Obama to Use “Fair Share” to “Cloud” Failed Presidency Tonight

By: Jeffrey Klein, Political Buzz Examiner

As presidential primary candidate Gov. Mitt Romney told everyone he expected, the artificially compelled early-release of his 2010 federal income tax return yesterday, gave the Obama administration, Democrats and the entire Liberal-tilted mainstream media, a Republican “poster child” to match up with their new prime narrative for this election cycle–wealthy people aren’t paying their “Fair Share” [in taxes], preventing the economy and middle class from recovering.

Picking right up on that note, an article published this morning by George Stephanopoulos, host of ABC’s ‘Good Morning America’ TV show, reported on his interview this morning of David Plouffe, Senior White House Advisor to Obama.

He asked Plouffe if he had learned anything [substantive] from viewing Romney’s tax returns, to which he replied–without a single pause:

“The point is we need to change our tax system.

We need to make sure that middle class workers are not paying more in effective tax rates than people making $ 40, $50, $100 million a year.

So [sic] we have rules of the road in place right now.

I’m sure Mitt Romney tried to follow them.”

That was very gratuitous of Mr. Plouffe.

But now, here it comes…

“One of the things the President is going to talk about in the State of the Union tonight is something Warren Buffett famously talked about is [sic] he should not pay less in taxes than his secretary does.”

The question is [sic] we just need change in our tax code so that everybody is doing their fair share,” … which is how he said the administration will grow a strong economy, further saying that will be a primary theme President Obama will highlight in tonight’s State of the Union Address.

The president, as you know, has talked about something called the ‘Buffett Rule.’ We’re going to outline that specifically tonight, what that would mean.”

Stephanopoulos reported that Obama is facing reelection amid tough poll numbers, and that according to ABC News’ latest poll the president’s approval rating stands at just 48%, with more than two-thirds of Americans believing the country is headed in the wrong direction.

But, as Obama has such failed record, he cannot run on a straight up-or-down referendum on his own job performance while in the Oval Office, so he is going to pitch using the “choice” argument, used by none other than George W. Bush, during his 2004 reelection bid, according to James Rosen’s FOXNews article today.

“We have not seen a choice this stark in years,” Obama told the friendly audience at Harlem’s famed Apollo Theater on Thursday. “The contrast this year could not be sharper. So the question is not whether people are still hurting; people are still hurting profoundly. A lot of folks out there still out of work looking for work. The question is, what do we do about it?”

But, according to Plouffe, before Obama convinces voters to stay the course in November, they need to convince the American people and elected officials of “what’s the right thing to do this year on the economy.”

Newt Gingrich laid out his version of the “choice” for his supporters, saying … “The debate we’re going to have with President Obama over the next eight or nine months [involves] the outlining of the two Americas.

The America of the Declaration of Independence or the America of [radical organizer] Saul Alinsky.

The America of paychecks, or the America of food stamps.

The America of independence, or the America of dependence.

The America of strength in foreign policy, or the America of weakness in foreign policy.

“Those two choices, I believe, will give the American people a chance to decide permanently whether we want to remain the historic America that has provided opportunity for more people of more backgrounds than any country in history, or whether in fact, we prefer to become a brand new secular, European-style bureaucratic socialist system.”

President Obama is totally dead in the water for being reelected on the basis of his record, including a stagnant economy and unemployment, non-existent net job growth, cataclysmic growth in the national debt and the vastly hated “Obamacare.”

So, the only rabbit left in Obama’s hat is his totally vacuous “Fair Share” doctrine, which he will trot out tonight–without a single honest concern for its boundless absurdity, or the future of our country and all Americans.

Copyright (c) 2012 by Jeffrey Klein


Atheist lawsuit demonstrates hypocrisy

By: Chad Kent

According to the Freedom from Religion Foundation, a militant atheist group from Madison, WI, atheists have a right never to be offended by anything religious… and the rest of us have a right to adjust our lives to ensure that we don’t harm their dainty sensibilities. Sounds fair.

Here is the sequence of events that recently took place involving the FFRF:

  • Jessica Ahlquist, a 16 year old student and atheist in Rhode Island, sued her school district over a banner that she found overly religious and offensive. FFRF supported her effort but wasn’t involved in the lawsuit. Earlier this month, District Court Judge Ronald Lagueux ruled in Ms. Ahlquist’s favor that the banner had to be removed.
  • The FFRF tried to send Ahlquist flowers to congratulate her on her victory, but three florists refused to take the order. The atheist group is now planning to sue the florists.

These folks are adamant when it comes to their belief in this mythical idea of Freedom from Religion. But when it comes to the florists, somehow they don’t believe in a Freedom from the Freedom from Religion Foundation. Consistent!

This group is such a joke that they are basically a self-parody. The people at FFRF are so singularly focused on their own perceived rights that they have absolutely no respect for the rights of others.

This organization doesn’t see the hypocrisy in backing someone who used the government to ensure that atheists never have to be around anything that offends them, then turning right around and trying to use the government to force religious people to be around something that offends them. The complete disregard that FFRF has for the rights and beliefs of others is stunning.

Here’s the funniest part: despite all the fanatical claims of discrimination, these florists weren’t even refusing to do business with FFRF because they were atheists. They refused the order because FFRF was adding a bunch of insane requests to the order:

The florists, though, disagree with [FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor’s] stance on the matter. Turnto10.com reports that Raymond Santilli of Flowers by Santilli, one of the companies the FFRF attempted to order from, explains that a foundation representative told him that the person delivering the flowers might need police protection. Additionally, he was apparently told that the person would potentially need identification to enter the home.

“We refused the order because we really don’t want to cross lines,” Santilli said. ”If I send flowers there, somebody may get upset with us and retaliate against us.”

Wow – FFRF told them that accepting the order would require police protection and they refused? I’m shocked!! But yeah, I’m sure it was the atheism that was the problem.

That should tell you all you need to know about the FFRF and what it stands for. They don’t exist for the purpose of defending the rights of atheists. They go around the country looking for any possible situation they can exploit to force their values on other people.

It’s long past time that we start recognizing groups like FFRF for what they are and challenging them at every opportunity. We can no longer back down out of fear of a lawsuit or to avoid being politically incorrect. If we don’t, the values of our entire society will be determined by a very tiny – yet radical – minority.