Author Topic: Obama: Corruption, Deception, Dishonesty, Deceit and Promises Broken  (Read 221867 times)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
And what has obama done to curb thatisse since January 2009 - BEFORE it hit over $4 a gallon?   

 . . . . . .  .. .

Option D

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17367
  • Kelly the Con Way
And what has obama done to curb thatisse since January 2009 - BEFORE it hit over $4 a gallon?   

 . . . . . .  .. .
You mean manipulate the market from the presidency hmm..

dario73

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6467
  • Getbig!
and what was it when Obama took office in January 2009?
How about December 2008 when Bush left office?

The answer: $1.61/gallon. 

How much is it now?  Oh wait, wait. It's still Bush's fault.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
EDITORIAL: Obama versus Boeing
House GOP takes aim at job-killing regulators
14 Comments and 25 Reactions|Tweet|Share|Print|Email|More   By THE WASHINGTON TIMES
The Washington Times
7:32 p.m., Wednesday, May 25, 2011




House Republicans are fighting back against President Obama's misuse of administrative power to punish right-to-work states. On Tuesday, Rep. Tim Scott introduced legislation to protect a Boeing 787 Dreamliner production plant in his South Carolina district from the outrageous complaint filed by pro-union thugs at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The agency wants to force the airline manufacturer to close up operations in Charleston and move the jobs to Puget Sound, where the labor bosses reign, because setting up in South Carolina was allegedly an example of "unfair labor practices."

The Job Protection Act would, if enacted, clarify that federal law gives the NLRB no power to decide where any U.S. company should or should not do business. "For the NLRB to punish a company for locating in a right-to-work state is an abuse of federal executive power," Mr. Scott explained to The Washington Times' Emily Miller. "This administration has clearly overstepped its bounds through the inappropriate actions of an unelected regulatory board."

Mr. Scott's district would take a big hit if the plant, which is slated to open for production in July, were to close its doors. The facility would create at least 4,000 direct hires from Boeing and an estimated 4,000 indirect hires. Local suppliers and others firms in nearby communities would also receive a boost from the large production order. "Unemployment in South Carolina is above 9 percent," Mr. Scott said. "This isn't helping." Mr. Scott called for Mr. Obama to fire the man responsible for the decision, NLRB acting general counsel Lafe Solomon, saying, "Taxpayers should not be paying a salary for someone whose actions are destroying jobs."

House Education and Workforce Committee Chairman John Kline, Minnesota Republican, has been trying to secure documents from the NLRB related to the Boeing case. So far he has received a short reply and no documents from the agency. "The NLRB is not immune from congressional oversight or public scrutiny," Mr. Kline said in a statement. The committee is requesting information on the Boeing case because "there are legitimate questions over public statements made by NLRB officials and the timing of its complaint." The NLRB needs to come clean on how and why it has taken action against Boeing.

The way the White House has treated this major employer is a perfect example of why unemployment stands at 9 percent. Instead of allowing the Boeing's leadership team to make the decisions in the best interest of its employees and shareholders, unelected Beltway bureaucrats demand the right to substitute their personal judgment. It's just a bit suspicious that the NLRB decision appeals to the liberal union demographic that is going to be playing such a key role in the 2012 elections.

If Mr. Obama wants a second term, he ought instead to focus on doing what it takes to get America working. The only way to move the needle on unemployment is to get businesses hiring again, which will happen when government gets out of the way.

© Copyright 2011 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
How about December 2008 when Bush left office?

The answer: $1.61/gallon. 

How much is it now?  Oh wait, wait. It's still Bush's fault.

I checked and you're right that the national average crashed from high in June 2008 to a low in January 2009 before it started going back up again

Do you have any recollection of what might have caused the price to crash starting in the summer of 2008

http://gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx

dario73

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6467
  • Getbig!
I checked and you're right that the national average crashed from high in June 2008 to a low in January 2009 before it started going back up again

Do you have any recollection of what might have caused the price to crash starting in the summer of 2008

http://gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx

Does it matter? Bush can only get the blame in the eyes of the left. No credit at all. If the gasoline price went up, it's Bush's fault. If the price crashed, it's not because of Bush, it's because of something ELSE.

Now that Obama is president. Well, HEHEHEH!! It's not Obama's fault that the price increased, it's something ELSE that caused it to go up. But, Good Lord, if it comes down, let us all blow Obama because HE, THE MESSIAH, worked another MIRACLE!!!

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Does it matter? Bush can only get the blame in the eyes of the left. No credit at all. If the gasoline price went up, it's Bush's fault. If the price crashed, it's not because of Bush, it's because of something ELSE.

Now that Obama is president. Well, HEHEHEH!! It's not Obama's fault that the price increased, it's something ELSE that caused it to go up. But, Good Lord, if it comes down, let us all blow Obama because HE, THE MESSIAH, worked another MIRACLE!!!

of course it matters and I don't blame Bush for the high gas prices in the last months of his administration

Gas hit a high in July of just over $4 (national average - I recall seeing 4.50 in San Jose) and then hit a low in early 2009 before it starting going back up again (and never reached the high of summber 2008)

Now think really hard what was happening in the market during that time

Let me know when you figure it out

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Senior Executives Give Low Marks to Obama Appointees (The blind leading the blind)
 National Journal.com ^ | May 27,2011 | Erin Dian Dumbacher






A new survey shows strained relationships between senior career federal managers and executives and the political appointees they work with.

