Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Obama's 2012 State of the Union Address

Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Response to Obama's State of the Union message yesterday
From: Gary L. Bauer


A Shrinking Obama 

Is that all there is? Watching Obama deliver the State of the Union last night (with precautionary blood pressure medication at my side) I was struck by how diminished the “hope and change” President has become. Long gone is the candidate who told his supporters, “We are the ones we have been waiting for.” Nowhere to be seen was the man who said his election would result in the “earth healing” and the “oceans stopping their rise.” Instead we got an hour of low expectations, distorted facts, divisive class warfare all wrapped up in the hope that the public has collective amnesia about what actually happened in the last three years while Obama was in charge. 

Fact checking the speech would take all day. But we made a short video catching Obama on a few of his misstatements. You can watch it here

My first shoe hit the T.V. set when Obama asserted that our oil imports have fallen under his watch. Indeed they have, but Obama counts on you not knowing why they dropped. Oil imports always drop when the American economy isn’t growing and Obama’s policies have guaranteed slow to no growth. Fewer people employed means less gasoline used. Imports have also dropped because oil industry engineers have developed new drilling techniques that have increased our domestic oil production. Obama has done everything he can to stop that increase in production, including cutting drilling back on federal land and restricting off-shore drilling. The increased production has come on private land by oil companies that Obama regularly demonizes. 

Did you notice his intentional distortions on the taxes paid by millionaires compared to average folks? Here is what Obama said: “Now you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as the secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.” 

Yes that would be common sense if it were a factual description of reality. Instead it is an intentional effort to deceive. Obama is counting on Americans confusing tax rate with net taxes. Let’s say you are a worker making approximately $50,000 a year. You would be in the 25% tax bracket and you would pay approximately $8,600 in federal taxes. Now let’s say you are a millionaire and almost all of your income comes from dividends and capital gains. For years the U.S. has taxed that kind of investment income at 15% because we want to encourage the investment that creates jobs. So the $1 million in dividends times 15% would be $150,000 in federal taxes. 

Yes the millionaire has a lower rate (15%) than the wage earner (25%), but the millionaire pays $150,000 compared to $8,600 for the worker. This is why, in spite all of Obama’s attempts to claim otherwise, the top 1% in America pay into the federal treasury 38% of all taxes collected. The bottom 50% of all Americans pay less than 3% of all taxes collected.

   BillboTex note: Millionaires who live off their investment dividends pay 15% capital gains tax in the earnings/dividends from their investments.  Obama and other anti-capitalists conveniently IGNORE the fact that the money spent on the original investment was ALSO subject to the top tier tax bracket of 35%, which means the Millionaire actually spent 50% for his federal taxes.  Additional Leftist slant is that in the case of Romney's tax exposure they try to HIDE the fact that it was LARGER than 13.9% plus 35% for a total of 48.9%, BECAUSE THEY DID NOT CALCULATE THE 15% charity contributions into the calculation for actual percentage paid for the Romney taxes.  Calculating the charitable contribution would raise Romney's federal taxes and charitable contributions to  63.9% - NOW, does that seem fair to you?  MORE LIBERAL LIES! 

This is what is so disgusting about what Obama is doing. He wants you to be angry at and despise those who have done well in the hope you won’t notice how his policies are leading us down the road to European socialism and national bankruptcy. The man who campaigned in 2008 saying he would bring us together can only remain in power if he deeply divides us by class. Obama is a Hugo Chavez democrat. 

Something else was obvious last night too. It was not only what he said but what he left out. There was no direct mention of Obamacare nor of the 3,000-page stimulus bill, both of which are politically toxic. Both issues should be a central part of the eventual GOP presidential nominee’s campaign. There was very little on job creation, and there were zero proposals to get our horrendous debt under control. This man must not be given a second term. 

The GOP Response 

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels gave the GOP response. It is a tough job to answer any President’s State of the Union, and Daniels did a reasonably good job, even if his passion seemed in short supply. This sentence jumped out at me: Speaking of the Obama Administration, Daniels said, “The extremism that stifles the development of homegrown energy or cancels a perfectly safe pipeline that would employ tens of thousands, or jacks up consumer utility bills for no improvement in either human health or world temperatures is a pro-poverty policy.” 

BillboTex note: More Liberal lies hoping that no one will notice!  The Keystone project will not cost ANY tax dollars to be paid, provide possibly 100,000 jobs, prevent the sale of Canadian oil to China, and keep American gasoline prices lower - SO OBAMA REFUSES TO APPROVE THE PROJECT.  
Obama HAS approved the California High speed Rail project which WILL COST TAXPAYERS $100 TRILLION with a "T", and expected to be used by less than 5% of the California population!

Eureka! There it is. Obama is a left wing extremist. His policies will promote poverty, not growth. Every conservative in America needs to make that point every day – at work, over the back fence, at church, at school or around the dinner table. The GOP nominee has to drive it home. We can win. We must win! 

Friday, January 20, 2012

Romney: The Conservative Who Can Beat Obama

By former ambassador John Bolton
Mr. Bolton served in the Justice Department and the Agency for International Development under President Reagan and in the State Department under both Presidents Bush.

Our country's political focus on economic recovery has allowed President Obama to escape responsibility for his failures in the area of national security. Mr. Obama clearly doesn't recognize that lasting prosperity is impossible without robust foreign and defense policies and capabilities—and, conversely, that the requisite political, military and intelligence resources are not sustainable without a strong economy. Today's textbook example: the president's rejection of the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada.
Mr. Romney fully understands the inextricable prosperity-security linkage, and that America's global adversaries aren't waiting around graciously for our economic recovery. Instead, they see Mr. Obama's weaknesses and are vigorously exploiting them.

Mr. Obama has been gutting our armed forces through defense budget cuts that will total nearly $1.5 trillion if the debt-ceiling legislation's sequestration mechanism takes effect. These reductions are compelling evidence that the president is entirely comfortable with America's international retreat and decline.

The Navy has only 285 ships today, the fewest since World War I, and it is straining to uphold its unique global responsibilities. Our Air Force has only 39 fighter squadrons, fewer than half the number it had two decades ago. And yet the military's missions remain, and the threats grow.

In East Asia, for example, China is modernizing and expanding its air and naval capabilities, developing area-denial and anti-access weapons, and making increasingly assertive territorial claims, potentially restricting access to international waters. And Russia is using its international oil revenues to rebuild both its conventional and nuclear capabilities.

We cannot respond effectively at present force levels, and this weakness will only worsen as Mr. Obama's defense cuts take hold, disheartening allies and tempting adversaries. Abandoning the "peace through strength" doctrine will inevitably increase risks to America, not reduce them. Mr. Romney has promised to reverse Mr. Obama's reductions—for example, increasing the Navy's shipbuilding rate to 15 warships a year from nine and replacing the aging weapons systems that all our services field.

Mr. Romney has emphatically rejected the Obama administration's wrongheaded Russian "reset" policy, and he was the first presidential candidate to oppose the flawed New Start arms-control treaty. He understands that international terrorism remains a major threat: He has warned against Mr. Obama's withdrawal from Afghanistan along a publicly announced timetable and against his dangerously mistaken policy of negotiating with the Taliban terrorists. Those negotiations imperil everything we have won at considerable human cost since we responded to the 9/11 attacks by declaring war on terror, a war Mr. Obama daily tries to wish out of existence.

Mr. Romney also fully understands the proliferation threat of ballistic missiles and nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. He has taken strong stands on Iran and North Korea, today's two gravest risks, both badly mishandled by Mr. Obama.

And because of global proliferation, Mr. Romney's signature issue has been to build multilayered, national ballistic-missile defenses to protect us—a truly Reaganesque objective. This would constitute another major reversal of Mr. Obama's dangerous worldview, which rests on outdated strategic doctrines and inattention to the grave perils that weapons of mass destructions pose as instruments of terrorism.
Then there's Mr. Romney's executive experience in government and the private sector. The president is CEO of the federal government's executive branch, no small task. And many Republican presidents have seen their agendas broken or impaired by their failures to make the executive departments implement the policy objectives for which they campaigned.

