A smart young blogger updated a celebrate commercial from the the 2008 campaign to correspond with the Democrat’s record in response to current crises:

Sure seems that way. (h/t – GP Reader Peter Hughes)

Starting Thursday, Google will adjust paychecks for its gay and lesbian employees who opt for domestic partner benefits to cover for a tax those employees have to pay, the New York Times reports.

As it is now, Mountain View-based Google offers benefits to the spouses or partners of both straight and gay employees. However, the married straight employees don’t get taxed on those extra benefits — but the gay employees do as part of the federal laws.

The pay raise will be retroactive to the beginning of 2010 and will apply only to employees in the U.S. Heterosexual employees with long-term partners won’t see the pay adjustment, because they could marry and therefore get the tax break if they wished.

Please note that Google employees are now getting paid on TAX LAW and PERCEIVED TAX bias; not getting paid according to his/her abilities. 

Sign me up as completely opposed to this.  Shall I get paid more because I have three dogs to support?

Where does this madness end?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

The facts are undeniable. (Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics)

November 2008 (Bush)
Total Unemployed: 10.3 MILLION
Unemployment Rate: 6.7%

Obama Inaugurated – Jan 20, 2009
Total Unemployed: 11.1 MILLION

$787 Billion “Stimulus Package” – Passed Feb 2009
Total Unemployed: 12.5 MILLION

JULY 1, 2009 – ONE YEAR AGO
Total Unemployed: 14.5 MILLION
Unemployment Rate: 9.4%

November 2009 – “I will not rest until all Americans who want work can find work,” President Obama
Total Unemployed: 15.4 MILLION

January, 2010
Total Unemployed: 14.8 MILLION
Unemployment Rate:  9.7%

Healthcare Reform Signed Into Law – March 2010
Unemployment Rate:  9.7%
Total Unemployed: 15 MILLION

JULY 1, 2010 – TODAY
Total Unemployed: 14.6 MILLION
Unemployment Rate:  9.5%

NO IMPROVEMENT IN 12 MONTHS. In fact, one could legitimately argued that things are WORSE than a year ago since (based on only ONE statistic) 100,000 more Americans were employed in July 2009 and July 2010.

And almost THREE MILLION Americans have become UNEMPLOYED since the $787B Stimulus Bill was signed into law.

Remember this:  “I will not rest until all Americans who want work can find work,“ President Barack Obama – November 6, 2009

My fellow Americans…. remember this:

June 19, 2010

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

With the jobs market stagnant 17 months after Democrats in Congress (joined by three then- (including two current) Republicans in the Senate) overwhelmingly supported their party’s “so-called stimulus,” instead of defending their record, these Democrats are planning on attacking Republicans.  (Via Washington Examiner.)

And ready as they are to tie the GOP to George W. Bush, people may be waking up to the fact that that good man’s successor has been far worse on jobs and spending than was the Republican.  Recall Obama decrying Bush for excessive government spending (your know “living beyond our means)?  Recall his campaign concern about a deteriorating jobs market?

Now, the president may tell us that the economy would be even worse and unemployment even higher without his plan, but remember the promises made by his economic team.  If the “stimulus” passed, unemployment wouldn’t climb above 8%.  Well, it’s been a year since the unemployment rate was supposed to have peaked at 8% and this past month it declined to 9.5%, declined only “because 652,000 people gave up on their job searches and left the labor force.”  

And for those not good at math, let me remind you of something, 9.5% is higher than 8% — 18.75% higher.

As Democrats return to attack mode (did they ever leave it), some of their commentary is particularly rich.  Get this from White House senior adviser David Axelrod: “If we allow a Republican Party that took a $237 billion surplus and turned it into a $1.3 trillion deficit over eight years to masquerade as the party of fiscal responsibility, then shame on us”. $1.3 trillion over eight years?!?  not bad given that that’s the approximate one-year deficit for the Democrat Axelrod helped put into the White House. (more…)

This post originates from an email from B. Daniel Blatt (GayPatriotWest) to Bruce (GayPatriot):

I mean, give me a break.

George W. Bush was no FDR, but Barack Obama could be.

That’s the verdict of 238 of the nation’s leading presidential scholars, who – for a fifth time – rated Franklin Delano Roosevelt the best president ever in the latest Siena College Research Institute poll.

In office for barely two years, Obama entered the survey in the 15th position – two spots behind Bill Clinton and three spots ahead of Ronald Reagan.

Obama got high marks for intelligence, ability to communicate and imagination, but his score was dragged down by his relative lack of experience and family background.

Clinton took office during a recovery and succeeded in bungling his first two years in office so badly that the Republican Congress elected in response to his failures helped prevent him from undoing the accomplishments of the Reagan era.

Yeah, he may rank higher than you or I would like, but not above Reagan and certainly not far above the middle of the pack.

Seems these historians put their political prejudices ahead of their historical judgment.  I mean, Obama ahead of the Gipper.  Give me a break.  The economy has certainly not recovered.  And we haven’t seen the economic turnaround of the like we saw in the 1980s.

And that W is low on the list suggests the scholars crafting the study harbor the animi (animuses?) of the other practitioners of their trade.

=============

Bruce’s additional comments:

And check out this absurd statement from the news article:

“Most of the presidents came from elite backgrounds, and he certainly did not,” said professor Douglas Lonnstrom, who crunched the numbers. “He grew up without a father.”

Oh give me a friggin’ break.  Obama is probably the most elitist president (via education & upbringing) since the John F. Kennedy.  This idea that he had no father makes him “non-elitist” is completely absurd.  How many ordinary Americans do you know that grew up in three different countries, went to the best private schools there and then went on to Harvard?  I credit his work ethic getting there, but I know ordinary people and Obama ain’t one of ‘em.

Is Professor Lonnstrom suggesting that because Obama is BLACK that he’s no elitist?  Well, that’s just downright RAAAACIST!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)