Chinese Company Buys “Green” U.S. Car Maker Fisker; Taxpayers On The Hook For $139 Million Forbes On Fox

February 22, 2014 in Climate Change, Debt Crisis, Energy, Environmental Hoax, Gas Price, Global Warming, Government, Obama's America 2016, Taxiation with Representation

ChineseChinese Company  Buys “Green” U.S. Car Maker Fisker; Taxpayers On The Hook For $139 Million Forbes On Fox

When Will We Learn? Obama Nation

National Average For Gallon Of Regular Unleaded 1 Year Ago: $3.78

Chinese Company  Buys “Green” U.S. Car Maker Fisker For $150 Million; Taxpayers On The Hook For $139 Million Forbes On Fox

**Please Click Below to SUBSCRIBE for More “Mass Tea Party” Videos:

Congress’s Bipartisan Budget… “Deal” or Budget “Breaker”

December 11, 2013 in Congress, Debt Crisis, Debt Limit, Depression, Economic Deception, Economy, Political Class, Political Deception, Political Incompetence, Quantitative Easing, Republicans Vs. Tea Party, Sequestration, Taxiation with Representation

SequesterWe have a Bipartisan “Deal” in Congress that will roll back the Sequester and add back at least $63B in additional Debt. The “Deal” will result in raising Revenue to offset the new spending and to make it appear like spending has been reduced! For those of you that don’t understand the Washington jargon, raising “Revenue” means raising “Taxes”.  

When  our good friend of Liberty and Fiscal Responsibility, Louie Gohmert  (R-TX) has qualms about the ” Deal”, then Houston, we have a problem!

The “Deal” is great for most of our “Political Class” on both sides of the aisle that just want to continue their comfy spending habits without any accountability,   interference or distressing phone calls from their constituents. Hence, this “Deal compromise” promises to exacerbate and accelerate our present economic ticking time-bomb.

On his “The Economic Collapse Blog” of December 10th, 2013, with our economy in such a precarious situation, Michael Snyder asks, How Far Will Stocks Fall This Time When The Fed Decides To Slow Down Quantitative Easing? Read his article at


We already have a monumental Federal Deficit of $17.2 Trillion and super-Monumental Unfunded Liabilities of anywhere between $60 and $90 Trillion “…or 550 percent of our GDP. And the debt per household is more than 10 times the median family income.”

Folks, we have Local, State and Federal Governments that are totally out of control and are literally taxing us to death and a Federal Reserve that has been feeding $85 B/ month in Quantitative Easing into our banking system. Every time the Fed attempts to withdraw what some characterize as the QE “Heroin Fix” our economy pulls back. Will the imminent pull back by the Federal Reserve of of QE3 be the trigger that will plunge us into an unprecedented economic Collapse?

Whatever the case, as you will see from the following signs, Americans can no longer afford the debt being placed upon us and future generations by our Legislators without some sort of personal financial buckling!

The time has come to stand up and be counted. Enough is Enough! Our Governments continue to squander and misappropriate our hard earned treasure on cronyism. Career Congressmen and Senators become multimillionaires while working as public servants.

Meanwhile, the “Standard of Living” for American who work deteriorates as both the “Government class” and their rapidly growing “class of non-producer perpetrators” at the Local, State and Federal levels continue to feed on and to suck the “Systems” dry.

The following are the first 10 signs that Americans will be wiped out by an Economic Collapse and  are excerpted from an article by Michael Snyder, on June 24th, 2013, in his Economic Collapse Blog at :

#1 According to a survey that was just released, 76 percent of all Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. But most Americans are acting as if their jobs will always be there. But the truth is that mass layoffs can occur at any time. In fact, it just happened at one of the largest law firms in New York City.

#2 27 percent of all Americans do not have even a single penny saved up.

#3 46 percent of all Americans have $800 or less saved up.

#4 Less than one out of every four Americans has enough money stored away to cover six months of expenses.

#5 Wages continue to fall even as the cost of living continues to go up. Today, the average income for the bottom 90 percent of all income earners in America is just $31,244. An increasing percentage of American families are just trying to find a way to survive from month to month.

#6 62 percent of all middle class Americans say that they have had to reduce household spending over the past year.

#7 Small business is becoming an endangered species in America. In fact, only about 7 percent of all non-farm workers in the United States are self-employed at this point. That means that the vast majority of Americans are depending on someone else to provide them with an income. But what is going to happen as those jobs disappear?

#8 In 1989, the debt to income ratio of the average American family was about 58 percent. Today it is up to 154 percent.

#9 Today, a higher percentage of Americans are dependent on the government than ever before. In fact, according to the U.S. Census Bureau 49 percent of all Americans live in a home that gets direct monetary benefits from the federal government. So what is going to happen when the government handout gravy train comes to an end?

#10 Back in the 1970s, about one out of every 50 Americans was on food stamps. Today, about one out of every 6.5 Americans is on food stamps.




Obama Continues His Raid on Medicare that Exploits Senior Citizens’ Medical Insurance

February 21, 2013 in Abuse of Power, Accountability, Medicare, ObamaCare, Political Deception, President Obama, President Ronald Reagan, Redistribution of Wealth, Taxiation with Representation

Screwed AgainRonald Reagan’s “nine most terrifying words in the English language.” are “I’m from the government and I’m here to help”

Barack Hussein Obama  and the Democrat Party proves the point with their promises to provide universal medical coverage that actually turns out to make draconian cuts to Medicare that will eliminate every remaining private Senior Citizen Medicare Advantage insurance plan in the United States.

Seniors have not only borne the brunt of artificially low interest rates by  “Helicopter” Ben Bernanke’s Fed Policies, but now endure ever decreasing funding for Medicare. This fits in with Obama’s redistribution of wealth and absolute power ideology. Take from the rich give to the poor, take from the old give to the youg, etc. You get the idea.

“Projected Medicare savings from Obamacare don’t improve the program. Instead, they pay for other new programs created under the law that aren’t even for seniors.By slashing reimbursement rates instead of introducing real reform, the health law jeopardizes seniors’ access to providers. ”

“…the Obama administration revealed that it would be significantly reducing funding for Medicare, a move that one health insurance analyst said “would turn almost every plan in the industry unprofitable.”



by DR. SUSAN BERRY 20 Feb 2013

During the 2012 election campaign, Democrats denied that ObamaCare made $716 billion in cuts to Medicare in order to provide funding toward $1.9 trillion in new entitlement spending over the next ten years.

In an announcement on Friday, however, the Obama administration revealed that it would be significantly reducing funding for Medicare, a move that one health insurance analyst said “would turn almost every plan in the industry unprofitable.”

Health insurance stocks tumbled following the announcement that a big chunk of the Medicare cuts would come from the popular Medicare Advantage program, a market-oriented system in which participants can choose coverage by a private company that contracts with Medicare to provide all Part A and Part B benefits.

According to health care analyst Carl McDonald, the new rates proposed by the Obama administration will have the net effect of reducing payments to Medicare Advantage plans by seven to eight percent in 2014. McDonald projects:

If implemented, these rates and the program changes CMS [Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services] is suggesting would be enormously disruptive to Medicare Advantage, likely forcing a number of smaller plans out of the business and creating disarray for many seniors.

According to Richard Foster, former chief actuary to the Medicare program, ObamaCare’s cuts to Medicare Advantage will likely force half of its current participants back into the old Medicare program, originated in 1965. It is estimated that this change will cost Medicare enrollees an average of $3,714 in 2017 alone.

Democrats have long been unfriendly toward the Medicare Advantage plan, which was passed as part of the Balanced Budget Amendment of 1997 and has seen tremendous growth over the past 10 years. Today, more than 25 percent of seniors receive their health benefits through Medicare Advantage.

Regarding the cuts, America’s Health Insurance Plans’ (AHIP) president Karen Ignagni said, “Washington cannot tax and cut Medicare Advantage this much and not expect seniors to be harmed.”

Last year it was revealed that, while AHIP was openly supporting ObamaCare and working on a deal with the White House, it was also secretly funneling over $100 million to the Chamber of Commerce to be spent on advertising designed to convince Americans that the new legislation should be defeated.

The administration’s proposal is open to outside comments until March 1st, ahead of the final announcement of the cuts on April 1st.

Read more at:


Rep Gohmert (R -TX) On Why he Voted Against Speaker Boehner

January 4, 2013 in Fiscal Cliff, Integrity, Patriotism, Political Courage, Speaker John Boehner, Tax Hike, Taxiation with Representation

Representative Louie Gohmert (R-TX), a principled an unrelenting spokesman for Fiscal Constraint and a signatory to the  Americans for Tax Reform’s Taxpayer Protection Pledge was one of a small group of Patriots that not only had the courage to vote against the “Fiscal Cliff”  Debacle, but also the  chutzpah to vote against chicken-hearted, Speaker Boehner.

Two Texas Republicans have defied Speaker John Boehner in the roll call vote to grant him another term running the U.S. House. Rep. Louie Gohmert of Tyler voted for Allen West, a tea partier from Florida who was defeated for reelection to Congress. And freshman Rep. Steve Stockman — who served one prior term, from 1995 to 1997 — voted “present.”

On a first round of voting, Stockman didn’t answer the clerk’s call of his name and he was among a small group given a second chance.

Other tea party-backed Texans fell in line with Boehner, and all the Democrats from Texas supported Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

play by play as votes are being tallied:

Rep. Kevin Brady, R-The Woodlands, stopped by to chat with Gallego. Over in the GOP section, Reps. Ralph Hall of Rockwall, John Culberson of Houston and Ted Poe of Humble are in the front row. Laredo Democrat Henry Cuellar sauntered over to say hi.

Toward the back, freshman Rep. Roger Williams of Weatherford just posed for a photo with fellow Republicans Randy Neugebauer of Lubbock and Bill Flores of Bryan. And look at that,  there’s Cuellar again, chatting with Williams. Same row as Reps. Blake Farenthold of Corpus Christi.

Rep. Sam Johnson of Plano, wearing a neck brace, is seated in the same row, between Reps. John Carter of Round Rock and Pete Olson of Sugar Land.

And now, at 1:39, the gavel bangs for the official tally… Boehner wins another term as Speaker. He got 220 votes. Pelosi got 192. Runner-up: House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, with 3 votes.

West got 2 votes.

Stockman was the only “present” vote.

Americans for Tax Reform‘s Taxpayer Protection Pledge


January 4, 2013 in Congress, Economic Deception, Economy, Fiscal Cliff, Redistribution of Wealth, Taxiation with Representation

Courtesy of: Breibart TV


FOX NEWS: Fox and Friends’ Brian Kilmeade sat down with best-selling author and columnist Mark Steyn to discuss the bill that was passed last night to avoid the fiscal cliff’s across-the-board tax hikes and spending cuts. President Obama applauded the bill, which raises tax rates only on those making more than $450,000 a year, puts off spending cuts and extends unemployment benefits. It also increases by two percent the Social Security payroll tax on all workers.

But Steyn believes the current spending, which is fueling a rapidly-growing national debt that has surpassed $16.4 trillion, is unsustainable and at some point will have to be supported by more taxes on all Americans.

