ObamaCare Flatlines: ObamaCare Taxes Home Sales – Clobbers Middle-Class Americans

ObamaCare Flatlines: ObamaCare Taxes Home Sales – Clobbers Middle-Class Americans

“I can make a firm pledge.  Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase.  Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes,”
President Obama, September 12, 2008

Beginning January 1, 2013, ObamaCare imposes a 3.8% Medicare tax on unearned income, including the sale of single family homes, townhouses, co-ops, condominiums, and even rental income.

In February 2010, 5.02 million homes were sold, according to the National Association of Realtors.  On any given day, the sale of a house, townhome, condominium, co-op, or income from a rental property can push middle-income families over the $250,000 threshold and slam them with a new tax they can’t afford.

This new ObamaCare tax is the first time the government will apply a 3.8 percent tax on unearned income.  This new tax on home sales and unearned income and other Medicare taxes raise taxes more than $210 billion to pay for ObamaCare.   The National Association of Realtors called this new Medicare tax on unearned income “destructive” and “ill-advised” and warned it would hurt job creation.

For previous ObamaCare Flatlines, visit click here.

Additional Document: The Costly Consequences of Health Care Reform (Courtesy of the Budget Committee)

Deconstructing Obama

Deconstructing Obama

Posted By Jamie Glazov On March 7, 2011 @ 12:04 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 14 Comments

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Jack Cashill, a Kansas City-based writer and producer who serves as executive editor of Ingram’s, a regional business magazine. He is the author of the just released, Deconstructing Obama: The Life, Loves, and Letters of America’s First Postmodern President, his eighth book and his second on the subject of literary fraud.  He has a Ph.D. in American Studies from Purdue.

FP: Jack Cashill, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Let’s begin with how you came to believe that Obama was not the principal author of his acclaimed memoir “Dreams from My Father”.

Cashill: Thanks Jamie.

I first picked up the book in July 2008.  Early on in the first read, the quality of the writing caught my attention.  Although the book lacks discipline, long stretches of Dreams are very well written. In my twenty-five year career in advertising and publishing, I have reviewed the portfolios of at least a thousand professional writers.  Not a half-dozen among them wrote as well as the author of the book’s best passages.  When I looked into Obama’s other efforts in print, I saw that nothing he wrote was nearly this good.  What surprised me was that no one was even suspicious of Obama’s ability.

FP: Ok, so tell us why it matters if Obama wasn’t the real author.

Cashill: The literary gatekeepers had already anointed Obama a genius on the basis of Dreams, the sacred text in the cult of Obama. The Obama campaign machine, Organizing for America, encouraged its minions to “get out the vote and keep talking to others about the genius of Barack Obama.” This, I sensed from the beginning, was a myth that one challenged at his own peril.

FP: You ultimately came to the belief that Bill Ayers was the craftsman behind Dreams from My Father.  How did you come to make this judgment?

Cashill: Entirely by accident. About six weeks after reading Dreams, I ordered a copy of Ayers’s 2001 memoir Fugitive Days and started reading. The stylistic parallels were stunning. At this point, I had my first Eureka moment, albeit a dumb one—Gosh, I thought, they both live in Chicago.  They must have shared the same ghostwriter!   I had not known that Ayers was a skilled writer and editor.  As a case in point, Hyde Park PLO booster and Obama pal, Rashid Khalidi, credits Ayers in the first sentence of his acknowledgment section of his book, Resurrecting Empire.

FP: In the fall of 2008, what would have happened to the Obama campaign if your thesis had been accepted?

Cashill: Obama biographer David Remnick got this much right.  Said he, “This was a charge that if ever proved true, or believed to be true among enough voters, could have been the end of the candidacy.”

FP: How did the media respond?

Cashill: With a shrug.  This did not surprise me.  Real knowledge might just have undermined their commitment to a philosophy so evasive — “Yes, we can?” — they themselves would be at a loss to describe it.  That much I got.  What I did not get was why the “respectable” conservative media were mimicking the turtle-like defenses of their mainstream peers.  I was not asking them to buy my thesis sight unseen but to kick the tires and take it for a test drive.

 

FP: How confident were you that you were right?

Cashill: Four weeks before the election I was confident enough in my thesis to submit it to any test.  If proved right, it would have undermined the foundational myth of Obama as genius, confirmed his intimate relationship with an unrepentant terrorist and, perhaps most damningly, established this still untested candidate as a liar of consequence.  In short, it could have turned the election.

FP: Was your thesis ever confirmed?

Cashill: Yes, in Christopher Andersen’s book, Barack and Michele: Portrait of an American Marriage, which was published in September of 2009.  A celebrity biographer with impeccable mainstream credentials, Andersen based his account of Dreams’ creation on sources within Hyde Park.   As Andersen tells it, Obama found himself deeply in debt and “hopelessly blocked.” At “Michelle’s urging,” Obama “sought advice from his friend and Hyde Park neighbor Bill Ayers.” What attracted the Obamas were “Ayers’s proven abilities as a writer” as evident in his 1993 book, To Teach.  Noting that Obama had already taped interviews with many of his relatives,  Andersen elaborates, “These oral histories, along with his partial manuscript and a trunkload of notes were given to Ayers.”  Andersen was reviewed in every major periodical.  Not one so much as mentioned his Ayers’s revelations.

FP: When did you begin to doubt the story that was told in “Dreams”?

Cashill: I had steered clear of the “birther” business. The fever swamps surrounding Obama’s citizenship were swallowing reputations whole, and so I stuck to literary analysis.  It was the poem “Pop,” allegedly written by the 19-year old Obama, that got me interested.  Virtually all reviewers of consequence said the poem was about “Gramps,” Obama’s maternal grandfather.  In fact, as was obvious, it was about Obama’s Hawaii mentor, the poet, pornographer and CPUSA member Frank Marshall Davis. This poem begged the question–why “Pop”?–and opened the doors on Obama’s murky past.

FP: Your own personal belief on the birther issue? Do you think Obama was born in the United States?

Cashill: Yes, but when strategist David Axelrod first combed through the official Obama records—the grades, the SAT and LSAT scores, the college theses, the passport, his parents’ marriage license, the college applications, the birth certificate—he likely saw more red flags than in his parents’ May Day parades and so decided to bury them all.  I think there is something on the birth certificate that will throw the much told nativity story of Barack Obama into doubt, quite possibly the date of birth or even the place.  Unreported so far by the media, little Barry spent the first year of his life in Washington State.

FP: What are your feelings about Obama’s second book, “Audacity of Hope”?

Cashill: To credit Dreams to Obama alone, one has to posit any number of near miraculous variables: he somehow found the time; he somewhere mastered nautical jargon and postmodern jabberwocky; he in some sudden, inexplicable way developed the technique and the talent to transform himself from stumbling amateur to literary superstar without any stops in between.  To credit Audacity to Obama alone, one has to posit at least two additional variables: one is his adoption of a modified and less competent style, and the second is his ability to write such a book given the punishing schedule of a freshman senator.

Whoever wrote Obama’s speeches wrote large sections of Audacity, perhaps all of it.  We found 38 extended passages from stump speeches in 2005-2006 that made their way into this book virtually word for word.  Easily the best candidate for authorship is Obama’s wunderkind speechwriter Jon Favreau.

FP: What happens from here?

Cashill: It was scandalous that JFK won a Pulitzer Prize for Profiles In Courage, a book that he himself did not write.  Imagine if the book had been written not by Ted Sorensen but by Alger Hiss.  That is the kind of scandal we are looking at here.  I need the help of our friends in the conservative media to get the story out.


Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com

As transparent as crude oil.

As transparent as crude oil.

Aaron Gee

The Federal Government and the Coast Guard have issued new restrictions on press access to the Gulf oil spill and clean up.  Reporters are not allowed within 65 feet of any cleanup vessel, or booms on land or in water.  Failure to obey these directives is a class D Felony, with fines up to $40,000. This comes on the heals of a House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform report that found that the Obama administration had repeatedly provided false information on what assets were being used in the clean up, when officials knew about the leak, and the depth of Federal involvement in the operations. 

President Obama has been remarkably thin skinned and it’s clear from my perspective that Obama is trying desperately to control the negative images that come from the gulf oil disaster.  The Press restrictions are so egregious that even CNN’s Anderson Cooper is upset.  In his broadcast (embedded video) he repeatedly says “we are not the enemy here”, referring to the press. The recent actions by the Coast Guard , in direct contradiction to their earlier statements, have more and more reporters hopping mad. The clear implication of these actions is that Administrations is trying to cover up government incompetence and failure. 

The new restrictions on press access aren’t the only issue, another problem is that the media is still reluctant to place blame for government incompetence at the feet of Obama. Instead of looking to the Obama Administration in light of the new regulations, the media is blaming Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen. It would seem that the press still doesn’t understand what the term “Commander-in-Chief” actually means.  The US Military has always been a favorite press target and the recent criticisms continue the trend.

Sadly, the media still doesn’t “get it”.  They are being played just as eloquently now as they were during the 2008 campaign.  Our “watchdog” press has been fawning over President Obama in spite of his unkept promises, cover ups, and incompetence.  The masters of spin and distraction at the White House know this and are hard at work  on a new story line for the media to swallow.  In the fairy tale version of events Obama will have done nothing wrong but the bad Coast Guard (Military types) and evil BP (Corporate types) will be obstructing the President’s attempt to be transparent and clean up the gulf.  Expect the White House to push this storyline and expect the media to go along despite all evidence to the contrary.  Expect the American people to not be so easily fooled.

Arizona Dems: Obama’s Lying About Border Security

Arizona Dems: Obama’s Lying About Border Security

July 5th, 2010 Posted By Pat Dollard.

r1563054469

The Hill:

Anticipating a furor of voter criticism over the July Fourth recess, Democratic lawmakers from the border region shot back at the White House last week, challenging the president’s speech on immigration in which he said that the southern border is secure.

Arizona Democratic Reps. Ann Kirkpatrick, Harry Mitchell and Gabrielle Giffords joined a growing Republican chorus in denouncing President Barack Obama for not pushing for more specific action in his Thursday speech on the nation’s immigration and border security issues.

Obama said that the U.S.-Mexico border is more secure today than at any time in the past 20 years.
But the three Arizona Democrats disagreed.

“The crisis on America’s borders won’t be addressed with words,” said Giffords. “I was disappointed to hear the president give short shrift to border security concerns by saying that our nation’s southern border is more secure today than at any time in the past 20 years.

“That is not a sign of progress, it is a statement on the poor job we have done in securing the border for the past two decades.”

As their constituents continue to clamor that more must be done to secure the borders, the first- and second-term Arizona Democrats are increasingly bucking their own party’s stance on border security.

All three lawmakers have acknowledged the charged politics behind the border security and immigration debate. And though none of them are likely to lose their seats this November, their races have been listed as some of the most contentious in the region.

“As any politician knows, it is easier to make speeches than it is to make progress, and we need more than talk from the White House and Congress right now,” said Kirkpatrick.

The intra-party criticism comes as the House last week passed the fiscal year 2010 Supplemental Appropriations Bill, which includes $700 million in border security funds, including $50 million to deploy National Guard troops to the border states.

It also comes in the wake of recent FBI statistics that reveal instances of violent crime along the border to have gone down over the past year. And on Friday, Mexican officials announced that they had arrested two men in connection with the killing earlier this year of a U.S. consulate worker and her husband, according to the Associated Press.

Obama acknowledged this week that more must be done to secure the U.S.-Mexico border, but it should not be a one-pronged approach of militarization, he said.

“There are those who argue that we should not move forward with any other elements of reform until we have fully sealed our borders,” said Obama. “But our borders are just too vast for us to be able to solve the problem only with fences and border patrols. It won’t work. Our borders will not be secure as long as our limited resources are devoted to not only stopping gangs and potential terrorists, but also the hundreds of thousands who attempt to cross each year simply to find work.”

Republicans widely criticized Obama for using a politically charged rhetoric that lacked substantive suggestions to change the nation’s immigration policies.

Mitchell, too, sounded off on the White House following Obama’s speech, saying that both political parties have been guilty of posturing on the issue, yet the border is still not secure and the nation’s immigration system remains broken, especially in Arizona.

“Illegal immigration affects our state more than it does any other,” Mitchell said. “More than half of all illegal crossings over the U.S.-Mexico border happen in Arizona. The federal government has a responsibility to secure the border and fix our broken immigration system, but hasn’t done so, and Arizona continues to shoulder the burden.”

Obama Combines the Divisive Tactics of the Nazis and Soviets

 

Obama Combines the Divisive Tactics of the Nazis and Soviets
April 29, 2010
 

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

 
RUSH: And you know, folks, one of the things that really distresses me about all of this is the way Obama is playing this.  He’s actually playing the race card.  He’s doing two things at one time.  The communists around the world always thought that they had to play off the haves versus the have-nots, class warfare.  Hitler and his gang believed you did it on race, you divided people by race.  Obama is doing both.  Obama is playing class warfare and dividing people on the basis of race.  He’s doing them both.  He’s outdoing whatever Hitler and any Soviet commissar ever did, because he’s combining these two things that roil and divide a culture. (impersonating Obama) “Yeah, there’s a point you earn enough money, you have enough.” 

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  The Think Progress blog here is a George Soros operation, and they have a post on me today: “Limbaugh suggests Obama is touchy about Arizona law because you can’t produce his own papers.”  Remember when I said that yesterday?  I knew that’d tweak ’em.  I knew that’d tweak ’em.  They quote me as saying, “Papers = Nazi. ‘Your papers, please,’ equals Nazi. That’s why Obama using the term.  I can understand Obama being touchy on the subject of producing your papers.  Maybe he’s afraid somebody’s going to ask him for his,” and then they link to the audio on my website to listen to it.  Then they talk about all the other “false claims,” and Snerdley said during the break, “You know, you’re going to get blowback on this comparison here to Hitler and the Soviets.”  Fine!  Let the blowback come.  What did I say that’s wrong? 

What did I say that’s not factually correct?  The Soviets, the communists divided people by class.  That’s how they promoted war and chaos in their culture: Haves versus have-nots.  Obama’s doing that in this country.  Joe the Plumber.  “We wanna spread the wealth around.”  Hitler, as we all know, used race as his divide and conquer technique.  Well, what’s going on now here?  What’s untrue about that?  Did Hitler do that?  Ask the Jewish people and the gypsies. Ask anybody if Hitler did it. Ask anybody if the Soviets did it. Both statements are true.  Are we not being divided by class in this country?  Is that not what this agenda is all about, redistribution?  And Obama is throwing the race card here on this Arizona immigration bill.  So let the blowback come.  I am not afraid of the blowback.  Truth is the truth.  That’s why truth will drive liberals crazy if they listen to this show.

 
BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: A couple e-mails say, “Rush, when did Obama play the race card?  What are you talking about?”  What am I talking about?  Over the weekend Obama put out a video urging blacks and Hispanics and women to get reenergized for him.  He did not mention whites — old, female, or young. He only mentioned people of color.  But even he forgot that, he’s out there ripping the law in Arizona, his ripping the governor. Hell, he did it again on Air Force One last night on the way back to Washington, DC, Obama said this to reporters about the new immigration law in Arizona.

OBAMA: (plane noise)  What I think is a mistake is when we start having local law enforcement officials in power to stop people on the suspicion that they may be undocumented workers. Because, you know, that carries a great amount of risk, uhhh, that core values that we all, uhhh, care about are breached.  We have to do more though in the context of a comprehensive plan that maintains our status as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants.

RUSH:  It’s a law.  We are a nation of laws.  You’re the one trampling on laws.  Arizona passed a law because you in Washington are not dealing with the problem, but here’s the thing.  He’s lying. The left is lying when they say, “Local law enforcement officials have the power to stop people on the suspicion that they may be undocumented workers.”  They can’t stop them on that basis!  They have to have committed some other violation that would result in police attention anyway.  I want to know: How does enforcing the law undermine our status as a nation of laws?  Somebody has to explain this to me.  How does enforcing the law “undermine our status as a nation of laws”?  So, anyway, they continue to say that Arizona is no different than a Soviet checkpoint.  “They can stop you just because of the way you look.”

That’s not what the Arizona law says.  You must remember: The left, the Democrats, whatever you want to call them, lie, folks.  They lie about veritably everything.

 
END TRANSCRIPT

Blagojevich Trial Nears: Can Obama Be Implicated?

Blagojevich Trial Nears: Can Obama Be Implicated?

April 23rd, 2010

Clarice Feldman, American Thinker

 What was Obama’s involvement?

Will President Obama have to testify under oath about the appointment of his Senate successor?

Drudge carries two big stories this afternoon on the trial of former Governor Blagojevich.

Blagojevich has subpoenaed  the President to take his testimony on the events in question. 

Blagojevich has pleaded not guilty to charges that accuse him of scheming to sell or trade the Senate seat left vacant by Obama’s election as president.

The motion filed Thursday says Obama was interviewed for two hours by prosecutors and FBI agents regarding the Blagojevich case, and the defense filed a motion asking for all transcripts, notes and reports from that interview. But the defense never received the documents, the motion said.

The motion also claims that prosecutors say Blagojevich met a labor union official whom he believed to be in contact with President Obama, and told the official he would appoint a certain candidate to the vacant Senate seat. In exchange, Blagojevich expected to be named secretary of Health and Human Services, the motion says prosecutors claim.

It would be most unusual for the request for a subpoena to succeed, but as you can see from the second story, it is hard to believe the president’s claim that neither he nor his aides were involved in the search for a successor for his Senate seat.

Read More:

Obama Lies about Campaign Donors

Obama Lies about Campaign Donors

April 23rd, 2010

PolitiFact

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WL-na6yJurU&feature=player_embedded

Obama lies through his teeth about his donors….

New financial regulations are pending in Congress, but both political parties get a lot of campaign contributions from the people they intend to regulate — Wall Street.

The financial sector donates millions to both Republican and Democratic candidates. And during the last couple of election cycles, Democrats have outstripped Republicans, who have traditionally been thought of as more business friendly. Those political realities have made for interesting dynamics as the negotiations on financial regulation continue.

President Barack Obama answered questions on this topic in an interview with CNBC’s John Harwood on April 21, 2010.

“In the 2008 campaign, you got a lot of money, about $1 million from employees of Goldman Sachs,” Harwood said. “Your former White House counsel Greg Craig is apparently going to represent Goldman Sachs. In light of this case, do either of those things embarrass you?”

“No,” Obama said. “First of all, I got a lot of money from a lot of people. And the vast majority of the money I got was from small donors all across the country. And moreover, anybody who gave me money during the course of my campaign knew that I was on record again in 2007, and 2008, pushing very strongly that we needed to reform how Wall Street did business. And so, nobody should be surprised in the position that I’m taking now because it is one that I was very clear about in the course of the campaign.”

What jumped out at us in this exchange was Obama’s statement, “the vast majority of the money I got was from small donors all across the country.” We’ve seen that statement repeated elsewhere, but the evidence doesn’t back it up.

In the general election, Obama got about 34 percent of his individual donations from small donors, people who gave $200 or less, according to a report from the Campaign Finance Institute. Another 23 percent of donations came from people who gave between $201 and $999, and another 42 percent from people who gave $1,000 or more.

Read More: