“Michelle and I Will Be Fine, No Matter What Happens.”

In 13 days, American voters will decide whom will be the 45th President of the  United States of America. And, as I sit down to write this post, it looks more and more likely that it will not be the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Praise the Lord.

I believe that Obama knows this , too. Check out his latest plea to his supporters, courtesy of weeklystandard.com:

In his latest fundraising email to supporters, President Barack Obama says, “Michelle and I will be fine no matter what happens” in the election. Instead, Obama’s trying to win the contest “for our country and middle-class families.”

Here’s the full pitch:

I don’t want to lose this election.

Not because of what losing would mean for me — Michelle and I will be fine no matter what happens.

But because of what it would mean for our country and middle-class families.

This race is very close.

I’m not willing to watch the progress you and I worked so hard to achieve be undone.

Time is running out to make an impact — please don’t wait any longer. Donate $5 or more today:

https://donate.barackobama.com/Two-Weeks

I believe in you. If you stick with me, and if we fight harder than ever for the next two weeks, I truly believe we can’t lose.

Thank you,

Barack

P.S. — I don’t know what Election Night will hold, but I’d like you to be a part of the event here in Chicago. Any donation you make today automatically enters you for a chance to meet me — airfare and hotel for you and a guest are covered.

Yep. Don’t worry about Scooter and Mooch, y’all. They’ve got a place to stay.

Per hillbuzz.org:

Barack and Michelle Obama will be moving to Hawaii in January of 2013 and preparations are now being made to purchase an estate in close proximity to land owned by the University of Hawaii, where the Obama presidential library and “political center” will be located.

Here in Chicago, it’s pretty obvious that Michelle does not want to move back to this city and its winters (for any reason) and Michelle’s mother, who’s been living in the White House with her daughter and her family, will be happily making the move to Hawaii as well.

I have a friend whose family knows Michelle’s mother; they have been crystal clear that the elderly Mrs. Robinson regularly says that she’ll be in Hawaii next year permanently with her daughter and granddaughters. There is neither talk of returning to Chicago to live nor of living in the White House for another four years — instead, there’s a sense of “it was fun while it lasted” coming from Mrs. Robinson in her talks with her Chicago friends.

Democrats are already working to locate an acceptable property in Hawaii for the Obamas to live; this land and its complex of buildings must be ready to move-into in January and must meet all the requirements the Secret Service demands since the Obamas will be granted continued protection, by law, for nine years after Barack leaves office. The Reagans, Clintons, and second Bush family all had their post-presidential homes purchased quietly on the side by friends when their times in office were coming to an end. The Obamas are doing the same thing now.

They are not talking about building a complex on vacant land because there is not time for that. They will need a place to live come January, and they are not returning to their home in Chicago that was purchased with the help of convicted felon Tony Rezko. Chicago served its purpose in Obama’s life and moving back here provides him no additional benefits. As a former president, he’d always be the second most powerful man in a town where the Mayor of Chicago is essentially a feudal king. In Hawaii, the Obamas will hold court as a new royal family on the islands.

…UPDATE: Just found out that the asking price of the house they are looking at is most likely $35 million. Bobby Titcomb, the Hawaiian native who brings Obama “fish and poi” (that’s code for “weed and coke”) to the White House is most likely involved in the purchase of the estate on Oahu that the Obamas will most likely be moving into in January. Possibly watching Titcomb’s movements will give more clues as to which house, exactly, Obama will move to in January 2013.

…UPDATE #2: Found it! Here’s the only property that matches all the clues we’ve been given. It is on the market for $35 million, which matches what Mrs. Robinson has been saying about the “$35 million house she’d be living in soon”. This estate was also featured on TV’s remake of Hawaii 5-O recently. Do you see how that’s a little in-joke that Obama would like…the “O” in the show’s name, like the “O” he’s used as his personal emblem since 2008? A man who named his dog BO, after his own initials, would love to own a house that was featured in an “O” show, like after his last name. This is a photo of the house as featured on TV and in Honolulu Magazine so you can see a little inside. The link above has more pics of the house that Barack Obama will soon be living in as an ex-president.

Some Consolation Prize, huh?

Simply Scooter and Mooch’s reward for years of selfless Public Service.

Yeah…right.

These are the Times That Try Men’s Souls (Again).

THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but “to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER” and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God.

Thomas Paine (December 23, 1776)

Thomas Paine, unfortunately, was ahead of his time.

Extremists from groups linked to al Qaida struck the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in a “deliberate and organized terrorist attack,” the top U.S. intelligence agency said Friday, as it took responsibility for the Obama administration’s initial claims that the deadly assault grew from a spontaneous protest against an anti-Islam video.

The unusual statement from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence appeared to have two goals: updating the public on the latest findings of the investigation into the assault, and shielding the White House from a political backlash over its original accounts.

“In the immediate aftermath (of the assault), there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo,” spokesman Sean Turner said in the statement. “We provided that initial assessment to executive branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly.”

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which coordinates and sets policies for the 16 other U.S. intelligence agencies, is led by retired Air Force Gen. James Clapper, who was appointed by President Barack Obama in August 2010.

U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other Americans died in the assault staged by scores of assault rifle- and rocket-propelled grenade-toting assailants on the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

Republicans, including presidential candidate Mitt Romney, have accused the administration of misleading the country about the nature of the attack to protect Obama’s campaign claim that his policies have hurt al Qaida’s ability to launch attacks and eased anti-U.S. hatred in the Muslim world.

In his statement, Turner said that U.S. intelligence agencies’ understanding of what happened in Benghazi, Libya’s second largest city, has evolved as they’ve collected and analyzed information on the incident. “As we learned more about the attack, we revised our initial assessment to reflect new information indicating that it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists,” he said.

“It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attack, and if extremist group leaders directed their members to participate,” he said. “However, we do assess that some of those involved were linked to groups affiliated with, or sympathetic to, al Qaida.”

Turner didn’t name a specific group. Other U.S. officials have said that they were focusing on the possible involvement of the North African affiliate of the terrorist network, al Qaida in the Maghreb, known as AQIM, and local Islamic militant groups.

If you believe that Obama, Hillary, and the State Department did not know what was going on, I have a Roseanne Barr musical CD, I want to sell you.

