Comment Last Three
September 10, 2010
Take responsibility for your economic actions and your failed business policies. Your ivy college appointees know nothing of the real world and how business works. Admit that you do not know what you do not know.
In your press conference today, you draw a sharp line with congressional Republicans on economic policy and the fate of expiring tax cuts passed under predecessor President George W. Bush. The first thing that Bush did when he was elected was to cut taxes and he had great economic growth during his entire time in office. It was the failed policies of the Democrats at Freddie and Fannie that caused the economic meltdown--banks forced to loan money to people who could not pay their mortgages.
Mr. Obama said he remained strongly opposed to extending tax cuts for wealthy taxpayers when they expire at the end of the year, saying only individuals earning under $250,000 should be given tax relief. With his recent passing of the health care and financial bills, he has raised taxes on everyone.
Republicans have pushed for all the tax cuts to be extended — at least temporarily — and a number of moderate Democrats have broken with Mr. Obama on the issue. GOP leaders say that raising taxes would be the wrong policy as the economy continues to struggle and unemployment is just under 10 percent.
But the president said the political standoff risked saddling middle-class taxpayers with a higher tax burden next year, and urged Republicans to compromise. "Why hold the middle class hostage in order to do something most economists think doesn't make sense?" Mr. Obama told reporters.
Cut spending instead of more spending plans for the unions. Mr. Obama--you are a failed president and are not well versed in economic policy, let alone how to be a leader. Keep reading your messages---nobody is listening nor do they believe anything you say.
We need adults in the White House and in the administration running our country.
August 24, 2010
Obama is using the US court system to stick it to the American people and the rule of law. Mr. Obama's aunt who is in the United States illegally has been granted asylum, even after she was in public housing on the tax payer's dime as an illegal alien. I have been to Kenya and they do not kill or imprison people who disagree with the government. Obama has relatives who live in Kenya. Why do the court hold a "closed hearing" on this matter so the public could not see the liberal left court system in action?
Please read this Associated Press article where the Kenya government officials objected to the US court ruling because it is simply not true and the court fabricated these issues to keep his aunt in the country. The American tax payer and the justice system are being made fools of by Obama and his administration.
NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) — Kenya's government is unhappy with the impression created by a U.S. court ruling that granted asylum to President Obama's aunt for saying she could be targeted by members of Kenya's government if deported, an official said Friday.
Government spokesman Alfred Mutua described the case of Zeituni Onyango as an embarrassment and said the allegations made against Kenya were untrue and unrealistic.
"It has become a habit for Kenyans seeking asylum in other countries to lie. Her case is an embarrassment to this country and President Obama," Mr. Mutua said. "We are not looking for her. The government does not have any problem with Zeituni Onyango."
Earlier this week, U.S. Immigration Judge Leonard Shapiro said he gave Ms. Onyango asylum in the U.S. because she would be a target in Kenya not only for those who oppose the United States and Obama but for members of the Kenyan government.
Ms. Onyango is the half sister of Mr. Obama's late father and has been living in public housing in Boston.
Judge Shapiro granted Ms. Onyango asylum in May after her case was heard during a closed trial. His written decision was released this week through the Freedom of Information Act.
Ms. Onyango helped care for the president's half brothers and sister while living with Barack Obama Sr. in Kenya. She moved to the United States in 2000 and applied for asylum in 2002, but her request was rejected and she was ordered deported in 2004.
The basis for Ms. Onyango's asylum request was never made public, but her lawyer Margaret Wong said in 2008 that Ms. Onyango first applied for asylum "due to violence in Kenya."
People who seek asylum must show that they face persecution in their homeland on the basis of religion, race, nationality, political opinion or membership in a social group.
Many of Mr. Obama's relatives live peacefully in Kenya, including his grandmother, who is a celebrity here. The government connected Sarah Obama's home to the national power grid and made the road leading to her village more passable since Mr. Obama's election win.
Go figure---this is why Obama is seen as a light-weight when it comes to enforcing the law and our borders.
July 17, 2010
Obama and his Anti-American Holder Justice Department are not enforcing the immigration laws, but are targeting US citizens in Arizona. With Democrat controlled states or cities where "illegal immigrant" sanctuary is the policy, the Justice Department says that they are safe and will not be a target of the federal government.
Again, Obama is again playing politics and not enforcing the law. He is catering to the illegals who he hopes will vote for him and the Democrat Party through fraud (...but they do not care about our Constitution). A week after suing Arizona and arguing that the state's immigration law creates a patchwork of rules, the Obama administration said it will not go after so-called sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with the federal government on immigration enforcement, on the grounds that they are not as bad as a state that "actively interferes."
"There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law," Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., told The Washington Times. "That's what Arizona did in this case."
But the author of the 1996 federal law that requires states and localities to cooperate with federal authorities on immigration laws thinks the administration is misreading the statute and that sanctuary cities are in violation of federal law. Drawing a distinction between those localities and Arizona, he said, is "flimsy justification" for suing the state.
"For the Justice Department to suggest that they won't take action against those who passively violate the law, who fail to comply with the law is absurd," said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee and chief author of the 1996 immigration law. "Will they ignore individuals who fail to pay taxes? Will they ignore banking laws that require disclosure of transactions over $10,000? Of course not."
A spokeswoman for Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. says sanctuary cities that refuse to enforce federal immigration laws will not face lawsuits like Arizona, which has passed a law on illegal immigrants. A spokeswoman for Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. says sanctuary cities that refuse to enforce federal immigration laws will not face lawsuits like Arizona, which has passed a law on illegal immigrants.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer and other critics said that sanctuary cities--localities that refuse to check on someone's legal status or won't alert immigration authorities when they encounter illegal immigrants-- are just as guilty of creating a patchwork of laws, and violate the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.
Once again,The White House is just plain wrong on the law since the Arizona law mirrors federal law and Obama is just trying to gain more support with Hispanics.
Sanctuary policies encourage more criminal, human trafficking, and drug violence in our cities and nation. We must put our military on the border to control our borders and start targeting illegals so they do not get jobs or any government support from the tax payers.
May 18, 2010
Surprise, surprise--Obama's aunt is granted asylum from Kenya.
I have traveled to Kayna and there are no political actions that would justify this asylum action. Kanya is a great place to live and they have a very good tourist industry. If the country is safe for tourists, why is it not safe for Obama's aunt?
His aunt, Zeituni Onyango, has been in the United States since 2000 and has been illegal and living in public housing---paid for my the American tax payer.
Why have her hearing been closed to the public and why has the "court" given her asylum? I guess that if Obama gives Mexicans a free ride to our country--why not his aunt? I assume that this is "hope and change" and transparency....
May 12, 2009
The below is from a member of the Heritage Foundation and is a good analysis of the Obama budget. This budget plan will not be good for our country. We will be in debt for generations.
Obama's eight bogus budget arguments
Brian M. Riedl
President Obama has proposed a historic expansion of spending, taxes and debt. His budget would increase real spending from $25,000 per household to $32,000 per household by 2019. It would raise taxes by $1.4 trillion. And it would double the national debt - a staggering $9.3 trillion in new borrowing.
A master communicator, the president employs clever rhetoric to defend his tax-borrow-and-spend budget. Unfortunately, this rhetoric fluctuates between misleading and false. Here are eight of his bogus budget arguments:
Assertion No. 1: "I pledged to cut the deficit in half" by 2013.
Fact: The president doesn't mention that the deficit has quadrupled this year. Merely cutting it in half from that bloated level would still leave budget deficits twice as high as under President Bush. This is like eating a 5,000 calorie meal, and then pledging to halve your calories from that level.
Furthermore, three upcoming developments - the end of the recession, troop pullout in Iraq, and phase-out of the supposedly temporary "stimulus" spending - would, by themselves, cut the budget deficit in half.
Despite Mr. Obama's talk of "inheriting" President Bush's $1.2 trillion deficit for 2009, then-Sen. Obama supported nearly all the policies that created the deficit. That deficit estimate has surged to $1.8 trillion since his inauguration. And when the recession ends, Mr. Obama would still run $1 trillion deficits - compared with President Bush's $162 billion deficit immediately before this recession.
Assertion No. 2: "We have already identified $2 trillion in savings over the next decade."
Fact: Savings relative to what? The president first creates a fantasy baseline that assumes the Iraq surge continues forever (which was never U.S. policy), and then "saves" $1.5 trillion against that baseline by ending the surge as scheduled. It's like a family "saving" $10,000 by first assuming an expensive vacation and then not taking it.
Another $1 trillion in "savings" is actually tax increases. Government savings used to mean spending cuts that save taxpayer dollars. In the Obama White House, they mean tax increases that feed the government.
Assertion No. 3: "If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime."
Fact: This is patently false. The president has already signed into law a 61-cent cigarette tax increase. His budget proposes a $646 billion cap-and-trade tax that would be passed onto households at an average cost of $600 to $2,000 annually.
Assertion No. 4: New spending is "temporary" to fight recession.
Fact: Does anyone believe Mr. Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will allow stimulus bill expansions, including Pell Grants, food stamps and "make-work pay," to expire? The president's own budget already extends several expensive stimulus provisions. Overall, his budget would create the largest peacetime government in American history by 2019. There is nothing temporary about it.
Assertion No. 5: Economic "day of reckoning" was caused by a lack of liberal social policies.
Fact: Mr. Obama claims that the current economic day of reckoning partially resulted from current health care, education and energy policies, and that enacting his tax-and-spend reforms are the solution. Nonsense. The recession was caused by a financial crisis brought on by a housing bubble.
To argue that national health care, energy taxes and education spending would have prevented this recession (they didn't save Europe from the same financial calamities) or may prevent the next is simply to use a financial crisis to shove an unrelated big-government agenda down the throats of recession weary Americans. Or, as White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel succinctly put it, "to never let a crisis go to waste."
Assertion No. 6: "A return to honest budgeting"
Fact: Mr. Obama deserves credit for reversing Mr. Bush's policy of not budgeting for the Alternative Minimum Tax patch, the global war on terrorism, and future unanticipated emergencies.
But the Obama budget has large gimmicks, too. In addition to the $1.5 trillion Iraq "savings" trick described above, the president ignores the economic consensus and assumes an economic boom will begin next January. His budget assumes that he will allow most of the "stimulus" spending to expire. The president also assumes that - after a 7 percent increase next year - real discretionary spending will be frozen for the following nine years. Finally, he simply excludes the cost of his massive health plan from his budget totals. These gimmicks lowball the 2019 budget deficit by more than $500 billion.
Assertion No. 7: A new direction from Mr. Bush's "deep fiscal irresponsibility"
Fact: For all his criticisms of Mr. Bush's economic policies, Mr. Obama is actually accelerating many of them. Mr. Bush engaged in a massive spending spree, with large financial bailouts and big deficits; Mr. Obama's budget proposes an even bigger spending spree, more financial bailouts, and larger budget deficits. Mr. Bush had the Medicare drug entitlement; Mr. Obama has a massive health plan. Mr. Obama isn't rejecting Bushism, he's doubling down on it.
Assertion No. 8: Agenda reflects "hard choices."
Fact: The president titled his budget "A New Era of Responsibility." Yet promising voters huge new federal subsidies - paid for by doubling the national debt - isn't exactly a profile in courage. Instead, it is the most fiscally irresponsible budget in American history. To propose dumping $74,000 per household of new debt into the laps of our children and grandchildren is economic child abuse.
• Brian M. Riedl is a Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs at the Heritage Foundation.