Posts Tagged ‘Democrats’

Gasoline Prices Have Nearly DOUBLED In Just Three Years Of Failed Obama Presidency – Exactly As Conservatives (And Obama) SAID WOULD HAPPEN.

February 21, 2012

When we say that Democrats deserve all the demonization that they handed out, we meant it.

Let no one ever forget how Democrats – including Barack Obama – demonized Bush when gasoline prices went up:

What Ever Happened to All Those ‘Price-Gouging’ Investigations by Democrats?
by Wynton Hall

With gas prices now almost double what they were on the first day of President Barack Obama’s presidency, we’re left to wonder: what ever happened to all those “price gouging” investigations Democrats launched four years ago to relieve pain at the pump?

In 2006, Rep. Nancy Pelosi promised that Democrats would enact plans to bring down the price of gas. But as this GOP ad makes clear, that didn’t happen.

Then, with the presidential election heating up in May 2007, Rep. Nancy Pelosi rolled out the tried and true “blame Bush” tactic and said that high gas prices were the result of “the Bush Administration’s failure to enact a comprehensive energy strategy.” Furthermore, Rep. Pelosi said that the Democratic Congress would “take America in a new direction” and “make up for years of inaction” by Republicans. The San Francisco Congresswoman went on to tout the actions taken by the Democratic Congress within the first 100 hours of their taking power.

The day Rep. Pelosi made those comments, the national average price for a gallon of gas was $3.07. Today, in 2012, it’s $3.39 a gallon.

Rep. Pelosi, however, was not alone in promising to right the wrongs of the “two oil men in the Oval Office.” Then-candidate Barack Obama promised that, if he were elected president, gas prices would plunge because he would impose a “windfall profits tax” on any oil producer who sold oil above $80 a barrel. But no sooner did he win the presidency than did Mr. Obama ditch the proposal altogether, even going so far as to remove mention of it from his Transition Team’s website.

Of course, anyone who was paying careful attention in 2008 to then-candidate Barack Obama should hardly be surprised that energy prices have skyrocketed on his watch. After all, during the last presidential election, Mr. Obama admitted that he was perfectly aware that his own energy policies would result in skyrocketing prices–and that he was fine with that.

Indeed, Mr. Obama flatly stated that he preferred that gas prices rise–albeit “gradually”–in order to reduce American reliance on oil.

But the Democratic sound and fury over removing our pain at the pump signified nothing. With just 10 months until the 2012 presidential election, gas prices are almost twice what they were when that oil-loving meany George Bush left office.

Why? Because oil prices hinge on basic supply and demand, not a price-fixing conspiracy by George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and the owner of your local gas station, as many Democrats would have voters believe. To be sure, OPEC has an enormous influence on the price of a barrel of oil. But Energy Forum Director Amy Myers Jaffe of the Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice University says that so-called price-gouging investigations are just a political shell game. “That’s just camouflage,” Ms. Jaffe told CNN. “That’s just ‘I want to pretend I’m doing something even, though I’m doing nothing.’”

With petroleum analysts now predicting that the price of a gallon of gas may well reach $4 a gallon by summer, Mr. Obama’s reelection hopes may rest on whether he can make manifest the promises he made four years ago to relieve America’s pain at the pump. If so, he better hurry. Summer gas prices will soon be here–and will further underscore Mr. Obama’s failure to make good on yet another campaign promise.

So with that record of Democrat demonization, let us just point out that these people deserve to get punched right in the mouth as nobody ever deserved to get punched right in the mouth.

Consider the following facts:

Gas prices are highest ever for a February
by Chris Kahn – Feb. 19, 2012 12:43 AM
Associated Press

NEW YORK – Gasoline prices have never been higher this time of the year.
 
At $3.53 a gallon, prices are already up 25 cents since Jan. 1. And experts say they could reach a record $4.25 a gallon by late April.
 
“You’re going to see a lot more staycations this year,” says Michael Lynch, president of Strategic Energy & Economic Research. “When the price gets anywhere near $4, you really see people react.”

Already, W. Howard Coudle, a retired machinist from Crestwood, Mo., has seen his monthly gasoline bill rise to $80 from about $60 in December. The closest service station is selling regular for $3.39 per gallon, the highest he’s ever seen.
 
“I guess we’re going to have to drive less, consolidate all our errands into one trip,” Coudle says. “It’s just oppressive.”

February follows January, of course, and according to an LA Times headline, January 2012 was similarly THE MOST EXPENSIVE JANUARY FOR GASOLINE IN AMERICAN HISTORY:

2012 begins with highest January gasoline prices ever

Well, let’s get in our time machine and go back to last year (2o11) and see how Obama fared in gas prices:

Gasoline prices were higher last year in America than they had EVER been:

U.S. drivers spend record amount on gasoline in 2011
Despite lower demand, more than $448 billion has been paid so far for fuel — $100 billion more than in 2010. Consistently high oil prices are blamed.
December 09, 2011|By Ronald D. White, Los Angeles Times

American drivers this week broke a record that will bring them no joy.

They collectively spent more than $448 billion on gasoline since the beginning of the year, according to the Oil Price Information Service, putting the previous record for gas expenditures — set in 2008 — in the rearview mirror with weeks of driving still to go.

It’s also a huge jump over last year, when U.S. drivers spent more than $100 billion less on gas.

The major reason for the record-setting gas spending in 2011 was that oil prices were consistently high all year. And that probably brought joy at the other end of the pipeline. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries is on pace to top $1 trillion in net oil exports for the first time, or 29% more than last year.

But suddenly the same mainstream media and the same Democrat Party that demonized George W. Bush every single day that gasoline prices were high say none of this catastrophically high gas price business can possibly be messiah Obama’s fault.  Even though I pointed out that this was all simply the stated fruition of Obama all along:

You remember that quip Obama gave us that under his policies, energy prices “would necessarily skyrocket“?

Remember that Obama appointed an energy secretary named Steven Chu who said, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe”??? With gasoline prices in Europe consistently hovering between $7 and $10 a gallon??? Steven Chu said that in explaining the Obama policy of “progressively” making gasoline more and more expensive in order to force Americans to turn to alternative energy sources. And one of the ways Obama wants to accomplish that dream (which amounts to a nightmare for working Americans) is to tax Americans for driving by the mile.

As you contemplate $4 and even $5 a gallon gasoline prices, let me just say one word: KEYSTONE.

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

January 24, 2012

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

Here’s an interesting headline:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Ted Nugent Reflects On Dumb Deer And Dumber Democrats

November 29, 2011

How Deer Think

 
Great Quote!
Deer Hunting Story…even if you don’t care about hunting…Gotta Love Ted!Ted Nugent, rock star and avid bow hunter from Michigan , was being interviewed by a liberal journalist, an animal rights activist. The discussion came around to deer hunting. The journalist asked, ‘What do you think is the last thought in the head of a deer before you shoot him? Is it, ‘Are you my friend?’ or is it ‘Are you the one who killed my brother?

Nugent replied, ‘Deer aren’t capable of that kind of thinking. All they care about is, what am I going to eat next, who am I going to screw next, and can I run fast enough to get away. They are very much like the Democrats in Congress.’

The interview ended.

Seventy Democrats In Congress Are Members Of The Socialist Party Of America

August 17, 2011

The story:

Tuesday, August 16, 2011 6:35
Socialist Party of America Releases The Names of 70 Democrat Members Of Congress Who Are Members Of Their Caucus
Posted on August 16, 2011 by Conservative Byte


This should come as a surprise to absolutely no one. The radical Marxist-progressives (communists) took control of the democrat party some time ago. They’ve only become more emboldened with the election of Barack Obama, who was raised as a communist from birth.

With their new found leader, Barack Obama, the Socialist Party of America felt secure enough to announce the names of 70 democrats in Congress that belong to their caucus.

Other than Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who openly ran as a socialist, the rest of this lot ran as “moderate democrats.” I think it’s time we put the myth of the “moderate” democrat to bed. They are all Marxists, or Marxist leaning. They all are big government totalitarians hell-bent on destroying America, the Constitution, and our way of life. One needs no other proof than the way Congress has acted since the Marxist-democrats took control four years ago, and the tyranny that has been championed since Obama was sworn in.
Read the entire document here.

The proof:

 

I have already pointed out that the only difference between communists and Democrats is that communists are more honest than Democrats.  I also pointed out that communists see in Barack Obama a fellow Marxist traveller.  And now this.

I’ve also recently been able to DOCUMENT that Democrats are unpatriotic, and that being around an American flag creates Republicans.

Democrats have become genuinely evil and completely depraved. They have embraced what Democrats of the past would have fought to the death.

While Mainstream Media Propaganda Has Focused On Republican Divisions, Obama’s Democrat Base Has Completely Crumbled

July 27, 2011

I have seen numerous stories gleefully hyping the fact that the Republicans are in disarray with multiple competing plans (at least they’ve HAD plans).  But look what’s been happening to the Democrat Party behind the mainstream media Republican-attack-machine’s back:

New polls confirm Obama’s Democratic base crumbles
July 26, 2011 |  3:04am

With all of the spotlights on the high-stakes debt maneuverings by President Obama and Speaker John Boehner the last few days, few people noticed what Vermont’s Sen. Bernie Sanders said:

“I think it would be a good idea if President Obama faced some primary opposition.”

This is political treason 469 days before a presidential election. Yes, yes, this is just a crusty old New England independent for now, albeit one who caucuses loyally with Harry Reid’s Democratic posse.

But while most of the media focuses on Republican Boehner and the tea party pressures on him to raise the debt limit not one Liberty dime, Sanders’ mumblings are a useful reminder that hidden in the shadows of this left-handed presidency are militant progressives like Sanders who don’t want to cut one Liberty dime of non-Pentagon spending.

Closely read the transcript of Obama’s Monday statement on the debt talks stalemate. The full transcript is right here. And the full transcript of Boehner’s response is right here.

An Unbalanced Approach to a Balanced Approach

Using political forensics, notice any clues, perhaps telltale code words that reveal to whom he was really addressing his Monday message? Clearly, it wasn’t congressional Republicans — or Democrats, for that matter.

The nation’s top talker uttered 2,264* words in those remarks. He said “balanced approach” seven times, three times in a single paragraph.

That’s the giveaway. Obviously, David Plouffe and the incumbent’s strategists have been polling phrases for use in this ongoing debt duel, which is more about 2012 now than 2011. “Balanced approach” is no sweet talk for old Bernie or tea sippers on the other side.

Obama is running for the center already, aiming for the independents who played such a crucial role in his victorious coalition in 2008. They were the first to start abandoning the good ship Obama back in 2009 when all the ex-state senator could do was talk about healthcare, when jobs and the economy were the peoples’ priority.

Democrats lost the New Jersey and Virginia governor’s offices largely as a result of that and Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat in Massachusetts. And then came last November’s midterms when voters chose the approach of that historic pack of House-bound Republicans.

Republicans have their own poll problems in some areas. But even without an identified GOP presidential alternative, we’ve had a plethora of recent polls showing Obama’s fading job approval, especially on the economy.

Now, comes a new ABC News/Washington Post poll with a whole harvest of revelations, among them, strong indications that Obama’s liberal base is starting to crumble. Among the nuggets:

Despite those hundreds of billions of blown stimulus dollars and almost as many upturn promises from Joe Biden, 82% of Americans still say their job market is struggling. Ninety percent rate the economy negatively, including half who give it the worst rating of “poor.”

Are You Better Off Today Than Jan. 20, 2009?

A slim 15% claim to be “getting ahead financially,” half what it  was in 2006. Fully 27% say they’re falling behind financially. That’s up 6 points since February.

A significant majority (54%) says they’ve been forced to change their lifestyle significantly as a result of the economic times — and 60% of them are angry, up from 44%.Button Hillary I Told U So 2012

To be sure, 30 months after he returned to home cooking, George W. Bush still gets majority blame for the economy.

But here’s the breaking news for wishful Democrats: George W. Bush isn’t running for anything but exercise.

“More than a third of Americans now believe that President Obama’s policies are  hurting the economy, and confidence in his ability to create jobs is sharply  eroding among  his base,” the Post reports.

Strong support among liberal Democrats for Obama’s jobs record has plummeted 22 points from 53% down below a third. African Americans who believe the president’s measures helped the economy have plunged from 77% to barely half.

Obama’s overall job approval on the economy has slid below 40% for the first time, with 57% disapproving. And strong disapprovers outnumber approvers by better than two-to-one.

That’s the Los Angeles Times – getting close to full maximum überliberal.  As the rabid left-wing, they are honor-bound to get in their shot that “It’s really all still Bush’s fault,” but the Democrat Party is in full meltdown.

Obama gave a particularly demagogic speech on Monday, July 25.  He repeatedly called for class warfare taxation on the rich.  Which was in marked (or should I say “Marxed”) contrast to Harry Reid’s outline for a plan which did not call for any tax increases.

From Newsbusters:

In his  White House speech tonight, President Obama renewed his call for a  debt-ceiling impasse solution which requires “the wealthiest Americans and  biggest corporations to give up some of their breaks in the tax code and special  deductions.” In other words, he wants tax increases, even though earlier in the  day, he backed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s “plan” (using the term  loosely, as explained here  and here)  which, according to two separate reports (USAT; ABC),  includes no tax increases.

In other words, the President, from all appearances, changed his mind —  again. Calling the President’s performance in the debt-ceiling matter during the  past several weeks “Jello-like” would appear to be an insult to the referenced  food product.

We’ve all heard of somebody talking out of both sides of their mouth.  The question is just how many sides does Obama’s mouth have given all the different things he can be saying at the same time?

We absolutely cannot trust Democrats at this point.  If they do not have a specific, concrete, absolutely binding plan, then walk away.  Because they have every incentive to lie their way out of this jam and then welch on whatever deal they make.  If Harry Reid says he will offer X trillion dollars in cuts, then force him to itemize out every single dime of those cuts and bind Congress to them before accepting his plan.

They did this to Reagan and they did it to Bush I.  They promised that they would cut spending later if they got the tax cuts they wanted.  And then the next Congress arrived and Bush and Reagan were told that no Congress could be bound by the promises of a previous Congress – even if the same Democrat leaders who had made those promises were still in power.  And just how many times should Charlie Brown believe that Lucy will really hold the football for him this time?

Particularly when they are in a corner.  And they are in a corner snarling like trapped rabid rats right now.

Republicans need to adhere to their basic values.  They have already compromised in that 1) Barack Obama already got $500 billion in new taxes via his ObamaCare fiasco; and 2) in even offering a debt ceiling increase to begin with.  In return, they want spending cuts that exceed the debt ceiling hike and they will not accept any new tax increases.

We can go back to Calvin Coolidge.  We can go back to John F. Kennedy.  We can go back to Ronald Reagan.  And we can go back to George W. Bush.  Every single time we have ever cut the tax rate, we have seen a corresponding massive increase in tax revenues, with the wealthy actually paying more even as they were rewarded for the job-creating and economy-stimulating investments.  Even Bill Clinton substantially cut the capital gains tax.  Meanwhile, every single time we have ever raised taxes, we lost revenue because our economy shrank when investors sheltered their money and protected themselves.

Meanwhile, Obama is back to the same utterly failed Marxist class warfare tactics that have failed before.  In the 1990s, Democrats imposed a “luxury tax” on items such as yachts, believing that the wealthy “could afford it.”  Maybe they could and maybe they couldn’t, but the FACT was that the rich STOPPED buying yachts.  As in stopped completely.  As in NOBODY bought a yacht with that damn tax on it.  The Democrats finally rescinded that stupid tax two years later after destroying the yach building and yacht maintenance industries and killing over 100,000 jobs.  Rich people weren’t hurt at all; ordinary people were devastated.

And now Obama wants to do the same thing with corporate jets that previous Democrts did to yachts.  And they only people who will get hurt if Obama gets his way are the companies that hire people to build and maintain those jets and the workers themselves who will lose their jobs and their livelihoods.  And the only thing that is stopping this rape of businesses, workers and the economy that depends on workers and businesses are Republicans.

I don’t feel the least bit sorry for Democrats who currently find themselves between a very hard rock and a very hard place.  Their core principles are vile, they are despicable, and they simply have to be thrown out of office and crushed if our country is to have any chance whatsoever.

Debt Ceiling Fight: Despite Lamestream Media Propaganda Claims, Sometimes ‘Compromise’ Is NOT A Good Thing

July 25, 2011

1 Kings 3:16-25

One day two women came to King Solomon, and one of them said: Your Majesty, this woman and I live in the same house. Not long ago my baby was born at home, and three days later her baby was born. Nobody else was there with us. One night while we were all asleep, she rolled over on her baby, and he died. Then while I was still asleep, she got up and took my son out of my bed. She put him in her bed, then she put her dead baby next to me. In the morning when I got up to feed my son, I saw that he was dead. But when I looked at him in the light, I knew he wasn’t my son.

“No!” the other woman shouted. “He was your son. My baby is alive!”

“The dead baby is yours,” the first woman yelled. “Mine is alive!”

They argued back and forth in front of Solomon, until finally he said, “Both of you say this live baby is yours. Someone bring me a sword.” A sword was brought, and Solomon ordered, “Cut the baby in half! That way each of you can have part of him.”

Splitting the baby in half in the name of “compromise” is NOT a good thing, for the record.

Democrats are people who are VERY happy with a dead baby.  The nearly 54 million babies they have killed in the abortion mills ought to be proof enough of that.

You can’t turn on your television or read a newspaper or a magazine without being told that compromise is good, and the Republicans are not compromising enough.

Obama ranted at a recent press conference, “Can the Republicans say yes to anything?”

Well, to quote the idiotic chant of certain famous fool, “Yes, we can!”

Republicans said “yes” to the Ryan Plan.  They also said “yes” to the ONLY plan that actually is in writing and actually passed in either branch of Congress.  Both the Ryan Budget and the cut, cap and balance bill would have averted the debt ceiling crisis that looms in front of us now.  But could the DEMOCRATS say “yes” to anything?  Not only did they say “no” to the Ryan budget, but they actually refused to say anything at all regarding the cut, cap and balance plan as Harry Reid tabled it without allowing a vote.  Harry Reid shut down debate and refused to allow the House-passed plan to come up for a vote because he doesn’t want the Democrats to have to go on record rejecting a balanced budget amendment – which would prove that whenever a Democrat talks about balancing the budget or actually cutting spending they are LYING.

Reid also demonized the cut, cap and balanced bill as “the worst legislation in the history of this country.”  Because he must have been all FOR the Democrat-passed Fugitive Slave Act.

And of course, you find out that Democrats couldn’t even say yes to the Obama budget, which would have increased the debt by $12 TRILLION and which failed in the Democrat-controlled Senate 97-0.  And that was an abject disgrace and proves as much as anything what a completely failed leader Obama truly is.

So it’s demagogic and dishonest to say that the Republcans somehow can’t say yes to anything, or even to suggest that the Democrats can.  For the record, the Democrats have produced NO plan; they have utterly FAILED to lead.  So they frankly have nothing to say “yes” to to begin with.

Barack Obama and the Democrats are despicable liars and demagogues.  Unfortuntely, the American people are becoming the sort of bad people who believe lies.

If the country were at some 50-50 balance between liberalism and conservatism, maybe one would be justified in calling for “compromise” with Democrats now.  But thanks to Obama, it simply isn’t.  We’ve veered wildly to the left, and so at this point when were more like 70-30 liberal, “compromise” just means status quo Obama liberalism.  No thanks.

After the 2008 election, Republicans came hat in hand seeking compromise with newly crowned King Obama.  But King Obama said unto them:

“Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.”

It’s kind of funny now that – after a historic ASSKICKING of Democrats by Republicans in 2010, suddenly Republicans are supposed to “compromise” with the Democrats who ran roughshod over them for the preceding two years of libery tyranny.

Is it a good thing to compromise, the way the media keeps framing this issue?

Keep in mind, the Republicans won a landslide victory in November 2010 after Democrats utterly refused to do anything to cut their reckless and radical spending.  They didn’t “compromise”; they were dragged to this point by the most massive political defeat in more than 70 years.  To try to claim that Democrats are “compromising” now is rather like claiming that Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan graciously decided to “compromise” after World War II.  They got their asses kicked over their ears, and the rest is just reality, not “compromise.”

And the Republicans ALREADY HAVE compromised.  Keep in mind the do NOT want to raise the debt ceiling; rather, they want to cut spending NOW (and if we WERE to cut spending now, we wouldn’t NEED to increase the debt ceiling).  The Republicans are willing to raise the debt ceiling; they are NOT willing to go back on promises they ran on and won on and increase taxes.

Also keep in mind that Democrats have also ALREADY RAISED TAXES BY $500 BILLION (i.e. half a TRILLION dollars).

Why on earth should “compromise” mean that they should agree to raise taxes again?  Particularly when Democrats have produced ZERO plans to cut spending and are essentially saying “Trust us not to screw you like we did the last three times we told you to trust us on cutting spending.”

Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner apparently actually had an agreement in principle with Obama to raise taxes by yet ANOTHER $800 billion on top of the $500 billion ObamaCare tax hike.  But almost immediately thereafter Obama welched on his own deal, demanding an extra $400 billion.

The New York Times – falsely and demagogically characterizing the Republicans as “The Party That Can’t Say Yes” (That already demonstrated to be an outright dishonest lie above) said of this reneged-upon deal:

“So, on the eve of economic calamity, the Republicans killed an overly generous deal largely over a paltry $400 billion in deductions.”

A paltry $400 billion.”  Only liberals could be so stupid and so utterly depraved.  This is proof-positive that hundreds of billions of dollars mean absolutely nothing to these people.  They are recklessly irresponsible fools before this country collapses never to rise again.

If the New York Times was honest (they are not, of course – which explains why they are virtually bankrupt), then they would be pushing Obama to agree to accepting $400 billion LESS in revenues.  After all, it’s only “a paltry $400 billion,” right???  These people live in a realm of dishonest lunacy.

Is compromise a good thing?

How about this for a compromise.  Suppose we propose to eradicate the 72 million registered Democrats in the United States.  Get out that great big giant can of RAID and just wipe out all these cockroaches.  Well, the “reasonable” thing to do according to liberals would be to compromise.  So obviously on this principle Democrats would be all for a plan to eradicate 36 million Democrats; because that would be going halfway, after all.

Obama and the Democrats have repeatedly cited “corporate jets” in their recent demagoguery and demonization.  This is EXACTLY parallel to the fiasco of the “luxury tax” that annihilated the yacht construction and maintenance industries in the early 1990s:

The general thinking is that the rich can afford it, and an extra 10 percent tax isn’t going to stop the fat cats from indulging in their toys. What most people don’t realize is that those able to buy a new boat also have the ability to decide not to buy. And that is what they have done.

Since the luxury tax came into effect last Sept. 30 for newly ordered boats, nobody has bought a new boat on which the tax would apply! The National Marine Manufacturers’ Association, the industry association that tracks such things, can’t find a single sale in the whole country! Not one! However, the association has been able to document in excess of 100,000 layoffs (blue-collar workers — not fat cats) and numerous boat manufacturers going out of business. All during which not a single dollar of luxury tax has been collected.

A more detailed article on the 1990 tax and how it is remarkably similar to what Obama and Democrats are now proposing is available here.

It is the same failed fools with the same failed Marxist class hatred mindset.  The Democrats rescinded that tax in 1992 – but not until they destroyed more than a 100,000 jobs.  Their policy was based on Marxism and hate.  And it failed then just like it will fail now.

EVERY SINGLE TIME we have cut income tax rates we have INCREASED REVENUE.  And EVERY SINGLE TIME we have increased income tax rates we have DECREASED REVENUE.  What history proves is that when we increase the income tax rates “on the rich,” the rich respond by sheltering their money as they are forced to massively cut back on their job-creating investments by protecting themselves.  And what invariably happens is that the percentage of tax revenues paid by “the rich” dwindle while the percentage of tax revenues paid by the poor (in the form of excise taxes) increase.  This is a documented fact going back to the days of FDR:

Do you see what happened?  FDR kept raising income tax rates on “the rich” and demanding they pay more; but revenues from income taxes fell from 38% of revenue to only 24% of revenue (and corporate tax revenues fell from 43% to 29%) , while revenue from excise taxes borne mainly by the poor (e.g., liquor taxes, cigareete taxes) skyrocketed from 19% of total revenues collected to 47% of total revenues collected.

This is what happens in actual FACT.

If that isn’t enough, even OBAMA acknowledged that it would be stupid to raise taxes in a recession:

…In August 2009, on a visit to Elkhart, Indiana to tout his stimulus plan, Obama sat down for an interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd, and was conveyed a simple request from Elkhart resident Scott Ferguson: “Explain how raising taxes on anyone during a deep recession is going to help with the economy.”

Obama agreed with Ferguson’s premise – raising taxes in a recession is a bad idea. “First of all, he’s right. Normally, you don’t raise taxes in a recession, which is why we haven’t and why we’ve instead cut taxes. So I guess what I’d say to Scott is – his economics are right. You don’t raise taxes in a recession. We haven’t raised taxes in a recession.”

Our economy is still in terrible, terrible shape.  79% of Americans say we are still in a recession.  And to quote Obama, “you don’t raise taxes in a recession.”

So how about if I listen to Barack Obama and argue that raising taxes would be an utterly TERRIBLE “compromise” to make.

Give Me My Spenditol. Don’t Worry, Your Kids Will Pay For It

July 21, 2011

Great new ad:

I’ll just add a couple of facts.  1) Thanks to Democrats, the United States of Ameria has $200 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities thanks to their “entitlement” programs; and 2) California alone has an additional $500 BILLION in unfunded pension liabilities thanks to our state government union workers’ greed.  But you know what?  I only care about ME, because I’m a Democrat and that’s what Democrats do.  SCREW YOU AND SCREW YOUR KIDS, I GOT MINE.

If I had so much as a single functioning cell of decency inside of me, I’d demand a balanced budget amendment, but I’m a Democrat, and that would prevent me from SCREWING YOU AND SCREWING YOUR KIDS SO I CAN GET MINE.  So I fight that balanced budget amendment with every fiber of my being so I can continue being a parasitic leach until the country I suck from implodes and dies.

There are people who would argue that spending trillions of dollars that my generation doesn’t have and can never even theoretically repay is immoral.  But you know what, those people merely exist to work so that I can lay on my fat, lazy worthless ass.  And why should I care about the next generation?  I’m all for abortion, remember?  And I particularly am for eradicating black and female babies, dontchaknow.  As one of my heroes Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood said of black babies, “We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock.”  And as another of my heroes, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, said about those undesirable black (and now apparently female) babies: “Frankly I had thought that at that time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

But keep that on the down low, because Margaret Sanger also said, “We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.”  So shhh.

Vote Democrat.  Vote for the Antichrist.  Vote to either murder children or force them to live as debt slaves for your extravagance.  Vote to one day burn in hell for all eternity.

Democrat Party Not Just Marxists, They Are Dishonest, Stupid Marxists

July 20, 2011

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

That’s a much more concise statement of a certain economic and political philosophy than Obama’s “I just want you to be clear – it’s not that I want to punish your success – I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you – that they’ve got a chance at success too….  And I do believe for folks like me who have worked hard, but frankly also been lucky, I don’t mind paying just a little bit more than the waitress that I just met over there who’s things are slow and she can barely make the rent…  “My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody…  I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

And it’s similarly a lot more concise than his recent statement: “And I do not want, and I will not accept, a deal in which I am asked to do nothing, in fact, I’m able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that I don’t need, while a parent out there who is struggling to figure out how to send their kid to college suddenly finds that they’ve got a couple thousand dollars less in grants or student loans.”

But it’s the same exact stuff and it comes from the same exact source.

And, for the record, that source behind “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his means” is Marxist communism.  That statement above came from Karl Marx himself and summarizes the basic economic principle of a communist economy.

And Democrats are either too fundamentally stupid or too fundamentally dishonest (or both) to recognize and affirm their socialism.  Personally, I think it’s both.

There is another belief that is common to virtually all Democrats that is a likewise central defining tenet of Marxism; and that is the notion that the government basically owns all it’s people’s wealth and bascially graciously allows people to keep a certain amount (with the rest going to the State).  An example of this mindset was the oft-repeated Democrat claim that the cost of keeping the Bush tax cuts for “the rich” was widely reported as around $700 billion (over 10 years).

I wrote about that at some length (pointing out the pure socialist origins of the mindset), and included a statement by Brit Hume that is worth repeating:

The running argument over extending the Bush tax cuts may come to nothing if Congress decides to go home in just three weeks, but it has been a revealing exchange nonetheless. The president’s call for extending the cuts for middle class taxpayers is an acknowledgment that President Bush did not just cut taxes for the rich as Democrats are fond of claiming. He cut them for all taxpayers.

Administration officials keep saying it’s a bad idea to keep the cuts in place for wealthier taxpayers because it would cost $700 billion in lost revenue over 10 years. What they don’t say is that keeping them for the middle class which they now support would cost about three times that much.

Still, the president’s position means he agrees with Republicans that raising people’s taxes in the midst of a flagging economy is a bad idea. But the very language used in discussing these issues tells you something as well. In Washington, letting people keep more of their own money is considered a cost. As if all the money really belongs to the government in the first place in which what you get to keep is an expenditure.

This sense of the primacy of government is reflected in the high percentage of stimulus funds used to bail out broke localities and protect the jobs of government workers. Democrats are proving once again that they are indeed the party of government. Americans think government is important, too. They just don’t think financing it takes priority over all else — Bret.

As I point out in my article, “Tax Cuts INCREASE Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues,” the same study that argued that “tax cuts for the rich” “COST” the government $700 billion ALSO argue that keeping tax cuts for the middle class “cost” the government $3 TRILLION.  Which is to say that it is INCREDIBLY dishonest and deceitful to pass off the arguments that Democrats routinely pass off.  With the help of a remarkably TASS-like American mainstream media, for what that’s worth.

I also document in that article that basically half of the American people now pay NO federal income tax at ALL.  Which, along with the demogogic rhetoric that “the rich need to pay their fair share” when the top 2% of Americans already pay 40% of the federal income taxes, is pure distilled Marxist class-warfare demagoguery.

Not only are Democrats greedy – which they routinely accuse the rich of being for wanting to keep money that DEMOCRATS want to take away – but they are thieves, too.  They are greedy, dishonest Marxist bureaucrats who want to take what is not theirs and piss it away on self-serving pet boondoggles that will benefit them politically.  A different way of putting it is that they want to seize resources from the job creators and piss it away.  They want to take money away from job creators who would invest in the private economy and use that money to purchase votes for their political campaigns.

[Update]: I hadn’t even published this article (I actually wrote it to this point on the 17th), and I already just received some powerful support for my main point.  Steve Wynn – who has described himself as a “Democrat businessman” who supported Harry Reid’s reelection campaign and who has a liberal activist for a wife – had this to say about Barack Obama and his policies:

And I’m saying it bluntly that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business and progress and job creation in my lifetime. And I can prove it and I could spend the  next three hours giving you examples of all of us in this marketplace that are frightened to death about all the new regulations, our health care costs escalate.  Regulations coming from left and right.  A President that seems, you know — that keeps using that word redistribution.

The guy keeps making speeches about redistribution, and maybe’s ought to do something to businesses that don’t invest, they’re holding too much money.  You know, we haven’t heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists.

“Pure socialism,” for what it’s worth, is “communism.”

The shoe fits.  So let’s put it on their feet (i.e. like “concrete shoes”).

Unless the American people want communism, they should reject Barack Hussein Obama and they should abandon the Democrat Party.

Don’t Trust Democrats On Debt Negotiations; And Trust Proven Liar Obama EVEN LESS Than Democrats

July 13, 2011

Barack Hussein Obama is a profoundly dishonest and evil man.  That is going to be a major obstacle to debt-ceiling negotiations.  Keep in mind, Democrats have ALREADY lied to Republicans in the past, promising Ronald Regan they would cut spending by $3 for every $1 dollar in tax hikes.  Democrats got their taxes, but then they immediately welched on their committment to reduce spending.  Reagan later said trusting Democrats was the biggest mistake he ever made.

Democrats proceeded to demonstrate that they are dishonest liars again prior to the 1992 elections that saw the end to George H.W. Bush.  Democrats promised that George Bush that they would not make the tax hikes they had coerced from him an election issue if we went along with them; but lo and behold Bush I was brought down by an avalanche of “Read my lips, no new taxes” ads.

Don’t trust Democrats.  They are bad people.  They are dishonest.  They can’t be trusted.  They lie.  Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.  And this would be the THIRD time (at least).

This is the kind of cynical, pathologically dishonest man Republicans are dealing with:

“President Obama had promised that he would not raise taxes on Americans earning under $250,000.  When asked whether the penalty attached to the individual mandate was a tax, President Obama said it was “absolutely not a
tax.” He also said “[n]obody considers [it] a tax increase.” Nevertheless, in an attempt to prevent the court from ruling on the constitutionality of the individual mandate, the Obama Justice Department argued that the penalty was in fact a tax. The Justice Department argument failed because the individual mandate provision was written in a way clearly to avoid using the word “tax.”

An ObamaCare item is absolutely not a tax in any way, shape or form until Obama gets it passed.  Then it becomes a tax.  Because he is a liar and an evil man who cannot possibly be trusted upon to negotiate anything.

Let’s also not forget that ObamaCare already added $500 BILLION in new taxes.  And now Obama wants to add a TRILLION DOLLARS more.

When it comes to the debt celing negotiations, Obama said of raising the debt ceiling as a Democrat Senator with a Republican President:

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” he said. “It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”

Barack Obama is a dishonest demagogue who doesn’t give a damn about the American people.  And that’s putting it politely.  Only a fool would trust him about anything, let alone a deal involving trillions of dollars in new debt and new taxes.

Barack Obama is talking vaguely about being willing to offer $4 trillion in spending cuts as part of a deal.  But at no time has he ever produced anything even close to resembling a specific concrete proposal.  It’s just a bunch of words from a documented liar.  Where is the Liar-in-Chief’s plan?  If there’s going to be any meaningful negotiation, the least Obama can do is bother to put out a plan on the table.

And when you’re negotiating with Barack Obama, just remember that he’s a liar and a weasel from a party of liars and weasels.

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

July 2, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[…]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because Thomas Jefferson also said things like:

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

And:

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

And:

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

And:

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

And:

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

And:

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

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

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

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

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

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