- Radical Gay-stapo Seeks to Overthrow Religious Freedom, Marriage & Family…
- Lame Duck Senator Ben Nelson Calls for More Corruption in Massive Farm Bill…
- Nebraska Rep. Fortenberry’s House Bill Would Gut Ben Nelson’s Pro-Abortion HHS Mandate…
- Treason Watch: Ben “Ben-dover” Nelson Celebrates Gay Pride During Homosexual Treason Trial…
- Rep. Fortenberry Stands Against Ben Nelson’s Vicious Assault Upon Catholic Healthcare, Religion & Constitution…
donttreadonvets on Treason Watch: Ron Paul Video…
This is just the tip of the iceberg that is Ben Nelson’s corruption under Obama. Ben Nelson also cut a sweet insurance deal with Warren Buffett in order to buy his deciding vote for ObamaCare. By mere coincidence, Ben Nelson and his wife also had millions invested with the Oligarch of Omaha, Warren Buffett, at the time! As exposed in another report, Ben Nelson also used his influence to kill the Keystone XL pipeline so that Buffett could transport the oil via his railroad.
Is it any wonder that Ben-dover Nelson refuses to comment?!
Ben Nelson’s cowardice in tucking tail and retiring won’t be enough to satisfy Nebraskans’ desire for justice. Under a new Congress, We The People will be demanding that Ben Nelson be brought up on charges of corruption and ethics violations. Charges for Sedition and Treason will follow. Congress can still mandate a capital sentence for these “high crimes”…
Insider trading by members of Congress during financial crisis?
By Dan Keating
The Washington Post
Originally published June 25, 2012 at 9:25 PM | Page modified June 26, 2012 at 7:46 AM
Sale of Lehman CDs
In late 2006, Congress started crafting legislation to overhaul Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, a major effort to stem a rising tide of defaults on risky loans given to homebuyers with poor credit.
As Congress worked to rein in the two government-sponsored lenders, Fannie and Freddie pushed back with aggressive lobbying campaigns, stalling the effort in early 2007.
Paulson started working the Hill, trying to break the deadlock and win support for the revisions. He called and met with a number of members of Congress, including Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., on this and other reform efforts.
Paulson and Nelson spoke on Jan. 10. The next day, Nelson sold between $250,000 and $500,000 in Lehman Brothers certificates of deposit. (Congressional financial-disclosure forms list only approximate ranges.) Nelson also purchased between $100,000 and $200,000 in Treasury notes, a safer investment.
On Feb. 12, Paulson met at 4 p.m. with Nelson in the lawmaker’s office in the Hart Senate Office Building. That day, Nelson bought $50,000 to $100,000 in Treasury bills.
That year, Nelson had only one other call with Paulson and no other meetings, records show. He made 103 other trades during the year, eight of which exceeded $100,000.
Nelson declined to be interviewed. A spokesman said the senator discussed only policy matters related to disabled veterans during the call and meeting with the Treasury secretary and that the senator learned nothing that would have influenced his trades.
Under congressionally imposed ethics laws that cover Treasury secretaries, Paulson and Geithner would have been prohibited from making the same investments. Congress prohibits Treasury secretaries from investing in financial institutions or Treasury securities.
Paulson, through a spokeswoman, declined to discuss his conversations with members of Congress during the financial crisis.
765,894 Hospital Jobs Hang In The Balance With Obamacare Decision
By Craig Bannister
June 25, 2012
The 765,894 jobs at the nation’s Catholic hospitals hang in the balance pending the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Constitutionality of the Obamacare coverage mandate.
The 629 Catholic hospitals account for 12.6% of the nation’s total and provide 765,894 jobs (530,673 full-time and 235,221 part-time – the equivalent of 640,894 full-time jobs).
But, all of those hospitals – and their jobs – will be gone “two Lents from now” unless the Obama administration’s mandate that all health insurers offer abortifacient drugs and sterilization is rescinded, Cardinal Francis George warns.
Catholic bishops around the country asked their priests to read a letter from the pulpit at Sunday masses that said: “We cannot–we will not–comply with this unjust law.” In their “Statement on Religious Liberty,” the bishops declared that “an unjust law cannot be obeyed” – and that Catholics should not obey them:
“It is a sobering thing to contemplate our government enacting an unjust law,” the bishops said. “An unjust law cannot be obeyed. In the face of an unjust law, an accommodation is not to be sought, especially by resorting to equivocal words and deceptive practices. If we face today the prospect of unjust laws, then Catholics in America, in solidarity with our fellow citizens, must have the courage not to obey them.”
The societal cost of losing these hospitals goes far beyond the jobs lost, however. The country would also lose 120,311 hospital beds. And, Catholic hospitals now treat one out of six (16.6%) Medicare and one of seven (13.6%) Medicaid patients.
The sterilization-contraception-abortifacient mandate is set to go into effect for most health-care plans on Aug. 1 – unless the Supreme Court strikes it down.
Ben “Cornhusker Kickback” Nelson has tried repeatedly to shut down all faith-based hospitals, clinics, schools, and churches via his infamous abortion/genocide mandates under ObamaCare. Ben-dover Nelson cast the deciding vote for the unconstitutional ObamaCare and continues to vote to fund abortion via Planned Parenthood. BenGay Nelson in not only a serial baby butcher, but also voted to force a radical homosexual agenda upon our combat troops during a time of two wars….
We The People take comfort in knowing that there is no statutue of limitations for TREASON, and that Congress can mandate a capital sentence…
Dozens of Catholic Groups Sue Obama Admin Over HHS Mandate
by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 5/21/12 12:01 PM
Notre Dame, Franciscan University of Steubenville, and dozens of Catholic hospitals and organizations have filed a total of 12 lawsuits today against Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and the Obama administration over the controversial HHS mandate.
The lawsuit challenges the Obama administration’s unprecedented mandate that attacks the freedom to practice religion without government interference. Under the HHS mandate, employers must provide insurance coverage that includes abortion-inducing drugs, as well as contraceptives and sterilization procedures.
Franciscan University maintains that the requirement to fund and facilitate such activities violates its core religious and moral convictions as a Catholic university.
“Franciscan University’s mission is and always has been to teach from the heart of the Church,” said University President Father Terence Henry, TOR. “The Obama administration’s mandate is a grave threat to our ability to carry out that mission. It makes it impossible for us to operate freely as a Catholic institution without overbearing and invasive governmental interference.”
Other plaintiffs are all Catholic organizations and include Catholic dioceses, schools, universities, and charitable organizations. Numbered among the plaintiffs are the Archdioceses of New York, Washington, D.C., and St. Louis, as well as the Dioceses of Dallas, Ft. Worth, Rockville Centre, Pittsburgh, and the Michigan Catholic Conference, which represents all seven dioceses in the state.
“The Church is speaking with one unified voice on this issue,” said Father Henry. “Every single American bishop has condemned this unjust mandate as an unconscionable violation of religious liberty. If allowed to stand, it will coerce Christians into cooperating with acts that violate core tenets of our faith.”
When first proposed in August 2011 by the Department of Health and Human Services, the mandate was met by strong objections from numerous Catholic bishops, hospitals, and institutions. Although a small exemption for some religious institutions was written into the original proposal, it was too narrow to cover the vast majority of them, particularly those, like Catholic universities, which both employ and serve people of other faiths or no faith at all. The mandate effectively puts the federal government in the position of deciding which organizations are “religious enough,” the lawsuits claim.
In late January 2012, President Obama and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced that the mandate would go into force as originally planned, with no adequate accommodations made for individuals or groups who objected on religious grounds.
The University of Notre Dame said the requirement would still call on religious groups to “facilitate” coverage “for services that violate the teachings of the Catholic Church.”
“The federal mandate requires Notre Dame and similar religious organizations to provide in their insurance plans abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives and sterilization procedures, which are contrary to Catholic teaching. It also authorizes the government to determine which organizations are sufficiently ‘religious’ to warrant an exemption from the requirement,” the statement said.
Our Sunday Visitor, the respected publication, is also a party to one of the lawsuits and issued an editorial explaining why.
“Today, Our Sunday Visitor stands proudly with our fellow Catholic apostolates and with our bishops in resisting this challenge. We ask all of our readers to stand with us – in charity, praying first and foremost for conversions of heart; in civility, arguing the facts of this case without recourse to bitter partisanship or political rhetoric; and in solidarity, knowing that whatever sacrifices we bear and whatever challenges we endure, we are only doing what is our responsibility as American citizens practicing our faith in the public square.”
A list of entities suing the Obama administration over the mandate:
1. D.D.C. Lawsuit o Archdiocese of Washington o Consortium of Catholic Academies o Archbishop Carroll High School o Catholic Charities of D.C. o The Catholic University of America
2. E.D.N.Y. Lawsuit o Diocese of Rockville Centre o Catholic Health Services of Long Island o Catholic Charities of Rockville Centre o Archdiocese of N.Y. o ArchCare
3. W.D.Pa. (Erie Div.) Lawsuit o Diocese of Erie o St. Martin Center o Prince of Peace Center
4. W.D.Pa. (Pitt. Div.) Lawsuit o Diocese of Pittsburgh o Catholic Charities of Diocese of Pittsburgh o Catholic Cemeteries Association of Diocese of Pittsburgh
5. N.D.Tex. (Dallas Div.) Lawsuit o Diocese of Dallas
6. N.D.Tex. (Fort Worth Div.) Lawsuit o Diocese of Fort Worth
7. S.D. Ohio (Columbus Div.) Lawsuit o Franciscan University of Steubenville o Michigan Catholic Conference
8. S.D.Miss. (Gulfport Div.) Lawsuit o Diocese of Jackson o Catholic Charities of Jackson o Vicksburg Catholic School o St. Joseph’s Catholic School o Diocese of Biloxi o De l’Epee Deaf Center Inc. o Catholic Social & Community Services Inc. o Resurrection Catholic School o Sacred Heart Catholic School o St. Dominic Health Services
9. N.D.Ind. (South Bend Div.) Lawsuit o The University of Notre Dame
10. N.D. Ind. (Fort Wayne Div.) Lawsuit o Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend o Catholic Charities of Fort Wayne-South Bend o St. Anne Home o Franciscan Alliance o Our Sunday Visitor o University of St. Francis
11. N.D.Ill. Lawsuit o Diocese of Joliet o Catholic Charities of Joliet o Diocese of Springfield o Catholic Charities of Springfield
12. E.D.Mo. (St. Louis Div.) o Archdiocese of St. Louis o Catholic Charities of St. Louis
The full Notre Dame statement appears below, and the legal complaint can be found here.
When, and not if, a SHTF even occurs, these neo-Marxist Progressives, RINOs, and Voluntaryist Liberal-tarians are going to be up crap creek without a paddle…
Censorship and Disinformation in America
By Lawrence Sellin
You will not see an article like this appear in any American mainstream media outlet.
Barack Hussein Obama is an illegal President. He is not now nor has he ever been eligible to be a candidate for or hold that office because his father was a British subject at the time of his birth.
Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution requires that all candidates for the Presidency be “natural born citizens.” As defined in the binding Supreme Court precedent of Minor v. Happersett (1875) and confirmed in the subsequent ruling of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and others, all candidates for the offices of President and Vice President must be second generation Americans, that is, US citizens of citizen parents at the time of birth.
President and Vice President are the only U.S. political offices with that requirement. It was the intent of the American Founding Fathers that the chief executive and the commander-in-chief of the armed forces would not have dual allegiance or loyalty to a foreign power.
There is no ambiguity, although the Democrat and Republican parties and the media are and have been deliberately trying to confuse the American public as to the true meaning of natural born citizenship.
Case in point.
On May 1, 2012, Fox News Channel anchor Bret Baier posted an explanation of the term natural born citizen that was so factually incorrect that it must be considered propaganda.
It is well beyond the scope of this or perhaps any single article to document the full extent of the censorship conducted and the amount of disinformation disseminated, which has continued non-stop since the onset of the 2008 election cycle.
Why did that happen? The cause stemmed from political expediency and cowardice.
Since 1975, there have been numerous attempts by both Democrats and Republicans in Congress to redefine or amend the Article II “natural born citizen” clause.
Having failed to change it legally, politicians seized the opportunity to amend the Constitution by a political fait accompli through the unexpected victory of Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democrat Presidential primary.
Long before the 2008 campaign, however, Obama supporters were already helping the candidate either hide his genuine personal history or create a false one.
The censorship and disinformation campaign about Obama’s ineligibility had its origins in February 2008 about the time he began to overtake Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Presidential primary.
Anticipating a likely challenge, Obama supporters, instead of reacting defensively, went on the attack through a fabricated controversy, sustained by the media, which questioned the eligibility of Republican Presidential candidate Senator John McCain. The basis of the challenge was that McCain was born in a Panamanian hospital while his U.S. Navy officer father and his U.S. citizen mother were serving at a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone.
The fake controversy was settled in April 2008 through Senate Resolution 511, which, in essence, was a political deal struck between the Democrats and Republicans that would provide validation for McCain and, at least, cover for Obama on the issue of eligibility.
SR 511, a non-binding resolution with an unrecorded vote, had no force of law, but by passing it Congress created the conditions whereby the Constitution could be amended de facto through a back-room political agreement.
Republican involvement in SR 511 and the fear of being branded a “racist” prevented any meaningful vetting of candidate Obama after he secured the Democrat Presidential nomination in June 2008.
Thus began the conspiracy of silence and the disinformation campaign by the political establishment and the media.
Given the effort to prevent discussion of Constitutional ineligibility, it should come as no surprise that the politicians and media also protected Obama from investigation of allegations involving a forged birth certificate, a forged Selective Service registration and the use of a Social Security Number not issued to him.
The Democrats and the media don’t want to discuss ineligibility and criminality because they want Obama re-elected.
The Republicans can’t talk about those issues because of their dereliction of duty, their complicity in a cover-up and their unashamed cowardice.
Regardless of who wins the election in November, it is and has been the intention of both political parties and the media to bury forever questions regarding Obama’s ineligibility and crimes.
The truth would shake the American political system to its core because exposing Obama would also expose the endemic political corruption in Washington, D.C.
It is all about power and the financial rewards it reaps. The politicians and the media have it and they intend to keep it by any means necessary.
Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. Colonel Sellin is the author of “Afghanistan and the Culture of Military Leadership”.
To follow-up on an earlier post, Joseph Farah’s WND website continues to blacklist conservatives, including Veterans, in favor of the hoards of Ron Paul minions. Since Robespierre Ron’s acolytes don’t even agree with much of what WND publishes, and don’t even purchase Whistleblower, it is indeed curious as to why Farah’s WND boots his own supporters? Not much of business model, but hey those Liberal-tarians are a wild and crazy bunch — to say the least…
When the Paulbots swoop in like a horde of Mongols, or better, like a plague of Egyptian locusts and frogs, and flag everyone who disagrees with their cult-of-personality worship of Liber-tarian Ron Paul, the moderators always boot out Conservatives and even Veterans who have sacrificed to uphold the 1st Amendment that Paulbots and Farah pay lip service to.
Correspondence with Farah’s Subscription Manager revealed that she and her moderators are Pro-Ron Paul bigtime! I even went so far as to cancel my subscription, but even though they promised to refund my subscription a month ago, they have yet to refund my money.
Maybe I should follow this breach of contract up in small claims court just to make a point and see if the media catch on to WND’s assaults upon Veterans. Get the word out that Joseph Farah and his WND cabal are anti-Veteran and pro-Ron Paul…
I am also forwarding your Whistleblower cancel/refund request to our customer service center. You should hear back from them some time tomorrow on this.
“Voluntaryist” Ron Paul is the only candidate who has joined Comrade Barry in stating on video that the Constitution has not worked and never will. In the same video, posted by his supporters over at von Mises Institute, Paul also calls for abolishing the military and Constitution…
Treason From Within: http://tinyurl.com/7bph329
“In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”—Thomas Jefferson
Nelson, Scalia and the ‘Cornhusker Kickback’
by Philip Klein
Senior Editorial Writer
Last week, Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., spoke with my colleague Joel Gehrke to give his side of the story on the frenzied push to pass President Obama’s health care law. In the process, he took issue with Justice Antonin Scalia, who referenced the infamous “Cornhusker Kickback” in March’s Obamacare oral arguments.
“The real point here is that Justice Scalia can laugh all he wants, but the laugh is on him if he thinks that’s in the legislation,” Nelson told The Washington Examiner.
At the time I covered the oral arguments, so much was going on that I didn’t get a chance to write about Scalia’s reference to the “Cornhusker Kickback.” But since there’s been an ongoing misperception about his comments, I thought it was worth addressing.
To those who weren’t following the Obamacare legislative process closely, as Senate Democrats scrambled to pass the law in late December 2009, Nelson was one of the last remaining holdouts. One of the concerns he had about voting for the bill was that it expanded Medicaid (a joint federal/state program), putting a major financial burden on already cash-strapped states. As part of a late deal to win over Nelson’s vote, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., inserted a provision in the bill in which the federal government would pick up the tab for the Medicaid expansion — but only for Nelson’s Nebraska. The so-called “Cornhusker Kickback” came to epitomize the corrupt process through which Democrats rammed through Obamacare and the backlash helped elect Republican Sen. Scott Brown in following month’s Massachusetts special election to replace the deceased liberal icon Ted Kennedy.
Fast forward to this March, when Paul Clement, arguing on behalf of challengers to the health care law, asserted that the Supreme Court justices should consider “Congressional intent” and strike down all of Obamacare if its individual mandate were deemed unconstitutional. Scalia, pushing back against Clement’s argument, was skeptical of the idea that the Court should base its decisions in such cases on the question of whether Congress would have passed the legislation in the absence of the provision at issue. Scalia explained:
The consequence of your proposition, would Congress have enacted it without this provision, okay, that’s the consequence. That would mean that if we struck down nothing in this legislation but the — what’s it called, the Cornhusker kickback, okay, we find that to violate the constitutional proscription of venality, okay?
When we strike that down, it’s clear that Congress would not have passed it without that. It was the means of getting the last necessary vote in the Senate. And you are telling us that the whole statute would fall because the Cornhusker kickback is bad. That can’t be right.
Though Scalia’s purpose was quite clear to those following the entire flow of the arguments, a lot of coverage portrayed Scalia as somehow ignorant of what was in the final legislation. The reality is that the “Cornhusker Kickback” effectively remained, but the federal payments were extended to all states to address charges of special treatment. Also, it’s worth noting that whether or not it’s in the final legislation, the truth remains that it was essential to passing the legislation. There are a number of stages a bill must go through before it can become a law, and getting 60 votes in the Senate in December 2009 was one of those stages. Though Nelson may deny it now, the “Cornhusker Kickback” was clearly part of the package that helped secure his vote.
But this isn’t all that relevant to the hypothetical legal point that Scalia was making, which was essentially that in any large piece of legislation, there are so many tiny provisions are needed to secure the necessary votes. The Supreme Court, he was suggesting, cannot create a standard wherein any incidental provision that’s declared unconstitutional will bring down a whole just because it was part of the standard horse trading that always takes place in Congress. By saying, “that can’t be right,” Scalia was prodding Clement to sharpen his argument. Clement later did this by arguing that the mandate wasn’t just some incidental provision, but that it was so interconnected with the rest of the legislation that removing it along with everything related to it would rip out the heart of the bill and leave a “hollow shell” that would have never passed, and never would have met the goals of Congress. Later in the arguments, Scalia seemed sympathetic to this refined standard, saying, “My approach would say if you take the heart out of the statute, the statute’s gone.”
Ben, Barry & Little Bobby Kerrey: Neo-Marxist Bob Kerrey Joins Comrade Ben Nelson in Support of “Buffett Tax”
Too bad serial liar, hypocrite, and neo-Marxist tax cheat Warren Buffett, aka the Oligarch of Omaha, doesn’t voluntaryly pay more into the Treasury. Warren baby owes over ONE BILLION DOLLARS in back taxes and has been fighting paying them for almost TEN YEARS…
We The People of Nebraska have got to throw Kerrey, Nelson, and Buffett into prison for tax evasion, unconstitutional mandates, crony corruption, and giving aid and comfort to America’s enemies via their neo-Marxist agenda.
Liberal Democrat Bob Kerrey Convinces Ben Nelson To Support The Buffett Tax
Published: April 17, 2012
As Nebraskans finish their taxes, liberal Democrat Bob Kerrey started a petition that convinced Ben Nelson – who recently opposed this Buffett tax – to support this job-killing tax.
Nelson voted this evening in support of the Buffett Tax increase which according to the Wall Street Journal does virtually nothing to the national deficit, and does nothing to create a single job or lower gas prices. Additionally, newspapers, economists and political commentators around the country have derided this vote as “total gimmickry,” “a ruse,” “a publicity stunt,” “a hoax,” and “a sham.” “The Buffett Tax doesn’t create a single Nebraska job, it does nothing to lower our gas prices, and it does virtually nothing to put a dent in our government’s debt, yet Bob Kerrey is ecstatic about this political stunt,” said National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) spokesman Jahan Wilcox.
The Buffett Tax Creates Zero Jobs
THE BUFFETT TAX WOULD CREATE ZERO NEW JOBS. On the seventh and final page of its background report on the “Buffett Rule,” out this morning, the Obama administration finally dives into what it calls “the economic rationale” for imposing a new minimum tax rate on millionaires. If you’re an unemployed American, that placement should be your first red flag. The second should be the rationale itself. Once you read it, you’ll realize the Buffett Rule has nothing to do with helping you, or the 13 million other Americans looking for work as of March, find a job. (Jim Tankersley, The Buffett Rule Won’t Get You a Job, National Journal, 04/10/12)
BUFFETT TAX GIMMICK WOULD INCREASE REVENUE BY “LESS THAN ONE-TENTH OF ONE PERCENT OF THE $1.2 TRILLION BUDGET DEFICIT” (0.1%): “This year, the Buffett rule would increase federal revenues by all of $1.1 billion. That’s less than one-tenth of one percent of the $1.2 trillion budget deficit Mr. Obama is scheduled to run this year. Through 2022 Joint Tax expects less than $47 billion in total new revenues from the Buffett rule while the government will be adding trillions of dollars to the national debt. Joint Tax even concedes, as it is rarely wont to do, that the rule will affect taxpayer behavior: By raising the effective tax rate on capital gains, the rule will encourage people to realize fewer capital gains.” (Editorial, “The Bottom 0.1%,” The Wall Street Journal, 3/22/2012)
Nonpartisan Reviewers Have Derided The Buffett Tax As ‘A Hoax On Voters,’ A ‘Total Sham,’ ‘Desperate.’ And Even Democrats Admit It’s ‘Not Going To Help’
BILL KELLER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: “…sounds a little desperate.” (Bill Keller, “The Sweet Spot,” The New York Times, 4/15/12)
CANDY CROWLEY, CNN: “…won’t do much to eat away at the nation’s debt, it won’t create jobs, and no one expects it to get through the Democratic-controlled Senate…” (Candy Crowley, “Buffett Rule Would Barely Dent Debt But Fits Nicely Into Obama’s Theme,” CNN, 4/16/12)
MIKA BRZEZINSKI, MSNBC: “…just what does it really accomplish, though?” (MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” 4/16/12)
DANA MILBANK: “President Obama admits it: His proposed ‘Buffett Rule’ tax on millionaires is a gimmick…” (Dana Milbank, “Rebuffing Obama’s Gimmicky ‘Buffett Rule’,” The Washington Post, 4/11/12)
BOB SCHIEFFER, CBS: “…kind of a publicity stunt…?” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 4/15/12)
JIM VANDEHEI, POLITICO: “It’s total gimmickry. It’s 1% of what you need to actually take care of the deficit.” (MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” 4/12/12)
FMR. REP. HAROLD FORD (D-TN): “…not going to help us grow…” Q: “So you support the Buffett rule? FORD: “No, there’s a big difference between the Buffett rule and reforming the tax code.” (MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” 4/16/12)
FMR. SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD (D-WI): “My belief is this is more symbolic.” (MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” 4/16/12)
UNION LEADER [NH]: “…A Total Sham…The Buffett Rule is not about math or fairness or shared sacrifice. It is simply a cynical ploy to buy the votes of the ignorant and gullible.” (Editorial, “The Buffett Rule: A Total Sham,” Union Leader, 4/12/12)
FOSTER’S DAILY DEMOCRAT [NH]: “Buffett Rule Is A Hoax On Voters … Buffett, schmuffett, President Obama’s Buffett Rule has nothing to do with fairness… It is also about distracting voters from the Obama administration’s mishandling of the economy.” (Editorial, “Buffett Rule Is A Hoax On Voters,” Foster’s Daily Democrat, 4/12/12)
MILWAUKEE JOURNAL SENTINEL [WI]: “Buffett Rule Is A Political Gimmick That Won’t Work … the Buffett Rule is more likely to spawn a new generation of tax dodges than to usher in a new era of tax fairness. It is, in fact, nothing more than a smoke screen that obscures the possibility of real tax reform.” (Editorial, “Buffett Rule Is A Political Gimmick That Won’t Work,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 4/11/12)
ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER [CA]: “…the latest gimmick…” (“Taxing Those Mean Old Millionaires,” Orange County Register, 4/12/12)
THE ECONOMIST: “What a pity that he is changing tack this time, bashing the rich via gimmicks such as the ‘Buffett rule’ … it is a miserable portent for the future.” (Editorial, “Game On,” The Economist, 4/14/12)
BLOOMBERG NEWS: “The president may be just as happy to have an issue to campaign on as a law to sign.” (“Buffett Rule Or Not, Most Rich People Already Pay,” Bloomberg Businessweek, 4/12/12)