Even Europe is starting to wake up to Obama’s empty suit. The Weekly Standard reports that
Thomas Buch-Andersen, host of the Danish TV show Detektor, mocked President Obama’s political rhetoric in a recent episode….Buch-Andersen wonders aloud, “Maybe the copy key got stuck on the presidential speechwriter’s keyboard.”
You must watch the episode in its entirety.
Watching Meet the Press this past Sunday was a remarkable experience. Among the roundtable contributors were Peggy Noonan, Al Sharpton, and Rep. Marsha Blackburn. The show was fairly enjoyable throughout most of the program – including a very civil discussion about women.
Then right before the close of the program, moderator David Gregory asks Al Sharpton about his recreation of the old Selma to Montgomery march (1965). Sharpton launches into a tirade about how we need to do this march again because our government is trying to disenfranchise millions of people.
REV. SHARPTON: The message is that with the new voter ID laws being proposed in over 30 states, the Brennan Institute says it will disenfranchise five million people. There has been no established reason to change the laws. There’s no widespread fraud that has been in any way documented. And we do, do not believe that we should have these millions of peoples disenfranchised. This is–has a disproportionate impact on young people, seniors and minorities. And immigration laws in Alabama are horrendous and we think they violate the civil rights of people. And we sought to dramatize, not just to commemorate 47 years ago, but to continue today to fight those issues.
Incredibly, this ludicrous and partisan comment goes unanswered. David Gregory just nods along and doesn’t even respond, and neither does Peggy Noonan. Gregory switches topics and wraps up the program with a quick analysis of the upcoming primary on Tuesday, March 13.
Watching this unfold made the whole program seem like a set-up. Everything was quite civil earlier on, so when Sharpton made his outrageous remark, no one batted an eye or refuted the absurdity. It allowed the program to pretty much end with Sharpton’s statement out there to the audience.
Therefore, I was jaded enough to not even be surprised when, the following morning (Monday), the Department of Justice announced the following:
The Justice Department’s civil rights division on Monday objected to a new photo ID requirement for voters in Texas because many Hispanic voters lack state-issued identification.
Texas follows South Carolina as the second state in recent months to become embroiled in a court battle with the Justice Department over new photo ID requirements for voters.
Should I even be surprised? Sharpton’s Meet the Press commentary seemed to coincide with the announcement of government decisions effecting voters in an election year. There is absolutely no reason why we should not have fair and free elections by requiring identification at the polls. We already require IDs for so many other things that to somehow cry discrimination when it comes to IDs for our sacred electoral process is nothing more than sheer political poppycock.
UPDATE: The United Nations is now investigating American laws, as the NAACP is presenting their case to the Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva. Really, should we even be surprised?
President Obama made it a priority of his busy day of not producing a workable budget or cutting the deficit to be supportive of the coed student who complained about the cost of her contraception. He calls and apologizes to her for her interaction with Rush Limbaugh. But our Commander-in-Chief has yet to call the family of slain soldier from Virginia, Army Sargeant Timothy John Conrad, who died February 23, following the Koran-burning incident (which Obama apologized on behalf of America for.)
Turns out that Ms. Fluke is not a 23-year old. According to the Gateway Pundit, she revealed on the Today Show with Matt Lauer that she is actually a 30 year-old. She is also a women’s rights activist, as well as the past president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice.
Should we even be surprised anymore?
Today, just like he stated in 2008, Energy Secretary Chu
admitted to a House committee that the administration is not interested in lowering gas prices.
Chu, along with the Obama administration, regards the spike in gas prices as a feature rather than a bug. High gas prices provide an incentive for alternate energy technology, a priority for the White House, and a decrease in reliance on oil for energy.
David Harsayni wrote about this very conundrum five days ago. Now we better understand why Obama nixed the Keystone Pipeline project. As I mentioned earlier, a project of this magnitude moving forward has an immediate effect on the markets by changing the traders’ expectations of future supply. Having more oil available in the marketplace contributes to lower prices for consumers. So when the project was tabled, the markets reacted accordingly.
I guess the White House knows what’s best for us better than we do.
A major theme of Obama’s reelection campaign is centered on taxes. On the one hand, he decries the unfair “Bush tax cuts for the wealthy”, while on the other, he creates new tax credits to purportedly help the recovery. Both are emotional appeals aimed to garner votes. Such policies reveal — once again — how economically ignorant our President is.
The rates currently in effect have been in force for more than 8 years, and what is now being urged by Obama is an increase in the highest marginal rates to what they were before the “Bush tax cuts of 2003”. Obama does not know his economic history. In what way was the 2003 change even a tax cut? It really wasn’t. At most, it was a very slight reversal of the major tax increases that had been put forth in the preceding fifteen years.
To put it into perspective, the last major change to the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) was a revenue neutral change in 1986, whereby the entire Internal Revenue Code was revamped. That brought down the tax rate, eliminated deductions and reduced tax shelter type benefits. This served as a flat tax adjustment which indisputably was responsible for the strong economic growth that followed, because, at that rate, it wasn’t worth the time, energy, and expense to shelter money elsewhere. But after we made this major positive correction, our legislators went right back to business as usual with new tax laws and changes.
The new 1986 IRC set the maximum tax rate at 28%. Through the government’s inability to keep promises (which was to reduce rates in lieu of changes to deductions), both the Democrats and Republicans participated in breaking promises in the ensuing years.
We saw the rate increase from 28% to 31%, as the first President Bush broke his“read my lips” promise. Through the Clinton administration, the maximum rate went from 31% to 35% and then to 39.6%. All in all, the maximum tax rate increased 40%. Bush’s tax cuts then, were not tax cuts at all – they were simply a reduction of the 40% tax hikes, down to a more modest 25% increase in the rates, from the base set made in 1986. The margin cuts of 2003 simply eliminated the last of three successive rate increases, each of which had broken the implicit pledges made in the overhaul.
Now in recent months, there has been a renewed call to clean up the tax code that has gotten out of hand in a mere twenty-five year span. What needs to happen is similar to what happened in 1986 — lower the rates, but get rid of deductions for special interests (such as special allowances for the oil and gas industry, “green” initiatives, and other crony tax benefits). In sum, make the code shorter, simpler, and more beneficial for economic growth.
The reality is that Obama will try to get reelected by saying that the economy is still weak, so he must do something about jobs. He has proposed a plethora of new credits to purportedly help the situation, such as employment credits, business credits, etc, but they’ll only worsen the byzantine code.
Even Obama’s commissions have argued in favor of cleaning up the tax code. Why make it more convoluted with more credits? Quite simply, they sound good to the average taxpayer, who will reward his “sensibilities” with their vote. What he doesn’t tell you is that such tax credits are merely government spending run through the tax code. More spending and deficit is only going to continue to hurt our anemic recovery. Unfortunately, such a fraudulent plan only puts his own ambitions ahead of the best interests of his country.