The skills required are neither those needed for keeping a clean inbox nor for mere academic observation of business or government. And most assuredly they are not speechifying or engaging in candidate cattle shows. Executive competence is not legislative legerdemain, just as parliamentary acumen is not judicial temperament, and running small judicial chambers or congressional offices is not a qualification to run the Defense Department.
Inert, uncooperative and sometimes openly hostile bureaucracies, plus political appointees who are philosophically sound but all thumbs managerially, only begin the list of hurdles for a president to overcome. One who sees himself responsible only for the White House staff (or not even that) rather than the entire executive branch will soon find himself increasingly irrelevant.
Avoiding such failure requires sustained attention, steadiness, persistence, discipline and especially resolve. These are undramatic attributes, but they are powerfully consequential when well-used and central to a successful presidency. George H.W. Bush had them, especially in national-security matters. Mr. Obama obviously does not.
Mr. Obama's manifold failings underscore the final issue: electability. Competitors and politicos are already endlessly analyzing this question, so I'll make only three brief points.
First, there is an infinitesimally small chance that Mr. Romney will self-destruct in September or October. "No-drama Obama," meet your match. Second, Mr. Romney has the overwhelming lead in endorsements from Republican senators and representatives—the most aware, self-interested community, bar none, regarding our nominee's electability. No propensity there to grandiosity or suicide. Third, Mr. Romney shares one of Reagan's most important and attractive characteristics: being critical without being angry or scornful.
The late uber-Conservative Bill Buckley bequeathed us the right test: Pick the most conservative candidate capable of winning. That is clearly Mitt Romney.

Sunday, January 15, 2012

Is Obama the Answer?

People are asking how can Obama NOT see that what he is doing will destroy America.  The answer is that he DOES see it.  His decisions are not mistakes, they are his Cloward-Piven/Alinsky, Chicago style "community organizer" radical agenda to DESTROY America.  The last three years have revealed the "CHANGE" he promised, but we also found out that the "HOPE" was only intended for welfare & food-stamp voters, federal non-essential worker voters, and illegal alien voters.

"My friends : we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world.  I hope you'll join with me, as we try to change it? - Barack Hussein Obama"

I agree America is the greatest nation on earth - now tell me again and explain WHY we need to change it?

"Life's tough.  It's even tougher if you are stupid - John Wayne"

Life today is PROFOUNDLY tougher than it was just three years ago, no matter how Obama tries to spin it with his lies.

Only the recipients of the failed fed stimulus programs, welfare recipients, the BOTTOM 50% who don't pay any federal taxes, non-essential federal hires, and CRONY paybacks and payoffs (such as union leadership), approve of the Socialist syle changes we are seeing from the Obama administration.

Stop the stupidity cycle!  The ONLY CHANCE to defeat Obama will be in November 2012, and the ONLY WAY to do that is for ALL VOTERS who don't want a continuation of Obama's "changes", TO VOTE, AND VOTE FOR THE GOP PRIMARY WINNER

To not vote, vote third party, or write-in vote, WILL BE A VOTE TO RE-ELECT Obama, and EXACTLY the same as a vote on the ballot FOR Obama.  Its too important for us, our children, and our grandchildren to not vote or vote STUPID.  We all know now what Obama's idea of change is - IF YOU WANT THE LAST CHANCE TO STOP HIM, BE SURE TO VOTE FOR THE GOP PRIMARY WINNER IN 2012 - You can vote your heart in 2016.

Thursday, January 5, 2012

Obama's Vision For America

President Obama is working hard to convert America into a European style socialist state.  His attempts so far have created the typical European Socialist style LOSS OF JOBS, WORST ECONOMY SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION, etc., etc., etc..

Here is a night time satellite image of Socialist North Korea directly compared with Capitalist South Korea.

This is what Obama is INTENTIONALLY trying to turn America into - A Third World, European style, Socialist country - THE QUESTION IS, ARE WE GOING TO ALLOW HIM TO DO IT?