Archive for the ‘National Politics’ Category
Debating the Tax Deal — Cutting Through the Fog
If you care to cut through all the fog about the tentative agreement to not raise taxes, here are a few pertinent facts and my thoughts.
Remember, their “how-to” manual (Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky) tells Progressives that the ends justify the means. One of his moral authorities is Vladimir Lenin, killer of millions. Lying, cheating, stealing, etc. is OK if it helps you take money away from the “haves” and give it to the “have-nots.” Laws and moral norms (don’t lie, don’t cheat, don’t steal, etc.) are legal and moral constructs which have been created by the “haves” to keep wealth away from the “have-nots.”
For nearly 10 years, the Dems have claimed that the 2001/2003 tax cuts did nothing for the low-income and middle class. That’s a lie:
- These cuts lowered the bottom tax bracket from 15% to 10 %, a 5% decrease. Most other rates were decreased by 3%. The highest rate was reduced 4.6%, from 39.6% to 35%.
- A tax credit was given for each child under age 17 or so.
- The estate tax was eliminated.
- Now, after nearly 10 years of denying that tax cuts for middle class families even existed in this bill, the Dems have suddenly “found” the middle class tax breaks and are now declaring that these lower rates must now be preserved.
The latest sticking point is ostensibly the tax rates for those making over $1,000,000 or so. The Republicans wanted to keep it at 35%. The Alinsky-ites want it to go up to the Clinton-era rate of 39.6%. Actually, they want the tax rates to go up on everybody, but they don’t want you to know this.
The 5% rate difference may not seem all that important by itself, but it’s just the first wave. The Alinsky-ites will never be satisfied with 39.6%. As soon as that rate is established, the 39.6% will become the new baseline and they will want even more. They will demand another 10%, and we will all be admonished to accept another “compromise,” which will become the new baseline for the next “compromise,” and so on. Middle class families will not be exempt. Dems/Alinsky-ites believe it’s not fair that we have more money than the very poorest of our families, so they will come after us as well. The Dem/Alinsky-ite greed for money and power never ends. After all, it takes a lot of money to keep ’em happy at Planned Parenthood, ACORN, the unions, etc. There’s a reason Government is the only growth industry in our economy.
There’s another reason they want more of your money. There are millions of abortions done every year around the world that are not paid for by the American taxpayer. This is in injustice that simply must be corrected.
Postponing the Dem/Alinsky-ite tax increase for two years won’t do much for the economy. The planning horizon for business is much further than that, and investors need to know what the tax rates will be 10+ years out.
When the tax cuts were first enacted in 2001/2003, they helped stimulate the economy because investers know that the lower rates would stay in place until the end of 2010, and there was every expectation that they would be made permanent after that. The good effects of this tax cut on the economy, as realized in the mid-2000’s, were overwhelmed in 2007-2008 by the perfect economic storm:
- rising personal and business debt,
- the spike in world oil prices,
- the bursting of the government-created housing bubble,
- the expectation that deficit spending, already too high under Pres. Bush, would destabilize the economy in the long-run, and
- the fear that a new anti-business administration would destabilize the economy even worse and more quickly.
The only good thing about the 2-year extension is that it just postpones the real debate for another 2 years down the road, just in time for the next election cycle.
With regard to extending jobless benefits, I’m not sure what they actually have agreed to. Even with the internet, it can still be difficult to find facts that you can read and understand.
Best political ad of the year?
I might have to move to Florida.
Fools rush in where Europe rushes out
Great op-ed piece by Jonah Goldberg.
As far as I am aware, no one has asked President Obama a simple question: If your philosophy is so great, how come the countries that have embraced it for generations are so much poorer than we are?
Nor have they asked: If guaranteed health care for everyone will make us so much more “competitive,” how come we’ve been doing so much better than our “competitors” who already have socialized medicine, high tax rates, and lavish pensions?
Make Mine Freedom
This is one of the best I have ever seen and it was produced in 1948. This should be viewed by every American, whether Democrat or Republican. This cartoon is timeless and is even more true today as it was in 1948!
I Want Your Money … You gotta see this movie!
Great new movie out this week: I Want Your Money.
To find a theatre near you, click here.
Join filmmaker Ray Griggs in this documentary film I Want Your Money as he contrasts the two paths the United States can take using the words and actions of Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan. The film uses interviews from well-known public figures, experts, movie clips, dramatic portrayals, music, graphics and even comedic animation to tell the story in the plainest terms of the choice between the Obama and the Reagan views of the role of the federal government in our society. It also examines how these big government programs have been tried in the past at great moral and financial cost to the nation. California is offered as a case-in-point in understanding what economic challenges might face the nation, if we choose the larger government path. Finally, I Want Your Money is a call to action for those who care about the future of the United States.
The Saga of Uncle Feds … all too true
In a recent column, John Kass shared with us an excellent parable describing our relationship with the Federal government. It’s called The Saga of Uncle Feds.
Uncle Feds is the big fat fellow who crashes on your couch. He’s been there for years and years. He demands roasts and chops, devouring whatever he can find in your refrigerator. And when you’re out working long hours, Uncle Feds sits on the couch ordering pay-per-view movies.
He was plenty big before all that hope and change. But in the last two years, Uncle Feds has become so incredibly large that his bulk defies description.
And while he eats, you begin to realize that you don’t have enough cash to fix that hole in your shoe, let alone think about college tuition for the kids.
So one night at dinner, Uncle Feds brings up the subject of your family’s financial problems. In a rational, calm and hopeful voice, he tells you that yes, the economy is lousy, but that you must stop worrying.
“Don’t be angry,” says Uncle Feds with a mouthful of rare beef. “Don’t focus on your anger. Don’t worry about a darned thing. I’ve just solved all your cash shortage problems.”
Your wife gives you one of those startled looks.
“Uncle Feds!” she says, “Just what have you done?”
“Well, I’ve just taken out a second mortgage on your house,” says Uncle Feds. “Your cash-flow worries are over.”
I don’t know about you, but that sounds like bad economics to me. You reckon that makes me a racist?
The return of the liberal thugocracy
Expanding on my previous post (and, lest you think Mark Levin was exaggerating), I wanted to call your attention to Michael Barone’s column (“The coming liberal thugocracy“) that appeared in the Washington Times in October 2008.
Barone forsaw the very kind of thuggish behavior that is proudly on display this election cycle. The Family Research Council is reporting on it’s website:
Now we see thugocracy arriving in full form this election season. This past weekend President Obama said that campaign ads pointing out the voting records of Members of Congress who supported his policies were financed possibly by “foreign-owned corporations,” which is an accusation that even the New York Times found false.
Members of Congress are getting into the act as well by trying to silence any organizations that seek to expose their voting records. At least one of the targets of FRC Action PAC’s humorous “Get Government Off Our Backs” ad (CBS News and their online viewers declared the spot the “hottest ad of the week!”) has been calling television stations to stop the ads from airing. Congressman John Boccieri’s (D-Ohio) campaign called the ad misleading but after reviewing his voting record, the station quickly agreed the ad was truthful.
Here’s the Get Government Off Our Backs ad:
Attacking the First Amendment – Is that the best you can do?
You may know some of this story, which relates to the current election cycle. But the story is even more important for pro-lifers because it is part of a broader strategy to undermine First Amendment protections for political speech.
Toby Harnden of the London Daily Telegraph has written an opinion piece entitled, “Epitaph for Barack Obama’s Democrats: ‘Is that the best you can do?'”
Here’s the video of Bob Schieffer asking that question of David Axelrod:
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdhP2gqBs28
You might want to watch this response by Charles Krauthammer.
As pro-lifers, we must look at this in the broader context, which is the all-out assault our right to speak on political matters. Obama and his band of Alinsky-ites are trying to permanently strip us of this right in order to gain and keep political power for themselves. They have been restrained by two recent Supreme Court decisions (Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission), but only by narrow 5-4 majorities on the Court. [Just a reminder: elections matter.]
Mark Levin exposes the hypocrisy of these people in this analysis that is worthy of your consideration.
Obama DOJ on voter fraud: not interested
Apparently, the Obama administration is intent on expanding its power by bringing Chicago-style voter fraud to the entire nation.
To really understand the mind-set of Pres. Obama and his henchmen, you have to read “Rules for Radicals” by Saul Alinsky. Alinsky was the father of “community organizing” in Chicago, and he provided the philosophical underpinnings for much of what has become of the Democratic party over the past 30 years. In Chapter 2 (Of Means and Ends) any means are acceptable as long as the end result is to take away from the “Haves” and give to the “Have-Nots”. One of Alinsky’s moral authorities is none other than Vladimir Lenin, killer of millions.
Since the Alinsky movement is driven by atheists who reject the notion of Christian virtues, these people have no sense of accountability to any outside moral authority (e.g., God). To them, laws and morality are only constructs of the Haves to hold onto their own power/wealth and keep the Have-Nots from getting theirs. They hold themselves accountable only to their own ideology, which is to take from the Haves and give to the Have-Nots. (Of course, they are not above taking a huge cut for themselves [Source 1, Source 2].) As long as the end result is that more people are helped than harmed, it is morally justifiable to lie, cheat, steal, and (if we are to follow the example of Lenin) even murder.
These people are not your father’s Democrats or even your next-door-neighbor Democrats. They are Alinsky-ites and they are not to be trusted.
Election 2010 — It ain’t over ’til its over
The coming election is critical. We’ve all heard the hopeful talk, but remember what the great philosopher Yogi Berra once said, “It ain’t over ’til its over.”
Let me encourage you to do whatever you can to bring back a pro-American, pro-Freedom, and pro-Life Congress in the next 30 days. Don’t sit around watching Fox News. It makes you feel good but it does nothing to help. This will help:
- Pray and fast for God’s mercies.
- Go to www.RealClearPolitics.com. Find a tossup Senate race and a tossup House race. Go to their websites. Donate. Volunteer. There may be ways to volunteer even if you don’t live there. Caution: don’t waste time on lost causes nor on races already won.
- Order a copy of the video Battle for America (trailer below) and host a home showing for all your pro-life, pro-freedom, pro-American friends. Most importantly, view it with your children, nieces, and nephews and their friends.
- Whatever happens on Nov. 2, the work isn’t finished. Help create a permanent pro-life voting majority by supporting CBR (click here). Your $10 a month will help CBR visit 96 major university campuses before the 2012 elections.
If you don’t do anything, then don’t complain to me about the anti-American, anti-Freedom, pro-Death people you get stuck with.
A Tale of Two Rallies | Stunning photos of Restoring Honor and One Nation
Some of the organizers claimed 175,000 or so attended, and one left-winger even claimed more attended Saturday’s rally than attended Glenn Beck’s Restoring Honor rally in August. FletcherArmstrongBlog should win the prize for this, because nobody — not CBS, not MSNBC, not NBC, not even Fox News — is reporting the story like you are about to see it!
I went online and found a photo of each rally taken from the Washington Monument. (See caveat below.) See if you can figure out which crowd is bigger.
Is the Tea Party Pro Life?
Jill Stanek has an interesting op-ed piece in the World Net Daily that you should read. She addresses the pro-life aspects of the new GOP Pledge to America and the emergence of a number of pro-life Tea Party candidates in key Senate races.
I’m sure that there will be many people disappointed that the GOP Pledge says little about abortion, but Stanek points out that it actually says more than it’s predecessor, the 1994 Contract with America.
Although the new Pledge is no pro-life manifesto, it does have the effect of saving babies by removing some of the funding that pays for the killing. We should bear in mind that defunding Planned Parenthood in New Jersey has already caused at least one abortion clinic to close down.
Furthermore, it has been reported, the GOP Pledge also promises to defund and repeal ObamaCare. That’s big because ObamaCare is the most aggressive baby-killing legislation perhaps ever to pass Congress.
Some pro-lifers lament the fact that although the Tea Party is emerging as a conservative force in the Republican party, the Tea Party says nothing about abortion. We should remember that words are important, but deeds are also important.
As it turns out, five GOP tea party-backed U.S. Senate candidates are pro-life with no exceptions: Sharron Angle of Nevada, Ken Buck of Colorado, Joe Miller of Alaska, Christine O’Donnell of Delaware and Rand Paul of Kentucky.
You think that’s not big? Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards thinks it is, hence her frantic email alert Monday calling this development, “not just crazy – truly frightening.”
Non tea-party candidates Carly Fiorina of California and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire are also reported to be pro-life. That’s big because right now, all 17 female senators are pro-abortion, including the four Republicans.
Yes, we still have a long way to go. The work of protecting every unborn child will not be finished overnight. But until that day comes, my rule is this: if the pro-aborts don’t like it, it must be good.
Extreme vs main stream – What’s the difference?
Do you know the difference between an extremist and a main stream candidate? We’re indebted to Jose Farias for the answer. He left this comment in response to an article in The Telegraph.
Today’s definition of an “extreme” candidate is:
- Being against high deficits;
- Being against a higher debt;
- Being for living within your means;
- Being for small government;
- Being for spending cuts;
- Being for lower taxes;
- Being for less regulations;
- Being for the traditional definition of marriage (between a man and a woman);
- Being against terrorism;
- Being for a strong military;
- Being for the implementation of the rule of law when it comes to illegal immigration;
- Being for individual freedom;
- Being for the Constitution as envisioned by the founding fathers;
- Being for free markets;
- Believing in the abilities of the American people;
- Holding on to the beliefs of our God, the Creator of Heavens and Earth;
- Believing on the right to bear arms;
- I could go on and on …
Today’s definition of “main stream” candidate is:
- Not holding on to any principles;
- Not saying what you mean, and not meaning what you say;
- Being for high deficits (they don’t say they are but actions speak louder than words);
- Being for a higher debt (ditto);
- Spending like drunk sailors;
- Being for more regulations;
- Being for homosexual marriage;
- Being for a weak military;
- Being against the fight against terrorists;
- Being for criminals when it comes to the execution of the law;
- Believing the individual can not take care of himself;
- Believing the government is to run everything, that is, believing in socialism;
- Being for the limitation of individual liberties in favor of government intrusion;
- Being against free markets;
- Being for Keynesian economics;
- Being in favor of gun control;
- Being against the right to exercise one’s religious beliefs;
- Being against God;
- Being against Christians;
- Being in favor of Muslims;
- I could go on and on …
Christian Heritage | US Capitol Tour with David Barton
Did you know the first Bible printed in the United States was actually printed by the US Congress? For what purpose, you ask. For use in public schools. Check out the video!