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.

A telling stat about government workers

You want to understand why government is so darn inefficient?  This stat should explain it all … a USA Today analysis has found that federal government workers are more likely to die than get laid off or fired.  USA Today says, “Death — rather than poor performance, misconduct or layoffs — is the primary threat to job security at the Environmental Protection Agency, the Small Business Administration, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Office of Management and Budget and a dozen other federal operations.”  When it comes down to it, 0.55% of government hacks were fired last year for poor performance in the workplace.  Their job security is so solid, that there is almost nothing they can do to get fired.  So what’s the incentive for them to do well?  There is none.  Imagine how much better off we would be if more government services were privatized.  Make people accountable for their performance and it is amazing how they will suddenly work a little bit harder.  If they don’t, there is always someone else there who IS willing to work harder and do better .. so long as there is incentive to do so.

Now .. the McConnell idea

Speaking of being gutless … the Republicans are so worried about being blamed for any sort of government default that they are actually toying with the idea of giving the president the power to automatically increase the debt limit.
Now a lot of people are having a bit of a struggle trying to figure out just what Phineas T. Bluster (Mitch McConnell) is proposing.  Let me try to boil it down for you step-by-step:

1.  The Republicans agree to a plan that allows Obama to raise the debt ceiling by as much as $2.3 trillion (that’s right, TRILLION) in three installments within the  next year.
2. Obama would be required to submit to the congress a list of proposed spending cuts equaling the amount of the debt ceiling increase.  Apparently these would not have to be REAL spending cuts --- they could simply be cuts in spending increases.  That’s how Washington usually proposes spending cuts. 
3. There would be no requirement whatsoever that congress even consider any of Obama’s proposed spending cuts.
4. Once Obama raises the debt ceiling the congress could vote to disapprove the increase.
5. Obama would then veto the resolution of disapproval.
6. Neither house would be able to come up with the two-thirds vote necessary to override Obama’s veto, so the debt ceiling increase would take effect.
7. Since the veto override would fail principally due to a lack of Democrat votes, the Republicans believe that they would be able to blame Obama and the Democrats for the increases in the debt ceiling.

There … does that work for you?  Not for me.  It’s a GOP cave all the way.  The McConnell plan is to just back off, hold your hands up into the air and say “Just go ahead and do it.  We’re washing our hands of this.  The voters will hold you responsible.”  Are you kidding me?  Do you think for one moment that the voters --- these voters --- the very same voters who put Obama into office --- are going to hold the Democrats responsible for raising the debt ceiling without cutting spending?  Won’t happen.  The Democrats will walk away with a victory here and Republican voters will just walk away.

WHERE ARE HIS GIRLFRIENDS? AND JUST WHO THE HELL IS BARACK OBAMA?

Obama: Where are his girl friends?????

Where are his girl friends????? Strange that none have popped up!!!!
Strange to the point of being down right WEIRD!

OK... this is past the birthers questions.... this is just plain old
common sense, no political agendas for either side.

Just common knowledge for citizens of a country, especially American
citizens, who even know that Andrew Jackson and his wife smoked a corn cob pipe
and was accused of adultery, or that Lincoln never went to school or
Kennedy wore a back brace or Truman played the piano.

We are Americans! We are known for our humanitarian interests and caring
for our fellow man  We care, but none of us know one single humanizing
fact about the history of our own president.

Honestly, and this is a personal thing...but it has niggled at me for ages
that no one who ever dated him ever showed up. The simple fact of his
charisma, which caused the women to be drawn to him so obviously during
his campaign, looks like some lady would not have missed the opportunity....

We all know about JFK s magnetism, McCain was no monk, Palin s courtship
and even her athletic prowess were probed. Biden's aneurisms are no
secret. Look at Cheney and Clinton--we all know about their heart
problems. How could I have left out Wild Bill before or during the White House?

Nope... not one lady has stepped up and said, "He was soooo shy," or
"What a great dancer!" Now look at the rest of this.... no classmates,
not even the recorder for the Columbia class notes ever heard of him.

I just don't know about this fellow.

Who was the best man at his wedding? Start there. Then check groomsmen.
Then get the footage of the graduation ceremony.

Has anyone talked to the professors? It is odd that no one is bragging
that they knew him or taught him or lived with him.

When did he meet Michele and how? Are there photos? Every president
gives to the public all their photos, etc. for their library. What has
he released?

And who in hell voted for him to be the most popular man in 2010?????

Does this make you wonder?

Ever wonder why no one ever came forward from Obama's past, saying they
knew him, attended school with him, was his friend, etc. ? Not one person
has ever come forward from his past.

VERY, VERY STRANGE… This should really be a cause for great concern. To
those who voted for him, you may have elected an unqualified, inexperienced
shadow man.

Did you see a picture called The Manchurian Candidate?

Let's face it. As insignificant as we all are... someone whom we went to
school with remembers our name or face ... someone remembers we were the
clown or the dork or the brain or the quiet one or the bully or something
about us.

George Stephanopoulos of ABC News said the same thing during the 2008
campaign. He questions why no one has acknowledged the president was in
their classroom or ate in the same cafeteria or made impromptu speeches
on campus. Stephanopoulos also was a classmate of Obama at Columbia--the
class of 1984. He says he never had a single class with him.

While he is such a great orator, why doesn't anyone in Obama's college
class remember him? And, why won't he allow Columbia to release his
records?

NOBODY REMEMBERS OBAMA AT COLUMBIA

Looking for evidence of Obama's past, Fox News contacted 400 Columbia
University students from the period when Obama claims to have been there,
but none remembered him. For example, Wayne Allyn Root was, like Obama,
a political science major at Columbia, who also graduated in 1983. In
2008, Root says of Obama, "I don't know a single person at Columbia that
knew him, and they all know me. I don't have a classmate who ever knew
Barack Obama at Columbia ... EVER!

Nobody recalls him. Root adds that he was also, like Obama, "Class of  83
political science, pre-law" and says, "You don't get more exact or closer
than that. Never met him in my life, don't know anyone who ever met him."

At the class reunion, our 20th reunion five years ago, who was asked to
be the speaker of the class? Me. No one ever heard of Barack! And five
years ago, nobody even knew who he was. The guy who writes the class
notes, who 's kind of the, as we say in New York,  the macha  who knows
everybody, has yet to find a person, a human who ever met him."

Obama's photograph does not appear in the school's yearbook, and Obama
consistently declines requests to talk about his years at Columbia ,
provide school records, or provide the name of any former classmates or
friends while at Columbia ...

NOTE: Root graduated as valedictorian from his high school,
Thornton-Donovan School , then graduated from Columbia University in 1983
as a political science major in the same class in which Barack Hussein
Obama states he was.

Some other interesting questions…

Why was Obama's law license inactivated in 2002?

Why was Michelle's law license inactivated by court order?

It is circulating that according to the U.S. Census, there is only one
Barack Obama but 27 Social Security numbers and over 80 aliases.

WHAT!?

The Social Security number he uses now originated in Connecticut where he
is never reported to have lived.

No wonder all his records are sealed!