Democrat Hero FDR Was In Fact A Wicked Man Who Is Burning In Hell With The Blood Of Hundreds Of Thousands Of Innocent Holocaust Jews On His Hands

I had my view of Franklin Delano Roosevelt radically changed by my reading of the Burton Folsom Jr. book, New Deal Or Raw Deal? How FDR’s Economic Legacy Has Damaged America.  I challenge anyone who adores FDR to read that thoroughly documented work.  Another book to read is Amity Schlaes’ The Forgotten Man.  You end up being incredibly angry and deeply saddened at the same time as a foolish American people wickedly kept returning to the policies of a wicked man who trapped America into the misery of a terrible depression that lasted fully seven years longer than it should have.

We also find that he may have – at least if you believe in a just and righteous God – kept America trapped in a bloody world war that resulted in the deaths of over 400,000 Americans.

If you believe in God – as I do – I think it is a valid assertion that God would have given America swift victory had we tried to help God’s people the Jews instead of what we did under a despicable and callous FDR.

We know that FDR was a racist bigot who detested black people and allowed labor unions to exclude blacks from work that they desperately needed to survive the darkest days of America.

The question as to why black people have in recent years chosen to celebrate and support the party that put their ancestors in the chains of slavery, fought a vicious Civil War to keep them in those chains, invented the Ku Klux Klan as the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party to keep blacks who had been freed by Republicans in subjugation, resegregated blacks under the tyranny of “the father of the modern progressive movement” also known as the racist white supremacist Woodrow Wilson, was still so racist in 1924 that the Democratic National Convention of that year was called “Klanbake,” allowed black men to go untreated with syphilis so researchers could study the progression of the disease (the Tuskegee Experiment) throughout the entire FDR presidency, was largely THE party of racist discrimination through the 1950s, and then only passed the Civil Rights laws with the overwhelming supporting votes of Republicans, is a mystery that I will not attempt to explain.  I have no idea why black people as a culture allowed Democrats who had subjected them to one form of plantation allowed Democrats to bait and switch them into a different form of plantation (the welfare plantation of institutional generational dependency).

I will only point out that after reading about the incredible harm a wicked and cynical president did to the American economy out of bitter partisan ideology, I believed that FDR is burning in hell today.

Now, having read this piece by an expert on the Holocaust, I am certain of it (this piece was originally filed under the LA Times title, “FDR’s troubling view of Jews”):

What FDR said about Jews in private
His personal sentiments about Jews may help explain America’s tepid response to the Holocaust.
By Rafael Medoff
April 7, 2013

In May 1943, President Franklin Roosevelt met with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill at the White House. It was 17 months after Pearl Harbor and a little more than a year before D-Day. The two Allied leaders reviewed the war effort to date and exchanged thoughts on their plans for the postwar era. At one point in the discussion, FDR offered what he called “the best way to settle the Jewish question.”

Vice President Henry Wallace, who noted the conversation in his diary, said Roosevelt spoke approvingly of a plan (recommended by geographer and Johns Hopkins University President Isaiah Bowman) “to spread the Jews thin all over the world.” The diary entry adds: “The president said he had tried this out in [Meriwether] County, Georgia [where Roosevelt lived in the 1920s] and at Hyde Park on the basis of adding four or five Jewish families at each place. He claimed that the local population would have no objection if there were no more than that.”

Roosevelt’s “best way” remark is condescending and distasteful, and coming from anyone else it would probably be regarded as anti-Semitism. But more than that, FDR’s support for “spreading the Jews thin” may hold the key to understanding a subject that has been at the center of controversy for decades: the American government’s tepid response to the Holocaust.

Here’s the paradox. The U.S. immigration system severely limited the number of German Jews admitted during the Nazi years to about 26,000 annually — but even that quota was less than 25% filled during most of the Hitler era, because the Roosevelt administration piled on so many extra requirements for would-be immigrants. For example, starting in 1941, merely leaving behind a close relative in Europe would be enough to disqualify an applicant — on the absurd assumption that the Nazis could threaten the relative and thereby force the immigrant into spying for Hitler.

Why did the administration actively seek to discourage and disqualify Jewish refugees from coming to the United States? Why didn’t the president quietly tell his State Department (which administered the immigration system) to fill the quotas for Germany and Axis-occupied countries to the legal limit? That alone could have saved 190,000 lives. It would not have required a fight with Congress or the anti-immigration forces; it would have involved minimal political risk to the president.

Every president’s policy decisions are shaped by a variety of factors, some political, some personal. In Roosevelt’s case, a pattern of private remarks about Jews, some of which I recently discovered at the Central Zionist Archives in Jerusalem and from other sources, may be significant.

In 1923, as a member of the Harvard board of directors, Roosevelt decided there were too many Jewish students at the college and helped institute a quota to limit the number admitted. In 1938, he privately suggested that Jews in Poland were dominating the economy and were therefore to blame for provoking anti-Semitism there. In 1941, he remarked at a Cabinet meeting that there were too many Jews among federal employees in Oregon. In 1943, he told government officials in Allied-liberated North Africa that the number of local Jews in various professions “should be definitely limited” so as to “eliminate the specific and understandable complaints which the Germans bore towards the Jews in Germany.”

There is evidence of other troubling private remarks by FDR too, including dismissing pleas for Jewish refugees as “Jewish wailing” and “sob stuff”; expressing (to a senator ) his pride that “there is no Jewish blood in our veins”; and characterizing a tax maneuver by a Jewish newspaper publisher as “a dirty Jewish trick.” But the most common theme in Roosevelt’s private statements about Jews has to do with his perception that they were “overcrowding” many professions and exercising undue influence.

This attitude dovetails with what is known about FDR’s views regarding immigrants in general and Asian immigrants in particular.

In one 1920 interview, he complained about immigrants “crowding” into the cities and said “the remedy for this should be the distribution of aliens in various parts of the country.” In a series of articles for the Macon (Ga.) Daily Telegraph and for Asia magazine in the 1920s, he warned against granting citizenship to “non-assimilable immigrants” and opposed Japanese immigration on the grounds that “mingling Asiatic blood with European or American blood produces, in nine cases out of ten, the most unfortunate results.” He recommended that future immigration should be limited to those who had “blood of the right sort.”

FDR’s decision to imprison thousands of Japanese Americans in internment camps during World War II was consistent with his perception of Asians as having innate racial characteristics that made them untrustworthy. Likewise, he apparently viewed with disdain what he seemed to regard as the innate characteristics of Jews. Admitting significant numbers of Jewish or Asian immigrants did not fit comfortably in FDR’s vision of America.

Other U.S. presidents have made their share of unfriendly remarks about Jews. A diary kept by Harry Truman included statements such as “The Jews, I find, are very, very selfish.” Richard Nixon’s denunciations of Jews as “very aggressive and obnoxious” were belatedly revealed in tapes of Oval Office conversations.

But the revelation of Franklin Roosevelt’s sentiments will probably shock many people. After all, he led America in the war against Hitler. Moreover, Roosevelt’s public persona is anchored in his image as a liberal humanitarian, his claim to care about “the forgotten man,” the downtrodden, the mistreated. But none of that can change the record of his response to the Holocaust.

The observance of Holocaust Memorial Day begins Sunday night. It is the annual occasion to reflect on the Nazi genocide and the world’s response to it. In the case of the United States, it is sobering to consider that partly because of Roosevelt’s private prejudices, innocent people who could have been saved were instead abandoned.

Rafael Medoff is the founding director of the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies in Washington. His latest book is “FDR and the Holocaust: A Breach of Faith.”Medoff will speak Sunday at the Holocaust Memorial Day service at the Alpert Jewish Community Center in Long Beach.

I’m sorry.  Franklin Delano Roosevelt was different from Adolf Hitler HOW, exactly?  Certainly not in their vile racism or their contempt for Jews.

FDR has the documented blood of an ABSOLUTE MINIMUM of 190,000 Jews on his hands.  And given that he should have done far, far more than the “absolute minimum” to help desperate people who were condemned to miserable deaths because he wouldn’t lift a finger to help them, that number of Jews whose blood FDR has on his hands soars much the way Obama’s debt has soared.

FDR wanted to “eliminate the specific and understandable complaints which the Germans bore towards the Jews in Germany.”  The rat bastard son of a bitch actually AGREED WITH HITLER!!!

That’s one of the reasons every single American should be nauseated by this image that celebrated both the wicked Obama and his wicked predecessor in massive socialism and rabid anti-Semitism:

At the heart of the Democrat Party is a profound hatred for God, for the Judeo-Christian worldview and for the people – both Jew and Christian alike – who follow the Word of God.

At last year’s Democrat Party National Convention, they removed “God” AND Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.  The Democrat Party then illegally put them back in not because they didn’t despise God and a Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, but because of the political embarrassment they had caused themselves by being too honest with their hatred of the God of the Bible.

This is God damn America.  And we’re going to reap the same godless disaster this time around that we faced the last time.  Only this time – given the fact that this nation is more depraved than ever before – we are going to lose and lose big and lose everything.

And then Democrats will lead America into the worship of the Antichrist and the acceptance of the mark of the beast.  Because that is the hellish abyss they have been pushing America toward for decades.

As You Survey The Mess Our Culture Is In, You’ve Got To Ask: ‘How Did It Come To This?’

There was a scene in the Lord of the Rings in which King Theoden - finally realizing that a vast horde of darkness is coming against him and that his people’s situation is now all but hopeless - asks:

Where is the horse and the rider? Where is the horn that was blowing? They have passed like rain on the mountain, like wind in the meadow. The days have gone down in the West behind the hills into shadow. How did it come to this?

I ask that question of America.  The days have gone down in the West behind the hills into shadow.  In the Middle Earth of Sauron and in the America of Obama.  And the only “Return of the King” to complete the LotR trilogy will be the physical return of Christ Jesus as King of kings and Lord of lords.  And that will occur only after the world has gone through seven literal years of hell on earth otherwise known as the Tribulation.

How did it come to this?

First, liberals are the most intolerant people in America.  As you read this article, realize that our crisis stems from profound liberal intolerance.  And the worst thing of all about them is the way they continually demonize their opponents as “intolerant” for the speck of intolerance in the conservatives’ eyes when there’s a giant log of intolerance in the liberals’ eyes.

Liberals are hypocrites, period.  The quintessential ingredient to liberalism is abject moral and intellectual hypocrisy.  It’s why Al Gore sells his television station to a pro-terrorist entity owned by a filthy oil emirate.  It’s why Al Gore tried to structure the deal so he wouldn’t have to pay the higher tax rate that Obama wanted and he publicly campaigned for.  And it is most certainly why liberals continually depict themselves as the most tolerant people when in reality they are by far and away the most intolerant people of all.

