Obama booed at fenway park

Man Bites Dog…Likes the Taste

Derek Hunter


"The theater of the absurd that is our presidential election keeps chugging along with all the vigor our economy doesn’t. One can’t blame Democrats for attempting distraction upon distraction, given the alternative of talking about President Obama’s record.

After all, if it is indeed about the economy, stupid, the only votes there for Democrats are mindless drones who don’t care that nary an economic indicator has improved since Barack Obama took office $5 trillion in new debt ago.

Those of us with eyes open and an IQ above that of our shoe size can’t help but notice. The spin of the last 3 ½ years has left people so dizzy distraction is all that’s left.

So what do we get from the Obama White House? That government should pay for everyone’s contraception – a non-issue that Democrats flat-out lied about and whose only “accomplishment” was to give MSNBC something to put in their chyron rotation alongside “war on the poor,” “war on the elderly” and “war on the middle class. That’s about it.

We also get Ted Nugent. The Motor City Madman said of the President and his fellow Democrats, “We need to ride into that battlefield and chop their heads off in November! Any questions?”

The outrage from Democrats and their fellow travelers in the media was quick and desperate. It’s a violent threat, and it’s Mitt Romney’s fault … because Terrible Ted endorsed him. They hadn’t cranked the high-dudgeon machine that high since they tried to deny the connection between President Obama and endorser Jimmy Hoffa Jr., after Hoffa, the Teamsters president, called on a crowd at a Labor Day rally to “take these son-of-a-bitches out.”

Only it’s somewhat more difficult to deny the connection when the president was at the rally and spoke after Hoffa and thus had every opportunity to discuss his friend’s “over the top” rhetoric – but didn’t. But you know how it is. If it weren’t for double standards, Democrats and the media would have no standards at all..."
http://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2012/04/22/man_bites_doglikes_the_taste

 

Obama Is a Unifier? Hardly

Jeff Jacoby

""I SAW MANY SIGNS in this campaign," said Richard Nixon the day after he was elected president in 1968. "But the one that touched me the most was one that I saw in Deshler, Ohio, at the end of a long day of whistle-stopping…. A teenager held up a sign, 'Bring Us Together.' And that will be the great objective of this administration at the outset: to bring the American people together."

Nixon had started using the phrase "Bring Us Together" a couple weeks earlier, after one of his aides spotted the youngster with the sign. Some of the campaign staff were so enamored of the slogan, William Safire later recalled, that they wanted to make it the Inauguration Day theme. The desire to see an incoming president as a unifier, a healer of the national breach, is an old American tradition, especially in times of acrimony and political conflict.

But Nixon, needless to say, didn't heal the breach. If anything, American life grew even more fractured on his watch. And looking back at his presidency today -- at the White House "plumbers" and enemies lists, at Spiro Agnew's ire and the campaign-trail dirty tricks -- who can regard his "Bring Us Together" pledge as anything but a cynical sham?

Will something similar be said of Barack Obama?

Unlike Nixon, Obama didn't wait until two weeks before his election to run on a platform of reconciliation. From the outset, his pledge to elevate the tone of public dialogue, to defuse the anger and rancor that have made modern politics so toxic, was a central theme of his presidential campaign."

http://townhall.com/columnists/jeffjacoby/2012/04/22/obama_is_a_unifier_hardly

 

Why Are the Rich Still Enamored of Obama?

Austin Hill


"A question for the rich: if President Obama successfully breaks the backs of the working middle class, is that really good for you?

And how about this: if over half of your fellow Americans pay no income taxes and are quite happy to have you foot the bill for our wasteful bloated government, will that be good for your portfolios– or anybody else’s?

We’re less than seven months away from selecting either four more years of Barack Obama, or a new President named Mitt. At this point President Obama isn’t running on his track record, so much as he is running against his own characterizations of Congress and his Republican presidential opponent. But is that the stuff that leadership is made of?

The President portrays the Congress as though it is inept and obstructionist. Despite his own party’s control of the entire U.S. Senate, “Congress” is preventing further progress, Mr. Obama tells us, and it is threatening the hope and change that he has already created.

As for Mitt Romney– well, he’s a creature of wealth and privilege, according to President Obama, a man defined by his greed. Ivy League law school grad’s Barack and Michelle understand the struggle of the middle class, but Mitt and Ann are incapable.

But look who’s funding the President’s campaign – overwhelmingly it’s the richest among us. According to a New York Times report last year, Obama’s top donors included many Silicon Valley executives, hedge fund managers, entertainment executives, and former supporters of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Today the President’s campaign is aggressively seeking low-dollar donors, soliciting contributions as little as $3.00 and raffling “dinner with the President” opportunities. Yet his financial support among middle and lower income Americans is miniscule, while wealthy Americans who are willing to pay up to $40,000.00 for dinner and a photo continue to flock to his side. Yes, there’s been a slowdown in the big-dollar donations, as the headlines indicate, but Barack Obama is still the presidential candidate of choice for rich folks.

And why? Are wealthy Americans so easily charmed by the thrill of “hanging” with a U.S. President that they’re ambivalent to the agenda they’re funding? And what part of the Obama agenda do rich people believe is strengthening our country – or even their own personal fortunes?"

http://townhall.com/columnists/austinhill/2012/04/22/why_are_the_rich_still_enamored_of_obama

This reminds me of my employer, he's a staunch conservative self made millionaire many times over. But he paid $50K to play three hols of golf with Bill Clinton and some other former Presidents several years ago.

 

Obama's Solution to High Taxes: Even Higher Taxes

John Ransom

"The most expensive tax in the history of the world has been proposed by the Obama administration and to hear them tell the story, you’d think the rest of us should be grateful.

“We want to create a global minimum tax,” said vice president Joe Biden, “because American taxpayers shouldn’t be providing a larger subsidy for investing abroad than investing at home.”

A global minimum tax is a tax on all profits made by nominally US companies that operate overseas. They operate overseas for various reasons, but one big reason is because corporate taxes are higher in the US than overseas. And to fix high corporate taxes in the US, the Obama administration proposes even HIGHER TAXES on corporations.

Yes: Obama thinks American taxpayers should be forced to pay higher taxes for everything they buy inexpensively from overseas so Obama can subsidize only government approved activities."

 

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/eMRyckS1Eug" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/83uGRKEVgTA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

What is wrong with you?

 

Nothing. He is product of his environment. Don't blame him, blame his parents.

 

Yeah it could be just a genetically determined brain-structure problem. Maybe too much cortisol. Probably nothing that time in the proper institution could not correct.

 

It's customary to quote the poster when making such stupid remarks so readers will know for sure who you are addressing.