This Just In: White House Blames Hurricane Sandy On a Movie Released Back in August

Bookmark and Share  With the devastating force of a superstorm developing from a combination of weather fronts linking forces with Hurricane Sandy approaching the North Eastern United States, the White House is insisting that the deadly storm is entirely the result of a violent supernatural reaction to the release of the movie “2016: Obama’s America” back in August.

According to White House Press Secretary Jay Carney;

“This storm is in response to a video, a film that we have judged to be unfair and damaging to the President’s reelection.”

Compulsive liar Stephanie Cutter, the President’s Deputy Campaign Manager, issued an alternative excuse for the dangerously powerful force of nature that is about to overwhelm the entire NorthEast quadrant of the nation from Virginia to Maine and New Jersey to Michigan.  Outside of a studio where President Obama was tapping his latest in-depth interview with Bravo’s Andy Cohen for the network’s nightly talk show Watch What Happens, Cutter blamed the storm on George H. W. Bush.  According to Cutter;

There is evidence that this storm is directly related to George Bush’s presidency.  I tend to agree with former Secretary of State Madeline Albright who put just right when she “Democrats should blame George W. Bush forever for the nation’s problems”.

Bookmark and Share

Illegals Debacle Shows The President Has No Clothes

Too true to be funny anymore?

The famous poem is inviting:

“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

Is this the spirit behind the president’s announcement of an immediate end to the deportation of illegal immigrants who came to the US as children? Obama thinks so, saying this is “the right thing to do,” just like everything else he decides.

The true spirit behind this action is the hubris of a President with no clothes. This announcement and the anger it has sparked gives an anatomy of how the president does things, to the point of obscuring the issues involved. Let’s look at the anatomy which is exposed:

 

First, Obama speaks objective truth which he then feels pragmatically he has to contradict.

It was only a year ago at a 2011 Univision Town Hall, President Obama admitted it is beyond his power to suspend deportations for anyone because there are laws he’d be breaking by doing that, and would be a breach of separation of powers. If he believed this then, then today he must believe he is violating the separation of powers. You can see the clip here: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/shock-video-obama-admits-he-cant-do-what-he-did-today/?utm_source=co2hog

Did the law change since? The jurisprudence? Of course, stupid me, last year was not election year. This year, Obama is naturally addressing a key Latino concern….in an election year.

 

Second, he ignores due process in an increasingly monarchical sense of self

As Charles Krauthammer explains: “He proposed the DREAM Act of which the executive order is a variation… He proposed a DREAM Act. The Congress said no. The Congress is the one who makes the laws. What the administration does is it administers law.” Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/15/krauthammer-new-obama-immigration-policy-out-and-out-lawlessness-video/#ixzz1xwzPGJip

The plan goes into effect immediately, affecting some 800,000 people, without discussion. He hath spoken, it is done.

Justification? Speaking at the White House, Obama said the initiative was “the right thing to do,” adding that “it makes no sense to expel talented young people” from the US. Is it me, cynicism, or are we really to believe there are 800,000 talented people out there, surely some of them are duds?

 

Third, a Machiavellian Prince who seeks to control and coerce rather than convince

Maybe the real story is the sense of visible shock when the President was interrupted by a Daily Caller reporter during his announcement. How dare anyone interrupt, that’s, well that’s like someone interrupting a monarch, just not done! The reporter ought to be expelled from the country!

The reporter, Neil Munro, explained Munro says open press events at the White House are “well designed by the president and his staff…He comes out of the Rose Garden, gives a short statement and then turns his back and walks away very quickly without taking questions,” he said. “Sometimes he takes questions. He took a question on Trayvon Martin in March. Sometimes these shouted questions at the end work — not today: He refused to answer an obvious and conventional question about the impact of his policy on American workers at a time of record unemployment.”

Munro said “Timing these things is a little awkward. He speaks very well, very smoothly — very nice delivery. It’s hard to know when he’s about to end. I thought he was going to end today. I asked my question too early. He rebuked me. Fair enough.”  In the future, Munro hopes the White House will “arrange events so the reporters can ask the president or his senior staff about the important policy changes.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/15/video-neil-munro-explains-his-exchange-with-president-obama-in-rose-garden/#ixzz1xx05KPCS

 

Finally, he sets himself up as a savior, but watch out for those “sell by “ dates folks!

