Black American Citizens File Articles of Impeachment Against Obama
Sarasota, FL ( August 12, 2013) - The National Black Republican Association (NBRA) based in Sarasota, FL, headed by Chairman Frances Rice, filed Articles of Impeachment against President Barack Obama with the following language.
We, black American citizens, in order to free ourselves and our fellow citizens from governmental tyranny, do herewith submit these Articles of Impeachment to Congress for the removal of President Barack H. Obama, aka, Barry Soetoro, from office for his attack on liberty and commission of egregious acts of despotism that constitute high crimes and misdemeanors.
On July 4, 1776, the founders of our nation declared their independence from governmental tyranny and reaffirmed their faith in independence with the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791.
Asserting their right to break free from the tyranny of a nation that denied them the civil liberties that are our birthright, the founders declared:
“When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” - Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.
THE IMPEACHMENT POWER
Article II, Section IV of the United States Constitution provides: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT
In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Barack H. Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, personally and through his subordinates and agents, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that:
He has covered up, delayed, impeded and obstructed the investigation of the Benghazi Battle.
Specific conduct includes: (1) failing to adequately secure the US Consulate and the CIA annex in Benghazi; (2) failing to send a response team to rescue embattled US citizens in Benghazi; (3) lying to the American people about why the US Consulate and the CIA annex were attacked in Benghazi; and (4) hiding from the media and congressional investigators the Central Intelligence Agency personnel and other wounded US citizens who were on the ground in Benghazi by scattering them throughout the United States, forcing them to adopt new identities and subjecting them to monthly polygraph tests.
Benghazi Battle elements that are under investigation:
On September 11, 2012, the anniversary of the September 11, 2001, the US Consulate and the CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya was targeted in a premeditated, preplanned attack launched without warning by Islamist militants.
Footage of the attack broadcast in real time showed armed men attacking the consulate with rocket-propelled grenades, hand grenades, assault rifles, 14.5 mm anti-aircraft machine guns, truck mounted artillery, diesel canisters, and mortars. It was not an act of savage mob violence, nor a spontaneous protest in response to an anti-Islamic video on YouTube.
In that attack, four American citizens were killed: US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens; Information Officer Sean Smith; and two embassy security personnel, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, both former Navy SEALs. Ambassador Stevens is the first U.S. Ambassador killed in an attack since Adolph Dubs was killed in 1979.
He has disclosed secret grand jury material by exposing the existence of a sealed indictment of one of the Benghazi attackers in violation of Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that clearly states: “… no person may disclose the indictment’s existence except as necessary to issue or execute a warrant or summons.’’
He has authorized and permitted the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, a division of the Justice Department, to conduct Operation Fast and Furious, wherein guns were sold to Mexican drug trafficking organizations that were used to kill innocent Mexican civilians and two rifles sold to a smuggler in January 2010 ended up at the scene of the murder of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in December 2010.
He has authorized and permitted confidential income tax returns information from the Internal Revenue Service to be provided to unauthorized individuals, organizations and agencies.
He has caused investigations and audits to be initiated or conducted by the Internal Revenue Service in a discriminatory manner, including harassment and intimidation of conservative, evangelical and Tea Party groups applying for non-profit status between 2010 and 2012.
Elements of this illegal conduct include the facts that: (1) the head of the Internal Revenue Service tax-exempt organization division, Lois Lerner, admitted during a telephonic press event that illegal targeting occurred, then invoked her Fifth Amendment right and refused to answer questions before Congress about the targeting out of fear of self-incrimination; (2) two other career Internal Revenue Service employees stated that they acted at the behest of superiors in Washington -- Carter Hull, a retired Internal Revenue Service Attorney and Elizabeth Hofacre, an employee of the Cincinnati IRS office which oversaw tax-exempt applications; and (3) Carter Hull stated that he was directed to forward the targeted applications to, among others, one of only two political appointees in the Internal Revenue Service Chief Counsel William Wilkins.
He has (1) authorized and permitted the National Security Agency to conduct or continue electronic surveillance of over 300 million average Americans; (2) given access to National Security Agency surveillance data to other intelligence units within the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Secret Service, the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security in violation of the law; and (3) conducted the surveillance of average Americans unconstrained by Congress, the United States Supreme Court or the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court which has, to this date, functioned as a rubber stamp, having approved every request made of it in 2012 and rejecting only two of the 8,591 requests submitted between 2008 and 2012.
He has authorized and permitted the Department of Justice to wiretap and secretly obtain two months of telephone and e-mail records of Fox News Reporter James Rosen and over one hundred Associated Press journalists.
He has thwarted Congress by (1) failing to enforce all or parts of laws duly enacted by Congress, including the Defense of Marriage Act, the No Child Left Behind Act, and the Affordable Care Act; and (2) after Congress refused to pass his Dream Act, unilaterally issuing an executive order directing immigration officers to no longer deport an entire class of illegal immigrants who came here as children, regardless of individual circumstances, and to give them work-authorization permits.
He has violated the Constitution when, on January 4, 2012, (1) he bypassed the U. S. Senate to appoint three members of the National Labor Relations Board, actions that were ruled unconstitutional by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit which affirmed previous decisions by the Court of Appeal for the D.C. Circuit and the Third Circuit; and (2) he bypassed the U. S. Senate to appoint Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
He has intimidated whistleblowers and brought twice as many prosecutions against whistleblowers as all prior presidents combined. Egregiously, while refusing to prosecute anyone for actual torture, he prosecuted former Central Intelligence Agency employee John Kiriakou for disclosing the torture program.
Wherefore Barack H. Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
View the NBRA video of the Articles of Impeachment on YouTube at:
Memo to Charlie Rangel: You’re in some pretty uncharted waters if former Gov. David Paterson — son of one of your closest friends and allies — is publicly taking you to task for your racially charged remarks.
The hoopla began with a Rangel slam against the Tea Party: “It is the same group we faced in the South with those white crackers and the dogs and the police,” the Harlem congressman told Politico. “They didn’t care about how they looked.” In other words, the Tea Partiers are the heirs of Bull Connor and the segregationists.
A few days later, as a guest on Mike Huckabee’s radio show, Rangel was treated to a thumping — not by an outraged Republican, but by Paterson. “I thought it was totally out of line for the congressman to lump what went on during the desegregation movement in with the people who just have honest political disagreements,” Paterson said.
Paterson went on to add that he didn’t find the Tea Party’s views on government spending and lower taxes “to be particularly strident.”
There’s an irony here that Paterson — the state’s first black and legally blind governor — may appreciate, even if Rangel does not. Far from being akin to the violent segregationists of the 1960s, the Tea Party has made today’s Republican Partymore diverse.
The Tea Party movement arose in 2009, played a key role in the 2010 and 2012 elections, and saw many of its candidates triumph. And who are these people?
They include Hispanic senators Marco Rubio in Florida and Ted Cruz in Texas; Indian-American Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina; Hispanic governors Susana Martinez of New Mexico and Brian Sandoval of Nevada; African-American Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina (elected to the House in 2010 before being appointed by Haley to fill retiring Sen. Jim DeMint’s unexpired term).
In fact, thanks in part to the Tea Partiers, Republicans now make up two-thirds of the Senate’s Latinos, and Scott is the only African-American in the upper chamber.
If we put ourselves into the shoes of racists who seek to sabotage black upward mobility, we couldn't develop a more effective agenda than that followed by civil rights organizations, black politicians, academics, liberals and the news media. Let's look at it.
First, weaken the black family, but don't blame it on individual choices. You have to preach that today's weak black family is a legacy of slavery, Jim Crow and racism. The truth is that black female-headed households were just 18 percent of households in 1950, as opposed to about 68 percent today.
In fact, from 1890 to 1940, the black marriage rate was slightly higher than that of whites. Even during slavery, when marriage was forbidden for blacks, most black children lived in biological two-parent families. In New York City, in 1925, 85 percent of black households were two-parent households. A study of 1880 family structure in Philadelphia shows that three-quarters of black families were two-parent households.
During the 1960s, devastating nonsense emerged, exemplified by a Johns Hopkins University sociology professor who argued, "It has yet to be shown that the absence of a father was directly responsible for any of the supposed deficiencies of broken homes." The real issue, he went on to say, "is not the lack of male presence but the lack of male income."That suggests marriage and fatherhood can be replaced by a welfare check.
The poverty rate among blacks is 36 percent. Most black poverty is found in female-headed households. The poverty rate among black married couples has been in single digits since 1994 and is about 8 percent today.The black illegitimacy rate is 75 percent, and in some cities, it's 90 percent. But if that's a legacy of slavery, it must have skipped several generations, because in the 1940s, unwed births hovered around 14 percent.
Along with the decline of the black family comes anti-social behavior, manifested by high crime rates. Each year, roughly 7,000 blacks are murdered. Ninety-four percent of the time, the murderer is another black person. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, between 1976 and 2011, there were 279,384 black murder victims. Using the 94 percent figure means that 262,621 were murdered by other blacks. Though blacks are 13 percent of the nation's population, they account for more than 50 percent of homicide victims. Nationally, the black homicide victimization rate is six times that of whites, and in some cities, it's 22 times that of whites.
I'd like for the president, the civil rights establishment, white liberals and the news media, who spent massive resources protesting the George Zimmerman trial's verdict, to tell the nation whether they believe that the major murder problem blacks face is murder by whites. There are no such protests against the thousands of black murders.
There's an organization called NeighborhoodScout. Using 2011 population data from the U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 crime statistics from the FBI and information from 17,000 local law enforcement agencies in the country, it came up with a report titled "Top 25 Most Dangerous Neighborhoods in America." (http://tinyurl.com/cdqrev4) They include neighborhoods in Detroit, Chicago, Houston, St. Louis and other major cities.
What's common to all 25 neighborhoods is that their makeup is described as "Black" or "Mostly Black." The high crime rates have several outcomes that are not in the best interests of the overwhelmingly law-abiding people in these neighborhoods. There can't be much economic development. Property has a lower value, but worst of all, people can't live with the kind of personal security that most Americans enjoy.
Disgustingly, black politicians, civil rights leaders, liberals and the president are talking nonsense about "having a conversation about race." That's beyond useless. Tell me how a conversation with white people is going to stop black predators from preying on blacks. How is such a conversation going to eliminate the 75 percent illegitimacy rate? What will such a conversation do about the breakdown of the black family (though "breakdown" is not the correct word, as the family doesn't form in the first place)? Only black people can solve our problems.
Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., said today he is “disappointed” in Senate Majority Leader Harry...
Sen. Tim Scott, the U.S. Senate’s only black lawmaker, said Friday he is “disappointed” in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s “offensive” comments about race made during a call-in radio show in Nevada.
Reid, a Democrat, said Friday he “seriously” hopes that Republicans are not blocking President Obama’s initiatives because he is black.
Reid was responding to a caller who asked him if he believes Republicans are working to make President Obama a failure, which some Republicans had signaled they would do when he was first elected.
The Nevada Democrat pointed to comments made in 2010 by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., in which he said his goal was to make sure Obama was a one-term president.
“They haven’t changed much,” Reid confided to the caller. “It’s been obvious they are doing everything they can to make him fail.”
Reid paused, then added, “I say this seriously. I hope it’s based on substance, and not the fact that he is African American.”
Shortly after the talk show ended. Scott, R-S.C., issued a response:
“I am sincerely disappointed by continued attempts to divide the American people by playing to the lowest common denominator. Instead of engaging in serious debate about the failed policies of this administration – from the ever-increasing burdens created by the national health care reform plan to the tax-and-spend approach to economic recovery, along with countless others – Democrats are once again trying to hide behind a smokescreen.
"Our country deserves more from those in Washington. I hope Senator Reid will realize the offensive nature of his remarks and apologize to those who disagree with the president’s policies because of one thing – they are hurting hard-working American families.”
Bill O’Reilly is smarter than Lawrence O’Donnell By Ann Coulter
After attacking Bill O’Reilly’s history last week, I’ll defend his sociology this week. On Monday, MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell ridiculed Fox News’ O’Reilly for saying that single motherhood is responsible for the high black crime rate.
O’Reilly said, quite correctly: “The reason there is so much violence and chaos in the black precincts is the disintegration of the African-American family. Right now, about 73 percent of all black babies are born out of wedlock. That drives poverty. And the lack of involved fathers leads to young boys growing up resentful and unsupervised. And it has nothing to do with slavery. It has everything to do with you Hollywood people and you derelict parents.”
O’Donnell mocked O’Reilly, saying that “the struggles of black America have nothing to do with slavery in Bill O’Reilly’s very narrow and uneducated mind.” He then droned on about some paper Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote about slavery.
Take that, Bill O’Reilly!
While I’m sure that was a fascinating little monograph Moynihan wrote about slavery, O’Donnell cited nothing in it that contradicted O’Reilly. Apparently, Moynihan found that American slavery was “the most awful the world has ever known.” True, but unfortunately that has nothing to do with what O’Reilly said.
It doesn’t even sound like Moynihan was attributing black illegitimacy to slavery. O’Donnell’s point was simply that the great Moynihan had written about slavery being bad, so all discussion must end.
Fortunately, all discussion did not end for Erol Ricketts, a (black) demographer and sociologist with the Rockefeller Foundation who researched the origin of black female-headed families in the 1980s. His studies showed that the black family was thriving from the late 19th century through most of the 20th century.
You don’t get much poorer, deprived or discriminated against than being a black person in America just a generation out of slavery.
Examining nearly a century of U.S. census reports, Ricketts found that between 1890 and 1950, blacks had higher marriage rates than whites. Until 1970, black women were more likely to get married than white women — and that was despite the high mortality rates among black men, leaving fewer available for marriage. In three of four decennial years between 1890 and 1920, black men out-married white men.
Whatever else may cause illegitimacy and its associated problems, it isn’t poverty, discrimination, lack of education, unemployment or slavery. Black Americans had all those handicaps — and yet they still had strong families and low crime rates from 1890 until the 1960s.
But in the ’60s, liberals decided it would be a great idea to start subsidizing illegitimacy.
Everyone knew — even FDR’s secretary of labor, Francis Perkins, knew — that granting widows’ benefits to unmarried women with illegitimate children would have disastrous consequences. An early 20th-century social welfare advocate, Homer Folks, warned back in 1914 that to grant pensions for “desertion or illegitimacy would, undoubtedly, have the effect of a premium upon these crimes against society.”
But under President Lyndon Johnson, that’s exactly what the government did. The “suitable home” requirements for welfare — such as having a husband — were jettisoned by liberal know-it-alls in the federal Bureau of Public Assistance. As a result, illegitimacy went through the roof, particularly among blacks, our most vulnerable fellow citizens.
In 1970, for the first time, the marriage rate for black women fell below 70 percent. But even then, a majority of black children were still living with both parents. By 2010, only 30.1 percent of blacks above the age of 15 were married, compared to 52.7 percent of whites.
Liberals keep using the bad consequences of their policies as an argument for more of the same policies. Government subsidies to unwed mothers increase the illegitimacy rate, which in turn leads to poverty, criminal behavior and more illegitimacy. So Democrats reverse cause and effect to claim it’s the poverty that causes illegitimacy and then demand more payments to unwed mothers.
But we know poverty does not cause illegitimacy. The black experience from 1890 to 1960 proves it. It’s the reverse, just as Bill O’Reilly said. If African-Americans started marrying again at their pre-Great Society rates, it would wipe out the entire black “culture of poverty.”
Nor is there a speck of evidence that poverty causes crime. Murder is the only crime that has been reliably tracked since 1900. From the turn of the century right up to the early 1930s, the murder rate rose steadily, with a few peaks and valleys. Then it began a noticeable decline right at the beginning of the Great Depression, remaining low until the mid-1940s, and rising again only at the end of the Depression.
The converse happened during the economic boom of the “go-go” ’80s. The homicide rate shot up in the 1970s and stayed high until the mid-1990s. Both the homicide rate and general crime rate have remained at all-time lows through the economic wasteland of the Obama years. (Thanks to Republican crime policies.)
So while it’s fascinating that Moynihan concluded that slavery was awful (I think we knew that!), O’Reilly is absolutely right that it’s illegitimacy driving the black crime rate.
Does anyone read anymore? I mean, besides tweets from Anthony Weiner?
During his otherwise excellent commentaries on race in America, Bill O’Reilly, host of the No. 1 cable news show, claimed on Tuesday night that the one person who tried to help African-Americans more than any other was … Robert F. Kennedy!
No one laughed. I guess that’s what they’re teaching these days at the John F. Kennedy School of Government. (I can’t wait to hear how Ted Kennedy helped eradicate drunk driving!)
According to O’Reilly’s Bizarro-World history, Bobby Kennedy was “the guy who was really concerned about African-Americans” and “who really DID SOMETHING. … He went in with the federal government and he cleaned out the rat’s nest that was abusing African-Americans in the South.”
Although this myth has been polished to perfection by the Kennedy PR machine (requiring all Kennedy stories to illustrate either courage or adorableness), it is simply a fact that helping blacks was not the Democrats’ priority.
Photo: Party Platform Comparisons
Even the ones who wanted to, such as Bobby and John Kennedy, couldn’t risk upsetting the segregationists, more than 90 percent of whom were Democratic.
The job of actually enforcing civil rights and desegregating Southern schools fell to Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon.
Five years after Eisenhower had shown the Democrats how its done by sending federal troops to desegregate Central High School in Little Rock, Ark., President Kennedy and brother Bobby still dragged their feet in helping James Meredith enter the University of Mississippi.
Photo: President Dwight Eisenhower meets with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
On Feb. 7, 1961, Meredith wrote a beautiful letter to the Department of Justice, describing his inability to enroll at the University of Mississippi, He wrote:
“Whenever I attempt to reason logically about this matter, it grieves me deeply to realize that an individual, especially an American, the citizen of a free democratic nation, has to clamor with such procedures in order to try to gain just a small amount of his civil and human rights, and even after suffering the embarrassments and personal humiliation of this procedure, there still seems little hope of success.”
The full letter is worth looking up. I would venture to guess there are not many college applicants of any race who write this well today. (You know why? Because Americans don’t read anymore. You watch cable news and fill your heads with nonsense history and false facts.)
In response to Meredith’s eloquent letter, Bobby Kennedy did nothing. And that’s how Bobby Kennedy “cleaned out the rat’s nest that was abusing African-Americans in the South”!
Remember: This was seven years after the Supreme Court had already handed down its decision in Brown v. Board of Education — a ruling expressly endorsed in the Republican Party platform, but not the Democratic platform, I might add.
But Democrats were in the White House, so Meredith had to take his case to the Supreme Court. Liberals were engaging in their usual massive resistance to court rulings they don’t like and neither Bobby nor John Kennedy would dare try to stop them.
You will notice that the Freedom Rides and civil rights marches all took place under Democratic presidents. It was the only way to get Democratic administrations to intervene against their fellow Democrats.
Photo: President John F. Kennedy receives the Confederate flag from Democrat Governor of South Carolina Fritz Hollings
In June 1962, a federal appellate court ruled that Meredith had been denied admittance to Ole Miss because of his race and ordered the university to enroll him. (At least that’s how the two Republican judges voted; the segregationist FDR appointee dissented.) But one old segregationist on the court — who had not even sat on the case — kept issuing stays to prevent enforcement of the ruling.
Only when these illegitimate stays were appealed to the Supreme Court did Bobby Kennedy’s Justice Department finally weigh in, asking Justice Hugo Black, the circuit justice, to lift the stays — nearly two years after Meredith had written to the Department of Justice asking for its help.
Needless to say, Justice Black came down on Meredith’s side in a matter of about six seconds. The full court had already decided the school segregation issue years earlier in Brown.
But the state still would not admit Meredith to Ole Miss.
With a showdown inevitable, President Kennedy, on the counsel of his trusted attorney general, Bobby Kennedy, wrote a letter to the segregationist Democrat governor of Mississippi, Ross Barnett.
These were JFK’s stirring words on behalf of the constitutional rights of black Americans, redeemed with the blood of American patriots:
“White House, September 30, 1962
“To preserve our constitutional system, the Federal Government has an overriding responsibility to enforce the orders of the Federal Courts. Those courts have ordered that James Meredith be admitted now as a student at the University of Mississippi.”
So basically, his hands were tied. It reads like a letter from a Republican administration explaining why it’s forced to comply with a gay marriage ruling. (JFK’s weasel-word letter is also worth looking up.)
Yes, eventually the Kennedy brothers sent the National Guard to force the University of Mississippi to admit James Meredith. It wasn’t hard to figure out what to do: Eisenhower had sent in the 101st Airborne to enforce desegregation back in 1957 against a much more tenacious segregationist (and Bill Clinton pal), Gov. Orval Faubus of Arkansas.
But in the rest of the South, schools remained segregated as long as Bobby Kennedy was attorney general and either JFK or LBJ was in the White House. (LBJ on the 1964 Civil Rights Act: “I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years.”)
Black Americans may say hosannas to Bobby Kennedy, but they would have to wait for Richard Nixon to become president to win the promise of Brown v. Board.
Within Nixon’s first two years in the White House, black students attending segregated schools in the South declined from nearly 70 percent to 18.4 percent. There was more desegregation of American public schools in Nixon’s first term than in any historical period before or since.
Photo: President Richard Nixon and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
It was not an accident that Nixon launched his comeback in 1966 with a column denouncing Democrats for trying to “squeeze the last ounces of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.” It’s also not an accident that James Meredith was a Republican. (You’d know all this if you had read Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama, but you were busy watching TV.)
Crediting Bobby Kennedy for the great work he did on behalf of black Americans would be like calling Harry Reid the country’s greatest champion of the unborn. Sure, Reid says he’s pro-life, but he dare not act on it lest he upset the rest of his party. It was the same with Democrats and civil rights.
If you want to say something nice aboutBobby Kennedy,remind everyone that he proudly worked for Sen. Joe McCarthy.
Barack Obama’s clueless message to America’s middle class shows a presidency out of touch with reality
By Nile Gardiner
President Obama has been rolling up his sleeves campaigning across the country delivering a surreal stump speech message supposedly aimed at the middle class: big government works, Obamacare is manna from heaven, the wave of recent scandals are “phony” figments of the imagination, and all economic problems are the fault of the Republicans.
President Obama claims that “as long as I have the privilege of serving as your President. I’ll spend every minute of every day I have left in this office doing everything I can to build that better bargain for the middle class and make this country a place where everyone who works hard can get ahead.” The problem for Obama is that the American public isn’t buying the Kool-Aid. Poll after poll in the last couple of weeks have shown the president’s job approval ratings at their lowest levels for two years. The White House’s flagship health care reforms are so unpopular that even Democrats are starting to turn against it. In California the president’s ratings have plummeted by ten percentage points.
In Tennessee, Barack Obama talked about shoring up the middle class, but has little understanding of the real issues that middle class voters are facing today – high taxes, burdensome regulations facing small businesses, high levels of unemployment, concern over staggering levels of government debt and unfunded pension liabilities, to name but a few. If Obama was serious about helping the middle class he would ditch the failed big government rhetoric, while cutting taxes, and encouraging the growth of economic freedom.
However, instead of offering a constructive approach advancing policies that actually work, the president continues to insist on resorting to the outdated language of class warfare in true left-wing tradition, with a 1970s-style bash the rich theme, much like Francois Hollande in France. There is more than a whiff of hypocrisy to all this. Obama can’t escape the fact that his own lavish lifestyle is distinctly that of the “one percent” he loves to demonize.
The American middle class can only dream for example of staying in a $7.6 million resort in Martha’s Vineyard, the location of the Obamas’ upcoming summer vacation. As The Washington Examiner reported earlier this week:
The Massachusetts island of Martha's Vineyard, the exclusive playground for presidents and their families, is about to get its annual summer infusion of cash and attention as President Obama and his family prepare to arrive August 10 for an eight-day vacation.
Local reports indicate that the first family will likely be staying at a $7.6 million resort home on southern edge of the island in the town of Chilmark where homes feature water access to Chilmark Pond, tennis courts and swimming pools.
Staying at the home of Chicago corporate finance manager David Schulte is a break from past Obama vacations because the $21 million home they've rented, Blue Heron Farm, isn't available. Schulte's summer home sits on nine and a half acres, has ocean views and a basketball court.
These vacations don’t come cheap to the US taxpayer. Barack Obama’s January holiday in Hawaii cost a staggering $7 million to the public purse, at a time when the country is nearly $17 trillion in debt. President Obama has urged Americans in the past to make sacrifices, but clearly isn’t willing to do so himself, one of the many reasons why his message on the economy rings hollow today. It is hard to see how President Obama’s Martha’s Vineyard sojourn is going to endear him to an increasingly skeptical public, a majority of whom still believe the country is in recession. It will simply reinforce the image of an out of touch president who lives in a bubble, divorced from the significantly tougher reality that most Americans face. In addition, Obama's recent Knox and Chattanooga speeches are a reflection of a presidency in denial, one that preaches to the middle class without actually helping it.
Friday's jobs report was a disappointing, but it also contained a truly heartbreaking statistic. Black teen unemployment is a shocking 41.6%. In July last year, the unemployment was considerably lower, at 36%. That almost half of black teens who want to work can't find jobs is a stain on Obama's economic policies.
This isn't a numbers trick. This isn't a rate based on the whole black teen population in the country. This is the proportion on the black teen population that is looking for work but can't find a job. Just in March, the number was 8-points lower at 33%. The white teen unemployment rate is half the black rate, although a still high 20%.
The heartbreaking thing is that these teens haven't given up hope and left the job market, something that has artificially lowered the overall unemployment rate. The unemployment rate is based on those who want a job and are trying to find one.
In recent months, President Obama and national Democrats have increased calls to raise the minimum wage or impose "living wages" on certain companies in urban areas. Minimum wage jobs, however, are often "first jobs," providing that critical first rung on the jobs' ladder. Indeed, more than two-thirds of minimum wage employees receive a raise within the first year on the job.
You can't get a raise, however, without first having a job. Our economic policies are abandoning a generation and threatening to create a permanent underclass. It is shameful.
Study: Record Number 21 Million Young Adults Living With Parents WASHINGTON (CBSDC) — A record number of young adults are living with their parents.
A new study from Pew Research finds that 36 percent of Millennials – young adults ages 18 to 31 – are living at their parents’ homes, the highest number in four decades. A record 21.6 million young adults were still living at home last year.
“Most of my friends that have graduated end up living back home because even if they have a job they can’t afford to pay rent and pay back their loans at the same time,” Stephanie Levonne, a 20-year-old college student living at home, told CBS News. “I know a lot of people that took out almost half or more of their tuition in loans which is $50,000 so it’s impossible to pay rent and live in New York City while paying off your loan.”
The number rose from 32 percent at the beginning of the Great Recession in 2007 and 34 percent in 2009.
Declining employment led more young adults to stay with their parents. Sixty-three percent of Millennials had jobs in 2012, down from 70 percent in 2007.
The study also found that the number of 18- to 24-year-olds who were enrolled in college rose from 35 percent in March 2007 to 39 percent in March 2012 and that the number of Millennials dropped to 25 percent last year from 30 percent in 2007.
The Labor Department released its latest job report Friday, showing the economy added 162,000 jobs last month while the unemployment rate edged lower to 7.4 percent.
Americans Left Out Of Obama's 'Jobs Recovery'
A (New) Lost
As the media focus on a slight drop in unemployment, an ugly trend gets
ignored: the declining participation of young Americans in the job market.
We'll pay for this for decades to come.
We keep hearing the
job market is "improving" or even "solid," with 162,000 new
positions created in July and unemployment falling to 7.4%, the lowest since
But one group is
sitting it out. And it's the one that most enthusiastically embraced Barack
Obama in both of his presidential elections: America's young.
rate is a shocking 16.1%. Increasingly, those ages 18 to 29, the so-called
Millennials, are being left out of the market, with tenuous or no ties to the
workplace. Just 43.6% of this group have full-time jobs, according to Gallup.
So what are they
doing? As a new Pew Research report shows, many are just hanging around their
parents' houses; 21.1 million young Americans live with their folks, more than
Over at Power Line
blog, Joe Malchow crunched some not-very-pretty numbers on youth labor-force
participation. Participation among 18-to-19-year-olds has declined 11.3% since
Obama took office. For those ages 20 to 24, it has dropped 3.4%.
These are the biggest
declines for any age cohort. And if they aren't bad enough, teen unemployment among blacks is an unbelievable 41%.
To the pundits, this
is all "mystifying." But it isn't really. Call it decline by
regulatory siege, tax hikes on entrepreneurs, the imposition of ObamaCare and a
senseless 42% hike in the minimum wage since
2007 have conspired to price young workers out of the job market.
Employers hire only
those whose productivity exceeds their pay. When wages and the cost of regulation
and health care rise, there's little room on the payroll for young,
The temptation is to
minimize the problem, thinking these young people will catch up. But they
Americans have learned their basic work ethic in low-paying starter jobs. They
learned they won't always like what they do, but that they should do it well
anyway and that hard work is usually rewarded. They learned to show up on time,
dress appropriately, be polite and follow instructions.
These are the basics
of productivity that make our economy work. What lessons will millions of young
men and women learn as they while away their time playing computer games in
their parents' basements?
And this is the
generation we're counting to shoulder the increasing entitlement costs for the
nation's elderly. With $70 trillion in current liabilities, who's kidding whom?
As we said, this is
no accident. It's bad enough that more than 130 million mostly older Americans
get regular checks from government. Now the liberals in charge in Washington
seem to want a whole new generation of dependents — needy young people who also
rely on government and see the wealth-creating private sector as something
scary and chaotic.
If that's their plan,
it's working — all too well.