Ah Yes...

"Before you judge a person, walk a mile in their shoes...then, when you judge them, you will be a mile away, and you will have their shoes."

He Said...He Said

The Obama administration announced yesterday more regulation of the oil industry (and a $52,000,000 price tag).  They want to further regulate the 'speculation' on the prices, so that investors (or 'speculators') can't drive the price of oil higher and make their profits off of the consumers.

However...

This conflicts with President Obama's and Energy Secretary Chu's statements that they WANT higher energy prices (oh, Algore ran on this same idea in 2000).  Why would they want higher prices?  So we will stop burning gas!  (See videos below)

Mr. President, why don't you work to lower the price, use up the "finite" resource as you call it, then we would be forced to drive our wind cars (since corn based fuel has turned out to be...uh, still BURNING things).

If you don't understand the "oil is a finite resource" argument - READ THIS

GOP vs DOPE...

Pay attention to how the MainStreamMedia portrays the vote on the "Buffet Rule":

CNN

Republicans, as expected, garnered enough support to reject Democrats' attempt to bring up the proposal for debate. The Democrats fell nine votes short. (The Sentate is 53 to 47, the Republicans didn't 'garner support' they voted Republican)

The bill would impose a minimum 30% effective federal tax rate on those with adjusted gross incomes above $1 million, although it phases in for those making between $1 million and $2 million. (No mention of the reason Republicans voted against it - that one group's idea of  'fairness' doesn't solve any economic problems)

Taxpayers subject to the Buffett Rule would still get a break for charitable deductions and could count both the income and payroll taxes they paid when calculating what they would owe under the Buffett Rule.  (Sounds friendly - why wouldn't the mean millionairs favor this? Do they hate charity?)

Democratic lawmakers argued the Buffett Rule would be a step toward fairness because it would ensure that no one earning more than $1 million ends up paying a lower effective federal tax rate than anyone in the middle class. (And this country was founded on what some people thought was 'fair'?)

If passed, the rule would ensure that millionaires "pay a fair share no matter what loopholes or special treatment lawmakers add to the code in the future," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat who introduced the bill.  (Lawmakers - isn't the Senate the lawmakers?  If they are changing the rules now, can't they just change them later - who voted for this lady...oh, Sheldon is a guy?)

 

MSNBC:

Democrats have tried to use the alleged unfairness of the tax code as a campaign weapon against GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who paid federal income tax of $3.2 million on income of nearly $21 million in 2011, for an effective tax rate of 15 percent. Much of Romney’s income came from capital gains on his investments. Capital gains are taxed at 15 percent, while the top marginal tax rate on earned income is 35 percent. (This is not fair, the Government only got 3.2 million dollars out of Romney's pile - which was a pile of money that had already been taxed several ways)

IN FAIRNESS, MSNBC also said this (in the 11th and 12th paragraphs):

According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, in 2011 taxpayers in the top one percent of the income distribution paid, on average, 24 percent of their income in federal incomes taxes. Taxpayers in the middle quintile of the income distribution paid, on average, 4.1 percent of their adjusted gross income in federal income taxes.

Whitehouse said on the Senate floor Monday that his bill would “restore some fairness to our tax system” and counteract what he called the “glaring tax inequity” of taxpayers such as Buffett, most of whose income comes from investments, paying a lower effective tax rate than people who earn most or all of their income from wages or salaries. (Uh, did Mr. Whitehouse read the previous paragraph? Reality matters.)

The War on Women...

This will be one of the themes of Obama's campaign.  The truth does not matter.  Facts do not matter.  It is a propaganda war.  In their minds, even if they lose battles, the battles are fought WHERE they want them. Prepare to see headlines, "Romney Defends Record: I Never Beat My Wife" 

Hopefully the Right is suited up for battle...

*Just so we are clear, I have been against Women's Suffrage for as long as I can remember...

"I will not raise taxes on anybody making more than..."

"The Obama administration is quietly diverting roughly $500 million to the IRS to help implement the president’s healthcare law..."

"...The law contains dozens of targeted appropriations to implement specific provisions. It also gave the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) a $1 billion implementation fund, to use as it sees fit. Republicans have called it a “slush fund.”

HHS plans to drain the entire fund by September — before the presidential election, and more than a year before most of the healthcare law takes effect. Roughly half of that money will ultimately go to the IRS...

The healthcare law includes a slew of new taxes and fees, some of which are already in effect. The tax agency wants to hire more than 300 new employees next year to cover those tax changes, such as the new fees on drug companies and insurance policies...

HHS has transferred almost $200 million to the IRS over the past two years and plans to transfer more than $300 million this year, according to figures provided by a congressional aide...

The IRS will also administer the most expensive piece of the new law — subsidies to help low-income people pay for insurance, which are structured as tax credits. The agency asked Congress to fund another 537 new employees dedicated to administering the new subsidies..."

Holder, with an H...

Why We Need Voter-ID Laws Now by John Fund

Judicial Activisim...

The President said Monday "...and I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint—that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step."

Judicial Activism has nothing to do with striking down a law that was passed by Congress, as unconstitutional.  Judicial Activism is when judges use things (their own social values, laws from other constitutions, etc.) that are outside the Constitution (that they swore to defend) to determine law in the United States.

You would think a former Professor Lecturer on the Constitution would know the difference...

While some on the Left are agreeing with him, most scholars are acknowledging a 'mistatement' or simply turn to Supreme Court decisions they disagree with...uh, what was the question?

I think he does not like the Constitution...well he wants to change it...fundamentally