In order to be eligible under the new initiative, illegal immigrants must:

  • have arrived in the US when they were under the age of 16
  • have lived continuously in the US for at least five years
  • be in school, or have graduated from high school or be honourably discharged veterans of the US military
  • have no criminal record
  • be under 30 years old.

If successful, applicants would receive a work permit for two years that can (note my italics) be renewed an unlimited number of times. In other words, they’re safe until after the election and the end of Obama’s long-running campaign for office and re-election.

 

In running for this office, Republican opponent Mitt Romney needs to highlight this shameful anatomy and he himself must be: consistent, truthful and make long-term commitments. His reaction to this latest move from the White House was a good one: “I believe the status of young people who come here through no fault of their own is an important matter to be considered and it should be solved on a long-term basis so they know what their future will be in this country….I think the action that the president took today makes it more difficult to reach that long-term solution.”

More of this please, Governor!

Romney needs to call Obama’s Bluffet….

 

We know that the Bluffet, sorry Buffet, rule is a motif for President’s class warfare, and more warning shots will be fired when Congress returns today from a two-week recess to a test vote on the rule, which would impose a minimum 30 percent tax rate on income over $1 million. The Bluffett tax targets wealthier Americans’ investments rather than salaries.

Today is the day when this issue of class warfare kicks off for November in earnest, now that we know it will be Romney for the GOP and Congress gets to have a say on the matter.

President Obama, who pays less tax than HIS secretary (he filed tax returns showing he paid an effective tax rate of 20.5 percent on income of about $800,000 in 2011) says the government needs the revenue from the Bluffett rule, estimated at $47 billion over 10 years, to cover “a broad range of goals.” He also says “This is not just about fairness.” Well, he got that right, it is very unfair, but not in the simplistic moralistic way he is peddling.

He says “This is also about growth. It’s about being able to make the investments we need to strengthen our economy and create jobs. And it’s about whether we as a country are willing to pay for those investments.” In other words, robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Fact is, do we really need government to do the investing, and where does the investment go? Into government black holes and deep pockets, rather than into businesses which create wealth. The Bluffet tax would not create wealth, it would merely enhance dependency. We would see a better rate of return on the $47 billion in business investment by the wealthy than we would from government. That is an awful lot of liquidity to take out of the markets, and I don’t see too many secretaries taking up the slack.

Of course, keeper of the Treasury keys Tim Geithner was out pushing the rule on Sunday, “Just because Republicans oppose this does not mean it’s not the right thing to do and not the right thing to push for,” he told NBC’s “Meet the Press” program. Double negatives aside, we can say that just because Democrats think it is the right thing to do doesn’t mean it even begins to make sense.

If we look at the paying side of this, we see the rich targeted for this end up paying more. Simple. But for what are they paying? Increased revenue means increased expenditure, and so the things for government to spend on expands to meet the expanded revenue. More programs, more dependency and less reward for effort. What does the payer get in return? They get little benefit, and the wealthier they are the less they need what they are paying for.

Which means the sole purpose of the Bluffet rule is twofold, increased state powers and redistribution of wealth. Conservatives who attack Romney or the rich for their wealth are playing with the same deck as Obama.

Obama says, “If you make more than $1 million every year, you should pay at least the same percentage of your income in taxes as middle-class families do… Most Americans support this idea. We just need some Republican politicians to get on board with where the country is.” Of course, Obama doesn’t have to worry too much about his investments, because after leaving office, which cannot come soon enough, he will make a ton of cash for the remainder of his days. He doesn’t have too much to worry about…The rest of us do.

The Republicans’ fading colours – The Spectator Magazine

Link to the original article:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/7648068/web-exclusive-the-republicans-fading-colours.thtml

 

Web exclusive: The Republicans’ fading colours

11 February 2012

CPAC Review essay by White House 2012 writer David Cowan published on The Spectator magazine website

 

Growing up in the 1960s, my primary school in Cambridge had an outdoor roofless boy’s toilets, and we happily enjoyed urinating up the wall. It was a sign we were getting further up the school when one day we were able to urinate over the wall itself — much to the annoyance of people on the other side. This memory came to mind this week at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington DC over the weekend, the annual gathering of some ten thousand political activists. This year CPAC was a pissing contest to see who was the most conservative.

