EXCLUSIVE VIDEO PROOF THAT OBAMA SHOOTS SKEET!!

Generally, I am loathe to support President Obama regarding anything.

I was one of the scoffers who giggled at Obama's recent claim about his love of shooting at clay pigeon targets.

"Yes, in fact, up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time," Obama said in the interview released last weekend, referring to the official presidential retreat in rural Maryland, which he last visited in October while campaigning for re-election. Asked whether the entire family participates, the president said: "Not the girls, but oftentimes guests of mine go up there."

Well, it appears that I must give a full mea culpa. My deep sources absconded with this actual video clip of Obama shooting targets. It is much more revealing than that obviously staged photo of Obama with a rifle, pretending to shoot.

Ooops, that  is the wrong image.


Here is the correct image:

Anyway, if there  are still doubters out there -- often called skeeters by the all-too-clever liberals -- watch this telling video. You will see Obama shooting at flying targets, and in his conversations with VP Biden, get a better sense of what Obama truly thinks (and check out the outfit he is wearing!!).

Just doing my part in the interest of the truth.

President Obama: Fix the Damn Problem

It is your fault, after all

I don't pretend to be non-partisan, nor do I pretend that the GOP leadership is any great shakes.

But this "fiscal cliff" issue is entirely -- 100% -- the fault of Obama and the Democrats in Congress.

Both sides agree that the massive increases in taxes that are bearing down on us will damage the economy and will hurt tax payers at a time when we least need it.

“We're now at the point where in just four days, every American's tax rates are scheduled to go up by law. Every American's paycheck will get considerably smaller…It would be bad for middle-class families and it would be bad for businesses that depend on family spending,” Obama told the reporters after a meeting with congressional leaders.

But one man will not fix that problem with no strings attached: Barack Obama. One man is refusing to prevent more of your money from being taken from you. Why? Because of his bizarre obsession with soaking the wealthy.

Even though Obama's soaking will not reduce his deficits one iota:

You raise the taxes on the rich, it’s eight cents on the dollar on the deficit. It reduces it a trivial amount of money and he’s never put any political capital in entitlement reform or tax reform. Oh, we’ll talk about it here and there — never invested any capital in it.”

It is simple fact that if your taxes go up significantly next year, it is entirely his fault and the fault of his Democrat party. Obama is lying to you when he tells you anything different. The main stream media is lying to you; the Democrats are lying to you; the liberal talking heads are lying to you. I am so tired of being lied to by this administration and its supporters.

“This is not Congress’ fault,” Thomas said. “Congress is behaving like Congress. This is the president’s fault. The president needs to go to the country and explain why they need to get this done. He has never done that.” Former Newsweek editor Evan Thomas

The problem we face next week is that all our income taxes will go up unless something is done. That is the problem that needs to be fixed. Increasing taxes on the wealthy may be beneficial (I think otherwise) in the longer run; but the immediate problem is that more money will be taken from you and sent to Washington. One person is blocking that from happening. One.

We could start back in 2003 when the current tax rates were implemented. It was the Democrats who forced the rates to be temporary. If the Dems in 2003  allowed the tax rates to be permanent, we would not be having this conversation right now. It is exclusively the Democrat party's fault that your tax rates may increase next week.

Beyond that fact, we have seen massive, massive spending increases under Obama. Not just on the Afghanistan war, as some would argue; practically every aspect of the federal government has seen huge increases to their budget. The Obama government is spending rate is higher than it was during WWII. The highest ever.

The Democrats in the Senate have refused to pass a legally-required budget for 4 years and have rebutted every attempt by the House GOP to implement a budget. Four years of historic spending without the guidance of a budget of any nature. Obama has been spending on-the-fly, with no reard for expense of consequence for four years straight.

The GOP has tried to reign in the spending at every opportunity, only to have their bills killed by one man in the Senate, Democrat Harry Reid.

The single largest chunk of federal spending is "entitlements." Obama has done nothing -- not one thing -- to reform entitlement programs, reign in their spending, or even try to keep spending level. Quite the opposite, in fact. Obama has lowered thresholds and manipulated the rules to put more people on these programs. We are spending more than a TRILLION dollars a year on entitlement programs. $1,000,000,000,000 in a country of 300 million people. You do the math.

If Obama were truly concerned with preventing tax rates from exploding in a few days, he would simply tell Congress to make the current rates permanent. Done. Problem solved.

He can then spend the next days, weeks, months traversing the country explaining why we need to increase the taxes and on whom. He will have the attention of the nation on Inauguration Day and the State of the Union Address next month. Convince the people that increases are needed and tell the people to call congress and demand the increases.

The Republicans can spend the same time arguing against the increases, cutting spending, reforming entitlements, or whatever.

We can discuss all these issues after the "fiscal cliff" is resolved and we are not working from a position of crisis. No decision made under duress is a good decision.

The roof on your house is leaking and a major rain storm is coming. Do you want the roofing guy to come over and lobby you to install lifetime shingles? Heck no. Fix the damn leak and give me your sales pitch later.

If you go to buy a new car, will you get a better deal if your car is dead and you need a new car immediately? Or, will you be in a better position to negotiate if your car is running fine and you have all the time in the world to haggle.

The situation is the same here.

Fix the damn problem, Obama. Make the tax rates permanent. Later, we can chat.

I don't want my tax rates going up next week because of Obama's bizarre obsession with soaking the "wealthy."

We need a president; we have a partisan. We need a leader; we have an ideologue.

We have a problem. If only we had a president that actually wanted to fix it; imagine how much better off we all would be.

Obama's Public Temper Tantrum

Obama cannot run on his track record he cannot promise that the future will be brighter. Instead, he plans to run a childish campaign that pits Americans against other Americans and tells us that we are all victims.

President Obama is not running a re-election campaign; he is having a public temper tantrum.

In his speech today to college students at the University of North Carolina, the president lamented over and over again: It's not fair!

We’ve got to build an economy where everybody is getting a fair shot, everybody is doing their fair share, everybody is playing by the same set of rules.

This sounds more like my 5 and 6-year-old arguing than a sitting president of the United States: Daddy, he got a bigger slice of pizza than me! It's not fair! No fair, Mommy! She got four cookies and I only have three!  Not fair! How come I have to go to bed and she doesn't?

It's not fair, Obama cries, that he pays less in taxes than she does (even though she likely doesn't pay more); he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and he wasn't; he earns more than the other guy; she has more sprinkles on her ice cream than he does.

Wait. that last one was my kids. It is so hard to tell these things apart.

---

Obama claims that he wants you to succeed, but if you do, he will insult you, double your taxes, try to control your salary, criticize your getting a bonus, and generally blame all of the country's problems on you.

---

He continues to echo my children by lying and exaggerating about the facts:

And instead, over the past few years, Republicans in Congress have voted against new ways to make college more affordable for middle-class families, even while they’re voting for huge tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires -- tax cuts that, by the way, would have to be paid for by cutting things like education and job-training programs that give students new opportunities to work and succeed. 

There has not been a single vote for "huge tax cuts" for anyone. The Congress continued the Bush tax cuts; but those tax cuts covered every tax payer -- and had Obama's support!

But, Daddy, look what she did! when confronted for doing something wrong. She said swear words, too! Um, no she didn't, son.


Even more juvenile is Obama's delusional double-speak. Today, he claims:

In America, we admire success.  We aspire to it.  I want everybody to be rich.  I want everybody to work and hustle and start businesses and study your tails off to get there.

Except, that if you happen to have the opportunity to work or start a business (note that 50% of college grads today can't get a job), and you happen to succeed, Obama will insult you, double or triple your taxes, try to control your salary, criticize your getting a bonus, tell you not to make a profit, and generally blame all of the country's problems on you.

Obama claims that he took moved all students loans to the White House so that he could save the folks some money:

Before I took office, we had a student loan system where tens of billions of taxpayer dollars were going to banks, not students.  Some in Washington fought tooth and nail to protect the status quo, where billions of dollars were going to banks instead of students.  And they wanted to protect that.  They wanted to keep those dollars flowing to the banks.

Not even close to true. The Republicans, and other supporters of freedom and the private sector, were understandably concerned about the White House deciding who will get student loans and why.

Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. In a statement, the leader laments that too many institutions are already riddled with government fingerprints, “We have the government running banks, insurance companies, car companies, health care and now the student loan business."

Obama is a confused, delusional man who cannot run on his track record and cannot tell the American people what he really wants to do. He cannot tell us that we are better off now than before he was elected. he cannot promise that the future will be brighter.

Instead, he plans to run a childish, demeaning, and contemptible campaign that pits Americans against other Americans, whines that the system is unfair, and works all-too-hard to convince us that we are all victims of someone else.

It is time to send Obama back home to Chicago and give someone else a chance.

UPDATE:
I prefer Mitt Romney's vision of fairness in his speech on April 24:

This America is fundamentally fair. We will stop the unfairness of urban children being denied access to the good schools of their choice; we will stop the unfairness of politicians giving taxpayer money to their friends’ businesses; we will stop the unfairness of requiring union workers to contribute to politicians not of their choosing; we will stop the unfairness of government workers getting better pay and benefits than the taxpayers they serve; and we will stop the unfairness of one generation passing larger and larger debts on to the next.

Obama on High Gas Prices: Buy a New Car

One broad change we can make that will start us on the road to lower prices at the pump, we could "trade in" Obama for a new president.

As you fill up your tank this week, paying the highest (prices) ever for this time of year, here is a reminder of what our president thinks about your struggle to pay for gas: just buy a new car.

Obama needled one questioner who asked about gas prices, now averaging close to $3.70 a gallon nationwide, and suggested that the gentleman consider getting rid of his gas-guzzling vehicle.

"If you're complaining about the price of gas and you're only getting 8 miles a gallon, you know," Obama said laughingly. "You might want to think about a trade-in."

See, it is your fault, not his.

Obama, who has done nothing to help fuel prices, openly mocked this gentleman who had the nerve to complain about the pain at the pumps.

Already, W. Howard Coudle, a retired machinist from Crestwood, Mo., has seen his monthly gasoline bill rise to $80 from about $60 in December. The closest service station is selling regular for $3.39 per gallon, the highest he's ever seen.

Mr Coudle, just buy a new car.

I am not sure which is worse: Obama insulting someone who raised a legitimate concern; his condescending ignorance that not every one can just trade their car in; or his clueless notion that anyone who gets over "8 miles a gallon" should not care about high gas prices.

Americans spent 8.4 percent of their household income on gasoline last year when gas averaged an all-time high of $3.51 a gallon. That's double the percentage a decade ago. They could pay even more this year, even though demand is the lowest in 11 years as people drive fewer miles in more efficient cars, says Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst at OPIS.

You see, Obama thinks there is nothing that he can do to stop the astronomical rise in gas prices during his term.

"I'm just going to be honest with you. There's not much we can do next week or two weeks from now," the president told workers at a wind turbine plant.

While that may be true, what has Obama done in the three years since he took office,a time when gas prices have more than doubled. Nothing.

Could it be that Obama could do something, but won't? Let's ask his Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell offered a measure to open up off-shore areas to new oil and natural gas drilling when the price of gas reached $4.50-per-gallon. Salazar objected. So McConnell changed it to $5-per-gallon. Salazar still objected.

And so on and so on it went until McConnell said $10-per-gallon. Salazar continued to object, at which point it was clear that, as the Democratic spokesman in that particular discussion, the Colorado senator would not allow America to produce more oil and gas even if Americans had to pay more than double what they were paying then for a gallon of gas.

Or, is it that Obama has intentionally driving up the prices of oil in order to drive his green energy initiatives?

There can be no doubt that the president took deliberate action to block access to the nation’s energy resources. A federal judge recently found the Interior Department in contempt for ignoring his order overturning the oil-drilling moratorium the administration imposed following the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. On Feb. 22, Judge Martin Feldman upped the pressure by insisting that the department act on five pending permits within 30 days. Permits that would, under normal circumstances, be processed in two weeks have been ignored for four to nine months. “Not acting at all is not a lawful option,” Judge Feldman wrote. The department had no choice but to issue the first permit since the spill on Feb. 28.

The House Committee on Natural Resources (full disclosure, headed by a Republican) has a breath-taking list of the measures undertaken by the Obama administration that the committee feels have directly resulted in "skyrocketing" energy costs.

"Gas prices? They're going to still fluctuate until we can start making these broader changes, and that's going to take a couple of years to have serious effect," Obama said.

I know one broad change we can make that will start us on the road to lower prices at the pump, we could "trade in" Obama for a new president.

Obama's Contrived Contraceptives Crisis

President Obama wanted to force Catholic organizations to pay for services they morally oppose so that Obama could provide free birth control to maybe 6 million women who reportedly need help. Here again, a politician makes up a crisis so that he -- and only he -- can swoop in and save the day, opposition be damned.

One statistic jumped out at me during Obama's "contraception mandate" speech yesterday.

"Nearly 99 percent of all women have relied on contraception at some point in their lives –- 99 percent. "

Wow! Considering that there are rougly 150,000,000 women in the United States (2010 census), that is a lot of pills.

Well, not exactly.

Because Obama couldn't be bothered to give us any real numbers, or tell us where he got that statistic, I searched on that line and found a Center for Disease Control report, Use of Contraception in the United States: 1982–2008 (PDF). What follows is a quick, Saturday morning parsing of the numbers.

From the CDC report:

99% of "women 15–44 years of age who had had intercourse at least once (referred to in the text as ‘sexually experienced’). The percentages shown are the proportions of sexually experienced women who reported that they (or their male partners) have ever used each method of contraception at least once, at some time in their lives.

Wait, I thought Obama said 99% of all women have relied, but the CDC reports usage for sexually experienced women who have ever used contraceptives, even once. And suddenly, women have relied on equals women have once used.

But still, these must be some staggering numbers for Obama to make such a big deal about it, to make speeches about it, to force the issue on people who are opposed to contraception. Back to the report:

In 2006–2008, about 62% of these 62 million women (18 to 54) were currently using a method of contraception, including male methods

OK. So 62% of 62 million is roughly 38 million. Wow. From 150,000,000 to 38,000,000. Quite a drop.

• Among the 62% of women who were using a method of contraception in 2006–2008, the leading methods currently used were:
• The oral contraceptive pill, used by 17.3%, or 10.7 million women.
• Female sterilization, used by 16.7%, or 10.3 million women.
• Male sterilization (vasectomy), used by the partners of 6.1%, or 3.7 million women.

Back out the male sterilization (is Obama fighting for that??), we are down to 21 million. What was that undocumented figure that Obama quoted on affordability?

And yet, more than half of all women between the ages of 18 and 34 have struggled to afford it. So for all these reasons, we decided to follow the judgment of the nation’s leading medical experts and make sure that free preventive care includes access to free contraceptive care.

Notice he changed the demographic from ALL women to women ages 18 through 34. The numbers on age are convoluted in the CDC report, more convoluted than I want to decipher on a Saturday morning. So, let's assume roughly half are in the 18 to 34 segment of the 18 to 54 grouping in the CDC report.

Down to 11.5 million.

Half of those, Obama assures us, need help. 6 million. I won't even endeavor to ascertain what percent of that 6% works for a religious organization or is on Medicaid or other program that covers birth control.

Nearly 99 percent of all women have relied on contraception at some point in their lives –- 99 percent. And yet, more than half of all women between the ages of 18 and 34 have struggled to afford it.

The way he juxtaposes those two phrases, heavily emphasizing the "99%," certainly leads one to imagine some staggering numbers -- a veritable crisis.

Alas, no.

President Obama wanted to force Catholic organizations to pay for services they morally oppose so that Obama could provide free birth control to roughly 6 million women who reportedly need help. Here again, a politician makes up a crisis that he, and only he, can swarm in and solve, opposition be damned.

The REAL Problem with the ObamaCare "Contraception Mandate"

What is missing in this debate is the fact that one person, an unelected, unaccountable, appointed bureaucrat, has the ability under ObamaCare to tell everybody in the country what must be covered by their health insurance. ONE PERSON!!

I have been listening all week to the complaints by conservatives about Obama's recent decision to require all health plans offered by Catholic institutions to include "women's health services." A requirement that the administration seems to be backing quickly away from.

This is not about contraception; this is not about the Catholic Church. This is about whether the federal government of the United States should have the power to go in and require a religious organization to pay for something that the religious organization teaches against.

Mr. Rubio is close. This debate should be about whether the federal government of the United States has the power to tell an insurance company what it can or cannot provide to its customers. Because they cannot. Period. The government cannot tell a private company what legal goods and services it can provide and at what price.

What is missing in this debate is the fact that one person, an unelected, unaccountable, appointed bureaucrat, has the ability under ObamaCare to tell everybody in the country what is covered by their health insurance. ONE PERSON!!

This, to me, is a far more egregious violation our individual liberties and our freedom of choice when it comes to health insurance.

The argument that the "contraceptive mandate," as the requirement is becoming known in the main stream media (perhaps to hide the abortion coverage in the mandate) is specious, at best. If a religious institution purchases health insurance from any insurance company, their money is going to cover these disputed "women's health services."

Blue Cross, for example, does not have a specific account set up for Policy A, where all claims are paid through that account. Rather, monies paid for Policy A go into the general account, where all claims are paid, even "women's health services."

Could it be that the argument against the mandate is more about access to these services for religious women? Insurance coverage would make the services less costly, and thus more accessible. If that is the debate, the argument is more about encouraging people to follow the teachings of that religion, rather than changing a health insurance policy.

ObamaCare is a complete invasion into our freedoms and liberties. We simply cannot allow the federal government to force us to purchase a product from a private company, and then tell that private company what that product includes and how much to charge.

ObamaCare is patently unconstitutional and MUST be repealed. Our freedom and future is too important to let this stand.

UPDATE: 2:02pm 2/10/12

The President has announced that he plans to use power that he does not have to revert a decision that he should never have made.

The change would allow religious organizations to refuse to cover contraceptive care. It would also require insurers to offer a plan that does not include contraceptive care in their contracts with nonprofit religious groups. But the insurers would be required to make contraception available free of charge to women anyway. "We think this is a very workable solution," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told Fox News, adding that it respects "religious objections."

Too bad that the "solution" does not respect the US Constitution.

A president of the United States DOES NOT have the authority to tell a private business what products it must sell and at what price. That is what just happened today. This would be akin to the president telling McDonald's that it must offer the McRib year-round and only charge $1 for it. It would not be fair to offer a popular meal choice only part of the year and at a higher price.

Interestingly, during his speech today, he all but admitted the initial decision was rushed, purportedly to avoid the issue becoming a political football.

...it became clear that spending months hammering out a solution was not going to be an option, that we needed to move this faster. So last week, I directed the Department of Health and Human Services to speed up the process that had already been envisioned. We weren’t going to spend a year doing this; we’re going to spend a week or two doing this.

Seems more likely to me that the president rushed this decision in order to get it done well ahead of the elections this fall. The administration took a "week" instead of a "year," and got themselves into hot water politically. The rushed decision turned the issue from a political football into a political punching bag, and Obama was the one getting punched.

This is what happens when a politician has no regard for the constitution and what he is legally allowed to do; when he doesn't care about the consequences of his decisions, or the people it affects. And another reason why ObamaCare must -- and will -- go.

So Now Credit Card Debt is a Good Thing???

So, today I learned that Americans increasing credit card debt is a good sign for the economy.

U.S. credit-card debt posted the second solid increase in a row during December, an indication Americans stuck with meager wage gains borrowed to pay for their holiday celebrations....But the Fed data are important for the clues to behavior by consumers, whose spending helps propel the economy.
The two solid gains in revolving credit during November and December came during the holidays — a sign consumers pulled out credit cards to buy gifts and make other seasonal purchases.

Isn't that wonderful. People who apparently used to pay for their holiday celebrations with cash, this year had to go further in debt for the same celebrations. But, slapping down the Visa credit card rather than the Visa debit card means that we are all doing great.

The upturn in card debt could be another sign that consumers are growing more confident about the economy, or at least about their personal job security.

Huh?

Wasn't it just a few years ago that we were told that using credit cards for expenses such as holiday celebrations was unhealthy and an indication that people's finances were getting worse, not better:

Finding themselves strapped for cash... Americans are increasingly turning to credit cards to cover gas, groceries and other living expenses....
Faced with soaring costs for food and fuel, people find they must charge more to make ends meet.
"They are not able to increase their income, but their expenses are going up, so the credit card becomes a way to cope," said Sara Gilbert, executive director of the Consumer Credit Counseling Service in Fort Collins, Colo.

Odd how that Wall Street Journal piece didn't mention that people needed credit cards to cope with higher food and fuel prices we have felt over the past few years.

The 2008 meltdown, we were told, was due in part to high personal credit card debt...

As the economy slows and unemployment rises, consumers are defaulting on credit-card payments more often. And though that trend is unlikely to create a crisis in line with the mortgage fallout, it's still a headache for banks that are already hurting.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/28/54880/are-credit-cards-the-next-collapse.html#storylink=cpy

...and that credit card debt was a sign of living beyond our means?

“For millions, they were living in a bubble,” says Odysseas Papadimitriou, CEO of CardHub, referring to Americans living on home equity and credit card debt five years ago. “If we end up overleveraging ourselves again, it’s going to be the same thing repeated in a few years.”

"Millions of ordinary people, unwilling to relinquish a bubble-era mentality of living beyond their means, will have borrowed beyond their ability to repay. If this sounds similar to the subprime mortgage crisis, that’s because it is"

Even Obama himself warned that he expect(s) consumers to live within their means and pay what they owe.

But now that Obama has saved us from the evils of the credit card companies, I guess it is in vogue to start slapping down the plastic again.

Well, if anyone wants to lecture us on living beyond our means, it might as well be Obama. He knows better than anyone how to put too much debt on the credit card.