So, what are the purveyors of Smart Power! going to do about this Anti-American Jihad going on in the Middle East?

Buck up and show the Muslim Terrorists who is the greatest country on the face of the Earth?

Tell them the way the cow ate the cabbage?

Would you believe…try to buy their friendship with money?

The Obama administration notified Congress on Friday that it would provide Egypt’s new government an emergency cash infusion of $450 million, but the aid immediately encountered resistance from a prominent lawmaker wary of foreign aid and of Egypt’s new course under the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The aid is part of the $1 billion in assistance that the Obama administration has pledged to Egypt to bolster its transition to democracy after the overthrow last year of the former president, Hosni Mubarak. Its fate, however, was clouded by concerns over the new government’s policies and, more recently, the protests that damaged the American Embassy in Cairo.

The United States Agency for International Development notified Congress of the cash infusion on Friday morning during the pre-election recess, promptly igniting a smoldering debate over foreign aid and the administration’s handling of crises in the Islamic world.

An influential Republican lawmaker, Representative Kay Granger of Texas, immediately announced that she would use her position as chairwoman of the House appropriations subcommittee overseeing foreign aid to block the distribution of the money. She said the relationship with Egypt “has never been under more scrutiny” than in the wake of the election of President Mohamed Morsi, a former leader of the Muslim Brotherhood.

“I am not convinced of the urgent need for this assistance, and I cannot support it at this time,” Ms. Granger said in a statement that her office issued even before the administration announced the package.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, speaking at a meeting of the Group of 8 nations in New York, said on Friday that the world needed to do more to support the governments that have emerged from the Arab Spring uprisings, including those in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia.

“The recent riots and protests throughout the region have brought the challenge of transition into sharp relief,” Mrs. Clinton said, without mentioning the assistance to Egypt specifically. “Extremists are clearly determined to hijack these wars and revolutions to further their agendas and ideology, so our partnership must empower those who would see their nations emerge as true democracies.”

“Extremists”, Madame Secretary?

You’re giving money to a country run by the Muslim Brotherhood, the granddaddy of Muslim Extremist Groups.

The way you and your boss, Scooter, have handled this whole Foreign Affairs Fiasco in the Middle East, from the galloping terrorist-backed revolution of “Arab Spring”, to the planned, coordinated attacks on 9/11/2012, which you falsely and intentionally blamed on a Youtube Video, knowing full well that none of those Barbarians had ever even seen it, has been reminiscent of the chase scene choreographed to Boot’s Randolph’s “Yakety Sax”, which Americans used to laugh at, at the end of the classic Benny Hill Show.

Only Smart Power! is no comedy. It’s a full blown tragedy, in several acts, unfolding before an astonished and baffled American citizenry.

Did you guys, in this age of digital, speed of light, world-wide communications, actually believe that your cockamamie fable about the fanatical adherents to Islam rioting over a stupid, unknown video, was going to fool the majority of Americans?

Seriously?

You pompous, Liberal-elite jackwagons have provided Americans with the instrument of your own political demise:

BenghaziGate.

Because blaming it on a video means never having to say you’re sorry.

Ryan Re-energizes Republican Base

Paul Ryan, the Vice-Presidential pick of the presumed Republican Nominee for President, Mitt Romney, sure does have everyone’s attention, including that of Niall Feguson.

Who’s he? well…

Per his website:

Niall Ferguson, MA, D.Phil., is Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University. He is also a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and a Senior Research Fellow at Jesus College, Oxford.

Here is an excerpt of a 4-page piece  he has written for Newsweek, appearing on thedailybeast.com:

I first met Paul Ryan in April 2010. I had been invited to a dinner in Washington where the U.S. fiscal crisis was going to be the topic of discussion. So crucial did this subject seem to me that I expected the dinner to happen in one of the city’s biggest hotel ballrooms. It was actually held in the host’s home. Three congressmen showed up—a sign of how successful the president’s fiscal version of “don’t ask, don’t tell” (about the debt) had been. Ryan blew me away. I have wanted to see him in the White House ever since.

It remains to be seen if the American public is ready to embrace the radical overhaul of the nation’s finances that Ryan proposes. The public mood is deeply ambivalent. The president’s approval rating is down to 49 percent. The Gallup Economic Confidence Index is at minus 28 (down from minus 13 in May). But Obama is still narrowly ahead of Romney in the polls as far as the popular vote is concerned (50.8 to 48.2) and comfortably ahead in the Electoral College. The pollsters say that Paul Ryan’s nomination is not a game changer; indeed, he is a high-risk choice for Romney because so many people feel nervous about the reforms Ryan proposes.

But one thing is clear. Ryan psychs Obama out. This has been apparent ever since the White House went on the offensive against Ryan in the spring of last year. And the reason he psychs him out is that, unlike Obama, Ryan has a plan—as opposed to a narrative—for this country.

Mitt Romney is not the best candidate for the presidency I can imagine. But he was clearly the best of the Republican contenders for the nomination. He brings to the presidency precisely the kind of experience—both in the business world and in executive office—that Barack Obama manifestly lacked four years ago. (If only Obama had worked at Bain Capital for a few years, instead of as a community organizer in Chicago, he might understand exactly why the private sector is not “doing fine” right now.) And by picking Ryan as his running mate, Romney has given the first real sign that—unlike Obama—he is a courageous leader who will not duck the challenges America faces.

The voters now face a stark choice. They can let Barack Obama’s rambling, solipsistic narrative continue until they find themselves living in some American version of Europe, with low growth, high unemployment, even higher debt—and real geopolitical decline.

Or they can opt for real change: the kind of change that will end four years of economic underperformance, stop the terrifying accumulation of debt, and reestablish a secure fiscal foundation for American national security.

I’ve said it before: it’s a choice between les États Unis and the Republic of the Battle Hymn.

I was a good loser four years ago. But this year, fired up by the rise of Ryan, I want badly to win.

So do us commoners, Niall.

I like what I’m seeing out of Ryan, so far. He’s definitely got Obama nervous, as yahoo.com reports:

Romney’s choice of Ryan as his running mate has put a spotlight on the Wisconsin congressman’s best-known achievement – a budget plan that would slash Medicare’s projected costs by converting it to a program that provides limited subsidies to buy coverage.

