The Desperate Democrat Attempt to Blame GOP Budget Cuts for the Attack in Benghazi

  Bookmark and Share   As President Obama enters the last three weeks of his reelection effort, he finds himself facing a tide that is turning against him.  Between his disastrous debate performance, a still stagnant economy, and continued unbearably high unemployment, polls seem to indicate that President Obama is finally being held accountable for his record.  But another recent event that the President has been trying his best to avoid accountability for is proving particularly hard for him to evade.  It is the tragic terrorist backed assassinations of four Americans within the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012.

Since the murder of Chris Stevens, our Ambassador to Libya, and the three members of his security detail, the Obama Administration has taken a tragic event and turned it into a scandal by trying to deny and hide the facts leading up to the attack and the facts surrounding the distortions and misleading statements from the Administration after the attacks.   But on Wednesday, as the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee began hearings in  to the matter, Democrats used the opportunity to help President Obama’s reelection effort.  Instead of seeking a legitimate line of questioning that would have helped to explain exactly what was behind the Administration’s continued misleading statements about the events in Benghazi,  Democrats on the committee did their best to ensure that President Obama was not held accountable for either the  apparent vulnerability of our representatives to the violent acts that took place, or the lack of honesty about the attacks in the days and weeks following it.

Leading this liberal reelection strategy for the President during the hearing was Maryland Representative Elijah Cummings and District of Columbia Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton.  The two of them used their opening statements to claim that the deaths of the four Americans in Benghazi were due to Republican cuts in the budget… specifically cuts in the levels of funding to embassies and consulates.  it’s a charge that was first made back on October 2, by Nancy “We Don’t Know What’s in The Bill” Pelosi.

On the surface, the argument sounds like a plausible factor in the success of the attack on our Libyan consulate.  However; when one understands the facts ignored within the claim,  they become privy to just how ludicrous the charge is and they also get an insightful look at exactly how hypocritical, deceitful and disingenuous Democrats and their argument are.

Cummings and his fellow liberal liars are referring specifically to the final fiscal year 2012 omnibus appropriations package that included $2.075 billion for the State Departments embassy and consulate security programs.  It is a figure that is  $567.5 million less than what the Obama administration’s requested.  And while it is true that Republicans proposed the bill that contained these cuts, it is also true that while a total of 147 Republicans supported the bill, 149 Democrats also cast their final vote for the bill and the cuts contained in it.  And Elijah Cummings, the ranking Democrat member of the House Oversight Committee who is blaming the cuts for the murder of 4 representatives in Benghazi, was one of them.

This raises several major issues.

1.- Were The Cuts Responsible For the Successful Terrorist Attack in Benghazi?

No.

When asked in Wednesday’s hearing if the refusal to provide more security was caused by budget cuts to embassy security, Charlene Lamb, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Programs replied “No, sir”.   So according to Lamb, a lack of available financial resources was not behind the lack of proper security in Benghazi.

2.- What Was Responsible For the Lack of Proper Security in Benghazi?

According to Eric Nordstrom, the man responsible for security in Libya, told member of the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday that the Obama Administration decided to “hope everything would” change for the better rather than provide additional security.

He added;

So when I requested resources, when I requested assets, instead of supporting those assets, I was criticized,”

Nordstrum further stated;

“There was no plan. And it was hoped that everything would get better.”

3.- Why Are Democrats Lying?

Democrats know that the President screwed up here.  But admitting that would be too detrimental to not only the President’s reelection chances, but to the rest of  their ticket in several states where Democrats have tight House and Senate contests that their candidates can’t afford a lack of long presidential coattails in.  So in a desperate attempt to change the negative Benghazi narrative that is adding to the President’s recent downward spiral, they are searching for any excuse that could buy them time between now and Election day.

Given the facts cited above though, while it is clear that budget cuts were not responsible for the lack of security provided at our Libyan consulate,  it is quite clear that the Obama Administration was ignoring the threat to our consulate and the staff operating in it.  There is even evidence that a decision was made within the Administration to deny the construction of a bob wired fence around the consulate because Obama officials did not like the fact that such a measure would look like there was a a problem that required additional security in Benghazi.

All of this is further evidence of a President and Administration that was negligent in the Benghazi terrorist attack and the President, the State Department, and congressional Democrats all know this to be the case.  That is why they have been trying to cover every aspect of this tragedy up since it occurred on 9/11/12.

It all started with their denial to admit that it was an attack by terrorists.  Why? Becuase the Administration did not want to use the word terrorist, especially in relation to the date… 9/11.  The relationship of the word and date makes it hard for the Administration to explain why on the anniversary of the infamous September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on our nation, our embassies and consulates did not experience the type of heightened security that they usually do on that?   The need for additional security on that date is something which should not require any increased intelligence from the C.I.A. or F.B.I.  It merely requires average intelligence, something which the Obama Administration obviously lacks.

But it gets worse.

Fearful that they would not be able to defend their decision not to increase security on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11 or to follow up on requests for additional security at the consulate during the rest of the year, in their attempt to avoid admitting that the attack was the work of terrorists, the Obama regime tried to claim the assassinations in Benghazi were attributed to a violent protest that was prompted by a video that offended Muslims.  The problem is that both initial assertions were wrong and the Administration knew they were wrong. This means those initial statement that came out after the attack were lies.  Mounting evidence has demonstrated that the Administration knew there was no protest prior to the attack, knew that terrorists were behind the attack, and they knew that the Benghazi consulate was at high risk of a terrorist attack. But the continued attempts by the Administration to mislead us ever since the attack first took place have now snowballed and are quickly turning a disastrous national security policy decision into  a humiliating and possibly criminal coverup scandal.  As a result, the Administration is now not only beginning to be held  accountable for the negligence of their policies that led to the deaths of our Libyan staff, their continued lies are implicating them more and more each day in the apparent attempt to coverup their negligence.

