While We Were Focused on New Hampshire, Obama Proposed Trillions in Tax Hikes by Katie Pavlich

While we were all focused on the New Hampshire presidential primary yesterday, President Obama introduced his final budget plan complete with a whopping $3.4 trillion dollar tax hike for American families. ATR has the details:

The President’s adjusted baseline predicts revenues of $43.1 trillion over the ten year window, while his proposed budget calls for revenues totaling $46.5 trillion – an increase of $3.4 trillion.

The Obama budget will result in massive new taxes on already overtaxed American families.

Many of Obama’s new tax hikes violate the spirit – if not the letter — of Obama’s “firm pledge” against “any form of tax increase” on any American earning less than $250,000.

One previously announced tax hike in the Obama budget calls for a $320 billion energy tax increase on the American people. This new tax comes in the form of a $10 tax per barrel of oil that will be passed onto drivers in the form of higher prices at the pump.

Obama’s budget has been met with immediate rejection from Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill.

“The President’s final budget is clearly about promoting his liberal legacy instead of securing America’s financial future. Why is he wasting his last opportunity in office to tackle the real challenges facing our country? While a $3.4 trillion tax increase and $2.5 trillion in new spending over the next decade might please very liberal voters, they will only make life more expensive for the vast majority of Americans. This document will not prevent American jobs from moving overseas, Medicare from going bankrupt, and healthcare spending from continuing to rise,” House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady released in a statement. “Later this week, Ways and Means Republicans will have an opportunity to speak with Secretaries Burwell and Lew about this budget. We’re going to express our concerns on specific proposals, including the President’s new oil tax that will drive up energy bills and destroy jobs.”

Texas Senator John Cornyn said Obama’s budget is “unserious” and dead upon arrival.

“Rather than something that sends a signal that he wants to work with Congress, it basically is more of the same: a $4 trillion budget that is unserious, partisan, and contains reckless spending. And in it, he does include several new proposals, proposals he knows will be dead on arrival here in the United States Congress,” Cornyn said in a floor speech yesterday. “At a time when our country is producing more energy domestically than it ever has and just beginning to export that energy to our friends and allies around the world, the President’s budget reveals that he has little interest in growing our energy independence and little interest in jump-starting our economy.”

Keep in mind over his tenure in the White House, all of Obama’s annual budget plans have been roundly rejected, usually unanimously

Either Way This Election Will Start a Revolution!

Quote of the Day 02/16/16

“Reason and Ignorance, the opposites of each other, influence the great bulk of mankind. If either of these can be rendered sufficiently extensive in a country, the machinery of Government goes easily on. Reason obeys itself; and Ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.” — Thomas Paine (1737-1809) US Founding father, pamphleteer, author

Who are you calling scripted, Gov. Christie? By Marc A. Thiessen

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie pummeled Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) for being overly scripted during the New Hampshire debate, pouncing when Rubio, for the third time, repeated his stock line that President “Obama knows exactly what he is doing” by moving the country to the left. “There it is, there it is,” Christie declared. “The memorized 25-second speech. There it is, everybody!”

It’s the moment everyone is talking about. But there is one small problem. While Christie attacked Rubio for using memorized, scripted lines, the governor used his own memorized, scripted lines during the very same debate.

When asked about the problem of drug addiction in New Hampshire, Christie gave an impassioned answer: “I’m pro-life,” he declared, “and I’m pro-life not just for the nine months in the womb, I’m pro-life for when they get out and it’s a lot more complicated. Sixteen-year-old, heroin-addicted drug girl on the floor of the county lockup, I’m pro-life for her life. . . . Every one of those lives is an individual gift from God.”

It was a moving statement — and it was taken almost verbatim from a speech he gave in October at Shooter’s Tavern in Belmont, N.H. “I’m pro-life,” Christie said back then, “and I think that if you’re pro-life, you’ve got to be pro-life for the whole life, not just for the nine months they’re in the womb. . . . But when they get out, that’s when it gets tough. The 16-year-old girl on the floor of the county lockup addicted to heroin, I’m pro-life for her, too. Her life is just as much a precious gift from God as the one in the womb.”

There it is, everybody: Rubio was not the only candidate on the debate stage with a “canned speech that he’s memorized.”

Christie has also used some version of the same line contrasting his executive experience with Rubio’s alleged inexperience as a legislator in each of the past four debates. In New Hampshire, Christie declared, “This is the difference between being a governor who actually has to be responsible for problems” and then a few moments later repeated “When you’re a governor, you have to take responsibility . . . We have to take responsibility as executives.” Christie used the same construct in the Iowa debate (“That’s the difference between being a governor . . . and being someone who has never had to be responsible for any of those decisions”) . . . the South Carolina debate (“this is the difference between being a governor and a senator. See, when you’re a senator, what you get to do is just talk and talk and talk . . . When you’re a governor, you’re held accountable for everything you do”) . . . and the Nevada debate (“This is a difference between being a governor and being in a legislature . . . You have to be responsible and accountable”).

Let’s be clear: There’s nothing wrong with any of this. Every politician has a “stump speech” he or she repeats over and over on the campaign trail. Every politician uses language from his or her stump speech in the debates. And every politician repeats the best lines over and over and over. It’s called message discipline. It’s how elections are won.

And, by the way, Christie and Rubio were not the only ones up on stage practicing message discipline Saturday night. In a December speech in Nashville, Ted Cruz railed against what he called “bipartisan corruption” of career politicians in Washington. In Saturday’s debate, he told New Hampshire voters “I will always stand with the American people against the bipartisan corruption of Washington.” In his closing statement in the first GOP debate, Donald Trump declared: “The country is serious trouble. We don’t win anymore.” In his closing statement at Saturday’s New Hampshire debate, Trump told us (for the gazillionth time) “Our country that we love so much doesn’t win anymore. . . . If I’m elected president, we will win, and we will win, and we will win.”

It should be no great revelation that all of the candidates have a core message they are trying to get across and well-rehearsed lines to make their point. Trump wants you to know he’s going to make America great again. Cruz wants you to know he will take on the Washington establishment. Christie wants you to know that he has executive experience. And Rubio wants you to know that he is the best candidate to take on Hillary Clinton and replace Obama.

So the idea that Christie had some great “gotcha” moment catching Rubio repeating “scripted” lines is absurd. Everyone uses a campaign script in presidential debates — including, it seems, a certain governor from New Jersey.

Read more from Marc Thiessen’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.

Huma Abedin: Wicked Witch of Islam by EDWARD CLINE

I sometimes have the fantasy of approaching Huma Abedin as a scout for Playboy Magazine and offering her a cover and foldout deal with the publication. I’m more curious about her possible response to such a proposition. Perhaps she would cast a voodoo hex on me, or a curse, or turn to a handy Muslim djab or imam to issue a fatwa. Or perhaps she’d just slap my face and sic the Secret Service goons on me. I’ve never seen her in a bathing suit, so I’m not sure about her figure. Perhaps she isn’t Dallas Cheerleader material.

But she certainly is a fashion plate -unlike her boss, that aging Goodyear blimp in pantsuits – and apparently a well-paid one, at that. Huma is always expertly groomed, she looks like she lives comfortably in the nicest, safest neighborhoods, and possesses some poise, almost as much poise as Queen Noor of Jordan (Lisa Halaby) and that regal fox, Queen Rania, wife of King Abdullah.

But one would not be in error to claim that Huma Abedin is a card-carrying member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Or, shall we say, of the Muslim Sisterhood? Not so far-fetched a charge. There is an actual division of the Muslim Brotherhood called the Muslim Sisterhood. Hillary Clinton and Samantha Power are only honorary members of that organization, because they’re not Muslims. But they, too, work against U.S. interests, and against Israel’s. They, too, wish to see Israel wiped from the map and the U.S. beholden to Islam.

There is so much dope on Huma Abedin that it could serve as raw material for a Mata Hari movie, and certainly enough to send her to prison at least on charges of treason, for helping Hillary breach national security, together with half a dozen other Federal felonies. She is, after all, an American citizen, born in 1976 in Kalamazoo, Michigan. There are several blog sites that contain all the necessary information that could be used to indict Abedin for at least acting as an agent against the U.S. for a foreign power, particularly Saudi Arabia, and generally, for the Muslim Brotherhood.

But, she’s not a spy. Known spies are not usually invited to embed themselves in an enemy administration; and the Obama administration is definitely an enemy – of the U.S. Abedin fills the same role that Colonel House played to Woodrow Wilson, and that Harry Hopkins played to Franklin D. Roosevelt – a backseat position, mostly out of the limelight, but able to lean forward and whisper sweet-nothings of policy in the receptive executive’s ear about what was practical and what wasn’t. Abedin could also be compared to a high school driving instructor with his own steering wheel, and actually steer the ship of state in the right direction – “right” being whatever Islamic supremacists think is correct and proper and which conforms with the agenda established by the Muslim Brotherhood’s and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. For details on that alliance, see Stephen Coughlin’s Catastrophic Failure: The Blindfolding of America in the Face of Jihad.

Huma Abedin is all for bringing into the U.S. as many Muslim “refugees” as possible. Which is tantamount to endorsing the introduction of Ebola and malaria into the national culture.

Discover the Networks has compiled a rap sheet on virtually every villain in American politics, and Huma Abedin has one of the longest dossiers. Her parental and political antecedents are not murky, but in plain view.

….Her father, Syed Abedin (1928-1993), was an Indian-born scholar who had worked as a visiting professor at Saudi Arabia’s King Abdulaziz University in the early Seventies.

Huma’s mother, Saleha Mahmood Abedin, is a sociologist known for her strong advocacy of Sharia Law. A member of the Muslim Sisterhood (i.e., the Muslim Brotherhood’s division for women), Saleha is also a board member of the International Islamic Council for Dawa and Relief. This pro-Hamas entity is part of the Union of Good, which the U.S. government has formally designated as an international terrorist organization led by the Muslim Brotherhood luminary Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

The Center for Security Policy, in a special 2012 report on Abedin’s mother, “Center Report Reveals Radical Islamist Views and Agenda of Senior State Department Official Huma Abedin’s Mother,” among other things lists the Sharia-compliant rules of living in Islamic society.

In light of the escalating controversy over the role being played in U.S. security policy-making by Ms. Abedin and others with personal and/or professional ties to the Muslim Brotherhood (see Part Eight of the Center for Security Policy’s online curriculum at MuslimBrotherhoodinAmerica.com), the revelations contained in a new Center report- Ties That Bind? The Views and Agenda of Huma Abedin’s Islamist Mother- could not be more timely, or important….

Excerpts from Women in Islam in Ties That Bind? The Views and Agenda of Huma Abedin’s Islamist Mother include Islamic shariah justifications for the following practices (square brackets mine):
•Stoning for Adultery when Married; Lashing for Adultery when Unmarried [un-Islamic behavior will not be tolerated]
•No Death Penalty for the Murder of an Apostate [nor for the murder of an infidel]
•Freedom of Expression Curtailed to What Benefits Islam [censorship; no criticism by women or men of Islam; criticism of Islam doesn’t much benefit it, does it?]
•Women’s Right to Participate in Armed Jihad [knifing sprees in Israel, suicide vests, etc.]
•Social Interaction Between the Sexes is Forbidden [partitioned off from the men during prayers and even in Starbucks]
•Women Have No Right to Abstain from Sex with their Husbands [men cannot be denied their “rights”]
•A Woman Should Not Let Anyone Into the House Unless Approved by Her Husband [he wouldn’t want any gays, Dallas Cheerleaders, or service dogs befouling his “castle”]
•Female Genital Mutilation is Allowed [to ensure that women experience no joy in sex]
•Man-Made Laws “Enslave Women” [didn’t Allah say man-made laws are an abomination to him? Man-made laws also enslave Muslim men]

Daughter Huma has not repudiated any of this. At least, there is no report of her uttering a single word, pro or con, about her mother’s endorsement of Fatima Umar Naseef’s Women in Islam: A Discourse on Rights and Obligations, originally published in 1999 by International Islamic Committee for Woman & Child (IICWC).

President Barack Obama’s February 3rd Baltimore mosque speech, says Steve Emerson of The Investigative Project on Terrorism, read like a Muslim Brotherhood script, a kind of long-winded pep talk to make Muslims feel good and cause everyone else hang their heads in shame. Who better to write such a speech than Huma Abedin? Her English language skills are impeccable, and beyond the range of Obama’s composition skills.

Discover the Networks traces Abedin’s work life. She has not only been a career Clintonista, but an editor of an anti-West journal.

At age 18, Huma Abedin returned to the U.S. to attend George Washington University. In 1996 she began working as an intern in the Bill Clinton White House, where she was assigned to then-First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton. Abedin was eventually hired as an aide to Mrs. Clinton and has worked for her ever since, through Clinton’s successful Senate runs (in 2000 and 2006) and her failed presidential bid in 2008….

From 1996-2008, Abedin was employed by the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA) as the assistant editor of its in-house publication, the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs (JMMA). At least the first seven of those years overlapped with the al Qaeda-affiliated Abdullah Omar Naseef’s active presence at IMMA. Abedin’s last six years at the Institute (2002-2008) were spent as a JMMA editorial board member; for one of those years, 2003, Naseef and Abedin served together on that board.

Throughout her years with IMMA, Abedin remained a close aide to Hillary Clinton. During Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 presidential primary campaign, a New York Observer profile of Abedin described her as “a trusted advisor to Mrs. Clinton, especially on issues pertaining to the Middle East, according to a number of Clinton associates.” “At meetings on the region,” continued the profile, “… Ms. Abedin’s perspective is always sought out.”

And today Huma is “vice chair” of Hillary Clinton’s imploding presidential campaign. Given Clinton’s long and consistent record of bare-faced lying, hither-and-yon hiding, bilious blustering, and other crimes of her power-lusting hubris, “vice” is an appropriate name for the position.

It’s all in the family, too, the Abedin dawah against the U.S. and the West. Aside from Saleha Abedin’s literary excursions, as Discover the Networks concludes:

Huma Abedin’s brother, Hassan Abedin, has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and is currently an associate editor with the JMMA. Hassan was once a fellow at the Oxford Center for Islamic Studies, at a time when the Center’s board included such Brotherhood-affiliated figures as Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Abdullah Omar Naseef.

Huma’s sister, Heba Abedin (formerly known as “Heba A. Khaled”), is an assistant editor with JMMA, where she served alongside Huma prior to the latter’s departure.

Huma Abedin is a witch, a wicked, conniving, embedded agent for Islam. Perhaps her laugh is more of a cackle, similar to that of the “Weird Ladies” in Macbeth. Or, better yet, like that of the Wicked Witch of the East. She’s determined to get us, and our little dogs, too. We all know how Muslims are brought up to hate dogs.

Edward Cline is the author of the Sparrowhawk novels set in England and Virginia in the pre-Revolutionary period, of several detective and suspense novels, and three collections of his commentaries and columns, all available on Amazon Books. His essays, book reviews, and other articles have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, the Journal of Information Ethics and other publications. He is a frequent contributor to Rule of Reason, Family Security Matters, Capitalism Magazine and other Web publications.

Source: Family Security Matters