In the survey, respondents rated Obama appointees lower than those in previous administrations. Obama appointees earned a C average, or 2.0, compared with a 2.3 for those in the George W. Bush and Clinton administrations. More than 30 percent gave Obama appointees a D or an F for overall job performance, while only 20 percent awarded past appointees such low marks.

The study, conducted in April by Government Executive's research division, the Government Business Council, involved surveying 148 Senior Executive Service members and GS-15s about their attitudes toward current challenges and Obama administration initiatives.

The survey revealed skepticism about the ability of current political appointees to improve agency performance. One respondent said, "The role [of senior leadership] has increased, but the effectiveness, skill and knowledge has dramatically decreased."

Obama officials lack functional and agency-specific knowledge, according to survey respondents. Nearly 60 percent of respondents gave Obama appointees a grade of C or lower for their functional expertise, with less than 37 percent giving them A or B grades. Many believe appointees don't understand human resources and procurement rules, saying they presume the "institution is there as an obstruction" and attempt to "break organizations."

Appointees have "unbelievably poor communication with career employees," one respondent commented. Almost 40 percent of managers gave appointees Ds or Fs on collaboration and communication with their staffs. Some "have a divide-and-conquer strategy, and there are way too many industry fingers allowed in decision-making," a respondent noted. At another agency, a manager said the result has been "politicization of normal agency functions."



________________________ ________________________ _

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Free Republic
Browse · Search   Pings · Mail   News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.

Top Obama health aide cashes out after health 'reform'
washington examiner ^ | 5/29/11 | Timothy P. Carney
Posted on May 29, 2011 11:33:10 PM EDT by Nachum

An Obama appointee who played a central role in crafting the 2010 health care bill has cashed out to a well-connected lobbying firm, where her first clients are two of the bill's beneficiaries: abortion provider Planned Parenthood and a hospital chain.

Liz Engel was deputy assistant secretary for legislation at the Department of Health and Human Services. Today she is a managing director at the Glover Park Group in the health and wellness practice. Her story further highlights the coziness of this administration with the abortion industry, and also undermines President Obama's portrayal of the health care bill as a broadside against special interests.

Most importantly, Engel's spin through the revolving door shows the emptiness of the new ethics rules that the White House brags about at every opportunity.

Engel was already an accomplished private-sector lawyer in 2007 when she came to the Democratic Senate Policy Committee to serve as "health policy adviser." After the 2008 election, she joined Obama's transition team, working on the health care policy working group.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ..

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
The White House [1]
Limousine liberals? Number of government-owned limos has soared under Obama [2]

State Department dominates the limo count, says purchases reflect need to protect diplomats and foreign visitors in a dangerous world
By Joe Eaton [3]





Limousines, the very symbol of wealth and excess, are usually the domain of corporate executives and the rich. But the number of limos owned by Uncle Sam increased by 73 percent during the first two years of the Obama administration, according to an analysis of records by iWatch News.

Most of the increase was recorded in Hillary Clinton’s State Department.

Obama administration officials said most of the increase reflects an enhanced effort to protect diplomats and other government officials in a dangerous world. But a watchdog group says the abundance of limos sends the wrong message in the midst of a budget crisis. The increase in limos comes to light on the heels of an executive order from President Obama last week that charges agencies to increase the fuel efficiency of their fleets.

According to General Services Administration data [4], the number of limousines in the federal fleet increased from 238 in fiscal 2008, the last year of the George W. Bush administration, to 412 in 2010. Much of the 73 percent increase—111 of the 174 additional limos—took place in fiscal 2009, more than eight months of which corresponded with Obama’s first year in office.  However, some of those purchases could reflect requests made by the Bush administration during an appropriations process that would have begun in the spring of 2008. 

The GSA said its limousine numbers are not reliable, even though the federal fleet numbers are officially recorded every year.  In a statement, GSA spokeswoman Sara Merriam said, “The categories in the Fleet Report are overly broad, and the term 'limousine' is not defined,” adding that “vehicles represented as limousines can range from protective duty vehicles to sedans.” Asked whether the GSA actually knows how many limos it has in its fleet, Merriam responded that GSA “cannot say that its report accurately reflects the number of limousines.”   

Leslie Paige, a spokeswoman for the nonprofit watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste, was outraged that the GSA’s numbers may not be accurate. “They can’t figure out a way to define a limo? How hard can it be? If the government can’t track limos, I’m not sure we should trust the numbers they put out there on anything,” she said.

 Although the overall limo numbers in the fleet report were up in 2010, federal agencies and departments did not benefit equally. The State Department, with 259, had more limos than any other agency in 2010 and has gained 194 limos just since fiscal 2008. Of those new limos, 98 were defined as “law enforcement,” which the GSA said means they are equipped with sirens or lights, high-performance drivetrains, or are used for surveillance or undercover operations.   

The State Department in a statement said its limos are deployed by overseas diplomats and in the United States by Secretary of State Clinton and “distinguished foreign visitors.”  Many of the limos in its fleet are armored to protect against attack. The department said its Obama-era increase in armored limos is “both in proportion to the increased threat to diplomats serving overseas and is in proportion to the increase number of diplomats we have serving in high threat environments.” Appropriations documents indicate the State Department was engaged in a longer-term effort to increase the number of armored vehicles that would have stretched back to at least 2007. 

The department said it defines a limo as a vehicle that carries a VIP or “other protectee,” rather than by the type of car, but said most of its limos are Cadillac DTSs, which cost the taxpayer more than $60,000 for a 2011 base model and support the additional weight of armoring. The department said it also purchased a limited number of 7-Series BMWs for ambassadors in countries where vehicles are right-hand drive.

The Department of Homeland Security, which in 2010 had the second largest number of limos at 118, dropped four limos from 2008 to 2010. A spokesman for DHS said the majority of its limos are used by the Secret Service, which is part of the department, but declined to elaborate on exact numbers, citing security concerns.

Paige, of CAGW, called the new federal limos “one more reason why there is so much cynicism in the public about what goes on in Washington.” She said terrorism and security has become the catchall justification for increased federal spending.

The increase in limos comes at a time when the Obama administration is increasingly working to burnish its green energy credentials by targeting the federal fleet.  On Tuesday, Obama released a presidential memorandum [5] requiring agencies to purchase only alternative fuel vehicles by 2015. The memorandum limits executive fleets to mid-sized and smaller cars “except where larger sedans are essential to the agency mission.” It also exempts law enforcement and security vehicles, which could make up the majority of the federal  limo fleet.

According to a March report by the GAO, [6] the federal government spent $1.9 billion on new vehicles in fiscal 2009, and burned through 963,000 gallons of fuel  a day with its fleet of 600,00 vehicles.

 The number of limousines in the federal fleet has varied over the years. In 2007, the number dropped to 217 from 318 a year before. But due to the fuzzy GSA accounting, it’s unclear exactly how many federal limos have been on the road.

According to the GSA report, for example, the U.S. Agency for International Development, which had zero limos in 2008, added six limos to its fleet in 2009. But agency spokesman Lars Anderson said that’s because six standard overseas sedans, including a 1997 Ford Crown Victoria in Bangladesh, and a 2009 Mercury Grand Marquis in El Salvador, were incorrectly recorded as limos.

If the data is correct, some federal employees who once rode in style now face more proletarian transportation options. The Department of Veterans Affairs, for example, ran a fleet of 21 limousines in 2008 under George W. Bush, according to the fleet report. It now makes do with only one.  The Government Printing Office also lost

all of its six limos between 2009 and 2010. The VA and the Government Printing Office did not respond to calls for comment.

.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source URL: http://www.iwatchnews.org/2011/05/31/4765/limousine-liberals-number-government-owned-limos-has-soared-under-obama



________________________ _________________


Hope and change you girls!   

You voted for this - take ownership of your mistakes. 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Obama nominates another CEO to his cabinet!

  CNN's Ed Henry reports that President Obama will nominate John Bryson to be the next commerce secretary. He is the former CEO of Edison International.
<snip>

Obama will make the announcement at 1:15 p.m. ET in the Rose Garden.

Bryson, who must be confirmed by the Senate, would replace current Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, who has been nominated to serve as ambassador to China.

More career highlights after the jump:

– CEO of Edison International, the parent company of Southern California Edison and Edison Mission Group, from 1990 to 2008.

Director of The Boeing Company, The Walt Disney Company and Coda Automotive, Inc., and is a senior advisor to KKR.
<snip>

http://whitehouse.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/31/breaking-bry...
 


________________________ ________________________ ______________-


Ha ha ha ha ha - eat shit - TEAM DILDO.   

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Step by Step: How Obama is collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #711 on: June 01, 2011, 04:18:03 AM »
Health Reform Creates Chaos With 50 States, 50 Sets Of Rules
IBD Editorials ^ | May 31, 2011 | DR DAVID GRATZER


________________________ ________________________ _________



'Toto, we're not in Kansas anymore." The line from the Wizard of Oz comes to mind with reports of the ongoing implementation of ObamaCare. In Kansas, the state government is reportedly charging ahead, excited to receive $32 million as its share of $241 million in federal grants. Kansas is eligible for the cash because it will be among the first 7 states to launch one of the health-insurance exchanges the law calls for.

There's some irony here. After all, the State of Kansas is also suing the federal government to declare ObamaCare unconstitutional. But the bigger irony is that anyone's in any hurry to open a health exchange at all, given current legal constraints.

Although ObamaCare is mostly a patchwork of bad ideas, President Obama's earliest proposal for health reform actually included a very good idea: the plan for a national health exchange, similar to what federal employees use to buy their own health insurance.

A national insurance market would have allowed consumers to compare insurance costs across state lines. This would have helped to curb high costs in states which artificially raise the price of health insurance through unnecessary benefit mandates and other regulations.

If the president had carried through with his rhetoric on a national health exchange, consumers could soon be buying insurance plans that suited them directly, from any state they chose, comparing low-cost and high-cost plans without regard for artificial regulatory boundaries. In turn, lower-cost insurers could have marketed new products to lower-income customers more easily, since it would be easier to make a fair return on a basic health plan if it could be sold to a national market.

In the current model, discount insurers must re-price and repackage insurance plans for 50 small markets and 50 sets of regulations.


(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Step by Step: How Obama is collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #712 on: June 01, 2011, 10:59:09 AM »
VIDEO: Obama Commerce Nominee Calls for Implementation of Cali. Energy Regulations Nationwide
MRC TV (Media Research Center TV) ^ | 6/1/2011 | Joe Schoffstall


Posted on Wednesday, June 01, 2011 1:25:22 PM by blog.Eyeblast.tv

On May 31, President Obama said he would nominate John E. Bryson for the position of United States Commerce Secretary. Bryson, who was the former Chairman and CEO of Edison International, spoke in front of the UN on September 1, 2009 at the International Energy Conference and praised California's regulatory system on energy, and called for the same to be applied to the United States as a whole. However, he didn't stop there. He went on to say they should place the same regulations globally:

"The academic debate around this has often been should we send price signals, or should we regulate, and for some this is a negative sense about regulation. The fact is, regulation is setting minimum standards means that markets come to meet those standards and nothing is sold- nothing in the way of new goods is sold-without meeting those standards. So that's step number one, high energy efficiency standards. I believe they should be increased. Interesting thing is the new Obama administration is taking a look and has said encouraging things about adopting these kinds of standards across the United States that would have a huge impact. These ought to have impacts elsewhere around the world. I believe these are applicable to developing countries, just as they are applicable to developed countries, and they make a huge difference. They don't involve, kind of, the responses that we get simply to price signals that are often transitory, that often fade away over time, and in any event are very slow in having impacts. So I argue- number one- for this kind of regulation."


(Excerpt) Read more at mrctv.org ...


________________________ ________________________ _______-


225for70

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3127
  • Suckmymuscle is OneMoreRep's little bitch
Re: Step by Step: How Obama is collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #713 on: June 01, 2011, 11:30:06 AM »
lmao...most....

225 for 70 has a pretty good thread going

I didn't start the thread Big Malthus

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Step by Step: How Obama is collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #714 on: June 01, 2011, 01:26:43 PM »
Govt to lose $14B of auto bailout funds
– Wed Jun 1, 12:19 pm ET

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110601/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_autos_2




WASHINGTON – The Obama administration said Wednesday that the government will lose about $14 billion in taxpayer funds from the bailout of the U.S. auto industry.

In a report from the president's National Economic Council, officials said that figure is down from the 60 percent the Treasury Department originally estimated the government would lose following its $80 billion bailout of Chrysler and General Motors in 2009.

The report's release coincides with the administration's efforts to tout the bailout's role in the revitalization of the U.S. auto industry after last week's announcement that Chrysler is repaying $5.9 billion in U.S. loans and a $1.7 billion loan from the Canadian government. Those payments cover most of the federal bailout money that saved the company after it nearly ran out of cash in and went through a government-led bankruptcy.

GM previously announced that it had repaid a little more than half of the $50 billion it received in federal aid.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said U.S. auto companies are now at the forefront of a comeback in American manufacturing.

"We cannot guarantee their success, and at some point they may stumble. But we've given them a better shot," Geithner wrote in an opinion piece in Wednesday's edition of The Washington Post.

"While we will not get back all of our investments in the industry, we will recover much more than most predicted, and far sooner," he wrote.

Obama will visit a Chrysler plant in Ohio Friday to tout highlight the company's success.

GM and Chrysler were on the verge of collapse in the final days of the Bush administration after Congress failed to approve an emergency loan package. The Bush administration gave the companies $17.4 billion in loans and required them to develop a restructuring plan by mid-February 2009.

Obama's administration pumped billions more into the carmakers later that spring but won concessions from industry stakeholders, allowing it to push GM and Chrysler through bankruptcy court in the summer of 2009.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Step by Step: How Obama is collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #715 on: June 02, 2011, 06:36:26 AM »
Obama's Cloud Economy The economy is flying without instruments because of the White House's policy choices.
By DANIEL HENNINGER

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303745304576359570364488858.html#articleTabs%3Darticle


________________________ ________________________




You just know the American economy is out there somewhere. If only someone knew which buttons to push to retrieve it from the storage cloud.

Here are three headlines that floated by on yesterday morning's screens alone:

"U.S. Manufacturing Growth Slows Substantially"

"Housing Imperils Recovery"

"Private Sector Added Few Jobs in May"

Let it be noted for the record that presidents normally do not take ownership of a weak economy. Jimmy Carter owned the 1980 election-year economy. George H.W. Bush owned the 1992 election-year economy. Both were one-term presidents. Happily for his opponents, Barack Obama has taken ownership of the 2011 economy, a full year and half before he has to face the voters. The Obama self-confidence is famously limitless.

Still, a doubter might ask if President Obama hasn't suffered his John McCain moment on the economy.

John McCain's presidential bid blew up for good when he announced in September 2008 that he was suspending his campaign and returning to Washington to address the national financial crisis. In the event, Mr. McCain had nothing to contribute, and the White House passed to Barack Obama.

Mr. Obama's McCain moment—raising expectations of economic seriousness and then dropping them over the cliff—was his hyperpartisan deficit speech at George Washington University in April.

 
Daniel Henninger says the economy is flying without instruments because of the White House's policy choices.
Podcast: Listen to the audio of Wonder Land here. The day before that speech, all Washington expected Mr. Obama to make a major policy statement about the big deficit-reduction debate then unfolding. Agree or disagree, Paul Ryan's budget released the week before was all about policy. The Republicans were actually offering to take part-ownership of the economy by spending the year in dense discussions about the deficit and spending.

Expectations raised, the president contributed nothing. Instead he dumped ridicule and derision on the Republican leadership seated before him. With that speech, Mr. Obama kicked off his 2012 presidential campaign, and in so doing politicized the economy.

The timing was not good. Whether it's this week's report that consumer confidence has fallen to a six-month low or anecdotal conversation ("So what do you think happens when QE2 ends?"), the sense grows that people are starting to freak out over the economy—over persistently high unemployment and persistently weak growth.

With the U.S. economy, a Lazarus rising is always possible (or was). But the informed betting is going the other way. Private forecasters have reduced their estimates for economic growth the rest of the year well below the 3%-plus the Federal Reserve predicted in April. The Fed's 2012 growth forecast runs as high as 4.2%. They must be using high-powered telescopes.

It's ironic indeed that Barack Obama, in a slap at his predecessor, routinely said that his policies would be "smart" this or "smart" that. A "smart" economy would at least have the virtue of clarity for the purposes of planning and capital investment. The Obama economy does not. Economic decision-makers—from 401(k) investors to Fortune 500 CFOs—are flying instrument-less through the clouds because that is where the policy choices made by this White House have left them.

The policy most explicitly intended to reboot the economy was 2009's $814 billion stimulus and successive budgets that raised federal spending to 25% of a $14 trillion economy. In this year's first quarter, the economy grew at 1.8%. Liberal economists, such as former Obama economic adviser Christina Romer, argue the stimulus should have been bigger, $1.2 trillion. Others wanted $2 trillion. We leave that to a generation of seminars in macroeconomics. Barack Obama, believing that $800 billion of injected "demand" would lift the economy, decided to devote his political capital and congressional majorities to reorganizing two major American industries, health care and finance.

Merits aside, both creations rose from the table as 2,000-page laws. Hundreds of thousands of economic actors across the country now wait while the bureaucracies struggle to interpret 4,000 pages of "smart" legislating. What evidence do liberals cite for their vestigial faith that these industries, employing millions of people in complex daily activities, can grow long term at greater than 3% from beneath the morass of Dodd-Frank and the Obama health-care law?

The housing sector, a monumental and intractable mess, chokes the economy. No matter. The president allowed (or told) "adviser" Elizabeth Warren of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to engulf banks and mortgage servicers in negotiations over a complex regulatory scheme whose goal, literally, is to fix their "business model."

The White House now says the free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea will be delayed absent payouts of more money for "trade adjustment assistance." Ergo, the past two years of uncertainty for trade commitments will be extended.

It is sometimes unfair to tag presidents with blame for an underperforming economy. Not this time. This president made conscious policy choices during a deep recession to reorder vast swaths of American industry. Strong-performing economies need clarity. Barack Obama has given ours indecision stretching to the horizon. And economic growth, like a long gray day, sits still below 3%.

Write to henninger@wsj.com
 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Step by Step: How Obama is collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #716 on: June 02, 2011, 07:47:16 AM »
Obama Advisor Compares Bin Laden To US Christians
ELVISNIXON.com ^ | 6/1/2011 | ELVISNIXON.COM






Mr. Obama and his stooges continue their campaign of hatred and intolerance against Christianity.

In the latest example of bigotry President Obama's "faith adviser", Eboo Patel, likened television evangelist Pat Robertson to Osama bin Laden, calling both "totalitarians" who worked collectively against coexistence.

The statements by Patel mark the latest in a series of controversial remarks by the faith adviser against the U.S. and Christianity.

WND.com reports that in February 2010, Obama named Patel to his Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.He is paid by your tax dollars.

Patel, a Muslim activist, compared Robertson to the al-Qaida chief in his book, "Acts of Faith: The Story of an American Muslim, the Struggle for the Soul of a Generation"

Wrote Patel: "Religious totalitarians have the unique advantage of being able to oppose each other and work together at the same time.

Continued Patel: "Bin Laden says he is moving Muslims to his side of the faith line. Robertson claims he is moving Christians to his. But if you look from a certain angle, you see that they are not on opposite sides at all. They are right next to each other, standing shoulder to shoulder, a most unlikely pair, two totalitarians working collectively against the dream of a common life together."

Patel failed to point out bin Laden incited violence and directed and planned terrorism targeting civilians, while Robertson routinely condemns terrorism.

Patel compared al-Qaida to what he called Christian "totalitarians" in the U.S. and Jewish "totalitarians" in Israel.

Patel declared that everything he was taught about Christopher Columbus, Thomas Jefferson and American "fairness" and "equality" was wrong.

Patel blasted what he called the "myths" of America – describing them as beliefs that the country is "a land of freedom and equality and justice."

Patel explained how he used the "faith-based movement" to channel his rage at America "in a direction far more compassionate and far more merciful."

Patel further implied that had he grown up in the 1960s, he may have joined the Weather Underground terrorist group led by William Ayers.

Like Obama, Patel is deeply tied to Ayers.

In 2005, he co-authored a book with Ayers' adopted son, Chesa Boudin. The book, "Letters from Young Activists: Today's Rebels Speak Out," was co-written by several young radicals, including Ismail Khalidi, the son of Columbia University Professor Rashid Khalidi.

The Obama's have a close relationship with Khalidi, who has been tied to the Palestinian Liberation Organization and who has described Israel as a "racist" state with an "apartheid" system.

The preface of Patel's 2005 book, meanwhile, was written by Ayers' wife, Weather Underground co-founder Bernardine Dohrn.

Dohrn describes the book as "a clarion call of hope, defiance, critical analysis, humor, irony, and self-conscious insistence that the queer, the Palestinian, the immigrant, the privileged, the children of prisoners and hip-hopsters have arrived."

The back cover of the book boasts an endorsement from Mumia Abu-Jamal, the convicted cop-killer and former member of the Black Panther Party.

On the acknowledgments page, Patel and co-authors thank Ayers himself for "guidance" and "encouragement."..."

It is unclear as to whether Mr Obama prefers atheism to islam but it is clear he prefers both to the traditional Christianity of the American people. Unlike islam Christianity is a religion based on love.

Love REQUIRES Choice.

FREE WILL is necessary for choice to be meaningful

That is why Christianity is not and has never been a theocracy - unlike islam.

Islam "converts" by the sword.

"Convert or die" is the message of Muhammad- UNLIKE Jesus Christ.

Atheists are also opposed to the notion of FREE WILL as they are deterministic. To an atheist we are nothing but matter in motion and all "choices" are merely epiphenomena based on random chemical/electrical impulses.

For an atheist "free will" is an illusion.

Islam REQUIRES theocracy. There is NO separation of mosque and state.

Obama and his ilk are the ones lurching towards totalitarianism.

George Whorewell

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7365
  • TND
Re: Step by Step: How Obama is collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #717 on: June 02, 2011, 07:51:41 AM »
Ba Ba Ak is Obama's other spiritual advisor. Here is an excerpt of how Obama does fundraising in the black community.




Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Step by Step: How Obama is collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #718 on: June 02, 2011, 08:22:15 AM »
Obama Nominee: Redistribute Wealth To Keep Poor From Cutting Trees
CNSNews ^ | 6/1/11 | Matt Cover




(CNSNews.com) – John Bryson, President Obama’s nominee to head the Commerce Department, told a UN energy conference in 2009 that a global wealth redistribution program was needed to keep poor people in developing countries from using their own forest resources.

“What we’ve got to do is find ways to map out the affected lands, to develop plans for addressing them, find economic models in which the people who are driven to do these things to try to raise the livelihoods of their families, find alternative means,” Bryson said in laying out his vision for stopping people in poor countries from cutting down forests.

“Training of peoples, to maybe help in supporting this, development of law enforcement regimes, development of strong governance practices, all of those things have to be done,” Bryson continued.


(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Step by Step: How Obama is collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #719 on: June 02, 2011, 11:13:58 AM »
FCC Colluded with Leftist Organization Free Press to Push Government Regulation of Internet...
Judicial Watch ^ | June 2, 2011



Complete title: FCC Colluded with Leftist Organization Free Press to Push Government Regulation of Internet, Documents Show

Organization with Socialist Ties Driving “Net Neutrality” Agenda inside the Obama FCC?

Washington, DC

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has uncovered documents from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that indicate officials at the FCC colluded with the leftist Free Press organization to publicly push a new plan to regulate the Internet under the FCC’s so-called “net neutrality” program. Judicial Watch obtained the documents pursuant to a December 27, 2010, Freedom of Information Act request.

In December 2010, the FCC voted 3-2 to advance its “net neutrality program.” This decision seems to fly in the face of an April, 2010 federal appeals court ruling that the FCC had exceeded its authority in seeking to regulate the Internet and enforce “net neutrality” rules.

The supporters of “net neutrality,” including Free Press, argue that high-speed Internet access is a “civil right,” and are recommending new government regulations to provide taxpayer-funded broadband Internet access to all populations, especially those deemed “underserved.” Opponents of “net neutrality” argue the program is designed to impose greater government control over the Internet and will result in less access, not more. Moreover, opponents of “net neutrality,” also dispute the claim that Internet access is a basic civil right protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Judicial Watch uncovered internal correspondence showing unusual coordination by some officials at the FCC and Free Press in pushing the “net neutrality” agenda in the run up to the controversial FCC vote in December:

On November 2, 2010, Free Press Associate Outreach Director Misty Perez Truedson sent an email to John Giusti, Chief of Staff to FCC Commissioner Michael Copps asking if Copps would write an op-ed for the Albuquerque Journal in advance of a November 16 hearing on Internet access: “Would Commissioner Copps be interested in drafting an Op-ed in advance of the hearing? It’s a great way to get the word out and to spark conversations in advance of the event,” Truedson wrote. “We’re working on the op ed,” Giusti wrote back on November 9.

The documents also include a series of emails sent to set up meetings between Copps and former Free Press President John Silver. “We are starting to get a good sense of how we’d like to proceed during the next three tricky months on NN [net neutrality]…”Silver wrote in the same October 8, 2010, email: “I think it may make sense for us to get together next week when I’m in town.” The documents also include a written summary of a phone call between Silver and Copps on November 28, 2010, just prior to the FCC vote in December: “Silver emphasized that a strong net neutrality rule is critical to preserving the Internet as a vibrant forum for speech, commerce, innovation and cultural expression…” the summary noted.

One set of documents includes correspondence between FCC Special Counsel David Tannenbaum and Free Press Policy Director Ben Scott establishing lists of speakers for FCC “internet workshops.” Among the speakers proposed by Scott: “Joe Respars (ran online activism for the Obama campaign – he’s at Blue State Digital);” “Alex Nogales – National Hispanic Media Coalition;” “Jay Stanley – ACLU;” and “Clothilde de Coz [redacted] Reporters without Borders.”

When Tannenbaum asked Scott about inviting a speaker from Color for Change in a November 17, 2010 email, Scott writes: “Yes – we know them well. I should have put James Rucker on my list. He’s very good. Up and coming civil rights leader. They are awesome.

However, you should be aware that Color of Change is rather highly politicized. They are lead on the campaign to strip Glenn Beck of advertisers. And Van Jones is one of the founders. Not that these things should dissuade you from inviting them – I just wanted you to know.”

(Van Jones was forced to resign from his position as Obama’s “Green Jobs czar,” in part because he had signed a petition in support of the 9/11 “Truther” movement, which believes the Bush administration masterminded the 9/11 terrorist attacks.)


Free Press has deep ties to radical leftists and socialists. Robert McChesny, former editor of the socialist magazine Monthly Review, is the co-founder and president of Free Press. Kim Gandy, the Chairman of the Free Press Board of Directors, served as the President of the National Organization for Women from 2001-2009. Craig Aaron, Free Press’s President and CEO, formerly worked as managing editor of the socialist tabloid In These Times. Free Press is financially supported by George Soros’s Open Society Institute and other hard-left groups such as the Ford Foundation and Democracy Alliance.

“Net neutrality is just another Obama power grab. This is nothing less than the Obama administration’s attempt to stage a government takeover of the Internet under the guise of ‘net neutrality.’ So it should come as no surprise that Free Press, the hard left organization with socialist ties, is improperly driving the so-called net neutrality agenda from inside the Obama administration. The FCC is supposed to be an independent agency that follows the law,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The American people should be deeply troubled by the fact that the Obama administration, on issue after issue, seems to be run by shadowy leftist organizations. Our government is supposed to be ‘of the people, by the people, and for the people’, not ‘of the Left, by the Left, and for the Left.’”

To access the FCC-Free Press net neutrality documents uncovered by Judicial Watch, please click here.



Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Step by Step: How Obama is collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #720 on: June 02, 2011, 11:25:01 AM »
Big Government Obama’s War on Coal Takes a New Turn
big government ^ | 6/2/11 | Capitol Confidential




Cap-and-trade legislation may have failed in Congress in 2010, but that doesn’t mean that this is the last we will hear from this economically-harmful policy. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through the Clean Air Act has been busily proposing and finalizing nearly 200 major policy rules aimed at curbing carbon and other particulate emissions. This despite the fact that the Clean Air Act was never intended for this purpose and widespread opposition exists among the business community, citizens and states. One particular regulation that is generating deep concern among the business community is the Utility Maximum Achievable Control Technology rule or better know as the MACT rule. This rule would require coal-fired plants to reduce emissions of particular toxic air pollutants.


(Excerpt) Read more at biggovernment.com ...


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Step by Step: How Obama is collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #721 on: June 02, 2011, 11:27:28 AM »
Obama solicitor general: If you don't like mandate, earn less money
Washington Examiner ^ | 6/2/11 | Philip Klein


________________________ ______________________



President Obama's solicitor general, defending the national health care law on Wednesday, told a federal appeals court that Americans who didn't like the individual mandate could always avoid it by choosing to earn less money. Neal Kumar Katyal, the acting solicitor general, made the argument under questioning before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati. The three-judge panel, which was comprised of two Republican-appointed judges and a Democratic-appointed judge, expressed more skepticism about the government's defense of the health care law than the Fourth Circuit panel that heard the Virginia-based Obamacare challenge last


(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Step by Step: How Obama is collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #722 on: June 03, 2011, 04:29:22 AM »

O's jobs-export economy
Businesses afraid to hire here
Last Updated: 3:26 AM, June 3, 2011

More  Print Charles Gasparino




Wall Street economists I speak to feel pretty confi dent that -- for all the news about housing prices falling, gas prices rising and the stock market zig-zagging and a possible downgrade of US -- the chances of a "double dip" recession are pretty remote. After all, companies are still profitable two years after the financial collapse, and judging by the job listings even at banking basket-case Citigroup, people are finding work on Wall Street.

But that doesn't mean the broader economy, defined by how many people are working, is getting noticeably better anytime soon. In fact, don't expect any major hiring sprees by corporate America in the next two years -- and, if policies don't change in Washington, possibly not in our lifetimes.


Angel Chevrestt

Well, Wall Street's doing fine: Much of the private sector, like this store in Harlem, is finding it harder to get buy.

The problem for the average American worker: Businesses have learned to make money by cutting costs (i.e., jobs) or relocating to China and India. And it's not merely that it's cheaper to operate overseas; a huge part of the problem is the fear that it's going to keep getting more expensive to hire here.

Both small-business owners, and analysts who cover these companies tell me that many American businesses would like to stay here, but they see no letup in sight in the endless stream of taxes and regulations coming from an administration most of them consider anti-business.

And now the weakness of the Republican presidential field raises the chances for President Obama's re-election in 2012 -- and even more Washington-imposed woes.

Veteran analyst Peter Sidoti covers the stocks of small corporations -- those that have traditionally been the engines of hiring and growth, particularly coming out of a recession. He points to the experience of AT Cross Co., the manufacturer of the famous Cross pen.

Sidoti, who covers Cross' stock, notes that the company shut down one of its manufacturing plants in Rhode Island a few years back, and set up shop in China. "The move seemed so unnecessary," he says. "The plant was small and it costs money to relocate to China." That is, until Sidoti began adding up the costs of staying in a high-tax state like Rhode Island: Not just federal ones, but state and local, too.

And those problems have only been compounded now: ObamaCare's on track to add serious costs; the administration may yet give us some crazy energy plan; the president's reaffirmed his desire to reverse the Bush-era tax rates, which would amount to one of the largest tax-hikes in history.

Sidoti's actually an example of the problem. With federal, state and city taxes, Sidoti & Co. gets hammered with around a 75 percent tax rate. With his health-care costs rising 10 percent alone this year, he estimates that the first $1 million his company earns goes toward paying those costs.

"That's why I'm looking to open an office in Austin, Texas, where taxes are lower," he tells me.

He adds: "Washington has to decide what they want the country's future to be. Is it going to be Detroit, which did nothing to help business, so people and capital have fled, or will it be Texas, which at least for the moment is attracting people and capital because taxes are low?"

If there's good news in any of this, it's that more businesses can recover -- it's easier than ever to move a factory to China or the Philippines and slash your operating costs. Stocks of these companies will rise as they become more efficient. Take a look at a one-year stock chart of Cross pen and you'll see what I'm saying.

The bad news is that not everyone in this country is wealthy enough to own stocks or can afford to move to China for a factory job.

Charles Gasparino is a Fox Business Network senior corre spondent.



Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/jobs_export_economy_68cw8tK1iwVYYEd2dJUxmL#ixzz1ODAE4IhM


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Step by Step: How Obama is collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #723 on: June 06, 2011, 10:52:58 AM »
Political firestorm over NLRB suit to prevent Boeing move to SC
MSNBC ^ | June 6, 2011






It started as bad blood between aerospace giant Boeing Co. and its unionized production workers.

But now a feud over Boeing’s decision to assemble some of its 787 jetliners at a new, non-union facility in South Carolina has mushroomed into a very public and highly political fight over outsourcing, right-to-work states and the future of the National Labor Relations Board.

The clash's outcome could hinge on whether Boeing executives publicly said more than they should have about their motivation for opening the new plant in South Carolina.

“This is a unique case,” said Ross Runkel, professor of law emeritus at Willamette University and an expert in labor law.

The battle centers around Boeing’s 2009 decision to build a second assembly line for its much-delayed 787 "Dreamliner" in North Charleston, S.C. That’s in addition to a 787 assembly line in Washington state, where Boeing also assembles its other commercial jets.

The new factory is set to open in July. But in April the NLRB, a government agency charged with safeguarding union rights, filed a complaint accusing Boeing of violating labor law in its motive for locating the work in South Carolina.

more at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43243531/ns/business-us_business/


(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...


________________________ ______________

Another WTF from Obama Admn

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Step by Step: How Obama is collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #724 on: June 06, 2011, 11:21:34 AM »
True cost of Fannie/Freddie bailout more than twice Obama administration claim
Hot Air ^ | 6/6/11 | Ed Morrissey





The CBO has a problem with the Office of Management and Budget’s calculation on the cost of the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac bailouts, and it’s no small calculation error. OMB has calculated the costs of the bailout at $130 billion, a number repeated on occasion by the Obama administration. By the CBO’s calculation, the cost of the bailouts reaches $317 billion, more than twice the White House estimate:

In a report delivered to the House Budget Committee on June 2, the CBO said a “fair value” accounting of guaranteeing the two defunct mortgage companies – known as Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) – was more than twice as high as the Office of Management and Budget had accounted for.

“Specifically, CBO treats the mortgages guaranteed each year by the two GSEs as new guarantee obligations of the federal government,” the CBO report said. “For those guarantees, CBO’s projections of budget outlays equal the estimated federal subsidies inherent in the commitments at the time they are made.”

“In contrast, the Administration’s Office of Management and Budget continues to treat Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as nongovernmental entities for budgetary purposes, and thus outside the budget,” the report stated. “It records as outlays the amount of the net cash payments provided by the Treasury to the GSEs.”


(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...