But on the campaign trail, Ryan has moved away from his plan to emphasize less contentious proposals by Romney.

Talk of shrinking the health program for the elderly could lose votes in the November 6 election in the hotly contested state of Florida, home to the highest concentration of retirees in the country.

“Their plan would put Medicare on track to be ended as we know it,” President Barack Obama said to a crowd of about 2,300 at a campaign event on Saturday in Windham, New Hampshire.

“You’d think they’d avoid talking about Medicare given the fact that both of them have proposed to voucherize the Medicare system. I guess they figure the best defense is to try to go on offense,” Obama said.

Polls show Romney and Obama running neck-and-neck in Florida, where the cliffhanger 2000 presidential election was decided.

Republicans accuse Obama of cutting $716 billion from Medicare to pay for the healthcare overhaul law that the Democratic president signed in 2010.

But Ryan’s plan also would cut that money from Medicare, even as he proposes repealing the broader healthcare law. Romney says he would keep those funds for Medicare.

Ryan talked on Saturday about his grandmother who had Alzheimer’s disease and moved in with him and his mother when he was in high school.

“Medicare was there for our family, for my grandma when we needed it then. And Medicare is there for my mom, when she needs it now. And we have to keep that guarantee,” he said.

“But in order to make sure that we can guarantee that promise for my mom’s generation, for those baby boomers who are retiring every day, we must reform it for my generation.”

Medicare benefits nearly 50 million elderly and disabled Americans, but its financing will be squeezed by the growing numbers of retirees.

Concerns about the program’s future have become the top healthcare issue in the 2012 election, surpassing worries about Obama’s controversial healthcare law, a Kaiser Family Foundation poll found earlier this week.

Joseph Bulla, 62, a Romney supporter at The Villages, said he liked Ryan’s voucher plan for Medicare. “It will give us a chance to choose what we want instead of being dictated to,” he said.

With Obama’s VP Joe Biden, sent home to Delaware to keep him from destroying Obama’s re-election bid by spewing forth more gaffes over the weekend, the nation is wondering what ol’ Scooter is going to do.

He says that he’s going to keep crazy Uncle Joe. But then again, Michael Corleone reassured Fredo, too.

If he doesn’t dump him, the Vice-presidential Debate will be the biggest massacre America has witnessed, since Custer said,

Hey! would you look at all of those Indians!

Campaign 2012: Racist Allusions and the “N” Word

The Democratic and Republican Conventions have not even been held yet, and the Democrats are panicking…Big Time.

Joe Biden only said “chains”. MSNBC Host Toure’ (Who?) invoked the “N” word.

Mediaite.com reports:

On Thursday’s edition of MSNBC’s The Cycle the group discussed Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney‘s assertion that President Obama should “take [his] campaign of division and anger and hate back to Chicago.” Co-host Touré saw what he believes to be explicit racial connotations beneath what Romney was saying, calling it the “niggerization” of the campaign.

“That really bothered me,” he said. “You notice he said anger twice. He’s really trying to use racial coding and access some really deep stereotypes about the angry black man. This is part of the playbook against Obama, the ‘otherization,’ he’s not like us.”

“I know it’s a heavy thing, I don’t say it lightly, but this is ‘niggerization,’” Touré said to the apparent shock of his co-panelists. “You are not one of us, you are like the scary black man who we’ve been trained to fear.”

Naturally this led to a battle between Touré and conservative co-host S.E. Cupp. She took particular issue with the fact that Touré admitted that VP Joe Biden‘s “chains” comments were divisive, but is now calling Romney a “racist” for saying the Obama campaign is “angry.”

“Do you see how dishonest that is?” she asked.

Touré denied calling anyone a racist, which prompted Cupp to say, “Certainly you were implying that Mitt Romney and the base will respond to this dog-whistle, racially-charged coding, and hate Obama, the angry black man?”

“Absolutely,” he replied.

“That’s so irresponsible,” Cupp answered back.

“This is not a revolutionary comment,” Touré later said. “This is a constituency all-white party that rejects the black vote.”

“You have two white guys in Joe Biden and Mitt Romney,” Cupp clarified. “Joe Biden made the overtly racial comment and has a history of making bigoted remarks. Mitt Romney was responding to the comment. Yet he is the one responsible for the whole Republican history of racism in politics?”

“That’s not what Touré is saying,” co-host Krystal Ball interjected. “You’re twisting his words.”

“No, he can speak for himself,” Cupp shot back.

“He’s using the playbook Republicans have been using for decades now,” Touré concluded.

So, who is this young…ummm…genius?…no…that’s not the word…I’ll think of it in a minute.

Touré is the author of four books, including Who’s Afraid of Post-Blackness? What It Means to Be Black Now. He is the co-host of MSNBC’s show The Cycle. He is also the host of the Fuse show The Hiphop Shop and On the Record and is a professor at NYU’s Clive Davis School of Recorded Music.

This isn’t the few time that this young man has been…ummm…controversial.

Breitbart.com gives us the lowdown:

During a discussion on the political atmosphere after the Aurora shooting, Toure said he had “hoped” that the whole incident would provoke a “Trayvon Martin situation,” but that in the end it all boiled down to what he felt was the common racist attitude of making sure that “law abiding white people have access to guns” while “black criminals” don’t.

How Toure got from a white shooter with no past run-ins with either law enforcement or mental health professionals and who shot up a mostly white audience to the idea that all people care about afterward is keeping African Americans from observing their Second Amendment rights is anybody’s guess.

Here is what he said in the July 23 show:

We never have this debate until we have a tragedy and then its over emotionalized, its over fraught [sic], you can’t have a substantive debate when everybody’s so sensitive.

Day to day crime, as we’ve talked about, has fallen over the last 20 years so I think the average voter feels less of the fear that would motivate lawmakers to do something. These spectacular mass killings are way up from when our dads were kids — I think there was something like 11 in the 50s and 60s and over 550 in the last part of the lat century a decade ago.

So, those things sort of make us think about these things, but we understand those are outlier crimes, somebody going to shoot up the mall or shoot up the school. I would hope that it would be something like a Trayvon Martin situation that would make people think, ‘Wow. wrongful death, even though it’s a legal gun owner. How do we move forward from this situation?’ But so much of this issue, I think comes down to, ‘Let’s make sure law abiding white people are able to have access to guns and make sure that black criminals are not and that becomes part of the locus of the problem.

And we don’t even want to talk about that sort of racial, black sort of bottom of it all, but that’s definitely part of it.

In his short tenure at MSNBC, Toure has unleashed a torrent of left-wing tropes. Early in July he was all atwitter over Obama mandates hoping to see big daddy government grown immensely. The previous month he asserted that any criticism or interruptions of Obama are based solely on the fact that he’s black. On yet another show he outrageously hinted that the military might have murdered Pat Tillman to silence him from criticizing the Army. On still another episode he tried to ridicule a college student for having the temerity to be a Republican.

Toure doesn’t just keep his rants on MSNBC. In March Toure got into a heated public feud with CNN host Piers Morgan over an interview that Toure didn’t like with accused killer George Zimmerman. Morgan invited the bomb thrower on his show to talk about their feud and eventually Toure proceeded to unleash an epic race-baiting meltdown after which Morgan said, “I like to think of myself as a professional journalist, Touré. I think that you are something else.”

President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) said in an interview with Entertainment Tonight: 

We’re going around the country, talking about, ‘How do we put people back to work? How do we improve our schools? How do we make sure that we’re producing American energy? How do we lower our debt in a responsible way?’ And I don’t think you or anybody who’s been watching the campaign would say that in any way we have tried to divide the country. We’ve always tried to bring the country together.

You don’t have to try to divide the country, Mr. President. You have sycophants like Toure’ to do it for you.

Ohhh…now, I remember the word.

It’s RAACIIIST.

Ahhh…I feel much better, now.

Obama Wants to Spread the Wealth Around…Again

If you ever had any doubts that the 44th President of the United States is a narcissistic socialist who believes his own mythology, his pronouncement yesterday should drive those doubts away:

Politico.com has the story:

President Obama, while villifying Mitt Romney for opposing the auto industry bailout, bragged about the success of his decision to provide government assistance and said he now wants to see every manufacturing industry come roaring back.

“I said, I believe in American workers, I believe in this American industry, and now the American auto industry has come roaring back,” he said. “Now I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry.

“I don’t want those jobs taking root in places like China, I want those jobs taking root in places like Pueblo,” Obama told a crowd gathered for a campaign rally at the Palace of Agriculture at the Colorado State Fairgrounds here.

He made the remarks while pushing for the renewal of a tax credit for wind energy manufacturing – something Romney opposes – and for the creation of credits for companies who bring jobs home from overseas, as well as the elimination of loopholes for offshoring.

“Gov. Romney brags about his private sector experience, but it was mostly invested in companies, some of which were called ‘pioneers of outsourcing,’” Obama said. “I don’t want to be a pioneer of outsourcing. I want to insource.”

Back in February, nationalreview.com had an article debunking the myth of Obama’s economic genius concerning how wonderful the auto industry bailout was:

Unfortunately, assertions that “all loans have been repaid to the federal government,” that the bailout “saved more than one million American jobs,” that “U.S. automakers are hiring hundreds of thousands of new workers,” that GM is again the “number-one automaker” — all are based on creative accounting.

The money the government spent adds up quickly: $50 billion in TARP bailout funds, a special exemption waiving payment of $45.4 billion in taxes on future profits, an exemption for all product liability on cars sold before the bailout, $360 million in stimulus funds, and the $7,500 tax credit for those who buy the Chevy Volt. GM’s share of other programs is harder to quantify but includes, for example, some of the $15.2 billion that went to Cash for Clunkers. Those costs are in addition to the billions taken from GM’s bondholders by the Obama administration.

A look at the accounting shows the trouble with contentions that much of the TARP money is getting paid back. The Obama administration compares the $50 billion in direct bailout funds with the price it will eventually be able to get for selling the GM stock it owns. But that assumes that the stock price won’t reflect government subsidies, including GM’s exemption from paying $45 billion in taxes. By the Obama administration’s logic, if the stimulus grants to TARP recipients were simply large enough, all the TARP money could be paid.

Claims that GM paid back its TARP loan are true but misleading. President Obama clearly wants to create the impression that all the money given to the auto companies has been paid back. But the $6.7 billion loan to GM was just a tiny fraction of the money given to it. As TARP special inspector general Neil Barofsky explained, GM used “other TARP money” to pay off the loan.

So what about President Obama’s boast in a White House speech in late April that the bailout “saved probably a million jobs” and that “GM is now the number-one automaker again in the world”?

The “million jobs” contention is quite a stretch. Before filing for bankruptcy in July 2009, GM had 91,000 employees in the United States. You can reach a 400,000 total by assuming that all of GM’s jobs, as well as all the jobs of its parts suppliers and car dealers, would have been lost. Last year, employment in the entire automotive industry in the U.S. (counting Ford, Toyota, and other companies and their suppliers, in addition to GM and Chrysler) was only 717,000.

Obama’s economic advisers told him during an April 2009 meeting that job losses in the auto industry would be only a fraction — 10 to 20 percent — of these claimed numbers, even for the much weaker Chrysler. The advisers reported the obvious: Bankruptcy would not kill all jobs at GM and, even with cutbacks, suppliers would pick up other work. But Obama keeps using numbers that his own advisers told him were wrong.

Even saving 20 percent of 400,000 comes at quite a cost — at least $780,000 per job. How many workers would have been willing to quit working for GM for a $400,000 severance payment?

The “number-one automaker” assertion is no more accurate. Obama’s sales totals include 1.2 million mostly cheap commercial vehicles built by China’s Wuling, a company in which GM owns a small stake, and it excludes sales by vehicle makers in which Volkswagen owns a majority share. Fortune magazine lists GM’s revenue as smaller than Toyota’s and Volkswagen’s.

The only real winners from the GM bailout were unions, which were protected from pay cuts, from losing their right to overtime pay after less than 40 hours a week, and from cuts to their extremely generous benefits. They faced only minor tweaks in their inefficient union work rules.

As for “hundreds of thousands of new workers,” the truth is closer to a tenth of that.

And, he wants to extend this “helping hand” to every industry in America?

Marx would be so proud.

Why I am So Hard on Romney

I was 17 years old in 1976. So, I mercifully missed having to vote in the election of Jimmy Carter. But, the Lord blessed me. With my first vote in a national election, I was able to vote for the greatest American President in our lifetimes, Ronald Wilson Reagan.

With that vote, the standard was set in my mind and heart, as to what an American President should be.

Watching Ronaldus Magnus as a young, impressionable 20-something, making his way in the world, I marveled at his grace, humor, and unflinching, steely reserve in the face of America’s enemies, foreign and domestic, whether princes and principalities, or those unseen forces that dwell in the dark recesses of our society.

I have been looking to elect an American President like that, ever since.

Needless to say, I have been sorely disappointed.

That’s not to say that I was and am, not supportive of George W. Bush.  He was the right man to be in that chair in the Oval Office on September 11, 2001.

Can you imagine what would have happened if Carter, Clinton, or, God forbid, Obama, was president during the worst Terrorist Attack on our soil in American History?

I refuse to even consider the possibilities.

That being said, Dubya remains a good Christian man, who loves his country. Although, his record of spending as president leaves something to be desired.

However, his record of spending OUR money pales in comparison to Barack Hussein Obama’s.

After taking office in 2009, with spending and debt already at record high levels and the deficit headed to $1 trillion, President Obama proceeded to pass his own $830 billion stimulus, auto bailouts, mortgage relief plans, the Dodd-Frank financial reforms and the $1.7 trillion ObamaCare entitlement (which isn’t even accounted for in the chart). While spending did come down in 2010, it wasn’t the result of spending cuts but rather because TARP loans began to be repaid, and that cash was counted against spending.

In 2011 and 2012, the pace of spending was slowed when a new emboldened breed of Republicans took back the House promising to end the binge. The House Budget Committee, headed by Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, has identified about $150 billion of new spending Mr. Obama wanted in 2011 and 2012 that Republicans would not approve.

If Obama’s failure as president was simply judged by his horrible economic policy, which has trashed our country like the aftermath of the Frat Party in National Lampoon’s Animal House (without the fun), that would be bad enough.

However, culturally speaking, he has taken our country in a Liberal, Marxist, and Godless direction.

From his declaration during his campaign,in a private meeting with donors, that we Americans living in the Heartland were bitterly clinging to our guns and Bibles, to his bowing to our enemies and embracing of the granddaddy of Islamic Terrorist Organizations,  the Muslim Brotherhood, to his  repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and his crowning achievement: his destruction of the greatest Healthcare System in the World, Obama has consistently governed against the wishes of the majority of the American citizens he is supposed to be serving.

His darling wife hasn’t exactly been a peach, either.

While other First Ladies have embraced causes such as poverty, child hunger, and illiteracy, Michelle Obama decided that American parents were not caring for their children properly, and decided to be their surrogate parent, under the guise of fighting chldhood obesity. And, if that wasn’t enough, last year, she and her Food Police decided that the fittest among us, our Armed Forces, weren’t eating properly and, is now going to make them eat arugula, or something. Heck, even the Subway Sandwich Shops are putting avocado and raw spinach on their sandwiches, now.

Then, there’s her remark during the 2008 campaign that “For the first time in my life, I’m proud of my country”. And, as an Honor Guard passed by her and the president, during the solemn 10th anniversary remembrance of 9/11, she leaned over to him, and said, “All this for a flag.”…and, the President of the United States nodded in agreement.

So, why am I so hard on the presumptive Republican nominee for President?

America is in desperate need of a leader…a man in the mold of Ronald Wilson Reagan, possessing not only traditional American beliefs and values, but, also possessing the courage and conviction necessary to stick his neck out for those beliefs and values, and not put them on the back burner for the sake of poltical expediency.

In 1984, President Reagan said:

Society has always regarded marital love as a sacred expression of the bond between a man and a woman. It is the means by which families are created and society itself is extended into the future. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, it is the means by which husband and wife participate with God in the creation of a new human life. It is for these reasons, among others, that our society has always sought to protect this unique relationship. In part the erosion of these values has given way to a celebration of forms of expression most reject. We will resist the efforts of some to obtain government endorsement of homosexuality.

Yesterday, The Examiner reported the following:

Speaking with reporters in Nevada, Mitt Romney refused to enter the Chick-fil-A controversy that has occupied most of the nation’s attention this week.

During the press conference, Romney was asked whether the Chick-fil-A controversy – or the controversy about Huma Abedin’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood – should be part of the national conversation.

“Those are not things that’s not part of my campaign.” he answered shortly, after explaining that he wasn’t in the business of telling people what to talk about.

Lacking the courage of his convictions?

And, that’s why I’m so hard on Romney.

American Conservatives/Chick-Fil-A…GOP Elite/Bread and Circuses

While Conservatives and “Independents” have been out fighting the good fight against Fascist Liberals by standing or sitting in their car, in massive lines at their local Chick-Fil-A, they have all been wondering:

Where’s the Republican Establishment?

Like the Main Stream Media, they’ve been ignoring the situation.

There is some good news ,though:

It appears that the apparent Republican Nominee for President has taken a stand after all.

On the Chick-Fil-A situation, KJ? Nope.

In his own defense.

FoxNews.com has the story:

Mitt Romney lashed back at Harry Reid on Thursday in an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, saying the Senate majority leader needs to “put up or shut up” after airing allegations about Romney’s taxes.

Reid, a Nevada Democrat, first raised eyebrows Tuesday by saying in a news interview that someone had told him Romney went 10 years without paying taxes. He would only identify his source as an investor in Romney’s former venture capital firm, Bain Capital, and he acknowledged, “I’m not certain” it’s true.

That didn’t stop Reid from taking to the Senate floor Thursday to accuse the Republican presidential candidate again of paying no taxes, part of a broader Democratic attack on Romney for declining to release more than two years of tax documents.

“The word’s out that he hasn’t paid any taxes for 10 years,” Reid said. “Let him prove that he has paid taxes, because he hasn’t.”

But Romney forcefully denied Reid’s allegations on Hannity’s radio show Thursday.

“Harry’s going to have to describe who it is he spoke with, because, of course, that is totally and completely wrong,” Romney said. “It’s untrue, dishonest and inaccurate. It’s wrong.

“So, I’m looking forward to have Harry reveal his sources, and we will probably find out it’s the White House.”

Romney’s campaign earlier rejected the majority leader’s statement as “shameful.”

Reid also raised eyebrows for invoking Romney’s late father, himself a one-time presidential candidate.

“His poor father must be so embarrassed about his son,” Reid told the Huffington Post.

George Romney, a Michigan governor, released 12 years of tax returns during his unsuccessful bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 1968. His son has released only his 2010 tax return and an estimate for 2011, years when he was preparing for his own presidential bid or already running.

Reid doubled down on the claim late Thursday, firing back at Romney in a written statement.

“People who make as much money as Mitt Romney have many tricks at their disposal to avoid paying taxes,” Reid said in a written statement. “When it comes to answering the legitimate questions the American people have about whether he avoided paying his fair share in taxes or why he opened a Swiss bank account, Romney has shut up. But as a presidential candidate, it’s his obligation to put up, and release several years’ worth of tax returns just like nominees of both parties have done for decades.

“It’s clear Romney is hiding something, and the American people deserve to know what it is.”

Reid’s comments come in the middle of a scathing critique of the former Massachusetts governor’s tax plan. The Tax Policy Center, which Romney has called “an objective third party” in the past, noted that his proposal would give benefits to high-income earners while giving a tax increase to middle-class Americans. Romney’s camp has disputed that analysis.

Meanwhile, another well-known Moderate seems to have found his…err…backbone also. 

Thehill.com reports:

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) lashed out at President Obama during an interview Tuesday, saying the president has “never even had a real job, for God’s sake.”

Boehner was discussing the presidential election, and accusing President Obama’s campaign team of using “over-the-top” rhetoric to distract from his economic record.

“Sometimes I have to catch my breath and slow down because the rhetoric in this campaign is just so over-the-top,” Bohener said during an appearance on “Kilmeade and Friends.” “And that’s because the president’s policies have failed. Listen — 93 percent of Americans believe they’re a part of the middle class. That’s why you hear the president talk about the middle class every day, because he’s talking to 93 percent of the American people.”

Then the Ohio lawmaker lit into the president’s qualifications to discuss job creation.

“But the president has never created a job. He’s never even had a real job, for God’s sake,” Boehner said. “And I can tell you from my dealings with him, he has no idea how the real world, that we actually live in, works.”

In the same interview, Boehner blasted Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) for his suggestion on the Senate floor Thursday that Mitt Romney paid no federal income taxes for a decade.

“I don’t know how you go out there and make a statement like that without any facts,” Boehner said. “It’s one of the problems that occurs here in Washington, people run out there without any facts and just make noise. The American people are too smart for this, they’ll get to the bottom of this, it clearly is not a fact, and I would think that the Senate majority leader would be smart enough to know that.”

While Americans have been taking a stand this week against the tyranny of the Minority, what have the leaders of the Republican Party (which we will be dragging across the goal line) been giving us?

Bread and circuses.

American Servicemen and Women to March in Gay Pride Parade…in Uniform

For one of the few times in my 53 years, I’m speechless. I’ll get back to you after you read this from yahoo.com.

The Defense Department on Thursday announced it is allowing service members to march in uniform in a gay pride parade for the first time in U.S. history.

In a memorandum sent to all its branches, the department said it was making the allowance for San Diego’s Gay Pride Parade on Saturday even though its policy generally bars troops from marching in uniform in parades.

The Defense Department said it did so because organizers had encouraged military personnel to march in their uniform and the event was getting national attention.

The move came only weeks after the Pentagon joined the rest of the U.S. government for the first time in marking June as gay pride month and made an official salute to gay and lesbian service members.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta vowed in a video message to remove as many barriers as possible to making the military a model of equal opportunity and said gays and lesbians can be proud in uniform with the repeal last year of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law.

Last year, San Diego’s Gay Pride Parade had the nation’s largest contingency of active-duty troops participate before the military lifted its ban on openly gay service members. About 200 service members last year wore T-shirts with their branch’s name.

Former sailor Sean Sala, who organized the military’s participation in the parade, said he wanted service members to wear their official uniform this year to show there is no longer anything to hide.

“My soul is on fire,” he said after hearing the news Thursday. “They don’t fight in T-shirts. They fight in uniforms. This is about showing who they are.”

The Pentagon said the allowance is only for this year’s parade in San Diego and does not extend beyond that. Military personnel wearing civilian clothes do not need permission to march in any parades.

Back on September 20. 2011, abcnews.go.com reported that

Today, it’s official. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is formally repealed and gays and lesbians will, for the first time, be allowed to serve openly in the military. Reflecting on the milestone, President Obama said today he was proud to repeal the 17-year-old ban “because I knew that it would enhance our national security, increase our military readiness, and bring us closer to the principles of equality and fairness that define us as Americans.”

“As of today, patriotic Americans in uniform will no longer have to lie about who they are in order to serve the country they love. As of today, our armed forces will no longer lose the extraordinary skills and combat experience of so many gay and lesbian service members. And today, as commander in chief, I want those who were discharged under this law to know that your country deeply values your service,” the president said in a written statement.

Service members who were discharged under the policy will now be allowed to re-enlist and the military has already been taking applications from potential gay recruits.

Obama went on to note that the repeal “is a tribute to all the patriots who fought and marched for change,” from lawmakers to military leaders to the men and women in uniform.

“For more than two centuries, we have worked to extend America’s promise to all our citizens. Our armed forces have been both a mirror and a catalyst of that progress, and our troops, including gays and lesbians, have given their lives to defend the freedoms and liberties that we cherish as Americans. Today, every American can be proud that we have taken another great step toward keeping our military the finest in the world and toward fulfilling our nation’s founding ideals,” Obama concluded.

And now, Gay servicemen and women in uniform are going to march in a Gay Pride Parade, a clearly political exercise.

Now I’m not naive, gay Americans have always served in our Armed Forces…discreetly and professionally…not politically.

So, now they want to march? They’re a month late:

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta is not requiring commands and agencies to hold gay pride events this month, even as the Pentagon prepares for its first celebration on Tuesday of gays serving openly in the ranks.

Mr. Panetta issued a message to troops June 15 recognizing June as Gay Pride Month in the military, after President Obama officially recognized it weeks earlier.

Jeh Johnson, the Defense Department’s general counsel who spearheaded the drive inside the Pentagon to repeal the policy against gays serving openly in the military, will be the keynote speaker at the Pentagon event, which will feature a panel discussion titled “The Value of Open Service and Diversity.”

The Pentagon has not released the names of panel members. A gay-rights group said it knows the names, but declined to identify them before the Pentagon does.

Pentagon spokesmen said Mr. Panetta has not directed commands, installations or agencies to hold companion gay pride events during June.

A spot-check of major commands – such as Special Operations Command, Pacific Command and Central Command – revealed that no special events or statements are scheduled. One spokesman said that does not mean an installation will not note the occasion with a statement or exhibit.

“I’m not aware of any events planned at this point,” said a Pacific Command spokeswoman.

Said Army spokesman George Wright: “Aside from the event at the Pentagon for [the Department of Defense], I’m not aware of any organized activities here at Army headquarters, nor at installations.”

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta is not requiring commands and agencies to hold gay pride events this month, even as the Pentagon prepares for its first celebration on Tuesday of gays serving openly in the ranks.

Mr. Panetta issued a message to troops June 15 recognizing June as Gay Pride Month in the military, after President Obama officially recognized it weeks earlier.

Jeh Johnson, the Defense Department’s general counsel who spearheaded the drive inside the Pentagon to repeal the policy against gays serving openly in the military, will be the keynote speaker at the Pentagon event, which will feature a panel discussion titled “The Value of Open Service and Diversity.”

The Pentagon has not released the names of panel members. A gay-rights group said it knows the names, but declined to identify them before the Pentagon does.

Pentagon spokesmen said Mr. Panetta has not directed commands, installations or agencies to hold companion gay pride events during June.

A spot-check of major commands – such as Special Operations Command, Pacific Command and Central Command – revealed that no special events or statements are scheduled. One spokesman said that does not mean an installation will not note the occasion with a statement or exhibit.

“I’m not aware of any events planned at this point,” said a Pacific Command spokeswoman.

Said Army spokesman George Wright: “Aside from the event at the Pentagon for [the Department of Defense], I’m not aware of any organized activities here at Army headquarters, nor at installations.”

I tell you what, kids.  I’m going to march, too, and proudly proclaim my heterosexuality, every chance I get.

It would be just as appropriate.

Like Obama, Hollyweird is Out-of-Touch

On the heels of President Barack Hussein Obama’s un-constitutional Presidential Decree of last Friday, Hollyweird is proving themselves to be just as out-of-touch with average Americans as their messiah.

Deadline.com reports on a couple of “surefire hits” that are examples of a movie industry who is wrapped up in its own little world:

After the tsunami that was Marvel’s The Avengers, five major studio movies disappointed. Then DreamWorks Animation’s Madagascar 3 and Fox’s Prometheus performed better than expected and are still easily holding #1 and #2 their second weekends with $33.5M and $20.5M respectively. (Even though the Ridley Scott scifi thriller dropped a whopping -73% from last Friday to today because of all those gaping plot holes.)

Contrast that with Friday’s newcomers which each should have earned over $20M this weekend because of their star power. But New Line/Warner Bros’ Rock Of Ages (3,470 theaters) fell to earth with a thud. Which Hollywood expected because the pic had been tracking poorly for weeks (and even went down at one point week to week). The studio felt the 1980s period piece was a hard sell to younger moviegoers. I suspect the problem was casting. Russell Brand has been repellant to moviegoers, while Tom Cruise as iconic rocker proved just too incredulous for audiences. The PG-13 musical is looking to open to only $15.5M this weekend after taking in just $5.3M Friday. Given that the pic was based on the Broadway warbler, it did far worse than Mamma Mia which with the same pedigree opened to $27M. Warner Bros was holding out hope for this $75M-budget pic, thinking that a good CinemaScore could generate great word of mouth and therefore great legs for the film. It didn’t materialize: audiences only gave Rock Of Ages a mediocre ‘B’. There’s just no way to save this s(t)inker with hack director Adam Shankman at the helm: weekend gross may fall below $15M.

Columbia/Sony’s That’s My Boy (3,030 theaters) starring Adam Sandler also was bottoming. It will hurt further that audiences only gave it a ‘B-’ CinemaScore. (“But ‘B’s with everybody under 50,” a Sony exec emails me.) Hollywood didn’t expect Sandler to attract his usual family friendly audience with an ‘R’ rating. But an actor who reliably takes in $30M to $40M every opening weekend and then dropping to $14M after grossing only $4.5M today can’t go unchastized. Especially if he hurt his brand with his most recent pic, that execrable flop Jack & Jill. (How much you wanna bet Andy Samberg is rethinking that SNL exit now?) Weekend gross may fall below $12.5M.

Let’s dissect these brilliant pieces of cinematic skill, shall we?

First, according to fandango.com, Rock of Ages goes this way:

A small-town girl and a big-city boy find their fates intersecting on the Sunset Strip, riding a wave of romance through the height of the “hair metal” scene as the off-Broadway musical rocks its way to the big screen courtesy of choreographer-turned-director Adam Shankman (A Walk to Remember, Hairspray). Arriving in Hollywood with stars in her eyes, Sherrie (Julianne Hough) meets Drew (Diego Boneta), and together they plunge headlong into the local rock scene. Meanwhile, as Sherrie struggles to stay afloat in a churning sea of rock ‘n’ roll excess, she gets swept off her feet by audacious rock star Stacee Jaxx (Tom Cruise). Russell Brand, Paul Giamatti, and Bryan Cranston co-star in a movie featuring music by Journey, Def Leppard, Poison, Whitesnake, Bon Jovi, Foreigner, Joan Jett, and REO Speedwagon. ~ Jason Buchanan, Rovi

And, “That’s My Boy” wastes 2 hours in the following manner, per fandango.com:

While still a teen himself, Donny (Adam Sandler) fathered a son,Todd (Andy Samberg), and raised him as a single parent. On Todd’s 18th birthday, Donny cut the youth loose. After years of estrangement,the older man shows up unexpectedly on the eve of his son’s wedding day, sending the young man’s life into a tailspin. Donny wants desperately to reconnect with Todd, but he must now deal with the repercussions of the bad parenting he exhibited in the past. Cast: Adam Sandler, Andy Samberg, Leighton Meester, Vanilla Ice, James Caan

Evidently, this movie is leaving everyone as cold as Ice, Ice, Baby.

The producers expected average Americans to find a story about a guy who slept with his teacher and got her pregnant, funny?

Epic failure.

As I sit here, on Father’s Day morning, thanking God for all the children I’ve helped to raise, my grandson, and my wonderful bride, I wonder how many other Americans Fathers here in the Heartland are doing the exact same thing?  

Answer: a lot.

Because, whatever the East and the West Coast, and all of the Main Stream Media tries to tell you, average Americans, there are a whole lot more of us than there are of them.

Believe it.

Just how out-of-touch are Hollywood Liberals?

Well, they expect us to buy the idea of Scientologist Tom Cruise as a rock star, Alec Baldwin as a long -haired hipster, and Barack Obama as a great president.

No wonder Arnold, Bruce, and Sly named their restaurant Planet Hollywood…because Hollyweird Liberals sure don’t live on this one.

Obama: Style Over Substance

Yesterday, a desperate-looking 44th President of the United States, one Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm), delivered a speech that was supposed to turn around his rapidly-tanking presidency.

To say that he failed is an understatement.  Even the Liberals were disappointed in their messiah.

Politicker.com reports that

Despite the hype, the speech was mainly a rehash of themes and ideas from the president’s recent stump speeches and his remarks were widely panned as overly long by the political press corps.

In the speech, President Obama outlined his view that this election is a choice between “two fundamentally different views of which direction America should take.” He characterized Mitt Romney’s vision as being the same as the “policies of the last decade,” specifically deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy while he described his own “vision for America” as boiling down to five things: “Education. Energy. Innovation. Infrastructure. And a tax code focused on American job creation and balanced deficit reduction.” President Obama also stressed that the economic crisis began during the Bush administration and that is “started growing again” after he took office and has since “continued to grow.”

All of these points have already been featured in the president’s other recent speeches. Between the pre-speech hype from the campaign, the lack of new material and the overall length of the speech reporters were clearly dissatisfied with end result. Read on for a sampling of Tweets from the political press slamming the president’s speech.

Before the speech was over, Politico’s Mike O’Brien begged the president to stop.

Evidently, ol’ Scooter is now an embarrassment to the Liberals.

But, hey, Libs…there’s good news!  What Obama lacks in substance, he makes up for in style. Yeah, right…

Anna Wintour is becoming quite the fashionable fixture on President Obama’s campaign team this election season.

The Vogue editrix hit Chicago on Tuesday – flanked by supermodels Iman and Chanel Iman, designer Rachel Roy and Obama campaign manager Jim Messina – for an evening of haute fund-raising at Oprah Winfrey’s Harpo Studios.

Wintour was on hand to preside over the Windy City debut of the “Runway to Win” collection, a line of Obama-themed clothes and accessories by designers like Prabal Gurung, Jason Wu, Marc Jacobs, Beyoncé & Tina Knowles, Tory Burch, Tracy Reese and Narcisco Rodriguez – several of whom are favorites of First Lady Michelle Obama.

Tickets ran from $150 for a guest pass to sip cocktails and shop the collection to $1,000 for a VIP package, including a photo reception with Wintour and Iman (aka Mrs. David Bowie) and a limited edition bag, to $2,500 for access to the show, the reception and an exclusive dinner party at Oprah’s Harpo headquarters. Donations benefited the Obama Victory Fund, according to a dedicated page on Obama’s website.

The “Runway to Win” line is also being promoted on the site, with most tops, bags and accessories going for under $100 – a much lower price point than those designers’ creations typically command.

Wintour has been ramping up her involvement, and her visibility, in the president’s reelection effort of late. Proving she’s good for far more than dispensing fashion tips to FLOTUS, Vogue’s longtime editor-in-chief has emerged as one of President Obama’s top boldfaced bundlers, raising over $500,000 for his second run on the White House.

The British-born Wintour’s rising profile in the American political arena has stirred up rumors that the 62-year-old fashion doyenne could be in the running to become America’s next ambassador to the United Kingdom, replacing the outgoing Louis Susman. However, an individual with knowledge of the situation told TheWrap that Wintour is happy at her current job.

Tuesday’s summit for Chicago-area fashionistas was a repeat of a “Runway to Win” campaign event co-hosted by Wintour and Scarlett Johansson in New York on February 7. On Thursday, Wintour will return to Manhattan for yet another fund-raiser, this time with the high-end asking price of $40,000 per guest to join Barack and Michelle Obama and Sarah Jessica Parker at the “Sex and the City” star’s home.

Okaaaay…let me try to get a handle on this:  Obama gives an speech on the economy , sporting all the gravitas of Peter Noone of Herman’s Hermits singing “I’m Henry VIII I Am”.

Second verse, same as the first…

Meanwhile, Mr. Class Warfare himself is hanging out and begging money from the nation’s Liberal Elite…the 1%, if you will, while Moochelle is picking out her Fall Wardrobe while clutching the White House Credit Card in her hot little hands.

Remember back in October of 2008, Presidential Candidate Obama urged Joe the Plumber to “spread the wealth around”?

Well, hypocrite thy name is Soetoro…errr…Obama.

UPI.com reported on 5/16/11 that

President Barack Obama’s wealth reaches upward of $3.8 million and possibly much higher, financial disclosure reports issued by the White House Monday show.

The forms, which only provide wide ranges for each category, show most of his assets are tied up in treasury notes and bills — $1 million to $5 million each, with another $1 million to $5 million in book royalties. Obama and his wife, Michelle, also have at least hundreds of thousands of dollars more tucked away in retirement funds and education funds for their two daughters.

At the lower level, Obama probably is worth $3.8 million and at the upper end would have as much as $16.8 million, the reports indicate.

Huh.  I wonder why OWS didn’t Occupy the White House Lawn?

Oh, yeah.  The Proletariat never picketed the Politboro, either.