The recent outrageous and hypocritical attempts by Cummings and others on the left to blame the Benghazi attacks on Republicans sponsored budget cuts is just another example of how desperate Democrats are to ignore the facts and rid themselves and their President of the need to be held responsible for their actions that led to the deaths of our Ambassador and his three man security team, and the attempted coverup of the facts after the attack.

Making matters worse is a media that has now become complicit in this recent lie.

Outlets like the always unreliable Huffington Compost have gone out of their way to feature posts which continue to advance the narrative that Republican budget cuts were responsible for the deaths in Benghazi.  If such reporting was intended to be a sincere presentation of facts, how come they refuse to report “all” the facts?  All the facts that demonstrate how utterly false the charge is and all the facts that demonstrate even if the charge was true, Democrats, including those who made the charge, supported the budget cuts in numbers greater than Republicans.

Bookmark and Share

Romney’s to Lose

If you’ve followed recent polls, you might be tempted to buy into the media consensus that the race is over.  However, if you know whose side the media is on, it’s easy to figure out why they have come to this consensus.

Has Romney really lost?  Try this: conduct a poll of your own.  Do you know anyone who voted for McCain in 2008 who is voting for Obama in 2012?

Obama will argue in the debate that the economy is getting better because the stock market is over 13,000.  However, the high mark for the Dow is an expensive mask to cover the ugly economy we live in.  The government has borrowed more than a trillion dollars a year from our grandchildren and the Fed has deflated our future by $2.8 trillion to help get us to that 13,000 figure.

In the meantime, unemployment is over 8% and average wages have dropped.  So Wall Street is richer under Obama and the rest of America is poorer.  Where’s the 99% when you need them?

It has been pointed out that Obama cannot expect to receive the same levels of support among various segments of society that he did in 2008.  He has alienated many black voters with his support of gay marriage and failure to produce results that help them.  He has alienated many Hispanic voters as well by failing to keep promises on immigration reform and by selling weapons to Mexican drug lords.  Obama is not as cool as he was in 2008, which will hurt the youth vote, and many Americans have realized that assuaging their racial guilt is not worth the cost to the American economy.  The National Journal shows Romney with an 8% advantage among independents.  Obama cannot win if independents swing to Romney.

So how can Romney lose?  Simple: disaffected Republicans, Conservatives and Libertarians may stay home or vote third party.  Obama doesn’t need 50% of the country to vote for him.  He just needs his 47% and 7% to stay home or vote third party.  Even with the awful job Obama has done, it is still very possible that 7% will stay home or vote third party.

Many Christians will not vote for a Mormon.  They won’t vote for a Black Liberation theologian either, but Obama didn’t need them in 2008.  Obama knows this and has started push polling Catholics with robo-calls asking if they can vote for a Mormon.  Many Christian Republicans will avoid Romney because he is perceived as more liberal and a Mormon, whereas they might have voted for McCain in 2008 even though he was also perceived as more liberal.

Libertarians will feel free to vote for a third party candidate because they don’t see any difference from their perspective between Romney and Obama.  Many of these are idealists who support Ron Paul and Gary Johnson and see Romney as a big government Republican.

Conservatives may stay home if they believe Romney is going to lose.  Conservatives lean more realistic than idealistic, but are more likely to allow their vote to be suppressed by negative news and polls close to the election.

Romney’s key to success will be preaching the American Dream from a small government, individual responsibility perspective.  Believe it or not, his 47% “gaffe” may end up working in his favor.  Americans could use a healthy dose of optimism and a restoration of faith in the American Dream.  Even independents will vote for that.

Still Missing from the Democratic Platform… Hamas and the Right of Return

Under direct orders from the President, on Wednesday, Democrat Party leaders amended their platform to include references to God and to formally acknowledge Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.  As shown here, the amendments were passed, but only after most of the delegates actually opposed adopting those amendments.  But between the initial omissions of those two references and the controversial overriding of the wishes of the delegates to pass the amendments which put those references back in to the platform, two other very sensitive omissions regarding the 2012 Democratic platform and our alliance with Israel have been lost in the mix.  They are the omission of any direct reference to Hamas and acknowledging it as a terrorist organizatio.  And while the language declaring Jerusalem the capital of Israel has been restored against the wishes of Democrats delegates, President Obama and his Party’s leaders failed to restore any of the Right of Return language that gives full meaning to recognizing Jerusalem as the Jewish capital.

In 2008, the Democratic Party platform read;

“The United States and its Quartet partners should continue to isolate Hamas until it renounces terrorism, recognizes Israel’s right to exist, and abides by past agreements.”

In 2012, the platform reads;

“We will insist that any Palestinian partner must recognize Israel’s right to exist, reject violence, and adhere to existing agreements.”

Gone is any specific reference to Hamas and the requirement to renounce terrorism.  As explained by Daniel Greenfield for Frontpage.com in a piece entitled the “Democratic Party’s New Pro-Hamas Platform”, the use of the phrase “any partner” is quite significant.  According to Greenfield’

“The standard assumption was that the Palestinian Authority under Fatah was the default partner. That’s gone now. The generic “partner” represents an end of exclusivity for the PA and a shift to Hamas. The language is a blank space into which any “partner” can now fit. The old language for Hamas has now become the default language for a Palestinian “partner”, yet to be named, but clearly meant to be Hamas.  The three demands, right to exist, rejection of violence and adherence to existing agreements, sound reasonable, but they’re meaningless. The US decided that Fatah met all three, even though it spent a decade violating all three. “Existing agreements” rather than “Past agreements” is also a significant goal-shift.”

In light of these facts, it would seem that the comedy of errors and controversies surrounding the Jerusalem and God amendments to their platform, may have actually unintentionally created a beneficial distraction for Democrats which has taken our eye off the ball.   After four years of alienating Israel by doing everything from walk out on Netanyahu during a White House meeting and going to eat dinner with his family, to calling upon Israel to return to it’s indefensible 1967 borders, President Obama has proven himself to not be one of Israel’s greatest allies.  In fact he has often gone out of his way to show himself to be more sympathetic for the cause of Israel’s enemies than for Israel.  Now, thanks to the new phrasing of the Democrat platform, President Obama will have greater flexibility to poke his fingers in to the eyes of Israel.   According to Greenfield some of the other most most significant differences in the new Democratic platform come in terms of specific commitments.  Greenfield writes;

The 2008 platform had a number of specific commitments. The most significant ones were “Peace-Supportive Commitments”, assurances from the United States that limit the scope of concessions that Israel will be asked to make.

He adds;

“For example when the 2008 DNC platform said, “l understand that it is unrealistic to expect the outcome of final status negotiations to be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949. Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel. ” This was a way of reassuring Israel that if it continues negotiating, it will not lose its shirt. These commitments were almost meaningless and destructive, because the United States did not actually abide by them. But removing them is a signal that Obama 2.0 will not make any commitments to Israel in return for continued negotiations, besides some of the usual joints arms development and sales that are popular with Congressmen and Senators with defense industries in their districts.”

Essentially it comes down to is this.  While the headlines are bouncing back and forth between Democrats first first not recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in their platform then adding back in and then throwing in additional headlines about the controversy regarding whether or not the Democrat delegates actually supported the amendment, most news sources are not discussing the other important issues here.  They are not addressing the fact that the new language in the 2012 platform and the deletion of specific language from the old 2008 platform makes it easier for a second Obama term to pursue a more pro-Hamas agenda and anti-Israel agenda than we saw pursued in the first term of President Obama.

 

 

“We’ve Heard It All Before”

As Democrats kickoff their convention and try to make the case for President Obama’s reelection, Republicans have released a video reminding voters that they’ve heard it all before.

The video offers a compelling comparison of the words used by President Obama in 2008 when trying to explain why he should be elected and the words he is using now, four years later in his attempt to explain why he should be reelected in 2012.  As it turns out, they are the same words.

It helps to emphasize the fact that with the President offering us more of the same rhetoric, is there any reason to believe that his next four years will offer us any results that are different from those which are different from the ones he achieved in the last four years?
Bookmark and Share

Switchers: They Once Supported Barack Obama But Now They’re Romney Voters

   Bookmark and Share   One of the first videos shown at the first full session of the Republican National Convention was called “Switchers”  (see the video below this post). It features the testimony of voters who in 2008 believed in the hope and change promised by Democrats and the Obama-Biden ticket.  Now four years later, these people know that those hopes were false and that the promises offered by President Obama have been broken.   Today, these disappointed Democrats are enthusiastic Republicans who hold out more hope for the promised changes for fiscal responsibility offered by the Romney-Ryan ticket.

The opinions articulated in this video were probably best summed up by South Carolina Congressman Tim Scott who in his speech at the Republican national Convention stated;

“Our only hope is to change the current occupant of the White House”

Scott closed by adding;

“Hit the road Jack and dontcha come back no more….no more …no more”

Bookmark and Share

Paul Ryan Tackles Medicare Reform Head On at The Villages

See Ryan’s Complete Speech at The Villages in the Video Below This Post.

  Bookmark and Share  With no limits to the depths that Democrats will go in an attempt to maintain control of the behemoth federal bureaucracy that they seek to transform our nation with, the left has made the use of scare tactics a signature part of their election efforts.  Liberals have targeted the elderly since the 1980’s when they tried to campaign against Ronald Reagan and Republicans by trying to convince older voters that Reagan and the G.O.P. were going to destroy Social Security .  According to liberal’s the policies of Reagan and his fellow evil Republicans were going to force granny into such economic dire straits that she she would be placed on a steady diet of cat food.  The same attacks were used against George H.W. Bush in 1988 and ’92, Bob Dole in ’96, George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 , and now Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan in 2012.

On many occasions Democrats experienced varying degrees of success with that strategy.  In 1982 and agin in 1986, they did exceptionally well among seniors by exploiting the fear of our oldest and most vulnerable goldenagers.  But that success was in part due to the G.O.P.’s poor political responses to those scare tactics.  But in 2012, that doesn’t seem to be the case.  Some thirty years after liberals began warning us that Republicans were going to kill our grandparents, people of my age have seen Grandma and Grandpa survive the Reagan  years and the Administration’s of both Bush presidencies and not once was Fluffy forced to share her can of 9 Lives with them.  That real life experience alone has taken  a bit of the edge off the sword of lies leveled by liberals regarding senior citizens but in 2012, what really hurts the left is the addition of Paul Ryan to the Republican presidential ticket.  With Ryan onboard and upfront,  the G.O.P. and Mitt Romney have a silver bullet that is aimed right at the heart of this now old and tired liberal line of attack.

Ryan’s mastery of economics and matters of budget combined with his Kemp-like passion for conservative economic theory and principles makes him the preeminent voice for fiscal responsibility in the nation.  When discussing his economic beliefs, Paul Ryan demonstrates an innate enthusiasm for his ideas that conveys a wonderful sense of vitality for our nation’s future.  And no one can explain those ideas as well as Paul Ryan can.

Whereas Jack Kemp, the conservative giant who actually sold Reaganomics to Ronald Reagan, often spoke about conservative economic policies in technical terms that seemed to make his audience’s eyes glaze over, Paul Ryan’s approach to explaining economic growth and fiscal responsibility tends to generate the same type of enthusiasm for those ideas that he conveys when discussing them.    This makes it hard for the left to discount Paul Ryan’s strengths on the issue but making it even harder for them this is Paul Ryan’s personality and image.

For Democrats the problem with trying to make senior citizens fear Paul Ryan and the ideas of the Romney-Ryan Team is that when senior citizens look at and listen to Paul Ryan, they have a hard time visualizing Paul Ryan as the demonic figure whose hands are pushing Grandma off the cliff in her wheelchair.  When seniors see and hear Paul Ryan they don’t quite see him as the kid kicking their walker out from under them before running away and laughing.  Instead what they see is a smart, respectful, thoughtful, well spoken, humble, handsome, young man with a beautiful young family, and some pretty good ideas.  What they see in Paul Ryan is their own grandson, or at least what they wished their grandsons was more like.

That unavoidable impression makes it impossible for Democrats to find any success in the application of their now traditional senior citizen scare tactics.  In fact, this time around, their fear mongering will likely backfire.

Today’s senior citizens are not the same ones that Democrats tried to make fearful of Ronald Reagan.  The senior citizens who were voting during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush years, were of a generation that once voted in big numbers for Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a political hero of their generation.  But the senior citizens voting in 2012 are of a different generation.  An increasingly large number of today’s seniors are the same people who voted in big numbers for Ronald Reagan, the political hero of their generation.   That also dilutes the left’s attempt to scare today’s senior citizens.

And it is part of the reason why the Romney/Ryan team’s bold decision to make many of the budget problems that lie at the heart of our national economic crisis, a main focus of the presidential campaign  is being well received.  The Republican ticket’s willingness to address the entitlement programs which under their current structures require more to be paid out than the government takes in, strikes at the heart of  the issue that should be in the forefront of this campaign….fiscal responsibility.  And instead of  resorting to fear tactics and the pursuit of a political strategy of distractions and shallow political platitudes,  Romney and Ryan have decided to elevate the campaign and its dialogue to that of a substantive, adult conversion that forces Americans to confronts our problems.   In doing so, this past Saturday, the Republican presidential ticket sent Paul Ryan to discuss the issue of Medicare at The Villages in Florida.

The Villages is an age-restricted, master-planned, retirement community that sprawls across the counties of Sumter , Lake, and Marion in the battleground state of Florida.  The Villages is a retirement community for people 55 years of age or older and according to the 2010 census figures, it boasts a population of 51,442  residents.  Given the demographics of that community, sending the liberal’s poster boy for senior genocide to The Villages to discuss aggressive reforms on Medicare might seem to be more like throwing Daniel in to the lion’s den than a campaign stop, but as seen in the video below, Paul Ryan proved that today’s senior citizens are driven more by a desire for changes that lead to real solutions than they are by some fictitious fear of the solutions that Democrats are hoping for.

In what can only be described as a well received explanation for both the need of Medicare reform and the reforms proposed by the Romney/Ryan ticket, Paul Ryan went to The Villages and offered an inspirational call to arms that demonstrated his generation’s need to preserve Medicare for the generations that precede it and follow it .   His speech also ushered in the end of an era, the end of the era of successful fear mongering of senior citizens by Democrats.  Paul Ryan’s ability to have American’s rationally discuss the issue of entitlements reforms actually takes that particular liberal scare tactic away from Democrats and finally forces them to be held accountability for their unwillingness to deal with such issues effectively.   As a result,  where liberals once may have been successful at scaring old people, with the seniors of today when people like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden and even President Obama, jump out of the bushes to scream “boo”, all they will succeed at doing is making themselves look foolish.

Bookmark and Share

Chief Justice Roberts Is A Genius – Revisted

Bookmark and Share If you read my post Chief Justice Roberts Is A Genius, composed just a few hours after the supreme court ruling, you’d know that I promoted the idea that, although Roberts didn’t strike down Obama-care, his ruling gave those against Obama-care some tools with which to work. This outlook was in the minority. It was based upon the idea that by ruling the Democrat’s use of the commerce clause was unconstitutional, Roberts took away one of the pillars on which Obama-care was based. He also ruled that the mandate had to be a tax. This was beneficial to the citizens because, as a tax, it could be repealed by vote. Additionally, by ruling the mandate a tax, Roberts forced Democrats to have to defend tax increases in a recession and in an election year. My last point was that by ruling the federal government’s threat to yank funding from states was unconstitutional, Roberts opened the door for states to reject Obama-care without suffering a severe penalty. And if numerous states reject Obama-care the idea of a “national” healthcare system is obviously jeopardized.

And now two weeks after the SCOTUS ruling, with emotions more controlled, let’s take a look at recent events, shall we?

Yesterday, as you may know, the Republican-led House voted again to repeal Obama-care in its entirety. Unfortunately, the Democrat-led Senate is likely to stop the repeal in its tracks. But, this forces Democrats in an election year to justify standing with Obama-care and the associated taxes. They will be pulled from the shadows and subject to the intense glare of the American people. By the way, the Left is going to flood the media with the idea that less Democrats voted to repeal Obama-care this time than in previous votes, implying the outlook toward Obama-care has changed. Don’t be fooled. Since Obama-care was rammed down the people’s throat, there has been a purging of its supporters in Congress. So, were there fewer Democrats supporting this repeal? Yes — because there are fewer Obama-care supporting Democrats in existence. But the job is not done. The Senate will reject the Obama-care repeal. There are still too many liberal-socialist Democrats in the Senate. They must be purged, too. The Senate elections, crusaders, must be a focus.

With their new found freedom based on the ruling, the list of states that have already rejected Obama-care or have announced they are not likely to implement it include: Florida, South Carolina, Wisconsin, Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Alabama, Indiana, Georgia, Oklahoma, Virginia and Missouri. From Obama’s perspective, he must be very concerned that 15 of the “57” states are rejecting his signature legislation. After all, it has only been two weeks since the SCOTUS ruling. That’s probably why he hasn’t mentioned a peep about it, that I have heard, since his short, bitter-sweet victory speech the day of the ruling.

As the election year progresses, pressure will increase to reduce budgetary outlays. You can bet Obama-care will be targeted. Because it is such an outrageous monstrosity, you can become a political hero by successfully attacking small pieces of it — trial runs, pilot projects and subsidies come to mind. The administrative and regulatory demands of Obama-care are extremely complex. Limit the flow of cash and the implementation of Obama-care gets hurt badly. As a bonus, you get some votes. It will be interesting to see as the season progresses if any Democrats, feeling they need votes, join Republicans in attacking aspects of Obama-care funding.

The interpretation that Roberts’ ruling possessed a silver-lining has proven to be accurate. Many people will continue to bad mouth him based upon complex interpretations of law, the ‘true’ meaning of words and the implications of precedent. I’m not a judge, nor am I an attorney or law clerk. My expertise in law is limited to the times I’ve been on the wrong side of it. So, to these judicial gripes I can not comment. Others will remain bitter because they feel he should have just struck down the law. Perhaps. But he didn’t. He left it up to the people. He tied Obama-care and the supreme ruler to the same fate and handed that fate to the American people.

If you want to rid yourself and your descendents of the horrors of Obama-care, then you must rid the country of Obama. It is as simple as that.

Follow I.M. Citizen at IMCitizen.net

Bookmark and Share

Obama-tax Is Law, What Now?

It’s time for a vote. Don’t you think? A vote on Obama-care, sorry, Obama-tax. A recorded vote. A roll call. Let’s hear some good old fashioned Yeas and Nays. It’s time for politicians from both parties to go on the record regarding the Obama-tax. It should happen as soon as they return from recess. Playtime is over, kids, it’s time to answer to the American people. The Republicans will vote. In fact, there’s mumblings they’re scheduling one. I’ll try and confirm that. If so, great. Let’s make sure votes are recorded because we need Democrats on record as to where they stand on this massive tax.

Democrats shouldn’t have a problem with this. After all, they’ve have made it clear over the last three years they want to raise taxes — remember — to get people to pay their fair share. Well, now they can go on record and declare where they stand on Obama-tax. Most likely Democrats will resist this any way possible. But that’s why we pay the Republicans the big bucks. They need to figure out how to make this happen. We want names. Television coverage would be good, too. If we chant, if we rant and if we rave loud enough, there will be a recorded vote.

Consider that some Democrats up for re-election, as you read this, are distancing themselves from Obama’s policies. Some, I think we were up to 14 or so at last count, have bailed on the national convention. Some don’t want Obama any where near them or their state. To these politicians, Obama and all he represents, is toxic. Sort of the old, ‘thanks, but no thanks’. And now we can add Obama-tax as more radioactive fallout. Now is the time.

The Left knows this is a big problem. Already we are back to the word games. On Friday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said the “fine” is really still just a “penalty.” It’s a penalty or fine when they need it to be — like when talking to the American people. But it’s a tax when they need it to be a tax — like when they argued in front of SCOTUS. San Fran Nan said tax or penalty, heck, it’s Washington-speak. I heard David Axelrod on television, perhaps it was Friday, call it a punishment on free-riders or free-loaders — it’s a punishment on somebody. Ain’t that a peach — Democrats now calling the “needy”, those they supposedly protect, free-riders.

Democrats are the entitlement party, they promote hand-outs and free-rides as a way to buy votes. Suddenly, they’re willing to admit they’re into punishing the peasants? Ax-man, you crazy cat, tell us something we don’t know.

And it’s going to be pricey. That’s a winning bet for sure. Jump back to March, the Congressional Budget Office released an ‘official’ adjustment for the cost of Obama-care over a decade from $940 billion to — ready — $1.76 trillion. And if you bet that the middle class will bear the brunt of Obama-care, you’d have a winner, too. And just as certain is this, no matter what word games Democrats play — they can call it a fee or a penalty or punishment for freeloading — the truth is, the Supreme Court, the law of the land, calls it a tax.

And so now it is time to take action. Contact your representatives at the House and Senate. Phone them, email them, demand a recorded vote on Obama-tax. Someone more creative than I should come up with a catchy slogan the citizens can rally around. Maybe call it Phone Call – Roll Call or Pound the Politicians Day. Even better, we can make it a couple of days. Ring up their phones until their ears hurt. Pound away with emails. Prompt your family and friends and neighbors to do the same. Republican or Democrat, the people are in charge in America. We didn’t consent to Obama-tax. It was jammed down our throats. Let’s create such noise that we read headlines like “The people demand a vote”. Who knows, maybe we can take down Obama-tax in July. And if not, that’s all right, we know who to chase from office come November.

Chief Justice Roberts Is A Genius

Bookmark and Share  Before you look to do harm to Chief Justice Roberts or his family, it’s important that you think carefully about the meaning – the true nature — of his ruling on Obama-care. The Left will shout that they won, that Obama-care was upheld and all the rest. Let them.

It will be a short-lived celebration.

Here’s what really occurred — payback. Yes, payback for Obama’s numerous, ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS.

Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.

Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said ‘hey, a penalty or a tax, either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land — beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.

Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — ‘comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in “national” health-care? Suddenly, it’s not national, is it?

Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government’s coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases.

Although he didn’t guarantee Romney a win, he certainly did more than his part and should be applauded.

And he did this without creating a civil war or having bricks thrown through his windshield. Oh, and he’ll be home in time for dinner.

Brilliant.

Follow I.M. Citizen at IMCitizen.net
 

Bookmark and Share

Democrats Betting on Gridlock

Steny Hoyer is leading the charge among Democrat Senators to put the brakes on an extension of the 2% payroll tax cut.  After nearly a month of blaming Republicans for the delay in passing the extension and parading around middle class Obama supporters saying how much $40 will change their lives, now Democrats in the Senate look likely to be the ones who kill this extension.

Why are Democrats defecting after a deal had been worked out?  Because the current payroll extension bill makes new federal employees contribute 3.1% to their own pensions.  Apparently we should share sacrifice and have skin in the game unless you are a federal employee.  Currently they contribute .8%.  The government picks up the rest of the tab and returns on the pension are guaranteed.

Meanwhile, many middle class Americans contribute anywhere from 3-10% to their 401k plans with no guaranteed returns and a maximum 3% matching contribution from their employers.  However, Democrats have characterized the plan to increase federal employee pension withholding as a budget war on federal employees.

Democrats appear to have figured out that they are succeeding in blaming congressional gridlock on Republicans.  It also appears that their strategy is to maximize gridlock even if it hurts the middle class.  But if Americans figure out why Democrats are holding up this tax cut extension, sentiment could turn pretty quick.  Democrats are betting against the intelligence of American voters.

Bachmann’s Gamble

Michele Bachmann believes she is the best candidate for the job.  She should, she’s running.  However, unlike the two front runners, Bachmann has chosen not to differentiate herself based on ideas, but instead to attack the front runners as being more liberal as she is.  Her most recent target is Newt Gingrich, but she can also be traced to the fall of Rick Perry.

The two front runners, and Herman Cain, have done a very good job of not attacking other candidates.  The “attacks” between Romney and Gingrich over the last week have amounted to points scored on differentiation in back ground and complementary assessments of each others abilities with subtle hints as to who is better because of it.

So why does Bachmann think that attacking the other GOP candidates is a winning proposition?  Simply put, she does not believe Barack Obama can win.  In Bachmann’s mind, the GOP candidate could be Tom DeLay and Obama would still lose.  Technically, she should be right.

The administration got the best news it’s had in three years this past week.  Enough people dropped out of the job hunt to join Occupy Wall Street that unemployment (which only measures who is looking for a job) fell to 8.6%.  Now, Obama’s justice department has released a new round of incriminating documents on a Friday night to avoid the media cycle and Obama is skipping town for an extended Christmas/New Years vacation that us working schlubs could only dream of.

But Bachmann’s faith in Republicans’ will to vote for the lesser of two evils is unfounded.  Just look at how quickly Republican supporters are backing off of Cain after the most recent affair allegation.  Sure some of it is fears over electability, some of it is dislike for his 999 plan and foreign policy, but a good portion of it is different standards.  It’s the kinds of standards that make Republicans resign for tapping their toes in the men’s room while Democrats can shove a cigar in their young intern’s….well anyway.

Bachmann’s gamble is that since Obama is going to lose anyway, Republicans need to take this glorious opportunity to choose the best candidate for the job (Michele Bachmann) and not settle for a RINO (Mitt Romney), a crony capitalist (Rick Perry), or a flip flopping environmentalist (Newt Gingrich).  Instead, we should choose the TEA Party image of perfect conservatism, the reincarnation of Ronald Reagan mixed with Sarah Palin: Michele Bachmann.

Bachmann seems to think her negativity will make her be the first candidate to be a front runner, lose it all and end up in 5%ville, and then rise from the ashes a second time.  She needs to be careful that it won’t accomplish that for Obama instead.

Herman Cain Claims that African-American Voting Habits are a Result of Brainwashing

Bookmark and Share In a recent interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer [see interview below this post], Herman Cain offers an honest personal assessment of the voting habits of African-Americans and by claiming that many African-Americans have been brainwashed.  In the same interview, he provides an opinion of the two men who Cain now shares frontrunner status with …………………. Mitt Romney and Rick Perry.

In the first question thrown at Cain by Wolf Blitzer, the CNN political host asked Cain why the G.O.P. is poison to so many African-Americans.  Never one to mince words, Cain told Blitzer that such a view is held by many fellow African-Americans because they “have been brainwashed into not being open minded and not even considering a conservative point of view”.

Cain goes on to explain that he has had experienced this first hand.  Reacting to the claim, Wolf Blitzer pretended to be shocked and gave Cain an opportunity to walk his statement back after telling Cain that “brainwashed” is a strong word to use in reference to fellow members of the black community.  Yet Herman Cain held firm and reinforced his charge by stating that as many as 2/3 of the blacks are brainwashed.  But Cain did say that the good news was that 1/3 to 1/2 of them are beginning to think for themselves and to think that all African-Americans will simply keep voting for Democrats is untrue.   He added that he is convinced that he would able to garner as much as a third of the black vote and not because he is black, but because of his policies and their belief in his ability to fix the economy.

While true, Cain’s words are sure to get some flack from the African-American community.  Many have already aired their disdain for Cain’s remarks.  This reaction came from AngryBlackLady.com:

“Ho boy.  Yeah, see…some free political campaign advice there, Herman.  When you’re trying to convince a voting bloc to back you, it’s best not to insult them as “brain-washed” and “not open minded”.  In fact, I believe that’s the chief complaint I hear from the Tea Party about how liberals supposedly feel about them.  Given this evidence, I’m going to say that particular complaint is projection, plain and simple.”

Committed socialist and racist anti-TEA movement leader Maxine Waters had this to say about Cain’s opinion;

“Not only are we not brainwashed, we know how to act in our own best interest.  That`s why most of us are Democrats.  Who in their right mind, African-American, would belong to a Party that is as mean-spirited as we see coming out of the Republican Party.

They don`t care about poor people.  They don`t care even about working class people.  They don`t care about senior citizens.”

She added;

“And blacks are not going to vote for him either — not simply because he`s disrespected us so in these statements about us being brainwashed but because, again, we act in our own best interest.  We know what is best for us.  We all have to fight very hard to make sure that we get the most that we can get in terms of good public policy for everybody and for African-Americans.”

What Mrs. Waters left out was that through the application of the close-minded liberal policies of her and her Party, the African-American community is suffering the most. Under the Obama Administration and Mrs. Waters’ leadership in Congress, in addition to a disproportionate amount of African-Americans living at or below the poverty level, the overall poverty level in the nation has risen to its highest levels in decades.  And when it comes to unemployment in America, in the month of September, Mrs. Waters’ policies have helped to achieve a disparity between Caucasian and African-American unemployment rates that is more than 50% higher for blacks than whites.

The unemployment rate for blacks surged to 16.7% in August, its highest rate since 1984, the Labor Department reported Friday.

Congresswoman Waters also neglects to mention that the when she discusses “fighting very hard to make sure that we get the most that
we can get in terms of good public policy for everybody and for African-Americans” what she is actually saying is that good public policy is more expensive government spending programs that perpetuate a culture of dependency.

And therein lies the Democrat Party’s problem.

Government can no longer afford to be run like a charity with endless financial resources. Charities can’t even pretend to have endless financial resources.  Government can no longer afford to maintain expensive charitable legislative policies that are designed to keep minorities voting for Democrats by making them dependent on Democrat sponsored taxpayer handouts.

This is something that many minorities are waking up to.  And while they may not necessarily be flocking to the G.O.P., they are beginning to understand that liberal Democrats are probably acting more in their own interests than an in the interests of the African-American Community.

As for Herman Cain, there are many people of all colors who through his candidacy, are beginning to understand that big government is not a prerequisite for success.  In Herman Cain, they see a self-made man, who has not allowed himself to use racism as an excuse or reason to believe that the government owes him anything.  People see that Herman Cain is a man who said he will control his destiny and did so.  In Herman Cain, many voters are seeing a man who can create an America that will get government under control and allow the people to control their own destiny’s too.  That has become a novel concept these days, but the obvious failures of government due to big government liberal policies, has people of all colors understanding that they should probably stopt trying to rely on a bankrupt government andstart trying to rely more on their own ingenuity and abilities.

Bookmark and Share 

Loose Change you can believe in!

Bookmark and Share    Amid charges of “class warfare”, “betrayal” and calls to “tax the rich!” lies a very important question:

Just why are we having this debate?

Increasing taxes will not solve the problem, and what money it will bring in will amount to little more than loose change, because it will go into funding expanding government, not fixing the economy. The problem is that all the talk is about raising taxes, and not about cutting spending. The debate is about the burden on the economy, and adding to the burden, and not about generating growth.

President Obama obviously feels that what worked for Osama Bin Laden, a couple of bullets in the head, will work for the American economy too, or at least by holding a gun to its head. President Obama defies anyone to disagree with him on this one, so no change there. “This is not class warfare,” Obama said. “It’s math.” But his rhetoric is about as empty as the brains in the Fed. In case we don’t get it, Obama in his speech used all his favorite phrases: “I’m not going to allow,” “I’m not going to stand for,” “I will not support” and “I will veto.”

Um, this is America’s economy we’re talking about, not your kid’s end of year school report.

To provide support for his claims, the president turned to Warren Buffet. This is one of those maneuvers where you say, look here’s someone who knows, he’s rich! A little like, look, this program works, here’s a rehabilitated drug addict!

Yet, Mr. Buffet did not gain from his income tax deductions, but from his use of investment vehicles. And so did lots of other people. So, yes, the rich benefit greatly from the tax code. But so do the poor and middle class.

The reality is that higher earners do progressively pay more. The most recently available Congressional Budget Office statistics state that middle-class families in 2007, earning between $34,000 and $50,000, paid an effective rate of 14.3 percent of their income in all federal taxes. The top 5 percent of income earners paid 27.9 percent and the top 1 percent paid 29.5 percent. The highest earners, meaning Americans with an annual income above $2 million, paid on average 32 percent of their income in federal taxes in 2005. The very rich, the top 1 percent of earners in America, paid 38 percent of income taxes in 2008.

Meanwhile, nearly half American households pay no income taxes at all, because the Tax Code says they don’t earn enough. Middle-class taxpayers get a large tax break in home mortgage interest deductions. In all, according to government statistics, last year federal taxpayers received $1.08 trillion in credits, deductions and other perks and paid $1.09 trillion in income taxes, so that’s a massive difference of $0.01 trillion.

The real problem is that this is not just a tax on the rich. It is also a tax on wealth creation, a concept that Democrats have a hard time understanding at the best of times. People pursue their dreams, and work for the rewards and to pass them on to their families and loved ones. Some people don’t want to work so hard, and so settle for less. They have a choice in how they seek their rewards in a liberal society.

In our liberal society, however, a different kind of “liberal” comes along and says government needs to intervene and tell people that they, and the government, will decide what people should do with their wealth. They do this because they believe human nature is bad, and people do not want to give their wealth away for the good of the society “liberals” want to make in their own image, so they need government to do this for them.

Yet, as Arthur C. Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute notes, “The top 10 percent of households in income are responsible for at least a quarter of all the money contributed to charity, and households with total wealth exceeding $1 million give about half of all charitable donations.”

In a liberal society, people should be free to decide how to use their wealth, and they should have the decent human nature to give some of their wealth away philanthropically. This is the moral connection, not the facile moral argument that higher taxes mean more a moral society.

When it comes to the Democrats, they are trying to legislate for their own failure of understanding human nature.

Bookmark and Share

Yeah, but isn’t Social Security a ponzi scheme?

Talking about Social Security like it is just some government program that takes taxes from young workers and gives it to retired seniors as a ponzi scheme used to lose elections for Republicans.  But that was back when young, optimistic voters actually thought Social Security would be there for them.  Seriously, is there anyone out there still that gullible?

The height of our nation’s fiscal health came when Bill Clinton played a shell game with Social Security and called it a balanced budget.  Obama has cut Social Security taxes by 2%, despite the program’s fiscal uncertainty, and now wants to cut Social Security taxes in half and pay for it with taxes on the rich that even his own party wouldn’t vote for in 2009 when he last proposed it.  Meanwhile, as Newt Gingrich pointed out in last night’s debate, Obama has now threatened twice to cancel Social Security checks if Republicans don’t vote for his budgets.  What was an illusion of certainty to generation X is a joke to the youngest voters.

Who should be scared, seniors or future retirees?

When Rick Perry says Social Security is a lie and a ponzi scheme, believe it or not he resonates with my generation and younger.  We grew up being told that Social Security was a broken system and not to count on it.  We all got 401k plans and IRA plans because we knew Social Security wouldn’t be there for us.  Honestly, I don’t know a single person my age or younger who says “Boy, I can’t wait to retire and collect Social Security”.  We know it’s a lie, and if we get it, it will be icing on top of what we have saved for ourselves.

So let’s cut through the crap.  Who really has the best answer on Social Security?  Rick Perry wants to move it to the states and let the states run it.  Romney wants to increase the retirement age and change the way Social Security is calculated so that you don’t get paid as much.  But the majority of the candidates on last night’s stage want to offer private accounts for Social Security that future Presidents can’t dip into to balance their budget and future Presidents can’t cancel if they don’t get their way with the legislature.

In fact, of the candidates with scary language on Social Security, Perry and Romney are the ones whose stated plans would keep Social Security closest to what it is today.  Both have acknowledged affinity for private accounts, but both are looking to fix and make the current program solvent.  Cain leads the way on a fundamental overhaul of Social Security by turning it into private accounts, while Newt and Bachmann both support the idea.  Ron Paul’s view on social government programs seems a little up in the air after this last debate, going from a scrap it all approach to a we should get rid of it, but probably won’t approach.

Social Security will never be fixed until we are honest about it.  That much, Perry has spot on.  And Republicans who attack Perry for verbally assaulting Social Security may win senior Democrats, but will lose young Republicans.  Social Security is a ponzi scheme, and Perry isn’t the first person to call it that.  It is a lie, especially when it is slated to go bankrupt before most of us (including myself) will start collecting.  It is not a guarantee as long as the President can withhold checks or raid the fund in order to pretend he balanced the budget.  It is not supported by the Federal constitution.

Democrats can fear monger with seniors on this issue all they want, but anyone under 38 years old should think twice before voting for a party that can’t be honest and speak plainly about Social Security.

 

 

Gore/Clinton 2012 Fading, but Hillary is Golden

Back in mid June, I wrote this.  Al Gore and Hillary Clinton would be successful primary challengers to Obama.  I think this very early prediction may need some adjusting.

Al Gore has recently joined the quickly backfiring liberal trend of charging opponents with racism in any context.  Gore, whose own father voted against the Civil Rights Act, said that global warming deniers should be treated like racists.  So, Mr. Gore, as a global warming denier myself, I’ll be expecting a gift-wrapped tie on Father’s Day.

Of course, Gore’s timing is terrible.  This is also the week that Andre Carson declared that TEA Party members would like to see blacks hanging from trees.  The constant charge of racism, especially towards a multi-racial group like the TEA Party, is getting stale and ridiculous.  At this point, Democrats who make charges of racism every time someone disagrees with them have lost credibility.

Enter Hillary 2012.  Back in June I didn’t think Hillary would have success at the head of the ticket because she lost in 2008 and has worked for Obama ever since.  In fact, hiring Biden and Clinton were probably the smartest things Obama has done politically. Now, I think she may have a better chance.

The worse things get, the more nostalgia sets in.  People start to fool themselves into thinking Hillary could be as moderate as her husband became when Newt ran Congress.  Already, 32% of Democrats are admitting they need a primary challenger.

Hillary could pull a Rick Perry, riding a wave of anti-current field sentiment and quickly becoming the front runner.  By entering the race now, she would be a fresh face.  She would carry the excitement of being something new and different.  She would bring change, the only thing more distracting to a Liberal than a shiny object.  She could offer the Democrats everything Obama has failed to deliver on, even though her similar policies would produce the same results.

If ever Hillary was going to be President, 2012 would be her year.

 

Prosser Win Confirms Conservative Sentiments

Democrats in Wisconsin may want to think twice about continuing to pursue recall votes against Republican Senators who just saved their state by making some tough choices. In fact, Wisconsin is showing that despite major blowback, the country is ready for a party to step to the plate and make those tough choices.

Justice David Prosser

It seemed like Prosser would have an easy election after taking more than 50% of the vote in a non-partisan primary against pro-union, liberal Kloppenburg. But after unions within and outside of the state poured millions of dollars into Kloppenburg’s campaign, it seemed like the state-wide election for Wisconsin Supreme Court would be closer. In fact, union cabbies offered free rides for union voters to the polls. Wisconsin liberals were organized for America and the Prosser/Kloppenburg election became a referendum on Scott Walker.

In fact, a Kloppenburg victory would have swayed the state Supreme Court to a 4-3 Liberal court. Walker’s union busting, budget saving legislation would be a footnote in Wisconsin history.

Walker had made the tough conservative choices. The city was nearly shut down as union members were bused in from other states to crowd and trash the capitol. Democrat Senators fled the state to shut down the legislative process and kindergarten teachers were sending death threats to Republican Senators while staying home with fraudulent sick notes from liberal doctors. On the blogs and comment sections across the web, Democrats were thanking Scott Walker for 2012 on a silver platter, and I even saw one comment talking about how they would get their revenge on the “scabbers”. It felt like a choreographed fight scene from Newsies.

The lead in the Prosser/Kloppenburg election kept changing and kept everyone on the edge of their seats throughout the night, and with a lead of about 200 votes Democrats claimed victory the next day. A recount was possible, but it seemed as though the left was right. Going after public unions to cut a $3 billion state deficit would be the end of the Conservative tidal wave that swept the country in 2010. It was a dark night.

But the next day, we discovered that the AP vote total did not include all the votes. Prosser had actually won by a very comfortable 7,500 votes. If you want to know how significant the Prosser win is, just Google his name. You will find as many stories as you did about Iraq a couple months after the surge strategy started. When stories about successful Republican politicians or policies disappear from the mainstream media, you know they are significant.

This was a statewide election where the same Wisconsin voters who elected Scott Walker came out again and elected Justice David Prosser. Anyone who thinks 2010 was a fluke and that an Obama re-election is a forgone conclusion should look at the national union mob that was re-defeated in Wisconsin.

Americans are ready to cut spending and deal with the deficit.

%d bloggers like this: