Margaret Thatcher, God Rest Her Soul, NAILED The Essence Of American Liberalism: They’d Rather The Poor Be Poorer Provided The Rich Are Less Rich

Margaret Thatcher, speaking before the House of Commons on November 22, 1990:

Transcript (from the video):

Prime Minister Thatcher: If the hon. Gentleman will just listen, he might hear something that he did not know. The average pensioner now has twice as much to hand on to his children as he did 11 years ago. They are thinking about the future. This massive rise in our living standards reflects the extraordinary transformation of the private sector.

Mr. Hughes: There is no doubt that the Prime Minister, in many ways, has achieved substantial success. There is one statistic, however, that I understand is not however challenged, and that is that, over her 11 years as Prime Minister, the gap between the richest 10 per cent. and the poorest 10 per cent, has widened substantially. At the end of her chapter of British politics, how can she say that she can justify the fact that many people in a constituency such as mine are relatively much poorer, much less well housed and much less well provided for than they were in 1979? Surely she accepts that that is not a record that she or any Prime Minister can be proud of.

Prime Minister Thatcher: Mr Speaker, ALL levels of income are better off than they were in 1979.  But what the honorable member is saying is that he would rather the poor were poorer provided the rich were less rich.  That’s why you will NEVER create the wealth for better social services as we have.  And what a policy!  Yes, he would rather have the poor poorer, provided the rich were less rich.  That is the liberal policy.

Mr. Hughes: No.

Prime Minister Thatcher: Yes, it came out!  He didn’t intend it to, but it did.

[Different liberal socialist Mr. Sillars]: The prime minister is aware that I detest every single one of her domestic policies and I have never hidden that fact.

Prime Minister Thatcher: And I think that the honorable gentleman knows that I have the same contempt for his socialist policies as the people of East Europe who have experienced it.  I think I must have hit the right nail on the head when I pointed out the logic of those policies are they’d rather have the poor poorer.  Once they start to talk about the gap, they’d rather the gap were that [indicating] - down here – not that [indicating], but that [indicating].  So long as the gap is smaller, so long as the gap is smaller, they’d rather have the poor poorer.  You do not create wealth and opportunity that way.  You do not create a property-owning democracy that way.

Margaret Thatcher was EVERY BIT as correct about the liberal American socialists like Obama who are running this country into its grave as she was about the liberal British socialists of her era.

The median wage has PLUMMETED under Obama’s failed presidency.  And as the last jobs report just proved (yet again), the poor have no chance of even being able to FIND a damn job as they are driven out of Obama’s failed economy in despair.  Under Obama, the labor participation rate – the percentage of working age Americans with jobs – there are fewer working Americans today than there have been since 1979.  And it’s actually far, FAR worse than it was in 1979 – because back in 1979, not NEARLY as many women wanted a to have a job as today.

Obama has created a jobs HOLOCAUST for the “poor.”  There is no question Obama has made the poor poorer.

And the fact that his welfare state has absolutely exploded – with food stamp dependency up by 100 percent since Obama took office - is proof of that vile pudding.

She said:

“I came to office with one deliberate intent: to change Britain from a dependent to a self-reliant society — from a give-it-to-me, to a do-it-yourself nation. A get-up-and-go, instead of a sit-back-and-wait-for-it Britain.”

What kind of nation has Obama “fundamentally transformed America” into?  The very kind that Margaret Thatcher sought to deliver her nation FROM.

She nailed Obama right on the head when she summed up the results of his attempt to socialize the American economy by describing the failed results of the British Labour Party:

I was speaking of the Labour party wanting to renationalise privatised industry. Four of the industries that we have privatised are in the top 10 British businesses, but at the very bottom of the list of 1,000 British businesses lie four nationalised industries. Labour’s industries consume the wealth that others create and give nothing back.

That’s exactly what Obama has given us: the nationalized industries of his crony capitalist fascism where only HE and his bureaucrat thugs get to decide who wins and who loses, who gets to keep their money and who gets their money taxed, who succeeds and who fails.

Today Fisker – another of the failed liberal boondoggles that Obama gave half a billion taxpayer dollars to - is beginning the process of filing for bankruptcy after laying of 3/4 of its workforce.

In 2009, when Joe Biden trumpted the Obama half-billion boondoggle loan to Fisker, Joe Biden trumpeted:

“The doubters were wrong about our ability to manufacture.”

No we weren’t, you failed turd.  YOU were wrong.  You were catastrophically wrong and WE WERE COMPLETELY RIGHT JUST AS I PREDICTED WE’D BE COMPLETELY RIGHT.  Just as you were wrong about all of Obama’s other failed boondoggles:

Barack Obama is the Solyndra President.  Well, make that the Solyndra-EverGreen-SpectraWatt-First Solar-Solar Trust-Abound Solar-BrightSource-LSP Energy-Ener1-SunPower-Beacon Power-ECOtality-A123-Uni Solar-Azure Dynamics President.  Not to mention all the other now-bankrupt green energy crony-capitalist businesses that have stolen more than $2 billion dollars of the American people’s money.

And that sum of massive Obama failure has grown massively since I wrote that a year ago – as Fisker alone proves.

Reality simply doesn’t matter to dishonest hypocrite liberals or to their dishonest and hypocritical ideology of liberalism.  There is simply no contact with the real world.  The Word of God enables humans to – at least in part – be able to see the world accurately, as God sees it.  Liberals hate the Word of God and the Judeo-Christian worldview which is based on the Word of God.  Instead, liberals view the world through demonic secular humanist theories such as existentialism, postmodernism and yes, Marxism and its socialist cousin fascism.  They are blind fools leading a blind and foolish world into the heart of darkness.  And they are about to get their way.

It’s not that conservatives have no convincing arguments; it is rather that, between the facts that a) mainstream media propaganda deceitfully distorts the conservative message; and b) we are entering the last days before the Antichrist and the mark of the beast as God has decreed that it is time that the world receive the judgment for its wickedness that it deserves – which is why we have the terrible choice between a Mormon Mitt Romney who believes Jesus Christ is the spirit brother of Lucifer and an Obama who actually IS the spirit brother of Lucifer; c) which results in RINO turds like John McCain, Lindsey Grahem and Mitt Romney being the inarticulate voices of the Republican Party who can’t argue their way out of a wet paper bag on a rainy day.

Todays’ leaders have no courage, no backbone and no clue.  Because they are men and women manufactured by politics rather than men and women shaped by virtue.

Now we are cursed with Barack Hussein Obama, a fool who believes the disease is the cure.  And if his “cure” doesn’t work to plague America with more of his disease.  And then more disease, and still more.

When God damned Europe for its wickedness in the wake of the rise of Stalin and Hitler, there WERE no intelligent voices of opposition who were allowed to rise up and confront the evil and stupidity that were swallowing up the world.  In nation after nation in Europe, you had the dismal choice between an evil, terrible choice and a slightly less evil, terrible choice.  And again and again the most evil and terrible choice was the one that prevailed.

We won’t see your like again, Mrs. Thatcher.  But God bless you for your good work on this earth.  The world desperately needs leaders like you, but they will not rise.  Because the beast is coming – and fools must reign to welcome him and his coming mark.

Enjoy your rest with God in heaven, Iron Lady.  You truly earned it.

Would that we had your like now instead of the God damn America that we have under this failed presidency of a man who is every bit as foolish as the fools you exposed.

Because Child Molesters Love Socialism, Too: Can Anyone Sink So Low That Liberals Would Refuse Them Socialism Funded By Other People’s Money?

I found this as laughable as I found it illustrative:

Re “L.A. adds parks to oust sex offenders,” March 1
I am not a sex offender and to my knowledge don’t know any sex offenders. I certainly don’t condone the illegal actions they committed. And under other circumstances, I would think creating more parks is good.

But when I read The Times’ article about L.A. creating a park in order to force sex offenders from their apartments, I was horrified. Sex offenders need homes like everyone else. These people are human beings and need more support from the city, not less. I’m sure most are trying to put their lives back together and to fight their own urges.

If the city wants to help society, it should assist former sex offenders to have decent housing, provide them with social services and help them get jobs, rather than force them onto the streets.

Rebecca Rona Culver City

The Los Angeles Times print version had the title (written by the newspaper) the headline “They’re people, too.”  Which is of course a highly debatable assertion as far as most “people” are concerned – excluding liberals, of course.  It turns out that government liberalism is FAR more compassionate than God – as long as other people’s money is used to pay for their generosity.  God holds people accountable for their actions; God judges SIN.  Liberalism, by contrast, is only capable of wanting to expand bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger to beget more liberalism (and thus more wickedness).

Is there anything some low-life, cockroach, pile-of-slime, morally-diseased predator of innocence can do to be denied free “decent housing,” free “social services” and free government-created “jobs”?  No.  There is not.

Jesus, out of His compassion healed the lepers and forgave the sinners; but that aint NOTHIN’ compared to Obama’s supernatural compassion: he gave the child molesting scum a check paid for by “taxpayers” with only about half of his largesse coming from money we’re borrowing from China but of course promise our children and grandchildren will pay back with plenty of interest.

Because Obama loves those child molesters so much, so big and so loving is his heart, that he will give them the inheritance of our future generations.  Who – if they could vote today – would surely all choose to be aborted, according to liberal theology.

And because liberalism is all about growing the size of government which grows just as well when it’s doling out handouts to a degenerate pervert as it can when it’s doling them out to somebody who isn’t a piece of slime.  Bureaucracies are needed which are as eternal as the God of Heaven.  And the gates of Heaven shall not prevail against these bureaucracies.

The story being alluded to above – “Los Angeles adding parks to force out sex offenders living nearby” is funny because the uberliberal city of Los Angeles that so warmly invited all these pedophiles to come share their bread are now using the contrived government “service” of city parks to drive them out of the houses they gave them in the first place .  It wasn’t like these perverts went flocking to Texas, you know.  It’s also funny because apparently there’s nothing wrong with discriminating against people because of their sexual orientation, after all.  Which is exactly what religious conservatives have been arguing all along.

It’s kind of laugable in its own way that the liberals who run Los Angeles are now trying to force pedophiles out of their homes so they’ll go somewhere else; given the fact that child molesters are now ditching their GPS devices and slipping out of law enforcement’s ability to track with alarming regularity.  How many of these child molesting turds are going to be leaving their GPS bracelets behild when they’re forced out of their residences???

Liberalism is the constant governing by crisis: they create one crisis (incredibly lax treatment toward pedophiles) and then exploit the failure of their own policy to enact yet another immoral policy.  And then exploit that one to enact ANOTHER immoral policy, and so on ad infinitum.

There are idiot liberals who actually have to pay for their morally idiotic bullcrap out of actual budgets and there are the rest of the liberals who think that money can never be considered an object when a pervert is asking for a handout.  And the liberal with the budget who doesn’t have Obama’s Federal Reserve Money-Fabricating Machine has to choose reality no matter how repulsive reality is to him.

Another thing that’s funny is that the article occurred on the front page of the March 1, 2013 Los Angeles Times an article on the White House involving itself in the Proposition 8 case before the Supreme Court on behalf of sodomy.

If I were an attorney for a child molester – another liberal profession whose status as “people” is highly debatable – here’s what I would do: I would argue that the City of Los Angeles is discriminating against my sexual orientation.  After all, if nobody would choose to be gay, just how many people do you think would choose to be child molesters?  Pedophilia isn’t a “choice” any more than homosexuality is a “choice”; these poor victims were born this way, every bit as much as those beloved homosexuals were.  And it is moralistic and anachronistic to judge “people” for their sexual preferences.

Liberalism cannot withstand the light of individual personal responsibility any more than vampires cannot withstand the light of God’s sun.  They simply must dispense with it all together.

That, for the record, was the original homosexual position.  Oh, yes: NAMBLA – the North American Man/Boy Love Association – was a vibrant part of the Rainbow Coalition and even briefly enjoyed United Nations representation.

Pedophiles were just born “queer” in a slightly different way, is all.

And of course while homosexual marriage has NEVER been practiced by ANY nation until this last, most wicked generation, pederasty – a.k.a. pedophilia - sure has.

For the factual record, given that the Catholic Church was scandalized and demonized by the liberal mainstream media for “pedophile priest”, and given that in 81% of the cases, those acts of “pedophilia” involved post-puberescant, sexually-developed teenagers rather than tiny little toddlers, I am further warranted to connect homosexuality and pedophilia together just as the left connected it together to attack the Catholic Church.

We are a nation in decline amidst a culture that has already spilled right out into a toxic sewer.  And Obama is demanding more and more tax hikes to fund more and more of his perversion.

And thanks to liberals, we’re going to be forced to keep paying for it until our complete economic collapse.  And then a desperate, hungry people who have already proven how wicked they are will demand that government save them from the disaster that government created.  And therefore they will choose more socialism to save them from the disaster of socialism.

Chicago Teachers Striking Against Students As A Metaphor For Obama Democrats Striking Against America

Teachers are striking and preventing some 400,000 students from having a chance of an education.  In their own words they say their chief gripe is that somebody would have the unmitigated gall to rate or evaluate their performance; as if they don’t rate their STUDENTS’ performance every single day.  They are also demanding that if teachers get laid off, they must be rehired not on the basis of MERIT but on the basis of union seniority.

