Giveaway

Still smarting from his “you didn’t build that” comment, President Obama opened another window into his far-left thinking. According to his world view, Americans keeping more of what’s theirs is a “giveaway.”

Speaking last Wednesday in New Orleans at a campaign event, Obama talked about “another trillion-dollar giveaway for millionaires” in reference to an extension of the Bush-era tax cuts.

A day later, White House spokesman Jay Carney did the same thing. He called the extension “another $1 trillion giveaway to the wealthiest Americans.”

What they are talking about is the House Republicans’ opposition to legislation approved in the Senate that would raise taxes on those earning more than $250,000 a year, a sum less than the president makes yet is somehow considered to be the mark of wealth.

As a president who has done a good job of insulating himself from anyone who would challenge him, Obama wasn’t asked to explain his statement.

But Carney was.

ABC’s Jake Tapper wanted to know what he would “say to a small-business owner who says that’s not a giveaway, that’s my money, and by the way, I’m going to need some of that money in order to help pay the health care of individuals that I’m now mandated to do?”

Tapper further said, “It’s not giving anything away; it’s allowing me to keep my money.”

It’s a straightforward question that deserves a straightforward answer.

But it didn’t get one. Carney prattled on in response, but he would not address the point, which is:

How can government officials make a moral claim on money earned by others?

Jake Tapper:

TAPPER: You used the word “giveaway,” and President Obama, in his statement yesterday, used the word “giveaway,” referring to the extension of the Bush — lower — the lower Bush tax cut rates for the — I guess, the top 1 or 2 percent of the country, people making over $200,000 a year or couples making 250. What do you say to a small-business owner who says, that’s not a giveaway; that’s my money, and by the way, I’m going to need some of that money in order to help pay for health care of individuals that I’m now mandated to do; it’s not giving anything away; it’s allowing me to keep my money?

CARNEY: Well, the phrasing of the question leaves out a few things, which is, one, this tax cut that the Senate passed and that the president supports would go to 97 percent of small businesses in America, 97 percent. Further, this president has cut the taxes of small businesses in America 18 times, independent of this. So he’s — his focus on assisting small businesses, which he considers the engine of economic growth in this country, the engine of job creation in this country, has been intense and will continue to be.

The Earth’s rotation just stopped because of the Spin… But hey, if you tell a lie often enough it become the Truth. 🙂

TAPPER: Yes, I left out people I wasn’t talking about.

CARNEY: Well, no, but I mean, your — but your question framed it around the — so you’re talking about the 3 percent here. And as we’ve noted, under the definition of small businesses that Republicans trot out when they’re insisting on these tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires means that –

TAPPER: I wasn’t talking about millionaires and billionaires.

CARNEY: No, but it means –

TAPPER: I was talking about somebody making over $200,000 a year.

CARNEY: Sure. But I mean, again, that’s 97 percent of people who file — small businesses that file taxes under the individual tax code will receive this tax cut. Many of the remaining, you know, self-described small businesses that we’re talking about, we’re talking about hedge fund managers often, and law firm partners.

And addressing those small businesses that fall in the remaining category — this tax cut goes to everybody. This is an often- misunderstood fact in reporting and, I think, just in general that giving this tax cut — extending this tax cut to 98 percent of Americans, those who make up to $250,000, means that everyone gets it, even those who make millions and billions, up to the first $250,000 of income, so that for a family — that includes everyone, OK, and including small businesses that file in this manner.

Secondly, the president — the president believes that small businesses are so important that he has dedicated a lot of energy and focus on providing tax credits and tax incentives and tax cuts to small businesses throughout his three and a half years in office.

Beyond that, he believes that extending the high-end Bush tax cuts again is something we simply cannot afford. We — you know, we’re talking about a trillion dollars over a decade. We’ve seen what happened when these tax cuts, which you may recall — you and I were covering it — were sold initially as a payback from the budget surpluses that were achieved under the Clinton administration. And then when the economy ran into trouble and those surpluses were beginning to erode, it was sold as an economic stimulus measure. And what we got was middle-class income stagnating, the slowest expansion in 50 years and an economic crisis the likes of which we haven’t seen in more than 70 years. So –

TAPPER: I’m not — the question is this: Why is it a “giveaway”? Why are you guys using — you and President Obama — using the term “giveaway” when even if you support the Senate Democrats’ bill, it’s not technically a giveaway; it is allowing people to keep the tax cut that they got in 2001 and 2002?

CARNEY: Right, but these are tax cuts that we cannot afford, that do not, by — as — by the estimates of credible, independent economists do not measurably help the economy and do not — in the way that tax cuts to working and middle-class Americans help the economy.

And you know, we have to make choices. And it is a — it is a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans that we simply can’t afford.

And the — and those who say that, oh, well, it — you know, that it’s terrible for the economy — remember, again, you and I were there and covered it. There were proclamations of gloom and doom, of economic crisis and stagnation and recession that were promised by Republicans when President Clinton instituted the tax rates that existed throughout the ’90s. And instead of everything that Republicans predicted, we got the longest peacetime expansion — economic expansion in our history. We got 24 million jobs created, so — and plenty — as the president says, plenty of millionaires and billionaires created as well.

So it’s a matter –

TAPPER: You can feel free to run on President Clinton’s record, but that’s –

CARNEY: — it’s a matter of choices. I mean, that’s what the — I think the president makes clear. We can’t afford this tax cut for the wealthiest Americans. It is a giveaway that we cannot afford. Middle-class Americans need that tax cut. Our economy needs it for 98 percent of the country.

TAPPER: Okay, I’m going to change the subject. Vice President Biden issued a rather strong statement yesterday about an unattributed quote or unattributed quotes from unnamed Romney advisers in a British newspaper. The Romney campaign’s response was that unattributed quotes should not merit a response from the vice president of the United States. And I wondered if you had any response to that.

CARNEY: Well, I’ll leave specific campaign questions to the — for the campaign to answer. I find it a little ironic, given some of the attention paid to quotes from unnamed — alleged unnamed Obama campaign advisers that have been the focus of attention on the — of the Romney campaign.

What I can say is that the record here is what matters. When this president came into office, our alliances were under strain and frayed; our standing in the world had been diminished. In the three and a half years that President Obama has been in office, he has strengthened our alliances around the world, including and in particular with NATO countries and including and in particular with the United Kingdom, with whom we have a remarkably strong bond, a special relationship that has never been stronger. And you know, I’ll leave the back-and-forth to the campaign.

But let’s talk about policy and fact here. And I would note that in that article in question, again, as a matter of policy, the only difference that I could tell, aside from the quote that’s gotten a lot of attention that was focused on, was the need to — you know, that the only difference in policy proposals that seemed apparent were that we should move a bust from one room to another in the White House. And that was a principal policy difference, which is pretty preposterous.

This president has strengthened our alliances; he has built up American credibility around the globe; he has kept his commitments to end the war in Iraq, to take the fight to al-Qaida, to wind down our war in Afghanistan, to rebalance our focus towards Asia, which was neglected in the eight years prior to President Obama coming into office. And he is meeting all those commitments.

BS OVERLOAD!

The public needs to be clear about how this administration and many Democrats think. It’s more than a big-government mindset. It’s a government-is-god mentality.

The idea that government owns all and has the authority to manage everyone’s life is corrosive. The president doesn’t think that individuals should be recognized and compensated for their business success.

He wants to take them down a few notches and diminish and socialize their achievements. That’s neither a plan for prosperity nor an advancement of human dignity.

The language is as disturbing as it sounds. It is not consistent with deeply cherished ideals of American freedom. It is not democratic. It is not republican. It is primitive, tribal, backward, regressive. It hearkens back to an earlier age in which monarchs ruled absolutely and, as well, a more recent era of totalitarian governments.

The language itself is also dangerous. What kind of society would we have if the government indeed owned everything? What sort of economy would that produce? Imagine the quality of life under such an arrangement.

Actually, we don’t have to use our imaginations. All we have to do is look at Cuba. North Korea. The Soviet Union. East Germany. Maoist China. Murderous failures all.

No, we’re not saying that the administration wants to use those nations as models for a transformed U.S. We’re merely pointing out that, taken to its logical conclusion, the idea that government owns all will produce a totalitarian system.

It can’t be any other way.

Americans should be deeply offended that anyone would categorize the act of keeping one’s own money as a giveaway. And they should be profoundly alarmed when policymakers and their aides hold that view because they can turn their beliefs into oppressive law.

Remember, government creates neither wealth nor jobs. It has to take everything that it owns, and that requires force — real or implied.

Obama was elected in 2008 on a platform of hope and change. The promises sounded good to many even if they were not defined.

Now those terms have taken shape — unmistakably and unsettlingly so.

If a government that owns all is the change Obama promised in 2008, and it becomes the dominant governing philosophy of this country, then there’s not much hope left. (IBD)

Giveaway. That’s your Money. And you need to give it away to the government. After all, they are so vastly better and morally righteous in spending it than you are. 🙂

So give it up!

 

 

Squirreling Away

Let me ask you a basic question.

Where does the Government get money?

A. It produces it by itself

B. It grows on trees

C. The “rich”

D. YOU

The Correct Answer: D.

GOVERNMENT HAS NO MONEY UNLESS THEY TAKE IT FROM YOU!

But if 41% of Americans are on the Government dole to some degree, and 50% of them pay no federal income taxes at all who are left to pay those bills and thus raising their taxes by hook or by crook is all you have left.

And if they feel they are “entitled” to it and feel no responsibility, or guilt for demanding more and more of it?

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.–Ronald Reagan

One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. . . .–Ronald Reagan 1961.

Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves. as cited in The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World (2007), Alan Greenspan, Penguin Press, Chapter 4 (Private Citizen), p. 87

You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right, but I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down — up to a man’s age-old dream; the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order — or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism, and regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.–Ronald Reagan

Feb. 5, 1976, Prime Minister Thatcher said, “…and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people’s money. It’s quite a characteristic of them.”

Thomas Sowell: Even squirrels know enough to store nuts, so that they will have something to eat when food gets scarce. But the welfare state has spawned a whole class of people who spend everything they get when times are good, and look to others to provide for their food and other basic needs when times turn bad.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution prescribes “equal protection of the laws” to all Americans. But what does that mean, if the President of the United States can arbitrarily grant waivers, so that A, B and C have to obey the laws but X, Y and Z do not — as with both ObamaCare and the immigration laws?

Two reports came out in the same week. One was from the Pentagon, saying that, in just a few years, Iran will be able to produce not only a nuclear bomb but a missile capable of carrying it to the United States. The other report said that the American Olympic team has uniforms made in China. This latter report received far more attention, both in Congress and in the media.

People who lament gridlock in Washington, and express the pious hope that Democrats and Republicans would put aside their partisan conflicts, and cooperate to help the economy recover, implicitly assume that what the economy needs is more meddling by politicians, which is what brought on economic disaster in the first place. (Skeptics can read “The Housing Boom and Bust.”)

Racism is not dead, but it is on life support — kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as “racists.”

One of the arguments for Medicare is that the elderly don’t want to be a burden to their children. Apparently it is all right to be a burden to other people’s children, who are paying taxes.

Those who talk as if more people going to college is automatically a Good Thing seldom show much interest in what actually goes on at college — including far less time spent by students studying than in the past, and a proliferation of courses promoting a sense of grievance, entitlement or advanced navel-gazing and breast-beating.

One of the most dangerous trends of our times is making the truth socially unacceptable, or even illegal, with “hate speech” laws. It is supposed to be terrible, for example, to call an illegal alien an “illegal alien” or to call an Islamic terrorist an “Islamic terrorist.” When the media refer to “undocumented” workers or to violence committed by “militants,” who is kidding whom — and why?

After the charismatic — and disastrous — Woodrow Wilson presidency, the voters did not elect another president in the next decade who could be considered the least bit charismatic. Let us hope that history repeats itself.
For more than two centuries, the U.S. military never had a public celebration of anybody’s sex life — until the recent “gay pride” event under the Obama administration. Here, as elsewhere, the gay political agenda is not equality but privilege.

Franklin D. Roosevelt famously said, “We have nothing to fear but fear itself.” Then he proceeded to generate fear among businesses for years on end, with both his anti-business rhetoric and his anti-business policies. Barack Obama is repeating the same approach and getting the same results — namely, an agonizingly slow economic recovery, as investors hang on to their money, instead of risking it in a hostile political environment.

If we wake up some morning and find some American cities in radioactive ruins, courtesy of a nuclear Iran, nobody is going to care whether the president who lets this happen is the first black president or the last WASP president. But, in the meantime, many people will keep on voting for symbolism, as if an election is a popularity contest, like choosing a college’s Homecoming Queen or Parade Marshal.

There seems to be something “liberating” about ignorance — especially when you don’t even know enough to realize how little you know. Thus an administration loaded with people who have never run any business is gung-ho to tell businesses what to do, as well as gung-ho to tell the medical profession what to do, lenders whom to lend to, and the military how to fight wars.

And that “the rich” are cheap, greedy bastards when you are the cheap greedy bastard who thinks you are “entitled” to someone else money.

But you don’t want to hear that now do you. That’s a very nasty truth. A sweet lie is much more palatable.

So What is Greed?

And one of the questions raised in the documentary,” Name me one society that is not based on greed?”

That’s a more profound question than it looks because if you’re truly honest with yourself and with others you already know the real answer.

None.

It doesn’t exist.

So using “greed” as a political weapon is dishonest at best.

The liberals and the progressives are greedy. There just greedy with your money.

They are greedy for their own power.

And their class warfare against “the rich” is just using your greed to further theirs.

Greed is a pernicious thing.

We all do it.

I do it.

Getting “something for free” is a form of greed because nothing tangible is ever free.

And then the Democrats go after “the rich” and make you envious of them.

That’s a form of greed. Because you lust after their money. You covet their money. The money they’ve earned and you haven’t.

Mind you, Democrats have plenty of “rich” people backing them and plenty of  Unions that are International entities (AFL-CIO , NEA, AFT,and SEIU just to name 4) and could get money from foreign sources.

But they aren’t going to mention it.

And neither will the Ministry of Truth Media.

Why would they. They are playing on your emotions. They are manipulating you. Why point out their duplicity. :)

Welfare is greedy.

You’re being paid by other people’s labor.

So, name me a society free of greed.

It doesn’t exist.

So when the Democrats trot out class warfare and  proclaim piously how they are for the working man and the poor against “the rich” and the”greedy” laugh in their both of their two faces!!

Meanwhile: Surveillance drones have a new mission. According to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) they will be used for “public safety”. Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the DHS, told a House Committee meeting on Homeland Security that the more than 30,000 drones that will be deployed into American skies are just arbitrarily watching out for US citizens.

And anyone who isn’t a devout liberal is a “terrorist” (and a “racist” or bigot) and the Left is preparing for violence at Election time, FROM YOU.

Coincidentally, the Federal Protective Service (FPS) has been given the responsibility to protecting federally owned property while preparing for civilian led riots expected in the near future. (info wars)

Squirreling away, indeed… 🙂

So are you nuts? 🙂

NOVEMBER IS COMING

 

 

 

Facing the Future

NEW YORK (CBS 2) — Every time you use your credit card, the store pays up to 3 percent of your total purchase to the credit card company. It’s called a “swipe fee” and now some fed-up retailers are getting ready to pass this cost on to you, in the form of a surcharge.

And this includes your Debit Card with the Visa or MasterCard logo.

While others want to reward you for paying with cash.

Paper or plastic? It’s a simple choice, but it’s about to get a lot more complicated, CBS 2’s Emily Smith reported.

“You’re going to start to see retailers really weighing what they’re going to charge consumers for using a credit card,” said Kelli Grant of Smart Money magazine.

That’s right, major retailers — from supermarkets to drug stores — may soon be charging you more if you choose to pay for an item with a credit card, instead of paying with cash.

“An extra 2 to 3 percent,” Grant said.

It’s all because Visa-MasterCard and several major banks settled a long running lawsuit alleging they conspired to fix “swipe fees.”

As part of the settlement, retailers are now allowed to charge customers a surcharge if they pay with plastic.

“It’s going to be, for consumers, an interesting dance of convenience versus cash,” Grant said.

Grant, a consumer expert, said up until now most business owners rolled the cost of processing a credit card into the prices customers pay. But for businesses that sell small-ticket items and are hit hard by 3 percent swipe fees, it may make more sense to ask for the surcharge.

“To actually discourage people from paying credit when they think ideally you should be paying cash,” Grant said.

Conversely, retailers may also start offering discounts to those paying with cash, a practice that’s not completely foreign and seems to be growing with small business owners.

“If you want to pay by cash, we’ll be more than happy to give you a cash discount for not using a credit card,” said Tony Dicesare of Auto Body Service in New Jersey.

It’s becoming such a popular practice there’s even a website that tracks businesses that offer “discounts with cash” by zip code.

“If I can get an incentive to do so, I have no problem doing that,” one consumer told Smith.

Overall, people Smith spoke with have mixed feelings on the cash-versus-credit options.

“Merchants are going to do what the merchants are going to do and people are either going to pay it or not,” one person said.

But consumer experts said it’s a great way to help your bottom line.

“Not only are you able to stick within your budget but you might actually save a little bit of money, too,” Grant said.

If you’re buying an expensive item, experts said it’s better to pay with a credit card so you’re protected should the product be defective or not as advertised.

These changes won’t happen overnight. Computer systems, price tags and employees will all have to be updated by stores who choose to offer two different prices for cash and credit.

DNC: ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK

Mathews Pierson, director of politics at CBS Local Media, said negative attack ads work better than presenting someone’s success.

“Everyone complains about negative campaigning, but we keep doing it for one really simple reason: it works,” Pierson told CBSDC. “The same voter who tells you he doesn’t want to see anymore of it will then tell you something bad about Mitt Romney that he certainly didn’t learn doing his own research. “

Pierson explained that constantly using attack ads on the DNC’s front page will help to “rev up activists.”

“Driving Romney’s negatives is working to engage activists and generate press coverage to keep pressing until it doesn’t,” Pierson said. “Also, while most of the public is tuned-out and hitting the beach, if every time they tune in they hear the negative Romney narrative it can solidify their opinion of him before they truly start paying attention to the race this fall.”

And it will only get worse with 100 days to go.

OBAMACARE

In the Inland Empire, an economically depressed region in Southern California, President Obama’s health care lawis expected to extend insurance coverage to more than 300,000 people by 2014. But coverage will not necessarily translate into care: Local health experts doubt there will be enough doctors to meet the area’s needs. There are not enough now.

And what happens when demand goes up and supply doesn’t?? And then even, many doctors won’t take you on ObamaCare. So that make this even more fun.

The New York Times

 

Other places around the country, including the Mississippi Delta, Detroit and suburban Phoenix, face similar problems. The Association of American Medical Colleges estimates that in 2015 the country will have 62,900 fewer doctors than needed. And that number will more than double by 2025, as the expansion of insurance coverage and the aging of baby boomers drive up demand for care. Even without the health care law, the shortfall of doctors in 2025 would still exceed 100,000.

Health experts, including many who support the law, say there is little that the government or the medical profession will be able to do to close the gap by 2014, when the law begins extending coverage to about 30 million Americans. It typically takes a decade to train a doctor.

“We have a shortage of every kind of doctor, except for plastic surgeons and dermatologists,” said Dr. G. Richard Olds, the dean of the new medical school at the University of California, Riverside, founded in part to address the region’s doctor shortage. “We’ll have a 5,000-physician shortage in 10 years, no matter what anybody does.”

Experts describe a doctor shortage as an “invisible problem.” Patients still get care, but the process is often slow and difficult. In Riverside, it has left residents driving long distances to doctors, languishing on waiting lists, overusing emergency rooms and even forgoing care.

“It results in delayed care and higher levels of acuity,” said Dustin Corcoran, the chief executive of the California Medical Association, which represents 35,000 physicians. People “access the health care system through the emergency department, rather than establishing a relationship with a primary care physician who might keep them from getting sicker.”

In the Inland Empire, encompassing the counties of Riverside and San Bernardino, the shortage of doctors is already severe. The population of Riverside County swelled 42 percent in the 2000s, gaining more than 644,000 people. It has continued to grow despite the collapse of one of the country’s biggest property bubbles and a jobless rate of 11.8 percent in the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario metro area.

But the growth in the number of physicians has lagged, in no small part because the area has trouble attracting doctors, who might make more money and prefer living in nearby Orange County or Los Angeles.

A government council has recommended that a given region have 60 to 80 primary care doctors per 100,000 residents, and 85 to 105 specialists. The Inland Empire has about 40 primary care doctors and 70 specialists per 100,000 residents — the worst shortage in California, in both cases.

Moreover, across the country, fewer than half of primary care clinicians were accepting new Medicaid patients as of 2008, making it hard for the poor to find care even when they are eligible for Medicaid. The expansion of Medicaid accounts for more than one-third of the overall growth in coverage in President Obama’s health care law.

Providers say they are bracing for the surge of the newly insured into an already strained system.

Temetry Lindsey, the chief executive of Inland Behavioral & Health Services, which provides medical care to about 12,000 area residents, many of them low income, said she was speeding patient-processing systems, packing doctors’ schedules tighter and seeking to hire more physicians.

“We know we are going to be overrun at some point,” Ms. Lindsey said, estimating that the clinics would see new demand from 10,000 to 25,000 residents by 2014. She added that hiring new doctors had proved a struggle, in part because of the “stigma” of working in this part of California.

Across the country, a factor increasing demand, along with expansion of coverage in the law and simple population growth, is the aging of the baby boom generation. Medicare officials predict that enrollment will surge to 73.2 million in 2025, up 44 percent from 50.7 million this year.

“Older Americans require significantly more health care,” said Dr. Darrell G. Kirch, the president of the Association of American Medical Colleges. “Older individuals are more likely to have multiple chronic conditions, requiring more intensive, coordinated care.”

The pool of doctors has not kept pace, and will not, health experts said. Medical school enrollment is increasing, but not as fast as the population. The number of training positions for medical school graduates is lagging. Younger doctors are on average working fewer hours than their predecessors. And about a third of the country’s doctors are 55 or older, and nearing retirement.

Physician compensation is also an issue. The proportion of medical students choosing to enter primary care has declined in the past 15 years, as average earnings for primary care doctors and specialists, like orthopedic surgeons and radiologists, have diverged. A study by the Medical Group Management Association found that in 2010, primary care doctors made about $200,000 a year. Specialists often made twice as much.

The Obama administration has sought to ease the shortage. The health care law increases Medicaid’s primary care payment rates in 2013 and 2014. It also includes money to train new primary care doctors, reward them for working in underserved communities and strengthen community health centers.

But the provisions within the law are expected to increase the number of primary care doctors by perhaps 3,000 in the coming decade. Communities around the country need about 45,000.

Many health experts in California said that while they welcomed the expansion of coverage, they expected that the state simply would not be ready for the new demand. “It’s going to be necessary to use the resources that we have smarter” in light of the doctor shortages, said Dr. Mark D. Smith, who heads the California HealthCare Foundation, a nonprofit group.

Dr. Smith said building more walk-in clinics, allowing nurses to provide more care and encouraging doctors to work in teams would all be part of the answer. Mr. Corcoran of the California Medical Association also said the state would need to stop cutting Medicaid payment rates; instead, it needed to increase them to make seeing those patients economically feasible for doctors.

More doctors might be part of the answer as well. The U.C. Riverside medical school is hoping to enroll its first students in August 2013, and is planning a number of policies to encourage its graduates to stay in the area and practice primary care.

But Dr. Olds said changing how doctors provided care would be more important than minting new doctors. “I’m only adding 22 new students to this equation,” he said. “That’s not enough to put a dent in a 5,000-doctor shortage.” (NYT)

Low supply and high demand= High prices. Higher Prices= lessm likely your boss will keep your health insurance.

So then you go into the IRS enforced government system that get overloaded and the price goes up.

Suddenly, they need to cut costs, so guess what happens when the government controls life and death… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

Defenders of the Faith

Ah, dear Delusional crackpot Nancy… House minority leader Nancy Pelosi said that she believes Republican Jews are “being exploited,” but she was sure to add, “And they’re smart people.”

But she’s not a condescending delusional partisan…

Pelosi made the comments in response to whether Jewish voters would support President Barack Obama in the presidential election later this year.

“I think [Obama] will” win the Jewish vote, Pelosi said, when pressed on the subject. “I think that he will, because the fact is when the facts get out. You know, as many of the Republicans are using Israel as an excuse, what they really want are tax cuts for the wealthy. So Israel, that can be one reason they put forth.”

The interviewer then added, “That’s why some of the Republican Jewish supporters are really active.” 

Pelosi responded, “Well, that’s how they’re being exploited. And they’re smart people. They follow these issues. But they have to know the facts. And the fact is that President Obama has been the strongest person in terms of sanctions on Iran, which is important to Israel. He’s been the strongest person on whether it’s Iron Dome, David’s Sling, any of these weapons systems and initiatives that relate to Israel. He has been there over and over again.”

Anyone need a Barf Bag?

Tell me If you’ve heard this one before somewhere:

“Republicans in Congress and their nominee for President believe that the best way to create prosperity in America is to let it trickle down from the top,” said Obama. “They believe that if our country spends trillions more on tax cuts for the wealthy, we’ll somehow create jobs – even if we have to pay for it by gutting things like education and training and by raising middle-class taxes. They’re wrong.”

Blah, Blah,Blah, Blah,Blah, Blah….some old tired hoary from the last 50+ years….

And this one:

“Instead of doing what’s right for middle class families and small business owners, Republicans in Congress are holding these tax cuts hostage until we extend tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.”

Well, we know that Democrats are in to recycling. 🙂
But at least these people “didn’t build it”….

(CNSNews.com) – The Justice Department last week presented the Newland family of Colorado–who own Hercules Industries, a heating, ventilation and air-conditioning business–with what amounted to an ultimatum: Give up your religion or your business.

“Hercules Industries has ‘made no showing of a religious belief which requires that [it] engage in the [HVAC] business,” the Justice Department said in a formal filing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

In response to the Justice Department’s argument that the Newlands can either give up practicing their religion or give up owning their business, the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing the family, said in a reply brief: “[T]o the extent the government is arguing that its mandate does not really burden the Newlands because they are free to abandon their jobs, their livelihoods, and their property so that others can take over Hercules and comply, this expulsion from business would be an extreme form of government burden.”

Now that the Supreme Court has upheld the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and its mandate that individuals must buy health insurance, this suit which seeks to protect a small business from being forced to take actions that violate the moral and religious beliefs of the family that owns it is likely to be the next major court battle over Obamacare.

At stake is whether businesses are protected by the First Amendment—the part of the Bill of Rights that guarantees not only the free exercise of religion but also freedom of speech and of the press.

The Justice Department’s filing was made in Newland v. Sebelius–a suit brought by William, Paul and James Newland, and their sister, Christine Ketterhagen, who are Roman Catholics, and who together own Colorado-based Hercules Industries.

The Newland family founded Hercules in 1962 and have maintained it as a family-owned business ever since—growing it to the point where they now employ 265 people.

But the government will do it’s utmost to see these bigots are destroyed and their worth jobs with them. After all, unemployment and food stamps are a government stimulus and we don’t need “their kind” around here.

The Newlands’ lawsuit challenges a regulation that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius finalized earlier this year that requires virtually all health plans to cover–without cost-sharing–sterilizations and all Food-and-Drug Administration approved contraceptives, including those that induce abortions.

Under the Obamacare law, businesses that have more than 50 employees must provide health insurance to their employees or face a penalty. To satisfy the mandate, the insurance must include the cost-sharing-free sterilization-contraception-abortifacient benefit. The regulation takes effect on Aug. 1, which means that as soon as any business starts a new plan-year for its health-insurance program after that date it will need to comply with Sebelius’s rule.

The Catholic Church, to which the Newlands belong, teaches that sterilization, contraception and abortion are intrinsically immoral. Last month, the Catholic bishops of the United States unanimously adopted a statement declaring Sebelius’s regulation an “unjust and illegal mandate” and a “violation of personal civil rights.”

While much of the media attention on Sebelius’ regulation has focused on the fact that it will apply to famous Catholic religious institutions such as Catholic University and the University of Notre Dame, the Catholic bishops have repeatedly pointed out that the regulation also violates the First Amendment-protected religious liberty of lay Catholic individuals. That includes employees who will be forced to pay insurance premiums on insurance plans that violate the teachings of their faith and business owners who will be forced to provide such plans.

In their unanimous statement, the Catholic bishops declared that Sebelius’s regulation created a class of Americans “with no conscience protection at all: individuals who, in their daily lives, strive constantly to act in accordance with their faith and moral values. They, too, face a government mandate to aid in providing ‘services’ contrary to those values—whether in their sponsoring of, and payment for, insurance as employers; their payment of insurance premiums as employees; or as insurers themselves—without even the semblance of an exemption.”

The Newlands currently run a self-insurance plan, providing their employees with generous health-care coverage that is consistent with the teachings of the Newlands’ church in that it does not cover sterilizations, contraception and abortifacients. They are precisely among the class of people that the unanimous Catholic bishops said have “no conscience protection at all” under Sebelius’s regulation.

In their complaint against the Obama administration, which was prepared by the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Newlands clearly explained why they could not comply with Sebelius’s regulation without violating their religious faith.

“The Newlands sincerely believe that the Catholic faith does not allow them to violate Catholic religious and moral teachings in their decisions operating Hercules Industries,” says the complaint. “They believe that according to the Catholic faith their operation of Hercules must be guided by ethical social principles and Catholic religious and moral teachings, that the adherence of their business practice according to such Catholic ethics and religious and moral teachings is a genuine calling from God, that their Catholic faith prohibits them to sever their religious beliefs from their daily business practice, and that their Catholic faith requires them to integrate the gifts of the spiritual life, the virtues, morals, and ethical social principles of Catholic teaching into their life and work.”

“The Catholic Church teaches that abortifacient drugs, contraception and sterilization are intrinsic evils,” says the complaint. “As a matter of religious faith the Newlands believe that those Catholic teachings are among the religious ethical teachings they must follow throughout their lives including in their business practice.”

The Justice Department responded by arguing that if the Newlands’ Roman Catholic faith prevented them from following the Obama administration’s command that they provide their employees with cost-sharing-free coverage for sterilizations, contraception and abortion-inducing drugs, the Newlands could simply give up their business entirely.

The Justice Department further argued that people owning for-profit secular businesses do not have a First Amendment right to the free exercise religion in the way they conduct their businesses—particularly if their business is incorporated.

“Here, plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged that the preventive services coverage regulations substantially burden their religious exercise,” the Justice Department told the court. “Hercules Industries, Inc., is not a religious employer; it is ‘an HVAC manufacturer.’”

“The First Amendment Complaint does not allege that the company is affiliated with a formally religious entity such as a church,” the Justice Department told the federal court. “Nor does it allege that the company employs persons of a particular faith. In short, Hercules Industries is plainly a for-profit, secular employer.”

“By definition,” the Justice Department claimed, “a secular employer does not engage in any ‘exercise of religion.’”

“Hercules Industries has ‘made no showing of a religious belief which requires that [it] engage in the [HVAC] business,” DOJ told the court. “Any burden is therefore caused by the company’s choice to enter into a commercial activity.”

In its brief responding to the Justice Department on behalf of the Newland family, the Alliance Defending Freedom forcefully rebutted the claim that the First Amendment does not apply to corporations let alone to family-owned businesses.

“The government argues that the Newlands forfeited their right to religious liberty as soon as they endeavored to earn their living by running a corporation,” said the Newlands’ brief.

“Nothing in the Constitution, the Supreme Court’s decisions, or federal law requires—or even suggests—that families forfeit their religious liberty protection when they try to earn a living, such as by operating a corporate business,” they argued.

If the Obama administration’s understanding of the First Amendment were accepted, argued the Alliance Defending Freedom’s brief, the media would have no rights either.

“The government’s exclusionary attitude would push religion out of every sphere of life except the four wall of a church,” they said in their brief. “If for-profit corporations have no First Amendment ‘purpose,’ newspapers and other media would have no rights.”

