B. Hussein Obama’s real record as a “reformer”
This was supposed to appear on www.donkeyridingcommies.com but there is some sort of server issue this morning so I’m putting this out here and will post it on the other site when I can get into the site again.
Somehow, President Obama continues to prove his utter incompetence regarding the budget and economics while also doubling down on his desire to continue the spending spree he has undertaken over the past few years that drove us to the brink of bankruptcy. Today marked another occasion where President Obama talked of “modest” changes to entitlement programs but refused to offer any tangible figures or specific ideas. Instead, he soothingly explained that only slight changes are needed and there was no need to make any structural changes to Social Security or Medicare and Medicaid. Of course, for good measure, Obama couldn’t resist pointing to his favorite narrative that none of his problems are the result of his own ineptness and instead, wait for it, President George W. Bush should receive all of the blame. In the same news conference, Obama also referred to “job-killing tax cuts” as if allowing people and businesses to keep more of their own money is counterproductive to economic growth. Apparently, allowing people to make their own decisions regarding their money on is less efficient and desirable than placing that power into the hands of his omnipotent central planners. By the way, how did that “stimulus” package work out? Didn’t the average job “created or saved” by the “stimulus” cost taxpayers over $270,000 each? Yes, those central planners are doing a bang-up job. If we’re mentioning jobs, how about all those green jobs? Good thing the administration has virtually shut down new oil and gas exploration. All those windmills and solar panels are just great. By the way, when do we get the next shipment of wind turbines and solar panels from China?
As if his renewed faith in big government wasn’t adequately displayed, B. Hussein Obama went even further as he reminded his fellow progressives why it’s important to at least appear to get deficits under control. “If you are a progressive, you should be concerned about debt and deficit just as if you’re a conservative,” Obama explained, “And the reason is, because, if the only thing we’re talking about over the next year, two years, five years is debt and deficits then it’s very hard to start talking about how do we make investments in community colleges so our kids are trained, how do we actually rebuild $2 trillion worth of crumbling infrastructure. If you care about making investments in, uh, our kids and making investments in our infrastructure and making investments in basic research then you should want our fiscal house in order so every time we propose a new initiative somebody just doesn’t throw up their hands and say oh, more big spending, more big government.” In case you can’t quite read between the lines, the president is telling us that he wants this debt ceiling issue to go away so he can get back to spending.
As if we really needed more evidence, the president really drove home the problem of the ideology driving his motivations in this issue and reinforced the need for serious solutions including a balanced budget amendment (which Obama also specifically said the nation does not need to fix this problem.) There is absolutely no inclination to quit spending taxpayer money. Unless someone stands up for the taxpayers, the next debt ceiling will be reached and Obama and his Democrat colleagues will return to the backrooms to figure out the next group targeted for a good round of demagoguery to extract more tax dollars to fund their failing programs. Of course, they will always lay the blame on the wealthiest one percent of Americans not paying their “fair share” but there simply isn’t enough money to cover their profligate spending even if they taxed everyone earning over $250,000 a year (a far cry from millionaires and billionaires) at a confiscatory 100 percent rate. Therefore, who will be the next group accused of not being patriotic and paying their “fair” share? The president has made it perfectly clear that he will continue to spend us to oblivion. Something has to change and the balanced budget amendment is the best place to start. How do we know? Obama said we didn’t need it.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
In case any low-income kids in Washington DC were starting to take the “hope” message too seriously, the Obama administration is working to lower their expectations. The White House just hosted its annual Easter Egg Roll and, thanks to Obama, this year, low-income families had the lowest chances of participating in the event’s 195-year history. During the election, candidate Obama acknowledged that poor families don’t have equal online access. He said, “Every child should have the chance to get online, and they’ll get that chance when I’m President.” Too bad he didn’t make good on this promise before Easter. Since the event started in 1814, Easter Egg Roll participants had to wait in line to secure their free tickets. No amount of political clout would allow anyone to circumvent standing in line. There were absolutely no exceptions. B. Hussein Obama decided to do away with the line this year and, instead, chose to distribute the tickets online. That’s right. He decided to use the internet, even though he campaigned on the issue of disproportionate online access for low-income families. As if this didn’t restrict certain socioeconomic classes’ access enough, as expected, scalpers got in on the action and pushed tickets even further out of reach for low-income children. The Washington Post reported that tickets were on Craigslist for as much as $50 apiece and The Politico said that “six tickets to the Easter Egg Roll went for $979.99 on eBay.” (With all of the shady campaign financing exposed during the election, it might be advisable to check out exactly who is collecting the money from the online sales.) However, the Easter Egg Roll snub is minor compared to the role Obama’s Department of Education (DOE) played in helping to kill the program that gives low-income Washington DC schoolchildren the chance to attend the same private schools that the President and many other Washington officials choose for their own children.
Since 2004, DC has run the Opportunity Scholarship Program which annually gives 1,714 students from low-income families earning less than $23,000 per year up to $7,500 for private school tuition. Ninety-nine percent of students receiving vouchers are minorities (90% black and 9% Hispanic.) The vouchers are distributed through a lottery system and the city receives an average of four applications for each available voucher.
Without the vouchers, these students’ only option is the dismal DC Public School System where about 69% of 4th graders read below basic skill levels, students consistently rank last nationally in both ACT and SAT scores, and approximately 42% of students end up dropping out. All of this poor performance comes despite the fact that DC spends approximately $15,000 for each student’s education which is 50% more than the national average and double the cost of a single voucher. The problems plaguing these public schools aren’t from a lack of funding. Instead, there is something fundamentally wrong which will require more than just tax dollars to resolve. Until a solution is found, no one can ethically deny any children an adequate education merely because their parents cannot afford to move to a better school district or pay private school tuition.
Teachers’ unions oppose voucher programs which assist parents in finding alternatives to failing public schools. One of their main arguments claims that voucher programs only siphon precious tax dollars away from public schools. However, as discussed, DC’s public schools’ problems run much deeper than mere finances.
Unfortunately for low-income students, teachers’ unions donated $55,794,440 to politicians from 1990 to 2008, 96% of which went to Democrat politicians. This makes it more than a coincidence that Democrats usually line up on the same side of issues as the nation’s largest teachers’ unions. Senate Democrats followed this pattern when voting down the Republican proposal last March which would have guaranteed funding for the voucher program past the 2009 – 2010 school year.
During the election, Obama told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel that even though he was skeptical of vouchers, he wouldn’t allow his preconceived opinions to prevent him from supporting them if he saw proof that they were successful. Democrat Senator, Dick Durbin echoed Obama’s sentiment claiming that he wouldn’t support continued funding of the program without proof of effectiveness. This sounds reasonable, however, on April 3, Obama’s DOE released a Congress-mandated, peer-reviewed report on the voucher program. The evaluation compared test scores of students who received vouchers to those who entered the lottery but didn’t receive a voucher. It found that voucher recipients were reading 3.7 months ahead of non-voucher students and student subgroups showed 1/3 to 2 years of additional learning growth. Yet, even though Obama and Democrats claimed such information would be relevant to their decision, the report wasn’t released by the Administration until after the Senate Democrats had sealed the voucher program’s doomed fate. The Wall Street Journal reported that despite the fact that the DOE review was actually completed last fall, several months before the Senate’s mid-March vote, the report wasn’t released until April. The article also said, “We do know the Administration prohibited anyone involved with the evaluation from discussing it publically.” The DOE deliberately sat on this information until after the Senate finished debating and voting on the program.
