Liberal Racists Attack Black Who Left the Liberal Plantation

From: Godfather Politics

 

posted on October 9, 2012 by Gary DeMar

 

Slavery is alive and well in America. Slave masters restrict access to the free world outside the liberal plantation by using ridicule, what would be considered “hate speech” if used by conservatives, and even death threats. Racial epithets like “Oreo” — black on the outside but white on the inside — are commonplace. A generous use of the N-word is also used.

The latest liberal attack on someone who has left the liberal plantation and got on the Underground Railroad happened to actress Stacey Dash. Dash is known for playing Dee (Dionne), the best friend of Alicia Silverstone’s character “Cher” in the film Clueless (1995). Dash made the bold move of supporting Mitt Romney over Barack Obama in this November’s election. Here’s what she Tweeted:

Vote for Romney. The only choice for your future. @MittRomney @TeamRomney #mittromney #VOTE #voteromney pic.twitter.com/9HFUhWul

 

For this she was vilified. Race was the issue. One person tweeted that she should just “kill herself.” Here are a few more responses:

 “You’re an unemployed black woman endorsing Mitt Romney. You’re voting against yourself thrice. You poor beautiful idiot.”

 “Stacey Dash had a perm since birth. I knew I couldn’t trust her. lol.”

“Wait Stacey Dash is voting for Romney? You get a lil money and you forget that you’re black and a woman. Two things Romney hates.”

One man wrote: “This hurts but you a Romney lover and you slutting yourself to the white man only proves why no black man married u.”

 

Another sophisticate wrote: “Stacey Dash know she gwan be a house slave. She not trying to sit with the cotton pickers.”

It’s no wonder that many blacks are stuck in a lower-class lifestyle. Their logic, rhetoric, and style are lower class. Consider this one [edited for language]:

“Weak a** no acting . . . U can’t never come back over here! You’s a house n***a now.”

Several comments ridiculed Dash because she doesn’t date black men. I don’t know if this is true, but given what I read from some black men in these tweets, I can understand why.

Dash has received a lot of support from the non-insane. Here’s one that summarized the lot of them: “It seems like the only people that are racist in this campaign are people that support President Obama and find a black or Hispanic person that doesn’t. When they do find that person they tear them apart with vitriol and hate. What a shame.”

 

If you want to know the real reason liberals are attacking Stacey Dash,  it’s because they’re stuck with Whoopie Goldberg.

 

 

I always said Obama attracts the moron vote, this further proves my case.

God bless,

JohnnyD

 

Democratic Myth No. 3: They want to return to same practices that got us into this mess

From: Human Events

By: Andrew Puzder
10/8/2012 04:05 PM

Editor’s Note: This analysis is the third in a five-part series on Democrats’ mythical sound bites by Andrew Puzder, an economic adviser to Mitt Romney and CEO of CKE Restaurants, which employs about 21,000 workers.  The second installment was entitled “Democratic Myth No. 2: Those Who Have Done Well Should Pay Their Fair Share.” The first installment was“Democratic MythNo.1: GOP Is to Blame for Failure of Obama’s Job Policies.”

President Obama has often asserted that “there are some [people] who seem to be suffering from a kind of collective amnesia. After all that’s happened, after the worst economic crisis, the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, they want to return to the same practices that got us into this mess.”

In one form or another, the President and his surrogates often echo this myth with great enthusiasm, apparently believing that repetition and zeal can give a false statement both substance and veracity.  By any rational standard, they’re wrong.  Yet, as previously noted, in the wrong hands an oft-repeated myth can become more effective than the truth.

This “return us to the same practices that got us into this mess” mythical sound bite raises two questions.  First, what were the “practices that got us into this mess”?  Second, which of the candidates wants us to “return” to those practices?

A truthful answer reveals quite clearly that President Obama is the one suffering from amnesia on the cause of our continuing economic crisis and that he is either unaware of or consciously misrepresenting Gov. Romney’s policies.  Contrary to the myth, the “practices” that led to the 2008 economic crisis were, in large part, a byproduct of government-centered policies similar to those President Obama advocates and antithetical to Gov. Romney’s free enterprise-centered policies.

So, what caused the 2008 economic crisis?  As most people are at least somewhat aware, there was a real estate bubble and in 2008 the bubble burst, bringing our financial system to its knees.  Understanding how this real estate bubble came into being, why it burst and why our financial institutions were so vulnerable goes a long way towards explaining the cause of the 2008 economic crisis.

Sub-prime home loans

Beginning in the late 1990s, lenders making sub-prime home loans significantly increased the number of qualified borrowers to whom they would lend thereby increasing demand for homes and causing a surge in housing prices that peaked in about 2006.  In 2008, this housing price bubble burst as these sub-prime borrowers began to default on their mortgage loans. 

Our financial institutions were heavily reliant on elevated real estate values and on borrowers generally continuing to make their mortgage payments.  When real estate values plummeted and large numbers of borrowers began defaulting, a number of financial institutions had to raise capital sufficient to offset the decline in the value of their real estate related assets.  Some (Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Citigroup, etc.) were unable to do so and either went out of business or the government bailed them out with Troubled Asset Relief Program (“TARP”) funds.

This was hardly a shocking result.  Sub-prime loans are by definition loans to people who are likely to have difficulty repaying them.  This is why they are called “sub-prime.”  Exacerbating the situation, many of these loans were adjustable rate mortgages that started with “teaser” or below-market interest rates that would go up over time.  Lenders designed these rates to entice sub-prime borrowers with an interest rate at which they could at least temporarily make mortgage payments they would otherwise have difficulty making.

With lenders easing credit standards below anything our economy had ever experienced, the demand for homes outpaced supply and prices soared.  Housing prices in the United States soon exceeded any rational relationship to actual value.  The teaser rates expired, massive numbers of homebuyers defaulted on their mortgages, lenders foreclosed and home values plummeted.  This resulted in outstanding mortgage balances exceeding the value of the underlying homes, even where the borrowers were making the payments, causing additional mortgage defaults, and the real estate bubble burst.

Why were subprime loans made?

One might well ask why rational profit motivated lenders would make loans to individuals who (i) lacked sufficient incomes to repay them (ii) at below market interest rates knowing that such individuals would be unable to make the payments when the teaser rates expired. 

One might well ask why rational profit motivated lenders would make loans to individuals who (i) lacked sufficient incomes to repay them (ii) at below market interest rates knowing that such individuals would be unable to make the payments when the teaser rates expired.

As almost prophetically stated in a 1999 New York Times article entitled “Fannie Mae Eases Credit to Aid Mortgage Lending:”

“Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

“In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s.”

Five years later, the Times again expressed concern in an article aptly entitled “Housing Bust: It Won’t be Pretty,” stating that:

“[E]ven small declines in home prices could hurt the economy.  ‘The precise degree of the vulnerability isn’t going to be clear until we see house prices slow,’ Mr. Wilson [a senior global economist at Goldman Sachs] said. ‘You’ve never seen consumers this stretched, operating at levels of leverage we’ve never experienced before. House prices are starting at a level that is pretty high relative to what we think fair value is going to be, and the economy as a whole has gotten a lot more sensitive’ to housing-related spending.”

As such, what appeared to be a very positive government-supported social goal (home ownership for the underprivileged) was putting our entire economy at risk.  Proponents of this policy soundly criticized anyone who attempted to point this out or who advocated regulatory oversight of Fannie and Freddie.  In 2004, Representatives Maxine Waters, Barney Frank, Gregory Meeks, and others attacked one regulator from the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight for merely pointing out the problem with the GSEs.

Creating trillions in bad investments

The government’s social goal of creating home ownership for low income individuals was again admirable but it simply ignored the consequences for our entire economy of making trillions of dollars in bad investments.  Following the crisis, the International Monetary Fund estimated the total write-downs from the sub-prime loan debacle at about $4 trillion, of which two-thirds fell on banks and the remainder on insurance companies, pension funds, hedge funds, and other intermediaries.  

There is plenty of blame to go around in this situation.  Financial institutions, the government and individual borrowers were all somewhat at fault.  Wall Street saw a profit opportunity in bundling sub-prime loans and took advantage of it without fully considering the long-term consequences.  Borrowers incurred more debt than they could reasonably repay.  Federal regulators allowed the financial institutions they regulated (particularly banks) to put these sub-prime mortgage bundled securities on their books at full market value despite their inherent risks.  However, the core impetus for this conduct was a Federal government policy “to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people.”

Other aspects of the bubble

The housing bubble involved more than just sub-prime mortgages.  There were government subsidies with bipartisan support that further exacerbated the housing bubble driving all home prices up beyond their intrinsic value.  These subsidies include a) the tax deductibility of mortgage interest, b) the tax deductibility of property taxes, and c) the exclusion of a large portion of the profits from the sale of a primary residence from capital gains tax.  My intent here is not to question the wisdom of these policies but rather to point out that they exist and that they contributed to the housing bubble by making home purchase a very desirable and advantageous investment.  

So, while the causes of the 2008 financial debacle are complex, the core “practices that got us into this mess” were well-intentioned, but fundamentally flawed, government housing policies initiated during the Clinton administration, supported by members of both parties, and laden with unintended consequences.

What Romney proposes

Gov. Romney is not the candidate advocating that we “return” to the government centered policies that are truly responsible for the 2008 crisis.  In fact, a government-centered approach to solving our financial problems is antithetical to his private sector based policy initiatives.  Gov. Romney’s economic policies essentially involve increasing economic liberty, structuring the tax code so it poses the least distortions in economic decision making, and reducing regulation.  Such policies have been shown to work throughout economic history, and are more reminiscent of the 1980s than the 2000s.  In particular, Governor Romney’s “Plan for a Stronger Middle Class” has five primary elements.  

The first is “Energy Independence” and involves increasing access to domestic energy, streamlining permitting for exploration and development, eliminating regulations that are destroying the coal industry and approving the Keystone pipeline.

The Second is “The Skills to Succeed.”  Access to great schools and quality teachers.  Access to higher education and job training programs.  Retaining the best and brightest from around the world to help build our economy.

Third, Gov. Romney calls for “Trade that Works for America.”  Opening new markets for our goods, creating free enterprise zones, and curtailing unfair trade practices.

Fourth, Gov. Romney wants to “Cut the Deficit.”  Immediately reduce non-security discretionary spending by 5 percent, cap federal spending at 20 percent of the economy, transfer responsibility for programs to the states, consolidate agencies and align federal employee compensation with the compensation of their private sector counterparts.

Fifth and finally, Gov. Romney would “Champion Small Business” by reforming the tax code so as to reduce taxes on job creators, stop the increase in federal regulations that create red tape and slow job creation, protect businesses and workers from strong arm labor unions tactics, repeal Obamacare and replace it with healthcare reform that controls costs and improves care.

Despite President Obama’s claims to the contrary, it’s hard to see how Gov. Romney’s policies would “return us to the practices that got us into this mess.”  More appropriately, they are private sector based policies well designed to get us out of this mess. If energy independence, education opportunities, expanded trade, deficit reduction and advocating for small business take us in any direction its forward to an economic recovery and prosperity; something President Obama’s government centric policies have been unable to do.

In fact, its President Obama’s first term policies of expanded government, government dependence and government control of the economy (government, government and more government) that harkens back to the policies that “got us into this mess.”  It is difficult to know what decisions our President will need to make over the next four years.  What is important is that our current President would continue to view every decision from his big-government, government dependency perspective designed to transfer economic control to the government and limit individual liberty.  Gov. Romney, on the other hand, would view each decision from his private sector, individual and economic freedom perspective designed to liberate the American spirit and release the dynamic entrepreneurial energy of our free enterprise system.

Of course, it is somewhat difficult to compare Gov. Romney’s proposed policies for getting us out of “this mess” to President Obama’s proposals since the president has yet to tell us how a second Obama term would differ from the first.  If his first term is any measure, with the pending Tax Cliff, Fiscal Cliff (debt and deficit) and Obamacare Cliff, a second term for President Obama could well make the 2008 economic crisis look like a walk in the park.

The bottom line:  We simply can’t afford another four years like the last four years.

God bless,
JohnnyD 

Democratic Myth No. 2: Those who have done well should pay their fair share

From: Human Events

By: Andrew Puzder
10/1/2012 03:00 PM

Editor’s Note: This analysis the second in a five-part series on Democrats’ mythical sound bites by Andrew Puzder, an economic adviser to Mitt Romney and CEO of CKE Restaurants, which employs about 21,000 workers. The first installment was entitled, “Democratic Myth No. 1: GOP Is to Blame for Failure of Obama’s Job Policies.”

President Obama has repeatedly attempted to frame the debate over increasing federal revenue and reducing the deficit as a simple matter: Just raise taxes on people who have been successful.  To use the President’s precise phrasing: “All I’m saying is that those who have done well, including me, should pay their fair share in taxes.” 

This sound bite sounds so good that one is tempted to simply agree without ever questioning the president’s underlying assumption that the successful among us are not already paying their fair share.  Or, that increasing tax rates on the successful is the same as increasing tax revenues.  Neither assumption reflects reality.  As is the case with every Democratic sound bite, the president is counting on it being so appealing that most Americans will accept what he says rather than see it for the myth that it is.  In fact, he is counting on people believing the myth even when faced with facts to the contrary.

Dare we ask what share of federal income tax revenues “those who have done well” should pay as their “fair share” and then ask whether they are failing to do so?  Should we expect a president who claims successful Americans are failing to pay their fair share to demonstrate why he believes this before repeating it relentlessly as if it were a fact?  Perhaps not.  In the wrong hands, an oft-repeated myth can become more effective than the truth.

Higher income, greater tax burden  

So, what is the reality?  We currently have a progressive tax system where those with more income pay a greater share of their income in taxes.  In 2009 (the most recent year for which we have such data), the top 1 percent of taxpayers (those earning over $344,000) earned 17 percent of adjusted gross income but paid 37 percent of all federal income taxes, more than twice their share of national income.  That seems very unfair to the 1 percent and like a very good deal for the other 99 percent. 

The top 5 percent (those earning over $155,000) earned 32 percent of adjusted gross income but paid 59 percent of all federal income taxes.  In other words, the top 5 percent paid more in income taxes than the remaining 95 percent combined.  Again, hardly unfair to the other 95 percent.  The top 10 percent (those earning over $112,000) earned 43 percent of adjusted gross income but paid 71 percent of all federal income taxes.  On the other hand, the bottom 50 percent earned 13.5 percent of adjusted gross income and paid 2.5 percent of all federal income taxes.

While much depends on your definition of “fair,” the wealthy already pay substantially more than their proportional share of taxes and perhaps more than many would objectively consider their “fair share.”  Why President Obama feels that “those who have done well” are failing to pay their fair share is, shall we say, unclear.

Is he talking about tax rates?

Perhaps the president is talking about tax rates as opposed to actual dollars.  He certainly seems to focus on the rates Warren Buffett, Mr. Buffett’s secretary and Mitt Romney pay.  So what tax rates do the successful pay?  The top one percent of taxpayers pays an average rate of 24 percent. 

How does this compare to the remaining 99 percent of taxpayers?  Well, the top five percent of taxpayers pay an average rate of 20 percent.  The top 10 percent of taxpayers pay an average rate of 18 percent.  Those in the top 10 to 25 percent of taxpayers pay an average rate of 8 percent.  Those in top 25 to 50 percent of taxpayers pay an average rate of 6 percent or one-quarter the rate the top one percent pay.  Those in the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers pay an average rate of 1.85 percent, which is one-tenth the rate paid by those in the top 10 percent of taxpayers.  Again, this hardly seems unfair to those in the lower income brackets.  Actually, it seems pretty progressive.

Warren Buffett’s rate

Of course, there are successful people who pay less than the average rate for their bracket such as Gov. Romney, Warren Buffett and the president.  On the other hand, there are successful people who pay more than the average for their bracket.  That’s what makes it an average.  If a successful person’s tax rate is lower than the 24 percent average cited above, it is almost certainly because they received a substantial amount of income in the form of capital gains or dividends, or made significant charitable contributions. 

This is certainly the explanation for Gov. Romney’s and Mr. Buffett’s tax rates, but the investment activity and charitable giving that give rise to this apparent rate anomaly should be applauded rather than demonized.  If this is the “unfairness” that offends the president, perhaps he should drop the “fairness” language and just say he wants to raise the taxes on dividends and capital gains and eliminate the deduction for charitable contributions.  Of course, both of these actions would be extremely counterproductive.  Like many of the president’s proposals, his tax “fairness” arguments are rooted in emotion rather than an understanding of economics.

Explaining capital gains, dividends

In reality, even with capital gains and dividends, the government gets its fair share.  Like the deduction for charitable contributions, lower tax rates for capital gains and dividends are intended to encourage people to take positive action; in this case, investing their assets which generates growth and increases overall tax revenues.  Increasing tax revenues obviously should be the goal of tax policy and the best way to do so is to encourage economic growth.  The current dissatisfaction with capital gains and dividend tax rates often grows out of a general misconception concerning how those rates apply to income the government has already taxed. 

Let’s take a very simple example of how this might work under current tax law.  Say that you want to invest $1,000 in a company.  If you are a high income earner, to invest $1,000 you must earn about $1,500 as your marginal rate on earned income (as opposed to capital gains or dividend income) is 35 percent.  After earning this $1,500, you have $1,000 to invest and the federal government has collected $500 in taxes.

Let’s say the company in which you invested decides to pay you a $100 dividend.  To do so, the company must earn about $150 as the tax rate on corporate income is also 35 percent.  Now you have $1,100 and the government has $550.  However, you have to pay taxes on the $100 the company paid you as a dividend even though the company already paid taxes on this income.  At the 15 percent rate the federal government currently taxes dividends, you would pay another $15 so that you now have $1,085 and the government has $565 or 34 percent of the $1,650 in income you and the corporation in which you invested earned notwithstanding that you paid only a 15 percent rate on your dividend.  This is because the federal government taxed the dividend income both when the company earned it and when you received it.  In short, dividend and capital gains income are very different than income from wages because dividends and capital gains have already been taxed before the investor receives them.  This is an inconvenient truth that the president ignores.

Government’s chain of taxes  

Looking at the entire series of income-generating events and the government’s taxation or double taxation at every stage, it is hard to see how government is getting less than its fair share.  This is particularly true when you factor in payroll taxes, state income taxes, personal property taxes, real estate taxes and sales taxes.  In addition, depending on the value of your entire estate, you could end up paying a death or estate tax on this $1,085 of up to 35 percent despite the federal government having already taxed or double taxed it when earned.  If you lived in a state with a state death tax, you would end up paying even more.  In the end, the government’s share of earned income is so substantial its surprising any money is left. That hardly seems fair to those who earned the income or unfair to the government. 

Perhaps this is why the president occasionally attempts to change this mythical sound bite from the successful needing to “pay their fair share” to the successful needing to be “patriotic” and “do the right thing” by paying more taxes.”  Whether he’s talking about fairness or patriotism, the president is missing the point and demonstrating yet again that he is simply unwilling to do what needs to be done to reinvigorate our economy.

More obligations than revenue

Rather than asking whether taxes are fair or patriotic, the president should be asking whether tax rates maximize tax revenues.  Our problem as a nation is that we have more obligations than we have revenue. 

Simply, we can’t pay our bills. The solution isn’t increased “fairness” or “patriotism.”  The solution is increased revenue.  Percentages (rates) do not pay the bills, dollars (revenues) do.

Economic growth generates higher tax revenue. Higher tax rates on people who are successful, while emotionally appealing to those who will not have to pay them, may actually reduce rather than increase the government’s tax revenues by reducing investment and growth.

Raising taxes may help or it may hurt.  If it were as simple as raising tax rates, the government could increase tax rates to 100 percent?  However, at a 100 percent tax rate there would be no incentive to earn (or report) income and, as such, no tax revenue (see “The Laffer Curve”).  As the president once stated:   “The last thing you want to do is raise taxes in the middle of a recession because that would suck up… take more demand out of the economy and put businesses in a further hole.”  So why increase them now?

Seeking political advantage

Clearly, the president’s promotion of higher tax rates on the “rich” is not designed to address our fiscal problems.  Rather, it is misdirection intended to gain a political advantage.  It is also consistent with the president’s desire to redistribute wealth, grow government and further expand the dependency state that appears to be his ultimate vision.  Everyone would agree that our tax system should be fair (and, within reason, it is), but the more important question is whether we are raising sufficient revenue to pay our bills and reduce our debt.  Rather than arguing for “fairness” or “patriotism,” the president should be promoting private sector growth, the surest way to increase tax revenues.  Unfortunately, President Obama views taxes politically and ideologically rather than fiscally. 

Two very different visions for America

If the president’s tax fairness sound bite clarifies anything, it’s the distinct difference in the Presidential candidates’ respective visions for America’s future.  Mitt Romney’s tax plan is an economic growth, revenue generating plan.  It does not lower tax revenues for the successful, as the president claims, nor does it increase taxes on the middle class, as the president also disingenuously claims.  It’s the plan we need from someone who understands that balancing our budget and paying down our debt are more important objectives for increasing our prosperity than redistributing wealth and growing government. 

Clearly, the president’s “pay their fair share” sound bite is a complete myth, a wily political subterfuge rather than an attempt to promote “fairness” or “patriotism” or seriously address our debt and deficit problems.  Is it really in our nation’s best interest for the president to tell the 50 percent of people who pay 2.5 percent of all federal income taxes that the successful are paying less than their fair share when the top 5 percent of income earners pay more in income taxes than the remaining 95 percent combined?  At a time when we need serious economic policy to reduce our debt and deficits, is a political victory really worth dividing our nation along class and economic lines?  America has always been an opportunity- based society where we encourage success rather than envy and where we applaud rather than punish those who succeed.  No election result is worth changing that.

God bless,
JohnnyD

Liar-in-Chief

From: Canada Free Press

Barack Obama has set new records for lying

 

by  -  Alan Caruba - Monday, October 8, 2012 

 

The fabled British Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli has oft been quoted for saying “There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics.” Later another Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, said “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.”

 

The Ten Commandments includes the admonition, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” All parents strive mightily to teach their children to tell the truth and Mitt Romney, in the first debate with Barack Obama dissected the lies being told about his proposed policies.

 

The journalist, H.L. Mencken said, “The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth.”

 

The current political campaign is replete with fact-checkers, a growing doubt regarding the accuracy of polls and news reporting, and charges of lying flying back and forth between candidates and political parties. Lies do not go unnoticed.

 

Political campaigns require people to sort out the lies from the truth and on Wednesday, an audience of millions seemed to suddenly discover that President Obama was not telling the truth as Mitt Romney skillfully presented facts and statistics that undermined his record in office and the lies he has been telling about that record.

 

Stunned by Romney’s presentation, the Democratic Party responded with a news release claiming that he had lied. “But when the dust settles, Romney’s dozen flat-out falsehoods will be the only thing remaining…” If Romney had been lying, it would have been front-page news. It is the same Democratic Party that has run ads saying Romney is a felon and a murderer!.  

Barack Obama has set new records for lying

The simple, undeniable truth is that Barack Obama has set new records for lying, often when there was no need to. It isn’t just casual lying. It is pathological to a point where entire books have cataloged them and there are Internet sites that keep a record of them. 

During the 2008 campaign Obama claimed that the civil rights march in Selma, Alabama inspired his birth, but Selma was in 1965 and Obama had been born in 1961. He said his father had been a goat herder in Kenyan, but he had been a privileged, well-educated youth who went on to work for the Kenyan government. He claimed his Kenyon grandmother was Christian, but she was a Muslim and Christianity would not have permitted her to have been one of 14 wives. 

Obama even lied about his name Barack, saying it was Swahlli when, in truth, it is Arabic as is his middle name, Hussein. He claimed the school he attended as a child from age 6 to 10 in Indonesia was Christian. It was Muslim. He lied throughout the 2008 campaign and it should be no surprise that he has lied throughout his presidency.

Top Ten Obama Lies

 

In July, Human Events published a list, “Top Ten Obama Lies”, noting the lie that his mother who had died of cancer after being denied insurance coverage for a preexisting condition, using the lie to sell Obamacare, but Ann Durham had health insurance through her employer and was only denied disability insurance.

Human Events noted that Obama had claimed during his campaign that he would not raise taxes on families making less than $250,000 but “Obamacare’s individual mandate will hit many under the $250,000 mark and the Supreme Court would later rule that the mandate was a tax, not a penalty. 

He has repeatedly said Americans could keep their doctor, but Obamacare will cause many employers to dump their health plans and force many workers into health care exchanges. The bill, over 2,500 pages long, was passed along strict party lines and then House Majority Leader, Nancy Pelosi, told Americans they would have to pass it in order to learn what was in it!  

Obama’s “stimulus” was based in part on the claim that there were many “shovel-ready construction jobs” but he would later admit that there were far fewer than claimed saying “There’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects.” 

Obama promised an open and “transparent” federal government

 

Obama promised an open and “transparent” federal government, but by mid-2011, his administration had refused to grant one-third of the Freedom of Information Act requests. Most famously, when the Fast and Furious gun-running scandal broke, Obama invoked executive privilege to protect his Attorney General and Justice Department from a congressional probe. 

We accept that politicians often “shade the truth” but Obama’s election and service in the office of the President was based on a huge matrix of lies about his personal life and the legislation that imposed a hugely unpopular health care law, the waste of billions on “clean energy” firms that swiftly went bankrupt leaving taxpayers with the bill, a failed stimulus, and myriad other programs.

Libyan consulate

 

The latest lies involved the September 11, 2012 attack on the Libyan consulate and the murder of a U.S. ambassador and three of his staff. His United Nations ambassador went on five Sunday news shows claiming it was due to an amateur film no one had seen and was “spontaneous.”

John F. Kennedy once said, “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie—-deliberate, contrived and dishonest—-but the myth—- persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.”

He was right. The myths woven by Barack Hussein Obama about his life and about his intentions, combined with his blaming of everyone and everything for his failures, are coming unravelled despite his co-conspirators, the Democratic Party, and many in the mainstream press. 

God bless,

JohnnyD

  

One Nation Under God

by Rus Walton

Our very political superstructures stand upon the critical bedrock of cherished biblical principles.

At the point in God's good time when the Constitutional Convention had completed its work...

The lady sidled up to old Ben Franklin.

"Well, Dr. Franklin. What have you given us?"

"You have a republic, madame. If you can keep it."

There had been other governments before that had gone by that description - that word, "republic."

But those were different. Different in origin. Different in nature. Different in structure. The best of that past was incorporated into this new and true republic. The rest - the evil, the excess - was rejected.

So this new creation stood unique. A system of self-government. By the consent of the governed. And with union.

A constitutional republic with individual liberty, elected representatives and limited government. A government with its powers nailed down; fastened and confined to the proper defense oe the individual - to his pursuits of life, liberty, property and happiness, those inalienable rights endowed by the Creator.

A republic in which the power to govern was checked and balanced by devices designed to stop the tyrant in his tracks.

The sons of liberty joined to erect four fences around their government, so it could not get out of hand or out of bounds: The Executive, the Legislative, the Judicial, and the Individual. Each was to be a check, or a balance, on the other.

After God the individual came first. Only by his consent could government govern - and then, only to protect
his life, liberty and property. Not just his, but all men - equally.

The New Nation: A republic, not a democracy.

And so the founding fathers created a republic. 

A democracy? Where half plus one can squash the rest? Where a fanatical majority can deprive the individual of his rights, his life, his property? Not for these men.

They knew democracy with its excesses, its leveling-down process, its inherent seeds of destruction. They knew Plato's warning that unrestricted democracy must result in a dictatorship.

The very essence of democracy rests in the absolute sovereignty of the majority. Our founding fathers could never accept such tyranny. They recognized only one rightful sovereign over men and nations - not the state, not the majority.

"Each religion has a form of government, and Christianity astonished the world by establishing self-government...the foundation stone of the United States of America."(1)

But our founding fathers realized the impossibility of maintaining freedom unless those who are "at liberty" are able to exercise self-restraint.

And they gave to this government just enough power to serve. Just enough and no more.

And even then, with all the checks and balances and fences of that constitutional document, it was not until the Bill of Rights was tacked on that the states consented to the union and ratified the federation.

A New Ideal: Freedom of Religion, Not from Religion. 

Christ died - and rose - to make men free. All men, all nations.

Through Christ we are freed from the wages and the death of sin. Eternal freedom.

Free from the ravages of appetite. Internal freedom. If we choose to be.

Free from the savagery of demagogues and kings. External freedom. If we choose to be.

Just as Christ brought us internal freedom (and a rebirth into a new life through Him) so He brought us a new direction for our external freedom (and a new purpose for our civil government).

If Christ would die for men, where did Ceasar get off forcing men to live - and die - for him?

There! There was the spark, the flame, the beacon light of the American idea. The power of the great American republic. The sense of the Constitution of these United States.

"The concept of a secular state was virtually non-existent in 1776 as well as in 187, when the Constitution was written, and no less so when the Bill of Rights was adopted. To read the Constitution as the charter for a secular state is to mesread history, and to misread it radically. The Constitution was designed to perpetuate a Christian order." (2)

Why then is there, in the main, an absence of any reference to Christianity in the Constitution?

Because the framers of the Constitution did not believe that this was an area of jurisdiction for the federal government. It would not have occurred to them to attempt to re-establish that which the colonists had fought against, namely, religious control and establishment by the central government.

"The freedom of the first amendment from federal interference is not from religion but for religion in the constituent states." (3)

Separation of church and state? Absolutely!

Divorcement of God from government? Not so!

The American system is the political expression of Christian ideas...a nation foundes upon the rock of rekigion and rooted in the love of man.

In 1851, when Daniel Webster was reviewing the history of "this Great American family." he reaffirmed the need and role of God in Government: "Let the religious element in man's nature be neglected, let him be influenced by no higher motives than low self-interest, and subjected to no stronger restraint than the limits of civil authority, and he becomes the creature of selfish passion or blind fanaticism. On the other hand, the cultivation of the religious sentiment represses licentiousness...inspires respect for law and order, and gives strength to the whole social fabric, at the same time that it conducts the human soul upward to the author of its being."

More than one hundred years after Webster, Charles Malik, one-time ambassador to the United Nations from Lebanon, put it this way:

"The good (in the United States) would never have come into being without the blessing and the power of Jesus Christ...I know how embarrassing this matter is to politicians, bureaucrats, businessmen and cynics: but, whatever these honored men think, the irrefutable truth is that the soul of America is at its best and highest, Christian."

Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of The Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian...This s a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation...we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth...These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.

SUPREME COURT DECISION, 1892

CHURCH OF THE HOLY TRINITY V. UNITED STATES

(1) Verna M. Hall, Christian History of the Constitution

(2) R. J. Rushdoony, The Nature of the American System

(3) Ibid

God bless,

JohnnyD

Five lies President Obama will use tonight

From: Human Events

By: Kate Obenshain - 10/3/2012

Barack Obama has spent the last three-and-a-half years avoiding any substantive discussion of economic realities by dividing Americans according to income levels, gender, race, religion, immigration status and age. He does it through innuendos, distortions and downright lies.  Tonight’s debate will be no different.  If he can continue to convince people that Mitt Romney and Republicans despise the “middle class,” women, immigrants, etc., and are more concerned about millionaires and billionaires than children with autism and Down syndrome, than he can avoid defending his indefensible economic record.

Just in case Mitt Romney doesn’t hit every one of these out of the ballpark, the blogosphere better be ready to do its part as the instantaneous fact checkers. It is a fair bet that the national media will be more interested in continuing the Obama-narrative than digging to find the truth.

Here are five of the top divisive lies we can expect to hear, almost verbatim, but in no particular order, out of the president’s lips.

1) “We are on the right track. But the situation I inherited from Republicans was so bad that I just need more time to finish the job.”

Unemployment is at 8.1 percent, having been over 8 percent for the past 42 months. Nearly one-fourth of Americans between the ages of 25 and 55 are unemployed. The gross domestic product growth rate is now at 1.3 percent.  It was 3 percent at the beginning of the recession. Durable goods orders are down 13.2 percent–a huge indicator of the direction of the economy. Gas prices have more than doubled over the past 4 years.  Grocery, electricity and health care premium costs are all rising, not falling. Food stamp recipients have risen by 15 million people. And of course, the national debt has increased by $5.4 trillion under Obama. Surely this is not the “right track.” And if this is the direction in which he wants to take our country, we can only imagine that “finishing the job” means bankruptcy and economic collapse.

2) “Impartial analysts have assured us that Governor Romney will jack up taxes on the struggling middle class in favor of tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.”

Barack Obama relies on the Tax Policy Center for an “impartial” analysis of Romney’s plan.  He doesn’t mention that the co-author of the study used to work for the White House. Nor does he mention that Romney’s plan will cut everyone’s taxes by 20 percent.  But Romney has promised to close the loopholes for the wealthier among us, so their taxes would not necessarily go down that 20 percent.  But if they did? Everyone would benefit.  Call it trickle down if you want.  Ronald Reagan cut the top income tax from 70 percent to 28 percent, and government revenue (taxes) for that tax bracket DOUBLED, meaning more Americans moved up the income scale, and consequently paid more in taxes. More of us moving UP the income ladder is a GOOD thing, contrary to what Obama suggests when he talks about how Americans should be able to move into the middle class “and stay there.”

3) “I have cut taxes for the middle class by $3,600 per typical family.”

This line contains deceit by omission. While Obama did cut taxes by for those making an average of $50,000 by around $3,600, not per year as he implies, but over four years, the cuts all expire by the end of this year, resulting in an increase for next year.

And of course, it’s not the whole story. The president leaves out the inconvenient hikes that he has implemented and those that will come crashing down on the middle class over the next two years in order to pay for the rising national debt and Obamacare.

Obama has already pushed through taxes on cigarettes, tanning salons and the “medicine cabinet tax”; Obamacare calls for increased Medicare taxes, , surcharges on investment income, taxes on medical devices, decreases in pre-tax dollars that can be put in flex savings accounts, and the biggie: in 2014 the massive tax on Americans who choose not to or simply cannot purchase health care. He also wants to let the Bush tax cuts on wealthier Americans and small businesses expire, which will lead to less productivity, and in short order, decreased revenue. That will lead to a vicious cycle, as long as Democrats have control, of increased taxes for all income levels.

4) “Governor Romney and the Republicans are out of touch with women and their health needs and are threatening women’s reproductive rights.”

One of Obama’s favorite areas to divide Americans is over gender—he assumes they are silly enough to be exploited over typical leftist talking points while their economic fortunes and gains diminish. Unemployment for women is a full point higher than it was in 2009; the poverty rate for women is at a 17 year high; 40 percent of households headed by women are in poverty. The rising cost of essentials such as gas, food and electricity are devastating to these women. The massive infusion of 20 million more Americans into Medicaid will hit women and children already dependent on that entitlement particularly hard.

Women are weary of being patronized and exploited for political benefit by this president, whose campaign yesterday urged them to “vote like their lady parts depend on it.” Their concerns are not one-dimensional, as Obama likes to paint them.  For Obama, “women’s health issue” seem to run the gambit from “a” to “b”—abortion to birth control. Far from threatening “reproductive rights” or the availability of contraception, Mitt Romney has simply defended the rights of religious organizations to decline to offer insurance that covers practices antithetical to their beliefs, based on their First Amendment rights. Women are capable of understanding that distinction. Obama ought to be careful about who he calls out of touch.

5) “The obstructionist Congress, controlled by the Republicans, have kept me from getting through many of my signature proposals that would have vastly improved our economic situation.”

When he was inaugurated, Obama said to Republicans that he wanted to “listen to you, especially when we disagree.”  Three days later, he told Republican Congressman Eric Cantor: “I won, I trump you on that.” So much for listening.  Since then he has tried to marginalize Congressional Republicans by calling them “hostage-takers” and “the enemy.” Hardly the language of compromise. Obama’s Democrats controlled Congress for the first two years of his administration, during which time he and Congressional Democrats lied to the American people that Obamacare was not a tax, shut them out of the proceedings and debate, and forced it on them. When Obama introduced his budget to the Senate, it was so outlandish, not a single member of either party voted for it.  Obama has demonstrated he is not serious about working with members of Congress.  He is simply interested in using them as a political punching bag in order to shift voters’ attention and angst away from him.  He calls Congress obstructionist when it does not walk in lock step with his radical agenda. We call that vigilant.

Tonight, Obama will once again trot out his tired strategy of divide and conquer.  He will seek to vilify his opponent and his supporters, yet again attempting to pit Americans against each other—not based on facts or ideas, but distortions, flagrant lies and character assault.  He will do this because it has been his strategy all along: characterize your opponent as the enemy; stir up rancor, distrust and discord; avoid any genuine discussion about opposing philosophies; and ram through your agenda.  His strategy banks the American people being dim-witted enough to fall for it.  Economic realities, though, as stark as those we face now, have a tendency to sharpen even the dimmest of our wits.

God bless,
JohnnyD

Obama’s Food Stamp Mania

From: FreedomWorks

By Brian LaSorsa on October 02, 2012

 

It was great when we started referring to Barack Obama as the “food stamp president” — and such a fitting title for the current head of the White House. Unfortunately liberals eat up government dependency, and they started wearing the new phrase as a badge of honor.

Take Peter Edelman, Associate Dean of Georgetown Law, who gave a talk in June explaining why he believes Obama is an absolute genius. Here’s a transcription from The Blaze’s video:

 

Food Stamps was at 26 million people in 2007 — 26.3 million. In the last five years, that’s gone up to 46 million people. In other words, Food Stamps works. … He is the “food stamp president.” That’s great! … We have 16 million people on Medicaid going forward — 16 million more people added — and we’ve trying to have that happen since 1965.

 

Increased reliance on safety net programs is neither a founding pillar of our country nor a fiscal accomplishment. The stated purpose of safety nets is to catch people from falling to the ground in worst-case scenarios. Safety nets are not supposed to permanently house people who will lay in them like hammocks.

 

So, just how bad has the food stamp problem become?

 

The Weekly Standard reported an interesting discovery about two weeks ago. Jeff Sessions, a ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, urged his staff to look into food stamp data. The team’s graph is a perfect representation of why Obama’s policies don’t work.

 

From January 2009 — when Obama took office — to June 2012, the net change in jobs was -1.3 million (i.e., 1.3 million Americans have lost their jobs overall). And, in that same period of time, 15.1 million people signed up for food stamps, totaling 46.7 million recipients nationally.

Now we find out that Obama isn’t driving food stamp registration exclusively in the United States. He’s doing it across the border, too. (Maybe he’s trying to make up for Fast and Furious.)

 

Caroline May has published some fantastic work at the Daily Caller about the Obama administration’s extensive partnership with the Mexican government through which it promotes these “supplemental nutrition assistance programs,” known to most people as “food stamps.”

 

May writes,

 

Statistics in Vilsack’s letter indicate that the number of legal non-citizens participating in SNAP increased approximately 190 percent from 2001 to 2010 . . .

USDA did not offer data for 2011 and 2012, but a Republican Budget Committee staffer told TheDC that based on the growth rate, the number of legal non-citizens participating in the food stamp program today is about 1.63 million. That’s more than double the number of legal non-citizens who participated in 2008.

 

The partnership also includes a campaign to counteract feelings of pride and self-reliance, traits that used to be respected in early America.

 

Author David Beito details this classical stigma toward receiving government aid in his book, “From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State.” The private fraternal societies of the late 18th and early 19th centuries fostered a strong sense of community that easily and efficiently allocated resources to those who needed them most. Comparatively, government programs hurt the poor in the long-term, destroying communities and families alike.

 

James Gwartney and Thomas S. McCaleb analyzed the effects of these huge welfare programs established in the 1960s. One finding is a “skill-depreciation effect.” They write,

 

As the marginal poor spend more time dependent upon transfers and less time in the work force, their skills depreciate and their work record deteriorates. They become less and less able to support themselves. Over time, more and more of the marginal poor will be transformed into hardcore poor. …

Between 1966 and 1980, the proportion of poor households headed by a person who did not work at all during the year rose from 39.7 percent to 49.6 percent. For female headed households in poverty, 61.5 percent of the household heads did not work at all in 1980, up from 52.7 percent in 1966. Thus, while the labor force participation of all females was climbing, the rate for poor females was declining.

 

To put it simply — if you want to “pay” for the poor today, realize you’ll be paying a lot more for them in the future. It’s the same with food stamps, and it always will be. The rest of us realize the truth.

 

In the words of Gerald Ford, “A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.”

 

God bless,

JohnnyD