Obama Hypocrisy 2.0: Omnibus Spending Bill Loaded With $MILLIONS Of Earmarks From President Obama, Several Top Cabinet Members

Transparency. Hope. Change. It's all Bullsh*t and Lies!

Seriously, I can't take it anymore!

Our President a bigger Bullshi*ter than Clinton!

“We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress’ seniority, rather than the merit of the project,” Barack Obama in a speech last April.

“I think you can take one sign of the president’s seriousness on this that there aren’t any [earmarks] from him that I know of in that omnibus largely because there weren’t any that were requested last year,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Wednesday.

CQPolitics.com reports:

Funny how items show up in spending bills without any notice — like an earmark for a president who promised not to seek any.

President Obama, who took a no-earmark pledge on the campaign trail, is listed as one of dozens of cosponsors of a $7.7 million set-aside in the fiscal 2009 omnibus spending bill passed by the House on Wednesday.

But not for long.

On Thursday, Rob Blumenthal, a spokesman for the Senate Appropriations Committee said the one earmark in the bill that carries Obama’s name will be edited. The committee will attribute that earmark to other senators on the list of that provision’s supporters, but not Obama.

What kind of precedent does that set? We can just erase The One's name and it never happened? Are you freaking kidding me?

The $7.7 million earmark — for Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Vocational Institutions — is cosponsored by a long list of other members of both chambers. The program appeared in Senate report language last year but its sponsors were not identified at that time.

Overall, the president, vice president, the White House chief of staff and the four Cabinet secretaries who were in Congress last year showed up in the records of the House and Senate Appropriations committees as the sponsors or cosponsors of hundreds of millions of dollars in pet projects in the $410 billion spending bill.

Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. , who was a senator from Delaware when the window for making 2009 pet project requests was open, has his name attached to $94.9 million in earmarks.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar , who was a senator at the time, sponsored or cosponsored even more in special line items for favored projects. His total, including earmarks he supported as a secondary sponsor, was $227.4 million. The overwhelming majority of those earmarks were cosponsored in conjunction with other lawmakers.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton , Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood , Labor Secretary Hilda L. Solis and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel also were members of the last Congress, and each of their names is associated with at least one earmark in this appropriation, which is ready for debate in the Senate.

Obama Names "Church of Universal Coverage" Member As Health Secretary; Kansas Governor Replaces Disgraced Daschle

Newsmax reports:

Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius is President Barack Obama's choice for secretary of health and human services, a White House source said Saturday.

The source, who was not authorized to speak on the record, said Obama will formally announce the nomination on Monday.

Sebelius, 60, was an early Obama supporter. She picked his presidential campaign over that of Hillary Rodham Clinton, now the secretary of state. Sebelius worked tirelessly for Obama's bid and was a top surrogate to women's groups.

Obama's first choice for HHS, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, withdrew after disclosing he had failed to pay $140,000 in taxes and interest.

Sebelius drew praise for the consumer watchdog role she played as Kansas insurance commissioner for eight years before she became governor.

Her name had been floated for several Cabinet posts. She said in December that she had removed herself from consideration from a Cabinet job, citing Kansas' budget problems that needed her attention.

Michael Tanner at Cato cites Sebelius support of Universal health care and entitlement programs like SCHIP:

A preliminary look at her record suggests that she is a member of what my colleague Michael Cannon calls the Church of Universal Coverage, and has regularly pushed for the expansion of government programs such as Medicaid and SCHIP. She sought to have Kansas taxpayers cover all children up to the age of five, but her proposal was rejected by the legislature. She also has been sympathetic to the ideas of both an employer mandate (she imposed a mandate for companies receiving state contracts) and an individual mandate. As insurance commissioner she had a reputation for supporting increased regulation. Nothing surprising in this record at all.

An interesting question will be whether Sebelius will also inherit Daschle’s role as White House “health czar,” or whether that position will go to Daschle’s coauthor, Jeanne Lambrew, currently the “deputy czar.” If Sebelius doesn’t get the second post, expect health care reform to be driven out of the White House, while Sebelius, generally given high marks for bipartisanship, tries to corral moderate Republican votes.

Cato graded Gov. Sebelius a "D" in last year's Policy Analysis.

Obama's Budget: Can Anyone Actually Comprehend How Massive The Spending Is? How Much Is $3.6 Trillion?

"3.6 trillion dollars is one out of every four dollars produced in the United States. It's 25% of the GDP. It's 2 and a half Californias... We are going from an era where we looked for the private sector to create wealth to where we are looking for the government to orchestrate the economy. Barack Obama says, "The government must lead." So I take it the private sector is no longer going to decide where investments should go but rather the government is going to decide that we're going to have a certain kind of energy sector, a certain kind of manufacturing, a certain kind of service sector. That seems to me pretty arrogant."
--Peter Morici, University of Maryland Economist, 2/27/09 on The Fox Report



Remember, this is just FY '10 Budget. $3.6 Trillion does not include the $700 Billion TARP Bailout, the $800 Billion CRAPulus Spending Bill, the $410 Billion Omnibus Spending Bill and the $275 Billion Housing Bailout. That's another $2.2 Trillion!

Fox News puts it this way:

If you spent $1 million an hour, non-stop for 24 hours a day, you wouldn’t run out of money for 411 years.

If you took 3.6 trillion one-dollar bills, and placed them end-to-end, that line of bills would reach from Capitol Hill to the sun and then back to Capitol Hill and then back to the sun — and then almost all the way back to Capitol Hill again.

Or try this: 3.6 trillion seconds ago, our ancestors were using stone tools and Neanderthal men still roamed Europe.

Red State puts it this way:

Think of a trillion in terms of seconds. We all know how long a second is. A million seconds is 13 days. A billion seconds is 31 years. A trillion seconds is 31,688 years. Think of the ongoing spending orgy in terms of seconds and perhaps we can grasp what Obama and Democrats are spending and borrowing:

• 0.410 trillion seconds (Congress’ proposed spending bill) is 12,992 years.
  
• 0.634 trillion seconds (Obama’s down payment on health care reform) is 20,090 years.
  
• 0.787 trillion seconds (Obama’s so-called stimulus) is 24,938 years.
  
• 1.75 trillion seconds (Obama’s proposed deficit) is 55,454 years.
  
• 3.27 trillion seconds (the actual cost of the so-called stimulus)
  
• 3.6 trillion seconds (Obama’s budget) is 114,077 years.
  
• 8.67 trillion seconds (the national debt the Democrats inherited) is 274,735 years.
  
• 17.6 trillion seconds (the projected 2010 national debt under Obama’s budget) is 557,709 years.
  

A trillion here, a trillion there; sooner or later you run out of time.

***

This is really, really, really, really, really, BIG, BIG, BIG government being laid out right in front of our eyes.

VIDEO: Obama/Biden Troop Surge Hypocrisy; Lies, Lies, Lies

He really is that arrogant that he cannot admit he was wrong, isn't he?

In Friday's speech at Camp LeJeune, Dear Leader congratulates The Marines for their contribution to the success of the troop surge, without actually saying the words:

Thanks in great measure to your service, the situation in Iraq has improved. Violence has been reduced substantially from the horrific sectarian killing of 2006 and 2007. Al Qaeda in Iraq has been dealt a serious blow by our troops and Iraq's Security Forces, and through our partnership with Sunni Arabs. The capacity of Iraq's Security Forces has improved, and Iraq's leaders have taken steps toward political accommodation. The relative peace and strong participation in January's provincial elections sent a powerful message to the world about how far Iraqis have come in pursuing their aspirations through a peaceful political process.

The video below compiles excerpts from Joe Biden and Barack Obama slamming the Bush troop surge, claiming it would never work. Hypocrites indeed. It's not any breaking news, but another example of repeated hypocrisy and lies.




I really wonder what the military thinks of their new Commander-in-Chief behind closed doors?

President Obama is arrogant, radical, dishonest and dangerous.

(Hat Tip: Powerline)

Pepsi's Obama-Love-Affair Not Reciprocated By The White House; They Like Coke!

Shamelessly, and for no apparent reason, I've been obsessed with Pepsi's obsession with Obamamania.

Well, the grand irony is Pepsi's shameless exploitation of Dear Leader is not reciprocated the White House staff. They have a penchant for Coca-Cola products!

Time reports:

In an apparent homage to the new President, PepsiCo has plastered the sides of buses and bus stops in the nation's capital with slogans like "Yes You Can," "Optimismmmm" and "Hope." In each poster, the letter O is inscribed with the redesigned Pepsi logo, a red, white and blue sphere that echoes the rising-sun image used by the Obama campaign.

It is not hard to interpret the message. Since 1984, Pepsi has been marketing itself as the hip, happening beverage of youth — "The choice of a new generation," as its longtime slogan went. And Barack Obama, one of the youngest men to serve as President, is nothing if not hip, especially among young consumers who supported him by wide margins. Pepsi says the campaign is not a political endorsement. "We're not interested in following political tailwinds," says Nicole Bradley, a Pepsi spokeswoman. "But we are interested in cultural change."

My reporting at the White House suggests the answer is a resounding no. Several senior Administration officials are committed cola drinkers, and without fail they spend their days sipping from a can of Diet Coke, a product of Pepsi's chief competitor, Coca-Cola. On Monday, as members of Congress and key lobbyists filed into a briefing room for the final event of a daylong fiscal summit, they were greeted with an ice chest full of complimentary Diet Coke, not Diet Pepsi. (Montana Democratic Senator Max Baucus was one of many to grab a can.) Hours earlier, at a breakout session with members of Congress in the Indian Treaty Room, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag handled not one, but two cans of Diet Coke during the nearly two-hour session. Larry Summers, Obama's top economic adviser, rarely walks anywhere in the White House complex without a can of Diet Coke in his hand. He is well known for interrupting conversations to take another swig.

But these examples do not even constitute the most damning evidence against Pepsi. Late last year, Obama's nascent Administration worked out of transition offices in a downtown government building, which was serviced by only Pepsi-brand vending machines, according to three people who worked in the building. Two Administration officials have told me that a group of Obama aides, frustrated by having to run the security gauntlet to go to the corner store, stocked a refrigerator with Diet Coke in open rebellion against the available options. The pattern has continued at the White House. In his West Wing office, as in his previous office at Harvard University, Summers has a refrigerator stocked with cans of the decidedly non-Pepsi beverage.

See Related:

Looks Like Pepsi Not Only Stole Obama's Logo; They Stole His Obamanomics As Well! Less For More! Screw The People!

It's Official! Pepsi Has A Crush On Obama! One of Many New Obama-Inspired Marketing Strategies

Did Pepsi Steal Obama's Logo?

BREAKING: MItt Romney Wins CPAC Straw Poll

The results of the CPAC straw poll!

Mitt Romney — 20 percent

Bobby Jindal — 14 percent

Sarah Palin — 13 percent

Ron Paul — 13 percent

Newt Gingrich — 10 percent

Mike Huckabee — 7 percent

Mark Sanford — 4 percent

Rudy Giuliani — 3 percent

Tim Pawlenty — 2 percent

Charlie Crist — 1 percent

Obama's Weekly Address: Translated To Expose The Lies

I am introducing a new feature on The ConservativeXpress inspired by Sean Hannity's "Liberal Translation."

Every Saturday I will break down President Obama's address to expose the myths, the lies and the crap that comes out of his mouth.



From WhiteHouse.gov:

Two years ago, we set out on a journey to change the way that Washington works.

Two years ago, we set out on a journey to create The Socialist States of America.

We sought a government that served not the interests of powerful lobbyists or the wealthiest few, but the middle-class Americans I met every day in every community along the campaign trail – responsible men and women who are working harder than ever, worrying about their jobs, and struggling to raise their families.

"That served not the interests of powerful lobbyists" that do not serve Liberal interests. Lobbyists wrote the CRAPulus Spending Bill and they are going to write the budget. Don't be fooled by the Wordsmith In Chief. It's all lies.

And what's this "responsible" people crap? You mean the ones who refuse to pay their mortgage and are relying on ACORN's illegal home-invasions? The ones working hard at sitting on their asses sucking on the government teats of entitlements?

In so many town halls and backyards, they spoke of their hopes for a government that finally confronts the challenges that their families face every day; a government that treats their tax dollars as responsibly as they treat their own hard-earned paychecks.

You mean a government who uses the tax dollars of "others", you know, the "wealthy" to redistribute money from one class to another. Government has never spent our money responsibly!

That is the change I promised as a candidate for president. It is the change the American people voted for in November. And it is the change represented by the budget I sent to Congress this week.

Enough with the change crap! It's old news, Mr. President! We've all figured out already that you're full of sh*t.

During the campaign, I promised a fair and balanced tax code that would cut taxes for 95% of working Americans, roll back the tax breaks for those making over $250,000 a year, and end the tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas. This budget does that.

AHHHHHHHHHHHH! There is absolutely nothing "fair and balanced" about the tax code! Your definition of a "tax cut" in a big fat lie, sir! And end tax breaks that ship jobs overseas? You're going to raise corporate taxes which will FURTHER ship jobs overseas you fool! Why are you so anti-Capitalism?

I promised an economy run on clean, renewable energy that will create new American jobs, new American industries, and free us from the dangerous grip of foreign oil. This budget puts us on that path, through a market-based cap on carbon pollution that will make renewable energy the profitable kind of energy; through investments in wind power and solar power; advanced biofuels, clean coal, and more fuel-efficient American cars and American trucks.

Your cap-and-trade energy policy will cost trillions of dollars, lead to further job loss and will create a regressive energy tax on the "poor" people you are so committed to protecting. This is nothing but appeasement to the ENVIRONMENTAL LOBBYISTS you hypocrite!!!!

I promised to bring down the crushing cost of health care – a cost that bankrupts one American every thirty seconds, forces small businesses to close their doors, and saddles our government with more debt. This budget keeps that promise, with a historic commitment to reform that will lead to lower costs and quality, affordable health care for every American.

This budget will lead to national health care that has never worked and never will. Nationalized health care leads to "rationing" on treatments like MRI, CT Scans, blood tests, etc that the government will decide "if are medically necessary."

I promised an education system that will prepare every American to compete, so Americans can win in a global economy. This budget will help us meet that goal, with new incentives for teacher performance and pathways for advancement; new tax credits that will make college more affordable for all who want to go; and new support to ensure that those who do go finish their degree.

Yeah! Everyone gets to go to college for free now! Can I get a refund for the thousands of dollars in Student Loans I paid off? No?

This budget also reflects the stark reality of what we’ve inherited – a trillion dollar deficit, a financial crisis, and a costly recession.

YOU DID NOT INHERIT A TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT! That's a lie! This is your problem now! STOP BLAMING BUSH! This is the Obama Recession no, Mr. President!!!!!

Given this reality, we’ll have to be more vigilant than ever in eliminating the programs we don’t need in order to make room for the investments we do need. I promised to do this by going through the federal budget page by page, and line by line. That is a process we have already begun, and I am pleased to say that we’ve already identified two trillion dollars worth of deficit-reductions over the next decade.

We will eliminate programs that do not suit our Radical Socialist agenda to make room for more entitlement spending.

We’ve also restored a sense of honesty and transparency to our budget, which is why this one accounts for spending that was hidden or left out under the old rules.

Ha! Do you really believe the crap you spew, Mr. President? Seriously.

I realize that passing this budget won’t be easy. Because it represents real and dramatic change, it also represents a threat to the status quo in Washington. I know that the insurance industry won’t like the idea that they’ll have to bid competitively to continue offering Medicare coverage, but that’s how we’ll help preserve and protect Medicare and lower health care costs for American families. I know that banks and big student lenders won’t like the idea that we’re ending their huge taxpayer subsidies, but that’s how we’ll save taxpayers nearly $50 billion and make college more affordable. I know that oil and gas companies won’t like us ending nearly $30 billion in tax breaks, but that’s how we’ll help fund a renewable energy economy that will create new jobs and new industries. In other words, I know these steps won’t sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they’re gearing up for a fight as we speak. My message to them is this:

So am I.

I am the messiah! You cannot compete! "I won, I trump you on that."

The system we have now might work for the powerful and well-connected interests that have run Washington for far too long, but I don’t. I work for the American people. I didn’t come here to do the same thing we’ve been doing or to take small steps forward, I came to provide the sweeping change that this country demanded when it went to the polls in November. That is the change this budget starts to make, and that is the change I’ll be fighting for in the weeks ahead – change that will grow our economy, expand our middle-class, and keep the American Dream alive for all those men and women who have believed in this journey from the day it began.

Nothing you have done so far will do anything to help the middle-class. You are spending your way into a Socialist Obama-dystopia.

Thanks for listening.

Thank you for believing in the Gospel according to Obama.

Is Obama's "War on Investors" Real? Is It Revenge On "White" Wall Street Where Obama Felt Like "A Spy Behind Enemy Lines"?

Barack Obama's memoir "Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance" is old news.

However, in light of Larry Kudlow's column "Obama Declares War on Investors, Entrepreneurs, Businesses, And More", an excerpt from Obama's book is worth revisiting.

In the book, Obama describes his first job out of college, and states he felt out of place on "white" Wall Street. Now, I understand we all experience a certain amount of disillusionment in our youth -- many of else had fleeting moments of radical beliefs in our college years. Yet, he wrote this book as an adult, so obviously, the feelings he has towards "the enemy" are deep and could have dangerous consequences.

Eventually a consulting house to multinational corporations agreed to hire me as a research assistant. Like a spy behind enemy lines, I arrived every day at my mid-Manhattan office and sat at my computer terminal, checking the Reuters machine that blinked bright emerald messages from across the globe. As far as I could tell I was the only black man in the company, a source of shame for me but a source of considerable pride for the company’s secretarial pool.

...as the months passed, I felt the idea of becoming an organizer slipping away from me. The company promoted me to the position of financial writer. I had my own office, my own secretary; money in the bank. Sometimes, coming out of an interview with Japanese financiers or German bond traders, I would catch my reflection in the elevator doors "see myself in a suit and tie, a briefcase in my hand" and for a split second I would imagine myself as a captain of industry, barking out orders, closing the deal, before I remembered who it was that I had told myself I wanted to be and felt pangs of guilt for my lack of resolve.

It's worth considering, that Obama's "War" on Wall Street may, in fact be real. Could he actually be seeking retribution for feeling out of place? Is he playing a race game on "rich, white" Wall Street?

And who, exactly, is the "enemy"? Is the implication that White people are the enemy, or is it Wall Street?

In either case, it's frightening and dangerous that this man is our President.

Honestly, I would not put it past this guy.

Obama is arrogant, radical, dishonest and dangerous.

(For the record, a former co-worker of Obama explains why none of this is true; it's all a big embellishment. Read more at RightVoices.com)

Michelle Obama's Fashion Hypocrisy; Social Secretary Wined and Dined In NYC

First Lady Michelle Obama is a hypocrite, just like her husband.

Social elite madness!


From Byron York at DC Examiner:

It didn't make most of the papers or the TV newscasts, but Desiree Rogers, the new White House social secretary, caused a bit of a stir recently when she appeared at New York's Fashion Week shows, sitting next to Vogue Editor Anna Wintour as she took in the latest from designers Carolina Herrera and Donna Karan.

"The fashions were amazing," Rogers told Women's Wear Daily. "I particularly liked the dresses for daytime that were a classic silhouette. ..." Besides Herrera and Karan, Rogers also attended a show by Marc Jacobs where, according to the New York Daily News, "fashion's baddest boy paraded punky, funky ponchos and razor-sharp shouldered jackets in Day-Glo metallics."

At first, it wasn't clear whether Rogers was hanging with the fashionistas as part of her official White House duties or not. Then New York magazine quoted a White House aide saying, "Desiree was in New York on a fact-finding mission. She's acting as a cultural liaison for the White House; she's researching fashion and music."

I called the White House to check if that quote was accurate. It was. An aide explained that first lady Michelle Obama "has taken a particular interest in showcasing the work of young up-and-coming designers who have chosen fashion as their path and who are artists in their own right and who are introduced at places like Fashion Week."

It's hard to put Herrera, Karan and Jacobs in the up-and-coming category, but never mind: Perhaps we'll be seeing punky, funky ponchos and Day-Glo metallics at some future White House function. I asked whether the first lady considered Rogers' hitting the fashion shows a little frivolous, given the seriousness of our times. "I think you're assigning a value judgment to the fashion industry," I was told. "She doesn't think it is frivolous at all."

The Obama White House stressed to me that Rogers did much more in New York than attend fashion shows. She had a full schedule — the aide wouldn't say exactly what it was — looking for new artists, musicians and other cultural figures who might take part in White House events.

Rogers was also treated to lunch at the chic Four Seasons by the interior decorator Michael Smith. You might have heard Smith's name because he was the man chosen by the now-departed Merrill Lynch Chief Executive Officer John Thain to handle Thain’s notorious $1.2 million office redecoration project. President Barack Obama condemned that sort of excess, but then hired none other than Michael Smith to spruce up the White House. And then Smith honored Rogers at the Four Seasons.

What makes all of this noteworthy, of course, is that it is taking place against the backdrop of widespread economic misery. As millions of Americans worry about losing their jobs, the first lady is celebrated on the cover of Wintour’s magazine, Vogue, where it is suggested that her "ardent championing of new names in American design" has caused some to call her the "new Jackie Kennedy."

Why not Nancy Reagan? Mrs. Reagan's husband also took office amid an inherited economic crisis, and she quickly became the subject of sometimes bitter criticism for her fondness for high fashion — for "exercising her opulent tastes in an economy that is inflicting hardship on so many," in the words of a 1981 New York Times article.

Now, in this economy that is inflicting hardship on so many, the first lady is celebrated for her new vision of haute couture, while her social secretary socializes with the most glamorous names in the world of fashion. Change has indeed come to Washington.

VIDEO: Glenn Beck Says America Is Addicted To Government

In this video, Beck points out that in a new poll, most Americans want government to provide them with food, health care, jobs and housing.

Yet the same poll shows 76% of Americans feel people rely too much on government? Huh? How can that be?

"Take the needle out of your arm", says Beck, "you're addicted to government!"

VIDEO: "The American Form Of Government" We Are A Republic, Not A Democracy; Democrats Want Tyranny!

"We can keep our Republic or we will inevitably end up an oligarchy of tyranny of the elite."
-- Benjamin Franklin

From Heritage New Media Partners. It's about 10 minutes long, but worth the time.

This video does a great job explaining the difference between a Democracy and a Republic. Extremely relevant right now. Barack Obama is leading us down a path into Socialism which will eventually lead to a tyrannical form of government. When government gets too big, this is inevitablywhat happens.

And it is happening, right in front of us!




This is why Conservative Republicans believe in government limited by law which leaves the people alone. We are a Republic of States, not a true Democracy.

The Democrats want you to think otherwise, that Government knows best and that "mob-rule" Populist government is very dangerous and the complete opposite of what the Founding Fathers intended. This video states that Democracy (Democrats) will lead to chaos, anarchy and eventually tyranny!

It is my belief that the framers of the Constitution would be appalled by President Obama bastardization of their intentions for America.

Our founding fathers understood the mistakes of democracies throughout history. The Constitution creates a Republic and not a Democracy.

Democrats like Obama and Pelosi and Reid are leading this country into Socialism and into tyranny!

Obama Recession: Today's Update; The President Has Declared War On Investors, Entrepreneurs, Small Business, Large Corporations and Venture-Capital

Where does it end? When will people wake up and accept the reality! Obama is single-handedly destroying the American economy!

The worst February since 1933?!?!? Are you kidding me? That was the heart of the Great Depression!!!!

The Wall Street Journal reports:

A late burst of selling sealed a dismal finish for the stock market, which hit a fresh 12-year low on Friday as Citigroup sold a bigger chunk of itself to the government and General Electric slashed its dividend, spooking investors who were already jittery.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 119.15 points, or 1.7%, to end at 7062.93. The blue-chip benchmark ended down 937.93 points, or 11.72% on the month -- the worst percentage drop for February since 1933, when it fell 15.62%. The Dow industrials have fallen six months in a row and are now more than 50% off their record highs hit in October of 2007.

Larry Kudlow of CNBC explains it this way:

Let me be very clear on the economics of President Obama’s State of the Union speech and his budget.

He is declaring war on investors, entrepreneurs, small businesses, large corporations, and private-equity and venture-capital funds.

That is the meaning of his anti-growth tax-hike proposals, which make absolutely no sense at all — either for this recession or from the standpoint of expanding our economy’s long-run potential to grow.

Raising the marginal tax rate on successful earners, capital, dividends, and all the private funds is a function of Obama’s left-wing social vision, and a repudiation of his economic-recovery statements. Ditto for his sweeping government-planning-and-spending program, which will wind up raising federal outlays as a share of GDP to at least 30 percent, if not more, over the next 10 years.

***

This shit's bad.

CHART: Obamanomics By The Numbers; "Robin Hood" Budget Taxes The Rich To Provide Entitlements

Here is how much the "nanny state" will cost.



Click to view full screen (Graph from NY Post)

The budget will triple the FY09 deficit of $459 Billion to $1.8 trillion for FY 10: the highest ever in dollar terms - amounting to a 12.3 percent share of the economy, which is the largest since 1945.

Entitlement spending will increase from $1.6 Trillion to $2.5 Trillion; a 73% increase! More entitlements = more socialism = power grab = buying votes with tax payer money!

Currently, if someone in the top bracket makes a gift to charity, for instance, they get a 35 percent write-off. Under Obama's plan, beginning in 2011, they would get a smaller write-off at the 28 percent rate - a change that worries charity groups.

The Bush tax cuts will expire for families earning more than $250,000 a year, which would raise the highest rate from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. (This includes many small business owners; you know the people that actually create jobs. This will have a negative impact on unemployment.)

Obama would also impose a 20 percent capital-gains rate on top earners, up from the current 15 percent.

Taxes on the wealthy would raise $635 billion over 10 years, with most of the funds going to tackle health care, which is sucking up an increasing share of the national budget and household finances.

Corporate tax increases will provide the Fed with nearly $350 billion. (Keep in mind, corporatios do not pay taxes; they pass the cost on to the consumer. So essentially, it's an economic stalemate, but will allow Obama more entitlements.)

The budget forecasts a jump in government spending by 7 points - to 28 percent of the total economy this year.

Indeed, the era of big government is back.

And it sucks.

Obama's Tax Plan To Elimate Charitable Deductions Is Nothing Short Of Another Power Grab; Violates Personal Freedom

President Obama's budget plan contains a tax provision which will limit itemized deductions for charitable contributions.

First, isn't Obama the man who calls for a Nation of Service? His own website lays out his dedication to charity and volunteer work. This blatant hypocrisy is becoming quite routine with this young administration.

Second, does anyone think this is a good idea? Is this really the best way to pay for Obama's bloated budget?

I'm not implying the only reason philanthropic people donate to charity is for the tax break -- I'm a cynic by nature, but I do believe there are many decent people left in America.

However, I do believe there will be some negative impact on charitable donations.

The biggest problem I have with this policy is that once again, the Liberal Social-Crats are once again usurping individual freedom and legislating what to do with your money.

It another example of wealth redistribution, Obama's Robin Hood-onomics!

The plan is simple: use your tax dollars to spend on "charitable" causes which the Democrats see fit to serve their needs. That is, they will use our tax dollars as a power grab to buy a permanent voting majority.

Americans must never trust government to spend our money more wisely than us, especially when it comes to charity.

The Washington Times reports:

Still, the charitable giving deduction reduction, which would limit deductions for couples making $250,000 or individuals making $200,000, provoked the most heat Thursday. Mr. Obama is counting on that provision to raise $179.8 billion over 10 years.

"Some of the reforms and offsets contained or referenced in the budget, such as the limitation on itemized deductions, raise concerns and will require more study as we determine the best policies for getting America back on track," said Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, Montana Democrat.

Roberton Williams, senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center, said it's impossible to calculate the exact effects of all the tax changes, but said the overall result is clear - less philanthropic giving.

"This will lead people to give less to charities if they behave the way they've behaved in the past," he said. "We've already seen a drop in giving as a result of the economic collapse. On top of that, this will just reduce the amount of giving."

Asked about that, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag said Mr. Obama took care of that by giving charities government money to make up part of the difference.

"Contained in the recovery act, there's $100 million to support nonprofits and charities as we get through this period of economic difficulty," he said.

He disputed that giving would drop, and said an economic recovery will help charities, too.

There is it, clear and simple, the CRAPulus Spending bill already includes money to support "nonprofits and charities". But it's simply not up to the government to decide where our philanthropy goes! It's like welfare and other entitlements.

Americans are altruistic by nature, but the government cannot tell me where to spend my money! You cannot force "charity" through legislation!

Step by step, our freedom is being stolen from on to create Obama's "Vision" of a Totalitarian, Socialist State.

The Next Right provides more evidence why this is a poor idea:

Moreover, this attacks Obama's base. Michael Barone noted to me today that universities can't be happy about this. Add to that list churches, the arts, the environmental groups, and organizations that serve the poor. This is a transfer of wealth not from the rich to the poor -- because the rich already given the money away, in many cases to groups that serve the poor -- but from the best kind of charitable aid to the worst kind -- government.

This is a massive opportunity for conservatives to kill something Obama is foregrounding in a broad bipartisan alliance. Powerful constituencies on the left could join the opposition. And this is a direct slap at the nation's churches, which direct the a big percentage of charitable aid in this country.

The Atlantic reported this bit of hypocrisy:

I asked an administration official to respond to the question about whether charitable contributions will decline if itemized deductions are reduced for those making more than $250,000:

"Right now, if a middle class family donates a dollar to their favorite charity, they get a 15-cent deduction, but Warren Buffet and Bill Gates make the same donation and they get a deduction that is more than twice that. The proposal walks that back some of the way because it's time that everyone is responsible for our future."

That is simply not true. This tax provision will have a deep impact on non-profit charities in addition to our liberties.

Obama is arrogant, radical, dishonest and dangerous.

VIDEO: Minority Leader Boehner "It's All A Down Payment On A New American Socialist Experiment"

Speaking at CPAC, Rep. John Boehner confirmed our suspicions. We are, indeed, entering a dangerous realm of socialism.

The Politico reports:

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) told conservatives Friday that a "spending barrage" from President Barack Obama is the first step toward an American brand of socialism.

"First it was the stimulus, then the omnibus and now the budget," Boehner said during a speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference. "It's all a down payment on a new American socialist experiment."

"The spending barrage is just beginning," he added.

Boehner harshly criticized the president's recently unveiled budget as a "job killer, plain and simple."

"American jobs are under threat," he said. Boehner also railed against the stimulus package the president recently signed and said that the legislative fight may be a turning point for House Republicans.

"The way the new Democratic majority handled the stimulus reminds me of what happened in the early 1990s," he said. "But we fought back, and we won."

***

We must continue to fight for a Republican take-over of Congress in 2010; it's the only way to stop the insanity and the end this "socialist experiment".

Obama's $1 Trillion Tax Hike; Plan Will Bankrupt America

It's mind-boggling the amount of money President Obama and the Liberal Social-Crats are playing with.

It's unsustainable and will, in fact, bankrupt our nation.


From The NY Post:

WASHINGTON - Big government is back - and so are big taxes. President Obama unveiled a mammoth, $3.6 trillion budget yesterday that would dramatically boost federal spending almost across the board - and pay for it with tax hikes of $1 trillion on individuals and businesses over the next decade.

Experts immediately tagged the new president's supersized spending plan the most sweeping government overhaul since Lyndon Johnson's Great Society in the 1960s.

Marty Regalia, the chief economist at the US Chamber of Commerce, called it "the biggest return to the welfare state that we've seen in decades."

The budget would create an eye-popping $1.8 trillion deficit for the 2009 fiscal year - the highest ever in dollar terms - amounting to a 12.3 percent share of the economy, which is the largest since 1945.

The big budget - which Obama released two days after telling Congress the "day of reckoning" for past economic blunders had arrived - encompasses his key priorities, from a troop drawdown in Iraq to big new investments in health, science, and education.

Republicans immediately balked at the spending free-for-all.

House GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio said, "The era of big government is back, and Democrats are asking you to pay for it. We can't continue to pile debt on the backs of our kids and grandkids."

Senator Judd Gregg appeared on last night's "Hannity" and stated, without reservation, the Obama budget and Congressional Spend-a-thon, will bankrupt our nation.




Senator Gregg: This budget does nothing to get under control what I call the fiscal tsunami which is this huge cost that is coming at our country and specifically at the next generation to support my generation as we retire. And it will basically overwhelm our children and our grand children... Basically, it will bankrupt our country... The spending in this budget expands. In my opinion there is excessive spending on the entitlement side which is where we should have savings rather than new spending. And, of course, there is a lot of new taxes here about 1.4 trillion dollars.

Sean Hannity: Senator, you say it is going to bankrupt the country...

Senator Gregg: It is going to bankrupt the country.

VIDEO: Gov. Mitt Romney Slams Obama Plan As Dangerous & Immoral

Mitt Romney on "Hannity" discussing the Obama stimulus package, and America's economic future. Aired 2/26/09 on Fox News.

Hannity and Romney explain, in a nut shell, why Obamanomics is lethal to America!

Indeed, a frightening reality!



The Obama budget will destroy the dollar; destroy capitalism, and destroy America.

Support a Republican Revolution in the 2010 Congressional elections! It's the only way to protect our future!

Hillary Clinton Pisses Off Jewish Leaders; Local Jews Say Secretary Of State Not The Hillary Clinton They Used To Know

Hillary: Thumbs her nose at Israel, U.S. Jews

Wait, you mean Hillary has no spine? She will say or do anything for political expediency?

A deceitful, manipulative, flip-flopping Clinton? No way!

Unreal! The Clintons are among the most dishonest slime in this country.

From WCBS:

In a swift about face from her views as New York's senator, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is now hammering Israel over its treatment of Palestinians in Gaza.

As first lady, Clinton raised eyebrows when she kissed Suha Arafat.

Since she was then seeking a Senate seat the resulting brouhaha caused her to "re-think" her positions.

"I'm a very strong supporter of Israel," Clinton said on Feb. 17.

On Thursday, as secretary of state she had yet another about face in the form of angry messages demanding Israel speed up aid to Gaza. Jewish leaders are furious.

"I am very surprised, frankly, at this statement from the United States government and from the secretary of state," New York Daily News publisher Mortimer Zuckerman said.

"I liked her a lot more as a senator from New York," Assemblyman Dov Hikind, D-Brooklyn, said. "Now, I wonder as I used to wonder who the real Hillary Clinton is."

Clinton's decision to hammer Israel comes as the Clintons and President Barack Obama are planning to give the Palestinians $900 million toward the rebuilding of Gaza in the wake of the Israeli offensive that was sparked by Hamas rocket fire.

"We are working across the government to see what our approach will be," Clinton said.

"I don't believe that we should be in a position at this point to do anything to strengthen Hamas," Zuckerman said. "We surely know what Hamas stands for as I say they are the forward battalions of Iran."

For some, Clinton's change of position is upsetting.

"I feel it's unfortunate that they don't continue the policy of the Bush administration, which was much more pro-Israel," said Akiva Homnick of Jerusalem.

"I happen to have a lot of family who live in Israel and I feel, personally, when you are dealing with people who are very strong against you, you have to stand up to them," said Tami Davudoff of Kew Gardens.

"Hillary had Mrs. Arafat here and she invited Mrs. Arafat for lunch when she was the first lady," added Babak Chafe of Great Neck. "She is pro-Palestinian 100 percent, really. Of course, we always knew it."

"The easy way to make a peace agreement is to pressure Israel because you can't pressure the Arabs," said Solomon Loewi of Monsey, N.Y.

Well, she no longer needs the votes so it's no surprise her policy has shifted to her Pro-Hamas, Pro-Palestine, (Pro-Terror?) Boss.

YidWithLid has more Obama Announcement: "F**K The Jews They Will Vote for US Anyway"

VIDEO: Parade Float In Germany Depicts Obama As Angel; The ObamaMessiah!

Wow! It's not just the Radical Left Wing Nut Obamamaniacs in America we have to worry about! Seriously? An Angel Halo On Obama's Head? On a Parade Float? When will the idol worship cease!?




A carnival float depicting a flying U.S. President Obama with Europe being dragged along is seen during the traditional carnival parade in Duesseldorf, Germany, on Monday, Feb. 23, 2009. Rose-Monday-Parades in the carnival strongholds of Duesseldorf, Mainz and Cologne are watched by hundreds of thousands of revelers and mark the highlights of Germany's carnival season.

Pentagon Lifts Media Ban On The Return Of Fallen Heroes; Flag-Draped Coffins Now Fair Game

Look, I understand Secretary Gates' theory of leaving this up to military families.

However, I simply do not trust the Liberals and the media; they will without a doubt exploit the photos of our fallen heroes.

Perhaps Gates does not see this as "politically motivated", but I assure him that the Left and the media will indeed make this political.

They will disgrace our military and offend military families as they advance their political agenda. They simply do not support our military.


From The Washington Post:

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates announced today he is lifting a 1991 ban on news coverage of the return of the remains of fallen service members to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware and will let families decide whether to allow coverage.

The controversial ban on photography and other media coverage of the solemn return of flag-draped coffins -- upheld by both Republican and Democratic administrations -- has generated lawsuits as well as conflicting emotions on the part of military families.

"After receiving input from a number of sources, including all of the military services and the organizations representing military families, I have decided that the decision regarding media coverage of the dignified transfer process at Dover should be made by those most directly affected: on an individual basis by the families of the fallen," Gates told reporters at a briefing at the Pentagon this afternoon. "We ought not presume to make that decision in their place."

Gates said he is asking a group of advisers to come up with a plan on how to implement the new policy.

He said that Pentagon officials had been in touch with groups that represent military families about the policy change and that "the reaction we got from the organizations associated with the families strongly reinforced the decision of where I was headed."

Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, applauded the decision, according to the Associated Press. "The sight of flag-draped coffins is, and should be, a sobering reminder to all Americans of the ultimate sacrifice our troops have made and the high price of our freedom," he said.

But Meghan Tisinger, a spokeswoman for Families United, a military family group, said, "This is a complete disregard for the will of America's military families and the need for their privacy during this solemn moment," AP reported.

Gates, who said he pushed for this change in policy last year after joining the Bush administration, said he did not see the ban as being politically motivated, especially since it was started so long ago.

"As far as I'm concerned," he said, "that's ancient history, and I'm not going to try and figure out the motives."

Anyone who has seen HBO's "Taking Chance" will understand the sanctity of keeping the solemn return of our fallen military heroes private.

Obama Wants Assault Weapons Ban, Other Restrictions On Gun Ownership

Remember, guns don't kill people; it's usually the bullets.

This is why President Obama won the "Gun Salesman Of The Year" Award.

Get your guns now while you can! You really think the Totalitarian Socialist-in-Chief wants anyone in "dissent" of Dear Leader to have firearms?

Maybe it's a little too conspiracy-theorist-esque to make a proclamation so bold as to imply Obama and the Libs will threaten our 2nd Amendment rights altogether, but they will do everything they can to make it nearly impossible to obtain a gun permit. Just watch.

And why is Mexico's violence problem, our fault? Screw Mexico! They cause more damage to the US than we do them!

Hey! News flash for Attorney General Holder and Homeland Security Coward Napolitano: Enforce Immigration and Border Security. Don't worry about the gun laws, okay?




From ABC:

The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.

"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters.

Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.

"I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum." Holder said at a news conference on the arrest of more than 700 people in a drug enforcement crackdown on Mexican drug cartels operating in the U.S.

Read more about what Congress is up to here, trying to re-introduce the assault weapons ban that President Bush allowed to expire.

Barry's Budget Bullsh*t 2.0: The Facts, The Myths and the Lies Behind Obama's "Cap and Trade"

Cap and Trade will not work! It will not generate revenue! It will cost trillions and it will cause more unemployment. (See below)

Energy costs will rise, but the radical environmental left will be appeased by Dear Leader.

And The Obama Administration will get away with all of this, without much real scrutiny, because of those blinded by the media and ObamaMania. Thanks, in advance, for helping to run our country into the ground you ignorant Liberals.

The grand larceny and dishonesty in all of this nonsense is that current White House budget director Peter Orszag, misled Congress last fall and is misrepresenting the facts of cap-and-trade. Orszag was director of the Congressional Budget Office when its report on cap-and-trade was released. The report (see below) proves how consumer energy costs will rise, jobs will be lost and the Federal Deficit will grow.

From Breitbart:

President Barack Obama will propose raising new revenue through a greenhouse gas cap and emissions trading scheme when he unveils his first budget on Thursday, US media reported.

The budget he will present assumes an emissions trading system will generate revenue by 2012, the Washington Post reported.

Fifteen billion dollars of the money generated would be directed to clean-energy projects, the Post said, citing sources familiar with the document.

Another 60 billion would go to tax credits for lower- and middle-income working families, and the rest to help families, small businesses and communities deal with higher energy costs, the paper reported.

The Post cited testimony to Congress in September by Peter Orszag, currently Obama's budget director, estimating that revenue from a cap-and-trade scheme could reach 112 billion dollars by 2012.

According to Orszag, who at the time was director of the Congressional Budget Office, the program -- which would force companies to buy permits if they exceed pollution emission limits -- could generate between 50 and 300 billion dollars a year by 2020.

The New York Times also reported that the projected revenues would subsidize research and development of alternative energy sources.

The recently passed economic stimulus package already includes billions of dollars to help develop a national electricity grid to distribute energy from alternative energy sources such as wind farms.

Carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gasses are the main culprits in causing global warming.

***

From the official White House Budget. View the pdf here.

The CBO defines cap-and-trade:

Under a cap-and-trade program for carbon dioxide emissions, policymakers would set a limit on the total amount of CO2 that could be emitted in a given period—the “cap”—and would issue rights, or allowances, corresponding to that level of emissions. Entities that were subject to the cap (such as coal mines, oil importers, refineries, or electric utilities, depending on the proposal) would be required to hold allowances for their CO2 emissions. After the allowances were initially distributed, entities would be free to buy and sell them—the “trade” part of the program—and the price of allowances would adjust to reflect the cost of meeting the emission cap.

The problem for Americans is the cost of the meeting these "caps" would be borne by the consumer. Just as companies do not truly pay corporate taxes (the pass the cost down to the consumer), energy companies will add this expense to the cost of, say, gas, oil, heating, and electricity.

In essence, this creates a regressive tax as lower-income families would pay a much larger burden relative to their total income.

In addition, the burden faced by companies affected by cap-and-trade will lead to layoffs. Also, financial investment into the energy sector would decrease, or the value of such investments will decrease, creating the same net negative economic effect on Americans.

The CBO also estimates that a 23% cut on CO2 emissions will devalue coal stocks by 54%, lower oil and natural gas stock values by 20%, and a 4% decline for electric companies.

The Federal Budget Deficit will also grow under cap-and-trade, the CBO reports.

A cap-and-trade program for CO2 emissions would tend to increase government spending and decrease revenues. Like other consumers, the government would face higher prices for energy and other carbon-intensive goods and services. In addition, by leading to a decline in the production of such goods and services, the cap would cause a decline in the taxes collected on corporate profits. If the government wanted to provide the same level of services without increasing the budget deficit, it would have to either raise taxes or use part of the value of the allowances to cover the changes in federal outlays and revenues.

I'm positive Obama knows the real facts behind the lies and myths of cap-and-trade, but he is once again ignoring reality in order to appease his voting base. And he continues to mortgage America's future to buy a Totalitarian permanent voting majority.

All of this negative economic impact and still, there is no definitive proof global warming even exists!

See Related.
Cap and Trade Already Killing California Jobs; EU Carbon Markets Collapsing



Obama's Cap And Trade Energy Plan May Cost Over $1 Trillion and Up To 4 Million Jobs



Beware Of Obama's "Cap and Trade" Energy Plan


Proof That Obama's "Green Jobs" Plan Is A Joke That Will Hurt The Economy, Hurt The Environment

Obama forms green task force


California's 'Green Jobs' Experiment Isn't Going Well

Surprisingly, Huffington Post supports "Green Jobs"


Why Obama’s ‘Green Jobs’ Plan Won’t Work

President Obama's Budget Is A Deceitful Hoax; The Fuzzy Math Does Not Add Up

Our President officially thinks we are all stupid. The numbers just do not add up! Even if he were to take all of income of the top 2% earners (which sounds crazy, but I'm putting nothing past these Liberal Wing Nuts these days) they still cannot afford the Trillions and Trillions of new spending the Administration and Congress are proposing.

Once again, Dear Leader has lied to the American people. And he is playing games with YOUR MONEY!

There is NO WAY he will be able to sustain the Liberal spending spree without raising taxes on more than just the "wealthy" 2%.

So what's it going to be? Break his promise (he has already done that dozens of times)? Or try to escape office before he can be blamed politically for bankrupting America?

The Wall Street Journal reported:

President Obama has laid out the most ambitious and expensive domestic agenda since LBJ, and now all he has to do is figure out how to pay for it. On Tuesday, he left the impression that we need merely end "tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans," and he promised that households earning less than $250,000 won't see their taxes increased by "one single dime."

This is going to be some trick. Even the most basic inspection of the IRS income tax statistics shows that raising taxes on the salaries, dividends and capital gains of those making more than $250,000 can't possibly raise enough revenue to fund Mr. Obama's new spending ambitions.

Consider the IRS data for 2006, the most recent year that such tax data are available and a good year for the economy and "the wealthiest 2%." Roughly 3.8 million filers had adjusted gross incomes above $200,000 in 2006. (That's about 7% of all returns; the data aren't broken down at the $250,000 point.)

These people paid about $522 billion in income taxes, or roughly 62%of all federal individual income receipts. The richest 1% -- about 1.65 million filers making above $388,806 -- paid some $408 billion, or 39.9% of all income tax revenues, while earning about 22% of all reported U.S. income.

Note that federal income taxes are already "progressive" with a 35%top marginal rate, and that Mr. Obama is (so far) proposing to raise it only to 39.6%, plus another two percentage points in hidden deduction phase-outs. He'd also raise capital gains and dividend rates, but those both yield far less revenue than the income tax. These combined increases won't come close to raising the hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue that Mr. Obama is going to need.

The Foundry at Heritage explains the deceit and the "trickery".

The President is using some budget trickery. He assumes the extension of all 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and the AMT patch into the baseline, and then eliminates some of the same tax cuts, and counts them as “new” revenues.

The President also employs budget trickery on spending. He first assumes that Iraq spending will continue indefinitely at 2008 levels (which was never going to happen, according to the military’s own Joint Campaign Plan), and then calculates $1.5 trillion in savings against that baseline. If you eliminate that gimmick, President Obama increases spending by nearly $500 billion over ten years – not even counting the $634 billion health care reserve fund.

The budget proposes $1,133 billion in regular discretionary spending in 2010, and claims that is a 7 percent hike over the 2009 level of $1,062 billion. But that actual 2009 baseline level – reflected in the budget resolution and appropriations bills — was $1,012 billion. This makes the actual proposed budget increase 12 percent.

***

Our President is arrogant, radical, dishonest and dangerous.

Democrats Vote Down Censorship Doctrine, Before They Voted To Censor Free Speech

As Sean Hannity has been predicting, they Congress will not reinstate the so-called "Fairness Doctrine". Instead, they have passed an amendment which may accomplish the same goals, without calling it the "Fairness Doctrine".

They have successfully back-doored censorship back into talk radio with Sen. Durbin's Amendment.

This cannot stand. We need to fight for this one. This needs to go The Supreme Court.

It not only stands against free-market enterprise, but violates our First Amendment right to free speech!

From Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC):

Today, at 2pm, the Senate will vote on two amendments with respect to the Fairness Doctrine.

The DeMint amendment (Broadcaster Freedom Act) would ban the Fairness Doctrine.

The amendment by Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) would achieve the same goals of the Fairness Doctrine through backdoor FCC regulations. His legislation forces the FCC to “take actions to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership,” an attempt to dismantle successful syndicated radio programs.

The Durbin amendment would hurt small, local radio stations who depend on popular syndicated programming for listeners and revenue.

The Hill reported:

The Senate voted Thursday in favor of an amendment to the District of Columbia voting-rights bill that would prohibit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from reinstating the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which critics say would decimate conservative talk radio. The Senate passed the measure 87-11.

However, Democrats did pass the Durbin Amendment to restrict free speech- 57-41."Durbin Amdt. No. 591; To encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership, and to ensure that the public airwaves are used in the public interest."

***

Sen. DeMint added this statement this afternoon.

“Today’s vote slammed the front door on the so-called ‘fairness doctrine,’ which threatens to censor free speech and shut down talk radio,” said Senator DeMint.

“When senators were forced to vote in the open on this issue, they were compelled to side with the American people.”

“Today was an important victory for free speech, but the fight is far from over. Senator Durbin’s amendment exposed Democrat intentions to impose radio censorship through the back door using vague regulations dealing with media ownership. Senator Durbin’s language was so broad, it could apply beyond radio to television, newspapers and the internet. All eyes are now on the FCC. If they attempt to shut down free speech indirectly, we will fight to stop them,” said Senator DeMint

“It was reassuring to see the Senate stand up for free speech today and reject this anti-American policy. However, I am troubled that as we killed the ‘Fairness Doctrine,’ Senator Durbin’s amendment brought to life a new threat to talk radio and other arenas of free speech. Senator DeMint and I, along with others, will continue to stand up to efforts to limit the expression of differing opinions and free speech on talk radio, TV, and the internet,” said Thune. “With such an overwhelming vote in the Senate, I hope the Democrat leadership in the House does not block this provision when they consider this legislation.”

Senator Inhofe said, “The overwhelming bi-partisan vote in support of the Broadcaster Freedom Act shows that the American people reject the idea of reinstating the fairness doctrine. As one of the most outspoken members in the Senate against re-instating the doctrine, I am pleased to have supported Senators DeMint and Thune in their effort. Today is a tremendous victory for free speech and the First Amendment, and while I am sure liberals will continue to look for another way to attack conservative radio, I will be standing with my colleagues to ensure that doesn’t happen.”

As reported by Broadcasting & Cable on 2/24/09, liberal activist groups believe breaking up media ownership is their next attempt to undermine successful conservative talk radio.

As radio host Rush Limbaugh wrote in the Wall Street Journal:

“Mr. President, we both know that this new effort at regulating speech is not about diversity but conformity. It should be rejected. You've said you're against reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, but you've not made it clear where you stand on possible regulatory efforts to impose so-called local content, diversity-of-ownership, and public-interest rules that your FCC could issue.

"I do not favor content-based regulation of National Public Radio, newspapers, or broadcast or cable TV networks. I would encourage you not to allow your office to be misused to advance a political vendetta against certain broadcasters whose opinions are not shared by many in your party and ideologically liberal groups such as ACORN, the Center for American Progress, and MoveOn.org. There is no groundswell of support behind this movement. Indeed, there is a groundswell against it.”

Pelosi Challenges Obama: Who Is The Biggest Cut & Running Coward In Iraq

More dangerous, anti-American rhetoric from Madame Speaker.

Vomit alert. Rachel Maddow and Nancy Pelosi together. Ack! The two most vile, most disgusting, most anti-American Radical Liberal Bitches you could ever put together.

I mean, really. MadCow and Princess Pelosi? GAG!

Again, the next time terrorists attack our nation... and they will... I hope they limit themselves to Rachel Maddow's studio. I hate her like more than anyone on this planet.

From Glenn Thrush at Politico:

Nancy Pelosi told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow tonight that she wants a small residual force left in Iraq -- less than half of the 50,000 troops Obama's team is said to be considering.

If Pelosi pushes the point, it could set up the first significant policy dispute (aside from the size of tax cuts in the stimulus) between the new President and his most reliable ally on the Hill.

The transcript:

MADDOW: Doesn't 50,000 seem like an awful lot of residual force?

PELOSI: It does, it does. I completely agree with that. And the president hasn't made a statement, so I don't know what he's going to say. I know that the rumor is-- and I don't know what the justification is for 50,000, at the present, the 50,000 troops in Iraq. I do think that there's a need for some. I don't know that all of them have to be in country. They can be platformed outside.

But I'll just be interested to see what the president has to say. But I do think that -- I would think a third of that, maybe 20,000, a little more than a third, 15,000 or 20,000.

But again, I don't know what purpose he has in keeping them there, whether it is to fight terrorism, train the whatever -- the training of the Iraqis, which seems to have been going on forever. I don't know what the purpose of those are. So we have to see what the purpose is, how it fits the mission of our national security, and why that number is important. But again, he hasn't said it yet, so I would love to see what he has to say. But I am pleased that we are, at long last, on a path to responsibly end the war. He said 19 months, but he said by 19 months -- so I would hope that it could be sooner than that.

VIDEO: Joe The Plumber Laughs At Obama's Speech

I love this guy. I know many of you don't, but he represents those of us grunts who dare to question Dear Leader.




From Politico:

In town to promote his new book, "Joe the Plumber: Fighting for the American Dream", Samuel J. Wurzelbacher — aka "Joe the Plumber" — stopped by Americans for Tax Reform Wednesday to review President Barack Obama's Tuesday address before Congress and offer his own thoughts on American politics and current events.

Perhaps not surprisingly, Wurzelbacher, who campaigned alongside Sen. John McCain during the 2008 campaign, did not have many nice things to say about Obama's speech and stimulus proposal.

"I believe he's taking America down the wrong path," Wurzelbacher told POLITICO. "So far every step he's taken I pretty much disagree with." Wurzelbacher has been pondering a run for Congress and said, "If I became a congressman I would literally bang people's heads together and probably get in a lot of trouble."

And, for those of you interested in plumbing, Wurzelbacher has some good pointers for you.

Obama Budget To Include Up To $1 Trillion For National Healthcare; Another Pile Of Crap Power Grab

I'm done. I've had it with the Liberals and their blank check mentality.

Seriously, $1 Trillion for national health care that has never worked anywhere on the planet!?!

The Washington Post reports:

President Obama intends to release a budget tomorrow that creates a 10-year, $634 billion "reserve fund" to partially pay for a vast expansion of the U.S. health care system, an overhaul that many experts project will cost as much as $1 trillion over the next decade.

$1 Trillion? This is another freaking joke! Our President is out of control!

Obama would pay for the expansion by trimming tax breaks for the wealthy and tightening payments to insurers, hospitals and physicians, according to a senior administration official.

Oh, right. Robin Hood-onomics. Steal from the "rich" to give the poor. Gimme a break.

By first identifying a large pot of money to underwrite health care reform -- before laying out a proposal on who would be covered or how -- Obama hopes to signal his willingness to negotiate with Congress over the details of an eventual plan.

"Before laying out a proposal" Obama is hoping to quickly pass more Socialist legislative crap before America sees what is happening.

"We wanted to get this process going by putting some serious resources on the table," said the official, who was not permitted to speak on the record until formal release of the budget blueprint. "This is a reserve fund, instead of a 700-page plan. We learned the lessons of the past and want to work interactively with Congress. This is a first step."

What lessons have you learned? This is BullSh*t!

Under the Obama budget blueprint, about half of the new "health care reserve fund" would come by limiting the tax break on itemized deductions for families with incomes above $250,000. The proposal would reduce the value of tax deductions by about 20 percent, a change which would generate about $318 billion over the next 10 years, according to administration documents provided to The Washington Post.

Punish the successful, reward those too lazy to work for a living. Reduce itemized deductions? Are you kidding me? Seriously!

Throughout the campaign, Obama promised to reduce the number of uninsured Americans, improve the quality of care in the country and save the typical American family $2,500 a year in medical costs. Despite an ever-weakening economy and skyrocketing federal deficit, he has remained firm to his pledge to press ahead this year.

And despite claiming to be fiscally responsible, Obama will press ahead with his Totalitarian power grab, spending his way to Fascism with YOUR MONEY!

The budget "includes a historic commitment to comprehensive health care reform -- a downpayment on the principle that we must have quality, affordable health care for every American," the President said in his address to Congress Tuesday night. "It's a step we must take if we hope to bring down our deficit in years to come."

A downpayment to produce an inefficient, broken health care system and a downpayment on screwing American taxpayers for decades.

This is crazy. This guy is arrogant, radical, dishonest and dangerous.

Obama Hypocrisy 2.0: Obama, Democrats Have Already Tripled "Deficit They Inherited"

How many times is the Hypocrite-in-Chief going to get away with the lies and deceit? He says one thing and does another. And as for our children, Mr. Obama, you've ever screwed them over!

"There is, of course, another responsibility we have to our children. And that is the responsibility to ensure that we do not pass on to them a debt they cannot pay. With the deficit we inherited, the cost of the crisis we face, and the long-term challenges we must meet, it has never been more important to ensure that as our economy recovers, we do what it takes to bring this deficit down."
--President Obama 2/24/09

Remember, President Obama promised to reduce the deficit to $500 Billion in the next four years.

All Obama has to do is say it and it will be believed by the Obamamaniacs.

Anything he says will be reported on by the MSM as fact, and then he will do the exact opposite and do whatever he wants anyway. The soundbites on the "news" will be accepted as fact by the Obama faithful and the misinformed.

By claiming he will reduce the deficit to $500 billion in four years, he allows himself the freedom and flexibility to spend as much as he wants for the next three years.

He will run up the deficit and spend, spend and spend on socialist programs that establish Liberal Totalitarianism. He will then use his last year's "fiscal restraint" as a campaign tactic in 2012 to claim what a great fiscal disciplinarian he is.

It's a joke and a lie. He is arrogant, radical, dishonest and dangerous.

From Red State's "Non State Of The Union" Fact Check; very interesting and worth the read:

This may be Obama’s most galling misrepresentation. He continues to say one thing while doing another. He calls for fiscal responsibility while encouraging outrageously massive deficit spending. As for that deficit Obama likes to say he inherited, nearly one-fourth of the national debt was created since the Democrats took control of Congress just two years ago.

America, you have been had, fleeced, lied to and cheated out of your future!

Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano Avoids "Terror", "Vulnerability" From Congressional Statement

I have had enough of these bleeding-heart Leftist Wingnuts who want to spend more money, give more protection to the idiots in New Orleans who ignored hurricane warnings, and provide less attention to the war on terror!

I've got news for you radical jackasses: Terrorism Is Real!

In my humble opinion, this is more of an outrage than the $800 Billion CRAPulus Spending Bill.

This administration is a bunch of cowards. Why do they refuse to use the words "war on terror" or "terrorism"?

Do they think if they don't talk about, it will just go away? This is the Homeland Security Secretary whose job it is to defend us against terror!

She can't talk about it? This is freaking outrageous!

The Associated Press reports (but neglected it from its headline):

Unlike her predecessors, Napolitano used less terror-specific rhetoric when discussing the agency. At one point she said the issue for the department when dealing with terrorism is "How do we respond and recover with resiliency and efficiency."

A comparison of her prepared remarks with those of her two predecessors found that Napolitano is the first security chief to leave out the words "terror" and "vulnerability" in testimony before the committee.

Tom Ridge, who headed the agency when it was launched in 2003, mentioned terrorism 11 times in his prepared statement at his debut before the oversight committee. And in 2005 Michael Chertoff, the second secretary, mentioned terrorism seven times, according to an analysis by The Associated Press.

Napolitano mentioned "technology," "border" and "protect" most often and talked about holding department employees accountable and spending taxpayer money wisely, although she made clear that the department's responsibility is protecting the nation against terrorism.

She is the first secretary to use a Capitol Hill debut to talk about hurricanes and disasters, a sign of the department's evolving mission following Hurricane Katrina.

The committee's top Republican, Rep. Peter King of New York, said he was struck by Napolitano's omission of terrorism from her prepared remarks.

King's statement, via Newsmax:

"This can't be the evil we don't speak about," Peter King said. "Any testimony on homeland security should be centered around the threat of terrorism and what we're doing to combat it."

Am I The Only Conservative Who Thinks Bobby Jindal Dropped The Ball In His Response To Obama?

"[T]he people on our side are really making a mistake if they go after Bobby Jindal on the basis of style. Because if you think — people on our side I’m talking to you — those of you who think Jindal was horrible, you think — in fact, I don’t ever want to hear from you ever again. … I’ve spoken to him numerous times, he’s brilliant. He’s the real deal."
--Rush Limbaugh on his radio show today.

Sean Hannity was equally impressed with Gov. Jindal.

With all do respect, Rush and Sean, I politiely disagree. In my unscientific analysis of the blogs today, conservatives seem to be about 50/50 on Jindal's performance.

First, I like Bobby Jindal. I like his policy. I like his politics and I think he will no doubt emerge as one of the many fresh faces of conservatism for years to come.

I admire his life story: the hard-work, discipline and success that his parents and he have earned are truly a great American story and do, in fact, demonstrate that anything can happen in American. And he was much better this morning on "The Today Show".

With that said, he really sh*t the proverbial bed in his Republican Response to President Obama's address to Congress. Frankly, he was not very good at all.

I know, I know, everyone who gives the "Other Party Address" following at State of the Union is at a distinct disadvantage. Whether it's Barack Obama or George Bush; the stage, the backdrop, the drama and Great American Ambience provided by the Chambers of Congress are difficult to match.

But Gov. Jindal was flat out dry, boring and stiff. The speech itself was quite good, full of substance and stayed on message (full transcript below), but the delivery was uninspiring and did little to energize the Republican base and surely many people simply tuned him out or turned him off.

And, as I've learned in the blogs today, many Conservatives could not make it all the way through the speech. So what do you suppose the reaction from independents and moderates was like? I know Republicans are never going to appeal to the Radical Leftist Obamamaniacs, but there still exists a fairly large number of "Independent" voters (myself included) who expected a bit more from Jindal.

Maybe it's not all his fault; obviously the Republican party was part of the planning process. But besides being flat, the atmosphere of Jindal's mansion was gloomy, creepy and empty.

But alas, herein lies a huge problems with Conservatism and Republicans. We live in the era of Bush Derangement Syndrome and Obamamania.

Like it or not, we do live in the "Dot-Com" era of sound bites and snapshots. As much as I would like to believe Americans believe in substance over style, the reality is most Americans in today's video-game, Internet culture cannot focus much on substance for more than a few seconds.

It's sad, but it is the truth.

Rightly or wrongly, this summarizes, in part, the success of Barack Obama. Yes, there was a clear media bias, but can you really blame them?

Compare Obama to his former rival John McCain. Take away the message and the substance and what are you left with?

By no means am I supporting Obama or the media or the Radical Power-Grabbing Socialist philosophy of the Commie Liberals in Congress.

However, I am applauding his campaign strategy and his staff and supporters for their use of modern technology as well as using the slobbering media to their political advantage.

However, as Conservatives -- and the Republican Party Leadership -- we must realize the reality of the world in which we live. Americans do respond to style and image. It's a tough pill to swallow, but something we Conservatives need to stomach if we wish to rise to power again.

As John Ziegler pointed out while he was slamming MS-NBC's Norah O'Donell, the line between entertainment and journalism, and between politics and entertainment are becoming less clear each day.

There are, in fact, many people in this country (some of my own friends and family) who "get their news" from shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report.

And that's scary and yes, most of them are Liberals (no surprise).

It's also worth mentioning, again, that Tina Fey's satire of Sarah Palin became how many Americans perceived the Alaska Governor. Yes, it's wrong, unfortunate and disgusting, but it is the truth.

The Republican party and Conservatives are years behind the world of 21st Century era of information and technology. No, image isn't everything, but as a society we are becoming more image-conscious everyday.

The sooner Republicans learn this lesson, the more hope we have. Perhaps it's a necessary evil -- and we don't have to like it -- but it is reality.

Instead of bashing Liberals and the media and Leftwing blogs for celebrating style over substance, we need to learn we can use the same modern tactics for advancing our own agenda.

The full text of Gov. Jindal's speech:

Good evening. I'm Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana.



Tonight, we witnessed a great moment in the history of our Republic. In the very chamber where Congress once voted to abolish slavery, our first African-American President stepped forward to address the state of our union. With his speech tonight, the President completed a redemptive journey that took our nation from Independence Hall . to Gettysburg . to the lunch counter . and now, finally, the Oval Office. Regardless of party, all Americans are moved by the President's personal story -- the son of an American mother and a Kenyan father, who grew up to become leader of the free world.



Like the President's father, my parents came to this country from a distant land. When they arrived in Baton Rouge, my mother was already 4 ½ months pregnant. I was what folks in the insurance industry now call a 'pre-existing condition.'



To find work, my dad picked up the yellow pages and started calling local businesses. Even after landing a job, he could still not afford to pay for my delivery -- so he worked out an installment plan with the doctor. Fortunately for me, he never missed a payment.



As I grew up, my mom and dad taught me the values that attracted them to this country -- and they instilled in me an immigrant's wonder at the greatness of America. As a child, I remember going to the grocery store with my dad.



Growing up in India, he had seen extreme poverty. And as we walked through the aisles, looking at the endless variety on the shelves, he would tell me: 'Bobby, Americans can do anything.' I still believe that to this day. Americans can do anything. When we pull together, there is no challenge we cannot overcome.



As the President made clear this evening, we are now in a time of challenge. Many of you listening tonight have lost jobs. Others have seen your college and retirement savings dwindle. Many of.......Let me tell you a story.



During Katrina, I visited Sheriff Harry Lee, a Democrat and a good friend of mine. When I walked into his makeshift office I'd never seen him so angry. He was yelling into the phone: 'Well, I'm the Sheriff and if you don't like it you can come and arrest me!' I asked him: 'Sheriff, what's got you so mad?' He told me that he had put out a call for volunteers to come with their boats to rescue people who were trapped on their rooftops by the floodwaters. The boats were all lined up ready to go -- when some bureaucrat showed up and told them they couldn't go out on the water unless they had proof of insurance and registration. I told him, 'Sheriff, that's ridiculous.' And before I knew it, he was yelling into the phone: 'Congressman Jindal is here, and he says you can come and arrest him too!' Harry just told the boaters to ignore the bureaucrats and start rescuing people.



There is a lesson in this experience: The strength of America is not found in our government. It is found in the compassionate hearts and enterprising spirit of our citizens. We are grateful for the support we have received from across the nation for the ongoing recovery efforts. This spirit got Louisiana through the hurricanes -- and this spirit will get our nation through the storms we face today.



To solve our current problems, Washington must lead. But the way to lead is not to raise taxes and put more money and power in hands of Washington politicians. The way to lead is by empowering you -- the American people.



Because we believe that Americans can do anything. That is why Republicans put forward plans to create jobs by lowering income tax rates for working families, cutting taxes for small businesses, strengthening incentives for businesses to invest in new equipment and hire new workers, and stabilizing home values by creating a new tax credit for home-buyers. These plans would cost less and create more jobs.



But Democratic leaders in Congress rejected this approach. Instead of trusting us to make wise decisions with our own money, they passed the largest government spending bill in history -- with a price tag of more than $1 trillion with interest. While some of the projects in the bill make sense, their legislation is larded with wasteful spending. It includes $300 million to buy new cars for the government, $8 billion for high-speed rail projects, such as a 'magnetic levitation' line from Las Vegas to Disneyland, and $140 million for something called 'volcano monitoring.' Instead of monitoring volcanoes, what Congress should be monitoring is the eruption of spending in Washington, DC.



Democratic leaders say their legislation will grow the economy. What it will do is grow the government, increase our taxes down the line and saddle future generations with debt. Who among us would ask our children for a loan, so we could spend money we do not have, on things we do not need? That is precisely what the Democrats in Congress just did. It's irresponsible. And it's no way to strengthen our economy, create jobs or build a prosperous future for our children.



In Louisiana, we took a different approach. Since I became governor, we cut more than 250 earmarks from our state budget. And to create jobs for our citizens, we cut taxes six times -- including the largest income tax cut in the history of our state. We passed those tax cuts with bipartisan majorities.



Republicans and Democrats put aside their differences, and worked together to make sure our people could keep more of what they earn. If it can be done in Baton Rouge, surely it can be done in Washington, DC.



To strengthen our economy, we need urgent action to keep energy prices down. All of us remember what it felt like to pay $4 at the pump -- and unless we act now, those prices will return. To stop that from happening, we need to increase conservation, increase energy efficiency, increase the use of alternative and renewable fuels, increase our use of nuclear power, and increase drilling for oil and gas here at home. We believe that Americans can do anything -- and if we unleash the innovative spirit of our citizens, we can achieve energy independence.



To strengthen our economy, we also need to address the crisis in health care. Republicans believe in a simple principle: No American should have to worry about losing their health coverage - period. We stand for universal access to affordable health care coverage. We oppose universal government-run health care. Health care decisions should be made by doctors and patients -- not by government bureaucrats.



We believe Americans can do anything -- and if we put aside partisan politics and work together, we can make our system of private medicine affordable and accessible for every one of our citizens.



To strengthen our economy, we also need to make sure every child in America gets the best possible education. After Katrina, we reinvented the New Orleans school system -- opening dozens of new charter schools, and creating a new scholarship program that is giving parents the chance to send their children to private or parochial schools of their choice. We believe that, with the proper education, the children of America can do anything. And it should not take a devastating storm to bring this kind of innovation to education in our country.



To strengthen our economy, we must promote confidence in America by ensuring ours is the most ethical and transparent system in the world. In my home state, there used to be saying: At any given time, half of Louisiana is under water -- and the other half is under indictment. No one says that anymore. Last year, we passed some of the strongest ethics laws in the nation -- and today, Louisiana has turned her back on the corruption of the past.



We need to bring transparency to Washington, DC -- so we can rid our Capitol of corruption and ensure we never see the passage of another trillion dollar spending bill that Congress has not even read and the American people haven't even seen.



As we take these steps, we must remember for all our troubles at home, dangerous enemies still seek our destruction. Now is no time to dismantle the defenses that have protected this country for hundreds of years, or make deep cuts in funding for our troops. America's fighting men and women can do anything. And if we give them the resources they need, they will stay on the offensive, defeat our enemies and protect us from harm.



In all these areas, Republicans want to work with President Obama. We appreciate his message of hope -- but sometimes it seems we look for hope in different places. Democratic leaders in Washington place their hope in the federal government. We place our hope in you -- the American people.



In the end, it comes down to an honest and fundamental disagreement about the proper role of government.



We oppose the National Democrats' view that says -- the way to strengthen our country is to increase dependence on government. We believe the way to strengthen our country is to restrain spending in Washington, and empower individuals and small businesses to grow our economy and create jobs. In recent years, these distinctions in philosophy became less clear -- because our party got away from its principles. You elected Republicans to champion limited government, fiscal discipline, and personal responsibility. Instead, Republicans went along with earmarks and big government spending in Washington.



Republicans lost your trust -- and rightly so.



Tonight, on behalf of our leaders in Congress and my fellow Republican governors, I say: Our party is determined to regain your trust. We will do so by standing up for the principles that we share -- the principles you elected us to fight for -- the principles that built this into the greatest, most prosperous country on earth. A few weeks ago, the President warned that our nation is facing a crisis that he said 'we may not be able to reverse.' Our troubles are real, to be sure.



But don't let anyone tell you that we cannot recover -- or that America's best days are behind her. This is the nation that cast off the scourge of slavery, overcame the Great Depression, prevailed in two World Wars, won the struggle for civil rights, defeated the Soviet menace, and responded with determined courage to the attacks of September 11, 2001.



The American spirit has triumphed over almost every form of adversity known to man -- and the American spirit will triumph again. We can have confidence in our future -- because, amid today's challenges, we also count many blessings:



We have the most innovative citizens --the most abundant resources -- the most resilient economy -- the most powerful military -- and the freest political system in the history of the world. My fellow citizens, never forget: We are Americans. And like my Dad said years ago, Americans can do anything.



Thank you for listening. God bless you. And God bless America."