If they refuse to sell their businesses, families like the Newlands are trapped by the Sebelius regulation. They can stop providing health insurance to themselves and their employees through the business, but then they and their employees would still be required, under Obamacare’s individual mandate, to buy health insurance, and under the Sebelius regulation all the health insurance plans they would be able to buy would still be required to cover sterilizations, contraception and abortion-inducing drugs. Their premiums would then contribute to those “services,” and the business owners would still be required to pay a penalty to the government of about $2,000 per year for each employee they did not insure.

If businesses like the Newlands’ try to simply flout the Sebelius regulation and continue providing insurance to their workers that does not cover the sterilization-contraception-abortifacient benefits that the Obama administration demands, they will be hit with confiscatory financial penalties.

“PPACA also imposes monetary penalties if Hercules were to continue to offer its self-insured plan but continued omitting abortifacients, contraceptive and sterilizations,” said the Newlands’ complaint. “The exact magnitude of these penalties may vary according to the complicated provisions of PPACA, but the fine is approximately $100 per day per employee, with minimum amounts applying in different circumstances.

With 265 employees, a business like the Newlands’ would need to pay the government $26,500 per day if they decided not to comply with Sebelius’s regulation and insured their employees anyway. Over 365 days that would amount to $9,672,500.

Ah, wonders of ObamaCare. 🙂 The Grand Blessing of The Left!!

But there is some hope for change:

DENVER (BP) — A federal judge has handed opponents of the Obama administration’s abortion/contraceptive mandate their first victory, ruling in favor of a private business whose owners are devout Catholics.

It was the first time a federal judge had ruled against the mandate, which requires employers to purchase insurance plans that cover contraceptives, including ones that can cause chemical abortions. Those drugs, often called morning-after pills and emergency contraceptives, come under various names, including Plan B and ella.

There currently are about 24 lawsuits seeking to overturn the mandate. Many of the suits involve religious organizations.

The mandate was issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

In his Friday (July 27) ruling, Judge John L. Kane of the U.S. District Court of Colorado ruled that the business — Colorado-based Hercules Industries — would suffer “irreparable harm” absent a preliminary injunction. The business is self-insured. The lawsuit now will proceed on an expedited basis.

Although the injunction applies only to Hercules Industries, it eventually could have a more far-reaching impact. The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) is representing the company.

“This lawsuit seeks to ensure that Washington bureaucrats cannot force families to abandon their faith just to earn a living,” ADF attorney Matt Bowman said in a statement. “Americans don’t want politicians and bureaucrats deciding what faith is, who the faithful are, and where and how that faith may be lived out.”

The business owners — the Newlands — “seek to run Hercules in a manner that reflects their sincerely held religious beliefs,” Kane said in his ruling. The business even added a provision to its articles of incorporation allowing the board of directors to prioritize “religious, ethical or moral standards” over profitability.

Kane, a nominee of President Carter, issued the injunction based on a federal law — the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) — and not based on the mandate’s alleged violations of the U.S. Constitution.

“Because Plaintiffs’ RFRA challenge provides adequate grounds for the requested injunctive relief, I decline to address their challenges under the Free Exercise, Establishment and Freedom of Speech Clauses of the First Amendment,” Kane wrote.

Because, after all, with the Left, you’re either a Politically Correct Thought Controlled Zombie or you’re a Bigot, stupid, exploited or all three.

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

 

Just say the Secret Word

After I did my blog yesterday I found this little nugget of gold:

NBC analyst suggests CO theater shooter was “Dark Trekkie”

On this mornings “Daily Rundown with Chuck Todd” on MSNBC the host brought in NBC News analyst (and former FBI profiler) Clint Van Zandt to talk about the the shooting at a midnight screening of The Dark Knight Rises. During the segment Van Zandt offered the the following analysis on the alleged shooter in the case James Eagan Holmes:

We know this was a preplanned event. This guy had to buy a ticket – one would assume in advance. He had to assemble clothing, uniform, helmet, gas mask, gas grenade, the weapons. He has to put all of this together. He didn’t just fall off a turnip truck to do this. Is this just the terrible collision between some dark Trekkie-like person’s fantasy world and reality or is it more sinister? Is there a political, religious or other type of motivation other than just someone with emotional challenges.

It spread to many other sources but for their credit many of them pissed on Mr. Van Zandt’s characterization. He apologized afterwards as they all do, but maybe, just maybe they should think before their impulses speak. But this is MSNBC we are talking about! That would never happen.

Politicizing tragedy with thinly sourced and even baseless speculation appears to be a permanent feature of our 24/7/365 instant-it-happens media age.

I’m sad to report today a death of a good friend to all of us…..Journalism, the once esteemed 4th estate of our nation and the protector of our freedoms and a watchdog of our rights has passed away after a long struggle with a crippling and debilitating disease of acute dishonesty aggravated by advanced laziness and the loss of brain function.– Gov. Mike Huckabee 2009.

A top union official for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers said Thursday that President Barack Obama’s administration has ordered ICE agents to blindly — and without any evidence — believe illegal immigrants if they claim they qualify for Obama’s administrative DREAM Act.

Chris Crane, president of the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council, explained at a press conference on Capitol Hill Thursday afternoon how the new selective immigration law enforcement policy Obama announced during a White House Rose Garden speech in June is affecting the officers he represents.

“As we still wait on detailed guidance from the administration, it’s impossible to understand the full scope of the administration’s changes, but what we’ve seen so far concerns us greatly,” Crane, said. “As one example, prosecutorial discretion for DREAMers is solely based on the individual’s claims. Our orders are: If an alien says they went to high school, then let them go. If they say they have a GED, then let them go.”

“Officers have been told that there is no burden for the alien to prove anything,” he continued. “Even with the greatly relaxed policies, the alien is not required to prove that they meet any of the new criteria.”

ICE officers are often called in after local and state law enforcement officials arrest a person and find that he or she is an illegal immigrant. ICE officers also conduct their own investigations and detain suspected illegal immigrants independent of other law enforcement. Normally, if the immigrant is found to be in the country illegally, ICE would bring federal charges against him, possibly leading to deportation.

Under the new orders, however, illegals can escape federal charges simply by claiming — whether it’s the truth or not — that they meet the DREAM Act rule’s requirements issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Crane did not specify who has given his officers these new orders.

The new directive would contradict Homeland Security’s own words in announcing the policy, which said that “only those individuals who can prove through verifiable documentation that they meet these criteria will be eligible for deferred action.

Homeland Security announced in June that it will not go after illegals who came to the U.S. under the age of 16 and are not more than 30 years old; have lived in the U.S. for five straight years; are currently in school or have graduated high school, obtained a GED or been honorably discharged from the military; have not been convicted of a felony or significant misdemeanor and are not a threat to public safety.

“At this point, we don’t understand why DHS even has criteria at all as there is no requirement or burden to prove anything on the part of the alien,” Crane added. “We believe significant numbers of aliens who are not DREAMers are taking advantage of this practice to avoid arrest.”

“The lawlessness must end,” Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions, whose office organized the presser, said.

“They’ve handcuffed and muffled those charged with protecting the public safety and the integrity of our borders,” Sessions said. “Such action has not only weakened our security but our democracy. All Americans, immigrant and native born, will have a better future if our nation remains unique in the world for its special reverence for the rule of law and fairness in our immigration system.”

George McCubbin, the president of the AFL-CIO-backed National Border Patrol Council, said Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s claim that the border is more secure than ever are downright untrue.

“She conveniently forgot to ask the men and women on the front line if indeed that were true, but rather she relied on the information and statistic provided to her by those in positions of interest of having her reflect whatever position the administration wants her to reflect — in this case, that’s a safe and secure border,” McCubbin said. “When you surround yourself with people who always say ‘yes,’ you will get the answer you are seeking.”

McCubben hasn’t yet gone to Department of Homeland Security leadership with his concerns about Obama’s new administrative DREAM Act program yet because he and the 17,000 agents he represents still have no clue what they’re supposed to do and what they’re not supposed to do. “I’m still waiting to get instructions from our own agency,” he said in response to a question from The Daily Caller. “Actually, our own agency was caught off guard when this came out.”

Crane said efforts to get a fair hearing with Napolitano, ICE Director John Morton or other administration officials have been futile.

“We’ve spent the last three-and-a-half years trying to work with this administration from Director Morton to Secretary Napolitano, who won’t meet with us,” Crane said. “We’ve actually been to the White House and tried to talk to those folks — and, basically, they don’t want to hear our concerns. They don’t want to work with us at all.”

“The only groups that they will work with are the NGOs, the immigrant advocacy groups,” Crane said. “Whether it’s the security protocols for our detention centers or our law enforcement practices out in the field, those are being driven by wish lists from immigrant advocacy groups with no input from law enforcement officers in the field.”

Grassley, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the policy is nothing more than a political stunt by Obama to deliver on a campaign promise he has thus far failed to fulfill.

“The president campaigns in 2008 that, in the first year, he’s going to have immigration issues solved,” Grassley said. “At this point, after three-and-a-half years, we have not seen any bill whatsoever. So, then as is a core pattern in this administration, you got to blame somebody else, so it [the administration] comes up with this statement: ‘if Congress won’t, I will.’”

NOVEMBER IS COMING

 

The Spin Cycle

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Another brilliant comment from Mr. Salt & Soda Ban, New York’s NutJob Mayor: “I don’t understand why the police officers across this country don’t stand up collectively and say we’re going to go on strike,” Bloomberg told the “Piers Morgan Tonight” host. “We’re not going to protect you unless you, the public, through your legislature, do what’s required to keep us safe.”

Gun Control (aka none at all). Something that the Founding Fathers were unalterably opposed to. But that’s Knee Jerk Do-Gooder Morally Superior Liberalism for you!

If you took his guns away, would you still not have a pathologically disturbed person?

Would he be “safer” without a gun??

Not really. He’d just find another way to kill people. Bombs, like the ones in his apartment perhaps. Then what would the reactionary liberals want to ban then??

To Quote Captain James Tiberius Kirk: You’ve managed to kill everyone else, but like a poor marksman, you keep missing the target!

The problem is the person, not the weapon.

The problem is the liberal preaching moral relativism- the philosophical theory that morality varies between individuals and cultures and so there is no objective right and wrong.

And if there is no absolute right and wrong then  you do what feels good. And the Aurora Killer this obviously felt good, as sick as it was.

But the minute you start talking to a liberal about right and wrong all you’ll get is that they are right and you’re wrong. That’s it.

Otherwise, you’d be some right wing christian nutcase, even if your not a Christian. Muslim excluded.

Then The next day Bloomberg realized he said something nearly as stupid as what Obama said about businesses.  Which Obama is trying to diffuse also: “Those ads taking my words about small business out of context — they’re flat-out wrong,” Obama says in the commercial. “Of course Americans build their own businesses. Every day, hardworking people sacrifice to meet a payroll, create jobs and make our economy run. And what I said was that we need to stand behind them, as America always has.” (The Hill)

They were both quoted accurately. They just said what they really think and that was the problem. 🙂

New York State law prohibits strikes by public employees and Bloomberg clarified his remarks when speaking to reporters on Tuesday.

“I don’t mean literally go on strike,” he said. “Keep in mind, it is police officers who run into danger when the rest of us run out. Police officers have families. They want to come home to their families safely.”

Ugh. yeah, and people who own guns (which I do not) don’t??

And he didn’t actually mean it. He meant the first statement, it just looked bad politically. “They should call their congressman, call their senators and say ‘My family wants me to come home. What are you doing to protect me?’” Bloomberg said.

NJ Governor Chris Christie: “Can we at least get through the initial grief and tragedy for these families before we start making them political pawns?” Christie said. 🙂

Not on the Left. 🙂 Never let a Crisis Go to Waste!!

Now for the greatest circular argument of the week award that goes to David Axelrod, the architect of “Hope and Change” in 2008 : Now that Romney and his allies have hit back with ads correcting the record and pointing out the death of ‘hope and change,” Axelrod is blaming them for the public perception that Obama’s gone mega negative.  Talk about a circular argument.  It’s also an ironic one.  Think about it: When asked why his campaign is so negative, Axelrod blames the other side.  Argument confirmed.(townhall)

So you’re negative campaigning against us is you’re fault! So the Obama campaign wants to fight their nuke-em-at-all costs strategy by being “nice”.

Barf Bag bag overload!

“I’m Barack Obama and I approved this message because I believe we’re all in this together,” he says.

Tobe Berkovitz, a professor of communications at Boston University who specializes in political communication, suggested the approach is a response to the frustration the Obama campaign thinks voters are feeling with the negative campaign. 

“After pummeling Romney like a tin drum for the last two months, now they’re trying to change the focus, talking directly to voters in an effort to appeal to swing voters,” Berkovitz said.

The ads, Berkovitz surmised, were just a “temporary detour down Mr. Niceness-world.”(The Hill)

But like the nature of the Left, the surrogates will be out there doing their nuke-em all to hell and saying very silly things that will be “mischaracterized” as always.

Allahpundit: Am I right in thinking that O never felt obliged to do a spot like this, clarifying his own comments, back in 2008? He gave his speech on race to try to defuse the Rev. Wright uproar, but he never did an ad directly answering an attack that I can recall, not even after his immortal “bitter-clinger” comments at that lefty fundraiser. Typically the playbook when a pol says something damaging is to let it lie and not extend its media shelf life with a new commercial that dredges it up again in the course of rebutting it. He must be awfully nervous about how “you didn’t build that” is playing with that middle class he claims to care so much about if he feels obliged to do this…O says here that his point in the original “you didn’t build that” comments was that America needs to “stand behind” its small business owners. Is that right? Go re-read what he said in Roanoke. Sure sounded at the time like he was telling them that they owe us, not that we owe them.

But if you quote a Liberal’s words back to them it just pisses them off.

We need more of that. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

 Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

 

 

The Cost of Liberalism

The Obama administration’s new plan to grant temporary work permits to many young, illegal immigrants who otherwise could be deported may cost more than $585 million and require hiring hundreds of new federal employees to process more than 1 million anticipated requests, according to internal documents obtained by The Associated Press.

The Homeland Security Department plans, marked “not for distribution,” describe steps that immigrants will need to take — including a $465 paperwork fee designed to offset the program’s cost — and how the government will manage it. Illegal immigrants can request permission to stay in the country under the plan by filing a document, “Request for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals,” and simultaneously apply for a work permit starting Aug. 15.

The plans estimated that the Homeland Security Department could need to hire more than 1,400 full-time employees, as well as contractors, to process the applications. (KFYI)

I guess that’s one way to create jobs. But they are GOVERNMENT public sector jobs paid for by taxpayers (the few we have left).

A spokesman for the Homeland Security Department, Peter Boogaard, said the plans were “preliminary documents” and the process is still being worked out. Mr. Boogaard said processing immigrant applications under the program “will not use taxpayer dollars” because of the fees that will be collected.

“We anticipate that this will be a fee-driven process,” Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano said.

REALLY! The Liberals are going to collect Fees from illegals! Who’s kidding who here. They are going to collect them from “poor” hispanics. That I want to see. 🙂

Fee waivers could dramatically affect the government’s share of the cost. The plans said that, depending on how many applicants don’t pay, the government could lose between $19 million and $121 million. Republican critics pounced on that.

“By lowering the fee or waiving it altogether for illegal immigrants, those who play by the rules will face delays and large backlogs as attention is diverted to illegal immigrants,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, Texas Republican. “American taxpayers should not be forced to bail out illegal immigrants and President Obama’s fiscally irresponsible policies.”

Business owners will pay $4 billion more in taxes under President Obama’s Affordable Care Act (ACA) than the Congressional Budget Office had previously expected.

In short, CBO revised the Obamacare tax burden upward by $4 billion for businesses and $1 billion to $1.5 billion for individual workers.

The report dubs the individual mandate a “penalty tax” — that is, “a penalty paid to the Treasury by taxpayers when they file their tax returns and enforced by the Internal Revenue Service.”

But don’t worry, it’s not a tax. And that money won’t be passed down to the consumers.
🙂
Then there are the four deadliest words in the Obama Language… “Let Me Be Clear”. Bend over you’re about to get a telephone pole rammed up your ass!
2010: “Let me be clear: If you like your doctor or healthcare provider, you an keep them. If you like your health care plan, you can keep that too.”

About one in 10 employers plan to drop health coverage when key provisions of the new health care law kick in less than two years from now,

While small business don’t face fines for failing to offer coverage, companies with 50 or more full time employees face a penalty starting at $2,000 per worker.

Deloitte Consulting conducted the study between February and April — before the Supreme Court upheld most of the law — and surveyed corporate and human-resources executives from 560 companies currently offering benefits.

In contrast, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that around seven percent of workers could lose coverage under the law by 2019.

And what of the cost of those 1700+ waivers to Obama’s apparatchiks? Hmm…

When President Obama was selling health reform, he often talked about providing universal coverage. But a Congressional Budget Office report out this week finds that goal getting more elusive.

The report found that despite ObamaCare’s $1.2 trillion price tag, it would only cut the ranks of the uninsured in half, leaving 30 million without coverage. That’s seven million more uninsured than the CBO first projected in March 2010.

The latest downgrade comes in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling, which gave states the freedom to reject ObamaCare’s massive expansion of Medicaid. Since then, governors in more than 25 states have said they will refuse to expand Medicaid or are leaning in that direction, despite the generous federal contributions.

But the uninsured problem under ObamaCare could be much worse than the CBO projects.

What the report doesn’t cover is the fact that the other legs of the ObamaCare stool designed to expand insurance coverage — the individual mandate, the employer mandate and the state insurance exchanges — are also buckling.

As a result, ObamaCare will likely cover far fewer uninsured than advertized. There’s even a chance that, if all goes wrong, it could actually make the uninsured problem worse.

The individual mandate, for example, is a cornerstone of ObamaCare’s effort to expand coverage. But tax experts who’ve studied how the IRS will enforce the mandate conclude that it’s likely to be ineffective, because the law makes it virtually impossible for the IRS to collect the tax penalty from those who don’t pay it.

Under normal circumstances, the IRS has broad powers to collect taxes from those who don’t pay what they owe. It can charge civil and criminal penalties, impose liens, and seize assets and bank accounts.

But ObamaCare specifically blocks the IRS from using these enforcement tools when it comes to collecting any unpaid ObamaCare tax penalties.

These restrictions “make it unlikely the IRS can effectively enforce the individual mandate,” according to a detailed analysis of the tax penalty by Jordan Barry and Bryan Camp, law professors at the University of San Diego and Texas Tech University, respectively.

“The individual mandate,” they conclude, “may not actually be mandatory after all.”

The problem is that if the mandate doesn’t work, ObamaCare could make the uninsured problem worse, at least in the individual insurance market.

That’s because ObamaCare’s insurance market reforms — called “guaranteed issue” and “community rating” — force insurers to cover anyone, regardless of their health status, while forbidding them from charging the sick more than the healthy. (IBD)

WNEW News reports that  (James “The Joker”) Holmes was awarded a prestigious grant from the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md. NIH is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

It gave the graduate student a $26,000 stipend and paid his tuition for the highly competitive neuroscience program at the University of Colorado in Denver. Holmes was one of six neuroscience students at the school to get the grant money.

List Of Failed Green Energy Jobs & Companies – By Obama

Update: 7/19/12: The Amonix Solar: FAIL – manufacturing plant in North Las Vegas, subsidized by more than $20 million in federal tax credits and grants given by Obama Administration, has closed its 214,000 square foot facility a year after it opened.

  • Solar Trust of America: FAIL – Filed Bankruptcy in Oakland, CA, April 3, 2012 – On April 2, 2012
  • Bright Source: FAIL – Bright Source warned Obama’s Energy Department officials in March 2011 that delays in approving a $1.6 billion U.S. loan guarantee would embarrass the White House and force the solar-energy company to close. Lost Billions of dollars but Getting More Money To Keep Trying. Can you say, “This isnt working?”
  • Solyndra: FAIL – Obama gave Solyndra $500,000,000 in taxpayer money and Solyndra shut its doors and laid off 1100 workers in August 2011 After Billions in Losses due to failure to make a solar product that works!
  • President Obama rubbed elbows Monday night with two men at the center of the Solyndra loan scandal at an exclusive fundraiser in California.

    Steve Westly, a financier whose money-raising prowess helped to snag him a post on the administration’s energy advisory board, and Matt Rogers, a former Energy Department senior adviser who helped to approve the Solyndra loan, were spotted by reporters at the $35,800-per-person fundraiser for the president’s re-election campaign.

  • LSP Energy: FAIL – LSPEnergy LP filed bankruptcy protection and a sale of its assets in Feb 2012
  • Energy Conversion Devices: FAIL – On February 14, 2012 Energy Conversion Devices, Inc. and its subsidiaries filed for bankruptcy
  • Abound Solar: FAIL – Abound Solar received a $400 million loan guarantee from Barack Obama announced in June, 2012 that it would file for bankruptcy
  • SunPower: FAIL – SunPower stopped producing solar cells last year at near bankruptcy restructured only with help of, get this, oil giant TOTAL who owns 60% stake. Irony! Still struggling…
  • Beacon Power: FAIL – Beacon Power Corp filed for bankruptcy Oct 2011 just a year after Obama approved $43 million loan Government loan guarantee
  • Ecotality: FAIL – ECOtality, a San Francisco green-tech company that never earned any money on the verge of bankruptcy after receiving roughly $115 million in two loan guarantees from Obama
  • A123 Solar: FAIL-A123 received $279 million from taxpayers thanks to President Obama’s Department of Energy loan guarantees and after Solyndra bankruptcy is getting another $500M from Obama and it has lost $400M
  • UniSolar: FAIL – Uni-Solar filed for Ch 11 bankruptcy in June 20 this year laid off hundreds got more Obama money still failing but still in business
  • Azure Dynamics: FAIL – Azure Dynamics files for bankruptcy in June ter millions in Obama “Stimulus”
  • Evergreen Solar: FAIL – Evergreen Solar received $527 Million in Taxpayer money from Obama filed bankruptcy
  • Ener1: FAIL received more than $100 million in government funding from the Obama administration filed for bankruptcy January 2012

Update:  In May 2012 Obama visited a dusty, desert town 30 miles outside Las Vegas Wednesday to declare he’s doubling down on failed federal efforts to boost the solar industry which has NEVER proven to produce a single working product. Like Socialism, no evidence ot works, but they just keep doubling down on the failed ideals!.

Because they have “good” intentions and if they just try hard enough and spend enough money it will work…eventually… 🙂

So what if the record is 0 for $6 Trillion in taxpayer debt in less than 4 years. So what if less people are working now than 4 years ago. So what if more people more people than ever are dependent on the government dole (that is paid by less and less taxpayers).

They have the moral high ground, in their own minds, so they are just better than you grubby little capitalist bastards.

Obama Fails on Energy

On March 22 Obama announced an offer of up to $35 million over three years to support research and development in advanced biofuels, bioenergy, and high-value biobased products. These types of fuels are 20 plus years away from practical use.  On that same day the White House announced a $14.2 million DOE effort to accelerate the development and deployment of stronger and lighter materials for advanced vehicles which will not be available for 20+ years.The initiatives, which are doomed to failure,  are aimed at reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil and limit carbon pollution.  But carbon pollution data is based on false data and the United States has more oil than Saudi Arabia and would make America energy independent for 200 years. But Democrats and Obama could care less about these facts.

Because it “feels” good. They have “good” intentions. So you’re just angry, mean old troll who’s in the pocket of evil rich oil people who want to rape and destroy the planet if you disagree.

Lip Reading: “all this for a flag?”

Perhaps Mrs. Obama thinks that all the pomp and circumstance she experiences in her daily life has something to do with her, rather than the unofficial office she holds.

Well, I guess it’s off on another $100,000 jaunt to an exotic location for her. And another round of golf and a fundraiser (AT $40,000 a plate) for Michelle “Marie Antoinette” Obama and her Husband The Emperor King.

NOVEMBER IS COMING

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

Trolling Around

Never ask a Liberal a logical question. They will just sputter.

Congressional Democrats whine and cry that they can’t get anything accomplished with all these darn obstructionist Republicans.  But there was a time in the not too distant past when the Democrats controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, and had the capacity to have their way and do anything they wanted.  One thing they didn’t do was to raise taxes.  And now they’re blaming the GOP for standing in their way.  Clearly this is a cynical ploy intended to paint the Republicans as trying to help wealthy people and harm the middle class, but what does Harry Reid do when he’s cornered on this

But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid couldn’t explain why he didn’t pass this bill in 2009 or 2010 when Democrats had huge majorities in the House and Senate and could have actually sent it to President Obama to sign into law.

See for yourself . . . (KFYI)

TWS: Leader Reid, when it comes to the Bush tax cuts…why didn’t Senate Democrats push through this bill back when you controlled the Senate, the House, and the presidency?

REID: The tax cuts weren’t about to expire then. So that’s why we’re doing it now.

TWS: You could have foreseen this issue two years ago.

REPORTER: What are you talking about? They expired at the end of 2010.

REID: And that’s why they were extended one year.

TWS: Why didn’t they vote when you could have pushed this bill through and had it signed into law?

REID: Next question.

I guess Harry was “trolled”. The Liberal equivalent in their mind of set-up.

Here’s apparently how this works (as I have been the “troll” before). The situation is set up.

You being the hateful non-liberal disagree with them.

They “correct” you.

You persist in disagreeing with them. So you’re just a hateful “troll” just baiting them and you are just seriously hateful and they don’t want to talk to you anymore because you’re irrational.

Lovely isn’t it. 🙂

So the hateful non-liberal asks why when you had veto proof majorities in the Congress didn’t you pass the legislation to raise taxes (aka get rid of the cuts).

They hem and haw and you press, they blow you off as a hateful troll in their mind and move on.

Urban Dictionary: Trolling is trying to get a rise out of someone. Forcing them to respond to you, either through wise-crackery, posting incorrect information, asking blatantly stupid questions, or other foolishness. However, trolling statements are never true or are ever meant to be construed as such.

And since Liberals are never wrong. If you disagree with them, especially, their “corrections” then you’re just trolling. 🙂

More facts that are “trolling”:

By the end of the third quarter of fiscal 2012, the new debt accumulated in this fiscal year by the federal government had already exceeded $1 trillion, making this fiscal year the fifth straight in which the federal government has increased its debt by more than a trillion dollars, according to official debt numbers published by the U.S. Treasury.

Prior to fiscal 2008, the federal government had never increased its debt by as much as $1 trillion in a single fiscal year. From fiscal 2008 onward, however, the federal government has increased its debt by at least $1 trillion each and every fiscal year. (KFYI)

After all, that’s Bush’s Fault and if you persist in blaming Liberals you’re just a hateful little troll who is irrational and has no clue how reality works (in Liberal land).

Another Troll:

The number of workers taking federal disability insurance payments hit yet another record in July, increasing to 8,753,935 during the month from the previous record set in June, according to newly released data from the Social Security Administration.

The 8,753,935 workers who took federal disability insurance payments in July exceeded the population of 39 of the 50 states. Only 11 states—California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina and New Jersey—had more people in them than the number of workers on the federal disability insurance rolls in July.

Another Troll:

The US poverty rate is on track to reach its highest level since the 1960′s.
According to a report from a year ago, tearly one in six Americans is living in poverty – a thirty year high.

The Associated Press surveyed more than a dozen economists, think tanks and academics, both nonpartisan and those with known liberal or conservative leanings, and found a broad consensus: The official poverty rate will rise from 15.1 percent in 2010, climbing as high as 15.7 percent. Several predicted a more modest gain, but even a 0.1 percentage point increase would put poverty at the highest level since 1965.

Poverty is spreading at record levels across many groups, from underemployed workers and suburban families to the poorest poor. More discouraged workers are giving up on the job market, leaving them vulnerable as unemployment aid begins to run out. Suburbs are seeing increases in poverty, including in such political battlegrounds as Colorado, Florida and Nevada, where voters are coping with a new norm of living hand to mouth.

Say it with me: It’s Bush’s/Congress (aka Republicans only)/Right wingers.The rich Tea Partiers Fault!!

Remember, bringing up facts like this is just trolling because you are doing it with malice in your heart and only want to piss off the liberal with this bait.
Thus, they in the process, can BLOW YOU OFF for bringing it up! 🙂
Fun, how that works, isn’t it.
THOMAS SOWELL
Since so many in the media cannot resist turning every tragedy into a political talking point, it was perhaps inevitable that (1) someone would try to link the shooting rampage at the Batman movie in Colorado to the Tea Party, and that (2) some would try to make it a reason to impose more gun control laws.Too many people in the media cannot seem to tell the difference between reporting the news and creating propaganda.NBC News apparently could not resist doctoring the transcript of the conversation between George Zimmerman and the police after the Trayvon Martin shooting. Now ABC News took the fact that the man arrested for the shooting in Colorado was named James Holmes to broadcast to the world the fact that there is a James Holmes who is a member of the Tea Party in Colorado.The fact has since come out that these are two different men, one in his 20s and the other in his 50s. But corrections never catch up with irresponsible news broadcasts. The James Holmes who belongs to the Tea Party has been deluged with phone calls. I hope he sues ABC News for every dime they have.

This is not the first time that the mainstream media have tried to create a link between conservatives and violence. Years ago, the Oklahoma City bombing was blamed on Rush Limbaugh, despite the absence of any evidence that the bomber was inspired by Rush Limbaugh.

Similar things have happened repeatedly, going all the way back to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, which was blamed on a hostile right-wing atmosphere in Dallas, even though the assassin had a long history of being on the far left fringe.

But, where the shoe is on the other foot — as when the Unabomber had a much marked-up copy of an environmentalist book by Al Gore — the media heard no evil, saw no evil and spoke no evil. If people in the media cannot decide whether they are in the business of reporting news or manufacturing propaganda, it is all the more important that the public understand that difference, and choose their news sources accordingly.

As for gun control advocates, I have no hope whatever that any facts whatever will make the slightest dent in their thinking — or lack of thinking. New York’s Mayor Bloomberg and CNN’s Piers Morgan were on the air within hours of the shooting, pushing the case for gun control laws.

You might never know, from what they and other gun control advocates have said, that there is a mountain of evidence that gun control laws not only fail to control guns but are often counterproductive. However, for those other people who still think facts matter, it is worth presenting some of those facts.

Do countries with strong gun control laws have lower murder rates? Only if you cherry-pick the data.

Britain is a country with stronger gun control laws than the United States, and lower murder rates. But Mexico, Russia and Brazil are also countries with stronger gun control laws than the United States — and their murder rates are much higher than ours. Israel and Switzerland have even higher rates of gun ownership than the United States, and much lower murder rates than ours.

Even the British example does not stand up very well under scrutiny. The murder rate in New York has been several times that in London for more than two centuries — and, for most of that time, neither place had strong gun control laws. New York had strong gun control laws years before London did, but New York still had several times the murder rate of London.

It was in the later decades of the 20th century that the British government clamped down with severe gun control laws, disarming virtually the entire law-abiding citizenry. Gun crimes, including murder, rose as the public was disarmed.

Meanwhile, murder rates in the United States declined during the same years when murder rates in Britain were rising, which were also years when Americans were buying millions more guns per year.

The real problem, both in discussions of mass shootings and in discussions of gun control, is that too many people are too committed to a vision to allow mere facts to interfere with their beliefs, and the sense of superiority that those beliefs give them.

Any discussion of facts is futile when directed at such people. All anyone can do is warn others about the propaganda.

Because you’re just a Troll. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

 Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson
Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Death & Taxes

Even in Death, Liberals want YOU.

There is no more vivid or offensive example of the “you didn’t build that” philosophy on the books than the federal death tax, which supposes that when you die a hefty portion of everything you built up over a lifetime ought to go to government. It’s a vestige of the feudal days when all property was owned by the king.

That’s probably why the death tax is the “worst tax — that is, the least fair” according to polling by the Tax Foundation. And it’s also why our founders thought the idea of seizing an estate at death so outrageous that they prohibited it as a penalty for treason in the U.S. Constitution (Article III, Section 3). And yet now, seizing more than half of it as a penalty for accomplishing the American dream is the preferred policy of Democrats in the United States Senate.

You’re born. You work hard. You pay your taxes all your life. Maybe, you build something along the way. But when you die the IRS can tax you again.

This year, they can take 35 percent of everything above $5 million. Senate Democrats announced yesterday that as of January 1, they want to raise that to 55 percent of everything above $1 million. And because the $1 million is not indexed to inflation, over time this confiscatory tax would hit almost everyone who achieves some success and wants to pass it on.

That means family farms and businesses will be forced to shut down when the founder dies just to pay the tax bill.

Former Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Holtz-Eakin estimates that the Democrats’ 55 percent death tax would destroy as many as 1.5 million small-business jobs, walloping an already weak economy. That’s the problem with taxing “the rich” — even after they die — the real pain is suffered by the people they employ, who lose their jobs.

Unfortunately, rather than seize the moral high ground by advocating full repeal of the death tax, Senate Republicans have included a compromise position in their alternative tax package: they want to keep the tax at its current 35 percent rate. The study from Holtz-Eakin found that would destroy 857,000 jobs — which can only be described as “less bad” than the economic damage Democrats are proposing.

Senate Republicans are compromising even though they know the right position is full repeal because they fear the political implications of advocating full repeal at a time when the media and left-wing agitators are even more obsessed than usual with class warfare and the politics of envy.

This fear is not well founded. Polls have consistently shown very high levels of public support for repealing the tax, including among people who will never be directly affected, but understand the indirect economic consequences and the sheer immorality of seizing a large portion of estates at death as a penalty for success.

One of the most remarkable political science papers I’ve ever read was published back in 2006, during the last serious Senate effort at full repeal. The paper by two Yale professors, Mayling Birney and Ian Shapiro, comprehensively reviewed the issue. They said: “Many polls since the late 1990s have shown widespread public support for estate tax repeal, in the range of 60, 70 or 80 percent. Moreover, supporters appear to be spread more or less equally across income groups, contrary to what self-interest would predict.”

So let the Democrats, the media, and the class-warfare demagogues do their worst. The American people know this tax is wrong. (DC)

And nice to see that the Republicans have a backbone…NOT!
Spineless, gutless and afraid of the Liberal Media as usual.
That’s why they are so good at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Being Timid is the way t0 go. If we just mollify the velociraptor Media and Liberals we can win.
This a heinous and unfair tax. You work hard all your life, but when you die the government gets to swoop in and take it like a bunch of hungry vultures.
And the Liberal Class Envy and Greed extends in beyond death. Now that’s hardcore.
Even in death they are “entitled” to your hard earned money.
And the Republicans as usual just want to cave and be liked by people that want to destroy them.
It’s the nerdy kid giving into the bully all over again.
And why we are likely to end the American Dream for good in the election of 2012 with the re-election of an unencumbered “more flexible” King-wanna Be, Barack Hussein Obama.
The man spent more than he took in in his campaign in June. What will he do when he is not facing re-election? He’s been in campaign mode since 2007. What will non-campaign mode be like. The devil only knows. I, personally, would not like to find out.
But I’m afraid I will.
“He’s got a very simple-minded ad attacking Romney for being a guy who ships shops overseas,” Brooks said. “But to actually have a debate about capitalism and about the role of government would require more nuance than I think we’re going to [get] from either side, precisely because they are paying attention to people who don’t pay attention.” NYT David Brooks

They are cultivating the MORON vote. The Snookie Vote. The “American Idol” vote. The Jon Stewart is a Newsman not a Comedian Vote.
Vote for me Because you’re Stupid!
Wow, what a lovely thought.
Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Mythbusting

For decades, “fairness” has been liberal Democrats’ outcry against demands for lower taxes. The rich, President Obama endlessly contends, don’t pay “their fair share.”

Well, as usual, it’s less than honest. Gee what a shocker…

A new study from the Tax Foundation found the number of those filing tax returns who pay no income taxes now numbers over 58 million, amounting to a staggering 41% of all tax returns. Compare that with 1990, when only about 21% of tax returns were found to have no tax liability.

What’s more, the median income of these nonpayers has increased by 40% in just nine years. “The threshold at which a typical married couple with two children will likely be a nonpayer is now $47,000,” the Tax Foundation found.

The primary reason? Big government’s tentacles, in the form of cash payments via the soaring expansion of refundable tax credits. “In 1990, the combined value of these credits was roughly $20 billion after adjusting for inflation,” the study notes. By 2000, it was $46.5 billion.

“A decade later,” however, “the combined budgetary cost of both the basic and refundable tax credits reached a remarkable $224 billion in 2010.”

As the foundation’s Scott Hodge cautions, “These credits not only have a major budgetary cost — both in terms of the lost revenue and the outlay cost for the refundable portion — they undermine the financial stability of the government by narrowing the tax base, and disconnect people from the basic cost of government.”

A tax-cut-oriented simplification of the IRS code — so urgently needed today — will soon be politically impossible because of so many millions off the income-tax rolls, an increasing number of them middle-class.

People who aren’t paying taxes, yet who are enjoying government dependency in various areas of their lives, aren’t going to give the time of day to politicians who seek to cut taxes. (IBD)

Tax cuts as bad for the economy or bad for the “poor and the middle class”. They are “unfair”. That mantra is already here.

The Government taking less of your money is now a bad thing.

Orwell would be proud.

Fascinating…:)

An affiliate of NBC speaking heresy:

The presidential election has given us two myths about the rich. First, that their incomes, and income inequality, are at all-time highs. Second, that the wealthy pay less in taxes than ever, and lower taxes than the rest of us.

A recent report from the Congressional Budget Office, however, suggests that both may be false. (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43373)

Let’s consider income first. Between 2007 and 2009, after-tax earnings by Americans in the top one percent for income fell 37 percent. On a pre-tax basis they fell 36 percent in the same period.

That may sound like a minor haircut for One Percenters compared to people who lost their jobs. But when you take into account federal transfers, assistance and taxes paid, the incomes of the bottom 20 percent grew by 3 percent, while it fell a modest 2 percent for the middle 20 percent.

In other words, the incomes of the top one percent fell 18 times more than the incomes for the middle class at the start of the recession.

Change in after-income tax (2007-2009)

The result of this big drop at the top was that their share of the country’s total income also fell. In 2007, the top one percent earned 16.7 percent of all after-tax income. In 2009, that portion fell to 11.5 percent.

Inequality, in other words, fell during those years.  We are now in an age of High-Beta Wealth, where the incomes of the One Percent have become far more manic and prone to wild drops than the rest of the country.

And taxes paid? Despite the oft-repeated fact that tax rates for the wealthy are at an all-time low (which is true), it’s also true that the actual amount paid in taxes by the wealthy is higher than before the recession.

Share of Income

The One Percent paid an average effective tax rate of 28.9 percent on their income — far more than any other group, and more than twice the average effective rate of the middle class, who paid 11 percent on average.

So the rich lost more income and paid more of their money in taxes than the rest of the population.

This is not an argument against taxing the wealthy. And the incomes and tax rates of the wealthy may have jumped back since 2009, with the rebound in financial markets.

But when politicians and pundits talk about the rich just getting richer and paying less taxes, they need to pay closer attention to the actual numbers.

Average Federal Tax Rates, 1979 to 2009

Top 10 Places to find a 1%er:

10. Seattle

9. Boston

8. Atlanta

7. Dallas

6. Houston

5. Washington D.C.

4. Chicago

3. San Francisco

2. Los Angeles

1. New York City

(source CNBC)

Notice anything about the the Top 5?

Government and Liberals. Hmmm…

What a coincidence!! 🙂

But the Left will ignore it and you. They don’t care…

NOVEMBER IS COMING

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

 

Tragedy Strikes


Jessica Ghawi (Redfield)

I was reminded that we don’t know when or where our time on Earth will
end. When or where we will breathe our last breath. … I say all the
time that every moment we have to live our life is a blessing. So
often I have found myself taking it for granted.– Jessica Ghwai (aka Jessica Redfield) who blogged after missing a shooting in Toronto by minutes but was killed early Friday by the Aurora Killer at the Movie Theater.

And we really don’t know when the second will come. That split second that means you are here and now you’re not.

So we do need to appreciate what we have for as long as we have it.

http://michellemalkin.com/2012/07/21/commemorating-the-victims-not-the-aurora-movie-theater-shooter/

BUT… Not on the Liberal Left. And for the record I don’t bring this up to politicize it. I bring it up so we can properly understand that many on the Left have no feelings about this other than false sympathy and political opportunism. And that’s sickening. And it needs to change. And the only way it changes is to shine a bright light on it so the snakes crawl back under there rocks never to be seen again. Now that is “Hope and Change” I would want to believe in.

“You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”- Rahm Emmanuel, former Chief od Staff for President Obama and now Mayor of Chicago.

And unfortunately, in recent times like this Liberals go all “unity” and “civility” on us, but they don’t really mean it ultimately. They are too political about everything and anything for it to be honest for very long.

There are already those on the Left talking about how to use this tragedy to promote their Gun Control agenda. And that’s sickening. But True.

Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, there isn’t anything wrong with showing sympathy, but there has to be more. “You have to question how genuine that sympathy is if it’s not accompanied by talk about solutions to the problem.”

But, Gross said, the “now is not the time” argument would only be genuine “if history showed that there ever is a time to discuss the role of gun policy in preventing these tragedies.”

I question their capacity if if not even 24 hrs later you are jumping on the political bandwagon.

Mayor Bloomberg of New York went on local radio just hours afterwards and was politicizing it. The man with the Soda and Salt bans.

What about the illegal guns sold to known Mexican Drug Cartel Gang members that have killed people?

Nothing.

Where is there outrage there? It’s a bit selective.

And the Left is all about “unity” and “civility” and “common sense” right now. But give them a very short time and they’ll be back to policies of hate, division, envy et al.

They talk one thing and do another.

And this really is the time to pull to together. But it won’t last.

One ABC report yesterday was already blaming The Tea Party. And another report (not ABC) blames Occupy Wall Street.

So it has already started.

On ABC’s Good Morning America, anchor George Stephanolpoulos took a “report” from ABC’s Chief Investigator Brian Ross who was supposedly investigating the crime. Here is what Ross said,

There’s a Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado, page on the Colorado Tea party site as well, talking about him joining the Tea Party last year. Now, we don’t know if this is the same Jim Holmes. But it’s Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado.

First of all the name James Holmes is not a very exotic name. Many, many James Holmes live in the Aurora area. A quick search of the White Pages online finds at least five James Holmeses in Aurora and at least a half dozen in Denver and over thirty in the state.

Yet, Brian Ross immediately stampedes to a Colorado Tea Party webpage in hopes of finding the name James Holmes, then, finding one, he runs to the camera to blame the Tea party without taking even a second to ascertain if the James Holmes on the Tea Party website is, or even could be the Colorado theater murderer.

You go out, you lie about your enemies allowing the narrative to take hold in order to hurt your political opposites, then, when it inevitably turns out that your supposition is wrong, you put a “correction” somewhere in the back of a newspaper where no one will ever see it. Your lies are now out there and believed by many apparently to spite the truth. That is how Democrats and the left work.

A Tragedy is just another opportunity that shouldn’t be wasted. And the days when “journalist” checked their facts before blurting them out are long gone.

The Aurora Shooting: Sometimes There’s Nothing Wrong with Politicizing a Tragedy By Michael Grunwald (TIME)

(ARTICLE NOT INCLUDED)
As it happens, the James Holmes of the Colorado Tea Party site is a man in his fifties and the police released information that their suspect is a 24-year-old.
Using his airtime for a political attack when so many families were grieving the loss of their loved ones in this monstrous crime is not merely unseemly, it is a hateful act that should end his career.But Brian Ross will not find his career ended with this hateful lie. In fact, all his little journalist pals will slap him on the back and congratulate him for pushing the lie that the Tea Party supports mass murder.
They did it after Jared Loughner in Tucson, and that was false too.

So then came the corporate face-saving “apology” that has all the heart of dead neutron star.

An earlier ABC News broadcast report suggested that a Jim Holmes of a Colorado Tea Party organization might be the suspect, but that report was incorrect. ABC News and Brian Ross apologize for the mistake, and for disseminating that information before it was properly vetted.

But they did it in Tucson. The very same thing. They learned nothing. Taking the cheap shot and trying to score ideological points in a tragedy is more important to the Left.

Also, The Time Square bomber: New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg wondered if the attempted bomber was “a mentally deranged person or somebody with a political agenda that doesn’t like the health care bill or something.”

It turned out to be radicalized Pakistani-American. But did you hear anything from the media about that, really. Barely. There was much more hope for an ideologically satisfying end.

A writer at the liberal Nation magazine wrote that “it seems far more likely to me that the perpetrator of the bungled Times Square bomb plot was either a lone nut job or a member of some squirrely branch of the Tea Party, anti-government far right.” (DC)

During the Health Care debate reports of “violence” at Tea Party rallies were rampant in the Liberal media. They were totally false, and proven so. But did that stop the Liberal Media from repeating it over and over again. They live in hope.

“What kind of idiot makes that kind of statement?” <52 yr old Tea Party Member Jim>Holmes told TheDC. “Really, seriously, how do we take a journalist seriously when it’s pretty clear they really haven’t done any sort of check on their facts?”

They are liberals. They don’t need facts to always be right in their own heads. And besides they live in hope. Give them enough time and everyone will agree they are always right. 🙂

Then there’s Opportunity.

In an early afternoon posting to its SignOn.org website, a site where like-minded activists can join MoveOn’s campaigns and sign Internet petitions, MoveOn urged supporters to “stand with the Aurora, Colorado shooting victims and their families.”

The site features a petition that MoveOn activists can sign. Names and emails are required which in turn go into the MoveOn database so that fundraising emails can then be sent to the mourners of the Colorado victims.

Once again, MoveOn sees a crime as a way to raise money for its activism. Pretty cold blooded, really. (Chicago Now)

“You never let a serious crisis go to waste.

The definition of a “nano-second,” says Mark Steyn subbing for Rush Limbaugh, “is the time between a mass shooting and some guy from the left blaming it on talk radio, or Sarah Palin, or Fox News.”

Or the Tea Party.

The problem is, ABC never had plans to vet the name, they were looking for the Tea Party “connection” since the words “massive shooting” came across the news wires. ABC didn’t bother to call the Colorado Tea Party Patriots, verify the man’s name, call James Holmes or engage in any other form of verification. Like squeezing toothpaste out of a tube, the entire goal was to plant a “the Tea Party is violent” seed back in the minds of viewers.

Tell a lie often enough and it become the truth.

And so how long before we get groped by the TSA at the Mutiplex?

And if accounts of the gunman’s activities are correct (and I stress IF)

He went out an emergency exit, it was held open so he could come back in 30 minutes later.

Why didn’t the alarms go off, it is an “emergency” exit is it not? And why did no one know  about this door being open??

That’s my question.

The question “Why did he do it?” is unknowable now and maybe unknowable forever. But there are plenty of other questions.

Many of them are about exploiting a deranged loonie’s act of sociopathic violence for your political agenda.

The Left will be silent about those questions and the “honest” debate will not appear because Liberals can’t be honest about anything.

 NOVEMBER IS COMING

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Political Cartoons by Steve Breen

 Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler
Political Cartoons by Dana Summers

Rhetorical Reality

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” —  Ben Franklin

Early to bed and early to rise makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise” — Ben Franklin.

Then Liberals want to attack him for being a greedy, selfish, SOB. 🙂

A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins.“– Ben Franklin

And ignorance is much prized by the Left.

“Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature.”— Ben Franklin

USDA has an agreement with Mexico to promote American food assistance programs, including food stamps, among Mexican Americans, Mexican nationals and migrant communities in America.

The goal, for USDA, is to get rid of what they see as enrollment obstacles and increase access among potentially eligible populations by working with arms of the Mexican government in America. Benefits are not guaranteed or provided under the program — the purpose is outreach and education.

Some of the materials the USDA encourages the Mexican government to use to educate and promote the benefit programs are available free online for order and download. A partial list of materials include English and Spanish brochures titled “Five Easy Steps To Snap Benefits,” “How To Get Food Help — A Consumer’s Guide to FNCS Programs,” “Ending Hunger Improving Nutrition Combating Obesity,” and posters with slogans like “Food Stamps Make America Stronger.”

When asked for details and to elaborate on the program, USDA stressed it was established in 2004 and not meant for illegal immigrants.

Aka, “It’s Bush’s Fault so don’t blame me” and “oh, no, we aren’t targeting Illegal immigrants (at the same time that Obama is wanting to close 9 border crossing stations).
So advertising free food in Mexico is NOT going to encourage more illegals. 🙂

“If you talk to economists, they will tell you there are two things that are the most stimulative that you can do — one’s unemployment insurance, the other’s food stamps, okay?”

“Why is that?” he said. “Because those folks who receive those resources must spend them. And they’ll spend them almost upon receipt. Most economists with whom I talk believe that those with significant discretionary income, that that’s not the case.”–House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.)

Unemployment and Food Stamps stimulate the economy. So obviously we need even more of it. 🙂

And the persistent 8%+ unemployment and 1/7 of the US population on Food Stamps is good for us. We should be happy.

Government is here for you. 🙂

“USDA does not perform outreach to immigrants that are undocumented, and therefore not eligible for SNAP.” (RELATED: USDA buckles, removes Spanish food stamp soap operas from website)

Tell, me another fairy story, grandma…

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families bill incentivized states to create welfare-to-work programs, trying to transition Americans from government dependency to financial solvency.

In 1996, Republicans forced through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) bill, also known as welfare reform (and embraced by President Clinton for political reasons). It incentivized states to create welfare-to-work programs, trying to transition Americans from government dependency to financial solvency. But states quickly acted to poke holes in that legislation, calling the following activities “work” for purposes of the statute: bed rest, personal care activities, massage, exercise, journaling, motivational reading, smoking cessation, weight loss promotion, participation in parent-teacher meetings, or helping friends or family with household tasks and errands.

This was idiotic. So in 2005, Congress closed the loophole, over the objections of then-Senator Obama.

Now, Obama has walked back the 2005 legislation, using his Department of Health and Human Services to unilaterally waive those work requirements. “This Administration is unbelievable,” said Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT). “Green-lighting new regulations to change bipartisan welfare reform without consultation from Congress is an outright abuse of the federal government’s system of checks and balances and an insult to American taxpayers.”

A high-ranking Republican staffer commented, “Only someone with a religious faith in government would change the rules such that ‘journaling’ now qualifies you for welfare assistance.”

But this is Obama’s new definition of work: anything that allows you to receive government assistance. After all, welfare, unemployment benefits, and all other payouts forward the economy, according to our magnificent president.  (Ben Shapiro)

Being on the Government dole stimulates the economy. And boy is it over-stimulated!

More people go on SSI disability than get hired for jobs. So the “private sector is doing fine” 🙂

Thomas Sowell: There was a time, within living memory, when the achievements of others were not only admired but often taken as an inspiration for imitation of the same qualities that had served these achievers well, even if we were not in the same field of endeavor and were not expecting to achieve on the same scale.

The perseverance of Thomas Edison, as he tried scores of materials before finally trying tungsten as the filament for the light bulb he was inventing; the dedication of Abraham Lincoln as he studied law on his own while struggling to make a living — these were things young people were taught to admire, even if they had no intention of becoming inventors or lawyers, much less president.

Somewhere along the way, all that changed. Today, the very concept of achievement is de-emphasized and sometimes attacked. Following in the footsteps of Barack Obama, Professor Elizabeth Warren of Harvard has made the downgrading of high achievers the centerpiece of her campaign against Sen. Scott Brown.

To cheering audiences, Professor Warren says, “There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You build a factory out there, good for you, but I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers that the rest of us paid to educate.”

Do the people who cheer this kind of talk bother to stop and think through what she is saying? Or is heady rhetoric enough for them? People who run businesses are benefitting from things paid for by others? Since when are people in business, or high-income earners in general, exempt from paying taxes like everybody else?

At a time when a small fraction of high-income taxpayers pay the vast majority of all the taxes collected, it is sheer chutzpah to depict high-income earners as somehow being subsidized by “the rest of us,” whether in paying for roads or the educating the young.

Since everybody else uses the roads and the schools, why should high achievers be expected to feel like free loaders who owe still more to the government, because schools and roads are among the things that facilitate their work? According to Elizabeth Warren, because it is part of an “underlying social contract.”

Conjuring up some mythical agreement that nobody saw, much less signed, is an old ploy on the left — one that goes back at least a century, when Herbert Croly, the first editor of The New Republic magazine, wrote a book titled “The Promise of American Life.”

Whatever policy Herbert Croly happened to favor was magically transformed by rhetoric into a “promise” that American society was supposed to have made — and, implicitly, that American taxpayers should be forced to pay for. This pious hokum was so successful politically that all sorts of “social contracts” began to appear magically in the rhetoric of the left.

If talking in this mystical way is enough to get you control of billions of dollars of the taxpayers’ hard-earned money, why not?

Certainly someone who claimed to be part Indian, as Warren did when applying for academic appointments in an affirmative action environment, is unlikely to be squeamish about using imaginative words in a campaign.

Sadly, this kind of cute use of words is not confined to one political candidate or to this election year. The very concept of achievement is a threat to the vision of the left, and has long been attacked by those on the left.

People who succeed — whether in business or anywhere else — are often said to be “privileged,” even if they started out poor and worked their way up the hard way.

Outcome differences are called “class” differences. Thus when two white women, who came from families in very similar social and economic circumstances, made different decisions and got different results, this was the basis for a front-page story titled “Two Classes, Divided by ‘I Do'” in the New York Times.

Personal responsibility, whether for achievement or failure, is a threat to the whole vision of the left, and a threat the left goes all-out to combat, using rhetoric uninhibited by reality.

AMEN

Yea, because hearing both sides of a presidential campaign is unnecessary when Obama is running for a second term.

That’s political discourse in AMERICA 2012.

NOVEMBER IS COMING

 

The Mindset

Our Government, which art in Washington,
Hallowed be thy Name.
Thy Kingdom come.
Thy will be done in Washington,
As it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread (food stamps, welfare, unemployment,entitlements…).
And forgive us our successes without you,
As we Don’t forgive them that disagree with us.
And lead us not into temptation,
But deliver us from evil capitalism
For thine is the kingdom,
The power, and the glory,
For ever and ever.

Amen.

(excuse the blasphemy) 🙂

Mr. Thrill Up His Leg MSDNC’s Chris Matthews on Obama (His God):“Everything he’s done is clean as a whistle. He’s never not only broken any law, he’s never done anything wrong. He’s the perfect father, the perfect husband, the perfect American. And all they do is trash the guy.”
We’ll just ignore that  Barack  wrote in his OWN book that he did weed and snorted cocaine and hung pout with radical marxists. 🙂

Now that’s “Journalism” for you…

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Now this is Marketing: https://www.mittromney.com/donate/built-it-shirt

Thomas Sowell: Barack Obama’s great rhetorical gifts include the ability to make the absurd sound not only plausible, but inspiring and profound.

His latest verbal triumph was to say on July 13th, “if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.” As an example, “Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

Let’s stop and think, even though the whole purpose of much political rhetoric is to keep us from thinking, and stir our emotions instead.

Even if we were to assume, just for the sake of argument, that 90 percent of what a successful person has achieved was due to the government, what follows from that? That politicians will make better decisions than individual citizens, that politicians will spend the wealth of the country better than those who created it? That doesn’t follow logically — and certainly not empirically.

Does anyone doubt that most people owe a lot to the parents who raised them? But what follows from that? That they should never become adults who make their own decisions?

The whole point of the collectivist mindset is to concentrate power in the hands of the collectivists — which is to say, to take away our freedom. They do this in stages, starting with some group that others envy or resent — Jews in Nazi Germany, capitalists in the Soviet Union, foreign investors in Third World countries that confiscate their investments and call this theft “nationalization.”

Freedom is seldom destroyed all at once. More often it is eroded, bit by bit, until it is gone. This can happen so gradually that there is no sudden change that would alert people to the danger. By the time everybody realizes what has happened, it can be too late, because their freedom is gone.

All the high-flown talk about how people who are successful in business should “give back” to the community that created the things that facilitated their success is, again, something that sounds plausible to people who do not stop and think through what is being said. After years of dumbed-down education, that apparently includes a lot of people.

Take Obama’s example of the business that benefits from being able to ship their products on roads that the government built. How does that create a need to “give back”?

Did the taxpayers, including business taxpayers, not pay for that road when it was built? Why should they have to pay for it twice?

What about the workers that businesses hire, whose education is usually created in government-financed schools? The government doesn’t have any wealth of its own, except what it takes from taxpayers, whether individuals or businesses. They have already paid for that education. It is not a gift that they have to “give back” by letting politicians take more of their money and freedom.

When businesses hire highly educated people, such as chemists or engineers, competition in the labor market forces them to pay higher salaries for people with longer years of valuable education. That education is not a government gift to the employers. It is paid for while it is being created in schools and universities, and it is paid for in higher salaries when highly educated people are hired.

One of the tricks of professional magicians is to distract the audience’s attention from what they are doing while they are creating an illusion of magic. Pious talk about “giving back” distracts our attention from the cold fact that politicians are taking away more and more of our money and our freedom.

Even the envy that politicians stir up against “the rich” is highly focused on those particular high income-earners whose decisions the politicians want to take over. Others in sports or entertainment can make far more money than the highest paid corporate executive, but there is no way that politicians can take over the roles of Roger Federer or Oprah Winfrey, so highly paid sports stars or entertainers are never accused of “greed.”

If we are so easily distracted by self-serving political rhetoric, we are not only going to see our money, but our freedom, increasingly taken away from us by slick-talking politicians, including our current slick-talker-in-chief in the White House.

Cal Thomas: As the Obama campaign attacks Mitt Romney’s business success — and by association all who have succeeded or wish to succeed — Romney should turn the tables and attack seven principles that have made government highly ineffective.

They are:

1. High taxes. High taxes rob the productive and discourage innovation.

2. Too many regulations. Over-regulation inhibits private industry from performing up to its potential.

3. Overspending. When an individual is in debt, he or she aims to spend less until the family budget is in balance. When government spends more than it takes in, it creates an addiction and burdens current and future citizens. Politicians won’t tell anyone “no,” so government keeps spending.

4. Foreign adventures. We cannot afford to go everywhere in hopes of promoting liberty. We should only send troops where our interests are clearly defined and an achievable outcome is likely. Countries receiving military assistance must help pay the bill.

5. Bureaucracy. There are too many people working for government. Many agencies and programs are unnecessary.

6. Health care. Government can’t make you healthy. Obamacare will not only cost more, but will reduce the quality and availability of good health care, as in the UK. A private-sector solution is preferable.

7. Ignoring the Constitution. The best habit the American government could practice is a return to the principles of that great document that set boundaries for government and removed them for its citizens.

Inspiration and perspiration are habits that usually lead to success. Government’s bad habits produce unending debt and stifle private-sector job creation. That’s the counterargument to these bad habits.

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

“The most effective way that the Congress could help to support the economy right now,” he said, “would be to work to address the nation’s fiscal challenges in a way that takes into account both the need for long-run sustainability and the fragility of the recovery.”–Fed Chairman Ben Bernacke

Fedspeak translation: Don’t sit there, do something.

Congress has boosted spending from its long-term average of about 20% of GDP to close to 25%, while racking up $5 trillion in debt in just three years.

Instead of cutting spending, rolling back regulations and slashing taxes — historically, the only way out of a recession — Democrats are pushing forward with tax hikes that Ernst & Young estimates will cost 710,000 jobs, slash $200 billion from GDP, lower wages by 1.8% and cause business investment to plunge.

Sen. Patty Murray (D): “If Republicans won’t work with us on a balanced approach, we are not going to get a deal,” said Murray. “Because I feel very strongly that we simply cannot allow middle-class families and the most vulnerable Americans to bear this burden alone.”

“So if we can’t get a good deal, a balanced deal that calls on the wealthy to pay their fair share (aka raise taxes), then I will absolutely continue this debate into 2013 rather than lock in a long-term deal this year that throws middle-class families under the bus,” (screw everyone unless I get my way) she said. “And I think my party, and the American people, will support that.”

Do it our way or else! That’s BY-Partisanship Democrat style.:)

Shall I repeat myself (not that a Liberal is capable of listening mind you, they aren’t):

The Top 1%  pays nearly 40% of all the Income Taxes.

50% Pay No income Taxes AT ALL.

But the “rich” aren’t paying their fair share according to the Democrats.

Facts never get in the way of a good old fashioned class hate.

“If middle-class families start seeing more money coming out of their paychecks next year — are Republicans really going to stand up and fight for new tax cuts for the rich?”— Sen. Murray

Then there’s our favourite crazed attack dog, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz on  the “you didn’t build it” government did:

Radio Host: “Is there a fundamental difference here, where the President believes that all positive things flow from the federal government whereas Mitt Romney and many people believe that good things flow from the private sector and that they should not be demonized and demagogued for creating jobs?”

President Obama was talking about yesterday and Romney and the Republicans well-know it, was that we all need to pull together. We all need to be working together. [No] one person, no one business owner is able to do it all by themselves. We’re all in this together and that’s the approach President Obama takes to governing, so to suggest that he said anything other than that is a distraction.

you know, they obviously have pulled themselves up by their boot straps, have put their own blood, sweat and tears into making that business successful, but that nobody’s success can be credited just to themselves.

Barf Bag, please…

NOVEMBER IS COMING

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

The Creation Myth

In the beginning Government created the heavens and the earth…

Between April-June 2012, an estimated 246,000 Americans were added to Social Security’s disability insurance program. In that same time period, only 225,000 American jobs were created.

Since 2008, 3.6. million Americans have been added to Social Security’s disability insurance program. In that same time period, a net total of 1.3 million jobs were lost.

While fewer Americans are working than at the end of 2008, 3.6 million Americans have been awarded SSDI benefits over the same period. The growing number of people on disability and other federal benefits, combined with weak economic growth, raises serious concerns about the sustainability of the American economy.

Today only 1 percent of Social Security disability recipients ever return to work. (KFYI)

Barack said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father Government, but by me. 7 If you had known me, you would have known my Father also; henceforth you know him and have seen him.” 8 Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Government Father, and we shall be satisfied.” 9 Barack said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for the sake of the works themselves. 12 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father. 13 Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son; 14 if you ask anything in my name, I will do it. (Apologies to John)

In the beginning, Government provided the infrastructure that permitted the success of American companies. After seven days, government rested.

Until President Obama clearly reinforced the government-Creationist perspective, Americans truly did not understand the greatness of our government and all that it has done for us.

If not for Government (like God, Government should be capitalized), Henry Ford would have never invented the car. Quite obviously, Ford thought, now that Government has created roads, he must put a vehicle on them.

Thank Government!

Just as apparently, God, in his infinite wisdom, must have realized that Government-created trails needed horses. So He created them.

In a similar vein, God realized that with Government-created footpaths, feet would be ideal. So, responding to the brilliance of Government-created footpaths, God allowed man to evolve to walk upright.

Praise Government for all that flows!

In the Garden of Eden, the Bible describes the story of Adam and Eve, in which the two are warned against eating the fruit from the “tree of knowledge of good and evil.”

Obama’s perspective on his revisionist bible is a classic example of rewriting history to suit the fallen eaters of the fruit of that tree.

Apparently, the founding fathers destroying one form of government to create a less intrusive one was lost on this president. Apparently, this president fails to understand the plain meaning of the Declaration of Independence:

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, —That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Our founding fathers threw off the oppressive government of England for a new form of government, a government that provided the framework for a people to live in freedom.

Government derives its power only from the people it serves. Obama seems to think that the government came before the people, and not the other way around.

Perhaps Obama needs to stop eating apples! (Frank Ryan)

The President stood in the presence of God (himself) and it was good. 🙂

In his war on American exceptionalism, President Obama has turned the sights on exceptional Americans. If you’ve built a successful business, it wasn’t your dream or your sweat — somebody else made it happen.

The unbridled disdain President Obama has for the entrepreneurs who work hard and risk everything was made plain when he told supporters in Roanoke, Va.: “If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

This was stunning news and a colossal slap in the face to the millions of small-business owners who get up every day and by the sweat of their brow and the drive of their ambition still pursue the American dream in spite of the obstacles and hurdles this administration has put in front of them.

In Obama’s collectivist world view, we are all ants on a socialist ant farm. We are sheep being led by a government shepherd. Wealth, as we now know, is not to be created but to be redistributed in the manner of the Marxist slogan — to each according to his need and from each according to his ability.

Your success, Obama says, is not your own. There “was a great teacher somewhere in your life,” he tells us, and that somebody “invested in roads and bridges.”

Is it a coincidence that virtually the only people President Obama gives credit to for anything are teacher and construction unions? 🙂

And have you ever noticed that when discussing job losses the Liberal are always focused on government sector and public union job losses?

And, with apologies to Al Gore, we are told: “Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.”

So Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, the founders of Google, Facebook and Twitter, are all parasitic pretenders.

Without government, there would have been no Mac computer or iPad? Michelangelo didn’t paint the Sistine Chapel, you know. Credit must be given to the folks who built the scaffolding and the inventor of paint.

Of course, this is the president who, in a speech delivered at a high school in Osawatomie, Kan., last December, argued while a limited government that preserves free markets “speaks to our rugged individualism,” such a system “doesn’t work” and “has never worked” and that Americans must look to a more activist government that taxes more, spends more and regulates more.

Free-market capitalism and limited government took us from a colonial backwater to an economic and military superpower that could defeat Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and the Soviet Union and then put men on the moon simply because we wanted to.

Now we have an administration that says the American people are helpless without it while it outsources space travel to the Russians.

Forget Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Alexander Graham Bell, the Wright Brothers and the risk-taking dreamers still among us. They have a harder time these days, shouldering the highest tax and regulatory burdens in the world and beset by bureaucrats, regulators and environmentalists.

President Obama, the community organizer who never ran a business or met a payroll, wants to increase their energy and health insurance costs.

The president’s plan to raise taxes on earnings above $200,000 ($250,000 for joint filers) would hit 1.2 million small-business employers who pay their taxes through the individual income tax.

This condemnation of rugged individualism and the entrepreneurial spirit comes from a leader who has been dubbed the “food stamp president” and who has done more to increase dependence on government than any other. Let us see your college transcripts, Mr. President. And who helped you on your way besides Saul Alinsky and Bill Ayers?

If risk-takers succeed, Mr. President, they do so in spite of government, not because of it. You want to take credit for everything and responsibility for nothing.

Look at the wreckage of your policies, sir, and take the blame instead. (IBD)

But we already know it’s Bush’s Fault, now don’t we kids! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

 Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Inspiration Village

“If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that,” Obama said. “Somebody else made that happen.”

Prisoner sm.jpg

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me, because they want to give something back.  They know they didn’t -look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.  You didn’t get there on your own.  I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.  There are a lot of smart people out there.  It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.  Let me tell you something – there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.  There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.  Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.  Somebody invested in roads and bridges.  If you’ve got a business. you didn’t build that.  Somebody else made that happen.  The Internet didn’t get invented on its own.  Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. 

And that someone is Government. YOU CAN’T DO ANYTHING without some government person either allowing you ton do it or guiding you, or inspiring you to do it.

Government is the ultimate Parent! And you can’t do anything without your Big Brother! 🙂

You succeeding despite bureaucracy, choking regulations, and the highest corporate tax in the world is not your success. It belongs to the village.

It takes a village to raise a business! 🙂

And if you’re TOO successful you’re just an evil mustache twirling bastard!!

So you owe your success to government but if you are too successful the evil is all yours. And the government needs to come and take it away from you for the good of the village.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky: “You Don’t Deserve To Keep All Your Money”

“I’ll put it this way, you don’t deserve to keep all of it. It’s not a question of deserving, because what government is, is those things that we decide to do together.”

“There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me, because they want to give something back.  They know they didn’t -look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.  You didn’t get there on your own.”

Microsoft, for instance, wasn’t built by 3 teenage geeks in a garage in Seattle. No sir. It was government public sector union Teachers who help them do it!

And if you disagree with this government, you’re likely a “terrorist”, a “racist”, “stupid”, “ignorant”, or “foolish”.

Kevin Hassett, an economist with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said Obama’s comments are “so far from the current debate,” but setting the stage for the administration’s tax argument. 

“Obama is trying to create the intellectual space to take money away from people. He’s trying to say, ‘What you do on the playing field would never be possible without the help of the government,'” he said.

Elisabeth Warren (you know, the 1/32 “Native American” professor at Harvard running for  Congress in Massachusetts: “There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own, nobody,” she said at the time. “You built a factory out there — good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate.”

You can’t possible succeed in live with government help or intervention.

And in order to succeed we must steal from “the rich” (which it turns out to be the very same small business people) and give to the poor! (who are growing faster than ever).

You are NOT an individual. You are a member of a Collective village and as such all things come from and all things go to the Village.

Obama doesn’t want us to be free. He wants us to be under the government’s control. Even our hard work and achievements don’t really belong to us.

Everything comes from the government and everything goes to the government!

Now doesn’t that make you feel inspired. 🙂

I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own …  I am not a number, I am a free man. (The Prisoner)

Be seeing you. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Steve KelleyPolitical Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

 Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

 Political Cartoons by Gary McCoy

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

 Political Cartoons by Gary McCoy

Reasons to Vote For a Democrat

Top 12 Reasons to Vote for a Democrat
When your family or friends cannot explain why they voted for a Democrat, give them this list.

1. I voted for a Democrat because I believe oil companies’ profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn’t.

2. I voted for a Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

3. I voted for a Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

4. I voted for a Democrat because I’m way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers, rapists, thugs, and thieves.

5. I voted for a Democrat because I believe that people who can’t tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will disappear in ten years because of Global Warming if I don’t start driving a Prius or a Chevy Volt.

6. I voted for a Democrat because I’m not concerned about millions of babies being aborted so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.

7. I voted for a Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits.

8. I voted for a Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the Democrats see fit.

9. I voted for a Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution regularly to suit some fringe folks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

10. I voted for a Democrat because I think that it’s better to pay billions to people who hate us for their oil, but not drill for our own because it might upset some useless endangered beetle, gopher, or fish.

11. I voted for a Democrat because while we live in the greatest, most wonderful country in the world, I was promised “HOPE AND CHANGE.”

12. I voted for a Democrat because my head is so firmly buried in the sand that it’s unlikely that I’ll ever have another point of view. (Political Outcast)

Raymond on Facebook: My dog sleeps about 20 hours a day.
He has his food prepared for him.
He can eat whenever he wants, 24/7/365.
His meals are provided at no cost to him.
He visits the doctor once a year for his checkup,
and again during the year if any medical needs arise.
For this he pays nothing, and nothing is required of him.
He lives in a nice neighborhood in a house
that is much larger than he needs, but he
is not required to do any upkeep. If he
makes a mess, someone else cleans it up.
He has his choice of luxurious places to sleep.
He receives these accommodations absolutely free.
He is living like a king, and has absolutely no
expenses whatsoever. All of his costs are
picked up by others who go out and earn a
living every day.
I was thinking about all this …… suddenly it hit me like a brick.
My dog is a Democrat.

NOW THAT’S FUNNY!

Here’s a few more from Me.

a. I vote Democrat because a Comedian on Comedy Central gave me my news and I think he’s a serious source of actual news.
b. I vote Democrat because a Hollywood star making millions of dollars a year (who is not “rich” but a small business man making over $250,000 is “rich”) said so.
c. I vote Democrat because $40,000 a plate at a swanky location with lots of very wealthy people told me they were in touch with the “middle class”.
d. I vote Democrat because I believe Obama and his Ministry of Truth when they tell me that ObamaCare will make my health better and less expensive despite the Fact that it has tripled in price before even being implemted fully. And I have completely forgottenh about the 1700+ waivers to Obama’s union buddies and corporate cronies that I will have to pay for.
e. I vote Democrat because if Obama says a Tax is not a Tax but a Penalty I believe him and despite the Supreme Court’s official ruling that it is a Tax I still firmly believe it’s a “penalty”.
f. I vote Democrat because my TV one has one channel: MSNBC.
g. I vote Democrat because Selling guns to Mexican drug gangs that go out and kill people, possibly me, with them is overblown.
h. I vote Democrat because it’s all Bush’s Fault!
i. I vote Democrat because refusing to vote on your Constitutional duty to pass a Budget doesn’t matter to me and the Senate can continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Budgets are overrated. I want to Spend even more.
j. I vote Democrat because I want what I want when I want it and because I want it and you can’t stop me. So there…
k. I vote Democrat because I was promised your money. So hand it over you greedy pig.
l. I vote Democrat because I’m not a racist like you.
m. I vote Democrat because it makes me “feel” good. Reality is overrated.
n. I vote Democrat because I believe that anyone, legal or not, alive or not, should be able to vote for a Democrat.
o. I vote Democrat because I WANT the government to take my rights away. I don’t need them. The government will take care of me.
p. I vote Democrat because because I am entitled. Simple. I deserve to be taken care of.
q. I vote Democrat because Sitting at home collecting a check is much easier than working hard.
r. I vote Democrat because we are always right. There is no chance that we could be wrong.
s. I vote Democrat because we need to apologize for being American.
t. I vote Democrat because You’re not taxed enough.
u. I vote Democrat because The road to hell is paved with “good” intentions.And after all, intentions matter more than results.
v. I vote Democrat because I don’t care if Obama wrote in his own book that he did weed, and cocaine and hung out with marxists in college. What I care about is a rich successful white guy who allegedly shave someone’s head as a prank in high school even though the family and friends of the deceased man deny it. It has to be true because the Ministry of Truth said it was and they never lie (unlike FOX).
W. I vote Democrat because don’t ask what you can do for your country ask what your country can do for you.
X. I vote Democrat because animals are more important than humans.
Y. I vote Democrat because government by Executive fiat is the way a democracy works best.
Z. I vote Democrat because I’m selfish, self-centered, and childish to a fault. It’s all about what YOU can do for ME.
AA. I vote Democrat because unemployment over 8% for 3 1/2 years doesn’t matter to me. What matters to me is that my unemployment check and my food stamps keep coming.

BB. I vote Democrat because I have no basic understanding of how an economy works or history of this country.

CC. I vote Democrat because I lack critical thinking skills and want the government and the Ministry of Truth to do my thinking for me.

DD. I vote Democrat because I believe $6 Trillion in New debt in under 4 Years is Bush’s Fault! And the $5 Trillion in debt over 8 Years under Bush is the reason why Republicans are evil.

EE. I vote Democrat because I believe in Class Warfare.

“If we can’t get a good deal, a balanced deal that calls on the wealthy to pay their fair share, then I will absolutely continue this debate into 2013,” Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) plans to say, according to excerpts of the speech provided to The Washington Post.

“If middle-class families start seeing more money coming out of their paychecks next year, are Republicans really going to stand up and fight for new tax cuts for the rich? Are they going to continue opposing the Democrats’ middle-class tax cut once the slate has been wiped clean? I think they know this would be an untenable political position.”

SO RAISE TAXES OR ELSE!

Election officials throughout the country report a surge of voter registrations from animals, dead people and non-citizens.

Republicans believe Obama is depending on these registrations to win the election and want laws requiring voter ID at the polls. Democrats charge that Republicans are trying to suppress the vote to increase the odds of a Romney win.

This Democrat charge formed the basis of a lawsuit by Obama’s Department of Justice to block a Texas law that requires voter photo ID to vote. Texas is one of 26 states with such laws.

The DOJ claimed the requirement would bar eligible voters from voting and that the cost of getting the proper ID amounted to a “poll tax.” The Texas law provides for a free state ID to anyone lacking a driver’s license or other photo ID.

A study by a DOJ expert produced a long list of Texans who lacked government-issued photo ID and, it was alleged, were thereby disenfranchised. The list and the study were a fraud.

The list turned out to contain the names of 50,000 dead people, 330,377 seniors who can vote by mail without ID, 261,887 voters who included a driver’s license number on their voter registration form, 800,000 Texans who were, in fact, registered to vote and who did have a government issued photo ID.

Strangely, the list of those who “lacked government issued ID” included former President George W. Bush, two state legislators and the wife of another, former U.S. Sen. Phil Gramm, current U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and even the Texas director of elections, Keith Ingram – who was listed not once, but twice.

In a strange, parallel world, the Obama Agriculture Department requires ID on every cow, and now on every chicken, on every American farm.

Obama wants to trace the movement of farm animals but not illegal aliens; he wants to ID every farm animal to protect the public health but does not want to ID voters to protect the integrity of elections.

With the memory still fresh that the 2000 presidential election was decided by a handful of voters in Florida, the determination of who gets to vote in 2012 could decide who will be the next president. (KFYI)

NOVEMBER IS COMING!

Money & Politics

Happy Cost of Government Day!

Candidate Obama 2008:

I always believed that welfare had to be changed. I was much more concerned ten years ago when President Clinton initially signed the bill that this could have disastrous results …

It worked better than I think a lot of people anticipated. And one of the things that I am absolutely convinced of is that we have to have work as a centerpiece of any social policy. Not only because, ultimately people who work are going to get more income. But the intrinsic dignity of work, uh, the sense of purpose.

… We were made for work … and the sense that you are part of a community, because you’re making a contribution.

President Obama 2012 pandering for re-election because of his lousy economy: Ah, forget it!

The Department and Health and Human Services announced the agency will issue waivers for the federal work requirement of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program — considered a central facet of welfare reform in 1996 — Thursday.

The “Information Memorandum” states that the agency will be issuing waivers for TANF’s work participation requirements for parents and caretakers as a way to find new approaches to better employment outcomes.

Just sit on your ass. Collect your check and watch The View.
Oh, and VOTE FOR ME! because the other guy won’t be as nice. He’s the Devil incarnate , you know (a rich white guy!). 🙂
And also, F*ck you Bill! (Clinton who passed the Welfare form with Democrat support in 1996).

According to Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, the memorandum is proof of the Obama administration’s continued disrespect for the rule of law.

“President Obama just tore up a basic foundation of the welfare contract,” Jordan said in a statement. “In exchange for taxpayer-funded TANF payments, the law calls on able-bodied adults to work, look for work, take classes, or undergo drug and alcohol counseling. It’s the tough love that gives people motivation to help themselves…Today’s action is also a blatant violation of the law. After immigration, education, marriage, and religious conscience protections, we can now add welfare reform to the list of laws President Obama refuses to follow.” (DC)

He just don’t feel like it, right now. He has only 1 priority in his life right now and this is getting in the way.
It’s good to be The King.
Speaking of Money:
The Internal Revenue Service’s total revenue went down from 2007 to 2009, while the tax rate for the top earners went up, increasing from 19.4 percent to 21 percent. Meanwhile, McBride said, the tax rates for the bottom two quintiles’ — -5.8 percent of income in 2007 and -9.3 percent in 2009 — means the  IRS actually paid them.

The top 20 percent of earners — the top quintile — bore 67.9 percent of the federal tax burden in 2009. The middle quintile paid 9.4 percent, while the lowest paid .03 percent of the federal tax burden.

So the Rich got poorer and the poor got refunds. The rich paid more taxes and the poor paid less (50% pay no income taxes at all!)
Now that’s “fair”!! 🙂

In the chart <below>, we’re measuring the strength of all the post World War II recession recoveries as measured from the very bottom of payroll jobs lost. The last time we featured it, the recovery from the 2007 recession was just barely the worst ever.

And today, it is definitively the worst recession jobs recovery ever.

Worst. Recession. Jobs. Recovery. Ever.

But that’s Bush’s Fault!  🙂

Nothing produces a greater sense of the futility of facts than seeing someone in the mass media repeating some notion that has been refuted innumerable times over the years.

On July 9, on CNN’s program The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, commentator Gloria Borger discussed President Obama’s plan to continue the temporary extension of the tax rates established under the Bush administration — except for the top brackets, where Obama wanted the tax rates raised.

Ms. Borger said, “If you’re going to lower the tax rates, where are you going to get the money from?”

First of all, nobody is talking about lowering the tax rates. They are talking about whether or not to continue the existing tax rates, which are set to expire after a temporary extension. And Obama is talking about raising the tax rate on higher-income earners.

But when Ms. Borger asked “where are you going to get the money from” if you don’t raise tax rates, she was assuming an automatic correlation between tax rates and tax revenues, which is demonstrably false.

As far back as the 1920s, a huge cut in the highest income-tax rate — from 73 percent to 24 percent — led to a huge increase in the amount of tax revenue collected by the federal government. Why? Because investors took their money out of tax shelters, where they were earning very modest rates of return, and put it into the productive economy, where they could earn higher rates of return, now that those returns were not so heavily taxed.

This was the very reason why tax rates were cut in the first place — to get more revenue for the federal government. The same was true, decades later, during the John F. Kennedy administration. Similar reasons led to tax-rate cuts during the Ronald Reagan administration and the George W. Bush administration.

All of these presidents — Democrat and Republican alike — made the same argument for tax-rate reductions that had been made in the 1920s, and the results were similar as well. Yet the invincible lie continues to this day that those who oppose high tax rates on high incomes are doing so because they want to reduce the taxes paid by high-income earners, in hopes that their increased prosperity will “trickle down” to others.

In reality, high-income earners paid not only a larger total amount of taxes after the tax-rate cuts of the 1920s, but also a higher share of all the income taxes collected. It is a matter of record that anyone can verify by looking at with official government statistics.

This result was not peculiar to the 1920s. In 2006, the New York Times reported: “An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year.”

Expectations are in the eye of the beholder. Tax-cut proponents expected precisely the result from the Bush tax cuts that so surprised the New York Times. So did tax-cut proponents in the John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan administrations.

If this concept has not yet trickled down to the New York Times or CNN’s Gloria Borger, that is a commentary on the media commentators.

Ms. Borger may simply not know any better, but Barack Obama cannot use that excuse. When he was a candidate for president back in 2008, Charles Gibson of ABC News confronted him with the fact that there was no automatic correlation between the raising and lowering of tax rates and whether tax revenues moved up or down.

Obama admitted that. But he said that he was for raising tax rates on higher-income earners anyway, in the name of “fairness.” How higher tax rates that the government does not actually collect make any sense, whether from a fairness perspective or as a way of paying the government’s bills, is another question. The point here is that Obama knew then that tax rates and tax revenues do not automatically move in the same direction.

In other words, he is lying when he talks as if tax rates and tax revenues move together. Ms. Borger and others in the media may or may not know that. So they are not necessarily lying. But they are failing to inform their audiences about the facts — and that allows Obama’s lies to stand.

NOVEMBER IS COMING

Liar Liar

Ed Schultz, MSNBC: “Now the Romney campaign wants President Obama to apologize for Stephanie Cutter’s remarks, you heard earlier, we played on that conference call about Mitt Romney either being a liar or a potential felon. Will there be an apology?”

Ben LaBolt, Obama campaign press secretary: “There won’t be. You know, Mitt Romney has been telling voters, since he ran for office in Massachusetts, that he left Bain in 1999. And the Boston Globe reported today that that wasn’t true.
Actually, that’s not what the Boston Globe reported, and Romney’s long-standing explanation for these events has been confirmed by multiple fact-checkers, as well as contemporaneous reporting — including stories from the Boston Globe.  As we’ve established, the Obama campaign certainly understands the difference between titular ownership and participation in the managerial process.  They haven’t even attempted to offer any evidence that Romney was running Bain after 1999, because no such evidence exists.  The Republican was off in Utah working 80-to-100-hour weeks to (successfully) save the Winter Olympics.  What Team O is doing here is glorying in their own lies, even (especially?) after they’ve been widely and scrupulously debunked.  The message is simple: “We are going to do and say whatever the hell we want to damage our opponent, and we think we’re going to get away with it.”  To make this point crystal clear, they’ve rolled out a new ad repeating the lie that independent analysts have just spent the last 30 hours picking apart.  This is what we call tripling down. (Guy Benson)

As I have said many times before, Liberals don’t care. It’s win at any cost. No Morals. No Ethics. None whatsoever.

And they are more convinced than ever that Lying is just easier and more advantageous to them.

They Lie. The Liberal media and their surrogate Talking Heads Repeat it.

Repeat a Lie often enough and it becomes the truth.  (attributed to Josef Goebbels)

So why bother telling the truth. Especially, when the truth about Obamanomics and Obama himself will not get you re-elected.

All this was inspired by the principle–which is quite true within itself–that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big liethan the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.—Adolf Hitler , Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X

To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself – that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word ‘doublethink’ involved the use of doublethink.–George Orwell

Orwell explains that the Party could not protect its iron power without degrading its people with constant propaganda. Newspeak is the method for controlling thought through language; doublethink is the method of directly controlling thought.And that’s what we have from Team Obama and his Ministry of Truth.

The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history and change the facts to fit Party doctrine for propaganda effect. For example, if Big Brother makes a prediction that turns out to be wrong, the employees of the Ministry of Truth go back and rewrite the prediction so that any prediction Big Brother previously made is accurate. This is the “how” of the Ministry of Truth’s existence. Within the novel Orwell elaborates that the deeper reason for its existence is to maintain the illusion that the Party is absolute. It cannot ever seem to change its mind (if, for instance, they perform one of their constant changes regarding enemies during war) or make a mistake (firing an official or making a grossly misjudged supply prediction), for that would imply weakness and to maintain power the Party must seem eternally right and strong.

In comes ABC,NBC,CBS,CNN, The New York Times, Washington Post, Hollywood, et al.

Lying is just easier and when you can lie 24/7/365 it becomes the truth so Lying is much better than truth for you.

And you teach others that lying is better than the truth. So now they are your zombie minions of lies.

And because they are ideologically bound, they are doublethinked and they can’t tell or believe anything but YOUR lies.

The Truth is like throwing holy water on a vampire to them.

They can’t handle it, so they don’t and they call you a Liar back. Because the truth is a lie to them and the lie is the truth.

Orwell could not do any better.

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

 

I’m Shocked!…NOT!

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

This year, Americans have to work until July 15 to pay for the burden of government, more than six months.

In a new report,  Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) has calculated that Americans will spend a total of 197 days toiling to pay for the cost of government.

“Cost of Government Day is the date of the calendar year on which the average American worker has earned enough gross income to pay off his or her share of the spending and regulatory burden imposed by government at the federal, state and local levels,” reads the report.

The report, Cost of Government Day, shows that Americans will work 88 days to pay for federal spending; 40 days for state and local spending; and 69 days for total regulatory costs.

“From a different perspective, the cost of government makes up 54.0 percent of annual gross domestic product (GDP),” reads the report. “What’s more, the largest tax hike in the nation’s history is scheduled to take place at the end of 2012 unless Congress acts to protect taxpayers. If this tax increase is allowed to hit, COGD [Cost of Government Day] could permanently be pushed back into August and beyond.”(CNS)

And the liberals want even MORE government and EVEN MORE SPENDING!

Aren’t you excited!!! 🙂

******

The Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee released the following chart yesterday, detailing the rising projected cost of President Obama’s signature legislation, Obamacare:

via The Weekly Standard

Senate Budget Committee Republicans

The latest estimate, as the chart details, is that Obamacare will cost $2.6 trillion dollars in its first real decade. The bill does not fully go into effect until 2014, therefore the estimate begins with that year.

“President Obama promised a joint session of Congress in 2009 to spend $900 billion over ten years on his health care law: ‘Now, add it all up, and the plan that I’m proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years.’ Adding up all the different spending provisions in the health care law, however, (including closing the Medicare ‘donut hole,’ implementation costs, and other spending) total gross spending over the FY 2010–19 period is about $1.4 trillion, based on CBO estimates,” the Senate Budget Committee Republican staff explains. “And most of the major spending provisions in the law do not even take effect until 2014. Congressional Democrats delayed these provisions in order to show only six years of spending under the plan in the original 10-year budget window (from FY2010-19) used by CBO at the time the law was enacted. Therefore, the original estimate concealed the fact that most of the law’s spending only doesn’t even begin until four years into the 10-year window. A Senate Budget Committee analysis (based on CBO estimates and growth rates) finds that that total spending under the law will amount to at least $2.6 trillion over a true 10-year period (from FY2014–23) — not $900 billion, as President Obama originally promised.”

The chart is being released now to coincide with the House vote later today to repeal Obamacare.

As the chart notes, “Estimates of the gross outlays under the President’s health care law in nominal dollars using CBO estimates of major coverage provisions, as well as Senate Budget Committee Republican projections based on CBO estimates of the remaining costs.” (Weekly Standard)

******

Justice Roberts’s Image-Over-Substance Decision on The Obamacare Tax:

Negative opinions of the Supreme Court jumped in the wake of its ruling on the constitutionality of the 2010 health care law, according to a new Pew Research Center poll released on Thursday that shows the percentage who have an unfavorable opinion of the Court is higher than at any point since Pew began tracking it in 1985.

Democrats have a slightly-improved view of the Court: 64 percent view it favorably, compared to 52 percent in April. But the Court’s standing among Republicans has plummeted, accounting for the overall decline.

So I guess he got what HE wanted, but we got the shaft!

Gee, why am I not surprised…

TELL ME A STORY…

“When I think about what we’ve done well and what we haven’t done well,” the president said, “the mistake of my first term – couple of years – was thinking that this job was just about getting the policy right. And that’s important. But the nature of this office is also to tell a story to the American people that gives them a sense of unity and purpose and optimism, especially during tough times.”

Mr. Obama acknowledged the dissonance between others’ perception of his strength as an expert orator, and his own.

“It’s funny – when I ran, everybody said, well he can give a good speech but can he actually manage the job?” he said. “And in my first two years, I think the notion was, ‘Well, he’s been juggling and managing a lot of stuff, but where’s the story that tells us where he’s going?’ And I think that was a legitimate criticism.”

Pressed by Rose about what he felt he needed to explain better to the American people, the president corrected that he wanted to do more “explaining, but also inspiring.”

“Because hope is still there,” Mrs. Obama added.

Gosh you guys, wouldn’t we all be better off if Obama told us more about the “story” of the presidency? Isn’t that why the unemployment rate is stuck at 8.2%, or why so many have lost their homes and their jobs, because the president hasn’t talked about himself enough? Astoundingly, appallingly arrogant.

I suppose this also means he doesn’t consider the Fast and Furious scandal — nor the deaths of hundreds of Mexicans and two Americans — a mistake. He doesn’t consider the growth of the deficit, and his lack of a real plan to address it, a mistake. He certainly doesn’t consider the irreparable damage he’s done to American political discourse — attempting to shame the Supreme Court into ruling his way, or falsely attributing Gabby Giffords’ tragic shooting to Republican rhetoric — a mistake. Heck, for him, those are all just part of the job, when you’re a serial campaigner and an incapable leader.

As if Americans needed another reason to throw him out of office this November, he’s just given it to us. Unless, of course, you want to have perpetual “inspiration” and no job.

I think I’ve had enough Liberal Fairy Tale Economics to last several life times, Mr President.

I’d take a rich, white robot with a plan over an orator with an over-the-top ego any day. 🙂

NOVEMBER IS COMING!

Freedom

The Department of Homeland Security will soon be using a laser at airports that can detect everything about you from over 160-feet away.

A scanner that could read people at the molecular level has been invented. This laser-based scanner – which can be used 164-feet away — could read everything from a person’s adrenaline levels, to traces of gun powder on a person’s clothes, to illegal substances — and it can all be done without a physical search. It also could be used on multiple people at a time, eliminating random searches at airports.

The scanner is called the Picosecond Programmable Laser. The device works by blasting its target with lasers which vibrate molecules that are then read by the machine that determine what substances a person has been exposed to. This could be Semtex explosives to the bacon and egg sandwich they had for breakfast that morning.

The laser-based scanner is expected to be used in airports as soon as 2013.

BIG SIS IS WATCHING YOU! You “terrorist” you!  YEAH, YOU! 🙂

FOOD STAMP NATION

The government has been targeting Spanish speakers with radio “novelas” promoting food stamp usage as part of a stated mission to increase participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamps.

Each novela, comprising a 10-part series called “PARQUE ALEGRIA,” or “HOPE PARK,” presents a semi-dramatic scenario involving characters convincing others to get on food stamps, or explaining how much healthier it is to be on food stamps.

The majority of the episodes end with the announcer encouraging the listener to tune in again to see if the skeptic applies for benefits or learns to understand the importance of food stamps to their health.

“Will Claudia convince Ramon to apply for SNAP?” the announcer exclaims at the end of a standard episode titled “The Poet,” “Don’t miss our next episode of ‘HOPE PARK.’”(DC)

***********

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

 

Presently in America, nearly half of all households receive either a salary or substantial benefits from the government. Presently in America, nearly half of all adults pay no federal income taxes. Presently in America, the half that pay no income taxes receive the bulk of their income courtesy of the government, but ultimately from the half that do. This money is extracted involuntarily from the paying half by a permanent bureaucracy that extracts and gives away more each year no matter who is running the government. The recipients of these transfer payments rely upon them for subsistence, so they have a vested financial interest in sending to Washington those who will continue to take your money and give it to them.

It is no wonder that we are now saddled with the micromanagement of health care by the same bureaucratic mindset that mismanages the Post Office and everything else the federal government runs. It should not be surprising to know that presently in America, half of the people actually want the government to take care of their needs. The same was the case under Communist regimes, but here those folks vote.

Hence, we have laws that force us to be charitable to those whom the government designates as worthy of our charity, that limit the amount of salt that restaurants can put into our food, that permit the government to watch us on street corners and subways and in the lobbies of buildings, that let the president fight wars of opportunity, that permit the Federal Reserve to print money with no value and inflate prices and destroy savings, that allow the government to listen to us on our cellphones and use those phones to follow us wherever we go, and, according to CIA Director David Petraeus, that let the government anticipate our movements inside our homes.

And as of the last week in June, the government has a vast new power that was brought to us by the Supreme Court’s latest attack on personal freedom. Congress can now lawfully command any behavior of individuals that it pleases — whether or not the subject of the behavior is a power granted to Congress by the Constitution — and it may punish noncompliance with that command, so long as the punishment is called a tax.

Justice Antonin Scalia’s whimsical query during the Supreme Court oral argument on the health care law about whether Congress could make him eat broccoli suddenly isn’t as funny as it was when he asked it, because the answer is: It can fine him for not eating broccoli, so long as it calls that fine a tax.

Quick: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Answer: Four, because calling a tail a leg doesn’t make a tail a leg.

We got here because voters and the government we elected, and even the courts the popular branches appointed and confirmed, have lost sight of first principles. When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are a part of our humanity, and when we fought and won the Revolution under that premise, and when the first Congress enacted that language as the first federal law, this became the irrevocable recognition of the Natural Law as the basis for our personal freedom and limited government. Since our rights come from our humanity, they don’t come from the government.

But you would never know that from looking at the government. In New York City, where I work at Fox News Channel, we are all embroiled in two disputes this summer over the constitutional role of the government in our lives. The mayor, a self-made billionaire who likes donuts and has bodyguards but wants to tell others how to live in private and in public, is trying to ban soda pop in containers larger than 16 ounces and wants the police to be able to stop and frisk anyone on a whim — and all in the name of health and safety. He is actually banning freedom.

Imagine Jefferson being told what to eat or stopped and frisked on a whim. And then imagine the Supreme Court telling him that he must pay a tax if he fails to comport his personal private behavior as Congress — which doesn’t believe in privacy or personal freedom — commands.

Here is how you can tell that these are bad days for freedom:

Does the government need your permission to violate your rights, or do you need the government’s permission to exercise them?

The answer is painfully obvious.

Presently in America, what are we going to do about it? (Judge Andrew Napolitano)

NOVEMBER IS COMING!

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

 Political Cartoons by Ken Catalino

 Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell