Greatest Hits: What is Barak Obama?

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

What is Barak Obama?In early 2010, I took a look at the philosophical underpinnings of the messiah. 

The political and religious “identity” of Barak Obama is a contentious and much debated topic these days.  Claims of, “He’s a Muslim,” and “ he’s a socialist,” abound.   The left, as well as the MSM are able to field these claims, and contradict them, at least partially.  They are able to do this because he’s neither of these things.

Religion: While Obama may have a soft spot for Islam, he sat in Jeremiah Wright’s church for over 20 years.  While Wright’s teachings are radical, they are clearly not Islamic.  Like the rest of us, the radical wing of Islam would cut his head off, unless he converted.

It is well documented that he attended an Islamic school while he lived in Indonesia.  That, in and of itself, does not mean that he is a Muslim, but unlike other Presidents, he has a depth of knowledge into Islam that unparalleled.  That might bias him, and blind him to the potential dangers that we face.  Either way, he does not appear to be Muslim, or, for that matter, Christian (or at least any Christianity with which we would be familiar).

Politics: You can call Obama a socialist.  It seems to fit his model of wealth redistribution rather nicely.  You might also call him a fascist, as his tampering in the banking, auto, and health care industries closely matches the actions of Mussolini and Hitler, for example, “Corporatism.”  You can also call him a “progressive,” as they believed that the state, run by an “intellectual” elite, can/should wield power to shape society into something more equitable and structured.  The common threads between all three are statism and elitism.  The idea that the state has primacy over all human activity seems a common thread though all of Obama’s policies.   And, of course, the idea of elitism; that a small group of “really smart people that know way better than you,” have the right and obligation to instruct everyone on how to live is central to any totalitarian view.

Some will say that the political theories and backgrounds conflict.  They do… and they don’t.  While that might come off as a contradictory statement, there is a case for stating it.  To draw the comparisons and contrasts, a brief look at history is required.

During the mid to late 19th century, new political ideologies were emerging.  Communism and socialism were taking root in Europe, and to a lesser degree, her in the US as well.  Also, the progressive movement was emerging in the US.  The leading minds of these movements were aware of each other, and followed each other’s writings and actions closely.  It is safe to assume that they influenced each other.

When it became apparent that Europe was going to explode into war (WWI), there was much excitement among the socialists/communists.  They had been predicting that if war came, the proletariat would rise, and there would be a vast, international communist revolution.  They thought that under the stress, death, and deprivation that would come with a war, that the people would grow weary with their governments and economic systems, and “throw off their oppressors.”

It didn’t happen.  With the exception of Russia, there were no successful communist revolutions.  Communists certainly did make a nuisance of themselves, but the established order in the West held.  More surprising was the fact that many socialists were patriotic and supported their nations in the war.

This is a crucial point in history for the socialist movement, as schisms were created by their differing reactions and ideas about the failure of the international revolution.   The hard-core communists decided to use the USSR as a “base” from which to spread communism throughout the world.  A smaller group of communists in Germany decided to examine what caused the failure of the international.  Working from the “Frankfort School,” they tagged Western Culture as the culprit.  Since Western Culture promoted patriotism, individualism, religious faith, capitalism, and self-reliance, they argued, communism couldn’t take root.  Their mission, therefore, was to find ways to negate Western Culture, and allow communism to take over.  We’ll get back to the Cultural Marxists in a bit.

However, it doesn’t end there.  There was yet another wing.  Some socialists, particularly Mussolini, decided that rather than reject national pride and western culture, that they would embrace it and use it to justify their socialism.  The terms, “National Socialism and totalitarianism,” were, if memory serves, coined by Mussolini.  Since the international revolution failed, he postulated that they could be done in single nations instead-hence, National Socialism.  He proved that assumption in his takeover of Italy.  Franco (of Spain) and Hitler followed suit.

The fascists, you see, were socialists.  They used socialist rhetoric and policies.  While they didn’t take over the means of production, they controlled it completely via regulation.  They did redistribute wealth.  They did tax heavily.  They did institute massive levels of government intervention; like heavy regulation of industry, gun control, socialized medicine, and so on.  They simply used the individual cultures and histories of their nations as a “wrapper” for their policies, corrupting the culture to serve their ends.  Even Hitler himself suggested that the Nazis and the Bolsheviks had more in common than what separated them.  He simply saw them as a competing ideology, NOT an antithetical one.  From the opposite perspective, Lenin was said to lament the “loss” of Mussolini, as early in his career, Mussolini was a powerful and well thought of advocate of socialism.

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

At this point, it is also important to note that there was no “pure” versions of either communism or fascism.  In each nation or movement, there were wide variations in doctrine and application.  For example, fascist Italy did not rely on antisemitism to forward it’s goals.  While Mussolini wanted to restore an “Roman Empire,” Hitler espoused the superiority of the “Aryan Race.”  All had variations, just as Leninism was different from Stalinism.

Meanwhile, the progressives continued to grow in strength in the US as well.  While they never seemed to gain a doctrinal type of theory or organization, they did press foreword with all sorts of governmental controls, such as eugenics (forced sterilization), increased government control over banking, labor, industry, and so on.  Many prominent progressives were also were great admirers of both Mussolini and Hitler (until Hitler’s anti-Semitism became too inconvenient to ignore).  In turn, the Nazis took some pages out of the progressive’s playbook in terms of media manipulation and eugenics.

So, we see that the Socialists and fascists are not antithetical, but “brothers.”  They were separated by their differing opinions on how to spread socialism.  Progressivism was a cousin, or at least a fellow traveler of Socialism and fascism.  They all knew about each other, often spoke kindly of each other, and seem to have “cross pollinated” each other’s ideas.

But what happened to the Cultural Marxists?  They were booted from Germany when Hitler came to power, and they migrated to here, eventually settling at Columbia University, where they continued their work.  They proposed a “long march through the institutions” in order to destroy western culture.  They made good on that idea, and now, education, media, law, and even theology have all been “infected” with cultural Marxism.  Here is an excerpt from an article that I quoted in a previous post on Cultural Marxism.

The Frankfurt School again departed from orthodox Marxism, which argued that all of history was determined by who owned the means of production. Instead, they said history was determined by which groups, defined as men, women, races, religions, etc., had power or “dominance” over other groups. Certain groups, especially white males, were labeled “oppressors,” while other groups were defined as “victims.” Victims were automatically good, oppressors bad, just by what group they came from, regardless of individual behavior.

Does that sound familiar?  Or what about this?

Marcuse also widened the Frankfurt School’s intellectual work. In the early 1930s, Horkheimer had left open the question of who would replace the working class as the agent of Marxist revolution. In the 1950s, Marcuse answered the question, saying it would be a coalition of students, blacks, feminist women and homosexuals – the core of the student rebellion of the 1960s, and the sacred “victims groups” of political correctness today. Marcuse further took one of political correctness’s favorite words, “tolerance,” and gave it a new meaning. He defined “liberating tolerance” as tolerance for all ideas and movements coming from the left, and intolerance for all ideas and movements coming from the right. When you hear the cultural Marxists today call for “tolerance,” they mean Marcuse’s “liberating tolerance” (just as when they call for “diversity,” they mean uniformity of belief in their ideology).

The student rebellion of the 1960s, driven largely by opposition to the draft for the Vietnam War, gave Marcuse a historic opportunity. As perhaps its most famous “guru,” he injected the Frankfurt School’s cultural Marxism into the baby boom generation. Of course, they did not understand what it really was. As was true from the Institute’s beginning, Marcuse and the few other people “in the know” did not advertise that political correctness and multi-culturalism were a form of Marxism. But the effect was devastating: a whole generation of Americans, especially the university-educated elite, absorbed cultural Marxism as their own, accepting a poisonous ideology that sought to destroy America’s traditional culture and Christian faith. That generation, which runs every elite institution in America, now wages a ceaseless war on all traditional beliefs and institutions. They have largely won that war. Most of America’s traditional culture lies in ruins.

I would say that this is a correct assessment.

Needless to say, Cultural Marxism has infected all of our institutions.  When Obama said he associated with the “radical professors,” he was being steeped in Cultural Marxism.  The idea that it is somehow “unfair” that the US is so powerful and prosperous is part of that equation.  Think about many of Obama’s policies and actions, and you will see Cultural Marxism.

So, as a “progressive,” Obama stands on an intellectual base that has as its foundation, elements of fascism and Marxism.  Then, it’s finished off with a thick coat of Cultural Marxism.  It is safe to say that he is a fascist, socialist, and a “progressive.”  While none are exclusive, all are part of the foundation of his beliefs; and therefore, his actions.

Disclaimer: As usual, I could have wrote a book on this.  Kindly consider this post an outline.  However, Jonah Goldberg covered much of it in his fantastic book Liberal Fascism.

Share

Conservatism: What It Is And Why Is It Needed So Badly In 2016?

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

ice cold conservative

edmund-burke
Edmund Burke

Conservatism is by today’s standards closely associated with Edmund Burke’s philosophy. I think it goes beyond that, in that it is more than merely a political doctrine. It is, in my estimation, a way of life, a code of conduct that associates one’s property with one’s liberty. For how can one truly be a free man when his property is not his to do with as he wishes? Russell Kirk, a man who has had a big impact on 20th century conservatism and has helped to shape it going into the new millennia was quoted as saying that conservatism is “the negation of ideology.”

russell kirk
Russell Kirk

How is that ‘negation of ideology’ translated into today’s conservative movement? The word ‘conservative’ is derived from the Latin verb, conservare, meaning to preserve or to save. So by its very nature, it would seem that to be Conservative is to hold onto the past. Then how do we arrive at what seems to be an oxy-moron such as ‘modern conservatism?’ How does one combine 21st century thinking with a traditional approach to life and politics? It’s not that difficult, really. I think Kirk was onto something important when he called it ‘the negation of ideology.’ For if one is to examine the Statist’s modus operandi, it is clear that amassing power and expanding the role of government in the life of the “masses” is his number one priority. It has been said that the far left, which is the controlling faction of the Democratic Party at this time, is part and parcel with big government. In other words, the Democratic Party needs big government for power and big government needs the Democratic Party to exist. It is a symbiotic relationship that is troubling to say the least and dangerous in the extreme.

DA-SC-90-03096
Ronald Reagan

To be honest, some Republican Presidents have increased government spending as well. Let’s look at Ronald Reagan. He did increase government, but he did it in a slightly different way. Reagan dramatically cut the role of the Federal Government in domestic programs and shifted the focus to increasing the military. Of course, this is well known today to be one of the leading reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union. So this begs the question, did Reagan increase or decrease the role of government in our lives? On the domestic front, he dramatically decreased it, so the argument can be made that he was a small-government conservative. If one takes into the account the expanded size of the Federal Government due to the military build-up during the Reagan years then the answer seems less clear unless you remember one key factor.

Our Constitution.

It specifically calls for the Federal Government to provide for the common defense; it does not call for entitlements, or other socialistic programs. So in retrospect, Reagan was definitely a true conservative.

It is very unfortunate that we do not have a true conservative in the White House at this time. Instead we have a man who was raised by Marxists, steeped in Communism and cut his political teeth in Chicago while studying the Alinsky method of community organizing.

budget-create-deficits-606Barack Obama is the most pure statist in American history to ever occupy the Oval Office. If you only look at the unprecedented spending undertaken by this administration, then you see that we are on a course of financial ruin.

  • $787 billion stimulus package which morphed into $1.6 trillion in spending
  • $400 billion “son of stimulus”
  • $700 billion Wall Street bailout package
  • $1.7 trillion Obamacare
  • trillion dollar deficits almost every year he has been in office
  • explosion in the National Debt, from $10 trillion to $18.7 trillion today, and looking to be north of $20 trillion by the time he leaves office

To assail his critics at the time, Obama promised to find $17 billion in cuts from his obscenely bloated budget. If it weren’t so scary, it would be laughable. As Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) said, “It’s as if you took a teaspoon of water out of the bathtub while you left the spigot on at full speed.”

So what we, the American public have been stuck with is the bill for a pure Statist’s Utopian DEBT HELD BY PUBLIC-OBAMA BUDGET-CHARTdream. Can we afford this? Can our children or our grand-children afford this? The answer is no and it is only one of the many reasons why we need conservatism so much right now. So let us choose carefully who we decide to put into the Oval Office in 2016. We can ill afford another term of statism on steroids; and that is exactly what has happened. President Obama has led our country down the winding road of socialism. He made a promise to “fundamentally transform the United States of America,” and that is unfortunately the one campaign promise he has attempted to keep.
But it isn’t just his spending that makes Barack Obama the most dangerous President the United States has ever had.
As the list of his insane spending boggles the mind, so too will this list of his scandals and lawless actions.

  • Implemented portions of the Dream Act, (which had been rejected by Congress) by Executive Order
  • Refused to prosecute violation of drug laws with certain mandatory minimums
  • Illegally refused to act on Yucca Mountain’s application to become a nuclear waste repository
  • Refusal to act during Benghazi terror attacks, which resulted in the deaths of four Americans in our Consolute in Lybia, and the resulting Cover-Up
  • Gave billions in Foreign Aid to the Muslim Brotherhood after their coup gave them control of Egypt
  • IRS Scandal in which Conservative groups were targeted ahead of the 2012 Presidential Elections
  • Continually re-wrote the ACA or ObamaCare Law via Executive Fiat
  • Implemented moratorium on offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico even after a Federal Judge ruled it invalid
  • Re-wrote Federal Bankruptcy Laws during GM’s and Chrysler’s bankruptcy proceedings, giving the UAW controlling interest in the auto companies
  • Government agencies are engaging in “Operation Choke Point,” where the government asks banks to “choke off” access to financial services for customers engaging in conduct the Administration does not like—such as “ammunition sales”
  • Declared the Senate in recess to illegally make appointments that required Senate approval
  • Targeted Fox News reporter James Rosen by falsely labeling him a possible “co-conspirator” in a criminal investigation of a new leak
    Fast & Furious and the resulting cover-up
  • Targeted former CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson because of her thorough coverage of the IRS scandal and the Benghazi Cover-Up
  • Granted Amnesty to millions of illegal aliens via Executive Order, after saying publicly for 6 years that he didn’t have the authority to do so

So what is Conservatism and why is it so desperately needed at this time in United States history?

Because we need to nominate a candidate that articulate Ronald Reagan’s message of “Morning in America,” showing a positive outlook that our best days are STILL ahead of us.

If we nominate another mushmouth candidate from the bushy center, who espouses the “big tent” philosophy, it will relegate the GOP to become the permanent 2nd Party.

If you stand for nothing, you’ll fall for anything and that is what is happening now. We need a platform of smaller government, lower taxes, less regulations, and more individual liberties, because a rising tide does in deed, lift all boats.

So, let’s remember as we approach the presidential primaries, we need a candidate that will unabashedly fly the flag of Conservatism. Choose carefully my friends, choose carefully.

.

.

.

Share

D’Souza Avoids Jail for Election Law Violations

Share

 photo dinesh-dsouza_zps6ff2b762.jpg

Hat/Tip to Newsmax and World Net Daily.

Dinesh D’Souza avoided jail time for what some say are technical violations of the Campaign Finance Law. In fact, many say that the Justice Department under Eric Holder routinely looks the other way when it comes to Democrat donors.

Conservative author and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza was sentenced on Tuesday to spend eight months in a community confinement center during five years of probation after pleading guilty to a campaign finance law violation.

The defendant, a frequent critic of President Barack Obama, was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Richard Berman in Manhattan. He was also given a $30,000 fine and ordered to do one day of community service a week during his probation.

The Smoking Gun website reported that for the first eight months of his probation term, D’Souza will do his community service in a “community confinement center” in San Diego. He will also have to perform one day per week of community service during his probation term. Typically, community service can include tasks like working with the homeless or teaching inmates, though no details were given Tuesday.

D’Souza spoke with regret about what he did that violated the Campaign Finance Law.

D’Souza, 53, admitted in May to illegally reimbursing two ‘straw donors’ who donated $10,000 each to the unsuccessful 2012 U.S. Senate campaign in New York of Wendy Long, a Republican he had known since attending Dartmouth College in the early 1980s.

“It was a crazy idea, it was a bad idea,” D’Souza told Berman before being sentenced. “I regret breaking the law.”

Gerald R. Molen, the producer of both of D’Souza’s blockbuster documentary films had plenty to say about the charges against his colleague.

In January, Geraled R. Molen, producer of D’Souza’s two films, told WND the charges were “the equivalent of prosecuting a political dissident in the Soviet Union for jaywalking.”

“Yes, jaywalking in the Soviet Union is a crime, but it’s a minor crime. The real point is that you are a political dissenter and the government wants to put you away,” said Molen, who won an Academy Award for co-producing “Schindler’s List.”

“When Dinesh D’Souza can be prosecuted for making a movie,” he said, “every American should ask themselves one question: ‘What will I do to preserve the First Amendment?’”

 Read the full story here and here.

Share

Obama Golfed During the Funeral of an American General Killed in Combat

Share

For a while now, it’s been my theory that many of the changes that Obama is making in the military is to weaken it, and to make what’s left more amenable to being used against the American people.  There are times, however, when I really question that thinking.  This is one of them; an American General was killed in Afghanistan on August 5th.  Major General Harold Greene was laid to rest in Arlington National Cemetery. It is customary for the President, or at least the Vice President, attend such an event.  However, Barak Obama could not find the time for such a ceremony, as it apparently interfered with his golf game.  Weasel Zippers has more…

Via Biz Pac Review:

Many Americans were disappointed in the lack of White House presence at this week’s funeral for the highest-ranking officer killed in combat since Vietnam.

Major General Harold Greene, the 2-star general killed in Afghanistan August 5, was laid to rest Thursday at Arlington National Cemetery, according to myfoxdc.com.

It was a beautiful service that was only missing one important attendee:

The President of the United States.

Also missing were the vice president and the secretary of defense.

Photos of the service, posted on the internet from news services all over the globe, showed a riderless horse, the general’s children touching the casket and the flag presented to his widow by Army Chief of Staff General Ray Odierno.

Keep reading…

With that, isn’t our president sending a bold and clear message to our military?

I really think that the president only wants to weaken and demoralize our military.

Share

Obama Administration puts Israel on Terror Watch List – Removes North Korea

Share
Pamela Geller
Pamela Geller

Hat/Tip to Pamela Geller.

It isn’t backwards day in Washington DC – or wait. I guess you could make the argument that every day is backwards day in DC.

Anyway, it may as well be, because this administration has put Israel on a terror watch list – and taken North Korea off of it. Yep, you read that right.

Only in the twisted world of the Obama Administration, where allies are trashed, and enemies are embraced, could the tiny nation of Israel, on the front lines of the war on terror for decades, be on a list of 36 nations which “have shown a tendency to promote, produce, or protect terrorist organizations or their members.”

As reported by CNS News

 The Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General published the list of “specially designated countries” as an appendix to an unclassified May 11 report–”Supervision of Aliens Commensurate With Risk“–that was publicly posted on the Internet. (The appendix is on page 18 of the document.)

As a matter of policy, according to the inspector general’s report, citizens of Israel and other “specially designated countries” are subjected to a special security screening called a “Third Agency Check” (TAC) when they are actually detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the division of the Department of Homeland Security responsible for enforcing the immigration laws.

ICE terror watch list of specially designated countries

The five countries on the list that do not have majority Muslim populations–Kazakhstan (47 percent Muslim), Eritrea (36.5 percent Muslim), Israel (16.9 percent Muslim), the Philippines (5 percent Muslim) and Thailand (4.6 percent)–have had internal problems with radical Muslim terrorists, as reported by the State Department.

Okay, so how exactly does this affect immigrants to the US from Israel?

The inspector general recommended in the report that ICE change its screening policy “to require officers to conduct TAC screenings for all aliens from SDCs, not just those held in ICE detention facilities.”

Now just to clarify, the DHS is NOT deporting illegal immigrants who break the law, but the Inspector General recommends the Israelis visiting the US are subject to these additional screening procedures.

Wait! It gets crazier:

Even though the adminisration includes Israel among “specially designated countries” that it believes “have shown a tendency to promote, produce, or protect terrorist organizations or their members,” ICE Spokeswoman Gillian Christensen told CNSNews.com that the U.S. also considers Israel, as well as some other countries on the “specially designated countries” list, as partners in the struggle against terrorism.

“The U.S. does not and never has considered Israel to have links to terrorism, but rather they are a partner in our efforts to combat global terrorism,” Christensen said in a written statement. “Countries may have been included on the list because of the backgrounds of arrestees, not because of the country’s government itself.”

OH Israelis will now be subject to extra screening because the country arrests terrorists.
That makes sense?

And evidently North Korea is no longer a sponsor of terrorism…

The 35 countries plus the West Bank and Gaza that were on the proposed list discussed in the ICE memo uncovered by McClatchey in March 2008 almost exactly matches the “specially designated countries” on the list published by the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General on May 11, 2011. There are only two differences: North Korea was on the list proposed in 2008; it is not on the May 2011 list. Israel was not on the list proposed in 2008; it is on the May 2011 list.

I think Pamela Geller sums this whole bit of nonsense up nicely:

See how this administration cares about Israel? Even though the list was already set, they made a change to put our ally on this special list. Boy oh boy, just like he is with Great Britain, whose Queen he gave an Ipod full of his speeches and Broadway Show tunes, Barack Obama is a real friend of Israel.

Obama always says that despite his constant criticism of Israel, America will always have a special partnership with the Jewish State. Now we understand he means putting Israel on a “special” terrorism watch list.

Read the full story here.

Share

Amber Alert Issued For Missing US Foreign Policy

Share

Your LOL for the day, courtesy of The DuffelBlog

Persons of Interest in search for missing US Foreign Policy
Persons of Interest in search for missing US Foreign Policy

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Washington-area police have issued an Amber Alert and are seeking the public’s help in locating a missing 238-year old foreign policy for the United States.

The foreign policy was described as wholly consistent with our national security interests, while also balancing the needs for human rights, labor, business and the environment. It answers to the Obama Doctrine, the Bush Doctrine, the Clinton Doctrine, the Powell Doctrine, the Weinberger Doctrine, and the Domino Theory.

When last seen it was speaking softly and carrying a big stick.

Police are looking for a suspect, described by witnesses as a well-dressed middle-aged bald man who spoke with a Russian accent. The man was seen getting into a stretch limousine in downtown Washington with the foreign policy early on Monday.

Some law enforcement officials were confused on how to proceed.

“We can’t get it back because we don’t negotiate with kidnappers and terrorists,” said FBI Director James Comey, before correcting himself. “Wait, maybe we do … or do we? Dammit!  We need it back right now!”

“We believe with high confidence that the kidnappers of the foreign policy will demand a hefty ransom,” said D.C. Chief of Police Cathy Lanier, who has taken the lead on the investigation. “This will likely include demands of overseas military bases, nuclear missile silos, and even possible Tomahawk missile launches against random countries in the Middle East.”

Lanier has dismissed suggestions by the Department of Homeland Security that the foreign policy may have kidnapped itself, although she couldn’t completely rule it out. She mentioned that the foreign policy did seem to regularly go missing in times of personal crisis, such as an unexplained eight-year disappearance from 2001 to 2009 which it later blamed on “terrorists.”

Longtime friend Australia admitted that the foreign policy had been acting erratic lately, flip-flopping and dithering on Syria, Iran, China, and Afghanistan. Australia suggested this might be due to its recent breakup with steady girlfriend Angela Merkel after it was caught stalking her over the phone.

David Eisenhower, a research analyst at the Rand Corporation, believes the foreign policy may have been kidnapped by something called the “military-industrial complex,” although his group is struggling to pinpoint exactly what that is.

Washington officials are hoping to recover the foreign policy before this weekend’s Mideast conference, in which the U.S. will either support or oppose Israel in its diplomatic negotiations with Egypt, a longtime friend or enemy of the United States.

Share

Reports: More Obamacare Cancellations, Premium Hikes On the Way

Share

Hat/Tip to Townhall.com for this bit of news.

 Outgoing Secretary of HHS, Kathleen Sebelius, President Barack Obama, and current budget director and nominee to replace Sebelius at HHS, Sylvia Mathews BurwellOutgoing Secretary of HHS, Kathleen Sebelius, President Barack Obama, and current Budget Director and nominee to replace Sebelius at HHS, Sylvia Mathews Burwell

It just keeps getting better and better…

/sarcasm off

Kaiser Health News reports on the increasing likelihood of more and more large employers dumping employees into Obamacare’s exchanges. An untold number of employees will discover that they can’t keep their plan, especially if they’re a high-risk, high-cost employee. The Obama administration estimated that as many as 93 million Americans will lose their existing coverage under the new law, despite what the president promised repeatedly.

Can corporations shift workers with high medical costs from the company health plan into online insurance exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act? Some employers are considering it, say benefits consultants. “It’s all over the marketplace,” said Todd Yates, a managing partner at Hill, Chesson & Woody, a North Carolina benefits consulting firm. “Employers are inquiring about it and brokers and consultants are advocating for it.” Patients with preexisting medical conditions like diabetes drive health spending. But those who undergo expensive procedures such as organ transplants are a burden to the company as well. Since most big corporations are self-insured, shifting even one high-cost member out of the company plan could save the employer hundreds of thousands of dollars a year—while increasing the cost of claims absorbed by the marketplace policy by a similar amount. And the health law might not prohibit it, opening a door to potential erosion of employer-based coverage.

It looks like more bad news is coming down the pike.

There’s a reason why insurers are pleading with the White House to reject regulations that would limit total expenditures in programs some have described as bailouts.

No matter what happens, the taxpayers (that’s you and me) are going to be left holding the bag.

Whether through bailout-style payments or sharply increased premiums, taxpayers will end up footing the bill for rising costs and outlays. Americans are already bracing for significant premium hikes heading into 2015, which have been forecast by insurance companies, brokers, and even the administration. Many of the new rates will be announced this fall. More consumers will also receive cancellation notices informing them that their preferred plans are being terminated. Public opinion on Obamacare hasn’t budged, with polling remaining ugly on both the national level and within the context of key 2014 races. I’ll leave you with this surreal request from the state of Massachusetts, which is scrapping its failed Obamacare exchange. Surprise — they want more taxpayer money to do so. A lot more.

A lot more. And that’s on top of the huge sum they’ve already wasted:

 

Share

Final tally of job losses from the federal sequester: One

Share

Watchdog.org is reporting that the GAO (Government Accounting Office) has finally released the numbers behind the dreaded sequester.

The much-feared federal sequestration turned out to be bad news for just one person, a federal employee in the Department of Justice who was the only one fired as a result of the cuts, according to a new GAO report.
The much-feared sequestration turned out to be bad news for just one person, a federal employee in the Department of Justice who was the only one fired as a result of the cuts, according to a new GAO report.

The Government Accountability Office has finished its analysis of the across-the-board federal budget cuts known as the sequestration and determined that exactly one — yes, one — federal employee lost a government job.

The GAO surveyed 23 federal departments affected by the budget cuts for its 200-plus page analysis released this week. The report shows that most departments had to cancel or limit monetary awards like grant programs, many reduced employee training or travel and seven agencies reported furloughing a total of 770,000 employees for at least one day and up to as many as seven days.

But only one agency actually cut their staff: the U.S. Parole Commission.

It laid off one person.

One.

ONE? REALLY?

What was it the President and his administration was saying about the sequester, again? Oh yeah, now I remember –

“You know, those Capitol janitors will not get as much overtime. I’m sure they think less pay, that they’re taking home, does hurt.”

Gene Sperling, director of the White House economic council, on ABC News’ “This Week,” March 3, 2013

“On the issue of the janitors, if you work for an hourly wage and you earn overtime, and you depend on that overtime to make ends meet, it is simply a fact that a reduction in overtime is a reduction in your pay.”

— White House spokesman Jay Carney, news briefing, March 4

At a news conference last Friday, President Obama claimed that, “starting tomorrow,” the “folks cleaning the floors at the Capitol” had “just got a pay cut” because of the automatic federal spending cuts known as the sequester.

The president very quickly earned Four Pinocchios for that statement, especially after senior officials at the Architect of the Capitol (AOC), the federal agency that employ janitors on the House side, and the office of the Sergeant at Arms (SAA), which employs janitors on the Senate side, issued statements saying the president’s comments were not true.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan says teacher layoffs have already begun… “This stuff is real,” he said last week. “Schools are already starting to give teachers notices.”

“Emergency responders like the ones who are here today – their ability to help communities respond to and recover from disasters will be degraded,” said President Obama as he appeared at the White House in front of officers in blue uniforms to warn of the consequences of the sequester.

Read more here.

So this is yet another example of President Obama’s hype not living up to reality.

U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., is now calling for a congressional investigation of the sequestration and its effects on the government workforce.

Despite relentless warnings about the dire consequences of sequestration’s budget cuts, it appears sequestration resulted in only one layoff,” Coburn said in a statement. “While that’s good news for federal employees and other workers, it is devastating to the credibility of Washington politicians and administration officials who spent months – and millions of dollars – engaging in a coordinated multi-agency cabinet-level public relations campaign to scare the American people.”

Two of the oft-cited predictions about federal layoffs as a result of the sequestration estimated between 100,000 and 1.5 million jobs would be cut, he said.

“Taxpayers expect us to root our predictions in fact, not ideology and spin,” Coburn said.

Coburn sent a letter to the Office of Management and Budget, the arm of the White House that handles budgetary issues for the executive branch, seeking answers about layoffs and other staffing cuts at federal agencies.

This President keeps reminding me of that old saying, “I can always tell when he’s lying – his lips are moving.”

Then, when sequestration went into effect in March, the White House did its best to make it look as devastating as possible. Tours of the White House were canclled, military bands stopped performing and national parks and monuments were closed — even some that did not require anyone to staff them.

Meanwhile, the feds posted more than 400 job openings during the first week the sequester was in effect. Assuming more than two of those job openings were filled, it would mean the federal government actually hired more people during the sequester period than it laid off.

In the aftermath, the nation trudged onward and Republicans took the blame for forcing the budget cuts into place.

Then the budget cuts were repealed entirely in September 2013 when Congress passed a new budget, albeit one with far less media fanfare and doom-and-gloom.

Of course we must not forget that the dreaded sequester really was that bad – at least for that one fella who got laid off…

Share

An Example Of Trey Gowdy’s Aggressiveness

Share

Holy moly! I’d hate to have Trey Gowdy investigating something I “allegedly” did. Mr. Gowdy is leaps and bounds smarter, sharper, quick “on his feet,” intelligent, and down right knowledgeable than anything or anyone Obama has on his team. I believe if Gowdy is allowed free rein on the Benghazi investigation he’ll expose Obama, Hillary and all the rest for the frauds and traitors they are.  Check out the way he grills this guy. Almost makes you feel sorry for him …

Share

Cheap Energy and our Foreign Policy

Share

There are a few Conservative icons that I look up to. One of them is Bill Whittle. His short videos are always jam-packed with great information, razor sharp political insight and just enough acerbic wit to provide you with your chuckle for the day. One of his latest videos in his Afterburner series is right on point in his analysis of the Russian/Ukraine situation, the United States energy policy, and our reluctance to go after cheap energy. Take a few minutes and check it out.

 

 

Share

Mark Levin Slams GOP as ‘French Republicans’ at NRA Convention

Share
Talk Show Icon, Mark Levin
Talk Show Icon, Mark Levin

Conservative radio icon, Mark Levin was a guest speaker at the National Rifle association’s annual convention Friday, at the Indiana Convention Center in Indianapolis, Indiana. He only spoke for a little over 10 minutes, but just like a scatter gun, he hit a lot of targets.

Now it’s obvious to many of us that we live in a post-Constitutional period. This has been the objective of the Democrat Party for a century. Meanwhile, the other party acts like a bunch of French Republicans, confounded, confused, not sure what to do.

They’re looking for a new agenda, they’re looking for a way to reach out. I have one. It’s called the Constitution of the United States.

They’re looking for a new economic policy. I have one. It’s called capitalism.

He took aim at Retired Justice John Paul Stevens’ recent book in which he proposes several changes to the Constitution, chief among them, the evisceration of the 2nd Amendment.

“That would destroy the Second Amendment,” Levin said. “Well, I have a proposed amendment out there, too, that would limit justices to 12-year terms.

What do you think of that one?”

The crowd of more than 2,000 cheered.

” … And limits members of Congress to 12-year terms. What do you think of that one? And empowers three-fifths of the state legislatures to overturn a federal statute or a Supreme Court decision.

What do you think of that one?

He went after Speaker of the House, John Boehner and the cesspool of Washington corruption all at once.

“The Internal Revenue Service has been sicced on conservative and tea party organizations, and the Democrats defend it — and the Speaker of the House will not call a special committee to investigate.

“The NSA is collecting our numbers to see who we’re calling,” he continued. “Well, we’re not calling terrorists, dammit. Don’t track our phone numbers. Track their phone numbers.

“The Department of Justice has run amok. The Environmental Protection Agency has run amok. The Interior Department has run amok,” Levin said. “The whole damn federal Leviathan has run amok.”

He ended his well-received speech with this:

I want the media in this country to know; the President and his party to know; and the French Republicans to know: We’re not going anywhere, this is our country and we’re stayin’ put, and we’re right and you’re wrong!

Watch his speech in it’s entirety.

Share

The real attack on women: Women’s income suffers under Obama

Share

It’s another attack on women!!! The GOP takes women for granted and expects them to stay at home! Heck, they even say that Republican women are… attacking women.

Yeah, I know. That’s a real head scratcher.

Former Michigan Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land is running for the U.S. Senate as a Republican and shockingly, her Democratic opponent Rep. Gary Peters is accusing her of waging a war on women (Democrats

are being really original with their attack strategy this year). Now, Land is taking on the issue directly with her first campaign ad openly mocking Peters for accusing her, a woman, of waging a war on women.

 

Hat/Tip Townhall.com

 

So let’s look at what the Obama admin is doing to protect all those women who the “evil” GOP is attacking.

The real median income of American women dropped a little more than four percent in the first three full years after the end of the last recession, according to data published by the Census Bureau.

The last recession began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. In 2007, according to the Census Bureau, American women 15 and older had a median income of $23,169 in constant 2012 dollars. That is the highest median income American women have ever achieved.

REAL MEDIAN INCOME OF WOMEN DOWN 4 PERCENT-PHOTO

By 2009, the year the recession ended, the median income of American women (in constant 2012 dollars) had dropped to $22,434—a decline of $735, or about 3.2 percent, from 2007.

As of 2012, the most recent year for Census Bureau income data, the median income of American women was $21,520 in constant 2012 dollars. That was down $914 dollars—or about 4.1 percent—from 2009.

The median income of American women has not recovered in the current recovery. It has continued to decline from its pre-recession high.

Read the full story here.

It seems that President Obama doesn’t practice what he preaches.

So in signing this bill today, I intend to send a clear message: That making our economy work means making sure it works for everyone. That there are no second class citizens in our workplaces, and

that it’s not just unfair and illegal – but bad for business – to pay someone less because of their gender, age, race, ethnicity, religion or disability. – President Obama, 2009.

“The time has passed for us to recognize that what determines success should not be our gender, but rather our talent, our drive, and the strength of our contributions,” Obama said. “Women make up nearly half of our nation’s workforce and are primary breadwinners in four in 10 American households with children under age 18. Yet from boardrooms to classrooms to factory floors, their talent and hard work are not reflected on the payroll.” – President Obama, 2014

Those are fine words, and pretty eloquently spoken. However, where the rubber meets the road, Mr. Obama and his administration has been weighed and found wanting, it would seem.

Using the 2011 annual report of White House staff salaries that was submitted to Congress, an $11,000 difference is clear between the median female employee salary and the median male employee salary.

~~~~

Of the administration’s 20 top earners, who each took home a tidy $172,200 for their work in 2011, only six of those were women.

The most oft-singled-out leading lady in the President’s testosterone-fueled inner circle is Valerie Jarrett who is one of his closest advisors.

~~~~

The gender differential has been noticed outside of the White walls, and Dee Dee Myers- the first female press secretary who worked under the Clinton administration- feels it is not doing Mr Obama’s team any favors.

‘Women are Obama’s base, and they don’t seem to have enough people who look like the base inside of their own inner circle,’ Dee Dee Myers told The New York Times.

The hefty salaries, like Ms Jarrett’s, were not the norm, however, as the median salary for women in the White House is $60,000 which is 18 per cent less than their male peers whose median salary was $71,000.

Read the full story here.

Share

NY Times Reporter Admits Main Stream Media Bias on National TV during Jeopardy Gameshow!

Share

It’s no surprise to the many loyal readers of CH2.0 that there is main stream media bias by the liberals. What is surprising is when a member of the “elite” media admits publicly that he treats politicians differently, depending on what letter follows their name.

“I’ll take ‘Explicit Media Bias” for $500, Alex.” On the April 23 “Jeopardy,” a reporter for The New York Times actually admitted that it was part of his job to “annoy” Representative Darrell Issa (R-Calif.).

The admission came as a question under the category “Man of the House” about House Representatives. In the video question, New York Times reporter Eric Lichtblau introduces himself and asks:

“This California Republican who chairs the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee has been called Obama’s Annoyer-In-Chief, & it seems I provide the same service for him.”

This “journalist” has a long history of purposely attacking Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA):

Lichtblau, a Pulitzer Prize-winner who worked for “The Los Angeles Times” previously, has been writing hit pieces on Issa since as far back as 1998, according to Politico. In 2011, a Lichtblau article accused Issa of

fraudulent business activity. Issa fired back against Lichtblau’s article, demanding a retraction for the article he accused of being riddled with inaccuracies that had tarnished his reputation.

Remember, Lichtblau works for the New York Slimes – er, Times; the same paper who viciously went after the Bush administration, even going so far as to publish stories harmful to Bush’s national security policies. However, when it comes to Obama, the NYT bends over backwards to give the man cover by withholding information about his drone programs.

 

Read the full story here.

Share

Another Bypass on the Keystone XL Pipeline, but this time it’s Congress’ turn

Share

Keystone_Pipeline

Despite the empty rhetoric of President Obama about the Keystone XL Pipeline, it looks like he is never going to green light it. Oh he may have “fast-tracked” portions that had already been approved, but in totality, he will never sign its approval.

The Rolling Stone Magazine recently reported, “…the president is likely to announce his decision on the northern leg of the Keystone XL, the hugely controversial 1,179-mile-long pipeline that would bring tar-sands

oil down from Alberta to Gulf Coast refineries. Although no final decision has been made, two high-level sources in the Obama administration told me recently that the president has all but decided to deny the permit for the pipeline…”

Rolling Stone Magazine goes on to say how this will “light up” Democratic voters and donors, but that rhetoric just doesn’t play well in the real world. The author, Jeff Goodell, is letting his religious climate change views skew his logic. In the real world, people need jobs, and the country needs hydrocarbon energy. But then Mr. Goodell believes that man is causing Global Climate Warming Change – or whatever they’re calling it these days, and it would seem that even Obama’s supporters are very close to no longer being on board.

The Obama administration’s latest Keystone XL delay is having an unintended consequence: the revival of the effort in Congress to circumvent the White House by forcing approval of the project.

While a plurality of U.S. senators are on record supporting Keystone, no bill relating to the pipeline other than a non- binding resolution has passed in the chamber. That’s because some Democrats who back it haven’t wanted to usurp President Barack Obama’s authority to make the final call.

“We’ll have to start counting noses again,” first-term Senator Heidi Heitkamp, a North Dakota Democrat, said after the State Department said last week it was again delaying a recommendation on the project.

“Now that this process has taken a turn for the worse, I think we need to have those discussions again.”

Forcing approval remains a heavy lift — backers acknowledge that they still are a few votes short of the 60 needed to advance a bill in the 100-member Senate. It would require two-thirds of the Senate — or 67 members — to override an almost certain presidential veto. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, in charge of the agenda and a pipeline foe, has declined to bring up legislation that would bypass Obama on Keystone.

Isn’t it ironic that Obama, who promised to change Washington and reach out to the “folks on the other side of the aisle,” is finally getting some bipartisanship action in Congress? Too bad for him that it is bipartisan disagreement with him.

Senator John Hoeven, a North Dakota Republican, said supporters are determined to try. His office has reached out to Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, a Democratic backer of the project and the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, to plot a strategy once members return next week from a two-week break.

“There is going to be a strong push,” to advance a bill, Hoeven said.

The Republican-controlled House of Representatives has already passed similar measures by broad majorities.

Of course, Dirty Harry can always be counted on to proved cover for President Obama.

Democrats Michael Bennet of Colorado, Tom Carper and Chris Coons of Delaware, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Bill Nelson of Florida and Mark Warner all voted in favor of Keystone when it didn’t matter and opposed taking the decision out of Obama’s hands. Supporters would probably target those Senate Democrats.

Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, said Reid probably won’t let it get that far, blocking the Senate from voting on anything at odds with the president on Keystone.

“I think he’ll block as much as possible because he doesn’t want to send anything on this to the president, even though there’s wide bipartisan support for getting this done,” Stewart said.

Reid spokesman Adam Jentleson didn’t respond to a request for comment on whether the senator would permit a vote on such a measure. Reid has said he opposes Keystone.

How far will this go? Who knows? Maybe when enough Democrats begin to fear for their jobs, well, maybe then we’ll see Obama forced to veto the pipeline for real.

Share

Who Brought Down the Deficit? (Hint: Their initials are TP)

Share

In his first year in office, President Obama gave us the insanely huge, unprecedented deficit of $1.3 TRILLION. Oh he tried to blame it on his predecessor, George W. Bush (a mantra he’s since perfected), but the stark truth is that he and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and then Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi all conspired to throw mountains of debt onto the backs of taxpaying American citizens.

A budget deficit of nearly half a trillion dollars is hardly something to cheer about, but the big decline in federal red ink as a share of our national output has been a

stunning achievement. The new April budget update from the Congressional Budget Office tells us that, in 2009, Barack Obama and the Democrats rang up an elephantine

$1.3 trillion deficit, which amounted to 9.8 percent of GDP.

However, we are seeing some light at the end of the tunnel. This year, the deficit will be two thirds less than Obama’s first year spending.

This year, the deficit is expected to fall to 2.8 percent of GDP. This seven-percentage-point, two-thirds decline in borrowing is gigantic progress in four years. It’s the most sizable cut in deficit spending since the demobilization of the military after we won World War II.

Now before the Liberals start glad-handing themselves and begin to tout Obama as some sort of fiscal hawk, let’s take a look at just WHO is responsible for this cut in spending. And even though he is no darling of the Tea Party movement or Conservatives anywhere, for that matter, John Boehner gets quite a bit of credit on this one.

So how did it happen? The overlooked story here has been the triumph of the Republican-controlled House of Representatives elected by Tea Party activists and other fiscally conservative voters who were fed up with >the reckless path set by Mr. Obama in cahoots with Senate majority leader Harry Reid and House speaker Nancy Pelosi. Their Keynesian playbook told them that the more money the government spent and borrowed — even when it subsidized failed projects like Solyndra or turned one in seven families into food-stamp recipients – the faster the economy would heal. The theory didn’t turn out so well, as evidenced by the flimsy pace of recovery over the last four and a half years.

In 2011, we saw a U-turn change in fiscal direction. New House speaker John Boehner went to the mat on the debt ceiling and insisted on big cuts in spending and hard caps for the rest of the decade. Barack Obama wanted higher taxes, and the GOP wisely refused to capitulate. It was John Boehner’s finest hour.

Despite establishment Republicans raising the sequester spending caps in 2011, this is largely an unsung victory for the GOP in the House, yet it is a huge feather in their cap and something every House Republican ought to run on.

In the end, as the debt-ceiling deadline drew closer and closer and bond traders shouted “default,” Democrats caved and agreed to tight spending caps in domestic and defense programs, and automatic “sequester” cuts if those ceilings were violated. The deficit started to tumble almost immediately, and the progress continues to this day. Yes, big spenders in the GOP forced House Republicans to foolishly agree to raise the spending caps last year by about $1 trillion over ten years, but even these elevated caps are better than the previous regime of an unlimited credit card.

The budget deal of 2011, which was all spending controls and no tax increases, will go down in history as one of the great achievements of modern times. Mr. Boehner and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky negotiated the fiscal surrender of Barack Obama — the most liberal president since FDR. Liberals now whine about just how badly they got rolled.

Many conservatives don’t appreciate how much spending has actually fallen. It hit nearly 25 percent of GDP in the first year of the Obama stimulus but is now close to 21 percent. More than half of that cut came out of defense, but the programs that liberals care about — green-energy subsidies, foreign aid, job training, and transit grants — have also been whacked.

Now going forward, we must address the entitlement programs, Obamacare being the biggest boondoggle in US history, and hold strong on these hard fought spending cuts.

Entitlements haven’t been touched, of course, and Obamacare is the biggest expansion of the entitlement state since the 1960s. But the best way to force Democrats to modernize these programs is by draining funding for everything else.

The key now, as Mr. Boehner tells me, “is to hold the line on those spending caps and don’t let Barack Obama slip out of them. It’s our best leverage right now.” Obama wants a $100-billion-plus infrastructure bank, but, sorry, Mr. President, the spending caps you agreed to make that a non-starter.

To answer the question in the title of this piece, we look to its author, Stephen Moore.

So who brought the budget deficit down? The much-maligned tea-party movement and the people they put in control of Congress back in 2010 to right the ship. The April budget update from the CBO is a reminder of how the tea partiers helped save the country in those dark early days of the Obama presidency. They deserve to take a bow.

Read the full story here.

Share

Top 10 Biggest Lies of The Year – Guess How Many Obama Told?

Share

The biggest lie of the year belongs to our faithfully fibbing president. Obama told the biggest lie of the year not once, but 36 times. And make no mistake, this was not an oversight or a case where he just didn’t know.

Obama knowingly looked you right in the face and lied, and then he lied about lying about it, but that’s another story.

The Washington Post gives Obama kudos for the biggest lie of the year and also presents the Top 10 Biggest Lies.

Guess how many of the Top 10 Lies for 2013 were Obama’s?

It turns out that three (3) were directly from Obama. Another was from his Secretary of State.

So four (4) of the year’s biggest lies were told by the Obama Administration.

Remember “Bush Lied Kids Died” Wasn’t that when Bush was using intelligence shared by heads of state from around the world and all – ALL 0 of the Democrat leadership?

Kind of pales in comparison, eh?

Here is a quick break down of the top 10 lies of 2013:

Top 10 Lies:

1) “If you like your healthcare plan you can keep it.” Obama

2) Obama’s kids are protected by armed guards at school. Well, the problem is…they are. WaPo says this is a lie, but they have to twist and turn to make it so.

3) “Capitol Hill janitors just got a pay cut.” Obama again, demagogue-in-chief.

4) Clinton denied security for Libya personnel with her signature on a cable. This had an auto-signature on it. So either it was signed by her, or she’s putting out cables with her signature that she knows nothing about. Lie, okay fine. Incompetant? You bet.

5) “The day after Benghazi happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.” Obama. What a liar.

6) “70 cents of every dollar spent on food stamps goes to bureaucrats.” This is Michelle Bachman. I’m unimpressed by her – this was a stupid mistake.

7) “I opposed the invasion of Iraq.” John Kerry. What a liar. Luuuuuuuurrrrch.

8) “Democrats took $50 billion from overcharging students on college loans and used it to pay for Obamacare” What’s interesting about this lie is that I had not heard it. I guess 4 out of 10 biggest lies from the Obama administration was as much as WaPo could bear.

9) “A state investigation said Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli should have been prosecuted.” Again – has anyone heard this? Does this really rise to one of the top 10 biggest of the year?

10) “Obama is closing the U.S. Embassy in the Vatican” These last three were reaching. I mean, sure – lies. But top 10 biggest? I doubt it.

Share

Obama Calls for Highest Sustained Taxation…Ever

Share

Last month, President Obama presented a budget to Congress. Immediately Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid asked what it was because it had been so many years since he’d seen an actual federal budget.

Okay, I’m not really sure if Harry Reid saw or even understood it, but it still calls for the highest sustained taxation in United States history. CNSNews did an excellent job of evaluating it.

In the budget proposal he presented to Congress last month, President Barack Obama called for what would be the highest level of sustained taxation ever imposed on the American people, according to the analysis published last week by the Congressional Budget Office.

Under Obama’s proposal, taxes would rise from 17.6 percent of Gross Domestic Product in 2014 to 19.2 percent in 2024. During the ten years from 2015 to 2024, federal taxation would average 18.7 percent GDP.

America has never been subjected to a ten-year stretch of taxation at that level.

HIGHEST SUSTAINED TAXES-NEW-CHART-1

I guess he just doesn’t think that his policies have driven this economy into the ground fast enough, so he wants to put the rate of decline in high gear. Let’s look back and compare, shall we?

In the twelve fiscal years preceding the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (1930 through 1941), federal taxation averaged 5.3 percent of GDP.

In the five fiscal years encompassing U.S. involvement in World War II (1942 through 1946), federal taxation averaged 16.1 percent of GDP.

In the fiscal years since World War II (1947 through 2013), federal taxation has averaged 17.1 percent of GDP.

In the period from fiscal 1992 through 2001, federal taxes averaged 18.3 percent of GDP. But in the last four years of that period (1998 through 2001), the federal budget was in balance.

In the twelve fiscal years from 2002 through 2013, federal taxes averaged 16.1 percent of GDP—the same that they averaged during World War II. However, the federal government ran deficits in each of those twelve years.

In all ten years from 2015 through 2024, under Obama’s proposal, federal taxes would be higher than 18.3 percent of GDP. During the period of 1992 through 2011, there were only five straight years (1997-2001) when federal taxes were higher than 18.3 percent of GDP.

Despite this record amount of insane taxation, the CBO projects that the public debt will increase –

Under Obama’s budget proposal, according to the CBO, the budget will never balance. But over the next ten years, the federal government would add $7.183 trillion to its debt held by the public.

DEBT HELD BY PUBLIC-OBAMA BUDGET-CHART

Share