More:Print This Post
More:Print This Post
Obama is using the power of government, effectiveness of demagoguery and the obvious power or wealth redistribution in order to stack the deck in his favor for re-election.
As clearly stated in the article below:
Obama's potential for a "near lock" in the Electoral College shows the political power of "income redistribution" in combination with an ever-larger, all-pervasive government that (including state and local) controls and spends nearly 40% of GDP in a discriminatory manner …
Members of Obama's potential coalition receive disproportionately large amounts from government but pay little of the cost of government.
With the help of fellow Progressives in government and an irresponsible fawning far left news media … combined with our money stolen away in usurious taxation, he is close to achieving a stolen and manipulated election victory.
Riding Income Redistribution Back To White House In 2012
Ernest S. Christian and Gary A Robbins 04/20/2011
How can Barack Obama be about the worst president in history — and at the same time the "best politician" in America, according to some experts?
Simple answer: Being president is about substance; being a politician is about theatrics. Sometimes, the twain meet and — as in the case of Ronald Reagan and others — produce a statesman.
But not in Obama's case. Just the opposite!
Being a good president involves competence, integrity and making Americans better off, often by stopping government from doing things that make people worse off. (Rep. Paul Ryan's trailblazing blueprint for reducing the deficit and downsizing government is a prime example.)
To Obama, politics is about bamboozling people into thinking that he's making them better off when he's making them worse off.
The trick is to expropriate money from people who work hard and pay their taxes — and use the loot to scatter around enough political lagniappe to piece together a majority of bought-and-paid for votes strategically placed in the right locations to yield an Electoral College victory.
Obama never lets a cynical political ploy go unexploited. He blares away about raising taxes on the "rich." He knows that high taxes ruin the economy and hurt everyone who depends on a nongovernment job for a living.
But so what?
The sotto voce Obama plan: Get rid of pesky Republicans; get re-elected; raise taxes through the roof starting in 2013; knock smug middle-class Americans off their high-earning perch; crash the economy; catch everyone in a new "safety net" where all have the same modest government-controlled income and live under federal supervision.
In his "now you see it, now you don't" speech at George Washington University on April 13, the president of the United States declared war on mainstream America and common sense.
Obama insulted Rep. Ryan for trying to save and reform Medicare. How dare Ryan defy King Barack and stand in the way of ObamaCare and the government-run health care rationing that Americans hate?
Among other cost-cutting priorities, repeal of ObamaCare should be a condition for any increase in the federal debt limit.
Obama's latest phony "solution" to the Obama debt crisis is to appoint a committee to run in circles and gum up Congress sufficiently to delay a Budget Resolution that cuts spending.
Obama is funding a new political imperium built upon a massive voter turnout of government-oriented constituencies. These include government employees (about 17% of total employees); the roughly 60 million people who depend significantly on government assistance; and a large portion of the three rapidly growing "minority" groups who, according to census data, will soon constitute an arithmetic majority in America.
In 2008, African-Americans favored Obama by 95%. Overall, he got 67% of the Hispanic vote and 62% of Asians. In key locations, his percentages were sufficiently enormous and concentrated to tilt the electoral vote count. Obama got 67% of the electoral vote with 53% of the popular vote.
Members of unions vote heavily (60%) for Obama in exchange for favors. So do abortion supporters (73%) and members of the GLBT community (70%).
Obama will get the "kiddie" vote on campuses, the anti-American left, the hard-core environmentalists, the brass-collar Democrats and a lot of nice people who cannot bring themselves to vote against America's first black president.
Obama's potential for a "near lock" in the Electoral College shows the political power of "income redistribution" in combination with an ever-larger, all-pervasive government that (including state and local) controls and spends nearly 40% of GDP in a discriminatory manner among an increasingly diverse and balkanized population.
Members of Obama's potential coalition receive disproportionately large amounts from government but pay little of the cost of government.
A small minority of Americans (roughly one-third of eligible voters) already pay nearly all the personal income tax — and Obama will whip the "tax slaves" into paying more and more until they collapse.
Originally, the disparity in treatment between "net payers" and "net takers" was to help people who were actually poor (instead of merely less well-off than someone else) — but Obama and other levelers have made broad scale "redistribution" the main mission of government.
Jeffrey Miron at Harvard points out that in 2007 — before the recession — Washington was already spending about 50% of the budget on programs designed to redistribute money from the better-off to the less well-off.
The Heritage Foundation's Index of Dependency shows that dependency on government has increased by about 15% since 2007.
In Obama's un-American America, a modest standard of living will become both the minimum and the maximum.
Thanks, but no thanks.
• Christian, an attorney, was a deputy assistant secretary of the Treasury in the Ford administration.
• Robbins, an economist, served at the Treasury Department in the Reagan administration.
More:Print This Post
Obama is an enemy of the American middle class. This is not partisan rhetoric or a visceral reaction but instead a position by design.
By Obama himself.
Obama is an irrefutable socialist (and worse) who is quite comfortable surrounding himself with other socialists and communists (Van Jones, et al). Part of his ideological position is supporting and fighting for the underclass at the expense of the middle class.
This is a basic tenet of communism as elucidated below.
Of course, this is the antithesis of our capitalist free market system which is based on productive labor rather than wealth transfer facilitated by a monolithic omnipotent central government which is Obama’s ideal.
Obama's War on the Middle Class
Jeffrey Folks March 23, 2011
Whenever he is in campaign mode, President Obama goes to great lengths to remind voters that he is "struggling to defend the middle class." As he did in January 2010, Obama speaks of the middle class as "under assault" (by whom he does not specify). In his Labor Day radio address of 2010, he spoke of his "commitment to the middle class." As evidence of this commitment, Obama established a "Middle Class Task Force" early in his presidency chaired by Vice-President Biden. With Biden in charge, why worry?
It should be obvious that Obama and the left wing of the Democratic Party are not struggling to defend the middle class. Most of the time they are struggling to disenfranchise it by ignoring the basic rights of human liberty and of property that are guaranteed under our Constitution.
The 18% real rate of unemployment during Obama's first two years in office has not done much for the middle class. At the same time, there has been an enormous transfer of wealth from the middle class to the underclass. ObamaCare, financial services reform, mortgage reform, education reform, tax reform: in all of these areas, the administration's efforts have been to create and expand services for the poor at the expense of the middle class.
Whether it is the free health care promised to tens of millions of new Medicaid recipients or mortgage principle reductions ("cramdowns") promoted at every turn by his Justice Department, Obama acts like a political general in the class war -- the war of the government services-dependent poor and unionized public sector against the middle class. Among the first acts of his administration were the expansion "making work pay" and child credit benefits: welfare of the sort that had been trimmed by the GOP Congresses of the 1990s.
Whether it is benefits for the underclass or more power for public sector unions, Obama is intent on cementing power based on the loyal support of the underclass and unionized labor. But to complete the task, he must deceive the middle classes for a bit longer by appearing to move to the center. The independent middle class voter, the very class of citizen that is most endangered by his presidency, is key to his reelection. In order to win reelection, he needs to convince them that he is safe.
But nothing Obama has done has benefited the middle class. That much should be clear just from what is happening with consumers' pocketbooks.
The recent Bureau of Labor Statistics report on consumer prices is a telling indication of the effects of Obama's policies on the middle class. During the past 12 months, gas prices are up nearly 20%. While global markets largely determine oil prices, Obama's assault on drilling and his weak-dollar policy have not helped things. Had the President pursued a pro-drilling policy and defended the dollar, gas prices would have been substantially lower. Even at this late date, if the administration were to signal support for expanded drilling, world energy markets would respond by lowering the price of oil, thus lowering the price the middle class pays at the pump.
Gas prices hit the middle class disproportionately hard. Bill Gates spends an infinitesimal portion of his earnings on energy bills, and the urban underclass pay little. But the middle class, most of whom commute some distance to work, are shelling out a great deal more each month. The same for food prices, which are up substantially above the "core rate" of inflation. The underclass benefit from increased food stamp subsidies; Gates has probably never shopped. It is the middle class that bears all the burdens under Obama.
The passage of ObamaCare was supposed to lower the cost of health care for practically all Americans. This, in fact, was one of the main rationales for its adoption. Again and again, Obama promised that his health care reform bill would lower the cost of health care -- by $100 billion (he likes big round numbers, for some reason), by $200 billion, by $500 billion over the next ten years.
But since ObamaCare was passed, health care costs for the middle class are way up. Over the past 12 months the cost of private medical insurance, where it can be purchased at all, is up by as much as 59%. Hospital costs are up 6%, nearly three times the rate of core inflation. The cost of the most widely prescribed drugs has increased well above the rate of inflation, driven up by the prospect of future government regulation. None of this has helped the middle class. It is, in fact, part and parcel of a calculated transfer of wealth from the middle class to the underclass.
It's not just energy and health care. Other prices that are influenced by government policy have gone up disproportionately to those in the less regulated market. Educational expenses are up 4%, twice the rate of core inflation. Again, it is the middle class that has been hit. College tuition, private school tuition, and child care -- these costs impact the middle class, not the Warren Buffets of the world, and not the underclass who receive full "need based" scholarships, magnet school preferences, and subsidized child care.
It does not help that, as announced Monday, sales of previously owned homes fell in February to their worst level in nine years. Middle-class homeowners who are now under water on their loans will have to wait a bit longer to break even. Boomers eyeing a place in the sun are going to have a hard time selling their current home before moving.
As Obama understands all too well, one of the hallmarks of all socialist countries is the absence of an independent middle class. From the Bolshevik experiment in Russia to socialist Venezuela today, it is necessary for communist leaders to eliminate that class of citizens who are not dependent on government for their welfare.
Political theorists from Aristotle to Locke understood that a truly independent and prosperous middle class was essential to the collective well-being of any society. The middle class has always, in every society, been characterized by qualities of social restraint and economic realism -- a shrewd and skeptical conservatism that serves to restrain the grandiose plans of utopian revolutionaries and embittered reactionaries alike.
Throughout its history American society in particular has been the beneficiary of an aspiring middle class whose efforts have created the world's greatest democracy. It is an ominous sign that the political left, with the loyal support of more than a third of our population, is intent on its destruction.
More:Print This Post
The following editorial examines the true racist nature of the Obama Administration which had touted itself as post-racial and forward looking. What we have been encumbered with is a nightmare conflation of liberal bean counting and black liberation theology promoting black dominance, unequal rights, retribution, race wealth transfer to minorities and naked demagoguery and contemptuousness.
All with the blessings of the “man” who was to bring us into a new age.
The View from Crackerland
Robert T. Smith March 07, 2011
Certainly the recent vexation expressed by Eric Holder over being questioned regarding the New Black Panther voter intimidation case -- i.e., his defense of "my people" -- depicts a new low in race relations here in America. The liberal media and many politicians are curiously not outraged at what is an arguably race-based federal civil rights case.
We were told of a post-racial era that all Americans would enjoy as the outcome of the election of America's first African-American president. As so eloquently described by one of Mr. Holder's people, this post-racial era is not so evident in the view from here in Crackerland.
Post-election of President Obama, the only racial agreement apparent to those of us who reside in Crackerland was Eric Holder's admonition that we are cowards to not discuss awkward racial issues here in America. Here, then, is an offering to contribute to the discussion.
Here in Crackerland, there was some consternation when we noticed then-presidential candidate Obama's unique past and the unusual relationships he had throughout his life. There seemed to be an underlying racial anger and confusion as a mixed-race person in his autobiography Dreams from My Father. An example is Mr. Obama's being so moved by the notion that "white folks' greed runs a world in need."
Mr. Obama's long-term black liberation theology minister and mentor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, represents many other African-American religious leaders. These leaders have perspectives and sermons that seem to be a whole lot more about justifying their racism than supporting Christian theology itself. There is an apparent seemless link between black liberation theology and the racist, bigoted radicals in the Nation of Islam and among the New Black Panthers. Our view from Crackerland was of Mr. Obama as a relatively unknown politician infused with an adult life of racist relationships and thoughts.
Here in Crackerland, we noticed an almost 100% voting rate for Mr. Obama from the African-American community. Difficult to miss were the many formerly non-Democrat African-American persons who stated their support for Mr. Obama based solely on his color -- a clearly racist vote.
As viewed from Crackerland, this affiliation between the Democratic Party and the African-American community appears to be based on the promise that the Democrat politicians will provide for the living conditions desired by the African-American community. The individualism of Crackerland recognizes these government-supplied conditions as dehumanizing, reducing people to veritable chattel of the government. Human chattel of the government is not a condition we crackers wish upon any person, irrespective of race.
Here in Crackerland, we took note that Mr. Obama was elected by both cracker and non-cracker alike. However, it didn't take long for the signs of racism to appear in association with our new president.
The invocation by Reverend Lowery at Mr. Obama's swearing in ceremony seemed a bit inappropriate for such an auspicious, racially historic occasion. The Reverend Lowery was intent on bringing racial issues to the forefront, and he used the occasion and captive audience to vent his lingering racism by means of a recitation of hopes for the various non-white races while admonishing those who are white to embrace what is right. This appeared here in Crackerland to imply that whites somehow had prevented and/or are preventing the other races from achieving their desired hopes -- a racist lie.
The history of America we learned here in Crackerland included hundreds of thousands of dead crackers in the Civil War, decades of cracker-led civil rights struggles, an altering of the very foundation of America's Constitution and laws facilitated by the crackers, and billions and probably trillions of cracker dollars poured into the non-cracker communities -- all of which was only incidental in the Reverend Lowery's mind to doing what is right. Arguably, the view from Crackerland was that the Reverend Lowery outed himself as a racist and perhaps a bigot while serving as an integral part of Mr. Obama's historic day for race relations in America.
Here in Crackerland, we pursue happiness for ourselves and our families' benefit, because self and family are the basic building blocks of society. In Crackerland, we set a lofty ideal in our founding documents and celebrate unalienable rights for all men, endowed by our Creator and not arbitrarily assigned by government officials based on race. We inhabitants of Crackerland don't wake up thinking about how to stick it to other Americans, cracker or non-cracker; we work for ours and expect you to work for yours.
We crackers see our pursuit of happiness realized as the property, money, land, and all other possessions we work hard for, and not as community property to be confiscated by government officials and dispensed to others based on racial status and conditions. The relationship between redistributive socialism and black liberation theology in which President Obama has been steeped and which he has embraced in his policy decisions is viewed by us here in Crackerland as both racist and the antithesis of Americanism.
The racism we see from Crackerland in our current Obama administration, those surrounding the administration, and those who support it looks a whole lot more like retribution than like a brave discourse on race relations here in America. We were told of a post-racial era that all Americans would enjoy as the outcome of the election of America's first African-American president, but that is not so evident to many of us here in Crackerland.
Cowards, as Mr. Holder so ineloquently characterized them, should step aside so that this discussion will not have to be absurdly carried on into posterity. With slavery and civil rights issues distant in the rearview mirror of America's history, the changes in our social structure over time, and the integration of all Americans into all portions of our society regardless of race, this black/white race discussion is now bizarre within the context of racial reparations. It can be viewed now only as a purely political power play.
More:Print This Post
The Progressive redistribution ideology of Obama and many Congressional Democrats is a euphemism for what it truly represents: involuntary, government mandated involuntary servitude or slavery. This situation is where a productive individual is involuntary providing for another.
In the editorial below, Walter Williams categorizes this as government immorality which is a quite generous description. He views this vis-a-vis the question as to who really owns us: we ourselves or the Government (Congress)?
Obama’s resolute position on redistribution has us pondering:
Is this an indirect form of reparations as a disproportionate of those receiving this government “largesse” in the form of checks, subsidies, etc. are blacks?
Does Obama not see that what he is forcing upon the productive citizens (aka “plantation owners”) is a soft form of slavery?
How can Obama totally reconcile the inconsistencies of his position regarding slavery in America’s past and the enslaving of productive citizens today?
Who Owns Us? Congress? Or Ourselves?
Walter Williams 12/10/2010
Immorality in government lies at the heart of our nation's problems. Deficits, debt and runaway government are merely symptoms.
What's moral and immoral conduct can be complicated, but needlessly so. I keep things simple and you tell me where I go wrong.
My initial assumption is that we each own ourselves. I am my private property and you are yours. If we accept the notion that people own themselves, then it's easy to discover what forms of conduct are moral and immoral.
Immoral acts are those that violate self-ownership. Murder, rape, assault and slavery are immoral because those acts violate private property. So is theft, broadly defined as taking the rightful property of one person and giving it to another.
Who Owns You?
If it is your belief that people do not belong to themselves, they are in whole or in part the property of the U.S. Congress, or people are owned by God, who has placed the U.S. Congress in charge of managing them, then all of my observations are simply nonsense.
Let's look at some congressional actions in light of self-ownership. Do farmers and businessmen have a right to congressional handouts? Does a person have a right to congressional handouts for housing, food and medical care?
First, let's ask: Where does Congress get handout money? One thing for sure, it's not from the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus, nor is it congressmen reaching into their own pockets.
The only way for Congress to give one American one dollar is to first, through the tax code, take that dollar from some other American. It must forcibly use one American to serve another American.
Forcibly using one person to serve another is one way to describe slavery. As such, it violates self-ownership.
Government immorality isn't restricted only to forcing one person to serve another. Some regulations such as forcing motorists to wear seat belts violate self-ownership. If one owns himself, he has the right to take chances with his own life.
Some people argue that if you're not wearing a seat belt, have an accident and become a vegetable, you'll become a burden on society. That's not a problem of liberty and self-ownership. It's a problem of socialism, where through the tax code one person is forcibly used to care for another.
These examples are among thousands of government actions that violate the principles of self-ownership. Some might argue that Congress forcing us to help one another and forcing us to take care of ourselves are good ideas.
But my question to you is: When congressmen and presidents take their oaths of office, is that oath to uphold and defend good ideas or the U.S. Constitution?
When the principles of self-ownership are taken into account, two-thirds to three-quarters of what Congress does violate those principles to one degree or another as well as the Constitution to which they've sworn to uphold and defend.
In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 to assist some French refugees, James Madison, the father of our Constitution, stood on the floor of the House to object, saying, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
Did James Madison miss something in the Constitution?
You might answer, "He forgot the general welfare clause." No, he had that covered, saying, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one."
If we accept the value of self-ownership, it is clear that most of what Congress does is clearly immoral. If this is bothersome, there are two ways around my argument.
The first is to deny the implications of self-ownership.
The second is to ask, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi did when asked about the constitutionality of ObamaCare, "Are you serious? Are you serious?"
More:Print This Post