OH MY! President Obama is Having Short-Term Memory Issues..OR WORSE

Folks the President of the United States may be folding under the pressure, at the very least he is exhibiting a frightening short term memory problem.  Take for example what he said during his press conference today.

“If everybody else is willing to take on their sacred cows and do tough things to achieve the goal of real deficit reduction, then I think it would be hard for the Republicans to stand there and say the tax break for corporate jets is sufficiently important that we’re not willing to come to the table and get a deal done.’’

The problem with that statement is that tax breaks for corporate jets are not a Republican sacred cow, they are a Democratic Party invention.  These tax breaks were part of the Democratic Party stimulus rammed through by the progressive Congress shortly after he was inaugurated and signed into law by President Barack Obama.

As reported by the Orlando Sentinel in February 2009:

That's right. Buried in the nearly $800 billion stimulus plan signed last week by President Barack Obama is a provision allowing companies to speed the depreciation of newly purchased corporate jets. On a popular model like the $530,100 Cirrus SR22 GTS, companies can now deduct about $418,000 -- a huge improvement over former limits. 

The new tax laws are a desperately needed lifeline for general-aviation manufacturers, which have shed some 11,000 jobs in the past three months. Given the jobs and taxes at stake, lawmakers are absolutely right in attempting to resuscitate the general-aviation industry. Unfortunately, it was the very same lawmakers who helped put the industry on life support in the first place.

 My friend Warner Todd Huston uses an AP Article to point out the President's demography on his blog.

The difference is that he believes that Barack Obama is being a demagogue, sorry buddy but I have to disagree. No one in their right mind could ever believe that the press would miss such a blatant error. And President Obama would never lie to us unless there was a mechanical problem with the TOTUS.  So the only explanation is that Barack Obama is no longer in his right mind, he is either having short term memory issues or even worse. 

House Working To Repeal Ban of Incandescent Light Bulb

In 2007 Congress passed and President Bush signed a bill banning the incandescent light bulb.The phase-out of incandescent light is to begin with the 100-watt bulb in 2012 and end in 2014 with the 40-watt. All light bulbs must use 25 percent to 30 percent less energy by 2014 and they  must be 70 percent more efficient than they are today.

As a result Americans will have to use those compact florescent bulbs (CFL), the ones that contain small amounts of highly toxic mercury. The potential environmental hazard created by the mass introduction of billions of CFLs with few disposal sites and a public unfamiliar with the risks is great. 

Additionally most incandescent bulbs are manufactured the United States, the CFLs are made in China, so this change throw more people onto the unemployment line. Although this may be balanced out by the new jobs in the eye glasses industry, because the CFL bulbs take are slow generate their maximum light output and even then the light they throw off is horrible and is insufficient to read by

Present House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich. was a co-sponsor of the incandescent light ban, and because of that his ascension to the Chairmanship was strongly opposed by conservatives. But he calmed everyone down by promising hearing on reminding the ban as soon as he took office.

Upton has come under increased pressure in recent weeks, sources say, after failing to follow up on a promise he made after assuming the committee chairmanship that he would hold hearings on reversing the ban. After months of paralysis - and with the ban just six months from going into effect on January 1 - outrage was building among his own Republican committee colleagues and conservative activists, including a national petition campaign, FreeOurLight.org, sponsored by the influential Competitive Enterprise Institute.

"Freedom Action's Free Our Light campaign has demonstrated that there is widespread public opposition to the light bulb ban," says Myron Ebell, Director of Freedom Action at CEI. "We're pleased that Chairman Upton has seen the light and congratulate him on his decision. We look forward to the House passing the bill to repeal the ban and its eventual enactment later this year."

So Upton scheduled hearing but stacked the deck.

After Upton scheduled hearings this week featuring rent-seeking corporate fat cats that stood to benefit from the ban, anger boiled over and the chairman agreed not only to cancel the hearings but to bring up a bill repealing the ban. The View's source says that the bill will likely be brought up under "suspension," which means no amendments will be allowed and passage requires a two-thirds majority.

E&E News reporter Katie Howell is also reporting that Upton "he is working with Texas Republicans Joe Barton and Mike Burgess on language repealing the light bulb standards."  

"We're very close to seeing an agreement emerge and happen," Upton told reporters at a conservative blogger briefing hosted by the Heritage Foundation.

Upton's original bill was supported by then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and President Bush, it was not an outright ban, nor was it a stand alone bill.  Instead the bill was the typical progressive sneak  a small part in the the larger 2007 energy law it didn't specifically ban the incandescent bulb, it eventually phased out bulbs that use more than 40 watts.

This would have effectively banned Edison's invention which is the choice of 85 percent of American bulb purchases.

The ban has been mostly covered up by the green mainstream media, and consumers were only just learning of the ban as bulbs have begun disappearing from shelves. In the meantime, bulb manufacturers had already eliminated hundreds of incandescent plants in the United States (the last plant closed in Winchester, Va. last year) in preparation for the ban - off-shoring the jobs to China where the more expensive, replacement compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs) could be manufactured.

The ban had been supported by big corporations like General Electric and Philips who saw a an opportunity to use government to monopolize a new, more expensive market while transferring jobs to China to earn higher margins. And I am sure that GE Chairman Jeff Immelt's long term support of progressive politics had nothing to do with the fact that we are being forced to switch to a more expensive product with a bigger profit margin. Its just a strange coincidence.

Republicans - led by Texas Rep. Joe Barton together with fellow Texan Michael Burgess and Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn. - introduced bulb restoration legislation immediately upon the GOP taking over the House this year. Republicans overwhelmingly support bringing back the bulb, while global-warming-obsessed Democrats say making bulbs illegal is crucial to saving the planet. Ironically, saving the earth has meant destroying union plant jobs.

"We don't think the consumer needs to pay $4 a light bulb, and we don't think the federal government should tell people what kind of lighting to use in their homes," Rep. Barton told Fox News this week.

On the bright side (no pun intended) Upton is now guaranteeing that the House will get to vote on a bill to repeal the ban. While the liberal media will probably continue to ignore the story, hopefully the word will spread on the internet and Congress will realize that voting against the Edison's light bulb will be hazardous for their reelection health.

DNC Chair Wasserman Shultz's Desperate Attempt To Disenfranchise Republican Voters

Granted, DNC Chair, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Shultz is not the sharpest pencil in the box, but today she reached a new low. She wrote an op-ed in US News and World Report claiming that Republicans are trying to restrict voting, especially minority voting with laws aimed at reducing voter fraud and requiring people to show ID when they show up to vote.

Across the country, Republicans are working to restrict Americans' right to vote by enacting laws that curb when and how they can register to vote and go to the polls. For example, Republicans in Maine's legislature have voted to end Election Day registration, a widely popular practice that, in 2008 alone, allowed 60,000 Mainers to register to vote.

The problem with the election day registration is it makes fraud easy because town clears became overwhelmed with trying to verify the voter information.

The bill was strongly supported by town clerks, who said they have been overwhelmed by increasing numbers of voters who cast absentee ballots and who wait until Election Day to register. The measure also had the support of Secretary of State Charles Summers, whose office oversees elections in Maine.

House Speaker Robert Nutting, R-Oakland, applauded the bill's passage Monday.

"This bill will alleviate a significant amount of the growing stress on our election system by making minor changes to registration and absentee ballot deadlines," Nutting said. "These changes will go a long way toward maintaining the integrity of our voting system, while providing an open and accessible voting process for all Mainers."

Shultz goes on to criticize attempts to clean up the voter registration system, where groups such as ACORN were convicted of using voter drives as a way to load the system with fake (Democratic Voters).

And in my home state of Florida, early voting days were eliminated as part of a 158-page bill that also enacted onerous restrictions and steep fines on organizations that conduct voter registration drives. 

These kinds of laws have a detrimental impact on all Americans, but they particularly affect minorities. The nonpartisan, nonprofit Project Vote has found that African-Americans and Latinos are more likely than white voters to register through a voter registration drive. That means that in Florida, where the League of Women Voters has halted its voter registration activities as a result of the new Republican law, fewer minority Americans will have the chance to register and vote.

First of all "the non partisan Project Vote," is part of ACORN and as my friend Anita Moncreif testified to, Project Vote was very involved with trying to elect Democratic Candidates especially Barak Obama.

Despite a complete lack of evidence of widespread voter fraud, Republicans have made it a priority to enact costly photo ID legislation that would restrict the voting rights of eligible Americans. In states like Wisconsin, Texas, and Kansas, Republican governors and legislators campaigned on small government and fiscal austerity, but now they are allocating millions of dollars for new photo ID requirements.

Acorn has been charged or convicted of voter registration fraud in (by my count) 16 different states in recent years. Wassermann-Schultz is ignoring that fact (here is a partial list). In the DNC Chair's own state, ACORN tried to register Mickey Mouse.

 

For the best look at ACORN and its criminal activities, allow me to suggest Matthew Vadum's Book Subversion, Inc. 

According to the Congresswoman guaranteeing an honest vote should not be a priority of government.

In Wisconsin, implementing photo ID requirements will cost the state at least $7 million, and the Institute for Southern Studies has estimated that North Carolina's photo ID bill would cost between $18 million and $25 million. As states continue to face billion-dollar budget deficits, lay off teachers, and shrink police departments, spending millions of public dollars for partisan gain is the height of irresponsibility. Despite the high price tag, the GOP has advanced photo ID mandates in more than 30 states. These laws would increase the barriers to voting for the 11 percent of Americans—including disproportionate numbers of elderly Americans and minorities—who lack the required ID.

The concept of one man one vote is essential to the freedoms of the American republic. Allowing people to vote more than once, or allowing people to vote who shouldn't partially disenfranchises those who are legally voting. The weight of the legal votes is watered-down by the inclusion of illegal votes. I would argue that protecting the concept of one man one vote should be a top priority of our government. But to Schultz and many progressives they call it racism in a desperate and illegal attempt to increase the number of Democratic voters.

Eric Cantor and Jon Kyl Pull Out Of Biden's Budget Deficit Talks-Boehner Backs Them Up

In December, the Democrats agreed to a last-minute deal which will preserve the tax rates established under the Bush administration for at another two years. Only six-months later they are insisting on raising taxes as part of the SHMOTUS' deficit reduction talks. Their insistence on raising taxes has caused an impasse in the talks and as a result House Majority Leader Cantor has quit the talks. He believes the only way to get through this impasse is for the president and the speaker to get involved. Cantor's exit from the talks was quickly followed with the exit of Senator Jon Kyl leaving no Republicans involved with the budget cutting talks.

"We've reached the point where the dynamic needs to change,'' Mr. Cantor said. "It is up to the president to come in and talk to the speaker. We've reached the end of this phase. Now is the time for these talks to go into abeyance."

Still, Mr. Cantor remained optimistic about the prospects for a deal. He said the Biden group had already made significant progress and had tentatively identified more than $2 trillion in spending cuts over the next 10 years. But he said there could be no agreement on an overall package without breaking the impasse between Republicans' refusal to accept any tax increase, and Democrats insistence that some tax increases be part of the deal.

"We have to get over this impasse on taxes," he said. "The utility of these talks has been building the specifics. The groundwork has been laid, the blue print is there, we have a vision of the agreement."

Time is running out for an agreement, which must be passed prior to August 2, in order for there to be enough support generated for raising the debt limit.

The $14.29 trillion debt limit was breached on May 16, although Treasury officials have said they have the ability to juggle assets to delay the possibility of the U.S. defaulting on its debts until Aug. 2 at the latest.

In the Senate there is also broad GOP opposition to a tax increase:

"Taxes aren't going to be raised in what I hope will be a large and significant package that will make a difference for our country," Mr. McConnell said Wednesday at a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. "If they couldn't raise taxes when they owned the government, you know they can't get it done now," he said referring to the Democratic lawmakers.

The left wing of the Democratic party was furious over the deal to extend the Bush-era taxes reached in December, and were also extremely unhappy with the spending deal reached to fund the federal government through the remaining months of fiscal 2011—an agreement that saw cuts to many domestic programs important to the party.

Maybe that why Senator Jon Kyle just announced that he too will also drop out of the debt talks, a source within his office confirms today. The Arizona Republican’s office will issue a formal statement shortly.

Speaker Boehner has backed up Cantor's dismissal of a tax increase.  At his weekly press conference this morning,  Boehner said Democrats must abandon any tax increases if negotiations on deficit reduction and an increase in the debt limit are to continue. And he added that  no tax hike would pass the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

"I understand his frustration," said Boehner. "I understand why he did what he did... I've talked to the majority leader about these talks. I know the frustration he feels when Democrats insist on bringing tax hikes."

How would Boehner fill the chasm now that Cantor and Kyl are out? "I would expect to hear from" the White House, he said. Would he call them? Next question.

Boehner amplified Cantor's main point -- there would be no deal with tax increases.

"They [Democrats] want more stimulus spending and higher taxes," he said. "We have been clear. Tax hikes are off the table. A tax hike cannot pass the U.S. House of Representatives... these conversations could continue if they take the tax hikes out of the conversation."

The Republican stand is also reflective of the will of the American People. The latest Bloomberg poll reports that 55 percent of Americans believe that cutting taxes, along with slashing spending, is necessary to give businesses confidence to start hiring again


This impasse proves we’re still very far from the point at which any Progressive Democrat is going to be willing to vote for long-term fiscal prudence, instead they look to pass blame back on the voters in the form of tax increases. Their insistence on increasing taxes and demonizing any attempt to reign in entitlement spending dooms the United States to a horrible economic future.

Ron Paul Congressional Hypocrite

Congressman Ron Paul is bad for America on so many levels. There were the anti-black/ anti-Semitic Newsletters which were published under his name (which he claimed he never read). And yes there were those really whacko public statements like; the federal reserve was behind Watergate, that Lincoln was wrong to push us into a Civil War over slavery, or his assertion that condemning the HAMAS terrorist rocket attacks promotes violence. But those items only suggest that the Texas Republican Congressman is a bigot as well as a bit of a lunatic, which not bad by today’s congressional standards.

On top of all that, Congressman Paul is a hypocrite.

Ron Paul is believed to be a “fiscal conservative” and if you ask him he will tell you that he has never voted for an earmark. That statement is 100% correct. What Paul does is to make sure that the earmarks he wants are put into a bill, and then he votes against the bill. Its the best of all possible worlds. He gets to bring home the bacon on a local basis and makes the anti-earmark claim on a national basis.

For example in last year's 111th Congress, Ron Paul sponsored or co-sponsored 17  earmarks totaling almost $24 Million dollars

During the 2009 Fiscal Paul sponsored or co-sponsored 23 earmarks totaling almost $81  million dollars. That's almost $105 million in earmarks over two years. Can you imagine if he wasn't a fiscal conservative?


In 2009 Paul appeared on Neil Cavuto’s Fox News show to defend his earmarks.
If you cannot see video below click here

CAVUTO:Congressman, the rap is that you’re a porker, that — that a lot of pork, $73 million-plus, went to your district. Is that true?

REP. RON PAUL, R-TEXAS: Well, it might be. But I think you’re missing the whole point. I have never voted for an earmark. I voted against all appropriation bills. So, this whole thing about earmarks is totally misunderstood.

The Congressman believes that the earmarks are just fine as long as he is open about them. These earmarks may very well be legitimate programs, but by specifying the location and the recipient of the program there is no thought given to “is this the most efficient place to house this program?” Money can be sent to a place that does not have the best resources or personnel to implement the earmark, causing a program to be more expensive than if it were done in someone elses district.

Paul may be very transparent about the hypocrisy of requesting an earmark then voting against the bill (because he knows it will pass), but his twisted logic doesn’t make it any less hypocritical.

Whenever I post something negative about Ron Paul (which is just about every time I post about him), I get the NASTIEST comments and emails. He doesn’t have a lot of supporters but those that do are very well organized and support him do so with a passion. The problem is Ron Paul does not represent himself truthfully. Along with his history of being a “drooling crazy” type and a bigot, the man is the typical Washington DC spin-master, saying one thing but doing another. He has a good fiscal script but frankly we have all seen that movie before and it got old a long time ago.

WOOT! "The Great One" Uses The Lid

Last night, The Great One, Mark Levin used an article featured here on the Lid to show how the Obama Administration is taking away your freedom. The article was about a British Study which showed how Electric cars are putting more CO2 into the environment than the equivalent gas-powered car.

If you didn't listen to his show last night, the segment can be heard below. The original article is here. (if you cannot see the player below click here).

Thank you Mark Levin, I am honored.





Thank you Mark Levin, I am honored.

Last Night's New Hampshire GOP Debate CNN and John King Were The Big Losers

There was something terribly bothersome about about last night's debate between Republican candidates for President, and I couldn't figure it out until I watched it a second time this morning.

First of all there were either too many candidates or not enough time.  It seemed as if the candidates did not have enough time to answer particular questions, and because all the candidates did not answer each question its is hard in some ways to compare.

Secondly moderator  John King was a disaster.  With almost every answer one could hear King in the background, it was hard to tell if the guy was lifting something or trying to answer questions of his own, because the sound of grunts or "ums" coming from King were annoying as hell.

The three most important topics to voters are how to create jobs, how to fix the economy and energy, yet there were few questions on those topics,but there were questions about the tea party which are important only to King and the rest of the liberal media.  The United States is facing economic disaster....why would John King trivialize the debate with those inane "this or that" questions? Is it really important to know whether Herman Cain prefers deep dish or flat pizza?

Despite the problems with the format some of the candidates did find a way to stand out yesterday.

Winners:

• Romney's job in last night's debate was "not to lose it." In other words not to make any gaffes.  He seemed knowledgeable about each of the topics and he even seemed to believe his answer about Romneycare.  Romney was a winner by not losing. I wish he didn't seem like such a dammed politician all the time.

•  Michele Bachamann was a big winner last night.  Her job was to prove that she wasn't the nut job she is portrayed as by the liberal media. Bachmann more than succeeded.  She seemed knowledgeable and enthusiastic, perhaps a bit too enthusiastic the times she tried to get the crowd to cheer along with her. Her answers were knowledgeable, not only her answers to the economic questions which one would expect, but on foreign policy also.  I wouldn't surprise to see her jump up in the polls after her performance.

Losers:

• The biggest loser last night was Tim Pawlenty.  Already with a reputation of being a "98 pound weakling" as a candidate, perhaps the debate's most uncomfortable moment was the "Obamnycare" question.  John King served Mitt Romney's head to Pawlenty on  a silver platter, but the former Minnesota Gov. chickened out. I believe that last night will mark the end of Tim Pawlenty as a serious candidate.

• Most of Newt Gingrich's answers were very good (although his continuing claim that his comments on the Ryan plan were taken out of context doesn't do him any favors). The Gingrich campaign is falling apart. All of his senior people have quit.  Gingrich had to win the debate and win big in order for his campaign to remain viable...he didn't.  Goodbye Newt.

Disappointing:

• I went into last night wanting to really like Rick Santourm. He did an adequate job but for a guy participating in his first candidates debate he needed to do much better.  He looked very uncomfortable when he was asked for economic plan specifics and offered a handful of nothing. Many of his answers seemed like political hooey.

• Anybody that ran a pizza company has a leg up in my book but Herman Cain did nothing to break away from the pack last night. Too many of his answers revolved around "hiring the best people" and/or asking the Generals.  Sorry Herman but you have been running long enough, you should have surrounded yourself with some of the right people and asked a general or two by now...we need to know some specifics. Cain was wonderful when he stopped King and showed how he misquoted the"hiring Muslims" line, but then he took three paragraphs to get to what he really meant Shariah Law. 

 Also there:

•  Racist/Anti-Semite Ron Paul was also there. I am sure he appealed to the Ronulins. 

Overall the big winner was Michele Bachmann and the biggest loser was John King and CNN

 

Exclusive Video of President Obama's Secret Test of Brand New 2012 Stump Speech

Exclusive Video of President Obama's Secret  Try-Out of  New 2012 Stump Speech Pundits all across  America are wondering, just how the heck is he going to do it. With the country in such lousy shape, unemployment up, factory orders down, economists predicting a double-dip recession, relations with our best allies such as Great Britain and Israel in such lousy shape, just how the heck does Barack Obama expect to win re-election in 2012?

Well in a Lid exclusive,  you the reader will know. Thanks to a secret meeting between my cousin Ben, the spy and a not to be named member of the Obama re-election team, I have obtained a copy of a video of the President giving his 2012 stump speech a tryout.

How did Ben do it? Well lets just say that my cousin had some information that the Obama campaign operative did not want to become public knowledge.

As you can see in the video below, President Obama plans confront his challenges head-on and will give clear explanations for all his policy failures (If you cannot see video below..Click Here)

Does Romney Support ANY Conservative Positions? Reveals His Support of Global Warming Hoax

If Mitt Romney gets the GOP nomination for President the debates will be awfully boring:

Moderator: What do you think of Universal Health care?
Obama: I supported it for Obamacare
Romney: I supported it for Romneycare

Moderator: What is your position on global Warming?
Obama: The Scientific Consensus proves that it is one of mankind's biggest threats
Romney: The Scientific Consensus proves that it is one of mankind's biggest threats

 That's right, not happy with the suspicion he has earned from GOP voters because of Romneycare, the former Massachusetts governor turned perpetual presidential candidate has doubled down on the suspicion by announcing his support of the man-made global warming hoax.

"I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that," he told a crowd of about 200 at a town hall meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire.

"It's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors."

According to the latest polls, Romney leads the GOP New Hampshire primary field by a wide margin.

In addressing climate change and energy policy, Romney sounded just like President Obama, he called on the United States to break its dependence on foreign oil, and expand alternative energies including solar, wind, nuclear and clean coal (he didn't mention domestic drilling).

"I love solar and wind (power) but they don't drive cars. And we're not all going to drive Chevy Volts," he said referring to electric cars.

The United States can not go it alone in attempting to trim emissions levels and give a free pass to countries such as China and Brazil, Romney said. "It's not called American warming, it's called global warming," he said.

Actually its called a hoax developed to facilitate world-wide redistribution of income

Software developer Michael Hillinger, 60, of Hanover, New Hampshire, posed the climate change question.

Romney's answer provided plenty of wiggle-room, Hillinger said, but "he is taking a more forthright stand than any of the other candidates."

.....Asked to lay out a specific plan for the economy, Romney outlined seven points but referred to his 2010 book "No Apology" as containing his policy ideas in details.

"It's a good book. I'll give you a discount," he quipped.

The Guy is rich as all hell and he doesn't give details of his economic plan so he can pimp  his book? Well at least he is a capitalist.

Romney skirted a question about whether doctors who perform abortions, or women who have abortions, should face criminal sanctions if Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. law that protects abortion rights, were overturned.

"I am pro-life," he said, adding that decisions on abortion law should be returned to state jurisdiction.

Abortion is one of several issues on which Romney's critics accuse him of flip-flopping over the years. In the past, including during his race in 2002 to be Massachusetts governor, he has said he supports the substance of Roe v. Wade.

 Put it all together and you have candidate Newt Romney. He supports some progressive policies and flip-flopped away from others.  Why is he running for the GOP nomination? Wouldn't a campaign as a moderate Democrat be more appropriate?