You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘obama’ tag.

…to anything outside of their silo.  And, I don’t mean colorblind.  The left is anything but colorblind.

It has been said that the media, the pollsters, and the political left were shocked by the U.S. Presidential Election because they wear blinders.  It is said they only see what fits their worldview.  Of course, that can be said of almost anyone.   However, for the past eight years, the left has reinforced its own belief that anything that does not fit its view is stupid (remember the uneducated ‘deplorables’), or racist, or homophobic, or sexist, etc.,etc.

I received the cartoon below from a friend recently.  I wonder if, eight years ago, you were to have replaced the images of Mr. and Mrs. Obama in the cartoon with those of George and Laura Bush, what would have been the reaction.  My guess is that there would have been an amazing uproar about the racism of cartoonist Gustavo Viselner, by the same people who laugh at this and see it as a fairly benign political cartoon.




A good friend sent me an article written by Rabbi Steven Pruzansky.  He asks some good questions.  I would ask you to comment as to the point of the article.  Is Pruzansky right?

The article appeared in The Israel National News, and is directed to Jewish readership. 70% of American Jews vote as Democrats. The Rabbi has some interesting comments in that regard.  Rabbi Steven Pruzansky is the spiritual leader of Congregation Bnai Yeshurun in Teaneck, New Jersey.   

The article in its entirety:

The most charitable way of explaining the election results of 2012 is that Americans voted for the status quo – for the incumbent President and for a divided Congress. They must enjoy gridlock, partisanship, incompetence, economic stagnation and avoidance of responsibility.

And fewer people voted.  But as we awake from the nightmare, it is important to eschew the facile explanations for the Romney defeat that will prevail among the chattering classes. Romney did not lose because of the effects of Hurricane Sandy that devastated this area, nor did he lose because he ran a poor campaign, nor did he lose because the Republicans could have chosen better candidates, nor did he lose because Obama benefited from a slight uptick in the economy due to the business cycle.

Romney lost because he didn’t get enough votes to win. That might seem obvious, but not for the obvious reasons. Romney lost because the conservative virtues – the traditional American virtues – of liberty, hard work, free enterprise, private initiative and aspirations to moral greatness – no longer inspire or animate a majority of the  electorate.

thanks to

thanks to not in original article

The simplest reason why Romney lost was because it is impossible to compete against free stuff.  Every businessman knows this; that is why the “loss leader” or the giveaway is such a powerful marketing tool. Obama’s America is one in which free stuff is given away: the adults among the 47,000,000 on food stamps clearly recognized for whom they should vote, and so they did, by the tens of millions; those who – courtesy of Obama – receive two full years of unemployment benefits (which, of course, both disincentivizes looking for work and also motivates people to work off the books while collecting their windfall) surely know for whom to vote. The lure of free stuff is irresistible.

The defining moment of the whole campaign was the revelation of the secretly-recorded video in which Romney acknowledged the difficulty of winning an election in which “47% of the people” start off against him because they pay no taxes and just receive money – “free stuff” – from the government.

Almost half of the population has no skin in the game – they don’t care about high taxes, promoting business, or creating jobs, nor do they care that the money for their free stuff is being borrowed from their children and from the  Chinese. They just want the free stuff that comes their way at someone else’s expense. In the end, that 47% leaves very little margin for error for any Republican, and does not bode well for the future.

It is impossible to imagine a conservative candidate winning against such overwhelming odds. People do vote their pocketbooks.  In essence, the people vote for a Congress who will not raise their taxes, and for a President who will give them free stuff, never mind who has to pay for it.

That engenders the second reason why Romney lost: the inescapable conclusion that the electorate is ignorant and uninformed.  Indeed, it does not pay to be an informed voter, because most other voters – the clear majority – are unintelligent and easily swayed by emotion and raw populism. That is the indelicate way of saying that too many people vote with their hearts and not their heads.

That is why Obama did not have to produce a second term agenda, or even defend his first-term record. He needed only to portray Mitt Romney as a rapacious capitalist who throws elderly women over a cliff, when he is not just snatching away their cancer medication, while starving the poor and cutting taxes for the rich.

During his 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out to Adlai Stevenson: “Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!”;  Stevenson called back: “That’s not enough, madam, we need a majority!”; Truer words were never spoken.

Obama could get away with saying that “Romney wants the rich to play by a different set of rules” – without  ever defining what those different rules were; with saying that the “rich should pay their fair share” – without ever defining what a “fair share” is; with saying that Romney wants the poor, elderly and sick to “fend for themselves” – without even acknowledging that all these government programs are going bankrupt, their current insolvency only papered over by deficit spending.  Similarly, Obama (or his surrogates) could hint to blacks that a Romney victory would lead them back into chains and proclaim to women that their abortions and birth control would be taken away. He could appeal to Hispanics that Romney would have them all arrested and shipped to Mexico and unabashedly state that he will not enforce the current immigration laws. He could espouse the furtherance of the incestuous relationship between governments and unions – in which politicians ply the unions with public money, in exchange for which the unions provide the politicians with votes, in exchange for which the politicians provide more money and the unions provide more votes, etc., even though the money is gone. Obama also knows that the electorate has changed – that whites will soon be a minority in America (they’re already a minority in California) and that the new immigrants to the US are primarily from the Third World and do not share the traditional American values that attracted immigrants in the 19th and 20th centuries. It is a different world, and a different America. Obama is part of that different America, knows it, and knows how to tap into it. That is why he won.

Obama also proved again that negative advertising works, invective sells, and harsh personal attacks succeed. That Romney never engaged in such diatribes points to his essential goodness as a person; his “negative ads” were simple facts, never personal abuse – facts about high unemployment, lower take-home pay, a loss of American power and prestige abroad, a lack of leadership, etc. As a politician, though, Romney failed because he did not embrace the devil’s bargain of making unsustainable promises. It turned out that it was not possible for Romney and Ryan – people of  substance, depth and ideas – to compete with the shallow populism and platitudes of their opponents.

Obama mastered the politics of envy – of class warfare – never reaching out to Americans as such but to individual groups, and cobbling together a winning majority from these minority groups.

If an Obama could not be defeated  – with his record and his vision of America, in which free stuff seduces voters – it is hard to envision any change in the future. The road to Hillary Clinton in 2016 and to a European-socialist economy – those very economies that are collapsing today in Europe – is paved.

For Jews, mostly assimilated anyway and staunch Democrats, the results demonstrate again that liberalism is their Torah.  Almost 70% voted for a president widely perceived by Israelis and most committed Jews as hostile to Israel.  They voted to secure Obama’s future at America’s expense and at Israel’s expense – in effect, preferring Obama to Netanyahu by a wide margin.  A dangerous time is ahead. Under present circumstances, it is inconceivable that the US will take any aggressive action against Iran and will more likely thwart any Israeli initiative. The US will preach the importance of negotiations up until the production of the first Iranian nuclear weapon – and then state that the world must learn to live with this new reality.

But this election should be a wake-up call to Jews. There is no permanent empire, nor is there an enduring haven for Jews anywhere in the exile. The American empire began to decline in 2007, and the deterioration has been exacerbated in the last five years. This election only hastens that decline. Society is permeated with sloth, greed, envy and materialistic excess. It has lost its moorings and its moral foundations. The takers outnumber the givers, and that will only increase in years to come.

The “Occupy” riots across this country in the last two years were mere dress rehearsals for what lies ahead – years of unrest sparked by the increasing discontent of  the unsuccessful who want to seize the fruits and the bounty of the  successful, and do not appreciate the slow pace of redistribution.

If this election proves one thing, it is that the Old America is gone.  And, sad for the world, it is not coming  back.

thanks to

thanks to

In spite of ample evidence to the contrary, occasionally Vladimir Putin gets it right.  For example, on February 4th, speaking to the Duma about tensions with racial and cultural minorities in Russia, he said,

In Russia live Russians.  Any minority, from anywhere, if it wants to live in Russia, to work and eat in Russia, should speak Russian and respect Russian laws. If they prefer Shari’ya Law, then we advise them to go to those places where that’s the state law.

Russia does not need minorities; minorities need Russia, and we will not grant them special privileges or try to change our  laws to fit their desires, no matter how loudly they yell ‘discrimination’. 

We should learn from the suicides of America, England, Holland and France, if we are to survive as a nation.

Russian customs and traditions are not compatible with the culture or ways of most minorities.  When this body thinks of creating law, it should respect national interest first, observing that these minorities are not Russian.

It is reported that this brief statement was greeted with a five-minute standing ovation.

A good friend, we’ll call her Jane, struck by the simplicity and truth of the statement, emailed it to me and a number of friends, both Liberal and Conservative.  Below, with names changed, is the chain of emails that followed:

First response:


Vladimir raises a point which would never occur to our president.  But then, Vladimir is Russian, and cares for his country.  If our president were American, maybe he would care, too.  But we voted for a non-American, and so we get our borders torn down and gay marriage shoved up our keester.

(Is anyone surprised?)


Another Response but this one to Tim’s reply to Jane:


   Surprisingly enlightened for an otherwise despot leader. You are correct about Obama not exercising the instincts of an American president acting in the best interests of America instead of a cultural diversity that is destroying our country.!!!


Which prompted:


You have to know where the bread is buttered to remain a despot very long in the West – and Putin is certainly no fool (in contrast with some of the leaders we pick).

To me,  Zero knows exactly what he is doing, and is pursuing it assiduously: the prescription of Soros, Cloward-Piven and others who wish to wreck this country.

And is a sad and scary comment on democracy that he continues to be able to do it.  “We” are not about to catch on.

An analogy: we are about to marry homosexuals, and torpedo consensual partner arrangements, at the directive of the 0-mob.  And we will continue to suck our thumbs, though the overwhelming majority of Americans (and French and Africans and everyone else on earth) decisively reject it – as in California, where the vox populi is about to be nullified – and would say so, if asked.

But asking us is precisely what he/they will never do; we will be confronted with a fait accompli – and told that this is the only right, decent and legal thing to do.

And we will continue sucking our thumbs.


Is Putin wrong?  Does Russia under Putin stand a better chance than Holland or England or France or America to avoid being taken over by Sharia Law?  I’m not a Putin fan, but I do fail to see why we:

1. give in-state tuition rates to the children of illegal immigrants;

2. give rights to Muslims that Catholics don’t have;

3. give privacy rights to arrested illegal aliens that we do not give to arrested American Citizens;

4. etc., etc.

An interesting side note:  “During Putin’s first premiership and presidency (1999–2008), real incomes increased by a factor of 2.5, real wages more than tripled; unemployment and poverty more than halved and the Russians’ self-assessed life satisfaction rose significantly” (Guriev, Sergei; Tsyvinski, Aleh (2010). “Challenges Facing the Russian Economy after the Crisis”)…and…”As Russia’s president, Putin passed into law a flat income tax of 13%, a reduced profits tax….” (“The Putin Paradox”. 24 June 2004)

Another interesting side note: Putin served the legal maximum of two consecutive terms as President, was then appointed Prime Minister, and is now in his third term as President (expanded by law from 4 years to 6 years).  Are any of the rumors on the web valid about Mr. Obama planning a similar strategy to retain power?

The President wants to bring in an extra $1.6 Trillion in taxes over the next 10 years.  The Republicans who control the House of Representatives want to reduce the deficit by $2.2 Trillion over the same period to more than offset the $1.2 Trillion that continuing Bush Era tax cuts will ‘cost’ the government in revenue.  The President insists that there will be no deal unless taxes go up on ‘rich’ people.  He wants a ‘balanced’ approach to deficit reduction – some cuts in spending increases and more tax revenue.  The Republicans don’t think that those who earn more should be treated differently than the ‘middle class.’  They don’t see what is essential about a ‘balanced’ approach.

It is a classic standoff.  Of course, the President has the bully pulpit and the press on his side so he will win.  The only problem is that we will all lose, no matter what the result.  Why?  We will lose because we have people deciding our fate who are serious about nothing except preserving their elected positions.



Liberal’s Free Ice Cream?


Or, Republican’s Free Ice Cream?

If the folks in Washington were serious about reducing our deficit, they would take action to do just that.  They would stop spending more money than they are taking in each year.  They, and I mean all of the politicians, red or blue, have no interest in cutting spending.  They may want to cut the rate of spending increases but actually cut spending?  No way.  If politicians have nothing to give to their constituents, how will they get the votes to win reelection?  They feel they must give everyone free ice cream to get their votes. And once they have given the ice cream once, we dumb voters expect it to continue or we will find a new politician who will give us what we want, more ice cream.

Do you think they are serious?  If the goal is to reduce the National Debt, it will require that less is spent each year than is collected.  Yet, both parties are putting forth ‘solutions’ that will only lower the amount by which we increase the deficit.

Let’s look at the Republicans first.  They want to reduce spending by $2.2 Trillion over ten years by finding saving in various programs and be reducing entitlements.  However, they agree that if the Bush-era tax cuts remain in effect, some $1.2 Trillion less revenue will be collected than if the reduced rates were allowed to expire.  Assuming these possibly phantom savings occur and the guess of $1.2 Trillion is the amount of revenue lost, we will reduce (the increase in) our National Debt by $1.0 Trillion  over ten years.  Sounds nice if you don’t consider that we currently (and have done throughout Mr. Obama’s first term) spend $1.0 Trillion more EACH YEAR than we collect in revenues.  So, by my reading, the Republican proposal will reduce the amount we add to our debt by $100 Billion each year.  Seen from the other side of the coin, it will ‘only’ increase our deficit by about $900 Billion per year.

The Democrats’ proposal may be worse.  It suggests that by only increasing taxes on the ‘rich’ we can bring in an additional $1.6 Trillion over the ten year period.  They have talked about big savings when Obamacare takes effect, but, there is much debate about whether Obamacare will add costs or save.  Assuming it is neutral, the Obama plan to cut deficits will be $60 Billion worse annually than the Republican plan.

Either way, Washington politicians want you to think they are taking care of you while letting someone else (usually “the rich”) pay off the huge debt the politicians have created.  In fact, every proposal that I have heard, whether it be from the right or the left, will fail to lower the national debt and in doing so will cause inflation to increase.  Eventually that creates an additional cost to every one of us.  Think of it as the faceless tax on all of us.

When will we hear the first Washington politician propose a deficit reduction plan that: 1. will actually reduce the deficit;  2. will cause the entitled class (politicians, career bureaucrats, and their lobbies and contributors) to feel some of the pinch; and 3.  will reduce the power of the federal government over the taxpaying public rather than increase it?

Mr. Obama had a bad night.  As in the picture below, if it is possible that his ego will allow him to do so, he appeared to be thinking, ” I wish I had crammed for this exam instead of just phoning it in like I have so many things over the past four years.”

Left-leaning media members were falling all over themselves last night and this morning trying to cover for Mr. Obama’s ‘deer in the headlights’ performance in the first debate of the election cycle. All the while, most tried to pretend to be non-partisan and tried to compliment Mr. Romney on his performance, but, the compliments were hollow.


(Credit: Reuters/Jim Bourg/AP/Eric Gay)

It is said that when analyzing what someone means you need only pay attention to what they say, “after the ‘but’.”  Examples were numerous today.  Here are a few:

Lynn Parramore in the Huffington Post said, “Last night I placed a five-dollar bill into a bowl at the start of the debate, clipped to a prediction that Romney would be declared the winner. Not because I think that Romney is a better debater, or that I feared Obama would make a horrible gaffe — but because that’s how The Script has to go in these cases.”  In other words, the far left-leaning columnist for the Huffington Post really means that though Romney was declared the winner, that means nothing since the cards are stacked that way.

E. J. Dione, Jr., writing in the Washington Post, was complimentary of Mr. Romney’s performance before the ‘but.’, then he said what he really believes:  “Romney entered the debate facing a skeptical pundit class and a party faithful that perceived his campaign as floundering. This, at least, he reversed on Wednesday. By going on the attack, he won himself strong press notices and shouts of joyous relief from his own camp. Obama, by contrast, surprised many of his supporters by not even repeating criticisms of Romney he has made in his own stump speeches.    But Romney’s relentlessness may not play as well with swing voters. His decision to change his tax plan on the fly, rather than to defend it, will provide fodder for further Obama attack lines on how it would affect middle-income voters. And his obvious pivot to a new political persona — or, perhaps more precisely, his reversion to his older, more moderate self — will lead to more questions about who the real Mitt Romney is.”

And then there’s Noam Scheiber in the New Republic who made his excuses for Mr. Obama’s weak showing:  “As James Fallows has persuasively argued, Romney is an impressive performer when he can anticipate questions: He is impeccably prepared and executes well. He only struggles when the debates take a surprising turn. But with Obama up several points in the national polls, and nearly uncatchable in swing states like Ohio, there was no incentive for Obama to get creative. That meant Romney was very likely to have a good night.” 

Mr. Obama has spent the last six years reading from teleprompters and showed once again how badly he needs that prop to give a speech.  He looked tired, arrogant, and amazed that anyone had the temerity to question his divine pronouncements.  You can be sure he will be asked again and again by the Romney camp how he thinks doing the same thing for four more years will bring a different result.  He needs to find a good answer because last night he didn’t have one.


Today I saw a photo of a woman at the Democratic National Convention sporting a campaign button.  It said, “Obama ’12 – Yes We Can, Again.”


Photo thanks to the Wall Street Journal

It made me question the message.  What is it that “We Can” do again?

Can we, Again, fool enough of the electorate into believing our promises for the next four years, even though we made good on precious few of the promises we made four years ago?

Can we, Again, blame all the nation’s ills on others while taking no responsibility for anything negative?

Can we continue to divide the nation like never before by demonizing first the banks, then the insurance companies, then the rich?  Are you next?

Can we, Again, spend more than $750 Billion in only two years (the Stimulus) and have almost nothing to show for it?

Can we pass a massive healthcare reform bill that will take services and choices from most people and will cost $Trillions that we don’t have?

Can we justify ever bigger and more invasive government by claiming that nobody has done or can do anything without the help of the Government?

Can we side with Teacher’s Unions and prevent parents from having a choice in how their children are educated?

Can we continue to fail to balance a budget or even try to do so for another four years?

Can we continue to promise jobs when increasingly our government’s actions depress investment in business?

Asking for four more years to do more of the same while hoping for a better results strikes me as the message of a campaign that feels the electorate is just plain dumb.  As Albert Einstein once mused, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

I hope the majority understand that if they reelect Mr. Obama and his friends, they will be asking to further divide the country, to create more and greater deficits and national debt, and to further expand government control and to further limit personal freedoms.

I hope our electorate is not that dumb.  It appears that the Democrats are banking on it.

No Longer the King of Dirty Tricks?


Today’s Wall Street Journal carried an editorial by Kimberly Strassel entitled The President Has a List.  I urge you to read it.

It talks about a Barack Obama Campaign website* that has attacked private individuals for donating to Mr. Romney’s campaign.  It names names, calls people criminals, and essentially threatens them for having committed the sin of being rich or having contributed to Mr. Romney….or both.

If you can read the article (and assume it is true) without revulsion, there is something wrong with you.  Richard Nixon would have blushed at such slime.  It is beyond my comprehension that any sitting President could stoop to this level.  I’m not a fan of Mr. Obama.  I think he is doing a very poor job.  But, even I, did not believe he would do something as unprincipled and just-plain-devious as this.

In my view, he has two choices.  He can try to convince us that he knows nothing of this and that it is not his responsibility or he can condemn this activity, apologize to the victims, and, fire all those who played a part in it.  If he chooses the latter, I will give him points for leading as he should.  He will stand a bit taller in my view.

On the other hand, if Mr. Obama says that he knows nothing of this and it is not his responsibility, it will further prove him to be unfit to serve as President.  This is being done by people employed by one of his campaign websites.  What they say and do is his responsibility.  It has been out there on the internet since April 20th and as of this writing (before noon on Friday the 27th of April) it is still there.  See it here.

I guess he has another option.  He could say, “What’s wrong with this?”  That would do it for me.  I would then not only feel he is incompetent; I would know he is either immoral or amoral – can’t make up my mind yet.  I hope this is not the case.

* – is listed on the official reelection website as a “related site.”


We are told that Mr. Romney once put his dog (in a cage) on the roof of his car.  Mr. Obama once ate dog (maybe).

These were headline news stories last week.  Local, State, and National media were falling all over themselves to report and analyze these key events that happened decades ago.  Was Mr. Romney unbelievably cruel to an animal or was this the same thing as having the dog ride in the back of a pick-up truck?  Was Mr. Obama, then a child in Indonesia, even aware of what he was eating and if so, wasn’t it the local custom in any event?  Who cares?


It seems our media feel that if we have a full understanding of how a candidate feels about dogs, we will know whether or not he will make a good President.

How much have you seen in the ‘mainstream media’ about HR 347 which Mr. Obama quietly signed (no media and no public ceremony) on March 15, 2012?  Did you know that the Secret Service can now tell you where and when you are allowed to protest, demonstrate, or make ‘political speech”?  This was passed by an overwhelming majority of the House and by ‘unanimous consent’ (no record kept of individual Senator’s preferences).  Your First Amendment Right to Freedom of Expression has just been curtailed and the media didn’t think that was as important as treatment of dogs.  If you don’t believe this, here is the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.  Go here for the law that abridges our First Amendment Rights.

How many articles have you read in the past few weeks about Trayvon Martin and  George Zimmerman?  Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Louis Farrakan want you to believe this was a racially motivated murder.  Mr. Obama fanned the flames saying, “You know, if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”  Fox News wants you to believe that George Zimmerman shot Mr. Martin in self defense.  Why is this important?  I don’t know.  Other than to his friends family and community, it is not.  Approximately 15,000 people are murdered each year in the U.S.   Though not an official number (I can’t find a government source) about 7,500 people were shot by someone defending their persons or possessions in 2010.  Do you see this kind of coverage except when it is to someone’s political advantage to make it a ‘big story’?

How much have you read about the massive inflation of education costs and the rapidly decreasing regard the world holds for a U.S. education?  Or the failure of government to maintain our infrastructure?  Or why the government is making it difficult for our energy industry to produce energy here in the U.S. while we continue to import more energy from outside our borders?  Or what about stories that show that political fraud and corruption are making the U.S. look like a banana republic?

To say that our media do us a disservice is likely the understatement of the decade.  If it isn’t, it’s a close second to:

“America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”  – SENATOR BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, MARCH 16, 2006

Amen, Mr. Obama.  Now if our media will just start talking about issues of merit (like our debt problem and failure of leadership) won’t we all be better informed and better off?

Christian Science Monitor Photo - 4-4-2012


Today, April 4th, President Obama signed the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act, intended to ban insider trading on Capitol Hill.  I’ve not yet read the final law but if it follows the early House version, it will require Senior Washington Officials to live by the same rules by which taxpayers are bound.

Obama thanked the members of Congress for working together to write and pass this law.  He said, “it shows that when an idea is right that we can still accomplish something on behalf of the American people and to make our government and our country stronger.”

Assuming the Act truly does set the same standard for Washington Officials as regular Americans, this is a step in the right direction and Mr. Obama was right to sign it.

Yesterday, I received an email from a discussion group with whom I often converse.  The day’s discussion was about a youtube type movie that discussed more new ‘facts’ about the Obama eligibility issue.  One participant, a College Professor and quite (politically) Liberal woman from Portland, responded to the conversation without any real facts, but based on her beliefs, that Mr. Obama was obviously a natural born citizen and qualified to be President.  In fact she stated that he was doing a great job and that she was proud that she would be voting for Mr. Obama this November.

I politely disagreed with her assessment of the job he is doing and stated that he may be qualified to be President based on his birth and citizenship, but, as to his skills, experience, and ethics, he might just be the least qualified person ever to hold the office.

Then, this morning, I read the Wall Street Journal and wished that our Liberal friend would some day read something other than the New York Times.  If she did, she might have great difficulty answering the questions posed in Steven Moore’s opinion piece today which is copied in its entirety below:

By STEPHEN MOORE, The Wall Street Journal, February 7, 2012

President Obama has frequently justified his policies—and judged their outcomes—in terms of equity, justice and fairness. That raises an obvious question: How does our existing system—and his own policy record—stack up according to those criteria?

Is it fair that the richest 1% of Americans pay nearly 40% of all federal income taxes, and the richest 10% pay two-thirds of the tax?

Is it fair that the richest 10% of Americans shoulder a higher share of their country’s income-tax burden than do the richest 10% in every other industrialized nation, including socialist Sweden?

Is it fair that American corporations pay the highest statutory corporate tax rate of all other industrialized nations but Japan, which cuts its rate on April 1?

Is it fair that President Obama sends his two daughters to elite private schools that are safer, better-run, and produce higher test scores than public schools in Washington, D.C.—but millions of other families across America are denied that free choice and forced to send their kids to rotten schools?

Is it fair that Americans who build a family business, hire workers, reinvest and save their money—paying a lifetime of federal, state and local taxes often climbing into the millions of dollars—must then pay an additional estate tax of 35% (and as much as 55% when the law changes next year) when they die, rather than passing that money onto their loved ones?


Associated Press Photo

Is it fair that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, former Democratic Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, former Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel and other leading Democrats who preach tax fairness underpaid their own taxes?

Is it fair that after the first three years of Obamanomics, the poor are poorer, the poverty rate is rising, the middle class is losing income, and some 5.5 million fewer Americans have jobs today than in 2007?

Is it fair that roughly 88% of political contributions from supposedly impartial network television reporters, producers and other employees in 2008 went to Democrats?

Is it fair that the three counties with America’s highest median family income just happen to be located in the Washington, D.C., metro area?

Is it fair that wind, solar and ethanol producers get billions of dollars of subsidies each year and pay virtually no taxes, while the oil and gas industry—which provides at least 10 times as much energy—pays tens of billions of dollars of taxes while the president complains that it is “subsidized”?

Is it fair that those who work full-time jobs (and sometimes more) to make ends meet have to pay taxes to support up to 99 weeks of unemployment benefits for those who don’t work?

Is it fair that those who took out responsible mortgages and pay them each month have to see their tax dollars used to subsidize those who acted recklessly, greedily and sometimes deceitfully in taking out mortgages they now can’t afford to repay?

Is it fair that thousands of workers won’t have jobs because the president sided with environmentalists and blocked the shovel-ready Keystone XL oil pipeline?

Is it fair that some of Mr. Obama’s largest campaign contributors received federal loan guarantees on their investments in renewable energy projects that went bust?

Is it fair that federal employees receive benefits that are nearly 50% higher than those of private-sector workers whose taxes pay their salaries, according to the Congressional Budget Office?

Is it fair that soon almost half the federal budget will take income from young working people and redistribute it to old non-working people, even though those over age 65 are already among the wealthiest Americans?

Is it fair that in 27 states workers can be compelled to join a union in order to keep their jobs?

Is it fair that nearly four out of 10 American households now pay no federal income tax at all—a number that has risen every year under Mr. Obama?

Is it fair that Boeing, a private company, was threatened by a federal agency when it sought to add jobs in a right-to-work state rather than in a forced-union state?

Is it fair that our kids and grandkids and great-grandkids—who never voted for Mr. Obama—will have to pay off the $5 trillion of debt accumulated over the past four years, without any benefits to them?

Hit Counter since Sept. 2008

  • 1,537,184 hits
Political Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory