Obama And The Democrat Party Waging Brutal War On The Very People Who Most Support Them

It’s an interesting tactic that you see as the essence of all terrorist movements.  America saw it most clearly during the Vietnam War: the communist – in other words the political leftists – terrorized and killed as many people as they could in order to make the population turn against the political system so they could seize power.  Which they ultimately did.  The idea was, “Look at this horrible government; why, they can’t even keep you safe!”

Of course, it was the leftist communists who were saying that who were doing all the murdering that the government couldn’t keep the people safe from.  But that was besides the point.

Now, you might ask yourself why a people would ever allow a group of brutal murdering thugs to gain power by murdering them, but the fact is that it has happened over and over and over again.

It’s happening here in America.

My visual picture is a Democrat coming up behind an unknowing victim, viciously hitting the man in the back of the head with a baseball bat, throwing the bat near a Republican, and then shrieking hysterically, “Look what that terrible Republican just did!”

And a leftist “journalist” duly reports the “fact” that a Republican just viciously assaulted a poor, innocent victim.  And don’t think for a moment that poor, innocent victim will ever vote Republican.

You say, “you’re crazy.”  Democrats don’t do anything like that.  They love the poor.

Yeah, right.

I came across an article from the AP that said EXACTLY what Republicans said over and OVER and OVER again about what ObamaCare would do:

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) –  Miriam Uribe enrolled in California’s low-income health insurance program last November, and she still hasn’t found a primary care doctor 10 months later who could see her.

“Once you have (insurance), you actually still don’t have it because it’s still a struggle to find someone,” the 20-year-old college student from Bellflower said.

Uribe isn’t alone. Even though Latinos make up nearly half of California’s 12.5 million Medi-Cal enrollees, a report by the independent California HealthCare Foundation found that 36 percent of the Spanish-speaking Medi-Cal population has been told that a physician won’t take them, compared to 7 percent of the overall Medi-Cal population. Even those who speak both English and Spanish reported similar difficulty accessing doctors.

“The numbers are very, very shocking,” said Sarah de Guia, executive director of the California Pan-Ethnic Health Network, a multicultural health advocacy group.

De Guia said the study doesn’t explain why Latinos — whether they speak English or Spanish — are being turned away at higher rates, but public policy officials say the biggest obstacle is finding doctors who are willing to take the lower payments offered by Medi-Cal. Language barriers also play a role.

What did Republicans say would happen?  We said doctors would leave medicine.  They’ve left medicine in DROVES.  We said there was a giant difference between the bait-and-switch deception from Democrats that having health insurance was the same thing as having actual health care.  We said people would end up paying more and more and getting less and less.  We said that more people than EVER would end up flooding into emergency rooms because that was where ObamaCare would ultimately drive them.

All of which has happened.  Even the New York Times is forced to acknowledge the dilemma people like Karen Pineman of Manhattan face by being “Insured, but Not Covered.”  We’ve found out the hard way that “Even consumers with health insurance get hit with surprisingly large medical bills” as ObamaCare has caused deductibles to SKYROCKET.  Democrats have these incredibly false studies that claim that premiums haven’t gone up by as much as they did in the past (after Obama himself swore that his ObamaCare would bend the cost curve DOWN); but what they do is dishonestly count all the people who get “subsidies” rather than honestly dealing with all the people who are now forced to pay massively more to subsidize all those subsidies.   And of course the problem that the people who have those subsidies don’t actually have “health care” but “health insurance” that doesn’t allow them to actually see a damn doctor.

Doctors have either left the field of medicine in disgust as the following articles document: here and here and here and here and here; or they are abandoning the ObamaCare networks: 214,000 doctors is a LOT of doctors, in case you didn’t know.  It’s about 25% of all doctors in America.  And they’ve quit ObamaCare.

So what do you have BECAUSE of ObamaCare?  You’ve got fewer doctors in smaller networks.  Just as Republicans warned and tried to scream about as Democrats without a SINGLE Republican vote passed the bill that no one had even bothered to read in the middle of the night with frankly undemocratic and unconstitutional shenanigans and outright bribery.

And so – contrary to the wicked party of homosexual sodomy, abortion, godless socialism and ObamaCare – we have people flocking to emergency rooms (which Obama swore his ObamaCare would END) in numbers we’ve never seen before.  Because to be a Democrat is to be a DEMOn-possessed beauroCRAT who worships and exalts human government in place of God.  To be a Democrat is to be the very worst kind of LIAR.

But whose fault is it that the health care system has been destroyed?  The party that voted against the destruction of the health care system.

In my analogy, the Democrat came up behind an unsuspecting, unaware victim and viciously whacked him in the head.  The poor victim never saw it coming.  And then he believed the accusations as to who had committed the vicious assault, blaming everyone BUT the one who actually hit him.

That’s exactly what has happened to America.  The Democrat Party has destroyed the American Dream.  But they count on the ignorance of the people they are hurting, they count on their lies and they count on the leftist ideologues who constitute the overwhelming majority of our “journalists.”  And they’ve largely gotten away with it because we live in an age of deception just before the beast comes.

I have a very dear friend who is everything the Democrat Party says it wants to help.  She’s a woman.  She’s a Hispanic.  She’s a single mother of seven children.  She’s poor.

She’s a home care nurse who can’t get a full-time job because anyone who paid her full-time hours would have to provide health care benefits.  She’s working seven hours a day for four days a week.  That keeps her under Obama’s death-for-businesses threshold.  You really can’t blame businesses for trying to survive this wicked president.  And what we’re finding is a death of full-time jobs for the people who most need them because they aren’t making high hourly wages and therefore need to be allowed to work more hours to make more money.  The same thing of course happens when the left forces businesses to pay $15 an hour minimum wage; for those who keep their jobs it’s obviously nice, but for a lot of other people they lose their jobs and many jobs that would have been created never will be thanks to Democrats.  You really have to wonder just who the fascist hell Democrats think they are for telling workers, “You CAN’T work unless you get paid what we say you have to be paid,” and tell employers, “You better think TWICE before you create a job.”  Versus conservatives who say that people ought to be allowed to decide how much they’re willing to pay and how much pay they’re willing to receive for a given job.

Understand, it aint Republicans shutting down little kids’ lemonade stands.

Now, I understand.  Again, the left comes out with the most bogus statistics such as Obama’s “low” unemployment rate – I mean, George Bush AVERAGED over eight years what has been Obama’s best unemployment MONTH, but I guess that’s beside the point – that are based on eliminating out THE most important facts such as our plummeting labor participation rate and any measurement of those who are being underutilized in the labor force.

Under Obama, we have the fewest people as a percentage of our work force actually WORKING with JOBS than we’ve seen in forty damn years (back when men traditionally worked while their wives stayed home and took care of the household and the children).

Let’s take a real look at Obama’s unemployment rate, measured by the fuller and more accurate U-6 measurement.  Let’s compare that rate with George W. Bush’s – who sustained his OWN economic meltdown at the hands of his predecessor as Bill Clinton handed Bush his DotCom Bubble Bust that wiped out $7.1 TRILLION dollars from the U.S. economy and wiped out 78.6% of the Nasdaq stock exchange.  The Bush economy took a HEAVY blow from that, just as he took a massively heavy blow from the 9/11 attack that terrified our economy into paralysis that was also Bill Clinton’s fault as he decimated the CIA and our intelligence capability, gutted the military and emboldened a man named Osama bin Laden into calling the United States a “paper tiger” because Clinton had been a paper tiger PRESIDENCY.  But with two presidencies to compare data, let’s take a look at the following U-6 monthly rates and do the math by adding them up for each president and dividing by the number of months in office.

As of July 2015, we find that George Bush had an 8.35% U-6 rate.  Versus Obama who has a 14.54% U-6 rate.  That’s Great Depression level there, folks.

When you count the fact that our population has grown by nearly 16 million people since Obama took office.  We need JOBS for those people.  And Obama is touting monthly “job creation numbers” that aint even anywhere CLOSE to what we need just to sustain our population.

Add to that the fact that more than 93 MILLION working age Americans are NOT working – who are not even CONSIDERED in Obama’s unemployment stats – and you ought to see a giant, whopping crisis.  That 93 million figure is historic. It has NEVER happened before.

Obama promised a Workers Utopia.  He has been the devil who has delivered HELL for the American worker who needed a damn job.

Obama isn’t finished, either.  He is willing to commit economic suicide by imposing a level of global warming edicts that will GUT America’s ability to compete with other economies.  His policies will leave the world’s climate EVERY bit as dirty; but he’ll kill America in the process.

Democrats are the party of more taxes, more regulations, more laws, more punishment for job creators, more burdens to prevent them from expanding and being able to hire workers.

Obama came promising he would end the income inequality between the rich and the poor.  The funny thing is that because of his morally and economically retarded policies, WE HAVE SEEN THE WORST INCOME INEQUALITY IN HISTORY UNDER OBAMA.  To the tune of a four times greater rate of income inequality than occurred under the hated George W. Bush.

Even the reliably liberal Huffington Post was forced to acknowledge this fact:

Despite President Obama’s view that growing income inequality is hurting the nation, it’s actually gotten worse during his tenure, at least according to one measure.

The difference between America’s median and average wages grew at a rate of 0.28 percent under President Bush, while it’s grown at a rate of 1.14 percent — or about four times that — under Obama, according to The New York Times. The median wage is the midpoint of all workers’ wages, so it only ticks up when everyone is earning more. While a small group of people earning higher pay can push the average wage up.

So, as the difference between the two rises, it means that those at the bottom of the income scale are making fewer gains compared to those at the top.

This data point is one of many that illustrates that in Obama’s America the rich are gaining while the rest of us are struggling to get by. The wealthy took home a greater share of the nation’s income during the years following the recession, under Obama, than between 2002 and 2007, under Bush, according to a 2012 analysis from Emmanuel Saez, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley.

So the poor are getting screwed by this president even as he promises to be the exact opposite of what he actually is.  While demonizing the former president who in actuality is his better in every damn way under the sun.

But what if you’re black?  I mean, surely Obama has been great for black people.  I mean, right?  Things must be going just peachy for black people.

NOT.  The more a group of people – well, other than filthy rich crony-capitalist types who have ALWAYS benefited from leftist socialism and fascism – count on Democrats and Obama, the worse the lot has been for that group of people.  Which is why Obama has destroyed ANY chance of black people getting a damn job to the tune of 12 MILLION black people who are not in the labor force.

And let’s not mention that Democrats continue to support a racist entity started by Hillary Clinton’s personal hero.  Let’s not mention that that entity locates in every black neighborhood in order to literally encourage black people to participate in their own self-genocide.  Let’s not mention that Democrats are responsible for the murder of more than six out of every ten black babies conceived.

Which is why – in spite of the fact that Obama swore he would be the president who would transcend race and lead America into racial harmony – has so plummeted America into racial chaos and unrest and violence that one of the race riot sites is having a race riot to mark the anniversary of their last race riot.

It’s interesting: you’ve got to go back more than one hundred years to find the one race riot that happened while a Republican was president.  It’s DEMOCRATS who are the party of the Confederate States of America and started the Civil War because a Republican was elected president; it’s DEMOCRATS who are the party of the Ku Klux Klan; it’s DEMOCRATS who are the party of re-segregation; it’s DEMOCRATS who are the party of Klanbake; it’s DEMOCRATS who are the real party behind the resurgence of the Confederate flag; it’s DEMOCRATS who are the party of race-baiting and racial unrest.

We look at crime and violence and murders and we look at Democrats and they are responsible for basically ALL of it.  The Democrat Party demonized their own cities’ police officers and imposed policies that have eliminated the police departments’ ability to do their job and protect people.  And the people who are suffering are POOR people and MINORITIES.

Obama’s tactic is to exploit racial tension to enrage minorities to “punish your enemies.”  Just keep stirring up hate and sinking to the lowest common denominator until we collapse.

Democrats run these cities and I mean it’s just a shock that the “we gave them space to destroy” policy would backfire.  It’s amazing that stop and frisk would keep crime down and letting black gang-banging thugs with guns in their pants freely run around KNOWING they’d be safe from searches might be a bad thing.  How could anyone ever think for one second that allowing decent citizens to protect their own homes and property with guns could ever be a deterrent from people who would otherwise prey on disarmed and helpless victims???

As I said, the worst terrorist/guerilla organizations don’t wage their war against the armed soldiers who will fight them; they wage it against the population.  They count on the ignorance and fear of that population to drive a wedge of confidence between the people and the government that’s trying to keep them safe from the terrorist guerillas.  It’s an incredibly cynical and exploitative strategy that has historically worked.  And it’s working for the Democrat Party.

All the worst cities in America have had Democrat leadership for a hundred damn years.  And the misery means nothing to Democrats but a chance to inflict MORE misery and blame the Republicans for it.

As I said, Democrats count on the ignorance and frankly the stupidity of their victims to keep blaming the Republican Party for what? for it’s failure to STOP the Democrat Party from inflicting death and destruction and poverty and despair on them.

 

A Formerly Great Nation Under God: Obama Has So Undermined America It Is Beyond Unreal

It was Obama’s “reverend” who spoke as a prophet when he screamed, “No, no, no!  NOT God bless America!  God DAMN America!”

It was Obama who summed up the implications of his Führership when he shocked Republicans with his refusal to work with them in any way, shape or form when he had lockstep control of all three political branches of government: “Elections have consequences.”

And they sure have [For the official record, I TOLD you so the night the demons cheered while the angels wept and Obama was elected in 2008].

I think of Ronald Reagan – who won by a FAR greater landslide margin than anything Obama has ever come CLOSE to – governing like a leader while Obama IMMEDIATELY broke his word to “transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics” and “finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington.”

If you believe the media propaganda that Obama has tried to work with the Republicans but no matter how rational and reasonable Obama was, racist Republicans just wouldn’t  allow him to succeed in any way, shape or form – just look at the man’s BUDGETS to see how false that bullcrap spin is.  Just see here and here for Obama’s true pattern: the man is so damn fascist radical that he couldn’t get a SINGLE vote from his own party.  And when he did get a vote, he got something like TWO votes from his own damned party.  If you think that’s “compromise,” you belong in an insane asylum for the criminally depraved and stupid.

The man has been nothing but a pure liar without honor, without virtue, without integrity, without decency of any kind.  And that was what he was from the very start.  No human being who has EVER LIVED has been caught in as many bald lies as this fascist who now contaminates our White House: as an example just one of his numerous lies – which merited him the title “Liar of the Year” – he repeated over and over and over again as his means of deceiving America into re-electing him again.  Every president has arguably lied, but Obama wallows in lies the way a particularly disgusting pig wallows in his own filth.

Who is Obama?  Well, even the extremely liberal New York Times long since acknowledged the fact: he is a divisive, arrogant blowhard who thinks he’s ontologically superior to everyone else while massively overestimating his own abilities.

Where are we under Obama’s misrule?

Well, according to CNN’s Jack Cafferty, as Obama was getting re-elected, “More than 100 million people in the United States of America get welfare from the federal government. 100 million.”  And that number has since skyrocketed to over 151,000 – or about half the damn population, since Obama was re-elected.

“Elections have consequences.”  And one of those consequences has been unprecedented welfare as Obama has gutted the American economic engine with every monkey wrench known to liberal engineering.

Another consequence of Obama’s elections has been a poverty level that has never been seen in America for MORE THAN FIFTY YEARS:

That’s rich: Poverty level under Obama breaks 50-year record
By Dave Boyer – The Washington Times
Tuesday, January 7, 2014

Fifty years after President Johnson started a $20 trillion taxpayer-funded war on poverty, the overall percentage of impoverished people in the U.S. has declined only slightly and the poor have lost ground under President Obama. […]

Although the president often rails against income inequality in America, his policies have had little impact overall on poverty. A record 47 million Americans receive food stamps, about 13 million more than when he took office.

The poverty rate has stood at 15 percent for three consecutive years, the first time that has happened since the mid-1960s. The poverty rate in 1965 was 17.3 percent; it was 12.5 percent in 2007, before the Great Recession.

About 50 million Americans live below the poverty line, which the federal government defined in 2012 as an annual income of $23,492 for a family of four.

President Obama’s anti-poverty efforts “are basically to give more people more free stuff,” said Robert Rector, a specialist on welfare and poverty at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

“That’s exactly the opposite of what Johnson said,” Mr. Rector said. “Johnson’s goal was to make people prosperous and self-sufficient.”

If you’re poor, realize that Barack Obama doesn’t give a flying DAMN about you.  All he cares about is demonizing and slandering his enemies while promising you lies that he will never deliver.

The worse consequence of Obama’s elections domestically has been Obama’s gutting of the labor participation rate.  The man has dishonestly boasted about the jobs he’s created when the reality is that he has destroyed tens of millions of jobs.  I documented how Obama’s policies had caused the U.S. labor participation rate to plummet to a 25-year low in 2010, and then decline to a 27-year low in 2011, decline to a 30-year low in 2012.  In 2013 it was the worst in 35 years under Obama, and now as we enter 2014 it is declining again.

The labor participation rate is a measure of the percent of working-age Americans who actually have JOBS.  And Obama with his demonic regulations and taxes and burdens on businesses has made it all but impossible for millions of Americans to ever HOPE of getting a job.

The rich are getting richer faster under Obama than under any president before him.  Because Obama is a crony capitalist fascist who has thrived politically using the raw power of government to decide who gets to win and who loses.

And what does Obama do?  His policies have caused this holocaust, but with the help of liberal media propaganda that surpasses Joseph Goebbels best work, Obama is able to “never let a serious crisis go to waste.”  Even though HE created the crisis to begin with.  Obama has been able to slander his opponents – who frankly have had zero ability to change anything – to keep pushing his already broken system further and further past the breaking point.

Democrats are now hell-bent on demagoguing “income inequality” to whole new levels, promising to do more of what they did to create the crisis in the first place and therefore create millions more ignorant, desperate people who will stupidly keep voting for the very people who are hurting them by undermining the economy that they desperately need to keep their heads above water.

Under Obama, the nation that put a man on the moon now gets to beg our enemy Russia to please, please let one of our astronauts ride with you into space for $70 million per trip.

Under Obama, the nation that invented the Internet now abandons its control over the Internet it invented.  Because Obama is the “president of the world,” you know.  American sovereignty is an evil thing to people like Obama.

But as bad as our domestic situation has been under Obama, it is our national security that has most collapsed.

More than six in ten Americans believe Obama has lied to them on important issues.  What percent of world leaders know that Obama has the integrity of a weasel?  I’m guessing that number is 100 percent of everybody.

Dishonesty is the heart of the Liberal Democrat Way.  Consider their “war on women” slander.  According to them, Republicans may have wives and daughters and mothers, but they hate women.  And Obama – who has a “boy’s club” featuring a hostile workplace environment for women – and who has consistently paid women on his own staff significantly less than men – and who is therefore “anti-woman” and ought to be voted out BY women according to his own disingenuous standards – is allowed to run on an issue in spite of the facts and in spite of reality.  Because running on lies is who these people are.

And the lies have started to pile up like the yard of a house that has fifty pit bulls and no one with any decency to take care of all the messes.

Now, I point out that it took eight years of Bill Clinton’s gutting of the military and intelligence branches that made America weak enough and blind enough to incite an attack by Osama bin Laden on 9/11.  Osama bin Laden began his dream of attacking America in 1993 after he watched Bill Clinton’s abject moral cowardice and concluded “Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower … and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled.”

Every single one of the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11/2001 had already entered the country, received their funding and had their training by the time Bill Clinton left office.

But of course the same fascist propaganda media that blamed Bush for everything absolved Bill Clinton of everything.  You know, it was Bush’s fault that under President Bill Clinton Osama bin Laden declared war on America and said that our warriors were paper tigers.  That’s what these people always do: punish their enemies and reward their friends.

Bill Clinton left America a sitting duck.  Or a plucked chicken, given Jeremiah Wright’s infamous “our chickens have come home to roost” metaphor.

So now Obama has been so much WORSE than Clinton ever was that it is almost laughable.  Because Clinton was pretty damn bad.

Obama has gut the Army to its weakest level since BEFORE World War II.  Even Clinton couldn’t find enough “loathing the military” in his heart to do that.

What is our policy/strategy to deal with what Putin has done in Ukraine?

Keep in mind that the United States had a treaty to protect Ukraine from the Russian aggression that they feared if they gave up their nuclear weapons that was negotiated by Bill Clinton.

Let me preamble by pointing out according to no less an authority than Hillary Clinton, what Putin did was like what Hitler did in the 1930s.

So how has Obama decided to deal with Hitler?

Obama has clearly decided the cause of World War II was that America and the West had the audacity to try to defend themselves rather than baring their throat to a dictator and begging for mercy.  Obama wants to re-fight World War II by surrendering and refusing to fight and see what happens that way.  After all, when Hitler invaded Poland and Winston Churchill and FDR stood up to him, we ended up in a war.  Far better to employ the Neville Chamberlain strategy and get some piece of paper that guarantees “peace in our time.”

Sometimes courageous people have to fight; cowards never do.  All they have to do is be willing to live with the consequences of their cowardice.  Which cowards are plenty willing to do.

So also keep in mind that Sarah Palin knew a coward when she saw one and boldly predicted that under an Obama presidency Russia would seize Ukraine.  Which they are doing.

Anyone who believes a damn word our Liar-in-Chief says is an abject fool who deserves destruction.  If our allies believe a word Obama says, they’re stupid.  And you can rest assured our enemies are salivating at the weakness and fecklessness of Obama’s “God damn America.”

Obama says baloney that laughingly tries to spin reality by claiming he’s winning (much like Charlie Sheen’s “winner” with his “tiger blood” nonsense).

But even the Los Angeles Times had this to say about whose “winning.”

It turns out that Vladimir Putin has more admirers around the world than you might expect for someone using a neo-Soviet combination of violence and the big lie to dismember a neighboring sovereign state. Russia’s strongman garners tacit support, and even some quiet plaudits, from some of the world’s most important emerging powers, starting with China and India. […]

Beside this realpolitik, I was told, there is also an emotional component. Chinese leaders such as Xi Jinping, who grew up under Chairman Mao, still instinctively warm to the idea of another non-Western leader standing up to the capitalist and imperialist West. “Xi likes Putin’s Russia,” said one well-informed observer. […]

Last month, Putin thanked India for its “restrained and objective” stance on Crimea. India’s postcolonial obsession with sovereignty, and resentment of any hint of Western liberal imperialism, plays out — rather illogically — in support for a country that has just dramatically violated its neighbor’s sovereignty. Oh, and by the way, India gets a lot of its arms from Russia.

And there are others. Russia’s two other partners in the so-called BRICS group, Brazil and South Africa, both abstained on the U.N. General Assembly resolution criticizing the Crimea referendum. They also joined Russia in expressing “concern” at the Australian foreign minister’s suggestion that Putin might be barred from attending a Group of 20 summit in November.

What the West faces here is the uncoiling of two giant springs. One is the coiled spring of Mother Russia’s resentment at the way her empire has shrunk over the last 25 years.

The other is the coiled spring of resentment at centuries of Western colonial domination. This takes very different forms in different BRICS countries and members of the G-20. They certainly don’t all have China’s monolithic, relentless narrative of national humiliation since Britain’s Opium Wars. But they do share a strong and prickly concern for their own sovereignty, a resistance to North Americans and Europeans telling them what is good for them, and a certain instinctive glee, or schadenfreude, at seeing Uncle Sam (not to mention little John Bull) being poked in the eye by that pugnacious Russian. Viva Putinismo!

Obviously this is not the immediate issue on the ground in Ukraine, but it is another big vista opened up by the East European crisis. In this broader, geopolitical sense, take note: As we go deeper into the 21st century, there will be more Ukraines.

Timothy Garton Ash is professor of European studies at Oxford University, a senior fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution and a contributing writer to Opinion. His latest book is “Facts Are Subversive: Political Writing From a Decade Without a Name.”

Vladimir Putin has “tiger blood.”  Barack Obama has “chicken blood.”

Russia is winning and winning big.  Particularly since the civil war in Syria when Obama issued his “red line” and then did NOTHING after that red line was repeatedly crossed, nobody believes ANY of Obama’s worthless threats.

Within months of Obama’s “red line” warning, it was discovered that Syria had not only used chemical weapons, but in fact had used them at least FOURTEEN TIMES.

And damn, they just got through using them AGAIN.

But it’s okay, because Obama has that treaty that his good fascist pal Putin put together for him to make him look slightly less weak and feckless.  Now Syrian dictator Assad is safely in power, and free to continue his vicious civil war in which he’s murdered more than 100,000 of his own people.

It’s worse than a horror movie over there.  But don’t worry, Obama’s got his “peace in our time” piece of paper to wave around to his adoring and fawning fascist press.

Weak, feckless, moral cowardice.

And Obama has failed so miserably in Egypt, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and you basically name it, it’s beyond sick.

We are just beginning to learn how wildly Obama has failed America in Afghanistan.  It will be awful and it will get worse.

The number one thing Obama could do to lay a serious hurting on Russia short of going to all-out war would be to get agreements to begin filling the void to supply the oil and natural gas that Russia currently supplies Europe.  That would a) strengthen America and the American economy and b) weaken Russia and the Russian economy and c) undermine Russian influence in both Western AND in Eastern Europe in one fell swoop.

And what did Obama do?  Make a purely political decision to hold off approving the Keystone Pipeline – to the enragement of one of our few remaining allies Canada – until AFTER the 2014 election so his rejection of it won’t make the slaughter of Democrats even worse.

Because he’s owned by the radical environmentalists who want most of the world’s human population to die and who want America to be economically broken rather than being the engine of manufacturing that made it great.

To the extent that we have any cards to play after six years of Obama, Obama refuses to play them.  Obama is like a man who pimps out his girlfriend and keeps counting on his “bitch” to keep loving him and bringing him “his” money.  Only, tragically, Obama’s “bitch” has been the United States of America.

Sadly, America has been a faithful bitch indeed to her pimp Obama even though he keeps prostituting her to his cynical political interests.  To her own massive hurt.

So things are truly going to hell under Obama in the Atlantic.  But at least Obama is in control of things in the Pacific, right?

Wrong.

And so I turned to the Los Angeles Times this morning to find this:

WASHINGTON — Two and a half years after President Obama vowed to shift America’s diplomatic, economic and military focus to Asia, he will head back to the region this week to try to convince allies and adversaries alike that he really meant it.

Since the much-touted decision to “pivot” to Asia, the Obama administration has found itself repeatedly pulled away by crises in the Middle East, political battles in Washington and, more recently, turmoil in Ukraine. […]

The result is anxiety among allies, and questions about the U.S. commitment to establishing a counterweight to China’s growing economic clout and military assertiveness.

“In polite company people won’t say it, but behind closed doors I think they’ll openly ask where the pivot is,” Victor Cha, former director for Asian affairs in the George W. Bush administration, said at a recent forum at the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and International Studies.

This not being a “polite circle,” I’m free to point out reality: Obama LIED.

Obama’s “pivot to Asia” is as much of a joke as his “pivot to the economy” was.  I mean, I remember him doing that over and over and over and over and over again.

Obama’s “pivot” is “just words.”  You know, like, “If you like your doctor, I guaran-damn-tee you that you’ll be able to keep your doctor and your health plan.  Unless I’m a lying Nazi, that is.  In which case, April Fools!”

As China realizes that Obama is a weakling cowardly incompetent fool the same way Russia realized it, do you think that Obama will be able to promise his way out of a mess given all of his past lies and past displays of weakness and fecklessness?

This is a nation on it’s way down.  And thanks to the most wicked electorate in the history of the republic, it is a nation on its way out.

The Bible prophesied long ago that America would be nowhere to be found in the last days.

Because “God Damn America” doesn’t get to stick around.  Not after we elected a baby-murdering sodomite worshiper – twice.

How far we have fallen in such a short time!  And how hard we have yet to fall when the artificial bubble we think will remain around us forever very shortly bursts.

I pointed out above how badly Obama has hurt the poor as he’s given the rich their money (because those rich people LOVE Democrat crony capitalist fascism).

Consider the fact that under Obama, cattle levels have declined to their lowest levels since 1951 when Harry Truman was president.

Meat prices have never been higher in the entire history of the republic.

What has Obama’s response been?  Well, his thug Bureau of Land Management just literally tortured and executed cattle of the very last rancher in a county that used to be dominated by cattle ranching.  If I heard correctly, one cow was discovered that had six bullet wounds.  The BLM admitted to executing the cattle on the grounds that they were “rowdy.”  Which is probably the pretense Obama used to use his thug IRS to intimidate and harass tea party conservatives for being “rowdy” enough to think they had a right to exercise their constitutional rights.  I’m sure the BLM agents heard some of the cattle uttering “anti-Obama rhetoric” and they had to punish their enemies.  We’re all “cattle” to Obama.  In addition to at least two mass graves – many of the cattle being the mothers who give birth to calves to keep the business going – the Bundy family discovered that the BLM thugs had essentially vandalized many improvements to the land such as tearing up water pipes.

So yeah, the next time you buy beef or anything with beef in it, thank Obama for the incredibly high price you pay.

And food prices in general have skyrocketed.  While your wages under Obama have plummeted.

It’s just a foretaste of what the Book of Revelation prophesied would happen in the last days as a wicked world worshiped the beast rather than God.

Obama arrogantly promised to lower the level of the oceans; but because he has brought America under the wrath of God for his worship of abortion and homosexual sodomy marriage, what he HAS done is lower the level of all the fresh water in America as we are OWNED by crippling drought in his God damn America.

Famine and drought are very much signs of God’s judgment.

Realize that as you vote “Democrat” and thus vote for the wrath of a holy God according to Romans Chapter One.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why The More Democrats Destroy The American Economy, The Better It Will Be For Them Politically

In my student years and then in my working years, I have met many women whose boyfriends, live-in boyfriends or husbands treated them worse than I would treat dog crap.

It worked beautifully for the guys: they so destroyed these women’s self-esteem that they stayed with the men who abused them.

Why?  Their spirits were so crushed that they had been convinced that the low-life scum who abused them were the best they could ever hope to get.

And so they foolishly and self-destructively remained in abusive relationships.  If they had the crap beat out of them, they made sure to tell the police a story about some accident that hadn’t happened.

They sustained and protected and nurtured a “relationship” that was literally worse than cancer.

The national economic equivalent of the man I just described is Barack Hussein Obama.

He has so completely crushed so many desperate people – after selling them lie after lie after lie after lie – while holding out his socialist welfare state as the only solution for his massive economic failure – that many Americans believe Obama’s welfare society is their only hope.

Americans discouraged by economic recovery leave labor force
Published April 07, 2013
Associated Press

WASHINGTON –  After a full year of  fruitless job hunting, Natasha Baebler just gave up.

She’d already abandoned hope of getting work in her field, working with the  disabled. But she couldn’t land anything else, either — not even a job interview  at a telephone call center.

Until she feels confident enough to send out resumes again, she’ll get by on  food stamps and disability checks from Social Security and live with her parents  in St. Louis.

“I’m not proud of it,” says Baebler, who is in her mid-30s and is blind. “The  only way I’m able to sustain any semblance of self-preservation is to rely on  government programs that I have no desire to be on.”

Baebler’s frustrating experience has become all too common nearly four years  after the Great Recession ended: Many Americans are still so discouraged that  they’ve given up on the job market.

Older Americans have retired early. Younger ones have enrolled in school.  Others have suspended their job hunt until the employment landscape brightens.  Some, like Baebler, are collecting disability checks.

It isn’t supposed to be this way. After a recession, an improving economy is  supposed to bring people back into the job market.

Instead, the number of Americans in the labor force — those who have a job or  are looking for one — fell by nearly half a million people from February to  March, the government said Friday. And the percentage of working-age adults in  the labor force — what’s called the participation rate — fell to 63.3 percent  last month. It’s the lowest such figure since May 1979.

The falling participation rate tarnished the only apparent good news in the  jobs report the Labor Department released Friday: The unemployment rate dropped  to a four-year low of 7.6 percent in March from 7.7 in February.

People without a job who stop looking for one are no longer counted as  unemployed. That’s why the U.S. unemployment rate dropped in March despite weak  hiring. If the 496,000 who left the labor force last month had still been  looking for jobs, the unemployment rate would have risen to 7.9 percent in  March.

“Unemployment dropped for all the wrong reasons,” says Craig Alexander, chief  economist with TD Bank Financial Group. “It dropped because more workers stopped  looking for jobs. It signaled less confidence and optimism that there are jobs  out there.”

The participation rate peaked at 67.3 percent in 2000, reflecting an influx  of women into the work force. It’s been falling steadily ever since.

Part of the drop reflects the baby boom generation’s gradual move into  retirement. But such demographics aren’t the whole answer.

Even Americans of prime working age — 25 to 54 years old — are dropping out  of the workforce. Their participation rate fell to 81.1 percent last month, tied  with November for the lowest since December 1984.

“It’s the lack of job opportunities — the lack of demand for workers — that  is keeping these workers from working or seeking work,” says Heidi Shierholz, an  economist at the liberal Economic Policy Institute. The Labor Department says  there are still more than three unemployed people for every job opening.

Cynthia Marriott gave up her job search after an  interview in October for a position as a hotel concierge.

“They never said no,” she says. “They just never called me back.”

Her husband hasn’t worked full time since 2006. She cashed out her 401(k)  after being laid off from a job at a Los Angeles entertainment publicity firm in  2009. The couple owes thousands in taxes for that withdrawal. They have no  health insurance.

She got the maximum 99 weeks’ of unemployment benefits then allowed in  California and then moved to Atlanta.

Now she is looking to receive federal disability benefits for a lung  condition that she said leaves her weak and unable to work a full day. The  application is pending a medical review.

“I feel like I have no choice,” says Marriott, 47. “It’s just really sad and  frightening”

During the peak of her job search, Marriott was filling out 10 applications a  day. She applied for jobs she felt overqualified for, such as those at Home  Depot and Petco but never heard back. Eventually, the disappointment and fatigue  got to her.

“I just wanted a job,” she says. “I couldn’t really go on anymore looking for  a job.”

Young people are leaving the job market, too. The participation rate for  Americans ages 20 to 24 hit a 41-year low 69.6 percent last year before bouncing  back a bit. Many young people have enrolled in community colleges and  universities. That’s one reason a record 63 percent of adults ages 25 to 29 have  spent at least some time in college, according to the Pew Research Center.

Older Americans are returning to school, too. Doug Damato, who lives in  Asheville, N.C., lost his job as an installer at a utility company in February  2012. He stopped looking for work last fall, when he began taking classes in  mechanical engineering at Asheville-Buncombe Technical Community College.

Next week, Damato, 40, will accept an academic award for earning top grades.  But one obstacle has emerged: Under a recent change in state law, his  unemployment benefits will now end July 1, six months earlier than he  expected.

He’s planning to work nights, if possible, to support himself once the  benefits run out. Dropping out of school is “out of the question,” he said,  given the time he has already put into the program.

“I don’t want a handout,” he says. “I’m trying to better myself.”

Many older Americans who lost their jobs are finding refuge in Social  Security’s disability program. Nearly 8.9 million Americans are receiving  disability checks, up 1.3 million from when the recession ended in June  2009.

Natasha Baebler’s journey out of the labor force and onto the disability  rolls began when she lost her job serving disabled students and staff members at  Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind., in February 2012.

For six months, she sought jobs in her field, brandishing master’s degrees in  social education and counseling. No luck.

Then she just started looking for anything. Still, she had no takers.

“I chose to stop and take a step back for a while … After you’ve seen that  amount of rejection,” she says, “you start thinking, ‘What’s going to make this  time any different?'”

Let’s just call it “Battered Worker Syndrome.”

How did Obama campaign against Mitt Romney?  Well, this rich turd demonized and slandered Mitt Romney as a rich turd who didn’t care about the poor.  Even though while Obama – just a couple years before deciding to run for president – gave virtually NOTHING to the poor or to charity, Mitt Romney was giving tens of millions of dollars to the poor.  Who was the real rich turd who didn’t care about the poor?

Look at the one-percenter vacation-vacation-vacation lifestyle of the Obamas since they got to live off the fat of everybody else.  And then consider that the Romenys never even had a damn MAID.

Republicans are generous people.  In fact they are FAR more generous than Democrats.  But rather than cynically exploiting the desperation of the poor to create wasteful federal bureaucracy after wasteful federal bureaucracy that pisses away other people’s money, Republicans believe that WE as individuals should give, whereas Democrats believe that they are generous because they’re willing to give away other people’s money.

Republicans don’t want tax cuts because they’re greedy or selfish; they want tax cuts because if they are allowed to control more of their own money, they will be able to build a better, bigger economy that will benefit EVERYONE.  They want tax cuts because it is better for both those who give to the needy as well as the needy who receive the gifts when private individuals and organizations control the charitable giving.

Margaret Thatcher put it brilliantly: Under the failed policies of the liberals, Britain had degenerated into “the new sick man of Europe.”  The economy was in shambles when Thatcher took over.  She turned the nation around.  But liberals couldn’t have cared less; what mattered to them was that the rich had become richer along with everyone else in the nation.   And as Margaret Thatcher put it, “Liberals prefer that the poor become poorer so long as the rich become less rich.”

You were lied to by a wicked man.  And on the other side of that coin is the fact that it is bad people who believe lies.  Which means YOU.

But Obama knows how to slander.  He knows how to demonize.  He knows how to fearmonger.  No one but the coming Antichrist will ever be better at it.  And Obama’s new Democrat Party will frame the next election this way: if you vote for Republicans, they’ll end the welfare state that you [thanks to Democrats] now depend on.

It takes courage and selfless integrity to vote outside of yourself and support the policies that will be best for THE COUNTRY and for the country’s longer-term prosperity.  Obama knows that you don’t have either one of those things.  He trusts in your cowardice and in your greed, and he knows how to exploit those pathetic traits that now dominate the American people’s national “character.”

What Obama promised would work we now know DIDN’T.  The average American household lost forty percent of its wealth thanks to Obama’s failed policies.  The median household lost $4,300 under Obama. But – like Hillary Clinton said over the treasonous debacle in Benghazi – “What difference does it make now?”  You know, now that thanks to liberalism you’re dependent on the tit of the federal government and if you can’t keep sucking other people’s money you’ll die because you’ve been reduced to being helpless?

Next presidential election, I believe that people will vote for their welfare check and to hell with the economy.  And I believe that because that’s pretty much what we did in 2008 and in 2012.

The Republican Party is the party of adults who have finally reached the place where they know what will make a business or a household economic plan work.  They are adults who have worked hard to earn something and believe that they  should be able to keep more of what they earn rather than giving it away to a class-warfare system of Marxist redistributionism [in exchange for votes].  And Obma knows that the American people have degenerated into children who want their mommy and daddy – or after mommy and daddy the federal government – to keep treating them like babies forever.

That’s why the worse things get economically, the better off the Democrat Party will be in 2016.

What Liberals ‘Helping’ The Poor REALLY Looks Like (Exactly Like A Slum).

Liberals – with the help of the most dishonest media since Joseph Goebbels’ Ministry of Propaganda in the good old Nazi days or Joseph Stalin’s TASS in Moscow’s heyday – have convinced most ignorant people (i.e., the majority of the American people) that they are the ones who care about the poor.

Bullcrap.

They’ll tell you that unless you believe in their socialism you’re not a real Christian.  Even as they demand that art that puts the cross of Christ in a jar of urine be publicly funded and even as they openly attack religion on virtually every level of culture.

Again, bullcrap.

Obama sure didn’t give a flying damn about the poor before he decided to break his promise and run for president after saying he wouldn’t.  Because prior to that, he didn’t give the poor butkus.  And as hard as it is to be more cynical and selfish and greedy than Barack and Michelle Obama, Joe Biden actually managed to pull it off.  Obama’s less than one percent charitable giving – you know, with his OWN money rather than forcing other people to “give” – looks pretty damn good compared to Joe Biden’s less than one-eighth of one percent.

How do Democrats get away with demonizing Republicans when there are ten demons in them?  It’s easy: they are as dishonest and as slanderous as they are hypocritical.  So Mitt Romney – who was actually incredibly generous with his own money – was slandered by the media propaganda as being greedy while Barack Obama who actually IS greedy was eulogized as somebody who care’s deeply about these people he didn’t give a penny to when it mattered.

That’s why it was so easy for the party of FDR, of JFK, for 2000 Democrat candidate Al Gore and for 2004 Democrat candidate John Kerry to demonize Mitt Romney because he was rich just like they all were.  When you combine the flagrant dishonesty of the Democrat Party and the flagrant propaganda of the leftwing elite media, you can get away with pretty much anything.

Michelle Malkin in her excellent book “Culture of Corruption” documented that Valerie Jarrett (Obama’s top adviser was a ruthless liberal slumlord in Chicago before she became a liberal saint in Washington.

That’s right.  A slumlord.

But the Chicago Way is all the rave now.  Which is why liberal psycho Major Bloomberg took the trick with him to New York:

How in NYC the Homeless Pay $3,000/Month to Live in Tenements
Posted on February 12, 2013

I read a lot of news every day.  It’s become my life and my passion.  Rarely do I come across a story of greed and corruption so absurd that I can’t believe my own eyes as they scroll the page.  This is one of those stories.

This takes the concept of slumlord to an entirely new level.  As New York City struggles to find shelter for its increasingly large homeless population, some landlords are paying off their rent-stabilized tenants in order to overcharge the city on rentals for the homeless.  In some cases, the rent ends up being as high as $3,000 a month for a tiny room without a kitchen or a bathroom.  Yep, you read that correctly.  So next time you wonder why you are paying so much money for your little box in the sky, you can thank America’s growing slumlord industry.  Prepare your jaw to remain open for the next couple of minutes.

From the New York Times:

The city’s Department of Homeless Services pays many times the amount the rooms would usually rent for — spending over $3,000 a month for each threadbare room without a bathroom or kitchen — because of an acute shortage in shelters for homeless men and women.

Indeed, the amount the city pays — roughly half that amount goes to the landlord, while the other half pays for security and social services for homeless tenants — has encouraged Mr. Lapes to switch business models and become a major private operator of homeless shelters. He is by most measures the city’s largest and owns or leases about 20 of the 231 shelters citywide. Most of the other shelters and residences are run by the city or by nonprofit agencies, but his operation is profit-making, prompting criticism from advocates for the homeless and elected officials.

The fact that these modest living spaces have such high rents opens a window on a peculiarity of the city’s overall homeless policy. That policy, which was put in place in response to court settlements in 1979 and 2008, requires the city, under threat of sizable fines, to find a roof immediately for every homeless person. It has given landlords willing to house the homeless leverage to dictate rental prices and other terms.

With the number of homeless people rising to 30-year record levels — over 47,216 people as of early this month, 20,000 of them children — the city has struggled to find landlords willing to accommodate a population that includes people with mental health and substance abuse problems.

Wait a minute. The number of homeless is at a 30 year high?  How could this be in the booming economic recovery we’ve got going?

Joyce Colon, a resident there who entered the homeless system in December, said she was shocked by the violence and prostitution in the building.

“For $3,000 I could have gotten an apartment, a down payment and a security deposit and some furniture,” Ms. Colon, 49, said. “The landlord is getting $3,000 and I’m getting nothing.”

Patrick Markee, a senior policy analyst for the Coalition for the Homeless, blamed the Bloomberg administration for the continuing use of private landlords to house the homeless, citing a policy not to give the homeless priority for public housing projects and Section 8 vouchers because of long waiting lists.

Of course Bloomberg has his little paws in this somehow.  Perhaps he should’ve thought about this instead of spending his time banning large sodas.

“The crisis that’s causing the city to open so many new shelters is mostly of the mayor’s own making,” he said. “Instead of moving families out of shelters and into permanent housing, as previous mayors did, the city is now paying millions to landlords with a checkered past of harassing low-income tenants and failing to address hazardous conditions.”

Welcome to the recovery.

Full article here.

In Liberty, Mike

Follow me on Twitter!

“We need to help those poor, poor people,” liberals say.

Because just like everybody else, the poor have way to much money for liberals to be happy unless they can steal it.

I’m a conservative, which means I don’t like slums.  And I sure don’t like the government creating them the way they’ve created Cabrini-Green and so many other thousands of hellholes.  Liberals love them and keep creating more and more and more of them and they get filthy rich doing it.  Because the more ignorant and the more oppressed and the more poverty-crushed and the more welfare-dependent and the more entitlement-demanding these desperate people are, the more they will vote for the people who are keeping them ignorant and oppressed and poor.

The fact of the matter is that conservatives are signficantly more generous with their own money and time than are liberals.

But the wolves have convinced the sheep that the sheepdogs are out to get them.  And now the sheepdogs are largely out of the wolves’ way.

P.S. Obama is nominating Penny Pritzker for Commerce Secretary – who happens to be the SAME Penny Pritzker who was at the EPICENTER of the sub-prime loan crisis that led to our housing collapse in 2008.  This same Chicago billionaire Penny Pritzker paid out a half million dollars in penalties (read “bribe money”) to the government to avoid being criminally charged like the common criminal Chicago thug she in fact is.  If I were a conspiracy theoriest, I would assume that Democrats literally intentionally created the 2008 collapse in order to take control of the government so they could REALLY destroy America from within the system.

P.P.S. Obama is a hypocrite who keeps showing the abject hypocrsiy of liberalism with his pick of Jack Lew to run the Treasury Department.  Remember how being rich and having investments in the Cayman Islands was really, really bad?  Well, that’s only true if the Cayman Island account holder happens to be a Republican; it’s FINE for Democrats.  But let’s also not forget that Jack Lew was actually heading up the unit at Citibank that was making huge profits betting that the Community Reinvestment Act-created housing bubble would colllapse and thus profiteering off of poor people.  And then there’s the fact that this turd accepted a nearly one million dollar “bonus” days before Citibank took BILLIONS in government bailout money.  Which is to say that Obama’s Treasury Secretary pick personally profitted from poor people being forced out of their homes into … slums.

I’ll leave it to the reader to decide whether Obama’s present pick for Treasury Secretary is better than the last one – who was a certified tax cheat being given the job to make sure that conservatives and Republicans paid “their fair share” of the taxes HE didn’t pay.

United Nation’s Global Tax, Amazing Liberal Hypocrisy And The Frightening Reality Of How Truly DANGEROUS Obama’s Policies Are To America’s Poor

Ask your liberal friends to finish this sentence: “If the rich get richer, the poor get ______.”

Betcha a dollar your liberal will reflexively say, “poorer.”

The problem is that that is simply not true.  Unless an economy is a fixed sized pie such that if you get more of the pie, I by definition get less.  And as I shall try to explain, that is NOT the way a free market economy works.

The reality that liberals are too morally stupid to understand is that if I start a business, I start making my OWN pie.  By starting a business and becoming successful, I’m not stealing from anyone and I’m not exploiting anybody; rather, in direct opposition to what Barack Obama and Elizabeth Warren – the brains behind Obama’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to go along with a genuine fake American Indian (read, “fake oppressed minority = fake victim”) believe – I AM BUILDING SOMETHING if I create a business.  And no, you liberal dumbass, I am NOT stealing from somebody else; I am building something where there had been nothing before.  I am putting a positive attitude that you have never had and will never understand into action and I am starting something.

That’s right. I said the “A” word, liberals.  I said ATTITUDE:

“The longer I live, the more I realize the impact of attitude on life. Attitude, to me, is more important than facts. It is more important than the past, the education, the money, than circumstances, than failure, than successes, than what other people think or say or do. It is more important than appearance, giftedness or skill. It will make or break a company… a church… a home. The remarkable thing is we have a choice everyday regarding the attitude we will embrace for that day. We cannot change our past… we cannot change the fact that people will act in a certain way. We cannot change the inevitable. The only thing we can do is play on the one string we have, and that is our attitude. I am convinced that life is 10% what happens to me and 90% of how I react to it. And so it is with you… we are in charge of our Attitudes.”  — Charles R. Swindoll

That 10% versus 90% is particularly relevant with Obama, who has the tiny little insect testicles to say he’s ninety damn percent not to blame for his insane and frankly demonic government spending.  When like everything else the man thinks he’s completely back assward.

That’s right, liberal.  Nobody’s taken anything from you; nobody’s oppressed you; and the only reason that you’re a victim is because you have spent your life victimizing YOURSELF and allowing your messiah Obama and liberals like him to talk you into being a weak, useless human being.  If you have the kind of positive attitude that Swindoll is describing, nothing is going to hold you down or hold you back – and the LAST thing you’re ever going to do is start whining like a liberal victim who is pathetic and cannot do anything unless government does it for you.

Here’s the thing: I’d love it if somebody asked Obama to complete that sentence I began with: If the become richer, the poor become ______.  And after the Marxist said “poorer,” I’d ask him what he thinks Americans should do given the fact THAT AMERICANS HAVE ABOUT THE WEALTHIEST DAMN LIFESTYLE ON THE PLANET.  I would demand that Obama explain on his view why Americans should redistribute trillions of dollars of American gross domestic product so that the desperately poor people in Africa and China and India and the Middle East and pretty much all over the damn planet could have more.

Here’s the thing. “If the rich get richer, the poor get poorer” the way liberals will invariably say, then what about the question, “If America gets richer, the rest of the world gets ______”???  How would the answer not be the same???  If America gets richer, then by liberal doctrine the rest of the world – particularly the poorest regions of the world – must necessarily get poorer.

Go to the Congo, where the GDP per capital is just $348.  That means the average person is forced to live (“subsist” is probably more fitting) on the currency equivalent of just 348 dollars per year.  That’s 29 bucks a month total.  That’s living the good life on 95 cents a day.  These people have NOTHING.  They don’t have houses; they have tiny little shacks that they build from whatever they can find; they don’t have air conditioning or refrigerators or laundry machines or for that matter electricity or plumbing.  Their kids don’t have disposable diapers.  Because they’ve never tried the free market economics or limited government you liberals despise, they’ve got squat diddly butkus and they’ll never have anything BUT squat diddly butkus.  And so hey, liberal poor person, unless you’ve never had more than $348 of welfare benefits or permanent unemployment benefits or allowance from daddy or however the hell you get your money and benefits in the course of a year, YOU DAMN WELL OWE THAT TRULY POOR SONOFABITCH IN THE CONGO.   And by your own rhetoric if you don’t send pretty much everything you get to the Congo, to Liberia, etc. etc. etc., then you are a greedy one percenter and shame on you.  You owe those poor people every single SCINTILLA as much as the rich guy in America owes YOU.  And what you know if you’ve ever had an honest moment in your entire life is that you keep demanding somebody ELSE give to YOU but YOU’VE never given people who’d rejoice on a tiny fraction of what you’ve got SQUAT.

I’m talking to you, resident of Detroit’s poorest neighborhood.  Because if you aint nearly starved to death you’ve got it FAR better than most of the population of the planet have it.  And it’s damn time you quit reaching your hand out and being a liberal TAKER and instead putting it in your wallet and becoming a liberal GIVER.

I’m talking to you, you damn liberal socialist hypocrites.  All you know how to do is justify redistribution when it applies to YOU or, in the case of liberal politicians, when it applies to your constituency as you pimp somebody else’s money in exchange for your damn votes so you can live like a fat cat like Charlie Rangel.

So a truly consistent liberal must therefore need to require America to lose wealth so the rest of the world can get richer instead.

So what’s Obama’s answer to the United Nations imposing a global tax?  Is Obama going to say he’s against the people of the Congo getting richer?  Then how DARE he allow America to produce more wealth?!?!?  What’s YOUR answer for why YOU shouldn’t have to pay right out of your ass because if you live in America, then compared to the majority of people on earth, you are a greedy one percenter compared to them???

The UN says America should pay a tax:

Global Taxes Are Back, Watch Your Wallet

Like a bad sequel to a rotten horror movie, the debate over global taxation once again is rearing its ugly head — courtesy of the United Nations. And, despite lacking the requisite hockey mask and chain saw, the seemingly countless proposals for the imposition of global taxes are truly terrifying.

In July, Inter Presse news service reported that a top U.N. official was preparing a new study that will outline numerous global tax proposals to be considered by the General Assembly at its September meeting. The proposals will likely include everything from global taxes on e-mails and Internet use to a global gas tax and levies on airline travel. If adopted, American taxpayers could wind up paying hundreds of billions of dollars each year to the United Nations.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan is among those leading the charge, having stated that he “strongly supports finding new sources of funding” for the U.N. through global taxes, according to Inter Presse. In fact, Annan made very clear his support for the imposition of global taxes in a 2001 Technical Note that he authored for a U.N. conference. “The need to finance the provision of global public goods in an increasingly globalized world also adds new urgency to the need for innovative new sources of financing,” Annan wrote. The Note goes on to describe and evaluate the merits of several global tax proposals.

Global tax proposals are not new. Various plans have been flitting around in academic circles and liberal and socialist think-tanks for decades. And while the United States and other developed nations have staved off such proposals in the past, third world nations have increasingly dominated the U.N. General Assembly by sheer numbers since 1970. As a result, they have begun to see promise in their quest to take and keep for themselves the wealth of citizens from nations like the United States — specifically using the term “redistribution.” Recent U.N. actions have also provided a new excuse and set the stage for the third world to not only renew its pursuit of global taxes but also hold out hope for eventual success.

What do the poor liberal whiners in America have?  They not only have television sets (plural); they have CABLE television.  They’ve got refrigerators.  They’ve got air conditioning.  They’ve got cell phones.  They’ve got computers and video games.  They have got stuff coming out of their EARS compared to the poor in most of the rest of the world.

A lot of conservatives hate using the good word “liberalism” to describe liberals.  That’s because classical liberalism is actually a refutation of everything your progressive “liberal” Democrat stands for:

Classical liberalism is a political ideology, a branch of liberalism which advocates individual liberties and limited government under the rule of law and emphasizes economic freedom.

That aint modern liberalism, boys and girls; that’s MODERN CONSERVATIVISM.  And the more you explain what classical liberalism is, the more modern liberal progressives are disqualified from it.

So if modern liberals aren’t really “liberals” at all, then what are they?  They are a bunch of self-centered, greedy, narcissistic little whiners who harbor the basic worldview, “Everybody owes me something and forced redistribution is wonderful as long as its somebody else’s money that’s getting redistributed.”  That’s what they are.  They are people who have perverted the teachings of Christ and warped American history and the Constitution and system of government our founding fathers gave us to mandate socialism.  Unless you can find where Jesus taught, “Rendering to Caesar IS rendering unto God.”  Unless you can find where Jesus taught that a giant socialist government (or ANY kind of government for that matter) should forcibly seize and redistribute people’s property based on naked demagoguery and cynical political partisanship.

Hey, tell you what: just show me where Jesus taught, “If you earn less than $200,000 a year, you don’t have to give ANYTHING to the less fortunate; you get to use the raw power of government to take stuff from others so you can vote to redistribute it to yourselves.”

No, that’s not in the teachings of Jesus and it’s not in the writings of the founding fathers who forged a republic for Americans based on the principles of liberty and freedom.

Instead you pervert the wisdom of Jesus and of the American founding fathers and distort them to falsely claim that they taught the doctrine of your REAL ideological master:

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” – Karl Marx

If you want to know where modern liberalism comes from, THAT’S WHERE IT COMES FROM.

Jesus never absolves the poor from giving; to the contrary, HE calls for the poor to give:

Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents.  Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others.  They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.” — Mark 12:41-44

So you aren’t off the hook any more than that rich guy you feel so self-righteous to hate and demonize and demagogue, poor liberal.

You, who judge and condemn the rich and demand the state confiscate more and ever more of what they work to earn, another teaching of Jesus applies to YOU:

“For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” — Matthew 7:2

It’s time you lived up to your own damn hypocritical rhetoric and slogans, you liberals (and especially you POOR liberals).

But don’t you worry, you pathological hypocrites who would never DREAM of paying taxes yourselves that you want everybody else to pay for YOU, if Obama gets reelected, HE’LL FORCE YOU TO REDISTRIBUTE YOUR WEALTH THE SAME WAY YOU WANTED HIM TO FORCE RICH PEOPLE TO REDISTRIBUTE THEIRS.

If the so-called “rich” don’t deserve their money because they’ve got more than you do, poor, stupid liberal; what the hell makes you think that YOU deserve YOUR money given that you’ve got a damn sight more than most of the world’s poor?

Somebody ought to take all your stuff away that the poor people in the Congo don’t have, have never had, and probably never WILL have (because the poorest countries are usually also the most socialistic countries and their failed economic system guarantees the constant destruction of wealth as corrupt government officials keep “redistributing” a shrinking economy into their own pockets).  Because that’s “economic justice” by your own rhetoric.

And Obama’s just the man to do it.  Because that’s the way he thinks; it’s the “Dream From His Father.”  And Obama literally “became” an American in order to chop America down to the size he believed as a “citizen of the world” that it ought to be.

And Obama has done an incredible job advancing that vision of America.

He’s the man whose entire history is that of anti-colonialism and hating the West for its prosperity when the have-nots of the planet have naught.

If we taxed the wealth of those who earned more than $250,000 a year at 100% – literally confiscated their wealth and left them with nothing – we would ruin those people and still only get 38% of what we needed to close Obama’s massive budget deficit.  We’d have to tax them at the logically impossible rate of 134%, which means we would seize everything they owned and them demand that they pay MORE than everything they owned.  And with the rich people ruined, where would Obama go to collect the other 62%?  We’d have to then have ANOTHER group of people to demonize and confiscate from, wouldn’t we???

You can’t win with what the left is saying.  What they claim is guaranteed destruction and it is only bought by bad people who are selfish and greedy hypocrites who demand that somebody else should be forced to take responsibility for their failed lives.

As I pointed out earlier, liberals often use an incredibly flawed perversion of the Bible to try to justify their flawed Marxist economic system.  But when you understand what the Bible has to say about taxation, you realize that the left pretty much takes everything the Bible actually says and turns it completely upside down.

The truth is this: Wealth is not a fixed-sized pie.  The left is wrong; human creativity and ingenuity is such that people can always come along with new ideas that make them rich and create jobs for other people and improve the lives of other people who use their product or service.  They won’t be getting rich at somebody else’s expense; they’ll be building a pie where no pie existed before and that pie will make the overall pie of an economy larger.  If the rich get richer, other people can learn from that rich person’s example and be encouraged by it and also get richer.  The left is simply flat-out wrong.

Why The Logic Of Obama’s And Democrat Party’s Class Warfare Ultimately Leads To Gulags For The Poor

What is it that Democrats always say?  Republicans are greedy and evil because they don’t believe that the rich shouldn’t pay more than 70% of their income in city, state and federal taxes (and the myriad of taxes the government takes out of damn near everything).  Take a look at the taxes – and the percentage of taxes relative to income – that the average U.S. citizen pays.  A middle-class taxpayer will pay nearly half of his or her income in taxes to the government.  Here’s a partial list of taxes:

• Accounts Receivable Tax
• Building Permit Tax
• Capital Gains Tax
• CDL license Tax
• Cigarette Tax
• Corporate Income Tax
• Court Fines (indirect taxes)
• Deficit spending
• Dog License Tax
• Federal Income Tax
• Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
• Fishing License Tax
• Food License Tax
• Fuel permit tax
• Gasoline Tax
• Hunting License Tax
• Inflation
• Inheritance Tax Interest expense (tax on the money)
• Inventory tax IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
• IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
• Liquor Tax
• Local Income Tax
• Luxury Taxes
• Marriage License Tax
• Medicare Tax
• Property Tax
• Real Estate Tax
• Septic Permit Tax
• Service Charge Taxes
• Social Security Tax
• Road Usage Taxes (Truckers)
• Sales Taxes
• Recreational Vehicle Tax
• Road Toll Booth Taxes
• School Tax
• State Income Tax
• State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
• Telephone federal excise tax
• Telephone federal universal service fee tax
• Telephone federal, state and local surcharge taxes
• Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax
• Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax
• Telephone state and local tax
• Telephone usage charge tax
• Toll Bridge Taxes
• Toll Tunnel Taxes
• Traffic Fines (indirect taxation)
• Trailer Registration Tax
• Utility Taxes
• Vehicle License Registration Tax
• Vehicle Sales Tax
• Watercraft Registration Tax
• Well Permit Tax
• Workers Compensation Tax

But that isn’t enough for Democrats, and them damned rich people who don’t pay enough:

• Taxes paid by highest incomes
• The top 1% [of income-earners] pay 22.7% of taxes.
• The top 10% pay 50% of taxes.
• The top 20% pay 65.3% of taxes
• The top 40% pay 84.3% of taxes.
• Taxes paid by lowest incomes
• The bottom 20% [of income-earners] pay 1.1% of taxes.
• The bottom 40% pay 6.1% of taxes.

I’ve heard conservatives (and way too few journalists) ask liberals and Democrats the following question: how much more should the rich pay in taxes?  At what percentage of their wealth have they “paid enough”?  And I’ve never yet heard the left give an honest answer to that question; because the quintessential essence of the left is abject deceit and abject hypocrisy.

Democrats are the party of lies and Marxist class warfare.  They are the party that says that tries to stir up envy and hate with lies, such as the lie that the rich pay less in taxes than their secretaries.  It doesn’t matter if the claim is a lie to Democrats, because that would mean they valued honesty and integrity and they DON’T; rather, all that matters to them is that fifty percent of the voters plus one believe their lies.

Democrats are pandering liars who say, “I’m going to give you free stuff and I’m going to make that greedy bastard over there pay for it.”

That’s the essence of the left.  And the essence of the left has run into the problem of “reality” every single time it has ever been tried.

Let me put it this way: let’s take the Democrats’ position on higher taxes to help the poor. On the Democrats’ logic, couldn’t we do more for these poor people if we just taxed a little more? And couldn’t we do even MORE if we just taxed a little more than that? And what if we taxed even MORE?  Wouldn’t that help the poor more?  Democrats demonize the rich (like the good Marxists they are) and say we can have more money to help the poor if we just taxed the rich more; but the obvious fact given their own logic is that we could have a LOT more money if the government just took everything from everybody to give to the poor, right?

FACT: A study by the Joint Tax Committee, using the same static methodology that I refer to in my opening paragraph, calculate that the government will “lose” – again, because Democrats are communists and literally believe that they own EVERYTHING the people earn, such that such that the government “loses” money if it doesn’t tax people more – $700 billion in revenue if the tax cuts for the top income brackets are extended. And that sounds bad, doesn’t it? But they also conclude in that same study that the Bush tax cuts on the middle class will cost the Treasury $3 TRILLION over the same period. If we can’t afford to “give” the rich$700 billion, then how on earth can we afford to “give” the middle class” $3 damn TRILLION? And then you’ve got to ask how much the Treasury is losing by not taxing the poor first into the poorhouse, and then into the street? And how much more revenue could we collect if we then imposed a “street” tax?

And there’s the rub.

That’s exactly the way the old Soviet Union worked, for the record; if you DIDN’T work you were defined by the State as a shirker and then you went to the gulags to be a slave laborer until the system ground you into dirt:

In capitalist economies, firms pay higher wages to motivate workers who fear unemployment. In Soviet Russia, Stalin used the Gulag to discipline workers. The economic rationale of the ‘efficiency wage’ model helps explain the cruel brutality of Stalin’s prison camps. Marcus Miller and Jennifer Smith have a summary of their research looking at the economics of the Gulag at VoxEU.org. The research itself is available as CEPR Discussion Paper 6621: Punishment Without Crime? Prison as a Worker-Discipline Device.

In the 1930s Stalin faced a problem, If the labour discipline needed for creating a Socialist Utopia was not to be the threat of unemployment – as in the West – what else could it be? His answer, the Gulag.

Estimates by Miller and Smith imply that about half of one percent of the civilian labour force was incarcerated each year, and around one fifth of existing prisoners released (or died in custody). These flows average just under 400,000 per year. Under Stalin’s rule the implied equilibrium for the size of the Gulags was about 2 million persons, i.e. almost three percent of the working population in labour camps.

It has been argued that work incentives in capitalist countries are preserved because those caught shirking face the threat of unemployment and loss of income. The ‘No Shirking Condition’ for wages constitutes the effective labour supply curve for the economy.

It’s not just being fired or losing money that hard workers word hard, of course; there’s a very positive side to hard work in a capitalist system: you get rewarded for it.  You earn more money in a free market.  But if the State steps in the way the State STOMPS in in any leftist political system, the incentive is “progressively” taken away.

There is a reason that the more a society embraces the policies of the left, the more “gulags” and slave labor you ultimately have.

You need to understand something about history: the Marxists who took over Russia and “fundamentally transformed it” into the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were just like Obama and the Democrats when they took over. They promised the damn world with their “hope and change” Utopia. About the only thing you can say in comparison to the Marxist Soviets is that they weren’t as grandiose in their promises as Obama was; because at least the Soviets never promised they would lower the level of the oceans and heal the damn planet like Obama did. But the rubber met the road, and once the Soviets got their power with their promises of “hope and change” for everybody that the “rich” would pay for and those promises failed, well, things started getting increasingly nasty.

Why did this happen? You need to understand something about economics: if you take away the incentive to work harder and longer and more expertly and intelligently by taking away the reward for working harder, for working longer hours, for risking more, for saving more, for investing more, then the incentive to work invariably diminishes. It is a necessary result of the class warfare that the communists played in Russia and that the Democrats are playing now. And so as measured by participation in the labor force, fewer people are working under Obama than ever.  With more people on food stamps and more people on disability than we’ve ever seen.  And as fewer and fewer people work, and the rich are demonized and taxed more and then demonized and taxed some more after that, you will necessarily get exactly what we are seeing: fewer people working, fewer people paying taxes, more people on welfare and disability. That’s when you get to the “dark side” of what Michelle Obama predicted: “Barack Obama will require you to work… Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.” And Arbeit Macht Frei.

The more a government taxes income, the less incentive there is for workers to seek more income as their marginal tax rates become more and more punitive.  It particularly becomes an issue for investors, for instance – because every time they invest they risk their entire principal.  As capital gains taxes increase, as Obama wants, they can still lose everything if their investment choice goes south, but are allowed to keep less and less if their investment makes a profit.  Punishing investment is counterproductive; if you tax something, you get less of it.  Why would anybody actually want less investment?  For a small business, they not only risk all of the money they invest in their business should that business fail, but they also find themselves having to work longer and longer hours to generate a profit for themselves.  The pressure to shut down becomes increasingly insurmountable.  And if you’ve got a president literally saying, “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that.  Somebody else made it happen,” you should understand that you’re going to end up with fewer people willing to start businesses.

Obama heralded something that the human race had never seen: a trillion dollar annual budget deficit. Not only was Obama the first president or leader to ever do that in human history, but he’s pulled off this insane feat every single year of his presidency. One year – just one year – the reckless Marxist racked up a staggering $1.6 trillion budget deficit making his bullcrap promises. If you vote for Obama, you are voting for insane spending and staggering debt and for the collapse of America.  You simply are.  The day is going to come when Democrats get the power they want, and they will take over to become “the State” just as leftists have taken over every government they have ever truly dominated. And then will ultimately come the gulags. There will just be no other way out, just as there was no other way out for the Russian communists.

The communists didn’t promise gulags for workers when they promised their way into power; the gulags came because their policies were immoral and ultimately suicidal and murderous.

We’re watching the European “socialist lite” system collapse before our very eyes, but even as that system is teetering on the verge of bankruptcy and chaos Democrats are demanding that we too go the same way of the same Dodo  bird.

