US embassy: ‘Don’t walk alone in Oslo at night’The United States embassy sent an email to US citizens in Oslo on Tuesday urging them to take extra care when out and about in the Norwegian capital after a spate of violent crimes in recent months.The embassy made reference to a knife attack on a tram at Solli Plass on January 5th, two stabbing incidents at Oslo Central Station on January 10th, as well as a number of assaults in the city’s parks, particularly Slottsparken (The Palace Park), national broadcaster NRK reports.Americans are advised by the embassy to observe five basic safety procedures, ”even in a generally safe country like Norway.”1. If possible, do not walk alone at night. If you are out late, arrange to walk with others or consider another form of transportation.2. Remain in well-lighted areas with heavy traffic.3. Be aware of your surroundings at all times; see potential threats before they become actual threats.4. Trust your instincts. If something seems wrong, get yourself out of the area.5. Keep your cell phone with you and charged to call for help if necessary. The police emergency number is 112, which you can dial from any land line or cell phone.Norwegian media have reported extensively in recent months on an unprecedented number of attacks, especially rapes, in the city’s street and parks.Scandinavian leftwing governments over the last generation have destroyed the peace and quiet of these once safe and sound Scandinavian nations. Its feminist laws, immigration laws, tax laws its entitlements and atheism have created a granny state unable to sustain the nation’s independence and civilized culture.These granny state agents have condemned Norway to Islamic Shariah voodooism and violence for its peoples’ future.
Mitch Daniels Responds
Mitch Daniels will deliver the GOP’s response to Obama’s State of the Union speech. You can read excerpts here. I have not been a particular Daniels fan–he’s Tim Pawlenty without the charisma and the consistent conservatism–but this is good stuff:
“As Republicans our first concern is for those waiting tonight to begin or resume the climb up life’s ladder. We do not accept that ours will ever be a nation of haves and have nots; we must always be a nation of haves and soon to haves. …
The extremism that stifles the development of homegrown energy, or cancels a perfectly safe pipeline that would employ tens of thousands, or jacks up consumer utility bills for no improvement in either human health or world temperature, is a pro-poverty policy. It must be replaced by a passionate pro-growth approach that breaks all ties and calls all close ones in favor of private sector jobs that restore opportunity for all and generate the public revenues to pay our bills.
That means a dramatically simpler tax system of fewer loopholes and lower rates. A pause in the mindless piling on of expensive new regulations that devour dollars that otherwise could be used to hire somebody. It means maximizing on the new domestic energy technologies that are the best break our economy has gotten in years. …
It’s not fair and it’s not true for the President to attack Republicans in Congress as obstacles on these questions. They and they alone have passed bills to reduce borrowing, reform entitlements, and encourage new job creation, only to be shot down nearly time and again by the President and his Democrat Senate allies. …
No feature of the Obama Presidency has been sadder than its constant efforts to divide us, to curry favor with some Americans by castigating others. As in previous moments of national danger, we Americans are all in the same boat. If we drift, quarreling and paralyzed, over a Niagara of debt, we will all suffer, regardless of income, race, gender, or other category. If we fail to shift to a pro-jobs, pro-growth economic policy, there will never be enough public revenue to pay for our safety net, national security, or whatever size government we decide to have. …
2012 must be the year we prove the doubters wrong. The year we strike out boldly not merely to avert national bankruptcy but to say to a new generation that America is still the world’s premier land of opportunity. Republicans will speak for those who believe in the dignity and capacity of the individual citizen; who believe that government is meant to serve the people rather than supervise them; who trust Americans enough to tell them the plain truth about the fix we are in, and to lay before them a specific, credible program of change big enough to meet the emergency we are facing.”
As I said, good stuff. Just one more thing: I am really, really tired of hearing about Warren Buffett’s secretary. She will be seated in the White House box tonight. It is time, as Glenn Reynolds wrote, to put up or shut up. If she is going to be made into a political figure, I want to see her tax returns for the last five years. If she agrees to produce them, I will offer a substantial wager that they do not show what her boss claims they do.