The three Republican frontrunners, Santorum, Romney and Gingrich, in that order, sought to reach the base and convince activists about their conservative qualities. The themes they all offered were: what’s wrong with the Obama administration; a shopping list of what conservative policies would work better; an appeal to American exceptionalism; and a return to the founding principles of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

The three candidates are looking for the right to fight an Obama administration seen as somewhat Carteresque, from failed election promises through to the ideological infighting. Obama, though personally liked (Ann Coulter joked he would make a nice neighbour, unless you’re Chinese, then he’d keep borrowing stuff), is seen as ineffective and evasive.

To reenergise America, the candidates laid claim to the mantle of Ronald Reagan, frequently invoking his name and sunny disposition. Yet herein lies the rub. Reagan defeated Carter with ideas for the economy and foreign policy, successfully combining a conservative vision and charm to appeal to swing voters. At CPAC 1974, Reagan gave his famous ‘bold colours, not pale pastels’ speech, asserting conservative principles. This weekend showed that some of the colours have long since faded.

Things were certainly off-colour last time I was here, back in 2009, as defeated activists sought to pick themselves up after Obama’s coronation. The biggest cheers then were for Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh, as they offered succour. Newt entered to his incongruous theme tune ‘Eye of the Tiger’, but instead of entering stage right he walked in through the crowd, parting them Moses-like, shaking hands and hugging supporters.

The danger three years on is, of course, an election that will see CPAC 2013 take place after a second Obama inauguration. Expect then a sinking sense of what might have been. For many American conservatives a Republican failure this year will exacerbate what they fear most: n irreversible dependency culture and Europeanisation. Daniel Hannan flew into DC to warn on just this point, expressing his amazement to rapt delegates that while Europe is driving off the cliff they can see America in their rear-view mirror, overtaking them.

Back in 2009 something else happened at CPAC. Sarah Palin was slated to speak, but failed to appear either in person or via a hastily announced satellite link. This was the signal that Sarah was taking the celebrity high road, rather than the political low road. This year, however, she did appear as closing speaker to offer the benediction — but not the one most people expected. She did not endorse Gingrich, as he himself alluded to in his own speech by quoting her husband Todd. She called for unity, but convoluted as ever, Palin said ‘whoever our nominee is we must work together to get him over the finishing line, and then next year we will have a true conservative in the Oval office’ — only to go on Fox news on Sunday afternoon to say she is still to be convinced Romney that is indeed a conservative.

Despite this, and despite the Santorum surge, Romney will see this conference as mission accomplished — reinforced by the CPAC Straw Poll narrowly backing his candidature. Out of the three candidates it looks seemed that Romney pissed the highest this weekend. And, while still divided, all the delegates would agree about who should be standing on the other side of the wall, on the receiving end.

CPAC and Sarah Palin mark a turn to unity

 

A vintage fiery performance: Palin told delegates we'll keep our guns, God and Constitution, and Obama can keep the change.

The most remarkable event of today’s CPAC was Sarah Palin endorsing unity. Instead of showing her support for any one candidate, she called for unity, saying that whoever the nominee is the GOP must defeat Obama. Whoever the nominee is conservatives must work together, she told an ecstatic audience, and the nation will have a true conservative in the White House.

The unity message, great!

It followed the announcement that Mitt Romney had narrowly won the CPAC Straw Poll, following his mission to the conference to prove his conservative credentials. It seems it may be mission accomplished. Certainly Romney will be feeling a lot better about his appeal to the conservative base after today.

The other remarkable performance came from the ever-popular Daniel Hannan, British Member for the European Parliament. Warning America not to go down the European road, he was amazed that while Europe is driving off the cliff they can see America in their rear-view mirror and overtaking them!

After his talk, I had a good conversation with him, as we walked through the hotel, including a detour through the kitchens! I asked him if he endorsed any candidates? He, just a little coyly, suggested it was difficult to choose, but stressed it was important for the party to unite behind a candidate and get Obama, who earlier in the day John Bolton called the “first post-American President”, out of the White House.

Daniel Hannan warns America not to follow Europe down a path and off a cliff

Hannan also urged me to write that the GOP must stop having so many debates, as it is only serving to divide the party. He also said Republicans need to focus on the budget, not all the side issues that divide conservatives. With that he headed for the airport, though many didn’t want him to leave and asked if he could be made an honorary American instead.

This has been an important few days for conservatives, and may finally signal the road to unity. Romney should start to pull firmly into the lead, and though Santorum and Gingrich will no doubt continue, they will see their numbers dwindle.

The New York Times carried a report ahead of Sarah Palin’s speech that she didn’t think a brokered RNC would be a problem. This is just a liberal wet dream. The reality is, Sarah Palin has signalled this important moment, and shown that there is less stomach for infighting.

I picked up my media credentials on Thursday at CPAC fearful of a divided party that would succeed only in rolling out the red carpet for President Obama. After three days, I happily left making my way through the handful of sorry-looking OWS protesters feeling that I can see November from here.

Mitt Flashes His Credentials with a Smile: See His CPAC Speech in its Entirety Here

Will Romney show his conservative rivals the door?

Bookmark and Share  A smiling Mitt Romney came to CPAC today with one thing on his mind, the need to prove his conservative credentials to the base of conservative activists. Telling the audience that he knew many of them came to conservatism via Hayek or Edmund Burke, Romney said his path to conservatism was paved by family, faith and his work.

Romney said he believes “we are poised for victory in November”, but beating Obama is only the first step to saving America, which has suffered from weak leadership and a bankrupt ideology. Obama has created so much unnecessary pain for Americans, he told the audience.

Romney reminded listeners that America is made exceptional by the people, before making the obligatory attack on Washington. He said Obama is the poster child for arrogant government.

It has always been clear that Romney’s kind of conservatism is fiscal, and he argued “if you are not fiscally conservative, you are bankrupt”. He told a cheering audience that he will finally get rid of the deficit, and “as the first step I will eliminate Obamacare.”

Referring to his competitors for the nomination, Romney said GOP nominees are not different in opposition to Obama or conservatism, but by experience and judgement. He also distinguished himself by saying “I have never worked a day in Washington.” He then joked “I served in government but didn’t inhale.” He said he wants to take his experience to Washington, ending his speech by declaring “I will come to Washington, I will change Washington, then I will go home to the family I love.”

After his speech, Romney joined the crowd, no doubt to judge just how much this crowd has embraced him as a conservative.

Is Washington alive to the Sound of Santorum?

Santorum after his speech walks by WhiteHouse12, will he walk into the White House?

Rick Santorum appeared on stage with his family, introducing them he said they were not the von Trapp family and they weren’t about to sing. However as he set out on his speech to offer sweet music to conservative ears, he seemed to stumble a little, the speakers version of being out of tune.

But, he did get warmed up. He hit a number of high notes:

We must trust in “the conservative vision of bottom up” and show “how Obama policies have failed” America. This is what wins the race, Santorum crooned.

But he struck a bum note when he said we are not going to win this election with the candidate with the most money to beat up his opponent. Who could he possibly mean?

A sweeter note was sounded when he explained how liberals use sentimental ideas of stewardship to advance radical environmental policies.

Then onto a higher set of notes, when he reminded delegates that our rights come from a higher authority than the government. He was as clear as a bell when he chimed in that he is in this race because Obamacare is a game changer.

Rick Santorum was introduced as the only chance of winning in November as a fresh face, but there was little fresh material in this show.

Karen Santorum makes plans to let Rick go to exhibit hall, will she be making plans to change the White House decor?

That said he ended on a high note with “You are blessed to live in a time when America needs you”. He called on delegates to live in honor, ending with “The ‘how’ we are of America is the Constitution, the ‘who’ we are of America is the Declaration.”

To those who support Santorum, this speech will have been music to their ears. Whether he can light up the election with the sound of his brand of music remains to be seen.

 

 

 

Politics IS a Contact Sport

Newt hopes to land knock-out punch with attack ads, but is Mitt's mitt bigger and stronger?

So, Newt has launched an attack ad on Mitt, and no doubt the Democrats are watching with glee.  There are no doubt worries that attack ads damage the Republican Party, just as many worry that American politics is too divisive. Does all the “infighting” damage Republican chances?

Well, no.

Attack ads are part of politics. Politics is divisive. This is because folks disagree, and they rightly disagree on important points of principle and policy. Of course the candidates attack each other, and why not? The prize is big; these are passionate people who feel they deserve a run at the number 1 job on the planet. Otherwise, they might as well play paper and scissors for the right to run.

Cast your mind back to 2008, and the exchange of “shame” accusations by candidates Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton.

You can see her attack here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pPV1yd7sQg&feature=share and Obama’s response here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkR9kw81Cx8&feature=share. You can also see the Obama attack ad, comparing Hilary Clinton to Big Brother in Orwell’s 1984 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo, which is quite a laugh given that Democrats are the Orwellian nightmare party!

Both parties share the tactics of attack, and it goes a long way back. Hilary’s barb that Obama was following Karl Rove’s playbook was foolishness; it doesn’t take a village to work out that attacking the candidate, or in soccer parlance playing the man rather than the ball, goes back a lot further than Rove.

In fact, the earliest example of attack ads was launched by Lyndon B Johnson in 1964, in his attack on Barry Goldwater. Known as the “Daisy Spot”, it showed an innocent girl picking daisies followed by a countdown to nuclear catastrophe, which shocked audiences at the time. The idea was that Goldwater’s aggressive stance on the Cold War would lead to nuclear destruction. [You can view the ad here: http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/media/daisyspot/]This will be the same Johnson who thought escalating Vietnam was a good idea.

Hilary and Obama attacked each other without pulling their punches. She lost, Obama won, and despite all the punches Hilary laid on Obama he won the White House. Like Hilary’s husband said in 2008, “This is a contact sport, politics. You can’t complain about being attacked. It’s like Yao Ming complaining about being fouled playing basketball.”

The narrative that the attack by candidates is damaging is simply a way of attacking the Republicans, while President Obama as incumbent and the official nominee come September can stand serenely above the action and appear, well, presidential. That is, until his Republican opponent is selected and can turn his attention to attacking Obama’s record 100%.

For this reason ending the attacks is important, we need to see the main bout start. The chief result of Newt’s attacks on Mitt is to bring Mitt onto the canvas ready to land his punches. Newt’s attack ads are the last attempts to land some body blows on Mitt, but Mitt’s mitt appears to be the bigger and stronger of the two. Once the attacks are done, the choice is made, the Republican nominee can step onto the canvas and win the prize fight that will take him to the White House.

Bill Clinton was right, this is a contact sport. He was wrong to compare it to basketball though. This is a fight, and it is a fight to the end. Unlike Johnson’s Daisy ad the countdown is not to nuclear destruction, but losing to Obama will see more destruction of the American economy and the nation.

Mitt Romney Personally Thanks the 8 Voters Who Put Him Over the Top in Iowa

Bookmark and Share   Thanks to Jimmy Fallon for this one

Bookmark and Share

White House 2012: A Thanksgiving Ode To Liberty

Bookmark and Share  She was an older woman. Her face was etched with a history of struggles and her heart strengthened by a faith in a force that was the backbone of her survival. She was a bright lady, industrious and ingenious. Determined and strong willed, her fury could be unlike the scorn of no other, but compassion and fairness ruled her every action.
 
She was married to truth and loyal to justice. Her family was an unruly bunch and a large one too. It consisted of those born of her and those adopted into her arms. But all were embraced with equal amounts of love.
 
Each morning, she woke, without ever actually having fully slept, and prepared to fuel all those in her home with the energy to face the day ahead. Wheat from her heartlands was risen in dough. Corn from the fields she tilled, flavored the muffins in wicker baskets made with her own hands, and the bacon cured, and eggs laid on her farms, sizzled in the cast iron griddles milled from the iron mined out of her mountains.
 
When breakfast was done, the work had just begun. Every member of her family had to go out on their own. One by one, as each left, she reminded them of their bounty and of the future that could be theirs if they made the new day they embarked upon, more productive than the last.
 
Each of her loved ones did something different. They worked in auto factories, others in shipyards. Some worked as lawyers, others as teachers. Some kept financial records, tended bars, stocked supermarket shelves, sang beautiful songs and played beautiful music, prepared luscious meals, made haute couture, wrote for newspapers, provided protection and some cured the ill. What each one did, did not matter to her so much as did their doing it well. For sure, she knew that each one was as valuable as the other. She knew that without each one doing their part, her household would suffer. And suffering was not in her plan.
 
She herself had suffered many tough times. She had been faced with financial ruin, been battered and forced to face many violent confrontations. She had been stolen from, taken advantage of, beaten upon and endured mental anguish as she struggled with harsh decisions and extradoridnary moral and ethical questions. Her life was never easy and the assaults of time on her very being, often showed. Many adored her and looked up to her. Some were jealous of her, others were leery of her and a few often challenged her. But each challenge dropped in her lap and each hurdle crossed, made each of her many successes, all the more grand and incredibly more exhilarating. She took to the sky, crossed they sea, scaled over through and under mountains, created artificial light and virtual reality, wrote enduringly prophetic pieces of literature, invented life saving practices and products, bridged islands and even worlds and even gave birth to freedom, the force that she would eventually come to realize was the key to her being.
 
But she never basked too long in any glory.
 
Instead, she always looked forward and prepared herself for the next challenge ahead. The changing weather, the shifting earth, the roiling seas, the changing opinions and needs of her own family, and the influences of her neighbors, never allowed for a static day. And besides, she was too wise to ever sit on her laurels. The future offered too much promise to ever allow her to just be happy with what was and too many counted her own to make the most of what will be.
 
So she trudged ahead with the start of every new day. She knew that as tough as things may be, her freedoms enabled her, and all those in her family, to do their part so that each next challenge could be and would be overcome. By doing her part and insuring her household with freedom and also responsibilities, all those in her household could become increasingly strong and they in turn would keep the roof over their heads strong. She knew that as each member of her family did their part, in that which they were best at doing, the bounty of her existence would always be there.
 
Appreciative of all that bounty, as this day progressed, she prepared a meal for all to share as they came home from their missions.
 
She made sure that there was a place for everyone at her table, and as, one by one, they took their places, she placed atop the table a wealth of hearty riches that fed their hungry stomachs and fueled the hunger in their hearts for a better day tomorrow.
 
As they joined hands together as one family, they gave thanks for the wealth of the strong willed lady who provided and insured the freedom that allowed them to lead rich lives with endless opportunities.
 
Today Lady Liberty has set the table for a celebration of thanks for all that she has made available to us and all that she continues to offer us . . . So long as, we all always, do our part.
 
Happy Thanksgiving America and thank you Lady Liberty. We  love you.
 
Photobucket
 

The 2011 White House Thanksgiving Menu 

  • Sour Grapes

  • Lemons

  • Snake In Grass

  • Roasted Crow

  • A Fine Kettle of Fish

  • Toast

  • Humble Pie

  • Kool Aid

    Bookmark and Share

So a Mormon, a Pizza Salesman, and a Texas Governor Walk Into a Bar

Bookmark and Share  Today’s Presidential Punch Line comes to us from Doug McMurry;

“So a Mormon, a pizza salesman, and a Texas governor walk into a bar…..

The Mormon says, “I’ll have an O’Douls.”

The pizza salesman says, “I’ll have a Godfather, except make mine a 9-9-9, nine ounces of Amaretto, nine ounces of Scotch, over nine ice cubes…”

“Whoa!” says the governor, “That’s a fancy, Texas-size drink.”

The salesman says, “Yea, I was going to order a Scotch on the rocks, but… I thought you’d just paint over my rocks….” 

Now before you react, please keep in mind that scientists have found that four in ten people laugh at bad jokes………Ba dum tssshhh.  Just kidding.   Thanks to Doug for his submission.

White House 2012 welcomesmyou to send in your own presidential or political jokes, cartoons, images, and videos. If you have material that you would like considered for reproduction in White House 2012, send it to:

Bush and the TEA Party Blamed for East Coast Earthquake

Conflicting determinations have President Obama blaming East Coast earthquake on Bush, but Congresswoman Maxine Waters and the Democratic National Committee blames it on the TEA Party.

Bookmark and Share

Obamacare: 4 Doctors Talk Politics!

Bookmark and Share  An Israeli doctor said,

“Medicine in my country is so advanced, we can take a kidney out of one person, put it in another and have him looking for work in six weeks.”

A German doctor said

“That’s nothing! In Germany, we can take a lung out of one person, put it in another and have him looking for work in four weeks.”

A Russian doctor said,

“In my country, medicine is so advanced, we can take half a heart from one person, put it in another and have them both looking for work in two weeks.”

The American doctor, not to be outdone, said

“Hah! We took an asshole out of Illinois, put him in the White House and half the country has been looking for work ever since.”

Bookmark and Share

Presidential Punch Lines: Obama-Bye. Done 2012

Bookmark and Share   Sayonara, Au revoir,  Shalom, Allah yisallimak,  Hee’m oo, Ciao, Adéu, Bye, See you later, So long, Catch-you-later, Hooroo, Farewell, G’bye, Y’all come back now, Cheerio, God be with ye,………..no matter how you say it and what language you say it in….it all means the same………..Get outta here, go away, move along, time to go, yer’ outta here!

Obama - Bye. Done! 2012 by Kempite

Bookmark and Share

Barack Obama, Spinning More Than Music

Bookmark and Share

You’re invited to the Barack Obama Blunder-Bus Tour

Bookmark and Share

President Obama Also Inherited A Triple A Rating: Punch Line Politics

Bookmark and Share   In honor of President Obama becoming the first American President to have our credit rating downgraded, White House 2012 presents to you a page dedicated to the Obama economy. And yes, after well over two years, this is his economy. I mean after all, President Obama did inherit many things when he took office. But you know what he also inherited from former President George W. Bush? A triple A credit rating? So suck it up Mr. President. After more than two years of laying blame on others, what exactly is it that you are responsible for?

President Obama was not responsible for the handing of the Gulf Oil disaster, the debacle that turned what was supposed to be “The Summer of Recovery” into the summer that never was for businesses and tourism in the Gulf States. He was responsible for creating 2 million jobs but he is not responsible high unempoyment?   He is not responsible for the national debt, yet President Obama added more to the national debt in the first 19 months of his first term than all the Presidents from Washington through Reagan combined. President Obama is not responsible for the war he created with Libya and left up to our incompetent European allies, but he is responsible for the capture of Osama bin Laden?

Well the truth is that our President is responsible. He can’t have it both ways. He is the Commander-in-Chief and as such, he is responsible. He is responsible for both his actions and his inactions. And when it comes to the economy, he is just as responsible for its condition as a bank robber is for the money they stole from the bank vault.

To drive that point home, here are few humorous ways of pinting it out:

The Obama economy is so bad.… that the I.R.S. is allowing Americans to list him as the most expensive dependent on your tax return?

The Obama economy is so bad…. that President Obama is planning to write off his second term.

The Obama economy is so bad.… that Kenya now claims he wasn’t born there.

The Obama economy is so bad…that the President is changing his slogan to “Hope and Spare Change!”

The Obama economy is so bad…that Nancy Pelosi is selling earmarks for 1/2 price.

 The Obama economy is so bad…that the President is running a small business on the side. It’s called GM.

The Obama economy is so bad…that Rosie O’Donnell is losing weight.

The Obama economy is so bad…that Al Gore is selling carbon credits on late night television.

 The Obama economy is so bad…that Bill Ayers has to make do with M-80s.

 The Obama economy is so bad…that Barack’s pyramid is on hold.

The Obama economy is so bad…that you can order checks pre-marked “Insufficient Funds.”

The Obama economy is so bad…that Americans are being caught sneaking into Mexico.

The Obama economy is so bad…that the Chicago mob is laying off judges.

The Obama economy is so bad…that the federal stimulus checks are bouncing.

The Obama economy is so bad…that even people who aren’t in the Cabinet have stopped paying taxes.

The Obama economy is so bad…that Michael Vick is working at Petco.

The Obama economy is so bad…that Al Sharpton cuts his own hair.

The Obama economy is so bad…that McDonald’s has a layaway plan.

Now going from the ridiculous to the sublime……… some brief facts:

Our credit rating was downgraded for a number of factors.  Among them, according to Standard & Poors the political atmosphere which makes it unlikely for a significant political agreement on how to control spending, and an inability to reform Medicare and Social Security which will account for the largest portion of doubt. Other factors played a roll too but all of them led to one overriding issue……..our inability to control our debt.

More facts:

When it comes to the very thing that is responsible for the United States’ having its credit rating downgraded for the first time in history, our debt, one should understand that no single person is more responsible for that debt than is our President. Don’t believe me? Than look at the facts below

While the numbers below do not reflect the actual total national debt, it does reflect the amount of the INCREASE in the national debt during each presidential term.

  • Ronald Reagan’s First Term – $656 billion increase
  • Ronald Reagan’s Second Term – $1.036 trillion increase
  • George H.W. Bush’s Term – $1.587 trillion increase
  • Bill Clinton’s First Term – $1.122 trillion increase
  • Bill Clinton’s Second Term – $418 billion increase
  • George W. Bush’s First Term – $1.885 trillion increase
  • George W. Bush’s Second Term – $3.014 trillion increase
  • Barack Obama’s First “Year” – $1.573 trillion increase

So, while it is obvious that the national debt was a creation of bi-partisan doing, it is also quite apparent that the largest increase during a single year occurred during Barack Obama’s first year. While George W. Bush’s second four years in office saw the largest increase for a complete term, Barack Obama is barely through half of his first term and he has surpassed that record in droves. So who is responsible? Is it the TEA Party? Is it the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives? Is it those who voted against the recent debt ceiling hike agreement because they believed it did not cut spending enough? Or is it the President who refused to play an ctive role in cutting spending and has grown the size and scope and cost of  government by leaps and bounds?

Bookmark and Share

President Obama: a liberal Wolf in conservative Sheep’s clothing

Bookmark and Share     The metaphor works well, and many liberals see it as the perfect strategy, but we’ll get to that in a moment.

First, there are many concerned liberals who think President Obama is making a conservative-leaning deficit deal, and they are frustrated by what they believe is his conservative-leaning deficit strategy.

The examples they cite are that the White House did not try to tie a debt ceiling vote to the extension of the Bush tax cuts last December, conceded linking any increase in the ceiling to spending cuts, and whenever Republicans dug in their heels President Obama gave ground.

Some liberals are not so worried about this, they think President Obama has a cunning plan, and is giving ground as part of his grand strategy. While Republicans are using the debt ceiling to force bigger spending cuts, President Obama is getting Democrats used to the idea of bigger spending cuts than they would like.

“Cunning, yes?” They say.

They also say, with a more conservative looking deal at the end, President Obama will come out looking good to voters and this will boost his chances of  re-election.

This is Obama, the conservative in sheep’s clothing.

However, inside lurks a Wolf.

On the other side of the 2012 election are the Tax increases much loved by liberals.

The strategy is that President Obama is making concessions because he knows taxes are scheduled to increase when the Bush-era tax rates expire… just after the election.  Whatever deal the Republicans strike by August 2nd will have a sting in the tail.

Are you ready for this?

The New York Times accuses the Republicans of being ideologues, and, of course, President Obama is determined. Why is it that whenever conservatives dig their heels in they are being ideological, but when a liberal does it is a determined effort?

The Republicans need to stand strong on the economy, and it provides a moment for one of the 2012 candidates to come out to champion the economy. Whoever does will have a shot of winning in 2012. However, if the winning candidate has not taken the main chance then in November 2012 they will be conceding to a second term President Obama on the eve of tax hikes they have no control over.

Then we will see who the ideologue is, because President Obama can finally stop campaigning and seek to do what his ideals dictate.

Are you ready for that?

Bookmark and Share
%d bloggers like this: