‘Snowfalls Are Now Just A Thing Of The Past,’ You Said. ‘Children Just Aren’t Going To Know What Snow Is,’ You Said. You Pseudo-Science Propagandist Frauds.

“Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past,” we were assured in the year 2000 when the left still called their ideology “global warming.”  “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” we were told.

I wonder if liberals are saying that in Boston right now:

Boston breaks seasonal snowfall record with 108.6 inches
William M. Welch, USA TODAY 11:36 a.m. EDT March 16, 2015

More snow fell on Boston on Sunday, enough to make this the snowiest season ever on record there.

The National Weather Service said 2.9 inches fell by 7 p.m., pushing total snowfall for the winter of 2014-2015 to 108.6 inches.

That is a full inch over the previous record set during the winter of 1995-1996, the service’s Boston office tweeted, and the most since record books started in 1872.

The achievement brought cheerful, tongue-in-cheek celebration from many of the snow-weary survivors of winter in Boston.

“Putting the win in winter!” tweeted Christina Pazzanese.

“We got the GOLD!” tweeted WBZ weatherman Barry Burbank.

But Michael Wissell spoke for many when he tweeted: ” Sweet. Can we have spring now?”

I mean, the fact that Boston just had the most snowfall EVER doesn’t mean that they’re not still spouting their gibberish.  Because liberals are stupid enough and immune enough from reality to look you in the eye and actually believe their own bovine feces when they claim that the global warming alarmists of just fifteen years ago were somehow legitimate “scientists” and that their “climate change” hasn’t been refuted by their own previous fraudulent and foolish predictions.

There have been so many bogus predictions that it is beyond a joke from these fools.  But they still have the megaphone over the culture and they’re still making bogus predictions based on their ideology rather than any actual science.

Climates change.  They always have.  They always will.

A “climate change” drought ended the Old Egyptian Kingdom.  There were no mean-spirited Republicans driving their speedboats over the Nile.

A “climate change” drought ended the Mayan Empire.  There were no mean-spirited Republicans driving SUVs over the rain forests.

And just as we’ve had droughts throughout the history of planet earth, we’ve had ice ages.  None of which had a damn thing to do with human activity.

Climate change has nothing to do with human carbon dioxide pollution.  When you learn how “CO2” became the bogeyman of the left you’ve got to try not to laugh it’s so asinine.  In actual fact “anthropogenic CO2 produces less than 0.1 of one percent of the greenhouse effect.”  Climate change was an environmental reality before there were any factories or cars or whatever.  Climate change was in fact an environmental reality even before there were any humans.  But that’s a fact and that’s reality – and liberals despise both facts and reality.

Liberals are liars and frauds and dishonest fools.  They always have been.  They were liars and frauds and dishonest fools when they claimed that communist socialism was the solution to ending poverty but instead became a boot stomping on a human face for seventy years before collapsing under its economic failure.  They were liars and frauds and dishonest fools when they claimed that fascist socialism was the solution to ending poverty but instead produced the Holocaust and World War II before collapsing under its disastrous failure.  But the “always learning, but never coming to a knowledge of the truth” fool left is still claiming that European socialism is the answer.

Newsflash: no, it isn’t, you dumbasses.  European socialism has produced a stagnated and deflated economy.

Socialism and “climate change” are the same thing with the same means, the same ends and the same justifications.

I learned that something like twenty years ago during the Kyoto Protocols on global warming.  You see, the same people who were screaming Chicken Little-style that we had this godawful crisis and we had to act now, NOW, NOW!!! and gut the U.S. and European economies did a wink-wink and a nod-nod and exempted Russia, China, India and pretty much the entire developing world from having to cut their emissions.  You know, while China and India were building mass-polluting coal plants at gargantuan rates.

At that point in time, I had the same views I have today: which is to say, I believed that we were going into the last days when Jesus and the prophets in the Bible told us that weather would go crazy.  So I was perfectly willing to accept the climate crazy crazies.

But what the climate crazy crazies ended up doing was to say with their actions that “climate change” wasn’t really much a crisis.  Because if it was, the whole WORLD would have to get behind any legitimate effort.  And instead all the countries that were communist or socialist or politically correct were getting their waivers and their exemptions and it was only capitalist countries that were being targeted and attacked to gut their economies in order to “save the planet.”

What they really wanted to do was redistribute the wealth in order to save socialism by undermining capitalist economies and propping up socialism with Other People’s Money.  And if these pseudo-scientific frauds have to tell you that the moon is made out of cheese to sell that load of crap, they will assure you that the overwhelming majority of scientists believe that the moon is made of cheese.

And it’s been empty leftwing philosophies and high-sounding nonsense ever since.

The constancy of the fact that liberals will ALWAYS be liars and frauds and dishonest fools is as true as the fact that we will always have constant climate change cycles.

I already pointed out what you needed to know several years back.  There’s “What the Science REALLY Says About Global Warming,” and there’s “What You Never Hear About Global Warming.”  Meanwhile, the left doesn’t want you to know the truth about legitimate science and what they’ve done to pervert science as they push their socialist agenda on people who ought to have the sense to know better.

 

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.

Yes, For The Factual Record, Obama is A SOCIALIST Who Is Documented Saying, ‘I Actually Believe In Redistribution’ (Versus Our Founding Fathers Who DIDN’T!)

Yes, Obama IS a documented SOCIALIST:

America’s Socialist In Chief… Obama Admits “I Actually Believe in Redistribution” …Flashback 2008: Obama Wants to Spread Wealth Around
Posted by Jim Hoft on Tuesday, September 18, 2012, 2:41 PM

Touché, Mother Jones—

From the video: At an October 19, 1998 conference at Loyola University, Barack Obama spoke against “propaganda” that said government doesn’t work and the need to “pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution because I actually believe in redistribution.”

UPDATE: Flashback 2008–
Obama wants to spread the wealth around.

Barack Obama taught Alinsky redistributive principles at university.

Mitt Romney has a very different vision for America, as he said yesterday:

“Frankly we have two very different views about America. The president’s view is one of a larger government. There’s a tape that just came out today where the president is saying he likes redistribution. I disagree. I think a society based upon a government-centered nation where government plays a larger and larger role, redistributes money, that’s the wrong course for America. That will not build a strong America or help people out of poverty. I believe the right course for America is one where government steps in to help those who are in need. We’re a compassionate people. But then we let people build their own lives… We believe in free people and free enterprises.”

What did the founding fathers say about redistribution of wealth?

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

“A wise and frugal government… shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” — Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

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

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” — Thomas Jefferson

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.” — John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787

“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” — James Madison in a letter to James Robertson

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying:

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” — James Madison, 4 Annals of Congress 179, 1794

“[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” — James Madison

“Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression.” — James Madison

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.” James Madison, “Letter to Edmund Pendleton,” — James Madison, January 21, 1792, in The Papers of James Madison, vol. 14, Robert A Rutland et. al., ed (Charlottesvile: University Press of Virginia, 1984).

“An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.” — James Madison, Federalist No. 58, February 20, 1788

“There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” — James Madison, speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788

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

“I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.” — Benjamin Franklin

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety.” — Benjamin Franklin

“The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.” — Benjamin Franklin

Via Sweetness & light, Conservative Colloquium, and other sources. See also Walter Williams’ collected quotes about the government.

These quotes and others make it clear that those who promote “redistribution of wealth” as a task for the government run against the very basic principles underlying the United States of America. This is no detail.

What is really surprising is that many of the champions of socialism live in prosperity because of capitalism and because of the fruits of other people’s work and the strength of the ideals of the Founding Fathers and their counterparts in other lucky places. Nevertheless, they are not repelled by using their own prosperity as an argument against freedom and capitalism.

But these left-wing people’s wealth is not a manifestation of socialism. Quite on the contrary: it is a manifestation of the creative power of capitalism combined with their character of parasites. To get a more realistic picture for what kind of a societal arrangement they stand for, you should look into North Korea or Cuba, countries that were transformed according to the ideas of their own soulmates.

Are the principles of America guaranteed to exist forever, even if the people and the circumstances are against them? Let me end up with two not quite optimistic quotes:

“Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.” — John Adams

“But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.” — John Adams

What did the founding fathers say about the redistribution of wealth?

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

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

“A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”
-Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”
-Thomas Jefferson

“When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”
-Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors, ME 15:332

“The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to E. Carrington, May 27, 1788

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.”
-John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:
“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
-James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)

“…[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
-James Madison

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.” James Madison, “Letter to Edmund Pendleton,”
-James Madison, January 21, 1792, in The Papers of James Madison, vol. 14, Robert A Rutland et. al., ed (Charlottesvile: University Press of Virginia,1984).

“An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.”
-James Madison, Federalist No. 58, February 20, 1788

“There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
-James Madison, speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788

Here’s another one from Thomas Jefferson:

“To preserve [the] independence [of the people,] we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses, and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes, have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account, but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers.  Our landholders, too, like theirs, retaining indeed the title and stewardship of estates called theirs, but held really in trust for the treasury, must wander, like theirs, in foreign countries, and be contended with penury, obscurity, exile, and the glory of the nation.” –Thomas Jefferson

And still another one from Thomas Jefferson:

“This example reads to us the salutary lesson, that private fortunes are destroyed by public as well as by private extravagance….A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, and to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering. Then begins, indeed, the bellum omnium in omnia [war of all against all], which some philosophers observing to be so general in this world, have mistaken it for the natural, instead of the abusive state of man. And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.”

Here’s another great one from James Madison:

“That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.”

And from Samuel Adams:

The Utopian schemes of leveling, and a community of goods, are as visionary and impractical, as those which vest all property in the Crown, are arbitrary, despotic, and in our government unconstitutional.

It’s not Barack Obama versus Mitt Romney; it’s Barack Obama versus America.  And the reason liberals despise our founding fathers is that liberals have a fundamentally and profoundly different vision of America than did our founding fathers.

Which is why Barack Obama famously (and I would argue infamously) said just before his inauguration:

“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” — President Elect Barack Obama

The founding fathers would look at what Obama did to this country and they would vomit in disgust.

Barack Obama is a drug dealer of welfare. He wants permanent dependence on the government. And we are closer under Obama to that ugly vision than this nation has ever been.

Marxist – Yes, I Said MARXIST – Obama Demands We ‘Go Forward Towards A New Vision Of An America In Which Prosperity Is Shared’

For the record, any liberal who comments to this will be immediately confronted with my demand that he or she share their prosperity with me.

It’s the least you can do to not be an abject hypocrite weasel, after all.

Monday, August 13, 2012
Truly Terrifying Quote o’ the Day

No additional setup is required:

Obama: “A New Vision Of An America In Which Prosperity Is Shared”

“Too many folks still don’t have a sense that tomorrow will be better than today. And so, the question in this election is which way do we go?” President Obama asked at a fundraiser in Chicago on Sunday.

“Do we go forward towards a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared?” Obama asked. “Or do we go backward to the same policies that got us in the mess in the first place?”

“I believe we have to go forward,” Obama said. “I believe we have to keep working to create an America where no matter who you are, no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, no matter what your last name is, no matter who you love, you can make it here if you try. That’s what’s at stake in November. That’s what is why I am running for a second term as president of the United States of America.”

“Shared prosperity” is collectivism. Statism. Marxism. It means taking from those who produce goods and services to fund those who don’t, which is certainly outside any legitimate function of government under the United States Constitution.

I wouldn’t be all that concerned except… collectivism has failed every time it’s ever been tried in all of human history, from Plato’s Republic to the Soviet Union. It leads to despotism and tyranny, as surely as night follows day.

Hat tip: BadBlue News Service.

Just remember, “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that.”  That’s why Obama can take your profits that ought to be going to your family and your children and redistribute them to somebody who will vote for him.

Obama has said we need to “spread the wealth around.”  If you listen to the man talk, I defy you to explain to me how Barry Hussein could possibly refute the central economic statement of Marxism:

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

Obama IS a Marxist.  That is simply a fact of understanding what words mean.

Another thing is that while Obama says, ” I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper,” this very same hypocrite who mouths those words is literally allowing his OWN BROTHER to suffer in squalor.  And the demonstrable truth is that Obama DOESN’T care about his brother; all he cares about is accumulating the same sort of raw government power over a people that Marxists have ALWAYS sought to accumulate.  This man who cares NOTHING about his very own brother while saying, “I am my brother’s keeper” for mass consumption wants his liberal ideology and his Democrat Party to be able to decide who wins and who loses, to be able to dictate who is rewarded and who is punished.  That’s all he cares about.  And if he can drag America across that threshold that is all she wrote.

But let’s get beneath even that level: Obama says, “I am my brother’s keeper.”  And that’s fine as long as it is Obama deciding as an individual to do more for his brother (which in fact he has refused to do).  But what Obama then does is a bait-and-switch: he says, “I am my brother’s keeper because I am going to force YOU to pay for my keeping of my brother.”  Understand that while Obama demands the erection of a Marxist-style State that seizes the wealth of others and redistributes it according to political ideology, Obama himself gave less than 1 percent of his own wealth to charity before he announced he was going to run for president.

“I am my brother’s keeper” is a statement of an individual INDIVIDUALLY accepting responsibility out of his own or her own wealth and making the CHOICE to give.  But Obama cynically and deceitfully uses the phrase to try to justify a big government State that directly attacks the very religious system that he uses to justify his powergrab: Barack Obama is responsible for 54.5 million abortions in America since 1973; Barack Obama is responsible for the attack on biblical marriage; Barack Obama is imposing something the Bible literally calls an “abomination” onto society; Barack Obama is at war with the Catholic Church.

The same cynical, dishonest man who mocks the Bible proceeds to use it to justify his government takeover and his confiscation of the money that people worked hard to EARN:

If we’re not supposed to use the Bible to justify government policy, then why the hell did you do it, Barry Hussein???  But of course what you do is exploit the Bible whenever it is convenient for YOU while denouncing anyone who uses the Bible as that Bible actually teaches.

For the record, North Korea is dark at night – as in dark the way it was in the damn STONE AGE – because its people bought this same sort of crap that Obama is blathering.

Under Incompetent Obama Regime, Criminals ‘Redistribute’ Tax Refunds Of Working Americans

If you vote Democrat and this happens to you, don’t you dare bitch about it.  Because you’re ALL FOR the redistribution of other people’s wealth – and it OUGHT to be your damn wealth that gets redistributed:

March 20, 2012 10:28 AM
Tax return scammers steal IDs and billions
by John Miller

(CBS News) – Tax return fraud is a growing problem, with more than two million bogus returns filed last year with the Internal Revenue Service – returns filed by thieves who had stolen people’s identities.

 This type of crime is exploding because of two factors: online companies like Turbo Tax make filing taxes fast and easy; and the IRS, in an effort to get refunds out quickly, does not cross-check the returns against employers’ payroll records.

 To exploit that, scammers buy lists of names and Social Security numbers of living people on the black market, and troll Internet family support sites to steal the identities of the dead.

 In just three years, tax refund fraud has increased by 700 percent – with $2 billion in tax dollars paid out to thieves last year alone.

In December 2008, Terry and Stephanie McClung welcomed their daughter Kaitlyn into the world. But just five months later, they lost her to sudden infant death syndrome.

 “She was the most beautiful little girl,” Stephanie McClung said. “She was laid back, happy, hardly ever cried.”

 The McClungs’ grief was compounded by shock when they discovered someone had stolen their daughter’s identity, and claimed her as a dependent for the $1,500 it would add to a fraudulent tax return.

 “It’s a slap in the face,” Stephanie said. “It was only not even a year after she passed and you know we had to deal with this.”

 Or take the case of Sgt. Adam Ray – a West Point graduate killed by an IED in Afghanistan. Scammers filed his tax returns and had the refund issued directly to a green dot debit card from a Georgia bank.

(Watch below: Wifredo Ferrer, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, discusses how tax fraud is reaching epidemic proportions.)

 How much is the IRS paying out to people who are not the taxpayer?

 “It’s a number that I can’t get my head around,” said Tom Boyle of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. “We know one company that you can file through. There was over $300 million filed alone.” Boyle added, “And there’s 20 of those companies.”

Note that under the three failed years of Obama, government incompetence has increased by 700 percent.

UnAmerican Democrats Actually Boycotted The U.S. Constitution

Incredibly, many Democrats actually boycotted the House floor yesterday as Republicans read the U.S. Constitution aloud.  Not all of them – Nancy Pelosi was one who joined the Republicans in reading a section of the Constitution – but enough to make it clear that Democrats have a problem with the foundational document of the United States of America.

You would have thought that Republicans were reading child pornography rather than the document upon which our entire political system is based, and which every elected official – and which every soldier, airman, sailor and Marine – takes a sacred oath to defend.

Unlike Democrats, when I raised my hand and swore that –

“I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same” –

I actually meant it.

Charles Krauthammer, brilliant as usual, had this to say on Fox News Special Report on January 5th:

KRAUTHAMMER:  “It is truly astonishing. One member of Congress called it a long, dull document.  The New York Times editorial reading of the Constitution in the House is presumptuous.  Liberals got in trouble in the 60s and 70s for being on the wrong side of the flag and the anti-war demonstrations and now three decades later, they want to be on the wrong side of the Constitution.

The Constitution, after all – when these members were sworn in today, that they did not swear to defend the country or the army or the people; it was to defend the Constitution. That is the essence of America, and it is what makes us unique and why we are a country not of blood or race but ideas.  For liberals to think that there is actually an advantage in dismissing reading the Constitution and the requirement of having a constitutional reason to introduce a bill is real bad politics.”

And, of course, it’s not just “bad politics.”  Krauthammer underscores that better than anyone.  It is contemptible citizenship.  It is the act of unAmerican people.

Too many Democrats despicably wanted nothing to do with this document that made America the greatest and freest nation in the history of the human race.  They have a very different vision for this landmass known as “North America” than the great men who wrote the United States Constitution had.

One Democrat actually called the reading of the U.S. Constitution “propaganda,” adding that a reading of the Constitution amounted to “total nonsense.”  He added that Republicans were reading it “like a sacred text.”  When, of course, so many Democrats treat it more like toilet paper.  Liberal Ezra Klein added historical ignorance to his moral ignorance by saying that the Constitution is confusing, having been written “a hundred years ago,” and that it is no longer binding.

It is beyond official at this point.  We can separate the population of the United States of America into two groups: the American people and the unAmerican people.  And the Democrat Party has become the party of the unAmericans.

UnAmericans don’t give a damn about America.  They want to change it, pervert it, warp it, distort it.  They want to make it into something that it never was and never should have been.  And they call their effort “hope and change.”

Mind you, that’s “hope and change” for Karl Marx; never for George Washington.

I think this is a good time to reprint an article I wrote last year:

Just Remember: Democrats Don’t Give A DAMN About The Constitution Or Any Limits On Their Power
By Michael Eden

Do Democrats respect the Constitution, or recognize any constitutional limits on their power?  You decide.

Speaker of the House of Representatives, Rep. Nancy Pelosi:

(CNSNews.com) – When CNSNews.com asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday where the Constitution authorized Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance–a mandate included in both the House and Senate versions of the health care bill–Pelosi dismissed the question by saying: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

Youtube audio of Nancy Pelosi dismissing constitutionality:

Yeah, people who actually care about the Constitution, and care about the fact that our lawmakers – who take an oath to uphold the Constitution – actually consider it.

Rep. Pete Stark, responding to a question on health care:

Questioner: “If this legislation is constitutional, what limitations are there on the federal government’s ability to tell us how to run our private lives?”

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

Questioner: “The constitution specially enumerates certain powers to the federal government, and leaves all other authority to the states.  The constitution is very limited as to what it can do…. if they can do this, what can’t they do?”

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

Watch the Youtube video of this question and answer:

Liberal Supreme Court justices imposed abortion on the grounds of a fundamental right to privacy – which is actually nowhere to be found in the Constitution – based on nothing more than “penumbras and emanations” discerned from gazing into the Constitution like a crystal ball rather than like a historical document.  Now they are saying there IS no right to privacy of any kind, whatsoever in order to impose government health care and all the violations of rights and liberties that go hand-in-hand with that imposition.

If the federal government can do almost anything in this country, how then do you stop the next dictatorship?  How do you stop tyranny?  How do you stop totalitarian big government?

And let’s consider a corresponding Democrat’s statement on the same subject of government health care:

Democrat Rep. John Dingell:

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

And, of course, Dingell is right: it takes time and effort to abandon the Constitution – which places limits on federal power – and then impose controls on the people that utterly abandon any scintilla of any meaningful form of constitutional government.

Democrat Robin Carnahan, Missouri Secretary of State and candidate for the United States Senate:

Carnahan: “We’re going to also have a libertarian and a Constitution Party candidate running.  And I will tell you no one’s going to know who they are, but it’s not going to matter, because Glenn Beck says you’re supposed to be for the Constitution, and there is some percentage of people who will go vote for them.  And in our internal polling about six or seven percent goes like that to the Libertarian and Constitution Party.  So I’m quite sure that whoever wins is going to do it with less than fifty percent of the vote.” […]

Donor: “You just don’t sound like those Constitution Party votes are going to come out of your account.”

Carnahan: “What do you think?” (Audience laughter)

Donor: “I think you’re right.” (Audience laughter)

Here’s the Youtube audio of that exchange:

Stop and think about that: it is a matter of mocking derision that no one who actually cares about the integrity of the Constitution is going to vote for the Democrats.  And in fact Robin Carnahan – who is serving as a Democrat in the office of Secretary of State – cynically intends to exploit the fact that she can divide those who care about the Constitution and win by attrition.

And they mock the fact that no one who votes Democrat gives a leaping damn about the Constitution.

Take Democrat Rep. Jan Schakowsky on “The Stephanie Miller Show” on 9/30/2010:

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

All that stuff that I think that, that that’s an effort to try to appeal to those people, the Tea Party.

They embrace the Tenth Amendment – ‘tenthers,’ you know?”

The audio of the interview is available here.

That Tenth Amendment is a real load of crap, right?

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Let’s just go ahead and abolish it so we can have the kind of totalitarian big government that Democrats yearn for.  Because Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il, and all these other leftist dictators were just such groovy people, and we need their ilk here in red, white and blue America.

Yeah, that’s right.  Ridicule me, Rep. Schakowsky.  Call me a “tenther” like I’m a “birther” or a “truther” or some sort of nutjob because – unlike Democrats – I actually honor our Constitution and our Bill of Rights.

Jan Schakowsky calls Tea Party people “extreme” because they actually take their Constitution seriously.  But this is a woman who was perfectly willing to abandon principles to turn ObamaCare into a Trojan horse for a socialist single payer system (and see also here).  This is a woman who said:

“A public option will put the private insurance industry out of business and lead to single-payer” – Rep. Jan Schakowsky (to wild applause).

Marxism and communism is not extreme.  Nope.  It’s not extreme to use ObamaCare as a vehicle to put the private sector out of business so you can sneak in a government-planned economy.  What’s “extreme” is believing in the Constitution that Democrats such as Jan Schakowsky once deceitfully swore an oath to uphold.

Take a moment and contemplate the massive gulf in respect for the Constitution and willingness to place oneself under in in two remarks by Chief Justice John Roberts and now President Barack Obama:

Chief Justice John Roberts:

“I had someone ask me in this process — I don’t remember who it was, but somebody asked me, you know, ‘Are you going to be on the side of the little guy?’ And you obviously want to give an immediate answer, but as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then, the big guy is going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution.  That’s the oath.”

President Barack Obama:

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

Here’s the Youtube audio of Obama saying that:

Now, Obama says he doesn’t think it’s contradictory to say that the Constitution was a remarkable political document, but to simultaneously argue that it was fundamentally flawed and had an enormous blind spot.  But he couldn’t be more wrong: because he is arguing that the Constitution is a document that is fundamentally flawed, and which can and should be changed.  And rather than actually try to change it, he merely ignores it, ignores the spirit of it, and proceeds to impose his own “superior” and “more enlightened” will upon it.

Barack Obama:

“But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution...”

And here’s the Youtube of that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

And that’s what Obama wants: he wants to be that radical who finally breaks free from those “essential constraints” that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution.  And how does he want to do that?  By “reinterpreting” the Constitution in a radically different way that enables liberals to virtually bypass the Constitution altogether and impose their superior, more enlightened, more modern will upon the nation and the people.

Obama acknowledges that the Constitution doesn’t permit the “redistribution of wealth.”  But that trivial, meaningless little detail doesn’t stop him from doing it.  Constitution schmonstitution.  Who really gives a damn about it?

Dinesh D’Souza has a piece on how Obama thinks.  And it turns out that Obama thinks exactly like an African anti-colonialist Marxist.  And Obama himself implicitly acknowledges that, receiving his “dreams from his father.”

Liberal-progressive Supreme Court icon Thurgood Marshall expressed the quintessential liberal judicial activist view toward the Constitution in his statement:

“You do what you think is right and let the law catch up” (see Deborah L. Rhode, “A Tribute to Justice Thurgood Marshall: Letting the Law Catch Up,” in the 44 Stanford Law Review 1259 (1992).

But to put it bluntly, that’s exactly what Hitler did.  Hitler thought it was “right” to kill every single Jew on the planet.  And any law and anything whatsoever that got in his way be damned.  He thought history would catch up with him in the aftermath of his glorious Reich and judge him wise.

Contrast what John Roberts believed with the liberal judicial activist view: one is under the Constitution, and rules in accordance with it’s strict, historical interpretation.  The other rules however the hell they want, based on what they “think is right,” regardless of what the law says.

And what is frightening is that Barack Obama appointed a new Supreme Court Justice – Elena Kagan – whose most profound mentor was none other than Thurgood Marshall.

It’s easy to be “constitutional” when you have a “living, breathing document” view that necessarily forces the Constitution to mean whatever the hell you want it to mean at any given moment.

I simply want to point out to you that the liberal progressives who now form the backbone of the Democrat Party despise the founding fathers, despise the Constitution, despise individual human freedom, and frankly despise anything and anyone that gets in the way between them and absolute power.

Please remember that fact when you vote this November.

And, thank God, most Americans DID remember that fact.  And Constitution-hating unAmerican Democrats experienced the worst defeat of any political party in over 70 years.

The problem is that Democrats are like the leaven that Jesus talked about when describing the hypocrisy of the Jewish leaders of His day.  A little leaven of Democrat vileness leavens the whole lump of dough.

Let me ask a question: why did the incoming Republicans make it their first act to read the Constitution on the floor of the House, when it has never before been done?  The answer is because the Democrats in dictatorial control of the government spent the last two years crapping all over that Constitution.  And, yes, it is time we brought that great document back and started treating it like it was something sacred.  Because our futures depend on it.

John Adams wrote, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”  Clearly, Democrats are neither moral nor religious, and therefore the Constitution of the United States is now “inadequate” for them.

These people and everything they stand for must be rejected and repudiated.  It is either the Constitution or the Democrats, because the two have become fundamentally incompatible with one another.

Permanent Unemployment Bennies: Paying People Not To Work (Surprise!) Encourages Unemployment

A couple of  summer articles from The Wall Street Journal that – given the latest unemployment figures – are more true than ever:

AUGUST 30, 2010
The Folly of Subsidizing Unemployment
My calculations suggest the jobless rate could be as low as 6.8%, instead of 9.5%, if jobless benefits hadn’t been extended to 99 weeks.
By ROBERT BARRO

Congressman John Boehner recently suggested that President Obama replace his top economic advisers. I think he may have a point. The economic “recovery” has been disappointing, to put it mildly, and it has become increasingly clear that the blame lies with the policies of the Obama administration, not with those of its predecessor.

In general, the current administration has been too focused on expanding government, redistributing more from rich to poor, and stimulating aggregate demand. I have previously criticized the stimulus package as cost-ineffective. In particular, whatever tax reductions were in the package did not involve the cuts in marginal income tax rates that encourage investment, work effort and productivity growth.

Now the administration wants to kill the 2003 income-tax cuts, at least the parts that reduced marginal income tax rates for high-income earners and for all recipients of dividend income. This proposal is particularly disturbing because the 2003 law was George W. Bush’s main economic achievement; unlike most of Mr. Bush’s policies, this one was well-conceived and effective.

I want to focus here on another dimension of the Obama administration’s policies: the expansion of unemployment-insurance eligibility to as much as 99 weeks from the standard 26 weeks.

The unemployment-insurance program involves a balance between compassion—providing for persons temporarily without work—and efficiency. The loss in efficiency results partly because the program subsidizes unemployment, causing insufficient job-search, job-acceptance and levels of employment. A further inefficiency concerns the distortions from the increases in taxes required to pay for the program.

In a recession, it is more likely that individual unemployment reflects weak economic conditions, rather than individual decisions to choose leisure over work. Therefore, it is reasonable during a recession to adopt a more generous unemployment-insurance program. In the past, this change entailed extensions to perhaps 39 weeks of eligibility from 26 weeks, though sometimes a bit more and typically conditioned on the employment situation in a person’s state of residence. However, we have never experienced anything close to the blanket extension of eligibility to nearly two years. We have shifted toward a welfare program that resembles those in many Western European countries.

The administration has argued that the more generous unemployment-insurance program could not have had much impact on the unemployment rate because the recession is so severe that jobs are unavailable for many people. This perspective is odd on its face because, even at the worst of the downturn, the U.S. labor market featured a tremendous amount of turnover in the form of large numbers of persons hired and separated every month.

For example, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that, near the worst of the recession in March 2009, 3.9 million people were hired and 4.7 million were separated from jobs. This net loss of 800,000 jobs in one month indicates a very weak economy—but nevertheless one in which 3.9 million people were hired. A program that reduced incentives for people to search for and accept jobs could surely matter a lot here.

Moreover, although the peak unemployment rate (thus far) of 10.1% in October 2009 is very disturbing, the rate was even higher in the 1982 recession (10.8% in November-December 1982). Thus, there is no reason to think that the United States is in a new world in which incentives provided by more generous unemployment-insurance programs do not matter much for unemployment.

Another reason to be skeptical about the administration’s stance is that generous unemployment-insurance programs have been found to raise unemployment in many Western European countries in which unemployment rates have been far higher than the current U.S. rate. In Europe, the influence has worked particularly through increases in long-term unemployment. So the key question is what happened to long-term unemployment in the United States during the current recession?

To begin with a historical perspective, in the 1982 recession the peak unemployment rate of 10.8% in November-December 1982 corresponded to a mean duration of unemployment of 17.6 weeks and a share of long-term unemployment (those unemployed more than 26 weeks) of 20.4%. Long-term unemployment peaked later, in July 1983, when the unemployment rate had fallen to 9.4%. At that point, the mean duration of unemployment reached 21.2 weeks and the share of long-term unemployment was 24.5%. These numbers are the highest observed in the post-World War II period until recently. Thus, we can think of previous recessions (including those in 2001, 1990-91 and before 1982) as featuring a mean duration of unemployment of less than 21 weeks and a share of long-term unemployment of less than 25%.

These numbers provide a stark contrast with joblessness today. The peak unemployment rate of 10.1% in October 2009 corresponded to a mean duration of unemployment of 27.2 weeks and a share of long-term unemployment of 36%. The duration of unemployment peaked (thus far) at 35.2 weeks in June 2010, when the share of long-term unemployment in the total reached a remarkable 46.2%. These numbers are way above the ceilings of 21 weeks and 25% share applicable to previous post-World War II recessions. The dramatic expansion of unemployment-insurance eligibility to 99 weeks is almost surely the culprit.

To get a rough quantitative estimate of the implications for the unemployment rate, suppose that the expansion of unemployment-insurance coverage to 99 weeks had not occurred and—I assume—the share of long-term unemployment had equaled the peak value of 24.5% observed in July 1983. Then, if the number of unemployed 26 weeks or less in June 2010 had still equaled the observed value of 7.9 million, the total number of unemployed would have been 10.4 million rather than 14.6 million. If the labor force still equaled the observed value (153.7 million), the unemployment rate would have been 6.8% rather than 9.5%.

Consider how the prospects for Democrats in the November elections would look if the unemployment rate were now only 6.8%. Obviously, this change would make all the difference, and President Obama can reasonably blame his economic advisers. They should have protected their boss by standing firm and arguing that a reckless expansion of unemployment-insurance coverage to 99 weeks was unwise economically and politically. Congressman Boehner’s advice to Mr. Obama seems correct, though possibly too late to matter.

Mr. Barro is an economics professor at Harvard University and a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.

A particularly interesting point comes from this statement:

The administration has argued that the more generous unemployment-insurance program could not have had much impact on the unemployment rate because the recession is so severe that jobs are unavailable for many people

The Obama administration manifests pathological dishonesty and hypocrisy: on the one hand, they tout their stimulus as being incredibly effective, and tout themselves as guiding the economy back into recovery.  And yet in demanding an additional 13-month extension to the already 2 full years of unemployment benefits, the Obama administration clearly doesn’t believe its own load of crap.

If the stimulus was anything but a failure, and if we are on the “road to recovery,” as they keep saying, we don’t need this giant leap toward permanent unemployment benefits.

Here’s another one from The Wall Street Journal:

JULY 20, 2010
Stimulating Unemployment
If you can’t create any jobs, pay people not to work.

Presidents typically invite Americans to appear at Rose Garden press conferences to trumpet their policy successes, but yesterday we saw what may have been a first. President Obama introduced three Americans—an auto worker, a fitness center employee and a woman in real estate—who’ve been out of work so long they underscore the failure of his economic program. Where are his spinmeisters when he really needs them?

Sure, Mr. Obama’s ostensible purpose was to lobby Congress for the eighth extension of jobless benefits since the recession began, to a record 99 weeks, or nearly two years. And he whacked Senate Republicans for blocking the extension, though Republicans are merely asking that the extension be offset by cuts in other federal spending.

But Mr. Obama was nonetheless obliged to concede that, 18 months after his $862 billion stimulus, there are still five job seekers for every job opening and that 2.5 million Americans will soon run out of unemployment benefits. What happens when the 99 weeks of benefits run out? Will the President demand that they be extended to three years, or four?

Only last week Vice President Joe Biden was hailing the stimulus for “saving or creating” three million jobs. This week the White House says we need even more stimulus, in the form of jobless checks, to make up for the jobs his original spending stimulus didn’t create.

The one possibility the President and Congressional Democrats won’t entertain is that their own spending and taxing and regulating and labor union favoritism have become the main hindrance to job creation. Since February 2009, the jobless rate has climbed to 9.5% from 8.1%, and private industry has shed two million jobs. The overall economy has been expanding for at least a year, but employers still don’t seem confident enough to add new workers. The economists who sold us the stimulus say it’s a mystery. But maybe employers are afraid to hire because they don’t know what costs government will impose on them next.

In the immediate policy case, Democrats are going so far as to subsidize more unemployment. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. So if you pay people not to work, they often decide . . . not to work. Or at least to delay looking or decline a less than perfect job offer, holding out for something else that may or may not materialize.

The economic consensus—which includes Obama Administration economists in their previous lives—couldn’t be clearer on this. In a 1990 study for the National Bureau of Economic Research, labor economist Lawrence Katz found that “The results indicate that a one week increase in potential benefit duration increases the average duration of the unemployment spells of UI recipients by 0.16 to 0.20 weeks.”

A March 2010 economic report by Michael Feroli of J.P. Morgan Chase examined several studies and concluded that “lengthened availability of jobless benefits has raised the unemployment rate by 1.5% points.”

A 2006 NBER study by Raj Chetty of UC Berkeley on a related subject begins, “It is well known that unemployment benefits raise unemployment durations.”

The current recession is bearing this out, as a record 6.7 million Americans have now been out of work for at least six months. That’s 45.5% of the total jobless, close to the highest share ever recorded. The number was 23.4% in February 2009. Americans tend to support jobless benefits on compassion grounds, but at some point such a policy becomes the false compassion of welfare by keeping people out of the job market and thus not learning new skills.

Mr. Obama also claimed yesterday that he wants to cut taxes on small businesses. That’s a good idea, but Mr. Obama’s proposal to provide one-year temporary tax cuts, such as expensing of certain capital purchases, will be dwarfed by one of the largest tax increases on small- and medium-sized firms in history that is scheduled to hit on January 1. The increase in the capital gains tax will fall hardest on start ups and expanding businesses that need capital for growth. More than half of the “rich” who will pay higher income tax rates next year are small business owners and investors.

The President is right that “we’ve got a lot of work to do” to get Americans back to work and that the toll on families from high unemployment is considerable. There are few things in life more demoralizing than being unemployed for a lengthy period of time. But paying people not to work and adding $30 billion more to nearly $1.4 trillion of deficit spending is a dismal substitute for real economic growth and private job

The way the Democrats describe it, we would literally be much better off as a country if every single American were to quit working and go on unemployment.  Because then we’d get these wonderful benefits that make the whole system work.

Here’s how (thank God in Heaven former) House Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it:

“Now I think we should use a measure for everything that we do—what does it do to create jobs, what does it do to reduce the deficit?  Unemployment insurance, economists tell us, returns $2 for every $1 that is put out there for unemployment insurance.  People need the money.  They spend it immediately for necessity.  It injects demand into the economy.  It creates jobs to help reduce the deficit.

So what Obama should do is fire EVERYBODY.  And then we can literally DOUBLE our GDP overnight!!!

Unemployment is clearly better than employment.  Which is why the Democrats want to subsidize unemployment to the fullest extent possible.

As incredible as it sounds, that’s actually the way it works in the bubble world of the Democrat Party.

As for me, I’m holding out for a CEO position at a Fortune 500.  And I’ll keep milking my bennies until I get that dream job.  Because Obama says I can.

Meanwhile, Democrats are absolutely dead-set against allowing people to keep the money they earn.  Because they worship the government as God, and believe their Marxist and Stalinist ideology that the state owns the people and everything they earn.  And out of that depraved and literally demonic mindset, they reason that allowing the rich to keep more of the money they earn is actually robbing the government.  Because you don’t work for yourself and for your family; you work exclusively for your god, the government, as epitomized in Barack Obama.

Brit Hume nailed this, arguing:

“But the very language used in discussing these issues tells you something as well. In Washington, letting people keep more of their own money is considered a cost. As if all the money really belongs to the government in the first place in which what you get to keep is an expenditure.”

So what’s the path to prosperity?

Is it paying people not to work, and saying if you work, we’re going to take your money and give it to people who won’t get jobs for 2 years, 3 years, forever; or is it allowing people to keep more of what they earn, and encouraging them to work, and to reward them for working harder?

That’s the difference between the Democrat and the Republican parties.

UN Global Warmers Admit ‘Climate Change’ About Wealth Redistribution; Invoke Demonic ‘Goddesses’

If you didn’t think that the global warming alarmist movement was out of control; you’re already an idiot in my estimation.

But what was bad is now worse.

First, there’s the frank admission that conservatives have been proclaiming from every rooftop all along; that global warming (relabeled ‘climate change’ when ‘global warming’ became another ‘inconvenient truth’ for them) is and always has been about the socialist redistribution of wealth, rather than any kind of legitimate science:

IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World’s Wealth”
Thursday, 18 November 2010 13:16 Neue Zürcher Zeitung

Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.

Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 14 November 2010

Interview: Bernard Potter

NZZ am Sonntag: Mr. Edenhofer, everybody concerned with climate protection demands emissions reductions. You now speak of “dangerous emissions reduction.” What do you mean?

Ottmar Edenhofer: So far economic growth has gone hand in hand with the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. One percent growth means one percent more emissions. The historic memory of mankind remembers: In order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas. And therefore, the emerging economies fear CO2 emission limits.

[…]

That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet – and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 – there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

And just who the heck is this Ottmar Edenhofer guy?  He’s the man who was appointed as joint chair of Working Group 3 at the Twenty-Ninth Session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Geneva, Switzerland. He’s the the deputy director and chief economist of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and the Professor of the Economics of Climate Change at the Berlin Institute of Technology.

In other words, he is hardly a global warming nobody.  He’s a global warming alarmist bigwig who clearly understands the global warming alarmist agenda.  If he made a mistake, it was that he was honest (something very few leftists can be accused of).

And he’s telling you – as the new generation of global warming alarmists who are now calling themselves “climate change” alarmists – want to do.  It’s something that the OLD generation of global warming alarmists for the most part refused to tell you: that this whole “climate change” malarkey is ultimately merely a guise to take what little wealth Obama will leave your children with, and redistributing it to all the impoverished nations such as Africa.

If you’re living in a country blessed with natural resources – and formerly blessed with capitalist free market economies – your children be damned.

Because Africa has for the most part ALWAYS embraced socialism (or what Dinesh D’Souza accurately calls “anticolonialism“), they should finally get their reward for their faithful embrace of such socialism.  Their bounty should be seized by international fiat from your children’s mouths and given to socialist Africa’s children.  And socialist Latin America’s.  And socialist Asia’s children.

It’s the same “social justice” crap that liberals have been talking about.  And when they need to recruit scientists to help legitimize their propaganda – offering enormous government-funded research grants as carrots – their will be plenty of “scientists” willing to make their “science” say whatever they want it to say.

And what goes on in these people’s minds, these neo-global-warming alarmists who want to accomplish all this?

This movement isn’t just bizarre.  And it isn’t just flagrantly anti-Christ.  It’s a “let the facts be damned in the face of our agenda” approach to reality and to science.

Posted at 12:11 PM ET, 11/29/2010
Cancun talks start with a call to the gods
By Juliet Eilperin

With United Nations climate negotiators facing an uphill battle to advance their goal of reducing emissions linked to global warming, it’s no surprise that the woman steering the talks appealed to a Mayan goddess Monday.

Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, invoked the ancient jaguar goddess Ixchel in her opening statement to delegates gathered in Cancun, Mexico, noting that Ixchel was not only goddess of the moon, but also “the goddess of reason, creativity and weaving. May she inspire you — because today, you are gathered in Cancun to weave together the elements of a solid response to climate change, using both reason and creativity as your tools.”

She called for “a balanced outcome” which would marry financial and emissions commitments from industrialized countries aimed at combating climate change with “the understanding of fairness that will guide long-term mitigation efforts.”

“Excellencies, the goddess Ixchel would probably tell you that a tapestry is the result of the skillful interlacing of many threads,” said Figueres, who hails from Costa Rica and started her greetings in Spanish before switching to English. “I am convinced that 20 years from now, we will admire the policy tapestry that you have woven together and think back fondly to Cancun and the inspiration of Ixchel.”

Delegates from 193 countries are gathered in Cancun for the two-week meeting, which kicked off today at 10:20 a.m. local time, or 11:20 a.m. Eastern. Mexican President Felipe Calderon, a major proponent of action on climate change, attended the opening.

Two weeks from now, we’ll have a sense of whether Ixchel — and the delegates — were listening to Figueres’s appeal.

And, of course, these jet-setting “delegates ” hypocritically sent massive tonnages of carbon into the air as they met in the very kind of nice, warm climate that they want to tell us that we need to be so terrified of.

This isn’t the science of Bacon’s scientific method; it’s the “science” of pagan goddesses.  It’s “socialism as science.”  It’s the science of wealth redistributionism.

It’s a giant load of crap.

When I first heard about global warming and the potential destruction of the planet, I was open to the idea.  There is nothing in my worldview that would be opposed to such a concept.

But, almost right from the start, I found out what it really was.

The infamous 1997 Kyoto Accord, embraced by Bill Clinton but roundly rejected by the US Senate on a unanimous and bi-partisan 99-0 vote, would have massively restricted developed Western countries from economic development, but would have given waivers to Russia, China, India and the entire developing world.  That was when I knew that this wasn’t about “science,” but rather that it was all about socialism.

Nothing has emerged from that day to do anything other than confirm that fact – especially the Climategate emails that revealed that “respected climate researchers” had destroyed, fabricated and altered data to “prove” the “consensus” of global warming.

Now we know that man-caused global warming is not only a socialist lie, but a demonic lie straight from hell.

Just Remember: Democrats Don’t Give A DAMN About The Constitution Or Any Limits On Their Power

Do Democrats respect the Constitution, or recognize any constitutional limits on their power?  You decide.

Speaker of the House of Representatives, Rep. Nancy Pelosi:

(CNSNews.com) – When CNSNews.com asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday where the Constitution authorized Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance–a mandate included in both the House and Senate versions of the health care bill–Pelosi dismissed the question by saying: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

Youtube audio of Nancy Pelosi dismissing constitutionality:

Yeah, people who actually care about the Constitution, and care about the fact that our lawmakers – who take an oath to uphold the Constitution – actually consider it.

Rep. Pete Stark, responding to a question on health care:

Questioner: “If this legislation is constitutional, what limitations are there on the federal government’s ability to tell us how to run our private lives?”

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

Questioner: “The constitution specially enumerates certain powers to the federal government, and leaves all other authority to the states.  The constitution is very limited as to what it can do…. if they can do this, what can’t they do?”

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

Watch the Youtube video of this question and answer:

Liberal Supreme Court justices imposed abortion on the grounds of a fundamental right to privacy – which is actually nowhere to be found in the Constitution – based on nothing more than “penumbras and emanations” discerned from gazing into the Constitution like a crystal ball rather than like a historical document.  Now they are saying there IS no right to privacy of any kind, whatsoever in order to impose government health care and all the violations of rights and liberties that go hand-in-hand with that imposition.

If the federal government can do almost anything in this country, how then do you stop the next dictatorship?  How do you stop tyranny?  How do you stop totalitarian big government?

And let’s consider a corresponding Democrat’s statement on the same subject of government health care:

Democrat Rep. John Dingell:

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

And, of course, Dingell is right: it takes time and effort to abandon the Constitution – which places limits on federal power – and then impose controls on the people that utterly abandon any scintilla of any meaningful form of constitutional government.

Democrat Robin Carnahan, Missouri Secretary of State and candidate for the United States Senate:

Carnahan: “We’re going to also have a libertarian and a Constitution Party candidate running.  And I will tell you no one’s going to know who they are, but it’s not going to matter, because Glenn Beck says you’re supposed to be for the Constitution, and there is some percentage of people who will go vote for them.  And in our internal polling about six or seven percent goes like that to the Libertarian and Constitution Party.  So I’m quite sure that whoever wins is going to do it with less than fifty percent of the vote.” […]

Donor: “You just don’t sound like those Constitution Party votes are going to come out of your account.”

Carnahan: “What do you think?” (Audience laughter)

Donor: “I think you’re right.” (Audience laughter)

Here’s the Youtube audio of that exchange:

Stop and think about that: it is a matter of mocking derision that no one who actually cares about the integrity of the Constitution is going to vote for the Democrats.  And in fact Robin Carnahan – who is serving as a Democrat in the office of Secretary of State – cynically intends to exploit the fact that she can divide those who care about the Constitution and win by attrition.

And they mock the fact that no one who votes Democrat gives a leaping damn about the Constitution.

Take Democrat Rep. Jan Schakowsky on “The Stephanie Miller Show” on 9/30/2010:

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

All that stuff that I think that, that that’s an effort to try to appeal to those people, the Tea Party.

They embrace the Tenth Amendment – ‘tenthers,’ you know?”

The audio of the interview is available here.

That Tenth Amendment is a real load of crap, right?

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Let’s just go ahead and abolish it so we can have the kind of totalitarian big government that Democrats yearn for.  Because Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il, and all these other leftist dictators were just such groovy people, and we need their ilk here in red, white and blue America.

Yeah, that’s right.  Ridicule me, Rep. Schakowsky.  Call me a “tenther” like I’m a “birther” or a “truther” or some sort of nutjob because – unlike Democrats – I actually honor our Constitution and our Bill of Rights.

Jan Schakowsky calls Tea Party people “extreme” because they actually take their Constitution seriously.  But this is a woman who was perfectly willing to abandon principles to turn ObamaCare into a Trojan horse for a socialist single payer system (and see also here).  This is a woman who said:

“A public option will put the private insurance industry out of business and lead to single-payer” – Rep. Jan Schakowsky (to wild applause).

Marxism and communism is not extreme.  Nope.  It’s not extreme to use ObamaCare as a vehicle to put the private sector out of business so you can sneak in a government-planned economy.  What’s “extreme” is believing in the Constitution that Democrats such as Jan Schakowsky once deceitfully swore an oath to uphold.

Take a moment and contemplate the massive gulf in respect for the Constitution and willingness to place oneself under in in two remarks by Chief Justice John Roberts and now President Barack Obama:

Chief Justice John Roberts:

“I had someone ask me in this process — I don’t remember who it was, but somebody asked me, you know, ‘Are you going to be on the side of the little guy?’ And you obviously want to give an immediate answer, but as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then, the big guy is going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution.  That’s the oath.”

President Barack Obama:

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

Here’s the Youtube audio of Obama saying that:

Now, Obama says he doesn’t think it’s contradictory to say that the Constitution was a remarkable political document, but to simultaneously argue that it was fundamentally flawed and had an enormous blind spot.  But he couldn’t be more wrong: because he is arguing that the Constitution is a document that is fundamentally flawed, and which can and should be changed.  And rather than actually try to change it, he merely ignores it, ignores the spirit of it, and proceeds to impose his own “superior” and “more enlightened” will upon it.

Barack Obama:

“But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution...”

And here’s the Youtube of that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

And that’s what Obama wants: he wants to be that radical who finally breaks free from those “essential constraints” that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution.  And how does he want to do that?  By “reinterpreting” the Constitution in a radically different way that enables liberals to virtually bypass the Constitution altogether and impose their superior, more enlightened, more modern will upon the nation and the people.

Obama acknowledges that the Constitution doesn’t permit the “redistribution of wealth.”  But that trivial, meaningless little detail doesn’t stop him from doing it.  Constitution schmonstitution.  Who really gives a damn about it?

Dinesh D’Souza has a piece on how Obama thinks.  And it turns out that Obama thinks exactly like an African anti-colonialist Marxist.  And Obama himself implicitly acknowledges that, receiving his “dreams from his father.”

Liberal-progressive Supreme Court icon Thurgood Marshall expressed the quintessential liberal judicial activist view toward the Constitution in his statement:

“You do what you think is right and let the law catch up” (see Deborah L. Rhode, “A Tribute to Justice Thurgood Marshall: Letting the Law Catch Up,” in the 44 Stanford Law Review 1259 (1992).

But to put it bluntly, that’s exactly what Hitler did.  Hitler thought it was “right” to kill every single Jew on the planet.  And any law and anything whatsoever that got in his way be damned.  He thought history would catch up with him in the aftermath of his glorious Reich and judge him wise.

Contrast what John Roberts believed with the liberal judicial activist view: one is under the Constitution, and rules in accordance with it’s strict, historical interpretation.  The other rules however the hell they want, based on what they “think is right,” regardless of what the law says.

And what is frightening is that Barack Obama appointed a new Supreme Court Justice – Elena Kagan – whose most profound mentor was none other than Thurgood Marshall.

It’s easy to be “constitutional” when you have a “living, breathing document” view that necessarily forces the Constitution to mean whatever the hell you want it to mean at any given moment.

I simply want to point out to you that the liberal progressives who now form the backbone of the Democrat Party despise the founding fathers, despise the Constitution, despise individual human freedom, and frankly despise anything and anyone that gets in the way between them and absolute power.

Please remember that fact when you vote this November.

Obama Shows Off Anti-Capitalist Pro-Marxist Side – AGAIN

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” – Barack Hussein Obama.

Oops.  That was actually Karl Marx.  My bad.

Not that it really matters.  Both men think pretty much share the same politics.  Obama with his “spread the wealth around” mindset is basically saying the exact same thing as Marx in a slightly different way:

“My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

People like Andy Roth of the Club for Growth tried to warn us:

“It’s clear that his main goal is redistribution of wealth, not growth.  He’s perfectly happy to destroy wealth as long as he can redistribute it.”

But Obama’s KoolAid tasted a lot better than wisdom, common sense, and basic decency.  Why work when you can confiscate someone else’s wealth by means of the tyranny of the masses and the ideology of Marxist class warfare?

Obama is a socialist.  Socialists don’t mind wealth at all: they love it.  They just want it in THEIR hands and under THEIR control, rather than anyone else’s.

Let me just give you a quick example.  Goldman Sachs is being attacked (and perhaps justly) for literally betting that the mortgage market would go bust, while misrepresenting mortgage securities to suckers who took them off their hands.

So Goldman Sachs is evil.

But which cynical, demagogic politician took more Goldman Sachs money than ANYBODY???

Barack Hussein Obama.  The little rat bastard weasel didn’t seem to mind when Goldman Sachs was making “more than enough money” to give him a million dollars to buy his victory, did he?

Meanwhile, Obama is helping his Goldman Sachs buddies make billions by means in the cap-and-trade boondoggle (and see also here).

And the primary figure behind the current Goldman Sachs scandal is a LIBERAL bagman who supported liberal Democrat Charles Schumer.

Not that truth matters, of course.

Anyway, we’ve got Barry Hussein channeling Marx yet again:

Obama goes off teleprompter and allows his socialist side to show

Barack Obama:

“I Do Think at Some Point You’ve Made Enough Money”

If we take President Obama at his word, there comes a point when companies and people have made enough money. Logically, it would then be moral in his eyes for the government to confiscate the rest of their earnings. President Obama went off teleprompter and allowed his socialist side to show.

Obama to Wall St.: ‘I Do Think at Some Point You’ve Made Enough Money’ (video)

So with all due respect about Barry Hussein: just who is this son of a bitch to lecture anybody about anything?