The far left in America have been dreaming of this day.  Bankruptcy, implosion, collapse and chaos are not things they fear, but rather things that they have actively hoped for and even planned to cause:

The Cloward And Piven Presidency

Contemplate the words spoken by a man who was one of the very top people at the SEIU union that President Obama has most powerfully identified himself with:

We need to figure out in a much more through direct action more concrete way how we are really trying to disrupt and create uncertainty for capital for how corporations operate.

The thing about a boom and bust economy is it is actually incredibly fragile.

There are actually extraordinary things we could do right now to start to destabilize the folks that are in power and start to rebuild a movement.

For example, 10% of homeowners are underwater right their home they are paying more for it then its worth 10% of those people are in strategic default, meaning they are refusing to pay but they are staying in their home that’s totally spontaneous they figured out it takes a year to kick me out of my home because foreclosure is backed up.

If you could double that number you would you could put banks at the edge of insolvency again.

Students have a trillion dollar debt

We have an entire economy that is built on debt and banks so the question would be what would happen if we organized homeowners in mass to do a mortgage strike if we get half a million people to agree it would literally cause a new financial crisis for the banks not for us we would be doing quite well we wouldn’t be paying anything.

“We wouldn’t be paying anything.”  Because you wouldn’t have any damn thing LEFT to pay anything.  Whatever money you had would be utterly worthless paper.

That should scare the holy crap out of you.  There is an agenda coming out of the very top of the left that is quite simply evil.

Please read that to understand the nature of the left and therefore the nature of the Obama regime.  These people are INTENTIONALLY trying to implode the United States of America because they believe that through collapse they will be able to step in and use the ensuing panic and fear to get the people to turn to the government for help.  And the moment that happens the socialists will seize totalitarian power just as they did in Soviet Russia, in Maoist China, in Nazi Germany (“Nazi” stood for “National SOCIALIST German WORKERS Party“), etc. etc. etc.  It is simply what they do.  They’ve done in over and over again and they very much want to do it here.

Democrats’ War On Poverty Has Been A War On America That Has Done NOTHING To Help The Poor

One of my favorite programs is the Wall Street Journal’s “Journal Editorial Report” which appears on Fox News.  This segment helps you understand why:

When we come back, Paul Ryan takes on the religious left after 90 Georgetown professors attack his budget proposal as going against Catholic social teaching. Would Jesus Christ really have favored big government?
 
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
 
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. PAUL RYAN, R-WISC., CHAIRMAN, HOUSE BUDGET COMMITTEE: Since we meet here today at America’s first Catholic university, I feel it is important to discuss how, as a Catholic in public life, my own personal thinking on these issues has been guided by my understanding of the church’s social teaching. Simply put, I don’t believe the preferential option for the poor means a preferential option for big government.

 (END VIDEO CLIP)
 
GIGOT: That was the House budget committee chairman, Paul Ryan, last week delivering an address at Georgetown University. The Wisconsin Republican has come under fire from some Catholics on the left who claimed the blue print goes against the church’s social teaching. Ninety Georgetown faculty and administrators sent a letter to Ryan in advance of the appearance that read, in part, “We would be remiss in our duty to you and our students if we did not challenge your continuing misuse of Catholic teaching to defend a budget that decimates food programs for struggling families, radically weakens protections for the elderly and sick, and gives more tax breaks to the wealthiest few.”
 
Joining the panel this week, Wall Street Journal columnist and deputy editor, Dan Henninger, and columnist, Mary Anastasia O’Grady.
 
Dan, we’ll put it on the table, we are all Catholics here, grew up with Catholic social teaching.
 
DAN HENNINGER, COLUMNIST & DEPUTY EDITOR: Right.
 
GIGOT: To my mind, the news is not so much Jesuits or Georgetown faculty by conservatives. That is an old story. The news is that Ryan is willing to mix it up in return. Why is the debate important?
 
HENNINGER: The debate is important for — I tell you, Paul, it is important for reasons that both Ryan’s critics and Paul Ryan cite, both that letter and his talk said the same thing. One in six Americans are in poverty. Now, the Great Society started in 1965, creating programs to address poverty.
 
GIGOT: Lyndon Johnson.
 
HENNINGER: Lyndon Johnson.
 
GIGOT: Expansion of government.
 
HENNINGER: 50 years later, one in six Americans are in poverty? After spending trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars. Now Ryan is saying, first, we need accountability over why that has happened. Second, the three main programs — two main programs were created then, Medicare and Medicaid, adding in Social Security, the three major entitlements, the costs are so large that they drain money away from other programs for the poor.
 
GIGOT: Right.
 
HENNINGER: And Paul Ryan is saying we have to look at this and start making some decisions about where that is going. And that’s what he’s asking his critics to come and talk to him about.
 
GIGOT: This is what the late Senator, a Democrat, and a Catholic, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, used to make the case to me that — he said, Democrats should reform entitlements for seniors and Medicare and Social Security because, as Dan said, they are growing a huge wedge in the federal government. They will soak up, if trends continue, almost all the spending there is, the money there is, and there would be no money left for child care, for example, or education, or transportation, much less defense — good liberal purposes.
 
MARY ANASTASIA O’GRADY: But, Paul, why are you talking about facts?
 
(LAUGHTER)
 
Facts are not what the left has used to grow the government to what it is right now.
 
GIGOT: That’s one my big flaws.
 
(LAUGHTER)
 
O’GRADY: Really, you have to stop that.
 
Paul Ryan is freaking these guys out because he is taking their language and using it against them. He talks about how government dissolves the common good of society, how it dishonors the dignity of the human person. They think they own that language. And they think that language justifies big government. And he is saying, no, what you have done with this big government has actually undermined the things that Catholic teaching is supposed to be about. And that is why they are upset about it. If Paul Ryan, God forbid, gets the morale high ground, which they think they own, they will have to go back to the facts. And the facts will not support their position.
 
GIGOT: Important point, a lot of Republicans and conservatives tend to shrink, at least in my experience, from moral arguments. Look at my failing here, brining — talking practical points in fact.
 
(LAUGHTER)
 
But if — so you leave them a monopoly on the moral rhetoric, which is very power of in politics, on the left. Ryan is saying, I will meet you on that same battlefield.
 
HENNINGER: Well, he has created a phrase, which is the immorality of debt. And, in fact, Pope Benedict himself apparently said that if you live with debt that begins do impede the government’s ability to provide basic services, then you are living in untrue — Benedict is obviously talking about Europe.
 
GIGOT: Right.

HENNINGER: And Europe has had a tremendous commitment to social justice and social programs, and now we see Europe as a case study in struggling with trying to pay for commitments that simply they can no longer afford. And that is the issue that Paul Ryan is trying to raise. And he now is putting it in moral terms. And there is a moral issue there. And I think he deserve a good-faith answer.
 
GIGOT: If you look at Europe, one thing that we can see is when you have a debt crisis, and you finally have to do something about it, who suffers the most and first? It isn’t the Georgetown faculty. 

(LAUGHTER)
 
It is the poor, who have their budgets and spending cut?

This is precisely the kind of moral argument that I have been advocating for on this blog.  Here’s an example:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you could see by examining the links, I took part of that argument from a previous article titled, “Obama’s Government As God Believes It Owns Everything The People Earn.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A lot of Americans like Social Security.  But they wouldn’t if they knew the facts about it the massive debt it has compiled and the alternatives to it – proposed by Democrats, for that matter – that would have been demonstrated to have been FAR better.

Obama’s policies have sent real inflation (things like food and gasoline) skyrocketing.  And who does that hurt more: the rich or the poor???  Let me assure you that it’s not rich people who are being forced to choose between putting gas in their cars so they can make it to work or buying food for their families.

Obama and his Democrat lackeys rammed minimum wage hikes through.  Conservatives said it would severely hurt teen employment.  And the documented reality is that it has massively hurt young workers EXACTLY AS CONSERVATIVES PREDICTED.

It is no surprise that the economy is in the worst condition since the LAST TIME we let a socialist run it.

Just as it is absolutely no surprise that poverty is the highest it has been in at least 52 years – and frankly in HISTORY – under this failed president whose only ability is the ability to lie and slander and demagogue.

Rising Cost Of Obama Liberalism Spiking The Price Of Your Easter Dinner

Meat is becoming a luxury item at the food banks under Obama’s “hope and change.”  From the AP:

Ham prices high heading into Easter holiday
JOSH FUNK AP Business Writer Published: April 4, 2012 7:49PM

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — Ham will be the centerpiece of many Easter dinners this weekend, but the cost of that traditional main dish may make it harder for families to live high on the hog.

Ham prices have been higher than usual for the past two years because the cost of hog feed has gone up, and some major pork producers are spending millions to convert barns as they phase out cramped cages used to confine pregnant sows.

Ham has been selling wholesale for 75 to 80 cents per pound this spring, which is in line with last year’s prices but well above the 55 cents per pound average for the previous five years.

A recent check at one Omaha-area supermarket found boneless Hormel hams selling for about $2.20 per pound, with bone-in hams slightly cheaper. With sales offered this week to attract Easter shoppers, it was possible to get a bone-in ham for as little as $1.28 per pound.

Paula Vejvoda of Omaha said she’s had her Easter ham in the freezer since Christmas, when she bought it on sale so she could economically feed her two daughters, two exchange students and husband.

“You really have to watch the ads and see who has the best price,” Vejvoda said.

That’s good advice for families, but hard to do when you’re trying to provide ham for hundreds of people at a food pantry.

Joyce Lonergan, food pantry director at St. Anthony’s Shrine in downtown Boston, said she tries to arrange to have a special meal at each holiday to help boost people’s spirits, but the prospect seemed daunting when the pantry began shopping for hams back in January. They were selling for $2.30 per pound, not the 99 cents per pound paid last year.

With added donations and some breaks from suppliers, St. Anthony’s was able to secure ham steaks and chickens for the holiday meal.

“We’ve made it work only because people have been so generous,” Lonergan said.

Livestock economist Shane Ellis said the price of ham isn’t likely to drop soon because pork producers’ costs aren’t decreasing. Feed, which is mainly corn, is running about $6 a bushel — not far from the record $7.99 per bushel set last June.

Pork producers also are switching from gestation crates to more open pens amid public pressure from consumers and animal welfare advocates who believe the smaller cages are cruel. One major producer, Smithfield Foods, recently said it expects to spend nearly $300 million by 2017 to convert its barns.

The switch also requires more labor to manage the sows because they tend to fight. Some of those costs are likely to be passed on to consumers.

Americans consume about 51 pounds of pork a year on average, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

While ham is a traditional element of many Easter meals, Ellis said prices typically peak in June, near the height of the grilling season when demand is highest. The low point is usually at the end of the calendar year because that’s when large numbers of hogs reach the market.

Many organizations, like the Food Bank for the Heartland, don’t even attempt to deliver a special holiday meal to the people they help because their goal is to offer the most nutritious food at the lowest possible price.

Donations from business and individuals have been down over the past two years, making it harder to keep up with the need in the 93 counties in eastern Nebraska and western Iowa that the food bank serves, spokesman Brian Barks said.

Most food pantries, shelters and other programs receiving food from the Omaha food bank this Easter will receive staples like pasta, peanut butter or canned chicken. The food bank recently received 4,200 3-pound hams from the USDA, but Barks said those were gone within a couple of weeks.

“Meat has almost become a luxury item at the food bank,” he said.

That 55 cent wholesale price average (under Bush) to Obama’s new 80 cent price amounts to a 45.45 percent increase.  And the food pantries that are seeing their prices spike from 99 cents last year to $2.30 this year?  That’s a  132.32 percent increase in the price of food for poor people.  Which amounts to a “Happy Easter Hope and Change” from your false messiah.

And why can you point a finger at liberals?  There were two reasons given for the price spike – and both are DIRECTLY the fault of the left.

The first was the price of feed.  Why is feed so sky-high?  Because Obama and his liberal swine (a fitting term when talking about ham being so out-of-control due to liberals) have doubled-down and then tripled-down on ethanol subsidies – which have artificially and massively increased corn prices as we are literally burning our food to replace the hated oil which is far cheaper without massive subsidies.

The second reason – and what do you know, this is also right out of the liberal playbook – is the huge costs and labor associated with keeping liberals from demonizing hog farmers for their “inhumane conditions” (reality alert: pigs aren’t considered humans except when they vote “Democrat”).  It sure aint right-wing Rush Limbaugh conservatives throwing paint at women who wear fur.

So, just to make sure I’m clearly stating my point: this is ENTIRELY DUE TO THE LEFT.

Along with fuel (which rose from $1.85 to $3.94 under Obama’s watch for a massive 114 percent increase) and out-of-control rent prices (people can’t buy homes after Obama’s failed policies and then add in gigantic food inflation, the result is huge competition for rentals), and you have a shocking regressive tax on the poor whom Obama is always falsely saying he’s helping.

Inflation Back On The Table As Part Of Obama’s ‘Hope and Change’ Misery Buffet

Obama loves the poor: that’s why he’s created so damn many of them.

In the God damn America of Barack Obama, the poor people that Obama promised his policies would save are (of course) unable to buy a house while watching their rents skyrocket.

They could live in their cars, but damn it’s too expensive for them to pay the regressive tax of Obama’s gas prices.

Of course, it used to be that you could always at least find a minimum wage job to help make ends meet – but Obama in his abundant compassion kept milions from that kind of drear and drudgery.

The thing is, Michelle Obama would never say, “Let them eat cake” and is frankly offended that cake is being wasted on the proletariet who clearly don’t deserve cake until November when it’s time to vote again.

There is a shocking increase in food prices:

As is often the case, there is a big difference between what the government statistics are reporting and what’s going on in the real world. According to the most recent inflation reading published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), consumer prices grew at an annual rate of just 1.1% in August.

The government has an incentive to distort CPI numbers, for reasons such as keeping the cost-of-living adjustment for Social Security payments low. While there’s no question that you may be able to get a good deal on a new car or a flat-screen TV today, how often are you really buying these things? When you look at the real costs of everyday life, prices have risen sharply over the last year. For simplicity’s sake, consider the cash market prices on some basic commodities.

On average, our basic food costs have increased by an incredible 48% over the last year (measured by wheat, corn, oats, and canola prices). From the price at the pump to heating your stove, energy costs are up 23% on average (heating oil, gasoline, natural gas). A little protein at dinner is now 39% higher (beef and pork), and your morning cup of coffee with a little sugar has risen by 36% since last October.

Good thing Obama can use the same math to calculate inflation that he’s using to calculate his uemployment rate.  That way he and his media propaganda can keep assuring us that things are going just swell.

Mitt Romney sums up Obamanomics thus:

“Today, we have a different set of ailments. Instead of unemployment coupled with inflation, we have a toxic blend of unemployment, debt, home foreclosures, and bankruptcies,” he says. “Their sum total is what we can call the Obama Misery Index. It is at a record high. Indeed, it makes even the malaise of the Carter years look like a boom.”

Since a picture is worth a thousand words, I sum up Obamanomics this way:

I hope none of this is giving anybody a headache.  Because ObamaCare is all about dumping millions of patients into Medicaid – and doctors are fleeing Medicaid the way rats flee sinking ships.  And lifesaving drugs are becoming as scarce thanks to the brave new world of ObamaCare as bread was on the shelves of the former Soviet Union.

Greedy Hypocrite Liberals Are Fine With Raising Taxes – As Long As It Is OTHER PEOPLE’S TAXES

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” — Benjamin Franklin

Who also said:

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” — Benjamin Franklin

Pretty much at every opportunity, liberals continue to live down to my low opinion of them.  This from the other day in California:

Poll: Governor Brown’s tax initiative gaining support
Wednesday, January 25, 2012

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Gov. Jerry Brown’s proposed ballot initiative to raise taxes has wide support among California voters, but his path to victory in November remains far from certain, according to the results of a poll released Tuesday.

More than two-thirds of California’s likely voters say they favor the Democratic governor’s proposal to raise taxes as a way to stabilize state finances. Yet roughly the same proportion say they strongly disagree with a key element of that plan, raising the statewide sales tax, according to the Public Policy Institute of California survey.

 The poll, conducted in mid-January, illustrates the difficulty the governor faces in navigating the state’s political cross-currents as he pushes his top priority for 2012.

Likely voters overwhelmingly say they favor raising taxes to pay for K-12 education and support raising income taxes on the wealthy, the cornerstones of the initiative Brown hopes to place on the November ballot. But they also do not want to raise the sales tax, believe the state could spend less money while maintaining the same level of services and are pessimistic about the direction of the economy.

 “Therein lies the challenge for the governor,” said Mark Baldassare, president and chief executive of the Public Policy Institute. “He has some things he has attached to his tax initiative which do resonate with voters … but there are lots of other elements to question.”

 Brown and his supporters have been cleared to gather petition signatures for his initiative, which the governor refers to as “The Schools and Local Public Safety Protection Act of 2012.” His title does not refer to the temporary tax increases, which would raise between $4.8 billion and $7 billion a year.

 The initiative would boost the statewide sales tax by half a cent for four years starting in January 2013. It also would raise the income tax rate on those making $250,000 a year, increasing it from 9.3 percent to a maximum of 11.3 percent, depending on the amount of income. The income tax increase would start in January 2013 and last for five years.

 Most of the additional revenue would be dedicated to K-12 education, with much of the rest funding the governor’s plan to have counties house lower-level convicts who otherwise would have been sentenced to state prison.

Would I be in favor of seizing money from other people to force them to pay for the stuff I want?  SURE! says the left.

Would I be in favor of actually giving up some of my own money for the stuff I want?  HOW DARE YOU ASK ME TO SACRIFICE!!!

We live in a country in which the top five percent pay FIFTY PERCENT of the federal taxes, while the “bottom” fifty percent pay ZERO PERCENT of the federal taxes, and we’re told the rich don’t pay their “fair share.”  Because liberalism and honesty are like slimy toxic oil and clean water and these simply do not mix.

When it is somebody’s ELSE’S money, there’s no problems and no questioning.  Raise other peoples’ taxes!  Yeah!  When it is even a tiny percent of their own money, suddenly they’re saying, “The government wastes an awful lot of money and they could make do with a whole lot less, so….”

Benjamin Franklin had it right: he saw the day when America would vote for its own collapse as fifty percent plus one decided to vote itself the possessions of the few.

The “good news” – unless you’re a Californian, anyway – is that these nasty people will suffer for their own greed as the wealthy simply increasingly leave the state:

Several studies, including the American Legislative Exchange Council’s “Rich States, Poor States,” and past reports by the Americans for Tax Reform Foundation have documented the movement of taxpayers from high tax to low tax states in recent years.

These studies present compelling evidence that taxes are the single largest factor in interstate migration, compared to factors such as climate, employment, family relocation, etc.

 

Our analysis takes this methodology one step further. Using data from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), we calculated both the number of taxpayers migrating, and also calculated the adjusted gross income (AGI) that left the state as well. That is, we have calculated how much money—in terms of personal income—states lose or gain due to migration. Our findings confirm that taxpayers are leaving states with higher taxes and unfunded pension and healthcare liabilities.

 

Due to the ease of interstate movement, taxpayers can easily avoid higher taxes by moving to another state. As such, there is a significant Laffer effect wherein a rise in tax rates can lead to lower government revenues as individuals flee the state. There are nine states with no income tax – Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington and Wyoming. In 2008 alone these states gained a net total of over 80,000 new residents from the other 41 states. These migrants brought with them over $900 million of net adjusted income according to IRS data.

 

In contrast, the ten states with the highest tax burden, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Vermont, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania lost around 129,455 residents and $10.2 billion of net-adjusted income in 2008 alone.

 

From 1998 through 2008, the ten states with the highest tax burden lost over 3 million residents. These residents took with them a staggering $92 billion in income.

 

[…]

 

It is also clear that individuals are aware that unfunded liabilities will eventually become taxes; states with large unfunded liabilities for public employee pensions and health care are seeing workers flee, particularly workers between ages 30 and 40, who are most likely to see future tax hikes.

 

In addition to higher levels of emigration, higher tax states also maintain higher unemployment rates, placing an expanding tax burden on a shrinking tax base. It is unsurprising, then, that the top five highest-tax states consistently have about a 0.5 percent higher unemployment rate than the five states with the lowest tax burden.

 

States that attempt to raise taxes to balance their budgets encourage their most productive citizens to find more welcoming homes. They also discourage productivity, as taxpayers get to keep less of what they earn in high-tax states. Worst of all, increased taxes provide government with the permission it needs to grow by sustaining the bloated spending of irresponsible state governments. Absent significant changes in their tax-and-spend schemes, these high tax states will soon find themselves without a populace to support the extravagant costs of living in those states.

That begs a good question: just what IS California’s liberal-created pension time bomb?  I’m glad you asked:

California’s $500-billion pension time bomb
April 06, 2010|By David Crane

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.

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.

And since Art Laffer’s name was mentioned, one ought to cite him to point out that the so-called “Buffett Rule” Obama is demagoguing and pimping wouldn’t make Warren Buffett pay more in taxes where it would touch Warren Buffett:

Waving Mr. Buffett’s op-ed for all to see, Mr. Obama wasted no time in proposing a surtax on millionaires called the “Buffett Rule.” Putting aside all the oohing and ahhing over Mr. Buffett’s selflessness, his effective tax rate on his true income would hardly budge if this “Buffett Rule” were applied. What’s worse, raising the highest tax rates would most likely worsen the budget deficit and lead to a further weakening of the economy. Everyone would suffer.

The piece goes on to point out that Warren Buffett disingenuously understates his income by 250-fold.  And Buffett’s “rule” wouldn’t touch 249/250ths of Buffett’s real income.

What we are being force fed by the Democrat Party and by the mainstream media who serve as their propagandaists is pure Marxist class warfare.  And Marxism is a failed economic system for good reason.

Even the POOR are leaving high-taxed states for lower-taxed states.  Why?  Because many of them want a job, not a handout, and states like California kill the golden goose to rip out a few eggs rather than create opportunity:

California’s rich are leaving for lower-tax states. The state (slogan: “We’ll Owe You”) has among the highest tax regimes in the country, with a top marginal tax rate of 9.3% and an additional 1% tax on those earning $1 million or more a year.

Three states with no personal income taxes—Nevada, Texas, and Washington—are among the top five destinations for the highest-income fifth of California households, according to the Institutes own data.

Those states also are among the top destinations for California’s poor.

The real lesson here, in my view, is that high taxes and broken government chase away rich and poor alike.

But as long as there are Marxist liberals (and ALL liberals are Marxist liberals, because ALL liberals agree with the Marxist statement, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need“), screw the rich.  And screw the poor who actually want a job and opportunity to improve their own lives too.