Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Obama: I'm not trying to 'redistribute wealth' - Obama wants only whites working on his campaign - Obama attacks inequality while soliciting big-money donors - Why Obama Hates Paul Ryan - Valerie Jarrett planted by communist sympathizer? - Must Read: Media Dishonesty, ignores black-on-white atrocities.

 Obama: I'm not trying to 'redistribute wealth' 
President Obama, who famously called for tax increases on the wealthy to "spread the wealth around," denied today that his tax increases on the rich are an attempt to "redistribute wealth."

"So these investments -- in things like education and research and health care -- they haven't been made as some grand scheme to redistribute wealth from one group to another," the president said today at Florida Atlantic University. "This is not some socialist dream," Obama added, as he called for tax increases on millionaires today to pay for those investments.

When he advocated the same plan in 2008, though, Obama described this "spread the wealth around" policy.  "I’m gonna cut taxes a little bit more for the folks who are most in need and for the 5 percent of the folks who are doing very well – even though they’ve been working hard and I appreciate that – I just want to make sure they’re paying a little bit more in order to pay for those other tax cuts," he told Samuel Wurzelbacher (aka Joe the Plumber), who is now running for Congress. 

Today, Obama similarly opposed "giving those tax breaks to folks like me who don't need them."
In 2008, Obama summarized his plan to make the tax code fairer by saying "I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody." Today, he specifically distanced himself from such a characterization of his position and -- as has been his recent habit -- made a point of rejecting the "socialism" label.

In short: Obama was careful to avoid the "spread the wealth" phrase today, but he defended the Buffett Rule by making the "spread the wealth" argument first made in 2008.
*******
*******
******


*********
An Obama Campaign Photo That Looks Like a Young Republican Rally - The Daily Beast


The photo is a testament to how overlooked diversity is in America. It doesn’t simply happen on its own, but has to be worked at. 
The campaign is pushing back, saying the photo is much Internet ado about nothing, but the image, first published by Buzzfeed and then picked up by the Drudge Report, is real and it is damning. Our first sitting president of color is so afraid of being labeled “president of the blacks” by his enemies that he goes in the other direction and earns a reputation for stiff-arming citizens of color.
Members of the Congressional Black Caucus raised their voices to object to Obama’s tendency to distance himself from them early on in his term but eventually backed off of the complaint, at least in public. But one member of the caucus, who didn’t want to be named, said that several black members of Congress aren’t eager to go to visit the White House even when invited. Others secretly agree with Cornel West and Tavis Smiley, who have been unremitting in their criticism of Obama on matters of race. Still others ask why anyone is surprised, since this facet of his personality was well known before he assumed the presidency.
and

Obama attacks inequality while soliciting big-money donors

*******
 To make winning argument on health care,Romney needs focus on replacing Obamacare–as well as on repeal - Gay Patriot 
A number of conservatives, including yours truly, (Gaius too) have been wary about backing Mitt Romney because of the health care reforms he signed as Governor of Massachusetts, i.e., Romneycare.  And although he has repeatedly (and explicitly) said that if elected, he would repeal Obamacare, some on the right remain unconvinced.
His campaign has even touted his commitment to repeal as this telling image from the Los Angeles Times indicates:

and
 Troubling Numbers for Obama in Poll Skewed Toward Democrats ********

Why Obama Hates Paul Ryan - The American Spectator

A left-wing extremist can't compete intellectually with a voice of reason. 
Barack Obama's address on April 3 at the Associated Press luncheon in Washington D.C. demonstrated why our politics and our country today are seriously dysfunctional, and only the American people can fix it at the ballot box. Find the transcript online and print it out as I did.
I will show below why it reveals that the President, in fact, does not understand the major issues facing the country, indeed, he actually can't even discuss them intelligently. Moreover, he is hopelessly, abusively dishonest about what he does understand. Thirdly, what he is demanding as policy is irreconcilable left-wing extremism.
Fourthly, what the speech shows is that Barack Obama is very angry. He is angry because he has been completely shown up by Paul Ryan, who stepped up in his budget and provided the leadership that Obama promised America in 2008, and America so badly needs, but that Obama has not only failed to deliver, but refused to deliver. In fact, he has delivered just the opposite. What the speech says to me is that Obama has internal polls showing him getting creamed in public opinion by Paul Ryan. Republicans may have those same internal polls, explaining the surge of interest in Ryan for VP.
Stuff: 
Putting things into perspective … America's debt is greater than the combined debt of the entire Eurozone and the U.K.
 
Americans will see a $494 billion tax increase at the beginning of 2013 if Congress doesn’t get its act together.

A new study has found that ObamaCare will add $340 billion to the deficit.  Oops.  And what kind of coverage did this study get from the ObamaMedia?

Bush lowered gas prices, Obama is raising them.  Simple as that.

Speaking of gas prices … gas prices have grown more under Caesar Obammus than they did during Jimmy Carter’s administration.

 . **********
  The Buffett Rule and the audacity of hopelessness - Human Events
President Obama made headlines with a bizarre appearance before the American Society of Newspaper Editors last week, in which he assured us that the latest Republican budget proposal would cut financial aid for college students; eliminate medical grants for research into Alzheimer’s, cancer, and AIDS; eliminate Obama’s miserably failed “investments” in “clean energy technologies”; kick children out of the Head Start program; deny healthy food to mothers and young children; increase crime; make our borders less secure; close national parks; wipe out protection for clean air and drinking water; eliminate air traffic control services in parts of the country; deny us access to accurate weather forecasts; and compromise our ability to evacuate from the path of hurricanes.

These horrors (and the merciful end of Obama’s “green energy” crony capitalism) would be unleashed by a budget that cuts spending, over the next ten years, by an amount roughly equivalent to the debt Barack Obama dumped on America’s children in just three years – a spending binge unequalled in history.  Give him another four years, and he will unquestionably have doubled our already gigantic national debt.

How did we survive in the days before Barack Obama racked up another $5 trillion on our credit cards?  We didn’t have accurate weather forecasts prior to 2008?  Mothers and children choked to death on unhealthy food?  Would it be rude to point out that periods in history with far less federal spending brought us far greater prosperity than Obama could ever dream of?  And how can anyone take Obama’s hosannas to the American dream, independence, and entrepreneurship seriously, when his re-election hinges on the explicit assertion that his hapless subjects cannot survive without spending a trillion dollars more than the government takes in, every year, forever?
*********
Obama: Thank You For Not Asking About My Tax Hikes on Families Making Less Than $250,000 

Despite promising families who make under $250,000 that he would not raise their taxes, the President has signed into law 7 new or higher taxes on them. 

 *********

Valerie Jarrett planted by communist sympathizer? 
 Family worked closely with Obama mentor Frank Marshall Davis 
 Was Valerie Jarrett, one of President Obama’s closest advisers, introduced to the president’s political circles by her father-in-law, a communist sympathizer who worked with the radical Obama mentor Frank Marshall Davis?

Jarrett’s family background and her initial introduction to Obama may tie her to onetime Obama environmental adviser Van Jones’ radical ideology.

Jarrett’s father-in-law, Vernon Jarrett, was an associate of Frank Marshall Davis, the controversial labor movement activist who has been identified as an early influence on Obama.
Vernon Jarrett and Davis worked together in 1940 in a Communist Party-dominated organization, the Citizen’s Committee to Aid Packing House Workers. The group’s own correspondence, previously uncovered by the New Zeal blog, describes its communist influence. Many of its leaders were tied to the Communist Party.

The pair also frequented the SouthSideCommunityArtCenter, which was dominated by communists. In addition, Davis and Vernon Jarrett worked in the late 1940s on the communist-influenced, black-run Chicago Defender newspaper.
In 1948, Jarrett started a radio show, “Negro Newsfront,” and went on to become the Chicago Tribune’s first black syndicated columnist.
 Videos - In case you forgot...







Do you remember?

Obama’s slum lords? 

and
 What the NYT’s 8,100-word Valerie Jarrett profile didn’t tell you - Michelle Malkin

 
As is always my point, back in 2007/2008 Obama fans paid no attention to any of this, the media strategically ignored these tidbits.
This is about education and insight.

I still have conversations to this day with folks asking me what do I have against Obama? The answer is I likely know Obama better… have read and processed more material on him than likely any other human in my lifetime I have repeated often, I have never liked nor trusted the man.
I truly believe that one day after he leaves office that some earth shattering revelation will be revealed about him something that will unnerve the masse so much that it will change how we vette candidates for president forever.

The fact remains if everyone paid as much attention to the man as I have over the years there is absolutely no logical excuse for any sane or reasonable person to vote for him unless I guess the man is specifically responsible for putting dead presidents in your pocket.

I understand that humans sometimes have this propensity to ignore reality or ignore the truth because they only want to see and process the good in someone.
That could be your husband or wife, girlfriend, parents, friends your own children, sports figures, entertainment celebrities and yes even political figures and the superficial leaders of our society like a Jessie Jackson or Al Sharpton.

If Obama manages to win a second term that means that for a second election cycle the American people preferred or desired to stay ignorant and allow America to circle the drain of economic and societal destruction.
As disturbing as that is in reality I do admit to finding that just a bit fascinating.            

**********
   Media Dishonesty and Race Hustlers - Walter Williams
"Let's look at some non-news cases. On March 14 in Tulsa, Okla., a white couple suffered a home invasion by Tyrone Woodfork, a 20-year-old black man. Ninety-year-old Bob Strait suffered a broken jaw and broken ribs in the attack. His 85-year-old wife, Nancy, was sexually assaulted and battered to death, ending their 65-year marriage.

On March 4, two black Kansas City, Mo., youths doused a 13-year-old boy in gasoline and set him on fire, telling him, "You get what you deserve, white boy."

 Last summer, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel ordered an emergency shutdown of the beaches in Chicago because mobs of blacks were terrorizing white families.

 Several years ago, in Knoxville, Tenn., a young white couple was kidnapped by four blacks. The girl was forced to witness her boyfriend's rape, torture and subsequent murder before she was raped, tortured and murdered. Before disposing of her body, the three men and one woman poured bleach or some other cleaning agent down her throat in an effort to destroy DNA evidence. A jury found the four guilty, and they were sentenced, but because of the judge's drug use, a retrial is being considered.

None of those black-on-white atrocities made anywhere near the news that the Trayvon Martin case made, and it's deliberate. Editors for the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times and the Chicago Tribune admitted to deliberately censoring information about black crime for political reasons, in an effort to "guard against subjecting an entire group of people to suspicion."

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hello Gaius,

When BO first began his run for presidency my first reaction was okay, so he's running. Good for him.

After listening to some of his early on speeches, I found them lacking any substance with lots and lots of vague, very unspecific promises and plans. Party platform? Built totally on aerogel and mist with nothing of substance. It wasn't much of a surprise when that rotten nut of acorn bore rotten fruit in the form of dubious voter registration, voters trucked from one poll location after another to vote (no voter fraud there), massive campaign contributions just squeaking by under the point at which the donor had to be named, etc. Once the polls closed some of the races had more ballots than there were registered voters. WTF? IMHO a precinct with more ballots that registered voters is a sure sign of voter fraud and all of those ballots should be thrown out so as to not taint the totals. Where blacks involved in voter fraud? Sadly they might have been. For a group of people who historically were disenfranchised for them to engage in out and out voter fraud seems totally off the scope for voting outrages. Shame on anyone, especially blacks who engaged in voter fraud.

After the elections and the I WON took over I saw interviews with blacks on television. Overall the tone was embarrassing to say the least with the I WON's stash providing funds for blacks. If I were a black and saw that one the news, facing non black coworkers the next day would be pretty damned hard without a red glow of utter and total embarrassment and humiliation (sort of like when 'plugs' Bite me Biden makes yet another monumental gaffe) and it makes me ashamed to be an American.

His private security force to supplant the US military and police made me ask 'did someone invade the country and take over without the press saying something?' Sort of looks like the I WON invaded.

Gaius Lawrenitis Negris said...

Kinda had the same feeling.

I said on my old blog that Obama's election would eventually be a bad thing for blacks because Obama is just like most black politicians who thrive on dependence and that can't be a sense of pride for anyone.
To support a man who
prides himself on fraud is troubling Obama is certainly not the type of man you want your children to aspire too.

Anonymous said...

None of those black-on-white atrocities made anywhere near the news that the Trayvon Martin case made, and it's deliberate. Editors for the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times and the Chicago Tribune admitted to deliberately censoring information about black crime for political reasons, in an effort to "guard against subjecting an entire group of people to suspicion."

If I had a breed of dog that was a vicious killer but had a friend in the press covering up that information and that breed continued to kill, wouldn't I have an obligation to report that so others wouldn't be harmed? Thought that good journalism required the who, what, when, and where for the article. Leave the pontificating either on the editorial page or the soapbox in the park.

Used to be that Izvestia was read to see what wasn't being said by the government run news organization and that there was no truth in Pravda unless you read between the lines. Nowadays our press is in the tank for political correctness and telling the truth can get you labeled a racist, homophobe, etc. When did facts become so toxic?