If anyone can understand the value of a good education, it would be both B. Hussein and Michelle Obama. The President received a scholarship at age 10 which, combined with the hard work and sacrifice of his grandparents, allowed him to attend one of the most prestigious private schools in Hawaii. He has explained, “There was something about this school that embraced me, gave me support, and encouragement, and allowed me to grow and prosper.” Michelle attended a very elite magnet high school with rigorous, highly competitive admission testing requirements in Chicago. Both he and Michelle received Ivy-League educations which led to degrees from Harvard Law School for them both. Being good parents, upon moving to DC, the Obama’s decided to enroll their own daughters in private schools instead of the troubled public schools. How can Obama allow his administration to play any part in denying low-income DC children access to the same types of institutions which he credits for his success?
Deroy Murdock of Human Events mentioned the famous quote from Albert Shanker, former American Federation of Teachers president which said, “When school children start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of school children.” In his autobiography, The Audacity of Hope, B. Hussein Obama wrote simply, “I owe those unions.” It seems that 1,714 disadvantaged DC school children just got a real world lesson about collective bargaining and political clout. Too bad they didn’t have anyone representing their interests sitting at the table.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
I know, it’s been a long time without hearing from me. Well, I’ve really only been writing weekly columns on www.insidestl.com. In case anyone’s interested, my articles come out each Monday, if you get the time please check out www.insidestl.com, they’re good people for letting me spout off each week. I’m going to put some of my more favorite weekly pieces on the blog in an attempt to catch everyone up with some newer content and will return to posting more regularly. Sorry for being gone for so long and thanks to anyone who has stumbled upon this blog and taken the time to read a little. I’m still working on getting a new site up-and-running and I’ll have it ready in the next two weeks. Thanks again for support…
“I can make a firm pledge, under my plan, no family making under $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains tax, not any of your taxes.” These were Obama’s words from a campaign speech last September. Throughout the election, Obama’s supporters constantly pressed for voters to elect their man if for no other reason than self interest because Obama’s tax plan was guaranteed to put more money into everyone’s pockets. However, last Wednesday, the largest tobacco tax increase in history went into effect raising the federal tax on a pack of cigarettes by almost $0.62 a pack. The tax increase is to fund massive expansion of the SCHIP program which will add over 4 million “children,” many well over the age of 20, to government healthcare. A look at the SCHIP details shows how misleading the debate truly was on this legislation and only reinforces the need for harsher scrutiny before Obama implements his cap-and-trade program which would represent a new significant tax on all American families, regardless of income levels. It’s already been shown that Obama’s campaign promise didn’t apply to anyone who smokes, which is a habit that very disproportionately affects those in lower income levels. The cap-and-trade program, as admitted by Obama himself, will represent new sweeping taxes on every item purchased by all Americans along with any energy they use either in their homes or at the gas pumps for their cars. Even if you don’t smoke, you may want to take a quick look at the recent tax increase because the current budget in front of Congress will include a much higher tax increase targeted at any American family that consumes any form of energy. These definitely don’t align with Obama’s constant promises of not raising “any of your taxes.”
The main problem with the increased tobacco tax in order to fund the SCHIP expansion is the idea that a tax which is meant to discourage people from smoking cannot reasonably be counted on for consistent revenues to fund entitlement programs. What if the tobacco taxes meet their stated goals of lowering the number of smokers? What then becomes the default revenue source for the expanded government healthcare coverage? Punitive tobacco taxes have become socially acceptable sources for government revenue because they are painted as accomplishing two impressive stated goals. The first is to provide incentives for more people to quit smoking. Second, the money raised is going to the noble cause of providing insurance for children not currently covered by government programs nor private policies. Both of these goals have noble intentions. However, the success of the SCHIP funding depends on the failure of the tobacco taxes to accomplish their objectives. Perhaps, even worse is that smoking is a habit which very disproportionately effects those earning lower incomes. An Associated Press article stated that a Gallup survey of 75,000 people last year found that 34% of respondents earning $6,000 to $12,000 were smokers and the rate consistently declined as incomes rose. At the $90,000 a year income level, only about 13% of respondents were smokers. Therefore, the brunt of these tax increases will be borne by those making far less than the $250,000 the level of income which Obama promised last September wouldn’t see tax increases of any kind. Apparently, he was speaking exclusively to nonsmokers.
