Barack Obama said he was against super PACs and their involvement in American politics. He excoriated the Supreme Court for its decision in the matter of political donations during one of his State of the Union Addresses. In 2010 Obama said that PACs were a corporate takeover of our Democracy (we have a Republic). Here is what he had to say about it:

“The worst thing of all they don’t have to reveal who is having to pay for them.” Obama said, criticizing Republicans for “keeping the American public in the dark.”

“We cannot allow a corporate takeover of our democracy,” Obama added, vowing to fight this type of advertising. “Let’s challenge every elected official who benefits from these ads to defend this practice or join us is stopping it.” he declared.

“Millions of Americans are struggling to get by and their voices shouldn’t be drowned out by millions of dollars in secret special interest advertising,” Obama added, “Their voices should be heard.” [emphasis mine] Washington Examiner

Obama said our voices needed to be heard and that the challenge was for every elected official to defend the infusion of PAC money or to join Obama in stopping it.

Looks like the Won, the messiah, the change we can believe in has changed his mind on the subject.

In a change of position, Barack Obama’s reelection campaign will begin using administration and campaign aides to fundraise for Priorities USA Action, a super PAC backing the president. CNN Political Tracker

In a change of position, well he did promise us change.

Obama is now playing the game he said he opposed. He is getting involved in the super PAC game in order to raise money for his reelection effort. His minions (and no doubt his toadies who will read this) claim that he needs to do this because of the large influx of money from super PACs on the Republican side.

Obama is doing this because he needs more money and that is supposed to make it OK. The same argument could be made that those who do not oppose super PAC money take it because they need the money to get elected. They too are outgunned (David Axelrod said there is an “array of guns pointed at us” so is this a violent metaphor we can use to blame him if there is violence?) by the people who they are running against. Democrats get large amounts of money from donors (despite the claims of small donors there are lots of big name and big money donors) and they use that money for Democrats to get elected.

A few years ago when Obama was getting boatloads of money for his campaign would he, Axelrod (or any other Democrat) have accepted the excuse from John McCain that he had an array of guns pointed at him so he needed to take PAC money? Hell no! They would have screamed what Obama said in 2010 about corporations taking over our Democracy.

But since Obama wants the money it is now OK to be involved with super PACs.

Here is a video of Obama slamming John Edwards for claiming to be against this kind of money but taking it. Obama says that you can’t just talk the talk; you have to walk the walk.

Mr. Obama, you are now taking the money when you claim to be opposed to it. You can’t talk the talk; you have to walk the walk.

Obama is a hypocrite. I know that liberals will defend this position because they will claim lil’ Barry has to keep up with opponents but that does not make it right. He said he was against the money so he should not take the money.

Then again, this is the guy who said that George Bush was unpatriotic and demonstrated poor leadership for adding trillions of dollars in debt to the country and then promptly added 5 trillion dollars of debt to the country.

If you voted for Obama in 2008 to prove you were not a racist you must vote against him in 2012 to prove you are not an idiot.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Barack Obama went to Congress with hat in hand and asked for another trillion dollars of debt. He wants the debt ceiling raised another trillion dollars so he can borrow and spend more. This will likely be done because Congress can do nothing to stop it.

Under the deal struck last year, Obama can ask for the increase and unless Congress votes not to allow it then it will happen. Since the Democrats control the Senate they will likely not vote to stop it and if they do (it is an election year) Obama can veto them and there are not enough votes to override the veto.

Obama and his policies have given us the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression and he is on track to borrow more than all the presidents from Washington to Clinton combined!

According to the Washington Post, Obama formally notified Congress on 12 January that he will raise the debt ceiling by 1.2 trillion dollars. The Congress has 15 days to say no or it will automatically happen. The House does not return until the 17^th and the Senate the 23^rd. So Congress will have very few days to actually work on this. This also brings up an off topic question.

Obama’s justice Department sided with him on his recess appointments saying that Obama is unable to communicate with the Senate because it is not in session. He, according to Justice, was able to make recess appointments because he can’t communicate with the Senate because they are not there. How is it then, he is able to communicate with Congress regarding his desire to raise the debt ceiling? How can he formally notify them of his desire to raise the debt and then claim he can’t formally notify them of nominations because they are not there?

OK, back on target. I think Obama will raise the ceiling because the cowards in Congress set it up so they do not have to deal with it. They can claim they never raised the ceiling even if they make a show of trying to stop it. They gave up their power on this issue just as they have done with many other powers they have.

I think that Obama is going to have a hard time convincing people that we need to keep borrowing to get out of debt. Borrowing money to put it into the economy does not stimulate anything and makes as much sense as taking water from the deep end of a pool and putting it in the shallow end and claiming that the shallow end is getting deeper while the deep end is getting shallower.

It simply does not work.

But it is an election year and Obama needs more seed money to pay off his base.

We need a do over on government. We need to get rid of them all and start over with the fresh minds of people who have not been corrupted by their position in office.

November is our revolution.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

So, the city of Central Falls, RI, says that they cannot continue to exist because they simply cannot afford to. They need to merge with a larger city AND receive state help (cash), or they will collapse fiscally.

Oh, and the state already took over their school system and gave the city $604 million in the past 2 decades. The city says they need $2.1 million immediately from the state. Oh, and the city has a $48 million unfunded pile o cash that they owe to government employees. Oh, and another $36 million they owe in government employee health care payouts.

The city has only 19,000 subjects and owes $80 million that they don’t have. In case you’re interested, that’s over $4,000 for every man, woman, and child in the city, that they owe right now, not including ANY current obligations or to keep the city running. Quick: what’s the solution?

Of course, it’s make other taxpayers give them money. The state, the feds, other cities, whatever. Just take the money and give it to them because they want it.

The other solution, a nice, freedom-based solution, would be to let the city go bankrupt. And I don’t mean one of these halfway bankruptcies, where they continue to exist and just don’t pay back loans and that stuff. Let the city cease to exist. Other than government employees, do you think anyone would notice? I bet not.

Of course, if the city did just disband, opportunities would abound. People could start up schools without government interference (well, maybe not, because of state laws). People could create businesses to do the things the city was doing (like trash collection) at a lower rate (well, it is a union state, so they might not be allowed to). Arrests would likely go down because police would not be spending all their time trying to raise revenue for the failing city.

In the end, if a city should cease to exist, I think most non-government employees honestly would not care and would, in fact, be MUCH better off than being forced to continue to support a failed system. Sadly, in America today, a country based on government control and power, that will never happen. Instead, tax rates will be raised and other people will be forced to pay to continue the pointless city of Central Falls. Why? Because government employees will continue to use force to rationalize (and pay for) their own existence.

Movie Trailer for I Want Your Money. This contrasts Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama and different versions of America, one involving freedom and one involving being shackled to the government.

Here are other money related items for your enjoyment.

Money, That’s What I Want (Politician’s Theme Song)

Money (Wall Street Theme Song)

Money For Nothing (Welfare Theme Song with the Bill Clinton Verse ‘Chicks for free’)

Big Dog salute to DEG.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

The common perception among those on the left is that the Republican party is the party of the rich companies and that all those companies contribute to Republicans while poor Democrats must scrape money together so they can take care of the downtrodden.

The reality is that the Democrats are the ones who reap big benefits from the rich companies. This is not to say that Republicans do not get donations from those companies but Democrats, by and large, reap benefits from the very companies they then pretend to admonish.

The Wall Street crowd is in the pockets of Democrats. Goldman Sachs donated tons of money to Obama and his Democrats and a number of former Goldman employees now roost in the Obama regime. Obama and the Democrats tout reform of Wall Street and talk about putting the screws to the financial world but the regulations will benefit the big companies, those that donate to Democrats.

BP is in the news because of the Gulf oil leak and Obama and his regime are going after them, keeping their boots on the BP throats as it were. But BP has been a big supporter of Obama and the Democrats. BP donated a lot of money to them and that company has been on board with many of the items on the Obama agenda.

While BP has resisted some government interventions, it has lobbied for tax hikes, greenhouse gas restraints, the stimulus bill, the Wall Street bailout, and subsidies for oil pipelines, solar panels, natural gas and biofuels. Washington Examiner

BP has been on board for all of this and it lobbies the government for things that will benefit the company. Since it is on board with these items it is reasonable to assume that they will benefit the company.

BP is currently the whipping boy for the Obama regime and that might help Obama with his street creds but when the time comes he will have his hand out looking for BP money. When the time comes Obama will be looking for BP support for more of his agenda.

Obama has been slow to respond to the mess in the Gulf and his base is starting to see how he lacks the experience and leadership to handle a crisis and this has frustrated him. This is why he has ratcheted up his rhetoric and is looking for some “ass to kick.”

Don’t be fooled by these people. They are in the pockets of big and powerful companies and they are beholden to those who have helped them achieve power.

They can talk about how they are looking out for the little guy but little guys do not have the money required to get an audience with Obama and his Democrats.

Never surrender, never submit.

School systems are in for a rude awakening as stimulus funds, money they used to meet budget shortfalls, dry up. School systems that were not fiscally responsible and who relied on stimulus funds will be in bad shape once those funds are no longer available.

If those funds came with strings requiring states to keep that level of funding then the budget issue will be that much worse. Strings were attached to many items as a condition for getting stimulus money so there is no reason to believe that this is not the case.

School districts have already suffered big budget cuts since the recession began two years ago, but experts say the cash crunch will get a lot worse as states run out of stimulus dollars. My Way News

School systems are not the only ones. Any program that took the money and used it to fill a budget gap will be hit hard when the funds are gone. Sadly, this is not what stimulus money was intended for as we were told it would be used to create jobs. None of this creates jobs and might lead to job losses once the funds are gone.

The government uses money like a drug pusher uses heroin. They give it to states and then once the states are hooked they will do anything to keep that money. Then, the feds can threaten to cut off funds in order to extort states into doing what they [the feds] desire. Want a lower speed limit or lower blood alcohol level for DWI then threaten to withhold highway funds. It is a drug that keeps the states in line, following the orders from Washington.

It is time for states to go into rehab and break the addiction to federal government. It is also time we kept our money in our states and had limited taxes (preferably NOT on income) to run a limited government.

The United States is basically bankrupt. We have trillions in debt (real debt, not the phony debt they push) and we have just vowed to spend a trillion dollars we do not have. Hillary Clinton is in China begging the Chinese to buy more of our worthless bonds so we will have money to pay our bills and every time one turns around the government is coming up with some new multi million or billion dollar plan to bailout someone or fix some perceived crisis. One would think that the last thing we would do is spend our money in other countries, especially countries where the people do not like us.

The United States has pledged to spend 900 million dollars to help rebuild Gaza after it was destroyed when Israel defended itself from terrorists shooting rockets. Why are we spending more money we do not have to rebuild a place that has no desire to live in the modern world? Why are we spending money on people who hate us and who routinely demonstrate while shouting “Death to America?” Have we lost our minds?

All I want to know is what kind of drugs the people running this country are smoking.

If Gaza needs to be repaired (and the destruction might actually be a step up) then let Saudia Arabia, Iran, Syria, and all the other Jew hating countries pony up the cash for it. We should not be spending money on them for any reason whatsoever and we definitely should not be giving the money to the UN to distribute. This money will end up in the hands of Hamas and be used to buy weapons.

Even if unbiased observers watched them use the money to do really nice things it still would not be justified. The people there hate us and spending our money on them is absolutely moronic.

If our politicians are not required to take drug tests now would be a great time to start such a program. Only people stoned out of their minds could come up with such a plan.

*This plan requires Congressional approval.

The problem with the Republican party is not that it has too many low brow Christians as claimed by Kathleen Parker . The problem is that the Republican party has too many people in it who are Republicans In Name Only (RINO). These are the people who are registered as Republicans and say they are conservative but then support issues that are not in any way, shape, or form, conservative. This is true especially true for elected Republicans.

The left and its propaganda wing in the media would have us believe that the last election shows that conservatism is dying but this is a mistaken belief based on a false assumption. They say conservatism is dying because McCain lost but McCain is no conservative. If the party had run a true conservative Obama would be in the Senate trying to bail out the auto makers instead of killing business in Chicago.

The problem with RINOs is that they have most of the beliefs of liberals but they are registered and elected as Republicans. Case in point is Republican Representative Joe Knollenberg of Michigan. He has this misguided belief that the money the government has actually belongs to the government. While discussing the bailout of the auto industry with Neil Cavuto this RINO said that the money belongs to Congress and they will do with it what they want.

I have stated this before but it is worth mentioning again. Government does not earn money, it does not have its “own” money and the only way it gets any money is to forcefully take it from the people who actually earn it. The money in question (in fact, all the money) belongs to the US taxpayer and not to the Congress or any other government entity. The people who earn that money expect the people they elect to be good stewards of that money and to spend it wisely and in accordance with the Constitution. Knollenberg is the type of Republican that needs to be removed from office. We need to get rid of all of them who think like liberals. We might suffer in the short term with larger Democratic majorities but in the long run it will be best for the party and the country.

Knollenberg naturally wants to help the auto industry because he is from Michigan and he is entitled to have the opinion that we need to help them. However, he needs to remember that the money he is talking about also belongs to people from the other 49 states and they have a right to say how it is spent.

I believe that the auto makers should file for bankruptcy and let the chips fall where they might. The companies have been poorly run and hijacked by union thugs. They put out inferior products that people do not want and now they want the people to foot the bill for their ineptitude.

If the federal government spends OUR money bailing out the auto industry then it will set a precedent that allows other industries that make bad decisions to run to DC with their hands out. Government does not belong in the private sector.

If the government spends our money on the people who flew corporate jets to DC to beg for cash then I will NEVER buy another product made by any of the recipients of the extortion scheme. I urge all readers to consider this as well. If they get our money then you should consider one of their competitors when it comes time to replace your vehicle. Why reward their incompetence. If they get the money then we can use the power of our purse to put them out of business.

It might seem harsh and it will suck for the employees but the time for playing games is over. Let the market handle things and if they cannot compete then they will be forced to change or they will disappear.

NEW TAX FORM

Line 1: Amount you earned last year ______________
Line 2: Send the amount on line 1 to the government.

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.

The pundits are puzzled and the Clinton campaign is shocked that they are now the underdog in the Democratic primary race. Double digit (huge margin) losses, lagging in the delegate count and short on cash is not the way the campaign planned on spending the latter part of February but that is the situation that faces the once unstoppable Hillary Clinton. In a nutshell, Hillary believed the hype and did not plan past the Super Tuesday primaries.

Hillary Clinton entered the race for the presidency over a year ago just after young upstart Barack Obama. Instantly, she was the front runner and she was believed to be the inevitable winner. Hillary had it all; name recognition, a vast wealthy donor base, early Super Delegate support, and the power of a former president in her camp. Certainly she would win the nomination early and then get prepared to take on the Republican machine.

That thinking might very well cost her the nomination because by buying into the inevitability, Clinton failed to plan past Super Tuesday. She counted on early wins to build her momentum going into the February primaries and figured on delivering a knock-out blow by capturing the nomination. Her opponent had other ideas and set up offices in early states as well as those whose primaries were after Super Tuesday. His victory in Iowa shocked the Clinton camp and with the prospect of a double digit loss in New Hampshire looming large, things did not look good. She righted the ship in NH but was unable to build on that victory as one tactical misstep after another beset he campaign.

Instead of planning ahead the Clintons stuck to the idea that they would win it all on the big day. When things started to go poorly, they decided to go on the attack. Her campaign played the gender card while her husband’s rhetoric got out of hand and led to accusations of racial overtones. This is trademark Clinton but this time they did not have the MSM in their pockets and they were stunned by the response. All was not looking well for the campaign and it became obvious that the nomination would not be decided on Super Tuesday. The problem by that time was money. While she was spending like a drunken sailer on shore leave in the early states, her opponent was seeking small donations from all over the country. Clintons big name supporters had donated the maximum amount and she did not have as strong a mechanism in place to bring in smaller donations, as did her opponent. Perhaps she was being overly cautious after the Norman Hsu incident

Clinton ended up lending her own money to the campaign, a disclosure made after the Super Tuesday primaries. If it had been made any earlier, she would have been toast. Since there was little time to campaign in states that followed and since she had failed to plan for active campaigning after the big day, she was overwhelmed by Mr. Obama who planned very early on. He has won eight states since Super Tuesday while she has looked ahead to Texas and Ohio as a firewall to prevent further losses. She is taking in more money now but it might be too little, too late.

Hillary Clinton bought into the hype that she would have a cakewalk to the nomination and now she is very close to watching the nominee from the sideline. She criticized the Bush administration for failing to have a long range plan in Iraq, and yet she demonstrated the same failure in her campaign. The question now becomes, do we want a person who spends carelessly and gets minimal results running this country? Do we want a president who fails to plan for the future? This has been a big criticism of George Bush with regard to the war so will Democrats apply that standard to Hillary and move toward Barack Obama?

I do not agree with Mr. Obama’s positions on anything and I believe his claim not to support the war is irrelevant because he was not in the Senate at the time so there is no way to tell how he would have voted (especially since the vote was viewed as needed to get weapon’s inspectors back in Iraq). And while he offers a message of hope and change his speeches are long on lilt and short on substance. He talks a good game without telling anyone what he will do or how he will do it.

Regardless, people like to listen to him and the one thing he has going is that he was forward looking enough to plan well past Super Tuesday. He never bought into the hype that Hillary was the inevitable victor and he planned to fight to the end. In the short term, that strategy has paid off and in the long run it might be the single biggest factor, should he become the nominee.

Should he become President, I don’t think he will be a good one but at least he has shown that he has better planning skills than someone who claims to have 35 years of experience.

Perhaps she should have spent more time planning for the primary and less time being fitted for the crown.

Related Story:
New York Times
WSJ
Time

Ron Paul is still hanging around and has done better in the last few primaries than Rudy Giuliani. The Michigan primary was yesterday and it was won by Mitt Romney (no surprise and not because of Kos). Ron Paul placed ahead of Rudy and Fred Thompson, two candidates who do not get excluded from debates. It also appears that Paul has plenty of money coming in while Rudy’s folks are going without pay this month. Rudy’s plan is to wait until Florida and the others are now trying to compete in the South. Dr. Paul seems to be plodding along and about the time Super Tuesday comes he might be in the best shape.

Romney was one loss away from being out, Huckabee and Thompson need to do well in the South and McCain might not win another state. By the time they get to Florida it will be important to have plenty of money for ads because no candidate can afford to run ads in all the states on February 5th and it is physically impossible for them to be in all of them. Florida is the last big showdown before the stuff hits the fan and Paul might end up in the best position.

If Fred loses SC he is probably out or soon will be. Same with Huckabee and Romney cannot afford many more loses or he is through. Right now it seems to be a race of staying power to see which one can afford to keep going. If the ones who are left make it to Florida and have little money for the blitz, Ron Paul just might sneak in and win.

He is still a long shot and there are still folks who don’t get him but he is the one who believes in reducing spending, reducing our presence around the world and fixing our monetary system.

Ron Paul gives the impression of being the tortoise running against the hares in the Republican Party. When the race is over he might just be the one to end up across the finish line.

I just wish he did not look (and act) like a grumpy old man.

Related items:
LA Times