It has become clear to me that President Obama is dead-set on destroying this nation.
There is really no other explanation for his actions.
He bows and scrapes to the Saudi King, indicating that the United States is subservient to that country.
He listened quietly, taking notes, while Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega ranted at the United States at the Summit of the Americas, calling the US a terrorist nation. Of course, Obama has lots of practice sitting in a room and listening to hate speech, thanks to the oratory of his mentor and spiritual advisor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Obama lacked the courage to get up and walk out then and he lacks the same courage now. So much for "the one we've been waiting for."
He shaked the hand and had a good chat with dictator and thug Hugo Chavez, a man who has oppressed his own people, and done some nasty stuff to his political opponents, including forcing them into exile.
He offered a special deal to Russia, promising to jettison plans for missile defense in that region for their help with Iran. Of course, Putin's man Medvedev signalled that Russia wasn't willing to buy any cow when they could get the milk for free. Big surprise.
And, that is just the tip of the iceberg. He sent hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers into PTSD flashbacks by allowing Air Force One and two fighter jets to buzz Manhattan for a photo op. You see, they were running out of Air Force One postcards in the Whitehouse gift shop. Michelle sent a bunch to all of her high school and college classmates, so they needed to restock. Seriously now, nobody thought this might not be a good idea? Nobody thought this might be a giant fucking waste of tax payer money? You can't tell me we don't still have the negatives and can print more photos if we really fucking need them. This is ludicrous and just plain mean. NYC and the entire country was traumatized on 9/11/01. Clearly, Obama thinks we need to just get past it. Put it out of our silly heads.
I am not a New Yorker, never have been, never will be. But, I suffered that day. I cried. I didn't sleep for days. I can't even imagine how people who were actually there felt. People who lost friends and family and coworkers got to revisit the fear of that day, thanks to our fearless leader. Oh yeah, I know he has "apologized", but it all rings hollow to me.
This SOB is the worst President ever. EVER.
Obama has released the details of enhanced interrogation techniques and has signalled that those who authorized them will be held responsible. I guess all those lives that were saved in Los Angeles as a result of the use of these techniques should have been lost. Clearly, that's what Obama would have wanted.
He's forced bailout funding at taxpayer expense and has disallowed those firms to payback those funds.
He's spending money like a fortune-hunting bride from the trailer park. He's denigrating America and pissing on her prestige and history nearly every day. His "team" is the saddest sack of fuckups ever compiled, and that's just the ones that actually made it through confirmation!
His Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, referred to the events of 9/11/01 not as an act of terrorism or an act of war, but as a "man-caused disaster." Somehow I can't help but hear that as weak and offensive to the 2900+ people who died that day. This is the same woman, by the way, who is apparently convinced that those men who caused the disasters (not terrorists, but "failed pilots", I'm sure) came into the country from Canada - a contention that has been proven false. Also, Napolitano is apparently unaware that illegal immigration is in fact illegal. Bright shining star in the Obama constellation, that one. And, let's not forget her hit-job report released coincidentally to coincide with the tea party protests. That report, from Janet's office, basically branded any conservative an "extremist" and took specific aim at military veterans.
We've had a slew of nominees and potential nominees withe tax issues and at least one who had to bail out due to embarassing pending investigations.
We've had gaffe after gaffe from the President himself who has managed to piss off several of our chief allies, namely Canada, Australia, and the UK, while he's been busy snuggling up to dictators, thugs, and human rights abusers.
Instead of taking the high road and being polite to the outgoing President, he's exhibited a distinct lack of class and clear disrespect for the highest office in the land. George W. Bush was the elected leader of this country for 8 years, but Obama bad-mouths him in a way reminiscent of what Cinderella's ugly stepsisters did. What Obama fails to realize is that in doing so, he also runs himself down. He isn't rising to the occasion, he's descending into pettiness. He isn't lifting anyone up, he's running the USA down.
Moreover, Obama is setting a precedent. When the sun sets on the Obama administration, as it will do unless Obama takes a play out of the Chavez book, the person who follows will be free to fire away at Obama with both barrels. Throw everything at him, including the kitchen sink.
To his credit, Bush has a hell of a lot more class than Obama has ACORN workers. He has been quietly taking the brunt of Obama's attacks, letting the new President take the reins and do what he feels he must. This is what respect for the office looks like.
