Organizing For Freedom

  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size
Born of the American Tea Party Movement for Licking County, Ohio, welcome to the grassroots push for Freedom!

Obama’s Poverty Politics Trick to Redistribute even more tax dollars

E-mail Print PDF

Barack Obama is manipulating poverty statistics to cover income redistribution on a massive scale. I covered this subterfuge in a previous American Thinker column, Obama's Poverty Politics. The Census Bureau has redefined "poverty" in a way that vastly increases the ranks of those characterized as living in "poverty" or "near poverty."  Robert Rector , in Team O's Poor Trick, wrote about the redefinition and its consequences (one that was barely noticed by the public):

Thus, it was foreordained that, using this new standard, the Census folks "discovered" that almost half the population is living in "near-poverty" conditions. That is, if you define "near poverty" as an income roughly equal to the median, that means that by definition nearly half the population will always be "poor" or "near poor" - regardless of any changes in actual living standards.

 

Obama's new poverty measure will produce very odd results. For example, if the real income of every single American were to magically double overnight, the new measure

Last Updated on Sunday, 22 January 2012 22:55 Read more...
 

Obama argues against appearing at eligibility hearing

E-mail Print PDF

Barack Obama has outlined a defense strategy for a multitude of state-level challenges to his candidacy on the 2012 presidential ballot in a Georgia case that is scheduled to come before a judge later this month – simply explain that states have nothing to do with the eligibility of presidential candidates.

“Presidential electors and Congress, not the state of Georgia, hold the constitutional responsibility for determining the qualifications of presidential candidates,” Obama’s lawyer argues in a motion to quash a subpoena for him to appear at the hearings Jan. 26.

“The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant,” the lawyer said.

Hearings have been scheduled for that date for three separate issues to be handled. They all are raised by Georgia residents who are challenging Obama’s name on the 2012 ballot for various reasons, which they are allowed to do under state law.

It is states, usually through the office of secretary of state, that run elections, not the federal government. The national election is simply a compilation of the results of the individual elections within states.

The schedule for the hearings was set by Judge Michael M. Malihi of the Georgia state Office of State Administrative Hearings. In Georgia, a state law requires “every candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy "shall meet

Last Updated on Sunday, 22 January 2012 22:39 Read more...
 

Right To Work Conflict To Visit Ohio Soon

E-mail Print PDF

One of the newest high-profile issues in today’s political world is Right-To-Work (RTW) legislation. Right-To-Work is simply what is says…it guarantees an American worker the right to work without first joining a union or trade guild.

Many workers object to unions as too expensive and too demanding and not representative of their political and social values. When given the choice to join a union and pay union dues or to obtain the exact same pay and dividends without that expense the choice would be simple. Employers would no longer be forced to withdraw union dues from the pay of workers and send it to union heads.  Union rolls would dwindle and, not being able to command large groups of workers, their threat of strikes or work stoppages would be weakened.

You may recall the scene in Wisconsin when Democrat legislators left town rather than allow Republicans to vote on a bill limiting the negotiating rights of unions.

The same scenario is taking place in Indiana as Democrats have walked out on Right-To-Work legislation. Attempts have been made to fine the absent lawmakers 1,000 dollars each day they are absent from the capitol. This has

Last Updated on Saturday, 21 January 2012 07:38 Read more...
 

Why Does Obama Want The US To Be Energy Poor?

E-mail Print PDF

(The piece below outlines my assertion that the President is intentionally striving to make fossil fuels scarce and expensive. The author, Thomas Pyle, of the American Energy Alliance goes deeper and more eloquently into the subject.)

One of the reasons the unemployment rate has been stuck above 8 percent for years is because the Obama administration is actively blocking the private sector from creating jobs. Approving the Keystone XL pipeline, now in its third year of review, would have gone a long way toward boosting American job creation and strengthening our energy security. But the President prefers the politics of energy poverty and has sided with environmentalist radicals over hardworking Americans and their families.

The decision for the president should have been simple because the question is simple—is a pipeline from Canada to the United States in the “national interest?” Precisely what part of stable oil supplies, tens of thousands of good-paying jobs, and strengthening trade with our closest ally is not in the national interest?

Apparently, that’s not good enough for the Obama administration. Somewhere along the way, it seems, the president has misunderstood the difference between what is good for America and what is good for the special interests that support him and staff his favorite lobbying groups.

The opponents of the Keystone XL claim that the pipeline would be an environmental catastrophe, yet the Obama administration’s extensive environmental review found otherwise. In fact, the State Department’s environmental studies confirmed what we knew from the beginning—that a new pipeline would have a limited environmental impact, much less so than transport by barge, truck, or railcar. That pipelines have a limited environmental impact is one of the reasons we have more than 50,000 miles of crude oil pipelines in the U.S. already.

 

Another common complaint is that a pipeline will increase greenhouse gas emissions. This argument only makes sense, however, if the oil were to stay in the ground forever. But as Austan Goolsbee, the former chairman of the

Last Updated on Saturday, 21 January 2012 10:07 Read more...
 

Obama Rejects Thousands of Pipeline Jobs

E-mail Print PDF

President Obama today chose his re-election prospects over the welfare of thousands of American workers who would have built the XL pipeline.

Obama blamed his action on the fact that the environmental impact of the pipeline had not yet been determined. This is preposterous since another pipeline from the same Canadian source is already in place and brings oil from the north to Oklahoma each day.

This pipeline has been studied from every angle and discussed at length by dozens of governmental departments. The job was ready to go and waiting only for the federal OK. Estimates were that the pipeline construction would have provided around 120,000 jobs immediately and up to 300,000 in the near future.

But environmental activists, who give Obama and the Democratic Party huge amounts of campaign cash, did not want the pipeline. Obama tried to delay any decision until after the election. But, when the Republicans tied the decision on the pipeline to the extension of the payroll tax, he was placed in a tough spot. Unions wanted the pipeline and the high-paying jobs it would produce. The greenies wanted nothing to do with the filthy dirty oil that it would bring and possibly delay the conversion to greener energy sources such as solar and wind power. This despicable liquid would kill the flora and fauna and pollute the nation’s drinking water. This is the same old environmental wacko mantra.

Unable to please both sides, Obama did what he does best. He shoved the blame for the decision off onto the State Department and made up the excuse that it hadn’t been studied thoroughly enough.

The whole situation boils down to this…Obama says that it is too much of a risk to do this project that would cost the US taxpayers not one cent and would produce thousands of jobs and the accompanying income taxes. Yet, he can use taxpayer money to make several loans of 500,000 to 1.2 million dollars to various solar companies that are on the verge of bankruptcy.

This is just another cap and trade ploy. It is a movement to drive up the price of oil until it reaches heights that are not financially feasible. Then, hopefully, the public will be forced to turn to alternative fuels that are not yet ready for mass marketing and not currently financially feasible either. It was his announced plan to do this before his election. But, people were so busy being snake-charmed by his dazzling smile and his message of hope and change that it mattered little to them.

Well, folks, you got your change and unless we drive such thinking from Washington soon there will be no hope.


Last Updated on Sunday, 22 January 2012 15:41
 
  • «
  •  Start 
  •  Prev 
  •  1 
  •  2 
  •  3 
  •  4 
  •  5 
  •  6 
  •  7 
  •  8 
  •  9 
  •  10 
  •  Next 
  •  End 
  • »


Page 1 of 21