Advertisement

Posts tagged with Barack Obama

Congress Can Avoid Fiscal Cliff

A year and a half ago President Barack Obama and members of Congress signed a suicide pact that they would lead the nation over a "fiscal cliff" if they couldn't agree on deficit reducing measures by the end of the Mayan calendar. The crackpots agreed to a measure that could impose taxing and spending changes that would be so drastic they could cause economic problems that would INCREASE the deficit by another trillion dollars. [Note: because of Congressional procedures and a desire for a Christmas break, members would need to reach an agreement by the date the Mayan calendar ends in order to get the legislation to President Obama by the end of the year.]

We don't need to go over the fiscal cliff. Congress cannot pass legislation that Congress cannot change. If there are any sane members of Congress left, they should introduce legislation to repeal the measure requiring a deficit agreement by the end of this year or at least extend the deadline for another year. If past Congresses could violate agreements they reached with the Cherokee and the Sioux, the current Congress can rescind an agreement reached among its members during a period of collective insanity.

The main obstacle to an agreement is that Obama wants to increase taxes and spending and Republicans want to reduce both. Our system is based on compromise. Each side needs to give in on one issue. Obama should agree to let Republicans reduce spending in exchange for Republicans giving Obama a tax increase on those who can afford to pay higher taxes.

Reply

Trade Tax Increase for Vote Rigging Prosecutor

Congressional Republicans shouldn't give President Barack Obama the tax increases he wants without getting something in return.

Many of the Republicans strongly opposed to tax increases believe Obama won the election because of voting irregularities in some states. They might find a tax increase more acceptable if the legislation were accompanied by appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate allegations of voting irregularities.

I don't know how valid the allegations are or if the actions could actually have changed the outcome of the election. However, ignoring these allegations won't make them disappear. Those who believe the allegations are valid will treat the failure to investigate as a cover up and wait for an opportunity to bring the subject up at a later time.

Any tax increases should include extending the Social Security tax to apply to all income received from an employer rather than just the first $110,000. The tax would apply to the incomes of employees like athletes and tv actors as well as employees like business executives. If lower income employees can afford to pay the Social Security tax on their incomes, then higher income employees can afford to pay taxes on the income above that normally subject to the Social Security tax. This tax would not be applied to business owners whose personal income and business income are the same. The tax would only apply to paid employees.

An option would be to add a temporary surtax that would be in effect until the deficit fell below some stated amount. Other tax increases could also be temporary with the duration and rate depending on the size of the deficit.

Congress should consider a temporary suspension of all tax credits with the duration of the suspension depending upon the size of the deficit. Many federal grant programs to state and local governments should be suspended as long as the deficit is too high.

Congress should stop talking about Medicare and Medicaid fraud and do something about it including hiring more investigators to the job and making executives in companies that engage in fraud subject to criminal prosecution.

Someone needs to tell those who don't want an investigation of election allegations that ignoring questions of scandal can make the scandal seem worse than it is. The Watergate burglary during the Nixon administration wasn't that big a deal, but the cover up made it a major scandal. Public opinion polls conducted in early 1973 [before Senate hearings] and early 1974 {after Senate hearings] indicated no change in what people believed happened but there was a change in how people viewed the significance of the scandal. Politicians never seem to learn that attempting to cover up "scandals" only makes the situation seem worse.

The recent election attracted a lot of support from various financial interests. A major scandal involving the financial interests who supported Obama would demonstrate a motive for "stealing" the election and increase the perception that the election was stolen and Obama is a crook.

I'm concerned about the potential for protests about the election turning violent. This has happened in other countries when governments have ignored complaints about election fraud.

I remember the sixties and would rather not go through something like that again.

Reply

Ask for New Election And Vote Fraud Investigation - Not Secession

Those who are talking about secession should shift their focus to calling for a new fair presidential election that does not allow use of the type of touch screen computers involved in election irregularities in various locations. Americans should copy the citizens of other countries who call for new elections when their leaders engage in election fraud.

Alternatively, Congress could trade establishment of a special prosecutor for election fraud for a tax increase. The allegations of vote rigging are far more significant than the Watergate burglary that was investigated by a Special Prosecutor. President Barack Obama probably was not involved in the vote rigging activities, but a failure to investigate and prosecute those involved could be considered an impeachable offense. A vote rigging Prosecutor might have to investigate some of Obama's financial supporters, but probably wouldn't investigate Obama. Republican voters might be more likely to accept a tax increase tied to an investigation of state and local Democratic officials.

I don't know if Barack Obama would have won a fair election or not, but there are enough irregularities reported about the recent election to indicate he might have lost a fair election.

Irregularities include more than 100% turnout in some areas, allegations of illegal aliens being brought in to vote and voting machines that wouldn't allow votes for Mitt Romney. Ohio had a policy of allowing people to register and than vote without allowing officials to make sure they were not also register elsewhere.

The first rule of election rigging should be "don't be too obvious". In parts of Cleveland and other locations Obama received 99% of the vote which looks suspicious.

Election rigging has a long history in the United States, particularly in major cities where corrupt political machines didn't want to risk losing the offices that gave them power and money. For example, Chicago has a reputation for being a place in which the dead are allowed to briefly return to life to vote on election day.

It shouldn't be surprising if vote rigging occurred in an election in which huge sums of money were donated to the presidential campaigns by wealthy individuals on both sides. Some rich folks don't like to lose and will ignore laws if they think they can get away with it. Many believe that billionaire Nazi collaborator George Soros is behind the vote rigging.

Other wealthy interest groups are also potential suspects. For example, some carbon traders have violated European tax laws and even sold phony carbon credits. They might find spending a few million on vote rigging to be a good way to insure election of a president who supports the global warming scam.

Allegations of vote rigging might recede into the background for a time, but they could be resurrected if people believed Obama was abusing his office to benefit the wealthy interest groups that helped finance Obama's reelection. Efforts to restrict gun ownership could also trigger allegations that he stole the election for that reason.

Reply

Reporters as Prostitutes II

The only differences between many American political reporters and prostitutes is that prostitutes understand what type of business they are in and prostitutes provide something of value to the people who pay them.

One of reasons Barack Obama defeated Mitt Romney is because most political reporters at the Main Stream Media (MSM) are essentially prostitutes. They are partisan Obamista Democrats whose motto is "ours is not to question why. Ours is but to lie and lie." They apparently believe their duty is to make their fellow Democrats look good and the Republicans look bad. If wealthy Republicans want to improve their chances of winning, they will need to invest in media companies and replace the partisan Democrats with either Republicans or with real journalists who believe they have a duty to pressure politicians regardless of party into being truthful.

American reporters should know better than to automatically believe any politicians, particularly those running for president. It wasn't that long ago that President Bill Clinton was caught lying about his affair with an intern and President George W. Bush was claiming that Iraq President Saddam Hussein was about to give Weapons of Mass Destruction to al Qaeda. They certainly weren't the first two presidents to lie. For example, President Franklin Roosevelt lied about the assistance he provided to the British prior to American entry into World War II while he was plotting with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill to get the United States into the war.

American reporters continue to publish stories supporting the late Enron Corporation's global warming scam even though the documents indicating Enron's role in setting up the scam have been available for years. Reporters potentially have access to studies by scientists who question the claims about global warming, but refuse to consult the critics of global warming. Reporters ignore the fact that those who want to profit from trading carbon credits are likely to spend large sums to elect candidates like Barack Obama who support their agenda.

Real journalists recognize that when politicians and government officials try to keep documents secret, it is often to cover up damaging information. For example, in the1960 presidential candidate Sen. John F. Kennedy refused to release his medical records while falsely claiming he didn't have any health problems. We didn't learn until many years later that Kennedy was afflicted with Addison's disease, a disorder that can cause a fatal drop in blood pressure.

When we elect a president we are really hiring a president. We should have access to the same information an employer might request from a potential employee. The news media should seek that information on our behalf.

Unfortunately, most American journalists don't care about whether or not candidates are truthful about their background. For example, there have been cases in the past of journalists who have lied about the education. Thus, it would be reasonable to require presidential "job applicants" to make copies of their college records available to those who decide who to hire for the job.

Barack Obama claims to be healthy like Kennedy did, but refused to make his medical records public to confirm his claim. Obama's body is consistent with the type of body that individuals with potentially fatal Marfan's syndrome often have. Those with Marfan's syndrome can suffer from sudden heart attacks. How can we be sure he doesn't have Marfan's syndrome if he won't make his medical records public.

The presidency has citizenship and a minimum age requirement. Thus it is reasonable to require those applying for the job of President of the United States to submit a birth certificate to confirm he meets the citizenship requirement and is old enough to qualify for the job. However, MSM journalists act like the issue isn't important. They continued to ignore the issue even after Obama posted an obviously forged birth certificate on line.

The forgery lists his "race" as "African" even though the term "African" cannot be used to indicate a specific race. Africa contains two visibly different groups of people. Those who live north of the Sahara Desert have light colored complexions. Those who live south of the Sahara have dark complexions.

The use of the word "African" instead of the term used at the time "Negro[the Spanish word for black]" could indicate Obama has been keeping the document secret for a reason other than where he was born. When Obama was born southern police were still beating civil rights demonstrators. If Obama's complexion was light enough to pass for Hawaiian, his mother might have taken advantage of giving birth in Hawaii to list her son as whatever term was used for native Hawaiians. Obama might have decided to keep the document secret because he wanted to use his complexion to appeal to black voters and didn't want them to think he was really an Hawaiian.

Obama's decision to keep his birth certificate secret might involve an old dictator's trick. A dictator wanting to determine how loyal his supporters are may say or do something questionable to determine who will support him regardless of what he has said or done.

The tendency of the MSM to bias news in favor of their Democratic Party has increased the degree of division between Democratic activists and Republican activists. Those who realize they cannot trust the MSM turn to Republican organizations that also present biased information.

The current situation with the media isn't new. In the 19th Century Noah Webster observed: “The freedom of the press is a valuable privilege; but the abuse of it, in this country, … is a frightful evil. The licentiousness of the press is a deep stain upon the character of the country; & in addition to the evil of calumniating good men, & giving a wrong direction to public measures, it corrupts the people by rendering them insensible to the value of truth & of reputation."

Mark Twain also had a low opinion of journalists. " That awful power, the public opinion of a nation, is created in America by a horde of ignorant, self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditching and shoe making and fetched up in journalism on their way to the poor house."

Reply 16 comments from Agnostick Jonas_opines Alyosha Patricia Davis Donttreadonme Somedude20 Roedapple Deec Media_hookers_for_obama Beatrice and 1 others

Did Obama Indirectly Admit to Being Muslim Recently?

I remember a few decades ago when the Roman Catholic Pope visited the United States. Some reporters in effect said that they were Catholics by using the Catholic term "Holy Father" when referring to the Pope.

Did President Barack Obama recently reveal that he's a "closet" Muslim when he said: "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."

Why did Obama use the name "Prophet of Islam" instead of "Mohammad" or "The Prophet Mohammad" like most non-Muslims would?

Obama admits that "to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.”

Obama's emphasis on not "slandering" the Prophet Mohammad implies he may assign greater status to Islam than other religions.

Obama has long attempted to convince people he is Christian even though he used the phrase "my Muslim faith" in an interview with George Stephanopoulis in 2008 He wouldn't be the first politician to claim to be an believer in some religion to gain public support.

I realize the naive Obamistas think they must believe everything their Imperial President tells them. But, those of us who have studied American history realize that politicians, especially presidents, will lie if they think they can get away with it.

Reply 1 comment from Tim Hjersted

Thinking About the Unthinkable in Libya

Recent claims that an attempt to rescue the American Ambassador in Libya was vetoed by someone high up in the administration raises a disturbing question. Did someone higher up want the Ambassador and/or others at the consulate to die?

Investigators need to examine this possibility. One potential problem might be that the action resulted from the same type of "failure to communicate" that caused the death of Canterbury Archbishop Thomas Becket in 1170. King Henry II was locked in a long running dispute with Beckett and at some point said something that caused his knights to mistakenly believe the king wanted Becket dead.

Someone in the White House may have believed that President Barack Obama wished something bad would happen to Ambassador Chris Stevens or someone else at the Libyan Consulate. When the report of the attack came in such an individual might have decided the attack would help the President get what he wanted and vetoed a rescue. I hope this is not what happened, but it is a possibility that deserves investigation.

