Category Archives: Congress

Tea Party calls conservative talk host Mark Levin “The Great Enabler” of Obama

Mark Levin

Mark Levin, The Great One?

By Dwight Kehoe, editor of TPath.org (Tea Party Advocate)
March 4, 2015

Several years ago Mark Levin, tagged by Hannity as The Great One, was offered and then accepted a full time gig doing a “conservative” talk show on the ABC radio network and affiliates.  He began that job not as the Great One, but as the Great Enabler.  He may have been told that it was not in his best interest nor the best interest of the network to discuss the eligibility of Barack Islam Obama relating to Article II or any aspect of his credentials which might actually prevent an illegal presidency.

Can we prove that he was given this conditional requirement?   No, but there are numerous instances from many ex-employees of the national radio and TV networks who have denied that order was ever given to them, until that is, they no longer worked for them.  These personalities fervently  refused to admit this ever happens.  One quite famous individual who also denied this fact while working for FOX has now admitted that he was prevented from speaking of several issues.

Even though this gentleman has not admitted that the “off limit subject” related to Obama, coincidentally enough this guy finds himself in the same sinking ship of fools as the Great Enabler. Both are now struggling to keep their integrity afloat, frantically bailing the birther issue and the messengers of it, overboard.

As the evidence against Obama becomes more pronounced, so too does the boiling anger of the Great Enabler which he directs at those who have been warning this country about Obama from the very beginning.  Those who have refused to be cowed, refused to forsake the Constitution and the rule of law have now become a bigger enemy to Mark Levin, than the illegal usurper.

We can be fair and suppose that when Levin agreed to ignore these issues, if he indeed did agree, that early on he was too busy impressing Hannity with his greatness to have had the time to look into the reality of the Obama saga.  Then, after having adopted and implemented such a nasty stance, it would have taken a true Great One to admit he was wrong.  But alas, the Great Enabler prevailed.

He understands now that his early acquiescence and his subsequent denial and cover up will implicate him, the self proclaimed constitutional scholar, as one of many selfish actors who have aided and abetted the destruction of our country. He smothers his personal guilt under the cover of belittlement of those who know he has failed us.

Once again this past week, after exiling a patriot form the call in phone line, the Great Enabler said this:

“You have to call this show about the birth certificate? Oh that’s been really effective. It has failed in every court. The birth certificate…with all the problems we have with this President, that’s all you have?”

That statement is of course as ignorant and deceptive as any Obama could have uttered.  Actually however, it was not a statement, but a series of questions.  He offered them rhetorically and with his typical sarcasm.  They must have been rhetorical because he hung up on the patriot before he could answer.

So, Mr. Levin, we would like to take a minute and answer them and as with many questions like that, yours have elicited several questions of their own.  No one will hang up on you before you can answer them.  It will take courage to honestly answer, so we hope you don’t mind if we don’t hold our breath while waiting.

First we answer your questions:

Q – “You have to call this show about the birth certificate?
A – Are you not the supposed Constitutional expert?  Who should I have called, Eric Holder?

Q – “That’s really been effective?”
A –  No it has not been effective because everyone in this country who could have made a difference and made it effective, put their careers ahead of the future of  America.

Q- “With all the problems we have with this (President/ Usurper), that’s all you have?
A – Real world to the Great Enabler,  if you and your ilk had of done your job, worked with the Birther Patriots, all of the problems this country has now, would never have been.  Barack Islam Obama would be back with his communist  gangster comrades in Chicago and not in Washington DC endangering the entire world.

Now a few questions of our own:

1.  Are you not aware that the Founding Fathers, after much discussion and communication between George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and John Jay, amended Article II to include the  “Natural Born Citizen” requirement?

2.  Have you not read any of the Federalist Papers and other writings where they stated many times that legal terms they use were based upon Vattell’s work, The Law of Nations?

3.  Did you never take the time to find out that, according to the Founders, Obama would not qualify as a Natural Born Citizen, regardless of where you “think” he was born?

