Sarah Palin Re-Writes Dr. Seuss’ Green Eggs & Ham at CPAC: “I Do Not Like This Uncle Sam, I Do Not Like His Health Care Scam”
Sarah Palin wows them at CPAC with her on version of Green Eggs and Ham, in honor of Sen. Ted Cruz’s (TX-R) reading of the Dr. Seuss classic during his filibuster last year, … “I Do Not Like This Uncle Sam, I Do Not Like His Health Care Scam”
“I do not like this Uncle Sam. I do not like his health care scam. I do not like — oh, just you wait — I do not like these dirty crooks, or how they lie and cook the books. I do not like when Congress steals, I do not like their crony deals. I do not like this spying, man, I do not like, ‘Oh, Yes we can.’ I do not like this spending spree, we’re smart, we know there’s nothing free. I do not like reporters’ smug replies when I complain about their lies. I do not like this kind of hope, and we won’t take it, nope, nope, nope.”
Rutgers Faculty Approves Resolution to Rescind its Invitation to Condoleeza Rice to Speak at Commencement
THE LIBERAL INDOCTRINATION OF AMERICA’S COLLEGES …
Liberal, duplicitous Rutgers faculty looks to rescind the university’s original invitation to former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice to speak at their Commencement. Condi is just to Republican to speak at Rutgers, according to the libs in the faculty. Get a load of the reason why the liberal elite at Rutgers do not want Condi to speak at the commencement. One professor said, “She was intimately involved in a campaign that was a manipulation. Whether she was aware of it or not. Our students are being manipulated to deliver a political point.” Another said, “an honorary Doctor of Laws degree should not honor someone who participated in a political effort to circumvent the law.” Hmm, I guess that also means that Hillary Clinton (Benghazi) and Barack Obama (Obamacare and his entire presidency) would be deemed the same as not fitting the criteria to speak at a Rutgers commencement? Add the entire Obama administration since the Rutger’s profs added, “whether some one was aware of it or not.” Who are these two face, elitist, liberal moon-bats kidding. Sadly, they are
teaching indoctrinating our children.
Hey Rutgers lib profs … talk to the hand
The Rutgers University New Brunswick Faculty Council approved a resolution yesterday urging the university’s Board of Governors to rescind its invitation to Condoleeza Rice to speak at commencement.
The Board of Governors voted earlier this month to award an honorary Doctor of Laws degree to Rice, who served as Secretary of State under President George W. Bush. She will be paid $35,000 for her commencement address.
But the faculty council cited her war record and her misleading of the public about the Iraq war as reasons for their opposition.
“Condoleezza Rice … played a prominent role in (the Bush) administration’s effort to mislead the American people about the presence of weapons of mass destruction,” according to the resolution. And she “at the very least condoned the Bush administration’s policy of ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ such as waterboarding,” it said.
“A Commencement speaker… should embody moral authority and exemplary citizenship,” it continued, and “an honorary Doctor of Laws degree should not honor someone who participated in a political effort to circumvent the law.”
What a shocker, President Barack Obama’s minimum wage economic policies look to destroy more jobs …
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report on the economic effects of Barack Obama’s proposal to increase the minimum wage from its present $7.25 per hour to $10.10. The CBO looked at two options. One, raise the minimum wage in three steps to $10.10 by 2016, and Two, raise it in two steps to $9.00 by 2016. In either option, the US economy either loses some jobs or many jobs, but make no mistake, they will lose jobs. The CBO announced that an increase in the minimum wage will cost between 500,000 and one million jobs. Basically, Obama and Democrats boasting about raising the minimum wage is nothing more than a distraction to their current political nightmare.
Well this does not fit the Obama/Democrat Talking points …
Once fully implemented in the second half of 2016, the $10.10 option would reduce total employment by about 500,000 workers, or 0.3 percent, CBO projects (see the table below). As with any such estimates, however, the actual losses could be smaller or larger; in CBO’s assessment, there is about a two-thirds chance that the effect would be in the range between a very slight reduction in employment and a reduction in employment of 1.0 million workers.
As summed up by the PJ Tatler, the report in that there is one positive impact to raising the minimum wage, although one groups silver lining is another’s silver bullet. Is it really worth raising some out of poverty at the expense of even more people losing their jobs completely?
The CBO does find one positive impact: Raising the minimum wage would move some 900,000 Americans out of poverty.
But that would come at the cost of potentially sending a million workers out of jobs altogether. That’s hardly the goal that Obama and the Democrats are selling.
The Washington Times discusses Three ways that the CBO contradicts Obama on minimum wage. Imagine that, Obama lying?