Pew: Liberals most intolerant online
posted at 11:00 am on March 13, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

It’s a well-known fact that liberals are more tolerant than conservatives or moderates.  Superior liberal tolerance is such a fact that they will scream at you if you dare to disagree or debate them, demand that your advertisers bail on you, and pressure the FCC to get you banned from the airwaves.  Does that sound like tolerance to you?  A new survey from Pew confirms that liberals are the least tolerant of differing opinions, at least on line (emphasis mine):

Politics can be a sensitive subject and a number of SNS [social networking sites] users have decided to block, unfriend, or hide someone because of their politics or posting activities. In all, 18% of social networking site users have taken one of those steps by doing at least one of the following:

• 10% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because that person posted too frequently about political subjects
• 9% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they posted something about politics or issues that they disagreed with or found offensive
• 8% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they argued about political issues on the site with the user or someone the user knows
• 5% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they posted something about politics that the user worried would offend other friends
• 4% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they disagreed with something the user posted about politics

Of course, that means that 82% of SNS users have not taken any steps to ignore or disconnect from someone whose views are different – or have not encountered any views that would prompt such a move.

Liberals are the most likely to have taken each of these steps to block, unfriend, or hide. In all, 28% of liberals have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on SNS because of one of these reasons, compared with 16% of conservatives and 14% of moderates.

It’s not even all that close, as their chart shows:

Andrew Malcolm has some fun with the implications:

Not exactly shocking news for those exposed to them for years, but the respected Pew Research Center has determined that political liberals are far less tolerant of opposing views than regular Americans.

In a new study, the Pew Center for the Internet and American Life Project confirmed what most intelligent Americans had long sensed. That is, whenever they are challenged or confronted on the hollow falsity of their orthodoxy  — such as, say, uniting diverse Americans — liberals tend to respond defensively with anger, even trying to shut off or silence critics. (i.e. photo above of President Obama reacting to Boston hecklers.)

The new research found that instead of engaging in civil discourse or debate, fully 16% of liberals admitted to blocking, unfriending or overtly hiding someone on a social networking site because that person expressed views they disagreed with. That’s double the percentage of conservatives and more than twice the percentage of political moderates who behaved like that.

For some full disclosure, I’ve blocked more than a few people on Twitter.  I didn’t do it for disagreements, but for being unpleasant about disagreements.  I consider Twitter to be a true social network; I don’t hang out with unpleasant people in real life, and so I see no need to do so in virtual life.  Twitter is my water cooler, my hangout in slack time between bursts of writing.  I’m happy to have a debate, but when it gets insulting, unpleasant, and intellectually dishonest, I take a pass.

Even if that counts in the Pew poll (and I’d argue that it doesn’t), I’d be in a small minority among conservatives — and to be fair, it’s a small minority among liberals too.  It’s just that it’s a statistically significant larger minority among liberals.  While Gloria Steinem and Jane Fonda demand that the government act to silence Rush Limbaugh for challenging their orthodoxy, Forbes’ Dave Serchuk points out the irony, the hypocrisy — and the unintended consequences:

Imagine this scenario: you are a lifelong liberal. You pretty much hate everything Rush Limbaugh stands for, and says. You are really glad that the times have finally seemed to have caught up to him, and that people are outraged by his callous, gross comments. So what do you do next? You do theone thing that will make him a sympathetic figure. You call on the FCC to remove him.

Think this is just not-very-good satire? If only. Nope, I draw from this example because in an opinion piece just published on CNN.com Jane Fonda, Gloria Steinem, and Robin Morgan did exactly this. In the process they seem to have played into the exact stereotype of the thin-skinned, hypocritical liberal. One who supports the First Amendment and freedom of speech … except for when they don’t.

Here is the lame excuse they offered for why the heavy hand of government sponsored censorship should come down on Limbaugh, a guy who seemed to be doing a pretty good imitation of a man hoist on his own petard anyway.

“Radio broadcasters are obligated to act in the public interest and serve their respective communities of license. In keeping with this obligation, individual radio listeners may complain to the FCC that Limbaugh’s radio station (and those syndicating his show) are not acting in the public interest or serving their respective communities of license by permitting such dehumanizing speech.”

Umm, okay. But isn’t there something called ratings that are a truer indication of what these respective communities already want? And shouldn’t that count the most? Don’t ratings (i.e. “popularity”) in fact tell the FCC just whom the public thinks serves their interest? Whether we like it or not?

Why do they go for the block rather than provide an alternative?  Michael Medved says they can’t compete — and need government to intervene:

Limbaugh’s critics seem unable to accept the fact that many of their fellow citizens actually appreciate the opportunity to listen to his opinions on a regular basis, so rather than persuade those poor benighted souls to listen to something else, they mean to take away the broadcast that they enjoy.

Why not try to build an eager new audience for liberal opinion leaders and steal listeners from Rush and the rest of us who host right-leaning shows? How about recruiting the most outrageous and opinionated voices on the left, syndicating their shows in major markets, and promoting these fresh, progressive voices with a catchy moniker like “Air America”?

Oh wait, that’s been tried, starting in 2004 and proceeding (intermittently) till 2010 when chronically low ratings and bankruptcy court performed a belated mercy killing on the ill-fated experiment. It’s true that some of the Air America “stars” ultimately found their way to other opportunities—with Rachel Maddow hosting a successful TV program on MSNBC, and the insufferable Al Franken enjoying an unlikely career in the U.S. Senate.

But attempts to create viable radio alternatives to Rush and other right wingers have never gained traction, so rather than continuing to compete in the open market place, lefties merely yearn to shut down the other side with sponsor boycotts, public pressure or, most obnoxiously, the so-called Fairness Doctrine. Fortunately, Barack Obama has consistently opposed the Fairness Doctrine, but many of the Democratic colleagues have promoted it for years, with Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, and—most adamantly—that heroic public servant John Edwards providing support.

Well, it’s not exactly news that the Intolerant Tolerance Hysterics are all about choices that they want to dictate to people, too, even if (or especially if) it involved the use of “an oppressive, invidious authoritarian relic” like the Fairness doctrine.  Don’t expect them to understand that irony, Mssrs. Serchuk and Medved, but thank you for pointing it out.  They can unfriend and block all they want on social networking, because those are personal choices not to listen to differing opinions, and every American has that choice.  The problem is when they want government to unfriend and block so that no one has that choice — and that’s the kind of intolerance that’s much more dangerous than humorous.

Don’t worry, kids at home.  Liberals say that conservatives are intolerant; and if anybody else disagrees with liberals, well, those people are all intolerant, too.  And according to liberals – who are the high priests of tolerance – it is perfectly okay to be tolerant and even fascist to intolerant people.

You need to understand how we got to be in such a cultural mess, where 88% of Americans think one way but the 12% who think practically opposite the majority have been able to pretty much make up all the rules.  And our society is about to collapse because their rules are evil and frankly fascist to go along with failed.

Let us return to the main point: the secret for the collapse that will plunge us into a collapse unlike ever seen in history is liberal fascist intolerance.

I have come to believe that we are in the last days before the Tribulation and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.  Based on that view, I understand that God prophetically warned man in His Word that as we neared the end, man would increasingly turn away from God and fall into the errors that He warned us about.  I also understand that the same God who told us it would happen 2,000 years ago and beyond is in control, and is allowing the last days to finally come upon the world.  I’ll say that from the outset.

I’m talking to a lot of Christians who have used the word “despair” to describe how they feel about the way America is going.  They somehow felt the world would just keep getting better and better and of course the exact opposite is happening.  And I want you to understand that, for me, Bible prophecy is a great comfort.  Again, I see so many signs that God predicted as a sign the last days were coming to pass and it makes me all the more certain and confident in my faith in God.  The U.S. is now over $225 trillion in actual debt when you add in the unfunded mandates of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.  It is growing by about one trillion dollars every single month.  And you ought to be able to see the signs that if we fall down we will NEVER get back on our feet the way we did in the years following the Great Depression (recognizing that FDR stalled that recovery by seven years according to economists) with his failed liberal policies.  We were the most productive nation on earth at that time in terms of manufacturing; we were a creditor nation rather than a debtor nation at that time; our citizens were NOT consuming mass welfare the way we overwhelmingly are now, nor would they have stood for the kind of sloth that passes for normalcy today; and we had just won a world war and were frankly the only economy on earth that hadn’t been destroyed.  When we fall now – and we WILL fall in the next twenty years – we will shatter into pieces and those pieces will never be reconstituted.  America will be a relatively insignificant banana republic or group of banana republics.  The day our economy crashes we will lose the status that has allowed us to accumulate such a super massive debt – our status as the world’s reserve currency - and it will all be over for us.

America isn’t mentioned in Bible prophecy.  All the other major nations and regions – such as Russia, Europe and Asia ARE mentioned.  America has largely already guaranteed that it simply will not matter in the coming years.  We had a vote and literally determined to follow the path of the Dodo bird to certain extinction.  There are famously nine stages of civilization.  Last year we were in the seventh, but this election put us over the top of number eight - we voted for entitlements and to become a dependency-based society.  In our final age, bondage will mean bondage of the very worst kind: bondage to the coming Antichrist.

I neither take comfort nor rejoice in that sad, tragic and pathetic end for America.  I rejoice and take comfort in the fact that God has a plan for His people – and I am one of His people.  I need neither weep nor worry.  My treasure is in heaven and I don’t have to fear how much Obama or the beast who will succeed him will take away on earth.

I have another home to go to – and it will be a far grander land than this one ever was even in its brightest day of promise.  And frankly, my faith in the next land (Heaven) grows stronger even as this one (America) grows weaker and weaker.

But why does it happen?  How did we sink this low?

Our modern media descended from the propaganda of World Wars One And Two.  Walter Lippmann and Edward Bernays were men who believed that people could and frankly SHOULD be manipulated.  They believed that a class of cultural elites should anoint themselves to serve as gatekeepers and ensure that their secular humanist worldview and values would be advanced and rival worldviews and values would be defeated.  You simply cannot read the writings of these fathers of journalism and media elitism and not see that common thread in their work.

What I’m saying is that when it comes to journalism and modern media, you cannot say that conservatives ever “lost control” over these institutions – because we never had any control over them to begin with.  They were never anything other than secular humanist and liberal progressive in orientation.  And all it took was for the technology to become sufficiently powerful and all-encompassing that their domination of the media would translate to their being able to dictate to mass culture what to think and what to believe.  And here we are.

The power of media was used against Christianity in 1960 with an incredibly dishonest piece of propaganda titled Inherit the Wind (see also here).  And the order of magnitude in terms of media manipulation has grown by giant leaps and bounds in the over fifty years since.  Most people – the 88 percent above – understand that they are being routinely lied to with outright propaganda.  The problem is that even though they know they’re being brainwashed, they’re STILL being brainwashed.  The media is altering people’s perceptions much the way the constant ocean tide wears away even the rocks let alone the sand; it is the inevitable result of being washed over with lies again and again and again and again, ad infinitum.

How did the secular humanist left gain control over academia?  Christians unwittingly played a giant part in that.  Do you know how many of the first universities in America were founded by Christians?  How about pretty much ALL of them.  Of the first 108 universities founded in America, 106 were distinctly Christian.  That trend continued long into America’s journey as a nation: I just got through reading an excellent article about the incredibly enormous role Christian churches and denominations played in the establishment of virtually all of the schools, universities and hospitals in the American West.  Education was almost ENTIRELY up to Christian churches and denominations.

Then what turned out to be a Faustian bargain was struck.  Government took over the education system, ostensibly allowing the churches and denominations to pursue other noble work such as the mission fields.  It didn’t take long for the same government that had protected human slavery and created the Trail of Tears to begin systematically removing Scripture, God and prayer from the classrooms and thus from the children of each successive generation’s minds.

Christians stepped away from the work of education that they had historically devoted themselves to and began to put the overwhelming majority of their funds into their churches and their missionaries.  Meanwhile, liberals began to place virtually all of their funds into the universities and thus began to increasingly shape the curricula.

Ultimately, as a result, the Christians who began the universities and schools found themselves completely shut out of their own progeny.

Look what’s happened.  Liberals have purged out conservatives.  The snootiest, most hoity toity, most sanctimonious lecturers about “tolerance” are THE most intolerant people of all:

College faculties, long assumed to be a liberal bastion, lean further to the left than even the most conspiratorial conservatives might have imagined, a new study says.

By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans.

The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative.

“What’s most striking is how few conservatives there are in any field,” said Robert Lichter, a professor at George Mason University and a co-author of the study. “There was no field we studied in which there were more conservatives than liberals or more Republicans than Democrats. It’s a very homogenous environment, not just in the places you’d expect to be dominated by liberals.” [...]

Rothman sees the findings as evidence of “possible discrimination” against conservatives in hiring and promotion. Even after factoring in levels of achievement, as measured by published work and organization memberships, “the most likely conclusion” is that “being conservative counts against you,” he said. “It doesn’t surprise me, because I’ve observed it happening.” The study, however, describes this finding as “preliminary.”

By the way, I’m “possibly” liberal by that standard of measurement.  Yeah, being conservative or being a Christian (and recall that it was the Democrat Party that voted to remove “God” from its party platform until God was illegally put back into the platform amid a chorus of boos) most definitely “counts against you” in the stacked deck that liberalism has created to benefit itself and punish its enemies.  As Professor Guillermo Gonzalez found out the hard way when liberals denied him tenure because he had the gall to write a book expressing his belief in an intelligent designer of the universe.  And after denying him tenure because he believed in God and they are fascists, they fired a professor who should by all rights have been celebrated.

Because liberals are in fact the most intolerant people.  Once they took over the universities, they made very certain that they would never lose that control by making certain that conservative faculty would be systematically denied tenure and purged out.

That was our strike two for us.  Liberals got into the education system and then barricaded the door behind them.

By the way, the two fields of academia liberals most hijacked were the fields of education and law.  They trained up the teachers and the lawyers who would be able to indoctrinate their students and more lawyers who would be able to basically make the Constitution an infinitely malleable document that basically means whatever liberals think it means.  By taking over education, liberals were able to introduce increasingly and frankly wildly failed teaching methodologies that brainwashed kids into liberalism without bothering to teach them reading, writing, arithmetic and history.  Our government school system has completely broken down and failed because liberals turned education into indoctrination.  And what is even worse, the more liberal teaching methodologies fail, the more liberals exploit their failure to usher in even WORSE methodologies.  It has become a vicious circle.

Strike three for conservatives and for the United States of America was when liberals seized control of the government.  They didn’t do it by winning elections; they did it by stacking the government employees with leftwing union thuggery.

FDR said that government employee unions were unAmerican.  And of course he was right.  But as far to the left as FDR was in the 1930s and 1940s, he didn’t even begin to hold a candle to just how radically far the Democrat Party would go to to undermine the United States of America.  FDR said:

“All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. … Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.”

Unions are completely dead in America in the private sector, where they have killed jobs and crushed entire industries.  But they dominate government employees.  And if Mitt Romney and Republicans were to have won the election, they would not have been able to significantly change the way government “works” (in quotes because in the vast majority of respects, government doesn’t “work” at all).  That is because virtually every level and layer of government “service” is as dominate by liberals as the kitchen floor of a filthy house is dominated by cockroaches.

You’ve got the government as an entity unto itself whose primary purpose is to create more government, more government jobs and more government workers with more lavish government pensions and benefits that are borne on the backs of the taxpayer.

The aim of the Democrat Party and the aim of the government unions is identical: to explode the size and power of government and to make government employees an elite, privileged class of masters over the rest of society.  Their collective goal is to attain government power that allows them to dominate forever by being able to be able to pick the winners and losers and the victims and villains of society.

And they have largely attained that power.  Once a government bureaucracy is created, it can never be undone; the liberals who own government by what FDR said was an immoral tactic have never allowed it and WILL never allow it.

There’s a reason for this that goes to what I said above about how Christians trained their people to go into the mission field and liberals trained their people to go into government: and that is, for liberals, serving government is tantamount and in fact even greater than serving God.  Liberals have simply flooded government and there is no practical way to purge the influence that even FDR said was illegitimately obtained.

There are other reasons that our culture became toxic and doomed, of course.

“Political correctness” is a huge factor.

Political correctness is not just an attempt to make people feel better. It’s a vast, coordinated effort on the part of the secular humanist, socialist left to change Western culture as we know it by  using rhetoric to redefine it. Early Marxists in Russia designed this game plan long ago and liberals continue to execute the tactic today: to control the argument by controlling the “acceptable” language. Those with radical agendas understand the game plan and are taking advantage of an oversensitive and frankly overly gullible public.

With the “news” media, with academia and with government at their beck and call, to go along with liberal Hollywood culture, it was easy to tell people what to think.

Liberals have used boycotts to devastating effect; while conservatives say boycotts are wrong and refuse to call for them.  The result of this disparity is that our businesses are vulnerable and exposed to incredible pressure from the left, while liberal businesses are completely safe.

I think of two recent examples of how the difference between liberalism and conservatism works in the form of two athletes.

Phil Mickelson “sinned” by saying that the tax burden that Democrats were demanding he pay – basically 63 percent of everything he makes – was far too high, and that he was fleeing the Socialist Republic of California as a result.  Do you think it’s unreasonable for Mickelson to say that he disagrees that Obama is 63 percent responsible for his success and that he’s only at most 37 percent responsible for his success?  This gets us right back to Obama’s, “you didn’t build that, government did” argument.  Mickelson was so viciously demonized that he went out something like four times to mea culpa and say he was terribly wrong to say stuff like that.  On my count he came out four separate times begging people to please quit hating him for believing he had a right to express his views in Amerikkka.

The second recent example is San Francisco 49er player Chris Culliver, who expressed his opinion that he would not personally feel comfortable having an open homosexual player on the team.  And of course, he was quickly broken as liberals demanded he literally be fired for expressing his views.

How many celebrities have been celebrated and adored by the liberal media culture for saying that celebrities should “pay their fair share” with high taxes and that homosexuality is so wonderful it’s even better than sliced bread?  Were they forced to do a perp walk and apologize for their remarks?  Not a chance.

You see, here’s the difference between liberals and conservatives.  Conservatives believe that people – even liberals – have a right to express their views and beliefs.  Conservatives believe that our nation with its freedoms and liberty should not persecute people merely for expressing a viewpoint that they disagree with.  Liberals, on the other hand, are fascists who brutally and viciously attack anyone who doesn’t bow down to their agenda.  You do NOT have the freedom of self-expression if you use that freedom to say something that liberals don’t like.  They will come after you with stunning hatred if you try to do so.

Liberals are people who routinely shout down everyone with whom they disagree.  You do not have the right to say anything that offends them.  They will simply come after you in full-fledged fascisti mode.

Genuine tolerance is a weapon that liberals have turned against conservatives.  As liberal activist Saul Alinsky – who devoted his book to Satan - said:

“Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.”

And of course liberals like Al Gore have no “book of rules” to have to live up to.  They can preach radical environmentalism and demonize oil for years.  They can say that people ought to pay their “fair share” of taxes.  And then – like Al Gore – they can sell out to a terrorist “journalism” network funded entirely by oil money and try to structure the deal so they don’t have to pay Obama’s sky-high tax rates.  But because they always parroted the liberal vision – no matter how hypocritically – they’re on hallowed ground with the vast majority of the propaganda machine a.k.a. journalism in America.

Liberals are currently decrying guns, because everybody knows that human beings are merely farm animals incapable of exercising personal responsibility or self-restraint.  Guns must be taken away from the law-abiding even if it makes them utterly helpless in a deteriorating society because that’s the only solution that liberals will allow.  I submit that there aren’t too many guns; there are too many abortions.  There aren’t to many guns; there’s too much pornography.  There aren’t too many guns; there’s too little respect for the dignity of human life that the abortion culture and the pornography culture that liberals fought so hard to institute guarantees.  There aren’t too many guns; there’s too much lawless disregard for justice that liberals (the ACLU being your classic example) have produced throughout our legal culture.

We kicked God’s butt right out of our schools, banned prayer, banned the Ten Commandments with its “Thou shalt not murder” and we’re just astonished that the children who grew up godless in liberal indocrination facilities a.k.a. our public school system would actualize the disgusting hatred of life that liberalism produced in their empty souls.

And now liberals are exploiting the gun violence that their policies produced in the first place to implement their next step in the Stalinist takeover of America.

And that’s why we’ve lost.  And why the America we stood for is now basically eradicated.

And those three strikes plus are why America is going to go down and go down hard.  King Theoden ultimately won; America is ultimately going to lose and then the beast will come just as God told us would happen.  Theoden’s enemies were outside the walls; America’s enemies are very much within.

‘Separation Of Church And State’:The Theory That Government Should Grow Larger And More Powerful And Religion Should Grow Smaller And More Marginalized

Those who claim that the doctrine of the separation of church and state is in the Constitution are frauds.  It is NOT.  The concept existed in a private letter written by a man who did not write so much as a single word of the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights which followed the Constitution.  Oh, and Jefferson’s intent in using the phrase “wall of separation between church and state” was wildly taken out of context and applied in a manner in which Jefferson is even now rolling in his grave (and see here).

What is the clear result of this doctrine?  It is one thing: that government should have absolutely no limit on its growing power and influence while religion should be marginalized and forbidden from increasing areas of discourse.

Now the government of “God damn America” can impose abortion and the radical homosexual agenda on the church and the church is immoral for publicly decrying the impositions.

Another great authority, one Franklin Delano Roosevelt, said that there ought to be a wall of separation between LABOR UNIONS and the state:

“Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.”

Not that that mattered.  I mean, FDR didn’t have much more to do with the Constitution than Jefferson did, but somehow you don’t see liberal Supreme Court Justices dictating that all government unions be immediately abolished citing FDR the way they so gleefully cite Jefferson to undermine and replace religion in America.

But wouldn’t it be nice if FDR phrases such as “a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government” and that government labor unions represent “the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it” the way they exploited Jefferson’s phraseology???

But lets just stick with the words of the founding fathers.  Because we can stick with them all the livelong day and make our point.  In fact, let’s just stick with the words of Thomas Jefferson for a while.  Because it’s rather easy to demonstrate that the liberal justices who decreed that Jefferson’s words were the soul of the Constitution even though they had nothing whatsoever to do with the Constitution dishonestly and blatantly ignored pretty much absolutely everything else that Jefferson ever said.

It’s a shame that the liberals on the Supreme Court fixated on Jefferson’s words that could be twisted and distorted to attack religion in America rather than focus on OTHER words of Jefferson that would have shaped a better society such as:

“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.”

