Charles Krauthammer has some very harsh words for Barack Obama and the remarks he made on Friday in Strasbourg.
BRET BAIER: Charles, your thoughts on the day...CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Well, where does one begin? Obama says, 'In America, there is a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world.' Well maybe that's because when there was a civil war on Europe's doorstep in the Balkans and genocide, it didn't lift a finger until America led. Maybe it's because when there was an invasion of Kuwait, it didn't lift a finger until America led. Maybe it's because with America spending over half a trillion a year keeping open the sea lanes and defending the world, Europe is spending pennies on defense. It's hard to appreciate an entity's leading role in the world when it's been sucking on your tit for 60 years as Europe has in regard to the United States, parasitically. And...BAIER: Was that a Charles Grassley reference or just a Charles Krauthammer...?KRAUTHAMMER: It was a turn of phrase which I'm sure I will regret. Look, and then he goes on and calls America "arrogant, dismissive, and derisive" regarding Europe. The London Telegraph, the correspondent at Strasbourg said that this was the most critical remarks he had ever seen a president give on foreign soil, and I think he's right. When Kennedy arrived in Paris, he did not attack Eisenhower and the United States. When Obama's elected president, he's president of all the United States, including Americans who opposed him, and he owns American history, including a past he may not have wanted to engage in. I think what he did, in order to gain the adoration of the press, he denigrated his country in a way that I think is disgraceful.Well said.
April 4, 2009
Even The Guardian Admits Obama Is A Joke
Even the moonbats at the Guardian are starting to realize that Chairman Zero is a catastrophic farce. John Crace reports the Moonbat Messiah's response when Nick Robinson of the BBC asked who is to blame for the financial crisis:
I, I, would say that, er … pause [I HAVEN'T A CLUE] … if you look at … pause [WHO IS THIS NICK ROBINSON JERK?] … the, the sources of this crisis … pause [JUST KEEP GOING, BUDDY] … the United States certainly has some accounting to do with respect to . . . pause [I'M IN WAY TOO DEEP HERE] … a regulatory system that was inadequate to the massive changes that have taken place in the global financial system … pause, close eyes [THIS IS GOING TO GO DOWN LIKE A CROCK OF SH*T BACK HOME. HELP]. I think what is also true is that … pause [I WANT NICK ROBINSON TO DISAPPEAR] … here in Great Britain … pause [SH*T, GORDY'S THE HOST, DON'T LAND HIM IN IT] … here in continental Europe … pause [DAMN IT, BLAME EVERYONE.] … around the world. We were seeing the same mismatch between the regulatory regimes that were in place and er … pause [I'VE LOST MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT AGAIN] … the highly integrated, er, global capital markets that have emerged … pause [I'M REALLY WINGING IT NOW]. So at this point, I'm less interested in … pause [YOU] … identifying blame than fixing the problem. I think we've taken some very aggressive steps in the United States to do so, not just responding to the immediate crisis, ensuring banks are adequately capitalised, er, dealing with the enormous, er … pause [WHY DIDN'T I QUIT WHILE I WAS AHEAD?] … drop-off in demand and contraction that has taken place. More importantly, for the long term, making sure that we've got a set of, er, er, regulations that are up to the task, er, and that includes, er, a number that will be discussed at this summit. I think there's a lot of convergence between all the parties involved about the need, for example, to focus not on the legal form that a particular financial product takes or the institution it emerges from, but rather what's the risk involved, what's the function of this product and how do we regulate that adequately, much more effective coordination, er, between countries so we can, er, anticipate the risks that are involved there. Dealing with the, er, problem of derivatives markets, making sure we have set up systems, er, that can reduce some of the risks there. So, I actually think … pause [FANTASTIC. I'VE LOST EVERYONE, INCLUDING MYSELF] … there's enormous consensus that has emerged in terms of what we need to do now and, er … pause [I'M OUTTA HERE. TIME FOR THE USUAL CLOSING BOLLOCKS] … I'm a great believer in looking forwards than looking backwards.
Apparently none of his 12 teleprompters had been programmed to handle this foreseeable question — unless BO was employing the "bore them into submission" strategy he uses for press conferences at home.
I, I, would say that, er … pause [I HAVEN'T A CLUE] … if you look at … pause [WHO IS THIS NICK ROBINSON JERK?] … the, the sources of this crisis … pause [JUST KEEP GOING, BUDDY] … the United States certainly has some accounting to do with respect to . . . pause [I'M IN WAY TOO DEEP HERE] … a regulatory system that was inadequate to the massive changes that have taken place in the global financial system … pause, close eyes [THIS IS GOING TO GO DOWN LIKE A CROCK OF SH*T BACK HOME. HELP]. I think what is also true is that … pause [I WANT NICK ROBINSON TO DISAPPEAR] … here in Great Britain … pause [SH*T, GORDY'S THE HOST, DON'T LAND HIM IN IT] … here in continental Europe … pause [DAMN IT, BLAME EVERYONE.] … around the world. We were seeing the same mismatch between the regulatory regimes that were in place and er … pause [I'VE LOST MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT AGAIN] … the highly integrated, er, global capital markets that have emerged … pause [I'M REALLY WINGING IT NOW]. So at this point, I'm less interested in … pause [YOU] … identifying blame than fixing the problem. I think we've taken some very aggressive steps in the United States to do so, not just responding to the immediate crisis, ensuring banks are adequately capitalised, er, dealing with the enormous, er … pause [WHY DIDN'T I QUIT WHILE I WAS AHEAD?] … drop-off in demand and contraction that has taken place. More importantly, for the long term, making sure that we've got a set of, er, er, regulations that are up to the task, er, and that includes, er, a number that will be discussed at this summit. I think there's a lot of convergence between all the parties involved about the need, for example, to focus not on the legal form that a particular financial product takes or the institution it emerges from, but rather what's the risk involved, what's the function of this product and how do we regulate that adequately, much more effective coordination, er, between countries so we can, er, anticipate the risks that are involved there. Dealing with the, er, problem of derivatives markets, making sure we have set up systems, er, that can reduce some of the risks there. So, I actually think … pause [FANTASTIC. I'VE LOST EVERYONE, INCLUDING MYSELF] … there's enormous consensus that has emerged in terms of what we need to do now and, er … pause [I'M OUTTA HERE. TIME FOR THE USUAL CLOSING BOLLOCKS] … I'm a great believer in looking forwards than looking backwards.
Apparently none of his 12 teleprompters had been programmed to handle this foreseeable question — unless BO was employing the "bore them into submission" strategy he uses for press conferences at home.
April 3, 2009
Tea Bag Scares The Hell Out Of Cowardly Dem
Those who say Tea Party protests won't do any good are reminded that the mere sight of a tea bag is enough to send kleptocrat bureauweenies into paroxysms of terror. For example:
Taxpayer tea parties have rattled some politicians in Washington, as thousands have gathered in cities across America to object to President Obama's spending policies. But no politician was rattled as severely as the staff of Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH) was yesterday.
After opening an envelope containing a teabag and marked "Tea Protest" in the Congresswoman's Manchester office, Shea-Porter's staff called Capitol Police and city police and firefighters.
The authorities instructed Shea-Porter's staff to seek "refuge" as they performed field tests on the substance contained in the tea bag. It turned out to be green tea.
Like all bullies, our greedy socialist rulers are cowards. Be sure to turn out at the nearest Tea Party on April 15. We'll see how many we can send scurrying under their desks.
Taxpayer tea parties have rattled some politicians in Washington, as thousands have gathered in cities across America to object to President Obama's spending policies. But no politician was rattled as severely as the staff of Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH) was yesterday.
After opening an envelope containing a teabag and marked "Tea Protest" in the Congresswoman's Manchester office, Shea-Porter's staff called Capitol Police and city police and firefighters.
The authorities instructed Shea-Porter's staff to seek "refuge" as they performed field tests on the substance contained in the tea bag. It turned out to be green tea.
Like all bullies, our greedy socialist rulers are cowards. Be sure to turn out at the nearest Tea Party on April 15. We'll see how many we can send scurrying under their desks.
April 2, 2009
Obama Racking Up Reward Zone Points
LONDON (TSO) - President Obama is padding his personal Best Buy Rewards Zone account, and restoring hope in a lost world, with neat gifts to British dignitaries.
After Prime Minister Gordon Brown gave the President an everyday pen holder, carved from the timbers of the anti-slave ship from which the presidential desk was made, Mr. Obama returned the favor with what many consider to be perhaps the most meaningful diplomatic gift of the last century: a DVD-of-the-Month-Club membership. Analysts agree that the gift not only speaks to the President’s immeasurable experience in foreign affairs, but also bumped his Reward Zone account to the tune of approximately 50 points.
With a mere 150 points needed to claim Apple’s new iTeleprompter, the President sealed the deal when he purchased an iPod for the Queen of England.
After Prime Minister Gordon Brown gave the President an everyday pen holder, carved from the timbers of the anti-slave ship from which the presidential desk was made, Mr. Obama returned the favor with what many consider to be perhaps the most meaningful diplomatic gift of the last century: a DVD-of-the-Month-Club membership. Analysts agree that the gift not only speaks to the President’s immeasurable experience in foreign affairs, but also bumped his Reward Zone account to the tune of approximately 50 points.
With a mere 150 points needed to claim Apple’s new iTeleprompter, the President sealed the deal when he purchased an iPod for the Queen of England.
The Dumbama's Meet The Queen
Congratulations, Mr. Obama. You didn't nod off during your meetings with leaders of the world. It makes me feel so confident to have you representing our country. You managed to stay awake. Good for you!From the New York Daily News:
Both Obamas played the palace Wednesday, but the star who emerged from their first meeting with Queen Elizabeth was the one dubbed Mighty Michelle by the gaga British tabs.First Lady Michelle Obama was regally cool, and really tall at 6 feet in low heels next to the 5-foot-4 queen in the living quarters of Buckingham Palace. President Obama, characteristically cool, seemed a tad self-conscious in the royal presence. Michelle Obama skipped the optional curtsy and easily reached out to shake hands with the queen and Prince Philip, while her husband's head bobbed awkwardly during the introductions. The President, who was fighting off a cold, then appeared to settle on an exaggerated nod in the queen's direction to serve as the optional bow. It was all in the preparation, President Obama said earlier. "I'm very much looking forward to meeting" the queen, Obama said, "and as you might imagine, Michelle has been really thinking that through." ...The chitchat at the palace between the First Couple and the royal couple predictably went downhill when Philip chimed in with one of his trademark off-key bloopers. Elizabeth asked about the Obamas' breakfast and worried that her guests might be tired - "the time lag," the queen said. "You're just trying to stay awake," said Philip. "He's been busy with meetings," Michelle Obama said, and the President added that "I had breakfast with the Prime Minister, I had meetings with the Chinese, the Russians, [Tory leader] David Cameron. And I'm proud to say I did not nod off in one of the meetings." Philip then asked, "Can you tell the difference between [the countries' leaders]?" The Obamas were too polite, or too puzzled, to respond.I don't think Philip's question was a blooper.I'm wondering the same thing. Embedded video from CNN VideoNow, about Michelle Obama's royal faux pas... She threw out protocol and touched the Queen. She also wore a sleeveless dress, a no-no. Embedded video from CNN VideoSupposedly, Michelle Obama brushed up on "Etiquette Fit For a Queen."
Michelle and the president will try to charm the Queen today -- but they better not give her Royal Highness a fist bump.The first lady was briefed on the particulars of royal etiquette by state department and White House officials on board Air Force One yesterday ahead of the big meeting with Queen Elizabeth at Buckingham Palace today, the Daily News reported.Michelle reportedly passed on tips like appropriate small talk and other do's and don'ts to her husband, the paper reported. British etiquette says "you may not shake the queen's hand, only touch it briefly" and that if the Queen stops eating then everyone else must stop too, the News reported.Did Michelle forget the "particulars of royal etiquette," or did she intentionally reject them?Who knows? It's not as if Michelle's behavior is the stuff of an international incident. I don't think this is the start of the crisis that Joe Biden warned would occur. No need to gird your loins over this. It's all good. I do think it's worth remembering how gracefully and perfectly Mrs. Laura Bush conducted herself when the Queen visited the U.S. in 2007. She was such a wonderful first lady.
Both Obamas played the palace Wednesday, but the star who emerged from their first meeting with Queen Elizabeth was the one dubbed Mighty Michelle by the gaga British tabs.First Lady Michelle Obama was regally cool, and really tall at 6 feet in low heels next to the 5-foot-4 queen in the living quarters of Buckingham Palace. President Obama, characteristically cool, seemed a tad self-conscious in the royal presence. Michelle Obama skipped the optional curtsy and easily reached out to shake hands with the queen and Prince Philip, while her husband's head bobbed awkwardly during the introductions. The President, who was fighting off a cold, then appeared to settle on an exaggerated nod in the queen's direction to serve as the optional bow. It was all in the preparation, President Obama said earlier. "I'm very much looking forward to meeting" the queen, Obama said, "and as you might imagine, Michelle has been really thinking that through." ...The chitchat at the palace between the First Couple and the royal couple predictably went downhill when Philip chimed in with one of his trademark off-key bloopers. Elizabeth asked about the Obamas' breakfast and worried that her guests might be tired - "the time lag," the queen said. "You're just trying to stay awake," said Philip. "He's been busy with meetings," Michelle Obama said, and the President added that "I had breakfast with the Prime Minister, I had meetings with the Chinese, the Russians, [Tory leader] David Cameron. And I'm proud to say I did not nod off in one of the meetings." Philip then asked, "Can you tell the difference between [the countries' leaders]?" The Obamas were too polite, or too puzzled, to respond.I don't think Philip's question was a blooper.I'm wondering the same thing. Embedded video from CNN VideoNow, about Michelle Obama's royal faux pas... She threw out protocol and touched the Queen. She also wore a sleeveless dress, a no-no. Embedded video from CNN VideoSupposedly, Michelle Obama brushed up on "Etiquette Fit For a Queen."
Michelle and the president will try to charm the Queen today -- but they better not give her Royal Highness a fist bump.The first lady was briefed on the particulars of royal etiquette by state department and White House officials on board Air Force One yesterday ahead of the big meeting with Queen Elizabeth at Buckingham Palace today, the Daily News reported.Michelle reportedly passed on tips like appropriate small talk and other do's and don'ts to her husband, the paper reported. British etiquette says "you may not shake the queen's hand, only touch it briefly" and that if the Queen stops eating then everyone else must stop too, the News reported.Did Michelle forget the "particulars of royal etiquette," or did she intentionally reject them?Who knows? It's not as if Michelle's behavior is the stuff of an international incident. I don't think this is the start of the crisis that Joe Biden warned would occur. No need to gird your loins over this. It's all good. I do think it's worth remembering how gracefully and perfectly Mrs. Laura Bush conducted herself when the Queen visited the U.S. in 2007. She was such a wonderful first lady.
Still More Obama Follies
The diplomatic ineptitude from the Obamination Administration just doesn't stop. Shrieking harpy Michelle Obama has now hugged the Queen of England, committing a major faux pas that Her Majesty graciously smoothed over.
What could be more inappropriate (other than giving the Queen a second iPod as a gift)? How about our Affirmative Action President bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia?
Even liberals will soon admit that there is egg running down the country's face as a result of Obama's farcical election.
What could be more inappropriate (other than giving the Queen a second iPod as a gift)? How about our Affirmative Action President bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia?
Even liberals will soon admit that there is egg running down the country's face as a result of Obama's farcical election.
Are You Anti-War? Bush Saves 600,000 lives
Are you anti-war? Do you oppose the use of force and the loss of human lives in order to achieve an objective?
What about just war? That is, a war that has justified reasons and is based on justice. Do you oppose the use of force and the loss of human lives if it would save more lives?
Picture this scenario: You see a woman just about to be raped by an unarmed man in a secluded alley. Do you ignore what is happening and walk away? Do you keep your distance and call the police, who will arrive in 15 minutes… AFTER the rape has been finished? Or do you rush in to try and stop the rapist, even if it means you will end up in a fist fight with the rapist?
Now put it in the context of nations and war. If a thousand people a day are being slaughtered in state-sponsored genocide, do you stay out non-involved because “It’s a matter of national sovereignity”? Do you file a complaint with the United Nations, who will take a few months… To even VOTE on a resolution to FORMALLY COMPLAIN regarding that state’s actions (just look back at the Rwandan Genocide)? Or do you send your army in, together with whichever nation is willing to stand up to gross injustice, and save as many innocent lives as you can?
Now put it in the context of Iraq. If Saddam Hussein is killing and torturing thousands of his own citizens and letting them literally starve to death while he himself lives a life of luxury (thank you UN and Oil-for-Food), do you close a blind eye because he is “A duly elected leader” or “A Muslim brother”? Do you appeal to the UN, who will basically ignore the dozen plus resolutions while cosying up to the UN Secretary General? Or do you march right in there, unilaterally or not, weapons of mass destruction or not, international condemnation or not, KICK THAT B*STARD’S A$$, and free millions of Iraqis from tyranny and death?
Yes, you heard that right: George W. Bush freed 29 million Iraqis and directly saved thousands of lives.
Don’t believe this rightwing neocon? Here are the facts:
George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq: From the 57 months of 20 March 2003 until end 2008, using the Iraq Body Count estimate, a total of 98,882 Iraqi civilians died as a result of the war and occupation. That is a rate of 1735.772 deaths per month. The overwhelming majority of these deaths were caused not by US military forces following Bush’s orders, but by Islamic militants and terrorists (most often foreigners from outside Iraq) who targeted their own Muslim brethren. The death rate has now trailed off as Al Qaeda in Iraq and other terrorist groups have been soundly defeated and pushed to the margins of the country (see conclusion).
[SIDE NOTE: This proves the point that it is JIHADISTS who have been causing all the death and suffering, and if they hadn't meddled in Iraq then the US forces would have been long gone out of there! So blame the mujahideen, not the US troops for the prolonged occupation of Iraq by 'kaffir' American infidels.]
Saddam Hussein’s reign: From the 286 months of Saddam Hussein’s reign from 16 July 1979 to 9 April 2003, using just six of the war crime events listed by U.S. War Crimes Ambassador David J. Scheffer, a total of 865,000 Iraqis civilians died as the result of Saddam’s ethnic cleansing, political oppression and ‘arrests’. That is a rate of 3024.476 deaths per month… 1.742 times greater than Bush’s death rate. This figure does not count the deaths of non-Iraqis, nor the casualties suffered during the wars against Iran and Kuwait, nor the countless other documented human rights abuses Saddam committed.
Bill Clinton era embargo: From the 108 months of 6 August 1990 to 6 August 1999, using the United Nations estimate, a total of 1 million Iraqi civilians died as result of the sanctions. Of these, as many as 567,000 of the casualties were children. That is a rate of 9259.259 deaths per month… 5.334 times greater than Bush’s death rate. Justify that, anti-war liberal Democrats. (Clinton actually only gained the Presidency on 20 January 1993, but the sanctions also lasted past the date of the UN estimate - to 22 May 2003, while Clinton stepped down on 20 January 2001.)
RECAP: Bush’s per month Iraqi civilian death rate was 1.742 times less than Saddam’s and 5.334 times less than Clinton’s.
CONCLUSION: Considering that now Iraq has a FAR LOWER violent death toll than any one of Colombia, South Africa, Jamaica, Venezuela, New Orleans, Washington, Baltimore, Atlanta and even Obama’s Chicago (and dropping every day!) and there is clearly visible peace in Iraq, I stand by my claim:
The just war initiated by George W. Bush saved 600,807 Muslim lives.
[Figure calculated using total deaths over span of Bush's Iraq invasion and occupation (98,882), multiplied by higher rates of Saddam and Clinton and totaled (172,252 + 527,437), and subtracting the Bush total from that (699,869 - 99,882), to find the total of how many more lives would have been lost if Saddam still ruled under continued sanctions (600,807).]
Now just try and call Bush a genocidal crusading murderer with a clear conscience.
PS. This post was inspired by preliminary calculations and comparison I had done earlier, Let’s Throw Shoes at Others Besides Bush (’Cos He Actually Saved Iraq).
What about just war? That is, a war that has justified reasons and is based on justice. Do you oppose the use of force and the loss of human lives if it would save more lives?
Picture this scenario: You see a woman just about to be raped by an unarmed man in a secluded alley. Do you ignore what is happening and walk away? Do you keep your distance and call the police, who will arrive in 15 minutes… AFTER the rape has been finished? Or do you rush in to try and stop the rapist, even if it means you will end up in a fist fight with the rapist?
Now put it in the context of nations and war. If a thousand people a day are being slaughtered in state-sponsored genocide, do you stay out non-involved because “It’s a matter of national sovereignity”? Do you file a complaint with the United Nations, who will take a few months… To even VOTE on a resolution to FORMALLY COMPLAIN regarding that state’s actions (just look back at the Rwandan Genocide)? Or do you send your army in, together with whichever nation is willing to stand up to gross injustice, and save as many innocent lives as you can?
Now put it in the context of Iraq. If Saddam Hussein is killing and torturing thousands of his own citizens and letting them literally starve to death while he himself lives a life of luxury (thank you UN and Oil-for-Food), do you close a blind eye because he is “A duly elected leader” or “A Muslim brother”? Do you appeal to the UN, who will basically ignore the dozen plus resolutions while cosying up to the UN Secretary General? Or do you march right in there, unilaterally or not, weapons of mass destruction or not, international condemnation or not, KICK THAT B*STARD’S A$$, and free millions of Iraqis from tyranny and death?
Yes, you heard that right: George W. Bush freed 29 million Iraqis and directly saved thousands of lives.
Don’t believe this rightwing neocon? Here are the facts:
George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq: From the 57 months of 20 March 2003 until end 2008, using the Iraq Body Count estimate, a total of 98,882 Iraqi civilians died as a result of the war and occupation. That is a rate of 1735.772 deaths per month. The overwhelming majority of these deaths were caused not by US military forces following Bush’s orders, but by Islamic militants and terrorists (most often foreigners from outside Iraq) who targeted their own Muslim brethren. The death rate has now trailed off as Al Qaeda in Iraq and other terrorist groups have been soundly defeated and pushed to the margins of the country (see conclusion).
[SIDE NOTE: This proves the point that it is JIHADISTS who have been causing all the death and suffering, and if they hadn't meddled in Iraq then the US forces would have been long gone out of there! So blame the mujahideen, not the US troops for the prolonged occupation of Iraq by 'kaffir' American infidels.]
Saddam Hussein’s reign: From the 286 months of Saddam Hussein’s reign from 16 July 1979 to 9 April 2003, using just six of the war crime events listed by U.S. War Crimes Ambassador David J. Scheffer, a total of 865,000 Iraqis civilians died as the result of Saddam’s ethnic cleansing, political oppression and ‘arrests’. That is a rate of 3024.476 deaths per month… 1.742 times greater than Bush’s death rate. This figure does not count the deaths of non-Iraqis, nor the casualties suffered during the wars against Iran and Kuwait, nor the countless other documented human rights abuses Saddam committed.
Bill Clinton era embargo: From the 108 months of 6 August 1990 to 6 August 1999, using the United Nations estimate, a total of 1 million Iraqi civilians died as result of the sanctions. Of these, as many as 567,000 of the casualties were children. That is a rate of 9259.259 deaths per month… 5.334 times greater than Bush’s death rate. Justify that, anti-war liberal Democrats. (Clinton actually only gained the Presidency on 20 January 1993, but the sanctions also lasted past the date of the UN estimate - to 22 May 2003, while Clinton stepped down on 20 January 2001.)
RECAP: Bush’s per month Iraqi civilian death rate was 1.742 times less than Saddam’s and 5.334 times less than Clinton’s.
CONCLUSION: Considering that now Iraq has a FAR LOWER violent death toll than any one of Colombia, South Africa, Jamaica, Venezuela, New Orleans, Washington, Baltimore, Atlanta and even Obama’s Chicago (and dropping every day!) and there is clearly visible peace in Iraq, I stand by my claim:
The just war initiated by George W. Bush saved 600,807 Muslim lives.
[Figure calculated using total deaths over span of Bush's Iraq invasion and occupation (98,882), multiplied by higher rates of Saddam and Clinton and totaled (172,252 + 527,437), and subtracting the Bush total from that (699,869 - 99,882), to find the total of how many more lives would have been lost if Saddam still ruled under continued sanctions (600,807).]
Now just try and call Bush a genocidal crusading murderer with a clear conscience.
PS. This post was inspired by preliminary calculations and comparison I had done earlier, Let’s Throw Shoes at Others Besides Bush (’Cos He Actually Saved Iraq).
While Dumbama Is In London Let's Change The Country Back
Actor Gary Graham of Star Trek fame says--"While Obama is out of the country let's change America back."Right on!The successful actor says he talks to people all the time who say "I'm mad as hell and I'm not goint to take it anymore."Graham was on with Neil Cavuto this week:Via Breitbart.
What's On The Ipod Obama Gave The Queen
He thought long and hard and decided there was only one gift deserving of the Queen of England...An iPod with his speeches on it.Of course.Obama uploaded speeches of himself on the iPod gift he gave the Queen of England.Jake Tapper reported:
President and First Lady Obama gave Her Royal Highness Queen Elizabeth II a video iPod with inscription, songs uploaded and accessories, plus a rare musical songbook signed by Richard Rodgers.Uploaded onto the iPod: Photos from the Queen's 2007 White House State Visit Photos from the Queen's 2007 Jamestown, Va., Visit Photos from the Queen's 2007 Richmond, Va., Visit Video from the Queen's 1957 Jamestown Visit Video from the Queen's 2007 Jamestown Visit Video from the Queen's 2007 Richmond Visit Photos from President Obama's Inauguration Audio of then-state senator Obama's speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, and Audio of President Obama 2009 Inauguration Address Previously:Obamas Embarrass America- Give Queen an iPod... She Already Has One (Video)
President and First Lady Obama gave Her Royal Highness Queen Elizabeth II a video iPod with inscription, songs uploaded and accessories, plus a rare musical songbook signed by Richard Rodgers.Uploaded onto the iPod: Photos from the Queen's 2007 White House State Visit Photos from the Queen's 2007 Jamestown, Va., Visit Photos from the Queen's 2007 Richmond, Va., Visit Video from the Queen's 1957 Jamestown Visit Video from the Queen's 2007 Jamestown Visit Video from the Queen's 2007 Richmond Visit Photos from President Obama's Inauguration Audio of then-state senator Obama's speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, and Audio of President Obama 2009 Inauguration Address Previously:Obamas Embarrass America- Give Queen an iPod... She Already Has One (Video)
Obama Lies On Taxes
Barack Obama lied. I knew he wouldn't keep his promises. I admit I don't have much sympathy for the people who bought what he was selling and voted for him.
BARACK OBAMA: And I can make a firm pledge: under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase - not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.Read Obama's lips: NO FAMILY MAKING LESS THAN $250,000 A YEAR WILL SEE ANY FORM OF TAX INCREASE.That was a flat-out lie.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- One of President Barack Obama's campaign pledges on taxes went up in puffs of smoke Wednesday. The largest increase in tobacco taxes took effect despite Obama's promise not to raise taxes of any kind on families earning under $250,000 or individuals under $200,000. This is one tax that disproportionately affects the poor, who are more likely to smoke than the rich. To be sure, Obama's tax promises in last year's campaign were most often made in the context of income taxes. Not always.No.To be sure, Obama's tax promises were most definitely NOT often made in the context of income taxes.
Obama said in the campaign that Americans could have both—a broad boost in affordable health insurance for the nation without raising taxes on anyone but the rich. His detailed campaign plan stated that his proposed improvement in health insurance and health technology "is more than covered" by raising taxes on the wealthy alone. It was not based on raising the tobacco tax. The White House contends Obama's campaign pledge left room for measures such as the one financing children's health insurance. "The president's position throughout the campaign was that he would not raise income or payroll taxes on families making less than $250,000, and that's a promise he has kept," said White House spokesman Reid H. Cherlin. "In this case, he supported a public health measure that will extend health coverage to 4 million children who are currently uninsured." In some instances during the campaign, Obama was plainly talking about income, payroll and investment taxes, even if he did not say so. Other times, his point appeared to be that heavier taxation of any sort on average Americans is the wrong prescription in tough times. "Listen now," he said in his widely watched nomination acceptance speech, "I will cut taxes—cut taxes—for 95 percent of all working families, because, in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class." An unequivocal "any tax" pledge also was heard in the vice presidential debate, another prominent forum. "No one making less than $250,000 under Barack Obama's plan will see one single penny of their tax raised," Joe Biden said, "whether it's their capital gains tax, their income tax, investment tax, any tax." The Democratic campaign used such statements to counter Republican assertions that Obama would raise taxes in a multitude of direct and indirect ways, recalled Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. "I think a reasonable person would have concluded that Senator Obama had made a 'no new taxes' pledge to every couple or family making less than $250,000," she said.The White House spin is pathetic. It's Clintonesque. "It depends on what the meaning of 'ANY FORM OF TAX INCREASE' is."Obama lied. There's no denying that. End of story. Obama is working to spread the wealth around like a good socialist, but he's also spreading the pain around with this tax that disproportionately burdens lower income Americans. Spreading the pain around -- I guess that's what a good socialist does, too. Obama is a very good socialist.
BARACK OBAMA: And I can make a firm pledge: under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase - not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.Read Obama's lips: NO FAMILY MAKING LESS THAN $250,000 A YEAR WILL SEE ANY FORM OF TAX INCREASE.That was a flat-out lie.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- One of President Barack Obama's campaign pledges on taxes went up in puffs of smoke Wednesday. The largest increase in tobacco taxes took effect despite Obama's promise not to raise taxes of any kind on families earning under $250,000 or individuals under $200,000. This is one tax that disproportionately affects the poor, who are more likely to smoke than the rich. To be sure, Obama's tax promises in last year's campaign were most often made in the context of income taxes. Not always.No.To be sure, Obama's tax promises were most definitely NOT often made in the context of income taxes.
Obama said in the campaign that Americans could have both—a broad boost in affordable health insurance for the nation without raising taxes on anyone but the rich. His detailed campaign plan stated that his proposed improvement in health insurance and health technology "is more than covered" by raising taxes on the wealthy alone. It was not based on raising the tobacco tax. The White House contends Obama's campaign pledge left room for measures such as the one financing children's health insurance. "The president's position throughout the campaign was that he would not raise income or payroll taxes on families making less than $250,000, and that's a promise he has kept," said White House spokesman Reid H. Cherlin. "In this case, he supported a public health measure that will extend health coverage to 4 million children who are currently uninsured." In some instances during the campaign, Obama was plainly talking about income, payroll and investment taxes, even if he did not say so. Other times, his point appeared to be that heavier taxation of any sort on average Americans is the wrong prescription in tough times. "Listen now," he said in his widely watched nomination acceptance speech, "I will cut taxes—cut taxes—for 95 percent of all working families, because, in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class." An unequivocal "any tax" pledge also was heard in the vice presidential debate, another prominent forum. "No one making less than $250,000 under Barack Obama's plan will see one single penny of their tax raised," Joe Biden said, "whether it's their capital gains tax, their income tax, investment tax, any tax." The Democratic campaign used such statements to counter Republican assertions that Obama would raise taxes in a multitude of direct and indirect ways, recalled Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. "I think a reasonable person would have concluded that Senator Obama had made a 'no new taxes' pledge to every couple or family making less than $250,000," she said.The White House spin is pathetic. It's Clintonesque. "It depends on what the meaning of 'ANY FORM OF TAX INCREASE' is."Obama lied. There's no denying that. End of story. Obama is working to spread the wealth around like a good socialist, but he's also spreading the pain around with this tax that disproportionately burdens lower income Americans. Spreading the pain around -- I guess that's what a good socialist does, too. Obama is a very good socialist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
