by Laryn

This jerk should think twice before he opens his mouth again because this idiotic statment sure won’t endear him to the very ornery voters of Massachusetts.

Secretary of State William Galvin this morning called on U.S. Sen.-elect Scott Brown to “respect the rights of the majority” during a Governor Council’s meeting called to certify the results of last month’s special election.

Well, I hope Brown would respect the majority of voters. Especially since the majority voted for him. Although that’s not quite what Galvin was getting at.

Galvin said he was referring to speculation Brown made a sudden push yesterday to be seated quickly because of an effort to block an up-or-down vote on one of President Obama’s nominees for the National Labor Relations Board.

“I’d like to call on Senator Brown now to respect the rights of the majority,” Galvin said. “I hope that we will be able to see an up or down vote on all the nominations of President Obama and that the rights of the majority that are being respected here will be respected by the United States Senate and Senator Brown.”

So I guess Brown just needs to vote just like his late predecessor would have and everything with be peachy, right? So what was the point of having an election in that case?

Galvin expressed concern about the 41st vote Brown has come to represent. His upset election last month ended the Democrats’ super majority in the Senate.

“I think much of what we’ve seen in this whole discussion is about the 41st vote. Last time I checked the Constitution, it didn’t say anything about needing 60 votes for every single thing that needs to be done. I think that contributes to gridlock,” Galvin said. “This is about a process where the majority rules. Hopefully he will respect the rights of the majority.”

Why is it some Democrats have no understanding how the Senate functions? (more…)

Yesterday I started a post with “Dude….seriously?” when I wrote about Obama being his narcissistic self. I could most definitely start this one with the same exclamation.

I mean come on, your seriously blaming Bush still? (h/t Gateway Pundit)

Faced with mounting national opposition to his party’s platform, the president reminded voters the real reason the trillion-dollar stimulus package still hasn’t reduced unemployment to 8 percent as promised: Bush did it, and it’ll take a lot of time to undo it.

“The country cannot return to the “dereliction of duty that helped deliver this recession,” Obama said. He added that the previous administration’s role in the economic meltdown was the “real outrage.”

Recall Jake Tapper asking the White House mouthpiece…isn’t it time for Obama to man-up and quite whining:

But he hasn’t, and he won’t.

It’s everyone else’s fault.

also:


Photo of the Day

Congratulations, Saints!

From Powerline

Mary Landrieu withheld her support of the Senate’s Obamacare bill until the bill was modified to secure some $300 million in Medicaid funding for Louisiana. The arrangement under which the modification made its way into the bill became known instantly as the Louisiana purchase.

ABC News originally reported that the modification had been made to the bill to secure Landrieu’s support for the Senate’s Obamacare bill. Landrieu denied that the modification represented a deal to secure her support of the bill, but no one was persuaded by it. Dana Milbank, for example, mocked Landrieu at the time in the Washington Post:

On the eve of Saturday’s showdown in the Senate over health-care reform, Democratic leaders still hadn’t secured the support of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), one of the 60 votes needed to keep the legislation alive. The wavering lawmaker was offered a sweetener: at least $100 million in extra federal money for her home state.

And so it came to pass that Landrieu walked onto the Senate floor midafternoon Saturday to announce her aye vote — and to trumpet the financial “fix” she had arranged for Louisiana. “I am not going to be defensive,” she declared. “And it’s not a $100 million fix. It’s a $300 million fix.”

Last week Landrieu took to the floor of the Senate to mount a weepy 25-minute defense of the deal. The text of her speech is here; the video is above. Politics Daily provides a good summary quoting its key points:

“The fact that this was secret is a lie,” she said. “The fact that this wasn’t supported by our delegation is also a lie.”

She slammed other members of the Louisiana delegation who have not advocated for the measure publicly since Landrieu came under fire for it.

“Never, never in my life have I ever, or will I ever, throw the people of my state under a bus to save my reputation or my job,” she said. “I know what I am inside. I don’t need anyone to remind me of the goodness I have inside…I don’t need this job badly enough — maybe some people do, I don’t — to throw the people of my state under the bus to protect myself politically.”

She also took what seemed to be a swipe at Jindal, who has spoken of Louisiana’s Medicaid formula only once since the Senate health care vote and ensuing firestorm.

“Being in public office takes more than being intelligent, it takes more than a fancy resume, it takes guts,” she said. “Some people have more of those than others.”

Finally, Landrieu challenged any senator, Democrat or Republican, to go to the Senate floor to publicly voice their objections to the measure rather than criticize her in the press. “If they don’t come, then I would hope they will keep their mouths shut about something they know nothing about.”

One must review Landrieu’s speech in its entirety to understand that it consists from beginning to end of straw men. The charge leveled against her by critics of the Louisiana Purchase is that Landrieu made the deal in exchange for her vote. She denies that she did, but she offers no evidence to support her assertion. (more…)

from Red Maryland

–Richard E. Vatz

”I wouldn’t have it in me to execute him if he were to repent…if the nation heard him apologize for what he did…for executing such acts of vicious evil…”
–David Gelernter on his qualified support for executing the Unabomber, Theodore Kaczynski, who tried to kill him and successfully murdered several innocent others over 2 decades

This Red Marylander has written and talked on television and radio about Mayor Sheila Dixon’s lack of contrition regarding her serial unethical behavior as Baltimore office-holder as well as the nature of public apology – when it may be sincere and when it is likely insincere.

It is difficult to understand why some in the public eye have so yearned for the apology that never came forth from Dixon. They would say that maybe since she didn’t apologize after she was caught, she’ll apologize before her trial; since she didn’t apologize before her trial, maybe she’ll apologize after her trial; and since she didn’t apologize after her trial, maybe she’ll apologize at her sentencing.

Enough!

Apologies matter if and only if they are accompanied by a consequence brought about by the apology itself. If a politician apologizes before he or she is caught or if any individual apologizes before what he/she has done is discovered, there may be ramifications that are not anticipated. The sincere apology involves some risk.

Why should David Gelernter, whom I admire tremendously, have his outrage assuaged by an apology that is cheap to give and easy to perform at no cost to the Unabomber murderer? Toughen up, Dr. Gelernter; don’t be so easily fooled.

People want apologies by murderers at sentencing. Why? Who knows if there is any sincerity, and who cares what such a lowlife actually believes regardless? (more…)

By Dick Morris

President Obama is being disingenuous when he says that the budget deficit he faced “when I walked in the door” of the White House was $1.3 trillion. He went on to say that he only increased it to $1.4 trillion in 2009 and was raising it to $1.6 trillion in 2010.

Congressman Joe Wilson might have said “you lie,” but we’ll settle for “you distort.”

(As Mark Twain once said, there are three kinds of lies: “lies, damn lies, and statistics.”)

Here are the facts:

In 2008, Bush ran a deficit of $485 billion. By the time the fiscal year started on October 1, 2008, it had gone up by another $100 billion due to increased recession-related spending and depressed revenues. So it was about $600 billion at the start of the fiscal crisis. That was the real Bush deficit.

But when the fiscal crisis hit, Bush had to pass TARP in the final months of his presidency which cost $700 billion. Under the federal budget rules, a loan and a grant are treated the same. So the $700 billion pushed the deficit — officially — up to $1.3 trillion. But not really. The $700 billion was a short term loan. $500 billion of it has already been repaid.

So what was the real deficit Obama inherited? The $600 billion deficit Bush was running plus the $200 billion of TARP money that probably won’t be repaid (mainly AIG and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). That totals $800 billion. That was the real deficit Obama inherited.

Then…he added $300 billion in his stimulus package, bringing the deficit to $1.1 trillion. This $300 billion was, of course, totally qualitatively different from the TARP money in that it was spending not lending. It would never be paid back. Once it was out the door, it was gone. Other spending and falling revenues due to the recession pushed the final numbers for Obama’s 2009 deficit up to $1.4 trillion.

So, effectively, Obama came close to doubling the deficit. (more…)

Unemployment Rate Falls To 9.7%, But 20,000 Jobs Were Lost?

The national unemployment rate declined in January to the seasonally adjusted rate of 9.7% from 10.0% in December, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The rate beat consensus expectations of remaining unchanged at 10.0%. But even though the national rate declined, 20,000 more jobs were lost. That was worse than consensus expectations, where economist expected a gain of 15,000 jobs. This is one of those months where the decline in rate should warrant little more than cautious optimism. In reality, the economy still lost jobs and the employment situation is quite ugly

also

Congresswoman Donna Edwards Is Only The Latest Head of the Hydra

Submitted by Laryn

So the Democrats want to amend the Constitution…

Congresswoman Donna Edwards (D-Md) has introduced an amendment to attempt to overrule the Supreme Court’s decision on Citizens United vs FEC. The proposed amendment will read:

‘‘ARTICLE—
‘‘SECTION 1. The sovereign right of the people to govern being essential to a free democracy, Congress and the States may regulate the expenditure of funds for political speech by any corporation, limited liability company, or other corporate entity.‘‘SECTION 2. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.’’

Their reasoning?

The Court’s action dramatically dilutes the vote and the voice of every American who does not control a large corporate treasury. The decision unleashes billions of dollars in corporate money to dominate legislatures and elections.

Sounds reasonable, huh? We don’t need huge conglomerations pumping zillions of dollars into politics to screw the little guy, right? But wait… Here’s the most telling thing about this abomination amendment. From the Q&A, emphasis mine:

Will the Free Speech for People Amendment prevent people from joining together into political parties, citizens’ organizations, associations, unions or other groups to participate in elections and public debate?

No. The Free Speech for People Amendment applies to corporate entities and has no application to voluntary associations and does not change constitutionally protected freedom of association. People are always free to associate with others to promote their speech or engage in political activity.

That’s right. They’re going to level the playing field. By making sure the only enormous political donors will be unions.

This is no accident. This is a willful attempt to take over the political process entirely. This is a blatant power grab by the Democrats on behalf of the unions who put and keep them in office.

Think I’m exaggerating? I spent half an hour digging through the folks involved in freespeechforpeople.org, and what I turned up is infuriating. A list of their sponsoring organizations, and the people employed by those organizations, is very telling.
(more…)

from Flopping Aces

So who’s lying?

[FBI Director] Mueller said none of the intelligence chiefs at Tuesday’s hearing (including Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair and CIA Director Leon Panetta) were consulted about the decision to read AbdulMutallab his Miranda rights. That decision was made by the chief security interrogator at the scene in consultation with the Department of Justice, Mueller said.

Same day report from CNN:

At congressional hearings last month, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano admitted they had not been consulted about the decision to Mirandize Abdulmutallab.

Today:

Ten top national security and intelligence officials were informed more than a day before suspected terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was indicted under federal charges for trial in a civilian court, a top White House official said Wednesday.

Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. said Wednesday that he personally made the decision. “I made the decision to charge Mr. Abdulmutallab with federal crimes, and to seek his detention in connection with those charges, with the knowledge of, and with no objection from, all other relevant departments of the government,“ Holder said in a letter to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

Among the Washington heavy-hitters in the Situation Room when that decision was made, according to Robert Gibbs, White House press secretary: Dennis Blair, the national director of intelligence; FBI Director Bob Mueller; CIA Director Leon Panetta; Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano; and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Any bets on who is the liar out of this crew?

From Powerline

Barack Obama signed three executive orders on January 22, 2009. One provided for closure of Guantanamo and the the review of the cases of the detainees held there. One provided for the termination of the CIA program of enhanced interrogation. One provided for the review of detention policy options. Following on these orders Eric Holder promulgated the insane protocol establishing a presumption in favor or the trial of Guantanamo detainees in federal court. (All of Obama’s 2009 executive orders are collected here.) These executive orders form the keystone of the Obama administration’s approach to the effort formerly known as the war on terrorism.

Now comes word that the White House is reconsidering a plan to move Guantanamo detainees to a prison in northwest Illinois. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said he agrees that the Obama administration should reassess the plan to move terrorist suspects from the Cuba military base to Thomson Correctional Facility in the state’s northwest corner. Politico quotes Hoyer stating that he thinks “the administration realizes that this is a difficult issue.” The administration didn’t “realize” it last year, but the light is beginning to dawn on it.

Hoyer added: “I think that they are assessing where they are and where they think we ought to be, and I think that’s appropriate and I look forward to discussing it with them.”

Politico thinks politics might have something to do with it. Politico explains: “Congress would have to appropriate such funds, which could prove a stumbling block for the White House plans. Republicans have been largely unified in opposition to the prison move, and Democrats such as Illinois Rep. Melissa Bean have joined along.” One infers that voting for the funds necessary to close Guantanamo and open a facility for the Guantanamo detainees on the mainland of the United States is a problem, and not just for Melissa Bean.

With the news that the five senior leaders of the U.S. intelligence community told a Senate panel Tuesday they are “certain” that terrorists will attempt another attack on the United States in the next three to six months, it might be best for the Obama administration to reconsider all three pillars of its approach to “man-caused disasters.”

Umar Abdulmutallab, for example, should be remanded to the custody of the Department of Defense at Guantanamo. If necessary, he should be given the kind of interrogation that helped the CIA prevent follow-up attacks after 9/11. And he should be tried before a military commission.
(more…)

By Dick Morris

President Barack Obama is being disingenuous when he says that the budget deficit he faced “when I walked in the door” of the White House was $1.3 trillion. He went on to say that he only increased it to $1.4 trillion in 2009 and was raising it to $1.6 trillion in 2010.

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) might have said, “You lie,” but we’ll settle for “You distort.”

(As Mark Twain once said, there are three kinds of lies: “lies, damn lies and statistics.”)

Here are the facts:

In 2008, George W. Bush ran a deficit of $485 billion. By the time the fiscal year started, on Oct. 1, 2008, it had gone up by another $100 billion due to increased recession-related spending and depressed revenues. So it was about $600 billion at the start of the fiscal crisis. That was the real Bush deficit.

But when the fiscal crisis hit, Bush had to pass the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) in the final months of his presidency, which cost $700 billion. Under the federal budget rules, a loan and a grant are treated the same. So the $700 billion pushed the deficit — officially — up to $1.3 trillion. But not really. The $700 billion was a short-term loan. $500 billion of it has already been repaid.

So what was the real deficit Obama inherited? The $600 billion deficit Bush was running plus the $200 billion of TARP money that probably won’t be repaid (mainly AIG and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). That totals $800 billion. That was the real deficit Obama inherited.

Then … he added $300 billion in his stimulus package, bringing the deficit to $1.1 trillion. This $300 billion was, of course, totally qualitatively different from the TARP money in that it was spending, not lending. It would never be paid back. Once it was out the door, it was gone. Other spending and falling revenues due to the recession pushed the final numbers for Obama’s 2009 deficit up to $1.4 trillion.

So, effectively, Obama came close to doubling the deficit.

Obama seems not to understand that the deficit is the jobs problem. To add to the deficit in the hope of creating more jobs is an oxymoron. Additional deficit spending just crowds out small businesses trying to borrow money to create jobs and consumers seeking credit to buy cars and homes.
(more…)

PRESIDENT OBAMA: “The last thing I will say, though — let me say this about health care and the health care debate, because I think it also bears on a whole lot of other issues. If you look at the package that we’ve presented — and there’s some stray cats and dogs that got in there that we were eliminating, we were in the process of eliminating. For example, we said from the start that it was going to be important for us to be consistent in saying to people if you can have your — if you want to keep the health insurance you got, you can keep it, that you’re not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor in your decision making. And I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated that pledge.”

the link is here.

from Flopping Aces

Another mismatch between Obama’s rhetoric and reality!

Remember this?

We face a deficit of trust -– deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years. To close that credibility gap we have to take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue — to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly… That’s why we’ve excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs, or seats on federal boards and commissions.
–Barack Hussein Obama State of the Union address

If Obama really “excluded” lobbyists then why are there so many working in his Administration? Timothy Carney at the Washington Examiner put together the following list:

Depends on what the meaning of the word “excludes” is?

In a follow-up article Carney asked the White House to explain:
(more…)

From Powerline

\

This afternoon the Justice Department released Attorney General Holder’s five-page letter to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on the case of Umar Abdulmutallab. The letter is powerful evidence of the damage wrought by the three pillars of Obamaism.

Holder first takes responsibility for the treatment of Abdulmutallab as a criminal defendant, with the agreement of the Obama administration’s entire national security apparatus: “I made the decision to charge Mr. Abdulmutallab with federal crimes, and to seek his detention in connection with those charges, with the knowledge of, and with no objection from, all other relevant departments of the government.” He then defends this treatment of the case:

The decision to charge Mr. Abdulmutallab in federal court, and the methods used to interrogate him, are fully consistent with the long-established and publicly known policies and practices of the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the United States Government as a whole, as implemented for many years by Administrations of both parties. Those policies and practices, which were not criticized when employed by previous Administrations, have been and remain extremely effective in protecting national security. They are among the many powerful weapons this country can and should use to win the war against al-Qaeda.

I am confident that, as a result of the hard work of the FBI and our career federal prosecutors, we will be able to successfully prosecute Mr. Abdulmutallab under the federal criminal law. I am equally confident that the decision to address Mr. Abdulmutallab’s actions through our criminal justice system has not, and will not, compromise our ability to obtain information needed to detect and prevent future attacks.

Holder doesn’t pass the buck for his treatment of the case, but the letter suggests (without explicitly stating) that President Obama concurred in it:

In the days following December 25 — including during a meeting with the President and other senior members of his national security team on January 5 — high-level discussions ensued within the Administration in which the possibility of detaining Mr. Abdulmutallab under the law of war was explicitly discussed. No agency supported the use of law of war detention for Abdulmutallab, and no agency has since advised the Department of Justice that an alternative course of action should have been, or should now be, pursued.

As Daniel Foster points out, Holder also asserts that “without a single exception” (emphasis in original) terror suspects arrested on American soil have been treated as federal criminals, although Holder later notes two exceptions under the Bush administration in which suspects arrested under criminal law were later transferred to military custody by executive order. (Foster had previously pointed out these two case and cited the applicable executive orders here.)

Others more knowledgeable than I will have intelligent and important observations to make on this revealing document. Holder’s confidence that his treatment of the case “has not, and will not, compromise our ability to obtain information needed to detect and prevent future attacks” seems particularly misplaced. For the moment, I note only the clarifying nature of the letter. The whole sorry spectacle of the Abdulmutallab case is Obama’s folly.

also:

Unsustainable

Last week, Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Elmendorf testified before the House Budget Committee. His appearance drew little attention, but what he had to say was of considerable interest. In his initial testimony, Elmendorf described our current federal budget deficits as “unsustainable.” That prompted this exchange:

Q. In the report you use the term “unsustainable,” a term which a number of people use in terms of the current budget deficit track and a term I’ve used myself. …
(more…)

Republicans suddenly have a conceivable path to winning back the Senate in November, after locking in top-flight candidates overnight in Illinois and Indiana.

A 10-seat pickup for the GOP — once regarded as an impossibility even by the party’s own strategists — remains very much a long shot. It would still require a win in every competitive race, something that happens only in wave elections like 1994 and 2008.

But only 14 months after the GOP was routed up and down the ballot on the night of Barack Obama’s election, the new political environment makes significant Senate gains likely. And within the past 24 hours, a Republican recapture of the Senate is at least within the realm of speculation.

With all the usual disclaimers attached — do not engage in political odds-making while taking medication or operating heavy machinery — here’s why a Republican takeover is at least possible:

GOP officials tell POLITICO former Sen. Dan Coats will run against incumbent Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh, instantly transforming Indiana into a competitive race.
(more…)

By-Regina Sztajer

President Barrack Baa gave his State of the Union message on Wednesday January 27, 2010, He spoke for 70 minutes going on and on. It was almost painful to listen to the anger in his voice. He and the Democrats have been spending our tax money like drunken pirates while telling us they understand our pain of being jobless in a bad economy. He flies everywhere he can in Air force One and tells us to tighten our belts. He’s like a train wreck waiting to happen and we American’s don’t want to be anywhere near that wreck. About 100 of his people went to Copenhagen Denmark with him for the Global Warming Conference, which accomplished nothing, and each person spent $2,200 a day of our money on hotels, food and perks. During tough economic times we bankrolled fun and games for him and his pals. In his speech he said even if you don’t believe in global warming support it anyway. Did you ever feel like saying, what did this country do by putting him in office?

His audience was falling asleep and woke up only to jump up to clap. Nancy Pelosi kept bobbing up like a target in a carnival game while Joe Biden looked like he was saying, you get up once more and I’ll jam you into the ground. These people are fools and act worse!!!
” Liar, Liar Pants on Fire!!!” Remember that ditty? Obama better be careful because this ditty applies to his pants. I think he believes the fibs he tells!!! He has broken all of his promises, has a disastrous record and has the nerve to be on the attack of the Republicans and George W. Bush? He can’t even admit that the election in Massachusetts, ushering in a Republican, after years and years of a Democratic state under a Kennedy.

He still would like nothing better than to ram health care down our throats!!! We can’t afford it.. under his plan costs would rise, millions would remain uninsured, quality and choice would decrease and care rationed. Worse still the government would acquire an amazing amount of control.The Republican’s who he claims have no plan want tort reform, to abolish government coverage mandates, strengthen health savings accounts, allow consumers to buy insurance across state lines and eliminate tax laws that prevent employer-provided health care. (more…)

By Brujo Blanco

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Ratified 12/15/1791

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There is something going on in this country that should be addressed and addressed seriously and aggressively. Whenever there is a legal question regarding religious freedom or the activities of a church one should read the 1st Amendment literally as it is stated above. This part of the constitution is a restriction on what government can do regarding religion, speech, press, right to assemble, and to petition government for a redress of grievances. The consitution does not in fact place any restriction on religion.

The problem we are having regarding this freedom is that this concept of “wall of separation of church and state” is being used to identify the 1st Amendment and use it to stifle or control the free practice of religion. As far as I am concerned that no government entity to include the courts have any legal jurisdiction over religious activities. Of course no right is absolute and no group should be allowed to do harm to others.

In California there was Proposition 8 which defines marriage as a union of man and woman not Adam and Steve. This really sticks in the craw of the pro-homo groups. These groups for some reason believe that if you do not believe what they do you should be vilified and run through a legal gauntlet. Now the people attempting to overrule the will of the people are using the courts to intimidate churches and pastors that do not believe the way that they do. Since the beginning of Christianity we Christians have been addressing the cultural issues of the time from a biblical point of view. Now in California several pastors have been ordered by the federal court to appear and present information regarding their associations, sermons, and to provide their sermon notes. When I read this in an Article written by the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) I about hit the ceiling. Now we have federal courts wanting to review the content of sermons. This would also be the judging of free speech based on content. Now when I hear that something of this nature is being reviewed by a court that means that there is a possibility that the courts will issue orders and restrictions. Anytime one goes to court one is in jeopardy of having something go wrong. The ACLJ will be appearing in court in an attempt to quash the subpoenas.

Can you imagine a church having to answer such queries? What legal authority does any government entity have to get involved in reviews of sermons?

I believe that there is really no conspiracy to violate the construction. I believe that it is simply the left keeping in tune with their ideology. Hopefully we will no see a future wherein a pastor and a church has to have doctrine and sermons reviewed for legal sufficiency. Pastors also have free speech rights in accordance with the constitution. Should they be restricted and controlled because they are preachers? One should understand that the left in many instances see churches as dangerous institutions. I suppose from their viewpoint it churches are dangerous.
(more…)

from Flopping Aces

Dems try to claim it was Bush’s deficit yet they want to use recovered TARP funds for another Obama slush fund!

Plus: Don’t miss the video of Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) Read the Riot Act to Obama Budget Director!

If you’ve heard it once, you’ve heard it a hundred times. Despite the fact that Obama signed the most massive spending bills EVER shortly after becoming President in 2009 he tries to blame the deficit on President Bush.

Dick Morris takes the lie apart piece by piece:

BEHIND OBAMA’S PHONY DEFICIT NUMBERS
By Dick Morris
Dick Morris.com
02.1.2010

President Obama is being disingenuous when he says that the budget deficit he faced “when I walked in the door” of the White House was $1.3 trillion. He went on to say that he only increased it to $1.4 trillion in 2009 and was raising it to $1.6 trillion in 2010.

Congressman Joe Wilson might have said “you lie,” but we’ll settle for “you distort.”

(As Mark Twain once said, there are three kinds of lies: “lies, damn lies, and statistics.”)

Here are the facts:

In 2008, Bush ran a deficit of $485 billion. By the time the fiscal year started on October 1, 2008, it had gone up by another $100 billion due to increased recession-related spending and depressed revenues. So it was about $600 billion at the start of the fiscal crisis. That was the real Bush deficit.

But when the fiscal crisis hit, Bush had to pass TARP in the final months of his presidency which cost $700 billion. Under the federal budget rules, a loan and a grant are treated the same. So the $700 billion pushed the deficit — officially — up to $1.3 trillion. But not really. The $700 billion was a short term loan. $500 billion of it has already been repaid.

So what was the real deficit Obama inherited? The $600 billion deficit Bush was running plus the $200 billion of TARP money that probably won’t be repaid (mainly AIG and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). That totals $800 billion. That was the real deficit Obama inherited.

And now, Obama wants to take some of the repaid TARP money and use it for another of his slush funds to reward campaign contributors. He is trying to spend the money that was supposed to be used to pay down the debt at the same time he blames that debt on Bush. What a liar!

Obama’s Director of Management and Budget, Peter Orszag went to the Senate Budget Committee Tuesday and tried to push this latest scam. It didn’t fly with New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg (R). This video is a must see!

Gregg: “No, no no! You can’t make that type of statement with any legitimacy. You cannot make that statement. This is the law [holds up a copy]. Let me tell you what the law says, let me read it to you again because you don’t appear to understand the law. The law is very clear: “The monies recouped from the TARP shall be paid into the general fund of the Treasury for the reduction of the public debt.”

If not for Judd Gregg the Dems might have simply ignored the law and just taken these billions that we borrowed in a time of emergency and spent them.

At the hearing, Sen. Gregg turned the Obama “inherited deficit” lie on it’s head when he said “What this administration inherited is not as important as what our children will inherit.” These really are the Obama deficits and no slick speeches by the President can change that!

also:

Canadian Premier Coming To The States To Get Heart Procedure

How surprising:

Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams will undergo heart surgery later this week in the United States.

Deputy premier Kathy Dunderdale confirmed the treatment at a news conference Tuesday, but would not reveal the location of the operation or how it would be paid for.

“He has gone to a renowned expert in the procedure that he needs to have done,” said Ms. Dunderdale, who will become acting premier while Mr. Williams is away for three to 12 weeks.

“In consultation with his own doctors, he’s decided to go that route.” (more…)

by Laryn

“Say your sorry, Rahmbo. And mean it.”

Sarah Palin today demanded that Rahm Emanuel be fired for his recent slurs against mentally challenged Americans.
From her Facebook page:

The newly-released mind-boggling, record-smashing $3,400,000,000,000 federal budget invites plenty of opportunity to debate the merits of incurring more and more debt that will drown the next generation of Americans. Never has it been possible to spend your way out of debt. So… let the debate begin.

Included in the debate process will be opportunities for our president to deliberate internally the wisdom of this debt explosion, along with other economic, military and social issues facing our country. Our president will discuss these important issues with Democrat leaders and those within his inner circle. I would ask the president to show decency in this process by eliminating one member of that inner circle, Mr. Rahm Emanuel, and not allow Rahm’s continued indecent tactics to cloud efforts. Yes, Rahm is known for his caustic, crude references about those with whom he disagrees, but his recent tirade against participants in a strategy session was such a strong slap in many American faces that our president is doing himself a disservice by seeming to condone Rahm’s recent sick and offensive tactic.

The Obama Administration’s Chief of Staff scolded participants, calling them, “F—ing retarded,” according to several participants, as reported in the Wall Street Journal.

Just as we’d be appalled if any public figure of Rahm’s stature ever used the “N-word” or other such inappropriate language, Rahm’s slur on all God’s children with cognitive and developmental disabilities – and the people who love them – is unacceptable, and it’s heartbreaking.
(more…)

From Powerline

These are policies that President Obama has advocated in the past, so we shouldn’t be surprised to see them in his 2011 budget. Still, it’s hard not to be a little shocked. The budget says, at page 40:

Reduce the Itemized Deduction Write-off for Families with Incomes over $250,000.

Currently, if a middle-class family donates a dollar to its favorite charity or spends a dollar on mortgage interest, it gets a 15-cent tax deduction, but a millionaire who does the same enjoys a deduction that is more than twice as generous.

That’s because the “millionaire” pays income taxes that are more than twice as high. It isn’t “generous” for the government to refrain from taking all of your money. The document continues:

By reducing this disparity and returning the high-income deduction to the same rates that were in place at the end of the Reagan Administration, we will raise $291 billion over the next decade.

This is, of course, Orwellian. The “disparity” is in fact a disparity in tax rates–higher income people pay much more. And the reference to the Reagan administration must have been intended as a cruel joke on taxpayers. The “high-income deduction” will be the same as during the Reagan administration, but the high-income marginal tax rate won’t be, so now the deduction will apply to only half the contribution.

It’s easy to understand the Obama administration’s purpose with regard to churches and private charities, which it regards as competitors of the government. It wants to damage or destroy them by making contributions more expensive. But what about the mortgage interest deduction? The administration purports to be concerned about the decline in home prices that triggered the economic crisis of 2008-2009. But severely reducing the mortgage interest deduction will inevitably depress home prices. And not just the prices of expensive homes, either; as those prices fall, the values of less-expensive houses will decline as well. Is this really what the administration wants? It is hard to escape the conclusion that the Obama administration simply doesn’t care about America’s economy.

The back door to 2011

Drudge flags the Reuters story on the Obama administration’s planned middle class tax increases. Reuters reports: “The Obama administration’s plan to cut more than $1 trillion from the deficit over the next decade relies heavily on so-called backdoor tax increases that will result in a bigger tax bill for middle-class families.” It’s an impressive list. Does the administration contemplate that these tax increases might have an adverse impact on incentives to work and invest? I doubt it, but they will.

Now Drudge also flags the withdrawal of the Reuters story. The only explanation provided is that “[a] replacement story will run later in the week.” Here is the text of the withdrawn Reuters story:
(more…)

by Jennifer Rubin -

Not content to lose just Massachusetts, key Democrats want to keep at ObamaCare negotiations: “There is a still sizable contingent of Democrats who continue to believe failure is not an option, even though their voices have been softer since the Senate loss in Massachusetts. Obama, Pelosi and Reid, by all accounts, still agree with this thinking and remain sincerely committed to pushing ahead. Most Democrats have already voted for the bill, making them more invested in finishing the job than their counterparts were in 1994.”

No, honest: “President Obama’s campaign to overhaul the nation’s healthcare system is officially on the back burner as Democrats turn to the task of stimulating job growth, but behind the scenes party leaders have nearly settled on a strategy to salvage the massive legislation. They are meeting almost daily to plot legislative moves while gently persuading skittish rank-and-file lawmakers to back a sweeping bill.” They would be skittish, of course, because two-thirds of the country hates the legislation.

But you can understand that Democrats want to run on something other than failure: “The $700 billion bailout program for the financial industry has so far done little to boost bank lending, aid small businesses or reduce home foreclosures, a top government watchdog said in a report. Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general over the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), said in a report that while the bailout has helped stabilize the financial system, many of the program’s original goals have not been met.”

And they probably don’t want to run on their fiscal management because: “the White House expects the annual gap between spending and revenue to approach a record $1.6 trillion this year as the government continues to dig out from the worst recession in more than a generation, according to congressional sources. The red ink would recede to $1.3 trillion in 2011, but remain persistently high for years to come under Obama’s policies.” Yes, the spending “freeze” is really just for show.

And their good-government pledges are nothing to brag about: “The recent awarding of a lucrative federal contract to a company owned by a financial contributor to the Obama presidential campaign — without competitive bidding — ‘violated’ President Obama’s many campaign pledges to crack down on the practice, a top State Department official told Fox News.”

Seems the voters don’t think Obama gets a B+: “Just 19% of voters nationwide believe that President Obama achieved most of his goals during his first year in office. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 70% hold the opposite view and say he did not accomplish those goals.”

Former CIA director Michael Hayden has convinced Diane Ravitch of Brookings: “I realized that Eric Holder has misplaced priorities. He Mirandizes suspected terrorists (alleged terrorists, that is), and vigorously pursues CIA agents. Holder should go.”
(more…)

from Flopping Aces

So much for the phony “spending freeze!”

On the White House web site, the Obama Administration announced their new budget proposal with the banner headline: “A new era of responsibility, the 2011 budget.”

It may be a “new era” but it’s hardly responsible. After complaining in his State of the Union address about the budget mess he inherited, Obama’s big government spending spree will create record deficits for years to come.

The recklessness of this blatant fiscal irresponsibility is staggering. From the Politico:

After a record $1.4 trillion shortfall in 2009, the administration now says the red ink will reach $1.56 trillion this year and be little better, $1.27 trillion in 2011…The outlook….adds up to $5.08 trillion in red ink over the next five years. That’s $1.32 trillion or 35% more than the White House predicted 12 months ago.

With Democrats in control of Congress and the White House spending is spiraling out of control. Obama’s proposed “spending freeze” even if it were implemented would do nothing to stem the red tide.

Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office reports that the $787 billion stimulus bill passed last February will cost $75 billion more than expected. Is anyone surprised?

Even today, Obama continues to try and blame the massive deficits on President Bush, completely overlooking the fact that Democrats have controlled both houses of congress since 2007 and deficits have skyrocketed even higher since he became President.

Democrats may talk and talk about fiscal responsibility but it carries no more weight than the countless empty promises they have made in the past.

also:

Obama Bows to Mayor of Tampa Florida!

Is this guy totally clueless or what?

U.S. President Barack Obama bows to Tampa Mayor Pam Iorio at MacDill Air Force Base on Thursday, Jan. 28, 2010 in Tampa, Fla.

First it was the Saudi King at Buckingham Palace (but not Queen Elizabeth) then the Japanese Emperor and Chinese Premier. Now, the Mayor of Tampa?

What is wrong with this guy?

Finally:

16 Lies in 7 Minutes: Obama’s First State Of The Union Video Breakdown