Bad Gone Blog

Don’t look now, but the Barack Obama machine allegedly has ties to two of Herman Cain’s accusers. Sharon Bialek, the first accuser to go public lived in the same Chicago apartment building as Barack Obama’s top adviser David Axelrod.

Another of Cain’s accusers, Karen Kraushaar currently works for the Obama government as a communications director at the Inspector General’s Office of the Treasury Department, a position she has held since last year.

Did Cain sexually harass any of the women that came forward with the allegations?

I have no idea, and the only people that know for sure are him and his accusers.

I do find it rather peculiar that two of the women indirectly have ties to the Obama administration. Considering Obama’s history with discrediting his opponents over the years, I would not put it past anyone in his inner circle to try to do this type of thing again.

The african-american vote is a huge (90% or more) voting bloc that democrats have relied on for years, and if the voters are given an opportunity to learn the history of accomplishment that Herman Cain has achieved, it may just swing some african-american votes his way, weakening the voting bloc that democrats have relied upon for a countless number of years.

Things that make you go hummmmm….

~Boo

Is it possible that Herman Cain’s accusers are being brought forth by none other than Barack Obama’s top adviser David Axelrod?

Why is the Obama machine so afraid of possibly having to run against a conservative African-American man who has worked his way up from a meager up-bringing to where he is today? Unlike Obama, Cain has produced private sector jobs and has personally overseen the turnaround of large companies through his hard work and intelligence.

Contrast that to Obama who only believes a job is created by offering handouts to companies who are doomed from the get-go…just google search Solyndra if you don’t know what I am talking about.

Check out this article from Ann Coulter below about the history of David Axelrod and Obama…

Herman Cain has spent his life living and working all over the country — Indiana, Georgia, Minnesota, Nebraska, Kansas, Washington, D.C. — but never in Chicago.

So it’s curious that all the sexual harassment allegations against Cain emanate from Chicago: home of the Daley machine and Obama consigliere David Axelrod.

Suspicions had already fallen on Sheila O’Grady, who is close with David Axelrod and went straight from being former Chicago mayor Richard M. Daley’s chief of staff to president of the Illinois Restaurant Association (IRA), as being the person who dug up Herman Cain’s personnel records from the National Restaurant Association (NRA).

The Daley-controlled IRA works hand-in-glove with the NRA. And strangely enough, Cain’s short, three-year tenure at the NRA is evidently the only period in his decades-long career during which he’s alleged to have been a sexual predator.

After O’Grady’s name surfaced in connection with the miraculous appearance of Cain’s personnel files from the NRA, she issued a Clintonesque denial of any involvement in producing them — by vigorously denying that she knew Cain when he was at the NRA. (Duh.)

And now, after a week of conservative eye-rolling over unspecified, anonymous accusations against Cain, we’ve suddenly got very specific sexual assault allegations from an all-new accuser out of … Chicago.

Herman Cain has never lived in Chicago. But you know who has? David Axelrod! And guess who lived in Axelrod’s very building? Right again: Cain’s latest accuser, Sharon Bialek.

Bialek’s accusations were certainly specific. But they also demonstrated why anonymous accusations are worthless.

Within 24 hours of Bialek’s press conference, friends and acquaintances of hers stepped forward to say that she’s a “gold-digger,” that she was constantly in financial trouble — having filed for personal bankruptcy twice — and, of course, that she had lived in Axelrod’s apartment building at 505 North Lake Shore Drive, where, she admits, she knew the man The New York Times calls Obama’s “hired muscle.”

Throw in some federal tax evasion, and she’s Obama’s next Cabinet pick.

The reason all this is relevant is that both Axelrod and Daley have a history of smearing political opponents by digging up claims of sexual misconduct against them.

John Brooks, Chicago’s former fire commissioner, filed a lawsuit against Daley six months ago claiming Daley threatened to smear him with sexual harassment accusations if Brooks didn’t resign. He resigned — and the sexual harassment allegations were later found to be completely false.

Meanwhile, as extensively detailed in my book Guilty: Liberal ‘Victims’ and Their Assault on America, the only reason Obama became a U.S. senator — allowing him to run for president — is that David Axelrod pulled sealed divorce records out of a hat, first, against Obama’s Democratic primary opponent, and then against Obama’s Republican opponent.

One month before the 2004 Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate, Obama was way down in the polls, about to lose to Blair Hull, a multimillionaire securities trader.

But then The Chicago Tribune — where Axelrod used to work — began publishing claims that Hull’s second ex-wife, Brenda Sexton, had sought an order of protection against him during their 1998 divorce proceedings.

From then until Election Day, Hull was embroiled in fighting the allegation that he was a “wife beater.” He and his ex-wife eventually agreed to release their sealed divorce records. His first ex-wife, daughters and nanny defended him at a press conference, swearing he was never violent. During a Democratic debate, Hull was forced to explain that his wife kicked him and he had merely kicked her back.

Hull’s substantial lead just a month before the primary collapsed with the nonstop media attention to his divorce records. Obama sailed to the front of the pack and won the primary. Hull finished third with 10 percent of the vote.

Luckily for Axelrod, Obama’s opponent in the general election had also been divorced.

The Republican nominee was Jack Ryan, a graduate of Dartmouth and Harvard law and business schools, who had left his lucrative partnership at Goldman Sachs to teach at an inner-city school on the South Side of Chicago.

But in a child custody dispute some years earlier, Ryan’s ex-wife, Hollywood sex kitten Jeri Lynn Ryan, had alleged that, while the couple was married, Jack had taken her to swingers clubs in Paris and New York.

Jack Ryan adamantly denied the allegations. In the interest of protecting their son, he also requested that the records be put permanently under seal.

Axelrod’s courthouse moles obtained the “sealed” records and, in no time, they were in the hands of every political operative in Chicago. Knowing perfectly well what was in the records, Chicago Tribune attorneys flew to California and requested that the court officially “unseal” them — over the objections of both Jack and Jeri Ryan.

Your honor, who knows what could be in these records!

A California judge ordered them unsealed, which allowed newspapers to publish the salacious allegations, and four days later, Ryan dropped out of the race under pressure from idiot Republicans (who should be tracked down and shot).

With a last-minute replacement of Alan Keyes as Obama’s Republican opponent, Obama was able to set an all-time record in an Illinois Senate election, winning with a 43 percent margin.

And that’s how Obama became a senator four years after losing a congressional race to Bobby Rush. (In a disastrous turn of events, Rush was not divorced.)

Axelrod destroyed the only two men who stood between Obama and the Senate with illicitly obtained, lurid allegations from their pasts.

In 2007, long after Obama was safely ensconced in the U.S. Senate, The New York Times reported: “The Tribune reporter who wrote the original piece (on Hull’s sealed divorce records) later acknowledged in print that the Obama camp had ‘worked aggressively behind the scenes’ to push the story.”

Some had suggested, the Times article continued, that Axelrod had “an even more significant role — that he leaked the initial story.”

This time, Obama’s little helpers have not only thrown a bomb into the Republican primary, but are hoping to destroy the man who deprives the Democrats of their only argument in 2012: If you oppose Obama, you must be a racist.

~Boo

Wouldn’t it be nice if politicians would just stop lying and begin telling the truth? Over the past few weeks, all that you have heard out of Obama’s mouth is how the republicans in the house are holding up his jobs bill. That is nothing but a bold-faced lie by the president, and he knows it. Even though the chances of his bill ever passing is slim to none, he needs to stop lying to the citizens by trying to blame its non-passage on one party.

We all know what happened the last time he spent over twice as much money on a so-called stimulus bill. Unemployment rose instead of going down, and after further inspection of the stimulus bill, it was rather obvious that the bill was nothing more than a payback to his large donor unions.

Just look at what democrat Senate majority leader Harry Reid had to say about the current spending bill Obama has been saying to pass immediately.

President Obama still is pressing Congress to pass his jobs stimulus bill immediately, but his own party leaders in the Senate, where Democrats have a majority, have pushed that vote off yet again.

Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, said Monday night that when the Senate returns from a weeklong vacation, the chamber will work instead on a bill that would push to label China a currency manipulator, which would make retaliatory steps in order.

“I don’t think there’s anything more important for a jobs measure than China trade,” Mr. Reid said.

Late Monday, before he closed down the Senate, Mr. Reid locked in an early test vote for when senators return next week.

Mr. Obama two weeks ago sent Congress legislation he said would create jobs by extending and expanding temporary tax cuts and boosting infrastructure spending, which he offset by increasing taxes over the long term.

The president has been traveling the country demanding that Congress act immediately, but even his own party has not been keen to rush the legislation.

Mr. Reid is the Senate sponsor of the measure, but he said there are other priorities.

“We’ll get to that, but let’s get some of these things done that we have to get done first,” he said.

On the House side, GOP leaders, who control that chamber, have said they are waiting for an evaluation of the bill from the Congressional Budget Office and will then send the legislation through the committee process.

Republicans have said there are some ideas in Mr. Obama’s plan that they can accept, though they and some Democrats have rejected the tax increases Mr. Obama has called for — particularly the $400 billion he would raise over 10 years by limiting deductions for high-income taxpayers.

The China currency legislation, meanwhile, is sponsored by a bipartisan group of senators, and Mr. Reid said he’s confident it can pass the upper chamber.

“China trade is a jobs bill. It’s long, long overdue,” he said.

The legislation would push the Treasury Department to declare that China manipulates its currency in order to seek an edge in international trade.

~Boo

The rich pay lower tax rates than we do. Bush’s tax cuts were only for the rich. Both the Reagan and Bush tax cuts were sops to the rich. Schmucks like you and me pay all the taxes so the rich can ride free.

You hear these lies every day. Review the graph and information below for the truth from the Congressional Budget Office.

The taxes included in this chart are for all federal taxes, not just income taxes. Each quintile is one fifth of taxpayers, based on income. The top quintile is the one with the highest incomes.

From just this one graph, several observations can be drawn.

* The most obvious observation is that the higher your income, the greater your federal tax rate is. Taxpayers in the top quintile paid about 25% of their income in federal taxes, while those in the bottom quintile paid about 5% in 2007.

* The rate for the top quintile has been very steady for the last thirty years: about 25%. In fact, the rate since the Bush cuts went into full effect (2003-07) was about the same as twenty years before (1983-87).

* The same cannot be said for the lower quintiles; they have trended downward, especially since the Bush cuts in 2003. For the lowest quintile in particular, the rate has drifted downward since 1984, from about 10% of income to about 4%. That is a cut in the tax rate of about 60% for the lowest quintile, versus no cut in rate for the top quintile.

* Changes in these rates cannot be explained by changes in income. The rate is taxes paid divided by income. If your taxes went up only because your income went up, then your rate would not change.

* Reagan’s tax cuts became fully effective in 1983. But look at the trend in average tax rate for the highest quintile of earners after that. It went up. That upward trend on the richest Americans went up for seventeen years after Reagan’s tax cuts.

* The same cannot be said for the lower quintiles. Tax rates for the lower 80% of taxpayers remained virtually flat, or trended downward, from 1983 to 2000.

* A cut on the capital gains tax rate became effective in 1997. Do you see any kind of accompanying dip in the average tax rate for the highest quintile in that year or shortly after? Nope. The rate is pretty flat from 1993 to 2000.

* The Bush tax cuts did cut tax rates — for all income groups. The cut was about 2%-3% of income for all quintiles. But since the lower income groups were paying lower rates in the first place, the constant cut across income groups meant that tax rates were cut proportionally more for lower income groups. For example: the top quintile was cut from about 27% to about 24%, which is a cut in the rate of 11%. But the bottom quintile was cut from about 7% to about 4%, a cut in the rate of over 40%.

Some lying liars have tried to obfuscate things, sometimes by including multiple taxes (e.g., personal income and payroll) and at other times by complaining that not all taxes are included. The above graph from the CBO includes all federal taxes. However, if you were to look at personal income taxes only, the observations above would be even more obvious. Since about 2002, the average federal income tax on the bottom 40% of “taxpayers” has been negative: they collect more in credits than they pay in taxes.

There is one minor flaw in the above CBO graph: that top quintile includes a lot of taxpayers. In fact, in 2009, those making over $75,000 constituted the top 20.6% of taxpayers, or approximately the top quintile. So that top quintile includes some of the middle class plus the rich and “mega-rich” (a Warren Buffett term).

So let’s look at that top quintile, shall we? The table below shows 2009 average federal income taxes as a percent of income (adjusted gross income less deficit) for the various income groups. The groups with incomes over $75,000 constitute the top quintile, approximately. (Data for the year 2009 is the latest available.)

Average Federal Income Taxes Paid, as Percent of Income
Income Average Tax Rate
Under $75K 6.60%
$75K – $100K 8.50%
$100K – $200K 11.90%
$200K – $500K 19.60%
$500K – $1M 24.40%
$1M – $1.5M 25.30%
$1.5M – $2M 25.60%
$2M – $5M 25.80%
$5M – $10M 25.40%
$10M or more 22.60%

The obvious observation from this data is that the rich pay higher taxes than the poor or middle-class. The rates are strictly progressive up to incomes of $5 M: each income group, up to $5M, paid a higher percentage of income in taxes than the next lower group.

It is true that the very highest income group, those making over $10M per year (the “mega-rich”), paid a lower rate than those making merely a few million. But that group still paid a higher percentage than all groups making less than half a million dollars. The average billionaire would pay a higher tax rate than his secretary unless he paid his secretary a couple million dollars per year.

Does it not strike you as odd that this “anomaly” in progressivity is used to justify increasing taxes on everyone making more than $200K per year? If the top 8,274 taxpayers are the ones who bother you, why are you raising taxes on the top three million taxpayers, a good several hundred thousand of whom already pay a higher rate than those 8,274?

There is a simple reason the “mega-rich” pay a slightly lower average rate on personal income taxes than the merely “rich.” That reason is not some dark secret known only to tax loophole experts. It is that most of their income is from capital gains, which is taxed at a lower rate than “normal” income.

And there is a simple reason for that: capital gains have already been taxed in the form of corporate income taxes. Warren Buffett likes to include payroll taxes in his little anecdotal calculations, but he neglects to include corporate income tax, inheritance taxes, and other forms of taxes that are paid disproportionately by the mega-rich.

And by the way, total federal revenue in 2007, well after the Bush tax rates were in effect, was 18.5% of Gross Domestic Product. The 1960-2000 average was 18.2% of GDP. All that tax rate-cutting, and still the actual revenues collected were above the historical average.

~Boo

Peter Schiff, a businessman ceo over Euro Pacific Capital, tells his story about how he was fined 15 thousand dollars for hiring too many people. As a result of the Obama regulations, he is having to farm out jobs overseas. If you are still even considering voting this incompetent back into office as president, you need your head examined.

~Boo