Showing posts with label Daily Caller. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Daily Caller. Show all posts

Friday, October 25, 2013

Obama, healthcare Liar In Chief in 2009: “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”

Hundreds of thousands of Americans are involuntarily losing their healthcare plans as we speak and being forced to sign up for ObamaCare on a website which doesn't work.

From the story here:

Hundreds of thousands of Americans who purchase their own health insurance have received cancellation notices since August because the plans do not meet Obamacare’s requirements.

The number of cancellation notices greatly exceed the number of Obamacare enrollees.

Insurance carrier Florida Blue sent out 300,000 cancellation notices, or 80 percent of the entire state’s individual coverage policies, Kaiser Health News reports. California’s Kaiser Permanente canceled 160,000 plans — half of its insurance plans in the state — while Blue Shield of California sent 119,000 notices in mid-September alone.

Tuesday, August 13, 2013

Senator Rubio Fears Executive Orders Instead Of Fighting Them

He looks to his right, but to us it's left.
Sen. Rubio continues with his mission of disappointing the country and disappointing conservatives, here, expressly ceding his legislative authority to the executive:


“I have been saying now for over a year I believe that this president tempted, will be tempted, if nothing happens in Congress he will be tempted, to issue an executive order like he did for the DREAM Act kids a year ago, where he basically legalizes 11 million people by the sign of a pen,” Rubio said. ... “But we can’t leave it, in my mind, the way it is, because a year from now we could find ourselves with all 11 million people here legally through an executive order from the president, but no E-Verify, no border security, no more border agents — none of the other reforms that we desperately need.”

Monday, June 3, 2013

IRS' Lois Lerner Speedily Approved Obama's Brother's Charity, Retroactively 3 Years

Story here:

The National Legal and Policy Center filed an official complaint with the IRS in May 2011 asking why the foundation was being allowed to solicit tax-deductible contributions when it had not even applied for an IRS determination. In a New York Post article dated May 8, 2011, an officer of the foundation admitted, “We haven’t been able to find someone with the expertise” to apply for tax-exempt status.

Nevertheless, a month later, the Barack H. Obama Foundation had flown through the grueling application process. Lerner granted the organization a 501(c) determination and even gave it a retroactive tax exemption dating back to December 2008.

The group’s available paperwork suggests an extremely hurried application and approval process. For example, the group’s 990 filings for 2008 and 2009 were submitted to the IRS on May 30, 2011, and its 2010 filing was submitted on May 23, 2011.

Lerner signed the group’s approval on June 26, 2011.

It is illegal to operate for longer than 27 months without an IRS determination and solicit tax-deductible contributions.

Friday, May 17, 2013

Lefty Rep. Sander Levin Calls For The Head Of IRS' Calculating Snake Lois Lerner

Quoted here:


Sander Levin, the [House Ways and Means Committee's] ranking Democrat, said the IRS and its employees 'have completely failed the American people' by 'singling out organizations for review based on their name or political views, rather than their activity.'

'All of us are angry about this on behalf of the nation,' the left-leaning Michigan congressman said.

Lois Lerner is the civil servant who heads up the IRS division in charge of evaluating charitable and other nonprofit organizations. Levin called for her head.

'Ms. Lerner should be relieved of her duties.' he said.

We must seek the truth, not political gain.'

In what [ousted acting IRS commissioner Steven] Miller called 'a prepared Q-and-A' on May 10, Lerner told an American Bar Association conference about a pending IRS Inspector General report examining the targeting of conservative groups inside the IRS's Exempt Organizations section.

That admission started the media feeding frenzy that has spiraled into a full-blown scandal. The acknowledgement that Lerner went to the event with the intention of publicly disclosing the IG report's existence raised eyebrows on the congressional panel.

The Daily Caller here emphasizes that the disclosure by Lerner was pre-planned and misrepresented as an answer to an innocent question posed by an audience member at the American Bar Association conference when in fact the question was planted:


As it turns out, it was not a spontaneous revelation. The question, said outgoing IRS Commissioner Steven Miller in testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee Friday, was planted, as part of a prepared strategy for the IRS to release this information to the public.



Saturday, November 17, 2012

Thursday, September 27, 2012

And We Said NO To King George III . . . Why?

Moochelle and the Mooch are milking the presidency for all its worth, according to this story in The Daily Caller:


Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion dollars on everything from staffing, housing, flying and entertaining President Obama and his family last year, according to the author of a new book on taxpayer-funded presidential perks.

In comparison, British taxpayers spent just $57.8 million on the royal family. ...

Aside from a salary, the president gets a $50,000 a year expense account, a $100,000 travel account, $19,000 entertainment budget and an additional million for “unanticipated needs,” he notes.


It's the worst economy since WWII, but the Obamas are costing us 24 times what a Queen would. A Constitutional Monarchy never looked so good.

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Were 20,000 Non-Union Pensions At Delphi Victims Of Geithner At Treasury?

Administration officials have testified otherwise under oath.

The Daily Caller claims to have the goods on Geithner's Treasury Department, here. You know Geithner, the guy who forgot to pay taxes on his IMF salary, but is still the Secretary of the US Treasury Department anyway.

Obama's Financial Fascism At Work At DOJ: Not A Single Prosecution Since 2008

'Between 2002 and 2008, for instance, [the] GAI [Government Accountability Institute] points out how a Bush administration task force “obtained over 1,300 corporate fraud convictions, including those of over 130 corporate vice presidents and over 200 CEOs and corporate presidents.”


'“Clinton’s DOJ prosecuted over 1,800 S&L [savings and loans] executives, senior officials, and directors, and over 1,000 of them were sent to jail,” GAI adds.


'But, despite having “promised more of the same,” especially in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, the Obama administration’s DOJ has not brought criminal charges against a single major Wall Street executive.'

Read the whole sordid tale here at The Daily Caller, implicating Attorney General Eric

'Holder, Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli, Associate Attorney General Tony West, Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer, Deputy Attorney General James Cole and Deputy Associate Attorney General Karol Mason — who “all came to the DOJ from prestigious white-collar defense firms where they represented the very financial institutions the DOJ is supposed to investigate.”'

Saturday, June 16, 2012

Obama Is The Imperial President Democrats Thought Bush Was

Charles Krauthammer says it like it is, quoted here:


“This is out-and-out lawlessness. You had a clip of the president himself say months ago ‘I cannot do this on my own because there are laws on the books.’ Well, I have news for president — the laws remain on the books. They haven’t changed.”

“He proposed the DREAM Act of which the executive order is a variation. He proposed a DREAM Act. The Congress said no. The Congress is the one who makes the laws. What the administration does is it administers law.”

“And in fact, what it is pretending to do is to use discretion. That’s what the Homeland Security said. This is not discretion. Discretion is when you treat it on a one-by-one basis on the grounds of extenuating circumstances. That is declaration of a new set of criteria, which is essentially resurrecting the legislation that the Congress has said no to.”

“And I think this is not how you run a constitutional republic. This ought to be in the hands of Congress, and it is an end-run. And what’s ironic of course is for eight years, the Democrats have been screaming about the imperial presidency with the Bush administration — the nonsense about the unitary executive. This is out-and-out lawlessness. This is not how you govern. And I think that is the first issue that should be on the table.”

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

With Malia Obama in Off-Limits-For-Everyone-Else Mexico With 25 Secret Service Agents, The Whole Family Is Milking The Presidency

And Moochelle Obama protests on Letterman she's trying to preserve South Side of Chicago values in The White House.

Uh huh.

Here's a South Side value: When you want to be safe on the South Side, bring the Blackstone Rangers.

Stories here and here. And here.

She gotta new gang now.

Friday, March 9, 2012

Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Romney's Biggest Demographic in FL Was Women

As reported here and here.

52 percent of women overall, and 51 percent of married women.

Also notable about Romney voters:

Self-described moderates, 62 percent;
$200K+ in income, 60 percent;
Self-described moderate/liberal, 59 percent;
Oppose Tea Party, 57 percent;
Religion Catholic, 56 percent;
Abortion legal in all cases, 57 percent;
Doing well financially, 52 percent;
Foreclosures not a problem where I live, 54 percent;
Mitt about right on the issues, 82 percent;
Decided more than a month ago, 55 percent;
Campaign ads were important to decision, 59 percent;
Self-described Republican, 48 percent;
Self-described Independent, 41 percent.

"Sure, I'm a Republican."

FL Exit Polls Show Women Go Big For Romney at 51 Percent, Gingrich Second with 29

As reported here:

Among women, Texas Rep. Ron Paul won six percent, Gingrich won 29 percent, Romney won 51 percent and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum 13 percent.

Why aren't Santorum's and Paul's negatives with women indicative of their (non-existent) infidelities?

Erick Erickson predicted here that Cain and Gingrich would do poorly with women and not progress to the nomination because of their alleged infidelities.

Republican women in Florida must be pro-choice big time.

Who's The Opportunist? Newt Gingrich or Pat Buchanan?

Pat Buchanan has asserted (video and discussion here) that the Reagan White House viewed Newt Gingrich as something of a political opportunist and Rockefeller Republican:

“[I]n the Reagan White House, Newt Gingrich was considered quite frankly by a lot of folks to be something of a political opportunist and who was not trusted and who had played no role whatsoever. He was a Rockefeller Republican in the great Goldwater-Rockefeller battle, where conservatism came of age.”

Michael Reagan on The Laura Ingraham Show this morning found that amusing, coming from a guy who left the Republican Party to run for The Presidency on a third party ticket when he felt he could no longer get any traction in the GOP. Michael Reagan also pointed out that his father the president had once been a liberal Democrat before switching to the Republican Party in 1962.

Pat doesn't name names. Maybe "a lot of folks" is just code for "Pat Buchanan." Quite frankly.

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Michael Steele Gets Something Right

Quoted here:

“I think any conversation about having someone else come into this race at this point is not even feasible, it’s just outright stupid. ... It’s the establishment of Washington again foisting on them someone who didn’t go through the gauntlet, had not come to their kitchens or their businesses, that we’re now told we should support because these other guys aren’t right for the establishment crowd?”

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Stunning Video of the Dead Voting in New Hampshire Yesterday

Video and story here.

ID is not required to get a ballot in New Hampshire, just the way Democrats want it.

Friday, August 12, 2011

Newt Gingrich Rightly Slams Gang of Twelve on Secrecy

The DC has the story here. Newt called the Super Committee one of Washington's dumber ideas.

Friday, July 29, 2011

Another Voice Wrongly Claiming 'The Money is in the Middle'

Brian Wesbury at The DC, here:

What most people don’t realize is that the U.S. has gorged so much (boosting spending from roughly 18% of GDP in 2000 to 24% of GDP today), that the only way to pay for it is to tax the middle class. ...

The money is in the middle. And the only way our politicians can get it is to follow Europe’s lead and institute a national sales tax or Value-Added Tax (VAT). This is the elephant in the room that is never talked about. Those who are using the debt ceiling in an attempt to cut spending are actually saving the middle class from tax hikes — not the millionaires and billionaires.


It's a frequently repeated claim that the money is in the middle, but it's just not true, no matter how often  it is said.

If all the (reported) income in America were poured into a giant hour glass, you'd have to start it and wait about twenty minutes to begin to visualize how all the money is actually distributed.

A snapshot taken at that moment would show $5.7 trillion in adjusted gross income still in the top, and $2.8 trillion in AGI in the bottom. The kicker is that 35 million tax returns split what's on top, while the remaining 105 million tax returns, 75 percent of the total, divvy up what's on the bottom.

The money's definitely not "in the middle."

It's hard to get agreement on what's middle class in America, especially since it is a conceit of our society that everyone is middle class. The rich aspire down to it to escape notice, the poor up to it to escape the indignities of dependence.

But no matter what smoke anyone tries to blow up your bottom, the biggest single pile of money remains with the top 25 percent:

Top 10 percent = 14 million tax returns (10 percent of the total) = $3.9 trillion in AGI
The next 25-10 percent = 21 million tax returns (15 percent of the total) = $1.8 trillion in AGI

The next 50-25 percent = 35 million tax returns (25 percent of the total) = $1.7 trillion in AGI
The bottom 50 percent = 70 million tax returns (50 percent of the total) = $1.1 trillion in AGI.

It's ridiculous to think that a VAT tax will somehow generate huge piles of new tax revenue on the backs of the middle class.  The VAT will hurt them just like Social Security and Medicare taxes hurt them because it's regressive, not because they have a lot of untapped money they're going to be parting with.

Considering how much tax evasion there already is in America of the unreported income variety, variously estimated (here at $2 trillion, resulting in a tax gap of $500 billion), a VAT will fail simply because it will drive more and more of the economy underground where cash is king and credit cards, checks, invoices and receipts are anathema. Think of it as the inverse of how the rich escape high rates of taxation, for example by shifting to capital gains away from ordinary income. A quicker way to become Greece I cannot think of.

Setting money free to move around openly is the key to an effective tax policy. But bringing it out into the open where it can be captured and taxed depends on perceptions of fairness.

As long as too many people think some people should pay taxes at a higher rate just because they have more, we're not going to get there. 

Monday, June 13, 2011

The Turning Currents of Sarah Palin's Vulgarized Mind

Even after a very long relationship, John Ziegler can't quite seem to put his finger on Sarah Palin's problem in the essay excerpted below. There's hardly a man alive who can diagnose the feminine disease, blinded as men are to women by their own passions, but Jonathan Swift came close: "The current of a female mind stops thus, and turns with ev'ry wind."

Ziegler didn't realize it, but he was on to it, here:

“Hi, John Ziegler, this is Governor Sarah Palin,” said the familiar voice on my phone message. There was a pause. “From Alaska,” she added. It’s typical of Sarah’s underappreciated sense of humor to pretend this needed to be clarified. “I just sat down and watched your movie about 9/11,” she went on, “and it’s unflippin’ believable”—”flippin’” is one of her favorite expressions—”I would like to talk with you about this next documentary. Could you give me a call?”

At this point, Sarah and I had met only once, but we were already developing a bizarre relationship. Over the almost three years that followed, we would often act like friends—while at other times she would act like she barely knew me.