Illogical Politics

Obama, like most Liberals/Marxists claims to be for "the little man, the family, the working class, the poor and the minorities"...especially the minorities.

Let’s examine Obama's real record, you know, the one he actually has, not the one he falsely lays claim to, we'll see that Obama's world-view, agenda and policies deeply and badly hurt the very one's he and all Liberals pretend to help. 

Obama has slammed Romney and Bain Capital for their part in the closure of "American Pad and Paper". 250 people lost their jobs. What Obama does not even hint at is that Romney helped save "Staples", and many other struggling companies. But a recent report reveals a very disturbing, greedy, corrupt and dark look at Obama's private sector experience.

Obama’s own private sector history reads much like the one he accuses Romney of.  While working as an attorney for a Chicago law firm in early 1990s, Obama volunteered to work on a case involving several black residents who believed that they were being discriminated against by Citibank Federal Savings.

The president’s 1995 housing-discrimination class action lawsuit: It provided him with legal fees, greased his political donations and boosted his role in Chicago politics.

Obama learned about politics in Chicago, a city controlled by the Democratic Party machine of the Daley family. In recent weeks, sweetheart deals between Mayor Daley’s office and several union bosses have come to light. Those deals have made the unions bosses enormously wealthy.

Obama wants to raise taxes on the wealthiest 1% of Americans. Ironically, the Daley machine and Obama are determined to make union leaders part of that 1% as quickly as possible, at the expense of taxpayers and ordinary, rank-and-file union members.

Through loopholes created by Democratic Party lawmakers, union leaders have received six-figure “double dip” pensions from the city while receiving equally huge salaries from their union positions. 

Meanwhile, governments and pension plans at all levels stumble toward insolvency and default, and ordinary taxpayers and union members struggle with financial hardship. Obama learned about union deals from the Daley machine, and his “jobs bill” is just another way to reward unions for their support.

Richard M. Daley

Richard J. Daley

Between father Richard J. and son Richard M., the Daleys served in the mayor’s office for more than half a century and attracted no less than seven separate federal corruption investigations. The Daleys have always been suspected of “fixing” the 1960 election for John F. Kennedy, delivering the Illinois Electoral College votes by the narrowest of margins.

William Daley

The younger Daley’s brother, William, was Al Gore’s campaign chairman during the 2000 presidential race, personally traveling to Florida for the recount, and now serves as Obama’s chief of staff. And the newly anointed heir to the Chicago throne is none other than Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s previous chief of staff. Obama’s links to the Daleys and their power are well documented.

What makes the Daleys powerful is their partnership with labor unions. Union bosses provide the campaign contributions, the volunteers, and the votes that are the lifeblood of most Democrats’ political campaigns. In return, like so many other Democratic Party supporters such as Solyndra’s investors, union bosses are given access to huge amounts of money from taxpayers.

At the lower levels of the Chicago machine, faithful operatives of the Democratic machine are rewarded with jobs on the city payroll. The departments of streets and sanitation, code enforcement, and other city services are packed with loyal Daley supporters.

All city workers were of course organized by the unions, paying a portion of their city salaries as union dues. Much of the dues money, in turn, was passed on to Democratic politicians in the form of campaign contributions. The workers walked the precincts to get out the vote for the Democrats and, on Election Day, they often took a day off to maximize the GOTV effort.

As their years of loyal service turned into decades, and tens of thousands of Chicago Republicans sold their homes and moved to the suburbs, Democratic control of the city and county became cast in reinforced concrete. Any disputes became purely intramural in nature: one faction of the Democratic Party against another. And the most loyal Daley supporters moved up through the ranks, in city government and the unions.

No, Wait, Don't Look at My Style Of Politics

Lets take an in-depth look at how President Obama has perfected Chicago-style politics in the White House. I’m not suggesting that Obama is the government version of Tony Soprano, who sends “Sicilian messages” or sells drugs or moonshine or untaxed cigarettes out of the White House basement. Illogical politics is about something else: about governing without recognizing the legitimate limits of one’s power. It’s about officials who use public office to make winners into losers and losers into winners; who bend, break and make the law to help their friends and punish their enemies….Obama didn’t come to Washington from Mount Olympus. He came from the corrupt and dirty politics of Chicago.

For the past two years, shooting directly from the presidential pulpit, Obama has used bullying and intimidation to attack those who disagree with his policies, rewarding his friends at the direct expense of the American people.

For all the high-minded reform rhetoric of his 2008 campaign, all the talk of a “new politics,” all the passages in his books about respecting others’ points of view, Obama’s response to people who objected to his administration’s massive expansion of federal power was to deride and insult them. He didn’t merely criticize his political opponents or conservative talk radio hosts, he disparaged and belittled the voters who disagreed with him as irrational or “teabaggers.”

Illogical politics documents how Obama and his administration have pushed unpopular policies such as the wasteful stimulus, government bailouts and health care reform, while at the same time attacking large segments of the voting population and ignoring an election mandate from the public.

In an interviews conducted with Obama when he was a candidate for U.S. Senate, the then-Illinois state representative exhibited some of the liberal tendencies Americans have come to recognize in his presidency, along with statements that seem at odds with his later policy decisions, and criticisms of the George W. Bush administration for budget deficits and foreign oil prices far milder than those over which Obama now presides.

The interviews in 2003 and 2004. The videos were first made publicly available on YouTube on Friday and Saturday. At the time of the 2003 appearance, Obama was a recent entrant into the Democratic primary race to replace the retiring Sen. Peter Fitzgerald. By the 2004 interview, Obama had already won a landslide primary victory and was just entering the general election season.

On the first tape, Obama addressed “economic security,” a theme that later followed him to the White House. Illinoisans, he said, were “trying to figure out, ‘What am I going to do about the potential layoff? How am I going to pay for my retirement?’”

But then, as now, Obama resisted the idea that cutting taxes on businesses in order to create American jobs will help the economy.

It’s 2012, and people are suffering. And as much as people may like President Obama, we have to be honest enough to admit that our communities are suffering because of his policies. How much more pain are we willing to inflict upon our communities just because we want to root for this president? We have to judge this president not by the color of his skin, but by the results of his policies.

The Unemployed

President Obama’s policies have been devastating to minority communities and to the most vulnerable in our society. America is suffering through the longest period of high unemployment since the Great Depression: Unemployment has been stuck over 8 percent for almost three-and-a-half years under Obama, after averaging only 5.3 percent under President George W. Bush. Minority communities have been hit much harder: African-American unemployment is 14.4 percent, and black youth unemployment is an obscene 44.2 percent. Latino unemployment is 11 percent. I recited these figures recently to a gathering of Pacific Islanders in Nevada, which is being crushed by the highest unemployment rate and worst housing crisis in the country. They didn’t need to hear these numbers to know that their community is hurting. If you had tried to tell these folks, three-and-a-half years into the Obama presidency, that their ongoing misery was President Bush’s fault, they would rightly have considered that to be an insult to their intelligence.

Unable to defend his own record, the president has launched an avalanche of attack ads that even the liberal Washington Post has decried as dishonest. With even many of President Obama’s strongest supporters praising the high ethics and excellent track record of Bain Capital, the bottom line is this: If you have a problem with Bain, you have a problem with private equity; if you have a problem with private equity, you have a problem with capitalism; if you have a problem with capitalism, you have no clue what it takes to create jobs and help poor people escape poverty.

The Obama Record

At a time when we need to do everything possible to make it easier to create jobs in America, President Obama has done everything possible to make it harder — and those who are struggling the most in this economy, the people who really need jobs, are the ones who are hurt the most by his policies.

Despite his best intentions, President Obama has consistently thwarted job creation. He has created a hostile regulatory environment that has made businesses afraid to expand and banks afraid to lend. Investors are afraid to make job-creating investments: the threat of higher taxes makes it harder to justify risking money in an abysmal economy. Employers are afraid to hire because they have no idea how much Obamacare will increase the cost of each additional worker.

Job Killer

Minority activists typically pride themselves on putting the interests of “the people” ahead of the interests of businesses, investors and banks. It is foolhardy, though, to treat businesses, investors and banks as the enemy. When they’re scared (and like it or not, President Obama is scaring the heck out of them), minority communities are devastated most of all by the resulting failure to create jobs.

The president’s job-killing policies cause great hardship today, but his negligence on the debt crisis could destroy our future. President Obama ran up more debt in three years than President Bush ran up in eight. Our record debt will cripple the ability of our children and grandchildren to use government as a means to help people. The most vulnerable in our society — the people who must depend on government the most — will suffer the most when government no longer has the means to protect them. We now must spend hundreds of billions of dollars each year just to pay interest on our debt. That money cannot be used to make life better in America — instead, it is being used to make life better in China and other foreign nations that hold our debt.

Polls show that a majority of Americans agree with President Obama’s proposals to tax the “rich.” I strongly disagree, but it’s not because I feel sorry for rich people. Rich people will be just fine; if you raise their taxes, they’ll still be rich. But they’ll invest less, and hence fewer jobs will be created, and hence the rest of us will be poorer. That’s why President Obama, before he was running for re-election, said that “the last thing you want to do is raise taxes” on anyone — including the wealthy — in a down economy. That’s why President Clinton slashed the tax on investment, the capital gains tax. That created jobs and strengthened the economy. Tax revenues actually went up because Clinton’s tax cuts helped the economy boom. Everybody won.

President Obama wants to do the opposite of what President Clinton did. He wants to double the capital gains tax rate. Ernst & Young, the respected, nonpartisan accounting firm, has determined that President Obama’s proposals to tax the “rich” would cause our economy to lose 710,000 jobs — this at a time when all of us, especially minority communities, desperately need the economy to create more jobs. Ernst & Young further found that the president’s proposals would reduce wages, reduce investment and reduce economic output. President Obama’s proposals would thus make all of us, collectively, less rich. The rich can afford to be less rich; the rest of us cannot. And the poor can afford it least of all.

So why would President Obama propose policies that would inflict further harm on those who are struggling? Certainly not to reduce the debt. The revenue that Obama’s tax hikes would raise would only be enough to fund the federal government for eight-and-a-half days. No, the reason that the president is proposing these tax hikes is to promote “fairness.”

So let’s get this straight: In the name of fairness, President Obama would make it much harder for folks who are struggling the most in this economy to find jobs. In the name of fairness, President Obama would lower our wages. If that’s “fairness,” then maybe we should give unfairness a try.

If you desperately need a job to support your family, which would you rather have: (a) a job, or (b) the satisfaction of knowing that some rich guy you’ve never met will have to pay more taxes? If you chose (b), I feel sorry for your family — and you should vote for Obama.

For those of us who are having trouble grasping President Obama’s concept of fairness, we should consider Gov. Romney’s: “We will stop the unfairness of urban children being denied access to the good schools of their choice; the unfairness of politicians giving taxpayer money to their friends’ businesses; the unfairness of requiring union workers to contribute to politicians not of their choosing; the unfairness of government workers getting better pay and benefits than the taxpayers they serve; and we will stop the unfairness of one generation passing larger and larger debts on to the next.”

With apologies to my Democrat friends who think they own the word, Gov. Romney’s idea of “fairness” is much fairer than President Obama’s.