I believe we can reject the possibility that Obama was worried about civilian casualties because Obama didn't worry about that possibility when he was trying to overthrow the Libyan government and hasn't worried about that possibility when authorizing drone strikes in Pakistan.

I initially thought the Obama administration simply didn't have resources available to rescue people at the consulate because it didn't recognize the potential threat due to the continued instability in Libya. However, the stories about the veto of a rescue attempt indicate rescue resources were available.

We know from the killing of Osama bin Laden that the Obama White House has the capability to monitor events like the attack on the Libyan consulate. Thus it is unlikely that the failure to respond was due to a lack of information. Either someone in the administration didn't want to respond or Obama's approval was needed and he was sleeping or brewing beer or something and didn't want to be disturbed.

Reply

Will Moore Movie make OBL a Muslim Hero?

Western Elitists often don't understand that people in other parts of the world don't think the same way they do. For example, they don't realize that those we consider to be villains may be considered heroes by some Muslims.

If Michael Moore portrays President Barack Obama as taking control of the effort to get Osama bin Laden, the implication will be that bin Laden was a powerful man who posed a major threat to the United States, a man Americans feared . The more time the President of the United States is portrayed as devoting to the search for bin Laden the more important OBL will appear to be. At a time when the United States faces significant economic and budget problems, the President wouldn't spend time going after a man who didn't pose a major threat to the country. Al Qaeda could use the idea that the United States feared bin Laden as a recruiting tool.

Another potential problem with the movie is the handling of OBL's death. If the movie shows bin Laden fighting the SEALs, he will appear to many Muslims to be "heroically standing up to a superior force in a situation in which death is inevitable." If the movie shows bin Laden simply being shot without a weapon in his hand, then those who kill him will appear to Muslims to be murderers. Either way Muslims may decide that bin Laden is a martyr. Either way could provoke Muslim violence against American interests in the Middle East.

Reply 2 comments from Buckysbabe Oldbaldguy

Obama Disrespected Voters in 3rd Debate

On October 22 voters tuned into a presidential debate expecting a serious discussion of foreign policy issues. Apparently President Barack Obama didn't understand that fact or didn't care. Or perhaps, he decided to use the show to audition for a new career on Saturday Night Live.

Obama responded to a statement by Mitt Romney about the navy being smaller than in 1916 by telling what some considered a joke instead of attempting to explain why he thinks the United States doesn't need a larger navy.

"But I think Governor Romney maybe hasn't spent enough time looking at how our military works. You — you mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets — (laughter) — because the nature of our military's changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines."

The statement is something I might expect from a half wit comic like Bill Mahr, but not from a president who is supposed to be demonstrating why he should be retained as commander in chief. If I were a Democrat I might suggest it is the type of statement I would expect from Michele Bachmann

Obama's comparison of the size of the navy to the reduced need for horses and bayonets makes no sense. His use of this comparison indicates he doesn't understand military matters. Incidentally, I was recently reminded that our special forces troops initially entered Afghanistan on horseback. I also found out that bayonets have been used in Iraq.

His statements about aircraft carriers and submarines sound like something a child would say or maybe something an adult would say to a child. I would be remiss if I didn't suggest that Obama's statement might be something someone under the influence of alcohol might consider brilliant.

It might come as a surprise to Obama but "ships that go underwater" were used extensively by the Germans in WWI. Our navy had trouble protecting merchants ships from submarine attack because our navy was too small. Incidentally I won't fault Obama for using the word "ships" to refer to submarines, but the navy has traditionally used the term "boat" for a submarine rather than "ship".

Aircraft carriers date from WWI, but the first ships used seaplanes that landed and took off from the water and were only stored on the ship. The first carrier capable of launching and landing aircraft, the HMS Argus, wasn't launched until 1918.

Reply 43 comments from Kirk Larson Bob Forer Jonas_opines Paul R.  Getto Booyalab The_original_bob Rockchalk1977 Armstrong Roland Gunslinger Merrill and 23 others

No Dave, Undecided Voters Aren’t “Idiots” –- You Are

During the last week talk show host David Letterman has been calling undecided voters "idiots" because they are still undecided. If he actually knew anything about the candidates he would understand that the undecided voters may be the smart ones.

For those who don't watch Dave, it has been evident for a long time that he's an Obamista. He believes whatever Obama says and ignores criticism of Obama. He frequently criticized Mitt Romney for not releasing his tax returns while saying Obama could keep all his records secret.

Many undecided voters may be waiting to see if secret documents are released. Perhaps undecided voters are more likely to recognize that politicians that attempt to keep documents secret are usually covering up something.

Typically undecided voters in an election involving an incumbent have decided they would rather replace him, but aren't sure of the possible replacement.

President Barack Obama is clearly an ineffective president. He seems unable to comprehend the fact that the al Qaeda attack on the American consulate in Libya indicates the organization may be getting stronger, not weaker. He brags about the drop in unemployment while ignoring the fact the drop is due largely to people becoming so discouraged they have stopped looking for work. A half million have dropped out during the last couple of months.

Obama is the worst president since Gerald Ford. I've been reluctant to compare him to pre-Depression presidents because the office has changed so much since the Depression. However, Obama's recent suggestion that the navy has declined in importance like bayonets and horses, indicates he is out of touch with reality. He may be the on the way to becoming the most irrelevant president since Millard Fillmore.

The challenger Mitt Romney has thus far been uninspiring. Undecided voters want to watch him a little longer to make sure Romney doesn't self destruct.

The undecided voters are attempting to send the major parties a message. They want better quality presidential candidates from the major parties. They want candidates they can have confidence in. They want candidates they can commit to instead of having to decide which is the lesser of the two evils.

Reply 4 comments from Wutangstylez Riverdrifter Wristtwister Roedapple

Romney’s Missed Opportunities

Gov. Mitt Romney missed a couple of major opportunities to score on President Barack Obama in the 2nd debate. Romney should have pointed out that Obama continued Bush's economic policies. Romney should so have pointed out that various states are investigating Planned Parenthood for fraud.

Romney should have suggested that the question about President George W. Bush's economic policies should have been directed to Obama because Obama had continued Bush's policies. The bailouts of the banks and the automakers began with Bush. Obama merely continued that policy. Obama also copied Bush's stimulus policy and the use of tax cuts. Bush had large deficits and Obama expanded those deficits. Romney should ask at soz3me point why Obama continued Bush's policies if Obama though Bush was wrong.

At some point Romney needs to point out that unemployment under Bush was less than 5% before the 9/11 Attack and only went up to 6.3% (June, 2003) after the attack. It then fell back below 6% in November, 2003, and remained below 6% until August, 2008, when it began increasing again. It might be argued that the increase in unemployment in the summer of 2008 was due in part to a lack of confidence in the two presidential candidates with the drop after the election being due to a lack of confidence in Obama.

Romney should have pointed out that Obama's support for Planned Parenthood means he supports the idea of substandard Jim Crow quality health care for inner city minority women. Romney should have asked why Obama allows Planned Parenthood to operate an unlicensed medical facility in his hometown of Chicago. The 14th Amendment requires states to guarantee equal protection of the laws which means health care facilities that provide medical services to inner city minority women should have to meet the same high standards as facilities that provide health care to white men and women. Romney should promise that if elected he will enforce the 14th Amendment and force facilities that serve minority women to comply with the same standard as facilities that serve white men.

Romney should have mentioned that several states are investigating Planned Parenthood for Medicaid fraud and the federal government should also investigate the organization because it operates in multiple states and receives federal funds which provide an opportunity for similar fraud.

Romney should have asked if Obama has ordered a federal investigation into the death of Tonya Reaves who died after being treated at Planned Parenthood's unlicensed Chicago clinic. Reaves continued to bleed after her abortion and wasn't sent to a hospital for several hours. When she went to the hospital the clinic didn't bother to send information about her condition to give the hospital an idea of what might be wrong. Romney should announce that he will order a federal investigation into Reaves' death to determine if anyone at the clinic broke federal laws.

Reply 2 comments from Bearded_gnome Beerbaron03

1 2 3 ...4