Some facts you ought to know:

The smartest parents in Chicago right now are those whose kids attend charter schools, private schools, or parochial schools. Those institutions don’t employ Chicago’s unionized public-school teachers, who went out on strike this morning for the first time in 25 years.

The coverage of the strike has obscured some basic facts. The money has continued to pour into Chicago’s failing public schools in recent years. Chicago teachers have the highest average salary of any city at $76,000 a year before benefits. The average family in the city only earns $47,000 a year. Yet the teachers rejected a 16 percent salary increase over four years at a time when most families are not getting any raises or are looking for work.

Source: nationalreview.com

Are Chicago teachers bothering to do their damn jobs?

(CNSNews.com) – In the Chicago Public Schools, where the teacher’s union is now seeking a 30 percent raise over the next two years, only 21 percent of 8^th graders tested at grade-level proficient or better in reading in 2011 and only 20 percent tested at grade-level proficient or better in mathematics, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress tests administered by the U.S. Department of Education.

The reading and math scores of Chicago public-school 8^th graders not only ranked below the national average and the Illinois average, they also ranked below the average for 8^th graders attending public schools in other large cities around the country.

It gets even WORSE if your kid is a 4th grader:

Small wonder. Just 15 percent of fourth graders are proficient in reading and only 56 percent of students who enter their freshman year of high school wind up graduating.

In spite of earning 62% more in salary than the parents of the kids who trust their children to these “teachers,” we find that:

The city is being bled dry by the exorbitant benefits packages negotiated by previous elected officials. Teachers pay only 3 percent of their health-care costs and out of every new dollar set aside for public education in Illinois in the last five years, a full 71 cents has gone to teacher retirement costs.

Did you hear that?  There’s no room in the education budget for stuff like BOOKS because 71 cents out of every single dollar that goes to education in Chicago ends up in the bloated Chicago teacher pension system.

Do you know what Illinois’ unfunded pension liability is?  Well, that wasn’t a fair question, given that NOBODY does.  But it was estimated at $210 BILLION going on a year and a half ago.

Fellow überliberal California’s unfunded pension anvil that is queued over our collectivists heads is estimated at $500 billion.  And we can’t even figure out how to pay 1/20th of that!

When these blue states implode they will take the rest of America down the toilet drain and into the sewer right along with them.

Your child CAN’T have any educational resources.  Because we’ve got vile liberals running the system in so many of these big cesspool-cities and they take care of themselves at the peoples’ expense year after year even as they demonize Republicans whose “crime” is wanting to break these damn unions.

Where are public school teachers putting their own kids?

In Philadelphia, 44 percent of the teachers put their children in private schools; in Cincinnati, 41 percent; Chicago, 39 percent; Rochester, N.Y., 38 percent. The same trends showed up in the San Francisco-Oakland area, where 34 percent of public school teachers chose private schools for their children; 33 percent in New York City and New Jersey suburbs; and 29 percent in Milwaukee and New Orleans.

Michael Pons, spokesman for the National Education Association, the 2.7-million-member public school union, declined a request for comment on the study’s findings. The American Federation of Teachers also declined to comment.

Public school teachers told the Fordham Institute’s surveyors that private and religious schools impose greater discipline, achieve higher academic achievement and offer overall a better atmosphere.

“Across the states, 12.2 percent of all families — urban, rural and suburban — send their children to private schools,” says the report, based on 2000 census data.

In Chicago, 39% of public school teachers get their kids the HELL out of public school hell, which is 220% higher than the rate of non-public teachers.  If that doesn’t scream how bad the public school system is and scream that public school teachers recognize it more than anybody, you are too deaf to hear ANYTHING.

These Chicago teachers are simply godawful.  You could literally argue that by striking and refusing to teach the children, they might actually be doing the kids a service.  Because they’re just that bad at their jobs.

But damn it, they are liberals, they are Democrats, they are bureaucrats.  And that means they are bloated leeches sucking taxpayer money like the parasites that liberals are.

They actually had the balls to turn down their noses at a SIXTEEN PERCENT PAY INCREASE.  When non-union-government-school-teacher families are count themselves lucky to get ZERO raises if they just HAVE a job.  So these pathetic failing teachers who frankly should have their asses fired so they can finally understand reality are demanding that they get MORE pay and benefits while demanding that they NEVER be held accountable for their failure to teach our children.  Which is another way of saying they are PERFECT DEMOCRATS.

And, of course, their “official position” is just a meaningless posture of lies.  This is what they REALLY demand:

In public, the Chicago Teachers Union uses generalities to describe its demands, with the union president, Karen Lewis, saying the teachers want a “fair contract.” But according to one senior Chicago official with direct knowledge of the negotiations with the union reps, “Their public rhetoric has almost nothing to do with what’s happening at the table.” Media accounts indicate that the city’s latest offer was to raise teacher pay 16% over the next four years, but the senior city official and other sources with knowledge of the negotiations say the union demanded raises that would amount to at least a 35% salary increase over three years as well as guaranteed jobs for any teachers who get laid off as Chicago’s schools downsize. The city does not have that kind of money, and other changes the union is demanding would essentially render meaningless a new law in Illinois that mandates improved teacher evaluations there.

Rahm Emanuel has already caved.  He’s already offered them the keys to the business.  Only union teachers don’t just want the keys to the business; they’re demanding the entire damn BUSINESS DISTRICT.  It’s ALL or bust.

To be a Democrat is to be an entitlement pig.  It is to demand a society in which they get more at somebody else’s expense.

Illinois is already the worst deadbeat state in the country.  Ordinary residents (i.e., that’s people who DON’T belong to a government union) are getting I.O.U.s from the state to the tune of millions of dollars being stiffed while the teachers unions fight for the entire farm.  Watch this 60 Minutes video if you don’t believe what I’m saying.

It’s just like what Obama just did to welfare (as the Government Accounting Office has stated for the record): these people don’t want to be held accountable; they don’t want to work.  They want to be able to keep collecting more and more and more because they were able to force somebody else to pay for it.

Under Republican Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s leadership, overall crime in New York City fell 57%, murder was reduced by 65%, shootings dropped 72% and New York was recognized by the F.B.I. as the safest large city in America for five consecutive years.  Under Democrat Obama thug Rahm Emanuel, the exact opposite has happened.  The murder rate is skyrocketing so fast under liberalism that it is beyond crazy.  Just don’t let those kids work in a Chick-Fil-A; better that they embrace gangbanging instead.

The only thing that Chicago public school teachers seem to be able to teach is that if you tilt your gun sideways, it looks cooler when you’re shooting bullets into a crowd.  And they think they should get a raise for that success.

When you vote Democrat, you vote for more stupid and more evil.  And you’re going to get plenty of both if you get four more years of Obama.

Update, 9/11: Obama promised that he would walk the picket line of any union that went on strike in 2007 “as president of the United States of America”:

I hope Obama finds those shoes and actually fulfills JUST ONE promise he made and walks that picket line. So the American people can see once for all that Obama stands with the rabid union agenda and against America’s children.

Get out there and WALK for your fellow Marxists like you cynically promised, Obama.  Let us see you for the radical and rabid community organizer you truly ARE.

Government Accounting Office Says Obama Circumvented The LAW With His Gutting Of The Welfare Work Requirement

Not that Obama or Democrats give a damn, but Barack Obama broke the law that he clearly considers his divine emperorship to be completely above:

GAO: Obama Admin Circumvented Law with Welfare Waivers
By Matt Cover
September 5, 2012

(CNSNews.com) – The Obama administration circumvented federal law in announcing it would waive the work requirements in welfare, a GAO review found, saying that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) should have submitted the new policy to Congress for review.

At issue is whether the policy falls under the purview of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) that requires all administrative changes of policy or regulation be submitted to Congress for review and possible disapproval.

The GAO, in a letter to House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) and Senate Finance Committee ranking member Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), said that the July 12 change in policy falls under the CRA and should have been submitted to Congress for approval.

“We find that the July 12 Information Memorandum issued by HHS is a statement of general applicability and future effect, designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy with regard to TANF [Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the formal name for welfare],” GAO said in its Sept. 4 letter.

“[T]he Information Memorandum is subject to the requirement that it be submitted to both Houses of Congress and the Comptroller General before it can take effect.”

In other words, HHS must formally submit the letter to Congress and the Comptroller General before it can legally issue the waivers to the requirement that a certain portion of welfare recipients work.

GAO noted that it had not determined whether or not HHS had the legal authority to waive the work requirements in the first place, just that it must follow its legal obligations under the CRA.

HHS had contended that it had complied with the law when it notified both House and Senate committees of its new policy July 12, an argument GAO rejected saying that informal notice did not satisfy the law.

“Finally, while HHS may have informally notified the Congressional committees of the issuance of the Information Memorandum, informal notification does not meet the reporting requirements of the CRA.”

According to GAO, federal law requires that the government submit any proposed changes in federal regulations or rules to Congress, so that it may act to formally disapprove and stop the rule from taking effect. GAO found that any rule that is meant to “implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy” must be submitted to Congress before it can take effect.

In July, HHS issued a memorandum to states announcing it would begin waiving the welfare-to-work requirements for those states who wanted to change their current welfare-to-work programs, including the definitions of what qualifies as work and how states calculate who is and who is not working.

Camp, whose office released the GAO finding, said that HHS’ waiver policy amounted to an “end-run” around Congress.

“Despite his latest attempt at an end-run around Congress, this GAO report clearly states that the Administration must submit this rule to Congress for review before it can take effect. Work requirements were the centerpiece of welfare reform, and we cannot allow that progress to be undone,” Camp said in a statement Tuesday.

On the other hand, you can kind of understand why Obama would gut the welfare work requirement, given that his presidency and his policies are clearly completely incapable of actually creating any damn jobs for welfare recipients to actually have.

It’s just a lot easier for a socialist like Obama to create a nation of needy and disabled people desperately voting “Democrat” in order to get their next welfare check.  Which is why Obama is literally creating an America in which more people go on disability than get jobs.

Obama is adding $6 trillion in debt - and he’s only just getting STARTED bankrupting America.

For The Record, Barack Obama IS Gutting Welfare Reform As Passed By Republicans In Congress And Signed Into Law By Bill Clinton

This piece easily refutes the two lies coming out of the Obama campaign: 1) that Obama somehow isn’t gutting welfare reform by essentially removing the work requirement and 2) that “Republicans did it too” when in fact no they didn’t.

I probably ought to point out here that the Government Accounting Office just issued a statement that Obama circumvented the law in gutting the work requirement of the welfare reform law.

The most dishonest presidency in American history is merely at it again:

Morning Bell: Obama Denies Gutting Welfare Reform
Amy Payne
August 8, 2012 at 9:15 am

The Obama Administration came out swinging against its critics on welfare reform yesterday, with Press Secretary Jay Carney saying the charge that the Administration gutted the successful 1996 reform’s work requirements is “categorically false” and “blatantly dishonest.” Even former President Bill Clinton, who signed the reform into law, came out parroting the Obama team’s talking points and saying the charge was “not true.”

The Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector and Kiki Bradley first broke the story on July 12 that Obama’s Health and Human Services Department (HHS) had rewritten the Clinton-era reform to undo the work requirements, in a move that legal experts Todd Gaziano and Robert Alt determined was patently illegal.

The Administration’s new argument has two parts: denying the Obama Administration’s actions and claiming that Republican governors, including Mitt Romney, tried to do the same thing. In essence, “We did not do what you’re saying, but even if we did, some Republicans did it, too.” Both parts of this argument are easily debunked.

Obama Administration Claim #1: We Didn’t Gut Work Requirements

Ever since the 1996 law passed, Democratic leaders have attempted (unsuccessfully) to repeal welfare’s work standards, blocking reauthorization of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (TANF) and attempting to weaken the requirements. Unable to eliminate “workfare” legislatively, the Obama HHS claimed authority to grant waivers that allow states to get around the work requirements.

Humorously, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius now asserts that the Administration abolished the TANF work requirements to increase work.

HHS now claims that states receiving a waiver must “commit that their proposals will move at least 20 percent more people from welfare to work compared to the state’s prior performance.” But given the normal turnover rate in welfare programs, the easiest way to increase the number of people moving from “welfare to work” is to increase the number entering welfare in the first place.

Bogus statistical ploys like these were the norm before the 1996 reform. The law curtailed use of sham measures of success and established meaningful standards: Participating in work activities meant actual work activities, not “bed rest” or “reading” or doing one hour of job search per month; reducing welfare dependence meant reducing caseloads. Now those standards are gone.

Obama’s HHS claims authority to overhaul every aspect of the TANF work provisions (contained in section 407), including “definitions of work activities and engagement, specified limitations, verification procedures and the calculation of participation rates.” In other words, the whole work program. Sebelius’s HHS bureaucracy declared the existing TANF law a blank slate on which it can design any policy it chooses.

Obama Administration Claim #2: Even If We Did, the Republicans Tried It, Too

Though the Obama Administration is claiming it is not trying to get around the work requirements, it is also claiming that a group of Republican governors tried to do the same thing in 2005. Clinton also said in his statement yesterday that “the recently announced waiver policy was originally requested” by Republican governors.

Heritage welfare expert Robert Rector addressed this claim back on July 19. As Rector explains:

But [the governors'] letter makes no mention at all of waiving work requirements under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. In fact, the legislation promoted in the letter—the Personal Responsibility and Individual Development for Everyone (PRIDE) Act—actually would have toughened the federal work standards. It proposed raising the mandatory participation rates imposed on states from 50 percent to 70 percent of the adult TANF caseload and increasing the hours of required work activity.

The governors’ letter actually contradicts the Administration’s main argument: If the law has always permitted HHS to waive the work requirements, then why didn’t the governors just request waivers from then-President George W. Bush? Why would legislation be needed?

Two reasons: First, it has been clear for 15 years that the TANF law did not permit HHS to waive the work requirements. Second, the Republican governors were not seeking to waive the work requirements in the first place.

Obama’s Evolution from Welfare to Work and Back

President Obama had a convenient change of heart regarding welfare reform when it was time to run for President. In 1998, when he was an Illinois state senator, Obama said:

I was not a huge supporter of the federal plan that was signed in 1996. Having said that, I do think that there is a potential political opportunity that arose out of welfare reform. And that is to desegregate the welfare population—meaning the undeserving poor, black folks in cities, from the working poor—deserving, white, rural as well as suburban.

The same year, he reiterated that “the 1996 legislation I did not entirely agree with and probably would have voted against at the federal level.”

But in 2008, when he was running for President, Obama said he had changed his mind about welfare reform: “I was much more concerned 10 years ago when President Clinton initially signed the bill that this could have disastrous results….It had—it worked better than, I think, a lot of people anticipated. And, you know, one of the things that I am absolutely convinced of is that we have to work as a centerpiece of any social policy.”

One of his 2008 campaign ads touted “the Obama record: moved people from welfare to work” and promised that as President, he would “never forget the dignity that comes from work.”

This evolution is unsurprising, considering the vast majority of Americans favor requiring welfare recipients to work.

President Obama has finally accomplished what Democrats have been trying to do for years. He has even gotten President Clinton to turn his back on one of the signature achievements of his Administration to give him political cover—which Clinton was quick to do. In 1996, Clinton had to compromise and allow the tough work requirements to get the legislation passed.

Both Presidents have now revealed their true feelings about welfare—and there’s no denying it.

Obama is counting on the ignorance and increasing depavity and cynicism of the American people.

Mitt Romney To Announce His VP Pick Saturday Morning At 8:45 A.M. EST. I Believe It Will Be Paul Ryan, And Here’s WHY.

“Which of the two do you want me to release to you?” asked the governor. “Barabbas,” they answered.  “What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called Christ?” Pilate asked. They all answered, “Crucify him!”  “Why? What crime has he committed?” asked Pilate. But they shouted all the louder, “Crucify him!”  When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!”  All the people answered, “Let his blood be on us and on our children!”  Then he released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified. — Matthew 27:21-26

I was quite surprised to hear that Mitt Romney had announced that tomorrow was “the big day” to announce his vice president selection.  Like most, I assumed he would be making it immediately before the GOP National Convention.

I was also somewhat surprised to hear that, apparently, Romney had called Marco Rubio and told him that he would NOT be the running mate on the ticket.

We don’t know who it will be, of course, but there’s been a fair amount of intelligent conservative speculation that it may very well be Paul Ryan.

That will be an incredibly bold choice from a man who has a been cautious for most of his life, but this is what I believe Romney’s reasoning is:

Marco Rubio would have been a good choice if Romney was thinking in terms of winning more Hispanics or winning Florida.  And Rob Portman would have been a good choice if Romney felt that he would need Portman’s pull to carry Ohio.  Nikki Haley or Kelly Ayote would have been a decision to pursue “the women’s vote.”  But none of these excellent choices would define the race the way Paul Ryan would. 

Paul Ryan is all about the budget – and by that I mean more than ANYODY – and the need to get dead serious about reducing our spending.  Versus Democrats who haven’t bothered to even TRY to pass a budget for 1,199 days and a president who has not received a SINGLE DEMOCRAT VOTE for one of his depraved and lunatic budgets in three years.  Meanwhile as Obama and Democrats have made reckless irresponsibility their “governing strategy,” we just found out our true debt and our real fiscal gap just grew by a massive $11 trillion to – and you’d better sit down - $222 TRILLION:

Republicans and Democrats spent last summer battling how best to save $2.1 trillion over the next decade. They are spending this summer battling how best to not save $2.1 trillion over the next decade.

In the course of that year, the U.S. government’s fiscal gap — the true measure of the nation’s indebtedness — rose by $11 trillion.

The fiscal gap is the present value difference between projected future spending and revenue. It captures all government liabilities, whether they are official obligations to service Treasury bonds or unofficial commitments, such as paying for food stamps or buying drones.

[...]

The U.S. fiscal gap, calculated (by us) using theCongressional Budget Office’s realistic long-term budget forecast — the Alternative Fiscal Scenario — is now $222 trillion. Last year, it was $211 trillion. The $11 trillion difference — this year’s true federal deficit — is 10 times larger than the official deficit and roughly as large as the entire stock of official debt in public hands.

This fantastic and dangerous growth in the fiscal gap is not new. In 2003 and 2004, the economists Alan Auerbach and William Gale extended the CBO’s short-term forecast and measured fiscal gaps of $60 trillion and $86 trillion, respectively. In 2007, the first year the CBO produced the Alternative Fiscal Scenario, the gap, by our reckoning, stood at $175 trillion. By 2009, when the CBO began reporting the AFS annually, the gap was $184 trillion. In 2010, it was $202 trillion, followed by $211 trillion in 2011 and $222 trillion in 2012.

If in fact Mitt Romney picks Paul Ryan, THAT reckless fiscal insanity will be the central defining issue of the campaign.

More than any election in American history, this would be a true “monumental choice” election: do you want Obama and a welfare America that will utterly implode under the supermassive weight of hundreds of trillions of dollars of debt, or do you want to have at least a chance of national survival???

Many are saying that the Democrats are “licking their chops” over the prospect of running against Paul Ryan.  Democrats have demonized Paul Ryan viciously, using a look-alike to depict him pushing an elderly lady in a wheelchair off of a cliff. But the actual reality is just the opposite – as the facts prove.  For what it’s worth, the left was going to basically run against Ryan anyway.

Over one hundred million Americans are now on some form of welfare.

And Obama just gutted the work requirement that the Republican Congress had passed and Bill Clinton had signed back in 1996 in order to receive welfare.

Food stamps have increased 53 percent since Obama took office, from 30 million receiving them in 2008 to 46 million people receiving them today.  In the 1970s when the food stamp program began, one in fifty Americans were on them; one in seven Americans are on them now.  And more Americans are filing for disability today than are getting jobs, with the number of Americans expected to go on disability expected to jump 71 percent in the next ten years.  For the record, only 1 percent of people who go on disability ever return to work.  You either think these are good things or you think they’re terribly bad things.  And this November you’re going to vote which you think it is.

If you want to abdicate all personal responsibility and parasitically suck off the tit of a government that takes from the producers to hand out to those who vote Democrat until America collapses, then vote for Obama.

If you are looking around and saying, this can’t possibly continue. America is simply doomed on the path we’re on, then vote for Romney.

No one in America is more able to get our spending, deficit and debt under control than Paul Ryan.

If Paul Ryan is the guy, more than any other guy that Romney could pick, America will face a true choice in November. 

City after city is beginning to collapse into bankruptcy as the choices to run up debts and deficits made by Democrats run their toxic course.  Liberal California is leading the way into total fiscal disaster.  Liberals keep pointing to the example of Europe even as Europe proves more every day that it is a terribly foolish model to follow.  And the liberals that gave us nearly ALL of the $222 trillion debt that is utterly unpayable and utterly unsustainable keep demaning that we double down and then triple down and then quadruple down until America simply implodes.  And don’t think the left doesn’t literally HOPE that day happens.

This election will mark the greatest and most monumental choice for the direction of America and the world since the one I cite at the beginning of this article.  I pray that we have more wisdom than that last momentous decision.  Israel was wiped off the map less than forty years later as a result of their choice; our disaster will ensue far faster than that if we choose foolishly and wickedly for Obama.

Obama’s ‘Innocent’ Illegal Immigrant DREAMers Have Been Charged With WAY Over 16,226 Subsequent Crimes AFTER Being Released

Just remember, it doesn’t matter how many crimes they commit and it doesn’t matter how many American women are raped and murdered.  What matters is how many VOTES Obama gets.  And if you think otherwise, you’re a racist.

Arrested illegals who were released charged with 16,226 subsequent crimes
12:40 AM 08/09/2012

President Barack Obama‘s decision not to deport some arrested illegal immigrants has enabled a crime wave — but no American or immigrant victims have been publicly identified, and GOP politicians have mostly remained mute.

Illegal aliens who have been released from custody between 2008 and mid-2011 have been charged with 16,226 subsequent crimes, including 19 murders, 142 sex crimes and thousands of drunk-driving offenses, drug-crimes and felonies, according to a new report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

“Rather than protect the American people he was elected to serve, President Obama has imposed a policy that allows thousands of illegal immigrants to be released into our communities,” said a statement from Rep. Lamar Smith, the chairman of the House judiciary committee.

The criminals “were in the government’s custody, were identified as illegal immigrants and then let go because this administration has refused to request the resources to hold them and deport them,” said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies.

The White House press office did not respond to The Daily Caller’s questions.

The CRS study uses data subpoenaed from the federal government by House Committee on the Judiciary. The data details 159,286 cases where legal and illegal immigrants were arrested, identified via FBI databases and then let free, said the report.

Over a 33-month period, from October 2008 and July 2011, roughly one-sixth of those let go were later arrested for crimes.

The data shows that 26,412 of the 159,286 released legal and illegal immigrants were arrested later for 57,763 crimes, said the CRS.

The CRS found the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency “likely” had authority to deport only 7,283 — or 40 percent — of those repeat offenders. The other 19,129 had some form of legal status, and would not be liable for deportation until after conviction in a civil court.

After being released, the 7,283 deportable aliens were later charged with 16,226 crimes, including 19 murders, 142 sex crimes — such as rape or child molestation — almost 1,000 other major criminal offenses or violent crimes, plus 489 cases of theft, 551 traffic violations, 1,929 DUI violations and 156 parole violations.

Together, the released 26,412 illegal and legal immigrants were charged with 59 murders, 542 sex crimes, 6,270 drug crimes and up to 5,342 “major criminal offenses … [or] other violent crimes.”

“It is amazing to me there hasn’t been more fallout … [but] it is the Messiah’s administration [and] the media isn’t making a fuss,” Krikorian said. “It’s appalling.”

So far, the GOP “is cowed and scared that Hispanics won’t vote for them if they highlight illegal-alien murders” of Hispanics, he said. “It is so ridiculous, because the victims of immigrant gang-members are other immigrants.”

Chairman Smith, however, has pushed the issue. Obama’s “unwillingness to enforce immigration laws puts our communities at risk and costs American lives. We elect leaders to protect us — not put us in danger,” he said.

The new data about crimes committed by released legal and illegal immigrants comes as the administration rolls out a variety of new measures to boost the administration’s support among Hispanic voters. (RELATED: Obama immigration policy loosens work permit requirements)

The administration has also boosted welfare programs for legal and illegal immigrants and has redefined nearly all welfare programs to bypass laws barring welfare-receiving immigrants from residency or citizenship.

The Internal Revenue Service has also rolled back oversight of fraud in a program intended to handle immigrants taxes and refunds, according to an investigation by the IRS inspector general. The program provided $6.8 billion in refunds to immigrants, said an Aug. 8 report in The Washington Times.

Illegal immigrants were fraudulently given $4.2 billion in 2010 child-support tax credits, according to a July 2011 report by the Treasury Department’s inspector general. In 2012, that illegal claims likely will reach $7.4 billion, said the report.

In 2012, top Senate Democrats blocked a reform of the refund process.

Administration officials have rolled back enforcement of immigration laws, and have directed immigration-officers to release illegals, including some who have been approved by judges for deportation.

In recent months, the administration has offered what conservatives call a de-facto amnesty to an estimated 1.76 million illegal immigrants, including an estimated 350,000 illegals with little or no high-school education. The policy will more easily grant work permits, and will allow them to compete for jobs against 23 million unemployed or under-employed Americans.

The two-year amnesty, dubbed “deferred action,” is being offered free to illegal immigrants, including people also schedule for deportation. However, the illegals will have to pay the standard cost of $465 for the work permit.

The amnesty will not include convicted felons, drunk drivers or people who committed a series of felonies.

However, immigrant officers will not try to find out if amnesty applicants have committed crimes, such as identity theft, an administration official said Aug. 6. “We want to maximize participation.”

Don’t you DARE try to enforce immigration laws now, the Border Patrol and ICE are discovering.  Rather, if the illegal immigrant tells you he or she had been in the U.S. prior to turning 16 whether they can prove it or not, that assertion is to be treated like the Gospel. 

And we’re now learning that Obama is planning to redefine “misdemeanor” to get as many votes as he can possibly bring in:

One official suggested in the draft paper that the relevant agencies could “adopt a different definition of misdemeanor” for childhood arrivals. Existing guidelines that were published on the CIS website last week stated that for government officers reviewing these applications, “the absence of the [applicant’s] criminal history…or its presence, is not necessarily determinative, but is a factor to be considered.”

And it seems that no application will be rejected outright. “If the case is to be processed for a denial,” the DHS draft stated, “the case is routed to the Background Check Unit…where the case will undergo supervisory review before the denial is issued.”

What is going on is genuinely evil.  It is the most cynical and most depraved and most self-serving policy we have ever seen in this country.

And Obama is doing this over and over again, such as what we just learned about Obama demanding that police not be allowed to punish fascist Occupy OWS protesters.

Our nation is going bankrupt and Obama doesn’t give a damn.  If he can bring in another million welfare recipients who will vote Democrat, he’ll bring in another million more welfare recipients.  And if they are criminal welfare recipients, well, you’ve got to break a few eggs to bake a cake, don’t you?

100 MILLION Americans are now on some form of welfare:

And that aint nearly enough for Obama and for the Democrat Party.  When they can get an overwhelming majority of Americans – or at least “Americans” – utterly dependent on their socialist giveaways, they will finally get the goose-stepping power they’ve always wanted.

Will America collapse as fewer and fewer people bother to work?  You’re damn right it will.  But that’s a good thing, too.  Because Obama will get the true socialist State he has always dreamed of “fundamentally transforming America” into.

Frightening Obituary For America (b. 1775 d. 2008)

The following is being passed around the email world.  But it’s interesting and it offers some important truths:

In 1887 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior:

“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship.”

“The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.”

The Obituary follows:

Born 1776, Died 2012
It doesn’t hurt to read this several times.

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul , Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the last Presidential election:

Number of States won by: Obama: 19 McCain: 29
Square miles of land won by: Obama: 580,000 McCain: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by: Obama: 127 million McCain: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Obama: 13.2 McCain: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: “In aggregate, the map of the territory McCain won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country. Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low-income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare…”

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the “complacency and apathy” phase of Professor Tyler’s definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation’s population already having reached the “governmental dependency” phase.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal’s – and they vote – then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.

If you are in favor of this, then by all means, delete this message.

If you are not, then pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.

This is truly scary!

Of course America is not a democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic.

Someone should point this out to Obama.

Of course we know he and too many others pay little attention to The Constitution.

There couldn’t be more at stake than on Nov 2012.

The email gives the die date of America at 2012 (assuming we re-elect Obama).

It may already be too late for America.  Just as one can smoke tens of thousands of cigarettes and only quit smoking after one has already guaranteed contracting a lingering death by cancer, we may have already put ourselves into such a state of deficit and debt that we cannot recover no matter what we do now.

We are to a point when we are more than $211 TRILLION in debt and we cannot even possibly dig our way out of the grave we have dug for ourselves.

We are to a point when fully half the population pays absolutely no federal income taxes at all while demanding that the few who still DO pay taxes pay more and more and more of the burden.

The Book of Jonah records the way a society can spare itself from the destruction that it richly deserves.  But if Ninevah had had a Democrat Party, it would have been the story of Sodom and Gomorrah instead.  And I fear that we’re at the Sodom and Gomorrah point.

Obama ‘Fundamental Transformation’ Taking Us Way Back To The Flinstones Rather Than Way Ahead To The Jetsons

Obama told us he was going to fundamentally transform America:

And, of course, he has.

Food stamps:

This year, more than 46 million (15% of all Americans) will get food stamps. That’s 45% higher than when Obama took office, and twice as high as the average for the previous 40 years. This surge was driven in part by the recession, but also because Obama boosted the benefit amount as part of his stimulus plan.

Government-dependency benefits:

According to the Census Bureau 49% now live in homes where at least one person gets a federal benefit — Social Security, workers comp, unemployment, subsidized housing, and the like. That’s up from 44% the year before Obama took office, and way up from 1983, when fewer than a third were government beneficiaries

Direct government payments to the permanent welfare class that Obama has massively increased:

The amount of money the federal government hands out in direct payments to individuals steadily increased over the past four decades, but shot up under Obama, climbing by almost $600 billion — a 32% increase — in his first three years. And Obama’s last budget called for these payments to climb another $500 billion by 2016, at which point they would account for fully two-thirds of all federal spending.

Judi McLeod of the Canada Free Press points out the fact that:

“Most know by now that Obama dedicates his time to the end of America as it presently exists.”

One of the ways to illustrate what has happened in America is the flak that Newt Gingrich has taken for talking about a vision to not only put a man on the moon, but have a space station there.  There is doubt, skepticism and outright mockery of him in the mainstream media (“Newt Skywalker“?).

Greta Van Sustern asked Newt about why that was.  And Newt went right after Obama for killing America’s dreams and her future.

Gingrich pointed out that JFK in 1961 offered an even MORE audacious vision of putting a man on the moon when not only had no man ever been on the moon but when only the Soviet Union had ever even sent a man into orbit.  JFK said we would put a man on the moon within ten years.  And while he did not live to see the day because a leftist socialist assassinated him, we DID put a man on the moon within ten years of that famous speech.

Why can’t we now?

Because Obama has “fundamentally transformed America” into a country that can’t do anything and knows it can’t do anything, that’s why.  And of course how could we with such pathetic, failed leadership?  How could we possibly ever thrive under the wings of a man whose only talent is reading off a pair of teleprompter screens?

And the naysayers are completely right: nothing great is possible under this fool.

Only real leadership can get us to the Jetsons.

Newt Gingrich is dreaming of a day when America isn’t under the disgraced and failed leadership of “the Failure-in-Chief.”

Obama is taking us to the Flintstones.  And the sad fact is that the dinosaurs we’ll encounter won’t be anywhere near as friendly as that cartoon described when we get to where Obama is taking us.

Please vote for the destruction of America and a future that takes us – and in particular our children – down into collapse and depression.  Please give us more Obama because we simply don’t deserve to continue the way we’re going.

P.S. Hat tip to Fox News’ Greg Gutfeld for his “Jetsons-Flintstones” analogy.

Al Sharpton: You Can’t Call Yourself A ‘Christian’ And Be Against The Big Government Welfare State

Sharpton: Republicans Can’t ‘Use Christianity’ Then Vote Against Welfare
By Mark Finkelstein | November 01, 2011 | 21:53

Call yourself a Christian? Then you can’t oppose whatever welfare programs the Democrats come up with. So in effect argued Al Sharpton on his MSNBC show this evening.

In the course of criticizing House Republicans for having passed a bill reaffirming “In God We Trust” as the national motto, Sharpton somehow equated Christianity with support for the liberal agenda. And although I’m the opposite of an expert on Christian theology, he also came up with a formulation on faith and works that might be surprising to some Protestants. [See site for MSNBC video].

Watch Rev. Al suggest that being a good Christian requires supporting liberal welfare programs.

AL SHARPTON: Now a lot of people on the right are trying to put this around the blogosphere that the president doesn’t mention God. And clearly they’re trying to play now towards this real right-wing, religious-right kind of thing, which I think is unfortunate. And that’s why I wanted to raise it. I’m glad you are, Reverend Cleaver, because clearly, you and I and many Christians have firm belief. But it’s based on your work. You can’t use God and Christianity, and then turn around and vote against trying to feed the hungry, care for the outcast, clothe the naked. Your action: faith without works is a dead thing.  They need to read the Bible that they quote.

Actually, “faith” with Al Sharpton is a dead thing.  And it really isn’t that hard to show that being opposed to big government welfare programs is hardly “unchristian.”

So let’s read the Bible and see what it says.

First there’s that little passage in 1 Samuel that warns about the danger of a socialist king who would seize what rightly belonged to the people if they wickedly chose big government instead of trusting in God (as I previously have pointed out):

The story of abusive big government is not a recent one. The prophet Samuel describes it in the Old Testament:

But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us. Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles. — 1 Samuel 8:19-20

Who are we really rejecting? God said to Samuel:
“…it is not you they have rejected, Samuel, but they have rejected me as their king.” — 1 Samuel 8:7

Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day.” — 1 Samuel 8:10-18

The tenth of everything that God warned the people the king would take was on top of the tenth that belonged to God. Which is to say that the king would double their taxes in addition to treating the people like they belonged to him. Of course, that tyrant king was only seizing an additional tenth of his people’s wealth; imagine today, where in the highest-taxed states (which are all Democrat states, fwiw), some Americans are forced to pay more than half of their income in taxes. A mere extra tenth would be like a blessing to them.

It doesn’t sound as if the king whom we are told again and again - ”he will take” – is a good thing.  Except on Al Sharpton’s and demonic Democrats warped and evil account of the passage.

Then there’s Jesus, who contrasted what the government confiscated with what belonged to God:

“Show me a denarius. Whose portrait and inscription are on it?”  Caesar’s,” they replied. He said to them, “Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” — Luke 20:24-25

Notice that what belongs to God isn’t also described as belonging to Caesar.  What Jesus is MOST DEFINITELY NOT SAYING here is that giving unto Caesar is in any way, shape or form tantamount to giving to God.  Unless, that is, you are a Democrat (i.e., a demonic bureaucrat), in which case worshipping the State is identical to worshipping God.

When Democrats want to let Obama take more of what belongs to us, they are giving their god his due, not the God of the Bible.

The case of Annas and Saphira in Acts chapter 5 is a good indicator of what is true Christianity – which no baby-murdering Democrat will ever understand.  True Christians were giving not to the government, but to the CHURCH, as they were led to do.  They were in fact free to give everything or NOTHING to the apostles.  As verse 4 of Acts chapter 5 demonstrates:

“The property was yours to sell or not sell, as you wished. And after selling it, the money was also yours to give away. How could you do a thing like this? You weren’t lying to us but to God!”

Democrats have done everything they could do to cripple the Church.  They certainly aren’t advocating that taxes go to the Church instead of their actual god the Government.  Further, in the account of Acts, the ability to give or not to give was up to each individual – whereas the Democrats (again, the demonic bureaucrats) want to forcibly seize/confiscate property and give it to their god the State.

The next time a Marxist half-wit – be it Al Sharpton or anybody else – tries to say that Christianity is communist, please “render unto him” both barrels of the Truth.

Allow me to add something I wrote for another article about welfare versus genuine Christian charity (which America was not short of prior to the advent of Statist Democrats):

I once quoted Burton Folsom in his great book “New Deal Or Raw Deal?” It’s time to quote that passage again:

Throughout American history, right from the start, charity had been a state and local function. Civic leaders, local clergy, and private citizens, evaluated the legitimacy of people’s need in their communities or counties; churches and other organizations could then provide food, shelter, and clothing to help victims of fires or women abandoned by drunken husbands. Most Americans believed that the face-to-face encounters of givers and receivers of charity benefited both groups. It created just the right amount of uplift and relief, and discouraged laziness and a poor work ethic.

The Founders saw all relief as local and voluntary, and the Constitution gave no federal role for the government in providing charity. James Madison, in defending the Constitution, observed, “No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.” In other words, if relief, and other areas, were made functions of the federal government, the process would become politicized and politicians and deadbeats could conspire to trade votes for food” (New Deal or Raw Deal, page 76-77).

Prior to FDR, the American people took care of their OWN, family by family, town by town, county by county, state by state. They had NEVER had welfare, and in fact found the very concept of welfare distasteful. And I’m going to tell you right now that they were better, stronger people than we are as a result of that moral superiority and that faith in THE PEOPLE and not the GOVERNMENT.

Barack Obama – who gave virtually NOTHING to charity when giving would have demonstrated the character he proved he DIDN’T have – doesn’t trust the American people, or much care about them, for that matter. He doesn’t want to help people; he wants to grow the size of government. He wants only to make the state bigger and bigger and more and more powerful and controlling. Obama is angry because he doesn’t believe people should have the right to decide for themselves how much of their own money they “need”; HE wants to make that decision for them and then impose it on them so he can seize their money and redistribute it to people who will vote for him and for his party.

Whenever a Democrat calls for more taxes, understand that what they are really saying is that they believe that the government is too small and needs to become larger. And whenever they call for more taxes for the sake of helping people, what they are really saying is that you are a bad and immoral person who can’t and shouldn’t be trusted to help people in need and that it is better to take your money away from you and put it into the coffers of a big government socialist redistributionist agency which will piss it away on boondoggle programs that benefit the politically connected far more than they do the poor. And the fact that even as Barack Obama and the overwhelming Democrat majority that had dictatorial control of both branches of Congress made government bigger than it has ever been and yet blacks are now worse off than they’ve been for generations and women are being set way back is the icing on the cake of the proof of that fact. Liberals hurt the people they cynically and falsely claim to be helping – and then demagogically use the misery that they themselves created to accumulate even more power for themselves and their failed agenda.

But let me be even more specific and address Obama directly. Obama says rich people – who already pay a massive share of the income taxes in America – should have more of their money seized so it can be redistributed in the form of student loans. What is interesting is that this massively subsidizes the university system that has been almost entirely hijacked by the ideological left. The more money becomes available in student loans, the more these supposedly “caring” liberals increase the cost of college tuition (the price of which has inflated FAR more than the price of ANY OTHER good or service). So what happens? Obama takes money OUT of the private economy, and OUT of the hands of the people who actually create jobs, and puts it into the pockets of liberals in universities who then turn around and raise the cost of tuition to screw college students. And this “progressive” boondoggle has been going on for YEARS.

THAT’S what liberal compassion looks like: it bascially looks just like the hypocritical, self-righteous face of Barack Obama.