I came across this article at Pajamas Media about a year ago:
“London is cosmopolitan, not English”, says Cleese
“London is no longer an English city, says John Cleese. Is he right?” Ed West of the Telegraph
David Cameron’s speech on immigration may not have gone down too well with the parliamentary Liberal Democrats, but I can think of at least one Lib Dem supporter who probably agreed with the PM on this one. In an interview with Seven magazine, the Lib Dem-supporting comedy legend John Cleese explained why he had moved from London to Bath:
Cleese also spoke about the shift in British attitudes away from a “middle-class culture” and the emergence of a “yob culture”.
He said: “There were disadvantages to the old culture, it was a bit stuffy and it was more sexist and more racist. But it was an educated and middle-class culture. Now it’s a yob culture. The values are so strange.”
He added that he preferred living in Bath to London because the capital no longer felt “English”.
“London is no longer an English city which is why I love Bath,” he said. “That’s how they sold it for the Olympics, not as the capital of England but as the cosmopolitan city. I love being down in Bath because it feels like the England that I grew up in.”
It is certainly true that London explicitly sold the Olympics on the fact that the city, while less pleasant than Paris in every conceivable way, was multicultural. And while there are many positive things about cosmopolitan London – a dark-skinned Frenchman once told me that London was paradise because nowhere in France could he go about his business without fearing his skin colour might cause some problem – it is certainly not English in the way that Bath still is.
And Bath is English in a particularly liberal way, in the same way, I suppose, that Monty Python was. In fact, one of the strange things about immigration and enforced diversity is that it destroys the very things that liberals love about this country – its egalitarianism, its secularism (including the ability to laugh about religion), an unarmed police, a public willingness to pool resources to pay for publicly owned libraries, arts services, education and health care. Personally, being a latte-sipping European girly-man, I quite like those things, and yet they are slipping away (could Life of Brian even be made today? I’m not too sure).
Perhaps Cleese’s support for Liberal Democrats and his obvious scepticism about a process of social engineering that is endorsed by all three main parties is explained by his age. The equivalent Cleeses of my generation have probably come to accept this change, and where they privately doubt it they suppress their feelings.
But in order to rid England of its negative traits it rid of itself of many positive ones too. Charles Moore asked in this excellent national obituary about a British-born but very Bangladeshi taxi driver: “Would names like the Duke of Wellington, Tennyson, or William Blake have rung even the faintest bell?” True, but increasingly I wonder how many people of white British origin under the age of 40 would know about them. British history has been almost erased from the collective memory, and this was in part a response to immigration, and an ideological opposition to nation-states.
Salman Rushdie once said in a famous Channel 4 documentary: “Britain isn’t Nazi Germany. The British Empire isn’t the Third Reich. But in Germany, after the fall of Hitler, heroic attempts were made by the people to purify German thought and the German language of the pollution of Nazism. Such acts of cleansing are occasionally necessary in every society. But British thought, British society, has never been cleansed of the filth of imperialism. It’s still there, breeding lice and vermin, waiting for unscrupulous people to exploit it for their own ends.”
And this is sort of what happened to British culture – a purification of sin. One of the rationales for diversity is that it makes us better people, a logic that superficially makes sense; many of the people who seem to care most about immigration are hateful, weird and/or slightly mad, while those at the other end of the debate are all nice, easy-going and intelligent. Although Britain is unquestionably less racist than it was 40 years ago, have our overall cultural values improved? I’m not so sure.
Comment: John Cleese and most of the people making noise in the above article are from the BBC class having found their niche in life within the lefty posh. I have spent about a year of my life in and around London between 1991 and 2003. Every year of my visits I saw more and more disillusioned young native English males parading around enmasse drunk and angry with the usual numbers of their women admiringly joining in. They, like more and more young male Americans have been made more and more foreign in their own country, the land where they were born, while the wealth, education, jobs, and family order politically went to aliens, the new Western Woman, and the so-called British intellectual and very left wing government elite, whch included the John Cleeses of the Isles world.
I used to be a John Cleese fan. I still am. He and his buddies at Monte Python often gave me and my family the best laughs of our lives making fun of stuffy old England, these days so terribly maligned by leftwing neoracist classes John Cleese, the BBC and the Islamic invasion represent.
England is dead…..murdered by leftwing bigotry, diversity, and Muslim money.
The human animal is a pack animal. When Marxist dogma orders women into the male world whether the human female likes it or not, whether it is healthy for a society and its mores or not, whether, like the imposition of the steam engine, a cultural upheaval will take place.
Our America, despite all of the horrendous murders on its school and university campuses by angry males including the foreign kind, has been quite fortunate that yobi culture rebels haven’t begun their invasions widespread.
Black yobis however, had a bonanza year last season in Philadelphia, Milwaukee and in Britain’s London on the slaughter binge, hunting and pillaging racistly as they have done often in America’s past, yet to the Liberal college pressed mind, jolly old England was a more “racist” culture.
In jolly old England as well as in America during the more civilized moments of human life, the human male and human female had tasks consistent with their millenia past. They bore and raised children which kept nearly all of them busy and out of yobi troubles. Marxists have changed that. Modern folk live so much better than in yesteryear, we are told. The human female is Liberated and by statistics is supposed to become the equal of any male as males used-to-be, or are today, the Marxists tell us.
Who is supposed to protect the human female, when there aren’t any men around who care anymore?
What do these Marxist tyrants at university and in government expect from a civilization when they have destroyed the human family, particularly the human male, in order to enforce their atheistic utopia: the dictatorship of the equal.
State of the Union speech is full of soaring rhetoric
but skips over some major challenges
“A State of the Union address from a president seeking re-election is always an odd event. Especially in the face of a Congress, the president’s proclaimed program stands little chance of enactment.
The ambitious agenda of years past gives way to the knowledge, born of painful experience, of how difficult that will be to achieve. Meanwhile, the president’s proposals are made in the context of the race about to be joined, stacked up against the pie-in-the-sky promises of his opponents. The subtext is, inevitably, less a blueprint of the year to come than an explanation of why the president deserves reelection and a sneak preview of a second-term agenda.
In that context, President Obama’s speech Tuesday night combined soaring rhetoric with crowd-pleasing, often small-bore proposals. Mr. Obama spoke movingly about the eroding economic security of much of the middle class. Building on themes he sounded a few months ago in Osawatomie, Kan., the president argued against, as he put it, “settl[ing] for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by.” To raise this issue is not, as former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney (R) asserted even before the president’s speech, “divisive rhetoric from a desperate campaigner in chief.”
The president’s biggest new idea was attaching a number to his previously articulated “Buffett Rule” — billionaire Warren Buffett’s position that he should not pay a smaller share of his income in taxes than his secretary’s; she was in attendance in the first lady’s box. Mr. Obama announced that not only billionaires but all those earning $1 million or more a year should pay at least 30 percent of their income in taxes. Think of this as a new version of the alternative minimum tax.
This position sets up a politically useful contrast between Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney. It is not a fleshed-out proposal that the administration expects, for example, to produce as a line item in the forthcoming budget. Administration officials could not tell us how much revenue such a change would produce. But Mr. Obama is right to take on the unlevel and distorting playing field of a code that taxes ordinary earned income at a much higher rate than investment income.
Mr. Obama has said he wants to make the tax code simpler, but his proposals would further complicate it, adding or reshuffling preferences for manufacturing. This kind of picking and choosing between manufacturing and other businesses, or between different kinds of manufacturers (the president said he wants to double the deduction for high-tech manufacturers), or between towns that have lost factories and towns that haven’t, introduces needless complexity into an already unwieldy code. It also relies on a vision of manufacturing as an engine of jobs that may not be realistic in an age of increasingly automated factories.
Once again Mr. Obama slighted the threat that the federal deficit poses to the growth he said he wants. As with last year’s State of the Union speech, when he relegated the debt to a near-aside late in the speech, Mr. Obama did not go beyond a rhetorical nod to the issue. Indeed, in arguing for increased investment in U.S. infrastructure — a worthy idea — Mr. Obama gave up on the traditional approach of paying with an increase in the gasoline tax or similar user fees. Instead, he relied on the dodge of “paying for” those costs by using some of the savings from winding down operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The administration is right to be frustrated by congressional unwillingness to consider real pay-fors, but wrong to respond with a measure that would just make the deficit worse.
Mr. Obama’s discussion of foreign policy focused on the two achievements likely to be a major focus of his election campaign, the withdrawal of the last troops from Iraq and the killing of Osama bin Laden. He vowed that America would remain (borrowing President Clinton’s phrase) the one “indispensable” nation, even as he cuts a half-trillion dollars from the military budget. The president did not hint at any significant foreign policy initiatives for the coming year; even on Iraq, he failed to discuss future relations with that strategic oil producer, which has headed toward renewed internal conflict since the last U.S. soldiers pulled out.
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, delivering the Republican rebuttal, had the fiscal question right when he said: “If we drift, quarreling and paralyzed, over a Niagara of debt, we will all suffer, regardless of income, race, gender, or other category.” But his eloquence is undercut by his party’s refusal, far more doctrinaire than Mr. Obama’s, to entertain responsible proposals to pay for the nation’s needs.”
Comment: Throughout my entire life, Democrats have bribed the American public for their votes to pass more laws to establish greater and greater government power over the citizen. More laws require inevitably cause more crime and more police to enforce government laws. Marxism is inevitable. When those entitled from government largesse outnumber those who still work for a living producing the wealth, a democratic society is doomed.
Forty eight per cent of American adults pay no federal income tax. Obama stealthfully is appealing to these masses to hate those remaining who create wealth and to organize this hate to guarantee his re-election, Hugo Chavez style in Venezuela.
Obamatalk emphasizes fairness. All Marxist tyrants have promised ‘fairness’ and ‘equality’ to their bleating flocks. History is filled with texts recording the results of these Marxist regimes. Americans cannot read them. They have attended college where Marxist priests hang out to sculpt the future.
Robbing Peter to Pay Paul is a Powerful Slogan among Marxists!
It’s so winsome, especially if you are a Paul, as I am. And there are so many of us ‘Pauls’…..(the robbery seems so fair! But what is the cost of this Obamarule? Think of things GREECE, fellow Americans before you ever vote Greek!)
Obama Stresses Fairness in Building Durable Recovery
President Obama, accused by his Republican opponents of making a rocky economy worse, used his third State of the Union address to argue to tens of millions of prospective voters that he is the leader with the passion for fairness, and the policy vision, to deliver an “America built to last.”
The president wrapped that phrase around his efforts to revive an economy still deeply shaken by a housing bubble, corporate excesses pegged to complex financial bets and borrowed money, and rules seemingly rigged against the little guy. “The state of our Union is getting stronger,” the president assured Americans who consistently tell pollsters they have lost confidence in the country’s direction.
If Obama is to win a second term, he has said he must persuade voters he can deliver tangible and durable prosperity — and soon.
“Built to last” is a phrase President Reagan first used in an economic speech in October 1982, when the country battled high inflation and soaring interest rates. During a prime-time address, Reagan explained that the “big difference between the recovery America is headed for today and the shaky, temporary recoveries of the recent past: This one is built to last.”
He added, “This time, we’re going to keep inflation, interest rates and government spending, taxing and borrowing down, and get Americans back on the job.”
Three years after his inauguration and months after a dramatic turnaround from political centrist to populist, Obama on Tuesday night became a bit of a thief. He borrowed that Reagan phrase, lifted Teddy Roosevelt’s “fair deal” constructs from the turn of the century, evoked President Clinton’s 1996 assertion that “we can’t go back to the era of fending for yourself” — and followed Harry Truman’s mode that an embattled president stymied by lawmakers can and should campaign against them.
“We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by,” Obama said, “or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules. What’s at stake are not Democratic values or Republican values, but American values.”
Obama’s speech, studded with policy initiatives both new and recycled, was also a political blueprint, consciously drawn to contrast with the Republican challengers who are slashing their way through this year’s primary contests. The next one takes place in Florida in just one week. The White House and Obama’s campaign team still believe Mitt Romney has the best shot to become the GOP nominee, despite Newt Gingrich’s current surge. Using an annual Washington ritual and more than an hour of uninterrupted TV coverage, Obama laid down his markers for those watching.
Although White House aides insisted that Obama’s address would be a traditional policy stem-winder to accompany his next budget, which will be unveiled Feb. 13, no one was buying that spin, even the president. Supporters and those who receive information from Obama’s campaign received personal email messages (with appeals for donations) from the president shortly after 7 p.m. Tuesday. “Dear Betty,” one such email read. “I’m heading to Capitol Hill soon to deliver my third State of the Union address. Before I go, I want to say thanks for everything you’re doing. Tonight, we set the tone for the year ahead. . . . I’m glad to know you’ll be standing with me up there. Barack.”
As expected, middle-class Americans were protagonists in Obama’s tale of a revitalized nation. He argued for tax relief for middle-income earners, pegged to another extension of the payroll tax holiday — a fight that will resume in Congress when the current one expires Feb. 28 — plus retention of the Bush tax cuts for those earning less than $250,000 a year.
Obama challenged Congress to work with him to overhaul the tax code so that individuals earning more than $1 million a year would pay an effective tax rate of at least 30 percent. That new detail — 30 percent, an arbitrary equalizer representing what White House advisers said most middle-class wage-earners pay annually — expanded Obama’s embrace of the so-called “Buffett Rule,” named for billionaire advocate Warren Buffett.
It also coincided with Romney’s release Tuesday of his 2010 tax return and estimated tax information for 2011, which confirmed that the former Massachusetts governor, a multi-millionaire, paid an effective tax rate of about 14 percent.
A “fair deal” on taxes, Obama proposed, would bar those making over $1 million from taking advantage of tax deductions and subsidies currently allowed by law for mortgages, health care, retirement, and the costs of child care. The wealthy also could no longer qualify for food stamps, unemployment benefits or farm subsidies, the White House said. Previous news reports have underscored that no one who earned more than $1 million received food stamps recently, and in 2009, about 2,300 got unemployment benefits. The real target for the administration is likely the farm subsidies tapped by wealthy — and mostly Republican — farmers, possibly including a few in Congress.
While Romney has said he would veto the DREAM Act — legislation that would provide conditional permanent residency to some illegal aliens — Obama used his speech to reassure Hispanics that he wants to achieve a pathway to citizenship during his second term. “I will sign it right away,” the president said. Democrats believe Latino voters, along with independents, will make or break Obama’s chances for re-election. “We should be working on comprehensive immigration reform right now,” he added to applause in the House chamber.
Rather than offering U.S. corporations generous tax incentives to hire more workers but without conditions, as many Republicans advocate, Obama said he would ask Congress to work with him on “comprehensive corporate tax reform” that would close loopholes, eliminate incentives that encourage companies to ship jobs overseas, while also lowering some rates. The president said he would like to make all U.S. companies pay a minimum tax on their overseas profits, while creating a new tax credit to cover the “moving expenses” of companies that opt to shut down their operations abroad and bring their businesses home, offering jobs to U.S. workers.
Although Romney has said he would not have bailed out the auto industry, Obama touted his decision to back an industry that has recovered. “On the day I took office, our auto industry was on the verge of collapse,” the president said. “Some even said we should let it die.”
(The president will travel to Michigan on Friday, where he will reiterate his points and explain policies mentioned in his State of the Union address to help reduce college costs.)
With the national unemployment rate at 8.5 percent, the president used his speech to tout manufacturing as a bright spot in the economy. He urged Congress to work with him to enact tax changes to support new capital investments in communities hardest hit by job losses.
In Obama’s telling, big corporations are both the beacon of the future and something of a bane among middle-class workers during a time of layoffs, outsourcing, and high unemployment. The president celebrated high-tech innovators, American manufacturers, the auto companies, and energy-saving businesses of all stripes. But at the same time, to appeal to average Americans, he suggested in his address that Republicans, if they controlled Washington, would seek to return the country to an anything-goes corporate climate that contributed to the financial meltdown in 2008.
As Reagan did in his 1982 speech, Obama gazed backward, rather than at the evidence of a stutter-step recovery since he took office in 2009. “We will not go back to an economy weakened by outsourcing, bad debt, and phony financial profits,” he declared.
In the wake of the great recession and in the midst of a foreclosure crisis nationwide, independent government watchdogs have criticized the administration’s efforts to help troubled borrowers remain in their homes. Americans across the political spectrum have expressed bewilderment that mortgage fraud, foreclosure irregularities and investor fraud inside the big banks were not investigated and prosecuted.
Eager to make a rhetorical show of helping mortgage borrowers, Obama focused on “every responsible homeowner” and the benefits they could realize by refinancing mortgages that are in good standing. They are getting the “runaround from the banks,” he said, and if Congress agrees on some legislative changes that tap a proposed fee on the banks, those borrowers could save $3,000 a year through refinancing.
This part of the president’s agenda, along with an order to Attorney General Eric Holder to set up a “Financial Crimes Unit” to prosecute “large-scale financial fraud” — three full years into his administration and after years of documented greed, criminality and mismanagement on Wall Street — were among the weakest and least credible of his address. The applause among lawmakers for these initiatives was muted, even among the Democrats. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, formerly the head of the New York Federal Reserve as the financial crisis erupted and the economy took a swan dive, clapped slowly as Obama moved through those passages, his brow furrowed.
Republicans were on their feet when Obama talked about opening more offshore territory to oil and gas exploration; when he said a smaller, smarter government made sense; and when he talked tough about the Assad regime in Syria.
The president asked Congress to help him govern, but his intended audience Tuesday was far outside the Capitol. Collaborative, or combative, Obama framed his message around leadership and vision.
“While we may not be able to bridge our biggest philosophical differences this year, we can make real progress,” he said. “With or without this Congress, I will keep taking actions that help the economy grow. But I can do a whole lot more with your help. Because when we act together, there is nothing the United States of America can’t achieve.”
by Steve Kornacki at Salon:
There was plenty of mush in his State of the Union, but also an unmistakably combative and populist tone
Before Tuesday night, it had been 16 years since a Democratic president gave a State of the Union address in his reelection year.
And in some ways, the speech that Barack Obama delivered was very similar to the one that Bill Clinton offered back in 1996. But if you put aside all of the platitudes, mushy rhetoric and feel-good proposals, the heart of Obama’s remarks demonstrated that he’s intent on pursuing a far more combative and populist path to a second term than the one Clinton followed.
It was during his Jan. 23, 1996, State of the Union that Clinton uttered the signature line of his presidency. “The era of big government is over,” he told a joint session of Congress that night. The line captured the essence of an election year message that largely conceded the broad themes of the Reagan revolution while offering the incumbent as a more compassionate implementer of them than his Republican opponents.
Obama’s address included no shortage of appeals to unity, bipartisanship and overriding national purpose, and he articulated plenty of vague, popular-sounding policy goals, much as Clinton did during his ’96 campaign. But his central message stressed a sharp and basic philosophical contrast with his partisan opponents – one he clearly plans to make the centerpiece of his reelection effort.
Specifically, the fight Obama wants to have is over income inequality and tax fairness, with the aim of exposing today’s Republican Party as the chief protector of a super-affluent elite that has grown even wealthier as the rest of America has struggled. For decades, Republicans have scored points accusing Democrats of “class warfare,” but the White House’s bet is that in post-meltdown America the “99 percent” message has resonance with blue-collar voters who have in the past embraced the GOP’s individualist pitch.
In his speech, Obama offered a forceful and comprehensive rebuttal to the class warfare charge, one we’ll surely be hearing again and again these next nine months. He made a case for letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire and for imposing the “Buffett rule” – doing away with tax rules that allow millionaires who make their money from investments to pay an income tax rate that’s lower than the one paid by people who earn a fraction of their income. He made the case in moral terms, as a way to affirm a social contract that’s been violated by the policy-making of the past three decades:
Now, you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.
When Americans talk about folks like me paying my fair share of taxes, it’s not because they envy the rich. It’s because they understand that when I get tax breaks I don’t need and the country can’t afford, it either adds to the deficit, or somebody else has to make up the difference – like a senior on a fixed income; or a student trying to get through school; or a family trying to make ends meet. That’s not right. Americans know it’s not right. They know that this generation’s success is only possible because past generations felt a responsibility to each other, and to their country’s future, and they know our way of life will only endure if we feel that same sense of shared responsibility. That’s how we’ll reduce our deficit. That’s an America built to last.
Obviously, this is a message that could be particularly effective if Obama’s opponent is Mitt Romney, the private equity veteran whose tax records indicate that he paid a 14 percent effective federal rate thanks to the current rules on investment income. But it’s one Obama will stress no matter who his opponent is. After all, Newt Gingrich, Romney’s chief rival for the GOP nomination, is actually proposing that the capital gains tax be eliminated altogether – a move that would drop the effective tax rate of Romney and others like him close to zero.
“We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by,” Obama said early in his speech, “or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.”
He’s embracing the idea that there is fundamental philosophical divide between the parties on the most important economic questions facing the country. That’s a very different message than the one he delivered in his State of the Union last year, when he was coming off a midterm election drubbing and he believed that his best bet for reelection was in following the Clinton ’96 model.
