Obama: Okay Hosting Muslim Function, Says No To “Christian Character” Of “God And Country” Rally

I said it before, and I’ll say it again: “If it weren’t for double standards, Democrats would have no standards at all.”

So, the Obama administration refuses to allow Flyovers for the “God and Country” rally in Nampa, Idaho because of the “Christian Character” of the rally.

Pentagon Denies Flyover of Patriotic ‘God and Country Rally’ in Nampa Idaho Because of its Christian Content
George Vogt
Metro Catholic
July 4, 2009

This marks the first time in the 42 year history of the event that a flyover request was denied by the Pentagon. The event is held ever year to honor the spiritual foundations of our country with a special emphasis on the men and women who serve in the armed forces. In past years, the “God and Country Rally” has focused on honoring and paying tribute to those veterans who have served our nation in the past and those who are currently on active duty. At the rally this year, all five branches of the armed services were featured with over 60 new recruits sworn into the military at the event. After a phone conversation and an e-mail response from the Pentagon, Rally Director Patti Syme says they were denied the request for a flyover this year because of the “Christian” nature of the event.

But, the Obama administration is perfectly fine with hosting a Muslim event right in the White House.

Statement by the President on the Occasion of Ramadan
White House Press Release
August 11, 2010

These rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings. Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity and racial equality. And here in the United States, Ramadan is a reminder that Islam has always been part of America and that American Muslims have made extraordinary contributions to our country. And today, I want to extend my best wishes to the 1.5 billion Muslims around the world – and your families and friends – as you welcome the beginning of Ramadan. I look forward to hosting an Iftar dinner celebrating Ramadan here at the White House later this week, and wish you a blessed month.

So, it’s okay to say “no” because of “Christian Character” but then turn around and say yes to Muslims in the name of “justice, progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”

I wonder how dignified women feel when they are subjugated by Sharia law and what Barack Obama’s position on this is?

I know alot of you out there are going to say that Bush did the same thing at Ramadan, but Bush did not cancel flyovers for the God and Country rally saying the event was too “Christian.” Still, I’d also like to know Bush’s position on the subjugation of women under Sharia law.

Obama To Break Pledge Of Not Increasing Taxes On Incomes Of Less Than $250,000/yr

Well, it’s good to be back among the ranks of the employed. Now that I have an income again, I can devote just a little more time to helping the world stay informed about key issues we are facing.

Many of us knew that Barack Obama had absolutely no intention of keeping many of his campaign promises. Instead of allowing the health care debate to be made public over C-SPAN, he and his Democrat followers instead chose to hold their own meetings behind closed doors and completely shut out the Republicans. He promised that he would veto any bill that contained earmarks but instead has signed legislation that overall contains over 9,000 earmarks.

So, it should come as no surprise whatsoever that Obama is now poised to break a campaign promise he made on September 8, 2008:

“And I can make a firm pledge: Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase—not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”

It is becoming clear that Obama made this grandiose claim in an effort to get votes by painting himself as some sort of anti-tax candidate. Well, now that he got the votes, he’s singing a completely different tune:

According to Terrence Jeffrey at Cybercast News Service:

[T]he new health care plan released in summary form yesterday by the White House specifically calls for increasing the Medicare payroll tax on “households with incomes exceeding $200,000 for singles and $250,000 for married couples filing jointly.” Unless President Obama is prepared to say that the only type of “family” that qualifies as a “family” under his tax pledge is one that is formed around a “married couple filing jointly” than his new health care proposal violates his 2008 tax pledge on its face. The Internal Revenue Service, for example, makes clear that the “head of household” tax filing status is for “unmarried” taxpayers. A definition of the term “head of household” on the IRS Web site says: “Generally, you may claim head of household filing status on your tax return only if you are unmarried and pay more than 50% of the costs of keeping up a home for yourself and your dependent(s) or other qualifying individuals.”

That seems to be the mantra of the Democrats: Tax anything that can be taxed in order to pay for the irresponsible spending the Democrats have engaged in over the past year.

It’s true that Republicans went on a spending binge when they were in power, but the Democrats have far outstripped anything that Republicans have done since 1994. The republicans were bad, but the Democrats are infinitely worse.

More:

The White House posted the president’s tax increase proposal as part of the summary of the new health-care reform bill he is proposing. “Under current law, workers who earn a salary pay a flat tax of 1.45 percent of their wages to support the Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI) trust fund, but those who have substantial unearned income do not, raising issues of fairness,” says the summary of Title IX of the president’s proposal. “The Act will include an additional 0.9 percentage point Hospital Insurance tax for households with incomes exceeding $200,000 for singles and $250,000 for married couples filing jointly. In addition, it would add a 2.9 percent tax for such high-income households to unearned income including interest, dividends, annuities, royalties and rents (excluding income from active participation in S corporations).”

There it is. Clear and concise. Obama had no intention of keeping his “no tax increases” on anyone under $250,000/yr pledge.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Breaking His Pledge? Obama Calls For Increasing Payroll Taxes On ‘Households’ Earning Less Than $250,000 Per Year
Terrence Jeffrey
Cybercast News Service
February 23, 2010

White House ‘Snitch’ Program: A Violation Of The Law?

5 U.S.C. § 552a clearly states the following:

United States agencies, including the Executive Office of the President shall, ‘maintain no record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity.’

Which means that when Barack Obama called upon people to email the White House about “fishy” statements on health care reform, it was a violation of the above United States Code.

The only reason Obama wanted people to send in information was so that a collection process could begin. Congress never authorized this collection process and to my knowledge, no individual ever said it was okay for the White House to begin any such collection.

When Obama told his audience on October 31, 2008 that “We are five days away from fundamentaly transforming the United States of America,” he wasn’t joking. He just didn’t mention that he intended to establish the equivalent of an East German Stasi.

And when the crowd cheered at this statement, it proved correct the line from Star Wars: Revenge Of The Sith when Amadala said, “So this is how liberty dies … with thunderous applause.”

You can access the complete article on-line here:

White House Actions Might Be Unlawful
Erick Erickson
RedState.com
August 5, 2009

Two More Obama Insults To Our Collective Intelligence

One thing Obama is good at is insulting the collective intelligence of the entire United States of America. For example, he tells us that this will be the most morally upright administration in history, but then nominates an entire slew of cabinet members who “forgot” to pay their taxes. He promises transparency in his administration, but then goes behind closed doors and locks Republican lawmakers out of the legislative process. He signs into law a stimulus package that includes protection of bonuses for companies like AIG and then turns around and says that the bonuses are wrong.

I could go on and on with the missteps this guy has made before his first 100 days in office are done, but I’d like to move on to two more.

First, the White House claims that Obama did not bow to the Saudi King Abdullah. Interesting claim considering the video clearly shows Obama bowing to the Saudi ruling anti-semite.

Ben Smith of the Politico has this:

The White House is denying that the president bowed to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at a G-20 meeting in London, a scene that drew criticism on the right and praise from some Arab outlets. “It wasn’t a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he’s taller than King Abdullah,” said an Obama aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

And why is this an insult to our intelligence? Because Obama is also taller than Queen Elizabeth but no such bow seemed to be necessary in that meeting.

You can access that complete story and video on-line here:

White House: No Bow To Saudi
Ben Smith
The Politico
April 8, 2009

Obama also insulted our collective intelligence by by refusing to give any comment whatsoever on the Somali pirate hostage situation in which an American is being held against his will.

When asked by a reporter for comment, Obama refused and instead wanted to stick to some sort of script.

From Reuters:

April 9 (Reuters) – U.S. President Barack Obama declined to answer reporters’ questions on Thursday on a hostage crisis off the coast of Somalia, where a U.S. ship captain is being held captive by pirates. Obama was asked to comment on the situation several times by reporters at a White House event on refinancing for homeowners. Obama, however, stuck closely to the script and replied that he wanted to remain focused on housing.

Is the situation just not that important to him? Couldn’t he have said something reassuring to the family of the hostage? No. He couldn’t bring himself to be that good of a leader.

Maybe the person running the teleprompter could have put something up about it so that Obama would at least have had a script to read.

You can access the article on-line here:

Obama Declines Comment On US Hostage Crisis Off Somalia
Jeff Mason, Sandra Maler
Reuters
April 9, 2009

Ordinary Americans Cut Back While Obama And The Privileged Elite Live It Up

I remember during the campaign last year that Obama had said that we Americans are going to have to sacrifice. Apparently, he meant that you and I have to sacrifice while he enjoys a life of luxury along with his socialist cronies.

Take for example his setting of the thermostat in the White House. While every other American family is being forced to cut back on energy consumption so that they can make their next mortgage payment (and possibly their neighbor’s mortgage payment as well), Obama is cranking up the heat so he can have warm comfort.

Writing for Town Hall, Michelle Malkin has a few observations:

An online Zogby International survey this week reported that 70 percent of households are foregoing movies and restaurants. Forty percent of those polled said they were delaying the purchase of major items such as automobiles, home entertainment electronics or a computer; the same percent said they were giving up vacations. Notably, Reuters pointed out, “nearly 80 percent of younger adults, aged 18-29, said they have scaled back on going out, compared to 55 percent of people 65 years and older.”

But, does the socialist politician who made the remark about Americans having to sacrifice do the same thing as the common man?

Not in the least bit:

President Obama, celebrated by his liberal media admirers for a miraculous ability to groove with the common man, hasn’t yet caught on to the new age of individual austerity. As always, he talks a good game of “personal responsibility” and “sacrifice.” But while penny-pinching Americans head to Sonic Drive-Ins for $1 everyday value meals or stay at home for cheap cube-steak dinners (sales of the inexpensive meat are up 10 percent), the White House serves up high-grade Wagyu beef to congressional revelers. The luxury item was on the menu for the bipartisan stimulus dinner in January, and was also served at the governors’ dinner hosted at the White House two weeks ago. Team Obama’s image experts, perhaps hung over from all the Camelot-re-creating Wednesday cocktail parties that are now a signature of the new administration, have fallen down on the job. The man who scolded Americans for wasting energy and turning their thermostats too high still hasn’t lowered his own. “He’s from Hawaii, OK?” senior adviser David Axelrod snickered to The New York Times in January. “He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there.”

So, the fact that “he’s from Hawaii” makes it okay for him to practice his hypocrisy?

Obama is nothing more than a socialist elitist and it will be a pleasure tossing his hypocritical rear-end out of office in 2012.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Cube-Steak Americans Vs. The Wagyu-Beef White House
Michelle Malkin
TownHall.com
March 6, 2009