Nakedly Political Democrats Who Praised Integrity Of FBI Director Comey In July Now Slandering And Demonizing Him in October

I find it beyond hilarious how twisted and dishonest Democrats truly are.

Back in July, Republicans were STUNNED to hear FBI Director Comey go down a long list of things that Hillary Clinton should have been thrown into jail for, but that he wasn’t going to go forward with any charges because apparently if you walk into a bank with a gun, a bag and a mask and rob the place, that by no means proves you “intended” to rob it.  Democrats immediately surrounded the FBI Director and praised him and exalted his virtue and his integrity that were now demonstrated beyond ANY question – and to attack anyone (read any REPUBLICAN) who was upset by Comey’s action/nonaction.

Just remember, Anthony Weiner, YES you sexted a 15-year-old girl, YES you are a damn worthless pervert, BUT YOU DIDN’T INTEND TO DO IT.  I mean, just like Hillary, NO PEDOPHILE EVER MEANT TO DO IT, SO LET THEM ALL GO.

Remember that, back in July?  It wasn’t that long ago, you know.  Hopefully you have a better memory than Hillary Clinton does, given the fact that she said “I can’t remember” forty damn times to the FBI when they were soft-peddle-interviewing her.

Nancy Pelosi had her “great man” comments about Comey:

“This is a great man. We are very privileged in our country to have him be the director of the FBI.”

FBI Director Comey is a great man.  We’re privileged to have him as our FBI Director.  Democrats stated that in July.

Hilary Clinton lauded the FBI under Comey for handling investigations so “very professionally”:

“I greatly appreciate the work that the FBI and the Department of Justice did — and they handled it very professionally,”

Hillary’s VP choice had this to say based on his personal knowledge of Comey:

“What I do know is this: that there was an extensive, as you know Bret, investigation by the FBI under the direction of a wonderful and tough career public servant, Jim Comey.

Jim was in the U.S. Attorney’s office in the in the Eastern District of Virginia when I was the mayor of Richmond, and he’s somebody with the highest standards of integrity.”

Rep. Elijah Cummings probably put it best at that time back in July:

“No matter what recommendation you made, you were sure to be criticized,” Cummings said. “In a sense, Mr. Director, you are on trial.”

The Democratic congressman praised the “extremely thorough” job the FBI did in their investigation while slamming Republicans for politicizing the final recommendation.
“Amazingly, amazingly, some Republicans who were praising you just days ago for your independence, for your integrity, and your honesty, instantly turned against you, because your recommendation conflicted with the predetermined outcome they wanted,” Cummings said. “In their eyes, you had one job. And one job only: to prosecute Hillary Clinton. But you refused to do so. So now you are being summoned here to answer for your alleged transgressions.”

Do you remember that?  James Comey can do no wrong.  It is impossible he could have mismanaged or bungled or intentionally politicized an investigation.  We have the Democrat Party’s word on that.  It is set in stone that James Comey is a man incapable of being a political stooge.

I remember how the Republicans were literally the sleeziest people on the face of the earth for even daring to suggest that, in spite of the Attorney General getting caught red-handed having a secret meeting with Bill Clinton days before Comey spoke, that there could ever be any question whatsoever that Comey was the icon of integrity and decency and objectivity and that questioning him amounted to proof of Nazism.

Now all of a sudden the shoe is on the other damn BUTTHURT foot, isn’t it?

And suddenly the Democrats who were “amazingly, amazingly, praising Comey just days ago for his independence, for his integrity, for his honesty, have instantly turned against him, because his recommendation conflicted with the predetermined outcome Democrats thought they had in the damn bag,” are suddenly screaming the way they were so insulted and horrified and offended at Republicans for doing.

Democrat Senator Harry Reid basically just said that FBI Director Comey is a criminal and should be arrested and prosecuted:

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said FBI Director James Comey may have violated a federal law when he disclosed, less than two weeks before the presidential election, that his office was pursuing potential new evidence related to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state.

Mr. Reid was preparing to send a letter to Mr. Comey on Sunday saying he appears to be aiding one political party over another. He said that may violate the Hatch Act, which bars government officials from using their position to influence an election.

“I am writing to inform you that my office has determined that these actions may violate the Hatch Act,” the Senate minority leader wrote, according to a draft of the letter provided to The Wall Street Journal. “Through your partisan actions, you may have broken the law.”

Most Democrats have jumped on the “Comey should be lynched!” bandwagon since the FBI Director revealed that THOUSANDS more emails had just turned up that they didn’t know about.

I’m laughing like a CROW right now.  Because turnabout is such fair play.

By their own damn WORDS Democrats are now proven to be corrupt and dishonest for even daring to question that FBI Director Comey even MIGHT have done anything improper or wrong, having already vouched for his integrity beyond any scintilla of doubt.

Only a NAZI would dare to question the independence and the integrity and the honesty of the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

I never ceased to be amazed at the naked chutzpah hypocrisy that Democrats routinely demonstrate on a nanosecondly basis.  They know that the most dishonest and most perverted media machine that has ever existed – and yes, I’m aware of the Nazi Ministry of Propaganda and the Soviet TASS, btw – will NEVER characterize Democrats as the political sleazebags that they truly are.

The only way something like THAT can ever happen is if, you know, a billion tons of emails that neither the mainstream media nor the Democrat Party ever intended to get published start getting published that reveal what insects these liberals truly are.

Thank you, WikiLeaks.

Because there is NO POSSIBLE WAY the rigged damn system where the fecal matter roles from the Democrats on down rather than any other direction would have EVER been honest if it weren’t for your work.

Even Politifact has acknowledged that the WikiLeaks email dumps are NOT doctored and that the emails are genuine.  Hillary’s pick for VP claimed that one about him was doctored, and that one turned out to be completely genuine, which means that Kaine unsurprisingly turns out to be a genuine liar.

The liberal establishment – which includes “journalists” as much as hardcore Clinton campaign staffers – has been playing the Russian game.  “Russia did this and can we really trust Russia?”  That’s been the narrative.  And I’m like, “We sure can trust Russia more than somebody who purged 33,000 emails and then used BleachBit to make those emails irretrievable AFTER those emails were under congressional subpoena, and who smashed thirteen iPhones with hammers.”

So let’s go down the list of what’s happened since Attorney General Lynch showed up on a runway and had a secret meeting with Bill Clinton with her FBI detail keeping people away and forbidding any smart phones or cameras from the area.

First we learned about a quid pro quo deal between the State Department and a top FBI official, in which the FBI was supposed to alter the classification of an email (remember how Hillary kept saying she had no classified emails on her private server but there obviously WERE classified emails and so the truth had to be whitewashed?) and in exchange the State Department would provide more foreign posts for the FBI.

We learned that Barack Obama DID in fact know – contrary to what he told the American people – that Hillary Clinton was in fact using an illegal, secret server, and that he used a code name/pseudonym to communicate with her on that illegal, secret server.  See also here for the Politico story.

Then we learned that top Clinton ally and current Democrat Governor of Virginia Terry McAuliffe donated nearly half a million dollars to the campaign of the wife of Federal Bureau of Investigation deputy director Andrew McCabe.  And oh, by the way, McCabe had oversight into Clinton’s email scandal.

We found out that the Obama White House was actively coordinating with Hillary Clinton and the State Department to play shenanigans with Clinton’s email scandal.

We’re finding out new crap all the time.  The Hillary Clinton campaign will pick up from the Obama regime: it’s like a giant octopus of corruption and dirty insider dealing: who does Obama’s “Justice” Department assing to this already-documented-to-be-completely-corrupt “investigation”?  Why, they assign Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik who we just found out gave Hillary’s campaign manager Podesta an illegal “heads up” regarding the email investigation.  Podesta says that Kadzik “Kept me out of jail” during the Clinton’s previous corrupt Whitewater case because 1) the Clintons are corrupt and always have been corrupt; and 2) everybody around the Clintons belongs in jail.

I have a feeling I’m missing a couple of FBI and Justice officials – because there has been a freaking AVALANCHE of crap the last couple of weeks about just how damn dirty and corrupt all these roaches are – but that will do for now.

This is THE most pathologically corrupt administration in the entire history of the United States, and probably the world.  Barack Obama makes Richard Nixon look like the damn paradigm of political virtue by comparison; and the only administration that could be even MORE corrupt is the Hillary Clinton administration.

Vote for HELL; vote for HILLARY.

I have a theory as to why FBI Dir. Comey sent the letter to Congress announcing he was continuing the investigation of Clinton: because the Obama “Justice” Department was playing games with him over giving him a warrant to examine the Weiner trove of emails and as of Saturday night had STILL refused to give the FBI that warrant.  It was only SUNDAY – TWO DAYS AFTER Comey wrote to Congress – that the Justice Department granted the FBI’s request for a warrant that they SHOULD have already granted had they not been playing political games.  I believe Comey came to realize the corruption of Obama and everything that Obama has touched – such as his Department of Injustice – and he decided to take his case to the American people.  Because otherwise the revelations of Hillary’s criminality would have been stalled until after the election.

The Hatch Act “bars government officials from using their position to influence an election,” recall.  What I contend is that it has been Barack Obama, Loretta Lynch and Hillary Clinton who violated the damn Hatch Act along with numerous other laws as they tried to prevent Comey and his agents from being able to do their damn job.  Again, we’ve got Obama and his White House and Hillary Clinton and her former State Department twisting into pretzels to coordinate obstructing any investigation into Clinton’s criminality.  Comey saw what was happening and said “Enough.”

Furthermore, we now know that career FBI agents – young and retired alike – were FURIOUS at allowing Clinton to get off when her guilt was beyond obvious.  Comey was seeing a giant stack of resignation letters from ethical agents who could no longer stomach working for a corrupt political agency that the FBI had become under Obama.

The FBI and the Justice Department will remain for all time organization of cheap political thugs unless and until Hillary Clinton and NUMEROUS OBAMA OFFICIALS are arrested, placed on trial and properly convicted for their crimes against the United States of America.

If Comey didn’t break the news the way he did on Friday, it’s a good bet that the agents would have leaked it Saturday.  Because the FBI whitewash of Hillary in July was WRONG and there were agents who weren’t going to stand for it.

Still another thing to consider is the “red hot mess” that Comey was in and why he was IN that mess to begin with.  Remember how Obama was conspiring with the Clinton team on the emails with the State Department?  Remember how that smells now given the fact that for some inexplicable reason, Obama’s AG Loretta Lynch was caught red-handed having a secret, unethical meeting with Bill Clinton just before the investigation results were announced.  Lynch was forced to recuse herself and say it was all up to Comey.  And so Comey had to give that announcement in July and appear before Congress to justify his conclusions.  And in that appearance he promised he would notify Congress if anything changed.  Which it of course did.

And if you don’t mind my saying so, Hillary is the BIGGEST reason all this just came out.  Hillary stalled and stalled and stalled some more.  She literally stalled this investigation for YEARS.  And Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch steadfastly for the last two years has refused to allow ANY Grand Jury for ANY of the numerous credible charges against Clinton.  This crap could have been resolved a long damn time ago if somebody in the Obama or Clinton camp had just had any kind of ethics whatsoever.  If this bombshell is coming out now, she could have arranged it to have come out two damn YEARS ago if she’d just been honest back then.  And we keep hearing that this Comey announcement is so “unprecedented,” and just remember what is truly unprecedented is to have a Secretary of State install a secret, illegal server, and then purge 33,000 emails while that server was under subpoena – THEN USE BLEACHBIT TO MAKE THE CONTENTS UNRECOVERABLE – and smash more than a dozen iPhones with hammers to ensure no one would ever see the crooked deals on them.  THAT is what is unprecedented.  Hillary was WRONG. literally CRIMINAL to use that secret, illegal server.  She was WRONG. literally CRIMINAL  to purge those emails.  She was WRONG. literally CRIMINAL to use BleachBit to wipe her server – you know, “like with a cloth” – and she was WRONG. literally CRIMINAL to smash those iPhones that were U.S. government property and should have been turned IN rather than destroyed.

Democrats talk about Russia trying to rig the election.  You mean the way the Democratic Party got caught RED-HANDED RIGGING THE PRIMARY ELECTION AGAINST BERNIE SANDERS AND FOR HILLARY CLINTON???  You remember how Debbie Wasserman Schultz was forced to RESIGN for her part in that?  Where is that disgrace fascist hack now?  Hillary hired her, of course!!!!

Hillary Clinton is FINE with election rigging, and that is a proven, documented FACT.

And if that doesn’t tell you enough about just how COCKROACH VILE Democrats truly are, realize that Debbie Wasserman Schultz – who got caught red-handed being a fascist anti-democratic election rigger and therefore had to resign – was replaced by Donna Brazile – who herself just got caught helping Hillary Clinton CHEAT during the damn debates and just had to resign.  In point of fact it’s the worst case of debate cheating in U.S. political history.  This is THE most dishonest political party in American history and the last TWO DNC Chairs proves it.  It is now a documented factual statement that “honest” and “Democrat” are mutually exclusive and contradictory terms the way “square” and “circle” are.  It’s moral nonsense to use “honest” and “Democrat” together any more.

And I can legitimately use terms such as “fascist” and even “Nazi” to describe Democrats after what we’ve learned: the Democrat Party was directly involved in instigating VIOLENCE against Donald Trump rallies even as they dishonestly claimed TRUMP was the one who was violent.  Democrats have literally become Nazi Party jackbooted Brownshirt thugs.  The Democrat Party violence was directed by a career Democratic operative who currently worked for Hillary Clinton and who during the Obama years had been at the Obama White House going on 400 damn times.

Do you understand how genuinely EVIL Democrats are???

Meanwhile, the WikiLeaks continue to expose who this vile shrew Hillary Clinton truly is, and how dishonest her entire party is.  Just today, we learn that the very self-same Huma Abedin who is at the center of the latest FBI investigation was at the center of a truly crooked deal to get the Clintons $12 million ON THE CONDITION THAT (read “quid pro quo”) that Hillary Clinton make a personal appearance in Morocco and give one of her numerous massively-well-paid sell-out America speeches to the world’s highest and mightiest.  Oh, and it was Hillary’s IDEA to do this!!!Remember that?  Hillary’s goon Robby Mook said that there was NO EVIDENCE OF PAY-TO-PLAY.  But only just today we have the same Mook in emails saying the exact OPPOSITE, saying, “This is why Morocco would be such a problem…”  We have Clinton staffers playing games with semantics, saying, “Maybe instead of calling it an attendance fee we can call it a membership fee.”  Because what the Clintons were doing was DIRTY and it LOOKED DIRTY and you’ve got to tell the media what to tell the unwashed masses because we don’t want Americans realizing what a corrupt bunch of thugs the Clintons are and have on their payrolls.  These emails aren’t out yet, reporters are just talking about it now.  But I’ll have them sourced when they appear in print.

Huma Abedin was interviewed by the FBI and they most likely asked her if she had any other secret email stashes.  And very apparently she said of COURSE she didn’t.  But she did.  Apparently more than half a damn MILLION of them.  And the metadata searches reveal that she had stuff from Hillary Clinton that was CLASSIFIED.  And disgraced blackmail-threat Anthony Weiner had access to all of that!!!  That laptop computer would have gone the way of Hillary’s iPhones, but it had Weiner’s child porn on it, and so he protected his precioussss.  And Huma lied to protect her pervert husband and I wouldn’t be surprised if ALL Democrats either have pervert husbands or are THEMSELVES pervert husbands.  So Hillary’s lifelong criminal co-conspirator Huma lied to the FBI and now we’re back in Investigation Land.  Not exactly James Comey’s fault, was it???   At least, unless you’re a Democrat, which is another way to say “a complete moral idiot.”

In the firestorm that’s going to follow as you hear Democrats and their media allies viciously attack FBI Director James Comey, just remember that any suggestion that FBI Director Comey is anything but honest is simply awful according that same elite liberal establishment just three months ago.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Presidential Legacies: The Man Who Put A Man On The Moon Vs. The Man Who Couldn’t Build A Website Unlike 4 Million Pornographers

The title says it all.

We miss you, JFK.

We also miss your vision – which centered on tax cuts as the key to all future American prosperity versus the slavery of the communism you fought.

Too bad we’ve got such an incompetent lying jerk disgracing your office now.

What Mitt Romney Said Last Night About Tax Cuts And The Deficit Was Absolutely Right. And What Obama Said Was Absolutely Wrong.

Mitt Romney repeatedly said last night that he would not allow tax cuts to add to the deficit.  He repeatedly said it because over and over again Obama blathered the liberal talking point that cutting taxes necessarily increased deficits.

Romney’s exact words: “I want to underline that — no tax cut that adds to the deficit.”

Meanwhile, Obama has promised to cut the deficit in half during his first four years – but instead gave America the highest deficits in the history of the entire human race.

I’ve written about this before.  Let’s replay what has happened every single time we’ve ever cut the income tax rate.

The fact of the matter is that we can go back to Calvin Coolidge who said very nearly THE EXACT SAME THING to his treasury secretary: he too would not allow any tax cuts that added to the debt.  Andrew Mellon – quite possibly the most brilliant economic mind of his day – did a great deal of research and determined what he believed was the best tax rate.  And the Coolidge administration DID cut income taxes and MASSIVELY increased revenues.  Coolidge and Mellon cut the income tax rate 67.12 percent (from 73 to 24 percent); and revenues not only did not go down, but they went UP by at least 42.86 percent (from $700 billion to over $1 billion).

That’s something called a documented fact.  But that wasn’t all that happened: another incredible thing was that the taxes and percentage of taxes paid actually went UP for the rich.  Because as they were allowed to keep more of the profits that they earned by investing in successful business, they significantly increased their investments and therefore paid more in taxes than they otherwise would have had they continued sheltering their money to protect themselves from the higher tax rates.  Liberals ignore reality, but it is simply true.  It is a fact.  It happened.

Then FDR came along and raised the tax rates again and the opposite happened: we collected less and less revenue while the burden of taxation fell increasingly on the poor and middle class again.  Which is exactly what Obama wants to do.

People don’t realize that John F. Kennedy, one of the greatest Democrat presidents, was a TAX CUTTER who believed the conservative economic philosophy that cutting tax rates would in fact increase tax revenues.  He too cut taxes, and he too increased tax revenues.

So we get to Ronald Reagan, who famously cut taxes.  And again, we find that Reagan cut that godawful liberal tax rate during an incredibly godawful liberal-caused economic recession, and he increased tax revenue by 20.71 percent (with revenues increasing from $956 billion to $1.154 trillion).  And again, the taxes were paid primarily by the rich:

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

So we get to George Bush and the Bush tax cuts that liberals and in particular Obama have just demonized up one side and demagogued down the other.  And I can simply quote the New York Times AT the time:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And of course the New York Times, as reliable liberals, use the adjective whenever something good happens under conservative policies and whenever something bad happens under liberal policies: “unexpected.”   But it WASN’T “unexpected.”  It was EXACTLY what Republicans had said would happen and in fact it was exactly what HAD IN FACT HAPPENED every single time we’ve EVER cut income tax rates.

The truth is that conservative tax policy has a perfect track record: every single time it has ever been tried, we have INCREASED tax revenues while not only exploding economic activity and creating more jobs, but encouraging the wealthy to pay more in taxes as well.  And liberals simply dishonestly refuse to acknowledge documented history.

Meanwhile, liberals also have a perfect record … of FAILURE.  They keep raising taxes and keep not understanding why they don’t get the revenues they predicted.

The following is a section from my article, “Tax Cuts INCREASE Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues“, where I document every single thing I said above:

The Falsehood That Tax Cuts Increase The Deficit

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

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

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

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

And what happened?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kennedy said:

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Congressional Budget Office estimated last week that the deficit for the full fiscal year, which reached $412 billion in 2004, could be “significantly less than $350 billion, perhaps below $325 billion.” The big surprise has been in tax revenue, which is running nearly 15 percent higher than in 2004. Corporate tax revenue has soared about 40 percent, after languishing for four years, and individual tax revenue is up as well.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[To read that article in its entirety, click here].

When Romney said that the small businesses that create jobs was going to be hurt by Obama’s taxes, he was RIGHT.  In a different article available here, I document the facts from official sources and then say:

Out of 27,281,452 total firms, 21,351,320 are listed as “nonemployer firms.”  Which means that 78.23 percent of all small businesses hire ZERO employees.   So when Obama says that 97% of small businesses won’t be affected by his tax hike, please understand that the whopping majority of those businesses that won’t be affected aren’t hiring anybody.  Another 3,617,764 small businesses have no more than four employees.  Those small businesses that hire zero workers plus those small businesses that hire no more than four workers constitute 91.5% of ALL small businesses.

Here’s a more relevant way to look at it.  When you consider the businesses that employ more than four people, you are looking at businesses that hire 94.97 percent of ALL the workers who work for small businesses.  And while not all of the small businesses that hire between 5-9 employees are going to be paying higher taxes as a result of Obama’s class warfare on small businesses, most of them do.  And virtually none of the businesses that hire more than ten employees are going to earn less than $250,000 a year.

Romney pointed out in the debate that half of all jobs created by small business and a quarter of ALL THE JOBS CREATED IN AMERICA would have their income taxes skyrocket under Barack Obama.

When Romney said that Obama’s taxation was going to destroy 700,000 small business jobs, he was RIGHT.

Which is why 85% of small businesses agree with Romney and disagree with Obama that Obama’s policies have led America down the wrong track.

Which is why 64% of small businesses are saying they plan to simply wait Obama out rather than create jobs while he’s trying to ruin them.

Obama deceitfully talks about giving tax cuts to small businesses when in fact he is actually massively taxing them.

Obama IS helping small businesses … into BANKRUPTCY.  And Obama says the recession is behind us while small businesses are going belly up in droves.

Romney absolutely crushed Obama in the debate last night.  Nobody had EVER won a debate by the margin that Romney won by in the history of CNN.  If you have any decency and care about people who need a job and love this country at all, please cast your vote for Mitt Romney.

Key SCOTUS Vote Kennedy: ObamaCare ‘Changes The Relationship Of The Federal Government To The Individual In A Very Fundamental Way’

“And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in the very fundamental way.” — Justice Kennedy

Justice Kennedy also pointed out that there’s a “heavy burden” on Congress to show that it is authorized to do so under the Constitution, inquiring whether there are “any limits under the Commerce Clause” if the mandate is allowed to stand.

And Justice Kennedy asked, “Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?”

Which are all things that conservatives have recognized all along.

Mark Levin pointed out in his great book Ameritopia:

“I also endeavor to show how insidiously contemporary utopians or statists have poisoned modern society by changing the paradigms under which governmental action is both contemplated and executed” (p. xii)

It’s like he knew exactly what Justice Kennedy was going to say about the “change” in the relationship of the federal government to the individual inherent in ObamaCare.

Levin wrote:

“Utopianism substitutes glorious predictions and unachievable promises for knowledge, science and reason, while laying claim to them all” (p. 5).

And ObamaCare was all of that – glorious predictions, unachievable promises, based on pseudo-knowledge, psuedo-science and psuedo-reason, all carefully packaged into one candy-coated load of bovine feces.

ObamaCare is literally to the point – only two years after its passage – that it is going to cost twice as much as Obama promised while delivering only half the benefit that Obama promised.  And the true horrors of ObamaCare haven’t even begun to be seen or felt yet.

Levin cited Eric Hoffer, who said:

“For men to plunge headlong into an undertaking of vast change, they must be intensely discontented yet not destitute, and they must have the feeling that by the possession of some potent doctrine, infallible leader or some new technique they have access to a source of irresistible power.  They must also have an extravagant conception of the prospects and potentialities of the future….  [T]hey must be wholly ignorant of the difficulties involved in their vast undertaking.  Experience is a handicap.”

I think again of Nancy Pelosi telling the American people: “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”  The incredible, willful, self-righteous IGNORANCE inherent in that laughable statement is beyond astounding.

And, the “new technique” of the left in ramming ObamaCare down the national throat is the technique of having a “tax” that is a “penalty” when it is convenient to the left’s argument but a “penalty” that is a “tax” when it is convenient to the left’s argument.  These power-grabbing statists are deceitful to the very cores of their shriveled little souls.

Abraham Lincoln described the danger to our Republic in 1838:

“At what point … is the approach of danger to be expected.  I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us; it cannot come from abroad.  If destruction be our lot we ust ourselves be its author and finisher.  As a nation of freemen we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

Ronald Reagan said:

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.  We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream.  It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

Of course, with the clear and present danger to the elderly inherent to ObamaCare, we won’t have to worry about explaining why things went so profoundly wrong.  ObamaCare will kill us off before we have to face our grandchildren.

But let’s dispense with the great thinkers and think of the tiny little dictator statist thug thinkers of the Democrat Party:

There’s Rep. Stark, saying:

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

[…]

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

There is Rep. John Dingell:

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

There’s Rep. Jan Schakowsky mocking her opponents who value freedom and liberty:

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

Here are some of the things that the left can use to “control the people” if ObamaCare becomes valid legal principle:

Food
Clothing
Household furnishings
Housing
Transportation
Communications
Education
Media
Public safety

The Obama administration asserts that health care is unique because there are “free riders” who do not purchase healthcare and therefore when they get sick or injured they pass the costs of treatment on to the rest of society.  Therefore, it is irrelevant that there is no limiting principle because health care by its very nature is unique and therefore the underlying principles of statist government control are irrelevant.

Let’s just take the first item on the list – food – to demonstrate how the liberal rationale is wrong.  Millions of Americans do not eat healthy diets, either because they like junk food, do not like healthy food, or even simply cannot afford to pay the higher financial cost of a healthy diet.  So they are eating in an unhealthy way, eating unhealthy food instead of healthy food.  And because they are eating unhealthy food rather than healthy food they develop all sorts of costly health ailments and diseases, such as obesity and diabetes and heart disease and cancer.  And the costs of their treatment then become passed on to the rest of us even though we are eating healthy diets and are not having these food-abuse-related diseases.  And so therefore it is the duty of the government to begin mandating that the American people must begin purchasing certain foods that are deemed to be healthy and forbidden from purchasing certain other foods that are deemed to be unhealthy.  Furthermore, since overeating is a health crisis in and of itself that cost the American economy billions, the government will commence mandating a caloric restriction requirement, such that a household only be allowed to purchase so many calories’ of food per week.

We can go down the list and do the same thing and “mandate” government control citing the commerce clause.  And the government can literally take over our lives by assuming the “duty” of making all of the decisions that affect “commerce.”

Conservatives could use this “mandate” to force every American to purchase guns, because crime is clearly a detrimental part of society, and crime is increasing at a dramatic pace in America while at the same time the cost of law enforcement and prisons is spiralling out of control beyond society’s ability to fund.  And so therefore in order to reduce the impact of crime and the burden on and the cost of the justice system, government can mandate that every American purchase the means of self-protection.  The result would be – according to the conservative defenders of the mandate – less crime, the need for fewer police officers and judges and prison guards, etc.  So you must buy a Smith & Wesson firearm for protection or pay a penalty.  You must also pay for training, for licensing and for all required background checks or pay a penalty.

Scratch that, because just like what happened with ObamaCare, it turns out that Colt gave the Republican president a large campaign donation.  So you must now buy a Colt firearm.

Here’s one that liberals will love that isn’t even on my list: religious faith.  It turns out that numerous studies have documented (at LEAST as well as ObamaCare was ever “documented”) that there are numerous health benefits related to being religious and praying.  And since liberals say that health care is an economic activity that can be regulated due to rising costs, it should be pointed out that we have numerous “free riders” who do not adequately partake in religious devotion which studies document would make them healthier and therefore reduce their cost burden to society.  Ergo sum we will be mandating that all liberals henceforth go to church every Sunday and pray to Jesus.  Or of course pay a penalty.  And please do make your checks payable to Pat Robertson.  That whole 1st Amendment thing used to get in the way, but ObamaCare wiped that “limit” out, didn’t it?

Just what services or devices can either ideological side impose on their enemies and force them to purchase whether they like it or not?

Or, to quote Klingon General Chang from Star Trek’s The Undiscovered Country: “You do prefer it this way, don’t you? As it was meant to be. … No peace in our time. ‘Once more unto the breach, dear friends.'”  Let’s just have it out forever – well, until we completely collapse only a few years from now – until which time both sides seek to stab the heart of the other.  It’ll be fun.

ObamaCare is the most dangerous takeover of not only our health care system, but of our very democracy and American way of life, that this nation has ever been confronted with.

Obama, The Anti-Kennedy, Anti-Reagan, Anti-Exceptionalism President

“On the hope of our free nation rests the hope of all free nations.” — John F. Kennedy

“Can we doubt that only a divine providence placed this land, this island of freedom, here as a refuge for all those people on the world who yearn to breathe free?” — Ronald Wilson Reagan

“I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”  — Barack Hussein Obama

“We’ve been a little bit lazy, I think, over the last couple of decades.” — Barack Hussein Obama

Kind of helps you understand why if you attend an Independence Parade on July Fourth or take a moment to contemplate your American flag, you are a Republican these days.

Mind you, the United States of America is an exceptional nation without peer; but it’s closes second is it’s magnificent historic ally, Great Britain.  Unless you talk to somebody associated with the Obama administration:

The real views of many in Obama administration were laid bare by a State Department official involved in planning the Brown visit, who reacted with fury when questioned by The Sunday Telegraph about why the event was so low-key.

The official dismissed any notion of the special relationship, saying: “There’s nothing special about Britain. You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn’t expect special treatment.”

Britain – the faithful ally and friend that alongside America prevailed over evil in two world wars – gets tossed into the same boat that Obama tosses America into.

But what else should you expect from these people?

SEPTEMBER 1, 2011
Obama and the Burden of Exceptionalism
Post-’60s liberals, with the president as their standard bearer, seek to make a virtue of decline.
By SHELBY STEELE

If I’ve heard it once, I’ve heard it a hundred times: President Obama is destroying the country. Some say this destructiveness is intended; most say it is inadvertent, an outgrowth of inexperience, ideological wrong-headedness and an oddly undefined character. Indeed, on the matter of Mr. Obama’s character, today’s left now sounds like the right of three years ago. They have begun to see through the man and are surprised at how little is there.

Yet there is something more than inexperience or lack of character that defines this presidency: Mr. Obama came of age in a bubble of post-’60s liberalism that conditioned him to be an adversary of American exceptionalism. In this liberalism America’s exceptional status in the world follows from a bargain with the devil—an indulgence in militarism, racism, sexism, corporate greed, and environmental disregard as the means to a broad economic, military, and even cultural supremacy in the world. And therefore America’s greatness is as much the fruit of evil as of a devotion to freedom.

Mr. Obama did not explicitly run on an anti-exceptionalism platform. Yet once he was elected it became clear that his idea of how and where to apply presidential power was shaped precisely by this brand of liberalism. There was his devotion to big government, his passion for redistribution, and his scolding and scapegoating of Wall Street—as if his mandate was somehow to overcome, or at least subdue, American capitalism itself.

Anti-exceptionalism has clearly shaped his “leading from behind” profile abroad—an offer of self-effacement to offset the presumed American evil of swaggering cowboyism. Once in office his “hope and change” campaign slogan came to look like the “hope” of overcoming American exceptionalism and “change” away from it.

So, in Mr. Obama, America gained a president with ambivalence, if not some antipathy, toward the singular greatness of the nation he had been elected to lead.

 

Chad Crowe

But then again, the American people did elect him. Clearly Americans were looking for a new kind of exceptionalism in him (a black president would show America to have achieved near perfect social mobility). But were they also looking for—in Mr. Obama—an assault on America’s bedrock exceptionalism of military, economic and cultural pre-eminence?

American exceptionalism is, among other things, the result of a difficult rigor: the use of individual initiative as the engine of development within a society that strives to ensure individual freedom through the rule of law. Over time a society like this will become great. This is how—despite all our flagrant shortcomings and self-betrayals—America evolved into an exceptional nation.

Yet today America is fighting in a number of Muslim countries, and that number is as likely to rise as to fall. Our exceptionalism saddles us with overwhelming burdens. The entire world comes to our door when there is real trouble, and every day we spill blood and treasure in foreign lands—even as anti-Americanism plays around the world like a hit record.

At home the values that made us exceptional have been smeared with derision. Individual initiative and individual responsibility—the very engines of our exceptionalism—now carry a stigma of hypocrisy. For centuries America made sure that no amount of initiative would lift minorities and women. So in liberal quarters today—where historical shames are made to define the present—these values are seen as little more than the cynical remnants of a bygone era. Talk of “merit” or “a competition of excellence” in the admissions office of any Ivy League university today, and then stand by for the howls of incredulous laughter.

Our national exceptionalism both burdens and defames us, yet it remains our fate. We make others anxious, envious, resentful, admiring and sometimes hate-driven. There’s a reason al Qaeda operatives targeted the U.S. on 9/11 and not, say, Buenos Aires. They wanted to enrich their act of evil with the gravitas of American exceptionalism. They wanted to steal our thunder.

So we Americans cannot help but feel some ambivalence toward our singularity in the world—with its draining entanglements abroad, the selfless demands it makes on both our military and our taxpayers, and all the false charges of imperial hubris it incurs. Therefore it is not surprising that America developed a liberalism—a political left—that took issue with our exceptionalism. It is a left that has no more fervent mission than to recast our greatness as the product of racism, imperialism and unbridled capitalism.

But this leaves the left mired in an absurdity: It seeks to trade the burdens of greatness for the relief of mediocrity. When greatness fades, when a nation contracts to a middling place in the world, then the world in fact no longer knocks on its door. (Think of England or France after empire.) To civilize America, to redeem the nation from its supposed avarice and hubris, the American left effectively makes a virtue of decline—as if we can redeem America only by making her indistinguishable from lesser nations.

Since the ’60s we have enfeebled our public education system even as our wealth has expanded. Moral and cultural relativism now obscure individual responsibility. We are uninspired in the wars we fight, calculating our withdrawal even before we begin—and then we fight with a self-conscious, almost bureaucratic minimalism that makes the wars interminable.

America seems to be facing a pivotal moment: Do we move ahead by advancing or by receding—by reaffirming the values that made us exceptional or by letting go of those values, so that a creeping mediocrity begins to spare us the burdens of greatness?

As a president, Barack Obama has been a force for mediocrity. He has banked more on the hopeless interventions of government than on the exceptionalism of the people. His greatest weakness as a president is a limp confidence in his countrymen. He is afraid to ask difficult things of them.

Like me, he is black, and it was the government that in part saved us from the ignorances of the people. So the concept of the exceptionalism—the genius for freedom—of the American people may still be a stretch for him. But in fact he was elected to make that stretch. It should be held against him that he has failed to do so.

Mr. Steele is a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. Among his books is “White Guilt” (Harper/Collins, 2007).

Regarding the quote about Obama, that he seeks “the ‘hope’ of overcoming American exceptionalism and ‘change’ away from it,” I’m reminded of a comment by Jules Crittendon: “The Obama administration doesn’t study history. It reimagines it.”

Washington Post VP Says Herman Cain Has Sexual Harrassment Charges ‘Coming To Him’ – While Repeatedly Pawing Attractive Female Reporter

Understand something: if a woman decides that she was sexually harrased, then she was sexually harrassed.  And one of the ingredients of sexual harrassment is “unwanted touching.”

Here’s a working woman just trying to do her job.  And part of her “job” is getting pawed by drunk old lecherous liberal rat bastards – in the minds of said drunk lecherous liberal rat bastards.  But I guess the smiling bitch had it coming, or some other excuse.

It’s too bad this reporter doesn’t file charges against this vile old liberal hypocrite (beginning one minute into video):

Former Washington Post editor discusses Cain sexual harassment story while pawing Daily Caller reporter
Published: 11:26 PM 11/03/2011 | Updated: 4:43 PM 11/04/2011

On Wednesday evening The Daily Caller spoke to Washington Post Executive Editor Bob Woodward, and Washington Post vice president and former executive editor Ben Bradlee, about Chris Matthews’ new book “Jack Kennedy: Elusive Hero” — and about the sexual harassment allegations facing GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain.

[video of interview available at Daily Caller]

Let’s imagine the reporter talking to her lawyer later: “I didn’t invite him to touch me, but he just grabbed me.  I felt very uncomfortable and threatened.  I was just trying to do my job.  And then he pawed me again!”

Ben Bradlee needs to “get what’s coming to him” too.

When asked if he had any advice for Cain, Bradlee said, “Run for the roundhouse,” which is an obvious allusion to the John Brown plot to free the slaves at Harpers’ Ferry. Slaves were told to go to the round house for protection and refuge.

Wonder if Bradlee gave the same advice to Democrats John Kennedy, who bedded at least two dozen women in the White House, and to Bill Clinton – who repeatedly had publicly identified women make specific and detailed charges of not only the most disgusting forms of sexual harrassment but actual RAPE – leveled against him.

Let’s just call this what it is: another “high tech lynching” by a racist liberal establishment against a black conservative man whose primary “crime” is the “thoughtcrime” of trying to wander off the liberal plantation.

As for the guffaws over allegations ‘racism’ by Cain (you know, over that strange coincidence that every single time a black male conservative is on the verge of attaining real power, liberals point out that black men are basically animals who can’t control their lusts), someone at the party should have been wearing this T-shirt:

Read “The Racist History of the Democrat Party” for more.

The Pathological Stupidity Of Obama’s ‘Fairness’ Meme Of Taxing The Rich

We need to balance our insane budget deficit, Democrats say.  And it’s time the rich paid their fair share.

All the top 10% of earners paid is 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.  That’s nothing.  It’s those poor poor who suffer the most.  The bottom 50% have to pay a whole bunch of nothing.  It’s just brutal for them every April.  They want to write a check to the government, but only the rich get to do stuff like that.  And the bottom 40% are so screwed by our federal income tax system that they actually are forced to accept free money in addition to paying a whole bunch of nothing.  Unless the Associated Press is lying about it.

Nothing makes me more annoyed than the phrase “give the rich tax cuts.”  Because it presumes that the government owns us and graciously allows us to keep some of what we earn.  The way liberals understand things, they own all the means of production.  They own my labor and whatever I earn from my labor.  And I am lucky if the commissars allow me to keep enough to feed myself.  It derives from a tenant of Marxism: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”  At the core is central planning; government stands above us, it stands above God (which is why consistent Marxists deny God exists and religion is merely an opiate of the masses), and government should redistribute everything according to its divine power.

That is the intrinsic logic of their view that allowing the rich or anyone else to keep more of their own money is considered a cost to the government.  But it ISN’T a cost to the government to allow me to keep more of my own money; anymore than it is a cost to me to allow my next door neighbor to keep more of his own tools.

Obama gave an address in which he paid lip service to reducing spending – even though his budget that he released only TWO MONTHS AGO didn’t reduce any spending at all – and in fact stated that it would be dangerous to do so.  Obama has no plans to cut spending; in fact, the deficit in just the first six months of this year shot up another 15.7%.  Obama is going to do what he’s been doing since he started running for president; he’s going to offer meaningless rhetorical platitudes about cutting spending and reducing costs, while demonizing the rich and demanding that the ONLY people who pay REALLY START TO PAY.

Obama is going to talk about “fairness.”

The ‘fairness’ meme
April 12, 2011 – 4:47 am – by Roger Kimball

We don’t know exactly what Barack Obama is going to say when he fires up his teleprompters at George Washington University tomorrow. The color, we do know, however: it’s red, as in “red ink,” what Mitch Daniels at his speech at CPAC earlier this year called “the new red menace.” (I like to think that the invocation of the old “red menace,” the Communist, socialist one, was deliberate: it is, I would argue, apt.)

The substance of the speech, as ABC notes, is “closely held.” Everybody thinks that there will be at least pro forma acknowledgement that spending on such programs as Medicare and Social Security needs to be reined in. But the big O will also return to one of his favorite themes, a by-word from his 2008 campaign: “increased taxes on the wealthy” (that’s according to “White House officials”).

Here’s my bet: the operative word in Obama’s speech tomorrow night, the mantra that will be repeated endlessly not only by O but also by the left-wing commentariat, is “fairness.” You remember his campaign shtick: the Saddleback Church event, for example, when Rick Warren asked candidates John McCain and B.O. about taxes. “Define rich,” he asked. McCain tossed out an income of $5 million, which elicited derision. But the gravamen of his response came in the elaboration: “I don’t want to take any money from the rich. I want everybody to get rich.”

How different was B.O.’s response: What he was looking for, he said, was “a sense of balance, and fairness in our tax code. It is time for folks like me who make more than $250,000 to pay our fair share.”

“Our fair share.” That, as I noted at the time, is B.O.’s refrain. “[W]e will save Social Security for future generations by asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share.” It’s a small step from the invocation of “our fair share” to Obama’s call for a tax on “the windfall profits of oil companies,” a tax increase on capitals gains, elimination of the tax on Social Security tax, etc., etc.

The crucial point here is that what Obama is interested in is not increasing revenue but in promulgating redistributionist policies that make it harder for people to prosper economically. William McGurn, writing in The Wall Street Journal back then, recalled Obama’s response to ABC’s Charlie Gibson when Gibson observed that raising taxes led to decreased revenues: “Well, Charlie,” Obama replied, “what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.”

“For purposes of fairness”: that means, “for purposes of economic egalitarianism.”

McGurn observed:

[I]t doesn’t really matter whether a tax increase actually brings in more revenue. It’s not about robbing from the rich to give to the poor. Robbing from the rich will do, especially if it’s done in the name of fairness.

Now there are good reasons Mr. Obama is not likely to pursue the revenue side of the fairness question. As this newspaper noted in a recent editorial, the latest data from the Internal Revenue Service does not show to Mr. Obama’s advantage. As we come to the end of the Bush administration, the top 1% of American taxpayers already pay 40% of all income taxes — the highest level in 40 years. The top 10% of income earners pay 71% of the taxes.

The bottom line is that when Obama invokes “fairness,” he wants us to feel guilty about economic success. This is the secret of his appeal to the socialistically inclined.

It worked in 2008. Let’s see how it goes down tomorrow. Over the last two years, Barack Obama has presided over an economic Armageddon. Everyone knows about that $14 trillion that is the federal debt. Few people, I suspect, really appreciate what that unimaginable figure represents. And the kicker is, $14 trillion is only a tithe of the trouble. As Kevin Williamson and others have pointed out, the country’s real debt, when you facotr in state indebtedness and unfunded so-called “entitlement” liabilities, is closer to $130 trillion. That horror-movie figure is just too awful to contemplate, so I will draw a veil.

[…]

For the record, I wrote an article entitled, “Tax Cuts Increase Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues,” in which I documented that every single time the United States has reduced the income tax rate, federal revenues have gone up.  I go back to Warren Harding to document that.  I include John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and George Bush – who increased federal revenues by lowering tax rates.

But this recurring documented fact of U.S. history is tantamount to rocket science to liberals.  Because they adhere to the entirely unrealistic premise that if I were to double your taxes, I would collect double the revenue, because people wouldn’t react to the tax increase by altering their behavior.

Recent developments give me a crystal clear example of why liberals couldn’t be more wrong:

Gas Price Rise, Americans Drive Less
By Rachel Smith
Posted: Apr 12, 2011 10:30 a.m.

Americans are taking rising gas prices seriously. They’re already driving less, “reversing what had been a steady increase in demand for fuel,” the Associated Press writes. “For five weeks in a row, they have bought less gas than they did a year ago.”

The average price of gas is an obvious indicator of why national fuel consumption is dropping. At the end of March, AAA reported that gas reached an average of $3.60 nationally. Today, AAA says the national average is $3.79 for regular grade, a 29 cent jump in about two weeks. Business Week reports that many analysts forecast that these numbers will worsen, and expect that consumers could pay as much as $5 a gallon this year due to political unrest in North Africa and the Middle East, which supply much of the United States’ oil. The $5 per gallon speculation has been floating around the industry for some time, but last year, CNN stated that former president of Shell Oil, John Hofmeister predicted that Americans could pay $5 a gallon by 2012. Analysts have bumped that date up.

“Drivers are already reacting to the change,” writes Kicking Tires. “In the first week of April, consumption was down 3.6%, or 2.4 million gallons of gasoline,” based on data from MasterCard Spending Pulse.

One of the best ways to combat rising gas prices is to drive less, but there are other simple things you can do. […]

Even uneducated, ignorant and frankly stupid people understand this incredibly basic concept: cost goes up, activity goes down.  And yet you have liberals with PhDs staffing agencies such as the Congressional Budget Office utterly fail to understand that if they make taxes go up, they will end up with reactions that will invariably produce less revenue for the government.

If even high-school dropouts understand that if the price of gasoline goes up, they need to drive less, how is it that brilliant businessmen won’t realize that if their tax rates go up, they need to protect their money?

Here’s another analogy that might be spot on the money.  Suppose your going to work and a mugger jumps you and takes all your money.  As he’s walking off, counting your (well, his now) cash, he says, “I hope you’ve got as much dough tomorrow, because I’m going to mug you again.”  Now, if you’re smart, you won’t be happening by that way at all the next day.  But if you’ve absolutely got to go that way to get to work, will you have as much money that next day?  Not if you’ve got a single functioning brain cell.  On my analogy, if you figure out some other way to get to work, that’s tax avoidance.  If you stash your cash somewhere so you don’t have it for the robber to take, that’s tax sheltering.  And if you’re too stupid to understand that this is what people do when their taxes go up, that’s liberalism.

The more taxes increase, the more activities that were previously not worth doing – such as sheltering assets, moving assets overseas, investing in collectibles, purchasing tax-exempt investment vehicles, or just dodging taxes – become worth doing.

And so,what happens every single time happens yet again.  Raise taxes expecting more revenue, get less revenue, and hurt the economy in the process by penalizing productivity and investment risk and thereby restricting growth.  And when you encourage growth by reducing the tax burden and allowing people to keep what they earn, lo and behold, cetaris parabis, there is a surge in activity, an increase in economic growth and a corresponding increase in federal tax revenue.

I say “cetaris parabis” because if you throw in a socialist Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that undermine something as vital as our housing mortgage market by imposing morally and fiscally insane policies until the system comes crashing down, such as what occurred leading up the crash in 2008, the best tax rates in the world can’t save the system.

Here are just a few articles I wrote on that subject, in order of date written with the earliest listed first:

Biden: ‘We Misread The Economy, And It’s All Republicans’ Fault

AEI Article: How Fannie And Freddie Blew Up The Economy

Barney Frank And Democrat Party Most Responsible For 2008 Economic Collapse

More Proof Democrats Destroyed The Economy In 2008: The Ongoing Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Disaster

We need to have intelligent economic policies.  If we don’t have such policies, we’re going to struggle regardless of our tax rates.

Quickly, another liberal policy that will not even possibly work is the Federal Reserve QE2 (that’s the second shot at quantitative easing) that artificially reduces interest rates by artificially increasing the money supply in order to increase lending.

Here’s the problem with that.  Short term, it might seem to work.  The stock market looks at the apparent backstopping of our economy and follows the leader (Uncle Sam) up until the ship starts to sink.  After which they will sell, sell, sell.  But the ship ALWAYS sinks.  Why?  Because you have a lot more dollars chasing after the same supply of finite goods and services (if anything, in the last few years, we have a LOWER supply of finite goods and services).  So what happens?  More dollars chasing less stuff.  That’s inflation.  It will INVARIABLY require more devalued dollars to buy the same things.  The more you inflate the money supply, the worse that inflation gets.  And we have massively increased our money supply.

Let me go back to what I wrote going on a year ago now:

An increase in the money supply is rather like an overdose of drugs.  And in this case the effect of the overdose will be hyperinflation.  Basically, the moment we have any kind of genuine recovery, our staggering deficit is going to begin to create an ultimately gigantic inflation rate.  Why?  Because we have massively artificially increased our money supply beyond our ability to actually produce real wealth, and that means that money will ultimately be devalued.  There’s simply no way it can’t be.  If simply printing money solved financial problems, the government could just mail everyone several million dollars, and we could all retire.  The problem is that more money chasing a limited supply of goods simply pushes up prices higher and higher without doing anything to solve the underlying economic problems.  If we have a recovery, with increased economic activity, there will be increased demand on the money supply, forcing an upward climb in interest rates as a means of controlling the currency.  And then we’ll begin to seriously pay for Obama’s and the Democrat Party’s sins.  Paradoxically, the only thing preventing hyperinflation now is the recession, because people aren’t buying anything and therefore aren’t competing for those limited goods.

And let me point out that we’re looking at huge inflation now – even as Obama declares victory over the recession – in insanely rising gas prices, food prices, clothes prices, all prices:

Hope ‘n Change Coming To Fruition: Cost Of EVERYTHING About To Go Up

Instability, Food Riots And A Heaping Dose Of ‘I Told You So’

Just like I said would happen.  And just like the long list of economists said would happen when they begged Obama not to do the $3.27 trillion stimulus.

This phenomenon is going on all over the world because most of the world is tied to the U.S. dollar – the currency that Obama has been poisoning hoping for short-term political gains.

And, again, a temporary extension of the Bush tax cuts (which doesn’t help businesses and individuals who are desperately searching for consistency so they can predict their costs) is not going to help us out of this kind of moral and fiscal insanity.

But what we are going to see is Obama now demagoguing all the massive economic failure that his own policies are responsible for creating in the first place to demand that the rich “pay their fair share.”

Obama Causes Official End Of The Nation Of Makers

This is something that conservatives saw coming from the very fist days of the Obama administration.  From Cato, February 26, 2009:

Cato begins that article with a quote from Obama from a couple of days previous: “As soon as I took office, I asked this Congress to send me a recovery plan by President’s Day… Not because I believe in bigger government — I don’t. Not because I’m not mindful of the massive debt we’ve inherited — I am.”

But like virtually everything else, it was a lie.  Obama’s own proposed massive increase in federal spending proved that.  And since Obama took office, he has spent as no government has ever spent in the history of the human race.

And thus is it utterly no surprise at all to anyone but ignorant fools that we are now here:

APRIL 1, 2011
We’ve Become a Nation of Takers, Not Makers
More Americans work for the government than in manufacturing, farming, fishing, forestry, mining and utilities combined.

By STEPHEN MOORE
If you want to understand better why so many states—from New York to Wisconsin to California—are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, consider this depressing statistic: Today in America there are nearly twice as many people working for the government (22.5 million) than in all of manufacturing (11.5 million). This is an almost exact reversal of the situation in 1960, when there were 15 million workers in manufacturing and 8.7 million collecting a paycheck from the government.

It gets worse. More Americans work for the government than work in construction, farming, fishing, forestry, manufacturing, mining and utilities combined. We have moved decisively from a nation of makers to a nation of takers. Nearly half of the $2.2 trillion cost of state and local governments is the $1 trillion-a-year tab for pay and benefits of state and local employees. Is it any wonder that so many states and cities cannot pay their bills?

Every state in America today except for two—Indiana and Wisconsin—has more government workers on the payroll than people manufacturing industrial goods. Consider California, which has the highest budget deficit in the history of the states. The not-so Golden State now has an incredible 2.4 million government employees—twice as many as people at work in manufacturing. New Jersey has just under two-and-a-half as many government employees as manufacturers. Florida’s ratio is more than 3 to 1. So is New York’s.

Even Michigan, at one time the auto capital of the world, and Pennsylvania, once the steel capital, have more government bureaucrats than people making things. The leaders in government hiring are Wyoming and New Mexico, which have hired more than six government workers for every manufacturing worker.

Now it is certainly true that many states have not typically been home to traditional manufacturing operations. Iowa and Nebraska are farm states, for example. But in those states, there are at least five times more government workers than farmers. West Virginia is the mining capital of the world, yet it has at least three times more government workers than miners. New York is the financial capital of the world—at least for now. That sector employs roughly 670,000 New Yorkers. That’s less than half of the state’s 1.48 million government employees.

Don’t expect a reversal of this trend anytime soon. Surveys of college graduates are finding that more and more of our top minds want to work for the government. Why? Because in recent years only government agencies have been hiring, and because the offer of near lifetime security is highly valued in these times of economic turbulence. When 23-year-olds aren’t willing to take career risks, we have a real problem on our hands. Sadly, we could end up with a generation of Americans who want to work at the Department of Motor Vehicles.

The employment trends described here are explained in part by hugely beneficial productivity improvements in such traditional industries as farming, manufacturing, financial services and telecommunications. These produce far more output per worker than in the past. The typical farmer, for example, is today at least three times more productive than in 1950.

Where are the productivity gains in government? Consider a core function of state and local governments: schools. Over the period 1970-2005, school spending per pupil, adjusted for inflation, doubled, while standardized achievement test scores were flat. Over roughly that same time period, public-school employment doubled per student, according to a study by researchers at the University of Washington. That is what economists call negative productivity.

But education is an industry where we measure performance backwards: We gauge school performance not by outputs, but by inputs. If quality falls, we say we didn’t pay teachers enough or we need smaller class sizes or newer schools. If education had undergone the same productivity revolution that manufacturing has, we would have half as many educators, smaller school budgets, and higher graduation rates and test scores.

The same is true of almost all other government services. Mass transit spends more and more every year and yet a much smaller share of Americans use trains and buses today than in past decades. One way that private companies spur productivity is by firing underperforming employees and rewarding excellence. In government employment, tenure for teachers and near lifetime employment for other civil servants shields workers from this basic system of reward and punishment. It is a system that breeds mediocrity, which is what we’ve gotten.

Most reasonable steps to restrain public-sector employment costs are smothered by the unions. Study after study has shown that states and cities could shave 20% to 40% off the cost of many services—fire fighting, public transportation, garbage collection, administrative functions, even prison operations—through competitive contracting to private providers. But unions have blocked many of those efforts. Public employees maintain that they are underpaid relative to equally qualified private-sector workers, yet they are deathly afraid of competitive bidding for government services.

President Obama says we have to retool our economy to “win the future.” The only way to do that is to grow the economy that makes things, not the sector that takes things.

Mr. Moore is senior economics writer for The Wall Street Journal editorial page.

California?  Unions?  Consider this from the Los Angeles Times:

California’s $500-billion pension time bomb
The staggering amount of unfunded debt stands to crowd out funding for many popular programs. Reform will take something sadly lacking in the Legislature: political courage.
April 06, 2010|By David Crane

The state of California’s real unfunded pension debt clocks in at more than $500 billion, nearly eight times greater than officially reported.

That’s the finding from a study released Monday by Stanford University’s public policy program, confirming a recent report with similar, stunning findings from Northwestern University and the University of Chicago.

The People’s Republic of Kalifornia was cursed with a R.I.N.O. governor who championed abortion, a $6 porker giveway for stem cell research, gay marriage, and a whole bunch of other liberal crap.  And the legislature is one of the most overwhelmingly Democrat in the country.  And the only things that have changed is that the People’s Republic is now officially under a Democrat Governor (Jerry Brown) and they actually added a Democrat seat in the legislature.

Illinois was described by NBC as having the worst unfunded pension crisis in the country.  Maybe they didn’t know how bad California’s really was when they reported that.  But more likely, they probably had no idea how bad Illinois’ problem truly was and is, either.

The United States is so screwed it is absolutely unreal.  And that is largely due to unions and the Democrats who support those unions in exchange for votes.  It’s an unAmerican scheme that works like this: labor unions give Democrats big campaign donations and provide the muscle and infrastructure for the Democrats’ get-out-the-vote campaign.  And in exchange, Democrats give unions other peoples’ money to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.  They don’t give a damn about the 88% of Americans who AREN’T in unions.

Unions are parasites that have sucked the blood out of every industry they have ever seized their vile little talons onto.  Autos, airlines, manufacturing, education government at every possible level – you name it; they’ve ruined it.  And the rest of America is the host that the parasites feed off of.  And Democrats care about the parasites, and not one damn about the rapidly dying host.

And Barack Obama is far and away the most pro-union president ever.  And that was true BEFORE he signed three new hard-core union-agenda executive orders into law.

Obama has just gotten caught red-handed using his ObamaCare to give huge payouts to unions and corporations that advanced his agenda (fascism alert).  Remember that G.E. – one of the corporate beneficiaries of ObamaCare, not only paid zero taxes but actually got money from the taxpayers.

Do you remember Obama’s preacher for over twenty years said, “No, no, no, not God bless America.  God DAMN America.”  And then said that “America’s chickens are coming home to roost”???

You need to understand our actual situation and look at our real debt to understand that AMERICA is the chicken – and Obama has cut its head off and thrown it into a pot of boiling water:

News from globeandmail.com
The scary real U.S. government debt
Wednesday, October 27, 2010

NEIL REYNOLDS

Ottawa — reynolds.globe@gmail.com

Boston University economist Laurence Kotlikoff says U.S. government debt is not $13.5-trillion (U.S.), which is 60 per cent of current gross domestic product, as global investors and American taxpayers think, but rather 14-fold higher: $200-trillion – 840 per cent of current GDP. “Let’s get real,” Prof. Kotlikoff says. “The U.S. is bankrupt.”

Writing in the September issue of Finance and Development, a journal of the International Monetary Fund, Prof. Kotlikoff says the IMF itself has quietly confirmed that the U.S. is in terrible fiscal trouble – far worse than the Washington-based lender of last resort has previously acknowledged. “The U.S. fiscal gap is huge,” the IMF asserted in a June report. “Closing the fiscal gap requires a permanent annual fiscal adjustment equal to about 14 per cent of U.S. GDP.”

This sum is equal to all current U.S. federal taxes combined. The consequences of the IMF’s fiscal fix, a doubling of federal taxes in perpetuity, would be appalling – and possibly worse than appalling. […]

Without drastic reform, Prof. Kotlikoff says, the only alternative would be a massive printing of money by the U.S. Treasury – and hyperinflation.

As former president Bill Clinton once prematurely said, the era of big government is over. In the coming years, the U.S. will almost certainly be compelled to deconstruct its welfare state.

Prof. Kotlikoff doesn’t trust government accounting, or government regulation. The official vocabulary (deficit, debt, transfer payment, tax, borrowing), he says, is vulnerable to official manipulation and off-the-books deceit. He calls it “Enron accounting.” He also calls it a lie.

Every single one of these massive entitlements that is poisoning America they way Japan’s tsunami has poisoned her nuclear reactors with toxic meltdowns came from the vile minds of DEMOCRATS.  And it is DEMOCRATS who will cause the once mighty America to shortly go the way of the Dodo bird.

Social Security was a ponzi scheme from the outset.  And the only thing that has kept it going was that it is a really, really BIG ponzi scheme.  We find out that FDR – who wanted a massive takeover of the private sector by the federal government – worked hard to kill an amendment offered by a Democrat (Senator Bennett Champ Clark): ” It would have allowed workers to go with the new government system or, if they wished, to have their money put into a private-insurance plan. Either way, the contributions would be mandatory.”  Had that amendment been allowed to pass, it would have forced the government’s filfthy paws off the “trust fund” that they subsequently ripped off for the next seventy years and beyond:

We wouldn’t be saddled with today’s fiscal disaster. Hundreds of billions of dollars that politicians have “borrowed” from the Social Security trust fund for all sorts of pork spending would not have disappeared. Instead, all that capital would have been invested in the economy, leaving us a lot more prosperous. Moreover, the Clark Amendment would have been a model for state pension plans, which are now bankrupting local governments, as well as for other nations.

There was a much better idea from the private sector – but in the end Democrats wouldn’t have it.  They wanted their government fascist control instead.  They didn’t care about the American people; they wanted to be able to raid those retirement funds for their own partisan ideological ends.

Then there was the much more colossal failure known as Medicare.  Ronald Reagan famously warned America about that fraud in 1961:

One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.

Medicare now represents the largest share of our unfunded liabilities today.  The private market could have done a much better job at a much lower cost, but again, Democrats wanted socialism, and they were hell bent upon getting their socialism.

Now we face collectivist bankruptcy.  We were previously told that if current trends held, Medicare would go broke by 2017.  But current trends didn’t hold, because Obama robbed Medicare of $500 billion to fund the ObamaCare boondobble that bears his name.

As the Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher famously said, “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”  And voilà, here we are.

When it comes to how John F. Kennedy viewed the socialist redistribution of wealth via “progressive taxation policies,” you will find that Kennedy was solidly on the side of fiscal conservatives today.  As it stands, today’s vile Democrats are fundamentally at odds with the man widely recognized to be the greatest Democrat president.

As we speak, Republicans are trying to cut a tiny fraction of the bloated, totally-out-of-control federal budget.  And Democrats are demonizing them at every turn for it.  Because Democrats have been using government spending to massively pad the coffers of the government-sector unions who make their elections possible.  And to be a Democrat means you don’t give a damn about America’s future; you only selfishly want – to put it in John F. Kennedy’s famous words – “what your country can do for you.”

God HAS damned America in the person of Jeremiah Wright’s parishoner for 23 years.  And the most ignorant generation in America’s history voted for it.

Why FDR Would Have Denounced The Modern Democrat Party As Un-American

Democrats and the Democrat Party they form have become truly despicable.

I can cite former Democrats such as Dennis Prager who has frequently called himself “a Kennedy liberal.”  He has pointed out, “I didn’t leave the Democrat Party; the Democrat Party left me.”

I can cite Ronald Reagan himself as such a man:

Reagan began his political career as a liberal Democrat, admirer of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and active supporter of New Deal policies, but in the early 1950s he shifted to the right and, while remaining a Democrat, endorsed the presidential candidacies of Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956 as well as Richard Nixon in 1960.[54] His many GE speeches—which he wrote himself—were non-partisan but carried a conservative, pro-business message; he was influenced by Lemuel Boulware, a senior GE executive. Boulware, known for his tough stance against unions and his innovative strategies to win over workers, championed the core tenets of modern American conservatism: free markets, anticommunism, lower taxes, and limited government.[55] Eventually, the ratings for Reagan’s show fell off and GE dropped Reagan in 1962.[56]  That year Reagan formally switched to the Republican Party, stating, “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party. The party left me.”[57]

One of the things that undoubtedly resulted in these two brilliant political thinkers’ sense of abandonment was the fact that they clearly HAD BEEN abandoned by the Democrat Party as it continued to “evolve” (liberals love that word, worshiping it in place of a God who stays the same) into a degenerate spiral.  And it was that profound abandonment of key Democrat liberal views – the abandonment of classical liberalism into something that can only be described today as a hybrid of Marxism and fascism – that then led these men to question their entire political presuppositions that had resulted in their being Democrats in the first place.

Yes, I know, liberals always confidently assure us that Nazism and fascism are right wing.  But how, exactly?  If they say militarism, then how was it that the Soviet Union had the largest and most powerful military machine in the world?  If they say racism, then – apart from their own bigotry – how do they escape their own racism?  If you want to talk about anti-Semitism of the Nazis, it turns out that Democrats are actually far more anti-Semitic than Republicans.  And, again, the genocide of the leftwing Soviet Union dwarfs even that of the Nazis.

So, what exactly is it that makes Nazism “right wing”?  Well, maybe the left would say that the Nazis were “Christian” and left wing ideologies are secular.  But that is hardly true, either.  I document in a previous article (“Hitler Wasn’t ‘Right Wing’, Wasn’t ‘Christian’; And Nazism Was Applied Darwinism“) that Nazism and Christianity had virtually nothing to do with one another, and that in fact Hitler was an acknowledged atheist.

I did not know at the writing of that article that in fact Hitler actually wanted to kidnap Pope Pius XII, and that the SS officer placed in charge of the operation understood that Hitler would have murdered him following his capture.  I don’t see how that doesn’t do anything more than strengthen my case that Hitler was hardly a “Catholic.”

When it comes to Nazi ideology and Nazi policies (not the least of which was the sort of abortion and Darwinian eugenics that liberal progressive and modern-day Democrat Icon Margaret Sanger engaged in), Nazism was far more in line with liberal progressivism than anything remotely conservative.  A couple quick statements by Margaret Sanger, the patron saint of Hillary Clinton:

In Pivot of Civilization, Sanger referred to immigrants and poor folks as “human weeds,” “reckless breeders,” “spawning  … human beings who never should have been born.”

“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” she said, “if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” (Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon)

In her “Plan for Peace,” Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed “feebleminded.” Among the steps included in her evil scheme were immigration restrictions; compulsory sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc. (Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107)

And I also show in a comment to that article that Nazism was far, FAR more in line with Democrat Party liberalism than it ever could be Republican Party conservatism when it came to big government and big government policies.

Jonah Goldberg points out that Nazism was in fact “far right.”  But only in the sense that the Nazi Party, i.e. the National Socialist German Workers Party, was the far right of the extreme left.

A good article I recently found on the subject of socialism and fascism is available here.  Basically, the latter is simply a particular species of the former.

American conservatism calls for a strong military defense, yes.  But as we shall see, so also did FDR.  And in every other aspect, consistent conservatism calls for limited and small national government.  Which was the diametric opposite of Adolf Hitler’s Nazi project, which controlled every sphere of life the same way the Democrat Party tried to do during the last two years when they had power.

If you think for so much as an instant that Adolf Hitler wanted less centralized power for himself and more control in the hands of the states/districts and the individual people – as Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh and conservatives constantly talk about – you simply couldn’t be any more ignorant.

That said, just what are the two fundamental issues I claim in my title that FDR would have denounced in the Democrat Party of today?

They are military power and the willingness to use it (i.e., the heart of any foreign policy) and government or public employee unions (i.e., the heart of Democrat’s domestic agenda).

These are no small matters: the former is central to any rational foreign policy and the latter has become central to Democrat domestic policy.

I describe FDR’s fundamental opposition to government unions and the reasons he was opposed to them here.  And I provide FDR’s very own words and his very own reasoning.  Suffice it to say that as pro-union as FDR was, he was profoundly opposed to government/public sector employees having the very sort of collective bargaining rights that Democrats today routinely demand for the public sector unions which constitute the bulk of union power today, and which massively contributes almost exclusively to the Democrat Party machine.  FDR realized that these employees were employees not of some unfair private company, but of the American people.  He also recognized that the government becomes a monopoly unto itself, and that government unions striking 1) exploited that monopoly power in an unfair and un-American way, and 2) was a defacto attack against the American people.

Please read the article above for more.

That leaves the other issue, the foreign policy issue of military power and the willingness to use it to deal with threats to the nation.

A speech by British Prime Minister Winston Churchill could have been given today to expose the American liberal views of Democrats basically since Lyndon Baines Johnson refused to seek re-election after liberals turned on him.  It certainly powerfully applies to the Democrat positions in the war on terror – that Obama once refused to even acknowledge – of today.  Churchill began:

I have but a short time to deal with this enormous subject and I beg you therefore to weigh my words with the attention and thought which I have given to them.

As we go to and fro in this peaceful country with its decent, orderly people going about their business under free institutions and with so much tolerance and fair play in their laws and customs, it is startling and fearful to realize that we are no longer safe in our island home.

For nearly a thousand years England has not seen the campfires of an invader. The stormy sea and our royal navy have been our sure defense. Not only have we preserved our life and freedom through the centuries, but gradually we have come to be the heart and center of an empire which surrounds the globe.

It is indeed with a pang of stabbing pain that we see all this in mortal danger. A thousand years has served to form a state; an hour may lay it in dust.

What shall we do? Many people think that the best way to escape war is to dwell upon its horrors and to imprint them vividly upon the minds of the younger generation. They flaunt the grisly photograph before their eyes. They fill their ears with tales of carnage. They dilate upon the ineptitude of generals and admirals. They denounce the crime as insensate folly of human strife. Now, all this teaching ought to be very useful in preventing us from attacking or invading any other country, if anyone outside a madhouse wished to do so, but how would it help us if we were attacked or invaded ourselves that is the question we have to ask.

Would the invaders consent to hear Lord Beaverbrook’s exposition, or listen to the impassioned appeals of Mr. Lloyd George? Would they agree to meet that famous South African, General Smuts, and have their inferiority complex removed in friendly, reasonable debate? I doubt it. I have borne responsibility for the safety of this country in grievous times. I gravely doubt it.

But even if they did, I am not so sure we should convince them, and persuade them to go back quietly home. They might say, it seems to me, “you are rich; we are poor. You seem well fed; we are hungry. You have been victorious; we have been defeated. You have valuable colonies; we have none. You have your navy; where is ours? You have had the past; let us have the future.” Above all, I fear they would say, “you are weak and we are strong.”

Churchill gave that speech back in 1934.  Just imagine how much unparalleled human suffering would never have happened if only the weak and appeasing policies of the leftist bleeding hearts had not triumphed!  The left wrongly claim to stand for peace and compassion and every good thing.  But the exact opposite is true, as they have in fact murdered millions and millions of innocent human beings with their naive and morally stupid policies.  And to whatever extent liberals have good intentions, the road to hell is paved with liberal intentions.

Think back to Obama’s positions as a candidate in which he demonized Bush’s war in Iraq and his surge strategy.  Think of Obama’s incredibly naive and incredibly failed policy of talking to Iran without preconditions.

I could go on all day about Democrats taking on the views that Churchill condemned; that our enemies really aren’t that evil and how we can talk to them and reach some kind of accord short of fighting them.  It is as naive and morally idiotic today as it was in the era of Churchill and – yes – Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

I did not realize this until I watched a program I viewed on the Military History Channel called “Decisions That Shook the World.”  But FDR rapidly became what we would today call a neo-conservative.

In the late 1930s, FDR began to watch with growing horror as the Nazis began to take over Europe.  In secret letters to Winston Churchill, he offered his moral support to the Allies.  FDR knew that if the people – who did NOT want to become entangled in what they saw as a European war – were to find out about these letters, they would turn against him in outrage.  The American people in the 1930s and early 1940s were crystal clear that they did not want to become involved in another world war in Europe.  As it was, at the very time that the American people were the most worried about FDR secretly getting involved in the war behind their backs, FDR was in fact secretly corresponding with Churchill to do that very thing.  FDR also – again secretly – ordered his military commanders to devise a secret military plan with Great Britain for when FDR was able to involve America in the war against Hitler in Europe.

Now, today, it would be very easy to condemn FDR as duplicitous.  And he WAS incredibly duplicitous.  FDR was a man – we find out in the words of the historians who narrated the “Decisions” program – who had no problem saying and doing things in private that he very much did not want to be known in public.  As an example, FDR, in direct defiance of the United States Supreme Court – directed his Attorney General to wiretap suspected spies.  That was literally an impeachable offense.  FDR was breaking the law to deal with what he saw as a growing threat against America.

Rep. Wendell Wilkie, the Republican candidate for president in the 1940 election – warned the American people, “If you elect FDR, he will get you into a war you don’t want.”  And FDR, deceitfully, in a speech, said, “That charge is contrary to every fact, every purpose of the past eight years.”  It was, as history documents, a complete lie.

Another lie FDR told the people came on the eve of the 1940 election.  FDR told mothers, “I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.”  And it is hard to imagine a more dishonest promise, given that he was at the moment he said those words doing everything he knew how to get America into the war in Europe.

One of the points the historians made clear is that, “If all of Roosevelt’s acts were publicly known, he likely would have been impeached.”  He most certainly would NOT have been re-elected in 1940.

FDR was reelected on the promise that he would not do what in fact he was determined to do.

In 1940, the “anti-war” candidate was the Republican, Wendell Wilkie.  He had the virtue of being honest, but likely on the wrong side of history (we can’t know for sure what would have happened had the United States not become involved in World War II, but it doesn’t look pretty).  Democrat FDR may have had the virtue of being right, but he was certainly profoundly dishonest.

Now, I could write how FDR was quite constant with other modern liberal presidents who say one thing and do the exact opposite (I’m speaking directly about Barack Obama, the examples of which are now already legion).  But that isn’t my project here.  My project is to point out that, when it came to being prepared for war and then fighting that war, FDR was fundamentally in opposition to the modern Democrat Party agenda.

That briefly stated, it was the Republican Party which ultimately came to realize that FDR was correct in his views of the military and the need to vigorously defend American national security.  And it was the Democrats who came to turn on FDR’s realization and abandon his views.

They didn’t do so all at once, or right away.  As much as modern liberals tried to attack Ronald Reagan as putting the world on the brink of nuclear war in his Cold War stand against the powerful Soviet Union, one President John F. Kennedy was every bit the cold warrior that Reagan ever was.  And, again, any liberal who doubts this is simply a fundamentally ignorant human being.  That said, it was during the Kennedy presidency that JFK cynically – and by executive fiat rather than any vote by Congress – allowed the government unions that came to own the Democrat Party lock, stock and barrel to collectively bargain as a means to help the Democrat Party.  And the moral collapse of the Democrat Party was incredibly precipitous after that.

At this point in time, anyone who doubts that radical Islam is easily capable of not only destabilizing the world, but plunging it into economic depression and global war is delusional.  The mere prospect of a collapse of the Libyan government alone could spell enormous problems in the likely event of a civil war in that country.  Oil prices could literally more than double, which would simply obliterate any potential global economic recovery.  If Iran is able to obtain the bomb – which is most assuredly will if it hasn’t already – we will see a rise in Islamic fundamentalism, jihadism and terrorism such that the world has never seen as the Iranian regime rightly sees itself as impervious to any meaningful international action against it.  If that isn’t bad enough, we would also see a nuclear arms race quickly escalate in the craziest region in the history of the planet as Sunni Muslim regimes tried to protect themselves against the Shiite Iranian threat.

For what it’s worth, even as mainstream liberals celebrate and rejoice in the overthrow of one Arab leader after another, it is IRAN which is most benefitting from the chaos.  From the New York Times:

MANAMA, Bahrain — The popular revolts shaking the Arab world have begun to shift the balance of power in the region, bolstering Iran’s position while weakening and unnerving its rival, Saudi Arabia, regional experts said.

I have been warning and warning about this.  But the world listens to Obama, not me.

But in light of Obama’s policy of appeasement, of asking for meetings of minds with no preconditions, allow me to rephrase Churchill’s words to suit our modern-day situation:

Would the invaders consent to hear Barack Obama’s exposition, or listen to the impassioned appeals of Hillary Clinton? Would they agree to meet that famous African, Kofi Annan, and have their inferiority complex removed in friendly, reasonable debate? I doubt it.

Allow me to share with you the consensus view of liberalism today at one of its elite headquarters of Columbia University:

Columbia University is holding a series of public hearings on whether or not to allow ROTC back on campus now that DADT has been repealed. A wounded Iraq veteran who recently enrolled at Columbia took to the microphone and asked fellow students to support ROTC. He was booed, jeered, and called a racist.

Columbia University students heckled a war hero during a town-hall meeting on whether ROTC should be allowed back on campus.

“Racist!” some students yelled at Anthony Maschek, a Columbia freshman and former Army staff sergeant awarded the Purple Heart after being shot 11 times in a firefight in northern Iraq in February 2008. Others hissed and booed the veteran.

The former soldier responded to the jeers with this awesome statement:

“It doesn’t matter how you feel about the war. It doesn’t matter how you feel about fighting,” said Maschek. “There are bad men out there plotting to kill you.”

The despicable so-called “Americans” in the audience only laughed and jeered more.

Anthony Maschek was a staff sergeant with the Army’s 10th Mountain Division. He was shot 11 times and spent two years recovering at Walter Reed. He’s an American hero and those thugs at Columbia are a disgrace. This is no different than those pieces of crap who spit on veterans coming back from Vietnam. It’s disgusting that in 2011 our veterans should have to be heckled by cowards.

Read more: http://www.thehotjoints.com/2011/02/21/wounded-veteran-booed-and-jeered-at-columbia-university/#ixzz1Evn0A8qL

FDR would have turned his back on this Democrat Party as a bunch of contemptible and despicable traitors to the United States of America.  He would have looked at the government unions that today are the sine qua non – the “that without which” – of the Democrat Party machine.  And he would have been disgusted that the entire Democrat Party rests today upon an inherently un-American foundation.  Then this president who risked so much to keep America and the world safe from tyranny would have looked upon the modern Democrat Party and its repeated denunciation of those who would fight America’s most terrifying enemies even as those enemies grew stronger and stronger while we have grown weaker and weaker, and he would have vomited in contempt for the party that he had such a profound role in shaping.

By the very standards of the figures that you cite as your greatest heroes, I denounce you as the pathetic, vile, un-American fools that you truly are, Democrats.

I would say that you should be ashamed of yourselves, but I doubt that you are capable of that virtue in this house-of-card world that you are building now.  And the problem with houses of cards is not merely that they fall; it is also that they tend to burn furiously when a match is struck.

And when the Antichrist warned of by the Scriptures for more than 2,600 years comes (as described in the Books of Daniel and Revelation), it will be Democrats, the quintessential fools, who welcome him with cheers and adoration.

Need Proof Democrats Are Un-American? Just Look At Wisconsin And Count The Ways

You should be calling them “fascists”; but you probably always hear them described as “Democrats.”

These Democrats and the big unions that dwarf any other special interests (most definitely including the “evil” Republican special interests you always hear about in the news) are as un-American as Marxist pie.  But you won’t ever hear how or why unless you go outside the mainstream media propaganda.

Let’s count the ways.  Just in Wisconsin, and just over the last few days:

1) Even liberal FDR said that the public-sector labor unions that now dominate the Democrat Party are essentially un-American.  Why?  Because – and this according to FDR – the very actions that unionized public employees are right now performing in Wisconsin are “unthinkable and intolerable.”

Government unions should not exist.  It is immoral and un-American.  When someone takes government employment, they have – and this again according to FDR – “the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities.”  What are these liberal Democrat public sector union employees doing instead?  Again, allow me to quote FDR:  they seek ” to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied.”  Which FDR said, again, was “unthinkable and intolerable.”

The employer of the government employee, again according to FDR, is “the whole people.”

But liberals don’t give a damn about the whole people.  They have split America apart one racial group at another’s throats, one income level at another’s throats, and privileged union employees at the throats of fed-up taxpayers.  Unions have been feeding off taxpayers – who get a fraction of the wages and benefits the privileged union pigs get – for decades.  Government employees earn TWICE the wages and benefits of their counterparts in the private sector.  But Democrats don’t care: they view the private sector and everyone who works in it as evil cash cows who are to be exploited and impoverished.

The eyeball-deep-in-red-ink state of Wisconsin is trying to get public union pigs to accept a benefit system that is still TWICE as good as virtually any privat sector employee.  And at the same time begin to brind under control the out-of-control collective bargaining agreement to bring it more in line with other state government and federal government workers’ bargaining powers.

Labor unions are an inherently socialist project.  Consider the words of the Marxist author who makes the one identical to the other:

“The object of the labor movement is to increase the strength of the proletariat to the point at which it can conquer the organized force of the bourgeoisie and thus establish its own supremacy.”

And, of course, that is EXACTLY the object of the labor movement.  Which is EXACTLY un-American.

Obama has come out and made a statement about how wonderful government unionized workers are.  But he’s a liberal ideologue and an evil man.  If you asked Democrats like FDR or John F. Kennedy – who famously said the opposite of what these rabid government unions are doing: “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country” – and you learn the truth.

The Democrat Party of today is a depraved and un-American entity.  And if you support it and/or vote for it, you are un-American.

2) Consider the people who are out on the streets rioting against the representatives of the people instead of at their jobs serving the people:

February 17, 2011
Thousands of Union Protesters Storm WI State Capitol; Target Homes of GOP Lawmakers

As four game wardens awkwardly stood guard, protesters, scores deep, crushed into a corridor leading to the governor’s office here on Wednesday, their screams echoing through the Capitol: “Come out, come out, wherever you are!”

Behind closed doors, Scott Walker, the Republican who has been governor for about six weeks, calmly described his intent to forge ahead with the plans that had set off the uprising: He wants to require public workers to pay more for their health insurance and pensions, effectively cutting the take-home pay of many by around 7 percent.

“Target homes”???  How would you like it if me and a few thousand of my thuggish rightwing friends “targeted” your home?  You know, while the people who were supposed to protect you stood by and did nothing because they happened to be rightwingers too?

This kind of vile crap happens more often than you’d think, and it is nearly always vile leftwing slime doing it.  Here’s the story of 14 busloads of “AstroTurf” SEIU mobsters screaming around the home of a bank officer while his terrorized son locks himself in a bathroom and calls his helpless father in tears of terror.  Good old unions.

Don’t forget this fact for a nanosecond: there is a century of genuine evil in the labor union movement.  These are truly bad people with a truly bad agenda.

I’m looking at the screaming mobs of liberal Democrats in Wisconsin and it is impossible to tell them apart from the screaming mobs in Egypt and Yemen and Tunisia.  You know, the “peaceful,” “democracy-loving” Muslims who have repeatedly beaten reporters and in fact gang-raped a CBS correspondent while shouting “Jew!  Jew!”

Oh, are you a liberal who wants to argue with me that there’s no connection between this gang rape and liberals?  Think again.  And don’t tell me that nothing would make you happier than hearing that Sarah Palin got the same treatment.  Because that’s just the kind of moral filth you people are.

3) Consider the activities of elected Democrats.  Suffice it to say by way of introduction that Democrats are fine with the Amerian political process, as long as they can win by any means possible:

Wis. lawmakers flee state to block anti-union bill
By SCOTT BAUER Associated Press © 2011 The Associated Press
Feb. 17, 2011, 9:48PM

MADISON, Wis. — Faced with a near-certain Republican victory that would end a half-century of collective bargaining for public workers, Wisconsin Democrats retaliated with the only weapon they had left: They fled.

Fourteen Democratic lawmakers disappeared from the Capitol on Thursday, just as the Senate was about to begin debating the measure aimed at easing the state’s budget crunch.

By refusing to show up for a vote, the group brought the debate to a swift halt and hoped to pressure Republicans to the negotiating table.

“The plan is to try and slow this down because it’s an extreme piece of legislation that’s tearing this state apart,” Sen. Jon Erpenbach said.

[…]

With 19 seats, Republicans hold a majority in the 33-member Senate, but they are one vote short of the number necessary to conduct business. So the GOP needs at least one Democrat to be present before any voting can take place. Once the measure is brought to the floor, it needs 17 votes to pass.

[…]

The sergeant-at-arms immediately began looking for the missing lawmakers. If authorized, he can seek help from police.

Senate rules and the state constitution say absent members can be compelled to appear, but it does not say how.

“Today they checked out, and I’m not sure where they’re at,” Republican Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald said. “This is the ultimate shutdown, what we’re seeing today.”

And, yes, the police are looking for these criminals – which is an excellent way to describe “Democrats.”  But these un-American cowards who want to warp the democratic process are likely in another state.  Because they don’t give a damn about the state they were foolishly elected to serve.

There may have been a time when one could have been an honorable Democrat.  But those days are just long gone.

There was an election in November.  The citizens of Wisconsin voted for a Republican governor and a Republican legislature precisely to protect them against vile union pigs.  Unions have despicably taken advantage of their “collective bargaining” to give themselves wages and benefits that are bankrupting most of the states in the union.  There is a democratic process; it involves showing up, saying your piece and voting.  Democrats – like the Nazi fascists of the past and the Islamofascists of today – love democracy as long as they win.  Islamists who want to impose a big-government sharia state say of democracy, “You ride it to your destination, and then you step off.”  And that’s exactly what Democrats have done here.  There’s no place in American democracy for elected officials to flee the state so that the state can’t pass legislation that the people elected them to at least vote on.  There’s no place in American democracy for employees of the government, the public teachers and the state prison guards as just a couple of examples, to refuse to show up for work.  Democrats have jumped off the democracy bus and now they are riding on the fascist train.

If you are a Democrat, you are on the wrong side.  It’s a failure of moral reasoning that you can reverse at any time.

Dare I say it?  Please start thinking right.