PRESIDENT OBAMA'S COMPLETE LIST OF HISTORIC FIRSTS

Yes, he's historic, alright.

• First President to Preside Over a Cut to the Credit Rating of the United States Government

• First President to Violate the War Powers Act

• First President to Orchestrate the Sale of Murder Weapons to Mexican Drug Cartels

• First President to be Held in Contempt of Court for Illegally Obstructing Oil Drilling in the Gulf of Mexico

• First President to Defy a Federal Judge's Court Order to Cease Implementing the 'Health Care Reform' Law

• First President to Require All Americans to Purchase a Product From a Third Party

• First President to Spend a Trillion Dollars on 'Shovel-Ready' Jobs -- and Later Admit There Was No Such Thing as Shovel-Ready Jobs

• First President to Abrogate Bankruptcy Law to Turn Over Control of Companies to His Union Supporters

• First President to Bypass Congress and Implement the DREAM Act Through Executive Fiat

• First President to Threaten Insurance Companies After They Publicly Spoke out on How Obamacare Helped Cause their Rate Increases

• First President to Threaten an Auto Company (Ford) After It Publicly Mocked Bailouts of GM and Chrysler

• First President to "Order a Secret Amnesty Program that Stopped the Deportations of Illegal Immigrants Across the U.S., Including Those With Criminal Convictions"

• First President to Demand a Company Hand Over $20 Billion to One of His Political Appointees

• First President to Terminate America's Ability to Put a Man into Space.

• First President to Encourage Racial Discrimination and Intimidation at Polling Places

• First President to Have a Law Signed By an 'Auto-pen' Without Being "Present"

• First President to Arbitrarily Declare an Existing Law Unconstitutional and Refuse to Enforce It

• First President to Tell a Major Manufacturing Company In Which State They Are Allowed to Locate a Factory

• First President to refuse to comply with a House Oversight Committee subpoena.

• First President to File Lawsuits Against the States He Swore an Oath to Protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN, etc.)

• First President to Withdraw an Existing Coal Permit That Had Been Properly Issued Years Ago

• First President to Fire an Inspector General of Americorps for Catching One of His Friends in a Corruption Case

• First President to Propose an Executive Order Demanding Companies Disclose Their Political Contributions to Bid on Government Contracts

• First President to allow Mexican police to conduct law enforcement activities on American soil

• First President to Golf 80 or More Times in His First Two-and-a-Half Years in Office

But remember: he will not rest until all Americans have jobs, affordable homes, green-energy vehicles, and the environment is repaired, etc., etc., etc.

Either Obama is bad at math or a liar

Dear Ruler has been caught. You know that I take the label of “liar” pretty seriously. A person can only tell a lie if they know the fact to be untrue at the time they utter it. And that brings us to an unctuous utterance from Dear Ruler. Is he merely demonstrating his ignorance (he has an adequate supply, after all) or was he lying. You be the judge. Here’s the situation …
On multiple occasions, Barack Obama has stated that he should not be paying a lower effective tax rate than a teacher. Here’s just one specific example (though there are many): At a recent town hall meeting in Mountain View, California, Obama said, "Somebody who's making $50,000 a year as a teacher shouldn't be paying a higher effective tax rate than somebody like myself.”
That’s a pretty bold claim on the part of our Dear Ruler, wouldn’t you say? So FactCheck.org did the math, and you can guess what they found … Obama’s claim that he pays a lower tax rate than a teacher earning $50,000 a year is false. Here are the details from FactCheck.org.

A single taxpayer with $50,000 of income would have paid 11.9% in federal income taxes for 2010, while the Obamas paid more than twice that rate — 25.3% (and higher rates than that in 2009 and 2008). And if the $50,000-a-year teacher were in Obama's tax situation — supporting a spouse and two children — he or she would have paid no federal income taxes at all.
The outcome is the same whether we count payroll taxes or not, and even if we look at what the $50,000 earner will pay on 2011 income. Whatever the assumption, the rates Obama paid were higher — and usually much higher.

Obama has made it crystal clear that his 2012 reelection campaign is going to be based on the exploitation of wealth envy. If you’re paying attention you now know that he will resort to flat-out falsehoods in order to pander to the dumb-masses who don’t know any better. Obama is creating his own reality – a reality where the rich don’t pay their “fair share” and he pays taxes at a lower rate than middle-class Americans. Neither of these are true, yet he will continue to push these ideas until people actually believe that they are true.
Know what? I go with liar. These statements are untrue, he knows them to be untrue, and he knows them to be untrue at the moment he makes them. That makes him a liar.
Obama’s own campaign team has acknowledged this strategy of focusing on wealth envy, because he has zero accomplishments when it comes to the economy. His advisors say, “He needs to shift the focus from his stewardship of the economy to the stark choice confronting voters about the nation's political leadership.” Well no $4it, Sherlock So now jobs are no longer the focus for Obama. Screw jobs, because Obama knows that he doesn’t know how to solve that problem. Instead, let’s focus on leadership. An Obama campaign advisor says, "Most Americans are very concerned about the future and the direction we're going to take.” I don’t understand why the Obama administration thinks that this is going to work in their favor considering the latest Rasmussen polls show that just 17% of Americans say the country is heading in the right direction. So what direction does Obama want to take this country? Toward a redistributive society where the government seizes money from the Haves and gives it to the Have-Nots; toward a society where political leaders, not the private sector, decide where new economic growth will and will not be, and where new jobs will be created and where they will be eliminated. The LATimes reports, “Obama is tapping into resentment over the growing concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands.” They say this “helps the president forge an emotional connection with his base, especially minorities and working-class voters who have been falling behind.”
Does this re-election strategy inspire you to work hard or risk your savings to start the business of your dreams? If Obama manages to pull this thing off based on a re-election campaign of wealth envy, then the achievers in this country better bend over.

OBAMA AND FACISM

First you must understand fascism, as described by the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics:

As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalistic veneer. In its day (the 1920's and 1930's), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and Marxism, with its violent socially divisive prosecution of the bourgeoisie.

Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices; fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically.

Under fascism, the state, through official agencies, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission. Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and "excess" incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or "loans".

To maintain high employment and minimize popular discontent, fascist governments also undertook massive public-works programs financed by steep taxes, borrowing and fiat money creation.

I’m sure you can already see the similarities to the Obama economy

A LESSON FOR THE TAX THE RICH CROWD

Here’s more ammo for you when discussing taxes with your lib and prog friends or co-workers. Most of them cannot seem to wrap their brains around the idea that if you lower taxes, you actually generate MORE revenue. Instead, they preach this “tax the rich!” mantra because it sounds cool and it satisfies a primeval quest for revenge . Unfortunately for them, the numbers are not on their side.
Now, let’s talk about capital gains taxes. These evil taxes have come to the forefront of debate as of late because of Warren Buffett. I’ve explained how Warren Buffett does not pay a lower income tax rate than his secretary; he pays an entirely different tax – capital gains tax. And yes, the rate of capital gains is lower (for some) than income tax rates. But all that might change, if Democrats get their way. It will be just another way for them to nail those evil rich investors! From Forbes …

In 1997, Congress was considering a cut in the capital gains rate from 28% back down to 20%. The Joint Tax Committee (JTC) estimated that as a result revenues would increase by $7.8 billion from 1997 to 1999, but the tax cut would produce a loss of $28.8 billion over the following 7 years, for a net loss of $21 billion over the 10 year period.
The actual numbers after the tax cut was passed showed an increase of $84 billion over the pre-tax cut projections for 1997 to 2000. Despite an almost 30% cut in the rate, capital gains revenues rose from $62 billion in 1996 to $109 billion in 1999.
Similarly, when Congress considered cutting the capital gains rate again in 2003, from 20% to 15%, the JTC estimated that this would cause a loss of revenue of $5.4 billion from 2003 to 2006. But after Congress passed the tax cut, capital gains revenues increased by $133 billion during those years, as compared to the pre-tax cut projections. As Dan Clifton of the American Shareholders Association said, “There is no excuse for this $138 billion error.” Capital gains tax revenue doubled from 2003 to 2005 despite a 25% cut in the tax rate.

Wealth envy is a political scheme used to buy votes. It should not be dictating economic policy.