Barack Obama is on his way to being the worst president in U.S. history. This has not dawned on him - yet. But it will soon.
Last week, Oprah Winfrey in her "Christmas at the White House" special asked the president what grade he would give himself for his first year in office.
"A good, solid B-plus," Mr. Obama said. "I think we have inherited the biggest set of challenges of any president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt. We stabilized the economy. ... We are on our way out of Iraq. I think we've got the best possible plan for Afghanistan. We have reset our image around the world." Mr. Obama added: "I think that we're going to pass the most significant piece of social legislation since Social Security, and that's health insurance for every American."
If health care reform is enacted, Mr. Obama smugly asserted, "we tip into A-minus."
This is grade inflation at its worst. He is living in a liberal bubble - a bubble that is about to burst.
Mr. Obama's grade is an F. His economic policies have failed to restore robust growth. After passing his $787 billion fiscal stimulus package, he vowed that the unemployment rate would not rise above 8 percent. It now stands at 10 percent - and many economists expect it to climb next year to 11 percent or higher. This is not economic recovery. It is failure.
More ominously, Mr. Obama's massive budget deficits threaten our long-term economic security. America is being buried under a mountain of red ink. The government deficit for fiscal 2009 was $1.4 trillion. It is projected to be $1.5 trillion in fiscal 2010. Over the next decade, the national debt is expected to explode by $10 trillion - doubling under Mr. Obama's spend-and-borrow liberalism. Our current debt level is already a staggering $12 trillion. By the time Mr. Obama is done, it will be more than $21 trillion.
We cannot sustain that kind of debt load. The results will be skyrocketing inflation, systemic high unemployment, anemic growth and a decimated middle class. We are on the verge of becoming the United States of Argentina.
Mr. Obama and the congressional Democrats have a grand liberal strategy. Their spending orgies - like the recent $1.1 trillion omnibus spending package - represent more than payoffs to key special-interest groups. The goal is to rack up unsustainable levels of debt and spending, thereby forcing permanent massive tax increases. Our creditors - especially the communist Chinese - will demand huge increases in income-tax rates, corporate taxes and the adoption of a European-style value-added tax (VAT) to finance our runaway deficits.
This is why Obama Democrats are determined to ram some kind - any kind - of health care overhaul through Congress. Opinion polls consistently show the majority of Americans rightly oppose Obamacare. It will lead to individual mandates, rationing, higher premiums, the gutting of Medicare and more than $400 billion in new taxes. More important, even without the so-called public option and Medicare buy-in scheme, it is a costly and burdensome entitlement program that empowers the federal government to dominate the health care sector. It is the last step before full-fledged nationalized medicine; it sounds the death knell for America's traditional free-market system. It is the final triumph of statism.
Obamanomics aims not only to expand the size and scope of government. It seeks to erect a Franco-German welfare state marked by crippling taxes, rigid anti-business regulations and a bloated public sector. The victim will be most Americans. Our standard of living, economic dynamism and individual liberties will be significantly eroded. This is not social justice. It is failure.
In Iraq, Mr. Obama's decision to precipitously withdraw most of our troops has been premature: We are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Terrorist attacks have escalated dramatically over the past few months, sectarian violence is on the rise, and Iraq's leaders are pleading for U.S. forces to stay longer. Rather than being a stable democracy in the heart of the Arab world, Iraq threatens to become a failed state. Once again, Shi'ite extremists and al Qaeda militants are scorching the sands of Mesopotamia with the fires of Islamic jihadism.
Moreover, Mr. Obama's troop surge in Afghanistan will haunt his presidency and the United States. His decision to send an additional 30,000 troops without a clear strategy for victory repeats the tragic mistakes of Vietnam. It is a dangerous escalation of our military involvement, devoid of strategic purpose and political resolve.
The fundamental problem is Mr. Obama: He lacks the will to crush the resurgent Taliban. Instead, he is transforming the Afghan war into an international police operation. U.S. soldiers are to protect villagers from insurgents, help build roads and focus on economic development. They are impeded by severe rules of engagement, prohibited from inflicting civilian casualties - even as a result of collateral damage (which happens in every conflict). This is not statesmanship. Again, it is failure.
Mr. Obama is a multicultural radical leftist who is attempting to impose his own Cultural Revolution on America; he is promoting a destructive experiment in socialist social engineering. It has never worked before. And it won't work today under America's latest faltering presidency.
In an outrageous example of the abuse of near dictatorial power, the leader of the United States Senate, Harry Reid, forced a vote on nationalized health care. With total disregard for the will of the people and turning a blind eye to the United States Constitution, Reid sought passage for this bill by corrupting the legislative system.
“This process is not legislation. This process is corruption,” said Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, referring to the last-minute blitz of dirty deal making that enabled Obama to lock in the 60 votes needed to pass the bill.
The final hold out was Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson. But he hit the jackpot when they bought his yes vote, scoring $45 million to completely cover Nebraska’s Medicaid bill every year into the indefinite future.
Clearly this deal violates Article 1 Section 9 part 6 of the Constitution which says: “No preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one state over another…” and Article 4 Section 2 which says: “The Citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the Privileges and Immunities of the Citizens in the several states.”
Citizens of Nebraska will now have state medical bills, other states must pay, funded courtesy of the United States government (meaning you and me.) Nebraskans are clearly receiving a special privilege. According to this monstrosity, they are more equal than other Americans.
Sitting on high, the President encouraged this corrupt, ugly spectacle. Not only that, he broke the vow he took to uphold the US Constitution as he raised his hand and recited his oath of office.
While we all sleep, the US Senate is stripping us of our freedom. Clearly the time for impeachment is at hand. Reid and Pelosi deserve to be removed right along with Obama.
All these outrages only fuel our efforts. The citizenry is in full revolt.
I am proud that our campaign for impeachment is growing stronger by the hour. We have surpassed 100,000 signatures and are fast approaching 125,000 signatures. This movement cannot be stopped by the corrupt deals in Washington. We will succeed, and the socialist dreams of our president will end on the ash heap of history.
Thank you for continuing to post the links to the impeachment petition. Remember, most people will not sign until they have seen the link ten times or more, so we need to continue pushing.
We have also posted a special page which will provide the HTML code for banner ads. If you have a blog or website, please consider posting these ads. They have been very successful recruiting new people to our cause. Here is the special page:
With gratitude in our hearts from our unprecedented success, we approach the celebration of our Saviors’ birth on Christmas day. The New Year brings us to the next mile-stone of this campaign. If we are to succeed, the 2010 elections must bring to office a pro-impeachment majority.
Every day Barack Hussein Obama occupies the White House, America is in grave danger.
Tags: Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Healthcare reform, Impeach Obama Campaign, US Constitution
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (0)
Barack Obama’s speech disappoints and fuels frustration at Copenhagen
December 19th, 2009 By Suzanne Goldenberg and Allegra Stratton, UK Telegraph
The world Community gave Obama a thumbs down on his address
On the final day of UN climate talks Barack Obama tells world leaders: ‘I come not to talk but to act’ Link to this video
Barack Obama stepped into the chaotic final hours of the Copenhagen summit today saying he was convinced the world could act "boldly and decisively" on climate change.
But his speech offered no indication America was ready to embrace bold measures, after world leaders had been working desperately against the clock to try to paper over an agreement to prevent two years of wasted effort — and a 10-day meeting — from ending in total collapse.
Obama, who had been skittish about coming to Copenhagen at all unless it could be cast as a foreign policy success, looked visibly frustrated as he appeared before world leaders.
He offered no further commitments on reducing emissions or on finance to poor countries beyond Hillary Clinton’s announcement yesterday that America would support a $100bn global fund to help developing nations adapt to climate change.
Angry Obama in Copenhagen
December 19th, 2009 By GLENN THRUSH, Politico
Obama was visibly upset that his words did not cause foreign leaders to swoon
President Obama and world leaders are on the verge of finalizing a climate deal that caps the global temperature rise at 1.5 degrees — but punts major emissions decisions until 2012 — after a day of frantic leader-to-leader talks in Copenhagen.
"We’re very close," said a person close the negotiations this evening, involving President Obama and leaders from China, Indian and Brazil.
Earlier Friday, a visibly angry Barack Obama threw down the gauntlet at China and other developing nations Friday, declaring that the time has come "not to talk but to act" on climate change.
Obama’s public ultimatum kicked off a furious round of bilateral negotiations between the world’s two largest pollution emitters as the conference entered its final hours, with Obama plunging into a pair of bargaining sessions involving Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, who had earlier boycotted a larger, multi-nation meeting with Obama.
As night fell in the Danish capital, the talks dragged on, with Obama extending his visit to complete a deal even as a big snowstorm closed in on Washington D.C.
Obama tells Congressman "we’re keeping score"
December 19th, 2009 By Walter Alarkon, the Hill
Obama is watching! and he is angry
Rep. Peter DeFazio’s phone rang. On the other end was Rahm Emanuel.
The White House chief of staff last month expressed frustration with DeFazio’s resignation calls for President Barack Obama’s top two economic aides — Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and White House chief economist Larry Summers — and appealed for cooperation, according to DeFazio.
But Emanuel, known for his blunt manner and ability to bend members of his party to his will, did not raise his voice with the Oregon Democrat.
“Rahm does not yell at me,” DeFazio said, “because he knows that I yell back.”
Others are learning that DeFazio, who has served in the House since 1987 and describes himself as a “progressive populist,” is not easily intimidated. He has emerged in recent months as one of the most vocal liberal critics of the Obama administration, blasting the president’s team for not getting tough enough with Wall Street. He’s also taken on his own party for failing to move left-leaning legislation through the Congress.
Obama himself has taken notice.
“Don’t think we’re not keeping score, brother,” Obama told DeFazio during a closed-door meeting of the House Democratic Caucus, according to members afterward.
Obama’s Radicalism Shows in his Appointments
December 19th, 2009 By David Limbaugh, WND
Obama is not posing, he is legitimately a radical
I’m wondering whether there’s anyone out there with the guts to pretend that it’s insignificant that President Barack Obama keeps appointing radical after radical to his czar positions. Can anyone honestly say Obama’s appointments don’t tell us a great deal about Obama himself – as if we needed any further proof he is a left-wing extremist?
I don’t need to make a list of his radical appointees and detail proof of their extremism. Anyone paying attention knows it’s irrefutably true that this has become a deliberate pattern. Statistically, Obama couldn’t accidentally appoint this many radicals in two political lifetimes. Is he rubbing these people in our faces or just surrounding himself with like-minded soul mates – or both?
My educated guess is "both" because his general attitude toward governance has been utterly dictatorial. He knows what’s best for America – the type of America he envisions, anyway – and he will proceed to implement it, full well knowing that he’s violating the will of the majority every step of the way.
It’s truly sad to me that our federal government has expanded to the point that no one flinches at the thought that we need some federal bureaucrat in charge of making our local schools indoctrination facilities for homosexuality, er, safe.
As you know, Obama appointed known homosexual activist Kevin Jennings to the position.
Why would Obama, a self-professed Christian, choose Jennings, who admitted in his 2006 memoirs that he harbored a deep-seated hatred for God and religious believers at the time he embraced a homosexual lifestyle?
All the President’s Mendacity
December 19th, 2009 by David Harsanyi, Townhall
President Barack Obama grimly warned America this week that if his health care plans fail, the nation will go "bankrupt."
Sure, adding another trillion-dollar entitlement program to our $12 trillion of debt may seem like a counterintuitive way to stave off economic ruin, but who are we to argue? The president’s got smarts.
And as is the case with so many issues, Obama adorned his rhetoric with sharp warnings of calamity should he fail, fabricated consensus to buttress his case and a promise of rapture should he succeed.
You’ll remember it was Obama who cautioned that failure to pass the stimulus boondoggle would "turn a crisis into a catastrophe." He claimed that a failure to act on cap and trade will lead us to "irreversible catastrophe" and that a failure to pass a government-run health care system will mean "more Americans dying every day."
It’s like living the Old Testament. Scary.
Obama losing the left: Cartoon of the Day
December 19th, 2009
Tags: Barack Obama, Losing the Left, Obamacare
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (0)
Obama’s Copenhagen Boondoggle
December 18th, 2009 FOXNews
Obama and the world agreed to sign a meaningless agreement
The U.S. has reached a "meaningful and unprecedented breakthrough" with China and three other countries on a global warming deal, President Obama said Friday.
But Obama, who put his prestige on the line by traveling to Denmark for the final day of the two-week summit, added, "It is going to be very hard, and it’s going to take some time" to get to a legally binding treaty.
"We have come a long way, but we have much further to go," he said near the conclusion of a 193-nation global warming summit.
The president said there was a "fundamental deadlock in perspectives" between big, industrially developed countries like the United States and poorer, though sometimes large, developing nations. Still he said this week’s efforts "will help us begin to meet our responsibilities to leave our children and grandchildren a cleaner planet."
The deal as described by Obama reflects some progress helping poor nations cope with climate change and getting China to disclose its actions to address the warming problem.
Read More:
Uncle Obama’s Extortion Racket
December 18th, 2009 By Nancy Morgan, Canadian Free Press
While the media waves Obama spends us into oblivion
Uncle Obama has gotten ahold of your credit card. And he’s amassing charges on it that – you – not he – are liable for. You can call the fraud line, you can call the police, you can call any politician or government agency, and they will all tell you the same thing. Shut up and pay up.
Since misery loves company, you might feel better knowing that you’re not the only one being extorted. Uncle Obama and his buddies have the credit and debit cards of every man woman and child in America. And they’re charging up a bundle. So far, each of us has a $38,000 tab that we are personally liable for. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg, which by the way, isn’t melting.
Yesterday, Uncle Obama actually got the limit on your credit card increased. Yup. The House of Representatives voted to increase the overall debt limit, meaning the amount of money they can charge in your name has expanded. This, despite the fact that our national debt now exceeds the statutory debt limit that the Democrats approved last February as part of the cutely entitled Recovery Act. Which, by the way, didn’t work. But the intentions were good.
For the 7 million Americans without jobs, this is not good news. Not to worry. The media assures us folks that Uncle Obama is going to take care of everything.
Read More:
Tags: Barack Obama, Extortion, Shackled by Debt, Spending
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (6)
Obama’s Economic Illiteracy
December 18th, 2009 By Floyd and Mary Beth Brown, Expose Obama
Obama’s Economic Recipe is Disastrous
Barack Obama is demonstrating just how little he understands basic economics. He believes growing the government at a rapid rate is what causes prosperity, declaring America must "spend our way out of this recession." He also in recent weeks scolded "fat cat bankers," telling them they need to loan more money out to get our economy going again. Obama’s economic illiteracy is plunging our country into economic ruin.
From bailouts, to company takeovers, health-care reform and stimulus bills: If it involves greater taxpayer involvement, Obama supports it.
When Obama reported that the Treasury had received back $200 billion in TARP funds, he declared that he planned to spend that money on a second stimulus while paying down the debt. This is patently untrue.
America will not be paying down any debt. The Senate is moving to raise the debt ceiling by over $1.8 trillion. Actually, we will be borrowing a record sum, as Obama mortgages our future to "spend us out of this recession."
The problem with his policy is that it doesn’t work. Government spending has never created prosperity. Every dollar the government spends must be taken from someone else. Government engages in wealth transfer not wealth creation. Borrowing money and running sizable deficits is transferring wealth from the future generation, which faces paying off Obama’s credit card. The bill must be paid someday. Obama is robbing future generations in order to support his binge spending.
Obama’s first stimulus was nothing more than a slush fund of money used by Democrats to support their liberal pet projects. Six million dollars’ worth of stimulus money lined the pockets of Democratic pollster Mark Penn who used it to create three jobs; $18 million from the stimulus went to fund Obama’s recovery website, which reported on jobs saved and stimulus money spent in congressional districts that do not exist. With that kind of success rate it should surprise no one that Obama’s approval rating has plummeted to 45 percent. American voters understand government spending is not the recipe for recovery.
Recently, Obama met with leading bankers, individuals he referred to as "fat cats." In his meeting, Obama pushed these banks to lend more and loosen up their capital requirements on loans. Nobody is arguing that these banks need or deserve the outrageous bonuses they have been pocketing after Obama bailed them out with the taxpayers’ dime, but the idea that they need to lend more is nearly ludicrous.
The reason the housing market collapsed in the first place was because Congress pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to loan nearly half of their assets to families with incomes below the national median.
Coupled with the Community Reinvestment Act, which forced banks to make imprudent loans, overzealous lending created an artificial housing bubble that collapsed. After the CRA was expanded in 1995, bank loans going to low- and moderate-income families increased by 80 percent. These were the same banks that were later attacked for being predatory for taking undue risks. They were making poor loans, but it was at the behest of a federal government that was trying to artificially increase home ownership amongst people not equipped for the responsibilities of home ownership.
Fast forward back to today. Obama is now encouraging banks to make more loans, asking banks to take more risk. This is the same Obama who has criticized banks for making risky loans in the past. By creating business-climate uncertainty Obama is not helping our country to stabilize. Obama’s conflicting messages are confusing. Which "Obama" are banks suppose to listen to – the one who demonizes risky behavior, or the one who demonizes banks for sitting on their assets?
Obama’s meeting with bank leaders was simply political theatre as was his recent "jobs" summit. Jobs aren’t created by bureaucrats sitting around talking. They are created when people are free to innovate and create without undue fear of erratic government behavior. If the government would cut back on its wild spending, cut taxes and promote a stable regulatory environment, the private sector would start creating new jobs.
Are you a moron?? $3.00 worth of food for $1.00......I've bought food stamp cards plenty of times off straight up junkies and it's always $0.50 on the dollar. Why would anyone post that on craigslist?
•Location: LaLaLand
•it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows that 26% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -14 (see trends).
Just 34% believe that passing the health care legislation currently before Congress is better than passing nothing. Fifty-seven percent (57%) take the opposite view.
BEDFORD – U.S. Senate candidate Scott Brown today received the endorsement of veterans, including that of retired Navy captain and Congressional Medal of Honor recipient Tom Hudner and others who make up the “Veterans for Brown” coalition.
Brown used the event to blast his opponent Martha Coakley for her approach to prosecuting enemy combatants in the civilian court system.
“In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them,” said Brown. “Martha Coakley believes enemy combatants deserve a civilian trial in our court system instead of before a military tribunal. Her view is that the war on terror is principally a law enforcement matter. I disagree. Our Constitution and laws exist to protect this nation and its citizens -- they do not grant rights and privileges to enemies in war time.”
“Scott Brown offers the people of Massachusetts a different point of view. He believes that all Americans should have health care coverage but doesn’t support an expensive government takeover of the health care system. He supports energy alternatives to cut our dependence on foreign oil but knows that families and businesses would suffer under cap and trade,” said Hudner. “He has been steadfast in his support of veterans, understands what is important to us and will go to bat for us in Washington, D.C.” Hudner is a former commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Veterans’ Services.
“I support Scott Brown because we need someone in Washington who understands Massachusetts and the needs of veterans,” said Bob Fairbairn, a former national committeeman and state commander of the military order of the Purple Heart. “He also understands the threats facing America and that we need to win the war in Afghanistan while doing everything we can to bring the troops home safely.”
In the Legislature, Brown has made veterans’ issues a priority. He is a member of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee, the Veterans & Federal Affairs Committee, the Governor’s Advisory Council on Veterans’ Services, and the Hidden Wounds of War Commission. Brown successfully argued to add a check-off box to the state income tax form so that more veterans could receive the Welcome Home Bonus to which they were entitled. He has spoken out against recent cuts to the Soldiers’ Homes in Chelsea and Holyoke.
A lot of us who consider ourselves "Birthers" are ridiculed by Obama's worshippers. Let them. There's still no concrete evidence he was born in Hawaii as he claims. I believe he was born to an underaged mother in Kenya and has never been an American citizen. The "Certificate of Live Birth" the Obama campaign released is un questionably a fraud. There's no mention of a hospital or physician name on it.
If Obama is Hawaiian born, there's a good chance he's not the son of the Kenyan Obama. His birth father is most likely his maternal granparent's friend and his mentor, Frank Marsahll Davis. Google image his picture and judge for yourself. Barack Obama, Jr. looks like Davis, not Obama, Sr.
Even if Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, there's the issue of his adoption by his mother's' second husband, Lolo Soetero, that made him an Indonesian citizen. The Indonesian school records have been released and he had to have been recognized as an Indonesian citizen to have attended.
Obama's spent well over a million dollars on teams of lawyers to keep his college records hidden. Most likely he was enrolled as an Indonesian national and got scholarship funding from that country. He may also have had an Indonesian passport. If he did, plain and simple, he's not legally entitled to be president.
THEY KNOW NOT ONLY THE CAUSE OF THE FAMILY FIGHT, BUT THEY EVEN KNOW IT WAS A WEDGE FROM HIS GOLF BAG THAT SHE USED TO BREAK OUT THE WINDOWS IN THE ESCALADE. NOT ONLY THAT, THEY KNOW WHICH WEDGE!!!
THIS IS THE SAME PRESS (OR IS IT?) THAT CAN'T LOCATE OBAMA'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE... OR ANY OF HIS PAPERS WHILE IN COLLEGE.
The New York Times' Nicholas Kristof recently wrote a column about John Brodniak of Oregon, who developed a cavernous hemangioma, causing him great pain as blood leaks into his brain.
According to Kristof, Brodniak can't get medical help because we don't have universal health care. Senators who vote against ObamaCare, Kristof said, are morally equivalent to someone who would walk past a man "writhing in pain on the sidewalk."
In another article in the Times, William Yardley wrote about Melvin Tsosies -- also of Oregon -- who ended up with $200,000 in medical bills after having a heart attack.
As of March 2008, Yardley reported, Tsosies was waiting to find out if he would win the Oregon lottery for health insurance. But with 600,000 uninsured state residents and a "universal" health care program with only enough money to pay for about 24,000 of them, Tsosies is more likely to win a Powerball lottery.
How can this be happening? Oregon already has "universal health care"! (Probably just a coincidence, but isn't Oregon also the only state with physician-assisted suicide?)
Once again forgetting about the existence of the Internet, the Times neglects to mention its own erstwhile enthusiasm for Oregon's universal health care plan, introduced back in 1990.
Back then, the Times published an editorial titled "Oregon's Brave Medical Experiment," hailing this technocratic monstrosity as an example of "hardheaded compassion" designed to make "health coverage available to many more families."
Ron Wyden -- then a congressman from Oregon, now a U.S. senator at the forefront of pushing "universal health care" onto the nation -- said: "This is a strong dramatic step toward universal access of health care." He predicted, "[T]his is going to be copied everywhere."
No wonder Wyden is such an ardent proponent of national health care -- it will force states that didn't adopt these idiotic universal health care schemes to bail out the ones that did.
Liberals cite medical horror stories from the very states they once cheered for enacting universal health care in order to argue for a national health care plan that will wreck the entire nation's medical care the same way liberal states already wrecked their own medical care.
Only Democrats could propose fixing one Bernie Madoff-style scam with an even bigger Bernie Madoff-style scam.
Maybe when national universal health care fails, we'll be able to go international. Then interplanetary -- then interstellar! Why should I pay for my gall bladder surgery when some Venusian could?
Eighty-five percent of Americans are happy with their health care, but Democrats have a plan to make it worse for more money. As a bonus, national health care will add trillions of dollars to the national debt, and your insurance rates will skyrocket.
Democrats are being utterly disingenuous to say that you won't have to leave your current plan under national health care. Maybe, but it won't be your choice: Your employer will be making that decision for you.
Recall that one of the big selling points of national health care is that it is supposed to reduce costs for American businesses. The only way national health care will make American companies "more competitive" is if they dump their employees into the public health care system.
It's so weird! We expected X number of people to show up for health care and instead 75X showed up! Yeah, just like every other government program in the history of the world.
Ten years from now, we'll be talking about cost overruns of $6 trillion -- but by then, national health care will be an untouchable "third rail" of politics, just as Medicare is now. (Ironically, injuries sustained from actually touching the third rail won't be covered under ObamaCare.)
As with Medicare, voters will be terrified to go back to even the wisp of a free market system we have now, afraid that they'll never be able to get health insurance without the government providing it. Having been dragged unwillingly into the government plan, how will a 58-year-old be able to leave the public system and get insurance on the free market?
Speaking of which, how many of you are planning to retire on your Social Security benefits? Just you there, with the shopping cart full of cans?
The only solution will be for the government to keep running up gigantic deficits and raising taxes on "the rich," which, in turn, will stifle job creation and economic growth in a phenomenon known to economists as "the Carter years."
In addition to forcing Americans into dealing with surly government workers in order to obtain medical care, sooner or later, there's no free lunch. (And if government X-rays are anything like the photos the DMV takes for your license, count me out. I don't want my lungs looking like they had a bad hair day.)
Even if national health care puts the screws to doctors and pharmaceutical companies by reimbursing them below cost -- so all future doctors will soon resemble DMV employees and no new drugs will ever be invented -- the government is still going to have to cut services and pay for the system with massive tax hikes.
Which is exactly what happened with Oregon's "Brave Medical Experiment."
Census Bureau figures released Wednesday update last year's prediction that white children would become a minority in 2023 and the overall white population would follow in 2042. The earlier estimate did not take into account a drop in the number of people moving into the U.S. because of the economic crisis and the immigration policies imposed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
The 2050 estimate is one of four projections released that is based on rates for births and deaths and a scenario in which immigration continues its more recent, slower pace of adding nearly 1 million new foreigners each year. Demographers said that scenario offers the best look for now at the future demographic makeup based on current conditions, rather than other models which assume higher rates of immigration.
The United States has 308 million people today; two-thirds are non-Hispanic whites.
The total population should climb to 399 million by 2050, under the new projection, with whites making up 49.9 percent of the population. Blacks will make up 12.2 percent, virtually unchanged from today. Hispanics, currently 15 percent of the population, will rise to 28 percent in 2050.
Asians are expected to increase from 4.4 percent of the population to 6 percent.
The point when minority children become the majority is expected to have a similar delay of roughly eight years, moving from 2023 to 2031.
The population 85 and older is projected to more than triple by 2050, to 18.6 million.
The actual shift in demographics will be influenced by a host of factors that can't be accurately forecast — the pace of the economic recovery, cultural changes, natural or manmade disasters, as well as an overhaul of immigration law, which may be debated in Congress as early as next year.
As a result, the Census Bureau said the projections should be used mostly as a guide.
The agency also released numbers showing projections based on "high" rates of immigration — more likely if more-flexible government policies and a booming U.S. economy attract large numbers of foreigners — as well as "low" immigration, a possible scenario if U.S. policies don't change much while the economy substantially improves.
_With high immigration, the minority "tipping point" is moved up to 2040, two years earlier than the previous estimate. At that time, Asians would have a much larger share, at 8 percent, since their population growth is more dependent on immigration than birth rates.
_With low immigration, the "tipping point" arrives by 2045.
Under a purely theoretical "zero immigration" scenario in which the U.S. effectively does not take in any immigrants, whites would remain the majority in 2050, making up a solid 58 percent of the U.S. population. In such a case, the share of Hispanics would increase to 21 percent because of high fertility rates and a younger population.
Under a "zero immigration" model, the 65 and older population also grows substantially faster, comprising nearly 1 in 4 Americans.
With Massachusetts running a $3 billion deficit and residents suffering from $1.2 billion in new taxes, Governor Patrick is pushing for providing benefits to illegal immigrants. College tuition subsidies, making it cheaper for illegal aliens to attend college in Massachusetts than a born-and-raised American citizen from out of state; food stamps and welfare payments; drivers licenses... No, this is not a bad fiction novel. This is Deval Patrick's vision for Massachusetts:
Watching the Senate press last week toward passage of President Obama's universal health care, my Red Alert is forced to contemplate whether a socialist agenda is intending to bankrupt the United States with trillion-dollar social-welfare programs there is no way the country will ever be able to afford.
In "The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality," I clearly established that Barack Obama is trained in the Saul Alinsky "Rules for Radicals" methodology of lying to voters to disguise a true intent to transfer wealth from the "haves" to the "have nots."
But as we watch President Obama expand the social-welfare state to an unprecedented level, the question is this: Is Barack Obama silently pursuing the Cloward-Piven strategy with an intent to destroy private-enterprise capitalism itself?
A central theme of "America for Sale: Fighting the New World Order, Surviving a Global Depression and Preserving USA Sovereignty" is that the nation is bankrupt, with a $65.5 trillion negative net worth and trillion-dollar deficits stretching for a decade or more ahead.
Put simply, there is no way the U.S. government can possibly honor current obligations in programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, to say nothing of the universal health care being pushed relentlessly by the Obama administration, despite continued and growing voter resistance.
Now the bond-rating agencies are warning the United States that unless trillion-dollar federal budget deficits are curtailed soon, the United States may lose a triple-A credit rating.
Could it be that President Obama intends to bankrupt the USA in order to destroy free-enterprise capitalism itself?
The only other alternative would be to charge the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress with incompetence, arguing that somehow the president and the Democratic Party were not responsible for understanding that their unprecedented spendthrift ways would necessarily cause the United States to become economically insolvent.
The Cloward-Piven strategy
On May 2, 1966, two Columbia University sociologists, professor of social work Richard A. Cloward, and his then-research associate Frances Fox Piven, wrote a pivotal article in The Nation, articulating "a strategy to end poverty."
In what became known as the Cloward-Piven strategy, the article advocated a revolutionary approach to mobilizing the poor in a form of class warfare against capitalist forces viewed as exploiting labor and oppressing the poor.
David Horowitz, a long-time student of leftist political movements in the United States, characterized the Cloward-Piven strategy as seeking "to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse."
Cloward and Piven argued a "guaranteed annual income" should be established as an entitlement for the poor, a right the poor could assert and demand to be paid.
Arguing for massive registration of poor in existing social-welfare programs, Cloward and Piven sought to create a crisis that could be exploited to obtain a fundamental redistribution of power in favor of the "have-nots."
Advancing their socialist revolutionary aims, Cloward and Piven explained the crisis they sought "can occur spontaneously (e.g., riots) or as the intended result of tactics of demonstration and protest which either generate institutional disruption or bring unrecognized disruption to public attention."
The Cloward-Piven strategy sought to apply the tactics of the revolutionary civil-rights movement, including urban riots, to the poor as a whole, transcending interest-group politics defined by race to involve interest-group politics defined by class.
Radical black activist George Wiley created the National Welfare Reform Organization, or NWRO, to implement the Cloward-Piven strategy.
(Column continues below)
Click here to sign.
Sol Stern, writing in the City Journal, noted that foot soldiers hired by the NWRO were successful in expanding welfare rolls from 4.3 million to 10.8 million by the mid-1970s, with the result that in New York City, where the strategy had been particularly successful, "one person was on the welfare rolls ... for every two working in the city's private economy."
James Simpson, a former White House staff economist and budget analyst, writing in American Thinker, argued the "vast expansion of welfare in New York City that came of the NWRO's Cloward-Piven tactics sent the city into bankruptcy in 1975."
Is President Obama intentionally placing so many on the government dole, including the inclusion of illegal aliens in Obamacare, because he wants to bankrupt the United States to destroy the private enterprise system, following the lead of the leftist radicals that employed the Cloward-Piven strategy to bankrupt New York City in the 1970s?
ACORN, Barack Obama, and the Cloward-Piven strategy
William Rathke, the founder of ACORN, was a member of the radical Students for a Democratic Society before he dropped out of Williams College in 1968 to join the anti-draft movement protesting the Vietnam War.
He next worked for George Wiley's NWRO in Springfield, Mass., before leaving for Little Rock, Ark., in 1970, where he formed the Arkansas Community Organizations for Reform Now, an organization whose name he morphed into the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, to form a national entity.
With ACORN, Rathke resolved to apply the Cloward-Piven strategy to working as a "community organizer" in the effort to recruit radicals to register to vote, often fraudulently, as Democrats to vote in local, state and national elections.
Rathke's idea was to create a crisis in voter registration similar to the crisis in registration for welfare benefits that Cloward and Piven had initially sought to cause. Funded heavily by George Soros through his Open Society Institute, ACORN has followed a three-point strategy James Simpson described as follows:
Register as many Democratic voters as possible, legal or otherwise, and help them vote, multiple times if possible;
Overwhelm the system with fraudulent registrations using multiple entries of the same name, names of deceased and names selected at random from the phone book; and
Make the system difficult to police by lobbying for minimal identification standards required of voters arriving at polling stations to vote.
In 1992, while he was working as a community organizer in Chicago, Barack Obama headed the Chicago operations of Project Vote!, an ACORN effort to register voters nationally. In Chicago, Obama had his biggest impact registering African-American voters on Chicago's South Side.
George Soros attacks capitalism
That Barack Obama may intend to undermine the free-enterprise system itself is not so far-fetched when we consider the attack George Soros, one of candidate Obama's primary financial supporters, has launched on capitalism.
Now billionaire hedge-fund financier George Soros has decided to spend $50 million to fund a new institute designed to undermine the free-enterprise system, according to a report published last week in Newsweek.
The Soros-funded "Institute for New Economic Thinking" is designed to make research grants and fund symposiums on the need for central government control of the economy, advancing an argument from the political left that the private economy is in need of the re-regulation to prevent the occurrence of another global economic recession.
The move re-enforces a Democratic Party argument that the Bush administration's deregulation of the economy was the cause of the Economic Panic of 2009, even though President Bill Clinton accomplished the major regulatory reform of recent decades – namely, the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.
In a revealing passage, Soros identifies his antipathy to George W. Bush in terms fashioned from Popper's Open Society philosophy: "When I heard President Bush say, 'Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists,' I was reminded of Nazi propaganda."
Fundamentally, Soros criticized the "Bush agenda" as being "nationalistic," too focused on pursuing narrowly defined U.S. nation-state interests. Soros was particularly vituperative toward Vice President Cheney, whom he demonized as "the power behind the throne" and characterized as working with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld to largely succeed "in imposing their views on Bush."
Asking how he came to have a position of influence on world affairs, Soros honestly admitted, "I have made a lot of money." Nor has Soros been shy about spending his money to advance his political agenda.
Since founding the Open Society Institute in 1979, Soros has spent hundreds of millions of dollars funding this flagship organization, which in turn has funneled millions to organizations dedicated to advancing causes of the political left, including MoveOn.org and the Center for American Progress.
In 2004, Soros admittedly spent several hundred of millions of dollars in the attempt to prevent George W. Bush from winning a second term as president. Soros was an early supporter of Barack Obama, holding a fundraiser for Obama at his home and donating the maximum legal amount even before Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate. In 2006, Soros urged Obama to run for president.
When Obama declared his candidacy, Soros organized a meeting with other financiers in Soros's Wall Street office. His strong and early financial support of candidate Obama has given Soros a strong voice in the Obama White House.
Soros has offered many different proposals for overhauling the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization. Yet, always his conclusion is the same: Global financial markets require international regulation from a new generation of world-governance organizations capable of imposing global political control over global economics.
1) All six constitutional offices are held by Democrats.
2) There are no Republicans in Congress from this state.
3) There are only five Republican State Senators out of Forty.
4) There are only sixteen Republican State Reps out of 160.
5) There are no Republicans on the eight member Governors Council (The Lt. Gov. is the ex-officio Chairman and ninth voting member)
6) The highest ranking elected Republican officials are three of the state's fourteen county Sheriffs, which is not a policy position.
7) Although municipal elections are non-partisan, very few, probably about three, of the state's fifty or so Mayors are not registered Democrats.
8) Republicans are only 11% of the voter enrollment. Unenrolled (Independents) and minor party enrollment is slightly more than half. Democrats outnumber Republicans by a four-to-one margin.
The fact is state reps, state senators, mayors, etc., are valuable when it comes to endorsements. The Republican Party has too few. I fully expect the majority of the state's major newspapers to endorse Attorney General Marth Coakley.
The problem the Mass. Republican Party has is at the local level. Unlike most states, we do not have county-based political parties. Ours are town and city based, and within cities, there are ward committees. Too many local Chairmen have no idea what they're doing and their committees are nothing more than social groups.
Another problem is infighting. The local committee is not the place for members to attempt to purge other members who are not like-minded. Too often self-proclaimed conservatives will do whatever it takes to make life miserable for those with more moderate views. They throw around the insult "RINO", Republican In Name Only. Likewise for the moderates who call conservatives uncomplimentary names.
There are enough special interest groups in the GOP to belong to aside from the local committee to associate with like-minded members of your party and to work with to help elect people who are acceptable to you. For conservatives, there's the Republican Assembly. For moderates, there's the Republican Leadership Conference. For Libertarians there's the Republican Liberty Caucus. There are national organizations that represent both sides of the abortion issue. If people would leave their fellow members alone and stick to getting candidates elected, we may have a chance at electing someone like Scott Brown.
53% think Obama SUCKS, and I bet 90% think his Marxist skank wife looks like a transvestite!!
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Sunday, December 13, 2009 Email to a Friend ShareThis.Advertisement
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 23% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -19.
Today is the second straight day that Obama’s Approval Index rating has fallen to a new low. Prior to the past two days, the Approval Index had never fallen below -15 during Obama’s time in office (see trends).
The 23% who Strongly Approve matches the lowest level of enthusiasm yet recorded. Just 41% of Democrats Strongly Approve while 69% of Republicans Strongly Disapprove. Among voters not affiliated with either major party, 21% Strongly Approve and 49% Strongly Disapprove.
Among those who consider the economy to be the most important issue, just 26% Strongly Approve of the President’s performance while 39% Strongly Disapprove.
Among those who consider fiscal policy issues the most important, just 1% Strongly Approve and 81% Strongly Disapprove.
The President’s Approval Index rating is -2 among voters under 30 and -29 among senior citizens. From an income perspective, the President’s ratings are weakest among those who earn $40,000 to $100,000 annually.
Check out our review of the week’s key polls to see “What They Told Us.”
The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates are also available on Twitter and Facebook.
Overall, 46% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-three percent (53%) disapprove.
(More Below)
Most Nevada voters oppose the health care plan working its way through Congress and that’s one reason Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is trailing a group of little known Republicans in his bid for re-election. Rasmussen Reports has released updated polls on the 2010 Senate races in Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and California. Overall, the results confirm the conventional wisdom that the mid-term election season is off to a tough start for the Democrats. However, there is a long way to go until November.
Scott Rasmussen has recently had several columns published in the Wall Street Journal addressing how President Obama is losing independent voters , health care reform, the President's approval ratings, and how Obama won the White House by campaigning like Ronald Reagan. If you'd like Scott Rasmussen to speak at your meeting, retreat, or conference, contact Premiere Speakers Bureau. You can also learn about Scott's favorite place on earth or his time working with hockey legend Gordie Howe.
It is important to remember that the Rasmussen Reports job approval ratings are based upon a sample of likely voters. Some other firms base their approval ratings on samples of all adults. President Obama's numbers are always several points higher in a poll of adults rather than likely voters. That's because some of the President's most enthusiastic supporters, such as young adults, are less likely to turn out to vote. It is also important to check the details of question wording when comparing approval ratings from different firms.
(More Below)
Rasmussen Reports has been a pioneer in the use of automated telephone polling techniques, but many other firms still utilize their own operator-assisted technology (see methodology).
Pollster.com founder Mark Blumenthal noted that “independent analyses from the National Council on Public Polls, the American Association for Public Opinion Research, the Pew Research Center, the Wall Street Journal and FiveThirtyEight.com have all shown that the horse-race numbers produced by automated telephone surveys did at least as well as those from conventional live-interviewer surveys in predicting election outcomes.”
In the 2009 New Jersey Governor’s race, automated polls tended to be more accurate than operator-assisted polling techniques. On reviewing the state polling results from 2009, Mickey Kaus offered this assessment, “If you have a choice between Rasmussen and, say, the prestigious N.Y. Times, go with Rasmussen!” During Election 2008, Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com said that the Rasmussen tracking poll “would probably be the one I'd want with me on a desert island."
A Fordham University professor rated the national pollsters on their record in Election 2008. We also have provided a summary of our results for your review. In 2008, Obama won 53%-46% and our final poll showed Obama winning 52% to 46%. While we were pleased with the final result, Rasmussen Reports was especially pleased with the stability of our results. On every single day for the last six weeks of the campaign, our daily tracking showed Obama with a stable and solid lead attracting more than 50% of the vote.
An analysis by Pollster.com partner Charles Franklin “found that despite identically sized three-day samples, the Rasmussen daily tracking poll is less variable than Gallup.” During Election 2008, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll was the least volatile of all those tracking the race.
In 2004 George W. Bush received 50.7% of the vote while John Kerry earned 48.3%. Rasmussen Reports was the only firm to project both candidates’ totals within half a percentage point by projecting that Bush would win 50.2% to 48.5%. (see our 2004 results).
Daily tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 500 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. The margin of sampling error—for the full sample of 1,500 Likely Voters--is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Results are also compiled on a full-week basis and crosstabs for full-week results are available for Premium Members.
Like all polling firms, Rasmussen Reports weights its data to reflect the population at large (see methodology). Among other targets, Rasmussen Reports weights data by political party affiliation using a dynamic weighting process. While partisan affiliation is generally quite stable over time, there are a fair number of people who waver between allegiance to a particular party or independent status. Over the past five years, the number of Democrats in the country has increased while the number of Republicans has decreased.
Our baseline targets are established based upon separate survey interviews with a sample of adults nationwide completed during the preceding three months (a total of 45,000 interviews) and targets are updated monthly. Currently, the baseline targets for the adult population are 37.1% Democrats, 32.4% Republicans, and 30.5% unaffiliated. Likely voter samples typically show a slightly smaller advantage for the Democrats.