Hypocrisy

[festeringZit]

[h=1]Report: Voting Machines in Battleground States Switching Romney Votes for Obama[/h]

242
15
2770

---

Email Article
Print Article Send a Tip


by Tony Lee 3 Nov 2012 195 post a comment

[h=2]After complaints from voters in at least six states that their intended votes for Mitt Romney on electronic touchscreen voting machines came up as votes for President Barack Obama, the Republican National Committee (RNC) sent a letter to election officials in six states -- Ohio, Nevada, Kansas, North Carolina, Missouri and Colorado -- asking them to more strictly monitor their electronic voting machines on Election Day.[/h] John R. Phillippe, Jr. sent a letter to election officials in those six states and asked them to, among other things, "re-calibrate all voting machines on the morning of Election Day before the polls open, or, if necessary, the day before the election" and "make arrangements for additional technicians on Election Day in case of increased calibration problems."
The RNC also asked election officials to "issue guidance requiring polling place officials to prominently post a sign reminding voters to double-check that the voting machine properly recorded their vote before final submission" and another requiring "polling place officials to remind voters to double-check that the voting machine properly recorded their vote before final submission, and to note that poll workers should be notified and can assist in the case of a voting machine error."
In North Carolina, an early voter who wanted to vote for Romney saw her vote for him come up as an Obama vote twice before she was able to cast her ballot for Romney.
The same thing happened to a voter in Ohio, when Joan Stevens hit Romney's name on her touchscreen only to see Obama's name come up -- twice.
"I don't know if it happened to anybody else or not, but this is the first time in all the years that we voted that this has ever happened to me," Stevens told Fox News. "Maybe you make a mistake once, but not three times," she told Fox News.
Multiple voters from several states have told Fox News about similar incidents:

One voter asked: "I wonder how many voters just hit the 'Cast Ballot' without reading the machine?"
"How can we be sure our votes are not being stolen electronically?" asked another.
​

Barbara Simons, an expert on electronic voting who is on the Board of Advisors of the U.S. Election Commission, said "vote jumping complaints have arisen in every election that uses touch-screen voting machines, with the complaints going both ways."
She said vote-jumping can occur "when a machine goes out of calibration" and the "need to re-calibrate frequently is an important reason for discarding these aging, unreliable, and inaccurate machines and replacing them with paper ballots."
Election officials have insisted that it is "nearly technically impossible" to preconfigure electronic voting machines but conceded that faulty and old touchscreen voting machines were more likely to erroneously record someone's vote, especially if the machines have not been re-calibrated.
Stevens, the Ohio voter, insisted that people "be very careful" when they vote using electronic touchscreen machines.
"I don't care who you vote for, just double-check," Stevens said.

 

[roadreeler57]

[h=5]Barack Obama's Dead Fly added a new photo.[/h]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/s480x480/407706_10151184935627740_859445193_n.jpg

 

[festeringZit]

[ This lying sack of shit should be impeached ]
[h=1]Proof: Obama Refused to Call Benghazi 'Terror,' CBS Covered Up[/h]

1810
16
776

---

Email Article
Print Article Send a Tip


by Joel B. Pollak 5 Nov 2012, 8:04 AM PDT 147 post a comment
[h=2]In an astonishing display of media malpractice, CBS News quietly released proof--two days before the election, far too late to reach the media and the public--that President Barack Obama lied to the public about the Benghazi attack, as well as about his later claim to have called the attack "terrorism" from the beginning.[/h] CBS unveiled additional footage from its 60 Minutes interview with President Obama, conducted on Sep. 12 immediately after Obama had made his statement about the attacks in the Rose Garden, in which Obama quite clearly refuses to call the Benghazi an act of terror when asked a direct question by reporter Steve Kroft:

KROFT: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya Attack, do you believe that this was a terrorism attack?
OBAMA: Well it’s too early to tell exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.
​

CBS News held onto this footage for more than six weeks, failing to release it even when questions were raised during the Second Presidential Debate as to whether Obama had, in fact, referred to the Benghazi attack as an act of terror before blaming it falsely on demonstrations against an anti-Islamic video. The moderator, CNN's Candy Crowley, intervened on Obama's behalf, falsely declaring he had indeed called the attack an act of terror in his Rose Garden statement, and creating the impression that Romney was wrong.
That exchange turned what would have been an outright win for Romney in the debate into a narrow win or possibly a loss--and it discouraged him from bringing up the issue again in the next debate or on the campaign trail. CBS News could have set the record straight, but held onto this footage, releasing it just before the election--perhaps to avoid the later charge of having suppressed it altogether.
Fox News' Bret Baier, who has been following the timeline of events closely, noted in his analysis this morning:

These are two crucial answers in the big picture. Right after getting out of the Rose Garden, where, according to the second debate and other accounts he definitively called the attack terrorism, Obama is asked point blank about not calling it terrorism. He blinks and does not push back.
Understand that this interview is just hours after he gets out of the Rose Garden.
How after this exchange and the CIA explanation of what was being put up the chain in the intel channels does the Ambassador to the United Nations go on the Sunday shows and say what she says about a spontaneous demonstration sparked by that anti-Islam video? And how does the president deliver a speech to the United Nations 13 days later where he references that anti-Islam video six times when referring to the attack in Benghazi?
There are many questions, and here are a few more.
Why did CBS release a clip that appeared to back up Obama's claim in the second debate on Oct. 19, a few days before the foreign policy debate, and not release the rest of that interview at the beginning?
Why on the Sunday before the election, almost six weeks after the attack, at 6 p.m. does an obscure online timeline posted on CBS.com contain the additional "60 Minutes" interview material from Sept. 12?
Why wasn't it news after the president said what he said in the second debate, knowing what they had in that "60 Minutes" tape -- why didn't they use it then? And why is it taking Fox News to spur other media organizations to take the Benghazi story seriously?
Whatever your politics, there are a lot of loose ends here, a lot of unanswered questions and a lot of strange political maneuvers that don't add up.
​

Actually, the conclusion to be drawn is quite simple: CBS News, in an effort to assist President Obama's re-election campaign, corruptly concealed information about two critical issues--namely, a terror attack and the president's dishonesty about it. When the players in the Libya scandal face investigation, so, too, should CBS News and those in the mainstream media who have wantonly assisted the administration's shameless lies.

 

[roadreeler57]

[h=5]If Obama is Reelected the Good Citizens of the U.S. Are Screwed shared Barack Obama's Dead Fly's photo.[/h]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/s480x480/602458_10151186031347740_1563565344_n.jpg

 

[roadreeler57]

[h=5]If Obama is Reelected the Good Citizens of the U.S. Are Screwed shared Conservative Lady's photo.[/h]



https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s480x480/527328_494115273942848_1435610288_n.jpg

 

[mplastered]

If Obama is Reelected the Good Citizens of the U.S. Are Screwed shared Conservative Lady's photo.





https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s480x480/527328_494115273942848_1435610288_n.jpg

Not true. The Dems won't be up yet.

 

[festeringZit]

 

[festeringZit]

Sign of the day

(near Ft. Collins-Loveland Airport, Loveland, Colorado)

 

[festeringZit]

[h=3]Allegation of unions putting illegal immigrants on voter rolls clouds Nevada voting[/h] by Dan Springer | November 05, 2012

• Print
• Email
• Share
• Share
• 1 Comments

Just hours before voters go to the polls in the battleground state of Nevada, a national group has announced it plans to file a complaint regarding illegal immigrants purportedly being allowed to vote.
ALIPAC, Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, based in Raleigh, N.C., sent the Nevada secretary of state an email outlining its intention.
"We want to stop the felonious thefts of American elections," says William Gheen, ALIPAC's president.
Gheen points to a commentary published in Sunday's Las Vegas Review Journal. In it, editorial writer Glenn Cook accuses the Culinary Union 226 of knowingly registering illegal immigrants and then pressured them to vote.
Cook quotes an unidentified illegal immigrant who is on the Clark County voter rolls. The person claims a union representative told them they were "in so much trouble" for refusing to vote.
Catherine Lu, a spokesperson for Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller, said she could not comment on Cook's editorial or ALIPAC's official complaint.
Gheen says his group wants all non U.S. citizens removed from the voter rolls before Tuesday's election. He suggested the state could use Homeland Security databases such as E-verify to do the job.
The voter in Nevada for president figures to be close. A compilation of the final polls shows President Obama with a 2.8 percent lead among likely voters. But political insiders give Obama a slightly more comfortable edge in large part because of the expected Hispanic vote.
In the last two elections, Hispanics made up 15 percent of the electorate and voted overwhelmingly for Democrats.
Gheen says Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, would have been ousted in 2010 if not for illegal immigrants voting. A complaint by loser Sharon Angle did not overturn the results.
He also says his group, which has 40,000 members, will organize a boycott of Las Vegas if action is not taken.

Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2...oter-rolls-clouds-nevada-voting#ixzz2BRyqiEhR
​

 

[festeringZit]

[h=1]VOTE INTIMIDATION IN PHILLY?
Booted GOP officials ordered seated,
Black Panthers back at '08 polling site[/h]

 

[festeringZit]

[h=1]FUNNY BUSINESS IN PHILLY
GOP officials booted, Black Panthers return — and Obama at polling site?[/h]

 

[festeringZit]

[ here we go... ]

[h=1]World markets slide on Obama win, Draghi comments[/h] By CNNMoney Staff @CNNMoneyInvest November 7, 2012: 8:53 AM ET

• 
  

HONG KONG (CNNMoney) -- World markets lost momentum and turned lower Wednesday, following the re-election of U.S. President Barack Obama and pessimistic comments from European Central Bank president Mario Draghi.
"Unemployment is deplorably high," the central bank president said. "Overall economic activity is weak and it is expected to remain weak in the near term. And the growth of money and credit are subdued."

 

[festeringZit]

The night we waved goodbye to America... our last best hope on Earth

UPDATED: 12:57 EST, 10 November 2008

Anyone would think we had just elected a hip, skinny and youthful replacement for God, with a plan to modernise Heaven and Hell – or that at the very least John Lennon had come back from the dead.

The swooning frenzy over the choice of Barack Obama as President of the United States must be one of the most absurd waves of self-deception and swirling fantasy ever to sweep through an advanced civilisation. At least Mandela-worship – its nearest equivalent – is focused on a man who actually did something.

I really don’t see how the Obama devotees can ever in future mock the Moonies, the Scientologists or people who claim to have been abducted in flying saucers. This is a cult like the one which grew up around Princess Diana, bereft of reason and hostile to facts.

The night America changed: Barack and Michelle Obama in Chicago

It already has all the signs of such a thing. The newspapers which recorded Obama’s victory have become valuable relics. You may buy Obama picture books and Obama calendars and if there isn’t yet a children’s picture version of his story, there soon will be.

Proper books, recording his sordid associates, his cowardly voting record, his astonishingly militant commitment to unrestricted abortion and his blundering trip to Africa, are little-read and hard to find.

If you can believe that this undistinguished and conventionally Left-wing machine politician is a sort of secular saviour, then you can believe anything. He plainly doesn’t believe it himself. His cliche-stuffed, PC clunker of an acceptance speech suffered badly from nerves. It was what you would expect from someone who knew he’d promised too much and that from now on the easy bit was over.

He needn’t worry too much. From now on, the rough boys and girls of America’s Democratic Party apparatus, many recycled from Bill Clinton’s stained and crumpled entourage, will crowd round him, to collect the rich spoils of his victory and also tell him what to do, which is what he is used to.



Just look at his sermon by the shores of Lake Michigan. He really did talk about a ‘new dawn’, and a ‘timeless creed’ (which was ‘yes, we can’). He proclaimed that ‘change has come’. He revealed that, despite having edited the Harvard Law Review, he doesn’t know what ‘enormity’ means. He reached depths of oratorical drivel never even plumbed by our own Mr Blair, burbling about putting our hands on the arc of history (or was it the ark of history?) and bending it once more toward the hope of a better day (Don’t try this at home).

I am not making this up. No wonder that awful old hack Jesse Jackson sobbed as he watched. How he must wish he, too, could get away with this sort of stuff.

And it was interesting how the President-elect failed to lift his admiring audience by repeated – but rather hesitant – invocations of the brainless slogan he was forced by his minders to adopt against his will – ‘Yes, we can’. They were supposed to thunder ‘Yes, we can!’ back at him, but they just wouldn’t join in. No wonder. Yes we can what exactly? Go home and keep a close eye on the tax rate, is my advice. He’d have been better off bursting into ‘I’d like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony’ which contains roughly the same message and might have attracted some valuable commercial sponsorship.

Perhaps, being a Chicago crowd, they knew some of the things that 52.5 per cent of America prefers not to know. They know Obama is the obedient servant of one of the most squalid and unshakeable political machines in America. They know that one of his alarmingly close associates, a state-subsidised slum landlord called Tony Rezko, has been convicted on fraud and corruption charges.

They also know the US is just as segregated as it was before Martin Luther King – in schools, streets, neighbourhoods, holidays, even in its TV-watching habits and its choice of fast-food joint. The difference is that it is now done by unspoken agreement rather than by law.

If Mr Obama’s election had threatened any of that, his feel-good white supporters would have scuttled off and voted for John McCain, or practically anyone. But it doesn’t. Mr Obama, thanks mainly to the now-departed grandmother he alternately praised as a saint and denounced as a racial bigot, has the huge advantages of an expensive private education. He did not have to grow up in the badlands of useless schools, shattered families and gangs which are the lot of so many young black men of his generation.

If the nonsensical claims made for this election were true, then every positive discrimination programme aimed at helping black people into jobs they otherwise wouldn’t get should be abandoned forthwith. Nothing of the kind will happen. On the contrary, there will probably be more of them.

And if those who voted for Obama were all proving their anti-racist nobility, that presumably means that those many millions who didn’t vote for him were proving themselves to be hopeless bigots. This is obviously untrue.

Yes we can what?: Barack Obama ran on the ticket of change


I was in Washington DC the night of the election. America’s beautiful capital has a sad secret. It is perhaps the most racially divided city in the world, with 15th Street – which runs due north from the White House – the unofficial frontier between black and white. But, like so much of America, it also now has a new division, and one which is in many ways much more important. I had attended an election-night party in a smart and liberal white area, but was staying the night less than a mile away on the edge of a suburb where Spanish is spoken as much as English, plus a smattering of tongues from such places as Ethiopia, Somalia and Afghanistan.

As I walked, I crossed another of Washington’s secret frontiers. There had been a few white people blowing car horns and shouting, as the result became clear. But among the Mexicans, Salvadorans and the other Third World nationalities, there was something like ecstasy.

They grasped the real significance of this moment. They knew it meant that America had finally switched sides in a global cultural war. Forget the Cold War, or even the Iraq War. The United States, having for the most part a deeply conservative people, had until now just about stood out against many of the mistakes which have ruined so much of the rest of the world.

Suspicious of welfare addiction, feeble justice and high taxes, totally committed to preserving its own national sovereignty, unabashedly Christian in a world part secular and part Muslim, suspicious of the Great Global Warming panic, it was unique.

These strengths had been fading for some time, mainly due to poorly controlled mass immigration and to the march of political correctness. They had also been weakened by the failure of America’s conservative party – the Republicans – to fight on the cultural and moral fronts.

They preferred to posture on the world stage. Scared of confronting Left-wing teachers and sexual revolutionaries at home, they could order soldiers to be brave on their behalf in far-off deserts. And now the US, like Britain before it, has begun the long slow descent into the Third World. How sad. Where now is our last best hope on Earth?

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-America--best-hope-Earth.html#ixzz2BYjt1Y00

​

 

[festeringZit]

[h=1]HURT: Obama victory means four more years with no hope of change[/h]

• 
  [*=left]Politics
  [*=left]Senate
  [*=left]White House
  [*=left]George Bush

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

WASHINGTON — All that for nothing. It was the billion-dollar election that did not decide one single damned thing.
Republicans control the House. Democrats control the Senate. And the White House remains in Democratic hands with absolutely no mandate whatsoever.
Another four years with no hope of change.
In this environment with this economy and all the gravely important matters pressing against the very existence of this country, it should have been a tsunami election. It should have been a landslide that sent President Obama into dust heap of failed presidencies. Instead, the election was about Big Bird.
It was the rape election. The contraception election. The binders full of women election.
It was about who was born where and whether she really could claim to be a Cherokee Indian.
It was about former president George W. Bush. And it was about gay marriage.
It was about the 1 percent and the 99 percent and the 47 percent.
It was about dancing freaking horses, for crying out loud!
Just about the only thing the election wasn’t about was the economy, which everyone agrees was the only thing voters actually cared about. People tend to really care about the economy when real unemployment reaches double digits, welfare rolls fatten by one-third, politicians rack up $16 trillion in debt and the largest tax hike in the history of the world looms just weeks away.
Yet that obviously is not what decided this election. Politicians were too busy talking all about Big Bird, rape and dancing horses.
The most disturbing issue of the election was how President Obama managed to win re-election in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania and Michigan by talking about the highly unpopular bailout of General Motors. By taking billions of dollars in hard-earned money from taxpayers during a deep recession and giving it to a couple of huge companies, Obama managed to buy the votes he needed to eke out re-election. Taxpayers remain on the hook to the tune of $25 billion.
This is the Achilles heel of a democracy. Politicians simply tax those who do not support them and give the money to those who do. Or give the money to those they would like to have support them. It is the end of the line. Game over.
The weeks to come will feature endless finger-pointing and blame about how Republicans do not know how to speak to non-white voters and women and all that non-sense.


Read more: HURT: Obama victory means four more years with no hope of change - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...eans-four-more-years-no-hope-c/#ixzz2BYkc1VJf

 

[festeringZit]

[h=5][/h]
‎

 

[festeringZit]

[h=1]More ballots turn up in Broward[/h]8:45 p.m. EST, November 12, 2012

Seven days after the election ended, and two days after the results were unofficially certified, Broward elections workers Monday said they had found 963 unaccounted-for ballots in a warehouse.
They were put in the wrong place, members of the Broward County Canvassing Board were told on Monday.
"How can you lose them? This is terrible,'' said Dania Beach candidate Chickie Brandimarte, whose close race won't be called until at least Tuesday.

• Related
• Video: Late-night comedians have their fun with Florida election results
• Broward sends vote results to Tallahassee, orders recounts in Hallandale and Dania Beach
• Critics call failed constitutional amendments too conservative, too controversial
• 
  Maps
• Broward, FL, USA
• Lauderhill, FL, USA

Ads by Google

• Best of Google in 3 sizesDiscover the new Nexus smartphone and tablets from Google. www.google.com/nexus
• 3 Early Signs of DementiaDoctor: Know These 3 Warning Signs You're About to Suffer Dementia www.w3.newsmax.com

Elections Supervisor Brenda Snipes said it's customary for more votes to be added to the totals until the Nov. 18 final certification.
"Everybody who's been around for any period of time knows that managing paper is a chore, and you don't count it overnight,'' she said. "What we do, and we've found it beneficial, is to comb the entire plant looking for something that may have been put in the wrong place. It happens. And when we did that, that's when we identified [the additional] votes.''
Ads by Google

• 3 Early Signs of DementiaDoctor: Know These 3 Warning Signs You're About to Suffer Dementia www.w3.newsmax.com

James Rowlee, attorney for the Canvassing Board for the past 10 years, said that to his knowledge, there'd been no 1,000-vote increase after the uncertified results. "But we asked the state on the phone, and they said it was fine.''
Florida already is the butt of national humor for holding elections that take days longer than the rest of the nation to tally, that require voters to stand in six-hour lines, feature confusing "butterfly'' ballot designs or require that a dimple in a chad be interpreted by a panel in order to discern a vote for president.
"We searched every nook and cranny, high and low,'' said Ed Solomon, director of election planning and development. "These are the additional ballots we found in several sweeps.''
The vote counts have been amended, he said, and didn't change any results. But that did not mollify canvassing board member Ilene Lieberman, a county commissioner, who hit him with question after question.
"It's troubling to me that the numbers keep changing,'' she said afterward.
Snipes said when ballots and the accompanying computer jump drives are found, her staff checks the precinct number on the ballots and checks to see if the tabulated votes there match the number of voters who checked in to vote. If not, the ballots are tabulated.
Of the 963 previously uncounted ballots, 798 were from Election Day, and 165 were absentee ballots, according to the Elections Office data.
Florida returned to paper ballots in 2007, and 762,000 people in Broward voted in this election.
"I think we've done pretty good," Snipes said Monday.
The revelation brought back memories for some of ballots found months after the election in 2003 in then-Supervisor Miriam Oliphant's offices.
Local leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties said they didn't recall seeing such a post-election discovery, except in Oliphant's case, when the discovery came so late, the votes weren't tabulated.
Local Republican Party Chairman Richard DeNapoli called it "suspicious'' that the chain of custody of ballots might have been broken.
"I know it's a big operation. But you'd think there'd be an organizational system, a better one.''
Local Democratic Party Chairman Mitch Ceasar and said even if the discovery of additional ballots is a customary part of the process, as Snipes says, improvements are needed.
"It's never perfect science,'' Ceasar said. "But it always needs to strive to be better.''
bwallman@tribune.com or 954-356-4541

 

[festeringZit]

[h=1]Fiscal Cliff: $4.75 in Tax Hikes for Every $1 in Spending Cuts[/h]

36
1
46

---

Email Article
Print Article Send a Tip


by Mike Flynn 13 Nov 2012, 8:16 AM PDT 13 post a comment

[h=2]One of the left's favorite parlor games to play on Republicans is to ask them, hypothetically, if they would accept $1 in tax hikes for something like $9 or $10 in spending cuts. The game is designed to show that Republicans have some kind of unreasonable opposition to higher taxes. Republicans, however, realize it's a trick. The tax hikes are always real, while the promised spending cuts never materialize. This year, however, the slow-moving train wreck dubbed the "fiscal cliff" offers an even worse bargain. Unless a deal is struck, the "fiscal cliff" will deliver $4.75 in tax hikes for a measly $1 in spending cuts.[/h] The "fiscal cliff" is simply the confluence of the expiration of several tax measures and mandatory spending cuts put in place during last year's negotiations on the debt ceiling. The across-the-board spending cuts, i.e. sequestration, take effect if Obama and Congress fail to identify specific spending reductions. The media uses scary words like "draconian" and "severe" to describe the cuts, but in reality they are a paltry $109 billion a year. That's just around 3% of this fiscal year's spending. Even with this cut, federal spending will still increase next year by around $16 billion.
Meanwhile, taxes will increase $474 billion next year alone. Only about $98 billion of this is the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts. $125 billion comes from the expiration of the payroll tax cut. $130 billion comes from the expiration of the Alternative Minimum Tax "patch". (That alone warrants its own article as a damning indictment of how our Congress works.) New ObamaCare taxes and various other measures total up to a 20% increase in taxes over this fiscal year.
Even with this massive tax increase the government would still run a $600 billion deficit next, far more than any by a President not named Obama.
So, the question is, now what? The fulfillment of the left's wildest dreams on taxes isn't enough to plug our fiscal hole. Assuming the CBO's projections are correct and the tax increase doesn't spark a downturn in the economy, our government will still be increasing its debt levels.
It is far past time for Obama and Congressional leaders to get serious about the budget.

 

[festeringZit]

[h=1]Obama Holds Record for Four Largest Deficits in U.S. History[/h]

90
2
407

---

Email Article
Print Article Send a Tip


by William Bigelow 12 Nov 2012 86 post a comment
[h=2]In this corner, the challenger, representing the responsible adult who tries to balance his checkbook every month and to save money for his/her children so their future will be safe: The American Taxpayer![/h] And in this corner, the undefeated champion, representing the height of fiscal irresponsibility, the man who has presided over an unbelievable, unprecedented four straight years of the highest four national deficits in U.S. history; the man who will assure your children that their future has been stolen by their parents, the President of your United States: Barack Obama!
Okay, you two, come out fighting. And no low blows.
Yup, Barack Obama has now given us four years of deficits that were $1.4 trillion, 1.3 trillion, 1.3 trillion, and 1.1 trillion. There have never been deficits remotely approaching these; the last year of George W. Bush’s tenure, the deficit was less than half of a trillion dollars.
The idea that raising taxes on the wealthy would be more than a drop in the bucket of the deficit is ludicrous. And the idea that Obama will actually rein in spending, especially with his buddies in the public sector unions, is ten times more ludicrous than that.
If the American taxpayers don’t wake up and unite in opposition to Obama, this fight is over. And their children will not only pay, they will suffer.

 

[festeringZit]

[ oh the irony... ]

[h=1]Obama Donor's Corporation Lays Off Employees Due to ObamaCare[/h]

970
33
8121

---

Email Article
Print Article Send a Tip


by Dr. Susan Berry 13 Nov 2012 392 post a comment

[h=2]Stryker Corporation has announced that it will close its facility in Orchard Park, New York, eliminating 96 jobs next month. It will also counter the medical device tax in Obamacare by eliminating 5% of their global workforce, an estimated 1,170 positions.[/h] Jon Stryker is heir to the Stryker Corporation, one of the largest medical device and equipment manufacturers in the world. Stryker’s grandfather was the surgeon who invented the mobile hospital bed. The company now sells $8.3 billion worth of hospital beds, artificial joints, medical cameras, and medical software every year.
Stryker, a member of the Forbes 400 list, was one of the top five donors to the Obama campaign. Having donated $2 million to the Priorities USA Action super PAC, Stryker also gave $66,000 in contributions to Obama and the Democrat Party.
Prior to the 2012 election, Stryker contributed millions to help Democrat candidates in his home state of Michigan. He also gave nearly $250 million to groups supporting gay rights, transgenderism, and the conservation of apes. In January, his Arcus Foundation donated $23 million to Kalamazoo College for an endowment to fund a center for social justice leadership.
Stryker's corporation is part of an industry that has been a big loser at the hands of Obamacare. Having refused to get on board with the White House and the Senate Finance Committee when the law was being crafted in 2009, the medical device industry was punished with an excise tax of 2.3% of their revenues, regardless of whether they make a profit.
Republicans in the House have attempted to repeal the excise tax with a bill called the Protect Medical Innovation Act. The Democrat-led Senate, however, has refused to cooperate, saying that withdrawing the tax would cause Obamacare to come unraveled.
Last June, while the nation awaited the Supreme Court’s decision on the constitutionality of the individual mandate, Stryker Corp. announced that it was tying plans to slash 5% of its global workforce to the tax if the law was upheld. The company would do this as part of an effort to realize $100 million in annual productivity gains to offset the blow when the excise tax went into effect in 2013.
It seems Stryker Corp., like many other businesses in America, was waiting to see how the election turned out before making important decisions; it is now moving ahead with those planned layoffs in the wake of Barack Obama's reelection.

 

[festeringZit]

[h=1]Sen. Graham To Obama: I Hold You Responsible for Benghazi[/h]

65
1
219

---

Email Article
Print Article Send a Tip


by Ben Shapiro 14 Nov 2012, 11:45 AM PDT 183 post a comment
[h=2]Today, President Obama presided over an absurd press conference in which he puffed himself up with righteous indignation over Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) calling for a full-scale investigation of Benghazi and opposition to Ambassador Susan Rice’s possible nomination for Secretary of State. “Come after me,” he said, calling Rice’s opponents “outrageous.”[/h]

Now Senator Graham has fired back, according to Chad Pergram of Fox News. “Sen. Lindsey Graham: Mr. President, don’t think for one minute I don’t hold you ultimately responsible for ‪#Benghazi,” Pergram tweeted. Graham added, "I think you failed as Commander in Chief before, during, and after the attack."


The next step will be calling Obama to the Hill. He’s been able to hide behind Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who’s off gallivanting around Australia, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who has joined her there, and newly disgraced former CIA Director David Petraeus. All three will likely be out of the administration within weeks. Obama himself must be held to account.