Why Does Obama Blame Bush For HIS Economy (After FOUR YEARS Of Failure) When Obama Takes Credit For Every Good Bush Achievement?

OSAMA BIN LADEN RAID

Obama takes the credit for getting bin Laden.  Was it Obama who rebuilt  the national security apparatus following 9/11 to reshape it from the Cold War emphasis that had characterized it for the previous sixty years?  Was it Obama who first announced the mission to get bin Laden dead or alive?  Was it Obama who used water boarding to secure the key intelligence breakthroughs that bin Laden was relying on couriers for his communication (rather than phones, computers, etc.) and that he was living in the city of Abbottabad which allowed intelligence to zero in on him?

The key intelligence breakthrough occurred when US intelligence discovered two key facts: 1) that Osama bin Laden was hiding out in the city of Abbottabad in Pakistan; and 2) that bin Laden was relying on a courier who could then be identified and tracked to bin Laden’s specific location in that city.  Both of these key facts were discovered under the Bush presidency by means of waterboarding:

Liberals outrageously lie when they talk about how waterboarding was used.  CIA professionals did NOT ask a terrorist a question and then waterboard him until he gave them whatever answer they wanted.  Rather, they used this incredibly painful – but completely medically safe under supervision – procedure of simulated drowning to “alter the perception” of the terrorist.  The terrorist was confronted with his new reality in a cold, painful way: “We own your ass; we can do whatever the hell we want to you; and we will ultimately break you down.  Get used to the idea that you WILL tell us what we want to know.”  The point of waterboarding was to break their will to resist, not to torture immediate answers out of them but rather to inexorably bring them to the point where they would ultimately crack.  The fact of the matter was that the CIA experts didn’t even bother to ASK terrorists any questions while they waterboarded the three terrorists who ended up singing like canaries.  But it is a simple FACT that waterboarding was the essential background component that led to the breaking of these hard, hateful men: because the terrorists we waterboarded were the very same terrorists who told us about Abbottabad and the courier.

Democrats talk about “torture.”  I say if we catch a monster like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed we waterboard him until he grows gills and then we take the water away so he’ll flop around like a dying fish.  And repeat it over and over again until the same man who tried to destroy us becomes the very man who tells us how to destroy his hateful organization.

I recently watched a 2 hour documentary about the 2006 terrorist attempt to use passenger jets as bombs titled “Stopping the Second 9/11” on the National Geographic Channel.  The thing that most struck me was the fact that British intelligence recorded the terrorists talking to each other on phones.  The terrorists planned to bring their own wives and their own BABIES on the flights that they planned to destroy in order to reduce the likelihood that they would tip off law enforcement by boarding the planes as “family men.”  That ought to scream about the determination of these men to kill and destroy.  You simply are not going to get men like this to open up with courtesy and niceness.  Islamic terrorists by their culture, their religion, and their brutal nature as mass murdering killers respect only superior force, not peaceful overtures, which they see as a sign of weakness. Anyone who thinks you can “nice” a terrorist into betraying his worldview, his ideology, literally his religion, and his movement is simply a naive fool.

The question then becomes this: Why would anybody but a radical leftist ideologue give Obama credit for the intelligence breakthroughs that led to killing bin Laden when Obama was the very guy who most viciously demonized the very procedures that led to those breakthroughs?

There is a fascinating analogy that comes out of the talk about the moon landing that happened as a result of the discussion about the passing of Neil Armstrong (who by the way went on the record criticizing Obama before his death).  The anology begins with this: We give John F. Kennedy complete credit for putting a man on the moon:

Nixon gets ZERO credit even though he was the president sitting in the White House when the Apollo 11 mission landed on the moon.  You will not read an article written by a liberal giving Nixon any credit for landing a man on the moon and bringing that man safely back to earth.  Why?  Kennedy had been DEAD for six years prior to that moon landing.  Why isn’t Nixon “the president who put a man on the moon”?  Because it was JFKs vision and the fulfillment of that vision just as getting bin Laden was the fulfillment of George W. Bush’s vision:

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush pledged anew Friday that Osama bin Laden will be taken “dead or alive,” no matter how long it takes, amid indications that the suspected terrorist may be bottled up in a rugged Afghan canyon. The president, in an Oval Office meeting with Thailand’s prime minister, would not predict the timing of bin Laden’s capture but said he doesn’t care how the suspect is brought to justice. “I don’t care, dead or alive — either way,” Bush said. “It doesn’t matter to me.”

But again, that meme about the first man on the moon merely reinforces the pathology of the left to take full credit for every good thing and avoid any blame whatsoever for any bad thing.  The media gives John F. Kennedy complete credit for putting a man on the moon because JFK was a Democrat; the media gives George W. Bush ZERO credit for getting Osama bin Laden because GWB was a Republican.  It’s really that simple.

Was Obama’s decision to send the SEALs into Pakistan to kill bin Laden really that amazing?  Let me ask you this: what would have happened to Obama’s political fortunes if he had refused to kill bin Laden and a bunch of pissed off CIA and military professionals leaked Obama’s abject refusal to kill the world’s worst terrorist monster?  How many people think Obama could have been reelected as “the man who refused to kill bin Laden”???

Bottom damn line: if Obama had tried to kill bin Laden and failed, he would have been criticized for that failure.  And to insulate himself from that possibility, he set up Admiral McRaven as the fall guy by giving McRaven responsibility.  It was ultimately McRaven who made the “courageous call,” not Obama.  That said, if Obama had refused to even try to kill bin Laden, HE WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE POLITICALLY.  Does anybody seriously think for one second that the men who had devoted YEARS to getting bin Laden would have just rolled over if Obama had refused to issue the order to get him?  In fact, I will bet you that Republicans would have brought up and article of impeachment due to Obama’s refusal to protect the citizens of the United States, and Democrats would have voted for it.  Because otherwise, this election would have been the worst disaster in the history of politics for the Democrat Party as the weakling coward treasonous bin Laden Party.

So spare me about Obama’s “incredibly courageous decision” to kill bin Laden as George W. Bush had promised the world that the United States would do.  Spare me the idiotic rhetoric that if George W. Bush had still been president he never would have had the guts to kill bin Laden.  Just spare me all your blathering idiocy, liberal.

IRAQ WAR

Let’s talk about the Iraq War.  Let’s talk about the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq.  Do you know which president won that war?  Do you know which president negotiated that withdrawal of American troops?  I do.  In answer to both questions, the name is George W. Bush.

But who claims credit for the success of Iraq?  Listen to Vice President Joe Biden, speaking on behalf of the Obama administration:

“I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.”

Two words come to mind: they are “evil” and “hypocrite.”  Obama demonized the Iraq War again and again while Bush was trying to fight and win there.  Obama demonized the incredibly successful surge strategy that allowed us to break the back of the insurgency.  But now that same Obama claims credit for what he opposed.

AFGHANISTAN WAR

That same Obama dragged America FAR deeper into the quagmire of Afghanistan than anybody could ever dream blame on Bush.  Because Obama and the Democrat Party didn’t want to appear weak on national security.  So they created a contrast between Iraq (which Bush won) as the “bad war” and Afghanistan (which Obama massively expanded) as the “good war.”

You wait and see: when Obama cuts and runs from Afghanistan, he’s going to frame it as his courageously getting us out of the last of “Bush’s wars.” When Obama massively expanded America’s involvement in Afghanistan and very obviously used Afghanistan as a political device to give Obama a cover from charges that he was a cut and run coward:

As I pointed out before, Charles Krauthammer pointed out the sheer cynical depravity of Barack Obama and the Democrat Party as regards Iraq and Afghanistan by pointing to what the Democrats themselves said:

Bob Shrum, who was a high political operative who worked on the Kerry campaign in ’04, wrote a very interesting article in December of last year in which he talked about that campaign, and he said, at the time, the Democrats raised the issue of Afghanistan — and they made it into “the right war” and “the good war” as a way to attack Bush on Iraq. In retrospect, he writes, that it was, perhaps, he said, misleading. Certainly it was not very wise.

What he really meant to say — or at least I would interpret it — it was utterly cynical. In other words, he’s confessing, in a way, that the Democrats never really supported the Afghan war. It was simply a club with which to bash the [Bush] administration on the Iraq war and pretend that Democrats aren’t anti-war in general, just against the wrong war.

Well, now they are in power, and they are trapped in a box as a result of that, pretending [when] in opposition that Afghanistan is the good war, the war you have to win, the central war in the war on terror. And obviously [they are] now not terribly interested in it, but stuck.

And that’s why Obama has this dilemma. He said explicitly on ABC a few weeks ago that he wouldn’t even use the word “victory” in conjunction with Afghanistan.

And Democrats in Congress have said: If you don’t win this in one year, we’re out of here. He can’t win the war in a year. Everybody knows that, which means he [Obama] has no way out.

Afghanistan was just a way to demagogue Bush in Iraq by describing Afghanistan – where Obama is failing so badly – as “the good war” and Iraq – where Bush won so triumphantly – as “the bad war.” It was beyond cynical; it was flat-out treasonous.

There’s more about how the Democrats – including Democrat voters – did a “cut and run” on their “good war” here.

The thing is that Obama’s “good war” aint going so good.  The thing is that if you examine the casualties of Obama’s “good war” since Obama took it over, Obama is responsible for more than 70 percent of the casualties for the entire war (i.e., compare Obama’s 1,477 casualties in less than four years to Bush’s 630 casualties over eight years of fighting.

Bush limited the Afghanistan War.  Obama radically expanded it.  And now the man who radically expanded the Afghanistan War is trying to A) walk away from the mess that HE created and 2) blame the mess that HE created on Bush just as he’s blamed ALL his failures on Bush.

We are NOT winning in Afghanistan.  We are not GOING to win in Afghanistan – particularly after Obama declared a “timetable for withdrawal” that told the enemy all they have to do is hang on until we crawl out with our tails between our legs and the country will be theirs.  There IS no winning in that hellhole.  As I have pointed out in the past echoing other conservatives, Afghanistan was a terrible place for the U.S. military to fight and be able to exploit our overwhelming air and ground power whereas the flat plains of Iraq was a GREAT place for America to fight and win.

I’ve said that before (just to show you I’m not boasting with 20/20 hindsight):

Bush was rightly resistant to putting too many troops into Afghanistan because he knew enough about history to understand that Afghanistan is a hell-hole. Bush understood that while Iraq – with its flat, mostly open terrain – was perfect for American equipment and tactics, and that mountainous and cave-ridden Afghanistan was most certainly NOT well-suited for American equipment and tactics. Bush knew that the fairly well-educated Iraqi people were capable of some semblance of democracy; and Bush knew that the ignorant, basically stone-age Afghani people were NOT capable of anything resembling self-governance.

Because Bush – however stupid the left wants to say he is – wasn’t 1/20th as massively moronic as Barack Obama is.

Afghanistan is also the place where Obama ignored and overruled his generals.  He was the one who declared that we needed to have a huge surge there (after demonizing Bush’s successful surge in Iraq, fwiw); and then he was the one who refused to listen to his own generals’ recommendations when they said we’d need at least 40,000 troops to do it right – and then after endless indecision finally decided to basically give them too many not to lose but not nearly enough to ever win.

Afghanistan is as much Obama’s war as Iraq was “Bush’s war.”  The difference was that Bush owned his war and accepted responsibility for how it went and how it was fought and Obama will NEVER own ANY of his massive failures.  So as I said above, when Obama cuts and runs from Afghanistan, he’ll deceitfully depict it as getting America out of the last of “Bush’s wars.”  Because that’s the kind of slandering liar that weasel is.

I was wrong about one thing in my past predictions: I thought that Obama would crawl out of Afghanistan before the election in November and make the immediately above claim.  But I submit at this point that Obama can’t do that: because Afghanistan is frankly going so badly with new cases of Afghan soldiers fragging their American partners practically every day that to cut and run NOW would only serve to draw attention to just how catastrophically Obama has truly failed over there.

IRAN

Obama is the president who was mocked by Hillary Clinton for his naive stupidity in assuming he could talk Iran out of its rogue regime intent on acquiring nuclear weapons status.  He is the same naive fool today that he was when Hillarly Clinton mocked him.

And Iran has doubled its centrifuges and made it all but impossible for observers to monitor Iran’s nuclear program while Obama has dithered.

Just as Iran has successfully propped up the Syrian dictatorship while Obama has done nothing.

And I have documented that when craziest nation in world history Iran gets its nukes – which it will – you can COMPLETELY lay the blame for the Armageddon that will surely ensue on Barack Obama and the Democrat Party.

Not that Obama will accept responsibility for his failure of leadership.

OIL

Barack Obama has also been constantly taking complete credit for being the president who has produced more oil than any other president.  Is that true?  No.  The reason that we are producing virtually ANY domestic oil at all right now is because of the Bush administration’s granting the leases that have produced so much American oil. 

“According to EIA’s short-term 2011 outlook, released last week, oil production was significantly higher in 2009 than in the years prior. Obama may have been in office for most of that year, but the oil production numbers are due to action taken before he became president. In 2010, most if not all of the production increase recorded is likely due to action that predates Obama, since Obama didn’t take any major action expanding offshore drilling his first year in office.”

But the Obama administration has taken action since then, as Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell pointed out on Wednesday. “Over the past two years, the Obama administration has delayed, revoked, suspended, or canceled an enormous range of development opportunities. One month after the President took office, his administration cancelled 77 oil and gas leases in Utah — once the review was complete the administration refused to reinstate a single one. . . . Last January, it announced new restrictions for onshore oil and gas exploration in the Mountain West. Last February, it denied a permit to build a bridge needed to access an oil producing field in Alaska, after the Environmental Protection Agency designated a nearby river an aquatic resource of national importance. Last April, the Administration suspended 61 oil and gas leases in Montana that were issued in 2008 — then announced that all oil and gas leases in Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota would be delayed indefinitely. Last May, the President announced a 6-month moratorium on deepwater drilling — a moratorium that’s been repeatedly struck down in the courts.”

Bush was the president who signed the leases that Obama is taking credit for.  Obama is the president who has shut down oil production.  And yet Obama is the president who is taking credit for Bush’s success even as he refuses to stand behind his failure.  Something to consider as we face the highest gasoline prices in the history of the republic on this Memorial Day.

HEALTH CARE

ObamaCare was an unpopular fiasco the entire time Obama and Democrats were forcing it down the throats of the American people.  Obama demagogued health care costs – which were actually going DOWN before his ObamaCare boondoggle placed another one-sixth of the economy under government bureaucratic control – to pass his socialist takeover of the health care system.

Health care will be more expensive thanks to Obama and his socialism.  We’re talking $1.76 trillion more than Obama promised.  In fact, it’s already three times as expensive as Obama said it would be and we aint seen nothin’ yet.  That is a fact.

College students are seeing their health care costs skyrocket or be completely removed altogether as insurance companies decide they don’t want to pay for all the “free stuff” that ObamaCare forces them to pay for.

ObamaCare disingenuously imposes all the burden on the doctors and insurers while claiming to give all kinds of benefits.  Which is why 74% of doctors say they will quit, retire early, or see fewer patients if ObamaCare stands.  ObamaCare shennanigans, higher costs and fewer doctors mean that you will have LESS chance of actually seeing a doctor under this incredibly failed program.

Obama also swore up one side and down the other that he would NEVER raise taxes on the middle class.  And yet ObamaCare is a massive tax hike on ordinary people.  Because 75% of the 21 new tax hikes will fall on the middle class.

And where’s Obama to accept responsibility for his failed program???

ECONOMY

Question: Which president left his successor with a bubble collapse that vaporized $7.1 trillion in American wealth and wiped out 78% of the Nasdaq portolio?  Answer: William Jefferson Clinton.  But we don’t tend to remember the terrible Dotcom bubble recession that Bill Clinton left for George Bush to inherit because of three reasons: 1) the sheer unmitigated bias of the mainstream media; 2) the disasterous 9/11 attack (that can likewise be laid almost entirely at Clinton’s feet as he gutted the military and intelligence community and left America both weak and blind such that Osama bin Laden declared America to be a “paper tiger” and began to plot his devastating attack); and 3) because unlike Barack Obama, George Bush wasn’t a pitiful whiner and accepted responsibility for the economy.

The fact of the matter is that George Bush began his presidency with a huge double whammy.  Not that the media will ever assign responsibility for it to Clinton the way they were determined to assign responsibility to Bush.  Because there is a longstanding propaganda meme according to which the mainstream media will NEVER blame a Democrat for a failure and will ALWAYS find a way to blame a Republican.

Barack Obama has demonized Bush for the “Great Recession,” literally refuses to cite statistics that consider the first year of his presidency to create the rhetorical statistical illusion that his presidency has been better than it actally was, demonized Republicans for “obstructionism“, and taken credit for his “recovery”.  The truth is that none of these things is true.

Let’s take the “Great Recession” first.  Obama has demonized Republicans over and over again for “lack of regulation” and “failed policies” causing that recession.  Bullcrap.  The single entity that resulted in this collapse was Government Sponsored Enterprise Fannie Mae and its twin Freddie Mac.  I’ve documented that fact over and over again on this blog:

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2010/01/23/aei-article-how-fannie-and-freddie-blew-up-the-economy/

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2010/08/10/barney-frank-and-democrat-party-most-responsible-for-2008-economic-collapse/

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/2009/08/03/who-really-exploded-your-economy-liberals-or-conservatives/

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/democrats-set-up-america-for-2008-collapse-and-barack-obama-became-their-king/

http://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/2009/12/31/with-eyes-finally-wide-open-reconsider-why-the-economy-collapsed-in-the-first-place/

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2011/10/13/democrat-lies-about-their-key-role-in-2008-economic-collapse-reaches-laughable-proportions/

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/2009/07/08/biden-we-misread-the-economy-and-its-all-the-republicans-fault/

http://digitalartpress.wordpress.com/2009/03/22/video-proof-democrat-party-warned-responsible-for-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-economic-crisis-repost/

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/barney-frank-video-proves-democrats-at-core-of-2008-economic-collapse/

And since Democrats took over and issued regulations up the yin yang and then up the whazoo of aforementioned yin yang, we’ve continued to have clear examples of the very things Democrats demonized Republicans over.  And Obama is setting up America and the world for an ultimate $600 trillion collapse that will make the one in 2008 look like a warm, sunny day compared to Armageddon.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac collapsed FIRST before ANY private sector entity to initiate the collapse – just as conservative economists had predicted a full decade before the collapse occurred:

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980′s.

”From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,” said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ”If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.”

And in fact the private sector entities such as Lehman Brothers that collapsed did so because they suddenly found themselves holding BILLIONS of dollars in sub-prime mortgage backed securities that had been issued by the GSEs that the Democrats created and ran into the ground and protected – and refused to allow Republicans to regulate (Bush tried SEVENTEEN TIMES to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac prior to its collapse and was stopped by Democrats every single time).  In fact Bush was trying to regulate Fannie and Freddie all the way back to 2003 when we still had time to prevent the coming collapse.  Democrats used Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to force the market to sell homes to people who couldn’t afford those homes; and when the bubble burst and Lehman Bros. and others found themselves holding “toxic assets” that they had purchased from Fannie and Freddie, they couldn’t cover their Democrat-caused losses and collapsed.

Nixon was president during the moon landing, but Democrats and liberals have never and will never give him credit because they wanted to give one of their own credit for the success.  Bush was president during the 2008 collapse, and that was all liberals needed to say to blame him for the entire fiasco regardless of how many Democrat shennanigans had gone into that collapse.

And here we are, nearly four years later, and all of Obama’s promises based on his anti-Bush demagoguery to: 1) not increase the debt ceiling; to 2) cut the deficit in half during his first term; to 3) cut the debt after demonizing Bush for his debt.  Obama imposed the most massive one-time spending binge in the history of planet earth and promised that unemployment would be 5.5% by now.  Instead not only has unemployment been over 8% longer than ANY time in history since the Great Depression, but in fact unemployment has actually been worse than had Obama’s own experts said it would be had we NOT wasted and pissed away $862 billion that we can never get back.

Obamanomics has been one catastrophic failure after another.  Here we are, with median household income under Obama nearly TWICE as bad than they were during the Great Recession – whether you want to blame Bush for that recession or not.  Here we are, with more poor people devastated by Obama’s economy than at any time in history.  And that didn’t happen under Bush’s watch, you liberal liars.  Somehow, it wasn’t Bush who put more people into poverty than ever before; it wasn’t Bush who devastated median household incomes as people move in with parents and relatives because the economy has failed them; it has been Obama.  It was OBAMA who made one out of every six Americans poor.

And Obama’s stimulus cost Americans an incredible and frankly insane $278,000 per job.  We can’t afford any more damn Obama jobs!!!

Obama is a liar and his “success” is based on lies – as you will see for yourself if you just try to match his rhetoric to painful American reality under his presidency:

But it’s Bush’s fault that Obama did it.  Because no president in history has ever abrogated his responsibilities or refused to claim responsibility for his failure to live up to his responsibilities than has Obama.

Obama has been the president for the last four years, people, not Bush.

I began talking about the first man on the moon, Neil Armstrong.  The only “man on the moon” now – thanks to Obama’s policies – is none other than Barack Obama: because this disgraced leader will surely assume no responsibility for anything that happens on the earth that lies so far below his lofty but meaningless rhetoric.

It’s past time to hold him responsible and fire his ass.

Mitt Romeny’s Speech And Religion: What He Should And Shouldn’t Say To Evangelicals About His Mormonism

As I write this, Mitt Romney is yet hours away from giving his RNC convention speech later this evening.  That said, his speech is obviously already written, and moreover he and his speechwriters wouldn’t have listened to a pissant like me, anyway.

So I’m not really writing this to Mitt Romney; I’m writing it to his audience – especially to his evangelical audience (of which I happen to be a member).

Should Mitt Romney talk about his [Mormon] religion?  My answer is, “Yes and no.”  Let me talk about the “no” part first.

What should Romney NOT say to the evangelicals who make up a whopping portion of his voters?

Mitt Romney should not try to convince evangelicals – who know better – that he is a Christian just like they are.  He simply isn’t; Mormonism has a very different understanding of the Person and Work of Jesus Christ than do orthodox, Trinitarian, evangelical Christians.

If Mitt Romney tries to tell evangelicals that Mormonism – which holds that “God” Himself was merely once a created being (punting on the question of who created our particular “God”), and that this same “God” who was Himself created then later created Christ who is only an angel (and in fact the spirit brother of Lucifer the devil) – is no different from evangelical Christianity, he will do nothing more than offend us and actually LOSE our vote.

This is where the more troubling aspects of Mormonism come into play:

From Brigham Young (as in “Brigham Young University”):

“When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—He is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later.”

and:

“When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family”.  Young explained that Adam “was begotten by his Father in heaven” in the same way that Adam begat his own sons and daughters, and that there were “three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael.” Then, reiterating, he said that “Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the Garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven.”

Hey, Mitt, whatever you do, please don’t tell me you’re a Christian just like I am.  Because I will be legitimately offended and start wondering what else you might be lying about.

Adam Smith likewise made it ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that Mormons are NOT Christians like orthodox Christians:

18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

 19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

 20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time.

Joseph Smith very specifically said that no orthodox, historical Christian denomination was valid.  Which is to say that from the very beginning, Mormonism recognized the gulf between Mormons and those who had called themselves “Christian” for 2,000 years before Mormonism.

Please don’t contradict your own Mormon history and tell us that you’re a “Christian,” Mitt.  Because unless you repudiate your Mormonism, you just aint a Christian by any orthodox or historical standard.  And if you just flat-out try to deny the crucial and critical differences between Mormonism and Christianity, you will outrage the very people you need to depend upon most for your election.

That’s the “no” part to the question, “Should Mitt Romney talk about his religion.”  What about the “yes” part?

Mitt Romney should talk about faith in the generic sense of the term; not the specific content of his faith, and not that his “faith” is a Christian faith.  Mitt Romney should indicate that he is a religious person with a religious worldview.

And I submit that Mitt Romney should – without directly claiming himself a “Christian” – affirm a Judeo-Christian worldview.

Because while Mormons do NOT embrace the same theology as historic, orthodox Christianity as understand by evangelicals, Mormons most certainly DO have a Judeo-Christian view of the world and have a Judeo-Christian view toward morality in general.

And given that, I am comfortable having a “Mormon” who isn’t going to do anything in any way, shape or form to propagate his Mormonism, as my president.  Especially given the fact that the man he is running against has a form of “Christianity” that is even FURTHER away from historic, orthodox Christianity than Mormonism.

When the militant homosexual agenda is “Christian,” as it is on Obama’s view; when the militant abortion agenda that has murdered 54.5 million babies since Roe v. Wade was imposed in 1973 is “Christian,” as it is on Obama’s view; when “Christianity” is a Marxist core with a candy coating of “liberation theology,” as it is on Obama’s view; when “Christianity” allows you to spend some 25 years in a Marxist, racist, anti-American “church” as Obama’s “Christianity” allowed him to do in Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church” (and see here); when “Christianity” means explicitly rejecting individual salvation by faith in Jesus Christ alone into a Marxist “collective salvation” as Obama’s “faith” does; you are very far from “Christian,” indeed.

The true nature of Obama’s “salvation” in his own words:

“… working on issues of crime and education and employment and seeing that in some ways certain portions of the African American community are doing as bad if not worse, and recognizing that my fate remain tied up with their fates, that my individual salvation is not going to come about without a collective salvation for the country.

“Collective” as in “collectivist.”  And “collectivist” as in “communist.”  Because Obama’s “Christianity” is a candy coating over a hard nut of Marxism just as Jeremiah Wright’s “Christianity” is.

Any orthodox Christian can tell you – and quote the Bible to prove it – that individuals are saved by their individual and personal faith in Jesus Christ in a dependence upon His righteousness and His substitutionary death in our place on the Cross.   My faith – regardless of the color of my skin – is not “tied up” in ANYTHING other than the Person and Work of Jesus Christ, God the Son, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, who shares in and participates in the divine essence of the eternal Father.

Barack Obama does NOT have a Judeo-Christian worldview in any way, shape or form.

Obama’s “Christianity” is Jeremiah Wright’s “them Jews” Christianity:

And it most definitely is NOT “Judeo-Christian.”

This will very probably be the very first election in American history in which neither major party candidate is a true Christian.

That said, I am FAR more comfortable as a Christian and particularly as an evangelical Christian voting for Mitt Romney than I am voting for a radical Marxist heretic like Barack Hussein Obama.

Mitt Romney needs to convey those significant ways that he thinks just like evangelical Christians without insulting us by saying he’s no different than we are.  He needs to focus on morality and on worldview and get away from specific content of the Christian – or Mormon – faith.

China’s State-Controlled Media Lashes Out At Romney (Communists Want Fellow Marxist To Finish Destroying Hated America)

Who can name a single important issue in which China is cooperating with the U.S. rather than doing what they can to screw us?

This is one of those things: if China hates Romney and wants Obama to win, that ought to make you want Romney to win.

I mean, Do you like China’s increasing ownership of America?  Because the Chinese sure do – and that’s why they want Obama to stay in office:

Chinese media slams Romney as convention begins
Posted By Josh RoginTuesday, August 28, 2012 – 1:08 PM

TAMPA – China’s state-controlled media lashed out at GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney Monday, warning that his policies would poison U.S.-China relations.

“By any standard, the U.S. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s China policy, as outlined on his official campaign website, is an outdated manifestation of a Cold War mentality,” read a commentary in Monday’s China Daily. “It endorses the ‘China threat’ theory and focuses on containing China’s rise in the Asia-Pacific through bolstering the robust U.S. military presence in the region.”

The Chinese state-owned outlet said that Romney was “provoking” China by promising to supply Taiwan with aircraft and other military platforms and called his China approach “pugnacious.”

“[H]is China policy, if implemented, would cause a retrogression in bilateral ties and turn the region into a venue for open confrontation between China and the U.S.,” the commentary stated.

China Daily also compared Romney’sapproach with President Barack Obama‘s “pivot” toward Asia. The current administration is adding “fuel to the fire” in the South China Sea by involving itself in regional disputes, the commentary argued, but Romney’s China policies would sour relations even further.

“It requires political vision as well as profound knowledge of Sino-U.S. relations as a whole, to make sensible policy recommendations about what are widely recognized as the most important bilateral ties in the world,” the commentary states. “Romney apparently lacks both.”

The China-East Asia page of the Romney campaign website promises that a Romney administration would increase U.S. naval presence in the Pacific and increase military assistance to regional allies “to discourage any aggressive or coercive behavior by China against its neighbors.”

The Romney campaign is also vowing to shine a brighter light on China’s human rights abuses.

“Any serious U.S. policy toward China must confront the fact that China’s regime continues to deny its people basic political freedoms and human rights. A nation that represses its own people cannot be a trusted partner in an international system based on economic and political freedom,” the website reads.

But as the China Daily commentary notes, campaign rhetoric and government policy aren’t always the same thing. U.S. presidential candidates of both parties have long taken a more strident tone toward China on the campaign trail, only to dial back their rhetoric while in office.

Nor is the Romney team’s position on China clear, as top campaign advisors disagree on how to deal with the Middle Kingdom’s rise as a world power.

The two co-chairs of Romney’s Asia-Pacific policy team, former State Department official Evan Feigenbaum, a moderate realist, and Aaron Friedberg, a hawkish scholar, evince sharply different views on China.

At the top of the Romney advisory structure, generalists like former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton are much more wary of a rising China than realists such as former World Bank President Bob Zoellick, who as a top State Department official urged China to become a “responsible stakeholder” in world affairs.

As for Romney, he has promised to brand China a currency manipulator on day one of his presidency and the RNC draft platform posted by Politico calls on China to move toward democracy and condemns its South China Sea claims.

“We will welcome the emergence of a peaceful and prosperous China, and we will welcome even more the development of a democratic China,” the draft platform reads. “Its rulers have discovered that economic freedom leads to national wealth. The next lesson is that political and religious freedom lead to national greatness. The exposure of the Chinese people to our way of lifecan be the greatest force for change in their country.”

You really can’t blame China.  I mean, if I was the enemy of America, I’d sure as hell want Obama to remain in office so he could finish the job selling the Great Satan out, too.

The Chinese are happy with a weak America that is $16 – and really make that $222 trillion – in debt.

For the official record, I would say that China has “poisoned” relations over and over again – such as the fact that they routinely sell us poisoned dog food and poisonous childrens’ toys.  You know, when they’re not being the world’s worst currency manipulator to undermine our exports or illegally dumping their products to undermine our domestic production.  By the way, as to that last one – get ready for a huge glut of cheap Chinese products being dumped on the U.S. market and further undermining American jobs.

So, yeah, you can understand why the Chinese don’t want a man who actually has a freaking clue about business in the White House when they’re about to screw us like we’ve never been screwed before.

Why Do Depraved Democrats Deceitfully Distort Jesus To Demagogue Republicans???

This is so par for the course it’s simply beyond unreal:

Look up the term “socialist” in ANY reasonably legitimate source and tell me that a socialist is somebody who wants to force people to give all of their money to the Judeo-Christian God of the Holy Bible. No. Rather, a socialist is somebody who wants to create an all-powerful State in PLACE of God and give that all-powerful State the power to confiscate and redistribute wealth and resources as it wills.

I would first like you to consider what Jesus actually said about taxes, God and government as found in Matthew 22:15-22.  Allow me to set the stage for you.  The Pharisees who DESPISE Jesus are trying to entrap Him.  The come upon a great plan to force Jesus into an impossible dilemma; force Jesus to either say that Jews should pay taxes to Caesar, making Him a religious heretic, or force Him to say that Jews should NOT pay taxes to Caesar, making him a full-fledge traitor against Rome.  Here is the story:

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.

It’s too damn bad we can’t make Democrats go away the same way.

Does Jesus endorse socialism here?  Does Jesus answer the Pharisees by saying, “There is no difference between giving unto Caesar and giving unto God, for God and the State are one and the same such that when you give to Caesar you ARE giving to God”???  Does Jesus say that?

Does Jesus EVER say anything remotely CLOSE to that???

Jesus is telling us that whatever money you give – or are forced to give – to Obama’s regime doesn’t do your soul one tiny bit of good.  Because there is a very real distinction between giving to the State and giving to God according to Jesus.  And it is a wicked, despicable state indeed that forces people to give so much damn money to their government that they don’t have enough left to give to their God.

Liberal states such as New York and California expect you to pay more than HALF of everything you earn to the state if you are in the top income bracket.  And that is immoral.

Let’s look at the passage of Scripture the Democrat alludes to in the cartoon above (Matthew 19:16-21):

And someone came to Him and said, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?”  And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”  Then he said to Him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER; YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY; YOU SHALL NOT STEAL; YOU SHALL NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS;  HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER; and YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.”  The young man said to Him, “All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?”  Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”

A couple of things follow from this passage: first of all, is it not the Democrat Party that appoints the judges and holds that the Ten Commandments that Jesus says from the first we need to inherit eternal life should be BANISHED from our schools and from all public discourse???  It most certainly is – which is already one gigantic strike against any hypocrite Democrat who wants to claim this passage.  But let us go on to the second point: does Jesus instruct this man to go, be taxed for all of his possessions and give it to Obama??? 

Obama and the Democrat Party are wailing in sheer unmitigated RAGE at what Jesus tells the man to do: DON’T give it to Obama; DON’T give it to the government; DON”T give it to the socialist regime.  Whatever you do, do not allow Obama to have one red stinking cent of it; rather, give it to the poor people.  Give it not to the State, but to the CHURCH.

Democrats have so utterly perverted this passage that it is insane.  It is for this reason I point out what “Democrat” truly means: it means, “Demonic Bureaucrat.”

Let’s look at what God thinks about big government as found in 1 Samuel 8:5-19:

and they said to him, “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.  He 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…

Now, after reading this, if you still actually believe that high taxation and a king who would take and take and take was what God actually wanted, you are a genuine fool.  Which is another way of saying, “You are a Democrat.”

That king who takes and takes and takes – that’s King Obama.

Jews in Old Testament times paid no more than 25% a year in taxes.  And that was in the perverted system that God had explicitly condemned.

Professor of Old Testament Studies Dr. Claude Mariottini noted about the 1 Samuel passage above:

In the Old Testament, the people had to pay their taxes to the state. In the history of Israel it seems that it was with the establishment of the monarchy that taxation became a permanent obligation for every citizen. With the establishment of the monarchy in Israel, the people were required to pay for the extravagances of the government and many people did not like the demands imposed upon them by the state. There is evidence in the Bible that the people resisted taxation and the compulsory exaction of revenues.

After the return from Babylon, the Jews were required to pay an annual payment of one third of a shekel (Nehemiah 10:32). Soon, the third became a half, an amount of money that was paid by every Jew, in whatever part of the world he might be living.

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.

He also notes a number of Democrats who hypocritically didn’t pay the very high taxes that they themselves demagogued that others be forced to pay – such as Obama appointees Tom Daschle, Nancy Killefer and Tim Geithner.

H.W. Crocker noted in his book Triumph (page 240):

“The tinder had been laid by the rising nationalism in Europe. That nationalism set out to subordinate the Church—in the eyes of some, an Italian Church (as it had been a French Church while in Avignon)—to the state. This would lead, two hundred years later, to the Protestant doctrine of separation of church and state, and two hundred years after that to the irrelevance of church to state. There was also the resentment of papal taxation, corruption, and luxury. Christendom’s kings followed a low-tax-regimen. No monarchy, from the Middle Ages until the democratic age, ever taxed its subjects by more than 10 percent. Often, as in Catholic England, it taxed them not at all. High taxes are an inventionof democratic, republican, and socialist governments to pay for such services as schools, hospitals, and caring for the poor that under the Catholic monarchies had been the province of the Church, and to pay for things like armies, which had been paid for by the royal families and noblemen out of their own pockets. But the absence of royal taxes meant that the Catholic Church’s demands for money to pay for its social services, or for the monasteries, or for cathedrals, or for rebuilding Rome, or for assembling Crusades, stood out as a burden imposed by a power centered in Italy—a burden that increasingly nationalist nobles and people resented.”

In the Old Testament it was GOD through His Temple who took care of the poor, not the government.  In the New Testament age and the Christendom that followed it, it was GOD through His Church who took care of the poor, not the government.  Now it is Government that takes care of the poor while Obama literally tries to force the Church out of its God-appointed role while Democrats try to marginalize the Church and religion more and more and more.

If in fact you are a Democrat who actually wants to enter the Kingdom of Heaven – which is in HEAVEN and not in Obama’s damn White House, for what it’s worth – the first thing you need to do is fall on your face and confess your sin of throwing out the Ten Commandments which you have thrown out of public life only to then pervert with lies.  And the second thing you need to do is confess your wickedness for your part in erecting a giant State in PLACE of God.  For you have usurped the role of God in caring for the poor and said, “We shall have no God over us!  We shall have a king!  We shall replace God with Government!”

Because the Bible is crystal clear: that is EXACTLY what you Democrats have done.

You depraved people have twisted and perverted and degenerated and warped the Bible even as you have rejected it and banned it from public discourse.  And you DARE to lecture us about your demonic straw man???

I’ve dealt with these themes before.  Note the title of the article I quote from below:  “Democrats’ War On Poverty Has Been A War On America That Has Done NOTHING To Help The Poor“:

So when liberals demand the expansion of government they are not being “pro-God”; they are being ANTI-God. And it also turns out to be the case that they are tragically anti-poor, too.

In another article, I wrote the following to document how Democrats have undermined charity in favor of socialism – while being anything but “charitable” in their own lives – while hurting the people they claimed they were helping:

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.

Please note carefully that prior to FDR’s socialist New Deal, “Government as God” did NOT exist in America.  Americans took care of their own and they most certainly did NOT rely on wicked Government masquerading as God to do it.

I also want you to note as we enter the end of August and Obama’s convention that the facts reveal Obama has been an abject and unmitigated DISASTER for the middle class and for black people.  The so-called “Great Recession” that Obama has demagogically laid entirely on George Bush lasted from June 2007 until June 2009; and during that period households lost an average of 2.6% of their wealth.  Well, under Obama’s “wreckovery,” those same households have lost nearly DOUBLE what they lost in the actual recession – 4.8%.  And blacks during that same “wreckovery” have lost a staggering 11.1% of their wealth under Obama’s demonically failed leadership.

Don’t tell me that Barack Obama cares about the poor.  If he gave one damn about the poor he would resign from office.

Democrats demonize conservatives as “greedy” all the time because they are liars.  But the fact of the matter is conservatives are more “liberal” givers.  Conservatives are the ones who are more generous.  Conservatives are more generous givers than liberals.

The year before he announced he was running for president, Barack and Michelle Obama were among the wealthiest two percent in the entire nation.  And how much of their huge wealth did they give?  A stunningly pathetic 0.4 percent of their income.  The filthy rich Obamas gave $1,050 to charity when the AVERAGE AMERICAN HOUSEHOLD with nowhere near the Obamas’ resources gave away $1,872.

Here’s a fact:

“[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.”

Mitt Romney has given at least 10 percent of his wealth every year to charity.  Which means that Romney’s 10 percent amounts to 2,400 percent more giving out of his wealth than Obama gave out of his wealth at .4%.  And yet this greedy, stingy, wicked, deceitful hypocrite liberal Obama has actually demonized Mitt Romney for his “greed.”  And that is demonic.

I am beyond sick of the demonic lies of the Democrat Party and Barack Obama.  And nothing makes me more sick than when they deprave the Bible and Jesus to sell their lies.

If you are interested in the political left and its abject hostility toward God and religion, you should read this article as well: “Where Economic Marxism – And LIBERALISM -Truly Comes From: Hostility Toward God And Religion“

Somebody Had To Pay For All That ‘Free’ Stuff Obama Stuck Into ObamaCare; Turns Out It’s Companies And Their Workers

Sandra Fluke.  Remember her?  She’ll be a prime-time speaker at the Democratic National Convention.  Just to remind you about her, she was the liberal activist who got into Georgetown Law School – a Catholic institution – just so she could sue them.  As a Georgetown law school graduate, if she’s just AVERAGE, she’ll earn $165,000 a year her very first year out of school.  But she expects you to pay for her birth control, the cost of which she lied about (falsely claiming what cost $9 a month would cost $3,000 – unless you consider condoms which she could have got for free).

The Democrat Party is the party of elitists, liars and entitlements.  So why not have lying elitist future 1 percenter Sandra Fluke come to the Democrat Convention to talk about more entitlements?

Obama and the Democrat Party love to pretend they’re Santa Clause and give away lots of “free” stuff.  By “free stuff” I mean they like to force private companies to give things away that actually cost them a lot of money.

And pathologically stupid people, a.k.a. Democrats, just LOVE the free stuff.  Because they don’t have to pay for it and frankly since they don’t have to pay for it they really don’t care who DOES pay for it.

Now, increasingly, of course, Democrats are freeloading slackers who don’t have jobs.  The Democrat Party today is the Party of the Occupy Movement.  But it turns out that the money to pay for all of this “free stuff” that Obama has given away to try to get reelected is coming right out of businesses that do most of the hiring in this country.  And more to the point, it is coming out of employees who work at those companies.

Just remember, dishonest Democrats and their Liar-in-Chief swore up and down that their ObamaCare would bring costs DOWN.  They lied, because at their cockroach cores they are lying liars:

Rising insurance costs crimping companies’ plans
By Jonathan D. Epstein
Updated: August 26, 2012, 6:52 PM

Western New York’s three big health insurers are again seeking to jack up rates by significant amounts in some cases – and some employers are taking desperate measures as a result.

BlueCross BlueShield of Western New York is asking for double-digit hikes for most plans, while Independent Health Association and Univera Healthcare are seeking increases of mostly less than 10 percent.

The price hikes, detailed in the carriers’ filings with the state Department of Financial Services, mark another year in which premiums are rising much faster than the rate of inflation or household income.

That adds to the burden on households and businesses already straining from past increases. And it shows that, at least so far, the efforts by insurers, employers and medical providers to control the spiraling costs are having limited effect.

“The train wreck continues. It’s unfortunate, but it seems that whatever products the carriers develop, whatever wellness programs they put together, it just doesn’t seem like they can get a lot of answers that people are looking for,” said Gregory D. Leifer, director of life and employee benefits at brokerage firm Scott Danahy Naylon.

“It’s pretty much the same old story from year to year,” said Howard N. Silverstein, CEO of Choice Employee Benefits Group LLC in Williamsville. “The community-based products just are obviously a burden to many of the employers.”

That’s forcing many to make tough decisions, such as dropping or reducing coverage, or shifting entirely to newer plans with high deductibles and cost-sharing that puts much more of the burden on employees. Traditional HMOs or similar plans, with low co-pays, are becoming dinosaurs.

Some companies are slowing or delaying hiring to control health care costs.

“If they’re really looking to reduce their expenses, they’re going into these plans where there’s unfortunately more of an out-of-pocket cost to the employee or consumer,” said Nick Siradas, account manager for small groups at Lawley Insurance.

The new rates are not final yet. Under state law, the insurers’ rate requests are still subject to review by the state, which can approve them, reduce them or reject them. Last year, the state trimmed many rate hike requests across the state, though not so much for Western New York’s three carriers.

Consumers and business owners are writing to regulators to protest what they see as unreasonable hikes, and demand the state block them:

“I know of no one that is receiving these kinds of rate increases in their pay,” wrote one consumer. “I strongly encourage [you] to not consider any rate increase at this time.”

“This is ridiculous and is creating such a hardship not only on me but my employees and my payroll,” another wrote. “New York State cannot allow this … This is unconscionable.”

Meanwhile, carriers, businesses and consumers await the promised benefits of the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act.  While some provisions have taken effect – such as expanded benefits for dependents until age 26 – they are more likely to drive up health care costs, not lower them, because they expand coverage.

The health insurance exchanges are supposed to help with expenses by bringing an estimated 32 million uninsured Americans into the system, so costs can be spread over a larger base with more competition.

But those provisions don’t kick in until 2014, and the details remain vague. So businesses are guessing about the impact, and many are skeptical the exchanges will yield desired results.

“They’re really not optimistic,” Silverstein said. “They’re in fear of these exchanges.”

“A lot of my clients are taking a wait-and-see attitude,” Siradas said. “Until the exchanges are in place, we won’t know what they’re going to do.”

Ron Alsheimer learned the rates for his company’s BlueCross BlueShield plans could go up 12 percent, after a similar hike this year. The premium for family coverage for Traditional Blue is now $3,700 a month.

Already, that’s crimped any plans for growing his company, Buffalo-based commercial real estate developer Plaza Group, which has 11 employees. Between health and workers compensation insurance, the costs of adding staff are prohibitive. “I wouldn’t consider hiring anybody else now, anybody who would need health insurance. It just isn’t worth it,” he said.

He turned to Buffalo-based HR Benefit Advisors to find a less expensive provider for the half-dozen employees that get coverage. “I’ve had enough. It’s just lunacy,” he said. “I want him to look into something that’s going to put a cap on this nonsense.”

[…]

Absolutely everything this wicked president promised has been a total lie.

We’ve ALL paid for Obama’s “free stuff.”  The median household income under Obama has been so godawful that Obama has actually cost the average family nearly DOUBLE than the “Great Recession” did.  During the recession, which officially lasted from June 2007 to June 2009, household incomes fell by 2.6%.  But since then, under Obama’s “recovery,” household incomes have plummeted 4.8%.

We need a president who will quit making bogus promises and start delivering results.  And history has proven that that president is definitely NOT Barack Obama.

On The Economy, Texas Kicks Lying Liberalism’s Ass

I received a great comment by Marie on an article on the fact that the US has the HIGHEST corporate tax rate on planet earth:

Look at Switzerland-they were doing terrible until they slashed their corporate tax rate and look at them now.  Unemployment at 4%,everyone is moving there from Facebook to Google …It is BOOM town there.
The USA is lucky to have a state like Texas with no state income tax and is very business friendly.If it wasn’t for Texas so many more companies would be overseas already.More and more businesses that want to stay in the USA move their company to Texas.  The US is so over taxed there is hardly anywhere for businesses to go.  It is too hard to compete globally if you are located here.

Half of all jobs created this year in the entire US originate from Texas.

It just proves keep your taxes low and everyone prospers!

The math is so simple but not everyone gets it?

She pretty much said it all, of course.  But I chimed in and tried to harmonize:

Very good points, all.

California has so many incredible advantages it is simply unreal. Only truly evil fools could possibly bankrupt it. But that is exactly what liberals did.

And, again with liberal California as an example, liberals are the type of hypocrites who are FINE with raising taxes – as long as they’re raising them on other people rather than on themselves.

It is rocket science to liberals to understand why states that have the highest taxes ALSO HAVE THE HIGHEST DEBTS. So they don’t bother to try to respond to that: they just like and demagogue and then lie some more.

And of course you are SO right to focus on Texas as an example of how conservative principles work and liberal “principles” utterly fail.

It is a documented fact that from June 2001 until June 2010, Texas added more jobs than the other 49 states combined. And since June 2009, Texas generated nearly 40 percent of ALL net jobs in America.

But liberals hate America, and so the success of Texas is clearly the last thing they want to replicate in the rest of America.

If you don’t like that last sentence, liberal, explain to me why your fellow ideologues refuse to do what clearly works and insist on doing what has failed every single time in every single place it has ever been tried.

Marie is right: tax cuts have worked every single time they have ever been tried.  They worked when Warren Harding tried them; they worked when John F. Kennedy tried them; they worked when Ronald Reagan tried them; and yes, they worked when George W. Bush tried them.  And they even work when European countries try them.

And the fact that European countries such as Switzerland and Germany ARE trying tax cuts and finding that tax cuts ACTUALLY WORK, it in fact WILL BE HARDER for America to compete if we stay with Obama and keep demonizing the people who create jobs and invest in the companies that have the ability to expand and create more jobs.

The Voters Are Sick Of Obama Blaming His Mess On Bush

And they actually sound pretty good doing it, too:

Deceitful Obama Ad Demonizes Romney On Class Size In Spite Of Fact That Even His OWN Damn EXPERT Agrees With Romney

This is the usual lie from the usual liar-in-chief.

Listen to Obama’s rhetoric and then realize that however you think it sounds, it is all a bright shining pile of gold-painted crap as his own expert would tell him:

Aug 22, 2012 5:48pm
Obama Attacks Romney on Class Size Despite Education Secretary’s Similar View
By Devin Dwyer

On the air and on the stump today, President Obama attacked GOP rival Mitt Romney for not embracing the idea that smaller class sizes for public school students should be a top education priority.

“When a teacher in West Philadelphia…told Governor Romney that having too many kids in his class made it harder for him to do his job, Governor Romney told him that class sizes don’t matter,” Obama said today in Las Vegas.

“There are a lot of studies that say that class sizes do matter, especially in the early grades,” he said. “Would any parent want their kids to go to a school with much bigger class sizes?”

A new Obama campaign TV ad makes the same point, portraying Romney as out of touch.

While Romney has indeed argued that small class sizes are not the key to improving student performance, left unmentioned is that Obama Education Secretary Arne Duncan has publicly expressed a similar view.

During one meeting with education reporters last year, Duncan reportedly “firmly pushed back against reflexive small-class mania,” wrote Education Week’s Rick Hess, who was there.

“He said, ‘Class size has been a sacred cow and I think we need to take it on. Give me and my wife a choice of putting our kids with a great teacher of 28 or a mediocre teacher of 23, and I know what I’d choose every time,’” Hess recounts.

“When pressed on the ‘don’t parents prefer smaller classes?’ question, Duncan said, ‘I don’t think parents have been given the choice I just put on the table…There’s no right choice there… [but] selectively raising class size’ is different from simple-minded calls for bigger classes,” according to Hess.

Other reports from Education Week show that Duncan expressed similar views even earlier in the administration, during a 2010 forum at the American Enterprise Institute.

“He urged districts to consider ‘modest but smartly targeted increases in class size,’” reported Alyson Klein, who attended the November 2010 gathering. “As a parent, Duncan said, he’d much rather have his kids in a class of 26 with a really excellent teacher, than in a class with 22 kids, lead by a mediocre teacher.”

The Romney campaign said Obama’s attacks are “misleading and hypocritical” in light of Duncan’s comments.

“President Obama’s latest ad puts him directly at odds with his own education secretary, who has promoted teacher quality — not class size — as the most important factor in a good education,” said Romney spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg.

Education Department spokesman Justin Hamilton dismissed any hypocrisy, stressing that there remains a stark contrast between the candidates on education policy.

“Secretary Duncan has said that class-size efforts should be targeted where the evidence shows they’re most effective, especially the early years,” said Hamilton, “And that the most important thing we can do is have a great teacher in every classroom.”

“That’s a far cry from that saying class sizes don’t matter or that we don’t need more teachers as an excuse to slash investments in education and shower tax benefits on millionaires and billionaires as the House Republican budget does,” he said.

Barack Obama doesn’t give one lousy DAMN about America’s children.  Obama cares about ONE THING besides Obama, and that’s organizations like unions that support Obama. 

More lousy teachers won’t do a damn thing for the kids who are getting dumber and dumber by the day under the teachers unions, but it will raise more money and more forced labor for Obama’s campaigns.

The fact of the matter is this: if you actually want your child to be able to have a good teacher, then you’d better crawl over broken glass to vote for Mitt Romney.  Because Barack Obama and his teachers unions have been the biggest enemy of good teachers bar none.

Obama’s Wreckovery: In Obama’s ‘Recovery’ Incomes Have Fallen Nearly TWICE As Much As During The Actual Recession From June 2007 to June 2009

This is unbelievable: the only thing worse than the “Bush recession” – at least the recession that he gets all the blame for – has been the “Obama wreckovery.”

Stop and think about it: as much as Bush has been demagogued and demonized for the recession, household incomes only dropped by 2.6%.  I say “only” because during this “recovery” that Obama has taken and received so much credit for, household incomes have lost nearly TWICE as much – a whopping 4.8%.

And if you’re black, you’re screwed: because Obama has gutted your household wealth since his “recovery” by a staggering 11.1%.

This is absolutely devastating news for Barack Obama’s reelection campaign – which is why the mainstream media has tried to bury it with the following WaPo story appearing on page A-10 by which point most people are flipping through the pages looking for the damn funnies:

Household income is below recession levels, report says
By Michael A. Fletcher, Published: August 23

Household income is down sharply since the recession ended three years ago, according to a report released Thursday, providing another sign of the stubborn weakness of the economic recovery.

From June 2009 to June 2012, inflation-adjusted median household income fell 4.8 percent, to $50,964, according to a report by Sentier Research, a firm headed by two former Census Bureau officials.

Incomes have dropped more since the beginning of the recovery than they did during the recession itself, when they declined 2.6 percent, according to the report, which analyzed data from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey. The recession, the most severe since the Great Depression, lasted from December 2007 to June 2009.

Overall, median income is 7.2 percent below its December 2007 level and 8.1 percent below where it stood in January 2000, when it was $55,470, according to the report.

The findings highlight the depth of the recession and the long road the nation has to traverse before it fully recovers. They also echo other reports detailing the financial carnage caused by the recession.

This summer, the Federal Reserve reported that the downturn eviscerated two decades of gains in Americans’ wealth. The central bank said the median net worth of families plunged by 39 percent in just three years, from $126,400 in 2007 to $77,300 in 2010, pushing that measure back to nearly 1992 levels.

Few analysts expect a quick bounce back even as the economy grows, if tepidly. The unemployment rate was 8.3 percent in July, marking 42 months that it has been above 8 percent. About 5.2 million people — 40 percent of the unemployed — had been out of work for more than six months. An additional 8.2 million were working part time because they could not get full-time work.

Corporate profits, meanwhile, have recovered. But with workers producing more on the job, the gains in economic output have not been matched by new hiring.

“The character of the recovery has been one that has benefited businesses more than it has workers,” said Gary Burtless, a Brookings Institution economist.

Although the new report does not take into account tax cuts enacted in recent years that have boosted take-home pay, it shows that a broad swath of Americans have lost some income.

Over the past three years, the inflation-adjusted median income of households headed by whites was down 5.2 percent, to $56,255. Households headed by blacks sustained a staggering 11.1 percent drop in median income. Hispanic-led households saw their real income decline by 4.1 percent over the same period, the report said.

Looking at the data by age, the researchers found that income has risen only for workers older than 65 during the recovery, which report co-author and Sentier partner Gordon Green attributes to the cost-of-living increases for Social Security recipients.

Households led by the self-employed saw their income drop 9.4 percent, to $66,752, the report said. Households headed by private-sector employees saw wages drop by 4.5 percent, to $63,800, and households led by government workers saw median income decline by 3.5 percent, to $77,998, the report said.

Government workers, on average, are better educated than private-sector workers, which could help explain their higher wage levels, Green said.

The report also concluded that the declines have been most dramatic in the West, where household income is down 8.5 percent over the past three years. By comparison, income was down 4.9 percent in the Northeast and the South, the report said, while incomes in the Midwest dropped by just 1.1 percent over the past three years.

As usual, Newsbusters actually does a better job reporting the actual news than mainstream media outlets.  You can easily understand why that would be give the fact that the Washington Post which first reported on the story managed to bury it as deep in the bowels of the paper as possible.  If this was Bush’s economy and disastrous news like this came out right before his damn convention, you can rest assured it would have been the main headline in giant letters on the front page.

Here’s Newsbuster’s article on this report on just how truly pathetic Obamanomics has been:

‘Household Income Has Fallen 4.8%’ Since June 2009, But WashPost Buries Story on Page A10
By Ken Shepherd | August 24, 2012 | 17:10

Yesterday a “report by Sentier Research, a firm headed by two former Census Bureau officials,” found that “[f]rom June 2009 to June 2012, inflation-adjusted median household income fell 4.8 percent,” Michael A. Fletcher of the Washington Post reported today. What’s more, the fall in median household income was much worse for blacks, “a staggering 11.1 percent drop.” June 2009, you may recall, marks the end of the recession that began in December 2007.

Yet such news was shoved down to page A10 by Post editors, rather than placed on the paper’s August 23 front page, which included, among other things, a large photo of a woman working on a large sand sculpture at a resort in Florida, a story about Mitt Romney’s campaign ‘Mad Men,’ and a story about how Lance Armstrong “won’t fight doping charges” anymore.

The Sentier Research survey also found that young Americans suffered a steeper hit than the average American, with those under 25 seeing a 6.1 percent drop in median income and those in the 25-34 bracket suffering an 8.9 percent drop. Given how well President Obama did with the youth vote, their economic suffering under his administration is certainly worthy of coverage and criticism.

If such data were discovered in a survey released just a week before the Democratic convention in 2004 or 2008, it most certainly would be front-page news as the media hit the Bush administration and Republicans for a soft economy and teed up the opposition party with a talking point to flog during the convention.

But alas, the media are too busy with more important things, like dutifully echoing Democratic talking points tarring the entire Republican Party with one Missouri congressman’s offensive comments on rape.

The funniest thing is that the more Obama has tried to help whatever group or region with his failed policies, the more that group or region suffered.  That ought to tell you something.  Blacks have been absolutely devastated by Obama, but 95% of them are going to vote for the man who has destroyed them.  The same applies to the young people who voted Obama into office in 2008 and now live in their parents’ houses, with half of all college graduates under Obama unable to find a job.  Maybe they can’t find a damn job because they’re still stupid enough to vote for the man who wrecked their lives.  And no region has fared worse than the West, but don’t tell that to states like California and Washington which would both vote for Chairman Freaking Mao if he were running as a Democrat.

The poor are going to vote for Obama.  And that’s great for Obama: BECAUSE THE FOOL HAS CREATED MORE POOR PEOPLE THAN ANY PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY.

Meanwhile on every measure across the board the president who is demonized as such a terrible failure (that’s George Bush, kids) was so much better than Obama it isn’t even funny.

This reminds me of how Adolf Hitler systematically destroyed Germany until there was just nothing left.  It wasn’t the rank-and-file people who were fiercely loyal to him come what may; it was the rabid Nazis who demanded the nation follow Hitler to its very grave.  Similarly, Barack Obama and his Marxist Obamanomics has been the absolute systematic destruction of the American economy and the American middle class, but with the mainstream media and the Democrat machine rabidly following this turd and slant the news with outright propaganda.  And so just like Nazi Germany, America may well end up in the graveyard of dead nations by 2016 if Obama gets another chance to finish the destruction of America that he started in 2009.

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

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???”