Posts Tagged ‘Karl Marx’

Was Jesus A Socialist? How ‘No’ Can You Go?

October 16, 2013

This is one of the worst lies of the Democrat Party, as the party of slavery (as in when Democrats fought a bitter Civil War to keep slavery that Republicans finally won before a Democrat murdered one of the greatest American presidents in revenge.  Oh, and then Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan as the terrorist wing of the Democrat Party); as the party of genocide (with more than fifty-five million innocent American babies murdered by Democrats so far); as the official party of sodomy and the party of Romans chapter one: that Jesus was somehow a Democrat who would have urinated all over a Bible and voted with them in their demonic agenda.

The liberals’ argument that Jesus was a socialist boils down to this syllogism: a) Jesus loved the poor.  b) Government welfare programs help the poor.  Ergo c) Jesus loved big government welfare programs.

It’s kind of like this syllogism, however: a) Jesus loves the sun.  b) The sun shone on Charles Manson’s murder spree.  Ergo c) Jesus loves Charles Manson’s murder spree.  The logic flow in both cases is simply non sequitur.

The problem is that there’s an implicit assumption that only government programs can help the poor.  Individual people have no right or responsibility to help the poor with their own money; therefore government should seize their money and redistribute it themselves.  There is an implicit assumption that totalitarian government is an inherent and intrinsic good and that individuals having any right to their own money is an inherent and intrinsic evil.

For the official record, no, JESUS WAS NOT A SOCIALIST.

Now, I could argue this two different ways.  I could argue that the “war on poverty” has been an incredibly expensive FAILURE that did NOTHING to reduce poverty.  I could document that by showing that the poverty rate was actually already declining prior to Democrats’ “war on poverty” and that the poverty rate actually went UP because of the welfare state that Democrats created.  I could also then document that welfare has been moral poison as we have trained – “indoctrinated” is a far better and more accurate term – a massive segment of our society if not an entire generation to view themselves as “victims” who are “entitled” to a lifetime of “government assistance.”

But that’s been done at length.  What hasn’t been dealt with nearly enough is the Democrats’ convenient method of barring Christianity from public discourse UNLESS AND UNTIL IT IS CONVENIENT TO THEM.  And then all of a sudden you have the same people who have waged the “separation of church and state” war talking about how Jesus would have loved their big government welfare state.

The problem is that it is simply false.

St. Paul is the only figure in the Bible who said, “Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ” (1 Corinthians 11:1).  That’s a rather bold statement when you stop and think about it: would YOU put that in writing to all of YOUR friends?  But the man who wrote 2/3rds of the books in the New Testament turns out to be the most Christlike men who ever lived.  And what did he say about “welfare”???  Try this:

For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either. — 2 Thessalonians 3:10

I submit to you that what Paul – and frankly therefore what Jesus Christ – taught is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what Democrats teach and practice in their stupid and immoral laws.  Which is why the king of the depraved Democrat (which stands for “DEMOnic BureauCRAT”) has exploded the welfare state.  And it was not to help the poor or to provide health care; it was to create an entitlement mindset that would politically perpetuate the PARTY of entitlement forever – or at least until America collapses upon which time their “Cloward and Piven” strategy will kick in [for that see here and here and here and here and of yes HERE and here and here as I’ve been pointing this out since Obama took office.

How can you say that a welfare system in which sitting on your lazy butt and collecting the redistributed wealth of people who actually bother to WORK such that in 39 states receiving welfare pays BETTER than a secretary’s job – and that in 47 states it pays better than a janitor’s salary – is anything other than morally depraved?  What can you say about a system created by the Democrat Party in which people who bother to work are “suckers” as the labor participation rate drops beneath extinction levels and continues to and drop and drop some more under the Food Stamp president???

How can anybody with a single moral clue say that these are good things and not evil things???

How can you say that a nation whose debt now vastly exceeds the GDP of the entire planet is anything other than demonic???

But let’s leave that aside for the rest of this article and instead examine what the BIBLE says about the role of human government in poverty.

We can go back to 1 Samuel chapter 8 to begin answering our question as to whether God loves giant human government to rule over everything and everyone:

and they said to [Samuel], “Behold, you have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations.”  But the thing was displeasing in the sight of Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” And Samuel prayed to the LORD.  The LORD said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them.  “Like all the deeds which they have done since the day that I brought them up from Egypt even to this day– in that they have forsaken Me and served other gods– so they are doing to you also.  “Now then, listen to their voice; however, you shall solemnly warn them and tell them of the procedure of the king who will reign over them.”

So Samuel spoke all the words of the LORD to the people who had asked of him a king.  [God] said, “This will be the procedure of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and place them for himself in his chariots and among his horsemen and they will run before his chariots.  “He will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and of fifties, and some to do his plowing and to reap his harvest and to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots.  “He will also take your daughters for perfumers and cooks and bakers.  “He will take the best of your fields and your vineyards and your olive groves and give them to his servants.  “He will take a tenth of your seed and of your vineyards and give to his officers and to his servants.  “He will also take your male servants and your female servants and your best young men and your donkeys and use them for his work.  “He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his servants.  “Then you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day.”

Nevertheless, the people refused to listen to the voice of Samuel, and they said, “No, but there shall be a king over us…  1 Samuel 8:5-19

Did God want gargantuan human government?  The Bible is clear: NO.  Government is simply NOT the answer that the Bible points to as the solution to our problems.  Seven times in that passage you have your “he will take” showing us what a tax-and-cynically-spend-for-his-own-political-advantage President Obama would do.  And the result is that the people will ultimately “cry out in that day because of the king whom you have chosen for yourselves.”  And we’re already seeing that (it’s called ObamaCare and it is as failed as it is evil).

A professor of Old Testament studies comments on this passage and big government:

Under the monarchy, a centralized government was established and with it came luxurious living and a large bureaucracy, two things that required a larger expenditure, and therefore a heavier taxation.

Samuel warned the people about how the king and his government would operate. He told the people that the king would take their sons and make them soldiers. The king would put some of the people to forced labor to work on his farms, plowing and harvesting his crops. The king would conscript some of the people to make either weapons of war or chariots in which he could ride in luxury.

Samuel also said that the kings would conscript some women to work as beauticians and waitresses and cooks. He would conscript their best fields, vineyards, and orchards and give them over to his officials. He would tax their harvests and vintage to support his extensive bureaucracy. He would take their prize workers and best animals for his own use. He also would lay a tax on their flocks and all their property and in the end the people would be no better than slaves. Then Samuel warned the people that the day would come when they would cry in desperation because of the oppressive burden imposed upon them by their king (1 Samuel 8:10-18). The day came, the people cried, but it was too late.

And it is more tyrannous and more oppressive under King Obama today than it EVER was during the reigns of even the most wicked kings of Israel.

Here’s another question: is giving to aforementioned big government the same thing as giving to God, as Democrats believe?  Let’s let Jesus speak:

Then the Pharisees went and plotted together how they might trap Him in what He said.  And they sent their disciples to Him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that You are truthful and teach the way of God in truth, and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any.  “Tell us then, what do You think? Is it lawful to give a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?”  But Jesus perceived their malice, and said, “Why are you testing Me, you hypocrites?  “Show Me the coin used for the poll-tax.” And they brought Him a denarius.  And He said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?”  They said to Him, “Caesar’s.” Then He said to them, “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s.”  And hearing this, they were amazed, and leaving Him, they went away. — Matthew 22:15-22

Okay, so you can give to Obama.  OR YOU CAN GIVE TO GOD.  BUT GIVING TO OBAMA IS NOT THE SAME THING AS GIVING TO GOD.

What Democrats dishonestly and falsely tell us is that giving to the government – which they say redistributes the wealth and gives to the poor - IS giving to God.  God is the State and the State is God.  And Republicans are greedy and evil for not wanting to give to the State God to help the poor.  WRONG.  JUST ASK JESUS.  Paying your exorbitant taxes and rendering to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s is a very different thing from rendering to God the things that are God’s.

Here’s another one: consider the poor widow in Luke 21 and tell me where Jesus enlisted big government programs to help her:

As he looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury.  He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins.  “I tell you the truth,” he said, “this poor widow has put in more than all the others.  All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.” — Luke 21:1-4

Did Jesus demand the creation of a giant welfare state to care for this poor woman?  No.  Did Jesus condemn that this poor widow should be “forced” to give while rich people got away with not giving enough, etc.?  No.  Jesus praised this poor widow for giving all she had – NOT TO THE STATE BUT TO GOD.

In fact, I submit to you that NOWHERE IN THE ENTIRE NEW TESTAMENT does Jesus or any apostle or anybody else for that matter exalt the goodness of government or call for a welfare state.  In fact, the ONLY place in the entire New Testament that government is described as anything other than evil is in Romans 13:4, in which their role is to do something that many Democrats REFUSE to do: punish wrongdoers.  The only “wrongdoers” Obama wants to punish are tea party Republicans via his IRS sledgehammer.  If you foolishly think that Democrats want wrongdoers punished, consider California where liberal judges dictated that the state must provide exorbitant health care to inmates – (frankly better than what LAW-ABINDING CITIZENS receive) – and release thousands of violent criminals to prevent “inhumane overcrowding.”  If you want to find any passages at all on the government caring for the poor, you have to turn to the THEOCRACY of Old Testament Israel.  In a theocracy, for the record, we’d be STONING to death people who believe in homosexual marriage and abortion.  Now, if Democrats truly want a theocracy – and the moral laws that go with it – fine by me.  But of course they DON’T, do they?  They want only what they want, and hypocritically ignore everything that they don’t like.  They cynically use the Bible to “justify” things the Bible actually decries while ignoring the parts they don’t like.  And yes, hypocrisy DEFINES their quintessential essence.

You need to understand something very important, because with Democrats it’s always a bait and switch: should we care for the poor?  You’re darned right we should care for the poor.  Does that mean we should have a giant welfare state?  Absolutely NOT.

Let’s again see what Jesus has to say about this:

13 When Jesus heard what had happened, he withdrew by boat privately to a solitary place. Hearing of this, the crowds followed him on foot from the towns. 14 When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them and healed their sick.

15 As evening approached, the disciples came to him and said, “This is a remote place, and it’s already getting late. Send the crowds away, so they can go to the villages and buy themselves some food.”

16 Jesus replied, “They do not need to go away. You give them something to eat.”

17 “We have here only five loaves of bread and two fish,” they answered.

18 “Bring them here to me,” he said. 19 And he directed the people to sit down on the grass. Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the people. 20 They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. 21 The number of those who ate was about five thousand men, besides women and children. — Matthew 14:13-21

Allow me to put it in crystal clear terms: if Democrats were even remotely CLOSE to being correct in their socialist views, Jesus would have listened to His disciples and said, “They need to go to King Herod.  We need a giant welfare system that will empower the government to grow gigantic and put half of the people on food stamps.”  He says the exact opposite: he says, “YOU feed them.”  YOU, as in individual people and NOT the State.

What does St. Paul have to say about being angry over being poor?

Not that I speak from want, for I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am.  I know how to get along with humble means, and I also know how to live in prosperity; in any and every circumstance I have learned the secret of being filled and going hungry, both of having abundance and suffering need.  I can do all things through Him who strengthens me. — Philippians 4:11-13

For the factual record, “I can do all things through Him who strengthens me” is NOT a reference to Obama or his giant socialist welfare state.  Paul also doesn’t in any way, shape or form argue that it’s unjust or unfair or immoral for the rich to be rich and the poor to be poor, nor does he call upon any government to seize the wealth of the rich and give it to the poor.  What Paul says is that he has learned to be content in whatever circumstances he is in – unlike Democrats who are bitter and angry and whiny if they don’t get to have their neighbor’s stuff whether or not said neighbor worked eighty hours a week to get that stuff or not.

Let’s contrast Paul’s attitude with being content in poverty to Karl Marx’s.  And then let’s ask the question, who does the Democrat Party agree with more, St. Paul or St. Marx???  The essence of the Democrat Party today truly is Marxism, rather than anything even remotely close to the teachings of Jesus.  I’ve written about this in the past, so I will merely quote myself:

Atheism and a spirit of hostility and hatred toward God and toward religion is at the very core of Marxism.  In the words of Karl Marx:

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower.

What did Karl Marx mean by this?

Basically, Marx taught that the world is divided into the haves and the have-nots – which is everywhere being shouted around us today.  And the have-nots were being oppressed by the haves.  But rather than the people rising up in rage and seizing what Marx declared was theirs by force as Marx wanted them to, the people were instead happy in their religion, which according to Marx had been invented by the rich to keep the proletariat in bondage.  Marx acknowledged that in his day, religion was the order of the world; but he determined – and in fact succeeded – in imposing a NEW world system.  Since religion is nothing but an illusion, and materialism is all there actually is, the happiness that the people had in their Christianity was nothing more than a narcotic that kept them in bondage.  The only “real” reality is economic reality.  And therefore the solution presented by Marx was for the people to set aside their shackles of religion and rise up in a spirit of rage and take what was theirs by force.  Only then could the people have actual, “material” happiness.

The eight commandment in the Holy Bible is “You shall not steal,” and the tenth commandment is, “You shall not covet.”  Both ultimately flow from violation of the first commandment, “You shall have no other gods before Me.”  Marxism – as Marx acknowledged – overthrew this system and imposed one in which the State replaced God.  And where God in the Bible had commanded man NOT to covet anything that belonged to his neighbor, Marxism was in fact BASED on coveting.  “Hey, look at those damn rich people!  They’ve got everything!  Let’s take their stuff!”  Because apart from that looking over the wall at your neighbor’s house and coveting what he had and becoming angry that he or she had things that you did not have, Marxism never gets off the ground.

God said, “Thou shalt not covet.  Thou shalt not steal.”  And Marxists – and frankly liberals and Democrats – declared instead,  “Thou shalt covet thy neighbor’s possessions, and thou shalt seize them and redistribute them.”

So much for Democrats ever learning to be content in their circumstances; because they have been indoctrinated to be the exact opposite of what the Bible told them.

The fact of the matter is that the same Democrats who have wickedly tried for years to purge God out of every facet of government are wickedly trying to steal from God and seize and “redistribute” wealth that belongs to HIM.  They not only know how to use other peoples’ money better than the people who actually worked to earn it; THEY KNOW HOW TO USE IT BETTER THAN GOD HIMSELF.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have both demonized the GOP as “anarchists,” which means they hate human government.  Okay, fine.  But Democrats are statolatrists who worship human government in place of God and hate GOD.

Having established that the Bible NOWHERE supports the Democrats’ depraved view of the totalitarian welfare state, allow me to point out that the biblical word “hypocrites” is in fact the best description of the Democrat Party that there is.

Let’s look at our two greatest Democrats and see how they lived this out, starting with the Obamas:

In 2002, the year before Obama launched his campaign for U.S. Senate, the Obamas reported income of $259,394, ranking them in the top 2 percent of U.S. households, according to Census Bureau statistics. That year the Obamas claimed $1,050 in deductions for gifts to charity, or 0.4 percent of their income. The average U.S. household totaled $1,872 in gifts to charity in 2002, according to the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University.

The national average for charitable giving has long hovered at 2.2 percent of household income, according to the Glenview-based Giving USA Foundation, which tracks trends in philanthropy. Obama tax returns dating to 1997 show he fell well below that benchmark until 2005, the year he arrived in Washington.

Both Obama and his wife, Michelle,  declined to respond to questions about their charitable donations.

Socialism is love of other people’s money.  And ONLY when it comes to seizing other people’s money and cynically and greedily bankrolling their massive bureaucracies can we talk of Democrats in terms of “love.”

Allow me to contrast Democrat Obama with the Republican whom the American people rejected because he wasn’t “socialist” enough:

“[D]uring a comparable period before Obama and Romney were running for president, Romney’s giving probably was at least ten times Obama’s as a percentage of their incomes, and possibly much more.”

In other words, even when Obama was president of the United States, he wasn’t even one-tenth as personally generous with his own money as Mitt Romney was (and was over his entire life as opposed to the Obamas, who were stingy, greedy, nasty people until they started campaigning themselves for public office.

But maybe that’s just an anomaly.  Surely the Democrat Vice President must be better (I mean, it would be hard for him to be worse, right?):

Looking at the ten-year total of Biden’s giving, one percent would have been $24,500. One half of one percent would have been $12,250. One quarter of one percent would have been $6,125. And one eighth of one percent would have been $3,062 — just below what Biden actually contributed.

“The average American household gives about two percent of adjusted gross income,” says Arthur Brooks, the Syracuse University scholar, soon to take over as head of the American Enterprise Institute, who has done extensive research on American giving. “On average, [Biden] is not giving more than one tenth as much as the average American household, and that is evidence that he doesn’t share charitable values with the average American.”

Oops.  I guess the person greed and stinginess of the Obamas as they cry out for more people to have more of their wealth seized by the divine State is the model of Democrat generosity, after all.

Dick Cheney gave 78% of his wealth to charity.  John McCain, for the record, gave 28% of his income to charity.  Let’s just call Republicans what they are: BETTER HUMAN BEINGS.

The trend follows nationally by the way: Republicans are much more generous than liberals.  At least when you’re talking about with their own money, rather than with other people’s money.

It’s simply a fact: the party that is true to the Word of God in terms of human life and sexual perversion is also the most true to it in being generous to the poor and the needy.

Democrats are a people who selfishly, greedily, bitterly covet and then empower their government to steal in the name of the people.  And what they end up with is a massive bureaucracy ran in the interests of the Democrat Party agenda rather than any real help for the poor.  As an example, ObamaCare was NEVER about caring for the poor or about providing healthcare to those who couldn’t afford it.  Not only are the deductibles in ObamaCare so high that nobody will be able to afford to get the dwindling health care resources in the aftermath of this terrible “Affordable Care Act”  (see also here), but ObamaCare has been used as a cynical attempt to drive religious organizations from providing help to the needy so that the socialist State is all that is left for increasingly desperate people to turn to.

ObamaCare was ALL about “the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to  put the legislation together to control the people,” just as a Democrat once inadvertently said it was.  All it was ever about was more power for the State God.  And Democrats will feed their God as many human sacrifices as necessary to “control the people” and give their God the State more power and more control and more ability to pick winners and losers.

Jesus was someone who did not look to the state or to human government to provide for ANYTHING.  Rather, HE was the provider, the healer, the giver.

The Democrat Party has been at war with God and with Judeo-Christianity and with the Bible and yes, with Jesus Christ for the past fifty years.  And whenever they bother to talk about Jesus (or even ALLOW talk about Jesus under their communist separation of church and state dogma) – and see here - they profoundly misrepresent Him and remake Him into their image which was always the essence of idolatry.

The notion that God wanted the United States of America to plunge into the black hole of demonic debt and literally make their own children – at least the ones they didn’t murder in the hellhole of abortion – debt slaves is frankly about as evil and demonic as it gets.

Now, having said all of this, allow me to address how government could take a giant step in the right direction if liberals would just allow it.

In the 1930s, there was something that many conservatives (I being VERY conservative, I assure you) would approve of today: the Works Public Administration – at least if it were done apolitically rather than being cynically exploited for ideological party [read "Democrat"] gain.

People who refuse to work should NOT eat.  We should not be taking care of these people, let alone creating giant bureaucracies who literally have conferences desperately searching for ways to get more and more people and groups of people hooked on the government welfare dole.  At the same time, there are many people who WOULD work if given the chance, but because of various factors (e.g., medical condition, children, less than ideal resumes), they don’t know how to get started and frankly don’t have much hope that they could get a job even were they to go to every business in town applying.

As a conservative, I would be all for an end to the “welfare state” and the beginning of a new “works public administration.”  People without jobs could come to the government to work and be PUT TO WORK on various public projects.  The government could also hire these people out to businesses that needed temporary assistance.  Those with physical disabilities could go into the administration end or into the childcare end, for example.

There is also the military.  People who can serve should serve.  We only need so many soldiers, but there are a lot of outlets in which out-of-work people could be put to work.

And having a job and demonstrating the ability to show up on time and simply WORKING would be a huge help to many.

Granted, there are people (for example, people with severe mental conditions) who simply cannot work; but these are the vast minority of Americans who don’t have jobs and frankly haven’t had jobs for years.  People who cannot work should be taken care of; frankly no one should starve to death ANYWHERE, let alone in America.  But if we could end the cycle of dependency, the people would be better and the nation would be stronger.

Human beings were created to work.  We need it physically, psychologically, emotionally and spiritually.  People who work for their own bread rather than holding out their hands for a check or an EBT card will be far better off than the current Democrat-imposed alternative.

Where Economic Marxism – And LIBERALISM – Truly Comes From: Hostility Toward God And Religion

August 27, 2012

Few casual liberals realize the fact that the entire economic premise underlying economic Marxism flows from a hostility toward God and toward religion.

Atheism and a spirit of hostility and hatred toward God and toward religion is at the very core of Marxism.  In the words of Karl Marx:

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower.

What did Karl Marx mean by this?

Basically, Marx taught that the world is divided into the haves and the have-nots – which is everywhere being shouted around us today.  And the have-nots were being oppressed by the haves.  But rather than the people rising up in rage and seizing what Marx declared was theirs by force as Marx wanted them to, the people were instead happy in their religion, which according to Marx had been invented by the rich to keep the proletariat in bondage.  Marx acknowledged that in his day, religion was the order of the world; but he determined – and in fact succeeded – in imposing a NEW world system.  Since religion is nothing but an illusion, and materialism is all there actually is, the happiness that the people had in their Christianity was nothing more than a narcotic that kept them in bondage.  The only “real” reality is economic reality.  And therefore the solution presented by Marx was for the people to set aside their shackles of religion and rise up in a spirit of rage and take what was theirs by force.  Only then could the people have actual, “material” happiness.

The eight commandment in the Holy Bible is “You shall not steal,” and the tenth commandment is, “You shall not covet.”  Both ultimately flow from violation of the first commandment, “You shall have no other gods before Me.”  Marxism – as Marx acknowledged – overthrew this system and imposed one in which the State replaced God.  And where God in the Bible had commanded man NOT to covet anything that belonged to his neighbor, Marxism was in fact BASED on coveting.  “Hey, look at those damn rich people!  They’ve got everything!  Let’s take their stuff!”  Because apart from that looking over the wall at your neighbor’s house and coveting what he had and becoming angry that he or she had things that you did not have, Marxism never gets off the ground.

God said, “Thou shalt not covet.  Thou shalt not steal.”  And Marxists – and frankly liberals and Democrats – declared instead,  “Thou shalt covet thy neighbor’s possessions, and thou shalt seize them and redistribute them.”

The sin of Achan as described in Joshua chapter 7 (especially 7:21) follows this order: first you covet, THEN you steal.  And thus economic Marxism, based on atheism and upon replacing God with the all-powerful socialist State, first ordains abolishing God, then ordains materialism and demagogues coveting, and then ultimately empowers the all-powerful government that they have erected to steal in the name of the people.

The book of Ephesians 5:5 identifies coveting with idolatry.  And this idolatrous coveting is a root-sin from which all others flow.  Covetousness comes from idolatry because you are taking God off the throne and replacing Him with yourself – or in the case of Marxism, with the State – in God’s place.  We covet what belongs to others because we have a misplaced value system.  As our desires and our pleasure are directed more and more toward more material things, we covet and begin to feel entitled to take – or allow the State to take – what others have built and worked for.  And many people as a result of this system have a seething anger toward those who have more than they because their unrealistic expectations aren’t being met.  God created us to find our fulfillment and our happiness in Him, but Marxism – and liberalism – says piss on that.  God is an illusion, and we can take what we want from others to make ourselves happy.

Glenn Beck featured a Jewish Rabbi named Daniel Lapin who described the Tower of Babel in the Book of Genesis chapter 11.  Lapin says that these nine verses in Genesis 11:

reveal this dark secret that lies at the deepest recesses of the human soul, which is our susceptibility to become slaves. It’s there. It’s ready. It can pounce at any moment and transform us into serfs.”

Rabbi Lapin points out that King Nimrod didn’t actually come out and say, “Let’s build a tower.”  Rather, he said, “Let’s make bricks.”  And united the people in the endeavor of making bricks.  And this is important, as Lapin explains:

Bricks are really important things here. Later on in the five books of Moses, ancient Jewish wisdom highlights the fact that that an altar — an altar to God must not be built of bricks, right? It has to be built with stones.
 
Why? Because this tension between the bricks and stones is absolutely crucial. Bricks and stones are a biblical metaphor for the way people should be stones, and the way we are easily pulled to be bricks.