This brings about the very important question about future funding for the expanded SCHIP program. If the tobacco tax accomplishes its goal of drastically reducing smoking, who will end up paying for expansion of entitlements? The program is based on conflicting goals. Are smokers really expected to quit smoking? Perhaps, they are just expected to continue smoking and heed Joe Biden’s advice during the election that it’s patriotic to pay higher taxes. The answer is obvious that future funding for the SCHIP program will become embedded into every taxpayer’s April 15th bill just as all other government entitlement programs. For now, the idea that the social outcast smokers will bear all of the increased costs seems to be enough to keep most voter concerns limited. Once tobacco revenues are insufficient, what are the next products or groups of citizens who will be targeted with higher taxes to pick up the slack brought on by smokers uncommitted to the cause of funding children’s insurance?
A similar tax proposal that will disproportionately affect those earning below the magic $250,000 level is also getting closer and closer to being reality as Congress reviews Obama’s $3.6 trillion budget. One of Obama’s main revenue streams in his budget comes from the establishment of a market-based cap-and-trade program which essentially taxes carbon emissions. Very few people seemed interested that Obama once sat on the board of the Chicago-based firm which would provide the national trading platform which would trade the lucrative tax credits. Needless to say, this firm stands to redefine obscene profits from running the government-mandated trading markets for carbon credits. Americans should be very concerned about the ramifications of this policy. As noted in a previous article, an interview which was conveniently covered-up by The San Francisco Chronicle before the election quoted Obama explaining that under his cap-and-trade plan, “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” Analysts of the president’s proposal claim that the average families’ energy bills could easily rise by more than $1,000 a year. Unfortunately, these increases don’t adhere to the cut-off for families below the top 5% of wage earners. These rate increases would affect everyone who uses any energy to run their home or drive their car. This means everyone will see their costs rise. On top of the increased energy bills, the cap-and-trade program would raise the prices of anything produced and sold in US markets because companies would have to pass along the cost for increased carbon taxes to consumers through higher prices.
So it seems that Obama’s campaign promise about no tax increases was speaking to a much smaller audience than originally reported. No one making under $250,000 a year will see any of their taxes increase as long as they don’t smoke, use energy, or purchase anything.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
In Obama’s press conference today, he took a shot at a true national treasure which was entirely uncalled for, unprovoked, and in very bad taste. In response to a question about whether Obama has consulted with any living presidents, he worked this line into his answer, “In terms of speaking to former presidents, I’ve spoken to all of them that are living. Obviously, President Clinton – I didn’t want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about, you know, doing any seances.”
Obama’s promises to foster a nonpartisan environment is a farce. His true vision of bipartisanship, apparently, includes insulting the widow of one of the most popular presidents in American history who has herself had recent health problems. Well, Mr. Obama, you had better pray that we can find another Ronald Reagan in four years because that is the level of leadership we will need to undo the damage you will do to America both at home and abroad.
I honestly tried to give Obama a chance but picking on Nancy Reagan is completely out-of-bounds. Especially since the claims that she was some wacko spiritualist are completely wrong and blown out of proportion. Funny how Democrats label an aging widow as a nutcase because she saw a fortune teller once, yet they throw a fit when it is mentioned that Bill Clinton is an alleged-rapist despite the constant, valid charges that he was. Speaking of Democrats, seances, and Clintons, it was Hillary Clinton who claimed to channel Eleanor Roosevelt during times of stress. To Democrats, the idea of being bipartisan means that they will reach across the aisle to Republicans that agree with them. Republican dissent is labeled as partisan, Democrat dissent is considered proof of Republicans’ partisanship.
Below is a link to the full video of his interview today. Notice how he kept placing the blame for any further economic messes by pointing out that he isn’t president yet and he can’t make policies yet. We are in for a long four years, at least blogs like this will have plenty of material, as long as Obama and his rabid Democrat lapdogs don’t decide to start classifying dissenting content as hate speech.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )
In case any of you are wondering about the fate of the Anti-Obamassiah Refuge, I just want to assure everyone that we will still be here pursuing the same purpose and mission as when we were established.
Already, Obama is choosing some of the most partisan, liberal members for his cabinet and Harry Reid is out discussing the strategy to throw Joe Lieberman out of the Democrat caucus to punish him for betraying Obama. This doesn’t seem to be shaping up to be the bipartisan utopia Obama and Biden promised in the wake of their election victory. Instead, it looks like we as a nation are about to be led further to the left than ever before. I pray that God keeps a watch over the nation and keeps us from having to suffer for the actions of leadership that is more focused on punishing their detractors than keeping the nation safe and prosperous.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
This is Democrat Senator Jerrold Nadler speaking to Orthodox Jews about Obama. One part of this video made national news already when Nadler explained that Obama couldn’t leave Wright’s church because he wasn’t politically courageous enough. However, I find this part of the Senator’s speech about Obama the most telling. Just so Senator Nadler can be straight, yes there have been phone banks in Gaza where Palestinians have been cold-calling Americans to drum up support for Obama. Yes, Hamas did endorse Obama in 2006, and quickly retracted their endorsement as soon as they realized the negative impact it could have on their candidate of choice. Obama has also had to return $30,000 in illegal campaign contributions from Gaza. Let’s not forget that Jesse Jackson who has referred to Obama as, “part of the family,” told the World Policy Forum in France that Obama will bring an end to, “decades of putting Israel’s interests first.” Therefore, Senator Nadler, your rambling never did answer the question. If Obama is such a strong ally of Israel, why do all of Israel’s enemies endorse him for president? Here’s Senator Nadler’s sensless, ill-informed ramblings:Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
This was published in the July 7, 2008 edition of Richmond TImes-Dispatch. It is an account of someone with experience.
Beware Charismatic Men Who Preach ‘Change’
Each year I get to celebrate Independence Day twice. On June 30 I celebrate my independence day and on July 4 I celebrate America’s. This year is special, because it marks the 40th anniversary of my independence.
On June 30, 1968, I escaped Communist Cuba and a few months later I was in the United States to stay. That I happened to arrive in Richmond on Thanksgiving Day is just part of the story, but I digress.
I’ve thought a lot about the anniversary this year. The election-year rhetoric has made me think a lot about Cuba and what transpired there. In the late 1950s, most Cubans thought Cuba needed a change, and they were right. So when a young leader came along, every Cuban was at least receptive.
When the young leader spoke eloquently and passionately and denounced the old system, the press fell in love with him. They never questioned who his friends were or what he really believed in. When he said he would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, everyone followed. When he said he would bring justice and equality to all, everyone said “Praise the Lord.” And when the young leader said, “I will be for change and I’ll bring you change,” everyone yelled, “Viva Fidel!”
But nobody asked about the change, so by the time the executioner’s guns went silent the people’s guns had been taken away. By the time everyone was equal, they were equally poor, hungry, and oppressed. By the time everyone received their free education it was worth nothing. By the time the press noticed, it was too late, because they were now working for him. By the time the change was finally implemented Cuba had been knocked down a couple of notches to Third-World status. By the time the change was over more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes. You can call those who made it ashore anywhere else in the world the most fortunate Cubans. And now I’m back to the beginning of my story.
Luckily, we would never fall in America for a young leader who promised change without asking, what change? How will you carry it out? What will it cost America?
Manuel Alvarez Jr. Sandy Hook.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
The San Francisco Chronicle has apparently suppressed audio of a January, 2008 interview with Obama where he describes his cap and trade system and plainly states that his system would bankrupt coal plants. This is the same Obama who wants to spend $15 billion a year for 10 years to develop alternative fuels while refusing to drill in the most oil-rich parts of the nation or even consider building nuclear power plants. What’s his excuse for drilling? That America uses 25% of the world’s oil production and we only have 3% of the world’s oil reserves. He also claims that since it would take some time before we would get the first oil from the increased drilling that it is not an answer to high gas prices at the pumps. He fails to realize that just the announcement of starting to drill would have an immediate negative effect on the oil prices in the futures market which would, in fact, offer immediate relief even before the first drop of new oil hits the markets. This interview is only further proof that Obama’s energy policy is not concerned with actually bringing down energy prices for the average Americans. He is looking to tax American companies, which results in taxing the American people, for the nation’s prosperity. Obama’s policies will only drastically compound the high energy prices and, with his tax increases, further cripple the American economy.
Here’s the excerpt from the interview where Obama says he will bankrupt the coal industry, which will result in massive job losses for all of the Americans employed by coal plants:
“I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.
So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”
For the full-text of his comments, click the link below:
http://media.newsbusters.org/stories/hidden-audio-obama-tells-sf-chronicle-he-will-bankrupt-coal-industry.html?q=blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/11/02/hidden-audio-obama-tells-sf-chronicle-he-will-bankrupt-coal-industryRead Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Obama is out saying that he, “will change the world” if elected. This is exactly what should be scaring every voter. Remember, Soviet Russia also changed the world.
The link below has more on this:
Also, while we’re on the Soviet Russia subject. Obama is also claiming that he will establish a “Civilian National Security Force.” If his campaign tactics of using common Americans in positions with the government or in the media to personally smear other common Americans, the last thing we want is an Obama-created “Civilian National Security Force.” It would be safe to say the KGB also used a “Civilian National Security Force” to encourage citizens to rat out there neighbors who were voicing discontent with the state. This campaign has shown that Obama has no tolerance for any disagreement with his “message.”
Watch Obama explain his plan here:
This is the latest article about the ongoing investigations about who accessed Joe Wurzelbacher’s (a.k.a. Joe the Plumber) government records following the final Presidential Debate where Wurzelbacher was made the center-of-attention. Wurzelbacher is probably most responsible for McCain’s recent momentum by coaxing out Obama’s “spread the wealth around” answer to a question about tax policy. Immediately after the final debate, the Obama campaign and the press went on the attack on Wurzelbacher, a private citizen who was in his own driveway when Obama approached him and made himself available to questions. While Biden and Obama were mocking Wurzelbacher, the press was working diligently to assassinate Wurzelbacher’s character by reporting that he did not have a current plumber’s license, he owed back taxes, even calling into question if he was registered to vote. This should make every voter irate with Obama and his attempts to personally smear a common citizen whose only crime was taking the time to ask Obama a legitimate question.
Since Wurzelbacher’s introduction to the nation by both campaigns, it has come to light that Ohio state and municipal government officials illegally accessed Wurzelbacher’s records. It is very suspicious that the officials ultimately responsible for ordering the record checks seem to all be Obama supporters. Now voters are being told that there is no connection between the illegal checks and the Obama campaign? That’s hard to believe since both the Obama-infatuated press and the Obama campaign simultaniously went on the attack with the same information discovered from the checks. Sadly, nothing will probably be done because the elected officials in charge of investigating these manners are Democrat and Obama supporters.
The link below is the latest update to the events that are unfolding. Remember, if Obama will advocate these actions during the campaign, imagine what he would do if he was the top executive in charge of the country. At no time has Obama condemned the illegal searches and at no time has Obama apologized to the common man he has trashed on several national media outlets. These are not actions of a “new politician” who truly cares about average Americans as Obama claims. In fact, this story just adds more illustration to Obama’s famous comments he gave in San Francisco where he said, “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them… And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” I guess Wurzelbacher is just trying to bitterly cling to his dream of buying a business and not having Obama tax it out of existence.
Finally, here’s the link I promised before getting carried away:
« Previous Entries