Coming to a Supreme Court near you………….

President Obama tells CSPAN in an interview that a Supreme Court nominee announcement is coming soon.

He hopes that the nomination hearings will get underway in July before Congress goes on its summer recess so that whoever the nominee is, they have time to prepare for their new job.

Mr. Obama didn’t give any hints about who his pick might be, but talked about the qualities in a justice that important to him.

“In all these cases what I want is not just ivory tower learning. I want somebody who has the intellectual fire power, but also a little bit of a common touch and has a practical sense of how the world works.”

And as for picking a woman to the high court (something he is speculated to do), the President tells CSPAN that he’s not getting pressure to do so. The First Lady has told him to just pick whoever is right for the job.

“I don’t feel weighed down by having to choose a Supreme Court Justice based on demographics,” he says.

Just as long as the person is non-white, female, lesbian, handicapped,”mentally challenged”, Eskimo who grew up homeless, becuase some evil white man made her family pay rent for the place they rented. Whose father disappeared or went to jail and went to school on afirmative action and was in the bottom 1/4 of the class because those evil white people above her laid around and studied while she was forced to sell crack at night for meal money. Does that about cover it Mr. President? Because we all know, its not about what you know, its about gettin’ whitey back!

Wimpy,Wimpy,Wimpy……………….

STATEMENT FROM THE PRESIDENT REGARDING NORTH KOREA
Today, North Korea said that it has conducted a nuclear test in violation of international law.  It appears to also have attempted a short range missile launch.  These actions, while not a surprise given its statements and actions to date, are a matter of grave concern to all nations.  North Korea’s attempts to develop nuclear weapons, as well as its ballistic missile program, constitute a threat to international peace and security.  
By acting in blatant defiance of the United Nations Security Council, North Korea is directly and recklessly challenging the international community.  North Korea’s behavior increases tensions and undermines stability in Northeast Asia.  Such provocations will only serve to deepen North Korea’s isolation.  It will not find international acceptance unless it abandons its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.
The danger posed by North Korea’s threatening activities warrants action by the international community.  We have been and will continue working with our allies and partners in the Six-Party Talks as well as other members of the U.N. Security Council in the days ahead.

…And if you don’t stop, we are going to get together and say bad things about you. SO THERE! Naa, Na, Na Na Naa! And.and…..We WON’T feel your pain. and, and, my daddy can beat your daddy! Geez Mr. President. I think that really got Kim Jeong “mentally” Il crapping in his pants. Probably because he lost sphincter control from laughing hysterically. You couldn’t intimidate my 8 year old!!!

A Leader? A President? Commander-in-Chief? An Immature Response…

FoxNews Reports…..

Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons has been denied a meeting with President Obama when he is in town next week to attend a fundraiser for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid at the Colosseum at Caesars Palace. 

Gibbons, a Republican, had demanded a sit-down meeting following Obama’s controversial statement that companies shouldn’t book trips to Las Vegas if they have received federal bailouts and claims statements he made that were critical to Nevada and have caused economic damage to convention business and tourism business in the Silver State.

In a statement Gibbons put out Monday, the governor said Obama’s quote that “you can’t get corporate jets. You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayer’s dime” was seen by many as an insult to Las Vegas and as a message to companies across the nation to stay away from Las Vegas for corporate meetings and conventions.

The Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority reports over 400 conventions and business meetings scheduled to take place in Las Vegas recently have cancelled, translating into 111,800 guests and 250,000 “room-nights,” according to a statement from Gibbons. The cancelled events cost the Las Vegas economy over $100 million, not including gaming revenue, the governor said.

“I am disappointed at the hypocrisy shown by this administration,” Gibbons said. “President Obama is coming to Las Vegas later this month for a political fundraiser, but he will not help the struggling families in Las Vegas and Nevada who are out of work because of his reckless comments. 

“President Obama is coming to Las Vegas to raise campaign cash for Senator Harry Reid, apparently our money is good enough for the president, but our tourism, jobs and economic future are not. This is politics, pure and simple, President Obama stood for change, but all he has done is brought negative economic change to Nevada.”

Gibbons is calling upon Reid to use any influence he might have to ask Obama to encourage Americans to visit America during their summer vacations this year.

