Federal Government Spending is a JOKE and the Presidents Delusions.

When I read articles like this (below) and hear the president YAMMER about fairness and that the rich do not pay their fair share I am amazed at how many fall for his demagoguery, outright lies, BAD legislation, and profuse use of class warfare.


The top 1% earn 19% of the total income yet pay 37% of all taxes.
FAIR FAIR that does not sound fair to me.


The top 10% pay 68% of all taxes.


The bottom 50% earn 13% of the total income but pay just 3% of all taxes I ask you is that fairness?


As you all have heard some 50% of the country pays NO TAXES.


If the Federal Government could (fat chance) spend the revenue they collect more wisely free of waste, corruption, and cronyism we could significantly lower taxes now there is a thought.


The whole fairness argument is a total sham he should look at what Americans think of his precious BIG GOVERNMENT.


Until such a time Obama should as he says "PUT COUNTRY FIRST ABOVE PARTY" and look at cutting the HUGE WASTE in his OWN ADMINISTRATION and the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT at large.

IRS Data Show Most Millionaires Pay Taxes at Higher Rate Than Middle Class

September 19, 2011

Americans Say Federal Gov't Wastes Over Half of Every Dollar

Believe state and local governments waste proportionately less money

by Jeffrey M. Jones

PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans estimate that the federal government wastes 51 cents of every dollar it spends, a new high in a Gallup trend question first asked in 1979.

The current estimate of 51 cents wasted on the dollar is similar to what Gallup measured in 2009, but marks the first time Americans believe more than half of federal spending is wasted. The low point in the trend is 38 cents wasted on the dollar, in 1986.

Americans are less likely to believe state and local governments waste money they spend than they are to believe this about the federal government, with the state estimate at 42 cents on the dollar and the local at 38 cents.

Americans have viewed the federal government as being the most wasteful of tax dollars -- and local government the least -- each time Gallup has asked these questions. That pattern is consistent with Americans' greater trust in state and local government than in the federal government.

Over time, though, Americans have become increasingly likely to see all levels of government as being wasteful of tax dollars. Americans now believe all levels of government waste at least 11 cents more on the dollar compared with 1979.

Conservatives Among Most Likely to See Federal Government Waste

Estimates of federal government waste do not vary greatly by political partisanship, with only a 5 cent difference between Republicans' and Democrats' averages, but show more differentiation by ideology. Conservatives are much more likely than liberals to view the federal government as wasting money.

Senior citizens' estimate of wasted federal dollars ranks with conservatives' as one of the highest, and is significantly greater than that of Americans aged 18 to 29.

Additionally, those with more formal education estimate proportionately less federal government waste than do Americans with less education.

The ideological differences observed this year were not apparent in 2001, when Republican George W. Bush was president. At that time, liberals estimated a larger share of federal spending was wasted than conservatives did, 48 cents to 44. Thus, one's perceptions of how much federal spending is wasted depend partly on the match between a person's ideological preferences and the prevailing power structure in Washington.

There are generally smaller political differences in perceptions of wasteful state and local spending vs. federal spending, though conservatives' estimate of how much money local government wastes is significantly higher than liberals'.

The sharp differences between young and old in terms of federal government spending are not apparent in their estimates of how much money state and local governments waste. But the differences by education are consistent, as those with postgraduate education are much less likely than those with no college education to see state and local governments as wasting money.

Implications

Over the last 30 years, Americans have become increasingly likely to see all levels of government as wasting the money they spend, and now the public believes the federal government wastes more than half of the money it spends. It is not clear whether Americans believe government wastes money because it spends on programs they believe are not needed, or because it does not spend money efficiently on programs, whether needed or not. Also, it is not clear whether Americans believe money is wasted more on discretionary government spending, or more on defense, entitlement programs, and interest on the debt -- which make up the bulk of federal government spending.

In any case, the federal government has made efforts to rein in spending this year, as part of the 2011 budget and the deal to raise the debt ceiling limit. As part of that deal, a supercommittee of 12 members of Congress is now seeking additional areas for cuts, to avoid automatic cuts in defense and entitlement programs. State and local governments have also been forced to make cuts in order to balance budgets as revenues have come in lower as a result of the state of the economy. Still, with all of these efforts to curb spending, the average American does not appear to give government at all levels much credit for being careful in spending tax dollars.

Survey Methods

Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted Sept. 8-11, 2011, with a random sample of 1,017 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones and cellular phones, with interviews conducted in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking. Each sample includes a minimum quota of 400 cell phone respondents and 600 landline respondents per 1,000 national adults, with additional minimum quotas among landline respondents by region. Landline telephone numbers are chosen at random among listed telephone numbers. Cell phone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.

Samples are weighted by gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, adults in the household, and phone status (cell phone only/landline only/both, cell phone mostly, and having an unlisted landline number). Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2010 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older non-institutionalized population living in U.S. telephone households. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting and sample design.

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

View methodology, full question results, and trend data.

For more details on Gallup's polling methodology, visit www.gallup.com.

The "Race Card" Part 3

After posting "The Race Card" The Real History Democrats Don't Want You to Know and with the continued demagoguery, lies and heaped on HATE speech we became terrorists next I posted First We Were "RACISTS now we are "TERRORISTS".


Well the progressives/liberals/demoRats never stop projecting the same rhetoric, lies, and class warfare propaganda  they ACCUSE the Republicans of - they are such HYPOCRITES it was time to research a little more the reality of "race relations" today.

Since progressives have taken over the demoRat party there has been an increase and ease of using the "race card" against their opponents in efforts to conqueror through division check out "rules for radicals" their favorite playbook.

I think "race relations" in this country have improved to the point of being a non issue since I was a kid.
There have always been a few "race baiters" in the black community who make their living from continued divisiveness on this issue and fringe right groups too but generally speaking who cares it's a persons action and deeds not race that set him or her apart in society.


So LEFTIES why all the FUSS?


In researching I found another of president Obama's handy dandy Executive Order 13583 "requiring government  agencies to to develop plans for improving federal workforce diversity."
This is why this president is SO DANGEROUS what he can not force through as legislation he pens as an "executive order."


So I took a look at the "diversity" of the federal government to see were the truth lies.
As it turns out blacks are hardly underrepresented in the U.S. government.


The black population is about 12% to 13% of the U.S. population.
Blacks hold 18% of all federal jobs so they are certainly NOT underrepresented as the president would have us believe.
25% of the employees at the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Veterans Affairs.
31% of the State Department employees.
37% of the Department of Education.
38% of the Department of Housing and Urban Development .
42% of the Equal Opportunity Commission and Pension Benefit Warranty  Corp.
55% of the Government Printing Office.
82% of the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency.
44% of the employees at Fannie Mae.
50% of the employees at Freddie Mac.


The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission were blacks are 300% overrepresented has been asked to oversee the new "government-wide initiative to promote diversity and inclusion in the federal workforce."


This is all not surprising but hard to believe all the same.
What is wrong with this president?
Why is skin color such a supposed BIG problem?
He was after all elected by a majority of us?


Pat Buchanan made the most compelling argument on this issue in an article from August 26, 2011  "Obama's Race-Based Spoils System" were he argues against the president.


"Perhaps, while he is battling for a greater diversity of sacrifice and rewards up there on Martha's Vineyard, our president might reflect on another example of the overrepresentation of white males - in the caskets coming home to Dover."


"In the first five years of the Iraq war, Asian-Americans were 1% of our fallen heroes, Latinos 11%, African-Americans 10%.  While White Americans were 75% of the dead, and from photos of the fallen in newspapers since, the ratios appear to hold"


"Does this overrepresentation of white men in the body bags and caskets coming home bother our commander in chief, who wants fewer whites at the top level of his executive branch?"


"Has Obama taken a close look at his hypocritical party on Capital Hill?  Though African Americans are fully 25% of all Democratic voters, in a Senate Democratic Caucus of 53, there is not a single black man or black woman."


The demoRats are BIG TALKERS but there is little substance to back up what is an obvious hypocrisy.
I do not see them going out of their way to change the make-up of their own political party leaders one bit.
The demoRats are content as they have been for decades to keep minorities on their plantation scrapping by as beholden to them.
This is the biggest scam in our modern history.


But they will continue to spew hate and lies against the Republicans and Tea Parties for supposed crimes they are in reality guilty of themselves.


We have to VOTE as many of these MAROONS out of office as possible.
Progressivism = Totalitarianism
Progressivism = Total Cronyism
Progressivism = Big Government CORRUPTION!!!

Progressivism our Great American Disease

America has long been plagued by progressivism and many of my posts reflect this distain in the hope others will wake up to the reality of this destructive force and how insidiously it has infected our country.


Another voice is Pete Morin who on October 31, 2009 wrote an enlightened piece "The Pillars of Liberal Progressivism."


"The United States of America rests at a crossroads today that is every bit as dire as what Americans faced during the Second World War.  In fact, it may be even more so."


"Liberal Progressives have fashioned so strong a hold on the America political landscape that to escape their clutches may no longer be possible for most citizens.   What I call 'The Pillars of Liberal Progressivism' have infected America with a virus so deadly that fighting it has become extremely difficult"


As I too have argued, progressivism which first reared it's ugly head around the turn of the century with many but mainly Wilson/FDR, was finally rejected after it proved a total failure.
Unfortunately FDR instituted and passed so much damaging legislation which we still have today that it has distorted our view of the purpose of the constitution.


After it's abject failure it moved underground and has been festering plotting and planning it's return and resurfaced publicly in the last election has notable folks like Hillary Clinton proclaimed she is not a "liberal"(liberal now being unpopular) but thinks of herself as a "modern progressive".


This from the woman who also proclaimed Margret Sanger was her idol when Sanger besides being a progressive is a known eugenists who founded planned parenthood with the explicit desire to eliminate UNDESIRABLES of society code for eliminating minorities and others that progressive deem must go.


Obviously Obama is a progressive too and the progressive/liberals all crowed it was the new beginning of decades of progressive rule after his election. The death of conservatism and the Republicans.


Well as we know the decades only lasted two years as the American people were once again on to the progressive lies and the demoRats suffered a "shellacking" in 2010 elections.


It is very important to continue to expose progressivism and rout it out where ever possible.


The five pillars of progressivism form the foundation of their hard work over the last some one hundred years to infiltrate, corrupt, and infect our society.


1."University Academia: No institution was more instrumental than the university in shaping the minds and behavior of the young.  Students schooled in the writings of radical revolutionaries such as Mao, Lenin, Trotsky - and lesser-known malcontents like Alinsky, Zinn, and Chomsky - spread their noxious fumes throughout  the halls of academia.  The 'true believer' filled his pliant mind with writings of these disaffected statists.  The earlier attempts of scholars in the twenties and thirties to poison the minds of the young were but a pretext for this new assault."


He continues with more history but the long and short of it is that the professors and the administrators of many of our institutions are trying to corrupt/indoctrinate their students and this has been realized as conservative students are dogged and harassed by their professors and fellow students today.


2."Law Schools: Those infected with this radical new virus could now expand their activities to include law schools.   What better way to attain a redress of grievances against a racist, sexist, homophobic nation than to change the Constitution?   New radical lawyers imbued with this bubonic sickness attacked our nation's law at the principal level.  Judicial activists unleashed a torrent of bad constitutional law that would make any radical proud.   The links that bound us to our founding were now severely strained."     


3."Primary and Secondary Education: The lessons learned in academia could now be spread to the more basic levels of education.   Rather than parents teaching their children tolerance and good moral underpinnings, the HARD LEFT would give no quarter in acceptance of gay lifestyles and gay marriage, wealth redistribution, equality of outcome, and disparagement of conservatism.   These became the staples in the indoctrination of the very young. The occasional parent outburst has not deterred the righteous from their mission."


In education in general progressives have successfully distorted our history, denigrated our founders, and in general pushed an anti-American anti-acceptualism, propaganda of America as the big bad colony power enslaving other hapless countries to exploit them.


4:"Entertainment:The Hard Left could now attack the entertainment industry.   The poor, limp, listless minds of this industry were ripe for the picking.  What could be more important than compassion for the poor, not getting involved in military conflict, and equality for all who had suffered under the dreadful
capitalist state?  The film industry offered itself in humble prostration to these noble ideas.  Films depicting the evils of capitalism and the inadequacy of the free market spawned a whole new generation of useful idiots to spread the biblical word."


Film and movies are some of the most subtle indoctrination techniques and are exploited regularly by "progressive hollywood."
Witness the treatment of conservative in hollywood.


5."News Media: This last pillar would prove to be the most important.  With the help of academia and entertainment, however, it was possible to invade newsrooms without much difficulty.  Vietnam, once again, provided a ready means to achieve control of what was once considered an inviolable institution and move it inexorably to the Left.   One can remember the hallowed omtonations of Walter Cronkite on the uselessness of a continued combat in Southeast Asia.  What Cronkite deemed lost must surely have been.  So ingrained in the American psyche was his preeminence for reporting the facts that those facts must certainly have been correct."


There is HOPE after all their plotting and planning despite their taking over many of our educational institutions Americans instinctively KNOW that the direction Obama, his minions, his cronies, and the news media want us to go is un-American and goes against the founding of our country.
Conservatives out number liberals by almost 2 to 1 and those i the SILENT MAJORITY are not going to be silent any more.


Progressivism would have you believe that "life is unfair" and only big government can level the playing field and produce predetermined outcomes but at a HUGE HUGE cost our freedoms and liberties.


PROGRESSIVISM = TOTALITARIANISM


Again it is SO SO important to talk to your friends and family and get out and VOTE progressives out of office especially OBAMA.

80,000 Muslim's under the radar

As usual while the media fuss and frets over this and that I sometimes think it is just a distraction so we are not watching the other hand so to speak.


One such story came to my attention, is that Obama is allowing 80,000 "Muslim refugees"  to immigrant into the United States and he is doing it by executive order.


This executive order goes back to at least October of 2010 when reported on by Dr. Paul Williams.
Why has NO ONE heard about this before?
Where is the LAME STREAM MEDIA?


He justifies this by using the "humanitarian concerns" excuse and of course it is in the "national interest" to allow this.
And we all know his record on "humanitarian concerns" as he and his administration have totally MISREAD the so called "Arab Spring"and especially claiming the Muslim Brotherhood was a secular non violent group as well as starting another war in Libya supporting rebels who may be our enemies in other countries were we are fighting terrorism.............PLEASE.


HOW MUCH MORE INCOMPETENT CAN AN ADMINISTRATION AND A PRESIDENT BE?


For a president and his party that continually remind and intimidate Americans about the separation of church and state he sure is pushing or advocating one religious community over all others.
Why is he pushing a certain ethnic preferentially over all other Americans?
Trying to boost his constituency as he is looking more like a "one termer" no doubt.


Typically progressive hypocrisy.


"At this point you have to wonder why Obama is doing this when this move will do absolutely nothing.  He is basically further dividing up less and less benefits amongst more and more people.  You have to understand the concept of psycho politics.  Upon hearing that 80,000 Muslims will be favored over all others, you were fuming mad.  That is precisely what Obama wants.  He wants America, the America that has been exceptional in the world, to be so angry that one of two things happen.  Either you rebel and do something outside the law in which case he is justified in using force to crush you, or the anger gets to such a point that you wear out and give in."


With 49 million people on food stamps, some 52% pay no income tax, some 31 million unemployed, an underemployment rate of  18.5% our economy in the toilet thanks mostly to Obama's failed Keynesian economic policies, excessive over regulation through decree, bad legislation, out right lying, demagoguery, and mountains of class warfare DO WE REALLY NEED 80,000 more citizens and let's face it 80,000 future citizens who come from countries that basically HATE US and OUR WAY of LIFE.


Progressives/liberals are now forced to import voters and pronounce ILLEGALS legal in order to shore up a dwindling base.


Self-described "conservatives" outnumber self-proclaimed "liberals" by nearly 2 to 1 (41% to 21%) 


VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE


Progressivism is the disease infecting our country - please speak with yours friends and family we need to VOTE this disease OUT of OFFICE.

NEWS FLASH: Citizens Fleeing Progressivism

 Progressivism has utterly failed in Europe, as it crumbles under it's own unsustainable weight and here as well the effects are all to apparent as this administrations Keynesian economic polices are a disaster, unemployment soars,  inflation is on the rise from our war on the dollar and an atmosphere of uncertainty drag us down.


But there is HOPE and CHANGE that is really COMING.


From the census data it is clear that millions of people are abandoning big government/progressive states for low-tax red ones.
Americans are voting with there FEET moving from these over taxed, over regulated states to the freedom and liberty of bastions of right wing sentiment.


This is "The Great Political Migration" an article highlighting is trend by Michael Medved in the Daily Beast provides a look at this curious trending.


"Between 2009 and 2010 the five biggest losers in terms of "residents lost to other states" were all prominent redoubts of progressivism: California, New York, Illinois, Michigan, and New Jersey. Meanwhile, the five biggest winners in the relocation sweepstakes are all commonly identified as red states in which Republicans generally dominate local politics: Florida, Texas, North Carolina, Arizona, and Georgia. Expanding the review to a 10 year span, the biggest population gainers (in percentage terms) have been even more conservative than last year's winners: Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Idaho, and Texas, in that order."


The shift in population will have a major effect the playing field for the 2012 elections as states that Obama carried were among the biggest losers with New York and Ohio dropping 2 electoral votes each.

Texas was the big winner by gaining  4 new votes.


But it is certainly interesting to note that for all progressives/liberals big talk of fairness,  jobs and "living wages" AND THEIR SUCESESESES then WHY are so many people FLEEING from BIG GOVERNMENT, BIG LABOR utopian states?


So it also stands to reason if uncompromising conservatism is so cruel and fraudulent, why do small-government, pro-business, low-tax, gun toting, god fearing states DRAW SUCH A DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF AMERICA'S OWN IMMIGRANTS?


If progressive/liberal policies are really so great why in a single year (2009-2010) did as many as 880,000 residents wave good-bye to Obama's Illinois while as many as 782,000 of those were new arrivals in RICK PERRY"S TEXAS?


I only hope who ever the Republican candidate is will use this as a statement during the campaign.


California lost at least 2 million residents to failure between 2009 and 2010 not to mention a large amount of businesses tried of high taxes, over regulation, corruption, and the bankruptcy of the state's leadership.


Medved writes "California has become a sad symbol of dysfunctional government at its shabbiest, shadiest, most sclerotic, and irresponsible - an exquisitely painful irony for those of us who recall the Golden State's onetime position in the national imagination.  Not so long ago, the whole nation (or at least its most enterprising and adventurous elements) seemed to envy the state and to embrace the notion of 'Californian Dreaming'."
"There are no real political refugees within the United States, and few families for the most part move from one state to the other for more congenial political leadership.  Climate, family concerns, and job opportunities are all factors.  But the contrasting cultures that state politics help to shape make a big difference in determining which parts of the nation seem more or less promising to potential immigrants.   With Gallup pol showing self-described "conservatives" outnumbering self-proclaimed "liberals" by nearly 2 to 1 (41 percent to 21 percent) it's is not surprising that states with pro-business, pro-family attitudes draw disproportionate numbers of new arrivals.  At the same time, it makes sense that those states with aggressive, intrusive bureaucracies, high taxes, and relentless experiments in multiculturalism will encourage mass departures."




One can easily make the case that if progressivism/liberalism is so great and successful why are the show case five such big disasters even some electing Republican governors?


Progressivism = Totalitarianism 


The "ONE" is DONE
The "O" has got to GO

Please raise my taxes - I may not pay them any way!!!

WARREN BUFFETT you HYPOCRITE.


Today in the news another article which not only confirms the early post but puts a figure on the tax evasion.
“The notation means that Berkshire Hathaway’s own auditors have probably said that $1 billion is more likely than not owed to the government.”
It is no wonder Buffett is shilling for Obama and has his nose so far up his butt - can any one say reduce my tax burden?


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/08/30/warren-raise-my-taxes-buffetts-company-may-owe-irs-1-billion#ixzz1WcpQ0m3u




Seems the oracle of Omaha's Berkshire Hathaway company freely admits it owes back taxes since as long ago as 2002.


The firm's annual report states "We anticipate that we will resolve all adjustments proposed by the US Internal Revenue Service for 2002 through 2004 tax years....within the next 12 months.


It also cites outstanding tax issues for 2005 through 2009.


Come on Warren if you want to shill for Obama at least you should PAY UP on your company taxes without a fuss and even throw in some more?


The federal government only consumes it creates NOTHING not wealth not jobs NOTHING.


If Warren Buffett and his buddies want to raise revenues they should all PONY UP THOSE CHECKS the government takes gifts and LEAVE the REST of those who are hard working contributors to society ALONE.


START by paying your back TAXES first and remove the stain of HYPOCRISY. 

Queen Moochelle

If some reports are true, it would appear, all though not surprising, that our first lady is living the DIVA life style largely at our expense.


The report that the first couple traveled to Martha's Vineyard 4 hours apart on different government jets only further exacerbates the claims of their excesses.


There have been many reports but yesterday quite surprisingly the Daily Mail Online had a story with the headline that read:


"Expensive massages, top shelf vodka and five star hotels: First Lady accused of spending $10m in public money on her vacations"
by Tamara Abraham


"White House sources today claimed the First Lady has spent $10 million of US taxpayers' money on vacation alone in the past year."


The story goes on to brand her "disgusting" and a "vacation junkie" indulging in five star hotels replete with expensive massages and expensive bar bills.


Moochelle has taken 42 days of vacation in the past year, or one out of every nine days,  including her much publicized $375,000 break in Spain, and a four day ski trip  to Vail spending 2k a night on a suite at the Sebastian hotel, Panama CIty, Fla., Martha's VIneyard, Hawaii, South Africa, Latin America, and Corvallis, Ore.


The website whitehousedossier.com writes "while the president and his wife do pay for some of their personal expenses from their own pocket that amount paid by the couple is dwarfed by the overall cost to the public."


She has been accused of "wild shopping sprees and out of control spending" much to the distress of the president.


You definitely know who WEARS THE PANTS in that relationship.


It is amazing that someone who is not elected or has any job should need a personnel staff of 24 - 26 depending on if you count the personal trainer or the cook at a cost of $1.75 million per year to $2.2 million per year depending on the source.
Laura Bush had a staff of 12 for significantly less salaries and she has still a huge charity that promotes women's rights around the world.
By contrast Eleanor Roosevelt personally paid for her own secretary.


Moochelle just complains about everyone else's diets and then eats what she wants.
They are both incredible HYPOCRITES typical progressives.
She has certainly abandoned her well publicized "working class background".
For her that wide load sign is not far off.


From the official White House list at www.whitehouse.govblog/Annual-Report-to-Congress-on-White-House-Staff-2009/


$172,000 - Sher, Susan : Chief of Staff
$140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. : Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy and Projects for
                  the First Lady
$113,000 - Rodgers, Desiree G. : Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary
$102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. : Special Assiatant to the President and Director of Communications for
                  the First Lady
$102,000 - Winter, Melissa E. : Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff to the First
                  Lady
$90,000   - Medina, David S. : Deputy Chief of Staff to the First Lady
$84,000   - Lelyveld, Catrherine M. : Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady
$75,000   - Starkey, Frances M. : Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady
$70,000   - Sanders, Trooper   : Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady
$65,000   - Burnough, Erinn J. : Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary
$65,000   - Rienstein, Joesph B. : Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary
$62,000   - Goodman, Jenifer R. : Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator
$60,000   - Fitts, Alan O. : Deputy of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady
$60,000   - Lewis, Dana M. : Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady
$52,500   - Mustaphi, Semonti M. : Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary to the First Lady
$50,000   - Jarvis, Kristen E. : Special Assiatant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide to the First Lady
$45,000   - Lehtenberg, Tyler A. : Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady
$45,000   - Tubman, Samantha : Deputy Associate Director, Social Office
$40,000   - Boswell, Joseph J. : Executive Assistant to the Chief of Staff to the First Lady
$36,000   - Armbruster, Sally, M. : Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary
$36,000   - Bookey, Natalie : Staff Assistant
$36,000   - Jackson, Della A. : Deputy Assistant Director of Correspondence for the First Lady
????????  - Grimes-Miles, Ingrid : Make-up Artist
????????  - Wright, Johnny : First Hairstylist
                            
In 1993 she voluntarily surrendered her law license which means she was accused of something and instead of facing the charge surrendered her license a minute before the State would have suspended her.


Funny that as legal council at the University of Chicago Hospital you would think you would need a license?


Besides the license affair her job there cursorily gave her a HUGE raise after her husband became a State Senator.
There is some dispute over facts and figures but as usual something stinks because he delivered pork money for new pavilion at the hospital.


She also worked in the corrupt Daley administration in the mayors office so she was involved in Chicago politics.


I could go on but for a sanitized version see wikipedia for more details.


Let me close with a fact about our beloved president.
He too surrendered his law license in 2008 to escape claims that he LIED on his bar application.
How is it possible that guy can become president?
We know that if this had been a republican for example Bush the media machine would not have rested until they drummed him out of politics yet Obama gets a free pass on this and other aggress 
activities in his past and his radical friends.
I have read that if he had applied for a security clearance as part of a normal job he would have been declined.
We need to VOTE THIS FAKE out of OFFICE

Liberals "can't get no Satisfaction"

Liberals "can't get no Satisfaction"

In my continuing efforts to clarify fact from fiction of some common social misnomers or in many cases outright lies, I found a slue of articles and studies done on happiness, contentment, satisfaction in life which I think is worth reposting at this time especially with the demoRats/liberals/progressives turning up the hate rhetoric as they know Obama's presidency is a failure and his chances of reelection are dwindling if not GONE.
This all fits with their all to often  suffering from "pathological altruism" and victimhood which allows them to say or do anything because the ends always justify the means while projecting their own thoughts and actions on the opposition.
HYPOCRITES one and all.

It would appear that low and behold self proclaimed liberals have a very different life view than do self proclaimed conservatives.
Some of the people I have discussed these ideas with insist these are just labels or generalities.
Yes they are but the point is "SELF PROCLAIMED" whereby people interviewed or who took part in a study identified themselves.
They were not assigned anything.
This is not a generality it is a belief expressed by someone in response to questions.
I know liberals refuse to believe any of this because of the negative reaction I get while discussing these ideas with liberal friends.
For the group who is supposed to be so open-minded they exhibit quite the opposite when confronted with this information.

In reviewing the message of my last post the Generosity of Americans part 2 " you can not legislate charity it is a personal act."
Self proclaimed liberals seem to think charity is political and self proclaimed conservatives see it as a personal act.
It is a different mind set.
So while sp conservatives on par donate alot more money and time than sp liberals it only follows that there is also a difference in life view.

Washington Post.com

by George F Will
Thursday February 23, 2006

Smile if (and Only if) You're Conservative

You can look up the entire article so I will only quote some of the more interesting paragraphs.
I also want to include several others.

"A survey by the Pew Research Center shows conservatives are happier than liberals - in all income groups.
While 34% of all Americans call themselves "very happy" only 28% of liberal Democrats (and 31% of moderate or conservative Democrats) do, compared with 47% of conservative Republicans.
This finding is nifitly self-reinforcing: It depresses liberals."

"Election results do not explain this happiness gap. Republicans have been happier than Democrats every year since this survey began in 1972. Married people and religious people are especially disposed to happiness, and both cohorts vote more conservatively than does the nation as a whole."

It would seem that there is a paradox among conservatives which accounts for their overall happiness.
"Conservatives understand that society in its complexity resembles a giant Calder mobile - touch it here and things jiggle there, and there, and way over there too. Hence conservatives acknowledge the Law of Unintended Consequences, which is: The unintended consequences of bold government undertakings are apt to be larger than, and contrary to, the intended ones"

In the face of things this would seem to be rather pessimistic or is it really an expression of pragmatism of I believe living more in the moment.
Being centered where you are - not where you were - or where you want to go - but in the here and NOW.
Another component of this I believe is contentment or satisfaction.
Part of being in the now is contentment with ones self not fretting how unfair everything is.

"Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways.
First, they are rarely surprised - they are right more often than not about the course of events.
Second, when they are wrong, they are happy to be so.
Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes - government - they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself.
They believe that happiness is an activity - it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness."

"The right to pursue happiness is the essential right that government exists to protect.
Liberals, taking their bearings, whether they know it or not, from President Franklin Roosevelt's 1936 State of the Union address, think the attainment of happiness itself, understood in terms of security and material well-being, is an entitlement that government has created and can deliver."

That statement alone blows me away in that Roosevelt's intentions were and went far beyond the depression.
This probably accounts for present pervasive attitude of entitlement everyone seems to have in this country just because they are here????
Prime example of how liberalism could not account for this unfortunate unintended social consequence.

Other interesting articles - there are many more too.

The Economist
March 27, 2008
The joys of parenthood
Why conservatives are happier than liberals.

PottsMerc.com
August 7, 2008
The difference between conservative and liberals
by Tony Phyrillas, tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com

Scientific American
June 24, 2008
Why Are Conservatives Happier Than Liberals?
Conservatives have a greater subjective life satisfaction than liberals, according to a Pew Research Center survey. Two New York University researchers performed three studies to find out why.
Christie Nicholson reports.

LiveScience.com
May 7, 2008
by Jeanna Bryer, Senior Writer
Conservatives Happier Than LIberals

Us News & World Report
May 5,2008
by Bret Schulte
Why Conservatives Say They Are Happier Than Liberals
Q&A with Arthur Brooks, whose new book says the liberal agenda takes a personal toll.
This is worth quoting some of because Brooks' book is very interesting.

"What's the key to happiness? Liberals might tell you a hot latte, vivid expressions od diversity, and a copy of the New York Times. That doesn't sound bad, but in data mined for his new book, Gross National Happiness, by Arthur Brooks a professor of business and government at Syracuse University, finds that conservatives are twice as likely as liberals to say they are happy.
That's not necessarily because of politics but because they are statistically more likely to be married, go to church, and be optimistic about their future - boosting personal happiness.
For liberals, the rates are lower. The author suggests that while liberal equity agenda may be honorable, it exacts a personal toll. Indeed happiness is full of surprises: Political ideologues are positively joyful - by making others miserable. Brooks explains to US News the quirks and politics of happiness."

Why are liberals so bummed out?
"Liberals are more likely to feel like victims and feel that collective action is the best way to make things happen. That might be right, but it's a frustrating way to live. The Democratic Party is a coalition of oppressed groups. These are legitimate grivances in a lot of cases, but that does not make for a happy party."

And the interview goes on and Mr Brooks holds his own with a skeptical interviewer.

And finally from the:

Examiner.com
June 2, 2008
by Peter Schweizer
Conservatives more honest than liberals?
This is good.
Very explosive question for an election year.
But you will not hear about this in the main stream "LIBERAL" media.

"There is a striking gap between the manner in which liberals and conservatives address the issue of honesty."
"Consider the results."

"Is it OK to cheat on your taxes? A total of 57% of those who described themselves as "very Liberal" said yes in response to the World Value Survey, compared with only 20% of those who are "very conservative."
When Pew Research asked whether it was "morally wrong" to cheat Uncle Sam, 86% of conservatives agreed, compared with only 68% of liberals."

"The World Value Survey found that those on the left were also much more likely to say it is OK to buy stolen goods that you know are stolen. Studies have also found that those on the left were more likely to say it is OK to drink a can of soda in the store without paying for it and to avoid the truth while negotiating the price of a car."

And the examples go on and on right into the attitude of college students beliefs in ethics, or lack there of; cheating in school;etc.

"Liberals were more willing to "let others take the blame" for their own ethical lapses, "copy a published article" and pass it off as their own, and were more accepting of "cheating on an exam" according to still another study in the Journal of Business Ethics."

Witness Barack Obama and Joe Biden who think nothing of ripping off other peoples speeches as their own "LIARS"
"Now, I"m not suggesting that all conservatives are honest and all liberals are untrustworthy. But clearly a gap exists in the data. Why? The quick answer might be that liberals are simply more honest about their dishonesty."

"However attractive this explaination might be for some, there is simply no basis for accepting this explanation. Validation studies, which attempt to figure out who misreports on academic surveys and why, has found no evidence that conservatives are less honest. Indeed, validation research indicates that Democrats tend to be LESS forthcoming than other groups."

Here is the crux of the matter.

"The honesty gap is also not a result of "bad people" becoming liberals and "good people" becoming conservatives. In my mind, a more likely explanation is bad ideas. Modern liberalism is infused with the idea that truth is relative. Surveys consistently show this. And if truth is relative, it also must follow that honesty is subjective."


“The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.- George Orwell