Obama – Zombies Uncensored

Political Job Offers: Abuse of Public Trust and Tax Dollars

Time Magazine’s Mark Halperin — White House Statement On Romanoff Doesn’t Answer All The Questions

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFQmdje5INg

Many have dismissed the Joe Sestak and Andrew Romanoff job offer controversy as political gamesmanship by Republicans. Throwing mud at political appointees that each side uses to further their own goals is political gamesmanship, just as offering jobs to control who is on the ballot is political gamesmanship. There is already plenty of political gamesmanship in politics.

It’s fair game for Republicans to throw the hypocrisy mud at Obama, because Obama said his administration would be the most “open and transparent” government in history. It’s no different than pointing out the hypocrisy of congressional representative Souder having an affair while advocating abstinence.

Pointing out political hypocrisy generally doesn’t change public opinion. Supporters would say, “The higher you set you moral standards, the harder they are to live up to,” while opponents will declare, “I knew they were full of it the entire time.” Hypocrisy is viewed through the hypocritical lens of one’s political persuasion.

Unfortunately, the political gamesmanship by both sides will overshadow the issue: political appointments as a reward is a violation of the public trust. Offering jobs may be legal and therefore politicians can claim they are not improper, but that does not mean the practice is not harmful.

Elections are supposed to be about voters choosing who they would like to represent them; persuading someone to drop out of a race interferes with the public’s right to pick their representatives and is part of the reason why incumbents are so likely to be reelected.

It would clearly be illegal to offer money to a candidate to drop out of a race, whereas offering them positions paid for by tax payers dollars is not illegal. In essence, these political bribes are paid for by you and me and it’s all perfectly legal.

Then there is the damage done by these political appointments when the people appointed are not the best qualified for the job. When the “best person for the job” is determined by who best maintains political power, you wind up with an inept, ineffectual and corrupt government.

To Bill Maher: The President is the most heavily armed person on Earth.

Bill Maher Jokes About Obama Not Being a ‘Real Black President’ With A Gun In His Pants

The US Presidency is a dangerous occupation; four out of forty-four Presidents have been assassinated and fourteen have had assassination attempts and plots. It would make sense for the President to carry a gun for self protection.

If the President did carry a gun, there would be an outcry that it makes the US look uncivilized. The objection would be that a President carrying a gun sends the message the US prefers violence to negotiation.

When you are packing thousands of nuclear weapons, commander of the US military, and have the CIA, FBI, and IRS under your command, you are already the most heavily armed person on Earth and do not need to show a gun.

President Obama is not any different from previous US Presidents that threaten to use their arsenal of weapons to settle disputes, sometimes following through on that threat. When you have the power to destroy entire countries or a person’s livelihood, its unnecessary to wield a gun to make the point you don’t won’t to mess with the President.

To libertarians the only justification for violence is in response to violence. The irony is a real libertarian President probably would carry a gun–and be the least likely to use or threaten to use the violent forces of the government towards US citizens and other countries.

To Bill Maher: The President is the most heavily armed person on Earth.

Bill Maher Jokes About Obama Not Being a ‘Real Black President’ With A Gun In His Pants

Ron Paul Brings Change, Hope, Accountability, Transparency

White House Wonder Twins Blocking Fed Audit

The “Wonder Twins” referred to in this video are Treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, and White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel. The video has an interesting point about what might happen if the Audit the Fed bill passes.

This clip points out there is bipartisan support for the bill in the house and the senate, and yet the White House is opposed.

The White House is trying to prevent change and hope and accountability and transparency. If they lose, and we accidentally get change–sorry Obama–through the senate and the house. Well, then Obama is going to have a very interesting decision to make.

Is he going to veto financial reform to protect the Fed and Wall Street? Well if he does that, then it’s game over. There is no way that anybody in the country can pretend that Obama is for actual change.

The video fails to mention the person who has been working on this issue for thirty years. The person behind this bipartisan bill to bring change, hope, accountability and transparency is Ron Paul.

Ron Paul Brings Change, Hope, Accountability, Transparency

White House Wonder Twins Blocking Fed Audit

This clip points out there is bipartisan support for the bill in the house and the senate, and yet the White House is opposed.

The White House is trying to prevent change and hope and accountability and transparency. If they lose, and we accidentally get change–sorry Obama–through the senate and the house. Well, then Obama is going to have a very interesting decision to make.

Is he going to veto financial reform to protect the Fed and Wall Street? Well if he does that, then it’s game over. There is no way that anybody in the country can pretend that Obama is for actual change.

The video fails to mention the person who has been working on this issue for thirty years. The person behind this bipartisan bill to bring change, hope, accountability and transparency is Ron Paul.

At Some Point You’ve Made Enough: Fill in the Blank

Obama: “You’ve Made Enough Money”

President Obama says, “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.” This is one of those perfect setups that would be difficult to pass up without commenting. Here some responses found on the internet to the Presidents remark:

I think at some point the Government has printed enough money.
I do think at a certain point you’ve served enough days as President.
I do think at a certain point you’ve told enough lies.
I do think at some point you’ve got enough power.
I do think at a certain point that your welcome has expired.
I do think at a certain point the government has spent enough money.

The list of snappy retorts is far from complete, so here are some more I haven’t seen yet. At some point you’ve…

Broken enough campaign promises.
Divided the country enough.
Ignored the Constitution enough.
Spent enough on bailouts.
Borrowed enough money.
Created enough federal agencies.
Bullied enough countries.
Created enough regulations.
Preached enough on how we should live our lives.
Sold enough future generations into slavery.
Run our lives enough.
Created enough entitlements.
Distributed enough wealth.
Vilified making money enough–time to let it go.

Birthers: Political Motivations vs. Legal Questions

Roland Martin on AC360: Birther Backers are Stupid

COOPER: Roland, let me just play devil’s advocate — advocate here. What’s wrong with the state of Arizona saying, you know what? A presidential candidate should produce a birth certificate, and — and we have the right to demand that?

ROLAND MARTIN: Because they’re stupid. They’re stupid. OK?

Anderson Cooper started out playing the devil’s advocate, but did not pursue it very far, and I can see why. This is one of those polarizing issues that tends to be loaded with emotional responses, a “you are either with us, or against us” controversy.

Pointing out facts supporting either side’s arguments is asking simply asking for an unsavory label. Since I’ve yet to hear or read devil’s advocate points aimed at both sides in this debate, I’ll give it a shot.

COOPER: No person — no person, except a naturalized born citizen shall be eligible to the office of president. That’s from Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution. Now, flash forward — forward to today, only 58 percent of Americans — 58 percent of Americans in a recent poll said they believe President Obama was born in America.

It does not matter what anyone believes or disbelieves as to where Obama was born. The birth certificate that has been shown would be considered proof of citizenship in any court in the land. The legal fact is, Obama is a natural born citizen of the US.

COOPER: John, do you agree this is all about politics?

JOHN AVLON: Yes. It has become all about politics.

Issues surrounding ballot access are always about politics. It was politics when McCain’s birthplace was questioned, and it was politics when Obama had other Democrats kicked off the ballot. Neither party can claim the moral high ground when it comes to ballot access politics.

ROLAND MARTIN: Then he kept talking about, to demonstrate that he’s qualified. Well, what does that mean? As you so put it, did any of the 43 previous white guys have to demonstrate that they were qualified to be president? These are the games they’re playing. And, so, this simply feeds into this continuing notion that he’s not legitimate.

Chester A. Arthur -21st president of the United States- had to defend himself from the same type of accusations of being born in a foreign country. Barry Goldwater faced the issue when he ran for President, he was born in the Arizona territory three years before it became a state.

COOPER: It’s one thing for — for people to understandably be confused about it or have — formed some opinion. But it’s another thing for legislators to actually act on it and — and use taxpayer time and money to — to focus on this kind of stuff.

MARTIN: Right. And that’s why — I know, John, I know we want to be nice about it, but I’m sorry. If we keep putting out fact after fact after fact, and people don’t believe the facts, they’re stupid, John. That’s what we call them in the real world. Maybe it’s not nice or P.C. to call them that on television, but this is ridiculous.

AVLON: It is.

MARTIN: Think about it. This is a state — a house of representatives in a state saying, forget another state. Forget a Republican governor. Forget the — the head of the health department. Forget all of them. They’re all wrong. We want to see it ourselves. This is crazy.

It might save time and money to have this law on the books. With a dozen or so lawsuits, the courts have already spent plenty of taxpayer time and money on this issue. The polling mentioned only 58 percent of Americans believe President Obama was born in America, so the trend of court cases is likely to continue.

The motivations are political, but that doesn’t invalidate legal questions over checking eligibility prior to being put on the ballot. One of the birth lawsuits had some merit in that it did not challenge Obama specifically, and instead challenged all the candidates because none had their eligibility to hold the office checked.

One of the candidates on the same ballot with McCain and Obama, was Socialist Workers Party candidate Roger Calero. Roger Calero has never hidden that he was born in Nicaragua.

The Arizona law won’t be a problem for President Obama, because the same birth certificate that was shown before will be shown again. What the law will prevent is someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger

or Paris Hilton getting on the ballot in 2012.

If HealthCare Reform is Like Buying Meat: Hands off My Hotdog

I’m glad the President made a meat industry analogy, because its a good opportunity to point out the flaws in the President’s proposal.

President Obama at the Health Care Summit:

We could set up a system where food was cheaper than it is right now if we just eliminated meat inspectors, and we eliminated any regulations on how food is distributed and how its stored. I’ll bet in terms of drug prices we would definitely reduce prescription drug prices if we didn’t have a drug administration that makes sure that we test the drugs so that they don’t kill us, but we don’t do that. We make some decisions to protect consumers in every aspect of our lives.

If the role of government in health insurance is analogous to the meat industry then according to the Presidents proposal –

We would all be required to purchase meat even if we didn’t want it.
We wouldn’t be able to choose between buying hotdogs or steaks; we have to buy steaks.
We could buy some steaks from some vendors in other states, but wouldn’t be able to buy hotdogs from anyone, anywhere.
Those too poor to afford meat would have free steaks, but not hotdogs.
The meat industry would be labeled greedy for profiting from people’s inevitable hunger.
Supermarkets would only be allowed to sell steaks.
We would all be protected from affordable meats like hotdogs, turkey, and chicken.

Its would be wrong to tell vegetarians to buy meat, and it’s equally wrong to tell Christian Scientists to buy health insurance. It would be an intrusion of government to decide which meats we can afford, just as its an overreach into our personal lives for DC to to tell us how much insurance to buy.

Forcing people to buy meat would only protect some meat companies, just as forcing people to buy health insurance only protects some insurance companies. The wide variety and affordable prices of meats at supermarkets didn’t come about through a DC-based algorithm of price controls and income-based prices. It came about by supply and demand and a free market.

To President Obama: stay away from my health insurance, and hands off my hotdog, too.

If Celebrities Became Presidents

A common tactic in politics is to take some views and expand them to an extreme to make others afraid of them.

One of the most common ones is President Obama will reshape the country into a communist country like Soviet Russia. Even if the President were a devout communist, the slippery slope in American politics isn’t very slippery. The last year has shown even the most powerful person on Earth isn’t powerful enough to reshape America.

This isn’t just a left or right tactic. When Mike Huckabee was running for President, the attacker said the country would become a theocracy like Iran. For Ron Paul, the attack was the country would turn into anarchy like Somalia.

Just because one person isn’t powerful enough to reshape the country doesn’t mean we can’t have fun with the idea. Here are some new forms of government if celebrities were to become President.

Abe Vigoda: Immortal-ocracy
Barbara Walters: Bahwah-ahquacy
Carrot Top: Ginger-ocracy
Charlie Sheen: Rehab-ocracy
Chris Hansen: Itsatrap-ocracy
Joel McHale: Snark-ocracy
Kelly Osbourne: Ozzy-ocracy
Kevin Smith: Twoseat-ocracy
Kim Kardashian: Booty-ocracy
Moot: Anon-ocracy
Nadya Suleman : Octo-ocracy
Snooki: Friggin’ocracy
Snoop Dogg: Hip-ocracy
Tiger Woods: Player-ocracy

ObamaCare – You’ll be in control, except when you aren’t.

Out of morbid curiosity, I looked at the Presidents new health care proposal. I wanted to know if the word “mandate” was used in the proposal. Mandate is in there, but it’s not used in the portion describing what the cost is to each person. If you choose to remain uninsured you have to make a payment. In other words, buying health insurance isn’t mandatory, but paying for it is mandatory.

There are other carefully chosen words and phrases in this proposal, like the very first line:

The President’s Proposal puts American families and small business owners in control of their own health care.

Taking away control of choosing to purchase health insurance now puts you in control of health insurance. Just as forcing everyone to purchase a fitness club membership (or make a payment if they choose to remain unfit) puts them in control of their fitness. You will now be in control, except when you aren’t.

Health care costs are described as inevitable as in “make a payment to offset the cost of care they will inevitably need.” Using life insurance is inevitable; using health care insurance is not inevitable. Even using catastrophic health insurance is not inevitable. Not everyone will have an accident and not everyone spends the last year of their life under medical care.

The part titled Improve Individual Responsibility has two paragraphs covering the cost to each person; the cost is not described as a tax, fine, or a penalty. The choice of words to describe the cost is payment, alternative payment and assessment. It’s not a tax, fine, or a penalty; it’s simply a transfer of money from you to your government, and anyone who says otherwise is just itching for a fight.

The proposal mentions curbing insurance company abuses. Its pretty low when insurance contracts have ambiguous, difficult to decipher, or hidden intentions. I’m assuming thats what the President means abuses along the lines of technical language the layperson doesn’t understand or adding hidden meanings, terms, conditions, or unexpressed intentions. Only a lowlife like an insurance company would stoop to those shady tactics.

Below are the two paragraphs covering the transfer of wealth.

Improve Individual Responsibility. All Americans should have affordable health insurance coverage. This helps everyone, both insured and uninsured, by reducing cost shifting, where people with insurance end up covering the inevitable health care costs of the uninsured, and making possible robust health insurance reforms that will curb insurance company abuses and increase the security and stability of health insurance for all Americans. The House and Senate bills require individuals who have affordable options but who choose to remain uninsured to make a payment to offset the cost of care they will inevitably need. The House bill’s payment is a percentage of income. The Senate sets the payment as a flat dollar amount or percentage of income, whichever is higher (although not higher than the lowest premium in the area). Both the House and Senate bill provide a low-income exemption, for those individuals with incomes below the tax filing threshold (House) or below the poverty threshold (Senate).The Senate also includes a “hardship” exemption for people who cannot afford insurance, included in the President’s Proposal. It protects those who would face premiums of more than 8 percent of their income from having to pay any assessment and they can purchase a low-cost catastrophic plan in the exchange if they choose.

The President’s Proposal adopts the Senate approach but lowers the flat dollar assessments, and raises the percent of income assessment that individuals pay if they choose not to become insured. Specifically, it lowers the flat dollar amounts from $495 to $325 in 2015 and $750 to $695 in 2016. Subsequent years are indexed to $695 rather than $750, so the flat dollar amounts in later years are lower than the Senate bill as well. The President’s Proposal raises the percent of income that is an alternative payment amount from 0.5 to 1.0% in 2014, 1.0 to 2.0% in 2015, and 2.0 to 2.5% for 2016 and subsequent years – the same percent of income as in the House bill, which makes the assessment more progressive. For ease of administration, the President’s Proposal changes the payment exemption from the Senate policy (individuals with income below the poverty threshold) to individuals with income below the tax filing threshold (the House policy). In other words, a married couple with income below $18,700 will not have to pay the assessment. The President’s Proposal also adopts the Senate’s “hardship” exemption.