After Credit Downgrade, the Tea Party Must Dump Obama
Michael Reagan, FloydReports.com
President Obama, the Democratic Party and its members of Congress have spent years blaming former President George W. Bush for the nation’s current economic woes, which is akin to blaming the bank’s tellers for a bank robbery, or for the dishonesty of their bosses, the bank’s executives who were looting the till.
Nobody in the liberal-dominated media bothers to note that in the last years of the Bush presidency Democrats controlled the Congress and thus had a death grip on the nation’s economy, having complete control over the nation’s purse strings. They spent (and spent, and spent) the yet-uncollected taxes of future generations — as well as our own — as if there were no tomorrow.
It wasn’t a Bush Congress that jammed the incredible costs of ObamaCare down the throats of the American people and their children and grandchildren — it was our spendthrift president and his allies on Capitol Hill doing their classic imitation of the legendary drunken sailors on shore leave.
It’s simply common sense to understand that spending money one doesn’t have in the hopes that the future will provide the needed funds is something like believing that some beneficent tooth fairy will come up with the money in the future.
Now the president and the national Democratic Party have suddenly discovered a scapegoat for the latest economic mess they have thrust upon the American people. They insist that the credit-rating downgrade was the fault of the Tea Party trying to control the nation’s purse strings. I’m not kidding. They really expect us to swallow this whopper as the Gospel truth.
They expect us to ignore the fact that the millions of Tea Party members are simply Americans, deeply and sincerely concerned about the nation’s economy and the tendency of the government to spend their hard-earned tax money on whatever scam strikes its fancy.
It’s time to place the blame for our economic malaise where it belongs — on the shoulders of the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress.
Tea Party members have been the voice of reason, not the wild-eyed terrorists portrayed by the Left’s crazy spin doctors.
What would have averted the credit-rating downgrade and the subsequent turmoil in the markets? Precisely the spending cuts advocated by the Tea Party.
According to a statement by Jenny Beth Martin, a co-founder and national coordinator of Tea Party Patriots, the debt-ceiling compromise was….
Texas Congressman: Impeachment “Needs to Happen”
Ben Johnson, The White House Watch
Impeachment usually represents a punitive act following the commission of a crime, but some are looking to it as a last means of self-defense. At a Tea Party town hall meeting last night Rep. Michael Burgess, R-TX, said impeachment “needs to happen” to stop Barack Obama from inflicting more “damage” on this country.
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram claims an attendee “suggested that the House push for impeachment proceedings against President Barack Obama to obstruct the president from pushing his agenda.” Burgess, who represents four counties in northern Texas, responded: “It needs to happen, and I agree with you it would tie things up. No question about that.” He later stood by his comment. “We need to tie things up. The longer we allow the damage to continue unchecked, the worse things are going to be for us.”
Burgess made his comments at a town hall meeting with the NE Tarrant Tea Party Tuesday evening in Denton, Texas.
The Star-Telegram adds, “Burgess said he wasn’t sure whether the proper charges to bring up articles of impeachment against Obama were there.” Since the reporter does not quote Congressman Burgess nor elaborate on this sentence, it is uncertain whether Burgess said he was not sure Obama had committed an impeachable offense or whether the charges could pass the Democrat-controlled Senate. While there are ample grounds for impeachment, it would take intense citizen pressure to force senators to vote for conviction.
The event was broadcast live on UStream, but it is not yet archived on the Congressman’s video page. If you have more information about — or video of — this incident, please contact me.
Whatever the circumstances surrounding Burgess’ words, he is part of a significant and growing number of Congressmen willing to see Obama removed from office….
Obama’s Chief of Staff Says, Impeach My Boss (A Cato Institute Scholar Agrees)
Ben Johnson, The White House Watch
President Obama’s luck got so bad during the debate over raising the debt ceiling that even his chief of staff said he could be impeached. On July 27, the Cato Institute‘s director of health policy studies Michael F. Cannon heard Bill Daley admit, in not so many words, that it’s okay to impeach Obama:
On NPR this morning, I heard White House chief of staff Bill Daley say, “The president cannot usurp the power that’s in the Congress.” What a relief! Also, this:
I don’t think the American people would find it appropriate for the president of the United States to defy the laws of the nation and its Constitution, without their belief that that president should be impeached. And this president isn’t going to do anything against the Constitution, against the laws of the United States of America.
So if the president were to defy, say, the War Powers Resolution by ridiculously redefining “hostilities,” or if he were to defy the Constitution by signing a law that claims for Congress a power the Constitution does not grant (say, ObamaCare), we should impeach him. Got it.
If Bill Daley — a scion of the Chicago Daleys — opaquely allows that the president is so corrupt he could be impeached, why are the Republicans so timid about following through? It would be a shame if his only good piece of advice went unheeded.
Click here to sign the petition to impeach Obama. Click here to learn more about the Impeach Obama Campaign.
Obama Turns 50, America Turns Gray
Michael Reagan, FloydReports.com
Like everybody else, presidents have birthdays and have a right to celebrate them and invite others to join them in the festivities. But taking advantage of the occasion to bash the rich and then charge some of them a whopping $40,000 to be able to sit near him as he observes his birthday is nothing short of outrageous.
The only thing President Obama excels in is fundraising — after all, when a president puts the arm on you, you can hardly say no. And the president has been putting the arm on a lot of his rich friends lately and raising big bucks for his upcoming reelection campaign. It’s a shame he can’t create jobs as efficiently as he raises money for himself. If he did I might even vote for him. However, he doesn’t, and so I won’t.
He should quit blaming the rich for being successful and take a look in the mirror. Instead of quoting my father to justify himself and his shocking incompetence he should try to imitate my Dad and try to govern as well as my Dad did.
In barely two years he has driven the economy into a ditch, yet has the gall to blame our economic troubles on President Bush, who has been out of office for two years. Moreover, during the last four years of the Bush presidency, Congress — which controls the purse strings and thus the economy — was controlled by the Democrats. It wasn’t George W. Bush alone who overspent; it was the Democrats on Capitol Hill who did their best to imitate the most drunken of the legendary drunken sailors.
“Spend and elect” has long been the policy….
Obama Wants You (and Your Kids) to Serve the State
Jeffrey Folks, FloydReports.com
As negotiations on trimming the national deficit dragged on this spring and summer, it should have been easy to come up with plenty of programs to cut. One candidate would be the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), the umbrella organization that sponsors AmeriCorps, Senior Corps, Learn and Serve America, the Social Innovation Fund, and other community service programs. So far, however, thanks in part to vigorous lobbying on the part of its staff, liberal supporters, and alumni, the Corporation has escaped the axe.
The title “United We Serve” is, of course, a take on the popular phrase, “united we stand, divided we fall.” It is a sentiment that can be traced back centuries but that has resurfaced among those on the left. The song “United We Stand” was recorded by the aptly named musical group The Brotherhood of Man in 1970. The same sentiment appears in a host of pop songs, including “Hey You” by Pink Floyd. While “United We Stand” can be understood to mean many things, it has recently taken on powerful suggestions of egalitarianism and universalism — purposes that would seem identical to those of CNCS.
Egalitarianism and universalism are evident in United We Serve’s “My American Story” public service announcements. Featuring Bon Jovi, Usher, and President Obama himself, these radio and television ads call on “all Americans” to get involved in community activism. As a matter of fact, they are practically insulting to anyone who might demur from mentoring disadvantaged children and adults, teaching the disadvantaged how to read, helping to feed the hungry, conducting a home energy audit, planting community gardens, and celebrating the 25th anniversary of Martin Luther King Day by performing community service. As one of the ads has it, you can hardly claim to be living unless you are out there making a difference in your community.
As a fitting tribute to the anniversary of MLK Day, United We Serve suggests that every American perform at least 25 “actions” of community service during 2011. None of those suggested “actions” seem to involve regular employment, at least employment in the private sector. Indeed, those Americans who “just” go to work every day, support their families, obey the law, and mind their own business are portrayed more or less as hopeless deadbeats who should be ashamed of themselves. What are they doing working for businesses that actually produce something of value when they might join the ranks of community servants engaged in organizing, as the Corporation puts it, to “meet growing social needs.”
The propagandistic quality of United We Serve should be obvious. CNCS is not simply encouraging Americans to be more charitable in the way they have always been: by giving generously to their churches and synagogues, for instance. Indeed, there is not a word about charitable religious activity on the Corporation’s website. United We Stand is promoting purely secular forms of community service, and only those forms of service that can be controlled and channeled by….
ObamaCare Forces Catholics to Distribute Morning After Pill
Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com
The nation’s Catholic bishops and a Catholic organization that monitors Catholic colleges and universities are concerned about the Obama administration’s decision today.
As LifeNews.com reported, the Health and Human Services Department ruled that insurance companies are required to include birth control and drugs that can cause abortions in their coverage by virtue of defining them as preventative care. Pro-life organizations are also concerned that the decision will violate the conscience rights of Catholics and religious and pro-life groups that don’t want to have to pay for insurance that covers birth control and abortion drugs but don’t qualify for the narrowly-drawn conscience limits the Obama administration will put in place under the decision.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops sharply criticized the Obama administration’s “preventive services” mandate that it says “requires health plans to cover female surgical sterilization and all drugs and devices approved by the FDA as contraceptives, including drugs which can attack a developing unborn child before and after implantation in the mother’s womb.”
“Although this new rule gives the agency the discretion to authorize a ‘religious’ exemption, it is so narrow as to exclude most Catholic social service agencies and healthcare providers,” said Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, Archbishop of Galveston-Houston and chairman of the USCCB Committee on Pro-Life Activities.
What Are Obama’s Chances in 2012? Not Good
Matt Mackowiak, FloydReports.com
Presidential reelection campaigns are always about the incumbent — serving as a referendum of that President’s performance in office and the results of their policies. It’s a choice election. It’s not about the challenger. What the incumbent tries to do is to make the other “choice” unacceptable, resulting in the incumbent’s reelection.
I suspect the 2012 campaign will be waged on only two issues: the economy and a referendum on ObamaCare. Consider that, as Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has already predicted, the Supreme Court will likely announce their decision on the constitutionality of Obama’s sweeping health care law on the last Monday in June next year. Such a time frame will likely be after the GOP nominee has been chosen but before the national party conventions, during the summer when the presidential general election campaign is not yet being waged ferociously.
No matter what decision is rendered, ObamaCare is guaranteed to burn white hot as an issue on the campaign trail in 2012.
Only after the 2012 election….
C.S. Lewis vs. Barack Obama on Economics and Government
Dr. Marvin J. Folkertsma, FloydReports.com
As Americans prepared to mark the birth of their country with the usual outpouring of celebratory events, pundits on the political right were scratching their heads over President Obama’s most recent comment about America’s free-enterprise system.
This time, corporate jet owners got the hit, no fewer than six times during Obama’s late June press conference, apparently for taking advantage of Bush administration tax breaks at the cost of “your child’s safety.” Such financial obscenities were matched by continued tax breaks for “millionaires and billionaires,” whose wealth the political Left covets and whose sheer selfishness, in their view, has driven a stake through the heart of the president’s vaunted recovery summer. All the while unemployment rates remain stubbornly high, large and small businesses refuse to take their plunge into the world created by Obamacus Economicus, Americans by large majorities believe the country is going “in the wrong direction,” and administration officials remain puzzled by it all. The question is how to explain all this.
Two observers, one a 19th-century Frenchmen and the other a 20th-century Englishmen, offered words of wisdom about the consequences of centralizing political control and, we shall argue, the moral relativism that accompanies such a development.
Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville’s famous warning in Democracy in America about the peculiar type of despotism to which democracies are especially vulnerable included comments about “an immense tutelary power” hovering over a mass of citizens, for whose happiness it “willingly labors, but it chooses to be a sole agent and the only arbiter,” leaving nothing for individual determination. “What remains,” de Tocqueville asked, “but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?” The result is a power that “prevents existence,” that “compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people,” to the point where they can no longer be considered human beings at all.
Or if they can, they have no chests. This designation was made famous by that bête noire of British moral relativists, C. S. Lewis, noted for his writings on Christian apologetics as well as his Narnia series and the space trilogy. Lewis’s The Abolition of Man consists of three lectures he gave during World War II and was not about politics per se, but rather about….
ObamaCare May Force You to Pay for Abortion Pill
Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com
Yesterday, the Institute of Medicine recommended that the Obama administration approve new guidelines calling for the Obamacare health care system to require every health insurance plan to cover all FDA-approved birth control drugs.
The decision, which is expected to be adopted by the Health and Human Services Department has far-reaching effects because it would force insurance companies to include coverage of drugs like the Plan B pill that may cause an early abortion of a newly-conceived unborn child or the Ella drug, which causes abortions days after conception. Health insurance plans would likely pass on the increased coverage costs to consumers.
Americans United for Life staff counsel Anna Franzonello said today that the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) recommendations on “preventive services for women” are “unsurprisingly supportive of abortion-inducing drugs because the IOM chose to invite abortion advocacy groupsto the table to make recommendations.” Franzonello, who testified before the IOM during hearings asking that the birth control and abortion-causing drugs not be included, says the Obama administration is responsible for the stacked hearings that led to the IOM recommendations.
If adopted, Franzonello says the recommendations would yield a horrendous result: “No American will be able to choose an insurance plan that does not include the abortion-inducing drug ella under the IOM plan released today.”
“No American will be able to choose an insurance plan that does not include the abortion-inducing drug ella under the IOM plan released today,” the pro-life AUL attorney explained. “Despite the fact that ella can kill a human embryo even after implantation, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has labeled the drug as emergency contraception. Thus, the IOM’s broad inclusion of the ‘full-range of FDA approved contraceptives,’ includes ella. This really was a one-two punch by the FDA and IOM to force all Americans to pay for the abortion-inducing drug.”
Obama’s Drug of Choice: Welfare Addiction
Susan Stamper Brown, FloydReports.com
Once upon a time, people’s hands were busy putting food on the table and they were too busy or too proud to consider extending those same hands out to the government for a handout. But that time has long passed, and time is running out before America the Great turns into America the Nanny State.
Let this Conservative go on record: When used properly, welfare can be a force for good for those most in need. Unfortunately, we have an administration, whose failed (0-97 in the Senate) 2011 budget bulged with middle-class handouts meant to expand the welfare state. Democrats are bent on making addicts of otherwise perfectly capable citizens to the designer drug of taxpayer dollars. In an attempt to make this addiction permanent, the administration rolled out Obamacare.
In 2008, anxiety over a failing economy and soaring costs of healthcare helped to propel Obama to the White House, but, three years later, and after the passing of Obamacare, the anxiety has morphed into anger – as the truth about this poorly constructed bill unfolds to find that it is nothing more than a compilation of mistakes, bloopers, paybacks and blunders that fix healthcare about as well as handing a bandage and bottle of blood thinner to a gunshot victim.
The most recent “blunder,” which involves dropping people from the middle class and rolling them onto the welfare rolls, will not only add billions of dollars of cost to the bill; it will throw millions of middle class retirees into the Medicaid program. Medicaid was created to help the most needy in our society. Medicare actuary, Richard Foster, told the House Budget Committee that a provision in Obamacare did not consider social security benefits when calculating eligibility for early retirees, effectively branding those making up to $64000 per year as destitute. Talk about the destruction of the middle class.
Most troubling is the White House admits Democrat lawmakers knew this provision was in the bill and passed it anyway….
