Michael Wolfe

Study up. Stand up. Speak up. Pray up!

Posts Tagged ‘barack’

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »

None Dare Call It Socialist: HR3590 “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”

Posted by americana83 on April 7, 2010

Are the claims of socialism new? Have government intrusions into medicine been opposed before Obama tried them? Does it matter whether Obama scoffs at those who call his plan “socialist?”

First, I will say that this bill does not create “single payer” government run healthcare. However, it does pave the way by extending current government “care” systems (and their under-reimbursement of health care providers), subsidizing insurance using tax payers’ money, and enacting a whole list of mandates on insurance companies, individuals, and employers. These mandates will increase the cost of insurance, possibility to the point of unsustainability, paving the way for the government to “save the day” by stepping in and seizing outright control of the entire medical industry. This, coupled with the push to legalize millions of illegal aliens, many of which would then qualify for coverage and the decreasing incentive for people to study to become doctors will combine to create the one thing everyone said would never come: health-care rationing.

Recently, the APHA (the American Public Health Association) made the following assertions about the recently rammed, bribed, blackmailed, forced through Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare) and its subsequent reconciliation (and college loan take over) package:

Not only will the law extend health insurance coverage to an additional 32 million uninsured Americans, provide subsidies to help individuals purchase health insurance, prevent insurance companies from discriminating against individuals with pre-existing conditions and strengthen the Medicare program, it will also provide billions of dollars of funding for public health and prevention when it is fully implemented. In fact, the new Prevention and Public Health Fund created by the law will provide $500 million for prevention, wellness and public health activities beginning this year.

Lets look at some of these elements individually:

extend health insurance coverage to an additional 32 million uninsured Americans.

Since this number seems to fluctuate, that is not so much the issue, however this bill will force those who do not want insurance, typically the young and the healthy to purchase a product they neither want nor need. If you make $13 per hour and live in Ohio, the government already deducts about 25% of your pay (not counting sales taxes, gasoline taxes and other non-payroll taxes). 1 out of every 4 hours you work, you are working on behalf of the government. Now they are telling you how to spend your hard earned money, whether you want to or not. Sure the penalties are fairly small right now, but remember, the Federal Income Tax started out as a paltry 1% tax! My how big and hungry the tax beast has grown, and the more you feed it, the hungrier it becomes! (oh, and the whole “federal government forcing you to buy something” is UNCONSTITUTIONAL).

But wait, there’s more:

…provide subsidies to help individuals purchase health insurance…

More of your tax dollars are going for NEW entitlement programs! (Never mind that current ones are unsustainable in their funding levels!). Charity has its place, and it is the VOLUNTARY donations from people who WANT to help to organizations that do more than just give out free goodies. Self proclaimed communist Van Jones’ railing demand of “give them the wealth!” can almost be heard echoing through the pages of this bill. Just like other government social programs, the costs associated with this will skyrocket beyond the CBO estimates and will help much less than the vaunted 32 million uninsured.

And now, we make insurance more expensive with this, causing more people to need to rely on Big Brother to help them:

prevent insurance companies from discriminating against individuals with pre-existing conditions and strengthen the Medicare program

While this sounds nice, it will raise the cost of everyone’s insurance. They can’t be charged more than everyone else, so the costs are spread to everyone. Again this is not charity. This is taking more money from hard working men and women.

it will also provide billions of dollars of funding for public health and prevention when it is fully implemented. In fact, the new Prevention and Public Health Fund created by the law will provide $500 million for prevention, wellness and public health activities beginning this year.

I do not want the government spending my money on condoms and telling me what to eat or how to exercise. Most areas already have local public libraries and charitable organizations that offer health information. It is about control. As the government foots more and more of the bills for health insurance/health care, it will demand more and more control and say in how and what individuals eat, when they exercise, and just about every field that is touched by health.

Also, with the president and other people who are part of the problem complaining about the deficit, where is this 500 million dollars going to come from? Well, the 10% tanning tax for starters. Then, in the spirit of promoting better insurance plan offerings (sarcasm), ObamaCare gives us a 40% tax on the best health insurance plans, with a few years delay for unions, who’s members generally have good plans and who might otherwise revolt against the leaders of their international unions.

Now lets look some bitter pills scattered throughout this bill (this is just a small sample of all the things hidden throughout the bill’s 2409 pages + 900 (amendment).

Full bill text: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3590/text

SEC. 3308. REDUCING PART D PREMIUM SUBSIDY FOR
14             HIGH-INCOME BENEFICIARIES.
15     (a) INCOME-RELATED INCREASE IN PART D PRE-
16 MIUM.—

The title for this section actually says it all. It doesn’t matter that you’ve paid the same amount into the system as everyone else, now you get to pay more. More spreading wealth around, just like Obama promised.

Section 4201:

(B) ACTIVITIES- Activities within the plan may focus on (but not be limited to)

(i) creating healthier school environments, including increasing healthy food options, physical activity opportunities, promotion of healthy lifestyle, emotional wellness, and prevention curricula, and activities to prevent chronic diseases;

Ok, our schools are already failing academically, now we are supposed to sacrifice more class time so kids can run and jump around? More time telling them how wonderful they are (building up their self esteem/emotional wellness), and more telling them how to eat and what to eat? Every time federal control over the public schools increases, the quality of the education declines. Soon parents won’t have to take responsibility for anything, the state will raise their kids from cradle to graduation. Oh, and the federal constitution does NOT give the federal government authority over education, that is a right reserved to the states, respectively  or the people.

(ii) creating the infrastructure to support active living and access to nutritious foods in a safe environment;

(iii) developing and promoting programs targeting a variety of age levels to increase access to nutrition, physical activity and smoking cessation, improve social and emotional wellness, enhance safety in a community, or address any other chronic disease priority area identified by the grantee;

(iv) assessing and implementing worksite wellness programming and incentives;

(v) working to highlight healthy options at restaurants and other food venues;

(vi) prioritizing strategies to reduce racial and ethnic disparities, including social, economic, and geographic determinants of health; and

What does this mean? It sounds like an opportunity to spread more wealth around, that is until the feds run out of our wealth to spread around…

(vii) addressing special populations needs, including all age groups and individuals with disabilities, and individuals in both urban and rural areas.

I would encourage anyone interested in the realities of socialism and how it has come to the point where the federal government feels it has the authority (it doesn’t) to mandate individuals to purchase insurance to borrow, buy or check out the book: None Dare Call It Treason by John A. Stormer. It recounts the heartbreaking saga of betrayal of the nation’s most cherished ideals and laws in the 20th century.

Here are a couple of very relevant exerts from this book published way back in 1964:

Magruder’s high school text, American Government, as mentioned earlier uses nearly every classical propaganda trick to confuse students into accepting socialism. Consider this non-sequitur under the heading, Medical Service Under Our System of Free Enterprise:

In a democracy we believe in evolutionary methods rather than the revolutionary methods of a dictatorship; and under our system of free enterprise, competition improves the standard of service and tends to reduce the cost. Therefore, instead of jumping right into socialized medicine, why not have the Government support projects such as the following. (pg 670).

If free enterprise medicine works so well, and Magruder acknowledges that it does, why consider socialized medine at all, either immediately or by the backdoor approach Magruder recommends. He advocates approaching socialized medicine through such steps as federal aid for training doctors, federal funds for hospital construction, and government payment of hospital costs for lengthy illnesses.(pg 110).

Then, on page 169, Stormer quotes approvingly this statement:

Compulsory social insurance is in its essence undemocratic and it cannot prevent or remove poverty. The workers of America adhere to voluntary institutions in preference to compulsory systems, which are held to be not only impractical, but a menace to their rights, welfare, and their liberty. Compulsory sickness insurance for workers is based on the theory that they are unable to look after their own interests and the state must use its authority and wisdom and assume the relation of parent and guardian.

and this one:

I want to tell you socialists that I have studied your philosophy…I have heard your orators… I have kept close watch upon your doctrines for 30 years and know how you think and what you propose. I know too what you have up your sleeve. Economically, you are unsound; socially, you are wrong; industrially, you are an impossibility.

Since the publishing of this book, the American welfare state has grown exponentially. Step by step creeping socialism has consumed the private sector, followed surely by expanding government, increasing taxes, and a continuing reduction of the realm of freedom. President Obama, with his incessant push for this healthcare bill, has accomplished the greatest harm to our constitutional republic since FDR first got people hooked on government cheese using the New Deal. Every elected official who voted for this healthcare bill has joined previous public officials who have violated their oath of office for the sake of expanding government power and subverting the constitution.

The answers to my introductory questions: No, Yes, NO! It doesn’t matter what Obama calls himself, what his policies are called, or even who suggested them first. They still have the same deadly affect on our freedoms, our way of life, and the long-term viability of the American experiment. Obama does not offer “hope” for America, Obama doesn’t offer anything new, just the same tired old socialist ideas that Americans have been fighting since Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act and the income tax became law.

Oh, and one more link: the Communist Party USA’s magazine, people’s world, just offered their praise of Obama’s health care bill.

President Obama’s new health-care law is a “historic victory” that can lead to socialized medicine and “single-payer” health-care legislation, boasted Juan Lopez, chairman of the Communist Party USA in Northern California.

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

A National Disgrace: Obama Vs Israel

Posted by americana83 on March 29, 2010

In a move more fitting of a spoiled child than a sitting president, Obama walked out on a meeting with the Prime Minister of Israel earlier this week. This on the heels of his arrogant shout of go ahead and try to repeal this bill that the people wanted, and the constant whining of liberal talking heads about how rude and ignorant and racist Obama’s growing opposition is (incidentally, Obama’s demands for Jews to stop building on their land smacks of racist antisemitism, but then you should be used to the blatant hypocrisy of this administration by now.

From WND,

Earlier this week, Obama walked out of a meeting with Netanyahu at the White House, inviting the Israeli leader to remain alone and reconsider his negotiation stance … or get out.

“I’m still around,” the daily newspaper Yediot Aharonot quoted Obama as saying, before walking out on the stunned Netanyahu. “Let me know if there is anything new.”

One would think that the boy king would be more than pleased enough to have (unconstitutionally and against the will of the people) consolidated medical power in the hands of the state that he could handle a “petty disagreement” about land that isn’t even his! But no. He cannot handle dissent. He cannot handle resistance to his agenda. So he does what any dignified national leader would do, walks out and tells another sovereign leader that he’s still willing to talk if he comes around to Obama’s point of view.

Yes, change has come to America, domestically and abroad. The way Obama treats our allies is a disgrace. The way he cozies up to dictators and anti-American tyrants is shameful. America has had her share of mistakes.  But we really outdid ourselves in November of 2008. God help us.

If anyone from Israel is reading, or anyone who have ever looked to the United States as the land of freedom: the person who currently describes himself as the President of the United States does not represent the people of the United States. His beliefs and agenda are diametrically opposed to the best of what America has stood for. He respects neither our Constitution or our allies, or the God of our founding fathers. He serves only himself. Our congress is more concerned about the president’s legacy than the will of the people. Please forgive us as a people for neglecting the responsibility we have as a superpower to vet those who would be our leaders. Forgive the myriads who went out and voted merely to “make history” instead of electing a real leader. Forgive us. Please pray for us, that God would raise up judges that would bring America back to righteousness, even as the judges did over ancient Israel.

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
(2 Chronicles 7:14)

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Lets talk about race.

Posted by americana83 on February 19, 2010

Its easy to talk about racists, to throw that toxic label onto your opponents when they don’t agree with you. The left loves to call conservatives racist, and talk about how Hitler was a right winger. Lets look at some of those enlightened folks on the left, and see what they say, when they likely haven’t had, or taken, time to carefully consider statements.

Chris Matthews: “For an hour I forgot he was black.

Joe Biden: “clean and articulate“

Harry Reid: “light skinned and no negro dialect“

How many conservatives do you know who go around saying those kind of things? The media would never stop talking about them. Obama appealed relentlessly to the race guilt of modern liberals by saying things of himself such as  “He doesn’t look like the other presidents on the dollar bills.” and “Skinny black man with a funny name. By and large, it is liberals who have worked to keep race at the forefront of politics, especially since the run up to the 2008 elections. the incessant drumbeat of the “historic election.”

Now what about the favorite posterboy of “right wing racism,” Adolf Hitler. Was he really “right wing” in the sense that American leftists imply?

Consider the following:

Did hitler promote a limited government and separation of powers?

Did Hitler believe in the right to keep and bear arms?

Did Hitler believe in Religious liberty?

Did Hitler believe in Freedom of the press?

Did Hitler promote economic freedom and private property?

No! Hitler promoted a totalitarian government (which makes sense once you consider Nazi is short for National Socialist German Worker’s Party). He boasted of the fact that under him Germany, for the first time had full gun registration. He persecuted the Jews and muzzled the churches. Opposition newspapers operating openly in Nazi Germany- ha! The claim that Hitler is “right wing” in the American sense is absurd. In fact, the swastikas that scared poor Nanci Pelosi present at tea parties had a “slash” through them, like the no smoking sign. They were part of a protest against totalitarian government, like the kind of government both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union had.