“Sometimes Washington politicians forget that the people of Nevada are Americans,” Gibbons said. “This president needs to repair the damage he has done.”

A sitting President refusing to meet with a Governor when visiting that Governor’s state is a “slap in the face” and shows that the President doesn’t understand, or care, about how this nation works. It makes me wonder if he REALLY thinks all things flow from him? HE is the center of the universe? Sad he can be so childish. sadder still, we made him President.

The Nortre Dame speech………….

             Just a few thought on the speech the President gave at Notre Dame University over the weekend. I find it quite curious that his “saviour-ness” felt compelled to give a commencement at a Catholic university and discuss abortion in the speech. Granted, there were people who expressed reservations that he were even invited to speak considering is views were contrary to the Church’s view. I, personally, think that the protesters should NOT have mentioned it.I understand how “heated” some are on this topic. With that said, you would think that the President would not state those views there. WHY, WHY, WHY, do we need to talk about abortion at a commencement speech? It makes no sense UNLESS you WANT to cause a problem OR you are so full of yourself that you DEMAND submission on the issue. You would expect a president—a diplomat, to be just that. But, not this president! He is too busy wanting to be Emperor!

NOEL SHEPPARD: The Media’s So Biased It Isn’t Funny!

By Noel Sheppard
Associate Editor, Newsbusters.org

Years from now, the week of May 4, 2009, may be remembered as when it became crystal clear to even the most liberal Americans the media are so biased it isn’t funny.

The week innocently began with a Los Angeles Times entertainment reporter addressing how comedians are still afraid to make jokes about Barack Obama.

Having possibly read the piece, “Late Show” host David Letterman on Thursday tried to remedy the situation by having one of his writers feebly attempt to poke fun at the new President.

NOEL SHEPPARD: The Media’s So Biased It Isn’t Funny!

 

 

“Barack Obama is so dumb, when he was Governor of Texas, someone asked him what the capital of Texas is, and he said, ‘Capital T.’”

Thus began a string of supposed Obama jokes intentionally missing the mark and, instead, bashing former President George W. Bush.

Badumbumbum!

Whether this was life imitating art or vice versa is irrelevant, for one of America’s favorite funnymen was coming right out and admitting he’s just not ready to say anything against the new White House resident even in jest.

Unfortunately, the really bad jokes were right around the corner, for when the Labor Departmentannounced the following day employers had shed 539,000 workers from their payrolls in April, the Obama-loving media actually reported it as good news.

We really are in Camelot now.

Not only are you forbidden to make jokes about the new king, errr, president, but all news, no matter how bad, must now be reported as good.

Tourists planning a vacation to our nation’s capital this summer should also be pleased to know that from this point forward, July and August cannot be too hot.

Of course, Washington, D.C., wasn’t always such a congenial spot, for when it was announced only five months ago the economy lost 533,000 jobs in November, the press viewed it as so cataclysmic it was necessary for all Americans to immediately support president-elect Obama’s stimulus plan or suffer the most dire of economic and financial consequences.

So it came to pass that virtually the same exact economic data hailed as apocalyptic when Bush was president was now a sign the economy is improving.

Yet, this shouldn’t be at all surprising, for the media never wanted to admit things were ever good during Bush the Second’s reign.

First, his recovery was “jobless.” Then, it wasn’t producing enough new hires to keep up with the growth in the labor force.

Finally, when unemployment really began declining in his second term to levels rarely seen in the post-World War II era, the media claimed the jobs created were all low-paying or part-time.

What a difference an “O” makes, for now that a man the press adore is in the White House, over a half million Americans can lose their jobs in a month, and it’s a sign things are getting better.

As one of my readers marvelously quipped last Friday, for eight years the press bemoaned the emptiness of the full glass, and now they are praising the fullness of the empty glass.

Makes you wonder what’s going to happen when the recession really ends, and the first report showing an increase of even one job is released.

They’ll probably throw Obama a parade which certainly won’t be inconvenienced by inclement weather for rain isn’t allowed to fall till after sundown now.

In anticipation of this event, comedienne Wanda Sykes has already been booked as the Mistress of Ceremonies.

I know it sounds a bit bizarre, but that’s how conditions are.

Noel Sheppard is associate editor of the Media Research Center’s NewsBusters.org. He welcomes feedback at nsheppard@newsbusters.org.                                                                                                                                                                                       It is amazing how the “touchy-feely” party has created this “air” about it that you no longer feel you can exercise your right to free speech. I think it behooves us to go out of our way to purposely do things to make fun of our president just so nobody gets the idea that we can’t. Remember, the title of this blog………..

Political Correctness or Just Stupid Liberals?

by The Associated Press

Monday May 11, 2009, 3:51 PM

NEWARK — A former student claims in a lawsuit that the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey discriminated against him for the way he described his background in classroom discussions on cultural diversity.

Paulo Serodio said that in 2006, he told a professor and classmates that he was “white, African, American,” which he says accurately reflects the fact that he was born in Mozambique but later became a U.S. citizen.

He said some classmates and staff members at New Jersey Medical School found it offensive that a Caucasian man would call himself “African-American” and that the fallout led to harassment and eventually his suspension from the school.

Serodio, who lives in Newark, said some school employees and students told him not to describe himself as “African-American.” In the aftermath of his comments, flyers were hung around the school mocking him, he was assaulted and his car was vandalized, Serodio said

His lawyer, Gregg Zeff, said Serodio eventually was suspended for “conduct unbecoming” a student.

The suspension came directly from his remarks in class, Zeff said.

Serodio filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Newark on Monday. He is seeking damages from the university and several faculty members and administrators.

University spokesman Jeffrey Tolvin said he could not comment because the university had not seen the lawsuit.

This idiocy, I shamefully say, is from my home state of New Jersey. This is symptomatic of the liberal takeover there. How brain-dead can any group be? Or is it, the covert racism that being “politically correct” really is? So, does this mean my youngest son, born in the Philippines, whose mother(my wife)being Chinese-Filipino, is no longer Filipino or Chinese because he looks like Dad? Or my older children are no longer part Indian (my ex-wife being decendant from people that came originally from,  Madras, India) because, they too, look like Dad?

The “Demo-phonies” Do it Again!

Comedian Wanda Sykes pulled no punches as she skewered conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh at the  White House Correspondents’ Dinner — but her morbid cracks set some guests’ cringe-meters off the charts. 

Sykes accused Limbaugh of treason, compared him to Usama bin Laden and wished for his physical collapse as she roasted the favorite target of liberals Saturday night at the Washington Hilton.

“Rush Limbaugh said he hopes this administration fails, so you’re saying, ‘I hope America fails,’ you’re like, ‘I don’t care about people losing their homes, their jobs, our soldiers in Iraq.’ He just wants the country to fail. To me, that’s treason,” Sykes said. 

“He’s not saying anything differently than what Usama bin Laden is saying,” she continued, before addressing the guest of honor, President Obama. “You know, you might want to look into this, sir, because I think maybe Rush Limbaugh was the 20th hijacker. But he was just so strung out on OxyContin he missed his flight.” 

The crowd groaned, Obama smiled and Sykes may have noticed a little discomfort in the room.

“Too much?” she asked. 

But then she piled it on: 

“Rush Limbaugh, ‘I hope the country fails’ — I hope his kidneys fail, how about that? … He needs a good waterboarding, that’s what he needs.” 

Obama joined the crowd in laughing at the crack about Limbaugh’s “kidneys.”  

But White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs suggested Monday that Sykes’ bit was considered in poor taste. 

“I don’t know how guests get booked,” Gibbs told reporters. “I haven’t talked to the president (about it), but my guess is there are a lot of topics that are better left for serious reflection, rather than comedy — I think there’s no doubt that 9/11 is part of that.”

After the appearance, conservatives bellowed that Sykes was way over the line. “Mean-spirited,” “hateful” and “disgusting” were just a few of the words used by conservative bloggers and commentators to describe the performance. 

“This woman comes up and says, ‘I hope Rush Limbaugh dies,’ and everybody giggles,” said Tim Graham, director of media analysis with the Media Research Center. 

National Review columnist Jonah Goldberg called it “particularly awful.” 

Sykes’ publicist was not immediately available for comment.

Some critics said there was a double standard employed for conservative and liberal jokesters, pointing out that golf announcer David Feherty apologized over the weekend for his column in which he joked about U.S. troops wanting to kill House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. 

Feherty’s line drew heavy attention from the liberal group Media Matters and earned him a “worst person in the world” dubbing by MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann. 

Graham said the relatively low-key coverage of Sykes’ joke in mainstream media underscores the “slanted take on what’s hateful and what’s not.” 

“When a conservative says it, it’s an utter outrage. And when a liberal says it, it’s a knee-slapper,” he said. 

An editor with Britain’s Daily Telegraph who was at the dinner wrote that liberals will give Sykes a pass, since her target was a right-wing talk show host. And he marveled at Obama’s response. 

“That’s way, way beyond reasoned debate or comedy and Obama’s reaction to it was astonishing,” wrote Toby Harnden. “Imagine if a comedian ‘joked’ that Obama was a terrorist who was guilty of treason and should be tortured and allowed to die. There would justifiably be an outcry.”

Again, we can plainly see, the party that “feels your pain” has taken it upon itself to show that it is nothing but a bunch of spoiled children lashing out at anyone who dare to criticize or contradict them. They, once again, show all the name calling the do to the Republicans, is really what the really are themselves. Mean-spirited”? Hateful? Racist? All Demo-phony traits. Now remember……..you can’t say anything bad about anyone with the following exceptions……………………….

1. Republican
2. White
3. Male
4. Heterosexual
5. Christian
6. Conservative
7. Patriotic
8. Capitalist
9. Middle Income or Higher(unless you are a member of the Demo-phony party)
10. Believe government should not be intrusive

President, Savior, or Godfather?

 

JOHN LOTT: Thugs In the White House

By John R. Lott, Jr.

Senior Research Scientist, University of Maryland/Author, Freedomnomics.

So much for any hope that the government would uphold rules and abiding by contracts. Instead, we keep getting examples of something else –  that when President Obama fails to persuade firms to follow his wishes, he does not hesitate to use threats of financial destruction.

Cliff Asness, the co-founder of the $20 billion hedge fund AQR Capital Management, laid bare the latest attacks with an open letter on Wednesday:

“The President screaming that the hedge funds are looking for an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout is the big lie writ large. Find me a hedge fund that has been bailed out. Find me a hedge fund, even a failed one, that has asked for one. In fact, it was only because hedge funds have not taken government funds that they could stand up to this bullying. The TARP recipients had no choice but to go along.”

This is just the latest in a string of intimidating tactics starting with threatening costly public audits to get compliance.  Then there were the threats of firing CEOs who had the audacity to oppose government plans.  The very latest is threats to use “ the full force of the White House press corps [to] destroy [the firm Perella Weinberg’s] reputation” if it resisted the government stealing their money, according to Thomas Lauria who represented the firm up until last week.  ABC News’s Jake Tapper reports that Mr. Steven Rattner, the head of the auto task force, made the threat.

The White House has been pushing hard to nationalize the automobile companies.  While bondholders and the government have loaned similar amounts each to GM and Chrysler, the White House feels that the government should get 50 percent ownership of GM and the creditors about 10 percent.

The Wall Street Journal reports that unions are also being given stock that should be going to the creditors – 39 percent of GM and 55 percent of Chrysler.

Most of the financial institutions holding these bonds have gone along with Obama’s nationalization of the car companies for a simple reason -– the government has already nationalized them and they do the government’s bidding.  As ABC News and the Wall Street Journal note: JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, and Goldman Sachs have been given up to $100 billion by the government.  The irony is that the Feds gave these financial institutions money because they were hemorrhaging financially and now the government orders these same institutions to throw away money and take loses that no private company would voluntarily do.  Not surprisingly, with this waste, there is talk that Citigroup may need another $10 billion from the government.

As we have pointed out previously here, the government only obtained ownership of many financial institutions through threats of imposing unnecessary costly public audits and replacing disobedient CEOs with political cronies willing do Obama’s bidding.

Yet, there are financial institutions that the government still has not gotten control over, and they are fighting this wave of nationalization.  So how does the Obama administration control these financial institutions that have avoided being forced to take government bailouts?  Why, of course, their standard method: threats.  According to lawyer Thomas Lauria in an interview with Frank Beckman on WJR radio, one of his former clients “was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under the threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight. That’s how hard it is to stand on this side of the fence.”

Not surprisingly, as the financial institutions did not cave in, President Obama then followed through his promise and attacked these creditors.  During his announcement of Chrysler filing for bankruptcy, he warned, “While many stakeholders made sacrifices and worked constructively, I have to tell you some did not.”  Despite the financial institutions offering to give up 50 percent of their bonds value, Obama claimed: “They were hoping that everybody else would make sacrifices, and they would have to make none.”  The New York Times and other media have joined in on this attack.

One consequence of the president singling out these creditors is that The Detroit News reported on Monday that some have received death threats and that the threats has been turned over to the FBI.

Finally, we can’t help note that Rattner seems the perfect person to play the enforcer role.  In April, The Wall Street Journal reported that Mr. Rattner’s former private-equity firm, Quadrangle Group, is the target of a long-running pay-to-play investigation.  Mr. Rattner wasn’t named in the SEC complaint, but The Journal reported that Rattner was “the senior Quadrangle executive the complaint identifies as meeting with a politically connected consultant about a finder’s fee, which Quadrangle later paid after receiving an investment from the New York fund.”

Of course, the administration denies that it has threatened Chrysler’s creditor.  This from an administration that denies Obama bowed to the Saudi King despite it being on video tape.

Some creditors, such as Perella Weinberg Partners, have already given in to the president’s threats over Chrysler.  But breaking contracts through thuggish threats makes investment riskier and increase the costs as much as any big tax increase.  Driving investment overseas is not the way to make America wealthier.

John Lott is a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland and the author of Freedomnomics.  John Lott’s past pieces for FOX News can be found here and here.

JOHN LOTT: Thugs In the White House

By John R. Lott, Jr.

Senior Research Scientist, University of Maryland/Author, Freedomnomics.

So much for any hope that the government would uphold rules and abiding by contracts. Instead, we keep getting examples of something else –  that when President Obama fails to persuade firms to follow his wishes, he does not hesitate to use threats of financial destruction.

Cliff Asness, the co-founder of the $20 billion hedge fund AQR Capital Management, laid bare the latest attacks with an open letter on Wednesday:

“The President screaming that the hedge funds are looking for an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout is the big lie writ large. Find me a hedge fund that has been bailed out. Find me a hedge fund, even a failed one, that has asked for one. In fact, it was only because hedge funds have not taken government funds that they could stand up to this bullying. The TARP recipients had no choice but to go along.”

This is just the latest in a string of intimidating tactics starting with threatening costly public audits to get compliance.  Then there were the threats of firing CEOs who had the audacity to oppose government plans.  The very latest is threats to use “ the full force of the White House press corps [to] destroy [the firm Perella Weinberg’s] reputation” if it resisted the government stealing their money, according to Thomas Lauria who represented the firm up until last week.  ABC News’s Jake Tapper reports that Mr. Steven Rattner, the head of the auto task force, made the threat.

The White House has been pushing hard to nationalize the automobile companies.  While bondholders and the government have loaned similar amounts each to GM and Chrysler, the White House feels that the government should get 50 percent ownership of GM and the creditors about 10 percent.

The Wall Street Journal reports that unions are also being given stock that should be going to the creditors – 39 percent of GM and 55 percent of Chrysler.

Most of the financial institutions holding these bonds have gone along with Obama’s nationalization of the car companies for a simple reason -– the government has already nationalized them and they do the government’s bidding.  As ABC News and the Wall Street Journal note: JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, and Goldman Sachs have been given up to $100 billion by the government.  The irony is that the Feds gave these financial institutions money because they were hemorrhaging financially and now the government orders these same institutions to throw away money and take loses that no private company would voluntarily do.  Not surprisingly, with this waste, there is talk that Citigroup may need another $10 billion from the government.

As we have pointed out previously here, the government only obtained ownership of many financial institutions through threats of imposing unnecessary costly public audits and replacing disobedient CEOs with political cronies willing do Obama’s bidding.

Yet, there are financial institutions that the government still has not gotten control over, and they are fighting this wave of nationalization.  So how does the Obama administration control these financial institutions that have avoided being forced to take government bailouts?  Why, of course, their standard method: threats.  According to lawyer Thomas Lauria in an interview with Frank Beckman on WJR radio, one of his former clients “was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under the threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight. That’s how hard it is to stand on this side of the fence.”

Not surprisingly, as the financial institutions did not cave in, President Obama then followed through his promise and attacked these creditors.  During his announcement of Chrysler filing for bankruptcy, he warned, “While many stakeholders made sacrifices and worked constructively, I have to tell you some did not.”  Despite the financial institutions offering to give up 50 percent of their bonds value, Obama claimed: “They were hoping that everybody else would make sacrifices, and they would have to make none.”  The New York Times and other media have joined in on this attack.

One consequence of the president singling out these creditors is that The Detroit News reported on Monday that some have received death threats and that the threats has been turned over to the FBI.

Finally, we can’t help note that Rattner seems the perfect person to play the enforcer role.  In April, The Wall Street Journal reported that Mr. Rattner’s former private-equity firm, Quadrangle Group, is the target of a long-running pay-to-play investigation.  Mr. Rattner wasn’t named in the SEC complaint, but The Journal reported that Rattner was “the senior Quadrangle executive the complaint identifies as meeting with a politically connected consultant about a finder’s fee, which Quadrangle later paid after receiving an investment from the New York fund.”

Of course, the administration denies that it has threatened Chrysler’s creditor.  This from an administration that denies Obama bowed to the Saudi King despite it being on video tape.

Some creditors, such as Perella Weinberg Partners, have already given in to the president’s threats over Chrysler.  But breaking contracts through thuggish threats makes investment riskier and increase the costs as much as any big tax increase.  Driving investment overseas is not the way to make America wealthier.

John Lott is a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland and the author of Freedomnomics.  John Lott’s past pieces for FOX News can be found here and here.

Do you think the President saw too many episodes of “The Sopranos”?  Does he think he is “Don Corelone”? Or is he the next John Gotti. Either way, he is acting anything but presidential.

U.S. Government Funds $400,000 Study on Gay Sex in Argentina Bars

FoxNews reports……..

Government researchers are spending more than $400,000 in taxpayer money to hit the bars in Argentina.

The National Institutes of Health are paying researchers to cruise six bars in Buenos Aires to find out why gay men engage in risky sexual behavior while drunk — and just what can be done about it.

Doctors and specialists from the New York Psychiatric Institute are using the generous grant from NIH’s National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism to help tailor HIV prevention programs to work at bars and clubs.

Though public health officials say that HIV/AIDS rates are higher in Washington, D.C., than in some parts of West Africa, U.S. government funds are going to help curb dangerous liaisons in Argentina’s capital.

The study began in September 2008, according to anonline abstract, and has already cost taxpayers $198,776, NIH documents show.

“Targeting public venues in Buenos Aires where men meet, alcohol is consumed and sexual behavior occurs,” the project’s overview explains, “the goal of this 2-year exploratory study is to understand the various factors that contribute to the creation of a high risk sexual space.”

That means NIH researchers will have as many as 730 nights on the town for careful observation and interaction.

“To that end, the study seeks to describe the relative contribution of physical characteristics of the place” — social scientists call this the “vibe” — and other factors like “patron characteristics” and “social dynamics” that can lead to risky behavior when mixed with a few parts alcohol.

NIH officials say the study is doing valuable work to address high HIV infection rates among homosexual men in Argentina, and that plans developed there could be translated for use in the United States and elsewhere.

Researchers plan to interview dozens of bar patrons and proprietors to help develop the on-site intervention programs — and they mean to be exact.

“Venue patrons will also undergo a brief quantitative assessment to gather descriptive data on sexual behavior and substance use among this sample,” the study’s abstract reads.

In layman’s terms, that means they’re asking drinkers to keep tabs on their quaffs and their quarry; fortunately for their more modest subjects, it’s not a qualitative test too.

Because the study is promoting venue-based prevention programs, researchers will have to be exact about the bars they visit in the city of 13 million, taking special care to describe the them “in terms of their physical characteristics, alcohol availability, patron characteristics and sexual behavior that occurs in the venue.”

An NIH official said that funds approved for the project include $275,000 for direct costs and an additional $125,000 in indirect costs, but would not elaborate. Though FOXNews.com could not confirm the median price of cervezas in Buenos Aires, that should leave a lot of money for tips.

So, now we see some of the things we are getting for the $25 Trillion debt. It is bad enough that we are spending this money on this endeavour but, to spend it in Argentina? Does this make sense to anybody? Can somebody, at least, inform the President we have homosexuals in the United States too? You remember them Mr. President, they were the ones campaigning for you.

President Obama’s troubling mantra: In debt, we trust

BY RICHARD HENRY LEE

It is no surprise that President Obama supports unprecedented spending and borrowing in the federal budget since he has never suffered any consequences from the excessive spending and borrowing in his private life.

And I’m not just talking about the First Lady’s $540 sneakers.

A close examination of their finances shows that the Obamas were living off lines of credit along with other income for several years until 2005, when Obama’s book royalties came through and Michelle received her 260% pay raise at the University of Chicago. This was also the year Obama started serving in the U.S. Senate.

During the presidential primary campaign, Michelle Obama complained how tough it was to make ends meet. During a stop in Ohio, she said, “I know we’re spending – I added it up for the first time – we spend between the two kids, on extracurriculars outside the classroom, we’re spending about $10,000 a year on piano and dance and sports supplements and so on and so forth.”

Let’s examine how tough things were for this couple using various public records.

In April 1999, they purchased a Chicago condo and obtained a mortgage for $159,250. In May 1999, they took out a line of credit for $20,750. Then, in 2002, they refinanced the condo with a $210,000 mortgage, which means they took out about $50,000 in equity. Finally, in 2004, they took out another line of credit for $100,000 on top of the mortgage.

Tax returns for 2004 reveal $14,395 in mortgage deductions. If we assume an effective interest rate of 6%, then they owed about $240,000 on a home they purchased for about $159,250.

This means they spent perhaps $80,000 beyond their income from 1999 to 2004.

The Obamas’ adjusted gross income averaged $257,000 from 2000 to 2004. This is above the threshold of $250,000 which Obama initially used as the definition of being “rich” for taxation purposes during last year’s election campaign.

The Obama family apparently had little or no savings during this period since there was virtually no taxable interest shown on their tax returns.

In 2003, they reported almost $24,000 in child care expenses and, in 2004, about $23,000. They also paid about $3,400 in household employment taxes each year. And as Michelle stated, they spent $10,000 a year on “extracurriculars” for the children.

These numbers clearly show the Obamas were living beyond their means and they might have suffered financially during the decline in housing prices had they relied on taking ever larger amounts of equity from their home to pay the bills.

But in 2005, Obama’s book sales soared and the royalties poured in. Michelle explained, “It was like Jack and his magic beans.”

Without those magic beans, the Obama family would have eventually suffered the consequences of too much debt.

Obama’s penchant for borrowing in his private life carries over to his public life.

He gave the Congress virtually free rein in writing the huge stimulus bill. He had no reservations whatsoever about the country assuming so much debt. Other Presidents have tried to work out compromises on spending measures since it is ultimately the President who takes responsibility for the consequences.

Obama did make a feeble attempt to control spending when he announced that his cabinet had found ways to reduce federal spending by $100 million. But this is laughable. Compared to an estimated $3.6 trillion federal budget, it is a minuscule 0.0028%.

To put this into the context of the Obamas’ income for 2004 of $207,647, this savings works out to $5.77, or about the price of an arugula salad.

President Obama has never faced consequences in his private life when it comes to managing money. He always had enough money simply by borrowing more and more. And just when things got tight, those magic beans came along to save the day.

But as a nation, we cannot base our future on the hope that some day Jack and those magic beans will also save the rest of us.

Lee, writing under a pseudonym, is an elected official in California. Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/05/04/2009-05-04_president_obamas_mantra_in_debt_we_trust.html#ixzz0EXeuptWB

Well, I know all you “kool-aid” drinkers out there will call me every vile name in the book but, YOUR president is a financial disaster who needs to be stonewalled until we can LEGALLY remove him from office. I want to make that point clear—LEGALLY REMOVED FROM OFFICE. I do not want any misunderstandings or insinuations otherwise. I DO NOT WANT anybody thinking I am calling for violence or any physical harm to our President. We WILL be driven into a depression by this man–NO DOUBT! He is not FDR, he is Jimmy Carter on steroids. Unfortunately, there isn’t another “Gipper” out there to save us.