America delivers retribution at the tip of a spear, or more specifically, a Navy Seal’s bullet.  Turns out this was a bit of foreshadowing by the president:

Sullivan adds this:

The more I hear the more Obama seems very close to this over the last few months: in weekly meetings, deeply involved in five national security meetings recently. This was not a lucky break. This was the end-point of several weeks of coordination. And Obama’s cool throughout. As Donald Trump was birthering out, Obama was aiming right at this country’s deadliest enemy.

How impossibly cool is this guy?  As this fucking circus about birth certificates swirled about, all he continued to do was conduct a highly covert operation under the cover of darkness–away from the muck and the mire– while his name, the office of the presidency, and his American authenticity continued to be sullied.

Let us not kid ourselves.  This invariably will be made a politically partisan issue.  So let’s be clear:  The most noted piece of President Obama’s  foreign policy platform during the 2008 campaign was to expand the war in Afghanistan– and to kill Osama Bin Laden.  This expansion also included perhaps the most controversial and dangerous tenet –taking the war into Pakistan if necessary to make the kill.  Not one political leader had the guts to advocate such a maneuver.  Not John McCain.  Not Sarah Palin.  Not George W. Bush– who not only shrunk from truly pursuing Bin Laden and attempted to downplay his actual existence–he did not pursue the course as stringently as he should have in Afghanistan.  Instead, he diverted resources for a war in Iraq.  Barack Obama knew Bin Laden was hiding in Pakistan, and was not afraid to tread where others feared in order to exact retribution for America.  Barack Obama not only led this charge while others were too weak-willed to do so, he told us all he would to so:

If the purpose of this war was to capture and/or kill Bin Laden, President Bush failed.  I don’t doubt President Bush’s resolve to the cause.  I’m just stating an irrefutable fact.  President Obama did not fail.  He led boldly, unabashedly, and with strength and courage.

Those questioning the methodology of the Obama Doctrine, have now received a true taste of what real American leadership looks like.  In one of the most important moments in American history, President Obama’s cool  authoritative countenance helped him execute this mission. Character and commitment are markers of American determination, and clearly they could not have been exhibited better.  Thank you Mr. President, and  thank you to the greatest military force and intelligence community the world has ever know.

It was a necessity we kill this man.  A man responsible for plunging our nation into a chaos we’ve never seen.  It was a necessity for the victims and their families, and it was necessity for America–not to celebrate not death– but glorify justice. I am a proud believer in the Obama Doctrine and the American military.

Related posts:

1. Charlie Sheen And The New American Value System What do Americans value? Charlie Sheen made a visit to...
2. America And Exceptionalism Reactions have poured in: It was a beautiful speech, especially...
3. The American Nightmare That Is The Westboro Church Take a peek inside the psyche of Shirley Phelps-Roper.  This...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

But I thought the taxes were too damn high?

WASHINGTON – Taxes too high? Actually, as a share of the nation’s economy, Uncle Sam’s take this year will be the lowest since 1950, when the Korean War was just getting under way.And for the third straight year, American families and businesses will pay less in federal taxes than they did under former President George W. Bush, thanks to a weak economy and a growing number of tax breaks for the wealthy and poor alike.

Income tax payments this year will be nearly 13 percent lower than they were in 2008, the last full year of the Bush presidency. Corporate taxes will be lower by a third, according to projections by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

So what do you think folks are talking about when they claim we’re being taxed into oblivion?

H/T Bob Cesca

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

I wrote a post back in May asking the question will President Barack Obama create more jobs in one year than President George W. Bush created in eight?

We now have an answer to that question, and it is a resounding yes.  ThinkProgress:

Indeed, from February 2001, Bush’s first full month in office, through January 2009, his last, the economy added just 1 million jobs. By contrast, in 2010 alone, the economy added at least 1.1 million jobs. This chart, produced by Pelosi’s office, demonstrates the difference between the Bush administration and the Obama administration on jobs:

The infographic below illustrates the job growth disparities between the two administrations.

Obviously, both parties will look at these figures, and extrapolate wildly different meanings from them.  But I find it extremely puzzling how conservatives–who’ve long championed estimates from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office–now dismiss them as biased.  It paints a distorted picture of how conservatives twist numbers and factual information. Even the conservative Wall Street Journal has said the Bush job creation record was the “worst since the government began to keep records.”

Pretty damning.  Care to discuss?

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Image via Wikipedia

I’m a wild-eyed optimist,  my anger is subsiding about this tax compromise President Obama reached with republicans.  Here’s what makes this tax cut deal almost palatable:  The president was able to procure several important tax incentives for the unemployed, the poor, and the middle class–items republicans normally would rather kill before including in any legislation.  Some republicans in fact, are already complaining about giving too much ground.

This is not to say this compromise is not a capitulation; it is to a degree.  The president has repeatedly said that continuing tax cuts for the wealthy is irresponsibly bad tax policy, and balloons the deficit.  But to who’s benefit would a protracted tax battle be– especially when there is no guarantee Obama would secure anything for the middle class given democrats’ lame duck status in congress?

Democrats in the senate could not even muster the necessary votes to pass a stand-alone tax cut for the middle class.  The president’s leverage in this debate is tenuous at best.

Here’s where it can get interesting:  If President Obama uses this deal as a wedge to not only engage conservatives in frank, realistic discussions about deficit reduction– and sheds a bright light on their real plans to attack the debt– he will have won a major victory. Of course he has to offer his own concrete plans about reducing the debt also, but that goes without saying.

I wrote about George W. Bush’s hidden brilliance in crafting the tax cut time bomb scenario in 2003, a devious political play now playing itself out at democrats expense.  What if this is the Obama tax ruse for 2012?

We all know conservatives could care less about deficit reduction–but somehow, they’ve shifted the tide in their favor, without really proposing any way to address the issue.  This is the president’s opportunity to take control of the debate.  Let’s hope he knows what he’s doing.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Image via Wikipedia

Why are we having this debate about expiring tax cuts?  If conservatives initially wanted to keep taxes low, why would they proffer legislation–when they held the majority in congress and held the presidency–that was set to expire?  Would it not be in their best interests to permanently keep tax rates low, rather than take a political risk of butting heads with democrats about their expiration?

Did they plant a political tax time bomb, set to explode and back fire on democrats?  Bush economic policies have proved to be disastrous, resulting in the most devastating economic depression since the 1930′s.  Is it coincidence we’re having this tax fight in the midst of a recession?  Was this outcome predestined, determined by an economic council of Bush underlings, to divide and demoralize democrats and split the country?

A few things to ponder here:  I cannot believe the Bush economic team had the brain power– let alone the calculated foresight for such an endeavor.  Second, who could have predicted the ascension of Barack Obama to the presidency?  Did conservatives envision a democrat in the white house after Bush–and before authoring the tax laws in 2003?  Highly doubtful.

But what if they did spring the trap?  What if the conservative game plan began to change in the early 2000′s, where the name of the game became brokerism and not governance?  Perhaps they realized it was far better to splinter, than to lead with actual policy and programs.  Think about conservative platforms and policy now.  How much is about actual governance, and how much is about obstructionism, deflection, and ideological purity? Media Matters notes:

When the tax cuts were enacted, with an expiration date, Republicans and Bush officials understood the political advantages of the “fiscal time bomb” they were setting. As Kurtz puts it: “At some point in the way distant future, Democrats could be accused of raising taxes if they tried to undo the Bush breaks and return to Clinton-era levels of taxation.” Democrats understood this, too: Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) told the Washington Post at the time that “[Bush is] going to be out of office when the roof falls in.”

Maybe Bush was more clever than we all imagined.  His failed tax policies looks likely to be extended, and conservatives– in all likelihood– will have scored a major policy victory.  Democrats will be seen as wanting to raise taxes, and conservatives will be credited with preventing that scenario.

Another classic example of the republican tail wagging the  democratic dog.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Image via Wikipedia

It doesn’t get any more ridiculous than twisting historical facts, to foment and sustain a rabid, uncompromising position on taxes–or anything for that matter.  The republican party has done a phenomenal job riding their cresting wave of inactivity, and channeling voter angst into the chambers of power.  Now they’re using more misguided logic to buffer a confrontational stance with the president on extending the expiring George W. Bush tax cuts.

President Obama has promised to raise the marginal tax rate from 33 and 35% to 36, and 39.6% respectively– the same rates under Bill Clinton.  Bill Clinton created more jobs under this economic tax structure than any other modern era president.  In fact, under George W. Bush tax plans, the economy grew at a snail’s pace, as the expansion of payroll was a less than stellar 2.3%(The same rate that his father George H.W. Bush enjoyed.  Talk about irony)

Here’s a little tidbit about Ronald Reagan, the great tax cutter: During Ronald Reagan’s two terms, out of the  96 months Reagan was in office, only 13 of those months was the marginal tax rate LESS than %39.6%.  The final 13 months of Reagan’s presidency saw tax rates at 28%.   Reagan saw substantial job growth during his presidency, but it wasn’t necessarily because of a low tax rate–since that occurred at the end of his administration.  In fact, during Reagan’s first six years in office, the tax rate was no lower than 50%!  That sounds downright socialist to me.

What can we glean from this information?  A closer look into the tax debate unveils some truths that are not being made public, solely for the purposes of partisan fighting.  Sure some aspects of Obama’s tax plans will rattle some Americans, who may see nothing else but the government taking more slices of the pie.  But it’s hard to argue intelligently, if you’re not presented with all the facts, and most people have not been.

While conservatives bow their chests about not compromising on extending the Bush tax cuts, their arguments carry less weight, since they approach compromise from faulty assumptions to begin with. They should first read up on what the patriarch of their party really did with taxes, and not rely solely on the myth Reagan embodies.  Perhaps then they can approach the level of leadership they’re striving for.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

If Republicans sweep back into power, the clock starts to tick on their most pertinent “solution” to the economic crisis.  Are they going to be able to double speak?  Ezra illustrates the conundrum here:

It doesn’t help that you’ve been running off at the mouth for the past year and a half about extending all Bush tax cuts.  Sooner or later, you’re going to have to find a way to pay for them, lest you escalate a rapid increase in the deficit.  Unless you were never serious about your fiscal responsibility pledge in the first place.

If you want to lead, you have to make tough choices.  Save the feel-good rhetoric, and get serious.  Let’s see if they can.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The graph below indicates that deportation of illegal immigrants is at a higher point now than in the previous administration.  While George W. Bush used federal immigration officials effectively, the graph shows no appreciable shift in those tactics under the current administration.  In fact, President Obama is surpassing Bush numbers.   This seems to deflate a partisan talking point leveled by Bill Kristol, regarding the president’s reluctance to enforce the laws.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The nerve of this man!  How dare he show any level of comfort around these white men?  He’s clearly asserting his uppity-ness.   And in the people’s house no less!  Here’s more real down-home American invective from the above email:

Here, here sir!  Who does this ebon-skinned Kenyan think he is?  President?  What American leader would deign to impugn the sacred desk of Queen Victoria?

Oh.  I guess it’s okay to disgrace the office if you’re a white man.  So what is it?  Is it just pure hatred, or blatant racism?  I guess it’s both.

I don’t know who this person writing this ridiculous email is, but he doesn’t live in any America I live in.

This was just too good not to post.  Major hat tip to the mighty, mighty Wonkette.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

QUOTE OF THE DAY:

“We had no domestic attacks under Bush; we’ve had one under Obama.” -Rudy Giuliani on ABC’s Good Morning America.

…

Wow. The pathology of some of these wingnuts is astounding.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.