Monday, May 28, 2012

Where Is President Obama Hiding His Tax Hikes?

I pulled this off of the Heritage Organization's website. I could not have stated the hidden excessive taxation and regulations emanating from Obama and his minions any better. Please do enjoy it as I have.

Where Is President Obama Hiding His Tax Hikes?

EXCLUSIVE: It could be said that President Obama has never seen a tax hike he doesn’t like — whether it’s letting the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire, insisting on higher taxes for job creators, and yesterday calling on Congress to raise taxes on the oil industry. But as much as the President wants to raise taxes, Heritage has discovered that there are even more tax hikes hidden in his budget, adding up to a total of $2 trillion in higher taxes.
In a new report, Heritage’s Curtis Dubay uncovers Obama’s hidden tax hikes and finds that the President’s proposed $1.561 trillion tax increase over 10 years is much bigger than advertised. In fact, the President wants to raise taxes by $1.689 trillion – that’s $128 billion more than was reported by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the President’s FY 2013 budget proposal.
What’s to account for the discrepancy? Dubay explains that OMB reports the tax hikes in areas other than the tax section, misleading readers into believing that the President’s tax hikes are smaller than they are in reality. Among them are the “Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee,” better known as the bank tax, which adds another $61 billion to the President’s tax hike total; a $44 billion tax hike from allowing the IRS to adjust a program integrity cap; a $48 billion increase of the unemployment tax; and a $1 billion hike of user fees for commercial navigation of inland waterways.
How’s that for “the most transparent White House in history”?
But wait, there’s even more.
On top of the $128 billion in hidden taxes, the President takes credit for tax cuts when he really doesn’t deserve it. Dubay reports that the budget includes $317 billion in pre-existing tax cutting policies, including the payroll tax holiday ($31 billion), the American Opportunity Tax Credit ($137 billion), the Research and Experimentation Credit ($109 billion), the group of tax-reducing policies known as the “tax extenders” ($34 billion), along with a handful of other provisions totaling $6 billion — even though these policies were already part of the tax code. In other words, the President wants to get all the credit, while dodging the blame.
Take away those wrongly counted cuts and the President actually wants to raise taxes by more than $2 trillion!
Dubay says the White House has some explaining to do:
Congress should disregard the misleading tax hike figure from OMB’s table and use the correct $2 trillion amount when referring to the total tax hikes in the President’s budget. And Members of Congress should question OMB as to why they chose to mislead readers about the total tax hike that President Obama has called for on American taxpayers.
Why does all this tax talk matter? Take a look at the economy. America is experiencing a historically slow recovery, the likes of which haven’t been seen since World War II. Private-sector employment is 4.5 percent below pre-recession levels, unemployment remains at 8.3 percent — the highest since the 1981-1982 recession — and only 63.7 percent of adult Americans are active in the labor force, the lowest since 1983. Meanwhile, small businesses say taxes are among their most important problems — they fear Washington will raise taxes in order to pay for even more spending, so they’re sitting on the sidelines and not producing jobs. Now it appears that their worst fears are coming true.
Instead of raising taxes through the roof and hiding a chunk of those tax hikes from the American people, Washington should pursue policies that encourage growth and will help put the unemployed back to work. One way to do it is with Heritage’s “New Flat Tax” which simplifies the tax system and encourages investment.
America doesn’t need $2 trillion in higher taxes, especially in a time of a weak recovery. And it certainly doesn’t need them slipped through under their noses. The President’s budget claims credit for tax cuts he doesn’t deserve, hides the true cost of the tax hikes he imposes, and punishes job creators instead of encouraging them to expand. Consider it the President’s secret recipe for a weak economy.

Sunday, May 27, 2012

Why Socialism Failed

This is a great article written by Mark J. Perry posted on the Freeman Blog on June 1995. It is so timeless that it still rings true today.

Why Socialism Failed

by Mark J. Perry • June 1995 • Vol. 45/Issue 6
Socialism is the Big Lie of the twentieth century. While it promised prosperity, equality, and security, it delivered poverty, misery, and tyranny. Equality was achieved only in the sense that everyone was equal in his or her misery.
In the same way that a Ponzi scheme or chain letter initially succeeds but eventually collapses, socialism may show early signs of success. But any accomplishments quickly fade as the fundamental deficiencies of central planning emerge. It is the initial illusion of success that gives government intervention its pernicious, seductive appeal. In the long run, socialism has always proven to be a formula for tyranny and misery.
A pyramid scheme is ultimately unsustainable because it is based on faulty principles. Likewise, collectivism is unsustainable in the long run because it is a flawed theory. Socialism does not work because it is not consistent with fundamental principles of human behavior. The failure of socialism in countries around the world can be traced to one critical defect: it is a system that ignores incentives.
In a capitalist economy, incentives are of the utmost importance. Market prices, the profit-and-loss system of accounting, and private property rights provide an efficient, interrelated system of incentives to guide and direct economic behavior. Capitalism is based on the theory that incentives matter!
Under socialism, incentives either play a minimal role or are ignored totally. A centrally planned economy without market prices or profits, where property is owned by the state, is a system without an effective incentive mechanism to direct economic activity. By failing to emphasize incentives, socialism is a theory inconsistent with human nature and is therefore doomed to fail. Socialism is based on the theory that incentives don’t matter!
In a radio debate several months ago with a Marxist professor from the University of Minnesota, I pointed out the obvious failures of socialism around the world in Cuba, Eastern Europe, and China. At the time of our debate, Haitian refugees were risking their lives trying to get to Florida in homemade boats. Why was it, I asked him, that people were fleeing Haiti and traveling almost 500 miles by ocean to get to the “evil capitalist empire” when they were only 50 miles from the “workers’ paradise” of Cuba?
The Marxist admitted that many “socialist” countries around the world were failing. However, according to him, the reason for failure is not that socialism is deficient, but that the socialist economies are not practicing “pure” socialism. The perfect version of socialism would work; it is just the imperfect socialism that doesn’t work. Marxists like to compare a theoretically perfect version of socialism with practical, imperfect capitalism which allows them to claim that socialism is superior to capitalism.
If perfection really were an available option, the choice of economic and political systems would be irrelevant. In a world with perfect beings and infinite abundance, any economic or political system–socialism, capitalism, fascism, or communism–would work perfectly.
However, the choice of economic and political institutions is crucial in an imperfect universe with imperfect beings and limited resources. In a world of scarcity it is essential for an economic system to be based on a clear incentive structure to promote economic efficiency. The real choice we face is between imperfect capitalism and imperfect socialism. Given that choice, the evidence of history overwhelmingly favors capitalism as the greatest wealth-producing economic system available.
The strength of capitalism can be attributed to an incentive structure based upon the three Ps: (1) prices determined by market forces, (2) a profit-and-loss system of accounting and (3) private property rights. The failure of socialism can be traced to its neglect of these three incentive-enhancing components.
The price system in a market economy guides economic activity so flawlessly that most people don’t appreciate its importance. Market prices transmit information about relative scarcity and then efficiently coordinate economic activity. The economic content of prices provides incentives that promote economic efficiency.
For example, when the OPEC cartel restricted the supply of oil in the 1970s, oil prices rose dramatically. The higher prices for oil and gasoline transmitted valuable information to both buyers and sellers. Consumers received a strong, clear message about the scarcity of oil by the higher prices at the pump and were forced to change their behavior dramatically. People reacted to the scarcity by driving less, carpooling more, taking public transportation, and buying smaller cars. Producers reacted to the higher price by increasing their efforts at exploration for more oil. In addition, higher oil prices gave producers an incentive to explore and develop alternative fuel and energy sources.
The information transmitted by higher oil prices provided the appropriate incentive structure to both buyers and sellers. Buyers increased their effort to conserve a now more precious resource and sellers increased their effort to find more of this now scarcer resource.
The only alternative to a market price is a controlled or fixed price which always transmits misleading information about relative scarcity. Inappropriate behavior results from a controlled price because false information has been transmitted by an artificial, non-market price.
Look at what happened during the 1970s when U.S. gas prices were controlled. Long lines developed at service stations all over the country because the price for gasoline was kept artificially low by government fiat. The full impact of scarcity was not accurately conveyed. As Milton Friedman pointed out at the time, we could have eliminated the lines at the pump in one day by allowing the price to rise to clear the market.
From our experience with price controls on gasoline and the long lines at the pump and general inconvenience, we get an insight into what happens under socialism where every price in the economy is controlled. The collapse of socialism is due in part to the chaos and inefficiency that result from artificial prices. The information content of a controlled price is always distorted. This in turn distorts the incentives mechanism of prices under socialism. Administered prices are always either too high or too low, which then creates constant shortages and surpluses. Market prices are the only way to transmit information that will create the incentives to ensure economic efficiency.
Profits and Losses
Socialism also collapsed because of its failure to operate under a competitive, profit-and-loss system of accounting. A profit system is an effective monitoring mechanism which continually evaluates the economic performance of every business enterprise. The firms that are the most efficient and most successful at serving the public interest are rewarded with profits. Firms that operate inefficiently and fail to serve the public interest are penalized with losses.
By rewarding success and penalizing failure, the profit system provides a strong disciplinary mechanism which continually redirects resources away from weak, failing, and inefficient firms toward those firms which are the most efficient and successful at serving the public. A competitive profit system ensures a constant reoptimization of resources and moves the economy toward greater levels of efficiency. Unsuccessful firms cannot escape the strong discipline of the marketplace under a profit/loss system. Competition forces companies to serve the public interest or suffer the consequences.
Under central planning, there is no profit-and-loss system of accounting to accurately measure the success or failure of various programs. Without profits, there is no way to discipline firms that fail to serve the public interest and no way to reward firms that do. There is no efficient way to determine which programs should be expanded and which ones should be contracted or terminated.
Without competition, centrally planned economies do not have an effective incentive structure to coordinate economic activity. Without incentives the results are a spiraling cycle of poverty and misery. Instead of continually reallocating resources towards greater efficiency, socialism falls into a vortex of inefficiency and failure.
Private Property Rights
A third fatal defect of socialism is its blatant disregard for the role of private property rights in creating incentives that foster economic growth and development. The failure of socialism around the world is a “tragedy of commons” on a global scale.
The “tragedy of the commons” refers to the British experience of the sixteenth century when certain grazing lands were communally owned by villages and were made available for public use. The land was quickly overgrazed and eventually became worthless as villagers exploited the communally owned resource.
When assets are publicly owned, there are no incentives in place to encourage wise stewardship. While private property creates incentives for conservation and the responsible use of property, public property encourages irresponsibility and waste. If everyone owns an asset, people act as if no one owns it. And when no one owns it, no one really takes care of it. Public ownership encourages neglect and mismanagement.
Since socialism, by definition, is a system marked by the “common ownership of the means of production,” the failure of socialism is a “tragedy of the commons” on a national scale. Much of the economic stagnation of socialism can be traced to the failure to establish and promote private property rights.
As Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto remarked, you can travel in rural communities around the world and you will hear dogs barking, because even dogs understand property rights. It is only statist governments that have failed to understand property rights. Socialist countries are just now starting to recognize the importance of private property as they privatize assets and property in Eastern Europe.
Incentives Matter
Without the incentives of market prices, profit-and-loss accounting, and well-defined property rights, socialist economies stagnate and wither. The economic atrophy that occurs under socialism is a direct consequence of its neglect of economic incentives.
No bounty of natural resources can ever compensate a country for its lack of an efficient system of incentives. Russia, for example, is one of the world’s wealthiest countries in terms of natural resources; it has some of the world’s largest reserves of oil, natural gas, diamonds, and gold. Its valuable farm land, lakes, rivers, and streams stretch across a land area that encompasses 11 time zones. Yet Russia remains poor. Natural resources are helpful, but the ultimate resources of any country are the unlimited resources of its people–human resources.
By their failure to foster, promote, and nurture the potential of their people through incentive-enhancing institutions, centrally planned economies deprive the human spirit of full development. Socialism fails because it kills and destroys the human spirit–just ask the people leaving Cuba in homemade rafts and boats.
As the former centrally planned economies move toward free markets, capitalism, and democracy, they look to the United States for guidance and support during the transition. With an unparalleled 250-year tradition of open markets and limited government, the United States is uniquely qualified to be the guiding light in the worldwide transition to freedom and liberty.
We have an obligation to continue to provide a framework of free markets and democracy for the global transition to freedom. Our responsibility to the rest of the world is to continue to fight the seductiveness of statism around the world and here at home. The seductive nature of statism continues to tempt and lure us into the Barmecidal illusion that the government can create wealth.
The temptress of socialism is constantly luring us with the offer: “give up a little of your freedom and I will give you a little more security.” As the experience of this century has demonstrated, the bargain is tempting but never pays off. We end up losing both our freedom and our security.
Programs like socialized medicine, welfare, Social Security, and minimum wage laws will continue to entice us because on the surface they appear to be expedient and beneficial. Those programs, like all socialist programs, will fail in the long run regardless of initial appearances. These programs are part of the Big Lie of socialism because they ignore the important role of incentives.
Socialism will remain a constant temptation. We must be vigilant in our fight against socialism not only around the globe but also here in the United States.
The failure of socialism inspired a worldwide renaissance of freedom and liberty. For the first time in the history of the world, the day is coming very soon when a majority of the people in the world will live in free societies or societies rapidly moving toward freedom.
Capitalism will play a major role in the global revival of liberty and prosperity because it nurtures the human spirit, inspires human creativity, and promotes the spirit of enterprise. By providing a powerful system of incentives that promote thrift, hard work, and efficiency, capitalism creates wealth.
The main difference between capitalism and socialism is this: Capitalism works.

Article printed from The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty:
URL to article:

Saturday, May 26, 2012

Four Stories you won't Hear About Obama

I enjoyed this article and think you will also. Yet more examples of the Media Bias against Conservatives.

Four Stories You Won’t Hear About Obama

Supported By Media Obama Knocked Out SC Four Stories You Wont Hear About Obama

Most Americans judge a President based on his promises and his results. They measure the success of the nation in part by the question Ronald Reagan asked voters in 1980. Reagan simply said, “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?”

For Barack Obama, this question is deadly. Obama promised big results, but he has failed to deliver. For example, look at these four promises and his results.

Obama’s 825 billion dollar stimulus failed to keep unemployment below 8 percent as Obama promised. Since President Obama’s stimulus passed, America has lost 1.1 million jobs. If you count people who have become discouraged and are no longer seeking jobs, some economists believe that real unemployment rate is above twenty percent.

Obama called his health care package one of his major accomplishments. He told CBS’ Steve Kroft he was “putting in place a system in which we’re going to start lowering health care costs.” Yet it has failed to make health insurance more affordable. According to the fact watchdog website, ObamaCare is actually making health care “less affordable.” Workers paid an average of $132 more for family coverage just this year.

Obama predicted his investments in green energy would create 5 million jobs, but the Wall Street Journal reports: “The green jobs subsidy story gets more embarrassing by the day. Three years ago President Obama promised that by the end of the decade, America would have five million green jobs, but so far, some $90 billion in government spending has delivered very few.”

Obama pledged to cut the deficit in half, saying: “And that’s why today I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office.” Even if every part of Obama’s deficit reduction proposal was enacted, the deficit at the end of his first term would still be $1.33 trillion, more than twice what he promised.

But don’t expect much reporting on his record. Instead, watch as the media focuses on polls. They like to treat most campaigns like a horse race. Don’t be bedazzled by the speeches and rhetoric, just look at the promises and his results. Judge Barack Obama by his own expectations and you will see he has been a failure.

But the news media is almost as desperate to ignore Obama’s record as he is to hide it.

As a result of his dismal record, he has decided to run a campaign of attacks on Mitt Romney in the vain hope that the subject will be changed. The mainstream media will help him change the agenda.

We will hear stories about how Bain Capital, Romney’s old firm, restructured business and cut jobs, and the media will forget to talk about how Obama restructured General Motors and cut jobs.

We will hear stories about how Mitt Romney bullied someone in school nearly 50 years ago, and we won’t hear about Barack Obama doing drugs 25 or 30 years ago.

We will hear stories about how Mitt Romney is controlled by the far right, and we won’t hear a story about Barack Obama’s associates on the far left.

Expect the media to work as hard to re-elect Barack Obama as they did to elect him. But if Romney stays focused on giving America the facts and forcing the media to report accurately, this election is his to lose.

Sunday, May 20, 2012

More examples of the Left squashing economic progress

 The following article posted by Bio ↓ on May 1st, 2012 in the blog is another example of the Marxists on the Left using environmental laws to further their agenda with out regard to the well being of an entire community.

Obama Administration vs. Tombstone

 The latest chapter in the Obama administration’s war against state sovereignty and the state of Arizona pits the town of Tombstone against the United States Forest Service. Tombstone is suing the U.S. Forest Service over that agency’s refusal to allow city officials to repair damaged water transport infrastructure in the nearby Huachuca mountains. The Forest Service’s refusal to allow city workers access to damaged reservoirs, pipelines, and pumping stations, has cut Tombstone off from 50 to 80 percent of its water supply; leaving town residents and tourists dependent on two wells for water, and the town acutely vulnerable to fire. In addition, the water in one well is contaminated with arsenic.
Tombstone is a desert town of 1500 residents located in southern Arizona about 70 miles southeast of Tucson in the shadow of 9466 ft. Miller Peak, which is in the Coronado National Forest. Americans associate Tombstone with the October 1881 gunfight at the O.K. Corral; and the resulting tourist trade has supported the town fairly well. Tombstone has survived the closing of local silver mines and a number of fires, thereby becoming known as “The town too tough to die.” Now, however, that proud title is being severely tested, by our own federal government.
Tombstone is supplied with water from 24 springs, located in the Huachuca Mountains on and around Miller Peak. However, nearly a year ago, from May through July 2011, the Monument fire destroyed at least 18,580 acres (640 acres equals one square mile) of forest and vegetation in the Huachuca Mountains, including the Miller Peak Wilderness area. Torrential rains followed soon after the fire, and the resulting mud slides pushed boulders “the size of Volkswagens” down on vital pumping stations, pipes, and other infrastructure. Some water pipes remain buried under twelve feet of mud, while others are without support, ominously hanging in the air, as the ground underneath has been washed away. In August 2011, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer declared a state of emergency in Tombstone, authorizing $50,000 in state funds to help cover engineering and repair costs for Tombstone’s water system. Since many of the pipelines are in areas designated as “wilderness,” the U.S. Forest Service won’t allow access for the mechanized equipment needed to fix the pipelines. Huge boulders, downed trees, and enormous piles of dirt and gravel must be moved, to build the structures that will protect the water lines against future natural disasters. However, these obstacles can’t be moved with the hand tools and horse teams that the Forest Service demands the city use.
As of January 2012, Forest Service officials had granted permits to repair infrastructure for only 2 of the 24 springs that supply Tombstone; and city manager George Barnes said “the city was told that the requests for the remaining permits would take a lot longer” to approve. Meanwhile, the state’s emergency funds are being wasted, as rented vehicles and equipment are sitting idle, and several pieces of heavy equipment have been vandalized, with the city required to pay for their repair. In addition, Tombstone has only a two day supply of water on hand, making the town particularly vulnerable to fire.
The Obama administration and the U.S. Forest Service are clearly attempting to regulate the state of Arizona in violation of the Constitution and impose an arbitrary, draconian environmentalist agenda on the land use rights of Americans. In addition, gold prospectors on western federal lands are routinely harassed by over-zealous park rangers, and ranchers have been pressured to surrender access and water rights. The Forest Service cites The Wilderness Act of 1964, which defines “Wilderness” as “an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean…an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation…with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable.”  Under “Prohibition of Certain Uses,” this act states, “[S]ubject to existing private rights, there shall be no…permanent road within any Wilderness area designated by this Act and, except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the Administration of the area…(including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area) there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment…no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area.” However, the Forest Service has gone beyond the Wilderness Act and threatened Arizona’s sovereignty and Tombstone’s very existence.
 On behalf of Tombstone, the Goldwater Institute has filed a motion for a preliminary injunction that would allow city officials to go into the Huachuca Mountains and repair the damaged water transport infrastructure. Tombstone’s case is supported by the Tenth Amendment and by the fact that the city’s water rights were vested long before the Wilderness Act of 1964 and the concomitant Arizona Wilderness Act of 1984. The Tenth Amendment states, “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,” and implicitly embodies “a policy against impairing the states’ integrity or ability to function.”
In Tombstone’s “Memorandum in support of motion for preliminary injunction,” the Goldwater Institute clearly shows that the city satisfies the four requirements for granting a preliminary injunction. In addition, this document gives numerous examples of how the Forest Service’s refusal to allow Tombstone officials access to the Miller Peak Wilderness area, and their inexcusable stonewalling of the permit issuing process, has not only seriously compromised Arizona’s integrity and Tombstone’s ability to function, but has put the town’s very existence in jeopardy. The requirements for the court granting Tombstone a preliminary injunction include, “whether the plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief,” and “whether an injunction is in the public interest.” [1]
The Forest Service’s refusal to allow Tombstone officials access to the damaged water supply infrastructure constitutes unlawful “commandeering” of the city’s water supply, and this commandeering “is certain to cause irreparable harm.” This is because “irreparable injury includes the impairment or threatened loss of rights or interests in real property,” “impairment of sovereign interests without notice or opportunity to be heard,” and “harm or threats of harm to public health and safety.” The Goldwater Institute explains that water rights are “real property interests” in Arizona and that Tombstone holds “title to water rights and water structure and pipeline right of way easements,” pursuant to a Congressional Act of July 26, 1866. By this Act, the Federal government is obligated to “protect the rights of individual possessors of water; and to recognize local customs, laws, and state court decisions.” Indeed, in 1907, Gifford Pinchot (a well-known “progressive”) wrote in the U.S. Forest Service’s book, “Use of National Forests,” “The creation of a National forest has no effect whatever on the laws that govern the appropriation of water. This is a matter governed entirely by state and territorial laws.
In addition, the Forest Service recognized Tombstone’s vested water rights in 1916, and in 1962 granted the city a special use permit to maintain and repair its water delivery infrastructure. The Goldwater Institute further explains that the city’s “health and safety interest is not offset by any bona fide environmental interest.” This is because “Any environmental footprint from the work Tombstone seeks to perform will be washed away in the next monsoon,” and that “Even if there were a lasting footprint, environmental interests are not better served by requiring Tombstone to build only temporary structures with hand tools. Those structures will be washed away in the next monsoon. Given the inevitability of seasonal monsoons and periodic flood events in the Huachuca Mountains, it makes no sense to force  repair and rebuild temporary structures ad infinitum with the continuous ground displacement that entails.” [2]
Nevertheless, in 2011-2012, the Forest Service has chosen to ignore not only Pinchot’s (the Forest Service’s first Chief Forester) comment, but the above-mentioned July 1866 Congressional Act and a large body of federal and state case law. By their refusal to allow Tombstone officials access to the city’s water delivery infrastructure, the U.S. Forest Service has violated Arizona’s state sovereignty, directly regulating the state through a political subdivision (Tombstone), in violation of a Tenth Amendment corollary that the Constitution “confers upon Congress the power to regulate individuals, not states.” In addition, the Forest Service has illegally commandeered not only the town’s physical water system, and the authority of Governor Jan Brewer, but Tombstone’s integrity and ability to function.[3] Americans can only hope that the Federal District court will rule against the U.S. Forest Service and order them to allow Tombstone to repair vital water delivery infrastructure as soon as possible, ensuring that the town will continue to exist.
[1] Goldwater Institute, “City of Tombstone’s Memorandum in Support of Motion for preliminary injunction,” p. 5-6; at
[2] Ibid., p. 11
[3] Printz v. United States 521 U.S. 898, 920 (1997), as cited by Goldwater Institute, Ibid., p. 15; Goldwater Institute, “Tombstone’s reply in support of motion to extend time by severing and continuing consideration of Tenth Amendment issues,” p. 8-12, at
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Saturday, May 19, 2012

The Obama White house and mainstream media are ignoring obvious statistics!

The Obama White House and Mainstream Media are ignoring obvious statistics!

Mark Levin on his radio show on May 16th brought up these interesting numbers and statistics. The numbers do not lie so the Leftists in the Media are ignoring the UN-ignorable truths. The devastating predictable results that the Marxists moving FORWARD past Capitalism to their Utopian dream being attempted once again via their lame old tired unsustainable  re-distribution Ponzi scheme.

Of course the are repackaging their tired old 300 year old lies with nice new names while demonizing those that resist. Their completely false and trumped up class warfare, race baiting and war against women.

Sunday, May 13, 2012

We are turning a sustainable safety net into a Ponzi scheme hammock!

I am sick and tired of the obvious bias and twisting of the truth by the mainstream media and many professors at our tax funded Universities. What is fair about punishing hard work thru excessive taxation then perpetuating poverty by regulating poor entrepreneurs out of business? We need to allow free mobility of the poor to move up the social-economic ladder instead of locking them into the ghetto with the permanent underclass. I am not advocating the wholesale elimination of our social programs but instead a minimal amount as required to help the unfortunate poorest among us survive while having some programs available providing the needed tools for those willing to work hard thus move up the social economic ladder.

Below is a great article I read published on Canada free Press.

Democrats most often divide Americans along cultural lines then employs class envy

Cultural deconstruction: turning a safety net into a hammock

- David Coughlin  Wednesday, September 7, 2011

The Democrat political strategy is to segment the American people into constituency classes that can be served separately.  Al Gore made a Freudian slip when he admitted while campaigning that “We can build a collective civic space large enough for all our separate identities, that we can be E Pluribus Unum—out of one, many.”

Democrats most often divide Americans along cultural lines (region, race, ethnicity, religion, and personal values), rather than along economic lines. The party then employs class envy as an explicit strategy for righting perceived wrongs and offering a goal of future class equity. This strategy tends to be very divisive, pitting one class vs. another in a zero sum game, never completely satisfying any constituent class.

Political power is ensured by retaining this underclass as a permanent voting bloc that can be exploited for ongoing political support. Unfortunately nurturing a permanent underclass for political purposes has had unintended cultural consequences, which may eventually

The purpose of welfare is to assist individuals in need and ultimately to help welfare recipients out of poverty and make them self-sufficient.  Medicare was originally designed in 1965 as a Great Society health insurance program for all Americans age 65 and older and for the permanent physically disabled, funded by payroll taxes.  Medicaid is the means tested health program created in 1965 as part of the War on Poverty for people with low incomes and resources, jointly funded by the state and federal governments, and managed by the states.  These social insurance programs have expanded well beyond their original intents, and the unintended consequences has been to grow dependence on government support, instead of a return to self sufficiency. After the Great Society legislation of the 1960s, for the first time a person who was not elderly or disabled could receive a living from the American government.  President Franklin D. Roosevelt said in 1935, “Continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit.”  Social Security and Medicare are rapidly approaching bankruptcy, spending more money each year than is collected.  The destructiveness of welfare goes beyond financial affordability and political dependency. 
The more welfare that families receive from government, the less fathers are necessary for their support, undermining the basic building block of society, the family unit.  Lacking the role model of a responsible father, children grow up to believe that dependency is a natural condition of life.  The children of welfare moms are nurtured in a mentality that perpetuates dependency from generation to generation.  The impact of food stamps, Section 8 housing subsidies, Medicaid, and other support programs has been to create a permanent welfare class who, in terms of skills and attitudes, are poorly equipped to return to work.  The U.S. has spent $16 trillion since LBJ launched his “War on Poverty” in 1964, but the percentage of people in “poverty” remains essentially the same.  Despite the fact that illegal aliens do not contribute to the program funding, many states cover them despite explicitly being excluded.  Our culture has eroded so much now that dependence on the government has become an acceptable lifestyle for the permanent underclass, which has transformed our temporary economic “safety net” into a comfortable “hammock” for long term living.
By design Democrats have deconstructed our American culture into a loose confederation of disparate class cultures on the verge of open class warfare.  Democrats have nurtured an underclass politically dependent with a well developed sense of entitlement, which has taught generations that society owes them a living; that government is responsible for raising their children; working is not necessary; and everyone is entitled to the fruits of other people’s labor.  This policy shows a reckless disregard for the consequences of dependency, which will be terrible. 
Welfare-state paternalism has bred and nurtured immoral, undesirable people because government entitlements create one of two attitudes towards society: either ingratitude or resentment.  If they receive what they’re entitled to, there is nothing to be grateful for because you’re entitled to it.  If they haven’t received an entitlement, then they’re resentful because you haven’t received what you feel you are entitled to.  Evidence of this resentment can be seen in the black “flash mobs” attacking randomly in a number of U.S. cities and the U.K. hoodlum riots attacking random businesses.  We should expect to see more of this violence at the Day of Rage starting on September 17th, since it was originally planned for non-violent protests in three cities, but has already expanded to a week of civil disobedience in at least ten cities.
Nothing less than a culture re-construction is needed to recover from the degradation of our western society.  We must resurrect the culture of personal responsibility.  We must re-teach the cause and effect relationship between hard work and achievement.  Relearning the art of parental discipline, and re-establishing the primacy of the moral code upon which western civilization was built are monumental but necessary tasks.  I hope we are not too late because it will take generations to undo the harm done to our culture.  Ultimately the concept of entitlement must be dismantled from the welfare state.
The Democrats have embraced class warfare as their primary political tactic.  The unintended (or perhaps intended) consequence has been the creation of a permanent underclass totally dependent on the government for their well-being.  Political power is maintained by retaining this dependence in exchange for political support.  Unless you are an unrepentant Marxist praying for a class uprising, this permanent underclass is condemned to a government subsistence existence and an inability to participate in the American Dream.

Sunday, May 6, 2012

Move Over Leftists: Real feminists reject subsidies

Freelance Writer

The Obama campaign released a new ad on Thursday that should be offensive to all of the women who have ever fought for social and financial independence. The ad, featuring a character named “Julia” who uses government assistance from childhood to retirement, speaks volumes about the latest generation of left feminists.
While the feminist philosophy was supposed to encourage women to be self-reliant, left feminists now demand that taxpayers finance their lifestyle choices. From food stamps to birth control, these women are fighting to hold on to their government assistance. What ever happened to the feminist movement that encouraged women to be independent?
Left feminists would be up in arms if an ad promoted the idea that women needed men to survive financially. There would be new feminist slogans, bumper stickers, and rallies across the country to encourage women to stand on their own two feet. So, what’s the difference?
There is none. Left feminists are simply replacing men with government, and calling it empowerment.
A feminist who wants taxpayers to pay for her lifestyle is about as socially and financially independent of a woman as one who marries a wealthy man to pay her bills — and at least the man in the latter scenario chooses to support a woman by his own free will. Whether a man financially supports a woman, or a woman financially supports a man, there is typically a voluntary personal relationship. Absent any force or coercion, both parties consent to this arrangement.
By contrast, the government forces citizens to pay for government assistance through taxes. Leveraging the force of government to finance lifestyle choices is not liberating for women; it perpetuates the falsehood that women need assistance in order to pursue their goals. With all of this talk about a so-called Republican “war on women,” isn’t it the left that is betraying women by suggesting that they need government assistance to survive?
Women are not helpless, nor are they entitled. Government assistance limits lifestyle options and causes women to surrender their financial and social freedom. For decades, feminists fought for women’s financial independence; so why do feminists on the left support trading that in for dependence on government programs?
If women on the left support a government subsidizing their lives, it follows that they no longer believe in women’s financial independence. Thus, their feminist label is merely a cover for what they really believe in: special treatment.
A new kind of feminist is emerging, however — an independent woman who doesn’t believe in the entitlement culture, but instead believes in taking responsibility for herself and her actions. These women are the real feminists because they believe in achieving their goals based on their own merit. With that said, women on the left need to realize their hypocrisy and consider the idea that instead of making women prosperous, government hand-outs hold women back.

Saturday, May 5, 2012

Wikipedia Deletes President Obama’s New Marxist Campaign Slogan Link to Socialists

The Hitler youth also used the slogan forward “Vorwarts” is forward in German. 
Vorwarts was also the Hitler youth movement marching song.

Many forget (or have been misinformed as to the contrary) that the Nazis were socialists, just like the Russian communists also where.

Yep. That’s why they hated each other. All the different socialist groups – the communists, the Trotskyists, the anarcho-syndicalists, the Italian fascists, the National Socialists – were like competing religious cults, competing for the same disaffected constituencies. So far as each group was concerned there could be only one true socialist faith. Leftists hate being reminded that the Nazis were socialists, just as they hate being reminded that Mussolini was a life-long socialist.

Modern liberalism has an enormous amount in common with fascism. In fact the two ideologies are practically indistinguishable. Both are totalitarian, statist, anti-capitalist, anti-democratic and anti-Christian.

Below is another excellent poston this matter by Gary DeMar on

Wikipedia Deletes President Obama’s New Marxist Campaign Slogan Link to Socialists

Bismarck said that “the State must take the matter in hand, since the State can most easily supply the requisite funds. It must provide them not as alms but in fulfillment of the workers’ right to look to the State where their own good will can achieve nothing more.” Roosevelt and his admirers agreed. O’Brien, writing in Forward with Roosevelt, links Bismarck’s social policies with those of Roosevelt: “[The quotation by Bismarck] might have been lifted out of a speech by President Roosevelt in 1936, but the Iron Chancellor uttered it in 1871.”
“Hope and Change” was the campaign slogan of President Obama’s 2008 campaign. The 2012 campaign moniker is “Forward.” Many Americans would add “. . . Off a Cliff.” Obama’s colors may be showing . . . the color red. Fox News reports the following:
“The Obama campaign apparently didn’t look backwards into history when selecting its new campaign slogan, ‘Forward’ — a word with a long and rich association with European Marxism.
“Many Communist and radical publications and entities throughout the 19th and 20th centuries had the name ‘Forward!’ or its foreign cognates. Wikipedia has an entire section called ‘Forward (generic name of socialist publications).’
“The name Forward carries a special meaning in socialist political terminology. It has been frequently used as a name for socialist, communist and other left-wing newspapers and publications,’ the online encyclopedia explains.

“The slogan ‘Forward!’ reflected the conviction of European Marxists and radicals that their movements reflected the march of history, which would move forward past capitalism and into socialism and communism.”
The radical left-wing publication Vorwaerts (the German word for “Forward”) was a clearing house for German revolutionary socialist groups. Karl Marx began to write for it in 1844.
The ‘Great Leap Forward’ was an economic and social campaign of the Communist Party of China led by Mao Zedong.
I suspect that President Obama’s handlers will link the “Forward” campaign slogan to Roosevelt and dismiss the Marxist links. “If it was good enough for FDR,” they’ll probably say, “then it’s good enough for BHO.”
President Obama’s former associates and intellectual mentors – from Saul Alinsky and Bill Ayers to Derrick Bell and Frank Marshall Davis and his own father and mother — were Marxists of one kind or another.
Then there is Anita Dunn, a political strategist who served as White House Communications Director from April through November 2009 with the Obama administration. She said the following in 2009:
“The third lesson and tip actually comes from two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Tse-tung and Mother Theresa — not often coupled with each other, but the two people I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point which is ‘you’re going to make choices; you’re going to challenge; you’re going to say why not; you’re going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before.”