Confirmed: Obama’s 150,000 jobs claim proven false

Not surprisingly, the claim made by the White House that Obama’s stimulus (porkulus) bill has already produced or saved 150,000 jobs is totally bogus.

This tidbit of reality comes from FactCheck.org:

At President Obama’s April 29 news conference, he claimed that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has “already saved or created over 150,000 jobs.” Wait a minute. Isn’t the number of jobs actually plummeting?

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the economy lost more than 1.3 million jobs in the two months after he took office, and it has probably lost at least another half-million in April. The day after Obama spoke, the Department of Labor announced that another 631,000 workers (seasonally adjusted) had filed new claims for unemployment insurance the previous week.

So what 150,000 jobs was Obama talking about?

It turns out the president’s claim is really an estimate of what his economic advisers think the stimulus bill is doing, and not based on any evidence of its actual effects.

We asked the White House for substantiation of Obama’s claim, and a spokesman responded that the figure comes from a recent estimate by the Council of Economic Advisers. “Because the baseline for employment is obviously still strongly downward,” the spokesman told us, “the estimate does not mean that employment has risen by 150,000. Rather, it means that employment is 150,000 higher than it otherwise would have been.” He said the figure is an estimate of people hired to work directly on ARRA-funded projects, plus “jobs created by the tax cuts, aid to the states, and other parts of the ARRA.”

So when the president said his stimulus bill “already saved or created” those jobs, he was just giving an estimate produced by his own economic advisers at the White House. Furthermore, the jobs figure is based on projections done at the time ARRA was passed. Recipients of ARRA spending aren’t required to report until later what they’re doing with the money and how well it’s working, so there’s very little hard data on where the money is being spent, let alone how many jobs may have resulted from the legislation. The CEA incorporated some actual spending reports into its estimate, but that information is not complete.

So yet again, the claim that Obama’s stimulus bill is stimulating anything other than the size of government is disputed and cannot be proven. The facts are the facts, and in this case, they don’t even exist for the administration to make the claim of saving or adding 150,000 jobs from the stimulus legislation.

If Bush had made this claim, the media would be tearing it apart as skeptically as possible, which they should have. However, for Obama, they don’t even give so much as a yawn.

I love the definitive terms the White House uses such as “saved or created,” like they can claim it’s doing one or the other and hope they’re correct since they have no actual data to support that estimate.

Even still, just a rough estimate means that each one of these fictitious 150,000 jobs has cost about $6 million per job. Considering the amount of jobs still being lost, that seems pretty steep for jobs that don’t exist.

  • Bill Hedges

    In honor of Jack Kemp

    ” Every time this country in the 20th century has cut tax rates across the board, revenues went up, the economy grew. And I am surprised at this point in his career, that Vice President Gore and the President cannot understand that you get more revenue from a bigger pie.”

    “And clearly creating more jobs reduces the social welfare drain, clearly makes more opportunity for capital to be invested in our inner cities. And frankly, Al, we shouldn’t just tinker with the capital gain tax. We should eliminate it in the inner cities of America to put capital to work to make democratic capitalism and jobs available in our inner cities of the United States.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/10/us/excerpts-from-debate-between-vice-president-gore-and-jack-kemp.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/D/Debating&pagewanted=3

  • Bill Hedges

    July 19, 1996
    The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates
    by Daniel J. Mitchell, Ph.D.
    Backgrounder #1086

    “The economy’s sub-standard performance in recent years should come as no surprise. As seen below, major changes in tax policy inevitably affect growth.”

    “Across-the-board tax rate reductions in the 1920s reduced the top rate from 71 percent to 24 percent. The economy boomed, growing by 59 percent between 1921 and 1929.”

    “In 1930, Herbert Hoover raised tax rates from 25 percent to a maximum of 63 percent, and Franklin Roosevelt boosted them to 79 percent later in the decade. The 1930s, to put it mildly, are not remembered as one of the American economy’s better decades.2 ”

    “Across-the-board tax rate reductions introduced by President John F. Kennedy reduced the top rate from 91 percent to 70 percent. These lower rates, along with substantially lower taxes on savings and investment, are associated with the longest economic expansion in American history.3 ”

    “The Johnson surtax, enacted in 1968 during the administration of President Lyndon Johnson, combined with the inflation-induced bracket creep of the 1970s (subjecting taxpayers to higher rates even though their real incomes had not changed), resulted in a decade of stagflation.”

    “Reagan’s across-the-board tax cuts ushered in America’s longest peacetime expansion, helping to create 20 million new jobs and pushing incomes and living standards to record highs. ”

    “The tax rate increases imposed under George Bush and Bill Clinton, as outlined below, are associated with the slowest growing economy in 50 years and a decline of more than $2,000 in the average family’s income.
    If legislators want to unleash stronger growth and more prosperity, the best tax policy would be the flat tax. Under that proposal, all three major problems of the current tax code — high rates, anti-capital bias, and complexity — would be minimized. To the extent that politicians are reluctant to adopt a flat tax, however, any change that moved in the right direction would be helpful. If history is any guide, any tax rate reduction, whether a 15 percent across-the-board cut, a repeal of the Bush and Clinton tax hikes, or some other reform, would boost the economy and raise living standards.”

    Looking at Case Histories

    “The effect of tax rates on economic activity should not be overstated. The economy, after all, can be affected significantly by trade policy, regulatory policy, monetary policy, and many other government actions. Even within the context of fiscal policy, tax rates are not the only critical issue. Both the level of government spending and where that money goes are very important. And even when looking only at tax policy, tax rates are just one piece of the puzzle. If certain types of income are subject to multiple layers of tax, as occurs in the current system, that problem cannot be solved by low rates. Similarly, a tax system with needless levels of complexity will impose heavy costs on the productive sector of the economy.”

    “Keeping all these caveats in mind, there nonetheless is a distinct pattern throughout American history: Simply stated, when tax rates are reduced, the economy prospers, tax revenues grow, and lower-income citizens bear a lower share of the tax burden. Conversely, periods of higher tax rates are associated with subpar economic performance and stagnant tax revenues.”

    The 1920s

    “Under the leadership of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon during the Administrations of Presidents Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge, tax rates were slashed from the confiscatory levels they had reached in World War I. The Revenue Acts of 1921, 1924, and 1926 reduced the top rate from 73 percent to 25 percent.”

    “Spurred in part by lower tax rates, the economy expanded dramatically. In real terms, the economy grew 59 percent between 1921 and 1929, and annual economic growth averaged more than 6 percent.”

    “Notwithstanding (or perhaps because of) the dramatic reduction in tax rates, personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, rising from $719 million in 1921 to $1,160 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent (this was a period of no inflation).4”

    “The share of the tax burden borne by the rich rose dramatically. As seen in Chart 5, taxes paid by the rich (those making $50,000 and up in those days) climbed from 44.2 percent of the total tax burden in 1921 to 78.4 percent in 1928.”

    “This surge in revenue was no surprise to Mellon:

    “The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities or to find other lawful methods of avoiding the realization of taxable income. The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up; wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people.5”
    The 1960s

    “President Kennedy proposed a series of tax rate reductions in 1963 that resulted in legislation the following year dropping the top rate from 91 percent in 1963 to 70 percent by 1965.6 ”

    “The Kennedy tax cuts helped trigger the longest economic expansion in America’s history. Between 1961 and 1968, the inflation-adjusted economy expanded by more than 42 percent. On a yearly basis, economic growth averaged more than 5 percent.”

    “Tax revenues grew strongly, rising by 62 percent between 1961 and 1968. Adjusted for inflation, they rose by one-third.”

    “Just as in the 1920s, the share of the income tax burden borne by the rich increased. Tax collections from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.7 ”

    According to President Kennedy:

    “Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits. Surely the lesson of the last decade is that budget deficits are not caused by wild-eyed spenders but by slow economic growth and periodic recessions and any new recession would break all deficit records. In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.8 ”
    The 1980s

    “President Reagan presided over two major pieces of tax legislation which together reduced the top tax rate from 70 percent in 1980 to 28 percent by 1988.”

    “The economic effects of the Reagan tax cuts were dramatic. When Reagan took office in 1981, the economy was being choked by high inflation and was in the middle of a double-dip recession (1980 and 1982). The tax cuts helped pull the economy out of the doldrums and ushered in the longest period of peacetime economic growth in America’s history. During the seven-year Reagan boom, economic growth averaged almost 4 percent. ”

    “Critics charge that the tax cuts caused higher deficits, but they misread the evidence. The Reagan tax cut, though approved in 1981, was phased in over several years. As a result, bracket creep (indexing was not implemented until 1985) and payroll tax increases completely swamped Reagan’s 1.25 percent tax cut in 1981 and effectively canceled out the portion of the tax cut which went into effect in 1982. The economy received an unambiguous tax cut only as of January 1983. Thereafter, personal income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).”

    “Contrary to conventional wisdom, it was the “rich” who paid the additional taxes. The share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners jumped significantly, climbing from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax bill climb even more dramatically, from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988.9 ”

    “One of the chief architects of the Reagan tax cuts was then-U.S. Representative Jack Kemp (R-NY). According to Kemp:”

    “At some point, additional taxes so discourage the activity being taxed, such as working or investing, that they yield less revenue rather than more. There are, after all, two rates that yield the same amount of revenue: high tax rates on low production, or low rates on high production.10 ”
    The Lessons

    1)” Lower tax rates do not mean less tax revenue. ”

    The tax cuts of the 1920s”
    “Personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent (this was a period of virtually no inflation). ”

    The Kennedy tax cuts
    “Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation). ”

    The Reagan tax cuts
    “Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation). ”

    2) “The rich pay more when incentives to hide income are reduced. ”

    The tax cuts of the 1920s
    “The share of the tax burden paid by the rich rose dramatically as tax rates were reduced. The share of the tax burden borne by the rich (those making $50,000 and up in those days) climbed from 44.2 percent in 1921 to 78.4 percent in 1928.11 ”

    The Kennedy tax cuts
    “Just as happened in the 1920s, the share of the income tax burden borne by the rich increased following the tax cuts. Tax collections from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.12”

    The Reagan tax cuts
    “The share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners jumped significantly, climbing from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax bill climb even more dramatically, from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988.13 ”

    The 1990s: Ignoring the Lessons of the Past

    “Unlike reductions in tax rates, increases in tax rates have a history of failure. The Hoover and Roosevelt tax increases of the 1930s certainly contributed to the dismal economy during the Great Depression. Tax revenues fell during much of the period, and the deficit increased. And as Chart 11 shows, the high tax rates of the 1950s resulted in sluggish revenue growth. Ignoring history, both Democrats and Republicans at the time argued that tax rates reaching over 90 percent could not be cut for fear of revenue loss. Moreover, the 1970s, which began with the Johnson surtax and later were hit by bracket creep, triggered the tax revolt and the Reagan tax cuts. ”

    “Perhaps more than any other decade, however, the 1990s make the best argument against higher tax rates. In both 1990 and 1993, the economy was subjected to record tax increases, the ostensible purpose of which was to raise revenue to reduce the budget deficit. As Chart 12 illustrates, however, these increases backfired. Total tax revenue, as a percent of economic output, is expected to be lower this year than it was when Reagan left office.14 ”

    “Significantly, the modest decline in revenues relative to gross domestic product (GDP) is due to the slower growth in personal income tax revenues. As shown in Chart 12, individual income tax revenues totaled 8.6 percent of economic output in 1989. By 1996 — two large tax increases later — individual income tax revenues had fallen to 8.5 percent of economic output. In other words, the tax that was increased the most accounts for the drop in tax revenue as a share of national output. ”

    “High tax rates are bad for the economy. High tax rates that increase the deficit by reducing the growth of tax revenue are even worse. What makes recent history especially tragic is that the economic and budgetary losses could have been avoided if Bush and Clinton had simply kept Reagan’s policies in place. In 1989, the Congressional Budget Office projected that the budget deficit, which then was $152 billion, would continue to fall for the next five years assuming no change in Reagan’s policies. As of 1995 — again, two large tax increases later — the budget deficit had risen to $164 billion, and it is projected by the CBO to reach more than $400 billion by 2006 if Clinton’s policies are left in place. ”

    “The dismal budget numbers, however, tell only part of the story. The economy has been the real victim of higher tax rates. As Chart 13 shows, the post-Reagan era has seen the slowest growth of any seven-year period since the end of World War II. As discussed earlier, this slow growth has left people with more than $2,000 less income when inflation is taken into account. The biggest losers have been the poor. As Chart 14 illustrates, income for the bottom 20 percent has fallen the most during the Bush/Clinton era. The politicians who imposed the higher taxes, needless to say, argued that the rich would be the ones to suffer.”

    Conclusion

    “The economy is limping, incomes have been falling, tax revenues are stagnant, and it is projected that the deficit will more than double in the next ten years. This is the legacy of higher tax rates and a tax code that punishes working, saving, and investing. History shows clearly that the way to reverse this trend is to cut tax rates. Legislation to reduce rates would do this. Better still, Congress should scrap the current system as quickly as possible and replace it with a flat tax that treats all taxpayers equally and minimizes the burden on productive behavior. ”

    Endnotes:

    Congressional Budget Office, The Economic and Budget Outlook: Fiscal Years 1997-2006, May 1996.

    “It is important to note that tax policy is just one of the many ways government can influence the economy and should receive neither full credit nor full blame for how well the economy performs. In the 1930s, for instance, contractionary monetary policy and protectionist trade policy also contributed to the economy’s poor performance.”

    “The lower tax rates were phased in between 1964 and 1965. The lower taxes on capital went into effect in 1962.”

    http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg1086.cfm

  • Christopher Schwinger

    Who is “Ducky”?

    Birth Certificate – Ducky

    So how will the Obama supporters explain this? As another “unfounded smear”?

  • CS,

    You’re poking around where you don’t belong. I’d expect a thorough audit this year. Plus, the media will now begin investigating you for back-taxes because you dared question The One.

    Those are the kinds of coincidences we will never hear about, however, if Obama was a Republican he’d be crucified in the media for still not providing an original birth certificate and alleged photoshop frauds.

  • JD

    Man, You poor Republicans… you are always picked on. You poor Poor poor people.

    How ever will you go on? Stay strong Nate. We live in a country that is as fickle as the weather.

    Some one get these republicans a tissue.

    Christopher, Since you believe this birth certificate theory…does that mean you believe that Bush and the government are behind September 11th?

    I mean there is just as much evidence of that as there is with Obama’s birth certificate???

  • “How ever will you go on?”

    I don’t rely on the government to provide me a meaning to live like you do so it isn’t an issue.

    However, wouldn’t you agree that when “Joe the Plumber” questioned Obama, it was an invasion of privacy for Democrat officials in Ohio to pull up his tax records and other personal information to make it public? Had Republican officials done that you’d still be talking about the egregious invasion of privacy and I’d be agreeing with you.

    Then again, liberals only care about privacy when it’s concerning abortion or Bush’s terrorist surveillance program. If you’re outside of those issues, you are not entitled to privacy, especially if you question The One.

  • Bill Hedges

    Jd

    “Since you believe this birth certificate theory…does that mean you believe that Bush and the government are behind September 11th?”

    What does birth certifucate have to do with 911. Another funny ? A better funny is wasting all this money will create jobs ? PORK level is like 33-50 % for these unread bills passed.. Would be funny if per person debt wasn’t around $130,000.

  • JD

    Nate, Joe the plumber was scrutinized because he chose to step into the spot light and like most people the bright light exposed his shadows.

    Do I agree that he was scrutinized just because he spoke out? No, however, I recognize that we all scrutinize people we don’t agree with. Look at how you interrogate Obama. It is nature to do so.

    Still, Joe the plumber, owed taxes and turned out to be an idiot. His claim to fame and only smart question was asking Obama about his tax plan. Everything else about him was nothing more than a talking mouth that ran like a leaky faucet. But he did enjoy his 15 minutes of Fame.

    I’ll do my best to shed a tear for him. However, if you are trying to compare illegal wire taps and arrests as done according to the Bush era policies than it doesn’t even come close. Joe the plumber was hit on public records…unless, I am missing something.

  • “Still, Joe the plumber, owed taxes and turned out to be an idiot.”

    Wow, that says a lot about you. You’re calling him an “idiot” because he dared ask Obama a question on the street corner.

    Plus, how did he “choose” to step into the spotlight? Obama was walking in a neighborhood taking questions from the public. Joe asked a question. Why weren’t the other people who asked questions treated the same way? Your reasoning is bad.

    I thought higher of you before, I thought you’d defend him and his freedom of speech a little more but that’s interesting you simply trash him because you didn’t like his questioning.

    They were most certainly NOT public records, do your research. Furthermore, Ohio officials illegally accessed his records with no reason, which is against the law. They need some legal reason to do so and they had none other than he questioned Obama.

    Obama stepped into the spotlight to run for President, he deserves scrutiny and the media is supposed to give it to him.

    Joe the Plumber asked Obama a question and deserved none of the illegal invasion of privacy he was given in return.

    Standard liberal operating procedure. When someone asks a perfectly reasonable, valid question, you crucify them so nobody focuses on the bad answer.

    I’d think even you could wrap your head around that but I won’t hold my breath.

    Once again, privacy for liberals only applies in certain cases and you just proved it.

  • JD

    Nate… You get too worked up without properly reading.

    Firstly, Joe the plumber did put himself in the spot light when he CHOSE to join McCain’s campaign. Do you remember that? He was not scrutinized as you call it when he was just joe the plumber who asked a question. But when he stated saying that a vote for Obama is a vote against Israel and that Obama essentially hates the jewish nation.

    Secondly, I said that I was not aware of illegal information gathering. Since you say there is some I will believe that you know what you are talking until I can find it for myself. Do you have some links on the illegal information? Did anyone get prosecuted? For your information I do stand against illegal invasion into privacy.

  • Path

    “these unread bills passed”

    sounds a lot like the USA PATRIOT Act.

    Wurzelbacher is an idiot becouse everytime he opens his mouth something dumb leaks out. Like this gem:
    “I don’t think journalists should be anywhere allowed war” “I think media should be abolished from, uh, you know, reporting.”

    I pray every night for a Palin/Wurzelbacher 12′ ticket
    The Lulz would make it great

  • News on the illegal access of Joe’s records:

    http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/10/24/joe.html?sid=101

    Joe sued in March of 2009 on this issue:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/05/joe-the-plumber-sues-over_n_172250.html

    Note the following:

    The lawsuit names Helen Jones-Kelley, who resigned in December as director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, and two assistants.

    Ohio’s inspector general found that Jones-Kelley improperly used state computers to find personal information on Wurzelbacher, a Toledo-area man who rose to fame during the presidential campaign after asking Barack Obama about his tax plan.

    The Ohio inspector general found that they did violate the law and looked into his records illegally. That is illegal whether he joined McCain’s campaign or not.

    You all act like he was running for office. Newsflash, he wasn’t. He dared ask a question and he got trashed for it.

    However, you all think he’s an idiot so you don’t care. Pretty pathetic that you can’t stand up for individual privacy rights just because you disagree with a person politically. Very tolerant and open-minded of you.

  • Path

    It probably is illegal what the inspector general did. I haven’t read that closley to the details to be honest.

    But that doesn’t change the fact that this guy is not that smart. And its funny the Republicans take him seriously

  • Bill Hedges

    JD said_” if you are trying to compare illegal wire taps and arrests as done according to the Bush era policies than it doesn’t even come close”

    “Obama wants to grant himself MORE wiretapping of Americans, without a warrant AND WITHOUT GOING …”

    http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/01/obama-sides-wit/

  • Christopher Schwinger

    “Christopher, Since you believe this birth certificate theory…does that mean you believe that Bush and the government are behind September 11th?

    I mean there is just as much evidence of that as there is with Obama’s birth certificate???”

    Responding to JD:

    What I can say about the “911 truth” movement is that generally, hardcore Democrats like Keith Olbermann (who is a false patriot) are behind it, which says a lot about partisan politics. Obama’s birth certificate issue is hardly a “Republican smear”, though, for the one Obama’s camp released looks significantly different from the format of real ones issued in the 50s and 60s. If you’d like to see a comparison, click this link:
    http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=310

  • Christopher Schwinger

    Also, JD, I am not a Republican, because the Party talks about limiting government and fails to keep its word. I also do not support everything that Republican Presidents have done with foreign policy. So you cannot conclude that I am mentioning Obama’s birth certificate because I am from the opposite political party. (McCain’s nomination was the last straw for me with the Republican Party.)

  • Path

    What proof is there of obama’s birth certificate being fake? Do you think its a conspiracy that started when he was born and infected the state of hawaii into giving and backing a fake birthcertificate? Are the federal bush appointed (if i remember correctly)judges that have agreed with Obama also in on this scam?

  • Bill Hedges

    I haven’t had any laughts listening to Joe.

    Watching Obama speak when his promper breaks down or almost anytime with Biden. Latest concerning flu and going to Mexico and flying in plane. There’s a idiot…

  • Path

    Should I pull out the Bushisms book?

  • Bill Hedges

    How funny it is a President has to have soilders hand picked to have audiance while he gave his speach in Iraq. How insecure can you get…

  • Path

    Cite a truthfull sourece please 🙂

  • Bill Hedges

    Path

    You wish to be insulting, Insensitive in language(I will use term gay), and yesterday you add senile old man

    Maybe you would be a gentleman about it and say you are sorry. And will try to do better

  • Bill Hedges

    Path May 4th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
    “Cite a truthfull sourece please”

    I cited a link to my knowledge that was true, that you refer to.

    How is this my fault. Tell me..

    I do not see that I did anything wrong.

    Your refusal to say your sorry is your responsibility. So far, you have not owned up to your rudeness.

  • Christopher Schwinger

    “What proof is there of obama’s birth certificate being fake? Do you think its a conspiracy that started when he was born and infected the state of hawaii into giving and backing a fake birthcertificate? Are the federal bush appointed (if i remember correctly)judges that have agreed with Obama also in on this scam?”

    It probably didn’t start when Barack Obama was born, but the pressure on people to keep their traps shut has been growing since he started running for President. Have you read that reporter Jerome Corsi was arrested when he was researching Obama’s family while in Kenya? In addition, Wikipedia deleted the entire article about his birth certificate controversy. The Supreme Court probably has been bribed, threatened, or both; plus, more than half of the justices don’t care about the Constitution that we still technically have as our Law, for they say it’s “flexible” and “subject to interpretation” (kind of like people say about Scripture).

  • Path

    Nate,
    Read the first update on the hotair piece. “Allegedly.” Can you or anybody name the sergeant that sent the allegeded e-mail?

    Bill,
    “How is this my fault. Tell me.”
    Go watch the videos I’m about to post Obama coverage post. Fox reports a rumour as a fact then never corrects itself when the find it to be false. Its your fault because you blindly follow the line.

    Chris,
    Who keeps the pressure on all the people that had to be in on this lie? Have they killed anyone who tried to speak? Do you have any actual proof? Jerome Corsi is a 9/11 nut and thinks that oil can be produced forever. Why would the Supreme court be bribed? They have a guaranteed life time job with benifits. And if your like scalia you can make even more for making appearances for events. Or they could wright a book and make millions.

    “flexible and subject to interpretation” because we have over 200 years of laws and case law precedent. Thats how jurisprudence works.

    “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.” (Leviticus 25:44-45) Gee I can’t wait to get back to slavery!

  • Bill Hedges

    Nate, we are wrong. We don’t have the names of all the soilders and their signed statements. I guess it is ok for me to say liberals are junkies. Insulting is ok

  • Path

    When did I say you had to have signed statments from all the soilders? That entire story is based on a supposed e-mail from an unnammed sergeant. Thats not proof its a rumor

  • Bill Hedges

    Show my quote

    Where did I say you did ?

    There is lot more, but hey, you can’t read, you’re retarded. You open door to new lanuage. You not sorry.

  • Path

    “Nate, we are wrong. We don’t have the names of all the soilders and their signed statements.”

    Why bring it up if I didn’t ask it?

  • Bill Hedges

    This site was clean of insults when you came. You refuse to stop. I’ll testify every word that come out of your mouth and you write is word of God…Should please your ego or id.

    I don’t like bigots & degrading people. I told you what you could do to yourself after repeated insults by you. I’ll check site once a week to see if you are gone so I can come back

  • Path

    your just mad becasue your imaginary world is comming crashing down and you don’t want to accept it. You cannot provide proof for anything you say. I have. So instead you chose to ignore me. Hope to see you soon 🙂

  • Christopher Schwinger

    “Who keeps the pressure on all the people that had to be in on this lie? Have they killed anyone who tried to speak? Do you have any actual proof? Jerome Corsi is a 9/11 nut and thinks that oil can be produced forever. Why would the Supreme court be bribed? They have a guaranteed life time job with benifits. And if your like scalia you can make even more for making appearances for events. Or they could wright a book and make millions.”

    You have some good points there, Path, but being a 9/11 nut does not mean Corsi has nothing worth listening to. Perhaps Supreme Court members have been threatened with losing their positions if they take a stand on the birth certificate issue. The people who keep up the pressure are the people who own the mainstream media, which makes or breaks any political career. Wall Street crooks are part of that group.

  • Path

    No justice as ever been forced from office. They would have to be impeached (accused) by a majority vote of the U.S. House of Representatives and then convicted by a two-thirds vote of the Senate. Not going to happen anytime soon. In the beginning of the democrat primaries Obama was down 30 points to Hilary. He had the biggest political power at the time against him along with the media. It wasn’t till after he won Iowa did his coverage start to improve. But the media still tried to smear him. rezko, ayres, wright, his Muslim background, his birth certificate, and many more but none of them could hold.

  • Christopher Schwinger

    So Path, you don’t think Rezko, Ayers, or Wright are red flags? Who is a red flag, in your opinion?

  • Path

    The only one that comes close is Rezko.But I don’t think Obama realized all of what rezko was doing when he was raising money. I think working politics everyone is bound to run into some people who are not ethical or had a crazy past. Obama said “I consider this a mistake on my part and I regret it.” And last I knew dontated most of money associated to Rezko to various charitys. I have never heard him defend rezko recently
    And Obama doesn’t agree with any of their radical views. Do you think you should ignore everyone you disagree with like bill is doing? Or do you try to build a consensus?

  • Christopher Schwinger

    Path, what was your overall impression of Rev. Wright? Did his statement “God d— America” not seem outrageous to you? Also, do you know about Saul Alinsky and that he believed Satan should be honored and how he influenced the Clintons and Obamas?

  • Path

    Wright? He was a minister for 30 years doing good to the people of Chichgo. But then unfortanatly he has a couple 15 second clips that sound really bad. Then him going on tv didn’t help his cause at all he looked like a fool. But does that automatically erase 30 years of doing good and helping the poor?

    Watch the full sermon for yourself. I think he used bad words but the media also took it out of contex a little.

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6544376472317805809&ei=_XkASo7bFqH0-QGXt5y6Bg&q=wright+damn+america&hl=en&client=opera

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOdlnzkeoyQ

    BTW ABC was the one that broke this story. Damn liberal media!

  • Christopher Schwinger

    Path, Wright believes that Christianity is a struggle of black people overcoming white people, while Jesus taught that there is no superior ethnic group. How can you trust Obama when he’s been listening to that kind of stuff for years?

  • Bill Hedges

    Did I or anybody say ABC is always wrong

  • Path

    Unless you can cite something specifically I don’t think they want to be superior just equal. Wright is a man out of his time.

    Can you quote anything Obama has ever said tht he wants have a superior race?

  • Christopher Schwinger

    I have heard Obama say that his grandmother was a typical white person who was afraid of blacks and filled with religious “bigotry”. Wright believes in Black Liberation Theology, the idea that God’s kingdom will come through continual political dissention against members of another race.

  • Christopher Schwinger

    Path, do you know about Saul Alinsky and that he believed Satan should be honored and how he influenced the Clintons and Obamas?

  • Path

    I know Alinsky’s book Rules for Radicals. He was not an satanist though. Obama was 10 when he died. I think you need to stop drinking the kool-aid

    You have Obama’s quote way off and out of contex.

    “As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems”…

    …”I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.
    These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.”

  • Christopher Schwinger

    He may not have been a Satanist, but he respected any challenge to authority, and America was build on laws, not rebellion based on our own selfish whims. (And the War for Independence was not a selfish whim on our part.) Anyway, why do you suppose Obama praised his grandmother one time and criticized her as a white, gun-toting, Bible-thumping “typical white person” at another time?

  • Path

    its rebellion against unjustness. And always questioning the status quoe.

    Cite the speech. The one I quoted is the one most people say he threw her ‘under the bus’. But he loved her and I don’t think anyone is in the position to say otherwise

  • Christopher Schwinger

    I was unable to find the transcript, and you’ve probably heard what he said afterward (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxmEz8H33ZI). He might not have officially contradicted himself by saying he loved his grandmother AND that she was “racist”, but it is alarming to me that Obama still believes race is a major issue in America.

  • Path

    That guy is an idiot . Obama does not think all white people are racist. Remember he is half white himself. dDoes that make him a self hater?

    His grandmother was just from a different time. Race relations will take a long long time to get completley over. It may not still be a major issue but its still there. just not out in the open like it used to be.

    That speech is probably the best of his campaign if not his life. He made his points perfectly. You just have to watch the whole thing not sound bites. its only 30ish minutes.

  • Christopher Schwinger

    I don’t mean to sound like I’m grilling you, but I wonder what you think of the comment Michelle Obama made on the campaign trail about how she was proud of her country for the first time in her life as people were eager for change. Also, do you think there are certain principles that our leaders should always follow in order to keep our country strong?