Two differences between bricks and stones.
 
Number one, every brick is the same as every other brick. That’s the whole point. They’re totally interchangeable. If you want to turn people to bricks, you are able to turn them into interchangeable social economic cogs that can be just plugged around society.
 
The second thing about bricks is they’re made by man. Stones are each unique. When we have a tradition in Western civilization that man is created the image of God, what it really means is that just as God is unique, so is every single human being is unique, just like a stone.
 
Don’t allow other people to turn you into bricks, retain the personality of a person for which you are created.
 
It’s a difference between “yes, I can,” and “yes, we can.” [...]

And one way it really works is that in every epoch, there is always going to be somebody who tries to seize power. What these 11 verses — these nine verses in Chapter 11 tell us is here are the things you have to watch out for. Here are the things that a potential tyrant is going to do in order to seduce you.
 
Number one, he is going to have a tower. Now, a tower means reaching for the skies — appealing to everything that is great in human nature.
 
Now, look, any leader, whether you’re taking care of your family, whether you’re running a business, whether you’re a military leader — you know, military recruiters don’t say: Hey, come join us. The food is horrible. You’re likely to get killed and you’re going to be a horribly hot — they don’t do that. Step forward and play a role to defend your country, be all you could be. You appeal to the highest in human nature.

That’s what tyrants learn to do as well.

And we don’t need God. We don’t need stones. We don’t need anything that God created because you are great, people are great. All of this is going to be built with bricks and we’re going to make you all interchangeable. That’s why tyrants will do exactly that.

Conservative thought emphasizes that individuality of the Bible as told by the God who created us in His image.  We’re not interchangeable bricks unified by an all-powerful State, we’re individual stones.  But Barack Obama is firmly rooted in man as bricks.  He says of small business owners, the most individualistic people of all, “You didn’t build that.  Government did.”   But back in this ancient time, just as they were when Karl Marx emerged onto the scene, people had been worshiping God and content in their religion.  But then this King Nimrod came along.  The Bible described him as a “hunter of men.”  Why?  Lapin explained:

Why on earth would this one man, Nimrod, be identified as a hunter? Because he hunted, not animals, he hunted people. Not to kill them, he hunted people to seduce them into becoming his subjects and to allow him to become their master.

Karl Marx and Barack Obama haven’t presented anything new, as Rabbi Lapin explains:

The new idea is — and is presented as the Babel blueprint. This is not long forgotten story. This is actually something which is as relevant today as it will be tomorrow, as it was when Robespierre was conducting the French Revolution. The principle is always the same.
 
The two competing ways of organizing human society: One is the Abraham vision of individual independence, individual accountability, God-centric — versus the idea of centralized control.

So, Abraham gives the vision of individual independence, which always has to include economic impendence. That’s absolutely crucial. And sure enough, Abraham, first man in the Bible described as a wealthy man, a blessing, a good thing. Not a curse — a good thing.

And what is it that binds all of these interchangeable bricks that Marxism and liberalism want us to become?  Mortar.  And what is mortar?  Lapin again:

Yes now, in Hebrew, mortar is very related — same word really as the word materialism. And you can actually even hear the similarity transfer into the English language. Mortar — M, T, R are the key consonants. Material — matter — same word essentially.
 
And it’s very important because the lesson from ancient Jewish wisdom here is that you can bond people and unify people with a sense of common spiritual purpose, but if you’re going to eliminate the spiritual — if you’re going to take God entirely out of the picture — then you can unify people through materialism.
 
Get people in debt, use your credit cards, folks. Buy stuff. Acquire stuff. And then you can rent storage facilities to keep the stuff you bought that you don’t need.
 
But that way, we’re all in this together and we can all talk about the great commercials we saw during the football game. And we’re all in this great materialistic splurge because it will unite people.

Materialism that flows from the denial of God:

And what any tyrant knows is that you cannot enslave a people that believe in the Boss. You just can’t. And so, therefore, any tyranny will always begin to develop a hostility to traditional biblical faith, a hostility to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, a hostility to biblical commitment of any kind at all.
 
You always find that, whether it’s Cuba or the Soviet Union or anywhere else, secularism becomes the religion of the day. In fact, I gave it a name — secular fundamentalism, I think, is the religion of the day.

Now, it usually doesn’t begin with religious belief and God-centric thought and then get replaced by atheism.  There is, rather, very often a process by which religion is eroded away until it can be overthrown altogether and replaced.  And so atheistic Marxism was itself officially repackaged into a pseudo-Christian heresy called “liberation theology” that Barack Obama bought from his pastor for 23 years. I described this movement and its relationship to communism in my very first article:

But even allowing that Obama somehow never heard – and even more amazingly, never heard of – anything offensive ever coming from the mouth of his pastor, anyone even remotely familiar with Jeremiah Wright, Jr. and the Trinity United Church of Christ knows full well that both the pastor and the church are leading proponents of an extremely radical ideology known as “black liberation theology.” In short, liberation theology is a giant nut of Marxism covered with a candy coating of Jesus. Liberation theology is a reading of Christianity through Marxist eyes, and very pointedly NOT vice versa. Rather than forgiving its enemies, its adherents all over the world have routinely claimed that oppressors should be overthrown by violent means.

Liberation theology was developed in the early 1970s to pave the way for the communist Sandinistas to infiltrate – and subsequently dominate – Nicaraguan society. The Sandinistas understood full well that they had no hope of installing a Marxist regime in a country that was well over 90% Roman Catholic unless they could successfully subsume Catholicism into their cause of Marxism. And the wedding of Marxism with Christianity was brought about in a clear effort of the former to crush the latter.

Marxism – atheistic though it is – has frequently been characterized as a Christian heresy, in which a glorious new age utopia (a Marxist perversion of heaven) is to be ushered in by a transformation of human nature in a grand historical dialectic. In traditional Christianity, the ennobling of human nature takes place because of the creation of man in the image of God and because of the divine Christ’s Incarnation; in Marxism, the State assumes God’s place. Marxism offers rival theories of sin (private property) and salvation (collective ownership), a church that dispenses grace (the State), and a litany of saints (the proletariat and their Marxist leadership) and sinners (the bourgeoise and their capitalists enablers). In actual historical practice, in every single case, Marxism in a single century has led to more human slaughter and more degradation than all the religions of the world combined led to throughout all of human history.

Thus we see that it is not too much of a stretch for Christian heretics to embrace Marxism as a creed, since, as G.K. Chesterton pointed out, heresy is often truth gone mad. Liberation theology is the subsumption of one tiny truth (that God cares about the poor) wrapped by so much error that it resulted in a form of insanity that saw “Christians” embrace what clearly amounted to terrorism against governments and the very poor and innocent that they claimed to champion.

That last sentence about “terrorism against governments and the very poor and innocent that they claim to champion” is simply true: Marxism has been responsible for the murder of 100 million of its various regimes’ own people in less than a single century. It has crushed the human spirit more than any other system in the history of the world. It offered fantastic promises to create a Utopia for the poor and then ended up taking everything from the poor before ultimately destroying and murdering them.

Marxism was NEVER about the poor; Marxism was ALWAYS about the State.

Liberalism as a movement has LONG realized what hard-core Marxism understood through “liberation theology” in the 1970s.  Namely, that you could “Christianize” socialism by taking that little kernel of truth – that God cares for the poor – and then exploiting that to build a gigantic totalitarian nanny state that is itself a massive lie out of that tiny kernel of truth.

Don’t tell me that liberalism isn’t a close relative of Marxism that is only waiting to be given enough power to become exactly LIKE Marxism.  Karl Marx provided a key statement about economic Marxism when he said:

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

What we have here is the grounds for a State to seize wealth from those who produce and redistribute it to those who do not.

And I defy any liberal to explain how ideological liberalism repudiates and denounces this central premise of Marxism.

I have more to say about liberalism and how it has perverted the essence of Jesus and Christianity, and will do so in an article I have yet to write titled, “Why Do Depraved Democrats Deceitfully Distort Jesus To Demagogue Republicans???”

‘The Best Congressman In The Country’ Who Obama Says Represents His Values Is A DOCUMENTED COMMUNIST

March 13, 2012

Obama said of Rep. Danny K. Davis:

And the reason he’s one of the best congressmen in the country is he shares our values.”

Shares our values“???

Danny K. Davis is a freaking COMMUNIST THUG, as the video at Breitbart.com documents.

Danny K. Davis was also a member of the socialist New Party as was Obama himself (hence the “our values” stuff).

Danny K. Davis – again, “the best congressman in America” according to Obama – is an active member of The Socialist Party of America along with 69 other elected Democrats.

Anybody who doesn’t affirm that Barack Obama is a Marxist is simply a liar.

Karl Marx, expressing the central economic philosophy of Marxism, said:

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

I defy anybody to explain how Barack Obama would damn that Marxist view.  Rather, it is as central to his philosophy as it was to Karl Marx, as he demonstrated in his “spread the wealth around” encounter with Joe the Plumber.

Which is why the Communist Party USA officially endorsed Obama for president in 2012.

It’s not just Barack Obama who is a Marxist; it is the entire Democrat Party.

P.S. the rabid little weasel who physically assaulted the reporter is John Bachtell of the Communist Party USA.  You can learn more about this particular pile of noxious slime here – including watching a video in which the communists and the Occupy vermin decide to join forces.

Do You Truly Love Your Country? It’s Now Official: That Means You’re A Right-Wing Republican

July 2, 2011

I’ve been saying DemonCrats (that’s “Demonic Bureaucrats,” which is what “Democrat” truly stands for) despise their country.  Now I’ve got über-liberal Harvard to back me up.  Which is to say that this isn’t a case of Sarah Palin blasting away at Democrats and claiming Democrats don’t love their country; it’s an example of the liberal intelligentsia itself claiming that Democrats don’t love their country:

Harvard: July 4th Parades Are Right-Wing
By Paul Bedard
Posted: June 30, 2011

Democratic political candidates can skip this weekend’s July 4th parades.  A new Harvard University study finds that July 4th parades energize only Republicans, turn kids into Republicans, and help to boost the GOP turnout of adults on Election Day.

“Fourth of July celebrations in the United States shape the nation’s  political landscape by forming beliefs and increasing participation,  primarily in favor of the Republican Party,” said the report from  Harvard.

“The political right has been more successful in appropriating American patriotism and its symbols during the 20th century. Survey evidence also confirms that Republicans consider themselves more patriotic than Democrats. According to this interpretation, there is a political congruence between the patriotism promoted on Fourth of July and the values associated with the Republican party. Fourth of July celebrations in Republican dominated counties may thus be more politically biased events that socialize children into Republicans,” write Harvard Kennedy School Assistant Professor David Yanagizawa-Drott and Bocconi University Assistant Professor Andreas Madestam.

Their findings also suggest that Democrats gain nothing from July 4th parades, likely a shocking result for all the Democratic politicians who march in them.

“There is no evidence of an increased likelihood of identifying as a Democrat, indicating that Fourth of July shifts preferences to the right rather than increasing political polarization,” the two wrote.

The three key findings of those attending July 4th celebrations:

  • When done before the age of 18, it increases the likelihood of a youth identifying as a Republican by at least 2 percent.
  • It raises the likelihood that parade watchers will vote for a Republican candidate by 4 percent.
  • It boosts the likelihood a reveler will vote by about 1 percent and increases the chances they’ll make a political contribution by 3 percent.

What’s more, the impact isn’t fleeting. “Surprisingly, the estimates show that the impact on political preferences is permanent, with no evidence of the effects depreciating as individuals become older,”said the Harvard report.

Finally, the report suggests that if people are looking for a super-patriotic July 4th, though should head to Republican towns. “Republican adults celebrate Fourth of July more intensively in the first place.”

Conservatives have American Indendence Day, which we celebrate on July 4th in honor of our Declaration of Independence.  Democrats hate the Declaration of Independence because it bases our separation from Great Britain on GOD and establishes the new nation that would consequently be born as a Judeo-Christian one.  Liberals have Marxist May Day, i.e. DEpendence Day, instead.

It’s rather interesting, actually.  I think of the analogy of the “Naksa”, or Israel’s defeat of Arab armies in the 1967 Six-Day War.  It’s a day of celebration for Israelis, and a day of mourning for Palestinians.  It’s a shame that Independence Day is nothing worthy of celebrating for Democrats.  But when you realize that the independence and liberty the founding fathers created was independence and liberty from big government totalitarianism, and that Democrats yearn for the very thing that our founding fathers delivered us from, it starts to make perfect sense.  Ben Franklin said, “Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety.”  And Democrats who dream of a big government nanny state say, “Amen!  Where can see sign up for that?”

Liberals have always despised the Constitution, because it gets in their way of imposing their will on society.  A couple of very recent examples:

Time Magazine: “We can pat ourselves on the back about the past 223 years, but we cannot let the Constitution become an obstacle to the U.S.’s moving into the future with a sensible health care system, a globalized economy, an evolving sense of civil and political rights.”

[...]

The Constitution does not protect our spirit of liberty; our spirit of liberty protects the Constitution. The Constitution serves the nation; the nation does not serve the Constitution.”

And let’s not forget Fareed Zakaria, who recently said America should be more like Iceland – which ripped its Constitution up and is now writing a new one on Facebook.

We can go back to Woodrow Wilson, “the father of the progressive movement,” and see how Democrats have always felt about the Constitution:

President Woodrow Wilson was an early progressive who actively rejected what the founding fathers said and intended. He argued that the meaning of the Constitution should be interpreted by judges, and not based on its words.

In his book, Constitutional Government in the United States, Wilson wrote: “We can say without the least disparagement or even criticism of the Supreme Court of the United States that at its hands the Constitution has received an adaptation and an elaboration which would fill its framers of the simple days of 1787 with nothing less than amazement. The explicitly granted powers of the Constitution are what they always were; but the powers drawn from it by implication have grown and multiplied beyond all expectation, and each generation of statesmen looks to the Supreme Court to supply the interpretation which will serve the needs of the day.”

Wilson and other progressives have failed to understand the consequence of rewriting the Constitution’s meaning and ignoring the intentions of the founding fathers. If this generation is not bound by yesterday’s law, then future generations will not be bound by today’s law.

If law is not a body of rules and can be arbitrarily manipulated, then the rule of man trumps the rule of law. And the founding principle that “all men are created equal” is replaced by “some men are more equal than others.” When people are governed by self-anointed rulers instead of elected representatives, they cannot be free.

When the Constitution was written, it was a radical departure from the despotic governments of its time. While Europeans were being ruled by the arbitrary edicts of kings, Americans revolted so they could become a self-governing people.

Because the founding fathers understood human nature, they structured the Constitution to permanently protect the people from the human shortcomings of their leaders. Human nature has not changed since America’s founding. So the need still exists for the protection provided by the Constitution.

And as Mark Levin points out, we can actually go back before that to see how liberals undermined America and undermined the Constitution by finding judges who would “interpret” it rather than just read it.  Consider slavery, and consider the fact that the Democrat Party was the party of slavery and that the Ku Klux Klan was the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party.  And what justified slavery in the face of our founding documents which clearly condemned slavery?  Liberal activist judges:

Levin: Activist Supreme Courts are not new. The Dred Scott decision in 1856, imposing slavery in free territories; the Plessy decision in 1896, imposing segregation on a private railroad company; the Korematsu decision in 1944, upholding Franklin Roosevelt’s internment of American citizens, mostly Japanese Americans; and the Roe decision in 1973, imposing abortion on the entire nation; are examples of the consequences of activist Courts and justices. Far from being imbued with special insight, these decisions have had dire consequences for our governmental system and for society.

And we can go back well before that, too.  We can go all the way back to Thomas Jefferson, who warned us of the horror of judicial activism:

“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

Democrats don’t love America.  They haven’t for a long time.  For my entire life, in fact.

America is based on the idea that man can govern himself, and that man can govern himself and should govern himself, within the just parameters of the Constitution they so painstakingly crafted for us:

The form of government secured by the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution, and the Constitution is unique in history and reflects the strongly held beliefs of the American Revolutionaries.

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powell anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: “Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” “A republic if you can keep it” responded Franklin.

The term republic had a significant meaning for both of them and all early Americans. It meant a lot more than just representative government and was a form of government in stark contrast to pure democracy where the majority dictated laws and rights. And getting rid of the English monarchy was what the Revolution was all about, so a monarchy was out of the question.

The American Republic required strict limitation of government power. Those powers permitted would be precisely defined and delegated by the people, with all public officials being bound by their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. The democratic process would be limited to the election of our leaders and not used for granting special privileges to any group or individual nor for defining rights.

But Democrats have always despised our founding fathers and the republic they gave us.  Thomas Jefferson said:

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”

I think of Jefferson’s words when I hear the union mobs that shout down others and riot while mindlessly chanting, “THIS is what Democracy looks like!” (See also here).

And Democrats are at the core of this anti-American garbage.  See here.  And here.  And here. And here.  And hereDemocrats were completely at home voting for a president who believes:

“I think that we can say that the Constitution reflected the enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day and that the framers had that same blind spot. I don’t think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.”

And when you read our founding fathers, and understand their arguments and their worldview, you can readily understand why Obama has to characterize the founding fathers and the Constitution they wrote as “blind.”

Because Thomas Jefferson also said things like:

“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”

But these notions are fundamentally incompatible with the vision of “America” Democrats have for this country.  Which is why the founding fathers must be destroyed; their integrity demolished; their wisdom undermined.

Don’t tell me you love America, Democrats.  You hate it.  You’ve hated it for a long time.  That’s why you embrace the following vision of this founding father:

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

The problem is that yours isn’t a founding father of America, but rather the founding father of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.  That quote that Democrats all affirm came from Karl Marx (see Obama’s paraphrase: “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”)  And if you are a Democrat who doesn’t affirm that statement, than explain to me as a Democrat why this central defining statement of communism – which flies in the face of what America’s founding fathers said – is in fact demonic and evil.  And then explain to me how that statement has no part with the Democrat Party.  Please.

Update, July 2: Someone sent me the link to this excellent piece by Ellis Washington which raises some of the same issues I raise above.  It’s worth a read.

Remark Of The Night In South Carolina GOP Debate: Barack Obama IS A Socialist

May 6, 2011

At some point during the GOP debate in South Carolina, Rick Santorum made the comment that Barack Obama was a socialist.

In his after-debate panel that appeared on the Sean Hannity Program, Frank Luntz listened to a woman who pointed that out and said she believed it was true, and then asked the panelists (after saying, “I’m going to get in trouble for this”), “WHY is Barack Obama a socialist?”

One old man immediately said, “Ask Joe the Plumber.”

I can only tell you what I would have said, given the pithy answer that was demanded (although that old man’s was arguably even better):

“Karl Marx expressed the essence of his Marxist communism as, ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.’  Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the mainstream media demanded that Barack Obama refute that statement, and explained how his policies were (somehow) the opposite of that?”

And so, yes, that old man on Frank Luntz’s panel nailed it: when Barack Obama said -

“My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

- There is no question whatsoever that Obama was patiently explaining that, yes, he is without any question whatsoever, a socialist.

For those who would try to argue that statement by Karl Marz is NOT the essence of Marxism, allow me to reproduce Karl Marx’s statement in context:

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

Which is to say that it is not merely the essence of communism, but in fact it was the destination that Karl Marx was striving to attain to in his “higher phase of communist society.”

So, given that liberal Democrats affirm this same exact ideal – which was the ultimate ideal of Marx’s “higher phase of communist society” – just how precisely are they not Marxists?

And yet whenever a conservative makes this accurate accusation, all we ever get from the media is a poo-pooing; as though pointing out and declaring the truth is an extreme thing to do.

Is It Racist To Suggest Obama Is Stupid? Ask Racist Liberals Who Spent 8 Years Calling George Bush Stupid

April 29, 2011

I can find a thousand pull quotes from “journalists” who serve as the court eunuchs for the Democrat Party, but I’ll just stick with one from Bob Schieffer:

“I want to go on to what Donald Trump said after he said ‘this is out’ and everything. He said, ‘we need to look at his grades and see if he was a good enough student to get into Harvard Law School.’ That’s just code for saying he got into law school because he’s black. This is an ugly strain of racism that’s running through this whole thing. We can hope that that kinda comes to an end too.”

I mean, obviously, Schieffer is 100% correct.  I mean, the left would NEVER suggest that Republican president might be stupid, right?  And so for conservatives to suggest that Obama might not be the sharpest tack in the box can only be a code for “racism.”  Right?

Well, not quite.

The left tore into George Bush the way one of Michael Vick’s pit bulls tore into a piece of bloody meat.  And one of their favorite memes was the one that Bush was stupid.

Which demonstrates by their own warped, depraved and perverted logic that liberals are racist.

And there are a gazillion articles like this that asked questions and came to conclusions about George Bush that must not dare be asked and answered about Barack Obama.  [Updated, 4/30]  Here’s one that shows that the attack on Bush’s intelligence – which we now know is a racist, racist, racist thing to do – was so widespread that it essentially formed the centerpiece of the Al Gore campaign:

Gore Camp Targets Bush’s Intelligence
By Carter M. Yang
ABC News, Oct 9

With his truthfulness under fire and his opponent gaining in the polls, Al Gore’s surrogates are openly questioning George W. Bush’s intelligence.

Since this weekend, the Gore team has been ratcheting up its efforts to paint Bush as “confused,” “bumbling,” “babbling” and “ignorant.”

“George W. Bush seems incapable of talking about the important issues in this campaign in a coherent way,” Gore spokesman Mark Fabiani said today, just one in a series of statements from the Democratic candidate’s team drawing attention to the Texas governor’s mispronunciations and misstatements on the campaign trail.

“George Bush is routinely unable to string together a coherent sentence to explain his own proposals,” another Gore spokesman, Douglas Hattaway, said in an earlier statement this weekend. “Americans will decide whether Bush’s uncertain command of the facts and his garbled language bear on his ability to be an effective leader.”

Could that argument only be applied to Bush?  Let’s put that ugly little critter to bed:

We know that Obama uses his teleprompter far more than George Bush or any other president in the history of the republic.

We know that Obama even needs his prompter to speak in elementary schools:

We also know that Obama isn’t exactly coherent without the “TOTUS.”

And we know that in fact the man is an idiot:

“It is wonderful to be back in Oregon,” Obama said. “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it.”

But how dare you acknowledge the obvious, no matter how obvious it is.  It’s RACIST to recognize the obvious.

Because, you see, liberals souls swim in a deep racist ocean, and the unadulterated hypocrisy which quintessentially defines them means that you can tee off on a white man, demonize him for his stupidity, his values, his greed, etc., but you must grovel in the sackcloth and ashes of white guilt at the feet of the black man.

Well, as long as that black man is a liberal.  Becuase if he’s a conservative, liberals are allowed – encouraged, even – to allow the racism that also defines them full-throttled expression:

Liberals often respond by pointing out that it isn’t just black liberals or Hispanic liberals who constantly demonize white men; white liberals demonize white men, too.  So it clearly can’t be racist.

I respond by pointing out that just as Karl Marx was a self-hating Jew and Adolf Hitler was in all probability a self-loathing Jew, white liberals are merely caucasian-hating caucasians:

Take Karl Marx.  The man was profoundly anti-Semitic.  He was also a Jew.

Here are some quotes from the VERY Jewish “intellectual” Karl Marx:

“The Jews of Poland are the smeariest of all races.” (Neue Rheinische Zeitung, April 29, 1849)

“Ramsgate is full of Jews and fleas.” (MEKOR IV, 490, August 25, 1879)

“What is the Jew’s foundation in our world? Material necessity, private advantage.

“What is the object of the Jew’s worship in this world? Usury. What is his worldly god? Money.

“Very well then; emancipation from usury and money, that is, from practical, real Judaism, would constitute the emancipation of our time.” (“A World Without Jews,” p. 37)

“What was the essential foundation of the Jewish religion? Practical needs, egotism.” (Ibid, p. 40)

“Money is the zealous one God of Israel, beside which no other God may stand. Money degrades all the gods of mankind and turns them into commodities. Money is the universal and self-constituted value set upon all things. It has therefore robbed the whole world, of both nature and man, of its original value. Money is the essence of man’s life and work, which have become alienated from him. This alien monster rules him and he worships it.

“The God of the Jews has become secularized and is now a worldly God. The bill of exchange is the Jew’s real God. His God is the illusory bill of exchange.” (“A World Without Jews,” p. 41)

And what about the most rabid anti-Semite of all time?

Hitler ‘had Jewish and African roots’, DNA tests show
Adolf Hitler is likely to have had Jewish and African roots, DNA tests have shown.
By Heidi Blake 6:25AM BST 24 Aug 2010
 
Saliva samples taken from 39 relatives of the Nazi leader show he may have had biological links to the “subhuman” races that he tried to exterminate during the Holocaust.

Jean-Paul Mulders, a Belgian journalist, and Marc Vermeeren, a historian, tracked down the Fuhrer’s relatives, including an Austrian farmer who was his cousin, earlier this year.

A chromosome called Haplogroup E1b1b1 which showed up in their samples is rare in Western Europe and is most commonly found in the Berbers of Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, as well as among Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews.

“One can from this postulate that Hitler was related to people whom he despised,” Mr Mulders wrote in the Belgian magazine, Knack.

Can you be of a certain race and yet actively despise that race?  I think we’ve established that you most certainly can, if you’re vile enough.

And it doesn’t surprise me at all that rabid leftwing socialists like Marx and Hitler would be the models for radical leftwing socialists right here and right now in America.

And if you want to see naked racism, I’ll gladly show you naked racism.

We constantly hear conservatives and Republicans compared to the Ku Klux Klan.  Because liberals are either too stupid or too dishonest (and I personally believe both too stupid and too dishonest) to understand that the Klu Klux Klan was the terrorist arm of THE DEMOCRAT PARTY and in fact the Klan continued to be profoundly and directly associated with the Democrat party well into the 20th century.  And all the Democrat Party did was understand that if they couldn’t own black people by slavery, they could eventually own them by political patronage through welfare and socialistic redistributionism.

What did Frederick Douglass, one of the great moral intellectuals of any race, have to say about what is THE policy of the Democrat Party back when “stupid” white men were literally dying by the hundreds of thousands to free the slaves?

Frederick Douglass ridiculed the idea of racial quotas, as suggested by Martin Delany, as “absurd as a matter of practice,” noting that it implied blacks “should constitute one-eighth of the poets, statesmen, scholars, authors and philosophers.” Douglass emphasized that “natural equality is a very different thing from practical equality; and…though men may be potentially equal, circumstances may for a time cause the most striking inequalities.”  On another occasion, in opposing “special efforts” for the black freedmen, Douglass argued that they “might ‘serve to keep up very prejudices, which it is so desirable to banish’ by promoting an image of blacks as privileged wards of the state.”

Liberals are people who project and mirror their own hate.  And they reduce human beings to the absolute lowest common denominator, rather than try to lift people up and help them become better.  Bottom line.

Racism and race-baiting isn’t the last resort of the left; it is their first knee-jerk response.  And that is because THEY are the racists.  Racism defines them; it is the essence of their beings.  Whereas Martin Luther King dreamed of a society in which his “four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”  But liberals angrily refuse to do that, and demand that color is everything, and that everything must be viewed through the lenses of race and racism.

I couldn’t be more disgusted with the vileness that characterizes the left.  I have as much right to call Barack Obama a stupid man as any liberal had to call George Bush a stupid man.  And you can easily identify as a racist the person who shouts that I don’t have that right.

And I don’t give a flying fig what color your skin is, and what color the skin of the person you’re defending or denouncing is.  If you play that game, you are a racist.  And a nasty hypocrite racist at that.

MSNBC Adds Bigoted To Its Bias: ‘You’re Ignorant Because You’re White’

March 19, 2011

This is just absolutely stunning.

MSNBC‘s Lawrence O’Donnell shows us how totally over the top rabid liberal non-Fox News networks truly are.

Here is a transcript of what this fool passes off as “journalism” today:

O’DONNELL: Perhaps all of Michele Bachmann’s staff come from her district, which may be the most ignorant Congressional district in America. In 2010, 52 percent of that district voted for Michele Bachmann to represent them in Congress. Now, she had already proven time and time again to her district and to America that she is unworthy of representing any Congressional district in America. But 52 percent, the same percentage in that district who voted for John McCain for president, voted for Michele Bachmann in 2010.

What makes those voters so ignorant? Well, for starters, they are whiter than the average district. 92 percent white in fact.

Noel Sheppard at Newsbusters continues to take the “sane” out of O’Donnell’s insanity:

What? They’re ignorant because they’re white? Are you kidding? O’Donnell continued:

O’DONNELL: But that explains nothing. Missouri’s 8th Congressional district is 91 percent white and has been represented by Jo Ann Emerson since 1997. We do not have a litany of imbecilic comments by Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson. In fact, we have none. If we’ve missed any, please submit them to our website, thelastword.msnbc.com, and we’ll see if they compare to Michele Bachmann’s.

Well, if that “explains nothing,” why bring it up? It’s almost like O’Donnell and his staff knew they were going too far with the 92 percent white remark, and felt they needed to soften it a little by bringing up Emerson’s district.

But the damage was already done. After all, imagine for a moment Bachmann was black, Emerson was black, these were black districts, and the commentator was a conservative:

What makes those voters so ignorant? Well, for starters, they are blacker than the average district. 92 percent black in fact. But that explains nothing. Missouri’s 8th Congressional district is 91 percent black and has been represented by Jo Ann Emerson since 1997. We do not have a litany of imbecilic comments by Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson. In fact, we have none. If we’ve missed any, please submit them to our website, thelastword.msnbc.com, and we’ll see if they compare to Michele Bachmann’s.

You think that would have gone over well in the black community, or would there be calls Tuesday for said conservative commentator’s immediate termination?

I guess along with feeling comfortable attacking white women as long as they’re conservative, O’Donnell now feels it’s acceptable to go after all white people.

I am so sick and disgusted with liberals.  They are completely depraved people with a completely warped view of the world.

Liberals like Lawrence O’Donnell are totally committed to postmodernism, multiculturalism and pluralism.  It’s not that they are intellecutally brainless idiots as much as it is that they have totally committed themselves to totally false theories about the world.  Like the whole “Emperor’s New Clothes” story, these “intellectuals” have convinced themselves that their theories are the stuff of genius.  Only the more they try to explain their genius theories, the more utterly idiotic they start sounding.

Let’s talk about liberals and God; more specifically about MSNBC, Lawrence O’Donnell, and God.  Said O’Donnell on his MSNBC soapbox:

The book of Revelation is a work of fiction describing how a truly vicious God would bring about the end of the world. No half-smart religious person actually believes the book of Revelation. They are certain that their God would never turn into a malicious torturer and mass murderer beyond Hitler’s wildest dreams. Glenn Beck, of course, does believe the book of Revelation.

There is a reason why the Bible says, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God'” (Psalm 14:1).  And that is because any worldview which does not begin with a divine worldview is already wrong, and can only go more and more wrong as it continues to postulate bad answers to fundamental questions.

Our founding fathers understood this, and their understanding enabled them to found the world’s oldest democratic republic.  They realized that democracy – a limited government of the people – demanded that people be able to govern themselves.  And that only a moral and religious people could pull that off. 

They fought a war over this principle encapsulated in the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” – Declaration of Independence

And so we have the words of Adams:

“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 Washington:

“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

But liberalism fundamentally denies this principle, and constantly seeks for the results of the French Revolution rather than the American Revolution.   They refuse to realize that the atheism-based French Revolution inevitably resulted in first chaos and madness, and then a dictator (Napolean seized power within a decade); and that France has had 11 separate Constitutions since 1793, and at least fifteen different governments.  Thomas Jefferson rightly said that, “With all the defects in our Constitution, whether general or particular, the comparison of our government with those of Europe, is like a comparison of Heaven with Hell.”

But multiculturalist, pluralist, postmodernist secular humanists that dominate liberalism like Lawrence O’Donnell literally seek hell.

Can a white man be an anti-white male-bashing bigot?  You’d assume not, until you realize that people like Lawrence O’Donnell are so damn arrogant that they view themselves as transcending their own race and gender even as they claim that everyone else beneath them is a slave to their own.  But the fact of the matter is – to quote Barack Obama – “yes, we can.”  We can believe a theory that necessarily makes us hate ourselves.

Take Karl Marx.  The man was profoundly anti-Semitic.  He was also a Jew.

Here are some quotes from the VERY Jewish “intellectual” Karl Marx:

“The Jews of Poland are the smeariest of all races.” (Neue Rheinische Zeitung, April 29, 1849)

“Ramsgate is full of Jews and fleas.” (MEKOR IV, 490, August 25, 1879)

“What is the Jew’s foundation in our world? Material necessity, private advantage.

“What is the object of the Jew’s worship in this world? Usury. What is his worldly god? Money.

“Very well then; emancipation from usury and money, that is, from practical, real Judaism, would constitute the emancipation of our time.” (“A World Without Jews,” p. 37)

“What was the essential foundation of the Jewish religion? Practical needs, egotism.” (Ibid, p. 40)

“Money is the zealous one God of Israel, beside which no other God may stand. Money degrades all the gods of mankind and turns them into commodities. Money is the universal and self-constituted value set upon all things. It has therefore robbed the whole world, of both nature and man, of its original value. Money is the essence of man’s life and work, which have become alienated from him. This alien monster rules him and he worships it.

“The God of the Jews has become secularized and is now a worldly God. The bill of exchange is the Jew’s real God. His God is the illusory bill of exchange.” (“A World Without Jews,” p. 41)

And what about the most rabid anti-Semite of all time?

Hitler ‘had Jewish and African roots’, DNA tests show
Adolf Hitler is likely to have had Jewish and African roots, DNA tests have shown.
By Heidi Blake 6:25AM BST 24 Aug 2010
 
Saliva samples taken from 39 relatives of the Nazi leader show he may have had biological links to the “subhuman” races that he tried to exterminate during the Holocaust.

Jean-Paul Mulders, a Belgian journalist, and Marc Vermeeren, a historian, tracked down the Fuhrer’s relatives, including an Austrian farmer who was his cousin, earlier this year.

A chromosome called Haplogroup E1b1b1 which showed up in their samples is rare in Western Europe and is most commonly found in the Berbers of Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, as well as among Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews.

“One can from this postulate that Hitler was related to people whom he despised,” Mr Mulders wrote in the Belgian magazine, Knack.

Just as Caucasian and male “journalist” Lawrence O’Donnell is clearly related to people he despises.

Can you be of a certain race and yet actively despise that race?  I think we’ve established that you most certainly can, if you’re vile enough.

So yes, we’ve got Lawrence O’Donnell, anti-white bigoted man-despising white male.

Lawrence O’Donnell is a pathological liberal ideologue.  Progressive liberal pseudo-intellectualism is rabidly anti-white and anti-man.  And so O’Donnell is those things, too.  And the fact that O’Donnell is the very things he despises is at best a minor detail to him.  Because liberals NEVER worry about inconvenient things like facts.

I would add one other element to the mix: the ingredient of self-hatred which is so necessary to liberalism.

Understand: liberals constantly agitate for policies that will bring about their nation’s certain destruction.  You don’t do that sort of thing unless you hate yourself, hate the next generation, hate your country, and literally embrace your own extinction.

At some deep subconscious level, liberals like Lawrence O’Donnell recognize that they are swine, that they are nasty, nasty people.  And from that point forward everything else just sort of oozes out of them like toxic slime from a poorly-designed container.

MSNBC has the right to broadcast.  Unlike the fascist liberals who constantly agitate to force Rush Limbaugh and Fox News off the air with oxymoronic legislations such as “the fairness doctrine,” I accept that right.  But that doesn’t mean anyone but fools need to watch it.

ObamaCare Declared Unconstitutional – Not That Democrats Give A Damn About The Constitution

February 1, 2011

ObamaCare is unconstitutional.  But Democrats could frankly care less what that meaningless moldy old document says.

Twenty-six states demanded that ObamaCare be declared unconstitutional in this decision, not counting Virginia which previously got its own successful decision against ObamaCare.

Federal District Judge Roger Vinson’s incredibly well-reasoned Constitution-based decision is available here.

A good article on this story was written by David Whelan for Forbes:

Justice Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court in Pensacola ruled today that the primary mechanism used by the health reform legislation to achieve universal insurance coverage–the individual mandate–is illegal. If his ruling stands it would void the 2,700 page, $938 billion health reform bill passed last year.

“Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications,” Vinson writes.

With this ruling, and a similar one in December by Judge Henry Hudson in Virginia, it’s likely that the U.S. Supreme Court will be the final arbiter of whether ObamaCare stands. Two other lawsuits–one in Michigan and one in Virginia–were thrown out by other federal district judges last year who ruled the constitutional challenge lacked merit.

Most analysts were expecting a ruling in favor of the 26 states hoping to overturn the bill. Vinson, in an earlier ruling, suggested that the federal fine for not buying insurance is more of a penalty than a tax. If it’s a penalty, the legislation relies on a broad interpretation of federal regulatory powers. If it’s a tax, as the Department of Justice’s lawyers argued, it’s much more difficult to make a constitutional objection.

In today’s ruling Vinson considered two arguments made by Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, the lead plaintiff on the lawsuit. The first was the legislation forces states to expand Medicaid in a way that’s unaffordable. Vinson quickly dispatches that legal theory, pointing out that Medicaid is and always has been a voluntary program.

The second argument revolves around the individual mandate. The health reform legislation makes it illegal for insurers to discriminate against patients regardless of their health. With that change there’s a risk that only sick people would buy insurance and healthy people would wait or be priced out of the market. To address that problem, the bill forces everyone who does not have insurance to buy it. The combination of “guaranteed issue” and the “individual mandate” is the beating heart of the health bill.

While the new rules banning medical underwriting are popular, the individual mandate has bred resentment. The bill’s authors never anticipated the mandate would become a ripe target for legal challenges.

The argument that’s had the most traction is based on the limitations of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The Commerce Clause explicitly allows the federal government regulate interstate commerce. But it also has been used to justify federal laws that affect other kinds of economic activity. The question raised by the lawsuit against the health reform bill is whether refusing to buy insurance constitutes interstate commerce. In his ruling Vinson says that in the past the Commerce Clause has been used to regulate activities like growing marijuana or navigating a waterway, but not used to force someone to do something they weren’t already doing. “It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause,” he writes.

Vinson rejects the administration’s argument that the health care market is unique since nobody can truly opt out–and that not buying insurance is in itself an economic activity since the cost of care then falls on others. Vinson mocks this argument, writing: “Everyone must participate in the food market… under this logic, Congress could [mandate] that every adult purchase and consume wheat bread daily.” If they didn’t buy wheat bread they might have a bad diet which would put a strain on the health care system, he writes.

Later he offers another analogy: “Congress could require that everyone above a certain income threshold buy a General Motors automobile — now partially government-owned — because those who do not buy GM cars (or those who buy foreign cars) are adversely impacting commerce and a taxpayer-subsidized business.” Vinson concludes: “The individual mandate exceeds Congress’ commerce power, as it is understood, defined, and applied in the existing Supreme Court case law.”

Judge Vinson marshalled quite a few opinions against ObamaCare.  Interestingly, one of them was Obama’s himself.

From the Washington Times:

In ruling against President Obama‘s health care law, federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him, arguing that there are other ways to tackle health care short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday.

Democrats have established quite a recent history in thumbing their noses at the Constitution.

Charles Krauthammer had this to say on Fox News Special Report on January 5th about Democrats literally boycotting the reading of the Constitution on the House floor:

KRAUTHAMMER:  “It is truly astonishing. One member of Congress called it a long, dull document.  The New York Times editorial reading of the Constitution in the House is presumptuous.  Liberals got in trouble in the 60s and 70s for being on the wrong side of the flag and the anti-war demonstrations and now three decades later, they want to be on the wrong side of the Constitution.

The Constitution, after all – when these members were sworn in today, that they did not swear to defend the country or the army or the people; it was to defend the Constitution. That is the essence of America, and it is what makes us unique and why we are a country not of blood or race but ideas.  For liberals to think that there is actually an advantage in dismissing reading the Constitution and the requirement of having a constitutional reason to introduce a bill is real bad politics.”

It wasn’t just “bad politics.”  Krauthammer underscored that better than anyone.  It was contemptible citizenship.  It was the act of unAmerican people.

One Democrat actually called the reading of the U.S. Constitution “propaganda,” adding that a reading of the Constitution amounted to “total nonsense.”  He added that Republicans were reading it “like a sacred text.”  When, of course, so many Democrats treat it more like toilet paper.  Liberal Ezra Klein added historical ignorance to his moral ignorance by saying that the Constitution is confusing, having been written “a hundred years ago,” and that it is no longer binding.  Obviously, liberal Ezra Klein is an ignorant fool.

It is beyond official at this point.  We can separate the population of the United States of America into two groups: the American people and the unAmerican people.  And the Democrat Party has become the party of the unAmericans.

UnAmericans don’t give a damn about America.  They want to change it, pervert it, warp it, distort it.  They want to make it into something that it never was and never should have been.  And they call their effort “hope and change.”

Mind you, that’s “hope and change” in the direction set by Karl Marx; never the one set by George Washington.

A Muslim extremist named Tayyip Erdogan had this to say about democracy, comparing democracy to a bus: “You ride it to your destination, and then you step off.”  Democrats were elected democratically; and then they started imposing their 2,700 pages of fascism using every procedural gimmick in the book.  Nancy Pelosi actually said:

“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

Let’s take another bus tour to how we got ObamaCare shoved down our throat:

Speaker of the House of Representatives, Rep. Nancy Pelosi:

(CNSNews.com) – When CNSNews.com asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday where the Constitution authorized Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance–a mandate included in both the House and Senate versions of the health care bill–Pelosi dismissed the question by saying: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

Youtube audio of Nancy Pelosi dismissing constitutionality:

Yeah, people who actually care about the Constitution, and care about the fact that our lawmakers – who take an oath to uphold the Constitution – actually consider it.

Rep. Pete Stark, responding to a question on health care:

Questioner: “If this legislation is constitutional, what limitations are there on the federal government’s ability to tell us how to run our private lives?”

Rep. Stark: “I think that there are very few constitutional limits that would prevent the federal government from rules that could affect your private life.  now the basis for that would be how does that affect other people.”

Questioner: “The constitution specially enumerates certain powers to the federal government, and leaves all other authority to the states.  The constitution is very limited as to what it can do…. if they can do this, what can’t they do?”

Rep. Stark: “The federal government, yes, can do almost anything in this country.”

Watch the Youtube video of this question and answer:

Liberal Supreme Court justices imposed abortion on the grounds of a fundamental right to privacy – which is actually nowhere to be found in the Constitution – based on nothing more than “penumbras and emanations” discerned from gazing into the Constitution like a crystal ball rather than like a historical document.  Now they are saying there IS no right to privacy of any kind, whatsoever in order to impose government health care and all the violations of rights and liberties that go hand-in-hand with that imposition.  Because it never was about the Constitution or even about any right to privacy; it was always about using whatever rhetorical argument they wanted to get the result they wanted.  So they said we had a right to privacy until the right to privacy got in their way.

If the federal government can do almost anything in this country, how then do you stop the next dictatorship?  How do you stop tyranny?  How do you stop totalitarian big government?

And let’s consider a corresponding Democrat’s statement on the same subject of government health care:

Democrat Rep. John Dingell:

“The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re passing legislation that will cover 300 million American people in different ways, it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.”

And, of course, Dingell is right: it takes time and effort to abandon the Constitution – which places limits on federal power – and then impose controls on the people that utterly abandon any scintilla of any meaningful form of constitutional government.

Democrat Robin Carnahan, Missouri Secretary of State and candidate for the United States Senate:

Carnahan: “We’re going to also have a libertarian and a Constitution Party candidate running.  And I will tell you no one’s going to know who they are, but it’s not going to matter, because Glenn Beck says you’re supposed to be for the Constitution, and there is some percentage of people who will go vote for them.  And in our internal polling about six or seven percent goes like that to the Libertarian and Constitution Party.  So I’m quite sure that whoever wins is going to do it with less than fifty percent of the vote.” [...]

Donor: “You just don’t sound like those Constitution Party votes are going to come out of your account.”

Carnahan: “What do you think?” (Audience laughter)

Donor: “I think you’re right.” (Audience laughter)

Here’s the Youtube audio of that exchange:

Stop and think about that: it is a matter of mocking derision that no one who actually cares about the integrity of the Constitution is going to vote for the Democrats.  And in fact Robin Carnahan – who is serving as a Democrat in the office of Secretary of State – cynically intends to exploit the fact that she can divide those who care about the Constitution and win by attrition.

And they mock the fact that no one who votes Democrat gives a leaping damn about the Constitution.

Take Democrat Rep. Jan Schakowsky on “The Stephanie Miller Show” on 9/30/2010:

“Actually, I think really what it was was an effort to get the Tea Partiers to think that they really have some sort of revolutionary plan, because at the beginning they quote a lot from the Constitution, the idea that free people can govern themselves, that the government powers are derived from the consent of the governed.

All that stuff that I think that, that that’s an effort to try to appeal to those people, the Tea Party.

They embrace the Tenth Amendment – ‘tenthers,’ you know?”

The audio of the interview is available here.

That Tenth Amendment is a real load of crap, right?

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Let’s just go ahead and abolish it so we can have the kind of totalitarian big government that Democrats yearn for.  Because Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il, and all these other leftist dictators were just such groovy people, and we need their ilk here in red, white and blue America.

Yeah, that’s right.  Ridicule me, Rep. Schakowsky.  Call me a “tenther” like I’m a “birther” or a “truther” or some sort of nutjob because – unlike Democrats – I actually honor our Constitution and our Bill of Rights.

Jan Schakowsky calls Tea Party people “extreme” because they actually take their Constitution seriously.  But this is a woman who was perfectly willing to abandon principles to turn ObamaCare into a Trojan horse for a socialist single payer system (and see also here).  This is a woman who said:

“A public option will put the private insurance industry out of business and lead to single-payer” – Rep. Jan Schakowsky (to wild applause).

Marxism and communism is not extreme.  Nope.  It’s not extreme to use ObamaCare as a vehicle to put the private sector out of business so you can sneak in a government-planned economy.  What’s “extreme” is believing in the Constitution that Democrats such as Jan Schakowsky once deceitfully swore an oath to uphold.

Democrats spent over a year imposing 2,700 pages of unconstitutional “laws” upon a people who never wanted it.  And now, amazingly, they’re demanding that Republicans merely recognize that it’s done and over with, and move on.

Fortunately, Republicans DO care about the Constitution.  And they’re going to fight Democrats for the soul of this country.

If Democrats give a damn about the American people, they will join Republicans in demanding that this verdict go immediately to the U.S. Supreme Court for a final judgment.  Rule 11 of the Supreme Court allows particularly important cases that are of imperative public importance to gain such an emergency hearing.  But only if both sides agree.  If Democrats don’t demand this, they will continue to do even more harm in keeping the American people in the dark about how to plan.  Businesses will continue to hold off on hiring, and the economy will continue to suffer until this decision is finalized.

Tax Cuts INCREASE Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues

September 8, 2010

We keep seeing the same liberal argument being played over and over again.  As the mainstream media seek to make their case to the American people that the Bush tax cuts should expire, one of the primary strategies being employed is to claim that Republicans are refusing to “pay for” their extension of the tax cuts.  And that therefore the Republicans will hike the deficit.  The problem is that it’s a false premise, based on a static conception of human behavior that refuses to take into account the fact that people’s behavior changes depending upon how much of their money they are allowed to keep, and how much of their money is seized from them in taxation.

As bizarre as it might seem, it is seen as perverse these days to suggest that allowing someone to keep more of the money he or she invests would stimulate people to take more risks by investing in businesses and products, and that such increased investment in business and products would in turn stimulate more economic growth.  Common sense has become akin to rocket science these days.

Then again, liberals aren’t doing much for rocket science, either.

Let’s take a look at the current facts, and then examine the history of our greatest tax-cutting presidents.

The Falsehood That Democrats Are ‘Cutting’ Taxes

Democrats say they are cutting taxes on “95% of Americans, but argue that giving the same tax cut benefits to the remaining 5% would hike the deficit and be fiscally irresponsible.

Well, for one thing, the Democrats are flat-out lying when they say they are cutting taxes for 95% of Americans.  That can’t possibly be true, because as a matter of simple fact a whopping 47% of American households pay no federal income taxes whatsoever.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Tax Day is a dreaded deadline for millions, but for nearly half of U.S. households it’s simply somebody else’s problem.

About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That’s according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization. [...]

The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education. It is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners — households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 — paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.

What Democrats are doing – deceitful liars that they are – is giving Americans “tax credits” and calling them “tax cuts.”

tax cut is a reduction in the percentage or amount of taxes that is being imposed on a citizen.  The government is cutting the amount it had been collecting from taxpayers.  A government cannot “cut” a citizen’s taxes unless that citizen had been paying taxes in the first place.

A tax credit is when you give someone money that has been collected from another taxpayer.  It is redistribution of wealth.  It is what Karl Marx described as “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”  Do you notice that “to” in the middle?  It means, “transferring the wealth from one government-penalized group of people TO another government-privileged group of people.”  It is what Obama described as “spreading the wealth around.”

What Obama and the Democrats in Congress propose is NOT a “tax cut.”  And it is nothing but a lie to call it that.  And every single journalist who has suggested that it is a tax cut is as much of a liar as the Democrats are.

That’s the first point.  Democrats are advancing a central tenet of Marxism and deceitfully and even demagogically relabeling it as “capitalism.”  And the media helps them get away with it.

The Falsehood That Cutting Taxes For the Rich – But NOT The Other Classes – Contributes To the Deficit

Next comes the idea Democrats argue that tax cuts for the rich contribute to the deficit.

Let’s say for the sake of argument (just for the moment; I’ll prove it’s wrong below) that tax cuts for the rich raise the deficit.  Let me ask you one question: how then do tax cuts for the rest of us not ALSO raise the deficit???

Why wouldn’t raising taxes on the middle class and the poor not correspondingly lower the deficit?  So why aren’t Democrats going after them?

Are Democrats too stupid to realize that there just aren’t enough rich people to pay off our deficit, especially when this president and this Congress have raised said deficit tenfold over the last Republican-passed budget deficit?  The last budget produced by congressional Republicans was in 2007.  That year, the deficit was approximately $160 billion; now under Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid it is $1.6 TRILLION a year as far as the eye can see.

Wouldn’t ANY tax cuts raise the deficit?  And shouldn’t we therefore tax the bejeezus out of EVERYBODY to lower the deficit?  Wouldn’t every single dollar collected reduce the deficit correspondingly?

Let me put it concretely: say I took a $100 bill out of the wallet of a millionaire.  And then say I took a $100 bill out of the wallet of a poor person.  If I took both bills to a Democrat, would he or she be able to tell the difference?  Would he say, “Ah, THIS bill will lower the deficit because it comes from a rich person; but THIS one clearly won’t because it clearly came from a poor person.”

Update, Sep. 10: A study by the Joint Tax Committee, using the same static methodology that I refer to in my opening paragraph, calculate that the government will lose $700 billion in revenue if the tax cuts for the top income brackets are extended.  And that sounds bad.  But they also conclude that the Bush tax cuts on the middle class will cost the Treasury $3 TRILLION over the same period.  If we can’t afford $700 billion, then how on earth can we afford $3 trillion?  And then you’ve got to ask how much the Treasury is losing by not taxing the poor first into the poorhouse, and then into the street?  And how much more revenue could we collect if we then imposed a “street” tax? [end update].

Hopefully you get the point: if tax cuts for the rich are bad because they increase the deficit, then they are equally bad for everyone else for the same exact reason.  And so we should either tax the hell out of everyone, or cut taxes for everyone.  And a consistent Democrat opposed to “deficit-hiking tax cuts for the rich” should be for raising YOUR taxes as much as possible.

Republicans don’t fall into this fundamental contradiction (see below), because they don’t believe that tax cuts create deficits.  Democrats do.  Which means they are perfectly content with shockingly supermassive deficits – as long as its 95% of Americans who are creating those deficits, rather than 100%.

Joe Biden said it was a patriotic duty to pay higher taxes.  And yet Democrats are trying to make 95% of Americans unpatriotic traitors who don’t care about their country?

Now, Democrats will at this point repudiate logic and punt to the issue of “fairness.”  But “fairness” is a very subjective thing, when one group of people decide it’s “fair” for another group of people to hand over their money while the first group pays nothing.  Even George Bernard Shaw – a socialist, mind you – understood this.  He pointed out the fact that “A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.”

Which is to say it’s NOT fair at all.  Paul may think it’s fair, but poor Peter gets screwed year after year.

And it is a fundamental act of hypocrisy – not to mention advancing yet ANOTHER central tenet of Marxist class warfare – to claim to oppose tax cuts for the rich in the name of the deficit, but not to oppose tax cuts for everyone else.

And for the record, I despise both hypocrisy AND central tenets of Marxism.  Which is why I despise the Democrat Party, which is both hypocritical and basically Marxist.

[Update, September 20] Brit Hume demolished the Obama-Democrat argument regarding the Bush tax cuts being a “cost” to the government, saying:

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

And, again, that mindset about government control and in fact government ownership over people’s wealth represents a profoundly Marxist view of the world. [End update].

For what it’s worth, Democrats will only maintain the massive contradiction of “tax cuts for the rich raising the deficit” for so long.  Obama already admitted he was willing to go back on his promise to raise taxes on the middle class.  And his people are already looking to tee off on middle class tax hikes.  In addition, if you have any private retirement funds, they may well be coming after you soon.

The Falsehood That Tax Cuts Increase The Deficit

Now let’s take a look at the utterly fallacious view that tax cuts in general create higher deficits.

Let’s take a trip back in time, starting with the 1920s.  From Burton Folsom’s book, New Deal or Raw Deal?:

In 1921, President Harding asked the sixty-five-year-old [Andrew] Mellon to be secretary of the treasury; the national debt [resulting from WWI] had surpassed $20 billion and unemployment had reached 11.7 percent, one of the highest rates in U.S. history.  Harding invited Mellon to tinker with tax rates to encourage investment without incurring more debt. Mellon studied the problem carefully; his solution was what is today called “supply side economics,” the idea of cutting taxes to stimulate investment.  High income tax rates, Mellon argued, “inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw this capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities. . . . The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up, wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people” (page 128).

Mellon wrote, “It seems difficult for some to understand that high rates of taxation do not necessarily mean large revenue to the Government, and that more revenue may often be obtained by lower taxes.”  And he compared the government setting tax rates on incomes to a businessman setting prices on products: “If a price is fixed too high, sales drop off and with them profits.”

And what happened?

“As secretary of the treasury, Mellon promoted, and Harding and Coolidge backed, a plan that eventually cut taxes on large incomes from 73 to 24 percent and on smaller incomes from 4 to 1/2 of 1 percent.  These tax cuts helped produce an outpouring of economic development – from air conditioning to refrigerators to zippers, Scotch tape to radios and talking movies.  Investors took more risks when they were allowed to keep more of their gains.  President Coolidge, during his six years in office, averaged only 3.3 percent unemployment and 1 percent inflation – the lowest misery index of any president in the twentieth century.

Furthermore, Mellon was also vindicated in his astonishing predictions that cutting taxes across the board would generate more revenue.  In the early 1920s, when the highest tax rate was 73 percent, the total income tax revenue to the U.S. government was a little over $700 million.  In 1928 and 1929, when the top tax rate was slashed to 25 and 24 percent, the total revenue topped the $1 billion mark.  Also remarkable, as Table 3 indicates, is that the burden of paying these taxes fell increasingly upon the wealthy” (page 129-130).

Now, that is incredible upon its face, but it becomes even more incredible when contrasted with FDR’s antibusiness and confiscatory tax policies, which both dramatically shrunk in terms of actual income tax revenues (from $1.096 billion in 1929 to $527 million in 1935), and dramatically shifted the tax burden to the backs of the poor by imposing huge new excise taxes (from $540 million in 1929 to $1.364 billion in 1935).  See Table 1 on page 125 of New Deal or Raw Deal for that information.

FDR both collected far less taxes from the rich, while imposing a far more onerous tax burden upon the poor.

It is simply a matter of empirical fact that tax cuts create increased revenue, and that those [Democrats] who have refused to pay attention to that fact have ended up reducing government revenues even as they increased the burdens on the poorest whom they falsely claim to help.

Let’s move on to John F. Kennedy, one of the most popular Democrat presidents ever.  Few realize that he was also a supply-side tax cutter.

Kennedy said:

“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

Which is to say that modern Democrats are essentially calling one of their greatest presidents a liar when they demonize tax cuts as a means of increasing government revenues.

So let’s move on to Ronald Reagan.  Reagan had two major tax cutting policies implemented: the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA) of 1981, which was retroactive to 1981, and the Tax Reform Act of 1986.

Did Reagan’s tax cuts decrease federal revenues?  Hardly:

We find that 8 of the following 10 years there was a surplus of revenue from 1980, prior to the Reagan tax cuts.  And, following the Tax Reform Act of 1986, there was a MASSIVE INCREASE of revenue.

So Reagan’s tax cuts increased revenue.  But who paid the increased tax revenue?  The poor?  Opponents of the Reagan tax cuts argued that his policy was a giveaway to the rich (ever heard that one before?) because their tax payments would fall.  But that was exactly wrong.  In reality:

“The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988.”

So Ronald Reagan a) collected more total revenue, b) collected more revenue from the rich, while c) reducing revenue collected by the bottom half of taxpayers, and d) generated an economic powerhouse that lasted – with only minor hiccups – for nearly three decades.  Pretty good achievement considering that his predecessor was forced to describe his own economy as a “malaise,” suffering due to a “crisis of confidence.” Pretty good considering that President Jimmy Carter responded to a reporter’s question as to what he would do about the problem of inflation by answering, “It would be misleading for me to tell any of you that there is a solution to it.”

Reagan whipped inflation.  Just as he whipped that malaise and that crisis of confidence.

This might explain why a Gallup poll showed that Ronald Reagan is regarded as our greatest president, while fellow tax-cutting great John F. Kennedy is tied for second with Abraham Lincoln.  Because, in proving Democrat policies are completely wrongheaded, he helped people.  Including poorer people who benefited from the strong economy he built with his tax policies.

Let’s move on to George Bush and the infamous (to Democrats) Bush tax cuts.  And let me quote none other than the New York Times:

Sharp Rise in Tax Revenue to Pare U.S. Deficit
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: July 13, 2005

WASHINGTON, July 12 – For the first time since President Bush took office, an unexpected leap in tax revenue is about to shrink the federal budget deficit this year, by nearly $100 billion.

A Jump in Corporate Payments On Wednesday, White House officials plan to announce that the deficit for the 2005 fiscal year, which ends in September, will be far smaller than the $427 billion they estimated in February.

Mr. Bush plans to hail the improvement at a cabinet meeting and to cite it as validation of his argument that tax cuts would stimulate the economy and ultimately help pay for themselves.

Based on revenue and spending data through June, the budget deficit for the first nine months of the fiscal year was $251 billion, $76 billion lower than the $327 billion gap recorded at the corresponding point a year earlier.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated last week that the deficit for the full fiscal year, which reached $412 billion in 2004, could be “significantly less than $350 billion, perhaps below $325 billion.”

The big surprise has been in tax revenue, which is running nearly 15 percent higher than in 2004. Corporate tax revenue has soared about 40 percent, after languishing for four years, and individual tax revenue is up as well
.

[Update, September 20: The above NY Times link was scrubbed; the same article, edited differently, appears here.]

Note the newspaper’s use of liberals favorite adjective: “unexpected.” They never expect Republican and conservative polices to work, but they always do if they’re given the chance.  They never expect Democrat and liberal policies to fail, but they always seem to fail every single time they’re tried.

For the record, President George Bush’s 2003 tax cuts:

raised federal tax receipts by $785 billion, the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history. In fiscal 2007, which ended last month, the government took in 6.7% more tax revenues than in 2006.

These increases in tax revenue have substantially reduced the federal budget deficits. In 2004 the deficit was $413 billion, or 3.5% of gross domestic product. It narrowed to $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006 and $163 billion in 2007. That last figure is just 1.2% of GDP, which is half of the average of the past 50 years.

Lower tax rates have be so successful in spurring growth that the percentage of federal income taxes paid by the very wealthy has increased. According to the Treasury Department, the top 1% of income tax filers paid just 19% of income taxes in 1980 (when the top tax rate was 70%), and 36% in 2003, the year the Bush tax cuts took effect (when the top rate became 35%). The top 5% of income taxpayers went from 37% of taxes paid to 56%, and the top 10% from 49% to 68% of taxes paid. And the amount of taxes paid by those earning more than $1 million a year rose to $236 billion in 2005 from $132 billion in 2003, a 78% increase.

Budget deficits are not merely a matter of tax policy; it is a matter of tax policy AND spending policy.  Imagine you have a minimum wage job, but live within your means.  Then you get a job that pays a million dollars a year.  And you go a little nuts, buy a mansion, a yacht, a fancy car, and other assorted big ticket items such that you go into debt.  Are you really so asinine as to argue that you made more money when you earned minimum wage?  But that’s literally the Democrats’ argument when they criticize Reagan (who defeated the Soviet Union and won the Cold War in the aftermath of a recession he inherited from President Carter) and George Bush (who won the Iraq War after suffering the greatest attack on US soil in the midst of a recession he inherited from President Clinton).

As a result of the Clinton-era Dot-com bubble bursting, the Nasdaq lost a whopping 78% of its value, and $6 trillion dollars of wealth was simply vaporized.  We don’t tend to remember how bad that economic disaster was, because the 9/11 attack was such a huge experience, and because instead of endlessly blaming his predecessor, George Bush simply took responsibility for the economy, cut taxes, and fixed the problem.  The result, besides the above tax revenue gains, was an incredible and unprecedented 52 consecutive months of job growth.

Update September 12: Did somebody say something about “jobs”?  Another fact to recognize is the horrendous damage that will be done to small businesses and the jobs they create if the tax cuts for the “rich” aren’t continued.  As found in the Wall Street Journal, “According to IRS data, fully 48% of the net income of sole proprietorships, partnerships, and S corporations reported on tax returns went to households with incomes above $200,000 in 2007.” Further, the Tax Policy Center found that basically a third of taxpayers who are expected to be in the top tax bracket in 2011 generate more than half their income from a business ownership.  And while Democrats love to point out that their tax hikes on the so-called rich only impact 3% of small businesses, the National Federation of Independent Business reports that that three percent employs about 25 percent of the nation’s total workforce.  “Small businesses that employ 20 to 250 workers are the most likely to be hit by an increase in the top two tax rates, according to NFIB research. Businesses of this size employ more than 25 percent of the U.S. workforce.”  So if you want jobs and an economic recovery, you simply don’t pile more punishing taxes on those “rich” people.  Especially during a recession [End update].

We’re not arguing theories here; we’re talking about the actual, empirical numbers, literally dollars and cents, which confirms Andrew Mellon’s thesis, and Warren Harding’s and Calvin Coolidge’s, John F. Kennedy’s, Ronald Reagan’s, and George W. Bush’s, economic policies.

Harding and Coolidge, Reagan and Bush, with Democrat JFK right smack in the middle: great tax cutters all.

The notion that small- and limited-government conservatives who want ALL Americans to pay less to a freedom-encroaching government are somehow “beholden to the rich” for doing so is just a lie.  And a Marxist-based lie at that.

[Update, 12/15/10]: Check out these numbers as to how the Reagan tax cuts INCREASED the taxes paid by the wealthy, and REDUCED the taxes paid by the middle class and the bottom 50% of tax payers:

Income tax burdens (from the Joint Economic Committee for the US Congress report, 1996):
1981: top 1% of earners paid 17.6% of all personal income taxes
1988: top 1% of earners paid 27.5% of all personal income taxes (+ 10%).

1981: top 10% of earners paid 48% of all personal income taxes
1988: top 10% of earners paid 57.2% of all personal income taxes (+ 9%).

So rich clearly paid MORE of the tax burden when their tax rates were LOWERED.

For the middle class:
1981: middle class paid 57.5% of all personal income taxes
1988: middle class paid 48.7% of all personal income taxes (- 9%).

The middle class’ tax burden went DOWN by 9%.  They paid almost 10% LESS than what they had been paying before the Reagan cuts.

For the bottom 50%:
1981: bottom 50% paid 7.5% of all personal income taxes
1988: bottom 50% paid 5.7% of all personal income taxes (- 2%).

So the Joint Economic Economic Committee concludes that if you lower the tax rates on the rich, the rich wind up paying MORE of the tax burden and the poor end up paying LESS.  When you enact confiscatory taxation policies, the people who can afford it invariably end up protecting their money.  They do everything they can to NOT pay taxes because they are getting screwed.  When the rates drop to reasonable rates, they don’t shelter their money; rather, they take advantage of their ability to earn more – and improve the economy by doing so – by investing.  If you take away their profit, you take away their incentive to improve the economy and create jobs.

Some articles to read:

The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform

The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates

Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenues and Help Low Income Families

[End Update, 12/15/10]

PC Police Unable To Determine If ‘Beat Whitey Night’ Attacks Racially Motivated, And The Growing Unrest

August 26, 2010

There comes a point when one is so “tolerant” that one’s brains spill out of one’s head and splatter all over the floor.

As a nation, we reached that point in the 1990s.  Out-of-control and frankly demonic political correctness was one of the fringe benefits of the Clinton years.

John Wayne may have put it best to describe our current situation when he said, “Life’s tough. It’s even tougher if you’re stupid.”

And, oh my Lord, are we ever getting dumber and dumber:

‘Beat Whitey Night': Racism suspected in Iowa State Fair attacks
From The Des Moines Register

Des Moines, IA — Des Moines police are trying to determine what led to a series of attacks outside the Iowa State Fairgrounds over the weekend that included the assault of two police officers.

At least three people were arrested Friday through early Monday morning. Other arrests may occur as officers investigate the incidents, officials said.

There are indications that some of the fights – which appear to involve mostly teenagers and young adults – were racially motivated, police said.

“We don’t know if this was juveniles fighting or a group of kids singling out white citizens leaving the fairgrounds,” Sgt. Lori Lavorato said. “It’s all under investigation, but it’s very possible it has racial overtones.”

Officials announced last week that they were stepping up security outside the fairgrounds after a series of attacks Aug. 14 that included a pair of stabbings. Investigators are still investigating those assaults and victims intend to pursue charges.

Sgt. David Murillo stated in a report on Friday night, “On-duty officers at the fairgrounds advise there was a group of 30 to 40 individuals roaming the fairgrounds openly calling it ‘beat whitey night.’ “

Jammie Carroll, 36, of Polk City, was seriously injured in the 3000 block of East Grand Avenue Friday night after a group of people beat him up, causing severe injuries to his eyes, cheekbones and nose, Murillo wrote. Carroll is white, and many of the suspects are black, police said.

State Rep. Ako Abdul-Samad, D-Des Moines, who has worked to fight gang-related violence, said he doesn’t have enough information to decide if the fights were racially motivated. He said police comments that race was involved could miss other factors, such as nonracial taunting.

“Unfortunately, like any other city, you have certain parts of town that individuals congregate in,” Abdul-Samad said. “You have those that go into that area with no problem, and those who cannot.”

And you know that our cultural elites would have every bit as much difficulty in determining 30-40 white guys savagely beating a black man and calling it “whack blacky night” was racially motivated.

You can see the puzzled police scratching their heads and pondering, “Maybe they meant ‘beatwhi teynight’.   We’d better let them off.”

You know what Obama “justice” is: “Never bring a lawsuit against a black.”  We’ve got a president who prejudges situations based on race and who basically says, “I don’t know – not having been there and not seeing all the facts – but I think it’s fair to say that those white police acted stupidly.”  And I hope all you white, dirty cracker whores out there are good with that.

Let me explain something: there is nothing more undermining of civil society than misguided “tolerance.”  If everyone is treated equally under the law, and violators are punished according to one colorblind standard, we have justice and we have peace.  Otherwise, we have one group of people taking advantage of the unfair treatment, and another group of people becoming increasingly embittered over the unfair treatment.

This is the thing.  For much of American history, black people have been unfairly discriminated against.  And that was evil.  But the one thing that saved America from massive civil unrest is that blacks were in the minority.  Now, too many black “civil rights leaders” demand that the scales be balanced by essentially discriminating against whites.

But whitey – who all too soon WILL be a minority group in America – aint one yet.  And whitey is going to increasingly get pissed off about “beat whitey nights,” and about the many forms of preferential treatment that “minorities” are regularly receiving.

Treating 79.6% of the American population in a racially biased manner is bad, bad mojo.

Which is why articles such as this Washington Times piece entitled, “Is Obama fomenting a race war?” describes an incredibly troubling trend.

Even more troubling is Obama’s own racist background, given the theology of his racist church and his racist pastor for more than twenty years.  That racism can be expressed in one quote by Jeremiah Wright’s favorite theologian:

“If God is not for us and against white people,” writes Cone, “then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill gods who do not belong to the black community.”

That’s not just “beat whitey,” but “kill whitey.”  And a man who imbibed that The Audacity of Hope” came directly from a Jeremiah Wright sermon in which Wright said, “white folks’ greed runs a world in need.”

Some white groups – and some black groups and some Hispanic groups, for that matter – have been planning for a race war.  If you don’t want to see one, demand one standard of equality under the law.  If you WANT to see one, keep defining “racism” as something like this:

“[R]acism happens when members of society’s most powerful ethnic group suppresses other ethnic groups — through economic power, for example, or by having the power of the majority group.”

Such that blacks like Samir Shabazz who said the following -

SHABAZZ:  I hate white people.  All of them!  Every last iota of a cracker, I hate him!  You want freedom? You’re going to have to kill some crackers! You’re going to have kill some of their babies.

Samir: We didn’t come out here to play. There is to much serious business going on in your black community to be sliding through south street with white, dirty cracker whores on your arms. What’s a matter with you black man, you got a doomsday with a white woman on your arm.
……
“We keep begging white people for freedom. No wonder we’re not free. Your enemy can not make you free fool. You want freedom you’re going to have to kill some crackers. You’re going to have to kill some of their babies.

Let us get our act together. It’s time to wake up, clean up, and stand up.”

“I can’t wait for the day that they’re all dead. I won’t be completely happy until I see our people free and Whitey dead.”

“When you have 10 brothers in uniform, suited and booted and ready for war, white folks know these niggas ain’t their niggas. We kick white folks asses. We take it right to the cracker.”

We’re going to keep putting our foot up the white man’s ass until they understand completely. We want freedom, justice and mutha[expletive]‘ equality. Period. If you ain’t gonna give it to us, mutha[expletive], we’re gonna take it, in the name of freedom.”

- by some bizarre standard of political correctness can’t possibly be racist because the very concept of “racism” has been so radically redefined to suit the ideology of the rabid left.

Such definitions, and the far-leftist racial groups that advance them, are evil.  Allow me to provide a definition: “‘Racism’ is when people believe that members of any race or racial group are biologically or morally inferior based solely or primarily upon race.”

One can hate one’s own race, by the way.  For example, Karl Marx was a Jew-hating Jew.  And an ideology based in part on the racist hatred of his own people resulted in the murder of over a million Jews inside the Soviet Union.  Not only that, but there is evidence that Adolf Hitler – the rabid anti-Semite – had Jewish genes as well.

If radical race-based political groups keep pushing their racist policies and standards of labeling one racial group as inherently racist, while defining their own groups as incapable of the stain of racism, there is trouble coming.  Because the political-correctness-protected class can literally get away with anything, even as the overwhelming majority of Americans becomes increasingly angry.  Think of the “black rage” defense, which would have been utterly unimaginable in previous times.  In these awful economic times, that mindset will be like gasoline poured on a growing fire of unrest.

Jesus Himself prophesied that in the last days, “race will rise against race” (Matthew 24:7).  Jesus used the word “ethnos,” meaning “ethnic group,” “race.”

Jesus said it, and it’s coming.  But please, PLEASE, don’t rush the day of destruction.

Update, August 26: Am I right, or am I right? From an article reporting that the Aryan Nations is coming to Iowa:

The Aryan Nations may be headed to Des Moines, Iowa. Why? Because the Des Moines, Iowa police department say they cannot confirm racial motives behind the “beat whitey night” assaults at the Iowa State Fair. The Des Moines, Register reports that the police now say that they cannot confirm that anyone said “beat whitey night”.  This is contrary to the reports immediately following the assaults.  An officer was even on TV and said that they were likely racially motivated attacks. [...]

City Councilman Bryan Meyer said he didn’t want the Aryan Nations coming to Des Moines. Saying that they could take care of their own problems. Maybe the Aryan Nations view the handling of beat whitey night like the rest of us. It isn’t being handled.

Let me make it clear: I don’t want the Aryan Nations coming to Des Moines either.  And the best way to handle this moment and this event is to treat this black racist mob the identical same way we would treat a white racist mob.

Reverse racial discrimination fuels more and then more racial discrimination like nothing else.  We need to end this leftist radical stupidity and hold ALL people accountable for their actions and their attitudes.  Or America will face the bitter consequences.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 519 other followers