Archive

Bad Obama

Comment from thebrackpipe.com:  More fallout from Obama’s poor understanding of how businesses and economies work.

Article below by Sherrie Conroy as it appeared in MedTech Insights:

Now that the medical device tax has been implemented and device makers have already made their first payment to the IRS, the focus has turned to getting this thorn in their side repealed.  They have gained some support in that effort, and AdvaMed says that legislation introduced in the US House of Representatives shows the growing bipartisan support for repealing the medical device tax.

“The momentum from the last Congress is carrying over with a broader array of champions working to defeat this terrible tax,” says AdvaMed president and CEO Stephen J. Ubl.  “On both sides of the aisle, members of Congress know the device tax hurts our economy, kills jobs, and slows the march of medical progress needed to fight disease and reduce long-term health costs.  The medical technology industry is united in its commitment to repeal this tax and appreciates the leadership shown in Congress to continue the effort.”

Reps. Erik Paulsen (R-MN) and Ron Kind (D-WI) reintroduced the House repeal bill with more than 175 co-sponsors, including 20 Democrats.  Ubl praised Paulsen and Kind for working together on the repeal effort.  “Patients, the healthcare system, and the American economy are winners when legislators work together like this.  America’s medical technology industry looks forward to assisting in this important repeal effort,” Ubl says.

According to AdvaMed, the tax has already led to layoffs, reductions in planned facility expansions, and other cost-cutting measures, which the association blames for stunting economic growth, impeding innovation, and affecting patient care.  Studies show the tax threatens up to 43,000 jobs nationwide.

The medical technology industry helps employ more than 2 million people in the U.S., and salaries in this sector are 40 percent higher than the national average.

Comment from thebrackpipe.com:  Joe Biden is a true American idiot.  

Article below by Karen Workman of Digital First Media:

Vice President Joe Biden is leading White House’s task force to reduce gun violence, so it’s not surprising that video of him advising people to “buy a shotgun” is drawing a lot of attention.

Biden, in a live town hall with Parents Magazine on Tuesday, ends one of his answers with the simple advice: “Buy a shotgun. Buy a shotgun.”

Biden was responding to a question from a reader named Kate about whether law abiding citizens would be a greater target for criminals if certain weapons and high capacity magazines are banned.

“Kate, if you want to protect yourself, get a double barrel shotgun, have the shells, a 12- gauge shotgun,” Biden responds.

He also talks about how he’s advised his wife to “fire two blasts” with the shotgun on their home’s balcony if she ever suspects trouble.

“You don’t need an AR-15,” Biden says. “It’s harder to aim. It’s harder to use. And, in fact, you don’t need 30 rounds to protect yourself.”

Biden was being interviewed by Michael Kress, the executive editor of Parents.com

.
The town hall was hosted on the magazine’s Facebook page and the full replay is available from the White House.

Article by Victor David Hansen, senior fellow at the Hoover Institute

“Limousine liberal” is an old American term used against those who inherited lots of money and then became “traitors to their class” by embracing populist politics.

The Roosevelts and Kennedys enjoyed the high life quite apart from the multitude that they championed. And they were exempt, by virtue of their inherited riches and armies of accountants and attorneys, from the higher taxes they advocated for others. Few worried about how their original fortunes were made long ago, or that as lifelong government officials they had their needs met by the state. Most were relieved instead that as very rich people they wanted less rich people to pay their fair share to help the poor.

But the new liberal aristocracy is far less discreet than the old. Most are self-made multimillionaires who acquired their money through government service, finance, law, investment, or marriage. If the old-money liberals lived it up tastefully within their walled family compounds, the new liberal aristocrats are unashamed about living openly in a manner quite at odds with their professed populist ideology.

Take former vice president Al Gore. He has made a fortune of nearly a billion dollars warning against global warming — supposedly shrinking glaciers, declining polar-bear populations, and the like — while simultaneously offering timely remedies from his own green corporations, all reminiscent of the methodology of Roman millionaire Marcus Licinius Crassus, who profited from fires and putting them out. Now Nobel laureate Gore has sold his interest in a failing cable-television station for about $100 million — and to the anti-American Al-Jazeera, which is owned by the fossil-fuel-rich royal family of Qatar. Gore rushed to close the deal before the first of the year to avoid the very capital-gains tax hikes that he has advocated for others less well off. That’s a liberal trifecta: enhancing a fossil-fuel consortium, attempting to beat tax hikes, and empowering an anti-American and anti-Semitic media conglomerate run by an authoritarian despot — all from a former vice president of the United States who crusades for ending our reliance on fossil fuels and for raising taxes on the wealthy.

Class warrior Barack Obama spent his winter break in a ritzy rental on a Hawaiian beach. It cost the taxpayers $7 (or is it $20?) million to jet him and his entourage 6,000 miles for their tropical vacation. But whether the first family escapes to Hawaii or Martha’s Vineyard or Costa del Sol, the image of a 1 percent lifestyle seems a bit at odds with the president’s professed disdain for “millionaires and billionaires,” “fat cats,” and “corporate-jet owners” who supposedly can afford such tony retreats only because they have done something suspect. The media used to ridicule grandees like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush for wearing cowboy hats and wasting precious presidential time chopping wood or chain-sawing dry underbrush on their respective overgrown ranches. But for liberal class warriors, golfing and body surfing in the tropical Pacific while staying at a zillionaire’s estate become needed downtime to prepare for the looming battle against 1 percenters. One wonders about the conversation between the Obamas and their landlord. “We will stay here, but only on the condition that you remember that you didn’t build it”?

Multibillionaire Warren Buffett is a tireless advocate of hiking inheritance taxes on small businesses and farms. But he has pledged much of his wealth to the Gates Foundation, a ploy that will cost the federal Treasury billions of dollars in lost revenue. Meanwhile, if inheritance taxes go up, millions of terrified Americans will double up on their life-insurance policies — an industry central to the multibillion-dollar Buffett empire. It never seems to occur to the liberal-minded Buffett that there is something tawdry about advocating a policy that he not only seeks mostly to avoid, but will even profit from.

So tax avoidance is another characteristic of the new aristocracy — ask Jeffrey Immelt, the General Electric CEO and Obama point man on jobs and growth, who endorses the Obama agenda even as he managed to skip taxes altogether on his company’s 2010 profits. What should Immelt say? “Taxes are for the little people whom we try to help”?

Senator John Kerry, who will soon become secretary of state, is a tireless advocate of higher taxes while enjoying his multimillionaire wife’s multiple estates. In 2010, Massachusetts resident Kerry docked his new $7 million yacht in nearby Rhode Island in order to avoid paying about $500,000 in taxes to his home state. Should not Kerry have welcomed the chance to chip in half a million to an insolvent treasury, given his advocacy for higher taxes? Could Kerry not have purchased a smaller yacht for $4 million in order to budget for the necessary taxes? Gore, Obama, and Kerry, after all, tirelessly boast that the taxes they advocate would fall mostly on people like themselves — omitting the fact that, as we see from Kerry’s boat deal, Gore’s TV deal, and Obama’s adjacent-lot deal with Tony Rezko, politicians not only mostly live on the public dole without the expenses that the rest of us incur, but also have miraculous ways of avoiding the sort of taxes they harangue others about.

During the 2008 financial meltdown, Goldman Sachs was a recipient of federal cash bailouts. Recently its CEO, Lloyd Blankfein, wrote an op-ed in which he said, “I believe that tax increases, especially for the wealthiest, are appropriate.” Why, then, would Goldman Sachs rush to pay out $65 million in restricted stock bonuses to its own corporate elite in time to beat the new higher tax rates that began on January 1, 2013? Isn’t that inappropriate? What would have happened had Blankfein timed his op-ed for publication in early 2013 rather than November 2012, and also added “– and that’s why I am not rushing Goldman Sachs stock payouts just to lessen the tax burden on our wealthiest at a time of national insolvency.”

Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, who nominally oversees the IRS, did not just not pay his own taxes while advocating higher taxes on others, but found incredible ways not to pay what was due — avoiding payroll taxes, improperly deducting his children’s camp costs, and taking improper charitable deductions, improper retirement-plan withdrawals, improper small-business deductions, and so on. The question in Geithner’s case was not whether he had avoided taxes, but whether there was any category of taxes that he had not avoided. Perhaps the creativity by which Geithner avoided his own taxes was seen as an asset in finding new ways to catch other tax-avoiders.

What explains the hypocrisy of the new liberal aristocracy?

The medieval concept of offsetting your sins through public penance is back in play: The more loudly you talk about helping the proverbial people, the more you are allowed to live quite apart from them without guilt. Do not expect a garbage collector, in the fashion of the anti–Mitt Romney ad, to make a video complaining that the Obamas never ventured outside their coastal compound to compliment him on his work or just to chitchat. Al Gore’s lamentations for the polar bear allows him to try to finagle a $9 million tax savings. The money for Media Matters apparently offsets the fact that the speculations of a conniving George Soros once almost bankrupted the British small depositor and earned him an insider-trading conviction in France. Each speech blasting the uncaring Bush tax cuts translates into a hundred thousand less in taxes to be paid on your yacht.

To be cool is now not just to be rich, but to appear caring. Hollywood still seeks hundreds of millions in tax breaks unavailable to small businesses without shame because it is so manifestly compassionate. Occupy Wall Street does not camp out in Beverly Hills or Malibu, although the likes of Johnny Depp and Leonardo DiCaprio make more per year than do most Wall Street fat cats. The public wonders why Hollywood is so liberal — is it the Bohemian culture surrounding the arts? The natural creative temperament of actors? The Lotus-land surf and sun of the southern-California beach milieu? Perhaps. But penance plays a role as well. For the overpaid and pampered Hollywood movie star, calling for raising taxes, banning guns, ending global warming, and legalizing gay marriage means never having to feel too bad about living on the beach and making, under our capitalist system, more money in a month than do many Americans in a lifetime.

The growing size and clout of government, and its intrusion into globalized finance, also play a role. Former Obama OMB director and liberal Peter Orszag went on to a multimillion-dollar gig at Citigroup. He now writes warnings about the uncontrollable debt that he helped accumulate; would that he would sermonize about the incestuous revolving door that Obama pledged to end. Did he learn anything from Franklin Raines, James Johnson, and Jamie Gorelick, who occupied top spots at Fannie Mae in the Carter and Clinton administrations and who all walked away with millions while the federal mortgage-insurance corporation went insolvent? The problem is not just that none of the three did anything to ensure Fannie Mae’s viability, or at least to justify the millions that they took out, but also that none of them had a reputable record of banking expertise to justify their being hired in the first place. In short, there is just too much big money — and temptation — for even the most liberal class warrior not to cash in on his ample government contacts and influence.

All these paradoxes pose existential questions: Are the elite architects of high taxes and big government the self-interested and conniving who found the path to the good life through cynically embracing such ideas (ask Franklin Raines or Al Gore), or were they so rich to begin with as to be unaffected by the ramifications of their ideology — or both?

Comment from thebrackpipe.com:  Is this the kind of foreign policy we are willing to accept.  Remember, soon after Obama took office in 2009, he promptly flew down to Venezuela to give a bro hug to Hugo Chavez and gladly accept a signed copy of Chavez’s book?  UNREAL!  Now, concerning the events in Benghazi, it is clear that the C.I.A. knew all along that it was a terrorist attack and not a flash-mob.  Then we must explain the words of the president, his U.N. ambassador and his secretary of state — all endlessly repeated with supporting theatrics.  Basically, the Obama administration knew it could count on a friendly media that is loath to expose anything that might undermine its preferred foreign policy narrative.  After Benghazi, the administration is confident of ‘running out the clock’ until the election, stonewalling legislative inquiries and sequestering those few media outlets actually trying to probe the Libya story.

Full-Article below from the DailyCaller.com:

Bottom line first: Ever since the Benghazi attack, President Obama and his advisers have lied through their teeth to avoid awakening the slumbering American electorate. They have been assisted throughout by a media establishment intent on supporting the president’s re-election while maintaining its usual charade of objectivity — the great oxymoron of our time.

My career encompassed that oxymoron as well as an even earlier one, military intelligence. So I watched in amazement as only the Fox News Channel seemed intent on unraveling an extraordinarily thin cover story. A flash-mob that got out of hand over a provocative YouTube video? But with mortars and automatic weapons, a coordinated assault that killed an American ambassador and three bodyguards? I felt like Carrie Mathison, the Claire Danes character in the Showtime series “Homeland,” constantly asking “Are you serious?” Yet President Obama, from the Rose Garden to the United Nations rostrum, kept repeating the flash-mob story until the second cover story was trotted out: Our intelligence community was working diligently to uncover the truth and go after attackers — a thrilling re-run of “Osama and the Seals,” coming soon to a theater near you!

But this week I received subtle warnings from old friends still in that beleaguered intelligence community. They expressed great irritation with Fox News, undoubtedly because of political motivations. But they were most offended by the idea that the spooks had done nothing. They suggested that the attack on Benghazi was like Mogadishu, the epic Somali battle that left a hundred American Rangers killed or wounded. They warned darkly of some “push-back” against the version of events gradually emerging from determined Fox reporters like Catherine Herridge.

Well, today that push-back surfaced as The New York Times and other papers reported background briefings from un-named C.I.A. officials. As Eric Schmitt wrote, “Thursday’s briefing for reporters was intended to refute reports, including one by Fox News last Friday, that the C.I.A.’s chain of command had blocked the officers on the ground from responding to the mission’s calls for help.” The New York Times account was not a headline — appearing on page 4. Neither its reporter not those anonymous C.I.A. officials used the word “inoperative,” as the Nixon White House used to do when Watergate cover stories were unraveling.

Yet in Benghazi-gate as well as Watergate, earlier lies were shed as smoothly as snakeskins. So the C.I.A. knew all along that it was a terrorist attack and not a flash-mob? Okay, then how do you explain the words of the president, his U.N. ambassador and his secretary of state — all endlessly repeated with supporting theatrics? If high officials from the Pentagon, the State Department and the West Wing knew the truth — that this was actually 9/11.2 — then how do you explain either of the administration’s mutually inconsistent cover stories? And why was the U.S. four-star general responsible for North Africa suddenly and mysteriously relieved of command after Benghazi?

Actually, you cannot explain any of these things unless you also account for the hear-see-report-no-evil approach of the media establishment. The Obama administration knew it could count on a friendly media that is loath to expose anything that might undermine its preferred foreign policy narrative. After Benghazi, the administration was understandably confident of running out the clock until the election, stonewalling legislative inquiries and sequestering those few media outlets actually trying to probe the Libya story.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/02/benghazi-cover-up-par-for-the-course-for-team-obama/#ixzz2BGtYff5l

Some excerpts from Chris Christe’s powerful speech:

Let me be clear with the American people tonight.  Here is what we believe as Republicans and what they believe as Democrats.  We believe in telling hardworking families the truth about our country’s fiscal realities, telling them what they already know, the math of federal spending does not add up.

With $5 trillion in debt added over the last four years, we have no other option but to make the hard choices, cut federal spending and fundamentally reduce the size of this government.

Want to know what [the Democrats] believe?  They believe that the American people want to hear the truth about the extent of our fiscal difficulties.  They believe the American people need to be coddled by big government.  They believe the American people are content to live the lie with them.  They are wrong.

We believe in telling our seniors the truth about our overburdened entitlements.  We know seniors not only want these programs to survive, but they just as badly want them secured for their grandchildren. Our seniors are not children….

Now, we believe that the majority of teachers in America know our system must be reformed, to put students first so that America can compete, that teachers don’t teach to become rich or famous.  They teach because they love children.  We believe — we believe we should honor and reward the good ones, while doing what’s best for our nation’s future, demanding accountability, demanding higher standards, and demanding the best teacher in every classroom in America.

Get ready.  Here is what [the Democrats] believe.  They believe the educational savages will only put themselves ahead of children, that self- interest will always trump common sense, they believe in pitting unions against teachers, educators against parents, lobbyists against children.  [The Democrats] believe in teachers’ unions .  We believe in teachers….

Make no mistake about it, everybody.  The problems are too big to let the American people lose.  The slowest economic recovery in decades, a spiraling out of control deficit, and an education system that is failing to compete in the world.  It doesn’t matter how we got here.  There’s enough blame to go around.  What matters is what we do now.

See, I know.  I know we can fix our problems.  When there are people in the room who care more about doing the job they were elected to do than  they worry about winning reelection, it is possible to work together, achieve principal compromise, and get results for the people who give us these jobs in the first place.

The people have no patience for any other way anymore.  It is simple.  We need politicians to care more about doing something and less about being something….

We have to tell each other the truth, right?  Listen, there is doubt and fear for our future in every corner of our country.  I have traveled all over the country, and I have seen this myself.  These feelings are real.  This moment is real,and it is a moment like this where some skeptics wonder if America’s greatness is over.  They wonder how those who have come before the before us had in the spirit and tenacity to lead America to a new era of greatness in the face of challenge, not to look around and say “Not me”, but to look around and say “Yes, me.”

Now, I have an answer tonight for the skeptics and the naysayers, the dividers and the defenders of the status quo.  I have faith in us.  I know.

I know we can be the men and women our country calls on us to be tonight.  I believe in America and her history, and there’s only one thing missing now.  Leadership.  It takes leadership that you don’t get from reading a poll.  You see, Mr. President, real leaders do not follow polls.  Real leaders change polls.

BY PAULA SCHWARTZ

(NEWJERSEYNEWSROOM.COM)

“2016: Obama’s America,” an anti-Obama doc, is a surprise hit at the box office this weekend. The documentary – which makes no pretense at objectivity – digs into what the filmmakers perceive as the President’s suspicious past and takes a scary look into what they think the future holds if he is re-elected. The film racked in an astonishing $6.3 million at the box office this weekend, which is bad news for the Democrats.

Where it is making the big bucks and getting the big crowds are in the Red States, of course, playing to an anti-Obama crowd, where it has made this astonishing box office take, placing it 8th in box office takeaccording to Box Office Mojo.

At number one at the box office is “The Expendables 2” earning 13.5 million this weekend. (The total gross for the film is 52.3 million.) To get some perspective, “Expendables” cost 100 million to make. The budget for “Obama’s America” is unlisted but we’re betting from the film’s production values it was a pittance. And number two is “The Bourne Legacy,” with 9.3 million for the weekend, with 85.5 million gross since it opened.

As the election becomes more and more heated and Americans grow more polarized over the election and the presidency of Barack Obama, the movie could sway opinions. The film is based on Dinesh D’Souza’s book, “The Roots of Obama’s Rage.” Mr. D’Souza directed the film with John Sullivan, who also wrote the screenplay and also serves as narrator. In the controversial film, they raise suspicions about the president’s past, including dredging up Obama’s previous relationships with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, activist Bill Ayers and Edward Said, a Palestinian scholar and supporter, who is deceased since 2003, and was once a professor of Obama’s at Columbia.

This is old stuff that was brought up in the last election but may be new to some Red State voters who are more sympathetic to the message. The filmmakers also pose scary possibilities of what President Obama’s reelection could mean to the country. One of the ominous warnings is what could happen as a result of what they say is the President’s inaction against stopping Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

The unexpectedly big box office numbers for “2016” is no doubt spurred by the upcoming Republican Convention, which will begin Tuesday in Tampa, Fla.