And:

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”

And:

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”

And:

“If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.”

And:

“To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”

And:

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”

Why hasn’t Ruth Bader Ginsburg changed America with these words by Jefferson the way her ideological liberal judicial forerunners changed America with words by Jefferson???

A nation in which there was a rigid separation of labor unions from government would be a far better and stronger one than the one that we have now which wars against and undermines the influence of religion.  And I say that conclusively based on the clear words of our founding fathers that the liberal justices of the Supreme Court chose to deliberately and studiously ignore while instead choosing a few words radically out of context to hamstring the free exercise of religion.

“Of all the habits and dispositions which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.  In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars.” — George Washington

“We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” — John Adams

“…And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion…reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” –- George Washington, Farewell Address, Sept 17, 1796

“Religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness.” –- Samuel Adams, Letter to John Trumbull, October 16, 1778

“The great pillars of all government and of social life [are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor…and this alone, that renders us invincible.” –- Patrick Henry, Letter to Archibald Blair, January 8, 1789

I would argue it’s a damn shame that liberal justices seized Jefferson’s “wall of separation” line while refusing to acknowledge what Thomas Jefferson said about THEM and their fascist abuse of judical-tyrant power:

“This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt.” —Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

“The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.” —Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.” —Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

I hope you see the hypocrisy by now.

Liberals are people who want to destroy the last vestige of true religion in America while imposing the union agenda in the church’s place.  And if they can literally read a phrase such as “wall of separation between church and state” while specifically omitting the rest of the context of the letter those words are found in, and then blatantly ignore the very clear intent of the founding fathers that America needed to be what Lincoln described as “one nation under God,” well, they’re liberal ideologues and that’s what liberal ideologues do.

Which is why the beast is coming.

Why Did John Roberts Play Brutus In The Shakespearean Tragedy Of ObamaCare?

We even had key swing vote Anthony Kennedy on our side.

We had the opinion being written by BUSH’S pick for Supreme Court Justice.  It was in the bag for conservatives.

All over America – even in the WHITE HOUSE – people were looking at the decision and initially believing it was a 5-4 ruling against ObamaCare.  People read what Roberts in his majority opinion wrote about the the unconstitutionality of ObamaCare as it pertained to the Commerce Clause:

The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority.

And it seemed to everyone that the decision had been to strike ObamaCare down.  The majority opinion clearly states that ObamaCare is unconstitutional if the mandate derives from the Commerce Clause, as ObamaCare in fact did derive it’s authority.

When suddenly the worm turned.

Yes, the mandate, the very heart of ObamaCare, was ruled unconstitutional.  But John Roberts decided if he just rewrote the law to make the mandate a tax and the power deriving not from the Commerce Clause but from the power of Congress to tax, it would fix everything.

In the minority opinion that should have been a MAJORITY opinion given that all the conservative justices but that Bush-picked guy supported it along with Anthony Kennedy, the statement was:

[T]o say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it. Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling.

ObamaCare was NOT a tax.  We have Democrats and Obama on the record saying that all over the place and actively arguing with anybody who said it was a tax:

STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.

OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.

Here’s more of the exchange with Stephanopoulos in which we can now saw with complete factual certainty that Barack Obama lied to the American people:

STEPHANOPOULOS: “Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?”

PRESIDENT OBAMA: “No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase.

But Obama lied to you. It IS a tax increase.

And none other than Bush Justice John Roberts rewrote the law to “fundamentally transform” it to turn what was in every Democrat’s words NOT a tax increase (and therefore unconstitutional according to the decision yesterday) into a tax increase (and therefore “constitutional enough” for John Roberts).

John Roberts played the role of Brutus in being that sudden, surprise stab in the back.

Why in the hell would he do this?  Why would he abandon his conservative philosophy and betray not only conservatives but America itself?

Well, in a nutshell, here’s why:

Today Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) took to the Senate floor to warn his colleagues and President Obama about public comments about the Supreme Court as it deliberates the health care case.

“Attempts to manipulate or to bully the Supreme Court, especially during deliberations in a particular proceeding, are irresponsible and they tend to threaten the very fabric of our constitutional republic, ” Lee said during a floor speech.

Lee was responding in part to a speech in May by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). Leahy took to the Senate floor to warn the Supreme Court, particularly Chief Justice John Roberts, not to strike down the Affordable Care Act.

Leahy said that when he attended oral arguments in March he “was struck by how little respect some of the Justices showed to Congress.” He said some of the justices seemed “dismissive” of the months of work—including dozens of hearings—on the part of both the House and the Senate to enact the law.

Leahy singled out Roberts, explaining why he had voted for him during the Chief Justice’s confirmation hearings: “I trusted he would act to fulfill his responsibilities in accordance with the testimony he gave to the United States Senate. I said then that if I thought he would easily reject precedent or use his position on the Supreme Court as a bulwark for activism, I would not have supported his confirmation.”

During a Rose Garden ceremony in April President Obama said, “Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

Chief Justice John Roberts, to his great personal disgrace, put the “reputation” of the Supreme Court ahead of the law, the Constitution, and the nation.

And he did so in the face of frankly terrorist threats to delegitimize the SCOTUS that Roberts – who was appointed directly to the role of Chief Justice by George W. Bush – loves more than anything.

Call it the Stockholm Syndrome, which amounts to the desire for a captive to please the terrorists in order to stay alive.

John Roberts, we are now told, almost certainly switched his vote.

We have never seen a president demonize the Supreme Court the way Barack Obama did when he started the terrorist-threat ball rolling.  George Bush was confronted with a decision that he came out and announced he disagreed with immediately before stating that he respected the Court and would follow the law.  Obama flat-out stated that if the Supreme Court overturned his ObamaCare, this “unelected body” would be exceeding its authority and would no longer be deemed legitimate.

Obama directly threatened the Supreme Court.  His terrorist bomb was the “extraordinary disruption” of Medicare that his “law” had already created and he would see turn into total chaos to punish America if ObamaCare wasn’t upheld.

There was the threat to implode the Medicare system, yes.  There was the demonization of the Supreme Court as an illegitimate body that was all over the place, yes (conservatives kept asking liberals, but what are you going to say if ObamaCare is upheld?).  That demonization was ALL over the place as every liberal crawled out to join in on the Supreme Court bashing in the days before the decision.

And John Roberts blinked.  He switched his vote to appease the demonic, rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth Democrat hate-machine that had been switched on by Barack Obama.

Everyterrorist will confidently tell you something: terrorism works.  That’s why we do it.

The narrative was as follows: John Roberts was troubled by the 2000 lawsuit in which the SCOTUS ultimately ruled that George Bush won the election and the left decried the Supreme Court as a politically biased institution.  And John Roberts listened to Barack Obama’s threat and his ugly words about the Court he loved, he listened to Democrats like Patrick Leahy and Charles Schumer, he listened to all the liberal punditry and he realized that the only way to save the reputation of the Supreme Court from charges of bias was to side with the liberals.

Now, interestingly, there was never any pressure on the four liberals to not rule in lockstep liberal fashion.  This idea of “bias” that was crafted by the left to demonize the SCOTUS doesn’t work that way; it only works against conservatives for ruling according to their conservative philosophy.  Liberals are free to be as biased and as political and as ideological and as partisan as they want.  So there was never any pressure whatsoever for the four liberal justices to ever rule in any other manner but according to their lockstep-liberalism.

Nope.  It was the five Republican-appointed Justices who had to cave.

We were told that a 5-4 decision against Obama would be dreadful.  But if there were to be a 5-4 decision FOR ObamaCare, well, “The highest Court in the land has spoken.”

So John Roberts “fixed” everything.  Just listen to the Democrats and the liberal media praising Roberts and the Court now???  And all he had to do was utterly abandon his conservative principles.  It’s that easy.  It’s just as easy for Republicans in the House and the Senate.  “Bi-partisan compromise” isn’t when 17 Democrats join Republicans in holding Obama Attorney General Holder in contempt; no.  It is when 3 Republicans join Democrats in passing the stimulus.

The Democrats demonized the Court as a political body, and that cut Roberts to the core so much that he was willing to do whatever it took to keep Democrats from politicizing the Court.  Even if it meant politicizing the Court by rewriting a law that his own decision argued was unconstitutional without rewriting the law (with said rewriting the statute being a very political thing to do).

If you want to see true politicizing of the Supreme Court – just as if you want to see ANYTHING evil in America, whether it be slavery, or the Ku Klux Klan, or re-segregation, or the resurgance of the Ku Klux Klan in the 20th Century under the banner of the Democrat Party, or racist union-imposed segregationism, or putting people in camps - you look at DEMOCRATS.  And what is so for everything else is so in the case of the politicization of the Supreme Court: FDR tried to pack the court with “yes men” judges when the Supreme Court told him much of his New Deal was unconstitutional.  And you throw in what the Democrat Party did to destroy Robert Bork and the “high-tech lynching” they demonized Clarence Thomas with, and you ought to get the picture.

Chris Matthews actually libeled John Roberts by comparing him to the judge who passed the fugitive slave act:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: You know, one other concern here, Ezra, a friend of mine, who is a fellow Roman Catholic said, he doesn’t want to be the second Roger Taney. Roger Taney, of course, was a Roman Catholic who upheld the Fugitive Slave Law back before the Civil War and was villainized throughout history because of that.

The Democrat Party overwhelmingly passed the fugitive slave act over Republican opposition.  It is frankly evil to so turn history on its head.  But since when did facts matter to liberal propagandists like Chris Matthews?

Terrorist Democrats had planted a bomb under the foundation of the Supreme Court of the United States.  Only by bowing down to the left could the SCOTUS be allowed to be viewed as “credible” or “legitimate.”  It only works one way.

I agree with the Democrats who say the Supreme Court is a purely political body.  Given that presidents pick the judges, how on earth could it be anything else?  And why should Republicans feel guilt over the fact that Republicans have held the highest elected office in the land than Democrats, such that they have an advantage in “picks”???

Why is it a travesty of justice if five Republican justices decide the law from their philosophy but it wouldn’t be a travesty of justice if five Democrat justices decided the law from their philosophy, apart from the very partisan bias that the left had been dumping on the Supreme Court in the months before Roberts caved?

Let me take this a little bit further, to the practical level: Republican presidents – including the hated George W. Bush – have appointed two of the justices who sided with liberals in monumental decisions like ObamaCare (President Ford appointed John Paul Stevens to go with John Roberts).  Oh, and perennial swing vote Anthony Kennedy was appointed by Reagan.  Consider that Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan will NEVER rule with the conservatives on a major issue.  They were in lock-fascist goose-step on ObamaCare.

If John Roberts ever wanted to be welcom at another hoity-toity Georgetown cocktail circuit soiree, well, he knew what he had to do (hint, hint: the same thing that Brutus knew he had to do to Caesar).  Because he would have been a poster boy for left wing contempt if he’d decided the way he apparently clearly had decided before caving into the intimidation of the left and changing his tune.  Now Roberts has miraculously been transformed from right-wing goon to hero (see also here for the same).

It only works one way, you see.

Like the horror of a 5-4 decision overturning ObamaCare, as NBC anchor David Gregory amply documents:

Early the 7 a.m. et hour of Today, Gregory melodramatically fretted over the possibility of ObamaCare being ruled unconstitutional: “What happens if it is struck down in part or in whole by a 5 to 4 decision? Would that not underscore how dysfunctional our government is, the major institutions of our government are? That is a real nightmare scenario, I think, for the political class in this country.”

Now a 5-4 decision is wonderful and healthy for the nation.  Now “the highest court in the land has spoken.”

What a million metric tons of manure.

Let’s just all agree with the Democrats the days before the ObamaCare decision.  The Supreme Court is nothing more than nine political hacks wearing weird black robes like evil priests of some strange god that has nothing to do with us.

The thing that most bothers me is that “justice” is very much working against conservatives.  And that is because the way the game is being played.  You’ve got the liberal “justices” who can do ANYTHING.  They can literally make up rights (such as “privacy”) to use those made up rights to then make up other rights (abortion).  And how did they justify abortion?  Did they find it in the Constitution?  Nope.  But they found – and this in their very own words – “penumbras and emanations” of abortion in there when they stared into the Constitution like a crystal ball.

What on earth do conservatives have to fight against penumbras and emanations?  We read the Constitution like it actually MEANS SOMETHING and seek the intent of the founding fathers who didn’t intend us to make up whatever we needed to make up to justify whatever the hell we want to do.

Maybe at some point we’ll have the rightwing equivalent of liberal justices who will use the ObamaCare verdict against liberals by forcing all Americans to buy Bibles or pay a “tax” and then force all Americans to go to church or pay a “tax” and then force all Americans to buy a gun or pay a “tax.”  Maybe we’ll have a rightwing president who will decide to arbitrarily abrogate the tax laws the way Obama abrogated immigration law and simply declare that he will not enforce the laws against any American who refuses to pay capital gains taxes.

The reason we’re going to ultimately lose this war for American culture is because in order to do things like this, we’d have to sacrifice our core principles.  Whereas the left have no such principles to sacrifice.

Again, principle is something that only works one way.

In the short run this could actually work out well for Republicans.  Remember, it was the rage of ObamaCare that prompted Americans to come out in droves and give the Republican Party the largest landslide win in history.  And now that issue is right back on the table.  The Supreme Court won’t save us; we must save ourselves from Obama and his tyranny in November.  And that was when ObamaCare was a mandate and not the largest tax in the history of the United States directly smacking the middle class.

The long run is another beast entirely.  America will lose in the long run.  Because too many critical things only work one way.  I’ve listed several above, but there are many other cancers, such as spending and debt.  They can only work one way – and that one way is taking us up like a rocketship until we come down in utter economic collapse.  This is because it is simply too easy for the left to demonize the right over ANY cut in spending.  If Republicans cut spending its because they’re greedy and want to protect the rich at the poor’s expense, etc. etc.  And Republicans will do the very same thing that John Roberts did and blink and then cave in the face of demonic attack.  And as a result America will never be able to cut spending enough to save itself.

The beast is coming.  The Bible tells us that this Antichrist will be a big government world leader who will literally be worshiped as he leads the world straight into hell.  Prior to these last few years, my major stumbling block in believing this was America; how could America do such a thing as worship the beast and take his mark? 

Those illusions have been utterly dispelled.  The beast will come.  When he does America will vote for him.  And then worship him.  And then take his mark.  And then burn in hell forever and ever.

The Private Sector’s Doing Fine? It’s Time To Smack Down Government Unions And Their Useful Idiot Obama Once And For All

One of the facts of history is that even Franklin Delano Roosevelt believed that government unions was un-American and inherently dangerous (see here and also here).  FDR pointed out the fact that for a government employee, “the employer was the whole people” and described strikes by public union workers – which have happened many, many times, for what it’s worth – as something that:

“manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.”

It is a morbid, not to mention sick and twisted, fact that public unions now own the Democrat Party.  Big union money represents more than TEN TIMES any Republican Party special interest money.

Obama’s utterly asinine statement that “the public sector’s doing fine” was an inherent plea for the American people to sacrifice themselves, their families and their economic interests in order to make government and the government unions that are in bed with the Democrat Party bigger.

The reality is that the private sector labor force has massively shrank to its lowest rate in more than thirty-one years under the failed policies of Barack Obama.  And even worse, as that article documents, the numbers keep moving IN THE WRONG DIRECTION.  Obama’s “improved” unemployment rate is a load of bunk: the only reason the rate has decreased is because the millions who drop out of the labor force are no longer counted.  The fact is that 88 MILLION working age Americans are idly sitting on their asses under Obama’s absolute failure as president.

As another real-term measure of how frankly evil Obama’s assertion that “the private sector’s doing fine,” the median wage – which Obama demonized George Bush’s presidency for a $2,000 decline over eight years – has declined a shocking $4,300 since Obama took office.  Which is to say that Obama is actually well over four times as much a failure as the president he has made his entire presidency about demonizing.

“Doing fine” my ass.

But let’s get back to the other side of the equation, the public unions, that Obama wants you to help pave right over your own grave.

Public unions have been a mistake that have been “progressively” poisoning America for the last 50 years.  It is long past time to correct that mistake – with an axe:

The End Nears for a 50-Year Mistake
Jeff Jacoby
Jun 10, 2012

In retrospect, there were two conspicuous giveaways that Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker was headed for victory in last week’s recall election.

One was that the Democrats’ campaign against him wound up focusing on just about everything but Walker’s law limiting collective bargaining rights for government workers. Sixteen months ago, the Capitol building in Madison was besieged by rioting protesters hell-bent on blocking the changes by any means necessary. Union members and their supporters, incandescent with rage, likened Walker to Adolf Hitler and cheered as Democratic lawmakers fled the state in a bid to force the legislature to a standstill. Once the bill passed, unions and Democrats vowed revenge, and amassed a million signatures on recall petitions.

But the more voters saw of the law’s effects, the more they liked it. Dozens of school districts reported millions in savings, most without resorting to layoffs. Property taxes fell. A $3.6 billion state budget deficit turned into a $154 million projected surplus. Walker’s measures proved a tonic for the economy, and support for restoring the status quo ante faded — even among Wisconsin Democrats. Long before Election Day, Democratic challenger Tom Barrett had all but dropped the issue of public-sector collective bargaining from his campaign to replace Walker.

The second harbinger was the plunge in public-employee union membership. The most important of Walker’s reforms, the change Big Labor had fought most bitterly, was ending the automatic withholding of union dues. That made union membership a matter of choice, not compulsion — and tens of thousands of government workers chose to toss their union cards. More than one-third of the American Federation of Teachers Wisconsin membership quit, reported The Wall Street Journal. At the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, one of the state’s largest unions, the hemorrhaging was worse: AFSCME’s Wisconsin rolls shrank by more than 34,000 over the past year, a 55 percent nose-dive.

Did government workers tear up their union cards solely because the union had lost its right to bargain collectively on their behalf? That’s doubtful: Even under the new law, unions still negotiate over salaries. More likely, public-sector employees ditched their unions for the same reasons so many employees in the private sector — which is now less than 7 percent unionized — have done so. Many never wanted to join a union in the first place. Others were repelled by the authoritarian, belligerent, and left-wing political culture that entrenched unionism so often embodies.

Even before the votes in Wisconsin were cast, observed Michael Barone last week, Democrats and public-employee unions “had already lost the battle of ideas over the issue that sparked the recall.” Their tantrums and slanders didn’t just fail to intimidate Walker and Wisconsin lawmakers from reining in public-sector collective bargaining. They also gave the public a good hard look at what government unionism is apt to descend to. The past 16 months amounted to an extended seminar on the danger of combining collective bargaining with government jobs. Voters watched — and learned.

There was a time when pro-labor political leaders like Franklin D. Roosevelt and Fiorello LaGuardia regarded it as obvious that collective bargaining was incompatible with public employment. Even the legendary AFL-CIO leader George Meany once took it for granted that there could be no “right” to bargain collectively with the government.

When unions bargain with management in the private sector, both sides are contending for a share of the private profits that labor helps produce — and both sides are constrained by the pressures of market discipline. Managers can’t ignore the company’s bottom line. Unions know that if they demand too much they may cost the company its competitive edge.

But when labor and management bargain in the public sector, they are divvying up public funds, not private profits. Government bureaucrats don’t have to worry about losing business to their competitors; state agencies can’t relocate to another part of the country. There is little incentive to hold down wages and benefits, since the taxpayers who will be picking up the tab have no seat at the table. On the other hand, government managers have a powerful motivation to yield to government unions: Union members vote, and their votes can be deployed to reward politicians who give them what they want — or punish those who don’t.

In 1959, when Wisconsin became the first state to enact a public-sector collective-bargaining law, it wasn’t widely understood what the distorted incentives of government unionism would lead to. Five decades later, the wreckage is all around us. The privileges that come with government work — hefty automatic pay raises, Cadillac pension plans, iron-clad job security, ultra-deluxe health insurance — have in many cases grown outlandish and staggeringly unaffordable. What Keith Geiger, the former head of the National Education Association, once referred to as “our sledgehammer, the collective bargaining process,” has wreaked havoc on state and municipal budgets nationwide.

Now, at long last, the pendulum has reversed. The 50-year mistake of public-sector unions is being corrected. Walker’s victory is a heartening reminder that in a democracy, even the most entrenched bad ideas can sometimes be unentrenched. On, Wisconsin!

It wasn’t just Wisconsin, which voted for Obama by a fifteen point margin, that is rejecting Obama’s demand to increase government and government unions.  It turns out that San Diego and San Jose similarly utterly and overwhelmingly rejected the morally evil demands of public sector union “workers.”  It’s facts like this that made even these historically liberal cities reject the government union label:

San Jose firefighters were able to retire at the age of 48 with 90 percent of their salaries as pension.  And after seventy percent of the residents of San Jose voted to end that pork, they are suing to use rat bastard judges to force the people to keep bankrupting themselves to pay those benefits.  Given that the people who pay their salaries and benefits get nothing anywhere near that, it is immoral.

California alone has an unfunded pension liability of $500 BILLION.  There is absolutely no way in hell the taxpayers can pay the bill that morally evil labor unions want to force the private sector that is “doing fine” to pay. 

What Barack Obama wants is immoral.

Fire him in November.

Real Unemployment Rate Under Obama Over Nineteen Percent (As In FDR-Great Depression Unemployment)

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong… somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises… I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started… And an enormous debt to boot!” - Henry Morganthau, FDR’s Treasury Secretary, May 1939

In April 1939, after six years of failed FDR policies, unemployment was 20.7%

Obama is campaigning all over boasting that he’s cut the unemployment rate.  They say there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics.  And Obama’s 8.3% unemployment rate is of the most demonic category of lie.

Here’s the reality:

Gallup Daily: U.S. Employment
Each result is based on a 30-day rolling average; not seasonally adjusted

• Download complete trend

	% Employed full time for an employer	% Underemployed	% Unemployed
01/26/2012	64.60	18.40	8.60
01/27/2012	64.40	18.50	8.70
01/28/2012	64.20	18.60	8.60
01/29/2012	64.10	18.70	8.60
01/30/2012	64.20	18.60	8.60
01/31/2012	63.90	18.70	8.60
02/1/2012	63.90	18.80	8.70
02/2/2012	64.00	18.70	8.70
02/3/2012	64.00	18.70	8.70
02/6/2012	64.10	18.70	8.70
02/7/2012	64.10	18.80	8.80
02/8/2012	64.00	18.80	8.90
02/9/2012	64.00	18.90	8.90
02/10/2012	64.00	19.00	8.90
02/11/2012	63.70	19.30	9.10
02/12/2012	63.90	19.20	9.00
02/13/2012	63.90	19.10	8.90
02/14/2012	64.00	19.10	9.00
02/15/2012	64.00	19.00	9.00
02/16/2012	63.80	19.10	9.10

Gallup tracks daily the percentage of U.S. adults in the workforce, ages 18 and older, who are underemployed, unemployed, and employed full-time for an employer, without seasonal adjustment. “Underemployed” respondents are employed part time, but want to work full time, or they are unemployed. “Unemployed” respondents are those within the underemployed group who are not employed, even for one hour a week, but are available and looking for work. Respondents “Employed Full Time for an Employer” are those who are employed by an employer for at least 30 hours per week. Daily results reflect 30-day rolling averages based on telephone interviews with approximately 30,000 adults. Because results are not seasonally adjusted, they are not directly comparable to numbers reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, which are based on workers 16 and older. Margin of error is ± 1 percentage point.

Notice that Obama has done NOTHING to bring down the “% underemployed” figure - which counted in the official unemployment statistic when FDR was miserably failing – while he was claiming to bring down unemployment.  Which is another way of saying that there are today more Americans suffering under the Barack Obama experiment in failure than EVER.

Here’s another quote for you:

“I told you so, you God-damn-America dumbasses.” — Michael Eden, almost every day of the last four years.

Obama was hailed as the second coming of FDR by the left:

And we’ve got what we voted for: another massive FDR New Deal failure of disastrous Keynesian economics, most likely followed by a world war.

Only this world war that our new FDR will bring us won’t be nearly as fun due to all the global thermonuclear weapons that will be flying around.

Here are a few more facts that your mainstream media propaganda hasn’t been telling you about:

Congressional budget chief offers dim outlook on economic growth, jobs
By Jim Angle
Published February 01, 2012 | FoxNews.com

Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf on Wednesday projected that economic growth will slow by next year and unemployment will rise before that — a forecast that Rep. Paul Ryan called ominous, grim and alarming.
 
Elmendorf laid out the latest projections on the economy and deficits before the House Budget Committee on Capitol Hill.
 
Ryan, R-Wis., who is chairman, raised alarm given projections that 2012 “will mark the fourth straight year of trillion-dollar deficits.” 
 
“Trillions more dollars will be added to debt in the years ahead, putting a chilling effect on jobs creation today and committing the next generation to a diminished future,” he said.

Democratic Rep. Chris Van Hollen took a different approach, saying deficits and growth would have been worse without President Obama’s stimulus plan. “The Recovery Act did serve its purpose. It’s kind of like when you’re walking up an escalator that’s going down very quickly. If you take no action you will go down very fast,” he said. 
 
Yet future deficits depend in large part on how fast the economy grows, along with spending and revenues. And on that front, the CBO isn’t offering a lot of encouragement. 
 
“The pace of the recovery has been slow since the recession ended two and a half years ago,” Elmendorf said. “And we project that it will continue to be slow for the next two years.”
 
The CBO believes that economic growth will be only 2 percent this year — and an anemic 1.1 percent next year. 
 
The office says that will leave the unemployment rate at 8.9 percent at the end of this year, well above current the current rate of 8.5 percent, meaning the jobless rate would be increasing at election time. 
 
That prompted this exchange between Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., and the CBO director.  “Let me ask you, are there more people working today or fewer people working today than at the — on inauguration day of 2009?” McClintock asked. 
 
“I believe the answer to that,” said Elmendorf, “is there are fewer people, congressman.”
 
And in 2013, CBO estimates unemployment will be even higher — at 9.2 percent.

So why would CBO Director Elmendorf have a prediction that flies in the face of the Obama-media propaganda???

Because – and here you will have to pardon my language – he has the raw ”unadjusted” (meaning “unfudged”) statistics to see through the statistical bullcrap that is being put out.

Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge is another guy who sees through the lens-distorting effect of all the bovine feces.  In commenting about the real plunge in retail sales, Durden said:

The topic of BLS propaganda seasonal adjustments has been discussed extensively here especially in light of January’s NFP beat. We’ll leave it at that. However, we were rather surprised to note that the Census Bureau may have also ramped up its seasonal adjustment “fudge factoring” because when looking at the January headline retail sales data, which naturally was a smoothly continuous line on a Seasonally Adjusted basis, rising from $399.9 billion in December to $401.4 billion in January, something rather odd happened in the Unadjusted data set: the plunge from $459.8 billion in December to $361.4 billion in January, or -$98.5 billion in one month, was the biggest one month drop in retail sales in history. Now we won’t say much on this topic, suffice to say that it would be far more useful if the BLS and Census Bureaus were to open up their models and explain in nuanced detail just what “old normal” adjustments they still incorporate into data sets. Because as many have already noted, seasonal adjustments used for data from 1980 to 2008 when “up” was the only allowed direction for everything, are completely irrelevant and misleading in the New Deleveraging Normal. Which reminds us: Zero Hedge will offer $10,000 to the first BLS employee to share with us the full and complete excel model set, including assumptions, data tables, and comprehensive output parameters that the agency uses to go from input A to output X. We hope that by spending that money we will finally do society a service and open up to everyone just how it is that the BLS adjusts its Non-Farm Payrolls data.

If he actually gets the chance to buy that data, I will give my contribution to Tyler Durden instead of the Republican candidate.  Because the truth will do more to get Obama out of office that any GOP ad ever could.

We’ve heard the phrase “Great Depression” bandied about.  Here are a few facts that people ought to know:

The Great Depression was triggered by a sudden, total collapse in the stock market. The stock market turned upward in early 1930, returning to early 1929 levels by April, though still almost 30 percent below the peak of September 1929. Together, government and business actually spent more in the first half of 1930 than in the corresponding period of the previous year. But consumers, many of whom had suffered severe losses in the stock market the previous year, cut back their expenditures by ten percent, and a severe drought ravaged the agricultural heartland of the USA beginning in the summer of 1930.

In early 1930, credit was ample and available at low rates, but people were reluctant to add new debt by borrowing. By May 1930, auto sales had declined to below the levels of 1928. Prices in general began to decline, but wages held steady in 1930, then began to drop in 1931. [Read about what to before, during and after a deflationary crash] Conditions were worse in farming areas, where commodity prices plunged, and in mining and logging areas, where unemployment was high and there were few other jobs. The decline in the US economy was the factor that pulled down most other countries at first, then internal weaknesses or strengths in each country made conditions worse or better. Frantic attempts to shore up the economies of individual nations through protectionist policies, such as the 1930 U.S. Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act and retaliatory tariffs in other countries, exacerbated the collapse in global trade. By late in 1930, a steady decline set in which reached bottom by March 1933.

A Wikipedia article provides a few other details that ought to make someone looking at our present day rather uncomfortable:

Even after the Wall Street Crash of 1929, optimism persisted for some time; John D. Rockefeller said that “These are days when many are discouraged. In the 93 years of my life, depressions have come and gone. Prosperity has always returned and will again.”^[11] The stock market turned upward in early 1930, returning to early 1929 levels by April. This was still almost 30% below the peak of September 1929.^[12]

Together, government and business spent more in the first half of 1930 than in the corresponding period of the previous year. On the other hand, consumers, many of whom had suffered severe losses in the stock market the previous year, cut back their expenditures by ten percent. Likewise, beginning in mid-1930, a severe drought ravaged the agricultural heartland of the USA.

By mid-1930, interest rates had dropped to low levels, but expected deflation and the continuing reluctance of people to borrow meant that consumer spending and investment were depressed.^[13] By May 1930, automobile sales had declined to below the levels of 1928. Prices in general began to decline, although wages held steady in 1930; but then a deflationary spiral started in 1931. Conditions were worse in farming areas, where commodity prices plunged, and in mining and logging areas, where unemployment was high and there were few other jobs.

I’ve pointed out a few things before: first of all, “things are starting to look a little better” is by no rational means whatsoever any kind of indicator that we’re not going to plunge; BECAUSE THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED DURING THE GREAT DEPRESSION. 

We’re being kept in the dark and fed on manure just like all the other government-cultivated mushrooms.

And we’re going to pay for it right here in good ol’ God damn America.

The beast is coming.

(Hypocrite Alert): Why Is The Democrat Party Of FDR, JFK And John Kerry Attacking Mitt Romney Over His Wealth?

I have said it many times – and the reason I keep saying it is because it keeps proving true – that hypocrisy is the quintessential ingredient of a Democrat.  If you took all of the hypocrisy out of a Democrat, he or she would simply cease to exist.

Here’s an interesting headline:

Romney: Said he expected attacks on his wealth from Democrats. ‘.. will not apologize for being successful’

It brings back a flood of memories of the abject hypocrisy of Democrats.

Remember four years ago when Democrats attacked John McCain for not knowing how many houses he owned?  The mainstream media played that “gaffe” all over the airwaves to ensure you would think that John McCain was as out of touch as possible.

It didn’t matter that McCain didn’t actually own ANY houses (his wife owned them, with some of them being in a trust); it was just an opportunity for the media to dishonestly pile on top of a Republican and do what they do best – propaganda to demonize their ideological enemies.

Fast forward back four years prior to that, when John Kerry, the wealthiest man who ever ran for president, was campaigning.  How many damn houses did HE own?  Ooops.  Somehow the media never dredged that up.

The issue of personal wealth never came up with the mainstream media, in spite of the fact that John Kerry was worth $240 million – very nearly as much as Romney.  Ooops again.

Notice that John McCain is nowhere on the list of the ten wealthiest candidates for president.  John Edwards is.  Bill Clinton is.  Hillary Clinton is.  Al Gore is.  And John Kerry – the 2004 Democrat candidate for president – most assuredly is.  But the issue of their wealth and how they got it doesn’t matter; only Mitt Romney’s does.

The Democrat Party and their mainstream media allies are crawling all over Mitt Romney’s tax returns to demagogue his tax rate.  The figure 13.9% is raging; that’s the percentage the media claims Romney paid.  They intentionally omit the fact that if you remove Romney’s charitable donations, he’s actually paying a rate of 42%.

What rate did John Kerry pay at?  Oh, that doesn’t matter and never did because he’s a Democrat and therefore was immune to such inconvenient questions from the media propaganda?  I’m oh-so very sorry for asking. 

The fact that Obama gave less than 1% of his wealth to charity versus the fact that Romney gave 15% of his wealth to charity is also not on the mainstream media radar.  That’s not the kind of discussion the Democrat Party or their media allies want you to have around the water cooler or the coffee pot.

Two of the names that most Democrats would readily say were the greatest American presidents were filthy rich: John F. Kennedy and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  But none of that matters.

Here’s what great Democrat President John F. Kennedy said about taxes:

“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”

– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president’s news conference

---

“Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964

“In today’s economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit – why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”

---

“It is no contradiction – the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today’s economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”

---

 “Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort – thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, message to Congress on tax reduction and reform, House Doc. 43, 88th Congress, 1st Session.

---

“A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues.”

– John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963, radio and television address to the nation on tax-reduction bill

---

 “I have asked the secretary of the treasury to report by April 1 on whether present tax laws may be stimulating in undue amounts the flow of American capital to the industrial countries abroad through special preferential treatment.”

– John F. Kennedy, Feb. 6, 1961, message to Congress on gold and the balalnce of payments deficit

---

“In those countries where income taxes are lower than in the United States, the ability to defer the payment of U.S. tax by retaining income in the subsidiary companies provides a tax advantage for companies operating through overseas subsidiaries that is not available to companies operating solely in the United States. Many American investors properly made use of this deferral in the conduct of their foreign investment.”

– John F. Kennedy, April 20, 1961, message to Congress on taxation

---

“Our present tax system … exerts too heavy a drag on growth … It reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking … The present tax load … distorts economic judgments and channels an undue amount of energy into efforts to avoid tax liabilities.”

– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, press conference

---

“The present tax codes … inhibit the mobility and formation of capital, add complexities and inequities which undermine the morale of the taxpayer, and make tax avoidance rather than market factors a prime consideration in too many economic decisions.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 23, 1963, special message to Congress on tax reduction and reform

---

“In short, it is a paradoxical truth that … the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country’s own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”

– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, news conference

---

“The largest single barrier to full employment of our manpower and resources and to a higher rate of economic growth is the unrealistically heavy drag of federal income taxes on private purchasing power, initiative and incentive.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, special message to Congress on tax reduction and reform

---

“Expansion and modernization of the nation’s productive plant is essential to accelerate economic growth and to improve the international competitive position of American industry … An early stimulus to business investment will promote recovery and increase employment.”

– John F. Kennedy, Feb. 2, 1961, message on economic recovery

---

 “We must start now to provide additional stimulus to the modernization of American industrial plants … I shall propose to the Congress a new tax incentive for businesses to expand their normal investment in plant and equipment.”

– John F. Kennedy, Feb. 13, 1961, National Industrial Conference Board

---

 “A bill will be presented to the Congress for action next year. It will include an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in both corporate and personal income taxes. It will include long-needed tax reform that logic and equity demand … The billions of dollars this bill will place in the hands of the consumer and our businessmen will have both immediate and permanent benefits to our economy. Every dollar released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a new job and a new salary. And these new jobs and new salaries can create other jobs and other salaries and more customers and more growth for an expanding American economy.”

– John F. Kennedy, Aug. 13, 1962, radio and television report on the state of the national economy

---

“This administration pledged itself last summer to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes … Next year’s tax bill should reduce personal as well as corporate income taxes, for those in the lower brackets, who are certain to spend their additional take-home pay, and for those in the middle and upper brackets, who can thereby be encouraged to undertake additional efforts and enabled to invest more capital … I am confident that the enactment of the right bill next year will in due course increase our gross national product by several times the amount of taxes actually cut.”

– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, news conference

But none of that matters to the media or to the modern Democrat Party – which embraced the communism that JFJK spent his presidency fighting – either.

Our mainstream media that gets to decide what stories get reported and fixated upon are the propaganda wing of the Democrat Party.  And they WILL NOT report fairly or add proper context to their stories to communicate the truth.

The beast is coming, and the mainstream media will ignore his personal wealth, too, as he rules over the human race as the man who will fulfill all of liberals and Democrats big government dreams.

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

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?

Ten Stories Showing Why Government Unions Are Just Really, Really Bad For America

The Democrat Party has become profoundly un-American.  But hey, don’t believe me – believe Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who presumably understood the Democrat Party as it used to be.

Government unions are the worm-ridden heart and cockroach soul of the modern Democrat Party.

And Jarrett Skorup  provided ten examples showing how and why that’s a seriously bad thing for America:

10 Stories Showing Why Mandatory Government Collective Bargaining Is Counterproductive
By Jarrett Skorup | Nov. 29, 2011

“All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations.”

- Franklin Delano Roosevelt

In an email conversation leaked this past week by the left-leaning advocacy group Progress Michigan, Mackinac Center senior legislative analyst and CapCon commentator Jack McHugh wrote, “Our goal is (to) outlaw government collective bargaining in Michigan, which in practical terms means no more MEA.” Despite wariness of public-sector unionization by progressives like President Franklin D. Roosevelt and former AFL-CIO union leader George Meany, the statement kicked up a storm, generating at least two press releases from groups that favor forcibly unionizing workers.

Regular readers of CapCon know that we have provided extensive coverage of government employee unions and the results of the policies they have put into place. The following is a list of the top 10 stories we have covered in the past year directly relating to the unionization of government employees or the results of policies advocated by public sector unions.

• “Parents Forced to Pay Union Dues, Lawmaker Rakes In Health Care Money”: Robert and Patricia Haynes take care of their two adult children, who are stricken with cerebral palsy. The children receive Medicaid money from the government in which the state takes out hundreds of dollars per year to send to the Service Employees International Union, which is a government employee union. Robert says the union does “nothing” for them. “We take care of our kids at home,” Haynes continued. “There aren’t any working condition issues. There are no raises to negotiate. There aren’t any union issues involved. But the money keeps being taken out of our checks anyway.”
• “Occupy … Government Union Offices?”: In Michigan, public employee salaries have risen 23 percent over the past few decades while private-sector wages have decreased by 20 percent.
• “Taxpayers’ K-12 Money Diverted to Union Business”: Statewide, 39 school districts pay out several million dollars per year to teachers who spend at least half of their time on union business.
• “31 Gym Teachers Earn More Than Town Police Chief”: In Utica, the fire chief earns $73,440 and the police chief earns $79,000, but they are trumped by 31 physical education teachers from the local school district. The district closed four elementary schools while facing a $33 million deficit, but the vast majority of its gym teachers earn more than $80,000 per year in salary alone.
• “Troy Gym Teacher Pay Trumps Nationally Recognized Science Teacher”: Since most public school district union contracts act as a one-size-fits-all, teachers are paid based on longevity and degree level, not on how well they do their job. In Troy, this means that seven gym teachers make more money than Rebecca Brewer, an AP biology teacher honored as the ING national Innovative Teacher of the Year.
• “Royal Oak Schools: Buses Or Cadillac Health Care?”: The district eliminated bus services for students, saving $593,162 per year, but could have saved $894,707 by simply ensuring that employees pay 20 percent of their own health care costs. Taxpayers continue to pay 100 percent of the premiums for teachers’ health care.
• “Ten Total Fires and $30K in Average Overtime”: Superior Township firefighters were all paid more than their supervisor thanks to hefty overtime pay.
• “Average Lansing Teacher Missed 3.5 Weeks of School Last Year”: In the Lansing School District, the average teacher was absent 17.6 days during the 2010-11 school year. By comparison, LSD students can face legal action by the district if they accumulate more than 10.
• “Less Than 0.001 Percent of Tenured Teachers Fired Over Past Five Years”: Allegations of kissing students, head-locking children, sexual misconduct, drug use and distributing alcohol to minors was not enough to keep Michigan school districts from paying out millions to get rid of problem teachers in the past five years because of strict union-backed tenure rules.
• “Four School Districts Spend $525K in Attorney Fees Trying to Remove Four Tenured Teachers”: L’Anse Creuse Public Schools spent $158,522 from 2008-2010 to remove one tenured teacher. Swartz Creek Community Schools has spent $140,525 so far in an ongoing case to remove a teacher. Farmington Public Schools spent $116,830 to discharge a teacher in 2009. Mt. Morris Consolidated Schools has spent $109,000 removing one teacher.

In a Weekly Standard piece by professors Fred Siegel and Dan DiSalvo titled “The New Tammany Hall,” the problem of public employee unions is described:

Unlike private sector unions, the sheer number of workers represented is not the linchpin of [the public sector unions] influence. Private sector unions have a natural adversary in the owners of the companies with whom they negotiate. But public sector unions have no such natural counterweight. They are a classic case of “client politics,” where an interest group’s concentrated efforts to secure rewards impose diffused costs on the mass of unorganized taxpayers.

Michigan Capitol Confidential stories from this past year contain many examples of why government employee unionization is inherently corrupting and can result in a quid pro quo between the employees (the union) and the employer (the government). If government unions want to know why we feel their organizations can be a problem for Michigan taxpayers, they don’t need leaked emails: They should just read CapCon.

You show me a unionized industry today, and I will show you an industry that has either vanished like the Dodo bird or gone bankrupt.

Which is to say that a unionized America is a bankrupt America.  Oh, and a socialist and Marxist un-American America, while we’re at it.

Liberal Paul Krugman Says Government Should Lie To American People About Space Aliens To Impose Liberal ‘Solutions’

Paul Krugman – former Enron advisor, liberal ideologue, Nobel Prize Laureate, New York Times writer, liberal ideologue and former Enron adviser – has a solution to America’s economic problems.

It involves fascism – I mean forcing – Americans to do what liberals want by lying to the American people to create a false crisis.

And, yes, it actually involves space aliens:

Paul Krugman Calls for Space Aliens to Attack Earth Requiring Massive Defense Buildup to Stimulate Economy
By Noel Sheppard | August 14, 2011 | 10:29

Oh those whacky liberals.

On Sunday’s “Fareed Zakaria GPS,” New York Times columnist – and, ahem, Nobel laureate – Paul Krugman actually advocated space aliens attack earth thereby requiring a massive defense buildup by the United States that would stimulate the economy (video follows with transcript and commentary):

See Newsbusters for video

KENNETH ROGOFF, PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Infrastructure spending, if it were well-spent, that’s great. I’m all for that. I’d borrow for that, assuming we’re not paying Boston Big Dig kind of prices for the infrastructure.

FAREED ZAKARIA, HOST: But even if you were, wouldn’t John Maynard Keynes say that if you could employ people to dig a ditch and then fill it up again, that’s fine, they’re being productively employed, they’d pay taxes, so maybe Boston’s Big Dig was just fine after all.

Oh those whacky liberals.

So in Zakaria’s view, the government employing people to do absolutely nothing of value would fix the economy.

If this is the case, why doesn’t the government just give money to everyone? The economy, in Zakaria’s opinion, would therefore grow at a record pace.

Of course, anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of arithmetic could figure out that the amount received in tax receipts would be far less than what was distributed thereby exploding the nation’s debt level in a never-ending spiral that would eventually lead to default.

Surely, the credit rating agencies wouldn’t be pleased with this.

On the other hand, isn’t it fascinating that a man that is always opposed to tax cuts – which is government allowing people to keep more of THEIR money – and doesn’t think that stimulates the economy believes it would be economically stimulative to give people someone else’s money to do absolutely nothing?

Only a liberal could think this way.

But hold on to your seats, because a man possessing a Nobel prize in economics was cued up to say something even more absurd:

PAUL KRUGMAN, NEW YORK TIMES: Think about World War II, right? That was actually negative social product spending, and yet it brought us out.

I mean, probably because you want to put these things together, if we say, “Look, we could use some inflation.” Ken and I are both saying that, which is, of course, anathema to a lot of people in Washington but is, in fact, what fhe basic logic says.

It’s very hard to get inflation in a depressed economy. But if you had a program of government spending plus an expansionary policy by the Fed, you could get that. So, if you think about using all of these things together, you could accomplish, you know, a great deal.

If we discovered that, you know, space aliens were planning to attack and we needed a massive buildup to counter the space alien threat and really inflation and budget deficits took secondary place to that, this slump would be over in 18 months. And then if we discovered, oops, we made a mistake, there aren’t any aliens, we’d be better –

ROGOFF: And we need Orson Welles, is what you’re saying.

KRUGMAN: No, there was a “Twilight Zone” episode like this in which scientists fake an alien threat in order to achieve world peace. Well, this time, we don’t need it, we need it in order to get some fiscal stimulus.

Oh those whacky liberals.

There’s so much in this that it’s tough to know where to begin, so let’s start with this being another admission by Krugman that it wasn’t Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s massive New Deal spending that ended the Depression.

Much as he did on ABC’s “This Week” in November 2008, the Nobel laureate once again dispelled that liberal myth.

I wonder if the Keynes-loving Zakaria was paying attention.

But more importantly, let’s look at the numbers involved to really get a sense of what Krugman advocated here.

The money unsuccessfully thrown at the Depression prior to World War II was staggering. From 1929 to 1939, government spending tripled from $3 billion a year to $9 billion.

And yet unemployment at the end of 1939 was still 17.2 percent.

Not a very good advertisement for Keynesian economics, is it?

Now imagine that kind of “stimulus” today. That would mean the current $3.8 trillion budget would have to rise to $11.4 trillion which would generate about $9 trillion of debt a year.

What do you think would happen to our credit rating and our dollar then? Wouldn’t be pretty, would it?

Yet that didn’t work in the ’30s – a fact that most liberals other than Krugman still contest – so the Nobel laureate is advocating that we spend like we’re being attacked by space aliens in order to get to the level of outlays during World War II.

Total federal spending in 1940 was $9.5 billion. By 1945, this had risen almost tenfold to $93 billion.

Such an increase in today’s budget would create a deficit greater than $30 trillion per year making our dollar and our Treasuries totally worthless.

Did I mention Krugman once won a Nobel prize in economics?

Consider too that the lasting stimulative quality of even the World War II spending is up for debate.

The National Bureau of Economic lists a recession that began in February 1945 that lasted until October of that year. This recession happened despite the federal government spending almost tens times as much as it had only five years prior and 30 times more than in 1929.

Once again, not a very good advertisement for Keynesian economics.

But let’s take this a step further, for NBER’s recession numbers might be too conservative. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Gross Domestic Product shrank by 1.1 percent in 1945, a staggering 10.9 percent in 1946, and 0.9 percent in 1947.

Again, this was after the largest explosion in federal spending in our nation’s history, and this is what Krugman is advocating we repeat.

Makes you wonder if space aliens have already arrived and they’re residing inside this liberal Nobel laureate’s head.

I’m reminded of a book quote:

“The utility of terror was multifaceted, but among its chief benefits was its tendency to maintain a permanent sense of crisis.  Crisis is routinely identified as a core mechanism of fascism because it short-circuits debate and democratic deliberation.  Hence all fascistic movements commit considerable energy to prolonging a heightened state of emergency” — Jonah Goldberg, Liberal Fascism, page 42

Fascists love creating crises.  And liberals are fascists to the cores of their shriveled little cockroach souls.

Before I respond to Paul Krugman and his pimping of lies and false crises to force the people to do what liberals want (which isn’t different from what Democrats have been doing for fifty years, fwiw), let me make a couple of points.

First, the New Deal was a complete and total failure.  Don’t believe me, listen to FDR’s own Treasury Secretary:

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises… I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started… And an enormous debt to boot!” - Henry Morganthau, FDR’s Treasury Secretary, May 1939

And for the record, in April 1939, the unemployment rate was 20.7%. Anybody who thinks that FDR’s policies did anything but dig us deeper into depression are morons.

The New Deal was a complete and utter failure.  But don’t believe me, listen to Barack Obama’s former top economic adviser:

“Never forget, never forget, and I think it’s very important for Democrats especially to remember this, that if Hitler had not come along, Franklin Roosevelt would have left office in 1941 with an unemployment rate in excess of 15 percent and an economic recovery strategy that had basically failed.”

The New Deal was a complete and utter failure.  But don’t believe me, listen to economists:

After scrutinizing Roosevelt’s record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

The New Deal was a complete and utter failure.  But don’t believe me, just open your own eyes, because you’re living through the failure of liberal stupidity all over again.

Let me take a moment to address the issue of Paul Krugman – supposedly brilliant intellectual and academic – before I move on.  I’ll quote my own previous words, which have been so accurate I’ve been able to point to them more than once:

I wrote the following the last time I wrote about a leftwing “intellectual” attacking Jews:

Thomas Sowell described the destruction their kind has done:

“George Orwell said that some ideas are so foolish that only an intellectual could believe them, for no ordinary man could be such a fool. The record of twentieth century intellectuals was especially appalling in this regard. Scarcely a mass-murdering dictator of the twentieth century was without his intellectual supporters, not simply in his own country, but also in foreign democracies, where people were free to say whatever they wished. Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler all had their admirers, defenders, and apologists among the intelligentsia in Western democratic nations, despite the fact that these dictators ended up killing people of their own country on a scale unprecedented even by despotic regimes that preceded them” – Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, p. 2.

American liberals enthusiastically supported Hitler’s socialist fascism during his rise to power, just as they had supported totalitarian communism in the years before.

Nazism was always a creature and creation of the left. They didn’t call themselves the “National Socialist German Workers Party” for nothing. Nazism and Darwinian theory went hand in hand as the Nazis delved deep into American Progressive-born eugenics. Margaret Sanger – founder of Planned Parenthood and Nazi-sympathizer – strategically used abortion and birth control to weed out “racially inferior” peoples such as blacks and Jews.

And the foolishness of academia continues full throttle and full speed to the next fascist dictator.

Paul Krugman is a fascist with the despicable and deceitful ideas of fascism.  And he is a profoundly stupid man not because he has a diminished IQ, but rather because he he has determined to be stupid by sheer brute force of will.  He hates God and rabidly rejects the Judeo-Christian worldview that enables otherwise perverted and degenerate man to see the world as God sees it (i.e., accurately).  And all he has in place of the clear and rational thinking that comes from being created in God’s image is a collection of incredibly foolish secular humanist ideas that have profoundly failed every single time they have ever been tried.

With that said, allow me to explode Paul Krugman’s thesis that if liberal socialist fascist big government merely takes his advice and lies to the American people to trick them into re-enacting the World War Two escape from the Great Depression (that FDR’s failed policies prolonged in the first place), we can escape our dying economy.

The first thing wrong with Krugman’s thinking is that his “plan” calls for the United States to become a completely militarized society.  We’re not even pursuing the ALSO-FASCIST “Moral Equivalent of War” idea where we take advantage of all the great things about militarism to provide a workable and sensible model for achieving desirable liberal ends; we’re talking about pure, hard-core militarism.

We’re not building a better widget; we’re gunning-up to take on space aliens.  We need big bombs and lots of them.  And given that we’re gearing up to take on a super-sophisticated alien race that can travel across billions of light years, we need the most dangerous arsenal ever assembled.  We need NUKES.  We need biological warfare.  We need Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Are you with Paul Krugman on this, liberals?

The second thing wrong with Krugman’s “thinking” is that, if we massively gear up our military production without actual provocation, which society will we most look like?  And the disturbing answer is that we will resemble Nazi Germany rather than the United States which responded to acts of military aggression when it militarized.

I’ve called you liberals “Nazis” for quite a while now.  Thank you for finally officially acknowledging that the jackboot fits.

I wonder how China and Russia would respond to our unilateral buildup of a massive military arsenal.  I’m kind of thinking our, “Ssshhh!  We’re doing it to get ready for the aliens!  We’re totally at peace with you!” line won’t work out to good.  Rather, China, Russia and everyone else will embark on their own militarization to balance ours, and Paul Krugman causes World War III and the extinction of the human race.

The third thing is that the United States didn’t get out of the Great Depression by merely building up its military; IT USED THOSE WEAPONS IN A GLOBAL WAR.  And we would need to do the same thing we did before.

How did the United States become the manufacturing and industrial superpower of the world?  BY BEING THE ONLY MAJOR NATION THAT STILL ACTUALLY HAD A FACTORY STANDING.  All of Europe was completely destroyed.  Russia was completely destroyed.  Much of Asia was completely destroyed.  Britain was attacked and destroyed first by bombing after bombing, and then by the V-2 ballistic rockets.

World War II finally, mercifully ended (at least until Paul Krugman came along), and who was going to build all the stuff that the world now needed more than ever?  Who was going to grow all the food?  And how about the only nation left that wasn’t in complete rubble?

So if we’re really going to pursue that World War II model, let’s do it: let’s build up that arsenal and then let’s just wipe out EVERYBODY.  And the poor, starving, desperate people who survive (assuming their countries didn’t wipe us out in retaliatory strikes) are going to need to turn to us to feed them and clothe them and build their stuff for them.

A few other things.  During the military buildup of World War II, the American people put their money behind the war effort.  We bought war bonds; we sacrificed raw materials so that the troops could have what they needed to fight.  We made due with little for a prolonged period of time so that our troops could achieve victory over our enemies.  The American people were completely united behind that goal, and willing to do whatever was necessary to make it work.  Who thinks we’ve got that can-do and will-do-no-matter-how-much-it-hurts attitude now?

Who would we borrow from now?  How are we going to finance this massive Nazi-like militarizing strategy that Paul Krugman favors?  Right now we massively in debt as it is; we’re borrowing 43 cents for every single dollar we’re spending.  And we’re in debt way above our eyeballs.

Who’s going to build all this for us?  Certainly not us!  Unions have gutted our manufacturing and our industrial bases; we’ve been forced to outsource.  Barack Obama just went on his B.S. bus tour, and who made that bus?  Canada!

This is what Detroit looks like now, thanks to sixty years of being dominated by the Democrat Party.  We can’t build anything.

I’ve watched the History Channel about how some union workers (such as during June of 1941 at the North American Aviation plant in Inglewood, California) attempted to strike to take advantage of the crisis to squeeze every advantage they could, and FDR called in the military to crush these worker uprisings.  I can only imagine the SEIU and the AFL-CIO etc. etc. pursuing the same tactics and getting machine-gunned.

And of course we need to realize that a lot of the utterly unsustainable union benefits that have since completely gutted any hope of ever having a substantial industrial and manufacturing capability arose as a result of bribing union workers not to strike during World War II.

You should understand by now that Paul Krugman is an insane and evil man. Which is another way of saying he’s a liberal. His ideas lead to holocaust, whether that holocaust be of babies, or jobs, or the U.S. economy and our very way of life.