This is what class looks like.
This is what taking the high road looks like.
But, that isn't Obama's style. And, the country will be the worse for it. No amount of lofty speech and teleprompter-fed prose can change the impact of the words if all you are doing is bad-mouthing the people who elected you.
We can disagree. We can even disagree vehemently. But respectful people don't do this. And, if they do, they can and should expect there to be consequences.
President Obama denies it, but the video speaks for itself. Here is a man who won't listen to the other side of the argument, but who will bow before the leaders of other countries.
The facets of this President are absolutely staggering.
Insulted Americans? Check. Denigrated and Demeaned American Prestige? Check.
We might be able to knock off for an early lunch and attend to the end of civil liberties by the end of the day!
Either he's bowing, or he had a rapid attack of menstrual cramps that quickly resolved themselves. Watch it again, his left hand is clearly visible on his lap. The White House's version of events doesn't square with the visual evidence. Watch it again, it is only 12 seconds long. That is no handshake.
An American President bowing, genuflecting, to foreign royalty...what's next?!?
It seems President Obama has a major test on his hands in the form of an American-flagged cargo ship that has been hijacked by Somali pirates. Those pesky Somali pirates! I imagine the Obamabots would tell you that they are just "misunderstood."
I call bullshit.
These are thieves, kidnappers, terrorists on the high seas. They have been interfering with global commerce for far too long. Other countries and companies have coddled the pirates, played along, paid "tributes" and "ransoms."
Did none of these people go to grade school? Don't they know what happens when you let a bully steal your lunch money? He comes back for it again tomorrow! This isn't brain surgery, folks.
Currently, the American crew has managed to retake the Alabama. The pirates are adrift on a speedboat, with no fuel, water, or food. They do have one thing, however: a hostage. They are currently holding the ship's captain, Capt. Richard Phillips, on their little speed boat.
I was speaking with someone about this prior to the release of updated information and I shared what I would do were I sitting in the Oval Office.
It might be overkill, but I'd send two battlegroups to the site. I'd have twenty or so (each of the US Naval ships present) to fire individual, single warning shots just off the bow of the pirate vessel. I would show them the precision with which we can deliver hellfire. I would then proceed to inform them that they have exactly five minutes to release their hostage, unharmed, or the next volley of fire will not be warning shots. Then, I'd broadcast the ticking of a clock.
Overkill? Maybe, but those Navy boys deserve to have a little fun now and then. The fact of the matter is, these pirates are in a lousy bargaining position. They have one hostage. One. The are out of fuel, so escape is out of the question unless they give up their hostage, and we are unlikely to refuel them if he comes to any harm. They also don't have time on their side as they are out of both food and water. You can live several days without food, but without water, you're screwed. And, I suspect, before long the pirate leader is going to be facing mutiny from within the ranks.
There is another aspect to this, however, and it is why my response would be so forceful. I wouldn't aim my response for the pirates, they would be secondary recipients of my message. I would send a message of force, an emphatic "Don't Fuck with The Americans", if you will, mostly to Iran. Iran has been screwing with our ships too, feigning attacks like that that took out sailors on the USS Cole. To date, we've sort of put up with their antics. But the pirate thing offers an opportunity for the US Navy to show what we can do. Let's scare the crap out of the pirates and give Mahmoud Ahmadinejhad a moment's pause. We don't need permission from the UN to protect American sailors at sea or American shipments of humanitarian aid. We don't need a coalition to kill a speedboat full of Somali pirates. What we need to do is show the world that American Might has not been diminished.
The rest of the world may be willing to ransom their citizens and ships in a perpetual market of terror, but the United States should stand firm. We don't negotiate with terrorists on land, at sea, or in the air. There needs to be no doubt of the consequences if you fuck with us. Don't pick a fight with us, or we'll be scraping what's left of you off of the foredeck.
President Obama, busy kowtowing and bowing to Saudis and telling the world how bad American arrogance is, is unlikely to take this approach. Hell, everybody knows Hillary Clinton has more balls than Obama, so I'm not optimistic.
I still think a strong show of force would be a good idea though. And, I believe, Thomas Jefferson would approve. It was he who dealt with the Barbary pirates in much the same way. For far too long, American ships had done the same as French and British ships when traveling through The Med: they paid tributes to the Barbary pirates to protect against the enslavement of the crews. Jefferson sent in the Marines, fearing that paying any further tributes or ransoms would only embolden the pirates and bring about more attacks on American ships.
Here's an ironic twist for you: the US Naval ship on site at the current Somali issue is the USS Bainbridge. During Jefferson's presidency, the USS Philadelphia, captained by William Bainbridge, ran aground while patrolling Tripoli harbor and came under attack and was eventually taken and turned against the Americans. A year later, Lt. Commander Stephen Decatur lead the first American Marines in a spectacular raid on Tripoli harbor. They destroyed the Philadelphia and her crew remained enslaved, but it set off a sequence of events that ultimately resolved in 1815 with the ending of any tributes. The Algerians, Moroccans, and Tripolitans had finally been convinced we meant business.
Fighting was the right thing to do then and it is the right thing to do now.
And, lest you think I'm just some warmongering Conservative, I'll have you know my solution was at least measured and gave the pirates an opportunity to give up in the face of overwhelming odds. My dad suggested we just bomb the hell out of Somalia until the pirates realized that unless they acted, there'd be nothing to go home to.
Me? I think that's too much work. I think 20-well aimed warning shots fired from a fleet of Naval vessels and a five minute ticking clock will do the trick.
What will President Obama do?
Wring his hands and hope for the best? "Hope" for "change"?
The world is watching, President Obama, and so am I.
(Incidentally, the title of this post is from a very very very old comedy skit I saw once about a baby duck hand puppet that was kidnapped by pirates. It was hilarious, but I can 't tell you more than that. That was back in the days when She-Ra had her own cartoon.)
Obama's $163,000 Tax Bomb for Families Earning Less Than $250K per year - Yes, This Means You
Get ready to feel the equivalent of nuclear taxation!
Stumbled upon this article in the Wall Street Journal. It didn't tell me anything I wasn't already keenly aware of, but I thought the kool-aid drinkers needed to sober up a bit about the coming tax consequences of their foolish infatuation.
Incidentally, the article is written by Michael J. Boskin, professor of economics at Stanford. The gist of the article is the lie that is Obama's "no tax increases for families earning less than $250K." It's pretty clear cut and you should read it all, but here are a few excerpts:
Mr. Obama's characterizations of his budget unfortunately fall into this pattern. He claims to reduce the deficit by half, to shave $2 trillion off the debt (the cumulative deficit over his 10-year budget horizon), and not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. While in a Clintonian sense correct (depends on what the definition of "is" is), it is far more accurate to describe Mr. Obama's budget as almost tripling the deficit. It adds $6.5 trillion to the national debt, and leaves future U.S. taxpayers (many of whom will make far less than $250,000) with the tab. And all this before dealing with the looming Medicare and Social Security cost explosion.
Finally, what of the claim not to raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000 a year? Even ignoring his large energy taxes, Mr. Obama must reconcile his arithmetic. Every dollar of debt he runs up means that future taxes must be $1 higher in present-value terms. Mr. Obama is going to leave a discounted present-value legacy of $6.5 trillion of additional future taxes, unless he dramatically cuts spending. (With interest the future tax hikes would be much larger later on.) Call it a stealth tax increase or ticking tax time-bomb.
What does $6.5 trillion of additional debt imply for the typical family? If spread evenly over all those paying income taxes (which under Mr. Obama's plan would shrink to a little over 50% of the population), every income-tax paying family would get a tax bill for $163,000. (In 10 years, interest would bring the total to well over a quarter million dollars, if paid all at once. If paid annually over the succeeding 10 years, the tax hike every year would average almost $34,000.) That's in addition to his explicit tax hikes. While the future tax time-bomb is pushed beyond Mr. Obama's budget horizon, and future presidents and Congresses will decide how it will be paid, it is likely to be paid by future income tax hikes as these are general fund deficits.
We can get a rough idea of who is likely to pay them by distributing this $6.5 trillion of future taxes according to the most recent distribution of income-tax burdens. We know the top 1% or 5% of income-taxpayers pay vastly disproportionate shares of taxes, and much larger shares than their shares of income. But it also turns out that Mr. Obama's massive additional debt implies a tax hike, if paid today, of well over $100,000 for people with incomes of $150,000, far below Mr. Obama's tax-hike cut-off of $250,000. (With interest, the tax hike would rise to more than $162,000 in 10 years, and over $20,000 a year if paid annually the following 10 years). In other words, a middle-aged two-career couple in New York or California could get a future tax bill as big as their mortgage.
That's almost enough to make one start thinking about suicide...if Obama wasn't going to get you that way too!
racketeering conspiracy, wire fraud, extortion conspiracy, attempted extortion and making false statements to federal agents.
He allegedly abused his office in numerous matters to seek money, campaign contributions, and employment for himself and others, in exchange for official actions, including trying to leverage his authority to appoint a United States senator, U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald said in a statement.
If you recall, this investigation has been going on for some time and picked up steam after little blue bird Tony Rezko was caged and then began to sing his little melody about dirty Chicago politicians.
Obama tried to distance himself from all of the dirty crooks, racists, and terrorists among his friends. Bill Ayers. Rev. Jeremiah "Chickens Comin' Home to Roost" Wright. Antoin "Tony" Rezko. I'm sure we all believe that Obama didn't really "know" the Governor of the State where he was an elected official (first in the State Legislature and later as a Senator). I'm sure they really weren't as cozy as these pictures would seem to suggest. There's simply no way our esteemed leader is a crook. No matter what you might hear about an article that the NY Times spiked about his campaign finance.
Just keep drinkin' the kool-aid. That'll make you feel better. Probably.
Move along now, there's nothing to worry your pretty little heads about...
I have long felt that the Death Tax was morally wrong.
The Death Tax, for those of you who get your news from The View, is the tax on your estate after you die.
My opposition to it is pretty simple. You pay taxes, do your civic duty all of your life. At the end of your life, you've managed to scrape up a few pennies here and there which you want to leave to your family. It might be a business, like, say...a bakery or a medical practice. Or, it might be a farm with a significant amount of free and clear assets. You work all of your life to pay off debt while also paying your taxes, among them property taxes every year, and you think you've done right. But no! The damn government is going to get you one more time by destroying what you've spent your life creating.
What else do you call a 45% tax rate? Hmm? That's not a friendly poke, that's a repeating stabbing in a dark alley!
George W. Bush and the Republicans worked very hard to kill the Death Tax. They knew that it decimates family farms, ranches, and small businesses. It was set to expire in 2010, but not anymore. Obama's got his greedy paws on Grandma's pocketbook.
Obama and the Democrats argue that they can't afford to kill the Death Tax.
That's rich in irony! Do you know why they feel they can't afford to kill the Death Tax? Quite obviously it is because they have been spending money like Paris Hilton at Fashion Week! They've been buying all kinds of unnecessary crap we don't need, or if we "need" it, we don't have to have it now. They've mortgaged the future of our children and our grandchildren, and now they've decided to go after Granny and Gramps too!
This is the very definition of fiscal irresponibility and the "redistribution of wealth" that is known by people who have studied forms of government as Socialism.
You doubt my claims? Let's take a look at the personal example, okay?
My family owns a farm in the Southwest. We farm somewhere around 15,000 to 18,000 acres, at least half of which is owned outright. All paid for. The rest of it is mostly rented ground that we've picked up by being exceptionally good at what we do. We take our responsibility very seriously and consider ourselves stewards of the land. We know that it is our job to care and protect the land for the next generation.
This farm is not just an investment. It is my father, uncle, and cousin's raison d’être. It is their life's work, their livlihood, and how they feed their families and the families of the 7 hired men and women we employ. Someday, I hope it will also be my husband's livlihood.
But at this rate, it won't be. Here's why:
Let's take a look at just the land assets that are owned. There are buildings, equipment, and the brand that would also be counted among the assets, but just the land outright will more than illustrate my point.
Let's consider the 10,000 acres, more or less, that were purchased by my grandfather and increased by my father and uncle. This land was purchased a long long long time ago and has been added to over the years, slowly. If this property were to be evaluated and valued because of a death, you would see a phenomenal number. Now, farmland in the midwest ranges widely in price due to fertility, water and mineral rights, etc. But, let's go with a figure on the low end of the range. The range is from $500 to $2500 per acre. Let's use $800.
$800 per acre on 10,000 acres is...$8,000,000.
That's not Conrad Hilton or Guggenheim money, but it is a serious sum, even if the the Democrats in Congress blow more than that on golf carts and aid to terrorists. If the owner of these acres died and it was taxed at the Obama-approved rate of 45%, the heirs are looking at a tax bill totalling $2,025,000. And, that's just on the land! It doesn't include any life insurance, investments, improvements, home, or other farm assets. How is this fair?
How is this even right? Is this The American Dream? Is this Obama's much-flogged Hope and Change?
How do the heirs even begin to pay this? There is no way, at least, no way to pay it and preserve the birthright. If you need to raise upwards of $2 million, you are going to have to sell off the assests. And guess what, it is kind of hard to be a profitable farmer these days, but harder still if you don't have any land on which to grow your crop.
But, of course, this isn't just about the land. There are other assets that get valued, like improvements to property: houses, barns, bins, elevator legs, warehouses, scales. There is equipment to consider: tractors, trucks, combines, grain carts, spray rigs, fuel islands, etc.
That tax bill has a way of ballooning up like you wouldn't believe. So, the heir may want to continue the family work, but has to gut the inheritance to keep a part of it. Did the Federal Government work 18 and 20 hour days, sweating, bleeding, and crying for 80 years? No. Did the Federal Government pay property taxes, income taxes, and sales taxes on the activity from that farm for 80 years? No!
The Death Tax is morally reprehensible. It is wrong. It is killing family farms and small family-owned businesses all over the USA. If you think that so-called "corporate farming" is an evil, that huge multi-national corporations have a strangle-hold on this country, ask yourself how that came about. Ask yourself how hard it would be to see someone appropriate your life's work. It's a lot like a kidnapping.
My father loves the land like he loves my sister and I. The farm is really an older brother. He was around before us, we've always known him. If I have to kill one of my siblings to pay for my father's death, is that right? Is it?
I don't think so. I put to you that I'm going to fire those 7 hired men before I kill my sibling. Then, I'll likely pare down on the other assets too, but it is hard to farm without tractors, planters, combines, etc. I'll do anything and everything to protect what my father, uncle, and grandfather worked so hard to build.
It's not personal, right? It's just business. But Congress and Obama want to perform an autopsy on my father and sell the parts to a medical supply house.
This is not right. It will never be right.
It is inconsistent with the American Dream, it is inconsistent with the tenets of freedom, it is an Obamanation.
Update: I got distracted by phone calls as I was writing this and skipped over a section that I had intended to include. I have corrected that above.
A good friend took me to task last night for not posting. Okay, she didn't really take me to task so much as remind me that I haven't taken the proverbial baseball bat to Dear Leader in sometime. In particular, and largely due to my posts about Gordon Brown and Obama's gift exchange, she was wondering my take on Obama's gift to The Queen.
My take? I think Obama owns stock in Best Buy and is in love with himself (or has been reading his own press).
This time, when Obama went to see the figure head of the nation that we count as our closest ally (or did, pre-Obama), he spent a bit more money, but the gift was ill-suited and celebrated Obama, not the Queen or the special relationship between our countries.
Like one of the wealthiest women in the world doesn't have one already! For heaven's sake, he didn't even spring for the iPhone, which is at least a bit more technologically advanced.
Nope. An ipod. An ipod, get this, loaded with audio of his speeches before the Democratic National Convention and his Inaguration. And, pictures from his inaguration. Now, he also loaded it with pictures from the Queen's recent visits to the USA, but she travels with an entourage and likely has all kinds of pictures in her royal scrapbook.
Who loves Obama, huh?
Again, the guy has zero class. Zero.
And, guess what? She already had an ipod, has had one since 2005. Did Obama think she was too old to be that hip? Did he think to totally impress Granny Regina or that she was so deep in her bubble she'd never seen one? What the hell?!? She has several grandchildren who are all very hip, surely that didn't escape him, right?
So, we must presume that this gift was not meant to please her, but to please him. Which is the very opposite of what a gift is supposed to do, but I guess it is to be expected from this joke of a president.
This is what happens when a bunch of kool-aid drinking, facebook checking, tweeting lemmings vote into office a vapid socialist. We look like idiots and we get screwed. It's like two-for-one night at the karaoke cathouse!