“In a sense America voted for big government in November. What it didn’t vote for is the willingness to pay for it. We have the biggest gap between revenue and spending of any nation on Earth. So people have got to get real about this. If you want Swedish-style government, you have to pay Swedish-style taxes. And if you don’t, you have to grow up and learn to live within your means,” said Steyn.

The author of the book “After America” went on to point out that if the current debt-fueled spending continues, “you’re basically signaling to the world that the American era is over.”Kilmeade then asked what Steyn what he thinks President Obama plans to do over the next four years to address the situation.

“I think he’s got another agenda. … The thing to do is to get people used to the spending, which is about 25 percent of GDP. If he’s gotten people used to the spending, at some point people will have to pay for it the way the Norwegians pay for it, the way the Belgians pay for it. They will have to pay taxes that match what the government is spending. Obama has figured out if you get ‘em used to the spending, then two, three years down the line the taxes will fall his way,” said Steyn.

See the entire story and comments at:


The Obama Legacy

December 7, 2012 in Budget, Christmas, Obama-Nomics, Political Deception, President Obama, Tax Hike, Taxiation with Representation, Who Is Barack Hussein Obama?

While many Americans are facing a difficult at best or Bleak  at worst financial Christmas Season, President Obama and his entourage will be once again a enjoying a 21 day Hawaiian vacation, at taxpayer expense. The cost to us taxpayers will be well over $20,000,000 or approximately $1,000,000 per day. Meanwhile, while we continue down the path to financial Armageddon, President Obama continues to spend our hard earned confiscated treasure on outrageously decadent vacations. Perhaps we should look on the bright side, it could have spent even more. With all the tax increases coming our way in  2013, he will have more of  our hard earned treasure  to re-distribute for even more lavish $$$ getaways.


1.4 BILLION Spent On The Obamas In 2011 – British Taxpayers Only Spent 57.8 Million On The Royal Family

By Michael, on September 27th, 2012


While most of America is suffering through one the worst economic downturns in U.S. history, the Obamas are living the high life at your expense.  During 2011, U.S. taxpayers spent an astounding 1.4 billiondollars on the Obamas.  Meanwhile, British taxpayers only spent 57.8 million dollars on the entire royal family.  Does anyone else see something wrong with this picture?  So where did the 1.4 billion dollars go?  That money paid the salaries of their staff members, it paid for their transportation and housing costs, it paid for entertainment and vacations for the Obamas, and $102,000 was even spent on a “dog handler” for the family dog Bo.  In his new book entitled “Presidential Perks Gone Royal: Your Taxes Are Being Used For Obama’s Re-election“, author Robert Keith Gray reveals some absolutely shocking details about the enormous amounts of U.S. taxpayer money that are being spent on the personal needs of the Obamas.  At a time when the U.S. national debt is absolutely exploding this kind of outrageous spending is completely and totally inappropriate, but of course the mainstream media is not going to report on this because they don’t want to do anything to put the Obamas in a bad light this close to the election.

Some of the things that Robert Keith Gray has uncovered are absolutely mind blowing.  The following are a few facts from his new book….

-Never before has so much money been spent on a president and his family during a single year

-The Obamas have the “biggest staff in history at the highest wages ever

-While Obama has been in office, Air Force One has been “running with the frequency of a scheduled air line

-Obama has 469 senior staff working under him, and 226 of them make more than $100,000 a year

-There is always at least one projectionist at the White House 24 hours a day just in case there is someone that wants to watch a movie.

-The “dog handler” for the family dog Bo reportedly makes $102,000 per year and sometimes he is even flown to where the family is vacationing so that he can care for the dog

Are you outraged yet?

When the Obamas are at the White House the expenses are outrageous, but the expenses really kick in to a whole new level when the Obamas go on vacation.

And the Obamas sure do love to go on vacation.

Over one recent 12 month period, Michelle Obama spent 42 days on vacation (and that does not even count Saturdays and Sundays).  The following is an excerpt from a Daily Mail article about the legendary Obama vacations….

The First Lady is believed to have taken 42 days of holiday in the past year, including a $375,000 break in Spain and a four-day ski trip to Vail, Colorado, where she spent $2,000 a night on a suite at the Sebastian hotel.

And the first family’s nine-day stay in Martha’s Vineyard is also proving costly, with rental of the Blue Heron Farm property alone costing an estimated $50,000 a week.

The source continued: ‘Michelle also enjoys drinking expensive booze during her trips. She favours martinis with top-shelf vodka and has a taste for rich sparking wines.

‘The vacations are totally Michelle’s idea. She’s like a junkie. She can’t schedule enough getaways, and she lives from one to the next – all the while sticking it to hardworking Americans.’

As I wrote about the other day, many Americans are working so hard just to survive in this economy that they don’t ever get to take any vacations at all.

But it doesn’t seem to trouble the Obamas that many of their vacation trips cost more than many American workers will make in an entire decade….

The following is from a recent Newsmax article….

A trip to Spain in 2010 by Michelle Obama, family, and staff cost taxpayers $467,585 and a trip by the First Lady and family to South Africa and Botswana last year cost $424,142 for the flight and crew alone, according to Judicial Watch.

Yes, when the family of the president travels it is going to be expensive, but this is ridiculous.

It can even be insanely expensive for the Obamas to take a vacation even if they don’t leave the country.

For example, in 2010 an Obama family vacation to Hawaii ended up costing U.S. taxpayers more than a million dollars.

So how much is too much?

It has been reported that Michelle Obama spent over 10 million dollars of U.S. taxpayer money on vacations during just one recent 12 month period alone.

At a time when there are 46 million Americans on food stamps is this an appropriate amount of U.S. taxpayer money to spend on vacationing?

It seems that Barack Obama does not have his priorities in order.

Barack Obama may not have time to meet with important world leaders such as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but he sure always seems to find time to play golf.  In fact, since he has been in the White House Obama has played more than 100 rounds of golf.

A lot of hard working American men have not played that many rounds of golf in their entire lifetimes.

Sadly, the Obamas are not the only ones that are blowing U.S. taxpayer money as if there is no tomorrow.

In a previous article, I detailed how the U.S. Congress is also living the high life at your expense.  The following are a few facts from that article….

-In 2010, the federal government spent $33,387 on the hair care needs of U.S. Senators.

-In 2010, U.S. Senators pulled $72,370 out of the “Senate Restaurant Fund”.

-In 2010, U.S. Senators took $166,673 out of something called the “Senate Gift Shop Revolving Fund”.

-In 2010, an average of $4,005,900 of U.S. taxpayer money was spent on “personal” and “office” expenses per Senator.

-Insider trading is 100% legal for members of Congress, and they refuse to pass a law that would change that.

So why don’t these politicians get voted out?

Well, the truth is that both political parties are deeply corrupt, and both parties have learned that they can buy votes by promising lots of free stuff and benefits to the voters.

I have written previously about how the U.S. government gives out free cell phones and free cell phone minutes each month to welfare recipients.

In the video posted below, a protester outside of a Romney campaign event explains that one of the main reasons why she is going to vote for Obama is because he gave her a free cell phone….

Meanwhile, our national debt is growing out of control and the middle class is being absolutely crushed by taxes, regulations and the declining economy that Obama is overseeing.

According to one recent survey, 55 percent of all small business owners in America “say they would not start a business today given what they know now and in the current environment.”

The economy is completely and totally falling apart, and yet the Obamas are partying as if it was 1999.  Their attitude seems to be “let them eat cake”.

So what do you think about the crazy amount of money that is being spent on the Obamas every year?  Please feel free to post a comment with your thoughts below….

Be Sociable, Share!

Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on printMore Sharing Services25

Copyright © 2012 The Truth – May all of you be blessed with good work, health and peace – If you came here looking for hope, you just found it.
Powered by WordPress & Atahualpa

The GOP Seminar in Surrender

December 5, 2012 in America's Collapse, Congress, Debt Crisis, Fiscal Cliff, Mitt Romney, Obama-Nomics, Obama's America 2016, Obamanation, Paul Ryan, Political Deception, President Obama, Redistribution of Wealth, Republicans Vs. Tea Party, Speaker John Boehner, Taxiation with Representation

[Boehner and the Republicans have Caved!- Remember “The play’s the thing”]

The GOP Seminar in Surrender




RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, this morning there was a joint press conference that featured the so-called Republican leadership of John Boehner and Eric Cantor and about 15 other people that were standing there. I don’t know why, but they were smiling. And what we got today was a seminar on how to surrender. It was weak. The Republicans have conceded the language. They have conceded the silly language of baseline budgeting. I think it’s time for a re-teaching of what baseline budgeting is, because until that’s addressed, all of this is smoke and mirrors. All of this fiscal cliff stuff, deficit reduction talk, there isn’t any.There aren’t any spending cuts, even if they claim there are because of the current services baseline. All there will ever be until that’s fixed is cuts in the rate of growth of spending.But there won’t be any real spending cuts. And the Republicans showed today that they’re not even interested in it. And now they’re ceding the language. So now deductions are loopholes. You know what that sets up? That sets up the premise that 100% of income is subject to taxation and that everything that we might deduct from our overall gross earnings is a loophole, not a deduction, not a legitimate deduction. They just gave that away by conceding on the language here. A loophole is not a deduction, but it has become one.

I mean, stop and think. When you think of a loophole in the tax law, what do you think of? You think of an unintended error that allows people to get away without paying their taxes. That’s what you think a loophole is. Well, sorry. Now a standard, legal itemized deduction and everyone one of them have become loopholes. And such, they are subject to elimination. So now the premise of 100% taxation, the premise is now on the table. And all that means is that all money is Washington’s, and what we end up with is totally up to their discretion and their big-heartedness or mean-heartedness, what have you.

This seminar in surrender today also –– we got the sound bites coming up, you’ll hear it — validated the false premise that confiscating additional private property will result in greater tax revenue going forward. The Republicans have just given in. They have compromised, what have you, on the premise that raising taxes on the rich will fix the problem. They have conceded that the problem exists in part because the rich aren’t paying their fair share. They must feel so squished, so defeated, so universally disliked. I think we all had a sense of this. The first few days after the election, you start listening to Republicans from the consultant class to the elected class, all talk about what they had to do to start winning elections. It basically was, “Well, we have to adopt the liberal premise on things without actually saying so. We gotta be open to amnesty, relax our views on abortion. We gotta concede that many of the Tea Party’s a bunch of kooks,” all that.

Well, it turns out that that apparently is exactly what they think they’ve gotta do. Because once you concede the premise that taking private property from people is justified and will actually reduce deficits, ’cause it won’t, it can’t. The only thing that can reduce deficits is two things: economic growth and spending cuts. And nobody has anything on the table that’s gonna promote economic growth, and of course nobody has anything on the table that’s gonna result in any genuinely reduced spending.

You know, if it weren’t for the fact that my expectations going into this were so low to begin with, I’d be really mad. But my expectations on this have been fulfilled. My expectations here thus have made it possible that I’m not blowing a gasket here. I’m sure some of you, contrary to me, probably had high expectations. You probably thought, “Well, we elected the Republicans. They know that they’re the last wall of defense. They’re the firewall.”


Some of you, I’m sure, are livid and outraged. Believe me, intellectually I’m with you. Emotionally, my expectations on this were so low that I’m not angry. In fact, they’ve been met. Obama’s gonna end up getting what he wants. We’re using his language. We’re now calling new taxes “revenues.” We have accepted the premise that “new revenues” will result in greater tax receipts going forward. Yeah, let’s listen. Maybe I’m wr… No. I was gonna say, “Maybe I’m wrong.” (laughing)

Here’s Boehner on Capitol Hill, a little press briefing on the fiscal cliff…

BOEHNER: If the president doesn’t agree with, uh, our proposal and our outline, I think he’s got an obligation, uh, to send one to the Congress — and a plan that can pass both chambers of Congress. If you look at the — the plans that the White House have — have talked about thus far, uh, they couldn’t pass either house of the Congress. We’re ready and eager to talk to the president and to work with him to make sure that the American people, uhh, aren’t disadvantaged, uhh, by what’s happening here in Washington.

RUSH: Well, the problem, Mr. Speaker, is that Obama doesn’t want deal to with you. He wants to go over the cliff. He doesn’t want to deal with you, except to the extent he can get to you concede to him. He has no desire to deal with you. Here’s Eric Cantor…

CANTOR: They don’t want to sit down with the president! We want to talk specifics. We put an offer on the table now. He has out-of-hand rejected that. Where are the specifics? Where are the discussions? Nothing is going on. Meanwhile, the people of this country are the ones that suffer. So we ask the president, “Sit down with us, be serious about the specifics of spending, so we can stop the wasteful spending in Washington and finally address the problem.”

RUSH: Now, I… It’s just the same old lingo. Those two bites do not feature the ceding of the language that I heard (i.e., “deductions” being “loopholes”). But again, in that sense, it’s not just these guys. I mean, the Republican Party made that part of their presidential campaign. You know, Romney was suggesting that we could “raise” $1.2 trillion or something by eliminating deductions and so forth. By the way, I have it here somewhere.

Obama, back in 2011, said, “No way,” or… Nah, where did he…? I thought I had it right here at the top. I’m sorry, I don’t. Obama has contradicted himself. Whatever he’s saying today, he said just the exact opposite in 2011 about deductions and so forth. Which is instructive and informative only in the sense that whatever he’s saying now doesn’t matter and can’t be trusted. He’s out there saying, “The economy’s poised to take off!”

Sorry, the math doesn’t work out. It just doesn’t. It just isn’t there. Let me take a break here. I’ve got to anyway. I want to find this point of contradiction with Obama. There’s a lot of other interesting stuff out there today. Folks, I’m sorry, but this stuff, frankly… I don’t want to disappoint you, but as I said: My expectations going into it were not very high anyway. So I’m not all that surprised at the way this is shaping up and the way it’s gonna end up going down.

I’ll be shocked, pleasantly so, to be wrong if indeed I am.


RUSH: Okay, I found it. You know where I put it? I’ve got three pages here on Ryan and Rubioand the speeches they made at the Jack Kemp Foundation. The Kemp Foundation has an annual dinner to celebrate Kemp. They met at the Mayflower Hotel last night and it was obvious… Both Rubio and Paul Ryan, in their speeches, did everything they could to distance themselves from the 47% comment that Romney made.

That really has got the Republican Party shaken up.

I mean, everybody in it is flabbergasted.

Bobby Jindal, Rubio, now Paul Ryan. They all are just flabbergasted over that, and they think it’s one of the reasons Romney lost. So they’re all making tracks to distance themselves from that whole 47% comment that Romney made and the premise that is behind it. Both their speeches, you could say, were an attempt to get out from under the legacy of that comment and make sure they have no contact with it, no relationship with it whatsoever.

They don’t agree with it, don’t want any part of it.

We’ve got sound bites of both of their speeches coming up as well, as the program unfolds.

Anyway, I had put this story about Obama underneath that, and here he is: “In negotiations on the looming fiscal cliff, Obama has been insistent on the matter of raising tax rates on the top 2%.” It was the top 1%, by the way. Now it’s the top 2%. Remember he started out wanting $800 billion? After he won the election, he started flexing his muscles and jacked that up to $1.6 trillion.

And Boehner has come along and offered $800 billion with the premise of eliminating “loopholes.” I can’t tell you how the ceding of the language hurts. You know, the language matters. Words mean things, and to let the left once have another word and total co-opt it and destroy its real meaning… We’ve just allowed it to happen here. So now every legitimate deduction is a “loophole.”

From now on going forward, the mortgage interest deduction is a “loophole.” The charitable deduction is a “loophole.” The earned income tax credit’s a “loophole” now. Well, you know what low-information voters think a “loophole” is. You know what people who file a one-page tax form think a “loophole” is. And the vast majority of Americans file a one page, the 1040-EZ form.

“How much did you make? How much will you give us? Here’s what here taking. Send it in.” And they’re done with it. They don’t know itemized deductions or the earned income tax credit. All they know is what they make and what they pay — which, in many cases, income tax-wise isn’t much. But they hear the word “loophole” and they think tax cheat. And so now every legit, by law, itemized deduction is considered a “loophole” for the express purpose of eliminating them.

Well, this is our private property we’re talking about. Our money is as much our private property as anything else that we have earned and that we own. And Boehner has said (summarized), “All right, I’ll give you $800 billion in new revenue.” They live in this world. They think, because of the election, that the American people want new taxes and want new “revenue.” I’ll boil it down to the essence.

It’s clear that they have no interest in teaching conservatism. It’s clear they have no interest in defending it or standing up for it or explaining it, even. And I think one of the reasons is that many of them really aren’t conservatives. It used to be that “Republican Party” and “conservative” meant the same thing. I don’t think they do anymore. It’s been that way for a while. But they don’t explain it. They don’t take the opportunity to contrast it because they don’t know it.

It’s like they or some consultants convince them that all they gotta do to win these precious independents or win the votes of people who are voting against them is go ahead and give them what they want, which is taxes on the rich. And “the rich” is now defined as $200,000 a year. Anyway, “In negotiations on this looming fiscal cliff, Obama has been insistent on the matter of raising taxes top 2%. In a Bloomberg interview yesterday, Obama said, “It’s just a matter of math.

“You know, there’s been a lot of talk, that somehow we can raise $800 billion or a trillion dollars worth of revenue just by closing loopholes and deductions. … [T]hat’s not a realistic option.” Yet it was just over a year ago, in the same negotiations with Republicans going on now on the debt reduction deal that never came to fruition, the White House proposed doing just that. They proposed $800 billion, raising revenue, by closing loopholes and deductions.

Yesterday Obama says, “You can’t do it! There’s not that kind of money there.”

A year ago he was all for it!

Well, how do you negotiate with somebody like this?

You don’t!

And then why do you beg somebody like this to come sit at the table with you and give you a proposal?

Take it to him, for crying out loud!


RUSH: All right, here is what Obama said in July of 2011. This was during another such negotiation as this. It wasn’t a fiscal cliff negotiation, but it was a debt reduction deal. Debt limit, all that. And here’s what Obama said in July of 2011. “What we said was give us $1.2 trillion in additional revenues, which could be accomplished without hiking tax rates. It could simply be accomplished by eliminating loopholes, eliminating some deductions and engaging in a tax reform process that could lower rates generally while broadening the base.”

He said that a year ago. Now, he did not mean it. Remember, July ’11, it’s reelection time in their mind. He didn’t mean it. He doesn’t mean lower tax rates. He would never do it, but he talked about it. The important thing is, the take-away here is that in July of 2011 Barack Obama articulated the very deal Boehner has offered. After winning reelection last month, Obama said, to hell with that, and jacked up his demand to $1.6 trillion. He wants the Clinton tax rates back, which is close to 40% on the upper earners.

Yesterday Obama said: “It’s just a matter of math. You know, there’s been a lot of talk, that somehow we can raise $800 billion or a trillion dollars worth of revenue just by closing loopholes and deductions. … That’s not a realistic option.”

Let me read these quotes again, back-to-back.

Obama, July 2011: “Give us $1.2 trillion in additional revenues, which could be accomplished without hiking tax rates. It could simply be accomplished by eliminating loopholes, eliminating some deductions and engaging in a tax reform process that could lower rates generally while broadening the base.” That’s July last year.

Yesterday: “It’s just a matter of math. You know, there’s been a lot of talk, that somehow we can raise $800 billion or a trillion dollars worth of revenue just by closing loopholes and deductions. … That’s not a realistic option.”

Okay, so if you’re Boehner and Cantor and these guys, which Obama do you deal with here? My point is you don’t deal. This is like trying to get out of quicksand, herd cats, or swim in Jell-O. Whatever analogy that you want. Now, here’s Boehner. This is also from the press conference this morning.

BOEHNER: This week we made a good-faith offer to avert the fiscal crisis.

RUSH: Yeah.

BOEHNER: And that offer included significant spending cuts and reforms, and it included additional revenue.

RUSH: Yeah.

BOEHNER: And frankly it was the balanced approach that the president’s been asking for. Now we need a response from the White House.

RUSH: He’s accepted the premise. This is my point. Okay, spending cuts will never happen, additional revenue, why don’t we just call it taxes? “We’ve agreed with the president to raise taxes $800 billion.” Why not just say that? Instead of this “new revenue” garbage. We’ve already lost the word “investment.” “Investment” now means tax increase. “Investment” means more private property of yours taken away. If somebody could convince me that our budget problems were because we’re undertaxed then maybe I’d have a different view, but it’s not. We do not have a taxation problem. We have got a wildly out-of-control spending problem. But we’ve just accepted the premise.

By the way, the new revenue that Boehner offered was $800 billion. Boehner offered exactly what Obama asked for last July, and Obama says, “Well, the math doesn’t work out on that.” I’ll tell you what it reminds me of. My first ever contract in this business was in 1986. I started in this business 1967. So essentially it was 20 years before I had a contract. It was a big deal to have contract. Not everybody did. It was a sign that you had advanced climbing the ladder and all that. I didn’t have an agent. I don’t have an agent now. Why give somebody 20%, 5%, whatever, when I can do it myself?

At any rate, I am, quote, unquote, “in negotiations” with the general manager. And we set a meeting. We’re in the middle of the talks, as it is said. We have a meeting scheduled for 7:30 one morning. My program starts at nine. I show up at 7:30, the general manager is in his office on the phone, puts his call on hold, said, “What are you doing here?”

“I’m here for our meeting.”

“We don’t have a meeting.”

“Yeah, we have a contract…”

“No, there’s no meeting.”

“What are you talking about?”

He started thumbing through his calendar. “I don’t have anything on the calendar here. I don’t have time for you today.”

I ran out, I said, “What the hell just happened?” It was a typical ploy. I didn’t know what was going on. We all learn as you go through these things. It didn’t take me long to learn what had happened, but at the moment I’m thinking, “Did I get something wrong?” But what had happened was I had been put totally on the defensive. And what had really been conveyed was, “I don’t care about you. You’re not important. Why do you think I’ve got a meeting with you? Who do you think you are?” That was the message.

Well, that’s all that’s happening here. A year ago Obama had made the comment to Boehner. A year ago, $800 billion, we can raise that if we close loopholes. So Boehner offered it this year. “What are you talking about? The math doesn’t work out. I don’t know what you’re talking about.” But to complete the analogy, if I would have acted then like the Republicans are acting today, I woulda walked out of the general manager’s office, I woulda gone on the radio and started crying about it. “What do you mean? Come on, we were supposed to meet. Will you meet with me?” They’re saying, “We’ve submitted a proposal. All we want is the president to react to our proposal. We’ve done what he wanted. Could he just submit a response?”

I don’t know, maybe they don’t know or maybe they don’t understand or they don’t agree that what the president is trying to do is render them irrelevant. There’s a lot of ego attached to positions of power in Washington, and it may well be that if you’re Speaker of the House, it’s inconceivable somebody would want to render you irrelevant, in your own mind. I don’t know. I’ve never been Speaker of the House. But I know egos. I’ve been surrounded by ’em all my life and I have a healthy one myself, that’s in check, by the way, contrary to popular opinion. (laughing)

But, again, we’ve ceded the lingo. We’re now calling tax increases revenue. We’ve agreed $800 billion of revenue. We’re accepting the premise that it’s a tax problem and, yeah, and that it’s a balanced approach. And we’re doing this with a guy that we know has run up the national debt $6 trillion in four years. This guy has added to the national debt more than all the previous presidents combined.

Now, the Republicans also have a history, a behavioral pattern you can predict. They believe Obama won the election, that means he should get his judges and he should get his budget, and that’s what it means. And by the same token, when we win elections… except it never works out that way. You never hear the Democrats adopting our language. You never hear the Democrats abandoning their core beliefs and what they believe. In fact, when they lose, you’d be hard-pressed to know it by watching the media and listening to the Democrats each and every day after they lose an election.

Now, you notice that in July of 2011, Obama said that we could raise $1.2 trillion by eliminating loopholes. That’s 50% more than Boehner says they could raise, $800 billion. Obama said you could get $1.2 trillion closing loopholes in July of 2011. So Boehner said, “Okay, well, here’s $800 billion.” Obama said, “No, no, no, math doesn’t work out. You can’t do that. I mean, that would mean eliminating the charitable deduction,” when in fact that’s what he wants to do. You know, I guess my point is if we’re gonna let him have his way, do it. Don’t compromise yourself in the process. And don’t make it look like his way is also yours.

But look, that’s just me, folks, I’m just a guy on the radio here. I’ve never done their job. It’s easy to throw spitballs here from the peanut gallery. But there is a pattern. There is a pattern that’s undeniable here in every debt deal that’s negotiated, be it the debt limit, be it this fiscal cliff, be it the budget. There’s a pattern, and it always involves us relaxing what we believe, due to the premise that we think we’re hated and so we gotta do stuff to make people like us. I still think that’s at the root of a lot of this, plus the fact that they don’t know conservatism. They really aren’t conservatives, and thus taking the occasion, the opportunity to teach it, to be instructive, is really not relevant, either.

Let’s take a brief time-out. We’ll be back, and — there’s other stuff happening out there. We’ll get to it when we get back.


RUSH: To prove my point, CNN is overjoyed. Here is their headline for their report on the Boehner press conference. You ready? Quote: “The Rich Will Pay More in Taxes, Boehner Says.” There you have it. And so you see, the Republicans have now agreed with the premise that the problem is that the rich aren’t paying their fair share. We have just agreed with Obama’s campaign premise.

The rich aren’t paying their fair share!

The Republicans have agreed to this, they’ve recognized this, and Boehner says those days are over. “The rich will pay more in taxes.” Now, some of you might be saying, “But, Rush! But, Rush! You know, the media would say that no matter what.” Nope. Not in this case. Not if Boehner and the Republicans had steadfastly opposed raising taxes on anyone. “But, Rush! But, Rush! They can’t win that.”

That’s not the point. The point is what you stand for when this is all said and done. You have something to fall back on and go back to, in order to move forward. We’ve just given away something that used to be part of our brand. “That’s right, Rush, and the brand is what’s killing us. Republicans love the rich, and Boehner knows it.” That could be at the root of this, too. It could be.

These guys, elected Republicans, believe that the average American thinks that the only people the average Republican cares about are the rich. “Let’s get rid of that! Let’s raise taxes on them. To hell with it! I’m sick and tired of being called a friend of the rich.” When in fact it’s Obama who has all the crony capitalist deals with all the rich guys. Could be that. Whatever, it’s defensive. And whatever, it’s reactionary.

It certainly isn’t proactive.

From the article: “Taxes on the wealthy are going up, House Speaker John Boehner conceded on Wednesday in challenging President Barack Obama to sit down with him to hammer out a deal for avoiding the fiscal cliff.” So you see, in the Drive-Bys now we got the framework for a deal! “Finally we’re gonna blame the rich. We should have been doing that all along, and now Boehner’s finally agreed. Okay, now we can move forward.”

They’re blaming the rich.

The last group of people with any money in the private sector have now, officially, been targeted.


RUSH: All right, there it is up on CNN; “Obama Demanding Tax Hike on Wealthy,” and of course the Republicans agreed to do that today and actually earlier in the week, by reducing “loopholes.” But Obama’s not gonna be content with that. He wants the rates to go up, too — make no mistake — and they will. Here. I’ve got Obama in his own words, back-to-back. Let’s go July 22nd at the White House. This is Obama, a press briefing on the debt ceiling talks at that time…

OBAMA JULY 22, 2012: What we said was, uh, “Give us 1.2 trillion in additional revenues,” which could be accomplished without hiking tax rates but could simply be accomplished by eliminating loopholes, eliminating some deductions, and engaging in a tax-reform process that could have lowered rates generally by broadening the base.

RUSH: That’s last year, July of last year. “Yeah, we could raise $1.2 trillion just by closing loopholes and eliminating deductions.” Here’s Obama yesterday…

OBAMA DECEMBER 4, 2012: It’s not me being stubborn. It’s not me being partisan. It’s just a matter of math. You know, there’s been a lot of talk that somehow we can raise $800 billion or a trillion dollars worth of revenue just by closing loopholes and deductions.

RUSH: Yeah, you did.

OBAMA DECEMBER 4, 2012: But a lot of your viewers understand, uh, uh, that the only way to do that would be if you completely eliminated, for example, charitable deductions. Well, i-i-i-if you eliminate charitable deductions, that means every hospital and university and not-for-profit agency across the country would suddenly find themselves, uh, on the verge of collapse. So that’s not a realistic option.

RUSH: Yeah?

Last year it was!

Last year it was a totally realistic option, right out of Obama’s mouth.

This year, ain’t no way. You’d have to eliminate ’em all. And then he says, “Yeah, and what’s wrong with that? Hee-hee-hee-hee. I’ll gladly be the sole benefactor for hospitals! I’ll gladly be the sole benefactor for universities. I’ll gladly be the sole benefactor for nonprofits.” That’s what he wants, anyway.


Doug in Seattle. I’m glad you waited. Great to have you on the program, sir. Hi.

CALLER: Good morning, Rush, from sunny liberty sicko Seattle.

RUSH: Yes, sir. Welcome to the program.

CALLER: Well, 23, 24-year-listener, first-time caller, first time I’ve ever called a radio show in my life.

RUSH: Oh, I’m honored.

CALLER: Got through to Snerdley on like the third ring, so unbelievable.

RUSH: Well, I’m glad you made it. Thank you, sir.

CALLER: Thanks. Well, I agree that any tax hikes by Obama or the Republicans for that matter is not gonna solve anything, but I have an idea for a very simple plan, very understandable by even the American people. I know that’s a tough nut to crack, and could put Obama in a bind. And here’s the plan. Are you ready?

RUSH: I’m ready.

CALLER: Very simple. You redefine middle class to about four to 500 K. That gives the people in the high cost areas, New York, California, Washington state, you know, which really is middle class in a lot of those places, gets them into the middle class. You lower the tax rates for the middle class down to 15 or 20%.

RUSH: They already are.

CALLER: The maximum you’re gonna pay is 15 or 20. If you want to make it lower for people in the lower middle class, or lower class, that’s great, no problem. And here’s the biggest thing. Any savings by the middle class, capital gains and gains they make, capital gains, dividends, interest if they have money in a bank or they own a bond —

RUSH: Okay —

CALLER: — anything they make in savings is tax-free, no tax ever.

RUSH: I’ve got to take a break here, but I’ve actually thought of something similar to that. Be back in just a second.


RUSH: If there was no tax on savings, like our previous caller said, you’d have to get out of the way for all the capital flooding into this country. Why do you think people go offshore, is to escape this kind of stuff. There are clearly all kinds of ways to build up this economy. Obama’s not interested and the Republicans ought not participate with him in his ideas.



Read more at:!


Gov. Deval Patrick to Offer In-State Tuition to illegal Immigrants

November 19, 2012 in Deval 's America 2016, Deval Patrick, DICTATORSHIP, Liberty, MA, Redistribution of Wealth, Socialism, Taxachusetts, Taxiation with Representation, Welfare, Welfare Fraud

Obama confident and virtual cabinet member Deval Patrick, is following in the footsteps of the Dear Leader. I.e. giving away  the  Peoples State Tax  receipts to illegal aliens in order to further his own career. A give away that our legislature has rejected.

Does our state’s apprentice Dear Leader  have the authority to give away our money, under our state constitution,  without legislative approval? Of course not, but as a disciple of of our Federal Dear Leader, he has learned that legalities  don’t matter. Who will challenge  his illegal action? Our spineless legislature? Martha Martha?

Deval has spent more time campaigning outside of MA for the Dear Leader in the last two years, than within our borders . In  case you haven’t figured it out it would appear that he is now  being groomed  to carry on the legacy of our Dear Leader in 2016. The thrust of his new mantra  is, Give, Give Give away.  Yes, he will Give away your confiscated tax dollars, even as he clamors for more , more more taxation in the days and months  ahead.

It is up to you. If you wish to see our state and Republic endure, then you must speak out and stop our political classes from bribing segments of our population with  our public treasury. If you don’t take action,then as  Ayn Rand foretold, “…– when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self sacrifice- you may know that your society is doomed.”

Governor Deval Patrik’s contact Info:

BostonMassachusetts State House
Office of the Governor
Office of the Lt. Governor
Room 280
Boston, MA 02133

Phone: 617.725.4005
888.870.7770 (in state)
Fax: 617.727.9725
TTY: 617.727.3666
SpringfieldWestern Massachusetts Office of the Governor
State Office Building
436 Dwight Street
Suite 300
Springfield, MA 01103

Phone: 413.784.1200





Posted: Nov 19, 2012 7:16 AM EST Updated: Nov 19, 2012 7:16 AM EST

BOSTON (FOX 25 / – It’s sure to set off a firestorm. Governor Deval Patrick is getting ready to order all state colleges and universities to offer illegal immigrants in-state tuition rates.

An administration official told the Boston Globe that Governor Patrick will send a letter to the Massachusetts Board of Education Monday. The letter will offer the cheaper in-state rate to illegals who obtain work permits through a new federal government program.

In June, President Barack Obama halted the deportation of illegals under 30 years old if they arrived in the U.S. before they were 16, had no criminal past and met other requirements.

Supporters are praising the move, but critics say the governor is neglecting American citizens struggling to afford higher education.

Read more: