Looking for Reason

The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so. – Ronald Reagan

Category: Obama (Lies-Distortions)

My Impressions of the First Obama-Romney Debate


I just finished watching the first debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney and it wasn’t so much what was said, but how it was delivered. Have you ever watched someone who’d deceitful, or flat-out lying? They avoid eye contact except for the occasional glance. By contrast have you ever watched someone who is honest, forthright and confident? They have the opposite behavior, they maintain eye contact, they speak to you not the floor or some other point in the room.

If you recorded the debate, or get a chance to see a reply and didn’t pick this up for yourself, fast forward through and watch Obama and Romney as both speak, and listen to their opponent. Obama looked at his podium or at the moderator perhaps ninety or more percent of the time, while Romney rarely looked away from his opponent. He displayed a keen focus on what Obama was saying, only looking away to take the occasional note, and spoke directly to Obama while giving his statements. The only real exception was his closing remarks when he looked into the camera as though talking to the voters.

This body language, and believe me I’m typically oblivious of this as a rule, was screaming to me that he was being 100% honest and engaged, while Obama showed his annoyance with what Romney had to say and chose to talk to Jim Lehrer for most of his answers, only glancing toward Romney with the occasional jab. I felt Romney was straight forward with his ideas on how to turn the country around, while Obama seemed to just skirt the fact that he has accomplished virtually nothing in the past four years and was begging for a “Mulligan”. (Golf slang for a do over)

Look, I don’t agree with everything that Romney proposes, but I am convinced that four more years of Obama’s policies will devastate this country. Romney expresses his desire to adhere to the declaration of Independence, ans well as the Constitution. Not the least of which was his reference to the 10th amendment which states basically that it is the states and the people who are the foremost governing powers, not the Federal government, which has far over reached its power and authority. The voters need to ask themselves… “Has Obama done the things he promised four years ago?” Things like calling George Bush’s four trillion-dollar rise of the deficit “Unpatriotic” then increasing it another six trillion in half the time? Or cutting unemployment then letting it sit stagnant at over 8% for the past 43 straight months. Those numbers are actually artificially low, as it doesn’t count those who haven’t looked for a job for the past three consecutive months. When those folks are counted, the number is nearly 16%. He said himself in 2009, that if he didn’t “…turn the economy around in three years, (his) would be a one term proposition”. I say, let’s hold him to his word.

I can’t say that Romney will keep every promise he makes, few politicians do, but when I see a man look his opponent in the eye, and speak with conviction, I see a man who is admirable, and a man of his word. Not a con-man who doesn’t look you in the eye, while hoping you don’t notice his deceit, or his record of failure. Someone who hopes you’ll just keep the Status Quo, but I don’t believe we can even hope for it to be that good if he were to win four more years. Hold him to his word, make his a one term proposition.

Who won? I give it to Romney for his engagement, his appearance of confidence and honesty, and a forthright explanation of where the present administration is missing the mark, and what he wants to do to turn that around.  Romney 1 – Obama 0

Obama’s Record on Jobs and Spending. Claims vs. facts.


Obama claim: We’ve added back more than 4.5 million private sector jobs and seen 29 straight months of job growth.  Sounds good huh? But let’s look beyond the hype, shall we?  When Obama was took office the unemployment rate was 7.8%, not his fault, but for all his promises to put the country on track the unemployment rate climbed to a high of 10% by October 2009.

Starting in May 2009 the jobless rate stayed at or above 9% for 22 consecutive months with a one month dip to 8.9% then back above 9% for an additional six months. So 28 out of 29 consecutive months of over 9% unemployment on his watch is hardly something to crow about. The “official” number which is what the BLS calls the U3 chart, finally dipped into the 8% range just last October and has remained there for the past 11 months.  What many don’t know, is that there is also a U6 chart, which lists also those unemployed who have just plain given up looking for work for at least the previous 4 weeks. This chart shows that the real unemployment rate is 15% or nearly double the officially reported U3 rate.

The fact is, that the official jobless rate had not been below 9% from the month after Obama took office until March 2011, that’s 37 months. So his hype about 29 months of job growth, while not untrue, doesn’t really tell the whole story. Between March 2010 and July 2012 (his 29 months) the official unemployment rate only dropped from 9.8% to 8.3%, a whopping 1.5% or about one half of one percent per month. In the 40 months of data since he took office, only 12 months have seen less than 9% unemployment.

While I’ll give him all of 2009 as an inherited problem from the Bush-era, the fact is that things continued to get worse in 2010. According to a PEW Charitable Trust study, in August of 2010 4.4 million people—roughly the population of Louisiana—had been out of work for a year or more; an increase of nearly 30 percent since December 2009. That’s a 30% increase in long-term unemployment in the first 9 months of his second year in office. By comparison Reagan inherited a bad job market too, worse than Obama’s since Reagan’s was at 7.5% when he took office, but peaked at 10.8% and stayed over 10% for 10 straight months, yet Reagan policies resulted in a drop of 3.6%, from 10.8% to 7.2% by his 40th month in office. So while Obama’s jobless rate peaked at 10% and had only dropped 1.8% over the same first 40 months in office. The Reagan drop of 3.6% took 20 months to accomplish, while Obama’s drop of just 1.5% took 28 months. He has presided over less than half the decline over a 30% longer period time between high and low points.

Read more: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000 and http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Economic_Mobility/LTU%20Addendum%20Final%2010_07_10.pdf

Obama claim: “Since I’ve been president, federal spending has risen at the lowest pace in nearly 60 years.”  Wow, really? Well, no. Let’s go back to the Clinton Presidency, when Bill took office federal spending was at 23.5% of GDP, when he left in 2001 it was down to only 19.5%, a decline of 4%. Although I was never a fan of President Clinton, the truth is that he and a strong Republican congress cut federal spending more than any administration in modern history.

Now even if you take the second half of TARP, which Obama requested; most of the Auto Bailout which Obama pushed; The Mortgage/Loan Medication Program; The Omnibus Spending Bill signed by Obama March 2009; The Stimulus Bill, and the S-CHIP expansion – take all of this 2009 spending and blame it all on Bush, even then spending is up by almost 24% in Obama’s first term vs. Bush’s last. Spending under Bush, especially in the second term, was huge, a democratically controlled congress, gave Bush Carte Blanche with the purse strings and he went wild like a kid in a candy store. Yet considering the fact that the federal deficit has climbed has much in Obama’s first term as it had from George Washington to Clinton’s first term, to claim he’s not a big spender is simply a lie.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/05/even_with_nuttings_math_obama_1st_term_spending_up_24_vs_bushs_last_term.html#ixzz258iLBxbJ

Why You Should Support Mitt Romney For President


I have not until recently supported Mitt Romney for President; I felt there were others who might have had a better chance of defeating Barack Obama, or make a better President, which are my primary desires in this election. In all honesty, I hadn’t done as much research on Romney, as I had for the others that I supported along the way. One by one those others have dropped out, for a myriad of reasons, some valid, some just dirty politics, until now the Republican nominee has been picked. Although I may disagree with some of the Republican parties underhanded dealings in regard to these candidates along the way, the bottom line is Romney is the candidate. If we want to overthrow the failed Obama regime, we must come together behind our best hope to do that.

I self-identify as a Conservative-Libertarian, now the Libertarian Candidate for President is a gentleman named, Gary Johnson, the former Governor of New Mexico, and his VP running mate is Jim Gray, a former Superior Court Judge in Orange County, California. These men share most of my political beliefs and would carry those values to the highest office in the land, so why am I not going to vote for them, and why will I try to convince my friends, of all political stripes to follow my lead? Well I’ll tell you and hopefully convince you to follow my advise.

My answer to that question is two-fold, first I’ve learned a valuable lesson during a couple of past elections. In 1992 I was unhappy with the administration of Gorge H.W. Bush over the previous four years, and I disliked the proposition of the lecherous Bill Clinton even less, so I threw my support to Ross Perot. Fast forward to 2008, convinced of the extreme leftist, no socialist, leanings of Barack Obama and not being thrilled with the choice of John McCain, I followed my Libertarian conscience, and voted for Bob Barr, the former Georgia Congressman and Libertarian Presidential candidate.

The problem in both cases was that liberals are rarely swayed from the Democratic party line, I used to say that Democrats would vote for Bozo the Clown if he ran on the Democratic ticket. Most conservatives, and independents on the other hand are not so mindlessly loyal to a party line. The result is that the liberal vote will rarely be split, but the conservative/independent vote will. While I don’t believe that my vote for Barr in ’08 was part of an overall national trend, my vote for Perot in ’92 certainly was. The proof is that Clinton won that election by the smallest percentage of the vote in 80 years, and the fourth lowest in history.

The moral of this story is that this election is far too important to do anything but vote for the only man who has a shot at dethroning Emperor Obama. I’ll touch more on that title in a minute, but those of us who despise the policies, abuses of power, and corrupt cabinet members these past four years, must unite in a strong front to drive the tyrant from the White House.

The second reason I want to encourage my friends and colleagues to support Mitt Romney is because of what I have learned about the man since I began to really look at the presumptive nominee when virtually all other contenders had fallen by the wayside. Ron Paul’s fall from contention was not so much a choice, but rather he was pushed off a cliff by his party, in a disgraceful act of back stabbing. While I do not condone the dirty tricks employed by the Republican leadership, and believe it could signal the end of the “Grand Old Party” just as the GOP replaced the Whig party in the 1860’s, due to the corruption and pro-slavery faction in the party. The Tea Party may gain even more supporters now, from more Republicans who are equally disgusted by the antics of a party that is rapidly losing sight of the values it was founded upon, and leadership self-interest.

However, despite my unhappiness with the party leadership, the fact remains that Obama must go! Mitt Romney is our last best hope to accomplish that goal. I understand why many are unhappy with Obama, but don’t like Romney or the Republican party either, so they are thinking of throwing their vote elsewhere. Before you do, consider this. Unlike BHO who came to power with absolutely no experience in the private sector, he never ran a business, or never held an administrative position in any city, county or state government. He was a lawyer, university lecturer (NOT a professor), and a community organizer. Finally he was a two term Senator who spent most of that time running for President. Does all that tremendous experience show in the terrific leadership and accomplishments of the last four years? (Sarcasm intended)

By contrast, Mitt Romney is a successful businessman, who created jobs, was recruited to help save the Salt Lake Winter Olympics when the organization was suffering from corruption and losing corporate sponsors, and running in the red. He stepped in, made management changes, reduced budgets, stepped up fundraising, and ultimately closed the Olympics with a $100 million profit. From there Mitt went on to run for and win election in 2002 as governor of the extremely liberal state of Massachusetts. In a state with a large Democratic majority in both houses, he was successful in turning around a bad economy, and enjoying a budget surplus the last two years of his term. To his credit, he even declined a salary as governor. He’s shown a proven track record in business and political leadership roles. Something sorely lacking in the White House these past several years.

Now, I didn’t vote for Ronald Reagan in 1980, I had heard my dad complain about him as governor of California, and knew that Carter was a miserable failure as President, so I wrote in for another former governor who wasn’t even on the ballot. A wasted vote, because I didn’t want to vote for people I wouldn’t want in office. I corrected my mistake with Reagan four years later and I still greatly admire the man. I wish we had politicians of his caliber today. One of my favorite Reagan quotes was…

Whatever else history may say about me when I’m gone, I hope it will record that I appealed to your best hopes, not your worst fears; to your confidence rather than your doubts. My dream is that you will travel the road ahead with liberty’s lamp guiding your steps and opportunity’s arm steadying your way.

Obama has done nothing but appeal to people’s worst fears, and raised doubts about our collective future, not to mention trampling on our liberty. I was wrong about Reagan in the first election, and I pray that I will be proven right about Mitt Romney for the faith I am placing in him to live up to those words from the Gipper, whether he claims to or not. Obama is running a negative campaign against Romney, not because Romney is an evil man, but rather because he has no record to run on. Romney has a record of success in business, and politics. Experience Obama didn’t have before taking office, and still doesn’t four years later. Nothing, I repeat NOTHING, Obama has done has earned him a second term.

Finally back to my earlier comment about “dethroning Emperor Obama”. I call him this for numerous reasons, first as I have written about before in this blog, was his “extrajudicial killing” of two men, both U.S. citizens, as well as the 16-year-old son of one of the men, by a drone attack in Yemen. The explanation given by the White House was the men were Al Qaeda operatives who promoted terrorist attacks against Americans. While I find the evidence compelling, as citizens of this country they had certain constitutionally protected rights, not the least of which were a trial before being executed. What possible ego could make anyone in government can place himself above the constitution and kill another citizen without trial? For anyone but this emperor, that’s called murder. While I feel this is the gravest example, there are some others.

After failing to get his way with congress on many occasions, last fall Obama said “We can’t wait.” and vowed to bypass congress and rule by executive order. Between November 1, 2011 and August 10, 2012, Obama has signed 35 executive orders and has at least two others in the planning stages now. Many of them contradict the will of congress. The founders set up a system of checks & balances for a reason, but the emperor doth protest. Thomas Jefferson said “In matters of power let no more be heard of the confidence in man but bind them down from mischief by the chains of the constitution.” Obama will have nothing of it, he has an agenda and the congress and constitution be damned!

I’m sure I do not need to go on any further as these examples alone more than show why Obama is a tyrant, who is not to be trusted with the limited power of the presidency, because he refuses to be bound by the constitutional limits of the office. George W. Bush while in his lame duck second term, made many of us who supported him for reelection disappointed with his wild spending and power plays. However, if you think GW was bad, just imagine a second term of Barack Obama unbridled. The republic will be gone and we will indeed live under an Emperor rather than a Constitutional Republic.

Please, no matter how the Obama campaign and their palace guards in the media try to scare you about Romney and Ryan, stop and think back to Obama circa 2009, when he stated that his presidency would be a “one-term proposition” if the economy did not turn around on his watch in “three years.” Well folks, are you better off today than you were three years ago? The bogus, but “Official” unemployment rate has hovered at over 8% these past three years, for blacks it’s over 11%. In 2000 the U.S. was ranked #1 in individual wealth in the world, in 2009 we were down to #7, a 5 point drop from 2008. Median household income in the U.S. declined from $51,726 in 2008 to $50,221 in 2009. 

When Obama first took office, the number of “long-term unemployed workers” in the United States was approximately 2.6 million.  Today, that number is sitting at 5.6 million. According to Reuters, nearly 24 million American workers are either unemployed or underemployed right now. Since Barack Obama entered the White House, the number of Americans on food stamps has increased from 32 million to 46 million. No wonder Newt Gingrich called Obama the “Food Stamp President”. When Obama took office, an ounce of gold was selling for about $850.  Today that ounce of gold costs more than $1700. The number of Americans that are not paying federal incomes taxes is at an all-time high. And finally, but not all-inclusive, during the Obama administration, the U.S. government has accumulated more debt than it did from the time that George Washington took office to the time that Bill Clinton took office.

Who do you want to lead us through this crisis, a man whose a proven failure, or a man whose a proven success?

I rest my case.

Obama “Here’s Your Sign”


A popular comedian, Bill Engvall, uses a catch line of “Here’s your sign” the basic premise of which is that stupid people should be given signs that say “I’m Stupid” in order to warn the rest of us not to put any faith in nor lend any credence to them.

While the left holds Obama up as a messiah and some sort of brilliant thinker, I on the other hand have long felt that he should be given one of Engvall’s signs, but this latest example only convinces me more of that fact. While campaigning at an event in Poland, Ohio last Friday resident Obama said that supply-side economics was a “theory” that it “has never worked.” Oh really? Well Mr. Obama either you’re a bald faced liar or your stupid, I’m honestly not sure which is more true.

I suppose if you believe that the Obama Stimulus package was a wonderful success, then you would believe this drivel too. In reality, it was billions of tax dollars wasted and the promised benefits never seen. Obama is flat-out wrong about the Kennedy & Reagan economic policies, they weren’t just theory that didn’t work, history proves it. In the nineties, the liberals were screaming, as they still do today, that Supply-Side Economics” was a failed experiment, however a policy study by the CATO institute published in 1996 shows the real truth. You can read the entire report [here], but I’ll synopsize it for you.

  1. Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.
  2. Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
  3. Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.
  4. The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s. The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years.

The report also shows that tax cut policies instituted by JFK before his assassination, had benefits in the late 1960’s that were even better than those seen in the Reagan years. It also debunked several popular “Reaganomics” lies such as “The rich get richer and the poor get poorer” the truth is that from 1980 to 1989 while the richest 5% saw their piece of the income pie raise from 16.5 to 18.3%, or just under 11%, the number of Americans making less than $10K per year in 1980 dropped from 66 to 62.6 million by 1989, a drop of 5%. Those making between $10K and $50K per year rose from 9.9 to 15.6 million, an increase of 60%. Further, those making less than $75K per year rose from 3 to 5.5 million an increase of 83%. So the truth is that the middle class fared much better than the poor or the rich, but everyone made out better. Isn’t Obama always claiming he’s looking out for the poor and middle-class? Then here’s the better path than his lame cry of “Tax the rich”.

His highness Obama is so far out of touch with reality, that it now surpasses being just a matter of policy disagreement. Remember this dunce recently said that the “Private sector is doing fine”. I suppose as long as it’s someone else’s money, then he’s all about playing Robin Hood and telling us we’re doing fine, but in reality he’s just buying the poor vote by promising that which is not his to give.  All the while the failed policies of the left continue to hurt and enslave those they claim to be helping.

So Mr. Obama, giving you the benefit of the doubt between being stupid or just being a pathological liar… HERE’S YOUR SIGN.

Ready for more corrupt liberal duplicity and stupidity?


Well here goes… but first I want to expand on the comments in an earlier post (The Liberal Mind, is it Political Madness?), I want to say that in addition to not believing that all liberals are stupid or crazy, I also do not believe that everyone with a liberal viewpoint is evil, corrupt or wants to destroy America. In fact have a number of close family members and friends who are on the opposite side of the political fence from me. These are smart caring people, I just believe that they listen to too much of the biased main stream media and are thinking too much with their hearts.

One of those to whom I am very close, as well as love and respect highly (but will not identify) said during a recent conversation about  my study of the founding documents and the constitution , that it was as if these documents were “inspired”.

I was actually quite struck by the comment considering that this person staunchly supports Barack Obama and his administration. While I, on the other hand, agree with Ted Nugent who said recently that if people can’t see that this administration is, “wiping its a** with the Constitution you’re living under a rock some place”. Even now I’m a bit perplexed that someone could believe the Declaration and Constitution were inspired and yet support an administration that clearly has no regard for those principles.

There are countless liberals in positions of power, leadership and influence or who just have a loud mouth and a mouthpiece like Michael Moore and Alec Baldwin, that spout rhetoric which is completely devoid of any semblance of intellectual honesty, logic or reason, yet act as though they speak from some lofty moral high ground.

While liberals claim to be the party of tolerance, they typically display none, toward those who disagree with them. They cry out for civility and co-operation while being rude, crude or divisive and completely against compromise unless it’s giving in to their will. They claim to be all about fairness, equality, and helping the poor or disenfranchised, while their policies do little toward those goals, and most often have the opposite effect.

The latest example is enveloping rocker Ted Nugent who during a speech at the NRA convention two  weeks ago not only gave the earlier quote, but said that “if Barack Obama becomes the president in November, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year.” Those on the left had a collective mental breakdown, and claimed that the statement is a threat of violence toward the resident.

I find this all quite laughable considering that no one over on the left was the least bit disturbed when in a campaign speech in June 2008 and again at a Philadelphia fundraiser in January 2011; Obama said “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Interesting rhetoric from a man who lectures on civil discourse, and doesn’t believe that free people should even be allowed to own guns.

DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz who continues to proudly display her partisan stupidity in public statements, has also ripped into Nugent’s comment, saying, “Mitt Romney surrogate Ted Nugent made offensive comments about President Obama and November’s elections this weekend that are despicable, deplorable and completely beyond the pale.”

Wow, really? Can anyone reading his statement please show me anything in it that amounts to a threat or has any violent overtone? I’m sorry I just don’t see it, and by the way neither did the Secret Service who interviewed Nugent about the comment less than a week later. Remember, it is a Federal crime for anyone to threaten Obama.

Los Angeles Times editorial writer Jon Healey told Democrats to relax, that Nugent is just a rock ‘n’ roller. “Nugent is no more a surrogate for Romney than the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. is for Obama,” Healy said, adding “Just because someone with a microphone urges people to vote for a candidate doesn’t make him or her a ‘surrogate’ for the campaign.” I wonder if the DNC Chairwoman has the brains to grasp that.

Nugent’s reply to Wasserman Schultz’s comment was simple, “By no stretch of the imagination did I threaten anyone’s life, or hint at violence or mayhem. Metaphors needn’t be explained to educated people.” In a radio interview on the Dana Loesch Show Nugent explained, “I’ve never in my life threatened anyone’s life. I am incapable of threatening anyone’s life because I’m about positive change.”  The liberals once more are attempting to make something controversial out of a comment made by a conservative voice with a following, larger than any on their side.

My interpretation of his comment was that he fears that as an outspoken critic of the Obama regime, that under an unrestrained second term, he might well be jailed as a domestic terrorist or be the victim of another of Obama’s “extrajudicial killings” like that of another U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki.

So who’s right, the typical divisive ranting from the left, or a more reasoned explanation like the one I just gave? Considering Nugent’s statement that he has never threatened anyone in his life, and the fact that the Secret Service walked away considering the case closed, I guess once more logic and reason win out over the stupid rantings from the loud mouths on the left.

Rob

The Liberal Mind, is it Political Madness?


It is typical with liberals to keep certain things in the forefront so they have a cause to champion. As former Obama advisor Rahm Emanuel once said “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste“. Such crisis’ after all give liberals more opportunity to push their particular agendas. For instance, if some nut goes on a rampage and kills a bunch of people, or if someone of light skin kills someone with dark skin, then the liberals start screaming for more laws to control guns. This is despite all the evidence that murder rates fall when gun control laws are repealed and vise versa (See here). You see liberals have a cause, and statistics be damned, they won’t waste a good crisis opportunity to try to shove their mindless views down everyone else’s throats.

Although I have one of my favorite Ronald Reagan quotes at the top of these blog posts, I don’t believe that Ron was completely correct. While I do believe that a significant number of liberals are at least somewhat ignorant, the problem is that facts, are ignored or ridiculed and scientific data skewed to make political points without regard for the truth, and most liberals just mindlessly believe the crap the media spoon feeds them without question. A prominent psychiatrist by the name of Dr. Lyle Rossiter published a book titled, “The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness” and while I haven’t read it, I suspect that he may be on to something. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe that all people with liberal beliefs are brain-damaged, mentally ill, or stupid. I am curious however, why so many leftists who hold political power are always trying to tear down our great country in the name of “Equality” and “Fairness”, and their followers fail to question it.

There is nothing fair about their methods or goals, and it sure as Hell isn’t about equality. Obama and his ilk want to play Robin Hood, to steal from those who have and give to those who don’t. It’s not that most of those folks aren’t capable of doing better for themselves, but rather they are too lazy to do otherwise when Obama will take care of them. Don’t believe for a moment that there is any anything noble about this either, he has a plan and it’s to buy votes from those lazy bums, and he’s doing it with your money. If you don’t believe that, you aren’t paying attention.

I can only imagine the shock on the left when documentary film maker Alexandra Pelosi, the daughter of ultra-liberal “Queen Nancy”, made a short film about the welfare bums in New York and aired it on Bill Maher’s TV show (see a clip here). While I may disagree with her politics, I admire the fact that she has the intellectual honesty to show the entitlement mentality that the liberals have fostered. “I’m here for the Obama bucks” one man said or when asked why he will vote for Obama another replies “because he’ll give me stuff”. Did you see any of this on the 6:00 O’clock news? I didn’t think so.

The latest figures from the IRS (for tax year 2009, released in Oct. 2011) show that the top 1 percent of tax payers accounted for 36.7 percent of all individual federal income taxes collected, while earning only 16.9 percent of the adjusted gross income (AGI). The rest of the top 5 percent paid an additional 22 percent, for a total of 58.7 percent of individual federal income taxes for by only 5 percent of earners. The top 25 percent of wage earners, (those who make over $66,000 per year) foot 87.3 percent of the tax burden, and the top 50 percent carry 97.7 percent. The bottom 50 percent of all wage earners account for only 2.3 percent of the total individual income tax revenue collected by the IRS. In 2009, about 47% of households, that’s about 71 million, did not pay any federal income tax at all.

Obama displays his Robin Hood mentality and a complete lack of  intellectual honesty when he claims that the rich are not paying their fair share, while nearly half of all households pay no income taxes at all. When the top one percent of earners pays over one-third of the total individual tax revenue collected, that’s unfair. It’s time we revise the moronic tax code in this country and have everyone pay a share.

I could go on and on here, but history is pretty clear that liberal policies result in a weak economy, higher dependency on government handouts, and an overall expansion of government bureaucracy, with its inherent degradation of freedom. Conservative and/or libertarian policies on the other hand, tend to result in lower taxes and smaller government which promote greater freedom and a bigger, healthier economy. I believe that’s good for everyone no matter their income level. It is also clear to me that our Federal government has become an oligarchical body with right and left arms, that work together to expand their own power at the expense of “We the people”. They also fail to hold one another accountable by refusing to prosecute unconstitutional acts or outright fraud against the rule of law.

November is coming, so let’s end the political madness in Washington D.C. and vote against every sitting incumbent Democrat, Republican, or whatever who hasn’t lived up their oath of office to “… to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic.” and believe me there are precious few who have. Ronald Reagan asked this in 1979 and I’m going to repeat it here until the elections in November…  Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?

Rob

War on women


Back on March 22nd I offered a post titled “The Unwavering Hypocrisy of the Left” where I pointed out how liberals point fingers and accuse those on the right of wrong doing while doing the same and often worse themselves. Here we are a mere three weeks later and another perfect example of this has blown up in the faces of the left. So much so, that even Obama is doing his best to distance himself from the controversy.

Those on the left criticized Sarah Palin for not being a stay at home mom, especially having a special needs child. After accepting the nomination as the Republican vice-presidential nominee in 2008, Kim Gandy the then president of the National Organization for Women said “It would be best for everyone if Sarah Palin would just stay home and raise her kids,” Really, this from the president of NOW? Oh wait, Palin is a Republican woman, she doesn’t count where the ultra-liberal NOW is concerned.

Fast forward 4 years and we have Ann Romney who chose the opposite path, and is now out campaigning with and for her husband. Along comes a Democratic strategist by the name of Hilary Rosen to make an asinine statement like “Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her life.” Hey, I’m no fan of Mitt Romney, and I know precious little about his wife, but once more I’m stunned by the hypocrisy here. I dare say that if you were to tell any stay at home mom that she never worked a day in her life you’d be setting yourself up for a bloody nose. Yet I hear no outcries from the left or NOW. Oh wait yes the current president of that illustrious organization has made a statement, Terry O’Neill said that Ann Romney lacks “life experience” and “imagination”.

As I said I don’t know much about Ann Romney, and I can’t speak to her imagination, but I would certainly believe that any woman who has raised five sons to adulthood, and been the First  Lady of Massachusetts for four years would have plenty of life experience. Is this woman really so self-righteous that she believes that she is qualified to make such statements about someone? Has this woman ever met Ann Romney or know anyone who does know her? The liberal mind never ceases to amaze me, I can only wonder if someone stuck a vacuum hose in their ear and sucked out all ability for reason, logic and intellectual honesty.  With the controversy surrounding the remarks by Hilary Rosen, if O’Neill had an ounce of any of those, she should have had sense enough to keep her mouth shut.

Finally we have Barack Obama who charges a “Republican war on women” because they balk at the idea of government subsidized contraception, while he seems to have is own war on women going on. According to the “2011 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff” issued by the White House [See additional article here] it turns out that Mr. Obama pays his female staff a median average of 18% less than his male staff. Demetrius Minor writing on townhall.com quotes Ann Sulivan of Time Magazine as saying the Obama administration is described as a “boy’s club” and suggested that the president has a woman problem. It is reported that senior women staffers are seen and not heard during policy meetings. I believe that the men are likely paid 18% too much, rather that the women being not paid enough. The way liberals are always screaming about the inequality of salaries between men and women, and Obama endlessly pointing fingers at Republicans, perhaps he needs to get is own house in order before he casts aspersions.

Rob

Obama Rhetoric vs. The Facts – Once more Obama loses, when confronted with hard data


It never ceases to amaze me the crap that Obama spews as fact, and his loyal followers accept as gospel. For instance, on Tuesday April 10th, he told a group of students at Florida Atlantic University, in Boca Raton, Fla.  “Some people who are running for a certain office right now – who shall not be named – they’re doubling down on these old broken-down theories,” he was referring to what he and other liberals call “trickle down economics”. As I’ve pointed out before, one of Obama’s mentors, Saul Alinsky the author of “Rules for Radicals” said “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon”. This is one reason you often see the left making belittling statements about that which they disagree. The other and I believe most prevalent, is that many lack the intelligence to put forth a reasoned argument so they resort to ridicule or avoidance of the subject entirely.

 The problem with their ridicule of supply side economics, the real name of this economic policy, is that it is all a lie. While Obama claims it’s a “broken-down” theory, history proves otherwise. When compared to the Ford-Carter years of 1974-1981 and the Bush-Clinton years of 1989-1995, the Reagan years of supply side fare much better. Here are some numbers to consider from a CATO Institute Policy Study from 1996. 

  • Economic growth during the Reagan years averaged 3.2%, while only 2.8% before and 2.1% after.
  • Inflation, Interest rates and unemployment fell faster during the Reagan years, than before or after his presidency.
  • The median family income rose $4,000 during the Reagan years, after experiencing no growth before, and a nearly $1,500 decline afterwards.
  • By the end of the Reagan presidency the economy was nearly one-third larger than when it started.
  • The claim that “The rich got richer, while the poor got poorer” is another huge liberal lie. By 1989 there were 5.9 million more Americans making over $50,000 per year than in 1981, yet there were only 2.5 million more Americans making in excess of $75,000 per year. Further the number of those making less than $10,000 fell by 3.4 million.  

 It seems pretty clear from just these few facts that supply side works and lowering the tax burden stimulates the economy better than the stifling effects of the reverse. The only period from the 1950’s to the time of the study that did better than the Reagan supply side years was the latter half of the 1960’s. The Kennedy income tax cuts of 30% that were enacted in 1964 generated several years of 5% annual growth. Basically supply side before it had a name.

 So does Obama’s claim that supply side is a broken down theory hold water? Hardly, the broken down theory is that you can tax yourself to prosperity, or build up the poor by tearing down the rich. What Obama fails to understand, or purposely avoids because it’s not consistent with his agenda, is that it is the rich who create the jobs, not government. It is the rich who run businesses that drive the economy and produce the goods that people consume. The government doesn’t create anything but deficits, draconian regulations that hinder business and job growth, power-hungry elites and an ever-growing contingent of lazy welfare bums who feed off the productivity of others.   

UPDATE: for more proof watch this

 Rob