4.  Did you ever consider looking at all those court cases you claim have been adjudicated in favor of Obama?  Did you not see that none of them ruled or affirmed Obama’s eligibility on fact, but supposition by the judges?

5.  Did you notice that all the cases otherwise ruled, that those bringing the case had no standing?  No standing is the answer all progressive judges use when they can’t produce evidence to support a decision they have been ordered to make.  No standing now  describes your standing with real constitutional conservatives.

6.  Did you happen to notice that there are errors on Obama’s birth certificate which can only be explained by it being a forgery?  The  youngsters who dominate the “basement underwear brigade”*, those who did the forging, made errors in terms and words which are common today, but never used back in 1961.

7. Did you happen to note when you reviewed Obama’s Birth Certificate that it states the name of the hospital as it is called today, even though it went by another name in 1961?

8. If you were running for President and needed to show a birth certificate, would you have one forged, which could possibly send you and the forgers to prison, if you had a real one?

There are Mr. Levin, many, many more questions we could ask you.  As with these, the answers will not sit well with the image of  The Great One.

Finally, if you are a Constitutional Scholar, then you are also a coward.  It’s impossible, with your record, to be one and not the other.

See also:

~Éowyn

Stop being nice to America-destroying Left

Conservatives, including me, like to blame Obama for everything that’s wrong with America.

But the truth is he wouldn’t be in the White House, ignoring and bypassing Congress by signing more executive orders and memoranda than any U.S. president in history:

  • without MILLIONS of Americans voting him into power, twice!
  • without the willful complicity of the establishment media
  • without the gutless spineless Republicans, and
  • without the approval of MILLIONS of Americans (50% of adults, according to Gallup Poll, still!), despite or because of everything he’s done.

To quote 18th century French diplomat Count Joseph Marie Maistre (1763-1821), “Every nation has the government it deserves.”

In the following op/ed by Michael Cummings for Clash Daily, he perfectly articulates my sentiments.

america_divided

Tired of Losing: No More ‘Benefit of the Doubt’, Decorum for America-Destroying Leftists

Ben Shapiro, attorney, author of Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences America, and Brietbart.com editor-at-large, said in a recent column:

“If someone calls you a racist, and you respond by stating that they are a reasonable human being with policy differences, you grant their premise: A reasonable person has called you a racist, which means it is reasonable to call you racist. You lose.”

I am tired of losing.

I am tired of giving people on the Left the benefit of the doubt. Is it not clear they do not mean well? Is it not clear they don’t want the same things as we? Is it not clear they do not wish to arrive at the same destination via a different path? These people are not on our side, and were I in Congress I would not call any member of the opposition party “My honorable friend” or “esteemed colleague.” Decorum be damned.

In the last week we’ve seen former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani get criticized on every news show over his statement that he didn’t think Barack Obama loves America. True Americans cheered as Giuliani didn’t back down when challenged over the days that followed. Even Scott Walker, when asked about what Rudy said of Obama, essentially said, “Ask Obama.” Well done, both of you.

We need more of this, more of calling these people out.

And why shouldn’t we? Barack Obama has done more damage to this country than any president or elected official. We need to tell the truth.

  • He and his perpetually angry wife criticized our country during the 2008 campaign.
  • He began his administration with a trip around the world to apologize for every wrongdoing he believes America has committed.
  • He destroyed the best health care system in the world.
  • He pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving a gaping hole the Islamic State is only happy to fill with the blood and body parts of Jews, Christians, and not-the-right-kind-of-Muslims.
  • He traded five, high value terrorists for a proven Army deserter, some of whose fellow soldiers died looking for him.
  • He has spent more than all other presidents combined.
  • He vetoed a bipartisan bill that would allow the building of the Keystone XL Pipeline, bringing more energy independence and jobs to our nation.
  • He pushed the FCC to treat the Internet as a public utility, paving the way not just for speed but content restriction.
  • He granted de facto amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, and set processes in place to provide them tax credits and Social Security.

We know how long this list could get.

Note: Cummings left out Obama abandoning 4 Americans to die in Benghazi; the IRS singling out conservatives for extra scrutiny; the NSA spying on our every email, phonecall, and credit transaction; targeting right-wing Americans as extremist terrorists; promoting sodomy as U.S. foreign policy; imposing gun control via banning bullets by executive action; and much much more. See our “The Obama Chronicles” page.

In every facet of our lives, Barack Obama and people like him on the Left want to control us — never asking if we want to be controlled nor checking with the Constitution on the legality of their actions. Free enterprise, health care, freedom of religion, free Internet, strong military — they destroy everything they touch. In protecting America or our allies from danger, these people have made it clear they want chaos to reign.

I don’t know what else to say other than this: I hate Barack Obama. You can’t call me racist because I hate Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton, too. You can’t call me sexist because I hate Harry Reid and Dick Durbin. You can’t call me anti-pervert because I hate Joe Biden.

Do I hate these people personally? No. How could I? I know none of them. But I hate anyone who becomes part of the 1% off the freedoms of the best country this world will ever know, but with every breath they take seek to fundamentally transform it.

Do I hate these people more than the Islamic State? No, but I hold them responsible for the bloodshed painting the entire Middle East.

My hatred is bipartisan. You would like to think that since, for the moment, we still have elections, we could vote these people out and put in place principled and courageous leaders who will keep their multiple and fervent promises to stop Obama. And in 2010 and 2014 we set decades old records in political power shifting by handing Republicans the keys to Congress. Since then, Republicans have taken impeachment and funding (shutdowns) off the table. Please tell me where our negotiating power resides other than at the bottom of the pit in the movie “300.” Save for a few, patriotic stalwarts, I hate the Republicans too.

But I love God, Jesus, and the American people, and with faith in all of these I remain optimistic that while we’re in a really dark part of history, we will see the light.

Armor of God I can do all things through Christ

See also:

~Éowyn

Gun Control! Obama to ban bullets by executive action

The Piece of Sh*t occupying the White House is running amuck.

Already, he has issued more executive orders and memoranda than any U.S. president in history, the recent two amnesty executive memos being especially egregious examples. See:

Now that the Sandy Hook hoax failed to achieve its purpose of nation-wide gun control, Obama is switching his tactics by employing his executive power to ban 5.56 mm bullets used in AR-15 rifles — the most popular rifle in America.

guns-make-us-less-safe

Paul Bedard reports for The Washington Examiner, Feb. 26, 2015:

It’s starting.

As promised, President Obama is using executive actions to impose gun control on the nation, targeting the top-selling rifle in the country, the AR-15 style semi-automatic, with a ban on one of the most-used AR bullets by sportsmen and target shooters.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives this month revealed that it is proposing to put the ban on 5.56 mm ammo on a fast track, immediately driving up the price of the bullets and prompting retailers, including the huge outdoors company Cabela’s, to urge sportsmen to urge Congress to stop the president.

Wednesday night, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, stepped in with a critical letter to the bureau demanding it explain the surprise and abrupt bullet ban. The letter is shown below.

The National Rifle Association, which is working with Goodlatte to gather co-signers, told Secrets that 30 House members have already co-signed the letter and Goodlatte and the NRA are hoping to get a total of 100 fast.

“The Obama administration was unable to ban America’s most popular sporting rifle through the legislative process, so now it’s trying to ban commonly owned and used ammunition through regulation,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA-ILA, the group’s policy and lobby shop. “The NRA and our tens of millions of supporters across the country will fight to stop President Obama’s latest attack on our Second Amendment freedoms.”

At issue is so-called “armor-piercing” ammunition, an exemption for those bullets mostly used for sport by AR-15 owners, and the recent popularity of pistol-style ARs that use the ammo.

The inexpensive 5.56 M885 ammo, commonly called green tips, have been exempt for years, as have higher-caliber ammunition that also easily pierces the type of soft armor worn by police, because it’s mostly used by target shooters, not criminals. The agency proposes to reclassify it as armor-piercing and not exempt.

But now BATFE says that since the bullets can be used in semi-automatic handguns they pose a threat to police and must be banned from production, sale and use. But, as Goodlatte noted, the agency offered no proof.

Federal agencies will still be allowed to buy the ammo.

“This round is amongst the most commonly used in the most popular rifle design in America, the AR-15. Millions upon millions of M855 rounds have been sold and used in the U.S., yet ATF has not even alleged — much less offered evidence — that even one such round has ever been fired from a handgun at a police officer,” said Goodlatte’s letter.

Even some police don’t buy the administration’s claim. “Criminals aren’t going to go out and buy a $1,000 AR pistol,” Brent Ball, owner of 417 Guns in Springfield, Mo., and a 17-year veteran police officer told the Springfield News-Leader. “As a police officer I’m not worried about AR pistols because you can see them. It’s the small gun in a guy’s hand you can’t see that kills you.”

Many see the bullet ban as an assault on the AR-15 and Obama’s back-door bid to end production and sale.

“We are concerned,” said Justin Anderson with Hyatt Gun Shop in Charlotte, N.C., one of the nation’s top sellers of AR-15 style rifles. “Frankly, we’re always concerned when the government uses back-door methods to impose quasi-gun control.”

Groups like the National Shooting Sports Foundation suggest that under BATFE’s new rule, other calibers like popular deer hunting .308 bullets could be banned because they also are used in AR-15s, some of which can be turned into pistol-style guns. “This will have a detrimental effect on hunting nationwide,” said the group.

not for hunting

For all the posts FOTM has published on the Sandy Hook hoax, go here.

~Éowyn

Obama bypasses Congress, again, with new Special Envoy for Sodomites

Christians are being slaughtered across the world, especially in the Middle East — Christianity’s birthplace — where Christianity is on the verge of going extinct.

The Obama Administration has no envoy to Christians but the POS has seen fit to create out of thin air a new position in the State Department — a first-ever Special Envoy for Sodomites.

Just another of his middle-finger salutes to Congress and the U.S. Constitution. (See “Obama tells Congress he’ll decide what’s constitutional“)

Barack Obama

Robert R. Reilly writes for MercatorNet that on Monday, February 23, Secretary of State John Kerry proclaimed, “I could not be more proud to announce Randy Berry as the first-ever Special Envoy for the Human Rights of LGBT Persons.

Randy Berry

Randy Berry

 

Until his new appointment, Berry was the U.S. consul general in the Netherlands.

Two Democrats, Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass) and Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif) had introduced legislation in the last Congress to create such a position, but the bill died. The bill was reintroduced in the new Congress, with zero chances of passage.

And so, true to his F-you declaration a year ago that “I’ll act with or without Congress,” Obama simply created the position by executive fiat. This has the added advantage of not requiring Congressional confirmation of the openly-gay Randy Berry in the new position. It simply becomes an executive branch appointment.

But what exactly is Special Envoy Randy Berry supposed to do “for the Human Rights of LGBT Persons” in foreign countries?

The State Department said Berry would push to end laws in dozens of countries around the world that criminalize same-sex relationships. As Kerry put it, “Too often, in too many countries, LGBT persons are threatened, jailed, and prosecuted because of who they are or who [sic] they love.”

Robert Reilly took a look at more than 40 of the laws that purportedly persecute people because of who they are or whom they love. Here is a sample.

  • Uzbekistan: “voluntary sexual intercourse between two male individuals”
  • Yemen: “Homosexuality between men is defined as penetration into the anus”
  • Sudan: “Any man who inserts his penis or its equivalent into a woman’s or a man’s anus or permitted another man to insert his penis or its equivalent in his anus is said to have committed Sodomy”
  • Brunei: “Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman, or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years…”
  • Myanmar: “Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animals shall be punished…”
  • Mauritius: “Any person who is guilty of the crime of sodomy or bestiality shall be liable to penal servitude for a term not exceeding 5 years.”
  • Kuwait: “Consensual intercourse between men of full age (from the age of 21) shall be punishable with a term of imprisonment of up to seven years.”
  • Kenya: “Any male person who, whether in public or private, commits any act of gross indecency with another male person, or procures another male person to commit any act of gross indecency with him, or attempts to procure the commission of any such act by any male person with himself or with another male person, whether in public or private, is guilty of a felony and is liable to imprisonment for five years.”

Contrary to what John Kerry said, not one of the laws Reilly looked at punishes anyone because of who they are, but only because of what they do. A homosexual cannot be arrested because he is a homosexual, but only if he sodomizes someone – just as an alcoholic cannot be arrested for being an alcoholic, but only if he is drunk and disorderly in public, or is driving drunk. In other words, these laws reflect the rule of law, not the kind of tyrannies embodied in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. The issue of whom they love is also irrelevant to these laws, but only, once again what they do together. It is a matter of whether the expression of “love” is appropriate to the nature of the relationship. These laws judge sodomy as inappropriate to any relationship. The principal issue here, then, is the act of sodomy itself, and whether or why the United States should be supporting it in its foreign policy.

John Kerry is very firm that it should, because:

“Defending and promoting the human rights of LGBT persons is at the core of our commitment to advancing human rights globally — the heart and conscience of our diplomacy. That’s why we’re working to overturn laws that criminalize consensual same-sex conduct in countries around the world.”

In other words, the Obama Administration is proclaiming to the world that the United States of America “defends” and “promotes” SODOMY. Not just that, but the defense of SODOMY is the core — “the heart and conscience” — of U.S. diplomacy.

When did the American people decide that sodomy is up there with the inalienable rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence or in the Bill of Rights?

As recently as 1986, only 29 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Bowers v. Hardwick that:

“Sodomy was a criminal offense at common law and was forbidden by the laws of the original 13 States when they ratified the Bill of Rights. In 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, all but 5 of the 37 States in the Union had criminal sodomy laws. In fact, until 1961, all 50 states outlawed sodomy, and today, 24 states and the District of Columbia continue to provide criminal penalties for sodomy performed in private in between consenting adults.”

Why did these laws exist for so long? Because our inalienable rights rest firmly upon “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” and sodomy is clearly contrary to those Laws, as it violates the very ends of man’s sexual powers, which are unitive and procreative. Sodomy is an act unfit for either of those ends. Therefore, one cannot claim a natural right to do something that is unnatural. Or as Abraham Lincoln said, one “cannot logically say that anybody has a right to do wrong.”

Reilly explains that, as he stated in his book, Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior is Changing Everything:

But that, of course, is exactly what the rationalization for homosexual behaviour accomplishes…. It transforms wrong into right. For that rationalization to hold, however, everyone must share in it. The rationalization of sodomy requires its universalization. Everyone must agree that the unreal is the real [and evil is good]…. We are in the phase of its domestic enforcement now, and Secretary Kerry is preparing for its global enforcement in our foreign-policy, as proudly announced by the LGBT flags flying on the masts of our embassies overseas last June, just under the American flag. The State Department has become the instrument for the global universalization of the rationalization for sodomy.

The problem with this should be self-evident. The promotion of “gay” rights must come at the expense of the promotion of human rights because the two are immiscible. One is founded on the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” and the other on moral relativism, which eviscerates the very idea of natural rights and the natural law on which they are based. If you have one, you cannot have the other. You have your rights by virtue of being a human being, and not by anything else – not ethnicity, not religion, not race, not tribe, not sexual orientation.

The Obama Administration, by its aggressive rationalization and promotion of sodomy across the world, is undermining the very notion of natural law on which the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were founded.

See also:

~Éowyn

Harry Reid dons shades to hide facial bruises

Who exercises on New Year’s Day?

We are told that on January 1, 2015, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) did just that in his home in Henderson, Nevada, when supposedly an exercise band snapped, sending the 75-year-old crashing into cabinets.

“A piece of equipment Senator Reid was using to exercise broke, causing him to fall and break a number of ribs and bones in his face,” read a statement from his office.

Yesterday (Feb. 24), nearly 2 months after his “workout accident,” Reid appeared at a news conference wearing sunglasses.

Harry Reid in sunglasses

The shades replaced the large bandage Reid’s been using to cover his facial bruises, but as you can see, the bruises are still visible.

Whoa! That must have been some “exercise band”!

In response to reporters asking about his sunglasses, Reid said. “I can see out of my right eye, just not very well. And it hasn’t healed. I have to be very — I have to be a patient, patient.”

In May 2011, Reid dislocated his shoulder, bumped his forehead, and sustained a contusion just below his left eye when he slipped and fell during a morning jog in the rain. Reid was leaning on a wet car near his home in Washington, D.C.’s Ritz-Carlton hotel when he tumbled to the ground. (See “Harry Reid breaks ribs & face in second “exercise” injury in 3 years”)

Below are side-by-side pictures of accident-prone (wink, wink) Reid’s injuries.

↓ Click to enlarge ↓

Harry Reid injuries

Do you believe Harry Reid? Sound off in our poll!

~Éowyn

Obama emergency order to restart amnesty in defiance of federal judge Hanen

Obama gives America the finger

This creature in the White House really must be the devil himself.

Mike Lillis reports for The Hill, Feb. 20, 2015, that the Department of Justice (DOJ) plans to seek an emergency stay that would essentially undo U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen‘s injunction from earlier this week. If the stay is granted, the government could restart a pair of amnesty executive memoranda that will shield millions of illegals from deportation.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest said DOJ will file for the stay by “Monday at the latest.”

The emergency stay had been sought by “immigrant rights” advocates like head of the National Immigration Law Center (NILC) Marielena Hincapié, who want to get the programs up and running as soon as possible while the appeals process plays out.

Marielena Hincapie
Making good on earlier vows, DOJ will also file a separate appeal seeking to restart the executive programs. Earnest said, “We will seek that appeal because we believe when you evaluate the legal merits of the arguments, that there is a solid legal foundation for the president to take the steps he announced last year to help reform our immigration system.”

At issue are two new initiatives launched unilaterally by Obama on Nov. 20:

  • The first expands eligibility for Obama’s 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which halts deportations and allows work permits for certain undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children.
  • The second, known as DAPA, would extend similar benefits to the parents of U.S. citizens and permanent legal residents.

Combined, the programs could affect as many as 5 million immigrants living in the country illegally.

Republicans are seeking to stop both of Obama’s executive actions in a funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security, but the bill has been blocked repeatedly by Senate Democrats, raising the possibility of a partial government shutdown next week.

Rep. Lamar Smith, a Republican from Texas and former Judiciary Committee chairman, ripped Obama’s request for an emergency stay, saying it’s “no surprise that the most partisan and imposing Department of Justice of our time would rush to defend the president’s lawless actions. Putting a stop to these overreaching executive actions isn’t about Republicans or Democrats; it’s about respecting and restoring the rule of law. This is why it’s even more important that Senate Democrats stop playing politics with the Constitution and stop blocking House legislation that would halt the president’s executive overreach.”

Many states have objected to Obama’s policies as well. Texas and 25 other states have filed a lawsuit contending the programs marked an abuse of executive authority that would cripple their budgets with exorbitant new costs.

It is that lawsuit that prompted Judge Hanen’s ruling announced near midnight last Monday to put a temporary halt on Obama’s amnesty so as to give the lawsuit the time to be heard. Hanen has not yet ruled on the merits of the states’ complaints, but said they have a significant enough case that both the DAPA and expanded DACA programs should be put on hold until the legal challenges are resolved.

The effects of the decision were immediate, as administration officials quickly announced that they would not begin accepting applications for either program until the court decisions are final. Before the ruling, the Homeland Security Department was poised to begin accepting applications for the expanded-DACA program this week, and the for the DAPA program in May. Both have been suspended indefinitely.

Hanen’s injunction does not affect the original DACA program, which remains up and running.

Gil Kerlikowske

Meanwhile, Judge Hanen’s decision is being ignored by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that is charged with border enforcement.

In an email sent to CBP agents on Wednesday, CBP Commissioner Gil Kerlikowske ordered border agents to continue the relaxed border enforcement guidelines that accompanied Obama’s executive amnesty. (National Review)

H/t FOTM’s MomOfIV

See also:

~Éowyn

Twilight of Capitalism: Number of U.S. corporations at lowest level in 40 years

“If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” -Obama in a campaign speech on July 13, 2012, in Roanoke, Virginia.

“We don’t believe anybody is entitled to success in this country.” -Obama in a campaign speech on Oct. 5, 2012, in Fairfax, Virginia.

you didn't build that

For more than six years, America’s entrepreneurs and businesses have been subjected to a stream of verbal abuses from a President whose own life has been one of privilege and mediocrity, instead of his “poor me” portrayal of himself as a child of a single mother who spent his childhood in an impoverished Third World country (Indonesia) and then was raised by his grandparents in difficult circumstances. (More on that later.)

So it shouldn’t surprise us that after years of Obama’s hectoring, the can-do spirit of American capitalism seems to have petered out.

Ali Meyer reports for CNS News, Feb. 19, 2015, that the number of business corporations in the United States has hit the lowest level seen in 40 years, according to data from a report by the Tax Foundation.

It doesn’t take an Einstein genius to know that fewer businesses mean fewer jobs and less tax revenue for the government.

The report, “America’s Shrinking Corporate Sector,” states that “recently released IRS data shows that there were 1.6 million C corporations in 2011. This is the lowest number of traditional corporations since 1974 and 1 million fewer than there were at the peak in 1986. In other words, in every year since 1986, roughly 40,000 U.S. corporations have disappeared from the tax rolls. However, the losses have accelerated since 2006 to a rate of about 60,000 per year.

While C corporations have seen a decline in number over the years, the number of partnerships and S corporations have increased.

Note: C corporations generate more tax revenue for the federal government because they face double taxation due to the corporate tax and shareholder taxes on dividends on capital gains. In contrast, S corporations and partnerships are subject to just one layer of tax, the individual income tax, because they pass their profits to owners who report them on their individual tax returns.

 The Tax Foundation’s report explains:

“The decline of the traditional corporate sector has generally coincided with the rise of the pass-through sector, comprised of businesses such as partnerships and S corporations that pass profits to owners who report them on their individual tax returns. Pass-through businesses are subject to just one layer of tax, the individual income tax, while C corporations face double taxation due to the corporate tax and shareholder taxes on dividends and capital gains.”

But the problem is more than C corporations being eclipsed by S corporations, as the latter aren’t doing that well either. The report explains that in addition to a decline in the number of corporations, business sector growth and profits have taken a dip as well:

“The recession and subsequent slow recovery have led to slow overall growth in the business sector. As a result, the growth rate of pass-through entities have tapered off in recent years.

Since 2006, S corporations have grown at a rate of about 1 percent a year, down from a rate of about 8 percent in the 20 years prior. Likewise, partnerships have grown at a rate of about 2 percent a year since 2006, down from a rate of about 3 percent in the 20 years prior.

Not only has the total number of traditional corporations declined, so has the total of their profits. C corporation profits, while extremely volatile, have generally trended downward as a share of GDP in recent decades, while the profits of S corporations and partnerships have trended upwards.”

The irony is that when Obama told entrepreneurs, “You didn’t build that!” and “You’re not entitled to success in this country” ’cause it’s all due to “blind luck” and piggy-backing on “a generation of women doing someone else’s laundry and looking after someone else’s children to get you here,”Obama is projecting his life history onto us. It is his success that’s all due to blind dumb luck.

*Obama said that in his keynote address at the Harvard Law School Association “Celebration of Black Alumni” Award Luncheon on Sept. 17, 2005. (WND)

For the truth is Barry Soetoro Barack Hussein Steven Dunham Obama grew up in privilege. He was born to a maternal grandmother (Madelyn Dunham) who was the vice president of a bank in Honolulu. From ages 6 to 10, Obama lived in the home of his stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, in an exclusive section of Jakarta, Indonesia. The family was so well off that they hired a gay transvestite nanny to look after young boy Obama.

As recounted in the Washington Examiner‘s Special Report “The Obama You Don’t Know,” when he was 10 years old, mommy sent him back to Honolulu to live with his maternal grandparents who paid for his education at the costly élite private Punahou School — one of the most expensive schools in Hawaii — which Obama attended from 1971 to 1979. Obama admitted in his memoir, Dreams From My Father, that his grandfather had pulled strings to get him into Punahou: “There was a long waiting list, and I was considered only because of the intervention of Gramps’s boss, who was an alumnus.”

After he graduated from Punahou, Obama went across the Pacific Ocean to attend the private Occidental College in Southern California. Today, tuition for a full-time student at Occidental College is $43,490 per year, which doesn’t include room-and-board and the costs of books and supplies.

After two years at Occidental, Obama transferred to another expensive private university, Columbia University, where no student or faculty can remember ever having seen him in the two years he supposedly spent there, reportedly graduating with a mediocre 2.6 (B-) GPA . Despite his lackluster GPA, he was admitted to yet another expensive private university, Harvard University Law School.

By his own account, Obama was a mediocre student in high school and college who lived a “party” lifestyle of cocaine and booze. Since he refuses to make public his college records, including his GPAs at Occidental, Columbia University, and Harvard Law School, as well as his SAT and LSAT scores, we can assume that those records are lackluster because, being the grandiose narcissist that he is, he would most certainly make known those records if they were sterling.

After Harvard Law, he taught for 12 years at University of Chicago Law School as a part-time lecturer, not professor. Despite Time magazine gushing in 2008 about Obama being “a rock-star professor with hordes of devoted students,” his law student evaluations show him to be a mediocre teacher. After his first two years of teaching, his popularity fell steadily. In 1999, Obama was the third-lowest-ranked lecturer at Chicago Law School that year, with only 23% of students saying they would repeat his racism class. By 2003, only a third of the student evaluators recommended his classes.

And, unlike others on the Chicago Law School faculty who published numerous articles in legal journals, Obama’s byline did not appear in a single legal journal while he taught there. Nor did he publish any articles in legal journals before and after his stint at Chicago Law School, which is puzzling for someone touted as “the smartest man ever.”

While he was teaching part time at Chicago Law, he served one singularly undistinguished term in the Illinois State Senate. According to Gov Track.us: “From Jan 2005 to Oct 2008, Obama missed 314 of 1300 recorded or roll call votes, which is 24.0%. This is worse than the median of 2.4%.”

Then he was elected to the U.S. Senate where, after having served only two lackluster years, he decided to run for president and became his party’s nominee. During the 2008 presidential campaign, he was hailed as messiah and compared to Jesus, despite his mediocrity and in spite of his pro-abortion and pro-infanticide positions that are the antithesis of Christ. With just a vague campaign slogan of “Hope and Change,” millions of Americans projected their dreams and fantasies onto this man whom the media deliberately refused to vet, and elected him President of the most powerful country on Earth.

After just 9 months as president, without a single foreign policy achievement, he was awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.

In other words, when Obama decries success as due to blind dumb luck, he was describing himself. For surely, his astonishing successes are not due to any excellence on his part.

Yes indeed, Obama. You didn’t build that! And you most certainly didn’t earn, don’t deserve, and are not entitled to your success.

See also:

~Éowyn