RSS

Tag Archives: barack obama

Did Romney flip-flop or just cave on taxes?

According to the Associated Press (AP), President Barack Obama’s accusing Republican Tea Party (GOTP) presidential wanna-be Willard Mitt Romney of caving under pressure from Rush Limbaugh (the titular head of the GOTP) for saying requiring all Americans to buy health insurance amounts to a tax.

The President told an interviewer with NBC affiliate WLWT in Cincinnati that while Willard supported the individual mandate as Massachusetts governor he’s “suddenly reversed himself,” and that raises questions over whether Romney’s abandoning a principal after “getting pressure for two days from Rush Limbaugh” or other critics.

Willard said Wednesday the Supreme Court ruled the requirement to buy health insurance was a tax, amounting to another flip-flop in a very long and continuously growing list of flip-flops. How so? Well, a top Romney adviser said previously Romney viewed the mandate as a penalty, a fee or a fine – not a tax, but now Willard’s claiming it’s a tax.

So, did Romney flip-flop again, or is there just a continuing disconnect in his campaign over what the candidate stands for? Could it be those closest to the GOTP nominee don’t even know where he stands on anything?

It’s been said “principles matter” as president, but what if you have none, never show them, or change them whenever it suits you?

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on July 6, 2012 in 2012 Election

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Romney says he’d do the opposite of everything President Obama’s done for Israel?

The Associated Press is reporting Republican Tea Party (GOTP) presidential hopeful Willard Mitt Romney’s declared he would do “the opposite” of what President Barack Obama has done on Israel.

“I think, by and large, you can just look at the things the president has done and do the opposite,” Willard mewed when asked about Israel.

Well, OK Willard let’s look at what the President’s done for Israel and apply your now official stance of doing the opposite.

Late in 2009, President Obama transferred 55 bunker-buster 5,000 pound bombs to Israel putting it in the perfect position to take out Iran’s buried nuclear facilities; or perhaps to target Hezbollah’s buried bunkers in Lebanon at its earliest convenience (https://thelibertytree.wordpress.com/2011/09/26/obama-gave-israel-bunker-busters/ ).

Since Willard’s living in “Oppositeland” he’d have done what President Bush did and refuse to give Israel the arms it needs to defend itself.

In September the President led the charge in the United Nations (UN) to deny the creation of a Palestinian state; in Romney’s alternate reality he would’ve then backed the creation of a Palestinian state.

Under President Clinton aid to Israel was $4,132,000,000 but under the Bush administration aid to Israel steadily declined to $2,424,000,000; under President Obama aid to Israel is on the rise once again $2,550,000,000 in 2009 and $2,770,000,000 in 2010 with continued increase expected through FY 12 – https://thelibertytree.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/president-obama%E2%80%99s-record-israel/ – Romney would no doubt cut spending to Israel since President Obama increased it, because he’d “look at the things the president has done and do the opposite”.

Once again Willard proves he’s either looking for his village or he’s an abject liar, or he’s an abject liar looking for his village; to make statements like he did today in opposition to the President’s very strong and supportive stance of Israel is beyond reason.

 
2 Comments

Posted by on June 16, 2012 in 2012 Election

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Romney says Secret Service agents should be fired, but Nugent’s comments are OK?

According to the Associated Press (AP) Republican Tea Party (GOTP) presumptive presidential nominee Willard Mitt Romney says he’d “clean house” to remove Secret Service agents involved with Colombian prostitutes ahead of President Barack Obama’s visit.

Willard told uber-conservative radio talking head Laura Ingraham that people should be fired who put “their personal play time” ahead of the nation’s interests. He suggested a lack of leadership led to scandal, which involved at least 20 women, but said he has confidence in Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan.

“I’d clean house,” Willard reportedly told Ingraham when asked how he would address the situation. “The right thing to do is to remove people who have violated the public trust and have put their play time and their personal interests ahead of the interests of the nation.”

In an earlier radio interview, Willard claims he shares the President’s confidence in the Secret Service chief.

“We are a nation, after all, under law and the president has confidence in the head of the Secret Service, as do I,” Willard said. “I believe that the right corrective action will be taken there and obviously everyone is very, very disappointed in these stories, very uncharacteristic of the service.”

Sullivan, facing questions on Capitol Hill about whether the escapades could have jeopardized the president’s security, said he had referred the matter to an independent government investigator.

He said the 11 Secret Service agents and 10 military personnel under investigation were telling different stories about who the women were. Sullivan has dispatched more investigators to Colombia to interview the women, said GOTP Congressman Peter King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.

Obviously – if the allegations are true – it was stupid of the agents and military personnel involved, but it’s equally ridiculous for Romney to be weighing in that he’d fire the people involved when he’s failed to denounce his reported “campaign surrogate” Ted Nugent after he threatened the life of the President over the weekend, announcing to the NRA convention in St. Louis that he (Nugent) would “either be dead or in jail this time next year” if President Obama was re-elected. Time for Willard to show some “core values” and tell everyone what Ted Nugent said was wrong, and he’s cutting all ties with him; otherwise, when he talks about it being “a reflection of leadership” he looks pretty obtuse.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on April 18, 2012 in 2012 Election

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

President defends Ann Romney?

According to the Associated Press (AP), President Barack Obama’s sticking up for Ann Romney, the wife of Republican Tea Party (GOTP) rival Willard Mitt Romney and the apparent  target of a Democratic operative who’s suggesting she’s unqualified to speak about the economy’s tolls because she’s “never worked a day in her life.”

“It was the wrong thing to say,” Obama told WCMH-TV in Columbus, Ohio. Criticism of candidates’ spouses should be out of bounds, he added.

Polls show women lean heavily Democratic and favor Obama by a wide margin in battleground states, and unfortunately for Willard, he must win at least 40 percent of the women’s vote to have a shot at beating the President.

Willard’s keeping his mouth shut on the issue – so far – allowing Ann to comment, saying raising five sons is hard work and that while she never has worried about finances, she has faced the ordeals of cancer and multiple sclerosis.

Everyone should be able to agree on a couple of things here; first, the candidate’s wives “should” be out of bounds, however, the First Lady’s been repeatedly attacked by the talking heads on the right from the beginning of the last campaign in 2008; second, mothers work a lot harder than fathers and raising children is a full-time job; that being said however, raising children when you have hundreds of millions of dollars squirreled away in off shore accounts is considerably easier than raising kids when you’re worried about where the rent money’s coming from or if the only food your children get during the day will be from their school.

Mrs. Romney has faced tremendous challenges in her life, and she’s no doubt infinitely qualified to address those challenges as a woman; however, she’s not remotely qualified to address many other issues facing women today, or to be the person Willard turns to when he wants a woman’s opinion.

For instance:

Can she address everyday women’s healthcare issues? Nope, sorry, $200 million in off-shore accounts pretty well assure she’s never waited in clinics all day to be seen by an over-worked staff; nor have her children. On top of this, her hubby says he’s going to end Planned Parenthood and all its health programs for women. What’s Ann’s opinion on that decision affecting millions of women?

Can she address women’s employment issues? Nope, sorry, again there’s that $200 million staring her in the face; on top of that “little” issue, she’s been a stay at home mom who’s never been employed; she hasn’t had to go out and supplement the family income, she hasn’t had to leave her boys in day care or with relatives while she went to work being paid less than her male counter-parts.

Can she address women’s pay issues? Nope, sorry again, she’s never been paid less than her male-counterparts because she’s never worked.

Can she address women’s economic issues? Nope, sorry, when you have $200 million sitting in the Caymans you really don’t worry about the price of a gallon of milk, a loaf of bread, a new back pack or pair of tennis shoes.

Wait, what about the price of a gallon of gas, after all doesn’t she have two Cadillacs?

Clearly there’s a plethora of women’s issues where Ann would be just as clueless as her husband, and that’s the point being made the other day, albeit badly.

The Romney’s can’t have it both ways, they can’t live in the world of Thurston and Lovey Howell III, while trying to pretend to be Ozzie and Harriett, and then get offended when someone calls them on it. They don’t know the struggles of “the little people” because they’re not now, nor ever have been in that classification, so please spare the electorate from the pretended outrage.

 
2 Comments

Posted by on April 13, 2012 in 2012 Election

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

President has secret strategy to dismantle 2nd Amendment?

The Huffington Post is reporting that the election of President Barack Obama in 2008 has “apparently led to a dramatic increase in the sale of guns and applications for concealed handgun permits. As a result, Obama has been labeled the ‘greatest gun salesman in America,’ by online gun and ammunition retailer Ammo.net.”

But don’t let the title confuse you, it isn’t a compliment, according to the story Ammo.net has said, “President Obama’s perceived hostility towards gun owners has been one of the key factors behind the multi-year financial boom the firearms industry continues to enjoy.”

Due to its good old boy backing – meaning white male conservative Christian rednecks – the National Rifle Association is preparing to (surprise, surprise) oppose the President’s re-election this year.

According to Ammo.net, since the beginning of the President’s term, taxes on the sale of new firearms and ammunition has gone up 48 percent, not due to new federal firearms taxes by-the-way, but to new hoarding of weapons and ammo in fear of a government crack-down, which just goes to show how little most right-wing gun owning nut-jobs understand either our nation’s history or its Constitution. No President can do away with any of the rights guaranteed under the Constitution, it takes an amendment to the Constitution to achieve that you numb nuts.

NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre is leading the current charge of fear mongering claiming the President is after our guns.

“Lip service to gun owners is just part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intentions to destroy the Second Amendment during his second term,” LaPierre told the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, DC this month.

“We see the president’s strategy crystal clear: Get re-elected and, with no more elections to worry about, get busy dismantling and destroying our firearms’ freedom, erase the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights and excise it from the U.S. Constitution.”

LaPierre no doubt has a bunker filled with survival equipment and racks of firearms, ready to defend his 2nd Amendment rights, and he’s also no doubt divined this “conspiracy” theory through his tin foil hat.

The President’s made no, repeat NO, moves against either the 2nd Amendment or the Bill of Rights and contrary to LaPierre’s bizarre theories he’s actually expanded gun rights beyond anything any conservative President’s ever done, including Saint Reagan, signing a measure into law allowing Americans to carry guns inside national parks. And according to Huffington,  he’s been criticized by his own party, in the wake of the Gabrielle Giffords shooting, for not enforcing stricter measures on high-capacity ammunition clips, such as the one used by her shooter.

According to the Post, last year, the President went so far as to write an op-ed for the Arizona Daily Star in which he stated that most gun owners are responsible people.

“I believe that if common sense prevails, we can get beyond wedge issues and stale political debates to find a sensible, intelligent way to make the United States of America a safer, stronger place,” he wrote.

Gun owners need to calm down; do you really think if the President wanted your guns the police and military would just gleefully go along with it? Both have sworn oaths to protect and defend the Constitution, not oaths to this or any other President. Time to grow up and stop fear mongering; I have no doubt LaPierre’s opinions have less to do with the 2nd Amendment however and more to do with his pocket book; fear mongering is good for gun sales, and for kick backs to CEO’s of organizations promoting them.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 22, 2012 in 2012 Election

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Secret Service Probe Photo of Shot-Up Obama Shirt

According to NBC News, the Secret Service has launched an investigation into – of all places Peoria, Arizona to be precise, Police SGT Pat Shearer, a highly decorated officer, uploaded a picture on his Facebook page showing seven young men holding up a shirt with President Barack Obama’s face on it riddled with bullet holes.

The photo was uploaded to Facebook on 20 Jan 12 complete with the caption, “Another trip to the ranch,” and  was quickly removed, after the Secret Service showed up and started asking about it.

“We’re aware of it, and we’re conducting the appropriate follow-up steps,” Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan told The New York Times.

The Peoria Police Department has also mounted its own internal probe into the photo.

“We have a social media policy that addresses employee conduct with respect of the use of social media,” Jay Davies, a spokesman for the department, told Arizona CBS affiliate KPHO.

He reportedly said Shearer would remain on duty while the investigation is carried out to determine whether his actions violate the department’s social media policy.

Shearer – not surprisingly – is saying the imagery of the picture is being taken out of context.

“I don’t think that the shooting of that t-shirt is that big of a deal. … I think it was more of a political statement,” Shearer told Arizona’s ABC15. “Obviously, it’s not like they were going to go out and shoot the president, no.”

Exactly what kind of “political statement” does SGT Shearer think he’s making? He has a group of what appears to be white teens, holding automatic weapons and pistols, with a t-shirt bearing the first Black President’s image shot full of bullets holes; just some good old white boys out shooting? The only possible “political statement” to be construed here is that you want the President assassinated; because, I’m sorry, but this isn’t something anyone – especially a police officer – jokes about.

On top of that, considering this is Arizona – the same state where they just lost one of their members of Congress (Gabbi Giffords) due to injuries sustained in an assassination attempt which left six dad and more than a dozen wounded – this is a very BIG deal. There’s a huge question here about Shearer’s judgment, and that should be a concern for the community he serves; but wait, what am I thinking? This is the home state of Sherriff Joe, and the OK Corral.

The Secret Service should investigate, and Shearer should resign or be fired. This is a big deal; it isn’t harmless fun. I think it’s safe to guess which political party Shearer and his teen minions are members of, Tea anyone?

 
5 Comments

Posted by on January 27, 2012 in Lunatics

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

And then there were four

The Associated Press (AP) is reporting Republican Tea Party (GOTP) presidential wackadoodle Reverend Rick Perry has dropped out of the race for the GOTP nomination and endorsed Newton Leroy Gingrich; a move that could tilt the nominating circus in the former Speakers favor leading into Saturday’s South Carolina Primary.

“Newt’s not perfect, but who among us is?” Reverend Perry said, calling the former House speaker a “conservative visionary” best suited to replace Barack Obama in the White House.

Perry had barely hung up the phone before the Newtster issued a statement welcoming the endorsement. “I ask the supporters of Governor Perry to look at my record of balancing the budget, cutting spending, reforming welfare, and enacting pro-growth policies to create millions of new jobs and humbly ask for their vote,” Gingrich said.

Perry said he decided to suspend his campaign after concluding “there is no viable path forward for me.”

Of course there never was even a ghost of a chance of him wining the GOTP nomination much less the Presidency, and the proof was in his political pudding when during one of the early debates he couldn’t recall one of three federal agencies he’d pledged to abolish. He joked about it afterward, telling reporters, “I stepped in it,” but never recovered from the fumble, and he also irked elderly voters after calling Social Security a fraud and a “Ponzi scheme.” He said the popular federal retirement program for seniors was financially unsustainable and pledged to retool it if elected president.

Perry made it entertaining if nothing else, but he wasn’t presidential, and so, now there are only four still competing on the GOTP’s version of Mr. Todd’s wild ride and speculation’s growing Santorum may also soon drop out of the race, but will Paul and Gingrich also drop out, or will this be a down to the wire photo finish?

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 19, 2012 in 2012 Election

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Mittens’ tax plan, steal from the poor and give to the rich

According to the Associated Press (AP) Republican Tea Party (GOTP) presidential hopeful Mittens Romney’s so-called “tax plan” would increase taxes on low-income families while (wait for it) cutting taxes for the middle-class and the rich.

It appears Mittens plan would increase taxes on households making less than $20,000 by more than 60 percent, while households making between $50,000 and $75,000 would get small tax cuts, averaging 2.2 percent, or about $250, and anyone making more than $1 million would get tax cuts averaging 15 percent, or about $146,000.

So, just to recap, those making $1 million or more get a 15% tax cut, those making $50 to $70K would get a 2.2% tax cut and everyone else will get screwed with a 60% tax increase?!

On top of sticking it to the poor, Romney’s plan would reduce tax revenues by $180 billion in 2015, adding to the federal budget deficit. Of course Mittens campaign disputes those numbers claiming tax breaks to the wealthy will create jobs and spur the economy, blaah, blaah, blaah …

Romney’s plan would cut the top corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%, eliminate investment taxes for the middle class and make permanent a massive package of tax cuts first enacted under President George W. Bush. He said he’d also repeal tax increases on the wealthy enacted as part of President Barack Obama’s health care package.

But wait, that’s not all, Mitten’s plan would allow tax cuts enacted under President Obama as part of the massive economic stimulus package passed in 2009 to expire; and here’s the kicker, those tax cuts targeted low-income families with children, including many people who don’t make enough money to pay any federal income taxes. They included an expanded tax credit for college students, a more generous Earned Income Tax Credit for families with three or more children, and a more generous child tax credit for low-income families.

Romney isn’t interested in helping anyone who isn’t wealthy, he isn’t interested in spurring the economy, he’s interested in using the office of the President of the United States to help improve only one part of the nation’s population, the top 1% – his own. There’s only one group that benefits from his “tax plan”, and that’s the wealthy, I guess it’s immaterial the President is supposed to represent all the people, but to Mittens it’s only the wealthiest of We the People. Of course there’ll be great groups of naïve conservatives, with their FOX addled minds who will rush to vote for Romney because they want to protect their interests for when they too become millionaires. WAKE UP! You’ve a better chance of being abducted by space aliens than of ever belonging to the top 1%.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 5, 2012 in 2012 Election

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,