But a massively frustrating spring and summer of 2011, which culminated in the GOP’s rejection of his debt ceiling “grand bargain” and a public relations disaster, finally convinced the White House that meaningful compromise with Tea Party-era Republicans simply isn’t possible – and that pretending otherwise was politically suicidal. Since then, Obama has made it his mission to call out Republicans for their obstructionism and to shine a light on who is protected by their obstructionism. His State of the Union on Tuesday night laid the groundwork for a reelection campaign that will be defined by that theme.
Comment: This State of the Union Obama is the Obama who promised “Change you have been waiting for”….to America……the change to Marxist government rule to dictate to Americans how much their incomes should or shouldn’t be, how much living space they will be allowed to live in, how much they should be allowed to eat, travel, rest, what newspapers they will be allowed read. to maintain the “people’s harmony.”
A Marxist culture already exists in America today in its metropolitan inner city black plantations, a One Party power culture led by crooks and politicians, bribes and gangsterism to provide goodies rather than a civilized society based on respect for individual decency and ingenuity, achievement, and honesty self reliance. Even the drug trade ubiquitous in these areas is “governed” top down and in secret.
”It’s Not The State Of The Union, It’s The State Of The Presidency”
by Charles Krauthammer Video from realclearpolitics:
“I think it’s rather clear that the president is going to continue the theme he developed in that speech in Kansas, the Teddy Roosevelt speech, which is going to be the basis of his reelection campaign. This is all about reelection. This is not a State of the Union, it’s the state of the presidency. But that’s what happens in the last year of any term, so it’s not unusual at all that he used the platform,” Charles Krauthammer said on FOX News’ “Special Report” tonight.
“He can’t run on his stewardship, he’s added that much to the debt. We have high unemployment and a stagnant economy. He can’t run on ideology or policy when two signature achievements, Obamacare and the stimulus are highly unpopular. You won’t hear him using those in his ads,” Krauthammer said in his pre-buttal of Obama’s State of the Union address.
“And you would expect therefore that his speech would be about what he wants to do, major initiatives in the second term. Like a major overhaul of the tax code. Perhaps he’ll do that. But it looks as if the main theme is going to be: I’m the tribune of the middle class, I will protect it against the rich who are oppressing it and squeezing it and raping [and] pillaging it. And against the protectors of the one-percent, the plutocrats, the Republicans in Congress and the ones who are looking to run for the presidency who care only about the rich, lowering taxes for the rich and nothing for the American people. That is a bit of a caricature, but it’s not a lot of a caricature.”
Comment: I believe Mr. Obama will run in his Marxist ideology, but cloaked in his lie of giving people ‘fair share’.
Who will decide the fair share. Obamarule, of course……as it turned out to be Stalinrule in the good old USSR. Every American should know Marxist Nikolai Lenin’s Law for Defeating Private Enterprise:
“The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency. ”
Click below for video:
AFSCME’s Newtron bomb
Hugh Hewitt draws attention to the astounding news that the AFSCME arm of the AFL-CIO has bought $800,000 worth of television time to run this ad attacking Mitt Romney’s tenure at Bain. (Hugh credits Conn Carroll for the inside dope.)
AFSCME’s ad gives voice to some of the same sort of high-minded concerns about Romney’s work at Bain that Newt has voiced. The ad will run throughout the state of Florida through the primary on January 31. AFSCME wants to help Republicans do Democrats the favor of serving up Gingrich to run against President Obama in the fall.
AFSCME supports Newt because it is of the view that Newt is the weakest of the three serious GOP candidates remaining. AFSCME’s game runs a few leagues beyond Rush’s Operation Chaos, designed for entertainment value to prolong an opponent’s intraparty contest. Rather, it is AFSCME’s Newtron bomb, designed surgically to destroy the Republican Party while leaving the buildings standing. AFSCME is detonating its bomb to provide crucial support to the GOP’s weakest possible nominee.
I can’t think of a single thing that AFSCME supports that people of good judgment shouldn’t oppose, and I seriously doubt that this is an exception. I should think that conservatives who are drinking Newt’s hard stuff would be sobered up finding themselves in bed with the AFSCME crowd on the morning after the South Carolina primary.