Tag Archive | "Obama"

Tags: , ,

Color Me Happy

Posted on 10 April 2011 by Editor

Originally posted 2010-01-21 18:17:51. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Smiley
by Nancy Morgan
RightBias.com
January 20, 2010

————————————————————————-

I’m smiling. A grin that just won’t quit is plastered on my face because of the stunning upset last night when a, gasp, Republican won the bluest of all Senate seats, thus throwing sand in the gears of the Obama machine’s march towards socialism.

Republican Scott Brown whipping the pants off Coakley last night is cause for rejoice. As is the delicious schadenfreude of seeing the left in disarray, pointing fingers and laying blame for the historic repudiation of leftists, Obama and everything they have been trying to force down our throats for the last year. It appears America may survive Obama after all. And what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.

As Rush Limbaugh noted, many Democrats are headed for the tall grass. If a vote was held today on Obama’s health care bill, at least 5 formerly sure votes wouldn’t materialize. Last night’s wake-up call has the ‘less elite’ Democrats being brought face to face with the stark reality that they are accountable to ‘we the people’ instead of the Obama machine. And a vote for Obama could very well mean they will be enjoying their lucrative pensions much sooner than they thought.

Scott Brown’s historic upset doesn’t mean America is home free. I predict the Democrat leadership will continue ignoring the will of the American people and probably enact an unconstitutional health care bill. And I expect they will also continue taxing us to death as they redistribute our wealth to their union buddies and politically connected rent seekers. The good news is, the American people have shown that they will not stand for it.
Advertisement

Nancy, Harry and other political ‘elites’ have a terminal case of inside the beltway syndrome- also known as cognitive dissonance. They have bought into their own version of reality. A reality that doesn’t allow for the possibility that their own narrow world view isn’t the universally accepted view they believe it is. And any version that doesn’t comport with theirs is, well, invalid. And one election in Massachusetts isn’t going to change their minds.

Case in point: Noticeably absent from all talking points today, is any serious discussion by leftists of the fact that this election was a referendum on Obama. A stunning rebuke. A warning bell that Americans don’t want what he is selling.

Leftists, instead of learning from their mistakes, will continue doing what they do so well. They will ignore unpleasant realities in hopes they will go away. If that doesn’t work, they will re-define them, spin them, repackage them and trot out a new improved version of the same old same old. But their tactics are wearing thin, as is Obama’s charisma and ability to influence. As is the old media’s ability to control the discussion.

I know what Obama and crew still don’t know. That the American people have finally seen the light and they don’t like it one bit. And they are not going to sit back and let Obama turn this country into another failed socialist state. The people have spoken, but the Democrats still have waxy yellow build-up clogging their ears. Or something…

The left will continue their path towards assisted suicide due to their complete inability to allow for the possibility that the American people know better than than political elites what is best for America. And when Democrats are thoroughly repudiated again in the next election cycle, they’ll continue to blame Bush or race or sexism. They will not change. And they will lose again.

I must admit to a certain satisfaction in the fact that one of my truisms is coming true. I’ve always said ‘Give the left enough rope and they’ll end up hanging themselves.’ Nice to know some things never change.

————————————————————————-

Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for RightBias.com
She lives in South Carolina

Article has been published with the authors permission

————————————————————————-

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Comments (2)

Tags: , , ,

Liberal Syntax: A Noun, a Verb, and a Bush Smear

Posted on 10 April 2011 by Editor

Originally posted 2010-01-14 16:25:24. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Number of terrorist incidents for 2009 (Januar...
Image via Wikipedia

by Scott Spiegel
ScottSpiegel.com
January 9. 2009

When conservatives correctly pointed out that one disastrous terrorist attack and another catastrophic but thwarted attack both happened during President Obama’s first term in office, because his agencies overlooked the perpetrators’ jihadist intentions or failed to act on relevant intelligence, liberals responded with an argument that was discredited nearly a decade ago: “But 9/11 happened on George Bush’s watch!”

Obama supporters mocked Rudy Giuliani’s recent claim to George Stephanopolous “We had no domestic attacks under Bush,” stubbornly avoiding Giuliani’s obvious implication that he was speaking post-9/11.  Until last week, Democrats loved to excoriate Giuliani for making endless references to the terrorist attack that occurred while he was mayor of New York; now they claim he forgets it happened.  Which is it?

Conservatives’ point is that Obama has forgotten the lessons of 9/11, which Bush did not have available to him until, surprisingly—9/11.  The Ft. Hood and Flight 253 attacks happened in the first year of Obama’s administration, and 9/11 happened in the first year of Bush’s administration, but Obama had the example of 9/11 to learn from, and Bush did not.  (Even if you count the thwarted attack by the shoe bomber in December 2001, that bomber tried to strike just months after 9/11, when fully revamped security procedures were not running as smoothly as they are now; also, the bomber used the novel, unprecedented technique of wearing the bomb on his person so that it would not be detected by luggage screeners.)

Obama not only had the example of 9/11, he had seven years in which to witness and debate and vote on the implementation of the policies his predecessor devised that kept the country safe in the years after 9/11.  Obama denounced and campaigned against these tactics every chance he got.  He hasn’t revoked all of the Bush policies—upon assuming the Presidency, he must have received access to hair-raising intelligence that made him realize the suicidal folly of reversing Bush on everything—but he has slackened up enough, rhetorically and policy-wise, that our security standards have slipped and our enemies have become emboldened.

It is not enough to say that Obama has forgotten the lessons of 9/11.  He has actively rejected them.  He has argued that doing the opposite of what Bush did will keep us safer.  We are seeing how well the Obama Doctrine is working out in his first 11 months in office.

Another error in the “Bush-was-bad-so-Obama’s-off-the-hook” argument is that Bush did not do anything to actively facilitate the occurrence of 9/11.  In contrast, the Ft. Hood shootings were aided by the politically correct refusal of the U.S. Army—under Commander-in-Chief Obama—to recognize murderous jihadist sentiments expressed by Major Nidal Hasan openly and repeatedly while in medical school and residency, and the promotion Hasan received despite his poor performance reviews.  The Flight 253 near-attack was made possible by the Obama administration’s failure to act on numerous warnings available to it, such as Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s father having called the U.S. Embassy to report him, Abdulmutallab’s not having a passport or luggage, and his having bought a one-way ticket with cash.

But there’s an even more damning flaw to the contention that Bush should have been able to prevent 9/11, and is therefore as bad as or worse than Obama on national security.  Namely: just what would Bush opponents have preferred that he do in his first eight months in office to prevent terrorist acts, when they now scream bloody murder at the slightest suggestion of profiling at airports, accuse Bush of being Big Brother for trying to monitor terrorist communications, and express their clear disapproval of any war Bush started abroad to target Al-Qaeda?  Are liberals implying that they would have been fine with Bush doing all of these things in a pre-9/11 world?  They’re not even fine with The One doing these things in a post-9/11 world.

The left have been digging up examples of localized attacks carried out by truly isolated (not Abdulmutallab-style “isolated”) loonies—such as Bruce Ivins’ anthrax-laced letters to news broadcasters in September 2001, Hesham Hadayet’s shooting of two Israelis at LAX in July 2002, the Beltway sniper attacks in October 2002—as proof that Bush didn’t keep us safe.  Ignore for the moment that when each of these incidents happened, the same people criticized Bush for using these events to “hype” the threat of terrorism to justify extra security measures.  Instead ask: what level of government intervention into our lives would have been necessary to prevent every one of these attacks?  And how likely is it that liberals would have supported Bush’s carrying out such interventions at the time?


Scott Spiegel writes for the ScottSpiegel.com blog
Article published with the author’s permission.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , ,

To Sur, With Love

Posted on 10 April 2011 by Editor

Originally posted 2009-07-28 17:17:53. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

by Rick SincereRickSincere
RickSincereThoughts
July 16, 2009

As part of the gargantuan (1,000-page-plus) health care “reform” package introduced by members of the Democratic majority in Congress, the Obama administration proposes to raise taxes through a “surtax” on Americans who earn the most money.

The Washington Post explained this “soak the rich” policy in a front-page article on July 15:

The surtax would start at 1 percent and rise to 5.4 percent on income exceeding $1 million. Combined with the expiration next year of tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration, the surtax would drive the top federal tax rate to 45 percent, the highest level since lawmakers rewrote the tax code in 1986.

The Washington Times, for its part, points out that this raises U.S. marginal tax rates to their highest levels since the 1980s:

A new surtax of 5.4 percent in the health care bill, which would apply to married couples’ income above $1 million, would bring the top federal income tax rate to 45 percent.

After consideration of state and local income taxes and the Medicare payroll tax, which applies to all wage and salary income, taxpayers in 39 states would face a top marginal income tax rate of more than 50 percent, according to a study by the Tax Foundation, a nonprofit tax research group based in the District.

“That means government would be taking more than half of every additional dollar from high-income taxpayers,” said Tax Foundation President Scott Hodge. “The lowest tax rate would be 47 percent – and that’s in the nine states that don’t tax wages.”

Businesses say the surtax would hurt the economy.

“The intention of this plan is to tax high-income households, but the real victims would be America’s small-business owners,” said Thomas Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “Placing a big tax burden on the small-business community would rob them of the resources they need to create the jobs that will lead us out of the recession.”

President Obama would be wise to look to history to see what happened the last time a president made a surtax the centerpiece of his economic program. (Some might object that this is a “health care” program. That’s true, up to a point. The fact that the bill has been referred to the Finance Committee in the House suggests that this is really a revenue bill.)

Advertisement

 

In Yanek Mieczkowski’s 2005 book, Gerald Ford and the Challenges of the 1970s, the Dowling College historian relates what happened when Ford proposed a 5 percent surtax on all incomes above $15,000 (more than it sounds like; remember, these were 1974 dollars) in his first major economic legislative package:

As what he termed “the acid test of our joint determination to whip inflation in America,” Ford pronounced the cornerstone of his new economic program, a one-year, 5 percent surcharge on corporate and personal incomes. The surtax was directed at individuals with yearly earnings of $15,000 or more for married taxpayers and $7,500 for the unmarried. (Taxpayers would have to figure out what they normally owed the government, then add the 5 percent surtax to it.) The advantages of the surtax were that it would be mildly progressive, since the rich would pay more, and temporary, lasting only the calendar year 1975. Nor was it onerous. For example, a single person earning $15,000 would pay a federal income tax of $2,549; the surcharge would add $78. (p. 121)

Despite its modest appearance, Ford’s proposal was met with strong opposition, especially from the Democrats who held a majority in Congress (a majority that would grow substantially after the midterm elections a few weeks after his proposal was announced). Republicans were not too fond of it, either.

Ford took a political risk by proposing a surtax less than a month before congressional elections. Unveiling a tax increase at such a time was like unleashing a skunk at a picnic; representatives and senators ran in the opposite direction, refusing to embrace or even come close to it. Officeholders facing difficult reelection battles, such as GOP senators Bob Dole of Kansas and Marlow Cook of Kentucky, deserted their president rather than support the proposal….

The program itself was a political bomb. The jumble of proposals gave the whole thing an eclectic feel, and the centerpiece — a tax increase — fell flat. One poll showed that Americans opposed the surtax, 58 to 34 percent. Members of Congress resisted it. Just two days after the speech, William Baroody warned Ford that it was “in serious trouble on the Hill and very unpopular politically” and that Congress was in no mood to reduce spending. Two weeks before the election [William] Seidman publicly acknowledged that the surtax faced an uphill struggle on Capitol Hill and called its prospects “uncertain.” The overwhelming Republican repudiation in the ensuing elections turned “uncertain” to “doomed.” Ford’s policy making was off to a rocky start. (p. 124; footnotes omitted)

In one of the more significant parenthetical partial paragraphs of any work of recent history, however, Mieczkowski writes:

(One economist’s skepticism about the surtax generated what later became a mainstay of Ronald Reagan’s “supply-side” economics. Arthur Laffer doubted that the 5 percent surtax would generate much revenue, and while dining at a restaurant with Ford administration members Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, he drew a graph on a napkin to illustrate his belief that tax cuts — rather than increases — would raise more revenue because of increased business activity. His illustration became known as the “Laffer Curve.”) (p. 122)

Apparently other economists caught on, even if they hadn’t seen the napkin. Yanek Mieczkowski writes on page 130:

By November, many economists, realizing that Ford had miscalculated, urged him to drop the surtax proposal and switch his focus to fighting the recession. The president stuck by the surtax and still urged budget cuts.

In the end, the surtax proposal crashed and burned. Mieczkowski notes on page 131:

A political science axiom says that “the president proposes, Congress disposes.” Congress certainly disposed of Ford’s surtax, and quickly. Although he developed a fiscally balanced program incorporating many recommendations from the economic summit conferences, it was also like a multipronged barb that Congress could not swallow. And it soon became incongruous. The deteriorating economy, coupled with the inherent unpopularity of a tax increase, doomed Ford’s first major economic initiative. But that failure was fortunate; as events played out, a surtax would have aggravated the downturn. (emphasis added)

History teaches us, and not just in this example from the mid-1970s, that raising taxes during a recession is a bad idea.

Barack Obama and congressional Democrats have not absorbed this lesson of history and economics. Should they succeed in raising taxes to finance their ambitious program to socialize medicine, they — or, rather, we — will live to regret it.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rick Sincere is the editor of RickSincereThoughts

Article has been published with permission

Comments (0)

Tags: , , ,

You Can’t Make This Stuff Up

Posted on 10 April 2011 by Editor

Originally posted 2010-05-25 22:12:11. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

by Nancy Morgan
RightBias.com
May 24, 2010


As Congress labored furiously to ensure that women have equal access to federal bathrooms, insurgents in Afghanistan this month launched a series of bold strikes on U.S. and NATO bases in Afghanistan. The Potty Parity Act is proceeding apace.

The Obama administration’s response to the upsurge in violence in Afghanistan? They launched an investigation into allegations that a number of American soldiers were responsible for the "unlawful deaths" of at least three Afghan civilians. This, despite the recent unanimous acquittal of three heroic Navy SEALS who were swiftly exonerated by a jury after being accused of, gasp, slapping one of the most dangerous terrorist detainees in the world. Who, by the way, the SEALS heroically captured. Thank-you, Navy SEALS. No update yet on the terrorist’s hurt lip.

As our young men are fighting and dying in Afghanistan, our current elected officials remain hard at work. Their most recent work product includes a proposal for a new medal to reward our troops for "courageous restraint." You got that? A medal for not killing the enemy. Of course most of these medals would, of necessity, be awarded posthumously.

Maybe by the time the first new medal is awarded, the "enemy" will actually be defined. The only concrete message so far from Washington, via Attorney General Eric Holder, is that the enemy is NOT radical Islamic terrorists. Whew!

The month of May could very well be likened to a chapter out of Alice in Wonderland. As oil from the BP catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico continued gushing into the ocean (day 36 and counting), the Obama administration was otherwise occupied – holding a gala State dinner for Mexican President Calderone. A good time was had by all, although extensive media reports suggested that one of the guests had a dress quite similar to Michelle’s.

To be absolutely fair, Obama did appoint a commission to study how to deal with the BP catastrophe. Just because Obama is the largest recipient of BP campaign cash for the last twenty years doesn’t mean he’s in their pocket. No word yet on when or if the commission will release its expert findings.

Meanwhile, Obama blithely continued to side with foreign countries against the U.S., as he bravely spoke truth to power, teaming up with President Calderone to condemn the newly passed immigration law in Arizona. Although the Arizona law mirrors federal law, thanks to Obama’s TelePrompTer and a derelict media, millions of Americans now believe that upholding the Constitution is racist. And I guess its now OK for foreign leaders to criticize America from the White House lawn.

Also this month: Unfazed by the 368 point plunge in the stock market, which occurred the same day the Senate passed a financial regulation bill, Obama took to the airwaves to announce an executive mandate. Bypassing Congress, Obama unilaterally declared tougher, expanded fuel emission standards for cars and trucks. Damn the economy, Mother Earth is more important. Right?

As world stocks tumbled, Obama responded by granting unions expanded power, making it easier for airline and railroad workers to unionize. That unions are one of the reasons behind this year’s economic meltdown was left unreported.

As Bangkok was being burned by deadbeats protesting cuts in social spending, Congress remained totally focused on a slew of new and expanded social spending measures, costing a mere $200 billion. They hope to get it to Obama for his approval in the next three weeks, well before those pesky November elections.

Congress appeared unfazed by a new NATO report that identified Iran as a "Major Article 5 Threat." They were otherwise engaged crafting a formal apology to American Indian tribes for "ill conceived policies" and acts of violence committed by them."

As North Korea threatened war and sent 50,000 troops to the border, the House remained busy passing a beer resolution. House Resolution 1297 officially supports "the goals and ideals of American Beer Craft Week." North Korea and American alcoholics rejoiced.

As the new jobs numbers came out showing another "unexpected" increase in the jobless rate, the Democrats were busy crafting another $190 billion raid on taxpayers under the guise of a "jobs bill." That their last "jobs bill" exacerbated the jobless problem didn’t deter them.

As the world hurtles towards the edge of the cliff, the United States remains focused on the really important things. AG Andrew Cuomo was successful in forcing clothing retailers to hire transgenders. And Sen. Robert Menendez is busy urging the Major League Baseball Players Assoc.to boycott Arizona.

And let’s not forget the states. California, which is one step away from going bankrupt, was busy passing a bill that would require "diversity" in California pension plans. The very same pension plans that will soon put taxpayers on the hook for millions.

I could go on, but I’m starting to scare myself. This article is not fiction. Nor is it satire. It is a recap of the month of May in this, our United States.

Is it just me, or is something seriously out of whack in our country?



Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for conservative news site RightBias.com
She lives in South Carolina
Article published with the author’s permission

Comments (0)

Tags: , ,

Obama And My Ex-Husband

Posted on 10 April 2011 by Editor

Originally posted 2010-06-01 21:31:16. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

by Nancy Morgan
RightBias.com
June 1, 2010

The contuing love affair the left has with Barack Obama bears a striking similarity to my short-lived marriage with my now ex-husband.

Like Obama, my ex-husband, who I’ll call Sam (not his real name) was a blank slate upon whom I projected all my hopes and dreams. Only in hind-sight did I realize that my perceptions and expectations were a product of my own imagination, with little connection to reality.

Obama burst onto the national scene out of no-where. Millions of Americans naturally assumed that a man running for the highest office in the land had undergone the necessary vetting and was of high character. Since Obama had the official approval of the media, he was accepted, without question or investigation, by fully half of all Americans.

Likewise, I accepted without question that Sam was worthy of both my trust and respect. Being a judge, I assumed Sam had been vetted and been found worthy. He had society’s approval, having been given the right to add "The Honorable" to his name. I accepted Sam’s label as fact, without question. And counted myself lucky to have found a man of such high character.

During the course of our marriage, I was loath to acknowledge any facts that were at variance with the image I constructed of Sam. (Just as millions of Obama voters still do.) I had invested my hopes and dreams, trust and respect into this image, and any facts to the contrary were ignored. Even when Sam started showing signs of ‘The God Complex’ and began abusing the trust of his judicial office.

On one occasion, Sam awarded $500,000 in a case that he had previously informed me was worth only $50,000. When I asked him why, Sam said, "Because L… asked me to." L… was the plaintiff’s lawyer and Sam’s good buddy.

On one level, I knew Sam was wrong to do this. I was then faced with a choice of having my dreams shattered by an ugly reality or continuing to fool myself. I opted to compartmentalize. As in, ignore any evidence that didn’t accord with my earlier perceptions.

I had made Sam into a white knight, a hero, a man I could respect. To maintain that illusion, I routinely started ignoring the increasing indicators that maybe I had been wrong to do so. I ignored the growing disconnect between his words and his actions. I just couldn’t bear to have my dreams shattered. Much like the many devotees of Obama whose carefully constructed image of Obama would be shattered if they acknowledged Obama’s many imperfections, that are just now becoming apparent.

Very few men remain unchanged when given power over other men. When everyone laughs at all your jokes, pretty soon you convince yourself you are pretty funny. When surrounded 24/7 by yes men and the trappings of power, its only natural to start thinking you’re superior to others, that the rules that govern ordinary men don’t apply. This happened to Sam, just as it is happening to Obama.

It is true that power corrupts most men. It was also true, in my case, that Sam’s increased arrogance and his flouting of the law became secondary to my need to maintain my illusions. To admit that Sam was a mere mortal, a flawed mortal, was unthinkable. What did that say about me? That would mean that I was pretty stupid. That would mean acknowledging my naivete and gullibility. I chose not to do that.

After three years of marriage, Sam tired of me. With 20/20 hindsight, I realize he did me a favor, but that didn’t lessen the pain of divorce. It took another five years before I was able to admit and accept that Sam had never been worthy of my respect. I realized that my love for him was based more on my need to see the world the way I envisioned it instead of the way it really was.

I only hope it doesn’t take that long for Obama’s supporters to realize the same thing. Granted, reality is painful, but in today’s dangerous world, illusions are a luxury America can ill afford.


Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for conservative news site RightBias.com
She lives in South Carolina
Article published with the author’s permission

Recommended related reading:

Alter Regrets ‘We Didn’t Show Up’ for Obama
G.O.P. Sees a Way to Revive Healthcare Debate
Obama’s Approval Drops, Despite Gestures
Obama, the Thin-Skinned President
MARK TAPSCOTT: Will journalists wake up in time?

Comments (0)

Free Subscription to Naked Liberty Articles
* indicates required
Advertise Here
Advertise Here

TradeTrakker


Our Twitter Followers

Friends: Followers:

Recommended









free counters

Contribute

Other Links

EasyHits4U.com - Your Free Traffic Exchange - 1:1 Exchange Ratio, 5-Tier Referral Program. FREE Advertising!

Yavrim.com - Link to a Random Site. Help Promote Free Traffic Exchange
Subscribe to updates

Get Adobe Flash player