Below is a video in which Anita Dunn, Obama’s communication director, admits that one of her favorite political philosophers is Mao Tse Tung. There is really nothing else that needs to be said about Obama’s choice to name her as his communication director, the video says it all.
Republicans move to cut ACORN’s federal housing funds
In light of all of the recent controversies surrounding one of the most corrupt organizations in recent American history, ACORN, Republicans are introducing a bill in congress that will strip ACORN of federal funding for housing.
It’s abundantly clear that ACORN and its affiliates cannot be trusted as a federally-certified entity,” Biggert said in a statement. “Given the group’s clear links to illegal and inappropriate activities, how can we knowingly give them federal certification to divert precious resources from legitimate housing counselors working overtime to help struggling homeowners?
ACORN has fallen on tough times as of late, all of their own volition– they have already been stripped of some federal funding for trying to help people evade taxes, 11 employees have been arrested for voter fraud, the census bureau and the IRS have both cut ties with the organization, and now they may lose their certification to receive federal housing dollars if Republicans have their way.
It is about time that this organization gets what is has deserved for so long. Even if this bill goes nowhere it will come to a vote and we will know exactly which politicians continue to support ACORN. We can then vote accordingly.
According to an analysis of the latest defense funding bill senators managed to divert almost $3 billion dollars to pet projects, otherwise known as earmarks, away from troops fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. Money that was supposed to be spent on such necessities as fuel, ammunition, and training programs for our troops who are fighting in the Middle East were instead sent to such projects as building a new WWII museum and building an education institute that will be named after Ted Kennedy.
While the veterans of WWII deserve our respect and gratitude, taking money away from troops that are currently fighting a war is not the way to accomplish this. I support building a new museum to honor the greatest generation but not at the expense of those fighting overseas right now, and I certainly do not support diverting funds from the war effort to honor Ted Kennedy by naming a new institute after him while our troops are being denied the fuel, training, and ammunition that they need.
This is only the tip of the iceberg, there are 776 other pet projects that senators deemed more worthy of receiving funds than our fighting men and women in the Middle East. This is an absolute disgrace and a real kick in the ass to the brave men and women who are defending our country.
Winslow Wheeler,who has worked with both Democrats and Republicans on defense spending has never seen ineptitude on this level before.
in 30 years on Capitol Hill, I never saw Congress mangle the defense budget as badly as this year
I oppose the use of earmarks altogether and I understand that we will never rid ourselves of this abuse of taxpayer dollars but for the senate to divert funds that were meant to provide our troops with supplies that they desperately need is unconscionable.
Men and women who are fighting in defense of the United States are going to die because funding was taken from them so that Ted Kennedy could have an institution named after him and senators could bring home the bacon to their respective states. If we are going to fight and if we are going to win we have to ensure that we provide our troops with everything that they need in order to secure victory– that includes, and this should be obvious to everyone including senators of the United States, providing the proper funding.
Senators who diverted money away from the troops in order to pay for their pet projects at home will have blood on their hands– the blood of the servicemen to whom they have denied the proper funding.
If the senate is not wiling to properly fund the troops and if the senate thinks that pet projects at home are more important than providing the troops what they need to fight this war than perhaps it is time to surrender in Iraq and Afghanistan and bring our troops home before more of them die because of the misplaced priorities that is evident in the latest defense funding bill.
While running for president Barack Obama made it a habit of bashing Wall Street for the recession that the country is now in. As president Barack Obama bailed out Wall Street. Now we may know why his campaign rhetoric doesn’t match his actions as president. Aides to Timothy Geithner were busy making millions of dollars working on Wall Street.
Financial disclosure forms show that prior to joining the government, Gene Sperling, a senior Treasury adviser, was paid $887,727 by Goldman Sachs and $158,000 for speeches to companies that included Stanford Group, the company run by Sir Allen Stanford, who has since been charged with fraud.
Mr Sperling’s compensation from Goldman was for work on a philanthropic project. His overall pay, including for his main job at the Council on Foreign Relations, totalled $2.2m in the 13 months to January.
The forms, which were first obtained by Bloomberg, showed that Matthew Kabaker, another adviser in the Treasury, earned $5.8m at Blackstone, the private equity firm, in the two years before joining the administration to work on plans to support banks and spur lending. Much of the compensation was in stock.
Lewis Alexander, another adviser, was chief economist to Citigroup before joining the administration; he was paid $2.4m in the last two years.
Timothy Geithner, knowing the backlash that would follow if the American people realized who he was hiring, named these people as counselors thereby foregoing the confirmation process that certainly would have brought this to light.
Considering that Barack Obama spoke in the strongest words possible during the campaign about the greed on Wall Street leading to the recession and then bailed out Wall Street as president it is understandable that Timothy Geithner slid these “counselors” in under the cover of darkness and sidestepped the confirmation process, but considering also that Barack Obama promised the most open, honest, and transparent administration in history the American people, and specifically those that voted for change, have to feel like they were had.
This administration is no more open, honest, or transparent than any other administration in the past. While the administration condemned the greed on Wall Street in public, in private the same administration was hiring people who were part of the problem that the president claimed led to this recession.
I think that it is about time that investigations are opened up into Timothy Geithner, Barack Obama and the whole situation around the Wall Street bailouts.
Climate change as a national security issue?
Once the healthcare reform debate is over and the bill is either approved or denied the next big issue that we will have to deal with appears to be the climate change bill. The climate change bill appeared to be a victim of the healthcare reform bill– with so much attention being payed to healthcare reform it looked like the opportunity was missed to pass the climate change bill. That does not seem to be the case any more, the climate change bill has been quietly moving forward hidden under the media coverage of the healthcare reform bill. It was slowed down but it wasn’t stopped and now momentum may be growing in the government to pass the climate change bill once the healthcare issue is decided for better or worse.
With more and more Americans growing skeptical of the climate change bill and with more and more Americans growing skeptical of the foolish notion that people are causing the earth to warm, supporters of the climate change bill appear to be taking a different angle in order to drum up more support from people who would otherwise never support this legislation.
Climate change supporters are trying to change the argument from passing this bill in order to save the environment to passing this bill in the interest of national security. That’s right, climate change supporters are trying to link climate change legislation with national security.
Increasingly violent storms, pandemics, drought and large-scale refugee problems, they say, will destabilize regions and encourage terrorism. And American dependence on foreign energy sources will only exacerbate the threats and increase the likelihood of military action
Supporters of climate change legislation are now using the very same fear-mongering tactics that they supposedly despised during the Bush administration. But they believe that their cause is righteous and therefor the fear-mongering is justified in order to bring about their ultimate goal.
This is an attempt to gather support from the center-right to right leaning population. By linking an issue that is so ingrained and important with the left in this country with an issue that is so important to the right in this country, they hope to forge an alliance that will sweep this horrific energy tax into law.
Take a look at the following quote from the article I linked to above:
Now, with Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry emerging as a key player in the Senate climate debate, Democrats believe national security could emerge as a persuasive argument.
” Democrats believe national security could emerge as a persuasive argument,” is what the article claims, not that Democrats believe that it is a valid point. There is a huge difference here. Democrats don’t necessarily believe that climate change is a national security issue; Democrats simple believe that if they make the arguement correctly that it can be used to persuade that American people that climate change is indeed a national security issue.
Backlash against conservative Democrats who voted in favor of the climate change legislation is a driving factor in this change of direction. Democrats are trying to provide political to some of their more conservative colleagues.
Some conservative Democrats who voted for the climate legislation in the House faced a backlash against the bill when they went home to their districts over the July 4 recess. Democratic leaders believe that a national security message could give their vulnerable members another line of defense to explain their vote in next year’s elections.
There it is again, Democrats are looking for a line of defense to justify their vote with their constituents who disagree with the climate change legislation. Nowhere in that statement does it say that the Democrats believe that this is a legitimate issue, only that it could provide political cover in districts where national security is a major issue with the voters.
“If you talk about climate change in a way that discusses fragile states that are very vulnerable to its impacts, people realize that it’s our troops that will have to respond,” said John Powers, chief operating officer at the progressive Truman National Security Project, a member of Operation Free.
It is all about framing an argument so that the climate change advocates can gain as much support as possible, the above quote is yet another example of my premise. And according to the article this has to be a credible argument because a leading sponsor of the climate change legislation is John Kerry, and he is a chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.
CIA Director Leon Panetta is on board as well:
Decision makers need information and analysis on the effects climate change can have on security,” CIA Director Leon Panetta said in a press release. “The CIA is well-positioned to deliver that intelligence
The climate change legislation was losing its momentum. The Democrats had already changed the terminology from global warming, which was too narrow of a description to fill their needs, to climate change in an effort to encompass all violent and unpredictable weather. But even the change in terminology was not enough to convince people that climate change was a legislative priority. Once the terminology change was deemed unsuccessful the Democrats had to change tactics once again, this time by changing the argument, from controlling greenhouse gasses and saving the environment from ourselves to saving the country from terrorists.
We had them on the ropes on this legislation and they have coming out swinging, they are trying to take back the offensive. They have been playing to the fears of the environmentalists all of these years but that hasn’t been enough to gather widespread support for climate change legislation and so now they are trying to play to the fears of those worried about national security with Barack Obama as commander-in-chief.
If this isn’t fear-mongering, I just don’t know what is.
Apartment complex bans the American flag for being offensive
I understand that in some condo complexes and gated communities that there are restrictions on certain things– such as needing permission to install a flag pole. I don’t agree with this particular restriction but if you join a community and you agree to abide by the rules and one of those rules is a restriction on flagpoles that is just the way it goes.
However, this seems to be a different story altogether. Residents in an Albany, Oregon apartment complex are being told that they need to remove the United States flags that they are displaying on their vehicles. One person, whose son is in Iraq, flies a flag on his motorcycle to honor his son and all the others who serve in the military. Another resident has flown a United States flag on her car for eight years, she is now being told to take it down.
What makes this story even more repulsive is the reason why they are being told they can no longer fly their flags– it may be offensive. The ban goes so far as to outlaw flag stickers on cars. It is the image of the American flag in any form that is considered offensive.
that management told them the flags could be offensive because they live in a diverse community
This “diverse community” is in the United States, these diverse people are not so offended by the United States or our flag that they are willing to leave the country. Nobody has even claimed to be offended but the politically correct owner is afraid that it might offend somebody.
If the sight of the American flag does offend someone in the apartment complex fuck them. If they don’t like it they can get the fuck out. How’s that for offensive?
One resident summed it up best:
I just said to her ‘They’ll just have to get over it
Is President Obama planning to bomb Iran?
Is President Obama planning to bomb Iran?
That is a question that I would normally find laughable. Imagine the Nobel Peace Prize winning president, the president that has bowed to kings and apologized for the past evils of America, the president that has sucked up to Chavez, and Castro, the president that has made political overtures to Iran and North Korea, actually preparing to bomb Iran, or for that matter, North Korea.
It is a ludicrous thought, isn’t it? Yet as I write this the Pentagon is speeding up production of the bunker-busting bomb. This is a bomb that is designed to destroy underground weapon facilities such as those located in Iran and North Korea. The Pentagon wants to have the bombs ready to be loaded onto B-2 bombers by next Summer.
Why the rush? The Pentagon denies that this is in response to Iran admitting that they have a second secret underground nuclear facility.
I don’t think anybody can divine potential targets,” Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said. “This is just a pre=”a “>capability that we think is necessary given the world we live in
It is necessary in the world we live in? That world is a world in which Iran and North Korea are trying to acquire nuclear weapons. This certainly seems to be in response to the recent admission from Iran.
So I ask the question again, is President Obama planning to bomb Iran? We all know that the answer still is a resounding no. So why the hurry to build the bunker-busting bombs? It appears to me to be a show of strength by the Obama administration. He is trying to show his tough side with Iran, he is trying to show Iran that ne means business and that he is willing to resort to force if negotiations or sanctions fail.
The final question is, will Iran believe that the president is willing to use force against them? Again, the answer is no. Ahmadinejad is laughing at the president, the world is laughing at the president. Nobody on the world stage believes that President Obama will even seriously consider bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities.
When push comes to shove President Obama will back down from this show of strength and Ahmadinejad will retain the upper hand.
Under current tax law people are allowed to deduct medical expenses that are not covered under their healthcare insurance on their taxes if the expenses are at least 7.5% of their income.
Here is some of the deductions allowed by the IRS:
expenses such as surgeries, chemotherapy, wheelchairs, and guide dogs for the blind can be deducted, ensuring that people who need these treatments are not taxed on the income they use to pay for them.
“Medical care expenses include payments for the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, or treatment affecting any structure or function of the body,” according to the IRS Web site. “The cost of drugs is deductible only for drugs that require a prescription, except for insulin.”
“The cost of items such as false teeth, prescription eyeglasses or contact lenses, laser eye surgery, hearing aids, crutches, wheelchairs, and guide dogs for the blind or deaf are deductible medical expenses,” says the IRS.Other treatments and expenses that are eligible for deduction, according to the IRS, are:
— Wheelchair ramps
— Ambulance fees
— Braille books and other reading materials for the blind
— Prosthetic limbs
— Special education for the blind, deaf, or mentally disabled
— Organ donation surgery
— Lifetime care for the permanently disabled
But that could change if the Baucus healthcare reform bill ever becomes law. The Baucus bill would not allow medical expenses to be deductible until the cost reaches 10% of a person’s income.
It is estimated that this one change could affect 6 million Americans who currently claim medical expenses on their tax returns. This amounts to a tax increase on the middle class.
The revenue from these taxes is intended partly to offset premium subsidies for households with incomes below four times the FPL, but these taxes would be imposed on Americans who need medical devices or prescription drugs, have high out-of-pocket costs, or pay their own health insurance premiums
In effect the Baucus bill will raise taxes on the people who use their healthcare insurance the most because they have chronic illnesses and diseases to pay for the healthcare insurance on people who may be much more healthy than those who will see the tax increase.
In effect, the Baucus proposal would tax the sick to subsidize insurance for the healthy, and many of the taxes would be imposed on the same people ‘helped’ by the subsidies
Raising the medical expenses deduction from 7.5% to 10% is a clever little way of raising taxes on the middle class without appearing to raise taxes on the middle class, people will not be paying more taxes out-of-pocket, they will just be getting a smaller income tax return. This is a hidden tax and Baucus just hopes that people don’t even realize why their tax return is smaller.
But there is another clever little aspect to this tax increase and that has to do with the timing; the medical expenses deduction will not go into effect until January 1st 2013, after the election.
The proposal is effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2012
Just in case the American people do realize that the change in the medical expenses deduction is a tax increase, and thereby a broken promise by President Obama, the change will not go into effect until after the next presidential election.
How convenient.
Joe Lieberman opposes the Baucus healthcare reform bill
Before the Senate committee voted to send the Baucus healthcare reform bill to the floor of the senate Senator Joe Lieberman voiced his opposition to the legislation.
Joe Lieberman expressed his concern that the healthcare reform bill will actually drive up insurance costs for most Americans who already have healthcare insurance. Joe Lieberman is also opposed to any bill that includes the “public option.”
While the president and the media are celebrating the victory of enticing Republican senator Olympia Snowe into supporting the Baucus bill Joe Lieberman’s defection is actually a much larger story.
Democrats do not need a single Republican vote to pass this bill, they only want Republican votes to provide cover in case the legislation ends up being a disaster. What the Democrats do need in order to pass this bill is full Democrat support and that is where the real problem may lie. There are several moderate to conservative Democrats who are opposed to this bill and while Joe Lieberman is technically not a Democrat he is an important voice on this issue. And he does not support the bill, at least not yet.
While all of the publicity has surrounded the Snowe defection Joe Lieberman has dealt what could be a major blow to the chances of this bill’s passage and he has done it under the radar while being ignored by the media.
The outcome of today’s vote was never in jeopardy but the final outcome of this bill is still in jeopardy. If moderate to conservative Democrats follow Joe Lieberman’s lead this bill could still be in serious trouble.
I will gladly trade one Olympia Snowe vote for one Joe Lieberman vote.
Olympia Snowe votes for the healthcare reform bill
Today Republican senator Olympia Snowe sided with the Democrats and voted in favor of the healthcare reform bill sending it to the floor for debate. She has voiced concern of the legislation in the past but when push came to shove she voted for the bill even though she claims that she has apprehensions about the bill.
She still claims that she has issues with this bill but thought that it would be best to “move the process forward” in order to make sure that her apprehensions are addressed in the senate debate. Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell confirmed today that Olympia Snowe still has reservations about the healthcare reform bill.
Sen. Snowe called me this morning to let me know that while she continues to have serious, substantive policy reservations with this proposal, she wanted to keep the process moving. I share her concerns about the direction of this bill once it leaves the committee, and her call for transparency before we vote to proceed to any bill on the floor
It would seem to me that this logic is backwards. If Olympia Snowe did in fact truly have serious reservations with this bill than it would have been more beneficial to her to try to stop this bill and address her concerns before it made it to the senate floor. If she truly had serious reservations about this bill how wise is it for her to let this bill get one step closer to passage?
In fact, Olympia Snowe showed us who she really is today. Most of us knew that she was a RINO before her vote today but this should confirm it to anybody who refused to believe it before.
While Olympia Snowe’s defection is being called a big victory for President Obama her vote did not affect the outcome in the slightest. Her vote made the final outcome 14-9, if she really had reservations she could have voted against the bill and it still would have passed.
The truth is that Olympia Snowe is in favor of this bill, she did not do it because she felt it was important to “move the process forward,” she did it because she agrees with the legislation.
Now Republicans are supposed to trust her when the vote comes before the full senate? I don’t think so. We know where she stands and we are watching. The outcome of this vote was never in doubt but Olympia Snowe’s support of this bill was in doubt. Today she removed all doubt, Olympia Snowe is in favor of this healthcare reform bill, regardless of her protests to the contrary.
