Archive for December, 2011

8 Illuminating Charts That Show How Truly Failed Obamanomics Truly Is

December 26, 2011

Is Obamanomics working?  Only if “working” means imploding America: 

The 7 most illuminating economic charts of 2011
By James Pethokoukis
December 23, 2011, 12:11 pm

My Magnificent Seven. Some bust myths. Others highlight a reality the media is ignoring. Enjoy!

1. The overly optimistic unemployment forecast of the Obama White House. This may be the most infamous economic prediction in U.S. political history (helpfully updated by The Right Sphere). For the original January 2009 chart from White House economic advisers Jared Bernstein and Christina Romer, see here.

 

2. The real unemployment rate. The official (U-3) unemployment rate is 8.6 percent. But the labor force has been shrinking as discouraged workers have been disappeared by government statisticians rather than counted as unemployed. But what if they weren’t? What if the Labor Department added those folks back into the numbers? Well, you would get this:

3. Middle-class incomes have been stagnant for decades—not. It is an oft-repeated liberal talking point, one that President Obama himself used in his populist Osawatomie Speech: The rich got richer the past 30 years while the middle-class went nowhere. In short, the past few decades of lower taxes and lighter regulation have been a failure. Or, rather, pro-market policies have been a failure … except that new research from the University of Chicago’s Bruce Meyer and Notre Dame’s James Sullivan find that “median income and consumption both rose by more than 50 percent in real terms between 1980 and 2009.”

4. Inequality has exploded—not. According to the MSM and liberal economists, U.S. inequality has exploded to levels not seen since the 1920s or perhaps even the Gilded Age of the late 19th century. And to prove their point—that the 1 percent has gotten amazingly richer in recent decades—the inequality alarmists will inevitably trot out a famous income inequality study from economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Pike. But why not instead look at wealth—all financial and nonfinancial assets—instead of income? It’s less volatile and a truer measure of all the economic resources at an individual’s command. Turns out that Saez has done research on that subject, too. And he even created a revealing chart documenting the ups and downs of U.S. wealth over the past century. It reveals a very different picture of inequality in America:

5. and 6. The underwhelming Obama recovery. When you compare the current recovery to those of the past, it looks pretty anemic. And it doesn’t matter if you look at GDP growth or unemployment (via The Economist).

 

 

7. America’s debt picture is worse than you think. If you factor in the long-term impact of rising federal debt on U.S. interest rates and economic growth—raising borrowing costs and lowering tax revenue—you’ll find that federal debt could be almost 50 percent higher by 2035 than the estimates usually bandied about in the media.

 

I’ll give you another chart as an extra bonus.  It demonstrates the inconvenient fact that Obama’s VERY BEST month in terms of unemployment is signifantly worse than George Bush’s WORST month:

The truth is that Obama has lost 2.5 million jobs since he took office. The truth is these  jobs have simply ceased to exist under Obama, as measured by the diminishing labor participation rate. The truth is that if Obama were measured by the same labor participation rate that Bush was measured by when he left office, unemployment would be at over 11.3% (according to an analysis by Reuters), rather than the 8.6% Obama is being lauded for by media propaganda. I mean, dang, the truth is that even liberal Ezra Klein affirms that the real unemployment rate ought to be 11 percent.

We live in an age where awful is massaged and manipulated by a modern Ministry of Truth to be wonderful.

http://seg.sharethis.com/getSegment.php?purl=http%3A%2F%2Fstartthinkingright.wordpress.com%2Fwp-admin%2Fpost-new.php&jsref=&rnd=1324936189264

The Two Beautiful Names Behind ‘Merry Christmas’

December 25, 2011

Christmas – and the meaning of Christianity itself – can be summed up in two names.

The first is “Immanuel,” which translates from Hebrew to “God with us.”  It comes from a prophecy written approximately 700BC about the future Messiah 

“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.” — Isaiah 7:14

Of this same miraculously conceived child the same prophet writes about other things this same child would be called in addition to “Immanuel”:

“For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” — Isaiah 9:6

I often marvel over the bickering of unbelief over whether the Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 should really be translated “virgin” given what is said about this same child in Isaiah 9:6.  How ELSE would one expect this child, this son who would be born, who would be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father and Prince of Peace to be conceived other than by miraculous supernatural means?  Seriously?

What does “God with us” mean?

It means that this child – rightly called “Immanuel” in Isaiah 7:14 and “Mighty God” in Isaiah 9:6, would literally be God come to be with mankind in some powerful way.

It is a beautiful reference to the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, the unique, One-and-Only Son of the Living God.  Isaiah prophesied that some day in the future, God would somehow take a human nature and be born as a child, as a son.  It was a prophecy of the coming birth of One who would one day call Himself “the Son of Man” (e.g. Mark 10:45).

The other name that completes the meaning of Christmas and Christianity is “Jesus.”  It comes from the Hebrew name “Yeshua” (or “Joshua”) which means, “Jehovah is Savior.”

Two things emerge from this name: the first is that God Himself would one day come to personally save and deliver mankind from the bondage and death sentence of sin; the second is that One particular bearer of that name would be Himself God on earth.

The same Book of Isaiah that we have been discussing amply attests of our Lord Jesus Christ taking upon Himself the name both of “Jehovah” and “Savior.”

Isaiah 43:11 makes it most clear:

“I, even I, am the LORD [i.e., Jehovah], and apart from Me there is no Savior.” — Isaiah 43:11

See also Isaiah 45:21 to see that this is no fluke description from the prophet who described the coming of “Immanuel” who would be “Mighty God”:

Declare what is to be, present it–let them take counsel together. Who foretold this long ago, who declared it from the distant past? Was it not I, the LORD [i.e., Jehovah]? And there is no God apart from Me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but Me.” — Isaiah 45:21

But as we celebrate Christmas, we celebrate the birth of the One of whom the angel proclaimed:

“Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; He is Christ the Lord.”

The mystery of Jesus, of this Savior who would be born in spite of the fact that only JEHOVAH could be called “Savior,” is given a little clarity in the first words of the Book of John as it identifies Jesus Christ as “the Word”:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  He was in the beginning with God.  All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being which has come into being.” — John 1:1-3

When St. John says, “In the beginning was the Word,” it is a direct reference of Genesis 1:1, which begins, “In the beginning God…”

When St. John says, “and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” he is pointing out that while the Word, Jesus, is divine (i.e., is God), He is not God in the logically exclusive sense that the Father and the Spirit are not also God.  Jesus is God (the Son), and Jesus was also with God (the Father and the Spirit).

When St. John tells us, “He was in the beginning with God,” we know that Jesus was NOT a created being.  He could not have in any way, shape or form been created, because in fact He always existed; He was with God the Father from the very beginning.

If this wasn’t clear enough already, St. John further elaborates on the eternality of Jesus Christ when he says, “All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being which has come into being.”  All things came into being by Jesus Christ.  God the Son was the Creator Moses describes in Genesis 1:1 (“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”).  Not only that, but “apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.”  Which is to say that this Son of God, the Word – who would one day become Incarnate under the name of Jesus who was born of a virgin in fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14 – created every single thing which has EVER been created or come into existence.  It is a logical impossibility that the One who created ALL things could Himself have been in any way created.

A short poem sums it up more simply and more concisely that I ever could:

“He came to die on a cross of wood, yet made the hill on which it stood.”

He was truly God.

But He was truly God become man.

How?  Why?

God the Son added to Himself – added to His eternal divine nature – a human nature in the Incarnation.  God became man.  And 700 years before it happened, He revealed it to His prophet Isaiah.

One verse from the first chapter of the first Book of the Bible becomes significant in understanding this:

“So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” — Genesis 1:27

In Genesis the Son of God, the Word, created man in His divine image; in the Incarnation, that same Son of God assumed the image He had created.  Which is to say that God made man in such a way that He could one day become man Himself.

In the most remarkable act of other-centered love in the history of the universe, Christ the Son of God did the following as recorded in Philippians 2:5-11:

“You must have the same attitude that Christ Jesus had.  Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to.  Instead, he gave up his divine privileges; he took the humble position of a slave and was born as a human being. When he appeared in human form, he humbled himself in obedience to God and died a criminal’s death on a cross.  Therefore, God elevated him to the place of highest honor and gave him the name above all other names, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” — Philippians 2:5-11, (NLT)

In verse 7 of that marvellous passage in the original Greek language we have the word “kenosis” occur.  It means, “emptied”:  “He emptied Himself.”

In becoming a man, God had to temporarily let go of attributes of deity that belonged to Him by very right of His divine nature.  He entered into time, which means He had to divest Himself of His eternality while on earth so He could age and grow and die.  He set aside His omniscience so He would experience living as a man, depending on faith just like any other man before or after Him.  He laid aside His omnipotence, such that He could experience the helplessness and fatigue that all men feel.  And so on.

Jesus was completely dependent upon His Father and upon the Spirit for all things, because He had made Himself weak in the Incarnation in order to fully experience human frailty.  He had to walk by faith and live by the power of faith, just as we do.

We can imagine the One who created the Cosmos – and in whom all things literally hold together (Colossians 1:17) – emerge from Mary’s womb that first Christmas as a tiny, helpless baby, struggling just to open His eyes.  He grew in wisdom and stature (Luke 2:52) because He had made Himself a man in every way that it was essential to be a man.

It makes me weep to think about what Jesus laid aside so He could come to live with mankind as a man.  Think of the choice of God to do that!  We all want to become great and mighty and awesome and have all the status that accompanies our greatness; Jesus radically went the other way and took a plunge from all the glorious majesty of heaven to a trough that farm animals ate out of.

And the obvious question is, why did He do this?

He did it to take the blame that rightly belonged to me, to live and then die in my place.

He did it to be my Savior, because He as God knew that I, a miserable sinner, desperately needed saving.

In the Incarnation, Jesus lived a perfect life in our place because we could never hope to live such lives.  And then, as the perfect God-Man, He gave His life to take the death sentence earned by OUR sins upon Himself, so that we would not have to experience eternal death the way that all sinners apart from His grace will one day experience.

This mighty act of salvation was God-sized; no mere man could even attain his own salvation, let alone that of the entire human race. And yet just as sin entered the world through a man, only a man acting as a true representative of man could deliver us from that sin.

Enter the God-Man.  Enter Jesus.

Jesus explained His mission to a Jewish Pharisee and member of the Sanhedrin named Nicodemus in the most beautiful and powerful words ever spoken:

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him would not perish, but have eternal life.” — John 3:16

Isaiah 64:6 says,

“But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.”

Isaiah 53:6 says,

“All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.” — Isaiah 53:6

On Christmas morning, a little over 2,000 years ago, in the fullness of time (Galatians 4:4), God came to save me from that from which I most needed saving: from myself; and from my sins which separated me from my Creator, my King and my God.

God is holy and righteous and perfect and sinless: He can not tolerate sin in His presence; nor can any sinner survive His presence.  As a sinner, I deserved hell.  And apart from the grace of God, hell is precisely where I would have gone.

Only there is a God who loved me, and gave Himself for me (see Galatians 2:2o; Ephesians 5:2; Titus 2:14) so that I could be alive in Him and share eternity with Him in His glorious presence forever and ever.

Thank you, Jesus.  I bow down before You and thank You with all of my soul that You alone had the power to save.  I desperately needed a Savior, and You came to save me.

I pray that you, too, bow down before Jesus your King and thank Him from the bottom of a saved, delivered soul this Christmas day.

Why Exactly Is This Payroll Tax Fiasco Republicans’ Faults Again? Too Bad Americans Get Propaganda Rather Than Facts.

December 23, 2011
It would be inexcusable for Congress not to further extend this middle-class tax cut for the rest of the year” — Barack Hussein Obama, immediately prior to demonizing the Republicans for trying to extend the middle class payroll tax cut for the rest of the year over Democrat demands to do so for a ridiculous two months.
Let’s see.  Republicans in the House passed a payroll tax extension that provided a year of clarity for the American worker and business owner.  And the thing decried as a “poison pill” by Democrats was a provision to speed approval of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, which even the damn liberal LABOR unions are demanding because it would add 22,000 jobs to our economy and 118,000 spin-off jobs:
 
Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal points out the holocaust of jobs just plain murdered by Obama and his rabid EPA death machine, beginning with the Keystone pipeline that Obama and many Democrats want killed:
Which gets us to his blues, or rather the 20,000 blue-collar construction jobs that would come with the pipeline, and the further 118,000 spin-off jobs. The unions—from the Teamsters, to the Plumbers and Pipefitters, to the Laborers—are out in force pushing for this giant job creator. “We can’t wait to get America building again,” blares a union-sponsored website in support of Keystone, poking at the president’s latest political rhetoric.

Keystone is more than just the administration’s latest headache. It’s the clear culmination of an Obama governing philosophy that has consistently put green priorities ahead of blue-collar workers, and that is now one of the biggest threats to his re-election.   [...]

The EPA has labored over an ozone rule (estimated job losses: 7.3 million), power plant rules (1.4 million), a boiler rule (789,000), a coal-ash rule (316,00), a cement rule (23,000), and greenhouse gas rules (even Joe Biden can’t count that high). The administration blew up Louisiana’s offshore deepwater drilling industry, insisted Detroit make cars nobody wants to buy and, just to stay consistent, is moving to clamp down on the country’s one booming industry: natural gas.

Those going the way of the dodo are utility workers, pipefitters, construction guys, coal miners, factory workers, truck drivers, electrical workers and machinists. Many of these are union Democrats who don’t care if their union bosses are publicly sticking with the president. They are pessimistic about the future and increasingly angry over the president’s attack on their work.

Basically, Obama has quietly (give that the mainstream media would never cover this) killed nine million American jobs.  And counting.
 
Damn Republicans and their damn vile demand that Americans get more jobs rather than more socialist nanny state.
 
And shame on Republicans in particular for a) giving Obama the year-long payroll tax cut extension that initially demanded; b) creating not only thousands but tens of thousands of jobs; and c) helping labor unions.  That’s what Obama and the Democrats are saying.

After doing their part, the Republican House stuck around.  Because unlike the Democrats controlling the Senate, they’re not piles of putrid political slime.

Then – after the Republicans passed their bill (and ask yourself what would have happened in the media coverage if Speaker Boehner had at this point had decided to send the Republican Congress home) – the Democrats came along and passed a two month extension of the payroll tax cut.  Payroll processors have stated that this “is logistically impossible to make the needed changes in tax software before the short-term extension expires.”  They point out that there is “insufficient lead time” to institute changes prior to the February 29 deadline and that such a “shortened deadline could create ‘substantial problems, confusion and costs affecting a significant percentage of employers and employees.'”

After doing their part to screw up the known universe, Democrats immediately left Washington, essentially saying to Republicans, “We’re going to force you to do this on our terms with no negotiations.”  And the press blessed this act of “bold leadership.”

In fact, even more than merely recess, the Democrats in the Senate abjectly refused to send any representatives to the conference committee that provides resolution to bills passed by the House and the Senate:

Silent Hill. Harry’s left. All is dark – Senate side. The House voted simultaneously on Tuesday to disagree with the Senate two-month extension legislation for the payroll-tax holiday and send both chambers’ versions to a conference committee to negotiate a final deal. House Speaker John A. Boehner immediately named his eight negotiators for the committee tasked with resolving the differences in the length of the tax holiday and unemployment benefits, offsets and reform provisions. The development led to a standoff between the Ohio Republican and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

 Mr. Reid refuses to name conferees unless the House passes his short-term bill. On Saturday, the Nevada Democrat sent the Senate home on vacation until Jan. 23. Mr. Reid’s objection means Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell can’t name Republican negotiators because it requires unanimous consent. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, also won’t name her representatives. “I don’t think we should go to conference,” the California Democrat said on Monday evening. “We’re not going to that place.”

They passed their version of the bill AFTER the House passed its version, and then Democrats just left.  Lights out.  Screw you, compromise.  And screw you, American people, because this is all about politics and political posturing, and we Democrats have the media propaganda covering our every move.

To further pursue the Democrat intransigence to so much as get off their asses for a single second to DO SOMETHING, we can add Barry Hussein’s refusal to budge a nanometer:

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, phoned President Obama this morning and asked him to send members of his economic team to the Capitol to end the political stalemate and negotiate a path toward a one-year extension of the payroll tax credit. The president declined the offer.

“With Sen. Reid having declined to call his members back to Washington this week to join the House in negotiating a full-year extension of the payroll tax cut, the speaker proposed that the president send members of his economic policy team up to Congress to find a way to accommodate the president’s full-year request,” a senior aide to the speaker said. “The speaker explained his concern that flaws in the Senate-passed bill will be unworkable for many small-business job creators. He reiterated that if their shared goal is a one-year bill, there is no reason an agreement cannot be reached before year’s end. The president declined the speaker’s offer.”

This is Obama at his finest: playing shrill and divisive hardball partisan politics with the American people hanging on the line.  Obama doesn’t WANT action; he desperately NEEDS a hopelessly divided Congress so he can run against it and blame them for all of his numerous failures.  And, of course, the press has his back.

With Republicans obviously willing to negotiate and Democrats screaming, “NO! NO! NO!  And what’s more, you Republicans are OBSTRUCTIONIST!!!”

House Speaker John Boehner is saying – and I quote – “Let’s sit down and resolve our differences.”  The nerve of the man to ask for something so “extremist” as that.  The man ought to be hauled outside the Capitol Building and shot for daring to want to sit down and work things out when the Democrat politburo and the Democrat Dictator-in-Chief have decreed that no American may have a tax cut unless it be done according to their imperial decree.

And let’s not forget the fact that gridlock may very well be a good thing, given that the payroll tax cut extension is a direct rip-off from Social Security:

As we’ve pointed out previously, the 2-percentage-point cut in the payroll tax (from 6.2% to 4.2%) might give a short-term boost to the economy, but it contributes to Social Security’s long-term insolvency at a time when the retirement program is already paying out more in benefits than it is collecting in taxes. A one-year extension would drive up next year’s federal deficit by more than $100 billion.

Sorry your check bounced, Grandma.  Just, you know, eat less or something.  Maybe step down to dog food.  Some of it is quite tasty, I’m sure.

And interestingly, the same rather liberal USA Today that pointed out the above also pointed out that Democrats are actually encouraging a different tax cut extension:

The payroll tax issue also raises the question of whether there’s any such thing as a temporary tax cut. At the end of next year, the unaffordable Bush tax cuts are set to expire. Extending the payroll tax cut would set a precedent and give ammunition to those who want another extension of the Bush cuts, adding as much as $5 trillion to deficits over the coming decade.

For the record, this “$5 trillion” figure USA Today pulled out is the TOTAL amount that ALL income classes receive from the Bush tax cut.  See the numbers from the Joint Tax Committee I cited in a previous article:

A study by the Joint Tax Committee, using the same static methodology that I refer to in my opening paragraph, calculate that the government will lose $700 billion in revenue if the tax cuts for the top income brackets are extended. And that sounds bad. But they also conclude that the Bush tax cuts on the middle class will cost the Treasury $3 TRILLION over the same period. If we can’t afford $700 billion, then how on earth can we afford $3 trillion? And then you’ve got to ask how much the Treasury is losing by not taxing the poor first into the poorhouse, and then into the street? And how much more revenue could we collect if we then imposed a “street” tax?

And, in another article, I cited Brit Hume pointing out that:

But the very language used in discussing these issues tells you something as well. In Washington, letting people keep more of their own money is considered a cost. As if all the money really belongs to the government in the first place in which what you get to keep is an expenditure.”

Which belies the fact that the language that a “tax cut” somehow “costs the government” amounts to the profoundly Marxist claim that the government owns both the worker and all the output from that worker.  I hope we don’t go there.

Republicans like tax cuts for everybody; in fact, they LOVE them.  This situation with the payroll tax cut is awkward for them because it was set up to “pay for” the Democrat-imposed Social Security which is already trillions of dollars in the red and which will necessarily go bankrupt without massive changes:

Kotlikoff explains that America’s “unofficial” payment obligations — like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits — jack up the debt figure substantially.

“If you add up all the promises that have been made for spending obligations, including defense expenditures, and you subtract all the taxes that we expect to collect, the difference is $211 trillion. That’s the fiscal gap,” he says. “That’s our true indebtedness.”

We don’t hear more about this enormous number, Kotlikoff says, because politicians have chosen their language carefully to keep most of the problem off the books.

“Why are these guys thinking about balancing the budget?” he says. “They should try and think about our long-term fiscal problems.”

According to Kotlikoff, one of the biggest fiscal problems Congress should focus on is America’s obligation to make Social Security payments to future generations of the elderly.

“We’ve got 78 million baby boomers who are poised to collect, in about 15 to 20 years, about $40,000 per person. Multiply 78 million by $40,000 — you’re talking about more than $3 trillion a year just to give to a portion of the population,” he says. “That’s an enormous bill that’s overhanging our heads, and Congress isn’t focused on it.”

“We’ve consistently done too little too late, looked too short-term, said the future would take care of itself, we’ll deal with that tomorrow,” he says. “Well, guess what? You can’t keep putting off these problems.”

Did I mention that dog food is actually quite tasty, Grandma?  Cat food aint bad either, if that’s the way you prefer to go.  And Wal-Mart makes them almost cheap enough to afford a Barack Obama presidency.  Almost.  As long as you don’t need any medications or anything.

And notice the description: that we’ve consistently “done too little, too late,” and “looked too short-term.”  And then consider what the Democrats are doing with their two-month SHORT-TERM extension.  You know, the one that will place a huge burden on payroll processing as noted above.

After Speaker Boehner caved – because the dishonest media-Democrat propaganda machine had made any other move politically impossible – Boehner came out in defeat and said:

“All year, you’ve heard me talk about short-term extensions, short-term gimmicks and the consequences they have for our economy,” Boehner said. “When you look at this … it’s another short-term extension. This creates uncertainty for job creators. I used to run a small business; I know how this works, and kicking the can down the road for a couple of months does cause problems.”

He also said:

Sometimes it’s hard to do the right thing, and sometimes it’s politically difficult to do the right thing. But you know, when everybody called for a one-year extension of the payroll tax deduction, when everybody wanted a full year of extended unemployment benefits, we were here fighting for the right things. It may not have been politically the smartest thing in the world, but let me tell you what: I think our members waged a good fight.”

No.  It’s not hard to do the right thing in America; it is IMPOSSIBLE to do the right thing in America.  Because dishonesty and lies and corruption and incompetence and ignorance and the worst kind of political partisanship and the worst kind of media bias rules the day.

It’s about time, I suppose, that Republicans finally learn that lesson that defined the new Democrat Party more than forty years ago.

Getting back to our little problem dealing with “short-term” thinking as explained by Kotlikoff above, the  $211 trillion Democrat-devised disaster with Social Security and Medicare is also part of the Democrats’ payroll tax extension jihad:

Democratic leaders on Wednesday said they are not interested in passing a standalone bill to delay scheduled Medicare reimbursement cuts for physicians, as some Republicans have suggested, The Hill reports. Instead, they urged House Republicans to pass a Senate-approved two-month extension of a payroll tax break that includes a two-month delay to the Medicare cuts (Bolton, The Hill, 12/21).

But you won’t hear any of that from the mainstream media.  Because it is dishonest and biased.

The American mainstream media could go to North Korea tonight and start writing for the communist dictatorship there and hardly even realize that they were in a different location. Such is their rigid party-line “journalism.”

 

close

I have watched the death of America being played out right before my eyes these past three miserable years.

If you don’t like rants, stop reading (maybe you should have already stopped reading, but better to warn you too late than not at all, right?):

The Republicans lost big on this.  They didn’t lose because they didn’t have the facts and the legitimate principle on their side; they lost because of an avalanche of lies and because the American people have become a people hell bent on believing lies to their own destruction.

I think of pre-World War II Germany.  Why did the most educate and “enlightened” people on earth at the time go so horribly wrong?  I think of a journalist named Stephen Laurant had been jailed circa 1935 for questioning Nazism in search of the answer to that mystery.  He wrote from his cell:

“I am writing this from cell 24. Outside a new Germany is being created. Many millions are rejoicing. Hitler is promising everyone precisely what they want. I think when they wake to their sobering senses, they will find they have been led by the nose and duped by lies.”

And there is no question that the German people WERE lied to.  They were lied to terribly; they were lied to by their corrupt and dishonest media propaganda that they trusted as “news,” and all the while their leader was driving them deeper and deeper into a sea of lies into which they would ultimately drown as a people and as a culture.

And yet the German people were responsible for all of the above.  Entirely responsible.  Ten percent of the German population was wiped out.  And they deserved to be wiped out.  Because they chose to believe lies.  It is only a bad people that chooses to dive into lies.

There comes a point when a culture becomes so toxic that it believes lies rather than the truth.  The Germans reached that point. 

Sadly, I believe America has reached that point, too.  Or is terrifyingly close to it.

The Republicans (both political and establishment) who kept demanding that John Boehner cut a deal openly acknowledged that they weren’t speaking from principle, but rather from cold political calculus – and from the naked realization that the American people are clearly more in tune with lies than they are with the facts.

One one side there are lies and genuine evil.  The Democrat Party has been the party of genuine moral evil in America since at least 1968.  I believe you can look at the ugliness and violence of the 1968 Democratic National Convention and bookend it with the ugliness and violence of the Occupy Movement to see a party bent on attaining hell in America.  On the Republican side there is far more timidity and fear than there is courage and conviction.

As a postscript, I add the fact that Obama has lost the war in Iraq in a single day that our American warriors fought at great cost to win.  Obama had three years to negotiate U.S. troop status in Iraq and refused to do so.  John McCain rightly said that We could have remained in Iraq and provided the security and backstopping that the country we fought so hard for desperately needed; but we didn’t because Barack Obama didn’t want to stay.  And now - IMMEDIATELY following our precipitous withdrawal that General Keane correctly labeled “an absolute disaster”( before going on to say that “”We won the war in Iraq, and we’re now losing the peace”) –  Iraq is now in a state of complete chaos as Shiite President Maliki waited until we left to attack his Sunni Vice President and al Qaeda waited until we left to leave bombs that murdered at least 63 and wounded at least 194 Iraqis.  The country we gave so much blood and treasure for is going to fall right into Iran’s hands.  And it couldn’t be more Barack Obama’s fault.  General Keane also said:

“The United States in moving away from Maliki almost three years ago was a huge strategic mistake on our part. And we have been suffering the consequences of that ever since. And certainly the troop pull-out just added to that catastrophe.”

That is ALL on Obama.  As Iraq degenerates into chaos and Iranian dominion following Obama’s cowardly cut-and-run, remember that the Obama administration once acknowledged that Iraq was handed to them as a victory in their boast that, “this could be one of the great achievements of this administration.”  What Bush gave following years of hard-fought war as a victory, Obama pissed away in defeat in order to obtain his naked political agenda of appeasing his leftwing base.

Not that the mainstream media will ever report that fact.

Remember, this is God damn America.  And God will give us what we deserve.  Because this is a nation defined by lies and stupid politically self-serving policies that will ultimately guarantee our collapse and destruction.

 

close

Our Disgrace-In-Chief: Obama Frees Terrorist Who Murdered Five American Soldiers Rather Than Send Him To Gitmo

December 22, 2011

When I call Barack Obama a traitor, I am using that term in the most accurate and technical sense:

DECEMBER 19, 2011
The Daqduq Disgrace
Obama releases a terrorist rather than send him to Gitmo.

One of the most widely photographed acts of President Obama’s first year in office was his symbolic pre-dawn salute to the caskets of U.S. soldiers returning to Dover Air Force Base. In the case of a terrorist named Ali Musa Daqduq, who was released yesterday from U.S. custody in Iraq, the President is letting down those fallen soldiers and their families.

Daqduq is a Lebanese national and top Hezbollah operative who in January 2007 masterminded the ambush, kidnapping and murder of five American soldiers in the Iraqi city of Karbala. Arrested by U.S. forces in Basra two months later, Daqduq is said to have initially pretended to be deaf and mute. But he eventually talked, giving U.S. interrogators an extensive picture of the ways in which Iran was arming and training Iraq’s insurgents.

Now Daqduq is in Iraqi custody—released, according to the Administration, because it could not lawfully do otherwise. “We have sought and received assurances [from the Iraqi government] that he will be tried for his crimes,” said Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for the National Security Council.

Mr. Vietor surely knows the likelier outcome is that Daqduq will be released or acquitted so that he can rejoin his comrades in Beirut or Tehran. The Iraqi government has already released some 50 other prisoners responsible for attacks on U.S. forces.

The Administration contends that its hands were tied by the U.S.-Iraq status-of-forces agreement negotiated by the Bush Administration, which required Iraq’s consent—not forthcoming—to remove any prisoners from the country. But it’s hard to see why that stipulation would apply to Daqduq, who is not an Iraqi citizen.

The Administration also thought of bringing Daqduq to the U.S. for trial in federal court or a military tribunal. Both ideas would have meant taking political heat, but at a minimum it showed that the status-of-forces deal was not an insuperable obstacle to keeping Daqduq in U.S. custody provided the Administration was determined to do so.

Alas, it wasn’t. The one place Daqduq unquestionably belongs is in the prison at Guantanamo, which also happens to be the one place the Administration wouldn’t countenance having him. By now, even Mr. Obama understands that Gitmo serves a vital role in housing terrorists who either can’t be safely released or easily tried. Daqduq, the most senior Hezbollah figure in U.S. custody and a man who conspicuously disdained the laws of war, fits that bill.

But even if Mr. Obama can’t close Gitmo as he promised, neither can he bring himself openly to acknowledge its benefits. Leftist furies are more than he’s willing to face. Instead, the Administration has made the calculation that one more terrorist kingpin on the loose with American blood on his hands is an acceptable price to pay for not establishing the precedent that new prisoners may again be brought to Guantanamo.

In a different world, Daqduq would not be heading for a hero’s welcome in Beirut or Tehran but instead would be on a military flight to Cuba, with the (feigned) indignation of the Iraqi government receding in the distance. In a different world, too, the families of Daqduq’s victims would have the solace that he is behind bars and unable to do further harm. That’s a world that will have to await a different Administration.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page 16

These are the same treasonous anti-American cowards who are saying “The Taliban are not our enemy” while preparing to hand over still more terrorist prisoners WHO BELONG IN GITMO.

If this doesn’t make you puke, please don’t write to me.  Because if it doesn’t, YOU make me puke.  And I don’t want to have anything to do with you.

ObamaCare Will Make The Rubble Of Our Economy And Housing Bounce Beginning January 2013

December 22, 2011

Curtis LeMay had a way with words.  One of his sayings concerning America’s mortal enemies was:

“We should bomb ‘em back to the Stone Age, and then make the rubble bounce.”

By that measure, America is Obama’s mortal enemy.  Because that’s exactly what he’s going to do with both the American economy and the American housing market beginning January 1, 2013.  Both are already in ruins.  But Obama is going to bomb them again and make the rubble bounce.

Let me first refresh your memory of Obama’s promise to the American people:

“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.” — then-candidate for President Sen. Barack Obama, September 12, 2008

To quote Joe Wilson, Obama lied:

3.8% Medicare tax on the sale of YOUR HOUSE
August 21st, 2011 | Author: milwaukeeco1

Beginning January 1, 2013, ObamaCare imposes a 3.8% Medicare tax on unearned income of “high-income” taxpayers which could apply to proceeds from the sale of single family homes, townhouses, co-ops, condominiums, and even rental income, depending on your individual circumstances and any capital gains tax exclusions. Importantly, the “high income” thresholds are not indexed for inflation so will reach increasing numbers of middle-class taxpayers over time.

In February 2010, 5.02 million homes were sold, according to the National Association of Realtors (NAR). On any given day, the sale of a house, townhome, condominium, co-op, or income from a rental property could slam middle-income families with a new tax they can’t afford.

This new ObamaCare tax is the first time the government will apply a 3.8 percent tax on unearned income. This new tax on home sales and unearned income and other Medicare taxes raise taxes more than $210 billion to pay for ObamaCare. The National Association of Realtors called this new Medicare tax on unearned income “destructive” and “ill-advised” and warned it would hurt job creation.

Additional Document: The Costly Consequences of Health Care Reform (Courtesy of the Budget Committee)

The Obama economy is rancid.  In Bill Clinton’s words:

“I hate to sound like a broken record but we could create an awesome number of jobs from this in this lousy economy.”

And Clinton is obviously a DEMOCRAT, which is to say that “lousy economy” is the most positive spin you can GIVE Obama’s economy.

And our housing market is ABOUT TO GET WORSE AS IT IS.

If that isn’t bad enough, the medical exclusion has been increased from 7.5% of adjusted gross income to 10%, which will cost anyone (in many cases people who make well under $250k/yr) who deducts medical expenses.  Flexible spending accounts (FSAs) will be reduced to $2,500 down from $5,000.  And there will be a new medical appliance tax that will hit a lot of people.

ObamaCare is literally shaping up to be a death sentence for special needs children (after it destroys those children’s parents’ savings).  You know, if said family can afford to stay in their house after the tax hits them.

If not enough Republicans get elected to gut this monstrosity, or if the Supreme Court doesn’t find the mandate to force the American people to purchase insurance unconstitutional, America is going to look back to the good old days that we’re living through right now.

Oh, and for what it’s worth, the Obama administration – which promised that no one making less than $250,000 a year would see their taxes go up one dime under his regime, will be going before the Supreme Court to argue that their mandate which will soon hit every American is a TAX.  Under ObamaCare, be ready to pay much more to get much less.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie On Obama: ‘Probably The Weakest President I’ve Seen In My Lifetime’

December 21, 2011

Okay, you know Obama’s self-assessment: fourth greatest president ever.  And moving up.

What does successful New Jersey Governor Chris Christie think of Obama’s “accomplishments”?

Gov. Christie calls Obama ‘probably the weakest president I’ve seen in my lifetime’
Published: Tuesday, December 20, 2011, 10:12 AM     Updated: Tuesday, December 20, 2011, 12:14 PM
By Jenna Portnoy/Statehouse Bureau

TRENTON — Gov. Chris Christie blasted President Barack Obama while talking up what he called accomplishments rooted in compromise in New Jersey, during a playful appearance today on MSNBC’s Morning Joe.

[...]

Early in the 20-minute segment, Christie touted what he said was his record of working with the Democratic legislature. “Look at what we’ve gotten done,” he said. “Two percent property tax (cap). Interest arbitration cap, sweeping pension and benefit reform. All done in a bipartisan way. Did I get every bit of what I wanted? No.”

“There is always a boulevard that exists between getting everything you want and compromising your principals. Sometimes it’s narrow, sometimes it’s broad. A leader’s job is to navigate on to that boulevard.”

The state Assembly Democrats see it differently. “The governor speaks a good game,” spokesman Tom Hester Jr . said, “but conveniently skips over the fact that a focal point of his tenure has been zealously protecting tax cuts for millionaires over property tax relief for middle class families and seniors. Working families have not been his priority.”

Christie later criticized Obama as “probably the weakest president I’ve seen in my lifetime,” and said, “I’ve had to face much tougher things in New Jersey from a political perspective than he has.”

[...]

Related coverage:

Christie: Obama ‘has made America smaller in the eyes of the world’

I know what you’re thinking: how can the president who brought us the “beer summit” be only the fourth greatest president?  Lincoln never held a beer summit to resolve great and weighty issues, did he?

Meet Barack Obama – Worst Failure, Biggest And Most Arrogant Narcissist – In History. And Then Meet Reality.

December 21, 2011

Meet Barry Hussein:

I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president – with the possible exceptions of Johnson, F.D.R. and Lincoln, just in terms of what we’ve gotten done in modern history.” — Barack Obama, in 60 Minutes interview with Steve Kroft

Here’s the youtube:

He’s too humble.  He isn’t the fourth best; he’s the best of all the best.  At being an arrogant, patholotical narcissist who is so in love with himself that all the failure in the world isn’t enough to make him question even for a moment that he is the messiah, and the only messiah with whom we should have to do.

Obama’s two signature “accomplishments” are his “stimulus” and what is most appropriately called ObamaCare.  They are both so rotten and so unpopular that he is not mentioning them AT ALL as he runs for re-election.

As for the stimulus:

In early 2009, shortly before his inauguration as president, Barack Obama used a radio address to urge Congress to pass a massive federal “stimulus.”

“I asked my nominee for chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, Dr. Christina Romer, and the vice president-elect’s chief economic adviser, Dr. Jared Bernstein, to conduct a rigorous analysis of this plan and come up with projections of how many jobs it will create — and what kind of jobs they will be,” Mr. Obama said during that address. “Today, I am releasing a report of their findings so that the American people can see exactly what this plan will mean for their families, their communities and our economy.”

OK, so what “exactly” did Mr. Obama and his advisers think the stimulus — whose price tag hit $862 billion — would accomplish?

Well, they said the stimulus would hold unemployment below 8 percent, and that joblessness would steadily drop to less painful levels in coming months and years. By now — December 2011 — unemployment if the stimulus passed was supposed to have dropped to about 6 percent, according to the administration’s projections.

Did it work out that way?  Hardly.

Today’s unemployment rate is 8.6 percent — far higher than it was supposed to be by now if the stimulus passed. In fact, unemployment today is higher than the Obama administration predicted it would be even if the stimulus did not pass!

And that’s only the tip of the iceberg. Joblessness has now been higher than 8 percent for 34 straight months — a record not seen since World War II!

That raises an obvious question: If the first stimulus failed so miserably to do what the president said it would do, why should any consideration whatsoever be given to the idea of a second stimulus?

Fwiw, the “about 6 percent” is a rounded figure; in fact, Obama predicted it would be 5.8% by now if he got his stimulus got passed.

Obama is reduced to making an argument that itself manifest his collossal “God’s gift to not only women but hell, all mankind!” view of himself: he is saying that without him and his stimulus, we would have plunged into the Great Depression.  [Let's forget the fact that, when it comes to housing - the thing that created the economic collapse in 2008 - Obama has LED US INTO THE GREAT DEPRESSION.]

Which is kind of like George W. Bush saying that if he hadn’t been president, space aliens would have invaded and the entire human race would have been eradicated.

The problem with this liberal analysis – other than the fact that the president is a dangerous mentally-ill malignant narcissist – is that it assumes what it is seeking to prove: Keynesian economics works, that’s just a statement of religious faith, and therefore Keynesianism clearly must have worked.

Even if the Obama Keynesian stimulus utterly failed to come anywhere even close to matching their predicted claims of grandeur.

We saw the hypocrisy of the excuses when the stimulus was such a failure that Obama stated claiming that he’d created “or saved” jobs.

Harvard economics Professor Gregory Mankiw said, “There is no way to measure how many jobs are saved.” Allan Meltzer, professor of political economy at Carnegie Mellon University said “One can search economic textbooks forever without finding a concept called ‘jobs saved.’ It doesn’t exist for good reason: how can anyone know that his or her job has been saved?”

Such a barometer had NEVER been used in American history for good reason.  And if Bush had tried to use it to claim that his agenda was really working out – just look at how many jobs he’d “saved” – the media would have rightly been all over him as a liar from hell for trying to pass such absurdity off.

But not now.  Obama is messiah.  He cannot be wrong.  If the stimulus clearly didn’t work on the physical level of reality, then it must have worked on the metaphysical level.

The unemployment rate has gone down, but it has “gone down” with the massive caveat that nearly three people are giving up and abandoning the workforce completely (which means they no longer count against Obama’s unemployment record) for every one who actually finds a job.

The truth is that Obama has lost 2.5 million jobs since he took office.  These jobs have simply ceased to exist under Obama, as measured by the labor participation rate.  The truth is that if Obama were measured by the same labor participation rate that Bush was measured by when he left office, unemployment would be at over 11.3% (according to an analysis by Reuters), rather than the 8.6% Obama is being lauded for by media propaganda.  I mean, dang, even liberal Ezra Klein affirms that the real unemployment rate ought to be 11 percent.

But Obama doesn’t have to worry.  The number has gone down – no matter how falsely that number is calcuated or what it hides – and the mainstream media says Obama is doing a wonderful job.

If you look at the monthly unemployment numbers, Obama’s BEST month of unemployment is far worse than Bush’s WORST month of unemployment:

But DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz is actually able to get on TV and claim that unemployment didn’t go up under Obama.  Because she is a liar from the party of liars who represent the king of all liars.

Take a look at what Obama has done for “employment” with the teens he promised to help with his mandatory minimum wage hike that priced most young workers right out of jobs.  Not that Obama gives a damn.  He “saved” them.  He’s moved on.

And, oh, by the way, when Obama compares himself to FDR, it should be pointed out that FDR massively failed to do anything more than utterly sabotage our economy just as Obama has done.

Take ObamaCare.  Please, as the comics say.  It is horribly unpopular, it will cost FAR more than the lying liberals and their false messiah said it would.  And hopefully it will soon be overturned as UNCONSTITUTIONAL by the Supreme Court.

We are at historic levels of unemployment, our nation having never seen such a disgrace since the last time a socialist ran the country.  The misery index is the highest it has EVER beenWe are at Great Depression levels in our housing situation.  But don’t worry; to an arrogant malignant narcissist like Obama, all these things and many others are just “bumps in the road” compared to his majestic wonderfulness.  If it isn’t Republicans’ faults that Obama has failed so wildly, it’s YOUR fault.  You are, in Obama’s words, lazy.  And soft.  And if you are a conservative, a racist small-minded religious bigot bitterly clinging to his guns and his antipathy for people who don’t look just like him.

None of it matters. Only Obama matters. He is the center of his own universe, and he’s doing fine.

P.S. Here’s another “fwiw”: I did a quick search for Obama’s “lazy” remark.  I actually couldn’t find it.  Do you know why?  I couldn’t find it because there were so many mainstream media “journalists” who rushed out to say that Obama really didn’t say what it sounded like he said after Obama said it.  But if George W. Bush had said the same damn thing, don’t not believe for a millisecond that the same journalists who said Obama didn’t call Americans’ lazy and soft wouldn’t have been saying that Bush just said Americans were lazy and soft.

We are watching what is happening in the socialist People’s Republic of North Korea right now.  It’s not “the people’s,” as the claim of socialism always promises; it was Kim Jong Il’s “republic” – and now that “people’s republic” belongs to his idiot son.  This is a country that deep inside a socialist dark age, to such an extent that the country is literally completely dark at night from space.  Millions of North Koreans have starved to death.  The country is told to continue being faithful to socialism.  While a few such as Kim Jong Il dine on imported caviar, drink imported champagne and entertain themselves with their favorite Western prostitutes and films.

But what does their press tell them? That their “Dear Leader” is doing a wonderful job taking care of them.  And the North Korean “mainstream media” did everything it could to preach that gospel.

We’ve seen that same thing in every socialist regime – from the Nazis (that’s national socialism) to the communists (that’s international socialism).  And we have seen it in our own socialist regime that Democrats and their media propagandists have been trying to erect for years.

We live in the days just before Antichrist. He will require everyone to take his mark, and every single human being on earth will have to take that mark or he or she won’t be able to buy food or anything else (Revelation 13:15-18). And when that time comes, the media will be assuring us that taking the mark will be a good thing, and that the people who won’t accept it are bad people who should be killed.

The astonishing deceit you are seeing on the media every single day is just one more proof that those coming days are soon at hand.

Hey Democrats, Why Is It That States With The Highest Tax Rates Have The Highest Debt???

December 21, 2011

I wrote an article entitled, “Tax Cuts Increase Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues” that documents the fact that, on every single occasion in which it has ever been tried, cutting income tax rates has increased federal tax revenues and resulted in a healthier economy.

Democrats stupidly won’t believe that.  Mostly because they are stupid people who are committed to stupid and depraved world views (such as Marxism).

A Newsmax article documents that what is true of the federal government and tax cutting also happens to be true of the states and tax cutting:

Abolish State Income Taxes
Tuesday, 20 Jul 2010 11:15 AM
By Richard Rahn

Did you know there are nine states that have no state income tax?

The non-income-tax states (see accompanying chart) are geographically and economically diverse, ranging from the state of Washington in the Pacific Northwest, to Texas and Florida in the South, and up to New Hampshire in the Northeast.

Why is it that some of the states with the biggest fiscal problems have the highest individual state income tax rates, such as New York and California, while some of the states with the least fiscal problems have no state income tax at all?

High-tax advocates will argue that the high-tax states provide much more and better state services, but the empirical evidence does not support the assertion.

On average, schools, health and safety, roads, etc. are no better in states with income taxes than those without income taxes. More importantly, the evidence is very strong that people are moving from high-tax states to lower-tax-rate states — the migration from California to Texas and from New York to Florida being prime examples. (Next year, the combined federal, state, and local income tax rate for a citizen of New York City will be well over 50 percent, as contrasted with approximately 38 percent for citizens of Texas and Florida.)

If the citizens of California and New York really thought they were getting their money’s worth for all of the extra state taxation, they would not be moving to low-tax states.

The obvious question then is, Where is all the extra money from these state income taxes going?

It is going primarily to service debt, and to pay for inflated salaries and employee benefits. It is interesting that the high-tax-rate states also, on average, have much higher per capita debt levels than states without income taxes. (Alaska is an outlier because it has its oil reserve to borrow against and actually gives its citizens a “dividend” each year.)

The biggest additional burden the high-tax states have is unionized government worker contracts. My Cato colleague Chris Edwards notes: “Half of all state and local spending — $1.1 trillion out of $2.2 trillion in 2008 — goes toward employee wages and benefits.”

His study showed that, on average, total hourly compensation for state and local government workers was 45 percent higher than for equivalent private-sector workers.

In addition, the government workers are rarely fired even those with poor job performance. Importantly, the differential was much greater in states where more than half of the state employees were unionized, and these were all in states with state income taxes, with the exception of Washington.

High rates of unionization of public employees and high rates of debt go hand in hand. Those states whose government workers are less than 40 percent unionized have median per capita state debt of $2,238, while those states where unionization rates are over 60 percent have a median per capita state debt of $6,380.

High rates of unionization tend to lead to excess staffing, unaffordable benefits, and pensions.

There have been a number of both empirical and theoretical studies showing the negative impacts of state income taxes and particularly those with high marginal rates on economic growth within the state.

A recent study published in the Cato Journal by professors Barry W. Poulson and Jules Gordon Kaplan, which was carefully controlled for the effects of regressivity, convergence, and regional influences in isolating the effect of taxes on economic growth in the states concluded: “Jurisdictions that imposed an income tax to generate a given level of revenue experienced lower rates of economic growth relative to jurisdictions that relied on alternative taxes to generate the same revenue.”

State Income Tax Rates and Debt (All Figures Percent)
States Income Tax State Debt as % of Income
Without Individual Income Tax
Tennessee 0 2.02
Texas 0 2.70
Nevada 0 4.07
Wyoming 0 4.90
Florida 0 5.20
Washington 0 7.93
South Dakota 0 10.95
New Hampshire 0 14.10
Alaska 0 24.01
Highest Individual Income Tax rates
Iowa 9.28 6.47
Maryland 9.23 7.26
California 10.55 7.55
Oregon 11.36 8.61
Hawaii 11.00 11.89
New Jersey 9.06 12.01
New York 10.67 12.22
Vermont 8.95 13.12
Rhode Island 9.9 20.04

The state of New York is a poster child for what not to do. At one time, it was the richest and most populous state. But at least going back to the Harriman and Rockefeller administrations decades ago, it decided it could tax and spend its way to prosperity. (Note: New York City residents face a maximum combined state and city income tax of over 12 percent, while those in many New York counties pay a little less than 9 percent, giving the state an average maximum tax rate of almost 11 percent.)

The results have been the opposite of what was promised.

New York’s relative population, economic growth, and per capita income have all declined, particularly in relation to those states without a state income tax.

In the past year, per-person taxes have increased by $419 in New York, far higher than any other state. (Note: They went up only $1 in Texas. Is New York or Texas now better off?)

Income taxes, as contrasted with consumption (i.e., sales) taxes and modest property tax rates, are far more costly to administer and do far more economic damage (by discouraging work, saving and investment) and are far more intrusive on individual liberty.

The states without state income taxes overall have had far better economic performance for most of the past several decades than have the income tax states — particularly those with high marginal taxes.

The Tea Party movement indicates that it might be the right time politically for politicians in the income tax states to call for those taxes to be phased out.

Good economics might actually be good politics this year.

Richard W. Rahn is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth.

That table alone is worth a million bucks.  Notice how it documents the fact that liberal/Democrat economic policy is about as abject a failure as you can get.

What is also interesting is that the United States did not have a permanent federal income tax until 1913.  That, coincidentally, was the same year that Democrats also gave us the Federal Reserve with the promise that they would now be able to fix everything.  Like all of their promises, it was a giant lie.

Many founding fathers warned against a federal reserve system that Woodrow Wilson ultimately rammed down our national throats.  Here are the words of Thomas Jefferson in particular:

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation then by deflation, the banks and the corporations will grow up around them, will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.” -Thomas Jefferson, The Debate Over The Recharter Of The Bank Bill, (1809).

For the factual record, the Federal Reserve, perversely named as it is, is in fact the very kind of “private bank” that Jefferson warned us about.  It’s fascism, but Democrats love fascism.  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are examples of other “government sponsored enterprises” devised by Democrats that give us the very, very worst of both government and private enterprise.

And this article directly relates that tax and the out of control Federal Reserve system with our present out of control debt.

Democrats have led the way in screwing up America for the last hundred years.  They were screwing it up in 1913 under Woodrow Wilson.  They were screwing it up again in the 1930s under FDR.  And now we are royally screwing it up under Obama.

And now we have no chance of lasting another hundred years because Democrats have loaded us up with debt that we can never hope to ever repay even as our debt continues to spiral even more out of control.

Liberal Rabbi Continues Secular Humanist Hatred For All Things Christian And Tim Tebow

December 21, 2011

Rabbi Joshua Hammerman, in tooting his own horn as loudly as he knows how, boasts that he is the winner of the Rockover Award (which just so happens to be “the highest honor in Jewish journalism,” by the way).  And his columb appears regularly in New York Jewish Week.

Here is his latest and greatest wise musing:

“If Tebow wins the Super Bowl, against all odds, it will buoy his faithful, and emboldened faithful can do insane things, like burning mosques, bashing gays and indiscriminately banishing immigrants. While America has become more inclusive since Jerry Falwell’s first political forays, a Tebow triumph could set those efforts back considerably.”

I mean, you could literally sing those lyrics to the tune, “If Hitler hadn’t killed six million Jews, the world would have been a much worse place.”

Interestingly, our Rabbi is a coward.  He delected those words from his blog, oh, much the way the Daily Kos deleted from its site allegations that Sarah Palin was faking her pregnancy with son Trig because the baby was really Brittany’s by incestuous relationship with her father (and Sarah’s husband).

The hatemongering continued until it was revealed that Bristol was herself pregnant – and that it was therefore biologically impossible that she could have been pregnant with Trig.  At which time the Daily Kos purged their site.  They didn’t apologize, they just slunk away like the despicable and vile cowards that they have always been.

When the going gets tough, you can always trust liberals to change their story.  Unless they can delete it and claim they never said it to begin with.

You would think of ALL people, Jews would have learned the lesson about such hateful demonization.

You would also think that a rabbi who says that Christians are so damn intolerant and hateful would think about how hypocritical he was being when he made such a despicable statement.  He literally singles Tim Tebow out – whom I’m willing to bet has never said a hateful thing about Jews or about burning mosques in his life – and attributes fanatical and deragened hate to him and to those who root for him.

But not this Jew.  And not most liberal Jews for that matter – who continue to vote for Democrats and vote for the most profoundly anti-Israel president in American history.

Understand, this attack against Tim Tebow and the Christianity said Tim Tebow believes in is just another in a long series of leftist attacks.

Now, understand, I am a fierce supporter of Israel.  Which is to say that I am FAR more pro-Israel than most American Jews (for the record, there are all KINDS of American liberal Jews who regard Israel and their fellow Jews who live there with naked contempt).  For too many liberal American Jews, the subject of “the Jewish state” is met with embarassed silence.  And liberal Democrat Jews continue to believe that liberal Jews don’t much care about Israel.  Hopefully that is changing as more American Jews understand that Barack Obama represents an existential threat to Israel that is frankly worse than the threat of Iran (and that because it frankly doesn’t matter who their enemies are if America remains her steadfast friend).

Norman Podhoretz writes a thoroughly-researched book in which we find him “maintaining that Democratic attitudes toward Israel range from unsympathetic to passionately hostile while the Republicans, with some exceptions, have been solidly to fervently supportive since the end of the 1967 Six-Day War.”

A review of Podhoretz’s book, “Why Jews Are Liberals” has this to say:

Yet, in terms of Israel support, there were reasons to think 2008 would be a good year for the GOP. John McCain’s long history of sympathy with Israel should have given him an advantage over Barack Hussein Obama, whose history consisted of associating with enemies of the Jewish state like the unapologetic bigot Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Nevertheless, proving Pod’s assertion that Statist “Jews” have not cared about Israel/Judaism for decades, Obama beat Mr. McCain among Jewish voters by roughly a 70-30 ratio. Obama did far better with Jews than with any other ethnic/religious group, sans blacks, and Podhorertz relays some stats:

The Jewish vote for him was 25 points higher than the 53% he scored with the electorate as a whole; 35 points higher than the 43% he scored with whites; 11 points higher than the 67% he scored with Hispanics; 33 points higher than the 45% he scored with Protestants; and 24 points higher than the 54% he scored with Catholics.

In his closing paragraphs, Podhoretz clarifies a final time:

“The social, political and moral system that liberals wish to transform is the very system in and through which Jews found a home such as they had never discovered in all their forced wanderings tyhroughout the centuries over the face of the earth.”

We fundamentalist Christians – unlike liberal Jews – stand strongly besides Israel and we vow to stand WITH Israel.  Even to our own hurt.  And the interesting thing is that this uberliberal rabbi implicitly affirms that.  It’s not Jews that we’re going to target if Tebot wins the Super Bowl; no sir, we’re going to burn down all the mosques and target every single immigrant BUT Jews.

At suppose that’s an improvement from this hypocrite hater; he could have accused us of hating on Jews, too.

I use the term “Judeo-Christian” to understand my faith.  I believe that Messiah Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament and said that every jot and tittle of it would ultimately be fulfilled.  That means that there is a place for Jews and a place for national Israel in God’s kingdom.  And with my fellow evangelical Christians, I eagerly wait to see that day when God brings all of His people together.  And I continue to stand up in vocal support of the state of Israel and call for America to defend God’s chosen people against her mortal enemies until that blessed day the prophets anticipated comes to pass.

That faith is far stronger than Rabbi Joshua Hammerman’s hate and bigotry.  So my attitude toward Israel and toward faithful Jews does not change so much as a single degree.

Obama Blames His Failure To Accomplish His Agenda On Republicans. BUT LISTEN TO HIM BOAST ABOUT HIS SUCCESS IN PASSING HIS AGENDA.

December 21, 2011

We’ve heard Obama blame and demonize Bush and Republicans hundreds and hundreds of times.

He’s a broken record – only he’s one of those records that, when played backward, summons Satan to destroy America.

This worthless fearmongering, demagogic turd has been constantly saying of his presidency, “Don’t look at me; it’s the Repulicans’ fault.”

But consider what Obama himself has said on the record:

I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president – with the possible exceptions of Johnson, F.D.R. and Lincoln, just in terms of what we’ve gotten done in modern history.” — Barack Obama, in 60 Minutes interview with Steve Kroft

Here’s the youtube:

Wrap yourself up in the sheer arrogance and narcissism of this incredibly pompous crap-sack for a moment.

And then think about some of the impications.  They are legion.

The one I want to focus on is this: given that in Barry Hussein’s own words, he’s been more successful at enacting his agenda than any but THREE presidents in American history, just how in the hell are the results of that agenda anybody’s fault but his and his fellow cockroach Democrats???

America has failed under Obama and because of Obama.  And until we get rid of Obama we will deservedly continue to fail until we simply economically collapse under the weight of our own debt.

And, oh, by the way, Barry Hussein, you miseable liar: if you think your “accomplishments” are so wonderful, THEN WHY THE HELL DON’T YOU RUN ON YOUR DAMN RECORD?!?!  Why won’t you run on ramming ObamaCare down America’s now-collectivist throat?  Why don’t you run on railroading the America into the totally useless pissing way of $862 billion otherwise known as the stimulus?


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 519 other followers