jack Lew, President Obama apparently believes that some offshore accounts are more equal than others.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/02/some_offshore_accounts_are_more_equal_than_others.html#ixzz2KRx9SIoj
Keith Ellison Redefines 'American'
Recently, as guest host on "Your World with Neil Cavuto, " Stuart Varney interviewed Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison on
the appropriateness of "soak the rich" tax policies. Particularly,
Varney was particularly interested in whether or not the congressman
felt that it was fair for professional golfer Phil Mickelson to keep only 37% of what he earns, the remaining 63% going toward State of California and federal income taxes.
In response to Varney's query, Ellison responded:
There are at least a few reasons why Ellison's response here is problematic.
For starters, and Rush Limbaugh has touched on this, Ellison employs the term "fairness" in the way that so many liberals are wont to; that is, he employs it so as to mean the very opposite of its actual definition. To fairly treat people is to treat them evenhandedly. Under Ellison's comprehension of the concept, the law would have to be inconsistently applied because the government would be required to regard supposedly equal individuals or entire classes of citizens in a different manner than it regards others. What Ellison favors is not fairness in taxation, but arbitrariness.
The most egregious portion of Ellison's response reveals itself when he insultingly assumes that people will not recognize what is really meant by the government "asking" for a little bit more money (this happens to be something of which Barack Obama is also guilty). Oh! Is that all the government is doing around April 15th of every year? Asking? Okay. Well, then, what happens if Mickelson refuses? What if he says "no" to the government's request for income taxes? The answer should be obvious.
Ellison, here, conflates the way in which private and public revenue is acquired. Perhaps economist Murray Rothbard could assuage Ellison's confusion by shedding some light on the subject:
Next, also like the president, Ellison evokes the term "invest"
to describe what takes place when governments spend tax dollars. Well,
this implies that Mickelson (and folks like him) can expect some sort of
reasonable return on his money (which may or may not be the case). But
this is only incidental. The principal point is that Varney was not
discussing how governments invest tax dollars, he was discussing how
they divest them from their citizens. In an apparent appeal to emotion,
Ellison attempted to redirect the conversation away from how the
government treats a citizen like Mickelson and toward how it provides
the basics to the less fortunate, funds to medical researchers, and
tuition to college students, etc. But this response of Ellison's was
nothing more than a string of irrelevancies. Varney's was a question of
revenue collection, not allocation.
In order to add some zest to his finale, Ellison concludes that if Mickelson (or any American?) does not agree with him, then he simply has no love for his country. So with this understanding, in order to properly revere America, one must (1) agree to change the meaning of words for transient and political reasons; (2) maintain that to ask another person for a thing is as moral or as polite as simply taking it from him; and (3) focus only on the goals toward which tax revenues are allocated, and not on the system of wealth discrimination by which they are collected (while, by the way, refraining from dwelling on whether or not there exist better or more efficient means by which these goals might be attained). All of this, according to Ellison, ought to be a source of great pride; something synonymous with "American."
And perhaps, sadly, this is what "American" has come to mean. The concept is not as clearly or as objectively definable as is, say, "fairness," and recent history has shown a narrowing of the gulf separating the nature of American government from that of the modern European social democracies.
But there nonetheless exist those, ever faithful to this nation's founding, who believe that to be a patriotic American entails something unique: esteem toward the ideal of individualism, respect for the institution of private property and limited, constitutional government. If it is true that Ellison is guilty of attempting to co-opt this concept, as he (and liberals at large) have so successfully accomplished with "fairness" -- alter and tailor its meaning to suit his worldview -- it seems appropriate to inquire of him what exactly it is about the traditional comprehension of "American" that he finds so unsatisfactory.
Is it the word or the thing that frightens him?
In response to Varney's query, Ellison responded:
I think it's fair to ask Phil Mickelson for a little bit more money to make sure that we can continue to invest
in infrastructure in this country... to make sure that people who have
the basics.... As a patriotic American, I'm sure Phil Mickelson would
agree.
For starters, and Rush Limbaugh has touched on this, Ellison employs the term "fairness" in the way that so many liberals are wont to; that is, he employs it so as to mean the very opposite of its actual definition. To fairly treat people is to treat them evenhandedly. Under Ellison's comprehension of the concept, the law would have to be inconsistently applied because the government would be required to regard supposedly equal individuals or entire classes of citizens in a different manner than it regards others. What Ellison favors is not fairness in taxation, but arbitrariness.
The most egregious portion of Ellison's response reveals itself when he insultingly assumes that people will not recognize what is really meant by the government "asking" for a little bit more money (this happens to be something of which Barack Obama is also guilty). Oh! Is that all the government is doing around April 15th of every year? Asking? Okay. Well, then, what happens if Mickelson refuses? What if he says "no" to the government's request for income taxes? The answer should be obvious.
Ellison, here, conflates the way in which private and public revenue is acquired. Perhaps economist Murray Rothbard could assuage Ellison's confusion by shedding some light on the subject:
While
other individuals or institutions obtain their income by production of
goods and services and by the peaceful and voluntary sale of these goods
and services to others, the State obtains its revenue by the use of
compulsion; that is, by the use and the threat of the jailhouse and the
bayonet. (Anatomy of the State pp. 11-12)
In order to add some zest to his finale, Ellison concludes that if Mickelson (or any American?) does not agree with him, then he simply has no love for his country. So with this understanding, in order to properly revere America, one must (1) agree to change the meaning of words for transient and political reasons; (2) maintain that to ask another person for a thing is as moral or as polite as simply taking it from him; and (3) focus only on the goals toward which tax revenues are allocated, and not on the system of wealth discrimination by which they are collected (while, by the way, refraining from dwelling on whether or not there exist better or more efficient means by which these goals might be attained). All of this, according to Ellison, ought to be a source of great pride; something synonymous with "American."
And perhaps, sadly, this is what "American" has come to mean. The concept is not as clearly or as objectively definable as is, say, "fairness," and recent history has shown a narrowing of the gulf separating the nature of American government from that of the modern European social democracies.
But there nonetheless exist those, ever faithful to this nation's founding, who believe that to be a patriotic American entails something unique: esteem toward the ideal of individualism, respect for the institution of private property and limited, constitutional government. If it is true that Ellison is guilty of attempting to co-opt this concept, as he (and liberals at large) have so successfully accomplished with "fairness" -- alter and tailor its meaning to suit his worldview -- it seems appropriate to inquire of him what exactly it is about the traditional comprehension of "American" that he finds so unsatisfactory.
Is it the word or the thing that frightens him?
No comments:
Post a Comment