Obama’s Vacations and Priorities

Personally, I am inclined to give him a bit of a break on the vacation issue – if only family vacations were at issue. However, the vacations are only part of the problem with Obama’s laxity and aversion to work. His obsession with gold, the musical soirees at the White House (that are a constant fact and have been from the inception of his Presidency) should give taxpayers pause. But two aspects of this particular trip stand out. First, the sheer hypocrisy of Michelle Obama flying down to the tar stained beaches of the Gulf and promoting them as a vacation spot for Americans.

Michelle Obama highlighted the political pitfalls of presidential vacations when, during a trip last week to the gulf, she said Americans should consider staying at one of the gulf’s “beautiful beaches” to boost that region’s economy. The comment could heighten criticism if the Obama’s vacation on the Vineyard.

The hypocrisy is glaring and plays into the perception of the “Do As I Say, Not as I Do” problems that many liberals have (the Gore/Edwards addiction to big , energy absorbing and carbon spewing lifestyles; Nancy Pelosi’s penchant for private planes, paid for by us, etc.).

But the other aspect is the timing-given Obama’s radio address over the weekend. He castigated Republicans over resistance to extending unemployment insurance and tarred them with the brush of being proxies for the rich. Meanwhile, he flies off to a vacation in Maine and apparently is making plans to vacation (again) in Martha’s Vineyard – playground of the wealthy and well-connected. Even Bill Clinton, who liked the Vineyard, realized that the optics were bad since many people consider the Vineyard a private reserve of the elitists (hence, Clinton’s switch to Jackson Hole, Wyoming).

Also, former Presidents vacations did not occur during a severe recession and monumental government deficits that Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats have brought forth. Presidential trips are expensive ordeals (and taxpayers pay for them). We can all remember the Obama’s trip to Broadway to catch a show; his trip to Europe to pitch Chicago for the Olympics, but his refusal to take trips overseas to repair relations with allies. The man-for all the caricatures regarding his ears-has two tin ones.

A President has his priorities, after all.

The dubious financing of ‘Cordoba House’ deserves scrutiny.

Since a proposal to construct a 15-story mosque and community center two blocks from Ground Zero was announced last year, the project has been a focus of widening protests. To be named Cordoba House, the project would require demolition of two buildings at 45-47 Park Place and Broadway that were damaged on 9/11. They would be replaced by a glass and steel 100,000-square-foot structure with a new address, 45-51 Park Place.

According to its sponsors, the Cordoba Initiative and the American Society of Muslim Advancement (ASMA), the structure would cost $100 million and would include “a 500-seat auditorium, swimming pool, art exhibition spaces, bookstores, restaurants,” and an area for Islamic prayer. The Cordoba Initiative and ASMA were created by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, a Kuwait-born cleric of Egyptian background.

Every inch the professional moderate, Rauf has the imprimatur of the State Department, which sent him on an international bridge-building tour earlier this year. And he has cloaked the Cordoba effort in the rhetoric of reconciliation, describing himself and his colleagues as “the anti-terrorists.” But he deflects inquiries about its financing. On July 7, New York Republican gubernatorial candidate Rick Lazio called on state attorney general Andrew Cuomo, who is also Lazio’s Democratic opponent in the coming election, to “conduct a thorough investigation” of three aspects of the project:

- Rauf’s refusal to acknowledge that Hamas is a terrorist organization;

- Rauf’s leading role in the Perdana Global Peace Organization, “a principal partner,” in its own words, of the Turkish-launched flotilla that tried to break the Israeli naval blockade of Gaza;

- and the project’s questionable sources of funding.

Lazio has been supported in this demand by New York Republican congressman Peter King.

Read more here.

Tea Partiers Easily Put On The Defensive. Stop it!

It is truly unfortunate that some on our side are so easily put on the defensive. NAACP President Ben Jealous slandered millions of decent Tea Party patriots by saying we tolerate racists’ signs. We do not. Not one liberal mainstream media outlet demand that Jealous produce the “Lynch Barack Obama” and “Lynch Eric Holder” signs he claimed to have seen. Thus, the liberal media are saying these violent racist signs exist and the tea partiers are guilty simply because Jealous says so.

Furthering their efforts to discredit the tea party movement by portraying them as racist, the liberal media attacked our Mark Williams for a satirical comment on his blog. Mark is a personal friend who is not a racist; far from it. On his blog, Mark was making a point about the blatant hypocrisy and backwardness of the NAACP.

Meanwhile, the liberal media typically ignores “real racism” coming from the left. A member of the New Black Panther Party boldly proclaimed he hates crackers (white people) and they need to “kill more crackers”. Has the liberal media confronted the NAACP about denouncing the New Black Panthers’ hate-filled racist statement? No, they have not.

And yet, folks on our side ran to the microphones to denounce Mark Williams and Tea Party Express, which is the most effective, ethical and powerful conservative voice of We The People. Dear Lord! People, wake up and smell the liberal media manipulation!

News Flash! The liberal mainstream media vehemently desire to “crush” the Tea Party Movement. They want us to fail! It is foolish to pander to our enemy. The liberal media will distort, lie and do whatever to divide and conquer us. Brothers and sisters, we can not fall for it. God bless.

Obama Administration Admits Individual Mandate Is A Tax

Remember when President Obama promised the nation he was not going to raise taxes, not one dime, back during the campaign on anyone making less than $250,000?  He broke that promise with the cigarette tax and now he will break it again via ObamaCare.  Those of us who stood against the government takeover of healthcare warned that it would amount to a tax on everyone.  And we pointed out that the individual mandate, the requirement that everyone must purchase health insurance or pay a fine, was unconstitutional.  Well now apparently, the Obama administration has latched onto the idea that the indivdual mandate equates to a tax as they argue that the mandate is consititutional and within the power of the government.

The New York Times is reporting:

When Congress required most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, Democrats denied that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.”

And that power, they say, is even more sweeping than the federal power to regulate interstate commerce.

Administration officials say the tax argument is a linchpin of their legal case in defense of the health care overhaul and its individual mandate, now being challenged in court by more than 20 states and several private organizations.

Under the legislation signed by President Obama in March, most Americans will have to maintain “minimum essential coverage” starting in 2014. Many people will be eligible for federal subsidies to help them pay premiums.

In a brief defending the law, the Justice Department says the requirement for people to carry insurance or pay the penalty is “a valid exercise” of Congress’s power to impose taxes.

Congress can use its taxing power “even for purposes that would exceed its powers under other provisions” of the Constitution, the department said. For more than a century, it added, the Supreme Court has held that Congress can tax activities that it could not reach by using its power to regulate commerce.

While Congress was working on the health care legislation, Mr. Obama refused to accept the argument that a mandate to buy insurance, enforced by financial penalties, was equivalent to a tax.

“For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,” the president said last September, in a spirited exchange with George Stephanopoulos on the ABC News program “This Week.”

So Mr. President, which is it?  Is it a tax or isn’t it?  And when are the sheeple who voted for this guy and believed in his lies going to wake up?  When the nimble minded realize that the ”free” healthcare is not coming and that they have to fork over big money for insurance or get fined, they might not think of Obama as their messiah any longer.