- Obama: “The opponents of the minimum wage have been using the same arguments for years, and time and again they’ve been proven wrong. Raising the minimum wage is good for business, and it’s good for workers, and it’s good for the economy.”
- Obama: “Rais[ing] the federal minimum wage to $10.10 wouldn’t just raise wages for minimum-wage workers, its effect would lift wages for about 28 million Americans.”
- Obama: Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour, “would lift millions of Americans out of poverty immediately.”
I have to ask the following parting question: How is it that Obama and his minions can tell us what the positive benefits will be to raising the minimum wage, but they can’t tell us to the person how many are 100% enrolled in Obamacare and have paid their first premiun when the data is on a database in front of them?
Buyers Remorse: Economist/YouGov.com Poll Finds that Only 79% of Obama Voters Given a Do-Over Would Vote for Him Again, 71% Would Vote For Someone Else
American Voters Want a Mulligan on the 2014 Presidential Election … How’s that “Hopey-Changey” stuff working out for you America?
According to a recent The Economist/YouGov.com poll, 71% of Obama voters are now inclined to vote for somebody else and “regret” their vote to reelect the president. If the election were rerun today, Obama would lose and Mitt Romney would be president. Oh, if only!!! It is too bad that so many Americans did not see what so many on the Right saw in Obama. However, for some bizarre and uninformed reason they were willing to give this failed president a second term. Now we know that if Americans had known the obvious, Obama would have lost badly in 2014.
Sadly, we do not get a do-over and are stuck with this failed president until 2016.
These fools actually thought my political pre-election rhetoric was the truth, ah, ha, ha, ha
Amazing data from the polling sample:
- 80% of whites said yes, 61% of blacks said no and 100% of Hispanics said yes.
- 84% of women said yes, and just 61% of men agreed.
- 55% of Democrats said yes, as did 71% of independents.
Given a chance to do it all over again, only 79 percent of those who voted for President Obama would vote for him again and 71 percent of Obama voters now inclined to vote for somebody else “regret” their vote to reelect the president, according to a new poll.
The Economist/YouGov.com poll found that Obama would lose enough votes in a rematch with Mitt Romney that the Republican would win. “90 percent of people who voted for Romney would do it again, compared to only 79 percent of Obama voters who would,” said the poll.
“Clearly Romney fares better, although he had fewer voters to begin with. As a proportion of the voters each of them actually received in 2012 (66 million for Obama and 61 million for Romney), the GOP candidate ends up with 55 million votes retained to Obama’s 52 million. Not exactly a wipeout. It’s also unclear for any poll that hypothetically revisits 2012 how much it says about renewed hope for Mitt Romney – who has notably been liberated from the scrutiny of a presidential campaign Â– rather than about dissatisfaction with an incumbent president who has spent the last year defending his administration over leaks, scandals and Obamacare roll-outs,” added the poll.
The GOP might want to take notice of the 100% Hispanic vote that regret their vote from above before they continue to bend over backwards and PO their base with amnesty.
Posted February 19, 2014 by Scared Monkeys
2014 Elections, Barack Obama, Chicago-Style Politics, class warfare, Community Agitator, Corruption, cronyism, Democrats, Divider in Chief, Economy, Epic Fail, Ethics, Government, Healthcare, Hope and Change, Imperial President, Jobs, Misleader, Misrepresentation, Obamacare, Obamanation, Obamanomics, Polls, The Lying King, Transparency, Unemployment | one comment
Barack Obama Campaign Bundler Noah Bryson Mamet Nominated as Ambassador to Argentina Even Though Has Never Been to the Country
What a joke, Don’t Cry for Me Argentina … Obama Style. What else would you expect from a community organizer and a “Campaigner in Chief”?
Remember when Barack Obama campaigned that he was going to change the way things were done inside the Belt Way? Well you can forget that as Barack Obama is rewarding one of his campaign blunders with an ambassadorship to Argentina. Noah Bryson Mamet bundled more than $500,000 for President Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign and is now being rewarded for his fundraising. There is just one problem, the man who is supposed to represent the United states in Argentina has never been to the country. UNBELIEVABLE. One would think, as echoed at Slate, with the current state of affairs in Argentina, “delicate times, probably opportune times for a diplomat with years logged in South America”.
The Buenos Aires Herald reports, Mamet, who would be replacing Vilma Martínez after her term ended on July 4, is a veteran Democratic fund-raiser and consultant who has no evident experience with Latin American issues.
Sen. Marco Rubio shows his disbelief that the nominee for Ambassador to Argentina has never been there
Presidents often award diplomatic posts to campaign donors and fundraisers, but Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., suspects that Obama’s choice of ambassador to Argentina — a man who bundled more than $500,000 for President Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign, but who has never been to the country — is in over his head.
“Have you been to Argentina?” Rubio asked Noah Mamet during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing Thursday.
“I haven’t had the opportunity yet to be there,” Mamet replied. “I’ve traveled pretty extensively around the world, but I haven’t yet had a chance [to visit Argentina].”
Rubio implied that Argentina is too important a country to be entrusted to a campaign donor rather than a professional, as is the case with some other diplomatic posts. “I don’t view this appointment as one — I think this is a very significant post,” he said.
UPDATE I: This nomination by Barack Obama gets worse, if possible. In the VIDEO below the US State Department spokesperson does not even know if the nominee for the position to be an Ambassador in a Latin American country speaks Spanish. ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!! How could you not know this? Is it any wonder how the Hillary Clinton lead State Department botched Benghazi?
“I don’t have his personal biography in front of me.”
This presidency cannot end soon enough!
How could this not be considered a conflict of interest?
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) questioned Attorney General Eric Holder on the impartiality and conflict of interest in the IRS investigation of conservative groups and Tea Party organizations by the IRS. To data no one has been held accountable, even though President Obama and Holder both initially proclaimed their outrage. However, of all the attorneys in the Justice department, he managed to find one to lead the investigation that was a big Obama campaign donor. ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!! What would happen if a Republican administration did the same? These folks are as corrupt as it gets.
“In the 280 days since that inspector general report, nobody has been indicted,” Cruz said. “Not a single person. In the 280 days since that inspector general report, it’s been publicly reported that no indictments are planned. Today in this hearing, you were unwilling to answer a question whether even a single victim of targeting has been interviewed.”
And, Cruz said, “most astonishingly, it has now been publicly reported that the lead lawyer heading the investigation was, No. 1, appointed from the civil rights division, which has historically been the most politically charged division in the Dept. of Justice. And even more astonishingly, is a major Democratic donor and donor to President Obama.”
Hmm, what does the Obama administration and IRS have to hide … I thought this was supposed to be the most transparent presidency ever? Time to appoint an independent prosecutor. Where is the MSM reporting this abuse of power?
Attorney General Eric Holder had a long day on Wednesday. He clashed with a number of no-nonsense lawmakers during a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, including Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas).
Cruz pressed Holder on the Justice Department’s investigation into the IRS targeting scandal, calling the results of the probe “astonishing.”
“In my view, the integrity of the Department of Justice has been severely compromised,” Cruz told Holder. “Predecessors of yours in both parties, Democrat and Republican, when faced with serious charges of abuse of power for partisan gain have made the right decision and appointed special prosecutors.”
“I would call upon you to carry out the tradition of independence that attorneys general have honored that office with for centuries and protect the integrity of the Department of Justice,” he later added. “Given the political sensitivities, given the fact that individual citizens believe they are being persecuted by the federal government for partisan reasons.”
Full VIDEO fron CSPAN can be seen HERE.
Tea Party Response to Obama’s SOTU from Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) … Calls Obamacare an “Inequality Godzilla.” that Has Robbed Americans of Their Insurance, Doctore, Wages and Jobs
I hate to say we told you so America, but we told you so …
Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) provided the Tea Party response to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address blamed big Democrat, progressive, liberal government for the problems that Americans face and no greater example of out of control, over-reaching, over-spending and over-stated than the presidents signature piece of legislation, Obamacare. Lee referred to Obamacare as an “Inequality Godzilla, that has robbed working families of their insurance, their doctors, their wages and their jobs.” Kudos to Senator Lee for also placing blame at the hands of establishment Republicans as well for the problems we face as he stated, “they can be just as out-of-touch as the Democratic Establishment.”
“This inequality crisis presents itself in three principal forms,” Lee (R-Utah) said. “Immobility among the poor, who are being trapped in poverty by big-government programs; insecurity in the middle class, where families are struggling just to get ahead, and they can’t seem to get ahead; and cronyist privilege at the top, where political and economic insiders twist the immense power of the federal government to profit at the expense of everyone else.”
“Obamacare – all by itself – is an inequality Godzilla that has robbed working families of their insurance, their doctors, their wages and their jobs,” Lee said. “Many Americans are now seeing why some of us fought so hard to stop this train-wreck over the last four years.”
“I believe we need to do what Americans have always done – come together and press for positive change. Protesting against dysfunctional government is a great American tradition, going back to the original Tea Party in Boston, about 240 years ago,” Lee said. “Americans have a natural instinct to stand up and speak out when they know something is wrong. … Unfortunately, in recent years, we have had no choice but to engage in a number of protests against our current president’s Washington-centered agenda.”
The truth of the matter is that income inequality has risen under Barack Obama.
Hillary Clinton’s Hit List: She Kept a File of Sinners and Saints … A Special Circle of Clinton Hell Reserved for People Who Endorsed Obama over Hillary
So Democrats, are you on Hillary’s Hit List?
This morning The Politico writes about Hillary Clinton’s hit list. Who would possibly believe that some one so warm, kind and compassionate like Hillary Clinton could have a “hit list” for paybacks against individuals who abandoned her in favor of Barack Obama for the Democrat nomination in the run up to the 2008 presidential election and thus devastating her life-long political aspirations of becoming president? Hell hath no fury like a Hillary scorned. According to the Politico, those that stabbed the Clinton’s in the back after all the fundraising and political favors. Individuals were rated on a scale of 1 to 7, where 7 was considered Hilary’s “SH*T” list. Interestingly enough, then, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), who would succeed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State in the Obama administration, was among those who received a “7″. The list also contained, the late and former Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy.
For Hillary it is all about 2016 and her ambition to be president at all cost.
As one of the last orders of business for a losing campaign, they recorded in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet the names and deeds of members of Congress. They carefully noted who had endorsed Hillary, who had backed Obama, and who had stayed on the sidelines—standard operating procedure for any high-end political organization. But the data went into much more nuanced detail. “We wanted to have a record of who endorsed us and who didn’t,” a member of Hillary’s campaign team said, “and of those who endorsed us, who went the extra mile and who was just kind of there. And of those who didn’t endorse us, those who understandably didn’t endorse us because they are [Congressional Black Caucus] members or Illinois members. And then, of course, those who endorsed him but really should have been with her … that burned her.”
For Hillary, whose loss was of course not the end of her political career, the spreadsheet was a necessity of modern political warfare, an improvement on what old-school politicians called a “favor file.” It meant that when asks rolled in, she and Bill would have at their fingertips all the information needed to make a quick decision—including extenuating, mitigating and amplifying factors—so that friends could be rewarded and enemies punished.
Their spreadsheet formalized the deep knowledge of those involved in building it. Like so many of the Clinton help, Balderston and Elrod were walking favor files. They remembered nearly every bit of assistance the Clintons had given and every slight made against them. Almost six years later, most Clinton aides can still rattle off the names of traitors and the favors that had been done for them, then provide details of just how each of the guilty had gone on to betray the Clintons—as if it all had happened just a few hours before. The data project ensured that the acts of the sinners and saints would never be forgotten.
There was a special circle of Clinton hell reserved for people who had endorsed Obama or stayed on the fence after Bill and Hillary had raised money for them, appointed them to a political post or written a recommendation to ice their kid’s application to an elite school. On one early draft of the hit list, each Democratic member of Congress was assigned a numerical grade from 1 to 7, with the most helpful to Hillary earning 1s and the most treacherous drawing 7s. The set of 7s included Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), Bob Casey (D-Pa.) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), as well as Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Baron Hill (D-Ind.) and Rob Andrews (D-N.J.).
Yet even a 7 didn’t seem strong enough to quantify the betrayal of some onetime allies.
When the Clintons sat in judgment, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) got the seat closest to the fire. Bill and Hillary had gone all out for her when she ran for Senate in 2006, as had Obama. But McCaskill seemed to forget that favor when NBC’s Tim Russert asked her whether Bill had been a great president, during a Meet the Press debate against then-Sen. Jim Talent (R-Mo.) in October 2006. “He’s been a great leader,” McCaskill said of Bill, “but I don’t want my daughter near him. VIDEO”
The book by Amie Parnes and Jonathan Allen is called “HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton.”
UPDATE I: I could not agree more than with Jammie Wearing Fool who says that this jit list most likely goes back decades. Amen brother. An excel spreadsheet? More likely a Tera-byte hard drive of enemies.
AND THE LIES JUST CONTINUE … Now the Obama White House is Saying that 7 Million Signups for Obamacare by March Was Never Their Goal
If the Obama White House minions mouths are moving, you can rest assured they are lying …
How bad is it when even MSNBC is trying to hold the Obama White House’s feet yo the fire as to Obamacare signup goals and questions the truthfulness of Obama’s minions? White House adviser for health policy Phil Shiliro said to MSNBC that the goal for Obamacare was never 7 million signups by March, that was just some arbitrary number from the CBO. What a joke, Schiliro denied that the Obama administration ever set Obamacare enrollment goals of 7 million consumers or that benchmarks were necessary. Really, no benchmarks, I guess we can see why the roll-out and entire concept of Obamacare is a disaster.
What a shock, the Obama administration is moving the goal post once again. The GOP has stated that Obama was infamous for doing this, yet Americans paid no attention. I bet they are now. It is fair to say that nothing from the Obama administration can be trusted.
WELKER: Are you confident that you’re going to be able to meet your target of getting 7 million people by the end of March? And is that still your target number
SCHILIRO: Well, that was never our target number. That was a target that was put out by the Congressional Budget Office and has become the accepted number. But there’s no –
WELKER: Well Kathleen Sebelius has said 7 million people, that that’s the goal.
SCHILIRO: But that was because it came from the Congressional Budget Office and it had become an accepted number. There’s no magic to the 7 million. What there is magic to is that in the month of December, a million Americans signed up for insurance. Not because they had to. They didn’t face a penalty if they didn’t. They signed up because they wanted insurance on Jan. 1.
But wait, what do you mean that 7 million was not the goal? That is the number that HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius stated was the target back in June 2013. But ever since then the White House has lowered the bar and now they have lowered it so much they claim there were no benchmarks. Next thing you know Obama’s minions will be touting negative signups.
Sebelius on Monday said 7 million is a “realistic target.”
“We’re going to be driving our efforts toward that kind of enrollment effort,” she said. “It’s both about numbers and also hopefully getting a balanced risk pool.”
VIDEO below shows HHS Sec Sebelius agreeing with the 3 million target
But what makes it all worse is that not even the so-called 2.1 million who think they have enrolled in Obamacare, really have not. So they are referring to enrolled as individuals who have signed up but may not have paid their premium. How does one have coverage or considered enrolled if they have not paid? So on January 1, 2013 the new set of challenges will begin. How many people think they have insurance coverage; however, do not?
With President Obama’s health care law scheduled to begin in earnest when the new year kicks off, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius claimed on a Tuesday conference call that as of Dec. 28, “2.1 million people have enrolled in a private insurance plan” through the program.
Later in the call, Sebelius emphasized that enrollments wouldn’t be completed until individuals paid their first month’s premiums.
But HHS officials still won’t disclose how many of the 2.1 million they claim enrolled through the federal healthcare.gov website or one of the state-based exchanges actually paid for coverage.
Though Sebelius left the call before the question-and-answer session, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services spokeswoman Julie Bataille declined several times to provide payment information.
Posted January 2, 2014 by Scared Monkeys
Barack Obama, Chicago-Style Politics, Cover-Up, cronyism, Epic Fail, Gutter Politics, Healthcare, Healthcare Canceled, Healthcare.gov, HHS, Insurance Canceled, Kathleen Sebelius, Liars, Misleader, MSNBC, Obamacare, Obamanation, The Lying King, Transparency, You Can Keep Your Insurance | no comments
Why “Establishment, RINO” Republicans need to go … Who knew lying was considered a talent to be proud of?
The Hill is reporting that Senator John McCain (AZ-R), says that we should not underestimate Barack Obama and to count a man out of that talent would be a mistake. Just curious Sen. McRino, exactly what talents are you actually referring to? Would it be Obama’s ability to not follow the Constitution, to pass executive orders rather than have the Congress pass laws, to have the talents to force such a disastrous law like Obamacare down the throats of Americans, his masterful skills of backing the Muslim Brotherhood in foreign policy that have the Middle East on fire or would it be his keen ability to put a record number of Americans on food stamps? Would it be Obama’s talent to divide a country, destroy the very foundation that America was built on or the record spending and $17 trillion debt and counting? Maybe it is Obama’s ability to have so many scandals going on in one presidency, that must be his talent. So McRino, which is it?
Obama is not a man of talent, he is a man who is destroying America bit by bit …
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) says people shouldn’t underestimate President Obama as he heads into his sixth year in the White House.
He discounted Obama’s low approval ratings and said a sitting president always has influence.
“We all wear thin with the American people after a while,” McCain told the Associated Press.
“To count a man of that talent out at this point in time in his administration would be a huge mistake,” he added.
So let’s understand this, we are witness to a sitting president who’s cornerstone for his election in 2008 and reelection in 2012 has been a lie that Obamacare is going to provide free healthcare to millions of uninsureds, but it would also allow you to keep your healthcare if you liked it, would allow you to keep your doctors if you liked them and reduce healthcare costs. ALL LIES!!! Now we have a RINO like McCain coming out and defending Obama that he is some formidable individual, are you kidding me? This is exactly what is wrong with the gutless establishment GOP. RINO’s think Obama is a “man of talent” rather than a bold face liar!
For the love of God and all things Holy, please, oh please have the GOP 2016 candidate not be a moderate, squishy candidate like McRino and Romney … PLEASE!!!