Now I pose another question, who has been using race as a bludgeon? Does anyone remember how the Obama Justice Department mysteriously dropped the charges of voter intimidation against the New Black Panthers who were parading around with a weapon making threatening racist comments in front of a polling place? Have you ever heard such racist statements as “credit to your race” or “articulate and clean” or “hey I forgot he was black for an hour” or “he appealed because he was light skinned and had no negro dialect?” In case you think the New Black Panthers are sincere in their claims of non violence/intimidation, check out their Nationalist Manifesto, which really echos Hitler’s racial supremacy delusions (and empty rejection of Communists) and rails against white people and makes the claim that Black people have no place in America. As to their claim of not “actively campaigning” for Obama, check out the cover of their magazine here.

The progressives have tried to make it about skin so as to avoid the war of ideologies. Hitler spun the economic woes of Germany as a tale of the Jewish people gone wild, and the paradigm was skewed towards the euphoria of eloquent speeches and initially a few drops of “it’s their fault” racism which grew to become the consuming passion of Hitler’s tyranny. Today ignorant and evil men attempt to use race to divide us. To keep we the people at perpetual war with each other, even after the election that was supposed to usher in a post-racial era.

To the Christian, the Bible says God hath made of one blood all nations of man and that God is no respecter of persons. To the American, our Constitution was written to fulfill the testament of the Declaration of Independence, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with Inalienable Rights. The corruptions introduced as politicians tried to patch up the slavery issue without addressing the root sin were not the fault or original intent of the founders. Thomas Jefferson trembled when he thought of slavery and the justice of God.

To the liberal I ask: will you stop making this about race? Of the many people I’ve talked to and met with, I have yet to hear someone opposing these unconstitutional and immoral policies because the man pushing for them is black. To those few that do*, their ignorance will consume them,  for at the very least, racism is contrary to the principles of freedom and individualism, not to mention a crime against God.

Conservatism is an ideology, not a party. Not all republicans are conservative, and not all conservatives are republicans. And one of the greatest myths of modern politics, not all conservatives are white! The man the media portrayed as being a “racist threat” to Obama, was in fact, a black man joining in a rally to stand up for second amendment rights! Check out these others who boldly proclaim a conservative message of freedom and limited government or take a principled stand against the policies of Barack Obama:

Apostle Claver, of RagingElephants.org

Alicia Healy, 2010 Candidate for Ohio Senate

Lloyd Marcus, Tea Party Express and Anthem

Star Parker, 2008 Values Voter Summit

Pastor Manning (probably one of Obama’ most outspoken critics).

Those who continue to promote the myths that the Tea Parties are about race, or health care protesters are bigots, or that conservatism itself somehow breeds racism are either ignorant of the movements and should have done more research, or have malicious intent and are hoping to keep brother fighting brother while the rights of all of us, black and white and in-between.

United we stand, divided we fall. Reject the sparks of race war the media and “mainstream” media are trying to ignite.

Together, we shall overcome!

And [God] hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
(Acts 17:26)

But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.
(1 Samuel 16:7)

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
(John 3:16-17)

* the only group I have found that claims to be conservative is the council of conservative citizens, which somehow mixes the putrid collectivist ideology of race superiority/separatism  with claims of individualism and freedom. At least the New Black Panthers make no such claims and embrace a wholly collectivist ideology.  See my complete refutation of their “statement of principles” here.

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

And the pursuit…

Posted by americana83 on December 20, 2009

There are those who insist healthcare is a right. Is it? What is a right? The proper definition from Webster’s 1828 is this:

5. Just claim; legal title; ownership; the legal power of exclusive possession and enjoyment. In hereditary monarchies, a right to the throne vests in the heir on the decease of the king. A deed vests the right of possession in the purchaser of land. Right and possession are very different things. We often have occasion to demand and sue for rights not in possession.

According to the Declaration of independence, there were 3 rights recognized as descending to us from God: The rights to: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Thus, every man has the right to life and liberty, and to pursue that which will bring them happiness. It is very important to note that the founders did not recognize a right to happiness, but a right to the ability to pursue happiness.

For example, it might make one happy to possess the house of their neighbor, but they do not have the right to take their neighbor’s house for their own. However, they do have the right to offer of their own possessions (typically money) to their neighbor in order to purchase the house from them. Likewise, the neighbor has the right to refuse any such offer.

It is on this premise that a free market operates: men and groups of men (companies) compete for things that bring some form of material happiness through trading, purchasing, leasing, borrowing, etc. Such a system preserves the right to seek happiness both of the people providing goods or services and those seeking those goods or services.

However, there are those who seek to make specific goods and services a right. Federal mandates forced banks and financial institutions to loan money to people who had no business buying the houses they were seeking. Why? Because, in a properly operating free market, they could not afford the loans, and had no title or claim to the money the government mandated they be given.

Healthcare is comprised of goods and services provided by people. I have no right to demand that another person sacrifice life or limb or wealth to meet my needs. Likewise, when a government deems goods and services “rights” they are in fact mandating that “happiness” is itself a right. The inherent contradiction is this: the person who gains “free” or reduced goods and services may be happy, but the one being forced to give them up suffers loss. It is comparable to the previous example of a man coveting his neighbor’s house. Is it right that the government step in and force the neighbor to give up his house, regardless of the price offered? Further, not only does the government has no right to force the neighbor to give up his house, it has no right to spend money trusted to them by the taxpayers to do such a thing.

A government mandate that healthcare is a right, sets a dangerous precedent. What if the government then decrees that a job is a right? As surely as healthcare being a right would give the government (unconstitutional) authority to control the medical system, declaring that a job is a right would then give government unprecedented control of what was once a free market.

Indeed, the “Consumer Credit Protection Act of 2009 would grant the president unconstitutional powers to bailout any company he deems worthy, setting the state for dramatic government control. Also troubling are bills which would use tax payer money to pay or augment the wages of private sector workers!

Health care as a right deprives professionals of the right to exchange their services on a free market. It also subverts those who, out of their own personal desire and adherence to Christ’s teachings, would freely offer the fruits of their labor to those in need. Charity is not the duty of the government or the state, but the right of the people to engage in as they pursue happiness.

Progressives can demonize the profit (the right of people to exchange goods and services in a manner that both deem reasonable) motive as much as they want, but the truth is that the promise of profit is what drives many to innovate. People work tirelessly and researchers innovate and capitalists invest capital in hopes of getting a return that exceeds their expenses. Government bureaucrats can call profits “obscene” or “excessive” all day long, however if there was no profit, there would be no jobs, no innovation. If there had been no profit, there would have been no model T. If there had been no profit, we wouldn’t have computers, any number of products. Medicines, advanced medical technologies, and so on.

People who go into the medical field, have the right to seek whatever compensation they deem fit for their services, subject to the willingness of the public to pay for them. Not everybody is seeking profit as the primary motive, and are ready and willing to sacrifice profits for the ability to help those who cannot help themselves. When you force someone to give of their goods or abilities against their will, it is theft. Governments are not exempt from the 10 commandments, as they are headed by men and women. Theft, lying, coveting, lust, fornication and every manner of immorality runs amok in the highest levels of the states and countries. They must never be allowed to be “above the law” as far as offenses against the laws of the land go. Justice must be blind, and it must be granted for peasant and king alike.

The federal government’s role in the whole process is to ensure that the market remains free, patents are issued for the protection of inventions, and to provide redress for grievances which are referred from state and local courts.

Published first on thejeffersondemocrat.com

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

How Slavery Came to ancient Egypt.

Posted by americana83 on November 14, 2009

What led to slavery in Egypt thousands of years ago? What can it tell us today? The Bible is full of spiritual truth, but it contains much more than that. It tells how great people fell, how the humble rose to great heights. It also tells of a people who sold themselves into slavery, without complaint or protest. It begins in the time of Joseph. The Egyptian government, under the wise leadership of Joseph, prepared for hard times. The Egyptian people, did not. Seven years of unprecedented prosperity went throughout the land. The people went about their lives, probably thinking it would go on forever. They ate, drank and were merry. They failed to make any kind of preparation for the times ahead. Eventually, as God had said, the good times came to an end. Famine was throughout the land of Egypt. The people consumed whatever feeble supplies they had left, and then went to the government. First went their money, until, the Bible says, money was gone throughout the land. Then they turned over their lively hood in exchange for survival. Now, with nothing else left, they consumed their substance, and surrendered possession of their lands and homes. Now, the people were total wards of the state, and again they ran out of food. So now, with nothing left, they turn once again to the government, with nothing to offer but their very lives. And they were made slaves. Everything they owned, was gone. Freedom was gone. Instead of planning for the future, when times were bountiful, they squandered their substance, and had no where else to look except to big brother.

Before Israel was forcibly taken into slavery by a pharaoh who “knew not Joseph,” the people of Egypt where themselves taken into bondage.

Let me quote the exact words of scripture, and you can read it yourself:

And there was no bread in all the land; for the famine was very sore, so that the land of Egypt and all the land of Canaan fainted by reason of the famine. And Joseph gathered up all the money that was found in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, for the corn which they bought: and Joseph brought the money into Pharaoh’s house. And when money failed in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, all the Egyptians came unto Joseph, and said, Give us bread: for why should we die in thy presence? for the money faileth. And Joseph said, Give your cattle; and I will give you for your cattle, if money fail. And they brought their cattle unto Joseph: and Joseph gave them bread in exchange for horses, and for the flocks, and for the cattle of the herds, and for the asses: and he fed them with bread for all their cattle for that year. When that year was ended, they came unto him the second year, and said unto him, We will not hide it from my lord, how that our money is spent; my lord also hath our herds of cattle; there is not aught left in the sight of my lord, but our bodies, and our lands: Wherefore shall we die before thine eyes, both we and our land? buy us and our land for bread, and we and our land will be servants unto Pharaoh: and give us seed, that we may live, and not die, that the land be not desolate. And Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh; for the Egyptians sold every man his field, because the famine prevailed over them: so the land became Pharaoh’s. And as for the people, he removed them to cities from one end of the borders of Egypt even to the other end thereof. Only the land of the priests bought he not; for the priests had a portion assigned them of Pharaoh, and did eat their portion which Pharaoh gave them: wherefore they sold not their lands. Then Joseph said unto the people, Behold, I have bought you this day and your land for Pharaoh: lo, here is seed for you, and ye shall sow the land. And it shall come to pass in the increase, that ye shall give the fifth part unto Pharaoh, and four parts shall be your own, for seed of the field, and for your food, and for them of your households, and for food for your little ones. And they said, Thou hast saved our lives: let us find grace in the sight of my lord, and we will be Pharaoh’s servants. And Joseph made it a law over the land of Egypt unto this day, that Pharaoh should have the fifth part; except the land of the priests only, which became not Pharaoh’s.
(Genesis 47:13-26)

And now the second bondage: the Pharaoh that hired Joseph treated him and his family with gratitude, and one could argue he was a benevolent dictator, one who had absolute authority, but didn’t abuse it like he could have. He gave the children of Israel of the finest land in Israel. And here’s what happened.

And Joseph died, and all his brethren, and all that generation. And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them. Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph. And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we: Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us, and so get them up out of the land. Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Rameses.
(Exodus 1:6-11)

Thus, you have the perfect storm: A tyrannical ruler with absolute control. I’m sure dissent wasn’t tolerated, the people of Egypt owed their livelihoods to the pharaoh, who not only was held to be god, but had near-godlike power. It was the son of this man who would-be God that brought about the judgment of, and ultimate destruction of the world’s super power. The pharaoh’s pride reached up to the heavens. It was the hardness of this man’s heart, that sealed the fate of Egypt, which was brought down swiftly by the power of God himself.

Today in America, we can see a similar trend. The fat and goodness of the land is squandered. As the economy falters, men clamor for the government to give them food, housing, lands, healthcare, money. Indeed, the government already provides food and housing and money for many (and it does so above and beyond any constitutional mandate and restriction).

If we continue to demand the government to do everything for us, to give us everything, to cater to our every need and want, we will have traded our American birthright for a cheap bowl of pottage, and sold our children into socialist slavery.

Posted in Barack Obama, Bible, children, Christianity, communism, deception, Election, Election 2008, health care, news, Obama, politics, Presidential, social spending, taxes | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

President’s agenda clear: “Change the culture”

Posted by americana83 on October 26, 2009

Just recently the president posted a blog on his website discussing his plans for sexuality in America. He also shares what “changes” he is already orchestrating in government programs. Thanks to his urging, we now have money at the HHS divided by sexuality:

On the same day, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced a plan to establish the nation’s first ever national resource center to assist communities across the country in their efforts to provide services and support for older LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bi and Transgender -Ed) Americans.

From that link:

Experts estimate that as many as 1.5 to 4 million LGBT individuals are age 60 and older.   Agencies that provide services to older individuals may be unfamiliar or uncomfortable with the needs of this group of individuals. The new Resource Center for LGBT Elders will provide information, assistance and resources for both LGBT organizations and mainstream aging services providers at the state and community level to assist them in the development and provision of culturally sensitive supports and services. The LGBT Center will also be available to educate the LGBT community about the importance of planning ahead for future long term care needs.

And just a few weeks ago, the Administration on Aging at HHS issued its first ever grant to an LGBT Aging Services Program through its Community Innovations for Aging in Place initiative to the LA Gay and Lesbian Community Center.

Culturally sensitive?! These programs will likely provide the same services just with different sexually slanted language. Questions about the constitutionality of federal involvement not-withstanding, health and aging services shouldn’t need to differ because of sexuality, nor is this a prudent use of tax payers money. this administration continues to divide and expand government outlays of money for no real value. Further WHY would the government need to know who a person sleeps with to provide retirement services? These expansions provide yet another government intrusion on privacy. Why do only the LGBT “community need to learn “the importance of planning ahead for future long term care needs.” Is this arguably not a generic concern, regardless of who one sleeps with?

Further, isn’t the donation of tax payer’s money to a sexuality based organization discrimination? Wouldn’t such a climate be “hostile” or “discomforting” to a person of hetero preferences? Isn’t it discriminatory? Oh wait, that would only be if it were a grant to a Heterosexual Aging Services Program. the hypocrisy is disgusting.

The president concludes his blog with this ominous tidbit:

Every day so many of us working in the Obama Administration ask:  How can we ensure that our time here makes the lives of LGBT Americans living across this country safer, fairer, and a little better?  We know how much work is ahead of us.  Some items will take longer than others.  But the shift since January is clear, and progress at every level will continue.

Day by day, law by law, mind by changing mind.  That is the promise we are fulfilling.

Safety: laws already provide for protection from violent crimes and agression. Fair: *NOONE* has to talk about their sex life at work. Better? presumably by forcibly changing the vestigial remnants of societal mores in this country to see homosexuality as not only acceptable or “tolerable,” but as something beautiful, to be celebrated, which Obama did in his declaration of  gay pride month this year. With the evil men and agenda surrounding Obama, who can say he is a “devout Christian?” Who can say he loves this country when nearly every word and action he takes weakens or damages the United States.

It is very possible that before this man leaves office (which I hope happens in a fair and open election, as historically the transfer of power has happened in this nation) blogs and articles expressing the beliefs and opinions I have here will be illegal.

Obama is fulfilling one promise he made: To fundamentally change this country. That is the promise he is fulfilling. Day by day, brick by brick, he is transforming this country from one with a free press, free market and free people into a totalitarian state with a muzzled press, a communist market, and an enslaved people. And it is being done to accolades and applause. God save our republic.

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
(Isaiah 5:20-21)

Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.
(Proverbs 14:34)

Disclaimer: Opposition to a lifestyle, action or political/social cause (LAoPSC) does not mean hatred of those who engage in aforementioned disapproved LAoPSC. Believing that 2 wrongs do not make a right; I hereby denounce, discourage and reject any and all violence perpetuated, committed or plotted by any individual, group, organization or entity against those who support LAoPSC.

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

the truth about D’s and R’s

Posted by americana83 on October 23, 2009

I am sure that some of you think I march lock-step with the GOP based on the things I have written about Barack Obama and all his sordid associations. However, if you think that, you have missed the point. Especially within the last year, the GOP has shown an abandonment of the professed principles that attracted me to it in the first place: family values, small government, low taxes, free market. However, it has become much more like the Democrat Party. Lets explore what has happened in the GOP, especially from the last months of G.W. Bush up to now.

George W Bush, really got the ball rolling by signing off on the Democratic progressives’ 700 billion dollar TARP fiasco. The government had no business doing that, and G.W. Bush, as a self-professing conservative, had no business signing off on something so grossly unconstitutional.

Michael Steele. Despite the initial excitement over his being named to the GOP chair, he quickly showed his true colors. In a GQ Interview that has since been scrubbed from the GQ website, Steele dug himself into a hole by revealing how he truly feels about conservatism, marriage, and abortion.

Why do you think so few nonwhite Americans support the Republican Party right now?
’Cause we have offered them nothing! And the impression we’ve created is that we don’t give a d**n about them or we just outright don’t like them. And that’s not a healthy thing for a political party. I think the way we’ve talked about immigration, the way we’ve talked about some of the issues that are important to African-Americans, like affirmative action… I mean, you know, having an absolute holier-than-thou attitude about something that’s important to a particular community doesn’t engender confidence in your leadership by that community—or consideration of you for office or other things—because you’ve already given off the vibe that you don’t care. What I’m trying to do now is to say we do give a d**n.

We “offer them nothing?” We “just don’t like them?” Does he think throwing in a curse word makes him trendy?  Has Steele fell into the Al Sharpton/Rev Wright/ Barack Obama mindset that conservative thought is inherently racist? It is clear that Steele knows very little about conservatism. True conservatism doesn’t offer handouts, or bribes for votes. What conservatism offers is equality. No one is esteemed above another on account of their race. Race quotas, race preferences, those things say “look, you’re not good enough because your a minority, and we need to give you a bonus so you can stand up against the non-minorities.” That is diametrically opposed to conservatism, which stresses the individual over the collective. Any organization that claims conservatism, while embracing racism, attempts to integrate an alien and evil ideology that subverts the whole claim of conservatism.

Now lets see what he says about homosexuality:

Do you have a problem with gay priests who are celibate?
No, it’s your nature. It’s your nature. You can’t—I can’t deny you your nature.

For a Seminarian, who would presumably have read the scriptures, God has a clear commandment for would-be priests/pastors/reverend:

This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach…(1 Timothy 3:1-2). He would also have known this: “But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.” (Matthew 19:26). He would also have been aware of the New Testament condemnation of such behaviors, and that a priest that is “dead in his sins” could never rightly divide the Word of God.

Let’s talk about gay marriage. What’s your position?
Well, my position is, hey, look, I have been, um, supportive of a lot of my friends who are gay in some of the core things that they believe are important to them. You know, the ability to be able to share in the information of your partner, to have the ability to—particularly in times of crisis—to manage their affairs and to help them through that as others—you know, as family members or others—would be able to do. I just draw the line at the gay marriage. And that’s not antigay, no. Heck no! It’s just that, you know, from my faith tradition and upbringing, I believe that marriage—that institution, the sanctity of it—is reserved for a man and a woman. That’s just my view. And I’m not gonna jump up and down and beat people upside the head about it, and tell gays that they’re wrong for wanting to aspire to that, and all of that craziness. That’s why I believe that the states should have an opportunity to address that issue.

Do you think homosexuality is a choice?
Oh, no. I don’t think I’ve ever really subscribed to that view, that you can turn it on and off like a water tap. Um, you know, I think that there’s a whole lot that goes into the makeup of an individual that, uh, you just can’t simply say, oh, like, “Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being gay.” It’s like saying, “Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being black.”

So your feeling would be that people are born one way or another.
I mean, I think that’s the prevailing view at this point, and I know that there’s some out there who think that you can absolutely make that choice. And maybe some people have. I don’t know, I can’t say. Until we can give a definitive answer one way or the other, I think we should respect that.

Steele tossed his “faith tradition” under the bus. Apparently being a man pleaser is more important than being right. To rephrase his answer another way, “I’m not going to let my faith influence my positions.” Sounds a lot like a certain Senator John Kerry, who’s own professed faith played no role in any decisions he made regarding moral matters. He also throws the perverted concept that sexual perversions are the equivalent of race. Race is immutable, sexual preferences can change. His answer to that last question is just a bunch of waffling. There is no consensus that homosexuality is genetic, radical scientists have been searching for it for years.

How about abortion? What does Steele think about that?

Do pro-choicers have a place in the Republican Party?
Absolutely!

How so?
You know, Lee Atwater said it best: We are a big-tent party. We recognize that there are views that may be divergent on some issues, but our goal is to correspond, or try to respond, to some core values and principles that we can agree on.

Do you think you’re more welcoming to pro-choice people than Democrats are to pro-lifers?
Now that’s a good question. I would say we are. Because the Democrats wouldn’t allow a pro-lifer to speak at their convention. We’ve had many a pro-choicer speak at ours—long before Rudy Giuliani. So yeah, that’s something I’ve been trying to get our party to appreciate. It’s not just in our words but in our actions, we’ve been a party that’s much more embracing. Even when we have missed the boat on, uh, minority issues, the Bush administration did an enormous amount to advance the individual opportunities for minorities in our country. In housing. In education. In health care.

It is the whole stupid concept of the “big tent” that has condemned the GOP to electoral hades.  The party doesn’t claim to stand for anything. Obama and the Democrats are clear where they stand on many issues, even if they are dead wrong. A “big tent” can’t take a stand, a big tent has no choice but to move to the left to pick up the abortionists and the homosexuals and the socialists. Perhaps Steele wasn’t aware that one of the main reasons people were attracted to the GOP is for its professed pro-life stance. So much for “core values and principles,” Steel has chucked those under the bus in his quest to create an ecumenical mush that is incapable of drawing the hard core from the Democrat party, and too perverse to attract the conservative faithful.

The truth about D’s and R’s is this: The Republican party is rapidly selling out its principles and becoming a progressive party, akin to the progressive wing of the Democrat party. If I wanted a liberal candidate, I’d have voted for the progressive democrat. But with party bigwigs like the RNC and Newt Gingrich lining up to endorse and fund Progressives running as Republicans, it looks like you can just vote GOP to get a leftist. With Obama’s progressive appointees worshipping Mao, embracing Islamic Sharia law, and sponsoring gay p!rn, “mere” liberals may look like a better choice. However, the end result will be the same. When a republican receives the Margaret Sanger radical abortionist award, it is time to revoke the conservative credentials of ANYONE who supports, funds or endorses that candidate, regardless of their party affiliation.

All this said, parties labels increasingly mean nothing. It all has to do with positions. Ideologically speaking, liberals embrace change, conservatives preserve the norm. So depending on what is being preserved or changed, either label could be good or bad. With respect to the past, yesterday’s republicans where liberals, in the sense that they opposed tenaciously the establishment of slavery, and sought to change it. So the term “liberal” can be good depending on what kind of change is being sought. Movements towards personal freedoms in china would be liberal in the generic sense. However, on the modern political scene in America, Liberal has come to be associated with a specific set of goals, especially at the federal level. Among them are:

Changing society to embrace abortion as an absolute right

Changing society to embrace homosexuality as beautiful

Changing society to redistribute wealth

Changing society to abhor and abolish private ownership of guns

Change society to accept that government’s duty is to provide everything for its citizens

Change society to believe that profit is evil

Change society to believe religion (Christianity) has no place in the public square

Change society by creating permanent racial divisions, that some are more equal than others

Change society by submerging American exceptionalism and promoting globalist socialism (United Nations)

Changing society by getting citizens to accept outrageous government control (soda tax, carbon tax) out of fear

Changing society by rewarding law breakers (illegal immigrants)

Changing society to believe in a dubious “living constitution” that doesn’t actually mean what it says, but rather, whatever they want it to.

Changing society into a collective, and submerging the individual within it.

John Kerry, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and every other major progressive Democrat politician supports most, if not all, of the above positions and are thus liberal. However, progressive republican politicians like Michael Steele, Newt Gingrich, Olympia Snowe, DeDe Scozzafava, John McCain and others are increasingly supporting the above statement in a self-centered attempt to grow and strengthen a party structure as opposed to doing what is best for America and her people. Yet both sides of the isle will, when it is beneficial to their own agenda, in many cases parrot a conservative line to deceive the voters into supporting them. President Obama used a good conservative message of self-reliance in the final version of his school speech:

But at the end of the day, we can have the most dedicated teachers, the most supportive parents, and the best schools in the world – and none of it will matter unless all of you fulfill your responsibilities. Unless you show up to those schools; pay attention to those teachers; listen to your parents, grandparents and other adults; and put in the hard work it takes to succeed.
And that’s what I want to focus on today: the responsibility each of you has for your education. I want to start with the responsibility you have to yourself. Every single one of you has something you’re good at. Every single one of you has something to offer. And you have a responsibility to yourself to discover what that is. SOURCE

Basically, the meaning of the conservatism I espouse is this:

Preserving the concept of unborn children’s rights

Preserving the definition of marriage as between a woman and man

Preserving the right of people to keep what they earn legally

Preserving the private ownership of guns, and means of self defense.

Preserving the concept of personal and religious responsibility.

Preserving the right of people to earn a profit and spend or invest it as they desire.

Preserve the notion that America was founded on Christian principles, and that is what made us strong

Preserve the concept that there should be equality, no institutionalized racial preference or deference.

Restore American exceptionalism by getting us out of entangling alliances that are detrimental to our people (the UN)

Preserve American freedom by opposing all punitive taxes and government power grabs (global warming, soda tax)

Restore the concept that law breakers should be punished, not rewarded for their deeds.

Restore the concept of “original intent,” that the constitution means what it says it does, and that it actually guarantees the rights it claims to.

Preserving right of the individual to excel, and guaranteeing equality of opportunity, not outcome

I hope this clarifies my positions on the political parties, and that I do not champion a corrupt and liberal Republican party  as a replacement to the corrupt and liberal Democrat regime we currently reside under. I hope you will join me in seeking out and supporting conservative constitutionalists that will uphold the best and highest ideals of the American experiment, and speak out with boldness against radicals- regardless of party affiliation.

Actions speak louder than words. Listen and take heed. The future of our republic is at stake.

Newt teams up with Nancy Pelosi to sell the American people on global “climate change,” which is merely a UN scheme to soak the US for more money and even sovereignty:

1.4. The developmental and environmental objectives of Agenda 21 will require a substantial flow of new and additional financial resources to developing countries, in order to cover the incremental costs for the actions they have to undertake to deal with global environmental problems and to accelerate sustainable development. Financial resources are also required for strengthening the capacity of international institutions for the implementation of Agenda 21. An indicative order-of-magnitude assessment of costs is included in each of the programme areas. This assessment will need to be examined and refined by the relevant implementing agencies and organizations. (SOURCE: official UN site)

unofficial carbon credit ration coupon, based on WWII ration coupon

I daresay NO one who was a genuine conservative would sell out the prosperity and sovereignty of the US and her people for anything, let alone the JUNK science of man-caused global warming, er, I mean climate change.

liberal American politicians know no party lines

Progressive American politicians know no party lines

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Let he who is without bias cast the first stone: Slate & Newsweek VS FOX

Posted by americana83 on October 22, 2009

Fox News is being slammed by everyone these days, well at least everyone in the news media and white house, including two pharisees I’d love to introduce you to today, Slate and Newsweek.

Newsweek’s article, here, accuses Fox of “right wing bias,” and proceeds to do some first grade name calling without even stopping to consider something: the kind of attempted marginalization and war that the Obama regime has been waging against center-right talkers and news sources is unprecedented in the history of America. Newsweek, at the end of its repeated name callings, complaints about Fox covering the “anti-Obama” tea parties, and a sweeping passage about a “free and independent” press -which I wonder how they wrote and kept a straight face- they deliver this little gem of pure hypocrisy -keep in mind this is the same magazine that proclaimed from its cover “we are all socialists now”- and “is your BABY racist?”

“By appearing on Fox, reporters validate its propaganda values and help to undermine the role of legitimate news organizations.”

In all this I forgot the title and subtitle of the article: “The O’Garbage Factor: Fox News isn’t just bad. It’s un-American.” They can whine all they want, but the reality is, Fox is the ONLY news station that even attempts to present a conservative view of the news sometimes. And its coverage of the ACORN scandals was exclusive. If it wasn’t for Fox reporting, how many people, besides those computer savvy individuals who know all the good websites and blogs, would know about the controversies and scandals that pervade this regime? Newsweek also again claims that Fox sponsored the Tea Parties. If that’s the case, me and many others I know are still waiting on our check for the time and expense of traveling across the country to spend all day standing in protest. Its not coming. Why? Because the events were not sponsored by Fox News, that’s why!

The article asserts that Fox News is covering the charges the White House has made against it in a biased manner. Well, when you consider that Fox News and everyone there was attacked by the white house in a way that could theoretically destroy them and their jobs, I think you would tend to have an opinion and take offense. Would they accuse Ford of circling its wagons if Gibbs or some other underline came out and went into some kind of whining rant about how terrible Ford was, and about how Ford cars aren’t really cars, or some other such nonsense?

This brings us to the Slate article, here, which seems to say basically the same thing, that Fox isn’t being fair by opposing the White House attack, saying this:

Let’s do a quick study of our own. Five people are quoted in this (FOX’s) article. Two of them work for Fox. All of them assert that administration officials are either wrong in substance or politically foolish to criticize the network. No one is cited supporting Dunn’s criticisms or saying that it could make sense, morally or politically, for Obama to challenge the network’s power. It’s a textbook example of a biased news story.

A cursory search of Slate’s website finds article after article attacking Fox News, couldn’t Slate perhaps find an author that supports Fox’s view point? Hmm… Anyways, maybe it makes sense for Fox to have an opinion on this one, “are we credible?” “is it right for a president to attack a private news company?” The Nixon comparisons seem pretty accurate, in case Slate has forgotten the Administration’s  personal attacks on other right-leaning persons, from Rush “you can’t listen to him and get anything done” Limbaugh to Sarah “Lip stick on a pig” Palin.

Just in case you think Slate doesn’t have a bias, you know that terrible evil wicked thing that Fox News has? Check out this little piece where they fawn over MSNBC darling Keith Olbermann. (They note that both they and Olbermann share the same master: Microsoft. Hmmm… Looks like Slate is in bed with MSNBC and doing shameless promotion…? Na, that’s propaganda, and Slate would NEVER ever do that… I mean, that’s what Fox news is, right?)

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

“Spreading the wealth around”

Posted by americana83 on October 7, 2009

Yesterday, Slate published an article titled “Health Reform Winners and Losers: How the House bill redistributes money to the middle class.” Among the statements they made, this one is both telling and alarming:

But in general, health reform has a redistributive impact. Democrats hesitate to talk about this for fear of sounding like socialists. Republicans hesitate to talk about it for fear of sounding like plutocrats. But let’s face it: Redistributing income in one form or another is a very large part of what government does. Arguing about whether it should be done is like arguing about whether the sky should be blue. The more urgent question is how it is done.

What the article fails to mention, is that wealth redistribution was never the intended purpose of the Constitutional Republic, and the sweeping conclusion that doing so is as proper as calling the sky being blue is absurd. The progressive income tax or the “success tax” is what really began this redistributive binge. Now the government wants to reach deeper into people’s pockets. 209408.9

Let me ask this: What right do I have to someone else’s money? They admit it will take a “mere” 20,000 from someone earning 358,000 (this is of course in addition to the 33 percent already being taken by federal taxes, and not including social security or state or local taxes).  Gross wages are a meaningless figure, because no one sees the “gross” of their income. The government is already taking $103283 from John Bourgeoisie, so whats another $20,000 right? If you’re in California and making a mere 47,000 or more, deduct an additional 9.3 percent, or $30990 right off the gross. Social security saps another 6.2 percent, or $6621 of the first 106,800 (and the ceiling keeps going up). Also throw in the 1.45 percent of gross, or $5191 Medicare tax. So this individual’s gross income of 358,000 for practical purposes becomes 211915* before taking out the ObamaCare tax of 20,000, which drops the figure to $191915. This would mean that, assuming the costs don’t skyrocket like most government programs, the government would be taking just over 45.1% of their gross income. (This does not even factor in sales taxes or gas taxes). So the average person who makes 358,000 is already contributing almost 40**% of their gross income (again, not factoring sales taxes or gasoline taxes) to the state and federal governments. It also does not include the difficult to estimate invisible tax of inflationary deficit spending.

How much wealth redistribution is enough? The Bible says, Thou shalt not steal, and when the little man gets shafted, we  rightfully demand justice be done. But, thanks to characters like Robin Hood, and the corrupt king he stole from, theft from the rich is seen in some circles as “getting what they deserve.” And when it is legally mandated by the government, it is seen as perfectly respectable. And as the government expands more and more into our personal lives and the private sector, we are only going to see the percentages skyrocket, and it won’t be just the “upper crust” that feels it. Imaging adding about another 15-17% for “cap-and-trade,” plus the ripple effect price increases all across the economy, or at least anything produced that required electricity somewhere in the production cycle.

Charity, and assisting those in need, is a call to Christians, not to the government, or via extortion. In deed, the government programs often entrap people in serf style subsistence living, with no incentive to improve themselves or get off the government life support. This gives these impoverished voters incentives (bribes?) to vote in the politicians that promise to keep giving them stuff for “nothing.”

So, a healthcare tax will greatly expand the socialist (yes, Slate I said it) redistribution our government engages in. Yes, it will decrease the number of doctors and hospitals available. Next, the government will have to subsidize doctor school and possibly coerce people into choosing the medical profession. It is in part the abysmal reimbursements current government programs pay to medical professionals that the cost for John Doe’s medical treatment is so high.

Mr Obama, Slate, Pelosi: how much wealth redistribution is enough? More importantly, how do you justify it constitutionally? He can’t, and his complaints about the “Warner court,” that they continued to interpret the Constitution as the founding fathers intended it as a charter of negatives that the government cannot do to you, the liberties that cannot be taken away by the government only shows that he has an utter contempt for the document upon which this country was founded, the one that he pledged to “uphold and defend.”

Is it possible then that his taking the oath of office was a commission of perjury in front of the highest court in the United States, since he wants to use the government, either the courts or the legislature to destroy the constitution, fundamentally changing this country in ways that the founders never dreamed of or intended?

Due to graduations within the federal tax scales, the tax amount shown is slightly less than the quoted maximum tax rate

*I did the same calculations with an income of 350,000 and the resulting net income gain from an $8,000 pay increase (358,000) is only $2506.1 (the combined government take on the last 8000 is just over 68.6 percent).

**There are some states that have lower or even no state personal income tax. This also does not include local or municipal or school taxes/levees. Cost of ObamaCare is taken from the Slate article

California tax rate was calculated using the state’s tax calculator.

The federal tax rate was calculated using the max-pedia tax calculator

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Chicago 2016: Obama’s chickens come home to roost, and a “Reality Check” from the President!

Posted by americana83 on October 2, 2009

Well, after months of bad-mouthing, demeaning, abasing and otherwise slandering the name of America on the world state, the president flies to Copenhagen to attempt to sell the International Olympic Committee on what a great idea it would to host the 2016 games in America. In a much less than surprising result, the Committee  thew out Chicago in the first round of voting. Two separate flights on 2 private tax-payer funded jets, Oprah, a personal appeal by the highest ranking official taking time away from the talk shows to attempt to pay off Valerie Jarrett and personal favors to the Chicago political machine… all in vain.

All I can say is that, the international community is finally starting to see America the way Obama has been presenting it: as a 2nd rate empire that has trampled on everyone around it. To modify the words of Jeremiah Wright: “Obama’s chickens have come home to roost.” Not to mention the whole sordid affair that is Chicago politics has been made known to the world. Perhaps that will be the beginning of restoration for this country. Corruption never survives the light of day.

Let us hope and pray that America has learned its lesson in time for the direction we are headed down to be reversed. Forget Chicago 2016; the real games begin: November 2010 at a ballot box in your precinct.

Get ready.

UPDATE: the president apparently took time off from his busy schedule of talk shows avoiding his general to watch Glenn Beck, and then have a blog post made complaining about the exposure that completely distorts what was said (see Beck episode here):

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Reality-Check-Turning-a-Point-of-Pride-into-a-Moment-of-Shame/

QUOTE:

RHETORIC:          VALERIE JARRETT “WAS LAST SEEN WITH THE NEA.” Beck’s guest, FOX News contributor Pat Caddell, said, “[Obama] is going to go [to Copenhagen] with Valerie Jarrett who was last seen with the NEA pumping up their use of, you know, money.” [Transcript, Glenn Beck Show, 9/29/09]
REALITY:              VALERIE JARRETT WAS NOT ON THE NEA CONFERENCE CALL. Valerie Jarrett was not a participant in the August 10, 2009 United We Serve/NEA conference call.

Its misleading, Glenn never said that Valerie was IN the call, only that she was behind the call, she was mentioned during it in glowing language that was taking place on official time. paraphrase: “We have 20 people working under our fantastic leader Valerie Jarrett.” Buffy Wicks from the office of public engagement was also in on the call. Hmmm.  I doubt this call would have taken place without consent and permission, especially givin the multiple offices involved (Full transcript of call)

RHETORIC: VALERIE JARRETT WILL BENEFIT FINANCIALLY. Beck asked, “Is it possible that she is going to benefit if the Olympics come to Chicago?” Caddell responded, “Well, that’s the word. She has certainly had a lot of dealings going on in real estate.” [Transcript, Glenn Beck Show, 9/29/09]
REALITY: UPON ENTERING GOVERNMENT, VALERIE JARRETT DIVESTED ALL HER REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT HOLDINGS EXCEPT FOR A SINGLE INVESTMENT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OLYMPIC BID. Valerie Jarrett divested all her investment real estate holdings upon entering government except for a single real estate holding that she was unable to sell. This single real estate investment has been determined by White House Counsel and the independent Office of Government Ethics to present no conflict of interest in performing her duties as a White House advisor.  It has nothing to do with the Olympic bid.

Funny how he completely ignores the ETHICS waiver Obama had to grant Valerie Jarrett so she could join his team. Did she really completely divest all that real estate? Does she really have no control over it. Even if the it is true, that one real estate holding, in face of a potential government buyout for the games seriously taints her interest in it. Please forgive me if, given the track record, I decline to trust the White House assertion that it presents “no conflict of interest” in performing her duties. I certainly didn’t trust the White House assertions about Communist Van Jones. Whether it is a belief in Communism, connections to ACORN, connections to corrupt political machines, or broadside America bashing, I believe it is contrary to the best interests of this country, both domestically and on the international scene.

Funny how Obama had time to whine about this already but hasn’t had time to meet with our General begging for troops to get the job done so we can get our men and women home! Its all about priorities. Does anyone remember if Bush spent any time or energy going after people like Michael Moore or Cindy Sheehan?

For the record, It wasn’t Beck who turned it into a moment of shame, it was a corrupt to the core political machine and a president who demeaned the USA for months on the world scene and then went begging for the games expecting them to honor the leader of a country who, by his own words, attested that this wasn’t a country worth any measure of honor.

Sorry Obama, you can blame Beck for losing the games if you want, but both you and I know that is a lie. Maybe if you had spent more time talking up this country instead of tearing it down…

But all that said, Congratulations Rio de Janeiro on a successful bid!

Posted in Barack Obama, Election, International, Obama, politics, Presidential | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »
 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 208 other followers