Don’t Do I Do, Do As I Say

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Another case in the nearly infinite Liberal line of “Don’t do as I do, Do as I say”.

So I’ll get my surrogate’s to do it for me and then I can denounce it as something I didn’t say or endorse but we got the cheap shot in anyways.

Enter Hilary Rosen (“Never worked a day in her life”) to basically call all stay-at-home moms lazy, and stupid so they should just shut up.

That Ann Romney is worthless. Mitt is a Cultist Mormon. Republicans are only interested in Rich People. Republicans Hate Women. Blah…Blah…Blah…

When that goes awry (or did it? :)), they feign an apology, the President says it ‘s not cool and everyone just moves on like nothing happened.

But they got their shot in. They got their seed planted. They made their childish punch on the nose. Time to move on to the next one.

President Obama strongly disagreed with Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen’s controversial comment about Ann Romney, saying today that “there’s no tougher job than being a mom.”

“Anybody who would argue otherwise, I think, probably needs to rethink their statement,” the president told Bruce Aune of ABC’s Cedar Rapids affiliate KCRG.

But: “We Didn’t Have The Luxury For Michelle Not To Work”

Then why did your surrogate say it at all then?

Because it was a political ploy. A surgical strike in the phoney “War on Women” meme that the Democrats created and The Democrats are fanning the flames of.

The president went a step further, suggesting candidates’ families should be off limits. “I don’t have a lot of patience for commentary about the spouses of political candidates,” he told KCRG.

But you don’t see this surrogate getting fired or anything substantial, just a blow-off apology and some faint heartened denouncing of it. Nope, the strike was made. The poison was injected. Time to move on.

And I get to look like I’m above the fray in the process. A Double plus good day for me. Yeah, Team Obama!!

And the push back: The liberal Lily Ledbetter Fairness in Pay act that the Democrats passed in 2009.

Female employees in the Obama White House make considerably less than their male colleagues, records show.

According to the 2011 annual report on White House staff, female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000, which was about 18 percent less than the median salary for male employees ($71,000).

Welcome to Liberal Politics 2012. The Sandbox is open for business and Don’t do as I do, Just believe everything I say.

Alinky’s “Rules for Radicals”-Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. “If your people aren’t having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.”

And being childish and acting like a self-righteous bully are definite things liberals find fun.

“That’s another trillion dollars in tax cuts over the next ten years going to the top 1% of American taxpayers. [baby crying] I don’t blame her for crying. She is going to inherit it. She’s going to pay for it. That’s one smart baby,” Vice President Joe Biden said at a campaign event today.

Yeah, the $6 Trillion he and Obama added to the debt doesn’t count…because…wait for it…That was Bush’s Fault!!! 🙂

Obviously, he wasn’t talking about the E-Trade baby… 🙂

Oh, and then there’s the expiration of “Bush Tax Cuts” which will raise taxes on EVERYONE Jan 1, 2013.

And the “investments” (aka spending) that Congress and the President want to do more of.

None of that counts, ya see.

OBAMA (In Ohio): Well, you know, I hope it’s not just a negative campaign. I hope this is a serious debate about our future.

BWAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!

And he can say that with a straight face, folks!

Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid!

Addendum: Labor Secretary Hilda Solis weighed in on comments made by Hilary Rosen about Ann Romney being unable to relate to working women Thursday, telling The Daily Caller that she thinks “Michelle Obama is a fine example of what the women are in our society.”

“Those working moms that have had to work so hard now, stretch their dollars, and may not even be able to move up in the workplace if their wages haven’t kept up,” said Solis.

“That’s what we’re fighting for… so they can put money away to save. Many women aren’t able to do that and that may not be the case with the nominee — the potential nominee for the Republican Party’s spouse — but I’m just telling you that that’s what I’m hearing day in and day out.”

This is the lady who set up a hotline for Illegal Aliens to rat on their bosses if they “mistreated “THEM.
Wonder if anyone in The Ministry of Truth (Media) will ask Obama about this one?
🙂
But this is even better. It’s about “fairness” of what the Government can give you…
Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

 

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

 Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Irksome

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

John Stossel: Politicians care about poor people. I know because they always say that. But then why do they make it so hard for the poor to escape poverty?

Outside my office in New York City, I see yellow taxis. It’s intuitive to think that government should license taxis to make sure they’re safe and to limit their number. It’s intuitive to believe that if anyone could just start picking up passengers, we’d have chaos. So to operate a taxi in NYC, you have to buy a license, a “medallion,” from an existing cab company (or at a once-in-a-blue-moon auction). Medallions are so scarce, they now cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Licensing prices poor people out of the business.

“Compare New York City, where a license to own and operate a taxi is $603,000, to Washington, D.C.,” George Mason University economist Walter Williams told me. “There are not many black-owned taxis in New York City. But in Washington, most are owned by blacks.” Why? Because in Washington, “it takes $200 to get a license to own and operate one taxi. That makes the difference.”

Regulation hurts the people the politicians claim to help.

People once just went into business. But now, in the name of “consumer protection,” bureaucrats insist on licensing rules. Today, hundreds of occupations require expensive licenses. Tough luck for a poor person getting started.

Ask Jestina Clayton. Ten years ago, she moved from Africa to Utah. She assumed she could support her children with the hair-braiding skills she learned in Sierra Leone. For four years, she braided hair in her home. She made decent money. But then the government shut her down because she doesn’t have an expensive cosmetology license that requires 2,000 hours of classroom time — 50 weeks of useless instruction. The Institute for Justice (IJ), the public-interest law firm that fights such outrages, says “not one of those 2,000 hours teaches African hair-braiding.”

IJ lawyer Paul Avelar explained that “the state passed a really broad law and left it to the cosmetology board to interpret.”

Guess who sits on the cosmetology board. Right: cosmetologists. And they don’t like competition.

One day, Jestina received an email.

“The email threatened to report me to the licensing division if I continued to braid,” she told me.

This came as a shock because she had been told that what she was doing was legal.

“When I called (the commission) in 2005 on two separate occasions, they did tell me that, but then when I called (again) … the cosmetology lady told me that the situation had changed and that I needed to go to school now and get a license.”

No customers complained, but a competitor did.

One cosmetologist claimed that if she didn’t go to school she might make someone bald.

But this is nonsense — hair-braiding is just … braiding. If the braid is too tight, you can undo it.

The cosmetology board told Jestina that if she wanted to braid hair without paying $18,000 to get permission from the board, she should lobby the legislature. Good luck with that. Jestina actually tried, but no luck. How can poor people become entrepreneurs if they must get laws changed first?! Jestina stopped working because she can’t afford the fines.

“The first offense is $1,000,” she said. “The second offense and any subsequent offense is $2,000 each day.”

“It is not unique to Utah,” Avelar added. “There are about 10 states that explicitly require people to go get this expensive, useless license to braid hair.”

Fortunately, IJ’s efforts against such laws have succeeded in seven states. Now it’s in court fighting for Jestina, which, appropriately, means “justice” in her native language.

Once upon a time, one in 20 workers needed government permission to work in their occupation. Today, it’s one in three. We lose some freedom every day.

“Occupational licensing laws fall hardest on minorities, on poor, on elderly workers who want to start a new career or change careers,” Avelar said. “(Licensing laws) just help entrenched businesses keep out competition.”

This is not what America was supposed to be.

There are a lot of things, large and small, that irk me. One of them is our tendency to evaluate a presidential candidate based on his intelligence or academic credentials. When Obama threw his hat in the ring, people thought he was articulate and smart and hailed his intellectual credentials. Just recently, when Newt Gingrich announced his candidacy, people hailed his intellectual credentials and smartness as well.

By contrast, the intellectual elite and mainstream media people see Sarah Palin as stupid, a loose cannon and not to be trusted with our nuclear arsenal. There was another presidential candidate who was also held to be stupid and not to be trusted with our nuclear arsenal who ultimately became president — Ronald Reagan. I don’t put much stock into whether a political leader is smart or not because, as George Orwell explained, “Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.”

All the evidence that I see is that academics and intellectuals have messed up the world. I challenge anyone to show me a major calamity that was engineered by a stupid, inarticulate person, but those caused by intelligent, articulate persons are too numerous to count, from the likes of Hitler, Stalin and Mao to Woodrow Wilson, FDR and Obama.

My vision of a good presidential candidate is a person with ordinary intelligence but great respect and love for our Constitution. Maybe Palin’s and Reagan’s respect and love for our Constitution qualified them as dumb in the eyes of the mainstream media, intellectuals and academics. (Walter E Williams)

Official motto of the White House economic team: Those who can, do. Those who can’t, fantasize in the classroom, fail in Washington and then return to the Ivy Tower to train the next generation of egghead economic saboteurs. Life is good for left-wing academics. Everyone else pays dearly.

Take Austan Goolsbee, please. President Obama’s “fresh-faced” University of Chicago econ professor arrived in Washington in December 2008 to fill two slots: chief economist/staff director of the president’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board and member of the Council of Economic Advisers. In September 2010, he replaced CEA head and fellow academic Christina Romer, who retreated to the University of California at Berkeley last August when unemployment hit 9.5 percent. (She infamously projected that the Obama stimulus would hold the jobless rate below 8 percent.)

Goolsbee’s primary task: translating all of the administration’s big-government theories for us dummies. As Goolsbee put it to his university’s student newspaper: “We’ve certainly seen in previous crises that it’s quite important to explain things to non-experts. The American people can confront any challenge if they’re comfortable with the approach.”

And what exactly was the nature of Goolsbee’s vaunted expertise? Making money as a business rescue-and-recovery expert without ever having had to meet a payroll.

Goolsbee, the 15th wealthiest member of the Obama administration, has raked in assets valued at between $1,146,000 and $2,715,000. He also pulled in a University of Chicago salary of $465,000 and additional wages and honoraria worth $93,000, according to Washingtonian magazine. As I’ve noted before, the government research fellow and Obama campaign adviser was a champion of extending credit to the un-creditworthy. In a 2007 op-ed for The New York Times, he derided those who called subprime mortgages “irresponsible.” He preferred to describe them as “innovations in the mortgage market” to expand the pool of homebuyers.

Goolsbee’s most recent “innovation”: the “White House White Board,” a weekly video lecture teaching everyone else how to hitch what remains of America’s free-market system to the wagon of the state and how much (or rather, how little) we should make doing it. He illustrated his grand interventionist strategy to pick and choose “Startup America” winners by drawing a trough of broken light bulbs (symbolizing entrepreneurial ideas) piling up in a “Valley of Death” because they lacked government support.

A comical choice of imagery given the Democrats’ enviro-nutty ban on incandescent bulbs. But I digress.

When Goolsbee joined Team Obama, the unemployment rate was at around 6 percent. When he announced his resignation on Monday, the jobless rate stood at 9.1 percent. Romer and Jared Bernstein (former chief economist to Vice President Joe Biden) had predicted unemployment would drop every single month after August 2009 due to the Obama stimulus. Bernstein bailed on the administration in April 2011 for the sanctuary of a liberal think-tank. He’ll also now ply his failed wares as a financial pundit.

These hapless command-and-control ideologues were preceded by Peter Orszag, who hung his “Mission Accomplished” banner over the White House budget office in June 2010 after fewer than two years on the job, and by former National Economic Council head and hedge fund manager Larry Summers, who was caught sleeping on the job — literally — more than once during his brief tenure. Summers packed his bags in September. He was followed by Princeton economics professor and former top Obama Treasury Department official Alan Krueger in October 2010.

White House aides have lamented that the economic team is “exhausted.” Apparently, Obama is tired of hearing from them, too. The Hill newspaper reports that he has stopped receiving daily economic briefings that were once treated with the same emergency status as national security briefings. So, the central planners continue to be paid to fail — while their boss looks the other way at the destruction, whistling into what he calls America’s temporary “head winds.”

Nice non-work if you can get it. (Michelle Malkin)

So is our Dear Leaders solution to economic headwinds?

Give money we don’t have to people who have even less– Greece! 🙂

‘Nuff Said!

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Is Sanity Overrated?

“The most snort-worthy aspect of the White House spin on its health care waiver program is the idea that the administration is ‘promoting transparency,’” <Michelle> Malkin said in an email. “As usual, Team Obama is stonewalling on full disclosure of the waiver process. Americans deserve a thorough accounting of everyone who applied, everyone who was denied, and why.” 

Obama, stonewalling, nah…that never happens! :I

Understanding Liberals by Thomas Sowell

The liberal vision of government is easily understood and makes perfect sense if one acknowledges their misunderstanding and implied assumptions about the sources of income. Their vision helps explain the language they use and policies they support, such as income redistribution and calls for the rich to give something back.

Suppose the true source of income was a gigantic pile of money meant to be shared equally amongst Americans. The reason some people have more money than others is because they got to the pile first and greedily took an unfair share. That being the case, justice requires that the rich give something back, and if they won’t do so voluntarily, Congress should confiscate their ill-gotten gains and return them to their rightful owners.

A competing liberal implied assumption about the sources of income is that income is distributed, as in distribution of income. There might be a dealer of dollars. The reason why some people have more dollars than others is because the dollar dealer is a racist, a sexist, a multinationalist or a conservative. The only right thing to do, for those to whom the dollar dealer unfairly dealt too many dollars, is to give back their ill-gotten gains. If they refuse to do so, then it’s the job of Congress to use their agents at the IRS to confiscate their ill-gotten gains and return them to their rightful owners. In a word, there must be a re-dealing of the dollars or what some people call income redistribution.

The sane among us recognize that in a free society, income is neither taken nor distributed; for the most part, it is earned. Income is earned by pleasing one’s fellow man. The greater one’s ability to please his fellow man, the greater is his claim on what his fellow man produces. Those claims are represented by the number of dollars received from his fellow man.

Say I mow your lawn. For doing so, you pay me $20. I go to my grocer and demand, “Give me 2 pounds of steak and a six-pack of beer that my fellow man produced.” In effect, the grocer asks, “Williams, you’re asking your fellow man to serve you. Did you serve him?” I reply, “Yes.” The grocer says, “Prove it.”

That’s when I pull out the $20 I earned from serving my fellow man. We can think of that $20 as “certificates of performance.” They stand as proof that I served my fellow man. It would be no different if I were an orthopedic doctor, with a large clientele, earning $500,000 per year by serving my fellow man. By the way, having mowed my fellow man’s lawn or set his fractured fibula, what else do I owe him or anyone else? What’s the case for being forced to give anything back? If one wishes to be charitable, that’s an entirely different matter.
Contrast the morality of having to serve one’s fellow man in order to have a claim on what he produces with congressional handouts. In effect, Congress says, “You don’t have to serve your fellow man in order to have a claim on what he produces. We’ll take what he produces and give it to you. Just vote for me.”

Who should give back? Sam Walton founded Wal-Mart, Bill Gates founded Microsoft, Steve Jobs founded Apple Computer. Which one of these billionaires acquired their wealth by coercing us to purchase their product? Which has taken the property of anyone?

Each of these examples, and thousands more, is a person who served his fellow men by producing products and services that made life easier. What else do they owe? They’ve already given.

If anyone is obliged to give something back, they are the thieves and recipients of legalized theft, namely people who’ve used Congress, including America’s corporate welfare queens, to live at the expense of others. When a nation vilifies the productive and makes mascots of the unproductive, it doesn’t bode well for its future.

Obama wants to further economic development in the Middle East. Not here, in the Middle East, where he started a war in Libya. Uh, yeah….

So he wants more oil production, but only in Brazil where a Democrat Money God has investments.

Now he wants economic development in the Middle East where he started a war and they hate us to begin with.

Has Sanity gone out of fashion in Washington D.C.??

President Barack Obama is set to announce a government-directed plan for economic development in the Middle East that emphasizes the role of Western multinational organizations, but that also sidelines the role of companies, ignores the new democracy in Iraq and downplays regional cultural, tribal and religious practices.

“We’re going out of a decade of great tension and division, and now, having wound-down the Iraq war and having taken out Osama bin Laden, we’re turning the page to a positive future for the United State in the region,” said a senior administration official during a 25-minute press briefing on Wednesday that did not include any mention of Islam, the tribal cultures of the region, democracy in Iraq, or the word “company.”

The plan, which Obama will include in his Thursday speech on Middle East policy at the Department of State, calls for at least $2 billion in debt-relief and loan guarantees to be delivered to Egypt, Tunisia and other countries via non-profits, funding agencies and universities.

Obama’s economic agenda for the region will have four pillars, said the officials. Non-profits, think-tanks and universities will help provide better “economic management,” international aid will boost countries’ financial stability, international agencies can help foster “a strong private sector,” and trade-negotiators can help establish regional trading zones, said the officials. “We will galvanize support from the international community… [and] the multinational organizations will have a huge role to play here,” said one White House official.

Given his track record, if he gets what he wants this will surely defeat Al-Qaeda, Iran and Middle Eastern Terrorism. He’ll do to them what he did to us for “economic development”.

They will never have a chance, they’ll be too broke and too poor to attack us.

Good plan, Mr. President. 🙂

PACKING THE SUPREME COURT

Here’s another reason to get rid of our Dear Leader. He will pack the Supreme Court with his cronies.

He already has at least 1, Elena “she’s not qualified” Kagan. Want More?

Newly released documents reveal Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan was more involved with President Obama’s health-care law than she disclosed previously. The documents likely will lead to a revival of questions about whether the Kagan should recuse herself from future cases.

Specifically, the documents show that Kagan was involved with crafting the legal defense of the Affordable Care Act in her role as solicitor general, before her appointment to the bench. The Media Research Center and Judicial Watch obtained the documents through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit that was filed in February 2011.

In an email dated Jan. 8, 2010, then-Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal sent an email to Senior Counsel Brian Hauck and Deputy Attorney General Thomas Perrelli that indicates Kagan played a key role in coming up with a legal defense.

“Brian, Elena would definitely like OSG [Office of Solicitor General] to be involved in this set of issues … we will bring Elena as needed.”

In an email on March 21, 2010, Katyal urged Kagan to attend a health-care litigation meeting on defending the law. “I think you should go, no?” wrote Katyal. “I will, regardless, but feel like this is litigation of singular importance.”

The documents also show that once Kagan was nominated to the Supreme Court, she and Katyal immediately switched course to distance her from discussions about the legislation. (DC)

Gee, I wonder why? 🙂

But don’t worry, it’s all very TRANSPARENT! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel